Is Jesus Christ God? James White vs. Jalal Abualrub

He tells you that he's telling you he's not

God. What more do you need? He's telling you here. Realize that Jesus Christ is your creator, your

God, and your Savior, and that you need his atoning sacrifice to have eternal life.

It says in Proverbs 18, 17, the first to present his case seems right until another comes forward and questions him.

That's one of the best descriptions of a good debate that I've ever seen. Debates are a long forgotten art today.

I hope you know how privileged you are to come to these. They used to be very common at the university. Now when we do a debate at the university, it's the hottest ticket in town because they don't see them anymore.

Universities used to be a place that taught students how to think. Sadly, they are becoming a place which teaches students what to think.

First of all, the phrase ad hominem. That's a classical term for taking kind of a cheap shot at your opponent.

Usually when you can't answer him based on the information, you say something derogatory about him.

I don't think I heard any ad hominems in the last debate. I did hear a few of the second one though, and this is called a non sequitur.

Now a non sequitur is a very clever maneuver. That's when somebody asks you a question, and instead of answering the question, you pretend you're answering it by changing the subject, and you change the subject in such a way that you're hoping it doesn't look like you changed the subject, and you're hoping that nobody notices you didn't actually answer the question.

You've seen this all the time if you watch CNN or Fox News on these programs that I would barely call debates, but sometimes you'll hear somebody being interviewed, and they'll say, well, it sounds like your corporation is very greedy, and they'll go, well, you want to talk about greed?

What about George W. Bush? And see, already they've just changed the subject, and you've got to say, no, look, George W. Bush is a different subject.

We're talking about your corporation and your greed. For example, if a Christian is asked about hypocrisy in the name of Christ, it would be inappropriate for them to say, yeah, well, there's also hypocrisy in the name of Islam.

That may be, but that's changing the subject. Likewise, if a Muslim is asked about the

Koran actually commanding the Jihad, it's inappropriate to say, yeah, well, Christians did the same thing during the

Crusades. So don't let anybody get away with this. Now, the next rule is very important. No interrupting.

This goes for the opponents interrupting each other. This goes for comments from the audience. It wasn't a problem during the last debate, and you looked like a bunch of nice people, so I don't think it'll be a problem here either.

But I am going to enforce that this is not going to be like the British Parliament. I don't know if you've ever seen one of those things on TV.

Neither is it going to be like our own universities where people are shouted down if they don't like it.

Shouting somebody down is not exercising your free speech. Well, I'm using my speech. I'm shouting. No. Shouting somebody down is sabotaging free speech.

Who are we kidding? And I want to give a very special challenge to the audience. Some of you are here today because you really haven't made up your mind about Christianity.

Some of you are neither a Muslim nor a Christian. Others are already a Christian or a Muslim, and you've made up your mind.

You have already decided who won the debate, even though you haven't heard the debate yet.

So I want to challenge you, whether you're a Muslim, whether you're a Christian, whether you're neither. At the end of this debate, ask yourself, who did the better job of answering questions?

Who did the better job of staying on topic? Who did the better job of actually authenticating what they were saying with evidence?

You can disagree with one of these men and still be brave enough at the end of the day to admit that they did a good job.

So don't feel threatened. That is what education is all about. Now here's the format. Each gentleman is going to get a very generous opening statement of 35 minutes.

Then each one will have a 10 -minute rebuttal. Then each one will have a 10 -minute counter -rebuttal.

Then each one will have a five -minute closing statement. Then we will read some questions, and the questions need to be addressed to one opponent or the other.

And the first opponent can answer and gets only two minutes to answer the question, otherwise we'll be here all night and we'll never get through them.

And then his opponent has one minute to respond to his answer. Okay, having laid that out, let me introduce our speakers.

Dr. James White, taking the Christian position, is an elder of Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

This is a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He's the author of more than 20 books, a professor, and an accomplished debater.

Ja 'ul Abu -Ruub is a translator of Islamic works and author of several books, his most important being an eight -book series titled

The Prophet of Mercy. He comes highly recommended by the American Muslim Association of North America.

And we are going to have Dr. James White give the opening statement. Well it is indeed an honor to be with you this evening.

It is indeed an honor to stand in defense of the deity of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

This evening I wish to point out that the topic of our debate might seem, for all intents and purposes, somewhat unfair.

It is unfair because there truly is no question that the body of ancient documents today known as the

New Testament teach is a collective whole, the deity of Jesus Christ. Further though, the actual revelation of the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the

Trinity takes place in the incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, events that take place chronologically between the

Old and New Testaments. The prophetic revelation of the nature of the Messiah is likewise consistent with the

New Testament revelation. Now as long as we do not presume naturalistic materialism and preclude the possibility of divine revelation, there can be no a priori rejection of the bare possibility that God could in fact reveal as a part of divine truth that the

Son of God, Jesus Christ, entered into human flesh as Jesus of Nazareth.

We gather this evening as Christians and Muslims, I would imagine as a majority, all affirming the reality of divine revelation.

God, or Allah, is a speaking being who desires to communicate with his creation and has done so.

It is the content of that divine revelation that drives me as a Christian to believe in the deity of Christ.

Think for a moment with me about some of the titles and descriptions used in the Lord Jesus Christ in the

Bible. He is the Lamb of God. He is the Son of God. He is the Alpha and Omega, the

Beginning and the End, the First and the Last. He is called the Word of God. He is called the

Risen Lord. He is the Creator of all things. He is the Sustainer of all things, the

One for whom all things were made. He is worshipped by angels and men and in fact, all of creation itself.

He is the object of prayer and the author and finisher of our faith. He is given the name which is above every name so that the name of Jesus, every knee bows and every tongue swears allegiance.

All the fullness of deity dwells in him in bodily form. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in him.

Every thought is to be taken captive in obedience to him. Paul describes him as our great

God and Savior, the eternally blessed God. John records Jesus' own words where he identifies himself as the

I Am and himself speaks of Jesus as the Word who existed eternally and is as to his being absolute deity.

Thomas confesses him as his Lord and his God. Peter calls him God and Lord and the early church prays to him and suffers in his name.

In prophetic words written 700 years before his birth, he is called Emmanuel, God with us and El Gabor, the mighty

God. Lord, God, Creator, Savior, Lamb of God, risen and coming,

King of kings and Lord of lords. Truly, there is no question of the Bible's teaching on the deity of Christ so what in the world are we doing here anyway?

I submit to you that the only reason my opponent stands in opposition to our thesis this evening is not all due to the clarity of the primary source material but due solely and completely to the anachronistic acceptance of the authority of later writings written over half a millennium after the

New Testament from a different culture and in a different language. The Quran specifically denies that Jesus is the

Son of God saying he is merely a Rasul, an apostle, a sent one. While our topic this evening precludes exploring this particular subject,

I would assert that I have never seen an even semi -accurate definition of the Trinity in the

Quran and hence I must ask my Muslim friends this evening if they would find a denial of the

Islamic doctrine of Tawheed convincing if the originator of that denial never gave the slightest evidence of accurate knowledge of the doctrine.

I have no reason to believe Muhammad ever read even two sentences of the New Testament hence

I find no reason to bow to his denial of that of which he could not have been anything other than ignorant.

Instead, the entire context of the Bible must be overthrown and its context rewritten to an

Islamic one. As Dawood put it, it is absolutely impossible to get the truth, the true religion from these

Gospels unless they are read and examined from an Islamic and Unitarian point of view. But this is to argue in a circle and in so doing to admit the anachronistic nature of the

Islamic arguments. Finally, if the approach is taken that the testimony of the Bible is to be rejected due to some kind of textual corruption,

I assert that such allegations require proof. My learned opponent this evening has written quote every text that Christians claim proves

Trinity is either a fabrication added in the New Testament or corrupted text from the two Testaments that are explained to mean what they do not truly mean, end quote.

I carry with me this evening critical editions of both the Old and New Testament texts in Hebrew and Greek and if any text

I cite is to be rejected based upon textual variation, I suggest that the canons of scholarship will require my opponent to demonstrate his allegations on the basis of the evidence available to textual scholars today.

The debate thesis states that the New Testament and the Bible as a whole teaches that Jesus Christ is

God. Some might immediately be confused and think that Christians believe Jesus Christ to be the

Father. Jesus is not the Father. Therefore, all the passages that might be presented this evening to distinguish between the

Father and the Son, we as Christians embrace and believe they do not in any way prove that Jesus is not deity.

Only by assuming Unitarianism could one believe that proving Jesus is not the

Father is in fact relevant to the debate this evening. The definition of the

Trinity was well known by the 7th century AD. Here we have a basic clear definition of this biblical doctrine within the one being absolute monotheism.

Christians are monotheists. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't know Christianity, just doesn't know the absolute basic affirmation of the doctrine itself.

Within the one being that is God, there exists eternally three co -equal and co -eternal persons, namely the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Please note we are differentiating between the words being and person.

We are not saying there is one being that is three beings or one person that is three persons. The scriptures teach that there is but one true

God, but the scriptures likewise describe three divine persons as deity, the Father, the

Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is plainly seen in Jesus' instructions to the church where he tells us to baptize in the name singular of the

Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Our Lord was not telling us to baptize in the name of God, a prophet, and an archangel.

Instead, three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, together share one divine

Trinitarian name. The scriptures then differentiate between God as one being and God as three persons.

Being and person are not the same categories of existence. We are all human beings here tonight.

We all share that in common, yet each of us is a different person. We make the distinction between being and person every day, and we must do so here as well.

Being is what makes something what it is. Person is what makes someone who they are.

As we examine many texts from the Bible this evening, always ask yourself this question, could the words of scripture be applied to a mere creature if indeed

Jesus Christ is not, as Christians have always believed, the incarnate one, the divine Son of God?

That is, could a mere creature ever say the things Jesus says? Could a mere creature say, come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest?

Could a mere creature say, if you have seen me, you have seen the Father? Would a mere creature ask you to put your faith and trust in him for eternal salvation?

Can we worship a mere creation, pray to a mere creation, bear the name as Christians of a mere human being?

Keep this in mind as we examine many of the texts of the sacred scriptures here this evening. Though the deity of Christ is primarily a truth revealed in the

New Testament, I know that the prophets of old gained a glimpse of the glory of the coming one as well. This is particularly true of the prophet

Isaiah, who foresaw the birth of Christ, his ministry, and his sacrificial death.

In Isaiah 7, he speaks of one whose name is Immanuel, God with us. In Isaiah 9, he speaks of the

Prince of Peace, the mighty God, the Aviad, often translated everlasting Father, but in Old Testament parlance, just as easily rendered

Father of Eternity. I believe this has to do with God being the creator of all things, Christ being the creator of all things in Colossians 1.

The creator, just as he is described in the New Testament. The vision of Daniel in Daniel 7, 13 -14, of the

Son of Man appearing before the Ancient of Days is fulfilled in Jesus' own words in Mark 14, 62, proving that the

Lord's frequent use of Son of Man is surely no denial of his heavenly origin, but rather it is an assertion thereof.

Please note John chapter 20, verses 28 -29, where after the resurrection,

Thomas answers and says to the risen Lord, my Lord and my God. Jesus said to him, because you have seen me, have you believed?

Blessed are they who did not see and yet believed. Here, John records for us the words of Thomas and makes sure that we understand that both

Lord and God are applied to Jesus. He answered and said to him, my

Lord and my God. Now, if Jesus was a mere razul, he would have immediately rebuked him and said, do not say that.

There is only one God. But instead, what does he do? He accepts this proclamation of faith as a proclamation of believing faith.

Because you have seen me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see and yet believed.

In Titus 2, 13, we read, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, here a monotheistic

Jew, identifies Jesus not only as God and Savior, a strong construction in the original Greek language, but he goes on to describe the ministry of Christ in the next few verses, using the very words of the

Old Testament that were used of Yahweh, describing the one true God, here applying these words to Jesus.

Then we have in 2 Peter 1, 1, Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our

God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Here he uses the same construction in the original

Greek to refer to his Lord as God and Savior that we saw in Titus 2, 13. In Romans 9, 5, of whom are the fathers and from whom according the flesh,

Christ came, who is over all the eternally blessed God. Amen.

In Hebrews chapter 1, we can spend most of our time just in this one chapter, all the different ways in which the deity of Christ is demonstrated.

He begins by identifying Jesus, the one through whom all creation came, the very image of the Father, his exact representation.

Then in verse 6, he says, all the angels of God are to worship him, worship that one who came in flesh.

Then in verse 8, he identifies the Son as God. He says, but of the Son, he says, your throne, O God, is forever and ever.

This is followed in verses 10 through 12 by a citation of the Psalter about Yahweh as the unchanging creator of all things in Psalm 102.

The view of the writer to the Hebrews cannot be doubted as to the deity of Christ because he applies those words about Yahweh from the

Old Testament to Jesus Christ in the New. Here in Colossians 2 .9,

one of my favorite texts, for in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.

That Greek term, theatetos, B .B. Warfield identified as that which makes

God, God. It is a very strong term. It cannot be questioned that here we have the

New Testament identifying as in the risen Lord, notice this is a present tense, is currently dwelling in bodily form, all the fullness of deity.

Here Jesus Christ is plainly affirmed as being deity. Then of course in Philippians chapter 2, we have this ancient fragment of a hymn of the ancient church.

Most scholars believe this is actually one of the early hymns of the church and listen to what it says.

Speaking of Jesus, it says, who although he eternally existed in the very form of God, did not consider that equality he had with God the

Father something to be held on to at all costs, but instead he made himself nothing by taking on the very form of a slave by being made in human likeness.

Not only does this affirm that the Son eternally pre -existed, that he was in the presence of the

Father before the incarnation, but you will notice it sheds light on the fact that the Son did not cease being divine when he took on human nature.

His act of humility was a positive one, taking on the very form of a slave and being made in human likeness.

In Revelation chapter 22, at the very end of the New Testament canon, Jesus is quoted as saying,

I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

These are the same words used in Revelation 1 -7 to describe the Almighty God.

In Colossians chapter 1, the Apostle Paul in refuting the precludes them from turning

Jesus into just some intermediary being, which is what they were trying to do, and he does so by using their very language against them.

He says, for by him, speaking of the Son, for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things have been created through him and for him, and he is before all things, and in him all things hold together or consist.

Here we have the Creator ascribed for us in no uncertain terms. Paul exhausts the Greek language to ensure we understand his meaning.

Not only is there nothing outside of Christ's creative work, but all of creation is said to have been created through him and for him.

He is before all things, and in him all things consist. That means, my friends, that according to the

Christian scriptures, written over half a millennium before Muhammad, Jesus is your

Creator. He made you. He gives you life. He gives you breath.

That is what makes our topic this evening so very important. If the Christian proclamation is true, the

Muslim runs the danger of identifying as a mir razul, the very creator of your soul.

That's what makes it worthwhile being here this evening. One of the most compelling presentations of the deity of Christ comes from the use of the phrase,

I am, by Jesus. In John 8, 58, Jesus says these words to the Jews who immediately pick up stones to stone him for blasphemy.

Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am, ego,

I me, an emphatic form. It's also found in John chapter 18. They answered him, the soldiers coming to arrest him,

Jesus the Nazarene. He said to them, I am he, ego I me. And Judas also, who was betraying him, was standing with him.

So when he said to them, I am he, ego I me, they drew back and fell to the ground.

At those very words that Jesus utters to them, they fall backwards. Lord Jesus was plainly drawing from the use of the

Old Testament, one in John chapter 13, verse 19. He says, from now on, I am telling you, before it comes to pass, so when it does occur, you may believe that ego

I me. Notice the phrase, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am.

Keep that in mind. We go back to the Old Testament. We find one of the key texts proclaiming that Yahweh is the only true

God in Isaiah 43 .10. Here we read, you are my witnesses, declares Yahweh, and my servant whom

I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that on a who, in the

Hebrew, ego I me, in the Greek Septuagint. Before me there was no God formed and there will be none after me.

Now compare the Greek Septuagint rendering of Isaiah 43 .10, in that particular phrase, with what we have in John 13 .19.

And let me go from there to demonstrate how very close these two are. When you take out extra terms and contextual references, we see the parallel with striking clarity and must realize that Jesus is purposefully applying a text from the

Old Testament that was about Yahweh and Yahweh alone to himself.

And that's what makes John 8 .24 so important. Therefore, I said to you that you will die in your sins, for unless you believe that ego

I me, you will die in your sins. When Jesus spoke to the Jews, he gave them no option in the matter.

They could not believe he was merely a prophet. They could not believe he was merely the Messiah. If they did not believe him for who he truly was, they would die in their sins.

Then we go to John 1 .1. We have already seen many references to the deity of Christ in the

New Testament. John 1 .1 is certainly not the only place. But the prologue of John, John 1 .1

-18, is a tremendously crafted presentation that John intends us to use as a lens through which we look at the rest of the gospel.

We are told in John 1 .1, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was

God. Here you have the

Greek text. In the first phrase, in the beginning was the Word. The verb there is in the imperfect form.

It's the verb of being, and it does not point us to any point of origin. In other words, as far back as you push the beginning, the

Word is already in existence. The Word is eternal. Secondly, in the second phrase, the

Logos has an eternal relationship with God. It is a face -to -face relationship, a communicative relationship, and it likewise had no beginning.

It is eternal. And finally, the third and for some reason controversial among some people phrase, and the

Word was God. This is describing the nature of the

Logos by placing theos before the verb and not having an article before it. It is describing the nature of the

Logos. However, my opponent this evening has attempted to address John 1 .1

in his recent book, and he says, for example, on page 18, however, the first instance of theos is preceded by ha, which makes the reference in it to the

God. Now, this is simply inaccurate. The first appearance of theos is in the accusative singular.

It's tan -theon. It is a simple misunderstanding of the function of Greek articles to think the presence or lack of the article tells us we are talking about the

God or a God. Greek articles are very, very rich, and just as the

English article is not identical to the Arabic article, neither the Arabic article, English article,

Hebrew article, in any way, shape, or form can even get close to the Greek article, which is extremely complex in its uses in that language.

He also said, number two, but the second instance is not preceded by ha, which makes the second theos merely a

God, end quote, page 18. This, again, is completely inaccurate. No one who actually reads the language and has translated any significant amount of Greek will make this kind of claim, as common as it might be on Internet websites.

Let's look at the truth of this last phrase. What we have here is what's called an anarthorous pre -verbal predicate nominative.

Do you remember your 8th grade grammar class? You probably slept through that. I'm sure you all know exactly what that is.

If we were to put the article in the first line here on the screen, I've put chi hatheos ein ha logos, which evidently is what my opponent believes would have to be there for this not to be a

God. The problem is, if that's what the text read, it is making God and logos an equation.

Everything a logos is, God is. Everything God is, the logos is. But the preceding phrase, it just said the logos had eternal relationship with God.

So that would be an inherent contradiction. What it says is very, very clear and very, very compelling.

So what about the translation a God? It is simple ignorance of the Greek. The Greek article is very, very rich.

There are 282 anarthorists, that is without the article uses of theos in the New Testament, and nobody could begin to translate the

New Testament in any meaningful fashion and translate every one of those as a God. It would make mince meat out of the text. Note some humorous examples, for example.

Luke 2 .14, if we were to follow this rule that theos without article means a God, glory to a

God in the highest and on earth, peace among men with whom he is pleased. Or Matthew 14 .33, and those who are in the boat worshiped him saying, you are certainly son of a

God, but we don't even need to go there. All you have to do is just go a few verses down from John 1 .1,

and if we follow the rule that if a noun doesn't have an article, it's a something, then we would have to translate

John 1 .6, there came a man sent from a God, a name to him was a John. Obviously, you cannot translate the language in this way, and to say that the lack of the article in John 1 .1c

means a God simply means you cannot read Greek, and you have never translated any other text relevant to this particular subject.

So at the end of that prologue, you have the tremendous statement from John 1 .18,

no one has ever seen God, it is God the only son who is close to the Father's heart who has made him known.

And here you have the term monogamous. Monogamous means unique. It does not come from genao, which means to beget, it comes from genos, genes, the type or kind.

All modern scholarly lexical sources agree on this issue, and here Jesus is called the unique God, or as this translation has it, it is

God the only son who is close to the Father's heart. This is a restatement of what we had in John 1 .1.

Also in that prologue, you have this wonderful text, and the Word became flesh. That Word which was eternal became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glories of the only begotten from the

Father, full of grace and truth. Ha logos sarx ageneta, the Word became flesh.

He did not cease being the Word, but as we saw in 1 Christian Philippians 2, 5 -11, he takes on that human nature.

Look at the scene in Revelation chapter 5 where John sees the worship in heaven. The Lamb has come forward in the heavenly scene.

He's before the throne of God, and listen to what takes place in this heavenly scene. And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea and all things in them,

I heard saying to him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.

And the four living creatures kept saying amen, and the elders fell down, and what did they do?

They worshipped. That is the Jesus Christ of the

Bible. He is the one who is worshipped along with the Father. In Psalm 102, 25 -27, we have the unchanging nature of Yahweh's creatorship, yet in Hebrews chapter 1, verses 10 -12, it's cited and applied to Jesus Christ demonstrating he's not only

God, but that he's the unchanging creator who has taken on human flesh.

Isaiah, in the same way in John 12, there is a beautiful passage where Jesus is ending his public ministry and he's about to hide himself from the people.

He has just actually ended it and has now hidden himself, and John is commenting on the fact that even though he has done so many miracles before them, yet they were not believing in Jesus, and he explains why.

He quotes two passages, one from Isaiah 53 and one from Isaiah chapter 6, verse 10. And then he makes a little comment, and a lot of us miss it, but it is truly beautiful.

He says, these things Isaiah said because he saw his glory and he spoke about him. Where did

Isaiah see Jesus' glory? Go back to the passage in Isaiah chapter 6, Isaiah saw

Jehovah sitting upon his throne, and he saw his glory. So when you ask Isaiah, Isaiah, whose glory did you see?

Isaiah answers, I saw Yahweh's glory. When you ask John, John, whose glory did

Isaiah see? John's answer is, he saw the glory of Jesus. Jesus is

Yahweh in human flesh. Let's look at some of the common errors my opponent this evening, in his published works, points to the comma

Johannium, 1 John 5, 7 in the King James Version of the Bible, for there are three that bear record in heaven, the

Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. This is a very late textual variant entering the

Greek manuscript tradition through its presence in the Latin Vulgate. The doctrine of the Trinity is in no way, shape, or form based upon or derived from this brief text, which was in all probability just a marginal gloss.

I have written on this topic in my work on textual criticism, but it did not enter into the Greek textual tradition until long after the doctrine of the

Trinity was firmly established and even defined in creedal form. He also writes on page 22 of his book, even the most fanatical supporters of the

Trinity cannot scientifically trace modern day Trinity any farther back than the second

Christian century, page 22. If I may point out some historical problems with this,

Ignatius was one of the earliest followers of the disciples. He knew the

Apostle John, and when he wrote to the church at Ephesus in the ninth portion of his letter, he died in 107 or 108

AD, so very, very early on. He wrote this, because you are stones of a temple prepared beforehand for the building of God the

Father, hoisted to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the

Holy Spirit. These are the very first Christian writings after the New Testament themselves, and these identify

Jesus as God. They're soaked in Trinitarian language, just as the New Testament is as well.

Notice we also have this statement, Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to her who has been blessed in greatness to the fullness of God the

Father, ordained before time to be always resulting in permanent glory, unchangeably united and chosen in true passion by the will of the

Father and of Jesus Christ our God, of the church which is in Ephesus of Asia, worthy of felicitation, abundant greetings in Jesus Christ and blameless joy.

Did you catch it? Jesus Christ our God. This is not the Council of Nicaea.

This is not 300 years later. This is in the very first generation after the disciples themselves.

Likewise, in the same epistle, Ignatius said, my spirit is but an off -scouring of the cross, which is a scandal of the unbelieving.

Notice the reference to the cross very, very early on. But to us it is salvation and life eternal. Where is the wise man?

Where is the disputer? Where is the boasting of those who are called understanding? For our God, Jesus the

Christ, was conceived by Mary according to the dispensation of God from the seed of David yet, yes, but of the

Holy Spirit as well. Virgin birth, cross, deity of Christ in the first generation, not something made up all the way down the road at a later point.

My opponent has written, Trinity was forced into Christianity by Emperor Constantine. Horrific religious persecution followed the decision made by Constantine, essentially a pagan emperor, to impose invented creed never preached by Jesus.

This is simply historical fiction and will immediately be recognized as such by any person who has taken the time to do serious reading in the history of the

Christian faith. It gives to Constantine a role he never had. It ignores the fact that many of those of the

Council of Nicaea still bore upon their bodies the scars of their Christian profession from the days of Roman persecution which had ended barely a decade earlier.

It ignores all of the writings of Christians in the centuries prior and it ignores the Arian resurgence that continued for another 50 years wherein later emperors used their power to overthrow

Nicaea's doctrine, not establish it. These claims are groundless and refuted by all meaningful historical data.

The deity of Christ is clearly taught in the Bible. All accusations of wholesale corruption are without merit historically.

The denials of a single man without knowledge of the Bible half a millennium later cannot overthrow this testimony.

And so I would like to ask the Muslims in the audience to please think with me for just a moment. Just a few months ago

I had the opportunity of debating a man by the name of Shabbir Ali in Seattle on the subject of the crucifixion of Christ.

And I made the point then, and I need to make it over and over again because I truly want my

Muslim friends to hear this. You must understand what you are asking Christians to do when you anachronistically take the

Koran as the final authority and then read the New Testament and the Old Testament through that lens.

What if someone came along in the 12th century who could not read Arabic, who had never read even so much as a translation of the

Koran, and he comes along and he says, I am a prophet of God. I will not give you any miracles other than I'm going to give you another book.

But I am in the line of prophets going back through Jesus and Muhammad, and I am a prophet of God.

And I tell you the Hijra never took place. Here's my book, believe me. Are you going to believe him?

He comes five, six hundred years after Muhammad. He has no knowledge of the

Koran. He does not know the original languages. He's coming from a different part of the world. He has no historical connection whatsoever.

Are you simply going to believe someone who comes along, offers you no historical foundation for what he's saying, and simply says, well, believe me,

I'm a prophet. That's what you're asking us to do. That is what you're asking us to do.

The testimony of the New Testament is plain. And if we are going to be told, well, all that was just inserted later.

There's the critical edition of the Greek, the critical edition of the Hebrew, and this is a scholarly debate.

My opponent is the learned man. If you're going to say that any of the texts that I've used were inserted at a later time, what do you have to do in a scholarly debate?

Prove it. Prove it. Provide the manuscripts. Provide the documentation. If I were to stand up here and pick up the

Koran that I have right there, and I were to say to you, well, I know it says in Sura 5, 116 through 117.

I know that there's a section here where it completely misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. Whoever wrote this did not know the

Trinity. But I don't think Muhammad wrote it. It's a later edition.

And I just sat down. What would you as a Muslim say? What do you mean? What's your evidence?

Show us that that's been corrupted. That's the only way to be fair.

If you're going to say, well, that stuff was put into the Bible at a later time, prove it. There is no work of antiquity that has a greater and wider spectrum of manuscript evidence than the

New Testament does. So if you're going to make the accusation, you need to be able to prove it.

The fact of the matter is that the teaching of the doctrine of the deity of Christ is found throughout the inspired page.

The revelation of it takes place between the Testaments. But the prophetic word points forward to it.

You cannot make heads or tails of anything from Matthew to Revelation if you believe that Jesus is merely a

Rasul. This is the testimony of the New Testament. And this must be the foundation of our discussion this evening.

Thank you very much for your attention. I bear witness that Muhammad is a prophet from Allah, the last and final prophet.

So if anybody comes today and says, I'm a prophet, say, no, he's not. You're not. Because Muhammad said, no prophet after me.

I believe that Jesus is a prophet from Allah, the Quran says it, Muhammad said it. And today, the question is to the

Christians. And it's been posted in the Quran. By the way, every single book he quoted, my opponent, every single

Greek word he read was disputed by Christian authors, scholars throughout the history.

So he's going to come here today and make it appear like all the Christianity agree to what he's saying. No, they don't.

And there is the dispute between them. It's been going on for about 2 ,000 years. About who wrote what in the

Bible? What's the original language of any book in the Bible? What time frame?

It's their dispute, not mine. It was before I came to this earth. I found it there. Every quote

I found that he quoted, got it from their books. And he says that John 1, 1, what

I quoted is not accurate. Thank you. I got it from the KGV copy that I have, which has a parallel Greek translation.

You're telling me KGV is not the word of God? I agree. Allah says in the Quran, O people of the book, do not go to extremes in your religion.

Say nothing about Allah except what is true. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, Mary, Rasulullah, is a messenger from Allah.

His word, be as he was, which he sent to Mary and a spirit created by him.

So believe in Allah. And his messenger, Jesus, son of Mary, his messengers. Do not say three.

Seize it. Stop it. It's better for you. Because Allah is only one

God. Praise be to him that he should have a son.

He owns what's in the heavens and what's on earth. And you need more than God.

You don't need more than God as a trustee. The Messiah, son of Mary, Jesus, would not hesitate or say no,

I'm not going to do it to be a slave to Allah. So stop the extremism. Because what he said today, is there any hint in the

Old Testament that any prophet God said give a lecture like my opponent did today? Explained it the way he did?

Question. Jalal, explain Islam to me in less than a minute. The entire foundation of your religion.

Answer. I can explain it in about a minute. So start counting. Allah says in the

Quran, and here is Prophet Muhammad, also says the same thing. He was asked, what is your faith? What is faith?

What is Iman? He says, To believe in Allah, in the angels, in his messengers, in the books, in the last day, and in the predestination,

Al -Qadar. The good parts and the not so good parts of them. Also Prophet Muhammad said,

Islam was built on five. To testify there is no deity worth of worship except Allah.

And that Muhammad is his messenger. Establish the prayer. To give charity.

And to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca. And to fast during Ramadan. I'm done.

You don't need a scholar in this version of the Bible, and that one, and the

Greek, and the English, and the German. Did Jesus speak German? He didn't speak

Greek. He spoke words that you don't have access to. You have access to documents that you yourself dispute.

I listed in the book, he just quoted from major encyclopedias,

Christians, by the West, who say Trinity is not in the Bible. Your dispute, take it with them.

Because I just used their words. And you're telling me, no it's not so. They all don't understand the Greek, but you do, only?

Nobody understands the English? Come on. What's the confusion here? Let's talk about the title itself.

And I was at a disadvantage in the first lecture. He's taking the role now.

Okay? It's switched now. I have all the time to read this stuff. Now, does the

Bible teach that Jesus is God? There are five things in the title. God, Jesus, the

Bible, Trinity, not Trinity, and God's true name.

Let's talk here about the first aspect. God is not a man. Numbers.

God is not a man. God is not a man.

Thank you. Agreed. Would you like to go home? I'm staying. Because this is a good day to defend

Jesus. God is not a man. Jesus according to Acts, Philippians, is a man.

Jesus of Nazareth, a man. And being found in fashion as a man.

God is not a man, neither the son of man. Jesus was a man.

He used to call himself the son of man, was called by others the son of man. He was even called the son of David.

And here, Matthew, you find that, for the son of man has come to save that which was lost. And that which was lost according to him is only the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Not you. Not white Americans. Not Europeans. He came only to the children of Israel according to his statements.

The statement he read for you. I got it from my copy of the Bible. Okay? Not mine.

I didn't write it. I didn't print it. They have what disputes what he says.

My opponent. I'm not going to read this here because I don't speak Greek or Latin. I just try to understand some words.

In the beginning was the word and the word was God, with God, and the word was God. Okay, this is

Genesis 1 .1. No it's not. It's should have been

Genesis 1 .1. It should have been revealed to Adam while he was in heaven hiding from God.

Adam, where are you? He didn't report to his children he saw three gods or one, three, or three in one, three personalities.

He didn't report to them that God has a son, will have a son, or there is a Jesus to worship. He didn't say anything about that. This should have not have been

John 1 .1. Genesis 1 .1. Genesis should have been given to Adam so that everybody knows their

Lord. Not hide the truth until John comes and then he writes this. And by the way,

I stand behind what I wrote here. It's in my copy of the Bible. If you say it's not from God, I say true.

It's not from God. Because John here is the first person in this whole entire book who wrote this stuff.

And he's using the same word here that was describing the devil.

The same word, theist. The same word that describes the devil in another part of the Bible. You tell me, well, that's not, you know, because this is the

Greek and my Greek is better than the other Greek of the other Greeks. And the other Greeks, they don't understand the Greek.

I don't care. Bring me one word from Jesus that says, I am God. And here, these words, here was

God. God doesn't mean the creator. Go to the etymology of the word God.

In the Catholic encyclopedia it says God means idols too.

A teacher. Someone connected with God. The creator. So here, when you put it in the capital, here, okay, it's supposed to make it

THE God. But that's not what he said. There are no capital letters in Greek.

And Jesus didn't speak in capital letters. He didn't speak English or German.

He didn't say these words. And this word here, Tantheion, talks about THE God.

Here, when he says later on about theist, the same word used to describe

Satan in another part of the Bible. And if you don't believe me, you go to that section where it talks about 2

Corinthians 4 .4. It's the same term used to describe the devil. So you're telling me, no, this is different.

Why? We capitalized it here. Thank you very much. But he didn't speak this language.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten monogamous son.

You see, he said unique. That's not in the KJV. It says the only begotten there.

Take your dispute with them, not with me. I'm an Arab. I don't speak Greek. I see 2 versions of the

Bible telling me here, begotten means the only, I mean monogamous means the only begotten.

But it's not. The same word was used to describe who? Isaac, in the

Old Testament. It says the only begotten. He wasn't the only begotten because Ishmael was born before him.

He wasn't the only son even of Abraham because Ishmael was born before him.

So it's the same word. It's just a trick that they have. They come and capitalize that this is supposed to make him a god.

So if you put a lower case here, it doesn't make him a god. According to them, he was. Okay.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only unique, he says, son. Well, unique doesn't mean he's

God. Find the Bible. I mean, any dictionary, say if unique means

God or the creator. Doesn't mean that. Unique son, yes, he was created without father intervention.

And you have to understand something. That for monogamous here to mean something here and in the

Old Testament proves what he says that there isn't any coherence between the

Old and the New Testament. Is there anything, anything in the Old Testament about Jesus?

About God really having a son? And he's divine? He's going to die for you? There is nothing.

It's all deductions. Understand the game here. It's deductions. They come to words that they can't prove who wrote them.

And it's their dispute, not mine. And they come and tell me this is what it means. Well, other scholars say something else.

Why should I believe you? The Arabic Quran, if I say something wrong about it, I have many people here who will correct me.

I made mistakes while reciting the Quran. People who became Muslim who used to be Christian, millions of them, they correct me.

I'm an Arab. I've been reading the Quran since I was five. I memorized about a fifth of it. Between me and my children, we memorized the whole

Quran. But if you make mistakes, somebody corrects you. Who's going to correct this? You have no access to anything original in your books.

It's all written by people who never saw Jesus decades afterwards. And that stuff about the emperor,

I got it from their books. Go to my website, ask me the question, I'll show you the proof. From your books, not mine.

So take your dispute with the historians, Christians. Don't come and tell me this. Who said every single reference he mentioned, my opponent, has been disputed by the same scholars of Christianity throughout the history.

So he's not going to be allowed to come here and sit and talk like everybody agrees with him. No. Not everybody agrees with you.

Maybe you think you're right because you have more knowledge, you can read the Greek faster than I can read Arabic.

But that doesn't mean anything. I and my father are one. Well, apparently he said the same about his disciples.

Okay? So if this means he's God, it means the disciples are also God. And I have the reference here.

You know, he talks to his companions that we can become one.

Okay? Just like he said, me, one, you one, me with you one, everybody one, we have many ones now.

It's not only three, many ones connected somehow. Now, let's talk about Jesus said before I, before Abraham, was

I am. Is there anything there to say that he's God? He's divine?

No, he's not. He mentioned the Hebrew words, whatever it is. I know it.

It's close to my Arabic. What does this mean? If I say before Abraham was,

I is. What's the difference? I are. I us.

What does this make? One Christian told me, no, you have to notice. Here we translate it in capital.

Well, thank you. Jesus never said any word in English and he doesn't care about your capital.

He didn't speak capital letters. And also he never said, I am God. I created you.

Worship me as you worship God. I am divine. The Holy Ghost is God. He didn't say that.

It's your deduction from texts you bring from here and there. And the funny thing that the first debate, they deny the prophecies about Muhammad in the

Old Testament. In the second debate, they bring as proof to the divinity references from the

Old Testament. What do the Jews say about these tests? They say, no, you're wrong.

There is no reference in the Old Testament to Jesus. His name is not even there. So what you're quoting from the

Old Testament, the people who received it tell you, no, sir, we don't agree. In fact, some of the stuff that my opponent before Mr.

White said, the same kind of accusations he collected against Muhammad are found also against Jesus and Moses in the

Bible. The same thing. They said, you're delusional. You are a magician. You've been touched by the demons.

The same thing that he said about Muhammad. To prove that Muhammad isn't a prophet, same thing was done to Jesus himself.

His family said he's out of his mind. And his disciples said, why do you keep talking to these people in parables?

They don't even understand what you're saying. They complained to him, Jesus, because he said, no, because knowledge is given only to you, not to them.

God is supposed to give the same knowledge to everybody, to reveal himself. He didn't reveal himself the way

Mr. White today revealed God, because there is nothing in the Old Testament that says anything about what he said.

And Jesus never said it. For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness, neither shall evil dwell with thee.

Really? Wasn't the devil the one who led Jesus around, up and down, showed him the temple, showed him the kingdoms of everything?

Jesus, you know, I'll give you all that stuff, including America maybe. Who knows? Maybe he mentioned

America and Australia. I'll give you all this stuff if you worship me. Is this what you think of your

Lord? The same?

And Jesus never said, what's wrong with you? I created you. You're gone. I crushed you.

You're offering me the kingdoms that I own? Maybe he was blocked from receiving divine information because the opponent

I was supposed to debate today instead of Mr. White, who didn't come, I mean we agreed to remove his name, mutual agreement.

You know he says that sometimes Jesus the divine did not share information with Jesus the human.

What are you talking about? What do you mean? So he's calling, people asking him, when is the last hour?

Wait. Lion is busy. He doesn't get information about the last hour from his own self.

Why? Why can't he say Jesus knows it because Jesus is the son?

Why all this scheme? Oh this means that. This could possibly mean that.

This must mean that. Here you have it. One, two, three. Three in one, one in three. No. No. I'm sorry because Jesus never said what you say.

Therefore there are three that bear record in heaven. The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

This is 1 John 5, 7. By different types and versions of the

Bible, and you have plenty, I tell you. They confuse me now. If I want to pile them here, they're going to be this high, like me.

Different versions of the Bible. You will see that this word, this entire verse is here, but it's not here.

It's here, but it's not here. Why should I take your version of it? I mean the

Protestant sect is a minority. Majority of Christians are Catholic. They're not Protestant.

They don't care about what you say about your religion. They think they are the right religion as the Pope himself said, again, just a few months ago.

So why should I take yours? When the vast majority of Christians say, no, you're wrong. They put it here.

They remove it from there. I'm confused. Which one is the Word of God here? If this is, then this isn't.

But you're telling me, no, we have problems interpreting the earliest thing.

You prove to me what you showed on the screen came from a certain person with a chain of narration.

Don't come and tell me I have to prove it's not authentic. Why should I? I'm not saying

Jesus is divine. You're saying Jesus is divine. You prove it. You prove that what you put there and the quotes you brought really came from someone definite.

I can't believe I read more than eight. I still have plenty of time. The Lord said unto my

Lord, sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Okay, sound. 110 .1. They dwell on this. It must be,

Jesus must be Yahweh. Yahweh in Arabic. He must be that.

Why? Because David says, you know, because he's the Christ of course, Jesus.

Since Yahweh is David's Lord, Jesus must be therefore Yahweh God. So the

Lord said unto himself, sit here at my right hand until I make myself, or until I make my enemies my footstool.

Was he talking to himself? Or these three having this kind of dialogue all the time? You sit here,

I'm going to make your enemies your footstool. He's supposed to be God too. He's supposed to be saying it too.

And the Holy Ghost, where is he? The title of this debate today, where is the

Holy Ghost? Why don't the Christians try their best to prove also the Holy Ghost is

God as they do about Jesus? Why don't they do that? Trinity. For a while, you know when he talks about the

Word and God, John 1 .1, where is the Holy Ghost? He's missing. He's missing also here.

And here, God says to himself, sit here so I can make your enemies your footstool. Come on.

This doesn't make any sense here. Plus, where does it say here that he's talking even about Jesus?

Because you can debate from now and for the next 2 ,000 years with Jews, they're going to tell you, no, he wasn't talking about your

Jesus. Because your Jesus is a fake. He was a man who was possessed by the demons who made magic, who practiced magic.

His mother was a whore. You know they say that. And our Quran comes and defends her.

That she wasn't like that. She was the most honorable woman. You know what Prophet Muhammad said about Mary?

She's the best woman of the whole world. You have no chapter in your book to defend the honor of Mary because she wasn't a prostitute.

And the Jews say that but they didn't care much. You don't fight with them as you fight with Muslims because the real game is what

I said in the first debate. Muslims brought back monotheism that was started by Moses and Jesus.

That Christianity almost killed. That's the problem. That's the problem they have with Muhammad. If Muhammad started disputing with the

Hindus or the Buddhists about their ideas, they wouldn't have cared. But it's because he resurrected the knowledge of monotheism, brought it back.

That's why they don't like him. The Lord said unto my Lord, he said to himself, think about it.

The proofs they bring, they have nothing there. The name Jesus doesn't appear here. The Jews won't agree ever that this is about Jesus and it doesn't make sense.

Plus, if God is talking to himself this way, why should he talk at all since the information is shared eternally?

For I am the Lord, I change not. This is something that I would really like you to look at.

For I am the Lord, I change not. Jesus was one of the three.

This news was not given from Adam all the way to Jesus to anybody. Not explicitly in any way or form.

Just a deduction by Christians. And we're supposed to believe that God created in him, outside of him, in the middle,

I don't know. A human. That human is the one who came down to die.

Or is he? Because according to Titus, and it's funny he brings quotes from Titus which he knows, so many

Christian scholars say that Paul didn't even write that. There is so much dispute among Christians about the authenticity of the entire chapter.

And there is so much stuff in that chapter to make you wonder, what's going on here? So now we're talking here,

I change not. So they're claiming Jesus became a human. After resurrection he went back to be divine.

What did Thomas say? Let me check you. Oh my Lord. Oh my God. Can you prove that it's not true?

You're going to go to the Greek copy again. I know. I know. You're going to spend that time. But you can't say that this means that he said to Jesus, you are my

God, the creator. Especially if you realize that the same word for God there is the same one describing the devil in another aspect, another part of the same book.

So you're supposed to tell me no. This theist is different. This is capitalized. This is not.

Well, bring some plain creed so we can understand what you're talking about.

So I don't need a scholar to come and describe to me what cannot be described. I change not.

He did change according to the Christians. He was three. Then they added something to someone, one of them.

And that one died. So God changed in a profound way. Now he became a baby, crying for food, who needs to be changed, maybe spanked if he misbehaved, grew up to be a young man, grew hair and a beard.

Then grew up and became a older man, started saying wonderful stuff, eloquent, just like the

Quran to the children of Israel about Allah. He sent me. He's the one, the only one who knows about the last hour is the one that's there, the father.

He sent me. Then he died. You tell me God didn't change. Ah, that's the article that I put on the

Internet. That guy says not my opponent. My opponent is more respectable than for me to refer to him this way.

That guy was supposed to, you know, to debate. What did he say? The unchangeability of God is whatever he created.

Somebody he created Jesus within himself at God's incarnation. Jesus the human was an addition to him, not a deletion.

An addition. So God changed. Because in the dictionary, add means to change.

He developed into somebody with an extra. He became a man.

Become means change. So he changed and he died according to you. Even after he died,

Thomas still wants to touch him. He's a man still in the flesh. It wasn't a dream.

He touched him. Oh my Lord, my teacher. Oh my God, you're still alive. Yeah, because they didn't crucify me.

That's what happened. If you really want the real story, don't go to books. You don't even know who wrote them.

You have dispute with each other about who wrote them, what time frame, what original language.

That's the dispute you have before even Islam came. You come now to tell me like 99 .9

% of Christians agree. No, they don't agree. Because your own books and different versions of the

Bible, they say something else. I change not. Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and forever.

No. Because yesterday he was a baby crying. No. Yesterday he was divine.

Then he created something in addition to himself. That addition became a baby and changed to become a grown man.

Then it died. So he wasn't yesterday as he is today.

Today he's a man. Tomorrow he was crucified, went back to being divine alone. Or we don't know.

Because after resurrection, the Bible doesn't say what kind of personality now he has. You see, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday.

No, he wasn't. He grew up to be a man. And today, no. He became a dead man tomorrow.

So he grew up all these stages and changed. You tell me God doesn't change. According to you, he does change in a profound way.

First of all, one, one, one, one, one, one, one for thousands of years. Nobody said three.

Three in one. Jesus. Adam never said, I saw somebody in paradise. His name is Jesus. By the way, he's divine.

He didn't tell his children that. It was a hidden secret revealed only to John after Jesus supposedly died.

Because Jesus never said this. This is what that guy

I was supposed to debate, he said, at Christ's incarnation, there wasn't a subtraction of his deity, but an addition.

It's just like the math that they're telling us. We always learned one plus one plus one equals one.

Right? No. And their formula is not in the Old Testament.

Jesus never said it. Let's talk about, you know, some of the aspects that he spoke about, my opponent.

But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law.

Where does it, where does it prove that Jesus here is God? He sent himself. He was made.

The creator is the one who makes, you see, made in heaven.

It doesn't exist. Made by Allah. He's the creator. So he was made under the law.

Which law? Which law you're talking about here? The law of Moses. Because this man, Jesus, wasn't sent to you.

He was sent to the children of Israel. He said it. But you're not going to, you're going to stick divinity to him whether he likes it or not.

And I tell you, he doesn't like it. I still have some more.

The Lord, our God, is one Lord. Deuteronomy. Galatians.

God is one. Look at it here and here. God is one.

Unity, Unitarian, what do you call it? Monotheism. This is what Muhammad called to and this is why they don't like Muhammad.

It's not because of that black magic story and green magic and stuff. Magic doesn't come in colors.

It has one code. Also, also, that's what the Jews accused Jesus of doing.

You see? So you have to be fair. You don't like Muhammad? Be fair. Don't come and say things that also apply to your

Lord and Savior. Deuteronomy 6 .4. Galatians 3 .20. This is what my opponent said.

I'm going to cover his name. I don't want to say that there is only one true

God. Agreed. Thank you. But to us, according to Paul, there is one

God. The Father. He is the Son. Where is the Holy Ghost? They're missing here.

The only true God is one God. We agree on that. Why don't you stick to it?

You are my witnesses, said the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me and understand that I am

He. Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

I, even I, am the Lord, and beside me there is no Savior. What did

Muhammad say the first thing he said to his people? La ilaha illallah.

There is only one God. Isn't this what this says Isaiah? It doesn't say anything here about Jesus or the

Holy Ghost or three in one. This is something that they brought on their own as a deduction.

They deducted it. They brought these texts together. This could mean that, must, this, that, and they brought them together as a fact.

No, they're not a fact because each one of what you brought means a host of things. No man has seen

God at any time. Yes. OK. We agree with this.

1 John 4, 12. We have no idea who this guy is. We agree with what he wrote here.

Why? Because no one has seen God. And those who saw Jesus did not see God. According to your

Bible, Thomas answered him, my Lord and my

God. John 20, 17 stated that Jesus said to Mary, go to my brethren and say unto them,

I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God and your God. You see it's the same.

1 John, I mean, sorry, John 20, 17. Here, John 20, 28. This is the same one.

He tells it to Mary, Magdalene, Al -Majdaliyah, from Al -Majdal in Palestine, my land, go to my brethren and tell them,

I'm going to ascend to my Father and their Father, my God and their God. He didn't say I'm going to ascend to myself and I am your

God and I am your Father. He never said it. Here, here's what Jesus said. What do you need more from this man?

To tell you that he's telling you he's not God. What more do you need? He's telling you here,

I'm going to ascend to my God and your God. You're telling me God is saying I'm going to ascend to my God. It must be that addition.

I'm sorry. It must be that addition, isn't it? The addition was speaking here. Is it?

If this is the addition, then when he says my God, it's not true because he's talking to a human here.

But if he's talking here to the subtraction, the divine, he said just before, I'm going to ascend to my

God. So I stand confused here. Plus the word God here, same one used to describe the devil somewhere else.

This God here means, they put it in capital, go to the original and find the meaning of the original word.

And that original word was not written by John. Nobody knows who John is. You're going to find that it's the same word used for the devil.

It means idol. Also, it's in your books, not mine. I swear by Allah, I got it from your books.

It says God means the creator. A God, somebody who has a connection with God. Why did you choose this one?

Because the Greek copy said that Jesus did not speak Greek. And the same word that you're talking about here was used in my copy.

I'm going to bring it here. I'll post it on the website. To let you know that, I took it from a

Bible. You're telling me KJV is not the holy? It's not the word of God? Fine, I agree.

Paul said this about God, who only has immortality. Jesus died.

How can he be God? He's describing God here, the creator. Jesus died.

According to Paul, Jesus does not die. Jesus died as Christians claim.

Christian problem. God cannot die by definition. This is what one of them wrote. But according to you, he died.

And in another aspect, another area where I found writings by Christians so confusing.

They say, and they quote the Bible, God paid with his blood.

So you can sin. So Christians can live like devils on this earth, breaking the law that Jesus was made to observe.

And think they can live like angels in heaven. But Muslims who follow mostly, or much of the law that Jesus was sent with, have the same religion, would fast and pray and stop themselves from doing any kind of sin, we're going to end up in hell.

No, I'm sorry. And in paradise, there are joys that I'm so sure

Jesus told the children of Israel about. While it's still very fresh in your mind, may

I say that Jesus Christ did not give himself so that we might sin. I would never stand before an audience and misrepresent

Islam on that level. I would never say to an audience anything on that level about another religion that is so clearly contradicted by their own text.

The Bible itself says, shall we continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be.

We are called to holiness, and the only reason we can live a holy life is because Christ has taken away our sins.

The Holy Spirit can dwell within us and cause us to be like Christ. So I simply call my opponent to a much higher level of dialogue this evening.

I likewise turn your attention to a horrific, out -of -context citation where a verse was cut in half so that its actual teaching was robbed from you.

1 Corinthians 8, verse 6, but to us there is but one God. That's all you got.

I saw this happen in a debate just a few weeks ago. I do not understand this. I would never do this to the

Koran because all someone has to do is go, could you read the rest of the verse, please? Because 1 Corinthians 8, verse 6 says, but to us there is but one

God from whom are all things, and we unto him, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and we through him.

This is Paul's restatement of the great shema of the Old Testament, filling it in in Christian revelation with Jesus Christ being the creator of all things.

How can you quote only part of a verse when the rest of it teaches the deity of Christ? I cannot begin to comprehend this.

We are told that every single word of what I said has been disputed. By whom? If I were to get up here and start quoting

Shiites and Druze and every other off -center group of Muslims and say, ah, everything he says is disputed, could we ever accomplish anything?

If you're going to say it's been disputed, please name by whom so we can examine the sources and have a scholarly debate.

We are asked, did any Old Testament prophets speak as a Christian speaks? Of course not. What did I say in my opening statement?

The revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, takes place when? In the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

When did that happen? After all the Old Testament prophets. It takes place between the Old Testament and the

New Testament. That's why the New Testament writers then take all those words about God and the Old Testament and apply them to Jesus in the

New. We're told Jesus did not speak Greek. Really? Almost everybody in that land did. You had to because that's what the

Roman soldiers spoke and you better know what they were telling you to do. He cited major encyclopedias.

Folks, this is a debate that's supposed to be a scholarly debate. I am a teacher. I do not allow my students to quote the

Encyclopedia Britannica in a scholarly paper. You go to true scholarship.

When I study Islam, I have spent I don't know how much money to obtain their best materials.

Why are we quoting internet encyclopedias this evening? We are told Hosea 11 .9 and Numbers 23 .19

says God is not a man. Of course not. It is not our claim that God has eternally been a man. It is our claim that the eternal

God who created all things entered into his own creation. I want to ask a question of my opponent this evening.

Will you stand before us and say it is beyond the power of Allah to enter into that which he created.

Will you say that, yes or no? Then we were scolded in the last debate for anyone daring to talk about the

Quran who doesn't know Arabic. But everything I brought up in regards to the text of the

New Testament was dismissed by saying, well, I don't read Greek. Take it up with the people that I am citing. Can you imagine if we were having a debate on the

Quran and I got up here and I made a bunch of basic errors in regards to the nature of the

Quran. I miscited it. I mistranslated it. I went against all the major Islamic translations of the

Quran and I said, hey, I found that in your guys' books. Don't talk to me. I don't read Arabic. How scholarly would that be?

I don't understand that. I can open up the Quran here, sir, and I've taken the time to be able to realize that this tells me,

He neither begets nor is he begotten, correct? Yes. I'm taking the time to go, this is what it says.

And I can go here and I can go over to the Hebrew and I can see Yalad is the same root and that comes out in Isaiah 9, 6, which says to us, a son is given, a child is born, a

Yalad. That was written 1 ,300 years before this. Why do I believe this that comes 1 ,300 years later?

We were told, for example, over and over again that the word

Taas is used as Satan in 2 Corinthians 4, 4. Actually, a good friend of mine, Don Hartley, has written an excellent thesis where he disputes that's actually about Satan.

But even if it was, that is irrelevant. Words only have meanings in a given context. And the context of John 1, 1, 1 has nothing to do with Satan.

Every time you hear it brought up, while Taas can be used that way, it is a red herring. We were told that looking at monogamies, meaning unique, is a trick.

No, that's called translating the Greek language accurately in accordance with the best scholarship that is available today.

We were told that these words were written by people who never knew Jesus. Prove it. I can simply say to you, everything in the

Quran has nothing to do with Muhammad. Prove it. You can't just make overarching statements like this and not back it up with serious argumentation.

He said, that stuff I got about Constantine, I got from their books. You didn't get it from mine, and you didn't get it from any serious historical work because it's just false.

If you're going to say Constantine forced the Trinity on Christianity, then go back and prove it. I can prove he didn't, but you're making the assertion.

That's what scholarly debates are about. He kept saying, scholars have disputed this and scholars have disputed that.

Name them. Give us the sources. If I'm going to cite things, for example, about the

Arabic language, I'm going to go to Lane's Arabic Lexicon, and I'm going to tell you what page it's found on.

Let's look at it. We have not been given any of that thus far this evening. He looked at Iqalami.

He didn't look at the fact that the soldiers fell back when Jesus said, he didn't explain that to us.

He didn't explain the context of Isaiah 4310 being that of prophecy and how

Jesus gives that in the same context, John 13, 19, in regards to himself. Certainly in John 8, 58, the people who heard

Jesus say, I am, knew what he was talking about. They picked up stones to stone him. They didn't miss it, whether we miss it this evening or not.

We keep hearing about how Rome is the majority group. Rome denies Sola Scriptura.

It denies the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. I have debated many Roman Catholic apologists. Why is that even being brought up tonight?

Should I come up here and make argumentation against Shiites, against Druze, against some other group, rather than my opponent?

If you're going to debate a Reformed Baptist, my suggestion would be, debate the Reformed Baptist. It works a whole lot better that way.

We get a lot more accomplished in our discussions. We look at Psalm 110, 1. Psalm 110, Yahweh said unto my

Adonai. The point of Psalm 110 is to demonstrate that the Adonai, Jesus, was

David's Lord, that he was the Messiah. It's not a proof text for anything. And this wasn't God talking to himself.

This is the Father speaking to the Son. This is not some sort of ventriloquism issue. It is just simply recognizing what the text says.

We were told, why didn't we hear anything about the Holy Spirit? Well, there's two chapters in the subject in the book that I sent to my esteemed opponent.

But he is described as the spirit of Yahweh. He is the other comforter of John 14 -16, no matter how much that text might be completely distorted out of its context by Islamic apologists.

And he is identified as God by Peter in Acts chapter 5. We heard the statement, Jesus went back to being divine.

This again demonstrates that my opponent this evening does not understand the doctrine that he is denying. He does not understand what it means.

In fact, this came out. He said that in John 20 -28, you can't say that Thomas said those words to Jesus.

Yes, you can. The exact words in the original language, without any question, you have to simply overthrow the text itself, are that Thomas answered, and said to him, my

Lord and my God, and I am God. Those words are addressed to Jesus, and if you can't prove that that was said to Jesus, then language cannot communicate anything.

And we are simply playing games here this evening, because nothing can happen. We are told that God changed in a profound way.

There is no admixture of the divine and the human. John 1 -14 and Philippians chapter 2 tell us that it was a positive addition.

And I'm not going to avoid saying his name. When Sam Shimon made that statement, he's saying exactly what Christians have taught from the beginning.

That's exactly what I have taught in my books, and that's exactly what is taught in the inspired page of scripture. That the incarnation does not involve an admixture of anything.

It does not involve anything that causes the divine to change. God took on human flesh.

And I say to you that if you deny to God the ability to take on human flesh, upon what basis?

If God created us, and it was God's intention to reveal his love to us by dwelling amongst us, and voluntarily giving his life, not having it taken away from him, but voluntarily giving his life, who are you to tell

God that he cannot do this? Upon what basis? Certainly not upon the basis of the inspired text of the

Bible. Thank you very much. First of all, here's a quote from Paul.

But to us there is but one God, the Father. Now we're back to the

Greek copy and this copy. I don't understand my opponents. They want me to prove their book.

I don't have to prove anything. You prove to me Jesus spoke Greek. Maybe he said a word or two.

You prove to me he spoke Greek, because what you quoted from Thomas is in Greek.

It's in Greek. And that chapter itself is full of stuff that makes you wonder who wrote it.

All those dreams of the saints who were dead. They rose up from their graves, went to the cities, zombies.

Nobody else reported this. And you have so many horrific differences between this chapter and other chapters in the other

Gospels written in Greek, not the language of Jesus. And you interpret them to mean what they mean.

Because you have no proof for your interpretation. I'm not asking you to read the text to me.

I'm asking you, why did you decide this is this? Now he's telling me, well the

KJV says the only begotten son. So you're telling me now that's not the word of God?

I agree. Secondly, you think you know better than all these Christian scholars throughout history? Come on.

We're not talking here about other sects. We're talking about the most popular Bible in the world that says the only begotten.

Look here. When you read this, just before Jesus ended his incarnation.

At the ninth hour, he cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Elahi, Elahi, Lema taraktani, in Arabic, Lema sabakhtani, why did you abandon me?

Jesus was saying this. You know the explanation they gave how he incarnated himself, this and that?

Who was saying this? Was Jesus a human? Again, blocked out? No information from God?

This is what I sent you for. He was supposed to come here to die for your sins. But he says before he dies, and he didn't die, oh

God, why did you abandon me? You know, for my opponent, and the opponent before him to stand here and claim all kinds of outrageous things about Muhammad.

Demon possessed, liar, this and that, black magic, had sex with a nine year old who was supposed to be his wife.

Then he stands here and says, how dare you say things about the Lord? How dare you say this about my prophet?

How dare you say about the Lord who never said anything about himself being free? And then you come here and stand here and act like angry about what

I said about your book? This book is in dispute between yourself. Those encyclopedias, they're not from the internet.

I saw them with my own eyes. I can show them to you. They must all have no knowledge about Trinity, but my opponent does.

Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes unto the Father but by me.

I agree. Because if there is a prophet, you can't go back to God while God is pleased with you, but through the prophet.

Jesus said, ask my opponent to prove that Jesus even said this.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Because Jesus wasn't even speaking there.

It's a deduction that the Christians come up with. Jesus came to them and said to them, all authority in heaven and earth has been given.

I don't know what the Greek for given is, but I'm telling you it's going to be the same thing.

It has been given to me. He didn't take it. He doesn't own it. It was given to him.

He says to you, it was given to me. Plus, you know the dispute about these

Gospels? He keeps saying historical, historical. The dispute about who wrote anything in the

Bible is so tremendous between Christians from beginning to end. My opponent can't stand here and say there is no, you know, like Shia and Sunni.

No, I'm sorry, it's not like Shia and Sunni. Because the dispute between Christians is between the sects themselves and other scholars all the time about what these texts mean.

Who wrote what? What time frame? What original language? Who edited them? Who translated them?

Where are the witnesses? Jesus was supposed to be led to his crucifixion. All the disciples ran away according to the four

Gospels. Who do you have for witnesses? The Jews who wanted to kill him. That's your witnesses.

You have no proof to that. Plus, he's talking about the earliest, earliest, earliest. I'm supposed to bring you proof to prove that your books are, you bring proof to me that anything of this that you just read today was said by Jesus, written in his lifetime, in the language he spoke.

I don't have to do that. I still have some time. Thy sins be forgiven thee.

Matthew 9, 2. They brought a man sick to him, Jesus, and Jesus cured him by Allah's permission.

We agree to that. And then Jesus, when he said, you know, your things, your, thy things, this is thy sins be forgiven thee.

Your sins are forgiven. He didn't say, I forgive you.

He just conveyed the news to the man from revelation from God that this man has been forgiven. About, qul huwa allahu ahad, by the way, the surah he mentioned, qul huwa allahu ahad, say

Allah is one. Same thing in the Old Testament. He couldn't prove a sentence that says otherwise.

Allahu samad, the one who all creations seek for help and support. Lam yalid.

He never gave birth. Walam yulad. He wasn't born.

Walam yakun lahu kufwan ahad. There is none equal to Allah. Allah says in the Quran, he wishes, if he wills to create a son, he would have created a divine son.

He could have done it. He's telling me a challenge to me. Don't challenge me. Challenge your creator.

I'm not saying God couldn't have created Jesus in the way they say. Allah can do anything.

The problem is that he didn't. Who's a liar? But who that denies that Jesus is the

Christ? We don't deny Jesus is the Christ. We deny Jesus is divine. Here, there is nothing here to prove that Jesus is

God in any way or form. And behold they brought to him a man sick of the palsy.

We said this. It's the same thing here. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the

Son. Capital letter. Here, you see? The Son doesn't know.

No mention of the Holy Ghost, Trinity. And I don't care if he's mentioned somewhere else because if there are three, they should have been mentioned the whole way.

He says from that, I mean about that last hour, no one knows. He denies that he knows the last hour.

He says only the Father. You remember my opponent? He said that Christians don't consider Jesus the

Father. Well, then he doesn't know about the last hour because he's not divine. Oh, but he is in complete harmony with the

Father. Really? One of them died and the Holy Ghost and God had no idea what's going on.

One of them died. No, the one who died is an addition, not a subtraction. Come on people.

Offer the creed the same way Abraham gave it to his people. Did he ever say anything like this? We are angry here.

I was insulted twice here. The terrible stuff my opponent said about Muhammad, taking stuff out of context and using fabricated words and secondly calling a son to God is the greatest offense to us

Muslims. So don't think that you can come here and act angry because we are angry because Allah doesn't have a son.

He told you so. Jesus never said I am Lord, I am divine, I am the God, the Creator.

Worship me as you worship God. The Holy Ghost is God. Adam didn't say it. Abraham didn't say it.

Noah didn't say it. They must have known another God, the new one, the one you know. I ask

Allah to open your hearts and minds because Jesus said it in so many ways that he is not