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.

First of all, a reference was made that God was manifest in flesh. However, through Christian sources that I read, some manuscripts actually read, which was manifest in flesh, and the reason of the confusion is that in Greek, ho means which, hos, if you add s, becomes

God, and in fact, in the British medium, in Codex A, there is an evidence that the

HO originally, or the equivalent of HO in Greek, was added something so it reads hos as God in a different type of ink.

Now, Dr. Badawi is a little bit confused at 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 of the history of the transmission of the text of the 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 theos, it's called one of the nomina sacra, and is an abbreviation for the full form of the word

God, theos. As you can see, the two forms that represent the vast majority of manuscripts are very, very similar.

It is 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 of manuscripts, which pit theos against hos, that is

God against he who. Secondly, he referred to the statements by the doubter,

Thomas the Doubter, 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' words to Christ, ha kuriosimu kai ha theosimu. Now theos is in direct parallel with kurios,

Lord. It is my Lord and my God. Anything that you do to God, you're going to have to do to 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 have 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 that this means just a God -like 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. Number three, the reference was made to John 1 .1

in the beginning and so on. In the kingdom interlinear translation word by word in Greek, published in 1985, the word actually read as a

God small g or, and I'm quoting, you are God -like.

God -like doesn't mean God, and that appeared in appendix 2A, pages 1139 through 1140.

I must admit there's something a little bit ironic about a Muslim representing a religion that began 1400 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 quote Christian cults as if that somehow is a compelling argument to Christians, I would highly suggest

Dr. Badawi rethink that. I mean, if I were to debate with Dr.

Badawi on, say, the Koran 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 show a lot of insight and concern about his own position, or would he only find arguments to 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. A reference was made to the statement that I and the Father are one in John 10.

However, contrary to what Mr. Rattenhaus actually said,

I read also sources that say the opposite. Actually, it says that the

Greek word heis, 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 statements in the Bible that use the same term to refer actually to oneness in purpose that Jesus used in dealing with his disciples.

Well, there is no question that in John 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 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.

Number six, a reference was made also to the expression of before Abraham, I am, and that Jesus used,

I am that appeared in the book of Exodus, which actually is attributed to God. 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 chapter 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, as 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 to 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 foreknow 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 an error on Dr. Badawi's part. Secondly, 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, in fact, no. The reference I read, it says the Greek term in Exodus is different.

It is ho -on, not ego -aimi, 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.

He had used 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 ego -aimi ho -on, 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 did Jews do when they heard

Jesus say these words? They picked up stones to stone him. They understood exactly the meaning of Jesus' words.