Does the NT Teach that Jesus is God? (White vs Malik)

All right, good evening everyone. I think we're ready to get started our debate this evening. It's a great privilege to welcome you all here

We've had calls from all over the place From around the New York metropolitan area and New Long Island and upstate

New York and New Jersey So we welcome all of you who have come a long distance to be here with us tonight It's a great privilege for our church to welcome you

My name is Richard liverence, and I'm the pastor of the Bible Baptist Church, and I'm going to serve as tonight's moderator and I'm going to try to to commit myself to impartiality

I'm just here to direct the debate and to kind of govern that make sure that we stay on task My job is not to give you my thoughts about the issue at hand

But simply to direct these two wonderful gentlemen who have joined us tonight I personally affirm that Jesus Christ is the only true

God and that salvation may be secured only through his name But I will commit myself to That impartiality for the terms of this great debate before we begin tonight

I'd like to introduce to you Chris Arnzen who is the Long Island representative for WMCA radio. He has organized dr.

White speaking schedule on Long Island, and it's a great privilege to welcome him this evening Chris Good evening everybody and It's a blessing to be here tonight

And one of the main reasons that you all are blessed is I have laryngitis

And I won't be speaking very long time But I wanted to just let everyone know that James White can be heard on the radio station that I work for WMCA radio every

Thursday night On the voice of Sovereign Grace, that's every Thursday night at 10 p .m.

I Wanted to also thank Shafi who has become a friend of mine over the phone who is one of the

Muslims who helped organize this event and He pursued me for about two years to make sure that I eventually fit this debate into James White's increasingly growing schedule

And I'm glad that that has finally come to pass this year and that we have finally gotten this debate worked into the the program for James White speaking engagements on Long Island and I would like to thank all of you for coming out

Muslim Christian and I also am very pleased that some of the

Roman Catholics who attended the Protestant Catholic debate on the Roman Catholic mass some of the

Roman Catholics have attended This very event tonight as well And I'd like to thank them for being here

And I will now pass on the evening to our moderator pastor Richard liverance.

Thank you and God bless you all right Thank you Chris All Right the question before us this evening is does the

New Testament teach that Jesus Christ is God This debate is actually a very ancient debate that formally goes back to the fourth century of the church even predating the rise of Islam It was this question which gave rise to the first church council held in Nicaea Which many of you are familiar with in 325

AD it could be reasonably argued However that the debate really goes back to the very time of Christ himself

The person in nature of Jesus Christ has always been under great scrutiny in fact No other personality in world history has been so hotly debated as Christ himself

The question is of the most profound nature if in fact it can be proven that Jesus Christ is truly

God Then it is to him that all men will one day give an account if he is not God Then he may simply be considered an influential teacher a great prophet or a moral example who taught us many principles for living

Tonight two representatives from two faiths will debate the question James White representing the historic

Christian faith a faith which has fought for and maintained the deity of Jesus Christ throughout history and Hamza Abdul Malik Representing the faith of Islam a faith whose very name means submission to God and which many

Christians do not realize But it holds and honors respect for Jesus as a great prophet But denies that he could be the one true

God and denies that his deity was his message the debate tonight will focus Exclusively on the

New Testament. This is not a debate about the Quran or the Muslim faith But strictly a debate about what the

New Testament teaches Let me ask you the audience this evening to conduct yourselves as ladies and gentlemen

You will hear things that will both encourage and upset you You are to remain calm at all times and to show great respect for both presenters this evening as well as the individual

Representatives of the respective faiths in the audience this evening Before we begin though.

I want us to just take a moment of silent prayer. All right Amen In defense of the proposition this evening that the

New Testament teaches that Jesus is God is dr. James White Dr. White is the co -founder and director of Alpha and Omega ministries a

Christian apologetics organization founded in 1983 The organization exists to engage opponents of biblical theology and dialogue and debate concerning the doctrines of the historic

Christian faith he is also a scholar in residence in the College of Christian Studies at Grand Canyon University an adjunct professor at the

Golden Gate Theological Seminary in Phoenix, Arizona and professor of apologetics for Columbia Evangelical seminary and seminary in Longview, Washington He has authored over a dozen books including the

Roman Catholic Controversy letters to a Mormon elder and the King James only controversy and he was a critical consultant on the

New American Standard Bible update Dr. White it's a privilege to have you with us this evening. Thank you Opposing the proposition that the

New Testament teaches that Jesus is God is mr. Hamza Abdul Malik Mr. Malik is the president of the

Islamic Propagation Center International in Queens, New York He has devoted over 25 years to the research and compilation of information on the subject of Comparative religions with special interest in Christology and the theology of the

New Testament as regards the person of Jesus He has represented Islam in open forums in many

Jewish and Christian congregations throughout America and abroad in 1988 he attended and instructed

Dawah training classes offered by the Islamic Propagation Center International in Durban, South Africa Many of his lectures and debates are available on videocassettes

He has authored a booklet entitled the mission of Jesus to whom was he sent and mr. Malik a great privilege for us to welcome you tonight

Well, we want to get right on with the debate and let me just tell you how it's going to operate We're going to have two sections of the debate in the first half of the debate this evening each presenter will be allowed 30 minutes for opening statements followed by 10 minutes each for rebuttal and Then after that we will take an offering for both of these gentlemen

We didn't charge an entrance fee or tickets to come in but we are going to take a freewill offering and I'll explain how that'll work in just a few moments after the debate begins and Then we'll have a 10 -minute break and then we need to come back and we will have then cross examinations for an additional 40 minutes and after that we will open up and have closing statements and then open up to you the audience to have a chance to ask questions and receive answers from our presenters, so We'll begin now with dr.

White will be the first presenter. It is truly an honor to be with you all this evening

I truly hope that all of us will this evening Listen very carefully to what both sides say and will evaluate what is said in the basis of God's Word The question that brings us together this evening is really an unfair one

I think there is truly no question as to what the New Testament teaches on this subject

When one lays aside traditions prejudices and other outside influences the answer to the question is plain and unambiguous

Think for just a moment with me about just some of the titles and descriptions used of the

Lord Jesus Christ He is the Lamb of God the Son of God Alpha and Omega the beginning the end the first and the last he is the

Word of God. He is the risen Lord He is the creator of all things sustainer of all things the one for whom all things were made

He is worshipped by angels and men and in fact all creation itself He is the object of prayer and the author and finisher of our faith

He has 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 and 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 we 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

Praise to him and suffers in his name Lord God creator Savior Lamb of God risen and coming

King of Kings and Lord of Lords truly There is no question of the New Testament's teaching on the deity of Christ So why are we having a debate this evening?

There is really only one reason I Believe that Islamic apologists do not accept the testimony of the

New Testament and they claim that the New Testament does not in fact Teach this central and fundamental doctrine of the

Christian faith But in light of just the summary of the New Testament's teaching I just gave it is tremendously clear that to make the claim that they do

Islamic representatives must ignore the context of the New Testament self Skip past the plethora of passages that teach the truth.

They do not believe and most importantly I believe Allow external authorities such as the

Quran and their own beliefs to overthrow the plain testimony of Scripture Indeed, this is admitted by one

Islamic writer who honestly said quoting speaking of the New Testament quote 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 and quote that's

Dawood by the way In other words unless you assume the falsity of Christianity Ignore the context of the

New Testament and instead insert what you seek to prove You'll never find the true religion in the

New Testament But of course that's circular argumentation And I hope if my opponent follows the course plotted by this writer that he recognizes that is circular argumentation for he will have to assume his conclusion to arrive at it and Such is as much as to admit that one cannot engage this debate

Instead to carry the debate this evening. Mr. Malik will have to show not by relying on the

Quran but from the text of the New Testament that the consistent teaching found therein is that Jesus is but a mere human a creature a great prophet possibly

But not the exalted Lord who is worshipped by every created thing in Revelation chapter 5 verse 13

This will involve one of two approaches either one can attack the veracity of the New Testament documents or one can attack a straw man

Misrepresentation of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the Christian doctrine of Christ in either case.

I strongly encourage you the listener There's not a debate panel judge sitting here who's going to render some kind of decision.

You are the judges here this evening I strongly encourage you the listener to keep an eye on the ball

So to speak and hold both of us to the same standard of the debate this evening The debate thesis states the

New Testament teaches that Jesus Christ is God Some might immediately be confused and think that Christians believe

Jesus Christ to be the father We do not indeed in just a matter of hours literally

I will be debating a oneness Pentecostal scholar who believes this but such is not the belief of historic

Christianity Nor is it the testimony of the New Testament Jesus is not the father therefore all the passages that might be presented to Distinguish between the father and the son we as Christians embrace and believe for they do not in any way prove that Jesus is not

Deity for example the Apostle Paul plainly distinguished between the father and the son

Yet he said that all the fullness of deity a very strong term referring to that which makes

God God Dwells in Christ in bodily form in Colossians 2 9 Now since the

Bible is in arguably monotheistic and Christianity has always been and will always be absolutely monotheistic

Confessing that there is but one true God Then it follows that the New Testament writers such as Paul were not professing

Christ to be some second God But were in fact Trinitarians as all true Christians are here this evening

But since so many are confused is what the Trinity teaches let me briefly define the doctrine so we can understand what the

New Testament Is telling us when it speaks of one God yet three persons the Father the

Son and the Holy Spirit The scriptures teach there is but one true

God But the scriptures likewise described three divine persons as deity the

Father the Son and the Holy Spirit This is plainly seen in Jesus's instructions to the church when 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 in a force

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 in person are not the same categories of existence all of us here this evening are human beings or at least we all hope

That's the case. I haven't seen anyone sneaking in the back. That's worrying me at the moment We're all human beings we can all understand what's being said we all have the same level of existence

But 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

But as it is my job to this evening to establish the divine truth of the New Testament Conclusively presents the deity of Christ allow me to invest most of my time in that task

I believe we will all benefit greatly however by remembering this thought as We examine many texts from the

New Testament 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 of 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 that you put your faith and trust in him for eternal salvation

Can we worship a mere creation pay 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

Now I'd like to divide the passages We'll look at into a couple of different categories first of all and obviously most central to our debate this evening passages that Specifically described

Jesus Christ as God we think of Thomas when he sees the resurrected Lord in John chapter 20 verse 28

His confession of faith as the Lord Jesus Identified it was my Lord and my

God if Jesus was not truly God Thomas's Thomas's words were Inappropriate and Jesus should have rebuked him immediately

But Jesus did not rebuke him instead. He accepted his confession as a confession of faith in Titus chapter 2 verse 13 the

Apostle Paul Refers to the blessed hope the Christians have and that is the appearing of the glory of our great

God and Savior Jesus Christ He is our great God and Savior and Paul is a monotheistic

Jew He is not going to call a mere prophet or a mere man His great God and Savior and Peter used the exact same language in 2nd

Peter chapter 1 verse 1 When he spoke of receiving a faith of the same like preciousness as the other

Christians In the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ God and Savior both terms grammatically connected to the one person

Jesus Christ the Apostle Paul likewise in describing the

Lord Jesus in Romans chapter 9 verse 5 in the New King James version of the Bible says of Whom are the fathers and from whom according to the flesh

Christ came who is over all the eternally blessed God Amen here

Paul describes the Lord Jesus as the eternally blessed God In Hebrews chapter 1 the he the writer to the

Hebrews in verse 6 talks about how all the angels of God worship

Christ and then in verse 8 he refers to Christ as God here

God the Father Refers to Christ as God your throne Oh God is forever and ever and obviously if God himself refers to Christ as God I think we should as well

Even the prophet Isaiah writing 700 years before Christ was given a vision of the grandeur of Christ and there he described the coming

Messiah as the mighty God The mighty God a term that is used in the very next chapter of Isaiah of the true

God himself and Cannot be used of a mere creature

One of my favorite passages is in Paul's letter to the Colossians where in describing the

Lord Jesus He says for in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form

The Greek term they are they toss deity means that which makes

God God and it dwells in Jesus Christ the resurrected

Jesus Christ in Bodily form there could be no stronger way that the

New Testament writers could identify Jesus as God But this is just one way in which they do so in Philippians chapter 2 verses 5 through 7 we have there a presentation of Paul's theology of who

Jesus Christ was before he came to earth That is in those passages very plainly as presented to us

Jesus before the incarnation before he voluntarily makes himself of no repute and enters into human flesh

He was active He did not regard the equality that he had with God a thing to be grasped or to help be held on to But instead out of love for us he emptied himself

Obviously therefore he existed before his birth in Bethlehem, and he had equality with the

Father Revelation chapter 22 verse 13 Jesus described as the

Alpha and the Omega the first and the last the beginning in the end these are terms used to describe

God frequently in the Old Testament and They're also terms used to describe the Almighty God in Revelation chapter 1 verses 7 through 8

How could one writer? Describe Jesus as the Alpha and Omega the first and last beginning in the end while he had already described the

Almighty God that way Because for that writer Jesus Christ is the Almighty God But one of the most important things from my perspective

I think is that the New Testament plainly teaches that Jesus Christ is the creator of all things and my friends that means

That Jesus Christ is your creator You exist today because of the power and ability and divinity of the

Lord Jesus Christ every breath you take Every heartbeat that is yours is yours

Because Jesus Christ gives it to you in Colossians chapter 1 Jesus Christ is described in words where the

Apostle Paul literally exhausts the Greek language to communicate his point He says for by him were all things made whether in the heavens or the earth visible invisible all things principalities powers dominions authorities all things created by him and For him and he is before all things and in him all things hold together my friends that's the creator the creator of all things and Indeed all things consist or hold together

To the power of Jesus Christ He wrote that letter specifically because there were people who were wanting to say

Oh, Jesus is very special Jesus is very nice, but he's not truly deity and Paul corrected their misapprehensions likewise in Hebrews chapter 1

Jesus is described as the creator of all things both in verses 2 and 3 as well as in verses 10 through 12 and Plainly in John chapter 1 a passage many of you are very familiar with The fact that Jesus Christ is

God and the creator of all things is presented to us in The beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was

God The same was in the beginning with God all things were made by him and apart from him was not anything made which has been made

The fact that Jesus Christ is eternal The phrase specifically in John 1 1 says in the beginning was the word and the word was indicates eternal pre -existence

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God there was relationship between the Father and the Son and The word was

God as to his nature He is deity and that is why it can be said apart from him was not anything made which has been made

If he is but a mere creature Then obviously apart from him many things have been made but the

New Testament writers will not allow for such an understanding Indeed one of the great names of God in the

Old Testament is the I am and Jesus uses this phrase of himself in John 8 58.

It says before Abraham was I am in John 1319 he specifically cites from the

Greek Septuagint at Isaiah 43 10 Which is speaking there about Jehovah God and applies it to himself in John chapter 18 verses 5 through 6 when the soldiers come to arrest him in the garden he says who are you seeking and Jesus and they the soldiers they were seeking

Jesus and his answer is I Am and what happens the soldiers fall back upon the ground when he utters those words

Why would that have happened? It becomes very important to us to recognize that Because in John 8 24

Jesus says unless you believe that I am the Greek phrase is a go I mean unless you believe that I am you will die in your sins

Those are Jesus's words Those are Jesus's assertions and we need to remember how important they are

Jesus is also the object of worship Men should never worship anyone but God but Jesus is the object of worship in Revelation chapter 5 verses 11 through 14

Every created thing in heaven and earth and under the earth does what? Worships he who sits on the throne and the lamb.

How can Jesus? Be a created thing and worship himself Obviously that is not a possibility the

New Testament identifies Jesus as Jehovah God of the Old Testament The writer to the

Hebrews in Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 through 12 quotes from the Old Testament Look it up for yourself sometime.

He quotes specifically Psalm 102 verses 25 through 27 That passage is about how

God is the creator of all things. He's unchanging everything that he's made will pass away

But God remains the same and the writer to the Hebrews can take that passage

Which is uniquely and only about the God of the Old Testament and apply it to Jesus Christ in Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 through 12

What does that demand we understand about who Jesus is from that writer's perspective in the same way in?

John chapter 12, there's 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 he has now hidden himself and John is Commenting on the fact that even though he had done so many miracles and 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's beautiful He makes a little comment he said these things

Isaiah said because he saw his glory and he spoke about him Where did

Isaiah see Jesus his glory go back to the passage he just cited in Isaiah chapter 6

Isaiah saw Jehovah sitting upon his throne He saw his glory when you ask

Isaiah Isaiah whose glory. Did you see Isaiah said Jehovah? When you ask John whose glory that Isaiah see

John's answer is Jesus You don't make that kind of application to a mere creature

It would indeed be blasphemous Now the vast majority of errors made by those who attempt to deny

The deity of Christ are based on their failure or refusal to allow for the biblical fact that Jesus was both

God and man The eternal and divine word who became flesh John 1 14

This is seen in those who cite such passages as mark 13 32 Where the

Incarnate Son says that the knowledge of the day or the hour of his return is known to the Father in heaven alone

That is it is divine knowledge and as the Lord had not yet returned to the presence of the

Father He rightly says that is not currently within the sphere of his self limited knowledge

Remember Jesus said the disciples should have rejoiced that he was returning back to the presence of the

Father Because the Father was in a greater position in heaven than the Son was while on earth

John 14 28 as we saw the Son Voluntarily took that position wherein he laid aside the exercise of divine prerogatives which would include divine knowledge

To say it the Son is not God because he laid aside the privilege of divine knowledge Makes as much sense as saying the

Father is not God Because he does not know what is like to be a human or to eat food

The Father and the Son took different roles and bring about the redemption of God's people those differing roles

Distinguish between the Father and the Son, but they do not tell us that the

Son is any less deity than the Father The same is true when people cite passages from John chapter 5 to attempt to deny the deity of Christ for example

Jesus said in John 5 19 truly truly I say to you the Son could do nothing of himself unless it is something he sees the

Father doing Whatever the Father does these things the Son also does in like manner

Some mistakenly think this means that the one described as the creator of all things

Who has all power and authority is in fact without power at all But such misses the entire point of the passage at hand instead

Jesus is not denying his power or deity in these words, but is insisting upon the absolute and Perfect unity that exists between the

Father and the Son When he says he can do nothing of himself literally off hey out to from himself

It could just as easily be said that the Father does nothing from himself apart from the

Son It is their perfect union that forms the context found in John chapter 5 verses 17 through 18

Where the Son claims the same divine right to be active on the Sabbath day as the

Father This is the same thing as to say I and the Father are one for in both passages.

It is the perfect complete Transcendent divine unity that is in view no matter how often people miss this plain truth

Finally the exact same divine truth of the incarnation So clearly and inarguably revealed in Philippians 2 5 through 7 and John 1 14 explains the often misunderstood words of Jesus at John chapter 20 verse 17 where he speaks after his resurrection from the dead of the

Father as his God Again such words make perfect sense in the context of Scripture what else would we expect the resurrected

Christ to say is the incarnate one an atheist as A perfect man does he not have

God? Does he not worship God and as the resurrected Lord does

Jesus all of a sudden become an atheist? Jesus was resurrected from the dead hence.

He is still the God man and as such speaks of his father and His God and within only a few verses

Thomas will express the faith of all true believers when he bows an adoration and confesses the

Lord Jesus as his Lord and his God Another often made error regarding the testimony of the

Lord Jesus and his deity has to do with Jesus words in John 17 3 Here the

Lord Jesus praised the father and he calls the father the only true God and says that to have life eternal

Men must know the father and they must know the one sent by the father Jesus Christ some quickly pass over the fact that here

Jesus says that life eternal involves knowing both the father and the son and They likewise ignore the testimony to the deity of Christ plainly found in verse 5 as well

Instead they focus on Jesus's description of the father as the only true

God and mistakenly assume That this must mean that only the father is deity

This is a simple logical error that again confuses the categories of being in person

Since Jesus like all Christians today was a monotheist He believed that there was only one true being of God He worshiped that one true

God his father who was in heaven But saying that there is only one true God is not the same as saying and the father alone is true deity

Indeed, how else again would we expect the incarnate son to address the father if for a moment?

We just theorize that John 1 14 is true and the eternal word who is God became flesh.

How would the God -man speak? Would he say you father are just one of many gods

Of course not in the same way Jesus was not denying his own Participation in the divine being when he properly addressed his father here any more than he did in John 20 17

This is exactly how the incarnate one Emmanuel God with us would speak Those who make this error must be reminded that their own view must be tested by the exact same standard

That is if they wish to say Jesus is a mere creature then please explain how it is that life eternal is gained by knowing the

Almighty God and a mere creature joined on equal footing with the Creator and How is it that in just a matter of 14 words later the

Lord Jesus asks the father to glorify him together? With the father with the glory they shared together before the world was

What creature may I ask shares the glory of the Almighty before creation itself?

no creature, but The incarnate Son of God was the word at that time and was indeed glorious in the presence of the father

Another example of how some people can completely miss the context of the passage is found in the citation of Mark chapter 10

Verses 17 through 18 here We read quote as he was setting out on a journey a man ran up to him and knelt before him and asked him good teacher

What shall I do to inherit eternal life and Jesus said to him? Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone and quote

Some mistakenly think that Jesus is here denying his own deity and denying his own goodness Yet is this not the same

Jesus who said in John 8 46 who convicts me of sin? Indeed one must miss the entire thrust of the passage to think that Jesus here denies

He is good rather the import is clear the young man does not know with whom he is dealing He is not asking some human teacher, but God himself the very one who gave the commandments to which he now makes reference and Who knows this man's heart and knows that he in fact is engaged in idolatry

Where he loves his possessions more than he loves? God Remember Mark had already recorded

Jesus's claim to be able to forgive sins in Mark chapter 2 verses 5 through 7 Which is clearly a divine, right?

I Would like to leave my opening presentation with one particular passage of Scripture John chapter 1 verse 18

In the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible we read 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

I submit to you that no one can understand this passage apart from the Christian doctrine of the

Trinity Why Well, it says no one has ever seen

God and yet we have numerous examples in the Old Testament where men did What are they referring to?

Well, it is the Father who has not been seen but here in this passage God the only

Son God the Son Jesus Christ who is close to the Father's heart who is at the

Father's side He is the one who makes the Father known if we want to know who the

Father is If we want to know who he is truly then we must know him as he has been revealed by Jesus Christ but my friends a mere creature cannot provide a perfect revelation of the infinite

God and So we either have no perfect revelation of the infinite God or as the

New Testament says it is God the Son Who has made the

Father known literally the term that is used there means to exegete to make known to explain

We know the Father loves us Because there's been a perfect revelation made of him by Jesus Christ That is the

Jesus Christ of Scripture the King of Kings the Lord of Lords It would be absolutely unthinkable

For a person who believes what the Bible teaches that there is only one true God to ever say these words of a mere creature

When the angel showed John many great things in a book of Revelation John Began to bow down before the angel and the angel said don't do that worship

God alone and Yet in that same book every created thing

Bows down in worship to him who sits on the throne and to the

Lamb Jesus Christ That is the biblical

New Testament truth of who Christ is He is the eternal word made flesh, and why did he come?

Eternal word became flesh Paul tells us in Philippians chapter 2 to give his life a ransom for many

To do what we could not do to take the penalty of sin upon himself

Die in the place of God's people Take my sin So that I may have his righteousness and may stand at peace with God Having eternal life that is

New Testament message. Thank you. Thank you.

Dr. White and mr. Malik you'll now have 30 minutes to present Alhamdulillah you are bill alarming was the latter was salamu ala sayyid al -muslimin wa ala alihi wa sahbihi ajma 'in

A 'udhu billahi minash shaitanir rajim bismillahir rahmanir raheem Rabbish rahli sadri wa yusalli amri wahlu uqtatin min nisani yafqahu qali

Qala Allahu ta 'ala bil quran al kareem bismillahir rahmanir raheem

Qul huwa allahu ahad allahu samad Lam yulid wa lam yulad wa lam yukullahu kufuwan ahad

Sadaqallah wa sadaqallahul adheem Mr. Chairman to my esteemed opponent in this debate dr.

White To you the believers brothers and sisters in faith and in humanity

I greet you all with the greetings of peace with the greetings of all the prophets who submitted themselves to allahu subhanahu wa ta 'ala

Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh May the peace and the mercy and the blessings of Allah be upon you all

I'm honored to stand before you in The now of the proposition that dr.

White has thought to establish before you that is that the

New Testament teaches that Jesus is God now

I didn't hear any definition of The term God, so let me begin my talk with that definition

Definition God in the New Testament. God is from the Greek word and pardon me if I don't pronounce these terms correctly

Dr. White is the specialist in that field fails Meaning divine or divine essence.

This is the term God This is what it means and regarding the nature and the character of God in John chapter 4 verse 24

Jesus declares that God is spirit spirit and The the

New Testament definition for spirit in Greek is Numa Numa and about this word

Spirit Jesus tells us in John chapter 5 verse 37 that you have neither heard his voice at any time

Nor seen his shape meaning his form why because God is spirit. He's disembodied

He has no form or shape Paul confirms this in 1st Timothy chapter 1 verse 17 now unto the

King eternal immortal Invisible the only wise God and in 1st

Timothy chapter 6 verse 16 who only hath Immortality dwelling in light which no man can approach unto whom no man has seen nor can see

No man has seen nor can see why because God is disembodied He's not a physical person and to go a step further

God is unchangeable. So whatever he is in his nature in his essence. He does not change

He's immutable and we find this in James chapter 1 verse 17 where it says Every good work and perfect gift is from God above coming down from the father of the heavenly lights who does not change

Like shifting shadows, so God remains what he is now the question is to authenticate or to disprove the deity of Jesus is

Jesus that spirit is his spirit that Unchangeable God in Luke chapter 24 verse 37 through 39

We read there when Jesus allegedly was crucified died rose from the dead appeared to his disciples

He came into that room and he said to his disciples They were frightened and thinking that they were seeing a resurrected body, which should be a spirit

But he confesses them by saying behold my hands and my feet that it is

I myself Handle me and see for a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have

So therefore if Jesus has flesh and bones even after having rose from the dead

Which Paul said should be spirit. He still has flesh and bones. Then that doesn't qualify to be

God and Paul goes a little step further with that by saying in 1st

Corinthians chapter 15 verse 50 that flesh and blood Cannot enter the kingdom of heaven cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

So therefore Jesus now had To have remained forever entombed in that flesh body unless we will find out later on in this discussion

How he rid himself of it Now, well, Jesus was not a spirit.

So was Jesus a man and by man I'm saying and wanting to certify that Jesus was not perfect man and perfect God dual nature but only man only man perfect man only man mortal fallible human being and In John chapter 8 verse 40.

We have this unique verse there from the mouth of Jesus where he uses this term

The only time for himself in the whole of the New Testament he says there John chapter 8 verse 40, but now you seek to kill me a

Man that has told you the truth, which I heard from God the Greek word used there is anthropos

Anthropos where you get the term anthropology the study of man that term means mortal human being

Fallible mortal human being and it distinguishes man from deity from divine on The one hand and it distinguishes man from animal on the other hand and that's forever and evermore

So whoever has that term? Anthropos can never ever be

God Now Peter used this Term for himself in Acts chapter 10 verse 25 and 26 and as Peter was coming in Cornelius met him

Fell down to his feet to worship him, but Peter took him up saying stand up. I myself am also

Anthropos, I am also a man. I have no dual nature

I'm not perfect man and perfect God. So whatever Peter was Jesus was the same thing

Here clearly from the mouth of Jesus. He rejects any idea of his deity

Also, we see that Peter used the same word again that Jesus peace be upon him used for himself

When he allegedly denied Jesus in Matthew chapter 26 verse 72 when he was asked concerning Jesus whether he knew this individual not and Again, Peter denied with an oath and said

I do not know the man Using the same word that Jesus used for himself unique in the

New Testament Only time he used that word for himself Anthropos, he says

I do not know the Anthropos that same man that mortal human being who cannot be

Divine because of that word and cannot be animal because of that word you and I everyone in here is that word we cannot escape that nature

So therefore Jesus is a man is God a man in Numbers chapter 23 verse 19

God is not a man that he should lie. Neither the Son of Man that he should repent in Hosea chapter 11 verse 9

I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger. I will not return to destroy Ephraim for I am

God and Not man God is not a man and man is not

God Mark chapter 12 verse 29 through 23 something unique in the

Old and New Testament something known as the Shema Shema which the house of Judaism is built on is the fundamental bedrock of their belief of their faith and Jesus adopted this as his own foundation for his belief

There someone came to Jesus heard him reasoning in the marketplace perhaps and asked the master

What is the greatest commandment of all what is the greatest commandment if that? That would suffice

Jesus there not thinking of something new and novel for himself to quote but quoted the

Shema from Deuteronomy chapter 6 verse 4 Shema Yisrael and don't I know he know and do not it hot here or Israel the

Lord our God the Lord is one now again like Anthropos this term

Shema or this this concept of Shema and this term used there at HUD means that it

Negates any idea of Trinity now, just pardon me for a second. I have a piece of Jewish literature and It goes to speak about the

Shema It says that the Shema after talking about what it affirms what it negates the

Shema negates belief in the Trinity in the same way that Shema excludes the Trinity of the

Christian creed as a violation of the unity of God Trinitarian Trinitarianism has at any at many times been indistinct indistinguishable from tritheism meaning the belief of three gods it says

Judaism Judaism recognizes no intermediary between God and man and declares that prayer should be dedicated to God alone so this

Trinity is Indistinguishable from Tritheism is borderline on tritheism and we can see why that is because if you believe that God is one yet He has three persons.

Well in the Bible It says that during the time that Jesus was being baptized that there was a voice coming from heaven

So we just assume that that's God in heaven perfect God He's perfect God in heaven yet in between heaven and earth the

Holy Ghost according to Luke is Descending in bodily shape that means the Holy Ghost is incarnate in bodily shape and Jesus now as Dr.

White said according to Colossians is the fullness of Godhead bodily. So he's incarnated also so we have two incarnations of God in bodily shape right now at that time

Visible and God himself in in heaven speaking So therefore that's three separate and distinct gods in three separate and distinct places at the same time

That is tritheism. So this is why that concept of Trinity is very dangerous Very dangerous concept and so that Jesus when he quoted that Shema He negated that whole idea of Trinity a word that's never used in the

Bible something that Jesus himself never taught now

John chapter 17 verse 3 and Dr. White mentioned this a few seconds ago and we said that Jesus Recognized God and that that God he recognized was known to him as Abba Abba that was his language

Aramaic and he used that term for God Abba and There in John chapter 17 verse 3

Jesus is about to depart from this is his disciples now and he leaves them He says this is life eternal.

What is life eternal knowledge of thee? thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou the only true

God has sent and His Bible says that he who is sent is not greater than he who sent him and we know that once sent by God in Biblical language is a messenger of God a messenger of God So life eternal is knowledge of the only true

God God is the Spirit He should be worshiped in knowledge and in truth in spirit and in truth The only true

God so if Jesus is a God then he must be a false God because he said that God Abba the

Father is the only true God and Jesus Christ who now have sinned he speaks of himself in the third person

Now in John chapter 20 verse 17 Again, dr. White mentioned this passion

There Jesus is now just rose from the dead and is somewhere near that Area and Mary Magdalene comes to him and he tells her touch me not far

I'm not yet ascended to my father, but I have something for you to do Go and say unto my brother go my brother and go and tell them what

Jesus said it to her. I Tell them I ascend to my father and your father my father and your father is the same

We all have one father to my God and your God Jesus has a

God if he himself on earth is God and he's praying to another God That God the

Father we can't help but Acknowledge that as two gods, especially when you say he accepted worship himself

Someone came to him and worshiped him and he himself is worshiping God. That's dualism.

That's two gods We would never never be taught by Jesus Now in Mark chapter 14 verses 36 and 15 34

Jesus said Abba Father all things are possible unto thee take away this cup for me

Nevertheless not as I will but thou will so Jesus is praying and we know that if a person has a

God that person prays to that God is so this is that God for help and in March up to 15 where Jesus said in verse 36 and 14

Abba We know that Abba also means God. So when Jesus is calling God father

He's also calling him at the same time God and we can see that because just a moment ago.

He prayed Abba Father all things so possible take this cup away from me Then he prays again when he's on the cross

He says and at the ninth hour hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying Eloy Eloy And I hope

I'm pronouncing that right Lama Shabbat for me. That is my God my God. Why has thou forsaken me?

So he just prayed to Abba take this cup and now he's saying God. Why have you forsaken me?

So Abba God it's interchangeable. It's the same. So wherever Jesus speaks about father. He's talking about God Now how could

Jesus be God himself and pray and not have his own praise Accepted now in Mark chapter 10 verse 17 through 18 again another passage that And I'm saying that these passages what

I'm giving you Exclude any possibility of Jesus being divine. They're very basic fundamental passages

They don't need interpretation and they exclude the divinity of Jesus He was a

Jewish person knowing the law of Moses and Moses never taught anything about you met humans being

God and Jesus followed that Mindset even quoting the Shema Now mark chapter 10 verses 17 through 18.

We know that God is a being that is eternally good Completely good. He's eternal and completely good yet Jesus said when someone came to him and asked him kneeling to him in a position that shows

A Excessive reverence good master. What must I do to have eternal life?

What must I do not what must I believe and Jesus said before he answered the question He seemed that there was a big mistake here in body language in approach

So the gentleman asked him good master. What must I do to have eternal life? Jesus says why call it down me good

Why are you calling me good in that perfect sense of goodness that should be only attributable to God?

There is none good but one and that is God now He proceeded to answer the man's question by referring him to the law that Moses brought that salvation was in keeping the law of Moses and in Matthew chapter 7 verse 21

Here again, Jesus distinguishes himself from God He says there not everyone that says to me

Lord Lord and the New American Bible goes a step further by saying none of them None of them that say unto me

Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven But he that does the will of my father which is in heaven

Not saying to me Lord Lord will get you into heaven No one but doing the will of God who is in heaven.

That's the one. This is very plain and simple language here And to show you that my father and my

God is the same in Matthew chapter 15 verse 12 verse 50 Matthew chapter 12 verse 50

Jesus says for whoever Whosoever shall do the will of my father which is in heaven the same as my brother and my sister and then again in Mark Chapter 3 verse 35 using that same passage quoting it differently

He says for whosoever shall do the will of God the same as my brother and sister so doing the will of my father

Doing the will of God that's all interchangeable. It's the same term now

The God of the God that the followers of Jesus the early disciples and apostles of Jesus that they believed in was known as the

God of Abraham the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob in Acts chapter 3 verses 13 7 and 32 the

God of Israel and The God of Jesus Christ also blessed be the God 2nd

Corinthians 1 3 Paul says blessed be the God Even the father of our

Lord Jesus Christ the father of mercies and the God of all comfort So the

God of that the Christians followed that the early disciples of Jesus followed They that God was known as the

God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob the God of Israel the God of Jesus It was all he was the

God of all of them And so Paul confirms that blessed be the God even the father of our

Lord Jesus Christ The father of mercies and the God of comfort now Paul again

Separates and shows the Distinction between Authority in terms of God and his creation in his creatures in 1st

Corinthians 11 verse 3 Paul makes this very clear he says But I would have you know that the head of man is

Christ and The head of the woman is the man and The head of Christ is

God It's very very simple what Paul is saying now if he happens to have said something somewhere else

Then this is a problem you see because I'm quoting the New Testament And I'm quoting to prove that Jesus is

God from the New Testament if these words were from somewhere else You said well, that's contradicting the

New Testament Well, this is in a testament scripture here, so if it's contradicting well, then it's the problem within the book

But I'm saying that these verses are very simple and clear The head of the man is

Christ and the head of the woman is the man and the head of Christ is God God Christ man and woman and then

Paul shows that there's a real Subordination of Jesus to God to the father

He says there in 1st Corinthians chapter 15 verse 28 and when all things are when all things shall be subdued unto him meaning

God Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things unto him that God May be all in all in the final end

God wants to exist by himself Not Jesus somewhere in heaven sitting on the right hand of God Sitting on the right hand of God you have two individuals there in heaven in heaven

God and someone sitting on the right hand no God wants to be all in all by himself

And about this business of every knee shall bow Well in Exodus chapter 20 verses 3 to 5 you have the commandment there that God That thou shall not make any graven image to God or any likeness or anything

And then it says in verse 5 of Exodus chapter 20 thou shall not bow thy knee

Bow down thyself to them nor serve them for I the Lord am a jealous God Don't bow down and worship anybody other than God and this is found also in Isaiah chapter 45 verses 22 through 23 look unto me and be you saved all the ends of the earth for I am

God and there's none else I have sworn by Myself that the word is going forth out of my mouth in righteousness, and I shall not return

That unto me every knee shall bow and every tongue shall

Confess shall swear now we have a problem here because in Philippians chapter 2 verse 10

It says there that at the name of Jesus Christ every knee shall bow and everything This is in the heaven and the earth and everything that's under the earth

So we have to question Paul well look Paul. What about this business here now? it says here that every knee shall bow to God and you're saying here to the

Philippians that at the Name of Jesus every knee shall bow so Paul assures.

This is look don't get upset That was just something for them because in Ephesians chapter 3 verse 14

Paul says I bow my knees unto the father Of our Lord Jesus Christ, that's what

I'm bowing my knees to now. I just fool around with those Philippians Peter Peters first sermon now after Jesus allegedly died and rose from the dead during that incident when

Peter when Jesus asked Peter who do men say that I am he Said some said I'll Elijah John the

Baptist, but who do you say? I am he says thou art the Christ Son of the Living God so Peter should know that he's seen the miracles and the wonders

And the signs yet when Peter gives his first Sermon after Jesus now has ascended look what he says to those

Jews. He says ye men of Israel hear these words Jesus Christ of Nazareth a man approved of God by Miracles and wonders and signs which

God did by him in the midst of you as you yourselves already know I'm just reminding you the miracles and the wonders and the sign

He's a man approved of God a man appointed by God a messenger of God. This is who Peter knew him to be

He didn't say you know that he was the he was God. That was God.

He was the Son of God He was a divinity. He was a man approved of God and the miracles and the wonders and signs

God did them by him in the midst of you as you yourselves also know and And in Acts chapter 10 verse 38

God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power who went about doing good and healing all

That were oppressed of the devil for God was with him now look at that You have three persons of the

Trinity mentioned right here God Anointed Jesus of Nazareth with power and with the

Holy Ghost God anoints Jesus with the Holy Ghost these three are not one and Then he went about doing good for God was with him that implies to just like we have in Genesis chapter 21 verses 17 and 20 concerning Ishmael God heard the voice of the lad and God was with the lad

So if God was with Ishmael and God was with Jesus if God being with Jesus makes him divine

Then God being with Ishmael would also make him divine and we're not going to accept that Now concerning this son of God son of God and and John chapter 10 verse 30

It says I'm a father one. So that context of that story there that Scripture there

Thoughts where Jesus had walked in Solomon's porch and then came with the Jews around about him

They asked him if I'll be the Christ tell us plainly and Jesus said look I told you but you didn't believe me So the works that I do them they bear witness in my father's name

They bear witness of me then he goes on to tell him that my father has given me certain people to control them to be careful of them and No one can pluck them out of my hand and my father who gave them to me

He's greater than all nobody can pluck them out of my father's hand I in that sense in that context

I my father one but the Jews Misunderstanding that pick up stones to thrown him and so to stone him

So Jesus says there for good work if I stone you for but what are you stuck up for good work?

I have if I shown you good words, why are you stoning me? And they're saying well look when I stone you for any good works, but because I'll be in a man

Blaspheming saying that your God and Jesus now has to explain what he means. He says

Oh, look, isn't it written in your law? I say your God Psalms 82 6 You know this terminology you for me with this.

Why are you getting so upset? Isn't it written your law? I say your gods and all of your sons are the most high if he called them

God's to whom the Word of God came the Scripture cannot be broken say of him whom the father sanctified and sent into the earth

I blaspheme because I said I am the Son of God you're familiar with this kind of language. Come on guys Not fooling around now

Pre -existence. Well, if you ask the average Christian person says, excuse me Do you know where in the

Bible the first mention of the nativity of Jesus is? Many can't say they will go to the

Gospel of Matthew the Gospel of Luke But no, you'll have to go to Galatians 4 for Romans 1 3 and look what

Paul says Because Paul never taught anything concerning virgin birth of Jesus. So therefore he never knew anything about pre -existence

He says in Galatians 4 for but when the fullness of time come God sent forth his son made of a woman made under the law and In Romans chapter 1 verse 3

Concerning that his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed spermato sperm Where you get sperm from the seed of David according to the flesh

How did he get to be the Son of God? He said he was declared to be the Son of God with power By the Spirit of holiness by a resurrection from the dead once he rose from the dead

He was declared to be the Son of God. This is almost like what they call adoptionism

He was adopted the Son of God he was born of the seed of David according to the flesh and Declared to be the

Son of God after resurrection from the dead Now this business about Lord Jesus is

Lord Well in Luke chapter 2 verse 22 It says when the days of our purification meaning

Mary was accomplished according to the law of Moses They Mary and Joseph brought him

Jesus to Jerusalem to do what to present him to the Lord They're bringing Jesus to Jerusalem to Jerusalem to present him to the

Lord who you suppose that they're presenting him to and It says that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature in favor with God and man

Luke chapter 2 verse 52 And then Luke and Jesus says in Luke chapter 10 verse 21.

I that have I I think I I Rejoice in spirit and said

I thank the old father Jesus's words. I thank the old father Lord of the heavens and the earth

Jesus is calling his father the Lord of the heavens and the earth and everyone even in pagan

Societies knew that the great God the one true God was always the

God of the heavens and the earth Every other God has some special concern

Maybe the God of the mountains the God of the water the trees But the God of the heavens and the earth was always the

God even for pagan Believers Jesus says I thank the old father Lord of the heavens and the earth now

Jesus said something to the Jews and John chapter 5 verse 45 He says do not think that I will accuse you to the father.

There's one that accuses you even Moses and He says for you have believed Moses for had you believed

Moses you would have believed me before because Moses wrote of me But if you believe not my writings, how shall you believe my words?

So now what Jesus is saying that Moses wrote concerning him now the most definitive place that you can see any statement that might be construed as referring to Jesus in the writings of Moses is

Deuteronomy chapter 12 chapter 18 verse 15 and verse 18 where Moses is telling the

Jews there that God will raise up a prophet from among your brother and like you and put his words in your mouth

Put his words in his mouth God says I will raise up them a prophet from among their brother and like unto you like Moses and put my words in his

Mouth and he shall speak unto them all that he command this person was to be a mortal human being He was supposed to be a prophet like Moses not a god not a god incarnate and he was supposed to have

Ancestors he's supposed to descend from ancestors not pre -existence and the words that he spoke was to be revelation from God so and John chapter 1 verse 45

It says that Philip finest Nathaniel and said unto him we have found him whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write

Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph We found that guy that you were talking about that Moses was talking about who

Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph We didn't find the son of God. We didn't find God incarnate.

We didn't find God We found who Moses wrote about who Jesus of Nazareth not

Bethlehem of the son of Joseph and in John chapter 6 verse 14 after the miracles of the barley loaves and so forth those men

When they had seen the miracles that Jesus said did say said I mean that he did they said of truth

This is the prophet which should have come into the world. And that's the one that Moses wrote about Thank You.

Mr. Malik My time is up. I Thank you for your hearing All right, dr.

White will now have 10 minutes for rebuttal Mr. Malik has proven that Jesus is not the father

However, we already agreed on that But he has done as that would said he has assumed

Unitarianism he has assumed the conclusion of the debate before the debate itself is concluded

That is a circular argument. He says God is spirit And of course we do believe

John for 24 God is spirit But that same writer had said in John 114 that the eternal word who existed

Eternally as a person who was a creator of all things became flesh now many of the passages that were presented and I know there are many far too many to even begin to look at all of them

John 537 he quoted that particular passage and said this passage refers to God look at John 537 refers to the

Father who sent the Son in 1st Timothy 6 16. It talks about No one has seen this unapproachable light

It doesn't say they haven't seen the person but the unapproachable light that that passage may actually be about the

Lord Jesus Christ. In fact All of this debate will turn upon the teaching of Scripture Where we have to allow the

New Testament as a whole to speak John 114

I guess needs to become the key passage and the word became flesh

The Logos the word who is God John 1 1 who is the creator

John 1 3? Became flesh as Jesus of Nazareth You have to assume that that's beyond God's capacity.

You have to assume that's beyond God's ability Of course numbers 23 19 says

God is not a man The gospel is not that men can become gods, but the God became a man in Jesus Christ It was a unique event that took place there in Bethlehem And if you want the first reference in Nativity, actually, it's in Isaiah if you really want to go back that far

We are told in 1st Corinthians 15 50 that's flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God So Jesus must be entrapped in that body, but read 1st

Corinthians chapter 15 Paul isn't saying what was alleged He is comparing the corruptible body before Salvation with the incorruptible body that Incorruptible body the

Lord Jesus was raised with and that his followers will be raised with that is the contrast that he is making there

In John chapter 8 verse 40. It was point out that anthropos is used of Jesus Yes, it most certainly is he is the

God man The word became sarks flesh and dwelt among us the

Apostle John was very concerned about an early heresy in the church Called Gnosticism, especially as it was seen in what's called

Gnosticism where there were people going around saying that Jesus because they were dualist

They believe anything flesh is bad and anything spirit is good They went around saying Jesus had not truly become flesh, but he was not truly a man in fact

They'd tell stories of Jesus walking along the seashore with the disciples and the disciple turns around and look at that Jesus doesn't leave footprints in the sand because he only

Seemed to be there the Greek term that kind means it seems and so they were called docetus and The Apostle John was extremely concerned about this

That's why he says in his gospel the word became sarks flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld him and first John he talks about what our hands have touched and he identifies as the

Antichrist in 1st John those that deny that Jesus has come in the flesh And so there is no dispute over that issue in any way shape or form he was the

God man But we haven't heard a single reference to any one of the passages that I presented

Or the term God that us is used of Jesus Not a single reference

We heard the Shema Shema Yisrael Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh Here Israel Yahweh is our

God Yahweh is one and that somehow negates the doctrine of the Trinity But I remind you that the

New Testament writers Constantly took passages that were about Yahweh in the Old Testament and applied them to Jesus in a unique way in the new when you take a passage it is about Yahweh as the creator of all things who does not change and sustains all things by his own power and apply it to Jesus Christ in Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 through 12 and Yet you are a monotheist

There is only one possible result of that kind of action and that is the communication that Jesus Christ was truly

God in human flesh The term echad used in the

Shema does not negate the Trinity in fact in numbers 1323 that term is used in a compound sense

It does not deny the concept that a plurality of persons can exist in the

Godhead Remember the the error that I warned you about one being shared by three persons

I can show you all sorts of references from the Bible. I deal with the Mormons all the time They are polytheists all sorts of references from the

Bible. It says there's one being that is God but at the same time I can show you all sorts of references in the

Bible Old and New Testament that identify the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit by that one name of God one being three persons

In Matthew chapter 3 verses 16 through 17 My opponent said we assume that it is God that is in heaven and therefore there's some sort of Differentiation between the

Son and the Spirit actually read the passage the voice from heaven says this is my beloved Son in whom I am well

Pleased that's the Father speaking from heaven The Son is on earth and the Spirit descends as a dove three persons

But not more than one God we have to allow all the New Testament to be believed not just certain

Portions of the New Testament to be believed The vast majority of the presentation just given was based upon category errors

Confusing through the assumption of Unitarianism God the Father with the term God I Really hope and I during the question answer period we will definitely have the opportunity of doing so I hope that we will interact

With the passages that I cited where New Testament writers say Jesus is my

Lord and my God We did hear one somewhat of an explanation in Philippians chapter 2

There we have the Apostle Paul quoting Isaiah 45 22 through 23 this passage however

Most scholars agree is an ancient fragment of a hymn of the church this was it came from the ancient hymn book of the

First Baptist Church of Jerusalem possibly and Here in this poetic section

Not only is the pre -existence of Christ asserted Not only is his equality with the

Father asserted But at the end a passage specifically about Jehovah God is cited and applied to Jesus so the confession

Jesus Christ is Lord of Philippians chapter 2 becomes the fulfillment of the monotheism of Isaiah 45 22 through 23 now my friends

God struck Aaron's sons dead for playing with his worship he struck

Uzzah dead for reaching out and touching the ark and The Apostle Paul would never say to anyone

I was just playing around with them When a monotheistic

Jew cites a passage about the true God and applies it to the Lord Jesus Christ my friends Let me tell you something he means it

He wasn't deceiving anyone He wasn't just fooling around with those Philippians besides that if the text didn't come actually from Paul But from the early church as a whole it was a hymn that all

Christians would have known No fooling around None whatsoever

We heard that Paul knew nothing about pre -existence yet. We heard no discussion of Colossians 1 15 through 17

Where it is the Son? Who creates all things if that's not pre -existence?

I don't know what the term mean We heard nothing of Philippians 2 5 through 7 again clear pre -existence in the writings of the

Apostle Paul Keep your eye on the ball

Does the New Testament teach the deity of Christ? not can you by ignoring entire sections of the

New Testament including the use of they ask God of The description of the

Creator as Jesus Christ Not by ignoring sections in New Testament Can you come up with a passage here in a passage there and string them together and deny the deity of Christ?

That's not the debate Does the New Testament teach the deity of Christ and when you take this

God breathed document? That the Holy Spirit has given to us and ask the question

Does this document present to us in the words of my opponents a mortal fallible human being who is

Jesus Or does it present to us the King of Kings the Lord of Lords the creator of all things the beginning in the end the first?

And the last he who created all things by his power and sustains them who became flesh

To die as the sacrifice for our sins That is the doctrine the teaching of the

New Testament, thank you All right, mr.

Malik will have ten minutes Again we'll have to Keep in mind also that the term

Anthropos will determine the outcome of this discussion tonight Anthropos the term

Jesus out of his own mouth Clearly used for himself and the

Greek term and we're gonna have to ask dr White to define that term for us and to tell me if what

I'm saying is correct Or is it wrong that anthropos? rejects any idea of that individual that entity that is anthropos being deity and Rejects any idea of that entity that individual being animal when someone is anthropos

They cannot under no means be considered deity no means whatsoever and under no means be

Categorized as animal Jesus says now you seek to kill me a man

Anthropos that have told you the truth, which I heard from God fails Theology from fails

Anthropology from anthropos two separate branches of study never fell between me

So that will determine the outcome regardless of anything that we say other than that tonight if that is left standing

Then this proposition has been Denied that he sought to establish now

He spoke about I am the I am passages and we're going to maybe discuss this when we sit

And he quoted one I am passage when Jesus Was being arrested the betrayal of Jesus and when the soldiers came to arrest

Jesus Jesus volunteered according to John he volunteered he saw them coming and it's almost like he said

To his disciples just take it easy. The police are coming. The police are coming just relax I'll handle it and so he steps forward to meet them and He asked them.

Who are you seeking? Who are you looking for? And they said Jesus of Nazareth and he said

I am he so They all went backwards and fell to the ground

So the writer and the theologians who interpret those that scripture there

Want to have you understand that Jesus and is invoking the I am from Exodus 314

I Am I am Cynthia and so that therefore when they heard that term

They thought that they were hearing somebody declaring themselves to be God however You'll never hear anything in that Scripture John about the

Judas kiss the kiss of Judas why because it's never there because that writer

Contradicts the other three Gospels Matthew and Mark tell you that Judas betrayed

Jesus with a kiss. He didn't volunteer He came up. He told the people said look How much you gonna pay me for this?

They said well, we give you 30 pieces. So he says, okay, that's enough He says well look I'll tell you what I'll do Whoever I kiss when

I get to the place where he's at You'll know that that's him you arrest him when you get there So when they come to the garden where Jesus is

Judas steps up forward comes to Jesus and says hail master and Kisses him and then they come and lock

Jesus up He never start a step forward and he never said who are you looking for?

He never said I am and that was a betrayal by kiss. They locked him up and took him away

So John the writer of John in order to substantiate that I am passage Contradicts now, dr.

White can tell me if I'm wrong When he comes back when we sit to talk Contradicts Matthew contradicts mark and almost contradicts

Luke. The only difference is that when Jesus stepped forward to to kiss

Jesus Jesus peeped his whole card as if to say well son of man

I mean Judas rather betrayeth the son of man with a kiss. Wait a minute. What you ready to do? Come on, man, you're getting ready to kiss me to betray me.

Don't do that So he stopped him but the kiss is never there so that's a contradictory passage now if you're going to base your belief on a passage that has contradicted of the writers in the

New Testament and support a doctrine of God on that well, then that's flimsy ground to stand on and the same ground is going to be under under the

Thomas declaration in God and John when John's Gospel where it says that when

Jesus rose from the dead he came among the disciples and they saw him yet Thomas wasn't there

Thomas wasn't there. So they had told Thomas said look we've seen the Lord He's risen and Thomas said look

I don't believe that and they said well look we saw him and if you come back later on he'll probably come back

So about eight nine days later Jesus comes back and Thomas is there and when Thomas's sees him

He declares my Lord and my God yet that contradicts The gospel of Mark Matthew and Luke who say in agreement that Thomas was there when

Jesus came the first time They said when Jesus came in that upper room all eleven was there and not only that Luke's gospel in Luke chapter 24 and he can correct me if I'm wrong

Says that Jesus rose from the dead on that Easter Sunday and within that same 24 hours ascended to heaven

Ascended to heaven no coming back eight days later now. I see some people may be shaking their heads, but now dr

White will tell me if I'm wrong and you have your Bibles right there that Jesus rose and ascended within that 24 hour time

Flat gone not coming back eight days later and all of the eleven Disciples were there.

No one had to come back to tell Thomas anything So now if you're making Jesus divine to say that he accepted worship based on that contradictory

Verse and you're going to build your hope and your belief on that again. That's standing on shaky ground

Now the same thing happens with Matthew chapter 28 verse 19 Where it says that go ye in all the world and baptize in the name of the

Father the Son and the Holy Spirit If I asked dr. White, excuse me, sir, where was Jesus when he gave that command?

He'd have to say he was in Galilee He had rose and told his disciples meet me in Galilee But according to Luke Jesus never went to Galilee at all when he rose from the dead

He never went there at all. So he was never there to give that command So I have to ask which writer is right?

It's not a different of perception. It's not a different view of the same thing It's different and contradictory

Views so one is right and one is wrong or they're both wrong. You can take your pick And in Philippians chapter 2 where it says there that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal with God But emptied himself.

I'd have to ask. Well, what did he empty himself up? If I was told well, he emptied himself of his divine attribute meaning

He was God in pre -existence and he wanted to come to earth and doctrine of incarnation

So he decided like, you know, if you're rich and you want to be poor so you empty your bank account So don't see how it is to live on the street.

So you empty your wealth out and I don't like it too good I want to be back rich. Well, how am I gonna get my money back?

So if Jesus emptied himself of his divine attributes and he have none now and he came to earth as a man

How does he get back to being God? How does he get those attributes back?

now about this business about Jesus praying and John chapter 17 verse 5. Oh my father glorify me with the glory with which

I have would be before the world began there's nothing to certify that that prayer was answered and You can't just assume that it was answered because Jesus prayed not to die

He said oh my father if we possible take this cup away from me. I don't want to die I didn't come to die for anybody's sin

Take it away from me. Nevertheless. Not as I will your will be done, but my will if you ask me

I don't want it So that prayer didn't get answered according to you

Christianity Christendom that prayer didn't get answered. So what would make you think that the other prayer glorify me with your own self because after The alleged resurrection

Jesus was walking around in the same flesh and blood blood body that he had before With the same wounds in it and so forth eating and needing food to maintain himself

So he was the same person so Luke there Certifies what is known as the

Resurrection of the resuscitation theory that Jesus was not resurrected only Resuscitated because he was the same person and he never nowhere that the

Bible say how he read himself of that body So emptied himself we'd have to question what that was about and how he got it got those attributes back those qualities back

Now I want dr. White Sometime during the course of this evening if possible to tell us the term used for God man

There's a term that should be used to imply that Jesus is both man and God at the same time

Because I've shown you a term used to deny that that Jesus himself used anthropos

He rejects that I need to see the term now that he has that says he's both God man

Not the idea that's unique to John that he was in the beginning with the Lord and where it was with God and the word

Became flesh at my time Thank you. Thank you mr. Allen All right, we've come to the end of the first part of the debate we still have a second half

Which will be very interesting we want you to stick around for right now We want you to sit tight because as I said earlier

We're going to take an offering and I don't know if all of you do this type of thing before but we do this as Baptist And so this is the way we're going to do we're following an scriptural principle, which is freely you have received freely give and We will not receive in our church any of the funds that are collected tonight

I want to call the ushers forward if they come forward at this time We will not receive any of the funds for our church

We freely and willingly give our facilities be used tonight all the monies that will be collected tonight will be divided in half and given to both of the speakers

Equally now let me just give you a little motivation here That'd be fine

Let me give you a little motivation here, and just how we do this We're just going to play a little music for you And we want you to get out your wallets and just as the plates come by that just to drop it in there and give

According to what you feel about these two men and let me give you a little hint They're both of eternal value so give generously to this

So if we could have the ushers to come on forward and Lou if you'll play us a little tune We'll just do this for the next five minutes, and then we're going to give you a ten minute break all right

Lou could you run down have Chris come up and everybody else okay?

While we're waiting let me just make a couple of Mention of a couple of things before we get started back into the second part of the debate then

Some of you have asked about audio tapes. We are making audio tapes which will be available hopefully after the end of the

After the end of the debate and you can pick them up at that desk That's right outside the sanctuary here right out to the right as you exit the sanctuary and someone will be down there to help you with that I Think it's going to be to cover the cost five dollars for the two tapes

It looks like it's going to be fit on two tapes We may not have enough if there's a real run on tapes We may not have enough looking leave us your address and name we can get those out to you

I Also wanted to make mention of the fellows who are here doing the video production they are from frameworks under direction of Najashi Muhammad, and they are making a videotape of the debate and We welcome them as well.

It's great to have them here with us tonight one other Thing I want to mention to you is

That you call earlier at very early our debates as some of the members of our audience some of the Muslim members of our audience

Got up and went out to pray they were not staging a protest and they wanted to make sure that everybody understood who didn't understand that they have a scheduled time of prayer and And they had gone out to pray at that time and they came back right after that so we just wanted to make sure that Everybody in the audience was clear about that That they have a very structured time of prayer, and they were keeping to that All right

Chris why don't you come on up and give us? Another announcement then we're gonna get started again. I just wanted to let you know that some of you may not know

This is not the final debate in James White's Speaking schedule and this

Saturday May 15th at the Medford Avenue elementary school

In patchogue the Grace Gospel Church of patchogue is hosting at the Medford Avenue elementary school debate between James White and a oneness

Pentecostal by the name of Robert Sabin on the theme of does the

New Testament teach the Trinity and That will be Saturday May 15th And if you'd like to write down the phone number of Grace Gospel Church in patchogue where this debate is five one six

Two eight nine five four nine five That's five one six two eight nine five four nine five

It'll probably be at the end of the event tonight making that announcement once again

We hope to see you at that debate as well Saturday May 15th. Thank you All right.

Thank you Chris. Let me just go over with you how the second half of this debate will run We're going to have two cross examinations

Mr. Malik will cross -examine. Dr. White for ten minutes and then dr. White will have his response and then once again, we will have another cross -examination for ten minutes each

Follow that there will be closing statements of seven minutes each and then after the closing statements by each of each of our debaters this evening

We're going to open it up for questions from the audience and I want to just go over a little a few guidelines for that because it can oftentimes

Get a little unruly if you guys are not don't cooperate So I want to just go over a couple of guidelines first of all

You are not in debate with these guys. They are in debate with each other So we don't want you to preach or enter into debate with the speakers

You're here to ask a question We want you to ask only one question if there are a number of questions at the end We want to be sure we can get through everybody's question for either.

Mr. Malik or dr. White and so we want you just to stick your limit your question to one You must would like to encourage you to write out your question because if you write it out

It's more clear and more direct and pointed and you can get through it quickly and your written question may take only about 30 seconds

To recite we want to go through them quickly and finally your written question must end with a question mark So that it is a real question and that you address it to one of the two

Speakers here this evening. All right, so we're going to enter now into the second part of the debate and we will begin with mr

Malik who will cross -examine dr. White for ten minutes And the gentleman can remain at their tables for this

Yes, sir, dr. White I'd like for you to address the

First that I referred to in John chapter 8 verse 40 and the

Greek term used there Anthropos and Tell me if I was correct or wrong in Stating that that word used of an individual by an individual

Negates that Individual being divine on the one side and being animal on the other.

Am I correct? Am I wrong in that you were incorrect, sir? The term Anthropos means that Jesus Christ was truly a man

The assumption you then make from that is that if he's truly man He cannot be God and that of course is what this debate is about Jesus Christ was truly

Anthropos. In fact, John 114 says he was sarks, which is a stronger term meaning flesh and The scriptures specifically say

God is spirit The issue of the debate this evening is does God have the capacity and does the

New Testament teach? That he who is spirit can become flesh in the person of Jesus Christ as John 114 teach

Well, I have here before me a new test a photocopy of a of this word

Anthropos From the New Testament Greek English Dictionary if you care to look at it where it states right there

Anthropos distinguishes man from animals on the one hand and from God divine on the other

This is what that term does Anthropos This is and does that say that the word itself means that God cannot become man

It says that this person that man cannot be God once this person is that did that say that could you read where it says?

Man cannot be God where man It says that anyone like you and I who are

Anthropos this word applies to you and I that this word Anthropos distinguishes us separates us from divinity on one hand and God I mean animal on the other and so it has nothing to do with theos

Becoming less product, but it has something to do with Anthropos becoming they are

Well, I'm sure what you're asking sir Then there is nothing in the lexical form of the word Anthropos that means that God cannot become a man

Yes, it does distinguish that which is created and that which is uncreated the physical body of Jesus has not eternally been

God sir He became flesh in fact If you're familiar with the verb forms that John uses in John 1 1 through 14 in verses 1 through 13

He uses the imperfect form of I mean for the for the log off which does not refer to a point of origin in time

For everything else. He uses the heiress of Ginnomai again at all, which does refer to a point of origin in time at John 1 14

He switches and says the log off again at all sarks became flesh

There was a point in time when the log off entered into flesh. He had not eternally been flesh so there is nothing about the distinction between God and man and The words that are used there that in any way shape or form negates the fact that that very same

John who wrote John 840 Said that in the beginning the log off was chaos and the log off became

Sark's we confess Jesus was truly man, but there is nothing in the word Anthropos.

That means that John 1 1 through 14 isn't true Okay, then let me ask you about John 1 14.

Yes, when Jesus became Sartre Sartre that means flesh what can you describe before I go further what that entails?

Sark's is is human existence it is Flesh I mentioned in my in my presentation that John was very concerned

Because there were people who were denying that Jesus was flesh They were saying he only seemed the kind to seem to be flesh

And so John emphasized there in John chapter 4 Jesus becomes weary He sits down at the well the woman

You know the story there in John chapter 4 and so John is very concerned to communicate to us that the word became flesh and dwelt

Among us and that is that we are all Sartre. We are all human beings Okay, now isn't it true that Paul in?

Speaking about the resurrected body in 1st Corinthians chapter 15 says that the resurrected body as what you pointed out when it perishes when it dies it is

Flesh it dies is flesh, but when it resurrects it resurrects as Pneuma is that correct?

No, that is not 1st Corinthians chapter 14. That's a team. I'm sorry 15. It's not that either

If we could since we're making reference to it, no one has read it 1st Corinthians chapter 15 around 35,

I believe He asked how the dead raised and what body do they come right? Am I correct?

That's correct. And then That what you sow beginning verse 36 that what you sow does not come to life unless it dies

That's 1st Corinthians 15, isn't it? 15 verse 36, okay That what you sow does not to come to life unless it dies and that what you sow you not

So the body which is to be but a bare grain perhaps of wheat or something else But God gives it a body just as he wished and to each of the seeds a body of its own

All flesh is not the same flesh But there is one flesh of men other flesh of beasts another flesh of birds another flesh of fish

There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies But the glory of the heavenly is one the glory there is another so on so forth verse 42

So also the resurrection the dead it is sown a perishable body. It is raised an imperishable body

It is sown in dishonor. It is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness. It is raised in power It is sown a natural body.

It is raised a spiritual body not a pneuma a spirit alone If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Okay, that's that's what he says Okay now verse 50 before I question you again. What does that say verse 50?

Now I say this brethren that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God nor does the perishable

Inherit the imperishable that's the same contrast He's just been drawing between the corruptible body and the incorruptible body that Jesus Christ have any rose from the dead

Okay, so putting it so that I guess everybody can understand is that Paul is Certifying that when we as humans die and we resurrect that we have a different Nature body, is that correct?

What he is specifically asserting is that there is a direct connection between the seed that goes into the ground and the resurrection body that comes out

Now there is a difference between the bodies in the sense of one is perishable The other is imperishable one is not glorified.

The other is glory one exact exact nature of that one is a spiritual body Spiritual body, but there is still the connection between that body.

It's not just a spirit. Is it flesh? Not in the sense of corruptible flesh but glorified flesh, okay now here's the point when

Jesus in Luke chapter 24 verse 39 displayed himself to his

Apostles did he not use the term flesh the air that he was flesh He wanted them to see that he was definitely he ate with them

He demonstrated the reality of his physical body after his resurrection But he also came into the room when the doors were locked that's that's not the issue now the issue is that Did he have that same?

physical flesh body that he had a Couple of weeks ago prior to that in a glorified form with even the wounds yet visible

Yes, where does you where do you see a terminology that says in a glorified form in those verses in the first Corinthians chapter?

No, I'm saying in Luke what you Jesus is Jesus doesn't discuss the nature of his body and he does he says like he says a

Spirit has no flesh and bone as you see me No That's because the disciples were afraid and thought they had seen a phantasm a ghost because they thought like Paul said

Which everybody knows that if you die and resurrect, that's what you should be And so they weren't there when

Jesus was put to that cross. They had only heard that he had died They had for succumb and fled so they heard that he had died so when he came there they're thinking that they're seeing what you said a phantasm a spirit a

Changed ghostly type body and Jesus assures them that he is the same body the same person that he was before And so that body was flesh which

Paul says cannot enter the kingdom of heaven Because Because Paul believed that that kingdom of heaven was in the air and where Jesus taught that it was on earth

No Paul's teaching is specifically that we will have a real Resurrection body that is directly connected to the body that dies except it will be glorified.

There's one glory There's different kinds of glory. That's terminology He himself uses and Jesus was correcting the disciples who thought they were seeing a ghost

He says no, I have risen from the dead. That's what the angels had told them I've risen from the dead.

You see that I'm not merely a spirit. I actually have Anastasis means that which died coming to life again

I do not believe that you are accurately representing the Jewish viewpoint of what death was and what resurrection was

When you make the comments it just did okay By the way, Duke, is there anywhere that it states that he ever read himself in the gospel accounts of that physical body?

No, thanks be to God He continues this day in the presence of the Father in our behalf as in that physical in that physical flesh body

Yes, the glorified resurrection body. Yes, sir Flesh body that Paul said could not enter the kingdom. No, Paul didn't say that you're taking him out of time

He said flesh and flesh flesh and blood in comparison to perishable imperishable. Jesus is now imperishable.

He's been resurrected Would you like to address also the issue that I brought to your attention?

Concerning what you have stated tonight and you also have it in your book. Okay, that's the limit for the cross -examination

Dr. White will cross -examine. Mr. Malik for 10 minutes Sir, you closed your last statement by saying that both the end of Matthew and the testimony of John should not be relied upon Because you allege they are contradictory

Is this not a mission on your part the New Testament does teach the deity of Christ? But you just reject those sections that in fact testify to his deity.

No, no, it's not that at all I'm saying if something is contradictory than the trust in it is Lost right away.

We can't trust it are the court of law It would not be admitted as evidence These scriptures would not be in a modern -day court of law if two witnesses came with those kind of stories

They would be discredited are the passages in Matthew 28 19 through 20.

Is that passage in the New Testament? 20 19 20 is good. Yes, and I'm saying based on my study that it's interpolated scripture

And so you believe it's been added in later Yes Do you have a single manuscript from any of the five thousand three hundred copies of the

Greek manuscripts in New Testament? That substantiate that assertion. Well, first of all mark in his gospel

With pretty much the same words go ye into all the world preach the gospel to every creature. However mark did not mention

Baptizing in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost had Jesus told him that had that had he been inspired

To make that statement in no way something so valid to the missionary word

Would he have overlooked that no one had no one other than mark wrote? You would have never known to baptize the name of the

Father Son and Holy Spirit So your assertion is unless Matthew Mark Luke and John read exactly the same then they must be contradictory with one another

No, I'm saying that Jesus never taught that and so the church the early church had to get that doctrine in so they added

So, do you know the single manuscripts are anywhere in the world that does not contain Matthew 27 28 verses 19 to 20.

I know that they're there but then I know I know also that that Injunction was not carried out

So sir, my question is very simple is there or is there not a single shred of factual historical information to substantiate?

What you're asserting that this is an addition to the text personally I don't know of manuscripts, but I read scholars who are specialists in that field and they have looked at those manuscripts

Oh, I've seen the lack of them there. Could you give me a written? Oh, no, I can't give you that now But the point is here's my point now

I'm saying to you that Matthew 28 19 because Jesus never taught any

Baptizing he didn't teach anybody to do that. He never baptized himself and he never taught anyone to do that He didn't teach anybody the

Doctrine of Trinity So based on and he didn't give a great Commission he never gave a great

Commission Jesus says in Matthew 15 24 I personally I'm sent only to the lawsuit for the House of Israel He never ever changed that statement concerning himself except in the passage.

Do you reject? No, no, not that that's not for himself That's for his apostles. Okay, he never changed it for himself ever.

Okay, not one place now in Matthew 10 5 6 It's that he gave a limited

Commission There's a possible go, you know, I mean go not into the way of the Gentiles Then he said it's

American to go rather to the wash after his resurrection Yeah now because there was no great Commission, sir, we're getting off the sick questions the questions

I'm asking I'm trying to be very focused here, sir. Yeah, I'm asking you a very specific question Is it your assertion that every place of the term

God is used of Jesus and you have not addressed any of them yet that? every place where the term God is used of Jesus Romans 9 5

Titus 2 13 John 1 1 that each one of them is an Interpolation and is in fact been added to the text Yeah, their fabrications and when someone when someone when someone is applying

God to Jesus God to Jesus as Divinity then

I'm saying that is not correct So your assumption determines what is scripture rather than scripture determining what your conclusions will know

I'm saying the basic fundamental of scripture the rule of interpreting scripture is that the rule is anything that is subject to various Interpretations cannot be interpreted as to contradict something basic and fundamental now saying what is basic and fundamental from Genesis of Revelation Is that God is one with no no partner will not no likeness or equal.

That is fundamental. That's what we have That's your assumption you Came from the

Quran didn't it didn't come? No, no, no, no, that's in the Biblical scholars any scholar that it approaches scripture knows that when you talk about allegories metaphors that you don't give those in Understandings that contradict things that are very plain in that same thing.

So it so is John 1 1 a part of the New Testament I'm saying John 1 1 1 1 is there but it it goes against the doctrine of the synoptic gospel

Does John 1 1 teach the deity of Christ? And it doesn't John 1 1 does in some sense

Depends on depends on the interpretation because in the earlier scriptures And in the early 1500s,

I think it was Tyndale or somebody and then Tyndale he when he Translated that scripture.

He said in the beginning what the word in the world was with God and words got and it he uses it That's fine it you know that yes

Yeah And now it's common English usage at the time the point now is that it's been used as he it's given a masculine gender

When it was well, it is a masculine gender, but sir So the point is John 1 1 teaches deity of Christ John 1 1 is in the

New Testament Why should I not say that the thesis of the debate has now been established and you admitted the New Testament does teach the deity

Of Christ you just simply believe Given your presuppositions coming from another perspective that we have to reject those scriptures because it's not in accordance with your belief

No, no, no, you see I took this debate my first Mind was to say to you.

No, let's argue does Jesus himself teaches divinity But I allowed this to go because I wanted to establish before you in the audience that the

New Testament teaches both ways That it teaches the deity of Christ and it teaches that he's not so now we have to figure out which one is sound

I'm saying that because the scripture has been interpolated That someone has teaching a doctrine that Jesus is deity

Against the basic flow of the Bible that teaches that Jesus is not

God Okay, can you show me a single manuscript that deletes John 1 1 Colossians 1 15 or no?

No, no, no Based upon your understanding of scripture.

I don't believe you or I've claimed to be infallible Yeah, therefore we could be wrong in our understanding The question then is what does the

New Testament right actually read and that is an area of my expertise? And I do know what the

New Testament manuscripts read have a critical addition right here If you'd like to point me to any early manuscript of the

New Testament that long predates the rise of Islam That does not contain these passages. I'd like to see it.

It's no problem They're there, but I'm just saying where sir. I'm saying that they're contradicted by other passages in the

Bible as well That's all I'm saying Okay Could you explain why the Apostle Paul would describe Jesus Christ as the creator of all things in?

These words were by him all things were created both in the heavens on earth Visible and invisible for the thrones dominions or rulers or authorities all things we created through him and for him

He is before all things and him all things hold together. Is that something you'd use to describe a creature?

It certainly isn't and I wouldn't understand why he would say that after having said in Romans 1 3 that Jesus was born of the seed of David according to the flesh if you understood however that we need to accept everything the

New Testament Teaches and the Jesus Christ is the God man then those two passages are not contradictory are they I?

Don't understand Jesus first of all because of Anthropos is a God man From his words these are his words now.

We're not talking about Paul or anyone else all gospel writing We said out of the mouth of Jesus comes to negate any possibility of him being a

God man How do you know that Jesus that Jesus said Anthropos in John 840 if you don't believe that the New Testament is actually accurate?

I'll take your word if you can if you reject it. I'll reject it also. It's a problem Are you familiar with the meaning of the

Greek terms they ought a toss at Colossians 2 9? The the great scholar

BB Warfield defined the term is that which makes God God and the greatest American Greek scholar the past century

Robertson says it in this passage Paul asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form

Why are those two great scholars in error and what they say well? I don't know why they are

I'm simply saying to you that Paul would I quote you tonight? Said that he taught a doctrine also that Jesus was not

God So the point is I'm simply asking you which scripture.

Do you accept from Paul? You accept both, I'm saying Tell me why

I'm correct it seems to me I accept both you decide to accept your interpretation of one that excludes the other isn't that Demonstrating that I'm allowing the

New Testament to speak for itself And you are bringing in an external authority whether it be your religious beliefs your understandings and are overthrowing the testimony

What I'm doing is first of all because don't you don't forget that Jesus? said that Moses taught wrote in this in the law and the

Prophets concerning him So when I go and ask well, what did Moses write about him?

Well, he said the law in the Moses the law in the prophet. Yeah, I'm saying so if I go look I said well if Jesus said Moses spoke about him and wrote about him

I want to go and find out so the most definitive place a statement about him Which I disagree with but then it's

Deuteronomy 18 yeah, but I disagree now, so now here's the point so that Most definitive statement from Moses, which was in John chapter 1 verse 45

Philip found Nathaniel said we found him who Moses wrote about That is talking about a mortal human being with ancestors just like Moses himself

Moses didn't write anything about a deity coming in human form. I believe the Old Testament does in Isaiah 9 6

Moses what yes, it also is the law and the prophets on my time. I'm asking about Moses. Yeah, okay

Mr.. Malik will now cross -examine Okay, I think

I was about to ask you again about the Text that we have brought out to you some problem with in John Where Jesus and you have it in your book the

Forgotten Trinity, which I have a copy of by the way Of Where Thomas was not there when

Jesus came and so that therefore Jesus had to return some eight nine days later in order for Thomas to witness

Jesus and to make the declaration that he did However, let me correct that sir. You said Jesus had to return for this to happen

Jesus simply returned later, and this is what took place well had to I don't mean had to oven because that was he had somebody

Someone forced him to I'm simply saying that he returned And that is that situation took place.

I'm saying to you now that which I brought to your attention tonight that according to the gospel of Luke and out of the four gospel writers

Luke boast and his prologue that he has the best credentials to compile the traditional accounts of the

Jesus so be that as it may I'm saying that he concludes his gospel and Luke chapter 24 by stating that all the events of the

Easter Sunday resurrection That all of that took place within 24 hours and that Jesus ascended to heaven and was gone now if you trace from Luke chapter 24 chase trace the events right to the end you'll find that he was

In and out in 24 hours and everyone that had to see him the 11 apostles were there and they saw him

So how do you account for Mark's? radical difference in that Sense that he has

Jesus now coming back eight days later I think you mean John and secondly could you show me a word in Luke where it mentions 24 hours?

Well all you got to do it says the same day the same day the same day No, could you show us? Oh, okay? Let's take a look because in answer to your question sir it is very common for those who attack the sufficiency and the accuracy of the

New Testament to mistakenly assume That just because two accounts do not give all the same details.

They are therefore contradictory and that is individuals mistakenly Do not allow for what is called harmonization between the accounts there are numerous publications that provide a harmony of the

Gospels including a harmony Harmony of the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus Christ Okay assumption you're making is that these are contradictory accounts rather than allowing them to be harmonized with one another

Luke never said That I am giving you an exhaustive account of everything that happened in the order in which it took place

He never makes that statement you're making that assumption sir But your assumption does not determine the form of the text and I reject the assertion that these these additions are contradictory to one another

I do believe that they can be harmonized with one another and To then reject what they testify on the basis of you're not allowing for harmonization

I don't think is a is a valid argument whatsoever, but if you can show me in Luke 24 hours

I see that and asked up the one which is reported that Luke wrote that gospel that acts

And I stopped the one just to guess what you just said it says the former treaties

Have I made Oh Theophilus of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach until the day in which he was taken up He claims he's giving you a complete record of all that Jesus Did and taught until the time that he was taken up Something to you sir that if you take the word all there to that extent that we need to have the apostolic menu

For approximately three years. We need to know exactly what they ate. We need to know exactly what they wore That is not a

He's talking about all this germane to your understanding about thank mission Yeah, that's and that does not make it exhaustive and hence it does not mean that you cannot harmonize

Matthew Mark and Luke together. Okay, just to show you one place to catch my eye right away Luke chapter 24 verse 33

And he rose up that same hour we're talking about that same hour We're talking about the same day the same hour before sunset getting towards noon and one thing after another

This is the kind of terminology that you're finding me Okay, where does where does it say that from beginning at verse that between verse 49 and verse 50?

That this is the exact same day Well all you have to do now if the chairman would allow is to read it

It'll fall right in place and everybody will agree if anybody disagrees. I'll give anybody in here $100 cash sir

My point is read it sir There's a bunch of folks will take you up on that my point is sir

My point is sir that unless you assume that is unless you start with guilty until proven innocent

Which seems to be the assumption that you're making? Many individuals who love this word and who accept this word and who want to know truth

Have recognized that when you take Matthew Mark Luke and John and put them together Especially John is is revealing to us all sorts of things that Matthew Mark and Luke do not mention

There is all sorts of discussions and things that took place that are not mentioned here You're assuming that means these make that makes a contradiction.

No, no Simply doesn't fly. No. No, no when you read Luke 24 He's telling you step -by -step the events as they occurred during that day as the

Sun began to set towards evening that same hour And one thing after the other so he's letting you know it's within that 24 hour period of that same exact day

And it be that as it may if it wasn't even if you want to read it you can but however

All of the Apostles were there there was no need for him to after you send it There's not no need to him to have to come back to see

Thomas about anything first of all verse 50 begins with The term day, which is a post positive.

It is not used temporarily here If you'd like to look that up in the Greek language You'd have a hard time demonstrating that you have to understand that to mean that immediately after the events and the words of verse 49 that verse 50 follows immediately afterward that simply does not follow and Then as far as the issue of all the

Apostles It says that Jesus was standing in the midst of them

That would in refer to the Apostles as a group with or without Thomas Thomas's name is not mentioned where it is where is

Thomas's name mentioned here you're if you're going to allege a contradiction sir You have to provide data that absolutely without a question excludes the possibility of harmonization and so far

You haven't provided me a single bit of that kind of data, okay? now

You quoted something from Isaiah Chapter 9 verse 6 yes, and you mentioned about Mighty God yes, sir that refers to Jesus However, you didn't mention eternal father

Now when has Jesus ever been referred to as eternal father you said yourself that Jesus is not the father

That's quite true. So this calls this individual eternal father. How do you the great the Hebrew term is aviad?

Avi and odd both brought together into one phrase translate eternal father in the

Old Testament Father is normally used of God as creator Look at the use of the term throughout the

Old Testament and the term father is used as God's creator Jesus is revealed in the New Testament to be the creator of all things

Kylan Delic for example suggest the translation father of eternity I think that is an excellent translation because the assertion in the

New Testament Jesus Christ created all things whether in heaven or earth visible or invisible Principalities powers dominions or authorities all things created by men for him and he is before all things and him all things hold together

It is not a contradiction of the New Testament revelation of Father Son and Holy Spirit Because those are terms and names that are not revealed until the incarnation of Jesus Christ This was written about 700 years earlier.

Yeah, my point was that you clearly stated that you're not Asserting that Jesus is the father the father the person however

This is in a 9 -6 passage is asserting that this Prophecy is concerning one who will be known as the eternal father will be known as obvious I would have to be

God the father. No, so I'm sorry But if you're saying this is about God the father you saying

God the father was the Messiah because it's not a passage No, I'm saying that first of all,

I'm not even agreeing that this is about the Messiah I'm just simply saying to you that when you quoted it you stopped short of saying eternal father.

You said mighty God, that's right I was only mentioning passages that use the term God of Jesus Christ. There is a discussion of aviad in the

Forgotten Trinity, sir now Again with the I am yes, you know that when in Exodus 314

When the name was given I am that I am however in verse 15 the name was described and Made known as Yahweh, isn't it?

Yes. Okay. So now that Yahweh God has said in his beginning of his commandments.

I am the Lord thy God Who brought thee out of the house of Egypt not I am the

Lord thy God who created the heavens and earth Do you have any idea why that was not? Well the term the

Old Testament repeatedly says that Yahweh is the creator of the heavens and I'm simply saying because in the commandment when

God wants to Certify to the Jews that the time button Yes, but I'll be glad to Start my time by responding to that question if we'd like to maintain some okay some consistency

Yes, go ahead and finish the the question sir I'm saying that When God wanted to distinguish himself and make sure that one would know and recognize who he is

To say that he is the God who created the heaven earth somebody said well, how do we know? That's just your word. So he says

I am the God Yahweh who brought you out of Egypt with a mighty hand

I did I did certain I performed certain miracles and the people saw those miracles. They saw me defy

Certain laws of nature. Yes, please in order to do those miracles. So Yes, and I believe that the name

Yahweh that was one of my evidences the deed of Christ sir Is that the name Yahweh is used of the Father and for example

Isaiah 53 it is Yahweh who lays our sins upon the Messiah? Clearly distinguishing between the Father and the

Son But it's also used of Jesus Christ in Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 through 12 in John chapter 12 verse 41

These are all passages specific specifically identified Jesus Christ as Yahweh well, then the one name

Yahweh used the father of the Son and Specifically the Spirit of God is the

Spirit of Yahweh one name one being three persons That's why Christians have believed in the doctrine of the

Trinity. So Anyways, that was a minute and a half of my time So hopefully that was consistent with what you were saying

I find myself at a bit of a loss sir, because any passage that I discuss For example your statement

Paul never speaks of pre -existence if I show you passages that teach pre -existence you say they were interpolated

I asked for a manuscript evidence. You can't give me any it's just your understanding So I find myself at a loss as to how to how to Cross -examine a position when it cannot be falsified

What kind of data from the New Testament could I possibly give you that would prove that the

New Testament as we have it today? Teaches the deity of Christ. I'm sorry that the New Testament as it was written by the original authors teaches the deity of Christ I'm simply saying to you that I can disagree with you and I don't agree with you

Because of the other statements that are very clear where Paul is stating that just the opposite of what you're asserting so your assertion is that you interpret what

Paul says in one way and Then your understanding those other passages if it conflicts with these passages, they must not be original

What I'm saying is this when I look from the book of Genesis right on through and I see a even -handed flow of the basic Fundamental doctrine of God that God has no likeness or equal.

He's not seen he has no form no shape He has one. He's one. He has no partner and this kind of concept is there then

I see him as Supplanted on that other ideas that tend to go against that.

I have to look at those Concepts as being foreign, especially when they start contradicting all the passage in light of the fact that you have not a single shred of Historical evidence to substantiate your claims about the alleged corruption of the

New Testament not One bit wouldn't it be much more wise

To possibly take the New Testament as a single whole Withhold your coming to conclusions take all the data into consideration and come to a conclusion based on everything the

New Testament says rather than importing your understandings and Then dismissing anything in the

New Testament that contradicts you no, no, no, you see here's why because look give an example Jesus gave a parable in Mark chapter 12 parable of the vineyard and there in verse 8

He says there that the son that when God sends his son that those wicked

Farmers would kill him in the vineyard and throw him out Now this seems to imply the vineyard standing for Jerusalem the parable

That Jesus would be killed in Jerusalem and his corpse dead thrown out.

Is that what it implies sir? I wouldn't agree at all. I would say I would say that the point of the parable is the people of Israel Rejected the prophets and that they in fact will reject

Even the preaching of the Son of God when he is sent to them But a parable is never meant to be applied in every single point sir

So that that doesn't follow at all and why would sir I still understand my point Let me just clear this up.

Well, why then would mark and with Matthew when he relates this same parable? Change those words around to correct some misunderstanding.

Are you in there with that? Wait a minute. You're assuming to correct Why don't you take a look now and look at it, sir.

I believe me. I I teach New Testament I assign my students work in synoptic problems. I know exactly what you're referring to your assumption and You're operating on a lot of assumptions here

Your assumption is that someone's quote -unquote changing something around sir when we allow the

New Testament to speak for itself You don't have to make those assumptions that there are far more logical reasons why they would refer to these things

But sir, let me again. This is my my question My answering my question to you is you say it's from Genesis to Revelation in Genesis Let us make man in our image and Isaiah 6 who will go for us

Why don't you are those also interpolation since they seem to indicate? Because because that's the known as the plural of fullness majesty power

How long has it been known as the plural of the point? Here's the point now because right after that God said so he created man

Yes, he did it by himself when he says let us then he changes and says then God created man

Himself there was no, but sir my point is my point is this in light of the fact that the

New Testament then reveals in John 1 3 Colossians 1 15 through 17 in Hebrews 1 2 through 3 that Jesus Christ created all things and yet Jehovah says in Isaiah 44 24 he does so alone.

I'm taking all of that data. I accept all of it I have to reject none of it and come up with what

Christians have always believed Long before anyone came along and contradicted it from another religion in what's called the

Trinity You say well, it's my understanding that this has to be what God's like Therefore those passages must be interpolations, though.

I can't show you a single Greek manuscript that indicates this well See I was about to show you something somehow another.

I don't know if you wanted to well I think the focus on the deity of Christ because you're telling me about now Why do

I have a problem with scripture? and I'm telling you because if I read it if I have a scripture here that's contradicting itself over and over again and Interpolating scripture and false prophecies and one thing after the other and I see them then how can

I trust this now? So you're I have to go I have to trust now what is very basic and fundamental throughout the the text

I have to see anything else is a fine matter sir Would you agree that Christians have been reading these texts for 2 ,000 years and they've managed to see how these passages fit together without Reject, I don't know if the average person in the audience here

Then which is Christians even though what I'm about to say, maybe they'd like to hear this maybe they'd like to hear what I was just about to point out to you to show you how one writer to the next is switching

Things around to change the school of thought Evidently now I just said to you everybody because everyone knows that Jesus was not killed in Jerusalem That he was taken outside and put to death.

So therefore Everything this could not be have been an inspired passage or the doctrine of crucifixion would have to be wrong

Excuse me, sir. Where's that was in that was in Mark Mark chapter 12 verse 8

Verses Matthew chapter 21 verse 39 and if you just read them to the audience out loud and they'll hear what

I'm saying I'm looking for the word Jerusalem here.

Could you show it to me? Well, you know that that's a parable, right? Yourself a few minutes ago that when

Jesus talks about the vineyard, that's a parable relating to Jerusalem I did not say that sir. I said it's the people of Israel.

Could you show me the world? Am I wrong there then? Yes, sir. You are. Where's where's the world? Let's just get straight on the parable then first the vineyard is the people of Israel No, look at look at look at Isaiah's discussion.

No, no, no No, this is the servants are the prophets and the wicked farmers are the are the

Jewish leaders Jewish leaders, right? And the vineyard is Jerusalem, where does it say the vineyard is

Jerusalem, sir I ask that at this point we've been giving and taking but I am asking you questions from by one ask you from Bible scholars

Like you'll name one. No name one. No, not don't put me in that. Okay. I've never said that. Okay We're that as it may sir.

Okay, be that as it may let's read the text and see what happened there, sir I'm just asking you a simple question

Yeah if you're saying these kind are contradictory because it is saying that Jesus is thrown out of Jerusalem and the word

Jerusalem doesn't appear Here you put it that way you've just demonstrated was thrown out of the vineyard

He was thrown out of the vineyard sir, but you just demonstrated The danger of taking your fallible understanding and making it the guide of what is and what is not script

Okay, let's just go with vineyard. Okay, and now could you just read that for the public? What do you want me to do? I wanted you to read

Marked up to 12 verse 8 and then read the same thing him and threw him out of the vineyard verse 39 They took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.

Okay. Now what happened there? What's so you're so you so what you're saying is in one in one place? He's killed and then thrown out and the other he is thrown out and then killed and that is the basis for saying and This is not to be the same.

These are interpolation. This is the same story inspired by God you're telling us So the idea with a major flaw like this in it and made changes the story around the major flaw the parable and since I'm asking the question the major flaw the parable is that when when these inspired writers record this for us and the main point is they reject

Jesus that because one says They throw him out and kill him. Yes as they kill him and throw him out that that's a kind of contradiction

No, I don't even agree with what your main I say that the parable goes much further than what you just asserted that the

Time is up. Okay. Thank you. All right, that's all for the crossing examinations.

We're gonna move on now to the final statements and Beginning for seven minutes.

Mr. Malik, you'll begin with a final statement closing statement You may address this from the podium.

First of all, let me begin by thanking everyone here and I really appreciate your

Discipline and your attentiveness and I want to also if I don't get chance to thank dr.

White and pastor deliverance and also

Chris Arneson For all for having this whole thing gel together and having to see it now

I Have been saying relating to you this evening scriptures from the

From the New Testament anything. I have said to you was not I am a Muslim and my book of guidance is the

Quran We believe that the Quran is the last and final revelation from God. However, I did not come here tonight to Force feed you anything from the

Quran. I came to argue my point from the Scriptures that was assigned to me and I believe that I have effectively done that and I asked you to Again to use your mind to use your your intellect to get these tapes and maybe go back and take these scriptures one at a time and Review them and listen to both sides of the argument when you can settle down and relax

Because Jesus said that God is a spirit and that he should be worshipped in spirit and in truth

That you must worship him in spirit and truth And so this is very important business here that you have to have knowledge about who

God is to properly worship him and I Gave you some very

I believe sound information From the scriptures that clearly negate any possibility of Jesus being

God For example the Shema that is quoted by the Jewish people who this is the basics of their belief

They have this on the post and their doors and in their houses and they never ever thought to associate

God as any part of a Trinity or having a son in any Physical sense or whatever the

Shema stood with them to keep them in a doctrine of complete unity and that Jesus came along and supported that by making that his bedrock of the

The greatest Commandment that God could have revealed that he always ruled the

Lord our God is one He must have known also quoting that from the book of Moses that what that implied that that did not imply anything that would associate any partner with God So I asked you to keep that in mind

I said that this idea this word and I believe it stands now for the rest of them the evening and for time to come when

Jesus used of himself Anthropos Anthropos will now stand forever in this debate.

You have to keep this in mind now You can go anywhere you like look at any dictionaries This is your task now to see when

Jesus said that he was a man what that actually meant What that actually meant that there was no possibility of him being divine

No possibility of him as a man ever being divine So that is something that have to be examined and finally

I'm asking you and Inviting you to Investigate go a step further.

Don't be like the Jews the Jews and I'm not just Being anti -semitic when

I make the state statement, but I'm saying when Jesus came to them They rejected him

They rejected him for whatever reason they deemed fit when we believe that he was in fact the true

Messiah But however, they turned a deaf ear and they still do that today the majority of them and I'm asking you not to do the same thing as in regards to the revelation of the

Quran to humanity that the Quran has been revealed to humanity for the last 1400 years and that Muslims are all over the world

You see them every day Take a moment to talk to a fellow Muslim friend of yours to ask them something about their belief as it relates to you

And them get to know more about these kind of things enlighten yourself open your mind, and I thank you

Okay, dr. White will give his closing statement in seven minutes it is truly a privilege to stand before you this evening

It is only by grace that I stand here a worshiper of Jesus Christ the life that I have

I have because he is my creator he made me and He has redeemed me and given me eternal life and forgiveness with God the

Father I read in my opening statement the assertion by a

Muslim writer that the only way you can find the true religion in the gospel is to read them from a

Islamic and Unitarian perspective, and we have seen this evening that That reading of the

New Testament Not in its own context not allowing it to determine the case, but from another perspective

Is a circular argument circular arguments are? irrational They cannot win a debate if this debate was being judged

By debate judges the debate would be over because you cannot utilize circular argumentation in your presentation

Every passage that clearly teaches uses the ass of Jesus Christ has simply been dismissed because well

Because it needs to be because if that's actually there then it's a contradiction. No, it's a belief other than the belief in mr.

Malik home That's the Christian belief This book the

New Testament as it was originally written in the Greek language is The most accurate work of antiquity that we have the very

Manuscripts that call Jesus God in John 1 1 that call him God in John 8 58 the column

God in John 2028 and that in fact include the word on through pass in John 8 40 We have manuscripts of the gospel of John p66 and p75 the date to within 100 years of the writing of the

New Testament itself and And they all contain those passages they all contain those passages

What has been presented to you is a groundless assertion. These must have been put in because it disagrees with how

I understand things That is not how you decide a debate

The debate has to be decided on the basis of facts and there are No facts to back up the assertion that the

New Testament has been chained I Challenge you do some homework

Do some homework find out About the tremendous veracity of the

New Testament and you'll discover that the entire argument presented this evening is A circular one that cannot demand your acceptance

And once you discover that my friends every one of you have the same decision to make The sacred scriptures the

New Testament the very Word of God Says that Jesus Christ created all things

That he eternally existed Equal with the father in the presence of the father But he did not regard that equality had with the father a thing to be grasped

But he and the word kenosis is never used literally by Paul doesn't mean that he stopped being

God He did not exercise the divine privileges while he was here on earth, but he made himself of no reputation

Taking the form of a servant why? Because there's a thing called sin and God is holy and God is just and God cannot simply wink at sin and if we are ever going to stand in his presence there must be a perfect way to enter into his bed and the only way of redemption the only way of salvation was that the

God -man came and he was obedient to his father and He walked the path to the cross of Calvary and by his death in the place of his people

Jesus Christ the God -man The cure is eternal life and forgiveness of sins for every person who will put their life into his hand

If he was not who he claimed to be there is no eternal life If he is your creator

And if you can't show me a single solid factual basis for rejecting the statements that he is

Then you need to consider that he is your creator if he's your creator you need to deal with him You need to have dealings with Jesus Christ because every breath you take and every heartbeat you have comes from his hand

Please do not leave this place trusting in circular arguments and theory

When Jesus Christ the risen Lord Has come to me all

You who are weary and heavy -laden I will give you rest that is the

Jesus Christ of Scripture Okay, thank you gentlemen

Okay, you want me to announce this debate, okay Let me just remind you once again of the debate that dr. White will be before we go into question and answer time

We're just about to enter for the next few moments the debate once again of the oneness Pentecostal Robert Sabin, he will be debating on Saturday May 15th from 6 p .m.

To 10 p .m. And it will be where Medford Elementary School in Medford Avenue in Patchogue, New York All right, and you can is this number you want to give okay?

5 1 6 2 8 9 5 4 9 5 is the number is to get any more information about that 5 1 6 2 8 9 5 4 9 5

All right, we'd like to move into the time now the rest of time We have remaining about 30 minutes with questions from the audience just remember now you

Question and the gentleman up here will answer. Let me just go over it again once again the guidelines

Please do not enter in debate with these gentlemen. Just ask the question we wanted to be brief Ask only one question.

I encourage you to write it out so that it's clear and precise and Your written question must end with a question mark so that it really is a question all right

And what we'd like you to do if you have a question is to line up in an orderly fashion behind the microphone that is in the center of the aisle in single file and We will take questions for both

Mr.. Malik and dr. White all right, okay, that's all right.

Yeah, let's have what's a 30 -second response or Okay, minute response a minute rebuttal

Okay, that's how we'll do it. You'll ask a question to whoever you'd like to he will answer yes Yes, yes

Okay, that's the way we'll do it Then you'll ask a question directed to one of these gentlemen they will take one minute to respond and then the other will

Answer for 30 seconds, okay, sir Yes, my question to the doctor. I heard you repeating many time

He's saying he's a creator about Jesus be some blessing be upon him because we

Muslim believe in Jesus the mighty prophet of God I heard you many time. He's saying he's the creator of everything and all things

So I want you to explain to me if it's possible if he's a creator of everything

When Jesus be some blessing be upon him was you walking by the fig tree with his companion the fig tree with his companion and He wants to eat some fig and they told him master the fig is not in season

So if he was God how he don't know if he create the tree how he know how he does

He doesn't know if what's in season or what not in season if he create everything Okay, and if the fig was not in season and he's

God first of all We don't accept God to be hungry. He wants to eat but you Christian you said

God choose to do so So that's your faith, but I'm saying even if you was

God and fig is not in season Why he couldn't order the tree to bring fig? Okay, God the one create everything

Okay. Thank you Dr. White he did so because the fig tree represented the people of Israel and he made the application the people of Israel Look like they have fruit, but they do not it was a clear application that he made secondly

He did eat food because the word became flesh He became hungry he became tired because as the

New Testament as it was written clearly indicates Jesus Christ Became was the

God man the eternal Logos became flesh and dwelt among us. He was a true man

He ate food he became tired he slept he grew etc. Etc Christians have always believed that why because we believe all the

New Testament teach Thank you, sir, we'll let mr.

Malik respond I would just simply respond by saying that if Jesus was

The God man meaning perfect God and perfect man Then it seems to me that he would be greater than God the father who was only perfect God God the father is only perfect God yet God the

Son is perfect God and perfect man Either he's greater or he has a defect All right.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Your question. Yes Good evening. I would like to be able to say I greet everybody in the lessons of peace

I raised up in my household as a good Christian Is addressed to this gentleman right here, dr.

White dr. White my mother up to the day, she's still a good Christian and I was raised in the church as a young man and for some reason another while I was coming up There was some kind of thing that came over me

I wanted one day I was reading and I wanted to know What was the color of Jesus now not?

Okay. Now not to say no not to say any somebody assist him positive I can am

I wanted to know what was the color of Jesus because the reason why Because from the time I was a little boy, and I raised up in the

Virgin Island I always had a beautiful white Jesus in my house with long hair beautiful and everything and my parents

They raised me in a real good manner But every time we went to church, there was always a white

Christian Church and a black Christian Church So I wanted to understand when was going to be the relation coming together

But let me just go on to really conclude what I'm really trying to say, please ask a question. Yes, I am

He made a statement. He made a statement that nowhere in the Bible. It said that God is one but here what it says of the

Ten Commandments. It says Moses summons all of Israel and said here

O Israel the decree and Law I declare in hearing today learn them.

This is the Bible now learn them and be sure to follow them The Lord your

God made a covenant with us at Herb on It was not your father that the

Lord made this covenant But with us with all of us who are alive today the

Lord spoke he said face the question, sir Okay Let me ask you he said again I am your

Lord God who brought you out of Egypt out of the land of slavery You shall have no other gods beside me

Finished hold up because it didn't say I don't see you say Jesus and say beside me and this is before Jesus was born

This is the laws of Moses now. Okay before Jesus was born. So he couldn't be talking about you Please ask a question.

Please. Don't teach. Okay. Let me let me go on to the next part what I wanted to say again I'm almost there.

I'm almost there. I'm almost there. Just give me a minute. I'm almost there. Am I gonna have to call a bouncer? Ask the question, sir.

Okay. All right. I want to know again Where Jesus as you say, he's the

Son of God Was the Son of God a black man or a white man?

Son of God Jesus Christ was a Palestinian Jew In response to the other passages. I believe the schmock

I asserted the schmock in my opening presentation Christians are monotheists as I pointed out there is a difference however

Between oneness of being and oneness of person and when we allow all of scripture to teach us when we don't

Determine that well one saying God is one means that I'm going to reject everything in the Bible That teaches me that the

Father the Son the Spirit are one and they're sharing that divine nature when we allow scripture to teach us We recognize that Jesus did eternally exist

John 1 1 in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God the scriptures plainly teach that and in fact

They so plainly teach it that my opponent this evening has to say those passages were not originally written under the inspiration of the

Holy Spirit But when we allow scripture to speak for scripture Christians believe the schmock they are monotheists

But since we accept all that God says and not just a part We recognize that the scriptures teach us the doctrine of the

Trinity and as far as what his color was as I said He was a Palestinian Jew sir. I'm sorry you had a white

Jesus But the scriptures teach you the Palestinian Jew mr.. Miller regarding the schmock

I Pointed to everyone's attention From a piece of Jewish literature here

That it's their book. It's their doctrine and Jesus himself repeated it that this

Schema Negates any idea of Trinity it negates it. That's the purpose of it

All right, thank you all right. You can may use the scripture to set up your question, but please get right to your question All right, yes, sir

There's a scripture here in Isaiah 44 24 Keep saying over and over that he's the creator, and yes, he said made you and my question is if here

Isaiah 44 24 in this Bible right here It's a larger Redeemer and his

Redeemer the Lord of hosts said I am the Lord who made all things Made you here.

It says I am the Lord who made all things who alone alone Stretched out the heavens alone who spread out the earth by my my cell yes, sir

Are you calling God a liar here not at all when you said Jesus made you yes, sir You hear

God says I made all Jehovah says that yes, sir I made all things you said Jesus made all things are you calling

God a liar? No, sir, and you also said that God was holy yes, sir He did say that and Jesus was a man and he ate food and the food came out in the form of feces

Which is not holy are you saying God used to feces all right today first of all is they have 44 24 teaches that Jehovah alone

Created all things again if you don't rip the Bible apart Jehovah is identified as Jesus Christ in John 12 41 and in Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 through 12 before he was

Jehovah We're not debating. I'm answering your question Jehovah is used of the Father the Son and the

Holy Spirit I love Isaiah 44 24 the difference between us sir is I love Isaiah 44 24

I don't call it it a lie But I also love Colossians 115 through 17 and I don't call it a lie the two together teach the truth as to who

Jesus Christ Was sir if you think that when God made Adam that he was unholy and yet he operated by eating food and doing those things

As well well, we have a problem I don't think that Jesus Christ the sinless Son of God was unholy in anything because again the scriptures say he was the pure Lamb Of God and he was completely holy.

I just accept everything the scripture says not just simply part Okay, thank you, mr. Malik you respond, okay again

We read in Isaiah chapter 45 verse 18 for thus saith the Lord the creator of the heavens

God himself that formed the earth and made it I am the

Lord and there is none else Then Jesus comes along and says in Luke chapter 10 verse 21 in that hour

Jesus rejoiced in the spirit and said I thank thee O Father Lord of the heavens and the earth

Jesus is calling that creator who did that He's saying that he but his father is the

Lord of the heavens and the earth not him He's not the one that did it. Thank you. All right next question, please. That's that I get the doctor wife

Doctor, will you point out? Any verse in the Bible said that Jesus himself said that he is a

God? Well, certainly there are many of his acceptance of worship his That he said

I am a God I don't believe he is a God. I believe he is God. I'm not a polytheist.

I'm a monotheist So when Jesus when Thomas says my Lord and my God, did he say that? I am the

God can I answer the question? That's my question. Did he ever say that? The phrase

I am a God it does not appear in the Bible neither the phrase I am God in the lips of Jesus What does appear from the lips of Jesus is his assertion in light of Thomas's confession?

My Lord and my God that he blesses that confession. Jesus says before Abraham was a go -i me

I am which doesn't go directly back to Exodus 3 14 It goes to the use of the go -i me in the Greek Septuagint in Isaiah and other places where in fact

Jehovah says in Isaiah 43 10 that I am a go -i me and there is no

God before me and there will be none after me Jesus applied that passage to himself That to himself in John 13 19, that's not my question and he says

I am he in John 8 58 Those words do indicate they can say whatever they want.

But did he ever said himself that I am the God say those words, sir No, I'm sorry. He did not say those words there.

I never said he did. Okay, mr Malik, would you respond please and just the opposite? He said that I am the son of man and this is what he used about himself 90 90 % of the time when he referred to himself, which meant just a mortal human being and he did

Escalate at one time and he said I am the son of God son of God in Reference to his stating that he was the

Messiah meaning a righteous person He met he had the chance to escalate further to say

I am God But he never did that son of man meant mortal human being son of God meant righteous person in the context of the youth and John Chapter 10.

All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yeah, my question is to dr. White in your presentation you mentioned the fact that Jesus was

God then he became man and Has to die for sacrifice. Yes, my question is if he's

God Sacrifice to who? He's he is the second person the Trinity and it was not the father who became flesh, sir

I tried to emphasize in my opening statement that we are not saying that Jesus is the father

We are not saying that he is the first person in the Trinity He is the second the Holy Spirit is the third and the sacrifice was made in Regards to the fact that God's holiness demands that sacrifice now

It's seemingly you're indicating that there must be an object in the sense of sacrificing to who I would point out to you that it is

God himself who provides the sacrifice it is the high priest himself that provides the sacrifice in his own blood

According to the book of Hebrews again I don't know if you would accept the book of Hebrews as being scriptural or just simply dismiss what it says but there it specifically identifies

Jesus as both the victim and The priest that offers his own blood in the sanctuary in the place of his people all is appearing and here's the answer to your question

In the presence of the father for us So in regards to the answer of a sacrificial question

I would say the the father is the one to whom that work is presented according to Hebrews chapter 9 and Hebrews chapter 10 12

Sorry Then what you're saying a percent part of himself to himself Well, no, sir

I'm part of the Trinity to another I'm saying that there is there are three Divine persons the

Father the Son and the Spirit that share one being that is God Which is illustrated in Scripture by the fact that the one named

Jehovah is used of the Father The one named Jehovah is used of the Son the one named

Jehovah is used of the Spirit you cannot identify a mere creature as Jehovah God, okay.

Thank you. Mr Malik, you see the whole idea of this sacrifice in John 3 16 and what now

Christian them tells us is that Salvation is through grace It's something that never

Jesus taught in his life. He never taught that your salvation is through grace Jesus always Taught that you had to earn your salvation that you had to earn yourself

He just said he just said not everyone to say it to me Lord Lord challenge the kingdom of heaven

But who does the will of my father which in heaven said except your righteousness Shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and the

Pharisees and no case can you enter the kingdom of heaven? And then he said depart from me and Martin John 7 21 from where ye that work iniquity the word iniquity means

Lawlessness those people are not obeying law. He just never used the term salvation through grace and dr

Tell me one just one place and I'll accept it. Thank you one Come back.

I answer that question John 6 29 the people asked Jesus. What is what might we do? Then he might work the works of God my friend.

Could you look at that John 6 29? Did you look up John 6 29? Oh, you can quote it to me.

I'm Saying what Jesus said that your salvation was great is the work of God that you believe on him

And he has that is that Jesus's word. Yes, sir And that did he said that that was salvation through grace.

He said yes, sir But I don't know why we argue it because if I showed you one place you just simply dismiss

He's gonna come and judge every man according to his work. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Next question, please My question is for mr

Malik mentioned going back and reviewing the scriptures quoted and so one that you quoted was acts 1038 in your defense says since God anointed him meaning

Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power and How he went about doing good and healing Essentially for God was with him your assumption being that he just did not have the

Holy Spirit until God appointed it to him then in the same context three verses later Peter says and he ordered us to preach to the people and solemnly to testify that this is the one who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead

From all the prophets bear witness that through his name everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins

My question is is it your claim that that Jesus was a mere man who got appointed as judge of the living and the dead and through whom all who believe will receive forgiveness of Sins, or is this just a fabrication and if it is why then should we uphold any of the scripture if it is a fabrication?

No I quoted that verse to show that all three persons of that Trinity was mentioned in that verse there

God the Jesus and the Holy Spirit was mentioned there and that God was the one who was doing the

Applying of the Holy Ghost to Jesus But my point there was to say that God was with him

And I said that God with Jesus implies two separate and distinct people and I quoted that God was with Ishmael and and and in the same vein so God with him implies two separate and distinct individuals

That's what I quoted that first Okay doctrine of the Trinity specifically says the Father and the

Spirit Father the Son of Spirit are Distinct persons, but again when we allow all the

New Testament to speak for itself. They share the one being that is God That is the doctrine of the Trinity. Okay.

Thank you. Yes Peace in the name of Most Gracious and Merciful God to all who are here

This is to Mr. Mollet in John 8 58

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

What did Jesus mean by saying I am in reference to the past? I'm saying that it's a minus then and he meant it meant that he existed in the mind of God as Being the

Messiah because just prior to that and John chapter 8 verse 40. He compared himself to Abraham He says now you seek to kill me a man who was told as you true, which

I heard from God This did not Abraham, so he's comparing himself with Abraham. He's not saying that he has a memory at Any time of a pre -existence.

He's not claiming that at all Very clearly Jesus Christ uses the term here that does indicate that he pre -existed

Abraham He said that Abraham saw his day and rejoiced and was glad There is nothing in the phrase that go

I mean it refers to memories now It's simply pointed to the next verse Because in the next verse the Jews understood what he said it picked up stones to stone him

You don't stone someone for claiming. I was a memory you do stone people for claiming to a pre -existent of God That's a misunderstood.

Okay. Yes, sir My question is for mr.

Malik Malachi in just Timothy 316 and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness

Elohim or God was manifest in the flesh Justified in the spirit seen of angels preach upon unto the

Gentiles believed on in the world and received up into glory Mr. Malik, I actually have great sympathy for some of you and as a

Jewish believer in your sure I actually maybe to the chagrin of some here would agree with your understanding of the

Shema that it does preclude Concepts of Trinity and three persons and I would like to ask you if you would posit a possibility or a consideration or a prayerful consideration of Yeshua still being

Elohim manifest in the flesh but yet without carrying the albatross the soft underbelly the baggage of the

Conceptions of three persons and in a co -equal co -eternal Godhead.

Would you consider? More earnestly that Yeshua could be in fact Elohim Yahweh Manifest in the flesh without that extra baggage and I thank you for your time.

I appreciate that and I Could kind of sympathize with that understanding in the sense that we as Muslims believe that the prophet of Islam when

His companions asked his wife concerning him his Personality his character and she said that he was the

Quran so he was the Quran in the sense that he Manifested the doctrines and the teachings of Allah is

God's Word in the Quran to perfection so that way in metaphorical sense, you could say well, okay, he's the

Incarnation of the Quran, but we don't have any such language as that I'm saying but he was the living Quran walking

Quran. So in that sense if we say well Jesus is the Word of God Manifest in the flesh.

Well, then we say that Jesus is personification of God's Command and God's What God would want to be exemplar for mankind in a human being then

Jesus manifested that in his personality But certainly not in a sense that is taught as a trinitarian doctrine that these three are

Consubstantial a Equal coeval of the same age and same substance or whatever they dogmas off.

No, I don't accept that The Lord Jesus said in John 17 5 and speaking to the father father glorify me together with yourself with the glory

Which I had with you Before the world was there is no Yeshua. I cannot pray that prayer

There is no Messiah that does not speak of the father as another person There is no

Messiah who can say that does not pray this prayer that is recorded in John 17 Right.

Next question, please This my love here. I'm running on him My question is for dr.

White Jesus himself said that he has not come to destroy the law of Moses But rather to fulfill them if Jesus is

God incarnate Why do Christians allow the doctrine of Paul who only claims to have seen a vision of Christ?

Release you from the laws of Moses such as eating pork and things of this nature the

Lord Jesus himself said Gospel of Mark That's not what goes into a man, but what comes out of him that makes him unclean mark makes the comment

He's saying that he made all me clean Jesus fulfilled the law there is no contradiction between Paul's theology and Paul's teaching and that is the

Lord Jesus Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ The words that he spoke were God breathed just as the words that Jesus spoke where God breathed

There is perfect consistency and harmony between them and I think if we have seen anything this evening it is the vital importance of Not picking and choosing what we will and will not believe because on the basis of what we've decided to believe

But to accept all that God has revealed as true and to form our theology on the basis of all of it

Not just part of it And you see and when Jesus taught that it's not what goes into the mouth of an individual but what comes out he was in my view simply emphasizing the importance of Rich rigidity in other words rigidity the

Jews had such a rigidity in the traditional law And so Jesus wanted to let them know that there was something beyond Traditional rigidity that had to be applied and so therefore there was exceptions to all of those basic rules however

Jesus taught his disciples to be obedient in Matthew chapter 23 chapter 10 verse 23 or 23

I believe it's Matthew 23. He said that The scribes and the

Pharisees sit in Moses's seat so whatsoever They bid you that you do but do not if they're worse because they say and do not they're hypocrites

So he asked them to do what the scribes and the Pharisees And join them because they sit in Moses's seat that meant to keep the law see

Let's just take Let's just go about five more minutes. We'll take just the next two or three folks because it's getting very late

So we have the next question, please How you doing? I'm brother Paul from all

Saints Temple Church of God in Christ pastor Rochford. And my question is to dr

I In your closing statement

When you asked us to go further and investigate the scriptures by ourselves

You said quote don't just be like the Jews and I'm not just being

Antisemitic and quote the implication the implication of that statement is that you're not just against the

Jews That's what anti means in the word Anti -semitic what you but you're also

Against some other specific group because you use the word just meaning there's someone else

Am I to understand that by that particular statement? You're telling us that you're against the

Jews and that you're against some other religion or people Yes, you know, I'll answer this the way dr.

White answered a question of mine the first time we met no so if Okay, it is so if it's possible

So if it is possible that Justice I have Misinterpreted your words by using my own reason reasoning

Is it possible that you might have misinterpreted the writers of the Bible by using your own reason again?

The answer is no. I Think you could you repeat that? I don't think most people heard what you said. I said the answer is no

It sounds to me like what was just said is that my opponent just claimed infallible interpretive capacity for himself and I'm a little concerned about that because I've prayed for it, especially when

I was taking Greek years ago I prayed for infallibility during Greek test and I never got it None of us are infallible and to hence make our interpretation the touchstone of what is and what is not

Scripture is The reason why it is very clear. The New Testament does teach to be Okay, next question, please.

Good evening. My question is for Mr. White asked you earlier if you can prove to him if there are fabrications in the

New Testament anywhere in the manuscripts and In other words,

I guess claiming genuine Genuinity in the in the current scriptures of the New Testament, but I picked up this

Bible Which is all of these behind the blankets here the same one and it may not be the one that he may agree with But mark chapter 16 verse 20 we have

Bible scholars Giving us a disclaimer that tell us the two most reliable early

Manuscripts do not have mark 16 9 through 20 which talk about the baptism So if this disclaimer is being put forth by the scholars who put these books together and they're telling you that this is what's in here

Watch out because the earlier man is the two most early Most reliable early manuscripts do not have this passage

Doesn't that kind of tell me that? There's some kind of fabrication that was placed in this particular version of the passage that the earlier ones don't have

So I don't need to pull out Manuscript number 1005 when the works already been done by Christian scholars, okay

Thank you, mr. Mellon, and that's very good observation as a matter of fact As a matter of fact, you didn't hear dr.

White quote also first John 5 7 tonight in his Trinity Statement because I'm sure that he probably knows that that has been a controversial

If you're also and that the earlier manuscripts the most reliable manuscripts according to Bible scholars

Never found that if today and so even new Bibles now are deleting that passage from the

Bible So you have much of that kind of business going on as well? I think that was actually directed to me

I just didn't get a whole minute to respond to it mark 16 9 through 20 is the single longest text of variation in Testament There is no fabrication going on there whatsoever

I've addressed this rather completely in my book called the King James only controversy as I did first John 5 7 there are no

Fabrications and you cannot demonstrate sir Whoever it was that asked that question that there was something purposeful going on in changing anything and deleting anything in any way shape or form

All they're simply doing there in that Bible is giving you the data and that's the same data I would direct all of you to and demonstrating the

New Testament is and it can be trusted. Okay. Thank you All right. Let's just take this

Thank you. Let's just take this question. I'm just getting kind of late. We'll take this the last question then I just wanted to ask the question.

I heard the Christian view tonight of how a man gets saved I'm a sinner and everybody here is pretty much sinners.

I know Islam would agree alike with that And God is holy and just and loving we can't deny any one of his attributes.

He's all 100 % of each How then would a man

Me get right with God as a Muslim Thank you, it's for mr.

Malik. I assume it's the same way what I quoted earlier what Jesus told

The young man that came to him thou knowest the commandments So we as Muslims we follow the commandments of God the sharia of God his laws.

That's the guidelines That he has given man and he's always given man from time immemorial

To obey his laws keep his commandments not associate any with him follow his messenger

Our messengers as they come and doing good deed belief in God and doing good deed

That's what it is in the New Testament the Old Testament and in the Quran Okay.

Thank you. Dr. White last response. It is not in the New Testament that by our good deeds We are saved scriptures specifically saved by the keeping of laws.

No flesh shall be justified The Lord Jesus said unless he righteousness Exceeds that ascribes in the

Pharisees you will by no means be saved and the only way my friends You can ever have a righteousness that exceeds those men

It's if you have the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to you by faith alone not by anything

Thank you all for being with us tonight, I'm sure these gentlemen may still address your questions you have some in private Thank you for being with us and thank you.