The Christology of John, the Christology of the Quran

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated is prohibited.

A .V. Muhammad, the Chief Trustee of the Jumu 'ah Masjid who made this debate possible this evening. The debate tonight brings about nostalgic memories of late Sheikh Ahmed Didat, the founder of the Islamic Propagation Center International.

The debate this evening will be of two parts. The first part will be on Christology in John's Gospel. And this will have our brother Yusuf Ismail to begin for half an hour. And then we'll have Dr. White to respond or to give the Christian perspective on Christology in St. John's Gospel.

Thereafter we'll have a rebuttal of ten minutes from each of the speakers and we will allow two questions only from the floor. One to Yusuf Ismail and the other one to Dr. White. And then we have a second part of the debate and that will be Christology in the Quran.

And we reverse the sequence of the speakers. Dr. White will begin by speaking on Christology in the Quran and Yusuf Ismail will then speak on Christology in the Quran from a Muslim perspective. And then we'll have ten minutes rebuttal from each of the speakers.

So let me now introduce to you our speakers. We have this evening in our presence Dr. James White. He is from America. He is the Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona. He has written over 20 books and participated in over 100 moderated debates.

He's an accomplished Christian scholar. He holds BA, MA, THM, THD, and DEMIN degrees from reputed Christian theological seminaries in the USA. And he has, to his credit, served as a professor of Greek and Hebrew and also systematic theology in Golden Gate Baptist Seminary and the Columbia Evangelical Seminary.

And he is also a critical consultant for the Lockman Foundation's New American Standard Bible. As for Yusuf Ismail, he is an attorney, he's a practicing attorney, he's a keen debater on religion and comparative religion.

He has taken part in numerous debates with prominent personalities such as William Lane Craig, Dr. Mike Lycona, John Gilchrist, and many others. So without further ado, I will call upon Yusuf Ismail to present or to discuss with you his understanding of Christology in St. John's Gospel.

Yusuf Ismail on Christology in John’s Gospel

رَبِّ شْرَاحْ لِي صَدْرِي وَيَسْرْ لِي أَمْرِي وَحْلُ الْأُدْدَةَ مِنْ لِسَانِي يَفْقَوْا كَالِي صَدَقُ اللَّهِ صَدَقُ اللَّهُ الْعَزِيمِ. My dear respected elders, brothers, sisters, in both Islam and Christianity, I want to greet you with the greetings of peace.

As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. I want to thank Dr. James White for being willing to participate in this engagement. This is the second time I believe he's speaking in a mosque. I hope you're not too intimidated.

I'm used to this, but it's good to have you here and we welcome you to South Africa and we hope we're going to have a good, entertaining, and engaging encounter. Without basically perambulating, I want to get straight into the topic itself.

We're focusing on Christology in John's Gospel. Now, if you look at the definition of Christology, effectively it's a field of study within Christian theology which is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament, in the canonical Gospels, and of course in the epistles in the New Testament.

Basically, the focus is on the nature of Jesus, who he was, what his role in society, what was his nature in relation to the Father. And so as such, Christology is concerned with the details of his ministry, his acts and teachings to arrive at a clear understanding of who he is and his role in respect of salvation.

Now, the source for that particular material is the New Testament. When you look at the New Testament, generally speaking, the modern day consensus amongst the vast majority of scholars is this, that the New Testament contains books which are written pseudonymously.

Anonymous writings are basically books which are effectively based on the fact that you write a book, nobody knows the author. Pseudonymity is the idea where someone writes a book and ascribes it to someone else.

In fact, Bart Ehrman, who is an atheist, obviously, well-known, Dr. James White has had a few engagements with him, says that in virtually every major institution throughout the world, throughout the Western world, except the evangelical schools, this is the view.

This is basically the view, that the New Testament contains books written under false names and that's taught basically at every major institution. That's the view taught in seminaries and divinity schools.

But now, why is this view not necessarily widely known? We can well guess the reason. Before we go into the actual context of dealing with John's gospel and Christology in John, we need to focus on one thing.

Basically, when we're dealing with the gospels in general, the modern consensus is that Mark comes first, Matthew comes second, then Luke, and John is later. This is basically a practical relationship between the synoptic gospels, which goes to indicate that Matthew and Luke, there are sayings in Matthew and sayings in Luke which are similar to Mark, and most scholars hypothecate and suggest that these writers have been drawing directly from Mark.

Then, of course, there's material that is solely exclusive to Matthew and Luke, and these particular scholars go on to suggest that these are drawn from secondary sources, such as Q, the Queller, and so on.

The other problem we basically find is this, is that in its essence, effectively, the language spoken by Jesus in the first century was Aramaic. So even on the assumption that we can go back and trace his works to his time, that will be a secondary source material, because the material that you focus on is basically in Aramaic.

When you compare the gospels in general, you generally see that the stories of Jesus are found throughout the gospels. In other words, similar accounts are found in Mark, in Matthew, in Luke, and in John.

But as you go from one gospel to the other gospel, the particular versions become far more pronounced. John's gospel, which is the last gospel, has more significant pronouncements in terms of what is contained in relation to Jesus.

This is one particular example, and then we're going to move on. On the occasion when Jesus was transfigured, in Mark, Peter calls him Rabbi. But in Matthew 17, verse 4, when Jesus was transfigured, Peter calls him Lord.

So Matthew changes the wording to reflect the higher Christology of Christ. In Mark 13, verse 35, Jesus describes himself as the master of the house, but in Matthew 24, verse 42, he calls himself your Lord.

So can you see, Matthew is a later gospel, and the version in respect of how Jesus is presented is being improved. In fact, in Greek, you'd read something like this, in Mark, but in Matthew, Can you see there's an improvement, a more pronounced improvement?

Matthew made people call Jesus son of God. In Mark, Peter calls him the Messiah. In Matthew, same incident, Peter says, you are the Messiah, the son of the living God. So can you see there's an improvement?

And lastly, in the incident where the disciples of Jesus were basically drowning, in Mark's gospel, they say, Teacher, do you not care we are drowning? Save us! But in Matthew, they say, Lord, save us.

We are perishing. Same narration, but there's an improvement. So basically, what many scholars would basically go on to suggest that these writings were not basically biographical accounts, but more particularly, apologetic motifs to prove certain and specific theological points.

And so, when you look at John's gospel, which is the last gospel, you find massive improvements. With the exception of the passion narratives, most of the four stories found in John are not found in any of the synoptic gospels.

The first major event mentioned in the gospels is a baptism. But that's not explicitly mentioned in John. He's not explicitly said to be baptized. No reference to the virgin birth in John. No preaching of the kingdom of God in John.

Why? If these versions and views were contained in other writings, then why is it not in John's gospel? According to most scholars, John was written near Ephesus, between 110 and 115. However, some scholars would say that John of Zebedee was beheaded by a gripper in the year 44.

So how is it possible that someone inspires John to write the gospel 60 years after he allegedly died? William Barclay, in his guide to the New Testament, in referring to the gospel of John, says, that we shall see beyond doubt that the authority of John lies behind the gospel, although it may well be that the actual form and style did not come from his hand.

Now, why would he say that? What about the pronouns? If you look at the last gospel of John, the last chapter in the gospel of John, in referring to a book allegedly written by John, this is how it reads.

This is a disciple that wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. Who is we? Royal plural? Of course not. And there are many other things that Jesus did if they were written, I suppose, that even the whole world could not contain the books that should be written.

Now look at the change in pronouns. From we to his, referring to John, to I, in a book allegedly said to be written by John. So can you see the foundational source within which we are focusing on tonight's debate becomes highly problematic.

We are discussing a book which could effectively be written by anyone. Why is there in John no parable? Why are there no stories of casting out of demons? Why is there no transfiguration? Why is there no cleansing of temple?

Why is there no institution of the Lord's Supper? Why is there, in principle, no official trial before any Jewish council? And in fact, in John's gospel, miracles are not even called miracles. You find unique to John's gospel the I am sayings.

He says, I am the bread of life. Before Abraham was, I am. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was God. If this was not what Jesus said, then why is it not in the other gospels?

The speech to Nicodemus, why is it only in John? The speech to the Samaritan woman, why is it only in John? The speech about himself and not about the kingdom of God, why is it only in John? Why are John's accounts of the passion narrative slightly different?

I'll give you one classic example, just to give you the point and to drive your point. When did Jesus die? Anyone knows when Jesus died? You see, if you look at Mark's gospel, we are told that Jesus was crucified at 9 o 'clock in the morning.

In other words, he dies on the day of the Passover. You know what the Passover is? It's a celebration. The Jews are supposed to sacrifice a lamb. When they smeared the blood on the door, the angel of death passed over those doors and took the lives of other people.

So Jews celebrate that day. Now in John's gospel, Jesus dies on that very day. The day after the lambs were prepared. Meaning the day before you sacrifice the lambs, the next day is the day of the Passover.

In John's gospel, Jesus dies on the day of the preparation for Passover and it was about noon. Noon? On the day of the preparation for the Passover? In Mark's gospel, he was supposed to have lived on that day.

So why is it in John's gospel he dies the day before? What's the reason? Well, some scholars would say that if you look at John's gospel, which is the last of our gospels. Effectively, some 25 years after Mark.

John is the only gospel that basically refers to Jesus as the lamb who comes and takes away the sins of the world. And so effectively, this is declared by John the Baptist on numerous occasions. But the question is, why did John, our latest gospel, change the day and time when Jesus died?

It may be because in John's gospel, Jesus is the Passover lamb. Therefore, he dies on the day that the lambs are being sacrificed. Accordingly, in other words, John has changed the historical datum in order to prove a theological point.

Jesus is a sacrificial lamb. And in order to convey that theological point, John has to create a discrepancy between his account and the account that is contained in Mark. In Mark, he lives on that day.

In John, he dies on the day that the lambs are being slaughtered. It's like someone saying, you're dying after Eid al-Adha. Another version says, you die on the day of Eid al-Adha. Maybe you are the sacrificial lamb.

Can you see the problem? That is the significance that you find in John's gospel. And that's a problem which many scholars have not been able to resolve. So the question is, why does Jesus die a day earlier than John?

It's because there is a proof of a particular theological point that John wanted to indicate. Now, I make the point that scholars argue that the nature of Christ in John's gospel is more pronounced. But some would argue that even on the very basis of looking at some of these passages, the humanity of Jesus, in fact, comes across.

Let's look at John 1, verses 1 -2. If you look in Greek, it's something like this. Now, if you look at, effectively, John 1 -1, you see that effectively, before I go into the word, it speaks about the logos.

According to John Lightfoot, in his commentary on the gospel of John, he says that the word logos, denoting both reason and speech, was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote.

So in other words, logos means word, but it was an expression of the manifestation of the unseen God, the absolute being. It includes all modes by which God unknown. Most Trinitarians believe that the logos directly refers to Jesus Christ.

So in many versions, the logos is capitalized with the word, word, in capital letters. However, this word logos occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament. And in both the NIV and the King James Version, it's capitalized only seven times.

Why? So how can it be determined what the logos is in John 1, verse 1? Any occurrence of logos, you have to look at the particular context. I would assert that, as many scholars have pointed out, that logos is not a lexical definition of Jesus Christ.

You see, if you were to say in the beginning was the word and the word was God, replace it with Jesus. In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God. It doesn't make sense. Logos is not a lexical definition of Jesus.

The word is not synonymous with Jesus, nor is it even synonymous with Messiah. When you look at a word that occurs more than 300 times and it's capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize it and when not to capitalize it is based upon the actual translator's bias.

Any Greek lexicon will also show that there's a wide range of meanings in respect of logos. Words you say in Romans, a statement you make, logos. I will ask you one question, logos. Galatians 5 .4, the entire law is summed up in a single logos.

Proverbs, John 4 .37, thus the logos, one serves and another reaps and so on and so forth. So the point is that Jesus is not a lexical definition of logos according to Greek grammar. And so on that basis, how do you determine whether logos should be capitalized or whether it should be with a small letter?

Then we go to the next phrase. Can you see the distinction between the two? Εν αρχαίνω λόγος, καὶ λόγος εν πρὸς τον Θεόν. Καὶ Θεὸς. Is τον Θεόν and Θεὸς the same? Τον Θεόν referring to God with a definite article.

Θεὸς referring to God, no article, indefinite article. So effectively, the last phrase in the verse which most verses translate as the word was God should not be translated in that way. The Greek language uses the word God, Θεὸς to refer to the Father as well as to other authorities.

Now James and I are in agreement on this particular point. That at the time the New Testament was written, Greek manuscripts were written in capital letters. The upper and lower case were blended, were not blended as we see today.

So the distinction that we could make between God and God could not be made. And so the context became the judge in terms of what Θεὸς should refer to. Although the context is the final arbiter, it is always the case that when God refers to God Almighty, the definite article appears.

So the lack of an article in Greek grammar denotes that God in the final verse is a wrong translation. Tonfion and Θεὸς are not the same. Tonfion, God Almighty. Θεὸς, Godly. God, Divine, Divine like. The New English Bible translated by James Moffat correctly translates it in saying what God was, the word was.

Done by James Moffat from the Moffat Bible. William Barclay in Jesus As I Knew Him says when in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb to be, and when both have the definite article, then one is fully identified with the other.

But when one of them is without the article, it becomes a noun, an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or the sphere towards which other things in fact belong to. This is a book which is recommended by James White.

It's a book called Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. In an email encounter with him, I asked James, is this book recommended? Would you recommend this book? He says he even used this book. He taught at one of the colleges in the United States.

And he sees this as a book of authority. It's written by a friend of his, someone called Daniel Wallace. And Daniel Wallace in referring to John 1 says the following. He says the most likely candidate for Θεὸς is qualitative, meaning a quality.

If I say this food is divine, does it mean the food is God? If I say you are godly, does it mean you are almighty God? And so he says this is true for the largest pre-verbal anaphorous predicate nominatives that fall into this category.

Wow. And basically what he's saying, it's like when you defer a noun, a barn, red barn, blue lorry, yellow lorry, and so on and so forth. And so he says that possible translations in respect of that John 1 is what God was, the word was.

It doesn't mean that the word was almighty God. And he concludes by saying such an option, meaning adopting the idea that the word God should be qualitative, does not impugn necessarily on the divinity of Christ.

Does it not? Of course it does. So why does Daniel Wallace go out of his way after explaining a basic rule in Greek grammar to go and emphasize that this option doesn't impugn on the divinity of Christ?

Why? What's his motive? We know why, because he's a Trinitarian. So he has to justify his position at the end of the day that even though this is not with the definite article, it doesn't mean God almighty, it's qualitative.

However, it doesn't impact on the divinity of Christ. Can you see the agenda that's at play? And of course that's the Amazon's testimony on Greek grammar. That's a book which is recommended by James White.

I'm not making up anything. Check it up. See what Daniel Wallace says. He says that John 1, 1, the God in the last instance should be viewed as qualitative as opposed to being viewed as almighty God. And I'll leave you with the Sahidic Coptic.

If you look at Sahidic Coptic translation of the New Testament, this is it here, those of you who can read it. In October 2011 in the Journal of Theological Studies, both Brian Wright and Tim Rischutte reasoned that the indefinite article in the Coptic translation of John 1, 1 has a qualitative meaning.

Basically means, if I were to say you are divinely, you are God-like. If I were to, for example, say, this is common, if I say James White is the man. I use a definite article before both James and man, and I therefore identify James with someone.

An apologist, renowned apologist from the United States. But if I say James White is man, then I'm basically omitting the definite article. I mean that James must be classified as a man, he's not an alien or something, he's a human being.

Can you see the distinction between the two? So John 1, 1 is qualitative in nature, and what becomes problematic is when people, through their bias, prejudice, have to basically change the entire foundations of Greek grammar in order to prove certain theological points.

That becomes unnecessary, and that becomes problematic. I can give you more than 30 different Bible translations where they recognize this principle which I've explained, and where they translate as, and the word was, a God.

A God. Literal translation in the New Testament. Concise commentary on the Holy Bible by Richard Young. Das Evangelium Nach Johannes. The Coptic version of the NT. The New Testament of our Lord. The Montessorian of the Gospel history according to four evangelists, and so on and so forth.

All of these recognize that particular point. So can you see that something which is viewed as a basis in proving the divinity of Christ, in fact, tells us something else. Let's look at the next passage, John 8, 58.

Now if you can forgive my horrible explanation of Greek, in verse 57 it says that you said to him, you are not yet 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.

So that seems to be an indication that Jesus is divine. But if you look at the Greek, it says here. Look at the context of the Greek. I am, I exist, is the first person singular present tense of the verb to be in ancient Greek.

And the use of this phrase in some of the uses found in the Gospel of John is given theological significance by some Christians. Some argue that this should basically refer to the fact that Jesus was proclaiming that he was God.

But if you look at it further down in John's Gospel, there was a man born blind that Jesus healed, was not claiming to be God. And he used the same expression, I am the man, or I am, F-Y-M-E. But in brackets you have the expression, the man.

The fact that the exact same phrase is translated in two different ways, one as I am, in reference to Jesus. And in another instance, I am the man, is one reason it's so hard for the average Christian to catch the joke.

That effectively this verse is used in different contexts and in different scenarios. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and so their bias appears in various places in the translations. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as I am.

He uses the word, F-Y-M-E. Now, would we conclude that when Paul uses the word, F-Y-M-E, I am, that did not make Paul God. When the blind man used it, that did not make the blind man God. Only when Jesus uses it, it makes him God.

F-Y-M-E does not identify Jesus with God, but effectively what it does is that it draws attention to him in the strongest possible terms. I am the one, the one you must look at, listen to if you would know God.

It occurs many times in the New Testament. I've given you Mark 13 .6, Luke 21 .8, John 13 .19, Matthew 14 .27, when the disciples use the expression. But in all those instances, nowhere are they understood to have been viewed as divine beings or divine creatures.

Then the other argument is made that because Jesus was before Abraham, so Jesus must have been God. Now, there is no question that Jesus figuratively existed before in Abraham's time, but he did not actually physically exist as a person.

He existed in the mind of God. I'll give you an example. In Hebrews 11 .10, it says, in reference to Abraham, for he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Now, Abraham looked for a city that is still in the future, yet the Bible says that Abraham saw it. Now, in what sense could Abraham have seen something in the future? Abraham saw the day of Christ before God told him it was coming, and Abraham saw it by faith.

Although Abraham saw the day of Christ by faith, that day existed in the mind of God long before Abraham. So in the context of God's plan existing from the beginning, Christ certainly was before Abraham.

But you and I were also before Abraham because all of us were in the mind of God. Christ was the plan, according to Christian theology, for God's plan for so-called redemption long before Abraham lived.

So we're not the only ones that believe that Jesus' statement does not in fact make him God or divine in any particular respect. What about the... anyone knows who this is? Anybody? Thomas! Now, in John 20, verse 28, Thomas answered him and said unto him, my Lord and my God.

That means Jesus is God, am I correct? That's the explanation. My Lord, my God, means Jesus is God. But again, go back to the Greek. If you look to the Greek, basically we are told that Thomas never believed that the other disciples had seen Jesus alive.

And so eight days later, his disciples were inside, Thomas was with them, and then Jesus appeared. Then Jesus said to Thomas,. Then he said to Thomas, put your finger here and see my hands, and put out your hand and place it in my side.

Do not disbelieve, but believe. Then Thomas answered him, he said, Is he referring to Jesus as God? He says, In reference to what Jesus tells him. The context of the verse shows that the subject, Jesus, was alive.

Three verses earlier, Thomas had ignored the eyewitness' testimony of the other Gospels when they told him they had seen Jesus. In Luke 24, verse 36, when he says, Behold my hands and my feet, that is I myself.

Handle me and see, for a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have. When someone says a spirit has no flesh and bones, does it mean it has flesh and bones? Maybe Dr. White could perhaps exegete that for us.

And so Thomas wasn't there. Now he sees him, and so Jesus appears before him. Thomas' exclamation was one of surprise and joy. Someone gives you bad news, what do you say? My God, am I referring to you as my God?

Of course not. When someone gives you great news. Jesus, and even on the assumption that he was referring to him as God, this is a problem. Jesus never referred to himself as Kyrios or Theos, never, not once.

Or Tontheon, in the absolute sense. So what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus my God? The Greek language uses the word Theos with a broad meaning that is customary. For example, in the Greek language, in Acts 12 .22, a Roman governor is called Theos.

In 2 Corinthians chapter 4 verse 4, it says the devil is the Hothios of this world. Hothios means with a definite article, the God. Meaning it should be translated as the devil is almighty God of this world.

But yet when it's translated in 2 Corinthians, they translate it with a small g, not with a capital G. Because they say, well look, the context indicates otherwise. So why is it something which is pronounced in someone else's name, made by Thomas.

And so you come to certain particular conclusions. In concessions of the Trinitarians, Michaelis, a Trinitarian, writes. I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at once from the extreme of doubt to the highest degree of faith.

And acknowledged Christ to be God. This appears to me too much for the then existing knowledge of the disciples. And we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

He's a Trinitarian. I am therefore inclined to understand this expression, which broke out in the height of his astonishment. In a figurative sense, denoting only who I shall ever reverence in the highest degree.

For the word God is not always used in the strict doctrinal sense. Meaning there are many passages in the New Testament where the word God is used. Like for example in reference to a Roman governor. Like for example in reference to the devil.

But you don't take the devil as being almighty God. So why is it that when Thomas mentions, In response to something where Jesus shows him that he is alive. You see, the disciples thought that he was dead.

Am I correct? They heard. They were not eyewitnesses. They forsook him and fled. Then Jesus goes to the upper room. And then he says, why are you troubled? Why do thoughts arise in your mind? Behold my hands and my feet that it is I myself.

Handle me and see for a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have. Now what's the implications when someone says and emphasizes a spirit has no flesh and bones. What's the implication when someone says give me food to eat.

What's the implication of all of this? It's to show that look he's alive. Why were the disciples terrified? They were not eyewitnesses. Why was one woman Mary Magdalene when she went to the tomb not terrified?

Because she was an eyewitness. We're not debating the crucifixion tonight. But the point is Thomas was not available at the incident. And so the response that he gave was the fact that his disbelief had been disproven by Jesus.

In appearing to him and show him look. Look at my prince here. Feel the side and be not faithless but believe. Blessed are those who have not seen me and believe. And in response to that Thomas says oh my God and my Lord.

It doesn't necessarily mean he was referring to Jesus as my God and my Lord. And even if he was referring to Jesus what precedent was there in terms of the New Testament. In terms of indicating that Jesus was in fact God.

I see I've got one minute. Friends the point I'm trying to emphasize is this. When you look at the context of the New Testament. As I showed you from the indication from the beginning. It's important that you have to look at from the perspective of the idea.

That these writings were written for third parties. They were written primarily as apologetic motifs. I showed you practical examples here demonstrating to you. That same similar incidents are found parallel throughout the whole Gospels.

And effectively there is a more pronounced version of Jesus. But even in John's Gospel where there is an absolute pronouncement. Where you have passages which are totally unique in reference to Jesus.

Even on that level it can be shown. That a basic interpretative relationship with the text. And a basic understanding of Greek grammar. Should be able to disprove the idea that Jesus was claiming divinity.

Or that he was in any way divine in the absolute sense. And so I will leave you with that. I know time has come to an end in such a short period. I'm looking forward to Dr. James response to this particular presentation.

And we hope that the discussion continues. In a more fruitful and an extremely engaging fashion. Thank you very much. God bless you and good luck James.

Thank you attorney Yusuf Ismail. And I would like to invite Dr. White to enlighten us on Christology in John's Gospel.

Dr. White on Christology in John’s Gospel

It is indeed an honor to be with you here this evening in this beautiful place. Tremendous turnout this evening. I want to say right from the start I am very thankful to Yusuf Ismail for being here this evening.

It is my tradition as he well knows. A tradition I began at Biola University in 2006 in a debate with Sheikh Shabir Ali. To give something to my opponent. I have brought from America a book that has nothing to do with a dialogue between Christianity and Islam.

It is a book by a man that I know. He is a much better writer than I am. And it is on the holiness of God. I think it is one that I think many of you would enjoy as well. And I would like to give it to Yusuf.

I am not here this evening for any gotcha moments. I am not here this evening to try to score debate points. I have come literally halfway across the world for each and every one of you. I am thrilled to see you here this evening.

First of all I compliment you on being able to sit on a floor a lot longer than any Christian ever could. It is amazing how you can do that. But it is such a pleasure for me and an honor for me for you to be here and to hear what I have to say.

I want to show you respect. Especially in the next half of the debate when I speak about what the Quran teaches. I hope you will hear that I have done everything in my power to accurately handle your text.

And to handle it with respect. Even when I am in disagreement. And that is what I ask of you. When you handle my text, my divine scriptures. That you would apply the same standards to my scriptures that you would apply to your own.

In fact the Quran speaks of having equal scales, does it not? Of being fair in the analysis that we are to make. I am simply asking you, you are the judges this evening. There is no debate judges, there is no score this evening.

You are the debate judges. What I am going to ask you to do is hold us both to the same standard. See if we will apply the same standard to our own scriptures that we apply to the other person's scriptures.

Will you do that for me? Because I think that is very, very important. I hope you understand that I am here this evening because I think that we need to move the debate forward. From simply repeating the same debate topics over and over again.

We already know what the issues are. We have had a billion debates on was Muhammad a prophet? Was Jesus just a prophet? Deity of Christ? The Quran versus the Bible? Etc, etc, etc. We have to move forward my friends in understanding each other and hearing each other.

And I want you to hear me this evening and to hear my heart. Yusuf has just talked to you about the Gospel of John. He talked at the beginning about what certain types of scholars believe. Well if I cited the same kind of scholarship about the Quran that Yusuf cites about the Gospel of John.

I could find all sorts of scholars that believe that the Quran was edited and redacted. And it wasn't in the form that it is in today. And all sorts of things. All of us can find unbelieving scholarship.

But it is interesting. Just a few moments ago Yusuf was saying well most Bible translators are Trinitarians. So they are biased. When you look at translations of the Quran. Don't you look for translations done by believing Muslims?

Do you look for liberal translations done by unbelievers? As the type of translation you are going to use of the Quran? So why should we be looking to liberal translations of the Bible done by people who don't believe that it is even what the Quran says it is?

What does the Quran say about the Torah and the Injil? It's Natsal. It's sent down. It contains what? Light and guidance. Right? And so if we are going to be consistent. Then I need to cite the same kind of scholarship about your book.