Sami Zaatari Vs KabaneTheChristian (Thomas Seraphim Hamilton)
Sami Zaatari argued for the negative position whilst Kabane was arguing for the affirmative position
An Overall Feel
A real spirited encounter conducted in a partisan setting engendering an “us and them” attitude between the Muslims and Christians. The two debaters are not at fault for the rather distasteful atmosphere within the Pal Talk room and both should be commended for not playing into the hands of such partisan crowds.
Well Worth the Listen (link to debate is appended below the review)
***Introductions***
Despite being short they were telling
Kabane, within his introduction, succinctly explained the relevant Trinitarian beliefs regarding the Trinity and threw in pre-emptive ploys to counter Zaatari. It showed initiative and research on the part of Kabane albeit (looking retrospectively) serving as intimation to Kabane’s desire to “win” the debate, a desire which becomes more apparent throughout the course of the debate (and spill over in the aftermath)
Kabane’s introduction was clever and a plus point for the debate
Sami Zaatari began with the Name of God, which was interesting to note, Kabane did not begin in the name of God. Zaatari used the introduction to introduce himself and outlined the guidelines he will be operating from throughout the debate.
Zaatari really scored points by asking the audience to drop their bias and listen to both sides before making a decision, perhaps Zaatari was trying to quell the partisan atmosphere, credit to Zaatari. Sami Zaatari further gained credibility by asking listeners to take notes, thus showing his recognition of the debate as a positive learning tool.
For the more observant Zaatari displayed an air of confidence and skill in his unscripted approach, this became more apparent throughout the debate; Zaatari is adaptable and the peril of the prepared speech was not going to be his downfall. Kabane showed signs of being scripted; this became more apparent as the debate churned through its phases.
Overall Kabane’s introduction was a clever use of time in order to prime the audience for what is about to ensue. Zaatari’s introduction was more of a personal affair.
Opening Statements of Sami Zaatari and Kabane
Kabane opted for a three-pronged approach, which he believed pointed to the divinity of Jesus:
1 The “I AM” statements
2 “Wisdom of God” title
3 “Son of Man” title
Kabane, Quick but Unwise
He built his arguments around this approach and unfortunately his presentation was rushed, he was doing an impression of Usain Bolt, this speed approach only served to compound the convoluted arguments adopted by Kabane. Kabane’s method was always going to be less than straightforward, thus Kabane was unwise in rushing through at a relative 100 miles per hour,; this only served to make his points appear more complex
Kabane, Explicit?
An interesting feature of Kabane’s presentation was the lack of explicitness within his points, they all required expanation; Kabane was appealing to implicit text rather than explicit (straight forward) material. This tell-tale sign was seized upon and even expected by Zaatari.
Kabane strayed away from the Gospel texts and began citing references from other portions of the Bible, in his defense he was using such references to support his definitions of terms within the Gospels but this was indicative of the implicit approach Kabane was forced to adopt throughout the debate.
Zaatari Slow, Wise and Challenging
Zaatari adopted a slow and analytical approach which was audience friendly unlike Kabane’s rush of statements. This serves to highlight the experience of Zaatari; he is a man who knows how to present his points in a fashion which aids audience understanding.
Zaatari opted for an explicit and simple approach. He was bent on avoiding convoluted or fancy approaches to prove his case. He pressed Kabane for an explicit verse from Jesus confirming divinity (such as “I am God”). This, in fact, was a challenge to Kabane which Kabane failed to meet. Was Zaatari simply setting up a red-herring in order to undermine Kabane’s implicit and convoluted approach?
Zaatari was consistent as he was arguing from the lines of a straight forward approach, thus I don’t believe Zaatari simply set the “explicit” challenge in an underhand fashion. There was a subtext to his challenges:
If Jesus is God then he would have said it many times in a straight forward fashion and would not be reliant on “fancy” explanations.
Zaatari: Jesus has a God
Zaatari points to Jesus having a God (i.e. Jesus praying to God) as well as highlighting traits of Jesus which prove Jesus is not God (such as eating, sleeping etc). In making such points Zaatari preemptively countered Kabane’s counter by discussing the Christian explanation for Jesus showing traits which are not of God.
Zaatari Questions the “god-man” Idea
After showing the illogical nature of the Christian explanation (i.e. the god-man) he sets another challenge to Kabane; that is for Kabane to bring explicit evidence from Jesus for the “god-man” idea.
Sami Zaatari also appealed to those who saw Jesus and lets the audience know that these individuals did not debate whether Jesus is god or not but used to debate whether he was the Messiah or “the Prophet” (from Dt18:18) (see John 7:40-41).
***The Rebuttals***
Kabane Being Unfair With Zaatari
Kabane accuses Zaatari of misunderstanding the doctrine of the Trinity, this was unfair as Zaatari is an experienced apologist (despite his young age) and it was transparent through Zaatari’s opening statement that he had more than a grasp of the Trinity. Perhaps this was a debate tactic coming into play by Kabane.
Zaatari was merely questioning the origin and the veracity of the doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine which served Kabane as a foundation to rebuff Zaatari’s claims. Kabane failed to note this.
Kabane Claims he has met Zaatari’s Challenge
As for Zaatari’s challenge to Kabane of bringing froth an explicit claim to divinity from Jesus, Kabane responded by declaring he has already met this explicit challenge in his opening statement through Jesus claiming to be “the wisdom of God”. This simply illustrated Kabane as having a fertile imagination and was another indication of Kabane’s desire to appear as a victor in the debate.
As for Zaatari’s “god-man” challenge, i.e. show me a verse claiming Jesus taught this “god-man” idea. Kabane handled this by claiming Jesus claimed to be both hence the doctrine of the “god-man”. It was and interesting and clever answer by Kabane though it failed to meet the “explicit” requirement of Sami Zaatari’s challenge.
Kabane Answers “Death” Intelligently
Kabane answered the “death” (and the “eating”) argument intelligently as he split the two natures therefore it was acceptable for Jesus to die and maintain divinity according to the Trinitarian. Kabane handled this skillfully and then threw a missive at Zaatari by accusing him of misunderstanding the hypostatic union. He then goes on to defend his idea of Jesus possessing dual natures, he does so passionately albeit in a rushed manner which further compounds the convoluted feel about his defense.
Kabane: Bent on “Winning”
Kabane triumphantly claims to be “winning” the debate. This was a further illustration of Kabane’s desire to appear as the victor. This desire to appear as the “winner” was evident throughout the debate including the concluding remarks. A desire which has led Kabane down a less than gentlemanly approach in the aftermath of the debate. Kabane after the debate (in what appears to be a pre-emptive move to alleviate the impact of calls of SamiZaatari “winning” the debate) wrote:
“NOTE TO MUSLIM COMMENTATORS: I am not interested in your declarations of victory. Certain Muslims have admitted in private emails that they have lost debates which they have publicly claimed to have won”
Kabane also appends a link to a page from Sam Shamoun’s website which can only appear as an attempt to discredit the opponent (Zaatari).
This is a perplexing move from Kabane as I got the impression Zaatari and Kabane were on friendly terms and the spirit of the debate was one of mutual respect. I would ask Kabane to remove such material as it is irrelevant to the debate; it serves no function to the debate topic.
As it is Sam Shamoun’s site and Kabane appealed to Shamoun’s faulty argumentation (or even received advice from him) allow me to throw in a link of my own. This link is of Shamoun (only days before the Zaatari-Kabane debate) going off on a tirade of abuse leveled at a Muslim:
I would ask Kabane to reconsider his view of Sam Shamoun and reject any association with such an idividual. Kabane is a young apologist, whom I have followed for a good while on YouTube, who should shun sub-Christian behaviour, Shamoun is not a role-model for any youngster
Kabane: A Student of the Infamous Sam Shamoun?
Kabane shoots himself in the foot by running to the Sam Shamoun handbook of debate. Kabane claims Jesus as the Truth and conflates this with a title of God in the Quran (the Truth, al haqq) and audaciously presents it as proof of divinity. All this despite the two Books (Bible and Quran) having a separate terminology and definitions.
Kabane continually chases Zaatari on the “al Haqq, the Truth” point, clearly Shamoun had convinced Kabane he was onto a winner here. Zaatari eventually had enough and retorted by dismissing Kabane’s bizarre claims from the Quran as “rubbish”. Zaatari points to Paradise and Hell being the truth and reminds Kabane the claim of Jesus being the truth is within a Biblical context not a Quranic context.
A certain “anonymous” did suggest Kabane’s argument out to be the fallacy of the undistributed middle. . Note I have blogged about this here:
Kabane’s explanation of Jesus having a God (i.e. praying to God) was woeful, it really was. Zaatari’s position scored points in this area.
Sami Zaatari Presses Kabane
Kabane nails his colours to the mast and hangs his whole debate on the idea of the title “wisdom of God” is a title denoting divinity.
Sami Zaatari points to Kabane failing all the challenges and pints to the wisdom of God not being God through Jewish theology and Jewish understanding. Zaatari summed up Kabane’s approach by accusing Kabane of bringing up points and then adding Trinitarian interpretations to the said points.
Sami Zaatari Impressive and in the Ascendency
Zaatari was clear and concise and adopted an appeal to simplicity as Kabane was becoming more and more convoluted. Zaatari was impressive throughout his refutation as he stuck with his challenges as a guideline for the debate, this aided Zaatari’s structure and clarity in point making.
A pattern of the debate was Zaatari’s careful probing yielding more and more complex and convoluted explanations from Kabane, this would have rendered Kabane difficult to follow for the audience members, and all the while Kabane compounds this with his quick fire approach.
As for the “son of man” title, Zaatari challenges Kabane to bring forward a verse from the Bible which shows it to be an explicit claim to divinity
Sami Zaatari is Not in Doubt on John 20
The statement of Doubting Thomas was dealt with adroitly by Sami Zaatari as he appealed to context. He shows “Theos” and “Kurios” can refer to somebody of higher rank and Zaatari utilizes context to portray it as a reference of respect to a higher ranked individual.
Kabane Trapped
Zaatari astutely picks deconstructs Kabane’s argument and traps Kabane (via Daniel 7) on his claim related to the worship “son of man”. Kabane was found floundering here. Zaatari delivers further blows from Isaiah 7 related to the prophecy of the Messiah being a small boy who will not know between right and wrong; this was labeled as a “slam-dunk”. It was a heavy blow which Kabane rather weakly claimed it was not a reference to the Messiah despite Zaatari pointing it out to be an obvious reference to the Messiah
“I AM”?
Sami Zaatari skillfully deals with the “I AM” comment via context and disproves this statement as being as reference to divinity. Zaatari dismissed Kabane’s interpretation as “silly” and Zaatari had a right to do so as he was backed by contextual evidence
Is Elvis Still Alive?
Kabane appeals to a conspiracy in order to counter Zaatari’s appeal to Jewish understandings related to the “wisdom of God” title. This was indicative of Kabane being on the ropes. Kabane suggests the Jews changed their beliefs/interpretations in order to counter Christian theology!
It Takes Two to Tango
For some odd reason there were TWO debate moderators in active duty
Unfortunately there was an interruption as the moderators began to argue in the middle of the rebuttal period. This was a real shame as it disrupted the flow
First Impressions Count
In terms of presentation Zaatari was clear whilst Kabane was performing a rushed job and seemed to forget that he was speaking to an audience.
Kabane’s presentation style was noticeably inferior to that of Sami Zaatari. Zaatari’s presentation and ability to coherently construct points was that of an experienced debater and presenter. Kabane was always going to be struggling to keep up with Zaatari on such a front.
Who had Substance?
Listen to the debate and decide for yourselves. In my personal view Zaatari presented the piercing arguments and Kabane was on the back foot and appealing to flimsy arguments supported by “fancy” interpretations. Sami Zaatari opted for simplicity because simplicity supported his case; judging by the actions and speech of Jesus it would be unwise to call him God.
As a non-Trinitarian I found Kabane unconvincing, his arguments were far from straightforward and required a great deal of interpretation in order to prop them up. Under Sami Zaatari’s scrutiny (or any careful scrutiny) Kabane’s interpretations are found wanting and thus his arguments collapse.
The big question still stands: Why did Jesus never claim to be God?
NOTE: Kabane makes a claim about Allah which is discussed here:
See the discussion here: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=248234931266550822&postID=8780094529768010316
Anthony Rogers - July 11, 2010 at 6:42 am |