The Great Trinity Debate, London, 2010 Part 1

My name is Doug McMasters. I'm the pastor of Trinity Road Chapel, and it is my privilege on behalf of our congregation that meets here regularly to welcome you here this evening to what we've described as the

Is it the big Trinity debate or the great Trinity debate? One of the two. And it is a true pleasure to have you here this evening with us to a moderated formal debate concerning the question of the person of God and specifically the issue of the

Trinity. And we are pleased to welcome Dr. James White and Abdullah Al -Adelusi to be here to represent their two perspective viewpoints.

Just by way of introduction Let me do a little bit of housekeeping notices before we give the formal introductions and begin our debate.

To let you know that after the rebuttals there will be a food break. So if you come here directly from work, and I know that some of you have done that, you'll be glad to hear that that will be happening straight through there and we'll talk about that and just you know after the rebuttals occur just so that you might anticipate that.

For those of you that need to use the facilities I ask you to go straight to the back and speak to one of the stewards and they can take you lead you over to where those are at.

So instead of coming up here and disrupting perhaps people's attention and the debates if you could just go straight back and the stewards will be happy to help you there.

Also at the very end of the debate we will have an opportunity for people to ask questions.

These questions we've asked to be written down. So I've got some blank sheets of paper here

I was wondering if I could get some volunteers to pass these out. Can I get four individuals to take a stack of these and if you could distribute the paper around.

And if you would submit those to me I will be asking questions. Please feel free to write it down on the

Speaking first this evening is Dr. James White, the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

You're welcome here this evening. Dr. James White is the director as I said of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a

Christian apologetics organization that's based in Phoenix, Arizona. He's the author of more than 20 books and he's conducted over 75 moderated public debates.

He's also a professor having taught Greek and systematic theology and various topics in the field of apologetics.

He's also the elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. He's been married to Kelly for 27 years and has two children,

Joshua and Summer. And we also welcome this evening

Abula Al -Andalusi. He's a former Anglican who embraced Islam at a young age and studied

Islam in depth since the age of 18. He's had a long experience in working in community activism and Islamic apologetics.

And his activities including writing extensively on Islamic revivalist thought, speaking in various community centers and universities and colleges.

He's also made appearances in various TV programs speaking about theology and political philosophy and socio -political analysis.

He's a co -founder of the public discussion forum, the Muslim Debate Initiative. And he's done a lot of written work in specialist subjects and you can view some of that writing on the website islamicrationalism .com

So remember that. Just to give you an idea of how the debate is going to go this evening, we will have 22 minutes each of opening statements followed by three minutes of cross -examination.

This cross -examination is to verify the statements that have been made in each person's opening remarks.

And that will be followed by 12 minutes each of rebuttals and then we'll have our break.

And when we all return from the break, I'll tell you about the breakdown and the format of our debate from that point.

At this time, we want to welcome Dr. James White to begin our debate. Well, good evening.

It is a pleasure to be with you here in London this evening. It is truly an honor that you all come out this evening, braved the cold weather.

I'm from a desert climate and so this is very unusual for me, but I'm actually enjoying it.

And I thank you all for being here this evening, especially to Abdullah Abdullusi. Thank you very much for being here.

Last time I saw him, we were in the studio at the Unbelievable Radio program and we had a discussion.

I have a feeling it was a little bit like what we're going to hear this evening, but not quite as full, I think. And so it is an honor to be with you here this evening.

Does the Bible teach the Trinity? Does the Quran accurately describe the Trinity? Is worship of the

Trinity an act of shirk? These are all things that I submit to you, we as Christians and Muslims, must discuss openly, honestly, and forcefully.

If I were a Muslim and I had the Quran as my holy book, I would take seriously the things that it says about those who would say three.

And what that means, what shirk means, what the term blasphemy means, a curse upon those people.

If I cared about other people, I would want them to know what my holy book said. And as a

Christian, I in the very same way this evening, I'm going to say to my Muslim friends, your book does not understand what

I believe. It should, but it does not. And therefore, what does that mean?

How do we understand these things? If we love and respect one another, we will not compromise on these issues.

We will not fall into the trap of the modern world that says, well, we dare not offend.

I would rather love you and offend you than not offend you and not love you.

That is where I begin this evening, and I hope that we will be able to, this entire evening, act toward one another in that kind of an understanding.

There is a major danger of talking past each other this evening, because we use similar terms, but we import very different meanings into those words.

Come, let us reason together is the biblical invitation. We wish to be reasonable this evening without lapsing into secular rationalism, which unfortunately is the mode of the day.

Two of the major world religions locked in definitional combat.

Now, Islam arises after Christianity, at least on the historical level. I understand what you believe about Jesus being a

Muslim, etc., etc., but from the historical level, Islam arises after Christianity and therefore interacts with Christian beliefs in its holy scripture, that is, in the

Qur 'an. It would seem logical to assert then that if the Qur 'an is, in fact, the eternal message of Allah, that it would be accurate, and in an accurate way, incitefully critique the

Christian doctrine of the Trinity, the point upon which the two faiths have their sharpest, and I would say foundational, disagreement that gives rise to so much else.

It is my assertion that the Qur 'an not only does not accurately define and critique the Trinity, it does so errantly, demonstrating that, in fact, its author was quite human, not divine.

So let's define the issues to see if my allegation is founded in reality. First, we must understand what it is

Christians believe about the subject of the Trinity. Within the one being that is

God, there exists eternally three co -equal and co -eternal persons, namely the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Now, I was not just simply using color to make my slide prettier.

In outlining the words being and person, we differentiate between these words in everyday life, and we differentiate between these words in the definition of the

Christian faith as well. What do I mean we differentiate between these words? Well, we all recognize things that have existence, things that have being.

We are human beings. There are other beings in this universe that we see around us.

Some are personal, some are not. A rock has being, but it is not personal.

A cat has being, and it might have personality, but it's not truly a person in the sense of recognizing its own existence among cat kind or anything like that.

The Bible tells us that God, angels, and men are personal in their existence, and yet angels and men are limited in their being.

Being is what makes something what it is. Person is what makes someone who they are.

And so a rock has being, but it does not have personhood. We as human beings, we have being.

We are human beings, but our beings are limited in time and space. I am not back at home right now in Phoenix, Arizona, though sometimes my body thinks that it is.

We are limited as to where we can be and how long we exist. God's being is not limited.

God's being is eternal and indeed outside the realm of time. And it is the

Christian perspective that that being of God is shared by three divine persons. The Father, the

Son, the Holy Spirit, and that this has eternally been the case. There is never a time when that was not true.

Now it's important to recognize the Trinity is not saying that there are three beings who are one being, nor three persons who are one person.

One being, eternal and unlimited, shared eternally by three divine persons,

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We are not saying one equals three and three equals one.

Since we differentiate between those terms, you may have heard people criticizing the doctrine of Trinity on that level.

That is not a valid criticism. We are not saying three persons are one person. We are not saying three beings are one being or anything along those lines.

We are differentiating and very specifically in the language that we use. Well, why do you believe this?

Many people think it's because, well, Constantine forced you to. Well, that's certainly not why

I am a Trinitarian. I'm a Trinitarian because I believe the

Bible is the Word of God and I believe all of the Bible and only the

Bible. That is, I believe in sola Scriptura, Scripture alone is the sole and valid rule of faith for the

Church and for Christian faith. But I also believe in tota Scriptura, all of Scripture must be believed.

And when I believe the Scriptures, when I apply a meaningful standard of interpretation that is consistent from Genesis to Revelation, recognizing all the different kinds of literature and Scripture, when

I do that, I come up with three biblical truths. The first foundation is absolute monotheism.

There is only one true God, creator of heavens and earth. I have defended that thesis against the

Mormons, who believe that there are many gods, literally an unlimited number of gods in the various universes.

The Bible is explicit and there are many parallels between the statements of the Quran and the Bible on the fact that there is one true

God and any God that did not create the heavens and the earth, Jeremiah tells us, is a

God that will pass away from the heavens and the earth. That is the first confession that we make, there is only one true

God. But then as I read the Scriptures, I find out that there are three divine persons.

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father. They are distinguished from one another and yet they are described as God.

The very name of God in the Old Testament, Yahweh, is applied to the Father, to the

Son, and the Spirit is the Spirit of Yahweh. Why would the inspired writers do this, consistently throughout the

New Testament writings? Why would the one name of the God of Israel be applied to Jesus of Nazareth?

Why would the Spirit be the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, interchangeably the Spirit of Yahweh? Why is this the case?

Three divine persons are revealed to us in the pages of the

Holy Scriptures. But then, we likewise have the third foundation, the equality of those persons.

Most people, over time, have tried to find some way of putting these persons in an order and frequently what that's led to is, in essence, an elevation of one above another.

Many people today, for example, the Jehovah's Witnesses who might wake you up on a Saturday morning, knocking at the door at your flat, believe that Jesus is

Michael the Archangel, the first and greatest of God's creations. Others simply say he was a great man.

But the reality is that the Scriptures do not allow for that kind of subjugation. They do allow for differentiation.

The Son does different things than the Father. The Spirit does different things than the Father and the Son. Each have taken different roles in the redemption of mankind and the glorification of the triune

God. But, they fully participate in true deity.

Jesus is described as the creator of all things, eternal in his existence. And so, these three biblical truths force me to the doctrine of the

Trinity. They force me to recognize that if I'm going to allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves and I'm not going to put some higher authority over the

Scriptures, that I must believe these particular things. Now, the terms

Father and Son are not physical terms for Christians. The Father is not married to anyone.

The Son is not the result of marriage. He is not an offspring. The relationship of Father and Son is timeless.

It did not begin, but always has been. It is a description of a relationship that has eternally existed.

Now, I understand why some who do not have the fullness of biblical revelation might hear phrases like Father and Son and go, oh, well, you must be thinking that God has a consort, a wife, and has offspring and children.

But, that is not what the Old Testament has taught about Galilee. That's not what the New Testament has taught about the relationship of the

Father and the Son in any way, shape, or form. And any representation of Christian belief that does not recognize this is based upon ignorance.

And we must understand that that is the case. The bedrock of monotheism defines the

Trinity. It is the very foundation of our faith. But this must be understood. Monotheism and Unitarianism are not the same things.

I am a Trinitarian monotheist. You can be a

Unitarian monotheist because you assert that the being of God can only be shared by one person.

I am a Trinitarian monotheist because since the being of God is not limited by time and space, it's eternal and unlimited.

My scriptures teach me that there are three divine persons that fully share that one being that is God. Now, you may disagree with that, but you cannot simply assume

Unitarianism along with monotheism. You have to prove it. You have to prove that the being of God cannot be shared by three divine persons.

And that cannot simply be assumed. The Trinity was well known by AD 600.

The councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon had clearly proclaimed the belief. Now, since there was some confusion when

I made this claim the last time I was in London, let me emphasize what I'm saying here. I have just explained to you that I believe that the doctrine of the

Trinity is a biblical revelation. All I'm saying here is that all the controversies that one might point to, with Arianism or Apollinarianism or any of the other isms of the first few hundred years, were all settled by this time.

What the doctrine of the Trinity was, was well known by AD 600. Why did I choose AD 600?

Well, because it's pretty close to AD 610, and I'll let you figure out the rest from there. The doctrine of the

Trinity was well known. The Athanasian Creed was well known. Augustine had written entire works on the subject long before Muhammad.

And so, given that my esteemed opponent this evening's emphasis is upon rationality, may

I follow his own form of argumentation to point out that if the Bible is indeed the revelation of God, as confirmed and promised by Jesus, confirming the

Old Testament, promising in the New Testament, then it is perfectly rational to allow

God's revelation to define His nature and His being.

If we accept that there is a Creator God who has revealed Himself and we are but His creatures, it is eminently rational to accept what

He reveals concerning Himself. I am reminded of the words of Blaise Pascal, who said,

Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it.

It is merely feeble if it does not go as far as to realize that. I am being rational when

I recognize my Creator is greater than I am, and that I must bow before His revelation.

And the great Puritan John Flavel said, I know there is nothing in the Word or in the works of God that is repugnant to sound reason, but there are some things which are opposite to carnal reason as well as above right reason.

And therefore our reason never shows itself more unreasonable than in summoning those things to its bar which transcend its sphere and capacity.

The Doctrine of Trinity is not a revelation of reason, it is a revelation of God.

But it is very reasonable to accept God's own self -understanding. Let's look at the

Qur 'anic understanding of what the Doctrine of the Trinity is, because there is no question that the Qur 'an seeks to provide a response to the beliefs that existed in the days of Muhammad.

The Qur 'an is sent down to Muhammad 600 years after the end of Christ's earthly ministry. It interacts extensively with both

Judaism and Christianity, but doesn't do so accurately. If it is the eternal word of Allah, it must, but that cannot simply be assumed.

We have to this evening examine that claim. Surah 4, verse 171 says,

O people of the Book! Allah Al -Kitab! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but truth.

Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was no more than an apostle of Allah, and his word which he bestowed on Mary and his spirit proceeding with him.

So believe in Allah and his apostles. And so here you have the first reference to excesses on the part of people about this

Jesus. Excesses going beyond what the truth allegedly actually is, because it goes on to say,

Say not Trinity. Now that, of course, is a translational issue. It's literally, say not three.

Say not three. Desist, it will be better for you. For Allah is one. Allah, glory be to him.

For exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and on earth, and enough is

Allah's disposal of affairs. Here's the first time we hear this drumbeat. He is exalted above having a son.

What does that mean? That Allah is exalted above having an eternal relationship with the second divine person, the one being that is

God? Is that what the writer to the Quran understands? Well, we're going to have to find out as we look at other texts.

In Surah 572, the following three, they do blaspheme. This is why this is so important, folks.

I think if you're a Muslim, you should take that word very seriously. And as a Christian, I do.

If this is the word of God, then what I believe is blasphemy. I recognize that. That's why I take this very seriously.

We cannot simply pass these things by. They do blaspheme who say, Allah is Christ, the son of Mary, but said

Christ, O children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him to garden, and the fire will be his abode.

There will, for the wrongdoers, be no one to help. Notice what is said here.

There's a joining of other gods with Allah, as if the son is a separate god. And yet Christians don't believe that the son is a separate god.

They don't believe he became a god at a point in time. Two divine persons sharing one being, father and son.

It's not a separate god. So what's being referred to here? It goes on to say, they do blaspheme who say,

Allah is one of three in a trinity. For there is no god except one

Allah. It's literally third of three. Clearly, the Quran is thinking of polytheism here.

A multiplicity of gods. And yet, what is the absolute first affirmation? Monotheism.

There is only one being of God. The very name of God, Yahweh, used of father, son, and spirit. What is this third of three?

If they desist not from their word of blasphemy, verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. Why turn they not to Allah and seek his forgiveness?

For Allah is oft -forgiving, most merciful. Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than an apostle. Many were the apostles that passed away before him.

His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their daily food.

Note the mention of Mary. See how Allah doth make his signs clear to them, yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth.

Say, will ye worship besides the law, something which hath no power either to harm or benefit you?

But Allah, he it is, that heareth and knoweth all things. You're starting to hear the drumbeat of this kind of argumentation.

But I'm hoping you're seeing it's not argumentation against the doctrine of the Trinity. We have multiple gods here.

And it seems, why make reference to Mary? Why say that they had both to eat their daily food?

Christians don't believe Mary's a god. Christians don't believe Mary's married to God and has children.

So why make this kind of argumentation? Say, O people of the book, exceed not in your religion the bounds of what is proper, trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by, who misled many and strayed themselves from the even way.

Curses were pronounced on those among the children of Israel who rejected faith, on the tongue of David and of Jesus, the son of Mary, because they disobeyed and persisted in excess.

The chronic position at this point, do not say three, it is a blasphemy, an excess. It will bring a grievous penalty, a curse.

Allah is exalted above having a son. Jesus and Mary both ate daily food. Now my timer is messed up here, brother.

Okay, so I've got just a few moments. Let me very, very quickly then, read to you

Sura 5, verse 16, and make some application. Behold, Allah will say, O Jesus, the son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods, in derogation of Allah?

He will say, Glory to thee, never could I say what I had no right to say, had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is thine, for thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

Notice the statement. Jesus asked about teaching men to jointly worship himself and Mary as God.

Allah plus Mary plus Jesus equals three. Now I have a number of comments that I will try to get to from Ibn Kathir and from others, that demonstrate that the

Quranic understanding is that, well, here's one from Ibn Kathir.

This is a threat and a warning to Christians. Chastising them in public, as Kathir and others said, and Kathir mentioned this ayah as evidence.

This ayah also shows the crime of the Christians who invented a lie against the law and his messenger, thus making a rival wife and son for Allah.

Allah is glorified that he is far above what they attribute to him. Let me just make a summary statement at this point.

It has never been the Christian belief that God the Father has a wife and that they have a son named

Jesus. I can understand how someone could have come to that conclusion if they are ignorant of the very essence of the

Christian scriptures. But if you believe that the Quran is the eternal word of God, then, my friends,

Allah knew what the Trinity was when the Quran was revealed. Whether it's right or wrong is another issue.

If he knew what it was, there would be no reason to misrepresent it. So this evening we have two things to discuss.

Does the Bible teach it? Is it rational to believe this? But for the Muslim, does your holy book accurately represent this belief?

And if not, why not? And what does that mean? Thank you very much. Also given 22 minutes is

Abdullah Al -Anulusi, and he'll be representing the Muslim position. Let's welcome him as he comes to the room.

Bismillah ar -Rahman ar -Rahim. In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful. I'd like to send my greetings to everyone here, and I'd like to thank the

Trinity Church, the elders and the congregation for inviting me here today to debate this interesting and important topic.

Firstly, I wanted to apologize if anything I do say might offend some people. I think it is important, as Jane White mentioned, that we have to be open and frank about our difference of opinion, and that we also must be tolerant.

Gone are the days when people such as myself, Christians, ex -Christians, or whoever we reject with the

Trinity, would have been beheaded in Christian Europe. For example, John Calvin himself ordered the beheading of poor servitors.

But in this day and age, we live in more enlightening times where we can actually come to each other's places of worship and discuss openly.

And last year, the American evangelical debateer, David Wood, came to a mosque to discuss whether the

Prophet Muhammad was a real prophet or a false prophet. Him, obviously, arguing that the Prophet Muhammad was a false prophet in a mosque.

So I think this is a very good situation, and I'd like to jump straight into my presentation.

The structure of my presentation is firstly, we have to come to agreement on a common basis to make a judgment as to whether there is politics involved or not in the issue of the

Trinity, and so on. Also, I'll discuss Jewish monotheism, I'll discuss the sources

I'm going to use, then I'm going to jump to the unreliability of apostolic tradition and its documentation, otherwise known as the

New Testament. I will show that there's no guarantee that the original texts are accurate, and that the original text probably has even the same contradictions as even the current ones that we have.

I'll say the Bible is not protected by the Holy Spirit from textual corruption, that the

Christian theology developed under the pernicious influence of Hellenic Greek philosophy, and that the texts give contradictory accounts of Jesus as one human, not one as a humble but superhuman.

And then I'll discuss the Trinity hypothesis, and there's a reason why I call it the hypothesis. And I'll finish off with the chronic contentions to the

Trinity, or should I say to Christian theology specifically, and how the Qur 'an perceives

Christian theology, and the rational arguments raised by the Qur 'an. Now, I know that sometimes

I'm described as a rationalist, but this is far from the descriptor, in terms of, in Islamic thought, we think this is the

Mutazilites, the Mutazilite faction. No, I'm fully orthodox Ahlus Sunnah. When I use the word rational, it's only because I believe that the

Qur 'an, which tells us to go look at the universe, and don't believe in things which are contradictory,

I say that this is rational. Rational thinking is to believe in things which are non -contradictory, and based on evidence.

Simple, as simple as it is. I think that the basis, the rational basis, is that whatever and how ineffable

God is, how unfathomable He is, He is non -contradictory. His nature is non -contradictory.

He might be infinite, and you can't count infinity, but there's a difference between saying He's infinite and finite at the same time, because infinite means not finite.

So how can something be not finite and finite at the same time? It's a contradiction. As, to quote 1

Timothy 6 .20, the old Timothy God, the deposit entrusted to you, avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

And again, Corinthians, God is not the author of confusion, and of course, as God is allegedly invited people in Isaiah, come now, let us reason together.

So God believes in reason and rationality, so I do too. Jewish monotheism.

You know, the thing about the Old Testament Bible is, the Old Testament Bible is full of imagery, and it's full of explicit text.

There's ambiguous text, and explicit text. You go to any Jew, and you ask them, how do you interpret these different texts?

You know, some texts say that God rested, God relaxed, God repented. Is this literal? Does this literally mean that God rested,

He had to sleep, He had to relax, or whatever? They say no, they would say it's imagery, because the explicit text says

God is infinite, or powerful, He's not like a man. So we interpret those texts, which say that He repents, or He relaxes, or He makes a mistake, we interpret them allegorically or metaphorically, we don't interpret them literally, and we use this kind of, you know, as a meter.

And it's the same with the Qur 'an, we have a verse in the Qur 'an which says that God has hand and feet, and so on, and we don't interpret it literally, that God has a human hand, feet, and leg, and different components.

No, it's allegory, metaphor. So, what are the explicit verses in Jewish monotheism?

God is not a man, numbers and hosiah. And I think I'll quote numbers, God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should change

His mind. Interesting. God does not change, in Malachi, God does not, He doesn't change

His mind, of course, as James White noted in his book, The Forgotten Trinity, that God is outside of time and space, so He can't change.

He's outside of time and space, remember that. God is the creator of all things, obviously, we know that the

Jews believe this, and 2 Chronicles 6 .18, nothing can contain God, when referring to a temple, how can

God be confined? By a limited temple. And of course, as James White himself remarked in his book,

God's being is not limited, and since God is omnipresent, another important truth can be seen, God's being cannot be divided.

What is half of omnipresence? How can the infinite be divided into parts? So on and so forth. And here in Israel, the

Lord, your God, is one Lord. Notice how it doesn't say you only have one

God, or there is only one God, no, it says the Lord, your God, the Lord, your God, that's singular, is one.

Why say that? Why have the additional as one? You've already mentioned the singular, your Lord, your

God, why say He is one? What's that about? We'll come to that later. So, the sources

I'm going to use, I'm going to quote from the Old Testament, I'm going to quote from the classical church fathers, the

Orthodox church fathers, I know they all anathematized each other during that time, but I'm going to quote from the ones that stand for the majority,

I'm going to quote scholars approved by James, which I obtained from his books, the ones that he cites, I'm going to cite, because I know that he trusts those scholars.

And sometimes I will quote scholars which are not approved by James, but I will mention when they are, what he would call liberal scholars.

So, onto the reliability of apostolic tradition, what does that mean? Well, the

New Testament is not an exact record of Jesus' life, but it's a compilation of early

Christian theologians and uncorporated narratives about Jesus' life. So, what do we find is that there were theologians, early theologians, writing letters or their works and so on, and then later on, these became incorporated into the

New Testament. It's the same reason that the Christians don't believe in the Talmud or the Midrash. If you ask a

Christian, why don't you believe in the Jewish document or the Talmud or the Midrash? And they'll say, because these were written by rabbis who were writing commentary on the

Torah. We don't follow what the rabbis say, we don't follow the beliefs, their ideas or their opinions, we follow what the

Torah says. But, funnily enough, the New Testament is basically constructed by theologians.

For example, the first prologue of John, in the beginning was the Word and the Word of God. Does it say

Jesus said that? No, whoever wrote John is saying that, it's his opinion, it's his idea, he's a theologian.

If Augustine, very famous, or even I'll say if James, if James lived in the first century and he wrote his book, that would probably be part of the

New Testament. So it's all about chronology, it's not about anything special about the author, if you even know who the authors are.

Anyway, so, according to James D. Kelly in his book

Early Christian Doctrine, he says, the doctrine of one God, the Father and Creator, formed the background and indisputable premises of the

Church's faith. The problem for theology was to integrate it with the fresh data of the specifically

Christian revelation. Even at the New Testament stage, ideas about Christ's pre -existence and creative role were beginning to take shape.

So already there was a development of thinking during the construction of the New Testament. And of course, these ideas found their way into the

New Testament. James D. Kelly also said, and this is a proof by James, that there was

Greek thought, Hellenistic thought going on at that time. And do you know what the

Platonic and Stoic schools of philosophy, and do you know what they had a belief about God? The Stoic and Platonic schools of thought.

They believed that God is unfathomable, ineffable. He is so detached from his creation that to create creation, he has to create something called a wisdom, an intermediary, called the

Logos. This is Platonic philosophy here. He had to create a Logos and then the

Logos, through the Logos, everything is created, everything that is discernible. And with Stoic philosophy, they believed that this

Logos means rationality and that everything is ordered because of the presence of this rationality in the universe.

Does that sound familiar to any Christians? I'll go into it further. So, just very quickly about the

New Testament. When I said the originals may not be accurate, I'll give an example. I just made a statement.

Matthew 2 .23, what does it say? And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, he will be called a

Nazarene, referring to Jesus. The prophets of the Old Testament prophesied Jesus and said that he is a

Nazarene, the Messiah will be a Nazarene. Guess what? This occurs nowhere in the

Old Testament. Where did he get this from? Maybe he made a little mistake. Maybe, as was happened, they retrofitted prophecies from the

Old Testament and say, oh, this was written in the Old Testament, this was written in the Old Testament. And generally, they checked, but in this case, especially with Matthew, there's a lot of inaccuracies and a lot of missing prophecies which don't exist in the

Old Testament. What was that? The documentation of the New Testament is not protected from divine tampering, and James 1 will agree with this.

Why? Because John 7 .53 to 8 .11, when women were taken for adultery, was proven to be a forgery, or was taken out.

1 John 5 .8, the Trinity verse was taken out. It's so good, we must take out all the

Trinity verses in the Bible. I think it's a good start. And the thirdly, Mark 16 .9

verses 9 to 20, resurrection of Jesus again was found out to be forgeries and taken out.

Or basically, not in the earliest manuscripts, that's what they mean, not in the earliest manuscripts. So, where was the

Holy Spirit protecting the Bible when for hundreds of years Christians were believing that was part of the Bible? Where was the Holy Spirit then?

You might say, ah, but you see, the Holy Spirit will show you eventually the original manuscripts. Firstly, we don't have the original manuscripts, so we don't know how many more mistakes, or how many more forgeries we have to go and get out of it.

But anyway, now, to kind of actually, I think, get to the real crux of the matter.

Christian theology. The thing about the New Testament, the New Testament is based on Apostolic Tradition. What I mean by the

Apostolic Tradition is that it was all the ideas, teachings, and opinions of Christian theologians combined with unproperated narratives from Jesus' life, or what they all claimed, narratives from Jesus' life, and this was all basically, later on they compiled it into a book, or into Gospels, rather, and then they put all the

Gospels into a book. Not all the Gospels were put into that book, and there was a selection process, but I'm not going to go through that.

The main point is, there's a hundred year gap between Jesus and presumed first Gospels coming into existence that we can have evidence for.

Now, we see in the New Testament a very interesting phenomenon.

We see there are explicit texts, and there are ambiguous texts. The explicit texts say that Jesus is a human being,

He was created, He ate, He slept, He's the Son of Man. Like, in the Old Testament, Son of Man applies to all kinds of people, and so on, human beings.

He's the Son of God. Again, in the Old Testament, angels, David's called the Son of God, Adam's called the

Son of God. And all these things, which a Jew reading it would understand. Son of God means chosen, a chosen of God.

For example, He of His own self can do nothing, the Father is greater than Himself, so on and so forth. He grew in the knowledge of God, as well, and so on.

As I already mentioned, it was England of the hour. It's very funny, that first song in the Bible says that no one knows the hour, not the angels in heaven, nor the

Son, but the Father. Now, it's very interesting, because anyone reading this, reading these verses, would say, oh, well, yeah,

Jesus is a human being, He's a messenger, He's a prophet, and so He's the Messiah, a very high, you know, the most highly esteemed prophet,

I guess, for the Israelites, and the Messiah Himself. And this makes sense. But then, you get the ambiguous verses.

The ambiguous verses, which when you say, Jesus says, I am the way, truth, and life, and you think, well, what does this mean?

Does this mean, you know, or before Abraham was, I am. What does that mean? Christians dispute these texts.

These texts are in dispute because they're so ambiguous. They're not explicit. Now, what I would recommend to Christians, generally, is you take the explicit texts to form the baseline, and then you look at the ambiguous texts based on their conformance to the explicit text.

The ambiguous text, you judge it just like the Jews do to their Torah, just like the Muslims do to our Quran. You don't go to the ambiguous texts.

Come with an interpretation that you'd like, and then you change the explicit texts and do mental gymnastics to explain how, well, when

Jesus said that the Father was great and might, what He meant was He was basically going to go to see the back of the Father, and He was saying that she'd be happy because I'm going back to my

Father who's greater than me, and I'll be back in rank with Him. It doesn't say that in the text. It's mental gymnastics.

But anyway, so these are the problems in the text. Now you have these ambiguous texts, and you have these explicit texts, and throughout church history there have been constant battles between Christians who believed in using the explicit texts to be the judge, and others who believed in using the interpretation of the ambiguous texts to be the judge, and were the pro -divinitists of Christian history.

And in order to reconcile those who were the, those who believed were anti -adoptionists, and I'll explain these terms, and the adoptionist is a

Christian, an early Christian that believed that Jesus is the adopted Son of God, i .e. He was a prophet and so on, generally speaking, in that frame of thinking.

And the other viewpoint was that He was the literal Son of God, and there were these two different sects.

Those, obviously, who were anti -adoptionists, one, they obviously, they became a majority, they nepotised those they didn't like, and obviously they had church backing, and they started to impose on people, anyone who rejected

Trinity can even be persecuted and executed. So they constructed this theory called the

Trinity Hypothesis. I call it a hypothesis, because a hypothesis is a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, or its provisional conjecture to guide investigation, or exhibit as highly probable.

It's the Trinity Hypothesis. Now, the Christian early church fathers, like Augustine, admitted that the

Trinity, or the word persons, is not found in the Bible. They had to construct it.

Augustine also said that we had to make a distinction between persons and being, because otherwise we have no other way to explain the existence of three, and we'd have to admit it's three gods.

So he said that we have to invent persons, Hypostasis, and Usia. What they don't tell you is, and this is a real funny thing, is that Hypostasis and Usia are synonyms.

One is Platonic philosophy, and the other one is Stoic philosophy, and they both mean subsistence.

They both actually, they are synonyms of each other, meaning they are basically, they mean, they can stand in for each other, they mean the same thing.

And we know this because the mystery of Jesus being two natures in one is called the Hypostatic Union, the union of two natures.

Hypostasis means natures in that context. So they try to, they use two different words from two different almost philosophies fused together, so that you don't think of them as the same.

It's like me saying, it's like me trying to avoid saying there are three natures, and there are one nature.

And you say, oh, that sounds, I can't say that. Okay, I'll say it in a different language. Il y a un nature, and three natures.

There we go, no problem. So, the equivalent, the interesting thing is

Augustine admits, Augustine admits in his book on the Trinity that God's nature and the personhood are actually one and the same.

There is no separation or distinction between God's nature and God's personhood. He admits this.

And he realises, he comes to his text and there is a problem, a contradiction, because when you are saying there are three persons, you're saying there are three natures.

And when you're saying there is one nature, you're meant to be saying there's one person. And they can't accept this because how can they reconcile the contradictory interpretations of their

Bible? Now, I want to jump straight on to the chronic contentions of this.

I've got so many verses in so little time, but I want to show that the Qur 'an not only understands the

Trinity, but the Qur 'an refutes the Trinity very eloquently. Firstly, the

Qur 'an does not talk about the detailed concept, the hypothesis, the

Trinity hypothesis. It talks about Christian theology. It talks about the claims, the truth claims made by the

Christian theology. It is like, you know, a politician saying, we went to war in Iraq for freedom, and then you say, no, you went to war in Iraq for oil.

And they say, oh, we don't say that. Ah, yes, that's the de facto reality of what you believe. When the Qur 'an says you believe in three gods, that is the de facto reality, because there is no,

God is a fundamental, there is nothing more, there's no components, there doesn't exist any components. Even James White's book admits this, that God cannot be divided.

So when you're saying there's three, you're saying God can be divided. It's three in one, much like what the Hindus say about Brahma, Vishnu and Krishna, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

Three in one, they're part of the biggest transcendental god called Brahman.

You see, Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu. So, let's jump straight into it.

Surah 2, 253, and I still don't have a projector up to show you, so, we're going to go through it very quickly.

Surah 2, verse 253, and Surah 4, verse 171, actually distinguish out the three persons of the

Trinity. So the Qur 'an distinguishes out the three persons of the Trinity. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Not Mary, but Jesus and the

Holy Spirit are distinguished in these two verses. In the other verse where it said, where it talks about, in Surah 4, verse 172, that the

Messiah would never disdain for being a servant of God, nor would the closest angels. Those who disdain for worshipping him are too arrogant to submit, etc.

Why does it say that Jesus would never disdain for being a servant of God, nor the closest angels? Why is it linked together?

Because the Holy Spirit, the belief in this Holy Spirit which would make the third person, is actually the angel

Gabriel. In Islamic sources, the angel Gabriel is called the Holy Spirit. In the

Old Testament, angels are called holy ones, and spirits as well. The Holy Spirit is an angel, and the

Qur 'an said it bang on the head, where it said that, where it refutes both taking

Jesus and angels to be gods, it refutes it by saying they would never disdain for being servants of God, they are the servants of God.

And of course, in the Trinity conception, the Father is always the greatest one in the

Trinity theology. And I will bring up Church Father quotations to show this. It's interesting that James White says that, let me just see if I can find it.

It's interesting that James White says that, you know, we don't believe that God has a literal offspring, like the

Qur 'an says. We don't believe this. Really? Well, did you read Athanasius? The author of the

Athanasian Creed, no less. He said, rather, he is, referring to Jesus, he is

God's offspring, and since God is eternal, and he belongs to God as a son, he exists for all eternity. It is a characteristic of men to be gay in time, but God's offspring is eternal, his nature always being perfect.

And Athanasius says that the son is God's offspring. Justin Martyr said that Logos is

God's offspring and child, before all creatures of God begat in the beginning a rational power out of himself.

And I could go on to Taschian, Tertullian, or Oregon, and so on. They all say this.

They say it's God's offspring. You have to represent your position, James White, from the orthodoxy, and not say, make a claim about backup.

So, I think I'll leave you with this last verse, as my time is running out. When the

Qur 'an says, in one verse, he said, and they say that God takes a son, has a son.

No, God, when he will signify to exist, he says, be, and it is. And I've thought to myself, what's the connection between God saying that he can't have a son, and if he wants to create something, he says, be, and it is.

Why is that? Because the Qur 'an understands Jehovah 9 theology, and it refutes the concept that you need to create a

Logos in order to create the universe. God creates directly without needing to make a Logos to do it for him.

The Qur 'an has understood Jehovah 9 theology. It's understood Greek. Anyway, and I'll leave my time running out, but thanks, and I'll come back and go on the rebuttals.

Thank you for listening. We thank

Abdullah for expressing the position, for the Muslim position. Now we go on to three minutes of cross -examination.

These cross -examinations, the purpose behind them is to verify the claims that have been made in these opening statements, and first up will be

Dr. James Moore. Alright, thank you very much.

Abdullah, I did not hear what you, you mentioned something about a 100 -year gap.

I thought you were saying between the ministry of Jesus and the earliest writings in the

New Testament. I did not understand what you said there. Do you know what I'm referring to? You talked about a 100 -year gap.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Yes, a 100 -year gap between the ministry of Jesus and the earliest provable manuscripts and evidence.

Okay, so you're around 130? Approximately.

I wasn't sure what you were referring to at that point. You mentioned

Sura 2, 253. And did

I understand you to be saying that the Holy Spirit that is mentioned here is the angel

Gabriel, or this is actually what Christians believe? Because it says, and strengthen him with the

Holy Spirit. So are you saying that that's an actual reference to what Christians believe the

Holy Spirit is, or angel Gabriel? I didn't follow what you meant there. Sure. In the Sabbath theology, the

Holy Spirit is a reference used for the angel Gabriel. What the Quran is showing,

I was trying to say, is that angels have been taken as gods as well, and that comes in the form of the

Christians deifying the Holy Spirit, which we interpret to mean angel Gabriel. Okay, so I'm looking at the text here, and it says, those messengers we endowed with gifts, some of others, to one of them spoke, others he raised in praise and honor.

Jesus, the Son of Mary, we gave clear signs, and strengthen him with the Holy Spirit. If Allah had so willed, succeeding generations would not have fought among each other, etc, etc.

So are you saying that that is a reference to the angel Gabriel?

Oh yes, in the Islamic sources, the Prophet Muhammad makes supplications to God, saying strengthen me with the

Holy Spirit. So it's not a reference to what Christians believe about the Holy Spirit. I'm totally confused as to the application that you made.

Sure. It's kind of like this, the Christians don't believe that the Holy Spirit is angel Gabriel, but the

Quran is saying that the original kind of person that came was angel

Gabriel, and he was mistaken for being the spirit of God himself. You said this under the rubric of the

Quran understands the Trinity. So I'm trying to figure out if you're saying that when this was originally written, this was somehow meant to be a correction.

It just sounds to me like it's using the term Holy Spirit here as saying that Allah strengthened

Jesus with the Holy Spirit. Yes. There are many times in the Quran and in the

Hadith where the Holy Spirit is just mentioned. But because the Hadith mentions that the

Prophet Muhammad has received revelation from the Holy Spirit, and we know that this revelation is from Gabriel.

Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. Okay. I think just to clarify, you said that Christians don't believe that Mary was taken as a god, or was treated as a god.

But how do you explain your videos on YouTube and your articles, and I think some of your fellow

Calvinist colleagues, your Christians of Catholicism for what was quote -unquote Mary -on -a -tree, which is the idolatry to Mary, and by seeking intercession through her and treating her for purposes as a god?

It's one of the best reasons to not believe that modern Catholicism is biblical Christianity. Sure.

And it did not exist. That kind of Marian devotion, especially as it has been dogmatically defined by Rome just over the past 160 years with the bodily assumption of Mary and the

Immaculate Conception 1854 -1950, is a tremendous move away from any type of biblical revelation.

And if you are familiar with Rome's teachings, they don't believe that they are limited to the divine revelation of Scripture.

They reject the concept of sola scriptura. It's one of the fundamental differences between them. Would you deny that in early church kind of teaching and discussion and ideas, there was the concept of the

Theotokos, which is the god -bearer where Mary, his name was changed from being the mother of Jesus to Mary the mother of God or god -bearer,

Theotokos. Well, I think there's a misunderstanding there as to the origination of Theotokos.

That originally was a Christological title. In other words, its original usage was an attempt to assure that people recognized that the one who was born of Mary was fully

God. That over time became an exalted title of Mary, but it took a long period of time.

And even modern Roman Catholicism, I think this should be mentioned, even modern Roman Catholicism seeks to very clearly differentiate between Mary as a creature and any type of deification of Mary as a god.

I think that the methods they use are not necessarily the best, but they certainly seek to make that kind of differentiation.

That should be fairly mentioned. Sure. So then would you say that if you believe that taking someone into intercession makes them, you're treating that person like God, according to all the articles

I've been reading of Calvinist polemic against Catholics, that when you take Mary as an intercessor between you and God, when she's described by Catholics as the spouse of the

Holy Spirit that she has taken on, she has the same will as the Holy Spirit, you can speak, you can pray to her and she will basically through the

Holy Spirit have your prayers heard that this is not a form of idolatry? Yes, but it's a modern development.

Sure. Thank you both.

We move now to twelve minutes of rebuttal and we welcome to the podium Dr. James White. Alright.

Let's get to the argumentation part. We were asked how can someone be infinite and finite at the same time?

This is a fundamental question that we want to answer right off the bat because it will pretty much settle the allegation of rationality or irrationality.

Philippians chapter two verses five through eleven is an ancient fragment of a hymn of the church and in that particular beautiful text of scripture we are told of one who had eternally been equal with the

Father and yet he did not consider that position he had with the Father something to be held on to at all costs but out of humility he was willing to lay aside that exalted position that was his out of service to others.

He becomes then our example of humility in so doing. But it's interesting to note that when the apostle

Paul talks about the incarnation, Jesus entering into human flesh he says he emptied himself now that term is never used literally by Paul, kenosis, it is always used in a metaphorical sense.

He made himself of no reputation but how did he do so? By taking on a human nature by truly becoming man.

This was his humiliation, his self -veiling of his glory we see his glory revealed on the

Mount of Transfiguration but the vast majority of his life that glory is hidden.

He has taken on a human nature and so did he cease being eternal?

Did he cease being infinite in his being in so doing? No. The whole doctrine of the incarnation is that Jesus is the

God -man. That's not 50 % God and 50 % man because that would be irrational that would make no sense.

He remains, the logos that eternally existed remains as God but he takes on human nature.

If he created the human nature why would that be impossible? Why? The only objection you can come up with is well he would never do that but if he had a purpose and in fact it was his purpose from creation to bring honor and glory to his triune majesty in so doing to bring about perfect redemption for his people, why could not the one who made man enter into that human existence?

He does not cease to be eternal. He does not cease to be infinite. His human nature is a true human nature so that's not infinite.

That's not eternal. That particular individual had not existed for eternity past but the scriptures say he is the

God -man, the lord of glory. There's this wonderful text that Paul also uses. They crucified the lord of glory.

Think about that for a moment. How can you crucify the lord of glory? The lord of glory is the very creator of all things and yet he humbled himself so that he could give his life a ransom for many and so the belief is not irrational if we allow the texts to speak for themselves but then what we had was basically an assertion that we can't trust the

New Testament texts for various and sundry reasons. We're told there's a 100 year gap.

Well there's a 250 to 300 year gap between most of your knowledge of the Hadith and the statements of Muhammad but that doesn't seem to bother too many people.

In fact in the history of ancient documents, 100 years is the best there is.

Any other ancient document from that time period, Pliny, Tacitus, doesn't matter who it was, the average time period between the time of the writing of their documents and the first extant copy is 500 to 900 years.

100 years is the best antiquity has to offer. So unless you're going to suggest that God just simply couldn't give his word without giving us some type of golden plates or something, then you're going to have a hard time making that kind of allegation stick.

He mentioned two of the longest text of the New Testament. I wish I had time to go back over what

I went over on Friday evening in this very room. The reliability of the texts of the New Testament.

He mentioned John 7 53 through 8 11, the other one is the long reading of Mark, Mark 16 9 through 20.

It's a wonderful thing that we are able to recognize those later editions because we can do that because we have the richest manuscript tradition of any work of antiquity.

And the reason we can recognize that for example 1 John 5 7 which isn't even really a relevant text, it was only added in from the

Latin Vulgate in the 16th century, not by some powerful group either, but simply by usage.

But it's a wonderful thing that we can identify these things because you see for the New Testament we didn't have anybody burning the earlier manuscripts.

We didn't have Edith, we didn't have it with Mark. And so we can go back to those papyri manuscripts, we can go back to P72, we can go back to P46 and P66 and Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus and we have this rich body of manuscripts to draw from to recognize these things.

And we publish entire texts. In fact, I'll go ahead and do this right now, here is an entire text, this is the

New English Translation and the Nestle -Holland 27th edition, full critical edition of the Greek New Testament, thousands of textual critical footnotes giving you all the information about all the manuscripts.

We publish this and make it available to everybody and I give them to my debate opponents. We are open with the history of our text and I simply suggest to you that if you will with an open mind examine the means by which

God has preserved the New Testament Scriptures and pass them down to us today, you will be amazed at the progress of God.

I have been studying this field for many years and the more I study it, the more I am amazed at what

God has done. Now, we then had a number of arguments raised, interestingly enough, quoting from the same

New Testament text, against the concept of the deity of Christ, saying that all the texts that present the deity of Christ are ambiguous.

Well, why are they ambiguous? Well, they're ambiguous because you accept an external authority to tell us not to believe these things.

They're not ambiguous. Titus 2 .13, 2 Peter 1 .1 are not ambiguous. They describe Jesus Christ, our great

God and Savior. There's nothing ambiguous about that. There's nothing ambiguous about Paul's description of Jesus in Colossians chapter 1 where he says that he is the firstborn of all creation, the one that has preeminence over all things, for by him were all things created, whether in heaven and earth, visible or invisible, whether principalities, powers, dominions, or authorities, all things created by him and for him.

He is before all things and him all things hold together and consist. My friends, that's not ambiguous. That's the Creator.

The Apostle Paul used every kind of language he could to express the fact that Jesus Christ is truly

God. It's not ambiguous in the writer to the Hebrews, quote Psalm 102, 25 -27, which is about how

Yahweh is the unchanging Creator of all things. He does not change. He does not age. It was not ambiguous for the writer of Hebrews to apply those very words to Jesus the

Son. And that takes me to something else that really needs to be emphasized. And that is,

I heard Abdullah use the standard argumentation. You all have heard Achmed didot do it.

God has sons by the tons, right? We've all heard that one. And yet, is it not so transparently clear in the text of the

New Testament that the sonship of Jesus is absolutely unique? That's the very meaning of the term monogamous.

Jesus is the unique son of God. And the Jews recognize this in John chapter 5, from which he quoted before getting to the point where Jesus says he does nothing of himself, and of course that was taken as a denial of the deity of Christ.

What, is Jesus some renegade deity? The whole point of John chapter 5 is that the

Son is in perfect harmony with the Father. He acts in perfect harmony with the Father, but that very same text says, you must honor the

Son just as you honor the Father if you want to have life. And by saying Jesus is merely a rasul, and not the eternal

Son of God, you are not honoring him as the Son. Not from the New Testament perspective. But that very same text,

Jesus made reference to the fact that my Father is working until now, and I am working. That was a reference to the fact that the

Jews recognized that God continues to work on the Sabbath day. He continues to have the sunrise, and the earth continues spinning, and rain falls from heaven, etc, etc.

And Jesus said, my Father is working and I am working. And the Jews recognized that this was a claim to deity.

He was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. And remember in John chapter 19, at the arrest and trial of Jesus, what is the assertion of the

Jews? We have a law, and by that law he must die because he made himself out to be the

Son of God. Uniquely, in a way that clearly demonstrated he was claiming to be deity.

Now, Abella said, well, the Quran does understand the Trinity. But then he went on to say, well, not in the

Trinity hypothesis. That is, not in the way that Christians believe the Trinity to have existed.

Not those who take the entirety of the biblical revelation and allow it to stand.

No, it's just simply addressing the de facto reality that you believe in three gods.

And he made reference to my book, The Forgotten Trinity. I think I was very, very clear in what

I was stating in those texts when I said that God's being cannot be divided. The doctrine of the

Trinity does not divide the being of God. If you'll read the rest of those chapters, that's exactly what

I said. And that is that the being of God, that which makes God God, is fully shared by three divine persons.

Not one third of the being of God. We're not dividing the being of God up. It cannot be divided.

And I know anyone who looks at my book will see that I said that over and over and over again.

And so it is not a proper usage of my words to say that I'm in any type of support of this particular perspective.

So once again, let me refocus our attention. If we allow the Bible to speak for itself, and I would simply point out that the

Quran does not tell us to pick and choose what passages in the Bible we are going to believe.

The Quran command says that these books were sent down. And I, as one of the al -alajjil, the people of the

Gospel, am told to judge based upon what's in my scriptures. We know exactly what the New Testament looked like in the days of Muhammad, without any question whatsoever.

And so in light of that, if we take simply what the New Testament teaches, we are forced to the doctrine of the

Trinity. Where does the Quran accurately represent the doctrine of the

Trinity? What is this stuff about worshipping Mary? Even from the Roman Catholic perspective, you go that far.

It comes far after this time period. What's this idea about it being exalted above having a son?

What does Surah 6 -101 say when it says that God cannot have a son because He does not have a sabiha, a consort?

Is that not saying that Christians believe God has a wife? We've never believed that.

That's not what the doctrine of the Trinity is, and so we have to ask ourselves the question, and I hope Abdullah will address this, how can the

Quran be taken for the Word of God if it does not accurately represent what is speaking under this map? Thank you very much.

And now with 12 minutes of rebuttal, we welcome Abdullah. Alright, I'm going to go reverse about what he said, but I need to make a few points that I want to actually say, and not just always respond to him.

One of them is the Quran used the argument that when you say God has a son, but He does not have a consort. That is not saying that Christians believe that He has a consort.

It is rebutting the fact that why have you given these persons masculine names?

You have a father. Masculine human reproductive titles. Father. Son. These have meanings based on creation.

You're giving the father the consort of the father, and you're giving the son, which are human reproductive names.

For all eternity God has had human reproductive titles? Does that make sense? That's why the

Quran rebuts saying God does not have a consort so that He must have a father and a son situation.

It doesn't actually say that Christians believe that. It's actually a refutation of your choice of titles for the

Godhead and so on. What I was trying to elicit from James is that we know that the

Quran says that the Jews and Christians took their rabbis and anchorites as lords besides God, or masters besides God.

Reason why? Because they were used as intercessors. They made what was forbidden allowed, what was allowed forbidden.

So these became their lords, their gods. Even though in that narration when the

Prophet Muhammad was saying this to the companions, one of the ex -Christians said, but we never worshipped them. But didn't you follow them?

Didn't you obey them? Didn't you seek intercession? But generally they sought intercession, which the pagans also said that we are not worshipping many gods, we're just seeking intercession for different gods and whatnot.

These are idols you've set up besides God. You seek intercession through other than God?

Then you are praying idols. This is James Wise claiming against the Catholics. Allow the Quran to define what it means by idolatry as well.

Idolatry doesn't only mean you worship a statue. Now, he says that the best documents we have are 100 years old and that's the best you can get.

Well, if I've got I guess the phrase in the land of blind, the one -eyed man is king. And it's very much the same with oh, that's the best that you can get for ancient manuscripts.

Oh, so that must mean that we accept it because just because it was better than I don't know what was written about Hercules or something like this, just because it's a better or the closest possible or closest out of many set of different manuscripts, we have to now accept it blindly just because there's nothing better than that.

I'm sorry, that doesn't wash. Alright, I'm going to actually go ahead and hit a few other points. When Jesus said that, you know, he said that him and the father are one and God is his father and the

Jews were going to stone him for this and they said that you were mere man and make yourself out to be like God and what was

Jesus' response allegedly in the Bible? He said, isn't it written in your law that be ye gods, be ye all gods?

Isn't that very interesting? You are all sons of the most high. It's Psalm 82 6. Be ye all gods, you are all sons of the most high.

Interesting. If Jesus was God and he was trying to educate Jews as to believing that he's

God, why give them an allegorical verse in the Old Testament which they never believed mean that human beings are

God? Unless you're Mormon, that is. That's a whole different story. So, you know, these are the problems which we encounter.

I never said that the Old Testament or the New Testament, rather, is something that I believe in or that Muslims believe in or is the

Injil. I've nowhere said that the actual book that Christians possess is the Injil. The Injil is the teachings of Jesus.

The New Testament is a documentation of the apostolic tradition which is loosely based upon Jesus and his teachings and his life.

That's what I'm saying. That's what I have said consistently throughout this debate. But, let's, you know, in my research,

I discovered something really fascinating. I never realised this before. It's really interesting. You see, I guess what

James White is trying to say is that, well, you know, persons and being, it's a little word game that the Trinitarian theorists invented to allow three in one and one in three.

They said that, well, it's only one God because it's one osea, one substance, one being, and three hypostases.

I said, oh, okay, interesting. That's very interesting. But then, the hypostatic union concept, which is where God, where Jesus has two natures, he has two osea, two osea, and he is one person.

So God no longer has one osea and three persons. He has two oseas and three persons.

God has two natures, a human nature and a divine nature. And this is now effectively met the criteria of two gods.

You've now effectively met it. Unless you deny that the human nature Jesus is completely separate from divine nature

Jesus. And if you say that, then you say, oh, but the person, the will inside him was

God. That was God. If that's the case, then how do you explain Jesus saying that he's ignorant of the last hour.

He's ignorant of it. If this is his divine person saying this, then he's lying because he doesn't know it.

And I've read Augustine's attempt to explain it where he said that, oh, well, you know, Jesus was it was like being amongst babies.

They couldn't understand you. So he just basically, how can you explain babies and infant knowledge? Well, that's fine.

That's fine. But it says in the verse of the Bible that he does not know it. He does not know the last hour. I mean, if it said he knew the last hour but can't explain it,

I can understand that. It says he did not know it. Which has caused some Christians throughout the ages to believe that Jesus has two wills and two natures.

One is a human will and a human nature and one is a divine will and divine nature. Because they were trying to reconcile these discrepancies within their own theology, discrepancies they caused because of their insistence to say that Jesus was

God. Also, other points. If God is fundamental and can't be broken down, then can there exist person, what we call person and substance as two components in God?

Can there exist this? It can't. Person is one thing and substance is not a thing.

So if you can't divide this, if you can't divide God, then as Augustine admitted in his book on the

Trinity, funnily enough, that person and nature is the same thing. They are in essence the same.

So when Christians say that we believe in free persons, we're saying we believe in free gods. And I'll further clarify this.

I'll further qualify this. What makes a deity a god?

What does a deity have to possess to be God? It has to possess what? Infinite power.

Infinite power. And what else? It has to possess will. Will and infinite power.

Here's a question. Does the Father have infinite power? We say yes.

Does the Father have a will? We say yes. Does the Son have infinite power?

Of course. That's what Augustine also says, according to the theology. And does the

Son also have a separate will? Yes. Because he's a separate person. That's what defines a person.

A person is a will. So we see three wills, each have infinite power.

What is that? What theology is this? Is that a monotheism? Does that sound like monotheism?

Three wills? There are three infinite wills in heaven? They don't depend on each other? They are self -contained, as Augustine said on the

Trinity. This is three gods. It is de facto three gods. No matter, even though you add a little caveat, oh but it's still one god, just adding that little appendage to your creed doesn't mean that you believe in one god.

If I said that if I went to a shop and I stole something, and then the security guard got me, he goes, ah, okay,

I stole it, but it's my property. I say, well you didn't steal, did you? Either you stole it, or it's your property.

Make your mind up. You can't have a contradiction. But this is exactly what the Christian theology is.

It's trying to have its cake eaten. You want to make Jesus God, but you can't explain why he can be

God at the same time as a father who is meant to be one god, but they are separate persons. It's inconsistent.

So that's what I'm saying. Make things easy for yourself. Jesus is a human being. He had human faults. He was limited.

He depended on the father. Even the Christian theologians say, the church fathers say, that the father is the source and principle of all things.

And I will further clarify why the Qur 'an is accurate and says that it's like an offspring. Why? Because the church fathers, and I have all the quotes here, say that in the eternal begotten, the reason why

Jesus is one substance with the father is because it's kind of like, essentially, the father is a pregnant woman, and he gave birth to someone who has the same substance of him, but they still, they note it, but they're still connected.

So they've kind of an extension of the father. The gene, the logos, is the extension of the father. And if you say, oh,

I think this Muslim is just making this up. Well, your early church fathers, Oregon, Tertullian, Tertullian, and so on, and Anthony, they're all saying this.

This is what they are saying, not myself. James White is not the authority of the Trinity. These guys are the authority of the

Trinity. Do you know why? Because they invented the idea, not James White. He's trying to explain it to you guys.

Now, that is the problem that Muslims have with the issue of the Trinity. This is what we have, the problem we have with the conception of Christian theology.

Now, just to answer a few other points. James White says God doesn't change. Malachi says, more importantly, he says God doesn't change.

But then he says God takes on flesh. God changes. You know, when I said before that God exists outside of time, and it cannot be changed by time, and then in a chapter of James White's own book on the

Trinity, where he says God, the divine or infinite, invades time. Infinity invades time.

So God becomes in time. So that which is timeless is in time. And if you keep thinking this, keeping this through,

God is what? The ever -living, right? God is the ever -living. Jesus died. Is that God?

Jesus, God is the all -knowing. Jesus is what? He was ignorant about facts. He grew in his knowledge of God.

Why does God need to grow in his own knowledge of God himself? It doesn't make sense. It's for that reason that we say that, except Jesus for what he is, he is a wondrous messiah, prophet.

He is a great prophet. He was a noble man. He was a man of truth. But he was no more than a man.

Let's throw out the Greek philosophy. You know, the Greek philosophy is a lot of trouble, even to Muslim theology as well.

We have to kick it out. Much debate. So please, this is what I call you to. Other points, just quickly before it goes.

The Philippians says that God emptied himself. And so on. Which, again, they have to try to reinterpret.

Oh, what he meant is that he humbled himself. Jesus did not seek to be equal with the Father at all costs.

But if God hasn't changed, and Jesus is God, and God doesn't change, and Jesus doesn't change, then Jesus has always been equal with God. He always has been.

So how can he say that he will not hold equality with God to be a slight grasp at all costs? It doesn't make sense.

The more you explain it, the more contradictions arise. So, as James White brings counter -rebuttals to me,

I have more admonition to point out more and more contradictions. And I haven't even told you 50 % of my rational contentions of it, mainly due to limited time.

But if I ever do a talk, please, you're welcome to come and help me. Anyway, thank you. This draws to the end of part one of our debate this evening.