Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries Inc. and is protected by copyright laws of the United States and its international treaties. Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries Inc. is prohibited.
Queen Aunt, Assalamualaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.
Welcome.
It's customary for us to normally start the event with a prayer from both the Christian side as well as from the Muslim side. I would like to honor Pastor Dennis Pillay to come forward to do the Christian renditioning.
And I would like to urge everyone to pay due respect, please.
Thank you. Very good evening to all of you. Would you please bow your heads with me as we pray this time. Our loving Heavenly Father, we are thankful tonight for giving us this privilege of coming together.
And we do so tonight in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, our Savior, who died for our sins and rose again the third day. And we bow before you, knowing that His resurrection brings justification to our sinful lives and causes us today to come into your presence boldly, not on any merits of our own, but by the precious token of the shed blood of our Lord Jesus.
We know, Lord, tonight we've come with two different religious groups, and we know that your presence is most important. We pray for those who are participating and those who are going to preside over these meetings and those that are going to sit and listen.
We ask you for the wonderful spirit of peace to prevail throughout our discourse and through all deliberations and dialogue. We pray that wisdom will be imparted to all of us through the learnings and through the teachings that we will derive.
We do pray tonight that truth will prevail. At the end of the day, your name will be glorified. We thank you today for this privilege and ask you to bless everyone in Jesus' name. Amen.
Thank you very much, Pastor. I would now like to call upon the Muslim side, who will do the rendition of the Qira, and I call upon Mohsin Rafiq.
Guide us to the straight path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings, not of those who have incurred Thy wrath, nor of those who have gone astray. The Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
He taught the Qur 'an. He created man. He taught him to speak. The sun and the moon are measured. The stars and the trees prostrate. And He raised the heavens and set the balance. That you do not transgress in the balance.
And establish the balance with justice, and do not lose the balance. And the earth, He placed it for the people. In it are fruit, and date-palms with buds, and date-palms, and date-palms, and date-palms, and date-palms, and date-palms, and date-palms.
So which of the favours of your Lord would you deny? He created man from clay, like pottery. And He created the jinn from clay. So which of the favours of your Lord would you deny? The Lord of the two easts and the Lord of the two wests.
So which of the favours of your Lord would you deny? The two seas meet, between them is a barrier which they do not want. So which of the favours of your Lord would you deny? The pearl and the coral come out of them.
So which of the favours of your Lord would you deny? And to Him belong the ships that are set up in the sea, like the highest. So which of the favours of your Lord would you deny?
The most gracious, most merciful, the cherisher and sustainer of the universe. Peace be upon all His messengers, honourable speakers, guests, and respected elders. I greet you with the universal greeting of peace.
My name is Fadil Hassan, and I'm indeed honoured this evening to be your Programme Director for the two leading professionals from two different continents. One from the USA on my left, and the other from the shores of South Africa on my right.
Dr. James White, the great white from the cold Atlantic, will lock horns this evening with Ayub Karim, the deadly dolphin from Durban, in the warm Indian Ocean on your shores. These intellectual giants in the field of comparative religion will need evidence from each of their respective religious perspectives on the subject Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, Fact or Fiction.
I shall introduce them shortly, but first, just some important house rules for tonight's debate. Firstly, each speaker will have 35 minutes each to present their argument. Then, we shall have a break for refreshments.
For about 15 minutes, tea and biscuits have been arranged. Thereafter, the first speaker will have a rebuttal for 15 minutes, followed by the second speaker, 15 minutes rebuttal as well. During question and answer session, which will last for about 30 minutes, one minute per questioner and two minutes each for the debater to respond.
During the summation, we'll allot five minutes each, the second speaker followed by the first speaker to close. Finally, I shall move the vote of thanks. Ladies and gentlemen, I trust you will cooperate in making my task easy as the program director this evening, in the same way that I remind and urge both honorable speakers to respect the decision of the program director at all times.
I would also urge them to be respectful from both sides and apply the necessary decorum that's required from both religions. I'm ably assisted this evening by my colleague, Rudolf Bossov, and Rudolf is from an organization called Anvurd.
The organization who invited Mr. Ayub Karim to respond to James White's challenge on this subject matter this evening. Welcome, Rudolf. Ladies and gentlemen, may I please urge you to switch off all cell phones as this would interfere with the acoustics of our video and sound recordings.
You'll notice that Dr. White is an international scholar and he's probably going to post this on YouTube as well. Now, ladies and gentlemen, our first speaker this evening is the deadly dolphin from Durban, Mr. Ayub Karim, is an understudy of the late world icon, Sheikh Ahmad Dirat.
Ayub is also the founder and president of the Islamic Comparative Religion Academy called ICRA, here in Durban in South Africa, and he's the author of an internationally distributed magazine entitled The Universal Challenge.
Dr. White, may I bring to your attention that Ayub is also a didi, not a doctor of divinity, meaning Dirat's disciple. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Ayub Karim.
Mr. Chairman, Dr. White, Rudolf, honored guests, peace be with you. I know Dr. White said that we need to start the clock once I'm speaking, but I want to make an exception here. I'm going to start just now.
But before I do, I would like to present this Quran to Dr. White as a gift. Now, this is an African Quran. I don't know whether he understands the language, but he can add this to his collection in the USA.
Okay, now I begin. Arabic. Ladies and gentlemen, tonight's subject that we are debating, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, fact or fiction. And I would like to begin by throwing a challenge, which is given to us in the Bible, which I'm going to share with you, where St. Paul, in his letter to the Corinthian church, 1 Corinthians 15, verse 14, he basically throws the gauntlet to us, to the reader of the Bible, not particularly Muslims, but anyone who reads the Bible will see that this challenge is there, and he says, in no uncertain terms, if Christ be not raised, in other words, if Christ is not resurrected, then our preaching, then our faith is in vain, and our preaching useless.
These are very strong terms. It's like he's putting his neck on the block. If Christ be not raised, then our faith is in vain, and our preaching is in vain. That means everything that Christianity stands for is useless.
When we read further on, in his letter to the Corinthians, this is in chapter 15, verse 14, and you read in verse 35, he poses another question. He says, but someone will ask, how are the dead raised, and with what body do they come?
Naturally, if Christ is going to be raised from the dead, then I am curious enough, I would like to know, what does a resurrected body look like? So he asks, but someone will ask, and I am asking, how are the dead raised, with what body do they come?
And he goes on further in the following verse, and he says, that it must die first, before it is resurrected. So what you sow must die, and that which thou sow, in other words, in that which thou bury, is not the body that will be.
So it must die, and that which thou sow, that which thou bury, so in other words, you are going to bury a physical body, but that one that will be resurrected will definitely not be physical. It will be something else.
And we read on further. And we come to 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, from verse 42. So he says, and so it will be with the resurrection. It will be the body that is sown is perishable. It is raised imperishable.
It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in honor. It is sown in weakness, and it is raised in glory. It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. He gives four categories, rather three preceding categories, to come to the fourth one.
Now, some Bibles, I don't know which Bible Dr. White, which version of Bible Dr. White is using, but if you're using the King James Version or the NIV, then the word that is used, it is sown a natural body, and it is raised a spiritual body.
The Bible I frequently use is the Revised Standard Version, RSV 1971, and in that Bible it reads, it is sown a physical body, and it is raised a spiritual body. So you have the order. If Christ be not raised, everything within Christianity is useless.
With what body do they come? That which you sow is not the one that will be. So you're sowing a physical body. Jesus Christ was physical, so if you buried him, you buried him physically, but when he resurrects, he's not going to be physical, he's going to be something else.
And he gives the criteria, sown perishable, raised unperishable. Sown in dishonor, raised in honor. Sown in weakness, raised in glory. Sown a physical body, buried a physical body, it will be raised a spiritual body.
This is what it says. In order for us to verify, if these statements and this challenge, how does it fare according to the words of Jesus Christ? Now, I'm going to go to the allegedly post-resurrection era, when Jesus Christ appears to his disciples in the upper room.
This is Luke 24 from verse 36. And Jesus Christ himself appeared to his disciples in that upper room. And when he appeared, he greeted them in Hebrew, shalom aleichem, in Islam, assalamu alaikum, and in English, peace be with you.
And his disciples, upon seeing him, were terrified. They were affrighted. Why? Because they were thinking that he is a ghost. King James Version uses the word ghost. Revised Standard Version uses the word spirit.
Why? Because they were thinking that they were seeing a spirit. Now, these were his disciples. They should have had first-hand knowledge of the Lord and Savior, their Master, their Teacher, their Rabbi.
But when he appears to them, they are terrified. They are shocked. And Jesus Christ asked them, Why are you terrified? Why are you frightened? Why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Why do doubts arise in your hearts?
Now, a relationship between the Master and his disciples. And for the disciples to behave like this, My question is, Why were they frightened? Why were they terrified? Why did they think that he was a spirit?
The reason is simple. It's because all the knowledge that they had about Jesus Christ being crucified was not first-hand knowledge. They were not eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Definitely, they were not eyewitnesses. So, they heard that Jesus Christ was crucified. They heard that he was resurrected. But they never saw any of this. So, when Jesus Christ appears in the upper room, they are terrified.
And Jesus Christ said, Why do doubts arise in your hearts? Now, in order to prove his case, Jesus Christ tells his disciples, Behold my hands and feet and see that it is I myself, according to the King James Version.
Revised Standard Version, Look at me and see that it is I myself. Now, what I did here is that, you know, although the emphasis is I myself, he's making quite clear to them, and I had to go and check the Arabic, and the Arabic does not read Anta, it reads Aanta, which means the emphasis that this is me myself, nobody else.
And the reason why I checked the Arabic is because I don't know Aramaic. Okay? My knowledge of Greek is very, very weak. So, the closest to it is to go and check where the emphasis lie and for what reason.
So, if he said that this is I myself, that this is myself, that oh, this is me, there's no emphasis, but he's telling them that this is I myself. And then he goes on further, because his disciples were still confused, and he says, Handle me and see, touch me and see, for a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have.
Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you, when a man makes that kind of statement, when you think that he has died and resurrected, do you think he will come and tell you, handle me and see, touch me and feel, and he will go on to say that it is I myself, and he will say, for a spirit has no flesh and bones as you see me have, is he telling you that he's a spirit, or is he telling you that he's still a human being in the flesh?
You decide. But this is in the Bible. So, what Paul is saying is that Jesus Christ, if he was sown physically, if he was buried physical, then naturally according to his claim, in Corinthians chapter 15 verse 44, he was sown physical, buried physically, and naturally if he's resurrected, he has to be spiritual, but Jesus Christ denies that.
He says, I am not a spirit, I am still in the physical, and he says, have you here anything to eat? And they gave him a piece of a broil fish, and of a honeycomb, and he did eat. Did anyone of y 'all come anywhere, in any scripture, whether it is the Quran, the Bible, anywhere, that spirits would partake in a meal, I know, Dr. White might refer me to Abraham and the three messengers, but generally, the point I'm making here, is that if Jesus ate, when he had no reason to eat, then that would be pretentious on the part of Jesus Christ.
And if any Christian believes, and if Dr. White tells me that, he ate for the sake of eating, just to show his disciples, but he did not need to eat, then I would say that that is being pretentious. So he needed to eat, he was flesh and bones all the way.
That is the post-resurrection era. So, here I am producing evidence from the Bible itself, to show proof, and I'm leading this evidence, from the Bible, and this stands as proof, that the claim that Paul makes, that if Christ be not raised, then our preaching, that our faith is in vain, and our faith is useless.
And I think that this is proof, it's sufficient enough, that Jesus Christ was not resurrected. And if Jesus Christ is not resurrected, then everything that Christianity stands for, is in vain. From where I stand, and from what I read in the Bible, I'm saying this with all due respect to all Christians, even Dr. White, I firmly believe, that whatever Paul said over there, his claim fails hopelessly.
And that would lead me to believe, that everything that Christianity stands for, whether it's the faith, or the preaching, is all vanity.
Now,.
Why I say that, there were no eyewitnesses, I mean his disciples were not eyewitnesses, because according to Mark, chapter 14, verse 50, he tells us that, the disciples of Jesus Christ, in the garden of Gethsemane, forsook him and fled.
They ran away. And of course, many people would say, yes, but Peter came in, I've heard this argument before, and he came into the courtyard, and he was there for the trial, true, he was there for the trial, it's in the Bible.
But then, when the cock crowed three times, he had already denied Jesus before that, which Jesus has predicted, or rather prophesied, if you wish. But then he went outside, and he began wailing, he was crying, so when they took Jesus Christ to Golgotha, the place of crucifixion, he was not there.
So Peter himself, was not an eyewitness, to all that transpired. But I don't want to belabor that point. I want to get to the next point, and you know, I would ask Dr. White, to please clarify this for us.
And he needs to tell me, that if Jesus was physical, then he must show cause, he must lead evidence to prove, that the resurrection is a physical thing. And if he can prove that the resurrection is a physical thing, then he basically bulldozes what Paul says.
So it's a simple case of, Dr. White, heads I win, tails you lose. Now, the second part of this is that, if Christ was not resurrected, if he was not raised, then that means he did not die. If he was not resurrected, he did not die.
If he did not die, he was not crucified. If he was not crucified, then I ask you, what is the worthiness of your faith? Simple arguments. Nothing complicated. Simple English, as it is simple in the Bible itself.
However, we do have Christians, I have met a few, that you get Christians who would believe, that Jesus Christ was crucified, but not resurrected. I think I watched one of, Dr. James White's debates, on his site, where he debated somebody that, actually didn't believe in the resurrection, but I didn't watch it fully, so I don't know the context, and the material of the whole thing.
But there are Christians, I mean I was told that, you know, 50 of the Anglican Church, I'm talking about the hierarchy, who actually reject, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So let me deal with this point, on the crucifixion.
Now, when we are dealing with the crucifixion, I would like to bring in, the sign of Jonah, and in the sign of Jonah, reference to it is, the gospel according to St. Matthew, chapter 12, and we will read from verse 38.
So the scribes and the Pharisees, they come to Jesus Christ, and they ask, Master, we seek a sign of thee. So in other words, they are telling him, we want some kind of proof, that you are, who you claim to be, some kind of mandate from God.
If you got, a certificate from God, we would like to see it. If you got some kind of mandate, we want to see it. But they are asking for a sign. They want a miracle. They want Jesus to perform a miracle, to prove, that he is the Messiah.
That he is a man of God. Now, look at the response, that Jesus Christ give, and we need to ask ourselves, Jesus Christ was their benefactor. For example, he healed blind Bartimaeus, at the gates of the temple.
He healed the woman with issues. And, he fed 4 ,000 people, with a few pieces of bread and fish. In fact, he did that twice. Once it was 4 ,000, once it was 5 ,000, as recorded in the Bible. These are miracles of Jesus Christ.
According to the gospel, according to Saint John, he even turned water into wine. Water into wine. So amongst all these miracles, he even raised Lazarus, according to the Bible. So I am saying, that with all these miracles, that he has performed, he did not tell the scribes, and the Pharisees, that you know, blind Bartimaeus, I gave him life.
You know, the lady with issues, for seven years, I healed her. You know, 4 ,000 people on Mount Olive, I fed them. No, he didn't use any of these miracles. He simply told them, an evil and adulterous generation, seekers after a sign, there shall be no sign given to it, except the sign of the prophet Jonah, except the sign of Jonah.
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Let me say that again, in the heart of the earth, not in a tomb.
There is a difference. You see, a greater miracle would be, I'd say, if you put somebody in the tomb and you roll the stone away and the tomb is empty, I want to know what is miraculous about that. But if you put somebody six feet underground and you come back and you find that everything is out and nobody is there, I want to know what miracle is that.
But if the tomb is sealed and if the grave is still covered with sand and standing next to the grave or standing next to the tomb while it is sealed and Jesus Christ is standing there, now I will tell you that that is a miracle.
And the reason why the stone was rolled away is because he was physically yet to walk out. This is the only logical explanation. If it was a spirit, there is no need for the stone to be moved out. But of course, the counter argument is that and I don't think Dr. James White will say that, is because they moved the stone so Peter and Mary could go in and witness it.
I say witnessing an empty tomb and witnessing Jesus outside while the stone, I would want to know which is the greater miracle. Anyway, coming back to the sign of Jonah. Now, why would Jesus Christ choose to perform the sign of Jonah as his mandate, as his proof that he is the Messiah?
An adulterous and evil generation seeketh after a sign. There shall be no sign given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
That's the only sign he's giving. Now, we ask our Christian friends and I'm going to ask Dr. James White tonight, I would like to know did Jesus Christ fulfill that sign? Did he fulfill that miracle? Every Christian I meet tells me,.
Yes,.
They fulfilled it. I say, show me how? Now, in order for us to understand the sign of Jonah, we have to go to the book of Jonah. And I don't know whether this is true, but I saw this on the internet a couple of times.
Although Jonah is referred to a minor prophet in Christianity, somebody referred to him as a one-page prophet. One-page prophet, which means that if you go in the Bible and you look at the book of Jonah, it's simply one page.
One page, and halfway on this page, and that is the book of Jonah. So he was referred to as a one-page prophet, but in Christendom, he's referred to as a minor prophet. Now, why will the Messiah, who is central and pivotal to Christianity, that such a person would choose the miracle of a minor prophet?
I mean,.
There were many other prophets. Look at David. David was king. We had Solomon. Solomon was king. Moses. Moses was king. But why go and choose a prophet? Not that he didn't have a job to do. Yes, he had a job to do, but, I mean, just a minor prophet, and you're choosing that sign?
Now, in order for us to understand what Jesus Christ was saying, we need to look at the sign of Jonah. And I'm not going to go into detail because I have limited time, but just to give you a summary of what Jonah was all about is that God Almighty commissioned Jonah to go to the city of Nineveh and ask the people to repent in sackcloth and ash.
But Jonah, thinking that he's going to a city of about 100 ,000 people, and these people would not listen to me, so, acting presumptuously, he goes to Joppa, takes a ship that he's going to Tarshish, and he's running away from the command of God.
So, at sea, there was a storm, and according to superstitious belief, they believed that, listen, if somebody's running away from his master, God would send down some kind of calamity, and because we are at sea, there is a storm.
So, they take him and they throw him overboard. They take him and they throw him overboard. Now, when they threw him overboard, was he dead or was he alive? Jonah, when they threw him overboard, was he dead or was he alive?
Please help me out here. He was alive. And in the storm, raging sea, you expect the man to drown, but he doesn't drown. Instead, a fish swallows him up. In the belly of the fish, heat, suffocation, lack of oxygen, digestive juices, whatever they may be, you expect a man to die, but he doesn't die because according to the Bible, he prayed to God Almighty, and I assure you, dead men don't pray.
So, in the belly of the fish, he was alive. And this fish goes to shore and vomits him out. Was he dead or was he alive? He had to be alive because he went to the city of Nineveh and he gave the message of God and the people of Nineveh repented and the city of Nineveh was saved.
Simply because when they threw him overboard, he was alive. When he was in the belly of the fish, he was alive. And when he went to the city of Nineveh, he was still alive. How was Jesus Christ when they put him onto the cross?
Every Christian will tell you alive. How was Jesus Christ when they brought him down from the cross and put him in the tomb? Every Christian will tell you he was dead. The sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was, so shall the Son of Man be.
How was Jonah in the belly of the fish? He was alive. How was Jesus in the tomb? You say he was dead. Is that like Jonah or is that unlike Jonah? Listen, this is the only prophecy he's giving. And the reason why he's giving that is because he knew that these Jews, the scribes and the Pharisees, they knew the sign of Jonah.
Jonah was alive, Jonah was alive, Jonah was alive. Jesus was alive and then he's dead. Very unlike Jonah. So, if you believe that the prophecy is true and he fulfilled it, then you have to believe that he didn't die.
But if you believe that he died, then you are rejecting that prophecy in the Bible. And if you're rejecting that prophecy in the Bible, then you are rejecting Jesus. Again, it's heads I win, tails you lose.
Now, some Christians emphasize on the fact that it is not how he was, but rather the time frame, the time frame. Now, I don't believe that the issue here is the time frame. But if I have time, I have basically 10 minutes left, but if I have time, I might as well explain this to you, is that in the United States of America, some years back, all right, I, thank you.
Some years back in the United States of America, it was the Plain Truth Movement that had started this. And in order to fulfill the prophecy, they started researching and of course, most Christians don't agree with them, but you get Christians who believe in this.
And it states that Jesus Christ was not crucified on a Friday, but he was crucified on a Wednesday. So if you count from Thursday night, Friday night, Saturday night, early Sunday morning, Jesus Christ was not in the tomb.
They had the three days and three nights because they say, Jesus Christ said, for as Jonah was, three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
So I said, okay, let us look at the calculation. Friday night they brought him up from the cross. Friday night he's supposed to be in the tomb. Saturday day he's supposed to be in the tomb. And I'm using the word supposed because he could have came out Friday night or Saturday.
So Friday night he's supposed to be in the tomb. Saturday day supposed to be the tomb. Saturday night he's supposed to be in the tomb. But early Sunday morning when Mary Magdalene goes to the tomb the stone is moved out and Jesus is not there.
So I want to know even if you look at the time factor How many days and how many nights because you are telling me three days and three nights, but you have two nights and one day. So even on that basis that prophecy is not fulfilled but however a doctor Faye from the plaintiff movement started this concept and.
And it has gained some momentum in the United States of America and a little bit in Europe nothing in South Africa is yet I don't think they've exported it to South Africa as yet, but I received news of it is that they believe In a good Wednesday, not a good Friday.
And if you calculate like that now, there's a lot but I just want to read this out quickly. The difficulty is connected with though with these three three have arisen number one. But I'm not having noted these fixed points from the two from the facts of Gentiles not having been conversant with the law concerning the three great feats of the Lord and From not having reckoned the days as commencing some six hours before our own and running from sunset to sunset instead from midnight to midnight and it goes on to say that the first of each of these three feasts the Passover the Pentecost and the tabernacle was.
Was the convocation that is a Sabbath on which no servile work was to be done and they referred us to Leviticus chapter 23 verse 7 to 24. That Sabbath and the high Sabbath of John 1931. Was the holy convocation the first day the feast which quite overshadowed the ordinary weekly Sabbath.
This is the argument they use. It was called by the Jews young toe. And this is the greeting on that day through our jewelry down to the present time the great Sabbath having been mistaken from the earliest times for.
The weekly Sabbath has led to all the confusion so in other words these people are saying that the Christians who have now work on the weekly Sabbath and that has created all the confusion. With regard to crucifixion we need to define what crucifixion is.
You see and I've checked the dictionary and crucifixion means by impaling. By impaling on a cross either by tying or nailing to a cross. But that is to put to death. By impaling on the cross either by nailing or tying the person has to die on the cross for you to say that he is crucified.
Now annually what happens in the Philippines? We get more than 500 people. In order to follow the ritual of Jesus Christ in commemoration of Jesus Christ. Some of them do it because of the vows that they have taken are there.
Asking God for help and some of them thanking God for the benefits that they have received or for the favors that they have received. They actually get themselves crucified. And it's very easy for you to check this out.
Just go Google Crucifixion in the Philippines and you will get it. Ruben and age 53 years old has been crucified 27 times. He's still living. Ramiz Lazaro a dishwasher. Also been crucified. Alex Larangan 59 had himself crucified every year for the past 12 years, and I don't want to go on with this.
So when people go up to the cross and they come down alive. Do you have a word for it? Shia Ahmad did that said That when a person goes up to the cross and he dies it is a crucifixion. Xion, but if a person goes up to the cross and he comes down alive, then he's been crucified.
Ficted f i c t e d all these people in the philippines are not crucified. They have been crucified Jesus christ if they had put him onto the cross. He was not crucified. He was crucified because when he came down he was still alive.
He was physical. He appeared to his disciples in the upper room physical. He had told them that I am physical and not a spirit. And even the prophecy the sign of jonah. Now, the question is that why would?
He choose the sign of jonah. Many signs and if he could have said the people. Listen for as moses split the red sea. So shall the son of man split the mediterranean sea. It's a greater miracle. But no the sign of jonah why is because he was telling the jews that listen.
Whatever happened to jonah the same thing is going to happen to me. And I would just like to read a short note on the book that i've written why the sign of jonah. This is what jesus Was telling the jews.
That jonah received providence. The sign of jonah is basically related to providence. God's help god's care. This is what it means. This is what jesus was telling the jews that jonah received providence.
And he too will also receive providence. Jesus was telling them you can do your worst. But in the end I will survive just like jonah. That is why he chose the sign of jonah because that fish saved jonah and I must say tonight.
And i'm sorry to say this but i'm glad that i'm saying this. That yes, jesus christ was saved but your misinterpretation of the cross the cross was used to save him not to kill him. Why? It's his word against yours.
It's his word against the christians. It's his word against. Dr. James white. That he chose the sign of jonah for a specific reason. It's simple. Jonah was saved. He went to nineveh. He delivered the message Jesus christ was saved.
He did not die on that cross if he was on the cross. Now I have just two to three minutes left. And I just want to recap very quickly. Remember the beginning. What paul said? If christ will not raise our preaching is in vain our faith is in vain.
And I have given you i've learned enough evidence to show cause that jesus christ Did not die. He was not a spirit. Which means he was not resurrected if he was not resurrected. He did not die. So all that paul says.
And i'm going according to paul. That everything that christianity stands for is fiction. With regard to sign of jonah, he specifically chose the sign of jonah. Because the jews knew that jonah was saved and that is why he told them for as jonah was.
So shall I be. Jonah was saved by the fish. He was also saved. God took care of that because remember the jews he was hanging on the cross and they say. You said you could save yourself. Let's see how you do it.
And if you look at the prophets that came it came in many way. There was an earthquake. There was darkness of the sun even so much. So I still ask these the christians these questions and if dr white can help me out here tonight when the graves open up and the bodies from the graves Came out of the graves and started walking to jerusalem.
Where are those bodies today did they go back into the grave? What were they resurrected bodies? So all these things came to save jesus christ not to ensure that he died on the cross. Ladies and gentlemen, remember what paul said ladies and gentlemen.
Remember what jesus christ said. If christ be not raised from the dead our preaching is vain and your faith is in vain. Jesus christ said the only sign I give you is a sign of jonah. Jonah was alive. We expect jesus to be alive.
So I think i've led enough evidence to show cause that jesus christ was not resurrected and never died on the cross.
Thank you very much, mr. Ayub karim for that eloquent presentation. Ladies and gentlemen Now I would like to introduce the second speaker Dr. James white. The great white as I said is a dd meaning a doctor of divinity.
He holds that is a doctorate in theology. He reigns from america and is an author of many books. And he's the director of alpha and omega ministries in the usa. Ladies and gentlemen Please welcome. Dr. White will now present his case for 35 minutes.
All right. There we go. It is a pleasure to be with you all this evening it truly is. This is a vitally important subject and it's great to see a full crowd here this evening and I would like to thank Ayub karim for presenting Ahmed didot's position on this.
I have been looking for a long time. I have listened to much of akhmed didot's teaching. And i've been looking forward for a long time to be able to respond to someone Who would present the same arguments.
There were some arguments that weren't presented but in general. This was exactly what you would hear in akhmed didot's crucifixion or crucifixion lecture. And so i'm very very happy about that. One of the reasons I wanted to do this is because I believe that this particular lecture is one of the primary Stumbling blocks standing in the way Of christians and muslims moving forward in their understanding of each other's faith.
Now i'm going to have to say some very strong things tonight, but I will back them up and I will ask you To be the judges this evening. I am challenging everyone in this room this evening. Check out what each one of us says.
Listen to our references get the videos when they're when they're available and check out what we say against the best that scholarship has to offer. Because I say this is standing in our way because this particular form of argumentation Is fundamentally flawed on a scholarly level and I want to show that to you today.
I want to show why it is that to any christian who knows church history knows the original languages of the bible. Knows the cultural context of the new testament. The arguments that were presented just now hold No weight whatsoever.
They have no possibility of being true. None. Let me begin with just two basic errors and I want to go on to a positive presentation of what the bible actually says. These two errors undo everything that was just presented to you in 35 minutes.
Error number one. Instead of going to what the new testament says about what resurrection means and what the greek term for resurrection means. We had no discussion of that. We had a misunderstanding of first corinthians chapter 15.
That goes against all of modern scholarship in regards to what it means natural body versus spiritual body. The assumption that d dot made and it was made this evening is that resurrection means you come out as a spirit.
That is not what resurrection means. The greek term is anastasis. Anastasis means that which died. Coming to life again. That's exactly why when paul preached resurrection on mars hill in acts chapter 17 as soon as he made reference to the term.
Anastasis.
The greeks who were dualists stopped him in his tracks because they knew exactly what he was saying. He was saying that the physical body rose from the dead. They knew exactly what he meant and that's exactly the term means.
You can look it up in bauer Donker art and gingrich the current standard greek lexicon of koine greek and you look it up in low anita. I have all of those references with me and I will challenge. Uh yub kareem show me any scholarly reference in the greek language that's accepted by scholarship today.
That defines anastasis as being spiritual and there you go. You won't be able to find it. And in fact, I have debated some of the leading Liberal scholars in the world who've tried to present a kind of spiritual resurrection and you can go watch those debates.
So the first fundamental error the entire argument that didot made was that well, jesus was alive. Yes. He was resurrected, but he had a physical body. Yes, that's what resurrection means and that's what every jew in the first century would have understood it to mean.
No, jew of the first century would ever have made the argument. You just heard not a one. Not a one. That's first error. Second error is the sign of jonah. What was the essence of the sign of jonah three days and three nights?
It wasn't a lie versus dead or anything else. He was simply giving that issue of the three days and three nights. Oh, but it wasn't three days to three nights. Yes, it was. The jews counted any portion of a day as a full day.
And so the fact of the matter is all the gospels say including john that jesus was crucified on parra skeway now that is normally translated in english bibles and and. One of the issues we have here this evening is is that i've been asked.
Well, what what translation of the bible you're going to use? I won't use a translation of the bible. I teach both greek and hebrew. I read it in the original languages and the original term is para skeway.
And para skeway me is normally translated as preparation. Preparation day, but there's a little problem. It's also the formal word for friday. And all the gospels agree that jesus was crucified on friday before sundown because the sabbath was coming on.
And so you've got friday. He's in the tomb on saturday. He rises on sunday morning in jewish reckoning. That's three days now. You don't may not like jewish reckoning. You may want to argue with it. You won't be able to make any sense out of succession lists and everything else in the old testament if you do.
But everyone who listened to what jesus said in his context would have understood exactly That and the reality is jesus defined what he meant by that. We didn't hear this but over and over again as we're going to see jesus Said to his disciples the son of man is going to go and he is going to be turned over to the leaders.
He is going to be scourged. He's going to be crucified. He's going to be buried. He's going to rise again, and he told his disciples exactly that so once you understand what the people themselves would have understood the sign of jonah to mean.
And once you understand what anastasis means the entire presentation that akhmed didak made and it was repeated this evening. Collapses on just simply those facts and they are facts if you're going to say they're not facts.
Then you need to refute them from the original languages and that's the challenge this evening.
Now.
Is the new testament not clear on the crucifixion? Akhmed dida actually made it sound like and this evening, uh, mr. Kareem made it sound like that the new testament writers themselves Did not believe that jesus died upon a cross and yet any meaningful reading of matthew mark luke john paul Peter and all of them.
They all referred to jesus christ as the crucified and the risen one using that term anastasis every single one of them. They all made this statement without any question. For example, let's look at matthew.
Matthew chapter 17 verse 22 as they were gathering in galilee Jesus said to them the son of man is about to be delivered into the hands of men and they will kill him. And he will be raised on the third day.
Do you believe that esau was a prophet? Was he a false prophet? Well here he says in matthew 17 The son of man is about to be delivered into the hands of men and they will kill him and he'll be raised on the third Day, and they were greatly distressed.
Is that a true prophecy or false prophecy? I say it's a true prophecy. In matthew chapter 21 verse 37 finally, he sent this is in a parable. This is in a parable that jesus is telling finally. He sent his son to them saying they will respect my son.
But when the tenants saw the son they said themselves this is the heir come. Let us kill him and have his inheritance and they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Jesus is making the application of the jews what they're going to do to him and what they're going to do to him.
They're going to kill him. Matthew chapter 26 when jesus had finished all these sayings. He said to his disciples, you know that after two days the passover is coming and the son of man will be delivered up to be.
What crucified? Was he a true prophet or a false prophet? I believe jesus was a true prophet. If you're going to deny the crucifixion, you're going to have to call jesus a false prophet. And I know why you deny the crucifixion.
I know surah 4157 very well, but my friends think about something for a moment surah 4157 40 arabic words. Written six centuries after the days of jesus in a different language 700 miles away. Would you accept without any foundation historically whatsoever someone who comes along 600 years after muhammad?
And decides the barrage and the isra never took place. There was never any trip to heaven. There was never any trip to jerusalem. There was no no no winged beast. All of that didn't take place. And when you ask him why he simply says because i'm a prophet would you accept that?
That's what you're asking us to accept. That 40 arabic words and most of you know. There is no hadith commentary on surah 4 1 2 7 nothing. And so on the basis of 40 arabic words. We're supposed to overthrow everything the new testament says and every single historical fact concerning the crucifixion of jesus christ.
There there is no question whatsoever in the minds of even the most radical skeptics that jesus christ was crucified. So I know why you don't accept these things, but I ask you do you really have a consistent basis for doing so?
I go back to the testimony of the injeel itself. That we are told that we are to follow in. How about we looked at we looked at matthew and we see that he was to be crucified and killed. How about mark?
They went on from there and passed through galilee. And he did not want anyone to know for he was teaching his disciples saying to them. The son of man is going to be delivered to the hands of men and they will kill him.
And when he is killed after three days, he will rise. But they did not understand the saying and were afraid to ask. How about mark chapter 10. Saying see we are going to jerusalem the son of man will be delivered over the chief priest and the scribes and they will condemn Him to death and deliver him over to the gentiles.
And they will mock him and spit on him and flog him and kill him and after three days he will rise. Those are the words of jesus. Was he telling the truth? Or was he not telling the truth? Uh mark chapter 15 verse 24 and they crucified him and divided his garments among them casting lots for them.
To decide what each should take and it was the third hour when they crucified him by the way. The only difference the only reason there's a difference between the hours in matthew mark and luke and john.
Is because matthew mark and luke are using jewish timing which begins at sunrise. John is using roman timing because he's writing later and jerusalem has been destroyed by then and so he uses roman timing.
Which begins at midnight. If you take that correction into consideration, they all say the same thing. There's no contradiction you see folks. Even scales the quran says we're to use even scales, right?
That means you need to apply the same standards and looking at my scriptures. That you use and looking at your own you allow the quran to define its own terms. You will not take one section ignore another section.
Don't do that to the new testament. Don't ignore everything the new testament says here. Now we see matthew intended to communicate that jesus was going to die. Mark intended to indicate that jesus was going to be died.
He was he was going to uh be crucified and he says in mark 1537. And jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. That means to die. Not to swoon. Nobody who would ever read that in the original language to go.
Oh, he's not dead. No, he died. And it's interesting in mark chapter 15 Pilate was surprised to hear that he should already have died. Why. Well that was pretty quick folks the bible says jesus gave his life.
He had control of this situation. He said no one takes my life from me. I give it of my own accord. He breathed his last he gave his life and he determined when he was going to die. And that's exactly what he did.
And if you sit before me today. Thinking that the moon can be split. And the prophets can fly on little beasts to jerusalem. You can't look at me and say that jesus couldn't do that because we're all supernaturalists in this room.
We all believe god has that kind of power even scales even scales. Mark chapter 16. This wasn't presented this evening. I'd like to ask You cream if he accepts d dot's argument on this. But when the sabbath was passed mary magdalene mary the mother of james and salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint him.
And in the crucifixion or crucifixion presentation d dot said that meant to massage. I've always been shocked by that. The greek word means to anoint it never means massage and I would challenge anyone to show me any place in all of ancient literature.
Or that's where d dot was right. He speaks the hebrew word. How does he know what the hebrew word was that mark was supposed to mark was written in greek? It wasn't written in hebrew. And the hebrew term is mashiach, which means to anoint not to massage.
It's an error on every possible level and he repeated it over and over and over again. I'd like to know if ayub kareem Would make that same assertion that mary had seen signs of life and was going to massage the body of jesus.
After he's had no water and been in a cold dark tomb for three days. How about we've seen matthew we've seen mark. How about luke. For he'll be delivered over the gentiles will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon.
And after flogging him they will kill him and on the third day he will rise. But they understood none of these things there. You've got the prophecy of jesus again. In luke chapter 23 and when they came to the place that is called the skull there.
They crucified him and the criminals one on his right hand and one on his left. They crucified him Matthew luke 23 46. And jesus calling out with loud voice father into your hands I commit my spirit. And having said this he breathes his last and again.
You show me anywhere where that language in the first century meant anything other than die. Give me some scholarship. Give me something serious. If I make an assertion if I say that a phrase in the quran had such and such a meaning.
It's up to me to provide a foundation for that. Same thing here even scales even scales. Um luke 24 luke 24 7. The son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified. And on the third day rise.
John then adds to this john chapter 19. So they took jesus and he went out bearing his own cross to the place called the place of a skull which in aramaic is called Golgotha. There they crucified him with him to others one on either side and jesus between them.
Pilate also an inscription and put it on the cross and read jesus of nazareth king of the jews. John 1930. When jesus received the sour wine. He said it is finished and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
That means he died. John 1932. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
Now the argument is frequently made. Well, that's the mistake. That was the mistake that the jews referred to when they said the second mistake would be greater than the first. No, it is not. The first mistake that the jews referred to was the acceptance of the idea that jesus was a prophet of the messiah.
The second would be to allow his body to be taken away so it could be said that he was resurrected. That is what the scripture is talking about has nothing to do with this these individuals. Who determined he was dead.
Remember remember in mark we are told That it was a centurion. Pilate inquired of a centurion as to whether jesus was dead. Centurions were experts at death. They knew a dead man and how to make somebody dead.
And so you have a centurion certifying and remember if he's wrong. And jesus wasn't dead. It's the centurion who dies so he's going to make sure of these things. And so he certifies to pilot that jesus is dead.
And here in john 19 They see but when they came to jesus and saw that he was already dead they did not break his legs. Very clear. John chapter 19. So they took the body of jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices.
Do you have any idea? The damage that is done to the physical body by taking it off of a cross. It's bad enough to put it on think about what it's like to take it off. Do you really think someone who is swooned?
Is not going to respond to be taken off a cross and the pain of wrapping the body. So they took the body of jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices as is the burial custom of the jews now in.
The place where he was crucified there was a garden and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. So because the jewish day of preparation since the tomb was close at hand they laid jesus there my friends no one Can possibly fairly read?
Matthew mark luke and john. Without coming to the conclusion that each one of those authors Fully and completely intended to communicate to their audiences that jesus christ was crucified. You cannot read them in any other way.
It is impossible. You have to isolate one little phrase here one little phrase there connect these things together and then throw everything out.
I.
Would be embarrassed. To deal with the quran in that way and yet that's exactly what akhmed did out with it did with the new testament.
Exactly.
And so my friends. The quran commands you to use beautiful arguments in dealing with the people of the book. I would not consider it a beautiful argument. For someone to come along and to try to take the words of the quran.
And string them together. So that the claim of the author of the quran is exactly opposite of what it obviously is. If someone came along and tried to string together a phrase here and a phrase there to make it sound like the author of the Quran was actually telling us to worship multiple gods.
Wouldn't it be rather obvious? That they were misrepresenting the quran and the author of the quran. And so when it is the absolutely unquestionable Intention of the authors of matthew mark luke john.
We haven't even gotten to paul and everything else yet. To communicate to us that jesus christ was crucified that he was dead. Buried and then resurrected that which died coming to life again. That's what anastasis means.
How then can we even begin to countenance. An argument that would say well, no actually they're telling us that jesus didn't die. That mary was going to massage the body. None of this has any basis in the text whatsoever.
None.
When you think of Surah 4 157 and its claims and this is the let's be honest. This is the only reason you sit here this evening as a muslim. Denying the crucifixion if you think about if you didn't have surah 4 157.
And you read surah 355 and you said you read surah 1933 and the standard translation of the arabic there is to die. Talks about the death of jesus if you didn't have surah 4 157. We wouldn't be here this evening.
Because the only people. Who ever denied the physical crucifixion of jesus for the first? 300 years of christian history where people called gnostics. You do not want to be on the same side as the gnostics.
The gnostics are not your friends. The gnostics denied the crucifixion of jesus because they were dualists. And they believed that anything physical is evil and anything. It's spiritual is good. So since jesus was a good guy, then he could not have had a physical body.
So they denied that jesus even had a physical body you believe he did have a physical body. They also believe that the creator of this world was an evil demiurge an evil god. Which means they believe that yahweh was an evil god or in your theology that it was said that allah is an evil god.
That's why I said you don't do not want to be on the side of the gnostics. They're not your friends. But they denied the crucifixion for a simple reason jesus couldn't have a physical body and it's very hard to crucify a spirit.
And so they're the only people.
So.
Every source other than the gnostics. Secular christian jewish every source that even makes reference to this affirms the crucifixion. It's so clear and so compelling that even the unbelievers know that jesus was crucified.
Let me give you two quotes. One fellow that i've debated myself. His fellow by name bart ehrman. And he's probably the leading english-speaking critic of new testament christianity today in the world.
He's a an apostate. Um, he used to be a christian and now he's a he calls himself a happy agnostic. But i'll be perfectly honest with you. I've met him. He is an agnostic, but he didn't seem very happy and.
Uh, even he has said these words one of the most certain facts of history Is that jesus was crucified on orders the roman prefect of judea pontius pilate? He's a hyper skeptical critic and he says one of the most certain facts of history Is that jesus was crucified on orders the roman prefect of judea pontius pilate.
Another man that I have debated. John, dominic crossan a brilliant man. Um a raving heretic, but a brilliant man and i've told him he's my favorite heretic. Uh, he doesn't really believe that there is a a a personal god.
He doesn't really believe in afterlife. He's a former roman catholic monk. But he's considered one of the leading historical jesus scholars in the world today. And here's what he said that he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.
That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be. So if the most amazing critics will say, you know, the one thing we know for certain is the crucifixion. So you've got them. You have the christian sources.
You have secular sources like tacitus so on and so forth. You have the only denials are people on a religious basis who aren't really concerned about history. Anyways, they're they're more concerned about their religious rituals.
And then 600 years later you have 40 arabic words about which you as muslims know nothing. In regards to their revelation their background. There's no hadith commentary on it. And that's a solid basis for me to abandon everything history says everything that I have from the first century and by the way from eyewitnesses, I am I I I I really would like to point something out my friends john 1926 John was an eyewitness.
You have to call him a liar. But according to john 1926 John was there. And I don't know how many times I heard d dot debate and speak on this never talked about it. Why not because he was an eyewitness.
He kept going to mark they all fled. But they didn't stay fled. Peter was there not at the cross but at the trial. And john was there and in fact jesus from the cross entrusts his mother mary to john's care.
In john chapter 19 that makes him an eyewitness and he's the first one to run to the tomb. We do have eyewitness testimony, don't we? And that comes from the first century. And so can you give me a reason other than just simply saying well, we believe it.
Can you give me a reason why? Everything from the first century everything from the second century everything from the third century. Other than some weird gnostic people who think whoever created this world is evil said the same thing and then You tell me 600 years later.
Someone comes along in a different language who was never in jerusalem at least not physically that we know of. And was not there at the time of the crucifixion of jesus. And he writes 40 arabic words never explains them.
No one for 250 years after muhammad could remember a single word he ever said about these 40 arabic words. And i'm supposed to abandon everything that history and the first century writers. In the injeel itself the injeel which is described as being sent down by a law containing light and guidance i'm supposed to ignore all that.
That's what we're being asked this evening. As I said last evening in the debate and as I will say again this evening we must have equal scales. If you apply to the new testament. The standards of interpretation and fairness that you will rightly demand I use in reading the quran.
You will never substantiate surah 4 1 2 7. You can't do it. So that's a question you're going to have to answer. I don't expect you to go. Well, that's it. He must be right. But I do expect you to think.
And to consider it and to ask yourself the question if you were in my shoes, would you find that a compelling argument? The argument that was presented this evening did not understand anastasis. Did not understand the sign of jonah did not understand.
Uh parisque. And is wrong in each one of those things and those those those are the foundation wash them away. And there was no argument made this evening. There really wasn't.
How do we move forward from here? My suggestion quite honestly. Is that we think about These things a when you Read the new testament and I would invite you to do so. I've read the quran many times. I think it's important for my people to hear what your book says to us.
But the reality is. Most christians have never read the quran and most muslims. I know have never read the bible. Read the gospel of luke. Read jesus's interaction with his disciples after the resurrection how he points them to the scriptures.
How he has to open their minds to understand the scriptures. The reality of the resurrection. I know the argument. He was alive. He was alive. Yes when you are resurrected you are alive. And you eat fish and uh, and and you you.
You can walk with people and all those things but the resurrected body is a glorified body. It is not a corruptible body any longer. That's paul's point. And so read what luke says and read about how the resurrection is something that the spirit Opens our hearts and minds to even understand and to be able to grasp.
And then ask yourself a question. Does my religion teach me that there is a spiritual realm that requires spiritual enlightenment and we both know the question the answer to that Allah guides who he will just does he not.
Are you being consistent to demand naturalistic answers from christians? When you yourselves are supernaturalists. When you believe in the miraculous. Are you being consistent? And then in light of that, how can we move forward?
My suggestion to you is this. Until this kind of argumentation is abandoned and no longer used. You will not be showing beautiful words beautiful arguments to the alaqitaab. Just as I have often rebuked christians.
Who have presented? Less than meaningful argumentation against islam and I see it all the time. I mean i've taken heat today. Because I dared to be kind and to have meaningful interaction. With brother yusuf ismail in the back of this room I took there are christians that think i'm compromising because I didn't call him names.
And I didn't treat him with disrespect last evening because it's quite obvious. I like him. And I pray for him. And I I don't want god's curse upon him. I want god's blessing upon him and every muslim in this room.
I take heat from my own community for that. And I would imagine that probably goes the other direction too. There are people in both of our communities, they don't want communication. They don't want us to understand each other.
For a lot of muslims. I'm, just a coffer. Don't listen to him. It doesn't matter how often he's read the quran doesn't matter whether he's read the hadith. Doesn't matter whether he tries to understand what we believe ignore him.
I know those voices. They're on my side, too. I blocked someone from facebook this morning. Because I posted a picture and one of their comments was Because it was in the mosque one of their comments said synagogue of satan.
They're all reprobates. I rebuked the person and blocked them. Okay, we've got hot heads on both sides. My question is Where are you? Where are you? Do you hear the quran's command to give beautiful words?
Do you agree with me that al-haq one of the beautiful names that the bible itself uses of god is important? And that we need to know the truth. God's truth, but you know what you need to know the truth about people even when you disagree with them.
Even when you disagree with them. We have no right to misrepresent those even if we feel that they're wrong not if we're people of truth. And so my suggestion to you is this line of argumentation which completely misrepresents the text of new testament must be abandoned.
If we are going to move forward. If we're always just back here on the basic level stuff trying to go. I'm, sorry, but you don't seem to understand resurrection is resurrection is that which died coming to life again.
And so the resurrection was physical and so all the physical stuff jesus does after the cross means he was resurrected. That's how everybody understood it in the first century if we have to keep going back over that again and again and again.
How are we going to advance this discussion? And folks if we don't advance this discussion who's going to? If we remain in ignorance about each other's faith. Two communities that cannot argue knowledgeably and respectfully the only thing they've got left is to fight.
And haven't we seen enough of what that brings in our world already? And so I say to you when we address these issues. And you may disagree last night. Yusuf said you you you didn't handle surah 5 47 correctly, but we discussed it.
We were able to talk about it go to the text. This kind of argumentation Is simply so far removed from the obvious intention of the new testament writers that it needs to be abandoned. It doesn't matter how popular someone might be who presents it if we're going to move forward.
That's the only way we're going to be able to do it. I've come across.
Across.
The entire globe halfway around the world i've got a long trip tomorrow. And i've come here because I care about god's truth. I care about the gospel of jesus christ. I am his servant. My life is in his hand to use as he wishes.
But even your own quran says that in the heart of the followers of jesus god has placed compassion. Does it not say that? And I can assure you I speak to you with compassion. I speak to you because I care about you.
And I want you to know what I believe. And I can trust the spirit of my god. With the truth from that point forward I respect you. I love you. I care for you as well as for you. Are you kareem? And I want our discussion this evening to be marked by respect because of that.
And i'm not trying to be disrespectful to anyone but saying we need to stop using Bad argumentation when it has been proven to be very bad. And so unless in the next period. Mr. Karim can provide some pretty heavy-duty substantiation for what anastasis Is supposed to mean the original language and how the jews kept time.
And all these passages that I have read. Then I would say we need to abandon this form of argumentation and move forward in a more meaningful way to discuss. What is surah 4157 about what does it really mean?
How can we understand it within a any meaningful view of history? That's something we need to discuss and maybe In my rebuttal time I can I can discuss what some of those options have been. That some people have taken unfortunately, it's not the majority muslim view, but some people have taken it.
Maybe we'll have the opportunity to discuss that we'll see now in how mr. Karim responds. Thank you very much for your attention this evening.
Ladies and gentlemen our next segment. Is the rebuttal? We into the rebuttal session. Each speaker will have 15 minutes. And i'm now going to call upon brother ayub karim. Proceed immediately. Thank you.
Testing testing one two. Dr. White. Can you hear me? All right. Thank you. Okay. Dr. White said he can hear you but he doesn't want to listen to you. Okay. Mr chairman, can I begin? Ladies and gentlemen, I have a difficult task in front of me in that I need to rebuttal Dr. James white, but the difficulty lies not in the content but in the quantity that I have to deal with.
And I would like to begin by rectifying the concept of the resurrection. And I think the only person Will be able to rectify what a resurrected body looks like I don't think it'll be me. Dr. James white or even saint paul I think the ideal person we need to ask Is jesus christ peace be upon him.
Like How the scribes and pharisees Went well actually it was sadducees they didn't believe in resurrection so they approached jesus christ according to Luke chapter luke chapter 22. They came to jesus christ and They were Asked they were asking jesus christ that listen the way there was this one jewish person.
And i'm summarizing because I have limited time. There was this jewish person and he married a certain woman, but then he died and according to jewish custom. Is that if he didn't have any children? So the next brother will marry that woman and the children they they will that she will bear will take the eldest brother's name.
And it so happened in this case. The first brother died the second one married her and he died. And then the third one married her and then he died and the fourth one married her and then he died. It carried on like that with seven brothers until they all died and ultimately she died.
I don't know if she killed them all. But they died according to jesus christ. You know if you were listening to bala in peru, then he will say no probably she gave the mushroom curry. Okay, but. So they come to jesus christ and it says master at resurrection.
Whose wife will she be because at resurrection everybody will get up. And the first brother will say this is my wife and the second one will say my wife third one. And they all will fight for her as she being each one's wife.
So at resurrection whose wife will she be? And jesus christ answers and he says that at resurrection. They neither marry nor are given into marriage for they are resurrected like unto the angels. Mark uses the word angelized.
Angels are not physical. Angels are not physical. So the relics so the resurrection of jesus christ definitely could or could not have been. Physical it had to be spiritual, but jesus christ was physical.
So that means he was not resurrected. He was not spiritualized not angelized. He was not like unto the angels, but here's the twist in the argument. Here's a twist in the argument and I would like Dr. James white to correct me if i'm wrong.
You see according to john chapter 20 verse 15, there's a dialogue between mary and jesus. And jesus sees mary Magdalene and says mary. Why weepers thou whom seekers thou. And she turning around sees jesus christ, but she doesn't know he's jesus christ and she and according to the bible.
She sees him and she supposed that he is the gardener she thinks that he is the gardener. Now two questions I have for dr white. Number one is that she is looking at jesus christ after the resurrection at the empty tomb nearby there.
But she sees jesus christ. She doesn't know it is jesus christ. And she thinks that he is the gardener. Now I want to know why will she think? That the person she's looking at is the gardener. And if he's resurrected and later on he identifies himself as jesus.
Then I want to know. Do resurrected bodies look like gardeners? I'm not saying this. It's in the bible. Do resurrected bodies look like gardeners that when I will be resurrected my dear friend fadil. Dr. James white and rudolph and all of you would be resurrected as gardeners.
Evidence in the bible. She supposed he was the gardener. This man you claim was resurrected. So why is he looking like the gardener according to jesus christ they are angelized. They are like unto the angels.
He's supposed to be a spirit. But here is he there looking like a gardener? And then in the upper room handle me and see. Physical somebody getting tired in the audience. Okay. Let me lighten things up for you.
Now what happens is this. Dr. White is talking about standards and very quickly. There was this debate between a pope and a rabbi. And they need to maintain even standards. Although I don't find it here.
But we'll let's try and see how this standard works. So the pope didn't want the jewish people to live in the vatican city. So he wanted them to go. And they said they won't go so they said okay, we will have a debate a dialogue call it whatever you want and the one that wins Will go.
I mean the one that win will stay. And the one that lose must go. So they arranged a date the pope was there, but they decided to have it privately. So the pope starts his debate by doing this. And the jewish person he looks at that and he points down to the ground.
And the pope goes like this. And the jewish guy goes like this and then the pope breaks bread. Takes holy communion and the rabbi takes out his takes on an apple from his bag and eats it. And the pope walked away in the secretariat of the pope.
These people are asking him what happened what happened? So he said, you know, he knocked me point for point. So he says what happened? So he said I said god is everywhere. And he told me god is right here.
I said god is the trinity and he said no ways god is one and in good faith. I took holy communion. They asked well, then what he said he took an apple to show the sin in every man. Meantime in the camp of the rabbi.
They are asking the rabbi what happened? So he said listen, he told me you all got to go. And I said not one of us is leaving here. He said you have three days he says no one is leaving. He says then what he broke for lunch.
So I started eating mine. Now when we talk about the resurrection. It's a difficult situation. I understand for christians is that if jesus christ is telling you that they are angelized. Then I would rather believe jesus christ.
So he was physical. She's looking at the gardener and you need to tell me why he looked like a gardener. With regard to three days and three nights. I don't think I need to belabor this point. I will leave that for a future debate.
Between those who celebrate good friday and those who celebrate good wednesday the day you'll have that sorted out. Then come and talk to us muslims in the meantime you sort it out. Listen to jesus christ in the context you see telling us.
That he went to sanhedrin. Telling us that he was beaten telling us that he had to carry his cross. But then they gave it to simon of cyrene and telling us that they hung him on the cross and telling us that he died.
All that is good. You are telling me a story. Please lead evidence to prove such a case. This is my simple request. Leave the evidence prove to me that he died. Don't tell me he died now. While christians say that he was crucified.
I have a few references from the bible. Acts chapter 5 verse 29 to 30. Jesus christ was hung was killed by hanging on a tree not a cross. Acts chapter 10 verse 39. They killed him by hanging him on a tree.
Acts chapter 13 verse 29. They took him down from the tree. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. He was hung on the tree so You have another dilemma which you need to sort out the gospels are telling you cross.
The book of acts also written by luke and he's telling you tree. So you have a contradiction within yourself, please sort that out and then we can discuss it further. Was it cross was it tree? But now here's the third twist to it.
The joe was witness. They say he was neither crucified. He was not even put on the tree. They say he was put on a stake. A straightforward pole and while christian believe that jesus christ was like this on the cross.
Joe was witnessing. He was like this on the cross. I mean on the stake so between the cross the tree and the stake. It's a christ. It's a serious christian dilemma, which I don't have to deal with I have my faith secure in what the quran tells me.
This is something christian scholars need to sort out.
With With regard to him being dead. I wrote on so many points. I just got to work with it. With regard to him being dead. The most the bible can tell us. Is that they received confirmation? From a single centurion a roman god.
That he was dead other than that you have no other proof. But what creates the doubt? Is that only mark the other three gospel writers don't say anything about this? It is only mark who says. And pilate Marveled that he died so soon on the cross.
I mean, here's it in the philippines. The average time spent on the cross is six hours. Which means that a guy could have spent one hour on the cross. He could have spent 12 hours on the cross and he still comes down alive.
So pilot marveled that jesus christ was already dead because He's governor and he actually ordered many Executions by crucifixion and he knows that it takes a pretty long time. For somebody to die on the cross the cross is meant to make you suffer.
It's lingering suffering, but your death does not come as soon as what people say that jesus christ died. To me, it's a near impossibility. It it just can't happen. So pilate being the governor. He wonders if jesus christ was dead.
So what was the standard to verify the death in those days you just see somebody dead and he's dead. I don't think so now. Just because they said he's dead doesn't mean he's dead. Pilate marveled that he died so soon and then Mark chapter 9 verse 26 the spirit shrieked.
Convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse. The boy looked so much like a corpse. The people said he's dead. So they said he's dead, but was he dead? No, he was not dead.
The gods were so afraid. This is about the tomb. Matthew chapter 28 verse 4 the gods were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. They became like dead men, but were they dead? No, they were not dead.
But here's the one that clinches the deal for me. Acts chapter 14 verse 19 They stoned paul. Our famous saint paul. They stoned him and they dragged him outside the city. Thinking he was dead. Can you see.
I mean they didn't have medical practices in those days to take a pulse and see whether he was still living. They didn't understand that concept. They would wait a period of time and if the person is dead, he's dead and they would bury him.
But then there was a very good chance. They knew that the person is not dead. But for what a reason they couldn't understand it, but then in a case like paul. Thinking he was dead. They dragged him to the gates and they left him there and what happened to saint paul.
When they cut out dispersed his disciples came he got up and he walked away. So if the chances are that the that the corpse the boy they thought he was dead. He was not dead. The gods. They looked like dead, but they were not dead.
Paul they thought he was dead, but he was not dead this centurion. He saw that jesus christ was yes. He saw but there was no way to verify it. So there is precedent in the bible many cases where they would think a person is dead.
But he's not dead and the same principle applies here. Why the sign of jonah is because this was a method of god almighty to save him when jonah was followed by the fish. Everybody on the ship thought jonah is dead.
So now he's on the cross and he comes down and everybody thinking that jesus christ is dead. Apply the principle of the sign of jonah. He has to be alive. He has to be alive. He has to be alive jesus christ.
Was not a willing person to go on to the cross. Hebrews chapter 5 verse 7. Yes, dr. White i'm quoting this. He in the days of his flesh. Cried to god almighty prayed to god almighty with loud cries and fervent prayers.
To the one that was able to save him from death. And god heard his prayers. What does god mean by god heard? Is god deaf at any time? God is hearing all the time. And abraham prayed for a son and god heard his prayers and ishmael was born.
Which means god accepted and zechariah in his old age prayed for a son and god heard his prayers. And zechariah and john the baptist was born. So heard in this term means Accepted so god accepted the praise of jesus christ and he was definitely saved.
Thank you very much Ladies general without much further ado. Can I please call dr. White to present his 15 minutes of rebuttal time.
All right. Let's listen very carefully to what has been said. I wish to go through A number of statements that have been presented and once again focus our attention on the facts of the issue. It has been said this evening that all the knowledge that the disciples had the crucifixion was secondhand.
That has been shown to be false in light of john chapter 19 verse 26. It has been said that the sign of jonah was the only prophecy that jesus gave. That is untrue. We have read a number of times when jesus prophesied Aside from the sign of jonah to his disciples that he was going to go to jerusalem.
Be betrayed into the hands of the chief priest that he was going to be scourged. He was going to be crucified. He was going to be buried and he was going to rise again on the third day. So we have seen that the statement this was the only prophecy he gave is untrue.
Then we have had this story about the folks in the philippines folks. None of those people are ever crucified as jesus was. They don't intend to die. Uh, they were not scourged they were not whipped. They did not have a crown of thorns and they did not have a sword thrust into their sides into the pericardium of their heart.
There is a vast difference between a full crucifixion and a partial crucifixion. Jesus experienced the totality and the roman centurion knew it and history tells us that of the tens and hundreds of Thousands of crucifixions that took place on the romans and by the way.
The quran mentions the egyptians crucifying people. History says they never did that. That's a question. You might want to look into in regards to your own Scriptures, but in regards to all the records that the romans ever kept of all those crucifixions.
There's one story where the jewish historian josephus Was returning to a city. He saw three of his friends who had been crucified. Uh, I think earlier that day he went to the governor. Since he had pull with the romans they were taken down.
And even with the best roman care that they had now they had not received the death blow so they had partial crucifixions. Only one survived the other two died because again removing a body from the cross actually probably causes more trauma than leaving it on the cross does and so.
You have what you're being asked tonight is to become a hyper skeptic. Oh, yeah, sure. Matthew mark luke and john all say he died, but we don't really know who dies. Really? That's how you look at history.
Is centurion said he died the authors said he died. That's what they're communicating and every bit of information we have from history says he died, but Who knows? We accept 40 arabic words and 600 years later that overthrows all of that.
Where's the even scales do you interpret the quran that way? Do you allow people to come along and interpret the quran the way that you're now interpreting our scriptures? I don't believe. That you do we were asked about matthew's resurrected saints.
Where did they go? Well, they obviously died. There was only a certain number of them. They had to have died fairly recently because they were known to the people in jerusalem. Um, so I don't see an issue sounds like we have a rattlesnake in the room someplace.
Um.
Uh, oh that's from outside. Oh, somebody needs to tell him he needs a tune-up. Okay. All right. I was concerned about that. Um, then in just the last few moments. Matthew chapter 22. He said luke chapter 22.
It's matthew chapter 22. Jesus and the sadducees. And the woman married to the seven. It was the leveret law and it was about the nature of the resurrection. We were told that mark uses the term angel eyes.
I would like to challenge Mr. Ayub karim to show us the greek term angel eyes. There is no such term. There is no such term in the original language. I've got the greek new testament right here. If if I if you'd like me i'll i'll give it to you and you show me the term angel eyes doesn't exist.
I heard d dot say it. He was wrong. He never read greek. He made numerous errors in greek. There is no angel eyes. The phrase is host anglois and toys or noise.
Hosts.
As angels not angel eyes, there's no verb there. And you say oh angels are all spirits. Well, they are ministering spirits, but um ask um. Ask someone who wrestled with an angel in the old testament Whether they can have physical form.
Ask. The two angels that appeared with yahweh in genesis 18 and 19 they sat down outside of the tent of the By the oaks of mamre with abraham. And what did they do? They ate Food that was prepared by sarah.
Remember that?
Huh?
The point of jesus statement is not to talk about the body every jewish. Look, just look at what the jews believed in the first century about the resurrection. Just look you will find out i'm not deceiving you.
The term anastasis has a specific meaning that would have been understood by the people and no one of them would have understood. Either matthew chapter 22 or mark chapter 12 in the way. It was just presented to you.
They understood the resurrection. There's that which died coming to life again. That's why jesus could say to mary and martha. I am the resurrection life and and one of the answers.
Oh, yes.
We I I know he's going to rise in in the resurrection at the end of days. And jesus goes actually it's going to be a little earlier than that. Uh, i'm the first fruits of the resurrection. I am the resurrection life.
But they all understood what resurrection was and jesus was not disputing about the nature of the resurrection body. What he was saying was the whole basis of the argumentation that they had was flawed.
That this issue of well, who's she could be married to? Those human relationships. Are transcended by the resurrected state? That's all jesus was saying. So you're missing that point. There is no term angelized.
And if you think there is I would like to challenge you to do that. Uh next, uh, you have the issue of. The mistaking of jesus for the gardener. Just read the text. What does john tell us? She was crying.
She doesn't expect to find jesus. She thinks she's been moved. And so she's weeping and you're in a garden and someone says why are you weeping? Who do you think it might be? Might be a gardener. There's no difficulty there.
Has nothing to do with disguise. D dot used to say jesus was in disguise. There's no reference to disguise anywhere in the bible. It's all fantasy. It's just not there. Uh prove to me that he died. We just said prove to me that he died.
Prove to me muhammad rode a winged beast to jerusalem. Right now show me I want. I want to. I will not accept anything but a videotape. Well, i'll take a digital version, you know videotape. Can't do it.
Can you. There you go, and that's exactly what I say. If you believe in revelation that challenge makes no sense. The real question is what did the writers of matthew mark luke and john intend to communicate to us?
That jesus died and was resurrected that his body rose from the dead. He showed thomas the signs of the wounds. That was their intention. That's what they intended. You're reading something into them that they never intended.
And so if the question is what a naturalist would say is well give me forensic evidence from a medical. You know transport a medical person back in time or something like that. That is not a meaningful challenge to an ancient text.
Yours or mine. Yours or mine. Uh, what about the cross versus the tree. Well, uh. The quotation in regards to the tree goes back to deuteronomy. And a cross is made out of wood. Uh, and you hang people on a cross.
You hang people on a tree. You sometimes hang them differently. I mean you can hang from the neck or you can have crucifixion. Um, but they're both talking about the same thing and since luke wrote both of them.
Why do you assume luke's contradicting himself? Do you interpret muhammad as contradicting himself? Do you start off with that assumption or you ask or when you look at the different versions of the fall of iblis?
And they're not the same. And you look at the different versions of what happens with lot in the quran. They're not the same. The words aren't the same. They're not the same order. They say different things.
Some say this some say that do you just automatically assume up contradiction. I'm gonna become an agnostic. No, you don't. You fairly allow for different versions of the same story. Why not do that with luke?
Because you have to assume that luke who writes the gospels about the crucifixion and then records the story about the tree is going. Oh, i've forgotten what I wrote earlier. So i'm just gonna come up with something new that's uneven scales again.
Let's apply the same standards. Then we have the good old jehovah's witnesses. Wow, even even the jehovah's witnesses have shown up this evening uh, and we have the difference between crucifixion where your arms are out like this and and being put on a stake where Your hands are over your head.
Says. Explain that one for us. I don't know what it has to do with the subject of the debate, but I will it's real simple. You know why the jehovah's witnesses are wrong. I've debated them too, by the way, you know why they're wrong because of the word.
Halon. Halon. Halon means nails. And in the book of john, what does thomas say unless I see the print of the halon? Plural in his hands. Plural. If his hands were over his head, there'd be one nail through the two hands.
It's plural. So his hands are out. Does it really matter? It doesn't but there's the answer to that. Um, we are told that we only have one testimony of the centurion to the death of jesus. Um, I don't think the centurion was alone when he took jesus off the cross.
He was not unaccompanied by other romans. His life was at stake. So was theirs and according to the very same gospel references that are being ignored. There were eyewitnesses, that's how mary knew where the tomb was.
That's how joseph Arimathea was involved. You had multiple people involved including john which has been ignored as well. So there wasn't only one testimony. Uh a boy looked like a corpse. He had not hung on a tree been beaten to within an inch of his life by romans and had a sword thrust into his chest.
Either did he?
Maybe.
This kind of skepticism. Well, you know, it's possible. Maybe this is not how you do history and this is not how you interpret your own quran. I mean I can imagine wow if we use this kind of interpretation of the hadith you could come up with some really wild stuff.
Man, you really could. But let's not do it because it really is not the proper way to do things.
In acts chapter 14 verse 19 paul is namid zontes thinking him to be dead. Well, he had been stoned. He had been knocked cold. He's dragged out. It's possibly a miracle. Even if it wasn't there was no death blow and jesus wasn't stoned.
If all you've got is well, you know, there have been times in the past that people thought people were dead. If that's the best you have That kind of hyper skepticism. Then you now have to overthrow the prophecies of jesus.
We didn't have any response to almost anything. I brought up. Did you notice that? I asked a simple question. Jesus prophesied his own death, burial and resurrection. Is he a true prophet or a false prophet?
What do you do with those texts? You just have to reject them, aren't you? Well, once you start ripping parts out of matthew mark luke and john, aren't you admitting? Okay, I I really can't deal with what your text actually says.
And so i'm going to reject it. That's exactly what's going on um. What was the purpose of mark in recording the centurion's verification of jesus's death? Was it not mark's purpose to communicate to his audience?
Jesus truly died. There's no question about that. There's no question about that. So you have to accuse the author of deception as your starting point and why do you do so? Because of 40 arabic words written 600 years later about which you know, very little.
I mean, let's be honest. You say that text is mubinun. Why are there so many different interpretations of it? Why is it that the majority of muslims believe in the substitution theory, but you can come to my united states.
And the majority of the muslims in the united states shy away from the idea that anybody else is put on the cross in the place Of jesus and last year I was debating shabir ali and he holds the same view as the akhmadi on that.
The jesus was crucified, but he swooned. So which one is it? I mean it says he was not crucified. So was he crucified or was he not crucified? He said he was going to be crucified. So if he's a prophet then he was crucified, but if he was crucified then surah four is wrong.
See the problem you've got. This is what happens when you take a later source. And set it in authority over the primitive sources actually come from the first century. This later source has no connection to the first century.
Once again. The sign of jonah was brought up ignoring the fact that jesus placed the sign of jonah within the context of his own clear words. As to the nature of what it meant and that was the son of man will be killed buried and rise again the third day.
So if you've got a problem with jesus's use of the sign of jonah take it up with jesus. But what it means is you are the one misinterpreting the sign of jonah not jesus. Finally he quoted from the book of hebrews.
Jesus cried out and he was heard. I just finished preaching through the book of hebrews. Translating it 80 sermons six years. And if you read the book of hebrews. The author of the book of hebrews affirms over and over and over again in the plainest of language the crucifixion burial and resurrection of jesus christ.
To quote hebrews in any other way is to Grossly misrepresent it. Well, then how was those words fulfilled. Real simple my friends. Jesus was saved by resurrection. That's the point of the writer of the hebrews.
That's the point of the entire new testament. He was heard because Jesus did not stay in the grave. He was resurrected and then exalted the very right hand of the father on high. So that every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that jesus christ is lord of the glory of god the father.
That's the christian message. And that is the consistency of the new testament and you have to simply shred it. And treat it with disrespect. To come to any other conclusion, then that's what it says.
Reject it if you will. But don't try to make it say something that it doesn't say. Thank you very much.
Spot on. Is exceptionally accurate to the second. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, we're coming to the penultimate session the questions and answer session. May I request that the questions that you wish to pose to ayub kareem.
Just please kindly form a queue here to occupy this particular mic on my right. And then of course the questions directed at Dr. James white, please occupy my left the mic at my left on the side. Um I want to remind you that Uh, you will be limited to one minute precisely one minute.
We do not want a sermon or a speech Within your question period and I will rule you out of order If you do not make your one minute.
Dr. White, I would like to know about.
First of all, I'd like to ask whether you are you. Believe that jesus came to die for the sin of the world. Yes.
Okay.
As paul say curses Then christ has made curse to us. Yes. Okay. Okay, and the mission of jesus death Was mission of god almighty. Yes. Okay. So how come in the book of luke chapter 22 verse 3 It says then entered satan.
To judas surname is cariot, right being of the uh being one of the 12.
Okay, we can't hear you through your hand one of the 12. Yes. Okay, and he went his way. And he. May he betrayed jesus christ, right? So how come the mission of betrayal was done was the mission of devil in the bible?
Sure.
Um, I want to I won't need two minutes for this, but the bible is very very clear that uh, God uses satan just as he did in the book of job to test job. Satan is under the control of god. And in fact judas is identified as the son of perdition.
He's prophesied Jesus prophesied that he would do exactly what he would do. And so it was an absolute certainty and uh the means by which judas was caused to do. This was the entrance of satan into him, but satan's under god's control.
It was the purpose. Look look back at the psalter. You have the prophecy of one who would betray the son of man and that would be the means of that betrayal would be the one that would bring him into this position of being able to Give his life as a sacrifice for sins.
So it's a simple biblical concept, uh, and it's just the fact that god uses means. And even satan himself, uh is under the control of god. Very simple.
No, you are. You've asked your question. I'm Asked for you you you had your one minute. I respectfully requested that you condense. I'll give you a chance perhaps later. Okay, um I'm doctor white answered.
You would have a two minute Opportunity to respond which he has and we're going to allow. Uh a one minute rebuttal on that. Or you got the option to give up your one minute. He responded.
Well, I don't know, you know, it's a miracle, you know. Four questions, you know, um, and really I don't. I could not understand the Follow-up of those questions. So mr. Chairman, i'm going to decline to answer.
That's fine. You got the right to give your Your one minute up. All right. Next question on my right.
Does.
Say that he was in physical form or was a spirit.
You're asking the question from the bible or the quran. Just to clarify. That question is does jesus christ in the bible or the quran says that he?
From the bible.
I think i've made my point very very clear in that. He was physical all the way even in the supposedly post resurrection era. Uh, the evidence I produced is that when he had a dialogue with mary he was still in the physical.
And in the upper room He still was physical.
And.
Yes, I believe that he was always physical and not spiritual that that is why I believe that. Because he was not spiritual. He was not resurrected. He was not resurrected. He was not crucified. Okay.
Thank you. Dr. White one minute.
Well, I think what is being missed again is the intention of the new testament writers when they talk about the upper room Jesus enters in uh through locked doors. His physical body is a glorified body.
Something has changed. Between the crucifixion which they all affirm and now the resurrection. They affirm the reality of the physicality that the marks are in his hands. He eats and yet for example when he's with the the disciples on the road to emmaus.
Their eyes are kept from recognizing who he is. It wasn't a disguise. This is if you look at the greek. It's a force outside of themselves keeping them from recognizing who it is. So you're missing again.
The difference between us is i'm reading the new testament documents and asking what are you communicating? The muslims reading the new testament documents in light of 40 arabic words and 600 years later and not asking what are you trying to communicate?
And I just say to you this is the very kind of thing that we need to eschew because it does not advance the conversation.
Thank you. Dr. White next question.
It was said that.
After by the way, your tajweed was beautiful. Thank you. Thank you so much.
It was said that jesus Um wailed and was wrapped up after being crucified if i'm not mistaken something and wrapped up I didn't hear the other part. Uh, he wailed in pain and was crucified and and was wrapped up after being crucified.
There's nothing about wailing in pain. There was nothing about me. No, so he did not die. He did not die as a result of being crucified. He died On the cross. Is that what you're saying?
I'm, not sure what you mean by crucified, but jesus died upon the cross of calvary.
So he died on the cross not as a result of the torture that he faced while on the touch. Okay, and another thing was you say that jesus. One question one question.
I'll let him finish this one if it's okay because he obviously wanted to. I'm going to allow you one last question.
Okay, just one more. Um, they say that jesus obviously was a spirit After being resurrected. No, you don't say that. No. Okay. Thank you. I I made it. Let me let me answer that.
I made it very very clear. Um, if anyone look if anyone this audience really really wants to dig into this. This man is not as conservative as I am in many ways, but on this subject. Uh, there is a scholar in england by the name of nt right uh who has written a Book on the resurrection that's literally about that fit with I don't know how many thousands of footnotes.
Um nt right and I have actually debated one another but I think he's on the side of the angels. Which means I think he's on my side, even though we have a lot of differences with one another. Um, he his dealing with the subject of resurrection is massive.
And so what i'm saying is if you want to look into these things. If you really want to pursue the truth of these things the information is there. But it sounds to me like if you thought jesus was wailing or something.
You've been reading something other than the new testament. I would strongly encourage you to actually read the original documents.
Thank you. Yep. You want to take one minute?
Mr. Chairman, I need to appeal to you is that I'm having a problem following through a series of three to four questions if you could kindly. My request my appeal is ask them to pose one question so we can deal with it please.
Yes, that is quite true. But also remember they have a minute. So in that minute they can decide how they want to utilize their minute. I will appeal though that you keep your question Succient and to the point relevant to the topic, please.
Next sir.
Mr. Karim, uh, you quoted the apostle paul very eloquently. I want you to comment on two passages of scripture. I'm going to read it. The first is from uh, second peter three. And he says here this. Bear with me as I adjust this mic.
Second peter three. Yeah. Verse number 15. Yeah, he says bear in mind that our lord's patience means salvation. Just as our dear brother paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that god gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters speaking in them of these matters.
His letters contains contain some things that are hard to understand. Which ignorant and unstable people distort as they do the other scriptures to their own destruction. The second portion of scripture is one corinthians again written by paul and he says.
That spiritual things to the natural man is foolishness.
Your question.
I like mr. Karim to just comment on that about those.
To respond to the quotation. To comment on it. Yeah comment.
Okay, firstly if it's hard for me to understand then that means your scriptures are not simplified enough. Right, then that is not my problem because if you believe it is inspired scripture, I believe in the simple theory keep it simple.
The other thing is that uh with regards to foolishness I can't really comment on that. If you think i'm a fool i'll accept it. But other than that, I believe that listen. It's a contradiction that you need to sort of in your bible itself.
Uh, i'm i'm just showing what's in the bible. Either you accept it. It's fine. You don't accept it. You're welcome to thank you. That's what the bible says, sorry.
Thank you, dr. White. One minute.
And Both texts are simply telling us that we need god's guidance And the spirit of god for us to understand god's truth. But what the one text is warning us about Is if you're untaught and unstable you can twist the scriptures.
And my statement this evening has been fairly clear. This entire argument that tries to say that the new testament writers were not communicating very clearly The crucifixion and resurrection of jesus christ is a misrepresentation of their intention their words.
It requires you to rip the words out of context. And i'm simply saying if we're ever going to get any further in our conversation this kind of treatment has to end. It does not advance anything. It is not beautiful words.
It's not an obedience to the quran in my opinion. And so that's my point all along.
Thank you next please.
As-salamu alaykum. Uh, I have a question for dr. James, right?
Uh, there are little. Did you know that wearing a black tie like that makes you look like a mormon missionary? That looks like what makes you look like a mormon missionary if you had a little one of those little things.
Why aren't you imposing on this one minute and i'll have to penalize you then for doing that. Sorry. Carry on, please.
All right. Um, there are some inconsistencies with what with the crucifixion of post-crucifixion of jesus christ. Uh who went to the tomb. I'm sorry. Inconsistencies with what i've noticed some inconsistencies With with the post-crucifixion.
Okay. Yeah. So who went to the tomb? All right, who was seen at the tomb and who moved the stone away from the tomb? Okay. Thanks because according to matthew luke and uh, saint saint, uh, matthew mark and John, there's some inconsistencies with that.
One of the most important things that we have to do all of us have to do In looking at any of the places in our sacred scriptures where you have multiple accounts that are given Is to recognize what happens when you have multiple witnesses.
Now I have matthew mark luke and john and I have been teaching through the synoptic gospels matthew mark and luke. For I believe nine years now at my church and while the basic principles is for example Uh in one of those accounts you have one angel and the other you have two.
Why is that considered to be an inconsistency? Um, for example, uh in the story of the gadarean demoniac. Uh in one you have one demoniac in one you have two. Why can't a person focus upon one while the other one gives further information?
When we look at these particular instances the same thing has to be done. In a couple of the parallel passages i've already mentioned a couple of times this evening in the quran. Why do you have differences between the fall of iblis?
Why do you have differences in regards to what lot said to the people of sodom and gomorrah? Now one of the problems here is I have different people recording. So mark has one purpose and writing to his group.
Matthew has another purpose writing primarily to jews luke luke to another People and so they're going to make different decisions as to how much information they're going to include how much detail they're going to include.
If I understand the quranic understanding the inspiration of the quran, that's irrelevant To the quranic text and so why are there differences? I can explain the differences because mark includes more data or matthew Telescope something but why would there be differences in the instances in the quran because you don't have multiple authors speaking to different groups.
Uh, that's I think a question that again equal equal scales. We have to apply the same standards either either direction we go.
Thank you. Can I use one minute? To rebut.
All right, I would just like to say that. Although dr. White say that there are no inconsistencies and he keeps on referring to the inconsistencies in the quran. Uh, we are not dealing with the inconsistencies of the quran.
We are dealing with was Jesus christ crucified and resurrected and I think we should maintain that subject.
Uh.
If the people were writing for different reasons, I can appreciate that. But when you give wrong information and I wouldn't say wrong information contradictory information to your readers. Uh what the gentleman is saying?
I I truly agree with him that these are inconsistencies. Because according to matthew mary magdalene and the other mary went to the tomb. That's two people. Then according to mark chapter 16 Mary magdalene mary the mother of james and salome brought spices to the tomb.
That's three people. And then according to luke the women went so that because it's plural it could be two three or four and then According to john chapter 20 mary magdalene went alone. So is it one two three or more time out?
Thank you.
Next question.
I'd like to ask Do you think it's valid? That the quran comes 600 years later. And muhammad dictates That jesus was not crucified. He was never in palestine. He contradicts everything that the new testament writers say about the crucifixion and resurrection of jesus.
He also contradicts what the roman historians of that time Says about the christos that he was crucified. He also contradicts Josephus that's a jewish historian that's writing at that time. There is no historical evidence that supports what the quran says.
Do you still believe the quranic position 600 years later? concerning the crucifixion and resurrection of jesus.
I will need more than two minutes to answer this.
You're not getting more than two minutes, unfortunately.
Okay, there are many facets to his questions, but your first part of it. Yes. Do I believe the quran? Yes, I believe the quran you see with regards to the history part I i'd like to take you with a bit with a pinch of salt and I know i'm not going to do justice to answer Your question maybe you can I do you and I can do this privately but very quickly you see when it comes to history.
And yes, we have to rely on history, but who wrote the history. I need to verify the source. I need to verify the historian itself simply because if you look at south african history, you know when I was in school we were taught that The white man that came from the netherlands the dutch.
He came to south africa and we read this in history. Is that The african the natives of this country stole their cattle. And my question is how many kettles did they come with from netherlands for the natives here who had thousands of kettles freely.
Freely roaming the land. How many did they steal from the dutch that they had to end up in war? Now you're going to read south african history on the anc government. It's a totally different ball game.
So normally superior powers the ruling race writes a history to suit the needs. So with the history i'm a bit skeptical. I want to check the source out first with regard to coming 600 years later. It's more difficult for you as a christian because now you have two standards.
That you need to work with one is the quranic standard. But the quran only came 600 years later when they were debating this at the council of nisi 325 the council of trend and all the other councils.
There was no quran. So, how did they debate the subject without the quran sort that out first then we'll deal with the quran.
Thank you Thank you. Dr. Wang one minute.
I have no idea what the quran has to do with nysia or trend at all. The point is That we'd have uneven scales here. Once again We have a source that is a historical. There is not a single historian anywhere that claims surah 4157 can be traced back through history.
Over against four sources that come from the first century. And so you have that contradiction. I I can respect a muslim that says, you know, what I just accept surah 4157. It itself says that it was made to appear to them should be halam.
So that's what they thought happened and I just accepted his divine revelation. I can deal with that. What we have tonight is not just that we have then the twisting of the christian scriptures. To try to make them say something that they never said the fact of the matter is the testimony of the christian scriptures of the crucifixion is much clearer than surah 4157's denial of the same.
Thank you. Next question. My question to mr. James white. I want to. Caught the verse in the bible the hebrews three verse one two two. Can you read the bible to me? And the second is Romans nine verse five.
You want me to read these to you? Yes.
Do you want to in the meantime ask your question relative to those verses you wanted a hebrews. Chapter three Verse one one two two.
Therefore holy brothers you who share in a heavenly caller calling consider jesus the apostle and high priest of our confession Who was faithful to him who appointed him just as moses also was faithful in all god's house.
Romans romans nine verse five. You're going to run out of time with your questions. You so long. It's all right.
To them belong the patriarchs and from their race according the flesh is the christ who is god over all blessed forever. Amen.
Your question my question Jesus died like a prophet or jesus died like a god. Jesus died. What did jesus die like a prophet or like a god according to the bible? I don't even understand what what you mean by died as a prophet.
I think the point he's making is that christian believes in the trinity christiandom and Fundamentally he wants to know then when jesus was on the cross according to the bible and died Did he die as god?
Or or as man or prophet? Well, okay. Jesus was the god man. Am I correct? I just I just want to know dude. Did I sum it up correctly? Your question is did jesus die in terms of the concept of the trinity?
Did he die as? Jesus man or jesus god. What is read is a bible? Is the same bible say jesus is a prophet and the same bible say jesus is a god. So my question is jesus died like a prophet or jesus died like a god.
Thank you. And if jesus died like a god, okay the time if he died who was who was controlled the universe?
Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Um couple things. Uh, very common question. Uh, jesus is both god man prophet priest king. We cannot boil him down to anything simpler than that the presentation of jesus. One thing is for sure.
He's not a mirror. If you would take everything the new testament says that is very clear. It is a common misunderstanding of muslims that if jesus dies, then who's running the universe? Well, jesus isn't the father.
Jesus isn't the spirit. So the father and the spirit are still there. But what's more what I don't understand is why do you assume that death means non-existence? Do you think death means non-existence when you die?
Do you do you cease to exist? Of course not and christians don't believe that either. So when jesus gives his life voluntarily upon the cross He doesn't cease to exist. In fact, the bible even tells us some of the things that he does during that those three days.
So he doesn't cease to exist. Instead he voluntarily gave his life upon calvary's tree. He had that authority to do so and he did so out of his great love for his people. And so what you're trying to do is is reduce the jesus of the bible down to what you have in the quran.
But the jiz the bible is too big for that and I commend you Unknowing romans 9 5 it is one of the clear texts that demonstrate that jesus christ is identified as god and I appreciate that. But it also identifies him as a prophet as a priest as king.
Uh as servant all these things are true. It's like jesus is a diamond. You don't look at a diamond from just one direction. You can turn it every different direction and each facet will show you another aspect of his beauty.
And that's what the full text of the bible old and new testament does with jesus christ.
We've been right in the bible. Jesus is involved. I have to stop you there, please. Uh one minute. Want to rebut.
I I will still maintain that jesus christ never died. Whether you refer to it as being you know die as a god or die as a man. Uh, it really doesn't make a difference to me. All right.
Thank you. Next question, sir.
Hi.
I would just like to ask if you are. You brought up the three days that Jesus spent in the grave and their correlation to jonah's three days in the whale.
Now are you I was wanting to know are you also then aware of the correlation between Passover and first fruits and the three days that came between that as we see jesus as our high priest as well. And he was sacrificed on passover as our perfect passover lamb.
Because the all of the feast days that the lord gave to us are foreshadowings of things to come Passover being jesus sacrificed to cover our sins. During that time the three days after passover the high priest Being a mirror of jesus would go into seclusion for three days.
He would be hidden from Israel and from the rest of the world. He would go into seclusion for three days and then emerge on the day of first fruits To give his first fruits offering to the lord. And that is then mirrored in jesus Being crucified on passover going into the grave going into seclusion for three days And then emerging on first fruits with his first fruits offering his life As well as those who were resurrected around him.
Are you aware of that correlation as well? As that of jonah being not alive alive alive alive dead alive But being alive in seclusion And emerging again time out.
It's a beautiful concept, but i'm not buying it.
Okay um.
If you want to believe in it like that, then you are welcome too. But the thing is that jesus christ said, you know for as jonah was and if you are looking at the correlation like that Uh, you would believe that jesus christ is a sacrifice for redemption for your sons and things like that.
Uh, however jonah was not a sacrifice. They went out to murder him. They threw him overboard, you know, and My question would be then is listen. If jesus christ was put to death And only to be raised on the third day Then I want to know what is the worthiness of the sacrifice.
When you kill somebody you expect him to remain dead. That is a purpose of sacrifice. That is a precedent set in the old in in the old testament. But now you tell me that he died and then after three days you say he's alive.
So what kind of sacrifice is this? Is this some kind of a bogus a pious fraud? Do you understand what i'm saying? So if you killed him fine, you killed him, but I expect him to remain dead. Then that's a sacrifice but only to be resurrected.
I don't think so. Thank you.
Dr. Wang one minute.
I'm, not sure why there was applause there and here's why. Here's what I just heard. Um, the text is there. And you've quoted the text but i'm not gonna buy it because we don't believe in atonement. That makes as much sense as my saying well when I read the quran.
Oh, yeah, it says that muhammad's a prophet, but I don't believe it. So I don't buy it. Is that how we deal with texts? Is that how we deal with each other's scriptures? We will never get anywhere if we continue doing that.
The point is my opponent this evening has quoted from the book of hebrews. And he expected you to believe that part about crying out to god. That book talks all about jesus as high priest. And fulfills all sorts of the aspects of the high priest.
So you can't just go man. I don't buy it because I don't believe in atonement. That'd be like me taking the quran and going. I don't buy it because I don't believe muhammad's a prophet. So so what. That has nothing to do with what the quran is actually saying.
Does it? My disbelief doesn't change what it says equal scales.
Thank you nix.
Oh, mr. White I think we all believe that. Um God is not author of confusion. That's my uh, that's corinthians 15 34 30 33. I mean.
In the churches specifically.
God is not author of confusion. So if there's any confusion any contradiction inconsistency one Will be in difficulty. And to choose as to which one is correct and which is incorrect because it's the two opposite things.
One must be correct. One must be incorrect. Now if you read the book of.
John.
Let's mark mark mark first mark 15 Verse 25 he says on the third hour He was crucified. And john 19 verse 16 sixth hour He was brought out To be crucified now, which one was crucified on the third hour which jesus was crucified on the sixth hour.
That's real easy. I've already explained it once. I'm sorry. You didn't hear it. Um, you need to understand that matthew mark and luke use jewish time. John uses roman time. They start the day at a different time.
They're writing to different audiences. Real simple real fast real easy. There's no really reason for me to say anything more about it because that's once you allow that then their times all match up.
No contradiction. And I would disagree with one other thing. If you think that there can be no differences and if there is differences of opinion about something that means that it's not from god. Um, you mean you all agree on everything.
I can muslims agree on everything, right? You have no divisions. Of course you do so do we so be careful. Equal scales. Both in our interpretation of texts as well in how we live out our lives.
Thank you one minute aim.
No comment.
Next okay past next please. Hi, you'll have to get a little closer to the microphone, sir. Could you speak in the mic, please?
You know the gospel of bernabas. Do you why gospel of bernabas was please closer to the microphone? Why gospel of bernabas was banned in roman empire till the arrival of islam?
Uh, the gospel of bernabas is a 13th or 14th century fraud. There is no historian in the world that believes that it's accurate or that came from that time period. It is filled with anachronisms. It is one of the most obvious examples of something that was written long after the times that it narrates.
Um, it is. To be rejected as having any relevance that time period whatsoever. There is an epistle of bernabas that comes in that time period but you're talking about a 13th 14th century fraud. All critical scholars recognize that including many muslim scholars that recognize it for the fraud that it is.
It was banned till the till the arrival of islam. Untrue. Yeah, untrue. Documented. So it's not true. Death was giving. It was given in those days those who.
Contained this. Sorry, it's untrue.
What do you say? You know.
I admire this man's faith in me, you know. It it reminds me of this. I admire this man's faith in me and it reminds me of uh, what is written in the gospel about. You know that woman with issues touching jesus christ and she was healed and where jesus christ said be healed your faith has healed you.
Unfortunately, I can't help you with this one.
Sorry, excuse me, sir. Let me uh, let me respond. See the gospel of bernabas is not accepted within christian circles. In fact, it's not accepted in christiandom and my. And I personally i've studied the gospel of bernabas.
And while there are many anti-christian sentiments in the gospel of bernabas There are clearly many anti-quranic sentiments in the gospel of bernas as well. So based on those birds, they said I personally would not use the gospel of bernabas.
Thank you. Thank you. Next question.
Greetings greetings to both you gentlemen, uh fantastic discourse.
Well, I don't really have much of a question as such. It's more of your professional advice that I require and I hope I could get some from you.
I've learned a lot today. Uh. But I really want to adopt your concept of equal scales, you know. What you see there you got to try it on this side as well in order to understand. But my problem with this is that Which authentic scriptures or collection of scriptures from the christian side do I take?
You know, i'm a bit confused. I'm the lame man on the street. But i'm listening to you guys and I wanted I want to try and get to know christianity better. But there's so much I don't really have the time to to take on too many.
You know, i've heard luke and corinthians. And can I ask an old testament and new testament?
Could I ask you a question when you say there are? When when you say there are different kinds, i'm not sure what you mean by that. You mean translations?
No, no collections, you know, what is the difference between the old testament? Then you've got the new testament. What is this luke and john and paul? Are they just a collection of of sayings like what we've got the hadiths from different sahabas?
You know, what is it. Which if I need one bible? Which would you advise me to go and get in order for me to try and understand christianity? Sure. I'll sit and listen.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'll try to do this as be as full as I can in two minutes. Um, the only differences meaningful differences you're going to find as far as the content what we call the canon canon means the Listing of authoritative books is the roman catholic church has what's called the apocrypha.
There are 13 or 14 depending how you count them, uh additions to the old testament. The new testament is going to be the same Amongst protestants and and roman catholics as well. And I i've done entire debates on the subject of the apocrypha.
You can find them on youtube if you'd like to look at them. What you want to find is a good english translation. In fact, I would I would compare english translations I would highly recommend both the new american standard bible and the esv.
Esv is now extremely Widely available you can frequently get it for free in various phone apps ipad apps things like that. But please remember something the bible wasn't written in english. Just as you would always ask.
That the final authority interpretation the tafsir of the quran be the arabic text. The new the old testament was written in hebrew. The new testament was written in greek. The bible is those two things put together.
And so every english translation has to be under the authority of what the original language has said and so often um Confusion and misunderstanding comes because people ignore that reality that was written in another language.
So, um, if if I would love to say I will be glad to ship you uh a bible the problem is Your guy's postal system ain't working real well right now. If you notice that um, i'm afraid to send anything down here because it's going to end up in botswana someplace.
So Um, if there's some way I could help you to get one of those maybe electronically talk to me afterwards. I'd be happy to help you.
Out.
Thank you, uh james. Thankfully we not in the apartheid era so there won't be any sabotage from the postmaster.
Hey, you would you like to comment one minute the gentleman that posed a question. I would like to offer him a free seat At ikra islamic competitiveness academy in our competitive classes and I will introduce you to the duway bible the king james version the rsv 1997 1952 rsv 1971 new international version.
Yes I've even got one bible that has a word aligned in the scoffield bible. So I'll even introduce you to that as well and i'll teach you. Okay, you join the classes come to the office enroll and we will go through the whole cause in competitive religion.
And this offer is open to everybody else as well muslims and christians. Thank you.
Thank you. See no more questions. I don't so you got a last question. I'm going to allow you one last question. I didn't see any physical bodies over here. It must be the spirits.
It's pretty clear that from the christian side the death and resurrection of jesus christ is crucial to our faith. Um, and dr. White has done an excellent job on that. However, this evening would not be complete.
If.
From you who claim to be a muslim scholar? Who denies the resurrection death and resurrection of jesus christ? What alternative do you have? For all of us in terms of salvation and the promise and the Of eternal life the forgiveness of sins and the promise of eternal life which which the death and resurrection does for christians because from my understanding and from my study of islam.
Even your prophet did not have that answer because on three occasions when you read the hadith literature He was asked by the sahaba his friends his disciples. Oh prophet of allah Tell me what will happen to your soul when you die and on three separate occasions.
He said the same thing. He said I do not know what's going to happen to me. Neither. Do I know what's going to happen to you? Only allah knows so i've Proposed that you don't have an answer either.
Thank you. Two minutes.
There were two questions posed there.
So are you going to give me four minutes? No, unfortunately not. I'll have to be not all right.
The concept that You would get eternal life by believing that Jesus christ died and resented for your sins. I don't think that is really true. Because then that would go against against the grain of what jesus christ taught.
I don't sound you know arrogant and say okay, but this is the concept of the antichrist you know, I would still need to prove that but You have the concept of the prodigal son. Where god almighty is giving you a parable?
And he's telling you that there were two sons and one one is in his inheritance. And he paid him out and he went he squandered it. And he ran into poverty and he came back to his and his father was overjoyed.
And he said this is my son who was dead is now alive. Who was once lost is now found. So this is how it will be basically god almighty wants you to repent and by that repentance god willing he will save you.
So If the resurrection story is true, then what is the worthiness of the prodigal son? But I believe that the prodigal son makes more sense because that is that is consistent With what is given in the quran.
It is also consistent with what is given in the old testament. It preached repentance repentance repentance. Jesus christ also preached repentance but while you're talking about the death and resurrection of jesus christ a man god, I just want to let you know that there were many earlier civilizations that actually believed that God had to come down in human flesh get sacrificed and then you have eternal salvation.
Or isis that's in egypt bel in babylon. Atis in vaira and khaira tamuz in syria dionysus in greece krishna in india. Hers is in europe and i've got many I've got 16 listed here, but all these were man gods who had to be sacrificed and they were also raised to give eternal life.
Thank you. Thank you.
I'm, very very disappointed that last section. Um the attempts to parallel jesus with osiris horus isis any of those are absolutely positively offensively ridiculous. They're offensively ridiculous. They were not they were not monotheists.
They were not dying and rising gods. Most of them had to do with crop cycles. Jesus has nothing to do with crop cycles. I have debated atheists on these things and I have destroyed them in the facts. Please Never repeat that again.
Don't repeat that. It is one of the worst arguments. It is as bad as the worst arguments raised against islam. Please please please don't do that. The new testament message is that jesus christ Gave himself as a ransom for many.
That's his words. The parable of the prodigal son Illustrated the the jewish rejection of the coming in of the gentiles. It was not meant to be a summary of the entire gospel. Listen to what jesus said.
I give my life a ransom for many.
Thank you. Last question. Hello. Okay. Hello. When somebody asked you a question early on regarding the different versions. Like with the three hours and six hours. Yes, you said that one was using the roman time.
All right. Yes, and one was using the standard time or whatever. Am I right?
The there's a difference between jewish time and roman time. They okay.
So what time was the author using. Why. Couldn't he calculate. Didn't he do his maths. Who is using. Say that three hours is three hours. Or six hours. Is who. Six hours. Three hours. The person who wrote what you you stated.
The author.
I'm, i'm not understanding what he's saying. I'm, sorry the passage. What?
He he's saying there appears to be an inconsistency in terms of roman times and other times. So yeah, they. So the author should have said three hours is three hours.
No, no, sir.
Oh, you should have no. Sorry. You should have said three hours and six hours using roman time and six hours being six hours.
Sir, when you read the quran You can assume that muhammad is using the time measurements of the people of that day. For example lunar cycles. I could come along as a solar cycle person and accuse you of error.
Why didn't you say that? Yeah, no, no, you were not. This isn't an argument. I'm giving you a response. Okay um. Again again, this is just being fair when. When matthew is writing to jewish people before the destruction of the temple in ad -70 by titus and titus in the 10th roman legion.
He's writing to a people who measure time in a certain way and so he uses their standard. John is writing later the temple's gone. He's not writing to jews. And so he uses the time standard that they use.
They weren't talking to each other. And saying well i'm going to use the same standard you do. John's writing probably after matthew's even dead. So there isn't any contradiction between them if you use equal scales.
Because I could come along and accuse the quran of those things. But i'm going to interpret the quran in the context in which it was written to be fair to it.
Yeah, well what you what you are saying? Now you're actually confusing the normal layman from what you're answering. The bible should have said it as it is.
Oh the bible three equals six and so so the bible. The bible written by multiple authors over multiple times. Should have been written in such a way that a person living two millennium later who uses a different time thing.
Would not have to do the work to go back and ask what the original authors intended. Sir I would never treat the quran that way. I'm simply saying to you. You shouldn't treat the new testament that way.
Are we getting into an argument now? Thank you. No.
You've asked your question and i've been tolerant to allow you another subsequent question after that. Let's respect the rules if you'd like to have a debate. After the session, I wouldn't mind. No, no, no insult intended to anyone.
I just have to be perceived to be fair. And I also have to be fair not just perceived to be fair. I think that's the qualities of a good chairman. I'm not claiming to be a good one. Would you like to respond.
You have one minute.
Okay, I just want to make it clear for for the gentleman you're talking about the contradictions. See, there are contradictions. I believe that there are contradictions and maybe one day in the future You know i'd like to debate that with dr White, you know contradictions in the in the bible.
And he believes that there are contradictions in the quran and we can do that. But on this one regarding the six the six hour and the three hour you're talking about I can't really comment on it because I didn't have a very very close look at it but if he's telling me that one is calculating a jewish time and one is calculating according to the Roman time for now. I have to accept until I have a look at it.
And honestly, I did not have a look at it. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't see any more physical bodies neither spiritual bodies. I'd like to thank you For that particular section. We're coming to the final session and that is the summation.
Summation. Each speaker will have five minutes each to summarize. And from there, we will leave the rest to you to decide um and and. You know make your own research thereafter. I'm now going to allow.
Dr. Dr. White to proceed with your summation.
I came here this evening Because I believe that if we as community of believers Even though we have many differences with one another are going to advance In our understanding of one another we have to stop Assuming things about the others that are untrue.
There are people in the christian community who will not listen to what you have to say. They will not treat you fairly. They believe things about muhammad in islam that are not true. They will not allow you to define your own faith, and I believe that is wrong.
It's just as wrong for you To paint with a broad brush that all christians are the same and not listen to what we're actually saying. You especially have a requirement here. You know why? Because the quran specifically makes reference to the torah and the injeel.
And in fact in surah 5 surah al-maida. If you follow the argument, you will see that the torah is sent down to moses. It's nuts all it's sent down. It contains light and guidance. The injeel is given to jesus.
And it is sent down contains light and guidance and then the quran is given to muhammad. There is a chain of prophetic authority leading to muhammad there. That is what the quran says and that means you of all people should be most careful in handling.
The scriptures the people of the book even if you think they've been changed. You have to think very deeply about well, when did that change take place? What was the nature of that can the words of allah be changed?
How did that happen? There are many issues you as muslims must think these things through and in this situation my friends. I have proven this evening. And no rebuttal has been offered. No redefinition of anastasis has been offered no redefinition.
Of uh.
Of the meaning of the word preparation day or friday has been offered my points stand completely unrefuted and every point that my opponent brought up I responded to and refuted with scholarship. And so my appeal to you is that on this matter?
It must be recognized the message of the new testament text is the crucifixion burial and resurrection of jesus christ. Now we've got to deal with it. We will never be able to deal with surah 4 157. We will never be able to deal with these issues in an honest way.
Until we recognize what the intention of the new testament writers was and what they actually said. And akhmed didat's arguments and the arguments of this fine gentleman here. Misrepresent the new testament in a gross way.
They've been refuted this evening and it's time for us to lay them aside and move past this stage. In respect and concern for one another so that we can actually start making some progress In dealing with the real issue.
And that is you have a scripture that you believe comes from god that comes 600 years after mine. And there are contradictions between the two of them and you don't solve the contradiction by twisting what came before.
Even the quran does not teach you to do that. Even surah 279 does not substantiate that but see we can't even start getting into those issues. As long as we're not being honest with what the other side is saying.
We have to be able to move forward with one another. And so listen to what was presented consider it. And then let's do that. But please on this issue on this matter. Drop the crucifixion argument. It has been refuted.
It is not worthy of those who want to follow the truth. Who believe in alhaq and want to give beautiful words to the people of the book. It's not worthy of you. It's time to lay it aside. Thank you very much for listening.
Thank you very much Dr. White. I'm going to ask ayub to do your summation. Five minutes, please.
Bismillah rahman rahim in this five minutes, I just want to go quickly and I mentioned to dr. White that I beg to deviate that he has refuted my arguments my arguments on the crucifixion. My arguments on the sign of jonah still stand.
And he hasn't come anywhere close in refuting it. The other thing is that you know, dr. White is always talking about even standard even standards and. Even in words, I don't see any even handedness in his words.
I mean he's talking about i'm talking about tree and crucifix and he says That well would come from trees. The cross came from the tree so it's the same thing. So i'm going to go back to the office. And I will tell them you know.
This podium is made out of wood so I will tell him that dr. White stood by the tree and delivered his lecture. Seriously if this is how you're going to handle it. You you just can't do that and I am not Misusing the new testament wood is wood.
Although you get wood from tree but tree is tree. So you make up your mind. Was he put onto the cross. Was he put onto the tree. Was he put onto the stake? Then with regard to hebrews chapter 5 verse 7.
Again, there is no consistent application of the english language. The words. I I am telling you that according to hebrew Jesus christ was saved. And then dr. White tells me that he was saved through the resurrection.
Man, do english words have meaning? When you want to be saved if you are in danger. You tell somebody to help you like if i'm in danger, then the man's telling me he wants to kill me and I says Mr. Chairman, please help me.
So he says no. No, i'll save you but let him kill you first. Are you saved. No, no, this is not the english language. I seriously I don't know what language dr White is speaking now, so there's no evenness when he asked to be saved.
He asked to be saved from death. So you don't kill the person and say, okay, right i'm gonna resurrect you so you are saved. There is no logic in that. It's a very poor argument. Uh with regard to those people in philippines that are being beaten.
They are beaten. I am not going to read it. They are beaten where the backs are beaten to pulp. With regard to the things that Muhammad our prophet muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam has mentioned. We are not debating our prophet tonight.
So that is beside the beside the topic we need to stick to the topic, but the debate is almost over and I just want to mention I don't have much time. Okay, my Stopwatch has stopped working. How much time do I left.
Two minutes, all right. Why we believe that christ was not crucified as dr. White pointed out one verse 40 words. And they said in boast we kill christ. The son of mary the apostle of god. They didn't kill him nor did they crucify him.
And those who differ therein, but it was made to appear to them. So but those who differ therein have no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow. And this is the convict i was showing you one woman two women three women.
Cross tree stake and there were many inconsistencies in the sign of jonah and whether he was physical or spiritual. All these are guessworks nothing concrete. On dr. White's blog on his website, he talks about Exegesis.
The interpretation of the bible has always been about possibilities. And he says it has to be about probabilities. I don't know if he wrote it, but I saw I saw it there. Now i'm saying forget the possibilities.
Forget the probabilities. Now you have something sure something definite. For a surety they did not kill him. And all christians that are seated here even muslims. You need to ask yourself. How is it possible that one man?
600 years after incident a thousand kilometers away can make such a bold claim. Just like how your paul made that claim our muhammad is making a greater claim. That they didn't kill him nor did they crucify him.
How is it possible you think about it?
Thank you very much ayub karim. I would like to can I just urge you to To remain for one one last minute. We have to do the final item on the agenda and that is the vote of thanks.
Is.
To basically share the respective viewpoints from christianity and islam and leave you The audience to go home and do your own research and seek your own truth As your conscience would dictate. It's not a contestation.
And see who is going to be the winner. The winner is god. And we have to find that path within our own souls. I really have to say now moving on to the vote of thanks personally, I would like to Thank both speakers.
I would like to say that the decorum and the respect that was shown was commendable. It reminds me that both great religions Of the abrahamic faiths were respected. Jesus showed love in accordance with the bible the holy bible.
And so too did the quran in chapter 16. I think it's verse 125 Where it says that invite them with beautiful language and I think both giants in the christian and the muslim faith here tonight displayed that kind of respect and that kind of following.
And I really appreciate that appreciate that from my personal good self. I also would like to firstly thank the almighty for allowing his grace to prevail And his wisdom upon us. I would like to thank you the audience for being such a wonderful interactive audience.
You have shown the kind of respect That made my task easier. Thank you. I would like to also thank again a special thanks to our honored guest Who came all the way from the usa? He's been fantastic. I'm sure you will go home with lots of knowledge that he imparted and so too from the other side I would like to thank my colleague here rudolph Who assisted me with time keeping and made my task easy.
It was great to have you rudolph. Thank you and good luck to unworth your organization who Posed the challenge to ayub and was quite instrumental in getting dr. White here. They did a fantastic job. I would like to also Thank the video man and the sound people.
I would like to ultimately thank the ikra staff.
Who.
Went through great lengths to prepare this for this particular day and to For the coffee and the tea and the hospitality that they've shown me personally in helping with the logistics. Can I just call on the ikra staff to come forward.
And people can see who they are males and female particularly the females who worked exceptionally hard. You are stars. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you finally and i'd like to bid you farewell.
Go home do your research. And if you'd like to have maybe two or three more minutes after this feel free to Interact with the two great speakers here that we had tonight. Thank you very much. Please go well.
Take care and all the best for you. Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh and a very good evening safe home. Thank you.