My First Rebuttal Period Against Jalal Abualrub

I simply call my opponent to be much prouder of that. I'd like to turn your attention to a horrific, out of context citation where a verse was cut in half so that it's actual teaching was robbed from you.

1 Corinthians 8 verse 6. But to us there is but one God. That's all you got.

I saw this happen with the babes a few weeks ago. I do not understand this. I would never do this to the

Quran. Because all someone has to do is go, could you read the rest of the verse please? Because 1 Corinthians 8 verse 6 says, but to us there is but one

God. From whom are all things, and we unto him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.

This is Paul's restatement of the great schmaw of the Old Testament. Filling it in in Christian revelation with Jesus Christ being the creator of all things.

How can you quote only part of a verse when the rest of it teaches the deity of Christ? I cannot begin to comprehend this.

We're told that every single word of what I said has been disputed. By whom? If I were to get up here and start quoting

Shiites and Druze and every other off center group of Muslims and say, ah, everything he says is disputed.

Could we ever accomplish anything? If you're going to say it's been disputed, please name by whom so we can examine the sources and have a scholarly debate.

We're asked if any Old Testament prophets speak as a Christian speaks. Of course not. What did I say in my opening statement?

The revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ takes place when? In the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

When did that happen? After all the Old Testament prophets. It takes place between the Old Testament and the

New Testament. That's why the New Testament writers then take all those words about God in the Old Testament and apply them to Jesus in the

New. We're told Jesus did not speak Greek. Really? Almost everybody in that land did. You had to because that's what the

Roman soldiers spoke and you better know what they were telling you to do. He said he cited major encyclopedias.

Folks, this is a debate that's supposed to be a scholarly debate. I'm a teacher. I do not allow my students to quote the

Encyclopedia Britannica in a scholarly paper. You go to true scholarship.

When I study Islam, I have spent I don't know how much money to obtain their best materials.

Why are we quoting Internet encyclopedias this evening? We're told in Numbers 23 19 says

God is not a man. Of course not. It is not our claim that God has eternally been a man. It is our claim that the eternal

God who created all things entered into his own creation. I want to ask a question of my opponent this evening.

Will you stand before us and say it is beyond the power of a law to enter into that which he created?

Will you say that? Yes or no? Are you going to? Then we were scolded in the last debate for anyone daring to talk about the

Quran who doesn't know Arabic. But everything I brought up in regards to the text of the

New Testament was dismissed by saying well I don't read Greek. Take it up with the people and I'll cite it. Can you imagine if we were having a debate on the

Quran? And I got up here and I made a bunch of basic errors in regards to the nature of the

Quran. I miscited it. I mistranslated it. I went against all the major Islamic translations of the

Quran and I said hey I found that in your guys' books. Don't talk to me. I don't read Arabic. How scholarly would that be?

I don't understand that. I can open up the Quran here sir. And I'm taking the time to be able to realize that this tells me.

He neither begets nor is he begotten. Correct? Yes. I'm taking time to go this is what it says.

And I can go here and I can go to Hebrew and I can see Yalad is the same root. And that comes out in Isaiah 9 6 which says to us a son is given a child is born.

A Yalad. That was written 1300 years before this. Why do I believe this comes 1300 years later?

We were told for example over and over again that the word that us is used is

Satan. 2 Corinthians 4 .4. Actually a good friend of mine Don Hartley has written an excellent thesis where he disputes that actually about Satan.

But even if it was that is irrelevant. Words only have meaning in a given context. And the context of John 1 has nothing to do with Satan.

Every time you hear it brought up they ask him to use it that way. It is a red herring. We were told that looking at monogamy meaning unique is a trick.

No that's called translating the Greek language accurately in accordance with the best scholarship that is available today.

We were told that these words were written by people who never knew Jesus. Prove it. I can simply say to you everything in the

Quran has nothing to do with monogamy. Prove it. You can't just make overarching statements like this and not back it up with serious argumentation.

He said that stuff I got about Constantine I got from their books. He didn't get it from mine. And he didn't get it from any serious historical work because it is just false.

If you are going to say Constantine forced the trade of young Christianity then go back and prove it. I can prove he didn't.