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