Georgia Southern Baptists, Roger Olsen’s Imagination, and Continued Rebuttal of Ahmed Deedat

I know, I should have figured this out by now, and I was warned that I'd be wasting my time, but this morning I awoke to the news that someone over the evening had posted on our website, on our Facebook page, I'm sorry, that I had been accused in a public meeting of seeking to contact minor children of Bruton-Parker College trustees.

And of course my immediate response was, who said it and when? Because you know, lies, when they're repeated often enough, get people elected president of the United States, in fact. And that's a lie.

It is anybody who's repeated it, or the person who started it, or if it was just started by some person who doesn't know who's who, I don't know. But it's a lie. Off top my head, I know the name of a single trustee of Bruton-Parker, and it's only because it's hard to forget the name Bucky.

I just figure, who on earth ever names a child Bucky? But what? What, you have some relatives named Bucky? That's one of my hometown heroes. Oh, all right, well there you go. Bucky O 'Neill, he fought in the, anyway.

Oh thanks, appreciate that. Anyway, that's the only person I know of, and I've had no contact with the man. Don't know, I know he's married, I don't know how old he is. All I know is he was the one silly enough to say, I think we need to hire and Karen her, because he's been involved in all these disputes.

All right, so I find out who the individual was, and by, fell by the name of Dr. Joe McGee, the head of the Consolation Association of the Georgia Baptist Convention. And so, I think about it, and I go, you know what?

I think I need to give Dr. McGee a call, and just let him know that this has been said, and if he has said this, that it's untrue, and hope for the best. See if there's someone on the other end of the phone that I can reason with that might, well, I guess I am naive.

I talked to Dr. McGee, he took the call. He took the call, went straight through to him. I don't know that I ever got more than one sentence, maybe a sentence and a half in, before I would be interrupted.

And he went on and on about how he does not respect me, and how I am out to destroy Eric and Kanner, and who do I think I am? And I'm like, well, sir, am I going to get a chance to, but, but, and then you did this, and you did that, and you lied about this, sir, are you going to, sir, could, I eventually had to hang up, because it was just, you know, hello, hello, just no, and it's sad.

I mean, what, what causes people to engage in this kind of thinking? I mean, there's obviously a real problem with discernment in, amongst Georgia Southern Baptists. Real problem with discernment. I mean, you know, if you can be taken in by Eric and Kanner's stuff, then there's, there's real, real, it's one thing to have been taken in by it when no one was raising alarm, but when there are, when there is a mountain of video documentation demonstrating this stuff, so there's, there's a real problem there, but I, one, one of the things that came out, you know, at one point was he mentioned Calvinism, and, and these folks honestly think that their behavior is, is acceptable, because I'm a Calvinist, and if you're a Calvinist, these folks don't believe you're a Christian.

They see you as absolute heretics. That's just all there is to it. Now, not a one of them could sit down with an open Bible with you and survive for five minutes without walking away. There's, I mean, it's just painfully obvious.

You'll, you know, we've done enough Radio Free Geneva to demonstrate that, but wow, um, truly, truly an amazing, uh, thing to have to just go, I tried, you know, I tried. Uh, who knows? Oh, and at one point he did thank me for calling him because he knew I was just trying to intimidate him.

Talk about guilty until proven innocent, and there's no evidence that can be offered whatsoever that you're, that you're innocent at all. It's just, oh, wow. Amazing, amazing stuff. It's, um, it's sad.

It's not where we were going to start today. Actually, I had a very serious, um, well, that's serious enough. I mean, I, I says a lot about the, um, Sun Maps Convention in Georgia, but, um, a few weeks ago, and I guess a few weeks ago, this was only four days ago, um, an article was posted.

I, I don't know why I do this, uh, but I do keep Roger Olson, uh, my evangelical Arminian theological musings. I, I keep his blog in my feeds. Uh, it's in the apologetics section along with, uh, Roman Catholics and others.

Um, but, um, he posted an article on August 22nd. God and children. Would Jesus, parentheses, God, parentheses, command their slaughter? I found it to be a very interesting article, and I think it'd be a good one to, uh, to look at, to think about.

And it's not long. That's what's nice about it. And what was really interesting is, of course, uh, Steve Hayes got to it before I did. I saw last night that he responded to this. Uh, I had this queued up.

I had it queued up before I saw his article, but anyway, here's, here's what he says. Recently, I posted here about God's character and argued that God could not, because of his character, revealed in Jesus, command the merciless slaughter of children.

Several conservative Christians objected, pointing to Old Testament texts of terror, such as 1 Samuel 15, where God is reported as ordering Hebrews to slaughter an entire tribe, including infants. Now, since most of us have not memorized, uh, 1 Samuel 15, 1 Samuel 15 says, and Samuel said to Saul, Yahweh sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel.

Now, therefore, listen to the words of Yahweh. Thus says Yahweh of hosts. I have known that what Amalek did to Israel and opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have.

Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. So Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Talaim, 200 ,000 men on foot and 10 ,000 men of Judah.

And Saul came to the city of Amalek and lay in wait in the valley. And Paul said to the Kenites, go depart, go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the people of Israel.

And they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites and Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as sure, which is east of Egypt. And he took Agag, the king of the Amalekites alive and devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword.

But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen, the fattened calves and lambs and all that was good and will not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless.

They devoted the destruction. And then after this, the word of the Lord came to I regret that I've made Saul king, et cetera, et cetera. So there you have, uh, the, the section that is in, uh, in reference here in first Samuel 15.

If there's anything in the Bible with which I struggle more than this, I don't know what it is going back to Roger Olson. Now, for those of you listening, uh, by audio, um, I do believe in the Bible's infallibility, but not its literal inerrancy.

That's one of the things that I struggle with reading Olson is, um, basically, uh, his philosophy determines what he will, will not believe in the Bible. It's not the, it's not, it's not the, the entire content of scripture.

It's I'm going to take these things. I'm going to take them. I'm going to create an overarching system and then use that look at the Bible and what fits. I accept what doesn't well, we'll find some way around it.

Uh, and, and really Arminianism, if you attempt to defend it, the vast majority of people do not. But if you attempt to defend it will eventually lead you to a, a fundamental denial of certain scriptural, uh, parameters.

In other words, I do not think every assertion in the Bible is to taken literally, even some that on their faces seem like statements of fact. A notable example that we probably all agree about is Joshua's battle during the sun, during which the sun is said to have stood still, Joshua 10, 13.

I have never met anyone, not even the most conservative Christian fundamentalist who takes that literally. And yet when Copernicus and later Galileo argued that the earth revolves around the sun, many Christians argued they were denying the truth of the Bible.

We have adjusted our interpretation of Joshua 10, 13 to accommodate what we know, know about the solar system. Now, I'm sorry, but there is not the slightest bit of relevance to that illustration. There is a super natural elongation of time whereby the enemies of Israel could be destroyed from the earth's perspective.

The sun stood still. Now, what did that involve? Did that, did that involve the cessation of the movement of the earth? Was it the entire universe that God just put on hold for a second? He controls all of it.

Are you saying he couldn't do that? Dr. Olson, the one who created it couldn't go pause. You can go pause right now on me. Just that, you know, there's that little two bars, you know, you click that and it stops.

Some of you wish you could always do that to me, but you don't think God can do that? Raise the dead. He can create the whole thing and finish the whole thing up someday, but can't do that. Can't do that.

That's strange. Anyway, but there are those who still argue that what the story really means to say in modern terms that the earth stopped rotating for a time. But of course, we also know from modern science, what that would mean for plant and animal life on earth.

This is the same stuff you get in saying the flood could never have happened. It's just, is this guy a naturalistic materialist? What, what happened to, anyway. Many Christians take the Bible seriously, do not take every story in it literally.

Oh, that's very nice. Who is to say that a Christian who argues that the Joshua story means neither that the sun literally stood still, nor the earth stopped rotating is not a Bible believing Christian.

Some will say it, but even they do not advocate cutting off hands or tearing out eyes, Matthew 5 30, or even claim that Jesus really meant it literally. And yet there's nothing in the text indicate Jesus didn't mean it literally.

Okay. I'm sorry, but this guy's considered to be one of the best they've got. And I'm sitting here going, really? There, there's nothing in the text that doesn't mean that Jesus meant this literally. You, you, you can't, you can't see where the problem is there.

You can't, you can't see the difference between a direct command of God in regards to the punishment of a people and a supernatural event about time and Jesus's discussion of it's better to go into, into life maimed than to miss life because you had sin in your members and you wouldn't mortify.

You can't see a difference between these things. They're, they're all really. Okay. All right. My point is that nobody takes all the Bible, all the Bible literally. Well, if you mean by absurdly, literally, uh, yeah.

And old conservative Maxim is that we were to take the Bible as literally as possible and as figuratively as necessary. But that only raises the question, what necessary means I know of no more important principle for Christian theology than that Jesus is the perfect, if not complete revelation of God's character.

And I'm not sure that that's how I want to express that. After all, Jesus was God in human flesh or put more technically following the hypostatic union doctrine of Chalcedon. He was the son of God, the eternal second person of Trinity equal with the father with an added human nature and added human nature.

But orthodoxy does not say and should not permit anyone to say that the addition of humanity to the son of God made him any different morally than he always was or than the father is. The person of Jesus Christ was not morally altered by the incarnation.

That I take it is a basic orthodox doctrine. He was a son of God. That is his who, even if his, what included humanity. Surely in Trinitarian orthodoxy, the son of God, the word, the logos is morally the same as the father.

That is, there is no difference between them and the Holy Spirit as to their character. They share all the same moral attributes and always have, and always will to say otherwise would be to wreak havoc with the Trinity.

Be patient. I'm going somewhere with all this. Yeah. Message there. Jesus said, let the little children come to me and do not hinder them for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. He gathered them about himself and as they say in Texas, loved on them.

I do not believe these were elect children, some select group of children Jesus loved while he hated others. But there's a problem. Can anyone imagine Jesus turning around and saying slaughter these little children?

I can't. But if I can't imagine Jesus doing that to any group of children, what am I to do with first Samuel 15? Was Yahweh someone other than Jesus, different in character from him? That would, as I said, wreak havoc with the Trinity and say that Jesus was not the perfect revelation of God.

Then are we not putting a literal interpretation of the Bible above Jesus himself? It's all very easy for literalists to shoot arrows labeled heresy at those who do not take every story in the Bible literally, but it's harder for them to reconcile all the stories.

They may say, well, I don't reconcile them. I just accept them all at face value. But as I showed earlier, they don't. They reinterpret some in light of modern knowledge or simply in light of common sense.

That is, they don't pluck out their eyes or advocate cutting off hands. Ironically, many of them reject whole passages of scripture as not for today based on untwisted dispensationalist logic. Paul clearly said, do not forbid speaking in tongues, 1 Corinthians 14, 39, yet many of those who insist on literal interpretation of first Samuel don't even wince when they claim that Paul's command isn't meant for today.

Dr. Olson really struggles with category errors. Leaving dispensationalism out of it, there might be some who would go, well, maybe that was a gift for a certain period of time. Has nothing to do with dispensationalism.

Has to do with the nature and function of sign gifts. Anyway, that's another issue. Jesus must be our hermeneutical litmus test whenever we encounter and interpret biblical or extra-biblical texts that claim something about God.

He was and is God, Yahweh. If I cannot imagine Him doing something, then neither can I imagine any person of God doing it because they are the same in substance and character. And there was the argument.

If I can't imagine God doing it, then God can't do it. That's what he's saying. I will edit God to fit what I imagine God to be. That's what he's saying. That's what, look, when you listen to what the major Arminians are saying today, that's what they're saying.

They're saying, well, you know, we just don't like a God who does the things that you say he does. I'm not going to worship a God that chooses one and doesn't choose another. That's what they're saying.

I don't like that. And so I'm just not going to believe it. I've said over and over again, Arminianism in its core is naturalistic and it's rationalistic and it limits God. Now, let's ask ourselves a simple question here.

All right. First Samuel 15 bothers folks. It's not the only one. You know, the Amorites and the Amalekites and people say it's genocide. And I mentioned a few weeks ago in that dialogue, sort of, that discussed the destruction of entire cities and so on and so forth, that Paul Copan has posited the idea that what we have here is a form of rhetoric, that it's not meant to be taken literally, that when you say wipe them out, man, woman, and child, what you really mean is defeat them utterly militarily.

And that there are examples of this in Egyptian secular writings and things like that. Let me ask you a question. If God wiped out a populace by volcano, would you have a problem with that? Well, many people would.

In fact, some people trace the rise of atheism in Europe to an earthquake that took place that just destroyed an entire population. So, you know, we just had an earthquake up in Napa Valley. So, let's say the big one hits.

All right. The big one hits. Is God in charge of that? I mean, most people, most people still recognize that God's at least still in charge of the natural realm. They'll at least give him that much. He may not have much to do in the human realm and is completely limited by human actions and so on and so forth.

But at least when it comes to tsunamis, volcanoes, earthquakes, okay, God, we'll let God, we'll call those acts of God. So, with that in mind, if God wiped out an entire people with an earthquake, does he have a purpose for that?

Does he have the right to do that? Or are you going to say, no, I can't imagine God doing that. And when an earthquake hits, and especially, you know, when I was in Ukraine, we were looking at apartment buildings.

We were sitting at a McDonald's on the way to the airport when I was leaving. And we're looking at apartment buildings that were built during the Soviet period. And the lines go like this, because they were prefab.

And so, they bring in parts of it and plop it down. And the lines are just, they're 10, 15 story tall buildings that are like Legos. And I said, man, you ever have a decent earthquake here? And those things are just going to fall down on top of each other.

And he said, yeah, that's why we don't have earthquakes here. But if there was one, when the building falls down, do only the guys die? Or do the women and the children die as well? And when the tsunami swept in, was it just the men that were killed?

Or did women and children die in it as well? Earthquakes, tsunamis, Mount St. Helens, could women and children just stand there as the blast comes by and they're not hurt, but the guys are blown away?

Well, we all know the answer to those questions is, no. So, if he was consistent, wouldn't Roger Olson have to say, well, and as a result, since I cannot imagine God doing this, then God doesn't even have control over natural disasters.

I can't see that any of this is the wrath of God being revealed against sin, because God doesn't have any control over it. When an earthquake happens, and this again, this would make sense if he was an open theist.

He's not an open theist to my knowledge, but the only consistent Arminian is an open theist. It's just painfully obvious, isn't it? Because if God's sovereign decree has nothing to do with earthquakes and the natural realm and things like that, then wouldn't it be better if he just didn't see these things coming and was just as shocked as anybody else?

And if you could go there, yeah, you've got to go the whole way, because now God can't see the things leading up to earthquakes and things like that. God wouldn't have knowledge of the pressure in the tectonic plates and all that kind of stuff, and he'd have to be taken by surprise.

You're going to have to deny his exhaustive knowledge of the physical realm as it exists right now. That'd be the only way to go. I mean, really, there's no stopping place. Once you've denied who God is, eventually you're just stuck with Mormonism.

You might as well just get down to where he's just an exalted man, and therefore, you don't really have any grounds for accusing him of anything, because he's just doing the best he can. When you don't know what's happening, hey, it's a weird world he didn't really create.

But anyway, there's no consistency here, because if he does, if he still has some orthodoxy in regards to natural events in the world, then he's got no basis for making this objection, because God has brought his wrath to bear upon entire populations, men, women, and children via natural means many times.

The tough part here is that this is a judgment upon another nation. It's specifically stated in 1 Samuel 15. This is a judgment for what they did, and their destruction is to be total. Now, one of the main reasons for this, which we see over and over again in the narrative, is that when Israel didn't do this, just as Saul did not obey, but kept stuff for himself, what did that become?

It became that hook that eventually led to what? Idolatry. Idolatry and false worship. And eventually, you've got the altar to Moloch, you know, right next to the altar of Yahweh, and that's what the warning was from the start.

You either have purity, or you're eventually going to have degradation into idolatry. That's what's going to happen. And so, what you need to hear is that for the consistent Arminian, the ultimate authority is my imagination.

If I cannot imagine him doing something, then he can't do it. Now, do I really think Roger Olson sits around going, I finally got it. I've got the God of my own imagination. No, I don't think that's what he's thinking, but that's what he's got.

That's what he's got. If I cannot imagine him doing something, and that's the young fellow I dialogued with on Unbelievable, same situation, same situation. Um, you know, I can't imagine God doing those things.

And so, I'm going to come up with a God that fits my imagination. There it is. There it is. And it's right out there on the, on, it's right, it's right there. That's a shame. All right. We continue on.

I promised that we were going to get to, and we will get to the 30 reasons, the 30 arguments that are presented by Sheikh Ahmed Didat against the crucifixion of Jesus. Once again, if you've not heard those programs, the reason we cover this is because Ahmed Didat has influenced more of the Muslims that you would be talking to in everyday life than anyone else, than anyone else.

Didat is certainly not the best they have. And you might say, well, you should only respond to the best they offer. Well, that you, we should, we should definitely look for the best and be prepared for the best.

There's, there's no question about that. And if you're prepared for the best, then you're going to be prepared for the not so good. But at the same time, if we are wise, we will ask the question, what are the greatest influences upon the largest number of Muslims with whom I might have the opportunity of speaking in my everyday life, in seeking to bring the gospel to these people.

And Ahmed Didat is going, is right up there at the top, as far as the influence that he has had upon the Muslim people. And his presentation, Crucifixion or Crucifiction, is widely read and widely viewed.

And therefore, to know the answers to these, to be able to point out the fundamental problems with these is, is very important. So we've already looked at a portion of what led up to this. And I think we are about, yeah, we're about a minute, I'm sorry, one hour and about an hour and 10 minutes into the presentation before he gives this summary.

As I said, he's a showman. He was a showman. He would spend 10 minutes making a point that didn't need to have 10 minutes spent upon, but that's how he did it. And so we're going to dive into the 30 reasons.

Now, some of them, I'll have to give you some background on, but most of them will be fairly, fairly straightforward. Here is Ahmed Didat. I'm not going to, I'm going to stop and start, obviously. It only goes, it goes about 10 minutes.

So 30 in 10 minutes, three per minute. And so try to imagine, you know, when you stop, start, stop, start, respond, respond, respond. By the end, you're going to be going, oh, grief, really? But remember the story I've told, well, so a lot of you are new, but Algo remembers the story that I told many, many times before.

When I first heard Jerry Matitox speak on the evidences for the immaculate conception from the old Testament, I was amazed. Now, if you don't know who Jerry Matitox is or was, more like was anymore. Jerry Matitox is the fastest talking guy I've ever debated.

He doesn't have to take breath between words. And we debated, I think, 13 times. I think it was a total number of times we went back and forth. Convert to Roman Catholicism, then became unorthodox. Obviously, from his perspective, he veritably defines orthodoxy.

But when I listened to the tape, yeah, yeah, the cassette tape of his presentation back in the 90s on Mary, I was like, wow, because it was just rat-a-tat-a-rat-a-tat, boom-ba-boom-ba-boom-ba-boom-ba-boom.

And it wasn't until I put the tape into the tape machine and stop, start, stop, start. Okay, there's the claim. We go, we look. That's not true. I see what he's saying, but it's not true. He's got the wrong word.

Or there's this, there's that. Only once you took the time to take it apart was its fundamental error easy to understand. But man, we just took it. And I'm just afraid so many people today, so many people today are convinced of the truthfulness of what someone says because of the way it's said, not because of the substance.

A lack of discernment, both within the Christian church as well as within Western culture as a whole, will lead to its downfall, lead to Western culture's downfall, and certainly lead to many problems in the church.

So it would be impressive to just play this all the way through. But I really don't have time to do that. We're going to need to take them point by point. So let's dive in. It would help if I selected the program.

And I will give you a quick summary.

I give you a quick summary. Number one, that this crucifixion is a fiction, that it didn't happen. The way the Christians claim, those things didn't happen. Number one, he was reluctant to die. He didn't want to die.

He didn't come prepared to come for any type of sacrifice. Luke chapter 22 verse 36, you'll find he's preparing for a fight. And had he come to die, there was no need for him.

To tell his disciples to go and arm themselves. Okay, we've already seen that this is false. He says they were armed to teeth. They had two swords amongst 12 people. Hello, that's not armed to the teeth.

There's nothing about defensive barriers, fighting with the Jews, anything like that. Any honest reading of the text would reveal that Jesus's entire, the whole content of his prayer has nothing to do with fear of death, but with the atoning sacrifice that he is about to accomplish.

That's the focus. If you read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, you take them together, there's no question about this. If you read any one of them alone, there's no question about this. But we've already seen that DDOT's methodology is to take a sentence here, a clause here, a word here, and string them all together.

Now, if we did that to his books, if we did that to the Quran, if we did that to the Hadith, he would be very upset with us. But when it comes to the Bible, totally different standard. Inconsistency, remember?

Sign of a failed argument, and certainly sign of a failed apologist on the part of Ahmad DDOT. So, point number one, untrue. The whole content of his prayers, the whole content of the evening is not preparing for a fight, but preparing, what has he told them?

The son of man must go to Jerusalem, be betrayed in the hands of men, crucified, rise again the third day, starting all the way back in Matthew 16. He ignores all that.

Ignores all that. Number one, refuted. Number two is short. Number two, he beseeched God for help.

Matthew, chapter 26, verse 39. He beseeched God for help. For what? For what? Again, the prayer is in regards to the accomplishment of the atoning sacrifice. Has nothing to do with beseeching God to keep him from his enemies or anything else.

It's communion between the father and the son. The son is about to accomplish the very purpose for his coming in the flesh. He has told his disciples what that is. They struggle with that because their understanding of what Messiah is to be is a conquering hero, not a suffering servant.

Number two, irrelevant and.

Refuted. Number three, God heard his prayers. Hebrews chapter 5, verse 7. Yes, God heard his.

Prayers. Hebrews 5, 7. Saved him by resurrection, which is the only meaningful reading of Hebrews chapter 5. If you could quote Hebrews chapter 5, then you need to look at it in the context of the book, what we would not do to yours.

Point number three, refuted. Number four, an angel of God came.

To strengthen him. Luke chapter 22, verse 43. Yes, an angel of God did come to strengthen him. Has.

Nothing to do whatsoever with the crucifixion being a fiction. The angel came and strengthened him as the indication of the father's having heard him, the propriety of the purpose that was the father and the son in going to the cross, the whole nine yards, irrelevant to the crucifixion.

Point refuted. Pilate finds Jesus not guilty. It's a good reason to keep Jesus alive. John chapter 18,.

Verse 38. Pilate finds Jesus not guilty. That's a partial truth. Does not change the fact that Pilate lives in a political situation where the Jews say this man claimed to be a king, therefore in opposition to Caesar, and therefore he must be killed.

And so, again, you take one part of the story of Pilate, ignore the rest of what the same writer says Pilate did, and then use that as an argument. Inconsistency. Gross misuse of sources. Point refuted.

Number six, Pilate's wife shone a.

Dream in which she was told that no harm should come to this just man. In other words, that he should be saved alive. Matthew chapter 27, verse 19. Yes, she had such a dream and Pilate did not.

Act upon the dream as the rest of the text specifically states. Point refuted. Number seven,.

Supposed to be on the cross for only three hours. According to the system in vogue, no man could die by crucifixion in so short a time, which means that even if he was fastened.

To the cross, he was alive. He was alive. What does the same text that Sheikh Didat is pretending to deal with say? Jesus gave up his spirit. He gave, no, what did he himself say? No man takes my life from me.

I give it of my own accord. This is a supernatural event. Are you saying that a prophet of God did not have that kind of power? Upon what basis? Where do you get that? This whole thing is supposed to be based upon what the Bible says, right?

And so not only has Jesus been flogged and beaten and up all night to and beaten to a level to make him almost unrecognizable. That was Pilate's idea to maybe get some sympathy. Didn't work. So you have all of that.

But again, is this guy a naturalistic materialist? Remember, this is the guy who thinks the moon got split in half and put back together again. This is a guy who thinks that Muhammad rode a wing donkey to heaven, but Jesus can't give up his life.

Do you see why it gets a little frustrating, my Muslim friend? When on the one hand, you will accept supernatural stories without even giving it a second thought, and then you'll buy this kind of stuff.

You're not being consistent. If the text says he gave up his spirit, and really as even a part of prophecy in the sense that he spoke to the thieves that said, today you'll be with me in paradise, so on and so forth.

God had a purpose in having Jesus die at a particular time in a particular way. You're saying God can't do that? God can't do that, right? Point refuted.

Number eight, the other two, his crossmates on the respective process were alive. So Jesus too, for the same period of time, must be alive. John chapter 19 verse 32. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was dead already, saw what?

That he was dead already. As you know, on page page 36 and 37 and 38, I give you a list of 11 different persons in the newspapers who were certified dead and they were not dead. By doctors, with stethoscopes, they were pronounced dead and they were not dead, they came back to life.

And there is a society in England, I have given you the picture of the society of people who have come back from the dead. Were they all resurrected? No. But they were certified dead. This man, seeing a person on the cross, he thought he was and he saw that he's dead already.

I said, what does it mean? And so when doctors make mistakes in the hospital where Chris Barnard operates, a white woman was put, certified dead and put into the mortuary. Next morning, she came out alive.

When you make mistakes by the day, certifying people dead when they're not dead, what this means that he was dead already. So I said, Jesus was John 1933, that there was a mistake they have been seeing.

So all that is, is an assertion that, well, I realize that the texts I'm using all contradict me. That every author I'm citing, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all say, I'm the one that's wrong. And so that's just simply saying, well, so there's some mistakes.

Yeah, it says he died. But that happens all the time. I mean, people die all the day. You know, they're considered to be dead all the time and just pop up out of mortuaries all the time. This is a common element of Islamic argumentation that everybody who saw Jesus, well, except Mary, because remember, we already saw, we already saw the massage lie.

Remember last program that Mary was coming to massage Jesus because she had seen a sign of life. We found that was a lie, that that was a falsehood. So let's think about this for just a second. Crucifixion is an ugly thing.

And who was it that in the gospel of Mark verifies that Jesus has died? The man's a centurion. Centurions didn't rise to that position without a fair amount of experience. This is a man who's seen a lot of death and he's a man who has brought about a lot of death.

And he knows what a dead man looks like. He knows what death looks like. I'm not going to claim any expertise here, but in the few short years that I was a hospital chaplain, I learned what death looks like too.