Ally/Licona Debate Cross-Examination

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 -973 -4602 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic here is James white.

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon. Last time I saw it was about a hundred and twelve degrees something like that. 114 oh I'm looking forward to riding through that on my motorcycle.

Yeah, but it was like 102 104 on the way in and it was just you have to put the visor down because the air hurts I mean it literally literally hurts any exposed skin. It doesn't doesn't doesn't like that very much at all.

So It's it's a warm one here, but it's a warm one all over the place actually, so We aren't complaining too much about it. But like I said the illustrations about Okay, it's a dry blast furnace it's a dry blast furnace for the moment, but did you notice the water vapor map?

It's here it comes here comes the monsoon and They're even saying a slight chance of showers and when was last time rained April. I think it was sometime in April wasn't it's been forever. It is really dry and Really dry and dusty and I think the folks in Texas would be happy to send the rain our direction.

I think they'd find that to be perfectly acceptable and so Feel sorry for the folks over there watching watching what's going on there we have one of our channel regulars who is watching a lake lap at his back porch at the moment and.

So we're hoping that it doesn't go any farther than that. But obviously it has gone farther for other folks. And so we pray for those folks as well. I hope you saw the links. I mentioned this last time about the book of Abraham.

I found the I put up the YouTube link. There's actually like four or five I think Links to the full length. I think it's 58 minute video. And of course, you know, you're watching video on the Internet.

So the quality isn't you know, necessarily the best. Oh Rich is gonna see the foot marks on the wall that a certain person left a little bit later on. I know those things don't handle feet too. Well, do they?

Okay, well Rich just got a strange look on his face, but that's okay. That's that's what happens when you're roughhoused in the office, I guess but anyhow. Hey, it's summertime you gotta get a you know kids do things during the summer and old people do things during the summer, too anyway.

You can get the DVD and I would I would show this DVD, you know. If you've got like a Wednesday night Bible study type thing or a Sunday night or some type of Christian training thing or whatever. That would be an excellent Excellent one to obtain I think because it doesn't a very very good job.

Doesn't spend too much time on the likes of John G and Carrie shirts and Hugh Nibley. Cuz there just isn't a whole lot of reason to I mean the the excuses that they make well we actually haven't found the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated or I love the new one.

It's been over not overly new. But I like the real scholarly one that the book of Abraham is actually just a direct divine revelation that was it was just prompted By the reading of the Egyptian papyri that he really couldn't actually read anyways but it was just the symbols and the pictures that prompted the divine revelation and I'm sorry, but you know if Smith hadn't written his diary, you know, maybe they'd get away with stuff like that.

But If there wasn't that the Egyptian alphabet and grammar that corresponds directly to what we got then maybe you might get away with it too, but again excellent illustration of just the level of desperation that people will go to in defense of falsehood and The book of Abraham is certainly one of those those falsehoods.

So don't forget to pick up that link and for those of you listening by archive that would link would have been put up Two days ago approximately so that would have been is the third of the fourth of July 2007 you can go to the archives and who knows if that YouTube video will still be there a few years down the road.

That is one of the problems and looking at old archives is URLs it amazes me when people write to me. Hey, I found an article of yours from two years ago and the links are broken. You should you should fix it.

Just like oh, yeah, that's what I'm gonna spend the rest like my life doing going back over the archives every day. Are all the links still there? Oh one's broken. I better go find it. Oh My. It's called Google.

That's exactly right. Google and Alta Vista and Yahoo and all that stuff is exactly what you need and you know what if it's gone. It's gone. You should have read it when it was new. All I can guarantee you is that the the the URL was correct at the moment I posted it if it's not correct ten minutes later.

That is beyond my control. Okay I've moved on from there. So that's just sort of how The internet works eight seven seven seven five three three three four one we didn't get back to the discussion of The the debate one of the reasons I Was looking at a rather important portion of the the Quran Which is surah 3 ayah 55.

Now notice when I read This this section What it says in the Assad a Translation we have these words. Lo God said Oh Jesus verily I shall cause thee to die and shall exalt thee unto me and cleanse thee of the presence of those who are bent on denying the truth and I shall place those Who follow thee far above those who are bent on denying the truth?

Under the Day of Resurrection in the end unto me you all must return. I shall judge between you with regard to all on which you were want to differ. Now notice that phrase. Verily I shall cause thee to die.

Now the Malik translation says Allah said Oh Isa. I am going to recall you from your mission and Raise you up to myself. Now compare the two I shall cause thee to die and shall exalt thee unto me. I Am going to recall you from your mission and raise you up to myself.

Hmm how about the pictile translation? When Allah said Oh Jesus lo I am gathering thee and Causing thee to ascend unto me. So we have die. Recall you from your mission gathering thee and we have exalt thee unto me raise you to myself and Causing thee to ascend unto me.

So far none of them are actually saying the same thing you you might be able to try to put them all together. But it's gonna be a bit of stretch and the use of folly translation, which is what many of you have in the audience.

Allah said Oh Jesus. I will take thee and raise thee to myself. Now is that is that Resurrection is that Raising before death is it death? I will cause thee to die or I will gather thee or I will bring you in from your.

I mean There is a lot of differing interpretations and to be honest with you The text and this is one of the major problems with the Quran. When the Quran is so dependent upon external sources for interpretation.

Specifically the the traditions the Hadith. Then when the Hadith don't give you or can possibly give you contradictory understandings of the same concept. There's really no way of finding out which one's which now.

Some of these translations, I think are clearly influenced by Those traditions. In fact, I can hardly think of any translations that are not but still It's a big question. Because did Jesus die or was he raised up to Allah?

That's that's one of the issues that sort of comes up in the debate as we have been Listening to it as as well are people making fun of the accent that I was that I was using there. You're making fun of it.

They're making fun of you and me. Oh, okay. All right. Did they think that that was meant to be a serious accent or something?

They seem to think that we use southern accents and I was pointing out that it's Western.

Western. Yes. Oh, I wasn't really much anything. It was just somebody who's who doesn't know how to use the computer and Thinks that I'm supposed to be running around fixing all the links and stuff. That's four years old.

Yeah, that's all it is. It's I don't know what this is just sort of a some it's sort of a NASCAR person, you know, if.

Arizona. If people in the south make fun of Arizonans with an Arizona accent, there is no Arizona accent. That's a problem.

Well sort of. Nah, come on not in Phoenix anyways.

There's not in Phoenix. But the accent here is just it's just been wiped out because everyone's those of us who grew up in other places of Arizona. Do you have one?

You grew up in a place. Well, never mind. Let's get back to the important things here. Let's get back to the debate some of you. It's been so long. You won't even remember what the debate was about. But we are currently listening to the exchange between Shibarly and Mike Laicona and we've noted that I've stopped a couple times and I said Mike yo Mike jump in here, dude.

I Think honestly, there's there tends to be a hesitation on the part of many people when debating a Muslim in a non-muslim environment to jump in and and say what needs to be said and Of course I can tell if you listen to the moderator this saying it's like man Prozac City and I just.

It's just it's just really let's be really mellow and can we move on to something else type of thing? And and so I think the whole venue may have Added to that but but Shabir has been getting the lion's share of the time here and when he's supposed to be asking questions, he's actually making a lot of statements stuff like that and That's sort of where we were and we're getting fairly close.

I believe to the place where some interesting stuff is said concerning the nature of scholarship, so let's go ahead and and Pick up and you mentioned some of them. Yes, they're only in the gospel according to John not to deny that nails were used in crucifixion.

But to say that Jesus was actually nailed to the cross. This is something that the gospel writers wrote because they thought that is how you tell about a crucifixion. Now now stop right there now listen to what's being said here.

This is the exact same kind of reverse engineering concept and idea that is Rejected by Shabir Ali when someone tries to use it on the Quran but now all of a sudden he doesn't say well, you know, it's possible that maybe if we take the most destructive critical view of the New Testament that what you have in Matthew Mark and Luke is Not people who had any direct access to an actual crucifixion.

They're just basically making this up and They're they're telling a fiction and this is how it would have been and how do you substantiate this? And why do you take such a such a you know, I just don't find anything outside of the necessity of defending Islam the necessity of defending the the the errors that Muhammad made Historically because he just didn't know what he was talking about.

He did not have historical connection to what happened with Jesus and and he didn't have access in New Testament so like that he was going on second third fourth fifth hand information and Outside of the necessity to have to defend him.

There certainly is nothing in the text of New Testament. Nothing in history that requires this kind of radical skeptic skepticism concerning the nature of the New Testament text it just it just doesn't I.

But crucifixion did not necessarily involve nailing one could have been tied as well and now why is he saying that well because if if nails are used you've got you know, a lot of blood loss there and and He's trying to make it sound like well, I guess we really don't know that Jesus died just because Single historical document that it relates to it.

We just fictionalize all them just because they all say that we just dismiss that but We don't know that she is that he might have just been tied to the cross. This is the point where where like cone is gonna Almost said nail him and that would be a really bad thing to say at that point.

But he's gonna he's gonna just demonstrate that at this point Shabir really lost it. I mean what he says here the sources use I've been I've had one of the sources that Shabir uses Called Jesus and his world.

I've had it sitting here in the studio on On on my desk waiting for this sectionist that this debate for at least two months. And I think we might finally get there today. Who knows what is that Gibson in order to have the nail going the palm which is traditionally how it is?

Shown had to also have the arms tied and notice that the other two who were condemned to be crucified. They had their arms tied to the crossbar and it was possible to raise a person to the cross and have his arms tied and Good reason not to use the passion movie as a source of history not have to be nailed so maybe Jesus was nailed but to say that he was necessarily nailed because John says so is really to Give us more to imagine about the breaking of the legs again.

This is doubted by historical scholars because they look at John putting this in in place. And they say that John has written this in order to prove the Old Testament scripture to be true. Not just just a quick quiz here.

Especially if you've been listening to the dividing line for a long time who said exactly the same thing and. And we were reviewing this person's teachings and they said the exact same thing that that Fulfillment of prophecy is actually just the wishful thinking of the writers.

They're ransacking the Old Testament looking for things that connect to Jesus and they will make up stories about Jesus to quote-unquote fulfill these prophecies the idea and and at least this guy Who I'm referring to?

Because of his worldview. At least we can understand how from a presuppositional perspective He comes up with that there is no reason for Shabir to come up with this at all. None because his worldview does not preclude prophecy.

In fact, he's going to try to use prophecy to defend the Quran. So why in the world would you assume in? Regards to the Apostles. That they're in essence making things up to fulfill Old Testament prophecies.

Why would you do that? Are you consistent and assume that Muhammad and that the writing the writers the the collectors of Hadith traditions? Oh, we're making stuff up just to fulfill prophecy in there and isn't that just as equally valid to do with the Quran?

Without coming up with any reason for it. You would think that it would be and If you are if you are are wondering I Was referring of course John Dominic Rawson. John Dominic Rawson co-founder the Jesus seminar Said exactly the same thing that all these there's there's no fulfilled prophecy.

That all these prophecies about the breaking of the legs that all of that in in other words think about it. The idea of liberal theology and that's the theology that's being utilized with Shabir here the the whole concept is.

Since there can't be prophecy then there isn't and when you encounter it that must mean the person who is writing is a liar. Okay, so this the deck is stacked against you presupposition. Remember the question that I asked John Dominic Ross at the beginning the cross-examination.

Is there any kind of data whatsoever? Is there any kind any means whatsoever to that could convince you that a miracle took place in? The first century and his response was no. No. So it's it's Presuppositionally taken from the start these things cannot be what they claim to be.

Therefore. They must be something else and That is the exact same thing that Shabir Ali's doing but he has no reason to do it. He's not a naturalistic materialist. It's just Clearing consistency that I think people have seen as a result of this debate you see John has done what Gibson has done.

What they have done is that they look at and they see what should have happened to Jesus if we read the Old Testament, right? So Gibson reads in the Old Testament that the Son of God will bruise the head of the serpent and what does he do?

He brings the serpent into the garden of Gethsemane. So Jesus crushes the head of the serpent. Where is that in the Gospels? Gibson has put that in the movie because he thinks that is how it should have been because it was Prophesied in a similar way scholars have found that the four gospel writers have written things into the Gospels about Jesus not because this now.

Did you catch that scholars have found no? Scholars have hypothesized if I said scholars have found that Muhammad did not write the Quran. He would have a fit. If I said scholars have found that there it's questionable whether Muhammad even existed.

He would have a fit and rightfully so so why does he turn around and use this kind of language? Scholars have no they have found nothing of the sort they've hypothesized. Based upon inconsistent worldviews different from those the writers of Scripture, but they have not found anything in the guy.

This was physically witnessed in the life of Jesus. But because this is how the writers read the Old Testament. They thought this should have happened to Jesus and so they wrote it. So John thought that there has to be some way in which there is an attempt.

You know people's legs are being broken. But not Jesus is because it was written his legs shall not be broken. Even though that was written about actually didn't say that says no bone of his shall be broken.

There's a no legs the Paschal Lamb. It's something entirely different. He they will look on the one whom he has pierced even though that is about false Prophets who were pierced because there were false prophets.

John brings that here about Jesus. Even though Jesus is not a false prophet and that passage had nothing to do with Jesus. But John adds these details not because they actually physically historically were witnessed in the life of or around the death of Jesus but because John thought that this should have happened because the Old Testament said so and he wrote it as though it happened and the Old Testament Confirmed it now again.

Pure assertion no evidence. Oh, this is why John did it. How do you know why John did things? How do you have this kind of Incredible magical insight in the very thought processes of other individuals you would never allow that to be to be done to anyone Muhammad or any of the the companions of profit if Anyone did that you would you'd be on like a duck on a June bug and you'd be demos.

How do you know these things but but when it comes to John or when it comes to Matthew all of a sudden? We know exactly what their thought process was.

Okay, I know this is my turn. So how about if I just continue with that?

Let's take a break in a brief a breath. For a moment, I'm not sure if we're debating I would like to Encourage us to maybe take a step back and and go at this from another direction.

Take a sip of water. Take a sip of water. Can we ask for points about three times? And yes, we're not going anywhere. After you hear it three times. Okay, I had some water that was next.

15 minutes and then Shabir you have 15 minutes after that and then we'll be going to the audience.

Here we are some questions about this. Go right back to as they have to what you would like to to raise as a question.

We'll go from there. Okay, Mike.

Few thoughts on the crucifixion. Can I say that if you like, okay. You mentioned how we can't be certain nails were used. Well in a very good book. Okay, here we go.

This is this the part now one of the books that is a signed reading for the class on the cruise Is about to be referenced here. This is one of the reasons that I that I cited it and I wish I brought in with me to date.

Unfortunately, it's in my office, but This is a a first level book. It is it is Scholarly, it is half the pages is footnotes. Sometimes more than half the pages footnotes it is very in-depth and it It's It's very good.

Like I said, the one that's going to be cited counter to this is a large book by Rousseau and Rami Arab Published by fortress, but it is in essence a an archaeological and cultural dictionary. It's it's not first level scholarship.

It's it's a dictionary and it's got some bibliography and stuff. But it's it is not an in-depth scholarly work on this particular subject now as as Lycon is going to point out there is first level citations of specific individuals in his source that are not to be found in This other source, let's see how this plays out and then I can expand upon as you listen to it by Martin Hengel an eminent New Testament scholar.

Titled crucifixion he lists 13 sources in antiquity where nails are used and Josephus can be added to that list for number 14. We can probably add tests tacitus to it as well as.

15 don't mind if I interrupt you but I didn't deny that nails were generally used in crucifixions but I'm asserting that nails were not necessarily used in every crucifixion. A Crucified victim might also be tied instead of being nailed.

Okay, Hengel does mention one account in antiquity.

Binding tying to the cross is used but only that it was used and is it as a practice a practice in Egypt? So we really just don't have any historical kind of evidence whatsoever to show that Binding was used by the Romans.

Everything seems to point to nails and so we have no reason to question That nails were used when it came to Jesus.

Crucifixion now, let me stop right there. Hopefully you understand what he's saying. If you go to Martin Hengel's book you go to the book crucifixion. You will find a whole listing and and he provides you with the direct references the direct literary references to the ancient sources Where these specific things take place and I checked this out myself The the only binding reference there is to Egypt.

It's not to Roman practice in other words. If you were to assert that it is possible that the Romans tied You would have to admit but we have no evidence of this and remember the passion movie is not a historical source.

Okay, it's irrelevant it sort of marred this whole thing and Whatever, but the point is the documentary evidence first level primary sources speak to us of nails and You then have John Likewise reflecting this reality and unless you just automatically start off that John is guilty until proven innocent and Then just dismiss him on that basis.

Then there is a direct connection between John's testimony and That which is found in the ancient documentation now Shabir is saying well, it's possible that he was tied. Okay. How do you prove that? Show us some sources show us some some.

Give us give us Tacitus. Give us Josephus. Give us some of these these ancient writers that substantiate your position citing Something like this book, which I'm waving around the webcam here Jesus in his world is not citing scholarly literature and If you're gonna say well in this book, it says so well then you need to go into the book and you need to look at the crucifixion crucifixion starts on page 74 and Goes through page 77 78 and interestingly enough one of these Sources that it cites in its bibliography, which is about a column tall.

Is Martin Hengel crucifixion in the ancient world and the father the message of the cross German 1976 translated by Jay Bowden, etc, etc. There is no discussion in here About the differences between tying and nailing and Egypt and it doesn't discuss any of these things.

So in essence, this is not a relevant source. It's it's not citing Primary sources. Okay. Just keep that in mind as you listen to what's about to develop. In fact, this is the book here by a John Rousseau and Rami Arab a book entitled Jesus and his world a cultural and An archaeological and cultural dictionary and here it is asserted that in fact in crucifixions that were possible To also use binding instead of nailing so nailing was not in every and I'm sorry.

What references do they use in antiquity for that rather than just making a statement?

Well, you can read the book yourself. Well, no, this is a sorry.

This is an academic debate not a lunchroom discussion. And yeah, you you can't just say well this author says this. You have to provide reasons for. Yes, and I'm providing reasons. I'm citing new sources.

Now if you like I'll give you his references in his bibliography. He has named here a long list and rather than then delay everyone with that I'll show you the list and if you would like you can make a copy and I can.

Okay, where's the list of here. Is the bibliography just dealing with the crucifixion, right?

But you're responsible now to show me where it says that.

Binding is used not just the bibliography that I have to go through and read now. No. Yeah, I don't think. I don't think this Is necessary because remember you cited Martin Hengel whose book I have in a sitting in my hotel room right now Martin Hengel you cited Martin Hengel.

I did not question the integrity of the of the scholar. Martin Hengel is a known scholar. I respect him and if he says that his sources lead him to this conclusion I have no doubt in that here. We have a couple of respectable scholars producing a respectable book with a long list.

Just dealing with the few pages in which they have dealt with the crucifixion. So praises 74 75 76 77 and a part of 78 deals with the crucifixion and then his. His list of books almost fills the rest of that page.

So I do not question the integrity of these scholars and you cannot say that in the midst of a debate here we should Question the scholar who got the information from the other scholars. Now he's really struggling here because there is a there's a substantial difference between these two sources.

One is citing the patristic sources one is citing the historical sources. One is giving you primary reference material and sources this book again showing to the webcam. Is going on secondary source? It's citing as its source what Mike Lycona is citing now.

I have the book open in front of me. Let me read you some of this here. This is specifically. Let me see here. Occasionally applied to citizens lower class of provincials some of the Jews he had scourged and nailed on Crosses before his tribunal.

Roman citizens of equestrian rank. This is page 74. And see here the then on page 75. Roman crucifixion. Roman crucifixion normally consisted of three elements scourging carrying of the cross by the condemned and nailing and lifting a Titulus indicated the nature of the crime as was the case for Jesus Jesus of Nazareth king of the Jews.

John 19 19 parallels. It was a board covered with gypsum inscribed with black letters and carried before the condemned at the head of the procession. To the execution ground there were two main types of crosses t-shaped and dagger shaped in either case.

The upright beam was normally planted in a fixed position and the petibulum or crossbar was movable and carried by the condemned. J .J Collins distinguishes between the crooks humilious low cross on which the feet of the victim Were from a attend 18 inches above the ground and the crooks sublimest the high cross.

And which the feet were about three feet above the ground the low cross would have been used for common criminals. So they would easily Could be devoured by beasts at the whim the executioner a peg or sedecula or a short cross bar.

Forming a narrow seat could be added to allow the victims to sit for a while. A footrest Which appears in some paintings is not attested in the first century CE. The hands or wrists were nailed or the arms tied?

There's the only only only reference to tied to the petibulum, which was lifted with the victim hanging by means of ladders and This is let me point them out. There's no reference here. There's no footnote.

It just simply says it. There's there's no citation of an original source. There's no citation of an ancient source. It's just simply stated and there's no reference given. That is the only thing I can find.

The hands or wrists were nailed or the arms tied to the petibulum, which was lifted with the victim hanged by means of ladders and forcily poles ending with a y-shaped fork. The petibulum was Secured in a mortise of the upright in the case of a dagger-shaped cross or on top of it for a t-shaped cross.

The feet were usually nailed the upright beam But could be kept loose. Death was not always quick and the victim might agonize for several days before dying. Receivers reports during the siege of Jerusalem and coming back from Tekoa.

He recognized three of his friends on crosses. He obtained permission from Titus and by the way should beard has mentioned this already and you might mention again. He obtained permission from Titus to have them taken down and one of them survived.

Medical studies suggest a crucifixion. Death was caused by asphyxiation. But his short experiments of volunteer students were are unconclusive and so on so forth. He goes on to talk about asphyxiation and things like that and then when he talks about the archaeological evidence.

It's all about nailing. There's nothing about about for example, it says. The tibia and fibula of his legs were apparently broken and his right heel bone Was pierced by a four and a half inches long nail.

The nail first had been driven through a small piece of olive wood and probably to prevent the foot from moving off the narrow head. Of the nail a scratch on one of the wrist bones may have resulted from contact with a nail driven through the forearm near the wrist.

So this is nail nail nail nail and there is no discussion of who did tying and who didn't do tying or or anything like that. This is a secondary source. It is not a primary source. So what Shabir is trying to do is trying to make this a primary source and say well It's just your scholars versus my scholars and he's completely missing the fact that Mike's saying look.

Here's the list and I've even added Josephus and I've added tacitus and this makes 15. We can go through each one of these and it sounds to me like Shabir struggles to understand what an original source is and what a secondary source is in this exchange.

That would be I think a sticky point.

Who can you provide as a counter example where binding was used by the Romans there now that is an.

Absolutely perfectly valid question and To on a scholarly level to be able to to say I've won this point or I've responded this point Shabir has got to give either an ancient source. Not a not this book.

This is not an ancient source. Okay, he's got to give a specific individual. He's got to say well Suetonius Records this and here is the reference. Okay, that would be an appropriate response at this point and it otherwise.

The only way to respond to this would be to say well I don't have any and I would assert that the the literature on the subject is not significant sufficiently wide and full enough to Draw any conclusions from the silence even though you have 15 sources that refer to nails with the Romans.

And I cannot give you any counter examples. I would just argue that there is an insufficient amount of data to draw anything Conclusive from that now, obviously I would disagree with that. But as far as I can tell that is the only meaningful way of You know trying to get out of this particular position, but that's not what he does.

What I'm providing is a book that has been written by a couple of reputable scholars. They're not Muslim scholars. John Rousseau Rami Arab Who cares their Muslim scholars? That wasn't the point. That's almost that that's almost a a Means of Short-circuiting the the conversation to say well, these aren't Muslim scholars.

He didn't say anything about them being Muslim scholars. He is looking for original sources. It's it's a book with it with a respectable Presentation. It's a scholarly academic text. No, it's okay scholarly academic.

What is that supposed to mean? It's certainly not first-level information like like angle is and It is much more of a compilation of articles on various issues. Which includes one brief article on crucifixion.

That's about You know what maybe 125th of the length of Hengel's work 150th, you know of the material found within it something along those lines. It's it's billed as a dictionary and in fact, that's what it is.

It's a listing alphabetically of information of a historical nature. They're not making things up and they have listed their bibliography. If you doubt that you want to take it up with these scholars go right ahead.

But they didn't make the assertion that Shabir is making. Yes at one point they say nailed or tied. But they don't discuss who did what and since like Kona has already made the distinction between the Egyptian use and the Roman Use at this point on any meaningful scholarly level on any academic level on any debate level point like Kona Shabir loses that's the not not even a question at this point.

Let's say you cannot hear Insist that that information is wrong without having proper proof yourself. Now see he's not saying that information is wrong. That's that's again. This is this is completely fallacious argumentation.

He's not saying the argument is wrong. He has not made that statement because they aren't arguing that the Romans used tying they haven't even addressed the issue and. And and unless he reads this stuff and reads it into the record and actually provides.