But now, of course, we know that such doubts once existed. James seems satisfied that when he had asked me if the New Testament writings had asserted that Jesus actually died on the cross I answered in the affirmative. He is working with only a partial recall, for my presentation and arguments throughout show that there were tell-tale signs that Jesus had not died on the cross despite this assertion.

I added further that the Jews, according to Matthew’s Gospel, felt deceived. In keeping with the requirements of their Sabbath observance, they had left the crucifixion scene on that Friday evening with the assurance that the legs of the crucified victims would be broken. But they must have found out by morning that the legs of Jesus were not broken. They hurried into Pilate’s court to request that the tomb of Jesus should be sealed up. They were apprehensive lest the disciples of Jesus should steal his body and then proclaim that he had risen from the dead. According to Matthew’s Gospel, they claimed that in case “the second deception would be worse than the first.” I asked what the first deception was, and suggested that they felt deceived in the first place because while they had the reasonable assurance that the legs of the victims would be broken, those of all the victims were broken except those of Jesus.

Matthew 27:57-66 57 When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. 58 This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59 And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away. 61 And Mary Magdalene was there, and the other Mary, sitting opposite the grave. 62 Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63 and said, "Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver (evkei/noj o` pla,noj) said, 'After three days I am to rise again.' 64 "Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, 'He has risen from the dead,' and the last deception (pla,nh) will be worse than the first." 65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how." 66 And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.

John 19:31-35 31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. 34 But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. 35 And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe.

And though this world with devils filled should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God has willed his truth to triumph through us.
The prince of darkness grim? We tremble not for him.
His rage we can endure, for lo! His doom is sure.
One little word shall fell him.

The earliest Muslims such as Ibn Abbas used the sources at their disposal. They looked at the literal text of a part of that verse, but only a part, and concluded that two things were being denied: first, that Jesus was killed by his enemies; and second, that he was hung on a cross.

   Assuming that crucified means merely being hung on a cross, they then enquired of Jews and Christians as to what scenario could possibly explain the Quran’s statement that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified. Eventually they arrived at the basic interpretation that someone else was made to look like Jesus and that that person was crucified instead, whereas God raised Jesus into heaven. On all other aspects of the scenario that would get this other person onto the cross, even who this other person was, the commentators differed widely, revealing the paucity of their sources and the degree of speculation that went into the commentary.

The best reconstruction of the meaning is what has been mentioned by Tarif Khalidi in the introduction to his book: The Muslim Jesus. The Quran seems to mean no more than to deny that the Jews killed Jesus.

I explained all of this in the debate, adding that the Indian scholar Abdul Majid Daryabadi in his four-volume exegesis: Tafsir-ul-Quran, while following the classical interpretation of the verse in his translation nevertheless in his notes defined crucifixion in a way that supports Khalidi’s interpretation. Daryabadi defined crucifixion as ‘the act of putting to death by nailing to a cross’. Keeping this definition in mind, we notice that the verse says: “They killed him not, nor crucified him.” Substituting Daryabadi’s definition of crucifixion, the verse would mean: “They killed him not, nor put him to death by nailing him to a cross.” I argued that this means in essence that the Quran is first denying in a general manner that they killed Jesus, and immediately following up with a parallel denial that they killed Jesus by the specific means of crucifixion.
   James in his presentation allowed that the Quran could mean that the Jews did not kill Jesus, since the Romans did. Therefore James did not really have a problem with the Quran as such, but only with the classical interpretation. And since I was not determined to defend the classical interpretation in this debate he was really barking up the wrong tree. Much of what he said in this respect was irrelevant as far as proving his case goes. He had to prove, in response to my specific objections, that Jesus actually died on the cross. This he failed to do.

I made reference to Raymond Brown who, in his two-volume work: The Death of the Messiah, writes that since crucifixion pierces no vital organ, we must therefore wonder: what was the physiological cause of the death of Jesus? Moreover, Brown notes that Mark’s Gospel, the earliest of the four, indicated that there was some doubt on the part of the Roman Governor Pilate that Jesus could have died at the time when the Gospels indicate to be his time of death. Brown points out that Matthew and Luke both rewrite the episode in their own Gospels in such a way as to omit mention that Pilate had this doubt. The obvious reason for this rewriting, according to Brown, is that readers of Mark’s Gospel would start entertaining the same doubt which Pilate had. Matthew and Luke wanted that their own Gospels should not encourage such doubts.

Overall, then, it was not impossible that Jesus died relatively quickly, and there is nothing egregiously unlikely about Pilate's reaction to Jesus' reported death in 15:44-45. (1222)

Mark 15:44-45 44 Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead. 45 And ascertaining this from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph.

In any case, the unacceptability of Jesus' divinity and the Trinity to the Qur'an is uncontrovertible, as is the fact that Jesus and his followers are regarded as exceptionally charitable and self-sacrificing. The Qu'ran would most probably have no objections to the Logos having become flesh if the Logos were not simply identified with God and the identification were understood less literally. For the Qur'an, the Word of God is never identified simply with God. Jesus, again, is the "Spirit of God" in a special sense for the Qur'an, although God had breathed His spirit into Adam as well (15:29; 38:72). It was on the basis of some such expectations from the self-proclaimed monotheism of Christians--and, of course, Jews--that the Qur'an issued its invitation: "O People of the Book! Let us come together upon a formula which is common between us--that we shall not serve anyone by God, that we shall associate none with Him" (3:64). This invitation, probably issued at a time when Muhammad thought not all was yet lost among the three self-proclaimed monotheistic communities, must have appeared specious to Christians. It has remained unheeded. But I believe something can still be worked out by way of positive cooperation, provided the Muslims hearken more to the Qur'an than to the historic formulations of Islam and provided that recent pioneering efforts continue to yield a Christian doctrine more compatible with universal monotheism and egalitarianism. (Fazlur Rahman, Major Themes of the Qur'an, 2d ed. (Minneapolis, Mi: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1994), p. 170.)

And in fact, if Jesus did come back, the most likely people to put him back on the cross would be Christians, and the most likely people to nail him to the cross would be fundamentalist Christians. They would be the ones who would be nailing that son of a bitch back to the cross, because he'd be the one who'd be refuting what they believe, and they wouldn't want that. Fair enough? So the most likely guys to be hammering in the nails, they are the guys who elected George Bush, and believe in the literal truth of the Bible, and don't believe in evolution, because they don't want to use reason, and they don't want to think, they'd rather stick to their illusions that hopefully may convince them that they don't have to be afraid at night when they are all alone, and the devil may whisper in their ears.

James had to prove three things. First, that Jesus was crucified. Second, that he was crucified as a sacrifice for the sins of God’s people. Third, that he was willing to be this sacrifice. As for the term ‘crucified’, it is clear that in this context it does not mean merely to be hung on a cross, but actually to die on the cross. This is because no Christian doctrine of the cross allows for Jesus to come down from the cross alive and still be a sacrifice for anyone’s sins. It is only by proving all three of these points that James can come out successful.

As for the first point, James in his report simply concentrates on what he presented in his opening statement and follows that with the incredible assertion that I did not respond to his points.

The concensus opinion of those with whom I spoke after the debate (hardly an unbiased group, obviously), was that Mr. Ally never even tried to mount a response to my presentation. In essence, at one point in cross-examination I asked Mr. Ally if he would not agree that all of the genuinely first century sources agree in proclaiming that Jesus died upon the cross, and he agreed that this is the case. Ally's approach was to go back to his primary argument: he quotes from liberal "Christian" scholars (whether Roman Catholic, Open Theist, you name it) and hammers away on his attack upon the Bible. He even spent a tremendous amount of time, in cross-examination, closing statement, and audience questions, going back to the very same Synoptic issue about Jairus' daughter that we discussed at Biola! A number of people were very disappointed that he wandered so far from the topic in that way.

I hope that reviewers will find that I did in fact respond as follows. I explained that the Quranic verse 4:157 does not require the interpretation that someone else was put on the cross instead of Jesus. Although this has been a widely circulated classical interpretation, I agreed with James that there is no report attributed to the Prophet, on whom be peace, to verify this. In sum, although this is an early interpretation it is not binding on Muslims to hold it. What precisely happened at the cross is not spelled out in the Quran, and it is up to Muslims to investigate the question using credible or available historical sources.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴ and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, ⁵ and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; ⁷ then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; ⁸ and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

And because of their saying: "We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger (rasool)." They slew him not nor crucified him, but it was made to appear to them, and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Mark 8:31-34And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. ³² And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. ³³ But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's." ³⁴¶ And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.

⁹ And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. ¹⁰ "You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

Titus 2:13-14 ¹³looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, ¹⁴ who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

The new allegations were greeted with an instant dismissal from his supporters. The Catholic Anti-Defamation League said Mr Luzzatto was a liar and was "spreading anti-Catholic libels".

Pietro Siffi, the president of the League, said: "We would like to remind Mr Luzzatto that according to Catholic doctrine, canonisation carries with it papal infallibility.

"We would like to suggest to Mr Luzzatto that he dedicates his energies to studying religion properly."

   I am asserting that the reason Shabir Ally sits here this evening in denial of the thesis is due to these 40Arabic words, traceable, at their earliest, to the revision done of the Qur'anic texts ordered by Uthman and undertaken by a committee chosen by him sometime after the middle of the seventh century according to the tradition recorded in Al-Bukhari. There truly is no other reason. And what is more, though the Qur'an claims to be a clear book, written in the perspicuous Arabic tongue, the fact is this text is nowhere near clear, let alone perspicuous. Many have pointed out that if it were not for Surah 4:157, the Qur'an's teachings in such texts as Surah 3:55 and 19:33, where the death of Jesus is mentioned, would be easily understood without prompting very obtuse explanations that require us to believe the text is referring to a future death of Jesus that has not even taken place as yet. What is more, the text as it is written is very unclear, prompting, as Shabir Ally himself has noted, any number of contradictory interpretations by Islamic scholars over the centuries. And what is truly amazing to me is this: when the Qur'an contradicts the Christian teaching of the deity of Christ, it does so repeatedly, and forcefully. We likewise find references to this in the hadith. But when it comes to this one single ayah, these 40 lonely Arabic words that pop into the Qur'an out of nowhere, we likewise cannot find any meaningful commentary on these words in the hadith literature. Think of it. Muslims for two hundred years could not think of any commentary by Muhammad on this ayah. And yet, I, as a Christian, am to believe these 40Arabic words, written over half a millennium after the Christ event, in a different language from far away are to be taken to be sufficient to overthrow the entirety of the New Testament and the testimony of eye witnesses and martyrs.

   About 77 years after the crucifixion, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was traveling to Rome to die as a martyr. In the letters he wrote as he traveled are repetitive references to the cross and the death of Christ. Remember, this documentation is still about seventy years closer to the events of Jesus life than the best documentation that exists for any of the events in Muhammad's life. Remember, hadith collections like Al-Bukhari date from over two centuries after the death of Muhammad, so Ignatius was three times closer to the sources than Al-Bukhari was.

It is in Jonathan Edwards's Freedom of the Will (1754) that he reconciles impeccability and freedom of the will in the human soul of Jesus Christ, even when Jesus is in a state of trial. But how does he shape a synthesis between these two attributes without duplicity, and at the same time avoid theological and christological barbs, whether Arminian or Hobbist, Nestorian or Apollinist? For Edwards, the Son of God did not surrender impeccability when he undertook to fulfil – in human nature, and in a state of trial – intra-trinitarian promises, promises made not only by the Father to the Son, but by the Son to the Father. Edwards views the habits of the heart of Jesus Christ progressing in holiness from the moment of his incarnation. He understands the excellencies that the Son of God brought to the human nature in the incarnation in no way to have added to nor to have diminished the impeccable holy disposition of his person. A key to interpreting the holy habits of Jesus’ heart is, according to Edwards, to view the source of the impeccability of the soul of Jesus as lying in its essence, not in a cause outside his person; it lies in the very disposition of his heart.

Patrick Madrid: "Mr. White brought up the assumption. He could bring up any doctrine he might like, none of which would be the topic of our debate, tonight, but at some future point perhaps, we could discuss where those doctrines are found. The assumption, for example, since he brought it up, I'll just refer to it. Revelation, chapter 12, Mr. White. It's a very commonly used passage for Catholic apologists. I don't know why you would have missed that. The woman clothed with the Sun was seen not only by modern Catholic apologists as Mary's assumption, but also the early Church Fathers, which Mr. White is so fond of bringing into the picture. I'd be more than happy, in some future point, to demonstrate, in a different debate, how the early Church Fathers viewed Revelation 12. They exegeted that passage to mean that Mary had been brought up into Heaven in a special way. But, that's another topic."

"The modern Mariologists like to turn to [Revelation 12], seeing in it an allegory of the Virgin Mary. But whatever can be thought of their interpretation, it is a fact that none of the early interpreters before the end of the fourth century see the Virgin Mary in the woman of the Revelation. They all understand her to be the Church and so they continue to make most of their interpretations in the following centuries. Ticonius is the first to suggest the Marian interpretation" [Giovanni Miegge, The Virgin Mary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1955, pp.101-102)].

Mary's Bodily Assumption into Heaven
Not mentioned in Scripture. However, other bodily 'assumptions' are mentioned- Enoch (Gen 5:24; Heb. 11:5), Elijah (2 Kings 2:1, 11-12), and those alive at the second coming (1 Thess 4:13-18).

On the lighter side, just so you know, Michael's already caught a fair bit of flack from his friends. As one noted Reformed theologian pointed out, "Osteen’s theology may indeed be popcorn theology, but it appears that he can bench press more than Horton can." Michael has already promised to spend more time in the gym and will challenge Osteen to a rematch. Maybe the only Reformed guy who can currently out-bench Osteen is James White.

"I'm not a complete fan of Calvinism...because I feel it's a little too boxy for such a huge, deep spiritual truth [predestination] within a Spiritual realm that we cannot completely comprehend."

“And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.”(Ephesians 1:9-12)

In love he predestined us (v.4,5)
to be holy and blameless in his sight (v.4)
to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ (v.5)
in accordance with his pleasure and will (v.5)
to the praise of his glorious grace (v.6)
in accordance with the riches of God's grace (v.7)
according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, (v.9)
according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will (v.11)

"I’m not Roman Catholic, but I have more freedom to enjoy the riches the RC church has to offer than Dr. White would urge. I thought on his podcast he overstated the 'perspicuity' of the doctrine of the Trinity in Scripture alone and minimized the creedal and theological development that the doctrine went through."

"It is also true that theologians must always have recourse to the sources of divine revelation; for it is their duty to indicate how what is taught by the living magisterium is found, either explicitly or implicitly, in Sacred Scripture and in divine 'tradition'. "

"This language of Pius XII amounts to a prescription, not for exegesis, but for eisegesis, i.e. reading into Scripture and/or tradition the doctrinal pronouncements of the Roman magisterium. Scripture, not to mention tradition, is regarded as an afterthought. It is the Roman magisterium that becomes the norma normans non normata, and as such, acts as the norma normans (the norm that norms) for both Scripture and tradition. Rome makes herself the final standard for the adjudication of all doctrine. To paraphrase Pius XII above, the magisterium defines, then the theologians find. Rome's position is de facto that of sola Ecclesia, a law unto herself" (Holy Scripture Vol. 1, p. 244).

World Premier of Apostolic Fathers!
   Friday night I will be giving an introductory talk on the Apostolic Fathers before showing our new DVD for the first time!! The title is Apostolic Fathers, Handing on the Faith.
   Anyone who buys a copy at this event will also receive a free copy of my audio CD From Baptist to Catholic: the Unintended Journey.

"Some Christians insist that only Scripture is authoritative for Christian faith and life. They deny the Catholic teaching (and the historical reality) that Scripture is actually a written portion of a much wider sacred and authoritative Tradition, which includes other elements passed down orally and by patterns of behavior. They fail to realize that if Scripture were the only legitimate source of Christian belief and practice, the early Christians who lived before the New Testament was written and circulated could not have lived the faith. St. Paul alludes to this reality. He tells the Thessalonians how to discern the truth from error: 'Brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement [oral tradition] or by a letter of ours [Scripture]' (2 Thes 2:15). "

"St. Paul, for example, commands Christians to 'hold fast' to the traditions he has passed on to them, both those that were written down (and were later recognized as Scripture) and those that were not written down (see 2 Thes 2:15)."

"Is Mary's assumption described in the Bible? No, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The death of St. Joseph isn't described in Scripture, either, though it's certain that this important event took place within the years chronicled by the gospels. In fact, many events even in the life of our Lord himself were not recorded in Scripture (see jn 21:25). The assumption of Mary is only one of the many significant events in the life of the early Church that have been remembered and witnessed to by ancient Tradition."

Our aim is to provide a comprehensive case from the New Testament for the deity of Jesus Christ. Many of us were taught that the deity of Jesus can be proved using one or two verses—say, John 1:1 (“and the Word was God”) or John 20:28 (where Thomas calls Jesus, “My Lord and my God”). To be sure, we will say something about these important texts. But there is much more biblical evidence for Jesus’ deity.

Honors: Jesus shares the honors due to God.
Attributes: Jesus shares the attributes of God.
Names: Jesus shares the names of God.
Deeds: Jesus shares in the deeds that God does.
Seat: Jesus shares the seat of God’s throne.

Paul is believed by Christians to be the author of fourteen of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament and the only historical author of the New Testament who is also a major character WITHIN the New Testament. Paul bridged the gap between Jew and Gentile by abrogating the sacred Torah of Moses and demanding from Christians absolute faith in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

However, unlike Jesus, Paul almost never mentions the impending Kingdom of God and seems to know next to nothing about the historical Jesus' ministry experiences in Galilee and Jerusalem. He only quotes Jesus once in his fourteen letters and knows nothing about the virgin birth. Can you imagine a Christian missionary of today going into the Middle East and NEVER uttering the Lord's Prayer, or one of the Beatitudes, or even a SINGLE parable that Christ gave?

Rather than assimilating himself into the first century Jesus tradition, Paul instead invents a religion ABOUT Jesus and declares himself the Apostle of the Lord. His main sales pitch: Jesus died for yours sins so it's okay to act irresponsibly.