I have had many conversations with Muslims about Jesus and they have a lot to say regarding the Messiah. Of course, their opinions about who Jesus is, what he said and did, are contradictory to what followers of Christ believe. When I consider the Muslim arguments against Jesus, it seems logical to envision the whole scenario within a reasonable court room type setting.
Muslims take a very logical and dispassionate position about who Jesus is and what he said. So I feel that we also should view this topic like a courtroom; the most logical place to dissect matters in our society today.
When examined in this light, Jesus’ life must be viewed by the witnesses who walked with him, talked with him, heard his teachings, saw his miracles and lived in his time. Anything else would be considered hearsay.
Muslims claim that Jesus did not die on the cross and since he did not die, he was not resurrected. They believe this because their prophet, Muhammed, claimed this in the Quran (Islamic holy book). However, Muhammed came 700 years after the death of Jesus. It would be impossible to consider him as a witness to anything concerning Jesus.
Looking at this through a ‘courtroom lens’, suppose a murder was committed in our time today. If someone arrived even a minute after the fact, he/she would not be considered a witness. And so, their testimony would be completely disregarded, let alone if he showed up 700 years after the fact!
As a Christian, it would be foolish of me to consider the words of Muhammed in the same breath as the people who actually walked and talked with Jesus. It would be tantamount to believing hearsay over actual eyewitness testimony.
If Muhammed at least existed during the time of Jesus, it would help strengthen Islam’s position. One could at least consider their claims and begin to examine them. Why do Christians then believe what Moses said thousands of years after Adam, Abraham, Noah and many other people in the Pentateuch (the first five books of Moses)? Because no one before Moses had written anything contrary to what Moses wrote.
None of the individuals Moses wrote about had written a book themselves. Nor were there any eye witnesses who were there during these times that walked and talked with them, who wrote an account that was contrary to Moses. If other books of contemporary witnesses existed, this would be a different matter. One would be forced to re-evaluate their position on these individuals and examine the witness testimonies. However, this is not the case.
Many Muslims disregard the teachings of Paul and insist that we should too because they state that even though Paul lived during the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry, he never physically met Jesus in flesh and blood. Yet, they expect us to believe Muhammed, who came 700 years after Jesus. A man who was not a contemporary of Jesus, let alone an eye witness to anything that took place during Jesus’ life, death on the cross or resurrection.
Muslims also ask me why I, as a Christian, believe in Paul’s writings if he did not meet Jesus? The reason is that Paul does not contradict Jesus’ teachings. If he did, I would be forced to accept the fact that I should be believing Jesus and not Paul. However, this also is not the case. Although some people may believe that Paul contradicts Jesus, this is not true. I have yet to find a single instance where careful examination did not disqualify any initial supposed contradiction.
Paul expands upon Jesus’ ministry while Muhammed contradicts it. Muhammed is essentially calling the witnesses during the time of Jesus, liars. Muslims expect us to believe Muhammed who was not there or even alive at the time, over actual eye witnesses.
In any court of law, Muhammed’s testimony would be declared hearsay. It would not be considered valid to accuse Jesus of being a liar or to dispute the eyewitness testimony of his Apostles; calling them liars also. In fact, in today’s society, Muhammed’s claims would be considered defamatory and slanderous based on its lack of merit and evidence.
In an attempt to invalidate the testimony of the Apostles, Muslims point to minor inconsistencies within the Gospels in an effort to invalidate the Bible as a whole, more specifically, the life and teachings of Jesus. Looking at the situation once again in a logical courtroom fashion, I would be more concerned if in fact, the Apostles’ statements were completely uniform and identical to each other.
This would lead me to believe that maybe they just got together to fabricate the whole story. The minor inconsistencies here and there is what makes their testimonies authentic. It is one of the reasons why I believe the Apostles’ testimonies. If they were all completely identical, I would find it suspicious.
Whenever an event occurs, no two people will have the exact same witness account since each person has their own perspective and vantage point. One witness may have been closer to the situation and privy to more specific details. while another may have been further away, possibly even out of earshot. Not every witness will have a complete account of what took place. Oftentimes, all of the witness statements must be weighed together to form a complete and accurate depiction of what took place. This is how I view the Gospels.
Imagine if you were in the back of a crowd forming around Jesus. You may not hear everything being said. Or if you were in the front of the crowd but the people next to you would not stop talking and trying to include you in their conversation, you may miss something Jesus said.
When disregarding a witness as a possible suspect of a crime such as murder for example, Police look for uniformity in witness statements. If witness statements are too uniform, Police suspect foul play. Additionally, if there are inconsistencies within four witness statements, the Police would not then discount all four witnesses and declare that the murder did not take place. This notion is ridiculous! This is essentially what Muslims are asking us to do.
I have also been asked why then do I believe in forward reaching prophecy (prophesying future events) if the prophet was not an eyewitness? It is because nobody can contradict or discredit a future event. No one can be an eye witness to a future event. That is not to say that I would believe in a prophecy from just anyone. For example, I would not believe any prophecy from Muhammed. He has already lost his credibility by contradicting Jesus and past events of which he was not a witness to. Yet, he is able to make wild allegations. Just like in a court of law, once a witness is discredited, nothing they say can be trusted and they must be disregarded altogether.
Nothing Muhammed said concerning Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God, can be relied upon. I would ask any Muslim to view Muhammed’s claims against Jesus in this light, meaning to apply the principles of a court/witness setting. They will find that Muhammed’s views on Jesus are merely hearsay.
READ NEXT:
