Is Jesus God Almighty? Part 2

The Incarnation, Anthropos, and the Meaning of “Man”

Okay, so it's my turn to ask the question? Yes sir. Alright.

I gave the word in John chapter 8 verse 40 that has all the sources I looked at, of course we tried to discount them. However, I see that the word Anthropos is only used of a human being and the source that I have clearly and many other sources clearly shows that this word distinguishes human beings from God.

So therefore, I see that I don't see a God man in there. So I gave that word. Can you give me the word in your scripture that shows that Jesus is the man of God? The one phrase that shows that he is the man, the 100 man, 100 God?

Well, Shadi, with all due respect, your assertion on Anthropos is utterly without any scholarly merit. The term Anthropos does refer to a creature of God. We believe that Jesus was a man. We believe he was fully man.

And what you do is you seem to assert that because it means a true man, that because there can't be an incarnation, then Jesus can't truly be God. And that's an assumption that you read in and you make people believe that that actually is being derived from the Greek text itself and it is not.

There is nothing in the term Anthropos that says God cannot enter into his own creation. There is nothing in Brown, in any of the Bauer, Dunker, Gingrich, Lolanita, any of the lexical sources that would in any way even begin to make that kind of assertion.

So the question assumes something that we simply don't even begin to believe.

So are you saying that you cannot present a word then that shows that Jesus is the man? God has Christians to claim that he is.

Well, the scriptures say that Jesus is man and the scriptures say Jesus is God. And therefore, when you accept everything God says, you put the two together and you allow it to speak for itself. You don't make them contradictory to themselves.

You were just, I just started asking you about John 20, 28. The response was, that wasn't it. That's not what Jesus said. So any evidence I present to you, you just simply dismiss. I don't have that luxury when dealing with the New Testament.

I have to allow the New Testament to speak for itself. And I don't engage in that kind of activity when interpreting the Quran either.

So I think we're using different scales. No, I don't think so. But my point again, this word clearly says that he's useful a human being, somebody who's fully human. Which we believe Jesus was.

But no, you don't. You believe that he's fully God. No, again, please don't tell me what I don't believe. Because what you are doing is you're taking what someone 600 years later misunderstood and demanding that I believe.

I believe that Jesus Christ was fully man. And if he wasn't, then I'm going to die in my sins without redemption because he could not have offered himself upon Calvary's tree. Jesus is fully man. That does not change the reality that he is fully God.

He has two full and complete natures. And so there is nothing in the assertion that Jesus is a man that precludes him from being the God man any more than saying Muhammad was both a man and a prophet precludes, well, if he's a man, he can't be a prophet.

If he's a prophet, he can't be a man. Of course, they both fit together. And you're assuming that Jesus cannot be the God man because you're not on the authority of the New Testament and you have a different authority in the Koran.

I disagree because again, yeah, prophets and those are all things that we know men can be. Is that a question? Yes. Well, I'm putting out my question because we all know that men can be these different things.

Men can be a prophet, etc. But God is something different.

So again, we believe God is something different. There's no question about that. But God created man. And I believe God has the power. If he created it, if he wants to enter into it, no one can tell him not to.

Well, again. So again, so let's go to 1 Timothy 2, 5 then. We're in a search that there is for us one God and one mediator between God and man. Once again, Jesus is called the anthropo, the man Christ Jesus.

Explain that then. Again, you keep saying that he's both of these. How is he the man, excuse me, how is he the man God? Yet they keep referring to him as the anthropos in 1 Timothy 2, 5. Explain that, please.

I've explained it so many times. I think everybody in the room knows exactly what I said. Jesus Christ. According to John 1, 14, the Logos became flesh. The Logos did not cease being the Logos, but he was truly flesh.

And the whole reason for 1 Timothy 2, 5 is the beautiful truth that it is. There is one God and one mediator also between God and man. The man Christ Jesus. He is the one who can bring these two sides together because he is the God man.

Because he is the one who is able to not only live the perfect life, but to give that perfect life on behalf of all those who are joined to him. He is, this is the whole purpose of creation itself. And so, it is the assertion of the Christian faith that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, and that's why he's the only perfect mediator, and that's why eternal life is only through him.

And I don't know how much more clearly it can be expressed than that, because the problem, Shadid, is you're assuming that there cannot be an incarnation. It's behind all your thinking, whether you recognize it or not.

That's where the problem is. You simply deny to God the ability to enter into his own creation. You've locked him out.

I haven't. I haven't. And that's why I'm asking these questions, because I'm trying to understand that. That's what I said. I'm taking that idea that you're telling us that he, God, is incarnate in Christ.

Yet, can you explain that? Why do I keep reading scriptures? For example, Romans 15, 6. Glorify the God and Father of our Lord. 2 Corinthians 1, 2, 3. Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, that's the language that, this is why we believe in the Trinity, because we recognize, we were reading these texts, and remember, we were reading these texts and translating these texts and arguing about these texts for hundreds of years, before the Koran came along, written by a man who never read any of these texts.

Not once. Never makes reference to a single one of them. And we know that Jesus, as the incarnate one, continues to be incarnate. He didn't get rid of his humanity. He didn't get rid of his body. That's part of the reason why we are united with him, and therefore have the relationship to God the Father that we have, only in and through him.

And so, yes, Jesus was not an atheist. As the perfect man on earth, who's he going to worship? It's the second person in the Trinity who has entered into that. They had an eternal relationship. They've been talking for eternity.

Are they going to stop talking for 30 years? Again, it's just, Shadid, you just won't allow the New Testament to define its own parameters. You're taking a foreign source and pushing it on the New Testament.

Peter’s Confession, the Son of God, and the Messiah

Okay, very quickly.

My time is up. Okay, since you said the final piece of it.

In Matthew 16, verses 13 through 17, we see here that Jesus is allegedly supposed to be speaking to Peter about who people say that he is. And so this will be the defining moment that, yes, you are God.

You are the God, man, etc. However, we see that Peter goes through some of the things that people were saying about Jesus. But he says, Peter, who do you say that I am? And Peter answers that you are the Christ, obviously the Messiah meaning the anointed of God, not who is God, the Son of the living God.

And then Jesus answers and says to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood is not revealed to you, but my Father which is heaven. Notice what? The answer was that you are the Christ, not that you're God, and Jesus says that's the right answer, and that obviously his Father had to reveal that.

So there, once again, that's the defining moment.

Again, any Christian in the audience is just sitting there going, these are not arguments against Christianity. They're arguments against ignorance of Christianity. When it says you are the Messiah, that is his function, a function that, by the way, you could never define out of the Koran.

Even though Jesus is identified as the Messiah, the Korans depend upon what the Bible says about that to even define what Messiah is. But Son of the living God. John chapter 19, when the Jews were talking to the Roman authorities, what did they say?

We have a law, and by that law, this man should die. Why? Because he made himself the Son of God. That was the law against blasphemy. Achmed Didak was simply wrong. God does not have sons by the tons.

Any meaningful reading of the New Testament demonstrates that the Sonship of Jesus Christ is utterly different than anyone else. He is uniquely the Son of God, has eternally been the Son of God, and hence Peter's confession, Son of the living God, was an amazing confession that required revelation from God because it demonstrated he wasn't just a man.

The Son of the living God is a phrase of deity.

Isn't that actually false, though, that this claim to be Son of God is blasphemy? When in the Old Testament, Ephraim is called the Son of God, Israel is called the Son of God. There are many. There are indeed many.

If you just allow it. So my question is, since when did that become a law when the Jews would have already known that they had scripture that allows people to be called Son of God?

Because the Jews did not hold your false conviction that you cannot read the Bible in context. And they recognized there was a vast difference between any kind of adopted Sonship and a relationship with God that would require you to be deity.

When Jesus identified as the Son of God, you said we shouldn't believe what the Jews had to say. And yet, they recognized that the uniqueness of the relationship that Jesus has with the Father indicated deity.

And they were listening to everything that Jesus was saying, not just the little parts of what Jesus was saying. And they recognized that he was connecting his relationship with the Father to the Old Testament prophecies and about one who had eternally been in the presence of the Father.

All right, timer is telling me it's up. There we go.

The Qur'an, Corruption, and the People of the Book

All right, now we're going to take some time to answer some questions from all of you. There's so many questions that we've received, there's certainly not enough time to address all of them. I don't want to try all of your patience, so we would be here well past midnight.

So what I've done is I've taken some questions that pertain to the topic of the debate. There were many questions that were submitted that don't pertain to the topic of the debate, and I've excluded those simply for time's sake and tried to narrow down on these.

So what we're going to do is give each of you one minute to speak and with a 30-second reply, okay? So if it's addressed to you, you'll get one minute. And if it's not addressed to you, you'll reply with 30 seconds.

If it's a general question, we'll give you each one minute to speak to the question. Shadi, this one's for you, first of all. Can Almighty God choose to become a perfect man? Of course, God is all-powerful, so He could choose to do anything.

God could choose to lie. God could choose to fornicate. God could choose to, you know, become a dog if He wanted to. The question is, would God do these things? Because these things would, you know, are not of His majesty.

So sure, God could do what He wanted to. He wanted to lie to us, He could lie. What can we say to God if He wanted to lie to us? He's God, right? If God wanted to take an earthly woman and fornicate with her and commit adultery, what can we say?

He's God. The question is, would He do these things? Sure, God could do whatever He wants, but would He do these things? Why do you think, when you look at the Hebrew scriptures, that He's constantly being contrasted with man?

He's not a man. God is greater than man. He's not, it's always being told that. Why? So that way we don't come, become foolish in later generations and make some man a God, which is what has happened.

And then again, you see the problems that come with that. So the answer is very clear, that God could choose to do what He wants to do and none of us could do anything about it. The question is, would He do that?

Because doing that would make Him less than who He is. If He becomes a man, if He becomes a dog, He is no longer, you can no longer say God is greater than man, because now He is a man. You can no longer say God is greater than creation, because now He's a dog.

So God can choose to do what He wants, but would He choose to do it? And the answer is obviously no. Which is why that contrast is always being made, because He would not choose to do that. Thank you.

God could not lie, and He could not do those things, because He's God in the story's very nature. That is certainly the biblical teaching on that subject. I'm taking my time. The question assumes something I think we need to understand.

There is an assumption on the part of most Muslims that the incarnation could not take place. Go to YouTube, watch my debate with Abdullah Kunda on this very issue, because it's the only debate that I've had where we actually really address, can God become a man?

And it's my favorite debate so far on this subject. Thank you.

Why Jesus Does Not Explicitly Say “I Am God” in the Gospels

Okay, Dr. White, this one's for you. If Jesus is God, why doesn't He explicitly state that in the Gospels?

Why doesn't He explicitly state that in the Gospels? Well, how would He do that? He taught us to pray to Him. He accepted worship. He called Himself the I Am. When Thomas confessed Him as God, He identified that as faith.

Only if you're assuming that Jesus' mission was to come along and say, Hey, guess what? I'm the Incarnate One, rather than to function as the Messiah, fulfill the law, live a perfect life, and give His life as a ransom on the cross, are you even gonna ask the question?

The question assumes that Jesus did not come to fulfill a particular function in providing for our salvation. He doesn't need to come along and say, Hey, guess what? I'm God. He's going to allow His actions.

He's going to allow the actions of His followers, His disciples. He's going to allow the Spirit of God that then brings about the writing of the New Testament to reveal those things to His people down through the ages.

He doesn't need to get in the way of accomplishing the will of the Father by basically putting on a magic show. I'll take my 30 seconds.

Yeah. Right. The reason why He doesn't say it is because He's clearly not God. And He said, right, He said His actions, well, His actions show us that He's not God. He's declaring that He has a God. He's declaring that there's someone greater than Him.

His actions show that He needs help. He's praying for help. He's getting hungry. He's doing all these things that's showing us that He's not God, which is why, as I demonstrated, the earliest people who started to follow Him, they said He was a prophet.

They understood God had given Him authority. He was a man who was given authority. Because it's clear. His actions show it, and His words show it, that He was not God. That's why you can't find a Savior.

Thank you. Of course, Yahweh was never pierced. But see, this is what happens,.

Is that Christians have come along later, and they try to look back in these scriptures, and then begin to write their stories and try to fit it to these things that they want to claim is about Jesus.

God, Yahweh, is the Most High. Of course, He was never pierced. He's God Almighty. Jesus is not God Almighty. He's a man. I am a man who told you the truth that I heard from God.

Well, the text contradicts what was just said. I will pour out on the house of David, on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplication. The spirit of God is under the control of God Himself.

It's the spirit of Yahweh sent by Yahweh. And they will look on Me, whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only son. You have clear prophetic terminology that prophecy existed long before the New Testament and long before the Qanon, and yet you have it being rejected because of something that comes far later.

That's anachronism. It should be rejected.

The Meaning of “I Am” and the Old Testament Background

Okay. I think this one's addressed to both of you. What is your understanding of Jesus, I am, saints?

I am saint. Well, yeah, that's a good question because He's saying I am. He said it was translated correctly as I am He. Well, I am He who? I am He the Messiah? He's clearly not referring to Himself as the I am because, again, the Greek version is ego, I am a ho-on.

Jesus doesn't say that. So I am He. Well, we know who He is as we just showed Peter. When you ask Peter, who do men say I am? Peter says, you are the Christ. What's the Christ? The Christ is the anointed one.

He's the Messiah. He's not God Himself. He's the anointed one of God. So this is how I understand His I am statements. That He is saying that I am He. I am that one who was supposed to be sent, the Messiah, to redeem Israel, etc.

This is who He is. And again, Peter, who do people say that I am? And Peter answers, well, they say this, they say that, but who do you say that I am? You are the Christ. Christ is the anointed one. The anointed of God.

Not He is God Himself. If He was God Himself, He wouldn't need to be anointed because He's already God. Thank you. Do I have the whole time?

One minute, yes. I sent, indeed, my book, The Forgotten Territory. There's an entire chapter in that which explains every error that he just made. For example, he is frequently referred to Exodus 3 .14 and echoing Eha 'on.

Of course, as I point out in that chapter, that is not the antecedent. The antecedent is found in the book of Isaiah primarily and in the minor prophets. The Jews understood this. That's why they reacted the way they did in John 8 .58.

Jesus understood this. That's why he used John 13 .19 and quoted from Isaiah 43, not from Exodus 3, to demonstrate his nature as the I am. And we have heard nothing. Have you noticed? Even though I talked about John 18 .5 -6 and the soldiers fell back upon the ground, nothing was said about that.

The purpose is very intentional on John's part. The meaning is very clear, but again, if you have a lens that keeps you from seeing what the New Testament is actually teaching, then you're just simply going to ignore what's being said.

The Qur'an’s View of the Torah, the Injil, and Corruption

Okay, Shadi, this question is for you. If none of the books in the Bible represent Allah's incorruptible word, then what book is the Qur 'an referring to when it says, quote, and let the people of the book judge by what Allah has revealed therein?

Can you say the beginning part? Yes. If none of the books in the Bible represent Allah's incorruptible word, then what book is the Qur 'an referring to when it says let the people of the book judge by what Allah has revealed therein?

Surah 547.

I don't mean, but do you feel that that's relevant to the subject of if Jesus is God Almighty?

Well, I included it as relevant to the subject because you brought up the point of there being corruptions within the text, and that's why I've included it.

What do I feel? Well, the Qur 'an explicitly says what scriptures he's referring to. He mentions the Torah. He mentions the Injil given to Jesus, the Zabur. That's not your Bible. So I feel that he's referring to exactly what he says he's referring to, the Torah, the Zabur, the Injil given to Jesus.

He makes it clear that the Qur 'an makes it clear what scriptures it's being referred to specifically. There's no mention of Matthew, Mark, John, Paul, the various other chronicles, kings. None of those are mentioned.

So this is what I feel he's referring to. And, of course, he's referring to how they were given their original state. So this is what I feel the Qur 'an is referring to, which, obviously, your Bible is not that.

Okay.

Well, I think a very strong argument made that the Qur 'an does not teach the corruption of the Bible. There isn't a way to understand the Surah 547 because if it had any meaning to the people to whom it was spoken, then they had to have the Injil by which to test by the Injil.

And so I think the author of the Qur 'an was completely ignorant of the text of both the Old and New Testament. And the Qur 'an itself says in Surah 1827, there is no change of Allah's words. Since the Qur 'an says the Injil was sent down, it causes a real problem with that position.

Okay. Well, we're going to draw time there on the questions. And I'm sorry if we didn't get to your question. There are many that we didn't get to. And so we're now going to move to our closing arguments, closing statements.

And as we said, Shadid is going to go first with this and then closing with James William. Shadid, please. Thank you.

Closing Arguments on Whether Jesus Is God Almighty

Discussion here was about whether Jesus is God Almighty, the Most High. Listen to the words. God Almighty, the Most High. I believe I demonstrated very clearly that Jesus clearly was not God Almighty, the Most High.

The Most High. I gave clear verses where there are alleged to be the words of Jesus where it is said that he mentions that he has a God. That there is one greater than him. That he has to pray to for help.

Be honest with yourselves. Don't allow yourselves to be swayed and deluded by preachy language. Really listen and look at the arguments here. How can you honestly believe that this man is supposed to be God Almighty, the Most High, when he speaks like this?

And even if you want to use the humbling argument. Okay, well then if he humbled himself, by definition he still can't be the Most High because he took himself in a lesser position. So even if you want to accept that argument, why he says these things, okay, well then even then he still cannot be referred to as the Most High because you're admitting that he humbled himself.

He took on a lesser position. Therefore, even in that sense, technically, he still can't be referred to as the Most High because you're acknowledging that, well, he's taken on a lesser position. So even there it still doesn't follow.

So, again, it is clear that we must be honest and look at the arguments. Don't just continue to want to believe because this has been what you have believed traditionally because your family has passed this on to you.

Actually look at it. Honestly look at it. And see that this man, Jesus, is not God Almighty, the Most High. And once you come to that realization, then I invite you to what the Qur 'an says in chapter 3, verse 64.

It says, Say, O followers of the Book, come to an equitable proposition between us and you, that we shall serve none any but Allah, and we associate with him, and that some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah.

But if they turn back, then say, bear witness that we are Muslims. As far as what we mentioned about the book, I didn't say that the Qur 'an does not say that the Bible is corrupted. I said that those verses, the book that it refers to, refers to the original revelations that were given, which your Bible does not, meaning that your Bible is the corrupt.

Not that the Qur 'an doesn't say that it's not corrupt, no. It refers to the scriptures that the people have. They wrote with their hands and said it was from God. Not that it's negating that no corruption has taken place.

So that is not the argument there. Again, in the Qur 'an, chapter 43, verse 59, it says about Jesus, He was naught but a servant on whom we bestowed favor. He's not degraded. Islam does not degrade Jesus.

We don't put him down. Indeed, he was a great servant of God, someone that God favored. And it says that we made him an example for the children of Israel. This is the correct position that I invite you to believe about Jesus.

Not that he is God Almighty, because clearly, he was not. In his actions, again, even in the actions, even in the great things he did, it still acknowledges that he was given authority. If he was God, he would not have to be given the authority to do any of those things, because he would already possess the power to do so.

So, again, I'm serious about this. I'm asking you to seriously and honestly look at this. Stop worshipping a man. Stop worshipping a man. He is not man and God. That explanation just doesn't make sense.

He is not man and God. God is not a man. God is not a human being. He wouldn't become that, because if he was to do so, he would now be one of us. He is not one of us. He wants to maintain that. That's what makes God, God.

The fact that he's not one of us, the fact that he's not a man, a woman, a dog, a tree, or any other created thing. That's why you were warned in the Old Testament, don't make any graven images of anything from the creation, whether in the heavens, below, on the earth beneath.

Because God is none of those things, but you've done that. You've made God a man. You've made him a man. And when you make God a man, he can be depicted in any way you want. You can claim that he's this race or that race.

Look at that, people. Look at that. He is not one of us. That song, God is one of us, is wrong. What if? Well, the answer is no. He's not one of us. He is the most high, the unique one, the one to whom all praises do.

So I ask you and I invite you to look at the argument seriously, and then come to that which is true, and put God in his proper place, which is the most high above all, unlike his creation, worthy of all praise.

Thank you.

The Trinity, the Incarnation, and the New Testament Witness

Well, first of all, thank you all very much for being here this evening. You've been a wonderful audience. You've been very attentive, and I hope that you have been able to enter into the spirit and subject of this debate.

It is very important, obviously. Shadid and I both believe it is very important. When I did my first debate where I studied Islam, with Shabir Ali, I got into the habit of giving my Muslim debate partner some gifts.

I have here a book that I think is one of the best books recently put out, The Heresy of Orthodoxy. This really debunks a tremendous amount of the stuff that's being promoted out there in regards to anti-Christian scholarship.

And then an excellent book, a classic book that I hope most of you have read, by R .C. Sproul, called The Holiness of God. And I would like to give these to Shadid. I want you to hear the words that Shadid uttered just a few moments ago.

He has a God. He has a God. The most high, evidently, in this assumption, the most high would never ever consider entering into his own creation. That's the assumption this evening. That's why I said during the Q &A.

The fundamental issue that underpinned everything Shadid said tonight was an assumption that there could never be an incarnation. Allah is so transcendent, he would never enter into his own creation. That was the assumption, because he has a God.

Well, if God is triune, if there are three persons, and if the second person freely chooses to enter into human flesh, takes on a perfect human nature to live as a man, to give his life as a ransom for sinners, what would that man be like?

Would he have a God? Would the son break the communion that he had with the father for eternity? Would he not pray? Would he not demonstrate for us the proper way that a person is to live? You see, the assumption, he has a God, therefore he can't be.

What's the assumption? There can never be an incarnation. There can never be an incarnation. In fact, he said, by definition, God would never be like that. Where did that definition come from? It didn't come from the New Testament.

And the problem this evening is, the author of the Quran was ignorant of every word of the New Testament he read this evening. He had never, ever seen it. You say, well, the author of the Quran is Allah.

Well, then Allah should have known how to argue against the New Testament, but he didn't. And that's one of the greatest evidences that the Quran does not come from Allah. It comes from a man. A man would have understood the Trinity.

A man would have known what the New Testament was. He would have provided meaningful arguments against it. You wouldn't have Surah 5, verse 116 that puts in the lips of Allah, saying to Jesus, did you tell the people to worship you and your mother as gods in derogation of Allah?

There would be meaningful argumentation, but there isn't any. You see, folks, this evening, what you have seen is what happens when the text of the Bible and its entire story is ignored. Because all the way back in Genesis, in a story that, interestingly enough, my Muslim friends share with us, with a few interesting variations, but share with us, we have a picture of this.

Remember Abraham and what happens on the Mount with his son? And there you have this tremendous command, and you have this tremendous choice that is made. Did he show more love than God would show for his own people?

There is a picture of what happened on that mountain of self-giving. There is a picture that was given to us that we see fulfilled in the New Testament. Now, Shadid has been talking about, don't be deceived by preachy words.

Well, you know what? Paul said, do not be deceived by words of wisdom. But he also gave us a standard by which we should check things out. And when we check out what's been said this evening, we have found that, unfortunately, the vast body of material that I presented has simply been dismissed.

When I asked Shadid about John 20, 28, well, Jesus didn't say it. It came along later. Now, it's interesting. Shadid believes that Jesus said every word attributed to him in the Quran. And there is not a shred of historical evidence anywhere in the world for 600 years that Jesus said anything attributed to him in the Quran.

But Shadid believes that. But he doesn't believe what's found in the documents that were written in the first century by the followers of Jesus. Is that a consistent standard? It is not a consistent standard.

He has one standard for the Quran and a completely different standard for the New Testament. He says, well, that's not the injeel that was given to Jesus. You're assuming the author of the Quran had any idea what the injeel was.

Give me some evidence somewhere in the Quran that he knew something about what was in my New Testament. There is no evidence of that. And so he couldn't have known what the New Testament taught about who Jesus is.

And so we've had no refutation other than simply to dismiss. To show some confusion, you know, avyad does not mean Jesus the Father. The revelation of the Trinity takes place between the Old and New Testament.

It's in the incarnation of Jesus, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. You can't put the Father, Son, Spirit categories and distinctions back in the Old Testament. Avyad simply means God creates all things.

And that's the description of Jesus. That's what's in Isaiah 9. So what about the tremendous amount of evidence? What about the fact that New Testament writers identified Jesus as Yahweh? Well, that came along later.

If I dealt with the Quran that way, we would never get anywhere in having a discussion with one another. Because there's all sorts of scholars that have theories about the redaction of the Quran. And how this part came from this time and this part came from that time.

We can do all that kind of stuff. What does it actually accomplish? The point here is this. The Muslim is told that the Torah and the Injil were not solved. They were set down by God. And when we look at the Torah and the Injil, when we look at what the Jews and the Christians have, they teach us what we've seen this evening.