Response to Sheik Awal, Part 2

Matthew 7 and the Meaning of Iniquity

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 day on that day. Many will come to me saying Lord Lord, did we not prophesize in your name in your name? We cast out 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. They point out that the word iniquity in Greek does not mean that. That is not the meaning of the term 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. 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 text of scripture and just like some of our Arminian friends end up memorizing Matthew 23 37 incorrectly that that impacts Some of the things that he argues as well.

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 it's 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. And you say he died for your son. Let's ask Jesus. You see 24 hours 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 to the 26 best 39.

And Jesus went little further. And he fell on his face and he prayed and he said oh now, let me just stop here for a moment.

Jesus in Gethsemane and the Cup of Suffering

He's gonna be going into the prayer of Jesus. We've. I'm not sure how much time you spend 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's 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's 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 and bowed in prayer my father let this cup pass away from me. Not as I will but as Darwin. 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's physical attitude and prayer and there is no consistency.

There is nothing about bowing down. There's nothing about You know 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 Darwin. What is the cup. If you have a Bible with concordance with index and cross-reference look up for the word cup it means.

No a cup does not mean the death. 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, you know, look at a concordance it it just doesn't strike me to shake a wall. Is is familiar with for example the the key Passages of the key resources. I'm sorry in regards to the study of the New Testament Bauer and King Richard Donker or Any you know Kittles theological dictionary the New Testament any of these types of sources that would give you a much more in-depth Understanding of these particular terms.

And support him and I showed him in the Quran we said The angel came and certain him he doesn't want to die.

He pray more now notice the interpretation that is being offered. He doesn't want to die. 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 in New Testament To be to be brought together, which again, I'm sure shake a 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. It'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 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 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 in 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. 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 in human flesh has given us the model of continued communion with the father. Well, the main arguments they use well, God doesn't pray to God. Well, if he's if the second person of Trinity has entered into flesh, you better believe he is.

He's not gonna 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 that shows that Jesus doesn't want to do what he has said from the beginning he was going to do. 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 and asleep 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 open seek and you shall find Ask and it shall be you know.

Heard. What kind of father is it when you ask him for a bread? He give you a stone. Or you ask him for a fish. He give 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 the cop see. You see that the argument here cop equals death. Jesus prays not to die. The father gives good gifts and therefore he's gonna tie us in with Hebrews.

Completely missing the context of Hebrews to say that God would have given him his His his requests would have granted his prayer. That's the form 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 prophets that false prophets 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 way in now. How Shaka well knows is 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 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. I mean that's So everyone who's ever been decapitated was false prophet. I'm sorry, but that's That that's pretty hard to take seriously.

At the time of Emperor Nero He was beheaded and cut into pieces. In the Bible Deuteronomy chapter 26 verse 14 said 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 a tree. They weren't talking about crucifixion at that particular point in history. A little anachronism there again one of the things that evidently this 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 fits their argument better. And so you've you've got to just sort of keep that in mind. Yes, shake of all 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 shake a wall has quoted so far if he will just allow the texts to speak for themselves.

The Incarnation, the Cross, and the Christian Gospel

But he does not. The human money repel 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 shake of all 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 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.

Took okay. Now here comes a this is. 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 that this is Sammy's author. He 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 thousand nine 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 supposed to help Mary and Mary in the pain of giving birth.

Baby, Jesus that coming out and you help her to be a nurse to bring him out that puny little baby.

With Yes, sir, it's exactly right it is it is an amazing thing to consider the condescension of the Sun 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 like likewise 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 non-existence, which it doesn't even in their own theology. But it is it may this is a type of argumentation. This is 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 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're talking about Roman Catholicism right now. We will be talking about those specific things in the teaching of 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 and 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.

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's 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 could not enter into his own creation not not ceasing to be a law. 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 you might have that you may would say? Well, you'd never have that purpose that's different issue. Logically. It's different issue. You are assuming an incapacity on the part of God Based upon other things but but it be open about those other assumptions that you are making and Recognize they're not our assumptions.

And in fact, they're directly contradicted By something that you actually call a revelation that you said it you your own book says was sent down by God and We are told as the island Geo 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?

Hebrews 5, Psalm 22, and the Denial of the Crucifixion

Did he die on the cross. You say 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 Hebrew the book of Hebrews chapter 5 verse 7 Talking about what the Christ died on the cross or not.

Please I want you to listen for the Bible said about whether Christ died on the cross or did not die on the cross. The book of Hebrew 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 hurt. This verse tell us that Jesus Christ did not die on the cross.

So there you go. There's 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 you 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 had 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 gonna have even more after Hebrews chapter 5.

You're gonna 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 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 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 say well if he prayed to be saved from death, and he never died. And of course, what's the record the Hebrews point? Jesus was saved from death through the resurrection from the dead.

That's the whole point of the writer there's really no question about this. It's not something the 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 shake a wall is normally talking to an audience of people who have never read the book of Hebrews and therefore and You know shake a wall says have been studying the Bible for 20 years.

But shake a wall also says he's got 28 different Bibles in his house. Oh, he doesn't he has 28 different translations. He he doesn't seem to recognize the Bible is a translation of an ancient language text.

It's exact same way the Quran is he will recognize that for the crime. 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 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 heard heard 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 make an agreement that seven thousand years ago after Adam Christ will come and die for mankind, but as you can see on the cross.

What did he say. Hello Eloy Lamar. Shabbat Annie. In Hebrew in Arabic. Allah Allah the matter of thing my God my God. Why do you forsake me? He's crying.

He's 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 Eloy Eloy Lamar Shabbat Annie 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 shake a wall thinks is suffering in the 22nd Psalm. Who's going through those things and then who then is 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.

To die willingly For mankind, but he was on the cross crying Eloy Eloy Lamar Shabbat Annie. Somebody else was on the cross. The Quran said when I got to know who when I said a boo. They did not kill him.

They did not crucify him. Well, I can should be. What in the lezzy not a little feel if he should give me the whole model will be human in it. But as then when I got a little yakina, well, if I would allow it.

They did not kill him and they did not crucify him. But now personally I wouldn't mind hearing a debate between Sheikha wall and Shabir Ali. Whether Jesus was put on the cross or not. That would be that would be enjoyable to to listen to but I wouldn't be holding my breath.

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 hung on the cross that day.

And now let me just go ahead and stop here. We'll be taking a break but fact the matter is He can tell us that that's that's what should be how they have means. 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 so 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 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 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.

In the on Calvary cross someone was hung on the cross in Golgotha. Someone was indeed hung on the cross, but that was not Jesus. So Allah said what in the lesson after. Level fee. Let me shut the middle.

Those who are involved about the case of death of Jesus Malik will be human in him. They don't have the exact knowledge of what happened to them. Why. Because. In let's say by a Zen 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 disciple.

All means all. None of them saw what happened now again here this this is just a very invalid argument. The text 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 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 doesn't does not even mention That reality.

How can he do that? I I do not understand how you can misrepresent the text in in that way. All forsook him and fled.

What did they go. They went to opera room. They went to a place called opera room. That is where they used to meet and that's where the disciple went and hide. None of them saw what happened in the cross.

So the Quran said what in. That was enough to level fee. Let me shut the middle. Those who are involved about his death They don't have the knowledge of what happened because Matt said they all took him and fled.

But he didn't say that he said that in one context and then he Recognizes that Pete you know 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 that's not how you handle anyone's text. Shake a wall has written some books. I've Tried to find out how to get hold of them. They're not generally available. But I would if I did would he appreciate if I interpreted his works the way he's interpreting the Bible.

I don't think so.

As then the fuller conjecture guesswork, that's what happened. I think so is it. 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 approve and represent that the Bible have 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. Shake a wall. Be glad to debate you on that one. That there is there is some confidence there that the facts will not back up.

It's been changed. I have 28 bibles in my house. I have 28 bibles in my house. None is the same. In other words they're different translations.

And again, I have all sorts of translations the Quran and none of the same is and he'll go. Oh, no, no, those just translations. You gotta go back to the Arabic. Okay, you gotta go back to the Greek in Hebrew same thing.