Comments on Ally/Qureshi Debate

Okay, everybody in their second cousin has been asking me to comment on the Shabir Ali -Nabeel

Qureshi debate. Not sure why. I guess it's because I think I've debated Shabir more often than anybody else.

Maybe Tony Costa has. I'm not sure. I don't keep track of that kind of thing. But I've certainly debated him on more continents than anybody else has, to put it that way.

Anyway, maybe that's why people want to know what I thought about it. It took me a while to get around to it. I fly out tomorrow for Spain for a debate with a

Jesuit scholar on the Reformation on Revelation TV. So I really just haven't had a lot of time to get to it.

But I did this morning on a real long ride I was doing. And there wasn't anything overly new in the debate.

It's pretty much what you would expect from Shabir as far as the arguments are concerned.

We've heard them before. There is one argument that I might take some time to do, maybe on the dividing line.

Or maybe do a video on or something like that. I just consider it Shabir's weakest argument.

Well, the Quranic Code stuff, I think, may be the weakest argument. But the weakest argument, specifically in regards to New Testament stuff, is his insistence that Jesus was not self -identifying as the

Son of Man. And I realize there are some oddball liberal scholars that go there.

But it's just so painfully obvious. In fact, let me just pull this up here.

Luke 22, 48. But Jesus said to him, Judas, are you betraying the

Son of Man with a kiss? How else can you read that? I mean, who else was

Judas kissing? Was Judas going to be around when the future eschatological Son of Man shows up to kiss that Son of Man?

There are just so many places where it's just so patently obvious. And the only way you can even come up with that perspective is to chop the text into teeny tiny little pieces and just ignore the obvious fact that from Mark, earliest materials onward,

Jesus is Son of Man, Daniel 7, whole nine yards. So anyways, there's stuff like that.

But what I decided to do on the ride was there was one audience question that just left me going, huh, what happened there?

I did not understand Nabeel's response to an audience question. And I was sort of listening for it because someone on Twitter had said something that sort of made me go, hmm,

I wonder what this is about. Because the person on Twitter had said something along the lines of, it had to do with the text,

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? I mean, that's, you cannot witness to Muslims without getting hit with that constantly.

And I always look forward to it because it's just a great opportunity to just open up a bunch of stuff because it's just based upon ignorance of the backgrounds and the context and stuff like that.

So it's a great, great question. I love hearing when someone brings it up. And so it came up in the

Q &A, and I just didn't understand Nabeel's response. And I'm certain he's heard me respond to it.

So I was going, does he have a problem with what I say about this? Well, it came up on Twitter.

And Nabeel specifically said, just a matter of minutes ago on Twitter, I misheard the question.

I totally misunderstood it, went in a different direction. I thought it was asking, how could Jesus take the sins of the world upon himself?

I didn't catch the part about, you know, why have you forsaken me? And so, you know, and that happens, believe me.

Anyone who's done a debate knows, when I show it to you here, Nabeel was taking a drink of water right as she starts the question.

And there had just been a slight change in the way that the debate questions were being handled.

Now the other person was getting an opportunity to respond. You know, I have jokingly said maybe

David Wood was in the front row making faces at Nabeel. Who knows? That's certainly something

I think David would do. But anyway, it happens. And until you've done debates, you know, it's difficult for people to realize just how many things you have going on at once.

Just how many, you know, you're juggling. You're just juggling stuff all over the place.

That is why people that do not multitask well should not do debates. I've said many times there's scholars a thousand times more brilliant than I could ever be who should never debate.

Because they just, they can't do that kind of communication and thinking and so on and so forth.

So anyway, let me play the question and Nabeel's response.

And then what I wanted to do is I wanted to play my response. Not recorded for you here.

But what happened and I decided to do this on the ride today and I'm sure Nabeel wouldn't mind.

What happened is I was asked that question two nights in a row. Slight variations as you'll see.

But two nights in a row in two debates I did a couple of years ago. One at University College Dublin and one at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.

In two debates I did with Adnan Rashid. And evidently some of the folks only attended one of the two, which is certainly understandable.

And so the same question came up from Muslims twice. And you'll see a slight difference because one of them more emphasized the

Trinitarian aspect. One was really asking the question in regards to Trinity. The other was asking a question in regards to abandonment and salvation.

But both of them were just wonderful opportunities. And someone on Twitter had said that when they shared the responses that I gave, the kind of response that I give to this.

Which, by the way, Nabeel specifically said in Twitter, yeah, I missed that.

I would love to have introduced the Muslims to Psalm 22. So he would respond, I would imagine, in the same way if he heard the same question as I did.

And so I just wanted to provide those. And the easiest way for me to do this right now, because I don't have much time tonight, is to just show these.

And you can go, if you want better quality or bigger picture or whatever, you can go look at the debates themselves.

But I'm just going to have different boxes on the screen because to do the moving stuff back and forth and all, the editing part,

I still have time with the packing I still have to do and things like that before I leave. So here's the question as it was asked.

Okay, Dr. Qureshi, if Christ is fully God as well as fully man, how can he speak of being forsaken by God as he dies on the cross?

That's a very interesting question. And once again, we have to make sure that we don't go beyond what

Scripture says. And that's why theologians will discuss these things. Like we said in Tawhid, the answer for over a thousand years has been

Bilakayf. We don't know. And if we say Bilakayf for Tawhid and we turn to the

Trinity and say, you need to explain everything, that's inconsistent. I think we should all understand the greatness and glory of God and that there is going to be some lack of comprehension, because God is greater than our comprehension.

He created our comprehension. All that said, the response that I've heard to that question that seems to work is that when

Jesus is on the cross, the death of his human self on that cross, you know, some people ask me the question,

Abel, if God died, where is he? I mean, can God then rule the universe?

And the answer is even when we die, it's not like we cease existing. We're going to live eternally in the same way when

Jesus' body was killed on the cross. It's not like he ceased existing. But the punishment that was imputed to him upon the cross is then transferred to kind of the divine nature.

It's imputed. There's some interpenetration that happens. So when Jesus' body dies on the cross, it's imputed to his divine essence.

And that's why it can pay for all the sins of mankind. I find an interesting analog to this, and I've never said this publicly, so tell me if I'm wrong in an email or something.

Don't get too mad. When people burn the Koran, which, by the way, some people say

I've burned a Koran. I've never burned a Koran. I made a video in 2010 saying do not burn Korans. It's not the right thing to do.

But when people burn the Koran, everyone gets enraged. Why is that? Why do people get furious when the

Koran is burned? It's because I think the Koran is, by Muslim understanding, has two natures.

It has a physical nature, the pages of the text, the ink on the paper, which everyone would say that's not eternal.

That's fine. It's just ink and paper. But then there's also this nature of the eternal word of God that the

Koran also has, a second nature. And when someone burns the physical pages, that offense is imputed to the eternal nature of the

Koran. That's why people get angry. It's because you burned this eternal word of Allah. No, you didn't. You burned the pages, but it's imputed.

In the same way, when Jesus dies on the cross, that punishment is imputed to the eternal divine self.

Okay. Now, a couple things there. You need to understand how difficult it is to put together a coherent response to questions you've not had time to prepare.

Most teachers have time to prepare for a certain range of questions and topics and things like that.

In a debate, you have to be capable of drawing together a tremendous amount of information to provide answers.

And on that subject, I think I understand what Nabeel was saying. As he said, he missed what the actual question was.

And so he was responding to how is it that Jesus takes on the sins of the world, evidently, in regards to his human and divine natures or something like that.

I would simply point out that really the only way to understand that question that he was answering is to have a solid understanding of the hypostatic union, the nature of the hypostatic union.

I would probably look at Paul's terminology. They crucified the Lord of Glory. He's exactly right.

You always have to explain to Muslims that we do not believe that death means cessation of existence, which they very frequently...

And it shocked me and it disappointed me. And, Shabir, if you're watching this, it really disappointed me that at some point during this debate...

And if I'm wrong about this, I will apologize. But I'm pretty certain that I heard you repeat,

Shabir, if Jesus died, did that just leave the Father and the

Spirit running the universe objection? And I'm sorry. After all these years, you've got to realize that that is just as bogus.

You don't understand the Trinity if you're making that argument. Jesus did not cease to exist.

Death is not cessation of existence. It just...

It really concerns me when the leading Islamic apologists do not show evidence of having an even semi -accurate knowledge of the doctrine of the

Trinity. And I'm not... And when they say, well, who could have?

I know lots of folks that do. I mean, the teenagers at my church do.

So that means you could, too, if you really wanted to. It really disappointed me. I'll have to admit.

I'm going to have to bring that up with Shabir. Anyway, there's also, just in passing,

Nabeel, I would challenge you to think about what you just said in light of the federal headship of Christ and Adam.

Theology matters. And federal headship and federal representation vital to an understanding of that.

And that gets us into certain theological areas that we still have to discuss, I think.

Anyway, so there was Nabeel's response. He's admitted I heard the wrong question, was giving the answer to the wrong question.

Here is my response to that question.

As it was asked by a Muslim, I'm going to start with the first night. This is University College Dublin.

Now, hold on. Well, this isn't going to be full screen for you, so it doesn't matter. The camera does a whoo -hoo thing, trying to get around to the guy.

And I'm going to turn the volume up here. So hopefully it will be hearable, even though I'm a little bit concerned how this is going to work.

Let's try it out. Oh, I'm so thankful you asked that.

There is such a massive number of Muslims standing at the doors of my Muslim friends. Beautiful text. Jesus is quoting the 22nd

Psalm. Look up Psalm 22 and 1. Read all of the 22nd Psalm. I challenge every

Muslim in this room. Find the Bible. You're in college. You can find one. Find the

Bible. Read Psalm 22. It's a prophecy of the Messiah and His crucifixion.

And Jesus, that's the songbook of the early Jews. And so He is quoting. It would be like me saying, amazing grace, how sweet the sound.

I don't have to finish the rest of it for my fellow Christians, because they all know the hymn. And every Jew knew that by Jesus saying,

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, that He was quoting the 22nd Psalm. And when you read it, it talks about His suffering and His eventual vindication.

But you ask the question, who is He referring to? Well, who is Jesus? Who is He speaking to on the cross when

He says, Father, in my hands I commit my spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity is not that Jesus is the

Father. The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God, Yahweh, who has eternally existed in three divine persons, the

Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It was the Son who became flesh, not the Father and not the Spirit. And so when Jesus dies, it's the

God -man who gives us life. So who's running the universe? Even you don't believe death means extinction.

And we don't believe that either. The God -man gave His perfect life as an atonement for sin.

It didn't cease to exist. That's the reason that the hypostatic union takes place between God and man, so that that perfect life can be given as a sacrifice for sins.

But God doesn't cease to exist. The Father wasn't on the cross. The Spirit wasn't on the cross.

It was only the Son. And obviously, the Son did not cease to exist or anything like that. Instead, you have the great condescension of God in that union of God and man.

That perfect life, Jesus had obeyed every commandment. He had loved God perfectly every moment of the day for all those 33 years, if that's how long

He lived. You see, my friends, we need something more than just having our sins forgiven, because you and I have all been commanded to love

God perfectly. How many people here today have loved God perfectly in everything He did and said? So that's the commandment.

How are we supposed to fulfill that? I need to have that perfect righteousness to stand before a holy God. And it is because of what

Jesus Christ does on the cross in Calvary that I have that righteousness, not by purchasing it, but because by faith it is imputed to me as my present gift.

That's why I have peace with God. Shalom. The faces of Romans 5 -1 have been justified by faith in the peace of God.

So who is he addressing? The Father, he's quoting Psalm 22. It's a Messianic psalm. Beautiful. Thank you for asking that question.

Okay. There's University College Dublin. Then the next night, again during audience questions, again the question comes up, and it's in a slightly different context.

Here it is. I just have two points I want to make. I have two questions. First, you said you knew.

You said that you knew. One question. One question, yeah. Take the best one, then.

Take the best one. I'll give you a question. I'll relate to the actual point, then.

You said that Jesus knew he was going to be crucified. It says in the Bible, Jesus says, and I'll try to iterate on this to try and understand my view.

Jesus says, God, why have you forsaken me? So maybe you have a trinity of families where Jesus is

God, and one God and Jesus at the same time. It's like me saying, oh me, why have

I forsaken me? It doesn't make sense to me. How can I say, God, why have you forsaken me?

If I knew I was going to be crucified first, and second, if I actually am God. It doesn't make sense.

I'm really thankful. It's fascinating that you asked that question. I already answered it once, but I'll answer it now.

First of all, you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I want you to give me your email address afterwards, and I will send you for free my book for Dr.

Trinity, so you can understand what the doctrine of Trinity is. Jesus is not the Father. We do not believe he is the

Father. The Father sent the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son prays to the

Father. Read Job chapter 17. Father, glorify me with the glory which I had in your presence before the world was.

We do not believe that the Father is the Son, but the Son is the Father. So Jesus is addressing the Father. He did not become incarnate.

And by the way, what he's quoting is Psalm 22 .1. Look it up. Psalm 22 is a

Messianic psalm. It is a psalm filled with prophecies of the crucifixion of Jesus, which you, if you are a

Muslim, don't even believe happened, against all of history and the prophetic tradition. And in fact, what

I'm going to do right now is, here's an entire book on the prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament, and I'm giving it to my friend

Adnan, and you can steal it from him if you want to. But thank you. Thank you very much. That's awesome.

This 22nd Psalm is an incredible description of the crucifixion itself. And so he's quoting from the

Old Testament, and he's praying to the Father, which is what the Doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

So my friend, if you just understand the Doctrine of the Trinity, I would be happy to try to at least, but we should agree that if you're going to reject something, you should at least know what it is.

I am taking the time to understand what the doctrine is. I am writing the book. I am co -authoring the book right now with a

Muslim scholar on Trinity and Talkeith. I have read entire books on Talkeith.

Why? Because I respect you enough to know what you believe. You need to understand what I believe.

Right now. Okay? Thanks. Thank you. Okay, so pretty straightforward with him.

There was a different spirit or attitude that second debate, because Adnan and I had had lunch together that day, and I don't know.

I just felt more freedom to speak directly to people in the audience, and it was a great debate.

It was really interesting. So there you have two examples of responding to the

Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachthani quotation. You've got to be ready for that.

It opens up so many opportunities to go to Psalm 22. You can talk about the crucifixion. You can talk about the resurrection.

You can talk about the Trinity. I mean, it's just a wide open door.

Take it. Take it. And I'm sure from what Nabil has said on Twitter, he wishes he had heard the question as it was asked, because it would have been a much more profitable direction that he could have gone there in the presentation.

But again, it happens. Like I said, I hope I have time to look at some of the arguments, some of the other arguments that were presented.

We heard Gregory Boyd being quoted and stuff like that. And again, the primary issue being

Shabir's willingness to utilize – well, it's always the same pattern.

It's quote liberal scholar, and then a few minutes later, take that as a given, as something that has absolutely been established just because you quoted the assertion, and it's always a disputed assertion of a liberal scholar before.

Now it's a fact. It doesn't work that way. But that is what we've heard over and over and over again.

So hopefully we'll have a chance to look at some of those things in the future. But for now, I hope this was helpful to you.

You feel better prepared to deal with the issue of the abandonment on the cross, what it really means, quotation from Psalm 22, and that will encourage you to witness to your

Muslim friends. So with that, thank you very much for watching, and I hope this was useful to you.