Ally/Licona Debate and Calls

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three -three -four -one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a

Thursday afternoon in sunny and warm Phoenix, Arizona Starting off the program today and taking your phone calls at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

Answering an email that has come in in regards to talking with Muslims Asking if it is a good idea to talk about Muhammad and his life talking about verses that refer to violence in the

Quran and the fact that the goal of believing Islam is the establishment of of the

Sharia law all over the globe in all nations and to use this as an argument against Islam, especially in light of those who would turn to the

Old Testament and Ask if you can go the Old Testament and find God Establishing wars in the people of Israel going into the land of Canaan warring prophets of the

Old Testament laws against apostasy stoning Then why couldn't someone accept

Muhammad and to those who would do the same thing now, of course

Unfortunately when Christians engage these subjects today anyway the large portion of those who are in Shall we say post evangelical churches

Functionally have a 27 book canon and they know so little about the

Old Testament that they are really stretched to the breaking point To give much of a meaningful presentation as to what the

Old Testament is about What took place in the Old Testament to make sure that what is said about what took took place in the

Old Testament is balanced And then especially to establish a meaningful connection between the

Old Testament and its fulfillment in the new and so it is very common for people to raise issues in regards to the

Old Testament and to the theocratic laws and things like that and and basically get away with it as far as Most modern -day believers, but when someone says well look

The Jews did everything that we are doing Of course, I I don't think they did.

I don't recall suicide bombers and things like that but The the

Jews were seeking to establish a theocratic Kingdom Islam is seeking to establish the

Islamic worldview and the the UMA the Sharia law in all lands to the glory of God, etc, etc

And so these things are supposed to be parallel to one another Of course, the main thing that forgets is that we don't have just the

Old Testament we have the scriptures Old Testament and New Testament together and It is interesting to me that that both

Muslims Muslim apologists and Jewish apologists sound very much alike and In some ways interestingly enough on some aspects

Especially in regards to priesthoods and things like that Mormons get to jump into the fray here as well

Because each of these groups and in different ways take a step back From the fulfillment that is found in the

New Testament that is for example Mormons Go back to the

Old Testament ways concerning priesthoods and things along these lines In the same way

I guess I could argue along that line that's a Roman Catholics do as well as far as the establishment of some sort of sacerdotal priesthood

But but both Muslims and Jewish apologists in essence go back to the same foundation

They reject the New Testament's fulfillment motif they reject the idea that this is what the

Old Testament was pointing toward and that there is a fulfillment and Especially do they miss the fact that the

New Testament gives us a completely different paradigm Of defining the people of God now in the sense that the people of God have truly always been identified by faith in the one true

God then that remains the same, but there are clearly differences between a theocratic

State through which the Messiah comes into the world and then the fact that the the

Church of God is now going to be built up not by any kind of genetic relationship but instead to the proclamation of the gospel and The building of the church from men and women of every tribe tongue people and nation

That the gospel is going to go out and that by the work of the Holy Spirit and the proclamation of the gospel that The the church is going to be built over time therefore

To step away from the New Testament means that you have to go back to the Old Testament paradigm where you basically have the rule of the sword in attempting to establish a

Theocratic state which you have in a similar fashion with with Islam But that requires you to in essence reject

Jesus the Jews reject Jesus and therefore the New Testament Islam likewise rejects

Jesus and despite all their protests the contrary It is very clear that the Islamic Jesus is not the

Christian Jesus The Islamic Jesus is not a Jesus known to Christians not known to the New Testament not known to history for that matter and It is interesting.

I was listening to a clip I could probably bring it up here if I worked at quickly enough, but a clip that I'm inserting into a

PowerPoint presentation where Shabir Ali made the statement in our debate at Biola that scholars are

Coming more and more to the same conclusions about who Jesus is and farther and farther away from Christians what he means by that, of course is liberal unbelieving scholars are creating this picture of a

Jesus who's basically nothing but a An apocalyptic Prophet and type of something along these lines and so it doesn't shock me at all

That unbelieving scholars are becoming the same type of conclusions as as Muslims have been teaching because there's there's a reason for that neither of them accepts the inspiration of the

New Testament and Hence, I don't think either has any basis upon which to be trying to create a portrait of Jesus in the first place it becomes

You know for the Muslim the you have to find Muhammad's Jesus and what did

Muhammad know about Jesus precious little very very little indeed and So you don't have the the biblical

Jesus in that in that type of context. So I think you can utilize these

Instances from Muhammad's past and and From the the teachings of Quran to demonstrate that this is not a continuation as he claimed of Old Testament New Testament now

Quran It's not unless you have unless you pull the same stunt that that all

Islamic apologists have to do and look backwards remember Islamic anachronistic exegesis look backwards through time and throw out the

New Testament if you actually allow Old Testament to be fulfilled in New Testament now you have this way of building the church proclamation of the gospel and what is

Muhammad do he goes right back? He he steps completely backwards away from the fulfillment of the

New Testament and why? Can we can anyone prove that Muhammad had any kind of meaningful knowledge of New Testament theology at all?

The answer is no you cannot there is no reason to believe that that this man had any meaningful knowledge of What the

New Testament was all about in the first place He's going on second third fourth and fifth hand information and it's flawed and it has errors in it

And therefore there are errors in the Quran as well and the Muslim says I can't accept that because I have been taught that this is this is just the way that it is and The Quran is is not does not reflect

Muhammad's understanding instead it reflects an eternal verity from God and So I have to throw out the

New Testament as a result and therefore you have the anachronism that that takes place at that point, so you can utilize those things to demonstrate in the argument being that Muhammad has stepped back out of ignorance from the fulfillment in Christ and and therefore

His claims of being a prophet in that line are therefore invalidated but the

Muslim of course is going to Continuously respond in the anachronistic method of looking backwards in history using those the the lens of the

Quran and the overriding commitment to the prophethood of Muhammad and Rejecting and dismissing anything that stands in that in the way of that particular concept eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number for today's program a

Programming note about next week There isn't any We will not have a dividing line on Tuesday or Thursday of next week because I Will not be available to do that, but we'll be

Lord willing as long as health holds out Back a the the

Tuesday thereafter, which I believe is the 3rd of July. Yes, it's the 3rd of July So that's when we will have it.

I Love cough buttons that you don't have to use them just for coughing If you just for some reason got a yawn

Man the air must be getting a little thin in there. It's it's actually warming up fairly quick. I was a little surprised

I'm gonna have to turn the AC down Hear that or go get me a Mountain Dew one of the two man nappy time or something

Sometimes you just you know yawning is supposed to increase the oxygen level and sometimes

I don't know if you're talking too fast or something. You just gotta get gotta yawn. It's terrible anyway And if I did that on the air, then you know the freaky thing is people in the audience would yawn, too

Why here is one of the great mysteries? I'm gonna have to inquire of an eternity to come How is it that yawns are contagious?

Why is it you know? It's true. You've all seen it happen. You see one person yawning I've actually had people say it has to with air pressure if you can believe that it's in its sin

Yes, you see one person do it and the next person does it and then they see it's it's the you ain't gonna make me

Do it try it all you want It's sin

I've never even thought of Associating with the fallen nature before I really really haven't it's evil.

It's evil is evil you bet I actually I think yawning is not evil at all.

I bet you Adam yawned Now I've started something now because Benny Hinn said that Adam could fly and now someone's gonna say that James White thinks that Adam yawned

Yeah, and now there's what happens when you get into speculative theology. There's another Oh goodness we better get better get back to the the program here even people in Chandler going

Sin sin rich, what do you would be sin? What in the world is that? And they know what sin is they just don't think that yawning is yeah,

I mean That's in and you are quite the legalist. Let me put that way, you know, there you go.

There you go. All right alright, let's get back to the the debate here especially because if there's a

Thing coming up. I've had this book sitting here so long It's leaving it's starting I have to blow the dust off of it all to get this one point in the debate

We got to get to it eventually or never get it done How long do I think got three minutes of debate done last time? We need to get a few more minutes in let's say let's press forward here has told it the way he thought it ought to be told given this evolution of the

Gospels Peeling back to the earliest strata of tradition. Can you be satisfied in the earliest strata of tradition?

Jesus actually died on the cross. I can't help but hearing him talking about peeling back to the earliest strata tradition

There's there's a part of me that goes. This is the Shrek methodology New Testament You don't you're looking confused you don't understand that the

Shrek Ogres are like onions There yeah

You obviously have not seen it enough to be able to make the immediate Connection there. That's that's that's the the

Shrek methodology of Islamic Isogesis and that he reappeared to his disciples in the physical bodily form offer evidence of that I have it's the early oral traditions and Paul himself

You mentioned the Gospels, but again, I'd like to express I'm willing to grant you the Gospels have legend and errors and That but I'm still on this other hill and I'm waiting for you over here

Now you had mentioned about no, I'm not gonna ask you a question, I'm sorry You said that no, you can't just wait and let him ask the question.

Okay, I'll wait him to No statement that Jesus died in the early strata

Well, yes, there is I mean in that Creed that was within five years and James Dunn in his new book

Jesus remembered said that this to the tradition in this Creed dates back to within months of the crucifixion

Months and the Creed says that he died and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day

And then you go down a couple of verses later. What's really interesting is Paul says in verse 1

I'm going to preach to you the gospel and then he gives the Creed in verses 3 through 8 and then in 9 he says

Hey, whether it's me or they the Apostles the disciples we preach Jesus and him crucified in other word

I'm sorry. I'm mixing up. Forgive me. This is we're preaching about the resurrection of Jesus So there

Paul saying he's preaching the same thing as the disciples are you go down a few more verses? I think it's verse 14 and he calls this

King Rukma Kerygma in other words, he's identifying it as the formal and official preaching of the disciples

So, I mean, this is very early tradition and then we have Paul again he mentions resurrection or dead and raised 30 times in his writings and then you've also got the the

Creed in Romans chapter 1 verse 3 and 4 that talks about declared the Son of God with power by his

Resurrection from the dead so Resurrection is in the earliest strata. There is nothing earlier that I mean we can go trace it back to the disciples themselves so you could say that they're mistaken perhaps or I mean,

I'll let you raise the theory there but they interpreted their experiences as being

Resurrection which mean they understood Jesus of dying They understood that the body that died was the body that was raised and appeared to them

And so therefore the tomb was empty Yes, I can see that you feel that I'm not really dealing with your points but in fact

If you listen carefully I have been dealing with your points all of the time because look you have said fact number one that Jesus died on the cross

And I'm saying the earliest route of tradition cannot convince you that Jesus actually died on the cross now It's for you to respond to this, but let me lay them all out

First notice in Mark's gospel that Pilate has a doubt that Jesus actually died and for good reason because crucifixion

Usually took several days to kill a person and in Mark's gospel. Jesus was only on the cross for a few hours now

Let me just stop right there I've heard this a couple of times the speed at which

Jesus dies How is this an argument? How how is it?

I mean again if these sources are Are basically corrupt sources as Shabir is arguing then why would you include this information in the first place?

Why would you even make reference to Pilate's doubt? It's it's immediately pointed out in those same texts that the reason that he has died is is

Well, what that he has control over these things and that the Romans then

Verify to Pilate who is one of them and the Romans tended to know about whether people were dead or not

Even though amazingly Shabir's could spend a tremendous amount of time arguing later about His whole approach is going to be to cast doubt on the medical abilities the ancient world to know when someone is dead to try to in essence resuscitate the swoon theory and pun fully intended

To come up with an explanation for all this stuff, which to me smacks of Especially when you when you step back for just a moment from the debate and go why is he questioning this when even?

The likes of John Dominic Crossan or Marcus Borg accept the reality of the death of Jesus Why why why is

Shabir doing this and there's only one reason because of the visions of a man in Arabia 600 years later who had no connection to the original events that's the only reason and Shabir at least was open about it at the beginning of the of his presentations that yeah,

I Believing Muslim. I understand the Quran to teach this and therefore

You know, that's where I'm coming from And and so I I recognize that and so that plays into my examination of the facts

Well, it certainly does and it certainly is in this context, too And all of the meetings that are there in Gibson's movie are just imagination because mark does not give you any of those details

It is true that some such beating could have been possible for a crucified victim in the Roman world

But notice also that pilot was sympathetic towards Jesus He found him innocent and sought to release him

But he was pressured into agreeing to have Jesus crucified beyond his will and I think

Mel Gibson had it He showed the difficulty that pilot was in there and it ended he was caught between a rock and a hard place

He finally agreed to have Jesus crucified but giving that reticence from pilot it is it is possible that his men would not have delivered to Jesus the most brutal punishment possible and that finally

Jesus might not have died on the cross the One thing that I'm sorry, but there's just some huge huge huge Stretches here.

So so somehow the Roman soldiers are are discerning pilots mood or a

Favorable attitude toward Jesus and therefore they're not gonna beat him as badly or something

Again, man, I really wish the Gibson stuff wasn't even here. You know, it's just such a you know

So overblown and and so done in such a such a way just sort of ruins the application here.

But anyway so This somehow means that the Jesus wouldn't have died again, you have to you have to just tear everything out of these texts and There's there's no way unfortunately

Lycona because of the willingness that he has Expressed to say well the purposes of this debate and he said

I don't believe this but for the purposes of debate I'm willing to allow for all sorts of of Myth and allegory and so on and errors and stuff in the text of the

New Testament Well now you don't have a context in which to respond to these things Because you've you've basically stepped off of the only foundation that you can actually stand on and that again

Here's the difference here Here is where your viewpoint of presuppositional versus evidential apologetics will even directly impact your methodology within an interfaith

You know contact and an interfaith context is from my perspective if you're trying to argue somebody on to the position if you're if you're standing there on the firm foundation of God's Revelation and trying to show inconsistencies in somebody else's position and then bringing them to your own

You can't step off of that on to some alleged neutral ground That what other neutral ground is there to step on?

You you're you're being epistemologically inconsistent to do that I just that that's why whenever I hear him saying well, you know for the purpose of debate

No, you you you can't do that. I just it it creates a

Impossible situation killed him would have been this fair one But that is mentioned only in the gospel according to John that is the last of the four

Gospels remember that they hear that This is this over and over and over again. We don't know the order in which the

Gospels written That's all hypothetical. Even those who just spend their whole careers on have to admit that it's it's a it's a hypothesis

Well, we have Mark first and then not really sure about Matthew and Luke and then you know, you've got to John at the end well, that's very common, but to Do what he's doing here and that is in essence say well if it's only mentioned in the last one

Then it can't have any verity to it. There might be a million different reasons Let's even let's even grant that John's the last one.

Why does that mean that John's mentioning it? Isn't relevant. There's all sorts of things that John mentions that are his that are historically certain

He's the one that talks about the nails and that's good. That's one of the issues that could come up here a little bit later on Isn't it much more plausible that if John is the last one writing that he actually could discuss many more things

Than maybe others who are writing while the contemporaries are still alive couldn't and therefore he might have more

Historical information to share that he now has the freedom to be able to talk about because he's not gonna be endangering people in the process,

I Mean if you want to start into this this theorizing stuff, there's really no end as to how far you can take it

That really becomes part of the issue And that represents the last travel of evolution among the

Gospels and if that spear wound was delivered You'd be sure that all of the gospel writers would mention it because it's such a pertinent fact that would finally prove that Jesus died

Why Catching got to catch him here again There wasn't any question that Jesus died.

This wasn't a debate. This was the fundamental Application. This is a fundamental element of the proclamation of the church

This was not an issue and it's not for at least a hundred years or more So you have anybody coming along saying otherwise

The Basilidian Gnostics is very tiny little little group with no connection and no no historical validity to them

Denies the death of Christ, but they do so because they're Gnostic. They're Gnostic tendencies. It's tough to kill a spirit with a spear, you know

That's not even doesn't even have historical meaning to it And then you gotta go, you know 600 down 600 years down the road to get to Muhammad for another reason that They weren't trying to prove what

Shabir is denying because nobody was denying it And so I say well, everybody would have mentioned this because it would have proven this point

That's an invalid form of argumentation it is assuming that the New Testament writers could somehow have a knowledge of every single possible argument that was ever going to be raised against her position and Therefore would include every fact that could ever be needed to refute

Whatever mankind comes up with down through the ages and obviously that would mean that the

New Testament would have to be many volumes long of microfiche to be able to contain all of the

Information that it would need to have in that context These give strong evidence for that case and they do not mention it

The scholars think today that this is an imaginative detail added by John's gospel now and I over and over again

And I'm gonna have to challenge him again because I can guarantee he's gonna do this in October As long as you can find someone who's published and who graduated from a school

It doesn't matter how coherent their arguments are. It doesn't matter That that he would reject in entirety their worldview or anything else as long as Shabir can find a single person

Who's published scholars say it and he'll just use this this broad broad brushstroke scholars believe this

That's not a scholarly way of arguing that's a popularist way of arguing it's very easy to say scholars

Reject these claims of Islam scholars recognize that The Quran is drawing from previous sources and scholars say that and he's like accepting that he's gonna reject all that He's gonna ask for specifics and he's gonna ask you to and rightfully so But not rightfully so when he himself is not doing it and so scholars see this as it well, you know what?

When it comes to the New Testament and comes to Christianity, you can find a scholar somewhere Who believes anything that means absolutely nothing?

The the real issue is who can give you meaningful consistent argumentation?

Not just throw out a book and to get it published in order to prove against the dossette tests

That Jesus was actually flesh and blood because we have here the blood and water proving that he is actually real flesh and blood

He's not here as a spirit on the cross so if John has a concern the the dossettes from the

Greek term decline Which means it seems? the the dossettes who taught the

G is only seemed to have a Physical body so since John has a concern about dossettes and then he's just going to make stuff up So it would follow logically for example that when when men came to Uthman with a concern about the purity of the

Quran Then logically it would follow that they as a result because they had a concern

Therefore corrupted the manuscripts they had to create an artificial harmony in the Quran, right?

I mean that does follow logically, right if you have a concern about something especially a perversion of something then that means you are going to pervert your sources so as to Argue against what you're concerned about that seems to be what

Shabir was just saying about John So why wouldn't it be true about Uthman in fact?

I would argue that since the Quran never mentions Uthman But the Quran does mention the disciples of Jesus and says that Allah would grant them victory

Then there'd be more reason to believe that Uthman would do something like that unless to believe that John would

But this consistency thing sort of gets boring after a while As some dossettists believe and so we have within the earliest strata

No firm evidence that Jesus actually died on the cross. So I've dealt with the fact number one No, actually hasn't dealt with fact number one at all because the earliest strata that he has been that Michael Icon has been trying to present here is found in such places as 1st

Corinthians chapter 15 and There can be no question about the meaning of died and was buried and rose again but but Shabir has such a deep and consistent anti Pauline bias

That it's difficult for him to even begin to see Paul as having any kind of meaningful historical

Capability as far as Transmitting any type of tradition or anything like that.

He just he just simply won't allow it to happen well eight seven seven seven five three three three four one someone is calling that number even now, but we're going to take a break and Come back maybe with a phone call or with Shabir Ali or whatever else it might be

Here on the dividing line eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. We'll be right back It's not an easy way, it's a journey to the

Sun Following Jesus What is dr.

Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book chosen but free a new cult secularism false prophecy scenarios

No, dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent Philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant in his book the potter's freedom

James White replies to dr. Geisler, but the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply It is a defense of the very principles upon which the

Protestant Reformation was founded Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme Calvinism Defines what the reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture the potter's freedom a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen But free you'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen org

Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see

The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word. What has happened to this sacred duty in our day?

The charges are as follows Prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious eisegesis entertainment without a license and Cross -dressing ignoring

God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women is a public crime occurring in your town Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org

The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith Once the core of the

Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine in his book the

God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith

Dr. J. Adams says I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates.

This is no book for casual reading There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words

The God who justifies by dr. James White get your copy today at a omen org

I Hate interrupting that one.

I just want to play the air guitar with it, you know Need my

Oakley's I can swing I Yes, that's one of my favorites eight seven seven seven five three three three four one we have a question about chronic evidence

And I was going chronic evidence. No, no cornic cornic evidence, and I'm going cornic

Evidence, what is cornic evidence? And then I eventually figured out this little keyboard is this all blame it on the keyboard

Yeah He's all bunched together. Wait a minute that hold on a second Um, the

K is next to the J and the Q is a row above on the other side of the universe

There you go Anyway, let's let's talk with with Johnny who wants evidence of of the

Kron or whatever it is there. Hi Johnny Hey, how are you doing? I'm pretty good Good.

I was actually asking because of the the debate that you had last year with Shabir Ali on the subject of the

New Testament And it's inspiration one of the points that you kept championing in the debate was that There is a double standard that Muslims are applying to how they deal with the

New Testament a little Bible of the whole but the New Testament specifically and the way they deal with the

The Koran and every time you would point out look here's the inconsistency You're showing these set of rules for this and this to those set of rules for your own

Koran And Shabir Ali kind of swept that under the rug and said well if you I was here to debate the New Testament I'm not here to debate the inerrancy of the

Koran if you want to debate that let's debate that so my question is What is being that they use such such a an extremely high double standard against the

New Testament? what do they have to offer and And In there from their side with the

Koran, I mean with the New Testament and the Old Testament, you know We have prophecy history archaeology things like that The transforming power the worldview that it presents being consistent and make sense and I think what do they have to offer?

Interestingly enough. I I don't remember how long ago this was I believe that I and if I didn't

I we should sometime I know that I listened to Because I remember the specific ride on which

I listened to it a lecture that Shabir delivered to Muslims on the nature of the

Koran as the inspired Word of God you can find all sorts of lectures given by Jamal Badawi and Shabir and D dot and so on so forth in subjects and they partake of the same elements

I don't remember if I played that on the dividing line and responded to elements or not I may not have now that I think about it, but bad as it may in essence.

It it boils down to a highly Evidentialist argument plus a very subjective one.

I mentioned One of the arguments a couple of weeks ago and that's derived from the

Quran itself where they argue that no one has ever been able to produce anything to rival the

Quran or to be the equal of the Quran and I pointed out that this is a Exceptionally subjective argument, I I think what

I be Burns The Bard of Scotland was far better in many of his writings than anything you'd find the

Quran But it's it's subjective. It's it's what hits you. It's what you find to be compelling or communicative or whatever else it might be and I certainly think that there are sections of the scriptures that are you know

The the poetry you find in the Psalter and in and in Isaiah for example Totally beyond anything you find the

Quran, but again, how can that be an argument? It can't be an argument because It is it is totally subjective, but then they try to attach to that Pretty much a very evidentialist string of argumentation.

They for example will interpret the Quran in a very unusual way as if it presents

Embryology and they will argue that if you read certain words this way in certain words that way that this is describing the embryo as it's developing at a very small stage and since Microscopes hadn't been discovered yet Then how could

Muhammad have this kind of incredibly in -depth knowledge of the embryological states?

And to be honest with you Western readers go to these texts fully knowledgeable of the Arabic language and go you've got to be kidding me

There is absolutely no reason to understand these words in this context. This is a huge huge huge leap but you know

Basically, it's it's on the same level. I would say is what you see on a lot of TBN programs about prophecies and and things along those lines it's it's just as much of a huge reach to read the

Quran in that way as In fact, I was about to get to that they even have a

Quran code in fact some most people probably didn't Understand this but when

I had the cross -examination period with Shabir at one point I mentioned 6 ,500 something and he chuckled and I I didn't know you knew that and what

I was referring to Was a presentation and I did discuss this I think in March or April of 2005 in the archives of the

PRBC Sunday school at PRBC org and you might be able to I don't know if the titles would necessarily give that much information

But I went over the Quran code with my Sunday school class those poor people Because I had been listening.

It might have actually been January February because I remember when I was Listening to this. I was riding my bike and it was cold so that would have been probably

January February March somewhere in there and they what they do is they they take the number of the surahs and there's 114 and they put them in one column and they divide them between odds and evens and then the number of Verses in the surahs and you put them in cross columns odds and evens and we add them up somehow you get these numbers and it's the same on one size is on the other and this proves the inspiration of the

Quran basically and It does rival Anything that you will find in the

Bible code books Where you you know ad spec abstract multiply divide, however, you want to make it work out so He has actually presented that Shabir has presented that as evidence of the inspirations of Quran And so they'll say that it couldn't have come from Muhammad And that Muhammad was obviously an honest individual

He really believed these things and since there's supernatural evidence of embryology in it

They will try to point to one or two really stretched ideas of prophecy

Well, the Romans are going to defeat these people in a couple of years and and it's it's so vague that You know, it's sort of be like saying me saying some long lines of they're going to be major military

Developments in the Middle East over the next couple of years like duh, you think type of a situation but It lacks specificity, but they'll they will try to come up with that and they you know,

Muhammad himself Felt the the weight of the objection that he did no miracles and and things like that and so you have his flight to Jerusalem that will be put forward as a as a example of a supernatural event

Verifying the correctness of the of the Quran as well, but it's a string of pretty much unrelated evidentialist type arguments

Connected with that one Subjective argument about the alleged supremacy of the Quran as far as a written document is concerned

That comes up over and over again in the lectures that I've heard delivered on why the

Quran is to be considered the Word of God Do they have anything? The more popular books that are out there that have been here for some years now, you know

Josh McDowell wrote evidence that demands the verdict and more evidence that the answer really these are big bulky type books getting into a lot

Of different issues. I haven't actually read them myself but they get into a lot of issues from what I've heard and I kind of wonder if do they have

Their own little counterpoint on the Bible or is it just you know Maybe a lecture here and there by guys like Shabir Ali this kind of argumentation because I you know

Yeah, no, there are there are entire books Most of the the the fuller books are are normally because they're they're taking time to attack the

Christian faith There is for example a book that says four or five six hundred pages

Attacking the deity of Christ using every bad Jehovah's Witness argument ever seen plus a few even worse ones thrown in for good measures

So the big ones tend to be those that are focused upon specifically attacking the the

Christian faith But yes, there are all sorts of books that are published. You can go to islamic bookstore comm and look these things up They are not paying for any advertising time here, however

Where there will be you know, the divine proofs of the Quran and and things like that, but they don't tend to be overly huge I mean there might be some that are but They they tend to be more booklets

Than they are huge huge works because there's only you know So many things now there for example, it looks like science in the

Quran and things like that where they really try to expand out these embryology Contexts and things like that, but yeah, they certainly try to put those things out especially

When they find themselves in situations like they are in the United States where they are in the religious minority It would not be as much of an issue

When they are in the religious majority because in essence Criticism of Islam will be stamped out and silenced at that point

And so apologetics becomes that what you do at the end of the sword or the ak -47 barrel

Okay. All righty. All right. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for calling. God bless 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is phone number.

We continue with Shabir Ali. Have you noticed at this point? You know,

I've got a I've got to offer a little criticism for my Christian brother here Mike isn't

Mike's doing what a lot of Christians do in this situation and it's something that I don't and It may be one of the reasons

I'm considered a hard -nosed but if you're in this situation where you've got cross -examination and I know

I've Watched the DVD and I can tell that the context they were in You know, he was basically being told to You know take it easy and and bend over backwards and we don't want any hard feelings blah blah blah blah blah blah

And you know It's sort of like when we showed up Biola and they had the same type of set set up where we're gonna sit here with little flowers and and on couches and have a nice little discussion and I said no we're gonna have a debate and you need to Have a table to write on when you have a debate and so we change that but anyway

It should bear is getting all this time Shabir Ali is getting all this time. He's if I haven't done it wouldn't be something that I would invest time in doing but I think if you took the cross -examination period here and Counted up the amount of time that Shabir had an amount of time.

That's a that Mike had it's probably three to one Shabir's favor and Shabir is not asking questions

He's making arguments and I would be interrupting him and I would be responding and I would be getting my time

That's what you've got to do. I mean You know and there just seems to be a tendency on part of a lot of folks

And I know some people look at me and go that's just because you're mean and you're rude and no, I hey if it's a debate

I need to have 50 -50 here and When Shabir will make some of these comments

I'm gonna be stepping on the last word of his last sentence because that's the only way you get in word in edgewise Otherwise you will be

Dominated by the other person and if the other person gets three times more time than you have I don't care how good your arguments are.

You're not gonna be able to get them stated you've got to have enough time to at least state them and challenge the facts that are being facts or non facts that are being presented and so you've just you've got to you got to have a little bit of a

Fighters spirit there to jump in and do what you got to do about the empty to now historians

Can I get a moment? Yeah, see jump in there go for it. Don't say I'm sorry Mike don't say

I'm sorry jump in there and say I need to respond to what you just said and go for it There's no reason to say

I'm sorry because he's supposed to be asking you questions. Anyways, and he's not he's pontificating So dive in there and do what you need to do

You're still dealing with the Gospels and I'm appealing to this very early evidence, which predates it

By decades Answered that I've shown that this earliest evidence First of all, the sources are not known if you cite

James Dunn as saying that this was early. That's James Dunn's guess I respect him as a great scholar and I read his writings but after all it is a scholarly guess from one individual some now there

I just I When I first heard that unfortunately, it was while I was descending

South Mountain and it almost killed me because I Just could not believe

That Shabir Ali was stating that Because Shabir Ali will utilize the personal idiosyncratic opinions of any scholar on the planet to make a point

I Mean, I disagree with James DG done on all sorts of stuff consistently so but he is well recognized in his particular field and Yet Shabir will pick people who are not recognized in any field who are so far out of The mainstream that it's that it's not even funny and who again would hold a worldview completely contradictory to his own that that totally determines their conclusions in a scholarly level and yet he'll take one of those people and Present them as facts.

That's what he did with the Gospel of Thomas in our debate. He Picks one female

Jesuit liberal at Boston College and Presents it as if it's somehow as a fact when it's the viewpoint of one idiosyncratic person.

It wasn't even James DG done And so to to to do this and say well you presented done, but that's just oh, that's just one

One opinion or something like that. It's like whoa Talk about a double standard we have a different guess and that's just that That just name me any

New Testament historians. Okay, and as you know in New Testament historians It's largely critical many non -christians many non -believers many atheists are in that Discipline just name me a single

New Testament scholar who doubts the death of Jesus And notice that I have acknowledged previously that all historians you can include

New Testament scholars except for Muslims would agree that Jesus died on the cross because it is an

Assumption that somebody who lived 2 ,000 years ago and is no longer alive is dead. No, that is not in us

But no, no, no, no, no That's how can does that does that mean that everybody who lived 2 ,000 years ago died on a cross?

Under Pontius Pilate in a particular context at a particular time in Jerusalem, of course not

Yes, it is an assumption that if someone lived 2 ,000 years ago, they have died. Duh That's not the issue.

The issue is the means of Death the time the context the resultant burial who would be there who was involved

Did Jesus predict it etc, etc, etc, etc But that's not why

New Testament scholars are concluding that Well, they are concluding that for the same reason as everyone else that Jesus died on the cross not because they have any irrefutable proof

And I'm not using irrefutable in the in the ridiculous sense in which you've treated it You see you have firm evidence that Jesus was on the cross and died on the cross

You said so yourself everyone agrees on that now Do you have firm evidence that he resurrected from the dead if someone claims that he resurrected from the dead then we'd be wondering did you really see him and Did he really die after all now you see what

Shabir is doing here, and it's it's It's helpful You know

Sometimes I think people if they don't know any Muslims tend to sort of tune out at this point because I'm really not concerned about What Muslims are but but Muslim apologists are borrowing their arguments against the crucifixion or more specifically against the resurrection?

From from basically atheists they are they they're more than happy to be quite naturalistic at this point even though their world were worldview should preclude them from borrowing these particular arguments and Therefore you have this this you know what he's doing here

Let me put this way. It's similar to what I do in regards to Roman Catholic papacy But I think

I'm doing it consistently and they aren't what do I mean? I go through all of the things that must be true

And For for the papacy to be true in other words You have to have this step followed by this step followed by this step because Rome is claiming that that they have the ultimate and final power and say in all of these things and so if You know

Peter has to have gone to Rome and Peter has to be the fulfillment In Matthew 16 and you have all these things that have to go along to to fulfill that so that condition

What Shabir is doing is saying well look Okay, let's even say that Jesus died on a cross how do you know he resurrected because First of all how do you know it was him so you raise all sorts of identity issues and Can you trust the people who said they saw him and so now you're you're raising issues about the witnesses and what he's trying to do is to bring up some sort of deniability here some sort of levels of Deniability to try to force the

Christian over all these hurdles and by the time you get to the top the Probability of what you're promoting becomes very small see that's the argumentation that is taking place here

And that's not just a Muslim thing that's something that unbelievers do on a regular basis So it is in the light of the later claim that I'm asking did he really die on the cross?

Show me the evidence that he actually died on the cross. What fatal wound killed him on the cross? Okay, and I've named

Raymond Brown who has gone through a long discussion on this and finally He cannot conclude what would have killed him

Of course, if you took him down and you buried him under six feet of dirt, he would have died But that's not what happened to him

So what really killed Jesus you said yourself the medical doctors could not agree on what was the cause of death?

So if you don't know the cause of death So here comes the next doubt element and that is in talking to a westernized

Culture that that is the first well Maybe second generation to even possess the level of medical knowledge

Which we have now the the the instrumentation that we have due to computerization things like that to be able to monitor all these life functions

Like that talking to an audience like that you can now in essence engage in the people before us were stupid argument and Say well, you know, it would have been much more probable

The swoon theory see now we'd be able to tell whether the Sun was really dead or not but back then they couldn't and so so you've got that question and you got the question of the

Resurrection and the day was it the right person to recognize and can we trust the witnesses and and it's it's as was just said

In in channel dog piling the doubt, you know Just try to pile on as much of it as you possibly can

The only thing we can say is that a man who lived 2 ,000 years ago and it's no longer with us is dead And I think that's the universal conclusion

But if you say he repaired his disciples now We should go back and look to see whether he was actually dead and we cannot find the evidence that he was actually dead

Can it be okay now? well, I think we can everybody attest to it our understanding of crucifixion militates against it and Medically the doctors are saying he died

But I do want to comment on Brown because you mentioned about the spear wound in Brown and that's correct.

John does mention it But John's the only one who mentions nails for crucifixion. It's not even in a crucifixion scene.

He mentions that To Thomas you see the nail wounds He's the only one that mentions the crew of fragium or the breaking of legs

The others didn't do that either but we don't deny that nails were used in crucifixion or that legs weren't broken

We give you a quote by Raymond Brown since you like to use him This is in death of the

Messiah the same book that you quoted from page 1092 and 93 People who would never bother reading a responsible analysis of the traditions about how

Jesus was crucified Died was buried and rose from the dead are fascinated by the report of some new insight to the effect

He was not crucified or did not die and on page 1373 says except for the

Romantic few who think that Jesus did not die on the cross Most scholars accept the uniform testimony of the

Gospels that Jesus died Do during the Judean prefecture of Pontius Pilate?

So again You brought up the Gospels and I'm on this other hill and Raymond Brown is with me.

Not really Not really because if you read

Raymond Brown carefully from the page that you quoted and I've read it myself as well That's from the section in which he's dealing with fanciful imaginative scenarios, whereas for example

The Ahmadiyyas have claimed that Jesus walked all the way to Kashmir and he died and buried there or recently there was an

Australian Lady fearing who claimed that Jesus came back and he was still alive and he got married to Mary Magdalene, right?

that's all Brown was responding to this kind of imaginative detail But Brown himself in the section if you've read it dealing with the physiological cause of Christ's death

Gives a different picture in the end He looks at the kinds of medical examinations that have been done now post -mortem way thousands of years after the fact and he dismisses them because he says that the details that are given by the

By the gospel writers should not be taken as actual physical details that occurred But they do they're due to a number of factors including imaginative detail added by the evangelist themselves

Which is another reason why I would ask the question and this is this is one of the problems you get when you when you?

don't challenge the Raymond Brown You know the greatest greatest

New Testament scholars ever in what context? in what context in if Raymond Brown were to take the same worldview and Viewpoint of inspiration and accuracy and things like that and apply it to the

Quran as a Muslim Shabir Ali would never accept him as being a Muslim in the first place but we have to accept him as a

Christian and in fact the greatest Christian scholar around and When Christian apologists don't challenge that and say well, wait a minute.

I would have Fundamental foundational differences with Raymond Brown. I mean, yes man has an ability to collect all sorts of data

Analyze all sorts of data, but it's the the grid through which he's analyzing these things It becomes the issue if you're not willing to say that because who that's not popular in the

Academy And you're good. You're not gonna get invited to speak at the nicest places if you do that Well, I would rather have a consistent position to stand upon to defend the gospel against Islam then to get invited to all the nice places to be perfectly honest with you and If you don't do that, you're just not to be able to respond in a proper way.

Well, anyway Thank you for listening to the value line today. Remember next week We will not be here

But we will be back Lord willing the week after that So July 3rd will be our next program on a

Tuesday morning. Look forward to seeing you then. God bless Standing at the crossroads

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks