[upbeat music] >> Jesus is the pivotal point
between Christianity and Islam. Stop, let's think about this for a second. Islam teaches monotheism. Islam teaches following
God, worshiping God, Islam teaches a lot. There's a lot of violence
there, but again, a lot of violence looks similar, somewhat, to the Old Testament. What is the pivotal point
as far as we're concerned? Well, when we talk about
Jesus' life in Islam, what does Islam deny? First, we've seen that Islam
denies Jesus' crucifixion. Chapter four verse 157, [speaking in foreign language] he was not killed nor was he crucified. So it was made to appear to them. Jesus did not die on the
cross, according to Islam. If he did not die on the cross, he could not have been
raised from the dead, so Jesus' resurrection is denied by Islam. And then of course we
have chapter five verse 72 of the Quran, where if you believe Jesus is God then you will go to hell. Chapter five verse 116 of the Quran, where Jesus denies ever
claiming to be divine. So what do we have? In the Quran chapter 3, you can believe that Jesus cleansed the lepers,
that he healed the blind, he healed the deaf, he raised the dead. He is the virgin-born
Messiah, son of Mary. He is the one that's gonna
come back at the end of times, you can believe all of. But don't you believe
that he died on the cross, or that he rose from the
dead, or that he is God. What does Romans chapter
10 verse nine tell us? If you confess with your
mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that
God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. The exact three things that
Islam denies about Jesus, are the exact three
things we have to believe in order to be saved. Death, deity and
resurrection of Jesus Christ. That's not a coincidence in my book. So the polemic then hinges, the Islamic polemic
against Christianity hinges on Christology. Who is Jesus? Did he die on the cross? Did he claim to be God? The issue of the resurrection
is usually presented in a secondary fashion,
and that makes sense. Secondary to the crucifixion. But did he rise from the dead? That matters, these are important issues. And so what we're going
to go through right now is what some of you would
term Christian apologetics, but it's intimately related
to Islamic apologetics, and we're gonna be looking
at this from an Islamic lens, but the same issues you
would see elsewhere. The first one we want to talk about is, did Jesus die by crucifixion? Here's the verse in chapter 4 verse 157, And because of their saying
we slough them aside, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger. They slew him not, nor crucified him. But it appeared so unto them. And low, those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof, they
have no knowledge thereof, save pursuit of a conjecture. They certainly slough him not. I call this the Islamic litmus test. I believe that if you're
dealing with a Muslim, who is providing an apologetic
against Christianity, you can test whether that
Muslim is sincere or not through this issue. And that's why I call it the litmus test. This issue is so starkly in
favor of a Christian position, that if a Muslim argues against it after having seen the evidence, I have to conclude that
they're not being genuine. There is nothing you could
say to them that could convince them of the strength
of the Christian claim. Let's take a look at the reasons why. There's two lines of evidence that I use. The evidence that I'm providing
here is basically a recap of a debate I had in 2009 I
believe, might have been 2010, with a man named Osama Abdala, on the issue of the resurrection of Jesus. Two lines of evidence historical evidence and supporting evidence that
we are going to provide. First, the historical evidence. Did Jesus die by crucifixion? First, it is the unanimous
written testimony concerning what happened to Jesus. When we look at Jewish references, we have multiple Jewish references. We've got the Talmud, we've
got Mara bar Serapion, who's writing a letter. We've got Josephus the Jewish historian, who's writing for the Romans. All of these Jewish
sources say that Jesus died by crucifixion as it were. We have gentile sources,
we've got Tacitus and Lucian, both of whom say that Jesus died. Of course you've got
first-generation Christians, and by that I mean Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, these folk all say
Jesus died on the cross. It is the unanimous testimony
of early Christianity, and it is the unanimous testimony of second-generation Christianity. Folks like Papius, Clement,
Polly Carp, Ignatius. That this is what people say
happened to Jesus, mattered. It does matter. On the flip side the fact
that there is no reference to the fact that Jesus may
have survived crucifixion, also matters. Nobody even dares to say
Jesus survived crucifixion. And the reason why is because people knew what crucifixion was back then. Today when we say perhaps
Jesus survived the crucifixion, we are basically showing ignorance of what the crucifixion process was. For those of you who have not, I would highly suggest you get acquainted with Martin Hengel's book Crucifixion. Martin Hengel, a great European scholar. What was really great about him is that he wrote a really tiny book, [audience laughs] and it was called Crucifixion. Easy to read, gives you
a whole new perspective on how ghastly the crucifixion was, how difficult the process was. As it turns out, people used
to say let no Roman citizen even hear the word crucifixion,
it is so horrendous. The word crucifixion is where we get our word excruciating from. Ex crus, off the cross. They had to invent a
word to describe how bad the crucifixion is. The process of crucifixion
starts with flogging. It is called the pre-death in some works. Because people were flogged
not with just a stick, but with a Roman whip,
called the cat o' nine tails. This whip often had about six
leather cords that came off of it, and at the end
of these leather cords were leather balls,
which had shards of bone and metal dumbbells attached to them. Well, what was the point
of these shards of bone and these metal dumbbells? When striking a victim,
the metal dumbbells would cause vasodilation. It would cause pain
receptors to become acute. It would cause blood vessels to dilate, thereby weakening people even more when those shards of bone would grab into the skin and pull it off. So the skin was literally
pulled off and blood was profuse because of those metal dumbbells. It was very intelligently designed for the purpose of weakening a victim. In the process of flogging, it
has been said that intestines were spilt because the abdominal
wall was weakened so much, the intestines came out. This happened on a few occasions. People sometimes died
during the flogging process. The whole body was flogged,
the whole body was flogged. It was horrific to say the least. The point of the flogging was
so that people would not be able to kick and fight when they would be nailed to the cross. They would be on the verge
of death as it were already. Now what we know about
flogging is that Jews were not allowed to
flog more than 40 times. According to Old Testament law, you could flog 40 and no more. And what the Jews would do
is they would stop at 39, just to make sure that they
didn't accidentally miscount on their flogging, they didn't
want to break God's law. The Romans, in spite of the Jews, would therefor flog more than 40 times. To show them hey we're not
bound by your silly little laws, we're gonna flog as much as we want. And so the flogging was
often very protracted. It is at this point that the
victim would then be made to sometimes carry the cross beam,
to the point of the cross. Not the entire cross just the crossbeam. And they would walk to that place. By the way, they are
being flogged while naked and they're being crucified while naked. [mumbles] So all those wonderful
paintings we have of Christ with the loincloth on, are
lessening the humiliation that our Lord suffered. He was naked on the cross. When being placed on the
cross, nails were driven through the arms not the hands, as is often depicted
in medieval statements. The reason why is back in those
days when someone said hand they pictured this whole
area, not just this area. So it was okay to say
hands and still mean here. But this is the only place
that the weight of a person could be supported, here
between the radius and the ulna. And guess what runs right through there? The medial nerve, alright. So if you've ever hit your
elbow on your funny bone, imagine piercing it with a nail. It destroys your hands. The medial nerve is the main sensory motor nerve of the hand. And it destroys your hands. As you're nailed there, your
knees are bent slightly, and one ankle is placed over the other, and a 9 inch nail is
driven through your feet. This is for more than just torture though. This is to give yourself
a means to push yourself off of the nail. When you are hanging in
this position, if you hang, if you're just hanging, you
will not be able to breathe out. You will breathe in, and to breathe out you
have to have some room. You have to have some
positive pressure develop, your rib cage needs to collapse. In order to do that you have to push out. That is what the nail
in your feet was for. So you push up to be able to breathe out, otherwise the victim
would die very quickly. And so that nail was actually
an additional torture device to make sure that your death
was protracted, it was long. And by the way, every time
that you're pushing up to breathe out, you are
scraping a back that has no skin against splintered wood. This is not a fun process. And when you are at the point of death, all the Roman soldiers have to do is see that you're not moving anymore. If you're not moving, you're
not breathing, you're dead. But they didn't stop there, because if they weren't
sure that you were dead, the Roman soldier could
lose their job, be killed, if they weren't sure you were dead. So what they'd often do is
they'd administer death blows. This is why the knees of the robbers alongside Jesus were broken. By breaking their knees, they
were not able to push up. They would stop breathing, they would die. Jesus had already given up his spirit, and so they pierced
his heart with a spear. Other forms of death blows included crushing the skull with a sledgehammer. It included lighting people on fire. All kinds of horrific
ways to crucify people. Anyone who knows the process, knows that you will die by crucifixion. There is no account of anybody in history surviving a full Roman crucifixion. There is an account of Josephus seeing three friends being crucified. They weren't done being
crucified, they were on the cross but they weren't given a death blow or anything of that sort. Their knees had been broken. And he asked for them to
be taken down immediately. They were taken down, two of
the three of them died anyway, even though they were given the best Roman medical treatment. One of them survived, but guess what, he didn't have a full crucifixion. He didn't have a deathblow. There is no account of anyone surviving a full Roman crucifixion. So to argue that Jesus survived the cross, that he did not die on the cross, is to argue against the facts,
strongly against the facts. And this is why no one
says that Jesus survived the crucifixion, it's unthinkable. It's unthinkable that someone
would survive crucifixion. That's the historical
evidence that we have, but there's also supporting evidence. Scholarship has repeatedly affirmed today, that Jesus' death on the
cross is the one thing that we can be most certain
about, concerning his life. Paula Fredrickson has said
that, Bart Urman has said that, Gert Luda Mott has said that. So many people have said
that, it's silly to even think that scholarship might think otherwise. It's the unanimous
testimony of scholarship. If we can know anything about Jesus' life, it's that he died on the cross. That's what they'll say. So the scholarly
consensus is quite strong. In addition the centrality
of Jesus' death on the cross to the Christian message, kind of mandates for Jesus
to of died on the cross, in order for Christianity to
have spread the way it did. That he died on the cross and rose, is central to the Christian
propagation of the message. Had he not died on the cross, then it wouldn't have been
possible for Christianity to spread the way it did. Again, this is supporting evidence, it's not as strong as the
historical evidence was. We also have the issue of
prophecies in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament it
seems that the righteous one would be crushed for the sins of many. In Isaiah 53, you have
an image in Psalm 22 where Jesus himself quotes on the cross. He says "My God, my God.
Why have you forsaken me?" He's quoting Psalm 22. The righteous servant that
is suffering that is pierced. You have prophecies in the Old Testament that support this as well. Again, supporting evidence. The primary evidence is
the historical evidence. Historically speaking there
is not one shred of evidence that Jesus survived crucifixion, not one. When people began to propose that theory, it was lovingly titled by Josh
McDowell, the Swoon Theory. When people began
proposing the Swoon Theory back in the 18th century, an atheist by the name of David
Strauss, wrote a critique. It's called the Strauss Critique. And he said that the Swoon Theory, he didn't call it the swoon theory, but the idea that Jesus did not die on the cross is untenable. Because not only would Jesus
then have had to break out of the tomb with broken hands and feet, and go through and fight these
guards and move out of there. That's virtually impossible for a man who just survived crucifixion. But he would also have to
convince the disciples, that he was the risen Lord. Well, if you've got a man who
barely survived crucifixion, he doesn't look like the risen Lord. The disciples might say we
gotta get you to the hospital, or whatever they had. We gotta get you to medical care, that's how they would respond if Jesus had just survived crucifixion. The fact that he was
considered the risen Lord, precludes the option that he
had just survived crucifixion. That's called the Strauss Critique, and in Western scholarship
that ended the Swoon Theory. And David Strauss was not a Christian. He wrote one of the
most inflammatory works against Christianity for the time. But the Strauss Critique
remains one of the strongest critiques of the Swoon theory,
or the Apparent Death Theory as it's often called. So the Islamic explanations for 4-157, how do they respond to all of this? What is their case? The primary one that's used,
and the one that was used initially by Muslim scholars,
is the substitution theory. It says that Jesus was not
killed nor was he crucified. So Muslims will often say Jesus was never even put on the cross. And the next part of the verse says, but so it was made to appear to them. They say Allah made it look
like Jesus was put on the cross. Well, how did he do that? The earliest Muslim explanations
for this is that Allah put Jesus' face on somebody else, and somebody else was
crucified in his place. Whom, you might ask? >> Student: Judas? Judas is one example that Muslims use in a case of cosmic justice. Judas was put on the crossing
in the place of Jesus. Another, is Simon of Cyrene. Some apologetically minded
folk will say, ah look, Simon of Cyrene had to carry Jesus' cross. At that time they
confused Simon with Jesus, nevermind the bloodied
mess that Jesus was, they confused Simon of Cyrene with Jesus and he was placed on the cross instead. These are the substitution
arguments that are used. And Muslims by the way, have
the advantage over atheists and agnostics to say that
God made it look like that. And certainly God has
a potential to do that. The next most common theory, and I see this being
espoused more and more by Muslim apologists, is
the Theistic Swoon Theory. It's a swoon theory with
a theistic bend on it, that allowed for Jesus'
survival on the cross. If Allah can raise him from the dead, as you Christians say he can, why could he not save him
from dying in the first place? A legitimate argument. But it yields a dilemma,
and the dilemma is, and I think it's a dilemma
for both of these positions, it stems from chapter 3
verse 55 of the Quran. Chapter 3 verse 55 of the Quran
says that Jesus' disciples would be uppermost until
the day of resurrection. Jesus' disciples would be uppermost until the day of resurrection. In other words, Christians, especially those who
immediately came from him, would be on top. They would be superior in whatever way. To say that Jesus did
not die on the cross, but it looked like he died on the cross, would explain why the disciples then went and started preaching the risen Jesus. They thought he died and
then they saw him alive, now they're preaching the risen Jesus. That makes sense, that fits. But they're doing that
because Allah tricked them. You have a deceptive God at this point. In other words, the
Christian faith was started because Allah deceived the disciples. If Allah put somebody
else's face on Jesus, or if Allah miraculously kept Jesus alive, the disciples who then
went out and preached the risen Jesus, they
were tricked by Allah, they were deceived. Are they to be blamed, is it their fault? Maybe the blame should be
on them and not on Allah? No, the Quran says 3-55
that they were uppermost. The disciples weren't bad, they were good guys according to 3-55. So deception has to be
on Allah in this case. Or perhaps, perhaps Allah
left that up to Jesus. Jesus explained to them that
you didn't die on the cross. And Jesus didn't do it. Then we're left with
an incompetent Messiah. Then we're left with
an incompetent Messiah, would Jesus really have done that? In fact, we're left with an
incompetent Messiah anyway, as Jesus wasn't able to adequately
explain to his disciples, no, I'm not God. No, I didn't die on the
cross for your sins. He wasn't adequately able to explain? So the dilemma we're left with here, by the Islamic position, is we're either given a deceptive God, or in an incompetent Messiah. Regardless in either case, Allah is responsible for Christianity. And if Christianity is shirk,
is the unforgivable sin, then Allah is responsible
for creating the religion that led the most people
to hell in all of history. Call this the Islamic dilemma. Yes sir? >> Student: How would they respond if you actually brought it up to them? >> Poorly. [audience laughing] You can watch it in debates. Whenever we've debated
the issue of Jesus' death on the cross or his resurrection,
this issue comes up. And a common Muslim tactic,
and this is why there's so much respect for Busama
Suwadi, he didn't do this. A common Muslim tactic in debates is to simply ignore what you said. Just ignore it, pretend it wasn't said. And Islamic rhetoric is
so good because you have, Muslims are still a lot of them, are coming from oral societies. Not necessarily that they
don't know how to read, that's not what I'm saying, but oral prowess is highly revered. And so they have good rhetorical skill. You're in the middle of this debate and they just won't respond, and they'll dazzle you with
smoking mirrors over here, and a lot of people won't
notice the lack of response. But if you watch the
debates you'll see that they have not been able to
respond to this well. >> Student: I heard that
one of the 99 names of Allah is Deceiver, is that true? And if so, how do Muslims respond to that? >> That's a great question. It is one of the 99 names. The question was that isn't
one of the 99 names of Allah is that he is a deceiver? In the Quran there is a
verse, I forget where, which says that they
planned to deceive you, talking about the enemies of Muhammad. And then it says but Allah
planned to deceive them, and Allah is the best of deceivers. So from that you get the name for Allah. The idea is, I think from
that kind of social context, the idea is look, they're
trying to be resourceful in this way against you, and Allah is more
resourceful against them. But it's still deceptive. But deception wasn't as negative back then as it is to us now. So now what Muslims are often doing, is they're changing that word
from deceiver to schemer. Schemer's not quite as bad as deceiver. [audience laughing] And then people are going a step further, and they're going from schemer to planner. And they planned against you
and Allah planned against them, and Allah is the best of planners. So that's kind of how they're taking it. And they'll try to
defend that translation. So that's how they respond to that. Any other questions here? Extremely important to
be well versed with this. The reason I bring this up
and spend so much time on it, is if you read for example The
Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, that Michael Licona
and Gary Habermas book, they don't spend as much time on the death of Jesus on the cross. Most Christian apologetic
works just simply don't because they assume
you already believe it. Everyone already believes
Jesus died on the cross right? So here you go, let's move on. Let's talk about the fact that he rose. Even in the four-point
response that Mike gives, Fact number two, facts number one? No, it's facts number one,
Jesus died on the cross. He just gives it as a fact. Here's the basis that we're starting with. This is a fact that everyone
agrees with, let's move on. It's like he doesn't
spend too much time on it, and he really ought
not to it's so obvious. But when you're debating Muslims or when you're dialoguing with Muslims, this is an important point bring up. >> Student: Can their concept
of divine determination justify the accepted God theory? Because through divine determination, Christians were gonna go to hell anyway? So this is just his way
of beating them to hell? >> That's a great question. So the question was their view
of God's divine determination affect whether or not Allah was a planner, or schemer or deceiver. And I would say indirectly yes. They never feel like they have
to defend God's character, because God can be whoever he wants to be. There's a lot more of a arbitrary
nature to Allah in Islam than there is an Christianity. Some Islamic philosophy
has dealt with that. But a lot of the beautiful
Islamic philosophy was undertaken by the
Muslims called Muʿtazila. The Muʿtazila were around
early in Islamic history and they imported a lot
of great philosophy, Aristotle especially. And they were putting together
some coherent thoughts, they were introducing
reason into the faith. And the Ushari's who
fought against them said, you're doing this all wrong, you're bringing in foreign thought and that's not what Islam is about. There was a big battle
between the Ushari's and the Muʿtazila's, and the Ushari's won. So some of the really
good philosophy that tried to reconcile the stuff was early on and nobody pays any attention to it. Yes, sir? >> Student: I've heard
that Muslims do believe in the resurrection of Jesus or a rapture, or something like that. And they also believe in his virgin birth. Can you address those too? >> Yeah, the virgin birth, definitely. The question was do Muslims
believe in the virgin birth and in some kind of ascension of Jesus. And the answer is yes. The Quran says Jesus was virgin born. Clear as day, he was born of a virgin. >> Student: Any purpose to that? I mean, why would he be born
of a virgin and no one else? >> No purpose it given.
>> Oh. >> It was just God
demonstrating his power. He could have Jesus born without
a father if he wanted to. So no necessary purpose for that. No, I'm not gonna get into that. >> Student: The resurrection and rapture. >> Yeah, and it also says in the Quran, [speaking in foreign language] and we lifted him up to ourselves. And Muslims believe that
that means that Jesus ascended into Heaven. And that is why he will
return at the end of times. Again from that tower in Damascus,
to start the latter days. So Muslims believe Jesus is
going to start the latter days, initiated by his return. So Muslims and Christians are waiting for the return of Jesus. It's in the Quran, that we
lifted him up to ourselves. Now some Muslims argue
that that means in status. We raised Jesus up to ourselves, they'll say that means in status. 'Cause there's another
verse which kind of implies that Jesus didn't die here on this Earth, that he wasn't raised. So some Muslims will say that meant God lifted him up and status. Other Muslims will say the
verse that says Jesus died, that's talking about in the future. Jesus is gonna come
back and then he'll die. We have some disagreement there. Again, I'm not big on Islamic eschatology. If you want to look into this a bit more, read the work of David Cook,
out of Rice University. I focus more on historical aspects. >> Student: Anti-Christ
belongs to the Messiah? Sorry for interrupting you. >> Is that Joel Richardson, I think? >> Student: Yeah, yeah. >> I haven't read it. >> Student: It's fascinating. >> Okay. >> Student: It's 22 parallels
between [mumbles] eschatology and Islamic eschatology. And they're just the flip side
of the coin, it's amazing. >> Yeah, there's a lot of
parallels in eschatology. There's a lot of disparity, not much unity in Islamic eschatology. I asked my friend, the
same friend who said he could be my friend anymore, I asked him what he thought
about of the afterlife. He sent me a 33 CD lecture series, [audience laughing] on Allah Ada. Tried to listen to them, I just I couldn't bear it after a while. I don't know much about Islamic
eschatology, so I apologize. I know what I was taught. Which is not too indicative of what everyone else was taught,
because our sect of Islam believes different things about
eschatology than others did. Our sect was pacifist and
so we didn't have an image of Jesus coming and killing all kinds of people, and fighting. That wasn't what ours was taught, but ours was idiosyncratic. >> Student: [mumbles] at this
point and time in this book, is that Islam is made of two people. >> The [mumbles] and Messiah. >> Student: That's fascinating
because if you know revelations well, Satan brings
two people under the sea. Anyway, I won't spoil it. [audience laughing] >> Thanks, appreciate the consideration. I saw another question a moment ago. So we have covered the
issue of Jesus' crucifixion. Extremely important, don't overlook it when dealing with Islamic apologetics. But even more important
than that in Muslims eyes, is the claim to the Jesus deity. I would say the case for
Jesus deity is very strong. Very strong. I would say the case for Jesus' death on the cross is airtight. You see the difference there? There's no room to say Jesus
did not die on the cross, when coming from a historical perspective. So that's why I call the
issue of Jesus' crucifixion the litmus test, the Islamic litmus test. If you have a friend who's
arguing various issues with you, Islamic issues with you,
and he is willing to say that Jesus did not die on the cross. You present all the evidence to him. When he comes back and he says, I don't think Jesus died on the cross. You ask him why, and if he says, well the evidence is
just not strong enough. Like I said before, you
cannot show him anything from that point forward. There is nothing he will agree with if he didn't agree with that. But if he comes back and he says, I don't agree that he died on the cross, and you say why, he says I admit the historical
evidence is in your favor, but it just doesn't fit my image of Jesus. I would have to be convinced of a lot more in order to think that
he died on the cross. So I'll concede that the
evidence is in your favor. If he says that then you've got someone you can start reasoning with. A question is often asked of me when I share the gospel with Muslims. It's so difficult I don't get any headway. Should I be talking about these things, should I be discussing these things? I never, by the way,
suggest stop being friends with that person, stop witnessing, I say stop discussing
these issues with them if they're not showing a
willingness to hear you out. Still share the love of Christ with them, still walk with them,
still be friends with them. But the issue of discussion
might need to come to a close, at least for a while, until they can be a little bit more intellectually honest. Does that make sense? >> Group: Yeah. >> That's because it's airtight, there's no two ways about it. History is absolutely clear about Jesus' death on the cross. If a Muslim wants to
believe that he did not die he has to concede that it's
a theological presupposition, not a conclusion of the evidence. The argument for Jesus deity
though it's still very strong, though not airtight
it's still very strong. Chapter 5 verse 72 of the Quran
we talked about it earlier, this is where you find out if you believe Jesus is God you will go to hell. They surely disbelieve who say, lo Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah himself said,
"Oh, children of Israel," "Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." "Lo, who so ascribes partners unto Allah," "For him has Allah forbidden paradise." "His abode is a fire," "For evildoers there will be no helpers." What is this saying? They are the disbelievers
who say Jesus is God. For them is hell, paradise
has been forbidden. So shirk here, those who disbelieve, the word there is mushrik,
those who commit shirk. Shirk the unforgivable sin is here defined as believing Jesus is God. Chapter 5 verse 116 I mentioned earlier, And when Allah says,
oh Jesus, son of Mary, did you say unto mankind
take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? He said, be glorified,
it was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I use to say it, then
you would have known it. You know what was in my mind,
and what is not in my mind. So Jesus essentially is asked,
are you saying, did you say, to worship you and your
mother Mary alongside me? So the image of Trinity here is one where it's father, mother and son. Very interesting. That's what the Quran says. That's what the Quran depicts
as the deity of Jesus Christ. That he denied it, and that
he would never have said it, and this was something
that they said after him. Now I don't use this approach when I argue the deity of Christ with non-Muslims. I use a different approach. But talking about the deity
of Christ with Muslims, I focus on a holistic gospel message. I think the case for the deity of Christ is made far stronger when we involve Paul. I think it approaches
airtight when we involve Paul. When we're just looking at the gospels, I'd say it's very strong. But Muslims will often
want to go to the gospels, but they distrust Paul. They think Paul hijacked the religion. They're gonna pin the
blame on someone right? They can't pin it on the disciples because we saw chapter 3 verse 55, the disciples are uppermost. So they can't pin the
blame on the disciples. The can't pin the blame on Jesus. Someone corrupted Christianity
and corrupted it early on. Who could it be? Oh, here's a man who is
persecuting Christians, he never saw Jesus. All of a sudden he accepts Christ, and he's preaching his gospel? And other people are
preaching gospels against him? This man must've hijacked Christianity, he's untrustworthy, Paul. So Muslims especially Muslim
polemicists, hate Paul. And to try to quote the first
Corinthian or Philippians 2, or anything like that to
show the deity of Christ, would be moot with them. On the flip side, they're
generally okay with the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You got some Muslim
scholars who are beginning to move away from that. Shabeer Ali for example has
espoused Bart Urman's approach. Bart Urman argues that the Gospels have an evolution of Christology. Mark being the lowest in Christology, John being the highest in Christology. That they were evolving. Shabeer Ali has kind of
embrace that approach, and so he won't take all the Gospels. He won't take John when
discussing the deity of Christ. Generally speaking though
Muslims will take all four, I'll address that in a moment, Shabeer Ali's approach. So when I discuss with Muslims I will say, when you're talking about the Gospels, it's easy to see that
Jesus claims to be God from four different angles. So we take a four pronged approach here. What Jesus said and what Jesus did, what others said about Jesus, and what others did about Jesus, these things only makes sense if Jesus is claiming to be God. What are we talking about? Well first and foremost,
what matters most to Muslims is what Jesus said. They want to hear Jesus say I am God. And you will hear that objection a lot. Where does Jesus say I am God, worship me? As a Muslim when I was
looking into these issues, the thing that convinced me
was Mark chapter 14 verse 62. I wanted to see in the
earliest of the Gospels, And here is Mark, showing
Jesus being interrogated by the high priest. The high priest says are you the Christ, son of the blessed one? And Jesus responses and says, "I am." "And you will see the Son of Man "Sitting at the right hand of the power," "And coming with the clouds of Heaven." Here you have at least two, if not three, divine references all at once. The question we'll want
is the I am response. Here in Mark it's questionable,
but we've seen Jesus say "I am" in John especially, where it's not questionable at all. Jesus' response in John chapter 8, to the Jews, the Jews are saying to him, you are not yet even 50 years old, yet you claim to have seen Abraham. Jesus' response is not, hey
I'm just talking figuratively, that's not his response. It's not no, no, no, you
didn't catch me right. He says, I tell you the truth. Before Abraham was born, I am. There is no way to interpret that verse apart from a divine I am statement. What are these divine I am statements? They're found in Exodus
chapter 3 verse 14. To begin with Moses is talking
to God in the burning bush, and he doesn't want to call God bush. [audience laughing] So he says to him, who
shall I say has sent me? What's your name? And understand in those days especially, preliterate dynamics, you
gotta keep these in mind. In those days, names really mattered. There was power in the name. You would pray in a name, you
would do rituals in a name, your deities power was
often shown through a name. So he wanted to know God's name. He said who shall I say has sent me when I go talk to the Hebrews. And God responds, "I am that I am." Or I am who I am. "Tell them I am has sent you." Gods like, my name doesn't matter. What matters is that I
am God, I am eternal. I am self subsisting, I am that I am. And from that point forward
in the Old Testament God uses the I am to propound his sovereignty multiple times. Especially in Isaiah 40 through 55, God says over and over again, I am, I am. That's how he propounds his sovereignty. Moses asks God who are you
and he responds with I am. Here in Mark, the high priest
asks Jesus who are you, and Jesus responds with the I am. I wouldn't think that that
was an I am statement, by the way, because the question was are you the Christ, and
Jesus responds, "I am." But I hesitate because
Mark chapter 6 verse 50 has another I am statement. Here Jesus is walking on the water, something that the only Old Testament says only Yahweh can do. Job chapter 9. And the disciples are afraid and Jesus comes up to the disciples, and he says take courage, [speaking foreign language] take courage, I am. So here's Jesus doing
something that only God can do, and he's giving courage to the disciples by saying the words I am. A very divine context and
very divine statement. By the way, we have a similar
statement in Psalms I believe, where God is Yahweh, passes over the water and gives courage to Israel, by saying I am. Strong parallel. Or at least a parallel,
we wanna be careful in our scholarship here,
it's at least a parallel. And so the I am statement in Mark 14:62, if it stood alone I would say probably not an I am statement, he's just
responding to the question. But you've got Mark 6:50 here, plus a scholar by the
name of Raymond Brown. In his Death of the
Messiah, volume two or one, I don't remember which volume it was, it was Death of the Messiah. He says that John, in
using the I am statements, probably has a historical basis, because Mark has something
reminiscent of that. So even some scholars are
saying there's something here, there's something here. And we would hesitate to say
it's a legit I am statement, but there is something there. Let's say it's not an I am statement. What's the rest of the verse say? Jesus says, "You'll see
the Son of Man sitting "At the right hand of the power," "And coming with the clouds of Heaven." Now we have definitely two
references to the Old Testament. There is no question that
these are references. One's almost a quotation, the Son of Man coming
with the clouds of Heaven. What's the reference here? Daniel chapter 7 verses 13 and 14, here in Daniel, Daniel
is looking in the sky, and he has just seen a vision
of the Ancient of Days. There is the Ancient of
Days sitting on the throne being worship by angels. The Ancient of Days, the God, the Father, he's sitting there on the
throne being worshiped. And then Daniel says, "And I
looked in my night visions, "And behold, one like a
Son of Man approached" "The Ancient of Days." So it's one who looks like
the Son of Man approaching the Father, and to him not the Father, and to the Son of Man, the one who looked like the Son of Man, was given glory, power, and a kingdom. People of every nation and
language will serve him. His kingdom is one that will
not pass away and be destroyed. Wait a minute, so there's a
Father sitting on the throne, you've got someone who looks like a human. That's what it means, the one
who looks like the Son of Man, was given glory and the kingdom
of Heaven for all eternity? And in that kingdom people
of every nation and language are going to serve him? What kind of service is this? Look at the word service
in Hebrew, it's pay-lah, I guess it would be in the Aramaic. And in the Greek, the
Septuagint, the word is la-tru-o. Every single time the
word la-tru-o is used in the Septuagint and the New Testament, it's used of a service due only to God. This service is due only to God. Same with the word pay-lah,
it's due only to God. There's one instance in the book of Romans where it was given to
someone other than God, and God became furious
because it was due to him. But here we have that
service being given to one who looks like a Son of Man. He's going to be worshiped,
served as it were, by all people of all nations, in his own kingdom for all eternity. By the way, he's coming on
the clouds, the Son of Man. And only God is introduced
in the Old Testament as coming on the clouds. So that entrance is a divine entrance. Jesus, when he calls
himself the Son of Man throughout the Gospels, he
calls himself the Son of Man over 80 times if you
count all four Gospels. Nobody else ever calls Jesus
the Son of Man, not once. There is one occasion in the book of John where people say, who is the Son of Man? That's it, that's as close as they get to calling him the Son of Man. So the term Son of Man here
is used explicitly by Jesus. It doesn't exist before,
let me put it this way, they weren't expecting the Messiah to call himself the Son of Man. No one was expecting the Messiah to call himself the Son of Man. And after Jesus, no one refers to him as the Son of Man afterwords. They're not going around
calling him the Son of Man, they're calling him the Christ. Why does that matter? That Jesus called himself the Son of Man passes the criterion of
double dissimilarity. Or the criterion of
dissimilarity as it were. This criterion is the most
stringent criterion used by historians to determine whether Jesus actually said something. The most stringent one there is. There's nothing more stringent than that. So that Jesus called
himself the Son of Man is virtually certain. Bart Urman disagrees
with it, but he's Bart. And then we got the statement that you're sitting at
the right hand of God. What does that mean? Well, this is a reference
to Psalm 110 verse one. Psalm 110 verse one,
David's writing the Psalm, it says the Lord said to my
Lord, sit at my right hand and I shall make your enemies
a footstool for your feet. What's the big deal here? No one in the second Temple
period was ever portrayed as sitting at the right
hand of God, no one. The reason why is to
say that you're sitting at the right hand of God,
essentially means you're sitting on his throne alongside him. Which means you're
co-sovereign, you're co-heir. You are in charge with God if you're sitting on his right hand. That means you are
entitled to the same things God is entitled to. You might not have the same office, he's first, you're second, but his substance is shared
with you, you are co-heir. And people recognize that at that time. That's why they never depicted
anyone sitting with God. Now, they had people standing, some people had Moses standing
at the right hand of God, some people had Ezra standing
at the right hand of God. But no one ever put anyone
sitting at the right hand of God in the second Temple period. This is probably the most convincing of the three statements here, to show exactly what Jesus was saying. At first I found the Son of
Man stuff more convincing, but the more I look into this, the more I realize that
sitting at the right hand of power is even stronger. Which is why, by the way,
Christians quoted this verse of the Old Testament, Psalm 110 verse one. They quoted this more than anything else in the New Testament. 24 times this verse is
quoted in the New Testament. It meant a lot to them
at a very early phase in Christian history. We see it in Matthew as well, when Jesus is asking the people, who do you think is superior
David or the Messiah? And then he quotes this. So we find it throughout the Gospels. So right here, by the way,
when Jesus says he can sit at the right hand of God, you understand the image
that's being drawn here? You've got the Holy of Holies, which is kind of the inner sanctum. It's a reflection of
God in Heaven, correct? You guys, you with me? Am I losing you, we need to take lunch? So you've got the Holy of Holies, this is kind of a reflection
of God's place in Heaven. What is the throne? What is the reflection of the
throne in the Holy of Holies? >> Student: The mercy seat? >> The mercy seat. The ark of the covenant. Jesus is saying that he can
go into the Holy of Holies and sit on the ark of the covenant. Yeah, that's where Hebrews gets a lot of its Christology from. Hebrews does quote someone 10 verse one. Now let's stop and think
about this for a second. He's talking to the high
priest, who's the high priest? This is the guy that can only
go into the Holy of Holies once a year, on the day of atonement. And when he does that, he
wraps a rope around his leg in case he accidentally
does something blasphemous, and they have to drag his dead body out. That is the guy he's talking to. He says I can march in there right now and sit down right on that throne. [student mumbles questioningly] >> He's not saying anything
light here, he is going all out. So in Jesus' words then Mark 14:62, He claims to be the I am, if
you think that's strong enough. Definitely claims to be the son of man, coming on the clouds. And definitely claims to be sitting at the right hand of power. Potentially a threefold claim to deity, I am the God of Moses,
I am the God of Daniel, and I am the God of David. Which is why they rip open their robes and say what more reason is
there to question this man? He's committed blasphemy
before all of you, let's crucify him. Abundantly clear that Jesus
here claims to be divine. People who argue with that,
for example Bart Urman, I keep bringing up Urman, not
because he's my punching bag, but because he was my professor at UNC, so I got to interact with him a lot. I asked him, I said what
do you think of Mark 14:62? He says it doesn't make sense. I said what do you mean
it doesn't make sense? He said, "In order for
this verse to make sense, "Mark would have to think
Jesus claimed to be God." [audience laughing] Yes, yes! He says it doesn't make sense, Mark doesn't know what he's talking about, is what Urman says. In order to get around that, Urman says that Mark had an
improper view of blasphemy. He says Mark had an
improper view of blasphemy, this wasn't actually blasphemous. Mark was actually thinking that claiming to be the
Messiah was blasphemous, and therefor he was
crucified for blasphemy. Whereas claiming to be the
Messiah was not blasphemous in that time, we know that. There were all kinds of people
who claim to be the Messiah, and they were beaten often,
they were considered stupid, and they were let go. But they weren't crucified for blasphemy. You're only crucified for blasphemy for either uttering the divine name, or according to Philo, for according divine
prerogatives for yourself. Urman says, he thought that a claim to be the Messiah was blasphemy, no. No, Mark knew that claiming
divine prerogatives for yourself is blasphemy, and that's what he's showing Jesus doing. Anyhow, so that's what Jesus said, and there's a lot more
that we can put in there but I focus on Mark 14:62. What did Jesus do to this end? Well, according to the
Gospels, he forgave sins. Mark chapter 2, so that
you may know the Son of Man has authority on Earth to forgive sins, he said it's a paralytic,
I say to you arise. Chapter 2 verse 10 of Mark. He heals a paralytic,
forgiving him his sins. What did everyone will
respond at that time? What did the scribes and
Pharisees in that event, what do they respond by saying? "This man blasphemes." "This man blasphemes." Why are they saying that? Because Jesus is according a
divine prerogative for himself, the forgiveness of sins. In addition Jesus does
miracles in his own name. Lepers will come to him and they will say, can you cleanse us? Two lepers come to him in
Matthew, I think it's chapter 8. They said can you cleanse us? He says do you believe that I can do this? And they say yes. And he says, by your
faith it shall be done. Faith in whom? In him, he said you believe I can do this? He's doing this miracle in his own name. And that's extremely important. You don't see anyone doing
that in the Old Testament. You don't see Elijah doing
a miracle in his own name. You don't see Elijah doing
a miracle in his own name, they're doing it in Yahweh's name. Jesus does it in his own name. What do others say about Jesus? Would you have John saying about Jesus? You have John saying that
Jesus is the word of God, and that he is God, John chapter one. And that nothing came into
being except through him. Bless you. And the Word became
flesh and dwelt among us. He makes it abundantly clear
that he's talking about Jesus. And then in verse 18, he says that Jesus is the
only begotten God, John 1:18. John makes it very
clear that Jesus is God. And so does Thomas. At the end of John's
Gospel, Thomas bows down, I believe it's 20:28, he bows down and says to
Jesus, "my Lord and my God." [speaking in foreign language] The same construction is used
in Psalms, it's inverted, but it's referring to
Yahweh, my Lord and my God, or my God and my Lord in Psalms. Here it's made really clear. In fact, some people believe that this is the climax of John's Gospel, the proclamation from
Thomas that Jesus is God. And what is it others did about Jesus? Well, this only makes sense
if Jesus claimed to be God. You of some people who worshiped him. We see the disciples worshiping
him in the boat, prosceneto. Well, there are plenty
who bow down to Jesus, and the word prosceneto can
be translated to worship. Muslims will often respond
to that, by the way, they'll say, look in the Old Testament, people were bowing down before others. Prosceneto means just bow down, they didn't actually worship
him, just bowed down. Not necessarily, because what
does Matthew and Luke say? They say, you must
worship the Lord your God and serve him only, I believe that's 4:10. Jesus says you must
worship the Lord your God and serve him only. Well, the word worship there, you must worship your God
only, that's prosceneto. Jesus says don't bow down to anyone, which is exactly why in Acts, you see when people start bowing
down to Paul and Barnabas, that they rip their clothes
and say we are not gods, don't do that. When Cornelius bows down before Peter, he says, don't do that,
I am just like you. And John, in the book of Revelations, when he bows down to the angel, the angel says no, no,
no, I'm just a servant, don't bow down to me, don't prosceneto. Because Jesus said you must
prosceneto to God alone. And yet people bow down
to Jesus in the Gospels and he was fine with that. In fact, in 20:28 in John
when Thomas does that, he says it's about time. [audience laughing] On the other hand those
who are against Jesus, what do they do? They crucified him for blasphemy. What was blasphemy at the time? You can read Darrell
Bock's work on blasphemy, it's probably the most comprehensive. I think it's called Blasphemy
and Exaltation in Judaism, I think that's the name of his book. A shorter work is by Adela Yarbro Collins, called The Blasphemy in Mark 14:62. Both are very good works. What was blasphemy at the time? It was either uttering
the divine name, Yahweh, that would be blasphemy at that time. Or it was according divine
prerogatives to yourself. And we get that through Philo. In Philo's writings he
indicated that simply saying that you have things
that belong only to God, is considered blasphemy. >> Student: How do you spell Philo? >> P-h-i-l-o. One of my favorite scholars on this issue is Richard Bauckham. And if you can, he has a small
book called God Crucified. Small book, quick to read. What he points out is that
Jesus is claiming for himself, and the early Christians
claimed for Jesus, those attributes,
specifically those attributes, which distinguish Yahweh
from everything else. So he says there are two things which distinguish Yahweh
from everything else. Creator and sovereign. Creator and sovereign. And he said in early Christianity, both titles were described to
Jesus, creator and sovereign. And his work, I think,
is pretty convincing. He has a parallel slightly
different, but Larry Hurtado. So Richard Bauckham is the first guy. >> Student: Can you spell that? >> B-a-u-c-k-h-a-m. Richard Bauckham just
retired out of Edinburgh. >> Student: What's the name of his book? >> God Crucified. [student mumbles] >> Actually it was Larry Hurtado,
just retired out of there. And Larry Hurtado, read
Larry Hurtado as well. The one I would read probably
the shortest and most concise is How On Earth Did Jesus Become God. It's a tongue-in-cheek title. Larry Hurtado, Hurtado is H-u-r-t-a-d-o. Larry Hurtado argues that
the titles accorded to Jesus, wait, I'm sorry that was Bauckham. Larry Hurtado argues that
the rituals performed in Jesus' name, the actions
that were performed, those are some things
that were only for God. So for example baptism, communion, these were actions that
were done for God alone. And the fact that we see
them in First Corinthians 11, and we see it in pre-New
Testament writings, I'll explain that in a moment, shows that they did it extremely early on. Hurtado and Bauckham, two
extremely well respected scholars. Hurtado and Bauckham
both, very well respected, argued early deity of Jesus
Christ, early high Christology. And they do so very convincingly. Both just retired
though, it's kind of sad. Any questions on that? I saw some hands and some confusion. General aura of confusion emanating. One last thing I want to look at though is the early history of the New Testament. Why did I put this here? I shouldn't have put this here,
oh well, I'll do it anyway. Let's take a look and stop for a second at some of the earliest stuff. So what I just gave you was an argument from the Gospels for Muslims. We think about it for a second, Muslims are okay with the
Gospels, generally speaking. Some of them are not okay
with John, like Shabeer Ali, but they're okay with
the Gospels in general. That's why I gave you that case. Let's stop and let's take a
look at the case holistically, not just from a Muslim perspective, let's look at the case of
deity for Jesus Christ. We have in our possession, and this is extremely
critical for you to know if you are interested
in New Testament studies and apologetics in the
least, you need to know this. In the New Testament there are references to hymns and creeds
that were written before the New Testament was written. What do I mean by that? Certain things are found
in the New Testament that are quotes that had
been composed earlier. One of the most famous of those is First Corinthians 15
verses three to eight, where Paul says, for what I
received I delivered to you as a first importance. That Jesus died on the cross for our sins according to the scriptures, et cetera. And he says that he was
raised and he appeared to Peter and to the disciples, and then to the 500, and then last of all to
me, as one untimely born. What is Paul doing? Well, according to the Jesus seminar, so these aren't folks who are
evangelicals to say the least. According to the Jesus
seminar, what Paul is doing is quoting something that he received from the disciples early on. So early in fact, that
it probably comes from the first 10 years of Christian history. And that's a very conservative statement. James D.G. Dunn, in his
book Jesus Remembered, says that this section
of the New Testament, so this creed from First
Corinthians three through eight, is no later than a few months
after Jesus' crucifixion. And James DG Dunn is no
one to mess with either. A very highly respected
New Testament scholar. Months after the
crucifixion, how many months? One year, 18 months? I don't think he would've
said the word months, if he meant more than two years. I asked Mike O'Connell what he thought and he thinks that it couldn't
be any later than 18 months. Then again we could just email Dr. Dunn and see what he says. So we have this creed which
mentions the death of Jesus on the cross, and his
resurrection within 18 months of Jesus' death, according to Dunn. And no one says any later than 40 A.D. No one I've read, and O'Connell also says he doesn't know, and he's a scholar. He doesn't know anyone who
puts it later than 40 A.D. And you can get a lot of this from Habermas's book in the back. We also have a creed in Philippians
2 verses six through 11. Here, Paul is quoting a hymn. If you read Philippians carefully, Paul's going through and
he's saying be humble, stop trying to put
yourself above one another, start serving each other. And then he says, your
attitude should be like that of Christ, who although he
existed in the form of God, did not consider equality with
God a thing to be grasped. And so he emptied himself. And so you have this
picture of the kinosis, the divine emptying of God, to the point of becoming a
human and dying on the cross. And then because of this God
raises him up, exalts him, and at the name of Jesus,
every knee shall bow in Heaven and Earth and under the Earth, and every tongue shall confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord. What's going on here? Paul's writing to the Philippians, and in the middle of writing
to them he quotes a hymn. How can he quote it unless he knows that they already know it? Which means he's either
said it to them before, or he told it to them when
he established the church. Well, if he said it to them
when he established the church, that means it was
composed even before that. This hymn in Philippians
2, six through 11, is extremely early. How early? Some people have argued
that you can retro-vert this hymn into Aramaic. If you put it in Aramaic, it
forms a hymn of five stanzas, three lines each, with a meter. There's one intrusion in there. Even death on the cross
doesn't fit the scheme, but other than that, the
rest of it fits perfectly, according to some scholars. If that is the case, if this hymn was actually
composed in Aramaic, we probably have the earliest teaching of the Christian church. Jesus was in very nature God. And he lowered himself
to the point of a man, died on the cross, and then was raised. He was exalted, is what it says. And at the name of Jesus
every knee shall bow in Heaven and Earth and under the Earth, and every tongue confess. That's a quotation from
Isaiah, which describes Yahweh. In Isaiah it says every knee will bow and every tongue will confess to Yahweh. Here, it's saying it will happen to Jesus, in a creed which may have come from an Aramaic speaking church. As early as it gets, it
doesn't get any earlier. There are also arguments
that Mark's passion narrative is extremely early. I had planned on covering this
later but I'll cover it now. In Mark's passion
narrative, you can get this from Gerd Theissen, G-e-r-d
Theissen, T-h-e-i-s-s-e-n. Gerd Theissen, he's a German scholar. Gerd Theissen argues that
in Mark's passion narrative you have names that are
conspicuously missing. For example, in the Garden of Gethsemane, somebody strikes the
ear of the high priest. I'm sorry, the ear of a
servant of the high priest. Who is it? That's kind of important,
it'd be good to know. We find out in one of the
later Gospels that it's Peter. Why isn't it said in Mark's time? Why don't we get the name of the servant, in Mark's gospel, in
Mark's passion narrative. And who is this boy who runs away naked? What's that about? Who is this guy, why
don't we get his name? You really want to know his name, you want to know who he is. [audience laughing] So why don't we know who it
is, why is the name not given? Gerd Theissen argues that Mark
didn't provide these names for protective and anonymity. If he were to say Peter was
the person who struck the ear, guess what, they would go get Peter. Because they were still looking for him, they still wanted to know who did it. If they say this was the boy
who evaded police arrest, they would go get him
because he was still wanted. If they said Malcus was
the name of the servant, they would go ask him,
who cut off your ear? And he would be able to point
them to the right person. So according to Gerd Theissen,
the reason why the names are not mentioned is
because this is so early, that it could be not mentioned for reasons of protective anonymity. Richard Bauckham takes
the argument further, and I think convincingly so. In his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham, Jesus
and the Eyewitnesses. He says you have names that are present that are rather stark. We take a look at, for
example, Bartimaeus. Why in the world is blind
Bartimaeus's name mentioned? There's a ton of blind
people who are healed, why is Bartimaeus's name mentioned? You also have in the passion narrative, you've got Simon of Cyrene mentioned and he's mentioned in
the other Gospels too. But here it says, whose sons
are Rufus and Alexander, in Mark 15. Why mention Rufus and Alexander? The other Gospels didn't
mention them, Matthew, Luke, they don't mention Rufus and Alexander. Why does Mark mention Rufus and Alexander? Any ideas? >> Student: Go talk to them and ask them? >> Go talk to them! MarK is saying, hey, you guys
know Rufus and Alexander? Their dad was Simon of
Cyrene, go ask him about this. That's what Richard Bauckham is saying, if Alexander's sons are still around to verify the claim that's being made, Bartimaeus is still around
to verify that he was healed, therefor their names are mentioned. That's what Richard Bauckham argues. Richard Bauckham is very
interested in Onomastics, the study of names. You can read his work on that, it's in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Very interesting, so
what are we saying here? We're saying the passion
narrative is so early that some people are still wanted, and some people who were
there are still around. There are other reasons to
think Mark's passion narrative is extremely early. Many of the elements of
Mark's passion narrative are found in Paul's works. For example, First
Corinthians 11 talks about The Last Supper, which is in Mark 14. You have on the night he was handed over in First Corinthians. That kind of assumes that
the people Paul's talking to have already heard this story of a night that Jesus was handed over. He says on the night he was
handed over to the Corinthians, he thinks that they already
know what he is talking about. And that's what Mark talks about, there was a night in
which Jesus was betrayed. Jesus suffering in Paul. Paul makes it very clear
that Jesus suffered. Mark talks a lot about Jesus suffering. So you've got a lot of
parallels between Paul's writing and Mark's passion narrative,
which makes you think that Mark's passion narrative
was extremely early. For all these reasons,
Mark's passion narrative can be dated potentially, not with a lot of confidence,
but with some confidence, to an early, early date,
perhaps even in the 40s or 50s, maybe even in the 30s. There was one argument
that it was in the 30s, I don't know about this,
but the argument is who mentions Caiaphas's name? Matthew, who doesn't mention it, Mark. When Mark says the high priest, why doesn't he say the
high priest Caiaphas? The argument goes 'cause Caiaphas
was still the high priest. So all he had to say was the high priest, and they knew who he was talking about. Caiaphas stopped being
the high priest in 37 A.D. So if that argument is sound, then Mark's passion
narrative is before 37 A.D. How early, who knows. But it's really early
according to these arguments. And definitely predates
the actual writing of Mark. So what do we have? We have the earliest
layer of Christian history in the New Testament. And what do those layers proclaim? First Corinthians 15 three through eight, proclaims the death and
resurrection of Jesus. Philippians 2, 6 through
11 claims the death, deity and resurrection of Jesus. And Mark, death, deity
and resurrection of Jesus. The earliest layer of Christian history in the New Testament
claims exactly those things we ought to believe in order to be saved, according to Romans 10:9. Coincidence, I don't think so. This is good to know for your
own personal edification, this is also good to know
for Islamic apologetics. If you're going to converse with Muslims, it's good to be able
to say with confidence the earliest level of Christian history is that which claims the deity of Christ, his death on the cross and his
resurrection from the grave. That is precisely the things that Muslims don't want early Christianity to proclaim. [upbeat music] Biola University offers a variety of biblically centered degree programs. Ranging from business, to ministry, to the arts and sciences. Visit biola.edu to find out how Biola can make a
difference in your life.
Please pray for Nabeel Qureshi's soul, he passed away on 16 September 2017.