1 Muslim vs. 20 Christian Women | The Bridge

0:00Absolute [music] oneness is more in line

0:02with God's nature than the Trinity.

0:04>> And even more scary, if God can change

0:06to become a relational God, then that

0:09means [music] he can change again and

0:10decide that he doesn't want to be a

0:11relational God.

0:12>> Do you believe that the persons of the

0:13Trinity are merciful to one another?

0:15Because [music] mercy in this instance

0:16would imply that one of the persons of

0:18the Trinity is doing something wrong.

0:19The Quran is the [music] final

0:21revelation of God.

0:22>> The miracle of the Quran is that

0:24Muhammad is illiterate, but he gets all

0:26these things right. We believe that the

0:28Quran comes and [music] it corrects

0:31aspects of the previous scriptures that

0:32were changed by the hands of man.

0:34>> The Quran actually obviously affirms

0:36[music] the previous scriptures and the

0:38second Muhammad finds those previous

0:40scriptures for the world to see.

0:41>> Jesus is a Muslim.

0:43>> I think we can't divorce Judaism from

0:45this conversation. Jesus was Jewish. He

0:48followed Jewish traditions. He was born

0:49of Jews. So if we're going to say

0:51anything, Jesus was a Jew. Allah rejects

0:54being a father [music] in every sense.

0:56How can the Jesus that taught us to pray

0:58to our father? How can he be Muslim?

1:00>> I believe that Jesus [music] was a

1:02Muslim, obviously external to the Bible,

1:04I believe that this theology is

1:05reflected within the Quran. The

1:07crucifixion of Jesus is not [music] a

1:09wellestablished historical event. I

1:11think that's interesting because the

1:12crucifixion of Jesus is the most

1:14well-known historically attested event.

1:16There is still documentation coming out

1:17[music] today about archaeologists

1:20finding Old Testament like journals and

1:22stuff written on stone tablets saying

1:24claiming that they [music] saw Jesus

1:25after he rose from the dead. Muhammad

1:27peace be upon him is the final messenger

1:29of God.

1:30>> Another requirement for prophethood is

1:32continuity. There is no continuity with

1:34Muhammad.

1:34>> You have to preach the exact same God.

1:37If you concede that the prophets of the

1:39Old Testament did not preach the

1:40Trinity, then you can say that, for

1:42example, it wasn't fully revealed and so

1:43on and so forth. Is there someone that

1:44you're thinking you may want to have a

1:46deeper conversation with? Felt like this

1:48person had some substance [music] to

1:49offer and I did want to be able to

1:51retort to all of it.

1:59Hi everyone, [music] welcome to the Dr.

2:01Dav Show. Today I'm here with one Muslim

2:03woman, Kora, having a conversation with

2:0620 Christians. Kora came up with her own

2:08prompts. So we're really excited about

2:10this conversation. I'll give you the

2:12floor. All right, for sure. My first

2:15prompt is absolute oneness is more in

2:18line with God's nature than the Trinity.

2:23My name is Kora.

2:24>> My name is Shanasa. My name is Ty. My

2:27name is Eor. My name is Sierra.

2:30>> Hi, perfect. Nice to meet all of you

2:31guys. Uh, the reason why I chose this

2:34prompt is coming from a Muslim

2:35perspective, I don't believe that the

2:37Trinity is portrayed anywhere in God's

2:40divine revelation. I believe that God is

2:42absolutely one both in essence and in

2:45personhood. And I do also believe and

2:47you are going to conflict with this that

2:49the trinity entails polytheism. What do

2:51you guys think about that?

2:52>> I disagree obviously. I believe that um

2:56if God is strictly monotheistic, it

2:58actually serves more problems than it

3:00solves. For example, I would be curious

3:03to know from you, what would prompt a

3:05god who was strictly monotheistic, alone

3:08and essent essentially isolated to

3:10decide to become a relational god? That

3:12would mean that he went from being alone

3:15at one point in time and then he changed

3:17to become a relational god in order to

3:19create creation. And the issue is that

3:21he essentially changed. And if God can

3:24change, then I would conclude that God

3:26is not eternal. And even more scary, if

3:29God can change to become a relational

3:31God, then that means he can change again

3:33and decide that he doesn't want to be a

3:34relational God. But the distinction is

3:36that with the Trinity, we have a God

3:38that has always been relational because

3:40he's triune in his nature. We have a God

3:43that is love by his very essence. So

3:46when he decides to create creation and

3:48relate to them, it's not a foreign

3:49concept to him unlike it would be with

3:51Allah. The Quran, as you know,

3:53introduces nearly every surah with the

3:57most merciful and the most benevolent.

3:59And my problem with that again is how

4:02would Allah be able to be merciful if he

4:04is strictly monotheistic and in order to

4:07demonstrate that mercy, he would have to

4:08have become a relational god.

4:10>> Okay, perfect. So, do you believe that

4:12the persons of the trinity are merciful

4:13to one another? Because mercy in this

4:15instance would imply that one of the

4:16persons of the trinity is doing

4:18something wrong. And also another point

4:20that I wanted to point touch on is you

4:22said that there's a problem with and I'm

4:24going to quote your words of Adam God

4:25being strictly monotheistic. So you

4:27don't believe strict monotheism.

4:29>> Not in the sense of now to answer your

4:31second question mercy is something that

4:33is relational but it's a derivative of

4:36love. Allah to my understanding isn't

4:38love. So if God who is love and who has

4:41always been love becomes a relational

4:43God the n national deriv natural

4:46derivative would be to be merciful. What

4:48essentially I'm saying, it's not an

4:49extension for a God who has always been

4:51love to when he comes into relationship

4:54with someone else to be mercy, but a God

4:56that is not love, it would be foreign to

4:58him to all of a sudden be merciful. And

5:00it would also be problematic because it

5:02shows that he was not merciful for all

5:04eternity.

5:04>> Okay, perfect. I want to make sure that

5:05everybody else is included, but I'm

5:07going to respond to that point right

5:08there. So, there isn't a problem with

5:10God eternally possessing the ability to

5:12do specific things. For example, you as

5:15Christians believe that God is a jealous

5:16God, right? You don't believe that God

5:18was jealous before creation because he

5:20has nobody to be jealous over. Right?

5:22Because jealousy in this instance is

5:23going to be talk about talking about

5:24people worshiping other gods. You don't

5:27believe that God was jealous before

5:29creation because unless you want to say

5:30that the persons of the trinity were

5:32worshiping other gods, then you'd have

5:34to say that God in that instance would

5:35have changed. And on top of that, you

5:37guys also believe that Jesus incarnated

5:40and he is the second person of the

5:42trinity and he took on a second nature.

5:44That is also a change to God because God

5:47went from having one nature to

5:48participating in the hypothatic union

5:50and having two natures. So you as a

5:52Christian cannot have problems with God

5:54changing because within trinitarian

5:56framework you believe sorry you guys

5:57believe that God changed as well. But I

5:59want to hear from you guys as well.

6:00>> So I want to talk about the part where

6:01you mentioned the jealousy and God is

6:04love. So let's get this clear right. The

6:06Bible says that God is love. So that's

6:08not something that he does that's

6:09something that he is. So now that we

6:11have an understanding of that, we know

6:12that it always existed because of the

6:14triune relationship. The father loves

6:16the son, the son loves the father, the

6:17holy spirit binds that love. All right.

6:19So when you mention, oh, was God

6:21jealous? Did he act upon jealousy? No.

6:23Jealousy is righteous in the way that

6:25God acts because it is an extension of

6:27his love. So it's not that, oh, they

6:29were jealous of each other. It's the

6:30same concept with mercy. Mercy is an

6:32extension of his love. Not that, oh, he

6:35had to be merciful to his creation to

6:37then be merciful. No, he is already

6:39love. So what stems out of love? Mercy.

6:42What stems out of love? Righteous

6:44jealousy. That's what stems out of it.

6:46So I think you have a misunderstanding

6:47of oh how God acts upon jealousy because

6:49you believe in a unitarian God. So your

6:52God does that. But on the other hand,

6:53our God doesn't do do that. Our God

6:55embodies love.

6:56>> Perfect. So you mentioned God being love

6:59and so on and so forth. Obviously

7:00according to you guys and according to

7:02Christians, God is love. Do you guys

7:04agree that God is the greatest

7:06conceivable being? the greatest being

7:08that you could possibly think of and so

7:09on and so forth. And you guys obviously

7:11believe that shared love is better than

7:13just you know possessing love within

7:14yourself.

7:15>> Yes.

7:15>> And do you guys believe that there is a

7:17form of love higher than that or is

7:19shared love the highest form of love?

7:20>> Shared love is the highest form of love.

7:21Self-directed love is not.

7:23>> Okay. Perfect.

7:23>> The highest form.

7:24>> So would you say that God being triune

7:26shows that God has the highest form of

7:29love? Right. Because he's sharing love

7:31with two other persons. Right.

7:33>> You would say that. Correct.

7:34>> Correct. Okay. Shared love. Corporate

7:36love. relational love is the highest

7:37form of love.

7:38>> Okay. And would you also agree that

7:40sharing love with more people is greater

7:41than sharing love with, for example,

7:43only one person. Would you agree with

7:44that?

7:46>> Where you getting with this?

7:47>> Yeah. The place that I'm getting at is

7:48if you believe that love in and of

7:50itself, in order for God to be love, he

7:52needs to be expressing love um within

7:54his essence, relational love, and you

7:56think that God is the greatest

7:57conceivable being. And you think that

7:58that's why trinitarianism is true

8:00because God needs to be doing this. Then

8:02you would also be accepting that it

8:03follows that God should be more than

8:05three persons.

8:06>> Never it never was God needs to is that

8:08I think this is once again I think slow

8:10listen.

8:11>> Wait, so God doesn't need to be loving.

8:13>> So

8:13>> he is loving. He doesn't need to be

8:15loving. And that particular phrasing is

8:18smuggling in something into the doctrine

8:20that we do not hold on. Hold on. So does

8:22your God need to be loving as well?

8:23>> Wait. So So does God can God be God

8:25without being loving? That's my

8:27question. When I say needs to be, I'm

8:28asking, can God be God without being

8:31according to you guys? Love.

8:32>> I was going to say he doesn't have to

8:34be. I think that's the point that the

8:35leaders are making. He doesn't have to

8:36be. He is because that's his essence.

8:39And so I do have a counter question for

8:41you. Y

8:42>> do you believe to be loving is to be

8:44selfless? Uh, no, not by necessity

8:46because there's love in three forms,

8:49right? You guys would probably agree and

8:51two of those forms are you can have

8:53selflove and you can also have

8:54relational love. Those are two of these

8:56forms. You can still be loving without

8:58having a sense of relational love. And

9:00the other point that I was getting into

9:02is the reason why I was asking do you

9:04believe that God is the greatest

9:05conceivable being is because I see a lot

9:06of people saying that the reason why we

9:09need a triune God is because we need God

9:11to possess relational love. That is

9:13something that's implied by his essence.

9:15God is love. So when we have God, we

9:17also have love. That's why I think you

9:18guys kind of have a problem with the

9:19terminology need. But all I mean by that

9:21is if there is if God exists, then there

9:24is love. And if God is not loving, then

9:26that wouldn't be the God that we're

9:27speaking about. That's what I need mean

9:28by need.

9:28>> I just want to say for me when I think

9:30about the prompt that you pose, I ask

9:32myself three questions. You answered the

9:34first question, which is what is

9:36absolute oneness? You've already

9:37answered that question. You've explained

9:38what it is for you as a Muslim. The

9:40second question I ask myself is what um

9:44what is the nature of God? And when I

9:46think about the nature of God, I think

9:47about the fruits of the spirit. And one

9:49of those fruits of the spirit is really

9:50hard to showcase without selflessness.

9:54We see that Jesus is the trinity or

9:57excuse me, we see that uh God is the

9:59trinity because he gave of himself, gave

10:02his son so that we could be in right

10:06standing with him again. and we are the

10:08ones that decided to not be in right

10:10standing with him. And so that's very

10:11selfless. He could have said, "You know

10:13what? You guys forgett it. You guys, you

10:15know, you you walked away. I don't have

10:17to do anything." He thought differently

10:19to say, "I love them so much that I'm

10:22actually going to give you guys another

10:24chance. I'm giving of myself." And so

10:27that's why he gave his son. But my issue

10:29with that would be, would you, again,

10:31because this would imply, this is why I

10:33believe that within Islam, we believe

10:35that repentance is sufficient for us to

10:37essentially be forgiven. Would you say

10:38that God required a human sacrifice in

10:41order to forgive us? Or would you say

10:42that he could have forgiven us without a

10:44human sacrifice? Means,

10:45>> no, he didn't require it, but he decided

10:46to.

10:47>> Okay.

10:47>> If we're saying that you believe that

10:49God is is the ultimate God, that he is

10:52um the most high, right? You agree with

10:54that?

10:54>> Yeah, I believe that God is the most

10:55high. Yes, God is the most high and he

10:58does decide what he wants to do. But I'm

10:59going to ask you a question then. What

11:01what do you think is more reflective of

11:02a just God? A God that says the one who

11:06sins is the one who is held accountable

11:07or the God who says that he is going to

11:08send his innocent son to die for our

11:10sins. Who is more just to you? If you

11:11don't mind me asking.

11:12>> Can I just say this? You don't want

11:14justice. You want mercy. Because if we

11:16got justice, none of us would be here.

11:18So I don't I don't even want to

11:20acknowledge such a question because my

11:22preference will always be mercy. But you

11:24believe God is just, correct?

11:25>> He is just with

11:26>> the most.

11:28>> He is the most just.

11:29>> Okay. So, what's more just? Like, what

11:30is more just to you? A God who holds the

11:32people who sin accountable or a God that

11:34sends an innocent man to die for the

11:36sins of mankind? Which is more just?

11:38>> Can I start by saying that sin requires

11:40a penalty? Okay. There's a penalty that

11:42always must be satisfied and that's the

11:44justice aspect. God in his mercy can

11:47choose to satisfy that penalty any way

11:49that he wants to. So you're trying to

11:50force a false dichotomy to make it seem

11:53as if it has to be one or the other. But

11:55the God that we serve is both equally

11:57merciful and equally just. And that is

11:59why he chose to demonstrate that justice

12:01and that mercy on the cross.

12:02>> Okay, perfect. And I want to shift over,

12:04but I'm going to respond to that as

12:05well. So God is capable of choosing

12:07whatever means. But I'm asking which

12:10option is the most just? So I mean if

12:13you would like to answer, I would like

12:14to hear from you because it feels like

12:15I've been having a conversation with

12:17everybody else and I haven't really

12:17heard from you.

12:18In your personal opinion, what do you

12:20think is more just? God holding the

12:22person who sins accountable, whether it

12:24be through means of, for example,

12:25repentance. We see this all over the

12:27Quran and not just the Quran, but within

12:28the Old Testament where God says that if

12:31somebody upholds the law and they turn

12:32away from the sin that he will forget,

12:34he will forget that they ever sinned.

12:35What do you think is more just that or a

12:38human sacrifice for these people's sins?

12:40What do you think is more just?

12:41>> So sacrifices were to atone for sins.

12:44Okay. So when you kind of say either or,

12:48it doesn't necessarily make sense

12:50because sacrifices were to atone for the

12:53sin. So as you can see today, we don't

12:56come to the altar with um uh blemishless

13:00animals, laying them on the altar for

13:02our sins, but we are covered in the

13:04blood of Jesus because of that sacrifice

13:07that Jesus um came to to accomplish on

13:10the cross to die for our sins. So when

13:12we go back to the prompt which is the

13:14nature of God, you can agree that the

13:17nature of God is love. Correct.

13:18>> I believe that God possesses love within

13:21his name. I don't believe I don't

13:22believe that God is identical to love.

13:24No,

13:24>> you don't.

13:24>> I believe that God possesses love within

13:26his essence.

13:27>> So where do you get your definition of

13:29love from?

13:29>> Yeah. So we can grant that love is

13:31something that is relational. But when

13:33we say that God possesses love within

13:35his essence, what we mean by this is

13:37that God eternally possesses the ability

13:40to be loving to his creation and loving

13:42to things outside of himself, relational

13:43love. He always possesses that ability.

13:45But I wanted to touch back because you

13:47mentioned animal sacrifice for sin

13:48atonement. I didn't ask about just

13:50sacrifice generally. I specified human

13:52sacrifice. So we obviously agree that

13:55God is just, correct?

13:56>> Right. Okay. So human sacrifice, you're

13:58talking about

13:58>> Yes. about the Yes. Jesus incarnating

14:00and being the atonement. Scripture tells

14:02us that when Jesus came to earth, it was

14:06the divinity of God within the human

14:09body. So when you're looking at it,

14:11you're only seeing the outward

14:13appearance, which is the physical body,

14:15the man Jesus that came. But you know

14:17that we are body, we are soul, and we

14:19are spirit, right? So when you think

14:21about God, God came in a fleshly body

14:26which was the vessel to accomplish what

14:28he came to do on the cross. Okay,

14:30perfect. But you believe that father

14:32Yeah. But you believe that the father

14:34sent the son who is a man that was

14:35completely and utterly blameless. But

14:37your salvation is based on the fact that

14:39Jesus is completely blameless, right?

14:41And he is the only blameless man to have

14:43walked the earth. And that's why he is

14:44capable of atoning for your sins. But my

14:46question because I want to tie it back

14:47because I told

14:48>> Sorry, I just want to I just want to

14:49that point right there. Sorry. John 17

14:51tells us that actually Jesus existed

14:53before the world began when he's praying

14:54to his father. I'm going to go off

14:57scripture because I believe in the Holy

14:58Bible, the the word of God. And John 17

15:01tells us that Jesus existed. He's

15:04praying to the father and he's saying,

15:05"Father, glorify me in your presence."

15:09In your presence. Which lets you know

15:10that Jesus doesn't do anything outside

15:12of the presence of his father. He says

15:14with the glory that I shared with you

15:16before the world existed, which means

15:18that Jesus existed before the world was

15:20created. And then he came in a body.

15:24>> Okay, perfect. So that was a a specific

15:25mission that he came to reconcile.

15:28>> Okay. Yeah. I want to respond to that.

15:30So in John 17, the verse that you quoted

15:32is verse 5. What's interesting is the

15:34language that Jesus uses is he says,

15:36"Glorify me with the glory that I had

15:38with you before creation." Correct?

15:39Right.

15:40>> We have a very similar verse because we

15:42see this language being used all over

15:44the Bible. before creation, before

15:45creation, before creation. We see a

15:47similar verse in the book of Revelations

15:49where it says that Jesus was slaughtered

15:52before the creation of the world. Now,

15:54does this mean that Jesus Wait, does

15:56this mean Wait, sorry. Does this mean

15:58that Jesus was literally um slaughtered

16:01before the creation of the world? No.

16:03This is something called idiomatic

16:05prophetic language. As you said, it's

16:06prophecy. So Jesus isn't saying that he

16:09possessed glory eternally because you

16:11agree that that's prophetic language in

16:12Revelation. Jesus is saying in John 17:5

16:16that it is so certain that Jesus was

16:18going to come and he was going to be the

16:19the Messiah and a righteous man and so

16:20on and so forth that he was going to be

16:22glorified by God. He's not saying that

16:24he possessed it from eternity. And we

16:25also see another verse in I believe it's

16:28second Peter where it says something

16:30similar about the disciples that the

16:31disciples were blessed before creation.

16:34And it's very similar language to John

16:3617:5. Right? So we see this language all

16:39over repeated both in the New Testament.

16:41But this doesn't mean that the people

16:42being spoken about are eternal.

16:44>> How do you make the distinction that

16:45revelation is prophetic idiomatic

16:47language as opposed to John 17 being

16:51literal language? What do you base that

16:52off of?

16:53>> Okay, perfect. So, we see that every

16:55single instance in which this phrase is

16:58used before the creation, before the

16:59creation of the earth, and so on and so

17:01forth. For example, in Revelations, for

17:02example, the verse that I cited in um in

17:04Peter, right? We see that both of these

17:07are prophetic. And we also see language

17:09like this in the Old Testament. The

17:10reason why I interpret it to be

17:12prophetic and not literal is because the

17:14other instances in the Bible where it

17:16speaks like this, it is speaking

17:17prophetically. And also another reason

17:19is I would ask, do you believe that

17:21there's anything eternal alongside God?

17:23>> The one God.

17:24>> No, but you do.

17:25>> Okay, perfect. So if an individual Okay,

17:28perfect. Well, we'll touch on that in a

17:29second. So if you don't believe that

17:31there's anything eternal alongside God,

17:33it's interesting that we went to John

17:3417:5. Let's go to uh John 17:3 where

17:37Jesus addresses the father and says,

17:39"They may know you, the only true God."

17:40So in John 17:3, who's Jesus calling the

17:44only true God? Who is he speaking to?

17:45>> He's speaking to the father just like

17:46the father spoke to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8

17:48and it says, "I will glorify you and

17:50your kingdom will be eternal. You have a

17:52scepter of righteousness." He says, he

17:54speaks to the son. He says, "And to the

17:56son,

17:56>> I want to tie it back to John 17:5."

17:58Sorry, John 17:3. So Jesus is calling

18:00the father the only true God. Is Jesus

18:02the father?

18:03>> Jesus.

18:04>> Jesus is the son. Okay. So, he's not the

18:06father then. So, if Jesus is calling the

18:07father the only true God and Jesus is

18:09not the father, then Jesus is not the

18:11only true God as per his own words. But

18:12you touched on Hebrews, right? I have a

18:14question. Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

18:16>> I believe it's Paul, but no one knows

18:17necessarily.

18:18>> Okay, perfect. So, why should I accept

18:19the book of Hebrews as divine revelation

18:21if we don't know who wrote it?

18:22>> Do you know who wrote Revelation?

18:23>> Yeah, apparing to you, it's John.

18:25>> Okay.

18:26>> Okay, perfect. So, according to you

18:27guys, John wrote the book of Revelation.

18:29So, again, I want to ask that question.

18:31Why do we accept Hebrews as divine

18:33revelation when we don't know who wrote

18:34it? And to be consistent, if

18:36hypothetically speaking, we had no idea

18:38who the scribes of the Quran were and so

18:40on and so forth and it's a book that

18:41came out of thin air, you guys would be

18:43pressing us Muslims and saying, "Why

18:44would you believe in this book and we

18:45don't know who authored it and so on and

18:46so forth." So, I'm asking for

18:48consistency. Why do you believe in the

18:50book of Hebrews if you don't know who

18:51wrote it?

18:51>> I wouldn't even go that route in saying

18:53who wrote who wrote the Quran. It was

18:55it's just the concept of the doctrines

18:56that's in it that would make us question

18:58it. It's not even about who wrote it

18:59because remember we believe that man was

19:02utilized as a vessel inspired by the

19:03power of the Holy Spirit to write

19:04things. So I don't think a Christian

19:06would do that. If they do that they're

19:07wrong just like how they were wrong with

19:08the God needing love. Um God doesn't

19:10need to be love. And Cory I want to ask

19:11you a question. Do you think that God

19:13needs to be omnipresent?

19:14>> What does it mean to be omnipresent? To

19:16be present in every single time every

19:17single time.

19:18>> Wait. Do you think that God needs to be

19:19omnipresent? You're a God.

19:20>> No. I I don't believe that God is

19:21omnipresent in in his essence in the

19:23first place as a Muslim. I don't believe

19:24that God is in every single place at

19:26every single point in time. My God is

19:27not in hell. Wow.

19:28>> My God is not in all these different

19:29impure places and so on and so forth.

19:31God is not. However, wait, hold on.

19:33However, I believe that God is

19:34omnipresent in terms of his knowledge.

19:36He knows all things.

19:37>> Okay. All right. So, let's go to the

19:38other route.

19:39>> I I do want I do want my question

19:42>> or authorship is not the only thing that

19:44can authenticate scripture. You also

19:46have to remember that this is a

19:47spiritual book and the book of Hebrews

19:49is exceptionally consistent with the

19:51rest of the corpus of

19:52>> script. But writing a book that's

19:53consistent with this divine revelation.

19:55>> Beyond that, there are identifiers that

19:57make it clear that the likelihood is

19:59that Paul wrote it. Personally, I am

20:00very convinced that Paul wrote it.

20:01>> There's a disagree. You agree that

20:02there's a dispute. There's a

20:03disagreement in who wrote the book of

20:04Hebrews. So, you said that authorship

20:06isn't the only thing that identifies

20:08whether or not something is divine

20:09revelation. You also said consistency,

20:10but something being consistent doesn't

20:12mean that it's divine. I can write a

20:14book right now that is consistent with

20:15the four gospels, and that doesn't mean

20:16it's the fifth gospel. So, why would we

20:18apply this consistency criteria to

20:20Hebrews when we don't know who wrote it?

20:22We don't know whether or not they were

20:23reliable. We don't know whether or not

20:24he was just saying things about God that

20:26sounded similar to what was going on in

20:28the Bible and it happened sim at the

20:30same exact time in which the Bible was

20:32being canonized and so on and so forth

20:33and ended up being accepted. Why? And I

20:35want to circle back to the question. Why

20:36do we accept Hebrews as divine

20:37revelation if we don't have any criteria

20:40of authentication for it?

20:41>> So in my perspective,

20:44the Holy Spirit is the author of every

20:46single book in the Bible. It's not

20:48relevant to me if the author is

20:50disputed. If the message is consistent,

20:52you talked about if I shared something

20:53that comes alongside with the scripture.

20:55If it lines up with the scripture, then

20:57that's good. That means that the Holy

20:58Spirit is also within whatever you are

21:01saying. So there's not an issue to me

21:03personally as far as authorship is

21:05concerned to legitimize whether it

21:07should be canonized or not. The idea is

21:09that the Bible is written essentially by

21:11God's Holy Spirit. The book Hebrews is

21:14consistent with the rest of the corpus

21:16of scripture and it speaks the same

21:18message consistently.

21:22You know when your makeup looks good at

21:24first, but a few hours later it just

21:26feels heavy and off, almost like it's

21:29caking and working [music] against your

21:31skin. If you can relate, I'd recommend

21:33trying organic makeup that works more

21:35like skinincare. [music] That's actually

21:38what led me to OG, a certified organic

21:40beauty brand [music] that performs like

21:43luxury makeup. What stood out to me is

21:45how different their formula is.

21:48>> [music]

21:48>> Most products are 80 to 90% pigment and

21:51filler, but OG flips that. Their crystal

21:54contour collection is made with [music]

21:56nearly 90% skinare ingredients. Things

21:58like green coffee oil, [music]

22:00elderberry extract, and cold pressed

22:02Hoba. These ingredients I would normally

22:05invest in for skin care. With OG, they

22:09just happen to be in [music] my makeup.

22:11I also used to like to shop in the clean

22:14beauty section [music]

22:15until I realized that term doesn't

22:17really mean anything, but OG is NSF

22:21[music] certified organic, which is one

22:23of the most rigorous standards out

22:25there, so you know exactly what you're

22:28putting on your skin every [music] day.

22:30No synthetic fragrance, artificial

22:32fillers, or unnecessary additives. It's

22:35also just really easy to [music] use.

22:37three sticks, copper for warmth, rose

22:40quartz for natural flush, and opal for

22:43glow. I can do my whole face in about 5

22:46minutes, and it looks [music] just like

22:48I'm having a really good skin day. And

22:50what I love is that it actually lasts by

22:53the end of the day. It still feels

22:55light, and my skin still looks fresh and

22:57defined. The contour collection blends

23:00effortlessly, and the finish is

23:02breathable. It enhances my skin instead

23:05of just sitting on top of it. If you're

23:07[music] ready to raise your beauty

23:09standards, OG's got you covered. Go to

23:12og.com/daf

23:14[music]

23:15and use a code daff for 20% off. That's

23:18og.com/daf

23:21[music]

23:22and enter the code daff to get 20% off.

23:26My next prompt is the Quran is the final

23:28revelation of God.

23:32My name is Kora.

23:33>> My name is Shanasa.

23:34>> My name is Danielle Olivia. I'm Marian.

23:37My name is Belle.

23:38>> All right, perfect. Uh, the reason why I

23:40picked this prompt is I mostly tried to

23:42pick prompts pertaining to Islam just so

23:44everybody can get their word in in terms

23:46of why they disagree and so on and so

23:47forth. But the main reason why I believe

23:49that the Quran is the final revelation

23:51of God is because I believe that it

23:53contains content that only God could

23:56have known. You guys obviously agree

23:58because I believe in second Peter it

23:59actually says explicitly that everything

24:01that is prophetic and spoken from a

24:03prophet is going to be initially from

24:05the Holy Spirit right that's written in

24:07second Peter so if there is prophetic

24:10content and so on and so forth according

24:11to you guys it's going to be coming from

24:13God there's a multitude of reasons why I

24:15also believe in this but I want to hear

24:16your thoughts why don't you guys believe

24:18that the Quran is the final revelation

24:19of God

24:20>> yeah and I actually to almost agree with

24:21you so the miracle of the Quran is that

24:23Muhammad is like illiterate but he gets

24:26all these things right. Right. And I

24:28don't want to talk about the theology

24:29that he gets right or you know morals

24:30that he gets right. I want to talk about

24:31the stories of the prophets because the

24:33Quran is 6,000 plus verses and it

24:35contains 1100 verses about stories of

24:37the prophets. That's a whole 16th of the

24:39Quran. Meaning if he gets any of those

24:4316th of the Quran stories wrong then

24:45he's not a prophet. Right? And so for

24:47example in 12:3 this is the chapter of

24:50Joseph. Right? Allah is saying before

24:52this Muhammad you didn't know anything

24:53about the story of Joseph and he reveals

24:5598 verses in detail about Joseph and he

24:58closes this chapter in verse 111 by

25:00saying this is a confirmation of the

25:02previous scriptures and a detailed

25:05explanation of all things so it's a

25:06confirmation also in its details and so

25:08I read the 98 verses but then when I go

25:10and I search the Torah's version of

25:13Joseph I find incredible amounts of

25:17differences and they're irreconcilable

25:18too you know sometimes it's like oh

25:20maybe he was this age and like I mean no

25:22like they're irreconcilable and there's

25:23944 differences just in those 98 verses

25:27of Joseph and to me that that's really

25:29hard to reconcile um and the only reason

25:31Muhammad would be a true prophet

25:34revealing the correct Quran is that if

25:36the Quran's account of the prophets do

25:38match up and you probably know verse 10

25:40verse 94 yes I do it says if you're in

25:42doubt go and read or go and ask

25:44>> go and ask those who read the scriptures

25:45>> and the context of that is right before

25:48it's stories of Moses Noah Jacob Jacob,

25:50sorry, not Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Noah,

25:52other prophets. And then like when the

25:53Israelites like settling in in the

25:55promised land, all these things, which

25:56are all stories you can find in the Old

25:58Testament. And so if the people in the

26:00seventh century are in doubt that

26:01Muhammad's revealing all these stories

26:03of the prophets, they have to go read

26:04the previous scripture. And so when we

26:06go and look at not only the seventh

26:07century text, but the Dead Sea Scrolls

26:09from the 250s and the first century, not

26:11even even extra biblical text, right?

26:13You have Pho of Alexandria. He's a Greek

26:15philosopher, no motive for religion. Um

26:17you have the Roman historian Josephus

26:19and then you have the Codex Alexandrinus

26:21Syriak Bashida in Syriak Greek Latin all

26:24these different all these different

26:25languages all talking about the same

26:27story of Joseph way before Muhammad's

26:29time Muhammad comes with 98 verses of

26:31complete contradictions

26:33>> okay perfect I want to touch on that

26:34it's interesting that you brought up

26:35specifically surah Ysef or the story of

26:37Joseph so we believe that the Quran is a

26:40confirmation of the previous scriptures

26:42it's detailed everywhere however we

26:45believe that the Quran comes

26:47And it corrects aspects of the previous

26:50scriptures that were changed by the

26:51hands of man. For example, we have this

26:54verse 15. Wait, hold on. So inah 5:15,

26:58we have detailed in the it says that the

27:01Quran comes to correct the alterations

27:04and the changes and so on and so forth.

27:06And it's interesting that you brought up

27:06the story of Joseph because that's also

27:08an instance of the Quran correcting the

27:10Old Testament. Let me ask you in the Old

27:12Testament where it talks about Joseph's

27:13story, is the sovereign in his time

27:16addressed as a pharaoh or a king in the

27:17Bible?

27:18>> So you're talking about the anacronistic

27:19um putting of Pharaoh's name, right? So

27:21the way you

27:22>> I'm No, no, no. What I'm asking is I'm

27:24just asking is is he addressed as a

27:26Pharaoh or a king?

27:27>> In the Torah.

27:28>> Yes. In the pre in the Old Testament.

27:30>> In the Old Testament, he is addressed as

27:31Pharaoh because we don't believe that.

27:33Well, I don't know. Me personally, I

27:35believe Moses wrote the Torah, right? He

27:37he it was revealed to him. But I don't

27:40think that he compiled it. Does that

27:43make sense?

27:43>> Sure.

27:43>> So I think it's okay that later on

27:45someone wrote in the word pharaoh. I

27:46know like it doesn't come until later.

27:47Do you know?

27:48>> Wait. So if you believe that it's

27:50divinely do you believe that the Torah

27:51is divinely inspired?

27:52>> Yes.

27:52>> Okay. So you believe that somebody can

27:53come in and add a word into the Torah

27:55and change it from king to Pharaoh and

27:57it can still

27:58>> someone add the word crucif.

28:01But but don't you agree that if

28:02something is divine revelation, it can't

28:04be changed by the hands of man?

28:05>> No.

28:06>> No.

28:07>> So you believe Wait. So we have

28:08different standards of how scriptur is

28:10revealed to.

28:10>> Okay. So so you believe that something

28:12can be divine revelation also

28:13simultaneously be corrupted because and

28:15I do want to let you guys hear. So

28:16corruption of a text is defined as an

28:18addition, emission or alteration done to

28:21said text by somebody that is not the

28:23author. So do you guys agree that a text

28:25can be corrupted and also simultaneously

28:27be from God? What you're doing right now

28:29is you're equating the idea of

28:32particular versions or specific

28:34instances where someone changed a

28:37particular book that went through one

28:40portion of society, right? One

28:42particular like let's talk about the

28:43slave Bibles, right? As black people, we

28:45know that there was a specific Bible

28:47given to African-American slaves where

28:49certain verses were removed that would

28:51have alerted them to the fact that

28:53cattle slavery was not of God. that God

28:56directly hold on hold on hold on hold on

28:59God directly Hold on because I'm going

29:00somewhere with this. God directly

29:02condemned the type of slavery that was

29:04being used or being you know enacted on

29:07African-American slaves. That said, it

29:10did not affect the totality of

29:12scripture. As she mentioned the Dead Sea

29:14Scrolls, when we look back at the

29:16earliest texts, we know what the Bible

29:17is supposed to say because we have very

29:20very old copies. So when someone changes

29:22one book in one particular portion of

29:25the world, we can verify that or we can

29:28uh just suppose that against what other

29:31scriptures we have. So the problem with

29:33the Quran of course is we know that it

29:35has been burned, right?

29:36>> I want to address that point real quick.

29:37So the issue is you're saying that maybe

29:39one person just added the word pharaoh

29:41in there, but the issue is even in the

29:42Dead Sea Scrolls it says Pharaoh.

29:44>> So it's clearly according to your

29:46standard original to the text that it

29:47says Pharaoh. So in Joseph's story when

29:50this sovereign is addressed as Pharaoh,

29:52you're making the argument now that

29:53somebody added this in to make it more

29:54adaptable to the people in the time and

29:56so on and so forth, but it's original to

29:58the text that the sovereign in his time

29:59is called Pharaoh, which is historically

30:01inaccurate according to Egyptologists,

30:03which is why when she mentioned the uh

30:05the surah of Ysef, the Quran comes and

30:07corrects this and he calls the leader in

30:10the time a king instead of a pharaoh.

30:12Because the term Pharaoh, although it

30:13did exist in the time of Joseph, it

30:16never denoted a ruler or a sovereign, it

30:19denoted the great house or the great

30:21temple. So, it would have been incorrect

30:23for the Bible to address faith.

30:24>> However, let's let's talk about that cuz

30:25you're getting into semantics, right? We

30:27know that throughout the Bible, the Jews

30:29or from the Torah, the Jews do not use

30:31the name Yahweh very often because they

30:34considered it too sacred to read aloud.

30:36So, instead, they called the Lord the

30:37Lord. But that doesn't mean that they

30:39did not know who he was. So if we see

30:41that this particular writer is calling

30:43someone a pharaoh so that it is more

30:45palatable to the people that are going

30:47to be reading it in that region because

30:48they know of kings as pharaohs then

30:51that's okay it doesn't change from the

30:52message or the overall context of the

30:55book but what happened with the Quran

30:56and we know that we have to address this

30:58what happened with the Quran is that it

31:00was burned you're aware of that man you

31:02know this you're man when he

31:04standardized and he burned everything

31:06from exactly apart from the manuscript

31:08of the prophet peace be upon him

31:10>> sure So when we're standardizing

31:12something, it is very convenient to burn

31:16all other potential references so that

31:19we cannot possibly check if we still

31:22have the correct context of the text. Do

31:24you see where I'm getting with that? But

31:26the issue is let me address

31:29what your original Quran might have

31:31said.

31:31>> Perfect. We actually do because if you

31:33actually read the hadith that talks

31:34about the burning, he says that he burns

31:37everything. which I am comfortable with.

31:39Yeah, I'm comfortable with every single

31:40authentic

31:41>> about which I'm a Sunni Muslim so I

31:44accept every single authentic hadith.

31:46But let's go back. Hold on, hold on,

31:48hold on. So when you're quoting a

31:50hadith, you're going to take the

31:52entirety of the hadith. The hadith that

31:53you quoted about the burning that is

31:54from a narration and it specifies that

31:57all manuscripts were burned except for

31:59the manuscript of Hapsah that belonged

32:01to the prophet Muhammad peace and

32:02blessings be upon him. Which means that

32:04we have an original text. So, let me ask

32:06you guys this because we're being uh

32:08consistent and I feel like we're not

32:09really talking enough about the Quran to

32:10be honest. I would like

32:11>> I would like to tie it back if that's

32:13all right. Um, so we're talking because

32:15you brought up the topic of burning and

32:16not having originals. Do you guys have

32:18an original of the New Testament?

32:20>> The oldest copies that we have of the

32:21New Testament or of the Gospels

32:23specifically are in Ethiopia written in

32:25geese and they do confirm what is

32:27currently in the Old in the New.

32:29>> And what is that dated to?

32:30>> I'm not quite sure.

32:31>> Okay. So, the first instance because we

32:33have nothing from the first century of

32:34Jesus. The first instance that we get a

32:35manuscript um of one of the New

32:38Testament books, we have one of John

32:39that's about this big and it is a couple

32:42of verses from John. No, no, it's it's

32:44credit card sized. It's credit card

32:45sized.

32:46>> It's No, no, no. It's P52. Yeah, that's

32:48the first fragment that we get. So, we

32:50don't have a complete copy until some

32:53people say like CEX cinaticus and so on

32:55and so forth, which is compiled, right?

32:57Some manuscripts are from earlier, some

32:58manuscripts are from later. But you made

33:00a point about not having originals and

33:01so on. So, how can you have an issue

33:04with us having uh a standardization

33:07process that a lot of people such as

33:08textual critics of the Bible actually

33:10praise Islam for and say that

33:12Christianity does not have this but

33:14rather Islam does. How can you have a

33:16problem with our standardization process

33:17when you don't even have a copy of the

33:19Bible from the first century and we have

33:20the entirety of the Quran from the first

33:22century hij who was supposed to speak?

33:25So me my point to prove that the Quran

33:28is not the final word of God is by his

33:30internal testimony.

33:32>> It's clearly in the Bible that you know

33:35first of all like she said it seemed

33:37like the Quran appealed to the Bible to

33:39prove his relevance. It's like the Quran

33:40used the Bible as a passport to get into

33:43the word of monotism and then after it

33:45kind of gaslight the Bible like it

33:47changed the author. So if the Quran have

33:49to confirm a god that was already

33:51privilegedly revealed it have to be

33:52consistent. So first um I don't see the

33:55consistency. I see that um I I clearly

33:58see that the Quran is revealing

34:00something but it's not revealing God. I

34:02pray I think that the Quran is revealed

34:03something else. But not just that I

34:06think in his internal testimony of the

34:07Quran. So who was the person that

34:10revealed the Quran? If we look at the

34:12Bible the consistency right because God

34:14is the alpha and the omega the beginning

34:16of the end which mean that he's

34:18consistent in his revelation right? If

34:20we look at the way the angel appear into

34:23the prophet is always making sure that

34:25they are not afraid. And when we look at

34:27how Muhammad have received the Quran, it

34:30sounds more like a demonic um attack or

34:33possession other than a divine. And

34:36number two, um I would say

34:38psychologically possible he was

34:40illiterate and someone that is

34:41illiterate don't have a a don't have a

34:44very good time retaining things. So for

34:46me, the Quran cannot reveal God because

34:48the way it was revealed to the prophet

34:51was not aligned with the way God

34:52revealed himself to any other.

34:54>> All right. You made two great points

34:55that I actually want to address. I'm

34:56going to address the second one first.

34:57However, you said that somebody being

34:59illiterate means that they don't have

35:01that great of an ability to retain

35:02information

35:03>> in the trauma that he described.

35:04>> Okay, perfect. So wait, hold on. Hold

35:06on, hold on, hold on. So sorry. I I just

35:08wanted to establish that. So if you say

35:10that somebody being illiterate or

35:12unlearned or whatever it may be means

35:14that they have a lack of ability to

35:15process or retain information. Are you

35:17are you aware that the Bible portrays

35:19John as illiterate and unlettered?

35:21>> Well explicitly it says that. So but you

35:24agree that John was still capable of

35:26retaining and conveying information

35:27right

35:29what am I illiterate I'm sorry I'm just

35:31curious what in the book of Acts in the

35:33book of Acts it says that he is

35:34unlearned un mean illiterate. That's a

35:38different John.

35:39>> No. Oh, wait. So, it's is it the John

35:40that wrote the Gospel or the John that

35:41wrote Revelations? Because some people

35:43say it's the same and some people say

35:44it's

35:44>> John Mark. Nobody says John Mark is the

35:46same John that wrote I think you run

35:47away from the subject. I'm talking about

35:48the revelation that Muhammad have.

35:50>> Yeah. Yeah. But you said the revelation

35:51that Muhammad have sound like a demon

35:54possession other than

35:55>> The reason why you said that is because

35:57you said that somebody being illiterate

35:58means they have a lack of ability to

36:00information.

36:01>> That's my second point. I'll address the

36:02first point. I'll address the first

36:03point because I think you run away from

36:05the question. So the first point that

36:07you made is that we want to see

36:09consistency not just with the revelation

36:11itself. So what the revelation reflects,

36:13but also the way that the revelation is

36:15revealed, right? And you mentioned that

36:17when angels come to people, whether it

36:19be in the Old Testament or the New

36:20Testament, it's the case that it's

36:22peaceful and it's the case that even if

36:24hypothetically speaking, they are afraid

36:25at first, they are comforted, right? So

36:27and you said that Muhammad, peace and

36:29blessings be upon him, was not

36:30comforted. Correct?

36:30>> No, I didn't say that. I say that the

36:32way

36:33>> he was comforted by the angel. Actually,

36:34we have an authentic narration inb.

36:37If you want, I can tell.

36:38>> Wait, hold on. I'm I'm just going to

36:39answer that. She said not by the angel.

36:41So, inb.

36:44It's actually authentically reported

36:45that in the incident of the cave, Jirel

36:49says to the prophet Muhammad, peace and

36:50blessings be upon him, do not fear, for

36:53I am Gibl and you are the messenger of

36:54God. So that's actually expounds on the

36:56hadith that we have in Bkari, the one

36:58that does not say that, but we have it

37:00authentically narrated that not only

37:02does he comfort him, but he identifies

37:04himself as Gabriel.

37:04>> But I would I just want to chime in just

37:07to give my perspective on the prompt.

37:08Sure. Go ahead.

37:09>> Um my position is just very

37:11straightforward. Surah 615 says that the

37:14words of Allah can never be altered. So

37:16I think it's convenient that if the

37:18Quran affirms that the revelation of the

37:21Torah and the Injil are revelation, they

37:25conveniently are altered yet the Quran

37:27is not altered. Secondly, I wanted to

37:29just inquire if do you know who

37:31discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls?

37:33>> Um, no, not

37:34>> okay. Interesting story. So the person

37:36who actually discovered the Dead Sea ah

37:38Dead Sea Scrolls is a man named

37:40Muhammad. He was a shepherd. Yes, he was

37:43a shepherd who was searching for his

37:45lost goat. Now, if that's not the

37:46gospel, I don't know what is. He ended

37:48up finding the Dead Sea Scrolls in a

37:50cave. And what he found dates back to

37:53250 AD, which matches the modern Bibles

37:56that we have essentially exactly. So, we

37:59have the first Muhammad who actually

38:01affirms the Torah and the Injil such

38:04places like Sarah 757. I'm sure you know

38:07it, the unlettered prophet where he's

38:09written about. Yes. And then we have the

38:11second Muhammad that confirms what was

38:13actually found. a Muslim man actually

38:15finds the very text that his a

38:17descendants are going to now call

38:19corrupted. And I feel like that is God's

38:21God's sense of humor all over that. So

38:24my perspective is that the Quran

38:27actually obviously affirms the previous

38:28scriptures and the second Muhammad finds

38:31those previous scriptures for the world

38:32to see.

38:32>> Perfect. So what's interesting is you

38:34touched upon um surah 6 vers15. Correct.

38:37Surah 6 vers15 says that Allah's words

38:39cannot be changed. What's interesting is

38:41if you read that verse in context, verse

38:43114 says that that's talking about the

38:44Quran. So 115 says that these words

38:47cannot be changed. 114 says that the

38:49previous revelations were not God's

38:50words.

38:51>> No, I believe that the previous

38:52revelations were God's words.

38:52>> Does the Quran that the previous

38:54revelations are God's words? I just want

38:56to know.

38:56>> Yeah. Wait, hold on. Yes. Yes. The

38:58previous scriptures are God's words.

39:00However, Allah does not promise to

39:02preserve the previous scriptures. Why?

39:04Because they're not meant for us.

39:05>> Very convenient. So that's the problem

39:07with that.

39:08>> I ask what was preserved. Like so only

39:10let me conced this okay so some of some

39:12of it was preserved some of it wasn't

39:13right so can you can you list some

39:15things that were preserved for example

39:16the stories of the prophets

39:17>> yeah you can say the aspects of the

39:18stories of the prophets because we

39:19believe in something within Islam and

39:21it's also quite interesting because this

39:22is

39:22>> aspects of it so not all of it

39:24>> yeah aspect

39:24>> that's actually incorrect according to

39:25the Quran can I tell you

39:26>> no no no according to the Quran it

39:27actually says explicitly right it says

39:30that these um these previous scriptures

39:32were altered in some ways it says in

39:33surah 5:es 13- 15 it speaks about the

39:37children of Israel changing the words

39:39around. So it's not talking about

39:40necessarily.

39:40>> Is it talking about textual corruption?

39:42>> It's talking about corruption vaguely.

39:43So it doesn't specify textual nor have

39:45perfectly preserved another

39:46>> not perfectly. We have very

39:48>> very good

39:49>> not perfectly. Okay.

39:49>> Very we have very good Torah that are

39:52preserved from way before that. And so

39:53if a group of Jews actually IB even says

39:56this with two vers 7078 where there was

39:58a group of Jews who knowingly corrupt

40:00the scripture, right? And so if you know

40:02the truth, how do they know the truth?

40:04The text has to be there. So

40:05>> yeah, the text was within the time of

40:06Moses, right? Because wait, no, no, not

40:09by necessity. Because the Quran

40:10specifies that the Torah was given, it

40:12was entrusted to a group of individuals

40:15to preserve. The Quran specifies that it

40:19was and then it was also entrusted to

40:21John Baptist. No, no, no. That the Quran

40:23says, wait, no, no. The we're talking

40:25about what the Quran says. The reason

40:26why, and I want to tie it back to what

40:28we were talking about, which is

40:29consistency and confirmation, right?

40:31Because she said that the Quran confirms

40:33the previous scriptures and the Quran

40:35says that Allah's words are not changed.

40:36the verse that she brought specifies

40:38which means that in

40:40>> I wouldn't use that verse for my

40:41argument.

40:41>> Yeah, I I'm just addressing it because I

40:43didn't get to fully before you jumped

40:44in. So, um surah 6 115 when it says

40:48God's word and this is going to tie into

40:50what you said because we're talking

40:51about corruption now and whether or not

40:52God's word can be changed. God's word in

40:54this instance is not unrestricted. It is

40:57speaking specifically to the Quran and

41:00about the Quran. It's not speaking about

41:02the previous scriptures because even if

41:04in some hypothetical instance if we had

41:06the entirety of the Torah and the Injil

41:08with us in our laps it would have been

41:10abregated. It wouldn't have been binding

41:12upon us. But just to touch on your point

41:13because

41:14>> what does confirmation mean? Could you

41:15just define?

41:15>> Yeah, confirmation means that you can

41:17say that it has divine origins. Now

41:19>> what's the Arabic word for confirmation?

41:21>> What what do you mean?

41:21>> Like when it says it comes to confirm

41:23the previous scriptures.

41:26>> Okay. So in 1211 it's a different one.

41:28It's task. I'm probably butchering the

41:29>> it's [laughter] it's a variations of the

41:31same word.

41:32>> Yeah, it's it's variations of the same

41:35it's in 33. It's in for example surah 5

41:38and it goes on. But I got confirmation

41:40doesn't mean that you say that every

41:42single word in a specific uh scripture

41:45is preserved because we as Muslims and

41:47you might have heard this verse before

41:48believe that although your revelations

41:51have been corrupted in some way which

41:53you also agree with. You believe that

41:54there are instances where there are

41:55things that were changed later.

41:56>> Yeah, I know your stance. We believe in

41:57something called general confirmation.

41:59>> Very good. So what? So but so I'm trying

42:01to press here. You said general, right?

42:02So not all of maybe prophecies of

42:04>> Yeah. What what we have today

42:06some of the stories of the prophets. But

42:07I want to bring up so 2 verse 252. Okay.

42:11This is talking about stories of the

42:12prophets again. So for example, Saul,

42:14right? Because you believe Saul was a

42:15prophet. And so what happened in two

42:17from two 246 to 252? It talks about

42:20Saul's story. It says that Saul and his

42:22army charged at Goliath. It also said

42:25that he tested his army with a river

42:27saying if you drink from your hands

42:28you're with me if you're not. And then

42:29it also says that the sign of his

42:31kingship was that the ark of the

42:32covenant would come to him. If anyone

42:34has read the old testament from anywhere

42:36in the world in any language they would

42:37know that those three things are

42:39completely completely divergent from

42:41what the Torah says. And then I imam

42:42al-rai and uh Ib kir they have a

42:45commentary on 2 vers52 which says these

42:48revelations are revealed by Allah and

42:51you Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam

42:53are truly well it doesn't say truly are

42:55a messenger and so the commentary on

42:57that verse says and they're coming in

42:58the 13th century by he's says uh these

43:03details sorry this story is conforms to

43:07the exact manner at which they still

43:10have in their books today. That's what

43:13Ib says. Immazi says there are no

43:15differences in this. He says there's no

43:18differences. And so even your scholars

43:20think that during the time of Muhammad

43:21and even in the 13th centuries that the

43:23Old Testament stories from both books

43:25should be the same. That's what Kafir

43:26says. That's what I imazi says. I you

43:28can go look. I'm not going to deceive

43:30you. Your soul is on the line. Okay?

43:31I've read the taps in Arabic as well. I

43:32don't read Arabic, but I've confirmed

43:34it. And so I just want to say that to

43:35you and then I'll just add this last

43:37point. The again the the miracle of the

43:39Quran according to you guys is that

43:40Muhammad is illiterate but he gets all

43:43the details correct and we see that all

43:45over the place and so he gets he gets

43:48thousands and thousands of details

43:50irreconcilably incorrect in the stories

43:53of the prophets and I as a Christian I

43:55can never come and say he is from God

43:57because that just doesn't make sense.

43:58>> My next prompt is Jesus is a Muslim.

44:08My name is Kora.

44:09>> Hi, I'm Christine.

44:11>> Hey girl, how you doing? [laughter]

44:14>> I'm good.

44:15>> Hanging in there. I'm Lauren.

44:16>> Nice to meet you.

44:17>> I'm Shayla Perez.

44:18>> I'm Christina.

44:19>> All right. Nice to meet you guys. So,

44:21obviously, as a Muslim, I believe that

44:23every single prophet of God from Adam

44:26all the way to Muhammad, peace and

44:27blessings be upon him submitted to the

44:29one and only true God, which is the God

44:32of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the

44:34God of Jacob. So why do you guys believe

44:36that Jesus was not a Muslim?

44:39>> Jesus believed that God was the father.

44:41Do you affirm as a Muslim that God is a

44:44father?

44:44>> Yeah. So what do we mean by father here?

44:46What does father mean?

44:48>> Father can mean metaphorical or literal.

44:51So we believe that Jesus is the begotten

44:54son of God. And we believe that God is a

44:57father metaphorically and that the

44:59children of Israel are his children.

45:01>> Yeah. I want to add something. I think

45:03we can't divorce Judaism from this

45:05conversation. Jesus was Jewish. He

45:07followed Jewish traditions. He was born

45:09of Jews. So, if you're going to say

45:10anything, Jesus was a Jew. So, I'm

45:13curious why you're not leading with that

45:15or acknowledging that.

45:16>> Yeah. Because I I'm asking you guys why

45:18you do not believe that Jesus was a

45:20Muslim. So, I'm asking from your

45:22perspective, what exactly is deterring

45:24you from the belief that Jesus was a

45:26Muslim and you essentially establishing

45:28that he was a Jew?

45:29>> Can you define the word Muslim? I know

45:30you said

45:30>> a submitter to the one true God. Okay.

45:32Could I could I say something really

45:33quick because I know you have a lot to

45:35say and so these are such beautiful

45:37sisters and you are doing a great job. I

45:38love your psychology. What I'm noticing

45:40about you is that you interrupt us when

45:42you feel like you have to defend

45:44yourself, right? And so what I ask is

45:46that this be a good debate where we all

45:48let each other talk. Okay. In Jesus

45:50mighty name, can we do that?

45:52>> Yeah, of course. By all means. what what

45:53I usually

45:54>> so what I was going to say what I wanted

45:56to say is that Jesus Christ our Lord and

45:58Savior he cannot be put in a religion in

46:02a religion that came 600 years after he

46:05died and rose from the dead and was and

46:08and and ascended to heaven with so many

46:10witnesses. This religion comes over 600

46:14years later in the seventh century. How

46:17are you going to tell us um all these

46:19things when it happened first? Jesus

46:21came here first. he lived. There's

46:23historians um that prove this, but what

46:26I do know is that there's two

46:28definitions to Muslim. There's lowercase

46:30M, which means one who um can submit to

46:34God, lowercase M. Then there's

46:36uppercase, right? There's uh capital M,

46:38which means one who follows Islam. Okay?

46:42One who prays uh towards Mecca, one who

46:45uh reads the Quran, one who does all

46:48that. So there's two different meanings

46:50that we're working with that we need to

46:51understand what meaning you're talking

46:53about because Jesus Christ he uh he's

46:57our Lord and Savior and he he did not

46:59teach what Islam teaches. Absolutely

47:02not. And this is what we're going to

47:03talk about right now.

47:04>> Absolutely. So my point is I want to see

47:06if we agree on like the main thing that

47:08she said. She said that Jesus cannot

47:11essentially be ascribed to a specific

47:13religion. Do you guys believe that Jesus

47:15was not part of a specific

47:17>> Jesus was a Jew? Okay. So, [laughter]

47:19>> that's not what she said. She said you

47:22can't put him into a religion six years

47:23later. But

47:26>> y'all know what?

47:26>> Seven centuries later, baby.

47:28>> 6 600 whatever. My main question to you

47:31because you're asking us Christians why

47:33we believe that Jesus was not a Muslim.

47:37Allah rejects being a father in every

47:39sense. How can the Jesus that taught us

47:42to pray to our father, that's how we

47:44taught us to pray, how can he be Muslim?

47:47>> Okay, perfect. So, first off, that's

47:49actually based off of a false

47:51presupposition. Allah does not negate

47:53being a father in every single sense. He

47:56negates being a father in the

47:57ontological sense. The sense that you

47:59Christians believe today, which is that

48:01Jesus proceeds from the essence of God

48:05or that the child of God in this

48:06instance, the son of God proceeds from

48:08his essence and thus is identical to

48:10that essence. I just want to make sure

48:13that you're you believe that Allah does

48:16not reject being a father in the

48:18metaphorical sense. So are you saying

48:20that there's nowhere in the Quran where

48:23the Jews and Christians are referring to

48:25themselves as the children of Allah and

48:28he rejects that claim?

48:29>> Okay, perfect. So that's actually

48:30interesting. I was going to mention in

48:32surah 5 where they are calling

48:35themselves children of Allah. What's

48:37interesting is that in the ib details

48:42what type of rejection this is. He is

48:45rejecting it in the incorrect senses.

48:48However, I want to answer the question

48:50that you had because you asked, are you

48:51affirming that Allah is a sorry is not

48:54rejecting that he's a father in the

48:55metaphorical sense. I believe that the

48:58title father is something that could

49:01have been used in previous times and you

49:03can make a very probable case for that.

49:05However, I believe that due to

49:08progression of the term's meaning and it

49:11being ascribed with false meanings such

49:13as the one that I mentioned, which is

49:14the sun proceeding from the essence of

49:16God, it was thus abregated as a title

49:19that was capable of being used. For

49:20example, we have in the Old Testament

49:23where God abrogates the title ball from

49:26himself. And the reason why

49:28>> Nope.

49:28>> Wait, so he doesn't say that you can no

49:30longer call him ball.

49:30>> Where does he say that?

49:31>> In the Old Testament, it's Are you not

49:33familiar with that? Abrogation. First of

49:36all,

49:36>> what is abrogation?

49:38>> Well, can you answer my question where

49:39you just you quoted it?

49:40>> She she just agreed that the verse is

49:41there. You you agree that he abrogates

49:43the name ball, sorry, the title ball

49:45from himself. And not only does he do

49:47that, but that shows that God is capable

49:50of if a meaning of a term or a title is

49:53skewed, he can disallow the people from

49:56using it and give them a better title.

49:58For example, in Isaiah 56,

49:59>> both points. Let me address what you

50:01brought first and then you can give

50:02example. So when people are calling God

50:05ball, they're not talking to God the

50:06father. They're they're committing

50:08idolatry. So they were not speaking to

50:11Yahweh. So Yahweh is telling them, "I'm

50:14God. You will no longer refer to God as

50:16ball." So that's not abrogation.

50:19Abrogation is taking a verse out or

50:21forgetting it and then it being replaced

50:23with something like it or better. And

50:24that's according to your sources.

50:26>> Okay, perfect. That that's exactly why I

50:27was going to tie to Isaiah 56, right? So

50:29Isaiah 56, God is speaking to his people

50:33and he says explicitly that I will give

50:37you guys a name better than sons and

50:40daughters. Right? So let me ask you,

50:42what is the name better than sons and

50:43daughters that Isaiah 56 is speaking

50:45about?

50:46>> How is that relevant? I'm asking

50:49the correct hold on let me finish right

50:51quick and then I'll let you have the

50:52floor. I really want to know what this

50:54correct sense that Allah can be referred

50:57to as a father is and if so can Allah

51:00also be referred to as a mother?

51:02>> No.

51:03>> Why? The answer is because there is no

51:05wellestablished evidence that that was

51:07ever allowed. The reason why I am even

51:10granting that in a sense is because you

51:13can make a historical case that this was

51:15something that took place in the time of

51:18the children of Israel. Now is correct

51:20in that grant that if I'm I'm the one

51:21speaking. So if we grant that if it was

51:24correct in that specific instance it

51:26would have been correct in that specific

51:28meaning. So and the reason why perfect

51:31in the sense that creator sustainer the

51:34one who created

51:37the way that they were using it was in

51:39the context of a creator or a sustainer

51:42or essentially a a slave and a master

51:44relationship. say we only see any

51:46reference to that in Hosea. And he's

51:48specifically correcting that. He said,

51:49"You will no longer call me B." Do you

51:51know who Bal is?

51:52>> Yeah. I believe that that was a false

51:53god that the Cananites worshiped.

51:54Correct.

51:55>> Yes. Yes. And that was they were a false

51:56god that they were doing sex orgies

51:59with. Do you believe that at any point

52:00in time that God Yahweh the father was

52:03okay with?

52:03>> No.

52:04>> Okay. So, absolutely not.

52:06>> So, he never allowed for them to call

52:07him Ball.

52:07>> Well, what does Ball mean?

52:09>> You tell me.

52:10>> Okay. Does Ball not mean husband? It it

52:13does, but

52:14>> Okay, perfect. So, do you believe that

52:16there was ever an instance in which that

52:18name would have been okay to have been

52:20used prior to, for example, this being a

52:23false god that the Canonites worship? Is

52:25the meaning Wait, is the meaning

52:27correct?

52:28>> I'm not sure what you're asking.

52:30>> Yeah. So, when we say Ball, you agree

52:32that we're not Yahweh allowing them to

52:34call him under the name of Ball? But

52:36also I also want to just say right now

52:38you started the prompt with Jesus was a

52:40Muslim and then you got you changed it

52:42to a question why don't you believe

52:43Jesus is a Muslim. The burden of proof

52:45is on you to tell us all 20 Christians

52:47in this room today. Why do you believe

52:49Jesus was a Muslim? Because you're

52:50making a claim about our Lord and

52:52Savior. So the burden of proof is on

52:53you.

52:53>> Perfect. The reason why I asked why you

52:55guys don't believe is because I wanted

52:56to let you guys start leading the

52:58conversation, right? And giving your

52:59reasons why. But we can go ahead and

53:01start with the reasons why I believe

53:03that Jesus was a Muslim. Obviously

53:05external to the Bible, I believe that

53:07this theology is reflected within the

53:08Quran. I believe that Jesus is

53:11explicitly called a servant of God and

53:13he explicitly identifies himself as such

53:16that he is a submitter to God. And not

53:17only does it do that, but it also says

53:20that the people who followed him in

53:22graciousness and righteousness were also

53:25Muslims. Right? But the main point that

53:27I want to make because I want to tie

53:28back to what you said lowercase M and

53:30uppercase M. So when the reason why I

53:33specified submitter to the one true God

53:36is because I wanted to make sure that

53:37there was no confusion on what I meant

53:39by Muslim. When I say Muslim I don't

53:42mean somebody who uh does pilgrimage and

53:44somebody who gives zakat today and

53:45somebody who accepts the Quran and so on

53:46and so forth because we believe in

53:49different shar

53:51means law different laws for different

53:53people. So for different people specific

53:54things were obligatory. We believe that

53:56when Jesus came, he abregated some

53:59things from the law before him and he

54:01made permissible some things. That's a

54:04difference in law. So in the time of

54:06Jesus, what it would have meant to be a

54:08Muslim would be to abide by the

54:10revelation that he was given by God in

54:11that specific time. And obviously I

54:13believe that. And in surah 19, it also

54:15says that Jesus was proclaiming that he

54:18was a blessing everywhere he went. So

54:20you guys agree that Jesus is a blessing.

54:21>> Let me ask you a question before you ask

54:22us another question. So, for example,

54:25why would I say Moses is a Muslim if he

54:28comes from, you know, the the Old

54:30Testament? Uh, the Torah does not

54:32reflect at all anything the Kalam says.

54:35And so, I just am confused right now

54:37because it just doesn't make sense. You

54:40know, the religion came centuries after

54:42Jesus was here. So, I'm just I'm lost.

54:46Like, I don't understand.

54:47>> That would be like me saying, "I'm

54:49Chinese." And then 600 years later,

54:51they're like, "No, you're African." It's

54:52like,

54:53>> yeah, but hold on. Jesus had already

54:55claimed final authority, you know, and

54:57there's witnesses of him, you know, he

54:59died, he rose three days later, um,

55:01ascended back to heaven, like I said.

55:02So, I just I'm so lost. I'm so confused.

55:05And I know you talk fast and I love

55:06that, but how does that make sense? It's

55:08a religion that came seven centuries

55:10later, um, after Jesus already claimed

55:12final authority. He's not And there's

55:14two different types of Muslims like

55:15we're talking about. You you mentioned

55:17the submitting part, which is the

55:18lowercase M. Um, and then there's the

55:20uppercase M, which someone who reads the

55:23and stuff like that. So, I just don't

55:24see the connection that we're

55:26>> I think what what I'm understanding you

55:28say is because Jesus submitted to who

55:31you believe Allah to be that he is

55:33considered a Muslim.

55:34>> Yes. And I'm specifying lowercase M

55:37because obviously she brought it up, but

55:39I tried to make it very clear at the

55:40beginning of the conversation that I

55:41didn't mean Muslim in the sense that he

55:44abides by the Sharia in the Quran and he

55:46does pilgrimage and zakat and so on and

55:48so forth. Of course, Jesus submitted to

55:50God. That should be the question.

55:52>> One true God is

55:53>> but the question should be is uh is

55:55Jesus did Jesus teach what Islam teaches

55:57and no he did not.

55:58>> I I agree. I agree that should be the

56:00question. Let me ask you this. Did Jesus

56:01submit to the one true God?

56:02>> All of us too.

56:03>> Okay. Did did Jesus submit to the one

56:04true God?

56:05>> We believed in two different one true

56:07gods. But but I know I'm asking.

56:10>> Yes, he did. Yes, he did. Yes, he did to

56:12Yahweh. Yes, he did. He is Yahweh.

56:14>> And the one true God is triune and has a

56:17begotten son. Okay.

56:18>> So, back to the fact that Jesus taught

56:21that God is the father.

56:23>> The fact that God rejects Allah rejects

56:26being a father in the metaphorical sense

56:29and he rejects being a father in the

56:31literal sense. So, in what sense is

56:34Allah a father because you can be a

56:36creator without being a father. Correct?

56:38>> U this instance, but let me ask you

56:40this. You said that he rejects

56:41fatherhood in the metaphorical sense.

56:42What verse is that?

56:43>> I already referred to it. However, I

56:45want you to I I would like a quotation.

56:48>> That's great. But

56:48>> girl, you've been shining for this whole

56:50time. Can you just let her talk? What

56:51was the question?

56:52>> I asked what verse, so I want to know.

56:53>> You did ask me a question instead of

56:55answering mine. So, it would be great if

56:57>> it's a clarification.

56:58>> Yeah, that's great. However, I think you

57:00can answer my question without needing

57:02clarification. It's called engagement.

57:04And that's something that the sister on

57:06the end was asking about if you can

57:08engage.

57:09>> Of course. And I would like to engage.

57:10Yeah, I would like to engage. But in

57:12order for us to engage,

57:14>> I want to know the evidence for your

57:16claim because you made the claim that he

57:17rejects it in the metaphorical sense.

57:19>> And you made the claim that Jesus is a

57:20mother.

57:21>> I feel like we're getting in the weeds,

57:22though. I want to focus on Jesus.

57:24>> Oh, let me let me answer her question,

57:25then I'll go back to that.

57:26>> In order for you to prove, again, the

57:29burden of proof is on you because you

57:30did say that Jesus is a Muslim. You

57:32agreed that Jesus taught that Allah is a

57:35father and we talked about where Allah

57:37rejects it. You said that there was a

57:40correct sense in which Allah is a

57:43father. We are asking you what that

57:46correct sense is because Allah rejects

57:48it throughout your book.

57:49>> Okay, perfect. So the reason why I asked

57:52where he rejects father in the

57:54metaphorical sense is because that

57:56doesn't exist. So Allah does not reject

58:00fatherhood in the way that I defined it.

58:04He does not reject the meaning that is

58:06being the creator and the sustainer and

58:08the way that the Old Testament ascribes

58:11it to individuals and the correct sense

58:13that I mentioned. That's exactly why I

58:15asked you what the reference was because

58:17when we quoted the verse in surah 5b

58:22specifies the meaning that he is

58:24rejecting and it's not the meaning that

58:26I specified. So let me ask you this.

58:29What verse does he reject fatherhood in

58:32the sense that I referred to it?

58:34>> There is no verse where father is

58:37connected to being a creator. That is

58:39why I asked you the question, can you be

58:41a creator without being a father? Allah

58:43himself says that none can come to him

58:45as other than a slave. So can you come

58:48to Allah as a child of him in the sense

58:51that he's your creator according to him

58:54>> with that title? Absolutely not. If you

58:56can't get as to why that I was in the

58:59middle of responding.

59:00>> Okay, sure.

59:00>> Okay, perfect. So, and the reason as to

59:02why I specified that title is because as

59:05Muslims, we believe that we come to

59:08Allah with what he accepts from us. So,

59:11if Allah specifies that he is not he's

59:15not allowing us to refer to him as a

59:17father in this, then we are not allowed

59:19to do so. But we are also not capable of

59:22making positive claims that there was

59:25never a point in time in which that

59:28title was not used.

59:29>> If Allah is rejecting that you can come

59:32to him as anything but a slave, can you

59:35come to Allah as a child?

59:36>> Beautiful. I answered that question. I

59:38said with that specific title, no. And

59:41the reason as to why that Jesus isn't a

59:43Muslim

59:43>> is because Allah does not permit that in

59:45this. So let me ask you, does Jesus

59:47abide by the shar that's in the Quran or

59:49does he abide by the

59:50>> Absolutely not. That's another reason

59:52why he's not a Muslim. What you guys are

59:54having to do because the claim is made

59:57in the Quran is you're having to go back

59:59and try to reconcile something that

1:00:01Muhammad said that is blatantly wrong.

1:00:04Muhammad obviously didn't know the

1:00:07contents of the Bible well enough to

1:00:08know that this claim would completely

1:00:10fall apart.

1:00:12>> And that's Go ahead. I was going to say

1:00:13and what you're asking us to do is to

1:00:15listen to Muhammad who came 600 years

1:00:17after as opposed to the eyewitness

1:00:19testimonies of the apostles who were

1:00:21with Jesus who said that he claimed to

1:00:23be God that he was not a Muslim that he

1:00:24came to fulfill the old uh the old

1:00:26covenant covenant he was a Jew he wasn't

1:00:29a Christian he was a Jew who fulfilled

1:00:31the old law and then he came and he

1:00:33fulfilled it by saying I am the son of

1:00:35God in John 5:18 he says I uh I'm the

1:00:38father of well John specifically says

1:00:41that they wanted to kill him because he

1:00:43claims to be one with God. He claims to

1:00:46be one with God and that's why they

1:00:47wanted to kill him.

1:00:48>> And and what what does he say after that

1:00:50though?

1:00:50>> Uh verse what verse?

1:00:52>> So yeah, you're quoting John 10. Yeah,

1:00:54you're

1:00:54>> John 5:18. It says that they wanted to

1:00:56John wrote that they wanted to kill him

1:00:58because he claimed he claimed to be one

1:01:01with God. He claimed to be on the same

1:01:02level as God.

1:01:03>> Perfect. What's interesting is that

1:01:05Jesus himself responds to this though

1:01:06because for example when he makes the

1:01:08claim I and the father are one when they

1:01:10pick up stones to stone him he asks for

1:01:13what crime are you stoning me for and he

1:01:15says we do not stone you for some sort

1:01:16of a crime like for example adultery and

1:01:18whatn not but rather we stone you for

1:01:19blasphemy for you are a mere man

1:01:21claiming to be God right

1:01:25and then he says after that

1:01:26>> he says is it not written in your law

1:01:29that you are gods why would you stone me

1:01:31for claiming to be the son of god

1:01:34So he qualifies that. So Jesus says,

1:01:36"Why would you cla sorry stone me for a

1:01:39claim that God makes about you when I

1:01:41claim to be the son?"

1:01:42>> What you're asking for us to believe as

1:01:43Christians is the word of Muhammad over

1:01:45the words of the people who were with

1:01:47Jesus who said that he claimed to be

1:01:48God, who said he didn't write anything

1:01:50about how he claimed to serve the one

1:01:51true God, Allah. And all I have to say

1:01:53is this is that I don't think it's a

1:01:55coincidence that we continue to see

1:01:56prophets that come after prophets that

1:01:59come after Jesus and they're always

1:02:00trying to change his message. We see

1:02:01this in Joseph Smith. We see this in

1:02:03Muhammad. We see this in Charles

1:02:04Russell. They always try to get close

1:02:06enough to the truth. What does that

1:02:07sound like? A deceiver close enough to

1:02:09the truth to sound like it is Jesus's

1:02:12message, but they twist the what is the

1:02:14most important part, which is that he is

1:02:16God. He's the son of God. So, I don't

1:02:18think it's a coincidence that we see

1:02:19Muhammad claiming yes, Jesus was a

1:02:22Muslim or that or any of the any of the

1:02:25claims that we see in the uh Islamic

1:02:27religion that Jesus was a good prophet

1:02:29or you know, he was a messenger of God.

1:02:31It's sounds good, but it's a little bit

1:02:34of a twist that actually causes the

1:02:35truth to be a lie because I think it's

1:02:37demonic in nature. There's this there's

1:02:39this demonic entity that is saying say

1:02:41the truth just enough that you can

1:02:43deceive,

1:02:44>> right? And we need to really quickly and

1:02:46we need to understand one thing. It's

1:02:48always going to be a little circle

1:02:49between me and I us right. So in the

1:02:51karam Jesus uh is a servant. He um he's

1:02:55a prophet of God. But in the Bible, he

1:02:58is known to be Jesus Lord and Savior. He

1:03:00forgave sin. He allowed to be worshiped.

1:03:03So no matter what, there's going to be a

1:03:05little thing right now. So

1:03:07[applause]

1:03:09>> the crucifixion of Jesus is not a

1:03:11wellestablished historical event.

1:03:18My name is Kora.

1:03:19>> Hi Cora. I'm Johanna.

1:03:21>> Hi Kora. I'm Rayisha.

1:03:23>> I'm Jessica.

1:03:24>> Hi Delaneie.

1:03:25>> Hi. Nice to meet you guys. All right. So

1:03:27my position on the crucifixion of Jesus

1:03:29is that rather than him being crucified

1:03:31at the hands of both the Jews and the

1:03:32Romans, he was saved and raised to the

1:03:34second heaven by God. God did not allow

1:03:37a soul to harm him in that instance in

1:03:39terms of death and so on. Right? And I

1:03:41obviously believe that although you guys

1:03:44believe that Jesus was crucified and

1:03:45that that theology is echoed within

1:03:47Christianity and so on and so forth, I

1:03:49do not believe that this is an

1:03:50undisputed fact, not just extra

1:03:53biblically, but even within the Bible

1:03:55due to a multitude of different

1:03:56inconsistencies and so on and so forth.

1:03:58So what are you guys' thoughts on that?

1:03:59>> I I think that's interesting because the

1:04:01crucifixion of Jesus is the most

1:04:02well-known historically attested event,

1:04:05not only by biblical sources, but also

1:04:07extra biblical sources. So, I know that

1:04:10your Quran mentions that it only made

1:04:12for him to appear that way, but it just

1:04:14confuses me. We have all these um

1:04:16historical evidence and the historians

1:04:19written about this, but 600 years later,

1:04:21you have Allah saying that it only

1:04:22appeared that way. So, how does that

1:04:24make sense?

1:04:24>> Okay, beautiful. So, the Quran isn't

1:04:26actually the only instance in which

1:04:27somebody disputes the crucifixion taking

1:04:29place. We have historians also

1:04:31acknowledging the same exact historians

1:04:33that you will appeal to, sorry, appeal

1:04:34to to say that the crucifixion happened

1:04:36also say that there were early groups

1:04:38disputing the crucifixion. Right? For

1:04:40example, we have groups such as the

1:04:42baselians who deny the crucifixion of

1:04:44Jesus Christ and they there they also

1:04:46believe that somebody else was crucified

1:04:48in his place, right? They believe in

1:04:49something called substitution theory. We

1:04:51also have some atheists that believe in

1:04:53something called swoon theory. Swoon

1:04:55theory is essentially Jesus being put on

1:04:58the cross and not passing away and then

1:05:00when he was taken off and so on and so

1:05:02forth that reconciles the gospel

1:05:03accounts when people saw him again. So

1:05:05we see a multitude of disputes not just

1:05:07within theists but within historical

1:05:09groups in the first and second century

1:05:11and we see church fathers acknowledging

1:05:12this as well. For example, we have

1:05:14Ignatius's congregation. We even have

1:05:16Paul in first Corinthians. We have a

1:05:17multitude of different study Bibles that

1:05:19say that Paul is addressing groups that

1:05:21denied the crucifixion in his time. So

1:05:23we see early dispute. This isn't a 600

1:05:26year um year later development. This is

1:05:28something that was always going on in

1:05:30the first century. But I wanted to ask

1:05:31because you said that this is a

1:05:32wellestablished historical event. Right.

1:05:34Right.

1:05:34>> Can you give me an example of a source

1:05:36that establishes this without a shadow

1:05:37of a doubt?

1:05:38>> Well, we definitely have the gospels

1:05:40which are eyewitness accounts and we

1:05:41also have Jewish historians. We have

1:05:43Roman historians. We have other extra

1:05:45biblical accounts of this.

1:05:46>> Okay. Perfect. So let's start with the

1:05:48gospels because obviously that's going

1:05:49to be your foundation as Christians. So

1:05:51you say that the gospels were authored

1:05:53by eyewitnesses. Do you have any

1:05:54evidence for that?

1:05:56>> I don't. But what I can ask you is this.

1:05:58If Allah made Jesus to appear that way,

1:06:01why would he allow millions of people to

1:06:04be deceived for 600 years? If he's the

1:06:06most merciful, wouldn't that be kind of

1:06:07cruel for millions of people to be

1:06:09deceived by this?

1:06:09>> Beautiful. So that kind of deflects from

1:06:12the topic itself because obviously I can

1:06:14answer that question. That's not a

1:06:15problem. But I'm emphasizing on you

1:06:17saying that there were eyewitness

1:06:18accounts. If you say that the gospels

1:06:20were eyewitness accounts, how can you

1:06:21simultaneously say that you don't know

1:06:22who wrote them? How can you now verify

1:06:24that they're eyewitness accounts if you

1:06:26can't even prove that the people who you

1:06:27claim wrote them actually wrote them?

1:06:29>> Well, we also had Paul who mentioned

1:06:30that there were 500 eyewitness accounts

1:06:32that were still alive today.

1:06:33>> Yeah, but that that's not 500

1:06:35eyewitnesses. That is one non-

1:06:36eyewitness mentioning that there were

1:06:38500 eyewitnesses, not to the

1:06:39crucifixion, but allegedly to the

1:06:40resurrection. So, that's completely

1:06:42different. But it seemed like you wanted

1:06:43to get a word out.

1:06:44>> Yes. I actually wanted to say so five.

1:06:48She said there was 500 eyewitnesses and

1:06:50you brought up atheists but there were

1:06:51also agnostics. These people could have

1:06:53believed otherwise. They had no reason

1:06:56to make others believe that Christianity

1:06:58was what it said what it is. And also

1:07:02she mentioned about 600 years going by

1:07:06that um why would God allow that goes

1:07:09against his nature. God would not allow

1:07:11for people to be deceived, for Jesus

1:07:13Christ to appear to be crucified because

1:07:17that's that goes against his nature. God

1:07:20says in Numbers 23:19, God is not a man

1:07:22that he should lie or a son of man that

1:07:24he should change his mind. You keep

1:07:26mentioning things that God changes his

1:07:28mind. That God God is faithful. God's

1:07:30word is upright. God's word is perfect.

1:07:33It's complete. Nothing outside of the

1:07:34Bible is something that we it's

1:07:36everything we need is in the Bible. It's

1:07:38inherent. There's no errors in the

1:07:40Bible. And she mentioned the 500

1:07:42eyewitnesses. Mary was there as well.

1:07:44There was also also a sin a cin cherion

1:07:47that was there as well. A Roman that

1:07:49walked by and said that is truly a man

1:07:50of God that's on that cross. There's

1:07:53people that that w the 500 the the texts

1:07:56aren't just religious texts. These are

1:07:58eyewitness accounts. And if you go into

1:08:00a court and you say, "Oh, this

1:08:02happened." That's a burden of proof if

1:08:04you do not have a eyewitness to attest

1:08:05for that. And we have witnesses. But the

1:08:08but the issue is the way that I'm going

1:08:10about this is I'm saying if you are

1:08:11claiming that the Bible contains

1:08:13eyewitness testimony, how can you claim

1:08:16that the Bible contains eyewitness

1:08:17testimony if you can't prove that it was

1:08:19written by eyewitnesses? Then I'll ask

1:08:21where does the testimony come from? To

1:08:22which she responded. She said okay we

1:08:24have Paul attesting to 500 eyewitnesses

1:08:26not to the crucifixion but rather the

1:08:28resurrection but that's not 500

1:08:30testimonies. If I come to you and let's

1:08:32try and be a little bit consistent,

1:08:33right? If I come to you in the seventh

1:08:36century and I say that I saw the prophet

1:08:39Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him

1:08:40split the moon and 500 people were with

1:08:42me. Is that one source or is that 501

1:08:46sources?

1:08:47>> Okay. Well, let's forget about the

1:08:48eyewitness and testimony.

1:08:49>> Wait, I I want that question answered.

1:08:50Is that 501 sources or is that one

1:08:53source claiming that there are 500

1:08:55sources?

1:08:55>> Okay. So to answer to speak to your

1:08:57point, these people that said the

1:09:00eyewitnesses that stated that Jesus

1:09:02Christ testified, sorry, testified that

1:09:05Jesus Christ was in fact crucified on

1:09:06the cross, people could have refuted

1:09:08that at that given time. People did not

1:09:10refute that. They actually acknowledged

1:09:12that and said this, it did in fact.

1:09:14>> Yeah. But my my question is not being

1:09:15answered though. Would that be one

1:09:17testimony um allegedly or would that be

1:09:20500 testimonies from Paul specifically?

1:09:22because Paul when he claims 500

1:09:24eyewitnesses he is the only person who

1:09:26makes this claim and to that fact we

1:09:28don't have all of these individuals

1:09:29names right so I'm asking would that be

1:09:31500 sources or one source so I'll I'll

1:09:34just chime in um something that I find

1:09:37interesting is you can say like 500 or

1:09:39one one sees the 500 see Jesus whatever

1:09:43um raised from the dead the fact is that

1:09:44there is eyewitness accounts but here's

1:09:47even like the bigger thing is like it's

1:09:48not just in the Bible and it's not just

1:09:50with these scholars that we find Like

1:09:52when we just Google, oh, who saw Jesus,

1:09:53who wrote about Jesus, there is still

1:09:55documentation coming out today about

1:09:58people dis archaeologists finding Old

1:10:01Testament like journals and stuff

1:10:02written on stone tablets saying claiming

1:10:04that they saw Jesus after he rose from

1:10:06the dead. There was one a discovery just

1:10:08a few years ago actually that um and you

1:10:10can look this up afterward like people

1:10:12are still discovering real people like

1:10:16eyewitness accounts on tablets on stone

1:10:18on whatever it is when they do digging

1:10:20on archaeological sites in in the Middle

1:10:22East and so um yeah again you can look

1:10:25that up afterward and and see it but I

1:10:27think that that's just so true because

1:10:28that's such an outside point of view

1:10:30right you can say 100 500

1:10:32>> I do I do want to touch on that because

1:10:33I did want to mention data outside of

1:10:35the Bible as well but I wanted to

1:10:37emphasize on the Bible first just

1:10:38because that's something that will unite

1:10:39the four of you guys. We all you all

1:10:41accept the Bible, right? So, I wanted to

1:10:42touch on that first, but it seems like

1:10:44there's really not much of a response in

1:10:46terms of whether or not it's one source

1:10:47or 500 sources. But even if like let's

1:10:49say it's one source in this instance,

1:10:50it's Paul saying that 500 people

1:10:52attested to this. Um, was Paul himself

1:10:55an eyewitness of either the crucifixion

1:10:58event or the resurrection event? Did he

1:10:59ever meet Jesus physically? Apart from

1:11:02his claims to having visions, did he

1:11:03ever meet Jesus?

1:11:04>> No. But apart even from the eyewitness

1:11:06accounts, we can even talk about the

1:11:08prophecies that have been that have come

1:11:10to pass about Jesus's death,

1:11:12crucifixion, and resurrection. So, what

1:11:14do you have to say about these

1:11:15prophecies that came to pass? Okay,

1:11:17perfect. We can talk about that. I do

1:11:18want to talk about the extra biblical

1:11:20data first. Um, so give me an example of

1:11:22somebody outside of the Bible that

1:11:24attests to the crucifixion of Jesus and

1:11:26we can say uh a firsthand source in this

1:11:28instance because they don't have to be

1:11:29an eyewitness, but they can be somebody

1:11:30who met an eyewitness or whatever it may

1:11:32be. Do you have anybody like that?

1:11:33>> Yeah. So I mean I feel like we all if we

1:11:35done our research we know like Lucien or

1:11:37whatever or from the Romans like he was

1:11:39he was mocking Christians for believing

1:11:41in a man who was put on a cross right I

1:11:43think a lot of the people of the time

1:11:45Jewish religious leaders they believe

1:11:48that Jesus died but it's not a dispute

1:11:50of who like who died on the cross it's

1:11:52who he means to us as people and I want

1:11:54to encourage just what you said of like

1:11:56who who else can we bring into the

1:11:58testimony the example that I found when

1:12:00I did research of like the modernday

1:12:02examples these modern or it's not modern

1:12:04tablets, they're old tablets being found

1:12:05now in the new age. Like today

1:12:08throughout archaeologists, these are

1:12:10just random people. Like these are just

1:12:11artifacts that are there that are hidden

1:12:13away that you know archaeologists have

1:12:16to find. They don't have a name. And I

1:12:18think that that's even more so

1:12:20solidification of like this is real

1:12:22because they're not they're not named.

1:12:24It's not Lucen that we can debate. I do

1:12:26want to talk about what establishes a

1:12:28historical event because you would agree

1:12:29that the first thing that we go to when

1:12:31we want to establish that something

1:12:33happened is testimony, right? That's the

1:12:35first source that we'll go to. So, since

1:12:37you we kind of touched on the Bible, I

1:12:39do want to let you talk because you

1:12:40haven't really gotten a word out. Um, so

1:12:42we were talking a bit about biblical

1:12:43data and whether or not the Bible

1:12:45contains eyewitness testimony about the

1:12:47crucifixion. Um, do you have anything to

1:12:49say about data outside of the Bible that

1:12:51attests to the crucifixion, whether it

1:12:52be first century people who saw it

1:12:54themselves or people who met people that

1:12:56saw him saw it himself? Do you have

1:12:57anything to say to that?

1:12:58>> Well, the person who inbalmed Jesus was

1:13:00actually one of the people, one of the

1:13:02Jews who were accusing him of sorcery,

1:13:04which is why they crucified him in the

1:13:05first place. But I did have a question.

1:13:07You believe Jesus is in heaven right now

1:13:09and he's going to come back to kill the

1:13:11Antichrist?

1:13:11>> Yeah, I believe that he's resting in the

1:13:12second.

1:13:12>> And why would he come back and break the

1:13:14cross as well?

1:13:15>> Okay, beautiful. because he was not

1:13:17crucified and he is diminishing

1:13:18>> break a cross that had no significance

1:13:20to Christians.

1:13:21>> There's also uh a reason that that's

1:13:24said it's to essentially establish that

1:13:27the idea that Jesus was sacrificed for

1:13:30the sins of mankind is something

1:13:33completely and utterly false. So it has

1:13:35a meaning behind it. It's not just an

1:13:37action. He breaks the cross for the love

1:13:38of the game. Of course not. There's

1:13:40something that is signified by that. It

1:13:43is essentially saying that the Christian

1:13:44belief is not true. But I did want an

1:13:46answer to the question because I did ask

1:13:48you something and it wasn't answered. Do

1:13:49we have any data outside of the Bible?

1:13:52Since I was asking about eyewitness

1:13:53testimony within the Bible, but we

1:13:54weren't getting anywhere with that.

1:13:55>> Pontius Pilate, Thadius, the person who

1:13:58ordered his

1:13:59>> Oh, yeah. And where what documents do we

1:14:00find those in?

1:14:01>> Roman documents. Roman historical.

1:14:03>> Okay. And what's the first manuscript

1:14:04that we get for those Roman documents

1:14:05when?

1:14:06>> Tell me. I don't know.

1:14:07>> Yeah. So, it's post 10th century. So, we

1:14:09have instances of these manuscripts. For

1:14:12example, if you want to mention because

1:14:13somebody mentioned Josephus, I believe

1:14:15it was you who mentioned Josephus. You

1:14:17can talk about for example uh you

1:14:18mentioned uh sorry you didn't mention

1:14:20but a lot of people mentioned Tacitus

1:14:22and things of that nature. All of these

1:14:24instances mention writings from

1:14:26individuals who live in the first or

1:14:27second century and we only see these

1:14:31writings being shown in manuscript form

1:14:34post Islam which we can say is like what

1:14:37sixth, seventh century.

1:14:38>> Yeah. Yeah. And I love that you like

1:14:40have those resources ready and and um

1:14:42give you testimony to kind of your facts

1:14:45of like, okay, this happened years

1:14:46later, these people, whatever. But

1:14:47again, going back to the point that I

1:14:49brought up, like archaeologists are

1:14:51finding tablets. So, what do you have to

1:14:53say about that of like people

1:14:54discovering it now? Random eyewitness

1:14:56accounts.

1:14:57>> Yeah. Perfect. People discovering

1:14:58tablets of people portraying crucifixion

1:15:01events doesn't mean that those events

1:15:02actually happened. We have tablets of

1:15:04people documenting the existence of sun

1:15:06gods and moon gods and things of that

1:15:08nature. That doesn't establish that

1:15:10these things actually existed. All this

1:15:12can do is establish that this was an

1:15:14early belief. But something being

1:15:16believed in does not mean that it

1:15:18happened. That's why I'm emphasizing on

1:15:20historical substantiation. Not what the

1:15:23people believed in, but what actually

1:15:25happened. Which is why I'm asking for

1:15:26eyewitness testimony.

1:15:27>> Yeah. So you're saying if there's no

1:15:28eyewitness testimony, it did not happen.

1:15:30I'm saying that the first source that we

1:15:33go to is eyewitness testimony. And if we

1:15:35don't have eyewitness testimony, that's

1:15:36why I also mentioned you can have

1:15:38somebody who essentially met an

1:15:40eyewitness or somebody who met somebody

1:15:41that was an eyewitness and so on and so

1:15:43forth. There can be sources like that as

1:15:44well.

1:15:44>> Yeah. But that eyewitness testimony is

1:15:46not the only evidence that something

1:15:48existed or happened. If we take

1:15:49Alexander the Great, we don't have

1:15:51historical facts about him until 400

1:15:53years later. But people don't deny that

1:15:55Alexander the Great existed. So you

1:15:57can't just you cannot say that it's just

1:15:59because we don't have historical

1:16:00accounts with eyewitnesses does not make

1:16:02it true. Where I can remember so you

1:16:05agree that [laughter] we don't have the

1:16:07account was in the cave with Muhammad.

1:16:09>> Okay. To me that kind of just seemed

1:16:10like you're conceding that we don't have

1:16:11any eyewitness testimony because you

1:16:13saying that eyewitness testimony is not

1:16:15the only fact after I've been spending

1:16:17the past couple of minutes trying to get

1:16:18eyewitness testimony seems like a

1:16:20concession that there is none. So, I'm

1:16:22just going to ask simply, do we have

1:16:24wellestablished eyewitness testimony to

1:16:26the crucifixion? I would like a yes or

1:16:27no if that's okay.

1:16:27>> Yes, we have the gospels.

1:16:28>> Okay. And can you prove that the gospels

1:16:29are eyewitnesses?

1:16:30>> Can you prove that Muhammad had an

1:16:31eyewitness in the cave?

1:16:32>> Uh, that's a twoquay fallacy. You're

1:16:34going to you're going to need to answer

1:16:35my question before I answer your

1:16:36question.

1:16:36>> Let's say that we didn't know.

1:16:37>> You're going to need to answer my

1:16:38question. So, do we or do we not?

1:16:39>> Take the argument. Let me say no so I

1:16:41can piggy back on that.

1:16:42>> Okay. So, so you agree that we can't

1:16:43establish that the gospels are

1:16:44eyewitness testimony?

1:16:45>> I do not agree on that.

1:16:46>> Okay. So, can you prove that they're

1:16:46eyewitness testimony?

1:16:47>> I told you the gospels.

1:16:49>> Okay. No, I'm asking can you prove that

1:16:50the Gospels are right testimony?

1:16:51>> I thought God's word can't be changed.

1:16:53>> Yeah, exactly.

1:16:54>> Wait, but we're talking about within

1:16:55Christianity. We're not We're also

1:16:57talking about historic

1:16:58>> scriptures. You're talking about

1:17:00historical documents

1:17:02>> because we're talking about whether or

1:17:03not something is historically prompt.

1:17:05The prompt has nothing to do.

1:17:07>> Wait, hold on. The prompt has nothing to

1:17:09do with Islam. So, if we want to go by

1:17:10that standard, you guys mentioning Islam

1:17:12is also a deflection from the prompt.

1:17:13So, I'm just going to ask simply, can we

1:17:15prove that the Bible was written by

1:17:17eyewitnesses? It's a yes or no question.

1:17:18>> Other than historical evidence? No.

1:17:20>> Okay. And what historical evidence do we

1:17:22have to the Bibles being authored by

1:17:24eyewitnesses?

1:17:24>> We have the Bible.

1:17:25>> So,

1:17:25>> okay. So, that's circular. That's a

1:17:27circle. So, we're using the Bible to

1:17:29prove the Bible.

1:17:29>> So, my question is my question is

1:17:33>> my question is, why do you believe in

1:17:35Muhammad if there's no proof? There's no

1:17:38other eyewitnesses that this man had a

1:17:41revelation. And your your scriptures

1:17:44affirm our scriptures. The scriptures

1:17:46tell you guys to go back to our

1:17:48scriptures. Go to the previous

1:17:50scriptures because there is it's

1:17:52inherent. It's our our scriptures are

1:17:55God breathed. I would love to our

1:17:56scriptures our scriptures are come

1:17:58through the Holy Spirit.

1:18:00>> They're God breathed. So the our

1:18:02scriptures also say if you do not have

1:18:04the truth the those who don't have the

1:18:06truth is are being veiled in their

1:18:07parishes.

1:18:08>> Okay, perfect. But my issue is the only

1:18:09way that you can prove that your

1:18:10scriptures were revealed by the Holy

1:18:11Spirit is if you appeal to your

1:18:12scriptures. So that's again a circle.

1:18:14But you asking me about why I believe in

1:18:16the prophet Muhammad peace and blessings

1:18:17be upon him is again a deflection from

1:18:19the topic because this isn't about

1:18:20whether or not and why I believe I'm

1:18:22using I'm using your logic but the issue

1:18:25is though you're using my logic before

1:18:27answering my question. So that's not

1:18:28something that needs to happen.

1:18:29>> We have history we have archaeology

1:18:32agnostics we have

1:18:33>> so what historical documents

1:18:34>> testify that who test excuse me who

1:18:37testify that this indefinitely happened

1:18:40that this is the wellestablished

1:18:41historical event.

1:18:42>> Okay, perfect. But but the issue is

1:18:43because my question was what historical

1:18:46documents do we use to prove that the

1:18:48Bible was written by eyewitnesses?

1:18:49Because that's what we're kind of in

1:18:51now. We're talking about historical

1:18:52evidence for the crucifixion. And the

1:18:54first thing we mentioned was the

1:18:55Gospels. So I'm asking very simply, what

1:18:58historical evidence doesn't need to be

1:18:59eyewitness. What historical documents or

1:19:01evidence do we have to prove that the

1:19:04Bible was written by eyewitnesses

1:19:05without using the Bible because that's

1:19:06circular?

1:19:07>> What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do you

1:19:08affirm those at all?

1:19:09>> That's not New Testament. We're talking

1:19:10about the New Testament. But okay, but

1:19:12the Dead Sea Scrolls was a pro is a

1:19:14fulfillment. I Isaiah 53 is it says that

1:19:17he would be pierced by our

1:19:19transgressions that he would be led like

1:19:20a lamb to the slaughter that he would

1:19:22>> and that's that's echoed in Jeremiah

1:19:24that's also echoed in Jeremiah and

1:19:26that's attributed to Jeremiah. So my

1:19:28issue is with this that's also kind of

1:19:30deflection from the writing aspect from

1:19:33who authored it. You mentioning the Dead

1:19:35Sea Scrolls is a deflection because

1:19:36we're not talking about Old Testament.

1:19:37We're talking about New Testament and

1:19:39we're also talking about history. fills

1:19:41it.

1:19:41>> Wait, hold on. But we're not talking

1:19:42about Let me ask you this. So, let me

1:19:44ask you this. Does history acknowledge

1:19:46prophecy, which is something miraculous?

1:19:47Do historians acknowledge supernatural

1:19:49things such as prophecy?

1:19:50>> Some do.

1:19:51>> No, that's false. Because history and

1:19:53the reason why every

1:19:55>> No, the reason why is because history is

1:19:56something naturalistic, which means they

1:19:58don't appeal to supernatural things such

1:20:00as prophecy or miracles. That's also

1:20:02why, wait, I'm in the middle of

1:20:03speaking. That's also why,

1:20:06for example, atheists and historians

1:20:08don't agree with the resurrection. Not

1:20:10because there aren't people who believed

1:20:12in it, but because it's a supernatural

1:20:14event. So, naturally, they're not going

1:20:16to accept things such as prophecy and so

1:20:17on and so forth. We're talking about

1:20:19historical documents backing the

1:20:21crucifixion. So, I want to go back to my

1:20:23point. Do you have historical documents

1:20:24that prove that the Bible was written by

1:20:26eyewitnesses?

1:20:27>> Okay. Aside from the eyewitness, because

1:20:28I feel like there's like a catch 22.

1:20:30Let's say, okay, we do not have them

1:20:31other than the Bible. We all agree we do

1:20:33not have them. Okay. Do you believe that

1:20:35your Quran

1:20:36>> Do you guys agree? Do you agree that we

1:20:37don't have any evidence

1:20:38>> other than the Bibles?

1:20:39>> Okay. So it it seems like

1:20:41>> based on my knowledge I could be I'm

1:20:42learning about this every day based on

1:20:44my knowledge. No. Okay. From what I

1:20:46know. But do you believe that your Quran

1:20:47is a wellestablished historical event?

1:20:50Do you

1:20:50>> that that's that's a first off the Quran

1:20:52isn't an event. But regardless that's

1:20:54also a deflection from the top. So would

1:20:56you guys agree that is a deflection

1:20:58point because the topic is the

1:20:59crucifixion.

1:21:00>> I'm trying to land here.

1:21:01>> I just want to say I think you're doing

1:21:02a great job. Like truly, and I I know,

1:21:05sorry, but I just want to say that the

1:21:08what you have to bring to the table is

1:21:10so unique. Like I just genuinely feel

1:21:12like you're so smart. Like you like

1:21:14truly like you you're trying to catch us

1:21:16all and I and I appreciate I appreciate

1:21:18the dedication and the heart that you

1:21:20have behind this. Like truly hear me say

1:21:21that genuinely. But

1:21:23>> we're going back and forth in a circle

1:21:25of eyewitnesses. I believe that we have

1:21:26eyewitnesses, the tablets, the shroud,

1:21:29etc. Okay. But I want to just say why it

1:21:31matters, right? Because if the

1:21:33crucifixion was fake, right, and if

1:21:35Jesus just ascended into heaven, um like

1:21:37the Quran says with because God loved

1:21:39him essentially more so than anybody

1:21:42else, that he ascended Jesus into

1:21:44heaven, right? To send somebody else to

1:21:45the cross because somebody died on the

1:21:47cross, right? Somebody had to have died

1:21:48on the cross. If you believe he

1:21:50ascended, somebody still was hanging on

1:21:52that cross. So you're saying that Allah

1:21:54loved Jesus more than anybody else on

1:21:57earth because he spared him. He didn't

1:21:59he didn't spare Muhammad from dying,

1:22:01right? He he spared Jesus. So why that's

1:22:05not that's not the same God of like the

1:22:08Quran that's allloving, that's good,

1:22:10that's merciful, and it's not the God

1:22:11that we believe in. And it's so

1:22:13important to know that Jesus Christ

1:22:15chose to go to the cross because he is

1:22:17God and he loves us so much that he

1:22:20wanted a personal relationship with us.

1:22:22And and if again he didn't die and it

1:22:24was some man then like the first point

1:22:26was then we're just deceived. We're all

1:22:28deceived. And you can say in the

1:22:30revelation, he breaks the cross. And and

1:22:32that's another thing. But truly, it's so

1:22:34important to know that like without the

1:22:37cross, I wouldn't be here today. My I

1:22:39wouldn't I would have taken my life,

1:22:41right? Like my life, it's not mine

1:22:43because of what Jesus did. Jesus said,

1:22:45"I forgive you." And that's only because

1:22:47of his death and resurrection. Because

1:22:49there's no body in the tomb, right? And

1:22:51so because of the resurrection of Jesus

1:22:53Christ, because he loved me so much, he

1:22:55loves you so much. He loves everybody in

1:22:57this room so much that he chose to die

1:22:59on the cross not to be. He could cuz

1:23:02remember he he rose again and he

1:23:03ascended into heaven then, right? But he

1:23:05could have chose to do that before he

1:23:07died and he didn't because he loves us.

1:23:09And there's eyewitness accounts, right?

1:23:10The tablets, the shroud, the the

1:23:12>> Wait, I I just want to hold it there

1:23:14because you you've made a lot of points.

1:23:15So you mentioned explicitly that if it's

1:23:18the case that Jesus was not crucified

1:23:20that we were all deceived. But the issue

1:23:22is we are all capable of now looking

1:23:24into whether or not this is a

1:23:26wellestablished historical event. And

1:23:27this conversation if anything has proven

1:23:29to me that um generally speaking people

1:23:31are not capable of presenting

1:23:33wellestablished historical evidences for

1:23:35the crucifixion taking place if you