1 Muslim vs 10 Christian Apologists

According to the Christian Bible, after he's been resurrected and glorified in heaven, he still says, "My God." So Jesus here, as you just admitted, unqualified, claims to be the first and the last. So by your own admission, can you admit that even by Islamic standards, Jesus claims to be God? These people who were Jewish scholars, people of the Bible that you have conceded and quoted, actually said, "Yes, we saw the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam clearly mentioned in the Bible more than what we would even see today." Very interestingly, and they accepted Islam from it.

And the speaker says, "I am Yahweh. I am the first and the last." In Revelation 22:13, Jesus identifies himself as "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." For example, in 1 John 5:7, you will find the heavenly Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. These were infamous additions from later generations. Evidence, both external and internal, shows that they are against their authenticity. It says in chapter 3:55 that Allah will make the followers of Jesus uppermost until the day of resurrection. That means that the message of Jesus could never have been corrupted. This text could never have been corrupted. So it looks like according to you, Allah failed to keep his promise to the believers, to the previous prophets. Therefore, Allah is false. Jesus never mentioned Ahmed. Ahmed is not in the Bible.

Jesus is not Almighty God according to the Bible. So first thing, if you look in the Bible, and this is in John, uh, chapter of John.

Yeah. Uh, you see in 8:40, "But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I have heard from God." So clearly, according to the Christian Bible, again, this is not my belief, this is what I'm quoting from your own scripture, Jesus according to red line saying that I am a man who heard the truth from God. He's not claiming to be God in this verse at least, so it's very clear that he's not Almighty God. If God heard from God, then he wouldn't say I heard from God. And, uh, I mean if you don't mind.

Yeah. And then in verse 42, he goes, "I proceed forth and came from God, nor have I come of myself, but he sent me." So Jesus, according to the Bible, is clearly saying that he is a man who was sent by God, not the Father, by God who heard a truth from God. In fact, if we continue in John 17:3, he says, "This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Very explicitly, Jesus is saying that there's only one true God who sent Jesus Christ, separating himself again from Almighty God. Um, if we look at the fact that Jesus, according to the Bible, and this is post-resurrection, so we don't say this is pre-resurrection, in John also says, "I am ascending to my Father, your Father, my God, and your God." God doesn't have a God. If it's God Almighty God, he wouldn't be saying "my God" post-resurrection, by the way. And I believe that when Jesus is called the servant of God in Acts 13, uh, 3:13, it says, "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus." So if Almighty God glorified Jesus, I really don't see how that could be God himself. In fact, in Acts, we also see God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good, healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God had sent him or God was with him. So again, God anointed Jesus. God helped him. It's not God himself. Um, in fact, if we look at the last verse or two verses that I'll quote to end this with, um, Jesus also says the God of our Lord, uh, sorry, in the Bible it also says that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the spirit of wisdom post-resurrection. We're talking about the God of Jesus, not even while he's on earth. And the last verse that I'll quote here is in Revelation, where according to the Christian Bible, this is again redlined. After risen, after being exalted in heaven, Jesus says, "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out no more, and I will write on him the name of my God, the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven from my God." Four times Jesus continuously says, "My God." Again, post-resurrection, post being exalted, post heaven, all of that. Still, Jesus is saying "my God." And many times in the Bible, you also see Jesus on the right hand of God, not God himself. So I, from where I see it, and I'm open to your understanding, Jesus is an Almighty God himself according to the Bible.

All right. So, um, I kind of want to take a little bit of a different angle. Um, I want to do this in a way that relates to you and your theology. So the Quran has names and titles of Allah that you would agree only applied to him. No creature, no angel, no prophet can claim these titles or else it'll be what is called shirk or associating a partner with him.

Just quickly, you agree with that? That is incorrect. It's incorrect. It's incorrect. So, so just want to get into Islamic because that's off the prompt.

No, it's not. It's tying into the point which is... So, do you want me to explain that point then because you're incorrect on it? So you're saying creatures can actually share in the names and titles of Allah. Can I respond? Please. It's a yes or no because I, I'm not going to... yes or no. If you're going to ask a question, I'm going to respond.

It sounds like a line of logic that he's trying to run by. So if you're asking for a yes or no, you can do a yes and I have a clarifier, and then if you want to get through your thought on the line of logic and then offer the clarifier.

Yeah. Yes, I have a clarifier, which is that there are certain that are only for Allah subhana wa ta'ala, like al-'Alim, that cannot be used for any of the creation, but there are like Rahim, which can be used for creation. Allah is wudud, He's loving. That doesn't mean that the creation are not loving. Of course, the characteristics of Allah are unique to him, but there are some that humanity does share in as well. Is living. We are all living, but the way Allah is living is unique to him. So your base point was incorrect, and I hope that clarification helps.

It's not because I didn't ask about whether or not we share in his attributes like, "Oh, I'm merciful, Allah's merciful, so yeah, we're both merciful." I didn't ask that. So for example, can someone be called Alim again, for example, if you put the part... Can I... can I speak? I didn't... looks like... okay, I got you listening. So you seem like you're about to speak.

So like Allah subhana wa ta'ala is Alim, that is unique to him. Nobody can be called that, but even the indefinite can be used with certain characteristics. For example, Al-Wadud, the most loving, but the way that it applies to Allah is unique to him. But as you earlier said, that those are only for him, that is incorrect. Some are shared. Not just that they are merciful, very merciful, but that to the level of Rahman? No.

Okay, so I'm not asking if we can be merciful similar to how Allah is. He's just more merciful than us. I'm asking about his specific titles. So he's called Al-Rahman, Al-Rahim, Al-Wadud, meaning the most loving. Can any creature share these titles? I'm not saying, "Oh, Allah's loving, I'm also loving." Can I be called the most loving? Can I be called the most merciful? Can I be called the living one, which is one of his names? Can I be called any of these things? Can any prophet claim these things? Any angel? There's your point.

Okay. Again, certain ones, no. And that's why you have to understand the nuance here because you don't understand, right? Certain ones, no.

Certain ones, yes, you can be the loving, Al-Wadud, the most loving, the most loving. Of course, amongst... amongst... amongst... Go for it. Yeah. Amongst, for example, if I said these are all my kids, but this one, he's Al-Wadud. He is the most loving of them. Right. That can be in that context. Notice, let me... let me... there you go. Right now, the c...

believe that when Jesus is called the servant of god in acts 13 uh 3:13 it says the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus. So if almighty God glorified Jesus, I

really don't see how that could be God himself. In fact, in Acts, we also see God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, whom who went about doing good, healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God had

sent him or God was with him. So again, God anointed Jesus. God helped him. It's not God himself. Um in fact if we look at the last verse or two verses that I'll quote to end this with um

Jesus also says the God of our Lord uh sorry the in the Bible it also says that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ the father of glory may give you the spirit of wisdom post resurrection we're talking about the God of Jesus not even

while he's on earth and the last verse that I'll quote here is in revelations where according to the Christian Bible.

This is again redlined. After risen, after being exalted in heaven, Jesus says, "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out no more, and I will write on him the name of my God, the name of

the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven from my God." Four times Jesus continuously says, "My God." again post-resurrection, post being exalted, post heaven, all of that. Still Jesus is saying my God. And

many times in the Bible, you also see Jesus on the right hand of God, not God himself. So I I from where I see it, and I'm open to your understanding, Jesus is an almighty God himself according to the

Bible. All right. So, um I kind of want to take a little bit of a different angle. Um I want to do this in a way that relates to you and your theology. So the Quran has names and titles of Allah that you would

agree only applied to him. No creature, no angel, no prophet can claim these titles or else it'll be what is called sherk or associating a partner with him.

Just quickly, you agree with that? That is incorrect. It's incorrect. It's incorrect. So, so just want to get into Islamic because that's off the prompt.

No, it's not. It's it's it's tying into the point which is So, do you want me to explain that point then because you're incorrect on it? So you're saying it's so creatures can actually share in the names and titles

of Allah. Can I respond? Please. It's a yes or no cuz I I'm not going to yes or no. If you're going to ask a question, I'm going to respond.

It sounds like a line of logic that he's trying to run by. So if you're asking for a yes or no, you can do a yes and I have a clarifier and then if you if you want to get through your thought on the

line of logic and then offer the clarifier. Yeah. Yes, I have a clarifier which is that there are certain that are only for Allah subhana tala like alman that cannot be used for any of the creation but there are like raim which can be

used for creation Allah is wudoo he's loving that doesn't mean that the creation are not living of course the characters of Allah are unique to him but there are some that the humanity does share in as well is living we are

all living but the way Allah is living is unique to him so your base point was incorrect and I hope that's clarification helps it it's Not because I didn't ask about whether or not we share in his attributes like oh I'm merciful Allah's

merciful so yeah we're both merciful I didn't ask that so for example can someone be called alim again foreim if you put the part can I can I speak I didn't looks like okay I got you listening so you seem like you're about to speak

so like Allah subhana t is alman that is unique to him nobody can be called right but even the in indefinite can be used with certain characteristics for example aloud the most loving but the way that it applies to Allah is unique to him but

as you earlier said that those are only for him that is incorrect some are shared not just that they are merciful very merciful but that to the level of Rahman no okay so I I'm not asking if we can be

merciful similar to how Allah is he's just more merciful than us I'm asking about his specific titles so he's called al-raman al-raim al-wadud meaning the most loving. Can any creature share these titles? I'm not saying, "Oh, Allah's loving. I'm also loving. I'm can

I be called the most loving? Can I be called the most merciful? Can I be called uh the living one?" Which is one of his names. Can I be called any of these things? Can any prophet claim these things? Any angel? There's your

point. Okay. Again, certain ones, no. And that's why you have to understand the nuance here because you don't understand, right? Certain ones, no.

certain ones. Yes, you can be the loving aloud. The most loving the most loving. Of course, amongst Amongst Amongst Go for it. Yeah. Amongst for example, if I said these are all my kids, but this one he's aloud. He is the

most loving of them. Right. That can be in that context. Notice let me let me there you go. Right now, the clarification here is yes, even can be used with certain things of the creation, but Allah is unique.

There is his level is unique to him. But to answer your question, yes, even the infinite of can be used.

Okay. So what you just did is you qualified. You said the most loving of my children. I didn't ask that. I'm not asking can someone use these terms in qualification of certain things. I'm mean in general outright absolute. Can

someone claim themselves to be in general the most loving alua dude? Yes or no?

Once again, I'm going to Yes or no, please. I'm sorry. You know, it's yes, no. I would say yes and or no and it please do not interrupt.

I won't just get just answer straight away please. Again, that's why he's trying to run the line of logic because that's where where we're running into uh that's how he's trying to get to his point.

I get that. So, yes, and or no and yes and. Okay. So, when we're talking about, for example, somebody being very loving, are you calling me mushik here?

Yeah. Nobody gave you that authority. Thanks a lot. You're not you're not a Muslim. You're not a shake. You don't know anything about Islam. You're not a shake.

Out of the meta. Let's get back to it. Thank you. So, please refrain from calling me a mushik cuz that's an insult.

That's a disbelief. How's that an insult? That is definitely I don't know what that word just means he's a disbeliever. That's all. He just called me a disbeliever in Islam. That is definitely an insult. Thank you so much.

We don't need your keep it to yourself. You don't know the the wabbit of you're not a Muslim anymore. Let's get back to the point so that we don't escalate this any further.

He said he knows the what are they? You just commit a shark. What are they? You commit what are the You can't commit You do not know.

You are ignorant. We are caught you right now. Can you be a Muslim and commit shark?

Yes, you can. You can. Let me sit down. Sit down. Sit down. Somebody Somebody who does What about that?

This is why I didn't want to do this. Go ahead. What is it? What is okay, man?

You can you can be a Muslim and commit sherk. You can associate partners with the law. Okay.

Whenever the two of you are are done with your measuring tools, maybe we can put them away. I guarantee you I'm ready to hear his answer.

It's not going to get us anywhere. We have a prompt. We have a debate. I'd love to get back.

He's already gone off the prompt. No, I didn't. I'm right here. You're struggling. Now, once again, I'm not struggling at all. your ignorance when you said you're a shake and you said I'm doing shik and I'm a mushik not understanding what even

is you don't even know what the word means if a Muslim does but he's ignorant of it he's forced by it there are many that he would still remain a Muslim these are called which you are ignorant you do it by your

own free will you are ignorant of that's why I said even if a Muslim does we don't say he's kafir we don't ch he's mushik until those safeguards are put into place which you are absolutely jah of. So you do not know you're not a

shake. You do not know Islam. Now let me respond to that. Can I respond to that?

I would rather get out of the personal insults preferably and get back. Yeah. This is all religious. This is all this is all religious.

Okay. But you were it was all based off of some kind of insult that interrupted when he was trying to answer the yes and. Okay. So I would love to get back to the original prompt if you gentlemen

don't mind because this personal insult stuff can go offcreen somewhere else. Can I So, can I reiterate then the question? Do you need the question?

Really? I already answered it. So, I don't know why we're redoing it over and over again.

Well, you were you were saying yes and and then he said something. I can finish with yes and no.

And then you were on an insult. Let me let me re let me reiterate this the point.

Reked the question. It had to do with the um with the titles of Allah. And he's saying and so this is why I said this.

This isn't a personal insult. If you according to Islam uh attribute the names and attributes and titles of Allah to any of his creatures, then you have committed a sher. you have associated a partner with him and you are no longer a

Muslim. Now if you you what you just said is I'm from your from your Quran which we'll do this in a second. We can we can talk after Can I speak? Hold on.

Let me let me speak please to the point of you asked a very specific question before we went off guard.

Yes. I'm trying to get there. So for example um Allah is called the first and the last. Can anybody be identified as the first and the last unqualified? I'm not saying putting it in a context of I'm the first and last of my parents.

No. In a general absolute sense, when they say I am the first and the last, would that be sherk? Would that be associating partner? Can anyone claim to be to do this, be this, and it not be blasphemy? Yes or no? And then explain.

That's a good point. So, he made a point earlier and then he went to a yes or no. So, he's jumping.

No, he's asking the question first thing. He qualified to. There was a condition built into asking the question. I'll allow it. The question is a yes or no, right? So you can offer a qualifier for it, but he asked the

question right there at the tail end. That's what I'm looking for. In the Arabic context, being used without any qualification can only be used for Allah.

Now having said that, I will address first thing you said the Quran says that and you have not given us a verse.

You're lying on the Quran. I'll give you secondly you're go ahead. It's in chapter four where Allah says that he can't that he will not forgive sherk.

And if you don't and if you don't forgive and if he doesn't forgive you're not a Muslim. You see how he forgive you. Earlier he said no this isn't even on the prompt anymore.

Can I you guys are giving me a run for my money. Now earlier he said now now you're not on the you use any of the names of Allah like and so on. For anybody else the Quran says you're

mushik. Now he doesn't have a verse for that. I just did. No no you did not. That's just saying shik. That is not saying if you give one of the names which are not unique to Allah to other than Allah's creation.

That is not I explained that already. The prophet is called in the Quran is he called?

He can be called alim as well in certain context. Muhammad can be called again you're jumping off but you do not have a verse. Show me the verse from the Quran that you said that if you take any of

those names and give them to the creation it is shik. Yes. Okay. I show the verse that that does not say that. That verse does not say that. Brother, you ask me a question.

That verse does not say Okay, that's cool and all. Let me You did ask him a question. Go ahead. I appreciate it.

So, the verse in chapter 4, ladies and gentlemen, says that there's one sin. There's one sin that Allah does not forgive. And that is sherk. For those who do not know what sherk is, like I guess utman doesn't. Sherk is when you

associate a partner with Allah. What does that mean, y'all? That means when you equate someone with Allah. When you give uh names and titles uh that are attributed to Allah uniquely to Allah to a creature to anyone other than Allah in

his lordship in his attributes in his names you are associating a partner which is i.e. sherk. So when he says hey guys there's one sin that I will not forgive that is sherk. When you associate a partner with me naming

someone a creature attributing them names or qualities or attributes that belong only to Allah to a creature is sherk which takes you out of Islam.

Allah won't forgive you and you did that today. You might as well come to Christ.

Now, let me land this, too. Okay, I'm getting back to the point. No, no, no.

Hold on. Let me hold on. Hold on. Can you hold on, hold on. Yeah, let me finish my thought. So, in in in all of this, like you just said, you just said for example that Allah being identified

as the first and the last, this is something unique to him. No one can be attributed this name and title. So now when we go to the Bible and Jesus identifies himself, he says, "I am the first and the last, the beginning and

the end, the alpha and omega, specifically first and the last." Can you agree that by Islamic standards that when Jesus claims to be the first and the last, that he's claiming to be God Almighty?

Are you done? Yes. No. Please expound. No. And now I will expound. First off, what's the verse in chapter 4?

48. Thank you. 48. Oh, you didn't know it, huh? I got you. Indeed, Allah subhana t does not forgive association with him, but he forgives that which is less than that.

Now earlier what he's caught in the lie of is he says the Quran says that if you take any of the names of Allah and give it to the creation then that is in the Quran you're a mushri. The verse does

not state that he lied. First of interrupting now you interrupt. No I did not.

I'm going to speak. Okay. If somebody like now Yeah. Come on now. That is a lie. Right. Secondly, you call me a mushik without you understanding the you're absolutely ignorant of it. And even here, you're ignorant of it cuz

there are that are that can be used for the creation. And any book a beginning book of if you picked up you would have known that. But there are those that are unique to Allah. And the way it befits

Allah is unique to Allah. So for example, Allah has a yud. And if we were to say, "Oh, you have a yud. That doesn't make me a mushri." Allah's is unique to him. So that does not make me

a mushik. You have a hand. Allah has a hand. Saying that those two exist does not make me a mushri. You're absolutely ignorant of now. Let me No, no. Let me let me let me finish now. Your time.

Now when you go to the alpha and omega, that is not and I said first and last, not alpha and omega. That's what I'm focusing on.

Okay. Golly. Let's be mindful. Let's be mindful. Let him let him finish through his thought.

You want to pen? You can write down some notes. That's okay. So, so once again, when you when you take something that is in the Arabic language and you try to associate with something else, for example, alpha and

omega in the Greek alphabet is the first and last of the alphabet. In other instances, you can say somebody's the first and the last. If I was to say that Michael Jordan is the alpha and omega of basketball, he is the first and last of

basketball. That is not the same as saying and in the Arabic language. So for you to say that because of the Arabic and that means nobody but Jesus could be called God by being called that is equating apples and oranges.

Secondly, I have not made the point of the Bible saying that alpha and omega are first and last. My point that he still hasn't addressed the original points was the verses in the Bible that clearly shows that Jesus is not God

because he calls out to a god even post resurrection. Okay. So shake um man I need you to for the sake of this argument brother please track what I'm asking you man I'm not asking you about in general uh I'm sorry

with uh qualifications I actually made it clear so that you wouldn't waste our time talking about well if I said Michael Jordan is the first and the last in basketball that's a qualification whenever you say in this or of that

you're qualifying it I'm specifically talking about unqualified which you said only God can be identified unqualified as the first and the last. So, yes or no on this so I can build my point. When Jesus says, can I can I say yes or no talking?

Yes. I need a yes or no on this because I'm building my my point on this. Asking the question.

Yes. When Jesus says, "I am the first and the last." Does he qualify it? Yes or no?

Can you give me the verse? Revelation 22:3. He says, I'll read it for you. He says, "I am the first and the last, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end." Does he qualify when he says, "I am the first and the

last." Revelation 22. What? He just he just read it to you. I just quoted it to you.

I'd like to see it from my own Bible. Okay. Verse 13. You got the open all of them.

Revelations 22. Verse 13. 13. Okay. I am the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. The first and the last.

Does he qualify first and last? Yes or no? He does not. Thank you. All right.

So, he doesn't qualify. I have I have remember he's running the line of logic.

These are yes or nos, but that means you got to do yes or no.

Absolutely. Absolutely. So the only I asked that for a yes or no to build this point and I'm going to give it over to you. Okay. So remember you said when I asked you can anyone claim to be the

first and the last unqualified and it's not a claim of being God. Can anyone claim that unqualified? You said no that belongs to Allah alone. God alone. So Jesus here as you just admitted unqualified claims to be the

first and the last. So by your own admission, can you admit that even by Islamic standards, Jesus claims to be God?

Absolutely not. I mean, you can laugh track all you want, but that's okay. Now, once again, you're taking something that is in one language and equating with a different language. Whether you're saying qualified or not, if if I tell my wife,

you are the first and the last, doesn't mean that she's God. That shows my that shows my love for her. Absolutely.

you're the first and the last. So for me, she is no problem with that.

Understanding Greek context, understanding that the clarification here of alpha and omega here in the verse that you quoted, that's why I wanted to bring the verse up myself as well shows that this is not what we would consider and in the Quranic

context. For example, let me let me finish. If you're trying to take something from an Islamic concept and try to prove the Bible by it, that's just not going to work. In Islam, for example, if you say God has a son, that

by itself would be rejected. In the Bible, obviously that's used all the time. And if in Islam, somebody says, for example, uh God like like you you were talking about God came in the form of a man, that would be by itself. So

you cannot take and from the Quranic aspect and try to put it with the biblical aspect. The Bible has many things that would not work with that concept to begin with. for example, many gods being referenced, for example, gods

being judges, for example, many people being sons of God. None of that would work. So if you were to show me in Islamic context, Abu and that's different. But seeing the first and the last in a biblical context is not the

same. Okay? So those two do not match. And my answer is clear to you now.

No, it's not. So watch this. when you say you said that the first and the last the first and the last in Islam in the Quran is different from the first and last in the Bible because that's why

can you tell me okay listen man I'm going to give you a chance brother you got all the time in the world can you tell us very intricately with verses and references what is the difference when Allah claims to be the first and the

last in the Quran and when Jesus claims to be the first and last in the Bible what's the difference absolutely first thing I didn't say just why so don't put words in my mouth Thank you so much. Stay out of my mouth. Now,

secondly, secondly, yeah. Secondly, we're talking about two absolutely different languages with two um Please don't interrupt me.

He's getting there. So, we're talking about two absolutely different languages that use language differently. So, you cannot take something from one language and bring it into another language. For example, the word son, as you have seen in the Bible,

it has been used for other than even Jesus, right? Sons of God. That could never work in the Quran. So, if I was to say, hey, because in Islam, Allah has no son. Son is not used. So, it means the

same thing. Can I can I does not mean the same thing because here obviously because it's you are using an Islamic context into the Bible. Just like the Bible's language would not work in the Quran, you cannot take the Arabic of the

Quran and try to bring it in the Bible. Those are two different things. In Hebrew, in Greek, certain terms are used in certain ways for other than God, other than even the pious people and so on, that would not be in Islam. So when

in the Quran, it says Allah has no sons. If you were to say, oh, if you bring that in the Bible, would that mean that these are not sons? Well, as you know in the Old Testament and even in the New

Testament, sun is used as a term of endearment. That's why there's sons of God, whether they're angels or pious.

That would not work in the Arabic language. But it did in Hebrew and in in in Greek and so on. So I do not say that the and of the Quran can be used in the Bible. They're two different languages

that do not correlate. Okay. So that is not just why. Okay. But yes, it is. It's because that's why what what you look mind I'm gonna break I'm gonna break down what you just did. You just said it's

different languages. That's why it's different. That's not hold on. I'm going to let you speak. Yeah.

Thank you. I let you get it all out. So I'm about to break this down to you in very very simple terms. I'm going to give you examples since you love to use examples. Allah says he does not begget

or is he or or is begotten. when he says he does not beget but when Jesus says that God for forgotten so love the world that he sent his only begotten son or in in Hebrews chapter 1 where it says about

Jesus today you are today I've become a father to you today I have begotten you let me just ask you yes or no cuz I'm bit on my point when it says today I have begotten you can that language be

used in the Quran yes or no it is a that's a easy yes or no no problem but I'm going to clarify that right no it's a yes or no can it or can it not it cannot talk. Thank you.

And I will No, no, I will. No, no, no. I cannot I cannot be told you can't clarify your point.

Hold on. He's finishing the line of logic. Let's finish it. It's a line. It's a line of logic.

These are how line of logics work. It's a yes or no. I see. I understand it. I know where I know what he's doing right now in terms of trying to get that.

See, even gets it. All right. So, that that language cannot be used in the Quran. But wait, I thought it's different. It's a different language. So, what about begotten in the Arabic? Wouldn't that work? But no, he rejects it. He rejects all these terms.

He rejects sunship in in any sense. He rejects being begotten in any way, shape, or form. He rejects these terms.

It doesn't matter what language you use. If I say in Spanish that Allah is begotten, guess what? I'm a mushriick.

I'm a disbeliever. Right? So, according to you, when you say, "Oh, the language is different, so therefore it doesn't mean the same." According to what? When I say Allah and I say deals, do that mean the same thing?

Unless it does not. And let's do this. I'm gonna let you do your response and then we're gonna maneuver into some final statements. So then we'll go to you and then you. But yeah, I want you to have one more response to that and

then you build your your final into that. Yeah. Absolutely not. If you were to say Allah and theos, it would not be the same thing. Even though sometimes the word theos is used for translation, even the word god does not befit Allah because

God has gender. For example, goddesses and Allah is unique to that. I'm going to speak now.

I haven't interrupted. I have not interrupted now. Once again, so the childish attitude here is is pathetic where you would say that just because one word has the same meaning in another language, does that mean every word in

that language has the same meaning? Absolutely not. So for example, when we talk about sons of God in the Bible, there are references where it's not for the begotten. And that is something that according to Christians and Jews whether

you go to Rashi or others is a reference to just people for piety or angels not literal sons. So here that son would be different in use than begotten son. Here you could say that these were pious people that were close. For example even

in the Arabic language wed is used for endearment. For example, if I was to say w come speak to me in endearment that is used and that would mean that you are wrong. Your equation is wrong. Sorry.

Now, can I can I finish? Can I can I finish? I just ask for clar what does w mean?

W means son. Oh yeah. And it's a term of endearment. Not of necessarily of physical relation. So even if I told you, oh child, come here my son. I don't mean that I literally had intercourse with your mother. What I

mean is a term of endearment. In that sense, yes, you could use it. But in the sense of actual physical children of God, that would not work. So equating one aspect of one language to another is childish. It's a trick. Now

if we go to the word dos or god, those words are only represented when somebody doesn't understand the concept of Allah because the word god does not equate to Allah. God can be used for other than Allah. While the word Allah is unique to

Allah. God has gender could be goddess. So your dios example is also wrong. And in the end, can I should I finish or should I let him?

Uh we'll let him do a final and then Yeah. Uh so build it into your final because I know you have a response to that. Take your time with it. I know I I see where you're going. I know what you want to

do. Go ahead. Okay. So shake, you completely undermined your entire rebuttal when you just admitted that son in of endearment or wid in Arabic, the word for son in English can be used I guess in as a term

of endearment. It can still work in the Arabic because it means that in in a in a particular context that's how it defines. So what you just showed me is that words even in different languages can still work in the Quran, in the

Bible, in other different uh whatever walk you're coming from. So when you say when the when the and by the way, this will be also it's also interesting.

Anybody can look this up. Look up Revelation 22:13 in an Arabic Bible. Look up Revelation 1:1 17 in an Arabic Bible. It says the same thing, the same name, the same uh titles that is said in the Quran. And so when you look this up,

his whole excuse of, "Well, the languages are different doesn't even work." We were just having fun with that. So by your own admission, let me just work this off to my closing. By your own admission, the unqualified titles of Allah cannot be applied to

anyone else. When it's unqualified for Allah, like the first and the last, only God can have those titles. These are your words, not mine. I agree with you though. And so when Jesus says, "I am the first and the last unqualified,"

that demonstrates even by your own standards that Jesus is claiming to be God Almighty. And what you did was is when you saw the problem, you still said no.

You said no because you couldn't admit that even in the Bible, Jesus claims to be God and your prompt is over.

Once again and your final statement the the concept that you brought of sun also clearly indicates that languages do not go over equation. This is why I said son as the sins of begotten would not work with the Arabic language. But son

in the sense of endearment would. So that means first and last has to be understood in the same manner. When you say first and last in a different language it works different than a in the Arabic language. Even in that

context you were wrong. Secondly, when you said the Arabic Bible, the childish thing here is the fact that the Bible wasn't written in Arabic. It was written KA Greek. So all your actual understanding of the words have to come

from Ket Greek, not from Arabic. Those are translations and they wildly vary because the Arabic Quran is the original language of the Quran, not of the Bible.

So Quranic Arabic cannot be understood to understand biblical theological concepts that would be in Greek. And you know that but you brought that up to show your ignorance. Last thing I will say on this, you did not address any of

the points from the prompt that all the verses that I had mentioned, he didn't address any of them. He just ran on this first and the last point which according that's why I brought up the verse itself because alpha and omega the the

qualifiers that are used in there are used for other than God. First and last are used yes in the Greek language alpha and omega can be used for other than God. You can Google that. Show the show the verse. I'm sorry. Show the verse.

Shake hands, gentlemen. This was beautiful. I love it. If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel. It helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to

us. Thank you so much. All right. And we already know the prompt, but if you do want to say it again, please feel free.

Elijah, if you want, you can say it. Just should we start or Let's go. Um, it's all on you. Jesus is not almighty God according to the Bible.

Okay. Uh you agree that according to the Bible, Yahweh is the almighty God. Uh I believe that is one of the names used for God in the Bible. But again u as you have seen in the Bible names are

used differently. Even Ball was referenced once and then it was taken not as the names of God.

Is Yahweh the name of the God that's used? Yes. Okay. Can you open up to Psalm 83:18?

And that they may know that you whose name along alone is the Lord are the most high over all the earth.

That Lord is in all caps, right? It is. And you know what it means when the Lord is in all caps?

Um, again, I don't think the original Bible is written in caps. So, no, it's not. That's why in the English they they make sure that we're able to identify what's there in the Hebrew. So, do you know what it means when the Lord

is in all caps? Uh, I would assume that's a reference to being God. Uh, well, specifically in the Hebrew is the divine name, Yahweh.

Okay. So it says that you alone whose name is Yahweh is the most high God.

Right? Okay. So so Yahweh alone is the most high God. Right? According to this verse. Yes.

Okay. Cool. So now can we go to Jeremiah 23:5-6? All right. You understand that Jesus is the Messiah.

Uh I do believe he is the Messiah. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Now he's specifically the Messiah. And the Messiah comes from David. 23 verse 5 and 6.

235 and 6. Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord on all caps, that I will raise to David a branch of the righteousness. A king shall reign and prosper and execute judgment and the righteous in the earth.

All right. Can we stop there real quick? Sure. So, you understand that this is speaking about the Messiah. The Messiah all throughout the scriptures is uh named the righteous king that comes from David. You understand that, right?

Okay. So, I do want to understand something here then. So, the Lord here, Yahweh, is not the one that's coming.

He's the one speaking. So yeah, Yahweh is speaking. Yahweh is speaking. Yahweh is speaking saying that I will raise, God will raise to David a righteousness.

And that's the Messiah. A king shall reign and prosper and execute judgment and righteousness on earth.

Okay. And that's the Messiah, right? Who is that referring to? The Messiah. David, the righteous branch of David who's going to be a king and execute judgment in the land. That's the Messiah.

Okay. But again, according to Jewish scholars who study this, this is not a reference to Jesus.

That doesn't right now. You believe that Jesus is the Messiah. They don't believe that a Messiah is here. I'm not here arguing a Jew. I'm here arguing somebody who knows that Jesus is the Messiah.

What the Jews do say about this verse is that this verse is a messianic prophecy.

They don't know who their Messiah is. So, that's not what we're talking about right now. This verse, even according to the Jews, is speaking about the Messiah.

Okay. Are you done? Yeah, I'm done. It's okay. This is healthy. This is good.

It's Well, we're we're getting there. So, this verse is speaking about the Messiah. Yahweh is saying, "I will raise up for David a righteous branch. He will reign as king and deal wisely and execute justice and righteousness in the

land." Speaking about the Messiah, he makes it very clear. Can you read verse six?

Okay. Um, in his days, Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell safely. Now that is his name by which he will be called which is the Lord of righteousness.

Is that Lord in all caps? It is and righteousness also. I don't know why.

Yeah. Because that name specifically that's attributed to that person is Yahweh which we don't see that happen anywhere else because as Psalm 83:18 says Yahweh alone is the most high. This just called the Messiah the most high.

You know that Jesus is the Messiah. So very clearly in the Bible, Jesus is the most high.

Good. You done? All right. Cool. Go ahead. So first thing, my belief in Mia, in the Messiah, is that he's not God. So if you're asking me what I am, please. Hold on. Thank you so much. Yeah. Cuz you

kept asking me, you believe this? So I'm just explaining my belief then. My belief is not based on this. Okay. My belief is based on the Quran. And that tells us that he is a messiah, but he's a slave of God. He's not God himself.

Okay? Secondly, here it has some statements that he will he will Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell in safety. That never happened in the lifetime of Jesus that I know of on earth even according to Christian or

Jewish scholars. That's why Jewish scholars who study these texts have said Jesus does not fit this Messiah. Right.

Thirdly, which I would like to make a point that you said in caps. Even our our righteousness is all in caps. And this qualifies the Lord our righteousness altogether. Very interestingly, if you believe that this Messiah is God and he was sent by God,

then even by your own admission, you have two gods. No. So, uh can you read the prompt again?

Sure. Yeah. Jesus is not almighty God according to the Bible. Okay. So according to the Bible where it says that Yahweh alone is the most high God and it says that the Messiah who's being spoken about here is Yahweh then

according to the Bible the Messiah is the most high God right okay let me read the prompt again for you let me finish you just read it once because the word's not going to change when you read it again

then why did you ask me to read it again because you got off topic let me I'm not off topic you start talking about your interrupting to the Quran or we're going dive into the the text. I think you guys

need to really promise if you don't mind the reason is not almighty God according to the Bible.

This in no way, shape or form mentions the words of Jesus or that this is Jesus himself. That's why here it is your belief set that this reference is to Jesus, not the verses in the Bible.

Is Jesus the Messiah? Right? We went into the I already explained that thought process of this.

So I go ahead and elaborate on that cuz I know where you want to go with that.

Yeah. Yeah. So here as a matter of fact, let's go to Luke 24 uh 44 on because you understand that the the Greek word for Messiah is Christ. So if we see that Jesus calls himself the Christ and this

is a messianic prophecy, then you see that Jesus recognizes himself as the Messiah. So let's go to Luke chapter 24 and we could start at verse 44, I believe.

24 what? We could start at verse verse 44. 244. Yeah, I believe so. Then he said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you and that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the

laws of Moses and the prophets and the psalms concerning me." Keep going. We can stop at verse 46.

And he opened the understanding that they might comprehend the scripture. Then he said to them, "Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the death of the third day and that

repentance and remission of sins should be preached by his name to all nations beginning at Jerusalem." And you are witnesses.

You can stop. You can stop there. Okay. Um you just started. So congratulations. You just started preaching the gospel.

That's beautiful. So I like this little So you see that you see that Jesus clarifies and says that he is the Christ right?

Okay. Which is the Messiah, right? I mean, I'm letting you speak or he's asking if you agree.

He says that he's the Christ, right? I I do agree that he claims to be the Messiah here.

Okay. And in Jeremiah 23, this is a messianic prophecy. So Jesus is identifying himself as the Messiah. And in Jeremiah 23, does it say that the Messiah's name is Yahweh? Yes or no?

Uh, I don't see the Greek here, but I see the Lord. Yes. We could you could pull up the Hebrew. I can pull it up for you.

Okay. You want me to? No. No. I have a question about this first though.

Does it Okay. Can you answer mine first, though? Sure. I I'll I'll Does Jeremiah You'll concede that. So, so, okay, cool. Then it's done.

It's not done. Let me explain why. First thing First thing you're Well, we could go. Who's next? Now, now you just want to run, huh? That's quick.

It's funny. Yeah, we're on a time crunch, right? Like if everybody if if he wants to uh if he wants to and I'm sure he wants to rebuttal to that.

Yes. So, again, rebuttal to his own concession. Go ahead, bro. You want to run? You can run, bro. No problem. Go for it. Put somebody else.

So, here you're saying a king shall reign and prosper and execute judgment and righteous on earth. This day Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell in safety. When did it happen? That happened in the lifetime of Jesus.

Is that talking about the Messiah? Yeah, it is. This is worth you pointing. And Jesus is the Messiah.

Uh according to you, this is the reference, but this don't match. Your reference doesn't match.

You just conceded that the Messiah I just conceded that Jesus claimed to be a Messiah. But your reference doesn't match Jesus.

You just conceded that Jesus is the Messiah in in Jeremiah 23. And you just conceded that the Messiah in Jeremiah 23 is Yahweh. and Yahweh alone is the most high God. That's what you just did. So very clearly according to the Bible,

Jesus is God in the Bible. That's all that needs to be said. I think that's it. It was a good try.

I appreciate that. Uh I will allow if you if you want to make a final statement and then if uh or because that sounded like your final statement, correct? Okay. So if you if I can have quiet in the room, please, we

are still doing this. Uh if you would like to make a final statement. You asked me a question and I answered it. But when I asked you a question, you just ran from it. I told you in this

verse that you're trying to tie with Jesus, there is a a qualifier that these these Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell in safety and so on that are not there. And when I asked you that, you didn't even answer. You just ran

from it. So this reference being Jesus, whether the New Testament claims Jesus is that Messiah or not is very different from saying that this fits Jesus. It doesn't. And you didn't answer that. So nice try. Have a nice day.

Yes. So, thank you, gentlemen. Well done. Does it sound good? Does it sound good?

Does it sound good? Please comment below your thoughts on the episode. If you agree, if you disagree, I'd love to hear it. I read every single comment. Means a lot to me.

Thank you so much. It's all good. Where do we begin, man? All right. Go ahead and just state your prompt and that'll kick him off. And Jesus is not Almighty God according to the Bible.

Jesus Christ is not Almighty God according to the Bible. You quoted a lot of verses. been sitting there all day just listening to verses being quoted by yourself, verses being quoted by my compatriots here as well. So I do want

to ask you a question. If Jesus said that he was the Almighty, would you say that he would be almighty God according to the Bible?

That's a strange question. I don't Can you qualify that? What does that mean? If Jesus says, okay, if I said I Jerome the Almighty, like I look in that camera there, I said I Jerome the Almighty. I said to

you, I'm the Almighty. You would not be. No. Would I be claiming to be God?

You would claim that, but that doesn't mean you are. Cool. So, first of all, before we can get to Jesus being God, let's see if he even claims it. Would that be fair?

Sure. Okay. So, if Jesus said, "I am the Almighty," would he be claiming to be God?

That that would be a claim made. Yes. Would you agree that he's claiming to be God?

What's your question? He's okay. So, what he's asking is if if I make a claim to say I'm the same way that you did it for me.

It's okay, sir. If I made a claim to say I'm the best moderator, am I claim making that claim?

Making the claim that may not be true. You'd be she'd be making the claim that she's the best mob. Sure.

Okay. So, same way the same way that you use your reasoning, glory to God.

Could you use that same reasoning and apply that to if Jesus said, "I'm the Almighty." Would he be saying, "Would you claim Almighty God?" Would he be claiming that Almighty what?

What other Almighty can you be? I mean, people go all the time, they say, "I'm the Almighty and this and that." I mean, what?

Again, when you ask Almighty and Almighty God, I just want to clarify between that. Are you asking me does he say I am almighty God or is there a No, no. I'm I'm just Just hold your thought. Hold on. He's

trying to get through it. I'm I'm allowing you to finish. It's not I'm not going to be disrespectful.

If somebody says, "I am the Almighty." That does not necessitate that he's saying he's God.

Are you very sure about that? I think so. You're asking a question. Okay. But I mean, if you want to make that reference, let's do it.

I mean, that's you. I mean, now we know your character. Look, here's the thing that I want to say. Look, if I claim, remember how we started off this conversation? We're very cordial. We're very nice with each other. If I say I'm

the Almighty, you said I would be claiming to be God. Again, if you made that, can I can I finish?

Yeah, go on. You said if I said I am the Almighty, am I making that claim? I said, yes, you are.

So, I am making I I would say that the claim that I am almighty God is much clearer than somebody simply saying I'm the Almighty.

Okay. So, remember how I'm just use your words. You said to me and I take you an honorable man. You said to me that if I Jerome said I looked at that camera right there with all my acne and I said

look I am the Almighty. That means I'm claiming to be I'm claiming to be God.

You're making a claim of being the Almighty. That is correct. Okay. Am I making the claim that I'm God?

Not necessarily. In what other way? And and this is this is what you know what you're a she.

Please scholar. Could you please tell me what other words Almighty can mean? Sure. There's movies called the Almighty Norm and Almighty this and that. You can go Google them. Uh so sorry so we're quoting movies as your evidence. Is this what we're doing

again? You said yes I am quoting movies as evidence because you asked how can Elmighty be used for other than God.

There are movies called Almighty Bruce, right? There their movies given that you mean the movie Bruce Almighty?

Sure. Why not? Okay. You we've we've all seen THE MOVIE. NO. WE'VE SEEN the movie.

No. We've all seen the movie. We've seen the movie. Okay. Okay. Look look. I look Look. I like you. You li a lot.

But this is what I'm trying to say to you. Okay. And I don't mean that you're dishonest. I don't mean you're dishonest. Okay, obviously here's what I'm trying to do.

Please, we understand. I understand the way that you're running things. I won't disrespect you and we all know that when I'm saying this is for a joke, okay?

We're not obviously calling you a liar. I don't see this as a joke, but it's okay. It's a German joke. It's not meant to be funny. Here's the thing that I have to say to you. So, my problem

with you is this. You said Bruce Almighty. We all know the premise of that movie is that Bruce Almighty becomes God for a day.

I'll let you finish. So, when Bruce Almighty is called Bruce Almighty, he's being called God.

Okay. Now, just because he's called Almighty, does that necessitate that he's God in the movie? Yes, because he's God for a day.

Gotcha. So, do you believe Bruce is God? I don't believe Bruce is God. I believe that Bruce was claimed to be God in the movie. I don't believe in the movie Divine Scripture, though. So, let's get back to it.

Okay, get back to it. So, your example proved BT Dubs that that guy was God. Okay, let's just put that there for the side. Now, here's what we need to do. You need to show me either that you can call yourself

almighty and you're not God. Even though the prompt right here and everyone can read it out says Jesus is not almighty God. Could you be an almighty not God?

Please. Again, if you're saying in the linguistic sense, yes, you could. You could be almighty in other things.

Do you know what the word is? Yes, I do know what the word all powerful almighty the Greek word the word that we use.

I don't know. Okay. Panto. Yeah. Panto. So panto literally means you are having might over every single thing conceivably existing. You understand that, right? Is that for everything existing? Has it been used in Greek for other than God?

No. Are you sure? Pantocrato. Yeah. When Christ says, "I am pantor." Specifically, when Christ is making that, any single person that used the term panto is claiming that absoluteness.

Okay. So, where is this made? This when Christ says it when Okay. You have a red letter Bible with you right?

I do. Yeah. Okay. Pull up Revelation 18. 18. Right here. Read it out, please.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, says the Lord, who is who is and was and who is to come, the Almighty.

What color is it? Red. So, who said it? Uh, according to this Jesus. So, Jesus said, "I'm the Almighty." You know what's interesting?

Uhhuh. Is I do have a Bible. Okay. And what did the Bible say? This is again commentary no cut it off, right? He says this is a shorter reading of omega as as found in the manuscripts earlier. The longer

reading which indicates the beginning and the end of the almighty is not found in the early manuscripts that this is a little reason why scribes would have deleted some words in the shorter. So it shows that this indicates

this was a secondary addition to the text. Okay. So remember, your whole biblical I'm just going to continue. No, your biblical You're trying to debunk me by using not the Bible. You understand that, right? Okay. So, you said I'm

going to No, you're trying to use people that aren't the Bible to debunk my biblical claim. That's fine. That's like me. I did not Whoa. You interrupted me and that's okay. I don't have a problem with it. Okay.

Both ways. Go ahead. Exactly. It goes both ways. So, here's what I want to do. Okay.

Here's here's what I want to do. Okay. If you want to look at my scholars, of course, I wouldn't quote anyone that just has an Islamic PhD like Sabah Mahmud, okay? She thinks that Islam can be updated. Obviously, she's not a

scholar for you, right? She's not exactly. She thinks that there are certain problems you could sort of mix feminism and Islam together. You wouldn't call her a scholar, would you?

Right. And you don't know who that is. That's my point. So, my point though is I wouldn't take unknown people that aren't authorities upon me. You know the kind of Christian that I am. I'm an Orthodox Christian, right? So, who am I

authorities with, man? Do you know? I'll let you speak and tell us. I I'm not I know the Orthodox church, but I don't know you, brother.

But I'm not going to because you're a man. I'm not going to tell you things you already know. So, do you know it or not?

The Orthodox Church takes the the authorities. Who are my authorities? The Orthodox Church. Okay. And in the Orthodox Church, who are the authorities?

You tell me. Do you know it? I don't. Okay. Thank you. You don't know this.

So, I don't. Here's what I want to do. The authorities are the church fathers. The fathers of the church. If you could look at those scholars, could you show me any of those church fathers that said Jesus didn't say that?

That you learn. Okay, first thing I don't know your church fathers and I again please don't apologize. It's all right. Thank you.

Go ahead. Your church fathers can hold any view they like. But these are not church fathers. These are people from cross denominations who came together looking at manuscripts. So if your manuscripts don't have them, then for you to just say, well, if my

church father said it's there, it's there. This is then then there's no discussion. That's that again. Again, I do want you to write it. Write it down.

Write it down. Write it down. Wow. Write it down. We're going to come back because you you he did he didn't interrupt you. Let's give He did but he didn't. He did but he didn't. Okay.

You're trying to interrupt to to tack on something. Okay. Let's get through the thought.

When you have verses that were not in original context, they were not in original Bibles that were written in sometime 7th century, 10 or 12 centuries later, you can say my church fathers accept them. That's up to you. But

biblically, those are additions. And again, I can definitely sit with you offline. We can go over early manuscripts and you can go through them to understand from a manuscript perspective what that means. not a not a theological perspective that you have

made or blind following of your church fathers Arabic. So I'm not going to do it. So here's what I'm going to do, right? I'm actually going to address the cane cuz I think you finished. There's no other things you're going to say.

It's fine. I did have something to say, but that's what you I thought that was a pause too.

You looked at me. So here's the thing that I want to say. Okay. Number one, when we talk about biblical data, we want to talk about the earliest manuscripts. Those church fathers used earlier Christian manuscripts. So when they quote that

verse, they're using manuscripts that aren't even extent to us today. They're using earlier manuscripts. For example, St. Jerome when he was making his translation of the Bible, when he was making the the Bible for the pope and things like this, he says for himself,

I'm using the ancient manuscripts. That means that those manuscripts that Jerome was using weren't ancient for us. They were ancient for him. So, he had access to data that even we might not have access to. And if he had it in his one

and if other Christian fathers of the church, for example, St. Augustine, who used Jerome's translations as well, if he had it in his one, that would mean it was there. Now, here's the thing that I want to get at to you said I addressed

this point. It's okay if I want to build. Can I address on that? You want to address Jerome?

I do want to address that point. Okay. So, my point just to reiterate so that you can actually address this thing.

Does Jerome say it's not in there? That's not what I want to address. So, my address can I can I speak and then I can address it?

Yeah. So, the first thing is for you to say there was a manuscript that is not existent today, right? So, that means we don't have those manuscripts today.

Then that doesn't prove it existed. If there were references people made, they could be referenced from their own.

Theologically, people added to the references and you can find that in first John 5:7 very easily. And this is again, can I finish? Hold on, hold on, hold on.

Can I finish? If you don't mind that, that was a clear. Sometimes it's better if you just keep talking and then I can stop them while you keep talking.

I'm not going to let I I see the derailment. I want we'll come back to it but let so here for example in 1 John 5:7 you will find the heavenly father the word and the holy spirit these were infamous

additions from later generations evidence both external and internal show that they are against their authenticity the reading is not found except in late 10th century MSS manuscripts these range from 10th to 18th century the oldest manuscripts do not contain these before

the 14th century we do not find this documented Thus, it is sure evidence a reading in Greek is a a a fabrication to prove a a a uh the trinitarian formula.

So, what does that mean? That means that yes, later and a sermon probably altered the text because of political, theological, economic concerns. This is right here in a crossdenominational Bible study that is telling you that these additions were made into the

Bible. So if they're not in the manuscript that you have, you cannot say just because a church father quoted it, it existed.

I'm sorry. So if the church father quoted it, then they're quoting something that exists. You understand how a quotation works? If you quote, for example, that book, does that book exist? Uman just says yes or no. If you

quote that book that's right there in front of us that we can all see, does that book exist?

Again, your your paradigm is incorrect because that is a yes or no. That's an easy answer. That's that's basic because you're saying it's right there in front of us. You quantified that. Again, let me finish now. Hold on. Hold on. Hold

on. Allow me. Allow me to translate here. What you're saying is the church fathers are quoting something. You're even telling him your church fathers are quoting something. Correct. That means a thing. So that means what are we quoting? That has to site from

something. Something has to exist in order for me to quote from it. Does not because and that's why he's asking how can you quote I'm not done yet, gentlemen. And that's why he's asking you. You are quoting from this book right here. You are

citing it. Yes. Okay. Okay. Now, if that book, if I threw it out the door and it's not with us here, does that still mean that you can still quote that book? Yes.

Excellent question. So, let me respond to that. Now, when a church father quotes something, unless we can review that and check it, we don't know if it actually existed or if he was adding something of his own. As things have

been added to the Bible and I have proven it from a biblical study. Now, if I have a book here, if I have if I have a book here and I'm quoting it, that's one thing. If I come to you right now

and said I read in a book this and this and this you are perfectly in your presence to say can you bring me or show me that book because I don't know what you are quoting to be authentic or not

can I finish speaking son so son yeah son wow why do I have to tell you my if I call you son let's not go first thing is if I call you if you come here and quote a book to me

for me to say can you show me that book is perfectly acceptable and if you don't have that original book then I can definitely lay doubt to its authenticity as has been done by Christian scholars right here so the Christian scholars that had so

this is the thing that I want to talk about okay because you are doing this thing where you are mentioning random academics that I don't necessarily care about those particular Christians they are academics specifically do they call themselves authorities on the subject

those people that you want to quote do they say I'm an authority of the subject and if they say that I would even grant that. Does the church at large, do the Christian community at large that analyze these texts say they are

authorities to make this claim? Just a yes or no. You brought up the authenticity. He's dismantling it. I think that's fair.

Thank you. Sure. Yes. And I will read the quote from them which is from the print house here that 1995 multiple denominational team of more than 25 of the world's foremost biblical scholars.

What does a scholar mean? Does scholar mean an authority? biblical scholars in a book gathered around a shared version and the vision of creating a a biblical text that is checked against manuscripts and so on. So now can I finish

you interrupting me now when you I want to ask a question can we define what a scholar is because I think to say a scholar versus an authority are two very different things.

Yeah. What's a scholar? I think it's again a scholar and this is not necessarily my definition but the definition that is taken is somebody who studies and is an authority in that text. When did they tell you that?

This is what they mentioned that they were scholars. Now, no, it doesn't say there were authorities.

I did not say they were authorities. I read You literally did. Did he not finish a third party? Can I finish speaking?

Did he not say they're authorities? Yes. And I'll quote that. The entirety of the authority has been subject to this conversation. That's why we're I quite frankly I don't want to get into the deep dive semantics of whether this is

an authority of the Bible or not. Hold on. Stop. But if that's the case, we're going to take it back to your initial piece of the red line, red line warning because that's how we veered off.

So, so here's the problem that we have. So, just to round off that because he gave a lot of words and I need to make sure. I say a lot of words because I have a lot to say. You say a lot of

words because you have to say something, but we need to make sure that we're keeping to the substance. Here's what I want to say. Absolutely. Because you quoted people that you couldn't prove are authorities. You just said that

they're scholars. A scholar is just a person that learns. It's a person that's learned. It's a person that went to university to study. For example, I went to university. Am I a scholar? No.

Obviously not. Right? Takes much more time. It takes much more things to do be doing things. And even if I got to that level, that wouldn't make me an authority on the subject unless the community that I had ministered to says

that I am. Nobody said that they were. You picked 25 random people that nobody cares about and said that those people are authoritative as to what the Bible's supposed to say. And then I give you actual authorities of the church, people

who oversaw massive communities of millions of people. and those people quoted those extent texts and you said eh I don't really care that's fine to get back to the red letter which is actually included for those people in

there and the reason they include it is because it is in other versions as well in other manuscripts as well and it's in all the early patriotic citations for example in the 200s AD as well which you know of or maybe you don't which is fine

it says that Jesus says almighty so let's get back to the actual substance Jesus says I'm the almighty in revelation because you were quoting red letter not me in your red letter he says that he's almighty what does he mean by

Excellent. So going back to your point, first thing you said, authority. Is there a consensus amongst Christian? No, no, that's not going to I'm not going to jump off the last thing. You said it was the last thing and then we're going to

go back. I don't want to derail back on to the cred. We either accept the writing as it is or we don't because we're going to quote it. We're going to use it. We accept it or we don't. are

and if if not if are you'd love to take my Bible away holding are we rejecting it in its entirety because it's not an authority or are we accepting it for the purposes of the conversation again what I'm saying is when he says

what is an authority can you not interrupt me please I'm handling it handling it when you're saying an authority the first thing I would like to say that he's making the church fathers and his orthodox church as the

authority his church leadership that's not a consensus even among Christians. Many Christians sitting here are not Orthodox. They would not take the Orthodox church as an authority. Many Christians, Christians would not take even the church fathers as an ultimate

authority. I have debated Christians who say we go solely by what is proven from the biblical manuscripts, not by the writings of men. Catholics, for example, would have their own chain of authority that would go to popes. So for him to

say that I'm not going to go to can I can I can I finish speaking without being interrupted, please? He's so I'm not taking 25 random people.

These are cross denominational scholars of the Christian faith who have studied it way more than me and you put together.

So don't tell me you're just taking random people. As far as authority and scholar goes, this is something that's going to be up for debate amongst your Christian people as well. Who's going to take what's in authority? But if you're quoting to me

verses that clearly were not in early manuscripts that were added, then I'm not going to credit them as authentic.

Okay. Church father texts do count as manuscript citations and manuscript data. So if I show you a church father are you saying there's consensus on that amongst the Christian academ so academics which you were talking about cuz those people are

academics and you couldn't tell me one of their names. You're saying now you interrupt me but it's fine. It's okay. No I wanted to understand as well and apparently I was rejected. So here's the thing.

We already have demonstrated an early Christian source. I can give you an early Christian source earlier than all of those manuscripts where they say it and they have no reason to lie about it and they have no other political motive.

You couldn't show me a shred of political motives that St. Cyprian of Carthage had. By the way, every single person on this panel, although they might not be orthodox, they would say that the church fathers are an authoritative source. They may not have

they might not say that they are the ultimate infallible source. Neither do I. I'm orthodox. I don't think all church fathers are infallible. What I do believe though is that when the church fathers say something, they are an

authority on the subject. Authority means that they combine the conscious to believe certain things depending. But you can't do that. You then try to quote the Catholics. Every single Catholic is going to watch this video is going to be

like, "Wait, no, we do take the church father. are you talking about? You don't know these kind of things. So, stop.

Number two, though, here's what we need to do to actually get to the red letter, please. Cuz my jaw is getting unhinged.

Here's what I need to do. When it comes, but here's the thing. So, so I mean, he's making a bunch of points and then he wants to jump.

No, I made one point. More than one point. I'm counting. I got a pen.

I'm over the authority point. Here's what I'll do. I think it's very clear that Jesus Christ in Revelation said Almighty. And the reason he doesn't want to do it is because he knows if Jesus says that it would mean that he's

claiming it. Because he said I was claiming it. He said Bruce was claiming it and he said Sarah was claiming it. So here's the thing that I want to do. Do you think and I want to ask you cuz we

know that the author of the Gospel of John, for example, says that Jesus Christ and God the Father are equal. You agree right?

It does not. Okay. Do you want to go to John chapter 5? The author of the Gospel of John believes that Jesus and the Father are equal.

You said that you don't think that, right? Let's read it. You said that you don't think that, right? I do not believe that they're equal. I go ahead.

Okay. No, no. Do you think that in John Can you read the verse? I'm I need to clarify question.

I'm just trying to set up a And again, there's three points that I need to address. Let him get to John five. Yeah.

Let him get to Okay. So, here's the thing that Okay, Uman. When we have conversations with people, when we have conversations with people, I don't want to attack a point that you're not interested in. We are both interested in whether or not the

author of this gospel, St. John, he says, "Can can you whether the author I'm still finishing my point, please. If you want interruptions, it's fine. I don't care." No interruption. Stop. Let's I don't want to be pan through to John.

Are you at John 5? Yeah. What verse? That's what I was John 5 was it 19 on there in your thing.

Yeah. So, what I want to do the verse that's why I asked. Okay, that's fine. I want to go to John 5:18. I just want to establish quickly that at least the verse verse 18 that the author of this gospel does believe

that Jesus and the father are equal. Now, obviously, if you're equal to the Almighty God, you would be almighty as well.

A not almighty thing can't be equal to an almighty thing. Can I read read the verse? Please do.

Verse 18. Go ahead. What do you want me to verse? So, therefore, the Jews sought all the more to kill him because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also that it said that the God was his father, making

himself equal to God. Then Jesus answered to them. Just verse 18. Can I can I finish reading?

No, because I just wanted to read. Was it done? Was that Yeah, because I asked him to read one verse. Correct.

I'm not done reading. I can read any verse I like. How do you read the verse?

You said no. You read the verse because you're caught. The next part of the verse catches him. That's why he doesn't want me to read.

Okay. You know what? Let's make an kryptonite in action. Hold on. Hold on. Let's make an Therefore, can I read if No, look. I want to talk to the moderator.

Can I He wants to keep reading. If he ever stops reading until verse 23, call him out on it. Okay.

You keep reading. Keep reading. Go ahead. Good. No problem. So therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him because he not only broke the Sabbath but also said that God was his father making himself equal to God. Then Jesus

answered to them and said most assuredly I say to you the son can do nothing of himself but what he sees the father do.

Okay. The son can do nothing. Finish it. Finish it. I'm reading verse he's at so I can't see it.

Nothing of himself but what he sees the father. Yeah. Right. For let's continue. Go on. Okay.

Uh I'm reading. Yeah. For whatever he does, the son also does in a like manner. For the father loves the son and shows him all things that he himself does. And he will show him greater works than these. He will show

him greater works than these that you may marvel. For as the father raises the dead and gives life to them, then even the son gives life to whom he wills. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that

all should honor the Son as I'm reading. I'm reading as they honor the Father.

For who does not Can we get rid of the laughter, guys? For he who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father whom he sent.

So, here's the point that I want to make. Okay. So, you wanted to do your reading. You did the quotation. I'm here's my question to you. How do you honor God?

You honor God by respecting his laws. What's the highest way you can honor God?

Many ways. What's the highest way? Again, for me as a Muslim, submitting myself to the will of my creator.

There's a way beginning with W, don't you think? Worship is one way for sure.

Is that the highest way? Sure. Why not? Let's take worship. Why not? Let's take worship. Okay. I think the highest form of veneration for God is worship as well. So, if I say honor, I don't know if I say honor me

the same way that you would honor the king. Mhm. I'm saying that the whatever respect you would give to the king, give it to me. Right.

Sure. Okay. Jesus says, "Honor me the same way that you would honor the father." Whatever, whatever honor you would give to him, veneration, prayer, worship, you would also have to give it to him, right?

No, I'll explain how. So here, this is the interesting part that he wanted skip over. See, now I'm not getting away from it. I'm 100% not running. So you're going to use I'm I'm not running from nothing. Pay

attention though. I don't have to only use verse 23 cuz he knows the rest of the Bible goes against his point.

Watch him run from here. We do want to be mindful of our time. We're going to start wrapping these up here shortly.

So, interestingly, interestingly, the author of John does not say that Jesus did make himself equal, but rather the Jews sought that and that's why they went to kill him. That's the first point that I want to make. Secondly, now he's

interrupting, right? Interruption, interruption interruption. Same as you. Same as you. same as you. There's no problem.

Uh okay. Now, interestingly, in the same chapter, which he doesn't want me to read, I can of myself do nothing.

Continue. The son can do nothing. Can God don't tell me to continue? I did.

No, no, no. Thank you. No, no. So, you don't want to keep reading the verse.

You let me read and let me speak and I don't need you to tell me when to continue.

I can of myself do nothing as I hear. I judge. My judgment is righteous. Why?

Because I do not seek my own will but the will of the father who sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. Therefore, another who bears witness of me and I know that the

witness which I he witnesses of me is true. In fact, in the same chapter, same doubt, not running from anything, it says, I have come in my father's name and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, him you receive.

How can you believe who receives honor from another and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God who sent who only God who sent Jesus?

Okay, so that was absolutely rubbish. So here's the problem that I have. Don't close my holy book. Open it up again. So here's the problem in verse 19 cuz you actually quoted verse 30. You didn't actually quote verse 19. Verse 19

specifically says this is the one that you wanted to do. Nope. Most tell me what I wanted to do.

I wanted to do 18. you wanted to do 19 and then I made you do 23. So anyway, so to get back to it, verse 19 says, Jesus answered and said to them, most assuredly I say to you, the son can do

nothing of himself. That's a half sentence. Would you ever make me quote a half sentence, moderator? She's shaking her head. So here's the thing. It's not my mod. I don't know her from anywhere. I don't know her from Adam. So it says,

"Most surely the son can do nothing but himself." But then it says, "But whatever he sees the father do." So we can both agree in the Bible that Jesus Christ became a human being. He was a human being, right?

Are you asking me a question? You made comments and become a human being. Yes or no? Did he according to the Bible? He was human. Yes.

Okay. Did he have to watch the father do it first? Can you repeat the verse that you were quoting just so I can follow along?

Verse 19. The son can do John what? John 5. The same one you did.

I did not. I did not read a different chapter entirely. It's the same one. So John 5:19 says, "The son can do nothing of himself, but whatever he sees the father do, the son does in like manner." So for

you, you're saying that he has to not do anything of himself, but the qualification is whatever he sees the father do. So he became a human, right?

Jesus, did he have to watch the father do it first? He did not. So this is specific.

The verse doesn't make sense. Then you It's not that the verse doesn't make sense.

He just ruined his own point. How am I ruining my own point? What did I explain now?

He said I ruin my own point. I'm going to explain why it's not ruining. So the reason why it's not ruined, it's just just St. Augustine's point. St.

Augustine's point is saying that this is not talking about the fact that the son doesn't actually have a will at all.

It's saying that the father and the son's will themselves are united and we understand that specifically where Jesus Christ says I and the father one that means the unity of will. We also see the same way where he says that the father

has given the son life which is all the properties that actually are associated with that as well. So to actually get back to John 5:23, you said, okay, that if we honor the son the same way that we

honor the father, whatever honor you would give the father, which includes worship, you give it to the son as well.

Can we agree on that? Do you agree with man? You don't agree? I don't.

So you are not honoring the son the same way you're honoring the father. Can I speak?

That's the question. Go ahead and elaborate. No, because again when you're saying honor, that's a broad category. It does not. Again, if I keep getting interrupted, then I can't speak.

Hold on. We understand words colloquially, correct? Thank you. Okay. So, honor the word that's used in the text.

That's that's that's what we need to understand. So far, we've debated the idea of the word almighty. We've debated the idea of honor. Now, we're we're getting into these very weird semantics where we're trying to claim we don't

understand the word colloquially, but then trying to veer it in. It's a cherry pick right?

Exactly. Well, it's against you. No, it's not. All right. Because I will let you finish. I'm not trying to embarrass you. What I'm saying is if we say, well, yes, I would understand this colloquially, but then later say, no,

I'm not going to take it colloquially. I'm going to going to separate it from that. Right. So So that's what he's trying to Thank you.

He's that's what he's trying to communicate to you, but then you're trying to separate it in a cherry-picking sense.

I I'm actually not because when you say you honor somebody, it does it does not necessitate worshiping them. If I say for example I was sent by the president and you need to respect me because I come with his authority not my authority

his authority it mean that you need to obey me because I've come with that authority it does not mean that everything that you necessitate to the president you necessitate to me and the interesting thing which he has ruined

his own point here is when he says that that the the son cannot do what in the like manner except what he sees the father doing. That's a great point that he's made against himself because obviously the father did not become a

human even according to Christian ideology right so that means that verse actually flips on him no it doesn't now when we when I quoted the further verses he didn't even address them that Jesus cannot do anything of himself

can God be at the mercy of anybody else that God does not have his own will obviously not God is all powerful and all capable at all times when he again you're cutting You're going to a different point. I'm

not going to cut you. I'm not. I wrote you mumbling to yourself. Let's try to at least don't mumble it in a different point.

It is not a different point. In fact, these verses I read to you from the same chapter, you just absolutely skipped over them. That only the true God is the one that sent Jesus is in those verses.

You didn't even address any of that. Now, to the point of Jesus saying, "I and the father are one." Then in the same chapter of John, he also says that the disciples and him are one. And this is here in John 17:20. I do not pray for

these alone, but also for those who will believe in me through their word that they all may be one as you in the same manner as you father are in me and I in you that they may be one in us.

Okay. So if the premise is Jesus saying I and the father are one makes him god then everybody who comes after would be as well.

Never said it. Just never said it. And for timing purposes, here's what we're going to do. Cuz I know that one that one's probably going to irritate the crap out of you.

You have to respond to I'm going to let you I am going to let you respond to that and then he gets a response and then we will we it's been like 30 minutes.

Okay. So here here's the thing that we're going to do. So So I have to make sure that I respond to this very very thoroughly. Okay. So remember that he keeps saying the not do anything of yourself. I addressed all of that

because that's a point. Those aren't the verses. There is a point. So there's a distinction, a difference which you know between the point that you make and the verses that you site. I can cite 10 verses. They all

make one point. All I need to do is address this really big thing that I have with my ring here. Okay. Is a point. The point that you're saying what you're saying specifically is this that when the son doesn't do anything of

his own, it means that he has to be having some sort of difference to the father and that this will of the father and the son is sort of diminished. But the point that's being made is that the

father and the son actually are identical in will. That's why when he says which you don't know the Greek word specifically means separate of himself literally means it literally means a separate will he doesn't have a separate will from the father which number one is

proof of being God but anyways right to you actually get back to John 5:23 you specifically by your own mouth today you said that the honor that Jesus Christ gives the honor that Jesus Christ receives is not worship you never

explain the reason why specifically that all the honors all of them all of them given here that are given to the son the same honors that you give to the father or not. You didn't want to go to the

worst. You wanted to use something colloquial and the moderator called you out for it. So to actually get to the I can say that I can say that it's not ridiculous. It's not ridiculous to say that. So here's the thing that I want to

do when it comes to the actual word honor. That's the word that's used specifically. That is the correct opinion that you have of someone. That's the actual way that you regard them. The way that you would regard God as the

most powerful, as the most mighty, as the all powerful, as it says in Revelation 18, which you wanted to dispute, that specifically is supposed to be regarded as Jesus as well. Now, I know you don't know that cuz you don't

know a lick of Greek, which is fine. I don't know Arabic. Okay. I do know some Greek, by the way.

Do you know the word? No, I don't. Thank you. That doesn't mean I don't know. So, here's the thing that I'm trying to say. That's okay. That's okay.

Here's the thing that I say. Like, if I said, for example, could you respond to me?

No. Exactly. Because you don't know Greek. So, to actually continue, when it comes to, you can say the same thing with Arabic. I wouldn't know anything. So when it comes to that specifically, my friend, what I'm saying to you is that

the honors, the prerogatives, the glorification that you would give to the father, which is part of honoring the father, this specifically has to be given to the son. It's in exactly the same way that you would give to the father. Didn't

address it. You want to go to John 5 20 25-30. John 5:25-30, like I said before, is just demonstrating the fact that the father and the son have an equality in will. They don't have separate wills.

Now to actually address the last point about the authority thing. I think I've been pretty pretty clear that we actually take early Christians as our authority in the church as Christians.

We take early Christians, not later academics and themselves when put themselves above cipion and things of that nature as well. As a matter of fact, give me the name of any of the people that did your translation of the

Bible. See if they would call themselves as more of an authority in the church than the saints themselves. Go ahead.

Are you done? Yeah. And so I'm going to let you respond to this and then we'll move into final thoughts. So, make it I thought this was the final thought.

Could I get the last word then for the final thoughts since No, that's not how it works. Uh, he'll respond to this. That wasn't your That was your final thought.

No, no, no. I thought that was the final thought. No, no, no, no, it wasn't. This was a response to all things you said. You respond and then we will move into final thoughts.

Please. Again, setting up a false narrative saying which one of the authors thought that they were more knowledgeable than the church fathers. You would have to speak to them. I I I'm not here speaking on their authority. And understanding

that you said you follow early Christians. Now, interestingly, you yourself have admitted that you're not a scholar, but James DG Dunn, which I'm sure you know who he is. One of the most author authoritative and respected scholars. You don't think he is? All

right. Interesting. I don't. All right. Well, interestingly, he as anybody who's Christian and does Can I finish speaking?

Anybody who has actually studied Christianity and understands knows who he is. He actually mentions that Christians of the earliest generations did not worship Jesus. And in fact he considered that if Christians of the early generations saw this they would

consider consider it Jesus lottery like adult like uh idolatry which simply would mean that Jesus's worship but also would fall short from the worship of due to the one true God of the father. Now you can you're more than welcome to buy

the book and and read it and look at his actual academic research that the first Christians did not worship Jesus right here. Now after that understanding that the verses that I quoted to you, you just said, "Oh, that

just means I have the same will." If the will is the same, that would make no sense. Then it would be no two wills.

But for him to say, "I can do nothing of myself because if I judge my judgment is not true shows that there is another judgment. His judgment and his authority comes from the father and God does not take authority from anybody else."

Okay. So that was your response to man. To be honest with you, it was lackluster. So here, let me get to the actual final point. Here's my final point. This is yeah these are our final point we can go academic for academic.

James himself is a respected academic in his specific circle in academia in modern academia. The academy is very split on a number of issues. And not just that the academy themselves have multiple different conferences and people that they would actually appeal

to. For example, the scholarship in early Bzantine theology would not be the same academia that would have for early Christian studies or for example manuscript notation and things of this nature. James Dunn is an academic but he wouldn't call himself an absolute

authority of the issue. Neither would he call himself a minor authority in the issue. All he does is publish papers and makes cases. I can give you multiple academics. For example, Mark J. Edwards.

I can give you people like Johanna Zakoba. I could give you people like Branson. I could give you people like Joshua Sijuadi. All of these other academics themselves would actually say the early Christians obviously did worship Christ as God. So if you want to

do one scholar, I can give you 10. It doesn't really matter. But instead of though doing those kinds of petty games, I would actually give you and do if you want the books as well, I can give them

to you as well. You can do um Christianity and Catholicism for example by Mark Edwards. That's a book that he's written as well. You can also do from I want to say Michael Gartner as well who's done early Christian iconography

and he specifically as an academic he has I believe he has his masters now he's worked on showing early Christian veneration of God and early Christian veneration of Christ as well I can keep going and going for example father Dr.

Reverend father Dr. Steven D Young he specifically shows in his book religion of the apostles that the early apostles actually worship Christ as god I can keep going for example John Bear Father Dr. John Bear he does he does with the

scholarship as well. I can keep going. You understand the point? The point is it doesn't matter about academic. I can see behind the sunglasses, bro. Now, here's the thing that I want to do. It's not about academia. It's specifically

about who's in authority. Those academics aren't authorities. The authorities are the early Christians. And I can name them. St. Cyprian of Carthage believe the early Christians worship Jesus Christ as God. Hippolitus of Rome, St. Irenaeus, uh St. Polycarp,

St. um St. Ignatius, St. Augustine, St. Johnstm, St. Nicholas of Mthone, St. Gregory Palamas. And Gregory Palam is even in the second millennium. But I can show you multiple early Christian scholars and early Christian authorities. I just gave you six. Okay,

six. None of whom you know. And that's fine. Now to conclude on this point, if we actually want to use the biblical data specifically, you need to show and this is the only thing I want to hear and you can do whatever you want. As you

closing, please show me how you can honor Jesus Christ. Honor the specific biblical termosi meaning every sense of honor that you would ever give to the father. how you can do that without the honor of worship. My final thoughts are

basically he doesn't know what he's doing and that's okay. We love you guy. I appreciate you. Thank you so much for the conversation.

All right. Now, can I speak? Yes, sir. Again, going going scholar for scholar again if you like. I can send you many more as well. You can look at Bartman and others as well who have written early and you can laugh all you want.

respect that was the most respectful to the room more to the room. Again, from his academic perspective and his authority on the Bible itself, you you cannot you cannot doubt him. But because of the fact that he doesn't fall

in line with your church mindset, you're going to laugh it off. That's all right.

Now, if we look at the biblical text of Jesus having a different will, him saying the father is greater than I. Him saying why do you call me good? No one is good but the one that is God. You

have so many references that show a different will, a different person. that is Jesus Christ on earth and after earth. In fact, the funny thing is the original verses that I quoted, you didn't address any of them. You did not

address any of them. Instead, you went into these loops of your of your Orthodox church and and and who you consider to be an authority. Now, I never said Catholics do not take the church father as authority, which is

another lie that he said about me. But that's okay. What I did say Catholics have different people they take as authority than the Orthodox. For example, the pope is an authority according to Catholics and he would not be according to you. Just like that,

there are other Christians, for example, Unitarians that would not take the Orthodox Church to be an authority and they are Christians. Again, you can you can say they're not Christian, but they definitely do claim to be Christians.

They have churches. They have crosses. They believe in Jesus. Now, again, yeah, they got crosses, y'all. If I got a Quran, I'm Muslim. I got again again again.

It is his final thought. Let's be respectful. The fact that you want to throw other Christians under the bus does not make your point valid. Whether you take the Latter-day Saints or Jehovah Witnesses or Unitarians or Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, they all

have their own chain of authorities. And that's not what we're going to go by.

These clear biblical texts show Jesus is not the one only true God. Great pen drop, but um it doesn't mean anything.

Well done, gentlemen. He's trying to get you. Very well done. Listen, man. If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, helps us grow the podcast, and it means

a lot to us. Thank you so much. Jesus is not Almighty God according to the Bible.

Um, I'm going to ask you to establish why you make that claim. What verses?

What's Sure, no problem. Um, so first thing, if you look in the Bible, and this is in John, uh, chapter of John.

Yeah. uh you see in 8:40 but now you seek to kill me a man who has told you the truth which I have heard from God so clearly according to the Christian Bible again this is not my belief this is what

I'm quoting from your own scripture Jesus according to red line saying that I am a man who heard the truth from God he's not claiming to be God in this verse at least so it's very clear that he's not almighty God if God heard from

God then he wouldn't say I heard from God. And uh I mean if you don't mind.

Yeah. And then in verse 42 he he goes I proceed forth and came from God nor have I come of myself but he sent me.

So Jesus according to the Bible is clearly saying that he is a man who was sent by God not the father by God who heard a truth from God. In fact, if we continue in John 17:3, he says, "This is

eternal life that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Very explicitly Jesus is saying that there's only one true God who sent Jesus Christ, separating himself again from almighty God. Um if we look at the fact

that Jesus according to the Bible and this is post-resurrection so we don't say this is pre-resurrection in John also says I'm ascending to my father your father my god and your god god doesn't have a god if if it's god

almighty god he wouldn't be saying my god post resurrection by the way and I believe that when Jesus is called the servant of god in acts 13 uh 3:13 he says the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our

fathers, glorified his servant Jesus. So if Almighty God glorified Jesus, I really don't see how that could be God himself. In fact, in Acts, we also see God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power whom who went

about doing good, healing all that were oppressed by the devil. For God had sent him or God was with him. So again, God anointed Jesus. God helped him. It's not God himself. Um in fact if we look at

the last verse or two verses that I'll quote to end this with um Jesus also says the God of our Lord uh I'm sorry the in the Bible it also says that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ

the father of glory may give you the spirit of wisdom postresurrection we're talking about the God of Jesus not even while he's on earth and the last verse that I'll quote here is in revelations where according to the Christian Bible.

This is again redlined. After risen, after being exalted in heaven, Jesus says, "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out no more, and I will write on him the name of my God, the name of

the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven from my God." Four times Jesus continuously says, "My God." again post-resurrection post being exalted post heaven all of that still Jesus is saying my God and

many times in the Bible you also see Jesus on the right hand of God not God himself so I I from way I see it and I'm open to your understanding Jesus is an almighty God himself according to the

Bible so that's interesting so um what you did Shikman is you brought up a myriad of verses that pertain to Jesus's humanity Um, and all you established is that there's a distinction between the father and the son, but distinction does not

equal non-ivinity. Um, we know that in the trinity, God the father, god the son, and god the spirit are all god, but they all have different roles. Uh, and so Jesus being sent by God or being, you know, speaking the word of the lord, um,

doesn't mean that he's not also, uh, divine in his nature. Um Jesus temporarily submitted to the will of the father while he was on earth in his incarnate role in terms of role and function in order to accomplish the

greater plan and purpose of salvation. Um and so from eternity's past father, son, and spirit have all worked together all in one accord under one unified will. There has never been a separation.

So that's why Jesus said says things like I seek not my own will. I speak not of myself. They have all been unified.

All one will working together in perfect unity. Uh now it's interesting that you know the the verses you present because in I when we look at the whole context of scripture the witness of scripture is clear Jesus is presented as

ontologically God. He is presented as Yahweh. So in Isaiah in Isaiah 40 in Isaiah 48 uh the speaker says I am the first and the last.

He says uh my own hand laid the foundations of the earth. Um, this is echoed in Isaiah 46 where again uh the speaker says, "I am Yahweh. I am the first and the last." In Revelation 22:13, Jesus identifies himself as I am

the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Um, not only that, but in Psalm 102, uh, it says that in the beginning you laid the foundation of the earth. The heavens are

the works of your hands. And we see that echoed verbatim in Hebrews chapter 1 where God the father says to the son. In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth. The heavens are the work of your hands. The language

is very clear. Jesus is identified as the creator. Um secondly, Jesus both implicitly and explicitly claims to be God. Uh he he accepts worship in John 20:28 when Thomas says to him, "My Lord and my God." in John uh in in various

parts in the gospel he forgives sins which the religious leaders identified was something that only God could do and they had an objection with this. Um Jesus makes claims such as John 8:58 before Abraham was I am. He was alluding

to Exodus 3:14 where uh Yahweh reveals his identity to Moses as the source of existence and the Jewish opponents understood that and they wanted to stone him. John 10:30, I and the Father are one. Once again, they wanted to stone

him for claiming to be God. Uh in John, it's interesting you brought up John um John 17:3 because in that in the next two verses, John 17:5, Jesus says, "Father, glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world began." But

Isaiah 42:8 says, "I am Yahweh. I will not give my glory to another." So how then can Jesus claim to share eternal glory with the father if Yahweh does not give his glory to another? Um, and so I

just want to I just want to end with um there's there's there's various more uh Old Testament verses which we see in connection to to Jesus's role and his earthly ministry. Uh for example, in Zechariah 10, this is a future pro Z

sorry Zechariah 2 10-13. This is a future prophecy hasn't been fulfilled yet, but it's it says the Lord said he is coming to live amongst his people. uh and he will unite all nations together and then you will know that the Lord has

sent me. The Lord is saying the Lord will come to live among his people and the and then you will know the Lord has sent me. So and I I also want to mention um Isaiah 53 where uh this is probably

the biggest messianic prophecy um that Jesus fulfilled. Uh it was written about 700 years before his birth and it talks of a suffering servant who would be sinless, who would face the wrath of God, who would exercise divine

prerogatives and who would ultimately be resurrected to victory. We see Jesus fulfilling that all throughout the gospel. In John chapter 5, Jesus says, "Whatever the father does, the son does also." He also says, "All should honor me the same way that they honor the

father." I want to ask you, how do you reconcile all that if No problem.

Sorry. How do you reconcile all that if Jesus is not God? And if a prophet like Moses came along saying everyone should honor me the way they honor the father and I had glory with the father before the beginnings of the earth, he would be

accused of blasphemy. And I do want to say we've we've gotten really well with you both got all of your claims out. So if we want to maneuver into a little bit more of a back and forth and then we'll wrap it

up. Right. So the first thing is uh the verses that I quoted especially post resurrection you didn't really address any of them. Meaning that okay I I get your point about ego and I will address that and I get your point about me and

the father one and alpha and omega and glorifying servants. Isaiah I will address all those points one by one. No problem.

Okay. But when you see Jesus continuously saying that I'm a man sent by God. Are you saying that on earth Jesus wasn't God?

So can I answer? Yes. Perfect. Um so I did answer that question. Um so I said those verses where Jesus is saying I am sent by God.

I speak of the Lord pertain to his incarnate role his earthly ministry. We know that Jesus had a h human nature. Um but that doesn't negate from his divine nature. Like I said distinction does not equal non-ivinity. We know that the son

is distinct from the father and the spirit is distinct. That's not the debate here. But Jesus saying, "I was sent by God," pertains to his earthly ministry. Once again, Jesus voluntarily submitted his will to the father for a

time while he was on earth in order to accomplish the plan of salvation. And they're they're they've all been unified in well, not accomplishing separate wills. So that's why Jesus says everything that I'm doing, the father is also doing.

But that doesn't address the point because postresurrection, not earthly ministry, post earth, according to the Christian Bible, Jesus still says, "My God." It's not his earthly ministry.

We're not talking about while he was on earth and his human nature. We're talking about according to the Christian Bible after he's been killed and resurrected in heaven after being glorified, he still says, "My God." So, so I mean again, so that doesn't address

the point because earthly ministry and and two natures on earth don't address the fact that even past that Jesus is saying my God.

So yeah. So in Hebrews chapter 1, we see the father also calling Jesus God. He says, "Your throne, oh God, will last forever." So if God doesn't have a God according to you, then how do you explain that? So

So can I answer? Because we don't want to just keep jumping. So again, you're you're throwing another verse at me to try to answer instead of addressing the points. You're jumping from the actual point by throwing a different verse and

saying, "Oh, yeah. Well, how do you address this?" And I will address that. No problem. But I do want to be clear that you haven't addressed those points of Jesus postresurrection still saying my God. Okay. Now since you asked me to

address this I will no problem. I will address all of your points one by one.

When you look at uh in Hebrews 1 uh the throne oh God is forever forever and ever. If you keep reading actually it says therefore God your God has anointed you. And that's why in the Christian study Bible it says your throne forever

and ever. This is this translation is quite doubtful. The context of the sun being being uh contrasted with the angels is what is being present in the context. So what it is is that God your god is actually that your god is the one

giving you the authority. This is again Christian neet bible study saying here Jesus not being called god rather your throne by the authority of your god.

Again, not my understanding. You can go home and research this more. Is that this is not Jesus being called God because in the next verses you see right there, therefore God your God has anointed you. So does God get anointed

by another God? So can I answer? Yes. Yeah. So what you just therefore God your God that's a a quotation from comes from Psalm 45 or 43 I believe. Um, but to answer the question, Jesus say or Jesus calling God the father or whatever

doesn't ne doesn't take away from the fact that he is also God. That's not the question. There's no contradiction there.

I'm sorry that wasn't the question. So the question is that Jesus even past resurrection, past being crucified, past being glorified, continues to call my God. He doesn't just say father. And here when you said that Jesus is calling

can I not get interrupted please? Let yeah let him let him finish. I didn't interrupt you. I'd expect the same respectful conversation. Thank you.

So again here when you see when you're saying that Jesus was called God according to Christians this is not him being called God because the context is him being higher than the angels in Hebrew. So obviously God's not going to

be argued whether he's higher than angels or not. Rather this is on the authority of God. And the next verses clearly says, "Therefore, your God has anointed you. God anointed Jesus." In the same next verses, if you had read

ahead, so that that point definitely doesn't make it. But let's address the rest of your points because I like to take everything one by one.

Can I reply? Well, yeah. We're going to let her do one more wrap-up and then move on to we'll do one more point on your end and then we'll move on to the next person.

Yeah. So, you said according to Christians, Jesus being called God there doesn't mean he's God. just means he's higher than the angels according to what Christians because you you said that did I say that according to according to Christians

Bible study here you said it if you're going to say that he said and he wants to clarify let him clarify and then then let her finish her piece so it says your throne is God forever and ever this translation is quite

doubtful it says since the context of the sun being contrast with the angels is presented this is not my opinion I'm reading to you from a study Bible that has been put together by 25 of the top biblical scholars across denominations.

So again, when you're saying which Christians, I'm not making up my own. Can I finish if you don't mind? This interruption is getting uh interesting. Well, going on and on and on and on and on and over.

Sorry, I'm just addressing. Hold on. We're going to finish your point and then and then um because you keep going on and on and on.

Yeah. I'm sorry. You went on and on and on into a bunch of different points. I stop right here. Stop. Okay. You're going to finish your point in clarification of whether you said the angel thing or not. Okay. Then she's

going to finish her thought that she was going through before she allowed you the room to clarify whether you said or did not say. Does that make sense? That's where we left off. That's where we're going to finish. That's fine. Okay.

So, this is from in 1995 multi- denominational team of more than 25 of the world's foremost biblical scholars gathered around and they went to do this study of the Bible. From that study, I'm reading to you that the meaning here is

the authority of God because the context according to those Christian scholars is the discussion of Jesus being higher than the angels. This is not my opinion.

I'm reading the text to you. Okay. Uh so you brought up a lot of verses, oh sorry, a lot of information that I want to respond to. So uh again so as I was the point I was making the

first wi with according to Christians and according to uh the early church fathers even if you want to when we want to grant you that verse the early church fathers unan unanimously agreed that Jesus was divine. Okay. Um, that's the

first thing I want to say. And then I also want to mention even if you want to bring this one verse, you did not negate, you didn't address my central arguments where I showed you connections from the Old Testament to the New

Testament that point Jesus as having the same divine nature as Yahweh. All you're doing, Shikman, is throwing me a bunch of other verses because you have to reframe the argument as Jesus said this so he's not God. If you have to you and

you're trapped inside that frame. If you step in outside of that frame of bringing me verses where Jesus submitted and you know oh it's not he's not the almighty. If you step outside that frame your whole worldview is

constructed. I think it's funny. So if you step outside sorry that I I'll let you finish though. If you step outside of that view or sorry if you step outside of that frame your whole world view falls apart.

You you want to is that good? Am I can I speak now? Yeah. Okay. So my worldview doesn't fall apart either way because my view is Islamic view. So I don't know why you're Yeah. And the Islamic view doesn't

Can I please not be interrupted? This is the third time now. Hold on. Okay. Here's here we're letting him get his thought out. He's responding to you. Okay. Go ahead and finish your response.

I mean this is the third time I've been interrupted. Please like not to be interrupted. U once again I put the verses to you first. So I'm not throwing verses at you to try to get out of your

verses. You haven't addressed my verses that I put first and I'm addressing your points and I said I will address them if the chair allows me. One by one, no problem. The the the the Old Testament uh prophecies that that came out whether

they were about Jesus or not. This is obviously a hot debated it's not it's not a fact. Obviously, Jewish scholars did not consider that to be that's why they're still Jewish. So, none of those verses clearly mention Jesus. You're

saying that they were me mentions here in the Old Testament and now there are references in New Testament that we can match them up. Whether you can or not again is a scholarly discussion. But the verses where Jesus even

postresurrection, post exaltation, not earthly ministry says my God, you haven't addressed. When you mention this verse, which you granted me, I appreciate that you've conceded that point again. I I haven't I I haven't I have actually you did

he Okay, he is talking. Write your notes down so that if he says something that you're like I didn't do that, you can come back when he's done and then we can move forward. Okay. Thank you.

I am glad this is recorded as well because you said if we concede you that verse. So anyway, that still doesn't prove Jesus to be God. Now, I'm willing to move forward from my verses, which I originally put forward, which you

haven't answered, and answer all of yours. No problem with that. Do you want me to take them from the church fathers first?

So, I feel like um you again, you mentioned a lot, and I would like to respond to that before we move on. We switched gears.

Let's let's do this. The other two points, we're going to table those and maybe we can come back because I want to make sure everybody has time. I'm going to let her finish her rebuttals to all of what you just said because that is

kind of a big chunk. and then we'll give you a final thought on that and then we'll move to the next person and we can come back later if we need to. That way I'm just respectable of everybody's

time. But go ahead. So um when you mentioned that the Old Testament the Jewish scholars these verses don't mention Jesus and so they don't agree that this is Jesus. I didn't say that they mention Jesus. My argument is that they prophesy about his identity

his nature and when Jesus comes his incarnate role we see that he fulfilled these prophecies. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the person of whom this these Old Testament verses were prophesied about. So my argument isn't language or semantics or what did they

use. My argument is Jesus's identity and nature fulfilled that. Okay. And then a final thought from you and then we'll let her go.

So again, I would definitely disagree with that. In fact, if you look at Isaiah, the the Messiah that was supposed to be sent was supposed to be made victorious. And that's why Christians have to now come back and

change that. Go, oh, that's about the second coming. even though none of that is in scripture. Uh in fact a lot of what we find for example the Messiah being saved Jesus was according to Christians crucified and that's why

scholars like Bartman and others have written entire books saying that Jesus did not meet those criterions. Again uh I'm refuting that saying that those are ambiguous verses. New verses that you are putting forward do not necessarily match one by one to them and that's why

that argument can be made. But the fact that continuously Jesus is shown not to be almighty God, praying to God, calling out to God, even past resurrection, calling my God shows that he's not almighty God. And if postresurrection,

he's sitting on the right hand of God, then I don't know how many gods you have. Now, just to because I don't want to act like I ran from any of the points. I just want to make sure. Ego,

EMI, no problem. I can address that. Uh me and the father are one. Jesus in the same chapter continues to say ego imi is used for other than Jesus. It's a word.

It's not a special name of God. And that's why the blind man, he also says the exact same word, ego immi. So, and I can show you that with the Greek. I have the Bible with me. Um, regarding I and

the father are one. Jesus continues and says that I that those that believe in me be one in me as the father are in me and I in him. In the same way, they be one in us. So if Jesus saying I and the

father are one makes him god then that would mean every believer is god because he said in the same way same chapter by the way regarding alpha and omega again first thing is um as a the Christian study bible I'm

are you going to let him go on this monologue it's final thought it was supposed to be a final closing sentence so now I have to respond cuz that's not fair he listed a bunch of I will say that is kind of fair to that

no no he brought up a he brought up a lot of verses everybody stop final thought to address. You are addressing the stuff that she said in her opening thoughts. Okay. But keep a precise and short.

Okay. I'm just going to give one thought then. That's what I'm going to end with this.

Yeah. You gave a lot of thoughts. There is you. I respond. Can I at least give a closing line? A quick You had your closing thought and then he went on a monologue.

This he has the initial claim because he has the claim. He gets the final thought to it. Does that make sense?

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Again, closing thought then. Uh I don't believe that the verses that I have that I brought up were addressed.

Uh everything you brought up I have again this is interruption again. So I don't know were we going to be doing this the whole time or Okay. Go ahead. I I'll say I mean this is like the fifth

I will hand to this after we're done with this. Please get through your final thought.

Okay. So my final thought is Jesus calling out to God as my God sitting on the right hand of God even postearly ministry clearly shows he's not God unless you believe in multiple gods.

Everything that you have brought forth I addressed and these verses still are not addressed. So I do not believe that Jesus is God according almighty God according to the Bible. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. Well, I think that was excellent exchange. Look, I think it's very important for us to be able to exchange these ideas, but the prompt still stands. Um nowhere in the Bible does Jesus can clearly say he's Almighty

God. Just because you're saying he's almighty, even like the almighty dollar, doesn't make the dollar God. Those those those arguments don't hold. God clearly says he is God in the Bible. Jesus nowhere in the Bible clearly says that

he is almighty God. Rather, the verses that I brought up about Jesus being a man who was sent by God were never addressed. The verses that I brought up in the first part of the debate weren't addressed by any of the speakers. But

again, we appreciate everybody's input. Great. Let's get to the next prompt. Please comment below your thoughts on the episode. If you agree, if you disagree, I'd love to hear it. I read every single comment. It means a lot to

me. Thank you so much. So, the second prompt, which is the Bible is not the perfectly preserved words of God free from errors or human tampering. None of them chose to debate this point. None of them, all of you

guys sitting here, all of you guys that flew out from different cities and different countries even didn't even dare to choose this prompt. And that tells you something that they know they cannot defend this prompt. Bible is not

the perfectly preserved words of God. The Quran is go check it out. So my prompt is that the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible.

Thank you, Shake. Well, of course I disagree. But even if I grant the fact that some sort of form of the name Muhammad is in the Bible, that's not enough to prove that that is Muhammad Iban Abdullah from the Meccan Arabs.

Correct? Oh, let me just finish my actually. Um, and so we do need to characterize Muhammad before we just say just because a name is in there because I personally know many Muhammads. Um, and so with that being said, I'd like to look at

some Muslim sources about what if what how clear Muhammad is being described in the Bible. So go for it.

In Surah 2146, uh, it says they recognize Muhammad clearly in their scriptures as they recognize their own sons. Um Abdullah ibn Salam one of the first uh converts to Islam who is a rabbi he says inul that you could pick

out his own son from a group of children. That's how specific it should be. So this description of Muhammad is not ambiguous but very specific. Or as Kabal Akbar says, another Jewish convert, he says that you can find in

the Torah Muhammad Ibin Abdullah, not Ahmed or Mahmedim, Muhammad Ibin Abdullah, that he's born in Mecca, that he will migrate to Tiba, and that his kingdom will be the Shem. And so, which according to you guys of course is why

Jews relocated to Medina in anticipation of an Ishelite prophet from the Haj region of Arabia. And just like the Quran and Sakya Bkari state, Abraham took Ishmael and Hagar went all the way down to Mecca from the Shem, left them

in the Zamzam spot, which is of course where the Sai ritual is established, Marwa and Safa. And also eventually when Ishma reaches the age of puberty because he's an infant at this time when he goes down there, right, he marries a woman

from the tribe of Jurum in Mecca. Now, um, and with that being said, of course, later Abraham and Ishmael come, Ish is Abraham comes back and he lays a foundation of the Kaba afterwards and in your own words actually um, a lecture

about Ishmael a few years back in 2021. Uh, this is in December around minute 4, you said, "How can Muhammad be born in Mecca if Ishma never went there?" And I I fully agree. Yeah, you said that verbatim in one of your lectures.

Um, so it's December 15, 2021. Can I ask for a clarification? Sure. That's that's Yeah.

Are you thinking that I said that Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam wasn't born in Mecca?

No, no, no. Sorry. You were making your point that he was and it's so vital that he was born there.

So So again, because that that kind of misrepresented my point. So I didn't say that Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam wasn't born in Mecca.

Yeah, my apologies. That's what I meant. We agree on that. My apologies. I think you were asking rhetorically. You said, "How can Muhammad be born in Mecca if Ishmael never went there?" So you were trying to establish how important Saky

Bkari 3364 is because it's just so important. that that that was what I gathered.

What lesson was this in? Because I just want to December 15, 2021. I I mean the time I don't memorize every day. What was the name of the lecture? I I have like millions of lectures on my channel.

Yeah. No problem. Let me find it. It's around minute 4. Um it says prophet prophet Ibraim left Hajar and Ishmael and some Arabic in Mecca by Allah.

Some Arabic. Yeah. Do you want to see it? I think the right you even got the thing.

Oh, peace be upon them in Mecca. Okay. So the point of the lecture was that Ishma was in Mecca and the prophet Muhammad is very vital. Sorry. Go ahead.

Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. I think I don't think we disagree here. I'm saying that according to the Islamic tradition, it is important that Ishma actually went to Mecca. Um because that's where Muhammad the whole his whole prophethood ties back to Abraham.

Right? So the idea is that it's very important that Ishmael went to Mecca. So now back to the prompt, right? Because we're talking about the Bible. The thing is it's not only that we have that the Bible is silent about this journey of

Ishmael. It's that in the Torah we see a clear disconnect between Muhammad and Ishmael because the parallel story of Abraham's separ separation from Hagar and Ishmael is completely different. And so I'll give you some examples. Um this I'm comparing everything to Sakus4.

Yeah, I'm losing ground here. So no problem. So Muhammad are are you saying Muhammad wasn't born sallallahu alaihi wasallam?

No, he's born in Mecca. Here let me let me Okay. Muhammad is born in Mecca.

Okay. Right. Muhammad Abdullah. He's born in Mecca. Sallallahu alaihi wasallam. So he and he according to you guys is a descendant of Ishma.

Keep going. And we draw this from the source Sah Bkari 3364 because it's not just his genealogy that's important. It's also tied to this journey that Ishmael, Abraham, and Hagar made made to Mecca which establishes the the Cabba, the

Hajj um and also uh the Sai rituals and and so forth. And so this is important.

Now my argument here is that that is what characterizes Muhammad. The Muhammad who is an Ishelite from the Meccan tribe of Jerum who eventually of course lines up with the Kuresh clan which is where Muhammad that's the Muhammad not Muhammad my Uber driver.

Muhammad my neighbor because I've had both. Okay. So this is that that specific Muhammad. Okay. And I'm saying that that Muhammad is not compatible with the Torah. So I'm about to tell you why. In Genesis 17, it says that Ishmael

was 13 when he circumcised in Canaan. Okay, this is not compatible with Bkari because he's a little infant already when he separated from Abraham. Um, and so Genesis 21 later on, he's actually around 17 years old when and Genesis 21

is the parallel story when he's separated from Abraham. Uh, verse 14 actually send this is 21:14 sends Abraham sends them out. So again, that's not what happened in Bkari. Uh, Abraham goes with them. Abraham drops off Hagar and Ishmael in Mecca. Correct?

Yes. Okay. So, and then but in Genesis they don't go to Mecca. They go to Beersa which is only about 20ish miles away and 800 plus miles north of Mecca. So, Beersa clearly is not Mecca. So, that's the first problem. Uh verse 21. Now,

it's the genealogy says that Ishmamail marries an Egyptian woman which is uh which means none of his children were ethnically Arab. We know that at that time Arab is not an ethnicity at all. Um during that time period

the word Arab as an ethnicity the word Arab sure but it wasn't used okay sure it wasn't used Arabs were an ethnicity way before that time but they were nomadic tribes let me clarify I apologize I agree they

were a nomadic tribe but as it pertains to that was incorrect they did exist Arabs yes Arabs did exist okay go ahead I meant to say let me clarify what I'm trying to say the biblical usage of Arab

especially in the Old Testament and in the New Testament as well but right now since we're talking about the Old Testament is not referring into any sort of ethnicity, but more so a geographical region. Now, with that being said, um

the problem still stands that Ishmael marries an Egyptian woman, meaning his his hisar is Egyptian. We can both agree on that. So, his ch his his immediate children are 75% Egyptian, 25% Hebrew, and 0% ethnically Arab. Now we'll grant

that in Genesis 25 and other places in the Bible that the Ishraelites do migrate to uh go they go eastward you know to to what uh well Genesis one at a time right so Genesis 25 it says they go

eastward and that's Midian and we see that corroborations of that later on where the Ishelites and Midionites intermix and of course what is now modern day Jordan okay and so the thing is that's northern Arabia that's nowhere near

Mecca still hundreds and hundreds of miles away from Mecca And so therefore, even if I grant that the Bible has prophecies about an Ishmaelite prophet or even an Arabian prophet, which I don't, um, they have no connection to Muhammad, um, just because

it's about an Arabian prophet because according to the Torah, Muhammad is not an Ishelite. And so, not only do we not have a clear connection in the Bible between Muhammad and Ishmamail, what we actually have is a clear disconnect. Go

ahead. Oh, thank you. Appreciate the history lesson. All right. So the the first thing is that if we go back to the Bible itself, uh the discussion was whether the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned or not. But I

definitely will respect the fact that you want to discuss whether the office or the person of Muhammad is in the Bible or not, right? So before we go there, let's discuss one thing in you're quoting the Old Testament as an

authority here about different times and places and so on. Would you agree that there are numerous uh errors, scribal errors, names flipped, ages flipped in the Old Testament?

So, do you want to run the corruption claim? No, I'm just I'm just asking a question like yes, no, and then you can follow up with that.

As it pertains to Ishmamail currently, that wasn't the question. Well, I'm going to clarify once again, as I was asked to do, please respond with yes and no, and then you can add your clarification with that.

Um, would you agree that the Bible as it is today that we have in front of us, the Old Testament that you're quoting as an authority to show that the lineage of the prophet or or where Ishmael was is

in contradiction with it is riddled with copiest errors and mistakes that were flipped back names flipped, ages flipped and so on. Would you agree to that?

So, that's very generic, but I'll say, can I say yes and clarify? Well, yes, clarify.

Wait, sorry. Um, yes in that I do agree that there are scribble errors. Okay, good. However, my clarification is that none actually pertain to anything regarding Ishmael as these supposed corruptions, the nature of them supposed.

Yeah. Like in as in like if you do claim those you you conceded that there are no Okay, I see. She's saying yes. Uh overall she's agreeing with you. Yes, there are uh issues known issues that that the issues are not in the terms of

the ish is it you said Ishmael. So yes. So yes. So if I could just clarify I think if I clarify my question I think that's going to I think we're good with understanding that I'm going to accept that as the answer she says

yes but with the condition that she knows that they're not pertaining to Ishmael. Okay.

Yes. That's okay. So again because of the fact that we do know that there are scribal errors mistakes that were made names numbers and this is the McCarthy Study Bible again from a Christian authority. I'm not coming at it from a

Muslim perspective. It shows that 77,000 scribal error. Secondly, I mean how many chariots were there? Scribal errors, names that are flipped, copious errors that go throughout the Bible. And I can give you 100 if you like, but we would

agree that there are scribal errors and mistakes that are in the current Old Testament, whether it has to do with the story of Ishmael or not. When we concede that then to say that because this doesn't meet the Islamic uh you know

version of the story means that that's not Muhammad doesn't make sense because you know that there are things that were flipped. Now very interestingly um respons let him build.

Yeah. Very interestingly um you actually did me a great favor by making the point that al and Abdullahbn Salam and other Jewish rabbis from very early times saw in what they had of scripture clearly the name of the prophet Muhammad

sallallahu alaihi wasallam and they accepted Islam from it. So that that's the end of that right there that these people who were Jewish scholars, people of the Bible that you have conceded and and quoted actually said yes we saw the

prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam clearly mentioned in the Bible more than what we would even see today very interestingly and they accepted Islam from it. So that would actually end my point that it was there. They saw it and they became Muslim.

Okay, last one. Okay, so two things real quick. Um, one you you kind of mentioned that there's this general there's general errors within the Old Testament.

Right? Now, of course, that my my point is that everything that contradicts the hadiths and and Quran, you would of course have to claim that that is a corruption, right? Because the original answer I think she's just making the the

Well, I guess yes or no. Like anything that contradicts the hadith in Quran pertain to Ishmamail would mean that the the Quran hadith would be correcting the Old Testament.

Yes. Okay, perfect. I did have explanation, but you want me to just skip? Oh, no problem. I don't think so. No, I think that that's that's fine. I I I Yeah. So, I can work off of that. Um,

and you also bring up Abdullahb Salam and Kab Akbar, which would you say you brought them up actually?

Okay. Yeah. So, we I actually like them as well. Do would you say they are uh pretty learned scholars of the Torah?

Yes. And would you say they are also schol authentic or reliable authentic scholars just in Islam in general?

I mean they're not scholars of Islam like like for example you would take Abdullahbn Abbas and so on. Many of their narrations for example had to be checked because they brought isat into it but they did definitely knew the the

Torah. Yes. And they as you said claimed again not every narration from them is going to be authentic because we do check in Islam.

Yes of course. But you made the claim which Can I can I continue? That's fine.

That's all I need to know. Um, okay. So, the idea here is that these this claim that the Ishmail narratives are corrupted. Okay. There's two types of corruption. It's accidental or intentional. Okay? If it's neither, it didn't happen at all. So, first of all,

I want to get rid of the possibility that this is on accident. So, the nature of these specific contradictions, they are not scribal errors. Whoever tampered with these texts have to be do it intentionally. I have a list of possible

scribe errors. Do you want me to read them out? because they don't apply to any of the so cannot be accidental. It was intentional. Correct.

Can I respond to that? Cuz I don't Hold on. I She's She's trying to get through her thought here. Let's let her finish.

So So for example, you know, Mecca and Beersa, that's not a scribal error. Would you agree?

It could be. I mean, can I You asked me a question. Can I answer it?

You can answer and then I'm going to read out a list of possible scribbal errors which don't pertain to any of these type of contradictions. Go ahead.

Okay. So I mean I'll answer you but there's just one point that I would like to make which I think would save us a lot of time because you know which is that once you know there are errors and

we have agreed now that there are errors. Some are scribal some are intentional and so on then then that by itself takes it away from being the gold standard. That means that without error is the gold standard. Everything else

has to be checked according to the gold standard. If I handed you a calculator and said, you know what, it does make mistakes once in a while in calculations. You you couldn't say, well, you know, maybe it didn't this

time, right? That just doesn't make sense. Yeah. So, the whole the whole lineage idea would not make sense. The the lineages of even Jesus in the Bible contradict the Old Testament and so on.

So, those those are going to go back and forth. What what I would say is why don't we get back to the point is the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam mentioned in the Bible because you've already conceded that early

Jewish rabbis did find it there and accepted Islam because of it. Yeah. Thank you. So I wasn't done with my point. Uh first of all there's when when you when you cannot say when you look at these this narrative of

Ishmamail that those are specifically accidental. That's my point. There are scribal errors that are accident but these are not. Okay. If we are actually reading through Genesis and why do we because of the nature of them. So, for

example, let her finish. Okay. Okay. I didn't want to pull this off, but seriously, are you kidding me right now?

Sorry. Continue. So, there's different types of corruptions. Okay. So, it could be a spelling mistake. That's on accident. It could be when you know two paragraphs start with the same type of word and then you skip a paragraph on accident.

That's a copyist or a transmission error. So, there's a whole list of these and I'm not going to read every single one because there's quite a few. But my point is I've gone through each of them and they don't they do not apply to this

narrative of Ishmael. Now with that being said, right, um would you say Abdullahbam and Kabal Akbar had the correct version your version of Ishmael?

The one that connects Ishma to Muhammad? I don't know. I mean all all I'm going by is what you told me right now which I have read in of that they said we saw the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi

wasallam in the Bible. We recognized him and we became Muslim because of the fact that we recognize him. Now did they have can I can I tell I wasn't done with well let him ask the question the question you got to

let him finish the thought then. So when you say that uh then I can agree and we've both come to that that it was there and they saw it and they became Muslim from it. Great. Now I want to investigate that claim.

That was your claim. You you you stated at the beginning of this that No, I was appealing to Islamic sources.

I did clarify. Let's look at some Islamic sources. Finish finish. We'll come back. So again, you began this and I'm glad it's recorded saying that these scholars who were Torah scholars said they found the name Muhammad Abdullah and they

found the characteristics. I asked you do you what did you say to my guy? Let him finish his thought. It was Yeah, my bad. Sorry. So So again, that by itself does show that they saw this. Now there are things that Akbar

narrated that later scholars like Abbas refuted because that was stuff that they brought from Israel and they could be making mistakes. They're not prophets.

They're not Sahabah. But that doesn't change the fact that they did become Muslim from what they affirmed was the name of the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam in the Bible.

Thank you. So let me respond to that. My question was Abdullahb Salam and Kaba Akbar the Torah that they had did it have details that match with today's Bible?

I have no idea. Okay. So So it's either yes or no, right? So let's let's investigate. So let me hold on for a second because I feel like this is like veering in 20 different directions. Now I could be

totally wrong, but I'm I'm waiting for you to like really just get to the points of things.

Yeah, I can finish. Let's get to the points of things and then we're gonna start wrapping up because we've been in a long okay long way to get a question.

I said I don't know. How is that unacceptable? So, let me just read let me just read this quote real quick from Abraham fulfilled. Okay. This is on page 407 and you you said yourself you know uh Adnan

Rashid. I do know Adan Rashid. Awesome. So um so it goes it says that there were rabbis and and monks so Jews and Christians who were aware of the imminent advent of Muhammad in Arabia um heralding from locations as diverse as

Syria and Turkey and they were so convinced that he would appear imminently that they made the journey into Arabia. Um what's what's what's amazing is that this was not only cross-religious but it had a wide geographic distribution. People of

different religious persuasions, speaking different languages and living in different lands, all arrived at the same conclusion both in terms of timeline and location. A prophet would be arising soon identifying specific the city of Medina. This is evidence that

their sources were genuine revelation from God. Whatever all these rabbis and monks were reading seems to have not only been widely accessible outside of Arabia, but also had a large degree of overlap. Again this points to the Bible

of today or perhaps variants of it which we know was readily available in all these locations in the seventh century.

Now Adnan Rashid seems to think that you know people like these these comrades had the same Bible we had today. I know it's a variant of it, right? And so if there are variants of it, so let's let's

go with that possibility that somehow today's is a variant of whatever they had at the time, right? Their motive to remove the name of Muhammad or change this narrative of Ishmael because it can't be on accident. Okay, this is on

purpose. Could be. Okay, on accident. Okay, so the Jews, so Genesis 17 was on accident.

Can I respond? So Ishmail. So let me This is my point. It's not an accident. And if you're being entirely honest to the text, it's not an accident. Okay. Ishmael gets three blessings. Ishmael gets three blessings in the Old Testament. Okay.

Two of those blessings happened in Genesis 17 and also Genesis 21. And both of those in the circumstances at which the blessing is given in Genesis 17. It says that that was the circumcision covenant, right, that is given to

Abraham. Ishmael is also circumcised on the same day as Abraham, right? And this is what you guys appeal to to say that Ishmamail is made into a great nation because this this is the same passage that he's given that prophecy of a great

nation. Now, if this was written in on accident, then why would Jews accidentally bless Ishmael when clearly you guys always claim that they want to lower Ishmael? So the whole context of Genesis 17, the whole context of Genesis

17 contradicts what Muhammad revealed in the hadith because Muhammad according to uh because actually Muhammad says that Abraham was circum he circumcised himself when he was 80 years old. Okay, but that is completely contra contradictory to Genesis 17. My point

here is that if you're saying Genesis 17 was messed up on accident, how do you accidentally write in the scenario a very specific scenario about Ishmael's age where he gets this blessing?

Okay. And let's do a quick response to that and then we'll move into final thoughts from there. Okay.

Okay. So, first thing to say that it's definitely there cannot be an accidental error is just absolutely preposterous because people can accidentally write their name for a wrong city. people as in the Bible for example when it says

God inspired David to number the people of Israel. Another verse says the Satan inspired David to number the people of Israel. Many biblical scholars including one that I just had debate with say that this was an error. They actually missed

the names. Now others will give different explanations but the point there being this could definitely be an accidental error. You cannot say it could not possibly be that that's just not possible. Secondly, um there it could also be on on motive. I don't

know. I'm not making that claim. So it doesn't matter. My claim very simply is that if what we have in front of us does have errors, then I will trust that which I see with no errors compared to

the one that has errors. So I will take the Quranic narrative over the biblical about Ishmael and Isach because if I know for sure including Bible scholars up and down that you know Avery brought with him this particular study Bible and

that tells you that there are errors. So I'm not going to trust that over that without errors.

All right. Now I I would like to just address one more thing. You're quoting Adnan Rashid as if he's a like a hadith or something.

I know Adnan Rashid. is a friend of mine but he's not like a like like a hadith for us like like you're quoting it as if like oh no Adan Rashid wrote it you know with all due respect and love to Adan

Rashid right so if we just go back to the actual source that you quoted beginningly in the beginning that Abdullahbnam and Akbar who were Jewish scholars that you quoted in the beginning of this conversation accepted Islam because they said the Torah that

they had in front of them had the name Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam that's the end of to be honest.

Mhm. Okay. Thank you. And we're going to move into final statements. No, let me respond one more and then final statement.

Final statements. You got actually more. Oh my god. A very long. There are two other people that have to go on after you and we're on a time crunch. Final statements, please.

Okay. So, this is a quote by Kab Al Akbar. Um, this is apparently what got him to convert. Uh, if you implicitly, this is authenticated. This is authenticated by Albani.

From where? Um, this is from this is from Basam Zawadi's article. He's a Muslim.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Basam Zawadi is not a is not a book. Can you come in?

Do you want me to read that whole thing alimiab? If you can't even read the name of the book, I don't think you can quote it as an authority. I'm sorry.

Really? Yeah. Really? But if you want to go ahead go. Wow. Okay. I'm going to put a timer on it.

You've got you've got exactly two minutes to get through your final statement. I would make it very clear.

So this is uh Basam Zwadi's article. Okay. And he he just puts together I don't know who that is but okay that's fine. So this is what said the first line of the Torah says Muhammad is the messenger of Allah and

my chosen slave da Medina taba whatever the second second line of the Torah says Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. His nation are constantly praising and he goes on for another paragraph. And so this is according to Akbar how he

converted to Islam because he's he recognizes his description. Okay. Now, that's first of all, that's the first point I want to make where where if that was actually in the Torah in the seventh century, well, I really want to know

where that Torah is. And let's say it actually existed, right? Maybe a Torah in Yemen because he's from Yemen, right?

Or even a Torah in Medina, which which was where Abdullahbam is from. But there are manuscripts and also corroborations that completely contradict Ishmamail and not just biblical sources, but extra biblical sources like Josephus. He rewrites the whole history of the Jews

and he corroborates the entire Abraham story that we have in the Bible today. Contradictory to Sah Bakari 364. You have Pho who is a renowned philosoph first century. The the point is these are people writing in the first century

referring to a Torah. Okay. Pho Torah some often verbatim and sometimes paraphrases and he corroborates the Ishmael story that we have in our Bible today. contradictory to Saki Bukari. The book of Jubilees that that predates uh that's like around the 200s BC. The book

of Jubilees rewrites the first uh Genesis and Exodus and also corroborates the exact same details. And so for a corruption to happen, this cannot be accidental. Someone would have to per someone have to corrupt Jubilees, corrupt Josephus, corrupt the church

fathers in because the church fathers quote Ishmael extensively. And then a group of a group of Jews in Medina would have to travel and knock on every church and synagogue and get get everyone to say, "Hey, let's change this specific

part about Ishmael." And that's very intentional. That cannot be on accident. All right. And your final thoughts on this please.

Thank you. So again, uh is a book of hadith which I mean I would have to look at the chain and so on. And again, this is a statement of a person could be wrong. I this is not a even if do you

know what a hadith is or No, I don't. Okay. It's when hadith from the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam that's considered wahi. The statements of are not considered wahi. So he could have been wrong in what he stated there.

But the fact of the matter still stands that according to what you're quoting he became Muslim and he said that the Torah had the name of the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam in it. So that again still proves the point that

those Jews did see it and accept Islam from it. And not just him. Abdullahbam and others and hasd and many other names of those and you can look those up in a book called if you want I can send you a PDF. Now

having said all of that it does not change the fact that the name Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam is clearly in even the Bible of today let alone whatever early scriptures that they may have seen and that is still the prompt

and it still stands. So thank you. All right thank you to both of you. If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel. It helps us grow the

podcast and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much. The name Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam is clearly mentioned in the Bible.

Right on. A couple of the sources you had that used earlier, will we be able to turn to that that John MacArthur study Bible you have?

Sure. There's something in First Kings 9:1 that I think is is relevant. It seemed like when you went there, you said that there was like 700,000 tribal errors, I think, is what you I did not say that when you were there, but you said it.

You said it mentioned about it. Can I respond to what I said? Well, I was just going to see if you could read this and then you could comment on it.

I don't know if from the source you used in regards to uh textual corruption and things like that because I I think it'll be be helpful. Do you remember what you said though? It was something about the errors. Correct.

I mean, the difference between 700 and 7,000 is what I was mentioning. Not that there are Oh, the chariots. The chariot number.

Okay. Yeah. The chariots. How many people David killed? It's right there if you want to.

I got it highlighted. And all right. Okay. Well, there's something from the MacArthur Study Bible. Okay.

That's good clarification. What would you like me to read that that when it talks about the sources of the book of the Kings?

Where do you want me to read? The thing is I was looking for the page.

I got the digital version. I think it's page uh 856 or so, but I'm going to read from Look it up from 856.

Yeah, if I could read from I mean, what verse is it under? I can look it up.

It's in the beginning of uh where it talks about the Chronicles sources because here's what it I'm confused. So, do you want me to give give me the verse and I can look it up?

Let me read it to you and then I'll I don't know what you're reading off of.

Can we look at the book? Yeah, the Chronicle sources. Here's what it says though.

All from the MacArthur study, Bible. Is it from that book? Yeah, but I had the digital copy, so it's hard to find.

But what verse and chapter would it be? Because I can I can turn to it. That's not an issue.

I think it's at the beginning of the book of Chronicles where it says the Chronicles sources.

We don't have time to do this. If you want to if you want to look it up and give it to me, then I'll take a look at it.

All right. Well, let me read what it says. Although relatively actually look it up. I mean, yes, but I I have it digital.

I don't trust digital copies. I like that's why I brought all these books with me, right?

Okay. Okay. But I'm going to read you what it says and I'll try to find it in your copy. Okay. Maybe I could do it during the discussion.

Go ahead. Although relatively few scribal errors have been made in copying scripture, they can be identified and corrected. Thus, the original inherit content of the Bible has been preserved.

That's from the MacArthur Study Bible that you used to try to show that it had corrupted sources.

Did you want me to respond or? Yeah. But you used it to show corruption right now. I'm going to try to find it in here, but it is in here because I have logos. So, I looked it up when you

were talking, but go ahead. I I'll concede that one for you. No problem. I thought you were going to give like a particular verse which I wanted to look into but you're saying a general statement.

So you're saying MacArthur is saying there are scribal errors. MacArthur Study Bible you use.

Yes. So says that they cannot identify and correct it. Do you agree with that?

No I don't. Okay. But you use it as a source to show scribbal errors.

Can I can I speak if you don't mind? I let you speak and when I start speaking you start cutting me out. Right. So again the fact that there are scribal errors till today they have not been changed. Even in my Bible right here, I

can find those. And scholars will even debate what the actual verse is supposed to say. And that's why NIV and other other translations have been rejected by most Christians that I've spoken to that have stuck to the KGV, even when NIV

tried to get rid of those scribal errors, saying that no, that these corrections are wrong. So, that doesn't make sense. What we can agree on that there are scribal errors.

It's page 514. I found it. Thank you. Right there above that box. Yeah. But I just I think it's disingenuous to try to prove the Bible with a corrupted. You're saying it's corrupted, but the very source you use

says it can be identified and corrected. So, do you agree with your source you brought today?

Again, this is Let me Let me answer you one more time. Do you see where it is in the book, too?

I just want to make sure. I see it. Okay, that's good. So, now you trust digital. That's good.

I I I don't I still don't. That's why I'm looking at the source that you showed me. Right. Now again to say that McCarthy has an opinion, he has many opinions that I think even you and me might disagree with him on. But the fact

that he points out in his study Bible that these errors do exist, that's something that can be identified that can be verified against manuscripts, not an opinion of MacArthur.

They can be identified and corrected is what it says. Do you see where it says corrected? Once again, it could be corrected, but even those corrections then are rejected by other scholars just like the NIV corrections were rejected

by the No, no, don't don't try to uh let me finish. I'm allowed to shake my head, sir.

No, no, but I can shake my head all day. Let me let me finish what I'm saying.

Right. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. The fact that MacArthur feels that he could correct them still stands to the fact that every Bible that we are reading today that I have my hands on is either disputed by other Christians or still contain those

errors. So had it has not been corrected. Now when you start the last line, could you just read that last line on top of the box? The very last line.

Sure. Uh thus where it says although relatively few scribble errors have been made in copying scriptures that can be identified and corrected.

Thus the original intent content of the Bible has been preserved. Thank you. Appreciate that. I I do not agree with that statement. As an opinion as as an opinion, I respect that. But I just want to point out you

misused your sources authority earlier. I did not. That that was that was the NE. It was not this. It was the NE Bible that were talking about authority. No, hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Let me let me finish now because you you

can't just roll over me. No. Well, it already happened. It already happened. You're not rolling over anybody, bro.

Calm down. That's just the first rule. Don't don't don't flatter yourself. You made a point. Let him let him at least.

Thank you. But I But I swear you made that in authority earlier. No, no, we were the issue of authority was the NIT Bible, which was N.

It was the scholar thing. He said he scholars I mean you can listen listen you can you can look up the video later but this is the one that we were discussing about the 25 scholars in regarding the authority. I can show

you the verse that I read from it. I'll take your word on it but MacArthur was like about scholars not having authority or having authority and you were giving authority for sure again and scholars will hold opinions. That's one thing and none of

us will say that we agree with every opinion. In fact, Avery threw this under the bus when he brought up the two different ages. You did. You did. Hold on. Hold on. I do I let me finish. Let me finish. Let me

finish. Everybody quiet. When Avery first came to us, he brought this and in front of Sneo and this video is online. When I brought this out, me Avery's over there. You already had your time.

Listen, don't don't interrupt me. Thank you. Please still. Please don't interrupt me. But you're going to fill her butt.

Please don't interrupt me. Stop stop. When I had brought this up to Avery, he had said this is MacArthur's opinion.

Right? I'm not taking people's opinions. You can look at the video. Sneak there. You can look at that. He threw MacArthur under the bus on that one. Right? But here, when I'm saying that there are scribal errors that you can verify

against manuscript, that is very different from the opinion of a scholar. Those are two different things, right?

Don't take MacArthur over the shake. Now, on page 28 of James Dunn's book that you brought as well, I bookmarked for you on page 28. If you could just read that top sentence of that second paragraph please. This is

about in relationship to worship of Jesus. What's it say? Same the all. The fact that such worship language is used in reference to Jesus even if only occasionally is very striking.

This would I don't know the you got to go to the bathroom or something bro. Uh this would have been entirely unusual and without precedence in the in in the Judaism of the time. You want me to keep

reading or so? You want me to keep was worship language used in relationship to Jesus?

First question. Was it unusual? Second question. And then if you could read the last two sentences, that same paragraph.

Okay. It's interesting. You want me to skip over a lot? You can read the rest if you want.

That's fine with me. It's not going to help you. What What last two sentences? Where do you want me to start?

The same paragraph you just sent in that book for. In fact, that this definition is in the wider Mediterranean world. The fact that this definition could be used as casual and as taken for granted as it is in I

could be used Corinthians 1:2. Yeah. I just has a number one. It means first.

Okay. Gotcha. Corinthians 1:2 assuredly indicates that invocation of the Lord Jesus and prayer was a regular feature in early Christian worship.

Early Christian what? Worship. Was Jesus worshiped? Uh again, so you want me to answer according to this? Yes.

But but in the same book that you read and the same book that you're quoting that you're now trying to jump away from what I read earlier, it says Christian worship as defined to so simply as the worship of Jesus for that would that

would emerge as an inequity is taken seriously. It would soon become evident that Christian worship can deteriorate into what would be called Jesus olatry like idolatry. It is not simply in into the worship of Jesus, but the worship

that falls short of the worship of the one true God, the father, the Lord of Jesus Christ. I use the term Jolatry as an important sense parallel to that of idolatry. So if you're going to quote him, then continue the

mean worship Jesus is God. That's what it's saying though. So that would be what you're going to fill. It's not I'm not I'm I'm reading it. I'm not filler busting anything right here. As Israel prophets pointed out on several

occasions, the calamity of idolatry is that of idols in in substitution of God. So if somebody takes the worship of God, it would take away from Jesus takes the place of God. The worship due is to God and absorbed it by the idol. The danger

of Jesus olatry is the place of one creator God. Jesus absorbing the worship of the true one creator. Now because he mentions, let me finish. Let me let me finish. a long paragraph. Let me finish the quote paragraph. What's the

iseliner? Yeah, it's one liner. Listen again. Go ahead. He goes through many ideas of whether they're worshiping or not. But in the conclusion, in the end, he says, "The first Christians did not worship Jesus as such. Worship is always and

should always be offered to the glory of God the Father." That's the conclusion. And that's why you got to read the whole book.

Yes, I did read the whole book. And you didn't have that section highlighted, did you?

I didn't have it highlighted it for you. You're welcome. I didn't highlight the whole book, but that doesn't mean I didn't read the whole book. When an author goes through a book, he presents this side and that side, but his

conclusion is where the end is. Thank you. Doing there was commentary commenting on I Corinthians. That's what he was saying.

Are we talking about Muhammad in the Bible or are we talking about worshiping? Oh, well, don't bring Dunn if you don't want to talk about Dun. Now, the point is we're on a prompt that you're running from.

Let's find your points. Okay. So, the point was to show you misuse sources. Now regarding this source surah 757 is Muhammad the unlettered prophet surah surah 757 is Muhammad the unlettered prophet there are the prophet noting that the Jews and

Christians find him ascribed in their scripture yes and yes okay does it say that the description of the unlettered prophet will be found in the Torah and the gospel let's bring up the surah because I don't want to misquote things for Okay. But

no, it's the same same place. Yeah. I'm going to bring up the actual surah.

Yeah. All right. Has the book. Oh, can I you want me to read it from the book?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Great. Surah 7 157 right there. And I just want to let everyone know you gave this to me when I was in San Diego. So, thank you.

I appreciate that. It was a gift. So, so I brought it to here for that reason.

Surah 7 157 157. And they are the ones who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, whose description they find in their Torah and the gospel. He commands them to do good and forbid them from evil, permits them of what is lawful and

forbids them from what is impure, and relieves them from their burdens and the shackles that are bound them. Only those who believe in him, honor him, and support him. And I just want to clarify, honor him doesn't mean worship him.

Uh, and follow the light and scent down to him will be successful. Yes. Is John 119 one of those places where the unlettered prophet is described in the gospels?

I don't believe so. Then why do you have a video that says John 119? Is this you, fam?

That is me. Yeah. Where you where you where you said that was the prophet they were waiting for?

Go ahead. Are you This is your video. I I'll let you continue. That's you, right?

If you're if you're done with the theatrics, I will respond. It literally says that is the prophet Muhammad and it's from John 119.

I'll just wait for the theatric to finish before I can respond. So it's weird you said no, but your video says otherwise. So that's cotton cotton 740.

So check this out. There is no point. He just wants to run from the actual It's funny. I I figured you might do that, but that's why I had to have that screenshot because I knew you would deny

it. Now, if that's the case, why does Peter apply this passage of Deuteronomy 18, the prophet is being asked about in John 1:19 to Jesus? Why does Peter apply it to Jesus if it's supposed to be Muhammad according to the shake in this

video? Are are you done with your question? Yeah. Okay. First thing, I may have held that view, but right now what I have come with is a discussion that you don't even allow me to bring up. Right?

Secondly, I could be wrong in things and I could be right. I'll have to research that again before I come back to you.

I'm not just going to here try to get clickbaits like you. Secondly, Peter taking John one has nothing to do with being the prophet Muhammad being mentioned in the Bible. That's not the prompt. The prompt is the name Muhammad

is clearly mentioned in the Bible. Do you agree or disagree? That's why I set you up with asking you if you identify Muhammad as the unlettered prophet. You've been set up by that initial question and you told this poor man who said this was Jesus.

You said no that was Muhammad. So you're going to go back and correct your mistake about running from the prompt.

You're running from yourself. The prompt is very clearly the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible. Do you agree or disagree?

Okay. Do you agree or disagree? So I take it you don't. No. No. We need to respond, right?

I want you to get to it with with the points of what you're doing. Get there.

All right. So is I'm not getting hold on hold on. We'll go to the next point then.

Is Deuteronomy 18. Is Deuteronomy 18 describing the prophet Muhammad? He did not answer my question. Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? That's the prompt. Yes or no?

You identified him as the unlettered prophet. Okay. So I see you don't want to respond.

Okay. Now hold on. Let's ask this question. Let's ask this question. The title. So that is a name that. So that's where I want to say is what is Muhammad in the Bible in the text? define what that is

very clearly. Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? Yes or no? But in your prompt, what is the definition of Muhammad? Who is the name Muhammad?

Just the name. Just the name. Does this name What is Yes. So, so I thought that would happen. So, if you remember when you first asked, he's not answering yes or no. I've asked like six times.

Will you please stop interrupting me? I'm not interrupting you. Question to a different topic since you're I asked you a question. You're not answering it. You're transitioning.

Who's the one running? Stop interrupting me so I can transition. Question from the prompt. You are running from the prompt. No, I'm not.

Very clear question from the prompt. What is the importance of the name Muhammad? I'll explain it.

Okay. He said it has to be the name Muhammad. But he himself already identified Muhammad as the unlettered prophet, thereby identifiing Muhammad as the unlettered prophet. That's the line of questioning. You knew you were trapped because I have you here. So you want to

you want to do it on the technicality, but that's okay because I plan for the technicality. So, let's go to John 1 and we'll transition to his Jesus God because that's in the same p No, it's the No, no, no, hold on. LET ME EXPLAIN

WHY. NO, I'M GONNA EXPLAIN WHY. Because it's in the same passage that also refers to Muhammad supposedly. It's the same place of John 1. So, what I'm going to do is show you what John the Baptist was actually talking about.

Look, you're running like as if you're in a marathon very clearly. The prompt is, is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible yes or no?

No. That's the prompt we're on, not Jesus being God. I asked earlier what the importance was, right? And you said you would oblige the different directions of coming in on I heard. Can he actually answer the question though? Yes or no? And then he

can go into any site you like. I said no. Okay. I did not hear you say that. Good.

So you're saying no. Muhammad the name Muhammad is not mentioned in the Bible. Go ahead.

So you you now do I want to give you a choice. All right. Would you rather continue on about the unlettered prophet being Muhammad in John 1 or would do you want to see who John the Baptist says

John 1 is about which is going to go to the deity topic door A door B neither because the prompt we're on is is Muhammad mentioned in the Bible and you said no and I want to can you not

interrupt me now can you not interrupt me now remember that can you not interrupt me you remember you thank you all right so now the prompt that we're on which you're running to Jesus divinity and all the stuff because

you're scared of Is is Muhammad mentioned in the Bible? Now, right here in Songs of Solomon, the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned and this is not my opinion. This again, I'm bringing Christian scholars from a lexicon that Brown Driver and Briggs brought

together. Can I not be interrupted? Can I not be interrupted? Here the name Muhammad is such so clearly mentioned that even in your own lexicon it says this comes from Hamida of Arabic and is mentioned Muhammad dim.

Now dim them even though it has a a institution of being plural but him doesn't mean that there are multiple gods that majesty and honor Ephraim him the younger son of Joseph also has that im it is a majestic plural and just like

the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible cannot be translated into the overall lovely because for example the word Avery means the king of the elves but I'm not going to go and say the king of the elves was debating me

Right? Just like David is the most beloved, Emmanuel, God is with us. Elijah, God is my Yah. And Daniel, God is my judge. All of those have meanings, but they are names. And that is why the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in

the Bible by name. Could you read song of Psalm 5:16 and replace the word that you're saying should be Muhammad and read out Muhammad when you read it?

Okay. My mouth is most sweet. He is altogether lovely which is Muhammad. He is my beloved and he is my friend.

Just the phrase just the word. Don't add a new phrase. Muhammad. I was just reading.

Okay. What word are you replacing it with though? Lovely. Okay. So the most lovely.

So can you say it how it would be? If if the word the original word that's translated here the translators were wrong about. You're saying this should be Muhammad. Could you read it? Okay.

Put his name in there. His mouth is most sweet. He is altogether Muhammad. That is his name that I've just read for you now. He is my beloved and this is my friend. O daughters of Jerusalem.

Right. So who's talking here again? Do you want me to I just ask you a question? Who is speaking here in Song of Songs 5?

According to biblical sources and I have brought this together. This is a prophecy about the prophet that is to come.

Who is speaking in song of song 5:16? Who is the one speaking? I didn't ask you what it was. I didn't ask you for a literary classification of the genre. I asked you who was speaking. Do you know

this is a love song that is written as a parable for the prophet to come.

Who's something again? This not an actual wife and husband. It is a prophetic. Can Can I speak or am I just going to be cut off?

He's running the line. He's asking you a question. I'll let you go ahead. Okay.

You're saying this is not in Song of Solomon. This isn't Solomon's wife. Can you continue? Is that a question?

That's a question. Song of Solomon. Is it Solomon's wife? Is it Is it Can I finish it? But can you answer? It is a parable. It is It is a reference.

It is not a actual love song. This is mystical symbolism as your own Christian study Bible. The Orthodox Anarch study Bible points out that can read a a mystical symbolism is involved in a highly figurative language. It is included in the Old

Testament to be explained from the prophetic figure of the Lord as the husband. So this is Can I not get interrupted? Please read. Can I not get interrupted? If you don't mind, I I thought you were closing, but go ahead.

I was closing if you'd let me finish. So this is a a mystic symbolism for the prophet is going to be referenced as the husband, not Solomon himself.

Can you read? That's not what that says. Can you read something? I just read it quote unquote. It doesn't say anything about Muhammad in there.

Can you I did not say it said anything about Muhammad. What I what I I did not the prophetic figure is what I said. I'm glad it's being recorded.

We're We're very tight on time right now. Song one. The Song of Songs which is Solomon.

Who's Solomon? Who's If you're done with the theatrics, I'll continue. Okay. So, no no because you spoke. So, I'm responding by reading context.

You're telling us as a Muslim who you're not a biblical scholar. You don't know Hebrew because it's plural. That's a problem for you. You're You think you can just transpose Arabic with Hebrew?

You cannot. You ran to this because you thought it was a strong place and I was okay with that. This is Solomon's wife.

Why is Solomon's wife telling him how fine Muhammad is? Great question. Now, let me answer.

Here's what we're going to do. For purposes of time, we're going to let you respond and then we're going to do a closing and a closing. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Once again, says this. No, no. I'm here all night. If you want to be here, don't don't think you got nothing on.

I thought you had the out at 4. I I do have an appointment, but that doesn't mean I'm running from his time wise. Don't be That's what the wife said to Solomon.

I'm here all night. Not Muhammad. Okay. Once again, as clearly mentioned in your own Christian study Bible, this is not a literal poem back and forth.

Rather, it is and I did not say that it said Muhammad he lied about me again.

But the mystical symbolism is involved here in a highly figurative language. Figurative language. The inclusion of the Old Testament is to be explained from the prophetic figure of the Lord as the husband, not Solomon, as the prophetic figure of the Lord. Right? And

this is again mentioned from many different sources that you can see that this was actual figurative language.

It's telling you about the prophet that is to come and the actual name Muhammad is in there actually. I showed it to you from the Bible. So in verse 16 there's again in verse 16 who who are the daughters of Jerusalem in

relationship to Muhammad there. Is this your closing? Yeah. We're going to move to closings now. So it says this is my beloved and my friend build it into your and it says oh daughters of Jerusalem the last question if you could answer

who are the daughters are we doing closings or are we doing questions back because I'm going to ask why you look into the world who is the daughter don't degrad we don't have time for this gentlemen who are the daughters build it into your

closing please okay if you answer build it right on who are the daughters of Jerusalem I'm awaiting your closing statement build it build it in tell say who the daughters are that's fine that's fine cuz cuz daughter of Jerusome were not big fans of

Muhammad. I'll just say that. Absolutely not. Why would you say that? Yeah, because that's verse 16 that you brought us to. So it shows your reading is absolutely aontextual. So here's my closing statement. I started off destroying you in MacArthur, your own

source about textual variance. That was strike one. Then what happened is I went to done and showed you how done refers to Christians worshiping Jesus and even mentions a specific verse. That was strike two. You're done. Just like done.

Three, you ran from the question that you set yourself up with about the unlettered prophet cuz you knew you were in a box. You affirmed the unlettered prophet was Muhammad, but I was leading you down the path, dog walking you, and

you didn't want it to happen. So, you ran to Song of Songs 5:16, which you thought you were safe in. But then when we got there, you had to answer all kinds of questions and you couldn't, so you did this.

And that's my closing statement. Thanks for the Quran, by the way. You're welcome. Thank you, Cab. Go ahead to you.

Your theatrics are cute, but they're not academic. Again, the prompt was, "Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Quran?" And you ran from it. You tried to go for John here and there. You never answered the question until you were put

on the spot. And when you were put on the spot, and you had to say, "No, I showed you from your own lexicon, the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in your Bible." And this is a commentary of the own Christian Bible saying that this

is the prophetic figure that is to come. That is who is being spoken about as husbands. And when you talk about the daughters of Jerusalem hating Muhammad, that is absolute just uh something you pulled out of the air with no evidence

at all. The one who poisoned can I can come on now. The daughters of Jerusalem didn't come together and poison anybody. Now regarding MacArthur Cab, please regarding regarding regarding your little theatrics. It's cute but not academic. Again, you've

been proven wrong. The prompt has been proven in front of your face that the name Muhammad is mentioned. I already addressed the issue of plural and you just skipped over it because you knew that you had no response from it. Elohim

doesn't mean many gods, right? Again, Ephraim doesn't mean that that the son of the younger son of Joseph was more than one person. That is honor and glory that is used in the Hebrew language, not the Arabic. I didn't just bring it into

Arabic. Now, MacArthur, just since you brought it up, still shows there are errors in the Bible. Just cuz he has a different view on what he feels can be corrected doesn't mean that it is. Those scribal errors still stand in the Bible

in front of me today and in front of you as well. And even with Dunn, you went to an earlier chapter where he's discussing, but you skipped over his conclusion, which I'd already commented because you are the one running from it.

Thank you. If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel. It helps us grow the podcast and it means a lot to

us. Thank you so much. I just want to say thank you for doing this face to face with everybody.

I appreciate you. Um, so the prompt is right, Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible.

His name, right? His name. Yes. Okay. You want me to read it or you good?

Yeah. I mean, just just to clarify for the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible. That's the prompt.

That is awesome. I like that. So would you agree that chapter 61:6 says that Jesus mentions Akmed in your Quran?

Uh Quran what was the chapter? Uh chapter 61 verse 6. Six again. 61 six is not coming up but sorry. Yes.

Let's take it. Yes. Ahmed is mentioned. So Ahmed is mentioned, right? Do you have a source that says that Jesus mentioned Ahmed?

Sure. You want me to get into that? Point me to that source again. That's not the prompt we're discussing. Whether Ahmed is clearly mentioned in the Bible or not is no Ahmed in Can I answer now?

Oh, I thought you asked that question. Pause. Sounds like a pause to me. Sorry.

Yeah, go ahead. I got you. Right. I didn't read your body language, right? I got you.

Okay. Okay. So again, the prompt is whether the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Quran in the Bible or not. That's the first thing, right? As your friend earlier mentioned. Thank you. Many of the earlier Jewish scholars did say that

even the name Ahmed is in there. Muhammadb Abdullah is in there that I'm not seeing those here today. But that doesn't mean that it wasn't there.

Obviously, many chapters have been changed. Many things have been taken out as the Quran clearly mentions. People will write with their own hands and ascribe it to God.

So the prompt once again is is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible?

Yes or no? Okay. So do you have you have a you have a source that says Jesus mentions Muhammad by name?

Again, that's not the prompt. Is that not the prompt, man? The prompt is the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible.

Okay. So then I ask from mentioned where do you get the words of Jesus from again what is mentioned in the Quran we believe because it's in the Quran the true words of Jesus that he spoke to his

followers in his native tongue of Aramaic we don't have today. For example when Allah say in the Quran we did not send a prophet to his nation except in the language of his people. So that would mean that what you have in

Kaic Greek that was written centuries later at least 70 or 90 years later is not necessarily the exact word that we're taught from Jesus to his followers. Somebody had it obviously they had it. They they they used it.

But the prompt again is is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible and it clearly is as your own lexic.

I was asking you specifically about the words of Jesus because you don't get the words of Jesus only from the Quran. The Quran is making the claim.

So I'm I'm I'm here to verify. Okay. Well, I'm verifying the claim that the Quran is making because that is your authority. Right. So, I'm quoting the words of your God and you're saying, "No, I don't want to deal with that

right now." Well, earlier earlier when you were talking to my boy Sig about how people were just quoting stuff and we have no evidence of it. So, they could just be quoting it from their own mouths and from their own minds. If the Quran has

no evidence and we don't have the words of Jesus because they've all been corrupted, then by default your own argument that you used earlier against Sig means that the Quran, your Allah who has no evidence for his word is just

making stuff up from his mouth because he has no evidence for it. Good point. Can I now respond? Okay, first thing again, you're running from the prompt itself, right? The prompt is is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible

and you're running from it. Right? You tried to run to Ahmed, you had to run here and right there. And now you're trying to run to, oh, you're not willing to answer your credle issues. I'm more than willing. We can set up another

debate and we can sit all day long on that. No problem. Awesome. But I would like to stick to the prompt today. But just to let you know, I'm not running from any of that. I will answer this,

but I request you to stick to the prompt after this. Okay? Now, when you say that there's no authority, when you don't have an original text, for us, the Quran is the original text. So if you want to come

debate to me as a Muslim, I would say that even your Bible today, which again throughout has been shown to have errors, has has things that were inserted, things that were not in original manuscripts until the 12th century and they were added in to

justify credle issues, is not an authority, right? But if I was to come to you and say, I read a book and it said this, there's more than you have more than the right to ask me where's that book and if I don't produce it,

then it's not an authority. But the Quran itself is the authority. This is the words of Allah that were revealed.

Not the words of Muhammad, not the words of Sahabah, but the words of Allah. So that is the authority. When you have something that's been corrupted, changed, added to, subtracted from, then you don't take that as the authority. You take from the

unchanged, un altered words of God. Awesome. I like what you did there. Good. So everything before is corrupted, right? We don't have any of it. It's just gone. Poof.

I did not say that. Okay. So we have some of it, right? We have some of it, but it's still corrupted right?

Just a yes or no, so I can continue. Okay. So, we have Is that a simple question?

I don't think that's what I think you're kind of mixing up what he's saying. I I I hear what you're saying and I I don't think he's Can I just ask my question?

Yeah, go ahead. So, what we have today are the corrupted words of Jesus, right?

Again, what we have today are Kaic Greek writings by later anonymous authors. Some may contain some words of Jesus that may be true. But we have to verify against the Muan as the Quran in Maida fifth surah mentions that this is the

Quran. If you want to verify of the past scriptures, the muan the criterion the supreme authority is the Quran.

Okay. So your commentators say that the that Muhammad is the Muhammad over the Quran. So he's the supreme authority over that. And you know this and you know this this is going to build on my point because I I didn't even hear what

that was because that was his own Islamic scholars say that the Muhammad the supreme authority over the Quran the criterion is Muhammad who okay so you know them and I was on your face which scholars scholars which mujahed

so mujah no hold on hold on you can't just make claims and run from it right no hold on hold no hold on hold on that that that is kind of big cuz you're making to claim to his like the the authority of

everything, right? And then you're just given a name and he says no. So I want So you're saying in surah Mah the Muan is not a reference to the Quran but that to the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam.

Some of your scholars say that. Can you show me that? Do you want me to just take the next 10 minutes to pull up the source or just get through the line of questioning?

No, no, no, no. Because you can't just make a point and run from chapter.

And again, this is why I brought all these books with me cuz I don't want to just make statements and run from it.

And what's even funnier is that chapter 45 uh chapter 5 verse 47 and 48 tell the Jews and Christians to stand on their scripture. Otherwise, they're disbelievers. So I guess according to you, they're standing on corrupted scripture.

That is again he's running from the prompt. That's what you said. He's running from the prompt. He said it's corrupt. What he thinks is your source.

No, no. I'm I'm going to have to respond to that now because you're running from the prompt.

Go for it and respond. I'm going to read your source. When when the Quran talks about or the people of this is a reference to people of Jesus that's why when yah is used for example with musam it doesn't mean we right now go and grab

it that's why I mentioned the verse again that Allahh clearly tells us that the final authority the is this that we have revealed to you so the Quran is the final authority on the previous scriptures refer to it and stick to it

so you are absolutely jumping from the prompt and you're wrong. Okay. So, I'm jumping from the prompt.

I think what I'd like you to do is get to the point. I see a lot of like beat around the bush type of arguments.

No, it's because the thing was is that I'm trying to get a specific place of where do we find the words of Jesus.

He's saying the ones that we have the prompt. Hold on. Because it's it's pertinent to your Quran says that Jesus mentions Akmed. Where do we get the words of that? Obviously, the Bible, but you're saying it's not a reliable source. So,

you're jumping from Jesus mentioning Akmmed who is Muhammad according to your sources, right? And now we have to go through this whole rabbit hole of whether the scripture is corrupted or not.

I see. So like the very Okay. What are you saying is the very text you're pulling to make your claim saying, "Okay, the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible." But then you're saying like, "But that Bible is uh corrupt." Exactly.

So therefore, I guess what's what what does it matter at this point? Yeah. That's why Can I respond?

Yeah. Yeah. Well, absolutely. I wanted to make sure we had a translation. Let him respond to that.

Just 10 more seconds and now I promise. Don't let him respond to it. I translated. He gets it. Okay.

Yeah, I speak English. I'm good. All right. So now when we go back to this, I made it very clear from the beginning that the prompt is not about the preservation of the Bible or the Islamic dilemma is which is your own dilemma. We

don't have one. It is about is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible.

Yes or no. That's the prompt, right? And that's what you're skipping from. But if you want to ask the question, why does it even matter? No doubt we do believe that there is some truth in the earlier scriptures. We don't think David didn't

exist or you know for example Jesus didn't exist. We do believe those things existed but as we have seen clearly that there have been corruptions there have been changes there have been additions there have been subtractions. So the

muan the judge over the earlier scriptures is the Quran as surah ala clearly says but that doesn't mean we throw everything in the trash. No. Now if you can please get back to the prompt. Is the name Muhammad clearly

mentioned in the Bible? Yes or no? It's not because I'm asking you about the words of Jesus, which you hold authoritative. So, you're trying to you're trying to pivot to the generality of the Bible. Are Jesus's words in the

Bible? Once again, the prompt isn't whether Jesus' words are in the Bible. See what I'm saying? Again, you're cutting off.

He's coming to a Christian and he's asking a Christian and he's telling the Christian, "Your prophet, your God mentions Muhammad." And I'm asking him, "Where do I get the words of this guy who you say mentions Muhammad, but then

all of a sudden it's a corruption. We can't find them." So now you're pivoting to corruption when we should be proving the words of Jesus according to your Quran.

Here's what we're going to do. We're going to find you're going to have a rebuttal to that and then you give a final thought and a final thought. I see the circular. I see what you're doing.

It's like a internal critique based on what he's saying. But it because it's circular, he's not going to be able to combat it. At this point of I did not bring up the words of Jesus. I did not bring up the Quranic

verses. I did not bring up any claims of the sort. You went to all of that just to run from the prompt. The prompt's very clear. Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? Yes or no? And

when you say no, I'm showing you right now from your own lexicon. The name Muhammad is clearly and evidently mentioned in the Bible. That's it.

You you lost that prompt for you to jump to like where are the words of Jesus? I didn't mention any of that. I didn't bring that as a prompt. If you want to discuss with me about scriptures of

Jesus and where they may be and so on, we can discuss that all night long. But that's not the prompt. The prompted is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible and the answer is yes. Even according to Christian sources lexicons

end of deal. Okay. So there are other lexicons and lexicons and other scholars that disagree with that. So we can go tip for tat on scholars.

You see them. Okay. See what I'm saying? Like get your because yeah this is your uh Yeah. This is my closing statement. This is your closing statement. So you can't ask me questions during my closing.

I should have like re said that. That's okay. You're good. It's okay. So here's here's where we land at folks. we land at we're trying to find the words of Jesus, right? Because Jesus says that Muhammad is mentioned somewhere, right? But we

can't find these words and he can't prove that Jesus didn't mention or did mention Muhammad. So, it looks like we're stuck in a dilemma that we can't find the words of Jesus. That's your dilemma, not mine. Because you go to a

source to prove your book, but then the moment that source backfires on you, it's a it's a done deal. It's corrupted.

We don't like it. But let me give you the words of your God. Because in chapter 3 81 your God says that he makes a covenant with the previous prophets right if he makes a covenant and a promise and then he says that a f future

prophet will come and confirm their scriptures that means that their scriptures have to stay intact because that is a promise of Muhammad or of Allah right so because of that now we see that your god says he will uphold

the promises to these previous prophets but to make it even worse for you it says in chapter 3:55 that Allah will make the followers of Jesus uppermost until the day of resurrection. That means that the message of Jesus could

never have been corrupted. This text could never have been corrupted. So it looks like according to you, Allah failed to keep his promise to the believers to the previous prophets.

Therefore, Allah is false. Jesus never mentioned Akmed. Akmed is not in the Bible. Again, none of that's from the prompt.

He just totally went on a tangent because he can't answer the prompt. The prompt isn't about whether Jesus' words are preserved. It's not about whether Allah says anything of that or who will be the people victorious. None of that.

You know why? Because he's running. He's running a marathon right now. The prompted is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible. That's the prompt. And yes, it is. It does not mention Jesus. It does not mention anything about the the the dilemmas that

you have. But to answer you, the Quran in surah al bakar in verses 75 and 79 clearly shows that that the people wrote with their own hands to try to dilute and put their own ideas forward. This is

also in the next surah surah alan that is in the 78th verse. Again if you keep going in surah al maida all of them surah nisa in the 46th verse surah al maida 13-5 and the end all of it is

surah al maida 48 that clearly mentions to the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam that we have revealed to you upon you and the truth and that which will show you the truthfulness of what is behind or not and that is going to be

a criterion of supreme authority. So when the Quran clearly mentioned that people do write things with their own hands and this is something again not just from the Quran but biblical scholars have also shown that verses like one John that I pointed out before

were added to justify theological ideas like the trinity till the 12th century you don't have that verse right just like MacArthur has also shown that these were added scribal errors additions that were made by people for political and

other causes those things how do you know the truth you go back to the Quran what I will end with is none of that.

Even though I just wanted to clarify your delusion, none of that has to do with the prompt. The prompt is is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible. Right here it is. Done. The last prompt, the name Muhammad sallallahu

alaihi wasallam is clearly mentioned in the Bible. We had some amazing discussions, amazing conversation. I appreciate all of you. I appreciate the knowledge that you brought. But the prompt still stands saying that you know John 1:1 that's not the point of of of

today's prompt. Jumping to the word Ahmed is not the point of the prompt. Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? Yes, it is in Songs of Songs of Solomon. Right there we've given evidences with books, lexicons, names

clearly prompt still stands. Thanks for watching all the way to the end guys. It means a lot. Please click here if you want to watch the next episode and please subscribe to the show. It helps us get more guests and

helps grow the