Shabir Ally & Tony Costa - did Jesus rise from the dead? A muslim perspective

[justinbrierley]

It is available at www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable in the archive as the show of 4th April 2009 wheer you can also dowload the mp3

Click here to listen directly to the streaming version

Shabir believes that Jesus never died upon the cross, but that he "swooned" and later woke up in the tomb.

He is unusual among Muslims for holding that Jesus was actually crucified (despite the Koran appearing to contradict this - listen to the programme to hear how Shabir justifies it)

Tony pressed Shabir on why he was at odds with his other Muslim counterparts on this - Shabir says that he is aiming to build a bridge of dialogue with Christians. Tony suspects that Shabir has been forced to accept the crucifixion, if not Jesus' death, by the weight of historical evidence.

Ultimately Shabir's explanations still, for me , failed to answer the substantive points that Tony raised as evidence for the resurrection.

Are Muslims between a rock and a hard place as far as the Koran's seemingly intractable problem with the denial of the crucifixion?

[Pumbelo]

Are Muslims between a rock and a hard place as far as the Koran's seemingly intractable problem with the denial of the crucifixion?

Does the pope wear a big hat?
Shabir had similar problems in his debate with William Lane Craig

I recommended David to link this one because I believe Craig did a great job nailing Shabir on the theological implications. Now imagine James White would be sitting there and point out inconsistencies (apparent contradictions make something untrustworthy, etc.).

Those theological implications really are a nail in the coffin for the muslim debater.

Edit: For some reason, this reminds me of the Craig-Ehrman-debate, where Ehrman said this:

I think the theological modes of knowledge are perfectly acceptable and legitimate as theological modes of knowledge.
But I think theological claims have to be evaluated on a theological basis.
For example, you know the idea that these four facts that Bill keeps referring to showed that God raised Jesus from the dead.
You could come up with adifferent theological view of it.
Suppose, for example, to explain those four facts that the God Zulu sent Jesus into the 12th dimension, and in that 12th dimension he was periodically released for return to Earth for a brief respite from his eternal tormentors.
But he can’t tell his followersabout this because Zulu told him that if he does, he’ll increase his eternal agonies.
So that’s another theological explanation for what happened.
It would explain the empty tomb, it would explain Jesus appearances.
Is it as likely as God raised Jesus from the dead and made him sit at his right hand; that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has interceded in history and vindicated his name by raising his Messiah?
Well, you might think no, that in fact the first explanation of the God Zulu is crazy.
Well, yeah, O.K., it’s crazy; but it’s theologically crazy.

[Pumbelo]

One of the most interesting points in the debate (you talked about it) was Shabir's position:
"They didn't kill him nor crucified him" means
"They did not kill him nor killed him on the cross"

Ehrm, hello?

Another inconsistency is the verificating of Jesus' death. Shabir talked about pilate, Tony answers "there is verification" and Shabir responds "Yes but at that point the centurion already believed Jesus was the son of God"
Oh wow. How could the centurion come to believe that? Let's try "Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be the son of God". Seems to contradict islamic theology, doesn't it?
What amazed me most was that he quoted Jesus-mythicist Robert Price. That was just overkill. "The one person on this planet outside of the muslim community who holds this view is so left, that even Bart Ehrman looks down on him"

Having listened to the whole thing, I thing Craig did a better job. This debate here mainly focussed on Shabir's reading.