James White "Discussion" with Ehteshaam Gulam

3 views

August 20, 2010

On June 21, 2010, I arrived at a church expecting to give a presentation on the reliability of the New Testament and then take questions. I had been scheduled to debate Sheikh Ahmed Awal, but a few hours earlier he had backed out of the debate. I set up my computer and was ready to begin right at 7pm, when, literally sixty seconds before I was going to start, I was informed that we were going to have a "discussion" with Ehteshaam Gulam, a Muslim, about whom I knew absolutely nothing. Here is what I posted on my blog the next day: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3993 This morning I was informed by others that Mr. Gulam had posted on our Facebook page a simple question asking why I was "hiding" our "debate." Ironically, I had been given the DVD of the discussion (this is not a debate, as anyone can see) along with the video footage of my previous debate with Sheikh Awal that very day at the ABN studios as I was preparing to record more episodes of "Answering Islam." There had been no "hiding" at all, it simply takes time to edit materials. I had never intended to make this material available. Mr. Gulam was unprepared and unprofessional in his presentation. Anyone can cobble together quotes from atheists, agnostics, and other unbelievers, while refusing to reflect meaningfully upon the issues. His consistent inconsistency is vibrant testimony to his inability to critically engage the important issues. However, given that a false accusation has been made, and given that the question and answer period, at any rate, is very useful in exposing the double standards of the common Islamic apologetic position, I provide the footage here, as distasteful as the encounter was.

00:01: Live Debates James Swines Barack Obama Sam Shamal He has moderated and did public debates and an elder of the
00:48: Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church You can go to his website www .aomin
00:55: .org www .aomin
01:00: .org www .aomin .org Dr. White is going to do a presentation www .aomin .org www .aomin
01:07: .org www .aomin
01:21: .org www .aomin .org www .aomin .org www .aomin .org www .aomin
01:34: .org www .aomin
01:39: .org www .aomin
01:49: .org www .aomin .org www .aomin .org www .aomin
02:05: .org www .aomin .org www .aomin .org www .aomin .org www .aomin .org www .aomin
02:21: .org www .aomin .org www .aomin
02:32: .org www .aomin .org www .aomin .org www .aomin .org In the Islamic -Christian conflict, there is no middle ground of compromise.
02:41: The Christian is one who believes that with Thomas, that Jesus is our Lord and our
02:47: God, John 20, 28. And with the early church, confesses that he is our great God and Savior, as we read in Titus 2, verse 13.
02:56: And for the Muslim, the question is answered by the overriding authority of the Quran. In Surah 112, verse 3.
03:06: Christ Jesus, the Son of Mary, was no more than an apostle of Allah, Rasul of Allah.
03:14: Surah 4, verse 171. And in Surah 9, verses 30 and 31, we read.
03:20: The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah.
03:25: That is a saying from their mouth. In this, they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say.
03:32: Allah's curse be on them. How they are deluded away from the truth.
03:39: They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords and derogation of Allah. And they take as their
03:45: Lord Christ, the Son of Mary. Yet they are commanded to worship but one, Allah. There is no
03:51: God but He. Praise and glory be to Him. Far is He from having the partners they associate with Him.
03:59: That phrase, association, is of course the term. Shirk is the most serious sin that can be committed against Allah, is to associate anyone with Him.
04:09: The Quran believes that we are associating people with Allah, specifically
04:14: Christ, and I would argue in light of Surah 5, verse 116, Mary as well.
04:20: And as such, that is the understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now, Ibn Kathir, one of the early tafsir, the commentators on the
04:28: Quran, commented on these ayahs that I just read. Allah, the Exalted, encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving
04:37: Jews and Christians, who utter this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the
04:42: Exalted. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, what they call Jesus, it is obvious this is why
04:49: Allah declared both groups to be liars. This is the reason given for fighting against Christians to ensure their, quote, continued humiliation, degradation, and disgrace, end quote.
05:05: Now, we must define some things before we can understand what Christians believe about who
05:11: Jesus is. The doctrine of the Trinity is an uncompromisingly monotheistic statement.
05:19: The doctrine of the Trinity can be stated rather simply. Within the one being that is God, there exists eternally three co -equal and co -eternal persons, namely, the
05:27: Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is no association in the
05:33: Trinity, for Trinitarians are absolute, unquestionable monotheists. They're just not
05:38: Unitarians. A Unitarian is a person who believes there's one being of God that is shared by only one person.
05:45: A Trinitarian believes there is only one being of God, but that being of God is shared fully by three divine persons.
05:53: Now, when we ask the question, what is the testimony? The united testimony of all of the early followers of Jesus, and the
06:02: New Testament documents are the only way we can know what the early Christians believed.
06:09: When we ask the question, what is the testimony of those documents as to who Jesus is? I ask you to think with me for just a moment about the titles, the names that are used of Jesus in the
06:21: New Testament. He is called the Lamb of God. He is called the Son of God, not a
06:27: Son of God, the Son of God. He is called First and the Last, the Word of God, the
06:33: Risen Lord, the Creator of all things. He is worshipped by men and angels and all creation.
06:41: He is the object of prayer, the one to whom his followers pray. He's called the Alpha and the
06:47: Omega. All creation bows to him in Revelation chapter 5. All the fullness of deity dwells in him in bodily form.
06:56: All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in him. He is the Great I Am. Every thought is taken captive to his obedience.
07:05: He is called our Great God and Savior, the eternally blessed God. The early church prays and suffers in his name.
07:12: He is called Emmanuel, God with us, El Gabor, the Mighty God, Lord God, Creator, Savior, Lamb of God, Risen and Coming King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
07:22: Is there really any question as to what the New Testament teaches about Jesus Christ?
07:30: I cannot believe that there truly is. Now, a false dilemma is often presented by Muslims that we need to dispense with immediately.
07:41: The most common Islamic question is this, Where did Jesus ever say the specific words,
07:49: I am God, worship me? Over and over again you'll hear Muslims saying, Where did
07:54: Jesus ever say, I am God, worship me? Of course,
08:00: Christians have never claimed that Jesus said these specific words in the first place.
08:06: Nor have we ever said that the deity of Christ is based upon Jesus having said,
08:12: I am God, worship me. But the logic is completely missing in demanding specific words to appear in the text of scripture.
08:22: Positively, Jesus said and did all sorts of things a mere human prophet could never do.
08:30: So why demand this specific set of words before believing his own personal testimony?
08:36: For the Muslim that accepts the logic of this question, Where did Jesus ever say the specific words, I am not
08:41: God? Does this prove he is God? Does every human being have to say those words or you'll believe that he's
08:50: God? Where did Jesus ever say, I am not the son of God? Where did Jesus ever say,
08:55: I did not come to die for your sins? Where did Muhammad say the specific words,
09:03: I am the last of the prophets? Or Allah has made me the seal of the prophets? Is it logical to reject these merely on the basis of these specific words not being used?
09:15: That is the question. So the honest and logical question is, did
09:20: Jesus speak and act as a mere prophet would? Did his followers view him as a mere prophet?
09:28: This is the only way to discover the truth of the matter. Now, Rasul, apostle, sent one, or deity?
09:40: The New Testament position is demonstrated by the identification of Jesus with the word
09:45: Thaos, God. He is called God in the New Testament. It is also demonstrated by the identification of Jesus as Yahweh, the
09:55: Lord. That's the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew, Yod -Heh -Wau -Heh, Yahweh, which we slaughter in English as Jehovah.
10:03: And it's demonstrated by ascribing to Jesus the prerogatives, rights, and powers of the creator himself.
10:12: So let's look at those three strands of information. First, Jesus as Thaos, God.
10:19: Jesus is called God prophetically in Isaiah chapter 9, verse 6, where he's called
10:24: El -Gabor, the mighty God. The very same phraseology used in the next chapter in Isaiah 10, 21 of Jehovah himself is used of Jesus in Isaiah 9, 6.
10:36: In Titus 2, 13 and 2 Peter 1, 1, we have what's called the Granville -Sharp construction, the original Greek language, where Jesus is called our great
10:43: God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Both the terms God and Savior applying to the one person,
10:50: Jesus Christ. In John chapter 20, verses 28 through 29, we read these words.
10:56: Thomas answered and said to him, this is the risen Lord, my Lord and my God. Jesus said to him, because you have seen me, have you believed?
11:05: Blessed are they who did not see and yet believed. Now please notice something immediately about Jesus' words.
11:13: Very often, individuals will tell us that what is actually taking place here is
11:19: Jesus is saying, my Lord, my God. As if he is saying something to someone else after he says, my
11:28: Lord. But please notice something about the original language. Here you have what
11:33: John actually wrote. And notice it says, apakrithe tomas kai aipen alto.
11:40: Alto means to him. So Thomas answered and said to him, hakoriasmu kai hatheasmu.
11:52: Both words, all the following words are being addressed to Jesus. There is nothing in the text that allows you to say, well, only the first portion, hakoriasmu, my
12:04: Lord, is being said to Jesus. And then he is talking to somebody else after that. Not only that, but think about those words.
12:11: If Jesus was a mere rasul and one of his followers called him God, what would his duty have to have been if he was a faithful messenger of Allah?
12:24: His duty would have been to rebuke Thomas' words and say, don't do that. Exactly what the angel did in the book of Revelation when
12:31: John bowed down to worship him. And the angel's response is, do not do that.
12:38: Worship God. But notice Jesus' response to Thomas is to bless his statement of faith.
12:47: He accepts this appellation, this description by his disciple.
12:53: In John 1 .1 we are told, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the
12:59: Word was God. The Word is eternal in John 1 .1a. The Word has eternally been in fellowship with the
13:06: Father, John 1 .1b. And the third clause of John 1 .1, the Word is as to his nature, deity.
13:14: He has eternally existed in the very form of God, as Paul puts it in Philippians chapter 2.
13:20: So John 1 .1 describes the pre -incarnate Word, the Logos, as existing in eternal fellowship with the
13:27: Father. And the Word with deity is an expressive translation of John 1 .1c.
13:33: In Colossians chapter 2, verses 8 -9, the Apostle tells us, see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception.
13:41: According to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world rather than according to Christ. For in him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.
13:51: The fullness of deity. Tapleroma theatetos. Theatetos means that which makes
13:58: God, God. It is a very strong term referring to the very essence of deity dwells in Jesus in bodily form.
14:09: Further description of Jesus as God. But Jesus is also described as Yahweh.
14:16: Yahweh. The New Testament writers often quote Old Testament passages that are uniquely about Yahweh and apply these texts to Jesus.
14:27: Now remember, these New Testament writers are monotheistic Jews. They would get up in the morning and say the
14:33: Shema. Shema Yisrael Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh Echad. They believe that Yahweh is one.
14:38: And yet, they likewise in their writings tell us that they believed that Yahweh had tabernacled amongst us.
14:47: That Yahweh had come amongst us by applying those texts in the Old Testament that were uniquely about Yahweh to Jesus.
14:57: In Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 -12. Psalm 102 25 -27 which is about Yahweh as the unchanging creator is applied to the incarnate son.
15:08: It's applied to Jesus Christ. Let's look at the words. And you Lord laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning and the heavens are the work of your hands.
15:16: They will perish but you remain. They will all wear out like a garment. Like a robe you will roll them up like a garment.
15:21: They will be changed but you are the same and your years will have no end. Those words are found in Psalm 102 about Yahweh as the unchanging creator of all things.
15:31: And yet at the end of his demonstration the superiority of the son to all of creation in Hebrews chapter 1.
15:39: The writer applies these words which can never be applied to an angel. Can never be applied to a mere prophet.
15:45: They're applied to the son to Jesus Christ. Clearly the writer of the Hebrews believed
15:50: Jesus was Yahweh. Yahweh is the first and the last.
15:56: Isaiah 41 -4, 44 -6 and 48 -12. Even Allah is identified in Surah 57 -3 as the first and the last.
16:04: And yet Jesus is the first and the last. The Alpha and Omega in the book of Revelation at the very end of the
16:12: New Testament. Now there are different forms of Tawhid. Those of you who are familiar with Islamic theology.
16:20: And in one of those forms of Tawhid. God's names and attributes are to be used of him and him alone.
16:31: It is a violation of this element of Tawhid to apply God's names and attributes to anyone but Allah.
16:39: Yet the names and attributes of God are widely and regularly applied to Jesus.
16:45: By all of the New Testament writers. Clearly they believe Jesus was
16:51: Yahweh. But Jesus is also described as doing the things that only
16:56: God can do. He is described as the creator in Colossians chapter 1. For by him all things were created.
17:05: Both in the heavens and on earth. Visible and invisible. Whether thrones, dominions, rulers or authorities.
17:12: All things have been created by him and for him. And he is before all things. And him all things literally consist or hold together.
17:21: The apostle exhausts the Greek language. To express to us that there is nothing.
17:28: Absolutely nothing outside of the creative activity of Jesus Christ.
17:35: The carpenter from Nazareth. That's an amazing statement.
17:40: But it's always been the amazing confession of the Christian people.
17:45: Jesus is the creator of all things. Jesus is identified in the gospel of John as the
17:52: I am. In John 8 .58 Jesus said to them truly, truly I say to you before Abraham was born.
17:59: I am. And the Jews pick up stones to stone him when he makes that statement.
18:05: In John 13 .19 Jesus quotes from Isaiah 43 .10. Which ironically is the verse from which
18:11: Jehovah's Witnesses get their name. From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass. That when it does occur you may believe that I am he.
18:18: Ego I me. The very same thing that Yahweh said there in Isaiah 43 .10.
18:26: Then when the soldiers come to arrest Jesus. They say we're looking for Jesus. He said to them I am he.
18:31: Ego I me. And Judas also who was betraying him was standing with them. So when he said to them ego
18:36: I me. I am. They drew back and fell to the ground. What makes soldiers fall to the ground?
18:46: Here the very enunciation of the divine name. And especially to our Muslims that are here this evening.
18:54: Jesus said to the Jews who are standing closer to him than you are sitting to me.
19:01: Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that ego
19:07: I me. I am. You will die in your sins. Now the Jews were monotheists.
19:13: The Jews would have accepted Jesus as a prophet. They could not deny that in light of the fact that he could raise the dead.
19:24: So the Jews were very much in the exact same situation as the Quran itself. And Jesus said to them unless you believe that ego
19:32: I me. You will die in your sins. Those are very important words.
19:40: Then we have a portion of a hymn from the early church.
19:46: Most scholars believe Philippians chapter 2 verses 5 through 11. Is a portion of one of the early hymns of the church.
19:54: And if that's the case they had a really good hymnal. And notice what is found in the inspired word.
20:02: You must have the same mindset among yourselves that was in Christ Jesus. Who although he eternally existed in the very form of God.
20:11: Did not consider that equality he had with God the Father. Something to be held on to at all costs.
20:18: But instead he made himself nothing. By taking on the very form of a slave. By being made in human likeness.
20:25: And having entered into human existence. He humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death.
20:32: Even the death one dies on a cross. Because of this God the Father exalted him to the highest place.
20:39: And bestowed on him the name which is above every name. So at the mention of the exalted name of Jesus.
20:45: Everyone who is in heaven on earth and under the earth bows the knee. And every tongue confesses
20:51: Jesus Christ is Lord all to the glory of God the Father. Here you have the profession of the early church.
20:59: Here you have the most primitive confession of the followers of Jesus. They recognize that Jesus eternally existed in the form of God.
21:12: He was a true person and he did not give consideration. To holding on to that position of equality he had with the
21:19: Father. But he voluntarily made himself of no reputation. He made himself nothing by taking on a human nature.
21:29: And he became obedient to what? He humbled himself and became obedient even to the point of death on the cross.
21:38: Deity of Christ, crucifixion of Christ. In the most primitive profession of faith of the
21:44: Christian people. The two things that Islam denies. And then the early church at the end of this great confession.
21:53: Is willing to take the words of Isaiah. Where Jehovah God himself
21:58: Yahweh says to me every knee will bow. To me every tongue will confess.
22:05: And instead Jesus is given that exalted name. And every knee bows to him and every tongue confesses to him.
22:12: Not separately from God the Father but to the glory of God the Father.
22:18: The perfect unity of the Trinity. A part of the hymns that those early believers sang.
22:26: When they gathered in the name of Christ. So is he a mere
22:31: Rasul as the Quran says? Does a mere prophet say and do what
22:37: Jesus did? Does a mere prophet accept the worship of his followers?
22:43: Does a mere prophet say come unto me all you who are weary and burdened. And I will give you rest?
22:50: Did Moses ever speak in that way? Isaiah? Does a mere prophet claim to be the way the truth and the life?
22:57: Not one who just knows the way or points to the way. Knows about the truth can tell you about the truth.
23:05: Jesus made this personal. I am the way. I am the truth.
23:11: I am the life. No prophet ever spoke as Jesus speaks.
23:18: Anywhere in the Old Testament. Does a mere prophet bless a disciple who calls him his
23:23: Lord and his God? Does a mere prophet claim to be the Lord of the Sabbath? A clear reference to God's authority.
23:30: In Mark chapter 2 verse 28 as Jesus did. Does a mere prophet claim the title son of man?
23:36: In a unique sense drawing from the vision of Daniel chapter 7. Even the point of claiming to come upon the clouds of heaven.
23:43: As we see in Jesus' trial in Mark chapter 14. Is that what Amir Razul does?
23:51: Does Amir Razul speak as Jesus did in John chapter 5? But he answered them my father is working until now and I myself am working.
24:00: For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him. Because he not only was breaking the Sabbath. But also was calling
24:07: God his own father. Making himself equal with God.
24:13: Not just a son. God doesn't have sons by the tons. As Ahmed Didat often said.
24:22: He was calling God his own father. In a unique sense making himself equal with God.
24:29: Would a mere prophet claim to have the right to work on the Sabbath just as his father does?
24:34: The Jews understood God keeps the stars in the sky. And the sun rising on the Sabbath. That's the right
24:40: Jesus claimed. The language of Jesus concerning his father is unique.
24:46: He is not claiming to be a son of God. But the son of God. And since he did so we see in John 19 7.
24:54: The Jews answered Pilate. And they said to him we have a law. And by that law he ought to die.
25:02: Why? Because he made himself out to be the son of God. What was that law?
25:08: It was a law against blasphemy. It was a law that they recognized meant that Jesus' claim to be the son of God.
25:15: Was a claim to deity. Now very quickly so we can get to our interaction. Very often it is claimed by Muslims.
25:25: That this belief in the deity of Christ is a later invention. Something that came at a later point in time.
25:33: Normally they say it was invented by Constantine. The council of Nicaea. Sheikhawal had certainly said that many times.
25:39: I was really looking forward to the opportunity of demonstrating. That that is completely false.
25:47: Some of the earliest writings outside of the New Testament canon of scripture. Come from Ignatius the martyr bishop of Antioch.
25:53: As he was going to Rome to die. Here are some of his words that he wrote to the church at Ephesus. As he was going to Rome to die.
26:00: In A .D. 107. Ignatius was taught by the disciples of Jesus.
26:07: He said there is one physician of flesh and of spirit. Generate and ingenerate. God in man.
26:13: True life in death. Both from Mary and from God. First passable and then impassable.
26:19: Jesus Christ our Lord. That's high Christology. And that's the first generation after Jesus.
26:27: That's high Christology. Notice what else he says in that letter to the Ephesians.
26:32: By the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God. For our
26:39: God, Jesus the Christ. Also in the letter to the Ephesians. Then listen to this in writing to Polycarp.
26:46: Await the one who is above every season. The eternal, the invisible. The one who for our sake became visible.
26:52: The untouched, the impassable. Who for our sake suffered. Who endured every way for our sake.
27:00: Don't tell me this was an invention of Constantine at the council of Nicaea. How would you like some archaeological evidence?
27:08: About ten years ago, near Jerusalem, they decided they needed to expand a prison.
27:15: And as so often happens, you start digging in Israel and you find an archaeological site.
27:21: And they began to excavate the archaeological site. And they came across a mosaic floor.
27:30: And the mosaic floor had inscriptions on it. That demonstrated that this building had been used by Christians to worship.
27:37: As early as 230 A .D. It may be the earliest Christian church ever found.
27:44: And here's part of the inscription. Let me show you another picture. There you can see someone working on the inscription.
27:49: It's very clear on the screen there. Let me blow it up so you can see what it says. There is an inscription found here.
27:58: This is where the table where the Christians would celebrate the Lord's Supper would be placed.
28:04: And immediately underneath it, we find these words. The God -loving Akeptos, this would be a woman's name.
28:12: Has offered this table as a memorial to our God, Jesus Christ.
28:19: And there I've given you, I've outlined where it's found in the mosaic, then given it to you. These are called the
28:24: Nomena Sacra, the abbreviations of the divine name. Our God, Jesus Christ.
28:31: Here found in the earliest inscription we can find in a church. Demonstrating that long before Constantine ever came around,
28:41: Christians were worshiping Jesus Christ. So in summary, the scriptures are clear in teaching there is only one true
28:48: God. The scriptures are clear in identifying Jesus as the Son of God, the incarnate second person of the
28:55: Trinity. No mere prophet could say and do the things that Jesus did.
29:01: Therefore, we conclude that the evidence is clear and convincing. Jesus is not a mere prophet, a mere result.
29:09: But he is prophet, priest, king, the creator of all, the divine
29:15: Son of God. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you
29:29: Dr. James White for your presentation. And on behalf of Ministry to Muslims and the
29:37: Center for Religious Debates. We do thank you guys for showing up, we thank you guys for paying close attention.
29:42: But we have an individual to my right, to your guys' straight ahead I guess. Edashan Ghulam is a student at the
29:51: Wayne State University. He is studying pre -law, he has written books from Christianity to Islam.
29:59: The Truth You Need to Know and Why I Am Not a Christian. A Muslim Gives Reason for the
30:06: Rejections of the Christian Faith. And so soon they will be published.
30:12: He has a website and it's www .answers -christian -claims .com
30:22: And we thank Edashan for showing up at this last second. It's not a really formal debate, but it's going to be a good time.
30:32: So he's going to give his presentation. And we do thank Dr. James White and Edashan for coming up at this last minute.
30:39: So without further ado, Edashan. Well hello, thank you all for taking time off your busy schedules to come and listen.
31:05: This is not a debate like my friend just said. I take this more as a dialogue.
31:14: So I just want to let you know about that. And I also want to issue an apology to Sam Shamoon.
31:20: You know, sometimes when we talk about religion we get a little emotional. So I do apologize for that.
31:28: So, okay, the topic here is what does... Oh, I'm sorry. Hang on one second. Oh, I also want to say how honored
31:35: I am to be here. I heard about Dr. James White and I'm pleased to be discussing this with him because he's a scholar and, you know, so this is a really great opportunity for me.
31:46: Okay, so what does Islam have to say about Jesus? Islam says that Jesus was a human being, a messenger from God to the house of Israel.
31:54: Quran chapter 4 verse 171. Muslims must believe that Jesus was born of a virgin
32:01: Mary, that he performed many miracles, and he was the last messenger sent to Israel.
32:07: Muslims don't believe that Jesus was crucified and that he was resurrected. And you can find that in the
32:13: Quran chapter 4 verse 157. I'm going to, in my brief time,
32:18: I'm going to try to show that the majority of scholarship is more on the Islamic side and not on the Christian side.
32:25: That Islam is closer to the historical Jesus than Christianity is itself. I noticed in Dr.
32:33: White's presentation that he was quoting a lot from the New Testament, the epistles of Paul and the four gospels,
32:38: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But there is a problem here, because we don't know who wrote the gospels.
32:43: We don't know when they wrote them or where they wrote them, or even whether their sources are reliable or not.
32:49: Now, Dr. White is going to try to say, well, the Quran confirms the Bible, but that's not true. The Quran clearly says that the
32:56: Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, is corrupt. Quran chapter 2 verse 75, Quran chapter 2 verse 79,
33:02: Quran chapter 4 verse 157. And this is a dominant view among Islamic scholars. Al -Tabari,
33:08: Ibn Kathir, all these Islamic scholars say the Bible is corrupt. So I expect him not to bring up that polemic.
33:18: Okay, like I said, the majority of Christian scholars agree with the Islamic point of view, that Jesus was just a
33:25: Jewish prophet. And the scholars that say this view are
33:30: E .P. Sanders, in his book The Historical Figure of Jesus, Dale C. Allison, in Jesus of Nazareth, a millennium prophet,
33:38: Bart Ehrman, in his book Jesus Apocryphal Prophet of the
33:44: Newmanelium, and Paula Feddersen, in her book From Jesus to Christ, the Origins of New Testament Images of Jesus.
33:51: If you read the earliest gospel, the gospel of Mark, Jesus is clearly a human being. In the gospel of Matthew, he's seen as the
33:58: Messiah. In the gospel of Luke, he's seen as the Savior. In the gospel of John, he's seen as the
34:03: Divine Logos. Clearly, we see an evolution here. So originally, Jesus was just a
34:08: Jewish prophet, and then later on, as legends grew, as the legend grew, he became more and more divine as time went on.
34:17: Now, Dr. White might bring up the epistles of Paul, but what's interesting is Paul never met
34:22: Jesus. Paul didn't know how Jesus looked like. Paul just says that Jesus came to him in visions.
34:29: Well, that's not good enough for me. I mean, and I find this weird, I find it odd that Paul never mentions anything about Jesus.
34:36: Paul never mentions the virgin birth, or quotes anything Jesus says, or miracles, or anything like that.
34:43: So it's hard for me to take Paul's view about Jesus to be historical.
34:51: So there's all the evidence that the early Christian idea of the Savior and Messiah, the Son of God, was right in line with thinking of many
34:58: Jews at the time. And Greco -Roman paganism was filled with, you know, ordinary men becoming gods.
35:14: So it's not something unique. Let's see here, let's see here. I want to emphasize this point, that there's nothing un -Jewish about what
35:28: Christians thought in the first century. Nor was the idea of a pre -existing spiritual
35:36: Son of God a novel idea among the Jews. Paul's contemporary philo interprets the messianic prophecy of Zechariah 6, verses 11 -12 in just such a way.
35:47: In the Septuagint, this says that the place of the crown of kingship upon Jesus, for Caesar Yahweh, the ruler of all, behold...
35:56: Oops, oops, oops, wrong thing. Okay, so, and I'm going to emphasize the point that in early
36:05: Christianity there was an evolution, that Christians were kind of confused who Jesus was. The Iranians used to think that Jesus was just a human being, or,
36:13: I'm sorry, that the Father and the Son are distant. This is, you can find this in the second century. The Ambionites, the earliest
36:19: Christians, who some scholars like Barterman argue are more close to historical Jesus, say that Jesus was just a human being, a
36:26: Jewish, the Jewish Messiah, etc., etc. And there are, hang on one second.
36:33: Am I done? Four and a half minutes, okay, good. I apologize, this was very last minute.
36:47: Okay, what about the term Son of God? Dr. White might say, well, the earliest
36:53: Christians thought Jesus was the Son of God, but there's nothing, there's nothing unique about that. Go back to the
36:58: Old Testament, you know, David is called the Son of God, in Psalms chapter 2, verse 7. And you can find, you can find, and the majority of scholarship says that, yeah,
37:08: I mean, the Son of God was just an innocent Jewish term. It's not unique towards, towards Christianity.
37:20: And you can read Barterman's wonderful book, The Orthodox Corruption of the Scripture, The Effect of Early Christiology, Controversies in the
37:27: Text of the New Testament. And he shows that there were, there were people that used to tamper with the text of the
37:34: New Testament to try to prove that Jesus was divine. And even in Acts of the
37:39: Apostles, we see that people very easily mistook people to be, to be gods.
37:46: Like when Paul gets a snake bite, they thought, and he survives it, the people very easily said that he was
37:52: God, even though that wasn't the case. So we have all the historical evidence that supports the
37:57: Islamic point of view, that Jesus was just a Jewish rabbi, a prophet, etc., etc. We see a legendary development.
38:04: Gospel of Mark, keep in mind, the earliest gospel says Jesus was a human. When we go to the Gospel of John, it says that Jesus was in divine logos.
38:10: One of them must be wrong. And it must, and it's most likely the later, the later gospel, the
38:16: Gospel of John. Gospel of Mark had it right, that Jesus was just a human being. So yeah, the majority of scholars have understood
38:30: Jesus as a Jewish, as a Jewish prophet. I mean, there's no way around it.
38:38: And the early Christian church was very diverse. There were some Christians that thought Jesus was divine, some Christians that didn't think, just some
38:44: Christians that thought Jesus was just a human being. And there were even some Christians that thought Jesus wasn't crucified. So we do have some evidence for what the
38:52: Quran is talking about in the Quran, chapter four, verse 157. For example, the Thessalonians.
39:00: Okay, I think I'm done here. All right, thanks a lot. Well, we do thank you,
39:13: Edasham, for coming at the last minute. For now, we're going to offer a cross -examinations. And for Edasham, you get,
39:24: I think it says 15 minutes to cross -examine White, and then Dr. White examines for 10 minutes, and then
39:34: Ghulam, closing statements, and Dr. White, closing statements for seven minutes apiece. And then afterwards, if you guys got your cards, questions and answers for each individual, and then we'll do that for how long it takes.
39:47: But once again, we thank you, Edasham, for coming here at the last minute to defend what you feel is true. Thank you.
39:56: Okay, Dr. White, you bring up, I noticed that you brought up a lot of, you brought up a lot of passages from Paul and the
40:05: Gospels, but like I said, we don't know who wrote the Gospels for sure. We don't know when they wrote them or where they wrote them.
40:10: We don't know what their sources were, even whether their sources are reliable or not. So that's not good enough evidence. And you bring up a lot of Paul.
40:18: Can I respond to that? I'm sorry? I need to respond to that because you just packed a lot into that statement.
40:24: Can I finish then? I'm sorry, how does it? If you want to make multi -part questions, we'll have multi -part responses.
40:29: Okay, thanks. Let me just finish, then you're more than welcome to respond. And I also want to emphasize the point that you brought up a lot of Paul, but there's nothing in the evidence from Paul himself that Jesus was ever taught to be
40:43: God incarnate while residing on earth. And like I said, Greco -Roman paganism was filled with ordinary men becoming, you know, gods.
40:53: So isn't it possible? We're really getting very complicated here. Isn't it possible that the early Christians misunderstood that and followed in that misguided way?
41:03: Okay, a number of things. The alleged parallels to Greco -Roman gods are completely fallacious as has been demonstrated many times by Christian scholarship because all those
41:11: Greco -Roman gods were based upon polytheism and the Christians and the Jews, of course, were monotheists and there is never any concept of incarnation of a monotheistic
41:19: God. Further, those alleged incarnations of gods never involved true virgin births.
41:25: The fundamental worldview conflicts between those alleged parallels in the
41:30: Christian story make that kind of parallelism completely bogus. Secondly, the apostle
41:35: Paul did describe Jesus as incarnate God upon earth. I gave numerous references to that,
41:40: Philippians chapter 2, Colossians chapter 2. But there's nothing un -Jewish about that. I'm sorry?
41:46: There's nothing un -Jewish about what Paul was talking about in Philippians or... Well, given that un -Jewish,
41:53: I don't know how that's relevant. Paul was a Jew and he believed Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.
41:59: Yeah, exactly. Jews were monotheists. They believed in one God. That's true. The term... I'm sorry. That's true, they did.
42:06: But given that you asked about four or five questions there, likewise, the only evidence we have for the teachings of Jesus are the
42:14: Gospels from the first century. The idea that we have to have the social security number of the authors for them to be valid would mean that we could not do any meaningful historiography about anything.
42:25: But there's... I'm sorry, go ahead. So, you packed a lot of assertions there that have been thoroughly debunked by meaningful
42:35: Christian scholarship for literally hundreds of years. That's interesting. Bart Ehrman actually... Bart Ehrman is not a
42:42: Christian scholar. He's an atheist, sir. I've debated him. Have you seen my debate with him? On the New Testament?
42:47: Is the New Testament reliable? Yes. I've seen parts of it. I haven't had time to see the entire thing.
42:53: But Bart Ehrman says that... I'm sorry. Bart Ehrman says that the Gospels were written by anonymous
42:58: Greek authors. Jesus spoke Aramaic. So that's a problem, don't you think? Well, no, it's not a problem in any way, shape, or form.
43:04: Bart Ehrman represents liberalism. And there are lots of liberal scholars. Have you read any of the conservative
43:10: Christian believers that would be consistent with your own view of the Koran? Because remember, Bart Ehrman does not believe that any ancient document that contains textual variance can come from God, which include the
43:19: Koran. So do you accept... The Koran... Excuse me? The Koran is perfectly preserved. We have a lot of academic evidence.
43:25: Really? So when I show a variant on the screen in Surah 222, where the Ibn Masud reading the
43:31: Fahd Ibn Ishaq's manuscript is different from... There's a brother named... Will you accept that? There's a brother named Bassam Zawadi.
43:37: He already covered that topic. And this is a very broad topic, which unfortunately we can't cover right now.
43:42: But you can see Bassam Zawadi's debate on that. He completely debunks and destroys all these allegations.
43:49: So when I have to point out the actual manuscripts, he debunks the existence of the manuscripts? He debunks the claims that the
43:55: Koran is not perfectly preserved. We can get into that topic at another time. I just want to stick to the topic of who is
44:01: Jesus. Do you have any... Oh, I'm sorry. Let me ask you one more question. You bring up the term son of God, but as Bart Ehrman and other scholars have said, for ancient
44:11: Jews, I mean, being the son of God doesn't mean you're divine. It just means that... Of course. As I pointed out in my presentation, which
44:17: I don't think you had an opportunity to see, the use of the term son of God in the New Testament is made unique of Jesus specifically.
44:24: That's why the Jews said in John 19, 7 that we have a law and by this law he had to die because he made himself out not to be a son of God, but to be the son of God.
44:33: And so very clearly there is a use of son of God that was not merely like David was the son of God.
44:39: There is a use of son of God that has been recognized by Christian scholarship all along and by non -Christian scholarship to be utterly unique in the claims of Jesus Christ, which is what resulted in the people picking up stones to stone him.
44:52: Okay. In the earliest gospel, the Gospel of Mark, the sonship was first acknowledged at the time of baptism.
45:00: In short, Jesus was the created son of God. That's not what the Gospel of Mark teaches. Well, I have a scholar,
45:06: Bart Ehrman, and other scholars... Again, I've debated Bart Ehrman. Just simply, Bart Ehrman isn't here to defend himself. We need to go to the actual facts of the text.
45:14: Bart Ehrman is an anti -Christian critic. But you do... If I quote anything from an anti -Muslim critic, an
45:19: Orientalist, are you going to just accept anything that an Orientalist says? You just dismissed it all based upon the
45:25: Psalms of Wadi. You keep making assertions instead of actually proving the assertions. Okay, but you do agree with me that the sonship...
45:32: was the earliest gospel. Can you prove that? Yeah, Mark... Can you prove it? The majority of scholars say Mark... So the majority of scholars do not believe in divine revelation.
45:42: Yeah, actually, I think I can prove that the Gospel of Mark because the Gospel of Mark is shorter than the Gospel of Matthew, Luke, and John.
45:48: In the Gospel of Mark there is no virgin birth... Okay, wait, wait, wait. So the shortest surahs of the
45:54: Quran all come after the longest surahs, right? By your own reasoning. Dr. White, with all due respect, have you studied the
46:01: Quran? Of course I have. Have you actually, you know, consulted Muslim scholars on...
46:06: Yes, I do that very regularly. I was just pointing out that the Quran is not organized in... I'm well aware of exactly how it's organized and what the
46:14: Quran and the chronological order of the surahs are. I was demonstrating, sir, that to say that the Gospel of Mark comes earlier because it's shorter makes absolutely no sense.
46:23: Well, again, like I said, I have the majority of scholarship on my side. You need to provide some scholarship. Sir, sir, the majority of scholarship does not believe in the supernatural in our world today, and you do.
46:33: Therefore, you just refuted your own argument. I'm simply looking for consistency. Consistency. The majority of scholarship does not believe that Muhammad took a night flight to Jerusalem.
46:42: Do you believe Muhammad took a night flight to Jerusalem? Well, of course, yeah. Then you don't believe in the majority of scholarship, do you?
46:49: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. What's your... The majority of scholarship in the Western world would not accept that Muhammad ever took a night flight to Jerusalem.
46:55: In fact, the majority of scholarship would believe that was a later addition. My point is, sir, just simply saying the majority of scholarship proves nothing.
47:03: I'm just looking for you to be consistent. What would be good evidence for you to support my view that the Gospel of Mark was the earliest gospel and the most reliable?
47:12: My point... Most reliable. My point is that you're making assumptions and building conclusions based upon assumptions that you cannot prove.
47:22: Now, the Gospel... Well, I can prove that the sonship of Jesus was first at the baptism and then there was an evolution. Can you prove...
47:28: That is your reading of the text. un -Jewish about what Paul was talking about in his epistles?
47:34: Sir, that is your reading of the text. That is not what Mark himself presents. In fact, he begins by saying the beginning of the
47:40: Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. And so, just because there is... And like I said, the term
47:46: Son of God was nothing unique. I mean, ancient Jews used it for... And I pointed out that the
47:52: New Testament usage of it is unique, which is why the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus when they identified themselves as the
47:57: Son of God such as in John chapter 10. You're not applying the same standard of interpretation to the
48:05: New Testament that you would demand to be used of the Koran. You're applying different standards. You're more than happy to utilize liberal scholarship on the
48:14: New Testament. Do you accept the Orientalist view, for example, of the
48:19: Koran... I agree with you that the Orientalists don't believe in like supernatural... Not as does
48:25: Bart Ehrman. Hang on one second. The Orientalists don't agree that Allah revealed the Koran to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
48:31: However, we can trace the Koran back to Prophet Muhammad. Can we trace the New Testament Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to Jesus?
48:38: No, we can't. Because like I said, we don't know who wrote the Gospels. We don't know when they wrote them or where they wrote them or what they're saying.
48:43: Well, actually, we do know that they are written in the first century. We do know that they are written in the environment which the other quote unquote
48:51: Gospels that you refer to such as the Gnostics do not come from the first century. They are second century productions from a worldview that denies that there is even a creator
49:00: God. Oh, really? So, even though we have evidence stating them from the second century, now you're...
49:05: What are you talking about? The Gnostic Gospels? Yeah, the Gospels of Ambionites, the Gospels of Nicodemus, the Gospels of Perfection.
49:11: All second and third century. All second and third century. Did you say seventh century? I said second and third century. Okay, I misunderstood you.
49:17: I'm sorry. Okay, so they come from a worldview that's completely contradictory to what the followers of Jesus would have had even according to the
49:23: Koran and yet you cite them as evidence but the Gospels which are clearly Jewish in origination from the first century in Palestine are somehow not reliable?
49:33: Are you being consistent in your utilization of sources? I don't understand your argument. Are you trying to say that just because I'm using these other later
49:39: Gospels that... to support my view? You seem to believe those are reliable and yet the manuscript evidence for that is...
49:46: I believe they're reliable as in they represented beliefs of certain Christians. You agree with me that early Christianity was very diverse.
49:52: No, I do not. You don't agree? No, I do not. I do not believe people... Does someone who denies Muhammad as a prophet, is he a
49:58: Muslim? No, he's not a Muslim. Okay, so a person who denies that Jesus is a Christ isn't a Christian, is he? Yeah, obviously.
50:04: Okay, so Gnostics... So Gnostics... So Gnostics who believe that Yahweh is an evil god, a demon, why would you call that person a
50:11: Christian? Well, they... Everybody claimed... Early Christianity was very diverse and like they claimed, you know, that they had access to disciples or whatever.
50:24: That's the point I'm disputing, sir. Like there's the Basilitians that used to believe Jesus wasn't crucified and said
50:29: Simon was crucified. Exactly, because... They got their view from Peter. Exactly, sir. So how do we know... Do you know why they said
50:35: Jesus wasn't crucified? Because they were Dostetics. Do you know what a Dostetic is? Jesus was so divine, you know, he wasn't...
50:43: Didn't have a physical body. Yeah, exactly. Which you and I would agree is a complete falsehood, is it not?
50:49: Does the Quran say Jesus had a physical body? Yeah. I mean, the Quran... Okay, so they were wrong. As a Muslim, I believe
50:54: Jesus existed, yeah, but not the way the Christians say because there's no evidence for it. But the Basilitians who did not believe
50:59: Jesus had a physical body are not only denied by the writers of the New Testament who wrote before they ever came along, but denied by the
51:07: Quran, so why in the world would you be citing them as being relevant to what a Christian is? Could a
51:12: Christian... Because they claim, you know, that Peter was the one who taught them. So because they claim to be a
51:18: Christian, so if someone claims to be a Muslim but denies that Muhammad's a prophet, they're still a Muslim, right? No.
51:23: By your own reasoning. No, they're not, I mean... So you're using different standards then. Okay, okay. But you do agree that my evidence is based on more...
51:31: Or, I'm sorry, you do agree that the sonship of Jesus was pushed back because, again, like I said... Pushed back? Yeah, okay,
51:37: I'm sorry. In the Gospel of Mark, obviously Jesus becomes the Son of God when He's baptized, right? I do not accept that for a second.
51:44: And then in the Gospel of Matthew... He is proclaimed to be the Son of God at the baptism, just as He is in Matthew and Luke.
51:52: That in no way, shape, or form in the early church would have meant that that's when He became the
51:58: Son of God. That adoptionist error was refuted for a long time and just simply assuming that the
52:04: New Testament can be cut into pieces and treating it in a way you would never allow me to treat the
52:09: Koran demonstrates that, once again, my friend, you are using one standard for the New Testament that you would never allow to be used in the
52:16: Koran. Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. We know where the Koran came from. It came from Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
52:22: We don't know where the New Testament Gospels came from. But there are all sorts of scholars that question that, sir.
52:28: There are all sorts of... Can you name me one? Can you name me one? Certainly. Gerard Quinn. You want me to name one?
52:35: Do you know why he might be relevant? Because he is the one that the Yemeni government hired to collate the
52:42: Sa 'ana manuscript find when it was found in the Grand Mosque in Sa 'ana. Okay, Dr.
52:47: White, I'm going to ask you to stick on the topic on who was Jesus. We can... We're more than welcome... You're more than welcome to, you know, debate me on the preservation of the
52:57: Quran, but, you know, I just came prepared for the... Yeah, you just...
53:03: And I'm pointing out to you that... My response to your question, Mark, is you are I mean, we can argue back and forth, you know, inconsistency...
53:10: You are misreading Mark. You are inserting things in Mark that Mark does not say. Mark clearly presents
53:15: Jesus as a divine person who has the power to forgive sin. Why? Because he could forgive sin? Well, the disciples were able to forgive sin, so are you going to say that the disciples were divine too?
53:23: Actually, the disciples were not able to forgive sin outside of the authority being given to them by Jesus.
53:30: Read the ending of the Gospel of John. Disciples were given Yeah, I've translated the Gospel of John. I'm well aware of what it says, and Jesus breathed upon them and gave them the
53:37: Holy Spirit and told them to proclaim the forgiveness of sins to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is not the same thing as Jesus looking at someone and saying, your sins are forgiven, so much so that the
53:47: Jews recognized he was claiming a prerogative of God. Okay, let's see here.
53:53: Okay, so the majority, what I've read and what I've understood is that the majority of biblical scholars have long argued that Isaiah 41, chapter 41, verse 1, was used, hang on, was a pre -Greek
54:10: Palestinian oral tradition of the baptism of Jesus. So, and I'll read Isaiah chapter 41, verse 1 for you.
54:17: It says, Here is my servant whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom I have I have put my spirit upon him.
54:24: He will bring forth justice to the nations. So, okay, the Aramaic word here is abdihi, meaning servant.
54:34: Yes, Jesus fulfilled the servant's saying. Okay, so, okay, so if we were to accept what these scholars are saying, the pre -Greek
54:42: Palestinian oral tradition would have sounded something like this. And this is when Jesus was baptized according to the earliest
54:48: Gospel, the Gospel of Mark. Ten seconds. Okay, now, when the Bible when all the people were baptized and when Jesus also had been baptized, the heaven was open and God placed his spirit upon him and a voice came from the heaven, you are my servant whom
55:00: I uphold and whom I have chosen. Can I respond to that? You sure can. Thank you very much. Again, to utilize this kind of liberal scholarship means that I can go to the same liberal scholars who can then look at the text of the
55:11: Quran and say, well, this came from this, which, by the way, we can't identify all sorts of pre -Mohammed sources that he utilized in the writing of the
55:19: Quran and that would mean the Quran is not the word of God. Instead, those naturalistic scholars,
55:24: Actually, all these sources actually post -date the Quran, so... Those naturalistic scholars are going to apply the same standards to the
55:32: Bible that they were going to use for the Quran. My friend here will not accept them when they do it to the Quran, but he does the
55:37: New Testament inconsistency as a sign of a failed argument. So my turn? Yes, sir. Okay.
55:43: You had said that I should not assert that the
55:49: Quran actually teaches the preservation of scripture and you quoted Quran 279.
55:55: Could you explain how it is that 278 tells us that we're talking about unlettered people who did not know the books?
56:03: How could unlettered people who did not know the books be the ones who are perverting the text of the Quran in Quran 279?
56:10: Okay, I'm glad you brought this up because I've read your work I've never written on this, actually.
56:16: I've listened to what you had to say about this. I don't think you've read what
56:24: Islamic scholarship has to say about this. Are you familiar with Ibn Kathir?
56:30: Yes, sir. In fact, I checked Ibn Kathir's commentary on this very text this afternoon. Okay. Well, read his commentary on the
56:38: Quran chapter 2 verse 79 and I'll read it for you because they, the Jews, distorted the
56:43: Torah They, the Jews. So, why would that have anything to do with Christians? You're talking about the
56:48: New Testament now? Oh, okay. Have you... Where's the Quran in the New Testament that was corrupted? Well, read the Quran chapter 4 verse 157.
56:55: Do you have it in front of you? I most certainly do. So, 40 Arabic words written 600 years after Christ can overthrow everything in the first century.
57:02: My friend, read the Quran chapter 4 verse 157 for us. What do you not have in front of you?
57:07: I don't have the Quran with me. Actually, I'm the one asking the questions right now, so I'm going to continue doing that.
57:13: Could you explain one other text before we go to some of the other things that you said? In surah 1094, we read the following.
57:21: If thou art in trouble, this is specifically to Muhammad, the interceder. If thou art in doubt as to what we have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the book, the
57:32: Kitab, from before thee. The truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord, so be in no wise of those in doubt.
57:38: If, in fact, your assertion is that the Quran teaches the corruption of the book that came before Muhammad, why would
57:49: Allah say to Muhammad, if you are in doubt, you individually, as Muhammad, then ask those who have been reading the book from before thee.
58:00: How could they be reading a book that no longer exists? Because these books contain prophecies of prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
58:05: We are in doubt We, of course, we as Muslims believe that there is some truth here and there in the Old and New Testaments. I'm not going to go and say that the
58:13: Bible is completely corrupt, we can't trust anything in it. Of course there is some truth in it. So what Allah is telling
58:18: Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is go back to the scriptures, they have certain prophecies about Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
58:24: So that's what he means. I mean, just read, you have the Quran in front of you, right? Read the
58:30: Quran chapter 5, verse 13 through 14 out loud for all of us. So then ask those who have been reading,
58:36: I'm asking the question this time, you had your opportunity. Then ask those who have been reading the book from before thee but they were reading a corrupt book.
58:44: Is that your interpretation of that text? There is some truth to the Bible and there is falsehood to the
58:50: Bible. So they were reading a corrupt text. Let me read, let me read what, hang on, let me read what, you know who
58:57: Ibn Abbas is? Yes sir. Okay, let me read what Ibn Abbas said about the
59:04: Bible. One second. Ibn Abbas said that the
59:12: Jews and Christians clearly distorted their books and you can find this in Bukhari, volume 9, book 93, number 613 and 614.
59:23: Do you have the Hadith collections in front of you? I could bring them up but I'm, Sure, okay, go ahead, bring those.
59:31: Read it out loud for us my friend. Okay. What Ibn Abbas said about the Bible. All right. The Companion of the
59:36: Prophet Muhammad. Okay, so we'll go with that. You said Paul never met Jesus but only in visions, right?
59:44: And so you said that's not enough for you. On what basis should
59:50: I believe that Muhammad, If I said, Can I finish my question? Oh yeah, sorry go ahead. Thank you very much.
59:57: On what basis should I believe that Muhammad took a night flight to Jerusalem when you reject
01:00:06: Paul's authority simply because he never met Jesus? Are you being consistent in your historiography? Because Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, proved it my friend.
01:00:14: How did he prove it? Because, hang on one second. So if I were to say,
01:00:22: Have you read all the Muslim biographies? Ibn Ishaq, Al -Waqidi, Ibn Ishaq, Al -Tabari.
01:00:27: Sir, this is my cross -examination period. That means I ask you questions, you answer those questions.
01:00:32: all right. So when, Please stay on topic though. So when Paul, if I say
01:00:38: Paul proved that he saw Jesus, you reject that, but you can say Muhammad took his night flight and that's enough for you.
01:00:46: Are you being consistent in your methodology? Yes I am my friend, because Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, proved it, and I'll read it,
01:00:54: I'll prove it right now, one second. Okay, while you're looking for that, because our time is going by here, all right.
01:01:05: You said that Paul did not mention certain things of Jesus' life.
01:01:10: Yeah, he never quotes Jesus, his miracles, or anything like that. Okay, why would Paul have to do so for him to be speaking the truth?
01:01:17: Because Paul allegedly went to the disciples, and I find it weird that the disciples would never tell Paul anything about Jesus.
01:01:24: So you're assuming he didn't know anything about Jesus? Do you agree with me that Paul never met the historical Jesus? Do you agree, yes or no?
01:01:31: He did not meet the historical Jesus during his lifetime. Did he shake hands with him? No, he did not. Did he know what he looked like?
01:01:36: Never claimed that. That's interesting. Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus, that's the Biblical testimony. But the point is, why would
01:01:43: Paul... Could it be a hallucination? Sir, could I ask a question? Okay, yeah, go ahead. Thank you very much, I would appreciate it. Paul, why do you assert that Paul would have to repeat the
01:01:52: Gospels, given the fact that the Gospel stories were being preached by all the apostles, including the
01:01:58: Apostle Paul? Why would he have to repeat them in his letters? Why would... Okay, let me see if I understand this question.
01:02:05: Why would Paul need to repeat the Gospel stories... Yeah, why would he have to make his letters filled with what the Christians already knew?
01:02:11: Why does he have to repeat them so often? Because, how do we know he's trustworthy? I mean, how do we know he's not lying, or he had an epileptic seizure?
01:02:19: So if he just repeats everything everybody knows, that makes him reliable? No, I mean, you agree with me,
01:02:26: Paul never met the historical... Do you agree with me, yes or no, that Paul... We've already answered that question once, twice, three times already.
01:02:32: Does Paul know how Jesus looked like? Does Paul... Okay, we're not going to answer that one. Alright, you said that Greco -Roman paganism had men becoming gods.
01:02:40: Could you give us some examples that would actually be parallels to Jesus? Sure. Such as? Okay, there's...
01:03:00: Are you familiar with the god Hercules? Hercules? Zalimonas, Ates, the...
01:03:08: Hang on. There's Romulus. Do you know who Romulus was? I do know who Romulus was. He was a god that was literally and physically a god from heaven.
01:03:18: And those were all polytheistic systems, right? Yeah, those were ancient pagan religions.
01:03:23: these were ancient pagan religions. They're all polytheists. Do you have any monotheists who actually believe them?
01:03:30: Well, like I said, the first century... Like I said, there's nothing un -Jewish about Paul's Christology, right?
01:03:39: I mean, the stuff he was saying... Given that Paul was Jewish, that would be good, but I just wondered this idea of men becoming gods.
01:03:48: Can you give us a single example in a monotheistic setting that would parallel the
01:03:53: Christian story of the one truly creator god entering into his own creation through an actual virgin birth to redeem that creation?
01:04:02: Is there anything... Let me give you some examples. Mithra, Dionysus, Osiris, Horus. Osiris. Osiris.
01:04:09: Osiris was resurrected. Really? He was resurrected? Are you sure about that? Same with Iana. Iana was also resurrected.
01:04:16: Wait a minute. Osiris was resurrected. Do you know what the actual story is? Osiris was a pre -Christian god who was resurrected. Actually, do you realize that his body was found cut up into 14 pieces and he became a zombified god of the underworld?
01:04:27: You call that a resurrection? It doesn't matter. It's still a resurrection. That's a resurrection. He came back to life.
01:04:32: Wait a minute. I need to understand this. I need to understand this. Resurrection means someone coming back to life, right? The Jewish...
01:04:37: The Jewish understanding of resurrection is what? What does anastasis mean? The Jewish concept in the first century.
01:04:42: Okay, now we're going to the resurrection even though... We were just talking about resurrection. What does it mean? I'm sorry.
01:04:48: Resurrection means someone coming back to life. Okay, so if you take 14 body parts, put them together, and the person becomes a zombie in the underworld, would any
01:04:59: Jew who has ever lived call that a resurrection? Well, like I said, it's coming back to life, so yes, they would say...
01:05:05: He's in the underworld, sir. He doesn't come back to life. Well, there's Iana, too. Have you heard of Iana? Iana was also...
01:05:11: Wait a minute. We're talking about Osiris here. We just demonstrated that Osiris is not resurrected in any way that would be meaningfully parallel to any person who had a
01:05:20: Jewish background, right? Yes. Do you withdraw what you just said? Okay, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you very much.
01:05:27: Okay, so going back to what the Koran says about the Bible, go ahead. No, no, no. Excuse me, sir. I'm asking you questions.
01:05:32: I have at least a few minutes left. Okay, okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay, you're not in charge of this period of time. You were for the first 15 minutes.
01:05:39: Okay, Dr. White. Now, you indicated that the Gnostics... Which has nothing to do with the topic. Okay, go ahead. You indicated that the
01:05:44: Gnostics support the Koran's teaching in regards to Surah 4157.
01:05:51: Can you name any historical source in the first hundred years after the time of Christ that denies the crucifixion of Jesus?
01:05:58: That denies the crucifixion of Jesus? Yes. A New Testament source? Anything within the first hundred years.
01:06:06: Anything within the first hundred... Well, like you said, there was an early Christian group called the... I'm sorry.
01:06:11: Dossetists. Second century. No, that was first century. They believed that Jesus' crucifixion was an illusion.
01:06:18: So we do have some evidence for the Koran there. In the Koran, chapter 4, verse 157, there are various theories.
01:06:24: The Koran never says that someone else was crucified instead of Jesus. Rather, there are a lot of theories as to what the
01:06:31: Koran is talking about there. But we can go into that later. So for the first hundred years, historical sources, written sources, first hundred years...
01:06:42: Well, like I said, we don't know who wrote the Gospels. We don't know when they were written. That's irrelevant, sir. For the first... Yes, because you're telling me to go back to the
01:06:48: Gospels and I'm saying it's not reliable. Okay, how about any early
01:06:54: Christian writings anything for the first hundred years after the time of Christ? Well, it's interesting that you brought that up because there was an early church father.
01:07:02: Let me bring up his name. Okay, are you familiar with the early church father,
01:07:11: Ignatius? I quoted Ignatius in my presentation. The bishop of Antioch. Let me just read what he said.
01:07:18: But if, as some say, his sufferings was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner? Why do
01:07:23: I fight with the wild beast? In that case, I am dying in vain. Yes, he was fighting against the Gnostics, sir.
01:07:29: Are you familiar with the Gnostics? Okay, yes, but one cannot attack a heresy as a belief or a doctrine that does not yet exist.
01:07:35: The theology of Ignatius was not withstanding. His attack against those early
01:07:41: Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only an illusion, was illusionary, demonstrates the existence of that belief amongst the early
01:07:49: Christians. Excuse me, amongst the early Gnostics. Do you believe someone who believes that Jehovah is a demon is a
01:07:56: Christian? Sir, answer my question, please. Do you believe that a person who thinks
01:08:02: Jehovah is a demon could be either a Jew, a Christian, or a
01:08:08: Muslim? So you're saying that just because they believe that God is an evil
01:08:14: God, they can't be a Jew, Christian, or Muslim? What do you think? If I think Allah is a demon, am
01:08:20: I a Muslim? No, of course not. Okay, so if you think Jehovah is a demon, are you a
01:08:25: Jew, Christian, or a Muslim? Well, the Gnostics got a lot of things wrong, but they got some stuff right. I mean, they had some silly beliefs.
01:08:31: Thank you. They had some silly beliefs, which, I mean, one of the
01:08:37: Gnostics said that Jesus was an angel, or a bird, I'm sorry, a bird that used to fly around. Do you, I mean...
01:08:43: Okay, well, you have seven minutes apiece for closing statements, and we do thank you for coming at the last minute.
01:08:51: Seven minutes apiece for closing statements. You'll be first, and then after you, then Dr. James White.
01:08:57: And then afterwards, we'll have one minute, we'll have question and answer. So if you have your cards filled out, please hand them in.
01:09:15: Okay. Mr. White brought up a lot of red herrings, a lot of things that had nothing to do with this topic, like Iran variants.
01:09:22: I don't know, he also did that with his debate with Bart Ehrman. I don't know why, I don't understand. The topic is, is
01:09:28: Jesus, is, or, who's, the topic is, is Jesus a prophet or a divine son of God?
01:09:34: I don't understand why he did this. Even Bassam Zawadi criticized you for bringing up these red herrings in your debate with Bart Ehrman.
01:09:43: You can read this in his website. Okay. He brought up a lot of points. Again, we don't know who wrote the
01:09:49: Gospels. We don't know when they wrote them or where they wrote them. We don't know what their sources were or even whether they're reliable or not.
01:09:56: And the majority of scholarship is on the Islamic side, that Jesus was just a human, a prophet of God.
01:10:01: And we can see an evolution in the Gospels. In the Gospel of Mark, he's a human being. In the Gospel of Matthew, he's the Messiah. In the
01:10:06: Gospel of Luke, he's the Savior. In the Gospel of John, he's the Logos. I mean, clearly, I mean,
01:10:13: I think the earliest and most reliable information is the Gospel of Mark, that Jesus is just a human. And this last
01:10:19: Gospel was more based on myths and legends that were growing. It brings up what the
01:10:26: Qur 'an says about the Bible. The Qur 'an clearly says the Bible is corrupt, so we Muslims don't hold it to be
01:10:33: We can see this in the evidence from Ibn Abbas in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, on Number 613.
01:10:40: We can see this in the view of Al -Hasan Ibn Ayyub. We can see this in the view of Ibn Hazm.
01:10:45: We can see this in the view of Al -Tabari. We can see this in the view of Imam Al -Qurtubi,
01:10:51: Ibn Kathir. I'll be more than happy to cite these sources for you later on.
01:11:04: Okay, so what happens to oral reports? They change as time goes on. Originally, Jesus was just a
01:11:10: Jewish prophet, and like I said, this is confirmed in the earliest gospel, the
01:11:17: Gospel of Mark. And later on, there was an evolution as time went on. And like I said,
01:11:26: Paul is unreliable because how did Paul know it was Jesus? Think about this. Paul did not know how Jesus looked like.
01:11:32: So I find this interesting. And like I said, Paul never quotes or mentions anything Jesus says. And this is very important because Paul is claiming that he got information off the disciples, yet he doesn't prove it.
01:11:43: If he really did, how come he never quotes or states anything Jesus says? Interesting, interesting.
01:11:51: Okay, so hang on one second. Okay, so the scholars that agree with me are
01:12:04: E .P. Sanders, Dale C. Allison, Bart Ehrman, and Paula Fedrickson. And he's named only one scholar, so the majority of scholarship agrees with me.
01:12:14: The view among mainline Christian theologians ever since Albert Swerd's book
01:12:20: The Quest for the Historical Jesus is that Jesus was a Jewish prophet.
01:12:26: That's it. Okay, so we see again, we see that the, this is very last minute,
01:12:41: I apologize for my sloppiness, but we see that the majority of scholarship is on my side. There's nothing un -Jewish about what
01:12:47: Paul was talking about. And again, we don't know who wrote the Gospels. We don't know when they wrote them or where they wrote them.
01:12:52: We don't know what their sources were or even whether they were reliable or not. This is not good evidence for anything
01:12:57: Dr. White is bringing up. In order to convince me Jesus is
01:13:02: God, why didn't Jesus say I am God or worship me? I mean, I don't understand. That's all he had to say.
01:13:08: Why did he go around confusing people like that? All right.
01:13:14: So thank you again. Thank you for this very short minute thing. I wish I had more substance to my presentation, but like I said, very last minute.
01:13:24: Thanks a lot. We just had an accusation made of my raising red herrings.
01:13:44: The fact of the matter is it was my opponent who raised the issue of what the
01:13:49: Quran says about the Bible in his comments. And so I'm not sure how I somehow am raising red herrings when
01:13:57: I respond to that. I believe what we just heard this evening is a classic example of how many
01:14:03: Muslims today will utterly overthrow all consistency. So as to try to maintain their religious beliefs.
01:14:11: We have heard agnostics, naturalistic materialists made the ultimate authority when it comes to the
01:14:17: New Testament. But we saw over and over again when those same individuals make comments about the
01:14:24: Quran, oh, they're wrong. We reject them. You see, naturalistic, materialistic scholarship is going to reject the supernatural nature of the
01:14:32: New Testament. And our friend here accepts anything they have to say. But when the same naturalistic materialism is applied to the
01:14:40: Quran, oh, he rejects those individuals and their conclusions. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.
01:14:48: I continue my quest looking for a Muslim anywhere who will be consistent in the application of the same type of scholarship to his own history that he applies to the
01:14:59: New Testament. Notice that the gnostics, despite the fact that even from the
01:15:06: Muslim perspective the gnostics would be kafirs. They would be mushriks. Oh, we'll accept what they have to say about the crucifixion, though.
01:15:13: Why? Because of 40 Arabic words written 600 years after the event that contradict everything we know from the first 100 years about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
01:15:23: I did not interrupt you, sir. Thank you very much. Self -control is a good thing.
01:15:29: Now, what we have seen this evening is that I presented to you the consistent evidence of the
01:15:35: New Testament as a whole. And we saw that it teaches the deity of Christ. We also recognize that the gospels and epistles of Paul, James, etc.,
01:15:47: etc. are the only meaningful first century sources we have in regards to this subject.
01:15:55: What we have here very clearly is anachronism. We have a later religious document that does not show any in -depth knowledge whatsoever of the content of the
01:16:05: Old and New Testaments being made the standard. And then reading through that document, you then tear the
01:16:11: New Testament into shreds. You see certain elements that say, well, see, here's something that agrees with the Quran, or here's something that agrees with the
01:16:17: Quran, even when it requires you to take everything completely out of context. And then when you have all those texts that identify
01:16:24: Jesus Christ as God, doing things that only God does, identified as Yahweh, well, that's just a later corruption, even if you cannot show a single bit of manuscript evidence to substantiate that.
01:16:37: He mentions, for example, Bart Ehrman's material. Some of us have had to work through that very, very carefully.
01:16:44: And he didn't dare try to bring up any specific examples because it's pretty easy to demonstrate that the examples he used in no way, shape, or form alters the message of the
01:16:55: New Testament. Some of us have read those books very carefully and have even found errors in those particular books.
01:17:03: It's very easy to grab hold of unbelieving scholarship and say, ah, the majority of scholarship.
01:17:10: The majority of scholarship doesn't believe in the supernatural, folks. If you believe God created the heavens and the earth, you are already in contradiction with the majority of scholarship.
01:17:19: So please don't come in here as a religious person and say the majority of scholarship is an authority.
01:17:27: The majority of scholarship's conclusions have to be examined, not merely taken as a given.
01:17:34: And it amazes me that anyone could stand as a Muslim and claim that Muhammad made his night flight to Jerusalem and claim the supernatural elements of the
01:17:45: Qur 'an and then turn around and clasp hands with the naturalistic materialists in attacking the very text that the
01:17:55: Qur 'an says, oh people of the gospel, judge by what's contained therein, even though it's corrupt.
01:18:04: I don't find that to be consistent in any way, shape, or form. The reality is, just as we saw last evening, the reality is, as we saw in the debate with Sheikha Wall, Islam draws back from the high revelation of God that takes place in Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the
01:18:24: Holy Spirit. And therefore, it denies the fundamentals of the
01:18:29: Christian faith in the coming of Christ, the purpose of his coming, his death, burial, and resurrection, and this evening, his deity.
01:18:37: But to do so, it has to cut the ground out from underneath itself. If this young man were to utilize the same standards that he just used of church history, of historiography in regards to the
01:18:51: New Testament, of the Qur 'an, he wouldn't believe a word it says.
01:18:58: But the fact that he does believe what it says demonstrates that his arguments against the
01:19:03: New Testament are completely vacuous. And as a result, once again, we have the clear testimony of all of those who walked with Jesus.
01:19:14: He was Kurios. He was Lord. He stilled the sea. He raised the dead.
01:19:22: And he said, come to me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
01:19:28: I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me. These are not the words of a mere
01:19:35: Rasul. These are the words of the incarnate Son of God.
01:19:40: That is the consistent testimony of the scriptures. That is the consistent testimony of anyone who would use consistent standards in the examination of God's truth.
01:19:51: I invite all of you here this evening, if you are a Muslim, be consistent.
01:19:57: One of the 99 beautiful names of Allah is what? Al Haqq, the truth.
01:20:05: You cannot define the word truth without using the word consistency.
01:20:12: And what we've seen over the last two evenings is that Islam's defenders are not consistent.
01:20:19: They have to use different standards. That is sufficient to determine the discussion.
01:20:26: Thank you very much. Thank you
01:20:36: Dr. James White and thank you for coming at this last moment and I can just imagine the stress.
01:20:43: But thank you for coming. No, at this time we're going to have a three minute break.
01:20:50: If you have any questions for Ghulam or Dr. White, then we can do that.
01:20:56: Alright? Three minute break and then questions and answers. Okay, just before we begin, unfortunately we have more questions for the
01:21:05: Muslim than we do for Dr. White. In fact, I only have about three questions for Dr. White, but I have about six to seven for the
01:21:12: Muslim. Do we have any more questions for Dr. White or should we just go with what we have? Anyone else?
01:21:18: No? So that means we're going to have to... Okay, 30 minutes. So the format suggested by Dr.
01:21:24: White is whoever the question is directed to will have a minute to respond and then the other party will have 30 seconds to reply.
01:21:33: The reason I say that is... Yeah, and I say that because last minute he came and wanted to make a case for Islam, so I think that's something that's admirable that he's passionate for his religion, whereas Sheikh Awad backed down.
01:21:46: So that says a lot about him. So the format is going to be two minutes for the person who's asked the question to respond and one minute reply from the other side.
01:21:57: Two minutes, one minute. And over here, Antonio, will be keeping time. With that said, let me start...
01:22:06: Well, man, we have too many questions on this side, but that's fine. This is how it is. Let me begin by asking
01:22:12: Dr. White the first question. Dr. White, can you please tell me about the concept of Trinity?
01:22:21: Is it mentioned, it's supposed to be, in some specific chapter of the
01:22:26: Bible? Is the Trinity mentioned in some specific chapter of the Bible? That's the question. It is a term that describes the biblical revelation.
01:22:38: It is not a term that appears in the Bible. The Trinity itself is revealed between the
01:22:43: Old and the New Testaments. It is revealed in the coming of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, His ministry,
01:22:50: His death, His burial, and His resurrection, and then the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the Christian people.
01:22:56: So Peter, for example, was an experiential Trinitarian. He had walked with Jesus He heard the
01:23:02: Father speaking from Heaven. He was now indwelt by the Holy Spirit. And so the evidence of the
01:23:07: Trinity is found all through the Bible, and that is, it's teaching there is only one true God. It's introducing us to three divine persons, the
01:23:15: Father, the Son, and the Spirit, who are distinguished from one another. The Father is not the Son.
01:23:20: The Son is not the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father. They are clearly distinguished from one another. And then the evidence is provided of the equality of those persons, specifically the text that demonstrate the deity of Christ, and then the personality and deity of the
01:23:35: Holy Spirit. I gave a number of those texts that demonstrate the deity of Christ because we are focused upon that, but once you have those, and you can look at the
01:23:43: Trinitarian passages, such as being baptized in the name, singular, of the Father and of the
01:23:49: Son and of the Holy Spirit in Matthew chapter 28, the Trinitarian blessing at the end of Paul's Corinthians correspondence, where you have the love of God, the grace of God, the love of the
01:24:01: Son, the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. The joining of the three persons together is found throughout the epistolary literature, the earliest literature, and as we saw in Philippians chapter 2, was a part of the very worship of the early church in its most primitive state.
01:24:18: And so the doctrine of the Trinity is not stated as a creed. It is, in fact, the context out of which everything is written in the
01:24:25: New Testament itself. He has a one -minute response. All right.
01:24:30: You ready?
01:24:43: Yeah. All right. Thanks. Well, that's interesting because no
01:24:48: Jew believed in a Trinity. The word Trinity is never found in the Old or New Testaments. Plus, there's no evidence that any of the disciples believed in a
01:24:57: Trinity. He brought up Matthew 28. Well, that's interesting because the majority of biblical scholars believe that Matthew 28, that passage of Matthew 28,
01:25:06: I don't know the exact verse, that baptized them in the Father and Son is a later fabrication.
01:25:12: There is no evidence that the early Christians worshipped Jesus or knew of any Trinity, including the disciples.
01:25:18: Thank you. Okay. This is directed to Ehtisham.
01:25:24: I hope I'm pronouncing you correctly. I apologize if I'm not. No problem. You have two minutes to respond. You said that Paul never saw
01:25:33: Jesus. Neither did Muhammad. So then why do you accept what Muhammad has to say about Jesus?
01:25:40: Because Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, proved his prophethood. We have scientific evidence in the Qur 'an. Prophet Muhammad's prophecies came true.
01:25:47: We have prophecies of the Qur 'an coming true. Prophet Muhammad performed many miracles. I know
01:25:53: Christians are fascinated by miracles. So we have tons of evidence supporting
01:25:59: Islam, while we don't have any evidence supporting Christianity. Dr. White needs to tell us why the
01:26:05: Gospels are reliable. I'm going to keep emphasizing the point that we don't know who wrote the Gospels. We don't know when they wrote them or where they wrote them or even whether their sources are reliable or not.
01:26:15: All the evidence supports my view. The Qur 'an clearly says the Bible is corrupt, both the Old and New Testaments.
01:26:21: And, well, that's it. I'll try to stick to the actual question that's asked if we could.
01:26:28: We just had another double standard given to us, which, again, is a capitulation in this dialogue in regards to truth.
01:26:35: What I mean by that is the question is very obvious. We obviously can say that there's all sorts of evidence in support of Paul and Paul's giving of his life in service to Jesus Christ, the consistency of his teachings, the miracles that occurred with Paul.
01:26:51: We could say the exact same things were just said about Muhammad. You have one standard where you don't accept anything in support of Christianity versus the standard that accepts anything that is supportive of Islam, even if they're on the exact same basis with one another.
01:27:06: And so the inconsistency, the double standards, is a demonstration of the error of the position that is being presented this evening.
01:27:12: Okay. This question is directed to Dr. White. Again, I don't know within two minutes how much justice you can do to the question, but it says,
01:27:23: Would you please expound on John's use of Isaiah 6 in John 12 as it relates to the textual variance in the septuagint and as a claim for divinity?
01:27:35: This is why I said this in itself will take a whole semester. Okay. Will anybody buy me dinner if I do this?
01:27:45: In John 12, beginning at verse 38, the apostle draws from two texts from the
01:27:51: Old Testament, Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 6. At the end of that text, he specifically says these words in regards to the quotation from Isaiah 6.
01:28:03: These things Isaiah said because he saw his glory and he spoke of him. Now, when did
01:28:10: Isaiah see the glory of Jesus and speak about him? Well, if you go back to Isaiah 6, this is the vision of Jehovah sitting upon his throne lofty and lifted up.
01:28:20: But what's interesting is John's writing to Greek -speaking people who would have been using the Greek septuagint. And there's a fascinating textual variance between the
01:28:28: Greek septuagint and the Hebrew text at this point. The Hebrew text that we are accustomed to reading in English translation says, the train of his road was filling the temple.
01:28:37: But the Greek septuagint, which John's readers would have been reading, says, and they saw his glory.
01:28:46: There, you have the exact same words that John uses in John 12 -41. These things
01:28:51: Isaiah said because he saw his glory and he spoke of him. This is how
01:28:57: John makes it very clear that his readers, looking at the Greek septuagint, would realize that John is saying that the one who was seen upon the throne of glory
01:29:06: Yahweh himself was, in fact, the pre -incarnate Jesus Christ.
01:29:12: And that is one of the clearest testimonies to the deity of Christ you'll ever find in the
01:29:18: New Testament. And I did that in 96 seconds. All right. One minute for F.
01:29:24: Hisham to respond. Okay. Interesting. Have you ever read the
01:29:29: Gospels? If you ever read the Gospels, you know that the Gospels are full, full of contradictions. The Gospel of John Let me quote what
01:29:38: Bart Ehrman says. Okay. He says that John heard different stories than did Mark.
01:29:44: And when he heard the same stories, he heard them differently. The Gospel writers themselves evidently changed the stories of their sources.
01:29:52: Remember how Luke changed Mark's account of Jesus going to his death. So that's all
01:29:58: I have to say about that. The Gospels are filled with inconsistencies and contradictions and so what.
01:30:04: Okay. This question will be directed to F. Hisham.
01:30:11: F. Hisham, Muslims often object to the Trinity because the word does not appear in the
01:30:18: Bible. However, the Islamic word for monotheism, Tawheed, also doesn't appear in the
01:30:24: Quran. So then why do you believe in Tawheed? Why do I believe in monotheism? Okay. The word Tawheed. Let me repeat it.
01:30:31: It's not why you believe in monotheism. The question is that the word Tawheed also doesn't appear in the
01:30:37: Quran. Then why do you believe in Tawheed? Well, Allah says he is one God throughout the
01:30:43: Quran. He says, I'm God, worship me throughout the Quran. Where does Jesus say I'm God, worship me?
01:30:49: Where is the Trinity in the New Testament? It's not there. I mean, Allah clearly says, I mean, the
01:30:54: Quran is clearly talking about monotheism while the New Testament is filled with contradictions.
01:31:00: In the early Gospels, the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke, Jesus is clearly saying worship the Father, and then the
01:31:06: Gospel of John portrays it as a divine logos. One of these sources must be wrong, and it's most likely the later
01:31:12: Gospel of John that got it wrong. In the earlier Gospels, Mark, Matthew, and Luke got it right, that Jesus was just a human.
01:31:20: Thank you. The answer, the question, of course, was not answered.
01:31:25: The question was, if you object to the word Trinity not appearing in the Bible, then you have no grounds to do so given the fact that Tawhid, which is the central affirmation of Islamic monotheism, that word itself does not appear in the
01:31:39: Quran. Therefore, it is not necessary for a word to appear in an inspired text for it to accurately represent what that inspired text is teaching.
01:31:47: So to say the Trinity is nowhere in the New Testament, you all saw evidence after evidence after evidence, text after text after text demonstrating the three foundations of the
01:31:57: Trinity. Monotheism, the existence of the three divine persons, the equality of those persons. It's right there. You can deny it all you wish, but that does nothing for the people who have seen the evidence and now want to know why it is that your religion, coming 600 years later, gets to simply overthrow everything that came before it when you can't demonstrate your prophet had ever even read the
01:32:15: New Testament or knew anything that was in it. Now this says it's directed to Rulan, but I don't know if...
01:32:22: Gulan? My last name's Gulan. I thought it said Rulan. I was going to say, someone's middle name
01:32:28: Rulan here? Unfortunately, I don't have any more questions for Dr. White. All these questions are now directed towards Ehtisham, and again,
01:32:36: I apologize for that. It wasn't deliberately set up where we're just bombarding you with questions. No, no, no, that's fine. All the rest of the questions are directed to Ehtisham.
01:32:44: Here's the question. If Paul's Christology is Jewish, why did they seek to kill him?
01:32:51: By Jewish, I mean, in keeping with the Jewish authorities. I think this is found in Acts of the
01:32:57: Apostles if I'm not mistaken. Acts of the Apostles is basically a book of propaganda.
01:33:04: It's not a historical, reliable document. You can read Richard Pervot's book, The Reliability of Acts of the
01:33:11: Apostles. He proves that Acts of the Apostles is not historical. It's basically a book of fiction.
01:33:17: I mean, we can't trust the New Testament. I'm going to keep bringing that up. We don't know who wrote the
01:33:22: Gospels. We don't know when they wrote them or where they wrote them or what their sources were. The Qur 'an goes back to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
01:33:28: The New Testament, none of the New Testament documents goes back to Jesus. Okay, that of course was not an answer to the question whatsoever.
01:33:37: I will attempt to do so in the brief period of time that I have. It is inconsistent on my opponent's part to assert that Paul was just simply saying what the
01:33:47: Jews were saying because if that was the case, then they would not in fact seek to kill him as they do a number of times.
01:33:53: The Acts of the Apostles is one of the most incredibly, historically accurate books in all of history itself and that has been demonstrated by entire volumes that my opponent has never even looked at because he only reads naturalistic materialists and atheists and maybe some liberals someplace as if that somehow is relevant to a fair handling of historical material.
01:34:18: And so in answer to the question, there was no reason why that would have taken place because Jesus was being proclaimed in such a way that it was the fulfillment of the prophecies but it went far beyond anything that the
01:34:31: Jewish people were actually expecting to take place in the ministry and life of Jesus Christ and especially in the suffering servant passages.
01:34:39: That was a problem for many of the Jewish people at that time. Okay. Next question.
01:34:45: Ehtisham, Muslims reject the words of Jesus in the Gospels particularly because those words are recorded in Greek, a language that Jesus supposedly never spoke.
01:34:58: However, in the Qur 'an, you find Jesus speaking in Arabic, a language that he never spoke.
01:35:05: So then why do you accept those words as authentic? Because the Qur 'an, according to Muslim belief, the
01:35:11: Qur 'an is the word of God and the Muslims say that and the Qur 'an clearly says that the
01:35:16: Qur 'an clearly says that the Qur 'an was revealed in Arabic. The reason why is because Arabic is a very easy language to understand.
01:35:23: So if you're familiar with the Qur 'an, you know that the Qur 'an is God's love letter to humanity given to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and we have tons of evidence proving
01:35:33: Islam, proving the Qur 'an. We don't have any evidence for the New Testament or Christianity or anything like that or any other religion.
01:35:39: I'm sorry. Okay. That, again, was not an answer to the actual question that was asked.
01:35:48: The actual question that was asked was if you reject Jesus' words written in Greek, why do you accept them written in Arabic?
01:35:55: Well, because we believe the Qur 'an is the word of God. Well, I believe the Bible is the word of God, therefore, case closed. That kind of reasoning accomplishes absolutely nothing.
01:36:02: The repeated assertion that we have no evidence in the New Testament is just so bogus that it makes us wonder.
01:36:08: There is evidence for the New Testament, there is evidence for the Qur 'an, and it has to be weighed. A person who goes so far as to say, there's no evidence for the
01:36:16: New Testament, is going far beyond Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman believes Jesus existed.
01:36:22: There are people who don't believe Jesus even existed. Bart Ehrman would argue with them because he believes that the New Testament is primarily historically accurate.
01:36:30: Okay? So this kind of argumentation, again, just demonstrates the massive double standards and hence the incoherence of the position that is seeking to attack the
01:36:41: New Testament while at the same time refusing to see that the same arguments would be valid against the Qur 'an.
01:36:46: That makes it untrue. Alright, next question. Again, directed towards Ihtisham.
01:36:52: You said in your presentation that oral tradition changes over time and use that to cast doubt on the
01:36:59: Gospels. Why then do you believe that Muslims like al -Bukhari were able to record accurate traditions which were in circulation 200 years after the death of Muhammad?
01:37:12: Why then do you accept them as reliable? That's a very good question. It's actually a misconception that the
01:37:20: Hadith came 200 years after. There are at least 59 books of Hadith before Bukhari that recorded the words and sayings of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.
01:37:30: And I don't know if you're familiar with Hadith sciences, but we have what's called an
01:37:35: Isnat, a chain of transmission. The chain of transmission was recorded during the times of the companions of Prophet Muhammad, Abu Bakr and Umar, may
01:37:47: God be pleased with both of them. The early church completely failed to provide a chain of transmission.
01:37:55: So, you know, you have spurious documents, you have documents written in the late first century when it comes to Christianity.
01:38:03: We don't know who wrote the Gospels. They're filled with myths, legends, errors, and contradictions, and we don't find that in the
01:38:09: Hadith or the Quran. So, yeah. Isn't it fascinating that when
01:38:17: Luke begins his Gospel by talking about the fact that inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just they're handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
01:38:29: It seemed fitting for me as well having investigated everything carefully from the beginning to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent
01:38:35: Theophilus. Here you have a person writing contemporaneous with the eyewitnesses themselves, and my friend rejects him out of hand as having no relevance, but he will take
01:38:47: Isnat chains. Every single one of the Hadith that was rejected, and the vast majority were rejected by Sahih al -Bukhari and Sahih al -Muslim, every single one of them had an
01:38:55: Isnat chain. Every single one of them said this was narrated by somebody who was narrated by someone, and yet the vast majority of them were bogus.
01:39:02: It's a rigged system that, again, takes something from hundreds of years later and says,
01:39:08: I accept, but something that's contemporaneous that says, I study it. Remember last night Sheikha Wall said, well, it shows it's not the word of God.
01:39:15: Double standards all over the place. An amazing thing to observe. One of the reasons why, once again, the issue is so plain this evening.
01:39:25: Okay. We have a few more questions and then I'll be it for the Q &A, although we had 30 minutes allotted to this.
01:39:31: I don't have enough questions to fill up that time. This is, again, directed to you. The Jews heard
01:39:37: Jesus say He was equal with God. John 10, 33. Could you respond to this?
01:39:45: Can you repeat the question? I'm sorry. The Jews heard Jesus say He was equal with God. John 10, 33.
01:39:51: That's the text where they say, you, a man, make yourself out to be God. Could you respond to this? Well, I would say read it in context because when he's saying that,
01:40:00: I think when he's saying that the Jews are about to stone him and he says, I am one with God, as in,
01:40:08: I'm not one with God, like, physically. I just have a good relationship with God.
01:40:14: And again, you're quoting the Gospel of John and I keep saying that the Gospel of John is the least historical and reliable document.
01:40:21: It came way later. And that's not good enough for me. I mean, I take earlier and more reliable evidence from the
01:40:27: Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke. Okay. My opponent has no idea when
01:40:33: John was written. John actually has been archaeologically demonstrated to be extremely accurate. Recently, the Portico of Solomon was discovered.
01:40:40: The Pool of Bethesda has been discovered, described exactly as John described these things. So clearly, he is contemporaneous with the original events and is far closer than any source he accepts from Muhammad.
01:40:50: And so, again, the double standard is extremely clear. Not only that, but in John chapter 10, what
01:40:56: Jesus had actually said, I and my Father, we are one in the salvation of God's people. And the Jews picked up stones to stone him because they recognized he was making himself to be
01:41:04: God. And Jesus' response was that he is the Son of God, demonstrating that Son of God, in Jesus' own words, does mean a claim to deity.
01:41:14: Okay. It says, to the Islamic scholar, your argument that Jesus is not
01:41:21: God depends on the Islamic view that the New Testament became corrupted.
01:41:27: How do you know this? Have scholars on your side compared manuscript copies of the New Testament to arrive at this conclusion?
01:41:35: Yes, a majority of scholarship, again, is on my side. These 5 ,000 manuscripts,
01:41:42: I mean, none of these manuscripts are the same. And, you know, I mean, the Odyssey has more manuscripts.
01:41:49: So, I mean, having many manuscripts doesn't really prove anything. Are these manuscripts reliable? I mean, there are no,
01:41:56: I mean, read Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus Interrupted, revealing the hidden contradictions in the
01:42:01: Bible and why we don't know about them. Read his stuff. He proves that the manuscripts are filled with errors and contradictions, and there are problems with the
01:42:12: Greek and everything, and there are forgeries put in the New Testament. We don't find this with the Quran, but we find this with the
01:42:18: New Testament. Therefore, the New Testament is not reliable, my friends. Read Bart Ehrman. Read, let's see here, read, what's his,
01:42:28: I'm blanking on his name, but if you read Bart Ehrman's book, he provides, in the back of his book, a list of scholars that show and prove that the
01:42:36: New Testament documents are, not only are they not early, but they're not reliable. So I encourage everyone to read that.
01:42:43: Thanks. My friend does not know Bart Ehrman at all. Very clearly, evidently, he's never met him, and certainly has not read his books.
01:42:49: I have all of his books, I've listened to all of his class lectures, and that's one book, his, this wide, that's the number of books he has.
01:42:57: I have all of his scholars. I was late, I was late. Guys, no cross -examination, please. This is Q &A.
01:43:02: That's the populist word. The fact of the matter is, in my debate with Bart Ehrman, I have the clip on my computer here.
01:43:08: He said, the New Testament is the earliest attested document of any work of antiquity.
01:43:14: The Odyssey does not have anywhere near as many manuscripts. That was a wrong statement. And in fact, I asked
01:43:19: Bart Ehrman, if you were to make your own edition of the Greek New Testament, would it differ, how much would it differ from the current edition of the
01:43:28: New Testament? And he admitted it would differ less from the modern edition of the New Testament than the King James differs from the
01:43:34: New American Standard. That is Bart Ehrman's position, and that is what you'll find if you'll read his scholarly works, not just depend upon his populist works.
01:43:41: Okay. I think I have two final questions.
01:43:47: Again, directed to Ehtisham. Ehtisham, I apologize. No problem. I have a hard time speaking English. Okay, this is a two -part question.
01:43:55: Can you point to a verse in the Qur 'an that tells us how many chapters compose the
01:44:01: Qur 'an? And if not, what are the earliest written sources that you have telling us when the
01:44:09: Qur 'an was compiled, by whom, and how many chapters? You know, basically what he's saying is is there a verse in the
01:44:16: Qur 'an that tells you how many chapters Allah sent down to Muhammad? If not, what is the earliest sources you have documenting who compiled the
01:44:24: Qur 'an, let me see, who compiled the Qur 'an, by whom, and how many chapters it's supposed to consist of? The earliest document that you have that's telling you that information.
01:44:33: Okay, let me get this straight, and I'm not answering it. Yeah, you're just wondering. Okay, the person who's asking the question is do we have early manuscripts for the
01:44:42: Qur 'an? No, what he's saying is can you quote a verse from the Qur 'an telling you how many chapters make up the
01:44:48: Qur 'an? If you can't, then he's asking what are the earliest written sources that you have tell, let me see, which tell us when the
01:44:59: Qur 'an was compiled, by whom, and how many chapters it consists of? Dr.
01:45:06: Red, do you understand the question? Yes. Hang on, I'm still having difficulty. Okay, okay, let me just say that we have, okay, from what
01:45:16: I understand the question, and forgive me, forgive me if I'm misrepresenting it, but we have strong evidence to support the
01:45:24: Muslim tradition. Other opinions of, hang on, okay, so I think it has to do with manuscripts,
01:45:32: I apologize, I don't understand. Just let me clarify. I know it's difficult. He's not asking for manuscripts of the
01:45:38: Qur 'an. Okay. He wants to know what is the oldest book that you have that gives you the information concerning who compiled the
01:45:47: Qur 'an, who these individuals were, and how many chapters it consists of? In other words, not the manuscripts of the
01:45:53: Qur 'an, but a document telling you so and so did this, what is the earliest document? A document saying about the preservation of the
01:45:58: Qur 'an. He's looking for extra Qur 'anic information Okay. that tells you so and so compiled the
01:46:05: Qur 'an at this time, and he wants to know what's the date of that documentation? Okay, that's a really good question.
01:46:12: We have very early Hadith literature. The Hadith did not come 200 years later. I think it's there.
01:46:19: You can read Studies in Early Hadith Literature by M .M. Azzam, I think his name, but that's the title,
01:46:25: Studies of Early Hadith Literature, and he proves that the Qur 'an was that how the
01:46:31: Qur 'an or he shows, you know, Hadith literature that shows that the Qur 'an was perfectly preserved unlike the
01:46:37: New Testament by people who knew Prophet Muhammad. Okay, I'll try to answer the question.
01:46:43: There is nothing in the Qur 'an that tells you there are 114 surahs. In fact, Ubaid Ibn Ka 'b had a different number of surahs as did
01:46:49: Ibn Masud, and so that was an issue of conflict, and so it was a process.
01:46:56: The Sahih Al -Bukhari 6 .519 and 5 .10 is probably the earliest information you're going to get, which goes back to an earlier tradition as to regards to the
01:47:03: Uthmanic recension where Uthman takes the original manuscript from Hafsa, also compiles other sources, and then burns the sources he used to create the finalized version that has the exact number of surahs in the form that we have in the
01:47:17: Uthmanic revision, and then you have at least 100 years where Ibn Masud's readings continue to exist in some of those early manuscripts.
01:47:23: Even though people might want to deny that reality, the reality remains the reality. Final question.
01:47:30: You guys ready? Yeah. All right. Hope I didn't put you to sleep. I know it's hard because when you see someone this gorgeous, it's...
01:47:36: I'm not kidding. All right. Here. Sam. Sam, do you need this?
01:47:43: Okay. Here goes the question. Dr. White alluded to the mi 'raj on more than one occasion.
01:47:51: Question. According to the Qur 'an, chapter 17, verse 1, Muhammad was taken to a journey to the farthest mosque.
01:48:00: What is that farthest mosque? If you say it's the Jewish temple, is it not true that the
01:48:07: Jewish temple no longer existed during the time of Muhammad? So what temple could he possibly visited when there was none?
01:48:16: That's a really good point. Unfortunately, I don't have the information with me, but there's a really good website, www .islamic
01:48:24: -awareness .com, www .islamic -awareness .org. If you go to external contradictions, you could see that you could have an answer to that polemic.
01:48:36: But in the Arabic language, wherever you point your head, it's a mosque. It doesn't have to be a physical place there.
01:48:43: So I would just encourage everybody to go to www .islamic -awareness .org, external contradictions.
01:48:49: They answer that question or that polemic. Thank you. Well, very clearly, we have a contradiction here.
01:48:56: We've been told over and over again, well, the New Testament is full of contradictions. But when you then encounter the very same kind of data that the scholars that he has relied upon would use to indicate that the
01:49:08: Quran has later compilers, that has anachronisms, oh, go to a website and we'll have an answer for that.
01:49:14: If I answered all the objections this evening, go to a website and there's an answer for any alleged contradiction, would we have had much of a dialogue this evening?
01:49:23: The fact of the matter is that the very same scholarship that he's relied upon would see this as clear evidence of the later editing process, addition process, in the compilation writing of the
01:49:36: Quran. Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. If you're a Muslim here this evening and you hear that, please take the time.
01:49:45: Look at believing Christian literature that's not soaked in humanism and atheism and you'll discover the
01:49:51: New Testament is fully defensible. Take a look at it. Thank you. This concludes the formal portion of our debate and again, let's give both of these gentlemen an applause.