Crucifixion or Crucifiction? Ahmed Deedat Examined, and Found Wanting

And welcome to The Dividing Line. My name's James White. It's a Thursday afternoon, and that looks weird. It's doing that uber-pixelation thing. Makes it look like my shirt is actually active, which it's really not.

But I do need to explain the shirt. The shirt is from the USA Pro Cycling Challenge, which is going on right now. I'm sorry, the USA Pro Challenge. They took the word cycling out. I got used to it when it was the USA Pro Cycling Challenge.

But I think it's the best bike race in the United States, without any question. And the stage just finished. So I was really glad I was wearing this today, because Jens Voigt, Jens Voigt tried to win it.

He got caught 750 meters from the end. Jensi, this is his last race. Every time he goes out on what they call a TV attack, or a TV suicide attack, he'll be 43 years old next month. And all of us old guys go, yeah, go Jensi!

And he didn't pull it off today. He got caught 750 meters from the end. But he's, it was great, it was great. But it's the best bike race in America, there's no question about it. And TJ van Garderen's gonna win it again this year, I hope.

He's our best hope for the Tour de France, too. So, but anyways, but I need to explain that these are the various jerseys. You know, the yellow jersey, the points leader, the king of the mountains, the most aggressive, and the best young rider.

I have to explain that because someone who will remain nameless saw this shirt just a little while ago while I was FaceTiming with someone who will remain nameless and said that he thought that this was a Power Rangers shirt and that these are the Power Rangers holding their swords over their heads.

And all I can say is to that nameless person, Christmas is coming. That's just, I'll just leave it there. I'll just leave it there. Christmas is coming. And hope you like Power Ranger stuff. So anyway, that has nothing to do with what we're doing today.

Vicki Beeching, Gay Christianity, and the Holiness Code

Just a real quick follow-up on the last program didn't even queue anything up because I'm gonna be focused on primarily one thing for this hour, but Michael Brown, the living Michael Brown, Michael Brown, as in, you know, up until a week and a half ago, I could say Michael Brown.

Everybody knew who I was talking about, but not anymore. Michael Brown, as in the gentleman that I have debated with on the same side and against a number of times, did a response to Vicki Beeching as well.

What was interesting was he responded to a different clip, which I had not seen and didn't really spend a lot of time looking for, but where she was on with some other people and what amazed me, well, amazed me, what?

Why would it, why would it amaze me? It shouldn't amaze me. But what really concerned me or disappointed me, I don't even know what term to use anymore, but here she's doing the West Wing thing. She's doing the, well, you're wearing a shirt of mixed cloth and all it did was once again, confirm the importance of what I've said many, many times and hopefully the importance of the sermon series that I'm doing, that other people have done similar things.

And that is in regards to the subject of the holiness code in the book of Leviticus. And I'm really looking forward to, I'm working on it right now as time allows, working through the text, translating the text, et cetera, et cetera.

And there's just a lot of meat in that section. And I'm really hoping that those sermons will be useful to folks. But it just, every time I see someone pushing quote unquote, gay Christianity, using that kind of argumentation for everybody, for every Christian, it should just immediately tell you this is not a serious person.

This is not a person who is seeking to seriously deal with the word of God. They're not. That kind of argumentation is just so bogus and just ignores so much of already what has, I mean, the church has always had to deal with the issue of what is ceremonial law, what is moral law, what is judicial law just for the people of Israel, for example, over against anything else.

I mean, those are conversations been going on for a long, long time. And to just simply sweep them under the rug and go, oh, well, yeah, I can engage in these behaviors because these behaviors are no longer considered sinful.

And so none of these behaviors are considered sinful anymore. I mean, don't they realize that that kind of blithe surface level, simplistic statement could be used by anyone engaging in any kind of behavior, even the behaviors that they themselves still continue to believe are sinful, even though they're mentioned fewer times in the Bible than homosexuality is viewed as sinful in the Bible?

No, no, no, they're not worried about that. The homosexual is only worried about one thing, right?

Me, me, me, me, me.

You all need to act and believe and behave in such a way as to make me feel better about me. That's just, it's the me religion. And it's a sad thing to see, but I hadn't seen that clip and I'm sure I would have played a portion of that had I seen it, but I hadn't.

So there you go. But obviously, Michael's response was very good to the Vicky Beaching situation. And I'm telling you, it'll be a while. It'll be a while down the road and who knows, maybe the whole situation will have changed so much that it won't make much of a splash, but someday, someday there will be the Vicky Beaching game.

Rachel held Evan's game-changing, scholarly, this is it, the whole church will now have to agree book. It's coming, it's coming. You just watch, you just watch. Last time we were together, we started, just touched on, and I had somebody in channel, who was it in channel?

I forget who it was. Someone in channel basically said, you better do what you promised to do. All righty, you bet. Nothing like putting a little pressure on there, but you better do what you promised to do and continue dealing with Akhmed Didat's crucifixion or crucifixion.

Ahmed Deedat’s Influence and Why His Arguments Matter

So we'll be glad to do that. Once again, just for those of you who are getting, reaching for the mouse to go, oh, okay, okay. Why should you care about what a man who died a few years ago said about the crucifixion?

Well, I've told the story before, I'm gonna tell it again, just to give you some background here. Remember when I went to New York a number of years ago and I did a debate with a Muslim Imam, it was one of the smaller debates that we did.

And a group of Akhmedi Muslims attended the debate. And in talking with them, I invited them to come listen to my presentation on the reliability of the New Testament. They canceled their service at their mosque and came to New Hyde Park Baptist Church and attended my presentation.

And afterwards they got up and they asked questions and it was really good, it was great. But the questions that they asked were taken directly from the videotapes and it normally is videotapes of Akhmed Didat.

Didat was a rock star.

Um, is there a, maybe, what?

I thought you were pointing at something. Oh, okay, I thought you were pointing at something. Let me just, live webcasting here. Akhmed Didat versus Jimmy Swagger. Yep, there it is, there it is. Um, you can go online at YouTube and full, it's the Bible God's word, Akhmed Didat versus Jimmy Swagger.

And I don't know if that's the only, I thought they had done two, but boy, there's a lot of them here. Yeah, there are a lot of, wow, clip after clip after clip after clip of that very, very, very, very painful, painful debate, which I've never watched, but I listened to it.

And it was like being branded with a hot iron. It was just that bad. Didat's materials, I mean, the Akhmedi Muslims are persecuted, they're killed by the Sunnis in Pakistan. And yet here were Akhmedi Muslims talking to me in New York and their arguments about the Bible came from watching Akhmed Didat videos.

The Islamic Propagation Center in South Africa was founded by Didat. And are there Muslims who recognize that Didat was not much of a scholar? Yes, there are. Yes, there are. But the chances of you encountering that kind of Muslim are much, much, much smaller than encountering the kind of Muslim who looks at Didat and goes, there it is.

How can anybody question what Didat has to say? I mean, he's just overwhelming in his argumentation. Actually what he is, he's overwhelming in his storytelling. And one of the toughest things about trying to, and I'm motioning toward the screen with the audio on it, one of the most difficult things to try to do with Didat is to find his argument so you can present it briefly.

Because for so many of these things, I'm gonna have to say, okay, you heard him say that. He then spent the next five minutes talking about the same thing. And you wonder, how can you do that? Well, he was a showman.

He was a showman. At one point during this presentation on crucifixion or crucifixion, F-I-C-T-I-O-N, he stops and says, Mr. Chairman, I'm getting the sense that many people are feeling this is too difficult information.

And then he stops and he says, he says, tell me who said this. He says, I've got 20 rand. That's the currency in South Africa. I have 20 rand here. If anyone can tell me, was this Marx, Muhammad, or Moses?

I think he used the three M's. And then he gives a quote. Those who would not have me to rule over them, bring them before me and slay them before me. And who said that? I'll give you 20 rand. And he's doing this with, and it goes on for three, four minutes before he says it was Jesus Christ.

Now, of course, later, one of the Christians in the audience during the Q and A section goes, he was telling a parable there. They did sort of correct that.

He didn't care.

The point is he could just go on and on and on. And so it makes it really difficult. I mean, this crucifixion or crucifixion presentation is two hours and 22 minutes long. Now there's audience questions at the end.

So let's take the 20 minutes audience. It's two hours long. I could have presented the arguments that he presented in about 25 minutes. About 25 minutes. So the rest is just fluff, it's poof. But it's the kind of poof that he knows is vitally important for catching the imagination and creating the aura of knowledge and integrity and study that is important with the audience, with the audience he wants to reach.

He's not trying to reach me. He could care less about me. I think in his more honest moments, he knew that people like myself, he wouldn't have had any idea who in the world I was, but people like myself could see through him in a second.

And that's why he normally exercised great restraint as to who he would debate. Because he knew the people like Brother Gilchrist and Josh McDowell who could tear him apart and that's why he made the mistake of debating Josh McDowell.

And McDowell did tear him apart. That was one of the few times though, that he went up against someone who could really, who had the speaking and debating skills. And I noticed that the format that he often utilized, I was listening to a debate, two debates.

One of them the sound just went out and I had to stop, but he did two debates on the subject that I was listening to and I've heard others. And this was the debate format. You ready for this? The first person gets 50 minutes.

The second person gets an hour. The third person gets 10 minutes to respond, audience questions. Yeah, 50 minutes, 60 minutes, 10 minutes, audience questions. That was considered a debate. To say there was almost no meaningful interaction is obviously an understatement.

But I don't know what format they used with Swaggart. I may, like I said, have to go ahead and listen to it again. Though it really is sort of like as enjoyable as chewing on aluminum foil, but I may have to do that again.

But anyway, so why is this important? Because if you understand DDOT's arguments and see where they're completely wrong and know your Bible well enough to respond to them, you're gonna be in a much better position to reach out to and talk to a large, much larger portion of the Muslim community than being prepared for anybody else would be.

It doesn't matter who else is out there. He is by so much more listened to, viewed, even after his death, that being able to deal with DDOT is very, very important. So I started, I just played you just his opening words where he quotes Surah 4, 1 to 7.

He gives a summary of 30 arguments. These are from his book, Crucifixion or Crucifixion. He gives a summary of 30 arguments. Those are where I want to get to eventually, but it took him, there it is, took him, where are we here?

An hour and 12 minutes to get to those points. I'm only gonna play a few sections from that, but it just goes on and on and on. And I cannot play this at speed. Normally I do 1 .2, 1 .4, something like that, not with DDOT.

His South African accent is too thick. And we've done DDOT in the past where the recording stunk. I mean, you were in there tweaking this and tweaking that and doing all the rest of this kind of stuff.

And this is actually a decent recording, but I'll still be playing it at normal speed at 1 .0 because people will just struggle. And especially since some of these sections, I'm only playing a little clip and there isn't a whole lot of context.

So it'll be at normal speed. So let's dive into this. Again, one of the reasons is I'm debating this subject against a disciple of Achmed DDOT in South Africa. And so as we've done so many times, here's what I'm gonna say.

Here's where I'm coming from. Hope to make it a better debate. Do I think this particular individual will listen to this? I'd give it a better than 50 -50 chance. I think so. I think so. I hope so. But anyway, so let's dive into it.

I've just selected portions of the presentation up to the 30 points that I wanna look at that I think is important for us to understand. We'll see how far we get since I've already spent 45 minutes. So let's dive in.

Paul and the Charge of Self-Appointment

To him, this is the most important thing of his religion. As St. Paul, the self-appointed 13th Apostle, the self-appointed 13th Apostle of Jesus Christ.

Now, obviously what you need to understand in dealing with Muslims, and I realize that many of you already know this if you've been a longtime listener, but we have new listeners all the time. And so sometimes we go back over basic stuff, but in the modern world, not in the Quran, and not in the early Hadith sources of Islam, but in the modern world, Paul is the big bad guy, big bad guy.

He's the one that deceived everybody and every anti-Pauline book, and there's so much of that out there these days. It doesn't matter who it's written by. It can be as liberal as, I don't know what. They will glom onto that.

And so notice that Achaemenida, the self-appointed 13th Apostle, self-appointed. And I just go, hmm, self-appointed.

Why do you say that?

Well, he was self-appointed. Oh, so you don't believe that Jesus appeared to him in a vision.

Yeah.

Do you believe that the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad in a vision? How about, do you believe in Muhammad's night flight and all the rest of that kind of stuff? It's just so amazing to me, and you've all heard it before, the inconsistency of the Muslim apologist, who on the one hand will accept the self-appointment of Muhammad as a prophet, because who else was in the cave to know?

Did anyone else see the angel Gabriel at every direction he looks, you know, the angels? Did anybody else see that? Did Khadijah see that? Who saw that? Abu Bakr?

No.

So on the same ground, wouldn't you have to say that Muhammad was self-appointed if you're going to say it about Paul? Those are questions that I never got to ask, Ahmadinejad, but wish I could have, wish I could have.

Misreading Luke 22 as Preparation for Armed Defense

All right, next clip.

But now, he that had lupus...

Okay, let me give you the background to this. One of the interesting elements of this argument is that Didat, and remember, his audience, taking the Christians out of the audience, the Muslim audience, there's going to be a 98 chance that the Muslim listening to him has never read the Bible.

And so whatever he says must be true. So he gets to create the context. And one of the reasons, and if you're one of my future Muslim opponents or Muslim friends out there, one of the reasons I've said some very strong things about Ahmadinejad is if this is the best you've got, and it isn't, but if it is, y 'all got some real problems because anyone who knows the Bible knows that this man is grossly mishandling the text.

I mean, you compare, I challenge any one of you, you compare how I handle the text of the Quran in here. You compare how I handle the text of the Quran in this with how Ahmadinejad handles the text of the Bible.

There is no comparison.

None. None.

I happen to know that there's something called context. I happen to know what the original language of the Quran was, and I'll take that into consideration as best I can. Didat tries to create a mythology about the crucifixion saying, I'm just quoting your Bible, I'm just quoting your Bible.

And yet the reality is every single one of the people that he cites, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, whoever, all said the same thing, that Jesus Christ died on the cross of Calvary. Every one of them says it.

So to isolate a phrase here and isolate a verse here where two sentences earlier or two sentences later, it says Jesus Christ died, ignoring that and then pulling this out and say, see, he didn't die, is the most dishonest, deceptive type of argumentation, and yet it is all Didat does.

It's all he does. It's all he does. So what he's doing in this clip is he, and I was gonna play a section from one of the debates I was listening to, but I didn't get cued up, so I'll just mention it to you.

Basically what he's saying is he quotes from Luke, Luke 22, and he's quoting from the instructions the Lord gives to the disciples about what they're to do as they're sent out. And he says, if you don't have a sword, buy your cloak and get a sword.

He turns this into, oh, you see, Jesus knew he was in trouble. Jesus knew the Jews were coming. And so he gets the disciples in his words, his very words, armed to the teeth. Now, actually, they had two swords amongst 12.

Peter had one of them. That means that the eight only had, and there may not even been one amongst the eight, but here he's setting up the idea that what Jesus does, he sets up an outer line of defense.

And an inner line of defense.

And what he's praying then to the Father about is protection from the Jews. Now, no one, no one, just reading the text for what it says, would ever come to that conclusion. That's not what the authors were communicating.

They weren't trying to communicate that. They didn't suggest that. So how does he get away with this? He is banking on the fact that the people in the audience that he wants to reach don't know enough about the New Testament to catch him, and they're not gonna care enough to even check him out.

So he's banking on it, so he's banking on it.

So here's the presentation.

But now he that hath no purse, let him take it. And likewise his bag, and he that hath no sword, sword, the one to cut people's throats, chop off people's necks. Sword, S-W-O-R-D, sword. Those who have no sword, let him sell his garments and buy one.

Luke chapter 22, verses 35 and 36.

Preparation, can you see?

Preparation for war, for defense.

War.

That march had failed, and now trouble is brewing. In that upper room, there will be sitting targets, sitting targets for the Jews. So he takes his disciples in the middle of the night, midnight, and he walks them five miles out of town to a place called Gethsemane, an olive press, a courtyard, stone walls, and he puts eight of his devoted disciples, these disciples who were beating the oppressed in that upper room.

He said, master, anything happens to you, we are prepared to die for you. Master, we are prepared to go to prison for you.

Determined, locked to the capacity.

What the circumstances would allow.

Armed to the teeth.

Armed to the teeth.

And he puts eight of his devoted disciples at the gate. He says, sit here while I go and pray yonder.

I alone, I'll go and pray yonder.

Sit, you sit here at the gate. Watch with me.

I said, watch what?

What is there to watch in the middle of the night in Gethsemane, olive press? There's nothing there to watch. No, keep guard because the Jews were after his blood. They'll be coming for him. So you keep guard here, eight at the gate.

So there you have the setup. And the reality is two swords. They're not set up for battle. These men, there is no conversation about the Jews are coming, look out for the Romans. And in fact, later on, I'm not sure if this next one is the section.

Let me see if it is.

James chapter five verse 16.

No, it's talking about the prayer. At one point he will criticize Luke because Luke says that they were sleeping for grief. He says, nobody sleeps for grief. Luke was just wrong about this. Again, Achmed Didat had no skills as an exegete, none.

I've never seen a situation where Didat's intention was to actually honestly represent what the Bible was saying. That was irrelevant to him. The Bible was a tool for him to use, that's it. Whether he was accurately representing it, context, language, irrelevant.

Irrelevant, as we will see over and over again. So, when it talks about, he comes to the disciples and he finds them asleep from grief, is what Luke says. He says, no one, because you're grieving, sleeps.

Grief takes sleep away from you. Well, yeah, but he's not trying to understand what Luke is actually saying. What has Jesus told the disciples that evening?

I'm going away.

I'm going away. Where I'm going, you cannot come. That's the exact opposite of the story that he's trying to tell. So, when you encounter something where they are exhausted from their sorrow and from their sadness, from the letdown of thinking one thing, and now Jesus is saying, I'm going away.

I'm not going to, and where I'm going, you cannot come. You've got John 13, 14, 15. You've got the content of what Jesus shares with them that evening, which D-Doc cannot argue against because he uses that very same section to try to find Muhammad in the Bible.

We've discussed that one for lengthy periods of time in the past, but anyway, since his story doesn't fit what's there, then he finds things that he can attack and say, well, this was wrong, because it goes against his theme, his story, rather than going, oh, maybe I've misunderstood this.

That's just what D-Doc is all about in this material.

Hebrews 5:7 and the Resurrection

James 5, verse 16. He says, the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

It carries weight.

Some cynic remark that if you cry out like that, even the Lord of mercy, the Father in heaven, will come down from his throne to answer your call.

You cry like that, bring him down from his throne.

He must come to your aid. And God accepted his prayers. He says, who in the days of his flesh, means while he was here with us, he had offered up praise and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death and was heard in that he feared.

He was heard, means God heard his prayers. What does it mean God heard? Does it mean God is deaf at any time? He's all-hearing God, he hears everything. He hears the whispers, the secret thoughts he hears.

What does it mean God heard? It means God accepted. Zechariah in his old age, he prayed for his son. And God heard his prayers. And John the Baptist, Yahya a .s. was born. Hazrat Ibrahim a .s. in his old age prayed for his son.

And Allah heard his prayers. And Ishmael was born. Ishmael, Ismail. You know what is Ishmael?

Means God heard. Literally it means in Hebrew, God heard.

What?

The prayer of Abraham materialized.

Ishmael in Hebrew means God heard the prayer of Abraham. So, God Almighty answers his prayer. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. Luke chapter 22, verse 43.

So what's, and again, it just takes forever. You know, we repeat the same thing over and over and over again. That was about the briefest version we could get. But what's the idea? The idea is that Jesus is praying to be saved from death.

And since God heard him, then he did not die. And the citation is from Hebrews 5, 7. In the days of his flesh, he offered up both prayers and supplications without crying and tears, the one able to save him from death.

And he was heard because of his piety. Now, can anyone read Hebrews 5 and actually think that what the writer to the Hebrews is saying is Jesus didn't die? There's no book in the New Testament that refers more often to the death of Jesus than this book.

So you have to just completely disrespect the authorial intent and context of the passage to come up with this reading. But I cannot tell you how many Muslims I've had who said, well, it says in Hebrews 5, 7, God saved him from death.

Yes, by the resurrection from the dead. It's so obvious. It's so plain. It's right there on the page. And yet, because of the Achaemenid presentations, people go, well, yeah, see? If he cried out with loud crying and tears, the one able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his piety, so he didn't die.

No, he was saved from death via the resurrection, whereby he was then seated at the right hand of the father, intercedes for his people. Because of his atoning sacrifice, everything that D-dot in Islam denies is exactly what the writer of the Hebrews was affirming.

So when you quote something like that, and you don't know what its context is, or even worse, when you do, it's just dishonest. It's just amazingly dishonest. And yet, that's the essence of D-dot's argumentation.

We continue forward.

The son of the living God, and he was the Christ. He was the Messiah. Son of the living God, it was a very innocent Jewish expression. God has got sons by the tons in the Bible. At question time, you may ask me, and I'll give them to you like that.

Sons by the tons, T-O-N is tons.

Just thought I'd replay once again the sons by the tons, and you will hear that over and over again. You will hear it over and over again. On the streets of London, everywhere, almost any Muslim you talk to, will know Ahmed D-dot's phrase, sons by the tons.

Now, of course, again, he has to ignore the very specific utilization of terminology by Jesus. He has to ignore that the Jews accused him of being the son of God, and therefore, he should die, John chapter 19.

So obviously, the relationship of son that he was referring to was not sons by the tons, sons as in Adam, or sons as in David. There was something very specific in John chapter five that caused the Jews to seek to kill him because he called God his own father, making himself equal with God, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

There's just so many holes, but again, that's one of the reasons D-dot rarely put himself in a position of really coming up against someone who could press him on these issues because he knew better.

He knew that this stuff works a whole lot better in a monologue than it does in a dialogue, and I think we've demonstrated that in a number of the debates we've already done, and we'll demonstrate it again.

Isaiah 53, Silence, and the Cross

The preachers, they tell us.

That Jesus was led to the slaughter like a lamb,.

Like a sheep before the shearer is dumb.

He opened not his mouth.

He had said,.

Mondani uap hamakni.

He had said,.

Mondani uap hamakni.

He opened not his mouth. He opened not his mouth.

I'm asking, how did he speak? Ask them. When they tell you he didn't open his mouth, he was led like a sheep before the shearer is dumb. Like a lamb, he's going to a fallow,.

And they slaughtered him,.

And he didn't open his mouth. Ask them, how did he say, if I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil. But if, well, why smitest thou me?

How did the words come out?

From his head? Where did the words come from? He didn't open his mouth. Is the mouth shut? Was he a ventriloquist?

You know ventriloquist?

Charlie McCarthy and his doll. You know, he makes the doll go, says, but he's uttering words from his throat, and we think it's that doll is talking.

Ventriloquism.

Ventriloquism.

Ventriloquist. He doesn't put the accent on the right syllable. And it goes on. I mean, I literally, I think it goes on for five minutes in this mocking. Ask these Christians, how could Jesus have been silent as a lamb when he said this and he said that?

Was it coming from the top of his head? Was he a ventriloquist? How can these people not see this? And I just go back and go, when it says he did not open his mouth, it obviously means in protest. He allowed himself.

He says, again, if you just read the context, he says to his disciples, it is necessary that I go to Jerusalem and this is what's gonna happen and this is why it must happen. That was in the preceding parts of the book.

And so when it says he opens not his mouth, it's not saying he just sat there and went. What it is saying is you don't find Jesus going,.

Help me, help me.

Someone stop this. Oh, someone do something. Oh, this is a travesty. You don't see any of that. You don't see, you don't see any refutation of the lies and inconsistent testimony because it's inconsistent.

It's its own refutation. So for someone who so often, okay, yeah, thanks. I just, some I, do you see Twitter? Do you see what I'm looking at? Yeah, I mentioned to Rudolph, the fellow by the side of the road on the way to Pachastrum who sells hubcaps.

He's got them all up on this fence type thing. And Rudolph pointed out to me as we were driving out there and I watched for him as we were driving back. And it was the next day because we drove back and forth a couple of times.

But yeah, but there's a picture of the guy next to his hubcaps alongside the road on the way to Pachastrum.

You know, that looks kind of like a place, South Prescott.

Well, it is similar as far as the terrain goes too. Yeah, yeah. But yeah, there it is. I didn't expect to see that, but it completely threw me off of whatever I was talking about before. But I looked down there and I'm like, what is that?

Oh, okay, there it is. There's the picture of all the hubcaps. I don't know how you could make a living selling hubcaps to be perfectly honest with you, but there you go. There's the picture. If anybody wants to see it on Twitter, maybe I'll retweet it here.

And that way, if you're there, I retweeted it to the followers there. There you go. So y 'all can see the hubcaps down in South Africa, which proves that I was telling the truth about our trip down there.

What was I talking about? I have no earthly idea. But yes, I do remember this outrageous misuse. Here's a man who will repeatedly say, according to the idiom of the Jews, for example, he will say that when Jesus says, I've not yet ascended to my father, that according to the idiom of the Jews means I am alive.

No, that's absurd as we will see. But if you really wanted to know something about the idiom of the Jews, this one should have been easy. He opened up his mouth in protest. He opened up his mouth in self-righteous vindication.

That is the idiom of the Jews, but he won't use that here.

No, no, no.

Because he wants to make up a reason for accusing the Bible of error or something like that.

And when she goes to the tomb, we are asking, why did she go there?

Mary Magdalene and the Anointing at the Tomb

Now here, I didn't know if we were gonna get to this, but we are. Here is, I don't even know how to describe it, but what you're about to listen to. And to my Muslim friend in South Africa, I fully intend to be fair and seek to honor God in our encounter.