Khalid Yasin and Inconsistent Islamic Arguments #2

00 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000. I will be thy name.

Not my name. Not our name, thy kingdom come. Not my kingdom come not our kingdom.

Come if he's part of the Trinity if he's Divine if he's part of God or he's next to God.

He will say our kingdom come. He said that I Kingdom come.

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.

Did He say that? Did He say that? So now, if He said,

Give us this day our daily bread, that means Jesus and His mother could not have been divine because if He said,

Give us this day our daily bread, you and I, we eat and we drink.

Jesus and His mother, they ate and they drank. And you know and I know that when you eat and drink, the body only uses some of it.

The rest of it, the body evacuates. Now can you imagine God defecating and urinating?

At the very least, we can give Khalid Yassin some credit for at least using truly a

Quranic argument here, one that's consistent with the Quran. In Surah 5, verse 116, we read,

After reminding him of these favors, Allah will say, O Isa, son of Maryam, Did you ever say to the people,

Worship me and my mother as gods, beside or in derogation of Allah? He will answer, Glory to you!

How could I say what I had no right to say? If I had ever said so, you would have certainly known it. You know what is in my heart, but I do not know what is in yours, for you have full knowledge of all the unseen.

So notice, according to Surah 5, this idea of worshipping Jesus and Mary as gods is presented very, very clearly to us.

So once we have that understanding, then we can look elsewhere in the Quran in Surah 5. In Ali's translation,

Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a Rasul, an apostle. Many were the apostles that passed away before him.

His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their daily food. See how

Allah doth make his signs clear to them, yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth. Many Christians reading the

Quran do not see this is supposed to be an argument. And that is, if Jesus and Mary eat food, they can't possibly be

God. Why? Because, fundamentally, as you just saw in Khalid Yassin, God cannot enter into his own creation.

Allah is not capable of doing this. He cannot enter into his own creation. It's just a given.

And, therefore, any evidence that demonstrates that he did enter into his own creation would be evidence that is immediately dismissed by the

Muslim. Now, of course, Christians do not believe that Mary was a divine being. At least

Biblical Christians do not, obviously. And so this entire argument completely misses the point. But it is consistent with the misunderstanding of the

Quran itself. Let's move on with the Lord's Prayer. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who do what?

Trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil for thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever.

Now, does this sound like God praying to you? Did you ever think about that? Now, that's the

Lord's Prayer. That's the evidence of that. Now, we know Jesus said that. That wasn't

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and Paul. Jesus said that. Now, did you catch the inconsistencies there?

First of all, up to this point, Khalid Yassin kept saying, he's saying, our, our, our.

Now, of course, we pointed out Jesus is giving a model prayer here. But then when he says, forgive us our sins, he doesn't make the connection.

See, that means Jesus was a sinner, which he would have to do if he was being consistent at this point. And then he says, this is the

Lord's Prayer. We know, we know the Lord said this. Not Matthew, Mark, Luke. Well, wait a minute.

How do we know that? This is Matthew's recording of it. There are differences in Luke's recording of it. How do you know that?

It's more of this picking and choosing. Well, I'll use this, but I'm not going to trust this over here. And what is the final arbiter through all this?

Remember when I asked Shabir Ali in our debate, how are we to know what is still inspired in the New Testament?

Fundamentally, the answer is that which agrees the Quran is still inspired, that which does not, isn't.

And so here you have the same kind of circular argumentation. You cut the Bible up into pieces. You take what you want.

You don't worry about its context. You don't worry about consistently interpreting it. And that's how you make

Islamic argumentation. Dear brothers and sisters and guests, go home tonight and palm through all the pages of your

Bible, and I guarantee you you will never find it once anywhere. So where did this come from? In three or four different occasions, it is mentioned in your scripture that I have read throughout my life before I became a

Muslim that Jesus walked off and he fell down on his face and he worshipped God. Did it say that?

Now is that God bowing down to himself? Once again, we encounter the convert syndrome here.

Khalid Yassin likes to talk about how he was a Christian. Now I'm not sure how long he was a Christian. I saw in another video he was talking about how 38 years earlier he had become a

Muslim and he doesn't look much more in about 50, so if he was like some 12 or 13, some teenager when he converted,

I'm sorry, I pick on Christians who claim to be experts in Islam when they convert and they're 13 or 14 years of age.

Being a convert when you're a teenager does not make you an expert on your former religion. And even more so, if he was an expert in Christianity, why is he constantly misrepresenting it?

Why not respond to our position? Why not respond to Christianity? I'm not a straw man of it. Here's a good example.

He says, is this God praying to God? No, it's the son communicating with the father.

What would you expect? Try to get out of your narrow Islamic confines for just a moment and ponder the possibility of the incarnation.

If the son entered into human flesh, what kind of a person would the incarnate one be?

Would he be an atheist? Would he be an atheist? Seriously, that's a serious question.

Would he be an atheist? If he wasn't an atheist, would he pray? Would he still have communion with the one with whom he has had intimate communion for all of eternity?

Of course he would. So how is this an objection? And if Mr. Yasin was, in fact, an expert in Christianity as a

Christian, then he should have known this. If he wasn't, then why does he keep bringing up his conversion? Those are the questions inquiring minds would like to know.

Is that God calling on himself? No. Jesus said,

I am Jesus who is sent, and the one who is sent is not like the one who sent me.

Jesus said, I can of my own self do nothing, but whatsoever the one orders me, the one who sent me tells me to do, that is what

I do. There are few texts more misused by Islamic apologists than John chapter 5.

They rarely go back to verse 18 to get the context though. For this reason, therefore, the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him because he not only was breaking the

Sabbath, but also was calling God his own father, making himself equal with God.

That's the claim that then Jesus is responding to in the rest of the text when he says, Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them,

Truly, truly, I say to you, the son can do nothing of himself unless it is something he sees the father doing.

For whatever the father does, these things the son does in like manner. Is this what a prophet says?

This is Jesus claiming unity with the father, not inferiority to the father.

For the father loves the son and shows him all things that he himself is doing. And the father will show him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

For just as the father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son also gives life to whom he wishes.

Again, are these the words of a Razul, a prophet? Or are these the words of the incarnate son of God?

Very clearly. Then notice what else it says. For not even the father judges anyone, but he has given all judgment to the son, so that all will honor the son even as they honor the father.

He who does not honor the son does not honor the father who sent him. How can any

Muslim apologist honestly look at this text and not recognize that these are the highest words on the part of Jesus?

He is explaining, he's not some separate deity, some renegade deity.

He and the father are perfectly united in what he is doing. But no mere human could make these kinds of statements.

These are the words of the incarnate one. And Khalid Yassin should know that if he'd just read the text that he's then quoting to other people.