The Great Trinity Debate Part 2

So now it's our privilege to welcome Dr. James White for the second part of our debate in the five-minute refocusing statement.

The Incarnation, Old Testament Prophecy, and the Witness of Christian Scripture

I appreciate the opportunity to help us refocus once again on the primary issues we need to address this evening. Specifically, remember when Abdullah quoted from the Old Testament in places like Hosea 11 .9 and Numbers 23 .19, God is not a man.

A text that I use all the time in debating with my Mormon friends because I do not believe that God in his nature is a man. God is the eternal creator of all things. But, since he is the creator of man, should he choose to enter into his own creation, he is free to do so.

And that's what John 1 .14 tells us, the eternal log house became flesh and dwelt amongst us, and we beheld his glory, the glories of the only begotten father, full of grace and truth. The gospel is not that men can become gods, but that God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ to provide perfect redemption for his people.

And so we believe those texts. Once again, what Abdullah is doing here is, in essence, postmodern deconstruction. It's take a position that is built up based upon believing all that the word of God says, undercut the foundation by denying elements of that text, and then say, well, I just don't think this makes sense, or this makes sense, by not allowing those people who wrote those books to define the terms themselves, or the early church.

He said, we need to get rid of Greek philosophy. Well, I don't think Greek philosophy was determining what Isaiah wrote in Isaiah 9 .6, when he prophesied 700 years before Christ, that one would come who would be called Avi-Ad, eternal father, El-Gabor, the mighty God, Sar-Shalom, the prince of peace.

I don't think that had anything to do with Greek philosophy. But as the gospel is meant to go out into all the world, you have to engage the cultures where they are. And as people began asking questions using that type of language, people had to answer those questions using that type of language.

That's all that's going on there, and certainly you recognize that even in your own situation, as you attempt to explain how Allah can be eternal, how Allah can be the creator of all things, you have to engage the people who are criticizing your faith as a Muslim, on the grounds where you can communicate with them.

Does that somehow mean that you are abandoning what you believe at your most foundational level? I would say that it's not. Now, there are some people who do that. I certainly am not doing that, because I believe I'm standing very firmly on the grounds of the word of God.

And so, once again, we go back to the key issue. What did the Christian scriptures, which according to Surah 5, 46 and following, I am to judge by what they say, what did the Christian scriptures teach about who Jesus Christ is, and about the nature of God?

And those Christian scriptures, taken as a whole, taken as they're originally written. If you want to look at a specific text, if you want to say, well, you know, I don't think that the original writers actually included the Cardinal Christian, Philippians 2, 5 -11.

Well, let's look at the text. We have the critical text sitting right on our desks now. He has one, too. We can look at both of them. We can look at any one of these texts, and I can demonstrate to you that these teachings, this doctrine that God has revealed himself in a triune fashion, is the witness of the earliest Christian writers.

That's what they believe. Not just in the New Testament, but even go, not to origin, oh my goodness, go to Ignatius of Antioch, who dies in 107 -108 A .D. He dies within a generation of the last of the apostles, a martyr, and at least 10 times, maybe as many as 14 times, he identifies Jesus as his God.

That's not Constantine down at the Council of Nicaea at 325. That's within one generation of the apostles. This has been the belief of Christians from the beginning. It is the testimony of the New Testament.

It's the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. And I can guarantee you one thing. We can talk about Jewish monotheism all we wish. There are all sorts of texts in the Old Testament that are used in the New Testament that reveal to us this one who's coming.

Psalm 2, kiss the sadness to be angry. Who is this one in Psalm 22? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And yet at the end of the psalm, he's victorious. Who is this in Isaiah 53? It's not Israel.

Look at these texts, and you will see for yourself that what we're talking about tonight is the consistent witness of all of the Christian scriptures. Thank you.

Now we will look for five minutes. Please refocus here. Let's go.

The Authority of Scripture and the Role of Human Reason

Right. Well, there's some very interesting points that James White mentioned. Now, I think to refocus is that I don't think he understood my point. He said that, well, we can't question scripture. You know, we just have to accept it.

There's no mental, you know, checking of it. We don't, you know, subject it to our minds. But why not? Because that's what the early church did when they started to select which Gospels, which Gospels made sense, which Gospels agreed with the kind of teachings that they thought should be done.

They used their minds to select the Gospels, in some cases to write the Gospels, to define the Gospels, to define the philosophies, to explain the Gospels. They used their minds to do so. And it just seems like they've become more deified.

But all these early, early church fathers, up until Ignatius, or rather, or even before that, they somehow now have these omniscient gods that know exactly that the Holy Spirit, according to his blind faith, is working through them and producing accurate text and accurate works.

Again, he has to answer the point of where is it in the Old Testament prophecies that Jesus is prophesied as being from Nazareth, from Nazarene. It's not there. Why doesn't he answer this? You know, did the Holy Spirit make a mistake?

Was it something that he just missed out? No, it's a human text. As soon as you reconcile yourself to that, then actually things become a bit more clear. He said, secondly, if I get a text from the book which says, night is not day, and then he wants to say, ah, but I've got a text that says day is night.

What has he proven? Has he proven I'm wrong? Or has he proven his own Bible wrong? He's undermined his own Bible, or Old and New Testament, or this documentation of apostolic tradition, by showing the contradictions in the book.

We have the same criteria to our Quran. The Quran says that had this been from other than God, you wouldn't find any contradictions in it. So if there are contradictions in the Quran, then we would have to say that this Quran is not from God.

So we are consistent with this criteria. We apply it to our book. Are we going to apply it to another book? Then we encourage all human beings to apply it to all other books. I think the question that we haven't asked ourselves is, why, that for thousands of years, Jews were totally happy believing in one God doesn't come down as man, that God is ineffable, he's beyond human being, beyond human limitation, outside of time.

That's totally okay. But then, suddenly, oh it's like new now. A new revelation about God. God's internal nature. It's funny, God even has an internal nature? Only created beings have an external or internal.

God does not have an external or internal. But now these philosophers are coming along saying, oh God has an internal and external. This new philosophy that God actually has, or begets sons, and so on, through various definitions, and so on.

This is completely new. A Jew, they wouldn't believe this. If I went back to the time of Moses, and I professed my faith, and so on, just say that I believe in Moses and in one God, they wouldn't have any problem with me.

Likewise, when people go up to Jesus, and ask Jesus, and they tell Jesus about their faith, that we worship one God, and then Jesus is totally fine with that. Jesus doesn't seem to be saying, you must believe that I am God.

You have to believe it, otherwise it won't be saved. What if it collapses? All that Jesus wants is that you say you believe in him. Well, I believe in Jesus. I just don't believe he's God. But Jesus hasn't asked for this.

And that's why the Quran says, when Allah asks Jesus, did you say worship me? And he didn't. But in the Old Testament, God, in the singular pronoun, not in the multiple persons, but the singular pronoun, a single person says, I am God, worship me.

You shall have no others before me. So God says that, but Jesus doesn't say that. So can you see why I confusion here? Can you see the problem here? So, that's the issue. That's why I find it hugely conspicuous that I now have to believe that Jesus is God, even though Jesus seemed happy with people who said that they believed in God.

Jesus said, the father who you call your God. The father who you call your God. Now, when James White said, the Quran doesn't understand our theology, I didn't answer this question. Let me put it to you.

If I came from a Jewish sect, which believed that Moses, God, and an angel of God were all three in one, what would you say to me? What would be your response? You would say to me, ah, you've made Moses, an angel of God, partners to God.

You have community idolatry. I'd say, no, no, no, but I meant they're like three persons in one Godhead. You'd say, no, because we know that Moses is not God, even though he was called God in the Old Testament.

Because I'll make you an Elohim to the Pharaoh. I'll make you a God to the Pharaoh. But we know that Moses is not God. So it's because of this that the Quran says that the Christians have made Allah, the father, one of three in derogation.

So they've taken Jesus in derogation to God. We should go straight to God, our father who art in heaven. That is straight, that's a prayer straight to God, not to Jesus. Thank you.

At this time, we're going to have 10 minutes each of cross-examination. The last debate, we didn't have this, and James White and Abdullah will agree to this format, which allows them to speak a little more freely and openly to one another.

I think you will certainly appreciate any change that goes on at this time. So we're going to welcome Dr. James White to begin the 10 minutes of cross-examination. Thank you very much.

Jesus, the I Am, and the Meaning of Goodness

In fact, let me say, I hope you take it as an honor that we modeled for others how these types of dialogues need to take place. I very much appreciate how we've done so far. You just made a very important statement.

You said, I believe in Jesus, I just don't believe in God. I hate that he's God. I didn't come out right. I just don't believe in God. If you have a Bible there, in the 8th chapter of the Gospel of John, when Jesus said to the Jews, you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that ego, I am, you will die in your sins.

How do you understand a text like that? Do you feel that that has been corrupted? Or if it hasn't been corrupted, how do you understand what Jesus is saying to those Jews who clearly believed he existed as a man, but they rejected that he was the I am, and Jesus said, you will die in your sins.

How do you understand a text like that?

Sure. Well, if I was a Christian, a Euterian Christian, I would have to reconcile that text, that ambiguous text, what this I am statement means, with explicit texts whereby Jesus is speaking to people and they are explaining their faith that I follow the commandments and I believe in my God and I love him.

Love God with all your heart and so on. This is basically Jesus saying you are not far from the kingdom of God to these people, these people who have not confessed that Jesus is God. And so Jesus is saying you are not far from the kingdom of God.

This is taken as acceptable doctrine from what Jesus is saying to them. So, if I was a Euterian Christian, I would have to reconcile that with that text. And I am not a Christian theologian, but I might say that he is saying I am the Messiah, I am the prophet, all kinds of things.

But I would need to reconcile that. So,.

In essence, you just identified this as an ambiguous text. Is it your assertion that in the Gospel of John, this phrase I am is ambiguous? I mean, it's at the end of John chapter 8 the Jews pick up stones to stone Jesus for saying before Abraham was I am.

And in John 18, when Jesus says I am the soldiers, they fall back on the ground. That's not exactly, I mean that's, I say something to someone and they fall back on the ground. It might mean something.

Why do you say these are ambiguous texts? Aren't you sort of setting up a standard there that sort of determines what the text is going to say rather than looking at the text first? In John, what was the nationality of the soldiers?

Those were probably part of the Jewish cohort. Sure, okay, but if they were Roman soldiers then I would be very much amazed that they understand the nuances of Jewish theology. But again, I would have to say that I would see a problem with that text and other texts such as Mark 10 and 18 where a person like Jesus said, good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?

And then he asked, why do you call me good? For there is no one good except God alone. And then the guy said, okay, teacher. And all these other, I've kept the commandments since I was a boy, and Jesus looked at him and loved him.

Basically. So, he modified, he said, when Jesus rebukes him, he said, you know, why do you call me good? God is good. He said, okay, teacher then. And then Jesus looks at him and loves him. Jesus seems to be accepting this.

I would say it's a contradiction. If you wish to affirm the verse you quote to me as.

Divine, attribution of divine divinity to Jesus, then this is a contradiction in your text. Is it ever a possibility that you have considered that in Mark chapter 2, Jesus' whole point was to get the young man to realize who he was talking to?

Why do you call me good?

And so when he fell the test, Jesus looked at him and loved him. Yes. Why?

The whole point was, the whole point was, I can't say it because I'm supposed to be asking the question. So in other words, even Dr. Richard Balcom, one of the leading New Testament scholars here in the United Kingdom, looks at Mark chapter 2 and says, people have just missed the obvious point here.

When you simply identify those as ambiguous, I guess my question is, are you saying that they are unclear in their teaching, or are you saying that they were corrupted by later generations? Is that what did Paul write Philippians 2?

I'm trying to figure out where,.

What about the original followers of Jesus? Didn't they.

Give a clear testimony as to Jesus as a mere prophet? I'm sort of confused as to what your standard is for saying that these texts, have they been corrupted,.

Changed, or what? Well, I mean, this is a mundane problem. You have Haile Selassie, the king of Ethiopia. He kept saying that he's not God, he's not God. He's just, you know, obviously they call him the king of kings, that was the title for Ethiopian kings, king of kings.

And, now there's a sect which believes he's God, despite the fact that he's said repeatedly that he's not God. Some people just don't get it. You have Ali, the cousin of the Prophet Muhammad, salallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Three people approached him and said, you are our God. Three people approached him and said, you are our God. And he goes, well, it's you, you know, I'm your God. I never said this, you know, I'm far from this.

And they kept on believing he's God, even though he turned them down to his face. Some people just think that Jesus is too boring to be just being a prophet or a messenger. He has to be something more exciting, something that can match the other pagan beliefs in the region that believe that God has sons, like Heraclius and other things like this, Heraclius as well.

And that's my, that's basically, you know, my take, that it happens like this. But just to also the other point, in Matthew 19, 16 -18, it has the same story. But in this, Jesus' response is, why do you ask about what is good?

Instead of saying, why do you call me good, why do you ask about what is good? Could it be that Matthew is trying to realize the problem of this text and try to change it? I don't know.

I didn't find out when you felt that these texts were corrupted. It sounded like you were saying the authors themselves wrote untrue things. Is that what you're saying? Or are you saying that the real disciples of Jesus.

Wrote true things and later people changed? I'm saying that before the New Testament, there was the apostolic tradition, or whatever name you want to call it. There was this ideas which were coming through supposedly from the apostles themselves.

And all these teachings existed orally and were just ideas or just, you know, teachings and so on. And people started to collect them up and in different locations and make Gospels out of it. Now, what I'm saying is, we don't know who did this.

We don't know what their theological bias was, what their perspective was. We know that John heavily resembles Greek philosophy. And is it just, maybe Plato and, I forgot the other hand, Stoicism, maybe these people were, you know, advanced Christians coming before, you know, 100 years before Jesus.

I don't know. But I would think not. And that's why I.

Take some reservations. You mentioned John 10 .34 when Jesus says you are gods, according to Psalm 82 .6. And you seem to think that this was a argument against the deity of Christ. That Jesus was in some way saying that he was not.

Are you aware of what Psalm 82 is about? Yes. Since it's a judgment text against the leaders of Israel and the very next words in Psalm 82 .7 says, you shall die like men and fall like angel of the princes.

Wouldn't it be consistent to interpret Jesus' application here as applying this to his accusers as false judges and that they would be judged by God while he himself is the one who's been sent by the Father and anointed by the Father.

How does that deny the deity of Christ? I totally lost your application. Sure. Well, I.

Think in this verse it shows us the hermeneutical way. Don't, in local debates we urge Muslims to read the New Testament from Muslims' Islamic standards. And the Quran was in a way a ruling language which was very clear, it was very black and white to a polytheistic nation, previous polytheistic nation.

But if you read the New Testament and the Old Testament, it's very interesting because being called God in the Old Testament doesn't actually mean you're God. Moses, as I said before, was called Elohim.

A whole bunch of entities including angels and someone called Elohim. Elohim was used to describe a ghost, one of the previous writers coming out of the graves, Elohim. The word Elohim is used. Now, I know you might say that well, this hasn't always been God.

Exactly. And I would concur. Likewise, I think Jesus is telling us that in the Old Testament when it said be your gods, it's not literal. So why is he using an allegorical verse to explain a statement which you want to take literally?

So, you reject that this is actually a judgment.

Verse. Do you know there are many, in terms of Psalm 8 -6, in terms of Psalm 8 -6, regardless of the application of that verse, the New Testament is not versed to using Old Testament quoted out of context to justify some esoteric and ambiguous prophecy of Jesus.

For example, you said, you know, Jesus, a prophecy in Psalm would be called the Prince of Peace and the Eternal Father, or if he called you the Eternal Father, you'd be committing passionist heresy, but we won't go there.

But in Psalms, it was a prophecy, it wasn't a prophecy, it was stating a fact in the present tense that it was Hezekiah. Yeah, Prince of Peace. The one that's from the Prince of Peace is the Eternal Father, isn't it?

It's actually for Isaiah 9, rather. Hezekiah, son of Ahaz, is Hezekiah the son of Ahaz, was being born and he shall be called the Prince of Peace. It was this grand title given to such kings in the Old Testament.

And this actually I got from this Bible's commentary, the New Jerusalem Bible, which gave that commentary on why these grandiose names, typical pharaonic kings, they're Vikings.

Thank you. That concludes the first part of our cross-examination now. Abdullah has ten minutes in which to cross-examine. James, go ahead.

Nazareth, the Branch Prophecy, and the Messiah

I almost have no questions for James. Okay. Firstly, I would like to I don't think you want people answered the prophecy saying in the New Testament where it says that the Messiah will be Nazarene. What is your explanation of the fact that it does not occur in the Old Testament?

There are a couple of explanations that have been offered, for example, by Gleason Archer I would recommend people look at the possibilities that are offered, but the most common one is to look at the term Netzer that is used there and tie it with the branch of Judah from the prophet Jeremiah.

And if I recall correctly off the top of my head, there was a fair amount of intertestamental Jewish speculation to the nature of the Messiah that was focused upon the branch and the Netzer concept and that would be understandable to them.

So in many situations especially when we're talking about original language things, we miss plays on words that come out of Hebrew frequently because we translate them in English very liberally rather than seeing how they were word plays.

That's probably what Matthew is doing there, is utilizing that branch of Jesse prophecy as the fulfillment of Jesus.

Right. Do you not see that when you kind of chastise, should we say, or take this as a task, we're trying to look for the word Mohammed in the Old Testament and we find one from Mohammedim. Well that sounds like Mohammed.

It must be that. And you say, ah, but the context of that verse does not apply to the prophet Mohammed. It means all together lovely and that's what the word means, so it can't be this. Would you not say that the prophecy of the branch of Jesse, you're trying to interpolate that interpretation and doing the same?

No, it's completely different actually because.

Mohammedim in the song of Solomon is an adjective and that very same term is used in numerous other places. In my debate with Shabir Ali last time I was here in London I went through a number of other places where it's used that obviously has no connection whatsoever there.

The branch of Jesse is specifically Messianic. It is talking about an anointed one. It's talking about one who comes from the loins of David and we know in the New Testament that Jesus in his dialogues with the Jews specifically focuses upon his identity as the son of David.

Going to Psalm 110 .1 saying the Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand. Establishing his authority so there is a foundation to that not only in the text but also in the intertestamental Jewish literature about becoming Messiah which is one of the key issues in interpreting that.

Sure, but we don't have too much of this kind of time sticking. But just last point, would you not see it perhaps a very stretched interpretation of that prophecy when in Matthew 2 .23 it quotes what the prophecy said.

The prophecy that the old prophet said was he will be called a Nazarene. Now in the Old Testament it doesn't say he will be called a branch. So how would you explain that? Well again.

The only way I can understand Matthew's application is that he is recognizing the connection between that branch, the relationship to the family of David and Jesse and Jesus' fulfillment. He's talking about the lineage of Jesus.

He's talking about his birth and that becomes a fulfillment. When you say well that's a stretch. Well it's a stretch if we are ignorant of Matthew's context which for the vast majority of us we are. It's the same reason that the book of Hebrews is so difficult for people to understand.

It requires a tremendous knowledge of the Old Testament and its original languages. And there are very few Christians these days that actually have that kind of knowledge.

I could go farther but I will not expand on that right now. Okay. Well I'm going to talk a bit because we discussed a bit too much about branch. Let's go on to other aspects. The branch and the telegrams.

Yeah exactly. Right. Okay. Do you acknowledge that at the time of the development of the New Testament the writing of the New Testament and so on that there was a high level of influence in the context and society of Hellenistic philosophy, Stoicism and Platonism?

Well you have to define which society you're talking about. If you're talking about the Roman Empire in general, yes less in the confines of the nation of Israel. More in a place like Alexandria or something like that.

And so many have seen as the Gospel goes out and Paul's writing to the Romans or the writer of Hebrews very clearly familiar with Philo and hence Alexandria terminology there. As they're explaining the Gospel in those places they use languages understandable to the people they're speaking to.

Would you say that the philosophy of understanding of theology from Platonic perspectives and Stoic perspectives bears a degree of similarity with.

Jovanite theology? No I would not. The terminology is the same. The Logos for example is very easily recognizable as the ordering principle of Greek philosophy but that's where the similarity ends because in John 1 -1 it says Enarchein halogos, kaihalogos enprostum deon kaitheos enhalogos.

The Logos there is said to not only be eternal but then the Logos is said to be face to face with God and the Logos is as to his nature deity. So the Logos is made personal. The Logos is not a personal principle.

That personal principle comes clearly I think from the wisdom literature of the Old Testament and the prophecies of the Old Testament. So while the language may borrow certain similarities because again you're writing in Greek as those terms are going to be there.

What they're filled with is very much Old Testament concepts and Old Testament fulfillment concepts and especially since I do not believe that the New Testament documents are being written at some late date especially the Gospels are going to be very much focused upon the people around Jerusalem.

It's only the later documents that are going to be having a lot of that influence of Greek language because of the people there. Sure.

How would you how would you respond to a writer which obviously I think you look up to which is J. M. B. Kelly in his book Early Christian Doctrines when he explains the platonic thought as one of which is basically Plato postulated that God is a pure being, absolutely simple and self-sufficing without quality.

But then he said the platonic solution was to interpose a hierarchy of divine beings between the supreme good or God and the material order and to regard these as ruling or even creating the latter among these intermediaries the supreme and most supportable of the Logos.

Quote unquote the eldest and most akin to God. Since the world exists in platonic forms we can see how in contemplating the Logos men can come to a knowledge of God. Do you think that's dissimilar to John 1 theology?

Well again the Logos is uncreated in John 1 so John immediately breaks the parameters at that point and as I started reading that quotation I found it interesting in that if we just want to look for very shallow parallels the first few words you read about God being the uncreated creator of all things, absolutely unique in his character, not only did I immediately think of text in Isaiah concerning the monotheism I believe in but I immediately began thinking of Sura 112 on the cross Kulahu Aha, Zama he is unique he is not to be compared to anything in his creation and so could someone make a parallel there just because there is some truth in platonic teaching.

No I don't think that would be a valid thing to do. In the same way we have to allow John to fill the Logos with the with what he says the Logos is he does not make the Logos an intermediate meaning what he says in John 1 denies exactly what you just read as to a nearly Greek understanding of the Logos so I don't see that.

That's a I'm not sure what the question has to do with the New Testament's understanding of this because it clearly goes quite beyond the Greek perception.

Sure, in Romans 1 19 -20 it explains that God is. We can know about God based on what he has created. We can look at this which is kind of rational principle which underpins all observation of the universe that an atheist can look at the world and actually come to this understanding that God exists.

But surely I would say that the platonic and stoic philosophies are very specific that God creates a Logos. This Logos is the means by which God caused everything to exist. But the question I want to ask you is do you think this is not similar to Justin Martyr's concept where he said that the Logos is God's offspring and child for all creatures.

God begat in giving a rational power out of himself conditioned by and as a result of the Father's will the Logos as existing in the Father as his rationality and then by an act of will being generated.

And he also describes the second God. So anyway do you think that that is specifically similar to.

Well the question unfortunately is based upon the idea that God somehow gives some type of special authority to early church fathers outside who witnessed what was going on historically. Justin Martyr never quotes the Apostle Paul.

Justin Martyr does not even have access to a very wide. Let me just go ahead and finish the question I was asking, a very wide canon in the New Testament and so his statements on those matters do not become normative to the entirety of the church network.

Thank you.

At this time we're going to ask them to bring their ten minutes of concluding and closing remarks so we're going to invite Dr. White to present his ten minutes. Please, thank you.

Closing Appeal to the Trinity and the Deity of Christ

Once again allow me to thank all of you for the honor of your being here this evening. I do think that it says a lot that there are so many of us who want to engage these issues and to do so in an attitude of mutual respect but not an attitude of compromise of what we believe.

I'm afraid that this happens far too rarely in our society and I think we have demonstrated yet once again that this can be done in a way that is proper and honoring to the truth. I would like to once again thank Abdullah and I knew that Abdullah at least is one of the few people I've debated who actually took the time to read something I had written and I appreciated that I knew that I knew that he would have this copy but he doesn't have a signed one.

I do very much appreciate that I have debated so many people. I debated an atheist last year in the United States, he hadn't even googled my name let alone had any concern whatsoever as to what I would have to say and so it is an honor to have someone actually take some time to try to understand what it is I'm saying.

I hope that those of you who have seen some of the debates I've done in the past with Shabir Ali and Zulfiqar Ali Shah and some others recognize that I do take this very seriously because I love the Muslim people and I hope you recognize that when I take the time to be listening as I did for over a year to everything Shabir Ali had ever said on MP3 every lecture he'd ever given even ones on Hadith studies to Muslims so that I could understand what he was saying.

I did that so that I could have the best debate with him that I could where we would have the clearest communication because I truly believe that these opportunities when we still have the freedom to do it are vitally important and they're precious and we need to take advantage of them.

There are a lot of nations on earth where we could not do what we've done this evening and we need to be thankful for the freedoms that we have now very very quickly. I want to just address a couple of things that Abdullah said he said that we that I had seemingly indicated he heard me say that we have to accept it blindly in regards to the text of the New Testament because it's the best.

I never said that if I believe in accepting the New Testament blindly I wouldn't have given him a critical edition of the New Testament. I wouldn't be studying textual critical issues. I wouldn't have when I went to Australia this past summer and debated a fine young man in Billikunda there at the University of Sydney I would not have taken the one free day I had in Sydney instead of going and seeing a sightseeing I went and saw a manuscript P91 poor university.