TwitterTube Premiers on the Dividing Line

On a Tuesday morning, lots of things to get to today. Wanted to start off with a biblical text and then I'm going to be responding to some questions directed toward me in a conversation with a Muslim on Twitter this morning.

We have a brief response to Pastor Anderson on the use of language, some new Mormonism resources that are out there, and a fellow in Russia who says, the Sola Scriptura honestly scares me. That's just a start, and then maybe we'll get to some of your phone calls too, though that's a pretty long list when you start to think about it.

We'll see how quickly those things go. I was struck in my reading this morning of the scriptures, once again, by a particular passage, certainly a passage that is familiar to many of us, but believers certainly recognize the experience of encountering a well-known passage that I think one of the subjective elements of the Christian experience of scripture because of its spiritual nature is encountering new truths, not in the sense of new revelation or something like that, but you're at a point in your life where you reread a text and it has new meaning.

It's not that the meaning of the text has changed, but because there is a spiritual element, we can go deeper into the text, we can hear things that maybe we did not hear with as much clarity before. I'm thinking especially right now of Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians, and you know the context, you know the rather difficult text in 2 Corinthians 4 .3, even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in their case, the God of this world.

Who is that? And we've discussed before, the majority of commentators believe this is Satan, but there is a very interesting case to be made in light of the context, that this is actually God's judgment upon a people, but leaving that aside, that's not the text, I'm actually, I'm just giving the context.

In their case, the God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel, the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. Listen to that phraseology, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel, of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

What incredible description that is given of Jesus at that point, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel, of the glory of Christ. How is the gospel, how is the gospel light, first of all? I mean, are we really to understand that the light of the gospel, the light that comes from the gospel, is this really identifying the gospel as light?

And how does that relate to the light of the gospel, of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God? I mean, again, this is the same apostle who is a clear monotheist, who believes there's only one true God, and yet he speaks of Jesus in ways that simply could not be spoken of a mere creature.

It's just not possible. The light of the gospel, of the glory of Christ. So when you think of the gospel, what is the essence of that gospel? Sadly, for many people, and I mentioned this in the sermon Sunday evening, I'm gonna post those once the audio is up, the fact that if you start at a man-centered perspective and try to reason upward to God, so much in the New Testament makes no sense.

It just does not make any sense at all. It's just empty words, it really is. But when you recognize that the gospel is what the triune God has done to glorify himself, and that central to the gospel is the incarnation, the eternal second person of the trinity entering into human flesh, then you start understanding what these words meant.

The light of the gospel, of the glory of Christ, who is Has Estin Aikon Tuthayu, the image of God, the very representation of God. The reason that we know we can have true gnosis, knowledge, epinosis, of the character of God the Father is because he has been revealed with perfection.

He has been exegeted, explained in the incarnation of the son. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ. It's Yesun Christan Kurion. Jesus Christ as Kurios, as Lord, not as just a mere Lord, not one of many Lords, not just a representation of God.

I was listening to an anti-Trinitarian yesterday, and the real big popular perspective now, and you saw it in the debate that Michael Brown and I did against Anthony Buzzard and Joseph Goode. Jesus only bears the name of God because he represents God.

And so like the angel of the Lord or something like that, it's just a representation. Notice not only the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, which could never be said of some mere representation, some human representative, like an ambassador, but Jesus Christ as Kurios, as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for what?

For Jesus's sake. Servitude, avad in Hebrew is always connected with worship when it comes to divine things in the Old Testament. And so you're servants of Yahweh. Even my Muslim friends can understand this, Abdullah, servants of Allah.

But here, long before Muhammad came along, you have the description of us as servants for Jesus's sake. And then there's the verse that caught my mind. It's really, the whole context is so incredible.

For God who said, let light shine out of darkness. Now, here again, when you look at the original language, you see in verse six, and for those on live cam, my Bible program's over here. I'd normally, I guess I should put it over there.

When you look at the text, you see in verse four, hathayas, and then you see verse six, hathayas. For the God, the one who said, let light shine out of darkness. Well, we know who that was. That's not the God of this world.

It's hard to avoid the implication at that point. But anyways, for God who said, let light shine out of darkness, has shown in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Wow, God has shown in our hearts. So there you have the light of the gospel. God has shown in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Again, I suggest that no honest person, no person who is not under spiritual deception can call these words God's words and not see that Jesus is on the far side of the creator-creation distinction.

In other words, that Jesus is more than a mere apostle. He's more than a mere man. He's more than mere representative. He is on the other side of that massive divide between creator and creation. He is the creator.

Now he has entered into creation. He has taken on that human nature so that the connection can be made. We have a mediator in the presence of the father. But clearly it is the very language of this primitive period of time in the history of the Christian church to have the highest view of Jesus and the highest view of not only his person, but his role in the gospel, and that the gospel is a glorious thing.

Because if you look at the two texts, you have the light of the gospel, the glory of Christ, then you have, has shown our hearts to give light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

So how do we know about God's glory? Well, in the face of Jesus Christ. What an amazing statement. Absolute amazing statement. The light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

That is what we desire God to reveal. If you really want to ask the question, what should our desire be? It's a holiday season. We've got, the holiday season, tremendous opportunity of witness because both Thanksgiving and Christmas, natural introductions to spiritual things.

You don't have to, you don't have to come up, but you don't have to make things up. You don't have to make things up, especially with Thanksgiving, because the very term, the very term, assumes the existence of a God to whom we are giving thanks, which is why it's really not overly popular amongst secular folks, because they don't have anybody to give thanks to.

But what an opportunity, when we want to pray, Lord, reveal to this person's heart, shine into this person's heart to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Because when God is the one who saves, when God is the one who initiates, when God brings about regeneration, there is a shining into the heart, a giving of the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, which is why, when I hear of apostates, when I hear of people who once claimed to follow after Christ, and now they've gone after these other things, they've gone off into Romanism, I always sit there and go, how could anyone who has truly recognized their utter and complete dependence upon the perfection of the gospel, who has truly received the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, how can they ever accept such a shallow substitute?

Such a shallow substitute? There is something very supernatural, by its very definition, in regards to what it truly means to be converted to Jesus Christ. Well, as I mentioned, I have a lot of things to get to, I had an exchange this morning with a Muslim in Twitter, by the name of Optimus Tricepto, which sounds really interesting, I'm not sure what that means, but all sorts of Twitter handles are themselves rather interesting.

And Twitter, by its very nature, what makes Twitter so useful is as a means of communicating short bits of information, URLs, I appreciate people saying, hey, have you seen this, have you seen that? 70 of the time, I have seen it, but it's the other 30 that's very useful, there have been many times, we've discussed things on the dividing line because someone sent me something via Twitter and so I appreciate that.

Sometimes after about the sixth or 12th URL, it's the same, everybody sent me the Steven Anderson thing we're going to talk about a little bit later on. I've just got to get used to that, and it's like, no, nevermind.

Anyhow, we started having a discussion, and because it had started off, let me see here, yeah, just asked if I'd ever debated Bart Ehrman, and yes, I have. And I clicked on the name here, and of course, now it says there was an error.

Okay, there we go. And in the bio, it says monotheism, God is the sole non-created living being and is one in one, not and never a person. Polytheism, God is one in multitude, two, three, or even more.

I wonder if that's changed since this morning. I didn't think it was quite that long, but clearly, in fact, I think it has changed because there was something about the Quran and Islam in it before, now it's gone.

So I think it's been changed since this morning. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that's my recollection. Anyway, it made a common error, and it's an error that is created by the fact that the author of the Quran did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

And I discuss this rather fully in my book, and I would invite Optimus Tricepto to read whatever Christians should know about the Quran. There is a discussion, there's an entire chapter on what the Quran teaches about Say Not Three, and I go through that, and I'll be talking a little bit about that here in a moment.

But what I pointed out was the common category error that Muslims make, and we all need to be aware of this, and that is they assume that monotheism equals Unitarianism. In fact, he even said later on, Unitarianism is a Christian domination, monotheism is not, please elaborate.

Most Muslims aren't even aware of the fact, yeah, there's a denomination out there, it's a non-Christian denomination of Unitarians, but Unitarianism is a specific technical term, just as Trinitarianism is, and they're both in the same category.

Unitarianism, one person, Trinitarianism, three persons, monotheism, one god, henotheism, one main god, lesser gods possible, polytheism, generally equal multiple gods, and there's some breakdowns even in there when we discuss the various religions of men.

And what I point out was, he was confusing and making the equation between Unitarianism and monotheism, that the only way you can be a monotheist is if you're a Unitarian, which is begging the question.

Christians are monotheists, and they're Trinitarians. Unfortunately, the author of the Quran didn't understand how that could be, and most Muslims just simply follow the ignorance of the author of the Quran at that point, and if you're offended by that, well, I'm sorry you're offended by that, but the fact of the matter is, you would have a hard time demonstrating to me that the author of the Quran did accurately understand the doctrine that he not only denounces, but calls deception, and says that anyone who confesses it is going to go to hellfire.

If you're going to make those kind of statements, it might be a good idea if you actually know what you're talking about, but there simply isn't any evidence in the Quran that he did know what he was talking about, and in fact, there's clear evidence that he didn't.

Now, my Muslim friend, we've sort of gone back and forth, and that's how it works in Twitter. I get busy, I have to go do something. I'm not sitting around watching Twitter all day. I had to go get cleaned up and get dressed and all the rest of that kind of stuff, and so it goes sort of, you'll get three or four tweets responding to what you said, then you respond, and that's just how it goes, and I must say, it's been a useful conversation, and I believe that he's watching even now.

I hope so. I'm assuming it's a he. I mean, I suppose someone could be a female with optimist tricepto, but probably not. It'd be tricepta if we wanted to go that direction. Anyways, and started to get into some of the, you know, he sort of said, well, thanks for the conversation.

You know, may the Lord open your heart to him before it is too late, and of course, I responded with a text from 2 Corinthians chapter four, but when I did so, I point out the problem with the Quran at this point, and he says the word gods does not appear in the Quran.

You manipulated the Bible and introduced the term persons to God, and he says it's blasphemy. Well, you're assuming the meaning of the word person that the early Christians did not assume, and that again, the author of the Quran was ignorant of, even though these discussions had taken place hundreds of years beforehand, the author of the Quran not only doesn't know what's in the Torah and the Injil, borrows from Jewish fables, Christian fables, Gnostic gospels, thinks it's all a part of the Torah and the Injil, because he did not have direct access to it, and it was ignorant of its contents.

I mean, I think that's a fact that can be demonstrated. I would be happy to demonstrate that in debate, and I think that's one of the topics we're gonna need to address, especially in some of the debates we're gonna be doing in the future.

That needs to be one of the issues, is does the Quran depend upon non-inspired sources and differentiate between them? And I think I can make a very, very strong case that it does, and I lay that case out in whatever a Christian needs to know about the Quran.

But when it says, when he says the word gods does not appear in the Quran, what I was referring to was every time the Quran says say not three, what's the next line? Let me read you one. Surah five, beginning at ayah 72.

They have certainly disbelieved to say, Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary, while the Messiah has said, O children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. I, again, only stop long enough to point out the inconsistency of my Muslim friends, who believe that they can reject what is found in the gospels, which all come from the first century, and yet believe that Jesus actually said these words when they have no historical evidence of it for 600 years.

Little bit of an inconsistency there. Anyway, and since this conversation started with Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman would never believe Jesus said that. Anyways, indeed, he who associates others with Allah, that's the sin of Shirk, Allah has forbidden him paradise, and his refuge is the fire.

Strong words. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers. They have certainly, ayah 73, they have certainly disbelieved, who say, Allah is the third of three, and what's the very next phrase? Every time the word three appears, what's the very next phrase?

And there is no God except one God. Every time. We can go back, if you want, to surah four, ayah 171, and you're gonna find the same thing. O people of the scripture, do not commit excess in your religion, or say about Allah except the truth.

The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah, and his word which he directed to Mary, and a soul created to command from him. So believe in Allah as messengers, and do not say three, desist, it is better for you.

What's the next phrase? Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is he above having a son. So, if I say to you, do not say that there are three great football teams. There's only one. Do I have to repeat the phrase so you understand what I'm talking about?

Or if I say there's only one great football team, don't say there are three. Do you go, three what? No, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I haven't changed context. And so the Quran's very clear.

Every time it says do not say three, there's only one God, what's it saying? There are not three gods. How else could it be understood? And in our conversation, Optimus Tricepto said, well, that's talking about persons.

Where do you get that? Where do you have any evidence whatsoever that the author of the Quran even had the slightest idea what we know about this, what we taught about this at that time? Because we can demonstrate these were things that were being taught at that particular time.

He says, God is not a person. Praises he above what you ascribe to him. Really? Allah's not personal? You see, you are assuming, you're not aware, my dear Muslim friend, of the conversations that need to take place to be able, for us to be able to talk to each other.

And the reason for that is because the source, your ultimate authority was written by someone who didn't know what the conversation was about. I'm not saying God is a human being when I use the term person.

I'm saying he's personal. He uses personal pronouns. The God of the Quran uses personal pronouns. So he's personal. You think he's impersonal? See, there's many category errors that Muslims have simply because they frequently, unfortunately, do not get outside of the realm of their own religious faith and dialogue with others in a meaningful way.

And when Muslims do that, then they're forced to start utilizing vocabulary that's beyond the Quran to answer questions the author of the Quran never thought to address. And if they're not willing to do so, then we're never gonna get any place in talking to one another.

And so, for example, he quoted, well, referred me to Quran 4 .171, which I just read to you all. And I read Surah 572. And then said, can you show me exactly why I'm not listening to the Quran? Yeah. Say there is only one God.

That is always the response to the mention of three. Now, let me throw another thing into the mix here for, in fact, let me look over here because I believe that there might've been some follow-up here.

No, I don't see any follow-up here. I did repost the new URL. I had put the one out before we had the technical difficulties. I hope you got that one, or I'm talking to the air here. But let me throw another issue at us here.

And what are the three? Optimist, tricepto. Oh, good. He's listening. Here's another question for you. Who are the three according to the Quran? Show me anywhere in the Quran where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned.

Now, you know, in Quranic interpretation anyways, the Holy Spirit is the angel Jabril. But where are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ever mentioned in the Quran? There's only one place where three are mentioned together in this same context.

And if you haven't had an opportunity to do so, I would strongly recommend you go on YouTube, which is where you are right now if you're watching me. And do a search for the debate that I did with Bassam Zawadi in London on the issue, does the Quran misrepresent the Bible or Christianity?

I forget which term was. And what you'll discover is at the end of that debate, I'm defending the idea that you can actually read the Quran and understand what it says, that it has a context. And Bassam's saying you can't do that.

You can't, you can't. Did I say Bible? The Quran. I was saying you can read the Quran and it has a context. He was saying you can't do that with the Quran. You can't take Surah 5, 17 through 20, Surah 5, 71, 72, 73, and Surah 5, 116 and following.

You can't connect that together because it's pretty obvious what happens if you do. Because what does Surah 5, 116 say? It's the only place, the only place you can disagree with me. But show me some place, show me that I'm wrong from the actual text.

It's the only place where you have three mentioned. Surah 5, 116. And beware of the day when Allah will say, Oh, Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, take me and my mother as deities in derogation of Allah.

Allah, Mary, Jesus. There's your three. There's your three. He will say, exalted you is not for me to say that, which I have no right. If I had said it, you would have known it. You know what is within yourself.

I do not know what is within yourself. You know what is within myself. I do not know what is within yourself. Indeed, it is you who is knower of the unseen. So here you have the three. And at the final judgment, Allah says to Jesus, did you say the people worship me and my mother as deities apart from Allah?

There's your Allah, third of three, Jesus, Mary, Allah. And you'll also see, and I haven't had time to develop it, but you'll also see, if you look carefully, exalted is Allah above what? Having a son, having a son.

So what's the understanding? Allah, Mary, have a son named Jesus. So there's your three. And that is a misunderstanding of the Trinity. That is not what Christians have ever believed. There is a religious group today that does believe that.

And I've been consistent identifying them as non-Christians, but they did not exist in the days of Muhammad. They're called Mormons. And they do have the idea of God and Mary having offspring named Jesus, but they weren't around in the days of Muhammad.

And so here's the question. Why should I believe this is the word of God if it does not accurately represent what Christians believe at the time it was written? There's the question, there's the question.

So I did read Surah 4, verse 171. He just asked in Twitter, could you read this? I did, I read it. And I explained the problem with it. And I'll, but since you request it, O people of the book, Yalal Kitab, do not commit excess.

Do not go beyond the bounds. This is how Muslims understand what we believe. We've gone beyond the bounds, the revelation in our exaltation of Jesus Christ. But I just read 2 Corinthians chapter four, didn't I?

Have we gone beyond that? No. Did, here's the question, my friend, did the author of the Quran know 2 Corinthians chapter four? The answer is no. Can you show me any evidence, anywhere, that the author of the Quran knew of what was found in 2 Corinthians chapter four?

And in fact, I just got good news. The DVDs of the debates in South Africa are finished. They should be coming to us fairly quickly. We'll make them available as quickly as we possibly can. And I think you'll find the debate that I did with Shabir Ali at the University of Pretoria, especially interesting at this point, because he makes the argument that the Apostle Paul believed Jesus was Yahweh.

Which is right, he did. It's the problem to say, well, but he was against the apostles and all the rest of that. So we can get into that at another point. But the point is, that was the belief prior to Muhammad.

Why is there no argumentation against that? Why doesn't the Quran seem to understand that that was the established position by the sixth century? It's addressing us, who are the people of the scripture?

Who are the Al-Kitab? Is that not us? Is it not the Al-Anjil in Surah 547? The people of the gospel? Well, if these words had meaning when they were spoken, then they have to address what we ourselves believed then.

And I can demonstrate beyond all question what Christians believed about this in the sixth century, in the seventh century, in the time leading right up to the revelation of the Quran. So there's no question about it.

They didn't believe this. Anyway, do not commit excess in your religion to say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and his word which he directed to Mary and a soul created a command from him.

Now, there have been a lot of missionaries who have tried to make a lot out of this particular verse. They've tried to make a connection. For example, when it says his word, the word here and the Logos in the prologue of John, I'm not sure that...

I don't think it's a valid thing to do. I know it's very popular, but I don't think it's a valid thing to do because it assumes a knowledge on the part of the author of the Quran that I see no evidence anywhere that I could back that up.

And the standard Islamic interpretation of the text is that this is where God said, B, and Jesus came into existence. And do not say, three, desist. It is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God.

Exalt is he above having a son. This is exactly what I've just been saying. The author thinks that there's one God, not three gods, and that God doesn't have children. And as Surah 5, verse 16 says, with Mary as his spouse.

Is it Surah, what is it, 61 -6 off the top of my head? You know, if God wanted to take a child, how can he have a son if he doesn't have a spouse? If he doesn't have a woman by which he can have this child.

Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalt is he above having a son. To him belongs whatever is in heavens and whatever is on earth. And sufficient is the law as to dispose of affairs. So there you go. There's Surah 4, verse 171.

Oh, okay, he's saying, there's your three. Because he mentions, well, okay. I appreciate your attempt here. No, no, no, I think this is fine. I think this is great. Here's what he's trying to argue. And he put double exclamation points twice.

So I want to make sure you all get his point. God is speaking, plus mentioning Christ, plus Holy Spirit, it is there in 4 .171. Now, let's look back at this here. Because everybody's going, oh, wait a minute.

The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah, and his word, which he directed to Mary. So is the word a fourth person? And a soul created as command from him. So both of those describing Jesus has nothing to, there's nothing about a spirit here at all.

I mean, unless you want to say that both word and soul here are being attributed to Jesus, not to a third person. The only way you could have a third person here is if you bring Mary in again, I suppose, which is exactly what the author does in Sura 5 .116.

So I'm sorry, but to try to shoehorn the spirit, Father, Son, and Spirit, into the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah, and his word, which he directed to Mary, and a soul created from him.

Those ands are all descriptive of Jesus. There's not a third person here. Sorry, if you want to show me something from the Arabic that says otherwise, don't think so, don't think so. Doesn't work, but it was a noble try.

The people of scripture are Nazarenes who neglect Paul. You are Romans. And how do you prove that from the text? I'm enjoying this. I hope you're finding it helpful too. Welcome to call in if you wanted to.

Toll free, 877 -753 -3341, or I'll just keep reading your tweets, whichever is, I mean, you may be at work, you may be in a situation where you can't do it. I understand that. I'm just saying the option is there, 877 -753 -3341, or Skype at dividing .line.

Either one would work. But no, it is not you. People of the scripture are Nazarenes who neglect Paul. You are Romans. Where do you get that from the text? The Christians of Najran, that most Muslim scholars believe is the background for Surah three, they were not some kind of whatever you call Nazarenes, you're probably referring to the Ebionites, about which we know almost nothing.

What's the evidence that Muhammad had any encounters with any of these people? What evidence do you have? I mean, so why, in fact, you just refuted yourself. They wouldn't have said three, they weren't Trinitarians.

So why would he say to the people of the scriptures, if they were non-Trinitarians, do not say three? Why would you describe them as unbelievers when they didn't believe in the Trinity? Sorry, doesn't work.

That one fell flat. You gotta take that one back. This is your translation. Actually, this is the Sahih International, is what I happen to be reading there. But if you want to say his word which he directed Mary and his soul created, if you want to say that spirit, that's fine, it's still descriptive of Jesus.

Those are all descriptions of Jesus, just as messenger of Allah, is that Jesus? Word which he directed Mary, soul created a command from him. It's all about Jesus, there is no third person there. It's just not there, it's not there.

I mean, I try to do with the Quran what unfortunately most of my Muslim friends won't do with the Bible. Actually try to let it speak for itself. I wish y 'all would let the Bible speak for itself. But my experience, the vast majority of Muslims will not allow the Bible to speak for itself.

I am trying to allow Surah 4171 to speak for Surah 4171. My experience is most Muslims, especially conservative Sunni, Salafi, those who give a tremendous amount of weight to the Sunnah and to the Hadith, aren't overly concerned about the contextual reading of the Quran itself.

They're concerned about the Orthodox reading of the Quran in light of the Hadith. And that's a problem. Yeah, this is interesting. I'm enjoying this. I like this live interaction because you just proved my point.

And I just now looked down and read the tweet. Islam sources are Quran plus prophet sayings plus his companions understanding the former and latter. In other words, the interpretation of the Quran is not determined by the language and its historical context.

It's interpreted by the later construction of tradition based upon your particular interpretation of the Hadith. There you go. But where did Ibn Kathir interpret any of these texts the way you did? Ah, he's too early.

Okay. Really makes, again, really makes me wonder when the clear meaning of the text can be overthrown by a later interpretation. That's what happens in Roman Catholicism where the clear meaning of the text is overthrown by later interpretation that is derived from interpreting certain early fathers in a particular way.

And as you well know, there are all sorts of disputes amongst scholars of the Hadith and of the Sunnah of Muhammad as to where to put the emphasis. Not only do you have your various schools of interpretation but you'll have disagreements even amongst them.

And that's why I've taken the time to read al-Sahih al-Bukhari and al-Sahih Muslim and portions of Jami' at-Tirmidhi and Sunnah of Abu Dawud and all the rest of those sources. The fact of the matter is they're not consistent with themselves.

And so one side can set up their sources and I put the most weight on these Hadith and another side over here on these Hadith and now the text of the Quran becomes dependent. It becomes this play-doh that you can form into whatever your particular school says it should say.

It's a pretty scary thing. I think I'm being quite honest with the text of Surah 4, 171 at that point. Well, one last thing and then I've got a bunch of other things to go to and I've enjoyed the interaction.

You've got to admit, we're not afraid to go to the text and deal with the issues straightforwardly. That's what we try to do around here. Because the Trinity is not the sole thing on which we judge people if they ascribe to polytheism or not.

Well, there's no question about the fact that the earliest portions of the Quran are primarily concerned about the polytheism that Muhammad encounters in Mecca itself and in the worship around the Kaaba, at least in Orthodox Islamic interpretation and I don't have too much of a problem with that.

But these verses that I read are directly addressed to the Al-Kitab. They have to have a meaning. Let me just put it this way. When Muhammad came out of the trans-like state that he would go into, the sweating and so on and so forth, and he gave these words that become Surah 5, Surahs 4 and 5.

Let's just stick with 4 and 5 at the moment because we've looked at 4 .171, 5 .17, 5 .72, 5 .116, those sections because they are the key sections. When he said Al-Kitab, did that have a meaning? Could we tell who that was?

Would the Christians of his day that he had interaction with be held accountable for what he said? If that's the case, then we can root the Quran in a context and understand its meanings in that context.

If you deny that they had a meaning at that time, there's really no reason even having a discussion because it just becomes a subjective love fest at that point. One last one, no interpretation, anything that is fixed by God, no interpretation is allowed, no contradiction is allowed among schools.

I'm sorry, that's just naive. I'm sorry, with all due respect, that's naive. You can deny that these various schools are interpreting the Quran, but they are. I'm having to interpret your words. You're having to interpret mine as you're watching me on YouTube.

What do you mean there's no interpretation? We cannot communicate without interpretation. As you're looking at my face and listening to my words, you are interpreting my words. That's the only way we can have communication.

So of course the Hadith schools are interpreting not only the Hadith, but the Quran as well. Of course there's interpretation. That's just, this is an illustration of where sometimes, and I'm trying to say this with all due respect, because there are Muslims who do transcend this, but they tend to get in trouble.

Certain forms of Islam are so isolated intellectually from the stream of the flow of history that they cannot meaningfully interact with the rest of us. Trinitarians, before Islam came along, and I know you realize, you believe it's the first religion, all the rest of that stuff, but historically, before Islam arises, Trinitarians had developed categories to express their faith.