Jalal Abualrub vs. James White

You remember my opponent, he said that Christians don't consider Jesus the Father, well then he doesn't know about the last hour, because he's not divine.

Oh, but he is in complete harmony with the Father. Really? One of them died, and the

Holy Ghost and God had no idea what's going on. One of them died. No, the one who died is an addition, not a subtraction.

Come on people, Allah decreed the same way, Abraham gave it to his people. Did you ever see anything like this?

We are angry here, I was insulted twice here. The terrible stuff my opponent said about Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, taking stuff out of context and put, you know, using fabricated words, and secondly, calling a son to God is the greatest offense to us

Muslims. So don't think that you can come here and act angry, because we are angry, because Allah doesn't have a son.

He taught his soul. Jesus never said, I am Lord, I am divine, I am the God, the Creator, worship me as you worship

God, the Holy Ghost is God, Adam didn't say, Abraham didn't say, Noah didn't say, they must have known another

God, a new one, the one you know. I ask Allah subhanahu wa ta 'ala to open your hearts and minds, because Jesus said it in so many ways that he's not

God, you just want to stick it to him, no matter what. Repeatedly stating your own personal beliefs in light of contrary evidence without providing any meaningful argumentation is the clearest definition of losing a debate.

A large amount of information has been presented this evening, and the attempted responses to the few passages that I actually covered, and there are many more that you can begin to get to, has been anything but compelling from a scholarly perspective.

My opponent came up and then misquoted 1 Corinthians 8 .6 again. It doesn't say, but to us there is but one

God, period. It says, but to us there is but one God, the Father, and then one

Lord, Jesus Christ. Is God not Lord? Is Lord not God? The term Lord used of Jesus there is the same term used of Galilee in the

Old Testament. This is abusing the text of the New Testament in a way that I would hope, that because of my belief in my following Christ as he who is true,

I would never do to the Quran. I would never want to be able to abuse the text of the

Quran the way that the Bible has been abused this evening. We had Galatians 4 .4 mentioned to us, but we only had a part of it again really presented to us because it pointed out that when the most of time came,

God sent forth his son made of a woman. Please notice one phrase, sent forth his son made of a woman.

Exactly parallel to what we have in Isaiah 9 .6. Unto us a child is born.

Unto us a son is given. Jesus is the divine son from all eternity and he becomes truly man.

He does not cease being the law of us. He does not cease being the eternal word, but he takes on that human flesh.

That is what is being referred to there again. I do not begin to understand why

Islamic apologists choose to take a text from the Synoptic Gospels and talk about zombies.

Again it just demonstrates that there seems to be no interest whatsoever in reading the New Testament in such a way that it is at all accurate or truthful.

We are talking about people who clearly had died recently because they were recognized by people in the city who were resurrected and went back to their families.

What is wrong with this? Is this not just a demonstration of God's power of the dead? Don't you believe in the resurrection?

Don't you believe God can do this? What is the basis upon which there is mockery of this taking place?

He talks about the only begotten son reading in the King James Version. What is the textual variance in John 1 .18

if you would like to look at it. Magenes Theos is found in P66, P75 in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and it is in the earliest manuscripts of the

Greek New Testament that we have. I would think that it would be important to at least, if you are going to address it, make sure that you are aware of those particular facts.

Jesus' prayer on the cross, Eloi, veli, lama, sabachthanai, is a quotation from Psalm 22.

Read the rest of the psalm. It is a Messianic psalm proclaiming the ultimate victory of the

Messiah after his period of suffering. We have the text of Jesus at the beginning, end, first and last.

I didn't quote Revelation 21, I quoted Revelation 22 .13. Go read it. The person speaking says, Behold I am coming quickly.

Who might that be in the book of Revelation? Then we have the good master text as if Jesus was denying his own deity.

There is no one good but God. The whole point was to show this man who he was dealing with. Jesus wasn't saying

I am not God, I am some sinner. He was trying to reveal to this man who he was actually dealing with and that would have helped the man to understand

Jesus' interpretation of the law. He mentions all authority has been given to me. This is true.

Jesus Christ laid aside his heavenly prerogatives. That is what it says. He humbled himself.

Tapasaphrone is the term in Philippians chapter 2. He had humility of mind.

He humbled himself. That means he voluntarily veiled his glory and yes, he likewise voluntarily veiled that relationship that would have given him divine knowledge of certain events for what purpose?

So that he might be completely dependent upon the spirit of God for his source and sustenance and hence be the example to his people.

If we just would allow all the New Testament to speak rather than just picking out bits and pieces of it.

He keeps quoting from the King James verse in the Bible. I am a critical consultant for the Walking Foundation on the New American Standard Bible.

I am sorry I didn't bring one with me this evening but I will send you one sir so that you can start reading a translation that doesn't have these and vows in it.

That will help a lot I think in the debate because you know a lot faster without trying to muddle through these and vows. He says scholars dispute this and scholars dispute that.

Well scholars dispute everything about the Quran too at least in western countries. They are not really allowed to do that in other places but yes there are scholars who dispute things.

So what? Are you saying that you agree with the Jesus seminar? This is one of the things that has been amazing to me in my encounters with Islamic apologists is

Islamic apologists will be willing to use scholarship against the New Testament when that same scholarship thinks the

Quran is ridiculous. Why are you quoting atheists and agnostics and people and liberals who don't believe in divine revelation when you believe in it?

Shouldn't we be using consistent scholarship in these situations? If you have to use arguments that would refute your own position may

I suggest to you your arguments aren't very good. That's what we are encountering this evening.

He said that I couldn't prove a single word in the Old Testament that says otherwise that God is one. What did I start off with in defining the

Trinity? Absolute monotheism. Christians believe that God is one.

In the same Semitic roots that you have. In Arabic when it says that God is one.

We believe God is one. The question my friends is that a oneness of being and person or is it oneness of being and the divine revelation tells us not a oneness of person.

That's the question between us this evening and I honestly submit to you that question has not even been touched by my opponent this evening as long as he refuses to at least allow us to define the doctrine of the

Trinity. As I said in my opening statement I've never seen. I have no reason to believe that Muhammad understood what the Trinity was.

I see no evidence in the Quran when in Surah 5 verses 116 -117 did you say worship me and my mother as God the derogation of Allah.

Christians don't believe that. So who is he talking about? I don't know. Certainly that's the Christian doctrine of the

Trinity and if it is then the person who wrote the Quran was ignorant of the Christian doctrine of the

Trinity. He didn't think about it for just one moment. Even if you reject the Trinity didn't

Allah at least know what it was in 632? Most assuredly he did.

Now so much of the New Testament text has not even been touched this evening.

We've been told well you know there's all these disputes and we just we don't know who wrote any of these things.

As if an assumption that everything that you received was written by the people of the

The whole reason for collecting them at the time they were collected was that they all had chains of narration.

They were making them up right and left and claiming chains of narration. I can slap a chain of narration on anything.

Does that make it true? Of course not. The fact of the matter is that when we look at the earliest writings outside the

New Testament what do they teach? They teach the Islamic Jesus who didn't die, who didn't resurrect, who was just a

Rasul. All of the first century evidence, all the evidence that comes in the first century of the death of Christ demonstrates not only that he gave his life on Calvary's cross, but that he rose from the dead and that his followers proclaimed him to be divine.

Even the Quran says that the true followers of Jesus would be victorious until the day of judgment. What happened to them?

How did they lose so easily to this Apostle Paul? The fact is they didn't.

They were victorious because the early Christians like Thomas confessed that Jesus Christ is my

Lord and my God. And they recognized that the confession of faith,

Jesus is Lord. Rome demanded that you say Caesar is

Lord. The Romans demanded their blood dead because they believed