James White Adnan Rashid Debate Did Jesus & Mohammed Preach the Same Thing - Trinity College Dublin

IERA UK, he's had many talks at the Basin Clinic College before, and we welcome him once again.

And he's a big, many times a speaker before, such as Cecil Andrews, which was last year, here in this theater.

And then we have Dr. James White from Alpha Omega Ministries in Japan and in South America, Phoenix, Arizona.

He's an accomplished debater, professor, and author of many books, such as King James, Only Controversy, and Forgotten Communities.

So we welcome those speakers into that. And just to run over the format of the debate today, it will be, each speaker will have 20 minutes, followed by a reply of 10 minutes each.

Then there will be a crossfire of 5 minutes, followed by question and answers, which will be 30 minutes long. And there will be a concluding statement from each speaker, which will be 5 minutes long as well.

So please ask everybody to hold their questions until the end. And whenever there is a question and answer session, please have the question, you know, just a clear, laid -out question.

Nothing too long, because we won't have enough time. We want to give everyone a great chance. And each speaker will have equal amounts of questions.

Whenever there's one minute left in the debate, I will bend my head out of my hand and say something like this to signify to the speakers that there is one minute left.

If any speaker goes over time, time will be deducted in the end from their following sessions.

So without any further ado, I would like to welcome the NAMASHEIKH first. Thank you.

Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim. Alhamdulillah wa salatu wa salamu ala Rasulillah. All praises are due to God, the

God of Abraham, the God of Noah, them all, all who worship the same

God. All of whom preach the same message. All of whom preach the same faith in different words to different people in different times, in different places.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am Abnar Masheikh from London. And it is a privilege once again to debate a reputable scholar such as Dr.

James White in Ireland. Today's topic is did Jesus and Muhammad preach the same faith?

This is a very, very interesting topic. Before we actually go into the topic, ladies and gentlemen, we have to determine as to where and when and how these prophets actually preached.

The Christians and Muslims are unanimous on one point. And that point is that Jesus was definitely a prophet of God.

He was definitely a messenger of God. And in fact, the Muslims believe that he was one of the top five messengers of God, including, of course,

Moses, Abraham, Noah and Muhammad. Peace be upon them all.

And we know that Jesus came to the Israelites in the first century.

And historically speaking, we cannot simply separate Jesus from his

Jewish family. Let me explain. Jesus came to the Jews. This much is very clear even in the

Gospels. And he never actively preached to the Gentiles. In fact, in the

Gospel of Matthew, chapter 15, verse 24, we are told that he told his companions, his disciples, that I was not sent to anyone but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

So, in other words, Jesus is telling his disciples here that I was sent only to the Israelites. Hence, no preaching to the

Gentiles or the Romans or the Greeks at the time. So, this was an

Israelite prophet, historically speaking. And most historians, they don't actually take the four

Gospels very seriously as historical documents. The four Gospels were written for religious audiences, people who believed in Jesus Christ as a messianic figure.

Some believed him to be God in flesh. Some believed him to be a messenger of God.

Some actually asserted that he was a prophet of God. And there were diversions and distinct views among the

Christians prevalent at the time of Jesus, not only at his time. And, of course, in the later 1st century and the 2nd century and the 3rd century.

So, we have Christian groups believing in different things in different places at different times.

So, we have a group called the Abunites, who were Jewish Christians, who were

Jews, law -observing Jews, who believed in Jesus Christ as a prophet of God, as a messenger of God.

And they had two groups within themselves. One group actually believed that he had a virgin birth. The other group of Abunites actually didn't believe in the virgin birth.

This is confirmed by a 3rd century Church father called Origen, that the Abunites were actually split on this very issue.

So, the Abunites believed in Jesus Christ and they never believed that he was God in flesh. In fact, the

Abunites believed that Paul was an apostate from the law of the Jews. In other words,

Paul was a liar. He simply cannot be followed, he must be rejected, because he came and he simply did away with the law.

And as we read the writings of Paul, we clearly see that Paul came and he stated that Jesus died for our sins on the cross.

Hence, for that reason, law is no longer necessary for Christians to follow. Christians don't have to circumcise and don't have to follow the

Jewish dietary laws. So, for this reason, these Abunites, Jewish Christians, Jews, who believed in Jesus Christ, rejected

Paul. And there were other, of course, Christians who followed James or the

Church of Jerusalem, which was actually against some of the teachings

Paul had to share with the Gentile Christian world at the time. So, Jesus came and he preached in the first century in a very

Jewish milieu, in a very Jewish environment, talking to the Jews, preaching to the

Jews. And what faith was he preaching to the Jews? This is the question now. Where did the

Christians differ from the Jews? The Christians differ with the Jews on a major issue known as the doctrine of the

Trinity, for example. Or they, of course, differ with the Jews on this issue of atonement by Jesus giving his own life on the cross.

And there are many more things we can discuss. So, what was he actually preaching?

What was Jesus trying to do in the first century with the Jews? When we actually read his views in the four

Gospels. Now, how do we determine as to what he preached and what he told his people? The only sources available to us today are the four

Gospels about his life. And, unfortunately, all other documents were systemically destroyed by the

Church. In the early centuries, especially in the fourth century when the Church came to power, the

Trinitarian Church laws were issued to suppress all other beliefs and all other writings which the

Christians had. And this is clearly stated in Theodosian Code. If you don't believe me, you need to pick up Theodosian Code when

Emperor Theodosius was governing the Roman world and the law was issued. And Christians who differed with the established

Church, the Trinitarian Church, were actually heavily, actively pursued and systemically destroyed.

This is another topic in itself. So, how do we know what Jesus actually preached? The Gospels cannot possibly be the best sources to find out what

Jesus actually preached because Gospels themselves very often actually differ with each other on major details.

This, again, is another topic in itself. But I'll give you a few examples. In the

Gospels, we have three Gospels. The first three Gospels, the Gospel of Matthew, Mark and Luke.

These three Gospels are known as the Synoptic Gospels. And this is like a triangular source material we have.

And the Gospel of Mark is thought to be the earliest Gospel among these three Gospels. And the

Gospel of Mark took information from some oral tradition which was around at the time.

And it is thought that Mark actually took what he took from Peter. But this is only an assertion.

It's only a claim. I would like James to come and give us solid evidence in this regard to show that Mark definitely took from Peter and released some testimonies from the first century.

Not from the second century, from the first century. No speculations are good enough on this because this is about faith.

This is about belief. So, in order to establish your faith, you must have solid, robust grounds which are certain.

Certain realities. No speculations are good enough in this regard. So, it is thought that Mark took from Peter.

And it is also thought by scholars that Luke and Matthew were heavily copying from not only

Mark, another source called the Q document. There was a document called

Q. It's, of course, a hypothesis. And it is not certain whether Q ever existed.

But the scholars assert that because there is some information which cannot be found in the book of Mark, it must have been copied by Luke and Matthew from another source called

Q. Then we have the Germanic tradition which is entirely different. The Christology actually goes to a different level, different dimension.

Here in the Gospel of John, Jesus is raised from a prophet, from a messiah, from a prophet or messenger to a divine figure.

He becomes a divine figure all of a sudden in the Gospel of John. And iron statements actually emerge.

These iron statements cannot be found in this Gnostic tradition. So, for some reason,

John had to actually set up the Christology about Jesus Christ and his view on Jesus Christ.

And all of a sudden, Jesus turns into a different person. So, how do we know what Jesus actually preached?

It is very difficult to determine. For that reason, we must go to historians who actually scrutinise every single source about Jesus Christ and take the most authentic information about him.

So, what do historians come up with? What do they think Jesus actually preached? So, we have one such historian known as James D .G.

Dunn, for example. He is one of the most prolific authors alive today writing on patristic history, especially the history of Christianity in the 1st century.

And he is of the view that all we can establish about Jesus Christ for certain is that he was a

Jewish prophet who preached to the Jews in the 1st century. Who preached to the

Jews in the 1st century and he was a strict law -abiding Jew and he was a revolutionary character.

i .e. he was a messiah. He claimed to be a messiah. He was a messianic figure. That's all we can establish about Jesus Christ.

And this is a man who is one of the biggest authorities in the field. Of course, there are other scholars who also believe in the same conclusion.

People like E .T. Sanders and Jesus Verbus, all these people actually assert that all we can establish about Jesus is that he was a

Jewish prophet. So, when we actually go to the Gospels and see some snippets of information about Jesus Christ and some of his statements or actually get into him.

I as a Muslim, let me clarify very quickly, ladies and gentlemen. We as Muslims believe that the

Gospels are not the word of God. They're not the word of God. There is word of God in the

Gospels, a meaning, not a word. The authors who were writing on behalf of Jesus Christ, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, they were simply writing what they thought was the truth.

Now, whether what they were writing was the truth or not is another question altogether, which is another debate.

But they were simply writing for their audiences, trying to give their version of Jesus Christ to people they were writing for.

So, they were not writing for God. They weren't inspired by God. And if they were inspired and the

Christians claim that they were inspired, I need some evidence in this regard. Who was the first person among the

Christians or in the Christian history to tell us that these authors were actually inspired?

Did they themselves claim that they were inspired? Did Matthew say that I'm writing because God is teaching me or telling me to write?

Did Mark say that I'm writing because God is revealing this to me? Did John say that this is from God Almighty?

If that is not the case, ladies and gentlemen, then why do we think today that these people were writing on behalf of God?

Who told us that? This is the question I pose. And if that's not the case, then we must scrutinise this information historically and see that a

Jewish prophet in the first century, what would he actually preach to the Jews? Would he preach something alien to the

Jews, which they would never believe in? Or would he preach something to them which they would accept wholeheartedly?

Something that made sense to them, rather than something that didn't make sense to them, such as the

Trinity, the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is entirely alien to the Jews.

Yet it wasn't alien to the Greeks and the Romans, because Greeks and Romans could accept man and God.

They could accept a triadic formula. They could accept a Trinity, for example, because the doctrine of the

Trinity in origin, philosophically speaking, is Platonic in origin. It is

Greek in origin. It is not Jewish. There is no Trinity in the Old Testament. And there are major Christian authorities who have actually acknowledged that fact, such as William Lane Craig, who is one of the most prolific

Christian debaters in the world today. He has clearly acknowledged that the doctrine of the

Trinity is non -existent in the Old Testament. Of course, there's another debate now about the

New Testament, whether the doctrine of the Trinity actually exists in the New Testament. So what did he actually preach?

We have to keep the Jewish Jesus in our minds when we are reading about him in the

Gospels. Now, I believe in the Gospels there are words which may have come from Jesus Christ.

Which may have come, because these authors, the Gospel authors, were simply picking up information from the oral tradition which was around at the time, and they may have picked up some authentic information which came from Jesus Christ.

How do we know this? Now, when we look at the teaching of Jesus Christ to the Jews, we see that this is exactly what a

Jewish prophet would preach to the Jews. And how does that conform to Islam?

The question is now, did Muhammad and Jesus actually preach the same religion? No, Muhammad was not a

Jewish prophet. He was definitely a prophet of God. There's no doubt about that. And we know that for a fact, because he was a man of great character.

For example, he could either be one of these three. Either he was a liar, or truthful, or deluded.

When we look at his history, we know that he could not be a liar because he was offered all the riches and pomp and glitter of this world.

People came to him, they offered him money, they offered him a woman, they offered him power, they offered him everything he could imagine to achieve if he was a liar.

And he refused. He said, put the sword in my right hand, put the woman in my left, I will never give up this message which is on God.

He was not a liar. A liar would never put his life in danger. A liar would never put his family's life in danger.

And his wife died because of an illness she contracted during a boycott which was inflicted against him by the

Quraysh, his own tribe. His daughters suffered. Two of his daughters were immediately divorced when he preached

Islam to his people. And what was his message? People, worship one

God alone and you will prosper. And this is exactly what Jesus preached. In the Gospel of Mark, chapter 12, verse 29, we are told that a

Jewish man came to Jesus Christ. And he told him, how much time do we have?

Five minutes, thank you. So, a Jewish man comes to Jesus Christ and he asks him,

Master, what is the first commandment? What is the first commandment? And Jesus responds by saying, hear

O Israel, listen carefully, an Israelite prophet, a Jewish prophet talking to the Jews. And who are the

Jews, ladies and gentlemen? Jews do not worship a trinity. They are not a trinitarian people. No scholar on the planet will ever claim that the

Jews were a trinitarian people. They believed in one God, in one person.

One being consisting of one person. And that person was the Father, with a capital

F. How do we know this? Jesus confirms this in the Gospel. In chapter 8 of the

Gospel of John, verse 54, we are told that Jesus is speaking to a crowd of Jews.

And he tells them, I do not glorify myself, it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you the

Jews say that he is your God. Father. Father is the

God of the Jews, according to the book of Isaiah, chapter 63, verse 16. And there are many more passages where Father, with a capital

F, is shown to be the God of the Israelites. And that same God talks to the

Jews in the book of Isaiah, chapter 44, verse 6, that I am the first, I am the last, and there is no one else beside me.

So the Jews do not know any other God except the Father. They do not know the Son, and they do not know the Spirit.

This Jewish man comes to Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 12, verse 29, asking Him, what is the first commandment,

Jesus? O Master, O Rabbi, what is the first commandment? And he tells them, hear, O Israel, the

Lord, our God, is one Lord. Worship, or love, thy

God with all thy mind, with all thy heart, with all thy soul. And what does the Jew say?

And the scribes said unto him, well, Master, thou hast said the truth, for there is one

God, and there is none other but He. And then Jesus responds to him by saying, thou art not far from the kingdom of God.

In other words, Jesus actually confirms what that Jew believes in. And remember, that Jew never worshipped a trinity.

He only worshipped the Father. When Jesus tells him that there is only one God, in his mind is only the

Father. The trinity does not exist. And Jesus confirms his belief. He does not tell him, hold on a second, you

Jews. Now, you've been worshipping the Father all the way in those previous centuries. Now, there is a new covenant.

I, the Son, am also a person within the trinity, and so is the Spirit. So now you need to worship three persons within one being.

He didn't say that to the Jew. He told him, hear, O Israel, the Lord, our God, is one

Lord. And this is exactly, hang on. Okay, this is exactly what

Prophet Muhammad told his people. O people, listen and worship one

God alone and you will prosper. Then, we are told that Jesus tells his people that if you love me, then follow me.

In the Gospel of John, Chapter 8, Verse 42, we are told, Jesus said unto them, if God were your

Father, ye would love me. For I have proceeded forth and came from God, neither came

I of myself, but he sent me. This is exactly what the Qur 'an states, that Prophet Muhammad was told to tell his people, that if you love

God, follow me. I am a prophet of God, I'm a messenger of God. In John 14, verse 1, we are told again, let not your heart be troubled.

Ye believe in God, believe also in me. And this is exactly what Prophet Muhammad taught his people, that if you believe in God, then believe in me.

Not for the law of God. Thank you so much. Well, good evening and welcome.

It is truly an honor to be with you here at Trinity College in Dublin. It is an honor to be debating Adnan Rashid on this very, very important topic.

I think you have chosen the good thing to be out this evening, to ask the question, Jesus and Muhammad, did they preach the same message?

Now, the debate tonight will center on whether we will allow the New Testament to define

Jesus' teaching, or whether we will insist upon placing it in some other context, and denying its own eternal consistency and harmony, and you've already seen that.

Historically, the only way to know what Jesus taught, is to look at what was recorded in the first century about Jesus Christ and his teaching, and that is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The only sources that exist that came from the first century, and that came from the context of Second Temple Judaism, which

Jesus lived and preached. The message of Jesus is defined by the consistent testimony of the scriptures that come from the first century, and were written by his initial followers, not by later writings of the following centuries.

That, I think, is just given by the fact of logic. Now, Jesus confessed in that material that there was one true

God. He often quoted the Shema. Shema is that I yell Yahweh, Elohim, Yahweh is God. Here in Israel, Yahweh is our

God. Yahweh is one. Jesus taught God's law was good and unaggregated.

In fact, he taught anyone who teaches you to not observe this law is the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Of course, he also taught that he was the fulfillment of that law. Jesus taught his followers to pray.

He taught his followers to give alms, to do good for the poor, to honor their father and their mother.

Jesus was a Jewish prophet, and he addressed concerns of Second Temple Judaism.

All these things would find parallels in Muhammad's teachings, or in the teachings of the

Jewish rabbis of Jesus' day. But to limit or even define

Jesus' teachings by these things misses the whole point of the

Gospels in the New Testament. You see, my friends, there was a reason why Jesus was in conflict with the

Jewish leaders from the very start of his ministry. And that's the same reason why the

Quran seeks to warn Christians against excess in their deen, in their religion, in Surah 4, 171.

Now, one question to keep in mind this evening. What evidence is there that the author of the

Quran had any knowledge at all of the content and meaning of the

Christian Gospel? I've never had a Muslim substantiate the idea that the author of the

Quran actually knew what was in the New Testament, so as to make any meaningful commentary upon it.

Now, I understand from the Orthodox Islamic perspective, well, the author of the Quran was Allah himself. Well, all of the historians that Adnan just quoted would never accept that as a given.

Not a single one of them. James D .G. Dunn wouldn't. He would say, no, we need to look at the author in the context in which he was writing, and is there any evidence that the author of the

Quran even knew what the Gospels said about Jesus? That he even knew that there were Gospels? There's no evidence of that.

The only verse cited directly from the Bible in the Quran is the Lex Palaiologos in I for Naughty Two for Two.

There's one other possible text from the Psalms, but there were even Muslim scholars that dispute whether that's the case.

There is no evidence that the author of the Quran had any direct knowledge of what the

New Testament actually teaches, so as to respond to it. And so I just simply have to make a plea.

The Quran talks about having equal weights and fair scales. Now, the immediate application of that was, in business, do what's right, be fair.

But I think we can make a broader application of that, and Muslim writers have, the fact that Muslims should be truthful, they should use equal standards.

And I submit to you that the application of naturalistic materialism and that worldview to either the

Quran or the New Testament is going to result in a degradation of those texts and an interpretation of those texts that is completely different than their authors intended.

And it's my submission to you that already this evening, Adnan has used scholarship and conclusions.

He would never allow it to be applied to the Quran, but he's applied it to the New Testament. And that is unfair.

It is a violation of the Quran itself, which says to argue in a way that is best. Some translations say, a way that is fair.

We must use the same standards. And so to a Muslim this evening,

I say, you must use the same standards you used to defend the Quran to criticize my

New Testament and the Gospels. You must. Or you're using different standards. We must avoid anachronism as well.

You cannot make the Quran the standard and then look back over history and say, well, it doesn't fit this. That's reading things backwards.

That's not even the argument of Surah 5, which we'll get into another time. Now, if Adnan Rashid accepts the words of Jesus recorded in the

Quran from 600 years later, without any textual evidence that they go back to Jesus himself, he must accept the words of Jesus in the

Gospels from the first century on principle and logic. He must.

If he says, well, I accept what the Quran says, but I will not accept what the Gospel of Mark says. So I'll accept something that has no textual history for 600 years, but I'll reject something that was written in the first century.

That's not using fair scales, and we need to keep that in mind. Now, what was Jesus' message?

And let's compare it with that of Muhammad. Really, that's the subject this evening. What was Jesus' message? Let's consider the testimony of the

Gospel of Mark. Mark 1 -1. We read the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the

Son of God. Now, there's a textual variant there. And if you look at the best evidence, there's very strong evidence that that is the great way it originally read.

We can look at the evidence if we want to. I have it all right here on my iPad, and we can look at the entirety of it. It's something we

Christians do. I've worked in textual criticism for decades now, and we're well aware of these things. But Jesus is described as the

Son of God, and it's the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words,

Jesus is the very content of this message. It's not just something that was given to him, and then he complained to somebody else he did that.

But it's about him. That's the message. Prophets are given a message about somebody else.

Prophets are never the subject of the message. In Mark 1 -3, we have a quotation from the

Old Testament about making ready the way of Yahweh, and it's being applied to Jesus. Very interestingly,

Adonai was talking about, well, they never would have understood the doctrine of the Trinity. The funny thing is, the New Testament writers, who all confess there's one true

God, took that one name Yahweh, and they applied it to the Father, and to the Son, and to the

Holy Spirit, and differentiated between each one. Why did they do that? What were they trying to communicate?

They believed the Shema. They weren't denying the Shema. And yet they applied that one name of Yahweh to the

Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. In Mark 1 -15, and saying, the time is fulfilled.

Here's Jesus preaching. The time is fulfilled. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the

Gospel. What's the Gospel again? The Gospel of Jesus Christ. He is saying to repent and believe in the

Gospel. The Gospel that is about Jesus. It's about what Jesus is teaching, and Jesus is doing.

Also in Mark 1, in those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and was baptized by John the

Jordan. Immediately coming out by the water, he saw the heavens open, the Spirit like a dove descending upon him. And a voice came out of the heavens, you are my beloved

Son, and you I am well pleased. Do Muslims believe that that happened? No.

You can't. Jesus isn't the Son. And here you have, in the, and this is, the same scholars that Adnan was employing would say this is one of the most primitive elements of the quote unquote tradition.

You have the Father speaking from heaven, the Spirit descending a dove, and this person Jesus identified as the very

Son of God in whom God is well pleased. And we're only in the Gospel of Mark.

Mark chapter 1 verse 23. Just then there was a man in a synagogue with an unclean spirit. He cried out saying, what business do we have with each other,

Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.

And Jesus rebuked him, saying be quiet and come out of him. Even the demons recognized who

Jesus was. They didn't say you're just a mere prophet. No, they said you are the

Holy One of God. They recognized that he was more than a mere prophet. In Mark 2 5, when

Jesus, seeing their faith, he's the man who had lowered a paralytic down to Jesus through the roof, said, son, your sins are forgiven.

But some of the scribes are sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins but God alone?

And that is a proper question. Who can forgive sins but God alone? But Jesus forgave sins.

And they weren't against him. And then he healed the man. Forgave him of his sins and healed him.

And the people are amazed at the power and the authority that Jesus has. In Mark 2 27,

Jesus said to them, the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. So the

Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. Jesus is the Son of Man. What does Son of Man mean?

Son of Man could just mean a human. But that's not all the Son of Man is. In fact, you will see that there is a

Son of Man in the book of Daniel, chapter 7, who appears before the Ancient of Days. And he has an everlasting kingdom.

And his servants worship him with the highest form of worship. And that's who

Jesus is identifying himself to be. And he says he's Lord of the Sabbath. Who established the Sabbath? Yahweh did.

Jesus says, I'm Lord of the Sabbath. We're only in Mark chapter 2. We're not even in the

Gospel of John, are we? Let's skip along because we don't have much time. Mark chapter 8, verse 34.

And he summoned the crowd of his disciples and said that if anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it. But whoever loses his life for my sake and the

Gospels will save it. Think about that for a moment. Jesus, a mere prophet, lose your life for my sake.

Take up your cross. Doesn't make much sense in the letter of Surah 4, verse 1 -7, does it? Except Surah 4, verse 1 -7 stands against the entirety of history.

And there's not a one person that I will quote this evening. Against the authority of the New Testament. That would verify the

Quran's denial of the resurrection. Not a one of them. In fact, I can quote Jordan and they would say it's the most established fact of history.

Beyond question. I'd be happy to debate that subject because history is all mine on that one. Anyways, whoever loses his life for my sake and the

Gospels will save it. Life is dependent upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ and following him.

Does that sound like just a mere Jewish prophet? Mark 8, verse 38, for whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the

Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the Holy Angels. Wow.

Is this a mere prophet? Did Muhammad preach this, Jesus? Where? Where?

I've read all the Quran numerous times. I've read all of Bukhari, I'm halfway through Muslim. I've read verses of Jamia Eternity.

And I can guarantee you, Muhammad didn't know this, Jesus. Didn't know this, Jesus. Didn't preach this message. Mark 9, 2, when

Jesus was transfigured before them and his garments became radiant and exceedingly white, Elijah appeared to them along with Moses and they were talking with Jesus.

Here's Elijah, he represents the prophets. Moses, representing the law. The law and the prophets are speaking with the fulfillment of them,

Jesus. On the Mount of Transfiguration, then a cloud formed, overshadowing them. A voice came out of the cloud, this is my beloved

Son, listen to him. Not this is my beloved prophet. Jesus is a prophet, but he is much more than that.

He is much more than that. Mark 9, 31, for he was teaching his disciples and telling them, the

Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men and they will kill him. And when he has been killed, he will rise three days later.

More than once, Jesus communicated this truth to his disciples. He says, I must go to Jerusalem.

The Son of Man must be betrayed into the hands of men. And he knew exactly what was going to happen. He knew the crucifixion was the very reason why he had come.

To voluntarily give his life and then to rise again on the third day. We're still in the

Gospel of Mark. As Jesus began to say, as he taught in the temple. How is it to describe, to say that Christ is the

Son of David? David himself said, the Holy Spirit, the Lord said to my Lord, sit in my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet.

David himself calls him Lord, so in what sense is he his son? Here, Jesus identifies, first of all, a quotation from Psalm 110, as being the very words of the

Holy Spirit of God. Jesus' view of the Old Testament was, it's God breathed and we still know what it was.

And we know what the Torah, the Old Testament said in Jesus' day. And here, he's quoting from Psalms.

He's quoting from a Psalm about himself. Who is this, my Lord, the Lord said to my Lord. Who is

David's Lord? Well, it's Jesus. He has to be greater than David. And he's implying that to himself, and we'll see.

That's gonna be very, very important in Mark chapter 14. Here in chapter 14, a woman anoints

Jesus, and notice what Jesus says. She had done what she could. She has anointed my body beforehand for the burial.

Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.

Jesus knew the gospel was for what? Israel? Yes, but for the whole world.

And he knew he was going to die. He knew he was gonna be buried. He knew he was gonna rise again, and that that gospel would be preached throughout the whole world.

So when he's brought before the high priest in John 14, listen to these words. The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned

Jesus, saying, Do you not answer? What is it these men are testifying against you? He kept silent and did not answer.

Again, the high priest was questioning him and saying, Are you the Christ, Messiah, the Son of the

Blessed One? Jesus said, I am. So much for I am being only in the gospel of John.

I am. And you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power. That's Psalm 110, yeah?

And coming with the clouds of heaven. That's Daniel 7. That's the Son of Man figure that has people who worship him.

Did Muhammad worship Jesus? No. Jesus has people who worship him. Latruo is the term.

Who worship him. Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, What further need do we have of witnesses?

You have heard the blasphemy. How does it seem to you? And they all condemned him to be deserving of death.

The Jews knew what he was saying. They understood. Jesus didn't go, Oh no, no, no. Guys, you didn't understand. I didn't mean that.

He knew what he was claiming for himself. And condemned him to death. And here's the section from Daniel chapter 7.

I saw him in the night visions. Behold, the clouds of heaven became one like the Son of Man. He came in the ancient of days and was presented before him.

And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom. And that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Latruo, the highest form of worship him.

His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away. And his kingdom, one that shall not be destroyed. That was the text

Jesus applied to himself. That was his teaching. And it was not Muhammad's. It was not

Muhammad's. Jesus' message included himself as the king of the kingdom. As the divine

Son of Man. As the unique Son of God. Whose gospel is the sole means of salvation for all men of all nations for all times.

And I substantiated that from simply the gospel of Mark. I didn't even quote from John. Or Paul.

I could have. Didn't need to. This is the consistent testimony of the entirety of the New Testament. Muhammad did not preach this message.

Hence, the debate thesis is decided. Because the question is, did Muhammad preach the same message as Jesus?

The answer is, no. He did not. And if you want a beautiful example of it, look at this. In Surah 5,

Surah Al -Ma 'idah. Verse 116. Allah says to Jesus, Did you say to the people,

Worship me and my mother as gods of derogation of all? Clearly showing that whoever wrote

Surah 5, verse 116 did not understand the doctrine of the trinity. Because that's not what Christians believe. But, there you have it.

And Jesus' response also is, If I had said it, you would have known it.

You know what is within myself. And I do not know what is within yourself. Those words come from the 7th century.

These words, Matthew 11 and 27, come from the 1st century. Even by the most liberal dating.

And there Jesus said, in the synoptic gospels, All things have been handed over to me by my

Father. And no one knows the Son, except the Father. Nor does anyone know the

Father, except the Son. And anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal

Him. Whoever wrote Surah 5, verse 116, either didn't know

Matthew 11, verse 27. That's my assumption. Or rejected it.

So, here's the question this evening. What evidence do we have of what

Jesus said in Matthew 11, verse 27? Well, from a historical perspective. Historians will admit, that we cannot even begin to know what

Jesus said, if the gospels are not a story story. The author of the

Quran told us, that the gospel, the Injil, was given to Jesus.

That it had light and guidance. And that we, the people of the gospel, were to judge what was contained therein.

Now, that was in the 7th century. How could the people of the gospel judge by the gospel, if the gospel had been destroyed by the 7th century?

So, if it existed in Muhammad's day, we know exactly, what the New Testament read, in its entirety, in that time period.

We have entire copies of the New Testament, that long predate the days of Muhammad. And so, there's our question.

The only way for Adnan, to win the debate this evening, is to deny what the

New Testament teaches, about Jesus' own words. So, what does he give him in reply? He quoted

John 8, verse 54. One sentence later, Jesus said, أَمَيْنْ أَمَيْنْ لَقَهُ مِنْ بِنْ عَبْدَ عَمْ يَنَسْتَيْ أَيْنِ

Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. And the

Jews pick up stones and stone. That was one sentence, after what Adnan quoted as being from Jesus.

So, who's going to be consistent this evening? Who's going to use even scales? Whoever uses even scales, will win the debate.

That's what you need to be listening to. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you,

James, for that amazing rebuttal to my opening statement.

Ladies and gentlemen, when did I even say that we accept the

New Testament? We don't. We're not Muslims. We don't accept the New Testament to be from God.

I made that very clear. The New Testament writers, the Gospel of Matthew, Luke, John, Luke who?

Matthew when? John how? And Mark when?

These are the questions we've been asking. The Christians to this day, ladies and gentlemen, don't have an answer to this question which

I'm going to pose again now. Who told you that these are the words of God?

Who chose these Gospels for you? This is a challenge for Mr. James, or Mr.

Whitefather, to use a surname, to come back and tell us as to who chose the

Gospels for Christians. I need names. I need times and places.

If you cannot tell us, Mr. White, as to who told you that these Gospels are actually from God, and where, when and how, then your claim or your case which is based upon the text of the

New Testament is vain. It is all useless.

I'm not going to accept the Gospels as the word of God. I'm not going to even accept the Gospels as a true word of Jesus Christ.

The only way to study the Gospels with an objective mind and with an objective eye is to look at history.

Who was Jesus? Who was he talking to? And what is he likely to teach them? Is he going to teach them, twinkle, twinkle, little star, how

I wonder what you are? And are they going to accept that from us? If he was to teach the

Jews that Zeus is God, so is Manoah, so is Jupiter, so is

Apollo. Are they going to accept him? Or is he going to teach them that Father is the only true

God, with capital F, of whom you say is your God? Oh, Jews, there is only one

God. And then all of a sudden the Christians tell us, two centuries later, no, no, no,

Jesus was actually God, with capital G. Jews didn't actually recognize him, but he was

God. Where did he claim that? Where did he say that? That's the question, ladies and gentlemen.

The Gospels cannot be taken at face value, because they contradict each other a number of times.

And they don't come from one source. They come from different sources, from different authors and different people. And I've got a challenge again.

Even those who have written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, by Allah, this is a challenge. If you can show me in word, in word today, what

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote in word, then I will give you 10 ,000 pounds.

This is being recorded. It's being recorded on camera. If he shows me in word what was actually written by Luke, not variant readings, because there are hundreds of thousands of variant readings as to what

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John may have written. If he can show me in word what they wrote, I will give you 10 ,000 pounds tonight.

On top of that, ladies and gentlemen, the early church fathers didn't actually believe that the texts or the writings of the

New Testament were Scripture. People like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Pappius of Hierapolis, Barnabas, Polycarp and Hermas of Rome.

These people didn't actually believe that the New Testament writings were actually the word of God.

They simply referred to them as the memoirs of the apostles. Memoirs of the apostles.

They never referred to them as Scripture. When they said Scripture, they meant the Old Testament.

And this is exactly what Paul meant. When Paul wrote in the book of 2 Timothy, chapter 3, verse 16, that all

Scripture is God -breathed, he meant the Old Testament, not the New Testament, because the

New Testament didn't even exist. The New Testament didn't exist, ladies and gentlemen, up to the time of Irenaeus, up to the year 200

CE. It was in the year 200 when Irenaeus mentioned four Gospels together.

They didn't exist, they were written, but they were scattered all over the Christian world. Some Christians are only reading the

Gospel of Luke, for example. Some Christians are only reading the Gospel of Mark. Others weren't even aware that the

Gospel of John existed. Some actually claim that the Gospel of John is heretical. Others claim the

Gospel of Matthew is a Judaizing Gospel. It supports the Jews too much, so we can't actually take it.

So there are all these debates which existed in the early centuries. So, what do we do with them? Now, the only option we have is to look at Jesus in his

Jewish milieu, in his Jewish environment, in his Jewish context. He was a Jewish man teaching the

Jews as to what he thought was the truth. And now, we will see whether he preached Islam or preached a new religion based upon the doctrine of the

Trinity and his crucifixion. So, when the Jew comes to him asking him what is the first commandment, he tells him,

The Lord our God is one Lord. And this is exactly what the prophet of Islam taught.

Another Jew comes to him and asks him, in the Gospel of Mark again, chapter 10, verse 17 to 18.

And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running and kneeled to him and asked him,

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one that is

God. Here, Jesus is effectively telling this Jew, I am not God, because I am not good.

Why callest thou me good? There is none good except God. So here, Jesus is either lying or deceiving that Jew.

And then, he says to this Jew who came to him asking him,

What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? I may inherit salvation?

And he tells him, Thou knowest the commandments. Do not commit adultery. Do not kill.

Do not steal. Do not bear false witness. Defraud not. Honor thy father and mother.

This is exactly what Islam is. The Prophet of Islam, in the Book of Bukhari, we are told in Kitabul Iman, Volume 1,

Chapter 2. Sorry, Volume 1, Book 2, Hadith number 17.

When people came to him and pledged their allegiance to the Prophet, and what did he tell them? What did he ask them to pledge?

He said to them, Pledge with me that you will not ascribe partners with God.

And you will not steal. And you will not commit adultery. And you will not kill your own children.

And you will not slander. And you will not disobey in good. This is exactly what Jesus taught.

And honor your mother and father. And he says, Be kind to your parents.

Do not say, Oof, to them. Do not say a word of contempt to your parents. This is exactly what

Islam is. And this is what Jesus taught his people. Now, we move on to other teachings of Jesus Christ.

Now, he taught Islam, submitting to the will of the Father. Matthew 7, 21 -23, we read,

Not everyone that saith unto me, Jesus is thought to have said this, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Not everyone who saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven. But he that doeth the will of my

Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name?

And in thy name have cast out devils. And in thy name done many wonderful works.

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you. Depart from me, ye that work illiquidly.

Here, Jesus is telling them, the only one to be successful will be the ones who will submit to the will of the

Father. This is exactly what Islam is. Islam is to submit to the will of God Almighty.

God Almighty. So, what does the Qur 'an tell us? Arabic Whose word is better than the one who calls to the way of God Almighty.

And works righteous deeds and says, I am one of those who has submitted. Who has submitted to the will of the

Father. This is exactly what Islam is. Then, no man knows of the hour.

Jesus says that in Mark 13, 32. That he is not aware of the hour.

Jesus is saying that I do not know when the day of judgment is. And this is exactly what the Qur 'an says in Surah 30.

In the last verse. Surah Luqman, last verse. The knowledge of five things is only with God.

And one of them is the hour. So, this is exactly what Jesus is teaching. And Jesus talks of revelation.

He didn't actually say anything from himself. I can of my own self do nothing. This is

John 5, 30. I can of my own self do nothing. This is not God talking. This is a prophet of God talking.

I can of my own self. As I hear, I judge. This is exactly what the Qur 'an says in Surah Najm.

Where the Qur 'an tells us. Arabic That Muhammad does not speak from his desire.

Rather, he speaks what he received from God Almighty. I can of my own self do nothing.

This is exactly what Islam is. And that's what Jesus taught. Thank you very much. It is an amazing irony to me that Adnan just quoted primarily from the

Gospel of John. The very Gospel that most of his scholars he was quoting before would reject as being historical.

It's also the Gospel of John that has, as Bart Ehrman says, clearly presents the deity of Christ. So, what Adnan has done is he cuts it up into little pieces.

I refuse to deal with the Qur 'an. I try to handle the Qur 'an fairly. When you have Adnan quoting

John 8, 54. And saying, this shows this. And then one sentence later, Jesus identifies himself as God.

And the Jews have become stones of stonium. That's not accurately handling the text of the Gospel of John. When you have him quoting the section where Jesus said,

I'm not good and I'm not God. That young man. Maybe he was saying, why are you calling me good? Because I am

God. Maybe he was trying to communicate to this young man. Before he corrects him in his idolatry, you need to know who you're dealing with.

He's completely misread what Mark is actually saying there. And I demonstrate that because I went through the Gospel of Mark and demonstrated what?

A consistent reading from Mark 1 to Mark 14. I can deal with an entire text and allow them to speak for themselves.

All Adnan can do is take a part here and pull it apart. For example, you just go to John chapter 5. Read John chapter 5.

John chapter 5, verse 18. Jesus has just claimed to be working with the

Father on the Sabbath day. Which Jews all believe only God can do. And making himself equal with God.

And Jesus is explaining why men should honor him just as they honor the Father. And it's in the context he does it.

And he says, I do nothing F how to by myself. In other words, he's not saying, I'm some separate

God from the Father. He's saying, I am the Father. We do things together. But that's the same section where he talks about giving life to people.

Who gives life to people? That's God. So read John chapter 5. Look at these texts.

They are consistent. I can have perfect confidence that anyone in this room who will examine me and Adnan for consistency in our use of sources and our reading of Scripture will know what the solution to the debate tonight is.

Without any question whatsoever. Did Matthew or Mark claim inspiration? Did David?

And yet Jesus quoted him as speaking by the Holy Spirit. For some reason, Muhammad didn't expect this very same standard

Adnan expects this evening. Because in Surah 5, the Quran specifically states that the

Torah and the Injil were, that's all. They were sent down. They contained light and guidance.

And the only way to read Surah 5 is that the people of Muhammad's day still had the

Torah and the Injil. We know what they were. But Muhammad wouldn't have known.

The Isna' chain for any of those things. That's an anachronistic application of a standard that the

Jews themselves did not use. I dare it not. Show me anywhere where the Jews used your standard to know what inspiration was.

If you can't show it, then stop making the argument because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

10 ,000 pounds tonight. If I could show you what Luke said. Boy, that would be very nice. That would be a lot of money.

But here's the problem. The argument is backwards. The argument is saying, well, we don't know where Luke came from.

Well, it had to come from someplace. We have got literally hundreds of manuscripts coming from different places in the world.

And they have the same text in them. Oh, they might misspell a word over here. Switch word order.

But where did they all come from? There's got to have been an original someplace that these all descended from.

And it comes from the first century. And when he talks about hundreds of thousands of variants, he doesn't tell you that 99 % of them can't be explained to you outside the

Greek language. Which he doesn't know what I do. There are about 1 ,500 to 2 ,000 meaningful variants.

And at least we know where they are. You don't have the Masud's materials, so you don't know where yours are.

Be careful of the standards that you apply. Be careful of the standards that you apply. Adonai quoted

Matthew 15, 24. Jesus said, I'm going to wash you from the house of Israel. Again, that would be like me quoting from this text in the

Quran to talk about not coming to prayers drunk. And ignoring that later on the Quran says, don't drink alcohol, period.

That's the exact same thing. Because the Gospel of Matthew, taken as the Gospel of Matthew, finishes with Jesus saying, go ye into all the world.

You've just got to allow Matthew to speak for himself. Do you really honestly deal with an author correctly when you only read the first three chapters of his book and ignore the last section?

That's what we've got going on this evening. He says Paul simply came and did away with the law.

No, you cannot possibly read the Apostle Paul and come to that conclusion. You just cannot have read him, not even in his original language, let alone in any decent translation.

Paul says the whole purpose of Christian life. Ephesians chapter 2, by grace you have been saved through faith. Not of yourselves, but the gift of God.

Not of works, as they mention both. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which

God has before ordained that we should walk in them. How do we know what those good works are? Paul says the law.

The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. He justified by faith. He does not undo the law.

He tells us what the purpose of the law always was. That's just allowing Paul to speak for himself.

Let's be fair with the sources when we're using them. We were told that the Gospels cannot be the best source for knowing what

Jesus taught. Did you notice that every time Adnan quoted this evening Jesus' teaching, what was it from?

The New Testament. Has he quoted once from the Quran of Jesus' words to define the teachings of Jesus?

You can't because all Jesus says in the Quran is worship God and that's it.

The Jesus of the Quran is not a person. The Jesus of the Quran is an argument. The Jesus of the

Quran never speaks from an identifiable location, except once, from his cradle, which was a story borrowed from the

Arabic infancy gospel that came about 500 years after Jesus, and it is a fictional story, but ends up in the

Quran. So how does that happen? Especially when the Quran denies using previous sources or anything like that.

So you can't build a theology of Jesus' teaching from the

Quran, even though it quotes Jesus. Every quote in it would be rejected by every single scholar that Adnan started his presentation quoting.

Every single one would reject, as valid, the words of the Quran at that point.

Where is the consistency in our debate this evening? He said, well, you know, the

Synoptic Gospels drew upon oral tradition. Yeah, they certainly did. I'm awful glad they did. I'd like to recommend to anyone who's really interested in this, look at a book that came out just a few years ago by Dr.

Richard Baucom. Dr. Richard Baucom wrote a book called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, and he talks about the fact that the

Gospels take shape under the context of the church where the eyewitnesses who actually observed these things were still alive, and that those eyewitnesses had a great impact, a guiding impact, upon how the church understood these documents and certainly helped to preserve them.

It's a very, very important book that's not easy to read and not really a lot of fun to read, but I would still recommend it to you anyways.

We are then told that the Ohani tradition presents a completely different Jesus. Did y 'all notice something?

Most of Adnan's quotes came from John. Where did my quotes come from in my presentation?

The allegedly most simple and primitive Gospel, and what did

I show you from Mark? The only way you can honestly read Mark is to recognize that Jesus is much more than a mere prophet.

The only way Adnan can deal with John 5 is to isolate one verse and not tell you what the rest of it says.

The rest of it says, as Jesus says things like, Honor me as God the Father and that He's the very source of life. You see, one of us could start at the beginning of a book and go to the end of the book and give you a consistent presentation.

I could have Mark, I could have Matthew, I could have Luke, and certainly John would be pretty easy to do. But Adnan can't do that.

Why? Because Adnan has another authority that interrupts his ability to properly execute the

New Testament text, and that is the Quran. The problem is, the author of his book didn't know my book.

The author of his book claimed to be teaching consistently with what my book said, but out of ignorance.

And if you say I'm wrong, prove me wrong in the text of the Quran. Show me where the

Quran interacts with the Pauline Epistles. Show me where the Quran understands the high priestly role of Jesus in the book of Hebrews.

Show me where the Quran understands Colossians chapter 1, in describing Jesus Christ, it says, For by Him are all things made, the heavens and the earth, visible and invisible, principalities, powers, dominions, or authorities, all things created by Him and for Him.

He is before all things, and to Him all things consist. The author of the Quran didn't know that that was there when it said what it said.

And so we just need to understand the thesis this evening.

Did Muhammad preach the same message as Jesus? I have given you all the information you need, and I have just asked you, if you know

Muhammad's teachings, where did he teach the things that Jesus taught about himself, about the gospel, about his crucifixion, his resurrection?

He didn't. The thesis of the debate has been established. Thank you very much.

Okay, we're going to have a crossfire session in five minutes each. Okay, I go first because that's how the order is.

Thank you, James, for being remarkable again. I pose many questions to you.

I made myself very clear that we don't accept the gospels to be the word of God.

We simply take them as documents coming from the first century. We accept that, that they come from the first century.

And I have already acknowledged the fact that there may be information in the gospels which came from Jesus Christ because of the oral tradition which the gospels were copying initially.

So, for that reason, we have to look at the gospels and see what really fits into the historical milieu of Jesus Christ, or his historical context.

Now, you keep insisting that the gospels are entirely the word of God.

You do that, right? And we know for a fact that there are passages in the gospels which don't actually come from even the authors, let alone

God himself. Those passages which were added later on. Well, again, if you're familiar with what

Christians believe, and I certainly define my position as a Christian scholar as one who deals with subtextual criticism, the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture and the inheritance of Scripture speaks to that which the authors themselves did.

And so, if you're talking about Mark 16, 19, 20, or John 7, 8, 11, these are well known to all scholars in the field.

And if I were preaching through the gospel of John, for example, I would stop preaching in John 7, 52, and pick up in John 8, 12, and I would explain that to people.

So, I do believe that we can recognize exactly where those things are, and anyone who's heard me preaching knows, when there is a variant that is relevant,

I bring it up in my presentations. Thank you very much for that. Are you now willing to acknowledge this on camera, that that particular part of the gospel of John, chapter 7, verse 52 to 8, 11, is not definitely from God?

Where's the camera? It's there. I wrote a book called The King James Only Controversy in 1994 that has numerous pages on the subject of what's called the

Brickapay adultery. I gave the textual information that's there. There's nothing new here to people who know the

Bible. I don't believe that was written by John. The first manuscripts that contain it are from 500 years after John, and therefore

I don't believe in scripture, and there is nothing that any scholar of Christianity is going, wow, I've never heard that before, and here's what

I just said. How's that? Thank you very much. Thank you. You dragged it out of me.

I'm not at all. So, the point is, that particular part of the gospel of John, which is to be found in all of the

Bibles there on the table, is not from God. And all the Bibles on the table there have a little note at the bottom that tells you that it is not found in the earliest manuscripts, and I think that any ancient document that has been passed down by handwriting should have those notes in it, and I wish that there was a

Koran on these tables that mentioned in Sura 2, 222, that there are three different readings of that one verse found in the ancient manuscripts of the

Koran. Does anyone have a Koran like that? Okay, okay. Does that have it? Okay, what? Okay, no, wait, wait, wait, wait.

I will give you time, extra time, to bring those readings on. I'm just,

I'm just, I'm just saying. That's a good claim you made in public. Bring those readings on, and let's examine them, whether they are actually different to each other.

We did that back in September, remember? No, we didn't. But the debate's coming up, the debate's coming up.

So, the point I'm making, ladies and gentlemen, and again, the question is to James, is that those passages are not from the

Gospels, okay? You were talking about that. But every, but I would say to you, every single text that I cite,

I can defend as the original reading of each one of those texts from the manuscripts, and if you say otherwise,

I challenge you to go to the manuscripts and demonstrate otherwise. Okay, that's, that's, that,

I'm not even talking about that text. If there are passages within the Gospels, for example, which can be established to be from another source than the authors, then there is a possibility that there are other chunks which were added, which we cannot establish today, to be from other sources other than the authors.

No, that's what the, that, that, there is, there is the problem, you didn't hear me when I said this in London, let me very briefly point out,

Dr. Kurt Alon, one of the greatest textual scholars of our age, has documented the existence, what's called the tenacity of the

New Testament manuscript tradition, and once a reading appears in the tradition, it remains in the tradition, that means all the original readings are still there, we know where all the variants are, that is not really an issue at all.

You could not say that, well, this entire book was, came from some other time period. So, so, so we know exactly what

Luke wrote in the first century. We have, we have everything Luke wrote, and there are some places where we have to know if it appears, yes, in the sense that we possess it, but are there questions, but are there questions, just as there are in the

Quran, where we have to study one or the other? Time's up. Time's up.

I like it. James turned, James turned to gun me down. No, no, no. I don't intend to gun you down.

The topic of our discussion this evening, is did Muhammad preach the same message as Jesus?

Yes. Will you admit, that if you take the message of Jesus as found in only those documents that come from the time

Jesus lived, first century. Did, do those documents present the same message that Muhammad taught on the lips of Jesus?

If the documents were authentically attributed to Jesus Christ, and we could establish that Jesus definitely said those words, then

I would believe in every single word Jesus Christ said. But unfortunately, it is impossible in my view, to establish as to what

Jesus may have said. The only way to determine what he may have said, is by using the

Quran, which I believe to be the word of God. Last night, you at one point, and maybe you were just getting excited,

I don't know, but you quoted John 8, 54 again. Sure. And I think you said, that I absolutely affirm, that this is the word of God.

No, I said that about the Gospel of Mark, chapter 12, verse 29. I said that about that particular passage. Which was what?

Which was, here is the word of God, our Lord is one God. I thought I was doing 54. I could be wrong. No, I can confirm that today.

I believe that John may have taken from oral tradition, which was around at the time, which may have originated from Jesus Christ.

And I'm perfectly happy to accept that some parts of the Gospel of John, which are attributed to Jesus Christ, or his statements may be true, may be real.

The only problem I have, is that the Gospel of John, in its entirety, is not even from John.

And we have already established that. And if that is the case, then we have to apply a different criteria, to establish what may be from Jesus.

Because we can't just change the Gospel of John at face value. So, what did Jesus teach on marriage?

On marriage? From what you can authenticate, by your standards, as being the very words of Jesus, can we have any clue today, what

Jesus taught on marriage? I will never know. You'll never know. I will never know. And the

Christians have never claimed to know. So, Matthew chapter 19, Jesus quotes from Genesis, he gives that whole thing, but because of a later standard, we cannot know that Jesus said that.

And so we, Jesus can't speak to marriage today. He can't speak to a major issue that we have in our society today.

As I said already, or recently stated that, we simply cannot establish as to what

Jesus really said, because of the corruption of the Bible, or the corruption of the New Testament, we have to apply an experiment criteria to determine what he may have said.

So, for that reason, we have to go to the Jewish historical medium, we have to go to the Jewish context, and see what he taught, what does actually fit into the

Jewish context. If it doesn't fit into the Jewish context, it is not from him, it cannot be from him. How can you know anything about the

Jewish context without using the very same documents from the first century that you've just said you can't remember? No, we have a lot more documents from the

Jewish context. For example, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, Jewish commentaries, we have Jewish histories, we have the writings of rabbis, all the rabbis.

So we have a lot, a lot of documents and information. But they all contain textual variations. Sorry? They all contain textual variations.

Far more textual variations than the New Testament. But the New Testament, as you know well, that for the

New Testament, scribes were deliberately changing the text for sometimes theological reasons, or sometimes textual reasons, or sometimes even correcting mistakes.

I'm going to ask you the very same question that we all are asking Bart Ehrman on this. When you make that kind of a claim, how do you know they're changing it if you don't know what the original was?

Because we see all of them, all the 6 ,000 manuscripts in front of us, and every single of those manuscripts is different in contents.

I accept that the differences are minor. Majority of the differences are minor.

And there are very few which are major, which do impact, which do affect the theological beliefs of Christians today.

But at the same time, we know for a fact that manuscripts were changed. There's no doubt about that. There's no debate on that point.

But I'm not. Here is the question. Yeah. Matt, let's go back to Matt in Chapter 19.

If you're going to say Jesus didn't say that, then you are making a positive statement. I'm saying I don't know. I'm saying

I don't know. He may have said it. I don't know. And I'm saying we have all these manuscripts. They all say that he said the same things there.

There's no doubt about that. If you ask the most radical skeptic, ask Bart Ehrman, what do you think the

New Testament was about? He'll say pretty much what it says today. Let's assume that we had a signed copy by Matthew, and Matthew definitely wrote what he wrote in that signed copy.

And Matthew attributes that saying to Jesus Christ. That's your standard copy. Okay. How do we know what Matthew tells us is true?

So that will be your standard. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. And may

I just say, that's a good example of how you can disagree and do so respectfully with one another and not have to compromise.

Our society doesn't understand that you can do this. They're afraid of us doing this. My point is, if we stop doing this, the only thing left we can do is fight each other.

We have to keep doing this. That's the point. You were saying that the

Jews never accepted any, they didn't accept the triune nature of God, they just accepted one, and that's all.

And I'm just wondering if you're aware of Genesis 1, 26, Genesis 3, 22, and Genesis 11, 7.

I'm just going to read them. Well, so I'll just quote one of them, because they all say a similar thing in terms of the triune nature of God, or at least that God is not necessarily one person, that is.

Then God said, let us make man in our image according to our likeness. And the other ones say something similar in terms of our, us, you know.

Thank you for that question. The question is that there are passages in the Old Testament which imply pluralism in divinity in Godhead.

What do I think of that? I'm telling you what your authorities are saying. There are Christian authorities, people like William Lane Craig, who have come out in public and have said openly, and he's one of the biggest debaters in the world as far as the

Christians are concerned, and he has clearly stated the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't exist in the

Old Testament. It doesn't exist. So Christians now need to stop trying to support the doctrine of the

Trinity from the Old Testament. The only source they are left with now are some passages which are very vague in the

New Testament. One passage was actually quoted by James tonight, the

Gospel of Matthew chapter 28, verse 19, in response to what I had to present from the same

Gospel, chapter 15, verse 24, where Jesus said that I was only sent to the Lord, the chief of the house of Israel, and he responded by quoting 28, 19.

So there are major theologians, again, people like Ray Stanton from the University of Cambridge, who believe that this was a late tradition.

This 28, 19, the universal formula go into the nations and baptize them in the name of the

Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Genesis 1, 26. This is a late tradition. According to some scholars, again, Christians, not

Muslims. So Christians are telling us, quite honestly, in many cases, that these passages are problematic.

We simply cannot take them and place them anywhere. Jesus, as a Jew, only preached to the Jews. He never preached to the

Gentiles. This much is established. He never addressed that verse. Yeah. 1, 26.

Sorry about that. He didn't answer it at all. We can't extend this.

Sorry about that. It's two minutes. So next question for James White.

Mr. White, yesterday I asked one question from Dr. Mark and you said that these passages are not necessarily manuscripts, so they have to be removed.

Today you quoted from Mark 1 and you quoted, if I can quote it, this is the good news about Jesus, the

Messiah, the Son of God, He became just as perfect as I have put Him. So there's a footnote down there that says that some manuscripts do not include the term

Son of God. So what is it, I mean, how do you guess that this is not original, this word is original or not original from where you match it or where you get this assertion that this is the word of God and it's not original?

Thank you. And I would like to point out that when I quoted Mark 1, 1, hopefully those who were listening carefully heard me specifically point out the existence of the technical barrier.

Because I'm well aware of it and I have in front of me, I can give you the list of the manuscripts that specifically have the reading of containing it or not containing it.

It's right here available to anyone, anyone can provide themselves with this type of information and you say how do you make the decision?

You examine based upon the quality of the manuscripts, how old the manuscripts are, how reliable the manuscripts are, you also look at the internal evidences.

For example, in the ancient writing of the script of Greek, Koine Greek, the

Christians used something called Nomena Sacra, Nomena Sacra which means the sacred names. God, Jesus, Spirit, Lord were all abbreviated as two letters with a line on the top.

When you write that in unsealed Greek, the phrase that's found,

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, you can engage in an error called homoeotelioton. You see similar endings and your eye skips over it.

This is something we do when we write something with I -N -G or T -I -O -N. We're copying something, we look back and we've skipped over something because there's another word down the line that ends the same way.

Very common thing in copying of manuscripts, we can see it happening, it happens, for example, when we show it to you if we had time on 1

John 3 -1. But the point is that it's very easy to understand how the phrase the Son of God could have been left out of some of those later manuscripts because of homoeotelioton.

The point is we examine this, we look at it, we have all the manuscripts right out there.

We need to have that information because my point is any work of antiquity that has been handwritten and transmitted in a handwritten way needs to have that kind of examination done upon it.

We're way ahead of Muslims on this, in the study of our text in comparison to the production of a critical text of the

Quran. It's happening but it's happening very slowly and I'm looking forward to that happening in the near future.

Next question from the audience. How could

Allah be eternally personal and relational if there was no one to relate to?

If there was just Allah without Trinity how could he be personal or relational if it was just him?

Okay, although this question is not directly related to the topic but I was still interested. Allah is a personal because Allah is all hearing, all seeing.

Okay? Allah hears and he sees and he has knowledge of even a leaf dropping from a tree.

Okay? Even an ant when it walks on earth Allah is aware of those footsteps. Okay? So Allah states in the

Quran in Chapter 2 that those of you my slaves who call upon me

I am closed. I am closed. So Allah is very personal.

The Prophet of Islam has taught us that if you want to ask Allah for anything ask him directly and you get it because he hears.

So why do you live in the power of God? Why do we live in the power of God? Okay? Why do we assume that he is not listening to us?

When you pray to him with a sincere heart, with a heart which is open to him he will listen.

Okay? I think I didn't make myself clear. I mean like before the creation there was just God.

Nobody else. How was he eternally personal? Right. Because his attributes his and you're trying to convince me.

No, no, no. His question. I'm trying to help you understand it. I understand. Okay. So personal.

How can he be eternally personal? Okay. We believe the attributes of God are all eternal with him.

He's all hearing eternally. He's all knowledgeable eternally. He's a creator eternally even though he hasn't yet created.

So because he had the knowledge of his creatorship he knew that he is the creator he is eternally a creator.

So all his attributes are eternal with him even though he doesn't practice his attributes that doesn't really actually impact or affect his attributes in any way.

That's our answer to that question. Any questions for Dr.

James White? All right. Come on. Just in relation to you were saying that Paul you mentioned that Paul confirms the teachings of Jesus and he was divided by the teachings of Jesus.

Paul says in Hebrews 5 13 he says therefore let us leave behind the elementary teachings of Jesus Christ and advance towards maturity.

But this is in contradiction I think to what Jesus says in the Gospel of Luke and Matthew.

A disciple is not but a teacher nor a slave but a master. It is not true that a disciple should be like a teacher and a slave like a master.

And then he goes on to say in Mark he says should anyone in this immoral generation be ashamed of me and my teachings of him and some man be ashamed too.

So it sounds like that Paul was ashamed of Jesus' teachings by saying let's leave them behind and become poor people you know when

Jesus says you know that. A couple of things. First of all we don't know that Paul wrote Hebrews but I don't actually think that he did.

Well that's sorry but the book of Hebrews does not identify its author in any way shape or form.

So that's a given. Secondly well no no it's not again not from the scholar perspective.

If you're familiar with you know modern translations and you're familiar with the original text your scholars read the

Koran in what language? Okay okay so the point is that when you look at the manuscripts the manuscripts do not say anything about Paul's name associated with Hebrews.

So he didn't write that secondly he was misunderstanding Hebrews chapter 5. He's not saying we're going to abandon the teachings of Jesus.

He's saying here are the foundations here's the fundamental teachings but you need to move on from there to apply these things in your life.

He's not saying I'm ashamed of these things getting rid of these things in any way shape or form you've completely misunderstood the point of Hebrews chapter 5 and if you want to have an even further discussion of that I've been preaching to the book of Hebrews for a couple of years and so sermonaudio .com

will have a lengthy discussion exactly what that text is actually all about. So I would direct you to that.

I was also aware of last night I'm really enjoying last night as well but it's just a very simple question.

Why this is only the second to be a fan that I've ever been on with yourself and Jeanne but why do you keep a very simple question and I'm not going to answer it answer it because because I'm not answer it because I'm not going to answer it because I'm not going to answer it because I'm not going to answer it because it's a very solid reasons to believe that.

I don't believe that they are from God. The only reason I quote them is that I acknowledge that they come from the first century.

These are documents written by some people in the first century which have been corrected on a massive scale. And there is some information therein which may have come from Jesus Christ because there was an oral tradition in circulation and these people definitely took this information from some people talking about Jesus Christ somewhere.

So the only way for us to establish as to what may be true or what may be actually from Jesus Christ or not is by applying an external criteria which is the

Jewish context in the first century. So when we look at the Jewish context and anything that can fall to the

Jewish context, whatever is attributed to Jesus Christ, then it may be true. I make myself very clear.

There is a great consistency here. Again and again people are actually ignoring what I am saying. I am clearly now saying again that I believe that there may be words in the

Gospels which may have come from Jesus Christ because of the oral tradition they copied from. The only way for us to know what he might have said is by applying external criteria, not by taking the

Gospel at face value. I have already stated a clear reason. Here you have a theologian who has written 20 books.

He is saying that we do not know who wrote the book of Hebrews. If you do not know who wrote the book of Hebrews, who told you it is the word of God?

Who told you it is the word of God? Think about this. This is something very, very important.

Think about it. I just want to say first of all,

I appreciate the two of you guys being here and presenting a great lecture. I just want to thank you guys for coming.

I just have two points I want to make. I have two questions. First you said that Jesus knew he was going to be crucified.

I will try and alliterate on this to try and make you understand my view. Jesus says, God, why have you forsaken me?

So maybe you have a Trinity understanding where Jesus is God. Now if I am God and Jesus at the same time, it is like me saying, oh me, why have

I forsaken me, me? It does not make sense to me. How can I say, God, why have you forsaken me, if I knew

I was going to be crucified first and second if I actually am God? It does not make sense. I am really, really thankful that you were in this debate last night and you would have asked that question because I already answered it once, but I will answer it now.

First of all, you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I want you to give me your email address afterwards and I will send you for free my book

The Forgotten Trinity so you can understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is. Jesus is not the Father. We do not believe that he is the

Father. The Father sent the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son prayed to the

Father. Read John chapter 17. Father, glorify me with the glory which I had in your presence before the world was.

We do not believe that the Father is the Son or the Son is the Father. So Jesus is addressing the Father who did not become incarnate.

And by the way, what he is quoting is Psalm 22 .1. Look it up. Psalm 22 is a messianic psalm.

It is a psalm filled with prophecies of the crucifixion of Jesus which you, if you are a Muslim, do not even believe happened against all of history and the prophetic tradition.

In fact, what I am going to do right now is, here is an entire book on the prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament and I am giving it to my friend

Adnan and you can steal from him if you want to. Thank you very much Adnan.

This 22nd Psalm is an incredible description of the crucifixion itself.

And so he is quoting from the Old Testament and he is praying to the Father which is what the doctrine of the

Trinity teaches. So my friend, if you just don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity, I would be happy to try to at least, don't, wouldn't you agree that if you are going to reject something, you should at least know what it is.

I have taken the time to understand what Tawhid is. I am writing a book, I am co -authoring a book right now with a

Muslim scholar on Trinity and Tawhid. I have read entire books on Tawhid.

Why? Because I respect you enough to know what you believe. You need to understand what I believe and right now you don't.

Okay? Thanks. Thank you. Next question. I was wondering that Muhammad says that the

Engine is the Word of God. The Muslims believe the Old Testament, believe the Torah, believe the

Engine. Now if they say believing on the Engine, what do they believe? You are now saying you don't believe the

New Testament at all? Are you the new prophet or we have to follow Muhammad? Thank you very much for that question.

Firstly, thank you very much James for this fascinating book. The title is Behold Your King, Prophetic Proofs that Jesus is the

Messiah. You know what? You didn't even have to write this chunky book. The Quran tells us in one verse that Jesus is the

Messiah. So we are going to continue with it. So, thank you very much. So, coming to your question very quickly.

We, the Quran doesn't even acknowledge the fact that the writings of Paul are there as worthy of attention.

Quran doesn't acknowledge the plurality of Gospels. Quran simply says Jesus preached one good news, one

Gospel. It doesn't even acknowledge, for example, James asked a question that why does the

Quran even comment on the writings of Paul and the writings of Jesus.

Why do the Quran, or you know, Tacitus, or even

Cicero, or all the other Roman historians, and Eusebius, and Sozolidus, and Theodora, all of these people, there is such a big list, there is so much to cover here today that the

Quran doesn't talk. Why does not the Quran talk about these things? These things are not important. Paul is not from God.

John never wrote a Gospel from God. Luke never wrote a Gospel. The problem here is, you have to understand that the

Quranic view is that there was one book taught and preached by Jesus, which we don't have, period.

It doesn't exist. Okay? There was a Torah. Torah means law, the law.

Quran doesn't even acknowledge that there were five books, the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy, Genesis, Numbers, Leviticus, and what's the fifth one?

I forgot the name of the fifth one. The Old Testament. Exodus. Exodus, yes, thank you.

So, Quran doesn't even acknowledge the name of these books. The Quran simply says, there was a law given to Moses, and that law existed.

Do we have it today? No, we don't. So, it's very simple. What is so difficult about this?

Yes. All the commandments?

Well, you'd have to show me where Jesus ever said anything like that, because Jesus actually said that the law of God is just and righteous, and anyone who teaches anyone to break the least of the commandments is the least in the kingdom of heaven.

So, Jesus never did any of those things. In fact, if you read the Sermon on the Mount, what

Jesus does is he doesn't say there was something wrong with the law. He says there's something wrong with you. He says, you've heard it said that you shall not commit adultery.

But I say to you, if you look on a woman with lust in your heart, you've committed adultery already.

Now, the law is perfectly right. You are not to commit adultery. What Jesus is doing is taking the principle embodied in that law, and he's applying it to people who have become experts at quoting the words, but not living the life.

And so, what Jesus does, he takes that law. In fact, the beautiful thing, my friend, is if you look at Jeremiah chapter 31,

Jeremiah chapter 31 talks about the fact that God is going to make a new covenant with the people of Israel, and that new covenant is what is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

And one of the descriptions of everyone who's in the new covenant is that they all know God. Many of the people in the nation of Israel did not know

God. They only knew about God. And he will write his law upon their hearts.

You see, the Christian relationship to God's moral law is that because my heart of stone has been taken out, and I've been given a heart of flesh, then

I rejoice to do what pleases my Lord. I obey because I love, not because I fear.

That's a completely different ethic, to obey because I love the one who gave the law, rather than just fearing that I'm going to be punished.

Isn't that why we truly love in our relationships with husbands and wives and children?

So you see, you've misunderstood what Jesus was saying. He never said what you attributed to him. I just wanted to know,

I was in a debate yesterday as well, and I kind of feel like sometimes you don't really directly answer the question.

So I just want to know, if I was to convert to be a Muslim, as a woman, what benefits are there to me?

Okay. Although this is not directly related to the topic, again, if you convert as a

Muslim to Islam, the best benefit you get is that you get salvation and you go straight to Paradise Inshallah.

Okay? But what do I get in Paradise? What you get in Paradise, whatever you desire. Listen carefully.

Whatever you desire in Paradise, you will get it. And if you don't get it, take me on the

Day of Judgment. No, I don't mean to take me as yours.

I mean, take me by the forelock. Take me by the forelock and ask me, Mr. Adnan, you in Ireland on the 27th of February, 2013, told me that I will get whatever

I desire in Paradise, and you were wrong. No. I'm telling you now, I have no doubts that if you believe in Islam and die in that state, you are guaranteed salvation.

You are guaranteed Paradise and you will get what you desire. That's what I'm saying. What do you get now?

When you become a Muslim, you get a nice husband with a bushy beard. Okay?

Who will love you for the sake of Allah. Okay? Who will give you all his attention. And he's bound by Islam.

He's bound by Islam to treat you well because chapter 4 of the Quran, okay, verse 19, clearly states, وَآشِرُونَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ

And live with your wives honorably. Do not, do not lay a finger on them.

Okay? Live with them honorably. I know some Christians may bring a verse, just maybe 10 verses down the line that you can rebuke your wives.

That doesn't, that doesn't exist. It's not true. Show me any, show me one example of the life of a prophet when he laid a finger on his wife.

And when some of his companions did, he rebuked them. He told them, I didn't touch your wives. And he told them, the best of you are those who are best to your wives because I am best to my wives.

That's Islam for you. Okay? You're welcome to come to Islam. I have a second question.

Can I just ask you that? Ah, get the second one now. All right, good. All right,

I'll get the second one. I like your voice. What are you looking for? You said the

Old Testament and the New Testament are the same. There's verses in them. Are they the same? Like the same, it's like the same, you believe in them all, correct?

I certainly do. Okay, so my question would be, how would you address the explicit verses in the

Old Testament where it states, for example, the book of Numbers, chapter 23, verse 19, it says,

God is not a man that you should lie to. The son of man that you should repent. No, not the son of man that you should change his mind. It says in the book of Exodus, chapter 20, the first commandment revealed to Moses.

Yep. Your Lord, thy God is one. You shall not... You shall not lie to anyone in the world.

Okay. In Hebrew. Yeah, but basically you're saying that you shall not worship anything in the heavens or the earth, nor in the waters.

Amen. You know how many times I've debated Mormons on this very issue? Because they are probably... For me, it's just English.

God is not a man, nor the son of man. Do you understand that? Oh, quite simply. That's the exact text that we train people to quote to Mormons.

Because your objection... You think we're Mormons. I'm not a Mormon. Mormons believe that God is a man, and that he lives on a planet that serves a star named

Kolah. Did you know that? It's true. And that there are many gods before him, and that God has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as any man.

Doctrine and Covenants, section 130, verse 22. I don't believe any of those things. The gospel is not that God is a man.

The gospel is that God took on a human nature in Jesus Christ. We didn't cease being God. You think that we somehow think that God's nature is that of a man.

No. The Word became flesh. Before that, the Word was not flesh. But it says that God...

The difference... It's okay. It's okay. I don't have any problem in responding to him. The point is, the words you are quoting is saying that God is

God, and we believe that. We just happen to believe that since God can create man, he can take on a perfect human nature, so he can provide a means of salvation through sacrifice.

He doesn't cease being God. The Word didn't cease being the Word. You are assuming things that if you were to take the time to read a certain book

I wrote on the subject, you would discover. That in reality, we don't believe the things you're objecting to.

And here's the important part. It's very clear to me that the author of the Quran didn't know what I believed either. But he thought he did.

And in 632 AD, Allah knew what the Doctrine of the Trinity was. And since the

Quran misrepresents the Doctrine of the Trinity, what does that say? That's the important part. And that's a question all of us have to think about.

Do you believe you are a sinner?

Is that the question? The answer is very simple. That's one question, by the way.

If we are sinners, we can be forgiven and reconciled with God of corruption.

Okay, how can we be sinners and reconciled? How can we be forgiven? How can we be forgiven?

Okay. The prophet of Islam told us, peace be upon him, that all the children of Adam are those who make mistakes.

They all make mistakes. All of them. Okay? And the best of those who make mistakes are the ones who are repentant.

The best of those who make mistakes are those who repent. There is definitely a guarantee of salvation.

Okay? God is so merciful. Why do you think God is oppressive? Why does this God need blood sacrifice?

Why is he so bloody? Who kills children and who commands to kill children. And he has to send his own son to slay him on the cross.

What kind of God is this? God is merciful. When he says he is merciful, he is merciful.

He hears. When you repent to him, oh God, I committed sins. I am a sinner. Forgive me.

He forgives. He forgives. There is a verse in the Quran, Say, O Muhammad, to my slaves,

Say to them, O Muhammad, that those of you who have transgressed against your souls, who have committed sins, do not despair from the mercy of God.

Do not despair. The best and the most effective tool of Shaitan, the devil, against mankind is to take hope away from them.

Okay. I am a doctor. I am a rapist. I am a murderer. I can never be forgiven. That does not exist. God is more than big enough to forgive all your sins.

So long as you repent to him. You repent, you are guaranteed Paradise. And repentance does not mean that you pray to the cross or pray to a man called

Jesus Christ and then expect Paradise from him. You pray to Jesus Christ and you die in that state, you go straight to hell fire.

I am telling you that. I do apologize. That is the truth. And this is in the Quran. The Quran clearly states, those who describe part of the

God Almighty are polytheists and they go straight to hell fire. Thank you.

So, just to balance out the last question. My question is, as you guys believe

Jesus is the Son of God, so my question is, is he the only Son of God?

That is the question. Like David and Israel and Solomon. Yeah, of course.

We use the term Son of God in many people, but Jesus is called the monogamist. We ask the only begotten Son. His Sonship is most assuredly does.

That is what monogamist means. No, I am sorry. I know more about what monogamist means than you do.

Okay. I can, don't even go there son. I can bury you under scholarly citations on this and I will do so if I need to.

Monogamist does mean unique. There is no question it means unique. But the point is that the

Sonship of Jesus is obviously completely different than anyone else's. It is presented in a completely different way.

So much so that the Jews, the whole reason that they take offense at Jesus' identification himself as the

Son, is because they recognize he is making himself God. That is what John chapter 5 is all about. When he said that the

Son is working even as the Father is working, they recognized he was making himself equal with God. And so you have just got to allow the text to speak for itself.

Just because the term Son of God can be used with something other, doesn't mean that there cannot be a greater and more full fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

In the same way that Jesus is a prophet, but he is not just a prophet. You don't want to just limit things to one category and there can be nothing more.

You don't do that in the Quran. And you don't do that with Muhammad. But you do that to us. You are using different standards. And you are violating what the

Quran itself says when you do that. Because you are supposed to use equal weights. And so the fact of the matter is, yes, there are other people who are called

Sons of God. But they are not identified as the Son of God with the term monogamized, used of him, not only in John, but also in the

Synoptic Gospels. You see the very, I saw it, I showed you it in Mark. Where he uses Son of man of himself in a way that the, how did

Jews respond? You've heard the blasphemy. Why did they say that? If it was not the intention of those authors to communicate to us something very special, what was said?

Thank you both speakers. That concludes the question and answer session. Now we have finally a five minute conclusion session.

Thank you speaker. We'll start off with the... Okay, ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you very much for being present today. It's been an amazing and exciting debate.

It is always a pleasure to debate Dr. James White. Although we differ on major issues with regards to religion, but we are brothers in humanity.

We will always be brothers. And I pray for James. I'm sure James prays for me. And I wish him the best of this world and the hereafter.

And I'm sure he wishes the best for me. So today's debate was whether Jesus and Muhammad preached the same religion.

I already clarified my position that Jesus was, historically speaking, a Jewish prophet who preached in a

Jewish milieu. And he has to be considered as a prophet, as a messenger of God, within the

Jewish context in the first century. The Gospels cannot be taken at face value for the reasons already stated.

Gospels have to be scrutinized extensively, thoroughly, in order to get to the truth as to what

Jesus really preached. And when we actually see what he preached within the Jewish milieu, or whatever he preached actually conformed to the

Jewish context of the time, we see that it was exactly Islam. He preached monotheism, strict monotheism.

There is only one God here on Israel. There is only one God. Then he preached strict adherence to the law.

You must uphold the law. In the book of Matthew, chapter 5, verse 17, we are told that he clarified his position, that I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets.

In chapter 15 of the book of Matthew, he rebukes the Pharisees for not following the law. When the Pharisees talked to him, asking him, why didn't you wash your hands before you ate?

He rebuked them for not practicing a law which can be found in the Old Testament, where it is stated that if a child insults the parents, that child must be put to death.

And he rebukes them for not following that law. So Jesus, if anything, we can find that he upheld the

Jewish law, which is exactly what Islam stood for. When Islam came, Islam simply abrogated some of the things of the

Jewish law and brought the final law for mankind. Muhammad was indeed a prophet of God.

There is no doubt about that. To such an extent, ladies and gentlemen, that there are some Christian scholars, people like Montgomery Watt from the

University of Edinburgh, who was a Christian. He stated that we simply cannot accuse Muhammad of imposture.

There is far too much in his life for us to simply reject him as an impostor. And in fact, he stated that he was indeed inspired by God.

He was indeed inspired by God. Why? Because when you look at the man's life, you see what he was preaching and teaching exactly conformed to what was being preached and taught by Moses in message.

And what was the message? There is only one God. O children of Israel, O the people of the world,

There is only one God. Don't worship idols. Don't worship men. Don't worship stones.

Don't worship trees. Worship one God alone, which was worshipped by Jesus Christ himself.

How did he pray, ladies and gentlemen? He went to the Garden of Gethsemane. He fell on his face and he prayed to God.

Did you see us pray in the beginning? That's how we pray. We, the Muslims, pray just like Jesus prayed.

We, the Muslims, pray just like Moses prayed. Fell on his face and he prayed to God. Abraham fell on his face and he prayed to God.

This is all in the Bible. They washed before they prayed. They did ablution. We do that, ladies and gentlemen.

Look at our women. They look like Mary. Show me one Christian woman who looks like Mary today. You will not find one, except Catholics, of course.

And some of you believe Catholics are not Christians. And that doesn't help us in any way. Now, Jesus, when he greeted his companions, his disciples, in the

Gospel of John, in the later part, we are told that he comes to them and he says to them,

Peace be upon you. Peace be upon you. How do the Muslims greet each other? I want the

Muslims to say, Peace be upon you. What does it actually mean?

Peace be upon you. We are more Christians than the Christians are, ladies and gentlemen.

You know why? Because we follow the Christ of the Qur 'an and the Bible. And the Christ of the Qur 'an is no different to the

Christ of history. In the Qur 'an, in chapter 5, verse 72, 73 and 74 and 5, we are told that Jesus tells his people,

Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. And when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity getting it wrong, The Qur 'an getting it wrong.

Mr. James Wise, we had a debate on this topic. He's wrong. The Qur 'an, in chapter 5, verse 116, doesn't mention the doctrine of the

Trinity anywhere. It simply states that there were Christians who worshipped Mary. There are Christians today who worship

Mary in Ireland. The Catholics do it. And they call Mary the mother of God. Theotokos. So is the

Qur 'an wrong? The Qur 'an doesn't say that's the doctrine of Trinity. The Qur 'an simply says that Jesus and his mother are being worshipped as deities beside God.

Is that true? Yes, that is true. But should it be done? No. That is shit. That's polytheism.

And those who indulge in these practices are going straight to hellfire if you don't fix up. Because this is what

Jesus said in the Qur 'an, we are told. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to again thank you for being here this evening and say, yes,

I do pray for Hanan. As I pray for any Muslim, I obviously pray that the

Lord Jesus Christ will be revealed to him. I do thank him for our debates this evening.

And I look forward to further debates with him in the future. I just wanted to clear up a few items. Hanan had made mention of a particular scholar who says that the text of Matthew chapter 28, verses 19 and following is an addition.

I just wanted to point out there is absolutely no historical evidence of that. Why does he say that? Because he has a theory.

And scholars love theories. It helps them get published. And his theory is that no Jew would ever believe that.

Wow. In other words, Jews can be nothing more than the Jews expect them to be. There's your argumentation.

Not much argumentation there. It would be very easy to debate somebody on that issue. I'd also like to talk to you a little bit about paradise.

Someone asked a question about paradise. You know what paradise is for a Christian? It's not a place where you get what you want. Paradise for a

Christian is being united with Jesus Christ. Being where he is, worshipping God in the spirit of truth.

That's what paradise is. It's not a physical place where you get physical things. It's being united in perfection with your creator.

I would like to ask Adnan. The Qur 'an says in Surah chapter 5.

He's not responding to this. I've noticed this is interesting. I keep reading this up. And I don't know that my Muslim friends have an answer for this.

But Surah 5 says to the people of the Gospel. The Al -Al

Injil. That we are to judge by what is contained therein. Fihi.

It refers to the Injil. How am I supposed to do that today? In light of what Adnan has said this evening.

He doesn't believe I can know anything about what the Gospel actually said. So, is Surah 5 .47

aggregated? Did it have any meaning in the day that it was recited by Muhammad?

Because you know it all came down in the era of Al -Qadr. And it was piecemealed out over a period of time. And on the day that Surah 5 .47.

Which by the way, you don't know what day that was, do you? What if I made that the standard? You don't know what day it was.

You can't read the word of God. That's easy to do. Meaningless, but that's easy to do. If on the day it was quoted.

To the Christian people. How could they obey the words? They're to judge what's contained therein.

According to Adnan, they didn't have it anymore. It makes the words of the Qur 'an meaningless. Double talk.

I've never gotten an answer. Never gotten an answer to that. You see. He asked, why should the

Qur 'an address Theodosius? Or this, that, or the other thing? The Qur 'an should accurately address the

New Testament. And it's teaching. It's concerning the person of Jesus Christ. Because as Adnan just said.

If you believe him, you're going to hell. And if what he just said is true. Then shouldn't it be the case.

That his book of scripture. Accurately represents. Mine, which it says is wrong.

Which comes after it. His revelation comes after mine. Why can't it accurately represent it?

Why can't it interact with it? When it's telling me to believe it is to go to hell. I think that's sort of important, don't you?

Twice now he said, if you pray to Jesus. Even though Jesus said in John 14, 14. The same gospel he normally quoted.

In John 14, 14. Jesus spoke about prayer to the self. He says, if you ask me anything in my name.

I won't do it. This is after he's gone back to heaven. But Adnan says, if you believe what's in John 14, 14.

Then I challenge him. Be consistent at this point. Then you're going to hell fire.

Let me tell you something. You ask a question. Why is

God so bloody? Why does God have to send his own son?

Oh Adnan, hear me. The son came freely. As he said in the gospel.

You quote it more often than any other. No one takes my life from me. I lay it down in my own accord.

And why does he do that? He does that because his law cannot simply be shoved off the side.

Because it represents his holiness. God's attributes cannot simply be done away with. And so what

God has done in the gospel. Is he has provided a way. Whereby my sin, my guilt is borne by another.

Not so I can just live any life I want. So he can change me. And make me like my savior.

His law is honored. His holiness is maintained. And his love and mercy is demonstrated. And that's what

Jesus Christ is all about. And I say to you. The teachings we have seen consistently.

In the only source we can come up with for Jesus' teachings. Were not the teachings of Muhammad. We have seen that beyond any and all question.

The thesis of the debate has been established. Thank you for being here this evening. Thank both speakers for their input.

Now, just to conclude. Let's not make this the end of the discussion.

Let's make this a starting point. So we can go back and look ourselves in the mirror. Into both sides.

And come with a conclusion. And make all of what you got us all in that pursuit. Also, another round of applause for both speakers.

Thank you again. I would also like to thank all of you for coming today.

And thank you very much. Oh, just sorry. One quick announcement actually. On Friday.

This Friday at half six. In the arts building. If you are aware. In the JMCS theater at half six. There will be a documentary filming.

And the speaker will be coming in Southport. By Q &A session off the podium. He is an ex -rapper from the group.