Who was the Founder of Christianity? Jesus or Paul? Part 4

John 20 and the Deity of Christ

Honoring of the king, we're not talking about offering sacrifices to him, we're going to talk about identifying him as God. What Thomas is doing in John chapter 20 is very, very clear, he's applying specific language of deity.

Kurios is the very word used for Yahweh in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, the Greek translation. He's applying it to Jesus, and Jesus sees that as faith. That's the point, I would just invite everyone to look at John 20, I think you'll see that for yourself.

Questions from the Audience on Paul, Peter, and the Early Church

Thank you, James. Okay, now we're going to come to that part of the program where we're going to take questions from the audience. If there's anybody that would like to pose a question to any of the speakers, please come to the center of the...

We've got another microphone there. We're going to take the... We're going to take the first question, that's for Bashir, the first question, right? Thank you, Bashir. Bashir, you... Wait, before you start, I just want to make sure I've got some system here.

I'm going to do the following, I need one question to Bashir, and then I need the question then to go through to James. So, why aren't any Muslims asking questions? Come on, folks, am I that mean? I thought I was being nice.

I'm actually only going to limit it to the three questions then to Bashir, and three questions to James, and then we'll move on to the final part of the program. This is going to take much longer than this.

Guys, I encourage you, if I can't, I'm going to have to then ask the questions to pose questions through to James to make him fearful this evening. So, I've had a lot of questions yesterday when I met James.

I'm sure some of you guys have some questions for James. Okay. You use that, but Brian, before you, if I find a Muslim questioner, I'm going to put him there. The space is here. Okay. The events are coming from the back.

Bashir, you said that before Paul was the Apostle Paul, before he was converted, he was a Pharisee, his name was Saul, and he was persecuting the Church. So, he was a Pharisee persecuting Christians, and assumed that Peter would be one of those Christians that were part of the Church.

In fact, he was the first preacher of the Church and of Pentecost. So, Paul is a Pharisee, the keeper of the Lord Moses, which he correctly says, Jesus told him to keep the Lord, because they said to Moses this evening, do what they say, but don't do what they do, because they preach, but they don't practice.

While Paul, as Saul, before he was converted, he persecuted the Church. If, afterwards, when he became part of the Church, and you quote it from this, Peter, who was part of that original Church, counts Paul and his brother.

I just want to read from 2 Peter chapter 3, because the 2nd verse of it, Peter writes.

So, is it good to ask that I actually show up for one minute? Okay, I just want to just read from this. I'm going to give you 20 seconds to read, and to pose your question. Thank you. Okay.

In calibrations of our Lord's salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, as he does also in all his letters to whom he speaks to them, of those matters there are some things in them that are hard to understand, of which there are ignorant and unstable truths without description, as they do all the other scriptures.

Paul, after his conversion, and updated after him, as were other people that he would have been persecuting before. If Paul stopped the Christianity while he enjoyed murdering people he was persecuting.

Thank you. Thank you. I think you are asking me now to dissect Paul's personality, and don't feel comfortable doing it. I will say that there were problems between Peter and Paul. Paul accused Peter, perhaps harshly, and said that why is it when he meets Jews he behaves differently than when he meets Gentiles?

James also takes on Paul and says, listen, I'm hearing rumours that you are teaching people not to be Jews. You know, and bear in mind that the earliest followers of Jesus were Jews. They followed the Mosaic law, and there was a big council in the Council of Jerusalem where they would debate this whole issue.

What do we do with non-Jews who are prepared to accept Jesus as a prophet and as a messiah? And they decided, quite simply, according to Paul, James decided, he said, look, we will continue to follow the law of Moses.

The Gentiles come to the church, they must follow the Noahite commandments. In other words, as long as they do not worship idols, they do not eat blood, and do certain things, we will accept them. But it's not true to simply say that there were no problems between James and Peter.

Why would Peter affirm Paul if Peter was part of the very people that Paul was persecuting when he was a Pharisee?

Again, there is debate whether Peter wrote Peter. But again, it says more about Peter than it says about Jesus. But Peter is affirming Paul as being part of him. I want to enter into a debate from the floor.

I'm going to ask that the other speaker be given an opportunity of one minute just to rectify anything. Give the question and answer. So James, you want to go ahead? Yeah, I think the point is very clear.

According to the text, Peter identifies Paul as our dear brother, first of all. Not as an opponent of his teachings or his beliefs. And Peter would have been one of the people that Paul was persecuting who were Christians.

Which means the Christians existed before Paul came along and was converted. Which means Paul could not have been the one who founded Christianity. It's pretty clear. It's pretty obvious. The text is straightforward, and I think it pretty much establishes the thesis of the debate.

In the technical sense, that clearly, Paul is not the quote-unquote founder of Christianity.

Circumcision, the Law of Moses, and the New Covenant

James, when we get to the circumcision, okay, why do you believe it's not a necessary part of Christianity today?

Okay, it is actually something that a person is free as far as his sons, whether they will or will not engage in that. But the point is that circumcision, very clearly, both in the Old Testament, because it's fascinating, in the Tanakh, the Torah, the Levite, the Testament, and the Hebrew Scriptures, circumcision, very often, even in the Law of Moses, is said to be circumcision of the heart.

What does that mean? It had a clearly spiritual aspect to it, and so you had the physical people of Israel from whom the Messiah was to come. But the biblical narrative is that once the Messiah comes, that covenant becomes a new covenant, which is with all people, and it's no longer associated just with one land.

And so the idea of identifying a particular people, for example, by not shaving the sides of their beards, by circumcision, by the meat issues when Jesus declared all meats to be clean, so on and so forth, that is fulfilled in Christ, and it's not a part of the Gospel that goes forth to the whole world, because God is now forming a people in Jesus Christ who are identified not by the outward signs in their body, but by the inward purity of their heart and the presence of the Holy Spirit.

So the only way to understand it, and I think it fulfills the prophetic element of the Old Testament as well, is to see that the fulfillment has been found in Christ in the new covenant, which you can read about in Jeremiah chapter 31, because every person in the new covenant knows Yahweh.

That circumcision of the heart is taking place for every single one of them. So you don't have to identify specific people in the land of that mark any longer.

Okay, but Prophet Jesus, Son of Mary, peace be upon them, having gone through the circumcision, would you not find it unnatural to have that, you know, equality?

No, I realize that's probably taken too, but since we don't have a whole lot of Muslims in the land, if you don't mind, you're taking the assumption that you have as a Muslim that you are to emulate Muhammad in his life and applying that to us.

When we look at Jesus, we do want to emulate Jesus in what he taught us to emulate him in, not in his Jewishness. You see, we had something called Acts 15 that you never had. In Acts chapter 15, there was a church council that met under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, and it was determined that a person did not have to become a Jew to become a Christian.

And so the gospel can transcend every language, every culture, it can go everywhere. You never had something like that. And so there's a fundamental difference in how we see how evangelism or the proclamation of our faith is to take place all across the world.

And so when we want to emulate Jesus, we're not emulating his Jewishness, how he dressed, how many times a day he prayed, whether he was circumcised or not. What we're emulating is what he taught us to emulate in regards to the inner part of the heart, the circle of the mouth, things like that.

Okay? Perfect. Thank you. Okay, a quick one further, obviously from a health perspective,.

I ask that you go to the Holy Synod of the Muslims, and let's just find an opportunity before Brian before he's done, let's just find an opportunity of one minute to respond to the question. Jesus was not dressed under the culture of Jerusalem.

Anyway, the Old Testament tells us that physical circumcision was an everlasting covenant. Physical. Jesus never spoke out against the circumcision. Jesus, while he walked this earth, he followed the laws of Moses, and he encouraged others to do so.

He even stated, heaven and earth will pass away, but not one dot of the wall will be cut off. Jesus says, I give only for the children of Israel. So, you know, when Jesus walked this earth, he followed the Mosaic law, this idea that the council of Jerusalem, the Gentiles were brought in and come out, this new idea, it wasn't.

I mean, Jesus accuses the Pharisees. He says, you know, you travel over land and seek, you know, for a convert. And there were Jewish converts. And although their burdens were fewer, so were their privileges.

You know, Jews felt that they are the chosen people. You are welcome to convert. Good evening, James. Bashir, this is the second time I hear you say, even if I didn't say it the way you said this, there is no parable when Jesus says that he will die and rise again.

So I just wanted to read to you how you came across this in the Scriptures. John chapter 12. Jesus replied, the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed.

But if it dies, it produces many seeds. His life will lose him. The man who hates his life in this world, and where I, my father, in that same course of the Scripture, he continues, in verse 31, now the times of judgment.

I just want to finish it to you. You wrote the whole story. But here's the parable, that Jesus will die and rise again. I said, in terms of humanity, that was my question. If that is the fundamental thing about Jesus, look, rising again from the dead, it's not a big deal.

Look, according to Jesus. Because if you remember the parable, you will not believe. So for Jesus, somebody coming back from the dead, rising from the dead, it's not a big deal. It doesn't mean that somehow that person is God, says he's God, where he's going to die for the sins of humanity, and that somehow his blood will excreate the sins of humanity.

There isn't one. And I think James knows the Bible a lot better than you, and he is that person. There isn't one. My response, not my response. Number one, demanding parables is a misuse and abuse of Jesus' words.

I've pointed that out, and hopefully we can stop doing that. We've got to find a parable for Jesus. Jesus taught it, the entire Sermon on the Mount is on a parable, and Jesus taught it. Point number two, rising again from the dead is not a big deal.

When you say you're doing it by your own power, it is. And when Jesus says, no one takes my life from me, I have the authority to take it up. This is the Father who has given it to me. When the Bible describes the Father as raising Jesus, Jesus says having power to raise himself, and the Spirit raising him now is Trinitarian.

That's a real big deal, because all the rest is to get raised up. Somebody else is doing it. We're not doing it ourselves. That's what makes it a big deal. Thank you. This question is for James. This is for James.

The next question is for James. James as well. Is the next question? This is for James, and then we're going to share. It is for James. It's for James. It's not an issue that I'm in. No, no, no. I was still in the team.

Oh, okay. No, no. The two questions are there. The question after you will then be for Bashir. So, you've got a question? No, no questions. Both of you are for James. Okay, let's continue. Are there no questions after these?

No, that's the thing. The question is rather that you offer your question to me. What?

Wait, wait. You can ask the question to James.

You could ask the question to James. We don't have a problem with it. Because you assumed the opposite of my comments. But here's your opportunity to ask your question.

James, I've got a question for you from Matthew chapter 22. Can you please explain the parable that commences? Jesus says, there was a landowner who planted a vineyard and put a wall around it and dug up a winepress.

Eventually, it goes on to say that the owner of the winepress had sent his workers and slaves there. His workers there, that they were stoned and killed. Again, he sent another group of slaves, slaves, larger than the first.

And then did the same thing. But afterwards, he sent his sons saying they were as quick as sun. But when the vine growers saw the sun, they said among themselves, this is the age. Let us kill him and seize these inheritors.

What was the reference on that? Matthew 21. Matthew 21, verse 33. Oh, that was a chapter. You said 22. That's what I was going to say. Where is that? It's not in my Bible.

Yes, very, very quickly. Again, though we shall not be limited to the parables as our basis of Jesus' teaching. Clearly, in the parables, Jesus identifies himself as the son sent by the father. And pictures Israel in rebellion against their God because they're rebelling against what he has sent to fulfill the scriptures and to be the Messiah, who the Messiah is.

And so you could make, I think, a fair argument, allowing the text to speak for itself, that here in a parabolic format, you have Jesus being identified as the son, which, of course, Muslims would never accept as far as the terminology is used there.

But then you would have to demonstrate from the scriptures that that particular use of the term son is not just sons by the tons, but has the specific identification of deity attached to it. And given that the son brings judgment and that there is then the connection to the son of man that Jesus then uses of himself in Mark chapter 14, that's where you really find, I think, the strong connection that Jesus does identify himself as the son of God in a parabolic statement at that particular point.

That's true. In the parable of the vineyard, in the study of it, it's quite simple. There is no intention of the name God that is called for the son to die. It doesn't say that the son has to die. The motive of the son's death is not mentioned.

It knows that the resurrection is mentioned. Again, it implies inheritance, not ownership. The labels talk about taking the inheritance. It cannot mean taking Godly power. It can mean taking perfected power.

So, no, nothing to do with Jesus being divine, death, or resurrection. Thank you. Thank you, Moshi. Your question is for Moshi, right? Yes. The next question now should be towards Moshi. Is there a question like that?

I can ask a question and you can go to Moshi. Okay, so why don't you introduce that?

And then, sir, you're going to be the last questioner because they're going to go to James. The lady behind you, unfortunately, will be taking any more questions after this. I apologize for that. Please have a seat.

The Trinity, the New Testament, and the Qur'an

Okay. Did Paul not mutilate and distort the original message of God by bringing out the true idea of Trinity? Because the idea of Trinity only appeared 300 years after his departure. That's a question.

Sorry. That really is a question. Give me 60 seconds to answer that. She intended that for me. Yeah. We're wasting more time. We won't get two minutes. Okay. The doctrine of the Trinity did not appear 300 years after the time of Paul.

That is a common misunderstanding, but I can quote to you. If you reject the New Testament being immersed in the doctrine of the Trinity, which I can show you here as fast as, even if you reject that, I can give you references from the earliest Christian writers right after the New Testament.

Speaking about Jesus Christ as their God, Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, murdered one of A and D. Over 10 times, he refers to Jesus Christ as his God. He refers to him as the God-man. Two natures. Everything I believe, he was affirming in the first generation after the New Testament.

So it wasn't Council of Nicaea that made up the doctrine of the Trinity. Anyone who studies church history knows that's the case. And it's not just Paul who is making reference to Jesus as Yahweh. He identifies him as Yahweh.

He identifies him as the Creator. Peter does this. Peter identifies him as his Lord and God in 2 Peter 1 .1. John does this. Luke records Jesus' sermon where he talks about the deity of Christ. Acts chapter 20, verse 20.

So it's ubiquitous. So there was not a perversion of anything. It is the fulfillment of the prophecy that we saw in Isaiah 9, that we see in Micah chapter 5. It is consistent from Genesis to Revelation.

It's not something that was made up 30 years later. It's just not the case. Well, according to James, everybody talks about the Trinity except Jesus, which is interesting. I don't think Paul, on the New Testament, really talks about the Trinity.

There's no verse which talks about the Trinity, clearly. I think Paul's teachings perhaps maybe lead to that conclusion. And when James talks about, says that Paul talks about Jesus being God and so forth, again, it's a debatable thing.

I think he's talking about the Lamb of God. Again, that's something for another debate. No, I think Paul's teachings ultimately lead to that conclusion. But Paul himself doesn't quite talk about the Trinity.

His teachings lead to that. And, as I said, it's interesting. Everybody talks about the Trinity except Jesus. Which might be a problem. I just want to know, is there a book by Jesus and a book by Paul that's exactly the same?

Because you said Paul taught by Jesus, taught in a different language. Jesus says, no, Paul taught something else. So is there a book by Jesus that's exactly the book by Paul? Of course not. Jesus didn't write any books.

So there's no book by Jesus. The point is that everything we know about what Jesus taught is found in the New Testament. And those New Testament records, primarily the four Gospels and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are everything that the Christians had to whom Muhammad was speaking and said, you are responsible for what's in the Injil.

So they possessed it. So there's no way around this. And let me point out a real problem here. If you have a problem with the recording of Jesus' words by somebody else, why do you not have a problem with the fact that Jesus is quoted in the Qur 'an?

Over 600 years after he went to heaven, you accept everything that's in the Qur 'an that allegedly Jesus said. And yet, historically, no critical scholar on the planet would agree that that's valid. So, is there a book?

Jesus didn't write a book. No, he did not write a book, no sir. Look, I think it's ridiculous to compare the Qur 'an with what the New Testament was of Jesus. Clearly, you know, when the Prophet spoke in Aramaic, Arabic, and the scribes were there, no, Jesus did not speak Greek.

He spoke Aramaic. You know, Jesus was not around when these books were written. So, you have to compare apples with apples. I think, again, the rational point I'm making for the summation. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

You've been at the recording, so if you have questions, we're coming to the last ten minutes. I need you to bear with me five minutes, five minutes from each of the speakers. In this session, I will ask Dr. James White to present his summation first.

Thank you, Dr. White. I'd like to begin by thanking you all for being here, sticking it out to the very end. I appreciate your interest. In fact, you've been an excellent audience and asked excellent questions.

I'd like to thank Bashir, once again, for engaging in debate here in South Africa with me. I normally bring a book, and I have a book with me. It's a book I wish I could have written, but it's far better than anything I could write.

It's On the Holiness of God by Christian Archbishop R .C. Sproul. It has very little to do with what we're talking about tonight, but hopefully it's something for you to read. Bashir had said a few moments ago, Jesus was not at the Council in Acts, Chapter 15.

From a Christian perspective, you've got to believe he was, because Jesus promised to send his Spirit to be with his disciples, and it was the Spirit of God that convened that Council and guided that Council.

That's filled with a promise in John, Chapter 14. There's that John, Chapter 14 text again. May I invite all the Muslims in the audience to go home this evening and read John, Chapter 14, and then ponder in the light of what's been said this evening.

I really invite you to do that. A few moments ago also, Bashir said that Jesus came only for the House of Israel. Folks, we're not going to advance the conversation if we keep using the Scriptures. It is unfair, it is isogenical, it is not proper to read the Gospels, to take a statement of the Gospels that was about a particular point in Jesus' ministry, that in the same Gospel later on, the same writer says the Gospel is for all people and Jesus is Messiah for all people, ignore that and quote this.

That is an abusive Scripture and we need to stop it. We need to stop it. Read the New Testament for what it said. I tried to read the Quran for what it said. For example, it just said it was ridiculous for me to say what I said about the Quran.

But it wasn't responding to what I said about the Quran. Did you all hear what I said? I was asking the gentleman, if you believe that Jesus is quoted properly in the Quran, 600 years after he left this earth, then you logically have no basis for objecting to the Gospel writers actively quoting Jesus only 30 or 40 years after he was on the earth.

That's a perfectly logical statement. It wasn't ridiculous. If we're going to move this conversation forward, we have to do so with respect and with listening ears to hear what the other is saying. I know there's a lot of people on my side of the fence that don't want to hear what you believe.

I know that. They tell me that. I take heat for trying to tell people that there's all sorts of different kinds of Muslims and we need to talk to Muslims as to where they are and who they are as individuals.

And I know that they're evangelicals. They just want to say all Muslims are the same, just paint with a broad brush. I resist that. We as Christians should never do that. But you as Muslims, one of the beautiful names is Ahak, is it not?

The truth. That means you need to be consistent. You need to be always looking for the truth. And that means you should only make the truth about what the Bible says, not what someone told you. What have we looked at this evening?

We've seen clear evidence that if you will allow the New Testament to speak for itself, there is a consistent message from Matthew and Revelation. That Jesus, the Messiah, sends His Spirit, guides His apostles, and one of those special apostles was Paul.

And they taught the same message. And the only way to get around that is to not let it speak in its own language, but to interpret it in the light of something that comes 600 years later. That does not move the discussion forward.

I hope you will listen. I hope you will consider these things. My friends, I hope you sense the respect that I have for you. I want to actively understand what you believe and interact with it as a person who loves you and cares for you, as a follower of Jesus Christ.

I hope you hear that this evening. Thank you for showing me so much hospitality and having me here this evening. I hope you get a chance to come back in the future. Thank you very much. Thank you. I'm going to try to be very brief.

I think James misunderstands the point. I think he misunderstood the question. I don't know. It wasn't the topic of the debate anyway. I don't have a problem with the words of Jesus extensively. You know, I quote him.

I don't have a problem with that. I'm simply saying that we don't have the original in Aramaic, the language in which he is spoken. What we have is Greek, Koine Greek, what we call the Fana Golo, you know, in South Africa.

Koine Greek, and she doesn't agree. Nevertheless, I think it's quite remarkable that the letters of Paul, you find that very clearly, the books of Jesus, what Paul had to say. They don't follow Paul. It is almost as if the ultimate point, I must go to the Bible when I said, you know, Jesus came only for the Jews.

Jesus said that. The verse, with that number of disciples, they didn't have that. So if there was Cleopas, you know, make the Gentiles what Peter, there would be no problem with James. And, you know, if we get James, people are saying that you have already lost it.

Wash yourself. He does what James instructs him. He doesn't tell James, you know, I really don't want to do this with James. Because the Bible is the teachings of Jesus, side by side, and side by side.

It is a pleasure to be with you very strongly, and I want to thank you, the audience, and again. Ladies and gentlemen, we really are blessed to have been in the company of these two fundamental and key speakers on comparative religion.

From them this evening, I've got the fortunate job in that I don't have to declare a winner, but the winner is truly you, because at the end of the day you now have the information to go back home and do your own contemplation.

So ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion, you be the judge. You consider the facts. I can only pray that God guides us to His way. As a thank you, the Islamic Information Center would like to thank the following sponsors, the number of families, Mr. B .A. Dayak, Rubakar Ali, who has the community newspaper.

I, as he would also wish to thank Mr. Rubakar and the community members for providing us with this hall this evening. To UN World Impact to proclaim the Alpha and Omega ministries for their support. Finally, to both speakers for their excellent presentation and well-thought-out processes.

Thank you to you for being an excellent audience. Good evening, God bless. As-salamu alaykum.