A Response to Sheikh Awal

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.

A 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.

Opening Remarks and the Sheikh Awal Debate Response

And welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning. I think it's Tuesday morning I don't think it's Thursday afternoon. So by process of elimination, it must be Tuesday morning someone in Jeff's channel is just talking about Running into folks and yes, I'm gonna tell the story.

I have to bring the folks and I'm getting tongue-tied. And he said when I met CJ Mahaney, I fumbled while asking him about charismaticism and thanked him for being in America. That's hilarious. I really wish people wouldn't do that right as I'm trying to come on the air I can just see that some people go to me.

Thank you for being in America. Well, you know been here a while. I wasn't born in Turkey. I'll let me tell you that much. Robbinsdale, Minnesota, you can check it out. Anyway Today on the dividing line I I was sitting there thinking some of you saw The video that I uploaded last night and I had spent all this time you know, I like to use graphics and Make things pretty and useful and you know, if I'm gonna put a video up I've got 452 of them on the YouTube site now.

I'd like it to be useful for a while, you know, and so you put some time and effort into it and for some reason I Movie HD the old version of iMovie, which is a lot better than the new version of iMovie on Mac anyways.

If you use graphics The mp4 that it spits out YouTube chokes on it and it doesn't sync sound right and as soon as the graphic hits then it gets all messed up and I Don't know I've figured out how to fix it, but it's just a whole nother about hour-long step in it.

I'm just gonna have to do all the time, I guess anyway. Some of you saw that the version went up last night. The sound went all out of sync on it and I had to redo it this morning and all that stuff. So I wanted to do a series of videos in response to Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal and By the way, we had a beautiful graphic Micah.

I'm sorry if you're listening I hope that he is. But he may not be able to be right now, but a number of those debates have been canceled because evidently because David Wood posts on his website Cartoons images, whatever he posted a clip from the South Park episode.

And says this is what Muslims kill other people about. This is what Muslims murder about since he does that then some Muslims contacted shake a wall says he blast seems a prophet therefore don't debate him and so he pulled out of those debates and At least as far as I know my debate still scheduled.

I hope that it will continue to be scheduled. I I want to engage what this man is saying because he represents Ahmadita he represents that perspective. But it does strike me as an amazing thing. That someone would pull out of a debate because someone is pointing out things that Muslims do that almost sounds like he supports the Muslims who are killing people because of cartoons.

And may I just point out that if we're if we're gonna start wearing our emotions on our sleeves and. And be offended by everything and people have rightly said there are many Muslims who are engaged in the religion of perpetual offense.

I'm offended by everything. Remember Sheikh Jalal al Baroub. I'm angry here today. You ascribed a son to God. So in other words, I'm just always angry at Christians. Well, what if we were to do that? What if my response was to be you know, it really?

You know because I leave this to God. And since I love the Muslim people that I put the offense to the side, but let me just be straightforward God is offended. When Muslims deny who Jesus is if if Jesus is truly who he says is that is incredibly offensive to God.

Well, if I'm gonna communicate that the Muslim people then I need to communicate to them with clarity. Not just simply by fact of me being offended. It really is a very self-centered thing to my mind.

I'm offended. I'm offended well, okay. It's easy for all of us to be offended every single day. Why has Western culture become so fearful of offense? I? Thought becoming an adult was growing up and not being offended by everybody all the time.

Isn't that isn't that what but being an adult is? Isn't that what marriage is. I mean we step on our each other's toes all the time and It's a matter of forgiveness and maturity and not taking offense at everything.

Isn't that what? Growing up is all about. So, please this this this amazing I'm offended by that. Well, I'm offended by this. How can we accomplish anything. Isn't the truth more important than your personal offense?

It's sort of relevant to a certain other situation we've been dealing with recently as well, but anyway. So I want to talk about. I want to. I want to play Shaka Wallace opening statement in this debate that I listened to last week.

We go tomorrow as I was riding up Mount Lemmon and I want to respond to it because the fact the matter is the Christian he was debating should not do debates and Did not respond to almost anything they had to say and.

And that's that's a shame and so I would like to respond to it. But since we have someone who snuck in early here I'm gonna go ahead and take this call and then let's hold off on calls until we because I.

What I was saying was if I do this in my office with graphics and stuff like that. It's gonna take forever. So I figured let's do it on the dividing line. And I'm recording this and we'll make it available that way and it'll just be it'll move a lot faster.

No graphics, but You know, I'll try to read things and try to be accurate. Anyways, but let's go ahead and take a call from Jason in Ohio. Hi Jason. Hey, Dr. White. How are you today doing good?

Okay.

Yes, turn off your yes turn off your comments. That's that's how I handle everything on my youtube channel. Just turn off your comments and they won't post anything there anymore. That's I handle that.

This was on my main page of my channel. This person did post Some comments on the video itself over a year ago called an obvious anomaly of KGB defender from KGB defenders and who's out in your neck of the woods.

Yeah rabid defense of.

Yes, I think. Yes, he does.

I'm gonna state these two comments back-to-back that he left on my mate on my channel. Okay, okay, the KGB is not translated directly from Latin. However, the translation this is where he actually got it off a I'm interlinear.

It's 1349.

But that is that is actually 48. Oh.

It's 48. It is 40.

That's also a son to tugman. Oh, I so Wayne I onion as many as were appointed to internalized believed I've there's numerous articles on this on my blog and if you want to hear a rather in-depth discussion of Not just the meaning of tetrag Menoy and the term Tasso, but the fact that 98 of people who address this subject demonstrate their ignorance of the Greek language by the fact they look only at Tasso.

Tasso, yeah in this case. This is called a periphrastic construction. It's a son tetrag Menoy and. One of the one of the things that that is a sure indicator of someone who is using only secondary resources and not really translating the language themselves or cannot read the language themselves is when they have discussions of vocabulary terms and they don't recognize a Basic fundamental construction such as a periphrastic which is what you have in x 1348.

And so I've provided a rather full discussion of that in. Well, I do address it in the potter's freedom. I think I even addressed it in light of Dave Hunt's ignorance of it in debating Calvinism. But I know of addressed it rather fully On the website a number of times because it came up in the Steve Gregg stuff and and things like that.

So that's that's an important thing to look at.

Yeah, because I found that interesting because he was trying to sound like he was.

Well, well, no. What they try to do what some people try to do and what happens here is once somebody throws this out. Then it just takes on a life its own just gets repeated all over all over the place whether it's valid or not.

And that's why we've often said a little Greek is a dangerous thing. And so when you look at Tasso and then they then they try to emphasize the middle and. Very few people have any knowledge of how the middle is used but even more so.

They have very little understanding.

Of.

The fact that there is a fundamental difference in the the language and vocabulary of Luke acts In comparison to anything else in the New Testament. The Hebrews is closest to it. It's very classical. And so they will they will grab hold of Pauline usage and try to parallel it with with Lucan usage.

And it's just it's just invalid it might might it might shed some light on things but the reality is that Luke is very classical in his syntax and he's very purposeful in his use of what's called the paraphrastic construction and.

So the you know to say well the King James translators were unduly influenced by the Latin Vulgate. Blah blah blah blah blah. Look, the fact the matter is that to try to get around. The paraphrastic in acts 1348 just simply doesn't work and I've gone into in-depth on just do a search on on 13 colon 48 on the blog and you probably will pull up more stuff than you actually wanted.

But you'll find a rather full discussion of it there. It does get somewhat complex because we are talking about Greek syntax here we're talking about paraphrastics and participles and and You know the classical usage versus a coin a usage and stuff like that, but Once you dig down to the bottom of it, you discover it.

It is primarily a smokescreen now. I do not cite act 1348 as a primary text it is. Because Luke does not expand upon this so as to make it the primary point of what he's saying. But it is reflective of the fact that the the early Christians clearly saw and and understood.

That I don't know what just happened out here, but it's like an elephant just ran to the building. I don't know what it is. But anyways, hmm. Well, someone goes to check what in the world that was. It's a little distracting the fact the matter is that the early church recognized God's sovereignty in this matter.

And this is just a passing statement that is reflective of that. So okay. Okay. All right.

I can mention one other real quick. Yes. Sure. Not a problem. Why does everybody keep saying caner? It's caner.

It's arrogant caner caner caner caner.

Yeah, yes.

Yes, he appeared. He appeared on actually infidel guy. I thought it was the rational response squad correctly.

He had people on there from from the.

Rational response.

Right on with that. But it was the back and forth that was going on that I that was that should have been my first. All these supposedly accredited degrees that he could not stay his case nor defend nor apologize.

You may recall I actually within a week of that appearance we did a dividing line and. What what some of my critics will be shocked at is I I said very little about arrogant caner I said I was rather disappointed with how he he did but I focused primarily upon the claims of.

Rook the.

From the rational response squad and his comments in regards to church history that took place after the 2006 debacle, I think I was early 2007 and So I you know, I played that but I really you know, I I wasn't impressed with what arrogant caner did and the fact matter is he doesn't do this type of work and you know, he just he just pretends to but Yeah, we did we did address that at that particular time and I just simply point out The man's doctoral study was in the concept of just war in the Crusades and the Inquisition.

That does not make you an expert in apologetics in fact May I suggest that outside of doing meaningful study in the in the fundamental areas that give rise that the only way to really gain expertise and apologetics is doing Apologetics and that's the whole issue here is that he's been going around saying he does it when in reality He doesn't do it and you can't gain expertise in something by talking about doing it.

You've got you actually got to do it. You know, I mean I mean right now that the tour of California is on and Jared the tally is on. I'm a cyclist and so I know those races are going on and there are people sitting around you know tour de France is coming up in July and There are people can sit around and can talk about The climbs and the Alps and the Pyrenees and they can they can talk about descending and they can talk about time trialing.

But if you don't go out there and do it, you're not a cyclist for crying out loud. You can talk about it forever. But when I see some guy that weighs, you know 293 pounds sitting on a couch someplace talking about cycling I'm probably not looking at someone who's actually going out and doing it unless he's you know.

Some champion from 50 years ago and hasn't been a bike for all that amount of time. I suppose that could happen but that's the problem here is you gain expertise. You demonstrate your ability to be an apologist by doing apologetics and he just doesn't do that.

So anyway, okay.

Yeah, yeah, cuz I know my wife and I would listen to that thing going on and always all right.

Yeah.

Okay. Thanks, Jason. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks for calling. God bless for that alrighty, like I said, let's Hold off on some calls to later I do want to try to get through at least this opening state, which I probably won't be able to do In in the time period we have but now once again, I have to I did this years ago.

I Played Ahmed D dot debates and I went through them point by point and there was one thing that caused a lot of people Start to now make that their favorite dividing line. And that was the accent. The accent now this man does speak quickly.

I think it's a little bit easier to staying as I realized I had my iPod on fast. It's trying to listen to someone like I'm gonna do that. He's being very quickly is is very very difficult. In fact, I I did want to mention one thing.

I've apologized. Let me mention one thing Peter Hitchens Was on the unbelievable radio program Justin Justin Briarley's unbeliever at a program last weekend. Peter Hitchens was on with an atheist. It was a fascinating discussion.

And I I need to write to Justin and I need to link to this and try to get more people listen to it Because it's a very interesting program. But the thought that I had was English people sound absolutely brilliant at high speed Because you know Peter Hitchens has an even thicker accent than Christopher Hitchens has and So put him on fast and and they just they just sound absolutely brilliant.

It was it was something else I'm not quite as brilliant at slower speed, but it was very but he's got a new book out that I'm gonna be listening to on my rides this week the rage against God and From that conversation.

I'd sound like something you might want to pick up and and and read or as I did I Purchased it on my Kindle and we'll be recording it to my system this evening and listening to it while writing. So You might well, I'll do that.

But anyway, you do need to tune in and listen you this is it's difficult to be Doing other things at this particular point in time in listening to what? Sheikh Ahmed Mohammed Awal is saying Because of the accent, I think he could probably make it a little bit clearer because I've heard him in other instances He spoke much more slowly much more clearly But I think we have another instance here of you got an audience.

You got your people out there. You got some some juices flowing and your your speed picks up and I've fallen into that situation many many times myself so here is His opening statement. I'm going to be stopping and starting responding as necessary to what he had to say.

1 Corinthians 15 and the Meaning of Paul’s Gospel

Truth have come and falsehood have perished. Anytime truth comes falsehood is bound by nature to perish. Mr. Chairman Respected guest and honorable speaker. Mr. Lopez between myself and Pastor Lopez. God Almighty is the witness.

That.

Mr. Lopez have stand here for 30 minutes and he never solved the issue. The issue was Salvation through the Quran or salvation through the Bible. But as you can see you bear witness that he never taught the subject.

So I have already compute what I'm going to say in my head already. But because of what he said I have rechanneled what I'm going to be speaking. So I'm going to be speaking on salvation through the Bible and the Quran as I do both inshallah.

Where do I begin from the beginning? You see the concept of salvation in Christendom is actually based on the fact that Jesus Christ died for the sin of mankind. So I remember in the Bible the book of Corinthians chapter 15 verse 14 Paul said If Christ did not Die or if Christ did not rise from the dead Our salvation our preaching is vain and our faith is vain.

That means Christ have to die. If he did not die. Our preaching is vain is garbage and Our faiths our religion is also garbage according to Paul. So the concept of Christendom is for Jesus Christ to die and for very briefly.

And if Christ has not been raised then our preaching is vain. Your faith also is in vain. The term there is can a it does not mean garbage. He goes on to say moreover. We're even found to be false witnesses of God because we testified against God that he raised Christ.

Whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. This is the cut in context and I Struggle shake a wall very frequently does not seem to take context into consideration in his interpretation of the Bible.

And this will come out very clearly because what he's starting here is an argument that the Bible itself Says that Jesus did not ride did not die upon the cross. Therefore was not buried did not rise again the third day.

Every citation he's going to use every citation He's going to use is from an author who clearly openly unequivocally and without question affirms that Jesus Christ died Was buried rose again the third day so he has to take authors and Say that those authors are contradicting each other themselves internally in their own writings.

Which I do not believe that shake a wall would ever allow anyone to do to the Quran. If we were to apply the exact same standards of the Quran I could take any verse ignore its context and say it says this.

If we were to be consistent. But of course, they would never allow that to happen and that again is the big issue the very first, you know debate. You know I sort of consider my my Shabir Ali debate be the first debate that I did because the debate with Hamza al-Dumalik I was just simply defending the deity of Christ was not studying Islam.

My first debate that I did where I had actually begun the study of Islam was with Shabir Ali and from that point onwards. What have you heard me say over and over again? Looking for that consistent Muslim who will use the same standards of interpretation exegesis and scholarly resources in his study of the Quran that he does in his criticism of the New Testament and I have not yet found that that person.

But that's where we're going in in a shake of walls comments. It is brought to clean the sin of mankind.

And we read in the Bible again. In 2nd Timothy chapter 2 verse 8 Paul said Remember that Jesus Christ the seed of David Raised from the dead according to my gospel according to my gospel. Meaning there were many gospel out there at that time that are actually fighting with the gospel of Paul that Christ did not die.

So he said remember now catch that that is a completely unwarranted insertion For which there is absolutely no historical evidence whatsoever. What what do I mean by that? Well notice what he just said that there were many Gospels.

Well Paul does make reference to false Gospels, he makes reference to Judaizers, for example, and he Talks about a gospel that does not save that that's true. But notice the interpretation that he added that has no foundation whatsoever that there were other Gospels in which Jesus did not die.

There is Nothing in this text remember Jesus Christ risen of the dead descendant of David according to my gospel for which I suffer hardship even to Imprisonment as a criminal there's nothing here about a gospel in which Jesus does not die or is not raised.

That is a wholly unwarranted insertion and the historical fact the matter is That no matter how hard you try you cannot find 1st century advocates of the idea of a non crucifixion the Gnostics or 2nd century the Gnostics have Theological reasons that no Muslim should ever find himself even close to embracing.

For their denial the crucifixion specifically Jesus had no physical body. In other words the Gnostics denied the Fundamental revelation of the Quran and yet they will grab the Gnostics and say well this must reflect something that's going on in the 1st Century when there is no evidence of that whatsoever.

So once again Inconsistency and there an insertion of something that is nowhere to be found in the text itself. Just you see how fast that was done. It was done very very quickly and It's done very very much in passing.

That is something that you have to be listening for in In polemics, that's a term that's often used very negatively. Oh, you're a polemicist. I just simply means you engage in arguments and as long as your goal in polemics is truth.

Then to be a polemicist is a good thing. Paul was engaging in polemics. When he wrote Romans Jesus was engaging in polemics all the time in his teaching.

So we have to listen very very closely that Christ the seed of David Raised from the dead according to my gospel. Then again, we read in the book of Galatians chapter 3 verse 13 Paul trying so hard to crucify and kill Jesus.

In the book of Galatians chapter 3 Paul trying so hard to crucify Jesus obviously as. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians first Corinthians chapter 15, he had received the very same message he had passed on to them.

They were all recipients of the same tradition the same primitive Christian belief. And what was that Christian belief that Christ died for our sins according to scriptures and he was buried and he rose again the third Day according scriptures and he was seen of these witnesses.

That is the basic Christian message. That is the earliest stratum.

Of.

Revelation that we can discern In the writings that we have and that is what Christians have always Believed and I won't in this particular context Get into this but I think one of the topics was supposed to be was Jesus Christ crucified in debates.

I wish that would happen. I Really wish that would happen if if that topic If if shake a wall will not debate that topic. I would be glad to debate that top. I'd add a third debate because this is this is just such a historical slam-dunk.

It is a biblical slam-dunk the the Islamic denial. The crucifixion is utterly untenable on any rational grounds. I Mean the only reason Muslims reject the crucifixion is because of 40 Arabic words written over six centuries after the events 700 miles distant and those 40 Arabic words are not moving.

They are not clear. They are not perspicuous. They have given rise to numerous different kinds of interpretations themselves. And so I would be happy to in engage that.

Get a drink here.

Galatians 3 13 Paul said Christ redeemed us From the curse of the law in as much that he became a curse for us. Because it is written whosoever is hung on a tree is an a curse of God. May the curse of God be upon him.

The Bible say that. So why would Paul said Christ became a curse for us? Christ became a curse for us. And he came became a curse for us Christ becoming a curse for us. I don't understand how could Christ become a curse.

Well.

Paul explains Exactly what he's saying. The next verse says in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles that we would receive the promise the Spirit through faith.

Jesus bears in his body on the tree our sins. He becomes a curse for us the curse of the law. Now he's gonna show fundamental confusion of what Christians believe here in just a moment. Because he's gonna say the law was not a curse.

He's not saying that the law is the curse. The law curses anyone who breaks it. The law brings a curse upon anyone who is not perfect in their obedience to the law. Galatians 3 10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse for it is written Curse.

It is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law to perform them. Now that no one is justified by the law before God is evident for the righteous man shall live by faith.

However, the law is not of faith on the contrary. He who practices them shall live by them. Christ redeemed us from the curse of law having become a curse for us for his written curse is everyone who hangs on a tree.

So the point is that Jesus Takes that curse that wrath that is due from God Upon himself. He takes that curse of the law so that we might have his righteousness. He does so voluntarily. He does so purposefully.

This is in perfect accord with the gospel narratives. Jesus Says what what does he say? It is necessary to the Son of Man go to Jerusalem be betrayed killed rise the third day in John chapter 7. I give my life freely.

No one takes it from me and. So this is a consistent teaching if we will allow the New Testament to be the New Testament if we do not. Begin with the assumption that we're just gonna tear it apart. We're not gonna allow it to speak with one voice in other words.

If we interpret the New Testament the same way the Muslim will absolutely demand that you interpret the Quran. If they're consistent, then they have to allow the New Testament to say what the New Testament actually says.

It's right there. It's explained in the text.

Christ redeemed is from the curse of the law which law the law of Moses. The law of Moses is not a curse it is.

Love Moses isn't a curse, but that wasn't Paul's point. It says the law of Moses Curses anyone who does not live in perfect and perfect obedience to it. Those who do these things Well, we don't do these things we fail to keep the letter of the law.

Therefore it pronounces a curse upon us Deuteronomy 28 and 29. So Paul is being very accurate in his handling of the Old Testament text this point and Shake a wall does not understand the argument that he's presenting.

Not occurs.

But this is what Paul said that Jesus Christ is a curse for us having died on the cross so that his blood will cleanse us. So now this is what is Paul is saying, but I'm going to ask Jesus here Did you actually die on the cross.

And I'm going to quote as many scripture as possible to substantiate that Christ.

Did not die on the cross according to the Bible now. Did you catch that his assertion? His argument is Christ did not die upon the cross according to the Bible. But listen carefully. Make a note of his references and you will discover that every single Citation he's going to give will come from a book That is written by an author who will affirm Directly and without question the crucifixion burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ every single one and so he has to Interpret the writers against themselves not in the original context.

And what he's gonna do remember I played this last week. We're gonna listen to it again. Obviously not today. What he's gonna do is he's going to promote the idea that these books were just cobbled together over time.

He's gonna specifically say they weren't written until the Council of Nicaea, which is Historically utterly disproven by historical fact we have papyri Fragments or entire copies of the Gospels that long predate Nicaea but the idea is to to to for his own people to promote the idea that the New Testament is this completely unreliable text that has undergone this massive amount of editing and Then for the Christians and folks, this is why I keep emphasizing this this is why I have now given my New Testament presentation I don't know how many times The reliability of the text in the New Testament things like that.

Most.

Evangelicals when they hear this kind of thing just sit back and go. I Don't know anything about that. I don't know anything about Manuscripts and things like that. The day when we can remain in ignorance about the history of the text in the New Testament Has long passed us by.

It has long passed us by. My friends we have to Be aware of the truth about the New Testament text and here is a very good reason why?

Christ did not die. Paul said if Christ died on the cross our preaching is Blame. Our salvation is vain and our teachings is vain. Inshallah. I'm going to prove tonight that Christ did not die on the cross according to Christ himself.

Matthew 5, the Law, and the Rich Young Ruler

Where do I begin? I begin from the Gospels the book of Matthew chapter 5 verse 17. Jesus Christ said do not think that I Jesus Christ have come to destroy the law of Moses and the Prophet. I have not come to destroy.

I've come to confirm heaven and air shall pass away. But a dot from the law shall not pass till all is fulfilled. And who so therefore do the law of Moses and teach somebody So will become great in the kingdom of heaven.

But whosoever cancelled the law of Moses and teach somebody so will become least in the kingdom of heaven. How could Christ become a curse when he is saying that if you want to go to heaven the law of Moses.

That's not what Jesus said. There is a fundamental Misunderstanding of what it means until the law is accomplished. There there's a fundamental and gross misunderstanding of Jesus fulfillment of the law the continuing abiding validity of the moral law.

But the fulfillment of the law in Jesus Christ. And just as Ahmed didot Shake a wall Normally quotes his text now, that's you know, I appreciate that that is that is impressive. Unfortunately, he frequently does not quote them overly accurately at the very same time.

You'll notice that he reversed some of the material in in verse verses 18 and 19. I wonder why he doesn't go on with verse 20. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of scribes and Pharisees you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So what does that mean? I?

Mean these are the most righteous people according to the works law possible. The whole point is They don't have that righteousness and he's gonna go to what seems to be their favorite text the rich young ruler here in a moment.

And again never completely cite the whole story and as a result grossly Abuse the text of the Bible at at this point.

In Jerusalem as Christ was walking in Jerusalem a man who wants to go to heaven a man who want to go to Eternal life a man who want to be among the kingdom of God came to him in Jerusalem. And the man said and I'm quoting in the book of Matthew chapter 19 verse 16 The man said good master.

What good must I do to enter heaven. This man is looking for salvation so he came to the right person Jesus. He's a good master. What good thing must I do to enter life eternally in heaven. Jesus Christ say why do you call me?

Good for don't begin by elevating me. Why does thou call me good for the only one that is good is the father in heaven, but?

Now I stop immediately because it is very common for for Muslims to abuse the statement of The young man and Jesus's response as if Jesus is saying he's not good. This is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Why do you call me good? I'm not good. Is that what she's just saying even from the Islamic perspective. Hasn't hasn't any Muslim ever stopped and gone. We actually believe Jesus was sinless so he was good so Why would he say this?

What Jesus is doing is once again seeking he knows the heart of this man and What's the whole story? He goes through the Commandments and Young man says I've kept these from my my youth up. And what is Jesus response?

What you're not gonna hear from Sheikha wall because Sheikha wall doesn't understand this text. But what says what. What does Jesus do. He says one thing you lack go sell you have and give it to the poor come.

Follow me and.

What happens? The man goes away, and he goes away sad. And why does he go away sad? Because he had many.

Possessions and.

Jesus.