I'll let X's paramount techno-ignorance speak for itself.

However, the rub is that X believes that his own series of Stupid Skeptic Questions were an example of this "Socratic method". That's like blowing up a rubber dinghy and claiming you have just christened a new vessel in the Carnival Cruise Line. No, X was not using the "Socratic method" -- he was using a boring debate tactic. The Socratic method, and the use of repetition, was and is most effective in an ORAL, personal setting because it enables the teacher to direct the student personally. In a written setting a series of questions that ask the same thing over and over is nothing but a rhetorical bore, designed to score cheap debate points, which is why X is so upset that I didn't answer every one of his questions individually. X compares his technique as well to advertising. Let the comparison to the sort of techniques used by used car salesmen speak for itself. Let it also speak for itself that X compares his tactics to an industry that thrives on luring the gullible into buying things that they don't need.

Yes sir, with X around, there is no need to worry about scholarship. He'll do it all for you. I wonder if he'd like his material described as "just another attempt by a Bible doubter to put a disrespectable spin on the many biblical references to those entities." There's a good reason for X to have gotten tired of reading works like Hurtado's: heavy scholarship gives him a headache.

This conclusion quoted [by X], apparently attributed to JPH (who, by the way, did not write the article) was a quote taken from the book "Answering Islam" by Norman Geisler and Abdul Saleeb...The premise in the article quoted by Skeptic X is that the Islamic miracle claims lack credibility due to a lack of objective evidence, not because they are not Biblically-based miracles. Much more was written besides what X quotes above to augment our argument. The reader is referred to the actual article (See here), particularly the section on Deut. 18:15 where this is located to see all that is written. To summarize briefly the argument, the Islamic miracle stories are to be rejected because 1) The earliest source (i.e. the Qur'an itself) presents Mohammad as one that did not have the power to perform miracles; 2) There is at least one incident of early non-Muslims (which were two Christian bishops) utilizing Mohammad's inability to perform miracles in a polemical dispute (which would have been an odd thing to do had Mohammad had the reputation of being a great miracle worker).

Now, if we contrast this with what we find for the evidence of a miraculous ministry of Christ, we have good reason to afford Christ's miracle stories, based on objective evidence, a higher degree of credibility. We have 4 documents written within 2 generations of Christ's death (and a good argument can be made that at least 3 of them were written within one generation) that all agree that Jesus performed miracles. All four alleged sources in the "four source theory" utilized by scholars (namely Mark, the material peculiar to Matthew (M), the material peculiar to Luke (L), and even the hypothetical Q document) present Jesus as a serious miracle worker. Those hostile to Christianity within the first two centuries or so of the faith's existence accused Jesus of being a sorcerer or magician, but never denied that He performed miracles. The tradition that Jesus performed miracles is so strong that not even the Jesus Seminar deny that He performed exorcisms and healings (although, of course, such critical scholars would prefer a naturalistic explanation for these phenomena). So compelling is the data that John P. Meier states that the miraculous part of Christ's ministry is the most strongly attested aspect of His ministry. On the other hand, the miracles written between 100 and 400 years after Christ's death, found in apocryphal Gospels (compare the gap in time to when Mohammad's alleged miracles appear) are rejected as historical by virtually everybody, including the orthodox Christian church of the first few centuries. This is just a summary, of course, but Glenn Miller has a huge series elaborating on these as well as other important points on the matter (See here). In regards to the resurrection and early witnesses, the creed Paul preserves in I Corinthians 15 takes us back, as alluded to in the excerpt from the article that X quoted, to within 2-7 years of the crucifixion/resurrection itself.

The article to which X appealed was focusing on the lack of credibility that Mohammad's miracle claims contained. My addition "like numerous other pagan miracle accounts attributed to various historical figures" was an oblique reference to problems, particularly regarding the lag in time between the timing of the alleged event(s) and the appearance of the miracle stories themselves, that exist regarding the veracity of SOME other miracle stories. This would not include ALL such cases, and I have no problems, and know that JPH does not have problems either, in believing that some of these other ancient miracle stories may well be based on authentic events. We accept Christ's miracles and reject Mohammad's because an objective look at the evidence portrays Christ as at least some kind of miracle worker yet betrays the later Muslim claims that Mohammad performed miracles. The same problems exist in regards to the veracity of the alleged miracles performed by some other alleged ancient miracle workers, but this claim should not be taken to mean that we reject wholesale all non-Biblical miracle claims. It is a mistake to assume that by "numerous" we are, in fact, saying "all." It was also clearly a mistake for X to assume, or at least imply, that our conclusions were based on the fact that Mohammad's miracles (and "numerous" other pagan miracles) are not found in the Bible."

X should read material more carefully before he mouths off, but if he can't even get the author of the article or quote right, one wonders what else he can't get right.

"... Three explanations are given in the Mufradat, and perhaps all three apply here: (1) that the moon once appeared cleft asunder in the valley of Mecca within sight of the Prophet, his Companions, and some Unbelievers; (2) that the prophetic past tense indicates the future, the cleaving asunder of the moon being a Sign of the Judgment approaching; and (3) that the phrase is metaphorical, meaning that the matter has become clear as the moon. That the first part was noticed by contemporaries, including Unbelievers, is clear from verse 2. The second is an incident of the disruption of the solar system at the New Creation: Cf. lxxv. 8-9. And the third might well be implied as in eastern allegory, based on the other two." (Ali, The Holy Qur'an-Translation and Commentary, p. 1454, n. 5128)"

Shamoun also offers:

Muhammad Asad claims:

"... Most of the commentators see in this verse a reference to a phenomenon said to have been witnessed by several of the Prophet's contemporaries. As described in number of reports going back to some Companions, the moon appeared one night as if split into two distinct parts. While there is no reason to doubt the subjective veracity of these reports, it is possible that what actually happened was an unusual kind of partial lunar eclipse, which produced an equally unusual optical illusion. But whatever the nature of the phenomenon, it is practically certain that the above Qur'an-verse does not refer to it but, rather, to a future event: namely, to what will happen when the Last Hour approaches. (The Qur'an frequently employs the past tense to denote the future, and particularly so in passages which speak of the coming of the Last Hour and of Resurrection Day; this use of the past tense is meant to stress the certainty of the happening to which the verb relates.) Thus, Raghib regards it as fully justifiable to interpret the phrase inshaqqa 'l-qamar ('the moon is split asunder') as bearing cataclysm- the end of the world as we know it- that will occur before the coming of Resurrection Day (see art. shaqq in the Mufradat). As mentioned by Zamakhshari, this interpretation has the support of some of the earlier commentators; and it is, to my mind, particularly convincing in view of the juxtaposition, in the above Qur'an-verse, of the moon's 'splitting asunder' and the approach of the Last Hour. (In this connection we must bear in mind the fact that none of the Qur'anic allusions to the 'nearness' of the Last Hour and the Day of Resurrection is based on the human concept of 'time'.)" (Asad, p. 818, n. 1 bold emphasis ours)

In fact, Muslim Apologist Akbarally Meherally has a whole article documenting that S. 54:1 is referring to a future event. Here are some highlights from that article:

Here is a passage from 'The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam' by Cyril Glasse on the above subject: There are no contemporary accounts of such an event. It is far more likely that the Koran is speaking allegorically of a sign of the Last Day, rather than of a miracle. (page 274).

X refers to Ibn Kathir's commentary where it is cited that the "splitting of the moon" is found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the two most highly esteemed collections of Hadith in Islam. However, the problem is that these Hadith (which are alleged sayings of Muhammad passed along through a chain of oral transmission (i.e. isnad)) were not actually recorded until 200 years plus following Muhammad's death. Thus, the problem of this miracle account collapses into what we argued earlier; that it appears too long after Muhammad's death, since the Qur'anic verse upon which it was built is too obscure to make a definite interpretation one way or the next. In addition, it should be kept in mind that if Muhammad really did split the moon, it seems odd that his detractors would constantly question his authority because of his inability to perform miracles! (Note: Some of these challenges came after the alleged moon-splitting incident)

...The "moon-splitting" is rejected because the Qur'anic verse is too ambiguous in itself, and the writings that claim the literal splitting interpretation come much, much later, at a time when many and various other alleged miracles that Muhammad performed were appearing on the scene. In all of the resurrection accounts, OTOH, we are told of an empty tomb, and in all except Mark, we are told of various appearances of Jesus to His disciples. While there are variations in the accounts, there clearly is no ambiguity regarding whether or not the text is really saying that the tomb was empty or that Jesus appeared to His disciples.

X appealed to a Muslim apologist, Ali, who claimed that the "best authorities" believe that this was reported as a literal miracle. Wildcat responds:

It doesn't surprise us that Ali's idea of "best authorities" would be those that agree with his own interpretation of the event, but as has been noted, speculation has to be added to the Qur'an in order to claim that an actual miracle is being reported, or that if it was a miracle, Muhammad was responsible for it, and such speculation is contradictory to the fact that the Qur'an strongly implies (and that is putting it generously) that Muhammad was not a miracle-worker. For info. on this, please see the Deut. 18:15 section of the article, "Prophetic Witness: Mo or no Mo," linked to earlier in this article in the other relevant section as well as Sam Shamoun's article alluded and linked to earlier in this section.

...it is worth noting that X seems to be extending Ali a benefit of the doubt that he probably would not extend to most of Evangelical scholarship. Perhaps it is not X's intent, but his wording seems to suggest that he accepts Ali's claim that the "rending of the moon" was reported in Muhammad's lifetime. Most of what we know regarding the writing, collation, and standardization of the Qur'an, however, comes from the Sirat and Islamic Traditions (the same ones that give this verse the particular miraculous spin under discussion) that were recorded 100-200 years plus after the fact. However, the synoptic Gospels were composed no later than within 40-65 years of the events in question, and John probably no later than within 70 years of the events in question. Why such skepticism of the comparatively earlier Gospel materials and acceptance of Islamic claims based on material written well over a century after the fact? Muslims such as Ali, of course, would argue that Muhammad's revelations were preserved until Uthman's standardization of the Qur'an in 651 A.D. (approximately 20 years following Muhammad's death), and since the Qur'an came directly to Muhammad during his lifetime, we can be confident that Surah 54 did as well. On the other hand, Christians would argue that the events that were eventually recorded in the Gospels were preserved from the time of their occurrence through oral tradition. Additionally, there is internal evidence contained in Luke, Acts, and John that the material was written either by eyewitnesses or based on testimony obtained from eyewitnesses. We could throw Mark into that mix as well since church tradition records that his material is based on Peter's testimony. Questions of authorship aside, much of the material in Matthew's Gospel as well as Peter's (eyewitness) testimony of the transfiguration in II Peter1:16-18 could also be added to the list. The earliness of the I Corinthians 15 creed and the sermons in the first few chapters of Acts also strongly argues in favor of material/beliefs that can be traced back to claims made by "contemporaneous eyewitnesses" of Christ's miracles, divine claims, resurrection, etc. It seems safe to say that X would not be nearly as enthusiastic about the Gospel evidence regarding eyewitnesses, so we wonder at why we find all of the apparent optimism regarding the even later Islamic information regarding the Qur'an's compilation. Again, as has been demonstrated, the Qur'anic verse in question is, in itself, insufficient to prove a claim of a miracle, but even if that were the case, it is peculiar that X seems to concur with Ali based on a foundation much shakier than that provided for us by evangelical scholarship regarding Christianity and eyewitness truth claims."

Before I bid adieu and turn things back over to JPH, while we are on the subject of "controversial miracle texts," it should be added that there is also one other vague reference in the Qur'an that some Muslims attempt to interpret as a miracle, and that is Muhammad's alleged ascension into heaven. Found at the beginning of Surah 17:

"Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)." (Surah 17:1, Ali)

While the later Islamic writings expound on Muhammad's alleged journey, we are not given much detail here in the original report. Was it a spiritual journey or was Muhammad's body literally swept away to the "farthest Mosque"? There is also no mention of any eyewitnesses. Geisler and Saleeb also note:

"There is no reason to take this passage as referring to a literal trip to heaven; even many Muslim scholars do not take it so. The noted translator of the Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, comments on this passage, noting that 'it opens with the mystic Vision of the Ascension of the Holy Prophet; he is transported from the Sacred Mosque (of Mecca) to the Farthest Mosque (of Jerusalem) in a night and shown some of the Signs of God.' Even according to one of the earliest Islamic traditions, Muhammad's wife, A'isha, reported that 'the apostle's body remained where it was but God removed his spirit by night.'" [Geisler, Saleeb. "Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross" pg. 164; Note: The tradition quoted is from the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq, pg. 183]

We won't go into any additional detail on this here since it wasn't part of X's response, but it should also be noted also that there is considerable evidence that this verse was an addition to the Qur'anic text well after Muhammad's death. The reader is encouraged to check out this page for more information regarding that.

X needs to look into these things before mouthing off just because some low-level fundaliteralist Muslim gave him a sucker punch.

Was Yahweh musing when this happened? Yes, most likely. His people had no excuse for trying to overtake Moab at this time.

1) My argument is that the lack of response by these deities/persons is an indication against their continued existence or effectiveness.

2) This is NOT equal to an argument that the deities of faiths still present and surviving are thereby automatically proven real.

X wastes paragraphs upon paragraphs assuming that I argue 2), and thus again wastes my time, his, and everyone else's arguing with a strawman.

Furthermore, X fails to comprehend that the specific personal characteristics of deities like Zeus and Chemosh make their lack of modern presence a necessary characteristic of arguing for their reality (or continued power), and once again, I do NOT argue for the reverse of this, that deities whose character is one of lack of interference, are thereby given proof of existence -- and it is also not, as X thinks, a matter of any of these acts being "right of wrong".

It is typical of X to divert and distract to arguments not made when he has no answer to the one actually being presented.

And that's all that's new or worth a comment.