Is the Bible the Word of God? A Christian vs Islamic Discussion

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated and is protected by copyright laws of the

United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries Incorporated is prohibited.

Good afternoon everybody. We are so pleased to have you here on a

Saturday afternoon. We know there are plenty of things for you to be doing on a Saturday afternoon, so we are so delighted that you are here with us at RTS.

My name is Bob Emiot, I'm the Executive Vice President here. I serve Dr. Don Sweeting for this campus, for RTS Orlando.

RTS is an organization, a seminary that's been around for 50 years, and we're going to celebrate our 50th year next year.

And this event is the brainchild of John Meather. John Meather is a very godly man who's been with us for over 30 years, who is undertaking a

QEP, it's called, in our accreditation, our 10 -year accreditation. We wanted to get better at this, convening the public, having good constructive dialogue on very important topics.

And so we are endeavoring to do that well. John Meather is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

He had some meetings there this week and got stuck there because they had five inches of snow yesterday.

So I am pinch -hitting at this point, so pardon any thing that I may do that might not be as smooth as Dr.

Meather. But we are so glad to be here. I wanted to just tell you that there'll be a moderator today, and I wanted to introduce you to Mr.

Michael O 'Fallon. Michael is here. And Michael will be addressing the public, and he will be telling you kind of the structure of how this afternoon's going to be going.

And so without any further ado, I'm going to bring Michael up to the podium. Well, good afternoon, and it's great to welcome all of you to today's discussion dialogue that we're going to be having.

Thank you. Welcome, first of all, for all those of you, Presbyterians that are visiting, as well as all those of you in the

Islamic community that are here. I know Reformed Baptists are still coming in the door late back over here. Sorry, sorry,

Dr. White. But it's a pleasure to be here. First of all, again, for the—I would also like to thank the

Spurgeon Fellowship, Chris Hatton that's here, as well as Kyle Hauck, who have been putting in tireless hours to make sure that all of this happens.

We also have some guests here from Long Island, Michael Gaydosch, as well as Chris Arnzen, that have run many debates up in the

Long Island, New York area. It's great to have you here. But without any further ado, I'd like to be able to introduce to you, first, our participants.

First, this gentleman serves as the Senior Imam, President and Chairman of the Board of the Islamic Society of Central Florida since 1993.

ISCF is a Muslim community organization which operates 10 mosques in Central Florida. He is the

President of the Peace Institute, which establishes centers for peace to conduct outreach programs and services, and which partners with various religious government civic, academic, and business organizations to promote peace, justice, and respect among all people.

This gentleman is an advisor on Islam and Muslims to various agencies of the U .S. government, and is also active in interfaith network and public services.

He is a member and past co -chairman of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida's Advisory Board.

He is a member of the Peace and Justice Initiative at Valencia College.

Would you please welcome Imam Mohamed Massry, PhD. Our second participant is the

Director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona.

He has taught for numerous acclaimed biblical institutions, including Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, Columbia Evangelical Seminary, and Grand Canyon University.

As an author, he has written over 20 books and engaged in more than 100 moderated public debates.

He is a seasoned traveler, and he tries as best as he can to attend the services of his own church with as much regularity as possible.

Would you please welcome Dr. James White. Our forum today will be split into two separate theses that we will then be discussing.

Firstly, we will be starting with the thesis of, Is the Bible God's Word?

We will have two 20 -minute presentations by each one of our participants, and then we will have approximately 45 minutes of open dialogue, followed by two 10 -minute concluding statements.

At the end of that time, we will have a brief break. We will then return, and we will start our second thesis, which will be,

Is the Quran the Word of God? Again, with two 20 -minute presentations, 45 minutes of dialogue, two 10 -minute presentations to conclude at the end, and then as well, we will have some questions.

Now, the kind folks at Reformed Theological Seminary will be passing out some cards that you can go ahead and write down some questions.

We will then jointly go through those questions, pick out which ones we believe should be delivered to the participants, and then allow them both to answer and discuss those questions.

So without any further ado, let me introduce first, for the affirmative, Is the

Bible the Word of God? Dr. James White. All right.

It is a true honor to be with you here today, and I want to explain to you how unique an opportunity we have today.

Unfortunately, most of the time when dialogue takes place between Christians and Muslims in the world today, the dialogue is either marked by a kind of compromise that does not actually represent historic meaningful

Christianity or historic meaningful Islam, or it is marked by a kind of rancor, a kind of anger, a kind of distrust that means you end up with two sides just making speeches against the other without much of any meaningful dialogue taking place.

It is truly my desire that over the course of the next couple of hours, what you're going to watch are two people who believe firmly in what they profess, what they teach, what they preach, interacting with one another in a spirit of not compromise, of not giving up the uniqueness of what we believe, but out of respect and a recognition that because both of our faiths make certain claims, then we need to interact with one another, we need to be honest with one another, and when we disagree, we need to disagree firmly, clearly, but with an understanding of where the other side is coming from and why they believe what they believe.

I'm going to tell my fellow evangelical Christians that I am very, very concerned at the attitude that I have seen amongst many of our people.

When we ourselves are often offended by being painted with a broad brush, when we ourselves are asking the world, you need to understand that we're not all like Fred Phelps and the

Westboro Baptist Church, you need to allow us to be ourselves. We cannot, therefore, return the favor of broad brushing other individuals and putting everybody into one big old camp, and I have taken a fair amount of heat from my fellow believers for pointing out that there are different kinds of Muslims in the world, and if you don't recognize that, if you don't try to understand where the different groups are coming from, and even within the major groups, that there are differences of opinions and viewpoints within them, we'll never get anywhere in actually communicating with one another.

It simply won't take place. Because if we have fear of one another, we will never open up our hearts, we will never as Christians truly extend ourselves, show the love of Christ, and engage in meaningful

Christian testimony if our thinking is marked by fear. And so I am hoping that what we do today will help to begin a dialogue.

Obviously, there are so many issues to address that we can barely even list them for you in the course of the time that we have today.

But hopefully, it certainly is my hope, and I would imagine that Imam Musri would say the same thing, is that you all would be the ones that would be continuing this dialogue amongst yourselves in a way that shows a firm commitment to your faith, and that that means you then therefore have a firm commitment to speaking to others.

Now in light of that, we're talking about two subjects. We're talking about the Bible as the Word of God, and the

Quran as the Word of God. But immediately, we have to come to an understanding of what this means.

You see, the Quran says that the Torah and Injil are sent down by God. Sent down, the very language of Revelation.

The Quran says that in the Torah and the Injil are light and guidance.

And associates with those who were a part of the provision of those scriptures, people like Moses and Jesus, the office of prophethood.

And one of the key texts that, especially during our time of communication with one another when we get to talk back and forth, that I want to focus upon, is in Surah Tawmaidah, Surah 5.

Now, once we get talking with one another, I'm going to use my iPad to project some of these texts on the screen for you so you can follow them.

And the imam's better organized than I am this weekend, and he'll have a presentation for you to look at. But when we look at Surah 5, especially

Ayahs 44 through 48, we discover that the Quran makes an argument from Allah giving to Moses the

Torah, and giving to Jesus the Injil, and then giving to Muhammad the

Quran. And there is a chain very clearly presented in that particular text.

And so, ironically, we can immediately assert that the Quran itself says that the

Torah and the Injil were given by God, and in fact, God holds men accountable for what is in the

Torah and the Injil. There, in Surah 5, we're told, we are called the

Al -Al -Injil, the People of the Gospel. We're addressed twice by that. Sometimes we're called the Al -Al -Kitab, the People of the Book, but the

People of the Gospel, we are addressed there in Surah 5, and we are told to judge by what is contained therein, and the only antecedent to the word therein is the

Gospel. So in the days of Muhammad, sometime before the end of 632

A .D. in our calendar, there was a time when there could be a revelation come forth that says to the

Christian people, you are to judge by what is contained in the Injil.

What does that mean? That means that they possessed the Injil. Otherwise, the words have no meaning.

How could we be held accountable for judging by something we no longer possess? It wouldn't make any sense. Well, if we had the

Injil in 632 A .D., or sometime thereabouts, so that those words can have meaning, the question is, do we continue to have those words to this day?

And certainly most of us who have studied biblical history know that, most assuredly, we not only know what the

Gospel, the entirety of the New Testament, contained before 632, but we know hundreds of years before 632.

All we have to do is look at such manuscripts as Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, which are almost complete records of the

New Testament, that are dated a good 300 years earlier than that, 250 to 300 years earlier than that, and so we know what the

New Testament said before the days of Muhammad, we know what it said in the days of Muhammad, we know what it says after the days of Muhammad, and that we continue to possess that very same document to this very day.

And so, one of the questions will be, and I don't know exactly what position Imam Musa takes on the transmission of the text of the

Bible, but in my conversations in the past, what I've generally heard is, well, you need to understand the

Quran is the final revelation, and there in Surah 548 it says it's a muhaimanun, it's a guidance, it's a protector, or in some translations, a corrector of the previous scriptures, we'll probably have to discuss what that particular word actually means.

And so the general view, and again, until we hear from the Imam, I can't predicate anything on this, but the general view that I have encountered in the past is that the

Quran is the only uncorrupted word that we have from God, and while the Torah and the

Injil, parts of it may still exist, they have to. Why do they have to? Because of Surah 61 -6 and Surah 7 -17.

What do those say? Well, those texts in the Quran say that we, the people of the book, read about Muhammad in our own scriptures.

Well, then there still must be something of the Injil, something of our scriptures, that has come down to us, for that to be relevant in the days of Muhammad, that there would still be prophecies of Muhammad contained in the scriptures, and when we ask what those prophecies are, we're generally told that, well, it's

Deuteronomy chapter 18, John chapters 14 and 16, et cetera, et cetera, though the Quran never defines those things.

And so, generally, the assertion that is made is, well, there has been great corruption, and so the

Quran becomes the lens through which you read these previous documents. We're also told that, well, the

Torah only refers to what Moses gave. Yes, there is a reference to the Psalms of David and a few things like that, but we're only looking at a small portion of the

Old Testament. And then, the understanding of many is that the Gospel was a specific book given to Jesus.

Even though there is no historical evidence of any such book ever having existed, no one for 600 years made any type of reference to a special book that only

Jesus knew about or that Jesus wrote or anything along those lines. And certainly, again, if the exhortations that the

Quran has for us Christians are going to have any meaning, then there has to have been understanding in the days of Muhammad as to what the

Christian scriptures were. Here's the problem, and here's where we get into some of the conversation. We need to have a conversation about these things.

I think it's vitally important for us Christians to know that we are addressed by the Quran directly.

Obviously, it doesn't work the other direction, and anachronistically, the New Testament can't address the

Muslim population because that comes 600 years later, but we are addressed directly by the

Quran. And we need to know what the Quran says to us and why it says what it says, and I hope that that will be some of what we'll talk about today.

But if we are to take seriously, for example, the Quran saying that we must not go into excess in our beliefs, so we are to say only what is true about God, then does it not follow that the author of the

Quran should be accurate in his understanding of what the Christian faith and the

Christian scriptures are? If we're going to believe that the Christian scriptures have been altered on the basis of the

Quran and Quranic teaching, then we should have a very firm foundation in believing that the author of the

Quran was very familiar with the entire content of the New Testament, but to be honest with you, I see no evidence of that whatsoever.

I've never seen any evidence that the author of the Quran knew anything about the canon of the New Testament, knew anything about the book of Hebrews, the

Pauline epistles, knew anything about the fact there were four gospel writers, because it's very common for even

Christians to this day, and it was in that day as well, to talk about the gospel as a singular thing, but also to recognize we have the gospel of Matthew, the gospel of Mark, so on and so forth, very easily we move back and forth between the two.

We understand that, but that seemed to create some level of confusion, and as a result, then it raises the questions, well, when the

Quran does seek to interact with the Bible, does it show real understanding of what the

Bible says? So those are some of the things I want to expand on a little bit more when we talk specifically about the Quran, but the point is this is a discussion between a believing

Christian and a believing Muslim, and therefore when we talk about is the Bible the word of God, well, the

Quran says that it is. The only real issue is, are we still in possession of what the

Quran affirmed to have been Natsal, sent down to contain light and guidance, or have we lost that?

That really becomes the question. Now, down to the history of Islamic thought,

I'm sure the Imam will verify this, there were two streams of thought on this particular subject. And that was, there were those

Muslims who believed in Tarif al -Mana, which means that the Christians and the

Jews had misunderstood their scriptures, had misinterpreted their scriptures, and then you have

Tarif al -Nuts, and that is the idea that the very words of the scriptures had been changed.

Now, I won't have time today to develop this, but I would argue that the author of the

Quran would have had a hard time specifically asserting that the very words of Allah could be changed.

Yeah, I know about Surah 279, but I think there's a context there that needs to be looked at, but there are lots of other places that would seem to indicate that the author of the

Quran would have had a problem with that. But leaving that aside, what you need to know is that historically something happened very important in 1864 that probably will deeply impact our conversation today.

The publication of a book called Itzar al -Haqq, the Confirmation or Vindication of the

Truth. And that one book has had more impact around the world in changing

Islamic views about the Bible than any other book ever did. It was written by a

Muslim, it was written against the British missionary work amongst the Muslims there in India.

And it is a huge compilation of alleged, and I say alleged, I've read all of it, alleged errors, textual variations, contradictions in the

Gospels, etc., etc., etc. So important has that book been historically that the vast majority of Muslims with whom

I have dialogue today would assert that the Bible has experienced that more severe form of corruption, tarif al -nuts, that that is how we should understand that there are only portions of God's truth left in the

Christian scriptures, and that's why you need the Quran as the lens through which to look to see this

Word of God. Now hopefully what we won't have to deal with today is the odd development that has taken place over the past number of decades amongst those who are doing dawah, those who are calling to Islam.

And that is, there has become this strange dalliance between naturalistic materialism and the presentations that I'm encountering all the time.

In fact, it seems that the favorite post -Christian, ex -Christian author of many of the

Muslims with whom I have dialogue is Bart Ehrman. Now, I don't think Bart Ehrman even likes that, personally, but that kind of naturalistic approach to looking at the

New Testament and the Bible, we're not, if there are any naturalists here today, you're in the minority.

If you're a Christian, you're a supernaturalist. If you're a Muslim, you're a supernaturalist. You should not be starting with the assumption that there cannot be divine revelation.

And yet when you start with people like Bart Ehrman and people like that, you're starting with the assumption that there is no such thing as divine revelation.

And so one of the things that I am calling upon both Christians and Muslims to do, and I will have,

I can call Christian friends as witness to this, is I say to both sides, we need to use equal scales.

We cannot apply one standard to one side and one standard to another side.

So let me start with my side on that. If we are to criticize the Quran, then we cannot just glibly grab onto the argumentation of liberal

Orientalists or atheists and skeptics and just throw it out there without even thinking through the fact that they would use the very same type of arguments against the

Bible. We can't, as Christians, if we follow Him who is the truth, we cannot be using different standards.

It doesn't matter how effective, quote unquote, on a pragmatic level that argument might be, that is not an option for a

Christian. And the same way, I have over and over again asked my Muslim friends, do you realize that the argumentation that you're using, if you applied the same standards to the

Quran, would disprove the Quran. I mean, if we are, if we're believing

Muslims, then you believe in the Miraj and the Isra, you believe, you believe in supernatural revelation, you believe that the

Quran was sent down and Laylat al -Qadr and was given by dictation by Jibril to Muhammad over a certain period of time.

And you believe all those things, which all those liberal scholars you like to quote against the

Bible would never accept and would dismiss and would therefore make the same arguments against your text that you are now making against the

Old and New Testament. And so, I have been calling for years now, I'll call for it again today, equal scales.

Even the Quran says, use equal weights in scales. Now they're talking about buying things, but I think it's perfectly applicable to this as well.

We have to use the same standards, and I would invite all of you to listen carefully to any criticism that we offer, to any argument that is made, any position that is enunciated, are we using the same standards when we talk about someone else's scriptures?

And given that this is a dialogue between people who believe that God has spoken,

I would be shocked if the Imam would disagree with what I'm about to say. You cannot be a

Muslim and not believe that God has spoken. And clearly, you cannot be a

Christian and not believe that God has spoken. It's just not possible. So we are people who believe that God has spoken,

God wants us to know what his truth is, and yet we have conflicting beliefs because we have differing ultimate sources.

But here's the problem. This is why especially Christians and Muslims have to talk.

We have to talk. It's because Islam, I know from the Islamic perspective, is the original religion and is first, but historically in manifestation and as far as scripture goes,

Islam comes after Judaism and Christianity and speaks often of both. And since in the very words of the

Qur 'an we are addressed, we are spoken to, a connection is made that cannot be broken.

For example, one of the most important surahs in the Qur 'an is Surah Taliqlas, Surah 112, closest you'll get to a doctrinal statement, a creedal statement within Islam.

And what it says in its third ayah is, لَمْ يَلَدْ وَلَمْ يُلَدْ God is not begotten, nor does he beget.

Now what's that talking about? We as Christians could agree with the first, second, and fourth ayah of that particular surah, but that third one seems to be directed directly to us.

And according to one hadith, Muhammad said that to quote Surah Taliqlas is to quote one -third of the Qur 'an. So it's very important.

And so if in the central documents of the faith, we have a connection between, in the

Qur 'an, between Islam and Christianity, we must talk. We cannot afford to just simply listen to what others tell us about the others.

We need to talk with one another. And that's what we're supposed to be doing today, and that's what we've just begun doing.

I believe that the Bible is the word of God for many reasons, but today, in the context of a

Christian -Islamic dialogue, I believe that it is so because even the

Qur 'an recognizes that God sent it down to Moses, God gave it to Jesus, and that's what we continue to have to this very day.

And that's where the focus needs to be. I'm excited about you being here. I'm excited about Imam Musri being here.

Thank you very much. God bless. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. White.

We now have 20 minutes for an opening presentation by Imam Muhammad Musri.

Please stand by. Technical difficulties. Well, again,

I want to also thank you for coming, and I'm greatly honored to be on stage with a great scholar,

Dr. James White, and I have read his book on the

Qur 'an. He graciously sent me three of his books for free.

So that gave me the opportunity, I never, honestly, I never did a debate, I never heard of Dr.

White, and then I received this book. And like I said, this great man has traveled the world and talked to, debated a hundred, you know,

Muslim scholars, and I don't even know him. So it's quite an honor to be on stage with him today, and to echo what

Dr. White just said. We are both people of faith, people who believe in God, people of the book.

We all believe that God exists, God is one, and God sent revelations.

Now, the question that is at hand at this moment, if that, if the

Bible is God's word, and we will look at, in the second part of this discussion, if the

Qur 'an is God's word. Now, for most people, they know, they are familiar with the

Bible. Even Muslims, being a minority in this country, they see the Bible and discussions about the

Bible all the time, on television, in public schools, in the courts.

So it intrigued our interest to look in here, okay?

But Muslims do not follow the Bible, do not study the

Bible. We have a separate scripture, the Qur 'an. So for us, this question, is the

Bible God's word? First, maybe it's none of our business. If there are people who believe it's

God's word, that's fine with me. But if we want to engage in a scholarly discussion, and look back at the development of the

Bible, and if I'm going to be dragged into answering that question, as a

Muslim, I would say the Bible, all of it, is not

God's word. But, as Dr. White mentioned, we believe in parts of it to be

God's word. And that's a big difference. So, if you take the

Bible, that's my call for prayers on my phone.

If the Bible, if you take the Bible, and you go through it, okay, basically from beginning to end, you won't run into the word

Bible, right? So, nowhere in there God says, I revealed this

Bible, this is a Bible. There's no speech about Bible. There is a lot about Torah.

There is a lot about the Gospel. And we do believe in the Torah that God sent to Moses, and we believe in the

Gospel that God sent into Jesus. And this does not represent that.

If there is a book called Torah and a book called Gospel that we can verify belong to these two great prophets, we more than gladly will accept this.

Now, what's in here is a lot of books. The word

Bible means the books, okay, from the Greek and Latin.

That collection of books. Now, who made the decision to collect these books?

I personally don't know. Multiple councils throughout history have decided in various parts of the world and the various emperors to say, this belongs in the canon and this doesn't belong in the canon, okay?

And I wasn't there to know their entire reasoning. But what

I'm faced with today is a Bible that I can buy from a bookstore or look online and say, this is the

Bible that a Christian gives me. But then there's this

Bible. And then there's this Bible. But these Bibles are not the same.

So if somebody gave me consistent Bible all the time across the world, so we are talking about the same book, then

I would say, okay, now we are talking about the Bible. But which Bible are we talking about?

Is it the Catholic Bible or the Christian Bible? The Protestant Bible, the

King James. What's the difference between this and this? You know, this has 66 books.

So the collection is limited to 66. This has 73 books, seven additional books.

When I go to the Orthodox Church, there's additional books. So they have 77 books.

I go to the Ethiopian Church, they have 81 books in their Bible. And so my simple confusion here is, which

Bible are we talking about? I believe, because God told me in the

Quran, okay, that God revealed the Torah to Moses.

And I say, let me see where is the Torah in here? I go to the

Jews and say, where is your Torah? So they gave me a Torah. And I'm going to, since the technical difficulties,

I'm going to help myself to get in the Torah.

And this is the modern commentary on the Torah, a gift that a rabbi at Temple Israel here in town gave to me.

So I look at this, it's really limiting only the five early books of Moses.

It's not covering the entire Bible that the Christians use.

As a matter of fact, we see there is a clear division between the

Old Testament and the New Testament. So these are at least two main documents in one. They're not one continuous document.

And the scholars of Judaism, they will stop here or even less than here.

They do with this King James, but they will not accept the additional books called

Apocrypha in this Catholic Bible. So that is really our dilemma.

Is it fixed? Okay. Now, so this is initially, if we can enlarge this so I can see it here.

Okay. So what we see here is my simple answer of no for the whole document.

But the answer is yes, this is a word of God or the word of God is contained within in most of its books.

And to be clearer, we really take the, these are the numbers

I showed you earlier that as a Muslim, as an outsider, I don't know really the differences between Eastern Orthodox Christian, who say they are original

Christians, to Catholic Christians, to Protestant Christians, to Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians.

And I want to say, what was Jesus? I want to know Jesus, Esau, the son of Miriam.

Was he a Baptist? Was he a Catholic? Was he an Orthodox? I love him.

I know him. I believe in him and what he received. But I'm not going to get in the middle between all these

Christian groups. There's over 40 ,000 of them to say which one is the correct one.

Now, these are, there are endless list of versions, but these are the most prominent versions.

The King James, which was by the order of King James of England in 1611.

And here in the States, the American Standard Version. And then the one of interest to me is the

Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Now, the Bible sections, you know, when

I look at the New Testament, I told you about the extra books in the Old Testament that when your scholars make up their mind what belongs in the canon or doesn't, we'll talk about that.

But at least they agree on the New Testament. And there, there are four

Gospels, not one Gospel. We're told the Gospel according to Matthew, and the

Gospel according to Mark, and the Gospel according to Luke, and the

Gospel according to John. And there are a bunch of other Gospels out there that are not part of this canon, okay?

The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Barnabas, the Gospel of I don't know who. We say, you know, I want the

Gospel of Jesus Christ. I want the Gospel of Esau, the son of Miriam. What did he preach?

They're all referring to him. These are different points of view referring to one

Gospel. We want that Gospel. That's what we believe in. So I have to harmonize at least four

Gospels here to kind of get the message of what did

Jesus really say. In the process, there's a lot of minutia there that I personally am not interested in.

I'm not interested in the opinions of Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, and Paul, and anybody else.

I want to know what Jesus said, because that's what matters. What God said and what his great prophet

Jesus said, that is where we need to follow. But everybody giving me a different take and opinion on it, twisting the story to his liking, is not helpful to me.

Now, these are the five books of the Old Testament, which are referred to as the

Torah, which we accept. And we accept also from the Torah. We are told in the

Quran that God gave revelation to every prophet. So in there, there are three major prophets, and there are 12 minor prophets.

And their books are in the Old Testament, and we generally accept them with some exceptions.

When we go to the New Testament, you know, I would take out the letters of Paul and the letters of other people.

I would say, let's focus on the four Gospels. Let's harmonize them into one. And then we can say, this is the

Christian Gospel that God is asking Christians to follow and we would believe in.

Who wrote the Gospels? Well, it wasn't necessarily inspired as most

Christians believe. But Luke's introduction in his letter, this is his letter of the

Gospel of what happened. He admits that it wasn't God or Gabriel came to him or Jesus told him.

This is, it seemed good to me also, proposition. So, in other words, nobody really officially asked him.

But he felt as a scholar, as a knowledgeable person of the things that happened in the past.

And by the way, we believe he is a Greek person. A Greek physician, he is not one of the disciples who lived and walked with Jesus.

So, it seemed good to him also. When we look at books in the Old Testament, even

Bible scholars don't know who wrote them. They're just there. They're incorporated as a library into this library called the

Bible. But, are they authentic? Well, that's a different discussion. So, in the third document that came of interest,

I came across the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. We had purchased a church building and they left some

Bibles there. And I said, this is a book of God and I should keep it and respect it.

But when I was reading it, it was interesting. This is from 1952, Revised Standard Version.

And right there in the preface, it said, you know, gave the history of the development of the

Scripture. And it said that the King James Version has grave defects. Too many and too serious as to call for revision.

And that's why the Church of England commissioned 32 scholars, Bible scholars, not

Muslim scholars, from different denominations to come together to look at the earlier sources and work together to produce a more cleaned up version of the

Bible. So that, because today we have computers, we have search engines, we can look, you know, online and say,

I'm looking for this verse and all of a sudden I get all the verses that say one thing. And I start comparing them and say, hmm, it says this here and it says that there.

And they're talking about the same thing. That doesn't make sense. So it is a very large document.

I mean, this is very fine print. And it's not possible for someone, even me, to be reading here and then find, remember what

I read, and say they mentioned something there that's not correct here. But with the advent of computers and comparisons, it became very clear that this work needs to be done to clean it up.

And so it is Christian effort to try to fix this issue, and we welcome it.

Hopefully down the road, I don't know, in 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 years, we may reach back to the most ancient manuscripts that can tell us exactly what the gospel of Jesus was that we can accept.

And we say, yes, that's what God is speaking about. But in the meantime, I don't know which

Bible we're talking about. Thank you. Would you please thank

Imam Muhammad Mursi? We're now entering into a time of open discussion with Dr.

White and with Imam Muhammad Mursi regarding, is the Bible true? We'll lead this discussion with Dr.

White. All right. Well, where do we begin?

Those were interesting statements that were made. Let's start. Let me just ask you, please feel free to ask me questions, because I'm actually the one you should be asking questions of, because I'm the guy on the positive side here.

Would it be correct to say that the primary concern that you have in regards to the statement, the

Bible's word of God, is you see that there are different canons of Scripture?

One of the problems it is, because if I'm talking to a Catholic, he believes that is the word of God.

And then if I'm talking to you, you say, no, these books here are, to me, not the word of God. And so I'm not a

Christian, so I don't know who to choose to represent Christianity. I cannot discount over a billion

Christians who have been there for centuries before the Reformation, and their canon has been established way before, you know.

Do you know when it was established? I think 1511. April of 1548.

Okay. 1548. So it was actually after the Reformation, before Rome dogmatically defined the apocryphal books of Scripture.

And I've done a number of debates on the apocryphal books. What's interesting, I think what you would find interesting, is that not only did the

Jews never accept those books as apocryphal, either inside Judaism in Palestine or even in Alexandria, in sort of the dispersion there.

But since the Jews didn't accept them, then there is an entire line of Christians that have never accepted the apocryphal books, including popes.

Pope Gregory the Great rejected Maccabees as being canonical. So my point, if the pope can reject, if the

Jews can reject, if you can reject these books that are still being printed, circulated among the masses, the public, can

I also object and say there are portions of that book that, based on your scholars, not mine,

I'm not a scholar in the Bible, that until all of Christendom have agreed on one document, that then we can have that discussion.

Well, is absolute unanimity required for us to engage this issue?

Because, as you know, Ubay ibn Ka 'b of Ibn Masud had different numbers of surahs in the

Quran. And so I wouldn't say, well, I won't talk to you about the

Quran, because there's been disagreements in the past. There are small groups. We'll get to the Quran, but answer this question for me.

Is it right for me as a Muslim to get in between, to decide who is true

Christian and who is not? Is it the Catholics have the right canon? Is it the

Christians have the right canon? I don't know. But they all have the word

Bible printed on them, and the position is that the Bible is the word of God without any errors, without any changes.

And I say, well, unless I'm blind, there are clear errors and changes and entire books added or taken out in different groups.

It's not just the Protestants and the Catholics. What about the

Eastern Orthodox who were established by Constantine? Those people have more books even.

How about the Ethiopian Christians? They have even more. And I'm not a judge. I don't know what these books are.

Really, I never read them. But as an outsider, I'm asked, is the

Bible? And I say, which Bible? Which Bible do you think was being referred to when the

Quran addresses Christians? The Bible was never mentioned in the Quran. Okay, the

Torah and the Injil. The Torah, and we said these are the five books of Moses, and the

Injil, the Gospel. Now, there is a Gospel. We know there is because Matthew is saying the

Gospel according to Matthew. Mark is saying that he has somebody they must have looked at.

They may not have it today. We may discover it in archeology in the near future, find a document that all these writers are referring to.

So it is not that God has four Gospels or six or ten.

There are many Gospels out there. The Council of Nicaea chose those four, and there we have a version of Christianity that suits them, and that's fine.

But they are not the only Gospels, for sure. Archeology have over 20 ,000 manuscripts that are referred to as Gospels.

20 ,000 separate Gospels? Separate manuscripts of different Gospels that don't match each other.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if I could comment on what you just said, the Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with the canon of Scripture.

There is absolutely no historical evidence whatsoever from any source that the

Council of Nicaea had anything to do with the canon of Scripture at all. Constantine, that's an

Internet myth that we need to dismiss right now because it's not founded in reality.

I stand corrected, but when they were discussing the personhood of Jesus, if he was son of God or God, that determines which text, you would say, agrees with that ideology and which text would not.

Well, interestingly enough, the reality—

Trinitarian monotheism would not even be in the running for— You mean like the

Gospel of Thomas? Like the Gospel of Thomas. If I could comment on that. There really wasn't ever any question about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The earliest patristic sources draw from these, and there was never any question in the early

Church that things like the Gospel of Thomas, first of all, is dated between 140 and 160. It doesn't come from first -century

Judaism. It comes from a completely different worldview, and there was no discussion of those things at the

Council of Nicaea because no one took those documents as being anything relevant to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

So the people who were in disagreement at the Council of Nicaea had full agreement on what

Scripture was. No one was saying, oh, you're rejecting my favorite books. That just didn't take place.

The reality is that by that point in time, just as in the Old Testament, no angels had come down from heaven to say this is the

Old Testament canon, and yet the Jews had come to agreement on that. They had even laid up—they called them the 22 books because they rolled all the minor prophets into one.

Lamentations was a part of Jeremiah, etc., etc. They had laid those up in the temple 200 years before Jesus without any supernatural intervention to come along and say these were the books of Scripture.

The same thing happened with the New Testament. So now when I talk to my Jewish friends, the rabbis, they say, you know, the

Christians talk about the Old Testament as if this is the way it is.

I said, no, this is not the way it is. We should know we are the rabbis, we are the Jews, and the

Christians really have no right to reorganize and divide our books. If they want to incorporate our text, the

Tanakh, into their Scripture, they should leave it intact.

And that's where most of these different denominations have added books and took out books and reorganized the

Old Testament. And I say, why do Christians have to deal with the

Old Testament? Why don't they just stick with the New Testament? Good question. Let me just ask you quickly before I answer that.

What do you mean by reorganize? Because I know that in my Bible, the Jewish canon is the order of books is different, but I don't see how that's relevant.

If you're talking about the insertion of the Apocrypha that the Jews never accepted or things like that, I'm a good

Protestant, I don't accept those books. Well, one of it is the order of the books. Right. Another is, like you said, they divide them differently.

But it's the same text. I mean, we're using the exact same Hebrew text that is considered by Orthodox Judaism to be the authoritative text for the

Old Testament. But you asked, why do we bother with the Old Testament? This is really important to me,

Imam, because this really, I think, goes to one of the real issues that I hope we can discuss today.

And that is, when I look at the New Testament, what I see is a continuation of God's revelation.

When the last of the minor prophets prophesize Malachi, anyone who reads that can tell it's not done.

It's looking forward to something that is yet to be fulfilled. And during that intertestamental period, if you look at the writings of the rabbis, they recognized the bath kol, the voice of God, had ceased.

That's why there was so much messianic fervor. It's, we don't have any more prophets anymore, so the next thing they said was going to happen is the coming of this

Messiah. And so I see a continuation right into the New Testament. And here's one of the important issues for me.

The New Testament writers know the Tanakh intimately.

I just finished preaching 80 sermons to the book of Hebrews. And the book of Hebrews, you can't begin to make heads or tails out of it if you do not know the

Old Testament law, if you do not know Leviticus chapter 16, if you do not know the sacrificial system and how the tabernacle was set up.

The New Testament writers all are intimately familiar with the

Tanakh, are quoting the Tanakh over and over again. There is absolute connection between the two.

You can't understand the New Testament without seeing that it is rooted in the revelation

God had given in what we call the Tanakh, the Torah, Nevi, and Ketubim. Here's the question.

And maybe you want to hold this off to the next section, or however you want to do it. I want to, before we go on, to ask.

I can see the train of prophets coming, and then

Jesus coming and stating in Matthew, think not that I came to abolish the law of the prophets.

And for us, we see that continuation, the series of prophets from Abraham and Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, all the way to Moses, to David, to Solomon, to Zechariah, to John the

Baptist, to Jesus. We believe in all of them. We see all of them as one. But my question to you is, why all of a sudden this great, wonderful, beloved prophet,

Jesus, peace be upon him, is elevated from being a prophet like Abraham and Moses to being divine?

That's a huge question. Clearly, every one of the followers of Jesus who put pen to paper and recorded his words and his teachings, and even was willing to die for his testimony, referred to him as kurios.

And that term, Lord, was used in the Greek translation of the

Old Testament called the Septuagint, of the name Yahweh. And they took a number of the texts that were specifically and only about Yahweh and applied them to Jesus in their own writings.

And in fact, I'd highly recommend to you a fascinating discussion that Dr. Shabir Ali and I had at Pretoria University in South Africa in 2013 or 14, 2013, where we debated what did the earliest followers of Jesus believe about him?

Did they believe that he was divine? Well, I read in there that when

Jesus came from Galilee into Jerusalem, there were crowds following him. And the crowds, they said, they were asked, you know, from up in the temple, who is this?

They said, this is the prophet Jesus, right? They didn't say, this is the son of God.

They didn't say, this is God. They said, this is the prophet Jesus from Galilee. Now, that I have absolutely no problem with.

We agree with it. This is what we know him to be. Now, as a monotheist,

I cannot elevate anyone above that to be God or part of God.

And that's where I ask, did Jesus ever plainly said, I am

God, or I'm son of God, or worship me? All what

I read in the New Testament from his words, from his mouth, is God alone.

God is one. You know, a scribe came to him and said, you know, what's the greatest commandment?

Master, what's the greatest commandment? He said, here, O Israel, the Lord, our God, the

Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your mind. And I say,

I fully agree with that. I agree with what Jesus is saying 100%.

And they both silenced their phones concurrently. That's very good. Sorry. If this is so central in Christianity, of a belief, that does not agree with what the

Jews believe, does not agree with what the Muslims after believe, shouldn't

Jesus really make it super clear, I am God, or I am the son of God?

It should be repeated. Why throughout the text he says, son of man, son of man, son of man, son of man?

Could I answer that? Yeah. We're getting a little far afield, but I really want to answer this because I've addressed it many times.

Interestingly enough, Jesus did say, I am, a number of times, in a very significant way. He used the term,

I am, in the way that it's used in the Old Testament of Yahweh. In John 8, 58, he said,

Prin abraham genesai, ego I me, before Abraham was, I am. The Jews picked up stones to stone him.

Why were they stoning him? For claiming to be a prophet? No, for claiming a divine name. He used that very same phrase when the

Jews, when the soldiers came to arrest him in John 18. And when he said, I am, let me just answer this.

When he said, I am, the Jews fell back upon the ground when he uttered those words. And in John 13, 19, he quoted directly from Isaiah 43, 10, where God identifies himself as the

I am of himself. He did, in fact, accept worship. And while the

Bible does say Jesus was a prophet, that's not all it says Jesus was. He is prophet, he's priest, he's king, he's son of God, and son of man is a divine title.

Remember in Mark 14, during the trial of Jesus, what happens when Jesus quotes from Psalm 110 and Daniel 7 and says, you'll see the son of man?

What does the high priest do? He tears his robes and says, you've heard the blasphemy, what further need do we have of witnesses?

Why, because when you go to Daniel 7, the son of man is worshiped in the highest form of worship.

He's a divine person there in Daniel 7. And Jesus made application directly to himself.

And so it's not that we're denying that Jesus was a prophet. We believe that he was prophet.

He was just much more than a prophet. We're not taking a simple man and exalting him and going into excess because there is no document that comes from the first century.

Why did this happen 2 ,000 years ago? I'm sorry? Why this event took place 2 ,000 years ago, not in the very beginning or in the very end, or today when we have mass media where we all can watch this on television?

Why, what's the significance of 2 ,000 years ago that if it's true that Jesus is

God or son of God or divine, that he comes at a period where right now we are debating, some people debate if he existed or not.

I believe he did. They debate if he is prophet or God or son of God. It would have been more appropriate to shed light on this in a time when all human beings could see it.

More appropriate? Yeah, because we are in complete doubt about these claims that some of his companions.

I read the New Testament. I did not find a place where Jesus said, I'm God or I'm son of God or worship me.

And I say if this is so central of a belief for Christians, you know,

I read portions of the Old Testament and God there is constantly saying, I'm God.

I'm the one God. I'm a jealous God because this is very central to Jews, to Muslims, that God is one.

So why I have to depend on phrases like I am, yes,

I am an imam. I'm not a God. What, you know, we need to use simple

English. Well, they were actually not using English, obviously. I'd be like objecting to the technical discussion of Shirk by saying we should use

English. But the point is you say you didn't see these things in the New Testament and yet Jesus is described as God numerous times by his followers.

Titus 2 .13, 2 Peter 1 .1. It is said that he is eternal. He's the creator of all things.

He's worshiped. He accepts worship. In John 20 .28, at his resurrection, when

Thomas says to Jesus, Hakuriasmu kaihathiasmu, my

Lord and my God, what would a prophet have to say if someone bowed down before you and said, my

Lord and my God? A prophet would have to say, no, do not worship me. Worship only God.

Jesus' response is, because you've seen me, have you believed, Thomas? Blessed are those who, having not seen, have believed.

He accepted Thomas' acclamation of him as Lord and God as a statement of faith.

So it's taking everything the New Testament says. And portions like that of the

New Testament that are where we question.

Except, let's use equal scales on two things. Let's use equal scales.

Number one, there are all sorts of questions about the life of Muhammad that would have been cleared up if we had done it with MP3 recorders and videotape going.

But God chose, from your perspective, to send him at a particular point in time, in history, before any of that happened.

So asking why Jesus comes when Jesus comes is really asking why does God choose to do the things he does when he chooses to do so.

I think the normal Islamic response to that is, Allah hu alam. But in regards to this subject of, well, we question those, if I were to look at any text of the

Quran, if I were to look at Surah 7, verse 157, which talks about the prophecies of Muhammad, let's just use that as an example.

And I would just simply say, well, I question that. Would you not be well within your rights, and in fact, necessarily so, to say, well, you need to have a basis for questioning that.

In other words, you need to be able to say, well, I have certain manuscripts that don't contain that text, or isn't it interesting that this particular

Quranic codex doesn't have that surah, or Abdullah ibn Masud questioned it. I'd have to have something as a basis to say,

I'm going to reject that. And yet, when it comes to texts like John 20, 28, there's not a single manuscript of the

Gospel of John that contains chapter 20 that doesn't have verse 28 and verse 29. There's really no textual or even translational question about it.

And the reality is... As of yet. Well, we could say the same thing about any work of antiquity.

Not really, but if I look at the Bible and see that entire text has been inserted in, then it raises doubt in my mind, you know, the longer ending of Mark, chapter 16, 9 through 20.

The Percocet Adultery, John 7, 53, 3 to 11. Those are the two major textual variants in the

New Testament that are multiple. Now, these two are contained in the Gospels.

Mark and John. And you and scholars,

Christian scholars, have clearly stated that these were additions. And I say, what else is added in there?

Maybe 100, 200 years, 300 years ago, people did not have the archaeology to go back and see that these were added in.

Now we do. Your scholars do. And what if tomorrow we find more ancient documents that take out other portions of the

Gospels that we are putting question marks on them? Okay. Could I answer that?

Because... let me finish this point. The 16, 9 to 20, okay, is central to your belief.

It says, on the first day of the week, Jesus rose. And in that text, it says also, he ascended to heaven and sat on the right hand of God.

I say, this covers two major beliefs in Christianity. You know,

Jesus rising from the dead and ascending to heaven. In a text that is inserted in.

So it's not just some unimportant text. It's really at the heart of where we differ.

Well, a couple of things. First of all, those beliefs are clearly enunciated elsewhere in Scripture.

So we're not dependent upon the long writing of Mark, or the middle ending of Mark, or the short writing of Mark, or the mixture of the endings of Mark, for the resurrection or ascension of Jesus Christ.

Those are taught elsewhere. Those are taught elsewhere in text that are not questioned or questionable.

They were mentioned in the Gospels in two places. And this one place is out. The other place in the

RSV is also out. And that leaves in the letters that they're quoting these.

Well, it's in Acts, which is written by the same author as Luke. So I'm not sure that's a valid argument.

But the point is this. We have, you know, there are students probably sitting in this audience right now who have a critical edition of the

Greek New Testament in their lap someplace. Well, I'm not going to ask any RTS students if they have their

Nessie Holland or their UBS text with them right now, but I'm looking around hoping someone does, but probably on their phones.

Anyways, we all have these editions of the Greek New Testament that give us all of this information.

It's interesting that we can identify later editions. For example, the story of the woman taken to adultery.

The first manuscript that appears in it is called Codex Vesecantiburgiensis. It's from the 5th century.

It's a very unreliable manuscript. In some manuscripts it's found in the Gospel of Luke.

It's not even in John. And so we know it's a later edition. We have strong evidence of that, and we don't hide any of that.

That's out there. And we congratulate you on this fact, but for 2 ,000 years people had believed it was.

But wait. Let me finish. Even when it appears in those ancient manuscripts, very often there are asterisks next to it, obelae, notifications.

This isn't something we just discovered over the past 50 or 100 years. This is something commented on these texts by the patristic writers and the people writing after that period of time themselves.

So this is not something new. So why do they still include them in Bibles that are circulating in the public?

A couple answers to that. If you as a scholar, and now it became very clear that these are doubtful, they're not part of the

New Testament, why they are not removed from all the Bibles in the market?

Recall. Well, because, first of all, you have all sorts of references to these texts.

And if you pick up your Bible and that verse is not there, you're going to be wondering why. Sometimes they're put in brackets. Sometimes there are notes put down at the bottom of the page.

But this is the most important thing to me. We have critical additions of our text, and that way we can identify these things.

This is going to be one of the questions we get into now in the next section, and that is if you don't have a critical addition and you just accept a form that becomes traditional, then you don't know what was originally there, and that's why you're asking.

That's not a defense. But wait a minute. We haven't started on the

Qur 'an. I know, but we need even scales. We will do even scales. When we come to the

Qur 'an, we'll do even scales. If we have in the Muslim world a problem with the Qur 'an having versions, we will definitely do that.

But let's stick with the Bible. And these are important questions to me as if I'm considering Christianity, and that was the topic of our discussion, then which

Christianity I have to pick, which Bible I have to pick, and I still go unsuspecting to a bookstore, buy a

Bible. I have a Revised Standard Version of 1952, and I have a

Revised Standard Version of 1972, and they are different. They actually, in 1972, restored some of these texts and said, because out of the 50 denominations, two denominations said, no, you have to put them back.

So now we have RSV that's Catholic version, RSV that is

Protestant version, and we say, look, you have to get your act together, have one universal

Bible based on your scholarship of what belongs and what doesn't in there, that right now in the world you go everywhere and you find different versions.

I am not a scholar to keep reading the fine print. Most people are not reading the Bible, let alone to read the fine print below and the asterisks and the numbers and say reference.

But there's a reason why it's there, because we have so much information on this subject, and to answer the question, why is it in some

Bibles and not in others, it's because if you're reading a translation that was done 400 years ago, that's based upon a

Greek text called what's called the Textus Receptus. It was put together primarily by a man by the name of Desiderius Erasmus.

He had around six manuscripts to deal with. The oldest was from around 1 ,000 AD, and he didn't really even trust it.

That's pretty much what the TR is based on. Now today we have 5 ,771 cataloged manuscripts of the

New Testament in Greek, not all complete, but portions thereof. Why not in Hebrews and Aramaic?

I'm sorry? Did Jesus speak Greek? No, they weren't written in Aramaic, they were written in Greek.

Why not? Because the Holy Spirit chose to give it to us in a language that would be able to communicate to the whole world, because the

Word of God says so. Well, we know that the Old Testament, or the Torah, is in Hebrew, right?

And what did Jesus speak, Hebrew? No, Aramaic. Aramaic.

Now, his disciples heard him speak in Greek or Aramaic? It would have been

Aramaic the vast majority of the time. So it would make sense that whoever heard him and wrote down things of his disciples should be in Aramaic, not

Greek. My objection to that is that you are not looking at the fact that it was

God's intention for the Gospel to go all over the notes. I don't know what God's intention is. Well, but we're talking about Scripture, so you do know what

God's intention is in the Quran. As a Christian, I know what God's intention is in the New Testament. I'm told in the Quran that every prophet spoke to his people in their language, okay?

Meaning, Moses spoke to the Hebrews in Hebrew, not in Arabic, not in Aramaic.

And that's one of the differences, is that we believe that the Gospel is to go out to all people, that Jesus is the

Messiah, not just for the Jews, but for all people, and that it is a universal message.

And therefore, why would you put it in the language of a nation in one small part rather than the language that currently was the nation of the entire

Roman Empire and would allow that message to be the most widely distributed, especially in light of the fact that God knew that for the next 260 years, the

Christian faith is going to be under horrific persecution, and therefore it was going to have to be spread very quickly or it would be stamped out.

God knew that, so he put it in the perfect language to allow it to go to all people to fulfill the very purpose that Jesus taught when he said you could go into all the nations.

And so there is a perfect consistency from that perspective, as long as you don't apply some kind of external limitation.

Well, how do we know that that's the intent of God to spread it to all the nations when

Jesus said, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel? What's interesting is that comes from Matthew 10, and if you accept

Jesus having said that, then you'd have to accept what he said in Matthew 28 when he said, go into all the world, teach them, baptize them, make disciples of all nations.

It's the same book. So is he contradicting himself? Well, it's interesting. Was there not a period of time when in the experience and ministry of Muhammad, alcohol was allowed and then it was prohibited?

The Quran says so, so something changed. No, the Quran never said it was allowed. Well, it limited its utilization, so it didn't outlaw it.

The point is something changed, and in Jesus' ministry, there was a time when he sent his disciples only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel prior to the cross.

Once you have the cross, once you have the death, birth, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is another issue that maybe we can talk about in the next section, then you have the

Spirit coming and sending that message into all the world. So Matthew, if we allow

Matthew to be Matthew and to speak for Matthew, didn't think he was contradicting himself.

I think he expected his readers to see what had changed. I have no problem with the message of Jesus going to the entire world, the original message, but I'm sensing from reading the

New Testament that what Jesus' mission, as he defined it in the beginning, was limited to the

Jews, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and that later on it seems that it was significantly changed and expanded for the whole world.

Well, keep in mind that Jesus himself indicated to his disciples that up to a point in time,

Jesus had not told the disciples about what was coming in Jerusalem. And then in Matthew 16, he does.

The Son of Man must go to Jerusalem. He must be betrayed in the hands of men. He must be killed, buried, and rise again the third day.

And that's when Peter says, be it far from you, Lord, because his whole idea of who the Messiah was didn't fit into what

Jesus was now teaching. And so there was a transition at that point. There's no question about that. Why didn't he say the

Son of God instead of Son of Man? Because, as I said, Son of Man was not only one of his favorite terms of himself, but if you look at Daniel 7,

Son of Man is a divine creature, is divine individual. In the Old Testament, it says the opposite.

It says, God not a man or Son of Man. I agree, but the term Son of Man is used in Daniel 7 of a particular divine being who is worshipped in the highest form.

He's given what's called Latruo, the highest form of worship. That's in Daniel 7, and Jesus quoted that of himself.

When I'm reading in plain English what's written in your Scripture, in the New Testament, again and again and again,

Jesus insists on Son of Man, Son of Man. You know, he said foxes have holes to go to, but Son of Man has no place to go.

And I would believe that if he was Son of God, he would replace all of these references by saying,

Son of God, Son of God, Son of God, Son of God. So there is, from his tongue, there is no doubt that he understood himself as Son of God.

But if he's emphasizing this, it's telling me he's emphasizing to the people who may perceive him as anything else that he is a man, he's a human being.

Except that's not the context that the high priest took him in. He used the term

Son of God of himself. He used the term Son of Man of himself. Well, the high priest had a problem with every prophet.

They were behind the beheading of John the Baptist. But John didn't claim to be the

Son of Man, and the accusation against John was not blasphemy. But did the high priest accept and love

John the Baptist and said, you're welcome? No, of course not. But when we look at Mark chapter 14, you've got to hear his words.

He says, you've heard the blasphemy. What was the blasphemy in Jesus' quoting from the

Son of Man text in Daniel 7? Why would that be blasphemy, if it was being interpreted the way you interpreted it? But Jesus said to him, you said so, not me.

Not in that text he doesn't. Not in that text he doesn't. So again, in another text he says it, and you said that some texts clarify another text.

Concerning the same accusation by the high priest, he said, you said that, not me.

That is fabricating a charge against him. That is in regards to the claim of messiahship, not in regards to the phrase

Son of Man. Remember when Judas came, what did he say to him? Do you betray whom with a kiss?

You see, Jesus used Son of God and Son of Man interchangeably. And so when you say reading it in plain

English, again that surprises me a little bit. Because I know how often one must abandon plain

English and go to plain Arabic to understand certain claims about the Quran. So you know that there are times...

I have no problem with if it's written in Aramaic that way and translated.

What I'm saying is the translation should be verbatim to what the word says.

If he said Son of Man, we should understand it as Son of Man. I should not call a male a female and somehow somebody should understand that I'm talking about the opposite sex.

I have to, you know, because matters of faith are for the lay people.

And the lay people need to hear a text and go with it. It's not just for the scholars who have the power to interpret things.

That's why in the Old Testament God is from Genesis, verse 1.

You know, he is one God, clear. There is no dispute about, you know...

And we do not deny that. Neither we do. So that kind of language on the important matters of faith, the central articles of faith, should be consistent in the

New Testament where Jesus should at least, if not always emphasize that, he should at least say it a few times.

When you say he should, God couldn't have a purpose in his training up his disciples, in his accomplishment of his redemptive ministry, and then the outpouring of the

Holy Spirit, the founding of the church, allowing for the full revelation of what God has done in Christ to go forward.

Why does it all have to happen at once? Why does Jesus have to be the one doing this? Why, if by his own words, the

Son of Man has come to seek and save that which was lost, and to give his life a ransom for many.

If that was why he comes, why on a supernatural basis... You're assuming that's why he came.

Well, how do we know anything that Jesus said? Here's a good question. I mean, you're assuming that he came to die on the cross.

That's what Jesus said. I don't assume that. But why don't you? Because here's my question.

If you question the validity of what's recorded in books that all scholars recognize come from the first century, unlike any of those other

Gospels, those four come from the first century. They all recognize that. That's the only source we have of Jesus' words.

And yet, the interesting thing between us here, I accept what Jesus says there.

When my Muslim friends try to prove that Muhammad is prophesied in the

Bible, they accept what Jesus said at various points. But you believe that Jesus said more than what

I believe he said because you have 25 references to Isa ben

Mariam, and you have words of Jesus that have no historical foundation for 600 years, but you accept them on the basis of a supernatural presupposition, right?

Yes, I accept them because they are part of the Quran, and, yes, there is historical evidence.

But let me come back to the point about what Jesus said and didn't say. Now, I was listening a few years ago on the radio, and they mentioned the

Jefferson Bible. I said, what's that? So I went and picked up a copy of that.

Somebody actually, a group, gave it to me as a gift. They gave it to you as a gift. I'm not sure I'd consider that a gift.

Yes. Oh, the Unitarians. Well, that makes sense. Okay. All right. Okay. So I said, what is this?

And they said, well, Jefferson basically clipped out. What he didn't like.

He wasn't a scholar of the Bible, so he clipped out what he didn't like. That would be like a liberal

Muslim in Scandinavia giving you a cut -up

Quran and saying, here, here's a gift for you, you know? I mean, really. Let me ask you.

If you take some Bibles, like the King James I have over there, they have the words of Jesus in red.

That's a new thing. That's only been since like the 1800s. Okay. So if we take those words that Jesus actually uttered and look at them, okay, would we have?

What I believe. What you believe. Yes. No question about it. Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I don't think so.

I'd love to explain it to you so we haven't had a chance to talk about it. There's a whole group of people out there.

Unitarians? No. Jehovah's Witnesses? They are the Jesusism group now.

You can look them up online. Jesusism? Yes, Jesusism.

You mean Jesus only? Yes. Never heard of them. Look it up online.

You can look anything up online. I mean, they tell you why. They tell you. And what do they believe about Jesus?

They just take what Jesus said out of the New Testament and said, this is what we accept. The rest we don't.

Oh, okay. Oh, Jesus seminar? No. Who knows? Okay. All right.

Mike, I can't see it from here, but it looks like we're pretty close to, we're good.

Good? We're good. I appreciate it, and I appreciate this spirited discussion on it.

There are many questions that, as I read the Gospels that come to mind, and, you know,

I'm at a big advantage here that I can ask all the questions I have from a great scholar while everybody there doesn't get the chance to.

Well, let me just, I, if, let me make a request right now of the powers that be here,

I will personally pay for either one or both of Michael Kruger's books on the canon to give to the

Imam if you have it in your bookstore today before he leaves. So if someone who is associated with the bookstore, let me just mention that I want to give to you.

There are two excellent books that have come out over the past couple of years by Dr. Michael Kruger. He is the president of the

Charlotte campus of Reformed Theological Seminary. We're at the Orlando campus. And he addresses so many of the questions that you have in regards to canon issues from a very deep historical perspective.

And I want to make sure you at least have access to that information. I thank you. I appreciate the gift. And as a conclusion to this discussion,

I want to reiterate that as Muslims worldwide, no Muslim can be a Muslim without believing in both

Moses and Jesus, in the Torah and the Gospel. It's just the question we have before us is what's the

Bible today? Is it the Torah and the Gospel? Or it is something else?

And to us, these are not equivalent exchangeable terms.

We believe in the Torah. We believe in the Gospel of Jesus. And we believe in the books of different prophets.

But we don't see the different Bibles today really make a fair presentation to us to say this is every word in here is the word of God.

Okay. And if I could just conclude by saying that the

Gospel that existed amongst Christians who are addressed, to use the context of the language of Surah Tawmaidah, when the

Al -Anjeel are addressed, the Gospel they had, we know what that was. There has never been a book called the

Gospel given to Jesus that existed anywhere. And if the Christians were to be addressed, they had to be addressed in a way they can understand.

And we know what Gospels existed in the first century. We know the only Gospels that can go back to the time of Jesus.

All the rest of them, you know, I'd love to talk about these 20 ,000 some others or something like that. But we know which

Gospels they were, and we possess them to this very day. We have accurate translations of them as well. Michael, I think we're done with this section.

Are we taking a break now? Yes. Folks, we are finished with our first section. And would you please thank

Imam Muhammad Masri and Dr. James White. And we are going to be taking a 15 -minute break.

And then we will return and then begin our time on the second section, which will be,

Is the Quran the Word of God? We will have two 20 -minute presentations, followed by another discussion, and then concluding statements, which will then be followed by questions from us here.

So if Reformed Theological Seminary, if you folks can also help and distribute some of the note cards that we can have some of the questions written down, if we can then get those back before their final statements, that would be very, very helpful for us to be able to make our way through each one of those questions.