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 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 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 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 the class schedules and on formal night There's one formal night because it's a short cruise.

Is that that schedule right there? Well, look at look at the schedule. No, that's not that schedule for 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.

Oh, I got the the events schedule here October 14 15 16 17. Yeah, which does it say formal night somewhere on that?

That should be I think the 6th 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 bet we go

We 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 not 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

Man Wow I think you just messed up your your your microphone again pride crashed the entire thing

The system's 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

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. Yeah Okay If we have to put up with the kilt, that's one thing the kilt and 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 Alright, 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 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 that's 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 debates 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 we'll 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

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're not referring to you did say the earliest strata talks about Jesus being raised from the dead

Do you think that the earliest strata? 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 is 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 of Peter reciting 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 in 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 every one of 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 in 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 color whole in the story color

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 clear hose 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 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 to the 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 bonds and 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 of things

What should beer 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 gonna 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 gonna 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 a maybe And 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 but 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 to some of this because you give me a whole lot here 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 Really 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 they see Mike that that is exactly my point You see John once the 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 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 thinking this morning even ironically the Quran Specifically states that revelation was taking place that the injeel 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 is 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'd 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 into 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 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 to 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 that the last thing once Jesus is nailed across 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 it's 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.

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 it 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

The 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 it if it was proved disproved if Christ has not been raised then the person's

Faith is worthless The burden of proof it. 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 now. 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 in appealing back to the layers evolution Mike You have not touched on that at all you have 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 his his?

Methodology that agrees 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 2nd century Which again is a dead -end road if you want 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 I've 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 Mike Lacona 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 wine 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 the 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 Quranics did

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 Parren 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

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 to 7 the most obvious reading of it.

Well Don't don't get me wrong I certainly understand exactly why the majority understand surah 4 1 to 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 and what are some of the other possible meanings of this particular verb and we're you know taking it apart on that level and It the fact is that Particular ayah simply doesn't have enough specificity in it to answer

The the massive weight of questions that has to come crashing down upon it

Given that it is the primary reason why a major world religion basically has changed history

You want to have a good you want to know a good parallel this I just just thought of this. This is a good parallel to The the whole situation of surah 4 1 57.

There's another religion that Likewise has to change history and that's the

Watchtower Bible and tract Society the Watchtower Bible and tract Society Has taught now they're changing this now.

They're changing their own history if they they've had to change secular history that didn't work too Well, so now they're having to change their own history

But they have taught for quite some time now that the final generation

Would die the Armageddon would would take place before the final generation it saw the events of 1914 passes away well that generation at any meaningful level already has but They're trying to stretch out for all they can but they're slowly getting rid of this 1914 prophecy.

They based that initially upon a complete completely fallacious reading of Daniel and the cutting down the tree and seven times and seven times 360 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem is 1914 well, it's not and so what they did is we know when

Jerusalem fell I remember Very very clearly in my Old Testament introduction class that dr.

DC Martin told us that there were certain Dates That we had to remember for that particular class and one of those dates

Was when Jerusalem fell which was 586 slash 7 why 586 slash 7 because we just don't know no

Because they didn't go January to December The Babylonians and the

Jews both had different reckoning one starting the spring one starting the fall in other words Ancient peoples began their years at different points.

It was not just necessarily January 1st to December 31st so what that means then is that 586 587 is

Taking into consideration the whole year as it was understood by those those ancient countries

Now that was one of the dates that I had to memorize that I had to know When Jerusalem fell it fell to Nebuchadnezzar in the 19th regnal year the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign

Which some might consider the 20th because there was an Ascension year there was a year at the beginning

The way it wasn't actually counted because of all the festivities stuff like that, and then it would start from there Anyway to make a long story short what the watchtower

Bob and track society had to do is they had to change When Jerusalem fell to fit their prophecy they had to change history

To make it fit the the 1914 thing they had to move it back to 607 now

Nebuchadnezzar was not even King at that point in time So how did they establish their argument the only way they did so if you can go back to the old light pale blue aid to Bible understanding book

What they did is they just attacked every bit of information that establishes the chronology of Nebuchadnezzar's reign

Now for a lot of folks as long as you attack that stuff That's enough to establish

Another claim and most folks won't stop and thing go um Well just attacking that doesn't mean you're actually establishing your own position does it but that's what they did and One of the reasons we know this aside from we know secular history and know that there's no possible way that their date is correct

I mean you've got we have cuneiform tablets. Okay, talk about writing something in stone these things were written in stone you would have to have had a massive conspiracy extending over 200 years and hundreds of thousands of square miles where everybody changed all of written history on stones

Carving in stones and buried them for some reason to come up with the watchtower theory.

It's just it's just not possible But that's what they did they attacked it In that fashion, that's what should be all he's doing here

He's got his preconception the Jehovah's Witness has been taught by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society his ultimate authority that 1914 is the date and that the prophecy of Daniel 2 ,000 520 years.

Okay. He's got to make that fit so you attack everything in history that goes against your religious theory and Should be early has surah 4 157.

It's 600 years removed from the actual events But what you gotta do is to establish that then you attack all the historical documentation all the historical data that that clearly demonstrates that Jesus Christ was crucified upon a cross under Pontius Pilate in In the beginning of the fourth decade of the first century.

It's right there That's the only way you can establish a direct parallel direct parallel. You want another parallel? Mormonism Mormonism has the

Book of Mormon. And so what do you do with ancient Mesoamerican archaeology? You turn it into the story of the

Nephites and Lamanites And if you can't find any evidence the Nephites and Lamanites even though you've dragged everybody from BYU down there for the past 50 years and showed them the

Nephite the the Toltecs and Olmecs and Mayans and turned them into Nephites and Lamanites who are speaking before an

Egyptian hieroglyphics and running around in Chariots with bows and arrows and swords and things like that, which another people back there were doing but anyway

Then what you do is you attack That and when that doesn't work now What you do is you say that the story of the

Book of Mormon took place in such a small little space? That will never really find any of the actual Remains of the maybe 40 square miles and and we're just not going to be able to dig up enough of the

Jungle to find out where this actually took place and and blah blah which clearly is not what

Joseph Smith taught because he was finding You know Lamanites and Nephites all the way across toward,

Missouri someplace so that that doesn't work so But you change history you attack that which contradicts what your ultimate religious authority says actually ended up taking place

And that's what Shabir Ali is doing here. He won't do that when it comes to the Quran He won't do that when it comes to Muhammad But he will do that when it comes to the

New Testament or over it could mean that even though they had actually physically killed Him he is still alive with God and the

Quran says that the martyrs are alive with God and that would reflect back with what? I said about Abraham and Moses from the lips of Jesus himself and so from that epistemological

Perspective there are many different conclusions that I can form now if I leave that That situation behind and pretend for a moment that I'm not going with the

Quran Then I have to turn to the Gospels and the histories that are built on the Gospels now if I take the position of the historians as you're suggesting

I would do and deny that Pilate was reticent and If I perceive a pilot as a very brutal individual who wanted

Jesus dead Then I would conclude with other historians with Michael Grant for example in this book and historians view of the

Gospels and other such historians that Jesus actually died on the cross and that he did not physically bodily resurrect from the dead

That his disciples had an extraordinary vision of him because now notice he's if you want epistemological confusion

Shabir cannot avoid epistemological confusion because of the overriding

Demands of his religious beliefs he can't be consistent at this point either Because he's now saying well if you want me to follow the historians then the historians have to deny the resurrection

Well that is if you what you're saying is the historian who approaches the text as a naturalist says well

I can't demonstrate anything about a supernatural event all I can tell you is the disciples had this this

Amazing experience which they claimed was the resurrection Okay, that's fine

But the problem you're now facing is you're buying into the worldview that he's using that says look

I can't accept a supernatural explanation for this I can only report to you as a historian that the disciples said

X Y & Z I can't take the next step to say that the facts demonstrate that this took place in historical context

He can't he can't go there well again As anyone knows if he's going to approach it that direction then he needs to apply the same type of critical thinking and non

Supernaturalism to everything in the Quran do which of course he's not willing to do and why did

I keep what I keep saying in Biola Inconsistency is the mark of a failed Argument disciples wanted so badly to believe that Jesus was alive with God and so they wanted to believe it so badly that they

Saw him and this will not to say again Paul and James They didn't want to see him alive, and what about the empty tomb empty tomb is

I think does away with the vision theory No, but we'll hear Paul a very briefly stated and One of my criticisms of Mike like Ona here is he was just way way way way way too nice I mean, let's let's look at you know the this cross -examination period

He let Shabir have 80 % of it and when you give the other guy 80 % of time.

There's you know It doesn't matter what you're saying The other guy is gonna wander all over the landscape and make all sorts of claims

You're never gonna be able to get back to you've got to stay in Competition here, you know you got to keep time even

I needs to be fair But but if you're gonna it's one thing to force yourself on someone else and not let them get a word in edgewise

That's real obvious But if you just sit back and you won't interrupt at all so the other person just keeps going on and on and on that's sort

Voluntarily giving that time away and that's that's one of the criticisms I would have at that point But what he just said is exactly right

Visions don't explain the empty tomb and so you have to come up with all sorts of theories as to what the empty tomb was all about especially in regards to the interesting fact that Matthew remember remember the

One of the very first things that was said in the Talpiot tomb film in the in the Jesus family tomb film

Was to make reference to Matthew and Matthew's statement about the fact that there were lies

Going on in reference to the empty tomb and of course they give credence to the lies

Just uncritically within I think the first 30 seconds of that particular that particular film well the fact that Matthew is willing to mention these things the fact that Matthew is willing to even make reference to the fact that there

Was at that time people who were denying the resurrection of Christ and here is the argumentation they used

If there wasn't an empty tomb to worry about there wouldn't be an apologetic going on There wouldn't be an argument going on at that point in time there

Somebody was having to explain what happened with the empty tomb the vision theory does not fit with the empty tomb

That's what he was just trying to say there, and he was pointing out look You can say that the the disciples just really really really really really wanted to see

Jesus But James who was an unbeliever and Paul who was a persecutor to the church

We're not in the situation where they really really really wanted to see Jesus in fact That was the last thing they really really really wanted to say and so now you have to come up with well

Okay, but we only know about James and Paul post conversion And so they had some sort of conversion thing and and then they really really wanted to see

Jesus But that doesn't explain Paul's conversion at all I mean now you're now you're doing all this Basically mind -reading to try to get around what's what's going on he said that very quickly and Unfortunately, I don't think a

Muslim listening to his comments would have a clue what he was talking about because that's one of the problems With this kind of a context is

You can throw so much stuff out there that takes more time to meaningfully respond to than you're ever given within a debate

That's why you have to listen to a debate and you have to use a debate as a starting point Not as a finishing point

Check out the claims that are made see who is being focused and who's being consistent so -and -so a

Paul's Vision as you're saying as an enemy of Jesus There is something to say about Paul's vision because Paul himself in his first letter to the

Corinthians He said that Jesus that the devil might appear as a bright shining light so that many might be deceived

So Paul's testimony that he saw this light cannot be a full and final convincing argument

Talk about mixing context Yeah, Paul did state that Satan You know disguises himself as an angel of light and and what he's saying, of course, is that when

Satan is seeking to to deceive someone Heretics generally don't show up wearing fake noses and a bozo the clown outfit.

They dress like us. They talk like us And the the deception is normally subtle not obvious To make that connection and say yeah, but see he's talked about angel of light and Paul saw a light and Therefore Paul could have been deceived is pretty much on the same level as a lot of the

Aliyah tie stuff that I've been dealing with in the series on the blog where you just Paul's writings become silly putty and you can just pull that stuff apart and and like Plato or silly putty or whatever you want

You just rearrange it as to You know, however, you want to make it look don't really think there's a good connection of a physical nature that Jesus physically bodily rose

From the dead second you mentioned James now What has been found in the evolution of the Gospels over time is that starting with what has been found in the evolution of the

Gospels? over time equals what anti -supernaturalistic scholars

Who normally contradict one another and have their own particular theories? They're wanting to present some of them have theorized this and I'm gonna pick and choose from their theories

Which are based upon their own their own thoughts There's no hard documentation of any of this but they've theorized this they've theorized that it sounds the way he says it as if these are the assured results of meaningful fair scholarship dealing with documented facts, it's not these are current theories and Some of them have already been exploded.

Some of them have already been abandoned by their their authors, but they are theories Based upon well

I think that this particular gospel writer or the group of redactors of this particular gospel had this particular

Perspective they're trying to promote now. You can find a dozen other scholars who come up with a different way of doing it

That's the wonder of redaction criticism is that you can always get published because you don't have to worry about facts

You can pick and choose your facts and string them together as you wish and and that's how it all works

This this when you say has found Sounds very similar to saying well archaeology has found

Such and such an artifact in history or science has found this particular gene in the human genome

There's no parallel in the word found there between the various uses I just gave mark the family of Jesus have been given a bad rap

It's not like in the in the Mel Gibson movie where Mary is everywhere there with Jesus by his side and and you know

Kissing his feet and getting the blood on her on her lips and they got in the Gospels in the synoptic gospel starting with mark

The decided the family of Jesus looked bad and so to his disciples and so of course

Now now stop just for a moment What does he mean well? actually

Basically what's being said is Mary is shown to have questions

Mary and The his brothers come and and he's in the house And they want him to come out and they they think he's beside himself and this quote -unquote is to make them look bad

No, it doesn't make them look bad. It makes them look human It makes them look as people who as John tells us.

Oh, here's a wait a minute a consistency with John can't be right John can't have any historical truth in it can it?

They're unbelievers they're unbelievers and as unbelievers they act like unbelievers and If you didn't believe

Jesus was the Messiah wouldn't he be an embarrassment to you as a good Jewish person in the first century?

How would you like to have people ahead and isn't that's your brother down there by the seaside out there preaching and parables?

And people are coming to him, and he's supposed to be healing them and stuff. That's pretty embarrassing isn't it yeah?

No, I said the guys lost it and Mark honestly records the fact that they

They came and they wanted to take him away and basically. I think they wanted to hide him away. I mean this is getting embarrassing

You're ruining our reputation in the community So here you have mark providing.

What can only be Sound historical information, and we reject that too, so that's the wonder of Redaction criticism is that hey even if on other grounds this would seem to be really solid stuff

Because you're you're actually Giving information that some people might use against you.

I mean some people might say look his own family didn't even believe in him But you're giving that because it's honest history that would normally be something that a liberal would go

Hey, if it's honest history, and it would tend to embarrass then that's probably original, but hey

Everything's up for grabs once. You've just said you know what I'm Guilty until proven innocent in fact.

There's no way to prove innocent, so it's just guilty I'm gonna accept what I want choose what I want. You know play -doh super putty super silly string whatever you know just play with it as I want and No way around that kind of argument his brothers don't believe in him his mother doesn't even seem to understand him in Mark's gospel

So Jesus denounced in Mark's gospel and in Luke's gospel any mother's gospel and in John's gospel

It takes time what do you see that's what I really bothers me about this kind of argumentation in Mark's gospel as We're gonna make mark different than Matthew and Luke and and John no math

Mary is shown to struggle as She did and as the early church writers early church fathers by the way hello down to the centuries said

Mary actually sinned in unbelief and doubt and of course they were just private theologians when they said that because we know the true tradition is that Mary was sinless and never would have done anything like that because Well because Rome tells us her denounces her earlier on And so that is there for a reason because later

Christianity would follow the line of Paul and because there was tension between Paul and the original disciples of Jesus and the family of Jesus so Paul was celebrated

Hmm. How do we know these things? What what historical evidence do we have of this tension?

That exists between the original followers of Jesus and Paul and even somehow we even know the original family of Jesus Went with the original followers of Jesus, so we don't know anything about and What evidence do we have of this?

I mean if I were to come up if I were to sit in front of a public audience and say well clearly

We know that that's some of the early followers of Muhammad There was disagreements between them and that would therefore indicate that this portion of the of this surah

Actually came from this group of followers and excuse me. Where do you get that? Well, I just they're scholars who have said it.

You know, I they I would be rejected instantly for that kind of argumentation, but When it comes to the

New Testament all of a sudden everything's fair game And one of the reasons obviously is because you have multiple writers in the

New Testament, then you can attack this direction It's easier when you only have allegedly one writer in the

Quran to avoid these kinds of these kinds of issues Well, we'll continue with our review of Shabir Ali's comments in the debate with Mike Licona very relevant

But we'll be coming up in just a few weeks I want to try at least get this done on the dividing line coming up on this

Thursday afternoon. See you then. God bless You for standing at the crossroads

Let this moment of suffering must contend for the faith.

We need a new reformation day The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a o min org

That's a o min dot org where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks