Keep sharing good news without ads.
The concluding portion of the debate.
Let me point just one thing out, because I'd love to say much more about this, but I've only got two minutes. I wish I could hold this up, and there were notes at the bottom of the page that would tell you the variant readings found in the palimpsest manuscripts and the earliest manuscripts of the Quran, but I can't.
Christians want to have this information, and I would challenge Muslims to consider why don't you have the manuscript evidence at the bottom of this page, too? I think we all need to be open about that, and I, as a New Testament scholar, believe the evidence ends up substantiating the entire New Testament manuscript spectacles.
All right.
Nadir, one minute. Reply. We are ready to debate the authenticity of the Quran any time. You just let me know, and we'll prove that the Quran has been 100 authentic. Now, like I said, because I know, you know, like I said, this is a difficult job to do when you challenge people for evidence for their religion.
If you notice, in the beginning of my talk, I said I will accept all of the Bible as being unchanged, and that they accurately reflect the original documents. Now, let me ask you a question, James. This is rhetorical.
Have you ever met a guy who's so nice who would give you that as a premise for the debate? Not very many people, because it doesn't really matter when the whole origin of New Testament Christianity is baseless to begin with.
You have a false prophet named Paul who started to say, yeah, I saw, I saw, I seen Revelation. Then you have these other churches saying, wait a second, we also have the message of Jesus, too, and they have their Gospels, and so basically one church beats out the other church, and then they present a Bible for Christians to follow, but there's no evidence for what they're saying.
Number two. We had one great question, and let's keep that rolling. Number two. All right.
As-salamu alaykum to both speakers, because my question is, according to the book of Mark, in chapter 34, verse 33, 34, and 35. There's no 34 in Mark. Matthew. There's no 34. There's no 34. No, there's no verses.
Oh, 30 Mark? Verses. Oh, all right. Well, chapter? Chapter 30. 16's the last one for Mark. Give me the chapter. Yeah, yeah. Go to the chapter. All right. In the book of Mark is this. Somewhere in the book. is in verse 33, 34, and 35, it says, where Jesus told Peter that he was going away to the garden of Gethsemane, and he was going to pray.
Now, according to that verse, Jesus, he said that he went and he fell on his face, and he was going to pray to God. Now, how do you explain, if we can trust the New Testament, that the Christians say that he is God, and he's God in the flesh?
He's God incarnate. So, how would God pray to another God?
That's more of a question on deity. We are having a debate on that on Sunday, but we'll go ahead and have that. Two minutes and one minute. Go ahead. In fact, could I have an indulgence here just a moment?
Hamza, are you here? Hamza Abdul-Malik. I hope you don't mind my pointing you out. Hamza Abdul-Malik was the first Muslim with whom I ever debated in public in 1999 in Syosset, Long Island, and I thank you for a respectful debate these many years later.
And what was the subject of our debate? Does the New Testament teach the divinity of Christ? Does the New Testament teach the divinity of Christ? So, we still have that available, and I think you would find that we address that specific subject.
So, can I have the two minutes just to address it? Okay, I just wanted to point out and thank Mr. Malik for the debate from years ago. The problem that most of my Muslim friends have is because you approach the text with a Unitarian assumption.
We are not telling you. I honestly do not believe that the Doctrine of the Trinity involves Shirk, and I'll tell you why. There is one divine name in the Old Testament. That's the name Yahweh. Who is it used of in the New?
It's used of the Father, it's used of the Son, and the Spirit is the Spirit of Yahweh. One name, three persons distinguished from one another. This is not a god speaking to a god. Jesus Christ became flesh, and as a human being, if for just a moment, if Allah, for some reason, for his own purposes, in his own glory, chose to enter into flesh, would that man be an atheist?
Or would he not be the greatest example of worship and prayer? He's not praying to himself, he's praying to the Father. It's not the Father who became flesh, it's the Son. We do not believe that Jesus is the Father.
He is clearly distinguished from the Father. But all bear the one divine name of Yahweh. It is the Son who entered in, and so it is natural for the Son to pray to the Father, to continue that perfect communion that he's had with him from eternity past.
And it is only the assertion that the nature of God can only be shared by one person that limits your understanding here. The Christian doesn't believe that. The Christian believes that the being of God is infinite and eternal, and therefore, while your being and my being, being finite, can only be shared by one person, God's being, being infinite, can be shared by three persons.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That's the consistent message of the New Testament. So, no, that's not one God praying to another. That's the incarnate Son praying to the non-incarnate Father. I'll just put in a plug for that debate between James White and Dr. Malik.
That was a great debate, and I think you'd get...
