The Worst of Islamic Apologetics: A Muslim user named "BADELF" exposed

BADELF, a jobless, girlfriendless hack, whom nobody is aware of, tried his best to expose Christians but has little significance to anyone, surely he will get a kick out of me writing about him and making him famous.

I want to show my friends just how bad Islamic Apologetics still is and thanks to BADELF posting under my blog anonymously we now have this opportunity to show the caliber of Islamic Apologetics.

BADELF made an attempted "rebuttal" to my refutation of a Catholic, Universalist, Pro-Muslim CTWestCoast over here. This is possibly the worst rebuttal I've ever read (perhaps even worse than CTWestCoast himself!).

I wasn't going to respond, but since BADELF provides us the best and most excellent opportunity to show the worst of the worst when it comes to Islamic Apologetics, I will at least respond this one time to give everybody an example of what the ilk of BADELF and those millions of Muslims akin to him, have to offer.

BADELF said:

"DK AS USUAL YOUR AGRUMENTS HAVE NO BIBLICAL BASES AND YOU OFTEN CONTRADICT THE BIBLE IN ORDER TO TRY GATHERING ITS IRRELEVENT SCATTERED PEICES , AND THATS A PROOF THAT YOUR BIBLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF , SO LETS SEE WHAT YOUR BIBLE SAYS :"

The irony here is that BADELF says my arguments have no biblical basis but then says the scattered pieces I quote show how the Bible contradicts itself. So BADELF contradicts himself in the first sentence of trying to expose me. Either what I say has no Biblical basis, or it indeed does have a Biblical basis that simply contradict other parts of the Bible, it cannot be both.
BADELF clearly requires a lesson in English as-well, and that I will happily supply it to him. I never tried to gather verses from various sections of the Bible, in fact I did!  Does BADELF need to know the difference between an accomplished act, and a temporal effort?

He also refers to portions of the Bible that contradict his view as "irrelevant scattered pieces". But the passages I quoted were all relevant to the topic which was: Do prophets (given power by God) raise corpses from the dead or does God Alone raise the dead?" In fact there are only 2 prophets who are said to raise the dead in the OT, so those passages were perfectly relevant.

Since BADELF simply cannot make his argument cogent or coherent I will assume that he thinks the Bible contradicts itself (rather than asserting the verses I offered do not exist in the Bible, since he already confessed in his paragraph these are irrelevant passages, he admits they exist, even though they expose him), and will address what he brings to our attention. He quotes Matthew 10:1;7-11. and John 8:28, Acts 5:30 and John 11:41-43

BADELF is obviously so assured of whatever nonsensical assertions he is espousing that he thinks the point of his quotations should be self-evident.

However in his first quotation of Matthew 10 STRUGGLINGELF only ends up embarrassing himself, since he confirms exactly what I had said in the earlier post in which I told CT:

Dk-man7: NO PROPHET OR APOSTLE EVER ROSE THE DEAD, U ARE SMOKED, they merely INVOKED the power of THE LORD

And also:

Dk-man7: False on all accounts. 1) The "all authority" has been given to me is a statement post-ressurection, so how does Jesus raise the dead before his ressurection if he didn't have the authority apriori? 2) Authority does not mean ABILITY, anyone can give AUTHORITY to do something, but if someone is physically handicap and unable to perform the function, then he still can't, thus Jesus would need the abilities and power, even if he was given the authority

Dk-man7: Jesus did not give this divine authority to "Peter", Jesus never made any of the claims Jesus made, he merely invoked the authority of Jesus

Dk-man7: if Peter's authority is meant to be the same authority as Jesus , then why didn't Peter possess his authority and stop invoking Jesus ?

Dk-man7: Peter quite clearly invokes the authority of Jesus, but never claims to together perform the same functions as God along side of him, which is exactly what Jesus did.

And here's what he appeals to:

And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness... And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons: freely ye received, freely give Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy of his food Matthew 10:1;7-11

Thus confirming what I had already stated, that the apostles had no ability or authority in and of themselves, but were given authority and had to invoke the Lord Jesus so that he could perform these miracles!

In fact, BADELF, conveniently ignored the response given to him in the comment section which perfectly exposes him:

the editor
Citing Matthew 10: 7-11 without it's context is an erroneous approach at best. Jesus commissioned them, meaning, he gave them a directive. He passed on HIS authority. Jesus did not say "You can do this in your own authority". Rule #1 of a disciple is that he or she be UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST. That's why JESUS called the twelve and not the other way around.

BADELF conveniently skipped out the passage where Jesus commands the disciples: "freely ye received, freely give", hence the same gifts and authority that were given to the apostles were also to be given to those whom they preached to whom received Jesus!

Matthew 10: 40  “Whoever receives YOU receives ME, and whoever receives me receives HIM WHO SENT ME. 41  The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person's reward. 42 And whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.”

Hence if an Israelite received a Disciple preaching Christ, by virtue of accepting the message of the disciple THEY RECEIVED CHRIST AND HIS FATHER. Finally we have Jesus once again appealing to his own divine authority: "truly, I say to you", where as Peter never appeals to his own authority (given to him by Jesus) in the New Testament, rather he appeals to the authority of the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS as quoted extensively in the previous post. A person who claims to have the kind of authority Jesus possessed shows why the same individual can make such extravagant claims like the following.

Jesus claims the exclusive worship that belongs to God alone:

Matthew 10: 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than ME is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than ME is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life WILL LOSE IT, and whoever loses his life FOR MY SAKE WILL FIND IT. 

Jesus knew this worship was due to God alone aswell:

Matthew 22: 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40  On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, “What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, in the Spirit, CALLS HIM LORD, saying, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? 45 If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions.

Jesus not only equates himself with God by telling his followers and audience they must love him more than their own families (which no prophet had claimed prior to Christ, direct challenge to anyone who claims otherwise: produce a single verse showing this), he also claims this worship must be for his own sake, complete BLASPHEMY! if Jesus was merely a prophet. He claims they must lose their lives for Jesus himself! Incredible, seeing that in the Torah, life is only to be devoted to God alone, and never a prophet. In fact it's blasphemous to serve a prophet in the sense that you serve Yahweh, or give your life or devote your life to say: "Yahweh and Isaiah, or Moses and Elijah", no prophets are merited such honor.

Jesus then schools the Pharisees and shows them how the Messiah is the Lord of David, even though the Messiah is said to be born after David! He also proves the Lord of David sits on the right hand of the Lord! Which is punishable by death according to the Talmud, the highest exalted being in creation (Metatron) is forbidden to take a seat on God's right hand even to scribe and write down events! Yet according to Jesus, the Lord not only exalts the Lord of David by enthroning him, he crushes his enemy, is God a servant to the Messiah? Or do we have what Trinitarians call the perfect unity of the Father and the Son?

BADELF also leaves out Matthew 10:5 (Jesus although he has given them authority, sends them and then STILL instructs them on what they can and cannot do.) Mr Elf doesn't quote the instructions of Jesus:

Matthew 10:11 And whatever town or village you enter, find out who is worthy in it and stay there until you depart. 12 As you enter the house, greet it.13 And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. 15 Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.

Hence in this passage Jesus claims by his own divine authority: "Truly I say to you", (something no prophet has never claimed prior). But why does he appeal to his own exclusive divine authority here? in the case of the judgement?

This is because Jesus claims to be the very judge of these people:

21  Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22  and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

But Jesus is not merely the judge of the Israelites, he is also judge of all of creation according to the same chapter:

 26 “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.7 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny?8  And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32  So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

In verse 26 Jesus claims he knows all the secrets of those whom he Judges, making him omniscient in his second coming, because God alone knows the hearts of mankind, those whom he judges. In verse 28 Jesus claims omnipotence (and omnipresent) by being able to destroy both body and soul in hell! In verses 32-33 Jesus claims to be the judge of all mankind, but not merely the judge of mans actions under the law and penalty on earth, but the very authority who allows and disallows a person into paradise before his Father!
 
Further in Matt 10, Jesus claims the following:

16 “BEHOLD, I AM SENDING YOU OUT out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, TO BEAR WITNESS BEFORE THEM AND THE GENTILES. 19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

What do we learn from the same chapter SADELF appeals to?

1. Only God sends prophets (in the sense of their commission, ministry and annointing) 
2. Jesus sends prophets
3. Therefore Jesus is God.

We further learn the Apostles are to bear witness to gentiles (not merely Jews), and they are BEARING WITNESS to the Father and his Son. Jesus then claims the Spirit of the Father will speak through them, proving Mohammed was never the spirit and or/ comforter, and demonstrating Apostles have no authority on their own, even when GIVEN AUTHORITY by Jesus, they still require the Spirit of God to operate through them, preaching not their words, but his own. Clear evidence SADELF does not know the type of authority possessed by the Apostles.

So I challenge SADELF to produce a single verse where ANY disciple claimed: "Truly, I SAY UNTO YOU..." since SADELF and incompetent CT support them possessing an IDENTICAL AUTHORITY to Jesus, they must provide the evidence.

 BADELF then appeals to the Gospel of John (the worst thing you could as a Muslim):

Jesus therefore said, 'When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me,'" (John 8:28).

This verse (according to ELF) is supposedly suppose to show that Jesus does nothing by himself. I concur Jesus does nothing by himself. And I too, concur, that he teaches in this verse his own crucifixion: "When you lift up the son of man", and expresses his own divinity: "then you will that I AM HE". In fact I had already stated this to CT:

Dk-man7: You also made a false analogy by comparing Jesus appeal to the Father as an authority vs Peter's appeal to Jesus. Jesus appeals to the Father NOT in the same sense that Peter appeals to the name of the Lord Jesus. Jesus claims all the attributes of divinity and claims HE CAN DO NOTHING BY HIMSELF BUT PERFORM WHATEVER THE FATHER DOES Where does Peter claim he has these divine attributes, titles and functions and that he together with the father performs the miracles?

Dk-man7: Peter quite clearly invokes the authority of Jesus, but never claims to together perform the same functions as God along side of him, which is exactly what Jesus did.

This is mentioned all throughout the Bible:

John 5:15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had healed him.16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” 18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

The audacity for Jesus to call God his own personal Father (in a distinct sense from everyone else), and then claim he WORKS alongside with the Father on the Sabbath HEALING others (a divine attribute), possessing an authority of one ABOVE the Law given by God equal to God!

Then the follow up in verse 19 for Jesus to claim he and his Father work not alone but in perfect unity, since the Son can do whatever God almighty can do!  We have never, ever! observed the apostles of Jesus making claims like this, nor their successors. They never claimed to possess such authority or such divine characteristics, like omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

Now BADELF, feel free to answer the same challenge I gave to CT, since he never answered the question either. And once you answer the challenge (if you can produce a single verse where Peter raised the dead by his own divine ability given to him by God), you can then answer these questions:

Dk-man7: so CT, do you admit that God granted Peter the ability to RAISE PEOPLE FROM THE DEAD? You think God gave Peter this ability?
Dk-man7: CT, if that is the case, please explain how Peter was FULLY HUMAN if his human nature possessed one of God's divine attributes of rebirth and creation
Dk-man7: exposed again
CT_wESt CoaSt: Of course God gave peter the abuility like the Father gave Jesus the authority
CT_wESt CoaSt: very simple
CT_wESt CoaSt: 
Dk-man7: dam YOU JUST CRUSHED YOURSELF
Dk-man7: you just SAID the Father GAVE BOTH JESUS AND PETER DIVINE ABILITIES
Dk-man7: U ARE SMOKED

And just in case BADELF tries to make up excuses and thinks ability and authority are the same, I already demonstrated they are not:

2) Authority does not mean ABILITY, anyone can give AUTHORITY to do something, but if someone is physically handicap and unable to perform the function, then he still can't, thus Jesus would need the abilities and power, even if he was given the authority

In other words demonstrating that Peter was given AUTHORITY to raise the dead through Jesus, establishes our position that Peter with the authority given to him by Christ had to invoke the Lord Jesus to raise the corpses from the dead. However if CT and BADELF consistently argue Peter was given the ABILITY, they need to prove that, Peter had divine attributes which refutes both of their respective religions! Also if they wish to argue Jesus and Peter had the exact same DIVINE AUTHORITY, they need to argue Peter shared the divine attributes and functions that Christ claimed to possess.

Next, UNEDUCATEDELF the rookie quotes Acts 5:30 as stating that "Jesus couldn't even raise himself from the dead". However the verse never says Jesus could not nor did not raise Jesus from the dead. It does not make a negation of Jesus divine power, rather it makes an affirmation of God the Father's divine power:

Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

SADSADELF then claims any other passage that says Jesus raised himself would be a contradition to the former passage! Which is a complete non-sequitor.

A statement that contradicts itself:

1. Jesus did not raise himself from the dead
2. Jesus did raise himself from the dead

A statement that does not contradict itself is:

1. God the Father raised Jesus from the dead
2. Jesus raised himself from the dead

Premise 1 in the above is inclusive and not exclusive.

An exclusive proposition would be: 

1. God the Father alone raised Jesus from the dead
2. Jesus raised himself from the dead 

This would either prove Jesus must be God the Father (which is unbiblical), or the statement itself is a contradiction.

BADELF next quotes John 11:41-43 and says Jesus could not raise the dead without the permission of the Father.

This statement does not conflict with Trinitarian belief. Jesus is not an "independent deity" working separately from God the Father, in fact God the Son, the Son of God came to execute God the Father's will on earth, he came to redeem his creation, and preach the gospel as sent forth to accomplish by his God and Father.

However this does not mean that Jesus always prayed or invoked his Father before healing or raising the dead:

Luke 7:11 Soon afterward3  he went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a great crowd went with him. 12 As he drew near to the gate of the town, behold, a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and a considerable crowd from the town was with her. 13 And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her and said to her, “Do not weep.” 14 Then he came up and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, “Young man, I say to you, arise.” 15 And the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother.

And:

Now when Jesus returned, the crowd welcomed him, for they were all waiting for him. And there came a man named Jairus, who was a ruler of the synagogue. And falling at Jesus' feet, he implored him to come to his house, for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying. As Jesus went, the people pressed around him. And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, and though she had spent all her living on physicians, she could not be healed by anyone. She came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. And Jesus said, “Who was it that touched me?” When all denied it, Peter  said, “Master, the crowds surround you and are pressing in on you!” But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.” And when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him, and how she had been immediately healed. And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace.” While he was still speaking, someone from the ruler's house came and said, “Your daughter is dead; do not trouble the Teacher any more.” But Jesus on hearing this answered him, “Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.” And when he came to the house, he allowed no one to enter with him, except Peter and John and James, and the father and mother of the child. And all were weeping and mourning for her, but he said, “Do not weep, for she is not dead but sleeping.” And they laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. But taking her by the hand he called, saying, “Child, arise.” And her spirit returned, and she got up at once. And he directed that something should be given her to eat. And her parents were amazed, but he charged them to tell no one what had happened. Luke 8:40-56

SADELF concluded:

JESUS ACCORDING TO THIS VERSE DIDNT HAVE ALL THE AUTHORITY , OTHERWISE HE WOULDNT ASK THE FATHER TO RAISE LAZARUS .

BADELF obviously in his zealous for defending falsehood, misread the verse and my conversation with CT,  otherwise he would already know the answer to this is just to read it:

Dk-man7: 1) 42I knew that you ALWAYS  hear me --- In context of John this is because Jesus is the Son of God who is ONE with God and they always work in perfect union<
Dk-man7: but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” <<<<  exposes u
Dk-man7: I SAID THIS ON THE ACCOUNT OF THE PEOPLE

Just to emphasize again for BLINDELF, since now I know he's half illiterate:

So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you THAT YOU HAVE (assumed already) HEARD ME. 42 I  KNEW THAT YOU ALWAYS HEAR ME, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that YOU SENT ME.” 43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” John 11:41-43

Hence Jesus was not praying for permission to raise the dead from his Father, but rather was praying to his Father for the benefit of those standing before him! More on this later.

God is about to raise the dead, so the distinction is clear. Jesus is highlighting the perfect unity that exists between the Father and the Son. The sense in which Jesus "knows" the Father and he always hears him, is clearly defined by the relationship between the Son of God and God and the perfect divine unity presented in the Gospel of John between the two. In other words the Father cannot help but hear Jesus, since they fully are the same divine unity, and they must always comport with one another!

In this passage, Jesus ASSUMES the Father has already HEARD HIM and granted his "request" even before he communicates with the Father! IF FOOLISHELF had of read the passage carefully he would known that Jesus is THANKING his Father BECAUSE HE ALWAYS HEARS HIM.

Now we all know God hears all prayers, hence Jesus is not thanking him generically (like everyone else) since God listens to every prayer on earth.

So how is Jesus using the words: "I know that you ALWAYS HEAR ME" well just before this statement he said "Father I THANK YOU THAT YOU HAVE (past tense) HEARD ME". In other words Jesus already KNOWS the Father will raise Lazarus from the dead and is THANKING him before hand! So the Father always hearing Jesus shows how they always work together in perfect unison, even demonstrating, the Father can never deny the Son, let alone destroy him.

This is similar to other passages in John:

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears MY WORD and believes him WHO SENT ME has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Now does hearing the words of Jesus and believing in his Father mean you will have eternal life? Well according to John 8:30-31 there was a group of Jews who believed in Jesus, however Jesus rebuked them! accusing them of having Satan as their true Father (vs:44) and these same believing Jews in the end tried to kill Christ (verse 59).

Hence these people heard the words of Jesus and believed in him (and his Father), but will they be given eternal life? Well no.  That's because the hearing mentioned in John 5:24 is perpetual belief, meaning an on going belief which results in faith, repentance and obedience..

HEARING Jesus WORD, and BELIEVING in the God who sent him are in fact identical. Hearing in this verse is therefore a metaphor for believing, on-going belief. You must hear (abide/trust) in the words of Jesus and his Father.

But John again supplies us with a similar usage of the word HEARING in the following verse:

25 “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

The second time: "those who hear will live" is particularly referring to those physically dead (vs 26-29) who will inherit eternal life: vs 24 "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Jesus goes on to say:

26  For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

It's clear then that although every person at the end hour will be resurrected and in this sense hear the voice of the Son of God, however "those who HEAR will live" in the second usage (vs 25) is not merely referring to hearing the audible voice and power of Jesus which resurrects every human being, but rather responding to Jesus and his Father in true faith and repentance, those who are given true life.

Notice Jesus when referring to the day of judgement doesn't refer to "those who have HEARD will live" (in the past tense), since even at the day of Resurrection, the believers are still faithful loyal servants and confessors of Jesus and his Father in the present, "those who hear will live", an on going, perpetual belief.

Now that we know the greek word for HEAR: Akouo has a range of meanings, which best suits John 11:41-42?

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number:   191
Original Word Word Origin ajkouvw a root Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Akouo 1:216,34 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech ak-oo'-o    Verb
Definition
to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf to hear to attend to, consider what is or has been said to understand, perceive the sense of what is said to hear something to perceive by the ear what is announced in one's presence to get by hearing learn a thing comes to one's ears, to find out, learn to give ear to a teaching or a teacher to comprehend, to understand

So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you THAT YOU HAVE HEARD ME (kousav? mou). 42 I knew that you always HEAR ME(mou ajkouvei?), but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” John 11:41-43

John then shows us that God the Father is GIVING EAR to his Son Jesus, hence probably why The NET Bible, The Good News Translation, Hebrew Name Version, World English Bible and The Message all translate Akouo as "listen" in this context. This is because the Father doesn't simply hear the request of Jesus audibly, but he listens and always fulfills his wishes. This is clear from the context as well, since Jesus was saying God listens to him by resurrecting Lazarus. It's also worthy to note that the listening of the Father to the Son, is on going, he always listens to Jesus, which results in him always fulfilling Jesus desire, this is the perfect unity.

Biblical commentator Matthew Henry sums up nicely why this would have been beneficial for the followers of Jesus and shows how Jesus is divine:

Our Lord Jesus has taught us, by his own example, to call God Father, in prayer, and to draw nigh to him as children to a father, with humble reverence, yet with holy boldness. He openly made this address to God, with uplifted eyes and loud voice, that they might be convinced the Father had sent him as his beloved Son into the world. He could have raised Lazarus by the silent exertion of his power and will, and the unseen working of the Spirit of life; but he did it by a loud call. This was a figure of the gospel call, by which dead souls are brought out of the grave of sin: and of the sound of the archangel's trumpet at the last day, with which all that sleep in the dust shall be awakened, and summoned before the great tribunal. The grave of sin and this world, is no place for those whom Christ has quickened; THEY MUST COME FORTH. Lazarus was thoroughly revived, and returned not only to life, but to health. The sinner cannot quicken his own soul, but he is to use the means of grace; the believer cannot sanctify himself, but he is to lay aside every weight and hinderance. We cannot convert our relatives and friends, but we should instruct, warn, and invite them.(Source)

A.T. Robertson, a renowned scholar of the Greek New Testament says:

I thank thee that thou heardest me (eucaristw soi oti hkousa mou). See Acts 6:11 for eucaristew. Clearly Jesus had prayed to the Father concerning the raising of Lazarus. He has the answer before he acts. "No pomp of incantation, no wrestling inprayer even; but simple words of thanksgiving, as if already Lazarus was restored" (Dods). Jesus well knew the issues involved on this occasion. If he failed, his own claims to be the Son of God (the Messiah), would be hopelessly discredited with all. If he succeeded, the rulers would be so embittered as to compass his own death. And I knew (egw de hdein). Past perfect of oida used as imperfect. This confident knowledge is no new experience with Jesus. It has "always" (pantote) been so. (Word Pictures of the New Testament)

One reformer, John Wesley also exposes SADELF:

Jesus lifted up his eyes - Not as if he applied to his Father for assistance. There is not the least show of this. He wrought the miracle with an air of absolute sovereignty, as the Lord of life and death. But it was as if he had said, I thank thee, that by the disposal of thy providence, thou hast granted my desire, in this remarkable opportunity of exerting my power, and showing forth thy praise. (source)

J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton assert:

"Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me. Jesus, dwelling in constant communion with the Father, knew that the Father concurred in his wish to raise Lazarus. He therefore makes public acknowledgment, and offers a prayer of thanksgiving, for the Father's gracious answer to this and all his petitions. That they may believe that thou didst sent me. He states, too, that the prayer is publicly made that it may induce faith in the by standers.He wished all present to know that the miracle about to be wrought is not the work of some independent wonder-worker, but is performed by himas one commissioned and sent of God. In other words, the miracle was wrought to prove the concord between the Son and the Father, the very fact which the Jews refused to believe. Rationalists criticize this prayer as a violation of the principle at Matthew 6:5 Matthew 6:6 ), and Weissecalled it "prayer for show". But it shows on its face that it is notuttered by Jesus to draw admiration to himself as a praying man, but to induce faith unto salvation in those who heard." ("Harmony of the Four Gospels")

Dr. Constable's Expository (Bible Study) Notes concludes for SADELF:

"11:41b-42 Jesus addressed God in prayer, characteristically, as His "Father." He spoke as though the raising of Lazarus was something that the Father had already decreed, which was true (cf. v. 11). His prayer was not a request for Lazarus' resurrection. Such a prayer would have glorified the Father. Rather it was a prayer of thanksgiving for what the Father would shortly do: "I thank You that You have heard Me." It had the effect of focusing attention on the Son as God's Agent (God the Father) in performing the miracle. Jesus' prayer also had the effect of drawing the on lookers into His intimate relationship with the Father, and proving that He really did do nothing independently of the Father (cf. 5:19-47). Jesus' public prayer here is a good reminder that all leaders in public prayer should take those present into account when they pray. We should do so, not by "playing to the gallery" (cf. Matt. 6:5), but by voicing prayers that are appropriate in view of who is present."

What we have here then is every single commentator denies that Jesus is praying to the Father for assistance, permission or power because of his supposed status of being a mere slave. We see the Scripture, the lexicon, and commentators all unanimously agree Jesus prays to set an example, and to show his perfect union with the Father, how the Father could never reject him, since they always work in perfect unison, and they are completely one in unity. 

So I challenge SADELF to produce a single verse where Peter or any other apostle makes these claims.

RIP Elfie

Stick with the Rookies in the future where you belong.