Debate Review

Debate Review and the Setting in Durban’s Gray Street Mosque

Rather than trying to shift back into the synoptic study this morning, just give you a quick report on the trip and play for you a portion of the debate that I did not realize until I got to Johannesburg that we had been successful in arranging.

The debate took place this past Tuesday evening in Durban, which is on the east coast of South Africa, on the Indian Ocean, that it would be taking place in the historic Gray Street Mosque, which is for many decades was the largest mosque in the southern hemisphere.

It's been there for 130 years. What really makes the Gray Street Mosque so amazing is the fact that it was the home mosque, the place of worship of Ahmed Didat. Now, it's been a long time since I, I don't even know if I ever have, now that I think of it, I might have at some time in the past, played some clip in here of Ahmed Didat.

Didat died, I think, in 2006, if I recall correctly. He is still, to this day, I would say the most popular Islamic speaker in the world. Jim, when I'm done, I'm just going to put the microphone down in front of one of the speakers, and so it should be able to pick it up from there.

His video tapes, yes, VHS tapes, continue to make the rounds in a great way. I've told the story about when the Ahmadi Muslims came out to my talk in New York at New Hyde Park Baptist Church, that when I spoke with them afterwards, and the Ahmadi are persecuted by the Sunni, and so they're a minority group.

And yet, despite that, the guys I talked to were all quoting Ahmed Didat, they're all familiar with Didat's argument. Like I said, he's probably the most popular Islamic speaker in the world, even almost a decade after his death, and will probably remain that way for quite some time.

He was quite a showman. Well, the point is that his mosque, his masjid, was the Gray Street Mosque in Durban. And so when I got to Jo 'burg and was informed by our Muslim contact there, by the gentleman I was going to be debating, Yusuf Ismail, that the debate had been moved to the mosque, I still was not certain whether that meant such a large mosque.

They have room for 3 ,200 prayer mats at this mosque on three different levels. I still was uncertain as to exactly where it would be, because I've been in a number of mosques where we had the debate in an associated room, something like that.

Only last year, on October 7th last year, did I get to actually debate inside the masjid, in other words, without shoes on, because you don't wear shoes inside the masjid, in Erasmia, which is just outside of Victoria, the capital of South Africa.

And that was the first time that had ever happened in South Africa, and as far as we know, had happened anywhere in the world, at least in the past 100, 150 years. And so I still wasn't certain at that point, and in fact did not know until we got to the mosque Tuesday night where the debate would be.

And again, it was in the masjid. So debate number two, sans shoes, which is an interesting feeling, but you don't really think about it too much because everybody else is in the same boat. So we get there, and one of the things we were informed of is that I was going to be the very first Christian presenting Christianity inside that mosque.

That had never happened before, not overly surprising. But to stand where Didat stood, and to, in essence, refute so much of what he said, was a truly surreal experience. And this was just one of a couple.

The previous week in Linasia, which is, interestingly enough, both Durban and Linasia are very Indian Muslims in those areas, primarily from the old apartheid days. And we had debated in Linasia at the same mosque we debated at before, but the mosque portion is very small, so it's in a room associated with it.

We had had an excellent debate that evening, and then the next evening after this, we debated, I debated a fellow by the name of Ayub Karim, who presented Didat's arguments against the crucifixion. I had been looking for years to find someone to defend Didat's, his most famous talk is called, Crucifixion or Crucifiction?

F-I-C-T-I-O-N. In fact, he had just given that talk in Australia, I believe it was, I believe in 95 or 90, I think it was 96, when shortly afterwards he had a stroke. His speech was taken from him, and he never spoke again for the next 10 years before his death.

He was pretty much bedridden. But that's probably one of his most famous talks and presentations, is that presentation on attacking, basically his argument is that the New Testament itself teaches that Jesus was not crucified.

And this is an incredibly popular talk, and I had the opportunity to debate Ayub Karim. He even stands like Didat stood, he does everything like Didat, dresses like Didat, speaks like Didat. It was amazing, and thankfully presented Didat's arguments.

And so I had the opportunity of just basically shredding those arguments, because they're horrible arguments. I mean, for example, he claims that Mary had bought spices, not to anoint the body, but to massage the body, because she had seen signs of life, so she knew Jesus was alive.

And he throws out the Hebrew term for that, and of course, it wasn't written in Hebrew, and the Hebrew word he mentions doesn't mean that anyways, and the Greek term cannot possibly mention that. It's just really bad on every level.

But here you are in Didat's home country, and these people really believe that Didat was next to infallible. And we had the opportunity of just decimating those arguments in debate. But what was really amazing was to watch the people that were there.

It was very well attended. Again, looking at your audience sitting upon the floor is a little bit of an unusual thing for a Westerner, but I'm getting used to it. And there were lots of young guys there.

Of course, the guys are here, and then there's a cordoned-off section over to the right where the ladies are sitting, because it's always segregated in the mosque. And it was late. I mean, we didn't get started until about 8 .15, so we didn't get out of there until sometime around midnight.

And of course, it's in downtown Durban, so there's some very interesting people in the streets in downtown Durban at that time of night. But they really, really listened carefully. Now, I went second.

It was a two-part debate. The first part, Yusuf Ismail presented a Muslim view of the Christology of the Gospel of John. I'm going to play a few of my response to that. Then the second half of this debate, I went first and gave a Christian understanding of the Christology of the Qur 'an.

And then Yusuf Ismail responded to that. And we each had 10-minute rebuttals to the other. So, a little bit unusual, but that's how we Yusuf and I had debated at Potsdam University last year on the transmission of the Testament versus the transmission of the Qur 'an.

And so, that was what the subject was. But I especially noticed this one guy sort of seated if I'm standing here, he's seated off this direction. And especially when I kept calling for equal standards, to apply the same standards in arguing against the New Testament as you'd use in defending the Qur 'an if you're a Muslim and vice versa.

I could see he was nodding and he understood what I was saying. After the debate was over, I have a picture on Facebook of him coming up. And lo and behold, he was the imam of the mosque and the actual imam of that place.

And he I could just tell he was hearing, he understood what I was saying. And it was just an incredible, incredible experience. We felt very welcomed. They had oh, I've forgotten the name of the Indian treat.

They had bowls of this stuff cooked up and ready to go for us and stuff like that. They were very, very hospitable. Obviously, some people weren't happy about it. Ahmed Didat's son was livid that that debate took place.

But he's not a part of the sponsoring organization anymore. So, he tried to stop it, but he wasn't able to do so. So, what I wanted to just do is in the last in the half hour that we have, just play for you my opening statement from the debate on Tuesday night in the it's called the Juma Masjid on Gray Street in downtown Durban, South Africa.

It was on the subject of the Christology, the Gospel of John. So, I'm already you'll be hearing, I will be responding to what Yusuf Ismail has said in his presentation. But also, just an amazing thing to be standing in that historic place and to be able to say the things that I'm saying here.

Never saw that one coming. Pretty exciting stuff. And so, hopefully, this will work. I think it will. Let's listen to what happened. I compliment you on being able to sit on the floor a lot longer than they can do that.

But it is such a pleasure for me and an honor for me for you to be here and to hear what I have to say. I want to show you respect. In the next half of the debate, when I speak about what the Qur 'an teaches, I hope you will hear that I have done everything in my power to accurately handle your text and to handle it with respect, even when I'm in disagreement.

And that's what I ask of you. When you handle my text, my divine scriptures, that you would apply the same standards to my scriptures that you would apply to your own. In fact, the Qur 'an speaks of having equal scales, does it not?

Of being fair in the analysis that we are to make. I'm simply asking you. You are the judges this evening. There's no debate judges. There's no score this evening. You are the debate judges. What I'm going to ask you to do is hold us both to the same standard.

See if we will apply the same standard to our own scriptures if we apply to the other person's scriptures. Will you do that for me? Because I think that's very, very important. I hope you understand that I'm here this evening because I think that we need to move debate topics over the issues of Islam, was Muhammad a prophet, was Jesus just a prophet, deity of Christ, the Qur 'an versus the Bible, etc., etc., etc.

We have to move forward, my friends, in understanding each other and hearing each other. And I want you to hear me this evening and to hear my heart. I just talked to you about the Gospel of John. He talked at the beginning about what certain types of scholars believe.

Well, if I cited the same kind of scholarship about the Qur 'an that Yusuf cites about the Gospel of John, I could find all sorts of scholars that believe that the Qur 'an was edited and redacted and it wasn't in the form that it's in today, and all sorts of scholars.

All of us can find unbelieving scholarship. It's interesting. Just a few moments ago, Yusuf was saying, well, most Bible translators are Trinitarians, so they're biased. When you look at translations of the Qur 'an, don't you look for translations done by believing Muslims?

For liberal translations done by unbelieving Muslims, you're going to use the Qur 'an? So why should we be looking to liberal translations of the Bible done by people who don't believe that it's even what the Qur 'an says it is?

What does the Qur 'an say about the Qur 'an in Jews? It's not found. It's sent down. It contains what? Life and guidance, right? And so if we're going to be consistent, then I need to cite the same kind of scholarship about your book, and you need to cite believing scholarship about the Bible.

And when we do that, we discover that there really is no reason to question the Gospel of John as to its originality, as to its coming from the first century. If you'll take the time to look at the debate that Yusuf and I did at Paterson University last year, you can listen to us engaging some of the issues about the text.

Listen to the debates I've done with Shabir Ali at University of Victoria, University of Biola. We've engaged all those things. I'm here this evening to compare and contrast the Christology of the Gospel of John with that of the Qur 'an.

And so let's do that, and I'll cover some of the other stuff and rebuttal if I have time to do so. You've had a lot of Greeks thrown at you, a lot of flies thrown at you this evening. I didn't make the presentation.

I didn't think we'd be able to do that in the mosque. And so I'm going to have to explain it to you, but I have had the opportunity, the joy of teaching many people the Greek language. I deal with the Greek language all the time, and with all due respect to Yusuf, if Yusuf took my first year Greek class, I'd have to fail him this evening.

Because he made a lot of errors, because he's following really bad scholarship that just isn't up to date. He quoted my friend Dan Wallace. Dan Wallace would fail him as well, I'm afraid, because he just hasn't understood, especially the Greek article.

It's one of the most difficult parts, the Greek language, so I don't put him down for that. Chapter 1. How many of you have read the Gospel of John? Any of you? I've got a few people. The majority have not.

You have in the Gospel of John, beginning in the first 18 verses, what's called the prologue. It's the window that John opens to what he's trying to say. And when you look at the prologue, not just look at little bits and pieces, but look at the prologue as a whole, you can see it is a crafted work.

In John 1 .1 we have, In the beginning was the Word. The verb that he uses there is eternal. As far back as you want to push the beginning, the Word has always existed. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.

Cross Pantheon. Face to face with God. There is personal relationship between the logos and God, who we'll see is identified as the Father. And it's for eternity. Eternal relationship. It's personal. Not just an idea in the mind of God, but personal relationship.

And then finally the third clause, and the Word was God. Now I was really disappointed because I think I had sent Yusuf my book, The Forgotten Trinity. And if he had read my book, I have an entire chapter on this, and I discussed everything about the article, and I discussed everything about the fact that yes, the placement of the word God and the fact there isn't an article there is describing for us the very nature of the logos.

Eternally as to his nature, he is deity. That's why it presents the deity of Christ. The very next verse, which he didn't show you, says all things are made by him. And without him was not anything made that was made.

This logos is eternal, personal, and in personal relationship with the Father for all of eternity. Who is that? And then when you look at the end of the prologue, verse 18, John repeats the concepts he had in verse 1.

So what do you have in verse 18? No one has seen God in any time. You go, well, wait a minute. There are a number of places in the Old Testament. Moses saw the back of God. The elders of Israel saw God.

What is unique? No one has seen God in any time. The unique God, he has exegeted, he has explained him. There, Jesus is called God. He is called the unique God. And it is said that he is the perfect revelation of the Father.

We know the Father perfectly because Jesus has explained him to us. And so when you start your book with that, you are intending, everyone, to read the rest of your book through that lens. And that lens is that the logos is eternal, the logos is personal.

It was said, well, logos can mean many things. Yes, the semantic domain of the term logos is very, very wide. It is determined contextually, and in John chapter 1, there is no question. Look at John 1 .14.

The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory. Who is that? That is clearly Jesus. So there isn't any question about what the prologue is about. But then it goes on from there. You see, you need to follow the flow.

When I try to read the Quran, I try to leave, I try to let it speak for itself. I try to listen to it in its ancient context as best I can. It is not always easy to do. Sometimes the Hadith sources disagree as to what the background of a particular ayah or surah is.

But I try to do that. And when you do that with the Gospel of John, you see that John builds a case all the way through, presenting us a Jesus who, my friends, is not a mere rasool. He is not a mere rasool.

You cannot limit what he says. Jesus knows not only the inner hearts of man, but he makes eternal life dependent upon our relationship to him. This becomes very clear in John chapter 5, for example. When Jesus clearly differentiates himself from the Father, he is the Son, he does nothing of himself.

In other words, he is not some deity off doing his own thing. He and the Father have a perfect unity. The Jews wanted to kill him. Because he was calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

And Jesus' response is not to say, Oh no, no, you are misunderstanding me. His response is to say, I am the Father. I speak the words of the Father. I do the words of the Father. We have a perfect unity.

It's not like you've got the Father over there doing his thing, and the Son is doing something over here, and the Spirit is over there doing something. Perfect unity, because remember, Christians are monotheists.

We believe there is only one true God, and that that being of God is shared by three divine persons, Father, Son, and Spirit. That means they have to be unified. They have to be doing the same thing. The very Godhead splits apart.

It's an absurdity. It could never happen. So in John chapter 5, we are to honor the Son, even as we honor the Father. That He has life within Himself to give to others. And then in John chapter 6, He is the living bread.

To have eternal life, you have to feed upon Him, spiritually, by faith, by coming to Him. And then we have John chapter 8, and that was touched on just a little while ago, and again, an entire chapter in my book that would have disabused Yusuf of many of the things that he said, because he didn't understand what John does.

That phrase, Ego Aimi, sure can be used as a mere emphatic. No one disputes that. The question is, is John using it as a mere emphatic? And the answer is obviously no. Because when Jesus says, Ego Aimi, before Abraham was, I am, what did the Jews do?

Why? You don't stone angels. You don't stone prophets, but you do stone blasphemers. And you see, the Jews knew something that I explain in my book, and I hope to explain it to you. That phrase, Ego Aimi, goes back to the Old Testament.

It was used as the name of God. In Hebrew, it's Anahu. And there are numerous places in Isaiah the prophet, in the other minor prophets, where it's used as a replacement for the name Yahweh. And so, for example, at one point I was amazed.

Yusuf cited John 13, 19 and said, see, here's a use that has nothing to do with the deity of Christ. And yet, it's one of the key passages on the deity of Christ. Because in John 13, 19, Jesus quotes from Isaiah 43, 10 and applies the words to Himself.

Isaiah 43, 10, Jehovah says, I'm going to reveal these things to you before they come to happen. So they do come to happen. You may know and believe and understand that I am. And before me there was no God formed and there will be none after me.

Jesus took those words from Isaiah and applied them to Himself in John chapter 13 in the exact same context of prophecy of future events. Why would Jesus do that? Let me ask you, my friends. Could the Jesus that you have been taught about do what the Jesus of John 13, 19 did?

But that's not the only place where I am is used. I forgot to tell you about John 18, 5 -6. The soldiers come to arrest Jesus in the garden. And He asks them, who are you seeking? And they say, Jesus of Nazareth.

And Jesus says, what happens to the soldiers? Anybody remember? They fall back upon the ground. When He says, I am, they fall back upon the ground. That's what happened with the blind man in John chapter 9.

Any other places where egoism can be used in a different way proves nothing. What was John doing? Explain to me why soldiers fall back upon the ground when you say, that's me. When Jesus says it, soldiers fall back upon the ground.

I wonder why. But you see, we continue on. In John chapter 10, Jesus identifies Himself as a good shepherd. And He says that your eternal life is dependent upon your relationship to Me and to the Father.

And if you're one of My sheep, you're in My hand, I'll never lose you. And we're in the Father's hand, and He'll never lose you. And then He says, I am the Father, we are one. He doesn't say, I am the Father.

Never does Jesus claim to be the Father. But He says, I and the Father are one in bringing about the salvation of God's people. My friends, what prophet could ever say that? Every prophet is subject to God.

Sent by God. But here Jesus says, your very eternal life is dependent upon faith in Him and His ability to save you. The sheep of God will be saved by this One who makes these claims for Himself. That's an amazing thing.

It's in John chapter 11. He raises Lazarus from the dead. Father, so that men may believe. And then the Son of God calls forth from the dead Lazarus. And He comes forth at His command having been in the tomb all those days.

In John chapter 12, the writer there quotes from the Old Testament and basically teaches us that when Isaiah saw Yahweh sitting upon His throne in Isaiah chapter 6, that great vision He had of God, John tells us that was Jesus.

Look at John 12 .41. John tells us that the One that was worshipped by the angels and seen by Isaiah was in fact Jesus. And then beginning in John chapter 13, Jesus begins ministering to His disciples.

And here you have the most texts referring to Jesus in this way. And it's interesting, this is where you got John chapter 14. Now maybe we can get a chance to come back here sometime and I would love to have a discussion about who John chapter 14 and 16 is about.

Who that helper is. John chapter 14 has either been changed or altered or so on and so forth. Your Koran says that Muhammad's name is found in the Torah, in the Injil. And that's John 14 and 16. That's a real popular one.

Now the Koran doesn't tell you where it is. It doesn't say it's in John 14 or John 16. But if you're going to accept the idea that the paraclete, the helper in the Gospel of John is Muhammad, then you're going to have to accept that John is actually the Injil that was sent down by God.

Right? You need to be consistent. You need to be consistent. And it's the same chapter of John where Jesus speaks again in a way that no mere Razul ever could. He speaks of being the One who indwells His followers by the Spirit of God.

That He and the Father will dwell in His followers by the coming of the Spirit of God. That He is going to prepare a place for us and that Heaven is being.

With Him. He likens.

Himself to the vine. We're the branches. To be right with God is first and foremost to be right with Jesus. What mere prophet ever says that? And then in John 17. Oh, His high priestly prayer. He says that before time began, He in the presence of the Father shared His very glory.

My friend, there's one thing you and I we have to insist upon in this world as Muslims and Christians. God should be glorified. Nothing else can be glorified. I'm writing a book right now with Shabir Ali.

You know what our subject is? The Trinity and Tawhid. What Tawhid means? I've taken the time to understand it. And I absolutely believe that only God should be glorified. So you need to explain to me what Jesus was doing saying before time itself that He shared the very glory of God in His presence, John chapter 17.

You've got to understand that. You've got to listen to these things. The crucifixion of Jesus another issue that we definitely, well tomorrow night we're going to be debating that subject. And then we have the resurrection.

And in John chapter 20 verse 28, we have inarguably inarguably presentation of the deity of Jesus Christ. I say inarguably because this is one of the places where Yusuf would fail the first year Greek class.

Because in John chapter 20, verse 28, Thomas recognizes from Jesus' words that Jesus even knew what Thomas had said when Jesus had not been present. He had supernatural knowledge of Thomas saying, well, lest I see the wound print and so on and so forth, I'll never believe.

He says, stretch forth your hand, go ahead and look. See? Do not be unbelieving. In Thomas' response he answered and said to him. Singular. Next words must by all usage in the Greek language be addressed to Jesus.

The idea that Thomas is going, my God, my Lord, is utterly impossible. Completely impossible. You will never pass first year Greek if you snotter it that badly. Dan Welles will support that. Anybody who knows the language will support that.

My God. My God. My God. Now, you said that when the true God is being referred to that you use the article. Let me point out that that is utterly untrue. The vast majority of times the true God is referred to in the New Testament there is no article used at all.

And that's the case, for example, in John chapter 1, verse 6, there came a man and sent paratha you from God. Was Yahya sent from Allah? Yes or no? Come on. I'm expecting an answer. Was Yahya, was John the Baptist sent from God?

Thank you. He was. And that's exactly what John 1, 6 says. Problem is, there's no article before God in John 1, 6. So much for the non-rule that you tried to explain to you because it doesn't exist. No one who translates the language would ever say that.

It's just not possible. Let's keep that in mind and let's look at John chapter 20, verse 28 and ask the question, well, if the article means the one true God then why does it say, kai-ha-theos-mu? So you see, if that rule were true and it's not, but if it were true then you'd have to admit that, well, what Thomas was referring to here was the true God, my true God and since it uses that singular auto these words are addressed to Jesus.

Thomas identified Jesus as his God. There is no question here. None. None whatsoever. Even the most liberal scholarship, Clark Ehrman, will tell you of course, that's basic understanding, that's what John's saying.

No question about it. We've looked at the Christology of John. I've got some questions for you to think about. You didn't think you were going to be participating in the debate this evening. I'm thankful that you're here, brothers and sisters, but I'm not here for you tonight.

I'm looking at you gentlemen, and ladies coming out of this mosque this evening thinking about what you've heard from both me and Yusuf. I want you thinking. We don't get to do this very often, do we?

When two communities cannot talk like this and disagree in respect and love the division will only grow deeper and deeper in ignorance. If we want to be harbingers of peace in this world then we must think, and so I want to ask you some questions.

In my Bible I see an intimate relationship between the two of them. I just got done preaching 80 sermons on the book of Hebrews in the New Testament over the course of six years. The author, and we don't know who the author was, and don't need to.

Jesus himself quoted from books of the Old Testament where you don't know the author, so don't tell me you've got to know because it didn't bother Jesus. And I follow his standards. The author of that book intimately knows the Old Testament.

He quotes from beginning and end of the Old Testament. He knows it in its original languages. He knows it in translation. He knows its arguments. He knows what's going on in the tabernacle and in the temple.

He knows the Old Testament and he bases his arguments upon a deep understanding of it. And that's really how the whole New Testament is. The authors of the New Testament know, and they say, we are fulfilling this, and this is the final word.

Jesus is the final word from God. That's what Hebrews 1 says. But then I look at the Koran. And the Koran makes a clear claim. You all know, in Surah Al-Maidah, right? You know the chain that's laid out in Ayah 44 and following.

Where you have this direct statement. Allah sent down the Koran to Moses in the language of Revelation. Sent it down. It contains light and guidance. And in fact, they're held accountable for what's in the Torah, yes?

And then, he sent down the Injeel to Jesus. And what does it do? It confirms what? The Torah that came before him. So there's a chain here. Ya Torah, Moses, now Jesus in the Injeel confirming what comes before, and what's in the Injeel?

Light and guidance. It's not false. It's sent down, right? And then, the Koran given to Muhammad. And it's a muhaiman, it's a controller, a corrector over what comes before, is how you understand that.

And so there's a chain going between each one of these. But here's my question to you, my friends. What John teaches about Jesus is wrong based on Surah 4, 171, Surah 5, 116, Surah 5, 17, etc. We'll be talking about that in a few minutes.

If what John says about Jesus is wrong, why is there no meaningful interaction on the part of the Koran with the revelations that came before it? There is in the New Testament direct citations. I mean, when you look at the book of Hebrews, there are entire chapters, sections of chapters quoted verbatim from the Old Testament.

Where is there anything from the New Testament quoted.

In the Koran? There isn't anything.

There's nothing there. You've got the like Thalionis from the Old Testament, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. There might be one little phrase from the Psalms, but there are Islamic scholars that disagree with that and say no, that definitely did not come from the Psalter.

So, where is the connection? If this is to be the final revelation, the deep convincing interaction with what we believe, it would help us to understand. I mean, we allegedly have gone beyond. That's all the truth in our in our deen.

If that's the case, if that's what you believe, then there should be a lot in the Koran to convince us of that. There should be interaction and saying, oh, that Paul guy was bad and John missed it here.

There's nothing there. Now, you say.

Your understanding is that the Koran was sent down on Laylat al-Qadr. It's given by Gabriel to Muhammad. He has nothing to do with it. You can't even ask questions about what did Muhammad understand?

It's the direct word of God. You can't even ask questions about well, when Muhammad met with the Christians from Najran, did he increase in his understanding? Is that the background of some sections of Surah 3 or Surah 4?

Some of the early Muslim scholars thought that it was. But, if that's the.

Case, and Muhammad had nothing to do with it, okay, let's put him aside. Take the orthodox Sunni understanding of this particular subject. Didn't God know what was in the New Testament when He gave the Revelation?

So, He could have interacted. He could have given real life and guidance to Christians to understand why John was wrong. Why isn't it there? Where is the evidence.

That the author of the Koran knew what John had ever said? I see none. I see none. And if that's the case, the reason I.

Invited Yusuf to engage this subject with me, is because I think we are all benefited from a believing Muslim and a believing Christian seeking to honestly, and that's what I'm looking for, honestly engage with each other's texts.

Not out of ignorance, but then to ask the questions we must ask, because I as a Christian believe things you as a Muslim do not. Beautiful names. Is it not Al-Haq? That name. Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life.

Seeking for, possessing, and loving the truth is one of the highest callings God has placed upon any one of us. There is nothing in this world, nothing in this world's possessions that should ever dissuade us from wanting as our ultimate desire to possess the truth.

That's how he's made it. He's put that in our hearts. He's put that in our hearts. You know that. We're not like the people of the world. We're not like the secularists of this world. The truth, the thing that this world is just spinning out of control and there's no purpose.

You and I know better, don't we? And so if that's the case, then you and I, you and I need to be talking to one another and we need to be honest in our differences. And we need to ask really difficult questions.

And here's what I'll close with. John was right. The Gospel of John is the earliest and most widely documented of the books of the New Testament. Do you know that? The earliest fragment we have in the New Testament comes from John chapter 18, where Jesus is the pilot.

And the pilot says, what is truth? And Jesus says, he who is of the truth hears my voice. That's the earliest fragment we have. What if it's right? All the liberal scholars quote John and what you believe.

Because liberal scholars don't. I mean, the Koran quotes Jesus. You will not find a single scholar that you should quote that would believe that any of the words of Jesus in the Koran were actually traceable back to Jesus.

It's, you know, having the very presence of the Father for eternity passed and he was glorious. That means he created you. And that means every breath of your mouth, every beat of your heart comes from his hand.

If that's the case, he cannot be dismissed as Emir Hazul. That's why I've traveled halfway around the planet. I want to talk with you about that. I want to make sure you understand what John actually said and want to think about it as you leave this place this evening.

Let me again thank you for your attention. Thank you for being so kind in bringing us here this evening, allowing us to be here for this discussion. Thank you so much. Keep listening. God bless.