A few days ago, I published an article called 'Burying Zakir Hussain's Arguments against the Crucifixion', in which I give some refutations of his arguments in his debate with James White. In the last two days or so, it has become the most viewed article on my blog. Several people contacted me saying that Zakir had responded to me on Twitter. It seems as though Zakir had read my article, which I was glad to hear. I was very curious with what Zakir had to say. Here is some of his thoughts: (I apologize for the blurry quality of the picture)
First thing I thought was "okay, anything else?". This is far from a refutation, rather this is just saying "Nothing new here, therefore my argument prevails!". Zakir seemed to imply that my response was nothing different from the ones made my other Christians before. The only two Christians I know of that gave some responses to Zakir are Allan Ruhl and Sam Shamoun. And none of them pointed out how Zakir quoted Raymond Brown's book The Death of the Messiah completely out of context. Here is what Zakir had to say when someone asked him about how I pointed out his problem with quoting Raymond Brown's material:
I have to say that I am very disappointed. This is the best he has got? Really? I never said that all of Raymond Brown's views were binding on him (he would have to accept the crucifixion of Jesus if that were the case!). I simply pointed out these points:
- Zakir cited Raymond Brown as support for his argument that due to Hebrews 5:7 and Psalm 116's connection as an early Christian hymn, that because Psalm 116 is speaking about someone being saved from death by God, this must refute the crucifixion of Christ.
-James White repeatedly pointed out that "saved by death" refers to resurrection. Zakir responded by insisting that "the plain reading of the text" supports his interpretation.
-Raymond Brown, two pages after the one Zakir quoted (pg. 228) says that "saved by death" refers to resurrection. Thus, Zakir was being either dishonest or was ignorant of the fact that Raymond Brown himself refutes him two pages later than the exact page he cited in his opening statement.
I have great respect for Zakir, since he seems like he does his research and reads lots of books in order to understand what Christianity really teaches, rather than just accepting what Ahmed Deedat or Zakir Naik says about Christianity and its beliefs. But why quote sources out of context like this? You need to understand what a source is saying before you quote as support for your argument. In the future, I hope to see a better response to my research regarding the arguments against the crucifixion made by Zakir Hussain in his debates with Christians, whether moderated or at Speaker's Corner.
No comments:
Post a Comment