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 a, 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 bikes that we're going to race.

These 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. Just a real quick follow -up on the last program didn't even queue anything up cause

I'm going to 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've 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, why?

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, you know, 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 so, 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

Vicki Beeching 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

Vicki Beeching game, Rachel Held Evans 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 Achmed Ddot's crucifixion or crucifixion.

So we'll be glad to do that. Once again, just for those of you who are 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 Achmedy 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 Achmed Ddot.

Ddot 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.

Achmed Ddot versus Jimmy Swagger. Yep, there it is.

There it is. Um, you can go online at YouTube and full is the

Bible God's word, Achmed Ddot 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. Ddot's materials, I mean, the

Achmedi Muslims are persecuted, they're killed by the Sunnis in Pakistan. And yet here were

Achmedi Muslims talking to me in New York and their arguments about the Bible came from watching

Achmed Ddot videos. The Islamic Propagation Center in South Africa was founded by Ddot.

And are there Muslims who recognize that Ddot 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 Ddot and goes, there it is.

How can anybody question what

Ddot 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 Ddot 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 -M, 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 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

D -Dot'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 D -Dot is very, very important.

So I started, I just played you just his opening words where he quotes

Surah 417. 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 D -Dot. His South African accent is too thick.

And we've done D -Dot 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 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 D -Dot 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.

To him, this is the most important thing of his religion. As Saint 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 long -time 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. So you don't believe that Jesus appeared to him in a vision. 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, 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 gonna say it about Paul?

Those are questions that I never got to ask Akhmedidat, but wish

I could have, wish I could have. All right, next clip. But now, he that hath no purse, let's.

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 gonna 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 Akhmedidat 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 Akhmedidat 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, there may not even have 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 vast, 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 lot, armed 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, he says, sit here while I go and pray yonder. I, alone,

I'll go and pray beyond. You will 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 what 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. They're asleep. Again, Ahmad 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 -Dot 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 -Dot is all about in this material.

James chapter 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. Says, who in the days of his flesh, means while he was here with us, he had offered up prayers 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.

There were 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 with loud 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.

Any, almost any Muslim you talk to will know Achmed 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.

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 uop hamakni.

He had said, mondani uop 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 father, and they slaughtered him, and he didn't open his mouth.

Ask them, how did he say, I have, 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. His mouth shut. Was he a ventriloquist? You know ventriloquist? Charlie McCarty and his doll.

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

Ventriloquism. Ventriloquist. He doesn't put the accent on the right syllable.

But, 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, oh, when it says he did not open his mouth, it obviously means in protest.

Hello? 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 saw my, do you see Twitter? 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 it out to me as we were driving out there and I watched for him as we were driving back.

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.

Good. 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?

Now here, 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, but you try to go here and I will bury you because this argument is utterly wrong.

Bogus, B -O -G -U -S, bogus. Here, Akhmeddida, and he does this in all of his talks, all of his debates.

It's in his book. It's in the crucifixion book. It's in the who moved the stone book.

I even looked at the crucifixion book and I wanted to see, does he provide any kind of meaningful documentation of this?

And it says at the bottom of the page, here's, on the page, it says this aspect is dealt with in greater detail in a book, who moved the stone.

So I went and got who moved the stone and I looked it up there and it wasn't dealt with in any more depth.

It just reasserted. What's the argument? Let me, I'll play it for you, but let me,

I'll just go ahead and read it for you here. Sunday morning, it was Sunday morning, the first day of the week, according to Hebrew calculations, was

Saturday, the Sabbath is the seventh when Mary Magdalene alone visited the tomb of Jesus. The question arises, why did she go there?

To anoint him, Mark 16 one tells us. The Hebrew word for anoint is masaha, which means to rub, to massage, to anoint.

That's where the footnote is about the further, more in -depth dealing, which there wasn't. The second question is, do

Jews massage dead bodies after three days? The answer is no.

Do the Christians massage dead bodies after three days? The answer is again, no. Do the

Muslims who are the nearest to the Jews in their ceremonial laws massage dead bodies after three days? The answer again is no.

Then why should a Jewish, Jewess want to massage a dead decaying body after three days?

We know that within three hours, rigor mortis sets in, the stiffening the body after death. In three days time, the body will be fermenting from within.

The body cells will be breaking up and decomposing. If anyone rubs such a decaying body, it will fall to pieces.

Does the rubbing make sense? No, it would however make sense if she was looking for a live person.

You see, she was about the only person besides Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus who had given the final rites to the body of Jesus.

If she had seen any sign of life in the limp body of Jesus when he was taken down from the cross, she was not going to shout, he is alive.

She returns after two nights and a day when the Jewish Sabbath had passed to take care of Jesus.

Now, did any of the gospel writers have anything like this in mind at all?

Of course not. What's your evidence? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John all say the same thing.

Jesus was dead. He died. Paul? No.

Peter? No. Anybody? No. Well, what about, well, let's, oh,

I'm sorry. Let's, I jumped again. Let's listen to it in his own sonorous tones.

And when she goes to the tomb, we are asking, why did she go there? So the gospel says she went to anoint him.

So we are asking, you see this Hebrew word, anoint means is masah.

Masah means to rub, to massage, to anoint. So we are asking the Christian, he says, do

Jews massage dead bodies after three days? Do they? Because within three hours, rigor mortis sets in.

You know, the hardening of the cells. The body starts fermenting from inside. Such a rotting body, when you massage, it falls to pieces.

Does it make sense? After three days, she wants to go and massage the dead, rotting body. Do Jews do that?

Ask the Jews. They say no. I say, you Christians, do you massage dead bodies after three days?

The answer is no. All right, so, here's the argument. That the

Hebrew term is masaha. And this means to massage.

Unfortunately, a lot of Christians, as soon as somebody throws out an original language issue, they go, oh, but something immediately should have struck you.

This is quoting from Mark chapter 16. Verse one.

What was Mark written in? It wasn't written in Hebrew. It was written in Greek. And the

Greek, well, Mark 16 one says, when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome, so it's not alone, bought spices.

Not massaging material, but spices. Here, let me blow this up a little bit here.

I'm even gonna blow this up over here because we're gonna have to look at it, okay? Bought spices so they might come and anoint him.

Well, here's the term anoint. And over on the right -hand side, elipso, you will see, literally, to anoint by applying a liquid such as oil or perfume.

Anoint. So you can have the anointing of the ill, the woman anoints

Jesus' feet, of the dead with spices,

Mark 16 one. So here's BDAG. Those of you who are familiar with Christian scholarship know that BDAG is the

Bauer, Donker, Arndt, and Gingrich third edition current standard Greek lexicon of Greek in the biblical

New Testament period. The only other meaning given is to besmear with something figuratively.

And that's not found in the New Testament. You might see EPH, that's

Ignatius' letter to the Ephesians. That's not the New Testament. So the only New Testament usage is to anoint by applying a liquid such as oil or perfume to anoint.

Not massage. And if you look at spices, aromata, you can find all sorts of evidence that that term refers to materials used in Jewish burial practice.

There is no word, masaha. Oh, but certainly, you see, what we have to do is, this may have been written in Greek, but they spoke

Aramaic. And so we have to look at that. Well, that's conjecture.

Anytime, there's no Aramaic original of Mark. In fact, it's obvious that Mark was not written in Aramaic first because it has all these places where which translated means this.

Mark is plainly written for a Greek speaking audience. So any speculation as to what an original term would have been is just that, speculation.

We don't know and could not possibly know what terminology would have been used, but let's run with it.

Let's run with it for a moment. Let's look at the

Hebrew for masaha. It certainly can mean to touch, to rub, things like that, depending on what form it's used in.

But its primary meaning is to smear with liquid, such as oil or dye.

To anoint cultic objects, to anoint humans, to anoint kings, which just went by there.

The priest, the anointed one, the Mashiach. A prophet could be anointed or ordained to certain functions to be anointed as a king, et cetera, et cetera, in the

Nifal form. So the idea of massaging, as in trying to get someone better, where was that in all that?

Huh? So even if it was masaha, any serious individual would go, well, we need to look at the context.

And in the context, they bought these spices, not to come give him a massage after having left him without food and water in a hole for two days.

This, to any rational person, to any person who is being at all fair, this is the action of women who are caring in the standard

Jewish tradition for a body that had to be rushed into the tomb prior to the

Sabbath day. Now, I'm not sure if I get into this one. I might.

If I haven't marked it, I'll try to mark it. But at one point, we will have to deal with the way that Jews kept time because Didat, and really, he should completely understand this because there would be plenty of examples of it in Islamic history.

But he does the three days, three nights, Jonah has to have been

Wednesday, couldn't have been Friday thing. Shows complete ignorance of what the word for Friday is in Greek, preparation day, in case you're wondering.

Paraskeway, and doesn't understand that any portion of a day is counted as a full day. He probably does understand that, but just didn't bother to tell people because it doesn't fit his paradigm.

But we will have to get into that as we work through this. But this whole argument utterly fails, contextually, linguistically.

Didat defenders, you show me a single place in this book where I even got close to doing what

Didat did with regularity to the text of the New Testament. Just one place, just one place.

You know it's not there because we show you far more respect when we deal with your text than you, okay, than Didat showed for us.

I realize there are some of you, I've had Muslims say, yeah, I recognize Didat wasn't the best we have to offer.

But the reality is, even if you say that to me privately, you know that you'd have a hard time saying that in a lot of places in the world.

Why has this man had such an impact? That is a question that I would have to ask you. Now, some of you who saw a debate that I did in South Africa, remember that the gentleman

I debated used this very argument from Ahmad Didat.

Maybe the last one we get to today. And we're not, yeah, after this is the 30 points.

Here, there, there are the 30 points if you want to show that. Yeah, that's what it looks like.

Each of the colors is the point. So the first red blocks, point number one, blue is point number two, et cetera, et cetera.

So there's the 30 points. But here is where we are. Here is

Ahmad Didat's explanation of John 20, 28. Let's listen to it. Eight days later,

Jesus comes again. Now he sees this guy, Thomas, he says, hey, Thomas, come, come. He sees that I finger and behold my hands and put your hand into my side and don't be faithless.

Now he realizes what a fool he was. So he says, my God, my Lord. So now the

Christians say he recognized that Jesus is his God and his Lord. He says, you know, you exclaim, you go and report me to the special branch that Didat was preaching communism here, to you all, communism.

So they come along, give me, harass me, they give me trouble, and they tell me eventually, he says, you know, he says, look, it's your friend, man.

Who? Mr. Muhammad, he said, he is the guy who was prodding us. So when

I meet him, he brought smiling face, my benefactor, my friend. I said, Salih, my God, what a thing to do.

Salih, my God, he's my God? I said, Salih, Allah, what a thing you have done.

Salih, Allah, you Allah? What's wrong with you people? This is an exclamation, what a fool that I was, man.

The 10 disciples telling that he's alive, and I said, I will not believe. Now, if you didn't follow that,

I guess I can understand why that would be, but it's not that difficult to get.

The argument, which is what so many Jehovah's Witnesses use as well, is that Jesus, when

Thomas sees Jesus, he's saying, my Lord, my God, as if Jesus is

Lord, God is somebody else. Let me explain one more time, for those who'd like to know, and I'll switch back over to accordance here.

That is impossible, given the grammar of the New Testament. It's impossible, and here's why.

Over here. Apekrithe tomas kai aipen auto, hakuriasmu kai hatheasmu.

Thomas answered and said to him, singular, the next break in the language is legai auto, verse 29.

So what we have between ha and mu is one quotation. If we use, if there were quotation marks in the

Greek language, you'd put the quotation marks right before ha and right after mu. This is one quotation, and according to the grammar of the text, it's all said to one person,

Jesus. Aipen auto, Thomas answered and said to him, hakuriasmu kai hatheasmu.

Kai is not disjunctive, is not breaking it up.

He says, my Lord and my God. That is not an interjection.

He's not swearing. He's not going, my Lord, my God. The grammar will not allow it.

And in fact, there are Old Testament parallels to that phraseology that we've looked at at times in the past.

The point is, D -Dot tells a little funny story.

Does he care what the Greek says? Could he even read the Greek? No, he could not. We've demonstrated before that his comments, for example, on John 1 .1

demonstrate that on the most basic level of grammar, he could not follow the grammatical forms.

He couldn't tell the difference between an accusative and a nominative. Didn't even know what the difference was. That's first, that's not first year

Greek. That's first week Greek. So he couldn't do that. But that explanation, impossible from the grammatical perspective of the

Greek New Testament itself. Thomas answered and said, my Lord and my God. And Jesus' response was to identify what

Thomas did as an act of faith. Because you've seen me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see and yet believed.

That's what the text is saying. Reject it if you will. I doubt the author of the

Quran ever heard it. But that's what it says. That's what it says. So next time we get back to Achaemenid D -Dot,

I'm not gonna give you a specific time so people can't go, well, you've got to do this very next time. But probably next time, maybe next time, we will have the 25 points.

I'm sorry, 30 points, 30 points. Why Jesus did not die, the 30 arguments.

Crucifixion or crucifixion, what? Oh, yeah, yeah.

That's on, now, if you're going to Pachisrum from Joburg, that's on the left -hand side of the road.

And if you're coming back, then it's on right -hand side of the road. And like I said,

Rudolph and I were chatting about stuff as we were going there. And, but he warned me it was coming.

He says, by the way, Dr. White. He always calls me Dr. White. Sometimes I have to introduce him to my first name. But he says, by the way,

I want you to see something. It's coming up here. And there it was. And so we now have it immortalized on the dividing line.

Thank you. Yes, we still need help to get to South Africa. We're getting there.

Thanks to all who have given. But if you'd like to help me, because one of the things we're doing is

I was just talking with Rudolph about the subjects. John Gilchrist and I are going to get to lecture at Northwest University, the

School of Theology at Pachisrum. And I heard from Brother Cantrell, and we're going to be talking about the subjects.

We're going to have a big mega worldview seminar at his church, great church there in Joburg.

Really excited, still need your help. So I hope you're getting excited about it. And -

We're just kind of hoping that we don't have to sell the hubcaps to get down there. Or get you back for that matter. I don't have any hubcaps on my 2007

Nissan Versa. They kept flying off. Nissan knows it has a problem because I have seen so many

Versas going down the road without hubcaps. They all ended up in South Africa someplace. They flew all the way to South Africa.

I eventually had to replace those with actual rims because I replaced three of them.

I realized, okay, this is getting ridiculous. So anyways, I hope you're getting excited about it. That's where we're headed. But we're out of time on the dividing line today.

In fact, we went over time, but that's okay. We'll be back next time. Thanks. Keep praying for us and we'll see you on Tuesday.