Monday, June 30, 2008

Dialogue with a Prominent Muslim Apologist, Yusuf Estes

By Ryan Hemelaar

Recently there was a Muslim evangelistic lecture held in Brisbane's City Hall and unfortunately I was unable to attend. This lecture was also advertised as having a Q&A period where anyone could ask the lecturer about Islam. So I asked a Muslim friend if he could email my questions to the Muslim lecturer because recently I have come across some logical inconsistencies with Islam, so I was wondering whether they would be able to be resolved or not.

The lecturer was Sheikh Yusuf Estes, a popular Muslim apologist that claims to be an Ex-Christian preacher.

My initial email:


My three arguments about Islam are as follows:

Argument from Allah's Justice

  1. Allah is claimed to be just in the Qur'an (6:115).
  2. Allah is not just in reality.
  3. Therefore, Allah does not exist (using law of non-contradiction within logic).

To support the second premise, the Haddith states that if a person becomes a Muslim, Allah will not punish them for the sins they have committed before they were a Muslim (Saheeh Muslim #121 & Mosnad Ahmad #17357). Thus, Allah does not satisfy the demands of the law and is not just.

Argument from the Gospel

  1. The Qur'an states that the gospel of Jesus was given by Allah (3:3; 5:46).
  2. The gospel of Jesus is that Jesus died and rose from the dead and that we can be saved through faith in him.
  3. The Qur'an denies the truth of the gospel of Jesus.
  4. The Qur'an states that Allah words cannot change (6:34; 6:115; 10:64).
  5. Therefore, the Qur'an is not a revelation of God (using law of non-contradiction within logic).

To support the second premise: "Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

To support the third premise: Surah 4:157 states that Jesus was not crucified.

Argument from Jesus' Crucifiction

  1. The Qur'an states that Jesus not really die on the cross, but rather Allah made it appear as though he did (4:157).
  2. Fooling someone to believe something that is not true, is decieving.
  3. Therefore, Allah is a deciever, and thus a sinner like me and you.
  4. The Qur'an states that Allah is the most holy one (62:1).
  5. Therefore, Allah does not exist (using law of non-contradiction within logic).

I can support each premise further if you require it. I am looking forward to hearing back from you.

Ryan Hemelaar


Dr. Yusuf Estes' response:


I have read the so-called questions and "logical" conclusions being made by some critic of the Quran and promoter of the "Gospel". Let me share with you some important considerations, inshallah.

Real questions do not contain false statements and "pretend arguments". Not all everyone who uses big words is a "scholar". Some pretend to have knowledge about logic and religion, when in fact they have neither.

Here are some real facts about real religion (use your own real logic):

1. English did not exist at the time of any of the prophets. (The Normans invaded the Saxons in 1066 A.D. and then began the English language). Therefore, no document could have contained a single word of English. Logical conclusion: we cannot have this discussion quoting documents in English.

2. The language of Jesus (real name: Essa) was Aramaic. Mel Gibson went to Syria to have the last people on earth still speaking this language to help him have the right words for his movie, "The Passion of Christ". Therefore, any discussion of any text or speech from Jesus (Essa) must be in Aramaic (or at least a similar language from Semitic roots such as Hebrew or Arabic).

3. There is no extant document attributed to Jesus (Essa) nor any of his followers, nor any of their followers. Therefore, we have nothing to discuss about what Jesus may or may not have said, based on statements coming decades later after he left this earth.

4. True scholars of the Bible, like Bart Ehram (author of "Misquoting Jesus"), tell us "We do not have a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy of any authentic manuscript from the Bible. Therefore, according to manuscript scholars, the "Gospel" does not exit and has not existed for nearly two thousand years.

5. Today, there are many "versions" of the so-called "Bible" (the word "bible" is actually from Koine Greek "biblios" and it just means "book"). These many "books" have variant and different chapters, different verses, added verses, missing verses and mixed up wording and even different meanings of words. The Catholic Bible has 73 books, the Protestant Bible came out of the Catholic Bible and the "Protestants" (opposing the church) threw out 7 books, leaving only 66 and some of these they changed around. Therefore, the Protestant Bible cannot be the "real" Bible in any language.

Logical conclusion: Since we cannot produce the real "book", we cannot have a "logical" discussion about something that does not exist.

Now let us consider the Quran:

1. The word "Quran" in Arabic language means "recitation". Therefore, it must be "recited" in Arabic to be the actual Quran.

2. The "Quran" is recited today in the Arabic language. Therefore, it still exists.

3. People still memorize it, in Arabic, from mouth to ear, just as it was recited and passed down for centuries in the past. Therefore, it is a "Quran" (recital).

4. Over a billion people scattered all across the earth are reciting it exactly the same as each other, line for line, word for word, letter for letter without having to compare to each other for revision. Therefore, this must be a mighty document of some sort.

5. 90 Percent of all of the reciters of the Quran are not Arab speakers, yet they are reciting and memorizing this huge recital from beginning to end in Arabic without different versions or variant chapters or verses. Therefore, this is unlike any other recital on earth.

6. More than 10,000,000 people living on the earth today, from many different cultures, countries and languages have memorized the entire Quran, in Arabic. Therefore, The Quran must have some amazing appeal and attraction to these people.

7. Statements in the Quran over 1,400 years ago regarding many areas of science have proved to be totally accurate and discovered only recently, have caused even atheist scientists to come to believe the Quran must be from some Higher Power or Intelligent Designer. Therefore, the Quran could not be from someone living in the desert 1,400 years ago - who did not even know how to read or write.

8. Quran makes challenges to the disbelievers, if they are in doubt about it, then bring a book like it. Another challange says, bring 10 chapters like it. And another tells the disbelievers if it were from other than Allah they would find in it many contradictions. And they have never found one. Therefore, The Quran is what it claims to be (A Recitation from The Creator).

9. These people will make us things, misquote things, twist things and give their own interpretations to things which are already clear. They will lie and when they are caught, they will deny.

Therefore, they are not what they claim to be (scholars).

Conclusion: The Quran is not the problem here; their disbelief is the real problem.

The Quran states in the very beginning, in Chapter 2, regarding disbelievers, "Whether you warn them or warn them not, they will not believe."

So, keeping that in mind, I will simply tell you, the way the questions were presented are so out of touch with reason, so laughable, no one would bother to entertain such nonsense as a serious discussion.

Let the person who made this up enjoy themselves while they can. Be patient, smile and say, "Thank you for asking about my religion. Please take a free copy of the Quran, learn the Arabic language and then when you have understood what you are reading, come back and let us have a worthwhile and meaningful discussion. Until them, have a nice life."

Peace - salam alaykum - to all seeking guidance, ameen.

Yusuf Estes


My reply:


Hi Yusuf,

I've responded to a number your points below:

1. English did not exist at the time of any of the prophets. (The Normans invaded the Saxons in 1066 A.D. and then began the English language). Therefore, no document could have contained a single word of English. Logical conclusion: we cannot have this discussion quoting documents in English. I'm sorry, that conclusion does not logically follow. The Bible has been translated into English so people who speak English can read it. On the other hand, I agree it is a good thing to look at what the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts say to get a more precise meaning. However that does not mean we cannot quote scripture in the vernacular.

2. The language of Jesus (real name: Essa) was Aramaic. Mel Gibson went to Syria to have the last people on earth still speaking this language to help him have the right words for his movie, "The Passion of Christ". Therefore, any discussion of any text or speech from Jesus (Essa) must be in Aramaic (or at least a similar language from Semitic roots such as Hebrew or Arabic). However the New Testament documents (which record Jesus' life and sayings) were written in Greek, so we should look at what they say.

3. There is no extant document attributed to Jesus (Essa) nor any of his followers, nor any of their followers. Therefore, we have nothing to discuss about what Jesus may or may not have said, based on statements coming decades later after he left this earth. That is a blatant falsehood. All the epistles and gospels were written by followers of Jesus (and many of them also physically followed him as well). Additionally, the New Testament documents were written not too long after Jesus' ascension. In Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, in chapter 15, Paul points out who Jesus had shown himself to after being risen from the dead, and one of the groups consisted of over 500 people, then he says: "of whom most are still alive today." So if Paul was making it up, it would be so easy for them to check with one of those witnesses to see if he was telling the truth and if not, Christianity would be shown to be a fraud and die away. And undoubtedly they did check with those witnesses, but Christianity did not die because Jesus was truly risen and the witnesses couldn't deny it.

4. True scholars of the Bible, like Bart Ehram (author of "Misquoting Jesus"), tell us "We do not have a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy of any authentic manuscript from the Bible. Therefore, according to manuscript scholars, the "Gospel" does not exit and has not existed for nearly two thousand years. Firstly, Bart Ehrman has been dismissed by the consensus of Biblical scholarship as being completely wrong. He is very left field. Secondly, we have very extensive Biblical manuscript evidence that we can know to a very high degree of certainty what the original manuscripts said. The verses I quoted which expel what the gospel is are not questioned at all (even by Bart), so thus my original argument still stands.

5. Today, there are many "versions" of the so-called "Bible" (the word "bible" is actually from Koine Greek "biblios" and it just means "book"). These many "books" have variant and different chapters, different verses, added verses, missing verses and mixed up wording and even different meanings of words. The Catholic Bible has 73 books, the Protestant Bible came out of the Catholic Bible and the "Protestants" (opposing the church) threw out 7 books, leaving only 66 and some of these they changed around. Therefore, the Protestant Bible cannot be the "real" Bible in any language. The Catholic Bible includes 7 extra books because it also includes the apocrypha. These books were not accepted by the early New Testament Church as being scripture and only appeared in some Bibles at a later date. In fact by the end of the second century, the Church had already agreed that the books we have in standard Bible today are Scripture, because they meet the specific requirements.

Also, make sure you remember that the English Bibles we have today are not infallible, but rather they just translations from the original language. Just like the Qur'an has been translated into English, (and there are quite a few translations), so has the Bible (and there are many translations as well). So we should go to the original language if we want to get a more precise meaning, but because careful translating work has been performed on the Bible, we can read the English ones to get the meaning of the Scripture.

Logical conclusion: Since we cannot produce the real "book", we cannot have a "logical" discussion about something that does not exist. Your premises are not validated, so thus the conclusion does not logically follow.

1. The word "Quran" in Arabic language means "recitation". Therefore, it must be "recited" in Arabic to be the actual Quran.

2. The "Quran" is recited today in the Arabic language. Therefore, it still exists. I agree that the Qur'an exists, but the critical question is, is it true?

3. People still memorize it, in Arabic, from mouth to ear, just as it was recited and passed down for centuries in the past. Therefore, it is a "Quran" (recital).

4. Over a billion people scattered all across the earth are reciting it exactly the same as each other, line for line, word for word, letter for letter without having to compare to each other for revision. Therefore, this must be a mighty document of some sort. However, that is false. I can name at least seven authoritative readers (eg: Nafi, Ibn Kathir, etc) where there are a massive amount of variations. In the Islamic 4th century, due to the fact that Arabic lacked vowel signs and diacriticals (to distinguish between certain consonants) it was decided to return to readings from these authoritative readers, with two transmitters to ensure accuracy.

So then, what do we see across the world today, do Muslims recite the exact same text? Warsh's transmission of Nafi's reading is prominent in Algeria, Morocco, West Africa and Sudan. But Qalun's transmission of Nafi's reading is prominent in Libya, Tunisia, and parts of Qatar. Yet they are different. One Muslim Scholar said: "Certain variant readings existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as the Companions who had memorised the text died." (Cyril Glassé)

5. 90 Percent of all of the reciters of the Quran are not Arab speakers, yet they are reciting and memorizing this huge recital from beginning to end in Arabic without different versions or variant chapters or verses. Therefore, this is unlike any other recital on earth. If a person can recite the Qur'an (which must be in Arabic), then they would be an Arabic speaker. So your premise is literally self-refuting.

6. More than 10,000,000 people living on the earth today, from many different cultures, countries and languages have memorized the entire Quran, in Arabic. Therefore, The Quran must have some amazing appeal and attraction to these people. Sure, there may be some appeal to it, but that does not make it true. There are a lot of novels that appeal to a lot of people. If you think it makes it true, that commits the fallacy argumentum ad populum.

7. Statements in the Quran over 1,400 years ago regarding many areas of science have proved to be totally accurate and discovered only recently, have caused even atheist scientists to come to believe the Quran must be from some Higher Power or Intelligent Designer. Therefore, the Quran could not be from someone living in the desert 1,400 years ago - who did not even know how to read or write. Well I've actually read the proofs for Islam and I find them very unconvincing. I've read "A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understand Islam" by I.A. Ibrahim. The Qur'anic texts it tries to quote to prove its point, do not say what they want it to say.

8. Quran makes challenges to the disbelievers, if they are in doubt about it, then bring a book like it. Another challange says, bring 10 chapters like it. And another tells the disbelievers if it were from other than Allah they would find in it many contradictions. And they have never found one. Therefore, The Quran is what it claims to be (A Recitation from The Creator). However, I have found contradictions within it (Allah's justice, etc). And that is why I wanted you to respond to them, but you hardly talked about them at all!

9. These people will make us things, misquote things, twist things and give their own interpretations to things which are already clear. They will lie and when they are caught, they will deny. Therefore, they are not what they claim to be (scholars). Please show me where I may have misquoted verses from the Qur'an or whatever. I want to know.

Conclusion: The Quran is not the problem here; their disbelief is the real problem. However, you are yet to respond to my original objections against Islam...the Qur'an is still the problem because once again, your premises in this argument are false.

"So, keeping that in mind, I will simply tell you, the way the questions were presented are so out of touch with reason, so laughable, no one would bother to entertain such nonsense as a serious discussion." Ok then sir, show me which logical fallacies I committed. Because currently, all my arguments still stand.

Thank you for your time,

Ryan Hemelaar


This is the response I got from Fuwaad Mohammed of Discover Islam Australia that he sent to my Muslim friend:


you can see that it is quite obvious that this person has mind up his mind and does not want honest answers. He speaks about being logical with the Quran and Islam but doesnt want to apply it Christianity and the Bible.

When a person makes room in himself/herself for fair discussions and objective talk, there can be progress, when he seals his mind from accepting anything else such as this persons case, there will not be any progress. Instead we make dua to Allah to guide him.

We do not want to waste our time with this individual who is taking you for a ride. The sheikh doesn't want to respond to him any more as well. I suggest you read your mates emails and the sheikhs and you yourself will get a fair idea of where the shaikh stands.

May Allah reward you for your efforts - please keep in mind that just because we are able to prove a point doesnt mean that a person will accept Islam. Muhammad (PBUH) perfomed miracles in front of the Quraish yet they disbelieved. For them is their deen and for us ours.


You see that is the best Muslims have. Sheikh Yusuf Estes hardly even responded to any of my initial arguments. But rather he just went on the offence against the Bible, however he lacked any real factual evidence. If these logical inconsistencies within Islam cannot be resolved, even by leading Muslim apologists, I cannot understand how any rational person could continue to be a Muslim once they learn about these internal contradictions.

On the other hand, Christianity suffers from no logical inconsistencies. And if someone brings one up, we would be more than happy to examine it to see if it is true.

16 comments:

  1. Ryan,

    I agree Islam is faulty, as is all theistic belief, but the reasons you gave are really weak and I can see why Yusuf did not want to respond.

    1. Argument from Allahs Justice

    You are actually importing your own notion of what is justice in here (IE, you think that justice is about punishing the guilty - is that really the case?). Allah could have morally sufficient reasons for forgiving any person that converts to islam.

    The real reason that allah is not just is because he requires belief in him without providing any evidence of his existence. Accordingly, he is punishing those that use their critical faculties - even though he supposedly gave humans critical faculties. Same accusation can be thrown at yhwh re commandment no 1.

    Argument from crucifiction and Argument from inconsistency with the Gospel are pretty much the same (Although you could provide further examples where the Koran and Gospel are inconsistent).

    Re both, Islam correctly notes that it is not Jesus who identifies himself as being resurrected but rather the apostles. Although they may write down a certain thing, it is not the truth because it was not the word of God (as the Koran ([supposedly] is) but rather an account given by followers of a prophet. Thus the word is not perfect and is defeated by the actual word of God (supposedly) in the Koran. Islam states that such a deception was played on the apostles - thus Christ was not risen, it just appeared to be so.

    I note this leads onto your argument that this would require Allah to be a deceiver, but can you not see that Allah may have morally sufficient reasons to create such a deception?

    It was for these reasons that Yusuf thought your criticism was silly. A person that held the islamic faith would respond in that way, for the same reasons you do not accept criticism of your own God.

    The fact that you are both wrong is just funny. Of course, I would be somewhat careful when making these criticisms as you are actually attacking another faith from a subjective standpoint. Nonetheless, keep it going - I need all your help in destroying these terrible faiths, one at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "You are actually importing your own notion of what is justice in here"

    You need to realise Alex, that words have meanings. And if Allah wants to be claimed as being a just judge, he must actually be so. And he is not.

    "Although they may write down a certain thing, it is not the truth because it was not the word of God"

    But if the Qur'an says the Gospel was given by Allah, then it is the Word of Allah so it should not contradict the other things that Allah says.

    "but can you not see that Allah may have morally sufficient reasons to create such a deception?"

    Such as? You must give an example of something that is plausible for that even to be an option. But I don't think you will even be able to list a 'possible' morally sufficient reason Allah might have to not make him a deciever. There are simply no valid reasons to excuse deception. And because of that deception, damn the billions people who are Christians to Hell because they beleive Jesus did die on the cross.

    So thus all my arguments still stand, that Islam is a false religion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ryan,

    I dont disagree with you that islam is a false religion. But I do note that all religion is, technically, false.

    Nonetheless, could you give me your meaning of 'just' and let us compare it to every other meaning of 'just' - sure they will have the same character, but will they be exactly the same?

    For one man, 'just' is punishing all that are guilty, to another 'just' is letting all men realise their own crime and to another 'just' is destroying a man because of what he is and not what he has done. Which version do you use against allah?

    Surely, if Jesus can forgive a man who repents then surely Allah can forgive a man that becomes a muslim - or are those things completely different? To you, they may be. But you are biased.

    A 'morally sufficient reason' could be that allowing christs deception was necesary to bring about the end times, in which the Koran says that Islam will succeed. Without people believing in Christianity would we have had the Crusades or the War in Iraq?

    It is not hard to come up with a reason which could satisfy a God as bloodthirsty and cruel as Allah or yhwh.

    On the point of contradiction, the Koran is a recitation - the hadith loses to the Koran. Does the Koran or the Hadith say that the Gospel is the word of God. If it is the hadith then it did not come from Mohammed and is not the word of God according to muslim scholars. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the Koran and (particularly) the Hadith are full of inconsistent and whacky stuff. But, saying that, none of it supports faith in your religion either.

    Ironically, you havent even made an argument - well not a logical one at least - just some subjective judgements about another faith. Another reason why atheism is the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Justice is: criminals who break the laws receive the punishment that has been set for breaking that law. And Allah has set that as being Hell. So if Allah wants to be classed as a just judge, then he simply cannot be merciful and let people into Heaven without their sins being punished.

    "Surely, if Jesus can forgive a man who repents then surely Allah can forgive a man that becomes a muslim - or are those things completely different?

    It is completely different because in Christianity, God shows mercy but remains just at the same time. How? God did not overlook our sins, but rather the fine (of death) that we need to pay because of our sins can be taken by the sinless Jesus Christ on the cross. But we must trust that he died on the cross for our sins. That is what makes Christianity unique from every other religion in the world.

    "A 'morally sufficient reason' could be that allowing christs deception was necesary to bring about the end times, in which the Koran says that Islam will succeed."

    That is not a morally sufficient reason. The end times would come anyway. Not only that, Allah wants all to come to Islam and not reject 'the truth'. But what Allah apparently did 2000 years was exactly the opposite.

    "Does the Koran or the Hadith say that the Gospel is the word of God."

    It's the Qur'an that says it. Additionally, certain Haddiths are also claimed to be inspired.

    "Ironically, you havent even made an argument - well not a logical one at least"

    And you, just like Yusuf Estes, are yet to show which logical fallacies I have apparently committed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Two things. First, it is amazing that Muslims around the world think that Catolicism has something to do with Christianity. I wonder where they got that and why it is still taught to them.

    Second, the Muslim said "Therefore, the Quran could not be from someone living in the desert 1,400 years ago - who did not even know how to read or write."

    Historically isnt it true that the Quran was compiled by tons of little scrap papers written by Mohammed over a period of years in the wilderness. He did know how to read and write. He read the Bible and that is where he got some of his information. Allah did not give those things to Mohammed, he thought about the Bible and had ideas of his own (of what a god should be like and what the people should believe about that god) and he scribbled them down. After he died someone gathered them together and eventually put them together as a book of the writings of Mohammed. It wasn’t until later that a follower of his claimed it to be the words of God.
    ?

    PS> Thank you for blogging. I think a lot of great things you guys discuss during your evangelism on the streets will be posted here for believers to use when they are themselves witnessing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It is completely different because in Christianity, God shows mercy but remains just at the same time. How? God did not overlook our sins, but rather the fine (of death) that we need to pay because of our sins can be taken by the sinless Jesus Christ on the cross. But we must trust that he died on the cross for our sins. That is what makes Christianity unique from every other religion in the world.

    So if your brother commits murder will a just judge send you to jail. No, you are not responsible for your brothers actions. Rather, a just judge may only punish your brother for his crimes. Hence the Christian god is not just as he seeks to punish Jesus for our "crimes". By your own definition:-

    criminals who break the laws receive the punishment that has been set for breaking that law.

    Yhwh is not a just judge.

    As to your other objections, I think I can empathise with Yusuf Estes in relation to your ignorance of logical argument.

    PS. I dont claim to be an islamic scholar and I dont really want to argue in favour of another silly faith. I do, however, note that nothing you have said actually support christianity - rather, if one faith is wrong then why can't all faiths be wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "So if your brother commits murder will a just judge send you to jail. No, you are not responsible for your brothers actions. Rather, a just judge may only punish your brother for his crimes. Hence the Christian god is not just as he seeks to punish Jesus for our "crimes"."

    You must remember that if someone has a fine that they must pay, the law is not concerned about how they get the money to pay it (whether their parents help them out paying for it or whatever). But rather, the law is only concerned that the fine is paid. So in the same way, the Bible says we have a fine of death to be paid, and so either we pay for it in Hell eternally or Jesus can pay it for us on the cross if we trust in Him.

    "I think I can empathise with Yusuf Estes in relation to your ignorance of logical argument."

    Once again, I repeat, what logical fallacies have I committed? You cannot just say my arguments are flawed without showing why they are.

    ReplyDelete
  8. You must remember that if someone has a fine that they must pay, the law is not concerned about how they get the money to pay it (whether their parents help them out paying for it or whatever). But rather, the law is only concerned that the fine is paid. So in the same way, the Bible says we have a fine of death to be paid, and so either we pay for it in Hell eternally or Jesus can pay it for us on the cross if we trust in Him.

    Lol - actually, what you are saying here doesnt make sense. If I am a judge I do not accept the money from you for your brothers crime. Rather, you must give your money to your brother and then your brother must give the money to me.

    Therefore, Jesus cannot pay the judge directly. He must pay me, and then I must pay to God. So, has Jesus paid me, no - I do not remember any act whereby I received this thing from him. Furthermore, I cannot pay a fine before it arises - how can Jesus's death before mine be payment for the fine where the fine only takes place on my (later) death.

    Its a crap analogy - even though you are now going to whinge its apt. Ywhw is not just (or in existence, mind you) and nor is this Christian concept of third party paying. Of course, if you want to keep your blind obedient faith (to your church and not God mind you) then do so.

    Again, Its not my fault that you can't seem to grasp simple logic. Its all been set out for you (for my part, I dont want to get into arguments about korans and hadiths etc - Im not an islamic scholar and couldnt be bothered doing the research unless I was knocking down a muslim, which you are not). I blame the school system.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Furthermore, if Jesus has already paid me then why do I have to do anything to get into heaven.

    Lol - you really dont know anything about justice, come down to the Courts some time and I will show you round.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Rather, you must give your money to your brother and then your brother must give the money to me."

    That is just a minor rule that is specific to a number of justice systems around the world. It does not violate the concept of justice at all. Just like a lawyer can speak on behalf of the defendant, so I don't see why a fine cannot be paid on behalf of a criminal. Keeping in mind that Jesus doesn't pay the fine without the knowledge of the criminal.

    "Therefore, Jesus cannot pay the judge directly. He must pay me, and then I must pay to God. So, has Jesus paid me, no - I do not remember any act whereby I received this thing from him."

    Jesus has not paid anything to you because Jesus did not die on the cross for everyone. If Jesus did, then everyone should go to Heaven. But rather, Jesus only died on the cross to pay the fine for those who would trust in Him.

    "Furthermore, I cannot pay a fine before it arises - how can Jesus's death before mine be payment for the fine where the fine only takes place on my (later) death."

    However, seeing that God is all-knowing and outside of time, God knew the about the sins we would commit in our lives and so thus Jesus could pay the fine on the cross 2000 years ago.

    "Furthermore, if Jesus has already paid me then why do I have to do anything to get into heaven."

    He hasn't paid it for you. Only if you trust that because Christ died on the cross for you that you can go to Heaven, will Jesus had paid your fine on the cross 2000 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I dont think you have properly identified why this "fine-paying" situation is not just. So let me set it out for you:-

    Does a just judge put you in jail for your brothers crime? The answer is no. Yet, you argue that a just judge will accept a fine from you (on behalf of your brother - another thing you havent properly crossed) for your brothers crime.

    So, why are there different responses for these two penalties. The answer is simple, money is fungible (legal term - after all, we lawyers do study and have quite a bit of knowledge on these kinds of issues).

    Fungible means:-

    "a commodity that is freely interchangeable with another in satisfying an obligation "

    Although money is fungible, a prison sentence is not. Accordingly, the analogy of paying a fine may work (for you at least and without recognition of how the fine is technically paid), whereas a penalty of labour (prison time) is not an apt analogy because my time and my brothers time are not interchangeable.

    I ask you, is Hell similar or different to time in prison? You see, you use the fine analogy because it works, but you ignore the fact that the penalty is not in the form of a fine, but rather the infungible penalty of Hell.

    Forseeing what is already in your mind I note that even if you argue that sin is fungible - your argument will fail because the analogy you present is with respect to sin (the crime) and not to the penalty (hell). Whereas your analogy states payment is made for your sin (crime) - and not the penalty (the fine).

    A just judge does not consider a crime to be fungible. Rather, he may only convict the person that committed the crime - not that persons brother. That is the meaning of just. Were I to put you in jail for another crime then I would be an unjust man.

    Furthermore, foregoing all of the above - all of the problems with your belief, there is one more major problem. In order for a payment to be made, the payment must be equal to the fine. Jesus, on your understanding, only spent three (3) days in Hell. Is that the same as an eternity? No. What would a just judge say if my brother was given a fine for $250.00 and I only paid $2.50? The just judge would say the fine has not been paid in full. That is, unless you are prepared to accept that Jesus is still in Hell. Of course, these statements are akin to arguing about the length of the emperors new clothes.

    I know that you really have faith that your beliefs work - but under legal scrutiny it fails. I am sorry for that. The only advice that I can offer is that there is no pain in humility, only in continuing pride.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Although money is fungible, a prison sentence is not."

    I understand that, but the fine for our sin is not a prison sentence, it is death.

    So if Christ did not pay the fine for us on the cross, then God must send us to Hell because Hell is referred to as the second death (Rev. 21:8). In Hell, you'll be continually dying but never actually completely die (so thus you will be there for eternity because your fine will not be fully paid yet).

    "In order for a payment to be made, the payment must be equal to the fine. Jesus, on your understanding, only spent three (3) days in Hell."

    Jesus did not suffer in Hell for 3 days after he died on the cross because paying the fine did not involve that. As you remember, the wages for our sin is death so his sinless death on the cross was when they payment was complete. That's why Jesus said, "It is finished!"

    Your entire last post relied on a misunderstanding of what the fine is, so I hope that cleared it up for you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Your entire last post relied on a misunderstanding of what the fine is, so I hope that cleared it up for you.

    You are kidding right?

    I have set all this out for you and you still blindly deny it. Thats not what logical argument is about.

    I was expecting a blog war - not a blog slaughter - and yet all I do is destroy your arguments, and all you do is deny that logic exists outside of what you determine to be right and wrong.

    It is fun though.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I have set all this out for you and you still blindly deny it."

    But all your objections so far to Christianity about justice has been based upon your misunderstanding of what Christianity actually teaches.

    "and all you do is deny that logic exists outside of what you determine to be right and wrong."

    If you would noticed, I have never actually said that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But all your objections so far to Christianity about justice has been based upon your misunderstanding of what Christianity actually teaches.

    Huh? I was using your example - do you know what Christianity teaches?

    BTW - I did a little hack job on you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In Hell, you'll be continually dying but never actually completely die (so thus you will be there for eternity because your fine will not be fully paid yet).

    Kind of like this discussion - again you havent shown how death is fungible (in fact, I would argue that death is rather unique to the individual and accordingly, not fungible = Your analogy fails).

    ReplyDelete

Note: All comments that contain inappropriate or off-topic material will not be approved. Also, generally posts that contain links/URLs will not be approved.