White vs. Malik Cross Examination

Sir, you closed your last statement by saying that both the end of Matthew and the testimony of John should not be relied upon because you allege they are contradictory.

Is this not an admission on your part that the New Testament does teach the deity of Christ, but you just reject those sections that in fact testify to his deity?

No, no, it's not that at all. I'm saying if something is contradictory, then the trust in it is lost right away.

We can't trust it. And in a court of law, it would not be admitted as evidence. These scriptures would not be in a modern day court of law.

If two witnesses came with those kind of stories, they would be discredited. Are the passages in Matthew 28, 19 -20, is that passage in the

New Testament? 28, 19, 20 is there, yes. And I'm saying, based on my study, that it's interpolated scripture.

And so you believe it's been added in later? Yes. Do you have a single manuscript from any of the 5 ,300 copies of the

Greek manuscripts in the New Testament that substantiate that assertion? Well, first of all, Mark ends his gospel with pretty much the same words.

Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. However, Mark did not mention baptizing in the name of the

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Had Jesus told him that, had he been inspired to make that statement, in no way something so valid to the missionary work would he have overlooked that.

Had no one other than Mark wrote, you would have never known to baptize in the name of the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So your assertion is, unless Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John read exactly the same, then they must be contradictory with one another?

No, I'm saying that Jesus never taught that, and so the early church had to get that doctrine in, so they added that doctrine there.

So do you know of a single manuscript, sir, anywhere in the world that does not contain Matthew 28, verses 19 -20?

I know that they're there, but then I know also that that injunction was not carried out.

So sir, my question is very simple. Is there or is there not a single shred of factual historical information to substantiate what you're asserting, that this is an addition to the text?

Personally, I don't know of manuscripts, but I read scholars who are specialists in that field, and they have looked at those manuscripts or seen the lack of them there.

Could you give me one name? Oh no, I can't give you that now, but the point is, here's my point now. I'm saying to you that Matthew 28 -19, because Jesus never taught any baptizing.

He didn't teach anybody to do that. He never baptized himself, and he never taught anyone to do that. He didn't teach anybody the doctrine of Trinity.

So based on your understanding. And he didn't give a great commission. He never gave a great commission. Jesus says in Matthew 15 -24,

I personally am sent only to the Lordship of the House of Israel. He never ever changed that statement concerning himself.

Except in the passage that you rejected. No, not that. That's not for himself. That's for his apostles. He never changed it for himself, ever.

Not one place. Now, in Matthew 10 -5 -6, it's said that he gave a limited commission to his apostles, go not into the way of the

Gentiles, and he said it's a marriage, and to go rather to the Lordship of the House of Israel. After his resurrection, yes. Now, because there was no great commission.

Sir, we're getting off the questions I'm asking you. I'm trying to be very focused here, sir. I'm asking you a very specific question.

Is it your assertion that every place where the term God is used of Jesus, and you have not addressed any of them yet, that every place where the term

God is used of Jesus, Romans 9 -5, Titus 2 -13, John 1 -1, that each one of them is an interpolation and has in fact been added to the text of New Testament?

Yeah, they're fabrications. Can you show me? When someone is applying

God to Jesus, God to Jesus, as divinity, then

I'm saying that is not correct Scripture. So your assumption determines what is Scripture, rather than Scripture determining what your conclusions will be.

No, I'm saying the basic fundamental of Scripture, the rule of interpreting Scripture, is that the rule is anything that is subject to various interpretations cannot be interpreted as to contradict something basic and fundamental.

Now, I'm saying what is basic and fundamental from Genesis to Revelation is that God is one with no partner, no likeness or equal.

That is fundamental. That's your assumption. That came from the

Koran, didn't it? It didn't come from the Bible? No, no, no, no. That's biblical scholars. Any scholar that approaches

Scripture knows that when you talk about allegories, metaphors, that you don't give those understandings that contradict things that are very plain in that same vein.

So, is John 1 -1 a part of the New Testament? I'm saying John 1 -1 is there, but it goes against the doctrine of the

Synoptic Gospel. Does John 1 -1 teach the deity of Christ? And it doesn't. John 1 -1 does, in some sense, depends on the interpretation.

Because in the earlier Scriptures, in the early 1500s, I think it was

Tyndale or somebody. Tyndale. Tyndale. When he translated that Scripture, he said, in the beginning was the

Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and it. He uses it. That's fine. It. You know that.

Yes, I do. Yeah, and now... It was common English usage at the time. The point now is that it's been used as he.

It's given a masculine gender when it was in the New Testament. Well, it is a masculine gender. But, sir, so the point is John 1 -1 teaches the deity of Christ.

John 1 -1 is in the New Testament. Why should I not say that the thesis of the debate has now been established and you admitted the

New Testament does teach the deity of Christ? You just simply believe, given your presuppositions coming from another perspective, that we have to reject those

Scriptures because it's not in accordance with your belief. No, no, no. You see, I took this debate. My first mind was to say to you, no, let's argue, does

Jesus himself teach his divinity? But I allowed this to go because I wanted to establish before you in the audience that the

New Testament teaches both ways, that it teaches the deity of Christ and it teaches that he's not. So now we have to figure out which one is sound.

I'm saying that because the Scripture has been interpolated, that someone is teaching a doctrine that Jesus is deity against the basic flow of the

Bible that teaches that Jesus is not God. Okay, can you show me a single manuscript that deletes

John 1 -1, Colossians 1 -15, or any of those? No, no, no, no. Why are you asking me about manuscripts? Because I'm asking for historical evidence, sir.

You're making an assertion based upon your understanding of Scripture. I don't believe you or I claim to be infallible.

Therefore, we could be wrong in our understanding. The question then is, what does the New Testament actually read?

And that is an area of my expertise, and I do know what the New Testament manuscripts read. I have a critical edition right here.

If you'd like to point me to any early manuscript of the New Testament that long predates the rise of Islam, that does not contain these passages,

I'd like to see it. That's no problem. They're there, but I'm just saying... Where, sir? I'm saying that they're contradicted by other passages in the