**Islamic Dilemma or Christian Dilemma? | GodLogicApologetics Vs Dr. Javad Hashmi — Transcript & Summary | SozAI**
Source: https://sozai.app/transcript/islamic-dilemma-christian-dilemma-godlogic-apologetics-vs/

GodLogic Apologetics (Avery Austin Jr.) debates Dr. Javad Hashmi at Modern Day Debate's DebateCon 9 on the 'Islamic dilemma' vs. 'Christian dilemma' over scriptural authority and corruption.

## Key Takeaways

- The 'Islamic dilemma' hinges on whether Muslims accept the authority of the Bible alongside the Quran, as Quran 29:46 implies.
- The key disagreement is over textual corruption (tahrif) and whether the Quran's references to earlier scripture apply to today's Bible.
- Trinitarian and monotheistic arguments from the Old Testament were central to the Christian side's case.
- Methodological divides (historical-critical vs. traditionalist reading) shaped how each debater interpreted evidence.
- The debate exposed tensions over definitions (Injeel, Quran, Gospels) and how each side conceptualizes revelation.

## What the video covers

- The video is a recorded event from Modern Day Debate's DebateCon 9, opening with housekeeping, sponsor messages (ROAR, Apologetics Arc), and speaker introductions.
- Avery Austin Jr. of GodLogic Apologetics opens by framing the 'Islamic dilemma' and citing Quran 29:46 on engaging People of the Book.
- Avery argues Muslims must believe in the Bible as well as the Quran, presenting this as the basis of the dilemma.
- Dr. Javad Hashmi, a Harvard-trained scholar of Islam and emergency physician, presents the Muslim response, arguing the Quran refers to corruption or uncertainty in earlier scriptures.
- The debate centers on whether the Quran is scripturally authoritative and how Tanakh and New Testament texts relate to it.
- Much of the exchange concerns the Trinity, with Avery citing Old Testament verses (e.g., Deuteronomy-style and Psalm 83:18) to argue for the uniqueness of Yahweh and the deity of Jesus.
- Hashmi distinguishes between the Injeel as Jesus's proclamation and the written Gospels, and raises textual corruption (tahrif) claims, referencing scholarship such as Bart Ehrman.
- The discussion grows heated at points, with accusations about evasion, conflation of terms, and debate conduct.
- Neither side fully concedes the other's framing; the exchange highlights methodological differences between historical-critical and Sunni traditionalist approaches.
- The video closes with a lighter note from Hashmi, signaling mutual respect despite sharp disagreement.

## Chapters

1. 00:00 Opening remarks and introduction of the 'Islamic dilemma'
2. 06:00 Event housekeeping and sponsor messages
3. 20:00 Speaker introductions: Avery Austin Jr. and Dr. Javad Hashmi
4. 26:30 Avery's opening: Quran 29:46 and the scriptural dilemma
5. 33:00 Hashmi's response and the question of scriptural authority
6. 45:00 Trinity and Old Testament verses on Yahweh
7. 60:00 Corruption (tahrif) and the Injeel versus written Gospels
8. 75:00 Heated exchanges and closing remarks

Answers

## Questions about this video

What is the 'Islamic dilemma' presented in this debate?

Avery Austin Jr. argues that Quran 29:46 implies Muslims must believe in the Bible as revealed scripture, creating a dilemma for Islamic claims about biblical corruption. Hashmi counters that the Quran's references to uncertainty apply to vague passages in earlier scripture.

What is Dr. Javad Hashmi's main response to the Christian argument?

Hashmi argues that the Quran's critique concerns uncertain or ambiguous passages in previous scriptures, and that the Quran should be used to interpret those passages. He also distinguishes the Injeel as Jesus's proclamation from the written Gospels.

Which topics dominate the debate?

The debate focuses on scriptural authority, textual corruption (tahrif), the Trinity, and the Old Testament's depiction of God as Yahweh alone. Methodological differences between historical-critical and traditionalist approaches also come up frequently.

## Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown

00:00

Speaker A

Let me try to explain to you the Islamic dilemma. I use the Islamic dilemma without using the word kab.

00:11

Speaker A

Bro, you, you, you definitely do not be real, because was did I use kab in my opening? Just bec.

00:16

Speaker A

Yeah, because you didn't have substance in your opening.

00:21

Speaker A

You had, you had a performance.

00:36

Speaker A

Let's say I was a complete atheist.

00:47

Speaker A

I have nothing.

00:58

Speaker A

You're not an atheist.

01:13

Speaker A

You're a Muslim.

01:24

Speaker A

Did they have a written?

01:43

Speaker A

It doesn't matter.

02:04

Speaker A

The problem is, it matters.

02:17

Speaker A

What are you talking about?

02:23

Speaker A

Doesn't matter.

02:41

Speaker A

I came here to debate a Muslim.

02:49

Speaker A

It's okay if you want to give this up now.

03:05

Speaker A

Trembling, or we're in, we're now, now he's accusing me of Babylon. The irony.

03:14

Speaker A

We are thrilled to have you here, folks, for our main event of the night.

03:22

Speaker A

As I've already mentioned today, welcome to Debatecon 9.

03:37

Speaker A

We're thrilled to have you here.

03:47

Speaker A

A couple of quick housekeeping things.

03:55

Speaker A

Friendly reminder to please make everybody feel as welcome as possible.

04:07

Speaker A

We really do appreciate our speakers being here, and fellow attendees.

04:09

Speaker A

So, please do give them a word of encouragement.

04:26

Speaker A

And even if you disagree, you can say, "Hey, you know, I don't even agree with you, but I'm glad you're here. I respect the fact that you come here. That's awesome."

04:48

Speaker A

And making sharing photos easier.

05:03

Speaker A

We've been using the hashtag #DebateCon9 to upload photos at the Modern Day Debate X.

05:23

Speaker A

You can use that same hashtag.

05:36

Speaker A

It's easier for people to find photos from the event so we can share with each other.

05:44

Speaker A

And last but not least, I want to give a huge special thanks.

05:56

Speaker A

So this conference, we're trying to recognize, is our ninth conference, which is crazy.

06:08

Speaker A

We're so excited, and it's only possible because of all the hard workers, the speakers.

06:24

Speaker A

The speakers are the lifeblood of the channel.

06:38

Speaker A

But also, I want to give huge credit to, in particular, a special person tonight, Bob, who has been with us since the first one.

06:49

Speaker A

Now, Bob, where are you?

07:04

Speaker A

Can you, Bob, where?

07:17

Speaker A

20 years, over 20 years military experience, retired lieutenant colonel, and he said, "Hey, I'm a big believer in Modern Day Debate."

07:31

Speaker A

And we are so grateful that he believes in fair debates, and I just can't give enough credit to this guy.

07:44

Speaker A

These events just wouldn't happen without him.

08:00

Speaker A

And with that, we also want to say a huge thank you to our sponsors, in particular.

08:12

Speaker A

I want to start with Mike Lefave, as they've been a sponsor with us for a long time, and I'm very grateful to have Mike as a friend, as they believe in fair debates.

08:27

Speaker A

I want to give you a chance to share about ROAR.

08:42

Speaker A

Thanks for being with us, Mike.

08:50

Speaker A

Thank you so much, James.

09:01

Speaker A

Appreciate it.

09:16

Speaker A

Appreciate being here.

09:32

Speaker A

Appreciate Modern Day Debate.

09:42

Speaker A

You know, they host topics, really important issues, on things like abortion, trans-ing kids, gay marriage, dual-income households, Sharia.

09:55

Speaker A

These are really important debates.

10:10

Speaker A

And I got a quick question for you guys.

10:17

Speaker A

You know who's at fault for all of those things happening in our society?

10:28

Speaker A

Christians.

10:39

Speaker A

It's Christians' fault.

10:54

Speaker A

You know why?

11:06

Speaker A

35 million Christians don't vote in elections.

11:20

Speaker A

Studies show about 30% of Christians aren't even registered to vote.

11:33

Speaker A

That's why I started ROAR.

11:47

Speaker A

We're going to change that.

11:59

Speaker A

We're going into churches.

12:17

Speaker A

We're putting boots on the ground.

12:23

Speaker A

We're registering Christians.

12:35

Speaker A

We're getting out the biblical mandate to get engaged in civics, government, and politics.

12:41

Speaker A

We're doing it.

12:54

Speaker A

I can't do it without your help.

13:05

Speaker A

Come talk to me at the booth.

13:17

Speaker A

I can tell you all about how we're doing it.

13:31

Speaker A

Visit me at revivingtheroar.org.

13:45

Speaker A

revivingtheroar.org.

14:01

Speaker A

Thank you so much.

14:16

Speaker A

And we got another sponsor.

14:30

Speaker A

Absolutely.

14:43

Speaker A

Thanks, Mike.

14:56

Speaker A

Also want to give a huge thank you to Sam from Apologetics Arc, as they have been supporting this massive event.

15:04

Speaker A

We are thrilled to have them here.

15:14

Speaker A

Sam, please share about Apologetics Arc.

15:28

Speaker A

We're thrilled to have you.

15:35

Speaker A

Thank you, James.

15:50

Speaker A

Uh, like you said, my name is Sam.

16:03

Speaker A

I'm the founder of Apologetics Arc Ministry.

16:15

Speaker A

Our goal is to make sure that Christians are equipped with all the resources and tools to properly defend the faith whenever it comes to a difficult topic or a tough question.

16:30

Speaker A

So, if you're interested in that type of stuff, obviously you are, or you wouldn't be here for the most part.

16:46

Speaker A

You can check us out at apologeticsarchc.com or download our mobile app that we have now available for iOS and Android.

16:58

Speaker A

Apologetics Arc is also the name of that app.

17:16

Speaker A

Check us out on our socials.

17:37

Speaker A

You guessed it, Apologetics Arc as well, for those.

18:00

Speaker A

And, uh, hope you guys have a great event.

18:09

Speaker A

I know this is going to be a good one.

18:26

Speaker A

Thank you, James.

18:37

Speaker A

Thank you.

18:53

Speaker A

Appreciate it, Sam.

19:05

Speaker A

All right, we are ready to rumble, folks.

19:16

Speaker A

I am going to introduce Avery, as he will be speaking first.

19:27

Speaker A

God Logic Apologetics, led by Avery Austin Jr., is a Christian ministry that has recently reached a whopping 800,000 subscribers, influencing people across the world, and is known for, and he is known for, debating Muslims and defending the divinity of Jesus.

19:38

Speaker A

Please join me in welcoming God Logic Apologetics.

19:54

Speaker A

We're also thrilled to introduce Dr. Javad Hashmi, a Harvard-trained scholar of Islam, a former fellow of medical ethics at Harvard Medical School, and a board-certified emergency physician, and he holds a master's degree in Arabic and Islamic studies from Harvard and has pursued doctoral research at Harvard University.

20:08

Speaker A

Folks, he's got more degrees than a thermometer.

20:16

Speaker A

Please join me in welcoming Dr. Javad Hashmi.

20:28

Speaker A

Ready for you first.

20:45

Speaker A

So, you can leave it, sit, and then I have got the timer set for you, Avery.

21:00

Speaker A

And the openings will be 15 minutes, folks.

21:17

Speaker A

And I'll only start the timer on your first word, Avery.

21:30

Speaker A

Does this count?

21:48

Speaker A

Nope, not yet.

22:02

Speaker A

All right, good.

22:12

Speaker A

All right.

22:27

Speaker A

How you guys doing?

22:45

Speaker A

All right.

23:00

Speaker A

So, man, it's, uh, good to be here.

23:14

Speaker A

Thank you, James, for the opportunity.

23:29

Speaker A

Thank you, Doctor, for coming through and, uh, participating in the debate.

23:38

Speaker A

Um, so for this debate, you guys, I hope that you guys bring the energy, because when we get into this subject, it's going to be fun.

23:49

Speaker A

It's going to be a good back and forth.

24:02

Speaker A

And, uh, just really quick, what's the only thing we do around here, y'all?

24:10

Speaker A

That's it.

24:22

Speaker A

So, the topic is Islamic dilemma or Christian dilemma.

24:36

Speaker A

And I'm going to be really interested to see, or to hear, what the Christian dilemma might be.

24:50

Speaker A

Um, we hear a lot of dilemmas being thrown out there in response to this, right?

25:06

Speaker A

There's a lot of people trying to come up with this, a Christian dilemma or a Pauline dilemma or some kind of dilemma, to try to combat the Islamic dilemma or distract from it.

25:14

Speaker A

They want to be us so bad, y'all.

25:27

Speaker A

They want to be us so bad.

25:40

Speaker A

But I think it's a good place to start with what the Islamic dilemma is, which most of us already know.

25:51

Speaker A

But I think it's a good thing to lay the foundation, which is going to set forth the premise for the conversation.

26:04

Speaker A

Right?

26:18

Speaker A

So there's a few verses, and I think that in this time we can use to educate ourselves.

26:31

Speaker A

We can use any Christian can use these verses to have a conversation with any Muslim at any level.

26:37

Speaker A

Once you learn these verses, you'll be able to converse with them and also open the door to present Christ, which is the whole point of this.

26:52

Speaker A

All right.

27:05

Speaker A

So, uh, one of the first verses that I like to go to is actually chapter 29:46.

27:18

Speaker A

And this is what it says in the Quran.

27:32

Speaker A

It says, "And argue not with the people of the Scripture," that's the Jews and the Christians, that's us, that's you and me, "unless it be in a way that is better, except with such of those who do wrong.

27:43

Speaker A

And say to them, 'We believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you.'"

27:59

Speaker A

Now, ladies and gentlemen, when I saw this verse in the Quran, I said, "Wait, what?

28:13

Speaker A

Hold on a second.

28:25

Speaker A

There's no way in the world they're going to tell Muslims to believe not just in their book, but also in what I have."

28:38

Speaker A

So no, notice this.

28:52

Speaker A

This shows that the same type of belief that they put in the Quran, they have to put in the Bible as well.

29:00

Speaker A

And so I would like to ask the Muslim, ar

29:12

Speaker A

In the Quran when you see the word the Quran being used al Quran a physical book such as the Quran did not exist in Muhammad's lifetime just like the gospels the four gospels did not exist in Jesus's time. So when it's using the

29:24

Speaker A

word Quran it's referring to the Quranic proclamation or individual Quranic proclamations. So the focus in the Quran is on revelatory proclamation not on scriptural text which simply preserves some of that. So Torah in the Quran refers primarily to the Mosaic

29:41

Speaker A

proclamation including the oral law whereas the gospel al-jil refers primarily to Jesus's proclamation and the Quran refers to Muhammad's proclamation not to a physical book which did not exist at that time. Does the Quran confirm the gospel? No. Though

29:57

Speaker A

it refers to the gospel and thereby indirectly affirms it. The Arabic word for confirms sudaka only occurs with the Torah which is also referred to as the kab not with the gospel.

30:09

Speaker A

And the way it's used is the same way that it's used in Matthew 5:17. Fulfill.

30:14

Speaker A

Confirm here means fulfill. And the way we know this is an obvious verse in uh surah 3:50. I Jesus come confirming that which was before me of the Torah, meaning fulfilling, and to make lawful unto you part of that which was

30:27

Speaker A

forbidden unto you. The reason why we know it's fulfilling and not just imitating or copying is because Jesus is here abregating some of the law. And that's what professor Nikolai Sinai also writes in his uh book key terms which is

30:40

Speaker A

always taken out of context unfortunately by uh the people on the other side of this debate. Similarly, Muhammad himself is uh shown to take on the same role as Jesus. He fulfills the law. He makes lawful for them the good

30:53

Speaker A

things and relieves them of their burden and the shackles that were upon them. So, there's modification going on. The fulfillment is in the same sense that Jesus fulfills the law. The word muan, this is a controversial word in this

31:06

Speaker A

debate, but it really shouldn't be. It's obvious. It's entrusted authority over. So the Quran not only says that uh the that this proclamation confirms the book the Mosaic revelation before it but this Quranic proclamation is the entrusted authority muan over it and the way we

31:22

Speaker A

know that is what comes right after it. So judge between them oh Muhammad in accordance with what God has sent down of the Quranic proclamation.

31:30

Speaker A

Confirmation fulfillment also comes with divine elaboration or tapil. So the Quran says it is a confirmation of that which came before it and an elaboration or adaptation of all things. This is consistent with the category that I told

31:43

Speaker A

you about earlier of revelatory exogesis. The Quran is also the criterion. So the Quran refers to that it gave that God gave uh this divine salvivical instruction to Moses and Aaron beforehand and then it's also now given to the Quran which becomes the

31:58

Speaker A

criterion with which to judge previous revelation. In the Quran, Jesus is depicted as the divine clarifier. And that means that he can explain, adjudicate, and even modify the application of the Torah. Well, Muhammad is also described in the same role as

32:13

Speaker A

the divine clarifier. And he's the divine clarifier not only to the pagans, but also to the Jews and the Christians, not the other way around. Here he's making clear to the people of the book, not the other way

32:26

Speaker A

around. The key takeaway as professor Sinai says is in some the Quranic claim to a confirmatory relationship with previous scriptures is coupled with a claim to constituting the ultimate arbiter visav Jews and Christians of what these previous scriptures are

32:39

Speaker A

saying. This is what the academics are saying about this so-called dilemma. So the Quran very much fills the role of revelatory exesus viewing itself as the authority over previous revelation and the judge of what is true and what is

32:52

Speaker A

false. And the Quran has this explicit verse which is unfortunately not used when it comes to the Islamic dilemma but I think it's the most important. Surah 3:7 the Quran says God it is who sent down the book divine revelation upon

33:04

Speaker A

you. Therein are verses clearcut mam here the Quran is describing itself as clear-cut or muham it as Sinai says the Quran is always described as mum they are the mother of the book and others un are uncertain. So what is

33:20

Speaker A

it talking about others being uncertain? It's talking about the vague passages in previous scriptures which are being described as uncertain. So use the clear-cut verses of the Quran to understand the ambiguous or unclear verses of the previous scriptures and

33:32

Speaker A

you can do that with these verses. Unfortunately, I ran out of time. I wish I had more time but uh I guess we'll call it a day. Thank you so much.

33:39

Speaker A

Thank you very much for that opening as well. Excellent. All right, gentlemen. As you know, we'll jump into the open dialogue.

33:53

Speaker A

I've got the timer set for 50 minutes. That's 50. And that gentleman, the floor is all yours. And then just friendly reminder is just to hold the mic about two to three inches from your mouth.

34:04

Speaker A

Thank you very much. Hi. How you doing? All right. Uh Okay, there we go. All right. So, Huh?

34:11

Speaker A

I Sorry, I didn't hear you. No, I was just testing the mic. I didn't I couldn't hear myself for a second.

34:15

Speaker A

Okay. So, you referenced Marcon as a Christian who kind of had this confusion about the Old Testament and the New Testament and um are are you familiar with the history of Marcion and his uh contingents with the early church? I

34:30

Speaker A

mean I'm vaguely familiar but if you have something specific and I would say that it's not only Marcion there are in early Christian history there were multiple people and groups who realized that there were discrepancies or discontinuities with the Hebrew Bible

34:45

Speaker A

and they had various strategies to deal with that which included claiming textual corruption in in in the Hebrew Bible.

34:52

Speaker A

So just as Muslims had a debate about this so did the early Christians. Yeah. But so these people wouldn't be Christians that they're debating against. So you have Polycarp, you have Aronyaeus and you have Justin Martyr who all condemned Marcian as a heretic

35:06

Speaker A

because he one rejected the gospel and held unto Luke and edited Luke, wrote his own things into Luke to match up with his theology while rejecting the gospel uh that's you know written by Matthew, Mark and John and then rejects

35:23

Speaker A

the entire Old Testament. So you can't be rejecting the entire Old Testament and any other gospel accounts and be Christian.

35:31

Speaker A

So my point is not to adjudicate who's a good Christian or not. My point is to say that early on Christians of various denominations whether you consider them real Christians or not recognized that there are substantive differences between the two texts and the

35:46

Speaker A

protoorthodox church went in a specific direction but other Christian groups went in different directions. So for example uh in the pseudo clementine homalies uh the author believed that there are certain textual corruptions in the text that were satanic insertions

36:01

Speaker A

but that didn't necessarily mean that the text was irreoverable. Um and you similarly see the diversity of beliefs in early Muslim views where where textual corruption itself didn't necessarily mean that the text was irreoverable. And that's something that

36:16

Speaker A

maybe many Muslim apologists today don't recognize. Um but the point is that the these different beliefs existed early on and show that the same dilemma is confronting both faith groups. They just the dominant opinion turned out to be

36:30

Speaker A

different for both of them but they were dealing with the same dilemma. My my problem is when you label it as there's early Christians who had this problem and so like Marian is not a Christian. So if you have if you have

36:40

Speaker A

I think it from an academic historical perspective. So uh I I take him as Christian but you I mean if do you take unitarians as Christians?

36:48

Speaker A

No. Do you take Mormons as Christians? No. So if you're if I'm coming from an academic historical perspective, I know if you're just really quick, if you're coming from an academic historical perspective, then that historical perspective is in the early

36:57

Speaker A

church and he's not recognized by no such thing as Orthodox Christianity until several centuries after Jesus.

37:04

Speaker A

That's not true. Orthodox Orthodox Christianity is just the it's just orthodoxy. It's the origins.

37:09

Speaker A

No serious scholar of Christian history, including Christian scholars, would believe that. That's why they use the term protoorthodox. So, I mean, it's fine if you're in an apologetic circles, but if you're an academic, a serious historian, nobody acknowledges that.

37:23

Speaker A

Nobody says that uh Christian Orthodoxy existed right after Jesus died. I I would Yeah, I would disagree with that because or orthodoxy is just acknowledging what the early Christians, the first Christians believed and what was the early tradition that was held

37:37

Speaker A

and carried on for generations. All Christian groups claim to be Orthodox just like all Muslim groups claim to be Orthodox. Orthodox just means right belief. But this point is really irrelevant to the debate. The point that I'm trying to say is that

37:48

Speaker A

regardless of who it was, the acknowledgement was al always there of discontinuities. Now, do you deny the list of discontinuities that I gave you that they exist?

37:57

Speaker A

Yeah, I I would. But so we could get there in a second with these specific things because you're saying that it sounded like you're saying that this is not really a dilemma, but if I'm running with my argument, then that is a

38:09

Speaker A

dilemma. We can go through those details in a second, but I just want to get your understanding of what the Quran is saying about the scriptures. Like you said, you mentioned Mahimman, right? I I think we should let's start finish our

38:20

Speaker A

discussion with the Christian dilemma since you I want to get you to just acknowledge or not acknowledge depending on what view you have that there is a similar dilemma facing Christians as Muslims because both groups are in some

38:35

Speaker A

sense it's actually more acute for Christians because Christians acknowledge the Hebrew Bible as scriptural canon that means that the discrepancies are even more bothersome in that sense and have to be dealt with.

38:47

Speaker A

Yes. The second reason that it's a more acute issue for Christians compared to Muslims is because by the way this issue occurs across all religious scriptural traditions and that's why I call it the scriptural religions dilemma. The reason

39:00

Speaker A

is is because scripture always has to be invoked past scripture for authority reasons but in the present you always have to modify scriptures meanings at least to be applicable to the current day.

39:12

Speaker A

So so you do you believe the Quran is scripturally authoritative? Yes. As a Muslim, I do of course completely as a Muslim. Yes.

39:20

Speaker A

Okay. So, you you agree and affirm scriptural authority at least for the Quran at least.

39:26

Speaker A

Um and so that's why if if we're dealing with the text and so according to the text, the Quran is affirming the scriptures that we have. It's not. I just told you in the opening dialogue that it's affirming the Mosaic

39:40

Speaker A

proclamation, which is the Torah, which is what it includes the oral law as well as the as Jesus's proclamation. What is the gospel in?

39:49

Speaker A

Okay. So, what would be that? What would be the inje? Like I said, it's Jesus's proclamation which is not synonymous with the written preserve the preser what we have preserved of it.

39:59

Speaker A

Yeah. You're just telling me what it's not. What is it? I already told you it's Jesus's proclamation.

40:04

Speaker A

What was that? It is Jesus whatever Jesus came teaching. So his charismatic so his charismatic message is very different than later Christian orthodoxy his charismatic message was that repent the kingdom of God is near.

40:18

Speaker A

Where do you wait where do you get that from? You get that. So nobody's denying I I don't even deny that the Quran refers to uh it's hinting at that you you it is with them. So they they do have the

40:30

Speaker A

preserved words in their scriptures, but that is which is it's in the canonical gospels. Boom.

40:38

Speaker A

Yeah. But that doesn't that that means nothing. The Quran is not affirming the scripture. It's affirming the proclamation and putting corrections in for what the proclamation is. It's no different than historical critical scholars who today try to reconstruct

40:52

Speaker A

Jesus's proclamation by those scriptures, but don't behold themselves to those scriptures. They do though for for them. Okay. for historical scholar that everything Jesus said in the canonical gospels is historical. Let me let me let me I got you.

41:08

Speaker A

So you said you acknowledged something extremely important because from my understanding from what you were saying you were saying that when the Quran is talking about the NGO the gospel he's it's not referring to Matthew Mark Luke and John what they wrote right those

41:21

Speaker A

documents but then when I ask you okay then what is that you immediately have to appeal to Matthew Mark Luke and John in the Quranic millu at that time there was no Arabic Bible there was no New Testament so they weren't talking about

41:34

Speaker A

the scripture they were talking got Jesus's proclamation which is preserved in various ways including the written text but also oral tradition and there were also non-canonical texts which were non-anonical by uh by your standard but which for example the Syriak church may

41:50

Speaker A

accept and the Ethiopic church would accept because they had a different canon. Good point. I like the the the Ethiopian church because that would be the church that Muhammad's companions were familiar with.

41:59

Speaker A

Not the only one. No, the Syriak as well. But it was but they were familiar with the Ethiopian church, right? They were familiar from a trai from the standpoint of oral traditions, but not from they weren't reading the uh Bible. Yes, they

42:12

Speaker A

were in Let me tell you why. So, you're you're familiar with the companions of Muhammad going to uh the king of I forget his name is Nasha, something like that, right? And they go to them for um shelter basically and help, right? Um

42:26

Speaker A

and so then they have this conversation about Muhammad. The king asks him, "What what do you what do you guys believe?" Right? about Jesus. What does your prophet say? Because they're trying to introduce him to Islam. They say, "Well,

42:37

Speaker A

yeah, we believe Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and that he is a word of Allah and the Messiah." Right? And so then the king says, he praises God and says, "This is exactly what we have.

42:47

Speaker A

It's no different than what we have in the Injio." Right? So now my question would be this in the gospel. What would be the Ethiopian gospel in the seventh century that the king Nashi would have been referring to?

43:01

Speaker A

Great. So first of all, when you refer to the ineil in the singular, then you're referring to the gospel message.

43:07

Speaker A

You're not saying it's in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You're talking about the gospel message. So that in itself isn't a slam dunk. The other issue is that these are literary constructions. As historians, we know that these these

43:19

Speaker A

were molded themselves on the Quranic message. So when it says the Injil, it's matching up with how the Quran refers to it. This is not a slam dunk historical argument. You have to use sources that are considered authentic for that time.

43:33

Speaker A

Okay. Again, I still didn't hear what it was though in when when I told you wait when King Nashi is saying yes, what you just said about Jesus is no different than what we have in the in the gospel. What was it that

43:48

Speaker A

he had that he was referring to? First of all, like I said, it's ne not necessarily a historical statement. So, it's not the way we read as historians of the Quran. We read the Quran. It would be like you reading uh or biblical

44:02

Speaker A

scholars reading uh the Bible and taking uh texts that come from much later and using that to interpret the text. That's not how historians work. Historians read the text with other texts from that around that.

44:13

Speaker A

Read what text? The Quran, for example, if they're trying to antique. If they're talking about the gospel, what text are they reading when it comes? Okay. So, I am already acknowledging and you're just going to keep repeating and and I've seen I've

44:26

Speaker A

seen this in your previous debates which is uh a little bit theatrical and performative. Yeah. I mean, I like it. I like it.

44:33

Speaker A

I like it. I saw you up there. You're like, I'm going to get up and go, "Amen.

44:37

Speaker A

I've been reserved." I've already asked and answered this question. The point is that the Quran is pointing to the proclamation of Jesus, which yes, is preserved in certain ways, but that doesn't mean that that's what the Quran is affirming. The Quran is affirming

44:50

Speaker A

what the original proclamation of Jesus was. In fact, that's why it can say of Jesus certain things that are not found in the canonical gospels. But by the way, I don't want to keep going back and forth repeating the same thing. We have

45:03

Speaker A

to still we we have to start with what we were starting with, which is the Christian dilemma.

45:07

Speaker A

We can't even get to the Christian dilemma if we don't even know what the Christian scriptures are. You're saying we don't know, but then saying yes, we do know. Regardless of what the Muslim issue is, do you acknowledge that there

45:17

Speaker A

are dis discontinuities between the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible? I don't. And hold on. I'm I'm sorry. I have ADHD. And so I get like real itchy when I don't when we don't complete a thought. That's why I'm like stuck here

45:32

Speaker A

because it's important. It's foundational when you're tell when your whole presentation is we don't have what the Quran is affirming. But then you appeal to I didn't say that we don't have what the Quran is.

45:41

Speaker A

You said it's not mathematical. ADHD meds, my friend. I need to because what I heard was is when the Quran is affirming the angel, it's not talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Was that not on your slide?

45:51

Speaker A

Yes. Okay. So, my ADHD is working. No, no, but your ADHD, you need you need to take those pills because if you look at the slide, I said the Quran primarily refers when it's talking about the Inil, it

46:04

Speaker A

refers primarily to Jesus's proclamation and only secondarily to the writings that preserve Jesus's understandable to everyone unless you are willfully saying that you don't understand.

46:17

Speaker A

Okay. When it says in 17157 which is the verse you brought up. Yeah. It said those who follow the unlettered prophet who what unlettered prophet who is inscribed in.

46:26

Speaker A

So what was wait just let me get to my question. Wait wait wait wait wait wait whoa whoa.

46:32

Speaker A

When it says those who follow the unlettered prophet whom they can find written in the Torah and the gospel with them. What was the written gospel that they had with them that they can find Muhammad? few verses right before that,

46:46

Speaker A

it actually uses the word written in a way of just being prescribed. No, it doesn't. So, this is Yes, it does. I'll show you where that it does say that.

46:53

Speaker A

So, I I think I know the Quran a little bit more than you. I hope so. Okay. And what I would say is I already said that I I already anticipated that you would bring up this verse, which is let's get

47:04

Speaker A

to it, Avery. Hold on. I said specifically that there is a secondary use. So for example in the Quran the primary way that the word alitab is used is for the celestial scripture. Only secondarily does it refer to written

47:17

Speaker A

scriptures that preserve that celestial tablet. So the word injeil primarily in the Quran refers to Jesus's proclamation which was divine inspiration from God that he then proclaimed and only secondarily to the texts that preserve that. So it's already acknowledged. It's

47:34

Speaker A

already acknowledged. You have to show me that the verses that say it. First of all, you said you said that the Quran confirms the gospel using the word sodaka. Which verse in the Quran uses that word for the gospel? It doesn't

47:48

Speaker A

exist. Okay. Thank you. So, you said you had a verse that the word written is not really meaning written in that same.

47:54

Speaker A

It's all over the Quran. Go look up no Dr. Javad. Even with my ADHD, I have really good listening skills.

48:01

Speaker A

Sure. You just told me that in the same chapter a few verses before, correct? It uses the same word maktubin uses the same word written to mean in a figurative sense.

48:12

Speaker A

Go ahead, brother. Yes, it uses kutiba, which is you said maktubin. No, it's the same word. If you knew Arabic, you would know that it's the same word. It's like no, having the same root doesn't mean it has the same word.

48:23

Speaker A

It's not the same root, my friend. Okay, so it's not the same word. If you say written versus writing, that is the same word, right? Unless you're saying that I need the exact tense as well. So look, let's be serious now.

48:34

Speaker A

Yeah, let's be serious. Can you get the verse? Can you I will get you the verse. But first, let's acknowledge that uh there is a Christian dilemma. Why do you keep running away from that?

48:43

Speaker A

No, I think that you run away from the Islamic dilemma to focus on the on the so-called No, I'm I'm trying to show that all religious because I don't actually I'm not here to bash Christianity. I believe divine religion. I believe I follow the

48:55

Speaker A

Quran's words on that that Christians can get divine salvation and that salvation beautiful brother get the verse man salvation is not limited to one group or the other. So I'm not here to bash Christianity but what I am here to show

49:08

Speaker A

is that often times apologists because they're so dedicated to destroying the other religion they don't realize that they're cutting off their nose to spite their face or whatever that saying is that the same problem you're identifying in the other tradition would apply

49:22

Speaker A

equally to you. That's what I'm trying to get you to acknowledge. Okay. Do they have something written?

49:26

Speaker A

Distracting from that. You keep running away from that. I keep running away to the topic.

49:30

Speaker A

Interesting. Is there a Christian dilemma? Did they have the written in jail? Is there a Christian dilemma? Yes or no?

49:37

Speaker A

Did they have the written in jail? If not, then why not? I already told you that the Hebrew Bible differs from the New Testament.

49:44

Speaker A

Do they have a written in? I gave you 10 different ways it differs. And you can't answer the Jewies.

49:51

Speaker A

What does that have to do with the Christian dilemma? It has to do everything to do with it.

49:55

Speaker A

You could say, okay, did they have it written in? You could acknowledge that there is a dilemma uh in Islam that let's say I was a complete atheist. I have nothing.

50:04

Speaker A

You're not an atheist. You're a Muslim. Did they have a written Jew? It doesn't matter. The problem is it matters. What are you talking about?

50:08

Speaker A

It doesn't matter. I came here to debate a Muslim. The way he is the way he is trying to distract you is from He can't He can't figure out. He didn't know what the By staying on topic, y'all. He if we

50:19

Speaker A

keep interrupting I think we got to go to two minutes but uh look I'm I'm here trying to give you a serious argument from the academic study of religion. All religious traditions suffer from this scriptural religion's dilemma one can

50:32

Speaker A

say and Islam is no different. Christianity is no different. And the religion of this is always to renegotiate scripture to make it relevant to the present.

50:43

Speaker A

Okay. Thank you for that. So, where we're at so far in the conversation, ladies and gentlemen, we got But you have not answered.

50:48

Speaker A

If we're going to keep interrupting, we might need to go to two minutes. Let's do it.

50:52

Speaker A

Let's go. I don't No, I don't need this. I don't No, let's go to two minutes so that we can be academic.

50:56

Speaker A

It's all good. Let's Let's chill. Let's give you your chance. Yeah. Thank you. So, we're good. So, where we're at in the conversation is that this we we got an appeal to the audience and you know I I I mean I

51:08

Speaker A

respect the the position you have the the care you have for you know everybody can be saved. We don't believe that obviously that has nothing to do with our debate right now. What we need to get to the bottom of is your points that

51:19

Speaker A

you made in your in your in your uh presentation. And when I'm I'm addressing the points and I'm I'm trying to get to the bottom of your points, you seem to not want to conclude that. So, where we're at, ladies and gentlemen, if

51:31

Speaker A

we It's okay if you want to give this up now. We'll give it up or we're in a we're now now he's accusing me of babbling of the irony. So, where we're at in the conversation, where we're at

51:41

Speaker A

in the conversation is we don't know what the angel is and then we kind of do. It's not what the Quran Quran wasn't referring to Matthew, Mark, John, but then it kind of was, but then it wasn't written, but then it kind of was. It's

51:53

Speaker A

the religion of yes, no, yes, no, yes, no. I'm just trying to figure out what it was, dude. All right. I think you should stop grandstanding. The the point is that you keep avoiding the topic of the debate. It's in the debate title. Is

52:06

Speaker A

there a Islamic or Christian dilemma? So the question you need to answer is there are discontinuities between the Hebrew Bible and the Orthodox Christian message. So how do does one resolve that? Okay, there are various strategies that one

52:19

Speaker A

can use and I have offered you that the Orthodox Church embraced the idea of reinterpretation of those texts which is the same solution that the Quran uses when it comes to previous scriptures.

52:29

Speaker A

You have to acknowledge be honest and acknowledge that's the problem with apologists. They can't just be honest and say you know what this is something that uh okay I see how it could also apply to my own tradition. You have to

52:41

Speaker A

pretend that you don't see it but clearly it's obvious. Look, look at those discrepancies that I showed you between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian uh uh orthodox beliefs. Do you not acknowledge that at all? Why do you

52:52

Speaker A

keep ignoring that? I don't. The reason that it's not that I'm ignoring it, it's that I I'm laser focused. You're laser focused. So, you're like focused on the Islamic Dr. Jab, I just let you talk, right? I just let you talk, right?

53:06

Speaker A

Sure. All right. Thank you. So, like you said, topic Islamic dilemma or Christian dilemma. We can't even get past the first part.

53:14

Speaker A

Actually, it's Christian. So, you're not even Please allow me to finish. We can't even get past whether or not there is an Islamic dilemma or get you to engage with the Islamic dilemma. You just want to jump straight to but the

53:24

Speaker A

Bible. So, if you want to concede the Islamic dilemma, just say that. I'm willing to go and deal with your uh your points about the Christian.

53:31

Speaker A

I've already offered you a solution to the Islamic dilemma in my opening presentation. You did not provide which is re divine exesis, divine reinterpretation. Meanwhile, you have not offered even acknowledge that a similar issue affects the Christian Christians in the Christian dilemma. And

53:48

Speaker A

then you can offer solutions for this. And then once you do that, then you would recognize that it's the same thing that Muslims.

53:53

Speaker A

Let's do it this way. Does the New Testament confirm the Torah? The New Testament confirms the Jewish scriptures, which are the Hebrew Bible, which is the Hebrew Bible.

54:03

Speaker A

The Torah, right? The Torah is a It depends on what you mean by the Torah. The Torah is a polyamous word. What do you mean by that? I mean the books of Moses.

54:11

Speaker A

That's one specific use. But yes, it does because you considered it scriptural cannon. So the New Testament confirms the Torah, right?

54:18

Speaker A

It confirms the Jewish scriptures which include the first five books which is the Torah and and say yes. Okay.

54:26

Speaker A

No, I'm a scholar. I use everything precisely. So the word Torah can also mean that laws in the Old Testament. So yes, it does affirm but fulfills it which can modify too according to some of your Islamic scholars. But Torah, the

54:39

Speaker A

New Testament, the Gospel confirms the Torah. We're on the same page with that. Yeah.

54:43

Speaker A

This is simplifying stuff to a stupid level. Let's not do that. Oh, it's a stupid level to say the New Testament confirms the Torah.

54:48

Speaker A

It it is if you're if by this you're not trying to understand what do you mean by the terms that you're using. So when you're talking about the Torah, I want to know, brother. Old Testament. Let's go with

54:57

Speaker A

Okay. So now you're using Let's use Tanakh. And here, do you agree that the New Testament confirms the Tanakh?

55:02

Speaker A

It confirms the Jewish scriptures. Yes. Okay. So that's a yes. All right. So the the New Testament confirms the Tanakh.

55:09

Speaker A

Does the New Testament appeal to the Tanakh? Yes. Okay. So it appeals to the Tanakh. Now here's my question to you.

55:16

Speaker A

Sure. If the Tanakh was corrupted and the New Testament appealed to the Tanakh, then that would mean the New Testament would be false. Correct?

55:25

Speaker A

Absolutely not. And this is why So I guess we don't have a Christian dilemma.

55:29

Speaker A

Well, I don't. We solved it. Let's get back to the Islamic dilemma now. No, no, no.

55:33

Speaker A

It gets It gets it gets it gets lots of laughs by a majority Christian audience obviously, but it's a non-serious argument. I just gave you examples from Christian history where they argued that the Hebrew Bible did have certain textual interpolation,

55:51

Speaker A

satanic insertions into the text which they said, these early Christian thinkers said we can identify them and remove them because of having a divine exeet in the figure of Jesus. Right?

56:03

Speaker A

So the point is not that I I'm not trying to tell you that there's some dilemma that Christians can't solve. I'm saying that the same dilemma affects Christians and the same solution which both the Quran and Christians have used

56:17

Speaker A

to resolve the dilemma of the discrepancies between earlier scriptures and the new. All right. So notice notice what we just did here. We just solved the Christian dilemma in just two minutes.

56:26

Speaker A

No. And let me l I'm trying to work with you. Okay. No, you're not. You're grandstanding and being performative.

56:31

Speaker A

No, I'm serious. I'm trying to work with you. Okay. You're saying, Dr. Javal, let me let me get it out so you hear where I'm coming from.

56:37

Speaker A

You're saying that there's not really a dilemma. If I go with my standards, then there would be a dilemma in both, right?

56:45

Speaker A

Do you Okay, but can you Is that correct? I just want to make sure I understand.

56:48

Speaker A

No, no, no. So, let me ask you this. If Do you talk, brother? Is that correct? I I'm trying to make sure.

56:55

Speaker A

No, I can't. I'm not going to give you yes and no answers. because I'm an academic so my answers are always you can give me a yes and or a no and well so I'm giving you that right now if

57:04

Speaker A

a text is okay verse 279 of the Quran is the one that's used by Muslims to say that there is textual corruption in previous scriptures okay it's the one that says that people of the book wrote things with their hands and said it is

57:16

Speaker A

is part of the kitab or the revelation do you admit that that verse that claims textual corruption doesn't actually mean that the Hebrew Bible or the and and whatever scriptures it's talking about is irretrievably corrupt.

57:32

Speaker A

I don't think that I don't think it doesn't what scholars academics in Okay. So, he wasn't asking me a question. Will you ask me a question or not?

57:38

Speaker A

Well, sure. I hope you can answer it directly. Oh, you hope that I CAN ANSWER A QUESTION DIRECTLY.

57:45

Speaker A

That's a good one. Thank you. Thank you. Fair enough. All right. So, to answer your question directly.

57:51

Speaker A

Yeah. So, 279. I do not Yeah. 279. I do not believe that it's talking about textual corruption of the Torah. I do not. Okay.

57:57

Speaker A

Um I believe that it's it's talking about what people write with their own hands, fake books that they appeal to and put above the actual scripture.

58:04

Speaker A

Okay. Okay. That's my understanding of the verse. But do you at least Okay. See, here's where I'm trying to ask you to move beyond being an apologist to being somewhat of an intellectual. You might have to teach me and say and say, "Okay,

58:14

Speaker A

I can understand that there a multiplicity of ways to understand something." So do you acknowledge that since the verse itself uses the word kab al kab the same word that you have been using to say is always previous

58:25

Speaker A

scripture that when 279 says that there's they're writing with their own hands that it could possibly even if you don't agree with it that it could possibly be referring to textual corruption in the previous scriptures.

58:35

Speaker A

No number possible. Let me answer you. Number one my argument was not based on alakitab the book in Arabic y'all. My argument was not alab. I never even brought that up.

58:45

Speaker A

You brought that up. I never brought that up. I was talking about the words maktubin written in chapter 7 with verse 157. Um or when the Quran says that it's confirming what is with them ma something like that, right? But kal, you

59:00

Speaker A

know, it's used in many different ways. I I'm saying that in 279 when it talks about people writing the book with their own hands, claiming it's from God what they wrote and seeking a small price, that has nothing to do with the actual

59:11

Speaker A

Torah. They are writing books with their own hands. your entire argument. I don't know if you've read the book that you have your own endorsement of the Islamic dilemma. It uses the the word kab throughout it for its argument. The

59:22

Speaker A

whole argument, you didn't write that, but you're literally listed in it. And this is the Christian, you know, if you don't use the word kab, you don't have an argument because the Quran, the whole Islam, let me try to explain to you the Islamic

59:35

Speaker A

dilemma. I use the Islamic without using the word kab, bro. You you you definitely do not real was was did I use keab in my opening just bec Yeah, because you didn't have substance in your opening. You had a

59:47

Speaker A

performance which was great. I like the performance. You got a good cadence. I I just read verses, brother, without using outab.

59:53

Speaker A

You actually you actually almost certainly used it without realizing that the Arabic word is kab. Okay. The point is that the point I'm trying to get to is just because a text actually Christians acknowledge this even today.

60:06

Speaker A

Many Christians, maybe not people who are in this room, but many Christians believe that the uh the gospels and different texts in the in the Bible have slight alterations, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have any value as

60:19

Speaker A

revelation, as scripture. Only the very hardcore conservative traditionalists will say there's absolutely no single error typo in the entire text. Okay? So, just you don't have to agree with that, but you can at least acknowledge that a scripture doesn't have to be 100. 00%

60:37

Speaker A

untextually corrupted at all for it to be useful. Yeah. So, nobody's Hold on. Let me respond to that. Let me respond to that.

60:43

Speaker A

Okay. I I understand that point. Matter of fact, as a as a Christian, I believe in textual variances, right? I don't believe that every text or manuscript has to match 100% from the pen. And you know, I I don't I don't hold that

60:55

Speaker A

position. That's us. That's some Islamic positions. Not all Muslims, but most Muslims hold that or really Sunnis hold that position. But um I I don't and that's not my argument on whether or not Quran is corrupted or whatever uh

61:08

Speaker A

Islamic dilemma. I'm not that's not what I'm basing it on. What I'm basing it on is this is that the Quran points to scriptures and says that these scriptures are true.

61:17

Speaker A

It doesn't point to scriptures. It does, brother. It's it literally it literally says that they have written the Muhammad in there. It literally says they have the gospel and the Torah that they're reading that they're reciting.

61:29

Speaker A

They're reading it. Right? You you you read scripture, bro. So they have scripture. You recite scripture in premodernity.

61:35

Speaker A

You don't read it. You recite it. So they have they have scripture that they are pointed to in order to observe.

61:42

Speaker A

That's true. And so because those scriptures are true according to the Quran, the Quran is false for contradicting them. I mean, do I have to keep repeating myself? There was no Arabic Bible in the millu of the Quran

61:53

Speaker A

at that time. They were not referring to scriptures. They were referring to revelation. Revelation is recited.

61:59

Speaker A

Scripture is recited. It's it's oral proclamation. The Quran is an oral proclamation. At the time of Muhammad, there was no physical book of the Quran.

62:08

Speaker A

And the Quran itself parallels the Torah, Gospel, and the Quran. And it frames all of these in the same way.

62:15

Speaker A

That's why it's the Mosaic proclamation, including the oral law. That's why it's Jesus's proclamation. That's why in the Quran, there is not a single thing that's cited from the Gospel aside from Jesus's own words.

62:28

Speaker A

Why is that? because the Quran is simply pointing to Jesus's proclamation, not to the New Testament.

62:34

Speaker A

Okay? It it's it may happen that yes, Jesus's words are preserved in the written scriptures. So, secondarily, yes, it's referring to that, but it's not claiming that that is what it's saying is preserved. In fact, the Quran is acting

62:49

Speaker A

as the entrusted authority over Jesus's proclamation to restore it to what it originally was. And that's why Muhammad's charismatic message matches up with Jesus's much more than later Trinitarian Christianity does.

63:04

Speaker A

Saying a lot, bro. Okay. So, uh are you aware of uh Muhammad's re uh relationship with Wara?

63:11

Speaker A

Yes, that's actually a perfect example to bring up. So, Warah, what what did what did he used to do according to the hadith?

63:18

Speaker A

He was a Christian who was uh he he knew much about the scriptures. But the he I mean I can't read your mind so you can tell me what you No worries no problem. So according to the hadith it says that Waraka used to

63:32

Speaker A

write the gospel as much as Allah would allow him to. Right. So according to the hadith is there a written text of the gospel in the seventh centur in Muhammad's time?

63:40

Speaker A

No because because first of all first of all again by Hadith that's tough first again first of all again I'm an academic historian expert of Quranic studies. No expert in the field refers to the hadith as being all the way going

63:56

Speaker A

historical or the sat. Those are things just like historians of the Bible, the New Testament don't read everything that Jesus says and think that's historical.

64:05

Speaker A

You have to use the tools of historical criticism to say what do we think that Jesus actually said or did. So when it comes to hold and even writing stuff down, I'm not denying that certain parts of scripture would be written down. I'm

64:17

Speaker A

simply denying that there was a whole uh Arabic Bible at that time which is what and other experts say. So there was at least a written gospel there a so this is what we have so far we have according

64:29

Speaker A

to the most authentic collection of hadith sai bukkari ladies and gentlemen it says that wara was writing the gospel all right you say no there was not a written gospel in Muhammad's time this says there was then then the Quran says that

64:46

Speaker A

they had a written gospel in which they can find Muhammad in but you say nope that wasn't a written text so we have both the Quran and the hadith saying that they have the gospel in written form.

64:58

Speaker A

You can approach this in two ways. If you're going to approach this as a Sunni traditionalist, that's fine. We can we can argue in that way. I'm not a Sunni traditionalist. I'm a scholar of Islamic studies. I approach it through the

65:09

Speaker A

historical critical lens. But if you want to approach it in the Sunni traditionalist way, that's fine. They have a consistent and coherent way that they explain the Islamic dilemma. They are Yes. That's why we're here.

65:19

Speaker A

Hold on. Hold on. Yes. Yes, they do. It's coherent because if you are a Sunni traditionalist, you don't use the Quran as the like there's a saying in Sunni Islam that the Sunnah rules over the Quran, not the Quran over the Sunnah.

65:36

Speaker A

And what rules over the Sunnah is the or consensus of the community. So what they look at is they look at verse 279 which says that there was textual corruption.

65:45

Speaker A

Then they look at hadith which say having Muhammad say that don't look at their books and it it says that their books are corrupt. Hold on. Hold on.

65:53

Speaker A

Their books are corrupted. There is no hadith that says their books are corrupt. Hold on. There is no there is a saying in which he says why do you go to them?

66:02

Speaker A

There you go. So there's a Okay. So hold on hold on. Let me No, no.

66:05

Speaker A

Let me finish my thought Avery and then you can speak. You're not The point is that their methodology is consistent. They read the Quran through the hadith and through the tradition.

66:14

Speaker A

And if you read it that way, they say that there is textual corruption in the previous scriptures and therefore we don't follow that scripture. Problem solved. Now, I personally don't take that approach. I take the interpretation of reinterpretation because I'm trying

66:26

Speaker A

to figure out what the Quran and its original millu. Okay, you got you got to let me get in here, bro. My goodness, you're talking about me going on tantrums, bro. This is serious.

66:33

Speaker A

Well, it's a So, one, you misapply a hadith. The hadith doesn't say have have Muhammad saying don't go to their books. It says that, and I'll quote to you verbatim. It says that the Jews used to recite uh

66:46

Speaker A

recite the uh Torah in Hebrew and then explain it to the Muslims in Arabic.

66:50

Speaker A

Then Muhammad would come to them and say um do not believe what they say nor disbelieve what they say but say we believe in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you. So in

67:02

Speaker A

the hadith you're pulling from if Muhammad is literally telling them believe in their books just don't trust what they say because what they say could be a distortion could be a lie or what they say could be a truth and you

67:13

Speaker A

reject the truth. So because they didn't know the books they couldn't trust what the people said. So Muhammad appealed and uh to the scriptures as being true what they had but their verbal or or oration of it was untrustworthy. That's

67:26

Speaker A

number one. Number two, you said something about the uh the Quran being a criterion or Mahimman as in an authority over the previous scriptures or what Jesus brought. That's actually false as well because then if we're going to get

67:38

Speaker A

into it, you're talking about you know uh Sunna over Quran. According to a lot of the uh exedites like Iben Mujahed for example, Mujahed and others said that Muhammad was Muhammad over the Quran was guardian or Muhammad over the Quran. So,

67:53

Speaker A

would this mean that Muhammad um is the authority and corrector of the Quran? All right, Avery, you have to make a decision right now. You came to debate me.

68:02

Speaker A

Another non-answer. Hold on. You came to debate me. Anybody who looks me up knows very well that I'm a historical critical scholar of the Quran that I don't approach it as a I don't approach it as a Sunni traditionalist.

68:14

Speaker A

You're not answering. So, if you're debating me, pick. Are you here to debate a Sunni traditionalist or are you here to debate me?

68:19

Speaker A

I'm here to debate. Can you answer? So I'm here to debate what the Quran in its original context meant which means that I don't appeal to hadith. I don't appeal to S unless I use the tools of historical criticism first.

68:31

Speaker A

Okay. Okay. So I'm so when it comes to Mahan you can look at what the experts in our field say. Nikolai Sinai I have I brought it here because you guys always misquote him and he even had an

68:43

Speaker A

interview recently where he literally said do you want me to take an oath about what I'm saying because Krishna can you respond to what I asked you please? Remember you asked me to answer you directly. I answered you directly.

68:53

Speaker A

So you have to tell me from a historical you have to first make a decision. Are you coming here to debate me as a historian of Islam or are you here to debate a Sunni traditionalist? No. First answer that question. You know I got

69:04

Speaker A

you. Let me answer that question. You know man, it's raining outside and there's a lot of clouds and the sky is probably blue. Um I like red trucks and um I like them with black wheels. I painted my left one blue. Um

69:17

Speaker A

my favorite color is blue. No. So, no, no, wait, wait. Let me land. Let me let me land. Let me let me land. Let me talk to the audience, too. And uh, you know, I also like wristbands, guys. And I also

69:28

Speaker A

like uh watches uh particularly Rolexes for my birthday in August 1st. Did I answer you?

69:33

Speaker A

Didn't answer your question, did it? Because when you demand me, Dr. Javad, to answer your question directly after repeatedly not answering my question directly at all, not even indirectly, you demand me to answer you. That's unfair. I need Wait, please. What I need

69:49

Speaker A

you to do is make a decision. You said you researched me, so you know how I am.

69:54

Speaker A

Y are you here to debate Avery and answer questions directly or responsibly or honestly, whatever. Or are you here to talk to the audience?

70:02

Speaker A

I'm definitely The audience is on your side. They're all Christians. I'm here to answer the question.

70:06

Speaker A

I'm I'm here I'm I'll tell you honestly why I'm here. I'm here to educate the online audience.

70:12

Speaker A

that was online audience to figure out how historians and academics of religion approached this issue not how apologists whether Muslim or Christian approached this issue.

70:22

Speaker A

So when you have not you have you I just told you that I'm a historian that doesn't use I wouldn't use classical exit to understand what the Quran says just like Bible scholars don't use Augustine to understand what they do. Oh

70:37

Speaker A

my goodness. So guys, no historical critical scholars respond are going to be looking at Augustine claiming that he has some insight into what the Bible respond. You're going on again. You're going on on again.

70:51

Speaker A

So yes, they do. They appeal to Augustine. They look at Polycarp. They look at they look theologian. They look they look at them for to see what the early church what the classical exedites used uh used how how they understood

71:06

Speaker A

know the basics of history. Hold on one second. You're probably right. But the one thing that I know how to do is freaking read. And so when I'm reading the text I see that Warah wrote a gospel. When I'm reading the Quran I

71:18

Speaker A

see that they had a written gospel in which Muhammad which which they had access to. Excuse me wrote his own gospel. Excuse me. When I read, I see that your early exedites understood that Muhammad was Muhammad over the Quran. So

71:32

Speaker A

maybe I can take you I could or I can go with Ib Mujah who's much earlier than you in classical and I can go with you know what Muhammad is the criterion and authority over the Quran. Would I be

71:43

Speaker A

correct in that? No, you would not be correct. Thank you. So then stop saying that.

71:46

Speaker A

Classical exites had all different opinions. You're picking one OF THEM. AND YOU'RE RIGHT. SO do so do Christian scholars on the Bible.

71:54

Speaker A

So do people on the trinity. You know how many differences they exist about the trinity? Should we say it's false based on that?

71:59

Speaker A

What should I go with? You should go with making arguments that are historical in nature.

72:04

Speaker A

That can be based on textual and historical. We ain't dealing with text no more. You said you don't want to just deal with text.

72:10

Speaker A

I I I told you that I'm arguing from the Quran's sake for what the Quran is saying in its own terms. And from its own terms, it's affirming the Mosaic proclamation, Jesus's proclamation. And what the Quran is is Muhammad's

72:23

Speaker A

proclamation. But notice how how much of this debate has gone and he still hasn't even acknowledged that. What do you do about the discontent between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament and the Christian doctrine? You want to escape

72:34

Speaker A

that. I promise you, Dr. Jav, we could have been there 30 minutes ago if you were answering honestly.

72:39

Speaker A

Well, why don't you answer honestly? Why don't you answer that question? I got you. So, it looks like that I It's Why don't you answer that question?

72:44

Speaker A

Let me go with you, bro. Okay, then answer it. So, you were So, what we got is he conceded the Islamic dilemma.

72:49

Speaker A

Can you answer that question? I would love for you to give me your questions.

72:52

Speaker A

You can't answer that Christian dilemma. No, you still give me give me specific things you got. Bro, I already told you. Were you not listening in the debate? Were you not listening in the opening? I told you that there is no concept of a three in

73:04

Speaker A

one god in the Hebrew Bible. Boom. There's no one there. One step at a time. Don't tell me about different gods.

73:10

Speaker A

One step at a time. Sure. Okay. You could, brother. You could do it. Throw throw the whole bus at me.

73:16

Speaker A

Let's do it. I'll deal with one bus at a time. Okay. All right. All right. Okay. So man, God, right? God becoming man in the Old Testament right?

73:23

Speaker A

I'm saying, is there a concept there's no concept of the Trinity three in one that you don't have to read into the scriptures?

73:28

Speaker A

I got you. Yes. Okay. You got your Bible? I didn't bring the Bible on me.

73:34

Speaker A

All right. We got our laptops. Don't worry. No. No. Look, I know. We don't want to go.

73:38

Speaker A

Go ahead. Go ahead. Anyone? What do you WANT FROM ME, MAN? That's why for hundreds of years, nobody ever knew.

73:44

Speaker A

Stop appealing to them. Talk to me. Do you want us to go into a brother? I'm just Do you want us to go into the scripture and I can show you the trinity?

73:52

Speaker A

Oh my god. If you take seriously just apologetic arguments like Okay. C can you tell me this? Can you name a single Can you name a single Can you name me a single historical critical scholar who believes the

74:07

Speaker A

Trinity is in the Hebrew Bible? Please give me their names. Uh Benjamin Summer. Benjamin Summer does not believe the Trinity. No, he doesn't.

74:14

Speaker A

Alan Seagal. No. The two powers. Dr. Michaeliser. No way. This is mis This is misrepresent.

74:22

Speaker A

You want to do scholar for scholar? We can go for band baby. Simply saying simply saying that there were the two first of all the two powers in heaven doesn't get brother. Can we go into the scripture does

74:32

Speaker A

you can go ahead and we'll see how you're taking it out of context. We'll see. All right. So now we're going to see if there are three persons that are identified as God. Right.

74:39

Speaker A

And I want specifically Jesus identified there. I got you. Do you need the name Jesus?

74:44

Speaker A

Oh doctor, you're not being scholarly. I'm being You're not being scholarly. Oh yeah. Then all of a sudden, uhoh.

74:51

Speaker A

All of a sudden you demand the same. See now we need limited parameters to do.

74:55

Speaker A

All of a sudden you demand you demanded Muhammad in the Bible. You demanded Muhammad by name in the Bible. Correct.

75:00

Speaker A

Why? Why? Yeah. Why did I do that? You because you you mistakenly believed that the Quran says Muhammad is in the Bible. It's not.

75:08

Speaker A

Watch this y'all. In chapter 61:6 it says Jesus said I come to you with glad tidings of a messenger named Ahmed to come after me. So the reason why wait does it say in the gospels? Does it say

75:20

Speaker A

it's in the New Testament? Excuse me. So the reason why I debate is Muhammad mentioned by name in the Bible is BECAUSE THE QURAN SAYS HE'S MENTIONED BY NAME IN the Bible.

75:28

Speaker A

Look up that verse. I'm sorry your Quran said that. No. No. Look at that verse. Let's look at No. Yes, he is. But okay.

75:36

Speaker A

All this theatrics. No. No. Look. Look, he the reason why he doesn't want you to actually look at that verse. That verse does not say does not say the gospel. It does not say the New Testament.

75:46

Speaker A

So you said you said that it says in the Quran that Muhammad is written in your Bible. That's not in the Quran. It simply says it says that Abraham and Isaac uh sorry and Isma a future messenger which was Muhammad

76:02

Speaker A

and similarly says the same thing about Jesus. That doesn't claim that it's in the Bible. Okay, let's do this one last time again cuz I told you that Jesus's proclamation. The Quran says that Jesus mentioned a man named Ahmed to come

76:14

Speaker A

after him, which you just admitted was Muhammad. Correct. I didn't say that. It's mentioned in the scriptures.

76:19

Speaker A

I didn't say you said that. Just said, can you just answer directly? I already told you that the Quran does Ahmed is Muhammad, right?

76:26

Speaker A

Yes. Thank you. That's all I asked, bro. Okay, next step. You didn't you didn't prove your point.

76:30

Speaker A

Next step. Watch this. I'm about to just walk with Okay. So when Jesus says that Ahmed is going to come after him, is that a revelation?

76:38

Speaker A

That is part of the Jesus's proclamation. Yes. Okay. And what is Jesus's proclamation according to the Quran?

76:43

Speaker A

I told you it's a Jesus's proclamation which is called the gospel, right? Yes. So we should find Muhammad's name in the gospel.

76:49

Speaker A

The gospel is Jesus's proclamation. Should we find Muhammad's name in the gospel? Yes or no?

76:55

Speaker A

Okay. When? Yes. When? No. And expound. Please. When? Okay. When inspiring. Please. Hey, I need you.

77:01

Speaker A

Yes. No. and expound. I know in your simplistic world you like yes and nos and I'm going to tell you I'm going to tell you that Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy Michael Hey Ivory he's not here.

77:13

Speaker A

I I need to talk I'm giving you an example similarly. Please don't give me an example before answering either two minutes or or I can't do this with this guy.

77:20

Speaker A

You've been doing the two minutes already. No man, you don't want to have a substantive dialogue.

77:24

Speaker A

You're right. I don't you just want you I'm the one who doesn't want to have superficial knowledge of the topic and you don't want to get pushed on it.

77:31

Speaker A

You're right. I think Avery just wants to be sure that there's like based on your response that he'd have an idea of if you're leaning toward yes or no because sometimes he's leaning towards both. James is sometimes it's hard to tell and

77:44

Speaker A

that's okay cuz I know you want to give an explanation and it might be that you're kind of like on the razor's crest where you're like I'm not one way or the other. But I think he's just wanting

77:53

Speaker A

more clarity on if you So, so when the New Testament says that there's a p uh there's a prophecy of the Nazarene, where is that in the Hebrew Bible?

78:01

Speaker A

I would love to deal with that. Where is it? But first answer is namely yes or no.

78:08

Speaker A

I already Why do I have to keep answering the same? You haven't answered yet. I already told you that the injil in the Quran refers to Jesus's proclamation which is not exactly the same as the what is preserved in the four canonical gospels.

78:23

Speaker A

There is a procla even Christians acknowledge that there are things that Christ that Christ said that are not in four gospels or did I just ask simply is Muhammad's name mentioned in the gospel?

78:37

Speaker A

What do you mean by gospel? Do you mean gospels? Do you mean the four canonical gospels? If I write a gospel right now and put Muhammad's name in it, it would be in that.

78:46

Speaker A

Good question. I'll answer you very directly on conflating. Notice asked me a question. Four gospels. Watch this.

78:52

Speaker A

I'm going with you. Remember, you asked me, who am I here to debate? I'm here to debate you.

78:56

Speaker A

All right then. So, you told me that the gospel ain't the text. I'm with you. It's Jesus's proclamation.

79:01

Speaker A

Correct. So, is Muhammad's name in the gospel? It is in according to the Quran. It's in Jesus's proclaimed that just as Abraham and Ishmael did. So yes, do you demand?

79:12

Speaker A

Do you demand that that prophecy is a yes? It is in Jesus's proclamation, not in the written gospels. I don't understand.

79:21

Speaker A

I answered your question. Asked and answered bro. So is that a yes? Asked and answered. It's in You're equivocating on the ter I He's equivocating on the word watching this. I'll be irritated. It's in the Jesus proclamation, it's not in the

79:35

Speaker A

written four canonical gospels. I already answered. All right. Thank you, brother. Asked and answered.

79:39

Speaker A

I got you. So according to is there a according to the according to your Quran, Muhammad's name is mentioned in the gospel, which is why and by your that was by your own admission. So that's why when I have debates on the

79:53

Speaker A

topic, I debate Muhammad's name mentioned in the gospel. What you just did though is opposite because we don't have I never make the claim. Nor do we have the New Testament claiming that the Trinity is found in the gospel by

80:06

Speaker A

finding the name Jesus mentioned in the Old Testament. That's not our claim. That's a straw man. But I think that you knew that if we went into the scriptures and that wasn't there, but I can show you Jesus anyway, you knew that I would

80:18

Speaker A

be able to show you that and you don't want that. Okay, I'll tell you where we're at. I'll tell you what I did know. I did know that as a Christian apologist, of course, I know that Christians from a

80:27

Speaker A

religious perspective will read all sorts of things into the Hebrew Bible. That was my entire point of my opening statement. This is the stuff of religion. People read the Trinity back in. They read Jesus back in. They make

80:39

Speaker A

everything about Jesus. That was the whole point of my opening dialogue, which is that Christian, the church early on said Jews had an interpretive veil over their eyes. Once you lift it, all of a sudden, the Hebrew Bible is all

80:50

Speaker A

about Jesus everywhere. I got no problem with that. I'm just simply saying that that's a religious understanding. No secular historian of the New Testament or the Hebrew Bible would agree with you that those interpretations are secular are historical.

81:05

Speaker A

That's all I'm saying. And as a religious person, you don't have to be confined to historical interpretations, but you have to at least acknowledge that from a neutral objective perspective, you're reading things into the text. That's all I'm saying.

81:17

Speaker A

Okay? So then let's do that. Let's stop playing games and let's deal with your contention. Let's see if objectively I'm reading into the text or if I'm just reading the text. You want to do that?

81:29

Speaker A

Sure. I mean, I I've heard these long-winded explanations of And I know I'm one to say longwinded, but like I've heard these explanations of Trinity.

81:37

Speaker A

I've I've seen Michael Jones. I want That's beautiful. I want to see if you and I can be objective about the text and see if we can come to the same conclusion if we're honest.

81:46

Speaker A

Sure. Beautiful. So we uh I don't think we get to argue about the father. That's already given that the father is God.

81:54

Speaker A

Yes. Awesome. All right. Now Isaiah 9:6 it says, "For unto us a child is born. Unto us a son is given. The government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of

82:09

Speaker A

peace." Can we agree here that the son is identified as God? Can we acknowledge that in the Hebrew Bible the word God is used for all sorts of figures including that's not there's nothing funny about it. Kings are called God in the Hebrew

82:22

Speaker A

Bible. You guys you may not know that because you're not reading scholarly works. But can you acknowledge that the word God is used for various figures in the B in the Hebrew Bible including what you guys don't consider

82:33

Speaker A

as God? You don't include the Trinity. Do you acknowledge that kings are called God in the Hebrew Bible?

82:38

Speaker A

Nope. So, so all right folks in the audience, folks in the audience got to make it clear that it's just the debaters that are debating. So, no no yelling.

82:46

Speaker A

That was rhetorical by the way when I'm asking you guys. The point is that the in if you're a historian of the text, you will say that the word God is used in many different ways in the Hebrew

82:55

Speaker A

Bible. In fact, in the Hebrew Bible, there's a plurality of gods. There's a divine council. Okay? But that doesn't prove the trinity.

83:01

Speaker A

You want to see something? You want to see something? The word there is el gibbor, which in the Hebrew is the mighty God. Do you know who the mighty God is according to the scripture?

83:11

Speaker A

The same word can be used epithet can be used for the one true God and also for the agents of God.

83:17

Speaker A

No, it cannot. This is called the divine name and it can be designated to other people who are agents of God.

83:24

Speaker A

All right. Now, notice what he just said. Now you you in my realm now again.

83:27

Speaker A

So you just said that the name of God can be given to others that are not the most high God, not the true God. This is Nehemiah 9:6. says, "You alone are Yahweh, who created the heavens and the

83:38

Speaker A

earth and all that is in them." You alone are Yahweh. That's one. Psalm 83:18, "That they may know that you, whose name is Yahweh alone, are the most high over all the earth." So, he just said, we just got two verses explicitly

83:51

Speaker A

that says that Yahweh, God, the most high God, the creator, is the only one who bears the name Yahweh. Do we agree with that so far with the verses I just quoted?

84:00

Speaker A

We agree with that. There are texts in the Hebrew Bible which indicate that only God the Father is called Yahweh.

84:06

Speaker A

No, not God the Father. But we don't but we don't acknowledge that we need to acknowledge not God the Father.

84:12

Speaker A

The Hebrew Bible is not a univocal text. It was written by multiple authors over several generations.

84:16

Speaker A

Now, see, notice this is why this is a waste of freaking time because all you're going to do is deny, deny, deny, deny, deny. Instead of dealing with the text at hand because I didn't ask you about the God the Father. I just simply

84:27

Speaker A

asked you according to the text the creator of all things is the only one whose name is Yahweh. Do you agree with that? Please I need a yes or no so I can move on. So what I can say is that there

84:38

Speaker A

are certain things that the Hebrew Bible says that only Yahweh can do. Right. Which in other places it's not a univocal text. So other texts say otherwise.

84:48

Speaker A

Okay. Can you give me a text that names us someone other than the most high God is Yahweh please?

84:52

Speaker A

I'm not talking about specifically about Yahweh. And I'm not, this is not what I came to debate, nor is this my area of specialization.

84:58

Speaker A

When you said in your presentation that this 3in1 concept is not in the Old Testament and this is a discrepancy, and then you begged me to finally answer it.

85:06

Speaker A

Yes, you came to debate this. So now, since we're on this topic, can you show me anywhere? Give me one. Okay. Can I Can I ask you a question?

85:14

Speaker A

One unequivocal statement. Okay. Then let me ask you a genuine question if you could give me an honest answer, please. Why is it that Jews for hundreds of years never believed in the trinity? Not Benitarianism, not anything else, not the two powers in heaven. Why

85:30

Speaker A

did they not believe in the trinity if it was already in the Hebrew Bible?

85:34

Speaker A

John was a Jew in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. Interesting.

85:38

Speaker A

John Matthew talking Wait, wait. You think John, you think the gospel of John was written by Matthew named Matthew who's a Jew who says that Jesus is Yahweh who was going to come after his messenger in the wilderness who prepared

85:53

Speaker A

his way. You got Mark who says that Jesus is Yahweh of years. Why did Jews not believe in the Trinity before? Let's talk about before the New Testament.

86:01

Speaker A

All right, let's talk about before the New Testament. Jacob, they believe in Trinity. Yes. Jacob. Jacob who's a prophet of God as you agree, right?

86:09

Speaker A

Okay. Yes. Okay, awesome. Jacob in his prayer and you believe that we can only uh object our prayers to God, right? The most high God, right?

86:17

Speaker A

I I'm say I'm not putting a viewpoint on that. I'm I'm saying I'm asking you, Dr. Jabad, I am saying that in I acknowledge already that in the Hebrew Bible and in the New Testament, you can direct certain types of prayers to different

86:29

Speaker A

agents. So, why not? Can you direct prove can you show me in the Bible that you can direct your prayer of worship and blessing to to someone other than God? Well, the early Christians did direct it to Jesus AND

86:42

Speaker A

THAT BECAUSE THE EARLY CHRISTIANS SAID HE'S GOD. GOLLY, BRO. This is why actual scholars say that's not necessarily the case.

86:50

Speaker A

Let's go to the scripture, bro. I'm dealing with the scripture. Yeah, man. Okay, look. Can you acknowledge, can you at least acknowledge that Jews for hundreds of years before the New Testament did not know of the Trinity? Can we accept that?

87:02

Speaker A

Nope. Okay, I'm giving you Jacob right now. Jacob, can we get into the text and stop wasting time?

87:06

Speaker A

No. to me a single historian. Jacob a single historian. Jacob is not a historian.

87:11

Speaker A

Is is Jacob a prophet? He's better than that, right? He's a prophet of God, right?

87:14

Speaker A

That is scripture. Scripture is if I quoted the Quran to prove Is Moses good enough for you?

87:21

Speaker A

Is Moses good enough for you? Moses believed in the Trinity is your argument. Absolutely.

87:25

Speaker A

Okay. Look, that's fine, man. You guys want to believe that's fine. Do you want to get into it?

87:30

Speaker A

That's exactly fine because I'm not here I'm not here to win over people who are religious dogmatists. I'm here to Are you willing to go into the text and see if we can who are willing to look at what

87:40

Speaker A

historical critical scholarship says of texts there's no historian can we look at the text objectively secular university look who would argue that we Dr. Javad stop wasting time and can we look at the text and see if it

87:56

Speaker A

says what it says okay you know what why don't you talk why don't you talk about physical let's let's go to the other topics that I mentioned no let me okay you're at I don't I don't want this argument.

88:07

Speaker A

You demanded me to show you continuity of the New Testament. Okay, then show me what the Trinity and the Old I've been trying to do that.

88:15

Speaker A

I've been trying to do that for the past 15 20 minutes and you don't want to go there for some reason.

88:20

Speaker A

Okay, Avery, I've already acknowledged that you can read the Trinity into the Hebrew. I don't want you to say that. Hold on.

88:25

Speaker A

Is the text is the trinity in the text? Period. Avery, what about all the other things I mentioned?

88:30

Speaker A

What about you're not going to what about your way? Tell me about circumcision. You're not going to w about your way out of this according to the scripture.

88:36

Speaker A

This is what you do. Better give me a concession and I'll move on. Okay. You can concede that you can read the trinity.

88:41

Speaker A

That's not what I'm asking. I'm not asking can you read it into the text?

88:44

Speaker A

Does the trinity is the trinity in the text? Okay. We're looking at discontinuities. Let's do one that is very direct. Let's do physical circumcision. Do you agree that there's a discontinuity between physical in the Hebrew Bible verse the

88:57

Speaker A

New Testament? Do you acknowledge? Oh wow. I'm done. You're not going to answer about you. You forfeited the debate.

89:05

Speaker A

This is annoying now. All right. It's over. It's annoying that you weren't able to have a real question where you're trying to actually expand yourself.

89:12

Speaker A

You guys are ready to go into consider the other person's uh what is presented you.

89:15

Speaker A

You guys are ready because he's answering directly. Go ahead, James. You guys are ready to go into the closing statements. We can.

89:21

Speaker A

Yeah, we can go to closing statements. Am I first? I mean, we have two minutes. I'll use the two minutes if he's not going to use it. So, I'm going to use No, no, no. We don't not going to use

89:28

Speaker A

your two minutes to yap. No, then you can then you can talk, too. I'm going to use the two minutes that are free. Okay. So, what are the discrepancy?

89:36

Speaker A

I mean, to be fair to Javad, well, that was an agreement between us. Well, technically, here's Okay. Well, let me come clean actually. So, okay, forgive me you guys. It's the way I've interpreted this debate is you guys are

89:49

Speaker A

both heavyweights and so you're being you're both it's uh so you guys are being careful cuz you're you know you got to be careful with each other because you're both heavyweights and so I want to give the open dialogue a

90:03

Speaker A

little more time. So we're technically we're actually technically at 56 minutes when we were supposed to end at 50. So to I was going to say to be fair to Javad if we have that many time but actually in truth it's actually to be

90:18

Speaker A

fair we went over we actually went over so we should go to the closing forgive me guys for letting us go over I know guy he did but I really like you as a debater and uh I I think you have a

90:29

Speaker A

very winsome personality so I appreciate that but we will jump into the five minute closing it has been riveting I and like the I think for me one of the biggest values for debates is something that people oftenimes forget is the teaching

90:43

Speaker A

value that people who listen to them learn new things. And so I think that there's tons of new learning from what we covered tonight. Now, we're going to jump into the five-minute closings, though. And Avery, yep, we'll we'll have

90:54

Speaker A

you go first. I've got the timer set and we'll start it on your first word.

90:59

Speaker A

Okay. All right. So, once again, I want to thank you, Dr. Jabba, for the debate.

91:06

Speaker A

Um, sorry about that, y'all. Ladies and gentlemen, I I really do apologize because it got to a point where and we're talking about scholarly uh engagement and this appeal to using scholarly methods. I don't think that anything was really done scholarly here

91:22

Speaker A

except for a scholarly way to evade because the only thing that we did was is um in our open dialogue and I hope you guys got it. On one side we was willing to deal with things directly. We

91:36

Speaker A

wanted a direct understanding of Javad's position and we got a lot of mixture. We I I honestly don't know what he believes about what the Quran says right now. I'm I'm It's not a joke. I'm serious. I wanted to know his position and it was

91:51

Speaker A

yes, no, no, yes, yes, no, but yes, no, yes. I I don't I don't know what you believe, man. And so when I'm trying to get down to the nitty-gritty, we we can't get questions answered. We can't get direct responses. I don't mind

92:07

Speaker A

explanations as long as the expound uh when you expound it's after an answer a question is answered. Yes. And no and but really what you see is in the and the and the vice versa was the opposite.

92:19

Speaker A

When he asked me questions directly I was able to deal with him directly. I was able to deal with his objections directly with his contentions directly.

92:28

Speaker A

Why? Because I have nothing I'm nothing afraid nothing to be afraid of. we we can deal with your stuff directly. And matter of fact, I was really interested in getting into the so-called discontinuity that he had about the Old

92:40

Speaker A

Testament and New Testament. And when we wanted to get into it, we he didn't want to get into it. I couldn't believe it. I I was like, "What? We forget the Islamic dilemma. Let's just just throw everything at me. What you got, man? Cuz

92:51

Speaker A

you ain't answering me. Let me just answer you. Maybe we can get somewhere and give you guys something good to listen to." But we couldn't even do that. He said that the New Testament and the Old Testament are are uh

93:02

Speaker A

disconnected when it comes to the doctrine and the and the theology of who and what God is on the Trinity. We couldn't even get to that, but we'll get to it here. Deuteronomy 6 uh Deuteronomy 6:4, it says that God is one, that

93:14

Speaker A

there's one God, Yahweh. He's one. In Deuteronomy 32, it says that God is the father. In Isaiah 9:6, it says God is the son. In 2 Samuel uh chapter 23:2 and 3, it says the Holy Spirit, the spirit

93:26

Speaker A

of God is Yahweh, the God of Israel, the rock of Israel. That's just a few. If we want to keep going, in Genesis, I don't even have to leave Genesis for this. In Genesis, it says that the spirit of God

93:37

Speaker A

hovered over the the face of the waters. If you go to Genesis 28, it says Yahweh appeared to Jacob in a dream. If you jump to Genesis 31, it says the angel of the Lord came to Jacob and said, "That

93:46

Speaker A

was me, you saw who you made a vow to." Then you jump to Genesis 35 and then God says, "Go back to Bethl where you made a and and go meet the God who you made a vow to." Wait, why is God saying go meet

93:57

Speaker A

the God you met? Because there's the Trinity in the Old Testament right there in the Torah. Should I keep going? You got Zechariah, you got Zechariah that talks about how Yahweh will pour out a spirit of please and grace for mercy

94:10

Speaker A

when they look on me whom they pierced. Wait, who do they pierce? Well, when we look in the New Testament, we see who that was. JESUS CHRIST.

94:18

Speaker A

ALL OLD TESTAMENT. I don't need the New Testament to prove the Trinity. I would have loved to have done this, but you wasn't dealing with the engagement honestly. I don't believe and it has nothing to do with your your person, you

94:28

Speaker A

know, just your way of engagement was dishonest. Now, when it comes to the Islamic dilemma, that wasn't even dealt with. It wasn't DEALT WITH. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS ANYMORE. I HONESTLY I don't I don't know if Jesus had had a

94:39

Speaker A

written gospel, if he had if if they didn't have a written gospel. The Quran says it was written, but he says, "No, that that word written means something else." Okay, welcome to Islam, y'all.

94:49

Speaker A

Written don't mean written. And he told me he was going to give me a verse from earlier in that chapter where the word written does not mean written. Did we get that? No, we didn't get that. He asked me where does the word where is

95:01

Speaker A

the word uh uh confirmation for the chapter 3:3 where the Quran says that he sent down the Quran confirming that which came before it as we revealed the Torah and the Gospel of the Injil. So right there he identifies what came

95:14

Speaker A

before the Quran which is the Torah and Injil using confirmation. What are we doing here? According to the verse in the Quran chapter 2 vers 85 it says do you believe in part of the scripture and reject the rest? I believed in more of

95:28

Speaker A

the Quran today than Dr. Java did. And so today you believed in part of your scripture and rejected other parts in lie of or this under the guise of you appealing to historic uh scholarship which then undermines your Quran. So I

95:45

Speaker A

think that today you need to pick the decision that you believe in. And guys I hope that you guys got a comprehensive understanding of what the Islamic dilemma is and what the Christian dilemma is not because y'all saw it. We

95:56

Speaker A

solved the Christian dilemma together. Jesus solved that. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. All right, I've got the timer set for you as well, Dr. Javad, and the floor is all yours for five minute closing.

96:17

Speaker A

All right, thank you so much, Avery. I appreciated the dialogue. You're very animated and fun to watch. I appreciate that. As far as the verse that you asked for, I didn't have it off the top of my head because I didn't want to misspeak,

96:27

Speaker A

but it's the verse right before that. 7156 and decree for us, which is the exact same word kaba. It's the exact same word, and it doesn't mean written there. Okay. Um, but let's go through my overall argument. He has said that

96:42

Speaker A

you're not sure about what my view is. I don't know how much clearer I could have been in my opening presentation. Yes, the dialogue muddles it up because we're not having a substantive dialogue because apologists don't want to have

96:52

Speaker A

that. They want to just defeat the other person. I'm just trying to explain to just like I can understand the Christian perspective and say, "No, this is how they can reasonably understand their scriptures." I'm trying to get you to do

97:02

Speaker A

that the same thing with other people's scriptures. In fact, this is the scriptural golden rule. I want you to interpret my scriptures the way you want me to interpret yours. But unfortunately, oftentimes apologists don't do that. Now, what is my view? My

97:13

Speaker A

perspective is simple. In the Quran, the word Torah and Gospel or Injil refers to what? I've said it a million times. It's no confusion. It refers primarily to the Mosaic proclamation, which includes the oral law, which goes far beyond the

97:26

Speaker A

first five books of uh the Bible. And in uh the Gospel is Jesus's proclamation.

97:31

Speaker A

The Quran does secondarily refer to uh writ implies that they're written scriptures. But notice what the Quran says. And this is Surah 6:9. Here it says quote they did not measure God with his true measure when they said God has

97:44

Speaker A

not sent down anything to any human being. Say to them who sent down the book that Moses the revelation kab that Moses brought as a light and a guidance for mankind which you made into separate sheets that you display while hiding

97:59

Speaker A

much. So the Quran acknowledges a little bit dismissively the written scriptures while prioritizing the oral proclamation. And what the Quran is then doing is then it's protecting the original proclamation by giving the true divine interpretation of even what's in

98:15

Speaker A

their written scriptures. So that is what the Quran is doing. It's called revelatory exugesus. Your inspir your revelation is your as a divine exeet you have the right to interpret previous scriptures because you have a hotline to God. This is what Jesus does with the

98:31

Speaker A

previous scriptures. Even according to Christian belief they he has the right to interpret the Torah which is a polyamous word. So when he keeps banging me about what do you you know do you acknowledge the Torah? I know what you

98:41

Speaker A

mean by the Torah. But what what does Torah actually mean? Torah can mean law.

98:46

Speaker A

When Jesus fulfills the Torah, it means that he's fulfilling the law. And the word fulfill doesn't mean just imitate it. It means that you can modify it. So that is the argument. So Torah means Mosaic proclamation including the oral

98:58

Speaker A

law not limited to the first five books. Gospel Injeal refers to Jesus's proclamation which is only secondarily accessible through the written scripture. Nobody's denying that. But again, the Quran is a little bit dismissive of that. Okay. Um so that is

99:12

Speaker A

my argument. Uh the Quran does say that um it confirms previous revelation but according to Nikolai Sinai who was misqued all the time by the other side confirmation does not mean mere imitation. It means that you can modify

99:26

Speaker A

and you are the arbiter of the text. Then the word Muhamm which is entrusted authority over is even stronger and implies that the ultimate arbiter is the Quran and Muhammad because he is the divinely inspired exeet and that is

99:40

Speaker A

exactly what Christians do when it comes to the Christian dilemma. Now I knew and maybe I should have predicted this that we're talking past each other because I know that you know he probably does believe that the first five books were

99:53

Speaker A

written by Moses. All right. I mean that is what uh you know and the whole text is inherent and these are you know very fundamentalist beliefs but I'm trying to argue from a religious studies perspective from that perspective we can

100:05

Speaker A

say that you know it's not always uh so so when you look at the Hebrew Bible and you're reading the trinity into that some part of you should ask why is it that nobody who's not a Christian a died

100:19

Speaker A

in the wood trinitarian Christian doesn't see why when you go to like you send your uh kid to a secular university when they're having an introductory course on the Hebrew Bible. Why are they not telling the students there that the

100:32

Speaker A

Trinity is in the Hebrew Bible? Why do you have to construct it? See how he constructed it by pulling this verse and pulling that verse and pulling this verse. That's a construction. It's a creative rearticulation. He's doing divine exesus actually. And maybe he has

100:45

Speaker A

a hotline to God and that's what he's able to do. But you have to actually acknowledge that unless you're a dyed in the wool believer, you're not going to see it. And that's why the early church said they had an interpretive veil over

100:56

Speaker A

their eyes. There are obvious discont. And by the way, I simplified a little bit for the in this debate. Really, the Hebrew Bible is not a univocal text.

101:06

Speaker A

There's no univocality in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. You have to use this kind of divine exesus to bring that harmony into the texts. All religious scriptures, all religions that are based on scriptures do this.

101:19

Speaker A

Christianity is no different. Islam is no different. There is a so-called dilemma but it's easily resolvable by divine exodus or revelatory exesus.

101:26

Speaker A

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for that closing as well. Dr. Javad and we are going to go into the Q&A. So folks, if you want to line up just to my right, want to give a huge thank you to

101:40

Speaker A

our sponsors, Apologetics Arc as well as Revival of the Anointeds Rule, Uncensored America and Yonauni International Cuisine. Check out their links in the description box as we are grateful for their support of fair debates. With that, we'll jump into it.

101:59

Speaker A

We just uh we just have to have a if you can back up a bit, gentlemen.

102:04

Speaker A

If you can back up just because otherwise we'd be out of view. You got a good stage presence.

102:09

Speaker A

Like when I was sitting there, I was like this guy's got you're very charismatic.

102:16

Speaker A

All right. Did you do Here we go. Dr. Javad, uh, this question is Can you hear me? Okay. This question is for you. Um, is am I the you?

102:27

Speaker A

Yes, sir. Define your terms. You okay, Dr. Javon mean by you? Yeah. Uh, it's a two two-part question. Um, do you is it your position that the scriptures, meaning the Bible, was corrupted at some point?

102:45

Speaker A

That's the first question. Is there a second one? Well, I'm I'm it it'll depend on Well, it depends. Are you asking me what I as a historian believe of the previous scriptures?

102:54

Speaker A

Yeah. Do Do you personally believe that the scriptures were corrupted? Yeah. I mean, I I don't like using the word corrupted because it's a very loaded term. Like, it's a negative term, but I would say that is like if you're a

103:05

Speaker A

New Testament or a Hebrew Bible scholar, nobody's going to think that these texts, I mean, even the like the first five books of Moses don't actually go back to Moses, right? So like according to historians, so yes, these texts had a

103:18

Speaker A

history and from that sense you can consider them modified from original authors. I wouldn't use a loaded term like textually corrupted because that's insulting and my purpose is not to insult. Does that answer your question or am I too uh

103:31

Speaker A

is it too sort of for you? But I I'll the followup will be this. So by the time Islam came around in the 7th century, Christians had already been copying and spreading the scriptures for hundreds of years across different

103:46

Speaker A

countries, languages, and even churches that were divided from one another. Nobody had control over all of these copies. So if the scriptures were corrupted, who corrupted them or modified them, whatever word you want to use, when did it happen? and how did

104:02

Speaker A

they manage to change all those copies across different Christian communities that don't even agree with each other?

104:09

Speaker A

Uh yeah, thanks so much for the question. So when it actually happens uh when it comes to so-called corruption, whatever term we want to use, it always happens from the jump from the very beginning. So if you look at historians

104:20

Speaker A

of the New Test New Testament scholars, they say that only seven of the books of the New Testament are safely attributed to the claimed purported author and those are the uh letters seven letters of Paul which is not all the letters of

104:34

Speaker A

Paul. So that shows you when you claim that all of I'm not talking about later down the line whether uh texts were uh copied correctly. Even from the jump, if you look at the Hebrew Bible, who are the texts attributed to? Look at the

104:48

Speaker A

authorship that scholars think they actually go back to. It almost never lines up with traditional authorship.

104:53

Speaker A

Similarly, the gospels, ma, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. If you go take a New Testament course at any secular university in the world, they will not say that the actual authors are Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. So, the

105:03

Speaker A

so-called quote unquote corruption happens from the jump. And you can study that. You can read Bartman's book on and other scholars works on this topic.

105:11

Speaker A

Again, I got no problem with from a religious perspective holding a belief. I'm just saying if we're going to argue on a neutral terms, then we should rely on historical scholarship for that.

105:20

Speaker A

Hey, so my question is for the doctor. I'mma follow up on what you just said.

105:24

Speaker A

This is a two-part question. I didn't hear the second part of this first guy's question, but go ahead.

105:29

Speaker A

No. So you just said that when Muslims in general have a a problem with accepting Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the in jail of Jesus and what you would call the proclamation. So for me, the question I have is

105:47

Speaker A

h if okay, I say it like this. Y'all don't accept it because Jesus didn't write it down himself is what I'm what I'm noticing. So if y'all don't accept the proclamation of Jesus because he didn't write it down himself, why do y'all

106:05

Speaker A

accept the hadiths or the Quran even though Muhammad never wrote down a single word? And also um yeah the second part of that question would be what miracles did Allah do to make you believe that he is the God of the

106:22

Speaker A

Bible? Great. Those are two great questions. So the first question is I'm remembering the first question. The first question is, isn't it similar when it comes to the Hadith and the Gospels? Is that correct? Did I get you correct?

106:37

Speaker A

Well, the Quran, the Quran and Hadith, uh, Muhammad never wrote down a single word right?

106:41

Speaker A

And y'all don't accept the Gospels because y'all say, "Well, Jesus never wrote it down." Yeah.

106:46

Speaker A

So why should we trust it? And most of the Quran is almost completely anonymous. So like why would we accept if I was a Muslim, why would I accept the Quran?

106:58

Speaker A

Sure. Or the Hadith when Muhammad himself never wrote anything down. So great question. So what I would say is this. I'm not your typical Muslim and you're going to have bunch of comments that come afterward that this guy ain't

107:09

Speaker A

even a Muslim because I'm approaching it as, you know, if you think Dan Mlen is a is a Christian, you probably don't here.

107:15

Speaker A

I'm a scholar of the Quran in the similar way and so they're gonna be a bunch of conservative Muslims who are gonna say he's not a real Muslim. Okay.

107:22

Speaker A

Um so the way I answer that question is I think it's a fair point to raise the argument that uh the New Testament texts are not safely attributed to the purported authors and a similar issue affects the hadith. I I agree with you

107:38

Speaker A

on that. So I don't think that Muslims should be attacking Christians on that point. Again, I'm not here to bash Christianity. Um, I think the Quran is an exception. Uh, the vast majority of historical critical scholars do believe

107:49

Speaker A

that it goes back to Muhammad. But that doesn't negate your argument that oftentimes apologists and Muslim ones do the same thing. They attack a different faith, Christianity, without realizing that the same argument is going to come wrap around and hit them in in the butt.

108:02

Speaker A

So, I don't disagree with the the general tenure of your argument. And I forgot what the second question was.

108:07

Speaker A

Yeah. What miracles did Allah do to make you believe that he's the God of the Bible? because I think it all comes down to that.

108:13

Speaker A

So the term Allah is just the Arabic word for the God uh for God. It's used by uh Arab uh Christians as well and it goes even before um Islam as well. So it's not specific to Muslims if if that

108:28

Speaker A

makes sense. Oh, you're saying what miracles? I mean now you're getting into my personal theology which is like not very orthodox. So I don't know if we want to go in that direction. Um I I I don't believe in supernatural miracles.

108:46

Speaker A

A question for Dr. Jabid. I was wondering how you can hold to the premise that I can't sorry guys. I can't hear the question.

108:55

Speaker A

Folks, we we do need you to quiet down. Is if you if you want to have a conversation, I need you to do me a favor. Is just step outside and you can come back in when you're done, but just

109:03

Speaker A

have to keep it down. Yeah. So, for Dr. Javed, I was wondering how you can hold to the premise that the Torah when being referred to in the Quran is not necessarily the five book pentatuk text because it's a polyamous

109:22

Speaker A

word in light of sun abid 449 which I would like to read to you.

109:30

Speaker A

It says and this is rated Hassan by Alalbani. Okay. narrated Abdullah Iban Umar, a group of Jews came and invited the messenger of Allah to Kuf. So he visited them in their school. They said, "Abu Kasam, one of our men has committed

109:44

Speaker A

fornication with a woman so pronounced judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the messenger of Allah who sat on it and said, "Bring the Torah." It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed

109:57

Speaker A

the Torah on it, saying, "I believed in thee and in him who revealed thee, the physical book," the text that the Jews had at the time.

110:07

Speaker A

So yeah, great question. So first I would say again, you're not speaking to a Sunni traditionalist. I as a historian don't take the hadith as authentically all the way going back to the prophet Muhammad. Um, that doesn't mean that

110:22

Speaker A

they are useless, but I'm just saying from a purely historical perspective. Um, but your question actually can you can even apply it to, you know, I'm going to be honest and say you can apply it to various Quranic verses which do

110:34

Speaker A

imply that the Torah is with them and in their hands. So I already acknowledged in my opening statement that the word Torah and gospel are used primarily for especially Torah is used primarily for the divine proclamation and only

110:48

Speaker A

secondarily for written scriptures that preserve that uh proclamation. Uh just like the Quran later became the term for the physical book but really it's talking about the Quranic proclamation.

110:58

Speaker A

So those terms are not cotminous. There are Quranic proclamations that never made it into the physical book.

111:03

Speaker A

Similarly, there could be proclamations theoretically that Jesus made that didn't make it into the canonical gospels and even Christians acknowledge this that there could be things that he said that didn't make it into the canonical gospels. I hope that answered

111:15

Speaker A

your question wasn't tooquitious. Thanks. And then folks got to ask if you guys can do just remember one question at a time and then if it can be as pathy as possible and then we can't do any more

111:26

Speaker A

follow-ups just because we have so many people in line I want to get to those folks.

111:29

Speaker A

Hey, uh this is a question for Dr. Hashi. Just a very quick clarification to make sure I understand your position.

111:35

Speaker A

Um, and your position would be that because of the revelation delivered by God to Muhammad, we are to reinterpret the Torah and gospel or proclamation of Christ to address discontinuity to the Quran due to the principle of revelatory

111:48

Speaker A

exugesus. Is that correct? It's fairly correct. There was some imprecision there, but I I would I would take it mostly. Yes.

111:54

Speaker A

So, I'm Christian, but I'll start by granting for the sake of the argument that the Quran is true. So given your premise of revelatory exugesus, by what line of reasoning should you not reinterpret the Quran due to its

112:05

Speaker A

discontinuity with the Book of Mormon that God has delivered divine revelation to Joseph Smith and his ongoing list of prophets through?

112:12

Speaker A

That's a great question. From a religious studies perspective, you can actually look at a closer example, but that's very keen of you to have thought of this. Um, you can look at the Bahai example. So bahayism is a religion that

112:23

Speaker A

grew out of Shi Islam, and that's exactly what they do with the Quran. They consider the Quran to be textually intact, but they think that Muslims misinterpret it and their divine exit gives the proper interpretation of it.

112:36

Speaker A

Like I said, this is a problem that affects all scriptural religions and Islam and Christianity are no different.

112:42

Speaker A

So, I acknowledge what you're saying. Thank you. Thank you. Um, so you argue that the Islamic dilemma it it fails because it presents Muslims with a false dichotomy. either reject the Torah and the gospel and it contradicts the Quran or affirm them and

112:59

Speaker A

it contradicts the Quran's teachings. So you propose this third option of reinterpretation or divine exes Jesus uh comparing how Christians reconcile the Old and the New Testament. Uh but Christians don't resolve the apparent contradictions uh by claiming that the

113:15

Speaker A

Old Testament was corrupted or lost. We accept them as previous scriptures and then interpret them accordingly. So, in order to get to my question, I just wanted to make sure I summarized your statement or your argument. Furthermore, Quran 1094, which Avery brought up,

113:29

Speaker A

tells Muhammad that if he doubts what has been revealed, go and ask those who read the scriptures before him, which presupposes that there's some revelation accessible and sufficiently reliable to serve as an independent witness of the Quran. Those scriptures are lost or

113:43

Speaker A

false, then we wouldn't be able to distinguish. But the question is granting your third option of reinterpretation or divine ex Jesus. How do you interpret the previous verses like Mark 10 uh 45 where Jesus explicitly says he came to give his life

113:58

Speaker A

as a ransom for many when Quran 4:157 denies that Jesus was killed and in chapter 2 it says that there is no ransom. How do you interpret that?

114:08

Speaker A

I think you should come sit over here and debate because that was like six questions in one and very keen questions. So thank you for that. Um, I actually am sad that I didn't get to speak about Aver's favorite verse, 1094.

114:19

Speaker A

I had provided I pro I actually prepared like 10 slides for it. Uh, and I'm sad that I didn't get to use it. Uh, I I think that the and I'll just focus on that because you had a few questions.

114:28

Speaker A

So, I'll focus on 1094. Um, uh, I I I definitely think that Christian apologists uh engage in uh reading that verse completely out of context. They misread the text of it and then they do interpretive overreach. The verse

114:44

Speaker A

actually says I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. That's not I'm not asking about 1094. I'm just asking how do you interpret Mark 10:45 where it says that Jesus came to give his life as a ransom for many. That that's what I'm

114:57

Speaker A

asking your ex Jesus on that passage because we're not saying it's corrupt or corrupt or lost. How do you interpret Mark 10:94 and passages like that?

115:06

Speaker A

Great. Okay. So now I'll answer this specific question and I'll say that there are all sorts of verses in the New Testament which can lean one in a trinitarian direction or a unitarian direction. You can simply go to your

115:19

Speaker A

nearest unitarian debater and ask him how do you interpret various verses and they'll give you a certain exesus that can support the uh proper what they think is the proper understanding.

115:30

Speaker A

Similarly, there are texts in the New Testament which indicate that Jesus is not God. The true one true God, for example, that he doesn't know the hour.

115:39

Speaker A

What do you do with that verse? You interpret it away for your interpretation. I think I think he's asking about your your personal interpretation.

115:48

Speaker A

Yeah. I'm not a biblical theologian, man. I I I mean, I'm I'm simply telling you just say that and then not go on about how everybody has different opinions on it. Sorry. I don't mean to be so hard on

115:59

Speaker A

you, but I'm like, Javon, it's okay to just say I don't have an opinion on this.

116:03

Speaker A

I mean, I have an opinion, but it's not formulated enough for me to say it right now.

116:07

Speaker A

Why are you holding back on us? Okay, I'm just teasing you. I like you, Javon.

116:12

Speaker A

You know, we're friends because I I want to be very precise when I speak. So, I I don't want to speak.

116:15

Speaker A

That's fair. I don't want to be too hard on you, but All right. I just want to be fair to both debaters by giving both debaters a question. Avery, how are you?

116:25

Speaker A

Okay. Fantastic. Now to you. So quick clarify quick clarifying question. Yeah. Uh do you believe the Quran is perfect or corrupted?

116:37

Speaker A

So as a perfect or what was the second option? Corrupted. So either perfect or imperfect as a dichotomy.

116:46

Speaker A

All right. I'm going to give another scholarly answer that you guys are not going to like.

116:49

Speaker A

No, this is fine. So when people use the word perfectly preserved like traditional Sunni Muslims they mean every letter jot and tit right that as a historian of the Quran is very difficult to believe. We have textual variants.

117:03

Speaker A

Avery has spoken of them. Uh in that sense I don't believe in that level of perfect preservation.

117:09

Speaker A

Okay. Now as in my personal life as a religious Muslim do I approach the text as in some sense perfect? Yes. But that is in the eye of the beholder.

117:18

Speaker A

Okay. So when I think when you think your spouse is perfect, that's in the eye of the beholder.

117:23

Speaker A

Okay. So ju just to be clear when it comes to uh the claim that the Quran is clear right?

117:31

Speaker A

Mhm. This will be uh the question is it clear in the Quran on the identity of previous prophets such as Elisha or Ali Yasa such that it identifies him as a prophet and granting for argument sake your view of

117:46

Speaker A

biblical corruption. Can you verify or authenticate the Quran's claim of the prophethood of Elisha without the Quran being dependent on another source?

117:59

Speaker A

So this seems very tangentially related to the debate topic. But what I would say is this. Despite the fact that the Quran describes itself as clear, the history of interpretation of scripture, even like Protestants held to the hold to the clarity of scripture,

118:19

Speaker A

right? But if you look at interpretation throughout history, you'll see that there's been wide disagreement about meanings of texts. I wouldn't have an academic job if I thought every single verse in the Quran is crystal clear to us today. Right? So I acknowledge that

118:35

Speaker A

they're going to be there are going to be texts in the Quran that are unclear to us here and even what the Quran means by the Quran being clear is debated. So it's an irony of uh interpretation. Uh

118:49

Speaker A

but that applies equally to the Bible as it applies to the Quran. We go to the next question.

118:54

Speaker A

Uh this is a question for Dr. Javad. Um so Miriam Webster defines secular as not overtly or specifically religious. Um so in regard to this topic because throughout the debate you uh referred to secular scholarship a lot. Um so what

119:12

Speaker A

makes a secular scholar more authoritative than a religious scholar in regard to an overtly religious topic?

119:19

Speaker A

Great. Um it it if you are looking at the Quran and you're wanting to learn about the Quran, do you want somebody who is an apologist for the faith to describe it to you if you're trying to understand it in its historical original

119:34

Speaker A

historical context? That apologist is going to make sure it aligns with their orthodox theology which took time to develop. So you wouldn't really want that. Now it doesn't mean that a sec I'm not saying that you have to be a

119:47

Speaker A

non-Christian or a non-Muslim. I'm saying that you have to take an a historical critical perspective. So when I mean secular, I don't mean the religious identity of the person. There are plenty of good uh academics of the Bible who are Christian, but I'm talking

120:01

Speaker A

about the ones who are not blatantly confessional in their approach or apologists in the in their approach.

120:09

Speaker A

So that's that's what I mean by that. Thank you. So you claim that when the Quran refers to the Injil, it means Jesus's proclamations and not the actual gospel.

120:21

Speaker A

Um, is that to me? No, sorry to talk to him. Give him a give him a question. Come on, throw him something.

120:28

Speaker A

Um, but you kept ending ending your point there. So when the Quran was written, the early church and general canon believe that Jesus is the only way to eternal life. So would that not bring you back to the original Islamic

120:41

Speaker A

dilemma? Sorry, I I didn't understand. Can you repeat what what brings us back to the Islamic dilemma?

120:46

Speaker A

So if if we're just looking at Jesus's proclamations, you know, he he would say that he was the only true way to God the, you know, to eternal life. So would that not bring you back to the original

120:58

Speaker A

Islamic dilemma even? So I'm not talking about the Okay, you have to understand this in two ways.

121:03

Speaker A

one, if we're taking it from the religious perspective, the Quran's religious perspective, um, it's not, it doesn't necessarily have to align with the red letters of Jesus, if that's what you're saying. Um, it has to align with what the Quran understands Jesus's

121:19

Speaker A

proclamation to be. And you're right. If you're going to say that's like kind of circular, yes, but it's not really because that's we believe that he has a hotline to God and he's able to provide the definitive and authoritative

121:34

Speaker A

interpretation. So it's not dependent on the Bible in that sense. So if you believe that he's a true prophet, then he has a true interpretation. Now, if you ask me from a historical critical perspective, I would say that I I'm

121:46

Speaker A

pretty sure, but I have to look on this. Most New Testament scholars don't think that that sentence actually goes back to Jesus. And if even if it does, it doesn't imply that he is God uh co-substantial with God. Even in Islam,

121:59

Speaker A

you have the belief that the p in traditional Islam, you have the belief that the path to God is through Muhammad. So it it is not as problematic as as one would think. I hope I answered the question, but it was Yeah. Thank

122:11

Speaker A

you. Yes. Hello. So my question is for Mr. Javon. So can you speak? Sorry. Yes.

122:22

Speaker A

You said this question is for Avery. Okay. Yeah. So you mentioned earlier that you don't believe in supernatural miracles, right? And my question is from a historical from your historical perspective in Muhammad's day or in pre-Islam Arabia there are many references for example

122:46

Speaker A

the Cabba and some of Muhammad's relatives had the name Quran not Quran Allah in their name when Muhammad was born there's he had relatives with the name Muham excuse me with with Allah in their name and then the Quran itself.

123:04

Speaker A

There are many references to pre- Islamic religions and deities. For example, um the Cabba, the uh worship of the moon gods that Arabians that worshiped before the Islamic came. So I want to ask how do you base the Quran?

123:24

Speaker A

What bas what basis do you think that the Quran is divinely inspired when the Quran has many references to pre- Islamic religion from the moon god worship that Arabians had at that time that Muhammad was living in.

123:41

Speaker A

All right. So as far as my belief about miracles, I would inform the audience online mostly that there were classical Islamic philosophers, a whole school of Islamic thought, the philosopher who naturalized miracle stories and did not believe in miracles as breaking the laws

123:59

Speaker A

of nature because they believe that God is the one who instituted the laws of nature and therefore would not break them. That is my belief. Um, now as far as the moon god question, I am unaware of serious historical scholarship that

124:14

Speaker A

believes in the moon god. That is uh theory uh put forward by certain um pmicists against Islam. Um I forget who it was exactly but I think it is a Christian apologist and it's it's widely debunked. Um the the actually latest

124:29

Speaker A

scholarship is showing that the pagans of Mecca were probably already going in a monotheistic direction before Islam and they used other figures including astral bodies as intermediaries between them and God. Um so that's all I can say about the moon god thing but it has no

124:47

Speaker A

real historical basis. But thank you. I think we have time for one more question. I got a question for God logic. Uh if yeah if if given more time uh would you screen saver turned on.

125:02

Speaker A

Well like yeah so if given more time to speak would you have brought up the new covenant mentioned throughout the old testament prophets as an explanation for Christians and the old testament new testament uh discrepancies 100%. I I wish your question was longer

125:16

Speaker A

but yes bro. Well I'm glad that I at least got to send you one question.

125:21

Speaker A

Thank you man. Can I respond to that too though very briefly once? No way.

125:26

Speaker A

I would say I have no problem with the new covenant explanation. In fact, I was trying to get that out of Avery. Uh the point is that if they can have a new covenant to explain away discontinuities, so can Muslims and the

125:38

Speaker A

Quran itself, which does believe in a new covenant with the believers, which are Muhammad's followers.

125:42

Speaker A

Since the original question was for you, Avery, I want to give you the last word if you'd like.

125:46

Speaker A

Yes, actually. Um, so the the new covenant is not a way of explaining away discontinuity. It's a it's a way of explaining fulfillment.

125:55

Speaker A

And so where the Torah or the Tanakh talks about things to come and pointed to all of these things and we see the fulfillment of these things to come into in the new in the new covenant. So uh

126:07

Speaker A

that that's the new covenant's fulfillment, not like a band-aid. Any other questions for Avery because I just wanted to make sure cuz come on up.

126:16

Speaker A

is uh I hadn't realized is sorry I got so you haven't realized it that that is crazy.

126:22

Speaker A

All right, here we go. All right, I'll be uh py as as James said so that way we can you know move on. But uh thank you Dr. Jay for coming and discussing Chef Logic. Thanks for letting us in the kitchen. Salam ali

126:32

Speaker A

salami. I wanted to ask you because I noticed that in the presentation by our friend uh Dr. Jay that a lot of people that are claimed to be Christians are being cited yet you and I agree with these people

126:41

Speaker A

are not Christians. Yeah. What is the objective measurement by which we can define who is and is not a Christian given that these people are appealing to the scriptures and we're appealing to the scriptures? Is there It'll be early tradition and early in

126:53

Speaker A

the scriptures. So, a tandem of both can give us uh a measuring stick of who is and who isn't.

126:59

Speaker A

Okay. All right. I'll keep it brief. Thank you. Yeah. Praise God. I got a one minute rejoinder. Um I give you 30 seconds. I do want to give Avery the last word though just because he has sat for like a half hour without

127:10

Speaker A

any questions. Well, I would say that every almost every major Christian group in history has claimed orthodoxy and that they're continuous with the tradition, including, for example, Aryan Christians who at one point in time may have been the majority. These things are

127:21

Speaker A

contingent based on historical circumstances and who was in power. After Constantine and then Theodosius the 1, it was state power that enforced this and made us think that those are the orthodox because they were the winners.

127:32

Speaker A

Uh yeah, the Aryan group was refuted by scripture and the early church tradition. So notice where we have a a ruler stick to judge heretics and blasphemers. Um and which is why Aras was refuted by the church with the

127:46

Speaker A

scripture and why they're still being refuted to this day when they're trying to come up as Jehovah's Witnesses or other type of fringe groups. But you see who's still standing. It's not because we got political power, but it's because

127:56

Speaker A

we have evidence backing us up. Amen. Well, let's give them a round of applause. Thank you so much, gentlemen.

128:04

Speaker A

That was amazing. All right, folks. Thanks so much. We have been honored to have you here and we hope to see you tomorrow. Is there any housekeeping I'm forgetting? Bob, feel like we're good. Want to say thanks so

128:20

Speaker A

much. It's been a true pleasure. Hopefully we will see you tomorrow. Have a great rest of your night.

128:25

Speaker A

Thanks for an amazing start. Huge thanks to Revival of the Anointed's rule, equipping Christians to fight for biblical values through policy victories. Check out revivetheroar.org.

128:46

Speaker A

Special thanks to our sponsor, Uncensored America. Want to host a controversial speaker on your college campus? Start a chapter now on your campus at uncensoredamea.

128:56

Speaker A

us. Huge thanks to our sponsor, Apologetics Arc. Check out their app today by downloading it. 1 Peter 3:15 says, "Always be ready to give a defense." Huge thank you to our sponsor, Yonauni International Cuisine of Aguodia, Puerto Rico. Check them out in your next trip.

Topics: Islamic dilemma Christian dilemma GodLogic Apologetics Javad Hashmi Modern Day Debate DebateCon 9 Quran 29:46 tahrif Trinity Injeel

Study this video

- [Flashcards from this video](https://sozai.app/tools/ai-flashcard-generator/?from=transcript&id=87537)
- [Quiz on this video](https://sozai.app/tools/quiz-generator/?from=transcript&id=87537)

Free, made by AI from this transcript. No signup.


---
This is the markdown twin of https://sozai.app/transcript/islamic-dilemma-christian-dilemma-godlogic-apologetics-vs/ — the same content, without the markup.
Published by SozAI (https://sozai.app). Reuse and quotation are allowed with attribution and a link back.
Machine-readable index: https://sozai.app/llms.txt · data API: https://sozai.app/api/