Thursday, 29 October 2009

Yahya Snow and the Prophet in John 1: 19-21 an Example of the Inconsistency of Islamic Apologetics

An interesting debate that has taken up in recent weeks concerning the prophet in John 1: 19-21 has been heavily stirred up by a certain Muslim named Yahya Snow. Yahya much like most of his muslim buddies would attempt to argue that this particular prophet is no one else but prophet Muhammad.

In this post I will not address the actual details of the debate; my brothers, Sam Shamoun, David Wood and Semper Paratus have already effectively refuted Yahya Snow and smashed his arguments to pieces:

However, I want to address another particular problem with Yahya Snow's methodology, which is typical of muslim apologetics as a whole, and which I have already posted on

The problem with the Muslim approach here, is that in Muslim apologetics, the Gospels reveal a progress in corruption: Mark being the earliest Gospel, being the least corrupted and hence the most islamic Gospel. Followed by Matthew and Luke, which are slightly more corrupted and embellished (such as the inclusion of the virgin birth, which unfortunately for the muslim is found in the Qur'an) and finally joined by John's Gospel which is the ultimate corruption (according to Muslims and other critics) and which according to Muslims has included a number of trinitarian details, teachings contradictory of the Qur'an, narratives and ideas; but unfortunately also references that according to muslims may support the Qur'anic position, such as the reference to the three: Christ, Elijah and the prophet, including the 'paraclete' in John 14: 16-17, which muslims mistake for Muhammad the prophet of Islam.

The question I always ask is, why is the Paraclete not found in Mark's Gospel? And why is the reference to the prophet in John 1: 17-21 not found in Mark's Gospel.

Muslims cannot simply state that parts of John's Gospel are parts of the Injeel along with parts of Mark's Gospel! Firstly because many of these passages such as John 1 related to the prophet is narrative, in that case the original Injeel was not a book from heaven but a human narrative.

Furthermore, based upon the progressive-corruption argument held by muslims, muslims can only appeal to Mark's Gospel, and therefore prove themselves inconsistent if they move even onto Matthew or Luke.

Either they cannot hold to the view of progressive corruption, and the Muslim can then pull verses out of context whereever he desires from the four Gospels (which in itself is embarrasing) and which they do, but which then implies that he (the muslim if he is consistent) needs to consider the Christological and Trinitarian sayings of Jesus in John's Gospel also.

Or the Muslim can hold to progressive-corruption, but then the prophet in John 1: 17-21 is completely futile for their argument, and then the Qur'an refers to a corrupted passage when claiming that Muhammad was predicted in the Gospel, which implies that the Paraclete in John 14 is not an argument the muslim can appeal to provide proof for a prediction of Muhammad in the Gospel.

So, go ahead muslim, which view do you hold to? Be consistent. However, it is obvious that whatever view the Muslim adheres he will yet again shoot himself in the foot.


Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Hogan, Am I banned from the Answering- Muslim blog?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I don't think so, I am not sure, but I can find out what is happening.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

What is otherwise happening in your life these days? Are you studying and if so, studying what?

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

I just became a high school teacher. But I am headed back to school for a business program. You?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Actually right now I am really in for it. I just finished my MA (unfortunately I am behind schedule), currently I am preparing for Mphil in Christian Origins, such as source criticism or New Testament Textual Criticism. Also I am studying Greek at level three and trying to memorize the four Gospels, the latter being something of a challenge, believe me.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Believe me or not but I am doing detailed review and critic of Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. I have to give him credit that he not falling into any of the extreme theories of the Jesus seminary and other similar factions, even though he adheres to naturalism only, but I dont see how he is actually describing any real difficulty for the Christian faith.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

I love Bart Ehrman. Just read his newest book Jesus Interupted

Yahya Snow said...


I will be looking to conclude my discussion on this issue with a final response soo...InshaAllah


Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Are you sure this will be a final conclusion? I predict that your so called conclusion will be refuted to the core.

Semper Paratus said...

Hey Hogan,

I didn't know you wrote a couple of things on this. That's great.

I was wondering what happened to old Yahya since he seems to have dropped off the face of the earth, at least as far as finishing out the discussion of John 1:19ff.

As far as Ehteshaam, although I did not ban him from my personal blog, I did tell him not to come back and comment until he planned on being honest and hospitable.

(He refused to interact with what I said, kept repeating what I had already responded to, plagiarized material from other websites, and was slandering Sam Shamoun.)

Anyway, keep up the good work.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hi Semper,

Yeah, what happens is: 1) Ethesham posts a number of points, typically all plagiarized and inconsistent to his own belief system; 2) I dismantle the argument in lengthy details, 3) he raises a few more poins to one of my refutations; 4) I dismantle those argument; 5) he repeats his original arguments.

I don't mind debating with Etheshaam on this blog, and he is mostly welcome, I hope he continues to engage me in arguments, but I just wish his sources and methodology were slightly more consistent.

I guess what I need to do is to meet Etheshaam in a public debate, but it will cost me the white out of my eyes to journey to USA for such an encounter.

Semper Paratus said...


I just wanted to clarify something. When I said Ehteshaam plagiarized other sources, I don't just mean he was simply repeating things that he heard from others. I mean he was cutting and pasting things from others without giving the source of his citations. He made it look like it was his own work. It wasn't. I caught him red-handed. This became apparent to me when he couldn't defend the points he cut and pasted after I responded to them. I looked up what he said, and found the same exact material, word for word, on another website, written by someone else.

But yeah, you are absolutely right. Ehteshaam keeps repeating himself and the discussion never seems to go forward.

Here is the link where I caught him:

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I agree bro

The same goes for his website.

I was astonished when he referred to a Jewish website on the historical Jesus, in which the arguments backfired against the muslim faith.

I guess this is why he fails to refute the argumentation against his approach and sources (and there are numerous examples of this on this blog).

I simply can't get over the extent of inconsistencies.

But this goes for the majority of Muslim apologists, I guess Etheshaam simply follows the trend.

Anyway I hope Etheshaam keeps arguing with me, but I do hope he sorts out his methodology and sources.

Yahya Snow said...

Semper and Hogan

Brothers...I would have got to it earlier but i have not been visiting Wood's site regularly to interact with you guys because he does not approve my comments.

Nevertheless...I have the Festive periodto conclude this discussion...I hope to take Hogan's comments into account when concluding this discussion.

Thanks alot guys.

Have a really fun festive period too:)


A response and challenge to those who oppose the Christian faith.