Reply to FaceBook Critic

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 at 602 -973 -4602 or toll -free across the

United States, it's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now with today's topic, here is

James White. You know that voiceover is so old, it's starting to jump. It's at 333 -341.

We have to record some of those, like, you know, Colin Smith keeps whining that we talk about cassettes, tracks, and tapes at the end of each program.

And we haven't made cassettes, tracks, and tapes available for ever. It's MP3s and DVDs and CDs and MP4s and all that kind of stuff.

But yes, but I don't think anyone would allow us to change the Steve Camp opening. That's absolutely necessary.

But anyway, hey, a special program today. We're going for, going for a cough, going for 90 minutes till 1230 our time and then right at the end of the program.

If you know, sort of like those movie trailers where they say, keep watching because after all the trailers, there's some thing like what was that movie recently had something like that.

Oh, the Thor, the Thor thing. After after the things on Thor, there is this thing that was tied into the

Avengers or something. And, oh, there was something in Captain America. Yes, I know. I know. I know. Anyway, that's sort of like what we're going to be doing because after Rich gets done talking about stuff we no longer make available anymore, cassettes and tapes and things like that, which we don't even have, do we even still have our tape duplicators?

No, we don't have our tape duplicators. So it's, it's actually a form of false advertising. So just I'd mentioned that, you know, maybe we might want to redo those.

But anyway, after that happens, stay tuned and you'll be able to listen to the

Janet Mefford show, at least a portion of the Janet Mefford show, the part that I'll be on.

And what we'll be discussing is Rick Warren's association with Muslims in Southern California.

And in particular, the document that they have written up, which

I would like to have if someone, by the way, has a link in channel to the actual document, I couldn't find it.

Didn't have a whole lot of time to look for it. But if someone in the channel can give me the actual document, if it's been posted someplace,

I'd like to have that because all I have are the newspaper write ups on it and quotes from it in the newspaper.

But the document they've written, which in essence says Muslims and Christians worship the same

God and we should not proselytize one another while engaged in this cooperation together.

And so Janet's producer called me yesterday and said, Janet, we'd love to have you on to talk about this.

And I would love to talk about this because, hey, it's an important issue. Look, the issue of cooperation, when you represent a small minority in a culture that is under persecution by the culture, we cannot avoid thinking about this.

And I think it's avoiding thinking about this. That is resulting in a lot of the problems that we have today, we got to think about it.

You know, one of the things I really appreciated when I spoke personally to Sheikh Yasir Qadhi and I was talking to him,

I want him to write a book with me, but it didn't work out. But one of the things we did talk about was he said, well,

James, one chapter we would have to include if we were to do this is when we get done talking about the trinity and Tawheed and all the rest of this stuff.

What it fundamentally comes down to is I believe you're going to hell and you believe I'm going to hell. Now, what do we do? And I really appreciated that honesty.

And I think the only way that Muslims and Christians can develop a relationship is if honesty and forthrightness and fidelity to our faiths are the first thing right out there.

They're not on the table to be negotiated. They are the first things we are going to affirm.

We're going to make sure the other person knows, hey, I believe you need to know what

I know and believe what I believe. And then we can have discussion about what our differences are and make sure everybody knows what our differences are.

And any cooperation has to be. Defined by our being truthful to our own faith,

I'm not going to ask them to stop being truthful to their faith, and I'm not going to be and they're not

I'm going to ask them not to ask me to be truthful to mine. And then we can have meaningful conversation, but I'm not going to write and I'm not going to write a paper that says you and I worship the same

God. I realize that when you look at the Koran. And the

Koranic claims the author of the Koran believes that Jews, Christians and Muslims are all claiming to worship.

The God of Abraham, right, but the Muslim immediately has to say, yeah, but there's this thing, you know, you've you've you've engaged in excess.

To allu, you have this excess, you've gone beyond in your religion what is true about Allah, say only what is true about Allah is what

I think it's surah four, surah four, surah five, one of the two. And so you're you're actually saying things that are not true about Allah.

So while we. Acknowledge that we're all trying to talk about the

God of Abraham, the fact of the matter is you are not worshipping God the way

God demands to be worshipped, you are not worshipping him in Tawhid. And so you

Christians are wrong. And of course, the Christian says. The Jew and the

Muslim steps back away from the fullness of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. And as such, since God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ in a unique way to deny that revelation is to deny

God's own revelation of oneself, you can't go back once God has done what he's done in the incarnation, the outpouring of the

Holy Spirit to go back is to call God a liar, call

God a liar, a liar. I mean, it's these are strong words, but we got to understand it. And if you'll be open about those things and put those things out on the table to be the foundation of discussion, not something,

OK, we're going to put these over to the side and we're not going to talk about we're just going to say we all worship the same

God and everything's wonderful. Well, that is not a foundation for anything.

And that's what we'll be talking about on The Jam Effort Show, and that'll start. You'll hear my end.

In other words, you'll get to hear the pretty calm music during the breaks. It puts me to sleep every time.

And then you'll just hear my end of things. And that'll be for just half an hour after the program's over.

And of course, you won't hear that if you're listening on the podcast. So all that's irrelevant. But you can then catch

The Jam Effort Show online if you want to hear how all that went. OK. So.

Today, I must, must, must, must complete my response to Wajdi Akhri.

However, I only have seven minutes, eight minutes of material to go through and there were questions and answers, so I will not have to be stopping, starting, stopping, starting.

So it's not going to take me all that long to get through that. I figure I'm going to have some time. I first want to deal with something from Facebook.

Dun, dun, dun. Rich just passed out of the room. Hey, Probie, can you do some

CPR? Rich is out. I mentioned Facebook. Yes. OK. And LaShawn Barber just came in the channel.

We all need to. Shall we all stand up and salute? Oh, clear. OK, you got to start it.

All right, good. Thank you very much. Where did you learn to do that? Engineering school? Great. Wonderful. We won't worry about the burns that you left on him, but that's

OK. It's OK. You all had fun with that. Anyways, yes, LaShawn Barber has come into channel and that means that we've hit the big time when

LaShawn comes in channel and we know the the important people have arrived. Dun, dun, dun.

Anyways, I want to talk about something that happened on Facebook that I didn't see and Rich didn't see.

Actually, you can't see this conversation. And it was sent to me and it was sent to me with permission of the people involved.

So this isn't something we snuck in someplace. This comes from as far as I can understand, it comes from the

United Kingdom, which may explain a lot of this, to be honest with you. It was a fellow by the name of John Jeffries.

James Hogg suggested to John Jeffries, they listened to, I believe it was the sermon that I preached

Sunday evening, I preached two sermons, actually three sermons. The last three meetings of the

Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, I've been the one who has spoken. That's normally what happens at the end of the month.

I I do the Wednesday night and the Sunday and on Wednesday night,

I spoke on Psalm twelve, eight. And how evil men strut about when that which is vile is honored amongst men and how in a society.

When when that which is vile is not honored amongst men, then evil men hide and lurk in the shadows doesn't mean evil men stop doing evil things, but they they do not revel in their evil things, they keep it hidden.

But a sure sign of the of the degradation of a society is.

To be found when the society becomes so. Degraded morally and ethically.

That evil men begin to strut about all you have to do, you might have to turn off some of your pornography filters.

But I have to do is look for video of gay pride marches in San Francisco or other places like that to find out the kind of public indecency, perversion and immorality that take place on the city streets in the

United States of America and all over the world, actually. And evil men strut about when that which is vile is honored amongst men.

That's a scriptural text. I discussed it, made application. That was Wednesday night, Sunday morning.

I spoke from Matthew chapter 19. And Jesus is teaching on marriage and his going back to the creation ordinance, the fact that God created maleness and female maleness, the perverse activity of of sex change operations, transgenderism, all the stuff that's going on.

It is a direct rebellion against God and his ways.

There is no question of this. It is a mechanism of perversion.

And I then addressed primarily the issue of marriage and Jesus' teaching on the subject and how the profanation, the blaspheming of marriage, which people are calling same -sex marriage, which is an oxymoron that makes as much sense as a circular square or a square circle.

It is a violation of the definition of the word. How that profanation of marriage is a sign of God's judgment and is wickedness and how we should think about it and how we should be prepared to respond to it.

Then Sunday evening, to make it the trifecta, I spoke from Genesis chapter 19 and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and went through and in the process, since that was one of the chapters that I specifically wrote for the same -sex controversy a number of years ago, went through the various revisionist ideas, the means of getting around that.

Daniel Helminiak and other people who have written pro -homosexual books and tried to explain away what

Genesis 19 is actually saying, that it actually has nothing to do with homosexuality and only has to do with gang rape or it only has to do with lack of hospitality or whatever.

And so those were the three sermons. And my understanding is that Mr. Hogg had suggested the

Sunday night sermon. Maybe it was a Sunday morning sermon. I couldn't tell from this. Now, Mr.

Jeffreys is a Christian. In fact, Mr. Jeffreys is involved in ministry in a church.

And when I read his comments, I was amazed. Then I started thinking about the fact, well, this is the

United Kingdom and the United Kingdom has even more serious problems than we do when it comes to the fact that the

Christian worldview, a specifically Christian worldview that is based upon biblical parameters and biblical revelation that is not determined by cultural.

The biblical worldview is very much in the minority in the United Kingdom in these days.

And much of what even is represented as Christianity is deeply, deeply compromised when it comes to these very issues.

There is a fundamental embarrassment on the part of many in the

United Kingdom to say boldly, God has spoken and his word is true.

Because then you have to live in light of that, and that means there are certain things that have become just absolutely accepted in British culture that you're going to have to say that's wrong.

And British culture says you can't say it's wrong if you say it's wrong. We will marginalize you and we will penalize you.

And that's what's coming here as well. There's no question the elites in Western culture want the

United States to be neutered just like Europe and the United Kingdom have been along these lines.

But some of the things Mr. Jeffrey said, I've contacted, well, I sent a

Facebook message to him and let him know that, yes, I will be responding to what he said on the program here.

And I never saw anything back. Did you? Nothing has come back? Okay, well, we tried. And I think

Mr. Hogg said he was going to let him know as well. So we'll see. The first comment that really got my attention.

Well, let me actually go back a little bit farther here. I need to scroll through these. The first comment that got my attention,

Mr. Jeffrey says, you can't even speak about these things in a meaningful fashion, says Dr. White. And he is right.

He certainly can't. So I guess that was a statement that I can't speak on these things in a meaningful way.

And I would simply invite people to listen to the sermons. By the way, there was never in any of these comments anything brought up that was biblical.

In other words, well, I think he misunderstood this or he missed the context here. Nothing about that at all.

And you're not normally going to get that from those who have capitulated to the world's way of thinking.

It's what. OK, so that may be what the Bible says, but you just don't get the message. You just don't seem to understand is how they do that.

Then this is the one that the next comment is a comment that. Caused me to want to respond to this.

I am sure we could just substitute the word black for gay and that exactly the same sermon was being preached across the

South in the 1960s. Now, that is offensive on so many levels that it's it's it's hard to believe.

A lot of people will be offensive when they think that their words will never be seen by the person that they are skewering.

I mean, that's that's just insulting. And I would point out to Mr.

Jeffries, I am an elder in Christ Church, and the Bible says that unless you have a basis for bringing accusation, that you are not to do exactly what you just did there.

So that is sin and I would call you to repent of it. First thing. Secondly, it's an absurd statement, absolutely absurd statement.

LeSean, I'm not going to go into the details of this, but I'm going to say it's John Barber mentioned on Twitter this morning how offended she is and she's black.

How offended she is when these issues of sexual choices and sexual behavior are made parallel with being able to have an equal standing before the law, i .e.

civil rights. But folks, this this this has been bought by so many in the younger generation that it is just tragic.

It is tragic that so many people in the younger generation—it's the younger generation that's going to cave in on this, and it's the younger generation that's going to suffer for this.

That's why I address Sunday morning my sermon primarily to the younger generation, those between 12 and 25.

If you have someone, if you know someone between 12 and 25, may I encourage you, have them listen to the sermons

I preached on Sunday, especially Sunday morning when I talked about homosexual marriage, that oxymoron.

By the way, both—actually, all three of those sermons, if I recall, are posted in a row on the

Facebook page. OK. So just boom, boom, boom, and it links to Sermon Audio. OK, good.

They're all available. They're on the blog, they're on the Facebook page, they're on Sermon Audio. I mean, you know, if someone wants to know where I stand on things, it'd be really, really easy to know where I stand on things.

But anyway, the younger generation has bought this argument that your rejection of God's created order, your perversion of the gift of sex, your violation of God's law, your use of exits as if they're entrances, that that somehow is the same thing.

As the melanin count, the melatonin count in your skin, which comes from how you're born, they've bought that.

They accept it. They think there's a parallel. There is no parallel.

And how anyone can say, oh, I minister the Bible to people.

I minister as a Christian. Well, then where did you get that from? The Bible? No one could rationally, if Mr.

Jeffries is around, dividing that line via Skype or something, fire it up. If he wants to,

I would love to invite him to defend these statements against the one who made them.

He's made accusations against the minister of the gospel. If he's a minister of the gospel, maybe he would like to dialogue with me.

And defend these statements, I think it would be worthwhile. For people to hear the clash of worldviews, because it would be a secular worldview versus a

Christian worldview. But be that as it may, it is offensive to black, especially

Christian blacks, to make that kind of a statement. And it's also absurd because no one could possibly make an argument against treating blacks as humans based upon the

Bible. Mr. Jeffries, where does the Bible identify blackness as Toeva, an abomination in God's sight?

Where is the parallel to Leviticus 18 or Leviticus chapter 20? Where are the stories that you have of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Where is blackness used as an example of the ultimate perversion of the created order that Paul uses it as in Romans chapter one?

Where is the parallel to First Corinthians chapter six, verses nine and following, where Paul says, and such were some of you.

There aren't any, Mr. Jeffries. And so the statement was false, sinful and absurd.

And I would suggest that you recognize it as such. Then we have, he was asked by someone else, have you read the

Bible? Yes, I have. And nowhere does it tell me I get to impose my viewpoint on others who don't share it.

We do not live in Iran. A tiny minority of which I am part does not get to use the machinery of the state to discriminate against those we just don't seem to like.

Ah. More of the way of the thinking of the world. Why do

I say that? Really simple. What we're talking about here, folks, what we're talking about is the foundation of morality by which the society is going to live.

And I would point Mr. Jeffries. To the Bible. And when the minor prophets, for example.

Bring. Tremendous. Approbation and announcement of judgment against foreign nations upon what primary basis they do so.

That those nations. Have mistreated the orphan and the widow.

That those nations have not done justice. Well, how would they even know what justice was, Mr. Jeffries?

Maybe those nations are judged by God's moral law. And God's moral law is found where in those very same texts.

That's funny. Later on, he's he's going to show that he's even bought into the bad liberal arguments that, in essence, have turned him into an antinomian.

It doesn't honor God's law, but it's not a matter of those that we don't naturally like.

Homosexuality, Mr. Jeffries, destroys life. It destroys the physical and spiritual lives of the people who engage in it.

It destroys the people around them. It destroys their families. It destroys co -workers.

And it destroys the giving of life because no two women and no two men can produce life.

They can only produce death. That's all they can do. And so it's not a matter of like.

In fact, I would say to you, Mr. Jeffries, if you really like someone who is involved in this, aren't you going to seek to do what's best for them and to call them away from that which is life destroying?

He said Jesus spoke about this a lot, particularly compared to those things he said nothing about.

I'm guessing he's probably bought into the lie, which I also identified in the sermons.

Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. That's a lie. Jesus said, if anyone teaches you to break the least these commandments, they're least in the kingdom of heaven.

He honored God's law. And in Matthew, chapter 19, when he answered the question on divorce, he went right back to that law and said, from the beginning, this is what

God's intention was. Don't you dare tell me he said nothing about homosexuality. That is an absurd statement.

He says, I find it difficult to do sharing how we can spend ourselves for the last, the least, and the lost.

That's a nice alliteration. Would be, I suspect, be a better use of a sermon.

A better use of a sermon. Well, I wonder, Mr. Jeffries, have you listened to many of my sermons?

You listen to the series through Hebrews or something like that? It sounds like, you know, it would have helped if there had been something

I had said in the sermon that you could point out that was biblically inaccurate. But you didn't point anything out biblically inaccurate.

Then he said, and interestingly, how Dr. White believes that it is constitutional for the federal government to ban people from getting married.

Now, see, he has bought the world's way of thinking, hook, line, and sinker.

The issue is the radical redefinition and destruction of marriage.

It's not banning somebody. Morality bans us from killing people.

Oh, do you think the government should ban people who find it natural to kill? Oh, that's terrible.

It bans people from having sex with little babies. It bans people from having sex with dogs and cats.

What if they say that's how God made them? Oh, that's terrible. You're suppressing their rights.

You think that's absurd. Those arguments are now being made in the public square. They're being made in the public square.

And you know that. You know that. It has nothing to do with banning people from getting married.

Every single homosexual can get married if they wanted to. They want to change what marriage is.

So you've bought it hook, line, and sinker. And so have the majority of the younger generation. And that's why they are going to lose the blessing of God upon marriage in their day.

It's deception. How Dr. White believes it is unconstitutional for the federal government to ban people getting married, but not insist that they have adequate health care coverage is mind boggling.

I don't happen to believe that it's the government's job to provide medical coverage, sir. I'm an American. And the people who wrote the

Constitution United States never, ever envisioned the

Goliath that now sucks the life and Liberty out of the life of the

American people. Never once you show me a single one of those who drafted the constitution, and I will show you a bunch of them that feared that exactly what has happened would happen.

And yes, I've read the American constitution and the bill of rights as well. I particularly liked the first amendment, but I don't think

Dr. White would. That that sinks almost below the level of even response.

I mean, that's that is not only insulting, it's just dumb. I mean, that's I mean, how else do you describe that?

I don't like the first amendment. I don't like freedom of speech. I don't like freedom of religion. Really? Honestly.

That's why we can fire up Skype all day long. We're never going to hear from Mr. Jeffries, because what you do with your fingers behind a keyboard, if the person sit in front of you, how many times have we reviewed things on this program where people have written things about me and said things about me, and then we've given them the open opportunity.

Come on, let's, let's dialogue. Let's talk about, let's go the word of God. Let's go to history. Let's go to the facts, you know, and we sit there and you sit there and pop up the phone lines and they go, and you, you know, and it's quiet as can be because the keyboard, the anonymity of the keyboard allows us to say things that we will never ever defend because they're untrue.

They're, they're just, they're untrue. And it's, um, it's a shame, uh, that Mr.

Jeffries, uh, went for this, but that's what he did. So I continue on here's where the, the, here's the real, here's his primary first and primary comment.

Respectfully, I am a born again Christian, but my opinion is just that.

My opinion, if you're born and you are speaking to issues directly addressed by the word of God, and you have done due diligence to make sure that you're not inserting your opinions into the text, you're not just coming up with some something and coming up with a pretext from the

Bible. You've looked at what the Bible says and the Bible is clear. My friend, that's not just your opinion.

And that again is the way the world thinks. That's all opinions are equal.

You know, what we're seeing here is what's coming into our culture more and more, especially in the younger generation.

All opinions are just that anything you say about homosexuality is just your opinion.

God really hasn't spoken to this matter. And of course, all the apostates out there,

John Shelby Spong, all the, the mainline denominations, which

I'm not even sure why they've ever been called mainline, but the dead denominations that are drying up and withering away, they exist to give these folks reasons.

They all say, there's lots of different opinions on this. No one really knows. It is a part of God's judgment and Western culture.

That you have so many false churches that are willing to compromise the world and deny what

God has said. There you go. Like you,

I believe the Bible is inspired by God, but that is my belief, Johnny, and of course yours too.

My belief. In other words, is it not a fact? Is it not actually objectively true?

Hmm. The point is, how can we expect the government to share that belief and act upon it?

Well, Mr. Jeffries, my statement to you is God will judge any nation that violates his law.

And if you look back over church history, if you look back over world history, why do nations rise and fall?

Have you bought into the idea that it's just because, well, that's just, just a natural thing. That's just how it is.

God has nothing to do with it. He's off on vacation to Haiti. Again, do we have the mind of Christ or do we have the mind of the world?

Do we think biblically or do we think in a worldly way? And then let's look at the Bible and try to draw some nice little parables from it, some stories from it that we can tell the kids and keep them entertained during Sunday school, but it doesn't really impact how we live.

I mean, that'd be pretty radical. Do we have the mind of Christ? Is that how Christ thought? Is that how Christ behaved?

In answer to how can we change the word of God? Well, again, respectfully, the word of God is millennia old and written by people in completely different cultures who viewed the world differently, who had a completely different view of logic, of knowledge.

We are constantly changing the world of God because that is what the people of God have always done to suggest otherwise is a highly revisionist view of church history.

I don't even know what that means. I'm not sure if world should have been word and maybe it's a typo.

I don't know. But it sounds like, again, a very decrepit view of scripture.

And the appropriateness of application of God's law to our day, as if the one who created us, well, we really can't tell him in the

Bible about what God's actual purposes are because it's just written by people, it's really old. And, you know, they thought differently back then.

And we're just much more enlightened now. We're just much more enlightened. We just know much more now. That's not the mind of Christ.

That's not how Christ thought. That's the mind of the world. And many who call themselves

Christians think like the world. And you see a perfect picture of it right here.

The Bible is clear that God's people should not mix fabric in their clothes, eat lobster and allow women to speak in church.

And yet I know a few Christians who would hold these views today. Well, Mr. Mr. Jeffries, that is straight out of the homosexual activist handbook, straight out of it, and you've bought it hook, line and sinker.

Oh, my. This is why we see so many churches collapsing into unbelief.

Here it is. Now, I mentioned briefly. Sunday morning.

Or maybe it was Sunday evening, actually, Sunday evening, now I think about it. I mentioned briefly because I went to Leviticus chapter 20. And I talked about verse 13, which in certain states in Europe can get you at least heavily fined, if not jailed now.

Yeah, Sunday evening, I mentioned. That we do as believers, we have there are certain kinds of popular evangelicalism.

That have absolutely shot themselves in the foot in being prepared to deal with the onslaught of homosexuality in our day.

They've done so because, let's face it, you can grow up in a lot of churches and be a good member in good standing and never have read

Leviticus and never even be challenged to read Leviticus or to consider

Leviticus, let alone Numbers or Deuteronomy. And what people will tell you is, well, that's the law.

We're not in a law, we're under grace. So who cares? Right? As a result, a lot of evangelicals will watch that and we've played it on the program before.

We've gone through this so many times before, but we'll watch the episode from the West Wing. I call it the

White House, didn't I? My sermon, I call it the White House. Duh, it's called West Wing. But it was about the White House, the

West Wing of the White House. At least I had the building right. Anyway, and you'll have the president staying there, mocking the

Dr. Laura figure, Martin Sheen, yeah, by pulling from the

Holiness Code issues related to, for example, the mixture of fabrics, whether you can touch a pigskin.

And most Christians are left stuttering because they've probably never even read this section.

They may have read Leviticus 2013, but they didn't read what came before or afterwards. They don't know what the context is. And they look at their clothes and go, well, yeah, it's probably a polyester blend.

And they've never given a thought to the Holiness Code and they've never given any thought to the use of the law in the

New Testament. And what is abiding, what is eternal, what is creative, and what has to do with the people of Israel and the theocracy of that time.

And they've never put a thought into it. And because of that, they can fall into Mr. Jeffrey's position of just simply collapsing and then hence having no meaningful.

I would love to hear Mr. Jeffrey's exe Romans chapter one or first Corinthians chapter six or Paul's letter to Timothy and and to explain why

Paul says these things. Paul seemed to be so narrow minded. And I said in the sermon, we have to think these things through.

That's why I've taken time in the past and I've given illustrations on the dividing line. Some people had no idea why in the world

I was doing what I was doing. It all went back to when I started having to deal with the issue of homosexuality.

We wrote the Jeff Neal and I together wrote the same sex controversy. And you have to deal with the holiness code.

That means you have to look at these things. And there and and Mr. Jeffrey's is partially right.

I don't know of any Christians that are concerned about. Mixing cloth.

Mr. Jeffrey's would obviously not be comfortable in my church because the women do not preach in my church.

So and he obviously doesn't know any folks that actually continue to believe that that actually goes back to a creation ordinance and hence is therefore relevant at that point.

But I mentioned the sermon. Yes, we have to look at what each one of these laws meant at the time at which it was announced.

And we need to do our lexical studies. That is, we need to make sure that what.

It was talking about then is what we're talking about now. We need to put it in its original context.

And we need to make sure that we're not looking at words and we've just attached a a traditional meaning to it.

Got to do that work. But when we've done that work and then we find that the apostles bring those morals and ethics and ground them in God's law and bring them directly into.

The moral exhortations of the New Testament as well. Then we can't just join those people say, oh, it's just a holiness code.

The book of Leviticus happens to be the book that Jesus quoted from more often than any other.

And then we have this statement. Given that godly people hold different views in the subject of homosexuality,

I think we need to just be humble in the face of things that are much bigger than we are. That is the voice of absolute capitulation on the authority of the

Bible. That voice has nothing to say to this culture. Nothing.

Absolutely, positively nothing. Oh, given that godly people have held different views on the subject of now fill in the blank, the

Trinity, the existence of one true God, the cross, the resurrection, substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, sanctification, the role of the church, the role of women, the family.

You can put anything in there. And therefore say, well, just to be humble, we just we better not say anything at all.

There is the voice of utter capitulation. And you know what it is?

It's lazy. It's pure laziness. Well, if people have disagreed about this, actually on this subject, there is very little disagreement.

And in fact, I would say to you, sir, by using the term godly, you've really extended that term beyond where it should go.

Because I don't think there is in the history of the church a difference of opinion on this matter that's biblically based and certainly not representative of godly men.

Well, if your attitude is that the Bible is this old, outdated, thousand year old, two thousand year old piece of parchment that applies to an old society that doesn't exist.

I've just never understood why wear the label. I don't know. Why even bother?

I don't know. I do not know. I don't understand. There's some people like being religious.

I don't like being religious. I do what I do because I believe that what

I'm saying is true and it's meaningful. There is objective truth. There is something that matters in this world.

And it's not a matter of my opinion. I. Amazing, amazing, sadly, all too often, many of us find it all too easy to dislike those that are different to us.

However, if what you say is true, then sharing your love for people would be challenging and motivational for me as for passing judgment.

Well, your first question to me, someone who you don't know but has been a born again Christian for over 20 years, was have you read the

Bible? I guess that that at my most sensitive, I could view that as a teensy bit judgmental.

Well. There you go, Mr. Jeffries. I would love to hear from you.

I would love to discuss with you what I actually said from the word of God. Can you point out where I misrepresented the word of God or does that really matter to you?

It sounds like your perspective is that what

Jesus said in Matthew 19 or what Moses said in Genesis 19, it's irrelevant.

It's just back then. There's disagreements. Who's to know?

Let's just all be nice. It sounds like what you're saying. At least in your first comments,

I guess this sort of went backwards chronologically, I guess one of the last things you said was the substitute the word black for gay comment.

That's not being nice. In fact, that's incredibly judgmental. Isn't it funny that those who decry judgmentalism are so frequently the most judgmental folks?

So, Mr. Jeffries, your voice is the voice of unbelief inside the church.

You don't believe God's spoken. You don't believe God's spoken anymore, Mr. Jeffries, and that.

I need to warn against that. Because it's one of the main reasons that our culture gets such a mixed message, there is no

Christian message because there are so many churches filled with people who think like the world.

They may not act like the world. But they think like the world. If we really truly want to honor

God, we will not act like the world and we will not think like the world. And that may be what you were taught.

I realize that the vast majority of Christian education, whatever is called Christian education in the United Kingdom anymore, is.

Well, Spurgeon wouldn't even recognize it, wouldn't even call it Christian, would he? No, he wouldn't. He wouldn't.

I realize that's probably where you're coming from. But you know something, sir? It's the fact that you can assume that someone who would say that homosexuality is a sin against God and it will destroy the sinner, it will bring

God's wrath. It is, in fact, a part of God's wrath that the fact that you could say, I must be down south, must be a he must be a racist, too.

And say it with a British accent. He must be a racist. It doesn't I don't care who says it.

It shows that you have a deep prejudice. It's not me that has the prejudice, sir. I think you do.

I think you do. Keep that in mind. It's not surprising to me. I said this morning

I was shocked, but the more I read it and the more I realized what the background of it was like, oh,

OK, yeah. That's how the world thinks. And that's how the world thinks inside the church.

And it is the fact that so many in churches today don't even attempt to cultivate a

Christian worldview. That leads to the massive confusion and so many people running around and yet spewing utter unbelief as to God's law,

God's truth, the gospel, everything. That's what you got. That's what you got.

And it's a shame to see. Interestingly enough, before I go back to my response to watch the

Akati, my good brother with whom I have many disagreements, but many agreements.

See, I don't demand that you look like me and act like me and talk like me. Michael Brown.

Posted an article on townhall .com today, I believe.

Yes, today called The Kids Are Not Always All Right. And it says, according to a popular 2010 movie, the children of anonymous sperm donors are often successful at tracking down their donor dads and in the end to use the movie's title,

The Kids Are All Right. The anonymous us .org website, which features the real life stories of voluntary and involuntary participants in these reproductive technologies, paints a very different picture.

In 2010, Elizabeth Marquardt and a team of family doctors and family scholars produced a deeply disturbing 140 page report titled

My Daddy's Name Is Donor. A new study of young adults conceived through sperm donation.

According to the report, quote, on average, young adults conceived through sperm donation are hurting more, are more confused and feel more isolated from their families.

They fare worse than their peers raised by biological parents on important outcomes such as depression, delinquency and substance abuse.

Nearly two thirds agree, quote, my sperm donor is half of who I am, end quote. More than half say that when they see someone who resembles them, they wonder if they are related.

Almost as many say they have feared being attracted to or having sexual relations with someone to whom they are unknowingly related.

End quote. Most of this would come as quite a surprise to viewers of The Kids Are All Right, a drama comedy which told the story of two children conceived by artificial insemination raised by their lesbian mothers.

USA Today gave the movie high marks, saying that it approaches perfection. The reviewer called it probing, poignant and above all, highly entertaining without suggesting for a moment that there was anything controversial about two lesbians deciding to have kids through anonymous artificial insemination, thereby choosing to deprive children of a father.

What's the big deal? Everybody's doing it these days, right? Just ask Elton John and his partner who decided to bring a little boy into the world at the expense of him being raised by his biological mom.

After all, what's the big deal about having a mom and a dad? There was a, uh, in fact, there is a, this poem entitled

Uncertainty is Killing Me. Just one of many on the Anonymous Us website gives us the child's perspective.

Do we dare to stop, read and listen? Well, I haven't read it.

I just popped it up. I'm going to read it and you get to read it right along with me.

Uncertainty is killing me. Who are you? Will I pass you in the street? Will you hold the door for me and smile as I walk into a gas station during my travels?

Will you look at me and wonder if I belong to you? You have the pleasure of knowing I could be here. For 19 years,

I was denied of knowing you even existed. What was my grandmother, your mother like?

What about my grandfather, your father? Why do you get to selfishly keep them all to yourself?

Man, I have to stop for a second and think about how important my grandmother was to my daughter. Who are you to deny me half of my family tree?

Branches rich and strong with stories I may never be told. Who are you to give away my heritage knowing it will be replaced with something else?

Do I have brothers and sisters with my dark hair, my deep brown eyes? Will I be attracted to a familiar stranger in my classes?

Will I fall in love with him and kiss him passionately in an act of accidental incest?

Have you told your wife? Have you told your partner? What about your children? Have you told your brothers and sisters about their mysterious niece?

Are you dead? Will you ever read this? Have you dismissed it as something in your past that you did to make ends meet?

Did they pay you to give me away? What did you spend the money on? Did you buy a sparkly necklace for your ex -girlfriend?

Did you buy books? The bank you went to would have paid you half of my college algebra book for the donation.

I'm sorry, half my college for the donation that included me. Did you buy a candy bar at a gas station?

Was I worth it? Do you miss me? Do you ever think of me?

Do I even cross your mind? Does the uncertainty drive you crazy? Was it worth it? Do you wonder when my birthday is?

What color gown I wore to my graduation? Would you be proud to know I was the valedictorian in my senior class?

Would you support that I am Christian? Would you even want me in your life? I want you in mine.

I will accept anything about you if I could just get the privilege of knowing who you are, of knowing who my family is.

Wow. We have a saying, theology matters.

And it does because sound theology would tell us that the activities we accept as moral in our land dishonor a holy

God and they will bring his judgment. Theology does matter.

I don't even know how to transition out of that. I don't know how to transition out of that.

So I will just make a clumsy stripping of the gears, put the clutch all the way in.

How about we take a break? How's that sound? There's, there's, that's a transition. I need to take a break and, um, get my mind, um, focused here.

And we're going to finish our response to watch Geocrity. And some might say, wow, after that, that's it. Look, when

I profess to pray for watch Geocrity's salvation, I mean that too. And so we're going to make a transition here, come back, respond to watch

Geocrity and then do the Janet Mefford show. So, Hey, thanks to listen to the dividing line today. We'll be right back.

Well, we were going to be right back. And now Rich is giving me the, Oh no. It. What is

Dr. Norris? About in his book, chosen, but free a new cult secularism, false prophecy scenarios.

No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism. He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant in his book, the potter's freedom.

James White replies to Dr. Geisler. But the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply. It is a defense of the very principles upon which the

Protestant reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme Calvinism defines what the reform faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture, the potter's freedom, a defense of the reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's chosen, but free.

You'll find it in the reform theology section of our bookstore at a omen .org. More than any time in the past,

Roman Catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils.

They are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements, and many evangelicals are finding the history, tradition, and grandeur of the

Roman Catholic church appealing. This newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and laypeople to question the age old disagreements that have divided

Protestants and Catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language? James White's book, the

Roman Catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in scripture, the papacy, the mass, purgatorian indulgences, and Marian doctrine.

James White points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the Christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen .org.

And welcome back to the dividing line. I'm going to continue now with my response to Abu Musab Wajdi Akhadi and his, his posting of a video called quoting

Jesus. We only have a few minutes left in it. I began this quite some time ago. I thank Mr. Akhadi for his patience in listening to the entirety of my response.

At least I hope that he has. I'm going to try to make sure that I put all the links together. So he's got all of it because a couple have appeared in the middle of programs and that makes it a little bit difficult.

And he lives in Saudi Arabia. We've sent some books over so that he has the documentation in his hands.

And, and so when he responds, hopefully it will be even more useful to interact with that.

So with that, let's get back to Mr. Akhadi's statements. He was talking about 1 John 5, 7, the

Kamiohanium. We had offered correction to his statements that this was the only verse in the

Bible that teaches the Trinity. Now that he has the forgotten Trinity, which he did not have at the time of the creation of the, of this video, hopefully that would alter the argumentation that he would, that he would make.

It found its way and it crept into the actual text. But when they made the necessary studies, they realized this is not from the

Greek manuscripts. It doesn't exist in any Greek manuscript. So they threw it out of the Bible. So this is the only verse which they have to support

Trinity. It has been taken out from the Bible. SubhanAllah, even in their own book,

Allah had made the science clear, even among their own scholars, Allah had made the science clear.

Now notice from, from Wajidji's perspective, the fact that we recognize that the

Kamiohanium is not original, that was not a part of 1 John, somehow is

Allah making his science clear? Well, was Allah making his science clear,

Mr. Akhadi, when Erasmus caved into pressure to insert the

Kamiohanium after 1520? Because it wasn't in the Greek text before that?

I mean, I'm, I'm sorry. I just don't see, I know from an Islamic perspective, you're seeing this and seeing it fulfilled in a particular way.

But for those of us who know the history of this text, just doesn't, doesn't, doesn't fit.

That anything that they tried to fabricate will not go for a long way. Okay. Now that's interesting.

So would you admit then, because, because no one tried to fabricate anything, even the people who pushed for this, the reason they pushed

Erasmus to include the Kamiohanium is because they read it in the Latin Vulgate and it had become traditional for 1100 years, the

Latin Vulgate had been the translation of the Western church. All right. And so they were accustomed to it being there and they didn't trust the

Greeks, even though they would admit that it was the original language of the new Testament, the

Latin had become the language of the church. And so it was tradition that put it in.

So would you say then that given the tremendous amount of study that's been done and the large number of manuscripts have been found, there's new manuscripts that have just been found recently that are being studied right now, this is all very exciting stuff.

Would you admit then that if what is fabricated cannot last long, that now that we have such tremendous evidence for the text of the new

Testament, that what we have is not fabricated. And therefore, will you deal with the many texts that promote the deity of Christ, the doctrine of the

Trinity, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, all these things that the Quran contradicts? Will you be consistent there?

Is the question that I would be asking. Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.

So they say, then, you know, that must make Jesus, you know, one with God. But no,

I don't I don't think that it does. I don't know who would who would claim that.

I mean, there's there's plenty of stuff in John chapter 14 that proclaims the oneness of the father and the son in sharing deity and the deity of Christ.

And things that demonstrate that Jesus is a result. There's plenty there. And I would say

John 14, 6 definitely points us to a Jesus that far transcends anything you can find in the

Quran. No question about that. But John 14, 6 is not a proof text for the deity of Christ on that level.

It is a proof text for the absolute uniqueness of Christ. Uh, no question about that.

Uh, but I, I'm not sure where you're, you're getting that type of application. We say there's nothing wrong with this statement.

Jesus is the way, not the destination. Jesus is the way, not the destination.

What is the destination? God, Jesus is the way. Wasn't the problem. Um, actually, uh, in context, uh,

Wajdi, uh, they had been asking what is the way to heaven, Jesus was going to prepare a place for them and Jesus says that he is the way and he is the truth.

And he is the life. Ego, I mean, hey,

Hadass kai, hey, alaythaya, kai, hey, Zoe, those are Jesus' words. Could any mere prophet

Wajdi say what Jesus said there? That is the question I would ask you. Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam the way?

Wasn't Noah the way? No, they were not. Muhammad was not the way. And Noah was not the way.

And Abraham was not the way. And Moses was not the way. They have may have pointed to the way, but they had to point away from themselves.

And it's not just the way. It's also the truth, not a truth and the life, not a way to life.

Wasn't Abraham the way? No. The most, every prophet during his time, he was the way.

No, he was not. Jesus during his time is the way. He is the truth. Yes. Every prophet of Allah is the truth.

He cannot be a liar. He cannot be a fabricator. He cannot be a forger. Otherwise people will not accept him.

The prophets bring truth. They themselves are not the truth.

Is he the life? Yes. He gave life in the Quran. Allah said about the prophet

Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam. Yeah. You had the name. I'm in. Oh, it's the G. Boolean. Laughable. It was really good.

I can leave. You're here. Oh, you have believed. Respond to Allah and his messenger.

If he calls you to that, which will give you life. Notice if he calls you to that, which he didn't claim to be life.

There is a vast difference between a prophet saying this is the way of life. I mean, for example,

I was just talking about being clear in giving a godly warning to our society that certain behaviors destroy life.

If you will not behave sexually as God commands us and as he gifted us that gift of sexuality, it brings death.

So we're pointing to the way of life. That doesn't make me the life. Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth and the life.

And no mere prophet makes that type of claim. So Allah told us in the Quran that the prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam gives you life during the time of Jesus.

He gave life. Which life? Spiritual life. The life of belief, the life of salvation, which is believing in the oneness of God.

You can't go through Allah during his time by disbelieving in him like the Jews. You can't go to him through atheism.

You must go through him to God through Jesus during his time by believing him, believing him and believing in him as the messenger of Allah subhanahu wa ta 'ala.

Okay. He said, he who has seen me has seen the father.

This is another misconception. Let me give you the context. Philip, one of the disciples of Jesus, he said to him,

Lord, show us the father and it is sufficient for us. Jesus said to him, have

I been with you so long and yet you have not known me, Philip. He who has seen me has seen the father.

So how can you say, show us the father when you see the miracle of God? Doesn't that make you believe in God?

I think it would be good to let Jesus finish the statement. Do you not believe that I am in the father and the father is in me?

The words I say to you, I do not speak on my own authority, but the father who dwells in me does his works. Now, why not use that?

Because, do you understand? Even in what you quoted, whoever has seen me has seen the father.

How can you say, show us the father? Um, who's saying this? In the gospel of John, what is the primary design?

The son of God. The very thing that your scriptures deny and make a statement of faith is foundational to what

Jesus is here saying about himself, that the son is the one who reveals the father and that his revelation of the father is so perfect that to have seen him is to seen the father.

That's why it started off in John chapter one, verse 18. No one has seen God anytime.

The monogamy stay off the unique God, he who is at the father's side, close to the father's heart.

He has exegeted him. He has explained him. He has made him known.

This is the consistent testimony of what the New Testament teaches. When you see the manifestation of the creation of God, doesn't that make you believe in God?

It doesn't mean that you are seeing God physically, because we will see in the refutation as it comes in John chapter one, verse 18, no one has seen

God at any time in the Bible. It says no one has seen God at any time, but the second half of the sentence that you're not reading is the one that I just gave you.

Now, you would rightly call me out. I listen to a debate, and one of the reasons we need to finish up this response to watch the

Akhadi is because we've got more material we need to get to. I just listened to a debate that just took place a couple days ago in Dublin, Ireland.

I had almost been a part of this debate, wish I had been. And it was between Jay Smith and Adnan Rashid.

And Adnan made so many comments. Adnan has decided that he has become an expert on textual criticism.

Well, Adnan, you have not. And Adnan, of those who deal with Islam on a regular basis, and there's only a small number of us, textual critical issues is one of my main areas of study.

It really is. And you said some things, Adnan, oh, my, we need to review them and we need to respond to them.

And one of the reasons we need to get done with this is so we can move on to that, actually, and we will do that. But, oh, now

I've totally forgotten what I was going to say about Adnan at that point. But he made a comment in that.

I keep doing this recently. I'm getting I'm just getting old, man. It's just I've got too many things going on, traveling too much, heading to Hawaii this week.

But Adnan made some comments in regards to Jesus's statements as well.

In fact, what he did is he just said, well, we can't trust any of this stuff because we don't know what Matthew wrote or what Mark wrote or what.

He just takes the most radical, radical perspective on this. And I just sort of wonder how

Wajdi would respond to some of the things Adnan said. We're going to get to those in the near future.

So how would we reconcile between them then? Seeing Jesus, meaning you've seen the miracles, you've seen me give life to the dead.

You still doubt? You have to see the father? You have to see God with your own eyes to believe? That's not what the context of John 14 is.

Philip is asking for a revelation of the father, and the son demonstrates that his revelation of the father is so perfect that there is no need for that.

And again, no mere Rasul can make this statement. Compare this with Hebrews chapter one,

Wajdi, and you will see that the New Testament revelation is far higher than anything you as a follower of the

Quran can possibly allow for. Am I not proof? Am I not evidence enough?

This is the intent. And anyways, if somebody wants to look at it from another angle, we say this is contradiction then, and you must look at it in the light of other biblical verses as well.

How about let's just be straight up front about this. And fundamentally, I mean, if I proved to you that Jesus is called

God in John 20, 28, and that Jesus identifies that as a statement of faith, let's be honest.

What you're going to say is, look, the guard over the

Bible is the Quran, and therefore anything that contradicts the Quran, as you understand it, must be a contradiction.

Wouldn't you say that that's where you're going to come down to? I mean, honestly, you're looking at it backwards.

You're looking at it anachronistically. You make the Quran the ultimate authority. And so I don't really get the feeling that you can honestly deal with what the

New Testament is really saying, because there is a fundamental contradiction. And that would mean that you would need to demonstrate that the author of the

Quran actually had a meaningful knowledge of the

Old and New Testaments for his book to be a guard over them. Oh, but you say, no, this just came down from Allah.

Well, you know, fundamentally, once you get to that point, what you're saying is just believe what

I say. I'm not going to actually defend it. I'm not going to actually give you any meaningful arguments. Just believe it.

And there can be nothing more than that. And Jesus' mission was not complete.

It was not complete. Look what he said. He says, but now I go away to him who sent me, to Allah.

And none of you ask me, where are you going? But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away. For if I do not go away, the helper, in other translations, the counselor, in other translations, the comforter will not come to you.

But if I depart, I will send him to you. Who is this? The Prophet Muhammad, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. I would very strongly encourage you to listen to my debate with Shabir Ali from London.

I raise numerous issues, numerous points that I've never heard, never heard a

Muslim respond to. And Shabir did not respond because Shabir doesn't take your perspective here.

Shabir actually takes a form critical view of the Gospel of John and cuts John 15 and 16 out of the original

Gospel of John. Because if you just honestly read who the parakletos is in John 14, 15, and 16, it is someone, it is a, it is someone who's personal, someone who will be with the disciples forever, someone who will indwell them, someone who will testify of the truth.

None of these things would have any relevance to Muhammad 600 years later, none.

There is absolutely positively no reason at all to believe that the parakletos has anything to do with a man who claims to be a prophet 600 years later, 700 miles away in a completely different language.

The disciples would never have thought of that that way. They never took it that way. They never understood it that way.

The rest of the book does not understand it that way. It is a horrific misuse of the

Gospel of John, a horrific misuse of the Gospel of John.

There's just, I mean, I've listened to every attempt from Jamal Badawi and Ahmad Didat and Shabir Ali on various levels.

I mean, the Ahmad Didat level is the real low level, really easily refuted, really, really bad, doesn't know anything about the original language level.

Jamal Badawi, a little bit better, a little bit more scholarship, but still very, very poor.

And then you've got Shabir, who uses Christian liberals to chop John up because he realizes that there's just no way that you can actually make this work.

He didn't use the Song of Solomon reference in our debate, but I just saw a video of him from 2004,

I think, using the Song of Solomon reference, which I refuted in the debate as well.

So Wajid, I would highly recommend to you that if you just put into the

YouTube search engine Shabir Ali and James White, you'll be able to pull up the two -part debate that we did from London on was

Jesus prophesied in the Old Testament and is Muhammad prophesied in the Bible? And I really think that just an honest examination would be very helpful to you.

This is John 16, 5, 7. And he said, Jesus, and when He has come,

He will convict the world of sin. The salvation will become available.

It is available today. I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

However, when He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth,

Islam. For He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears,

He will speak. And when you begin the Quran, when you decide what to say, in the name of Allah, the most gracious, the most merciful.

You know, it's funny, you didn't read, Wajid, and when He comes, He will convict the world concerning sin and righteous judgment, concerning sin because they do not believe in Me.

The whole world, you limit Jesus's ministry to just the Jews. And yet, the

Spirit will convict concerning sin because they do not believe in Me. Concerning righteous, because I go to the Father and you will see

Me no longer. You don't view that the way that the gospel writer did. Concerning judgment, because the rule of this world is judged.

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you in all the truth.

For He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears, He will speak.

And He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is

Mine and declare it to you. What did Muhammad ever reveal about Jesus Christ that we didn't already know?

He denied everything that the gospel of John reveals to us about Jesus Christ. And then, all that the

Father has is Mine. Therefore, I said that He will take what is Mine and declare it to you. So do you, all that the

Father has is Jesus's. Do you believe that? You see, you can take little parts and try to apply them to Muhammad.

You can't take all of it. You cannot honestly deal with what the gospel writer is saying.

And again, you wouldn't let me get away with chopping up bits and pieces of Surah Al -Baqarah.

Then, you can't chop up big bits and pieces of John chapter 14, 15, and 16.

وَمَا يَنطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ إِنْ هُوَ أَنْ لَا وَحْيٌ يُوحَىٰ He does not speak of His own desire.

It is only revelation being revealed to Him. And Jesus said He will not speak of His own authority.

It will be the truth He hears from Jibreel a .s. which comes from Allah subhanahu wa ta 'ala.

And He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me. The only one who honored

Jesus is the Prophet Muhammad s .a .w. The Jews, they belied Him. Really? Teaching Jesus is a mere azul?

Denying His crosswork is glorifying Him? I mean, again, if you're going to interpret correctly, go into the next chapter,

Wajji, and read John 17, 5. Glorify Me together with yourself,

Father, with the glory which I had before the world was in Your presence. Muhammad taught that?

Where? I've read the Quran. Where did Muhammad teach that? I've read the Quran denying that.

I've read the Quran saying that the mountains fall down because you ascribe a son to God. But here you have the

Son of God being glorified, and you say Muhammad taught that? I don't think so. They disbelieved in Him.

We are the ones who honor Jesus, who believe in Him, who love Him. For He will take of what is

Mine and declare it to you. Subhanallah. Unbelievable prophecy. Allah said and mentioned when

Jesus, the Son of Mary said, O children of Israel, Indeed, I am the messenger of Allah to you, confirming what came before me of the

Torah and bringing good tidings of a messenger to come after me whose name is Ahmed. This is one of the names of the

Prophet Muhammad. Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Allah says, This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed

My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.

Say, the truth has come and falsehood has departed.

Indeed, is falsehood ever bound to depart? Subhanallah.

And finally, I say, Subhanakallahumma wa bihamdik ashadu an la ilaha illa ant, astaghfiruka wa atubu ilayk.

Jesus said, If you love Me, you will keep the commandments. If you have any questions or any other information, then this is how you can contact us.

And for your patience, I apologize for taking extra seven minutes than the allocated time, but I find it necessary to convey the message to you.

If anyone has any questions, you may ask. We'll be more than happy to entertain them, inshallah.

Now. Assalamu alaikum. Walaikum assalam. First of all, I must say thank you very much for your very convincing way, especially for your logical argument.

Whenever we go to Europe or America, sometimes they ask me one question.

Yes. When you believe in Isa alaihissalam that he is alive, why you don't believe that Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam also, he is also alive?

And same thing from India and Pakistan, some section of Muslim also believe that Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam is still alive.

They call Hayatun Nabi. We call Khatamun Nabi. Same question, European, Americans, they are asking me and I don't have the convincing reply.

Yes, sure. The convincing reply is that Allah azzawajal had given each prophet and messenger something special and distinct to them.

Moses split the ocean, Abraham was thrown into the fire without him being burnt, Noah was made to build the ark, and he didn't drown, and the list goes on.

The specialty of Jesus peace be upon him, that Allah decreed that he will not die yet. He will come back at the end of time.

However, that was not the case with the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam. In fact, Allah says in the Qur 'an, innaka mayyitun wa innahum mayyitun.

Really, you will die and they will die. And he died, alaihissalam, and they buried him.

Now, it would be very interesting, and Majdi, maybe you can comment on this. I've not looked this up. I need to look this up.

But I need to find, I would like to know what that exact reference is. Does it use the same term that's used in surah 1933 and surah 355 of Jesus?

And if it does, then why would you translate one way in one place, and a different way someplace else when the context are the same?

That would just be something I would ask. Maybe you could address in your response, and I'd be interested in knowing.

This life, which some of the Muslims speak about, is a misunderstanding of some textual evidences, where in the

Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam said, Allah had made the Earth, had made forbidden for the Earth to consume the flesh of the

Prophets. So it doesn't consume... Now, just for the listening audience, we're getting close to the end of the program here, and we're going to finish up right on time.

But for the listening audience, you need to understand that Muslims do not believe that the bodies of Prophets decay in the grave.

Not only do some believe that the Prophets are basically sinless, but that their bodies do not decay in the grave.

And hence, if you were to open Muhammad's grave today, he would look just like the day he died. Their bodies do not decay while the rest of us does.

That's what's the background of what's in their body. It doesn't mean that they're alive. And the other misunderstanding is based on the idea when you send a salam, when you do durood sharif, when you send salat salam,

Allah returns his soul, so he may respond to you. But see, the hadith mentions that Allah will return his soul, so he may respond.

It doesn't say that he's alive waiting for it. Allah has designated some angels, special angels, who convey the salam from us to the

Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, who in turn will respond to you. He is not alive in the sense that Jesus is alive in the heaven right now.

Okay? Okay. Now, Mr.

Akri, I believe that you will have to honestly admit that I played everything.

That's all I have. If there is anything more, I don't know. That's what

I downloaded from YouTube. That's what you had said, I believe, to someone else was what you hoped people would look at.

I think I posted that on my site. I pulled the audio straight from it. Played all of it. Played every minute of it.

I think may have played a few minutes more than once, actually, by mistake. But we have listened to all of it.

And I hope we have given a clear, maybe not overly concise, but a clear response to what you have said.

And I'm looking forward to your response. As I said, I'm going to be moving on to the debate that took place between Jay Smith and Adnan Rashid.

And I'm going to be addressing the claims that Adnan Rashid made. I don't know if you know who Adnan Rashid is, but I'll be moving on toward that.

I cannot guarantee, given how long it took me even to get through this, and given that I remember very clearly,

I first listened to your presentation on Christmas Eve. So it's been right at two months that I have been extending this response out.

But I think you've been given numerous hours and a lot of background material. And my hope is,

I will be honest, very, very honest. My hope is to hear from you a response that I realize that the nature of these things is such that if you try to respond to everything

I said, then your response becomes twice as long as the amount of time I spent. So if I spent six hours, then your response is 12 hours.

And then my response to your 12 hours becomes 24 hours, and it becomes a full -time job. And we never get anything else done.

I realize that's not possible. But hopefully, what you choose to respond to will demonstrate that you have seriously considered the information that has been provided to you, both in the books that were sent to you, and then in the responses provided, giving you history and correcting some misapprehensions on your part, especially in regards to, for example, the

Kamiohanium, 1 John 5 -7, and the history of the Bible, and issues related to that.

And I would really hope that you would take the time to look at at least the chapters in the

Forgotten Trinity that present the deity of Christ. If you don't accept it,

I would at least hope that you would recognize what the arguments are and would know what the

Carmen Christi is in Philippians 2 -5 -11, or Colossians 1, verses 15 and following, in the inscription of Jesus as Creator, and the testimony of the

Gospel of John to the deity of Christ, and what monogamous theos means at John 1 -18, and that what you understood about begotten, which you clearly took from Achmed Didot.

Achmed Didot was ignorant of these things. He has misled you. And I am doing a favor to any

Muslim apologist when I warn you that Achmed Didot will lead you astray, because Achmed Didot will lead you astray.

And his facts and his information just were not solid. And he was careful about who he debated, though when he debated at least one

Christian, he did fail very badly when he debated Joshua Dow, but he pretty much chose who he debated.

And I would have loved to have had the opportunity of debating Achmed Didot. It would have really been an enjoyable experience for me.

And I would still love to debate Zakir Naik, and he has an open challenge to debate, but he won't do it, and you know it.

He picks and chooses his opponents, and he will not choose an opponent who could actually challenge him on Christian theology, the

Bible, Christian history, Muslim theology, or anything else. He's not going to do it. That's not why he does what he does.

So I hope, again, as I have said from the beginning, Mr. Akheri, that you hear my heart and the heart

I know of those in our chat channel and who support this ministry, who have been listening to this response.

We do pray for you, and we pray that you will hear the response as it was given to us, given to you, and as it was intended.

And I thank you very, very much for listening to this entire response, as lengthy as it was.

I hope it was useful to you. For those who are listening live right now, only for those of you listening live,

I'm sorry. If you're listening to a podcast, this ain't going to help you much. But those of you listening live, please hang on, because as soon as the music is done, we're going to switch over to my interview with Janet Mefford.

And you'll get to listen in to that half hour of programming. And that means

I'll be right back. But for the rest of you, God bless. See you next time. The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602, or write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the

World Wide Web at aomin .org, that's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.