Adnan Rashid – Powerful Debate – Is the Trinity Divine? vs James White – Revisiting

Adnan Rashid
AI: Summary © The upcoming Trinity man-made debate delves into the definition of the trinity and the church's definition of heresy and her claims to be creative. They also discuss the history of Christian faith and confusion surrounding the church's definition of divinity, including heresy and her claims to be creative. The speakers stress the importance of the holy spirit and the use of scripture as sources of evidence, as well as the significance of common understanding among Christian leaders. They end with a message of thanks and goodbye.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:10 --> 00:00:33

Adnan if you want to come to the podium, and you have 20 minutes before you start the time, just have a couple of words to say. James has been a very good friend for a very long time. And he always presents presence gifts every time we have a debate. I don't know if he has one today, but I have a big one for him today.

00:00:36 --> 00:00:57

This is a book from the 17th century published in 1689. And it is a paraphrase and annotations upon all the books of the New Testament, the work of Mr. Hammond DD. So this is a generous gift to Dr. James White for his commitment

00:00:59 --> 00:01:03

towards myself and towards our friendship. Thank you, James.

00:01:14 --> 00:02:02

Thank you very much admin your time sets. Now. Thank you. Amanda Rahim in the name of God, the Merciful, the Beneficent. I am Adnan Rashid, many of you are well aware of me, you might have seen some of my debates, you might have seen me at the park. And you might have seen me somewhere shouting and screaming at one of the protests outside an embassy. I'm also a human rights activist. And I feel that belief always constitutes doing good for humanity. Whether people are Christians, or Muslims or Jewish, they all deserve justice. I have actively defended some persecuted Christians in a country called Pakistan, I come from Pakistan. And they have been cases where some Christians were

00:02:02 --> 00:02:56

treated unjustly, and I even stood up for them when it was necessary to do so. Today's debate, ladies and gentlemen, is going to be conducted in a spirit of friendship, in a spirit of a sense of appreciation for each other. There is no opposition. Hey, tonight, I am not an opponent to James and James, I hope is not an opponent to me, or we are not opposing each other's views. Rather, we're simply trying to put our views across. What I'm going to talk about today is my view. And I think the Trinity is definitely manmade, it is not divinely stipulated, this is my view. And James is going to put out his view that the Trinity is definitely divinely stipulated. So I will begin with a

00:02:56 --> 00:03:32

presentation of my view. What is the topic tonight, the topic is very technical and very specific, the doctrine of the Trinity manmade, or divinely stipulated? Now, the trinity or a trinity is not actually the doctrine of the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is very specific, very specifically defined by Christian scholars such as Dr. James White. In his book he has defined the doctrine as follows the doctrine of the Trinity is simply that there are

00:03:33 --> 00:03:36

that there are there is one eternal being of God.

00:03:37 --> 00:04:30

In finite, indivisible, this one being of God is shared by three co equal co eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And the terms stipulated means, simply put down, clearly. And if we were to follow the Oxford dictionary for the word stipulated, it simply states demand or specify typically as part of an agreement or there are synonyms, synonyms, such as specified set down, set out laid down set forth state clearly. So Dr. James White, is going to today argue that it is divinely stipulated this particular doctrine is specifically defined. And this particular definition is divinely stipulated. I want Dr. James White to come back tonight and prove to us from

00:04:30 --> 00:04:37

the Bible which he believes to be the word of God. And he is a Christian who believes in a concept called sola scriptura.

00:04:39 --> 00:05:00

Which means the scripture alone and he's a Christian who holds on very tight to the Scripture. He doesn't want to go out of the Scripture. So I hope Dr. James White tonight will be able to define the doctrine of the trinity or find this particular definition in the Bible. My view is it is not an

00:05:00 --> 00:05:48

In the Bible, so, is the doctrine of the Trinity divinely stipulated? Is it divinely stipulated? So first of all, we have to see where Dr. James White will go to prove his case he will go to the Bible, is the Bible trustworthy is the first point I'm going to address. The Bible, in my view is as the word of God not trustworthy. And this is my view. And this is this view is not to offend the Christians. Rather, I have been led to this view, after almost 10 years of study, I have studied Christian works, I have studied Muslim works. I've studied Jewish commentaries on the Bible. And I have been led to believe by my studies that the Bible as it stands today currently, is not what the

00:05:48 --> 00:05:57

original authors actually wrote. And we've had a debate in the past on this topic, you may go and watch that debate, it is on YouTube.

00:05:58 --> 00:06:00

So can we trust the Bible?

00:06:01 --> 00:06:04

Can the text of the Bible be trusted?

00:06:05 --> 00:06:29

Well, was the New Testament written by the authors it claims to have been written by, for example, was the Gospel of Luke, as you find it in your Bibles in this church today, written by him, was the Gospel of John, actually, as you find it in your bibles today, written by him, was the gospel of Mark and Matthew written by him.

00:06:30 --> 00:06:37

In the light of all the various reaching readings in the Greek New Testament, we come to realize that

00:06:38 --> 00:07:26

all of the Greek manuscripts they differ with each other. So the interpreters Dictionary of the Bible states, it is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscript tradition is wholly uniform. What does that actually mean? So how do the scholars or the Christians get the Bible? Where does it come from, if the manuscripts are all different, but when we pick up a Bible in the church today, we read one gospel, written by allegedly mark, or Matthew, or Luke, or John, and there are no differences in that particular text. So what is this dictionary talking about? We go to see as to how the Greek New Testament is built is constructed.

00:07:27 --> 00:08:07

And Bruce Metzger is one of the scholars we refer to in this regard. And in his commentary, a Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, page 11. He states Bruce Metzger, who is a world renowned authority on this particular topic, he states of the approximately 5000 Greek manuscripts of all, or part of the New Testament that are known today. No to agree exactly in all particulars. Confronted by a mass of conflicting readings, editors must decide which variants deserve to be included in the text, and which will be relegated to the apprentice. Here Metzger is saying that it is the editors who decide as to what may

00:08:09 --> 00:08:59

what was or what may have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not the authors themselves because of the differences in the manuscripts. So can we trust the Bible? Can we trust the text of the New Testament? No, we cannot, according to what I have stated tonight, and James is welcome to challenge my view in his rebuttal, or during the q&a, you can bring it up if you want to take me on that. Even if the Bible was trustworthy. Let's assume the Bible is completely trustworthy. For argument's sake, the Old Testament is at his as it was given to Moses, for example, or Joshua, or Zico, or Melaka, all the prophets or Isaiah, what we have is exactly what was revealed to those

00:08:59 --> 00:09:18

prophets. Although no Christian or Jewish scholar would ever claim that, listen to me carefully, no Jewish or Christian scholar would ever claim that these books have actually been written by these prophets. Because we have lost the originals what we have are the translations.

00:09:19 --> 00:09:20


00:09:22 --> 00:09:27

even if the Bible is trustworthy, can the doctrine of the Trinity be found in the Bible?

00:09:28 --> 00:09:59

Almost all scholars are unanimous that the doctrine of the Trinity is absolutely absent. In the Old Testament, it is not there. William Lane Craig was recently heard saying that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found in the Old Testament. Can it be found in the New Testament? That's the question we will be addressing in due course, before I do that, I would like to quote some sources, the Oxford Companion to the Bible, written by Bruce Metzger, again, a believing Christian

00:10:00 --> 00:10:23

Who died a Christian? And James knows about that. He was a believing Christian. And James always asked this question, how can you quote him out of context when he himself believed in the Bible, but I do not quote him out of context because he, although believed in the Bible, also believed that it was corrupted.

00:10:24 --> 00:11:11

And then it was restored. There is a book written by Bruce Metzger, titled The text of the New Testament is corruption, its reception, corruption and restoration. So Metzger actually believe that the text of the New Testament was definitely corrupted. And we are now in the process of restoring whether it can be restored or not is another question altogether. So he writes in the Oxford Companion to the Bible, and I quote, because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine. It is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three co equal partners in the Godhead found in later credo formulations cannot

00:11:11 --> 00:11:26

be clearly detected within the confines of the canon. In other words, Metzger is saying, the doctrine of the Trinity as we define it today, as defined by Dr. James White, can not be found in the Bible.

00:11:27 --> 00:12:03

And by new Catholic Encyclopedia explains that the doctrine of the Trinity is a product of history developed over centuries. And I quote, there is the recognition on the part of aggregates and biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak or Trinitarianism. In the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians, that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to say,

00:12:04 --> 00:12:27

the last quadrant of the fourth century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma, one God is three persons became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life, and thought it was the product of three centuries of doctrinal development, the Catholic Encyclopedia new the new Catholic Encyclopedia.

00:12:30 --> 00:12:41

Now James might come back and quote the Bible, and he find may find some passages in the Bible examine the Gospel of Matthew chapter 28, verse 19, where

00:12:42 --> 00:13:31

the baptismal formula is given, go into the nations and baptize the nation in the name of the Father of the Son and the Spirit. But some scholars actually believe that even this particular formula was added later on to the text of Matthew, such as Graham Stanton from the University of Cambridge. Even Paul was not a Trinitarian according to most Trinitarian scholars, Larry Hurtado, who is a Trinitarian scholar believes that Paul was at best a Biney terian Christian, he was not a Trinitarian. By his belief, because what we read of Paul in his letters in his epistles, we do not find any significant mention of the Holy Spirit. We find Paul's devotion directed towards the Father

00:13:32 --> 00:13:48

and the Son. Whether Paul actually believed that the sun was divine or God is another question altogether. But at best, according to Larry Hurtado, Paul was a binary Tyrian. Christian, then where did the doctrine come from?

00:13:49 --> 00:14:32

If it's not in the Bible, if it's not in the New Testament, if it is not in the Old Testament, where does it come from? Now you may be disagreeing with me you may be thinking of passages in the Old Testament in the New Testament, there are so many passages, I have just quoted some of the biggest Christian scholarly sources in the world, some of the biggest scholars in the world and those who died Christians, Metzger is one of them. And if you are a Catholic, I'm sure most of you are not. If you're a Catholic, I've just quoted from the new Catholic Encyclopedia, this is what they're saying. So where did the doctrine come from? come from. We have an individual who was burnt at stake in the

00:14:32 --> 00:15:00

year 1553 In Geneva, his name is Michael Savita. So Miguel servito, also known as in Spanish, he was a Unitarian scholar, he was a reformer, and he argued that if the Protestant church is breaking away from Catholicism, then we might as well break away from the doctrine of the Trinity, which was actually imposed by the Catholic church upon the followers of other denominations of Christianity as we will see in due course.

00:15:00 --> 00:15:47

very quickly. So Savita has argued that the doctrine of the Trinity is a blasphemy. And I quote how much this traditional Trinity has a loss, a loss being the laughingstock of the Mohammedans. Only God knows the Jews also shrink from giving adherence to this fancy of ours and laugh at our foolishness about the Trinity, and on account of its blasphemies, they do not believe that this is the Messiah promised in the law. And not only the Muhammad ins and the Hebrews, but the very beast of the field would make fun of us did they grasp our fantastic notion for all the workers of the Lord bless the one God, this most burning plague, therefore, was added and superimposed as it were,

00:15:47 --> 00:16:39

on the new gods, which have recently come, which our fathers did not worship, and this plague of philosophy was brought upon us by the Greeks. So Savita is talking in the 16th century who was burnt at stake in Geneva, where Calvin was governing. And James White is, amazingly a Calvinist and I'm sure he condemns the burning microservices, which took place in 1553. So we just believed that it was Greek philosophy which God gave us the Trinity, not the Old Testament, the Jews never worshipped a trinity, they had no conception of a God who consists of three persons, he is one essence, and he has three high priestesses. He has three personalities, for example, or He manifests Himself in sort

00:16:39 --> 00:17:09

of three persons, the Father, the Son, and the spirit, the only God, the Old Testament knows, all the Jews knew was the Father. And, and Jesus confirms that even in the New Testament, in the chapter eight of the Gospel of John, verse 54, or 58, if I'm remembering remembering this correctly, Jesus speaks to a crowd of Jew, Jews. And he says, I do not glorify myself. It is the father who glorifies me with capital F, the father who glorifies me, of whom you say

00:17:10 --> 00:17:43

that he is your God, Father, the Jews only worshipped one person, they had no idea of the Trinity. And the same father is talking to the Jews in the book of Isaiah, chapter 44, verse six, I'm the first, I am the last and there is no one else beside me. Now tell the Jews that there is there are two more persons to be added. Why would they believe you? If that same Father who is one person has spoken to them in the Old Testament, telling them there is no one else beside me? Why would the Jews believe the Trinity?

00:17:44 --> 00:17:49

So? So vetus believed that it was the Greek philosophy?

00:17:51 --> 00:18:35

And was he correct in believing that? That's the question. So we will go to Christopher stead, another scholar who has who has written a book titled philosophy and Christian antiquity, on page 155, he states, the later history of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity has been constantly re examined, and we cannot enter into the detail of its development. These will be found in histories of Christian doctrine, but we must give some impression of the influence of philosophy on this process. And here we need to consider three representative groups of thinkers, the Christian Platanus, From Justin To UCBs, then Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers, and then Augustine and

00:18:35 --> 00:19:14

his successors. The first school are much interested in the relationship between God and His logos, which they interpret with the help of their platonic studies. This made it natural to bridge the gap between the pure unity of God and the manifold events of the natural world by naming the Lagace as its approximate creator, and controller, belief in the Holy Spirit is upheld by church tradition found founded on the Bible, but failing clear guidance from the philosophers, his origin and function are much less clearly worked out. And sometimes he almost disappears behind the logos, so that historians or doctrine can speak of a binary terian tendency in the second century. So what

00:19:14 --> 00:19:59

steady saying that in the second century of Christianity, most Christian Church Fathers were, if anything Biney Tyrians, they were not Trinitarians they had no idea about the significance of the Holy Spirit. How do we know that origins speaking in the third century, leave aside the second century we have a church father origin, who is considered to be a heretic by the Christians today. anachronistically amazingly, Christian Church formed doctrines later, and then condemned early church fathers in the light of those doctrines. anachronistically anachronism is when you apply a later idea to earlier ages, right? So we had early church fathers

00:20:00 --> 00:20:07

and I put a challenge out to James tonight. And if you can come back and correct me, I would, I would stand corrected. Thank you.

00:20:09 --> 00:20:39

All the Christian Church Fathers writing in the first three centuries, I am saying all, all of them, all of them Christian church fathers, who gave the Christians the Bible, as well as their doctrines were heretics according to your conception of the Trinity today, they did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as you believe in it today. All of them I'm saying all of them origin Ignatius Alex, Clement of Alexandria, Polycarp, Justin,

00:20:40 --> 00:20:56

poppies of Herat police to tullian, Iranians you name all of them, they believed in different things. And according to your conception of the doctrine of the Trinity, they are heretics. How can you accept a doctrine from them when they themselves are heretics? Thank you very much for listening.

00:21:03 --> 00:21:06

Dr. White, can I invite you to make your presentations?

00:21:17 --> 00:21:19

If I might have a moment as I did.

00:21:20 --> 00:21:31

Did you say that book was 1689 1689? Yes. Do you know the significance of that is? Well, I know that there was an invasion of Poland by the ultimate No, no, no, no, no, no.

00:21:33 --> 00:22:02

I'm a Reformed Baptist. And our confession of faith is called the 1689 London Baptist confession of faith. So I found that just absolutely amazing. My book is not nearly that old that I want to give to add on. But it's written by a tremendous scholar by the name of Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, which I think all British folks can appreciate a name like Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, but I did drag it all the way across the ocean for you. I hope I haven't given it to you before. I've given you a few books before. But thank you very much for your gift, and I hope it's useful.

00:22:08 --> 00:22:12

All right, 20 minutes. Let's be honest, folks.

00:22:14 --> 00:22:57

I think this is my 150/3 debate done this few times. And I recognize that, for example, amongst the Muslims who have gathered here this evening, there are some of you that are not going to hear a word I have to say. And I know that, and amongst the Christians who have gathered here, there are some of you, they're not going to hear a word that odd non has to say. Now, I can't speak to the Muslims about that. But I can say to my fellow Christians, that we should want to listen carefully to what Adnan is saying, if for no other reason than to be able to testify of Jesus Christ with greater clarity, and confidence and understanding. I recognize that I come here this evening for two primary

00:22:57 --> 00:23:40

groups. For the portion of the audience of you here today who are Christians, who either need encouragement in their faith or who seek enablement and proclaiming the truth of the Muslim people. That's the first group. Secondly, the second group comprises those Muslims here this evening, who desire to know, to understand and to honestly interact with Christians. And my hope is that our conversation will be extremely useful if you fall into one of those two particular categories. And that's the people that I certainly am most focused upon this evening. Now, let's get to the obvious facts. First, it is very easy to identify disagreements and arguments and the early history of any

00:23:40 --> 00:24:21

religious movement. I can do that in Islam, you can do that in Christianity, it's easy to point to people in any movement, who for various reasons were not as clear and their confession of faith as others might be. There are fundamental differences. I would point out between the histories of the Christian and Muslim faiths, especially in the first few centuries. For example, Islam expanded rapidly in that first century, and, and most of the doctrinal development took place within lands that were controlled by the Islamic Caliphate. Christianity was a persecuted religion, from its very beginning until the peace of the church in 8313. And so there's a great difference in how the two

00:24:21 --> 00:24:59

faiths copied their scriptures, the Romans destroyed manuscripts of the Bible and things like that. Whereas manuscripts of the Quran were produced by the government and and kept by the governments, there's a very major difference in the history of the two face that we need to keep in mind, as a result is easy to collect quotations that ignore whether a person even had the entirety of Scripture, for example, where they were taught, whether they were stable, where they were seeking to promote themselves as all sorts of interesting cult groups that developed in the early history of the church. And we have to be aware of the reality of these things when we start quoting people

00:25:00 --> 00:25:38

The standard cannot be a simplistic one. If it is going to address the actual complexities of history and God's dealings with mankind, we can't simply say, well, there was a disagreement over here, and therefore the whole thing is wrong. Every religious movement has had disagreement amongst people. There were all sorts of disagreements amongst early Muslims as well. So we can't have a simplistic standard. In regards to a subject as our as this evening. I believe that God uses men when establishing His truth amongst men, we believe we all believe as Muslims and Christians that God used prophets, that these prophets were proclaimed his truth to the people. And as a result,

00:25:38 --> 00:26:21

what we're going to see in history is that God gives divine revelation, and mankind receives that revelation, and then there is the promulgation of that revelation. And yes, there is a studying of that Revelation, the Gospel went from a very small area, in Israel to the entire world, it had to go into a world where you had Greek speaking individuals that had to start answering questions being asked by Greek philosophers. When Paul went to Mars Hill, he was asked questions that he would not have been asked in the streets of Jerusalem or even intercessory of Philippi. And so the gospel has to be able to answer those broad questions. And they may even have to use terminology in answering

00:26:21 --> 00:27:05

those questions that otherwise they would never have had to have used. And that's exactly what we see happening in the development in the early church. Now, I firmly and without hesitation, affirm this evening that God has spoken. He spoke to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, all of the prophets. And I absolutely believe that God's final word was Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, the final and complete revelation of God, to mankind. No Christian can possibly question whether God has spoken and there are many people, my friends today who call themselves Christians who do not believe that God has spoken. I don't think too many people would argue with me that I think it's a it's a basic

00:27:05 --> 00:27:45

thing to say that we need to have Jesus's view of Scripture. If you call yourself a Christian, and then think you're wiser than Jesus, that's probably not a wise thing that why would you call yourself a Christian, a follower of Christ, but go as your Bible was just a little bit too, too old for me, I take a more modern view, why TRUST Him for eternal salvation, if you don't trust this view of Scripture, and Jesus had the absolutely highest view of Scripture, it was God speaking. And so yes, that puts me in a minority today. But that's a good minority to be in because me plus Jesus is a good enough group to be in my opinion. Now, I believe as a Christian in two vital concepts, sola

00:27:45 --> 00:28:26

scriptura, and total scripture. Now what does that mean sola scriptura means that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith the church, there is nothing to be added to the scriptures, we may have subordinate standards. But the ultimate infallible authority of the Church must always be the God breathed scriptures, but I also believe in total scripture. That means I can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible he will and will not accept. I have to accept all of God's revelation, I have to allow for him to define what He has revealed to mankind. I don't get to go well, I sort of like that, but I don't like that. No, sola, Scriptura and total scripture, because I refuse to edit

00:28:26 --> 00:29:14

God's speaking. I must believe all he has said I cannot modify it. I cannot edit it to fit my liking my tastes my predilections. This means I have to believe and accept three fundamental biblical truths. I've defended all these truths and debate before even without non here they are, number one, there is only one true and eternal God, the Creator of all things. I am a convinced, open, unashamed, uncompromised Mano theist, I believe there is only one true God. Yahweh is the only true God, there are no other gods. There weren't any gods before him, there will not be any gods after him. There is only one true God. That's the first thing. But when you read the Bible, and you read

00:29:14 --> 00:29:52

it accurately, you allow it to speak. The second thing that we're taught is the New Testament Scriptures plainly identify and distinguish between three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that it describes these three persons as supernatural and divine. They're not confused with one another. The father is not the son, the son is not the Spirit. Jesus plainly distinguishes between himself and the Father in John chapter 17, his high priestly prayer, he speaks at a time when he was glorious in the presence of the Father before creation itself was, by the way, those aren't words that a mere Prophet would ever say. And so there's a clear distinction, and in John chapter 14, it's

00:29:52 --> 00:30:00

the father and the son who send the Spirit who is another comforter. Jesus sends that other

00:30:00 --> 00:30:38

Comforter to be with his disciples, I will not leave you alone I will even I will send you another comforter. And so there's this there is clear teaching of three divine persons and they are distinguished from one another. But the third thing is, the New Testament teaches the essential equality of these divine persons not equating them together, not saying they do the exact same things because the father has taken one role, the son has taken another, the spirit has taken another. They're distinguishable by the roles that they take in the economy of salvation. However, they're all described as your way. They're all described this young boy, the father is described as

00:30:38 --> 00:31:00

Yahweh, the son is identified in Hebrews chapter one, verses 10 through 12. John chapter 12, verse 41, as your way the Spirit is the Spirit of Yahweh, the prophetic Scriptures that specifically use that divine name are applied to the Father, Son, and Spirit in the New Testament, how can that be? Well, that's why I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity,

00:31:01 --> 00:31:32

this was forced upon the church, this was not something where well, you know, the Greeks are asking us questions. So we need to come up with something. This was forced upon the church by dealing with the entirety of the biblical revelation itself. And when we look at what the Bible says, it tells us, there's one God, three divine persons, explains the quality of those persons. And the only way to put that together is the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. And so as odd non quoted my own book I like being quoted, I appreciate that it's very good.

00:31:33 --> 00:32:15

Within the one being, that is God, there exists eternally three co equal and CO eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe that because I believe what the Bible teaches. Now, I wasn't intended to get into discussion of textual criticism this evening. That's a tremendous field I would love to get into. But I'm not and I already did that. And it's available on YouTube, you can go and watch it, you can listen to it, I'll respond to some of the things he said. But the simple fact of matter is, what I'm saying to you this evening, is never ever based upon any one single text of Scripture. And whether you have a King James or an NASB, or whatever else it

00:32:15 --> 00:32:57

might be, the manuscripts of the New Testament are united in teaching everything that I just said you without any question. There is absolutely no question to any meaningful textual scholar that this is in fact, the teaching of the New Testament. So just as God led his people, to understand his uniqueness, his Icard His Oneness through various means and ages past. So he led us people to a deeper understanding of Jesus, of who he was with the coming of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, the disciples, the disciples didn't even fully understand Jesus's ministry and Jesus's work as sacrifice upon the cross, even after his resurrection. It took the coming of the Holy Spirit of God into their

00:32:57 --> 00:33:34

lives, to open their minds to enlighten their minds, Jesus and Luke chapter 24, had to had to open their minds to understand the scriptures, there is a spiritual element to understanding God's spoken word and His written Word. Now, let's be clear. If God has not spoken in Scripture, there is no reason to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. This isn't, I can't give you a single reason. It's, it is a truth of Revelation. It's not the result of some philosophical speculation or reflection or anything else. If God has not spoken in Scripture, there's no reason to believe this. But if you believe that God has spoken in Scripture, there really isn't anything else to believe.

00:33:34 --> 00:33:40

But what the Scriptures actually teach. Now, there weren't many people

00:33:41 --> 00:34:20

in the early centuries weren't there. There are many people who did not have a full understanding, or did not say things exactly like we would say things today. Well, of course, there were let's let's look at someone. Justin Martyr, Justin Martyr. Now, by the way, he wasn't given last name martyr, you know, during his life. I came afterwards for some reason, I'm gonna name my kid martyr. Yeah, that's really doesn't work overly well. He gave his life he was, in fact, a martyr. And it does not seem that Justin had access to the completed canon of Scripture. He was living less than a century after the days of Paul or John or Luke. So he even had a minimal copy of the Scripture. He

00:34:20 --> 00:34:56

had the Greek Old Testament, and then he had some of the books in New Testament, but not all, yet. He clearly believed in the deity of Christ. In fact, in his dialogue with trifle the Jew, he plainly identified Jesus as Yawei multiple times. Now, remember, this was 175 years before the Council of Nicea? This is long before allegedly you have a council comes along and forces everyone to believe this thing, which is not by the way, what the Council of Nicea did by any stretch of the imagination, now was just as careful in his language and reasoning his later generations would be surely not nor should we expect him to be. I mean, you have to be careful if you want to argue that

00:34:57 --> 00:35:00

you have to have a perfect standard from the very beginning and how you

00:35:00 --> 00:35:36

Say things, no religious movement is going to be able to survive that. And we don't have time to be looking at the very early developments within Islam as well. And the the arguments and the the actual rights and the metabolites and all the rest, that kind of stuff, we get into all that kind of discussion at another time. But the point is that looking at the scriptures, you had the affirmation, Jesus was not merely a prophet, he, every one of them believed that he died upon the cross that He rose again the third day, that is the most firmly established fact of Jesus's life. And they all believed in this truth of the deity of Christ. One other one that was mentioned by anon

00:35:36 --> 00:36:14

was Ignatius, Ignatius of Antioch. Half a century before Justin, we had the letters of Ignatius, he wrote a number of letters to various churches on his way to Rome to be martyred by the way. Let me give you just two quick quotes from him. Ignatius who is also at the office under her that have found mercy in the battlefield pneus of the Father most high, and of Jesus Christ, his only son, to the church's, beloved and enlightened through the will of Him, who willed all things that are by faith and love towards Jesus Christ, our God, even under her that has the presidency in the country, the region, the Romans, so he writes to the Romans, and how does he describe Jesus? Well, he clearly

00:36:14 --> 00:36:55

distinguishes between Jesus and the Father. He calls Jesus God, the Father, his only son, but He also says, faith and love towards Jesus Christ, our God. This is long before Nicea, this is long before any of that time period. And you have the deity of Christ that knows what he says, In a letter to the Ephesians. There is only one physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and in generate God and man, true life and death, son of Mary and Son of God, first passable and an impassable, Jesus Christ our Lord. Now there is a incredibly high Christology. You have the two natures of Christ, you have God and man, true life and death, once again, his giving of his life as

00:36:55 --> 00:37:03

a sacrifice for sins, son of Mary and Son of God. And this is being written around 107108 ad.

00:37:04 --> 00:37:36

Where did he get this idea, he got this idea because he knew the apostles, and he knew what their Proclamation was, he knew what their teaching was. In fact, it's fascinating to me, that one of the early heresies of the church before anyone came along and denied the deity of Christ, which is what Islam does, before anyone came along and denied these things. The first terrorist, he was people who denied that there were three divine persons, and tried to turn them all into one person, so that Jesus is the only God.

00:37:37 --> 00:37:56

That was the first terrorist, it had to be dealt with. That's totally inconsistent scripture. But the point is that that was the first idea, the idea of lowering Jesus, especially to the idea of merely a profit, certainly not something that is a part of the history of the tax. Now, very briefly,

00:37:57 --> 00:38:08

there are some questions that were raised about a while the New Testament even teaches these things. Let me let me try to make sure you understand something. He said the Old Testament doesn't reveal this doctrine.

00:38:10 --> 00:38:32

When was the doctrine the Trinity revealed? I say to you, if you have a, you know, most of us don't have, you know, paper Bibles anymore. But if you have a paper Bible, if you'd open it up to the first chapter of Matthew, in the last chapter of Malikai, and if you look at the, the page, the gutter of the of the pages right there between Malikai and Matthew, that's where it's revealed.

00:38:33 --> 00:38:49

You're going, What do you mean by that? Drill simple. If you know your history, there's 400 years between those two pages. And in fact, the New Testament then all the events of the New Testament, take place before those first words of Matthew are written down.

00:38:50 --> 00:39:36

When is the trend he revealed? It is revealed in the coming of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, death, burial, resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. That's when it's revealed. Are there prophetic references to the Old Testament? Of course there are, who is the eternal God, The everlasting Father in Isaiah nine? Who is this one who's going as far as from a ban of old? Who is this one who is who is prophesied in the Old Testament? Certainly there are the prophetic issues. But there is no revelation of this until the Incarnation itself. And that takes place in history that takes place in time. And so I'm not going to be looking to the Old Testament

00:39:36 --> 00:39:59

to prove something I believe is revealed in the new. So what would be the evidence then of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament, every reference to where Jesus is identified as your way? John chapter 12, verse 41, who did Isaiah see upon the throne and Isaiah six, Isaiah said he saw Jehovah he saw ya what, who does John say he saw he saw Jesus, the writer to the Hebrews.

00:40:00 --> 00:40:50

He quotes Psalm 102 25 through 27, which is about how Jehovah never changes all of creation will age and grow old. But you never change is the teaching of Psalm 102 25 to 27. And the writer to the Hebrews takes that very text about the unchanging nature of the Creator Himself and applies it to Jesus. In Hebrews chapter one, is it any wonder then that Paul writes to Titus? And he says, our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ and Titus 213? Is it any wonder that John could begin as gospel in the beginning was the Word was with God and the Word was God? Is it any any shock that when Thomas sees the resurrected Jesus, his answer is to say to Jesus, not to somebody else, and the

00:40:50 --> 00:41:31

whole statement is to Jesus, my Lord, and my God, and Jesus does not rebuke him. He does not say, Oh, don't do that. I'm merely a prophet. He accepts the words of Thomas and identifies them as an act of faith. This is why even Paul can take First In First Corinthians chapter eight, he can take the great Ma Ma yesterday, Eliyahu Eloheinu, Yahaya card here, Israel, Yahoo is our God, Yahweh is one, and he expands it, in recognition of the revelation that God has made of himself in the person of Jesus Christ. We only have one God, the Father, from whom are all things we three, one Lord Jesus Christ,

00:41:32 --> 00:42:05

Lord, God, differentiation, it's right there in front of us. It's you cannot understand the New Testament. If you do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity, it is forced upon us. And so is it divinely stipulated, as long as you believe God can speak, as long as you have Jesus's view of Scripture? Yes, it most definitely is. It is given to us in Scripture, and we have in it, the one hope for with Jesus as our God, we truly have hope in salvation. Thank you.

00:42:13 --> 00:42:23

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, speakers, Adnan. You will have 10 minutes in response to the statements and presentations from Dr. White.

00:42:24 --> 00:42:25

Thank you, James.

00:42:27 --> 00:42:41

Mr. Lara mana Rahim Jas has failed to engage my scholarship. The scholarship I presented in my initial statement, James has failed to address the topic, in my opinion, my

00:42:42 --> 00:42:58

argument was that James must Tonight Show us the doctrine of the Trinity, divinely stipulated in the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity as defined by himself states,

00:42:59 --> 00:43:40

the doctrine of the Trinity simply that there are there is one eternal being of God, no problem with that. We are all in agreement on that point. There is no dispute, in divisible in finite, no problem. This one being of God is shared by three co equal, co eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is the part the CO equal the CO eternal part I'm looking for in the Bible. And what James fails to understand, or I don't think he fails to understand he understands perfectly well. But what he fails to address in many debates is the issue of the Holy Spirit.

00:43:41 --> 00:43:54

I am willing to give it to him no problem. Let's assume that Jesus is also God, for argument's sake, let's assume. Let's assume that we accept that Jesus is also God with capital G.

00:43:55 --> 00:43:57

With without any argument,

00:43:59 --> 00:44:00

where is the Holy Spirit?

00:44:01 --> 00:44:04

When James quoted Justin Martyr,

00:44:05 --> 00:44:16

and I don't know how he's a martyr, if he's, if he's a heretic, whether he's a heretic or not, will be seen in the light of his own writings. What did Justin Martyr say about Jesus Christ here

00:44:17 --> 00:45:00

and pay attention please? I quote Justin, the loss is God's offspring, and child. Before all creatures God began, in the beginning, a rational power out of himself, conditioned by and a result of the Father's will, the logos as existing existing in the Father as his rationality, and then by an act of will being generated logos, who is Jesus Christ, the Word was generated. This was a heresy known as suborn subordination is subordination ism. And people who believe that Jesus was actually a genius.

00:45:00 --> 00:45:50

narrated being a creative being a begotten, being someone lower than God himself. This was the heresy most Christian Church Fathers were suffering from in the first few centuries, including Clement of Alexandria and Origen, the most learned men in the history of Christianity for the first three centuries were guilty anachronistically of this heresy later Catholics who formed the doctrines later on in the fourth century, don't forget the doctrine of the Trinity as defined by James White was established in the year 381. See, and the Council of Constantinople even in the Council of Nicea 325, see the counter Nicea, the Creed is essentially binary terian. It does not say

00:45:50 --> 00:46:24

anything about the Holy Spirit, who is the Holy Spirit? What is the role and significance of the Holy Spirit is not known to Christians to that day? How do I know this? James has tried to paint a very simplistic picture of the church history. Everyone will in harmony, all the people believe in the Trinity. Look how clearly stated the Trinity is in the early writings of Ignatius and others. And that's not the case. If you pick up any history of the doctrine such as J and D Kelley's, you will come to realize that the picture was far from simplistic, it was very, very complicated.

00:46:25 --> 00:46:33

And most Christian church fathers did not believe in the divinity of the Holy Spirit in particular. Now, why do I believe that?

00:46:35 --> 00:46:58

And if James was going to attempt to find his own definition of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, this is a very important point, ladies and gentlemen, you must note that James will try to find his own definition of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible. And I'll tell you why he cannot find it.

00:46:59 --> 00:47:23

And that's where the debate is lost. And I'm not going to decide whether the debate has won or lost, you will decide, but some of the major Christian authorities, even Catholics, believed that the divinity of the Holy Spirit is no way stated in the Bible. Have you heard of John Henry Newman, anyone? John Henry Newman, Cardinal, John Henry Newman, who was a Catholic Cardinal,

00:47:24 --> 00:48:15

alive in the 19th century Britain, and he was one of the leading authorities on Catholicism in the country. Thank you. He states in his discussions and arguments on various subjects, published in 1899, page 114. Thus, for instance, a person who denies the apostolic succession of the ministry, because it is not clearly taught in the Scripture ought, I conceive, if consistent to deny the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, which is nowhere literally stated in Scripture, John Henry Newman, clearly stating the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the third person who is also considered to be co equal and CO eternal. I, even if I was to give James the divinity of Jesus Christ, no problem. I

00:48:15 --> 00:49:04

don't want to debate that that's another debate in itself was Jesus God? And I am not debating that topic. Tonight. I am debating a very specific topic, that definition of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is in your book, James, I want to see that definition entirely, put down stipulated in the Bible. Can you find me any reference even a vague one on the Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit that states that the Holy Spirit is CO equal, and CO eternal, with the Father and the Son? Any vague reference according to some huge major Christian authorities, not that you are not one? Obviously, they disagree with you. So what was the origin saying in the third century, John Henry Newman said this

00:49:04 --> 00:49:49

in the 19th century, in the third century, origin is saying the same thing. The apostles related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in his case, it is not clearly distinguished, whether he is to be regarded as generate or in generate, or also as a son of God or not. For these are points which have to be inquired into out of Sacred Scripture, according to the best of our ability, and which demand careful investigation, and that the Spirit inspired each one of the saints were the prophets or apostles, and that there was not one spirit in the men of the old dispensation, and another in those who were inspired at the Advent of

00:49:49 --> 00:49:59

Christ is most clearly taught throughout the churches. In other words, in the middle of the third century, one of the most learned men in the Christian world is saying, we simply do not know what

00:50:00 --> 00:50:03

The function and the significance of the Holy Spirit is

00:50:05 --> 00:50:48

in 380, Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the three coproduction, fathers, the champion of Trinity, or one of the champions of the doctrine of the Trinity, he states in a sermon, and he gave an illuminating picture of the wide variety of youth, which still held the field in the fourth century on the issue of the Holy Spirit. Some he reports consider Holy Spirit to be a force, others a creature, others God with capital G, others making the weakness of Scripture their excuse declined to commit themselves. Of those who acknowledges deity some keep it as a pious opinion to themselves. Others proclaim it openly, and yet others seem to postulate three persons possessing deity and

00:50:48 --> 00:51:05

different degrees. James had a debate with one of our friends, but some Zawadi. Whether Islam has misunderstood Christianity or not, that was the topic of the debate. In that debate, James came to the podium and he made a statement he said, that if

00:51:07 --> 00:51:21

the salvation of humanity is connected to this, believing in God or believing in God, then it must be clearly stated. His view is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly defined and stated in the Quran.

00:51:22 --> 00:52:13

So his request or demand from Assam was to produce a statement in the Quran, which is clear enough on the doctrine of the Trinity for us to either accept or reject it. I asked the same question. If the doctrine is so important for our salvation. If it's so important for our well being in the Hereafter, James, please come and substantiate your own definition of the doctrine of the Trinity. According to the Scripture, I want to see some passages on the Holy Spirit where it is clearly stated that the Holy Spirit is the person is God with capital G, and it is CO eternal. And it is CO equal to God the Father and the Son. Please avoid preaching. You're absolutely amazing preacher. No

00:52:13 --> 00:52:33

doubt, I'll give you that much. James White is an absolutely amazing, amazing, eloquent preacher, avoid preaching about the doctrine of the Trinity. Most Christians here have heard that four years, what we want to know is whether that particular definition you preach from is in the Bible or divinely stipulated or not, thank you very much.

00:52:41 --> 00:52:44

Ah, now the battle is joined on.

00:52:46 --> 00:52:48

For what is fascinating to me,

00:52:49 --> 00:53:00

is that odd anon. And his arguments against the Trinity are significantly more advanced and knowledgeable than the arguments of the Quran.

00:53:03 --> 00:53:43

And if the Quran is written 600 years after the days of Jesus, even if the trend is true or false, leave that aside for a moment. Did God know the doctrine the trainee was in 632? AD, you better believe he did. So how can a person living in the 21st century produce a better argument against the Trinity than the author of the Quran? Did if the author of the Quran is God? question you might want to think about? Where is the Holy Spirit described as God? Well, I've not I know I've given you my book on the Trinity. And there's a whole chapter on the Holy Spirit. So why didn't you go to that chapter and try to take apart the argumentation let's just think about a couple of them briefly.

00:53:43 --> 00:53:58

Acts chapter five, Peter Anand is and Sapphira they've been caught lying to whom read it carefully. They're lying to the Holy Spirit. But then when Peter says, You not lied to men, but to whom, to God,

00:53:59 --> 00:54:52

interchangeable, but one of the a lot of people don't catch that I think is really important is in First Corinthians. Because they're the Spirit gives the gifts to the body of Christ as what, as He wills. Now here is God giving supernatural gifts to the body of Jesus Christ. And they're given based upon the will. And the term that's used there in the original Greek is never used an impersonal force. This is clear indication the Holy Spirit is a person. But he wills to give the very gifts of God to this to the church. As he wills He's sovereign over that matter. Now, what type of sub creature could possibly be sovereign over these things? Now, did people in the ancient church

00:54:52 --> 00:54:59

Miss texts like First Corinthians and not see the relevance of it? And there might be he was saying some people teach this and some people teach that. Let's deal with the text.

00:55:00 --> 00:55:43

He says go to the text. Okay. How about Matthew chapter 28? Verses 19 through 20. As soon as I quote that, in his opening statement on on says, well, there are certain people that say that's not in the original manuscripts, okay? Odd non show me a single manuscript that substantiates your argument, just one, I happen to know there are none. I happen to know it's a theory that has no foundation or backing up. And I just asked my Muslim friends, if I didn't like, what a certain text SIR for 171, which basically condemns me to *, let's say I didn't like that. And I just decided, well, you know, what, I'm sure that there are some manuscripts of the Quran somewhere that don't contain that.

00:55:43 --> 00:56:17

So let's just not deal with that this evening. How good of an argument is that? It's not a good argument at all. We shouldn't be using that kind of argument. So even when I show you texts, where clearly, if you're baptized into the name singular, of three persons that are distinguished from one another, each one of them is described as Yawei. By the New Testament writers, like I said, you can't understand the New Testament, unless you recognize that it's being written after the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Peter was an experiential Trinitarian

00:56:18 --> 00:56:57

he had walked with the sun, he had heard the Father speaking from heaven on the Mount of Transfiguration, he was now indwelt, by the Holy Spirit, he was an experiential Trinitarian. The New Testament, what odd non just demand that I give is you need to give me your exact definition, the page of Scripture as if you can give me your exact definition of Tao heed, and the various forms of shirk and Rubia names and attributes and everything else in the text of the Quran. You can't let's use equal scales this evening, on that level. But I want to have the exact definition. What I told you in my presentation was, I am forced to my exact my exact position and that definition, by the

00:56:57 --> 00:57:32

teaching of the Bible, what are the three foundations? There's only one true God, we won't question that. Secondly, there are three persons who are distinguished from one another in the texts of the New Testament, there's no confusion between them over against the mode lists and people like that. And then the real issue does the Bible then teach us that each one of those persons is CO equal and CO eternal with the other? Well, if they're each described as Jehovah, if they're each given a role in, for example, in the resurrection of Christ, the writers of New Testament can easily talk about the Father raising Christ, Christ raising himself in the spirit raising Christ, they just can easily

00:57:32 --> 00:58:05

move back and forth. Paul, for example, spirit and Lord Spirit of Christ Spirit, the Lord Spirit of Christ, he doesn't he doesn't even stumble in in switching between these terms. Because the New Testament is being written by Trinitarians. They're not trying to explain it to one another. They're not trying to put forth a creed, though they're a couple places they get close. That's not the purpose of New Testament, the only way you can make heads or tails out of that book is to recognize it as being written by Trinitarians. Now, just a couple things that I wanted to get to.

00:58:06 --> 00:58:38

I'm not unsaid that I'm trying to make it look like all the churches in harmony. And this was a simplistic presentation. But I hope you were listening carefully to what I said. It's exactly the opposite of what I said. It's exactly the opposite of the presentation I made. I recognize that there were people in the early church, some which didn't even have all the canon, there are all sorts of false teachers and things like that. I recognize that we can't have a simplistic standard. I specifically mentioned that and he mentions Justin Martyr will take what Justin Martyr said then and take his argument that Jesus is Yahweh and try to put them together to figure out what he meant.

00:58:38 --> 00:58:46

Don't just take one part, allow it to speak. Now very quickly, on said that I had failed. Now the funny thing is,

00:58:47 --> 00:59:01

this is my rebuttal period, this is the first chance I get to respond to what he has to say, how could I have failed my opening presentation respond to a presentation I hadn't yet heard? That's a that's that's not the first time that I've said that. So I'm gonna suggest you drop that one in the future. It doesn't really work very well.

00:59:04 --> 00:59:43

We had the discussion of Bruce Bruce massacre. Again, very, very briefly, briefly, he talks about how Bruce Metzger says the New Testament has been corrupted. Now I've corrected on not on this before. And I'll have to do it again. He's got to understand that what that means to New Testament textual critics is that there have been variations in the handwriting in the New Testament. Every book of antiquity has textual variants, including the Quran. I've shown textual variants in the Quran on the screen in debate with Abner and therefore he must know that by Bruce Metzger, his definition deaths what else is corrupted the Quran

00:59:45 --> 01:00:00

Alright, so let's again, this the Quran itself speaks of equal scales, we have to use the same arguments. We can't use one argument to argue against the New Testament that would destroy our own faith. Use the same story

01:00:00 --> 01:00:41

standards. I'm really big on this. And I think odd non will testify that I am really big on this. And I think he's missing it on this particular issue at this point. And so what do we have this evening? If the demand is will show me in the New Testament, the very words of your definition, I've never claimed that they're they're not once no one in this room, I understand you even use my book, The Forgotten Trinity is a textbook and some of the classes here or something the pastor was saying, you've done some studies on it. You all know, I never made the claim. Here. This definition is found in such and such a text. What I did state is that if you accept all of Scripture, if you allow all

01:00:41 --> 01:01:28

of Scripture to teach, it testifies clearly, that there is only one true God. There are three divine persons, and it teaches the quality of those persons. And the only way to understand that is the biblical doctrine, the Trinity. But let me give you one other example. The gospel of Jesus Christ is Trinitarian. It cannot be understood as anything other than Trinitarian. What do I mean? Well, the Bible says, that the founder of grace, the founder of mercy, is found in the Father Himself. Ephesians chapter one. And yet it then says that the accomplishment of that great act of redemption is not worked out by the Father, He sends the son who comes voluntarily he makes himself of no

01:01:28 --> 01:01:29


01:01:30 --> 01:01:34

And he gives his life upon Calvary, his tree.

01:01:35 --> 01:01:43

But then how is that brought to me? How did that become real to me, I was a sinner dead and my trespasses and sins.

01:01:45 --> 01:02:12

And the Bible says that was the Holy Spirit of God, who comes and takes out that heart of stone and gives me a heart of flesh raises me to spiritual life, becomes the aura bone that downpayments where God says, I've begun a good work and this my child, and I'm going to complete it, I'm going to finish it. That's the Trinitarian gospel Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the only way to understand

01:02:13 --> 01:02:39

allowing the new testament not cutting it up, but I'm afraid that's what we're looking at dizzy. Well, I don't like that part. So we throw out Matthew 28. And that stuff in John, we throw that out, if you allow it to speak, it presents to us, a Trinitarian God, and a Trinitarian gospel. And that message is what the world needs to hear. And that's why I'm here in London. And I want you to hear it. I want Adnan to hear it. And I want to be to be heard with clarity. Thank you very much.

01:02:46 --> 01:03:28

Thank you, gentlemen. Very, very interesting. So far, very stimulating so far. Have you enjoyed this? Thank you. So we're going to take a break, we're going to pause for five minutes 10, we give them 10 minutes, and then we'll we'll come back at 10. Another 10 minutes will be 20 past the hour. If you've got your scripted questions, and you're going outside, just hand them to the ushers who was standing at the door, if you're going to remain at your sit in your seats, somebody will come round the auditorium and collect the questions from you. But ladies and gentlemen, let's have a break for 10 minutes and we'll come back and ask the panelists some questions. Okay, thank you.

01:03:32 --> 01:03:52

I have a series of questions for the panelists, and I'm going to go through the questions. I hope that they're decipherable. I hope you've written them in very clear handwriting, but I will try my best. I will direct my questions. Adnan to you first. You have three minutes to respond to the question. And then

01:03:54 --> 01:04:05

Dr. White, you have a minute in rebuttal. And then I'll go the other way. And we'll do that for a couple of minutes, probably about 35 minutes and then we'll come back and do a summation and you do your final speeches closing speeches for the debate this evening.

01:04:08 --> 01:04:08


01:04:09 --> 01:04:12

I think gentleman you wanted to stand at the podium. Okay.

01:04:13 --> 01:04:14

I prefer that

01:04:20 --> 01:04:22

Adnan my first question.

01:04:23 --> 01:04:45

Why did Surah 5116 get the wrong Trinitarian formula? If it is from Allah? Thank you for that question. Although the question is not directly related to the topic, James raised some points about the Quran. But the Quran got the Trinity right or wrong. James has debated this topic previously with a number of Muslim

01:04:48 --> 01:04:53

apologists on scholars or activists and he has been given clear answers on that point.

01:04:54 --> 01:05:00

The issue of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Quran is a very interesting one. Very quickly. I'll try

01:05:00 --> 01:05:02

To summarize my points as quick as possible.

01:05:04 --> 01:05:16

The Quran is not a book on Christian theology. The Quran is not a book on science. The Quran is not a book of history. The Quran is a book that contains verses

01:05:18 --> 01:06:09

that are very, that are very important for human salvation. So Quran makes simple points for people to understand and moves on. There is no mention of Trinity in the verse 116 of the chapter five of the Quran, there is no mention of the Trinity. The Quran simply says, or this is a dialogue taking between God and Jesus, God asks Jesus, did you tell people to worship you and your mother, as gods besides Allah, and his response that I have never said anything like it and you are better aware of the fact that I have never said anything like it, or claimed anything like it. Now, is the Quran correct in claiming that, that the Christians or some people worship Jesus and Mary, of course, of

01:06:09 --> 01:06:51

course, the Quran is absolutely accurate in this list. The Quran doesn't say that, did you actually preach the doctrine of the Trinity with God the Father, God the Son, and Mary as a third person? The Quran is not saying that the Quran is making a simple statement. Did you actually ask people to worship you and your mother? Do Christians worship Jesus? Of course, they do worship Jesus, in fact, at the expense of God the Father, they worship Jesus. People like James Digi done one of the biggest scholars on patristic history has written on this topic did early Christians worship Jesus and he has very interesting points to make. And in this book, in the conclusion, he states that the

01:06:51 --> 01:07:45

Christians today are effectively guilty of Jesus all a tree, just like idolatry. They are guilty of Jesus oratory because the focus of their worship has become Jesus, not God, the Father whom Jesus himself worship. So the Quran is making that point number one, number two, Mary, was she ever worshipped by Christians is she is worshipped to this day. The Catholics, in fact, the Council of Chelsea Dawn 461. See, he regarded Mary as the god bearer, the one who carries God in her womb. In other words, the Mother of God, Catholics have been praying to Mary for the past 1700 years. And the Quran is addressing those people. And when the Quran talks about the Trinity in chapter 471, it

01:07:45 --> 01:08:02

simply says Do not say three. Now, God understands that that Christians have understood the Trinity differently in different times in different places. This is the debate tonight. The Christians have never had unanimity on the doctrine of the Trinity, especially in the first four centuries My time is up thank you.

01:08:17 --> 01:09:03

Through look at Sarah is 17 and 1870 through 74 Follow the context and there are numerous warnings to Christians and Surah five about how we've been deceived. We've gone astray Hellfire is is coming for us. And the only place in the Quran, where three are ever mentioned together is certified 116. A law Mary and Jesus that's the only place. So it is not true that even in Roman Catholicism and I believe Roman Catholicism is in grave grave error in its exaltation of Mary. But even Roman Catholicism says she is not a god. So who is being addressed there? If that is not the fulfillment of what's in the rest of earth a minus or a five? In regards to a warning to Christians? It seems to

01:09:03 --> 01:09:06

me that's exactly what the Quran is actually saying in error.

01:09:08 --> 01:09:09

Thank you, James.

01:09:12 --> 01:09:21

My first question to you is this according to Mark 13, only the Father knows the hour. Why doesn't the Holy Spirit

01:09:25 --> 01:09:59

Oh, I was expecting to say why doesn't the sun because what the text specifically says is in speaking of the establishment of that hour, Jesus says, No man knows. Notice there's he gives a very important teaching here. No man knows. No angel knows, nor does the son know but only the Father so where does he put himself above men and angels as the son let's just make sure everyone understands from the Quranic perspective. Jesus could never said those words. So I'm not sure how you understand

01:10:00 --> 01:10:41

but just something I want to point out to you. Why doesn't the spirit know that time? Jesus didn't say that? Because the Scriptures say the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God, the spirits not being referenced in Mark chapter 13. The question is why doesn't the son in his incarnate state know there are certain divine prerogatives, the son laid aside so he could function as the Messiah. For example, we know that amount of Transfiguration Jesus's natural glory shone through and he shone with the light as the sun. Now, can you imagine Jesus trying to fill his ministry if he always walked around glowing like the noonday sun?

01:10:42 --> 01:11:27

You never have to have a light at night, you know, just follow Jesus around because you know it, you know, can you imagine how he could have taught or done a the things that he did? If that supernatural power was constantly being illustrated in his existence? No, it was veiled. There were certain things that were veiled. In fact, most scholars believe that there is a veiling of May these things so that Jesus demonstrates for us becomes the model for us as to how we are to depend upon the Holy Spirit, the same way that the sun did. Whatever the reasons are, there are things that Jesus had before the incarnation he has after the Incarnation, but they are voluntarily remember

01:11:27 --> 01:12:08

Philippians two says, He made himself of no reputation, not he was made. But he made himself of no reputation, there are certain things that he does not act upon in the incarnate state, which would include evidently knowledge of the specific date of that final hour now exactly why that would impact his teaching or ministry or something that we're not told. But it is consistent with the biblical teaching, that Jesus Christ is the Creator of all things that Jesus Christ is the Maker of all things, that he would be able to say these words because the fact that he took on flesh, the Word became flesh, there was a veiling of certain things that he could function in the way that the

01:12:08 --> 01:12:12

Father, Son and Spirit had determined that he would function as the Messiah.

01:12:20 --> 01:12:24

That was an absolutely amazing spin on one of the verses of the Bible.

01:12:25 --> 01:12:29

That's my opinion. Jesus is simply denying His divinity here.

01:12:31 --> 01:13:14

And this is how most of the early church fathers, the reason why I keep going back to the early church fathers is because they're the ones who gave you the Bible. They're the ones who gave you the understanding of the Bible. And they're the ones who gave you. In the case of the Catholics, the Trinity, you have to defend the doctrine of the Trinity today, because the Catholics gave it to you. Because Theodosius the first in the late fourth century, imposed it on the Christian world. We have references for major Christian authorities that the majority of Christians in the fourth century were actually Unitarians. They believed that father was greater than Jesus. Why? Because of the

01:13:14 --> 01:13:55

Bible, where Jesus says, The Father is greater than I hear in this verse, He is simply saying, no one knows of the hour, not even the angels, not even the sun with capital S, who is God. He's simply saying, I have no knowledge of the Hour. Now, the Christians have to argue that way, the way James argued, Jesus has to jump into God, picture or God body, and then he has to jump out of the god body when some biblical passages cannot be explained. For example, Father is greater than I, or the Gospel of John Chapter 17. Verse three, father is the only true God in the Greek language Manas. ality nos, which means

01:13:56 --> 01:13:57

thank you very much.

01:13:59 --> 01:14:42

Adam, do you what do you want to say is that sun at the podium for for your next question, and this one is a mouthful. The Quran was gathered by the fourth Caleta Othman Dean Athan, who himself burned six different Quran and left only one which has no movement, Koofi style, and the one you have today is different. Can you prove the Quran is not corrupted? And you have three very good question. Absolutely amazing question and I've addressed this question a number of times can watch many of my videos on YouTube addressing this question. If you want to give me 10 minutes to address this question, I will gladly answer the question but this is not related to the topic. Can you move to

01:14:42 --> 01:15:00

the next question please. So I will not address any questions whether they are about my age or my size of my chest or five or my bicep, you know, because then I can I can describe myself amazingly. I can do you want to respond to this?

01:15:00 --> 01:15:28

One Yes, please. Can you respond please to the verses presented by James which show the divinity of the Holy Spirit, for example, acts five, when people lie to the Holy Spirit or Matthew 28. Or First Corinthians, the reason why I didn't engage biblical theology is because it is a field, we will never reach a conclusion in. I'll give you an example. We can actually support

01:15:30 --> 01:15:31

anything from the Bible.

01:15:33 --> 01:16:18

Now challenge me bring an idea up, and I will find your verse from the Bible to substantiate that idea. Why did the early church fathers find it so difficult? The most learned men in Christian history who those who knew Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, people like Origen, people like Clement of Alexandria, people like Iranians, people like to tullian Pee, all of these people failed to understand that verse, the way James explained it, why is that the case? Ladies and gentlemen, this is the question I asked, Why would you form a doctrine in the fourth century? And then later on, defended, and condemn every single early church father who didn't believe in it? Why would you do

01:16:18 --> 01:17:05

that? I put out a question. And James hasn't actually answered the question. I again state, almost 99% of the earth to be safe to be safe. Maybe I might pull out one of the those guys some from somewhere 99% of the early church fathers in the first three centuries, are all heretics, according to your understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, because they did not believe in what you believe in today. You only believe in what you believe in today's because in the fourth century, in the year 381, some bishops got together in Constantinople. And they added the Holy Trinity into the creed of Nicea. When you read the creed of Nicea from 321? Through 325, see, it simply states

01:17:06 --> 01:17:07


01:17:08 --> 01:17:54

who is God, son, who is God, and they are the same substance, and they are both equal, co eternal. And he simply states we believe in the Holy Spirit without explaining what the Holy Spirit is 325 See, the Holy Spirit suddenly becomes God in the year 381. See, why did the church take so long or the Catholic Church in particular? Or why did the Trinitarians take so long to reach that conclusion? What was stopping them? Why did why did they not understand the passages James will quote and continue to quote, in due course, the way he understands them. These are very pressing questions, ladies and gentlemen, you have adopted a doctrine without actually knowing the

01:17:54 --> 01:18:29

background. I'm not saying all of you are like that, of course, there are people who study who are well aware of the church history and the history of the doctrine, pick up any book on the history of the Church doctrine or the Christian doctrine. And I recommend, one of them is JND. Kelley, the history of the early church taught early Christian doctrine, you will see all these things I'm stating in that book, you simply cannot deny these facts. I want James to come back and explain why did the early church fathers in the first three century find it difficult to believe that the Holy Ghost is God? Thank you.

01:18:35 --> 01:19:14

Well, we in one minute, we had a lot of assertions made, we didn't have a single citation made. I was reading from Ignatius, I read from justin martyr. But we haven't had any citations. We're just told that they all knew Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic that's fault. They're only two other church fathers that we know of that were actually functional in both Greek and Hebrew origin drunk. The rest of them did not. So it's just it's just false. Didn't say the single source saying 99% of them. That's just simply not true. I and how can I respond to just vague accusations when you're just making it? How about giving us some specifics was Ignatius. What What exactly do you mean here? And

01:19:14 --> 01:19:34

when he says, Well, they didn't interpret those texts the way that I did? How do you know that you've actually studied the entire patristic corpus as to how they interpret First Corinthians 12x Five, and Matthew chapter 28. I sort of doubt that. The reality is that the New Testament does identify the Holy Spirit as God. It's right there in the text we saw

01:19:36 --> 01:19:58

James moving, moving swiftly to your to your next question. Adnan made the claim that all the early church fathers will be considered heretics by today's standards, on the basis that they only accepted to have three persons in the Trinity, who is the earliest church father to clearly affirm the Holy Spirit as God

01:20:01 --> 01:20:14

Ignatius? Well, it depends on how you order things we, you know, most of these books do not have dates stamped on them, like a library book or something like that. Oh, I just realized some of you're so young you don't remember the library book look like um,

01:20:16 --> 01:20:23

used to be when we take things out, they stamp a date when you're supposed to take it back. And it said, that was the old days, we were fighting dinosaurs and things like that. But anyway,

01:20:24 --> 01:21:10

was the dedicate and Clemens and Ignatius, what's the ordering of these individuals? There is the fella that we call the disciple who wrote a little PCs. He's anonymous, we're not sure exactly where to put them in there. So it's not it's we're not exactly certain the exact dates to some of these things. We know Ignatius dies in 107, or one away, so he's very, very early. And Ignatius specifically uses Trinitarian language when he speaks of the Father, the Son. In fact, in describing the gospel, he describes the Holy Holy Spirit is the rope that raises the cross. It's just like I said, I quoted too high Christology on his part. So you either have to argue that Ignatius was was

01:21:10 --> 01:21:35

completely out to lunch, or what you just heard, and that is 99% of them. Were subordination. So think about this for a minute. Council of Nicea 325 AD, the church has been persecuted for the past 60 years between 250 and 313. There are people who are attending the Council of Nicea missing limbs because they would not deny who Jesus Christ was.

01:21:36 --> 01:21:43

And are you telling me that Constantine comes in? And he says, You know what, I think we ought to do this deity of Christ thing.

01:21:44 --> 01:21:54

And these people who had refused about a Rome only 12 years earlier, and lost limbs all went, Okay, we'll do it your way? I don't think so.

01:21:55 --> 01:22:46

You want to tell me that all those bishops signed the Nicene Creed and they had never thought of this idea of Jesus being truly and fully God before? That is a wildly outlandish reading of any church history. It's wildly outlandish and Athanasius when he defends the Council of Nicea does so by direct reference to those who had come before Him. So this idea is just simply it's outlandish. Now Arianism does research after the Council of Nigeria, I see it, you know, why? Politics, Politics, but it can't sustain itself, and it eventually collapses. And so we have a wild reading of church history here that goes, just just go ahead and read Jan De Kelly, go ahead and read the books

01:22:46 --> 01:22:55

he's referring to. If you read them fairly, I use them as textbooks and I teach church history. If you read them fairly, you'll discover they're not communicating the things that you're being told.

01:23:07 --> 01:23:28

My study of the church history is not wild by any standard. If you calling Jandy Kelly's study of history wild or steward G holds study wild or any other person who has written on early church history wild that is the problem with them. They are the ones who are why not me.

01:23:30 --> 01:24:19

Stuart G Hall in his book doctrine and practice in the early church states on page 158, the classic idea of the course of tangibility obviously entails the deity of the Holy Spirit. Listen carefully, ladies and gentlemen, of the same substance as father and son. This was apparently an advance on what had been defined before even at nicea and was recognized as in a sense, a development of doctrine, but it was necessary to persuade many who felt it went too far. You stay theist of Sebastien, an early friend of basil and associated his monastic enterprise was metropolitan of the neighboring province, but he was a leader, perhaps the leader of the Numa toMac, new new Moto

01:24:19 --> 01:24:23

Mackey, which is a group of people who believed in

01:24:24 --> 01:24:33

they had a doctrine on the Holy Spirit and basil tried hard to contain to the end of your your minutes. Let me move swiftly on. The next question was

01:24:35 --> 01:24:46

in your opening statement, you stated that Paul is not a Trinitarian Can you give us one reference from Paul's teaching? That he is not a Trinitarian?

01:24:52 --> 01:25:00

I did not say that. I quoted a Trinity training Trinitarian scholar Larry Hurtado, James is ready

01:25:00 --> 01:25:53

of the person I'm talking about. Larry Hurtado believed or stated that Paul was buying a terrarium, okay, based upon the following passages in First Timothy two five this is Larry Hurtado not me, okay? For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, Paul is saying, there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, so God is one and the man Jesus Christ is the mediator. That's what Paul said. Then Timothy, First Timothy 613, I give the charge in the sight of God who Quicken it all things and before Christ Jesus who, before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession. Paul is clearly making a distinction between God with

01:25:53 --> 01:26:39

capital G, and Jesus Christ, whatever he was, whatever Jesus was, Paul is making a distinction between the two. For that reason, Larry Hurtado, he states scholars recognize that the reverence for Christ reflected in Paul's letters amounts to a notable pattern of beliefs and devotional practices for which we have no real parallel in Roman era Jewish tradition, some scholars conclude that we can speak of a novel monetary and devotional pattern evident in the Pauline letters. Christ, included with God as a recipient of devotion in early Christian circles, albeit Christ always seemed to be subordinate to God, the Father, this is Larry Hurtado saying he was a Trinitarian scholar himself.

01:26:39 --> 01:27:26

So this is not me saying, This is why I insist that James has tonight failed to engage my scholarship. I am quoting authorities I'm not relying on I'm not saying because the authorities there, right, no, I'm saying, These are the dominant views among historians who deal with these topics, that the early church fathers had these beliefs, and they had no similarity with the belief of James, or his definition of the doctrine of the Trinity. The reason why I keep insisting 99% of them did not agree with your conception of the Trinity, is because that is the case. If and if I'm wrong, James actually struggled to quote, an early church father, who actually clearly stated, The

01:27:26 --> 01:27:36

Holy Spirit is God with capital G, please quote, Ignatius and tell us where he said, The Holy Spirit and even if Ignatius said that, let's, let's assume Ignatius said it.

01:27:38 --> 01:27:46

Is Ignatius, the only one? Where does Clement of Alexandria go? Where does Arrhenius go? Where does Tertullian go? What happens to people like?

01:27:47 --> 01:28:08

You know, there are other church fathers like I forgot the names now all of them, you know, there are so many names. Polycarp, for example, okay, Justin Martyr, what did he say about the Holy Spirit and its status? All of the church fathers in the first three centuries? Can you bring me one clear, explicit statement, where the church father said, The Holy Ghost is actually God, and it's co equal? Thank you.

01:28:13 --> 01:28:53

Well, isn't it interesting that even when we find the texts in the New Testament, where the Holy Spirit is specifically identified as God, those are dismissed. Something tells me then, that when I quote, Ignatius, that gets dismissed to there seems to be a filter going on here. Now, there is from the very start of my presentation, what did I say? Why am I a Trinitarian? Because I have the highest view of Scripture, if you don't have the highest view of Scripture, you're not going to be the Trinitarian. Now, there are scholars who tried to approach the New Testament from a merely historical perspective, and do not are not therefore concerned about the consistency of their

01:28:53 --> 01:29:14

interpretation, that text and they come up with some pretty interesting statements. My point out the parallel to Muslims to those scholars, they're called Orientalist. They're the guys that take the Quran apart that you don't really like very much. You reject them. Are you consistent and then using their counterparts when they argue against Orthodox Christianity? That's question

01:29:15 --> 01:29:17

Do you mind goes off, so I know but I'm supposed to stop.

01:29:20 --> 01:29:25

someday, someday, I'm gonna I'm gonna buy a timer for Adnan and

01:29:26 --> 01:29:50

I'm just gonna glue it right up here so you can't get away from it. Dave, see, you want to take your next question? You say that we have to read the Bible accurately. Do the Scriptures themselves tell us how to treat them accurately? Or do we need to rely on a non biblical hermeneutical authority to read them accurately? That's a really good question.

01:29:51 --> 01:29:55

It's a very, very good question. When you read a letter,

01:29:56 --> 01:29:59

most of us who are parents recognize that

01:30:00 --> 01:30:12

When we had teenagers, we could leave them a note, as we left in the morning for work that said, clean your room, and then we will go have pizza this evening.

01:30:13 --> 01:30:22

And as a teenager, they develop this hermeneutical methodology, where the letter because remember, you go to Pizza this evening,

01:30:23 --> 01:30:32

right? Now, when they didn't clean their room, we didn't exactly feel respected as parents when we got home because they still expected to get the pizza.

01:30:34 --> 01:30:40

And they weren't showing respect for us, because our letter was actually not overly difficult to understand.

01:30:42 --> 01:30:53

And when we handle written documents, our goal is to understand what the author actually intended to communicate. So we recognize there are different kinds of literature in the Bible.

01:30:54 --> 01:31:32

And if the questioner is asking, Well, is there a manual somewhere in the Bible itself about how to interpret the Bible? No, there isn't. But we do have, for example, the New Testament writers interpreting Old Testament texts. So for example, in the sermons and the book of Acts, you have Old Testament texts being cited. And we get an idea, for example of what Jesus taught the disciples after His ascension when he ministers, the disciples and shows them how the Scriptures from Moses all the way through it testified of Him, we are given an example in the teaching and preaching of how to accurately handle the Word of God. But the main reason that we want to accurately handle the

01:31:32 --> 01:31:38

Word of God is because we want to honor God. If I want if if have you written a book yet?

01:31:39 --> 01:31:42

Yes. Read my book. Well, what's Why haven't you given it to me?

01:31:43 --> 01:31:52

It's not enough. It's not hard. It's not a hard copy yet. Oh, it's there's not a hard copy. Well, it's online. Oh, it's online. Okay. Well, if I read odd nons book,

01:31:53 --> 01:32:08

I want to understand what odd non communicated, so I am going to consider who he was, what his language is, what his background is, what his beliefs are, I'm going to interpret him in that context, I'm not going to interpret him as if he is actually a Japanese sushi salesman.

01:32:10 --> 01:32:45

Okay, why? Because I want to know what odd nons actually saying. And so we use sound hermeneutic methodology. And I even tried to do this with the Quran, though the Quran is much more difficult to do this with and the New Testament is because of the lack of background in many texts. But I want to do this so that I can show honor to the one who gave me those scriptures. And so I think God can speak, he knows how to communicate with us. Jesus held men accountable for what the Word of God said, therefore, it can be understood, and it can be obeyed If we follow Jesus as example.

01:32:53 --> 01:33:02

Thank you, James hermeneutics are a very interesting area. And we must study it carefully. And understand why

01:33:03 --> 01:33:51

the early church fathers for the first three centuries did not understand the doctrine of the Trinity as you understand it, because they had a lot of time. A lot of writings, and almost every single of them, commented on the Holy Spirit. Not one of them said it is God. In fact, they shivered before saying such things, because they knew they cannot find any, any verse in the Bible. I quoted John Henry Newman, you may say he's a Catholic, we don't, you know, fine, who cares what he says, but he was a giant of Christian theology from a Catholic perspective in the 19th century. To this day, people admire his books, John Henry Newman, right. He stated clearly explicitly, that there is

01:33:51 --> 01:33:57

no passage in the Bible that clearly states that the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit is God.

01:33:59 --> 01:34:16

So, hermeneutics, when we talk about hermeneutics, let's go to the early church fathers, some of them actually started to change the Scripture, in order to substantiate their view on the doctrine of the Trinity, others, St. Augustine, is one of them. When he commented on the gospel of Jordan, my time is up again.

01:34:20 --> 01:34:26

I added your next question, I think we have time for just one more question, gentlemen. So I will take this last question.

01:34:27 --> 01:35:00

Adam, you say the Bible is not trustworthy? Because allegedly there is no uniformity amongst the early manuscripts. Then using similar criteria. How can you claim the Quran is trustworthy, even though the earliest manuscripts date at best from the eighth century? And there is no uniformity amongst three although this is my favorite question, and I would love to deliver a lecture for three hours on this topic. But I want to be consistent. I rejected a question earlier because it was not

01:35:00 --> 01:35:13

related to the topic, can we pass this one as well? Please? Do you want me to address it? Do you want me to address it? Okay. Okay. I'll address it. If if if address. Okay.

01:35:15 --> 01:35:17

I want to go home alive.

01:35:23 --> 01:35:40

So I'll address the question my time. So the question was I use a criteria to criticize the Bible. Why don't I use the same criteria to criticize the Quran? Okay, to answer this question, in simple terms, you must watch both our debates myself, James,

01:35:42 --> 01:36:24

myself and James debated both these topics and they can be found on on online. Right now. I would say that both documents are completely different documents. As James already stated, the history of the New Testament is very unique. And the history of the Quran is very unique. We simply cannot apply the same standard, not that we don't apply the same standard on the Quran. For example, if I find various readings in the in, in the New Testament, let's find that problem in the Quran. Or for example, if there is an entirely added chunk in the Bible, which you read today, as the word of God, can we find the chunk added into the Quran by any other person, for example, let me give an example

01:36:24 --> 01:37:00

the Gospel of John chapter seven, verse 53, to chapter eight, verse 11, an entire chunk known as per occupy adult tray, James is well aware of that he has already acknowledged in a previous debate that this passage was actually not written by John, pick up any Bible in this church, opened the Gospel of John, chapter seven, verse 53, you will find the passage there in your Bible. James believes that this was not written by John. And if it wasn't written by John, it wasn't inspired by God, because it was John who was inspired by God. My time is nearly up again nearly. Okay.

01:37:02 --> 01:37:14

So let's apply the same standard to the Quran can we find any added chunks in the Quran, Please present your evidence. Give me a manuscript where you find a verse added into the Quran

01:37:16 --> 01:37:53

and prove it that it is a later addition. I'll give you another example. The Gospel of John sorry, the first epistle of John chapter five, verse seven, John in common, the only verse that allegedly substantiated the doctrine of the Trinity very relevant verse to our discussion today. added later on, all Christian authorities on Textual Criticism are unanimous. It was a later edition, it was not written by John, I applied the same credit criteria to the Quran, same standard, find me a verse in the Quran that was added by someone else, I will throw the entire Quran away. Happy,

01:37:54 --> 01:37:55


01:38:03 --> 01:38:05

Let's get the baptistry filled up.

01:38:11 --> 01:38:56

I really wish I had some way of showing this to you. I can only do this unfortunately, this is the material that I presented in a debate with use of Ismail in South I showed this in our debate with John. So go ahead and look at this from it's the 328. The stub there are textual variants as textual variant right here in this very early manuscript of the Quran. And then later on, I show a picture of the stub where a page has been removed from the manuscript and another page that and put in and you can tell they've squish the material on so that it fits. So they're replacing what had been in the original manuscript. All right. We have so many manuscripts in New Testament that we know about

01:38:56 --> 01:39:08

the cricket, pay adultery, but we don't have as many manuscripts about the Quran to be able to identify these very early issues. I can't get into it right now. And I ran out of time for the first time this evening, but he went so far over, I'm gonna finish this point.

01:39:10 --> 01:39:12

And he's not going to complain about either.

01:39:15 --> 01:39:22

The state of study of the early text of the Quran is still in its infancy, we need to be careful about what we say.

01:39:24 --> 01:39:34

But I think odd not really needs to hear me say here, he needs to be more careful in the assertions he makes about the New Testament in light of the state data. Thank you very much.

01:39:37 --> 01:39:53

There are there are very, very many more stimulating exciting questions, but we've run out of time and we must move on to your closing submissions. Can I invite you James to take five minutes and present your summary of your arguments this evening?

01:40:03 --> 01:40:35

Five minutes may seem like a long time to you, but when you're up here, it's not a long time at all. First of all, thank you very, very much for your tenancy. Wonderful attendance. Thank you to everybody at the church. I know you worked very, very hard. I'm not the easiest person to work with, especially when I'm traveling around the world at the time. You're trying to work with me. Thank you, John, for working with us. I think it's been a wonderful evening. Thank you very, very much. I want you to know, I want to say publicly in front of you all, I pray for this man, I consider him a friend. I hope that you all have seen that this evening. We've had very strong disagreement, but I

01:40:35 --> 01:40:52

want to model with odd on how we must disagree. We don't believe the same things and it's disrespecting to him and to me to pretend that we do. And I will not disrespect you to do that. But we can do it loving one another anyway. And that's what we need to see happening. Okay.

01:40:54 --> 01:40:54


01:40:56 --> 01:41:36

one factual item I must mention and that let me summarize John Henry Cardinal Newman. Oh, my. When I heard when I heard of non citing him, I just I I almost verbally participated for a moment. I really did against the rules. John Henry Cardinal Newman was the one who developed what's called the development hypothesis, he had to do so because he knew that the Roman Catholic Church in defining Papal Infallibility was going directly against all of history in the process. And so he developed the idea that that truth is delivered like an acorn. And then it grows into the great tree over time. And that's why we don't need to have scriptural basis for things such as Papal Infallibility.

01:41:36 --> 01:42:15

The man was trying to defend the indefensible against the teaching of the Bible. Don't cite him against me, because I'm going to be going after him just as strongly as anybody else did. He does not believe what I believe and why am I a Trinitarian? Sola Scriptura. He rejected it toda script Torah, he rejected it. So keep that in mind when you cite someone along those lines. What have we seen this evening, folks? I hope we've been clear. I hope you've you've you've heard, what's been said, It's been said that I have failed to respond to his scholarship. Well, I would love to have some debates with some of the people that he has referenced, I have had debates with some of the

01:42:15 --> 01:42:57

people he's referenced some of the more radical ones. But I would love to have some debates to bring out what is the view of Scripture of someone who can say, well, well, Paul only had this much you These are critical scholars that have to work within critical scholarship. And it's interesting that I said from the beginning, I'm not trying to fit in to that type of mold. I am here this evening as an unapologetic disciple of Jesus Christ that believes that God has spoken. I believe that I have under his authority, I bow to His Lordship, and he held all men accountable to the Word of God as if God had spoken it directly to them. Remember, Matthew 22? Remember what he said to the Sadducees?

01:42:57 --> 01:43:30

Have you not read what God spoke to you saying? Think about what he said, Have you not read what God spoke to you saying? Normally, if you say, Have you not read, the next thing is what I wrote? Or how did you not hear what I spoke? He said, Have you not read but God spoke to you. Then he quoted from words that were written 1400 years earlier. And he held men accountable to that. That means Jesus believed God had spoken and God had preserved His Word. And as a Muslim, you must believe Jesus was a prophet. Was he wrong?

01:43:31 --> 01:44:10

Was he wrong? And if he was right, what if you stand before God someday? And he says, Do you did you not read what I said to you? And then he quotes Titus 213, describing Jesus Christ, our great God and Savior, or he quotes John 2028, where Thomas recognizes that Jesus is Lord and as God, what if he quotes those texts? What if he takes you to the book of Revelation? And he shows you that picture in Revelation chapter five, where the lamb has seen standing as if slain, and then at the end of the chapter, what happens? Every created thing in heaven and earth and under the earth, and in all the seas, everything that is made,

01:44:12 --> 01:44:17

worships he who sits upon the throne, and the lamb.

01:44:20 --> 01:44:26

What if God holds you accountable the way Jesus held men accountable on that day? The Scriptures teach it.

01:44:27 --> 01:44:33

The Scriptures teach it, if you will simply allow it and don't don't chop it up into pieces. Don't get rid of Matthew 28.

01:44:34 --> 01:44:59

Don't Don't question what's being said that if you simply listen to what is there, it teaches us the doctrine of the Trinity, one God, three divine persons, the quality of those persons. It's there in front of us. And the question is, what are you going to do with that information? My prayer, my prayer is that God by His Spirit, yes, his lovely Holy Spirit, will testify to everyone here this evening of the truth

01:45:00 --> 01:45:01

Thank you for listening. God bless.

01:45:08 --> 01:45:11

Admin can we have your closing?

01:45:15 --> 01:45:40

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for being an amazing audience. This has been a very lively and healthy debate I have thoroughly enjoyed this evening, although we have both disagreed on matters, in some cases, immensely, but we both share one quality. And that quality is that we have deep respect for each other. And I respect Dr. James White.

01:45:45 --> 01:46:22

I know the man who goes on these cycling trips for hundreds of miles, I would not even think of doing that. Yeah. And he's listening to the Islamic texts in. I know this because he has told me this, I don't I don't want to, you know, I don't want to put him on the spot on this point. Because I'm sure he doesn't want everyone to know everything about his life. But this man has spent a lot of time studying Islam and engage in engaging with Muslims with respect and honor. And I really truly respect him for that. So back to our

01:46:23 --> 01:46:30

back to our topic. James has today, in my opinion, failed to substantiate.

01:46:33 --> 01:46:35

That means you agree with me.

01:46:38 --> 01:46:40

James has failed

01:46:41 --> 01:47:04

to substantiate his view that the doctrine of the Trinity is divinely stipulated, as defined by himself. The Doctrine cannot be found in the Bible. It cannot be found in the early church fathers writings, I am bravely challenging him again, to produce

01:47:05 --> 01:47:45

statements from the early church fathers where they clearly stated, The Holy Spirit is God. You can find statements, and these are very vague statements on Jesus Christ. A lot of them actually believed that Jesus was a subordinate being to God, he was not actually equal to God. And that's why they were called subordination is, and there were views like Docetism in the early two centuries, right. among Christians, there were others who believed in different things, different people were writing, reading different texts in different places. And that's why they ended up with different beliefs. So the debate tonight is almost summarized. We have both presented the most powerful

01:47:45 --> 01:48:06

arguments we had up our sleeves. And some of the biblical passages can be quoted, was Jesus a Trinitarian? Did he actually preached the doctrine of the Trinity himself? This is a slander in my opinion against Jesus Christ. Let me explain. According to the Bible, you read every single day, in some cases, all of you, maybe

01:48:07 --> 01:48:19

the gospel of Mark chapter 12, verse 29, a Jewish man comes to Jesus Christ, he asks him, Master, what is the first commandment and Jesus being a Jew,

01:48:20 --> 01:48:33

responds to this Jewish man stating the Shema, which can be found in the book of Genesis, chapter six, verse four, the famous Shema, Hear, O Israel, the Lord, our God is one Lord.

01:48:34 --> 01:48:58

And he's speaking to a Jewish man. He did not tell him here, O Israel, the Lord, our God is one LORD in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the spirit didn't say that, speaking to a Jewish man who believes in the Father alone, according to Jesus Himself, in the Gospel of John chapter eight, verse, chapter,

01:49:00 --> 01:49:44

chapter eight, verse 58, where Jesus is speaking to the crowd of Jews, and he tells them, that you believe in the Father of whom you say is your God, I do not glorify myself. It is the father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God. So the Jews only believe in one person. And that was the father, they never worship the Trinity. There is no Trinity in the Old Testament. And then when Jesus was preaching the same doctrine to the Jewish people, he said to them, here, O Israel, the LORD our God is one God or one Lord, and the Jewish man, if he was a Trinitarian, he would have challenged Jesus, or if Jesus was a Trinity Trinitarian this was a time for him to tell him, hold on

01:49:44 --> 01:49:59

a second. You have been believing in one person, one being, now things have changed. God has revealed himself differently. You must now believe in the Trinity. He didn't do that. Either. Jesus himself was

01:50:00 --> 01:50:08

was deceiving people, or what you attribute to Him is not true. Thank you very much for listening or Salam aleykum.

01:50:14 --> 01:50:22

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, audience. It's been a very lively debate. And thank you for your contributions. And ladies and gentlemen, you've been a wonderful audience. Good evening.

01:50:25 --> 01:50:26

Thank you very much.

01:50:27 --> 01:51:11

Just once more from from the church hosting tonight. Thank you so much for being here tonight and participating. We had a book table for you, but understanding most of your materials online, we just give us some help as to how folks might find that material. Okay, if you put my name in Google and the title of the book Islams war on terror. It's a book that states why Islam was one of the best things that happened to humanity. Islam brought people together Jews, Christians and Muslims under one umbrella they all lived in a tolerant environment, especially in Muslim Spain. So that's what the book is talking about. Thank you so much. And James, we have a bookstore number of your books,

01:51:11 --> 01:51:25

including the book on the Trinity and other material website. I know just a search engine but it gives us a bit of a bit of a clue Alpha Omega ministries EO m i is the website and do a bi weekly

01:51:26 --> 01:51:35

program called the dividing line. And James will be speaking here this church at 230 on Sunday, looking at Scripture in the LGBT agenda.

01:51:37 --> 01:51:51

Wonderful to welcome and say goodbye to those watching online and also the couple 100 people or so gathered downstairs who have been watching and special thanks to Dr. Solomon a saggy for his excellent chairmanship.

01:51:53 --> 01:51:53


01:51:55 --> 01:52:08

Now, we're gonna be putting this debate online and all the speakers will have an online but also if you apply to the church, we can get you the DVD copies in due course. Thank you so much and good night.

Share Page

Related Episodes