Response to Sheik Awal, Part 2

So, continuing with the response we began on the last program, to shake a wall, he is in the midst of making an argument from Matthew chapter 7, that's pretty much where we wrapped up last time.

He said, on that day, many will come to me saying, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name?

In your name we cast out the devil, in your name we do mighty works. And Jesus said, I don't know you, get away from me, you who work iniquity.

The word iniquity in Greek means those who worship me for nothing. That's pretty much where we stopped last time, and I point out that the word iniquity in Greek does not mean that.

That is not the meaning of the term in any way, shape, or form. Anamia is a well -known term, it means lawlessness, and so I don't know where that came from, but it does seem to me that many times shake a wall is giving us second and third hand, and in fact,

I think it's a fascinating study, possibly, to see how things change as they're passed down, especially as he frequently memorizes texts of scripture.

And just like some of our Arminian friends end up memorizing Matthew 23, 37 incorrectly, that impacts some of the things that he argues as well.

Temple clear -cut statement from the lips of Jesus. It's interesting to me, whenever they're interpreting a text of scripture, it's clear -cut.

Doesn't require any interpretation. But when we are addressing a text of scripture, well then it's equivocal, and it's unclear, and there's multiple ways of interpreting it.

I'm not sure we have a standard, the same standard being used all the way along here. Before Jesus Christ was supposed to have been on the cross, he took his disciples to the garden of Gethsemane, and he said,

Peter, you stand here, John, you stand here, and he put them in strategic position, and the

Bible said, in the book of Matthew, chapter 26, verse 39, and Jesus went a little further, and he fell on his face, and he prayed, and he said...

Now, let me just stop here for a moment. He's going to be going into the prayer of Jesus. We've...

I'm not sure how much time we've spent on this because we've spent so much time on it in the past. You should be able to find either on the

YouTube page, and we have over 450 videos on the YouTube page now, or in the

DL archives, and I'm not sure exactly how you'd find all of that. But we have responded to Sheikh Shabir Ali's presentations on Jesus' prayer a number of times in the past.

But I'm watching the video. I'm actually playing this from a video rather than just from an audio right now. And when he said he placed

Peter and James, it sounds almost like guards or something like that, but the text actually indicates that they were to be praying, that they were to be in prayer with him, and he went a little bit farther on and bowed in prayer.

My father, let this cup pass away from me, not as I will, but as thou will. What did he do?

And Jesus fall on his face like we do, like the Muslims do. He fall on his face. It's interesting when they attempt to make this connection that said

Jesus prayed like Muslims do, except that there are all sorts of texts in the

New Testament that address Jesus' physical attitude in prayer, and there is no consistency.

There is nothing about bowing down. There's nothing about getting down, getting up, raising your hands, putting your hands in a certain way, saying the same words in Arabic or anything else.

Jesus bows down in this case, but there are many other places where he prays that does not take place. And so, again, a fair, honest examination of the biblical text would be in order here.

He prayed like I do, and he said, oh my father, let this cup pass away from me, not as I will, but as thou will.

What is the cup? If you have a Bible with concordance, with index and cross reference, look up for the word cup.

It means death. No. A cup does not mean death.

A cup can have all sorts of meanings. When Jesus said, can you drink this cup with me?

It can be related to persecution. It can be related to death, but it does not itself mean death.

Again, he says, look at a concordance. It just doesn't strike me that Shekelah is familiar with.

For example, the key passages, the key resources, I'm sorry, in regards to the study of the

New Testament, Bowery King Richard Donker, or any, you know, Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the

New Testament, any of these types of sources that would give you a much more in -depth understanding of these particular terms.

Cup means death. Death. So he said, in effect, oh my father, let this cup, let this death pass away from me, not as I will, but as thou will.

Again, in the book of Mark, chapter 14, verse 35, he said, Abba, Abba, I know that all things are possible with thee.

Please remove this cup of death away from me. In the book of Luke, chapter 22, verse 44, being in an agony,

Jesus, he prayed more earnestly and the angels came down and support him and assured him. In the

Quran, we said, the angel came and threatened him. He doesn't want to die.

He prayed more. Now, notice the interpretation that is being offered. He doesn't want to die.

Now, I suppose if you just ignore everything the New Testament says, you don't allow the New Testament to speak, you don't allow for the entirety of the apostolic witness that is found throughout the text of the

New Testament to be brought together, which again, I'm sure Sheikha Wall would demand for the interpretation of the

Quran, but if you do that, then you can just cut all this apart and you've just got a man who is afraid to die.

But, that clearly was not what Matthew was attempting to communicate. That's clearly not what Mark was attempting to communicate.

That's clearly not what Luke was attempting to communicate. That's clearly not what John was attempting to communicate. That's not what they believed. There is much more going on in the garden than the mere concept of this man being fearful of death.

You have the very one who is going to become sin for us.

And the idea of the incarnate one who has never known anything but absolute purity, bearing the wrath of the

Father, who has never known anything but perfect communion and harmony between himself and the

Father, he is going to experience the wrath of the

Father on behalf of his people. He is going to be made sin for us that we might be made the righteous of God in him.

And for anyone to think for a moment that the one who has communed with his

Father perfectly, as you would expect for the incarnate Son, the one who has had perfect unity with the

Father in eternity past, has entered into human flesh, has given us the model of continued communion with the

Father. One of the main arguments they use is, well, God doesn't pray to God. Well, if the second person of the Trinity has entered into flesh, you better believe he is.

He's not going to act like an atheist. And in this context, knowing what's coming, knowing the necessity of what is coming, knowing that he is going to be made sin for us, he prays to the

Father. That's just merely fear of death. That shows that Jesus doesn't want to do what he has said from the beginning he was going to do.

No, it does demonstrate that as the God -man, if Jesus did not suffer in the garden, there is no way we could ever affirm that he was truly human.

How could we? How could we? How could we even begin to suggest that knowing what was coming upon him, that he would just be happy -go -lucky, playing cards with the disciples in the garden of Gethsemane?

That's absurd. But the only way you can make this an absurd argument is by ignoring what the

New Testament itself says in totality concerning what was actually taking place in the garden.

Honestly, and his face was as if great blood from the face to the ground, and the angels came down and assured him, meaning he is not going to die.

Who says so? Jesus. Where? In the Bible, which page? Matthew chapter 7, verse 7.

Jesus said, knock and it shall be opened. Seek and ye shall find. Ask and it shall be heard.

Heard. What kind of father is it when you ask him for a bread, he gives you a stone, or you ask him for a fish, he gives you a snake?

My father in heaven. Now, in case you're not following what the argument is here, the argument is

Jesus prayed not to die, allegedly. You see the argument here?

Cop equals death, Jesus prays not to die, the Father gives good gifts, and therefore he's going to tie this in with Hebrews, completely missing the context of Hebrews, to say that God would have given him his requests, would have granted his prayer.

That's the form of the argument in case you're not accustomed to hearing this kind of argument being presented. Give good things to those who ask of him.

So ask my father. So he asked the father, he doesn't want to die. But Paul crucified him.

Christ did not die on the cross. Who says so? The book of Deuteronomy, chapter 26, verse 14.

It says, that false prophet shall be put to death.

The false prophet and the dreamer of dreams shall be put to death. All false prophets according to the

Bible shall be put to death. I'm asking the question, how did Paul end his life?

What was the end of Paul? Paul was beheaded, cut into pieces. Now how

Shakoel knows this, I don't know. Maybe he has some traditional source.

We do not know the exact means of Paul's death or anyone else's death. But the logic, again, is amazingly bad.

There have been many Muslims who have been decapitated in war. That doesn't mean they were false prophets.

It's hard to even imagine someone making this kind of argumentation. The point is that the Old Testament law certainly prescribed the severest penalties for false prophets.

But to connect that to the apostle Paul and say he was a false prophet because allegedly he died at the hands of Romans, we don't know that, but allegedly he did, is just really bad argumentation.

So everyone who's ever been decapitated was a false prophet. I'm sorry, but that's pretty hard to take seriously.

Jerome, at the time of Emperor Nero, he was beheaded and cut into pieces.

In the Bible, Deuteronomy 26, verse 14 says, the false prophet and a dreamer of dreams shall be put to death.

How was Peter killed? Peter was hung on the cross upside down. False prophets.

Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 21, verse 22, all the way to 24.

It says, if a man commits a crime and you hang him on the cross, you shall by no means bury him that same day.

For whosoever is hung on the cross is an accursed of God. It's actually hanging on a tree.

They were talking about crucifixion at that particular point in history, a little anachronism there. Again, one of the things that evidently this stream of Islamic apologists taught is to quote all of their

Bible verses, because it's very impressive to people. The problem is they very frequently misquote the

Bible verses in the process and change words so that it fits their argument better. And so you've got to just sort of keep that in mind.

A curse of God be upon him. Do you believe Christ died on the cross, therefore it's a curse of God? Astaghfirullah.

Yes, Shaykh, while we do, that's the whole gospel message is that Jesus voluntarily gave his life upon Calvary's tree so as to become a curse for us.

So that curse might be removed from us. Our sins placed upon him, that curse placed upon him.

His righteousness imputed to us, which is why we have perfect peace with God. That is the

Christian message, that is consistent message. That's consistent message of every single book that Shaykh Qawwal has quoted so far.

If he will just allow the texts to speak for themselves, but he does not.

Astaghfirullah, the human mind repels that idea that a human being could become a god and then die again.

I'm asking you a question. A human being did not become a god. It was the creator who entered into human flesh.

And he did so for the purpose of self -glorification, glorification of the triune

God, and the redemption of a particular people through the very means of the cross of Calvary.

That's exactly how the gospel presents it. And notice that Shaykh Qawwal said that this is repellent to the human mind.

Well, it's not repellent to mine, given his major misunderstandings and ignorances of these issues.

I can understand that. But it is based upon misapprehension and misrepresentation, not upon the actual biblical presentation.

I want you, the audience, to transpose yourself back into the era of Mary. Okay, now here comes a...

This is the type of argument that is... You can sort of tell when

Islamic apologists are getting revved up a little bit. I've seen... Sami Zafari did this in London in 2008.

And I don't think they really understand that this is really ineffective if they're actually trying to reach a

Christian audience. But it seems that, from their perspective, it's extremely effective with their own people.

That's this form of argumentation which you're about to hear. 2009 years ago, I want you to put yourself in that stage.

Imagine you were there when Mary was having a baby, and you were a nurse, and you're supposed to help

Mary. And Mary, in the pain of giving birth, baby Jesus starts coming out, and you help her to be a nurse to bring him out.

That puny little baby with blood and mire and umbilical cord, helpless baby, was your

God, your Allah, your Jehovah Witness? Astaghfirullah. Yes, sir. That's exactly right.

It is an amazing thing to consider. The condescension of the son to enter into true humanity, but he truly did so.

That is the testimony of those who came long before Muhammad, and we have no reason to believe

Muhammad understood, in any way, shape, or form, their testimony from the New Testament. And therefore, we have no reason to accept

Muhammad's denunciation of what they said in the New Testament. But, of course,

I would likewise, at the same time, point out that it was the second person of the Trinity, the

Eternal Son, who entered into human flesh. It was not the Father, and it was not the

Spirit. This was not a situation where there was no one left to run the world.

Similar argumentation they utilize when they say, well, when Jesus died, then how did the universe continue on, etc.,

etc. They, of course, seem to think that death means nonexistence, which it doesn't, even in their own theology.

But, be it as it may, this is a type of argumentation, this is a kind of thinking that is repeated so often within the mosque, within the masjid, that you, as a believer, need to realize that it's there, and that you are trying as best you can, in your presentation and in the language that you use, to overcome these barriers.

If we were talking about Mormonism right now, if we were talking about Jehovah's Witnesses right now, if we were talking about Roman Catholicism right now, we would be talking about those specific things, and the teaching and believing of these groups, that you have to overcome in language, the language barriers.

Well, there is understanding barriers, not just language barriers. There may be even more language barriers in talking to the Muslims. But there is also a recognition of all the false teaching that they've received, that you need to recognize its presence, and therefore make your presentation in such a way that you can seek to overcome that.

Astaghfirullah! The human mind repaired that idea that a baby helpless could be a god.

You think about this. Doesn't he feel God? He doesn't feel God. That is what we are talking about, that God cannot be a human being.

He's beyond human. And there you have the very assertion, God cannot be a human being.

Well, if you mean ceasing to be God, well, that would be obvious, but we don't believe that he ceased to be

God. And so the question I've asked many an audience now of Muslims is, if Allah created mankind, and if Allah is the creator of all things, then upon what logical basis do you assert that Allah cannot enter into his own creation?

Not ceasing to be Allah, but why can he not enter into his own creation?

If he makes mankind, if he is the creator, he says, and we are, why cannot he enter?

For whatever purpose he might have. You may say, well, he would never have that purpose. That's a different issue. Logically, it's a different issue.

You are assuming an incapacity on the part of God based upon other things.

But be open about those other assumptions that you are making and recognize they are not our assumptions, and in fact they are directly contradicted by something that you actually call a revelation.

Your own book, it says, was sent down by God. And we are told, as the

Al -Anjil, the people of the Gospel, to believe what is contained in the

Gospel and to test what you say based upon what is in that Gospel. Did he die on the cross?

You said he died on the cross. Did he die on the cross? You said he died on the cross. But we see in the book of Hebrews, chapter 5, verse 7, talking about whether Christ died on the cross or not.

Please, I want you to listen to what the Bible said about whether Christ died on the cross or did not die on the cross.

The book of Hebrews, chapter 5, verse 7. It reads, Who in the days of his flesh, referring to Jesus, at the time that he was in flesh, walking flesh and bone, he offered up prayers and supplication and crying and tears to the only one who can save him from death.

And he was heard. This verse tells us that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross.

So there you go. There's the argumentation I mentioned he was moving toward. And this is a fairly common argument, so I want you to consider for just a moment.

By the time we get to the fifth chapter of Hebrews, we've already had numerous references to the death of Christ. Hebrews chapter 2, for example.

Hebrews chapter 1, when he made purification for our sins, referring to the death of Christ. You have repetitive references to the death of Christ prior to Hebrews 5.

And you're going to have even more after Hebrews chapter 5. You're going to have whole discussions of his being the high priest, the offering of his body once for all, the sacrifice.

Just the book of Hebrews is by far the most in -depth discussion of the purpose and intention of the sacrifice of Christ in all the

New Testament. And yet Muslims will come to it. And the sad and scary thing is

Christians are so ignorant of the book that they don't even know where to go to demonstrate the foolishness of this interpretation.

But Muslims will come to this one text and say, see? Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence.

They won't go on. Although he was a son, he learned obedience to what he suffered, and being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.

Clearly speaking of his becoming the source of eternal salvation through his sacrificial death.

But what they'll do is they'll say, well, if he prayed to be saved from death, then he never died.

And of course, what's the writer of the Hebrews' point? Jesus was saved from death through the resurrection from the dead.

That's the whole point of the writer of Hebrews. There's really no question about this. It's not something scholars sit around going, oh,

I'm not sure what... No, it's obvious when you allow the book to speak for itself. But you see,

Sheikha Wall is normally talking to an audience of people who have never read the book of Hebrews. And therefore...

Sheikha Wall says he's been studying the Bible for 20 years. But Sheikha Wall also says he's got 28 different Bibles in his house.

No, he doesn't. He has 28 different translations. He doesn't seem to recognize the

Bible is a translation of an ancient language text the exact same way the Quran is. He will recognize that for the

Quran, but he doesn't for the Bible. So I'm not really sure how in -depth the study has been. But this kind of interpretation really is...

just doesn't have any merit to it at all. Who in the death of his flesh, who,

Jesus, he offered up prayers and supplication and tears and crying to the only one

God who can save him from death and he was spared. Saved from what? The prayer that he gave in the book of Luke, Matthew, which

I quoted, that he was falling down. He doesn't want to die. But according to you, Jesus Christ and God have made an agreement that 7 ,000 years ago after Adam, Christ will come and die for mankind.

But as you can see on the cross, what did he say? In Hebrew, in Arabic, My God, my

God, why do you forsake me? He's crying. He clearly does not...

and I've heard him make this argument more than once now. He clearly has no understanding of the background of Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani in Psalm 22 and the typological fulfillment of that messianic prophecy in the suffering of the

Messiah, which is so clearly laid out there. I have to wonder who Sheik Awal thinks is suffering in the 22nd

Psalm. Who's going through those things and then who then is vindicated at the end of the

Psalm. But the fact that this was a direct quotation from the 22nd

Psalm just never appears in his interpretation. And so he completely misses the point of Jesus' words from the cross.

He was supposed to have died willingly, according to the Christians, to die willingly for mankind.

But he was on the cross crying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani. Somebody else was on the cross. The Quran said,

They did not kill him. They did not crucify him. They did not kill him.

And they did not crucify him. Now personally, I wouldn't mind hearing a debate between Sheik Awal and Shabir Ali on whether Jesus was put on the cross or not.

That would be enjoyable to listen to. It was made to appear to them so.

What was made to appear to them? The fact that he died on the cross. Yes. Someone was hanged on the cross that day.

Now, let me just go ahead and stop here. We'll be taking a break. But the fact of the matter is he can tell us that that's what

Shabir Ali means. But the problem is you can't prove that from the text. It does not say someone else was made to look like Jesus.

That's an interpretation. That's not what the text itself says. It says it was made to appear to them. And the idea of somebody else being put on the cross, this substitutionary theory, which

I would love to debate him on this subject, this substitutionary theory really ends up making

Allah responsible for the beginning of Christianity because not only does Allah fool the Jews and the

Romans, but the Christians as well. That's why many people in the Western expression of Islam attempt to avoid that conclusion because it's extremely difficult to defend that particular...

It is the majority viewpoint of Muslims around the world, but it's extremely difficult to defend as well.

On Calvary Cross, someone was hanged on the cross in Golgotha. Someone was indeed hanged on the cross, but that was not

Jesus. So Allah said, وَإِنَّ الَّذِينَ اَخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُمْ Those who are involved about the case of death of Jesus, مَالَكُمْ بِهِ مِنْ إِلِمٍ

They don't have the exact knowledge of what happened to them. Why? Because, إِلَّا تِبَعَ أَزَّنْ

They follow conjecture, guesswork, fiction. They think that's what happened. They were not there.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, none of them saw the crucifixion of Christ. They were not there. Because the book of Mark, chapter 14, verse 50, said,

During the most critical time of the life of Christ, all his disciples forsook him and fled.

They ran away at the time that they came to arrest him. Mark said, During the most critical time of the life of Christ, all his disciples, all means all, none of them saw what happened.

Now again, here, this is just a very invalid argument. The texts that he's quoting specifically say that the apostle

John was there at the foot of the cross, that he saw the crucifixion. It is ignoring the fact that what he's talking about is the abandonment of Jesus in the garden, but Peter then follows,

John follows, and he just ignores that. It just does not even mention that reality.

How can he do that? I do not understand how you can misrepresent the text in that way.

All forsook him and fled. Where did they go? They went to Upper Room.

They went to a place called Upper Room. That is where they used to meet, and that's where the disciples went and hide. None of them saw what happened in the cross.

So the Quran said, Those who are involved about his death, they don't have the knowledge of what happened because Mark said they all forsook him and fled.

But he didn't say that. He said that in one context, and then he recognizes that Peter and John, why not let all of it speak?

Why take that just one, build an entire case on that, and then ignore the rest of it? That's not how you handle anyone's text.

Sheikha Wall has written some books. I've tried to find out how to get hold of them. They're not generally available, but if I did, would he appreciate if I interpreted his works the way he's interpreting the

Bible? I don't think so. He let them follow conjecture. Guess where? That's what happened.

I think so. That's why you find contradiction. Today, the question is, is the

Bible the Word of God? I would have discussed that issue, but this is not the issue. I would have proved 100 % that the

Bible has been mutilated, mutilated beyond recognition. I would prove 100 % that the

Bible has been mutilated beyond recognition. Now, that is a debate topic that I would like to take up.

Sheikha Wall, be glad to debate you on that one. There is some confidence there that the facts will not back up.

None is the same. In other words, they're different translations. And again,

I have all sorts of translations of the Quran, and none are the same. And he'll go, oh no, those are just translations, you've got to go back to the