‫بسم هللا الرحمن الرحيم‬
In the Name of Allah, The Most Merciful, The Most Compassionate.
This is to discuss criticisms to our video #1
in our series of 5 videos about the Crucifixion.
The criticisms are from the web page:
http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/a-response-to-islam-answers/
We are extremely thankful to Allah for that page,
as it CONFIRMS MANY OF OUR POINTS,
especially viewing that it comes from Christian Apologists themselves.
WE SAVED A COPY of that web page on our web site, in the same directory where this script is located:
www.muhaddith.org/Crucifixion.
We are glad to be of help, assisting them in preserving the truth
(about their document's original contents).

They wrote:
( emphasis is ours )
" The writers of this work (i.e. our video)... happen to be ANONYMOUS)"
and:
"... the authors of their work itself is UNNAMED"
and:
"... on their web page about the music in the video, one sees this:
Theme Nasheed (by UNNAMED group from Morocco)"
1- The subtitle was IN LARGE PRINT (from min 1:11 till min 1:23):
PREPARED BY ORFAN RABBAT,
with MY FACE also showing on the screen !
This blunder undermines the reliability of their whole discussion and quotations:
They definitely did not exert the proper attention befitting this topic,
so serious and important FOR THEM !
Yet we will not dismiss that article altogether;
we will discuss a few points here, plus some more in our footnotes 1.
2- How can they equate their own SCRIPTURES with a Theme Nasheed: A CHANT !
This PROVES OUR POINT, that for Christian Apologists,
the REQUIREMENT for authenticity is THE SAME for a Theme Chant
as well as for their Holy Scriptures.
How can one equate a Theme Chant
with sacred scriptures, supposed to report historical facts?
Sacred scriptures forming the FOUNDATIONS of a CREED ? !
This point answers our question in video # 1 about
WHETHER THE GOSPELS
are "witness accounts",
or mere "STORY TELLING"...
or (we can add here) mere "CHANTS" ?
3- Of most importance:
Our discussion is NOT a testimony, requiring truthfulness, memory... etc.
Our discussion is a group of LOGICAL arguments.
And the strength of any argument is INTRINSIC :
It is either correct or false ON ITS OWN MERIT.
It does not become stronger or weaker depending on the speaker.
Failing to recognize this obvious distinction
ironically reveals the total LOGICAL disarray of our critics.
As for chants, the case is worse: Chants are testimonies nor arguments !
Neither reliability nor proper logic are required for chants !

They act as if they did not read WHY the anonymous nature of the NT authors makes them untrustworthy:
Well, we did mention that we need to know every author's affiliations, his truthfulness, his ability to memorize, to
properly witness an event, ... etc.
Knowing that a "culture" was used to anonymous authors "does not cut it",
it does not "magically" make them reliable in the above subjects !
It is not just to nit-pick about WHO the authors were,
it is to analyze WHAT they were,
IN ORDER TO FIND IF THEIR WORDS ACTUALLY REPRESENT THE TRUTH !
This is how we treat OUR OWN texts, and this is how we treat theirs.
But this ADDITIONAL oversight is not strange,
viewing the low level of attention they exerted in their whole discussion,
such as their illusion about authors of our work being anonymous.
MOST IMPORTANTLY:
- Our focus here is NOT ACADEMIC:
To haggle about WHY the Gospel writers were anonymous2,
how customary it was to have anonymous writers back then,
and WHY it was so, whereby Christian Apologists try to APPEASE skeptic(s among their) followers.
- Our focus is about HOW WE ACT UPON such documents:
Their PRACTICAL effects on my current and future everlasting life:
If you find 4 leaflets,
claiming to have authority but yet anonymous,
instructing you to sign over all your material ownerships to some third party.
Would you execute these instructions?
We believe that CREED and EVERLASTING LIFE
are more important than material possessions.
So how can we commit our creed and everlasting life,
based on 4 anonymous texts?
This is without even considering that these "leaflets"
were full of contradictions, gaps, insertions, deletions, and so on.
How much are we willing to commit, based on such anonymous documents?

They wrote:
"one early fragment cited is the size of a credit card. What’s their source of their contention with this? It’s Wikipedia."
And they wrote:
"especially since a number of times, Wikipedia is cited as their source."
We cited Wikipedia concerning points that are obviously correct,
to facilitate matters for the viewer.
So is Wikipedia falsifying?
Is the Picture of P52 falsified?
Was P52 a HUMONGOUS document,
whereby we colluded with Wikipedia to misrepresent it as a small fragment ?
P52 is a known papyrus, CITED BY NO OTHER THAN JAMES WHITE,
in his debate with Sami Zaatari,
so why not prove us wrong and provide proof from any museum,
that it was LARGER THAN A CREDIT CARD ?
And is it a virtue for Mr. White to throw the name at us, WITH NO REFERENCES,
but it is a defect for us to FILL THE GAP THAT HE LEFT,
a defect TO SCRUTINIZE HIS CLAIMS using a reference easily accessible to all ?
Or is it advantageous for Christian Apologists
to keep their sources NEBULOUS,
to keep their CLAIMS NEBULOUS,
whereby their objection against Wikipedia
diverts their followers' attention from the issue being discussed:
The papyrus confidently cited by James White
being ACTUALLY no larger than a credit card?

They complain that our quotes from Wikipedia were "cut and paste-d".
Well here they are correct:
In the age of word processors, the most FAITHFUL way (we found) to quote a text is by "cutting and pasting".
Are they suggesting a better way?
Do they prefer the way described by Mr. White (in our 1st video):
To provide "our own PERSPECTIVE",
depending on "our own INTENTION"
depending on "our own AUDIENCE" ?
Yes we are guilty as charged:
We do not MISQUOTE, ALTER, MANIPULATE, INTERJECT, FORGE and DISFIGURE;
we faithfully "cut and paste",
and they consider it a defect ! ! !

And they mention
" Martin Hengel’s suggestion that the original works (the Gospels)
WOULD HAVE INCLUDED the authors names somewhere.
Hengel COULD BE WRONG of course" (emphasis is ours)
Here again they PROVE OUR POINT:
That their creed is based on suggestions and suppositions
"WOULD HAVE INCLUDED" (quote unquote)
"COULD BE WRONG", (quote unquote).
This confirms the Quran's description in S4, A157:
CONJECTURE: (yes they) "Would have included" or "would NOT" ! ! !

They try to defend the air of OMNISCIENCE of the Gospels:
- Who shadowed Jesus to report him being carried by Satan from mountain to mountain?
Their answer: "MAYBE Jesus himself told them"
NOTICE THE WORD "MAYBE".
This PROVES OUR POINT again,
that Christian Apologists build their creed on CONJECTURE:
MAYBE... or MAYBE NOT, MAYBE THAT WAS FALSIFIED or ALTERED!
- “Who shadowed Judas”... ?
Their answer: "Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus
COULD HAVE both had knowledge of the event."
NOTICE THE WORDS "COULD HAVE" ... (yes they could have,) and (they) COULD HAVE NOT !
This PROVES OUR POINT one more time,
that Christian Apologists build their creed on CONJECTURE.

The above discussion suffices to prove
that it is the CREED and NOT THE TRUTH nor CORRECT LOGIC
that guides their argument.
The creed "must be correct", therefore all the following should be acceptable:
"anonymous" authors, "would have included", "maybe", and so on.
That's not deducing the CREED FROM the evidence,
that's deducing the EVIDENCE FROM the creed !
It's THE CREED THAT FORCES what the evidence should be.
And this is a very important point to keep in mind during this current video.
(Wassalamu Alaikum)
1


More discussion about http://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/a-response-to-islam-answers/
In that page, they try to discredit our objections about "anonymous" writers:
They quote E.P. Sanders.
For what end?
Well they quote him to defend the anonymous aspect !
So this CONFIRMS OUR POINT that the writers WERE ANONYMOUS,
it does not disprove any of our QUOTATIONS.
They complain that we refer to 40 years old writings concerning The Modern Historical Method and add:
" we have learned some matters since then"
- This is a direct attack against the Modern Historical Method that we cited.
Why? Because they do not like the conclusions
that can be drawn from it concerning this topic.
- Has the "Modern Historical Method" CHANGED? No.
- Has it been outdated by a NEWER "Historical Method"? No.
- But according to this criteria of theirs,
whereby being older causes discredit,
therefore the NT and OT should be discredited:
the Quran came CENTURIES, even MILLENNIA AFTER them !!!
- “Who shadowed Jesus when he prayed remove this cup from me”?
Their answer: "the Greek word used is Mikron. That should show how short the distance was",
If this deduction from "Mikron" is correct, then it adds to the long list of irreconcilable contradictions in the Gospels:
Lk 22:41 mentions "And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw"
How can a "VERY SHORT DISTANCE" be a "STONE'S THROW" away ?
Please ask a person as weak as a child to "throw" a stone, and see what we mean.
2
haggle about WHY the Gospel writers were anonymous:
Indeed, in the article, they try to explain how during that age, it was customary to have anonymous writers.
1- This confirms our point, that the NT "writers" were anonymous.
2- This does not add credibility to the NT "writers".