Debate: Matt Slick vs. Shadid Lewis, Is Jesus the God man?

All right, welcome to tonight's debate. Just to let you know, I'm actually nervous and I'm not debating.

And I just pray I do a good job as a moderator because these guys are gonna make my job very easy because they're professionals.

In fact, not only are you in a treat, I'm in a treat because in my opinion, you have two of the best debaters representing their respective position.

And with that said, let me introduce the Muslim debater, Shadid Lewis, who is a former Christian. And it says that, bear with me because the way it's written, there's a little typo, so I gotta correct it as I go.

Mr. Shadid Lewis is the Muslim Debate Initiative, USA regional director. Mr. Shadid invites the

Muslim community to attend this public debate. Gee, George, what an excellent intro that you gave me. My estimation,

Shadid Lewis is one of the top five Muslim debaters representing Islam today. And he's slowly becoming the best

Muslim debater. He's quite passionate, he's quite articulate and he's highly intelligent and he knows the issues.

In fact, for you Christians, you're gonna be challenged tonight. I do invite you to carefully listen to his arguments because he's going to be using the

Bible to try to prove that the scriptures that we hold as the God breathed revelation do not teach that Jesus is

God, so pay attention. He's done his homework and I know that because I've seen him debate this topic on many occasions, so he's more than qualified.

Now, to introduce the Christian debater, Matt Slick. He happens to run one of the most effective websites in my estimation.

He is actually the president and founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, CARM for short,

CARM is the acronym. The website is www .carm .org. In my estimation, this is one of the best websites produced by a

Christian that thoroughly equips Christians to know their faith and to articulate it. Matt Slick is also a great debater and he's a great apologist, one of our finest.

So again, like I said, you're in for a treat. You got two individuals that are more than qualified to debate issues and they're respectful and you'll see that tonight.

Although they'll be debating the issues passionately, they won't be debating each other's credibility, they won't be attacking each other, they're going to be debating the issues.

So again, we're going to be in for the treat. The first debate is titled, Is Jesus the

God -Man? George, you're gonna have to give me better introduction next time, so again, you're gonna have to edit this out.

It's actually one debate, but it's from two perspectives, my apologies. Is Jesus the God -Man? The Christian view of Jesus, Matt Slick will be taking the affirmative position.

He'll be given an opening statement of 18 minutes and then Shadid Lewis will come up and provide an 18 minute response.

Then Matt Slick will be given an eight minute rebuttal to respond to Shadid Lewis's objections to the topic,

Is Jesus the God -Man? And then Shadid Lewis will be given eight minutes to respond then we're going to flip, flip roles.

The second part of the debate is called the Islamic view of Jesus. Shadid Lewis will then start that particular section with an 18 minute opening response or presentation.

Matt Slick will come up for an 18 minute response and then an eight minute rebuttal from Shadid Lewis and eight minute rebuttal from Matt Slick and then we're gonna have four minute conclusions from each side and if we have a few minutes left over, we'll open up the

Q &A if the Lord wills. Now, with that said, I invite Matt Slick to begin by giving his 18 minute opening statement on the topic,

Is Jesus the God -Man? He'll be taking the affirmative, presenting the Christian side. Welcome, Matt Slick. I guess we're starting.

Here it goes. Is Jesus the God -Man? The Christian and biblical answer is yes, he is.

Now, when we use the phrase God -Man, we are saying that Jesus, as the one person of Christ, has two distinct natures.

We are saying that he is both divine and human. In Christian theology, we call this the hypostatic union.

So from the Christian theological perspective, Jesus is said to be both divine and human.

This teaching is so fundamental to the Christian faith that anyone who denies it cannot be a true

Christian and, according to Jesus, will die in his sins, John 8 24. Now, Muslims say that it is not possible for Jesus to be both divine and human.

But they have no problem accepting the idea that the eternal and divine word of Allah became, so to speak, flesh in the written

Quran. According to them, it is divine and yet also exists in material form. So the concept of the divine word of Allah entering our world is not foreign to them.

And, of course, no consort is needed for such a manifestation to occur. Again, the doctrine of the hypostatic union, that in the one person of Christ are two distinct natures, the divine and human, is found in various scriptures.

Let me take a look here. Colossians 2 9 says, for in him, Jesus, in him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form.

The word deity means the quality of being divine. In this verse, we see that both the divine and human natures of Jesus are proclaimed.

Again, this is called the hypostatic union, that there are two distinct natures in the one person of Christ.

But Colossians 2 9 is not the only place that this truth is taught. There are other verses that I want to show you, but before I do,

I need to quote Mr. Lewis. I watched the debate he had with Dr. James White. The topic was, is

Jesus Christ, God Almighty, the most high? At 43 minutes and 28 seconds in,

Shadid said, and I quote, we look at what others have said. So, for example, what others said about Jesus, those who seen him at the beginning, those who were the very first, not what things developed later on with the church, but what your

Bible says, what I would take as to be the very first followers. What did they, when they saw

Jesus perform miracles, when they heard him speak, what did they say? Close quote. Shadid tells us that we need to see what was said about Jesus from those who were with him from the beginning, and I wholeheartedly agree.

This means we must first turn to the Bible, not the Quran, when we seek to learn about the person of Christ.

Therefore, I will do just that and turn to the Bible, to the apostle John, who walked and talked with Jesus for three and a half years as his disciples.

And this is what Jesus, I mean, this is what John says. In John one, verse one and verse 14, in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was

God. And verse 14, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us, he lived among us, we beheld his glory, glory of the only begotten son.

Now, in these two verses, Colossians two nine, or excuse me, John one one and verse 14, we see that the word, which was

God, was made flesh. We see the two natures of Christ taught again, the word and the flesh, the divine and the human.

This is what is taught by John the apostle who knew Jesus personally. Let me quote again,

Shirdi, regarding who we are to first turn to regarding what Jesus said and who he is.

Quote, those who were the very first, not what things developed later on with the church, but what your

Bible says, what I would take as to be the very first followers. What did they, when they saw

Jesus perform miracles, when they heard him speak, what did they say? Close quote. Good question, and I agree.

They say that Jesus is both divine and human. So, I'll turn now to the

Gospels of Matthew and John, which were written by two of Jesus' own disciples. They walked with him and they knew him personally.

And to help the Muslims who might be here, and who might be listening later on, let me refer to the

Quran, which says in Surah 365, that the Gospel was revealed after Abraham.

And in Surah 57, 27, that Jesus was given the Gospel. In addition to, in Surah 634, no one can alter the words of Allah.

And in Surah 18, 27, none can change his words. Now, I certainly hope that Mr.

Lewis and all Muslims who might be listening don't think that Jesus presented a false

Gospel, or that the disciples were somehow able to alter the words of Allah given to Jesus.

And that would be in contradiction to Surah 634 and 18, 27. Therefore, let's look at two of Jesus' disciples, two of the men who walked with him, who saw

Jesus perform miracles and were with him from the beginning, just as Shadid himself says we should do.

Matthew 1, 23, behold, the virgin will be with child and we shall, excuse me, and shall bear a son and they shall call his name

Emmanuel, which translated means God with us. Matthew 25, 31 through 33, but when the son of man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.

All the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate them from one another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

And he will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. And I've already read John 1, 1 in verse 14 about the word becoming flesh.

In John 10, 27, 28, Jesus says, my sheep hear my voice and I know them and they follow me.

And I give eternal life to them and they shall never perish. Jesus, excuse me, in John 20, 28,

Thomas, the disciple of Jesus, said to Jesus, Hakuri asmu kaihate asmu.

He said, the Lord of me and the God of me. In other words, my Lord and my God. And Jesus didn't say in any way any rebuke to refute that.

In John 21, 17, this is important. Jesus said to him the third time, Simon, son of John, do you love me?

Peter was grieved because he has said to him a third time, do you love me? And he said to him, Lord, you know all things.

You know that I love you. Jesus then said, tend my sheep. In the preceding verses, we see that Jesus is

Emmanuel, God with us. He is the judge of mankind, the divine word, which was made flesh. He is the one who gives eternal life.

Jesus is called by Thomas, God, which Jesus did not deny. And Peter said Jesus knows all things, which

Jesus also did not deny. By using the methodology required by Mr.

Lewis himself, I've gone to those who were the very first followers of Jesus, Matthew, John, Thomas, and Peter.

In fact, that is what the Quran tells us to do as well. In Surah 547, let the people of the

Injil, the gospel, judge by what Allah has revealed therein. We're told to look in that gospel.

The Injil is, of course, that gospel revealed to Jesus, which is what Surah 57, 27 says.

Then he went after them, our messengers, and we sent Jesus, son of Miriam, and gave him the gospel.

I hope that the Muslims would trust Jesus as much as I do. I hope that they would trust him as much as Christians do.

To the Muslim, he is a prophet. To the Christian, he is a prophet and more. To the Muslim, he is a man.

To the Christian, he is a man and more. It is like the Muslims saying the Quran is a book and more.

To the Christian, Jesus is revealed in the entirety of the Old Testament and revealed sufficiently in the

New. That's why it says in Zechariah 12, 10, God is speaking. He says,

I will pour out on the house of David, on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on me whom they have pierced and they'll mourn for him as one mourns for an only son.

And in Isaiah 7, 14, therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son and she shall call his name

Emmanuel. I've already told you from Matthew 1, 23, the translation of that word Emmanuel means

God with us. Now, I'm gonna turn to some other scriptures, but before I do that,

I need to take a look at something here with you. The book of Acts, we read the account of Jesus speaking to a man named

Ananias about Paul the apostle. Jesus had appeared to Paul when he was still called

Saul and it said, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? That's Acts 9, 4. Paul was then sent by Jesus to a man named

Ananias and Ananias was afraid of Paul because Paul had been persecuting the Christians. Jesus appeared to Ananias in a vision and said to him concerning Paul, quote, he is a chosen instrument of mine to bear my name before the

Gentiles and the kings and sons of Israel, Acts 9, 15. So we can see that Jesus himself appointed

Paul as his own apostle. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 9, 1, Paul the apostle says as he defends his apostleship that he had seen the risen

Lord Jesus. Now, earlier I quoted Colossians 2, 9, which says in him,

Jesus, does all the fullness of deity and bodily form. But Paul also says in Titus 2, 13, that we

Christians are looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great

God and savior, Christ Jesus. Clearly, Paul the apostle taught that Jesus was divine, the same as the apostle

Thomas did in John 20, 28, when Thomas said to Jesus, my Lord and my God, this is after Jesus' resurrection.

Just to clarify again, Thomas was one of Jesus' very first followers. He was a disciple.

Now remember, Shadid said that we need to look at the very first followers of Jesus just to see what they said.

That is exactly what I'm doing. Now, Mr. Lewis, in his debates and discussions about the person of Jesus, has appealed to the

New Testament. So have I. But he quotes it in a very selective manner. He cites only those scriptures that speak of Christ's humanity, and he ignores the rest.

He does not address the whole of the subject about the deity of Christ. But I've also been selective, and so far

I've cited verses in support of Christ's deity. This is because we're not debating the humanity of Christ.

We're not debating if he's a man or not. We both agree that he is. It's not necessary to establish that Jesus is a man.

That's not the debate. In a debate of this sort, Mr. Lewis, to properly address the issue, from the very

Bible that he has quoted so many times before in his debates, he needs to address these verses that I've raised that deal with the deity of Christ, ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

In fact, ignoring them is to concede the debate, because they would then stand unaddressed and unrefuted.

Therefore, he needs to address not only the verses I've already raised, such as Colossians 2 .9, John 1 .1,

verse 14, and Titus 2 .13, but also Hebrews 1 .8, which says, but of the Son, Jesus, he,

God the Father, says, your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The righteous scepter is the scepter of his kingdom.

A quote from Psalm 45, verse six. Clearly, the Son, Jesus, is being addressed as God by God the

Father. Now, this gets into the doctrine of the Trinity, and that's not in debate right here, but the Trinity is monotheistic, and this is background information that we may get into sometimes if we want to debate the

Trinity. Nevertheless, I stand in agreement with Shadid. Jesus is a man, but again, logically speaking, to say that Jesus is a man does not mean he cannot also be divine.

This is an important point of logic, and we argue with logic in a debate, and Mr.

Lewis would be committing a logical mistake, a fallacy, if he were to ignore the verses that teach

Jesus is God in flesh and focus only on the verses that show us humanity. Jesus being a man does not prevent him from also being divine.

It would be like me saying that the Quran can't be the word of God because it's a book. If I were to focus only on his physical pages and ask how could

God's word be held in a hand and put on a shelf, no Muslim would accept that it is a refutation of what they say is a divine content.

Furthermore, if I ignored everything that a Muslim raised to assert the divine revelation of the Quran and focused only on its physical attributes,

I would, of course, be failing to address the whole issue and would not be arguing logically and completely, and would fail to make my point.

How much time we got left? Five minutes and a half. Five and a half? Real quicker.

The same applies here when we discuss a person of Christ. Now, when Mr. Lewis attacks the deity of Christ, he routinely raises such points as,

Jesus cannot be God because he said the Father is greater than he, or that Jesus was approved of God, or that the glory was given to him, or when

Jesus said in John 8, 40, you're seeking to kill me, amen. So let me address the answer to this.

And it's found in two verses, Philippians 2, seven through eight, and Galatians 4, four. Jesus emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant and being made in the likeness of men, he humbled himself to the point of death, he was death on a cross, that's

Philippians 2. And in Galatians 4, four, highly significant, he was made under the law.

So we can see from these two verses that Jesus had humbled himself, he had emptied himself, and he was under the law.

So therefore, being under the law, he was required to pray to God the

Father. He was required to be circumcised. He was required to partake of the

Passover meal. He was required to honor his mother and his father. And because he emptied himself and was made under the law, then

God the Father would be in a greater position than him, which explains why Jesus said the Father was greater than him in John 14, 28.

This verse is not about nature, it's about position. We also know from Hebrews 2, nine, that Jesus was made in a position made lower than the angels.

This is an issue of position under the law. He would therefore be approved by God the

Father, Acts 2, 22, and glory would be given to him by God the Father, John 17, 1, and he would also be called a man,

John 8, 40. All of this is perfectly consistent with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the hypostatic union, which is the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human.

For Mr. Lewis to sufficiently attempt to refute the idea that Christ has two natures, that he must then deal with these verses on the deity of Christ, Colossians 2, nine,

Titus 2, 13, Hebrews 1, eight, et cetera. Remember, Eugene said that we are to look to the very first followers and see what they said.

A reminder, Surah 547 said that all the people of the angel judged by what Allah has revealed therein.

Now, before I give the last two minutes and then finally tribute to the glory of the

Lord Jesus Christ to exist as a divine work being flesh, who bore our sin in his body in the cross, who died upon that cross, who rose from the dead so that all who trust in him by faith will be forgiven of all of their sins, let me first turn to the

Quran, Surah 57, three. He is the first and the last, the evident and the imminent, and he has full knowledge of all things.

In this verse, Allah is said to be the first and the last. When we turn to Revelation 1, 17 and 18,

Jesus himself says, written by John the Apostle, Jesus' disciple who first knew him, it says this, do not be afraid,

I am the first and the last, the living one, and I was dead, and behold, I'm alive forevermore.

So Jesus is the first and the last, even as the Quran says Allah is the first and the last,

Surah 5, 57, three. John the Apostle told us, excuse me,

John the Apostle told us in John 18, six, that when the soldiers came to arrest Jesus in the garden, right before his crucifixion,

Jesus said to them, I am, and they fell to the ground, why? Because he's

God in flesh, and the power of his proclamation was too much for them to handle. When Jesus returns, we all too will fall to the ground in his glorious presence.

In Revelation 1, eight, Jesus said, that I am the Alpha and the Omega, who is and who was and who is to come, the

Almighty. Christians will fall to the ground and worship the Almighty in thanksgiving.

All others will fall to the ground in fear of judgment. But be careful that you do not deny what

Jesus said about himself and what his apostles said about him, that he is the

Almighty, because if you do deny this, you too also will perish eternally.

Thank you. You can actually applaud after their presentations and rebuttals and concluding remarks, but not during the time that the speakers are actually engaging the issues.

Now, with that said, without further delay, Mr. Shadid Lewis for his 18 -minute response.

Good sound? Is that good, good sound? Yeah, okay, very good.

All right, again. All right, greetings and peace.

Salaam alaikum, we say. In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful. The subject that we're discussing or debating here is, is

Jesus the God -man? Are we clear? Is Jesus the

God -man? Man and God at the same time.

Is this what Jesus is? And of course, my position is that he is not both

God and man at the same time. Let's dive right in and make that case. We see, and yes, what

Matt said about taking from those first followers, I agree with that.

But if you watch that debate, I made my point that you have to take from those whose statement agree with the person himself.

And I gave the example of today. We have the Tea Party. They tell us that Obama is a

Muslim, right? But what does Obama say? Obama doesn't agree with them. Obama says that he's not a

Muslim. He says he's a Christian or whatever, right? Now you may disagree with his practical Christianity, but out of his own mouth, he says he's a

Christian. In other words, you can't take from those who are around the person if what they say is in contradiction to the person.

So if Obama says he's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, but the Tea Party says that he's a Muslim, who do we take?

Do we go with the Tea Party, or do we listen to Obama's own words? We have to obviously go with Obama's own words and not what the

Tea Party says, even though the Tea Party are contemporaries and they live right here at the same time as Obama.

So that's what I said about taking from those first followers of Jesus. So Matt said that he's taking from them, and he mentions

John. Well, the writer of John, of course, this is not about the New Testament, but your scholars tell you that the writers of your four

Gospels are actually unknown. The writer of John is not the disciple of Jesus. How do we know that?

If you look at John chapter 21, verse 24, we see that the person who writes

John says that he's being told this information by one of the disciples.

The writer of John is not John, the disciple of Jesus. If you read in John 21, 24, you will see that that's very clearly shown, that the writer of John is not

John, the follower of Jesus. Here's what it says. It says, speaking, let's start at verse 23.

Then when his sayings were brought among the brethren, that the disciples should not die, yet Jesus said unto him, he shall not die, but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to you?

This is the disciple which testifies of these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

So the person who's writing John is not actually John the disciple. This is a person who's saying that he knows that the testimony of whoever's telling him this is true.

Not that this is being written by John the disciple himself. So this would not qualify of my standard, which is taking from somebody who's actually a follower.

This is somebody else who's telling you that they're writing from second -hand information. As far as the other

Gospels, Mark, Matthew, et cetera, again, your scholars tell you that the writers of these books are unknown.

So these would not qualify as taking from those who are actually with Jesus.

So that's the standard that I gave if you watched that debate fully. So what is

Jesus? Whose testimony is stronger? Taking from, as I said, those who are around the person but say things that are in contradiction to the man himself?

Those who are with the person, but they say things that are in agreement with the man himself. So let's take a look at what the man himself says.

Does Jesus say that he is the God -man? Or does he say that he's a man?

Let's see what he says. We go to John chapter eight, verse 40. Here Jesus, it is said that Jesus said, excuse me, it is said that Jesus said, as it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.

Is that clear? He's telling you what? Clear words. I'm a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.

If he's the God -man, then is there another God that he's listening to? Think about that.

If he is the God -man, as this debate is discussing, then is there another God? Because he says it right there.

I heard the truth from God. So if Jesus is the God -man, who is this other God that he heard the truth from?

Or is it that he clearly is not God? I'm a man, he's just a man. And in fact, the word that's used here in the

Greek is anthropo. This word means, it's a borrowing from Greek, meaning a human, of human origin.

This is from Random House Dictionary. We see further from Online Etymology Dictionary, Douglas Harper, it says, it's a prefix meaning pertaining to man, from the

Greek anthropos, a man, a human being, sometimes it includes women.

But notice, it doesn't include God. In other words, the word that's used, that the writer of John used and put in the mouth of Jesus, has

Jesus explaining himself to be a full human being. He doesn't say that he's a

God -man. He uses the word that means a full and complete human being. Further, we look at Vine's Exposition, excuse me,

Expository Dictionary of the New Testament. It says, anthropo is used, generally a human being, male or female, without reference to sexuality.

In other words, this word, anthropo, it doesn't mean man as in the male gender. It means human being.

It means human being. Like when you say mankind, you don't mean just men. You mean men and women, children, right? But this word doesn't mean man as in the male gender.

That's the Greek word, ano. This word means a human being. If you want to describe somebody as a human being, you would use this word, anthropo.

We're all anthropo. We are all human beings. We're not gods, we're not aliens, we're not animals, we're not insects.

We are only human beings. This is the word that the writer of John has Jesus describing himself as, an anthropo.

A complete, full human being. Not a God -man, complete human being. And then further, the words in the context prove that he's not

God. Because he said, I'm a man who told you the truth that I heard, obviously he heard with his ears.

I heard from, from is where? Some other place. From another person. This is the truth that I heard from God.

Clearly he cannot be the same God -man right there, but he's hearing the truth from God.

If you're a God yourself, you don't hear the truth from anyone. Because God is the source of the truth, right?

We all agree with that. God is the originator of the truth. The truth comes from God. God doesn't have to hear the truth from anywhere because he has the truth with him and he will reveal it to us by his choice.

But as you can see, Jesus says, I heard the truth from God. Clearly he cannot be the

God -man. All right, so that's very clear. Not only does the context show in that statement that he's not a

God -man, but the word that is used there shows that he's not the God -man. And in fact, to make it even more interesting, we see that God in the

Old Testament says that he's not Anthropos. Can you believe that? That God says that he's not

Anthropos. There's a Greek version. As you know, the Torah, the Old Testament is in Hebrew. But there is a

Greek version of it known as the Septuagint. So we can compare the Greek version of the Old Testament with the

Greek New Testament and let's see how these words use. Are they shared? Are they different? Well, God tells us in the

Old Testament in the Greek version of it that he's not Anthropos. Jesus says, I am Anthropos, but Yahweh says that he's not

Anthropos. He's not a human being, okay? For example, we have Hosea 11, nine.

It says, for I am God and not a man. That's the English translation. But in the Greek, he's saying, for I am

God and I am not Anthropos. Jesus says that he is Anthropos. Another example to show you that this word is used to make a differentiation between God and human beings in Isaiah chapter 31, verse three.

It is said that the Egyptians are being condemned and it says that the Egyptians, they are

Anthropos and they are not God. Notice how God is making that distinction.

He's saying, look, I'm not that and they can't be me either. I'm God, but they're not

God because they are what? They're Anthropos. I am God, I am not Anthropos. I am not a human being.

So people say, well, does that mean God can't become it? He's showing you that he would never do that. He would never become a man.

Why? Because your Bible tells you in the book of Job that God is greater than man. The moment

God becomes a man and God, now he's no longer greater than man. Why not? Because he is a man now. He must maintain his majesty.

He must maintain his greatness. He's the almighty, right? The most high

God. If God becomes a man, he's no longer greater than man. Why not? Because now he is one of us now, right?

He's now a man. He's no longer greater than man. He is a man. So God always maintains his majesty.

He doesn't have to come. That's why he sends prophets. That's why he gives revelation. You see? He always maintains his greatness.

Doesn't your Bible tell you that God is a jealous God? In Exodus chapter 34, 14.

That God is jealous. He's a jealous God. That you would take God, that's why he told you don't make any images of him on anything in the heavens, on the earth, or in the sea below, correct?

The moment he becomes a man, well, if somebody saw him, couldn't they make an image of him and say, oh, look, there's God, let me paint a picture of him.

Now you're making an image of him. These words are important because God is maintaining his majesty, his greatness.

You see? He mentioned the Thomas argument.

That Thomas said that he called

Jesus his Lord and his God. As I've always mentioned, if you read in all the other gospels, if you read in Mark, if you read in Matthew and in Luke, you see that they all mention that when

Jesus appeared, he appeared unto the 11. Meaning all disciples were there, no one was late.

It says he appeared unto the 11 in Mark, he appeared unto the 11 in Matthew, he appeared unto the 11 in Luke.

Why is it 11? Because Judas is missing, not Thomas. It's Judas is the one that's missing. And notice, none of them mention that Thomas says these words, why?

Because when Jesus appears, he appears to all 11 disciples, no one is late, they all have their issues together on whether this is really him, but then they all confirm that it's really

Jesus. Imagine that now, imagine three out of the four gospels, everybody forgets to mention that Thomas uttered these amazing words, that Thomas uttered these great words calling

Jesus his Lord and his God. Unlikely that that would happen, right? More than likely you would have more people remembering that than not.

Yet the gospel of John is the latest gospel, it comes many years after the others, and yet why is it that the others forget to mention these important words?

Obviously it never happened. It never happened, because Mark, Matthew, Luke come before John, and they show that it never happened because they say when

Jesus appeared, he appeared unto the 11. In other words, there was no chance for Thomas to come late, because when

Jesus appeared, all 11 disciples are there, with the exception of who? Judas. So there was no time for Thomas to come late and then say, oh, you know what?

You guys saw him already? Well, I don't believe it, where's he at? The other story conflicts with that story.

It says Jesus appeared to 11, nobody's missing. Thomas is already there. So there was no time for Thomas to say this according to the other gospels.

So I say that this was an elaboration to the story, it's added to the story to make the story more appealing, but clearly this is left out of the other gospels.

He said that the Quran says to judge by what Allah has revealed, and then he takes that as this is what your

Bible is today, or your gospels. If you read what the Quran says, Allah says that he gave the

Injil to Jesus. Matthew is not mentioned. Allah never said he revealed anything to a person named

Matthew, he never says he revealed anything to a person named Mark, Luke, or John, or Paul.

None of these people are mentioned. So what you have here is not what Allah revealed. So Allah's not telling you to judge by this.

He says he revealed the Injil to Jesus. So we need to find the gospel of Jesus. What you have as you open your book, you will see right at the beginning, is what?

What do you have at the beginning? It says this is the gospel according to Matthew, right? Not according to Jesus, this is according to this person named

Matthew. You read to the next one, it says according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John.

Read the Quran, it doesn't say anywhere that Allah revealed to these people anything. This is not what Allah's telling you to judge by.

These are not his words. He didn't reveal this, he makes no confirmation of this. Okay, he says he gave the

Injil to Jesus. So you need to find what Jesus spoke or has. He uses the

Hebrew claim, right? That in Hebrews it is said that God said to Jesus, you know, your throne, oh

God, is forever and ever. Actually, this comes from the Psalms. Whoever wrote Hebrews, some of your scholars say that some think it's

Paul, others say it's an unknown writer but whoever wrote Hebrews made a mistake. If you check the original quotation of that statement, that goes back to Psalms, Psalms, right?

This is from Psalms where it's a person actually praising God this actually comes from the

Psalms of Shoshanim. They are singing to God and they're saying, God, your throne is forever and ever. This is not

God speaking to the son of Jesus. Read the original quote and you will see that that's an error by whoever wrote

Hebrews that it's not God talking to Jesus, right?

You can check it, it's Psalms 45, six. That's where that very statement is from. Psalms 45, six where you will find this statement, your throne, oh

God, is forever and ever. This is not, you find, you will look at it and you will see it's not God talking to Jesus.

Jesus is not mentioned there at all. The Alpha and Omega claim from Revelation. Once again, this is not

Jesus telling you about himself. If you start at Revelations one verse one, it tells you right there, this is a revelation of Jesus Christ which

God gave to him. There we go again, right? Jesus said, I heard the truth from God. Revelation one verse one tells you this is a revelation of Jesus Christ which

God gave to Jesus. How is he the God man if another

God is giving him revelation? So either Jesus is the God man and there's another God who gives the lower

God, Jesus, revelation and tells him the truth or it's clear that Jesus is not God himself.

He receives information from God. So Revelation one verse one says this is a revelation of Jesus Christ which

God gave to Jesus. So when you read that this is the Alpha and Omega, that's not

Jesus talking about himself. He's telling you about God. He's telling you that God is the Alpha and the

Omega. God is the first and the last, not Jesus. This is his revelation from God telling you about God, okay?

So as we see, it is clear that from words that are attributed to Jesus, he makes it clear that he is a man, a complete full human being.

The writer even uses the word anthropos which means a full human being. Now I know what people will say that several verses down Jesus says before Abraham, I am and they pick up stone on stone, right?

Yeah, I know, right? But obviously we have a contradiction and this is also going back to my point that Matt says when

I use certain verses but I ignore the others. Well, I can't take both of them because they contradict each other. That's why

I use the ones that make my argument. The other ones contradict. And that verse is telling me that this man's saying that he's a man and he heard the truth from God and you give me a verse that somebody else is claiming that he's

God. Well, of course I can't take both. I have to pick and choose because they're not in secret one another, they contradict, they're in conflict with one another.

So of course I have to pick and choose because I'm looking and I'm saying, well, I can't take them both together, they contradict one another, you see?

So we see that, yeah, it says that he says, before Abraham I am, but before Abraham I am what, though, is the question.

He just told you he was a man who heard the truth from God several verses ahead, in verse 40.

In verse 58, he says, before Abraham I am. I am what? I am what? Well, throughout the whole thing,

Jesus is always telling you that what? That he's the Christ, right? That he's the Christ. Remember when he asked

Peter, Peter, who do men say that I am, right?

Who do men say that I am? And Peter says that some say this, some say that.

He says, but what do you say, Peter? He says, you are the Christ, the son of God, the son of the living God, right? Well, what does the Christ mean?

The Christ means that he is the anointed one of God. Jesus responds and says, Peter, you are correct. He doesn't say, no,

Peter, that's wrong, I'm the God, man. He says, no, I'm the Christ. He agrees that he's the anointed one, and Jesus says, you know what, that's correct.

Only heaven could have told you that. So the correct answer is that he's the Christ. Not that he's the God, man, he's the

Christ, who is a man, complete man, thank you. Let me just emphasize one thing.

You're talking on the side, we can hear you, because it's a small room. Please, out of respect for the debaters, no talking on the side.

Keep all your comments to yourself until the debate is officially over, because it is distracting. I was sitting there and I got distracted because I could hear people over here.

I'm not trying to point to any individual. Now, if I can hear it, that means the debaters can hear it, and that's distracting to them.

Let them do their job. As you can see, they're professionals and they're outstanding, and I said they're quite passionate, and you can see their passion coming through.

Now, with that said, I don't have the sheet. These are eight -minute rebuttals now? Yes. Okay, Matt Slick for his eight -minute rebuttal.

When my opponent's wife claps for me, that's a good sign.

I have a son, too. All right, can you hear me okay? All right.

So, Mr. Shaddiq, sorry, Mr. Louis Shaddiq said, we must take from those who first knew him.

I agree, and we did. I did with Revelation 1, 17 and 18.

His principle is sound. This principle is sound. To see what he said about himself and compare it to what others said about him.

Jesus said about himself in Revelation 1, 17 and 18, do not be afraid. I am the first and the last, the living one.

I was dead, and behold, I'm alive forevermore. I have the keys of death and Hades. And, of course, in Revelation 1, 18, he says he's the

Alpha and the Omega. He was not dead. I'll just stay with this. The living one, and he was dead.

Obviously, Jesus says this. This is what he says. Now, it's a common attack on the word of God to say that the

Gospels aren't reliable, that the Bible's not reliable. The first one to do this, to say that God's word is not trustworthy, is the enemy of all of us,

Satan, in the garden when he said to Eve, did God really say? Gotta test, gotta make sure.

You don't believe that the word of God's true because if you don't believe the word of God, you'll believe something else. Now, in the book of Acts, which was written roughly around 60

AD, because it does not contain the death of Peter, nor does it contain the death of Paul, nor the destruction of Jerusalem.

This is very important because the book of Acts is a historical book, and it writes the details of the early church.

It writes about what was happening, where Paul went, where Peter went, the whole bit. Now, Jesus had prophesied the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, and it occurred in 70

AD, yet the book of Acts doesn't require, or doesn't record it at all. Also, it does record in Acts 7, 55 through 60, the death of Stephen, but it does not record the death of Peter and Paul, which most scholars agree is around 60 to 64

AD. This means that the book of Acts was written before that, so we'll just say 60 AD. Luke wrote the book of Acts, and he wrote the gospel of Luke, but he wrote the gospel of Luke before the book of Acts, so let's just say five years.

We can go with numbers. We'll make it easier for the debate. That would mean that Luke was written around 55 AD. Matthew was written before that.

Let's just say 50 AD. Mark was written before that. Let's just say 45 AD. Jesus was crucified in 33

AD, 12 years difference. To say that the scholars say that no one knows who was written it is just simply not accurate.

The early church certainly knew, and didn't quote any scholar names, and I have a saying, my scholar can beat up your scholar.

We can fight scholars to say anything we want. Just saying scholars say that it isn't there, that we don't know, doesn't make it so.

John 21, 24, this is the disciple who's testifying to these things, and who wrote these things. We know the testimony is true, and it means that it wasn't

John. No, he's including himself in there. We're telling you this is the truth. That's all he's doing.

Now, you quote the Bible, but you can't have it both ways. If you're gonna say that the Bible's not trustworthy, and then you quote it, and say, see, this is what he says, well, then, when

I say, yes, what Jesus said, well, that's not what he said. You can't have it both ways. That's not how a logical debate works.

You work from the text, and you work from within the text, and within the text, Jesus is clearly said to be divine.

Now, remember, we are not debating his humanity. That is not in question. Most Christians don't even know that Jesus is a man right now, and I can teach you on that, but the thing is, he is a man right now.

There's holes in his wrist, holes in his feet, hole in his side, beard ripped from his face, and his back has been ripped open from the whip.

This is what he looks like right now. A lot of people don't know that, but we're not arguing his humanity.

The issue here is his divinity. That is what the issue is. Now, I need to make a comment, and it's a criticism here, because my opponent, and I mean no disrespect, obviously does not understand certain aspects of Christian theology.

Now, I've been teaching Christian theology for about 35 years. I've got a Master's of Divinity, and I'm constantly teaching

Christians on my radio show, writing books, what the Christian faith really is. The doctrine of the

Trinity is very important here. It's not in discussion, but I will tell you that Mr.

Lewis, no disrespect, men, does not sufficiently understand the issues. Otherwise, he would not be raising the objections he does about Jesus and his humanity, and certain limitations associated with them, and saying such things as, did

Jesus have another God? We would never say that he has another God. That is a misrepresentation of the

Christian perspective. If I'm gonna debate Islam, I'm gonna study Islam. If I'm gonna debate Mormonism, I study

Mormonism. I go to those people, and I learn it from them, so that I can teach their own things to them to their satisfaction.

Once I know that, then I'm ready to debate them on that level. Mr. Shadid, excuse me,

Shadid, sorry about mispronouncing that. Shadid, you don't know, you have not done enough of your homework in this issue on the nature of the hypostatic union, and I suggest also study the communicatio ideomatum, another very important doctrine.

We can get into that some other time, and the doctrine of the Trinity, which is monotheistic, three separate persons.

Of course, Jesus may, under the law, will have someone he raises his arms to, and he prays to, God the

Father. It's not an initial of another God. It's a requirement of Jesus being under the law. Why was he under the law?

Because he had to become one of us so that he could bear our sins at his body on the cross, 1

Peter 3 .24, and he could die after having never sinned, 1 Peter 2 .22, and he could live and rise from the dead as an acceptable sacrifice to God the

Father, because Leviticus 17 .11, Leviticus 17 .14, the sacrifice of the blood is what cleanses us of our sins, and is repeated by the writer of Hebrews in Hebrews 9 .22.

Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. We have forgiveness in the work of Jesus Christ, God in flesh.

If I were to insult one of you, you have to forgive me, not somebody else. If we insult

God, he's gonna forgive us. He's gonna take care of what needs to be taken care of. Now, there's so much

I wish I had time to get into, but I don't, so I have to pick and choose what I can address. Now, I teach logic.

I debate with atheists on logic, and when someone says something is a contradiction, what they're citing is a second law of the classical laws of logic, the law of identity, the law of non -contradiction, the law of excluded middle.

The law of non -contradiction is often, very often misunderstood by people. They don't understand what a contradiction is.

A contradiction is a statement that makes another statement impossible. When the

Bible says Jesus is a man, nothing in that says he cannot also be divine. If it says he cannot be divine, and another statement says he is divine, that's a contradiction.

Again, a contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible. Differences of opinion don't make contradictions.

This is an important part of logic, an important part of debate. I do not believe that Mr. Lewis has yet seriously entered into this debate, because he's not debating the deity of Christ, he's trying to assert the humanity, which we both agree is the case with Christ.

He is a man, but the internal nature of God also, that's gonna be of Christ also, is that of divinity.

As Colossians 2 .9 says, in him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form. And John 1 .1,

in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. These statements are still true, they're still there, written by the eyewitnesses who are with Jesus Christ.

And dismissing them is the only way to try and deal with a text, because you can't go with what they actually say, you have to say, it's not real, it never happened.

That's the best an opponent of the deity of Christ can raise, and it's not sufficient. Now, Shadid Lewis is going to come up for his eight minute rebuttal.

Okay. All right, so, Matt said that he did take from the followers, as I mentioned about taking from followers, you know, who were with the person.

Again, as I mentioned, my point was that you take from the followers if their words agree with the person, with the person himself.

Those others that he mentions, their words don't agree with the person of Jesus, as I gave the examples. So they don't agree with the person, so we can't accept them.

Just like if people, if you have grandchildren or children and they grow up years later, or perhaps your children have grandchildren, or, you know, generations later, and they read back in history that, you know, the

Tea Party said that Obama was a Muslim. But Obama didn't say he was a Muslim. He said that he wasn't.

So, again, you can't say, well, I'm gonna take the Tea Party's word for it. You have to take what the man himself says.

If he says something and other people say things about him that disagrees with the man himself, we must negate what the others have said.

And that's what I'm saying here. So, again, he uses that he took from the followers, but, again, it's not a matter of what, you know, just taking a scholar, what they say.

The evidence is not there that these were written by any disciples. Those names were attached to these documents, but the fact of the matter is there is no real conclusive evidence that they were written by the names attributed to them,

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, et cetera. So he said about trusting

God's word, that Satan spoke, you know, against God's words about saying, did

God really say that? Well, this is not the case here because we know that this is not God's word. We know that these are the words of men.

These are not God's words. These are the words of men. And if there's a debate about that, we can show that these are not

God's words. So this is not a case of questioning like Satan did because we're not questioning

God's word. These are the words of men, unknown men at that. We don't know who these people are, whether they were friends of Jesus or enemies of Jesus who may have wanted to make him look like he was a failed messiah, perhaps.

You see? He mentioned Acts as a historical book. Is Acts really a historical book?

There's no evidence outside of that. You can't find any non -Christian writings about the disciples. I challenge anyone, call me later if you can.

You cannot find any historical sources outside of the Bible that mentions the actual lives of the disciples.

So Acts is not a historical book in that regard. He said the early church knew who wrote them.

Actually, they didn't. They didn't. They attributed things. They are the ones who attributed the names, but they have no certain knowledge of who wrote these things.

And as far as the mention of the scholars, I didn't get too detailed about the scholars because the debate is not about the authenticity of the

Bible. We're just bringing it in for discussion, but we can do that later at a later time. The subject is this debate.

Is Jesus the God -man? Which brings us to that statement. He says we're not arguing the humanity, right?

No, well, we are though. We're arguing both, right? Because the topic is, is Jesus the God -man?

So that means we do have to argue his humanity as well. And I've shown, he said I haven't addressed the deity.

Well, if I can show that a man is conclusively a man, there's no need to discuss the deity.

I showed you that he said he was a man, a complete human being who heard the truth from God.

Do I have to debate his divinity? Yes. How, how so? He says that he heard from God.

How can he be God and say I heard the truth from God? And he says about the misunderstanding of the

Christian doctrine. No, I understand the Christian doctrine. That's why I'm putting the question to you as I put it. Right, you guys believe that there are three persons and the three persons are the same one

God. Okay then, I accept what you tell me. But my question still remains.

If the three persons are the same one God, why is one of the members who's supposed to be the one

God saying that he heard the truth from God? I understand what you Christians believe, so my question still remains.

Why is the one, the man who's a member of the Godhead, who's supposed to be

God himself, one of the members, why is he still saying that he heard the truth from God when he's supposed to be

God? That's still a valid question. I understand what the Christians tell me. It's nothing to do with a misunderstanding.

I ask the question because I understand what you're telling me and as you can see, the problem is still there.

You see, as he mentioned, he says that there are these three separate persons. Correct, the three separate persons, but each of them is supposed to be the one

God. Three separate persons, right? Three separate persons. Each of them is a different person.

They're not the same person. They're three different persons. One of the persons said he heard the truth from God.

One of the members of the three said he heard the truth from God. If he's supposed to be

God himself as the member of the three members who are all the one God, why is he talking like that?

It's a valid question. Why is he talking like that? That's why I put that question to you because how can you answer that in any satisfactory manner?

He obviously cannot be a member who's God himself if he's saying that he heard, look at those words,

I heard the truth from God. If he's one of the members of this triune group and he's

God himself, how could he have heard the truth when he should himself be the origin of the truth with the other two members?

Clearly, obviously, that's not the case. So he says that nothing says that he can't be man and divine.

Yes, it does. I just gave you that earlier with anthropos. John 8, 40, you seek to kill me, an anthropos.

The definition of that word shows that he can't be divine. If the writer of John didn't want that understanding, then he should not have used the word anthropos because that word means that you can't be

God. It does mean that. Just like me right now saying, everyone, I'm a human being.

Are you going to question now? Hmm, Shadi said he's a human being. Does that mean that he still can't be

God? Obviously, you know that I can't be God. I'm a human being. Jesus is saying he's a human being.

A human being can't be God. God will not be a human being.

Why? Because it lowers his majesty. It lowers his majesty. And there are verses in your

Bible that demonstrate that. He's always telling you that he's not a man, right? For I am God and not a man.

All the time, he's constantly contrasting himself. He's never comparing himself. He's always contrasting himself with man because he wants you to understand that God is

God and man is man. That way, you don't ever make the mistake of worshiping a man. When we look at other cultures that have a man who looks like he's

Chinese or a black man, every one of us automatically, you discount that, right? Why?

Because you feel it's foolish to worship a man. Exactly, exactly. But yet, that's what you're doing.

You look at a black man, you would say, oh, that's just, he ain't God, he's a black man. Chinese man is

God. Oh, he's just a Chinese, he ain't God. But now you accept your Jesus man as a God? Why is it foolish for others to say that their black man is

God or their Chinese man is God, but you could accept your European man as God?

Why is that acceptable to you? But other gods, oh, it's foolish. It's the same, it's foolish too in this way as well.

Okay? So, he says, I have an addressed deity. I have, by showing that Jesus is indeed a man who heard the truth from God.

Jesus says that his God is your God. His God is your God, John 20, 17.

My time? Six minutes. Okay, six seconds. Well, he says that his God is your God, John 20, 17.

Again, if he's the God man, why is he saying that he has a God and his God is also your God if he himself is the

God man? Because clearly, he's a man. Thank you. Let me reiterate, there shall be no outbursts while the speakers are giving their presentations and rebuttals.

I am greatly disappointed at the individual when he asked the question, do I need to prove the deity of Christ?

And someone said yes. That is uncalled for. I assume that most of you are

Christians. No questions from the floor. As Christians, respect both debaters. Refrain from speaking out of turn.

You haven't been invited here to participate in debate with the debaters. That's their job.

Respect them, please. If you're gonna continue the outbursts, I'm gonna ask you kindly to leave. Respect the debaters.

Let them do their job. They're professional, and you can see they're great at what they do. So give them the respect to make their case.

Even if you disagree with Shadid Lewis, we invited him to present the reasons why he as a

Muslim cannot accept Jesus as God. So let us give him the respect. You may disagree with him, that's fine.

Respect him for the sake of Christ. Now, with that said, we're going to now, we're flipping, right?

He's going to now give the Slav view. But I'm gonna give them a two -minute stretch break. Take two minutes to stretch, and then we're going to resume the second part of the debate.

Two minutes. American time, not Middle Eastern time. We're gonna resume. We're gonna resume.

As you're getting seated, make sure your phones are off or on silence. I'll give you a couple seconds to get seated ready and fully attentive for the second half of the debate.

Okay. In the second part of the debate, Shadid Lewis will be presenting the

Christian, I'm sorry, Christian view, I'm sorry. The Islamic view of Jesus, and we're gonna follow the same time format.

Shadid Lewis will be given an 18 -minute opening statement to make his case for the

Islamic view of Jesus. Then our brother Matt Slick will come up and respond for 18 minutes. Then Shadid Lewis will come up with an eight -minute response, and then followed by another eight -minute response by Matt Slick, and then concluding statements of four minutes each.

Again, let me reiterate, no talking on the side, no outbursts, and this is the time to put your phones on silence or turn them off.

Let the debaters debate, and we're gonna have a great night, because as you can see, these guys are passionate.

This is why these two individuals just happen to be my favorite debaters. So let's invite

Shadid Lewis for his 18 -minute opening presentation for the Islamic view of Jesus. All right, thank you once again.

Name of Allah. So once again, we are now gonna be presenting the Islamic view of Jesus, which is really not too much different from what

I presented to you already, because in the Islamic view of Jesus, I will give you how the Quran views

Jesus. In Islam, if you're not aware, we do believe in Jesus.

We do believe that he was a great prophet, a great messenger. The difference between the

Christian and the Muslim view of Jesus is that in Islam, we differ with regard to Jesus being

God and the son of God, the actual son of God. These are the two main points where we differ.

On everything else, we agree that he was the Messiah sent to the children of Israel to guide them and call them back to the right path.

We believe that he was indeed a great prophet, a great messenger of God. But again, we differ on the position on whether he was

God in human form, the God -man, the actual son of God, et cetera. So what does the

Quran say in regard to Jesus? The Quran says in chapter five, verse 75, speaking of Jesus, it says the

Messiah, so it confirms right there, no doubt he's the Messiah, the Christ, the anointed one. The Messiah, the son of Mary, was a messenger.

Other messengers had gone before him. So in other words, he was like messengers who had gone before him.

They all had their calling, they all had their missions, and Jesus was indeed a messenger as other messengers had gone before him, and of course, none of the messengers before Jesus were gods or God -men, although in your scriptures, it does say that God told

Moses, I will make you a god to Pharaoh. Does that mean he was a god like God, or what does that mean, right?

But nonetheless, the Quran is in this point that they were all men, complete and full human beings.

The Quran says further about Jesus in chapter 43, verse 59, says he, speaking of Jesus, was not but a servant on whom we bestowed favor, and we made him an example to the children of Israel.

So surely you wouldn't disagree with any of these points other than whether he was God or not, but you would agree that indeed

Jesus was a servant of God as your scriptures demonstrate. But for the Muslim position, this is why we say that he was only a man and not

God, because God's position is not to be a servant to anyone. It is us who serve

God, but not for God to be a servant of us.

Further on, the Quran tells us regarding Jesus in a rhetorical question, it says, and when

Allah will say, oh Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to men, take me and my mother for gods other than Allah?

He will say, glory be to you. It was not for me to say what I had no right to say.

If I had said it, you, God, would indeed have known it. You know what is in my mind, and I know not what is in your mind.

Surely you, Jesus speaking to God, you are the great knower of the unseen.

Now sometimes people misunderstand this verse and think that this is supposed to be making Mary a part of the trinity, but it's not.

Actually what it's saying, because the Arabic word here is minduni. It means other than, not that you made, that people took

God, Jesus, and Mary as gods along with Allah, no. Meaning they negated

God and said, no, you're gonna take either Jesus as a god or Mary as a god. So it's not a trinity. This is not referring to the trinity.

This is saying that people negated God, the almighty, and took other gods other than, not along with, but other than.

And so Jesus, according to the Quran, says, no, he rejects this idea. And some people say, well,

Christians never did that. Well, there was a group of Christians known as the Coloridians who did give some type of deity to Mary.

Catholics, you can read, would pray to Mary, do hail Marys. They were all Catholic sects that believed that Mary had power to stop

God's anger, stop God's punishment. Some refer to her as the mother of God. So the

Quran is negating any deity to Mary and any deity to Jesus. Quran goes further in 5, 117, to say that Jesus said,

I said to them nothing, save as you, God, have commanded me, which is serve my

Lord and your Lord. Sounds similar to what Jesus is said to have said in John 20, 17, which

I gave at the end of my last presentation, which is when Mary Magdalene comes to Jesus and he tells her to go back to the brethren and say to them that I go back, tell my brothers that I go back to my father and your father, to my

God, Jesus saying he has a God now, to my God and your God. He doesn't say, go back and say that I'm your

God. No, he says, tell my brothers that I'm going back to my God, the God of Jesus, and the

God of the brothers. In other words, the God of Jesus is also the God of his followers, not that he is their

God, but he has a God and his God is the God of his followers as well. This is what this verse is similar to.

So this is the Quranic position that Jesus always spoke in this manner, as a servant, a servant with authority, no doubt, because prophets have authority from God, right?

Prophets are given authority from God to make judgments, to make laws, rules, et cetera, from God, of course, not on their own, but from God, so they have these authorities.

So they can speak with authority, but nonetheless, they acknowledge that that authority comes from God, as can be seen here.

You see? The same can be seen from the Quran in chapter five, verse 110, where it says that when

Jesus performed his miracles, he performed his miracles with the permission of God, clearly demonstrating that he's a man, and this seems to go in line with what your

Bible says in John chapter five, verse 30, where it is said that Jesus said, I can of my own self do nothing.

If he was the God -man, which means he was God at the same time being a man, then indeed, he would be able to do on his own, yes?

We agree that God can do things on his own, right? We all know God is all -powerful. He can do things on his own, but Jesus here says,

I can of my own self do nothing. My own self can do nothing. You see?

As I hear, as I hear, again, who's he hearing from if he's supposed to be the God -man, who is supposed to be fully

God, right? I mean, again, ask yourself that question. Who's he hearing from? He says, as I hear.

Who tells God what to say, everyone? No one, correct? No one tells God what to say, but Jesus says,

I hear. As I hear, then he makes his judgment. Well, God doesn't have to hear because God knows all things, and my judgment is just because I don't seek my own will.

How can the God -man, who's supposed to be God, not seek his own will, but the will of the one that sent me, huh?

The God -man, who's fully God, but also a man, he does the will.

Come on now, be honest with yourself. I see you shaking your head, but be honest with yourself. How can the God -man, who's

God, admit that he does the will of someone else? That's a legitimate question to have.

How can the God -man, who's God, say, I do the will of someone else, but I do the will,

I don't do my own will, but the will of the Father, which has sent me? But wait a minute, he's

God, though. Isn't this discussion the God -man? He's supposed to be the God -man himself. Now, of course,

I don't want to be charged with misunderstanding the Christian doctrine. So okay, Islam challenges that doctrine.

So ask yourself that question. If he's the God -man, he's one of the members, but he, as a member, he's

God, then why isn't he doing his own will? Why is he doing the will of another?

These are the words that are attributed to him. He's doing the will of another, right?

He's doing the will of another. Well, surely God doesn't do that. So this is the

Islamic position. The Islamic position goes further and says in chapter three, verse 59, verily, the likeness of Jesus in a lost sight is the likeness of Adam.

He created him from dust. Then he said to him, be, and he was, and he came about.

So in the Quranic view, again, as is clearly demonstrated, Jesus is a full human being in the likeness of Adam, like the rest of us.

As you know, Adam was a complete and full human being. And the reason why this comparison is made is because many times

Christians will say, well, you know, Jesus didn't have a father. His father's supposed to be

God, and that's what makes him God. But why does the Quran say the likeness of Jesus is like Adam in God's sight?

Because Christians forget, Adam didn't have a father either. Adam didn't have a father either.

He was created by God directly. But Christians don't say that Adam is the son of God.

Right? So here, the Quranic view is that Jesus is a human being like Adam. Even though Adam didn't have a father, it still makes

Adam a human being, being created directly by God's command, and no different than Jesus.

Although Jesus didn't have a father, he was created like Adam. God utters the command, and God's command comes about.

So, as I've given you to see, that the

Islamic position makes these arguments to try to get you to think. Who are you making out to be

God? A man that says he's a servant? When God is supposed to be the all high, the most high, the almighty one.

He doesn't have to call on anyone for help. He doesn't need help. He does his own will.

In fact, you and us, as human beings, we have to submit to do the will of God.

But God doesn't submit to do our will. So, Quran calls on you to think about these things.

Think about it honestly with yourself. You're claiming that this man is a

God man, but he's admitting that he does the will of someone else, as I demonstrated from your scripture.

And let me address that too. I never said that the entire

Bible is corrupt. That's not the Islamic position. The Islamic position is that there's truth mixed with falsehood.

So indeed, I can quote it and not be in problem because my position is that, yeah, I can find some truth in it.

There's some truth in it. It's not a completely false book. That's not the Islamic position. So there's no problem with me quoting from it.

It's not contradicting me in that regard because I'm aware that, yes, I can look through it and find some things that I would determine to be false, but I can also look and find some, determine some things to be truthful.

For example, if your Bible has a verse, which it does, that speaks of God as being the almighty, the almighty one,

El Shaddai, isn't that true? That's true, correct? So I can look at that and say, okay, that's some truth.

I can accept that. I can accept that as a Muslim. God is indeed the almighty one.

Your scripture says that God is the all -hearing, the all -seeing. I can accept that as true. I can't say, oh, well, because it's in the

Bible, I have to say that that's false. Obviously, I can't. That's truthful too. So that is the Islamic position, not that the entire thing is false and corrupt, but that there's some truth mixed with falsehood.

So as I said, the Qur 'an goes on to show, again, to get the person to think, and it says, for example, in chapter 40, verse 60.

This is the Qur 'an I'm reading from. It says, annual Lord says, call upon me. I will answer you.

Surely, those who are too proud for my service, so shall soon enter the hell brought low.

Chapter two, verse 186. And when my servants ask you concerning me,

God, then surely I am very near. I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he or she calls on me.

So they should answer my call and believe in me that they may walk in the right way.

So again, this is what God speaks about himself as notice, his servants call upon him.

But as I showed you, Jesus admitted that he was the servant. He's the servant. He does the will of the one that sent him.

He's in the subordinate position. He can't be the God -man. He's in submission. He's a servant. God is not a servant of anyone, you see?

And we see this example in your scripture. As I just showed you, the Qur 'an says that the people call and pray to God, right?

God doesn't pray to anyone. But what does your Jesus do in the scripture? In Mark 14, 35, it says that Jesus went forward a little and fell on the ground and he prayed.

Who's he praying to if he's the God -man? There's only one God, right? There's only one God, Christians say. And of course, that one

God is Jesus, along with the other two members. He and the other two members are the one

God. So who's he praying to? Who's he praying to? Now the answer is, well, that's his humanity. Yeah, but you're telling me that he's

God at the same time. So the humanity argument doesn't matter because he's still God. Even as humanity, you tell us that he's still

God. When he started, my opponent started with the verse about the supposed fullness of God was in him.

Okay, so that means the completeness. If the fullness, that means 100%, the fullness, not part of it, not half of it, not a percentage, the fullness of God is in him.

Okay, then who's he praying to? If the fullness of God is right there in him, why is he praying to someone outside of him?

Why is he saying that he heard the truth from somewhere outside of him instead of saying, well, the truth is in me right here? Instead he says,

I heard the truth from God. He's praying out. Why is he praying if the fullness of God is right there and that God is him?

Who's he praying to? So that's why I asked the question. Is there another God? Not because I misunderstand the

Christian doctrine, because I understand it, I don't want you to ask yourself, why is he doing that? Your doctrine says that he is the one

God himself with the other members, so then why is he praying to somebody else if he's the one God?

You have to ask yourself that question. So again, as we see, this is the

Islamic position on Jesus, that indeed he was a messenger of God, he was indeed the

Messiah, but like the other messengers before him, he was a man, a full human being in the likeness of Adam.

He was created by God like Adam was created by God. Even though Adam didn't have a father and Jesus didn't have a father,

Adam was still a complete and full man. Jesus is still a complete and full man who is a servant, who calls on God for prayer.

God himself never asks anyone for help, right? But he answers our prayers. And if people want to make this argument about Jesus, notice

Jesus doesn't say that you pray to him. The best he gives you is John 15, 16, where he says that if you ask the father in his name, then the father will do things for you.

Notice Jesus doesn't say, if you pray to me, I'm gonna do it for you. No, he said, ask the father in my name.

Who are you asking, Jesus? No, you're asking the father though. You're asking the father in Jesus' name, but you don't ask

Jesus directly. So once again, he's not the God man, he's the man who's telling you, pray to the father.

But when you pray to him, pray to him in my name, and then God will answer and do those things for you. If he were

God himself, you could pray directly to Jesus, and Jesus would say, I hear you, and I'm gonna do that for you. Instead, he says, no, ask the father in my name.

Because the father clearly is someone other than Jesus, and Jesus clearly cannot be that one

God with the father. That's why he says, well, no, ask the father. It's just like when you have children, and one of the children comes to the other and says, can

I do this? And he says, well, no, go ask dad, but tell him that, meet your big brother, sent to ask, maybe he'll give you a better answer if you tell him that I said for you to ask.

But I, your big brother, I can't do it. But go ahead, go ask dad, but tell him that your big brother said to ask it.

You see? So this is the Quranic position, once again, as I read these verses and showed you in comparison with your own scripture, that he just can't fulfill that position as being fully

God and fully man, but indeed, fully man. Thank you. One second, let's see before Matt comes up.

We will try to make time for at least three to four questions at the end. George will pass out that large sheet of paper where you can write out your question, but when you do so, make sure it's relevant to the topic.

The topic is about Jesus being the God -man. If it's a question that's outside the topic,

I will not entertain it. Make sure you keep the questions on the topic, is Jesus the God -man? Make sure you write who the question is directed to, and we'll give the speaker sufficient time to address it, and the other speaker can give a short response.

So if you want to write questions, you're going to be given a sheet of paper, again, related to the topic, is

Jesus the God -man? We're not going to entertain any other topic, right? So with that said, I'm gonna ask

Matt Slick to come up and give his 18 -minute rebuttal. Oh, wait a minute, you applaud when he comes up.

I applauded for you when you went up. All right, can you hear me okay, recording all right?

All right, so Islam teaches that Jesus is a prophet. No problem. Christianity teaches that Jesus has three offices, prophet, priest, and king.

It teaches that Jesus is the Messiah. We certainly agree. He's a messenger, absolutely.

He's a man, that's true. But I've read through the Quran, and I have to honestly say that as someone who thoroughly understands

Christian theology, let me tell you, I have been teaching Christian theology for decades. I understand how the

Trinity works, hypostatic union, communicatio adiomatum, imputation, justification, and all kinds of stuff.

I love teaching, and I love saying those words, because they're fun to say. But when we look at the

Quran, we see that Muhammad didn't understand Christian theology, and that these, no disrespect meant, but the supposed god of Islam apparently didn't understand it either.

Because what is said very often is just simply not correct, and whoever, this is Surah 21, 29, and whoever of them should say, "'Surely

I am a god besides him, such a one, "'would you recompense to hell.'" It's in reference to talking about the person of Christ, and we never say that Jesus is a god.

It is not what we say. The Jehovah's Witnesses will say that's non -Christian cult. The Mormons will say that it's a non -Christian cult.

We just don't say that. And to say that in any way, shape, or form as a representation of Christian theology is a misrepresentation of Christian theology, and demonstrates to me that the person saying it doesn't understand the issue.

Now Mr. Lewis, Shadid, certainly can resort, can recite, excuse me, a short definition of what the

Trinity is, and he actually does it properly. One God and three distinct simultaneous persons. But I will say that he does not understand what it means, nor does he understand how to apply it.

And the reason I say that is because he continually refers to Jesus as a god, and things like that, which is just simply problematic, and is not representative of our position.

If I am going to debate him in our position, I need to know that position. He needs to understand our position.

Now I mean this sincerely. I don't mean it with any condescension or anything, but I'd be willing to work with Mr.

Lewis, the phone, whatever, and teach him what Christian theology actually does teach in some of these more sophisticated areas, because I think he needs to know that if he's gonna be in debates.

Because there'll be other Christians who will take him to task on some of these issues. Nevertheless. Sura 1094, but if you are in doubt as to what we have revealed to you, ask those who read the book before you.

Certainly the truth has come to you from our Lord. Therefore, you should not be of the disputers. Ask those who come before.

Ask those who knew the Bible. The Quran tells us to do that. Now, around 600 -ish is when the

Quran was written. There were manuscripts of the New Testament that were, we call them extant.

They were in existence at that time. Now Muhammad apparently never met, I don't know if he did or not, but it doesn't seem like it.

It seemed like what he did was he encountered a Nestorian or Nestorian theology. And it's a heresy even within the

Christian camp. It is condemned. Nestorianism, monophysitism, Eutychianism. There's all kinds of isms and instincts about Christian theology or the person of Christ that are just not true.

And many of them are often recited unknowingly by those who don't understand

Christian theology. Now, Jadid says that Jesus said he could do nothing of his own self.

How could he be God? Well, the issue here is simply one of understanding that Jesus, Philippians 2, five through eight, have this attitude in yourselves, which also is in Christ Jesus, who although he was existing in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped.

But he emptied himself, taken the form of a bondservant, made man the likeness of man. He humbled himself to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Galatians 4 .4 says that Jesus was made under the law. We have to understand something. The second person of the

Trinity, the word, the eternal word, became one of us. Humbled himself to the point of death, even death on the cross.

He was made under the law. As a man under that law, he was under the requirements of serving

God the Father, of honoring God the Father. So when someone says to me, how could he be God if he's praying to the

Father? Wrong question. If you understand the doctrine of the Trinity, there is no problem.

Because what it says is the word, which has divine nature as well as human, under the law, of course, would pray to God the

Father. It makes perfect sense. Now, you don't have to believe it, but the issue is it's a thing of logic, a thing of truth.

There is nothing in it that is self -refuting. And because there's nothing in that theology that's self -refuting, it cannot be said to be false.

Something that is self -refuting is false. Now, Shadid frequently commits in what we would call debate the fallacy of equivocation.

The fallacy of equivocation is a word that changes meaning in the usage of it. For example,

God is a Trinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus is the

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. In the first statement, God is a Trinity, the word God has the meaning of definition of the totality of what

God is in his three persons. But when we say Jesus is God, we're not saying he's a Trinity, we're saying

Jesus is God in the sense of divine. And you may notice that what I do is I say Jesus is divine. And the reason

I do that is because in my many years of debates with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian scientists,

Unitarians, whatever, that I have learned this fallacy well from others, that they committed a great deal.

And so I have adapted and said, look, Jesus is divine. Because I want to forego and to avoid that simple, logical fallacy.

And my opponents regularly, universally, and consistently make that mistake.

If I were debating a Muslim or a Mormon or whatever, and someone said, look, Matt, you are making a mistake, you're making a logical fallacy,

I would take note of that and I would study it to make sure that I didn't commit it again, if that was correct. But simply saying,

I don't believe what you say, I'm gonna go on, it doesn't work. This is why Shadid needs to study such things as the hypostatic union, the communicatio idiomatum, and also the doctrine of what's called the eternal sonship of Christ.

In these three doctrines are the answers to every objection he can raise, and every objection a

Jehovah's Witness can raise, and every objection that all the, no disrespect Matt, but all the false religious teachers will raise against the deity of Christ.

I have not heard anything new in 20 years. I've not heard any new objection to Christ's deity in 20 years.

Now, Jesus submitted to do the will of the Father. Yes he did, go to John 6, 37 through 40 for that great set of verses on the eternal security.

If you wanna throw rocks at me later about that, we can talk about it, that's a good place. He did come to do the will of the Father, because he was under the law.

What do we have in the person of Christ? We have incredible humility in the eternal sonship of Christ.

From, it's called the blood of the eternal covenant, spoken of in Hebrews 13, 20, the inter -Trinitarian communion, and the covenant that is before the foundation of the world, the

Father elected, the Son redeemed, the Holy Spirit applies a redemptive work. I can get into the covenant aspect, the doctrine of the

Trinity, and how wonderful it really is, and that only the one who himself is offended is the one who can forgive.

And I can show you that if you don't have the law met and taken care of, that you don't have truth.

And that's a whole cryptic statement I'm making for another time. Anyway, you said God is not the servant of anyone?

He is if the word becomes flesh and dwells among us under the law and humbles himself to be spit upon by us, to be hated by us, to be loathed by us, to be mocked by us.

He became one of us so that he might display what perfect love really is.

Love is other -centered, John 3, 16, for God so loved the world he gave. John 15, 13,

Jesus said, greater love has no man than this, but he laid his life down for his friend. Jesus, God in flesh, who emptied himself,

Philippians 2, five through eight, became one of us. He is the one who displayed the greatest act of love and self -sacrifice, the greatest act of humility in submitting to the very law that we ourselves were under.

That's who Jesus is. If I go to your house and I accidentally or on purpose, is irrelevant, break your lamp, and you say,

Matt, I forgive you, but give me $10 for it. Is that true forgiveness? No, it's not.

My wife is sitting there and you say, say, Mrs. Slick, Matt broke my lamp.

I forgive him. You pay me $10. Is that true forgiveness? It is not. In true forgiveness, who is left to pay for that lamp?

The owner, in true forgiveness. The one offended is the one who forgives, is the one who pays.

In Christianity, God is the one who is offended. God is the one who forgives. God is the one who pays, and the only way to do that, the only way that God can do that is to become one of us under the law.

Become one of us and be humbled. He had to eat, he had to sleep, he had to go to the bathroom, he had to walk places because he was one of us.

And we perceive the divine attributes of God through the humanity of Christ.

When he walked on waters at peace be still, and the very storm itself obeyed him.

This is what we see. This is why it's there. But Muhammad did not understand who he was, did not understand the truth and the power of Christ.

He understood, though, his greatness, and then put mighty good things about Jesus in the

Quran. That Jesus is righteous, Surah 346. That he's without sin, Surah 338.

That he's called the Messiah, 345. He's an intercessor, 255.

He was noble, Surah 685. He was able to breathe life into clay, 349.

He's the word of Allah, 4171. Now that, to me, is quite interesting.

Oh, followers of the book, do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak lies against Allah, but speak the truth.

The Messiah, Esau, son of Miriam, is only a messenger of Allah and his word, which he communicated to Miriam.

Even the Quran says that he is the word of Allah. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was

God, and became flesh and dwelt among us. Where did Muhammad get that? From what has been said through the word of God, the

Gospel of John. That's where he got it. Now, Mark, excuse me,

Mark 14, 35. And Jesus fell on the ground and prayed. Who did he pray to?

Yes, it's a good question, seriously. It's a good question. In Luke 22, 42,

Jesus is in the garden, and he says, Father, not my will, but your will be done. Who's he praying to?

He's praying to God the Father. It would be wrong to say he's praying to himself. As a man under the law of Galatians 4, 4, he's gonna have someone he calls

God. He's gonna pray to him. He's going to seek him, because he's telling us what it means to be real men, to be real men, to be humble, to be loving, to be a servant, to be willing to die for another.

There is nothing greater than this, and in Islam, Allah cannot do that.

He cannot perform the greatest act of love, which is to die for someone else. Jesus said it was the greatest act, and only by becoming one of us was he able to accomplish that.

He loved us eternally. The eternal covenant,

Hebrews 13, 20. Now, the

Quran says many things about Jesus. It does, and what a

Muslim will do, and I mean no disrespect when I say this stuff. I really don't, because you're made in the image of God, and you're ordered by God to show you respect, because you're made in the image of God.

Genesis 1, 26, 28. But the Bible is only true when it agrees with the presuppositions held in the

Quran. How do you know the Quran is true? I would love to have a debate on the validity of the

Quran. I'd love to debate that on the logic of Allah, and I can show you how he's self -refuting.

I can do that. Shadid said, the fullness of God means 100%.

Why is he praying to someone outside of himself? The fullness of God doesn't mean 100%. The fullness of God means the quality of the nature, the pleroma, the fullness, that which of God is, and fullness in his attributes, his characteristics, resides in the person of Christ, and therefore he would be praying to God the

Father, the one who sent him. Jesus did not come to do his own will, but the will of the one who sent him.

Now, he says, why is he praying to God if Jesus is the one God? That's not

Christian theology. It's not Christian theology to say Jesus is the one God.

That's oneness Pentecostal, modal monarchism. It is a heresy condemned within Christian circles, and inadvertently, my opponent is citing heretics.

He is citing, and he's, excuse me, he is telling us basically what amounts to false doctrines that Christian theologians,

Christians don't agree with, and he's representing them as being the Christian position. Again, I'm gonna say this.

You can recite the doctrine of the Trinity pretty well, but fail to understand its depth and its meaning.

This is very important. I believe that my opponent fails to understand the application of the

Trinity. He fails to understand the doctrine of the incarnation as well, and this is why he would ask these questions, but they are good questions.

I'm not dismissing these questions. Seriously, they are good questions because it means he's looking, he's reading, he's thinking, and that's a good thing, but as I have to correct many

Christians in their theology. I have a radio show. People call in. I'll correct Christians on their theology. It's not because I know everything.

I'm not the doctrine czar, but this is what I study, and I correct them on things. See, no, it's not like that.

It's like this. This is why you need to understand that, not this. I help them out, and I give them the references, and I try and help

Christians to understand what that truth is. Now, Jesus didn't say to pray to him.

Yes, he did. John 14, 14, ask me anything in my name, and I will do it. In Acts 7, 55 through 60,

Stephen is being stoned, and he cries out. He has a vision of God the Father and Jesus, and he cries out to Jesus.

He says, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Now, in Psalm 116 .4,

Zechariah 13 .9, there's a phrase. Call upon the name of Yahweh. Calling upon the name of Yahweh.

Called upon the name of Yahweh. In Psalm 116 .4, I called upon the name of Yahweh.

Oh, Yahweh, I ask you, save my life. It's a prayer. It is always and only in reference to God.

Now, the Septuagint, which he referenced, the translation done by the Jews, where they translated the Hebrew into the

Greek around 250 B .C., when it comes to these verses in the Old Testament, translates it into the Greek. Call upon the name of the

Lord. In 1 Corinthians 1, verse two, Paul the apostle says to the church at Corinth and all and everyone who call upon the name of the

Lord, Jesus. He takes that phrase used only of God and he applies it to Jesus Christ.

Paul teaches it. Thomas teaches it. John teaches it. Peter teaches it. That Jesus Christ is the

Almighty, the first and last. Jesus says in John 8, 24, unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.

In John 8, 58, he said before Abraham was, I am. In John 10, 30, I the Father are one.

Pick up someone to throw at him and he hid himself. He said, many good works of the Father I've shown you. For which of these are you stoning me?

And the Jews said, for a good work we don't stone you, but you being a man, make yourself out to be God. Did Jews believe he was God in flesh?

No. Neither does my opponent. The real truth is

Jesus Christ is God in flesh according to the scriptures. Jesus Christ is made under the law.

Without an understanding of the incarnation, the humiliation, Philippians 2, five through eight,

Galatians 4, four, nobody will be able to ever get it right what we actually teach, what we actually believe and will therefore misrepresent our position and not be arguing against our position.

If you don't know it, don't argue it. But if you do know it, you'll have to believe it.

God bless you. George is going to pass by your tables to collect your questions and I'll be sifting through the questions to see which questions are most relevant to the topic of the debate.

So with that said, Shadid Lewis will come up for his eight minute rebuttal. Okay, good to be once again in front of you.

All right, so let us begin. Now, again, I noticed throughout this discussion, my opponent brings up that we don't understand some of these more complicated

Christian theories like the hypostatic union and what was the other one? Communicant.

Yeah, that one, right? How many of you have studied those things in detail? Not, that's what

I thought. Okay, well not many. As you see, most Christian people or persons don't study those things.

So I'm talking to you. You see, I'm not trying to go over your head with these complicated things.

I'm talking to you because I know the masses of the Christians do not study these complicated and or sophisticated

Christian theories or Christian creeds and doctrines. You keep it simple and this is why

I interact with it on a regular basis. So the people that I interact, which is the everyday common lay

Christian, they tell me Jesus is God. See, I notice that when I debate people, a lot of times the person

I'm debating, they're making their argument because they say, well, you don't understand and we don't do this and we don't do that.

I'm like, well, maybe you don't do that as a more educated, knowing Christian scholar, but you better talk to some of your lay persons because when we engage with them on a daily basis, this is what they say.

So it appears that you're not communicating this information to the everyday Christian because the everyday

Christian is the one that says to me, Shadi, Jesus is God. That's the exact language they use.

So you said that you don't say that. Well, the everyday lay Christian, who I engage with on a regular basis often, always says that to me.

He is God. Jesus is God. He is God. He is God. He is God. Jesus is God. I say, okay,

I'm doing what you tell me. You see, and you said that I kept using a God. Well, I used a

God within the context that I'm asking you. I'm saying if he is

God, the God, but he's saying that he has a

God, well, either he is the God or he must be one of the gods.

I'm not saying that that's what you believe, but I'm saying I have to express it in that manner because I'm reading that he says he has a

God, but you're telling me, no, he is the God. So I'm saying, okay, well, he must be a

God. Not that you believe that he is a God, but my understanding of the

English language and the words that we're using. If you tell me that somebody's God, I say, okay,

I understand that he's God. And then I read somewhere else that it says that that person who you just told me is

God himself says that he has a God. Well, then I say, okay, well, he can't be the only

God because I just read that he says that he has a God, that he prays to a God, that he's asking

God for help. So I must backtrack and say, okay, well, maybe you meant, or maybe he is a

God, but not the God, okay? He used 1094, but 1094 is not saying for Muslims to go to the people of the book and ask you about anything.

This is misused. If you read the verse in context with 1093 and 1094 of the Quran, this is talking about the issue of how the children of Israel had been settled, as it says in verse 93.

We settled the children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling place and provided them with good things.

They were not in disagreement among themselves until knowledge was given to them. Your Lord will judge their differences on the day of resurrection, if you are in doubt regarding what we have revealed to you.

Now, what was he just talking about? He was just talking about the issue of the children of Israel. If you're in doubt about that, in other words, were the children of Israel placed in a goodly abode or not?

Not, oh, ask the Christians about anything. It's clear we don't do that. The Quran already condemns many of the things that the

Christians believe in. It tells us it's ourself. It tells us itself within it. So clearly this verse is not saying to go ask the people of the book anything if you're not sure.

No, on that issue that just was spoken about in verse 93, it goes together. If you're in doubt about what he just spoke about, whether the children of Israel were in a goodly abode, then ask those who have been reading the book before you.

The truth has come to you from your Lord. Therefore, do not doubt it. That's the context. So it is not saying to go ask the

Christians about each and everything, because obviously, if I go to ask you about is Jesus God, and the

Quran already told me that he's not God, obviously the Quran is not saying to go ask you about anything. The Philippian argument, chapter two, verse five, right?

The Philippian argument is that Jesus was in the form of God, but he humbled himself and took upon this position as a servant.

But I say, once again, that's someone else talking. When you look at what it is said that Jesus said in John 8, 42,

Jesus says that he did not come of himself. John 8, 42 says, if God were your father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God, neither came

I of myself, but he sent me. This is not voluntary.

Philippian makes it like Jesus voluntarily took it upon himself and said, you know, I'm gonna lower myself and I'm gonna become a servant.

No, here Jesus says, no, I didn't come of myself. I didn't come voluntarily, but he, someone who has more power, more authority than me, he sent me,

I didn't come on my own. So Philippians is wrong, Jesus says, no, I didn't come on my own. The same can be seen in John 7, 28.

It says that Jesus said, you both know me, and you know whence I am, and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true.

Once again, Philippians says, no, Jesus sent himself. He took it upon himself. He voluntarily made himself lower and a servant, and then he came, but here

Jesus says, no, I didn't come of myself. I didn't voluntarily come on myself. He sent me, he made me come.

He commanded me what to say, and he commanded me what to do. I didn't come of myself, so again, who do you take?

What someone else says, Philippians, or what the person himself is alleged to have said? Jesus is alleged to have said that he didn't come of himself, but he was sent by someone else.

Obviously, he's talking about God sending him. Philippians says, no, Jesus was God, or in the form of God, and lowered himself and came as a servant, but no, that's somebody else talking.

Jesus is said to say, I didn't come of myself, but he sent me. I didn't come of myself, but he sent me.

Clearly, there's a problem here. Now, Matt says that he uses the word divine instead of God.

Very good, very good tactic. Very good tactic, because right, divine doesn't necessarily mean

God, so that's a good tactic for him to use, but unfortunately, most Christians use the word that Jesus is God himself, because divine can be anything of the heavenly realm.

An angel is a divine being. An angel is a divine being, but he's not God, but he's a divine being, you see?

A righteous spirit sent by God is a divine being, but it's not God, it's a divine being. So, that's a very good tactic to use that word.

Unfortunately, though, as I said, the common Christian believes that Jesus is God himself, so they use that, and that's why

I'm arguing, because my message is to you. I'm not really trying to, if I can, that's fine, but really,

I'm talking to the common Christian. The scholars, they have their theories and their positions and what have you, but I know you, as I just proved, most of you don't study those complicated things, and you haven't, okay?

The word of Allah claim. Actually, this is a word from Allah, actually, what the Quran says, okay?

Actually, the Quran says that he's a word from Allah. Bi kalimatin minhu, a word from Allah, not the word of Allah, but a word from Allah, okay?

And again, the Quran makes that comparison that this is with others, that Allah offers the word, the command, and it comes about, you see?

And lastly, if I can make it, okay, my time is up. It almost feels like we're in a

UFC match, doesn't it? I love these guys. Matt Slick for his eight -minute rebuttal, and then we're going to segue into the concluding remarks.

I love defending the truth of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, it's a privilege. Yes, I do say that a lot of people don't study these more advanced theological concepts, because most people don't need to know them.

If someone were to ask you, how many natures does Jesus have, you should say two. He's a man right now. But if only the human nature died, then why is the sacrifice of divine value?

How many have had that question asked of you? Okay, one person. Well, I know the answer to that, because I've had it asked of me.

By a cult, and the Christadelphians. The answer is found in the Communicatio Idiomatum, which teaches that the two natures of Christ have properties, and that the one person is their,

Jesus, and that the natures of both properties, excuse me, the properties of both natures are described as a single person.

So the single person said, I'm hungry, I'm thirsty, I'm tired. The single person said, I'll be with you always, even at the end of the earth. Father, glorify me with the glory

I had with you before the foundation of the world. So therefore, when the person died, the person claimed divine attributes, divine quality.

Therefore, when the person of Christ died on the cross, it's of divine sacrificial value.

See, when you do what I do, you have to get into more detailed stuff. If I'm going to debate,

I need to know my opponent's position. Hopefully, as well as he does, or she does. That's not always the case, and I always learn, and I always try and learn, and I'm willing to take criticism from my opponents, and if they can point me to the areas where I fail to understand something properly,

I take note of it, and I deal with it, and I try to move ahead, because I do not want to misrepresent anybody.

Now, sadly, it's true, a lot of Christians don't understand the basic biblical theology, and I've taught seminars on Christian theology, and most

Christians don't, but you're not debating most Christians. He's debating me. Most Christians don't know that Jesus Christ is a man right now, or that he's baptized to enter into the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek by fulfilling the law in Leviticus chapter eight, number chapter four in Exodus 29.

I can get into that, we can talk about that, but most people don't know these things, or could define the differences between justification, imputation, and sanctification, and how they work in the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ.

Now, I like using big words, because they're impressive, and my wife likes to hear them, but it doesn't mean you have to understand them all, all right?

I teach this stuff at my Bible studies. I teach it to Christians, because Christians need to know it.

My opponent should know these things. He should know what it is he's criticizing, and know the comebacks, so he can refute those, or attempt to.

Now, yes, Christians say Jesus is God, and what they mean is he is divine, he's the second person of the Trinity in Christ.

That's what they mean. That's what is taught, and is properly taught, because that's what the scriptures teach. John 1, 1, verse 14,

Colossians 2, 9, Titus 2, 13, Matthew 2, 2, 12, 2, 11, 13, 22, 13, 9.

There's all kinds of places in the Bible where Jesus is called God, where he even called himself God, John 8, 24.

Unless you believe that I am, you'll die in your sins. John 8, 58, before Abraham was, I am. Go into verses in Revelation, Revelation 1, 8, 1, 17.

Jesus says he's the Alpha, the Omega, the first and the last, who's died, he's alive. People bow to him. We can go into all this stuff.

I don't have time for it. Now, I know of no scripture where the Father is called a God. I know of no scripture.

He references God the Father as a God. That's not our position. Don't argue what we don't teach.

It's a red herring, misrepresentation. It's called a straw man argument. Now, he said in Surah 10, 94, that it looks like I misused the verse.

What I'm gonna do is go and study that. I'm going to go make sure I'm not misusing the verse and the context.

If I have misused it, when I see him on Pal Talk, I'll say, Shadid, thank you for the correction.

I misused it. I won't use that that way anymore. If I say, I disagree with you, I think it is contextually within that warranty.

We can discuss it. But that's what I'll do. I have no problem with that. Now, Philippians 2, 5 through 8,

Jesus did humble himself. Jesus said, I mean, Shadid said, this is what somebody else said. Yeah.

Paul, the apostle, who saw the risen Lord. Just read Acts 9, 15. The apostles themselves approved of Paul.

Just saying, you don't know who wrote, just saying it doesn't count with somebody else doesn't make it so.

And we can go through a debate on these issues, and I would love to get into the details, the minutia, the logic of this, but, well, another time, maybe.

But, you know, it does say in Philippians 2, 5 through 8 that Jesus humbled himself. I do not see that humility in the

Quran. I do not see that humility of Muhammad. I do not see that humility of Allah.

I see it in the person of Christ. I see Jesus washing the feet of his disciples.

I see Jesus, according to the scripture, who's God in flesh, who allowed himself to be crucified, a horrible death, so that by his shed blood, our sins could be cleansed, 1

John 1, 9. That, to me, is remarkable. That, to me, is beauty.

That, to me, is forgiveness. Something I desperately need, because my heart is desperately wicked and deceitful,

Jeremiah 17, 9. I'm prideful, I'm arrogant, I'm foolish, lustful, covetous.

I need Jesus, God in flesh, because I've offended God, he forgives me.

I've offended the Holy One, he died for me. It's not simply an issue of repentance, and then the law is ignored.

No, my Lord took my place with great humility, washing the feet of another, walking, talking, sweating, becoming one of us, as the scriptures clearly teach and unanimously teach, so that we, who put our faith in what

Christ has done, might be freely forgiven forever. Yes, I do use the word divine instead of God, it is a good tactic, and thank you for saying that.

You said that divine does not mean God, yes, it does, that's what it means. Now, I would suggest, look up that word, theatitas, check it out, make sure you understand what it is.

Now, talking to the common Christian is good. Now, I do that on my radio show.

I talk to common Christians all the time, I can make complicated things down to earth, get the hay off the loft, down to where the cows are, you know, make it simple.

I like doing that, I understand these concepts, I can make it quite difficult, I can make it quite complicated, but that's not gonna serve anything, there's no purpose in that.

But if you're gonna debate complicated issues and issues that deal with the hypostatic union, communicatio idium matem, eternal sonship, and you wanna debate on the issue of who

Christ is, you better know these doctrines, so that you don't have to be taught them in a debate.

You need to be able to understand what it is you're criticizing so you understand the opponent's objection, that is what

I do, so that when I understand their objections, I can go one step further than they can. And that's what

God has given me the ability to do, and that's what I pray that all Christians will learn to do as well. Again, let me say,

Jesus Christ, God in flesh, according to the scriptures, John 1 in verse 14, written by John the Apostle, who was right there with Jesus.

Jesus says, before Abraham was, I am, and they wanted to kill him for saying it, and later, he asked him why, and he said, because you bigoted men make yourself to be

God. That's who he is, that's what the scriptures said. He is the God -man.

Amen. Okay, now we're coming to the concluding remarks section of the debate.

Each speaker will have four minutes to conclude their position, starting with Matt Slick. Four minutes?

Four minutes, not long, good thing they call me Slick. I did learn to run as a kid because of that name, seriously.

All right. A competent response to the argument about the deity of Christ requires a competent understanding of the opposing view of the deity of Christ.

Let me tell you, you cannot rightfully deal with the issues of the deity of Christ, his divinity, without properly understanding the hypothetic union that in the one person are two distinct natures.

The communicatio idiomatum, in that the attributes of both natures are ascribed to the single person, the eternal sonship, that in the inter -Trinitarian communion, the son has always been ordained in the covenantal aspect to be sent by the father.

And you have to understand how these things relate to the incarnation of Christ. Now I teach

Bible studies in Boise, where I live. And I teach these things, and I also combine them, believe it or not, with transcendental argumentation on the aseity of God, his eternal independence.

And I get in, excuse me, and I show people what these things are. I had Christian's eyes just, oh,

I didn't know that. I show them out of the scriptures and try and make sense so that they can have a deeper understanding of the majesty of the

Lord Jesus Christ. And by better understanding his majesty, when you understand that he became one of us, you better understand the incredible love and humility that's expressed by Jesus.

No one else in history has ever expressed such great humility, such great love, such great sacrifice and dedication.

God in Christ has expressed the greatest act of love in his death on the cross.

Now I've cited many verses on the deity of Christ. I've tried very quickly, and we don't have much time to go into too many things.

That's just the nature of debates like this. He can't address everything I've said. I can't address everything he said. We just don't have that time.

That's okay. But I have studied the reliability of the New Testament documents. I have studied them.

I've had four and a half years of biblical Greek. Is the English Bible accurate? Yes. The issue of the historicity of the documents?

Yes. I've studied these things. It's my job to study these things. I can teach on it sometime if you want.

Now I strongly urge that Shadid respectfully learn the doctrine of the hypostatic union, communicatio deumatum, the sonship of Christ, the eternal covenant as well, and how they relate to the incarnation.

Now, probably can't do this on his own. It's just, this is not easy stuff to do sometimes. But in a level of debate like this, these kinds of things need to be known.

Now he said, for example, anthropos means that Jesus can't be God. That's not what anthropos means.

Anthropos simply means man. To say it means he can't be God is a logical fallacy. That's it.

It'd be like me saying the word book means book, therefore the Quran can't be divine. Simple. Same kind of a thing.

It doesn't work. Jesus never said, I'm not God. He did say he was

God, in the way the Jews would understand in the context of that time before Abraham was I am. They wanna kill him for it.

This is what John the Apostle wrote. John the Apostle wrote it. The best that my opponents on the deity of Christ can do, who don't hold to the reliability of the scriptures, is to denounce the very word of God as being reliable.

Because if they didn't, then all their argument falls apart. Why? Because that is what it teaches.

You have to say it's not reliable. And by saying it's not reliable, you're actually saying, yeah, that's what it teaches.

But it can't be that, because it can't be reliable. That is an admission that the Bible teaches the deity of Christ.

That's the truth. And only God in flesh can save us from our sins at a time.

Amen. Thank you very much. Now, Mr.

Shadid Lewis, for his four -minute concluding remarks. Oh, yeah, concluder, I thought I said rebuttal.

I'm still in debate mode. Okay, so, in conclusion.

In conclusion, as I mentioned from the Quran, the

Quran states, once again, speaking of Jesus, that he was naught but a servant on whom we bestowed favor, and we made him an example to the children of Israel.

We demonstrated tonight that Jesus indeed was not a

God -man, but indeed a man. As I showed you the word that is ascribed to Jesus, that they say he used of himself,

Anthropos, means a human being, a full human being.

He says it doesn't mean not God, but indeed it does, because as Vine's expository dictionary of the

New Testament tells us, Anthropos is used generally of a human being, male or female, in distinction from God.

This word means and is used in distinction from God, so yes indeed it does mean that the person who is described with this word or describes himself or herself with this word means that they can't be

God, because this word is used to make a distinction between God and the person.

So indeed, it means that if you say that word, that means you can't be God, because that's what this word entails in its definition.

It means that you're making a distinction between yourself. You're saying that you're not what God is. You're a human being, a full human being, and that's it.

You're not God, you're not God and a human being, because in the definition of the word, that's what it carries.

It's used in distinction, are you understanding that? It's used in distinction from God, okay?

So indeed, that point is clear, that the words attributed to Jesus show him referring to himself as indeed a human being, a full human being, who as it says in the rest of the sentence, who heard the truth from God.

Now we all agree there's only one God. Obviously, Jesus is not that God. He says he heard the truth from God, and he's a man who heard it from God.

So obviously, he's not the God man. God is obviously someone else other than Jesus, you see?

So it is clear that in this day and time, it's the year 2015, knowledge is available.

Information is widespread. When the information age, it is time you start to question these things and look into what you're believing, if you're going to believe it and accept it.

Make sure you have a grasp of it. Make sure that what you are claiming to believe in is correct, and as you can see from the evidence presented, the claim that Jesus is a

God man or the God man is incorrect from your own scripture showing that he is a full human being.

And as I said, you have to sift through because there are statements from others who attempt to give him more of a position than he has.

But you have to weigh what others say in comparison to what it says that he said. And I showed you what they say he said, and the words that are attributed to him demonstrate that he was a full human being, a servant of God, one who was sent by God, one who prays and needs help from God.

So obviously, he cannot be God and man at the same time. In fact, your book of Acts says that what? Jesus was a man approved of God.

How could he be the God man himself, but yet he's being approved of God if he's the one God? Obviously, he is only a man who was approved of God.

God is someone other than him. So with that, that is the position that you should, from this point forward, begin to take.

Thank you. Before I go on to the

Q &A, how are we gonna coordinate this? Do we need another microphone for this

Q &A because they're going to answer. Just go up to the microphone. They don't have to put it, they can just hold it. Okay, so that means

I'll hold it. Didn't I tell you these guys are fantastic? Yeah. Amazing. You see why

I believe Shadid Lewis is one of the top Muslim apologists. You see his passion. He's article intelligent.

And Matt Slick is one of our best apologists as well. In fact, I'm aware that Shadid Lewis does have a

YouTube page. You also have a webpage, don't you? Could you give them the URL in case they wanna visit your

YouTube and your webpage? What would that be? Because I don't have it on the sheet. Do you wanna?

Well, I mean, you could look it up. Just look up MrIslamAnswersBack. That's the YouTube. That's the

YouTube. MrIslamAnswersBack on YouTube. And well, from there, you could, I have a link to the website from there.

It's thecaseforislam .webs .com. But like I said, you could find it if you go to the

YouTube page and it has the link to the website, you can go find it from there. All right, and Matt Slick is the founder and president of the, right?

And Grand Puba. Okay, Grand Puba. Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, CARM for short.

So you go www .carm .org. It's a phenomenal website. So if you wanna dig a little deeper into the issues and study some of the material or watch some of the videos by Shadid Lewis and Matt Slick, go to the website.