David had the privilege of chauffeuring Shabir around town before the debate. Shabir asked David if they could watch Mel Gibson’s new movie, The Passion of the Christ, so the two of them watched it together before David brought him to the venue for that evening’s debate at Regent University.
Since Shabir had to freshen up, David arrived extra early and reserved the best seats in the house. Gary was back in town for the debate, and I bumped into him in the foyer before the event started. Soon, with David on my left, Gary on my right, and seven hundred spectators surrounding us, the debate was under way.
Mike was an engaging speaker, and he started by sharing that he went through a period of time where he tested his beliefs, not simply accepting what his parents believed but rather seeking to find the truth about life and God. The information he was about to present was what persuaded him that Christianity was true. This teaser had me at the edge of my seat because I was right there with him, at that very phase in my life.
He continued his opening statement by emphasizing the importance of the resurrection. “The reason Jesus’ resurrection is so important is because the truth of Christianity hinges on this event. Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection have been bedrock doctrines of Christianity since its inception. Therefore, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, the foundation collapses and Christianity is false. On the other hand, if Jesus did rise from the dead, then there is good reason to believe Christianity is true. That’s why this evening’s debate is much, much more than an academic discussion. The eternal destiny of our souls may very well hinge on what we do with Jesus and his resurrection.”
I thought to myself, “You’re right, Mike. Christianity hinges on the resurrection, and there are souls in the balance. Your case better be compelling!”
Two things were undeniable about Mike’s argument: it was historically grounded, and it was concise. He laid out his argument clearly. “Tonight, I want to present three facts for you that are strongly evidenced and granted by a large majority of scholars. Combined, the best explanation for these three facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.
“Fact number one: Jesus’ death by crucifixion. That Jesus was crucified and died through the process is granted by virtually 100 percent of scholars who study the subject.”
As he would do after stating each fact, Mike provided evidence. For the fact that Jesus died by crucifixion, he delved into the arguments that he and Gary had shared with me some eighteen months prior, including the excruciating process of flogging and the multiple attestations of Jesus’ death by crucifixion. He added that the expert opinion of modern medical professionals was that Jesus must have died, given the historical process of crucifixion.
Having argued sufficiently for the first fact, Mike proceeded to the next. “Fact number two: The empty tomb. An impressive 75 percent of scholars who study the subject acknowledge the empty tomb.”
Mike explained that there were multiple reasons to believe that Jesus’ tomb was empty a few days after his crucifixion. First, the Christian movement was founded on the principle that Jesus had been raised and was no longer dead. Christianity began in Jerusalem, and if Jesus’ body had still been in the tomb, the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem could have easily ended Christianity by parading Jesus’ body throughout the city. That they didn’t do it lends weight to the position that the tomb was empty.
Another reason to conclude the tomb was empty was the Jewish concept of resurrection. Most Jews believed in a bodily resurrection, that the very body that died and was buried would be raised on the day of resurrection and transformed into an immortal body. It would seem that if the disciples were proclaiming Jesus’ resurrection, they envisioned his very body having been raised, and that implies the empty tomb.
The final reason has to do with the position of the Jewish leadership. When asked about Jesus, they said that the disciples had stolen his body, implicitly agreeing that the tomb was empty.
To sum up this point, Mike quoted William Wand, a former professor from Oxford University: “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of [the empty tomb], and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”51
That brought Mike to his final piece of evidence: “Fact number three: Testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. On a number of occasions, we see that the disciples of Jesus believed that he had been resurrected and appeared to them. Not only the disciples testified to this but foes of Jesus as well.”
Mike referenced multiple early sources to defend this point. He argued that the early church was built on the teaching that Jesus was risen and the fact that the disciples were willing to die for their belief that Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, not only were the disciples willing to die for this belief, but so were a couple people who had been opposed to Jesus’ message during his life, namely, Paul and James.
This point seemed problematic to me. So what if people were willing to die for their belief that Jesus appeared? That does not mean he did. But Mike anticipated this and clarified that, at the very least, it meant they truly believed he had appeared to them, and they weren’t lying about their beliefs. His point was pithy: “liars make poor martyrs.”
Finally, after presenting the three facts, Mike made his argument: “Let’s go ahead and build a case now based on those three facts. We’ve seen that these facts are strongly evidenced historically and that they’re granted by an impressive majority of scholars, if not virtually every scholar who studies the subject, including skeptical ones. We can see Jesus’ resurrection easily explains all of these facts without any strain. In the absence of any plausible alternate theories to account for these facts, Jesus’ resurrection can be accepted with confidence as an event that occurred.”
In other words, Mike was arguing that Jesus’ resurrection was the best explanation of the known facts, and other theories required investigators to strain, twist, or ignore the facts.
I leaned back in my seat and considered the argument. There seemed to be something wrong about this. Could it be so simple?
I considered alternative explanations. “What if the people who thought they saw the risen Jesus had just hallucinated?” Well, the tomb wouldn’t be empty, would it? Plus, how likely is it that so many people would hallucinate about the exact same thing on multiple occasions? Mike quoted 1 Corinthians 15 during the debate, which said five hundred people saw Jesus risen at the same time. Was there such a thing as mass hallucinations? Plus, that still doesn’t explain why enemies of Jesus like Paul would have seen the risen Jesus. He would have no reason to hallucinate Jesus’ return.
“What if it wasn’t Jesus they saw, but someone else?” I considered this for a moment, but it also did not work. As before, the tomb would not be empty. Plus, was it really possible that the disciples would confuse someone else with Jesus? They had been with Jesus for a thousand days or more. It was not a good explanation.
“What if Jesus did not die on the cross?” That was the Ahmadi position, and Mike and Gary had refuted all those arguments. But when Shabir began his opening statement, it was clear he was going to argue that position. A surge of excitement overcame me; would this celebrated champion vindicate our position after all?
Shabir began speaking, and it was immediately obvious he was quite comfortable on stage and well acquainted with the information. “The fact that I am a Muslim may be a bias that precludes me from appreciating the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. I want to first acknowledge that, then put it aside and look clearly at the facts. I do not find the evidence for the resurrection persuasive. If someone said to me that a man had died and was then seen alive three days later, I would have to ask, ‘Are you sure he was really dead?’
“Scholars who have combed the gospels have asked, ‘What caused Jesus’ death?’ Doctors who have read the accounts cannot agree as to what caused his death. If we take just the narratives the way they are in the text, one would not be sure Jesus actually die
d on the cross.”
Shabir had much more to say, but this was the heart of his defense. As the debate proceeded, though, it became clear that Shabir had to deny and ignore far more than an objective investigator would. He denied that the usual crucifixion process was meted to Jesus, though he gave no reason why; he denied the validity of John’s crucifixion account, even though he admitted that John’s account was more true to the historical process of crucifixion; he accepted that non-Muslim scholars universally conclude Jesus died by crucifixion, but he paradoxically denied that the crucifixion played any significant role in their assessment; he ignored clear statements from all the gospels that Jesus died; on and on, he denied and ignored very important bits of data to make his case.
As enraptured as we all were by Shabir’s oratory and rhetorical prowess, focusing on his arguments led to two conclusions: his skepticism of the data was unwarranted, and he applied nowhere near the same level of skepticism to his own position. This inconsistency had to be the result of his bias, one that I could see even as a Muslim who wanted to agree with him.
After the debate, Mike and Shabir went to different rooms to meet with audience members and answer their questions. I slowly rose from my seat, disappointed and processing what it all meant. I paced around the hall and contemplated the debate for about an hour, until Mike, David, Gary, and I finally headed toward the parking lot together. It was dark and cold, and we could see our breath crystallize in the pale streetlights as we spoke.
Mike turned to me and said, “Nabeel, I’m really interested to hear what you think. If you could assign one hundred points divided between me and Shabir, how would you assign them?”
“That depends on what I’m assigning the points for,” I began. “If we are talking stage presence and oratorical persuasiveness, I’d have to give Shabir eighty points and you twenty.”
Mike shrugged his shoulders. “Well, thanks for being honest. I did stumble over some of my words, and my slides weren’t working right, so I can see that. But I guess I’m more interested in the argumentation. What did you think of the overall case?”
I thought for a moment. “I think you won in that department, Mike. I’d give you sixty-five and Shabir thirty-five.”
Gary gave a shout for joy. “Hey, that’s great, Mike! That’s a two-to-one ratio in favor of the resurrection, from the perspective of a thoughtful Muslim. So, Nabeel, you think the argument is pretty good, huh?”
Now I shrugged. “There’s still room for doubt, but objectively speaking, it seems to be the best explanation.”
David couldn’t resist taking the opportunity to jab me. “So, Nabeel, are you a Christian yet?”
“In your dreams!” I laughed, punching David in the shoulder. “We still haven’t looked at whether Jesus claimed to be God, which is a bigger issue to me. Plus, when it comes time to investigate Islam, you’ll see how strong arguments can be. It’s untouchable. As far as arguments go, the only thing Christianity has over Islam is the resurrection.”
Gary looked at Mike as if he couldn’t believe what he had just heard. “The only thing we’ve got is the resurrection? Buddy, that’s all we need!”
All four of us discussed the debate in the parking lot for a few more minutes until the freezing cold overcame our desire for further fellowship. I hugged Gary, not knowing when I’d see him again. Mike invited me to the monthly discussion meetings at his house, monthly discussion meetings at his house, and I told him I’d try to come. David walked back with me to my car, and we ended up sitting in it and discussing Christianity and Islam for another two hours.
When I finally left Regent University for home, I had clarified some points in my mind. It was clear that they had gotten me with their strongest arguments first, and they certainly were strong. The historical evidence categorically pointed to Jesus’ death on the cross, and the best explanation for the events surrounding his death was that Jesus was raised from the dead.
But now it was my turn. I was going to put together the best argument to prove that Jesus never claimed to be God. In my heart, I knew that this next issue would be the decisive battle, and I was ready to go to war.
To read an expert contribution on defining moments by Dr. Michael Licona, Associate Professor of Theology at Houston Baptist University and author of the The Resurrection of Jesus, visit contributions.NabeelQureshi.com.
Part 5
JESUS: MORTAL MESSIAH OR DIVINE SON OF GOD?
Did You enter into this world? Did You become a man? And was that man Jesus?
Chapter Twenty-Eight
GENETICS AND JESUS
MGB 101 WAS AN AMPHITHEATER-STYLE auditorium, the third largest room on a campus of twenty thousand students. Immensity notwithstanding, David and I sat as far away as possible from the professor and the other students for one very good reason: we found the professor’s manner of speech hilarious and often could not keep from outbursts of laughter.
Dr. Osgood was an excellent teacher, so adept at imparting knowledge that neither David nor I needed to study outside of class to ace the material. But he used quirky terminology, and over time, we had been sensitized to his choice of words. A staple of his parlance was the word cartoon, which he used to refer to anything from a graph to a video. That was comedic gold every time, but the coffers were about to overflow.
He motioned to the projected image at the front of the room. “Class, your next topic to master is DNA replication. On their paths to inevitable death, cells divide hundreds or thousands of times, undergoing a precise process of copying their genetic information through each generation of daughter cells. ‘DNA replication’ is that process. If the process were not virtually flawless, species survival would be impossible. In order to understand the mechanics of DNA replication, we must revisit the DNA molecule. Here we have a cartoon of DNA.”
I stifled a snigger by clearing my throat.
“I have already noted that DNA is a double helix comprised of two sugar-phosphate strands connected to each other by nucleotide bases. Notice now that the carbon to phosphate bonds in each strand of DNA run from 5’ to 3’. This is the basis for the directionality of each strand.”
Leaning over to me, David commented under his breath, “‘Directionality’? Is ‘direction’ not noun enough for him that he has to add a suffix?” We burst into giggles.
But Dr. Osgood wasn’t done yet.
“Due to the conformation of the nucleotide bases, each strand runs in opposite directions. Taking the two strands together, DNA has antidirectionality.”
David and I turned toward each other, eyes wide in stunned disbelief. This was too much fodder for us. It took our brains a moment to confirm that, yes, he really just said ‘antidirectionality.’ As if Dr. Osgood had lobbed a canister of concentrated laughing gas at us, David and I were overtaken by paroxysms of silent laughter. We shook for minutes, unable to stop. Finally, when other students began shooting deadly looks at us, we were forced to find a way to stop laughing. I bit my cheek as hard as I could.
Regaining control of my body before my judgment, I wrote out the word antidirectionality on a sheet of loose-leaf paper and passed it to David. After another fit of laughter, David scribbled something on the paper and handed it back to me. It now read, pseudoantidirectionality. The fits resumed. When I was able, I took my turn and passed the paper back. A few minutes and a couple hundred calories later, we had the word quasipsuedoantidirectionalityeousnessificationism scrawled across the page. We had laughed so hard in our seats that the bolts were coming loose.
The class had just begun, but we decided it would be best to leave. Neither of us could pay attention, and we were not gaining any popularity points by sticking around. We quickly slipped out of the class, yet another benefit of sitting in the back.
We joked and laughed as we made our way to the forensics room, arriving a full hour before practice. Pausing to catch my breath, I slipped my backpack off my shoulder and sat down at the front of the classroom. David took his normal seat at
the back. We were coming off our high, each deciding how best to use this newfound time.
I was considering studying the information in the genetics lecture we had just left when a thought struck me. “You know, David, genetics is a major problem for the Christian faith.”
David looked characteristically amused. “Oh yeah?”
“Yeah. Think about it. Why do we have children? In fact, why does any species reproduce?”
David said nothing, but waited. By now he had learned that, to really interact with my thoughts, it was best to let me talk it out first.
“Reproduction is for survival. It’s just like Osgood said: cells are going to die, so they replicate themselves as much as they can first. The problem is obvious: why does God need a son if He is immortal?”
After pausing for dramatic effect, which seemed lost on David, I continued. “Jews understood this, so they never said God begot a son. And Jesus was a Jew. It must have been after Jesus that Roman culture mixed with the early church. Romans have plenty of stories of gods impregnating women, producing god-men.”
David asked a clarifying question. “Is that what you think Christians teach?”
“Isn’t it? You say that the Holy Spirit visited Mary, making her pregnant. It would only be logical for the Christian Jesus to be a demigod, since he was born of a human and a god. But let’s face it, the Bible describes a fully human Jesus. That explains his hunger, his thirst, his bleeding, his ignorance, and his death.”
Although I was assembling my arguments on the fly, these thoughts were hardly new, nor even my own. Two decades of Islamic teaching, daily bolstered by the repetition of the Quran’s words, “God begets not, nor is He begotten,”52 were combining with a critical intellect and an ardent desire to advance the faith of my fathers. My battle against the lordship of Jesus was an organic outgrowth of everything that defined me. It was here I would make my stand, and I was not backing down without a fight.
Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianity Page 15