Yusuf Ismail

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five. Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Opening Comments, Weather, and Technical Setup

And welcome to the dividing line at least I hope you can hear me. I was noticing in the introduction there that a few Syllables got elongated in riches introduction. So something tells me you'll probably get that from my end as well.

That's just an indication that once again, I am coming to you live this time from Evergreen, Colorado. I was in Santa Fe last time. We did a program and so now we are attempting anyways to do the program live via Skype and We will just see how that that works out.

We do have some storms in the area and We have storms in the area in Phoenix, too. I think at least a little while ago my iPad started. Yes, Lord speaking speaking of thunder. My iPad started making some some noises at me and brought up a map showing a very large Thundercell.

Well, it wasn't so much. It was large. It was purple and the last time I saw a purple Thundercell on radar was back in October of what was that 2011? I think it was when this wild storm came through Phoenix and did all sorts of well I'm not sure how much damage it actually did but let's just put this way the roofing contractors said it did a lot of damage.

I'm not sure the insurance companies necessarily agreed. But anyway, it was a I've still got I can see from sitting here looking through a window. The dents on the top of my portal Nissan Versa from that particular storm that I got caught out in so it's it's One of the two ways we might be gotten.

Like we might get it here in Colorado or in Phoenix or both at the same time. I don't know and I'm sure Gil Ripplinger would have something to say about that if that were to take place. I did see something somewhat humorous.

And by the way, there was someone on Twitter who was asking if we were taking calls today. Basically if you can convince rich that it's a really really good call so much so that he'll actually get in a channel and tell me that.

Then we'll we'll go ahead and take phone calls as best we can. Obviously if I can't hear you that's not gonna work real well but otherwise We've got a number of things Lined up on the program today. Unfortunately when doing Skype, I do not have my normative Cough button when I need to do something like that.

So it's it's live folks. It's as live as it gets and we'll see how long it lasts. I did say something rather humorous on Fox News back on the 10th. It says Kentucky pastor's wife criticizes Southern Baptist Church wants him to resign.

A newspaper column lampooning Southern Baptist calling the group the quote crazy old paranoid uncle of Evangelical Christians and quote is Causing quite a stir in a Kentucky City and put a pastor's job in jeopardy.

The column was written by Angela Thomas the wife of Bill Thomas an assistant pastor at the First Baptist Church in Madisonville. Her column was done response to the Southern Baptist Convention's opposition to a new Boy Scouts of America policy that welcomes gay members.

Sexuality doesn't come up and isn't relative to typical scouting activities. But now thanks to Southern Baptist the parents of little innocent Scouts everywhere are having to have the talk. She wrote June 19th in the Madisonville messenger.

She writes a weekly humor column community paper. Which publishes daily in the weeks since the status of Bill Thomas's job, but the church has become unclear. Love news reporters unclear. The First Baptist pastor said he'd accepted Thomas's resignation.

But Thomas wrote in a letter obtained by the newspaper that he had not quit. Thomas has worked at the church for 10 years and was also its musical director. Bill and Angela Thomas declined to be interviewed by the Associated Press on Tuesday, but he previously told the newspaper He agreed with what his wife wrote now.

This is this is the actual reason that I I picked this up. The column says Southern Baptists have become quote raging Shiite Baptists and quote After drifting quote to the right and quote for the past four decades.

Quote Santa and the Easter Bunny are simply the devil in disguise and cable television the internet are his playground. The Boy Scouts are his evil minions and quote she wrote well, I don't have any comments whatsoever about whether Pastor Thomas is still leading music at This particular church or not.

First Baptist Church in Madisonville. But it did catch my attention that someone who's actually a member of a Southern Baptist Church Would make light of what happened at the convention where there was a very serious discussion concerning the events in the Boy Scouts of America and if any of you listen to dr Albert Moller's the briefing.

You know that he has been very concerned about this has raised the issue a number of times and in fact is way ahead of The curve on developments within it and used it as an example a good example of the pressures being placed upon Christians in society to abandon moral and ethical mandates that are plainly Presented in the pages of Scripture.

And of course then when you have people starting to use terms like Shiite Baptists You can tell someone using terminology like that doesn't know much about either Baptists or Shiites. Because I know both and either would appreciate the the joining of the two terms.

I'm not really sure what that's meant to communicate. Anyways, but this kind of Discussion this kind of pressure being placed upon us in the public square. Nothing unusual whatsoever. It is only going to increase especially because remember It's amazing this particular Supreme Court decision the recent Supreme Court decision where in essence the presidents of the United States up until the current president of the United States Were all identified as having acted via animus and bigotry.

It's amazing. We we have such short memories now. I mean 50 -60 years ago. That would have been the topic of discussion for I don't know how long. But these days well, that's just so yesterday, you know, that's so two weeks ago we move on from there and there's almost no discussion of it and yet the Ramifications of that decision and especially the language of Kennedy in writing for the majority Will have ramifications that we Well, some people do see coming but I don't think all of us can even begin to see what the ramifications are really going to be but they're going to be very major and We will be talking about them.

Well, let's put this way Let's hope we have the freedom to be talking about them for a long time in in the future but my concern is we probably won't have that kind of freedom because of the very nature of of that I Am going to try.

I've set things up a little bit different this time. I You know, most people don't confess to their own dumb actions. But I tend to fairly regularly. I was talking into the wrong end of the iPad. The microphones on the other end so.

Same thing with the the little speaker that I had to be playing Michael Brown stuff. It could have sounded better If I had just been thinking straight there in my hotel room so I may be coming through a little bit better because I'm talking to the top of the iPad now where the Little microphone is rather than the bottom of the iPad where the speaker is.

They're not the same thing on the MacBook Pro. There's a little bit more confusion as to what's where but I should have known that. And I have it set up to where the iPad is sitting right next to the MacBook and right above its speakers.

So I'm not going with an external speaker. I'm doing it a different way and rich said it sounded okay before so we'll see how it works and I'm actually Going to try to go back and do a little bit of the use of Ismael.

Try to finish up his quote his opening statement because Right afterwards is the William Lane Craig Avatar statement and I I just I don't know something makes me want to want to play that. I'm not sure.

It's sort of painful but we're gonna we're gonna try try anyways, and so. Huh, so so so people in channel are saying might have sounded better on Tuesday. What do you guys think? Oh great fine. Look honestly, I can see I can see the little hole for the For the for the microphone.

It's right there honest. I can so. Anyway, alright, so let's let's go back for those of you who haven't heard it before. We've been listening to a debate took place a few years ago between Yusuf Ismail and William Lane Craig in South Africa.

I will be debating Yusuf Ismail Bashir Varna and Adnan Rashid in South Africa in Really a matter of weeks now a lord willing, please keep. No, that's not the earpiece. I know where the earpiece goes. It's the other thing.

It's the other teeny tiny little thing I don't don't try to. If I was into multitasking, I'd kick him out of channel right now, but I'm not gonna do that anyway. Just a reminder that there is a banner ad on a Omin org and we could continue to use your help in getting all the finances put together for getting to South Africa it is a long trip and Lots of costs involved.

So if you can be of assistance click on that banner ad. It's the one where I'm. I have a zebra in the background and I'm hitchhiking. A Clear clear example of what is called Photoshop. You're wondering because I've I've not really been there to be able to hitchhike to Africa.

Anyhow, let's I've actually slowed this back down though to 1 .0 because use of this mail is talking fast enough as it is and The quality is such that I've slowed it down so we can make sure to hear it.

Let's go back to use of this miles opening statement as far as we've gotten he is providing various criticisms of the concept of the deity of Christ. Now again last time I I point this out of points out many many times before if you are going to speak Especially to a Muslim that has any Experience in Dawa that is the offering of an apologetic against Christianity the presentation of Islam.

I would highly recommend that you be familiar with John chapter 5 and the abuse of John chapter 5 by Muslims at this point. We have put videos up on YouTube on it. We've discussed it many many times before but One of the most valuable things you can do is to know John 5 and to know that the point of John chapter 5 is Not Jesus denying his deity.

It is the assertion of the absolute unity Between the father and the son in accomplishing God's will that the son is not some deity off on his own doing his own thing. There is perfect unity the words that he speaks the father's words and yet we are to honor the son.

He was well the father the father is a source of life. The son is the source of life. There's this perfect unity between the two a clear Distinction is drawn between them and yet the unity as well the very same balance we have in the rest of the gospel of John.

But you need to know that they that most Muslims who use this text only know a few verses of John chapter 5. I have not personally ever encountered a Muslim who has presented a discussion of this text beginning at least at verse 16 or 17.

And then walking through the text. That's just not generally how Muslim apologists approach the Bible that's one of the differences hopefully in how we approach the Quran is that we attempt to find if there is a Context that we can follow things like but that's not normally how the Muslims do it.

So no John chapter 5 be prepared to respond to those things.

Doesn't play. Jesus says my god my god.

Why have you forsaken me and he fell on his face just like a Muslim would do now two errors in in one sentence. When Gia said Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani, he's quoting from Psalm 22, of course and Another text that you really want to put on your memorization list your familiarization list.

Especially if you have taken the time that would highly recommend to you taking the time To listen to the debates that took place in Dublin. When both in the audience questions at the University College Dublin and Trinity College.

We had a tremendous opportunity of discussing Jesus's words Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani and what they really mean what Psalm 22 really means. Etc, etc. But Jesus did not then fall upon his face like any Muslim would because Jesus was on the cross when he said these words so.

Two errors in in one. Evidently, he's thinking of the fact that in the garden Jesus does bow down. But there are numerous places where Jesus does not pray in this way and so again Muslims will sort of cherry-pick the data and They're they're not really honestly trying to come to the answer.

How did Jesus pray? They're assuming they already know that answer and therefore they will pick the texts that support that and then just ignore the presence of Texts for example John chapter 17 where Jesus is not bowed to the ground as he's uttering these words and there are other places where Jesus lifted up his eyes to heaven while while praying so.

Again just be be aware of these kinds of very common errors that Muslims make their apologetics for Islam. And Matthew 26 39. Please please please now notice what's going on. Been there done that heard this when Muslims in the audience, especially certain kinds of Muslims in the audience start getting excited and They think that their speaker is making good points.

They Will Start doing the the talk beer and in fact right at the beginning of what I played I heard in the audience someone say talk beer and now the the Muslims are trying to respond by saying a lot of Akbar.

This happened to me in my debate in London Last year during the Quran debate. There is a good deal of Allahu Akbar in going on and The the irony is that in almost every time in fact, I can't think of an exception to this.

I I didn't sit down and do an exhaustive study of this but every time that I can think of where Muslims have broken into the Allahu Akbar chant during a debate they were normally chanting and rejoicing at the falsehood that had just been uttered at a Misuse of Scripture a simple factual error.

I cannot think of a single exception to that and here's a good example. I mean use of it smile is is not presenting a contextually relevant argument here he's misrepresenting the text and Yet you are hearing the his own people interrupting him At this time and he's trying to quiet them for the obvious reason that he only has a certain amount of time.

Now whenever you hear someone emphasize something we already believe then you you recognize they don't understand what we believe. We believe that Jesus Christ was fully man. You can call him man you can call him prophet, but he wasn't just that.

That'd be like someone that'd be like me quoting from the hadith where someone refers to Muhammad as a man and going see He's not a prophet. Well, no, that would be an abuse of logic the language everything else and yet that's what You have going on with with this kind of argumentation.

Man approved of Jesus identified as a prophet. It's not necessarily an Islamic belief. It's a biblical belief. That's what the New Testament says. I must walk today and tomorrow. For it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Israel out of Jerusalem.

A prophet perish outside of Jerusalem.

Just saying that well again two things. We believe Jesus was a prophet prophet priest King. The issue is not that we deny the Jesus as a prophet in any way shape or form. It is the fact that Islam comes along in light of the biblical teaching that goes beyond that the biblical teaching that speaks of him as the Son of God the biblical teaching that teaches speaks of him as the Creator and Ignore ignores those things and denies those things even though the very same people who were calling him prophet Also called him the Son of God.

I mean quote from Acts 2. The quote all quote all of what the the sermon was about including The truth of the resurrection of Christ even though the Quran denies the crucifixion hence resurrection. This is classic cherry-picking of the text ignoring the actual intentions of the authors.

Something that I exhort Christians not to do to Islamic texts, even though Muslims continue to do them to Christian texts.

So Cannot perish outside of Jerusalem so.

Yusuf Ismail thinks that because Jesus is outside the city walls that means he's outside of Jerusalem. Therefore Jesus is a false prophet. Of course anybody in that day would understand Jesus's language when he talks about going up to Jerusalem.

The fact is trial takes place there and nobody would say well, okay. You know technically by GPS location. The amount of Calvary is a point zero one degrees outside of actual Jerusalem. Therefore Jesus the false prophet this again is the use of modern standards that no one at that time They that anyone at that time would have looked at Yusuf Ismail and gone.

Really? Seriously, you think that that means Jesus is a false prophet because he was crucified Technically outside the walls as if anybody thought that that was not Jerusalem and the environs of Jerusalem.

Again you you could find numerous examples of the same type of thing. Parts to place names and get really specific about well, is that really there? That is a again an abuse of the language and abuse the text that we don't want to go there.

No man has seen God as any time. You cannot see shape. Or hear his voice when he told Philip he was seen me. I seen the father. He must have been meaning something else.

I'm not sure what he means there. Obviously when Jesus told Philip he was seen me has seen the father. Jesus was affirming the fact that he is the perfect revelation of the father, which is of course Exactly what John started off his gospel by saying that no one has seen God any time the monogamous.

They asked he has executed him. He has explained him So again only by ignoring the fact that the same author wrote John one who wrote John chapter 14. Can you get around the meaning of these texts and once again just you know I know this sounds like a broken record, but we don't want to do this to the Quran.

We simply ask that Muslims stop doing it to the biblical text. The problem is if Muslims stop doing this a biblical text They're not gonna have much Dawa left. They're not gonna have much of a real defense left because of the I think the reality of the fact that the Author of the Quran did not understand the Christian faith and hence did that provide a meaningful argument that you can develop from the Quranic text against real biblical Christianity.

James Donne who is a contemporary of dr. Craig in his book evidence for the Messiah He states that in Matthew Mark and Luke statistically one can determine that there is an evolution in terms of what Jesus said in the.

Highest reviewed for example. Now once again, you have the Muslims borrowing from liberals the same Muslims who will never apply these standards their own text because if you were to do this if You were to take the Quran put it in chronological order.

You can start coming up with developments in Muhammad's thought developments Muhammad's belief. It's it you would have to do it. If Yusuf Ismail is gonna use this kind of argumentation He could have no objection whatsoever To a to someone outside of Islam doing the exact same thing and saying see here.

You have development within Islamic thought within Muhammad's thought and of course from the Islamic perspective. That's impossible. Because the Quran are the very words of God Written on the heavenly tablets and brought down by the angel Jibril on Laylat al-Qadr, etc, etc.

So the inconsistency of the utilization of Liberals who do not believe in divine revelation in the way that even Muslims believe in it. You you just have to recognize this kind of double standard and when you're utilizing a double standard you are Abandoning the debate you're abandoning the argument.

In Matthew's gospel, Jesus speaks about the kingdom of God 47 times and hard of himself. But in John's gospel, he speaks about the kingdom of God only five times now.

He speaks hardly of himself in the gospel of Matthew. I just again this kind of incredibly shallow Understanding of the text is is very difficult to respond to and unfortunately many Muslims listening to this We'll just accept this as factual and it is not factual.

Hopefully once they check it if they were to check it out for themselves, they would discover that's the case. But unfortunately the vast majority would never be checking it out. When we realize or theorize remember it's theorized.

It's not realized. There's no evidence of that that we have no Manuscript evidence. It is a theory. There are counter theories and at this point I agree very warmly with NT Wright who has said we don't know the order in which the Gospels were written and When you build entire theological mountains out of theoretical speculation Well, those mountains can then get knocked down by further evidence in the future.

For example Now remember we caught Yusuf Ismael a few weeks ago. Well, I would call a few weeks ago. Well on a program a few weeks ago. We caught Yusuf Ismael repeating the very same error that Shabir Ali had made in talking about this alleged Development over time we caught him with the error regards to courios between Matthew and Mark.

And I had already Explained that error to Shabir Ali in 2006 and this debate I think was 2009 or 2010. So Just just keep that in mind in regards to the the type of research being done here.

Once John's gospel even refers to God as the father 73 times. In Mark's gospel. He refers to Jesus refers to God as father three times. But in John's gospel a whopping 100 and times now.

Of course the fact that John's gospel gives us a completely different level of dialogue and a completely different context than Mark's does. And that Mark is different than Matthew and Luke for example the material they conclude.

They include and you know again we could we could take apart the Quran and we could start taking different sections of the Quran and Putting them at odds with other sections of the Quran even to the point of arguing that well you know one person might have written these surahs and then another person wrote these surahs and It's very very easy to do once you start with certain presuppositions.

In terms of what we see in terms of how Jesus represent himself. So it seems to me that the high priestology which Jesus represented himself as a son of God He's thought to be a latent search in the session.

Even though as we've pointed out and I did a series of sermons a couple of months ago. They're on sermon audio. We've blogged them. You can demonstrate the deity of Christ without question. So from the gospel mark in fact I would I would be glad to do that.

In debate against Yusuf Ismail does the gospel of Mark present the deity of Christ. It would be so easy to do. But I I doubt I'll be taken up on that particular invitation.

At George Washington University.

In the fourth century now, by the way son of God and begotten son are not the same thing. There there's no way to to that. This shows confusion on Yusuf Ismail's part even in the sources that he's reading.

Dr.

Craig believes that Raymond Brown is a scholar of note and Raymond Brown is certainly a recognized scholar in the world. It was injected by Jerome into the Latin Bible to refute the claims made by Bishop Arius.

And he's associated father alone was really God and Jesus is made and not begotten.

But I would love to see some evidence of that. I would love to see evidence anywhere. What. Obviously, he's quoting from something that he does not understand and has not provided sufficient information to even begin to respond to it.

But what? Where do you have evidence that the concept of Jesus as the Son of God is found only in the Latin Bible? Where where are these massive differences between the Latin text and the Greek text. I'd like to I'd like to see these things.

The fact is of course there isn't and so. Maybe this is some type of theory. Without any manuscript evidence. But of course is being presented by Yusuf Ismail in a way that I don't think he even understands what it is.

He's he's arguing.

Translated so begotten. The actual Greek word is monogamous does not mean begotten.

The word ordinarily means of a single kind and as a result you and of course anyone who has read the Forgotten Trinity knows that. I have about what? How many pages was that? I don't have my books with me right now.

But I forgot how many pages I dedicated to the demonstration of the meaning of monogamous. Monogamous means unique one-of-a-kind and so here you have something that is a given being used as an argument.

As if it's somehow relevant to the assertion of the relationship of the father and the son. If you just think this through he'd realize that what this does is it decimates the vast majority of Islamic? argumentation against the sonship of Christ because the author of the Quran didn't understand the meaning of the word son and Had a physical idea to it.

In fact very clearly Ahmed D dot did not understand this. I would I would challenge use of Ishmael to follow through with this information and come to conclusion the recognition that Ahmed D dot and his arguments against the Sonship of Christ were based upon an ignorance of these very facts.

Translation. That's the reason why you sometimes find a translation that renders the word Only begotten has to do with an ancient here to say within the church. In response to the Aryan claim that Jesus was made not begotten Jerome translated the Greek term monogamous into Latin as unijitus only begotten.

So there is absolutely nothing. In fact, we'll deal with the issue of Son of God later on but before we can come to that Look at this quotation in John 20 18 16 to 18 when Jesus appeared before Mary Magdalene in the After the so-called post-crucifixion appearances and she goes and wants to cling on to him.

What does Jesus say? He says I'm ascending to my father and to your father to my God and your God. And then Mary Magdalene went and conveyed that particular message to Jesus in respect of that particular point now again.

Christians believe this. We believe in the Incarnation. We believe Jesus had a God because he was the perfect man. Etc. Etc. But I again I just have to wonder why in the world would you submit Ismael be quoting these texts?

Because he believes that they are corrupted. Does he not Jesus never used the term father in this way? Did he according to Muslims? So why quote these words if you don't actually believe Jesus ever said these words.

Just just be straightforward and say now Jesus never said This but it's in your Bible. Therefore, I think that would be the way to handle it appropriately and by the way, I have kicked the speed back up so we can we can get to the avatar before the end of.

Others so-called discussions, I will deal in the rebuttal section. So it does not mean that I concede that point. It's interesting to note that the New Testament that we have it today is an eclectic addition.

It's a development which is recognized by the vast majority of biblical scholars. You've got meant. The oldest manuscript the Codex Sinaiticus dates to win 400 years after Jesus now.

This is where it starts getting interesting. He's gone a little bit fast. But when you know, I I Hope that the trip in October will lead to further trips in the future and more in-depth discussions I hope to get to know Yusuf Ismael.

I hope that he will listen to these programs I hope that he hears my heart that I do want to get to know him and that I would love to see him Grow in his knowledge of what Christians really believe rather than what he's been told we believe.

So that our interactions will be more useful to an even wider audience including himself but When you come to this particular area I again, just just want to strongly encourage Muslims to think before speaking on this topic because when you compare the mountain of information that we have on the text of the New Testament and the Openness of the Christian Church in dealing with this information any Muslim in the world with a computer Could download a a mountain of textual evidence that is widely available.

It's not hidden anything else you need to realize that's not the case with the Quran and you need to realize your text has a textual history and the vast majority of you don't know what it is and Unfortunately, even the books that have been put out there are not overly balanced shall we say in the approach they take to even discussion of What is clearly found in the Islamic texts the in the in the hadith Concerning the history of the Quran itself.

They're extremely biased and Would not be considered Fair renderings of the history at all. So just be very very careful when you start discussing these things In the 19th century, so in other words what he's just referred to there are the textual differences between at least Sinaiticus is Edition of the Alexandrian text and the textus receptus now again I want to remind everyone in regards to Sinaiticus.

This was a text that has been in use from about 325 to 350 AD to 1800 so it had been in use for 1 ,500 years and When you say there are differences when you're talking about the original writings the first corrector the second corrector.

You're talking about hands that are 700 years down the road that tried to Make Sinaiticus read like the current Byzantine text of that day. What are you talking about? Unfortunately in most of my experience and I'm looking for those wonderful exceptions in the future.

But in most my experience when I hear people talking about Sinaiticus Vaticanus Alexandra's any the other early Unsealed manuscripts or the papyri they're going on second third and fourth hand information.

They've not examined the text for themselves and are not familiar with the history of those particular texts either. What do you mean it's not scholarly to discuss these things. We do not have the original words of Muhammad amongst us.

We don't have the original writings of Quran amongst us. Just be be fair Utilize the same standards. We don't have originals of the Torah and yet the Quran itself says that the Torah was sent down by God and contains light and guidance and Muhammad when the Torah was presented before him got off of a cushion.

He was sitting on and had the Torah placed upon that cushion said I believe every word in this book. So where is the consistency? It's just amazing to me when I listen to Muslims who will buy into modern Liberalism and its arguments against Christianity and yet they don't realize that by buying into those arguments.

They are absolutely cutting off their own legs. They are just they're decimating their own faith, but they don't apply those standards in that way.

Jesus never spoke Greek. He spoke Aramaic maybe.

Most everybody in Jesus's day at that time would have spoken at least some Greek. You wanted to know what that that Roman soldier was yelling at you. You'd have to have some concept of that but again.

Why what's what's the problem with that? Evidently the idea is that for the New Testament documents to be authoritative the Spirit of God Could not possibly utilize the language that would allow the New Testament documents to go all over the known world.

He couldn't do that. That's that's too big for the Spirit of God. He has to use Aramaic a language that would limit the application of the New Testament documents to one tiny little corner of the Roman Empire.

See what was that? What's you just have to take apart the assumptions of these? Statements to see just how vacuous they really are. A.

Particular scholar on this. One minute left and he says that this is Charles Cameron his book ethics and liberation. He says. And this is the message I leave for all of you Muslims as well as Christians.

If you're truly respect the person of Jesus and live out the implications of his life death and teachings.

We can no longer make trains about his his what his life is his what Oh death and teachings. Oh, I thought surah 427 said that Jesus wasn't crucified in surah 428 says he was taken up to heaven and Just just pointing out.

Once again, the sources that are being utilized End up contradicting the person utilizing the sources. And what does that tell you?

The absolute uniqueness of Jesus or the necessity of the encounter with the person of Jesus for human liberation and salvation. To be true to the person of Jesus his life love and concern fathers. Openness to persons of both sexes and all economic classes all cultural backgrounds.

We must repudiate Astrology, we must repudiate a Christology that measures the measures the worth of persons on the basis of their relationship with Christ alone. I thank you for the time with all the discussions that dr. Craig has had.

Unfortunately has not proven the point and I'd be interested in hearing the rebuttal. I'd like to end with a verse of the Quran which says what will. John Huckabee was out of battle in the bottle account as a hookah that when truth comes Goes itself against that which is incorrect.