Islamic Debate in Southern California: Response

So last week a debate took place over in California between Dr. John Rittenhouse of Biola and Dr. Jamal Badawi an Islamic apologist and the subject was who is Jesus? Specifically at least what I've seen the focus was upon the deity of Christ.

I'd like to comment on some of the responses that dr. Badawi offered in this debate.

Reference was made that God was manifest in flesh. However through Christian sources that I read Some manuscript actually read which was manifest in flesh. And the reason of the confusion is that in Greek ho means which?

Hoss if you add s becomes God and in fact in the British medium in Codex a There is an evidence that the H o originally or the equivalent of H o in Greek was added something Hoss as God in a different type of ink.

Now dr. Badawi is a little bit confused this point then again. Probably the vast majority of Christians are too who would have no idea how textual variants in the New Testament work. Remember that for the first 800 years the history the transmission of the text of New Testament.

The text was in unseal format as we have in the graphic here all capital letters. No spaces between words. The result of this is that In the Greek language the difference between the reading God and the reading he who? Would be the difference between the two words on the screen which as you can see look very much alike on the left.

You have the oz it's called one of the nomina sacra. And is an abbreviation for the full form of the word God. The oz as you can see the two forms that represent. The vast majority of manuscripts are very very similar, and it's easy to see how a scribe can confuse one for the other.

Dr. Badawi in fact is confusing the reading of one Greek manuscript. That is the manuscript D Which is ha with the actual variant readings the manuscripts which pit theos against Hoss that is God against he who?

But again we find through Christian sources Based on their knowledge of the Greek language they say this is a figure of speech in Greek. Where one word is the reality the other one is intensification of that reality.

So which means then Lord? He's talking to Jesus as Lord and my God means actually according to Christian and some Christian interpreters You are God like. You are God like but not God as has been.

Interpreted now here once again. We have dr. Badawi using very questionable sources calling them Christian sources. Really what is being said here is a gross misrepresentation of the text. Thomas answered and said to him.

These are Thomas's words to Christ. Ha courteous mook. I hot they asked me now. They asked is in direct parallel with courteous Lord. It is my Lord and my God that anything that you do to God you're gonna have to do the Lord and vice-versa.

There's no question about what the words mean. There's no question about how this would have been understood how it would been taken and please notice how Jesus himself takes the text. Jesus said to him because you have seen me have you believed.

Blessed are they who did not see and yet believed. These are the words of Jesus. Identifying this as a statement of faith the idea. This means just a godlike one. What does that mean? Do we believe in multiple gods?

Certainly not. These words are very clear and there's really no way around them at all.

Published in 1985 the word actually read as a God small G. And I'm quoting you are God like. God like doesn't mean God and that's appeared in appendix to a pages 1139 through.

1140 I must admit there's something a little bit ironic about a Muslim representing a religion that began 1 ,400 years ago utilizing the Cultic ruminations of a pseudo Christian cult that started in the middle 1870s or so.

That does seem just a little bit odd. But to to quote Christian cults as if that somehow is a compelling argument to Christians. I I would highly suggest dr. Bad we rethink that. I mean if I were to In a debate with dr. Bad we on say the Quran or the life and ministry of Muhammad.

If I were to quote Ahmadiyya sources or Ismaili sources and use what from their perspective are Islamic cults as Normative argumentation would he accept that. Would he find that to to show a lot of insight? And concern about his own position or would he only find arguments that be relevant to a Sunni Muslim?

To demonstrate that I'm showing respect for him might I suggest that utilizing Christian cults as normative responses doesn't exactly show a real strong Compulsion to actually convince an Orthodox Christian the position is correct.

Now, of course. We have addressed the issue of John 1 1 a number of times. Even in the videos here on YouTube, so I won't go all through that. But suffice it to say that quoting the kingdom interlinear translation is not the best kind of argumentation that can be offered by dr. Badawi.

Contrary to what mr. Latin house actually said I read also sources that say the opposite it actually it says That the Greek word highest H E I S is the one that means one in person and The writers say that actually the Greek term is hen H E N which means one in purpose and there is additional evidence I have of a statements in the Bible that use the same term to refer actually to oneness in purpose that use Jesus used in dealing with his disciple.

Well, there is no question that in John chapter 10 verse 30 when Jesus says I and the father we are one. This is not something that would allow us to confuse the father and the son. But the point of the text is how can any mere creature?

Say I and the father are one in bringing about the salvation of God's people. In fact, not just to solve the mere possibility of salvation, but the actual salvation itself. He loses none of those that are given to him.

It's the perfection of that salvation. He and the father are one and notice the Jews knew what he was saying. The Jews answered him. They pick up stones again to stone him. And then they answered him when he asked why.

For a good work. We do not stone you but for blasphemy. And because you being a man make yourself out to be God. Who? understood him properly. The Jews that were standing right there in front of him. Or Someone trying to get around that teaching because of religious belief many many hundreds of years later.

Again contrary to that we find references also that says that Before Abraham means in the foreknowledge of God and all of us Existed in the foreknowledge of God before we were born. This is not a strange usage.

It is found in the book of Acts in chapters 2 verse 23 in Peter 1 20 Ephesians 1 4. It is exceedingly clear that this is a common usage in that sense. Now very briefly.

It's time is short for this video. Dr Badawi is just simply in error in what he says here to say before Abraham was I am. We'll see how the Jews respond to that in just a moment. Respond the rest of his comments on this, but there is no parallel whatsoever between this statement and the context which is uttered and the concept of foreknowledge or to for know.

In Regards to the elect of God and other texts of Scripture, especially Ephesians 1 these texts like this have no parallel whatsoever. Contextually linguistically syntactically grammatically anyway. With what Jesus is saying in John chapter 8.

That's just just an error on dr. Badawi's part.

Exodus 3 14 where it says I am what I am Has also been translated. I will be what I will be that's in Christian sources. Also. It's not a Muslim translation. Contrary to what we've heard. Also, he says ego I me in fact.

No, if the reference I read it says the Greek term in Exodus is different. It is whole on not ego I me which means that the writer could not equate actually the statement attributed to God with the statement attributed to Jesus.

Dr. Badawi is simply in error here. Jesus says before Abraham was I am. You'd use the same terminology in verse 24. The same chapter unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins. This is terminology that goes directly back to the minor prophets not directly back to Exodus 3 14.

He's partially right that in Exodus 3 14 It says a go I me ha own I am the being. But if you go to Isaiah You'll find the real source of his language. Where for example in Isaiah 43 10 It says in order that you may know and believe and understand that I am he.

Jesus uses that very same language of himself in John 13 19 in order that you may believe when it takes place that I Am he. And remember what the Jews do when they heard Jesus say these words. They picked up stones to stone him.

They understood Exactly the meaning of Jesus's words.