Who Was Jesus? Did He Rise from the Dead? A Muslim-Christian Debate

De: Dr. John Warwick Montgomery

Narrado por: Dr. John Warwick Montgomery

The Inns of Court School of Law in London, England, was the scene of a lively debate on the truthfulness of the claims of two of the world's most prominent religions on October 17, 2003. The debaters were Shabir Ally, a graduate of Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, with a BA in religious studies, and president and founder of the Islamic Information and Da'Wah Center in Toronto, Canada; and John Warwick Montgomery.

©2016 1517 The Legacy Project (P)2016 1517 The Legacy Project

Interesting but neither "side" was that convincing!

I enjoyed the opportunity to hear these two argue for their understanding of Jesus. I found their actual arguments weak! The Muslim scholar depended so much on the idea that the death and resurrection pf Jesus evolved over the years from Mark to John. The Christian found himself basically on the defense. My question would be: Since the
Quran says the Gospels are from God via Jesus, why wouldn't the debate endeavor to argue the understanding of the text rather than the accuracy? They both, rightly, agree we should read the texts!

Excellent coverage of the subject matter

I find Muslim belief that Christ Ascended into Heaven without having Resurrected from the dead preposterous ….

Dr Montgomery and Simon Greenleaf both use an objective standard of proof to judge the Gospels - that standard is the evidentiary rules used in a court of law ….

But you don’t need the rules of evidence or opinions of the scholars to judge the gospels … use those tools that you use every day to judge people and situations you encounter every day …

Blessed is he would has not seen and believes …

God Bless … ❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥

It Could've Been Half as Long

In 2023, we expect everything to be concise. This debate is from 2003, and it shows. It could've been half as long, and it would've done better to capture the attention of an Audible listener. (The live audience might've appreciated the length.) The arguments are interesting. But it loses momentum halfway through with the repetition. The audio quality is bad for the question and answer section to the point it was hard to hear the questions. Beyond that, it was enjoyable, even for a non-academic.