Continued Deedat's Presentation on Muhammad in John 16

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. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James White.

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon. Eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one is the phone number eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one if you wish to get in touch with us today.

Oh Poor Bart was talking about a barber. He says it's a Arrogant can has a better barber than I do. I'm my own barber. So I suppose that's you know, anything would do better than that, but he had he had said barter.

I don't know what a barter was but trying to interpret Bart's spelling is Interesting. It would require the supernatural gift of tongues to get it right at all times. But anyway We are pressing forward with two things at once basically, we're listening to meditat attempt to explain to us why John 16 14 16 is about Muhammad and also listening to the Bible answer man Broadcast as well.

And so we'll continue on with that until we get some Until or if we get some phone calls, and so let's continue on. We were listening first to Ahmed D dot and we're about 10 minutes into about a 20 minute I you know, the scary thing is I'm not exactly sure where he ends.

Because I'm not really sure when he stopped arguing about the point I mean when you when you when you chase as many rabbits around as many corners as he does. What can I say. It's hard to hard to say but let's let's pick up where we left off in woman's stomach, you know with a little infant child.

She was carrying him around. The Holy Ghost was inside. With John the Baptist according to the Bible number two. That was number one. The Holy Ghost was with John. Number two Luke chapter 1 verse 41 and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.

Was.

So it was not dependent upon Jesus going away it was it now for those who are not listening last time Why would it be relevant to that should be feared with all the ghost? I'm sometimes wanted a couple times if if he actually thought that Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit were somehow Different or something along those lines, but again what I've been saying all along is I could in less Significantly last time I'd say in less than a minute. I could summarize everything he's gonna say in 20 minutes.

It was the process for D dot that was the replacement for the substance. It was the process that replaces the substance and so It is this showmanship. It is this let's talk about Afrikaan and let's talk about you know what about this and what about that and it's it's uh, I think in in essence, it's sort of an establishment of look at the range and capacity of my knowledge and That's meant to sort of replace actually providing substance in what is being said.

And so for those of you who weren't here last time the arguments being presented right now is That since Jesus said is necessary for me to go away because if I don't go away Then I will then the Holy Spirit will not come to you then what he's Saying in essence is if there are any references to the activity of the Spirit prior to This point in the gospel narratives that this somehow disproves the point now, of course, he's completely misinterpreting the text.

He's being inconsistent as use the text I mean whenever we point to something that is contradictory to something that Muhammad taught or something like that Well, then that text has just been changed.

It's been it's been perverted. So why can you how can you trust anything? Once again, we see Islamic anachronistic eisegesis reading back through the lens of the Quran to the New Testament and What still fits what you can still see through that chronic lens.

It's okay, but if you can't see it then Then it's gone and that's that's what's going on here. And of course The whole thing is based upon a misapprehension of the idea That which is saying is the Holy Spirit had never been in the world before even though Genesis starts with in the very beginning of Genesis 1 the Holy Spirit is is hovering over the waters.

Obviously what is being referred to here is in reference, of course to the role of the Holy Spirit. Taking the place of the role of Jesus as the comforter of the disciples the one who's with them who keeps them guides them sanctifies them etc, etc, and it is not that therefore all these references to the Holy Spirit with John the Baptist in his mother's womb and all these rest of these things are of course from any meaningful perspective irrelevant to the point at hand, but They also make up the majority of his argument.

Number three. The Holy Ghost was helping Jesus all along. In Matthew chapter 12 verse 28 Jesus said but if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God that's the Holy Ghost. Then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

So he was doing all the job with the help of the Holy Ghost. So it was not conditional that he must go before Holy Ghost can come. It was helping him in his ministry. Number four it was also helping his disciples.

When he sent them out on the mission of preaching and healing Jesus told them assured them he said for it is not ye that speak when you go and speak to people. It's not you but the Holy Ghost. In you that's going to speak.

So they had the Holy Ghost when they went out on the mission of speaking healing. It was not conditional that you must go. Otherwise you won't come.

Continued misapplication. The whole thing's based upon this idea. That's well the what Jesus words demand us to believe is the Holy Ghost had never been here had never been involved in the ministry and realize.

Anyone reading the Gospel of John anyone reading the four Gospels? Would never come to this conclusion. They would they would have seen all these and hence wouldn't it would never cross their mind that what Jesus was actually saying all along Was that if I don't go then the Holy Spirit won't like come into existence.

Or won't be allowed to enter the world for the very first time. They would never come these these conclusions. Why then does the Muslim. Because the Muslim is reading the text backwards and Seeking to find something in the text that cannot be found anywhere in the text itself, which is actually forced upon him by the Quran.

Because the Quran says that Jesus made reference to Muhammad and Interesting that Muhammad would say such a thing and is it interesting that that Joseph Smith had to say such a thing. And and all these prophets have to come up with some way of Basically finding some references to themselves to establish their authority and so on so forth in in the scriptures.

It is a common ploy of those who would wish to disrupt the actual truth of the scriptures.

Number five. Before Jesus departed He says to his disciples and Jesus says unto them receive ye the Holy Ghost. Receive. You take it. So I'm asking when he said receive. Did they receive or didn't they?

I said look here come now. Note take it. I'm painful with you, but I mean it. Can you see he said that receive. Did they receive or didn't they? This was long before he departed, but now he's talking about the comforter.

If I don't go he won't come. But if I go I will send him. So it is not the Holy Ghost. Common sense. You don't have to be very clever. You don't have to be philosophical. This is black and white evidence from the Bible.

Common sense black and white evidence from the Bible. Yeah, if you want to ignore everything that the Bible actually says. Picking shoes and turn the text into a self-contradictory mess. No one would allow anybody.

No no. Knowledgeable Muslim would allow anyone to get away with this kind of thing with the text of the Quran, but they will Exalt to the highest level identify as a scholar a sheik Ahmed D dot when he would go about doing this kind of thing over and over again.

I hope you are listening. We are listening is I'm quoting everything I have quoted chapter and verse chapter and verse chapter and verse. If you want to refresh your memory at question time ask me. I will give you the reference again, so you can open up.

If you can't open faster fast enough now. 12 of that same chapter 16 Jesus says I have yet many things to say unto you. Lot of things. But he cannot bear them now means you haven't got that capacity. I have a lot of.

I can give you a solution to all your problems to doomsday human karma. But I can't see you because we haven't got the capacity. I'm going to bring you have got the faith. It's not me. If you the trouble is with you, he's telling you disciple and the truth of that statement.

That you haven't got that capacity you cannot bear them now is writ large in the Christian scriptures. Matthew chapter 8 verse 26 he tells them he of little faith, but no faith.

The Iman.

D.

Matthew 14 31 is that he of little faith, but no faith no Iman. See Matthew 16 verse 3 the he of little faith. You have no faith. Again and again, he's provoked. You have no faith. You have no faith. You have no faith.

Who's gonna be talking to you faithless people?

D.

This is because of your unbelief Matthew 17 20 because of your unbelief you have no belief no Iman.

E.

Matthew 15 16 I even yet without understanding What's only do I'm explaining to you like explain to little children and still you can't follow I even yet without understanding. And when he's provoked by the E.

So Oh faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I be with you? He's frustrated. Oh faithless and perverse generation. That's Matthew 17 17 Oh faithless and perverse generation.

How long shall I be with you? How long shall I be with you. As it is Jesus was the Japanese instead of a Jew He would have committed that honorable hierarchy hierarchy suicide.

And.

In case you're wondering I.

Think they just said what's if Jesus was Japanese? He would have committed a recovery. I Think I've heard that three times. I always wondered what the Japanese reference was. I finally figured out there.

Nothing wrong with him. But how be it. How be it when he is a spirit of truth has come. He will Speak about the spirit of truth. How be it when he the spirit of truth has come. He will guide him to all truth for he shall not speak from himself.

But what things so shall he hear that shall he speak. And he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me. I Say now really who is the spirit of truth? Before we answer we get the answer.

Let me read that again to you with a little emphasis on the pronoun.

Okay, here comes the the fact that the and I I could be wrong. I'll listen carefully here as well. I don't think he actually makes the argument That or maybe is not even familiar with the argument. We've played D dot misrepresenting the Trinity in the past.

So it's I don't believe that his knowledge of Greek was anything more than what he read in a couple of books. He certainly was not fluent in the language or able to read the language or deal with it on a scholarly level.

But I I believe that he's not going to mention the fact that yes, the masculine pronouns used here and that is indicative of a person. He is going to assume That the masculine pronoun is indicative only of a human being.

Obviously if he was familiar with Christian theology who is familiar with scholarly sources actually trying to provide a scholarly presentation he would feel the weight of the necessity of demonstrating and arguing That rather than this indicating the personality of the spirit Which had been discussed of course by Christians long before this and in the centuries before Muhammad.

He would have to demonstrate that that the use of the masculine pronoun Could not be used of a personal spirit but would be used only of a human being. But That's what you'd want to have but that's not necessarily what you get.

He says what my fingers. How big when he? He will guide you into all truth for he shall not speak from himself. But nothing so shall he here that shall he speak and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come he shall glorify.

Me.

Eight masculine pronouns in one verse. It still befits a ghost. It doesn't fit a ghost. He he he's talking about a man a man a man a man eight times. There is not another verse in this vast volume of the Bible with his 66 books of the Protestants and 73 of the Roman Catholics.

They want to see. I got that book 73. There is not another word with eight masculine pronouns or eight feminine pronouns or eight. Mutual gender in one word the reason is an absolutely unique work for a unique personality.

Muhammad.

Now there you heard it for it all you get there is is assertion no argument and Unfortunately a lot of people struggle to tell the difference between assertion and argument. He asserts That this must be a man Muhammad and not a ghost.

That's just an assertion. Why why can't the Holy Spirit who speaks in the book of Acts who has a will in the book of Acts and I mean think about what is really being said here. This must be about a man who will speak a different language live in a different culture over half a millennium in the future.

Even though this text is talking about the disciples and will lead you and Will take my place with you even though it's in that context. He can can move this 600 years down the road and Then have the gall to just on the basis of mere assertion.

It's a Dixit because I say so Say ah, this has to be Muhammad. Here is Muhammad in the Bible have we found has anything that's come before this provide any Foundation for this assertion any any background of the surgeon.

No nothing has everything that's come before. This has done nothing more than to try to create the illusion in your mind that this person this man knows so much. He can quote so many verses the Bible that what he's saying must be true by definition not by substantive documentation.

And unfortunately, that is a common form of Argumentation where you try to build up this aura of all this person knows so much. But then when you actually get to the heart of the argument where they're supposed to provide the meat the substance.

They don't have it and so they can only go on the basis of that kind of argumentation.

Man man man man man, and if there is a ghost.

You must be a ghost. It's not a ghost again the man for someone who can talk about Afrikan and And Arabic and things like that you would think he would have at least taken some time to learn something about the languages about which He is referring.

If you want to make I mean I could make a better argument than he could hear. The best. Argument that he could have used here would have been to point out that Numa is not a masculine gender now. But I don't think he even knew that.

Of course, it doesn't actually accomplish anything because that then would only point to the fact That the use of the masculine is therefore that much more significant. But still at least he could have made an argument this idea of ghost ghosts can't have a have a you know Masculine pronoun attachment like that is is you know ghost is not a good translation of Numa.

Especially since there is a specific term phantasma that can be used of ghost and that's not what's used here, so Where is the beef can't find it here. Now catch this he's about to make the assertion the Muslims in Indian, Pakistan.

When they start talking about this here's what the Christians did because this is such an overwhelmingly strong argument. I realize he hasn't yet presented an argument. He's made an assertion. No arguments been presented, but you know one of the best ways to gloss over when no arguments have been presented.

Now start appealing to the biases of your audience and start talking about.

Conspiracies.

They translated as a she who did that having a clue never seen it. I would love to see some documentation that anybody any meaningful scholars anywhere ever translated as a she. That that would strike me as a as a highly odd thing to say the least.

But what is what is more than that is that here's here's the conspiracy see it's such a strong argument. It is so overwhelming in its weight that the Christians can't answer it.

To change translation to.

So.

Evidently if if if you all start using my arguments here in South Africa. My arguments are so strong and so good and so powerful that you know what's gonna happen. They're gonna change the translation of the Bible.

That that proves. That that proves beyond all question that this this must be an overwhelming argument.

I said now let's analyze it. The Christians say it is the Holy Ghost. So they say is Muhammad a ghost. I said look in the Greek language. There is no such word as ghost. The word there in the Greek is pneuma.

Pneuma, wherever it's chosen, they translate it as spirit. Wherever they find them getting the difficulty, they translate it as ghost.

What? When they come into difficulty? Yeah, I was listening to his Debate with it may have been honest Roshan forget who it was with but. He loves the RSV. Why isn't he using the RSV here? Because the RSV is not gonna use ghost.

Why why. Pick and choose your translations this way when in other contexts use other translations at least try to be consistent here.

So is it the converter which is the Holy Spirit? This is the converter which is the Holy Ghost. So now you can't say Muhammad is the ghost.

So.

You are discounted what I said, you know. Making fish of one and follow the other just when it suits you the way you go around. I said, you know this st. John. St. John is the gospel of St. John chapter 15 verse 7 to 13.

The same John. In the first epistle of John Chapter 4 verse 1 he says. Beloved. Believe not every spirit. But try the spirit whether they are of God for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

So the false prophet is a false spirit. The true prophet is a true spirit. He is using the word prophet synonymous with spirit.

So if if in first John You he's interpreting Test every spirit. He's making spirit equal prophet. Therefore the spirit of truth over in the gospel of John has to be the prophet of truth. Which means it has to be a prophet who's Muhammad.

Did you follow that? I know what that assumes of course. Is is that John always uses every word in the exact same way in? Every single context and since most of us know that for example the Greek term cosmos World is used in at least a dozen possibly 14 different ways in the gospel of John alone.

Let alone the first in the hunting corpus. Let's include the epistles there that really wouldn't follow with with looking at this particular argumentation here. As we saw last week, there is simply no way that you can look at the texts that refer to Who is being spoken of here the helper the Holy Spirit teach you all things.

He will be with you forever. Muhammad's not with us forever. The world cannot receive him, but the world can receive a prophet. It does not see him. The world's seen every prophet. You know him because he abides with you will be in you.

No prophet has ever been in you. I mean you can just go on and on and on. It simply doesn't fit. It can't work. The contexts are completely different, but that's not gonna. You know, that's not gonna stop you because once you've got your overriding authority going well, you just don't.

You just don't stop.

Believe not every spirit but try the spirit with the air of God because many false prophets have gone out into the world so the false prophets false spirit to prophet truth. And this is the title of only and Nabiya sadiq al-wadul-ameen.

The sadiq al-wad one who is true to his promise al-ameen the truthful the true spirit the true prophet. If you go for hajj Allah take you one day on his tomb where there is a beautiful metal calligraphy.

This is la ilaha illallah al-malik al-haqq al-mubeen muhammadur rasulullah al-sadiq al-wadul-ameen. This is what the envy of the pagans this is the title they gave him sadiq al-wad one who is true to his word al-ameen the truthful sadiq al-wadul-ameen.

So because Muhammad is truthful and the spirit the the truthful prophet and that there's There's a connection you're getting and that's that's pretty much all you're gonna end up getting out of that. I don't think we need to go much farther with that one.

But there you have the kind of argumentation and You you listen to it and obviously if you are accustomed if you're if you're a Bible student You know something about the original languages, you know something about exegesis this kind of argumentation strikes you as so laughable and so bad That you wonder about how anyone a could ever present it and be could ever believe it, but you've got to realize You you have to think about the audiences that are hearing D dot.

I Background than your average modern post evangelical and Your modern average post evangelical by is the prayer of Jabez for crying out loud. So there you go I mean the the level of discernment that is going to be applied here is is not overly large and guess who has to provide The the background guess who has to be able to in a succinct manner And in a clear manner and on the fly without a whole lot of preparation at least for that particular encounter because you want to be able to do this when you're standing on a bus or a train or Whatever other context you want to be ready to give an answer for the hope that's within you.

You are the one. Yes, you dearly beloved the listener to the dividing line you brave few. You're the one who has to learn how to give not only education But a clear answer all the same time. Can it be done?

Yes, it can be done but it takes boldness and it it takes Preparation preparation beforehand, you're not gonna necessarily know when you're gonna have these opportunities and so there has to be preparation beforehand.

You have to have thought these things through before you try doing it for the first time. You know it that's why we send medical doctors to medical school. That they get to do these things, you know, hopefully on somebody other than a human being before they start slicing into me and So that's that's the sort of how you how you do it.

So That's how that That that works. So Not no reason to continue on with that we've got some phone calls that we're gonna go ahead and take and then move on to the Jimmy Akin Bible Answer Man appearance from 1995 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number for you to call and That is the phone number that someone already did call.

But I'm not sure that it would be wise for us to give a lot of information About our first caller because our first caller is a marked man. He's a marked man he lives a life of danger. Yes, indeed. You all think that when we talk about Hiding out under Liberty University in the bunker that that we're just making this up.

No, we actually have some people there that keep an eye on things keep us informed on what's going on. And so we're not going to give any names and we're only going to tell you that he's somewhere near Liberty University.

So in fact, I'm not even going to use the man's first name. We're just going to refer to him as Lu bunker man. Hello. Lu bunker man. Come in. Can you hear us in your bunker? Yes, sir. Hey, hey, I can hear you.

You're coming through quite clearly, but don't speak too loudly. Because we we know what might happen if if all of a sudden you disappear we will know what what happened.

That's true, you may hear boots on the floor and a formerly Muslim boy.

Formerly Muslim boys, okay. There's there's a description. I hadn't thought of before so, okay. Well, we'll let everyone else figure that one out for themselves. Okay, Lu bunker man, what can we do for you today?

I.

Was caught today because I've been trying to defend the idea that the only way we can have true Christian fellowship is within.

The gospel obviously. And a little bit like a certain article that appeared on a certain blog this morning. Yeah, a lot like that. Yeah.

And But I there's more than one person running around here that uh. That would like to debunk that old idea and so anyway, I've been being challenged a lot and what what it really comes down to is like the content of the gospel.

A lot of people at least in my neck of the woods are trying to say that the Content of the gospel is just that Jesus is Lord. You say that you don't need any theology you have a a true gospel and.

Well now let me let me let me stop you there right there for a moment because I just want to make sure people understand we being a little humorous, but There it is interesting that we sort of have two Extremes of the spectrum here because this morning as I was responding to some folks in regards to What it means to be truly reformed and how I am NOT reformed those folks tend to be highly Specific in areas of theology so specific to the point where they're willing to Identify a difference in Sacramentology as as heretical and so on so forth, but the irony is at the same time they then lack Any confidence and the ability of the scriptures to define the gospel to any any?

Certain certain level you are looking at the opposite end of that spectrum where in essence you have such a diminishment of focus upon The New Testament revelation that basically as long as somebody says you know Jesus is Lord enough times the idea that there is a theological context in which that that phrase has meaning and that that lordship would have meaning and that You know it could have been really easy to send down the New Testament if it was only you know three or four pages long.

And we've got all the rest of stuff. You know why why that's stuff So confusing to why in the world of the Spirit sent it to us in the first place That's the other other end that it's the odd thing is they almost circle around and meet To where you have the sort of anti intellectual side meeting the hyper overactive intellectual side somewhere around the backside in essence and So what you're saying is you have a lot of folks there who? decry the idea That in essence the gospel has theological ramifications To it and that there's there's more to it than just simply saying Jesus Lord now.

These folks probably though if I'm guessing correctly would recognize that there is something to the gospel in the sense of Jehovah's Witnesses and and Mormons and and even Islam and stuff like that yes.

Exactly, and I tried to kind of point out the inconsistency in that position. If you're going to.

If you're.

Going to defend Christianity as it can be reasonably understood at all you need to be able to put those folks on the outside. And but uh. What the response I got was they were trying to? Accuse me of being inconsistent myself because they they said well, okay, you think that uh.

That Calvinism is part of the gospel. You think that that part of the gospel is That. You know that I have made the statement that I I don't like the sensationalism because of what it does to the gospel.

Oh, no. That's almost that's almost a worse heresy there than Oh, man, yeah, mm-hmm so.

So and. So they're they're saying well. Then you're being extremely hypocritical to even be here and especially to get under this teaching and and work work for a certain theology professor and so forth and and So they were trying to say well hey rich by the way is our voice is our voice.

Modification and hiding thing working on. Are they actually hearing this guy's voice. You know how you have to. And then the witness tradition. It sounded real strange thing. You know they. We should be using that for you actually right now.

Just just Before we post this one. We'll have to alter the alter the voice. There you go. He sounds really bad now. There you go. Okay. Sorry. Yes, we're actually trying to hide your voice. So that your livelihood will not be cut off.

Well obviously Liberty University doesn't just have theological students in it for crying out loud. There's all sorts of programs of study there, so I'm not sure where this charge of of hypocrisy would be coming from.

I mean the only way you could be a hypocrite is if you'd kept your mouth shut and Didn't say anything and weren't willing to take a take a stand and take some of the heat that comes with it. You're not sitting there in one context and saying oh yeah I believe all this stuff and then another context going.

I actually don't believe any of that at all. That's that's where the hypocrisy would come in.

Right, but.

Anyway. Wait, but it did bring up an interesting discussion on you know what is.

All right.

What can we? Say you know these are the must-haves that if we're going to have any sort of unity any sort of fellowship in. Since fellowship has to be within the gospel right. Oh what? No, what are the what are the that you've got to have.

And then what are the things that maybe? Maybe like dispensationalism or whatever. What. What are the things that are that are negotiable that we can have fellowship people. Well.

You know what I think about the gospel. And I think about to the the must-haves you you you look at what the New Testament. Where the New Testament draws the line as to who is for example a term that I've referred to a number of times because I Think it's extremely important is the fact that the Apostle Paul refers to false Brethren now if he can talk about false brethren.

Then he's clearly talking about individuals who are within the church that he identifies as not being true Christians. What were they teaching that'll help us to understand where the lines are because he's obviously drawn that line.

We want to know what that line is and obviously that doesn't have anything to with dispensationalism because dispensationalism doesn't you know? You don't have that historically in the form that well who knows what form it's in today.

I mean there's been so much change over the past 50 years who could identify it. But but dispensationalism to come around to the 1800s in the form. It's in today. That's obviously not something we're gonna be looking at that context instead what you look at is you see?

The fact that the the fact is one true God the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. That's always a dividing line from Genesis to Revelation you and it's any form of polytheism is out the door immediately.

Can't even be considered. Secondly you have the person of Jesus Christ you have who he is you have his his physical incarnation. Who is the liar, but the one who denies Jesus to come to flesh that he is the Antichrist etc etc?

You have his death upon the cross. You have first Corinthians 15 the outline of the gospel there. Died for us in the Christ scriptures buried rose again the third day according scriptures ascension into heaven.

And you have his deity. I mean clearly. What's the dividing line between Jesus and the Jews. John chapter 8. John chapter 10? It always comes down to they'd be willing to accept him as a prophet. But they will not accept him as he claims to be the Son of God.

The very eternal one so you have those aspects of theology proper and nature of God who is Jesus Christ. The coming of the Spirit you can't. Obviously you can't have the fellowship the love of God and the grace of God and love the Lord Jesus Christ fellowship The Holy Spirit these things if you don't have.

You know the doctrine of the Trinity when we get to the gospel. This is where there had been A great deal of unanimity of opinion, but it has Collapsed in what would be called external Protestantism today, I don't think it's collapsed for any particular reason outside of just general apostasy in the West but certainly the less confidence you have in the inspiration of scripture the less confidence you have in the coherence and Consistency and harmony of the scriptures and the ability to know what they mean, and why they why they mean it.