More from the "Audience Cam" at Old Dominion

The Need for Evidence in a Christian-Muslim Debate

Why do people die for their faith? You're quoting the Bible again. So once again, the Bible is true because the Bible said so. And everyone died for their faith. And basically, the Bible teaches Jesus died for you, Apostle died for you.

Everyone's dying in the New Testament. So I'm going to ask you again. You don't have to prove Paul is a true prophet. Just give me a little bit of evidence.

Well again, as I just pointed out in my response, the standards that are being... I'm doing fine, thank you. The standards that are being applied here are irrational in a Christian-Islamic debate. I have given you the consistency of the fact that the Apostle Paul had interaction with the disciples of Jesus.

If the Apostle Paul was not what he claimed to be, then we do have evidence that the Apostles resisted those who made false claims. There's a number of references in the historical works. Now if I'm precluded from quoting the New Testament, if I'm precluded from making historical reference to the context of the New Testament, then why are we here this evening?

You don't know anything about Paul. If you can't quote the New Testament, if you can't quote Matthew, if you can't quote Luke, if you can't quote Peter, if you can't quote any of these people, then we're not having a meaningful or rational discussion.

But when you allow that material into the discussion, which is much closer to being contemporary than anything you have in the Hadith sources, for things that you accept on faith in regards to Muhammad, then it becomes very clear that the Apostle Paul is accepted by the original disciples as an Apostle.

Not just as one who is a Christian or a believer, but he is accepted as an Apostle who has authority to teach and preach regarding the death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is given that position of Apostleship in the churches, including the same churches where those original Apostles themselves minister.

And so I only ask for consistency in what standards you're going to utilize in regards to what is and what is not evidence. And if you simply dismiss anything that's contemporaneous with Paul, then you're asking for evidence and then banning anything contemporary with him.

The Question of First-Century Evidence for Paul

In trying to follow the rules of the debate, where you ask a question and I give as clear an answer as I can, we do not have any first century. None of these books that Nader has mentioned have a first century provenance.

That is, they do not come from the time of the Apostles. They do not come from the first century Jewish context. They come from very different types of contexts, especially name one. Any of these show clear evidences of coming from the second century, not the first century.

And they do not come from the time period where the Quran itself makes reference to the disciples and says that a book was sent down that Muslims are to believe. Where is that book? Evidently God let it be completely destroyed.

It's gone. No evidence of it left anywhere. I don't know why anybody would believe that. But again, if we use meaningful standards, then we look at the historical situation. We see that historically the Apostle Paul is accepted by the other Apostles, that he labors side by side with them, that they are preaching the same gospel.

If you will compare, for example, the sermons of Peter recorded in Luke with those of Paul recorded in Luke, guess what? They're using the same Old Testament passages. They see the same fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

They are proclaiming the same death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now, was Peter then somehow corrupted? Was Peter not one of the Apostles of Jesus that the Quran says would be victorious until the Day of Judgment?

That becomes the question. And so, once again, I just have to turn back to Mr. Achmed and say what standard do you want to use that you'll be consistent in using for yourself? If we read the New Testament, the standard becomes very clear that Paul was consistent in claiming Apostleship.

The Charge of a Double Standard

A double standard here, James. Come on, you've got to quit saying that. All I'm asking you is just for a little bit of evidence, just a little bit of evidence, I'm not holding any kind of double standards.

You talked about Valentinus and how they came later. Look, attacking the other Christians and the other churches, that doesn't prove Paul, okay, that this man is really a prophet. See, this is the problem.

The problem which we find in world religions is exactly this. We get people coming up claiming to be prophets. Hey, you know, God, I saw God in a vision, and here is a book which He wants you all to follow.

This is the fundamental problem which we see in so many religions, and that's why that religious studies textbook is so thick. Okay, now, so basically there's no evidence of Paul, or else you would have heard it tonight, where is your evidence that the church fathers were the disciples, oh, I'm sorry, were the students of the disciples?

Where is the evidence for that?

The Early Church Fathers and the Scandal of the Cross

Well, when I make those kind of claims, I'll be happy to back them up. No one here this evening has heard me say that the early church fathers, because they were disciples of the disciples themselves, that somehow gives them a special authority.

I think you can come up with some very interesting things in looking at Ignatius and looking at Clement. All those things are very important, and we could go into them, but to be honest with you, I think they would simply be rejected this evening, out of hand, without any explanation as to why they are being rejected out of hand completely.

And, of course, this entire, if it even is a question, is based upon the assertion that I have given no evidence for the Apostle Paul. Repeating a statement many times is not the same as actually demonstrating the statement.

And if I might add just another, for those who are listening, Christians and Muslims, to the evidence that I have given, I'd like you to consider the scandal of the cross that the Apostle Paul was so well known for.

To even mention the cross in the ancient world was scandalous. There were some writers who wouldn't even mention it because it was such a horrible way to die. Think with me for just a moment the foolishness of the Apostle Paul, from a worldly perspective, to try to start his own religion on the basis of a crucified Messiah from Palestine.

That doesn't sell real well in Rome. That doesn't go over real well in Corinth, where the wisdom of the world is what people want to hear. And to preach the resurrection, he was mocked for preaching that on Mars Hill.

And yet he continued to consistently do so. Why? Because Jesus Christ had appeared to him on the road to Damascus. And because he was willing to risk his life, as was Peter, and John, and Mark, and Luke.

And they all preached the same message. That's the message that is contained consistently in the pages of the New Testament. And that's the message that has come down to us. And that's the message that's found in the New Testament sitting outside the door room of this room.

And I invite you to make sure to take a look at what it says.