Bruce Jenner, David Barron, and Anjem Choudary—All in One Program!

Well greetings and welcome to the dividing line, my name is James white and we have much to discuss today

I am going to get back. I I have a horrible Horrible habit. I know starting stuff on this program and then squirrel

We go Yeah, well squirrel, whatever. I know. I know.

I'm sorry there's just there's just so much and Only so many hours a day and I know so we're gonna get back

To what? I said we do last week and finishing up listening to Anjum Chowdhury and a just a brilliant example of Non -reflective

Islam and that unfortunately is The major portion of Islam.

It certainly is a major portion of what calls itself Christianity to I mean, let's just be honest.

Most the major world religions are filled with nominalism Not overly surprising, of course

Anjum Chowdhury though is not a nominal Muslim. He's not a Muslim just a name There is a mindset to Chowdhury that that we need to recognize and I think we know where it comes from too.

But anyway We're gonna get to that But I listened to a debate this weekend

At high altitude. I'm not sure if that impacts anything. Let's do what's your how you hear the debate?

Is the debate different at 9 ,000 feet above sea level as it is the 1200? I don't know but I Wanted to play just a few sections from the debate

It was an online debate between turrets and fan and David Barron On the deity of Christ and I it fits perfectly of course with the

Anjum Chowdhury stuff it's all in the same subject, but just wildly different approaches and and Barron demonstrates for us the very essence of the term sophistry and That's what

I want to illustrate was that that was just a turn that kept going through my mind as I was listening To that.

Well, I actually listened to it twice. I listened to it on a on a ride I did Here in the valley and then when

I was up north so I listened to it twice and I wanted to use that as a opportunity to discuss some elements of Christology and and Things like that.

I didn't I there were some things I wanted to look up in the Talmud and stuff I didn't get a chance to do I got sidetracked by other things, but We'll take a look at that, but sort of have to start off Oh, I'm not showing anything

Man, I have to I have to start off. You cannot go anywhere online last two days

I can't I can't scroll through my Facebook feed. I can't scroll through Twitter Especially yesterday, but it's still today

Without being faced with the reality of the result of a number of decades now

Of Fundamental denial of the necessary Worldview that gave rise to Western civilization and now has been rejected by Western civilization and When you attack and attack and attack

Generation after generation then Eventually There's going to be a fundamental reaction and result when a

Christian when it when a person who takes The Bible seriously and and tries purposefully to allow

The Bible to form the way that we think the way that we

React to the world around us Sees the

Celebration of our society in the

Forcing down our throats, which is really what it is of The Utter Disrespect for the the beauty of gender

Gender roles and functions. That is the very essence of The Photoshopped picture and we all know it's photoshopped.

No one, please We all know it's photoshopped. In fact someone who

I will not name mentioned yesterday that this picture broke Photoshop Of a man

By the name of Bruce Jenner Who at 65 years of age 65 years of age has chosen to mutilate his body

So as to fulfill his Personal autonomy when we see that if we do not see a

Fundamental selfishness a Fundamental act of rebellion a fundamental act of disrespect

Toward both manhood and womanhood. I mean,

I cannot imagine a clear -thinking woman That would not be offended

By this Celebration and I cannot imagine a clear -thinking man

Especially one of my age I I Am what 13 years younger than Bruce Jenner and So I well remember the the pride that we as a nation had

When this man proved himself the the greatest living athlete because that's what's right the triathlons all about Lots of people can get good in In particular areas, but the ability to have athletic prowess and capacity in in all these different areas and running and throwing and feats of strength and High jumping and you know all that kind of stuff

When he won his picture was everywhere now granted

With fame and fortune come pressures that It can warp any man and did badly

And again, I could not even tell you exactly what the relationship between Between Jenner and the

Kardashians and all those people and all that reality show stuff and I Don't I don't even know.

I just know that he's a part of all that and that it's has nothing to do with with a

With what you would hope a gold medalist would have become what do you what he would have you done with his life?

but The fact the matter is leaving that to the side though. It's you can't really leave it to the side

It's a part of this whole thing. I mean you live an immoral life You live a life without pursuit of moral excellence or something that that validates your human experience and Yeah at 65 you end up doing this to yourself to your family

Wow, but anyway the point is This man is being called by every aspect of our culture brave and courageous brave and Courageous at the age of 65.

I mean I I my oldest grandchild will be 15 when

I'm 65. I Mean I'll be getting close well, of course, she delays marriage as long as the rest of her generation is

I'll never see great -grandchildren, but if she doesn't

You know, I'm I'm old I'd be less than a decade out from great Grandparenthood at that point in time

Doesn't it cross anyone's mind? Are we so focused upon the individual now

That we don't even think about the impact of our actions upon anyone else including our family

I know this is about the most messed -up family could possibly have But I was certainly raised to think about that I guess that was the last generation that did it

I Would hope that my kids Would testify that I certainly tried to communicate that Communicate that to my kids

I was about to say I wonder if my daughter's listening and she just tweeted and Said Bruce is Kanye's father -in -law.

Well, well, there you go I've I've commented on Kanye West as Undoubtedly one of the most arrogant ignorant people

I've ever seen Promoting his own arrogant ignorance

Just I'm sorry just Yeah, oh the the line of this train wreck goes back into the 90s

Oh, yeah. Yeah, and it's in the irony is if you start thinking about it. OJ Simpson is involved.

What? Robert Kardashian. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay go down that line and it's a train wreck all the way back

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, they're living off of OJ Simpson money Yeah anyway

It's easy to see The process that led to laying the foundation of this kind of of Action, but the fact remains that our society

Even allegedly conservative Talking heads on Fox News Talking about this man's courage and bravery

My friends that is neither courage nor bravery and if you define it as such

Then you are demonstrating that you reject on a visceral level

Any Meaningful definition of those terms you want courage you want bravery

Look at the men who stormed Omaha Beach All right, that's courage and bravery

Mutilating your body at 65 does not take courage. It takes cowardice

It takes collapse It takes giving in it takes focusing upon yourself as the be -all and end -all of all things

That's all it takes courage and bravery my

Amazing but not amazing when you consider the revolution that has taken place and We are now the counter -revolutionaries

We are now the ones who have a counter -revolutionary message it's a message about how it's good to be a man and That God made you that way and therefore you have certain responsibilities young men and it's good to be a woman and that's a gift from God and That being able to give life to another human being is a good thing it's a proper thing and It gives you transcendent

Value value in God's eyes and you can be used to have value in the lives of others when you mutilate your body

Simply to satisfy yourself. You're demonstrating that number one for you is you and no one else and that's not good

And that's not courageous and that's not brave. It will lead to utter

Emptiness now I hear they're even going to do a reality show about Bruce Jenner I've never watched a single episode of the

Kardashians or anything else nor would I ever Waste my time. I mean, I don't

I I've often thought of the text in Psalms The statement

I will place no one Empty thing futile thing before my eyes

I Don't live perfectly in light of that some of the things I've seen on television probably fall into that category but I don't see much television and I would just never

I just I can't even bring myself to Sit there and just watch people

Running around Hollywood buying things and then going home and talking about it

But now in this context, oh my goodness So we we are again face that situation where on the one side we

Feel such frustration Offense I mean I am absolutely offended by my nation's responses

Absolutely, you want to talk about offense? I am a minority who is offended no one cares

Irrelevant but I am offended and We feel a proper righteous indignation against this kind of such blatant open

Spitting in God's face. It's all this is it's spitting in God's face but at the same time

While in this situation, I'm not one of those people I'm I'm not

One of these people who looks at this and goes

Oh poor Bruce The man has had every advantage in the world

Don't tell me that he has not had the ability To Get help to know what the right thing to do is done.

I'm sorry. He has lived in a land with Such Availability of the truth that I'm not one of those people who goes

Oh poor Bruce There are people

I I mean it is interesting my feed started filling up with people talking about this next

Movement Which is which Michael Brown I've had never even heard of it until Michael Brown wrote a queer thing happened

America Where he talked about? people Who in their mind they feel that their limbs are not their own that this arm is not

It's not me it's it's it doesn't belong there and So they they have a deep desire to cut off an arm a leg maybe both maybe all their

Appendages because it doesn't belong to me. Now that person is ill that person has a fundamental mental problem

So does Bruce Jenner, but you do not go.

Oh sure. In fact, let's pass a bill and We'll take money from other people and give it to you to mutilate your body

And then we'll take money from other people to then take care of you in your new to this newly disabled condition that is

Insanity, it is moral ethical corruption and insanity on a level that is difficult to even begin to understand and Yet, is that not what liberalism is doing to us?

Is that not what the wacky secular left is all about right now? And seems like even the wacky secular right doesn't have a foundation to go.

Well, it's wrong because You can't say the because part because you don't know what the because part is

So there are these people and there was a there was a story about the trans abled movement and So if you can if you can decide one morning that you're a woman and then force everybody else to pay

For sex change operation, we're doing it with the the guy that's Turned over all those documents.

Whatever his name is now going by a woman's name and I refuse

Manning something. Yeah. Yeah We're paying for that Your tax money is being used instead of building ships for the

Navy is being used For hormone treatment to make a man think he's a woman

How long can a nation like that survive? How long can a nation like that survive? It's insanity abject insanity and So there are these people there is a story about a guy.

He used a power tool cut his arm off didn't to himself Because it wasn't his arm.

Are you gonna say well, you know what we've now become enlightened to the point We understand that that's okay, because whatever you think you are you are

That's what they're doing in Colorado, California You know the 45 year old guy

In the stall next to your 14 year old daughter because people think this way because they're insane

Morally and ethically they've lost it gone So This morning

I was listening to fell on the drive -in and He He made made good point.

He said Well, what if what if I decide I'm not my race what if I decide that as a white man,

I'm actually a black man and what if they come up with the with a medical means of Changing my skin color and pigmentation

Will that change anything? I mean if I decide I'm Chinese and If I go and have my facial features changed and the tone of my skin change that make me

Chinese well From this perspective sure does sure does and we if you have if you still have a semblance of Common grace in your mind you go.

That's nuts And it is but that's the whole point

I I've said it before say it again. There is a biblical principle.

I said this on iron sharpens iron yesterday There is a biblical principle that we need to be much more focused upon in Christian proclamation.

I almost never hear anybody talking about it. I'm serious Even in reformed circles,

I almost never hear anybody talking about the biblical principle laid out in 2nd

Thessalonians chapter 2 and In that text we're told That if we do not love the truth, we will be caused to love a lie

That there is a judicial result from God That When the truth is presented to you

When the truth is right there in front of you and still in this land The truth is widely and generally available if you do not choose to love the truth not just tolerated

I Mean this is this is a warning for religious people if you're raised in a Christian home

If you are raised in a Christian Church, and you have the truth surrounding you You need to understand something

You cannot be apathetic or neutral toward that truth because if you choose not to love that truth

Then God has the freedom and has warned us that he will judicially send you deception

So that you will love a lie If you will not place your passion

Upon what he's revealed to be true He'll cause you to place your passion upon. What is a lie and that my friends is the only explanation that I can come up with that can explain the

Abject insanity in the world around us And you know what the abjectly insane?

Are offended when their insanity is pointed out and They have the reins of government they have the reins of government well, so while we still have opportunity

We continue to speak about important things you say you're gonna shift from that to talking about the deity of Christ.

Yeah, why not I? mean fundamentally What we're saying to the world is

What Jesus taught I posted this morning on Facebook Did the logos graphics thing and Put up again

Jesus words from Matthew chapter 19. Have you not read from the beginning? You created them made them male and female and then

I put as the author Jesus the Son of God Don't need to put any degrees after the name anything that's that's pretty much says it all right there and And Why does

Jesus teaching on this Trump some Pinhead at Berkeley Well, because the pinhead at Berkeley isn't the

Son of God He's not the maker. He's not the creator and Jesus is just some other you know religious figure or Someone other than Christians believe him to be then he doesn't have the authority to speak for the entirety of mankind

But if he was truly the Incarnate Son of God Then this is this is a battle the secularists cannot win

Because there's a battle against God himself and he who sits in the heavens laughs at the rebels who run about doing their thing, so I think there's a

Thing there's a reason for that all right, so as I said, I listened to this debate and And what

I'm what I'm fundamentally trying to communicate here is the level of sophistry That is endemic today in the modern

Unitarian movement now again for a long time

Unitarians were I you know, there used to even be a denominated price still is they very small but Unitarian Universalists they have a

Think they still have a church This church of 16th Street and Greenware or something like that But they're there used they used to be down 15th

Avenue and northern I think there was a Unitarian Universalist church there. I think somebody else bought it I think there might actually be a real church there and I'm not sure but anyway

When you when you'd speak of Unitarians it communicated something that we're not trying to communicate when

I talk about the new Unitarian movement Even Muslims are confused Even Sheikh Umar was confused last week when we debated thinking that the

Opposite of Trinitarianism is monotheism. No monotheism

He know the is a monotheism only one God, you know, the is a one major God minor gods Nathan polytheism

I mean, there's all sorts of categories, you know, the ism is a form of polytheism The the absolute contradiction of monotheism is polytheism believe in many gods

Unitarianism is the idea that there is only one person that shares the being of God that God is

Unitarian only one person Benetarianism would be two persons

Trinitarianism three Three persons sharing the one being that is God Obviously from our perspective, what does the scripture teach?

We look at the fact that scripture teaches One God Yahweh and yet the father identifies

Yahweh the sons identifies Yahweh the spirit identifies Yahweh, etc, etc but many people confuse the technical term

Unitarian as If it's a denomination or just you know, the wacky Unitarians who you know have bake sales for you know kitty blessings or whatever else they they do

And it's actually a technical term and we're using the term technically here and when I think and for a lot of people

Most of our experience in dealing Unitarians is of Jehovah's Witnesses Because they are

Unitarians now, are they consistent Unitarians? Depends on the Jehovah's Witness you're talking about most

Jehovah's Witnesses say Jesus is a God I mean technically the witnesses would be he no theistic

But they they would say that there's only one true God one almighty God And that is

Jehovah and Jehovah's Unitarian obviously our Muslim friends are radical

Unitarians along those those lines not just that there is one being of God, but there is only one person as well, even though you would think if the author of the

Quran really wanted to communicate that and understood what the Doctrine that he was there be a discussion of that but There isn't which is one of the main reasons

I really really really Cannot accept the idea that the Quran came from God but anyway the new

Unitarian movement It is made up of Well some former

Jehovah's Witnesses, you know, you got Greg Stafford running around out there the witnesses of y 'all I don't know what he's been up to recently.

Somebody asked in channel recently and I saw Been years since I heard anything about Greg Stafford, but you have a a small group of Primarily young men really seeking to sort of carve out a niche for themselves

And this is their one focus and this is this is something that I don't think too many people could could argue overly strongly against but in my experience

Individuals who become focused upon this kind of perspective Are not balanced.

They're not teachers in the church If they've learned the original languages They've learned it only so they can argue particular points in regards to the

Trinity or the deity of Christ or something like that They're not addressing a wide variety of things they don't really engage in in polemics outside of seeking to gain converts for their particular movement

I certainly saw this firsthand years ago years ago. I was very young and I I began having phone conversations with this one particular

Jehovah's Witnesses when he first started calling me He didn't identify himself as this individual and they eventually sort of came clean

And I mean, this was a guy who was just an expert at arguing against the deity of Christ but One day

I just threw him completely off -guard by saying are you in Christ? And I started talking about Ephesians 1 and how 10 times the first 13 verses in Christ in him

So he became so uncomfortable and eventually said that's not important. Let's get back to something that's important Expert at dealing with this one area get him off that one area and ah

Total lack of balance but but in that one area these folks Wow, I almost

I almost I had the thought while I was writing and listening this I Was gonna see if we could track down the old dividing line.

I'm sure it's on sermon audio now The old dividing line that we did when

I was driving back yes, when Rick Stamp called in to the dividing line and I was driving back from Tucson and I happened to hear the show and I called in on my cell phone and that was a long time ago

Yeah, 99. Okay. I almost thought about dragging that out and Giving you an illustration because it was

Rick Stamp Who in our chat channel one night? We were talking, you know, we were going back and forth in the chat channel

Asked a question. He said is there any place else where the vocative form of Theos Or is it nominative?

I think it was the nominative form of Theos is used in addressing God And I knew that there was it was

Revelation chapter 4 but before I could even type it out the next line appeared in the channel that does not involve a textual variant and And lo and behold,

I look at the text minor textual variant it wasn't relevant but there was a minor Textual variant in that other use the terms that and here here is someone who is

So focused upon that one area. That's all they study and So when it comes that one area they can just throw stuff at almost anybody.

I mean your average Christian minister who is Visiting the sick and and and dealing with all the issues that come up when the when the

Saints gather and what's called the church and Just does not have the kind of time to do that level of study and research says these guys are

They're a challenge not because they're balanced or they're truthful But because that's just simply what they have dedicated their lives to That seems to be the case of David Barron as well who did the debate with?

With Turretin fam on blog talk radio. So I wanted to play just some sections of this to illustrate what

I mean by sophistry A sophist is a person who?

Well, obviously sofas means wise but a sophist is a person who is

So focused upon appearing wise that they actually end up not being wise because that lack of balance you know, we talked about the sophists and it's it's not it's not meant to be a a positive statement, it really isn't so let's what

I've got here is at the end of the At the at the point where there were closing statements sometimes the closing statement actually allows you to sort of summarize things better than that others

Here is something, you know sort of a Summary of Barron's position and I want you to hear and see if you cannot

Recognize on your own the Circular argument that was the foundation of his entire argument

This is this is this first part is the foundation of the entirety of of his argument.

Here it is I want to go back to the things I talked about in my opening statement and just kind of review some of those because I Don't think they were in any way sufficiently addressed in some cases not at all one of the main arguments and my main argument throughout this including in the cross

Examination is that the idea of multiple figures multiple persons in one

God? Was not an idea existing in Judaism at that time in church and fan. He agreed.

It's not and So when we come to the New Testament Do do the New Testament authors ever define this for us that okay now we're supposed to understand

God exists as multiple persons No, they don't

Nowhere. So how would they how would the first Christians have this framework for interpretation?

How would they know that now? Okay, this is said of Jesus and I'm supposed to take that to mean that he is one person of a triune

God Well, they didn't think about Person of a triune God to know this this wasn't a thought or or figure within God to avoid anachronism

They didn't think about this type of thing What we do know that that the the

New Testament authors had What they had writings in their religious background writings that articulated very exalted things of other figures and so with this

They had their own framework to interpret the things that of Christ now This is not to say that things said of Christ don't go beyond in some cases.

What is said of them? but what we find is that Those things are explained for us in Scripture But now here's here's the argument and I could have gone to his opening statement that this is a more condensed version of it

Fundamentally David Barron's argument was the Trinity can't be true Because it is not a part of Jewish belief in Second Temple Judaism Well think about that for just a moment

First of all just just on historical level Second Temple Judaism is not by any stretch of the imagination a monolithic thing

I Think far too many times in this debate He got away with saying well the

Second Temple Jews believe this Second Temple Jews believe that well which group in Second Temple Judaism I mean it's painfully obvious even in the

New Testament that you have the Pharisees and you have the Sadducees and you have the Zealots and then we know we had the the

Essenes and we had we had all sorts of divisions in Second Temple Judaism and The literature produced in the century before and after the time of Christ Manifold different viewpoints all sorts of different perspectives and if you're familiar with New Testament studies

You know that the big thing today now that we have so much this literature Which didn't necessarily have in the past is to try to find connections here and connections there

And and you know you get published by saying well it seems to me that Paul was familiar with this parallel to this revelation of Enoch over here and In fact what makes so many of the commentaries today that you would purchase

Next to useless for the average Christian is that most the pages are spent taken up are taken up and spent

Talking about well, it's possible that he'd drive this from that as positive drive that you know all the rest of stuff not recognizing that From a

New Testament perspective the New Testament author is not sitting there going. Well, you know What what the

Jews as a whole believe or what this sect believes? That's it. That really should be our ultimate authority

Instead the New Testament is generally saying Actually, it was just a small remnant of people that remain faithful to God's biblical revelation and that the large majority

Had already abandoned that so why their writings would be normative for us. I can't begin to begin to understand but it does greatly expand the amount of information you can try to throw in to make it sound like You have a case for teaching that Jesus was

Well, whatever it is you come up with it's very difficult to get these folks to be overly specific as to who Jesus was

They know he wasn't truly God. They know the Trinity is not true but what the real truth is that Seems to vary from individual to individual as to exactly what that means

But the fundamental argument is well if it wasn't found in The contemporary documents of the day if it's not found in Second Temple Judaism, however, you define that and I never got a definition.

I certainly never got a working definition from Barron as to well what part of Second Temple Judaism is

Supposed to be providing us with this absolutely necessary background that the Apostles absolutely necessarily have to draw from But the assertion is this if it's not there

Then God can't reveal it Now you see why it's important I have emphasized for years and years and years

I mean from the first time from the first time I ever taught on the doctrine of Trinity.

I Have emphasized the reality that the doctrine of Trinity is revealed

In the incarnation of the Sun and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, so it takes place between the

Testaments Once you understand that then you can it really becomes plain and obvious as to how this argument

Assumes its own conclusion and how it has no foundation. I Mean, are you really gonna say?

Well God could not have God could not have revealed Anything more than had been revealed in the

Old Testament and In the development of theology during in the intertestamental period that leads to Second Temple Judaism, Tanaitic Judaism God's limited to that can't be anything more because that's what he's saying

That's what Barron is saying. Is that if it's not found in that literature

Then it can't be true And it's like why What's what's the foundation of that and we weren't given a foundation of that other than just the constant repetition of the assertion that Well, you you can't you can't interpret these things as way because that wouldn't have been in the background of the

Apostles Which means what that there could be no this is not a new revelation from God. God has done nothing new here

We are limited to what we have in the Old Testament and the Muslims do the same thing. The Muslims make the exact same argument

Again, you have to examine the presuppositions Of the arguments that are being presented to you

It's vital that we recognize that we have to think these things through on that particular level

And so it's it's fascinating that's there earlier in the debate two quick sections here because I still do want to get

I may have to go a little bit over just to get to it, but I really do want to finish this up and still get to the

Am Jim Chowdhury stuff I started preaching earlier, but here's Here's another section.

I wanted to I wanted to highlight So what we didn't find addressed here is the overarching issue

Of course of whether or not there was this idea even known to the New Testament authors of God as existing in multiple figures

We don't see this Anywhere articulated anywhere in their writings and and yet as we read these texts that that that church of fan is pointed to He simply presupposes this idea without ever establishing that the idea was

Existent in the Jewish religious background at that time But let's consider some of these arguments specifically and see what we find

First Jesus was called the Son of God Yes, he is But what he didn't do is substantiate that this meant a figure within God or that this referred to ontological equality

He points to John chapter 5 where he was calling himself God's son making himself equal to God But what was assumed in that is that ontological equality was in view the text says nothing of it

The Jews at that time didn't have any concept of this Ontological equality with God what they did have however was the concept of a functional equality with God Wherein Jesus bore

God's authority upon earth so that Jesus had the full authority with God of God And so what he did he did with that authority

Jesus was indeed Functionally equal to God now there again basic restatement of of the argument

That well, they didn't have this idea of a multiply personal God now I'd like to challenge a number of levels and maybe if if Michael Brown ever has time to do it what made one of the topics we could address sometime in the future would be

Indications in the same literature, but even more so in the writings the rabbis for example a personification of the

Devar the member of the the the word of Yahweh and and things like that That have been seen as having relevance to the development of New Testament theology along those lines

But there you sort of have this Even at the end though he says now

Certainly, you know G is sort of goes beyond those things. It's like well, wait a minute. Here's one of the major problems his argument is well,

I can find this I can find this angel over here identifies

Yahweh or I can find this individual over here who is worshipped or a one thing here one thing there what you don't find is

Is the combined Argumentation of all of these streams coming together as they do in regards to Jesus Christ So what they try to do is draw many parallels

Here and then here and then here and then down to here Not recognizing that the

New Testament means of doing this is all of these streams together

Jesus isn't Just once there's not just one stream of evidence concerning who he is.

There are many streams that come together There are many streams that that join together That's that's vitally

Important to see now. Here's here is a real example. However of sophistry here is a real

Example of what caught me as just there are many examples But this one really really caught me

He brings up the use of the term I am of course, we haven't seen substantiated. This is in fact a name of God In fact in John 8 58 if this is a name the sentence just doesn't make sense

Let's say I am as a name and we'll plug Jesus in its place before Abraham came into existence

Jesus What does that mean? It doesn't mean anything. In fact these words

I am in this particular text simply refer to having been in existence since a time before Abraham He brings up that that the that when

Jesus uttered these words in John chapter 18 The the the Jews and the Romans are some of them some of both

We don't have quite all the details there, but that they fell to the ground. But is is this in itself?

Indicative of the fact that they understood this to be the the name of God in some way No, not at all.

And in fact, it's interesting. There's an account in the Talmud with rock. There we go.

Now a couple things a couple things first of all The argument at the beginning this can't be a name

Because you plug in it makes no sense is incredibly facile. No one was saying that it's a name in the sense of a personal name

But there are all sorts of phrases used as names of God in the Old Testament This is a verbal phrase that it refers to the very being of God So trying to plug it in like that.

That's that's not even it's almost like worthy refuting to be very honest with you That's very facile

But secondly, no one is arguing No one has ever I've never said.

Okay. I have never seen anyone argue. Let's put it this way that the reason that the

Soldiers or the guard or whatever you want to call it that's described in different ways in the four

Gospels Fell backward upon the ground Was because they personally understood the direct connection between Ego, I me and Ana who and Isaiah 43 10 and all the other places in Isaiah and the minor prophets and trace that back to Exodus 3 and as soon as Jesus said that they understood all of that and go whoa and fall back upon the ground

I've never ever heard anyone make that argument. And so when you have someone

That makes that type of an argument When you have someone who who places an argument out there in such a way as To then refute it even though no one's making it that person knows that the level of argumentation

They can actually offer Against the real argument is weak. And so they're trying to prop it up by refuting something else

No one Noah's arguing that these men had an understanding of the connections the point is that Jesus used a

Divine title of himself and in so doing there was divine power exercise That called caused them to do what has have any of you when you read this section in John 18 before?

Thought that what was actually going on here is that these men fell down in worship of Jesus Because that's what we're about to hear or at least that's the attempted parallel That is about to made and this is where I really considered this to be a great example of sophistry

No, not at all. And in fact, it's interesting. There's an account in the Talmud with Rabbi Akiva And he was it lived between the the first and second century

AD And it says and when he that it came to him Rabbi Akiva Asked says would you have made your vow if you had known that he was a great man?

He had no one the other replied even one chapter even one single Halakha. I would have made the vow

He said to him I am he The other fell upon his face and kissed his feet and also gave him half as well

Well, he felt this man fell upon his feet when when when Akiva utter these words

I am it's a bipartite formulation He it just like in any who this would be an

Aramaic however, and he fell upon his face Does that mean then that he thought the man was claiming to be

God? No The context dictates what's going on and we can't just throw out claims and say oh this means that without substantiating the claim now

I Listened to that and I was like you've got to be kidding here is Here is a man who is

Racking the literature for anything That can be used to try to get around the clear obvious teaching of scripture

You have a man falling at someone else's feet in Prostration being paralleled with soldiers falling back upon the ground

Just like and That's why he had to make the the false argument beforehand that's why

I had to throw that in there is well to make the parallel I'm gonna

I'm gonna give a little stronger I'm Gonna plant the idea in people's minds that the soldiers understood

You know the whole all of John's issues going back to John 8 24 and 8 58 and 13 19 and now 18 5 through 6 and and and they understood all this and and so now they're falling down before Jesus That's not what the text says that's not ever been the argument

Whether they had any clue About theology makes no difference when

Jesus used that terminology They fell back upon the ground. It was an exercise of divine power

Not the result of these individuals going hold on. I know who I am.

Oh, that's a 3 -4 ball fall down Wow, that's that's when

I saw I was just like there is a level of sophistry There is a level of someone just doing anything they can to try to find something but once again a vast difference between that and and Jim Chowdhury and the kind of of Anti -trinitarianism that Predominates in the

Muslim Street and Anjum Chowdhury represents the Muslim Street and so we go from people

Trying to find well Okay, our Muslim friends do the same thing. We've seen this

Dr. Hussain we've seen him doing this where you're you're looking you're reading through this literature to find anything whether it really even makes sense from the context you drew it from not relevant if it sounds good as part of an overarching argument plug it in there and that's what we have with Anjum Chowdhury and this is pretty much where we had left off with him.

Let's let's jump back in But this is not authentic rather.

It's been invented and you can see as well Professor Stanley and he said the entire gospel of John was written by one of his students of the

Alexandrian school one sect in the second century rejecting this gospel and everything that was attributed to John So you can find

Anyone who's written anything? Throw it out there and Especially here.

I Anjum has no earthly idea that back in the 1870s in Germany It was very common to teach in the seminaries the gospel of John was written in the second century

There's a still problem and that is that we found the papyri since then and you know We have we have manuscripts like Ryland's 4752

Which is a fragment of John chapter 18. It goes back to about 125 Makes it hard for John to be written around 170 when we have

Manuscripts that are earlier than that And so they they still and you know where they got, you know, they got the idea

Akhmed didot Didot didn't care what source you drew from He'd quote from outdated stuff.

It was completely irrelevant. He didn't mind and look where it got him Oh, look where it got him.

And so we can do the same thing Unfortunately what you see with Anjum Chowdhury is You know, they've got their websites

They've got their arguments you cut and paste you borrow you don't check it out and yeah, that is fundamentally disrespectful to The people you're dealing with no question about it, but that's what you have

I mean, it's like a bit of Britannica as well. It says as for the gospel of John is undoubtedly fabricate

It's undoubtedly fabricate. Well, I really doubt that that's what it says because see from their perspective

If there is any discussion of recension if there is any discussion of Editing if there's any discussion of multiple authors, they just they take anachronistically their

Islamic standards, it's not chains and so on so forth as Anachronistic as that is and as ridiculous that is historically from their own materials and Apply it to our own and say well there it is.

It's It's been fabricated. It's been made up It's it's not what we want it to be

It's all the one is all the wanted to pitch two of the disciples against one namely St. John and st.

Matthew and obviously we can go on and on about how this particular gospel is

Inauthentic, you know, even quote your own sources Let alone the fact as I have already said the

Bible is wrong not written down contemporaneously. That knows your own sources This is another way that they think that like many conservative

Christians you have What we think of all of Islam They look at all of Christians and say your own sources

So you'll have you'll have Muslims quoting The Pope to me as one of my sources

Pope ain't one of my sources And they'll have they'll be quoting

Unitarians as one of my sources even in the debate with Sheikh Umar. I had to ask him

You consider anyone who does not believe that Muhammad is a prophet to be a Muslim Well, well, of course not then.

Why do you expect me to believe that Unitarians are? Christians And most have never been challenged to think that through most of them have never recognized it

Yeah, well, okay. Yeah, I suppose so That is an issue. Yes.

I I'm aware to everyone in Twitter that the YouTube stream went dead It's supposed to be back now.

Yes. No, maybe Possibly don't know Well recording so it'll it'll be up eventually don't know what happened not we knew about it

Well, we'll try to get a little bit farther here. You cannot rely upon it Sam This is the reality the old and the

New Testament. There are so many misconceptions so many Contradictions so many fallacies, you know and we'll come on to that inshallah a little bit later

But as part of my rebuttal I can tell you a little bit about The Gospels and I can tell you a little bit about what in fact is sad

Now you can just see at this point that and Jim Really doesn't have anything to say in response to what

Sam had said and So, you know, it's sort of like look at the screen. How much time do

I've got? Let me dig out my notebooks of anti -christian anti -bible quotes and Throw a few out here for the fun of it about Jesus even though you know, you talk about him being the

Son of God Him being that being God, but you know There's no one who ever said or rather there's no mention in the old or the

New Testament now. Are you ready for this? Because if you're not ready for this You haven't been listening much to our dealing with Islam Again, it's due to Akhmed didat but You can always tell when you're talking with a

Muslim Who has here's here's the indicator The indicator that you're talking with a

Muslim who has never seriously thought About the position that they are denying is when they will say

There is no clear text of Scripture where Jesus said I am God worship me

That means they've borrowed that for somebody else and they've never thought through well How would the scriptures reveal the deity of Christ or what do

Christians really believe about this and what they believe about the incarnation? they've never thought of those things and They're not concerned to think about those things now

If they encounter enough loving Christians who know the Word of God well enough Maybe they will realize that you know what that's not a proper

Perspective to take I need to understand what Christians believe and if what Christians believe is wrong

I need to know why that's wrong. Not What my misrepresentation of it is and why that's wrong but Still it can be frustrating to hear this the same

Objection that you've answered over and over and over again It can be frustrating to try to respond to it again ever that Jesus said that I'm God or deed

He said washed me and you know that Sam and I know that all the Christians know that So where did it come from?

You know to say you're the Son of God was a very useful metaphor at that time and you can see Everybody is the

Son of God if you refer to what you have your hand So more Achmed did autism sons by the tons

Everybody's the Son of God David's the Son of God Israel the Son of everybody's the Son of God totally ignoring monogamous

The unique Son of God the reaction of the Jews to Jesus claimed to be the

Son of God making himself equal with God Ignoring John chapter 19. We have a law by that law

He ought to be put to death because he claimed to be God so on the Son of God Ignoring all of that as if the

Context of the claims that Jesus made of being the Son of God in all the

Gospels can be Reduced to that level to the level of well

Everybody is Son of God It's it's it's so obviously Erroneous But it is also almost universal

Amongst Muslims to make that kind of argument and it all goes back once again to Akhmed didot and To those who have decided that Akhmed didot is the be -all and end -all of all apologetic things

Muslim so there you go didn't get as far into that as wanted to get on the program today because Sorry, I started preaching and I realized

I started preaching but that's that's what happened and I Hope you will forgive me for that.

So Lord. Well, and we'll be back on Thursday and we'll continue with We'll finish up and Jim Chaudry.

I'll do my best to Do that to keep that promise and we'll see you then.