Inconsistency of Islamic Apologists

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 afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line if I sound strange well, that's not overly unusual, but we are coming to you via Skype and I don't really have a whole lot of trust in the system today.

I'm using my little portable modem to to get through on Skype and so you may hear a few of those what we call max headroom moments where the the voice over internet protocol. Sort of makes me sound a little bit strange, but we will do our best and I'll sort of keep an eye on the chat channel as to how we're doing as far as that goes.

I'm coming to you from the mountains of Colorado, which may have something to do with that. Especially when clouds float by and things like that when you're at this type of an altitude. I don't know but it's good to be with you today Lord willing.

We will be with you at the same time on Friday. I know these are unusual days, but when you travel that's just you do what you what you can arrange and We're gonna try to do a program at the same time on Friday as well this time from down in a place called evergreen.

So we will see how that works out and we'll just do the best that we can before I get to the main topic today and Reviewing something. I just recently listened to Yesterday we were driving through the the mountains and The vice president of the ministry was telling me about something that I then encountered in the internet itself and I I just couldn't do anything else until I discussed this particular issue and I'll put the modem back where it belongs there.

Hopefully it just sort of fell down. I want to keep as close to a window as I can to Keep the keep the signal strong. But anyway I'm just absolutely taken aback by what is going on in our culture today.

Some of you most of you probably I guess I was behind because I was traveling but most of you have Heard about the situation that has developed in regards to Brad Pitt's mother now. You know, she looks like a real nice lady.

But Evidently, she penned a letter to the editor of her local newspaper, Missouri's Springfield news leader now just let me get stopped for a moment the Springfield news leader I mean does anyone really need to get overly upset about what appears in in the Springfield news leader?

But anyway and she is a conservative and she was advocating support for Mitt Romney and she referred to him as a family man with high morals business experience and then Then she made a mistake. At least a mistake for anyone related to anyone in Hollywood, I guess because she said who is against abortion and shares Christian conviction concerning homosexuality and Then she said any Christian who does not vote or writes in a name or is casting a vote for Romney's opponent Barack Hussein Obama a man who sat in Jeremiah's rights church for years.

Did not hold a public ceremony to mark the National Day of Prayer. And as a liberal who supports the killing of unborn babies and same-sex marriage I hope all Christians give their vote prayerful consideration because voting is a sacred privilege and a serious responsibility.

Now, what do you think she's gotten for saying that? For saying what a large number of people I mean isn't isn't it a fact that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. He uses that when speaking to Muslim audiences for some odd reason, but no one else can mention that.

Is it not true that he sat in Jeremiah's right rights church for many years? He did. Is it not the case that he was one of the if I recall correctly as a state senator? It was one of the few that voted against a ban on partial birth abortion.

I mean partial birth abortion. That's just that's just. That's I can't even begin. The Nazis never thought of partial birth abortion. I mean, that's just beyond them. It's an amazing thing and I think I saw something on television just recently wasn't that Barack Obama?

Supporting the redefinition of marriage. I think so. I think a lot of people saw that in fact, we played his comments here on this program, so in other words everything she said was factual and. And evidently the bad thing is she is on the wrong side of the cultural divide if you relate to anybody in Hollywood the backlash has been absolutely amazing the the list of insults that I have seen the the death threats the Just just the complete vituperation.

That marks the the kind of responses. Should remind us of Times in the past there were these guys called the brown shirts in the 1930s in Germany and their their preferred way of political dialogue was Intimidation shouting people down not not meaningful argumentation.

They weren't challenging anybody to a debate. They just walk up to you and put your lights out and It seems we've got a lot of people like that in our society these days. But no one can say anything about it because they are the cultural elites.

I Wonder what it's like to be Brad Pitt's mother at a time like this it is an amazing thing to consider that in a society such as ours this kind of of behavior is not. You know, I'm not saying those people should be shut down I mean, I think threatening someone's life obviously is is something that should be looked into but the kind of profanity and vulgarity that was that was Centered direction that tells you much more about the people that are using it than it does about her by a long shot.

But what's concerning is one side in society in the media is given a pass on that. That's okay. Could you imagine if some other Hollywood stars mother had come out and said something on the other side and If someone had responded the way these people respond to Brad Pitt's mother, can you imagine?

We'd have Nightline versions and special editions of 60 minutes and and I mean it would just it would just be unbelievable. But you're not gonna get that today. Because one side in the spectrum gets to say pretty much whatever it wants as long as it's on those particular subjects and it is absolutely Amazing, of course, I just looked in chat channel and found someone quoting me I wonder what it's like to be Brad Pitt's mother and quote quote and then James White so it's helpful when people are listening to exactly what the point of your of your of your assertion actually is and then Then they then they then they miss it.

But anyway The the cultural stuff I'm gonna have to put to the side. I have a lot of stuff to try to cover today and We have a regular length dividing line and who knows what I'll need to address come Come Friday new things that have have developed but The one thing I want to get into just before we sort of take a look we're gonna sort of be pushing things a little bit.

I'm gonna be playing a sound file and Normally this works but the the sound file isn't the best quality and so Put that across Skype and everything else and you're gonna you're gonna have to listen a little bit more closely than I think.

You're accustomed to listening. But hopefully that that will work out. I Am I have often expressed my concern at the fact that When we engage in dialogue with Muslims around the world That there is a a clear Evidence and in fact, I would I would argue necessary Double standard that rears its head over and over and over again The very first debate that I did with Shabir Ali I used the phrase and have used it many times since then that Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument and I was using that in regards to the fact that should be Raleigh will use one worldview.

He will use a secular materialistic naturalistic worldview and and the associated scholarship to attack the New Testament and he will allow the New Testament to be torn up into little shreds and and and This part portion of the book of John is put against that portion of the book of John and all that kind of stuff he's he's very much in favor of doing all that, but should anyone suggest that you look at the Quran and Ask the question well, you know really is.

Is is the Quran a consistent document does it have a history. Let's let's start applying these same Theoretical principles of the people that you cite all the time regards the New Testament. Let's apply them to the Quran as well to see if your argument actually refutes your own position.

Oh, well, we're not allowed to do that the Quran is the absolute Word of God and and Muhammad had nothing to do with it so we can't look at historical context and and we can't look at the consistency of the Quran from one point to another and We can't we can't follow any Historical development over time.

We can't look at the the Meccan surahs and then look at the Medina and surahs and and see it. There's a difference between the two and you know does this have to do with the fact that Muhammad is now in part, you know is in charge of an army and No, we're not allowed to do any of that.

Whereas any kind of theory no matter how far-fetched it might be is fair game. For those on the Islamic side in their attacks upon the New Testament there is a group centered in London, but they have Representatives around the world.

In fact Abdullah Kunda is their Australian representative down down there but the Muslim debate initiative is An organization. I'll be engaging a couple of their gentlemen in Debate in London and They they call for open honest dialogue and that's a good thing and We have engaged them a number of times and they have.

They have been good debates and they've been helpful debates and I hope that that that continues on. One of their debaters is named Paul Belal Williams. He is a former Christian. Or of course he claims that I'm not getting into the theological issues of that particular subject at the moment, but I met him when I debated Adnan Rashid and I think I don't know what the situation is now but I I think That at that time Adnan was that may have even been before MDI came into existence.

So I won't I won't even make any comment as that because I know that there's somewhat of a split there right now so in any case I've met him. He's Moderated a couple of debates that I've done over there but I had actually written a few months ago hoping that he would debate me on the subject of Surah 4 157 and the historicity of the crucifixion because I think there are a few topics that Demonstrate the disconnection of Islamic theology from the field of history better than Surah 4 157 and its denial of the historicity of the crucifixion and As it's my understanding that I Believe Sami Sami's artery has agreed to debate me on that particular subject, but I specifically invited Paul Williams to debate that particular issue, but he declined.

My understanding is that the day before yesterday a debate was held in London I have not had a chance to hear it yet. But I've seen some of the comments that have been posted in regards to this debate and it was on the subject of the deity of Christ and In essence what what Paul Williams and Shabir Ali and what we've been listening to and listening to Abdullah Kunda in his debate with Samuel Greene from Australia just a few months ago.

It's very very similar. The approach basically is this You undercut any? Testimonies to the deity of Christ from the New Testament that come from the book of John by basically stating that the book of John is Historically unreliable and you can go to all sorts of quote-unquote Christian scholars Who will tell you that John's a spiritual gospel or that John is is?

So completely different from the synoptics. There's no way to harmonize John or or things like this. And so what they'll do is they'll they'll they'll take people Who have a perspective? that looks at divine revelation in the abstract and demands the right to separate out elements of that revelation and Put them at odds with other elements of that revelation.

So they demand the right to to cut the New Testament up into pieces even cut the same author up into pieces and Place them at odds with one another So that they can then say well We really don't necessarily need to view this as historical or many of them, especially since they are liberal scholars are attempting to make spiritualized applications But do not want to affirm that there is anything historical in regards to The nature of John's gospel or really many will go for for all of the Gospels themselves.

My concern is that and my understanding is that Paul Williams Did this in the debate on the deity of Christ as well. And that doesn't surprise me having listened to many of the lectures and things that MDI has been has been putting out.

And this is nothing new this really began in in its modern form back in the 1800s in India when a Muslim scholar Began to utilize the German rational critical material that had been developing for over a hundred years at that time.

The tubing in school and pleat, you know material like that Against the missionaries there in India and most most missionaries weren't exactly taught in German liberalism at that particular point in time.

And so it was a very effective thing. And in fact, I would I would say That has been what has made Shabir Ali and others so effective is that most apologists have not been exposed to liberalism and hence have not had to work through The worldview issues the consistency issues historical issues the liberalism raises.

I've said a number of times sometimes you don't know why the Lord puts you through things until you are way down the road from that particular point in time, but I I Due to being poor as a church mouse and The the fact that my wife became pregnant with our first child had to stay in the Phoenix area and the only place I could go to seminary was Fuller Theological Seminary and While I had a number of professors from Grand Canyon College where I had done my undergraduate work Still I had a number from the main campus and who were Way to my left as far as their view of scripture and their view of many things.

And so I I really had to study Liberalism and it wasn't enjoyable and I had some people say that I shouldn't be doing that. You know you I think John MacArthur has said seminary should not be a battleground well, you know maybe but that was the situation that I was put in and so I've had to you know, I've had to deal with liberalism and I understand the liberal mindset and I I know where the presuppositional issues come in and that's what Really makes me concerned and I'm not sure that concerned is the right the right term, but it really upsets me that Islamic apologists who affirm Orthodox Islamic belief and when I say that I'm not talking here about liberal Muslims who would spiritualize the Quran spiritualize Muhammad In essence Westernize completely The historical claims of the Islamic faith.

I'm talking about people who would claim to be Orthodox Sunni or maybe even Orthodox Shiite Muslims and Hence they they believe the Quran has eternally existed. They believe that what they have in the Quran today is exactly as it was dictated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel That The miracles recorded therein many of these would many of these folks would believe All of them I take that back.

All of them would believe in Muhammad's night flight That he rode a Beast to Jerusalem and then ascended into heaven and he went through all the levels of heaven and he's met the various peoples and prophets and so on so forth and All of that they were they would believe actually took place historically.

And They would actually believe that Jesus either said or will say The words that are attributed to him in the text of the Quran. And yet at the same time they would embrace the most destructive forms of criticism in regards to the New Testament and Not realize that to do both at the same time is To involve yourself in an irreconcilable contradiction because none of the scholars that they like to quote Would ever agree with them that The words attributed to Jesus for example Spoken from his cradle and Recorded for us in the Quran That there is any Basis for believing that Jesus actually said those words and in fact those same skies.

There's a there's a story very similar to this. It's it's in the Arabic infancy gospel and Since other parts of the Arabic infancy gospel and the infancy gospel of Thomas and there's all these sources that That show up in the Quran.

Then clearly you must believe that those are the preceding sources and that this is where Muhammad got this stuff from right to which they will say no and So they will not apply The methodology to their own book that they will very gladly apply uncritically to the New Testament.

Let me give you an example and this is going to be a part of the book. I hope it's going to be a part of the book because the book's getting longer than it should be and so I'm not sure We'll see but What I want to do is include a section.

And Ah, I just saw a link come up. Thank you Monty. I haven't found any recordings. Yeah, I haven't found the recordings yet either. I'm sure that as soon as they're available. It was only July 9th, so It takes us time to get stuff posted to but as soon as it's up.

I can guarantee you I will have it on my iPod and we'll be Listening to it with great interest but anyway, one of the one of the chapters that I want to include in the book is a comparison of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of John with the fifth surah of the Quran.

Now, why would I do that? I was in the numbers of the same. Well, there's there's a number of reasons. Primarily because surah 5 is In my opinion surahs 4 5 Are the two most important surahs in the Quran in regards to what the Quran teaches about Christianity?

Since the Quran comes 600 years after the birth of Christ and after the founding of the Christian Church. Then it's important for Christians to understand what the Quran says about us about the Allah and Jill the Allah Kitab, the people of books, the people of the gospel and I truly believe that a fair reading of surah 5 reveals certain things about the author's understanding of what it is Christians believe.

I debated Bassam Zawadi on that subject in London a few years ago and Abdullah Al-Andalusi wants to revisit the very same topic in a debate coming up in September. Which I find interesting it's sort of it is somewhat of a parallel to The year what year was that was that it was 2000 if I recall correctly.

When within about six months, I debated Tim Staples in California and then Robert St. Genes in Florida interestingly enough on the right and left coast far far away from each other on the subject of papal infallibility and they presented Completely contradictory in different ways of defending papal infallibility same dogma and one of the illustrations was Staples tried to defend the orthodoxy of one of the Popes and St. Genes said he was a heretic.

So you had it you had 180 degree difference there, so I'm I'm not sure exactly how Abdullah's approach will be different. He had sent me an article a number of years ago now. And if he's finished that article, I would appreciate seeing the rest of it.

I wouldn't want to go on something that he himself said hadn't been edited and wasn't ready to go yet. So I'd appreciate if you would send that to me, but anyway It was interesting to see the differences there and now evidently there's differences on how to approach this.

But the point again being that surah five I think is is one of the most important surahs. The the people of the gospel are directly addressed. The people the book are directly addressed. We were told not to say three.

Who are the three. All these things I think are extremely important and. So looking at that surah would be very important then to compare that with John 5. John 5 is Of course from the Gospel of John.

Muslims were always say the Gospel of John is a historical. It's not ground in history Etc etc, but it's also one that they will quote all the time. Which I've always found interesting. They will quote Jesus's words.

I can do nothing except what I see the father doing. I can do nothing of myself. I've never had one of those Muslims explain Off hey, I'll to to me the phrase from myself. And I would be very interested in hearing what Paul Williams would say about something like that.

Even though I do not believe that he's actually functionally Greek literate at that point. But be that as it may. It's its relevance is Very important in regards to the deity of Christ and then you can sort of compare there.

They're similar in length of Sir, if I would be a little longer. But they're similar in length. Similar topics and so by comparing them. I think it would be very useful. Because I could point out that whereas surah 5 116 quotes The words of Jesus in response to Allah prophetically in the future.

Remember the text Allah says to Jesus. Did you say to men worship me and and my mother as gods and derogation of Allah? Well those words allegedly haven't been spoken yet, but they will be spoken in the Day of Judgment so the Muslim will accept a Prophetic claim of this is what's going to be said in the future and this is going to be Jesus's response.

Written by someone who never knew Jesus. Oh well. But they would say he did because in the Quran he met Jesus. Jesus was in the second level the seven levels of heaven. I think it was the second level.

I'm going off top my head. He certainly wasn't in the highest level. They'll accept that. But then they'll say but the words of Jesus of John chapter 5 are too fanciful for us to believe. Now nothing about that for just a moment.

You have someone writing in Arabic Who's never been to Jerusalem? Except in a flying there on a beast with wings and then going from there to heaven which Even the earliest Muslims seem to think was more of a dream or a vision than actual reality.

But the point is he didn't claim to you know, be intimately familiar with Jerusalem. He certainly wasn't there during Jesus's lifetime. He's writing in a different language 600 years later and he's giving a prophetic perspective as to what's going to be going on in the future.

They'll accept that. But then you look at the gospel of John. It is right now our earliest attested gospel that may change. But only for the good in the sense that as some of you know Dan Wallace and others are telling us that within less than a year now actually half a year We will be seeing the the book coming out documenting the finding of these new manuscript papyri these papyri manuscripts which will make mark the earliest attested gospel and Then Luke sort of tied with John as far as right around the same time as p52 the current earliest Papyri manuscript we have which comes from John chapter 18 from around 125 ad but be as it may right now it is the Currently earliest and certainly with I think still remain most widely attested gospel of the four.

It clearly is a gospel written by someone intimately familiar with 1st-century Jerusalem. This is why I'd like maybe someone in channel to look up. It may be difficult to find. But I have linked in the past to an Excellent discussion.

I have it on my system here. The problem is I don't remember where I got it. But it was an excellent discussion on the truth of the scriptures and the variety of the scriptures. The veracity of the scriptures.

I'm sorry by four Oxford Cambridge scholars from England, I think I Think dr. Jones is a part of it. Pete I'd be a Peter Jones. I think was the first speaker as I recall and then Dirk Junkin spoke and there are a total of four and Especially that first presentation is So important I think for Christians to understand today in light of the fact that We can't stick our heads in the sand anymore we have to deal with the kinds of attacks that are being made upon the New Testament and What he did is he drew from the work of Richard Balcombe and others Who engaged in this tedious work tedious work of examining the names on?

The bone boxes that were being discovered in and around Jerusalem and being cataloged and Discovered that when you take the Gospels and you look at the Relative frequency of names in the Gospels as they represent the people who were alive in the days of Jesus and Then you compare that with the bone boxes.

In other words completely secular, you know I was not secular outside of the New Testament data the percentages are almost identical to one another it's fascinating that They knew exactly what names were being used and exactly the proportion that they were being used in as well and then the fact that they used these names and Because for example Mary Was such an incredibly common name.

They would differentiate. I mean if you're walking down the road and you shout out Mary. About 29 to 33 percent of the women are gonna turn around look at you because that's just the way that it worked and so they used means of differentiating when they were talking about someone they would say Mary wife of Cleopas or Mary from such-and-such a city.

And if you had to differentiate within your conversation, that is how you would do that. But the problem is now you have to know all these place names. And the Gospels are filled with place names. Now think about this for just a moment.

If someone was writing say the Gospel of John from Egypt all right, and They're writing Let's say 20 -30 years after Jerusalem's actually been destroyed. That the Roman the Roman legions have come through and have you know wiped everything out.

There's refugees all over the place and and so put yourself in a situation do it do a thought experiment here for example I'm up in Colorado. And so I'm Let's see. It was 654 miles if I recall correctly, maybe rich can confirm this and rich I can't see stuff in the in the Skype window.

So you'd have to do it in channel, but if I recall correctly, it was 654 miles. From Phoenix to Salt Lake City and. So I figured being up here in Colorado, okay I'm probably around 800 700 about 700 miles.

Okay. I just got just got confirmation from my host here. We're about 700 miles from from from Phoenix. Guess how far? Mecca is from Jerusalem. It's about 750 miles about the same distance. Now I live in a day with the Internet and all sorts of things but guess what I Did not know until I drove across I -70 the exact physical relationship between Vail Avon and Edwards.

Okay, even though I live within 700 miles. I Could have googled it. But put yourself in a day before your ability to do that, how much would you know? Given that most people never traveled anywhere near that far.

How much would you know? About place names of Small villages and things like that of a place that's 700 miles removed from where you live. What would be the possibility of? Someone living in Egypt. Being able to not only get the percentage of names right because by the way the names Amongst this is this was a fascinating point that dr. Jones brought up the names amongst the Jews in first century Judaism in Egypt Were very different percentage wise than the names amongst the Jews in Jerusalem in first century.

So if even if you were a Jewish person writing in Egypt and You were trying to project this as being in Jerusalem. You'd still get the names wrong you'd still get the names wrong and so There's so much evidence that when you look at the New Testament What you're looking at comes from the days of Jesus and it was written by someone who knew That area at that time knew that culture totally unlike the Quran.

Totally unlike the Quran. Someone's asking is was it Peter Williams? It might have been Peter Williams. It's definitely Dirk Junkin and Simon Gaffer Cole was there as well. You're you're correct about that.

So I think you're getting close there. As to who is the speakers? Maybe Peter Williams was the first speaker. That's that's possibility. Anyways looks like Some folks in channel have found where that particular that particular lectures found so the point is there's all this evidence of the veracity and historical foundation of The New Testament documents that honestly we did not have Only 20 or 30 years ago because no one had gone through the bone boxes.

No one had gone through the names the data was sort of sitting around. But can you imagine how boring it was to go through all that stuff? Now we can demonstrate The the historical connection for all of these things and and Demonstrate that Monty just posted in in a channel that apologetics 315 calm has the mp3 listed search under our New Testament Gospels reliable and you should be able to pull it up from there there's also a tapes from scotland .org has it as well and So I Posted this I said this morning.

I listened the second time to three and a half hour seminar recorded in Scotland I believe in Edinburgh the presenters Were Peter J. Williams Drake Duncan and Simon Gaffer. Okay. There you go. And So maybe I'll if turrets and fan if what you could do for me sir is repost that then that'll that'll make everybody happy and you'll get to listen to it a another time anyway.

All of that to go back to the contrast between John chapter 5 Which is placed in history. What's the beginning of John chapter 5 the healing of the man by the pool of Bethesda and What have we found in Jerusalem only the past hundred years the pool of Bethesda and what did the Gospel of John say it had five porticoes and When we dug it up, guess what five porticoes in other words, it has been archaeologically Located the Gospel of John places the specific conversation the specific miracle and what results from that in a historical Context and It could historical context that we have been able to verify now you keep that in mind and Compare that to what you have in Surah 5.

There's there's no historical foundation. There's no Ability to place the statements of surah 5 and The condemnations of Christian belief in any type of historical context whatsoever so That's a lot of things that I want to I want to be writing in the book about.

It's something that I would challenge the MDI gentleman to really think about. I know that your audience loves it when you use our liberals and Use our Unbelievers and Your your audience really likes that but I'm just asking a simple question How consistent is it?

And I keep looking for that first Consistent Islamic apologist who will use the same worldview to defend his faith. That he will use in attacking mine. I've not met that person yet and So anyways, I wasn't gonna talk about that that long.

I apologize. But sometimes I get it in especially when you're writing a book you start talking about what you're writing about and it goes on forever. According to my little clock here we have about 20 minutes left that is enough time for me to start listening to this.

There was a debate That took place I don't have the date here, but it was within the past couple of weeks. Between David Wood and Sami Zatari. Sami Zatari is one of the MDI fellows The Muslim debate initiative fellows and he was in the United States and they did a number of debates and this one was set up pretty quickly, I Wanted to again since I'm not I'm not dropping the response to Abdullah but since I'm traveling and the quality of the recording of Abdullah's debate and I know Abdullah listens and Especially due to Abdullah's accent and Abdullah doesn't think he has when I know but again I just didn't think playing that.

Given my setup here while I'm traveling would work. I'd have to be repeating everything he said so we'll go back to that when we have the opportunity and I'm back in the In Phoenix, but you're still gonna have to listen even with this.

What I want to listen to is specifically the rebuttal periods. Specifically from Sami Zatari. Because I was a little taken aback again, and it's because after a number of years my assumption is that those who are seeking to really understand the position they're denying will will more accurately express objections against it and That's what I'm looking for from from all Islamic apologists, and of course, that's that's really what you should see from Christian apologists interacting with Muslims as well.

There should be growth on our part. There should be growth on my part. I mean, you know I continue to listen to lectures and and read the the Hadith literature and the study of the Quran and and hopefully my understanding increases and The accuracy of the argumentation that I present increases as well.

If it's not I think there's there's somewhat of a problem there. But in the rebuttal period it's there there were things that came up. From From Sammy's presentation that I found really problematic and I wanted to respond to so in the last 10 12 minutes or so here.

We have some so Sammy's arteries at least unless I have clicked on something. One of the problems is when you're doing this while traveling. I only have a 15 inch screen on my MacBook Pro. And that means there's a bunch of stuff here and sometimes when you're moving things around especially with sound files you make a mistake, but let's let's see if we can Get to Sammy's rebuttal period here and interact with him came to me Jesus when he was a little baby.

Did they say where was God? Okay, I see what it did, all right, let's go back here and try that. And it doesn't want to do that either. I'm just gonna remove that and let's try it again. Okay, I got it here now one of the arguments I need to give you some background one of the arguments that David would had made was that if Jesus is as the Quran presents him.

Then he was a failure. Why because in the first century you don't find any of his followers being Muslims. The the earliest evidence in the New Testament and then outside the New Testament is That the followers of Jesus believe in the crucifixion they believe in the resurrection.

They call Jesus courios Lord the very Greek term is used in the Greek Septuagint as the the replacement for the name of Yahweh. The the earliest enemies of the Christian faith described them as singing hymns to Christ as to a god and and.

And so on and so forth. And so if if Jesus had meant to teach his disciples to be Muslims He failed. Because that's not what they were. And so that's what David had said. And so here's Sammy's response to that.

So Sammy's response that is well I'm a pure monotheist. So Jesus didn't fail but as David will point out Sammy's not a Muslim because of Jesus and David's point was we need to look at the first century or at least the first century first say up to 8130 because Jesus died somewhere between 30 and 33.

So that first that first century. That's when he dies. And so Where are the Muslims in that time period where are the true followers of Jesus who to use Sammy's language are pure Monotheists, there's no evidence of their worshipping Jesus referring to him as courios praying in his name.