Dan Wallace's Actual Words

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. It's 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. Yes, this is James white and know your Your player is not going at low speed. It is it is spring in Phoenix and last year, I I think I don't know.

I don't remember these things, but I think I managed to skip this last year, but basically about two out of every three years come the spring in Arizona, I Take a trip somewhere I pick up a respiratory infection and then it turns into this deep in the lungs asthma type thing till about May and I walk around clearing my throat making odd strange noises and feel fine, but Sound horrible.

So what can I say? That's just Actually, if I wanted to do some radio voiceovers right now, this would be the time to be doing it. Actually, I can barely hear myself. That may be a function of I don't know what that's a function of but that's fine but I have a nice low voice now and It's it doesn't hurt.

I Know I'm fighting something. I just actually took a nap to nap to try to help get over a little bit faster So the the brain synapses may not be moving working quite as quickly as normal, which some people would say Is very slow at normal speed and now we can be worse, but we'll see our plan for the dividing line today is to Continue our response to watch the Akami and Then in the last half hour the program we will have open phones.

So if you would like to get in touch with us You can do so and I've got my cough button right right within range here gonna be when you hear Breaks just brief breaks. Just stay just stay calm doesn't mean you've lost your connection.

It means I'm pushing a button and trying to get things back to functional status again. Anyway We will have open phones at eight seven seven seven five three three two four one starting by an hour for now so feel free to Call in and So many people that are so brave behind keyboards that of course have an open invitation at all times to call the program.

But they never do so those of you who have serious questions might want to call in as as well. But before we get to continuing our response, and I hope mr. Akami will give me a few moments The this is relevant actually I think would probably relevant to him as well I hope he'll take a chance take an opportunity to listen to this as well.

But.

Yeah, guardian guardian online for 47. He's been on hold for how many years now three years something like that. Yeah from the Catholic answers forums, that'd be great anyways. The audio of the debate with Bart Ehrman became available overnight, and I listened this morning.

The presentations were pretty much the same as they had been just a few weeks ago. There was not nearly as much Interaction and audience participation, so I didn't think it was quite as valuable along those lines as I would like it to have been.

But we do have these specific statements. From Dan Wallace, I've got him queued up can it's just just a minute and a half two minutes. Concerning the forthcoming publication evidently in January of 2013 of a book by Brill Documenting the discovery of a number from what Dan is saying here, I would guess six Papyri manuscripts fragments From the first and second centuries the New Testament increasing the number of manuscripts available to us in that time for from 12 to 18 that is a very large percentage increase and Ironically even in the face of that Bart Ehrman challenged Dan just as he challenged me.

And this is what I don't understand because Dan had made that statement about a dozen manuscripts in the second century in the first debate they did at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and Irma never challenged him.

He challenged me. I didn't expect him to because he hadn't challenged Wallace. He challenged he didn't challenge Dan in their second debate, but finally in the third debate. He finally gets around to it and Which I found very odd.

So anyway, I have the audio. I want to play you the audio of What Dan Wallace said? specifically concerning this forthcoming material and Then we will get back to our comments to watch the Akati fifth and finally.

To take Mark's gospel as an illustration again. Even if we had no rock-solid evidence of what Mark's gospel looked like in the first century We have overwhelming evidence that it is hardly different from what scholars have constructed from the available evidence.

Of course to demand a first century copy of Mark goes far beyond what is demanded for any other ancient literature. However, in the last few months several very early fragments of the New Testament have been discovered.

These will be published by an international scholarly publishing house in a book one year from now. By way of background prior to this book I mentioned that we knew of as many as a dozen second century manuscripts from the New Testament in the We're in the second century.

Once the book is published The numbers will change dramatically. As many as 18 New Testament manuscripts from the second century. Among the finds was also a fragment of Luke that is from the early second century.

It thus rivals p52 that fragment that Bart showed you the manuscript traditionally considered to be the oldest New Testament manuscript known to exist and yet this new Luke fragment is Not the oldest New Testament manuscript.

The oldest manuscript of the New Testament is now a fragment from Mark's gospel. That is from the first century. How accurate is the dating? Well, my source is a papyrologist who worked on this manuscript a man whose reputation is unimpeachable.

Many consider him to be the best papyrologist on the planet. His reputation is on the line with this dating and he knows it but he is certain that this manuscript was from the first century. This papyrus fragment just like the other new discoveries that we are preparing for a publication.

Strongly confirms what most scholars have already said is the original text. Well in conclusion is the original New Testament. So there you go.

There's what what Dan had to say so he makes specific reference to a Lucan fragment that rivals p52, which means in 125 or earlier and A Marken fragment now, that's important because we had very little Papyri, I certainly don't have a full papyri copy of Mark and P47 as I recall off the top of my head.

I didn't wasn't reviewing it for the program, but About the only papyri fragments we had of of mark at that time and so again, I am Believe me once there is a listing of this book anywhere We will have it on pre-order and we will pay for whatever shipping it takes.

And I will be extremely excited to see this. But I'm just telling you right now. There will be a pushback Against it when it comes out there will be those who Even before it comes out. We'll start questioning the early dating.

There will be others who will put these fragments in the third century someplace or maybe the first century into the second century that type of thing and That will go back and forth for a number of years until a some type of settled consensus can be arrived at that May or may not answer many of the questions, but I will give you my my predictions right now.

That's while these fragments might shed light on Particular textual variants what they will do is what every other early Manuscript find has done and that is demonstrate that we possess the text of the New Testament already they will just simply give us earlier and earlier attestation of that and And so I think that's uh, I think it is exciting I very much look forward to it I look forward to amending my New Testament reliability presentations in light of it and then getting to tell the story about how Only a few years ago.

I gave you these numbers and they have now improved they have increased and and that's a That's an exciting thing. But again We just need to be careful not to jump too quickly on to Incorporation of that information material until there has been you know the the responses and then the counter responses and and then a scholarly consensus and and even then remember scholarly consensus Does not necessarily mean almost anything at times remember there was a depending on how you define For example the term critical scholarship.

In fact, I was listening to this debate this morning and Dan had to point out that for Bart Ehrman critical scholarship means the scholars who agree with me and He is correct about that that is how Bart Ehrman views things and You know, he guards his he is careful to guard his statements along those lines, but that is how he functions and there was a time when Quote-unquote critical scholarship back in the 1870s was certain that the Gospel of John had not been written until at least 175 AD.

So.

Just keep those things in mind when you when you hear what what people are are saying Alright with that. Let's move back to The presentation that was the Akhadi made for those of you who have not Been listening to this or have not heard this before.

This is a video released by mr. Akhadi calling called quoting Jesus. It is a video that he specifically Would like to be used to call people to faith. This is his his act of Dawa, you might say calling people to believe in Islam and We are 39 minutes and 25 seconds into it.

It is Approximately an hour and 10 minutes. So there's about half an hour left of it. I would say approximately and This will be the fourth section the fourth time that we have been Delving into this we have gotten into the section on the Trinity the last time that That we were listening.

Mr. Akhadi had just raised the question of Jesus's statement About the last hour and I had responded as I have been attempting to do this. I have been directly addressing mr. Akhadi and.

I.

Know that in correspondence with him that Actually had missed one of them. I sent all the links to the programs We've done so far and I would like to thank him because I do believe that he will take the time and the effort to listen to all of my comments and I I hope that he will listen to them more than once.

It would be difficult. I would imagine for him to respond Meaningfully to certain sections of what I'm saying without listening very carefully to them and I have listened to his presentation multiple times and So I want to thank him for taking the time to do that and apologize It's taking me so long to get through it, but I also hope that on one level he is thankful that I have posted his video on my blog and If he provides a response, I'll post it, too.

We are people the truth we believe in al-haq and We believe in him who is al-haq the truth The way the truth and the life in fact, and we do not believe that Jesus's statements about that in the Gospel of John are limited Limited to The Jews or limited to a particular period of time we believe that Jesus's statement there is is Remains just as true today as when Jesus said those words and So with that we go back again.

I had I had begun if I recall correctly I had begun responding to that particular text By asking mr. Akati some questions and had pointed out that there were certain aspects of Jesus's divine power that were voluntarily for the purpose of the Incarnation veiled and for example his glory was not seen except but briefly by three of the Apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration and That there is a voluntary limitation on Jesus's part so that he might be our example in all things he made himself dependent upon the Holy Spirit so that he might be our example as.

We.

Likewise must be Dependent upon the Holy Spirit of God and. So I think it's important to keep those things in mind, and that's where we had stopped in our in our response mr. Akati we now pick up where we left off the day of judgment.

How can Jesus be co-equal with God part of the triune Godhead and not know the day of judgment? But that is consistent with the fact that we believe no one knows a day of judgment. But a lot I said we're done not even the Malayka not even the angels not even the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu Salaam.

No one knows the day of judgment, but Allah Consistency subhanAllah consistency in the teachings. Now there's an argument which may be presented by our fellow Christians. They say there's a statement in the Bible which says I and my father are one.

Now I Just realized I I keep intending to do these things, but it's difficult to To you know Multitask a whole lot while trying to listen to what mr. Akati is saying and look up references and everything else, but I I wanted to and I'm gonna try to remember maybe somebody Excuse me somebody in channel can remind me after the program To write to mr. Akati and see if My book on the Trinity has has arrived at his location as of yet.

Because we we did send it out. And I'm not sure that we can even track international stuff. They really can't so I Will ask mr. Akati because we did send it If if the book has has arrived there in in Saudi Arabia but there are a Number of texts mr. Akati that I think it would behoove you to attempt to respond to in the New Testament that Far more than those that you raise far far more than those that you raise and Especially those that specifically identified Jesus as God.

I Would love to hear your your explanation of how it is that All of the earliest followers of Jesus that we can't that we have any knowledge about Believed in Jesus Christ as courios as Lord the very name used in the Greek Septuagint the Greek translation of the Old Testament of Yahweh himself and that those early writers such as Peter and Paul and the writer to the Hebrews Could quote Old Testament texts the gotten John the very same gospel that is cited by Muslims all the time to attempt to identify to fulfill Surah 61 and surah 7 especially surah 61 6.

Concerning.

Jesus giving good tidings of a messenger who would come after him whose name is Ahmed The the fulfillment being found allegedly in John chapters 14 and 16 that same writer likewise Use Old Testament texts that were about Yahweh and apply them to Jesus.

How could they do that? I mean that would be that would be like Someone taking texts to use give an example that you might find more compelling Taking texts that are about Allah in The Quran and applying them to a messenger so.

But in fact, this is that this is an illustration. I'd never thought of until just now sometimes it's dangerous to think like that on the fly, especially with as many anti histamines and cough medicines as I have going with me, but Think of it along these lines.

You have a particular surah in the Quran surah al-iqlas surah 112 and It is a a text that is dear to the heart of many Muslims as you know, according to the Hadith. Quoting this particular surah is is worth quoting is like quoting.

What was it? One-third? One-half one-third of the Quran. It's it's a Muhammad thought very highly of it according to the Hadith. It's about as close as you get to a creedal statement in in the Quran itself and So with that in mind What if you had a writer?

Take the.

Let's say the first two ayah of surah al-iqlas and Apply them specifically To a messenger Who has come later? What would that tell you about the person making that application? You know what surah al-iqlas is about and you know that it can only be true of Allah, right.

And. So if someone applies that To a messenger then what. What are they telling you that they believe that messenger truly was Allah. And in fact As I'm sure you're aware there were some Sufi People who made statements they got themselves in great trouble.

In fact if I recall one executed for doing something similar to that and. The point is that's exactly what you have for example in Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 through 12 where a verse that could only be applied to Yahweh psalm 102 25 to 27 is Applied to Jesus.

What does that tell you that the first followers of Jesus believed? They believed he was Yahweh in human flesh and.

So.

It is you know. Well, we'll look at the text that you're bringing up. I do believe that John chapter 10 verse 30 does present the deity of Christ. I would Direct you mr. Akati to a video, and I will try as best.

I can remember to link you to this video a fairly short video actually where I discuss the proper use of John chapter 10 verse 30 and its testimony to the deity of Christ and Of course it you'll find similar comments in the Forgotten Trinity if the book has arrived or when it arrives Hopefully Lord willing it will arrive There in in Saudi Arabia.

Have you heard this before? Okay, let me let me give you the. I heard someone say. You must know the context. Whenever you read something You must know what verses preceded it and what verses will follow it.

Amen because they will have something to do with the general meaning yes in Islam. We can give the same example. When if can you read for a little muslim and stop. No. For a little muslim and let me know home on salatian.

So on if you read it on its own woe to those who pray. But in fact it's about those who are negligent about prayer, so the context is important now. Let me give you the context of this one. It's in John chapter 10 verse 30.

Jesus was speaking about his ability to keep the sheep the believers which Allah gave him. He said that he will strive to keep the sheep the believers which Allah subhanahu wa ta 'ala gave him. Then he said that no one will be able to pluck him out Out of his hand.

Now let me let me just Briefly stop right there and point out that that's not all that Jesus was saying. It is true that he was saying he will keep his sheep but verse 28 says. And I give eternal life to them and They will never perish and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

My father who has given them to me is greater than all and no one is able to snatch them out of the father's hand. I and the father we are one and so it's not merely keeping sheep. There is in this text the assertion on Jesus's part that he has the ability to give eternal life and That needs to be kept in mind as to what it is about these words because remember context comes before and After and The app next.

As soon as Jesus said I and the father we are one the Jews picked up stones again to stone him.

And.

So.

There is something about what Jesus said that caused the Jews to understand this as a Statement of Blasphemy and.

That needs to be kept in mind and no one would be able to pluck them out of the hand of Allah of the father.

I and my father are one now notice the implicit Assertion there of Unitarianism and I I need to challenge mr. Akati on this point. He has just stated No one can take them out of Allah's hand. I Would point out that To make that assertion and to identify a law solely as the father is One of the main problems that you that you're going to have.

If you would say that Allah is Is Yahweh. The the same that the personal name used of the Old Testament God who Abraham worshipped. If you would say that Then you need to keep in mind That the Bible identifies the father as Yahweh The son as Yahweh and the spirit as the spirit of Yahweh.

So when you when you use that terminology and Just assume that Allah is only the father you're assuming the end of the argument. You're you're assuming what you have yet to prove and you're going against the biblical evidence to do that and That leads to inevitable problems in.

Purpose. The same way I strive as a messenger the messenger he strives at his. The people who follow him do not leave Islam. Allah also ensures that the believers don't look don't leave Islam when I can.

Allah will you believe I am an echo and oh, yeah.

But that's that's not what Jesus is talking about. It's not talking about leaving Islam. It's talking about Jesus giving life to his sheep in contrast to the unbelieving Jews and. The the sheep in this immediate context would of course be Jewish as well in the sense of the Apostles and those who?

Believed in Jesus is at this point. So it's not a Jew Christian, etc, etc issue it is. Believers over against unbelievers has nothing to do with Islam. That's an anachronistic reading back into the text of something that there's there's no historical evidence would be true at the time and the fact.

That.

Jesus gives eternal life to them. This is a salvation issue and What it means is Jesus is the source of eternal life to those who believe in him and There is nothing in the Bible that Could ever leave lead me to believe that some revelation that comes 600 years later could countermand.

The very statements of Jesus himself on that issue. Allah is never to waste your Iman as it comes in surat al-baqarah. So the same way Allah ensures that you remain in faith if you strive and the Messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Will strike, you know. Wajdi, that's a big difference between us.

I.

Do not remain in faith because I strive. I remain in faith because of what Jesus Christ did. I strive. I Seek to live to God's glory. I seek to Mortify my flesh. I seek to repent of my sins and and I am a sinful man and I Experience sin and the Christian life is a life of repentance.

But I do all of that only because of what Jesus Christ has already accomplished for me and so the ongoing nature of my faith is Not based upon my striving. It is based upon the fact that Jesus Christ Accomplished all that need to be accomplished in my behalf and He by his spirit has brought spiritual life to me.

So that I might continue to Serve him and and I will continue to strive and I will continue to persevere in the faith but only because of what Jesus Christ has done not because of anything in me and that I think is a a.

Major point of difference between us. Try that you remain in faith. The purpose are one. Can't you see if my boss sent me to you and he told me to tell you something and I conveyed it to you. I say to you look you say no, I don't believe.

You say look I and the manager are one. We have the same goal man to bring this business up. Our purpose is the same. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. Now you want it? It gets better. Look at the further explanation.

This is a logical explanation. Look at the ayah the verse in the Bible I do. Jesus said I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in me through their word. That they also may be one in us.

Now what. For the audience's a benefit here. Mr. Akali has leapt seven chapters into the future and has left John chapter 10. What this indicates to me most probably is utilization of secondary sources because there are a lot of Websites out there especially Unitarian Subordination as websites.

Jehovah's Witnesses other people like that who in Attempting to deal with John chapter 10 verse 30 and the oneness of the Father and the Son will leave the immediate context of John chapter 10 and we'll go to Jesus's high priestly prayer in John chapter 17 and We'll say we'll notice.

All.

Believers are one in the Father and the Son that doesn't mean they're all one God. Well a couple things Mr. Ockey had already said we need to Look at context. But John chapter 17 is not the context of John chapter 10.

I mean, it's it's important It I'm not trying to avoid it. But it's not the same context. It's not the same incident. That's not the same time frame. It is important in the sense of an overall understanding of what the gospel of John says about The oneness of the Father and the Son.

I will agree to all those things, but you you need to Realize and need to understand that the Immediate context that you just skipped That demonstrates that your understanding of John 1030 is insufficient.

And a contextual is the very next verse the Jewish reaction to what Jesus said and his response and his quotation of Psalm 82 6 and his identification of his of his accusers as false judges and those things and The consistency of his works was the works of the Father and their testimony to his identity and all those things.

So to skip to John 17, well even then to go to John chapter 17 Before you can you can quote verse 11 That they may be one even as we are one.

The.

Verses before that include the statement on Jesus's part that to have life you must know the Father and the Son. And Jesus says in John chapter 17 verse 5 and if you're gonna quote verse 11, I assume you believe the verse 5 is Valid as well and now father glorify me together with yourself.

With the glory which I had with you before the world was. So can you do you believe? Jesus's words in John 17 5 mr. Aka. Do you believe that he existed in? Eternity past. That he was glorious in the presence of the father.

I Don't believe that that is Islamic theology. And and so can you explain John 17 5 and if you're gonna say well John 17 5 is a later corruption. But the verse I'm quoting isn't. Then can you show us a manuscript that substantiates that?

What if I went to the Quran and started chopping up the Quran into pieces and said, well, I let's go back to sir. It's Ali class. If you just took sir, it's Ali class. I is 1 2 4. I'd have no problem.

What's with what's in. I is 1 2 4. It's sir. It's sir. A 112 3. Let him yell it. Well, I'm you'll it that I have a problem with. Right. So can I just chop that up or if I were to say well You know, I don't think that was original.

I don't think that's um. The third ayah was was was actually written originally. Wouldn't you be well within your rights to say, um, do you have any evidence of that? And so if I if you're going to say well, that was that was a corruption and additions like that then I would say you need to have some evidence of that and Given that the Gospel of John I Think even you know, I can't tell I don't know from what Dan Wallace said.

Whether there are any manuscripts of John in these new findings. At least as it stands right now before the publication of these new findings the Gospel of John is the earliest and most widely attested of the four Gospels in the papyri and So you're talking about the earliest and best attested book of the New Testament happens to be the Gospel of John.

So, I just think that that's a fair request on my part. That if you're gonna say that, you know one is corrupted, you know, maybe you don't say that I You didn't say that specifically at this point. But I'm just simply saying if you're gonna quote from John chapter 17 then you need to look at by your own statement at the context of who's speaking and The one who is speaking has said he is eternally existed in the presence of the Father.

No one then could read the rest of John chapter 17 and think that the oneness that we have with the Father and the Son is of the same nature as the oneness of the Father and the Son because we have not Eternally been we have not eternally existed.

So obviously the unity we have with them is because of our union with Christ, but it'll always be of a different kind. Than the unity that exists between the Father and the Son because theirs is eternal and we are not eternal.

We have not existed for eternity. That's something that has to be kept in mind. Mr. Akhavi.

Now according to this if we were to understand I and my father are one. Then we were to read may be one in us meaning now the disciples and everyone are also in God. So now Jesus God and everyone else are one entity.

Not that he does not follow because the oneness of the Father and the Son a is eternal and our oneness is not eternal in that way and B as I point out in the video. In that again, I will attempt to remind to send you the link to the verb in John chapter 10 verse 30 is a plural verb.

Essman and.

Hence does not Make one entity. There is one being that is God that is shared by Three divine persons the Father Son the Holy Spirit. And that is not what is in view in John chapter 17 in talking about our Unity with the Father and the Son.

But it is what is in view when you start talking about an eternal relationship Between the Father and the Son.

It cannot be you see that they also may be one in us that the world may believe that you sent me. So then Jesus is not speaking about them being one. They are being one in purpose. The message is the same the disciples of Jesus Jesus himself and the creator of Jesus and the disciples all of them have one objective.

Now of course the phrase creator of Jesus is not found in the text.

That's being read into the text the maintenance of the belief of those who follow the prophets and the messengers. Okay. Logical evidence. This by the way this argument the only one which is not of mine is from a Christian himself.

Arius.

That would be a little bit honestly.

Like.

Quoting a well-known Well, I guess It's not perfectly parallel, but if I were to quote a well-known Shiite imam from 200 years after history and Say to quote a well-known Muslim against you You would not find that to be an overly compelling argument and Certainly mr.. Akati It once you get an opportunity, and I I hope and pray you'll take the opportunity to at least read through the book and see the wide range and depth of biblical evidence for the deity of Christ.

The the text identifying him as Yahweh especially Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 through 12 and John chapter 12 verse 41 and In fact if you wanted more information than that on those texts just a few months ago here on the program On my blog I linked to this where I did a debate with a Unitarian on these issues and then on the program I went into great depth in a discussion of those texts and the I am sayings of Jesus and and so on so forth.

Here on the program we spent literally hours on that on that topic. Once you Have an opportunity to see that Then I think that it would it would strike you.

That.

There's much more to be looked at here, and that since there's such a wide variety of evidence in The Bible That you haven't dealt with or I don't see any evidence that you're familiar with or that has been presented to you in the past That it would impact Your reading of the text of the Bible if you're operating on the faulty assumption that there's just a verse over here And there's just a verse over there and everything else is consistent with the Quran.

Well, then I can understand how you come to conclusions that you've come to but I just don't think you could actually read The entirety of the text of the New Testament and Come to those types of conclusions at all.

The Egyptian from Alexandria. He said I'm sorry and hence Look at someone like an Arius Who said there was a time when the Sun was not and View them as a Christian. Anymore than you would view people who would question the prophethood of Muhammad or The the centrality of the Quran or all the rest these things as being Christians, I mean it's definitional To accept What the Bible says about Jesus Christ is our great God and Savior and so to identify Arius as a Christian Would be the same thing as identifying Muhammad as a Christian.

I mean it just it's it's definitionally Outside Rationality to to go that direction. I realize the historical sources Historians don't want to get into the theology. And so as long as somebody called themselves a Christian well, then they are.

But you of all people I would think given the tradition of Islam from which you come you know that there are people who call themselves Muslims who are not and. And so if you recognize that reality then you must recognize that there are people call themselves Christians who fundamentally are not either.

He said if Jesus was in reality the begotten Son of God. Then it followed that the father must have existed before him the son. Can the son come before the father?

It's always the father who brings gives birth to the son. Now notice that we have here the definition of begotten taking place in time. And Mr. Akari if you will read the refutations of Arius by especially his contemporary a man by name Athanasius who became three years after the Council of Nicaea the Bishop of Alexandria.

A Man who suffered for his faith. He was kicked out of his church five times for his defense of the deity of Christ. But a man who very firmly rooted his defense of The deity of Christ in the scriptures themselves and then others that came after him.

You will see Hill, you know like Hillary of Poitiers people like that you will see that they ground their refutation of Arius in Pointing out Arius's error in thinking that the Sun was begotten at a point in time.