Continued Regent University Debate Review

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 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Cruise Schedule, Kilt, and Teaching Sessions

And good morning, welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning beautiful day here in Phoenix, Arizona and Hopefully it's a nice day where you are. Someone up in Canada one of our good Canadian listeners informed me just a little while ago and We do believe that she is Canadian.

That we should expect cool weather and I should bring some of my Sweaters along so I think that what that means is she was saying I should bring my coogies with me For the for the cruise and I think she was requesting that I wear them during the teaching sessions.

I think that's what she was she was requesting. At least we're going to say that she did and then get to blame her when I.

Think you should take into account that your students need to be able to concentrate on what you're saying. Yes. Well, you know what?

When you have to overcome small difficulties to concentrate it just makes it all the more special for you. So this is no small. Hey. Remember one of the class sessions I've been looking at the schedule.

That's real good trying to drink coffee with the microphone thing. That's good. Well, I was looking at class schedules and on formal night. There's one formal night because it's a short cruise. Is that that's good right there?

Well, look at look at the schedule. No, that's not that's schedule the debate, isn't it? That's the actual I can't see that from here. What are you talking about? I mean I had LASIK, but I that's that's small print dude.

No, I got the the events schedule here, October 14th 15 16 17. Yeah, which does it say formal night somewhere on that? I think that. That should be. I think the sick 15th probably the second night. Probably wouldn't be the third night could be.

I suppose there's only one of this October 16th the third well.

We cruise in the 15th, so technically that is the second night, right?

Right, so and so that's that's formal night and our class goes to within like we bait. We go be basically go straight from the class to dinner. We have we have early dinner, which is nice. I like having the evening.

I like having dinner early. But we go straight to dinner.

930 a .m. Session 3 and then session 4 is at 332 5. Well, it doesn't actually say when it would have a dinner starts at 530.

Yes, and then 530 is the formal group photograph. Uh-huh, so we're not gonna in other words we're not gonna have time to get changed between the class and the photo and Formal dinner. So what that means is we come.

No. For ladies for the ladies, especially we just have to skip the class at all. So, what does that mean? That means you come to the class in your formal wear. Which means I will be coming to class in my formal wear and You know what that is.

Hello. You don't know haven't you seen the pictures in my office.

Okay, it's it's it's it'll come to me eventually if I don't just go back in and look but oh Oh.

Man, wow. Did I think it's messed up your your your microphone again. Pride crashed the entire thing. The system is probably going down right now. Even as we mentioned, it's still clicking along. Okay, so so.

I believe that there is a kilt involved.

Laddy, I Laddy, so all those folks who get who take that class. They're gonna get we're gonna have Scottish theology on that afternoon. Yes. Okay.

We have to put up with the kilt. That's one thing the kilt and.

It goes together beautifully over the top. I just it's it's a shame. I can't bring the claymore. I Don't think they allow it on the plane or on the ship.

I Can just see you walking into the hotel with I.

Just got here from the Highlands. Yes indeed. All right, and don't even bother forwarding all the emails. We're gonna get mocking me. I don't want to see him. I don't care. Once you get to my age.

Check in for my flight. Where would you say we put?

It's a little over four inches which doesn't matter anymore anyways, but dr. White do you know what the.

The do not fly list is There you go.

Anyway, so Looking forward to that. That's gonna be Asked to be enjoyable. But yeah, we got it. We got to do it. There's there's just not enough time for anybody to get changed at that particular point.

So One of those classes will all be looking pretty spiffy. As far as that goes and I got a new Tablet writing device for this laptop because I'm gonna be taking this one. It's nice and big and fast and Stuff like that.

So looking forward to that and it's coming up way faster than it then it should be right now. That's that's for sure. Let's see, I'm just watching the odd Conversations going on channel people wondering what in the world we're doing.

But I can't believe it took you that long to figure that one out rich. I was pretty sad. So anyway, eight seven seven seven five three three three four one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one if you would like to participate not if you'd like to waste all of our program being obtuse and act like somebody or not, but otherwise for everybody else eight seven seven seven five three three three four one and as you know, the Gentleman I will be debating at the end of the cruise is Joan by name of Shabir Ali we have been it's been a while since we did this, but we've been listening to a debate between Shabir Ali and Mike like Kona and we are into the cross-examination period and I figured since we're getting close to the debate We might want to finish this up because it's all in the same subject.

And so those of you who will be attending the debate and I hope that's especially if you're up in the Seattle area or if You know, it's a Friday night. So even if it's a long drive. Reserve a room at the SeaTac Marriott and come up and and be there for that evening.

It's it's gonna be a wonderful time and let's face it. This doesn't happen very often in the United States anymore. You don't in fact this kind of debate doesn't happen very often anywhere in the world.

I mean we are in one of the last nations in the world where you could even have this kind of a debate. Either because obviously in Islamic countries, it wouldn't be allowed because I wouldn't live long enough to do it or Wouldn't be allowed in to do the kind of this kind of debate or in Western countries We are self-destructing and passing laws against quote-unquote hate speech, which can then be used to you know stifle all free speech and all Dialogue and and last last year at the Biola debate the moderator made a very good comment he said if we don't argue our positions will end up fighting and I thought that was a good insight that if if you if you stifle the expression of difference and the dialogue that takes place then the only thing you do is fight each other and that that leads to leads to violence rather than disagreement and discussion and dialogue and so it's a Might be a long drive for some of you.

But hey, if you've split up two different directions stay the night because obviously the debate's gonna go late. And stay there stay there at the hotel that evening and then head back the next day the next day is Saturday.

It's not a Saturday night debate. It's Friday night debate. So it would work out really well. So I'd encourage some of you if you're within driving distance come on up be with us so we could use the support and So give give consideration to that and along those lines we'll pick up believe it or not.

I do know where we were in this debate even though it's private a month since we played it last but I do keep notes on my system here and let's continue with the It wasn't cross-examination. That was the one thing about this debate.

It was it was Conversation it was so nice, you know and all that stuff and I just rather have a real real debate. No, I'm not speaking of rescue here as rescue prior to death. What I'm saying is that the earliest belief in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as we can tell from the earliest sources is That despite the fact that everyone had seen Jesus dying on the cross God had somehow rescued Jesus and raised him to himself so that Peter can proclaim in the Acts of the Apostles that Death could not hold him.

And of course because God was with him rescuing him raising him from the dead. You can put it that way if you want. If you want, I don't think so in the sense that sir for 157 Clearly states they did not crucify him.

They did not kill him. Those two have to go together and it's I'm gonna be very interested to see how consistent Shabir is on This point because I've heard a number of his discussions where he's left open the possibility Is was crucified but not but that he just didn't die that he was rescued by God.

He was raised up to his presence and we're gonna have to possibly have a little discussion as to what raised up means. Even though obviously the focus for me is going to be upon the positive defense of the crucifixion.

From my perspective obviously the only reason that someone like Shabir Ali denies a Crucifixion is because of his Islamic beliefs and if you recall when we first started this at the opening Shabir basically admitted that He admitted that he has a prejudice from his Islamic perspective that does impact his reading of the historical sources you mentioned.

The speech of Peter which we are now referring to you did say the earliest strata talks about Jesus being raised from the dead.

Do you think that the earliest rather? Well, we should first listen to the words and then we'll talk about the interpretation. He did say that. In fact, I was just sitting here listening to him stating that that he was rescued and he interpreted the early church's message of being Resurrected from the dead as being rescued.

That's not the same thing as what the Quran is talking about and that's that's why Mike Lycone is jumping on that as well he needs to because that that seemed to be a Inconsistency at this point there's something to be said about that.

The passage which Paul is cited Peter is citing in the Acts of the Apostles is from the Psalms Psalm 16. Read the commentary on Psalm 16 at the New Jerusalem Bible in its footnoting on that Psalm says that this actually refers to a person who has had a close brush with death.

Now I've heard Jamal Badawi say the same thing here. And that is when in essence and and listening to we've we've played some of Badawi's materials before in essence what they do is they go back to these Psalms and They argue that the New Testament is misrepresenting everyone these Psalms on the basis of the idea.

And I know I've explained this but not everyone listens to every single program other than algo who memorizes every program. We do and what day it was done and what I was wearing that day, and he just scares me to death.

But other than him Need to repeat some of these things sometimes because we get new listeners thankfully and hopefully you invite folks to listen in and stuff like That that's how we get the word out.

But anyway, the idea is from their perspective that everything in the psalm has to have a direct relationship to Jesus or there can be No Connection at all. So the idea of prophecy where a portion of a psalm is relevant, but not all of it is is dismissed by by Jamal Badawi and hence by Shabir Ali as well, and so He's going back here to Psalm 16 and here is a psalmist who had a close brush with death.

Well, duh. He obviously didn't die or he couldn't written the psalm and so if you if you think about the application of this this mindset there could not be a prophecy about Resurrection because whoever wrote any of the psalms would have to have themselves been resurrected for their life experience to have that kind of a parallel see.

Which which ignores the fact that the the uniqueness of Jesus's ministry would transcend any of the individual portions of prophecy. That would be recorded in the Psalms or anybody anyplace else in regards to the entirety of his of his ministry.

The psalm does not actually necessitate the person physically dying. So now to say that God raised this person from the dead does not necessarily in the ancient world Require that the person had to be physically actually dead.

You see our conception of what involves death or what means death has changed over time. You mentioned previously empty right and his excellent book this thick on the resurrection of the Son of God. If you read it throughout you will see he mentioned some of the conceptions that were there and some of which you refer to.

But he also mentions that the the story Calirgo in the story Calirgo is beaten by her husband. And she apparently dies and she is buried but some grave robbers come and they they're surprised to find her alive.

They're scared off and Calirgo's to survive and then according to the story as cited by NT Wright. She says I was dead and I came back to life even though we know from the story that she was not dead.

But this is how people might refer to things if if a guy is diagnosed with death today, he's kept in a morgue. He's watched for a little bit. And in fact, he doesn't actually die. He might say I came back from the dead, but we know he wasn't actually dead.

Today our conception of death has actually improved because we have put a person through an EEG through an ECG. There are certain grimacing effects that we test for five of them that are noted by Constance Jones in his book the complete book of death and dying and After all of these tests we keep a person to just watch him just to make absolutely sure.

So it is possible that a person might appear to be dead in the ancient world and that he wasn't actually dead. But if that person survived one would say that he actually came back from the dead. Documentation for this is found in an excellent book by Jan Bonderson his or Bonson his book is entitled buried alive a Terrifying history of our most primal fear and what he has shown here is that throughout history There have been difficulties identifying when exactly is a person finally dead and he showed in particular in the time of Jesus.

He thought that Jesus was not his particular concern. He's just simply going through the whole sweep of history. What he has shown is that in that time people could not determine When a person actually had had died and in that same book we have a quotation this other book here.

We have a quotation from one of the Jewish Talmud sources. Which might help us to understand why the women disciples of Jesus went to the tomb. Listen to it. It says the Babylonian Talmud stipulates one should go out to the cemetery and check on the dead three days after the funeral and One should not fear that by doing so he follows a Gentile practice.

It happened that a checkup after three days discovered that a certain person was buried alive. This person lived for another 25 years had sons and then died. And the references here. They've actually given the reference.

So if you ask me how it is, okay, so give it the Talmud now before Mike responds to all this you'll notice a couple things. What Shabir is doing here is he is he is weaving a tapestry of doubt that in essence?

In the old in the old world there. You just couldn't tell when somebody was dead. Really I think there were a number of instances when you you could tell when someone was dead. Someone who was decapitated would be dead someone Who had a sword run through them and there was blood everywhere and they're not breathing and they're not breathing for quite some time they're there they're dead and.

Remember while the Jews might have mistook in one instance. And so what's doing here is you're you're digging around to try to find one instance of this happening. What are the parallels between those instances and the death of Jesus.

Were these public executions done by Romans. Probably the best folks in the ancient world at killing people were Romans and They generally made sure that they they really did kill their their victims and Notice, that's why for example.

You had the practice of breaking the legs of those who are upon a cross. The idea being that as long as your legs were functioning and you still had any strength at all you could once in a while Push yourself up enough to get some oxygen into your lungs to to try to breathe and once you broke the legs and the pain Would be too great.

You couldn't push up on the legs anymore. And then you would suffocate and and die in a horrible way. They don't do this with Jesus because why because they recognize that he's already dead he's not pushing against his legs to get any breath and this has been going on for quite some time and Obviously just think for a moment of trying to mask breathing while you're on a cross.

Trying to hold your breath so that someone it when you're when your ribs are exposed like that. It's one thing under under clothing. They don't have any clothes on folks. All the pictures are just a little bit too nice about that.

This was this was meant to be a degrading way of dying and so there's nothing there's no way To parallel these other instances with a public crucifixion by the Romans. That involves scourging it involved nailing of the of the limbs to planks of wood that would cause tremendous amount of bleeding and Then a spear in the side now Shabir is going to ignore the spear because he it's in John and if it's a John he Can just dismiss it just throws it out and it's it's not relevant, but But you're still left with this idea.

That that Roman guards who have killed Some of these men would have killed tens and dozens and maybe hundreds of people remember Josephus records for us some of the mass executions and crucifixions that took place outside of Jerusalem.

These individuals know what they're doing and they know how to kill somebody and it's going to come back on them if they fail. So that the chances of them being too kind To a condemned criminal aren't overly good.

Okay, and so to take a situation where maybe someone had a you know cardiac arrest or Congestive heart failure or something like that. They're clothed and they're mistaken as having died with a public execution by the Romans by crucifixion is a reach that can only be explained by the overriding religious commitment to surah 4 157 that's the only reason That's the only thing you can come up with in trying to drink drink drag these kinds of things out of History to come up with some mechanism of saying well, it's possible.

It's it's a maybe If someone utilized the same kinds of arguments to argue against Muhammad and to argue against the miracle Miracle, I guess singular of Muhammad and his night flight. And and things like that Shabir would never accept any of it.

If you had to dig that far and go to that extent, he wouldn't accept any of that kind of argumentation When it comes to the very heart of the Christian message that all of the meaningful first century sources Testify was the very essence of the message of Christianity.

Well, he still accepts the well, maybe it's possible.

It could have been type of a type of an argument respond to some of this because you give me a whole lot here.

The Resurrection, Psalm 16, and the Meaning of "Raised from the Dead"

Okay, we've shifted into the next quarter of the last quarter. Hour. Okay, we'll be going to you for some questions in about 12 minutes.

The Talmud is late it's several hundred years after Jesus so just because the Talmud mentions that in its day when it was reporting this stuff, which could have been three four hundred years after Christ that that was the Way things were done.

That doesn't mean that that's the way it was done in Jesus day. In fact, um You you mentioned about how we can't be certain a person's dead. Well. Because we don't have EEG's. I Don't think that they would have had much doubt that John the Baptist was dead who had been beheaded.

So Now even with this thing that with the Talmud They may have gone to the tomb to check it out to see if the person like that is exactly my point.

You see John once person is beheaded. You're sure he's dead. Well, you put a person on the cross you expect that after three days by through exhaustion and facing the elements and even the vultures. Who might come and pluck out your eye then after by three days time you will be dead but.

Then if you take him down after a few hours even pilot wonders, are you sure he's dead. But of course pilot has an interest in preserving Jesus because he didn't want Jesus crucified in the first place.

Now let's address that. The again if you dismiss the New Testament text in its own testimony which Shabir does. That Jesus gave up his spirit and so, you know, he just dismisses that that can't be true.

Even though ironically I was singing this morning. Even ironically the Quran specifically states that revelation was taking place that the Injil was given to Jesus the revelation took place within that context.

Evidently, we don't know any longer what that was and even though the Quran seemingly believes that the Torah given 2 ,000 years earlier than Muhammad was still in such a state that that you could challenge someone to produce something even like the Torah.

Which would make no sense of it already been corrupted. But all those issues aside He dismisses the New Testament's own teaching that Jesus gave up his spirit and that he would have done. So not three days down the road.

But that there was a purposeful timing here in regards to the fulfillment of prophecy so on and so forth so he dismisses that and Yeah, of course if you had been beheaded then there wouldn't be any questions here.

But but and then he talks about Pilate now Pilate somehow wants to protect Jesus. Is that why he turns him over to be crucified? In fact, once he has done once Pilate has done what he's done once he has given in to Jewish leaders Pilate has Absolutely, no purpose in protecting Jesus.

In fact, just the opposite is now the case. He would have a mess on his hands if he does not follow through in the crucifixion of Jesus. Because why did Pilate eventually give in what was it? What was the statement that finally makes Pilate go even though he said I don't find any any any guilt in him we have no king but Caesar the the Implicit assertion was hey look and we already know Pilate was having problems the Rome anyways.

So all the last thing in the world he needs is for these Jews and we know from the stories of Paul. They will go to the farthest lengths to to pursue their purposes as they did in pursuing Paul all the way to Rome.

Last thing he needs is these zealous Jews sending off letters to Rome saying hey Pilate's out here and We've got a false Messiah guy claiming to be the king of the Jews and he won't do anything about him.

He just scourged him let him go free and he's leading the people astray and he's weak and and we pointed out that This man is putting himself up against Caesar and he's fomenting rebellion against Caesar and blah blah blah blah blah.

That's the last thing that he wants is for that to happen. And so the idea that Pilate would have some reason to try to protect Jesus at this point is ridiculous. Now it is a good point that Pilate goes is is he dead already?

But that just simply reflects again that Jesus gave up his spirit. He was the one in charge of this situation, which again ironically from a worldview perspective Shabir should have no problem with should have no problem with at all.

I mean even from an Islamic perspective Jesus is virgin born. He works miracles. So the idea that he would have the capacity and ability to give up his spirit when his work is done is completely Consistent with what his own Islamic beliefs about Jesus would be but at this point he abandons his Islamic beliefs.

Doesn't pull anything out of the Hadith or anything at all that's supportive from the earliest centuries of Islamic belief. And instead what he does he goes to John dominant cross and Marcus Borg. He goes the Jesus seminar for folks and and well, you know.

Clearly, these are these are stories that developed over time and blah blah blah blah blah. And just complete inconsistency at this point can't even hold these things together in any way. So Pilate the last thing once Jesus is nailed on the cross the last thing that Pilate could ever want.

Would be for that crucifixion to quote-unquote fail. That'd be the last thing. And so I see no no reason to go that direction. So I think if you make it your job to prove that Jesus resurrected from the dead.

You actually have a difficult job if you say that Jesus rose from the dead. He ascended into heaven. Muslims and Christians can both believe that without having to prove it. Look Jesus except Just that that said too quickly.

What the Muslim means by Jesus ascending into heaven. That that term from surah 4 158 first of all Muslims don't agree as to what that means. We've talked about this before in the program. They don't know.

Does that does that mean that this happened in the garden? I mean at one point I've heard Shabir suggest that because he talks about the biblical archaeology review article that talked about the the Wine press cave in Gethsemane and that it had a hole in the center and maybe he went up through the hole so that would be before.

You know that that would support the substitution idea and somebody else was made to look like Jesus. Maybe it was Judas. Maybe it was a Roman soldier. Whatever was it then was it after the scourging and before the crucifixion so that Simon the Cyrene is made to look like Jesus.

That's another theory that's been given. Are we gonna take a swoon theory idea here and and after he leaves the grave? He's taken up to heaven. Does he go someplace else for a while as people in India believe and start a whole new religion over there?

And then he's taken up. We don't know because despite the fact that the Quran calls itself a clear and perspicuous book. Especially when it comes to surah 4 157 it ain't. That text just doesn't answer the questions and Shabir knows this which is why he has very frequently himself pointed out the fact that There are options there are other ways that can be understood and that's what he's doing in this debate is saying Hey We allow for options you guys have painted yourself into the corner.

With this idea that Jesus had to die and he had to be raised from the dead in the third day or there's no Christianity etc, etc, which at that point is exactly the case that is exactly the corner quote-unquote.

We've been paying into by the apostolic proclamation of the first century itself. That is what Christianity teaches. No question about this was one of the greatest persons who walked the earth in all of history.

He was a great teacher. We remember him for his memorable sayings do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The golden rule is something that people wish to have in every religion and we find the parallels for that in other religions through searching.

But it's such a known teaching of Jesus such beautiful teachings from a man the miraculous works that Muslims and Christians believe that he performed the fact that he was born of a virgin that he raised As a dead back to life that he cured the leper that he healed the blind.

Muslims and Christians believe that we do not need to prove it to the world. But by making it your job that you have to prove that Jesus resurrected from the dead and you have said that if you cannot Prove this then it would make Christianity appear to be false.

You have hinged everything on if it was proved disproved if Christ has not been raised then the person's faith is worthless. The burden of proof I don't have to. As a Christian most Christians aren't Christians because They prove Jesus rose from the dead, but they still believe it.

The Burden of Proof, the Gospels, and Historical Method

Yeah, I comment on pilot real quick. You mentioned there how pilot That he wanted to save Jesus. I guess I have two comments. You've exerted a lot of Time and effort this evening Undermining the Gospels and so I'm bewildered that now you would appeal to those very texts in order to prove your point.

Because I've told you previously I'm not saying that all of the Gospels are false. What I'm saying is that there has been an evolution among the Gospels and Mike you have not touched on that at all. Yeah, the the evolution of the Gospels.

Remember the question that I asked should be here. Okay, give us a mechanism whereby we can detect What is? Inspired in the Gospels and what is not inspired in the Gospels and what was his is his methodology the degrees the Quran It's inspired.

If it doesn't then it then it wasn't. So Obviously from from Shabir's perspective Matthew Mark Luke and John are all polluted by Paul. He blames Paul for everything and so the original followers of Jesus evidently didn't write anything or if they did somehow these mean terrible horrible nasty Pauline people wiped out everything they wrote or.

Maybe it ended up in the Gospel of Thomas somewhere or something like that in the second century. Which again is a dead-end road if he wants to try to go down that direction the inconsistency remains clear.

It's forced upon the Muslim by a 7th century statement in one Verse of the Quran that goes against all the historical record at that point. It's just That we see it over and over not spoken anything about the evolution of the Gospels.

Yes. I'm on this other Hill. I.

Presented evidence. That's decades earlier. I'm still waiting for you to attack this hill. Now the thing about pilot. You said okay now pilot wanted to rescue Jesus here. He didn't want to crucify him and This is another thing.

I'm kind of surprised that because critical scholars Normally regard this as political propaganda by the early Christians and that it's not historical Whereas these same scholars accept the death of Jesus because it's so much more.

It's so much more better attested. So if you're going to accept the pilot story Then all the more you should accept the story of Jesus death because there's much going for much more going for it now.

You know Michael Akona is right at that point obviously those who adopt the fundamental methodology that Shabir adopts in dealing with the Gospels that is who Cut it up into pieces and accept this reject that whatever they want to do based upon some theory that they come up with as to what the actual Intentions of the redactors were and then late-dating and you know all the rest of stuff if it would be consistent at that point Then he really can't do this pick-and-choose stuff that he does the New Testament Where he can grab something and he'll quote it and it's authoritative when it's about pilot not wanting to kill Jesus.

But if there is anything later about pilot or before about pilot that is against what his theories are. He can just dismiss that as political propaganda, but I wrote so might be the in the Inconsistent use of sources is something that from the very first time I played anything by Shabir Ali on this program To this day. I have repeated that very statement over and over and over again is that the Inconsistency of his use of sources is the clearest demonstration of the fact that his arguments are invalid.

8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 still is a phone number if you want to be involved the program today 8 7 7 7 5.

3 3 3 4 1. If you reject the Jesus death Then all the more you should reject the pilot because there's less going for it now.

You see you I think you're you're you're a point here is built on what we might call epistemological confusion. There is there is a way in which we we learn things. I didn't mean to be funny about that I'm just trying to put my thoughts together and you know, we have to be quick you see We start with certain basic basic assumptions.

So basic assumption. I'm a Muslim. Therefore. I believe that The Quran is the Word of God. Therefore. I believe the Quranic stick into the Quran's depiction that God raised Jesus To himself and that his enemies did not kill him and this might be explained in a variety of ways.

Jeffrey Tarrant or a Christian writer in his book Jesus and the Quran says that perhaps this actually means that the Jews didn't kill him Because the Romans did or perhaps it means that whereas they thought they killed him that they hadn't actually killed him and it was God who killed him and Many verses of the Quran can be cited in Inclusion with this to show that the Quran has this outlook that it's not the enemy that kills the the righteous person of God.

It is God who takes the life of the person and and he's right you can read it that way and given the the the lack of Commentary in the early centuries of Islam on this which has to be such a key element I mean when when Muhammad denies the Trinity He he does so more than once and he talks about it at length and it's you can find this mentioned in the Hadith but this one verse just goes by silently and yet it is it once once there is the Conflict once the borders of Islam are established and now you have the give-and-take with Christians all of a sudden The the the Arabs have to start going.

Um, hmm. This is really a major Contradiction and denial of what Christians believe and so now you start hearing it discussed but up till then you don't hear it being discussed and it really does make a person wonder is The the majority reading of surah 4 1 2 7 the most obvious reading of it.

Well Don't don't get me wrong. I Certainly understand exactly why the majority understands surah 4 1 2 7 the way they do. Just last night. My Arabic tutor was was here at the office and and we actually spent some time in that particular text we spend some more time in it next week before I head up for the for the conference in the cruise and debate and We were talking about I was asking questions about the form of the verb and it's it's in the passive it was made to appear to them and Who's doing the verb who's doing the action of the verb?