Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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 Liverance, and I'm the pastor of the Bible Baptist Church, and I'm gonna serve as tonight's moderator.
And I'm gonna try to commit myself to impartiality. I'm just here to direct the debate and to kind of govern and 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's 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 a 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 program for James White's 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 Leverence. 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 and 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? 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 in 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 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 it 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 wanna get right on with the debate and let me just tell you how it's gonna operate. We're gonna have two sections of the debate and 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 gonna 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 will begin now with Dr. White who 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 we'll 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 and 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 is given the name which is above every name, so that the name of Jesus, every knee bows and every tongue swears allegiance. All the fullness of deity dwells in Him in bodily form.
All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Him, 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 identify Himself as the I Am, and Himself speaks of Jesus as the Word who existed eternally and is as to His being absolute deity. Thomas confesses Him as His Lord and His God. Peter calls Him God and Lord.
And the early church prays to Him and suffers in His name. 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 the 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 itself, 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, end quote.
That's Dawud, 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 worshiped by every created thing in Revelation chapter five, 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 that 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 inarguably 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 as to what the Trinity teaches, let me briefly define the doctrines 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 that there is but one true God, but the Scriptures likewise describe three divine persons as deity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is plainly seen in Jesus' instructions to the church, 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 and 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 and 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 this evening to establish the divine truth that 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, 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 describe Jesus Christ as God.
We think of Thomas when he sees the resurrected Lord in John 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' 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 2, verse 13, the Apostle Paul refers to the blessed hope that 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 2 Peter 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 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 1, 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, O 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, theatetas, 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 two, verses five through seven, 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 be held onto. 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.
In Revelation chapter 22, verse 13, Jesus is described as the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and 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 one, verses seven through eight. How could one writer describe Jesus as the Alpha and Omega, the first and last, the beginning and 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 one, 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 are 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 through 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 one, Jesus is described as the Creator of all things, both in verses two and three, as well as in verses 10 through 12. And plainly, in John chapter one, 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 preexistence. 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 13 .19, 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 18 .5 -6, when the soldiers come to arrest Him in the garden, He says, who are you seeking? And the soldiers say, we're 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? 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 ego, I, me. Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.
Those are Jesus' words. Those are Jesus' 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 5 .11 -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 1 .10 -12 quotes from the Old Testament. Look it up for yourself sometime. He quotes specifically Psalm 102 .25 -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 1 .10 -12.
What does that demand we understand about who Jesus is from that writer's perspective? In the same way, in John 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 before them, yet they were not believing in Jesus. And he explains why.
And he quotes two passages, one from Isaiah 53, and one from Isaiah 6 .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' glory? Go back to the passage he just cited. In Isaiah 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 did 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 it 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 that 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 it's like to be a human or to eat food.
The Father and the Son took different roles in bringing 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 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 can 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 af healtu, 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 5 .17 -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 -7 and in John 1 .14, explains the often misunderstood words of Jesus at John 20 .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 in 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 prays 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 five as well.
Instead, they focus on Jesus' 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 is 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 that 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 10, 17 -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, end 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, for He loves His possessions more than He loves God.
Remember, Mark had already recorded Jesus' claim to be able to forgive sins in Mark 2, 5 -7, which is clearly a divine right. I would like to leave my opening presentation with one particular passage of Scripture.
John 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 the 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? The eternal Word became flesh, Paul tells us in Philippians 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 the New Testament message. Thank you.
Thank you, Dr. White. Mr. Malik, you'll now have 30 minutes to present.
Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alameen. Wasalatu wasalamu ala Sayyidil Muslimeen wa ala alihi wa ashabihi ajma 'een. A 'udhu billahi minash shaitanir rajim. Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem. Rabbish rahli sadri, wa yusilli amri, wahlu uqtatin min nisani, yafquhu qali.
Qala Allahu ta 'ala, fil quran al-kareem. Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem. Qul huwa Allahu ahad, Allahu samad, lam yulid wa lam yulad, wa lam yakunnahu kufuwan ahad. Sadaqallah wa sadaqallahul adheem. Amma ba'd.
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 Allah subhanahu wa ta 'ala.
As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. Wa alaykum as-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. May the peace and the mercy and the blessings of Allah be upon you all. I am honored to stand before you in the now of the proposition that Dr. White has sought 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. Theos, 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 four verse 24, Jesus declares that God is spirit, spirit.
And the New Testament definition for spirit in Greek is pneuma, pneuma. And about this word, spirit, Jesus tells us in John chapter five 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 1 Timothy chapter one verse 17. Now unto the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God. And in 1 Timothy chapter six 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.
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 one 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 he 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 1 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 eight 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 in John chapter eight verse 40, but now ye 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 at 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. And 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 or 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 nine, 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.
It's 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 would suffice?
Jesus there, not thinking of something new and novel for himself to quote, but quoted the Shema from Deuteronomy chapter six, verse four, Shema Yisrael, Adonai Elohim, Adonai Echad. Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Now, again, like Anthropos, this term Shema, or this concept of Shema, and this term used there, Echad, 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 the Shema excludes the trinity of the Christian creed as a violation of the unity of God.
Trinitarianism has, at many times, has been indistinguishable from tritheism, meaning the belief of the three gods.
It says,.
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. It's 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 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 17, verse three, and Dr. White mentioned this a few seconds ago, and we say 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 17, verse three, Jesus is about to depart from 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 one 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 thou hast sent.
He speaks of himself in the third person. Now, in John 20, verse 17, again, Dr. White mentioned this passage. 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, for I am not yet ascended to my father, but I have something for you to do.
Go and say unto my brethren, go and tell them.
What?
Jesus said unto her, 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, the God, the Father, we can't help but acknowledge that there's 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. That would never be taught by Jesus. Now, in Mark, chapter 14, verses 36 and 1534, Jesus said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee.
Take away this cup from 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, solicits that God for help. And in Mark, chapter 15, where Jesus said, in verse 36 of 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 are possible. Take this cup away from me.
Then he prays again. When he's on the cross, he says, and at the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, and I hope I'm pronouncing that right, Lama Shabbathani, that is, my God, my God, why hast 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, 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 prayer accepted? Now, in Mark 10, verse 17 through 18, again, another passage, 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 humans being God, and Jesus followed that mindset, even quoting the Shema.
Now, Mark 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 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 seen 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 calleth thou 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 seven, verse 21, here again, Jesus distinguishes himself from God. He says there, not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, and the New American Bible goes a step further by saying, none of them, none of them that saith 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 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 three, 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 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 three, verses 13, seven, and 32.
The God of Israel and the God of Jesus Christ also, blessed be the God, second Corinthians one, three, 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 that the Christians followed, that the early disciples of Jesus followed, 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 creatures.
In first Corinthians chapter 11, verse three, 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'd say, 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 first Corinthians chapter 15, verse 28, and 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, 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 three to five, 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 five 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 ye saved all the ends of the earth for I am God and there is 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 two, verse 10, it says there that at the name of Jesus Christ, every knee shall bow and everything that's 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, he says, look, don't get upset. That was just something for them because in Ephesians chapter three, verse 14, Paul says, I bow my knees unto the father of our Lord Jesus Christ. That's who I'm bowing my knees to.
Now, I'm just fooling around with those Philippians. Peter's first sermon. Now, after Jesus allegedly died and rose from the dead, during that incident when Jesus had asked Peter, who do men say that I am?
He said, some say that 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 signs. 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 that 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 in Acts 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 two. 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 gonna accept that. Now, concerning this son of God, son of God.
And in John chapter 10, verse 30, it says, I am a father of one. So that context of that story there, of 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 thou 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, 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. In that sense, in that context, I am a father of one. But the Jews misunderstanding that, pick up stones to stone him. So Jesus says there, for good work have I stoned you, but what are you, for good work have I, if I've shown you good works, why are you stoning me?
And they're saying, well, look, we're not stoning you for any good works, but because thou being a man, blaspheming, saying that you're God. And Jesus now has to explain what he means. He says, oh, look, isn't it written in your law, I say ye are God, Psalms 82 .6?
You know this terminology, you're familiar with this. Why are you getting so upset? Isn't it written in your law, I say ye are gods, and all of your sons are the most high? If he called them gods 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, preexistence, 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 .4, 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 preexistence. He says in Galatians 4 .4, but when the fullness of time come, God sent forth his son, made of a woman, made under the law. And in Romans 1 .3, concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed, spermatos, 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 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 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 present him to the Lord. Who do you suppose that they're presenting him to? And it says that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and favor with God and man, Luke 2, verse 52.
And then, Luke, and Jesus says in Luke 10, verse 21, I rejoice in spirit and said, I thank thee, O Father, Jesus' words, I thank thee, O 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 had 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 thee, O Father, Lord of the heavens and the earth. Now, Jesus said something to the Jews in John chapter five, 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 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 18, verse 15.
And verse 18, where Moses is telling the Jews there that God will raise up a prophet from among your brethren 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 brethren 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 was supposed to descend from ancestors, not preexistence.
And the words that he spoke was to be revelation from God. So, in John chapter one, verse 45, it says that Philip finished Nathanael 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,.
Jesus of Nazareth, not Bethlehem, of the son of Joseph. And in John chapter six, verse 14, after the miracles of the Barley Loaves and so forth, those men, when they had seen the miracles that Jesus 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. Mallon.
My time is up.
That's it.
I thank you for your hearing.
All right, Dr. White, we'll now have 10 minutes for rebuttal.
Mr. Mallon has proven that Jesus is not the Father. However, we already agreed on that. But he has done, as Dawood 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 4 .24, God is spirit. But that same writer had said in John 1 .14 that the eternal word who existed eternally as a person who was the creator of all things became flesh.
Now, many of the passages that were presented, and I know there are far too many to even begin to look at all of them. John 5 .37, he quoted that particular passage and said this passage refers to God.
Look at John 5 .37, refers to the Father who sent the Son. In 1 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 1 .14, 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 that 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 1 Corinthians 15 .50 that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, so Jesus must be entrapped in that body. But read 1 Corinthians 15. Paul isn't saying what was alleged. He is comparing the corruptible body before salvation with the incorruptible body, that incorruptible body that 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 8 .40, it was pointed 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 Dostatism, where there were people going around saying that Jesus, because they were dualists, they believed anything flesh is bad and anything spirit is good, they went around saying Jesus had not truly become flesh, that 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 dachain means it seems, and so they were called Dostatists. 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.
In 1 John, he talks about what our hands have touched, and he identifies as the Antichrist in 1 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 where the term God, the us, is used of Jesus. Not a single reference. We heard the Shema, Shema Yisrael Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh is our God.
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 that 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 1 .10 -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 13 .23, 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 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 3 .16 -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 during the question and 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 two. 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 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 two becomes a 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, oh, 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 means.
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 theos, God, of the description of the Creator as Jesus Christ, not by ignoring sections of the New Testament, can you come up with a passage here and 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 and 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 and the teaching of the New Testament. Thank you.
All right, Mr. Malik, we'll have 10 minutes.
Okay, thank you. 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, theos.
Theology from theos, anthropology from anthropos. Two separate branches of study, never shall between meet. 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 gonna 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 that scripture there, want to have you understand that Jesus is invoking the I Am from Exodus 3 .14. I Am, I Am sent thee. 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.
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, he said, look, how much you gonna pay me for this?
They said, well, we'll give you 30 pieces of silver. 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'll 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 stepped 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 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 getting ready to do?
Come on, man. You 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 other 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 gonna be under the Thomas Declaration in 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, look, we have 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 he 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 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 11 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 11 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 gonna build your hope and your belief on that, again, that's standing on shaky ground.
Now, the same thing happens with Matthew 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 difference 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 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 of? If I was told, well, he emptied himself of his divine attribute, meaning he was God in preexistence, and he wanted to come to earth, 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, because I want to 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 going to 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 in John chapter 17, verse five, 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 it be 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 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 resuscitation theory, that Jesus was not resurrected, only resuscitated, because he was the same person. And he never, nowhere does the Bible say how he rid himself of that body.
So emptied himself, we'd have to question what that was about and how he 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 word was with God and the word became flesh.
Is that my time? All right, 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 Baptists. 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'd 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.
Yes.
Yes, it's coming up.
That'd be fine.
All right.
Let me give you a little motivation here in 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, 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 10 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 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 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 cover the cost $5 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.
Well, can you 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 the direction of Najashi Muhammad.
And they are making a video tape 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 recall earlier, very early in our debate, 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 had a scheduled time of prayer. 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, it's 516 -289 -5495. That's 516 -289 -5495. We'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.
All right, thank you, Chris. Let me just go over with you how the second half of this debate will run. We're gonna have two cross-examinations. Mr. Malik will cross-examine Dr. White for 10 minutes, and then Dr. White will have his response.
And then once again, we will have another cross-examination for 10 minutes each. Followed that, there will be closing statements of seven minutes each. And then after the closing statements by each of our debaters this evening, we're gonna open it up for questions from the audience.
And I wanna just go over a few guidelines for that because it can oftentimes get a little unruly if you guys don't cooperate. So I wanna 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 wanna 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, we'd 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 wanna go through them quickly. And finally, your written question must end with a question mark. So that is a real question and that you address it to one of the two speakers here this evening, all right?
So we're gonna enter now into the second part of the debate and we will begin with Mr. Malik who will cross-examine Dr. White for 10 minutes. And the gentlemen can remain at their tables for this.
Yes, sir. Dr. White, I'd like for you to address the verse that I referred to in John chapter eight, 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 or am I wrong in that?
You are 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 a 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 sarx, 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 teaches?
Well, I have here before me a new test, a photocopy 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, where God cannot become 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 flesh, sodic, but it has something to do with anthropos becoming theos.
Well, I'm not sure what you're asking, sir, other than 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 one through 13, he uses the imperfect form of I, me, for the logos, which does not refer to a point of origin in time.
For everything else, he uses the aorist of Ginnomai, agenetau, which does refer to a point of origin in time. At John 1, 14, he switches and says the logos, agenetau, sarx, became flesh. There was a point in time when the logos 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 8, 40 said that in the beginning, the logos was theos and the logos became sarx.
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.
When Jesus became sarx.
Sarx. Sarx.
That means flesh. What can you describe, before I go further, what that entails?
Sarx is human existence. It is flesh. I mentioned 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 emphasizes there in John 4, Jesus becomes weary. He sits down at the well. The woman, you know the story there in John 4. And so John is very concerned to communicate to us that the word became flesh and dwelt among us.
And that's why we are all sarx. We are all human beings.
Okay, now isn't it true that Paul in speaking about the resurrected body in 1 Corinthians 15 says that the resurrected body, as what you pointed out, when it perishes, when it dies, it's flesh. It dies as flesh.
But when it resurrects, it resurrects as pneuma. Is that correct?
No, that is not 1 Corinthians 14.
Chapter 15.
I'm sorry, 15. It's not that either. If we could, since we're making reference to it and no one has read it.
1 Corinthians chapter 15, around 35, I believe. He asks, how are the dead raised and what body do they come?
Right.
Am I correct?
That's correct. And then that which you sow, beginning in verse 36, that which you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
That's 1 Corinthians 15, isn't it?
15, verse 36.
Okay.
That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And that which you sow, you do not sow 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, another 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 of the earthly is another, so on and so forth.
Verse 42. So also is the resurrection of 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 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 had when he 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 glorified. The 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, yes.
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 there, that he was flesh? He wanted them to see that he was.
Most 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 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 do you see a terminology that says in a glorified form in those verses in Luke?
First Corinthians chapter.
No, I'm saying in Luke, what Jesus is saying.
Jesus doesn't discuss the nature of his body in Luke 24. He does.
He says a spirit has no flesh and bone, as you see me having it.
No, that's because the disciples were afraid and thought they had seen a phantasma, 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 forsook him 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 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 the 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're accurately representing the Jewish viewpoint of what death was and what resurrection was when you make the comments you just did.
Okay, and by the way, Duke, is there anywhere that it states that he ever rid himself in the gospel accounts of that physical body?
No, thanks be to God, he continues this day in the presence of the Father on our behalf as the God man.
In that physical flesh body?
Yes, the glorified resurrection body.
Yes, sir.
The flesh body that Paul said could not enter the kingdom.
No, Paul didn't say that. You're taking him out of context.
He said flesh and blood.
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. Now, 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 admission 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, then the trust in it is lost right away. We can't trust it. And in a court of law, it will 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?
28, 19, 20 is there, yes. And I'm saying based on my study that it's interpolated scripture.
And so you believe it's been added in later?
Do you have a single manuscript from any of the 5 ,300 copies of the Greek manuscripts in the New Testament that substantiate that assertion?
Well, first of all, Mark ends his gospel with pretty much the same words. Go ye into all the world and 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 he been inspired to make that statement, in no way something so valid to the missionary word would he have overlooked that. Had no one other than Mark wrote, you would have never known to baptize in 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 that doctrine there.
So do you know of a single manuscript, sir, anywhere in the world that does not contain Matthew 28, verses 19 to 20?
I know that they're there, but then I know also that injunction was not carried out.
So sir, my question's 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, or seen the lack of them there.
Could you give me one name?
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 your understanding.
And he didn't give a great commission. He never gave a great commission. Jesus says in Matthew 15, 24, I personally am sent only to the law and the house of Israel. He never, ever changed that statement concerning himself.
Except in the passage that you rejected.
No, not that. That's not for himself, that's for his apostles. He never changed it for himself, ever. Not one place. Now, in Matthew 10, 5, 6, it's said that he gave a limited commission to his apostles, go not into the way of the Gentiles, and he said it's a marriage, and to go rather to the law.
After his resurrection, yeah.
Now, because there was no great commission.
Sir, we're getting off the questions I'm asking you. I'm trying to be very focused here, sir. I'm asking you a very specific question. Is it your assertion that every place that 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 has in fact been added to the text of the New Testament?
Yeah, they're fabrications. And when someone is applying God to Jesus, God to Jesus, as divinity, then I'm saying that is not correct scripture.
So your assumption determines what is scripture rather than scripture determining what your conclusions will be.
No, 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, I'm saying what is basic and fundamental from Genesis to Revelation is that God is one with no partner, no likeness or equal. That is fundamental. That's your assumption.
That's your assumption. That came from the Quran, didn't it? It didn't come from the Bible?
No, no, no, no, no.
That's, biblical scholars, any scholar that approaches scripture, knows that when you talk about allegories, metaphors, that you don't give those understandings that contradict things that are very plain in that same vein.
So is John 1 .1 a part of the New Testament?
I'm saying John 1 .1 is there, but 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 the interpretation, because in the earlier scriptures, in the early 1500s, I think it was Tyndale or somebody.
Tyndale.
He, when he translated that scripture, he said, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and it, he uses it.
That's fine.
It, you know that.
Yes, I do.
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 the 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 teach his divinity? But I allowed this to go because I wanted to establish before you and 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 any of those?
No, no, no, no. Why are you asking me about manuscripts?
Because I'm asking for historical evidence, sir. You're making an assertion based upon your understanding of scripture. I don't believe you or I claim to be infallible. Therefore, we could be wrong in our understanding.
The question then is, what does the New Testament write, actually read? And that is an area of my expertise. And I do know what the New Testament manuscripts read. I have a critical edition 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 to you.
Okay, could you explain why the Apostle Paul would describe Jesus Christ as the creator of all things in these words, for by him, all things were created both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, for the thrones, dominions, or rulers, or authorities, all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in 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 that 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. I said that from his words. These are his words now. We're not talking about Paul or anyone else, or gospel writing. We say it out of the mouth of Jesus comes to negate any possibility of him being a God-man.
How do you know that Jesus said Anthropos in John 8 .40 if you don't believe that the New Testament is actually accurate?
Well, I'll take your word. If you reject it, I'll reject it also.
It's no problem.
Are you familiar with the meaning of the Greek term theotatos, the Colossians 2 .9?
You can enlighten me. You're the specialist in that field.
The great scholar B .B. Warfield defined the term as that which makes God God, and the greatest American Greek scholar of the past century, A .T. Robertson, says that 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 in what they say?
Well, I don't know why they are. I'm simply saying to you that Paul, what I quoted to you tonight, said that he taught a doctrine also that Jesus was not God.
So the point is that you
I'm simply asking you, which scripture do you accept from Paul?
I accept both.
You accept both?
I'm saying
Even though they contradict each other.
Tell me why I'm correct. It seems to me, I accept both. You've decided 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 of the New Testament
What I'm doing is, first of all, because don't forget that Jesus said that Moses wrote in the law and the prophets concerning him. Luke 24, yes sir. So when I go and ask, well, what did Moses write about him?
Well, he said Moses, the law, and the prophets.
Yeah, I'm saying, so if I go look, and I say, well, if Jesus said Moses spoke about him and wrote about him, I want to go and find out. So the most definitive statement about him, which I disagree with, but then
It's Deuteronomy 18.
Yeah.
But I disagree with that.
So now here's the point. So that most definitive statement from Moses, which, in John chapter one, verse 45, Philip found Nathaniel and 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. Why does Isaiah say
I said Moses.
Yes, it also says the law and the prophets, on my time.
I'm asking you about Moses, yeah.
Okay, continue on. Mr. Malik will now cross-examine Dr. White.
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, where Thomas was not there when Jesus came, and so 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 because he had someone forced him to. I'm simply saying that he returned, and 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 history of Jesus.
So, be that as it may, I'm saying that he concludes his Gospel in 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, 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 gotta 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 of the resurrection appearances of the Lord Jesus Christ. The assumption you're making is that these are contradictory accounts rather than allowing them to be harmonized with one another.
Luke never says 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 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 valid argument whatsoever.
But if you can show me in Luke, the phrase 24 hours, I'd like to see that.
In Acts chapter one, which is reported that Luke wrote that Gospel, that Acts. In Acts chapter one, just to guess what you just said, it says, the former treaties have I made, O 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.
May I suggest 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, I think, an even meaningful.
He's talking about all that's germane to your understanding about this mission.
Yeah, that's all I mean, yeah. 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 there.
Okay, 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 and 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, sir, there's a bunch of folks that'll 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 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 it contradictory, sir.
No, no, no, no.
He's telling you.
That assumption 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 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 he ascended, there's no need for 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 in 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 refer to the apostles as a group with or without Thomas.
Thomas's name is not mentioned. Where is Thomas's name mentioned here? If you're gonna 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.
Now, you quoted something from Isaiah, chapter nine, verse six.
And you mentioned about mighty God.
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 Hebrew term is avi-ad. Avi and ad 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. Kylin Delitzsch, for example, suggests 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 on earth, visible or invisible, principalities, powers, dominions or authorities, all things created by him and 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 of the father.
Yeah, however, this Isaiah 9, 6 passage is asserting that this prophecy is concerning one who will be known as the eternal father.
Who will be known as avi-ad.
Which would have to be God the father.
No, so I'm sorry, but if you're saying this is about God the father, you're saying God the father was the Messiah? Because this is a messianic 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 avi-ad in the forgotten trinity, sir.
Now, again, with the I am.
You know that when in Exodus 3, 14, 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?
Correct? 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 the earth.
Do you have any idea why that was not?
Well, the Old Testament repeatedly says that Yahweh is the creator of the heavens and the earth.
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 consistency.
Go ahead and finish 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 heavens and 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 certain, I performed certain miracles and the people saw those miracles. They saw me defy certain laws of nature in order to do those miracles.
Yes, and I believe that the name Yahweh, that was one of my evidences of 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 one, verses 10 through 12, in John chapter 12, verse 41.
These are all passages that specifically identify Jesus Christ as Yahweh. So the one name Yahweh used of 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 ask for manuscript evidence, you can't give me any. It's just your understanding. So I find myself at a loss as 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 of 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's one, he has no partner, and this kind of concept is there, then I see some planet 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 other passages.
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 eight, 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?
No, sir, I wouldn't agree at all. I would say that the point of the parable is that 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 doesn't follow at all. But sir, I still don't understand.
Here's my point. Let me just clear this up. Well, why then would Mark and would Matthew, when he relates to this same parable, change those words around to correct some misunderstandings?
Are you familiar with that?
Wait a minute. You're assuming to correct some misunderstanding.
Why don't you take a look now and look at it?
Sir, believe me, 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 question.
No, you asked me about this.
My answer, my question to you is, you say it's from Genesis to Revelation. In Genesis, let us make man in our image. In Isaiah 6, who will go for us? Why don't you, are those also interpolations since they seem to indicate a plurality in the Godhead?
Because that's known as the plural of fullness, majesty, power.
How long has it been known as the plural of those things?
Here's the point now, because right after that, God said so, he created man.
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 this, in light of the fact that the New Testament then reveals in John 1, 3, Colossians 1, 15 through 17, and 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 or another, I don't know if you wanted to.
Well, I think the focus is on the deity of Christ, sir.
Because you're telling me about now, why do I have a problem with scripture? And I'm telling you because 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 I have to go, I have to trust now what is very basic and fundamental throughout the text. I have to see anything else as 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 rejecting them?
I don't know if the average person in the audience here, which is Christians, even know 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 because everyone knows that Jesus was not killed in Jerusalem. That he was taken outside and put to death. So therefore, this could not have been an inspired passage or the doctrine of crucifixion would have to be wrong.
Excuse me, sir, where's?
That was in Mark.
Mark chapter 12, the first few sections.
Chapter 12, verse eight.
Versus 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?
Yes, where's the word Jerusalem?
And you just agreed 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 word Jerusalem?
Well, am I wrong there then?
Yes, sir, you are.
So where's the word Jerusalem? Let's just get straight on the parable then first.
The vineyard is the people of Israel.
No, no.
Look at Isaiah's discussion.
No, no, no, no. The servants are the prophets and the wicked farmers are the Jewish leaders.
Right. There's nothing about Jerusalem in here.
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. I want to ask you.
From Bible scholars like yourself who know.
Name one. Don't put me in that category. I've never said that. Okay, be 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. If you're saying these are contradictory because it is saying that Jesus was thrown out of Jerusalem and the word Jerusalem doesn't appear here,.
You have just demonstrated.
Well, he was thrown out of the vineyard. Put it that way.
You've just demonstrated.
He 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 scripture.
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? Read the whole thing in 33 seconds.
I wanted you to read Mark chapter 12, verse eight, and then read the same thing.
They took him and killed 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 the difference? So what you're saying is in one place, he's killed and then thrown out, and the other, he's thrown out and then killed, and that is the basis for saying that these are not, that these are interpolations.
This is the same story inspired by God. You're telling us.
So the idea
With a major flaw like this in it.
A major
That changes the story around.
If somebody comes The major flaw of the parable, and since I'm asking the question, the major flaw of the parable is that 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, the other says they kill him and throw him out, that that's a contradiction.
No, I don't even agree with what you're saying. 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 cross-examinations. We're gonna move on now to the final statements, and beginning for seven minutes, Mr. Malik, you'll begin with the final statement, closing statement, and 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 wanna also, if I don't get a chance, to thank Dr. White and Pastor Leverance and also Chris Arneson for having this whole thing gel together and having us here.
Now, I have been relating to you this evening.
Scriptures 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 were assigned to me, and I believe that I have effectively done that, and I ask you to, again, to use your mind, to use 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 worshiped 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 posts 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 greatest commandment that God could have revealed, that he always ruled the Lord our God as 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 ask you to keep that in mind. I said that this idea, this word, and I believe it stands now for the rest of 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 has 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 this 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 regards to the revelation of the Quran to humanity, that the Quran has been revealed to humanity for the last 1 ,400 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 theos 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 that Mr. Malik holds.
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, that call him God in John 20, 28, and that in fact include the word Anthropos in John 8, 40, we have manuscripts of the gospel of John, P66 and P75 that date to within 100 years of the writing of the New Testament itself, 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.
A 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 he had with the Father a thing to be grasped, but he, and the word kenosis is never used literally by Paul.
It 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.
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 presence, 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, secures eternal life and forgiveness of sins for every person who will put their life into his hands.
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 theories, when Jesus Christ, the risen Lord, says, come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest. That is the Jesus Christ description.
Okay, thank you, gentlemen. Okay, you want me to announce there's a debate?
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 the number you want to give? Okay, 516 -289 -5495 is the number, if you get any more information about that.
516 -289 -5495. All right, we'd like to move into the time now, the rest of the 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 into debate with these gentlemen, just ask the question. We want it to be brief. Ask only one question. I would 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, let's, all right. Yeah, let's have, let's say, 30-second response,.
Or minute response.
Okay, minute response and then a 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.
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, peace and 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, peace and blessing be upon him, was awoken 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 doesn't know if what's in season or what's not in season, if he create everything?
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 he was God and fig is not in season, why he couldn't order the tree to bring fig?
Okay, thank you.
Isn't that God the one create everything?
Dr. White.
He did so because the fig tree represented the people of Israel and he made the application to 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 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, et cetera, et cetera. Christians have always believed that.
Because we believe all the New Testament teaches.
But sir, sir, just for a second, because you didn't answer my question. Hold on, no, no, he didn't answer my question. The main question is God was ignorant to know what's in season and what's not in season.
No, that's what your Bible said, sir.
Thank you, sir. We'll let Mr. Malik respond.
I would just simply, is this mic on? 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 is 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 blessings of peace. I raised up in my household as a good Christian.
Me, myself. Who is this dressed to, please?
This is dressed to this gentleman right here.
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 or 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 anything positive.
Can somebody assist him with that mic, please?
I can answer.
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 gonna 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 hear what it says, of the 10 Commandments. It says, Moses summons all of Israel and said, hear, 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 Herban. 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 to face.
Your 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.
Amen.
Finish, hold up, because it didn't say, I don't see it say Jesus, it said beside me. And this is before Jesus was born. This is the laws of Moses now, before Jesus was born. So he couldn't be talking about Jesus.
Okay, please ask a question, please don't teach.
Okay, 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.
I want to know, again, was Jesus, as you say, he's the son of God, was the son of God a black man or a white man?
The son of God, Jesus Christ, was a Palestinian Jew, sir. In response to the other passages, I believe the Shema. I asserted the Shema 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, 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 Shema, 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 he was a Palestinian Jew.
Mr. Miller.
Regarding the Shema, 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 Shema negates any idea of Trinity.
It negates it, that's the purpose of it.
All right, thank you. All right, you may use the Scripture to set up your question, but please get right to your question, all right?
My question is very simple.
You can address the thing.
Mr. White, there's a Scripture here in Isaiah 44, 24, and you keep saying over and over that Jesus is the creator and he actually said he made you. And my question is if here in Isaiah 44, 24, in this Bible right here, it's clearly saying.
God said, the Lord your Redeemer, and he is the Redeemer, the Lord of hosts.
He said, I am the Lord who made all things. You said he created you, he 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 myself.
Are you calling God a liar here?
Not at all.
When you said Jesus made you.
Here God says, I made all things.
Jehovah said 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.
You 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 the feces?
All right, two things. First of all, Isaiah 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 one, verses 10 through 12.
This is before he was born.
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 of it.
Okay, thank you. Mr. Malik, your response?
Okay, again, we read in Isaiah 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 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 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.
Okay, that's directed to Dr. White. Doctor, will you point out any verse in the Bible that said that Jesus himself said that he is a God?
Oh, certainly, there are many of his acceptance of worship, his non-rebuke.
No, himself, that he said, I am a God.
No, first of all, 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, and Jesus, and Jesus, can I answer the question?
That's my question.
Okay. Did he ever say that I am the God? 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 in the lips of Jesus is his assertion, in light of Thomas' confession, my Lord and my God, that he blesses that confession.
Jesus says, before Abraham was, ego, I, me, I am, which doesn't go directly back to Exodus 3 .14, it goes to the use of ego, I, me, in the Greek Septuagint, in Isaiah, and other places, where in fact, Jehovah says, in Isaiah 43 .10, that I am, ego, I, me, and there is no God before me, and there will be none after me.
Jesus applied that passage to himself. But did he ever say to himself? Now, Jesus applies that to himself, John 13 .19.
That's not my question, sir.
And he says, I am he, in John 8 .58, those words do indicate the existence.
Doctor, they can say whatever they want, but did he ever say to himself that I am the God?
He did not say those words, sir, no.
I'm sorry, I didn't hear.
He did not say those words, sir, 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 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 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 in John chapter 10.
All right, thank you.
Yeah, my question is to Dr. Wright. In your presentation, you mentioned the fact that Jesus was God, then he became man, and then has to die for sacrifice. My question is, if he's God, sacrifice to who?
He is the second person of 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 of 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, 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 Father is the one to whom that work is presented, according to Hebrews chapter nine and Hebrews chapter 10.
Again, there's 12. Thank you.
You're saying that he presents part of himself to himself?
Sorry?
Is that what you're saying, that he presents part of himself to himself?
No, sir, I'm saying.
One part of the Trinity to another?
I'm saying that 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. Mallett.
You see, the whole idea of this sacrifice in John 3 .16, and what now Christendom tells us is that salvation is through grace, is 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 your salvation. Jesus said,. Jesus said, "'Not everyone that sayeth to me, "'Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, "'but who does the will of my Father which is in heaven?'.
He said, "'Except your righteousness shall exceed "'the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees, "'in no case can you enter the kingdom of heaven.'. And then he said, "'Depart from me,' in John 7 .21, somewhere, "'ye that work iniquity.'".
The word iniquity means lawlessness. Those people are not obeying law. Jesus never used the term salvation through grace, and Dr. White can show me just one place and I'll accept it, one.
Mr. Mallett, can I answer that question? John 6 .29, the people asked Jesus, what might we do that we might work the works of God? My friend, could you look up John 6 .29?
Excuse me?
Could you look up John 6 .29?
Oh, you can quote it to me.
I'm saying what Jesus said,.
That your salvation was through grace.
This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent.
Is that Jesus' word?
And did he say that that was salvation through grace? He said he's gonna come?
Yes, sir, but I don't know why we argue it, because if I showed you one place, you'd just simply dismiss it as being contradictory.
No, no, no, because Jesus says he's gonna come and judge every man according to his works.
All right, thanks.
Next question, please.
My question is for Mr. Malik. You mentioned going back and reviewing the scriptures quoted, and so one that you quoted was Acts 10 .38 in your defense. It says, since God anointed him, meaning Jesus, with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing good and healing, et cetera, for God was with him, your assumption being that Jesus 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.
And 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 Jesus was a mere man who God 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, 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 in the same vein. So God with him implies two separate and distinct individuals.
That's why I quoted that verse.
The doctrine of the trinity specifically says the Father and the Son and the 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.
Peace in the name of most gracious and merciful God to all who are here. This is to Mr. Mollett. 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, to my understanding, it meant that he existed in the mind of God as being the Messiah, because just prior to that, in John chapter eight, verse 40, he compared himself to Abraham. He says, now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, 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 preexistence. He's not claiming that at all.
Very clearly, Jesus Christ uses a term here that does indicate that he preexisted Abraham. He said that Abraham saw his day and rejoiced and was glad. There is nothing in the phrase ago I me that refers to memories.
Now I simply point you to the next verse, because in the next verse, the Jews understood what he said. They picked up stones to stone him. You don't stone someone for claiming I was a memory. You do stone people for claiming to have preexisted with God.
I said. I misunderstood it.
Okay, yes sir.
Solomon, hello, and thank you for an interesting debate. My question is for Mr. Malek.
I hope you'll be more of a messenger of Malachi. In Timothy 3 .16, and without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness. Elohim, or God, was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory.
Mr. Malek, I actually have great sympathy for some of your, as a Jewish believer in Yeshua, I actually, maybe to the chagrin of some here, would agree with your understanding of the Shema, that it does preclude concepts of Trinity in 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 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.
And 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, 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 what God would want to be exemplar for mankind and 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, equal, coeval, of the same age and the same substance, or whatever the dogmas are. No, I don't accept that, and I don't agree with that in that sense.
The Lord Jesus said in John 17, five, in 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 that cannot pray that prayer.
There is no Messiah that does not speak of the father as another person. There is no Messiah who can save that does not pray this prayer that is recorded in John 17, five.
All right, next question, please.
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. 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, specifically in the Gospel of Mark, that it'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 meat clean.
Jesus fulfilled the law. There is no contradiction between Paul's theology and Paul's teaching and that of 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 were 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 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 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' 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 enjoined them, because they sit in Moses' seat. That meant to keep the law.
Let's 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 let's have the next question, please.
How you doing? I'm Brother Paul from All Saints Temple, Church of God in Christ, Pastor Rochford. My question is to Dr.
Brother Malik. Malik, pardon.
In your closing statement, when you asked us to go further and investigate the scriptures for ourselves, you said, quote, don't just be like the Jews, and I'm not just being anti-Semitic, end quote. The implication of that statement is that you're not just against the Jews.
That's what anti means in the word anti-Semitic. But you're also against some other specific group, because you used 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 or no?
I'll answer this the way Dr. White answered a question of mine the first time we met.
No.
So if it's possible.
I like that answer.
So if it is possible that, just as I have misinterpreted your words by using my own reasoning, is it possible that you might have misinterpreted the writers of the Bible by using your own reasoning?
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 tests, 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 a new flesh.
Okay, next question please.
Good evening, my question is for Brother Mark. Mr. White asked you earlier if you can prove to him that there are fabrications in the New Testament anywhere in the 5 ,000 book manuscript. And in other words, I guess claiming genuine, genuinity in the current scriptures of the New Testament.
But I picked up this Bible, which is all of these behind the branches 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, nine 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 two 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 1 ,005 when the work's already been done by Christian scholars.
Is that correct?
And that's a very good observation. As a matter of fact, you didn't hear Dr. White quote also 1 John 5, 7 tonight in his Trinity statement, because I'm sure that he probably knows that that has been a controversial scripture also, and that the earlier manuscripts, the most reliable manuscripts, according to Bible scholars, never found that scripture there, 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, nine through 20 is the single longest text of variation in the New 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 1 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, in 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 in demonstrating the New Testament is and can be trusted.
Okay, thank you. All right, let's just take this. Thank you. Let's just take this question. It's getting kind of late. We'll take this last question then.
I just wanted to ask a 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?
You can just answer.
Okay, it's from Mr. Malik, I assume.
It's the same way. 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 or messengers as they come, and doing good deeds, belief in God and doing good deeds.
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, the scriptures specifically say, by the keeping of the law, no flesh shall be justified. The Lord Jesus said, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and 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 is if you have the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to you by faith alone, not by anything that you can do.
All right, thank you very much. 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, Mr. Malik, Dr. White for being here.
Have a safe trip.