Jamal Badawi and Ally/Licona Debate

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a sunny warm.

Yes, very warm afternoon here in Phoenix Last I looked I think I saw

Reading of 108 no one hundred and seven point two degrees currently and There's most kept like a hundred and ten at least supposed to tomorrow.

So yes, it is that time of year and I'm really looking forward to Riding my motorcycle home through that especially in traffic where you get to stop and sit there with your engine

Idling in the Sun At those stoplights and after about 15 seconds of that pink elephant start running through this through the intersection in front of you.

It's great I love it. It's it's wonderful stuff. Those aren't pink elephants. That's a firetruck.

Yeah, it's coming to put me out At least put my feet out. That's that's the problem man.

You put your feet down on that asphalt there's a reason why it's melting and You know, I tell people back east, you know

They've got those all those potholes from the water getting underneath and freezing and breaking stuff. We don't have that we have the little little what do you call those ridges in front of the

Intersections because as people slow down and accelerate the asphalt get you know, sort of like like kind of cartilage

Fabric that you'd push back and forth. That's what it does here because it's so hot Yeah, of course as you're sitting there, you're wondering okay, which is gonna melt first the asphalt or my shoes

Oh Yeah, you can feel it. Believe you me you can you can feel it. It's it's fun But anyway, eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number for you to call today

We did not quite finish listening to Jamal Badawi and his presentation on the deity of Christ.

We only have about Five minutes that left I think maybe a little less than that and he's going to be getting into now the

The section where he is actually Presenting where he believes Jesus denied his own deity.

Now. Remember we weren't overly impressed nor could we actually be overly impressed? With what was presented earlier there in regards to the

Trying to deal with the positive evidence is because we didn't hear any of the strongest positive arguments addressed We didn't hear the

Granville Sharp constructions. We didn't hear Anything about the identity of Jesus as Yahweh and Jesus is the creator of all that all that stuff was just passed over in silence

Which truly makes me wonder, you know when someone passes over in silence, it's a little bit I'll be honest a little bit like I'm just working on a blog article right now yesterday

I posted a blog article where I began discussing a little bit of Dave Armstrong's book the one -minute

Apologist and I made the the statement there you can you can find out a lot about the quality of a person's

Understanding and their study by what they do in a brief period of time.

Now, what do I mean by that? well, it's one thing if you're writing a huge book or you're spending a tremendous amount of time to To Collate facts and to to put together research and things like that that that's one thing

But if you are asked and this is frequently in an apologetic situation What we have to deal with in our society if you are asked in a brief period of time to give a clear communicative cogent

Understandable Presentation response Positive presentation of something regarding the deity of Christ response to an attack upon the deity of Christ response to an attack upon the doctrines of grace, whatever it might be

That's where the rubber meets the road. That's where you find out if someone really understands what they believe or Whether they've got some some major holes in in what they believe it's a little bit like I've always said if you can't take what you're teaching and Especially when it comes to theology, you know, there might be some super technical things that require a more of a foundation like You know teaching the syntax of Greek participles or something like that but if you can't take what you're teaching especially of theology if you can't go into the youth group if you can't go into the kids classes and Make an understandable presentation.

You're probably over dependent upon scholarly language and lingo and things like that Or you're overly dependent upon some other form of argumentation for mr.

Armstrong, it's called verbal flooding or in this case written flooding if it was spoken it would be verbal I guess but It is it is what you do when you don't really have a whole lot to say so you just say a whole lot more than you need to and You keep citing yourself and you talk about things that really aren't relevant to the issue at all and and make it sound like you really know what you're talking about when in point of fact, you're just dancing around and and Hoping that people are sitting there watching you dancing around and they're so fascinated they forget that you're not actually answering the question and So if if you have to answer something briefly in this case

Jamal Badawi Only has five minutes left. And so now you really start finding out

How accurate is his understanding you can't nuance things as well in Armstrong's book he's got two pages to address an issue and That means you've got it, you've got to pick your best stuff and if you've got misrepresentations and miss citations and misunderstandings in only two pages

Well, it doesn't really matter if you expand that out to 200 pages the problem is in your foundational understanding and that's where the that's where the test really is

I think for For many people is what can you do in a brief period of time and let's face it in our society today you normally only have a brief period of time you might have a brief period of time at a

At the gate at the airport sitting on a flight on a bus on a train in the taxi cab whatever it might be very frequently you have a brief period of time and If you can can demonstrate that you you have the ability to make a meaningful statement

And you can do so accurately and you can also represent the position that you are decrying or that you are contradicting

Accurately in a brief period that demonstrates you actually know what it is you're talking about and so as we listen to Jamal Badawi, you will see you will hear

Very frequently what you get in debates this rat -a -tat -tat this this semi automatic

Presentation of argumentation. This is where it gets the closest to what you see in Collegiate debate where you have people who who?

Literally physically train their bodies to be able to speak three and four hundred words per minute. They're not trying to convince anybody

There is only a small group of judges who can even understand what they're saying It's like the FedEx guy in the old commercials from about ten years ago

How fast can you talk and how many facts can you throw out now? Obviously then the other side has to speak just as fast, but you can never contradict all those facts

So it's it's not a matter of honestly dealing with the facts It's just throwing stuff out and whoever gets to throw the most stuff out doesn't really matter if it's good or cogent reasoning or whatever

That's how you win. Well, that's what we're about to get here when you hear someone just throwing this out throwing that out throwing this up It's a great rhetorical device and and it sounds real good and it can get your base all revved up and excited but It's impossible in the context of debate to then analyze each one of these texts reach one of these claims

In a meaningful fashion, especially since the next guy is going to have a lesser period of time to respond to these things anyways,

I've said many many times that it takes ten seconds to enunciate an error that takes at least two minutes to correct and So if you take two minutes throwing out ten seconds of falsehood each time it would take you quite some time to unwrap all that and that would be difficult to do within the context of a debate and So we're about to catch sort of an example of that in the batteries presentation starting right here

References in the Bible are given there now Moving to the to be which is the last portion in that second page

I would say that in return as opposed to this allegorical language

This is obviously can bear more than one meaning we find that Jesus peace be upon him make explicit and clear

Statements that clearly shows that he is not divine and shows his subordination to his creator and the creator of all

Now just just so you remember to this this metaphorical allegorical language

So basically all that he had presented before this about Messiah Savior etc, etc is just meant to be taken allegorically now remember he didn't actually deal

With a meaningful presentation of the deity of Christ. He didn't deal with the best text He didn't deal with the use of the us.

He didn't deal with the use of tetragrammaton Kurios all that stuff. He just you know went zooming right past all of that and did not deal with it

But now we have clear compelling what evidence that Jesus is subject to his creator.

Well, that would mean you'd have to find someplace says he's created but always always always remember that for the

Muslim and I think you saw this in the In the exchange with Greg Stafford, he's started posting he's put the first two sections up, but he says there's more coming

So I'm just waiting till it's all there But he started posting a big huge response about two months after I once again demonstrated that it's you know

Any fair -minded person honestly this I don't think there can be a question about this any fair -minded person who examines the information about John chapter 12 verses 39 to 41 and Isaiah 6 1 looks at the

Greek Septuagint asks themselves a basic question What is John drawing from here?

What is he trying to present? I don't think there's any question about what the text is But Greg Stafford is

Jehovah's Witnesses in a position where he cannot believe that he cannot accept that Simply can't he has to come up with another way around it and it may be just just so far -fetched

But he's got to because his final authority is not the Bible his final authority is watched how

I will track society and it's theology so he can't allow the scripture that and So when when you when you do that you start with certain presuppositions the

Muslim You know, we're in the debate that I had with mr. Stafford the presupposition that came out was

God cannot become incarnate There can be no incarnation you

God somehow when he created Created in such a way that he can't enter into that which he himself made

Now they'll never explain why that is it just is God can't do that. Remember Hams Abdul Malik in our debate

When I pressed him on that issue, well, that's just God doesn't do that. That's and and Quran says in essence and for the

Muslim It is an absolute given Absolute given Allah would never ever ever enter into his creation

There can be no incarnation so they by definition immediately dismiss

The nature of Christ as revealed the New Testament. They cannot allow For Jesus to be

God incarnate. He cannot voluntarily submit himself to the father therefore all texts where Jesus talks about being lesser than the father and Every heads has to do with his his his having made himself of no reputation

Philippians chapter 2 all of that is taken to be an indicative of oh see this is this means he can't possibly truly be deity

Because they will not allow for the incarnation They will not allow for a true human being who is truly divine as well because they say well that has to be 50 -50

There's no such thing as being half God half man And of course, we don't believe that Jesus half God half man, though It's the

Logos who became flesh the Logos did not cease being the Logos the Logos not cease

Being divine and the flesh does not become divine You have one person with two natures and we can go to John and we can go to Philippians But the only way that you can make that work is to allow scripture to be scripture and since they can't allow scripture to scripture because remember

Islamic and akron istic is a Jesus looking backwards upon the text

With the ignorance of Muhammad as the filter the ignorance of Muhammad as the filter

Now some people are you so mean no the man was ignorant of Christian theology. That is a fact

If it was anybody else anyone else That you could go to what they allegedly said and demonstrate the same level of ignorance.

Nobody would object But unfortunately a religion has developed out of the man's words that will kill you if you speak the truth about his own ignorance

That is an amazing thing to realize but that's the fact so anyway, it is the ignorance of Muhammad that forces through the

Quran the Muslim to look backwards upon the text and to smash the text to to atomize the text to break it apart and only what fits with Muhammad's misunderstanding of the

Trinity misunderstanding Christian theology can stand and everything else

Has to be dismissed and so that's that's what Islamic and akron istic exegesis based upon the ignorance of Muhammad's that would be

I a e I am looking Not sure how much longer as can go, but we'll we'll keep putting it together here

So we all have an understand what's going on. So with that in mind then Guess what the objections are all going to be based on it's pretty pretty easy to guess it right ahead of time

For example, he said that he does not do anything of his own authority. That's not a character of God That he does not okay now see that how long that take less than 10 seconds, maybe five six seconds

No reference given its John 5 but no reference given you can't if you go into John 5 the actual

Emphasis the text is upon the unity of the father and the son the fact that the father has sent the son that's the whole same context that the the

Jews recognize that Jesus language about the father means that he's equal with the father and they they want to kill him and Jesus everything

Jesus is saying in that is that he's not some Separate competing deity with the father that he and the father are doing the same things.

He does nothing of himself means that he's in harmony with the father not that he's some angel or just simply a

Razzle a Prophet Apostle, etc, etc That needs to be kept in mind, but just see how short that was just boom.

No reference. Just throw it out there. No context That's just that's just you know,

I would call that Sort of in the lines of gerrymantics, you know You just throw stuff out there and you know that if you're forced to actually deal with it

You're the wheels are gonna fall off But you just hope the other guy doesn't have enough time to actually force you to deal with it is

Is what you're hoping speak any word of his own authority, but what the father sent him? Okay, John 5 again

And all that means is perfect unity between the father and the son the speaking of the

Word of God there He is not a competing deity. He's not someone separate who is trying to Draw people's attention and worship away from God the father

There is a unity that exists there which is why that same chapter ends with you must honor me even as you honor the father

That that unity is what becomes the basis for that That he said my father is greater than I there's nobody who's greater than God That he was not there

John 1428 just just thrown out there again. No references for some reason I'm not sure exactly he might be doing that because the references are on the sheet that he had passed out

He's made a reference to a handout So, you know, maybe he's just assuming you're gonna read that and so he doesn't have to because he's in a hurry so we won't pick on that but John 1428 well, that's a standard one you get from Jehovah's Witnesses all the time and You need to be prepared to have a meaningful response to it

It's not difficult to do given the context of John chapter 14 and everything It comes beforehand, but I think the best way is to be to be ready to go

Wait a minute you're only quoting a portion of that particular text when Jesus says the father's greater than I am what he's saying to the disciples is

That since he's going back to be with the father if they had loved him they would have rejoiced because he's returning to be with the father for the father's greater than he is and So you see it's not just Jesus saying.

Oh, no. No, you just need to understand I'm a lesser being and so on and so forth Instead what Jesus is saying is if you love me, you would have rejoiced because I'm going back to what?

Well was he saying his high priestly prayer to the glory, which I had with you before the world was

Jesus has voluntarily entered into human flesh. He's walking the dusty roads of Galilee he is surrounded by by enemies who are constantly trying to catch him every word that he says and He's now told his disciples.

He's going to be going back to where he was before Where before the world was he shared the very glory of the father?

Which take that back to Isaiah and there's only one who has his glory Jehovah doesn't share his glory with anyone else and So they should have rejoiced because he's going back because the father is greater and that term is a positional term

It's not an ontological term He is in a greater position obviously, it's not the father who's walking the dusty streets of Galilee and so he's going to be going back to the position where he was before where he was the object of adoration of the of The angels and the heavenly host and we see this again in the book of Revelation and they should have rejoiced

But they were focused upon themselves. That's what John 1428. It's about not Oh, see, I don't know. No, I'm not

Tom. I'm not Dita. But here Jamal Badawi just sort of throws it out there No recognition of context or anything like that just sort of throws it up tempted and It is quite pointless for Satan to tempt his creators

The creator of heavens and earth and say you bow down to me and I give you a little piece of what?

You created yourself. It doesn't make any sense And of course, why doesn't it might make no sense to him because there can be no

Incarnation there can be no true human nature Allah cannot enter into his own creation now

It seems to me very clear That especially given some statements as you make here in a moment

That he does not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. He thinks it's not understandable And so he will do what

Jehovah's Witnesses will frequently do sometimes You know remember the the little red book you can live forever in paradise on earth that had all the pictures in it and stuff

It was their their main study book. They would study with people for many years They stopped using it. I don't know about five six seven eight years ago something like that, but In that book

Within just a few pages you would find the Watchtower Society at one point accurately define the

Trinity and a few pages later Inaccurately define the Trinity once properly once modalistically now, of course on their part.

I would say that was purposeful I think they are well aware what the doctrine is and they were purposely deceiving and misleading their people but many of the cults and isms and in this case

Islam it they will flip -flop back and forth because they just don't take enough care to accurately represent what is they're talking about and as a result will either attack modalism or attack tritheism or or Whatever it might be and you've just got to be careful just because someone is is

Making objections to your faith don't get wrapped into don't get wrestled into defending a position.

It actually isn't yours You've got to be very quick to be willing to say wait a minute. That's that that's that's not that's not we believe

When I do role plays, I love getting people to defend positions that that actually are not Christian positions They sound like it but I tweak it just enough that it's it's actually heretical and man

I've seen people go to the mat defending that thing and once I've got him doing that, you know The role play is all over with it's it's real easy.

And unfortunately, I hear that a lot in Apologetics encounters as well. There'll be a human being a full human being nothing

But is one who could be subjected to temptation now notice that a full human being nothing but into which

I say why and You're not gonna get a why outside of because Islam says so I mean that's you know

It's like going back to Hams Abdul Malik. And so which manuscripts don't contain this? Well, they're there

But you can't say well, no, I can't tell you which ones they were but I've read scholars or which scholars like I don't have their names, you know just It just has to be

Because we know the Quran's true see so when the Quran runs up against facts

Then it just just has to be that's that's just all there is to it He was denied the knowledge of the unseen in several occasions

And one of the most important attributes of God is the knowledge of the unseen

Except as Anish Arosh is going to point out there were many times when he actually claimed to have that and So the one time where you have the issue of the date and hour of his coming might there be a purpose why?

The father has that knowledge and the son in his incarnate state voluntarily does not over against the son having supernatural knowledge for example of Nathaniel when he when he

Sees him and and the the knowledge that he has of in the healings for example That's take place remote healings where doesn't even have to doesn't have to be around the person and he's able to do that Again, since you're not worrying about context and not even worrying about references as far as going to them

Reading them quoting them anything like that. And again, I understand this is right toward the end of his presentation

He's checking stuff out there very fast and sometimes that happens, but it doesn't help in making your presentation overly

Sound or solid when somebody called him good master He said why call you me good and said that God alone or the father is absolutely good.

That's funny He didn't say absolutely good. He said good You know people people try to use this one say all

CGS was denying his absolute goodness. No, he didn't say that He used the exact same term that the man used so you don't have any basis

For reading good in the man's usage and then changing it in Jesus usage to absolute good

So Jesus becomes something less than the father The point of Jesus response the man is you call me good why?

You need to know who you're dealing with you need to know this man doesn't know who he's dealing with He's throwing out these terms and and he doesn't know who he's talking to and if you're gonna use this as an argument

You can't change it to absolute good you have to come out Jesus was not good period and that's sort of funny for a

Muslim to say who of course does believe Jesus was good and In fact, did we not hear

Jamal Badawi just on the last program talking about how the prophets you know are as close to being sinless as men can be and Jesus would be even more so in that context

Bad bad bad text use he was subject to change it says in the Bible he grew in wisdom and knowledge

Yeah, that's called the incarnation Because if he's fully

God and fully man men Do grow and that's how it's supposed to be and so once again

We see that overriding presupposition which really has nothing to do with his deity

Because it would have reference to something else God is immutable that does not change

And God didn't change just because Jesus grows because he's growing in his human nature not in his divine nature

But it's eternal and his knowledge is complete from the beginning He referred to himself as a prophet and did not say a prophet and priest and son of God.

He didn't say that Which is really again Super super bad argumentation.

He called himself a prophets Okay, yeah, I did And he called himself, you know son of God son of man, and I am and all sorts of stuff like that but Upon what logical principle can you argue that if he called himself prophet then it means he can't be anything more than that What's that?

What's the logical foundation for saying? Ah, you called yourself a prophet and therefore that means you can't be anything else other than that There is no logical basis for that so why even make that kind of argument?

Well, because there are some people who do not think logically and therefore will accept your argument, even if it's not logical

Sadly, that's that's the only conclusion. I can come to He referred to himself as a prophet and people believed in him as a prophet and he made a clear distinction between him and the father

Yes, he did make a clear distinction between himself and the father and because that's what Christians believe and have always believed

And so why would anyone make reference to his distinguishing himself from the father unless?

they are attacking modalism, which of course isn't what we believe in the first place, but Just as with so many

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses or else They'll attack that now having clarified this point

Let me raise a couple of other issues very quickly in the remaining few minutes one Some people say how about the miracles of Jesus peace be upon him

Are these the actions of any ordinary human being the answer to that is very simple, of course

No, who's arguing? He's just an ordinary even a Muslim isn't arguing He's just an ordinary human being on the basis of the

Quran Whenever it mentioned any miracle of Jesus peace be upon him It says the isn't enough by the leave and permission of my creator and we have seen before in the

Gospel of John That Jesus himself say I do nothing on my own authority which mean even the miracle it's not my authority

It is the power of God that has made to appear through my hands however, there is still a major difference between the means by which

Jesus works miracles and Anyone else who worked miracles because when the prophets worked miracles those miracles were meant to demonstrate their prophetic authority

But when Jesus works miracles he utilizes that even to the point where he then accepts worship as a result of those miracles and he demonstrates his lordship his power over over life and death itself and they are meant to to Look forward to the fact that he would rise from the dead

And in fact that he had authority as he puts in the Gospel of John to take his life back

So that's a different context than that which is found in the previous men who had worked miracles as prophets of God So I have given you a list but to shorten the time of presentation since you have all the references

I listed eight important and outstanding miracles of Jesus peace be upon him all of which

Has some sort of parallel in the Old Testament of other prophets Especially Elisha and Elijah including bringing the people who are dead to life again

Which might mean that in the Old Testament you have foreshadowings and and lesser

Presentations of what would be ministered in Christ's life But that doesn't mean that well that you is just like all the other prophets.

That's what they've got to do They've got him at they've got to make Jesus is no more than a Russell No more than so you can't have anything that would make him more than you can't have the other prophets being but dim lights in in in in preparation for The the great outflowing of light in the ministry of Christ.

You can't have that So that's why you're you're hearing what you're hearing right now Including writing or going up to heaven now if these were evidence of divinity

Then other prophets other than Jesus peace be upon him should have been regarded also as divine

If that was the only argument that a person had if you didn't have people worshipping him if you didn't have the the divine names being used of him if you didn't have the the fact that he's he's described as eternal and Creator of all things.

Well, okay. Sure, but that's the whole point here It reminds me a little bit of the

Mormon who tries to get around all of the historical evidence It demonstrates the first vision did not take place as Joseph Smith made it up later in his life

It's it's the analogy that I've used in the past has been the person who Thinks that they can escape a landslide because theoretically you can dodge each and every rock in a landslide

Yeah, but the rocks come at you all at once if they came at you if a landslide came one rock at a time

Okay, but truth doesn't have that nature comes at y 'all once and you simply can't keep begging the question

Every time the facts come along and demonstrate that Joseph Smith didn't have the first vision the same thing here

You've got all this evidence But what he does you just dismiss each one without seeing the relationship to the whole body of the text the

Bible and again There's your anachronistic Islamic anachronistic

Anachronistic exegesis blah blah blah because you you are breaking apart the text. They'll never allow you to do that with the

Quran But they'll do it to the New Testament because they have to because they're reasoning backwards Then some people say the most important thing really is not the miracles or the claims about Jesus but the message of salvation and that raises a very serious question because the whole notion of vicarious or substitutionally sacrifice is

Based on the assumption that you need an infinite sacrifice to take the sins of humanity That there is some inherent conflict that existed between God's mercy and God's justice

It presumes the concept of Trinity which for 2 ,000 years. Nobody has been ever able to give any cogent

Explanation it assumes that God Jesus was full God and full man at the same time

Which in my humble understanding is a logical contradiction But there is nothing human if you're a full human of being divine

And there is nothing divine if you are fully divine of being limited by human limitations

Now you've you've just heard the Islamic mindset No one's ever explained the

Trinity. Well, yes, of course, they have you you may not be willing to listen You may not be able to listen because of your pre -existing commitment to Muhammad and to Islam You may be precluded from obtaining an accurate knowledge of the doctrine the

Trinity because your holy sacred book misdefines it Because your prophet didn't understand it even though there was no reason for him not to understand it

It was well known at his time period but the man was ignorant of those things

If he didn't have access to the Bible in his own language or in the original languages

Then he certainly wouldn't have had access to such things as the can decrees of the Council of Nicaea or Any of Athanasius writings or anything else to truly be able to understand

What was being said and what had been taught and so? It does not follow that just because Jamal Badawi or anyone else does not understand the doctrine to train that it is not understandable

In the same way there is no contradiction in the incarnation.

He's assuming some kind of joining of Human and divine so that they are changed and the divine is changed into something human the human is changed in something

But he even said it correctly fully God and fully man but then his confusion demonstrates he doesn't understand what that means or does not accept the

Christian definition what that means because again of a overriding pre -commitment an overriding acceptance of the

Islamic theology that forces him Into a misunderstanding of the theology that came before these are

Contradictions that I do not wish to dwell on I have quotations from not Muslim But many honest biblical scholars that this is just an impossibility

Now now catch that the honest biblical scholars and who are the honest biblical scholars unbelievers

So of course if we were to use this kind of argumentation Then we would refer to the orientalists who today

Even question the existence of Muhammad Who will say for example that Muhammad is a later development in Islamic theology that originally

Islam was a Christian heresy and interestingly enough the first early Christians the first Christians to encounter

Islam saw it as a Christian heresy and they will they will point to such things as a

Number of facts that can be collated and put together that Jesus was the focus of Islam initially and then

Muhammad takes over for that not not there was a historical person named Muhammad at all

But that this is a development of political development over time so are those the honest scholars of Islamic history

I mean what how would they respond if we in essence made all believing

Muslims dishonest scholars? And all of those who

Who don't believe Muhammad exists those the honest scholars? How would they respond to that so why do it in reverse?

That's called hypocrisy Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument, and if there's anything that can be identified an

Islamic apologist it is Inconsistency the application of one standard of Christianity and the opposite standard to their own documents

That's here. It is again. The classic volume edited by John Hick called the myth of God incarnate

John Hick Well, there's there's my honest biblical scholar oh

My goodness you know I? Might as well be quoting from the lady who's been on Fox News and stuff

You know talking about Islam the former Muslim and her life's and I might as well make her the greatest expert on the

Quran and try to use that in an argument against a Muslim as to cite John Hick as being

An example of an honest biblical scholar. It's quite representative, and these are believing Christians Theologians and members of the church, and this is not the only case

I have numerous other Indications of biblical honest biblical scholars people within the church except for various churches

Who is the serious question about this dogmatic notion of Jesus being full man and full

God and this notion of vicarious sacrifice? Now it's interesting me. They're within the church well basically that's probably because In the

West we don't kill heretics The fact that you these people are not in Islam in Islamic countries is because they would die in Islamic countries

To use that as an argument. We don't have these liberals aren't in our country. Yeah, that's because you take him out and shoot him

What do I mean come on? There's a little bit of a difference on how we we handle these these things and so they're well

They're in the church well. I would say they're not I would obviously very consistently say that any person

What do you quote a Mormon? Denies training quote the Jehovah's Witnesses. They're not in the church. Oh, but they're

Christian. No. They're not that's the whole point And of course you have very willing accomplices with the

Muslims at this point in postmodernists and liberals who want to just totally destroy the ability of Anyone to define the term

Christian now these same men will say they can define Islam and in fact If they're

Sunnis, they'll define it so closely that they can get rid of the Shias and vice versa and blow each other up So upon what basis and what foundation?

Do you allow yourself that when it comes to Islam? I can define it so narrowly

That these groups out here can actually end up becoming the objects of my wrath and in fact my my military action

But Christians we have to just allow everybody and anybody doesn't matter what they believe to to bear that name inconsistency inconsistency inconsistency, but finally some people would say listen you people

Muslims just believe in only rational and logical things, but we people take it only in terms of mystery

Yeah You know sadly they're they're probably You know

I remember a fellow back in in seminary We were sitting around talking about theology once and he says you're just you know what you're just too logical

You you want more answers than we can actually give and I just remember being

Shocked by by that, but you know I suppose there are some Christians like that and so maybe he's run into some of them

But I can guarantee you one thing that's not an argument ever ever hear coming from someone like me

I'd like to make a distinction that Muslim accept that there is mystery about God God is a mystery but if somebody comes to me and say one plus one plus one is equal to three and You should it is equal to one one plus one plus one is equal to one and says you should accept it because I Mistreated no, this is an idea that is made by human beings if those human beings know what they're talking about Let them explain to me in what sense one plus one plus one is equal to one yes

You know I wish that in the presentation that followed this an explanation of that had been offered it wasn't unfortunately but That's not difficult to do.

I mean honestly is someone going to argue that if a person really wanted to know What the doctrine was they could not find meaningful resources do so I mean

Obviously I've written on it. I don't know when this debate took place, but you know it probably was after my book went out and Was out there, and there's been books for a long long time

BB Warfield His work on the Trinity is just just classic. It's it's tremendous

The information's there if they if they wanted to know But I don't think they really want to know because their own religion tells them

It's unknowable in the first place, and if that's the case you're not really going to extend a whole lot of effort

Figuring these things out I would be glad to respond to them none of which really make any sense in view of the whole notion of the

Trinity Now I've heard dr. Batou in a number of different debates, and I'm sorry He just doesn't hear

He does not hear accurately he he has very Firm strong opinions about the way things are and if he's wrong about him

He's not really open to being corrected on him at least not from what I've heard I would like to think that that he's changed since then but You know that's that's a nice way of putting it

But the fact is he hasn't responded to meaningful Trinitarian presentation I conclude by saying that the main difference between Muslims and their

Christian brethren again is not loving Honoring believing in and respecting the honored

Prophet Jesus peace be upon him. I think that it is because to to have to in essence

Identify every one of Jesus's early followers as a liar is not to honor Jesus And that's what you have to do.

I mean let's let's look can we be very serious here listen to Shabir Ali's presentations

Listen to Jamal Badawi's presentations. What do they have to say they have to say? That the

Apostle Paul in essence made up this false Jesus that Matthew Mark Luke and John followed him

That even Peter probably wasn't written by Peter See and so you have to take the the far -leaning left viewpoints of the entirety of the

New Testament throughout the their entire presentation and Inconsistently accept only those portions that fit with your

Quranic interpretation throw everything else out and To do so is not to honor Jesus To do that on the basis of a man who lived 600 years later who had no access to the original languages

Who did not have any access to what actually took place who presents a Jesus in his own works. That's never a person

He's an argument. He's not a he's not it doesn't ever exist anywhere other than we speaks from the crib which was borrowed from a

Gnostic type source anyways That's not honoring Jesus coming up with the Jesus who never existed is not honoring

Jesus and I've been very consistent on that I've said that of Mormonism for a long long time

Mormonism can talk about Being the Church of Jesus Christ Latter -day Saints all they want if you have a

Jesus Who is one God amongst many gods the first begotten spirit child of Elohim after his exaltation to godhood a separate

God from Elohim? Who's a spirit brother of Lucifer and our spirit brother as well?

Whose blood does not atone for all sins whose atonement begins in the Garden of Gethsemane That's not the

Jesus of Scripture that Jesus doesn't exist. He can't save you. There's never been a Jesus like that he's not returning and you can't be looking forward to his coming and You don't honor him by believing falsehoods about him

And I've said that for a long long time about Mormonism say the same thing about about Islam same thing same issues Opposite end of the spectrum, you know rank polytheism for Mormonism to Unitarian monotheism for for Islam, but same same issues in regards to The falsehoods about Jesus you're not honoring

Jesus to believe these things. It's a question of Divinity which is a blasphemy against God to attribute to any creature of God and believe that Jesus was a creature of God Islam sees itself not as a competitor or enemy of the dogmas of the church or an enemy of Jesus No, actually a friend and as the

Quran indicates the corrector and restorer of the true eternal monotheistic faith Thank you.

Now notice he refers to it as blasphemy. It is blasphemy to believe that a creature can be got well, of course but that's demonstrates once again the the error in batteries understanding of The presentation of the doctrine of the

Trinity because we're not saying a creature became God we're saying the Jesus Christ eternally existed as God as the second person the

Trinity not Allah Jesus and Mary as Muhammad seemed to understand but the second person the trade the eternal

Son entered into human flesh So that's not a creature being elevated to Godhood That's God entering into his own creation to redeem his creation through that's perfect sacrifice and so there you have

I think Again, sometimes feels like you know, I don't like listening to that stuff, you know, and then you if you don't hear it now

The first time you hear it, it's gonna be much more difficult for you to respond to it you know people will go out with us on on witnessing encounters or go out and in Mesa and they

You know the first few few times are out there is sort of want to hang around because they want to see how this is done They just don't want to get broadsided by somebody.

Well, I guess there's some that do that and then they've they learn pretty quickly and then they're they're hanging around the veterans to figure out what the world's going on, but They they recognize that when you've you've been down this road before you're gonna be able to give a better response and So hearing these things, you know, it may may bug some folks it may not be as Entertaining as you know,

I suppose we could have some music going or something, you know but it's not not overly entertaining, but it is educational and hopefully edifying and Something that can prepare you

For the encounters you're going to have because these are the folks the Muslims are listening to they're listening to to document

D dot his stuff is still running around as bad as it was and Battery is a step up from from D dot and I would say

Shabir Ali is a step up from battery and But they're listening to these things. I mean, where do you think

I got these? I didn't have to buy them They're free on the web All you gotta do is go looking for them

They are out there and Google's pretty good at Defining this stuff and so especially within our context where the

Muslims know that they're in the minority in a very small minority in light of the recent to two recent facts recently we should mention a the

Extensive census study that revealed that there are

Far fewer Muslims in the United States than care wanted to claim There was of course care wants to inflate their numbers

So their political clout goes up but the actual number of Muslims United States much lower than care claimed and then

The discovery that care is actual membership list has decreased by like 85 % since 9 -11

And there's reason for that too Has been a pretty big black eye as far as those things go.

But anyway, those are interesting factoids to to note as well

So that's that was what I was listening to a couple days ago when I was was writing. Hopefully it's useful to you

Switch back in the last 13 minutes or so the program here. Don't see any calls on hold switch back to Shabir Ali in fact

I want to get to this because I I think it might be good here to hear the difference between Ali and Batawee at this point

Shabir is finishing up a PhD but my gut feeling is that Shabir will always be a much better communicator

Than Jamal Batawee is and I don't just mean in the sense of just raw speaking skill

But he he knows What people will be able to hear and how they will interpret what they will hear and he knows that better I believe then then

Jamal Batawee does and so Listening to him should be should be should be helpful.

So if you recall a debates been going on between Mike like Ona and Shabir Ali on the resurrection and we now go into Shabir's Asking questions.

I wish it was a formal cross -examination. It's not it's just sort of a free -for -all but Back to the

Shabir Ali and Mike like Ona debate on or move on to other topics Yes Mike in your presentation you you presented what you called three irrefutable facts

Then there are facts you think that have been agreed upon by by everyone one is the death of Jesus on the cross two is his

The the empty tomb and third his reappearance to his disciples Now if you if you trace the logic of where I was actually leading with my questions,

I've already started the question period for you Now where you have actually put yourself in the difficulty here is

With first acknowledging that it is historically certain that Jesus died on the cross Now the circumstances of his death would mark him off as a blasphemer as as a

Muslim I believe in Jesus, but I believe in him on by virtue of my belief in the Quran I've said that in the in my opening presentation

But what Christian apologists are asking me to do is to leave my Quran aside to say that this is not historical

I must go with the information that is there in the Gospels based on which the historical conclusion is that he certainly died under Pontius Pilate now,

I'm gonna stop just there just for one because there's two things he said I want to comment on One of my I received an email just this morning by someone asking well why would from an

Islamic viewpoint the Jews view Jesus as a blasphemer the the overriding emphasis as you listen to Muslims rejecting the cross over and over again is

God would not allow a prophet to die in that way

To die in that way is to demonstrate that you're a blasphemer to demonstrate that you're under the curse of God and if Jesus was who

Jesus was according to us a great prophet and and Naya into sinless and so on so forth

Then he could not possibly have been allowed by God to die in that fashion. It is an overriding mental block and overriding concept in the thinking of the

Muslim at that point And what was the second thing was what he had just said here and the nice thing about a wave

File is you can do this in my opening presentation But what oh, yes Yeah, Christian apologists want us to lay aside the

Quran and say it's not historical it isn't I Mean how on on on any level at all?

How can a Muslim argue that when it comes to Jesus when it comes to the words of Jesus and the facts of Jesus?

How can anyone argue? that a single author in the seventh

Century a Single author without access the original languages a single author not in in in the the even in the environs of Jerusalem a

Single author is giving us anything historical about Jesus. I Mean that's that's as bad as the tomb people the

Talbiyah tomb theorists and they are still out there cranking their stuff out That's as bad as them using the acts of Philip and calling it historical it's not historical

Something that's 300 years down the lines not historical, especially when it's

I'm in the same place It's a major minor someplace and here you've got someone down in in the

Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century and The only time

Jesus is even placed in a historical context in the writing is on the basis of a

Gnostic myth Otherwise every time Jesus speaks you have he's just a disembodied voice floating around through space.

How can you call that historical? There's nothing historical about it That's what's got to be kept in mind

They're asking me to do is to leave my Quran aside to say that this is not historical I must go with the information that is there in the

Gospels based on which the historical conclusion is that he certainly died under Pontius Pilate now if he certainly died on the

Pontius Pilate as a blasphemer as a curse of God As Paul would put it

Notice as Paul would put it So when you see the same concepts outside of Paul in the

Gospels in Shabir's mind It's because Paul created that and somehow those original disciples of Jesus even though the

Quran promised they'd be victorious They they weren't and they are corrupted by Paul's teaching.

That's why you hear that that phrase and you know, sometimes apologetics is hearing phrases

When you hear the Mormons say the only begotten Son of God in the flesh the phrase in the flesh has a meaning and Most people just goes right past him if they don't know the theology behind it and that is certain and If the evidence for his resurrection from the dead is not certain

But you can say 75 % of scholars agree on that and of course you mean evangelical conservative scholars

And if you say scholars who study it you're not referring to scholars who have just dismissed it and do not bother even to look at it now

This goes back to Mike Licona's use of the William Lane Craig argument about you know numbers of scholars and things like that that again,

I I you've never heard me argue that way and and you're not going to because Once you start making your position dependent upon consensus the consensus of scholarship

It's just too easy to find One two, three, four or five or more To argue on the other side and now all you've got are percentages and probabilities

You do you do you don't have a foundation for the proclamation of the resurrection as the certain

Testimony that God has given to Jesus Christ now it becomes a probable testimony and for many people, you know epistemologically

They that's all that's all we've got. They just don't believe That you can have any higher level than that.

I don't don't think that's consistent with the apostolic testimony now when

Because of course of other conclusions that have already been firmly fixed Conclusions that they know about the history of the

Gospels the way they have been written and so on. So now Having backed yourself into that corner.

You have to provide irrefutable evidence that he also resurrected from the dead and That is the evidence which you do not have because you have

Gospels Which have been evolved over time The earliest gospel the gospel according to Mark does not have the ending which we would love to see

Jesus reappearing to his disciples Somebody had to fix that in later on you have the later improvements that I've spoken about.

How do you respond to that? Well as far as the irrefutable evidence, that is a tall burden of proof right there

I don't think we can do that for anything. I mean, we can't prove anything with 100 % certainty

I can't prove that I'm 42 years old For for all

I can prove I mean I was created everything here was created five minutes ago now I see

I I Don't share that epistemology. I I really don't know where that's coming from.

But but I think it is consistent with some of the argumentation I've heard from William Lane Craig, but I I would agree that That should beer is trying to create an argument here that Has some has some holes in it

But I wouldn't approach it from that perspective at all And we were given memories of events that never took place and food in our stomachs from meals

We never ate I can't prove that that's not the case What we have to look for is high probability and what is the most plausible explanation for the data and from what you've given me?

You haven't attacked any of the evidence at all Regarding the Gospels. I mean you're bringing up the

Gospels again But the evidence I provided is decades prior to the Gospels And so attacking the

Gospels again, I'm for the sake of our debate this evening I'm more than happy to grant that the Gospels are totally unreliable and filled with errors and contradictions

I don't believe that of course All right But for the sake of our debate I'm willing to because I want to get our debate focused on the evidence

Now again, I already mentioned this. I don't want to belabor the point We're just about out of time, but I I simply

Would never go that direction. I can't You if if if you're willing to accept as as givens in a debate

Things that will mean that your conclusion is completely improbable and impossible. I don't think you're doing your argument any favor

And it's it's and we get to the end. We're gonna see you really can't do it Anyways, he's gonna have to go back and try to defend the

Gospels by then It's too late is that I presented which is decades before the Gospels And so You questioned the death of Jesus you said and what basis do you do that again?

Okay, not you You're in control, yeah first I should remind you

Mike that I did not say that none of the gospel is reliable but I did say that the

Gospels have evolved over time and Once we peel back the layers of evolution in the

Gospels We realize that in the earliest strata there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus both died on the cross and Resurrected from the dead now, obviously,

I don't think that's even even slightly a possible interpretation of Any reading of the gospel text at all?

But again if you start off granting The amount of ground that is granted to him in regards to the

Gospels It's gonna be pretty difficult to respond to that kind of argumentation first place Which I wouldn't grant to him to begin with and it didn't when we debated this very same issue

Well as you can hear the sound of the background is the closing music for this week's edition of the dividing line

Next week, I believe we have both editions. I don't think that I'm gone till I believe Friday morning

So we should be back together again Lord willing both Tuesday and Thursday of next week

Continue pressing on with your calls the review of the debate everything we can do to help you to be a Christian who refuses to Be silent here on the dividing line

The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omin org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks