Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. is prohibited.
Now to respond to some of the things that James brought up in his initial presentation, let me say this much. First of all, James had made a point in our previous segment about the Qur 'an being contradictory in two passages, and some people asked me during the break, why don't I respond to that?
Well, I didn't at the time because I couldn't. James was not very clear as to what he was saying is the contradiction, and I asked him about it during the break, and he said that Surah 7, verse number 16, contradicts the similar reference in Surah 38, because in Surah 7, it says that Satan was misled by God, and it doesn't say that Satan will mislead the people, but whereas in Chapter 38, it says that Satan will mislead the people.
So how is that a contradiction? I don't get it, because one verse says two things, and the other verse says one of the two things. Is that a contradiction? Or is it a contradiction when one verse says something and the other verse denies it?
As for example, take a staff, don't take a staff. Jesus crucified on the 14th Nisan, Jesus crucified on the 15th Nisan, obviously you cannot have it both ways. So I don't believe that James is actually consistent in what he was pointing out as an inconsistency on my part.
Furthermore, where the Quran now speaks about references to the Prophet Muhammad and whom be peace, in the Quran, as references that were there in the Bible previously, James mentioned two passages, Surah 7, verse 157 for example, but there, as James himself said, the verse says, they will fight.
It doesn't necessarily mean that factually there was something there. It means that they, in their perspective, will be able to read it such. If Jews and Christians were to read their Old and New Testament with the same kind of eye with which they look for predictions about Jesus and whom be peace, it is my contention that they will find the Prophet Muhammad in these passages.
For example, we have looked at scholars who have said that the original reference to Paraclete was actually a person to come after Jesus. Let me, for example, read you in more detail what some of these scholars said.
John Ruman informs us of the opinion of one of these scholars, Herman Sass. Herman Sass, Ruman informs us, is known as a systematician of conservative stamp. He argued that the Paraclete was a human personality, one filled with the spirit, a prophet who would proclaim Christ and creatively continue his revelation, just what the author of the fourth gospel did.
In that case, the evangelist himself would be the Paraclete, even though the final version of the book identifies the Paraclete with the spirit. So these scholars will not imagine that Muhammad could be the reference.
In fact, if they believe that the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was being referred to here, they would be Muslims. But they remain Christians, and I'm citing them as Christian scholars for the one fact that they admit that the Paraclete references are references to a prophet to come after Jesus.
Windisch writes, the Paraclete of the second and fifth sayings, meaning the second saying of chapter 14, the last saying of chapter 16. The Paraclete of the second and fifth sayings, on the other hand, deviates widely from his original function.
He does not deal with the salvation and the protection of individuals, but the main thing, the revelation of the teaching of Jesus. His task is teaching, maintaining, and completing the historical revelation in Jesus.
He has a definite message to deliver. He is bearer of a tradition already extant, and bearer of a new revelation, supplementing and completing it. He is didastalos and prophetes, teacher of tradition and prophet, in one and the same person.
That's in page 17 of a book recently published that compiles a couple of writings from Hand Windisch. So these scholars are admitting that the Paraclete was a reference to a teacher and prophet. Now most Christians who understand that they have the Holy Spirit in them will confess that the receiving of the Holy Spirit is a subjective phenomenon.
You don't have something objective to point to and say, this is the Holy Spirit. In the New Testament, we have it that the Holy Spirit did come, and everyone understands that this is in reference to Jesus saying that he's going to send the Paraclete.
So Acts chapter 2 has it that the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire into 120 believers gathered at one time. Well then, do we all see the Spirit coming into us like tongues of fire? Moreover, if these prophecies are that this Holy Spirit, or whoever is this Paraclete, will preach and tell you about the things that are to come.
Let's say about bearing witness. The Paraclete is going to bear witness. Acts chapter 5 verse 32 has Peter saying, not only do we bear witness, but the Paraclete also. How could that be two witnesses?
You're in court, and you're giving witness. Do you say, I and the Paraclete also give witness? I bear two witnesses? Or do you have to have another individual, another person to bear witness with you?
Certainly the latter. So the Holy Spirit does not really fulfill that objective. Moreover, the description that this Paraclete is going to tell you about things to come, these scholars rightly admit, must refer to another person, like Jesus, who would be a teacher and a prophet.
But because they're interpreting this within Christian parameters, they look for some prophet that could qualify as a Christian, and everything remains the same. To them, John himself, or the evangelist, the writer of the fourth gospel, is really the prophet.
So now all things are back to square one. But their admission that this Paraclete was to be another one to come after Jesus, I believe is an important indication that that one was to be the prophet Muhammad.
James referred to the Quran in chapter 61 verse number 6, where Jesus spoke of one to come after him according to the Quran. And he asks, where are these words? Well, the Quran does not say in this passage that those words that Jesus uttered are in the Bible.
And we know that not all of the words that Jesus uttered are in the Bible. John chapter 20 actually ends by saying that Jesus said and did many things, which if we were to write down all of them, the books of the world would not be able to contain all of these.
So the gospels did not record everything that Jesus said. But we're not arguing from silence. We have shown definite evidence that Jesus spoke about the Paraclete to come after him. And obviously that Paraclete is a prophet.
But the author or the editor or the redactor of the fourth gospel has actually changed these sayings, tacked on little additions to them in order to make them appear to be references to the Holy Spirit.
And the scholars I'm referring to who are Christian scholars and have no Muslim acts to grind have admitted, like Della Foss for example, not only that John 14 verse 26 includes the extraneous, the holy, whereas it simply once referred to the spirit, but also there are other passages, other little additions to the other Paraclete sayings that will turn the meaning of the Paraclete from a person to the Holy Spirit.
So once we see that, then we realize that Jesus was speaking about a prophet to come after him. Spida thought that these Paraclete sayings initially referred to Elijah, who was to come again. But the fourth gospel turned it to refer to the Holy Spirit.
Windisch himself thinks that these Paraclete sayings was a reference to another person to come after Jesus, such that you have a tripartite sort of situation that is similar to some of the bipartite situations we know from the Old Testament.
So Moses is followed by Joshua, Elijah is followed by Elisha, and here we have it that Jesus is followed by the Paraclete. When Jesus spoke about another Paraclete in the first of these Paraclete sayings in John chapter 14, so Jesus is addressing the crowd or his disciples, and he says another Paraclete will come.
If you're using the term for the first time, you have to explain the term. That means the people already understood what Jesus was saying, and they already understood that Jesus is one such Paraclete, and there's going to be another one to come after him.
What was Jesus? All historical investigations about the life and teachings of Jesus point to the fact that he was a prophet, and he was known to his immediate followers as a prophet, a man of God who spoke the truth that he received from God.
Jesus is not known through historical studies to be the son of God, the one who takes away the sin of the world. He's known to be a wisdom teacher, a prophet like the prophets of the Old Testament. Since that is established, when Jesus spoke to his disciples, they saw him as a prophet.
In fact, Luke's Gospel bears testimony to this, because when Jesus met the two on the road to Emmaus, they said that Jesus was a mighty prophet who was raised among us. That was the final conclusion from all of what Jesus had said and done at the time.
So when Jesus spoke about another Paraclete, obviously to his hearers, it would mean another such prophet like Jesus. In fact, Windisch even adds that the Paraclete sayings are such that they indicate that the one who was to come after Jesus would be greater than Jesus.
But again, they have been so modified for inclusion in the fourth Gospel that the writers and editors have taken pains to remove that indication or to blunt the edge of that indication, which shows that the one to come after Jesus would be greater than Jesus.
We have spoken about some baby stories, and let me add here what has been done with the Gospel in reference to the story of John the Baptist. Didn't I use as one of my arguments the fact that John the Baptist said that there's going to be one coming after him who would be greater than John the Baptist?
And didn't I say that there are ways in which story after story, the message has been rewarded in order to show that Jesus is greater than John the Baptist. So we have another baby story here. When Mary is pregnant with Jesus and she visits her cousin Elizabeth, immediately Elizabeth's womb is filled with the Holy Spirit.
She's already carrying John and she's six months into her pregnancy. Now how does anyone know at this point that her womb is filled with the Holy Spirit? Again, we notice that having the Holy Spirit is a subjective matter.
Nobody knows when it comes and when it goes. Does any ultrasound ever show that anyone has got the Holy Spirit in her tummy? Moreover, Elizabeth reports that the very moment when Mary greeted her, the baby in her womb leaped for joy.
Okay, I know a lot of moms report that they're feeling a few kicks down there. But does anyone know that the baby is leaping for joy? Obviously, what we're dealing with here is not fact, but story. The story is told in order to show that Jesus is greater than John the Baptist, when everyone knows that the real fact is that there was a competition between the followers of John and the followers of Jesus.
In Acts chapter 18, the people of Ephesus were still baptizing according to John's baptism and they knew nothing of the Holy Spirit. In fact, when one reads the New Testament, one sees that there is no clear and consistent message about what the Holy Spirit is and what it will do.
For example, John chapter 7 verse 39 says that the Holy Spirit was not yet. There was no such thing as the Holy Spirit and it wouldn't be until Jesus is first glorified. Whereas we know from the other Gospels, especially the Gospel according to Luke, that the Holy Spirit was ever present.
The Holy Spirit was there in Zachariah before Jesus even began to preach and the Holy Spirit seemed to be always around. So how could John say the Holy Spirit was not yet? Didn't the paraclete saying say that the Holy Spirit will come on the disciples, Jesus will send them?
Well, John's Gospel in chapter 20 verse 22 has Jesus himself breathing out the Holy Spirit onto his disciples. So they already got it. How could Luke's Gospel say that Jesus said to them, stay on the city until you receive the promise from on high?
Are they going to receive the Holy Spirit twice or is it that these authors are not consistent with their story? The stories are being told by word of mouth for many decades until eventually the Gospels are written.
The Gospel according to John is the last of the four to be written, written in its final form around the year 100. This is widely accepted by many biblical scholars today. So when we look at these ways in which the stories have been reworded and remolded, refashioned in order to bring out particular points of interest of the writers and editors themselves, such as to prove that Jesus is superior to John the Baptist, we see the validity of my point.
John the Baptist spoke of one to come after him who would be greater than John the Baptist. The writers tried to prove that this was Jesus, but we know now the true story. I didn't make reference to periclutus, so James was actually answering something that I didn't raise here tonight.
Nor did I mention anything about the Song of Solomon tonight, so that is just a really wasted argumentation and I will not follow that argumentation now, but perhaps we can deal with them some other time.
As for the Quran and the Orientalists, James is right, we should look for actual evidence and real indications before we make conclusions and agree with critical scholars. But critical scholars, while they do not have any other Gospel of John prior to what we now have in our texts, they do see certain indications which would necessitate the belief that the Gospel according to John was edited and re-edited.
For example, the last chapter of the Gospel according to John follows from what we already said, a closing at the end of chapter 20, so chapter 21 is an obvious addition to the already finished and closed Gospel.
The prologue to the Gospel of John is suspected by many scholars to be also a later addition put in by the same redactor, Raymond Brown would argue, as the one who tacked on chapter 21. Chapters 15 and 17 of the Gospel according to John, chapters 15 to 17, are thought to be a later insertion into an already finished Gospel.
Why? Because in chapter 14, verse number 31, Jesus ends his speech by saying, let us be going. But then chapter 15 has him speaking a long speech all over again that occupies chapters 15, 16, and 17, the longest speech in the Bible.
So we have it there that the Gospel has obviously been re-edited. Thank you.
I want to come up quickly so you can still hear the echo of Shabir's words. The Gospel has obviously been edited on the basis of what? German critical scholars who don't believe in inspiration and they can just chop up any text they want.
Well then, obviously the Quran has been edited and had multiple authors because the very same scholars say the same thing, right? That's the consistency, right? By the way, I was asked who was the professor that I mentioned earlier, the Muslim professor who now wonders if Muhammad existed.
Muhammad Sven Kalisch, Germany's first professor of Islamic theology at Munster University is the name. Shabir has said, we have explained why Deuteronomy 18, 18 reads the way it is. No, Shabir hasn't explained that.
He has presented to us a theory, a speculative theory that has no historical evidence, has no manuscript evidence. It's based upon the assumption that the text can't be what it says that it is. He assumes about the text of the Bible what he does not assume about the text of the Quran.
And until Shabir can see that and deal with that, he's not going to be really engaging the response that I am providing. He said that I said those two surahs contradict each other. I even said to him when I showed it to him, I said, I don't think this is a big deal.
The point is you have to engage in the very same kind of textual study of these two texts that I have to in the Synoptic Gospels, which you objected to two years ago at Biola University. That's the problem there.
I would invite you to read Surah 7, 157. It seems like Shabir's interpretation was whom they don't find in their scriptures or who they might speculate are in their scriptures. Is that really what that ayah is saying?
I invite you to look at it again. But I intend to win the debate right now. Right now. You ready? I am going to quote an authority that is going to blow Shabir Ali right out of the water. He cannot argue with this person because I'm going to quote Shabir Ali.
In 2005 in Glasgow, Shabir Ali said the following words to Ani Shorosh. I believe that Dr. Shorosh wants to prove by one way or another that the Prophet Muhammad learned from others. So he supposes. You can suppose a lot of things.
In the Da Vinci Code, it is supposed that Jesus went along with Mary and had a child and the bloodline survives in France or wherever. You can suppose a lot of things. But as the New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman puts it nicely in his book on this, one has to have real facts and evidence.
You cannot quote a 13th century book like Surah Al-Halabiya. You have to go to the original documents, Dr. Shorosh, and find out what was Waraqa Ibn Nawfal, not the suppositions of others that agree with your own suppositions.
And then earlier he said to Dr. Robert Morey in a debate, listen carefully. What surprises me, however, is that some Christians feel they can attack the Quran in this particular way. And they don't realize that it is shooting themselves in the foot when they use this method because the same method also disproves, and Shabir said the Quran, but I think he meant the Bible.
However, Dr. Morey, you have an interesting way of going about this because when Dr. Morey uses this particular method, Dr. Morey says that he is a Western scholar, but he forgets for the moment that he is also a Christian.
Does he wear two hats? One says a Western scholar and then is a Christian? I would like Dr. Morey to wear one hat so that we can pin him down and say, this is what you should believe in. If you say that this is your method, then believe neither in the Quran nor the Bible.
We have already seen too that Dr. Morey disparages the miracles, for example, camels coming out of a rock. No, that's foolish. But do we disparage the miracles that are mentioned in the Bible too? If we believe that miracles are true, then we should find some different way, some other way of denying that a certain miracle took place or not.
Not that we disparage a miracle. So we have to make up our minds. If we are believers in God, we cannot deny that these things are true and we cannot use that particular method by which Western scholars disbelieve in both the Quran and the Bible.
Then shortly after this, Shabir criticized Morey for using an argument used by atheists. Then a moment later, he criticized Morey for not reading the Quran in its full context. So allow me to take Shabir's own words and repeat them back to him.
Mr. Ali, you have an interesting way of going about this. For when you argue against the New Testament, you argue as a Western scholar. But you forget for the moment that you are also a Muslim. Do you wear two hats, one that says Western scholar and one that says Muslim?
I would like Shabir to wear one hat so we can pin him down and say, this is what you should believe in. If you say it the method of Crossan or Ehrman or Brown or any of the others quoted this evening, Bultman, whatever it might be, then believe neither in the Quran nor the Bible, just like them.
We have already seen Shabir Ali disparage the inspiration and consistency of the Bible. But if we believe that God has revealed the scriptures, then we should find some other way of denying the inspiration of the Bible.
So we have to make up our minds. If we are believers in God, we cannot deny that these things are true. And we cannot use that particular method by which Western scholars disbelieve in both the Quran and the Bible.
You must allow the Bible to speak as a whole. You cannot ignore its context and rip it apart just to fit your preconceived conclusions. One has to have real facts and evidence. You have to go to the original document, Shabir, not the suppositions of others that agree with your own suppositions.
I truly believe that what we have been listening to this evening, the constant reference to forum criticism, redaction criticism, scholars see this, scholars see that. When I challenge those scholars upon what basis, it is always, well, you know, I start with the assumption that, you know, that miracles did not take place.
And so when I read a text that talks about miracles, then it must be mistaken. It must be something other than that. Isn't that what they do with the Quran? Every single person he's relying on, every time his Christian scholarship tells us, he's not talking about Christian scholars that are actually consistent Christians, who actually believe in revelation, who actually believe there's such a thing as what Jesus taught in regards to the Word of God.
He can't quote them because they're not going to be supportive of his position. And so what have I been saying from the beginning? I'm looking for the consistent Muslim. Haven't found him. Haven't found him.
He says, well, we certainly see it. The Holy Spirit is a person. Yes, he is a person. The scriptures specifically teach that the Holy Spirit is a person. It doesn't mean a human being. Jesus was personal and he encouraged the disciples.
He guided the disciples. That's what the Holy Spirit will do. That does not make him a human. He says, well, then, of course, they were interpreting this within Christianity. No. When you look at John 14, 15, and 16, and you allow it to do together, it's exactly what Shabir says in his television program.
Let the Quran speak. We're just letting the New Testament speak. Why one standard for the New Testament and a completely different standard for the Quran? Why? Have I not asked that question loudly enough?
Why the different standards? The two standards are very, very clear now, indeed. We had Surah 61 that was cited to us. And he says, well, it never says those words in the Bible. I never said that it said those words in the Bible.
It says, in fact, the Quran it gave me says, remember when Jesus said this. Another translation I have over there says, call to mind when Jesus said this. If I say to you, call to mind something, am I not assuming that you know this thing already?
It still raises the issue. How do we know Jesus said these words? They're not historical words. They're not related to the words of Jesus, actually recorded by his followers. So how do we know these things?
That's the point that I was making. Parakletos does not mean prophetes. It does not mean prophet. There's a perfectly good word for prophet in the Greek language. And that's not what is used in John chapters 14, 15, or 16.
We are talking about one who encourages, one who comes alongside. You can ask lots of questions based upon saying, well, whatever the answer is, it can't be what Scripture says. We cannot allow Scripture to tell us who the Holy Spirit is.
Where, for example, we heard from Shabir, he keeps talking about these Parakletos sayings. Where are they? Where's the physical evidence? Where's the historical evidence? The documentary evidence that these things ever existed outside of the New Testament.
Where are they? I'm looking for evidence. I need to have some evidence here. We're assuming it. Why are we assuming it? If I start presenting to all the Muslims in this room all sorts of theories that cut the Quran up into little pieces, you'd go, excuse me, we'd like some evidence.
I'm just asking the same thing. We were told historical studies do not tell us Jesus was the son of God. Do you see what that means about Shabir? A historical study for him is a naturalistic, materialistic thing.
The manuscripts of the New Testament clearly identify Jesus as the son of God, do they not? So historical studies must be only those things that cannot allow for any type of supernatural revelation. What historical studies?
Historical studies that start with the assumption that the Bible is not what it claims to be. Okay, that's called circular reasoning. We were told that the story of Elizabeth, quote, is not a fact, but a story.
Why? Well, because babies just don't do that. How many sections of the Quran would you have to throw out if you were consistent at that point? Every miracle. Every miracle. Couldn't happen. What do you mean the angels don't come to people in caves?
Come on, it's just a story, right?
Consistency, folks. If you're going to contradict yourself, that means you don't have an argument. Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. That was the first thing I said to Shabir Ali in 2006. I sound like a broken record, I'm sorry.
But as long as he keeps using these types of double standards, well... John 7, 53. The Holy Spirit was not yet. Well, you'll notice that most translations say it was not yet given. And you go, well, but the literal rendering of the Greek, it could be not yet.
Yeah. But if you found a text in the Quran that was not overly clear, would you not say that if the rest of the Quran or even the rest of the surah itself very plainly explained the concept that it would be appropriate to translate it in that way, to give the text the benefit of the doubt?
The Gospel of John has already talked about the activity of the Holy Spirit long before John 7. And so what we have here is, once again, this mentality that says, okay, we can only look at John 7. We cannot give it the benefit of the doubt.
We cannot see it in the context. We cannot allow any writer to be consistent with himself. Everything has to be contradictory. Does Shabir Ali apply that methodology to the Quran? Yes or no? I think we all know the answer.
Therefore, if it is no, then that means another inconsistency has been presented. It just strikes me as so odd that to try to come up with prophecies of Muhammad, you would have to borrow from the most naturalistic argumentation over here.
You'd have to chop up the words of scripture. You'd have to assert over and over again that the Bible is contradictory and Jesus didn't fulfill this and Jesus didn't fulfill that, just to find some way of reading into some of these words something that might have a fulfillment 600 years later.
Doesn't anyone notice that that doesn't make a whole lot of sense? Why read into those words some kind of supernatural? I mean, to predict something that's 600 years down the road, hundreds of miles away in a completely different language, that's supernatural.
And so, you want to read into these words a supernatural prophecy of Muhammad 600 years later, and the only way you can do it is by chopping the words up and denying their supernatural nature to begin with.
It seems to me, in a basic reading of those two texts of the Quran, that when it says, remember, call to mind, that it's claiming that this was the common knowledge, people knew these things. Call to mind what Jesus said.
I challenge you to show me where Jesus ever said those things. A. B. If he did say those things, then it follows that we should be able to find this unlettered prophet in the Torah and the Injil. The prophet of Deuteronomy 18 was Jewish.
We've established that beyond all question. It's singular, not plural. The Hebrew is not even to be questioned there. I mentioned in my opening statement that Shabir, this evening, did not mention Song of Solomon 5, but he did in Glasgow.
And that's why I was prepared to respond to it. The Periclete text, we've seen the tremendous inconsistencies. You have to cut up the Gospel of John. And I simply say one thing. If you're going to believe all these theories about how John was put together, why am I not in perfect grounds to say to you, show me evidence?
Show me evidence. He says, oh, it's written around 100. Some theorize it could have been written before 70. The point is, it is the earliest documented text of the New Testament. Where is the time for all this editing?
Where is the evidence of it? Who did the editing? Why aren't there other manuscripts demonstrating the editing? Those are questions that I think, honestly, have to be answered by someone who is, remember, none of these scholars that Shabir has quoted have ever strung together all the things he's strung together into one chain, resulting in a prophecy of Muhammad.
Not one of them. And I submit to you that it is the inconsistency of that approach that demonstrates the fatal error of the system. Thank you very much.
So we now have ten minutes for Shabir to cross. Examine James before James crosses. Examine Shabir.
How do you feel about my saying that the Muslim call to Christians is not that you give up faith in God and in Jesus, but that you come to a true understanding of Jesus, which for Muslims means that Jesus was a prophet of God, a servant who performed many miracles, and that he preached a message which is similar to the message of the Old Testament prophets.
I fully understand that that is what you want us to do. The Qur 'an describes what we believe as a quote-unquote excess. But the fact of the matter is that what you actually want us to do is to not have a very hardened soul of our faith, because he who confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, that he has come in flesh, that he has risen from the dead, these are all things that are absolutely definitional of the subject of the Christian faith.
We're going to need to stop my timer for a moment and give you a new battery, my friend.
Hopefully, was that sufficient?
Now, you are aware that there are people who refer to themselves as Christians, and there have been over history, who do so. But at the same time, they do not believe that Jesus is literally the Son of God or a person in the Holy Trinity.
That's called a technical adjustment. So, in the case of those Christians, if you were to put up the same as in faith, at least in terms of the same senses that you just described, now, do you also understand, in my point, that the Christian call to the Muslim is really to abandon faith in Muhammad and the Qur 'an?
Well, obviously, because of the fact that the Christian believes that the central aspect of God's revelation is the coming of Jesus Christ in flesh, that he was the divine Son of God, who died upon the cross of Calvary and was raised again for our justification, then we see Islam coming after us as denying those core issues and going backwards, in essence, to a position of ignorance about the revelation that God has made himself in Jesus Christ.
And, of course, I would not identify as believers, as those who are true Christians, the people that you're referring to, whether you're referring to any Knights of Red Rose might be, surely you realize, Shabir, that there is a scholarly use of the term Christian that would be used of anyone who mentions Jesus, just as there is a scholarly use of Muslim that would refer to anyone who has any kind of connection to Muhammad and the Qur 'an.
I'm speaking as a theologian. As a theologian, the Bible defines what is and what is not a Christian. And a person who does not embrace Jesus Christ, as he himself said in John 8, 24, unless you believe that I am he, you will die of your sins.
Now, you do recognize that, just as you've used the term ignorance of the revelation that God gave through Jesus Christ, that if I were to listen to you, then I would be in a position where I would be in ignorance of the special revelation that God gave through Muhammad and the Qur 'an.
Of course, since that alleged revelation comes after the time of Jesus Christ, and itself claims to be consistent with the singular message of the prophets of old and Jesus Christ, and I think that's the argument that is being made in Surah 5, 44 through 49, then we are given a means of testing the claims of Muhammad and the teachings of Muhammad.
We're not coming six centuries later and saying that the Torah and the Injil were not solved, they were sent down, provides a standard by which we can test the claims of Muhammad. Otherwise, how could I claim, how could I test Muhammad?
How could I know? What is the means? Did he not give us a test? Is it just a fiat faith, just believe and that's it? I don't think that's even what he was arguing in the Qur 'an.
Now, you are aware that there are arguments for the existence of God, such as the far-right doctrine in Christ, but those arguments culminate with, and very importantly, depend on the fact of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.
If I, as a Muslim, were to listen to your call, and find myself in that position of ignorance about the revelation which came through the prophet Muhammad, what would then, before I become a Christian, convince me to, what presuppositions do you think I would have, coming to examine the Christian faith for the first time?
Well, a couple of things. First of all, I do not argue for the existence of God with William Lane Craig. He is a Molinist evidentialist, and I am a Reformed presuppositionalist, so we couldn't really be too much farther apart as far as the approach that we have.
William Lane Craig says that the preponderance of the evidence points to the greater possibility of the existence of a God. I assert that without the existence of the Christian God, there is no explanation for human predication, human thought, or the fact that we are having a debate this evening, and that the existence of the Christian God is an absolute necessity, not a possible result of the greater preponderance of evidence.
So we approach that very, very differently. And so, as I was speaking to a Muslim, I say to the Muslim, you already believe that God has spoken, but you believe in a revelation that comes after He has spoken, and it does not show any first-hand knowledge of the content of that revelation.
As you know, the Koran only twice quotes from the Bible, and both could be very easily oral things, but memorize the lex talionis, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. I see no evidence that the writer of the Koran has first-hand knowledge of the actual text of the New Testament.
And so, my point to a Muslim would be, I'm not asking you to question the existence of God. I just simply believe that since we're made in the image of God, we know that God is consistent with Himself.
And therefore, if you find something, if you trace that revelation through, and He has revealed Himself to be like this, and 600 years later someone in ignorance comes along and says, oh no, no, no, it's not like that.
Why should I accept that? Why should I believe that? There is a beautiful consistency between the Old and the New Testament, if a person would just examine it, but most Muslims I know don't examine that consistency at all.
Now, you must be aware that all over the Muslim world,.
Muslims are believers in God mainly because of their intrepid traditions of belief in the Koran and in Muhammad, truthfully.
And I would add that most nominal Christians would have the same perspective, but I don't believe a person is born as a Christian. I hope you understand that.
But then you see my question still remains. If you're asking Muslims to abandon their belief in Muhammad and the Koran, and certainly you're doing that, then what would remain for the Muslim as something to really set the Muslim apart from that same agnostic or secular humanist?
Well, since I'm not asking the person to abandon theism, I'm simply pointing them to the fact that the revelation that preceded the Koran teaches something very different than the understanding of the author of the Koran.
And since belief in the Koran for a Muslim is that which confirms for him the existence of God who revealed the Koran... See, I would disagree there.
That may be for the Muslim, but see, I do not believe that that is... That's not a biblical position. The Bible says that men know that God exists, and yet they suppress that knowledge.
Yeah, but do understand that if men who were once Muslims now listen to your call and abandon belief in the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad, they may find themselves in that similar position where they may know that God exists, but they suppress that knowledge.
Well, Shabir, there's two things. I do not believe that anyone can become a true Christian unless the spirit of God is operation in their lives to bring testimony to Jesus Christ. And so if you're saying, is it possible that you could demonstrate errors in the Koran and therefore a person ceases to be a Muslim and just becomes an agnostic, yes, that is a possibility, no question about it.
No. But that's not the same thing as what I'm talking about. That's not my purpose. My purpose is not to cause someone to cease being a Muslim. I think the Muslims here will testify that when I debate, I always attempt to give a very clear testimony to who Jesus Christ is.
Then you realize that a Muslim might be arguing with Muslim priest oppositions or as a theoretical exercise, he may imagine himself to be an agnostic, which he might be after listening to your call and then argue again with agnostic priest oppositions for the exercise.
If what you're referring to, I'm not sure what you're referring to now, but what you're referring to is what you said at the beginning of your statement about the changing of the hats. Again, I've tried to be as clear and compelling as I possibly can be in explaining that I am simply asking for consistency in standards.
If you're going to embrace the scholarly conclusions of people who begin with a worldview and priest oppositions that are completely contrary to both Islam and Christianity, if you're going to accept their conclusions about Christianity, then you should be accepting their conclusions about Qur 'an.
As you yourself said, you cannot use argumentation, which I'm sorry, I have 39 seconds because we had a lot of time to stop. You cannot use argumentation that would cause you to disbelieve in both the Qur 'an and the Bible against one or the other.
I think Shabir Ali in 1996 was right. And that's why I quoted him in that context. You mean 2002, no?
I think it was 96. At least that was my recollection.
Anyway. Okay, Shabir, I get 10 minutes now. You have mentioned, you have used words like clearly and obviously about the conclusions of people like Raymond Brown and Bess and Bolton and people like this.
Do you agree with me that there is no manuscript evidence known to scholarship of a paraclete literature preexisting the Gospel of John? I agree. Would you agree that the Gospel of John is the earliest New Testament book testified to in the papyri manuscript tradition in the New Testament?
I don't know this papyri manuscript tradition well enough to answer that question. Okay.
Would you agree that, at least from the scholarship you have read, that all of the early manuscripts of the Gospel of John contain the prologue of John, John 21, all the chapters of where they are today, that at the earliest stage in history, the Gospel of John reads as we have today?
Yes.
First, I must correct my previous answer. I do know, actually, the papyri manuscript evidence well enough to answer your question in that I'm aware that John Ryland's manuscript, or I think that Little Samuel P52, is the earliest.
And, of course, you know that better than I do, so I defer to you for knowledge of that nature. But my point is that while all of the manuscript evidence for the Gospel according to John existing show the same consistent goal that we have now, the internal contradictions within the Gospel according to John has convinced many very sincere biblical scholars, and very intense biblical scholars, that this has gone through many stages of editing, such as Raymond Brown.
And he gives this evidence. If one needs to refute that, it's there to be refuted, but I don't think it's so easy to refute.
Have you read F. F. Bruce's commentary on John or Leon Morris' commentary on John?
I have not read much of Leon Morris, though I've skimmed through many of his books. I find him to be very traditional and conservative. I find that he does not face up to the evidence that modern critical scholars are pointing to.
And one can either ignore the evidence or deal with it. If one deals with it and shows a different sort of conclusion, I'll be convinced by that. But if one does not deal with the evidence and ignores that, as Leon Morris does, then I have very little reason to depend on him.
But F. F. Bruce, you should know, does actually admit to some of the conclusions. For example, in his article in the Fourth World Gospel in the New International Commentary on the Bible, does admit that there is what we are referring to as the synoptic problem.
And so the question will revert to you on that.
Well, of course, how he answers it is another issue. But what is this evidence that Leon Morris ignores? You just admitted that there is no documentary evidence. So is it not this evidence, the form critical theories that are being put forward by form critics and redaction critics?
Is that the evidence you're saying he, quote unquote, ignores?
Well, there is a lot of evidence.
In fact, it's really referred to the John of Ireland's fragment, which proves that John's gospel existed by the year 125. That doesn't prove it couldn't have been written around the year 100. And it doesn't prove that it was written around the year 40.
If Jesus was crucified around the year 30, and John's gospel is held to have been written in its final form around the year 100, this is a 70-year gap. And when scholars compare the Gospel according to John with the other gospels, scholars note that the Gospel according to John has developed the image of Jesus to make him into a divine being between God and human beings.
And that, by itself, together with a number of other pieces of evidence, would indicate that John's gospel is the later of the four.
Why shouldn't I believe Wandsborough and all the others who will use the exact same argumentation that you just used to say that the Koran is a redacted text, that the Qibla was added at a later point in time, that there was a major revision in 705, that there have been many hands that have worked upon the text of the Koran?
And why can't I then say, well, obviously, conservative, believing Islamic scholars are just ignoring the evidence that Salman's scholarship clearly accepts in regards to the nature of the Koran?
Obviously, you would believe John Wandsborough on these points, because when you read John Wandsborough, his conclusions seem to fit many of your presuppositions. And this is why we have dialogue, because we test each other's presuppositions, and we test the evidence that one claims to base his belief upon.
We are not negating the Koran tonight, so I have no ground in which to respond very quickly to the points which you are making with reference to John Wandsborough. But in terms of referring to the scholars, if you will refer to John Wandsborough, you are referring to a non-Muslim scholar on the Koran.
When I refer to the Christian scholars that I cited today, I am referring to known Christian scholars who are part of a well-recognized tradition where the scholars refer to each other with great respect.
If I cite E .P. Sanders, I cite Raymond Brown, and the other scholars that I've named, they are actually scholars who are part of a great tradition that refer to each other. These are known Christian biblical scholars.
Where did I ever say I actually agreed with the presupposition of John Wandsborough?
No, I don't say that you do, but I say that if you could, and if you did, I wouldn't blame you, because he does, or many of his critical conclusions would agree with some of your presuppositions.
But I actually criticize Christians who uncritically apply naturalistic methodologies even to the Koran. So I'm consistent at this point.
And I must commend you for that, but you must understand that when I ask you to be a true Christian, I'm not asking you to give up your naturalistic presuppositions. When you ask me to….
You're not asking me to embrace naturalistic presuppositions? Because you said to give them up as a Christian. As a Christian, I don't have naturalistic presuppositions.
No, then let me correct my statement. When I ask you to be a true Christian, I'm not asking you to adopt naturalistic presuppositions. I'm asking you to believe in a Jesus who does in fact do miracles, and of course that's as supernatural as you can get.
But my understanding is that when you ask me to give up my Muslim presuppositions, a very viable option is agnosticism. And if I adopt agnosticism, then I lose all of my naturalistic presuppositions. In that case, I can either think consistently as a Muslim, or for the exercise, think also consistently as an agnostic.
And once I separate the two and I know which hat I'm wearing at the time, as the Bono has suggested, there could be six thinking hats. I just have to know which one I'm wearing at the time. And when I approach the Christian documentation and refer to the Christian scholars, I am referring to those conclusions which those Christian scholars have arrived at, which go against the brain of what they have traditionally been brought upon.
It's what they admit that is very significant. It's not what they continue to hold. What they continue to hold is also significant for the believer. But for one who wants to investigate the matter critically, what a person admits against himself is of much more value than what he professes about himself.
Well, interestingly enough, I think Mohammed Sven Kalisch would say everything you just said, and that's what's led him to question the existence of Mohammed. Is he a Muslim?
Is that the Greek scholar, the German scholar?
Yes, German's first professor of Islamic theology at Mooster University. Okay.
I must confess that I'm hearing of this scholar for the first time. If you can persuade me that this is a scholar of great accomplishment and well-recognized in his field, then I will have reason to refer to him.
But is he a Muslim if he has come to conclusions? You keep insisting that people who do not believe in core elements of the Gospel are Christians, and therefore they should be listened to. And I'm just trying to find where the consistency is here.
Do you think his core conclusion about the Qur 'an?
His conclusion is he can no longer affirm as a certainty that Mohammed existed as a human being, that there is a good possibility that he did not.
Now, by definition, I don't know of any way of perceiving of the Islamic faith in any of its present forms without Mohammed. So if Mohammed was not a historical reality, I don't know by which definition one would be a Muslim.
So if the resurrection is not a historical reality, how can any of those people you call Christians? Some do believe him. Brown wouldn't have been, even though I would say that he had a false gospel. But others that you have cited as Christians do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Why are you being consistent?
Oh, because it's very clear that there were Christians in existence before the resurrection of Jesus Christ was ever even a question. Those who followed Jesus in his lifetime were Christians. And that means that it is possible to be a Christian without even knowing that Jesus resurrected from the dead.
Because they called him before the crucifixion?
If one did not know that Jesus resurrected from the dead, even if that were a fact that he did, one could still remain a Christian if he had been a Christian before. True?
Oh, I see what you're talking about. Well, no. So, some follower of the resurrection.
Now, folks, we come to our closing comments for this segment. But I would also try to include some comments regarding the previous segment so that we tie up all of our thoughts about what we discussed here tonight very neatly.
First, it should be clear that one of James' main arguments throughout has been that Shabir Ali is inconsistent. And to support that position, he's even cited me. And I'm impressed by the detail that he has gone to to find quotations of my sayings from 1996 and 2002.
And I do not disagree with what I said then. I have been saying the same thing here tonight as well. That one does need to be consistent. And if we are asking Christians to be consistent as Christians, that means we're saying that in inviting you to be a Muslim, we're not asking you to give up certain basic presuppositions that make a person essentially Christian.
Which, in a nutshell, means following Christ. Being an imitator of Christ. If one were to look for what Jesus was historically, then one would find that Jesus was really a prophet and a messenger of God.
And that the doctrines about his divine sonship and of his dying for the sins of the world are later developments that came from pens of people after him. In that case, we're not asking you to give up your supernatural presuppositions, your belief in God and your belief in Christ.
In that case, I have found Dr. Mori, for example, to be inconsistent. Because when he tries to evaluate whether or not Muhammad and whom be peace could have been a prophet of God, he relies on the conclusions of atheist scholars.
So in that case, he becomes inconsistent because he gives up his belief in God and he starts thinking like an atheist. I've never asked him to be an atheist. I've never asked him to be anything but a Christian.
If a Christian believes that prophets have come from God over time, then what stopped the prophets? What confined them only to one area? Why couldn't there be an Arab prophet, an Indonesian prophet, a prophet in Argentina and anywhere in the world?
What stops prophets from being in China or anywhere else? Why does Jesus have to be the last of the prophets? Could there not have been prophets after him? Are there not prophets mentioned in the New Testament, even though of a different sort of caliber?
Isn't Agabus billed as a prophet in Acts? So why do you stop there? Why could it not be possible that God has revealed a message to another man sometime after Jesus? So I have asked him to be consistent.
At the same time, in my last Q &A with James, it became evident that James had misunderstood me all along. And his constant repetition that Shabir Ali has been inconsistent is in fact an error. It is very clear that I can be consistently thinking an issue as a Muslim or I can, for the exercise, imagine myself having listened to the call of James and abandoned my belief in Islam and now thinking about life and all of its big questions anew.
In that case, I could very well be an agnostic, not being sure whether God exists or not. Because part of the confirmation for me that God exists is not only the philosophical arguments that prove that in some general way God exists, but also the specific revelation that God has given through the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad, on whom be peace, that tells me really who God is.
Otherwise, I might imagine God as being some kind of force out there, without knowing who he is and how to respond to him and what he does and what plan he has for human beings. So I can consistently think issues through as a Muslim wearing a Muslim hat or imagine myself having listened to the call of James and now having become an agnostic.
If I think it through as an agnostic then, then I have to evaluate the teachings about Jesus and the records about his life and words from that perspective. In that case, I would find that there is no reason to believe in Jesus.
Because the very documents that were supposed to be the carpet under his feet have suddenly been pulled. I've demonstrated that Jesus' statements about his second coming have proven to be false according to the words of E .P. Sanders and John Bowden, recognized and known Christian biblical scholars.
So in that case, he failed. He failed to be the Messiah because he does not have the ancestry that is required of the Old Testament, nor did he fulfill the requirement of sitting on the throne of David and actually ruling in his stead.
So in that case, I would have no reason to believe in Jesus. I believe in Jesus as a Muslim. But if I imagine myself abandoning my Muslim faith, I don't see how I could believe in Jesus. So I believe I'm quite consistent now in looking as an agnostic or not even as an agnostic, as a Muslim who still believes in God, but examining, sorry, having left my Muslim faith, but still believing in God, now examining what proof and evidence lies for the life and teachings of Jesus.
Who would I consult? Not Muslim scholars, but Christian biblical scholars. Some of those whom I've cited tonight, and even Leon Morris. I would examine the full spectrum of biblical writings and their commentaries.
I have done that. And I am convinced that the critical scholars do have something really tangible that they're looking at. They look at real hard evidence. For example, contradictions in the Gospel according to John.
For example, in John chapter 13, verse 36, Jesus is asked by Peter, where are you going? But in chapter 16, verse 5, Jesus complains to them, nobody asks me where I'm going. And that shows that chapters 15, 16, and 17, it was a later insertion into an already completed Gospel that resulted in this contradiction.
So scholars do not invent these problems. They look at real problems. So even Christians who existed in the time of the Prophet Muhammad and whom be peace, when they were called upon to believe in Muhammad by referring to their own books and finding Muhammad written in there, they did not need Raymond Brown or modern critical scholars.
There have always been people in all of history who have been thinking critically. They have been atheists in existence, even if for some time in our history, atheists are closet atheists. But people think rationally.
And when we approach a document, if we don't already believe in it with the faith's presupposition, naturally we might be skeptical about the stories. Even if you do believe from the faith's perspective, you must ask what these stories are doing.
Is it really the word of God that says that these babies behaved in this way? That one baby is pulled out by the midwife and the other one comes out grabbing the heel of the first one, like monkeys being pulled out of a barrel?
Do babies behave in that way? Or is this just the writer trying to sell us a story? When we realize that, then the points that I have made actually gather more strength. I've shown, for example, that the Prophet Muhammad must be the fulfillment of that promise given to the Prophet Ishmael in the Bible.
That the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, obviously qualifies as that prophet like Moses. He must be included in this string of prophets. Why not? Third, I've shown that he must be that prophet that was greater than John the Baptist.
And finally, that he was a paraclete, a person, before that paraclete was made into the Holy Spirit. Thank you.
Once again, Shabir just said, well, I have demonstrated these things. And what Shabir has done is he has quoted liberal scholars who speculate about things. He has not given us any evidence whatsoever that there was ever a paraclete tradition that existed before the Gospel of John or any of these things.
What evidence has actually been given to us that Muhammad was prophesied in any of these texts? What about the fact that the text itself says that the person in Deuteronomy 18 is a Jew, singular? This idea of yes and no, maybe, so on and so forth, just became obvious in conclusions.
I'm not sure how the argument skipped from yes and no, maybe, to obvious and demonstrated. But I don't think if you go back you will find any substance to that. We had the issue of standards. We had people like E .P. Sanders.
These are my standards. Again, these very same people, if you adopted the worldview that they bring to scholarship, would cause you to reject the Koran. That's been my point all this evening. He says, well, I've demonstrated this, I've demonstrated that.
These people, these scholars, have demonstrated that Jesus' prophecy about a second coming failed. No, they didn't. I'm telling you something. Go read them. The one thing that cannot be a possibility for them is a harmony of the statements of Jesus.
That's dismissed right off the top. You can't have that. So they don't even allow for that. The very thing that Shabir would demand for anything in the Koran, they will not allow for. And yet he will then be reliant upon them.
That is where the inconsistency comes from. Shabir had asked, why was it only Israel that received prophets according to your Bible? Why these revelations only to them? Why only Jesus? Why is He the last prophet?
Well, Hebrews chapter 1 says that God has spoken unto the fathers in incomplete ways, in various forms, in various ways in the past. But now He has spoken unto us by His Son. And that Son is the heir of all things.
He is the exact representation of His person. It's the radiance of His glory. And that book was written well before A .D. 70. That is the belief of the New Testament church. That the reason that Jesus is the last is because of who Jesus is.
And so we have seen that Jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament. We saw that what He was going to do and who He was going to be was revealed in the Old Testament. And we have seen no consistent evidence whatsoever that anything in the Old or New Testament refers us to Muhammad.
But I would refer you in our closing moments together to the words of Jesus once again. We have been given no reason to disbelieve this. In fact, I would say to you if you simply read the Koran for what it says, I don't have any reason to believe that the author of the Koran would have told you to disbelieve something like this.
He believed that God spoke. And here in these words, as Jesus has appeared to the disciples after His resurrection, He said,. Then He said to them, These are My words that I spoke to you while I was still with you,.
That everything written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. That He opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. And He said to them,. Thus it stands written that the Christ would suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,.
And repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all nations beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I choose not to reject their witness. I have no reason to call them false teachers or cowards.
They were witnesses to these things. They were willing to stand before the hatred of men for their witness to Jesus Christ. Many were even imprisoned and killed. Stephen was stoned. And they are witnesses to these things.
To what? That Jesus Christ has fulfilled the Scriptures,. And that therefore repentance for the forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all nations. Do you realize that we are a living fulfillment of that this evening?
Think of how far away we are from where these words were originally said. And yet this evening, Repentance for the forgiveness of sins has been proclaimed in this place through Jesus Christ, Through His atoning death.
That person who recognizes his sin debt before God, Recognizes his unholiness in God's holiness,. And recognizes that God's law demands a sacrifice. That God cannot simply wink at sin. But instead He has provided the way of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Why was it only Israel? Why is it only Jesus? Because it was through Israel that the Messiah was to come. And there is only one way of salvation that has been given to man. And that is why what we've done here this evening is so important.
That's why the prophecies are important. That's why believing what God's Word says is important. I submit to you that Jesus Christ did not view Scripture the way that Shabir Ali does. Jesus Christ, very plainly, when He quoted Scripture, that was the end of the story.
He didn't fail in His prophecies of His coming. If you simply allow all the Bible to speak, He's very clear about how He's going to come, And what must needs take place first, etc., etc. But you see, when you believe that E .P. Sanders somehow has the divine, You know, infallible and errant understanding, And he starts with the assertion that you can't harmonize these things, Well, then you're never going to hear what Jesus actually said.
And yet Jesus said the Scriptures cannot be broken. Who are we going to believe? I thought Jesus was a true prophet. And if the true prophet says the Scriptures cannot be broken, Why has the entire thesis of the presentation from the Islamic side been that they can be?
And they were. That is a question we have to consider this evening. To the Muslims here, I ask you to read Surah 616 and 7157. And they tell you you will find Muhammad. But I think in your honest moments you will recognize that you have to stretch Those texts completely out of shape.
You have to do with those texts what you would never allow to be done to the text of the Quran, To come up with anything about Muhammad. And so what does that mean? Shabir has talked about how he could become an agnostic, And then he could wear an agnostic hat or something along those lines.
All I've been saying is you have to use the same standards. And when you do, you discover that the New Testament presents a Jesus Very different than the Jesus of the Quran. It is my prayer, it is my hope.
It has been my hope in each one of the debates we've done. And I notice my opponents are here this evening. They're chatting with each other, but they're here this evening. That I have debated earlier in the week and on radio.
My purpose in engaging all of these gentlemen in debate fundamentally Is not because of who I am or who they are or who Shabir is. I very much appreciate all of them taking the time to engage me in these things.
I don't matter. Who I am does not matter. But the issues that we have addressed here in London over this past week Are eternal issues. And I hope and pray that you will not simply allow for a surface level answer.
You will go home, you will consider. And my prayer is that God by his spirit will reveal his son to you. Thank you very much. Good night.
Thank you all for coming. Thank you for your patience. Thank you for listening so well. And thank you for staying for this late hour. And I pray and trust that you all have safe journeys home.