Abdullah Kunde's Opening Statement

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 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Opening Banter and Program Plans

And welcome to the dividing line on a special jumbo edition, of course someone, you know Really depressed me right before the being the program. So I was asking how long the program was and so this is oh It's just a jumbo.

Just a jumbo see how quickly people have become, you know. Accustomed to these things, you know, and so it's just sort of like I think we're gonna start doing five minute dividing line lits and That way it could fit into you know, like Twitter, you know, just just real fast, you know dividing vignettes.

Yeah, something like that. Yeah, I've got people on Facebook wanting three hours three three hours, but every day every day. That's nice. You know, it's 109 degrees outside yeah, it's Heading for supposed to supposed to get as high as a hundred and sixteen degrees here in Phoenix today and some of you back used.

To going. Yeah. Well, we had that I'm good. Yeah, we Had that yeah, but you don't have it for like from May. Till the end of September that's it can get really bad for you know a month. But we get that we get it for long periods of time.

It has really helped my car though. Remember the hail hail damage my car had from last year. Somebody told me that if just leave out in the Sun this summer most that would go away most of it has. Yeah, it pops pops all those things out because it just gets so stinking hot here in the Sun.

Popcorn cars in the desert. It's exactly what it is. It's it's only the honestly. There's only like one or two left that I can I can actually see because I'm looking at the video right now and there it Sits gleaming in the Sun.

What do you think it how hot do you think it is inside that car right now about hundred and sixty-five degrees something like that. Yeah, it's it's great. Anyway, it's a Wednesday. What are we doing here on a Wednesday?

Well, I. Here's the plan we're going to. Open up the phones at about 10 till okay. You got that. Oh great owner of the phones and all you people who've been calling up. Well, I've been doing all these programs gone.

I won't ask a question I think Johnny wants to was a giant one and I want to know the ring size of urban the fourth was that is that. What. Yeah now which which hand that's that's what we need to know is which hand ring size is the question that Johnny will.

The one that gets kiss. Okay, they okay. Anyway all you who have been been calling up and saying I'm not he's not taking questions anymore. We will open the phones about 10 minutes till and the last half hour I already you know, I mentioned that in the dividing line thing.

I mentioned on the blog I said. And now we have other people gonna when you get back to the Bob Coy sermon. We're not getting back to the Bob Coy sermon. We covered the only unique thing in it was that Lazarus while dead was able to respond to Jesus commands.

And which we found humorous, but there really wasn't anything more to deal with that we will press on with the Fernandez Comas today so between now and Top of the hour. I want to get back to Abdullah Kunduz specific comments on the Doctrine of the Trinity and.

Then we will be back tomorrow with another jumbo, but we'll divide that between the three Debates that we've been working on so there will be. Let's see. It's Abby three. That'll be at least five hours of Dividing lines this week.

So that that's that that's more than sufficient. That's about all because I've got all the sermons this way. I've got this evening. I've got Sunday morning Sunday night. And I will never get another book written at the rate that I'm going.

So that's just that's just how that works. Alright, let's get back to we were listening to a debate that took place between Samuel Green and Abdullah Kunduz. What what are you looking at me? So weird about?

Okay. Yes, I'm plugged in. I'm ready to go as long as you've got the computer ready to go. Yeah, just a jumbo tomorrow, okay, you know, I love Ralph or Ralph's a great guy. But this simply has to be done.

There we go. All right. I just kicked off the channel. Yeah, just a jumbo tomorrow question mark question mark, oh man Boing, all right, do not do that in the chat channel. I can multitask and I can kick you out at the same time.

All right. What were we talking about? Oh, yes, Abdullah Kunduz and Samuel Green did a debate on really important topic the Trinity and Tauheed and So we want to and Abdullah was just getting into his primary Concerns about the doctrine of the Trinity.

We were trying to correct some misapprehensions that he has. That the doctrine the Trinity divides the being of God into Into three parts and therefore limits God in that way, etc, etc and Providing some corrections that so hopefully in our in our future Debates that we won't have to invest too much time in those issues and So let's get back with Abdullah's comments here.

Remember I was a little surprised. Because I'm telling you honestly when I listen to this while writing it sounded just fine and I get it on here and it doesn't sound nearly as as as Good as it did in my earphones man I just need to bring those earphones in and hold them up to the microphone or something.

Maybe that'll work. Okay now just to get you back up to speed or if you weren't listening yesterday the last that we heard was a discussion of Philo of Alexandria and various Greek Philosophical sources that talked about the Lagos.

It seems that Abdullah believes that these are the sources for John's use. There again are extensive discussions in Any meaningful commentary, especially on the Ohanian literature, but also broader scholastic works on Historical backgrounds and again when I was in seminary and ever since seminary.

This is an area that I do a fair amount of reading and given the types of people that I'm debating. There are extensive discussions and arguments and debates Concerning the relative the relative input of the the Old Testament themes of the wisdom of God and the Word of God and and You know, I remember for example a quote that I've used a number of times in regards to the Apocrypha.

This is one good thing about you know, sometimes I get a little I don't know not miffed, but just just tired. With the barrage of different subjects that come my direction I try to be Disciplined and not go after everything.

You can't nobody nobody can possibly know everything. There is no and study everything need to study and and all the rest that stuff. I feel a lot of pressure in that area, but one of the advantages of having to do, you know, but getting stretched being pushed to do things is speaking on the Apocrypha you encounter Jewish statements in the intertestamental period that the bath cold the voice of God Had stopped speaking.

This is relevant to the fact that the Apocryphal books are written during a period of time where the Jews themselves recognized revelation wasn't taking place. Which is one reason why they never accepted those books as being divine revelation, which is another reason why Roman Catholicism is just wrong.

But bit as it may the the point was there was a there was a recognition of the very voice of God The Word of God the wisdom of God. What's the the relative input of that over against a Issues like the logos and what would John have known about Greek philosophy and what are the primary inputs to the creation of John's Theology and all this stuff you read any meaningful critical commentary and I'm not talking about an expository commentary where Those type of issues aren't even being addressed.

I'm talking about critical commentaries and I Will say immediately, you know put my hand up and say warning warning. Critical commentaries can contain all sorts of stuff that I wouldn't even begin to agree with but We need to be aware of these things in fact one of the one of the skills that I think if you're interested in apologetics and doing apologetics a one of the skills that you need to develop is the skill the ability to utilize The resources that are represented by modern scholarship, even when you disagree With much of what is being said.

The ability to have discernment and to not be rocked off of your foundation by reading stuff that disagrees with where you come from. And what your conclusions are? That's one thing I see that a lot in in people who come into the chat channel and I just read this thing and oh, I I just got asked a question because you know, I'm I'm really concerned about this and that to me is an immediate sign of immaturity and And Really makes me wonder if you should be doing this kind of stuff in the first place if you can be so easily rocked by things.

You need to over time develop the ability to utilize sources that do not necessarily agree with you. But you know what liberals can get facts, right? They can frequently do good research and a lot of the critical commentaries that available today I do not in any way shape or form find them edifying at all.

I mean, it's it's sad I mean, I've got entire books in my library hundreds and hundreds of pages and thousands of footnotes and You can just tell So much time has been spent talking about every little thing that the entire message of the book gets completely lost.

It's just like yeah Nothing edifying in it whatsoever, but you still might find some useful information hiding in there someplace. But the point is there's all sorts of information out there on Logos Christology's and all the rest of stuff and primarily the people who are pushing the idea that the New Testament writers were just non innovative Copiers of fragments of preceding beliefs.

These people do not believe in divine revelation. They in fact their whole thing is since there isn't a such thing as divine revelation. Then we have to go running about to figure out well since there is no divine revelation where these guys get this.

What were their motivations and the presupposition is there is a divine revelation? Which again I find it rather odd if my Muslim friends utilize those sources. Why would you utilize sources that are written upon a presupposition that contradicts your own worldview?

Without critically taking that inconsiderate into consideration in the reading of it. I don't see many of my Muslim friends recognizing The inconsistency of the sources they use at that point. So anyway, that's a lot of background information and a few divergences there.

We didn't necessarily need just to bring you back up to speed. He's talking about these. He basically last thing he's talking about was Philo and saying well Philo came to this idea because God's so transcendent he couldn't touch the touch the universe and He's assuming I think That this is the origination of John's usage of this which I would disagree with greatly.

Because as I said, we're applying creative concepts, creative restrictions to an uncreated God. Now Christians may immediately ask, hang on, how is God relational? How does he love? And they say how can he be just and merciful all at the same time?

You know these questions aren't quite been answered by the Greek philosophers or been proposed. Well, I'd say that again these questions only come from an attempt to restrict an uncreated God's creative concepts.

We have created concepts of love and mercy. Muslims do not believe that our uncreated Lord can be found by them. So a summary of history, it's pretty clear that Greek philosophy introduced Jewish thinkers such as Philo and highly likely Jewish thinkers like Philo then influenced at least some of the writers of the New Testament.

There you go. There you have. It's highly likely that maybe this happened and maybe that then influenced this and I really think that if Abdullah wants to make this presentation. He's got it. He's got to provide a whole lot more than that.

He's got to deal with all of the information concerning the Old Testament influence as the primary source of John's utilization of this language and the fundament. Okay, if if John is just Borrowing this from Philo. Why does he so fundamentally change Philo's view?

Because if Philo's view is that you need to have the logos because God can't touch this universe. John 114 how long a Sarc's again at odd the word became flesh. Why is it that John's whole point? Is that this logos that has eternally existed and is as to his own nature deity?

Truly entered into flesh did not simply take on a human body. But again atop became flesh without ceasing to be the logos but became flesh. That that is a radical radical radical departure, where does that come from?

I mean if you're gonna if you're gonna buy into this idea and see the modern Muslim goes well. You know, all these books have been corrupted because they disappear the Quran. And so there's a there's a there's a prejudice an automatic prejudice that's right up front but Still you're gonna have to answer those questions.

Spirit. Slightly different theological context you have a rational ordering principle that is impersonal versus the personal logos that is the creator of all things drawing on wisdom and The Word of God, you know God spoke and it was all the way back from Genesis.

And why can't we then do the same thing with what the Quran does. I mean honestly if you're gonna start looking. And I really think that mr. Kundat needs to be called on this if you're gonna start if you're gonna start looking at trying to draw parallels.

There are lots of parallels to be drawn between Quranic materials and Pre-existing materials. Big time big time. And in fact the Quran itself tries to argue against that. Well, you know the quotes the the opponents.

So these are just the fables and myths of the ancients and so on and so forth. And no, it's not well. The fact the matter is if you apply those same kinds of standards, then I would assume he would have to come to the conclusion that if this kind of parallel is Valid and relevant to the New Testament.

Then the parallels that have been drawn between numerous sources. And I'm not even I'm just talking. I'm some of them are just so obvious I mean the Arabic infancy gospel and speaking from from G is speaking from his cradle and things like that Quran clearly drawing upon pre-existing sources and materials and Does he does he accept that and if he doesn't why not?

I mean, I would think theologically the way the Quran speaks that you couldn't come to that conclusion. I know many many of your quote-unquote moderate Muslims do. But just on a theological level, I I wonder how they how they handle that kind of kind of thing.

But just a call for consistency. Unassumable. Now Again, I'm I'm going to assume that this debate took place before The Forgotten Trinity arrived and I'm going to hope That mr. Kunda has had a chance to read that and if he'd like to read some other folks other than me That have addressed this.

I could I could direct him to some excellent works, but it is interesting. And I think helpful at times and frustrating at times to listen to an intelligent Muslim. Listening to us, I think that helps us maybe helps us to clarify how we're speaking.

How we need to speak. Helps us to clarify what we're saying. Some of you wonder why I belabor certain points either here on the dividing line or in my sermons or Bible study classes and this is probably why because in interacting with a wide variety of opposition of the Christian faith I try to be accurate and to consider how other people would be hearing what I'm saying and but you cannot I mean you'd Turn into the Amplified Bible if you tried to answer every single objection in every sermon and things like that.

You can't but you can try to hear what they're hearing and especially amongst Muslims now we find this amongst people who call themselves Christians. I mean we had the greatest example of it ever two weeks ago when Will Kinney called in and Will Kinney could not even begin to grasp basic rational thought and history.

Because of the strength of the traditions to which he was committed. Same thing here very often our Muslim friends Begin with the presupposition that our scriptures have been corrupted and Therefore there is.

Well quite honestly in listening to them speaking to each other there is often a fair amount of condescension toward Christians. They they don't seem to realize we've actually thought these things through fairly fairly in-depth and that we there are many of us who read our scriptures in their original languages and we We read early church writings and we know something about history, you know something about the development of doctrine and and yeah.

You know, they're actually we do, you know do all that kind of stuff and so as a result You you get statements like this in regards to what Christians believe and and why they believe it and and the history of the Trinity and and Really why their perspective is so superior, but it really isn't based upon fully understanding What it is we're saying now.

Let me let me just back this up just a second here and and get this repetition. Now what does the word actual. I want to make sure I had the right word what does an actual son mean. I think I know what the Quran means by that because the Quran specifically talks about how can God have a son if he does not have a spouse a wife someone corresponding to him by which you can have offspring and It seems to me that the writer of the Quran thought that Jesus was the literal offspring of God the Father via a female and The only times I can find in the Quran When it says do not say three do not say three it is blasphemy.

Do not say three. It's excess the only time it lists three in the same context and surah five is when Allah says to Jesus at the Judgment Day. Did you say to men? Worship me and my mother as gods and derogation of Allah and I think we're working.

We're finally working on the Zawadi debate, aren't we? And Need to get that out because that was I mean it was live-streamed. So it's probably already out there someplace, but definitely to make that available because The essence of that debate was my arguing that you can actually figure out what the Quran is saying and him arguing that you can't and And that there was a consistency in what the Quran says on this subject actual son.

Remember a little over a year ago. What was going on very often on the dividing line? We were talking about something called the Ergen-Kanner scandal and that hasn't gone away. Ergen-Kanner is just hiding in Arlington, Texas someplace, but I love the Twitter thing recently somebody sent me this thing.

Someone sent it to Ergen-Kanner. It says not they say everything's bigger down in Texas. What's your biography looking like now? I Bet you he got blocked real quick, but anyway Remember one of one of the main reasons that I was so concerned about this subject.

Was I I played one of these interviews? Which I guess Ergen-Kanner calls a debate between Ergen-Kanner and a oneness Pentecostal and At one point the oneness Pentecostal Asked a simple question of Ergen-Kanner finally got a chance to sort of turn the tables.

Asked a simple question about the nature of divine sonship. Now Ergen-Kanner claims to be a former Muslim and anybody who deals with Islam knows that one of the primary things you must deal with on a regular basis is what?

The Islamic objection to Jesus as the Son of God. Hence, what is the nature of sonship and Here it's coming up in this debate between Abdullah Kunda and Samuel Green. Actual son actual son. Well, we do confess That Jesus Christ is Son of God.

What do we mean by that given that our scriptures state? That Jesus Christ has eternally existed. Not as Jesus of Nazareth. But that the second person of the Trinity the son has always been the son. The father has always been the father.

The father did not become the father at a point in time. There are some texts seem to. You know talk about incarnational language at some points. There's clearly texts like Colossians 1 that talk about the Son of God and this is before the incarnation.

This is one of the big issues. We'll be dealing with With Roger Perkins and the oneness folks is the pre-existence of the Sun as the Sun. Now never is there anything about a heavenly mother? There is never any suggestion of sexuality procreation and.

And in fact the discussions have to do with an eternal relationship a loving relationship revealed especially in The Gospel of John but alluded to by the Apostle Paul as well so in multiple New Testament sources.

And the Father and the Son then send the Holy Spirit and in fact The the abode the the abiding presence of the Father and the Son with us is through the presence of the Holy Spirit so We clearly have a belief that Jesus is the Son of God, but we do not have a belief in any kind of physical procreation it is utterly unlike any other kind of Triad of gods or all these other things.

You constantly hear that people throwing out the Babylonians had their trinities and all the rest of stuff and none of them ever even contemplated a Discussion of this within context of monotheism. They never even contemplated What it is the Christianity teaches on these matters?

Didn't didn't even come close and so if you're going to say That is wrong then you need to demonstrate that a you can describe it properly and Hence if you're gonna say that God has an actual son say that that the Father and the Son Have eternally existed in that relationship.

Without beginning and without end it is definitional of who they are. It is part of the very means by which the divine persons are differentiated from one another. God has actually Chosen to allow us his tiny creatures to have knowledge of some of the ways in which the divine persons are Distinguished from one another in their full participation of the one being that is God.

Not just in how not just in the economic Trinity that is in the roles that they have taken in The redemption of mankind we can clearly see the differentiations there. But we are actually allowed in just a couple of texts To see something more than that distinctions Outside of just how they have acted in creation and the relationship of Father and the Son is one of those and so We're talking about an eternal relationship here, we're not talking about God siring a son.

We're not talking about the Sun coming into existence. And what's gonna happen here one of the reasons I'm spending this time. Is it is it Abdullah's gonna? Have some texts. Just and I don't think he's actually read the fuller books from which these came.

But he's gonna have some texts he's gonna read from various early church fathers. And it's interesting to listen to a Muslim reading patristic sources from through a Muslim lens. So that when you encounter Discussions of the Sonship of Christ some of which are unguarded some of which aren't even necessarily orthodox they are taken as Being definitive whereas the creedal statements To which many of these writers subscribed that specifically state.

There is there is no beginning or end of this relationship and and it's not a matter of one one person Creating another person and etc, etc. They're they're listened to and heard in a specifically Islamic context even though that's grossly anachronistic because Islam didn't exist at that time and.

So I'm giving you that background so when you can hear it when you hear it we can we can better better discuss it. Now let me stop just a second. Augustine is writing very early in Christian history. Augustine is is one of the one of the later.

I mean, he's he's certainly not an apostolic father. He's not one of the apologists. Much of his theological writing is done at the beginning of the 5th century. And so Really early, I'm not sure that you'd want to do that, but Augustine is writing after Nicaea he is writing after a number of the major councils.

He's after writing after the Arian controversy has been settled and as A result you have to interpret His words in the context of all that he's written especially his book on the Trinity. And not in an Islamic context.

I think that's just sort of rather a given, isn't it? Now this is the lengthy discussion of The relationship of the father and the son and whether we can appropriately describe this as One for example, we talked about this the spirit we talked about the procession of the spirit and here we're talking about whether the the father alone is ungenerous.

Whereas the son is generated by the father. And I understand why a Muslim Listens to that conversation in a chronological Context, but that's not Augustine's context. We're talking about eternal activities we're describing relationships.

Not creation and here would be my challenge to mr. Kunda or any other of my Muslim friends and that is. Can you seriously look me in the eye and say yep, that's exactly what the author of the Quran understood.

Because I don't see it. Maybe it's my prejudice. Maybe I'm missing something. But it does not seem to me that the author of the Quran and remember Augustine was long dead by the time the Quran came along and was widely known and so If you're if you're gonna go here Then it would seem to me that the consistent thing to do the thing that would be truly telling.

The thing that would really show that the you know People always talk about the miracle of the Quran the miracle of the Quran and How nobody can produce anything like it really honest. That one's always just left me going.

I Guess that's really impressive in certain lands. It ain't overly impressive here because Sorry, there's whole sections of the Quran where I go what? This is there's no one could write anything like this and Just on on any level I would go.

I know lots of literature that is greatly superior. Well, it's just all in the Arabic. Well, okay I talked to a lot of my Arabic speaking friends and they're like, well, it's just not just not the case but I look at the Carmen Christi and I go that's way beyond anything in the Quran and There's all sorts of sections of Isaiah that that that laud the the oneness of God.

Not Unitarianism, but monotheism. They're not the same thing. And in in much better words than anything I've ever found the Quran so I just I don't I don't buy that. But look me in the eye and tell me the author of this Quran when he's talking about Say not three.

That he understands what Augustine was talking about. Sorry, I I have a hard time accepting that. I mean I you have to say it, but can you really defend it? Just Hold on if we jump to Justin Martyr, well, this is to jump backwards.

By a long-distance. Centuries to Justin Martyr. Justin Marty mid-second century and Justin Martyr is one of the most commonly cited early church writers by people who are attempting to introduce confusion in the early church and I remember I mean I first taught church history at Grand Canyon University in 1990.

Wow over 21 years ago. I Had hair back then the whole yards and I remember From 21 years ago. One of the comments that I made I remember what room we were in in what classroom building. It's really weird how some things stick with you like that and it's really weird how once you start getting into the middle age part of your life you start talking about things like this and Realizing that you're getting older.

But anyways One of the things that I said to my class was that it is painfully obvious to me That Justin Martyr was significantly more familiar with Plato than he was with Paul. Well, I didn't know how right that was because in preparation for a debate years later I Worked all the way through Justin Martyr and lo and behold Justin Martyr never quotes Paul.

In fact, there's really no evidence that he was even familiar with Paul. So you have a writer who is seeking to present? Justin never took off the philosopher's cloak. You know, he's he's sort of one of those Jesus persons, you know back in the 70s the 60s and 70s.

Walking down the the seashore and runs into something whoo cool and and You know as a result you just you take him for where he was at that time. Okay, that's wonderful. That's great but trying to make him indicative of Orthodoxy as a whole and Not recognizing the huge difference contextually between Justin Martyr and Augustine.

I Mean huge difference. Nicaea has taken place In between this this time period. I mean there's there's been a lot of discussion going on Just isn't good and a guy who doesn't even have access the entirety of the New Testament including some most important material on The issue of the nature of the Sonship of Christ.

Just just keep in mind whenever you hear constant citations of Justin Martyr that there might be a reason why they're where they're going there.

The first forgotten of the unforgotten God. Justin Martyr also said that the word Logos just means word for those who don't know. The word is God's offspring and child.

The word is God's offspring and child in the Greek philosophical sense. Since Plato's is primary source. Not in a Muslim sense not that are you actually suggesting that Justin Martyr thought that that God Begat literal children.

I mean, I understand that down in Mecca. I understand that around the Kaaba I understand Allah has his daughters and his wife and all the rest that stuff and so I fully understand that in the polemic context of Muhammad.

But that's not the polemic context of Justin Martyr. And this is this is where we see someone importing their their context reading our sources from their context and folks if We if we hear this and we go of all those Muslims shouldn't do that.

We shouldn't do it in reverse either and Man, do we hear it all the time? That's one of the things that concerns me is If We're gonna call upon them to be more accurate in handling our sources then we've got to try to be just as accurate in handling theirs and I try to be and I'm certainly striving for that, but unfortunately there are a lot of Lot of people sort of preying on evangelicals these days.

That are not careful in their comments about Islam at all. A Rational power out of himself see that's. That's that's not even a an appropriate understanding of what the Logos is. But again given Justin's context and the limited amount of information he has.

What's he driving that from primarily Greek philosophy? That's not where John was coming from. That's not where Paul was coming from. But here in the middle of the second century. You've got a a converted philosopher who is still much more philosopher than he is Christian theologian being cited.

And there's just no reason to do it to try to create this canard that Christians believe that Jesus is a Begotten Son of God in the sense of the Quran's understanding of that. That God has a wife they have a kid comes into existence that is not we believe in any way shape or form.

Now Athanasius. That there are he wrote entire books on the deity of Christ his eternal nature his relationship to the Father and One little quote is not even is not even enough to begin to explain what Athanasius is view of Christ was and again.

What is Athanasius defending? When's he writing these things? Primarily in the middle of the fourth century in Defense of the Council of Nicaea and. So what are you going if you're going to honestly deal with Athanasius?

What is going to be your overriding consideration? Well his historical context. What's he doing? He's defending Nicaea five times. He's could have kicked out of his church because he will not condemn Nicaea and.

So if you don't have that in your interpretation of Athanasius, then you're don't pretend you're actually interpreting Athanasius. Because you're not and We could you know bury somebody in the citations of Athanasius.

Affirming the eternal nature of the Sonship of Christ and all the rest that stuff. He wrote entire books on the subject. I've said one of the encouraging things that Has has been my experience over the years was back in seminary when I was doing a lot of the spending a lot of time reading these guys and Engaging in in polemics and apologetics was very often their interpretation not always but especially with Athanasius.

This was this was the case their interpretation of scriptural passages their arguments in regards the deity of Christ. Those were the same ones that I was using Many many many years later and that there is a there's a real encouragement there.

Christian theologians themselves say that the son is the literal offspring of the father in their context what they meant by that is. When you talk about literal offspring is not a created being but that there is a literal eternal Relationship between the father and the son that has always been.

No wives No procreation No beginning No end. It is a relationship that describes it is a relation a relationship that allows us to discern Between the father and the son if that is what is condemned in the Quran.

Show me where? Show me where? I'll fire up my Quran here on on on my computer and you show me I will show you where the Quran speaks of a very physical sexually based Relationship and no one will argue I think That I could not show you numerous Muslims who over the years have argued exactly that one big name Ahmed D dot.

What was his constant argument? Sonship has to do with the lower sexual nature. How many times do we hear him say that in? Debate after debate we've played on this very program. Where do you get that you got it from the Quran now if you want to tell me D dot was wrong.

Go ahead and tell me. I know that not every Islamic apologist just bows down at the feet of Ahmed D dot and says he was the greatest thing ever. But he certainly is the most listened to Islamic apologist and at the very least we can certainly understand where he got his ideas.

I Think he was being fair in his reading of the Quran at that point. So anyway. No, no, that's not what that said. That is when it says the the Sun the Sun had an origin not in time. Not in time. As I discussed in in the book basically this is describing the three persons in a in as the as the the father in in the background and flowing forth from the father the revelation in the Sun and Flowing forth from the father in the Sun now the spirit Who indwells us and and again?

We as time bound creatures insist upon applying Temporal categories these things no matter how many times I jump up and down saying we're not talking about Creation in time. We're not talking about the Sun coming into existence.

There was never a time when the Sun was not. That that was established. That was the Aryan perspective and that was long gone by the time Athanasius and Augustine both of them opposed that very concept.

So to take these words and read them in an Islamic context from the 7th century Rather than the context there originally and that's where the problem comes up. There you go now there there he recognizes an important element of this we're talking about outside of Time we're not talking about what the Quran was talking about and so will Abdullah Kunda understand The need to avoid anachronism and the reading back into Christian theology Categories enforced upon it by a religion that comes along hundreds of years later.

That's the question.

Well, that's a big issue. I want to hear it again. Think about that.

Well that there really wasn't any response that that's a big issue. Think about that. Yeah, it is and We will think about that in October.

So I think he literally had a son? Well we'd say that. Christians apparently do believe that. Now what was I asking?

Did he literally have a son? Well, we would think that Christians actually believe that no matter what Christians say about the nature of that sonship. That's one of the problems with this dialogue. So Abdullah is saying that the Quran because I've met Muslims are saying.