Interaction with Diaa Mohamed

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 at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. And welcome to the Dividing Line on a Tuesday morning, not a real pretty morning here in Phoenix, sort of gray and gray.

Well, I saw yesterday they had a 10 % chance of rain and we hit the jackpot. We beat the stuff.

Why is Air Main Channels expecting some big, huge, long Dividing Line? I'm never saying about a big Dividing Line today. I didn't say a word about it.

It is the Dividing Line. It's not an Uber Dividing Line. It's not a mega Dividing Line. It's not a Tara Dividing Line or an

Uber Mega. It's a half of an Uber. How's that? It's a sort of Uber, something like that.

Anyway, anyhow, we have lots to do in the time that we have.

I will mention that it is our intention anyways that on Thursday at the regular time, which also is our intention, we will be doing a

Radio Free Geneva. It is not one of those where ... Sometimes we do

Radio Free Geneva's because we run across something where someone just does a theological face plant, okay?

I mean, exegetical face plants and theological face plants and philosophical face plants and all that stuff.

If the people on the channel do not stop complaining about the length, we're going to go to half hour Dividing Lines for a while just simply to whip them into shape and so they'll be thankful for what they get and then we can go back to doing other ...

Anyway, sometimes we do Radio Free Geneva because someone has just out of abject detestation for Reformed theology says something really dumb, okay?

Really dumb like the stuff in the Catholic Answers Forums, accusing us, oh, by the way, the phone lines are open for Ignatius only, okay?

Or what was that other guy, Robert Filmer, or what was his name, David Filmer I think was the name, whichever one, either of those guys from the

Catholic Answers Forums, if they call in, and especially if Ignatius wants to call in and explain about how

I'm a chicken because I won't debate Robert Syngenis after the five times I debated him when I debated him three times last year, and if he'd like to explain his evidence for his libelous statement that we have edited the

Mitch Pacwa debates so that ... Because, I mean, I just, I lose every debate

I do and so we have to edit everything and if these guys would like to call in and substantiate their libelous or slanderous statements, depending on whether they are in printed form or spoken form, 877 -753 -3341, other than that, we probably won't be taking phone calls today because we want to jump back into the two series we were doing, but if they want to call in,

David Filmer, yeah, we'll let those guys call in if they want to do that, along with Guardian. Still waiting for Guardian.

I think it's Ben. Ben, I forgot to ask Algo, I didn't see Algo in channel, but Algo's in channel right now and so he should remember the exact day,

I'm sure, that Guardian called in and exactly how much time. Someone in channel who will not be mentioned just changed their nick to Short DL's Stink.

I don't remember ever doing a short DL, except that one time, remember I had the back spasm? That was the shortest

DL we ever did. I got hit with that back spasm, I just couldn't keep going and that's the way it is.

So anyways, Guardian can call in and other than that, we're going to stick with what we've got.

So this Radio Free Geneva is not about someone necessarily doing that. This Radio Free Geneva, which we will do on Thursday, which might go for 90 minutes, maybe, it might not, maybe,

I shall not be bullied by even weeping women in channel. Or in Korea, that's right, there's lots of people weeping in North Korea right now.

Why they're weeping, I don't know. I think they're being paid because most of them are like, oh yes, but Occupy PRBC, we are the 99 minutes.

Okay, boy, I am really tempted to send somebody flying right out of the channel on that one, but I'm not going to do that.

Anyhow, this Radio Free Geneva will not be one of those. The fellow that we're going to be reviewing is a nice fellow.

I've actually talked about the book that he wrote last year. I don't know when I did, I did 10, 15 minutes on it.

I think Algo would remember specifically. When I talked about the book that he put out,

John Calvin Goes to Berkeley, and I discussed that last year, or actually earlier this year,

I think it was when it was. No, no, no, no, it was late last year, now that I think about it, because I remember

I was listening to that specific book on a ride out on Dynamite Road when

I had one of my rapid heartbeat thingy -ma -bobbies. That would have been late in 2009.

Anyhow, we're going to be reviewing a sermon that he did just recently on Calvinism and responding to some of the things that are said there.

That'll be on Thursday, so all the whiners who don't appreciate the regular -sized dividing line today will have to tune back in on Thursday for Radio Free Geneva, and that makes everybody happy as soon as they start hearing

A Mighty Fortress. As soon as they hear that, then they all just smile, and that'll be our

Christmas gift to everybody is a Radio Free Geneva right before. Yes, they really do like that.

All right, let's get back into our two series that we're doing. I've already invested five minutes on that one.

Let's dive back in here. We're going to be continuing. First, we'll do some more with Dia Muhammad and Samuel Green, and then back into Bart Ehrman's opening statement, and let's get going.

Now, over and over and over, Jesus shows his humanness. Over and over.

He says, if no man of that day, he refers to the Day of Judgment. Now, if you just happen to be tuning in, this is a debate where Dia Muhammad, a

Muslim in Australia, is seeking to argue against the deity of Christ. Once again, we have to be impressed with the willingness of publicly speaking

Muslim representatives to misrepresent or show an abysmal understanding of the religions that they are saying, and we'll send you to hell.

Now, again, there are, sadly, many, many Christians who will do the exact same thing in regards to Islam.

The large number of people who make comments about Islam in the world today don't know much about it, and if they're willing to just ship everybody off to hell without even understanding what they're talking about, okay, you know.

So it goes on on both sides. But it would at least, I think, be good for Mr.

Muhammad to listen to our comments and to take some time to maybe read some books.

One of the things that has concerned me, and I didn't bring this hadith in with me, but one of the things that does concern me in seeking to bring about meaningful dialogue, yesterday

I was listening to the debate that I did with Shabir Ali, and I listened to the second of the two debates that we did in London back in 2008,

I believe it was, somewhere around there. On, this is the one that went late in the night, all the way to midnight or so.

I really, you know, in fact, I was thinking, I really need to find the email address of the pastor of that church again and write to him and thank him once again for not only having let us, it was a twin home

Baptist church there in London, and write to the pastor again and thank him because, you know, he was there right to the last voice that you hear.

And I know it was after midnight was the pastor of that church. And there aren't too many churches that would do that, open up, have

Muslims coming in and things like that. It was great. Anyways, I was listening to the debate I did with Shabir Ali.

And by the way, right now, let me put this out there. I need help from folks in Toronto.

I need help from folks in Toronto. In March, I'm going to talk to the folks that are putting on the

Cambridge Bible Conference up there that I'm going to be speaking at in March, March 23rd and 24th,

I believe that is. And right now Shabir and I have figured out that the 22nd of March is probably the best night, the best day, night, whatever.

For a debate between he and I. But right now, we be flying by the seat of our pants.

We got no place to go. We got no place to put it at. I need some of the brothers and sisters up in Toronto to get in touch with me and see if they can coordinate with me with some of the folks that are putting on the

Cambridge Bible Conference. But they're going to have a lot that they've got going on. We need a location and we need folks to help us put it together.

And so me and Shabir Ali debating up in Toronto, and this would be our fifth debate together.

And so let's get some, hopefully hear from some folks up there because we need to put that together.

But for folks up in Toronto, we are planning on having a debate there in March. And what may happen, this is one of the reasons

I was a little frustrated yesterday. I had planned to come in and get all this work done in this one chapter, and I ended up with a billion of other things happening.

And one of them was trying to coordinate another debate, possibly the next week in Texas with Adam Dean.

This is one I had mentioned that had originally been planned for January, but they had some internal issues. And so we had to move it back.

And so now we're looking at the week after that. And I go and send them an email where I always use

April instead of March. And they were all confused by that. And I had to send them an email back. I'm sorry, I'm brainless, but I don't have a secretary to do these things.

So I got to do it all myself. And sometimes I don't do that all that well. So possibilities of two

Islamic debates in March. Let's hope that those come together and that we can make the travel plans work together and all the rest of that kind of stuff.

That'll be coming up. But anyways, I'm not sure exactly. I think the reason I mentioned that was

I was saying that it would be good if Mr. Muhammad would take the time to listen to and to understand what it is we believe and to do what we do in preparation for debates and to listen to all of the material.

I was listening to my debate with Shabir, and it was that one section where I just kept hitting him so hard on his inconsistencies, the materials he was using.

And he tried to explain his way out of it and say, well, you know, if I were to follow your exhortations and abandon

Islam, then I would become a secular humanist. And so I should examine Christianity using secular humanist examples.

And it was one of the more amazing, in my thoughts, attempts to explain the activity on the part of Muslims, even

Muslims as easy to get along with as Shabir Ali in using one standard in attacking

Christianity and a completely different standard in defending Islam. And here you're seeing the same thing on a much lower level, in my opinion, with Muhammad is that he clearly has not done any first level study on his own.

And that's because sometimes I'm worried it's because of this one hadith that I started to mention where one of the companions and I need to pull this one out.

I need to have it more closely memorized than I do. I know the story, but I don't remember who the individuals involved were.

Maybe somebody will pop in the channel and remind me of that. But as it may, it was one of the companions encounters

Muhammad and the companion is reading from, if I recall, it was the Torah. And Muhammad asks him, what are you doing?

And he says, I felt it would be good to know what these scriptures say. And I'm reading the

Torah. And Muhammad's face becomes red. He doesn't say anything.

But when his face became red, you knew he was angry. And finally, when he does speak, he, in essence, emphasizes the sufficiency of the

Qanon. And therefore, the lack of need on the part of any

Muslims to ever read the Christian scriptures, whether it's Old Testament or New Testament, Torah or Injil.

And it really strikes me that in listening to Diya Muhammad, that's the attitude that we've got.

We've got someone who is not even making the beginning of an attempt to accurately understand the text of the

Bible. Now, obviously, if we say that and we say that by way of criticism, then it becomes incumbent upon us, if we are people of truth, to seek to accurately interpret and understand in context, in its historical context, the

Qanon as well. And that certainly is something we attempt to do. The chapter

I'm working on right now, that's right where I am, is exegeting as best I can the

Qanon. But that then runs us into a real difficult problem, too.

And that is, OK, I'll go look at what Ibn Kathir has to say. I'll see if the reference comes up in Ibn Ishaq or something like that.

I'll take a look at al -Qurtabi and Tabari and so on and so forth. I'll try to find the early

Tafsir literature and look at things like that. But to be honest with you, there are many, many times that you look at Ibn Kathir and you read the

Qanonic text and you go, there's not much of a connection here. I mean, the traditions develop very, very early in many instances.

And you just don't find in the vast majority of Islamic writings the kind of exegesis that you find in good, meaningful biblical commentaries at all.

And I'm not talking about the liberal chop it up and turn into sushi type stuff. I'm talking about the in -depth, excellent commentaries that are out there these days.

You just, it sort of parallels what you've got as far as computer programs for both.

Because I'm just sitting here looking at my screen and over on one monitor,

I have Accordance Bible software up. And I just think of what this thing's capable of doing. And the resources are there. And I've got

Logos I can fire up on this thing. There just isn't anything like that. And I see

Abdullah Kunda just joined the channel. Hello, Abdullah. And you look at the stuff that's available.

You've got the Alim and I've got Zekr and I've got a few other programs like this. Just almost nothing in comparison.

Now, I'm going to have to ask, since he's in channel, I bet she is listening.

Abdullah, you were at this debate. I heard you ask a question. You asked it of Samuel, of course.

But I just got to ask you, man. And I said I was going to write to you and I never got around to it. I apologize.

But now I'm putting him on the spot. You listen to this debate. How could you not be sitting there as Umar?

Thank you. I thought it was Umar. I almost said it was Umar. But now that's interesting because my picture of Umar in my mind is a big, huge military dude.

And you think about Uthman and Uthman, you know, is more of the studier.

You know, I mean, he's murdered while reading the Qanon and stuff like that. Umar, you know,

Umar is the guy that is in the middle of the huge debate between the

Sunnis and the Shia on the subject of, well, it's an event that had a lot to do with the

Sunni -Shia split. And sometime we're just going to have to do a discussion of this because I've been reading a lot of that stuff and it has been very, very, very, very interesting.

But Umar broke through a door and Fatima is injured and miscarries and all this stuff.

And one side says it was a mistake. And one side said it was purposeful and blah, blah, blah, blah, and all this stuff.

It's very, very, very interesting. And y 'all can take a look at that at some other point in time, because I'm not going to get much more of this debate done if I don't hurry up.

But anyways, I've just got to say to Abdullah, I've just got to ask you, my friend, when you're sitting there listening to this kind of representation, and you know, it's not

John 5 -7, it's 1st John 5 -7, and you know that there's so much more to the doctrine of the truth.

Aren't you sort of cringing a little bit? Do you talk to the guy afterwards and say, you know, you really got to do some more study here?

How does that work on that side? Because, you know, I've criticized many a person who has engaged in debates with Muslims for just not being prepared and just getting run over like a bug in the middle of the road or something like that.

I just wonder what goes on on you guys' side along those. Hard to listen to, indeed.

Okay. I don't necessarily want to put you on the spot, but I would like to hope.

Okay. All right. First time you've met him. All right. I would like to hope that you would take him aside and as best you could for somebody who obviously doesn't know who you are, sort of say, hey, can

I help you out here a little bit? So anyways, let's get back to the comments here.

Because oh, okay.

Yeah. So you would agree with me. I know this is sort of how Rush Limbaugh does radio, but you would agree with me then that he pretty much is just simply following Akhmed Didat and is just regurgitating

Akhmed Didat stuff, which yeah. Okay.

Good. I'm glad you did that. I'm feeling good that you did that. All right.

Let's continue on with Mr. Muhammad's presentation here. Now he's going to get to what seems to me, he found something online and he's just following these arguments because he never develops anything about context at all.

And sometimes that's due to time, but I didn't get the feeling this was a time issue. I felt this was a preparation issue.

Of that day, no man, nor the son, referring to himself, nor the angels were north of that day.

If you go to the Christian theology, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, they're co -equal, co -powerful, and co -acknowledged.

There's no difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Really? No difference? As in, that would explain why beforehand he said

Jesus was the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Evidently, a major level of confusion on his part in regards to the identity of who became incarnate.

It was the Son, not the Father, nor the Spirit, et cetera, et cetera. And again,

I just, if Diya Muhammad were to listen, and I never got a response back from the email that I sent to him, and I think

I sent it a second time, so it's been ignored twice. So I sort of figure, well, either I've got a bad email address or he's just not going to respond to me one way or the other.

But if he were to listen, my hope would be that he would recognize that his arguments are indeed deficient and that he needs to, just on a basic level of honesty, you know,

I've said many times, one of the 99 beautiful names is Al Haqq, the truth.

And if you consider that to be something that is beautiful, if you consider that to be something that's descriptive of God, then we are under a absolute moral necessity to be as truthful as we know how to be in any one of these situations.

And to represent, to misrepresent the other side, I mean, I could come up with some possible examples of how badly we might misrepresent the

Islamic side, but there really isn't any reason to do so. So how can you not know of that day?

Jesus says, no man, nor the sun, nor the angels will know of that day.

Again, from the Bible. Someone walks to Jesus and says, oh good master. Jesus says, why does thou call me good when the only good is in heaven?

He can't say that. If he is God Almighty, he cannot... Look, Dr. Samuel, he's human.

I can say, you know, he's the most knowledgeable man I've ever come across. He knows the Bible. He knows Islam. And out of humility, because he's human, he can say, look, honestly,

I'm not that... Please stop it. You know, who's really... Lonis was my teacher, Reverend so -and -so who taught me.

That's humility. That's... it's a human characteristic. Well, let me just ask, aside from the fact that it seems to me that Dia Mohammed is missing the point that Mark is recording for us here in regards to Jesus seeking to address the young man and to get the young man to understand who he's dealing with and what the nature of goodness is.

The illustration he uses here doesn't seem to make much sense to me from the Islamic perspective, because once again, does he believe that Jesus was sinless?

And does that mean he was good? And from whom did Jesus receive the knowledge that he had?

I mean, the illustration just used is of one human being learning something from another human being. But is that where Muslim...

I'm sorry, is that where prophets get their knowledge in the first place? It just doesn't seem that he's understanding, because again, he keeps saying, well,

Jesus was human, Jesus was human. What kind of human? We believe Jesus was human. He was the God man. We believe that.

But what does that mean about the humanity? Was it sinful? That's one of the issues.

I used to love playing basketball. I wasn't too humble, actually. It's probably a bad example. But I say, you're good.

I say, yeah, I know. But Jesus Christ, when... I wonder if Mr. Mohammed is tall.

That would be interesting to find out. When someone said, oh, good, he cannot. He was, yes, except he is Lord. He's Lord and Savior.

He cannot say, what does that call me good? The only good is the Father in heaven. It didn't say the

Father in heaven. That's, again, assuming Unitarianism rather than proving Unitarianism.

You know, if you think we're modalists, then there's all sorts of reasons to argue against modalism, as we have done many times here on this program.

But if you understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is, you're not going to be arguing along these lines. But again, the reason we do this is because the vast majority of Muslims you're going to speak to possess these misunderstandings.

And so you have to be prepared for them. Because he's human, and he's showing the human side. He's showing his humility, his humbleness.

So we come back to the Muslim view. Why don't we accept Jesus as Lord?

Why don't we accept his blood? The simple answer is... Now, you know, it's interesting. Why don't we accept

Jesus as Lord? Why don't we accept his blood? I hadn't caught that before.

But obviously there's historically two different issues there. And certainly they're closely connected.

But it is interesting to try to enter into the mindset of what the lordship of Jesus means to this particular

Muslim in relationship to his sacrifice.

That's helpful to consider. Apart from the Qur 'an telling us to, he never told us to.

If our salvation depends on that, on a theory that he never once preached.

So a lot of what the Christian theology is preaching Paul. A theory that he never once preached.

I think at one point in time he's actually going to make the statement, Jesus never said he was Lord. And I just sort of sit here going, you call me

Lord and rightly so. How many times is he addressed by the term

Qur 'as, by the disciples? And we're actually supposed to believe that he was going, oh no, no,

I'm not that. No, no, no, I'm not that. I mean, it's really hard to even begin to understand that.

Something tells me that he has confused Lord and God. And so he's drawing from Akhmedidat.

Never, you know, there's no one unequivocal, blah, blah, blah. And doesn't seem to understand what the real relationship is.

Paul, Paul, 14 out of the 27 books of the New Testament was written by Paul. 13, actually.

You're assuming Hebrews. There might be people who agree with you on that. But it's actually 13.

And if you follow Bart Ehrman, it's only seven. So it all depends. Paul was a self -appointed disciple who never walked with Jesus, talked to Jesus, sat with Jesus.

So the basis for calling him a liar is exactly what? Because even the disciples accepted the assertion that the apostle

Paul was an apostle and that he was called by Jesus Christ and that he, in fact, had communicated with him.

Now, if what he's saying is Paul was not one of the disciples during Jesus's earthly ministry.

Okay, that's a different thing. But still.

Then all of a sudden he became the most knowledgeable one. In fact, Michael H. Hart, who authored a book, The 100

Most Influential Men. I want to tell you number one, because I probably will tell you.

But number one was the Prophet Muhammad. This man was a Christian. He wasn't a

Muslim, mind you. Number one, Prophet Muhammad. Number three. Who was number three?

Can you guess this? Who? Jesus, number three. And it's not me banking on Michael H.

Hart. He could have been a liar or a lunatic also. I don't know. And number two was

Paul. And his rationale, his justification was credit of Christianity must be divided.

You know, and since he's a channel, he may get chuckle out of this.

I listened to the debate that Abdullah Kunda did with Samuel Green after our debate.

So it's very, very recent. It was about Muhammad. And after Samuel gave his presentation, when

Abdullah got up, he sort of made a comment at the beginning. And I don't remember the specifics.

He can feel free to correct me and channel if he wishes. But it was something along the lines of, now here's good evidence that we

Muslims, you know, are good folks. Because even though some things that were said there were,

I forget the terminology he used. But what he was referring to was since Samuel had basically said Muhammad is a false prophet.

He said some of the things Samuel said there were pretty controversial. Yet, you know, he wasn't interrupted. And we're all still here.

And the debate's going on. And, you know, this demonstrates that we can do this. And we can maintain control.

And so on and so forth. Everybody knows, because we see what happens to people in many

Islamic lands. We all know the infamous blasphemy law in Pakistan that is used as a bat to beat

Christians over the head with. I heard you blaspheme Muhammad and you end up in jail for, you know, three months.

Or three years. Or something else. Or dead. Any of those types of things. We know that to say something about Muhammad in the context of Islam is emotionally charged.

And yet, ironically, Muslims can say really strident things about people who are extremely important to us.

And it's like they don't even realize. I mean, the absolute calumnies that are launched out of abject ignorance by Muslims against the

Apostle Paul are amazing to me. And as one who has spent a fair part of my life in teaching and preaching those books written by the

Apostle Paul. And translating them and seeking to understand them. And appreciating so deeply the faithfulness and sacrifice of this tremendous servant of Christ.

I'll admit, it's one of those things that often pushes my buttons and makes me want to just expose the ignorance out of which these words are being spoken.

I mean, I'm thinking of one particular apologist. Not in our chat channel at the moment, by the way. But one particular apologist.

I saw a video of him. He debated David Wood a number of years ago and then went off to Saudi or someplace,

I think. And he's back now.

And it's his specialty, I guess, to attack Paul. To go after the

Apostle Paul. And I'm looking forward to the opportunity someday of engaging him.

Because I really, once again,

I know the sources these folks are drawing from. That was one of the great advantages of going to Fuller Theological Seminary and being exposed to the left.

I know the sources these folks are pulling from.

Oh, hey, I'm sorry, Ralph. I didn't even see that you had done that. There's the

Hadith reference. And it would be interesting if you have that,

Ralph, to go ahead and post it in the channel. Because I'd like to read it if I could. If you could pull that up for me, that would be great.

For those of you who are new to the program, we have a chat channel through Alpha Omega Ministries. We've had it since 1996.

And I look over there every once in a while and see what folks are saying. And it's live webcasting.

That's the way it is. Can you imagine if there was a chat channel for Rush Limbaugh? He couldn't even follow it or anything like that.

But be that as it may, I'm pretty certain I have seen that Hadith in Bukhari as well.

But I will have to check that. I have it in my book materials. I just didn't bring it in here with me today.

So that's why I'm sort of wondering about that. But it hasn't shown up there yet.

There it is. Umar ibn al -Khattab brought to Allah's Messenger a copy of the

Torah. And said, Allah's Messenger, this is a copy of the Torah. He, Allah's Messenger, kept quiet. And he, Umar, began to read it.

The color, and you'll notice this is a British rendering because it's misspelled. It's C -O -L -O -U -R.

Oh, great. Now they've both posted it. Look at that.

We've got three different people who have posted at the same time. So now I don't have a clue which one's which.

Let's scroll back here now and see if I can find it. Thank you to Abdullah, Turzanfan, and Ralph for all posting the same one.

Okay, let's go back here. The color, C -O -L -O -U -R, of the face of Allah's Messenger, peace be upon him, underwent a change whereupon

Abu Bakr said, Would that your mother mourn you. Don't you see the face of Allah's Messenger?

I love that. So Umar is reading from the Torah, and Muhammad's getting angry.

And so Abu Bakr, now if you don't know your Islamic history, Abu Bakr is the second caliph after Muhammad from the

Sunni perspective. And then Umar is the second, and Uthman is the third, and Ali sort of brings everything together for a while, he's fourth.

But Ali's the one that the Shia think should have been from the very beginning. So the Shiites don't like Abu Bakr or Umar, or Uthman for that matter.

But especially Abu Bakr and Umar. So Abu Bakr says to Umar, Would that your mother mourn you.

Don't you see the face of Allah's Messenger? In other words, dude, you're in deep trouble. That's how they talked back then.

And said, I seek refuge with Allah from the wrath of Allah and the wrath of His Messenger. We are well pleased with Allah as Lord, with Islam as religion, and with Muhammad as Prophet.

Whereupon Allah's Messenger, peace be upon him, said, By him in whose hand is life, Muhammad, even if Moses were to appear before you, and you were to follow him, leaving me aside, you would certainly stray into error.

For if Moses were alive now, and he found my prophetical ministry, he would have definitely followed me. That is one version of it.

That's one version of it. But that's not the one I have in my notes.

My recollection is, Abdullah has one from Bukhari. Yeah, see, the

Bukhari one is a little bit different. I knew there was one in Bukhari. There's different sources of hadith, folks. You're listening to this as we're live discussing this in general.

Umar was given a section of the Torah, and Arabic brought it to the Prophet, and began to read it to him. As he read it, the Prophet's face changed color. One of the men of the

Ansar, one version of the narration states, Abu Bakr said, that's interesting, said,

Can you not see the face of the Messenger of Allah? Thereupon the Prophet said, Do not ask the people of the

Book about anything, for they will not guide you when they have gone astray. That's very different than the other one.

If you listen to them, you will either disbelieve in what is right, or believe in what is false. By Allah, if Moses had been alive today, he would have been obliged to follow me.

The color of the face of Allah's Messenger underwent a change. That's Sahih al -Bukhari,

Book 60, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur 'an, Number 12. Thanks to everybody who put that up there. I will have to grab the version

I have, because there was something said about the sufficiency of what was given through Muhammad at that point in time.

All of that, to get back to my main point, and that is, I just get this distinct feeling that there is a many

Muslims, I think, because of their view of the Qur 'an as the final revelation and as it being a guard

Surah 5, a guard over the others, believe that the others have been so corrupted that they are pretty much worthless to read.

And I think most Muslims in the audience would admit that the vast majority of Muslims have actually never read the

Bible and have very little familiarity with it at all. Same thing for Christians and the

Qur 'an. The vast majority of Christians have never read the Qur 'an, certainly not in Arabic, but even in English translation or transliteration, depending on how you all want to put it.

And I think we're hearing some of that as we listen to Diya Mohammed here.

I'd like to try to get to the end. My recollection is that we are fairly close to the end of Diya Mohammed's opening statement.

I'd like to get to the end of that. And then we'll just see where we are at that point in the hour as to how far we get into the

Wallace -Urman debate. Between Paul and Jesus, because Paul, in all accounts, is the true founder of Christianity.

The brother mentioned the term Immanuel. Before I get to Immanuel, Paul is the true founder of Christianity.

I just think that is just on Mr. Mohammed's part, that's just a bland statement of ignorance.

On the part of liberal German redaction critics, it flows from a worldview that no

Muslim could ever embrace. And I do not think, for a moment, and this is also what came out in the debate with Shabir Ali, even though the subject was supposed to be

Mohammed in the New Testament, it ended up being the willingness of liberal form critics to chop the

Bible up into pieces and then say, oh, well, this over here says this, and this over here says that. You can't do that to the

Quran, but you can do that to the Bible. Well, that's what you have to do to Paul's letters and to the

Gospels to create this false dichotomy. And oh, there's plenty of scholars who do it.

That's how you get published. But it just, I continue to make the case to my

Muslim friends that when you imbibe that worldview to attack the New Testament, but then you have to later try to fight that worldview in defending the

Quran, that should tell you something. There's a problem. God with us.

Immanuel, God with us, tremendous material.

It's my pleasure to be studying that this week as I will be preaching on Sunday morning at the

Phoenix Foreign Baptist Church, and I will be preaching on Immanuel. That is a

Hebrew phrase found multiple times in the

Book of Isaiah in particular picked up upon by New Testament writers in a number of different ways.

And Immanuel in its initial application was simply God with us. God is with us.

God is not just in a surface level on our side, but God is with us in the sense of dwelling with us in his presence.

We are his covenant people. That's what Immanuel originally meant, but it went beyond that in Isaiah's prophetic vision, and it's seeing how that prophetic vision becomes fulfilled in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ that's really, really exciting.

Whoever called Jesus Immanuel, in the 33 years that he walked this earth, no one called him Immanuel. As if D .L.

Muhammad knows every name that was ever used of Jesus, the better way to present that would have been, we have no record in the

Gospel narratives of someone using Immanuel in personal conversation with Jesus.

That would be a true statement. However, what you do have in his followers is the application of Isaiah 7 and the other prophetic passages specifically concerning the use of Immanuel in relationship to Jesus.

When you say God with us, and he will be called Immanuel, his name was Isa. Actually, it was not

Isa. That is really not an appropriate even

Arabic translation or transliteration or anything else of the actual name of Jesus.

There's all sorts of theories as to why that particular name is used. But there are significantly more accurate renderings.

Remember, we're talking, I don't think anyone's going to argue, at least they shouldn't argue if they're knowledgeable enough, they shouldn't argue that either the

New Testament or Old Testament forms of the name of Jesus have been somehow corrupted from the time of the writing of the

New Testament. There just isn't any evidence of that in any way, shape, or form. No one ever called him

Immanuel. Not once. The topic of tonight was, is

Jesus God? Identity of Jesus? Whatever. But the brother touched on some things I feel like I have to answer him.

Now, at this point, we sort of veer off the topic a little bit because, well, Samuel Green veered off the topic a little bit.

Samuel feels that in each of his presentations, he needs to throw this material in, and if you've listened to as many of his debates as I have, that's what he does.

And so, I'll admit, what it does do is it sometimes causes the whole debate to veer off course a little bit.

And so, I suppose if I was to criticize Samuel for something, this would be what I would need to criticize him for, is that I think if you're going to debate who is

Jesus, stick to that subject. If you start throwing in stuff about the transmission of the

Quran and stuff like that, unless it comes up later on in the debate, then your opponent is going to do exactly what happens here, and you end up sort of scattergunning stuff and end up talking about all the same things in pretty much every debate.

Because he touched on it, and you don't want to leave it unanswered. He said, the Quran has been mildly changed.

It hasn't. The Quran has never been changed. He was referring to how you pronounce it, the reason the

Quran was burned. I'm a little confused here. I will confess.

I'm a little confused here. I mean, I know who Uthman was, and I've read Sahih al -Bukhari, and lots of other ancient sources in regards to this.

And now we have the Muslim representative not certain how to pronounce the name of the third caliph.

That I was I was left going, what? How did that happen? All the various versions were burnt because of just that.

The mispronunciation of the words. You see, when

Islam spread, it spread to the subcontinents. It spread to various people. So the people, the Arabic wasn't their first language.

And the Arabic language didn't used to have nouns when they were writing it. Um, what? Didn't have nouns?

Did he just say nouns? Nouns? I think eventually what he says is the vowel pointing.

Which, of course, is true. In the early forms of the text, Ajazi, Kufik, etc.

The vowel pointing does develop at a later point after the original writing of the

Quran. There's no question about that. But this is just one,

I don't think, overly reliable explanation. And he's presenting it as if this is the fact.

And the reality is he doesn't know that it's a fact. He's just, this is what he's heard.

And he's going on second or third hand information here. He's not giving us first hand information.

So the people when they read the Quran were mispronouncing the words or mutilating the words as the brother did.

And he can because he's an Englishman. I speak somewhat Arabic and I still mutilate the words. You can't take exception.

So what happens is Uthman asked to get all the Qurans that didn't have the vowels and burn them.

Not because they were wrong. Not because there was changes. No, because people were mispronouncing the words.

So they made it into added vowels. So here the explanation is that the materials from which

Uthman and his committee produced the final edition of the

Quran which is then enforced upon the Ummah by Uthman much to the chagrin of Ibn Masud and others especially around Kufa.

But anyways, this final version, once it's created, for some reason the source materials are burned because they've got the wrong vowel signs?

Or they're being mispronounced? Really? Where did Sahih al -Bukhari say that?

Where's the ancient evidence of this? I'm unaware of any of it.

And I don't get the feeling, given what I'm listening to, that Mr. Muhammad knows where any of those sources would be either.

This is a much, much later reading back into history of things that just,

I'm sorry, just weren't there. The Quran is not a book.

I have a feeling that if I looked up Kitab in the Quran that we might find it being used that way.

But anyway. Because we have millions of people that recite it.

So the Quran isn't a book. You see? So when Uthman asked to collect it, burn it, because people mispronouncing the words and then we came with the one copy with the vowels.

If we truly and honestly look at Jesus, without, you know when you have the barriers, because I was born this way or I was taught this way.

If we genuinely just look at what Jesus says from the Bible, leave the

Quran out for a second. If you look at it from what it says from the Bible. Nowhere does he say worship me.

Nowhere does he say that he is Lord. Nowhere does he say he is

Lord. Nowhere does he say worship me. This is all straight out of Ahmadiyya. These are the words of a person who trusts someone else to the point of being willing to make commentary about something he's never read himself.

Because he clearly hasn't read the Bible. If he's read the Bible then he would know that Jesus does use the term

Lord of himself. That Jesus is worshipped and he accepts that worship. In fact he identifies that worship as an act of faith.

He would know these things but he doesn't know these things. He's trusting that the people who have told him these things have told him the truth.

Now he's saying that the Quran exists as a book today but since it's completely memorized that if it were all destroyed it could be recreated very easily is the assertion that he's making.

Now the Quran is not that long. It's only about two -thirds the length of the New Testament. But the idea is that it's it was given orally first and it did not come into existence as a written document at least in the form of the

Uthmanic Codex. That Musaf does not come into existence until at least 20 years after the death of Muhammad.

So that's his point. And I gave you the quotes where he's giving all the glory to God in heaven.

Nowhere does he ever say that him and the father, him and God Almighty are the same thing. And of course what does he mean by the same thing?

Does he mean the same person? Does he mean sharing the one divine name of Yahweh?

How does he understand John 10? How does he understand

John 10? I and the father, we are one. Why did the Jews pick up stones to stone Jesus? When he said

I and the father, we are one. That would be a question I would want to ask Dio Muhammad. Has he ever read that section in John 10?

Does he know who the unrighteous judges in Psalm 82 .6 were? All these other things that better apologists are aware of.

He's making statements that just don't have a foundation. But again, you might be saying, then quit picking on him.

But he is more representative of the Muslim that you will talk to at the airport, the

Muslim you'll talk to in the restaurant, on the street corner than Shabir Ali is.

Because the vast majority of the Muslims you'll be talking to have heard these things. I've told the story but I'll just tell it again briefly.

When I met with the Ahmadi Muslims on Long Island and they came to one of the debates

I did there with an Imam and it was a Sunni Imam, not an Ahmadi, but they came anyways. And then they came to a presentation that I did the following Wednesday night on the reliability of the text of the

New Testament. And afterwards, as I was dialoguing with them, one of them made a comment and I could tell that even though these are

Ahmadi Muslims, which means they're viewed as non -Muslims by most Sunni Muslims, and in fact are persecuted in Pakistan regularly by Sunni Muslims.

They had themselves watched Ahmad Didat's videotapes.

And so the widespread nature of the claims that Didat made,

I mean I doubt there is anybody, not even Zakir Naik, has been viewed and seen, that's certainly what he wants,

I can tell that, but have been viewed and seen as often as Ahmad Didat.

And so when Didat makes these claims, and oh, would I have loved the opportunity to have debated

Ahmad Didat. I mean, Joshua Dowell did a great job, definitely showed definitely defeated him, but I would have loved to have been able to do a series of debates with Didat, because but just like Zakir Naik, he's he exercised choice, shall we say, in his selection of opponents.

I think McDowell was an aberration, and would have loved to have had that opportunity to have engaged him.

But anyway, they hear this information, it's bad information, it's easily refuted information, but it just gets repeated so often that that's the kind of stuff you're going to have to be dealing with when you seek to have the opportunity of speaking the truth.

Thank you for your time. There you go. Couldn't have timed that one much better than that.

That's the end of the opening statement. Now there are audience questions, and there's some give and take. And I do want to get into that, and I just due to time,

I just didn't dive back into the Wallace -Ehrman stuff, because sometimes it's such a huge shift to move from the one area over briefly to a discussion of textual criticism.

I've seen a number of folks coming to channel, and it's concerned me a little bit, but there have been people coming to channel, and they're listening to the discussion we're doing about those first decades in the transmission of the text of the

New Testament, and there's still some fundamental misunderstandings.

And I certainly understand why. This is not the kind of stuff you get discussions of in Sunday school, but there's still some fundamental misunderstandings about what was going on in those early decades, and the initial transmission of the text in those early decades.

And so we'll dive back into that one after the Christmas holiday, because as I mentioned on this coming

Thursday, if you didn't catch this earlier, just tuned in, we'll be doing a radio free Geneva on this coming

Thursday, and who knows, maybe I'll track down some other egregious examples to add in, but we'll be looking at a sermon that, not because it's egregious,

I mean it does say that every text Calvinists use are out of context. I suppose that was a little bit of a stretch.

But it is the methodology that's used. And, a little warning for some of you, you're going to be a little bit uncomfortable, because part of the methodology used here is derived directly from dispensationalism.

To get around the concept of monergism. So, yeah, that's what we'll be looking at on Thursday.

So get ready Thursday afternoon, Lord willing, at the regular time to hear the wonderful strains of Steve Green singing

A Mighty Fortress, and then all those wonderful little comments that we've thrown in there. I need to find another comment pretty soon.

Maybe that comment about all the texts that Calvinists use are out of context. Maybe I can put that one in there too and spice up the

Radio Free Geneva thing here. But we'll eventually run out of space. Eventually it'll be like 20 minutes long and we won't get anything done if we keep doing that.

Hey, we'll be back again on Thursday, Lord willing. We'll see you then. God bless. I believe we're standing at the crossroads

Let this moment of sin flow away We must contend for the faith our fathers fought for We need a new reformation day

It's a sign of the times The truth is being trampled in a new age paradigm

Won't you lift up your voice? Are you tired of plain religion? It's time to make some noise

I'm your Wittenberg I stand up for the truth, won't you lift up the