Speaker 1: Let's not try. Let's try to avoid that. Don't waste
your money on super chest. The way it's going to
be structured is I'll open up the discussion. I'll give
a little introduction to who I am, because this might
go on other people's channels if they want to put
it up. I don't really have a problem with that.
So I'll say who I am and what I do briefly.
I'll let Paul do that, and then I'll start with
my stuff. And what we're going to do is an
eight minute back and forth, so I'll let him go
eight minutes. I'll go eight minutes, et cetera, et cetera,
back and forth, and then we'll have a kind of
a conversational style exchange and then we'll take the questions.
So we don't have any set time limit, So feel
free to ask super Qui supertach questions if you want
to to both of us. Again, keep them civil, let's
not get crazy here. And then if you want to, Paul,
you can go ahead and introduce yourself to my audience
and let them know what you do and whatever you're
comfortable saying about your background and where they can find
your materials and I'll have all those links below. Hello, right,
can you hear me now?
Speaker 2: All right? Hello Ramadagma barak to all my Muslim listeners
who are listening in and Solam Mooricum and this Mila
Rachamanerakim in the name of God, the most gracious and
most merciful. That's how we begin any action in Islam.
I live in London. I attend because corner regularly. I
was there earlier on today, and I'm well known to
some Muslims in London for dour work. I give talks
at Regent's part Mosque, which is the premier mosque in London.
I think I give talks on and Christianity and so on.
I haven an ordinary day job, but I was based
in London, and I'm very grateful to Jay from inviting
me on today to have this dialogue, this discussion about
the Trinity and tao Heed. I guess or Trinity in
the Bible we believe as Muslims in in the tow
he the on this of God. But then that is
applicit critique. I guess of other beliefs, but with doubtless
come into that joined me to begin an eight minutes
that's much just my intro. Ja.
Speaker 1: I just figure we'd do intros because this might go
on other people's channels, and I gave people permission if
they want to do that, And thank you to Lewis
and others that set this up. So this was I
didn't set this up. But so I do Jay's Analysis,
which is a film philosophy, geopolitics, all over the place
kind of analysis. I'm the author of two books on movies,
Esoteric Hollywood one and two. I co created the TV
show Hollywood Be Coded. My master's is in English and
lit and philosophy, and I would say that my expertise
is in the realm of worldviews. So I do worldview
paradigm analysis, and most of my critiques, whether it's Darwinism,
whether it's other religious perspectives, or whether it's rom Catholicism
or whatever. I might be debating Protestants whoever atheists. My
critique is usually from the philosophic perspective. But I also
have many years in terms of biblical studies, so I
come from an Orthodox perspective. So I'll be defending orthodox
Christianity what I believe to be the true expression of Christianity.
And then I will apparently, I'll go ahead and give
myself the first eight minutes to start. And before I
started saying I don't profess to be any expert on Islam,
I did take college courses that dealt with the history
of Islam and the Kuran and so forth. It's been
many years since I've interacted with Islamic thinkers or apologists,
maybe ten years, so I'm happy to have this kind
of thing set up. It'll be interesting exchange for me.
In most of the time, I've not been able to
find find a Muslim apologist, so I'm glad that that
Paul was willing to do it. So I'll start my
timer now. And what I would say is that my
first point, and I did have a chance to listen
to some of your debates, Paul, I thought you had
some interesting critiques, some of which I haven't heard, a
lot of which I have heard. So the first starting
point I would say is that I think we have
a different conception of number one authority, how we know
what we know, and how to approach the Biblical texts.
I think from your vantage point, what I got in
a lot of your debates was that you see the
text as a disjunction, a disjointed series of books that
Paul kind of is set against Jesus. Paul is set
against the Law and the Old Testament, almost kind of
a Lutheran style of reading. I'm not seeing a Lutheran
but and it's the kind of analysis that we would
see in a lot of higher critics. So I'm very
familiar with the origins of higher criticism, with Julius Bellhausen,
how it developed over time, and how it came to
be the Jesus quest, a lot of the liberal scholarship,
the Jesuits and so forth, it kind of got that
going at the turn of the century. And I would
say that this is curious because this is really a
new approach to the texts. This is not a historic
Islamic approach to the text. Again, not an Islamic expert,
but it seems to be a kind of adopted approach
that many anti Christian apologists have sort of jumped on
board with. And the reason I think it's a bit
dubious and maybe ad hoc and in many ways contradictory,
is because there's no real way for the textual critic.
And I do have some familiarity with this field there's
no real way for the textual critic to know that
a lot of the theories that are proposed are true
or not. So it functions on the basis of a
lot of presuppositions. I heard you in one of your debates.
You spoke of Thomas kun and paradigms. I'm glad you
mentioned that, because when I listened to your talks, I
heard a lot of shifting notions of how we conceive
of authority within our own paradigms. So for you, there
was an attempt many times to appeal to the Bible,
and you would appeal to texts that you believed or
at least as I understood you to do in your
approach to believe to be authentic. Like this section of
what Jesus is saying in this Gospel, he's saying keep
the law. Another section. Oh well, scholar XYZ has shown
us that this section was made up. Now, I don't
fault you for trying to do that, because as an
apologist for your religion, that would be what you want
to do. You want to show a contradiction in our perspective,
in our paradigm. But what I do is I come
at this from the perspective, a holistic view. I believe
that from Genesis to the final revelation of the Apocalypse,
it's a holistic text. The text shows an amazing amount
of continuity. And in fact, in some of your arguments
where you talked about the dietary laws or things like this,
actually Orthodoxy has a unique, a unique take on this
that is not like Roman Catholicism or aspects of Evensism.
So I would actually agree that when Jesus says in
Matthew five that we are bound to all of the
jocks and tittle of the Torah. In fact, I use
this argument quite often. Now, how that plays out and
what that means, we don't think is arbitrarily set up
by independent higher critics. But in fact, as many of
your opponents in your debate said, the historic Church itself.
So it's a question again back to authority. When we
look at authority and we say, well, that religion teaches X,
y Z, and when I take their holy books out
of the context of where they reside. So for example,
for us, the Bible is not a text that operates
abstractly like some kind of rule book per se. That's
one aspect of the text but for us, the Bible
is primarily a liturgical document, so it actually arises out
of what would be read in the services of the church.
So you're very focused on the early Church and how
it relates to Judaism. This is also a big focus
of mine as well. And what's interesting is that the
early Church worship, which was in the synagogue, initially birthed
the Gentile Church from the synagogue, and then as the
Church spread throughout the Empire, there is all the marks
of what we would expect from a church that adopts
a temple and synagogal liturgical service that then goes into
the gentile world. And the reason I say that is
that this is a big part of what I missed
in a lot of your debates was the misunderstanding of
the relationship between the period of the first to third centuries.
So you seem to have the perspective that maybe some
Baptists and Seven day Adventists have, which is that there
was this massive corruption of Christianity from the time of
the Apostolic era, and Paul just you know, contrasted with
Jesus and up to the third century in Nicea and
maybe after Nicea. You know, it turned into some other
kind of thing, but in actuality myself being somebody who
went down this road, reading extensively for fourteen years the
church fathers in Toto, not every church father, but I
have read all of the post Apostolic fathers and most
of the writings of the fathers for the first three centuries,
and what I find is a complete continuity, just off
the top of my head. For example, if we read
justin Martyr, we find him looking at the Old Testament
Theophanes as examples of predictions of the logos to come
the Angel of the Lord. This is a big apologetic
move that he uses against Tripho the Jew. If we
look at Erineus in Against Heresies, Iraneus has a whole
section after he deals with the Gnostics for the first
three books, and again this is one eight. He has
an extensive section where he talks about the continuity between
the Old and New Testament, and he refutes Marcion somebody
that although I'm not saying that you're Marcianite, I did
hear you were referencing Ebionites and other heretical groups that
were intended to show that that was somehow authentic Christianity.
I don't think that's true, because most of our luminaries
of the first three centuries were consistently opposed to those figures.
So you're also correct that there were there was a
development of the canon. But how that the fact that
there's a development of the canon would be a problem
for Christianity, I'm not sure. Because any religion that has
millennia of time going into it, there's going to be
some kind of notion of development. Right So, for example,
perhaps it's true that we do not immediately see the
totality of the Trinity within the Torah, but that doesn't
mean that in the notion of progressive revelation that there
won't be more and more and more revealed. For example,
even within Judaism, there's the conception that obviously Jeremiah understood
more than Abraham did. Right, So, just because there is
a section of revelation at one period in time that's
built on later as profits come, it doesn't mean that
necessarily that the newer revelations are necessary should be pitted
against the older or the original. So our presupposition is continuity.
And although I'm sure we won't have time to get
into the totality of that today, I do have a
three hour talk where I went through the totality of
where I see continuity between the only New Testaments. And
I think that when we look at Paul and Jesus,
we will consistently see not discontinuity, but in fact continuity.
We will see the fact that Jesus in many cases
appeals to the law and he says that it is binding,
but he also makes statements later that qualify how that
law will be kept. It is not what goes into
the mouth of a man, and not what a man
eats that defiles him in Mark, but what comes out
of his heart. So the fact is Jesus denying the
dietary laws. No, So how do we understand this? Well?
For example, in our Orthodox study Bible, the notes in
Leviticus are excellent because they explain in detail that the
way that the ceremonial laws are kept now are in
a spiritual sense. So that's my first eight minutes, and Paul,
I will let you begin your eight minutes when you're ready.
Speaker 2: Okay, can people see me by the way? Am I
visible on the camera? It's invisible.
Speaker 1: Let's make sure. Hold on, let's see what the chat's
a little like it takes a little bit of.
Speaker 2: Time to oh I am no, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay,
it's just okay, that's cool. Thank you for that.
Speaker 1: Jay.
Speaker 2: There's quite a mixed bag of items you brought out there,
each of which would take a PhD thesis to discuss
earlier in themselves. So I'm just gonna scattergun a bit.
Is my contention that Jesus was not a Trinitarian. It's
my contention that Paul did not preach the trinity. The
idea of the three in one, the God being three
persons in one God, is completely absent from the Jewish scriptures.
It's not there in Genesis. I would argue, it's not
preached by any of the prophets of God, Isaiah, jer Am,
I and my card holder, or none of them actually
gives any hint. In fact, the opposite is the case.
They constantly emphasize the oneness of God, that he is unique,
that he is one, that he is the Lord, that
he is the God, the Creator, as only he that
should be worshiped. We don't get any sense of a
three and one at all in the Jewish scriptures. We
don't even get that sense in the New Testament. Although
I know Christians, of which I used to be one of.
I used to be a Christian apologist, believe it or not,
used to do believe that there are seeds of the
Trinity in the New but actually there are some anti
seeds as well. There are the many passages of the
New Testament which suggests very much the opposite. I'll give
you a random one here. Here's Paul talking in one Corinthians,
chapter eleven. He's talking about the status of Jesus visa
the God, and I remember Jesus in this past. Sorry, Paul,
in this passage is talking about the ascended Jesus, Jesus
who is back in glory with God. So Philippians too
doesn't really apply here. It's a very brief throwaway comment
almost that Paul makes. I want you to understand. This
is chapter eleven, verse three. I want you to understand
that Christ is the head of every man, and the
husband is the head of his wife, and God is
the head of Christ. This is very important because even
in his glorified state, when he's returned to God, he's
being exalted, that he is still not God. That Jesus
has a God, and there's no hint here of a trinity,
of course, and there are numerous verses in the Synoptic Gospels,
and even in John amazingly that one could bring up
to give a more Islamic feel. See, the more you
judaize Jesus, is my argument. The more you judaize Jesus,
you put him in his first century context, the more
Islamic he sounds. This is the great irony here that
Islam is Jesus by Judaism. But what I mean by that,
the concept of God in Islam, the concept of God
and Judaism is the same. We have the same concept
with God. God is the one God, He is the
provide of the Creator, the sustainer of all things. He
alone has the right to be worshiped and invoked, and
so on. There's no three and one business there are
at all in the Koran or in the Jewish script
as I have said. And then many pastors in the
Synoptic Gospels the earliest Jesus material we have which seemed
to affirm that unitarian monotheistic understanding. For example, John, chapter ten,
verse seventeen, A man comes to Jesus says, good teacher,
what must I do to inherit eternal life, and Jesus
says to him, why do you call me good? There
is no one good but God alone, very turning away
from seldom towards God. Only God has this attribute of goodness.
And here is a humble Jew if you like, deflecting
this flattery of goodness and say no, no goodness belongs even
just to God alone. And Jesus, someone who has betrayed
as a prophet. In Luke's Gospel, for example, he is
portray as a prophet of God, which of course is
exactly what Islam teaches. He is not portrayed as God incarnate.
And in fact, in Matthew, Mark and Luke, if you
look at Matthew and Luke's nativity narratives, Jesus sorry, the
Son is created in the womb of Mary. And if
you look at the Greek and top scholars like Raymond
Brown and Jimmy Dunn and others Joseph Fitzmyer, two of
those people, by the way, Catholic priests, one of whom
I heard lecture at Oxford, you'll see that there is
no hint at all of the pre existence of the
Sun or pre existence of Jesus at all. In the
nativity narratives and the Synoptic Gospels. Obviously there's no nativity
narrative in Mark. We know that only with John. The
last of the gospels to be written, which has the
most exalted Christology, is Jesus, the pre existent son. And
scholars have almost university throughout the world, you know Oxford, Cambridge,
the Ivy League universities where you are, you know, Harvard, Yale, etc.
That they have almost all of them have said that
if we're looking to the historical Jesus, the Jesus who
walked the streets of Judeo two thousand years ago, we're
looking really at the synoptic portrait of Jesus as a prophet,
as a messiah, as the son of Man. And John's
Gospel or They'll last be written represents are heavily theologized,
a heavily colored account of Jesus, where the author believes
that he is the light of the world, so he
puts those words in his mouth. The author believe Jesus
the resurrection of the life, so he puts those words
in Jesus' mouth. We're not really dealing with the historical
Jesus at all, so much with the Fourth cost well.
Yet that is where the meaty Christology lies with Jesus
pre existence. But even in John interestingly, in chapter seventeen,
verse three, Jesus says, this is eternal life. So this
is eternal life, folks, that you believe that they believe
in you, the only true God, and in Jesus Christ,
whom you have sent. So this is clear Jesus distinguishes
himself from God here. To believe in to get eternal
life is to believe that you are the only true
God and to believe in Jesus. Now that is an
excellent summary of the Islamic creed when it comes to
Jesus to believe in one God and to believe in
his Messiah. We were Jews at time, that would be
the Islamic creed. Now, of course, subsequent to that, Mohammed
has come, who, unlike Jesus, was sent to all the world,
and now we believe in Jesus and Muhammad. So I
think scholarship is very much on the understanding that the
historical Jesus did not think that he was Yahweh. That
this is as a later development is evolved over years
and centuries, and we see that instantiated in the Council,
and I see of the Council of Caws and so on.
But these are not the statements of Jesus. There are
reflections of men that came many, many, many generations later,
who interpreted what they thought was the truth about Jesus,
but they got him wrong. I think the judgment of
history is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, and that
is pretty much the consensus now of New Testament scholars,
most of him are Christians, is that historical Jesus was
an apocalyptic prophet, and that sits very comfortably with the
chronic understanding of Jesus as a man, as a messiah,
as a prophet of God.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 2: That's it, folks. Oh to you, I can't hear you.
Do we have volume?
Speaker 1: Okay, there's another two minutes if you want to keep
going or do you?
Speaker 2: Often enough? Over to us?
Speaker 1: All right? Well, interesting, So I heard a lot of
the things that I expected to hear. I think that
the first thing I would point out is exactly what
I elucidated in my initial statement was kind of what
came to the fore, which is a question of pre
subpositions and a question of authority. So I heard a
lot of appeals to authority about standard everyday scholarship. But
that assumes that the scholars like Raymond Brown, who by
the way, is a liberal scholar, that because he is
a liberal scholar, because he's a permanent scholar, that he's
going to have some somehow more of an objective basis.
But as you yourself pointed out when you harkened to
in one of your bits, Thomas Kuhne, you know that
there's not really objectivity when it comes to these big, paradigmatic,
presubpositional questions of world views. There's no possibility of being
completely neutral or unbiased. So everybody, even the prevalent, the
predominant liberal scholars of our day, are in fact basing
their assumptions, basing the research on their presubositions. And so
when you come to the text, as you and these
other scholars do, with the presupposition of unbelief, then of
course you're going to see discontinuity. You're going to pit
one text against the other. There's going to be an
arbitrary selection of which texts are authentic versions of what
Jesus or Paul taught, and then arbitrarily ad hoc over
here Oh, within the next few chapters, scholar XYZ has
told us that that section is invalid. And so, given
the fact that none of us have access to the
immediate presence of those texts being written, neither do you
to the origin of the Quran itself. You don't have
a direct access to that. We are both in the
same position of accepting texts or rejecting texts on the
basis of authority and on the basis of our presuppositions.
So I'm sure more of that will come later. But
what I wanted to say was just notice that I
did point out what he would do. I think, and
I tend to to see the same type of thing.
I saw, an arbitrary selection of what texts do not
allow for the dimnity of Christ and other text that
maybe would be added later where where this is a
later and accretion. But I've not yet heard what the
basis is to know when and where and how these
differences are present. How do you delineate between the authentic
texts and the texts that are later appropriations. Now, the
first thing he mentioned was taal Heed, which I do
want to talk about if he's willing to talk about that,
because we have a different conception of what simplicity or
unity means in God. And in fact, we didn't just
invent this. We believe that we got it from the
Law and the prophets themselves. For example, when Moses talks
about seeing the goodness of God, the question arises the attributes.
Are the actions of God identical to the unity of God?
And if they are, do they then meld into the
unity of God? And do we lose a sense of
a real distinction in God. This has been a in
religion all the way back to the ancient Vedic text.
You can look at the ancient Vedas and you'll see
debates about the one and the many in the relationship
to God. Our view is very unique in terms of
how we view God. You could look at something like
the number three as an analogy. I'm not equating the
trinity to the number three, but I'm using it as analogy.
If I were to draw the numeral three, it is
a singular aspect, it is a unit of aspect, but
there's also a triplicity to that. That's very true. So
our definition, our understanding of what oneness and unity means
is not derived from philosophic assumptions of Hellenism or Aristotle
or any other philosophic speculation as to what number numerical
unity or oneness in God must mean. And in fact,
in our view, we don't set up a dialectic between
the one and the many. So while we do see
a distinction between the creator and the creature within God,
if God reveals it to be so that He is
in fact both one and three, we accept it on
the basis of revealed authority. And when we asked the
question of well, how could it be that God is
simultaneously one and also multiple at the same time without
destroying his unity, it goes into the trinitarian theology that
has worked out. Now you said, but that's not in
the Bible. Actually, it does derive from the text of scripture, because,
for example, even in the history of Judaism, we can
look at the debates between no Ahmanides and Rambound himself
where he talks about my monodies, where he talks about
is the theophanic manifestation of God in the Old Testament?
Are those Theophanes, these angels of the Lord that appear
And I have just a few that came to mind
before this debate there's the examples in Genesis where the
Angel Law appears and he's worshiped. There's the examples of
Exodus three with the burning bush, which in Exodus twenty
two and three is described of being the name of
God put into this angel, and he is in fact worshiped,
and Moses sees the burning bush, this theophany, as we
call it, in these divine manifestations, within time and space,
it's worshiped. Okay, Now there are many of these. The
Angel of the Lord appears to Joshua early in the
Book of Joshua. The Angel of the Lord appears to Samson,
to his parents, to Manoah, and Manoah and his wife
worshiped the Angel of the Lord, the logos that appears.
This happens many many times in the Old Testament. It
happens in Daniel right, when Daniel sees into the lions den,
when Daniel sees in Daniel seven the ascension of Christ,
and he comes before the Ancient of days. You said
that there was no notion in the Old Testament of
these distinctions between these what we call persons or hypostases,
which we believe share one singular divine nature, but in
fact many times over, especially in Daniel seven. When the
sun ascends right, he's called the Son of Man, he
ascends to the Ancient of days, and he's given his throne, dominion,
and power, which was the ascension. It's not the end
of the world, Daniel seven very clearly shows. It's it
mirrors exactly what the early the first chapter of Acts
shows when Jesus ascends with a cloud of witnesses. Daniel
seven says, Jesus, the Son of Man, ascended with a
cloud of witnesses to the Ancient of days, the Father,
and was handed dominion, power, prone, et cetera. Because he
came to unite to human nature and restore it. That
was the whole purpose of the resurrection. Because we fell,
our very nature was damaged, the whole universe was damaged.
So in our view, the purpose of the incarnation was
not a death to pay off God, paying off God,
God paying off himself. That's not how it works. In fact,
Orthodox theology is unique in that regard, and that we
do not believe that there was some divine infinite satisfaction,
like Anselm says, or like Luther and Calvin thought that
you that the son had to pay off the Father,
the Son is eternally divine. That's why he is worshiped.
Whether it's Judaism or Christianity. You can't and I'm sure
you would agree, you can't worship creatures. Right. So, when
as I'm glad you mentioned the what you saw as
a lack of evidence of Jesus being a pre existent
eternal son, Actually, if you read the Magnificat, and if
you read Luke one and two, what does Elizabeth say.
Elizabeth says, who am I? That the Mother of God
should come to me? And that term is not a
lower l it is a lord. It is a divine term.
When Mary gives her magnificat, she says that the God
of the universe is to be praised because the fulfillment
of all the promises to David, to Abraham, he has
fulfilled the promises to those fathers, those Covenant promises in
me in this birth. So this promised Messiah all throughout
all these Old Testament texts which you seem to believe
do not have anything to do with a pre existing
eternal son. It's interesting because Jesus says before Abraham was
I am. Now I'd like to hear your response to that,
that was my eight minutes.
Speaker 2: Oh hi Jay, that was can you get okay? My voice?
A huge amount of material there, and I feel a
bit overwhelmed. There's so much matter there. I do want
to stress that I mentioned to quote one from Mark
chapter ten, verse seventeen, where Jesus denies that he's God,
which you didn't address, and also the quote from Paul
in One Corinthians where he clearly presents Jesus as having
a God and this is the exalted Jesus, not the
human Jesus in his Philippians two state, and you didn't
address that either.
Speaker 1: I think who wasn't it? I ran out of time,
of course.
Speaker 2: But these need to be addressed rather than just brushed
aside and rushing off Daniel's second as if Dnel seven
somehow trump's the actual words alleged words of Jesus and Paul.
So you talk, you emphasize again they game by the
arbitrrianess of scholarship, and I think this is a great travesty.
Both Raymond Professor Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmeyer, who were
both Roman Catholic priests. They both believed in the doctrine
of the Trinity as you do. They both believe Jesus
rose them are dead. They both believe in the history.
You can label them as liberals, which of course is
what sectarian Christians do. They just dismissed them as if
this has a magic wand and you know it brushes
them aside. But these are seen as incredibly serious scholars
and the greatest scholars of the twentieth century, and they
have if you actually read their stuff, it has some
immensely interesting things to say. So I'm quoting Trinitarian Christians
and not unbelievers. You said there were unbelievers, and they're
certainly not by my book, But that's another subject to
If you want to tack fear them, as we say
in Islam, that's up to you. But coming back to
these passengers, the early, the earliest Jesus material we have
according to responsible biblical scholarship, which is not unbelieving, it's
not arbitrary, if you When I studied this at university
as part of my degree, and I read the New
Testament in Greek, that there were some very reasonable and
sophisticated methodologies trying to understand the exegesis of the texts.
And I'm interally grateful for having learned a great deal
about the Bible. And that applies in the Old Testament.
If you look at the earliest Gospels, which is commonly
spoke thought to be Mark, actually we see a quite
different portraits of Jesus, different teaching, different style, different Christology
than we do, say at the very last gospel written
that of John. And the consensus. And you can disagree
with the consensus. I'm not saying it's infallible. The consensus
is that Matthew and Luke used Mark in the writing
of their own gospels. And I've looked at the evidence
for this argument. I find it persuasive. At the level
of Greek. You have great chunks of gospels which are
identically worded in Greek, which suggests that someone is coppying
from someone else, unless you believe in this kind of
miraculous you know, great chunks of even incidental narratives are
identically worded. So the idea is there is a literary
dependency between the gospels. It's called the synoptic problem. And
the solution that's most popular, although it's you know, could
be wrong, is that Matthew used Mark. And what we
notice then on That assumption is that statements that the
way Matthew has changed Mark because Matthew makes slight alterations
and editorial changes, statements that might imply a lack of
ability or authority on Jesus' part are modified. For example,
Matthew thirteen fifty eight with Mark six ' five references
to Jesus exhibiting human emotions are simply dropped. They're simply omitted.
For example, pity in Marked one forty one. Anger is
omitted Mark five to three, sadness Mark three five has emitted,
Indignation ten fourteen is omitted. Stories that might seem to
portray Jesus as a magician are emitted. In Mark seven
thirty one is omitted. Also, the disciples, who are given
quite hard time in Mark they are shown to be
people of little faith or no faith, actually become almost
model disciples in Matthew's possible he spruces them up. It's
what we call in England the dodgy dossier about the
Iraq War. These documents have been sexed up quite a bit.
They've been used to elevate the status of the disciples.
Jesus becomes more of a grand figure. His christology is exalted.
And you see that part excellence in the Fourth Gospel,
where Jesus says things and does things which no other
gospel has ever recorded him saying these I am statements.
If Jesus went around Galilee and Judea whatever saying I
am the Light of the world, I am the resurrection
of the life, and so on. How Come Dluke, for example,
who went, who carefully examined all these things in the
beginning he claims, never recalls a single example. How Come
Matthew ignores it. How Come Mark never knows anything about it?
How Come nowhere else in the Acts, for example, no
one ever recalled Paul whenever it calls Jesus speaking like this.
So this is seen by virtue all scholars, even conservative
ones like Richard Balcombe. I know how familiar you are
a biblical scholarship, But in terms of new settlement scholarship,
Richard Borkam's of a conservative evangelical figure professor here in Britain,
says that these terms, the im statements, are put on
the lips of Jesus. That's their manner of speaking. It's
not my invention. Quickly moving on to the Old Testament,
Daniel seven if you look at it in context, the
Son of Man actually refers to Israel. It actually explicitly
says that. Later on the same chapter. This is a
figure of speech, how Israel goes to the Ancient of days?
Ancient of days? Is God not the son of the
Son of Man. It actually says in that passage the
son of Man refers to the saints of the most High,
quote unquote, which is Israel. So is nothing to do
with Jesus at all. Lastly, at this point, nowhere in
the Jewish Bible is it ever prophesied that the Messiah
would die for people's sins. Now Paul in one in
one Corinthians fifteen, verse three says about the gospel he
has received that according to the scriptures, the son of
the Messiah would die and be buried for three days,
and on a third day he'd rise again. In accordance
with the scriptures, I would argue that, actually, nowhere in
the Jewish scriptures has ever say that the Messiah was
not supposed to die for people sins. He was supposed
to be triumphant over people's sins. Nowhere in the juw
scriptures does it ever predict that God would become a man.
Never says that that he would become God, would become
the Messiah, that God would die for people's sins, that
God would raise just doesn't say it anywhere. Now I'm
aware of Christian attempts to twist the scriptures and read
into them. Do ester Jesus rather I see Jesus as
we say, see Jesus everywhere, rather than exe Jesus. Ex
Jesus is. Everyone accepts the ex Jesus is a responsible
way to read the Bible. Were looking for what the
author is intender to mean, rather than what we like
them to say. And we don't read our own theology
or our own religion into the Bible. But Christians read
it into the Bible all over the place, and they
see Jesus where the Jews have never seen Jesus. It's
important that nowhere in the Bible does that say the
Messiah would die for anyone's sins and atonement for sins.
This is a Christian idea. Jesus didn't preach it. Jesus
said people's sins are freely forgiven. Look at Luke's Gospel,
look at the Sermon on the Mount. Freely forgiveness of
sins is available are simply repenting to God in Heaven
and Jesus cause people to a renewal spirituary, renewed following
of God in the Kingdom of God, obeying the Torah
which Christians have abandoned. All the Christians I know, most
Christian eat pork. Jesus said you mustn't eat pork in me.
That very clear on several occasions. So what we're dealing
with here, we're dealing of the religion about Jesus. Christianity
is a religion about Jesus. Islam actually caused people back
to the religion of Jesus, and that's a crucial distinction.
Islam is a call back to people not to worship Jesus,
but to follow the religion of Jesus. And there's a
wonderful hadith of the prophet Mohammed. Mohammad piece upon him
said once said to people, do not exaggerate in praising me,
as the Christians have exaggerated in praising Jesus, son of Mary.
For I am only a servant, So say he is
the servant of Allah and his messenger. That's a how
do you think Albakhari, So Mohammad taught us that to
be very aware not to do to him what Christians
have done to g Jesus. They made him into a deity.
And the Colney has some very fun things to fare
about one.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, all right, okay, well I'll start my section.
So the first thing that I says that the reason
that I didn't address those texts was not trying to
avoid them, but rather I was working through my list
of things I wrote down as you were talking. So
about the text where Christ says that he still has
a God. It may be a surprise to you, maybe
I think you came from a Roman Catholic background, but
in Orthodox theology, we are very insistent on the fact
that the Father is the source and fountain of the Godhead,
and that will always be the case, and in fact,
that's consistent in the text where Jesus says that he
came to do the will of the Father, and then
later on when Paul writes and says that Christ is
that the Father is the head of Christ, just as
the man is the head of the wife. It's the
same application the same principle. When Jesus says that none
is good but God, and namely the Father, he also
in other places refers to himself as good. He tells
the woman and the well that he is the one
who was to come. She says, sir, who is this
Messiah that's to come? Who is this one who's going
to bring this water of living waters flowing out of him?
And he says, I am he. You are speaking to him. Now,
you did the exact same thing that I said you
would do, which was that your ultimate source of authority
and appealed to. What you ultimately appealed to was the
arbitrary scholars that you chose. So your rationale is not
based on the internal consistency of the text, but on
the presupposition of unbelief appealing to authority. So, in other words,
both of us are appealing to authority. Right, you said
that I was reading I was doing Ia Jesus by
reading into the text what I wanted to see there.
But in fact, every human being, as I just said,
is going to in some way read their worldview and
their presubpositions oft of the text. You confirmed that by
the fact that you relied on Raymond Brown and the
fact that you went to whatever school and you studied
biblical scholarship. Yeah, but that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter
if the majority of biblical scholarship in our day is unbelieving,
that's not going to be an argument. That's not going
to be a source by which you can prove any
kind of argument you can bring that forth to to
as a way to kind of have an attestation, you know,
I might cite Josephus or something like this as a
as a confirmation of something that I would argue, but
to appeal to Raymond Brown, or to appeal to any
of the numerous higher critical schools, again going all the
way back to Julius Vallhausen, the founder of modern higher criticism.
Isn't it interesting that the documentary hypothesis was born out
of and admitted desire to destroy the texts. So you're
appealing to the textual tradition of higher criticism, which was intented.
Its whole intention was to destroy not the New Testament,
but Moses, the Torah, the very thing that you at
times think is true. So it's completely arbitrary when you
say that you want to go back to reconstruct the
original religion of Jesus. You don't know what that is
because it's completely arbitrary. It's ad hoc. And you can
appeal to any manner of unbelieving scholars all day, but
all that does is show the inadequacy of your position.
Because if I were to come out here and just
start appealing to the top Islamic scholars and this liberal scholar,
and that is Karen Armstrong or any scholar who has
a liberal perspective, you would immediately say that that's probably
not an authentic reading of Islam. Or if we were
to appeal to the different divisions. So there's multiple fallacies
at work in the arguments that you're making. Again, only
Orthodoxy has the strict view that the Father is the
source and fount of Godhead, who communicates that deity through
the Son to the Spirit. So the triune God is
not something that we invented. Again, I give you a
list of Theophanes. I gave you a list of things
in the Old Testament where the Angel of the Lord,
which angel just means a messenger, is literally worshiped. Now again, Judaism, Christianity,
we all agree that we cannot worship creatures. Theophanes are worshiped,
and they're not identical to the Father. As Exodus three
and twenty two twenty three makes clear with the Angel
of the Lord God says I will put my name
Yahweh into that angel. Right, he has that full divine authority,
and he goes before in the fire and the cloud
in the Exodus to cleanse the Promised Land. So guess
what it was, Jesus the logos that cleansed the Promised Land.
Because all throughout the New Testament it's made consistently and
abundantly clear. Now you can pick out certain texts where
you think that, well, it's not Jesus there, because Jesus
says that he submits to the Father. That's just assuming
that the Trinity isn't true. So I could appeal to
all kinds of texts and find all kinds of things that,
if I don't have a holistic perspective of the Bible,
I think might grant me or give me a justification.
But this has already been subtled and dealt with. I mean,
all you're giving is kind of classical Aryan arguments that
Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil others dealt with extensively. Obviously, I
can't go into all that in eight minutes. But when
we say that there's one good, He is God. That
doesn't mean that doesn't exclude the possibility they're also being
a multiplicity in God. Because guess what, Although you may
think that you have a perfectly unitive view of God,
you actually don't because the same problems that occur in
what you perceive us to have in terms of multiplicity,
you have those same problems. I know you think you don't,
But in fact, if you believe that the actions of
God in creating the world are identical to the unity
or the essence of God, or God's nature, whatever you
want to call it, whatever terms you guys use, then
you have to also affirm that that action is just
as eternal as the essence. It's synonymous as the divine essence.
And this is what Saint Athanasius refuted the Arians on
the basis of He says that when you guys identify
God's will with the divine essence, which is exactly what
you do in your theology, because you don't have any
distinctions in God, because you have the priests position, that
distinction must be in composition or division, and it must
therefore mean a denial of the true unity of God. Okay, well,
let's go down that road. If there is no allowance
for any sense of multiplicity in the divine, then not
only does the act of creation become an eternal action,
and creation that becomes just as eternal as God. You
have pantheism. You could also flip it on the other
side and say, well, then God will to create out
of his essence, and he has no relationship to the
created order because he's nothing like the created order. But
you see the very thing that we say about the
incarnation when it comes to Jesus and how he can
become incarnate and speak to us and move and operate
in this world in the sense of being the second
person that God had taken on impersonal human nature. You
have that same problem with relating this perfectly unified deity
to the created here and now you see, how does
the Quran perfectly exemplify this eternal, abstract beyond deity that
does not in any way have created forms, likenesses, or analogies.
How does he do that? How does how can there
be a Quran that really tells us truths about God
if you do not allow for any distinctions or any
conceptual analogies, Because guess what conceptual analogies or written analogies
are no different than iconographic depictions. So it doesn't matter
whether it's an icon on a wall that says the
name Allah, or whether it's a book that says the
name Allah and the supposed words of Allah, or whether
in our view, it's an iconographic representation of Christ, an
icon of Christ, or whether it's Christ and his human
nature walking around and talking. All of these are the
exact same issue, and you haven't actually escaped escaped this
issue by simply saying that, well, God is perfectly unitive
in a radical way, and you guys are heretics because
you have the notion of multiplicitis in the godhead. I
would just again emphasize if God is absolutely identical to all,
to his essence in every way, in every sense, then
creation is an eternal action, and you actually be believe
creation is eternal.
Speaker 2: Okay, Jay, thank you for all that. There's a great
deal there. I doubt I can't in eight minutes response
possibly responded in adequate detail to many of these issues.
Patty might be helpful just to say what the Kranz
says about God in a very famous throughout eclus Iclus,
which is the one hundred and twelfth sah. It's very brief,
and I'm reading from Mohammad Asseid's translation. In the Name
of God, the most Gracious, the dispenser of grace, say
this is talk addressing Mohammad. Say, he is the one God, God,
the eternal, the uncaused cause of all that exists. He
begets not and neither is he begotten, and there is
nothing that could be compared with him. Now this is
extraordinarily condensed, concise express of a theology. Here he's eternal,
he's the uncaused cause of all that exists. In other words,
to use our language as in philosophers, he possesses a saiety.
He doesn't forget, nor that is, he begotness like an
animal that gives birth to offspring. And there's nothing that
can be compared with him. He is unique, he's unlike
his creation. This is the Islamic conception of God. And
I don't need to stress how different that is to
some aspects of Christian theology. This cannot describe Jesus. The
Jesus we see in the Gospels is not eternal. He
dies on the cross, so he's not immortal. Even though
Paul says in one Timothy six, that God is immortal,
he dies, Jesus, there's nothing could be compared with him,
or obviously there is. He's a human being, but he
doesn't exhibit divine attributes. For example, he doesn't know things.
In Matthew thirteen thirty two about the date of the end,
it says that neither the Sun nor the angels, but
only the Father knows the date of the end. So
the son doesn't know. Even the Holy Spirit doesn't get
a look in on that. Only God the Father knows,
So he doesn't know things. He dies, he's not almighty,
he gets tired, and so on. So you get this
kind of incoherent understanding of incarnation. On the one hand,
he is all powerful, he's got On the other hand,
he's weak. On the one hand, he is all knowing, omniscient.
On the other hand, he doesn't know stuff. On the
one hand is immortal and the other you get You
get these all in the one person. It's not two persons,
only one person of Jesus. And that this is incoherent.
Does he die or doesn't he? Well, yes and no.
Does he know stuff or not? Well, yes and no.
It doesn't make any coherence. The coherence of Jesus as
a being is there inherent incoherences. It's contradictory, it makes
no sense, both philosophically and logically. But also the earl,
the earliest Church, the Paths of Jesus, didn't believe Jesus
was God at all. And in fact, if you look
at the Book of Acts and you look at Peter's
very first sermon, remember this is after the coming of
the Holy Spirit, after the ascension of Jesus. So here
now we have Paul understanding who Jesus is, and he
says in verse twenty two to the Israelites, you, that Israelites,
listen to what I have to say to you. Jesus
of Nazareth was a man attested to you by God,
with deeds of power, wonders and signs that God did
through him among you, as you yourselves know. So he
wasn't God. He was a man attested by God. Peter's
not preaching in the incarnation. He's not preaching the trinities,
not preaching the divinity of Jesus. And at the very
end of this sermon, according to Acts in verse thirty six,
therefore Peter sammarizes, let the entire house of Israel know
with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah.
So Jesus wasn't Lord, he wasn't the Messiah. God, who
is a separate being from Jesus, made him so. And
this is the this is the beginning of acts. And
I mentioned and Paul saying that Jesus has a God
them a number of other passages in Paul that say
the same thing. They clearly beginning of most of pause letters.
By the way, he talks about the God and Father
of our Lord, Jesus Christ. So Jesus has a God.
That that's this standard interaction. He's always telling you, don't
believe in the trinity, don't believe in Of course he's
not anachronistically, he doesn't believe you haven't heard of it
a trinity. But I come back to this point. It's
important to me that if you look at the earliest
Jewish tradition in Matthew, Mark and Luke, and what Jesus
actually says and done, he's not preaching himself. He's not
going around saying, hey, believe in me, I'm God. He's
actually preaching about the Kingdom of God. He's preaching about
God and his kingdom, which is a special way connected
to his own ministry. But he's not proclaiming himself as divine.
He's portrayed as someone who prays to God, who says
on the cross according to Mark and Matthew, my God,
my God, why have you abandoned me? So he feels
abandoned by God according to the Early Gospels, which is
a bit peculiar if your God. He's portrayed as someone
who dies, which is a bit peculiar, impossible if this
person is God. But look what happens in the religions
that will call themselves Christians today. They proclaim Jesus the
proclaimer has become the proclaimed, the one who preached God
is become the one himself who is identified as God.
And this fundamental inversion is what Islam has come in
part to rectify and to reform and calling Christians back
to the worship of the One True God. And even
in John's Gospel, which has this fictionalized account according to
virtually all scholars. And don't throw the liberal thing at me.
Conservative scholars say the same thing, and I can reference
their work. So I'm afraid you have no way to
escape unless you go to fundamentalist seminaries in the Deep
South or something in the major institutions of learning. This
is pretty much the standard view that John as a theologized,
fictionalized account. But even there, Jesus says to Mary Magdalen,
do not touch me, for I am returning to your
father and my father, to your God and my God. Jesus,
even in his resurrected state, freely confesses that he has
a God which he shares with his disciples, my God
and your God, your Father and my Father. He does
not say, ah, now you understand the Trinity, and I
am God as well, and I am divine. No, no, no,
He says that he has a God. In Islam, there
is only one God, and he doesn't consist of three
of three persons. Coming back to the Old Testament, I
do challenge you, Jay, to show me a single passage
anywhere in the Jewish scriptures that clearly states the trinity.
You see, if God was trinity all along, and he
was communicating the truth about God as he was in
great detail through the prophets. Say in Isaiah, the whole
chapter four chapters forty three sixty six, huge monotheistic discourse
about the nature of God. Not once, not once, does
Isah give any hint of this three and one deity.
There's no three and one deity in Isaiah would if
God wanted to communicate with his beloved treasured people, he
would surely tell them the truth about who he was.
He could have done so he did in Christian theology apparently,
but he didn't. No way in the Jewish scriptures is
there are three and one God ever mentioned. All you
can do is points are very obscure. Passengers, passages and Genesis,
and you talk about the Angel of the Lord, we
talk about God. This is true. This is a feature
of these texts where the Angel of the Lord oscillates
between on the one hand, being known as the Angel Lord,
then he oscillates to being identified with God. And this
is a peculiar feature. But Jesus is not an angel.
Nowhere does Christians jaw as I think believe Jehovah's witnesses
believe Jesus was archangel Megan. But talking about Orthodotes, Christians
and Catholics and Evangelicals, no where do they believe Jesus
was an angel. And this feature of oscillation between Angel
of God and identified with God is peculiar, but it
doesn't tell us about a trinity. It doesn't say Father, son,
and Holy Spirit. That's what I'm looking for. Rather than
these very ambiguous passages. If you look at the very
clear passages about who God is, his nature, who he
is relation to humankind. Look to Isaiah chapter forty onwards,
look to the other Great monarchy. Nowhere is there any
hint of a trinity, And in fact it's not there.
In the New Testament. Peter says that Jesus was just
a man accredited by God, and Paul says, at the
beginning of nearly all of his letters, in the name
of you know God, the Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ,
the God and Father God of Jesus. So he is
not saying he is God either. This is a later
doctrine Christian. The earliest Jews were not Christians. The earliest
follows of Jesus, I should say, were not Christians. This
is an important historical point to make. They were Jews.
They were Jews who were following the Jewish clan, who
believed from the bed anyway, end of Okay, would you
mind it if I've just got some more water, because
I've run out.
Speaker 1: I'll remind the chat too that we will be taking questions.
If you guys want to send in some super chats
when we finish our exchanges, you're welcome to do that.
I'm not going to be interacting with the questions in
the chats, so I'm kind of loosely moderating here. So again,
let's keep our discourse as civil as possible while he
takes a break. And yeah, I want to remind everybody
again if you do want your question, but now that.
Speaker 2: Just needs some mouths trawing up. What do you want
to do? Continue or break or what?
Speaker 1: Let me continue here? I'll take my turn, okay, Right,
So let's look at the first presupposition that's a false presubposition,
which is that if you can't show me Abraham predicting
the rise of Moses, then there's absolutely no way or
basis to believe in the fact that we should accept
Moses if we followed Abraham. I'm saying, let's say we
were existing back then the time of Abraham, right, or
or theoretically we could do this assumed thing like if
it's true that there's progressive revelation, then I already addressed
this in the open statement already said that Jeremiah understood
more than what was understood in the early text of scripture.
It's not obscure passages. It's your assumption that a texts
obscure because it's maybe something you had not thought of
I already. I mean, these are multiple texts in Exodus,
the burning bush and this being worshiped right, and then
later it's identified in Exodus twenty two the burning bush.
Excuse me, extra twenty three, Extra three and extra twenty three.
It identifies the angel of the Lord as what's in
the burning bush. That's not a flippant obscure thing. That's
a very powerful attestation to the fact that those theophanes
are not created angelic forms. They are a separate hypostasis, right,
a difference from the Father, my Lord said, the Lord
said to my Lord, sit at my right hand until
I make your enemies your footstool. As Jesus said, who
was David talking about? Who was David talking to? Jesus
said this to the people that like you who don't
believe that Jesus was saying that he was divine and
he was the Messiah. In fact, Jesus says this countless
times to the Pharisees. You're making the exact same arguments
that the Pharisees made. And it's funny because Jesus says
the exact same things that he would say to you.
He says, who is David talking about? Now, guess what
Jews believe. That's a Messianic passage. They've always said it
was a Messianic passage. You say that, where do we
see this prediction of Jesus and this suffering dying savior
in all of the psalms where David says he's suffering
and he's dying and he knows that God's going to
redeem him. All of those psalms are predictions of the death, burial,
and resurrection of Christ. In Hoseiah sixth there is the
statement that on the third day he will revive us,
he will save us from our sins. Now, I know
you're going to say, that's just talking about Israel, the
son of Man who as sins before the ancient of days.
That's just talking about Israel. And what was your source
for that? Your source was the arbitrary ad hoc scholars
that don't believe what we believe. By the way, Raymond
does not believe in the Trinity like we believe. Orthodox
trinitarianism is not like evangelicalism. It's distinct. There's no religion
in the world that has the Orthodox conception of who
God is and what his the distinction between his actions
and his essence are. I gave you a whole, simple
explanation and question about the distinction between God's energies and
his actions and creation. You completely ignored it. You completely
ignored the question. If God's actions are the same as
his essence, then his action of creating the world is
eternal just like his essence. That means creation is eternal.
That means creation takes on a divine attribute. You didn't
answer this. You just moved on and all you did
was state what the Surahs say the divine essence was.
I already said that's what the divine essence was. I agree,
I stated that in your view, you're going to say this.
You did exactly what I said you would do. Now again,
just appealing to Raymond Brown. Appealing to those people, Well,
that's appeals to authority. That's a fallacy. Your whole position
is based on dialectics. That's what stands out to me.
For example, you look at a lot of texts that
show the humanity of Christ. Are you not aware that
we believe that Jesus had a fully human nature. This
is what the incarnation is in order for us to
be restored and save from the power of death and corruption.
We believe that the Son of God intentionally took on
our nature in order that our nature might be restored
to immorality, to the immortality that God always intended us
to have before the fall. So, for example, in John seventeen,
when John talks about the glory that he shared with
the Father before the foundation of the world. Oh wait,
I thought Jesus doesn't have a pre existence. One John seventeen,
he says that the glory that he shared before the
foundation of the world with the Father is what he
intends to communicate to his followers to church. And as
you read through the High Priestly Prayer of John seventeen,
you'll notice that he also consistently refers to the premiscy
of the monarchia or the archae, the god Head of
the Father, and the Spirit whose he's whom he's going
to sin. Right as it moves into the later chapters
through that I priestly prayer. So all through John seventeen
eighteen and so forth you see the trinity everywhere present.
Now you say, where is this clear explication of the Trinity.
I just told you that there's an idea of a
multiplicity in relationship to God in the Old Testament from
the beginning, from Genesis. Rabbis were debating this before the
coming of Christ. They were debating the fact that there's
a multiplicity in the God at how do we explain
and understand this? So you're actually wrong to say that
there is a strict unitive view even in Judaism. Philo
is an example of this. Philoh didn't understand. He couldn't
conceive of this right. And again there's a progressive revelation.
You cited the supposed disjunction between what the early Church
and followers of Jesus believed about Jesus, even though there
are countless examples. For example, again throughout the Gospel of John,
and the Gospel of John is not the only one.
There are multiple situations where Jesus says that He's fulfillment
of all of these things. He says, Moses, what about me?
You search the scriptures because you think that is in
that you have eternal life when it is Moses that
wrote about me. Everything that Moses is writing is about me.
And one thing I've noticed in your debate that you
have not seemed to grasp is that there's a progression
not just through revelation, and not just to what Jesus
came to teach, but to the whole New Testament period,
this transition period that it's sometimes called in theology, from
the birth of Christ all the way up to the
destruction of the Temple in seventy eight. You seem to
be completely unaware of this. The destruction of the temple
is the end of the Mosaic administration in terms of
its ceremonial application. Jesus himself, Jeremiah, the prophets Amous, they
make the distinction between the moral and the ceremonial commands. Okay,
and if the gentiles are going to be included into
the church, which is what the predictions of countless Old
Testament prophecies are. Jeremiah three, Hoseaiah one, ten and eleven,
Malachi one, eleven and twelve, he back A two, fourteen
and fifteen, Jeremiah three, fourteen to eighteen, Ezekiel forty seven
twenty one to twenty three, Joel three and Acts two
fulfilled in Acts two Isaiah eleven one through ten, Jeremiah
twenty five, eighteen sixteen, nineteen through twenty, Jeremiah thirty eight,
thirty one to thirty four, Micah four one through four,
Zechariah two fifteen, Zechariah eight twenty one to twenty three,
the latter sections in chapters of Isaiah. As you mentioned,
they're all believed in Judaism to be Messianic prophecies. And
what do they describe when the Messiah comes? They'd say
that the distinctive mark that the world will know when
the Messiah comes is that the gentile nations will begin
to worship and honor the God of Israel. Now, when
Jesus came, he says in the gospels, even in the
Gospels that you don't accept, but even in the synoptic
Gospels Matth in Luke twenty one. In Matthew twenty four,
he says that when you see Jerusalem destroyed, then you
will know that the kingdom is going to the Gentiles.
He says in Luke twenty that's exactly what happened in
seventy a d In seventy eight, just as Josephus described
as an eyewitness, the temple was destroyed, Christians fled. Christianity
spread to the Roman Empire. It spread throughout the Empire,
and the in gathering of all of these Messianic prophecies
from the minor and major profits all the way back
to Genesis to Abraham Justis twelve fifteen seventeen, that all
the nations of the earth will be drawn into this
kingdom that completely destroys your entire position and proves that
he was the Messiah.
Speaker 2: Jake, can I can you just give me one minute please?
I need to have a quick comfort break. Yeah, it's
all right, Yeah, Yeah, that's fine, Yes, all right.
Speaker 1: So we've got some good questions here. We're going to
get to those here in a minute. I was getting
I felt like a preacher there. I was starting to
feel like krefflow Dollar, like a street preacher, like not
kreplow Dollar. I'm joking, but I was getting animated there.
I'll tell you what, eight minutes. I didn't really think
about what kind of time frame I would set up,
you know, when we agreed to do this. Eight minutes
is man, I'll tell you what that flies by, So
I like, I write all these notes down and you know,
the eight minutes just like it's over. So if if
you are listening to this and you want to go back,
I would I would say listen to this again, because
we're both kind of having to fly quickly through addressing
a whole lot of topics, and I'm trying to go
as fast as i can into to reach his points.
So you know, I would I would suggest for people listening,
you know, you might want to re listen to our
debate here because we are covering a lot of topics.
It almost feels like a rapid fire. So are you
would you like to go yes? Thank you for that. Jay.
Speaker 2: I think it's been a misunderstanding about one thing we Muslims.
As we as Muslims, believe that Jesus. So I have
no problem whatsoever with prophecies of the Messiah, and that's
not my issue here about my authority. By the way,
my authority is God and his word, his speech in
the Koran, and the prophet Mohammad. So I just want
to clear up where my pre oppositions are. Shouldn't be surprising.
I don't presuppose the Bible. We have today is the
word of God, that Islam. The Koran says it's been
corrupted and changed. The only uncorrupted, only unchanged revelation we
have that still exists is the Koran. So that's my authority.
And if I contract anything in the Koran, then i'm
what I'm. What I say is to be disregarded. Just
to try, I have made some notes, which I should
have done earlier, but just to remind me of some thing.
As you said, I reject this idea progressive revelation. I
don't think there's anything in the Jewish scriptures suggesting that
God's gone to disclose that he's no longer one God,
but he now can become three in one God. Or
I don't buy this progressive I think that's a device
that's been invented by Christians to account for the discontinuity,
the radical discontinuity between their beliefs as we see in
the New Testament and elsewhere and the Jewish scriptures. So
I think that's a device to, oh, well, you weren't
told really about the truth about God until that the
accounts of Nicea came along, and then we realized that
Jesus was God. I don't buy that. In terms of worship,
I'm just a scattergan approach here, because you mentioned these
things in a fairly kind of arbitrary way. It seemed
worship is a tricky term. In the Bible, it had
a much broader application than it does today, where worship
is normally understood to be exclusively reserved for God. Then
even in the Greek of the New Testament Pross and Nusikos,
it meant obedience. You do abeyance to someone, and you
could do it to rulers. People did it to Jesus,
Sarah did it to Abraham. In the separagains of the
Old Testament, this is not something that's reserved for God alone.
And indeed the word God itself is reserved for human
beings in the Old Testament, like Psalm forty five and
Isaiah nine and so on. And in Jewish literature you
mentioned Philo, Actually he calls Moses God. You're probably nervous already.
So this language of divinity is quite promiscuously used, both
in the Bible and in other literature. And we have
that in common with the great co Roman world, where
they believed in divinities and intermediaries between the One High
God and human beings. So I'm not surprised that Jesus
came to be called divine. Ultimately is very much the
thing you did in the ancient world to hero figures
of religious figures. You proclaim them to be divine that
haven't all over the place coming back. And you also
made about Psalm one hundred and ten, which is as
you say, are very frequently cited Psalm and frequently misunderstood
sum by Christians. I'm looking at the new revised standard version,
which is the version the academics prefer to use. That's
probably a black mark against them. But anyway, it says
he the Lord says to my Lord, sit at my
right hand until I make a footstool of your enemies.
The word the first instance of the word lawd though,
is in capital letters, suggesting what it means the petrogrammaton
as you know, the Yahweh. The second lord in that
center is in lower case letters, meaning a lord in
a broader sense. So that could be Master, it could
be teacher, it could be Messiah, it could be any
human being. So to reinterpret this passage in its Hebrew context,
these are Hebrew words. It says God says to his Messiah.
It's not saying God is not talking about plurality within
god Head. And I know Christians interpret it that way,
but the original it is an assurance of victory for
God's priest king. That's the original context. The Psalm of
David has nothing to do with the prophecy of the fire.
Is God talking to David? Actually you made the claim. Well,
come back to that claim you made. I just want
to read you something here. But Paul said, which comes
to another the problem for me. I've read this before.
Psalm fifteen, verse three and four. It says I had
it on to you as a first importance what I
received that Christ died for our sins and accordance with
the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he
was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.
And then it goes on it's that bit there which
constantly refacing the scriptures. And you made the astonishing claim
to me that all of this palems contain the prediction
of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Actually, none of
the psalms at all claim any of that. But that
is called ester Jesus or icee Jesus where you read
stuff in if you read all the psalms in the
historical or literary context, the psalms that you think refer
to Jesus refer to David, refer to people at the
live at the time, none of them. And there's no
way in the Old Testament anywhere that says that Christ
would die for our sins. Know ways does it say
that he'd be buried? No ways does it say he
was raised on the third day anywhere. And this is
acknowledged by scholars, by Christian scholars. I know you don't
like them, but anyway, this is acknowledged by your own scholars,
so that this is a bizarre claim to make. I
come back to my awesome other state where I said
that the Nativity narratives, which talk about the actual birth
of Jesus and the pregnancy of Mary and so on, I, Matthew,
and Luke do not have any intimation at all of
an incarnation. These are precisely the passages where you would
expect a Christian theologian or Christian writer if they believed that,
to actually refer to the incarnation. There's no reference to
the incarnation in the Gospel of Luke in the Nativity
narratives or anywhere else. No reference of Matthew. And of
course it's not mentioned in Mark because he doesn't heaven
Nativity in narrative. So why do we say this Because
it shows that the idea of the incarnation, it doesn't
exist out of three in the four Gospels, even though
they would have mentioned it in the context of his birth.
John mentioned it is the very last one to be written,
and it has this kind of cosmic Christ who comes
to earth like a visitive amount of space. It spends
a brief time amongst us, and then that goes back
to Heaven again, very different from Mark, very different from Luke.
It's a very different kind of feel, which is why
you have to choose Historically, scholars have to choose which
is more likely to be the historical Jesus, and they're
all chosen the earlier gospels, not John for the basis
of their theology. So and what was the other incarnation?
So the incarnation is not taught in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
I do come back to this passage in Acts because
it's not just that you told me in response to
Peter's sermon in Acts, but we believe Jesus is God,
man and God. Yeah, but Peter doesn't. Peter doesn't say that.
And if he was God, surely that would be something
he would mention you that it Israelites, listen to what
I have to say about Jesus. He was a man
tested to you by God with these are power, ones
and signs that God did through him among you as
you yourself. Now, if Jesus being God was that important,
which is absolutely central, he would have mentioned it. He
had no belief that Jesus was God. He never mentions that.
He he says he was a man that tested by God.
And then the end he talks about God doing much Jesus,
that God made him a clier. But Jesus was God.
He wouldn't talk like that. He would say, oh, well,
you know the second person of Trinity. And and also
you slightly misrepresent Orthodox theology if I may be so
bold as to say, Orthodox theology does teach that Jesus
is God if you accept the counsel of Nicea. And
I'm aware of the philiquay course, but that's not relevant here.
The counsel of Nicia clearly says that Jesus God from
God light from Light the Counts of Chelsenden is very
clear that Jesus is God, and yet Peter doesn't attest
to this belief. Neither does Paul, who says that Jesus
has a God, and Jesus himself says that I have
a God. I am returned to your Father and my father,
your God and my God. Now, there are a few
marginal and late statements in the New Testament which do
say Jesus God. I don't doubt that Jesus is called God.
I'm not like some of those Muslims or probably all
the Muslims I know actually who say, oh, I doesn't
say Jesus God anywhere in the Bible. Of course it does,
but they are obscure and marginal and late, like Titus
and so on. That they're not in the earliest Jesus material.
They're not the dominant theme of the New Testament, which
is Jesus is the Messiah. Right anyway, Can we change
the form now, because conversational thing.
Speaker 1: Or nat I want to give my eight minute response
and then we can change the format. Is that? Okay?
Speaker 2: Go ahead?
Speaker 1: All right? So again I think you are restating the
position and not understanding the different critiques that I've given
at what you're saying. So the fact that you, on
the one hand, will cite a section of what Peter
says and you'll say this is what Peter taught, then
you turn around and say in other areas, it's teaching
that Christ is God. You have a completely arbitrary picking
and choosing of which text you're going to accept and
to pit them against the other texts, when you know
full well, having been previously Christian, that that's not what
we teach. We don't teach that because one tax talks
about the the manhood, that Jesus assumed that therefore or
it proves that he's only man. This is a really
simplistic and dodgy way to do exegesis, which you know better.
You know that Christianity doesn't operate that way. And I
guarantee you that we could take the Quran and we
could find one passage that says something about a law
that he did X, Y Z, and then we could
absoluteize that and say that therefore he does nothing else.
But you operate dialectically because you've bought into dialectics. Higher
criticism is based on Marcianism, gnosticism dialectics. Ultimately, it's based
on the assumption that Welhausen had that the Old Testament
God could not be the same God in the New Testament.
That was a presupposition that he had that he never questioned.
You have similar presubositions. In fact, you contradicted yourself outright.
You said that you have no problem with all of
those prophecies being prophecies of the Messiah. And then you
turn around and said, but wait a minute, when David
is writing in the Psalms, it's only about David. Did
you believe that those prophecies and those texts are about
the Messiah? They don't deny they were talking about Dad.
Of course they're talking about David. We know David wrote
those songs. That doesn't exclude that they're not Messianic prophecies
or types. And in every debate where people have talked
about typology to you, you ignore it. You said, you
act like there's no such thing as typology, that that
typology doesn't show or predict anything. In fact, have many
many essays on typology. Where we see in the Book
of Numbers, we see Moses lifting up the serpent on
a pole. What does Jesus say to Nicodemus, Jesus says
that I will be lifted up and raised up just
like the serpent on the pole. But you say that
Jesus never said he was going to do this. Over
and over and over and over throughout this discussion, I
give you example after example after example, and you go
to your notes and cite liberal scholars and say that
that doesn't exist. And you say that, well, you can
go to some fundamentalist seminary. Look, those are dumb arguments.
I can make all of those same arguments about you
and your text. I don't do that, right, did I
say that? I say, let me find a liberal scholar
who doubts the original authenticity of what Mohammad said or
the Koran or these hadiths. And you know full well
that they do. And there are people who doubt this
and do higher critical approaches to Islam. So just citing
higher critics about Christianity, this is a really and this
is extremely weak argument, and it presupposes unbelief. Now, in
our worldview, in our paradigm, you can't just come to
the text and presuppose unbelief because you have to repent
and you have to experience the text within the context
of the Church and the liturgy. They don't operate as
texts on their own. They can only be understood within
the existential experience of the Church herself historically. And you
can call that fundamentalism if you want to. But guess what,
that's a term that was invented to demonize people who
actually just believe in our creed. I already pointed out earlier.
You can look at the epistles of Ignatius, you can
look at Justin Martyr, you can look at Irenaeus, you
can look at Cyprian, you can look at polycarp you
can look at all these Apostolic fathers, and they teach
the deity of Christ, the very thing that you say
is later kind of absoluteized at Nicea, they absolutely teach this.
I mean, I've read them all, and anybody who reads them.
Speaker 2: I can give you the only person.
Speaker 1: No no, no, no, no no no, I have four
minutes left. I never interrupted you.
Speaker 2: But you're saying, you're saying I have four minutes left.
Speaker 1: I didn't interrupt you. You can you keep talking.
Speaker 2: I've read these people too. Don't don't think you've got any.
Speaker 1: I know that's the It's not you don't get to
the jact that you read.
Speaker 2: These people, I studied these at university?
Speaker 1: Who I studied at university?
Speaker 2: Well, fine, but we'll equal footing.
Speaker 1: Again. Okay, I'm gonna give This is what you do.
This is what you do to the other people. You
you interrupt in the middle of their talk. Uh, you
agreed to let me have my four minutes, so.
Speaker 2: You can have another six minutes. I don't mind. I'm
not precious about this. You have another six minutes, doesn't
bother me.
Speaker 1: Okay. So you will find in the Apostolic Canons, Okay,
you will find in the Shepherd of Hermis, you will
find in the didti Key, you will find in polycarp
You will find in the epistles of Ignacious of Antioch that,
for example, in the Letters to the Ephesians and Letters
to Romans Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is called our God.
In a letter to the Smyrneans, chapter ten, He's called
our God. Okay, this is pretty consistent. I think in
Ignacious epistles is something like sixteen times Jesus is explicitly
referred to as God. If you read the writings of
just Saint Justin Martyr you'll notice that he describes the
oblation of the liturgy. It's a liturgical service. This is
one fifty a D. So the things that you think
are these later accretions invented later, No, are. They're proofs
of the continuity of Orthodox Christianity. Back to Saint Justin Martyr,
back to Ignatius, back to Ireineus. Now I want to
move on to some of the things that you mentioned
that I didn't get to. You said that the Son
of God is created. We believe that the Son of
God is created in its humanity. So again, don't set
up a dialectic between texts that we believe are talking
about the full humanity that Christ possessed, but we don't
exclude the other texts to talk about the full divinity
of Christ. We doub believe Christ is a human person.
The text where he talks about his limitations are willful
limitations that he underwent. So all of those texts are
arguing against against a strong man. They're only they only
work on the presubposition that you're correct that Jesus was
just an apocalyptic preacher the apocalypse that you think he
mispredicted or didn't get right or whatever. The text misinterpolated.
They're about seventy a D. Luke twenty one is a
prediction of what would happen in seventy eight that the
temple would be destroyed, and it was in seventy eight D.
That's why from the time of Christ to the time
of the destruction of the Temple, it's the transition period. So, yes,
there's going to be decisions about what gentile converts need
to do when they come into the church. Do they
need to be circucized? You know you've heard this argument.
It's settled in Acts fifteen A. Right, So there's a process.
And even after this period when there's so a lot
of Jewish converts in the first ten chapters of Acts,
and even past the first ten chapters of Acts, when
the message begins to go out to the gentiles from
Paul and Peter. So what happens is that you have
this transition period and it becomes abundantly clear. Again, Jesus
made this abundantly clear and Matthew twenty four in Luke
twenty one, when you read those two texts together side
by side, you'll see that he's talking about the destruction
of the temple that was the doing away, the providential
doing away. Jesus says, in the parable of wicked mine dressers,
that that will happen, that the kingdom will be taken
from the Jews and given to a nation producing the
fruits thereof, namely all these predictions of the Gentile kingdom
and the Old Testament, which again you admitted that there's
all these prophecies about the coming of the Messiah, and
then you turn around and said, no, they're about David,
They're not about the Mesiah, they're not Messianic prophecies. You
completely contradicted yourself soles talking about the actions of God
and God as the Father. Okay, again, I already told
you that Jesus has a father. That does not mean
that there's no trinity. Only on the basis of dialectics,
which is the basis of your whole philosophical approach. Would
you think that because there's a distinction, there's a division
when justin Martin, are you going to try felt what
does he go to? He goes to the Angel, the
Lord theophanies. Now you said angels are never ever conceived
of in that way. The word angel just means messenger. Okay,
So Jesus is the messenger of Yahweh. He is that messenger.
So because the term could apply to a human messenger,
it could apply to an angel in the sense of
a created angelic being Michael Gabriel, And it could also
apply to the messenger of God's Covenant as he's called
the Old Testament. Right, So there's a consistent pattern of
those Theophanies being worshiped. You can't worship angels anytime in scripture,
in the Torah, in the Old Testament, somebody worships or
bowels before an angel, they're rebuked. Can't worship old deities.
You can't worship your ancestors, that's rebuked, but they're not
rebuked when they bow down and worship before the Theophanes.
Now you're gonna say, well, but you know, textual scholarship
tells us other things, and you know the modern textual critics,
but you will not allow those same textual critics to
attack Islam. You will not allow that same approach to
your religion. It's only that you selectively use these things
about all religion. Now, guess what I heard. You're referring
to Mark and you referred to elements I think of
the documentary hypothesis. You referred to Q or Mark, which
it used to be the idea that Q is the
basis of mark. This hypothetical, Uh, you know, earliest text
or whatever. Are you aware of the shifting sands of
higher criticism that the theories that were popular fifty years ago,
one hundred years ago, they're dead. They're not even popular anymore.
If you go to Yale right now, into their biblical
section on YouTube, you'll find biblical scholars from Yale, the
prestige that you worship. You'll find them saying all the
same things that I'm saying, that that the documentary hypothesis
has been discarded. So your presupposition is gone, It's not
even it's not even held anymore. All right, So I
need to take a we wei break. I'll be right
back if you would just hold on, hold on the
fort just for a second.
Speaker 3: Needs to be drinking it, all right, Okay, what's on
your mind?
Speaker 2: I think that there's an issue here which needs to
be made clearer, and that is where I'm coming from
and where you're coming from. And I don't reject where
you're coming from in the sense of a traditioned, community
based ecclesial reading of scripture. I understand what you mean
by that. Obviously, it's a very Catholic idea, of the
Roman Catholic idea as well. Evangelicals don't think they do it,
but they are doing it as you and I know
perfectly well. They have their own tradition, just they don't
acknowledge it, by which I mean their own way of
reading scripture, you know, focusing on maybe Paul or particular
Luther and understanding whatever. Yeah, so that's what you're doing.
And I understand that, and I'm not saying it's wrong
per se. It's not where I'm coming from. And I
think we're cross purposes here because how I see things
is different. As a Muslim, I view say, the Gospels
as products of of human beings. I view them as
like the Hedith literature share we say. I don't regard
them as revelation.
Speaker 1: You do.
Speaker 2: And this is why we're different. We're coming so when
I see Luke, for example, I think this is a
human text written in the first century. It's not revelation.
It's not inspired by God. Doesn't mean it's false or
contains only error, but it's to be treated as any
other ancient texts written by people. Is we have no
special regard for it at all, Because I explain why
for us, for Muslims, the Gospel the in Ngel, as
the crime makes clear, was something given to Jesus. The gospel,
it is something given to Jesus by God. He preaches
the in Ingel. These gospels that you revere are written
not by Jesus. You obviously don't claim they're written by Jesus.
They're written by other people. So for us is revelation
itself direct from God, whether be given to Jesus, Mohammad,
or Moses or whatever. That is the thing that we revere.
That these are human we as human biographies that are
not inspired by God. That does not mean they're without value,
but they have to be critically understood.
Speaker 1: Now, Hiera criticism about Moses hang in a second.
Speaker 2: So when it comes to we also practice higher criticism.
I don't know this expression, that's very kind of nineteenth century.
We also practice critics, a critical approach to the Herdeth literature,
and that this has gone on almost from the beginning.
There's been a very sophisticated science of criticism where we
try and sort of what's authentic what isn't. We look
at the isnab, we look at the mattin the text itself.
We try and establish the reliability of the transmitters. And
it's a very sophisticated science. And this is over going
back from the eighth century onward. So we do practice
sophisticated critical thinking about the Herdeth and that's been going
on since virtually since the beginning. But when it comes
to the Koran, and this is where we're going to
have to agree to disagree. The Kuran is different because
we view it. We believe it to be the actual
speech of God himself. It's not inspired work, it's not
written by Mohammad at all, although he has a role
to play in its transmission. But we view the actual
speech of God, so we view it as something you
can't practice human criticism of because that would be blasphemous,
is not appropriate. And now I know you have a
you don't agree with that, which is fine. So that's
why I have a different approach to the Koran than
I would say to the four canonical Gospels, because I
view them as very different ontologies, very different genres. So
you may see that as inconsistency for me, it makes
perfect sense. The Koran is the word of God. It's
the speech of God. So is the Injured, so is
the Torahs, so is the the the Psalm, so is
the book given to Abraham, and so on. And I'm
not saying that the Bible itself doesn't contain the word
words of God. But it doesn't.
Speaker 1: In mind.
Speaker 2: You claim to be the word of God as a book.
But that not a problem because in your in your ecclesiology,
you have received these texts as word of God, because
they speak preserably to you as word of God, as
a church, and so they are inspired for you. But
that is but that's not something that we as Muslims recognize.
We see the human authorship of this as the primary characteristic,
and so we hold no special regard from them as
texts because they don't claim the revelation from God.
Speaker 1: Well again, hold on, do you accept the higher criticism
of the Torah and Moses?
Speaker 2: What do you mean by higher criticism?
Speaker 1: You know what I mean? Do you accept the documentary
hypothesis and the things that the techniques that you're applying
to the Gospels. Do you accept that same approach to
the books of Moses?
Speaker 2: The way you have characterized so called high critism, something
I simply do not recognize. I mean, if you.
Speaker 1: Watch lectures on Yale right now, they're doing higher criticism.
They talk about.
Speaker 2: Recognize your characterization of it. I know what it is,
but I don't recognize your Do.
Speaker 1: You accept the documentary hypothesis or the.
Speaker 2: Approach hypothesis JPD. That's what you mean is still that
the standard is still accepted as thank.
Speaker 1: You for admitting what we are. Now do you accept
this critical approach the books of absolutely? Okay, how do
you know the revelation of Moses is true in what area?
In what area? Is not?
Speaker 2: Excellent question? If I enjoy your attention to the Quran
which addresses this.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: But the Koran tells us precisely that what we.
Speaker 1: Do well the presupposition is the Quran right.
Speaker 2: The Kuran says that the books of the Christians and
the Jews have been corrupted, and it says in our
made as the fifth chapter we have sent down to you.
This is to Muhammad, the book, this crime in truth,
confirming the scripture that came before it. This is talking
about the torahm Ninjel and Mouhamin. Now this means Mahamed
is an Arabic word which means that which testifies the
truth that is still therein and falsifies the falsehood that
is added therein. So we use the so judge among them.
It says, by what Alah has revealed, meaning the Quran,
and following up their vain desires, diverging away from the
truth that has come to you. So the texts have
been corrupted. This is the only reliable guide.
Speaker 1: No, no, you don't know that the text have been
corrupted yet unless it's on the base of the presubposition.
What the Chrin says. You think the texts are corupted.
Speaker 2: Right, But I believe, But I believe objective scholarship confirms
it abundantly.
Speaker 1: Right. But the objective scholarship is interpreted in terms of
the presubpositions. The ultimate authority for you, which is the Kuran.
And what I'm asking you is when you read Moses,
that text itself doesn't tell you which verses are corrupted
and which words which ones aren't. What is your basis?
What is the ultimate authority in terms of that critical
approach to know when it is the word of God
in those texts in the Torah, and when it.
Speaker 2: Isn't as Muslims are. The crime itself makes clear that
that the Kuran itself is the discriminates. If you like,
it's it's the quality control. It's used jargon.
Speaker 1: I understand that, But when you read through Genesis, how
do you know which ones are through and which ones
are false?
Speaker 2: I'm trying to explain. The quality control is the revelation
that is the Koran. So if, for example, the Bible
says something that is contrary to the Koran, say, for example,
but it says Jesus God, then we know that's not
from God because it contradicts God's revelation.
Speaker 1: Right, So the ultimate authority, the presuppositional grounding for your
paradigm is the corona. I understand that, but you're not answering.
You're not answering the question of how it is that
you delineate as you read through because you can say
something simple like that, well, if it could, if it contradicts, Okay,
but what a question is?
Speaker 2: You know, I don't actually understand what you're trying to
say that. If I mis understood you, what is your
point again?
Speaker 1: You have no way that that saying that itself. I
understand what you're saying that itself doesn't tell you as
you read through the Old Testament which things are corrupted
and aren't.
Speaker 2: Sorry, I now grasp what you're saying.
Speaker 1: Jay. For example, when Leviticus calls for the erection of
a temple and a temple service, but.
Speaker 2: The churn is not a detailed exegesis of current Old Testament.
So you're right. But but and when? Because it is corruptive,
Muslims don't usually go to the Bible because it doesn't
give undistorted truth. But no, you are right, But when
it makes claims when we're told when Christians do you
say X, and it clearly explicitly contradicts the chrome, then
we know that X is wrong. It's not from God,
so it has that value. And I give you one example.
If New Testament says Jesus is God, then we know
islamically that that is false because it contradicts the clear
teachings of God's revelation.
Speaker 1: In the crime. But this is begging the question, because
I'm asking you, as you're reading through, say a little
Viticus or any of those texts, how do you know
when it's corrupted and when it's not? You say, well,
it intradicts that when it contradicts the corn.
Speaker 2: Ok.
Speaker 1: So let's give let's give an example where we see
an angel lord or a theophany being worshiped. So basically
what happens is that, ultimately you would say that that's
perhaps a corruption. Right, if we see the angel lord,
a distinct entity, a distinct distinct person from God, the
Father or God being worshiped, that would perhaps be some corruption. Well,
it turns out we find a lot of those. So
in other words, what happens is starts stacking up a
lot of these corruptions.
Speaker 2: And so there's a lot of coruptions.
Speaker 1: So I know that you believe that, but I'm saying
it's arbitrary. It's totally at hoc. And so when I
when we come to the specifics, when we come to
the specifics and you start talking about how you know
when and where you appeal to liberal higher critics, you
don't do that about your religion. I don't believe operate,
You don't operates as an objective.
Speaker 2: I reject this characterization of the liberal I think that's
polemical and tendentious. I don't believe it's an authentic, accurate
way of describing this scholars that I respect.
Speaker 1: Do you think that that in the year one thousand
there were Bellhausen style critics that were doing that kind
of analysis.
Speaker 2: Well, of course, val Housen was born in the nineteenth century, right,
And I think coming back to this, Vale has point.
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 2: That scholarship doesn't slafishly follow the Belle Housen if you
read contemportary.
Speaker 1: What I'm saying is that you don't know anything about
the type. You don't know anything about the Torah because
this standard that you've given doesn't tell you when and
where it is and is not the word of God.
Because I can start I can start stacking up things,
and what's left to you is less and less and
less and less. In the to itself there would actually
be revelation from God on your view.
Speaker 2: Well, what I recommend you no giving it another exament.
I mean, obviously perhaps haven't read the crime from cover
to cover, but the portrayal for it. Give me another
example of the prophets of God are often as discreditable, drunken,
sexually immoral, murderers and so on. Is a portrayal that
is rejected in the chrome. Well, okay, good, So that
That would be another area where where the defamation of
God's messages and prophets is false. Historically, it doesn't go
a verse by verse exegesis, but it gives these broad
indications that certain certain views are part of a corrupted,
falsified narrative and it caused people.
Speaker 1: But you have no way of knowing when and where
you can start listing all these arbitrary things. But less
less and less so. You don't have access to Moses.
You don't have access to the Torah. All you have
is the lens of the Qur'an to sell things. That's
why you're going to the higher critics. And they are liberal.
What do you mean they don't believe in Yes they are.
They don't believe in the doctorate of inspiration that the
church of the first thousand years, No, they don't. Raymond
Brown does not believe in the inherancy of scriptures. You
know he doesn't.
Speaker 3: Can I can? I?
Speaker 2: Okay, this is obviously a subject you feel very passionate about,
and I all I can say is I disagree the
scholars that I know it read these topic.
Speaker 1: You know, Raymond Brown doesn't believe in Errancy.
Speaker 2: Raymond Bound died in the nineteen nineties. So and he
you know, when I met him at Oxford, he certainly
believed in the Trinity, he believed in the incarnation, he
believed in the thinkings.
Speaker 1: Of the church.
Speaker 2: So he was not an unbeliever as you have. You
have very as you have resulted him actually or blessed memory,
because he was a very distinguished scholar of John's gospel.
Speaker 1: Nobody cares about distinguished scholarship. That's not what the appeal
to authority is. Are you aware of this this fallacy?
Speaker 2: Right, I'm not appealing. I'm telling you that the man
that you're mistaken about, the man who did proclaim his
Christian faith, you seem to be dissing him quite powerfully.
And I find that okay.
Speaker 1: So it's Hans skill Christian.
Speaker 2: Characteristic to speak so badly about a fellow Christian. Actually,
I think that's quite This is.
Speaker 1: A tactic where you're trying to make me look like
a bad man. Now we don't have a problem delineating
who's a heretic and who's.
Speaker 2: Not well using that language. Again, I didn't realize you
were so conservative, shall we say, about matters, But I
just wanted to correct one other thing about my alleged
inconsistency about the predictions of the Messia and the Old Testament.
I was very careful when I said that I have
no problem with the Masonic predictions in the in the Bible,
in the Psalms and so on. But there's no evidence
at all that I'm aware that the Psalmists predict the
death and resurrection of the Messiah, or anyone talks about
the incarnation of God as something that is to come.
It's that aspect that I am rejecting. Not that's not inconsistency.
Yes to the Messiah. No to the alleged predictions of
death and resurrection incarnation, which do not exist as predictions
anywhere in the Jewish Bible. In my view, That's what
I'm getting at, So there's no inconsistency.
Speaker 1: You did contradict. You said that those texts were not
about the Messiah. You said that those were texts about David.
And then you turned around and said, you have no
problem with a bunch of texts in the Old Testament
predicting the coming of the Messiah. That's a contradiction.
Speaker 2: The suffering of the Messiah alleged. The Christian understanding of
these sixs are not predictive texts of the future Messiah.
They're talking about David's own suffering, so they're not the predictably.
Speaker 1: The Jewish view is that those are messianic texts. Whether
it's back in Genesis predictions of what there was promised
to Abraham, or whether it's the psalms of David. Jews
view those as Messianic texts. It's not either or. Your
whole thing is based on dialect.
Speaker 2: No Jew, there's no Jew known to history that prior
to the rise of Christianity ever thought, ever thought that
the Messiah would die for see and we'll be raised
dead on the third day. That that that that idea
only came about with Christianity.
Speaker 1: And you could prove that's actually not true, that's actually
not true.
Speaker 2: I prove me wrong.
Speaker 1: Now what In fact, I have a friend who's a
Messianic Jew. His name is Ken. I mean, he has
a whole book where he delineates the first century expectations,
Talmutic expectations, Talmutic statements, both helmuts.
Speaker 2: No I didn't think. I said, there is no a
prior to the rise of christian Talmud is post is
not prime.
Speaker 1: It's a. The Talmud is a collection of documents that
go back to prior to the time of them. Side.
Did you not know that?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 1: No, because the yes, it is Jeremiah talks to Ezra,
and Jeremiah talk about the beginning of that collection.
Speaker 2: Of One example, give me one example.
Speaker 1: When Jesus says, you follow the Scribes and the Pharisees
traditions in Matthew twenty three, when Jesus is rebuking their traditions,
he's saying the exact same thing Seremiah said about the
traditions of Describes in the Phariseeason. His day Ezra is
the beginning of the Phariseeic tradition. No you, oh, you
don't know. You just lost that point.
Speaker 2: Nowhere be prior to the rise of Christians.
Speaker 1: I just gave you a citation for Matthew twenty three.
Speaker 2: But that is Christianity.
Speaker 1: That's a first century text that's Reflectingmiah. Is it's Jeremiah, Okay,
So forget Matthew twenty three. Jeremiah talks about the Describes
and the Pharisees.
Speaker 2: Babylonia and Chalmud is not of the Messiah. For sin
in the Jewish scriptures anywhere to show me. Give me
a reference.
Speaker 1: Now you've changed the subject because you got caught on
that point, right, So you didn't know. You didn't know
that Ezra is the beginning of the Firistaid tradition, that
the Talmudic tradition precedes the first century.
Speaker 2: Can you give me a single quote then, from any
pre first cent, pre Christian source that talks about the
Siah dying and rising again on the third day. Just
give me a source now that's been recorded on YouTube
now that I can study. Actually, give me a on YouTube.
Now what do you mean, Well, just give me a reference,
because you allege that I'm wrong. So I'm asking you
to produce evidence any Christian statement from a Jew that
said the Messiah.
Speaker 1: Will come and Joah six six.
Speaker 2: Let me let me look at it, because let me
look at Let me look at it. I want to
look at it up. Now I'm going to find it's
a Times book towards the end here we go is
Zia chapter.
Speaker 1: What's saying Hoseah six talks about on the third day
he will raise us up?
Speaker 2: Let me let me just look at it. What fverse
because it's quite a few verses.
Speaker 1: One and two.
Speaker 2: Okay, let me so come. I'm just gonna read it
from the Bible. Here, come, and let us return to
the Lord. For he for it is he who has torn,
and he will hear us. He has struck, He has
struck down, and he will bind us up. After two
days he will revive us. On the third day he
will raise us up that we may live before him.
Where does it mentioned a Messiah?
Speaker 1: That's a Messianic prophecy. The whole book is if you
don't understand the Old Testament, you don't understand that those
are all predictions of the coming in themself. Guess what
the Jews view that? As the Jews view those Texas.
Speaker 2: And Messiana context. The preceding chapter is the impending Judgment
on Israel. This is talking about Israel, not about a feuture.
Speaker 1: Did you know that in the Gospel of Matthew, And
if you read Matthew twenty three towards the end, finish
In the Matthew twenty three towards the end, Jesus says
that in the first century upon the Jews of his
day would come the vengeance written of in all the
prophets from Able to Zechariah. So all of those descriptions
that are about the destruction of Israel, the First Temple
when it was destroyed by the Babylonians. That's a type
of the destruction of the Temple in seventy eighty. The
New Testament makes it abundantly clear Jesus is saying that
in these text and by the way, in Liu twenty four,
Jesus says that all of these Old Testament predictions are
about Him, the very thing that you can't seem to
grasp about how to read the Old Testament. In Liu
twenty four, it says Jesus opened the minds of the
disciples to understand all things that were written about Him
and the Law, the prophets, and Moses.
Speaker 2: I'm looking about pre christ texts. Your quotation ofbout Isaiah
is a pre Christian text reading context of the impending
judgment Israel and impenitence of Israel. It's all about Israel.
It's not about a messiety. It says, come, let us
return to the Lord, for.
Speaker 1: This happened in the first century bro seventy eighty.
Speaker 2: No, Nojoseiah was a Jewish prophet long before Jesus.
Speaker 1: Topology is do you understand this right, So.
Speaker 2: This is not about prophecy. This is not a prophecy
of Jesus. I'm sorry it does not pass the test
of historical credibility.
Speaker 1: You don't make that test.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm reading in context. It's ex Jesus. I'm just
getting honest to Jesus.
Speaker 1: Even Jewish ex Jesus of their texts understands a double sense.
They understand that prophecies. For example, Daniel says that he finished.
Daniel says that in his day he read the writings
of Jeremiah and the Babylonian Captivity to understand what would
be mirrored in his day. So the texts themselves in
the Old Testament teach typology. They teach that they are
mirrored in future fulfillment. You didn't know that. You thought
that it's only the historical exegesis. But the Jewish writings
themselves say that the historical setting is a prediction of
becoming Messiah. You already admitted this when you talked about
the fact that you don't have a problem with the
Old Testament prophets predicting the coming of the Messiah. So
look how arbitrary this is. You're all over the place
there's higher critics over here, higher criticism over here, and
it's faith. But over here, I will arbitrarily take all
of the profits and what they say.
Speaker 2: It's completely arbitrary respond to this. It's not an arbitrary
to notice in its historical context that Hoseiah six is
not talking about a future person, but about it.
Speaker 1: I didn't deny the historical context. I said it was
a type you did not understand the types.
Speaker 2: Of historically later death and resurrection in there.
Speaker 1: You don't get to set the standard of of what
the litmus tests is of how to determine like it
has to say this in the passage. Right. I already
refuted this earlier. I already refuted this earlier when I
pointed out, look, does Abraham talk about the Mosaic law.
That's like saying, well, since Abraham doesn't say that there
will be a mosaic law, I don't accept anything after
the time of Abraham. That's a ridiculous argument.
Speaker 2: If I refer to the Jewish Study Bible by the
world's top Jewish scholars, and we look at Hoseiah chapter six,
would you be interested know what they say about this passage.
Speaker 1: I have the Jewish Study Bible. I've read it. I
know that they don't believe that. All of those texts
are talking about them society, but even the Messianic text
where they do think it's messianic.
Speaker 2: No, these are expert Jews talking about their own scripture.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. All you do is appeal to unbelievers.
Speaker 2: Bro, these are not unbelievers. They believe.
Speaker 1: These are unbelievers. They don't believe in Christianity.
Speaker 2: You interested in what they have to say about this passage?
Speaker 1: You know what? I know what the Jewish extra duces are.
That passage is what I know that they don't believe
it's messianic. I was making the point that in other texts,
like the Dividic texts, they are saying it's messianic.
Speaker 2: Would remember we talked about the death and Resurrection being
four card predicted as claimed by Paul in the Old Testament.
It's the first passage you've given me, and it doesn't
be honest past the test could have been.
Speaker 1: You don't make that test. You don't make that test.
You and unbelieving people don't set up what the test is?
Not unbelieved the authority to do that? Who does?
Speaker 2: The Orthodox Church?
Speaker 1: The Church correct because it's a self. It's a self.
Speaker 2: I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in your church.
Speaker 1: I know you don't.
Speaker 2: So if I'm looking at objective exte Jesus, there.
Speaker 1: Is no objective exto Jesus, there is no. There's not
I believe there is.
Speaker 2: Jay. Can I explain to you what I think objectives is?
Just let me speak for a second.
Speaker 1: You cited Thomas Kuhne in paradigms. You know that you
know that we read things for a paradigm, so you
know there's not objective.
Speaker 2: Exegu Jay, Okay, so let me expect it.
Speaker 1: You cite Thomas Kune in your debate on paradigms.
Speaker 2: Will do you let me speak?
Speaker 1: You cite Thomas Kune on paradigms in your debate admitting
that there aren't purely objective exegesies.
Speaker 2: Will you let me speak, Jay, or you're going to
shut me down again. Thomas Kuhn was talking about the
structure that the name of his book is called the
Structure of Science. I know you know it all, but
let me explain anyway. He's not talking about biblical exegesis.
Speaker 1: He's talking about paradigms. Don't you think text, you're reading
it through your paradigm.
Speaker 2: He's talking about scientific paradigms with reference to Newton, to Einstein,
totolemaic cosmology.
Speaker 1: And scientific when we interpret the world, you're trying to
do scientific extra Jesus.
Speaker 2: Talking about the cosmos and physics.
Speaker 1: It's a paradigm you have different.
Speaker 2: He was professor at Chicago University of Science.
Speaker 1: You're trying to do scientific.
Speaker 2: Now, if if I may speak about this passage, please
and tell you what I think objective excuses is objective
ex Jesus, I understand it is when you read a
passage of the Bible, in this case, in its historical
and literary context. So we're trying to understand the words
that being meant for the Hebrew Hebrew writers Hoseiah in
the context that he wrote them, with reference to the
other passages, reference to.
Speaker 1: The time, and we believe in the grammatical historical approach.
Speaker 2: When we do that with this passage, and I almost
I'm familiar with this passage in the whole book, there
is no indication whatsoever of any Christian themes to do
with the dying and resurrection of Jesus, such as Paul
claims in one Corinthians, Chapter fifteen, verse three. So I
will ask you perhaps to try another verge. Is another
passage you can give me that actually does talk about
these subjects that Paul mentions.
Speaker 1: Well, no, because what's going to happen is the exact
same approach is no, no, no, let me finish. So
what you're going to do is you're going to say
that that's a Christian reading. Can you not hear that
I'm saying that, yes, it's a Christian reading? And can
you not hear that I said it's a mirrored fulfillment? Okay,
So I don't deny that a grammatical historical context of
what Hoseah is talking about that's in fact crucial to
the fulfillment in our view, because it's a mirrored fulfillment.
Seventy AD is a fulfillment of the destruction that happened
in five eighty six weeks.
Speaker 2: This passage has anything to do with the future Messiah
actually dying on the cross and rising on the third.
So what do you think, then, saying you accept now
the historical reading of the text, do you think the
historical reading of this text suggests at all that a
future Messiah will die on the cross and rise again
on the third day, as you, well, can you show
me where it says that in those.
Speaker 1: Chapter six Yeah, that's not how you do ex Jesus.
Speaker 2: Oh, which teach me extra Jesus.
Speaker 1: Then yeah, because you you in order to have your position,
it has to only be the grammatical historical context. And
as we see, for example, from the lifting up of
the serpent on the pole, which Nicodemus is unclear about,
and Jesus says in John three to Nicodemus that the
son of Man will be lifted up just as Moses
lifted up the bronze serpent. As many people point out
to you in the debates, that's called typology, it's called
a mirroring. Jewish exegesis already had this concept. It wasn't
invented by Christians. Okay, So the way that we're going
to read the text is through our presuppositions, in our paradigms.
You know this because you cite Thomas Kuhn. You're trying
to do scientific exo Jesus. So it's not different to
appeal to Thomas Kewne because it's still paradematic the way
that we interpret these texts. I know that you don't
believe it's about Jesus. I'm saying that in the Christian worldview,
in the Christian paradigm, it is about Jesus. It is
a prediction of the depth on resurrection, because I explained
it consistently by showing that it is a mirroring of
the destruction of Jerusalem. So when the minor prophets, for example,
many of them talk about the destruction of the First
Temple in five eighty six. Okay, Now when you read Daniel,
for example, Daniel says in Daniel nine that when the
Messiah comes, there's going to be an end to the
temple and grain offerings and sacrifices, because the Messiah will
come and he will put an end to that. That
whole first century is the transition period from the Mosaic
Law into the fulfilling of the prophecies of the Gentiles
coming into the Kingdom of God, as all those prophets said.
So that whole transition period from the birth of Christ
to seventy eighty, it doesn't just end in the resurrection
or Pentecost or acts. It ends at seventy eighty. That's
what the apocalypse is about. That's what Luke twenty one
and Matthew twenty four about that's why Jesus says in
Matthew twenty three at the end of that chapter that
all the predictions and the prophets will come upon this generation.
So that means this prophecy here in Amos will come
upon this generation when he talks about the covenant curses
of Israel Deuteronomy twenty eight, which lists all these covenant
curses and Amos and Hoseiah talking about the divorce of
literal flesh Israel in that covenantal transaction. That's what happened
when they rejected the Messiah and Jesus. As he says
in the Peri Wicked bind Dressers, the kingdom will go
to the Gentiles because the Jews have rejected it. That's
why it was destroyed in seventy eighty. It was the
fulfillment not just of what Luke twenty one and Matthew
twenty four said. It was a fulfillment of all of
these predictions back to the Mosaic Deuteronomy twenty eight Covenant curses.
And you say, well, that's crazy, that's not what we
do now. No. In fact, if you read the Apocalypse
in chapters two and three, when Jesus speaks to the churches,
he it promises them curses and blessings, just like it's
no different. We don't deny covenant blessings and curses, but
we see a unity of fulfillment from the time of
Genesis even into Moses up to the coming of the Messiah.
And all I've seen from you throughout this discussion is
all over the place. You want higher criticism and complete
doubt of the scriptures when it suits you. But if
we were to turn that higher critical approach upon your book,
or if we were to point out that it's inconsistent
when you arbitrarily pick which verses in the Torah or
in the prophets you do accept right, it's totally arbitrary.
So what do we go back to? It goes back
to your presubositions of the Koran. So I want to
ask you on the presubositions of the Koran. And it's
you said, the literal actual speech of God himself. Are
the words in the Koran a reflection of God himself?
Or are they the words of God? In other words,
the Koran that I hold in my hand, is that
literally the incarnate words of God.
Speaker 2: Okay, coming back then to Hoseiah chapter six, I just
wanted to give you the testimony of the Jewish study
by It is published by Oxford University Press, and it
is seen as the best critical scholarly.
Speaker 1: As the Jewish study that was supposed to bring.
Speaker 2: Jewish scholars say that is because I want to show
you this is what Jewish got. The best Jewish scholarship says,
because well, because.
Speaker 1: I'm going to pull out the Buddhist, the Buddhist approach
to Islam and.
Speaker 2: The current because let's look at the Buddhist explained. If
you didn't, the Jewish scriptures are the Jewish people's Bible.
The Jewish scholars themselves have a word to say about
their own scriptures, and what they say about Hosea chapter
six is important because they have all they have a voice,
it's their.
Speaker 1: Bible, and they don't believe in.
Speaker 2: Forty so one one and forty of the of this
esteemed public ca And you look at you love to
mock learning, and.
Speaker 1: You don't know what fallacies are you've never heard of,
like a basic fallacy of.
Speaker 2: A there's no fallacy in pointing out that appeal.
Speaker 1: To authority as a fallacy. Do you think appeal to
authority is a fallacy?
Speaker 2: It's not. It's not a fallacy. Can give an example.
Let you go to example, I go to my doctor.
Speaker 1: I haven't never had a basic logic class. You don't
think an appeal to authority is a fallacy.
Speaker 2: This is a silly argument. Let me explain why.
Speaker 1: No, it's not, and authority is a fallacy.
Speaker 2: You can let me speak. You see, you've lost the debate.
The debate as I was saying, No, I hadn't actually
that you said.
Speaker 1: Appeal to authority is not a fallacy.
Speaker 2: It's perfectly valid thing to do on occasions. And I'll
give an example. If I if I have an illness
and I go to my doctor and he assures me
that the illness is an illness X.
Speaker 1: Okay, but where do you think it's at a paradigm level?
It is. It is a fallacy. At paradigm level.
Speaker 2: I'm talking, you interrupt me. You're on a roll now
and you're interrupting, and the doctor sells me, oh, Paul,
you have disease X and you need treatment. I trust
my doctor to get it right. I rely on his
authority to give me information. I appeal to his authority.
When when my friend of mine says, I looked on
Google and I've seen this website and I don't no, no,
I'm trusting my doctor. That's an appeal to authority, which
is perfectly valid.
Speaker 1: But that's that's not at the paradigm level. We're at
the paradigm level.
Speaker 2: I'm not talking and I'm just talking about an appeal
to authority. That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 1: That's called a fallacy. And because it is a fallacy,
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: You've not pointed out how it's a fallacy. In a
slighted you could be said, it's it's very fallacy. Just
claimed it the fallacy.
Speaker 1: How is it claimed it's a fallacy? I made it up?
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, Well why is it a fallacy? My doctor?
Speaker 1: We got to read we got to read this.
Speaker 2: An expert physician, and I appeal to experts.
Speaker 1: This is fallacies. That station It's just sorry, but it's
a fallacy. Why is it a fallacy? Take a Magic
Basic logic class and you'll get a list of the
informal fallacies, and one of the top ones there will
be a fallacy of authority.
Speaker 2: Can you actually tell me why it's a fallacy.
Speaker 1: Just tell me what I already have, because at the
paradigm level you can't appeal to human authorities like that.
When I'm asking you a paradigm level question. You know
about paradigms because you cited Thomas Kenny wrote a whole
book about it. I'm asking you a paradigmatic level question,
and you're saying that it's not amount of fallacy.
Speaker 2: Paradigm today you're obsessed with paradigms.
Speaker 1: That paradigm that's how that's how I do. That's how
I do.
Speaker 2: But that's not how I do. You see them, was
only concerned with the structure of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts.
Nothing to do with our paradigms of the Bible.
Speaker 1: Not true, wrong, wrong, you're trying to do scientific You
said you're doing scientific exidesis you said you're doing scientific extrajicie,
it's the exact same thing.
Speaker 2: You're not to let me speak, just to say that
this Bible completely disagrees these expert a Jewish scholarship.
Speaker 1: Mind blown Jews that are expert Jews disagree with Christian
argument any evidence.
Speaker 2: Some of the Jewish scriptures that that stated that the
Messiah would die and rise again on the third day.
This passage, they will not say that. It does not
say that, so you have failed in your effort.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, it sound to read superchats are ready?
All right? Thank you JD. From this lurking Nerd Joline
K nine ninety nine. Well, thank you, Joline, appreciate it.
Brandon Johnson one dollar, Thank you, Brandon, now Ke for
us focus five dollars, Thank you very much, nikever appreciate that. Frosty.
By the way, if you want to add the superchats,
now is the time, Frosty the bear of five dollars.
Jesus fulfilled every prophecy of his coming, as told in
the Torah and the prophets. How can that be denied?
I agree with that. That was one of the arguments, Paul.
You can respond to that I deny it.
Speaker 2: Should I give an example where it is denied? Go ahead, okay.
There's a passage in Matthew's Gospel where Matthew says that
he fulfilled a prophecy that he will be called a Nazarene.
I'm not aware of any prophecy like this anywhere in
the Bible. Perhaps you can tell me where it is right.
Speaker 1: Well, there are traditions we as you are aware of,
the Roman Catholic view and the Orthodox view agrees that
there's an oral tradition. Oral tradition doesn't just apply to
the Apostolic deposit. There's also oral traditions that Jesus appealed
to many times in the Gospels. And as I mentioned earlier,
Jeremiah speaks of the Pharisaic tradition. Even in Jeremiah's day,
there was some corruption in the Pharisee tradition. That's what
Jeremiah criticizes in his book. But we don't think that
everything that the Pharisees taught was erroneous. In fact, because
Matthew twenty three Jesus says describes in the Pharisees sit
in the seat of Moses. There's no direct Torah or
prophet explanation of what the seed of Moses is, but
is a succession of authority that traditional that you just
appealed to. So I would reply to you that that
text that you're talking about is a tradition.
Speaker 2: Well, it says actually through the profits, So which profit.
Speaker 1: Do we have? There are profits that that spoke and
taught oral traditions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So which which are the prophets?
Speaker 1: Said that we don't know?
Speaker 2: So how did Matthew know?
Speaker 1: Because well, we believe in inspiration, so and argue men,
men can be inspired.
Speaker 2: And also that's an arbitrary that is true.
Speaker 1: No, it's not, No, it's not. I mean, if you
understand how Judio hasn't worked, they had an oral tradition
as well as a written tradition before the time of Christ.
Speaker 2: If I said to you as it says in the Profits,
would you automatically assume you I was speaking about oral
works or tradition.
Speaker 1: I would yes, because that's a common apologetic argument.
Speaker 2: I make, very unusual because the profits, it's.
Speaker 1: Not very unusual. It's a common apologetic argument we make.
So okay, we got we got to move on.
Speaker 2: This is this to the Jewish prophets, and there are
no Jewish prophets ever said that. That's my point.
Speaker 1: So Lieutenant c HF five dollars, thank you, Lieutenant spec
seven read eighty two. No comments on this. I'm waiting
for your Papacy series. It's gonna come. I promise you,
Speca there will be a treatment of the history of
the papacy coming soon. John Holloway five dollars. What would
you say the key difference is between Christian just warfare
and Islamic just warfare, or an Orthodox theocratic view versus
an Islamic view. I'll stay briefly my take on that,
and I'll let paulicy. I would say that if you
look at the history of Orthodox kingdoms, the businessing Empire,
you would see at least attempts. And obviously this wasn't
always done correctly or ideally, but there's there's typically the
attempts to have Biblical principles apply even to warfare. So
there's a book by McGuckin The Christian Scent of Christian
Law where he kind of traces the history of canon
law and how it influenced Byzantium and and so in
my view, I would say that we try to apply
He could look at something like the Catholic view of
just war. I mean that's you know, the Roman Catholic
and the Orthodox perspective historically have been kind of similar
on just war theory. Paul can feel free to answer
his view of theocracy.
Speaker 2: There is a just war, clear boundaries and limitations on fighting.
She had military you had, it has to be done
for proportionately. You can't target women, children, babies, monks, and priests.
There's explicitly said in the teaching my Hammi's why isis
is so on Islamic because so barbaric and it's atrocities.
It has nothing to do with Islam. However, the Bible,
unfortunately is very different. Unfortunately, it advocates genocide. In one
Samuel fifteen, God is portrayed as someone who commands the
killing of women, children, babies, donkeys, camels. There is no
just war in the Bible. It's unrestricted genocide and slaughter
on an industrial scale. And I'm afraid if you want
just war, you're not going to find it in the Bible,
but you will find it in Islam.
Speaker 1: Okay. For a fuller treatment of my response to the
things that Paul just said, I do have two talks.
If you listen to my traditional flash in Metaphysics series,
I actually cover the just war and the text that
he said talk about there those were specific instances where
God committed Israel to do those things, So I treat
that in more more detail. All right, so we move
on to bony M two dollars, Thank you bony M.
Lieutenant C. HF five dollars. I S L A M E. D.
I'm not sure what that means. N. C red Dollar
ninety nine. Modern crusade when no time for crusades or
that's not the way things work now, Mark Brown two dollars.
Well well done defending divinity of Jesus. Thank you, we
lad two dollars. He has not responded to the divine
simplicity criticism. No, I don't think that he did. Do
you have any response to the criticism I made of
the fact that if God's unicity is an absolutely viewed
in an absolute sense, that his act of creating the
world is also synonymous with his essence, which is eternal,
that would mean the creation is eternal.
Speaker 2: No. I don't follow the logic of that at all.
God in Islam is someone who is absolute, eternal, uncous
cause of all that is in the universe, the space, time, continuum,
et cetera. He is eternally the creator, he's eternally loving,
he's eternally always attributes are eternal.
Speaker 1: Is eternally the creator.
Speaker 2: Yes, of course he doesn't. God doesn't. And unlike in Christianity,
where God changes, he becomes a man, he dies, and
so on, God being eternal does not does not change.
He's always doesn't mean he's always creating, but he's always
the creator and obviously.
Speaker 1: The creation the creator. If he's not always creating.
Speaker 2: Because he has the attributes of being a creator, that's
what it means. Yeah, that's what the word creator means,
being a creator.
Speaker 1: How is he how is he an eternal creator when
he wasn't.
Speaker 2: Creating, always creating any more than he has the attribute
of glory and love and compassion that he is always
in our space time sense doing those things.
Speaker 1: Different Because because if he's an eternal is eternally creator,
then what's her creator of eternally? Well, he that's not
why the attributes breakdown. They're meaningless.
Speaker 2: The universe is contingent, it's not necessary.
Speaker 1: It's it's not an answer. That's not what I asked you.
Speaker 2: Well, it's my answer. You may not like it's my answer.
And therefore there was a time when the universe didn't exist.
Speaker 1: Now God, then God's not always creator.
Speaker 2: God didn't change and become something he wasn't before because
God is perfect.
Speaker 1: And then he's an internal creator. But in Christianity, refuted yourself.
Speaker 2: You believe God died and God does not die. God
is immortal.
Speaker 1: The Bible says that Jesus himself underwent Now you don't believe,
you don't know what we believe. He underwent death in
his humanity, that the Son of God did.
Speaker 2: Not die, so the divinity of God, of God didn't die.
So you believe it impossible a human sacrifice that saves you,
when a human sacrifice again, is not a notion worthy
of God.
Speaker 1: I'm afraid fact that you only determine what is worthy
of God or a notion worthy of God, within the
paradigm of the belief system itself. So you're you're using
an extra.
Speaker 2: System, using the paradigm of the Bible, because the.
Speaker 1: God requires God part of sacrifices.
Speaker 2: My paradigm is the Jewish Bible, and what it says
about human sacrifice.
Speaker 1: Well, that doesn't matter because we're not Jews. So you're
the paradigm of the Jewish BIBLEY not an argument against this.
Speaker 2: The New Testament is a book written by people. I know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's arbitrary, right, So the the was the Mosaic
Law written by people.
Speaker 2: I don't think he was right. I don't think the
Apostles Law he was writing scripture when you pay.
Speaker 1: Your arbitrary Paul, it's arbitrary.
Speaker 2: There's just a word you're throwing out. Do you think
Paul realized he was writing holy scripture when you wrote one?
Speaker 1: Absolutely? Yes.
Speaker 2: No, But you see he didn't because he denied in
one Corinthians, chapter seven, verse twelve that what he was
saying was from God.
Speaker 1: No, that's that's that's an example of that's an example
like listen, if you go to an Orthodox liturgy, you
will see an irreverence of the text in different levels.
So for example, I'm talking about you're not you're not
going to listen to what my explanation. So let's move on.
Lawrence ballinag two dollars the lad spent. Okay, thank you
appreciate that. Nickorepis focus again. Five dollars, thank you. Unrelated
question do you haven't Jay? Do you have a favorite
book dealing with the spiritual or ascetic life outside of
the Bible. Well, of course, the feel of Colia is good,
but I would say I usually go to my prayer book.
So if you don't have an Orthodox prayer book, I
would recommend having one of those. Lieutenant C. HF. Two
dollars Your your shirt is haram Paul Robino two pounds
Chad Jay versus Virgin Muslim. I'm not going to read
the other comments there so they might get us in
trouble Silver nas Gul five dollars Starting with Jay. Can
you go into the presubpositions of nature in person, especially
with regard to the hour? Why have you forsaken me? Yes,
we don't believe that Jesus is expressing from in an
aryan or human sense that he was forgotten of God.
He's quoting the Psalms. He's quoting David's experience of feeling death,
which shows that in the Gospel and Jesus perspective, every
time the time the Old Testament and the Psalms are cited,
they're cited christologically. So this is something that Paul and
I would disagree with. I don't think he understands that.
If you do a study of all of the texts
in the New Testament where they cite the Old Testament,
you will see that almost all the time it's interpreted christologically.
I know Paul reck rejects that, but what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: Is that it's called Jesus east of Jesus. I agree
it's happening.
Speaker 3: I agree, but Gesus.
Speaker 1: Okay, again, that's why we went to paradigms, because in
order to judge when something's ice to Jesus and when
something's not right, we have to You are assuming that
there's a neutral critical stance, and I'm telling you that
there's not. I ask you multiple times that I asked
you multiple times how you determine your neutral critical stance
and you restated what a grammatical historical, neutral historical stance
is and I'm saying that doesn't exist. You admit that
it doesn't exist because you know about Thomas Kune. You
said that Thomas Kune doesn't apply because he's talking about science.
And then you said that your approaches scientific exto Jesus.
So you don't understand paradigms and you don't understand philosophy
in that regard.
Speaker 2: Question Jay, about the crime there? Do you want to
deal with that someone gave you five dollars?
Speaker 1: Which one?
Speaker 2: It was a bit further up, it's about the trinity
and Mary and in the clan.
Speaker 1: Oh I missed out. Okay, let's see, but where are
your nab Paul? Ask Paul why the Koran got the
Trinity wrong includes Mary if Allah is the true all
known God Koran five one sixty.
Speaker 2: This, this is a misunderstanding. If you actually read the passage,
it doesn't mention a trinity at all. It says here,
and I'll read the quote. When God says, Jesus, son
of Mary, did you say to people, take me and
my mother as to gods alongside God? He will say
that's Jesus, may you be exalted. I would never say
what I have no right to say. If I had
said such a thing, you would have known it. So
he's basically denying that he ever asked people to worship
him as God or his mother as God. Yet they're
both be given divine titles by Christians, by Orthodox christ
particularly who are very load Mary with with these divine titles.
And the Crown corrects this is that either she nor
Jesus ever claimed these divine titles for themselves.
Speaker 1: Okay, well again, I quoted at the beginning of the
debate in Luke. Early on, you have Elizabeth saying to Mary,
who am I to the mother of my Lord? Lord
is a divine title in the New Testament, and the
title the title mother of God does not mean she
caused his divinity. All it means is that she was
the means by All it means is that she was
the means by which the Son of God was born.
Paul should know that, but he's acting like he doesn't
know that. Christianity teaches that.
Speaker 2: Tony Blass, I believe they do still.
Speaker 1: Now, most Mary is not got Okay, nobody believes.
Speaker 2: That she is treated as a de facto deity.
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I mean one of the areas where I'm
a specialist is in the question of Saint Cyril and
Ephesus uh. And the term mother of God does not
mean that she caused his divinity. So I'm telling you
that that's what we believe.
Speaker 2: Of the Holy Spirit. What do you think about that
title given to marri We're not Roman Catholics, so, but
Roman Catholics call Mary's.
Speaker 1: I'm not here to debate Roman Catholicism.
Speaker 2: So I'm saying the biggest church in the world, I'm
not here to defend that this chronic criticism is still
very relevant today.
Speaker 1: Okay, Robino, I'm going to try to make sure that
did miss these. Okay, some of these are a little leude.
I'm not going to read the lude ones Robino Jay
dire invite English humorous polliums. I don't get it, Pepe sells,
who's buying three dollars? Three dollars for the triying God?
Honk Lawrence ballinak to dollars? Think you? Lawrence Tannertary twenty dollars. Well,
Tannertary says Paul, I'm an expert when it comes to
programming computers can materialize a unicorn. I'm an I'm an expert.
Therefore it must be true that computers can materialize unicorns.
That's why this is a fallacy.
Speaker 2: This is a very silly thing to say.
Speaker 1: Well, I think he's illustrating why that's a fellasum.
Speaker 2: I don't see anything to do with what I've said
about Jesus or God or the Choran a.
Speaker 1: Connection, okay, Lieutenant HF five dollars. How can Paul say
that mess Anic prophecies in the Psalms might refer to Jesus,
but also at the same time that believes that the
Promise to Hagars talks about Muhammad.
Speaker 2: That's two completely different things. There are massly any prophecies
which do not refer, ever in the Bible, to a
Messiah being God, or dying for sins, or dying for
any of what sins of the world. This is a
Christian story. It's a Christian myth. It's not I believed
by any Jews prior to the rise of Christianity, and
therefore I see no reason to believe it myself. It's
not taught by the churn.
Speaker 1: Okay, by her WHI is five dollars. I just attended
my first Orthodox service and I loved it. Thank you Jay, Well,
thank you. By her helpe, you continue seeking out the
truth in that regard? What does ac five euro What
does Paul think about We're not going to read the
the ones I can't read a loud Mark Brown two dollars?
Ask Paul how logos fits into the current Well, let
me ask you this a couple I'll rephrase this. What
about the common objections that you hear kind of the
low level of program. You know, about the bad things
in Mohammed's life, which I'm not going to say public
because of the YouTube, you know, strictures. I'm not going
to say certain things, or about the way the Kuran
talks about the logos? What would you say about those things? Paul?
Speaker 2: Look, so I don't know what, So can you give
me a passage to this is too vague.
Speaker 1: Well, what I'm saying is that sometimes people will criticize
the moral, will say lifestyle of the prophet.
Speaker 2: Give me example, because I didn't see.
Speaker 1: I'll let the person who gave the question they can
add their example.
Speaker 2: I'm not a sensitive about this, Jay, so I'm not good, but.
Speaker 1: I'm concerned about the way YouTube works with questions and censorship.
That's all.
Speaker 2: Oh, always see. No, that's a good point, j in
that case.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so we'll ask the next one. Mark says, Paul,
how does logos fit into the Kuran?
Speaker 2: Locos is a Greek term meaning reason or thought. I'm
not aware that term is used as such in the Koran?
Speaker 1: Tan or terry. Five dollars, Paul, Kuran, Well, we already
had that, Tanner, We already had that. That's that question
about five one sixteen, Grandma for Alexander five dollars, lads,
I haven't seen a stream this lit in a while. Well,
thank you, Grandma. I hope you enjoyed it. Jack Henney,
all must see com I don't know Arabic? What does that?
Speaker 2: Do?
Speaker 1: You know what that means? All? My see Kam come
so I don't know where that was it, Robino two
dollars last donation. Thank you for this great stream. All right, well,
thank you. Let's see do we have any more? I
don't see anymore coming in. But well that was heated.
I'm glad that that it got kind of hot. The
audience always likes a little bit of heat. I did
enjoy even though we got here, and I hope it wasn't.
Speaker 2: Too again, I'm happy and it's a bit cold here
in England, so I don't mean I don't mind a
bit of heat at all.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's see, I'll let you if you want to
give out your website, I'll put everybody's link, you know,
our links below and if I remember the questions that
were asking me, I'll put links to specific answer questions
as well. Paul, do you want to let everybody know
what your website is and where they can.
Speaker 2: Find you and what you'll be Yeah, it's called blogging
Theology to blogging Theology the number two dot com Blogging
Theology too dot com, And it's a forum, a safe
space where Christians and Muslims and others can debate and
discuss articles. There's no restriction on people. People say, as
long as they're not abusive, and you're welcome to stop by,
read the articles, comment, disagree. Disagreement is absolutely fine. You
can say things you disagree about Islam. I'm not sensitive
about that at all.
Speaker 1: There's one last there's another question here. Spec. Seven for
nine nine says, isn't there a different He says, isn't
there only one Qur'an because the others were destroyed if
they conflicted? Is that true?
Speaker 2: Uh? Not really that that's a myth. What happened was
at the time of Uthman, here was the third caliph
in Islam and the seventh and eighth centuries, islamas spreading
throughout the Middle East and what we call you know,
Iran and the Middle East and North Africa. It was
an oral it was mainly an oral recitation, and non
Muslims obviously becoming Muslims as well, and the purity of
the original tech the original recitation was changing and there
was and people were noticing that different kinds of you know,
there's a danger of the Kran becoming corrupted. And what
Othman decided to do he created this odor, this codex
basically with all the agreement of the companions, and they
created together all the written records of what the Hammad
had given them about the Kran says, and he created
this text, which was then copied, and copies of it
were sent out to the various parts of the Islamic Empire.
And all the other copies were ordered to be destroyed
because they might contain errors. They might have been written
down when someone misunderstood something, you know, thousands of miles
away from Medina or Mecca. So that was the purpose.
It was to protect the purity of the original revelation.
And so it was all Muslims now, except that the
Othmanic Codex is the original codex and Western scholars, I
know you hate this, but Western scholars accept this and
they see it as historically reliable.
Speaker 1: Okay. I did have a couple of questions about the
uploading the stream. I'm not giving people permission to upload
all of my streams, just this stream. If you want
to upload it, I don't care, but just please have
a link to the channel. And we had another question,
Eric Gernberg ten dollars, Jay, can you read Isaiah fifty
three and other biblical passes? Is about the coming of
the Messiah, his divinity I mean, I'm sure that Paul
has a pat response to that. I mean, you know,
obviously we think that the suffering servant and these texts
do refer to the Messiah, they do talk about his suffering,
but again we disagree at a paradigmatic level. What do
you think about those texts.
Speaker 2: It's a good question. I'm frequently asked about this by Christians.
I just want people to notice one thing. Realize I
fifty three, and do you ever notice the Messiah a
Messiah ever mentioned? It's not mentioned, And in fact, the
Isaiah fifty three is the fourth or four servants songs
STI mentioned scottars I apologize for now.
Speaker 1: It's just that it's arbitrary because because Messiah is you
have these arbitrary categories, you said, because the text doesn't
say you erect arbitrary categories about it.
Speaker 2: Just continue. There are four servant songs. As I think
Jay knows full well, this is the last. The servant
is clearly identif to find Israel itself. This is a
poetic passage, it's a figure of speech. It is understood
now by Hebrew scholars as it was then to refer
to Israel itself in captivity and.
Speaker 1: You just don't have that exegesis of messy passages. By
the way, that's something that you've made up to explain
away what it is.
Speaker 2: Well, what I'm saying is that this passage doesn't speak
of a Messiah, doesn't mention a Messiah.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to mention it by name. Paul I
already dismantled because I can't.
Speaker 2: Say it's a passage and then it never mentions a Messiah.
That's kind of that's very weak, are very weak argument. Indeed,
you've got to have some so any so any text.
Speaker 1: How do you know that a text has to have
the term Messiah and it to be a Messianic prediction,
because the Jews don't be it that way.
Speaker 2: Because you could then say any passage of the Old Testament,
I choose arbitrarily, and I'm going to use your word now,
it's entirely arbitrary which passages you say are Messianic or not.
Isai fifty three in context, if you read the Isaiah
fifty two and fifty four, nobody denies to Israel. It's
not about were because of the context.
Speaker 1: We agree about the historical context, and there's a mirrored
fulfillment Okay, so there's no denying that.
Speaker 2: Fulfillment in the Jewish scriptures. I'm sorry, that's not that's.
Speaker 1: Not but you're not understanding that even the Jews believe
that David was writing about David and the coming Messiah.
Speaker 2: Okay, can you grasp that fifty three is not a
mirrored anything he's talking about is.
Speaker 1: I'm talking all the Messianic prophecies are a historical reference
to their day and to the coming time of the Messiah.
Speaker 2: What's the evidence of that? Is typically that way, Well,
where's evidence for that? Where's the evidence for that?
Speaker 1: Look at any look at any Jewish list of what
the Messianic prophecies are. They will talk the Jewish study
bibble that you have. I have that same Jewish study
Bible when they talk about Messianic prophecies and the Psalms,
they don't deny that it's also historically about David.
Speaker 2: H The idea that the Christian belief is very clear.
I just refuted you hang on, hang on that God
became a man and died on the back.
Speaker 1: That's not an answer to the question about predictions. It's
not an answer to what I just said about.
Speaker 2: Don't override me this, This claim which Paul says, and
when Corinthian's uh is actually referenced in the in the
Jewish Bible, is without any foundation whatsoever in the Jewish scriptures.
Isaiah fifty three doesn't get you out of that hole.
I'm afraid it doesn't mention a besides, doesn't mention the
death of missile. It doesn't mention.
Speaker 1: Categories that don't you appealed to the Jews? Do you
appel to the Jews? You appeal to the Jews, And
when Jews read the Psalms of David, they think they're messianic,
and they don't all mention the word Messiah. You made
up your own category to escape the force of the argument.
Speaker 2: Can you cite me who believes they're going to.
Speaker 1: We're going to move on two dollars? Enjoyed this traditional
Christian five pounds? Can you explain Paul using appeal to
authority with and vsa V his doctor analogy? I don't
know if you're asking me or him. I don't understand
the question. Actually, can let me let me reread this.
Can I explain Paul using appeal to authority as in
like a fallacy with scholars? Vsa V his doctor analogy.
I'm sorry, I can't. I don't understand the question.
Speaker 2: But uh, I'm opinion to authority when I see my doctor.
But you seem to think it's a fallacy.
Speaker 1: And how is it a fallacy because we're at the
level of paradigms, and at the level of paradigms, you
can't appeal to a lesser authority to validate the paradigm.
Speaker 2: Paradigms is something I'm asking.
Speaker 1: You paradigmatic questions, and you.
Speaker 2: Can't logical point a logical point. You said, it's a
logical fallacy.
Speaker 1: You don't understand what methologic is. You don't understand how
world us work.
Speaker 2: My doctor for him on his authority to correctly diagnose
my illness.
Speaker 1: It's not It is not a paradigmatic level question. Going
to the doctor and getting sick and using that as
an analogy is not a paradigmatic level question logical fallacy. Therefore,
it is a logical fallacy. Paul, go look up any
basic list of.
Speaker 2: I did a degree.
Speaker 1: Oh, nobody cares about your degree and where you studied.
That's a fallacy too, That's a fallacy. To appeal to consensus,
appeal to appeal to popularity, appeal to prestige, that's a fallacy. Yeah,
I do logic, that's a fallacy. How's that obsessed?
Speaker 2: I don't care it means anything. You're just throwing around
like confetti as if this proves anything. It doesn't prove anything.
Speaker 1: It proves that you don't know basic logic. That's why
you lost the debate.
Speaker 2: I'll go to my library, I show the textbooks I use.
Speaker 1: Are you are you? Are you that arrogant that we
care that you go to some fancy library and pull
up textbooks. Nobody cares about where you went to school.
It's how a debate works. You lost because you didn't
know what a basic fallacy was. That's where he lost
the debate.
Speaker 2: You lost because you never actually pointed out not a fallacy,
it's not a fallacy.
Speaker 1: Appeal to authority as a fallacy.
Speaker 2: Why is it? Just tell me, just tell me now
why it's a fallacy.
Speaker 1: Don't for the fifth time, for the fifth time. It's
an appeal to authorities, because, especially at the paradigm level,
you can't appeal to a lesser authority to uh to
vindicate something that is paradigmatic. Okay, that's why that.
Speaker 2: Sentence Jane, I didn't understand that sentence.
Speaker 1: I know you didn't understand that sentence. That's why I've
repeated it ten times in the debate. I still want
So we're done, Okay, we can. I can't keep going
on this all day. We're going for a long time.
I've got other things. I got it. We can. We
can schedule another debate. This has been. This has been
I think, really cool again. So Paul's I'll have his
links below. I'm glad I got he did. Don't want
to get too heated, don't want things to continue on.
I'm gonna have to get out here in a minute.
I can't keep going forever, even though this was a
lot of fun. Okay, So so thank you guys, Paul,
thank you very much. I appreciate it. Forgive me if
I was too passionate, but I do get very passionate
about this.
Speaker 2: That's fine, don't worry.
Speaker 1: Jay.
Speaker 2: I like you, Jay. Finally, I like your passion. I
appreciate your integrity, I appreciate your passion for truth, passion
for the truth. And we can certainly schedule another or
schedule schedule another event at some time in the future.
Speaker 1: All right, And yeah, maybe we'll pick a different sort
of more specified topic, so we're not kind of doing everything.
Speaker 2: Maybe that's a very good point. I would like to
narrow this down because it's a rush thing and I'm thinking,
oh my god, there's ten points I got.
Speaker 1: You know me too, I've got a whole bunch of notes.
But we do have one last question here, all right,
So mister Williams, can you talk to a monk to
guide you to clean your news, to find God in
your heart? And then debate?
Speaker 2: So that's I I didn't even understand the question. What
was the question?
Speaker 1: Again? Part of the question was would you be willing
to go talk to a monastic person and learn about
the Orthodox Church? As I think he's getting.
Speaker 2: Well, what I did was when I was a I
went to Court Abbey on the Isle of Wight, which
is a very conservative, traditional Catholic monastery. It's it's a
contemplate to community and I've often been there on retreat,
not as a Muslim, but before I did. So, you know,
I like monasteries. I like the monastic life. I like
the silence and the reverence and the spirituality and the
good food usually, so I don't feel need now to
go back to a monastery and.
Speaker 1: Hang out there.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: I think they were talking about Orthodox monster, which would
be which would would be different from real usson. But anyway,
all right, we got I'm going to have to end it.
This this has gone on. It's very it was very enjoyable.
I appreciate his approach. He was able to deal with
my heatedness. And God bless everybody. Thank you for watching.
And again I stress you can upload this, this discussion,
but please, that doesn't that's not giving you permission to
upload all of my other videos and talk to those
are online. Ask me for permission. This one you can
upload as long as you put links to the talk
and anyway, have a good night. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: So i'mily come