AdnanRashidRebuttal

For hundreds of years, an accurate doctrine of Trinity was available. If Adnan can stand up here and use terms like homo lucius and hupostasis, why couldn't the

Koran? If you want to talk to the Christians, why not use their language? Because the writer of the

Koran had never read the Bible. That's why he wasn't aware of these things. That's why he wants to assume this, but in a debate, you have to prove it, not just assert it.

So where are the Koranic texts that demonstrate an accurate knowledge of the doctrine of Trinity? I haven't found them.

I haven't heard it yet. And now both of us are getting to having had 45 minutes worth of your time.

Now, he went to John chapter 17, but again, only read a small portion of it.

And that's always what happens. Yes, Jesus referred to the Father as the only true God. How else could it be?

We're monotheists. Jesus has become incarnate. He has entered into human flesh.

Look at the Carmen Christian, Philippians 2 .5 -11. It is an early hymn of the Christian church. Probably from within the first decade of the

Christian church, they're singing hymns to Christ as God. And what does Philippians 2 .5 -11 tell us?

It tells us that Christ did not consider the equality he had with the Father something to be held on to at all costs, but he laid that equality aside, voluntarily made himself of no reputation, became obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross.

And because of that, God the Father highly exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name, that the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue should confess.

All the glory of God the Father. That was the primitive belief of the Christians. That's not something that Constantine came up with.

That is a hymn of the early church. And here in John chapter 17, he stopped before he should have.

Because he did mention, of course, the fact that Jesus says there's only one true God. Yeah, there is only one true

God. But then, what else did he say? Have you ever read beyond that? Those of you who have used this text, do you ever go into verses 4 and following?

Listen to what it says. I glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.

Now listen to this. My friends, my Muslim friends, look me in the eye and tell me that a resul or a prophet could ever say these words.

And now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory

I had with you before the world was created. Did Moses ever say that?

Did David ever say that? Did Abraham ever say that? Jesus says, glorify me.

What does the book of Isaiah say? Glory only belongs to Yahweh.

Only He is to be glorified. Only He is to be worshipped. Jesus says, glorify me at your side with the glory that I shared with you in eternity past.

What prophet would ever say those words? That is why the standard approach to these issues in modern

Islam is to deny that Jesus ever said these things by alleging corruption of the biblical text.

But isn't it interesting? Adnan hasn't said anything about corruption of the biblical text this evening.

He's quoted a number of texts. If they have come down to us accurately, and they're in the very same papyri manuscripts in the second century that all the rest of this is in, then

Jesus said these words. And you need to explain to me, what did Jesus mean? How can

Jesus say this? How can verse 3 even say that eternal life is to know two persons?

Can you imagine Moses saying that? This is eternal life. Did you know Moses? No, we instinctively know that no mere creature, no mere human being can say those words.

But Jesus says them. Jesus says, ego I am. Remember in the garden when the soldiers were coming to take

Jesus? He says, who are you seeking? They say, Jesus of Nazareth. And Jesus says, ego

I am. The Gospel of John tells us, they fell back upon the ground.

Why do soldiers fall back upon the ground? When someone simply says, I am.

The Gospel of John tells us. That's why when Jesus rises from the dead, Thomas the apostle.

When Jesus invites him to touch him, to see that it's truly him, the spirit that's not flesh and bones to see me out.

Thomas doesn't even have to. Thomas answered and said to him, my

Lord and my God. Now, if Jesus was just an apostle, if Jesus is just a resul of the law.

And someone bows down before you and says, my Lord and my God, what is your duty?

Don't do that. When people try to bow down and worship the apostles, what do they say?

Don't do that. Worship only God. When John tried to bow down and worship the angels in the book of Revelation, what does he have to do?

Don't do that. Worship only God. Thomas bows down before Jesus and says, my Lord and my God. And Thomas says, because you've seen me, you believe.

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. He saw his face. Is that what

I'm here resuled of? Yes, the

New Testament testimony is very clear. Paul identifies him as our Lord and God in 2

Peter 1 .1 and Titus 2 .13. Our Lord and our God, the very same language that nations would use in A .D.

108. Constantine had nothing to do with such things. Nothing.

Describes our Lord and our God. He describes a creator of all things. When Paul wrote to the Colossians, who were beginning to be infected by Proto -Gnosticism, he described

Jesus Christ and said, for by him were all things made, whether in heaven or on earth. Visible or invisible, in principalities, powers, thrones, dominions.

All things are created by him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things consist or hold together.

That means, my friends, that as you sit here this evening, you're borrowing his air.

Every beat of your heart, every breath you take, comes from his hand.

That's why you can't be neutral. That's the testimony of the

New Testament. That's the consistent testimony of the New Testament. From Matthew to Revelation, he's

Lord. The very word used in the Greek Septuagint. He's the Lord of the Sabbath.

He's the Son of Man from the book of Daniel, who is worshipped by his followers, the Ancient One.

He's the creator of all things. He's worshipped and he accepts the worship of those who bow down before him.

So, tonight's debate is not supposed to be on the doctrine of the Trinity. But Adnan has spent most of his time addressing that particular issue.

All right? Be glad to respond. Because the main question of tonight's debate has yet to be answered.

We know what the doctrine of the Trinity is. It starts with the assertion of the Shema. Yahweh Elohim, Yahweh Echad.

One God. Echad. The very same term that you have in Surah 112. Is it not?

Yes. That's where we start. But we recognize that God's being is so infinite.

So unlimited that it can, in divine revelation, be shared by three divine persons.

We associate no one with the being of God. We do not defy our worship. The simple fact of the matter is that the scriptures that existed.

That your own Quran says were Nathal. They were sent down by God. Those scriptures which the author of the

Quran does not seem to show any familiarity with. Taught these things long before Muhammad came along.

And I say to you. The Quran has not been shown this evening to accurately identify the doctrine of the

Trinity. And if you want to say, well, when it says three. You know, even though it says three elsewhere.

And you have Allah, Mary, and Jesus in Surah 5. That's not really the Trinity. It's not talking about that. Okay, fine. Tell us who that's talking about.

First of all, what religious group is that talking about? And then secondly, show us where the Quran. The doctrine of the

Trinity. Which distinguishes between being and person. And that was known hundreds of years before him.

Is stated and condemned. Where is it? Once we are able to do that. Then the debate will be closed.