1 Muslim vs. 20 Christian Women | The Bridge

Absolute oneness is more in line with God's nature than the Trinity. And even more scary, if God can change to become a relational God, then that means he can change again and decide that he doesn't want to be a relational God. Do you believe that the persons of the Trinity are merciful to one another? Because mercy in this instance would imply that one of the persons of the Trinity is doing something wrong.

The Quran is the final revelation of God. The miracle of the Quran is that Muhammad is illiterate, but he gets all these things right. We believe that the Quran comes and it corrects aspects of the previous scriptures that were changed by the hands of man. The Quran actually obviously affirms the previous scriptures and the second Muhammad finds those previous scriptures for the world to see. Jesus is a Muslim.

I think we can't divorce Judaism from this conversation. Jesus was Jewish. He followed Jewish traditions. He was born of Jews. So if we're going to say anything, Jesus was a Jew. Allah rejects being a father in every sense. How can the Jesus that taught us to pray to our father? How can he be Muslim? I believe that Jesus was a Muslim, obviously external to the Bible, I believe that this theology is reflected within the Quran.

The crucifixion of Jesus is not a well-established historical event. I think that's interesting because the crucifixion of Jesus is the most well-known historically attested event. There is still documentation coming out today about archaeologists finding Old Testament like journals and stuff written on stone tablets saying claiming that they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead.

Muhammad peace be upon him is the final messenger of God. Another requirement for prophethood is continuity. There is no continuity with Muhammad. You have to preach the exact same God. If you concede that the prophets of the Old Testament did not preach the Trinity, then you can say that, for example, it wasn't fully revealed and so on and so forth.

Is there someone that you're thinking you may want to have a deeper conversation with? Felt like this person had some substance to offer and I did want to be able to retort to all of it. Hi everyone, welcome to the Dr. Dav Show. Today I'm here with one Muslim woman, Kora, having a conversation with 20 Christians. Kora came up with her own prompts. So we're really excited about this conversation. I'll give you the floor.

All right, for sure. My first prompt is absolute oneness is more in line with God's nature than the Trinity. My name is Kora. My name is Shanasa. My name is Ty. My name is Eor. My name is Sierra.

Hi, perfect. Nice to meet all of you guys. Uh, the reason why I chose this prompt is coming from a Muslim perspective, I don't believe that the Trinity is portrayed anywhere in God's divine revelation. I believe that God is absolutely one both in essence and in personhood. And I do also believe and you are going to conflict with this that the trinity entails polytheism. What do you guys think about that?

I disagree obviously. I believe that um if God is strictly monotheistic, it actually serves more problems than it solves. For example, I would be curious to know from you, what would prompt a god who was strictly monotheistic, alone and essent essentially isolated to decide to become a relational god? That would mean that he went from being alone at one point in time and then he changed to become a relational god in order to create creation. And the issue is that he essentially changed. And if God can change, then I would conclude that God is not eternal. And even more scary, if God can change to become a relational God, then that means he can change again and decide that he doesn't want to be a relational God. But the distinction is that with the Trinity, we have a God that has always been relational because he's triune in his nature. We have a God that is love by his very essence. So when he decides to create creation and relate to them, it's not a foreign concept to him unlike it would be with Allah. The Quran, as you know, introduces nearly every surah with the most merciful and the most benevolent. And my problem with that again is how would Allah be able to be merciful if he is strictly monotheistic and in order to demonstrate that mercy, he would have to have become a relational god.

Okay, perfect. So, do you believe that the persons of the trinity are merciful to one another? Because mercy in this instance would imply that one of the persons of the trinity is doing something wrong. And also another point that I wanted to point touch on is you said that there's a problem with and I'm going to quote your words of Adam God being strictly monotheistic. So you don't believe strict monotheism.

Not in the sense of now to answer your second question mercy is something that is relational but it's a derivative of love. Allah to my understanding isn't love. So if God who is love and who has always been love becomes a relational God the n national deriv natural derivative would be to be merciful. What essentially I'm saying, it's not an extension for a God who has always been love to when he comes into relationship with someone else to be mercy, but a God that is not love, it would be foreign to him to all of a sudden be merciful. And it would also be problematic because it shows that he was not merciful for all eternity.

Okay, perfect. I want to make sure that everybody else is included, but I'm going to respond to that point right there. So, there isn't a problem with God eternally possessing the ability to do specific things. For example, you as Christians believe that God is a jealous God, right? You don't believe that God was jealous before creation because he has nobody to be jealous over. Right? Because jealousy in this instance is going to be talk about talking about people worshiping other gods. You don't believe that God was jealous before creation because unless you want to say that the persons of the trinity were worshiping other gods, then you'd have to say that God in that instance would have changed. And on top of that, you guys also believe that Jesus incarnated and he is the second person of the trinity and he took on a second nature. That is also a change to God because God went from having one nature to participating in the hypothatic union and having two natures. So you as a Christian cannot have problems with God changing because within trinitarian framework you believe sorry you guys believe that God changed as well. But I want to hear from you guys as well.

So I want to talk about the part where you mentioned the jealousy and God is love. So let's get this clear right. The Bible says that God is love. So that's not something that he does that's something that he is. So now that we have an understanding of that, we know that it always existed because of the triune relationship. The father loves the son, the son loves the father, the holy spirit binds that love. All right. So when you mention, oh, was God jealous? Did he act upon jealousy? No. Jealousy is righteous in the way that God acts because it is an extension of his love. So it's not that, oh, they were jealous of each other. It's the same concept with mercy. Mercy is an extension of his love. Not that, oh, he had to be merciful to his creation to then be merciful. No, he is already love. So what stems out of love? Mercy. What stems out of love? Righteous jealousy. That's what stems out of it. So I think you have a misunderstanding of oh how God acts upon jealousy because you believe in a unitarian God. So your God does that. But on the other hand, our God doesn't do do that. Our God embodies love.

Perfect. So you mentioned God being love and so on and so forth. Obviously according to you guys and according to Christians, God is love. Do you guys agree that God is the greatest conceivable being? the greatest being that you could possibly think of and so on and so forth. And you guys obviously believe that shared love is better than just you know possessing love within yourself.

Yes.

And do you guys believe that there is a form of love higher than that or is shared love the highest form of love?

Shared love is the highest form of love. Self-directed love is not.

Okay. Perfect.

The highest form.

So would you say that God being triune shows that God has the highest form of love? Right. Because he's sharing love with two other persons. Right.

You would say that. Correct.

Correct. Okay. Shared love. Corporate love. relational love is the highest form of love.

Okay. And would you also agree that sharing love with more people is greater than sharing love with, for example, only one person. Would you agree with that?

Where you getting with this?

Yeah. The place that I'm getting at is if you believe that love in and of itself, in order for God to be love, he needs to be expressing love um within his essence, relational love, and you think that God is the greatest conceivable being. And you think that that's why trinitarianism is true because God needs to be doing this. Then you would also be accepting that it follows that God should be more than three persons.

Never it never was God needs to is that I think this is once again I think slow listen.

Wait, so God doesn't need to be loving.

So he is loving. He doesn't need to be loving. And that particular phrasing is smuggling in something into the doctrine that we do not hold on. Hold on. So does your God need to be loving as well?

Wait. So So does God can God be God without being loving? That's my question. When I say needs to be, I'm asking, can God be God without being according to you guys? Love.

I was going to say he doesn't have to be. I think that's the point that the leaders are making. He doesn't have to be. He is because that's his essence. And so I do have a counter question for you. Y

do you believe to be loving is to be selfless? Uh, no, not by necessity because there's love in three forms, right? You guys would probably agree and two of those forms are you can have selflove and you can also have relational love. Those are two of these forms. You can still be loving without having a sense of relational love. And the other point that I was getting into is the reason why I was asking do you believe that God is the greatest conceivable being is because I see a lot of people saying that the reason why we need a triune God is because we need God to possess relational love. That is something that's implied by his essence. God is love. So when we have God, we also have love. That's why I think you guys kind of have a problem with the terminology need. But all I mean by that is if there is if God exists, then there is love. And if God is not loving, then that wouldn't be the God that we're speaking about. That's what I need mean by need.

I just want to say for me when I think about the prompt that you pose, I ask myself three questions. You answered the first question, which is what is absolute oneness? You've already answered that question. You've explained what it is for you as a Muslim. The second question I ask myself is what um what is the nature of God? And when I think about the nature of God, I think about the fruits of the spirit. And one of those fruits of the spirit is really hard to showcase without selflessness. We see that Jesus is the trinity or excuse me, we see that uh God is the trinity because he gave of himself, gave his son so that we could be in right standing with him again. and we are the ones that decided to not be in right standing with him. And so that's very selfless. He could have said, "You know what? You guys forgett it. You guys, you you walked away. I don't have to do anything." He thought differently to say, "I love them so much that I'm actually going to give you guys another chance. I'm giving of myself." And so that's why he gave his son. But my issue with that would be, would you, again, because this would imply, this is why I believe that within Islam, we believe that repentance is sufficient for us to essentially be forgiven. Would you say that God required a human sacrifice in order to forgive us? Or would you say that he could have forgiven us without a human sacrifice?

No, he didn't require it, but he decided to.

Okay.

If we're saying that you believe that God is is the ultimate God, that he is um the most high, right? You agree with that?

Yeah, I believe that God is the most high. Yes, God is the most high and he does decide what he wants to do. But I'm going to ask you a question then. What what do you think is more reflective of a just God? A God that says the one who sins is the one who is held accountable or the God who says that he is going to send his innocent son to die for our sins. Who is more just to you? If you don't mind me asking.

Can I just say this? You don't want justice. You want mercy. Because if we got justice, none of us would be here. So I don't I don't even want to acknowledge such a question because my preference will always be mercy. But you believe God is just, correct?

He is just with

the most.

He is the most just.

Okay. So, what's more just? Like, what is more just to you? A God who holds the people who sin accountable or a God that sends an innocent man to die for the sins of mankind? Which is more just?

Can I start by saying that sin requires a penalty? Okay. There's a penalty that always must be satisfied and that's the justice aspect. God in his mercy can choose to satisfy that penalty any way that he wants to. So you're trying to force a false dichotomy to make it seem as if it has to be one or the other. But the God that we serve is both equally merciful and equally just. And that is why he chose to demonstrate that justice and that mercy on the cross.

Okay, perfect. And I want to shift over, but I'm going to respond to that as well. So God is capable of choosing whatever means. But I'm asking which option is the most just? So I mean if you would like to answer, I would like to hear from you because it feels like I've been having a conversation with everybody else and I haven't really heard from you. In your personal opinion, what do you think is more just? God holding the person who sins accountable, whether it be through means of, for example, repentance. We see this all over the Quran and not just the Quran, but within the Old Testament where God says that if somebody upholds the law and they turn away from the sin that he will forget, he will forget that they ever sinned. What do you think is more just that or a human sacrifice for these people's sins? What do you think is more just?

So sacrifices were to atone for sins. Okay. So when you kind of say either or, it doesn't necessarily make sense because sacrifices were to atone for the sin. So as you can see today, we don't come to the altar with um uh blemishless animals, laying them on the altar for our sins, but we are covered in the blood of Jesus because of that sacrifice that Jesus um came to to accomplish on the cross to die for our sins. So when we go back to the prompt which is the nature of God, you can agree that the nature of God is love. Correct?

I believe that God possesses love within his name. I don't believe I don't believe that God is identical to love. No.

You don't.

I believe that God possesses love within his essence.

So where do you get your definition of love from?

Yeah. So we can grant that love is something that is relational. But when we say that God possesses love within his essence, what we mean by this is that God eternally possesses the ability to be loving to his creation and loving to things outside of himself, relational love. He always possesses that ability. But I wanted to touch back because you mentioned animal sacrifice for sin atonement. I didn't ask about just sacrifice generally. I specified human sacrifice. So we obviously agree that God is just, correct?

Right. Okay. So human sacrifice, you're talking about

Yes. about the Yes. Jesus incarnating and being the atonement. Scripture tells us that when Jesus came to earth, it was the divinity of God within the human body. So when you're looking at it, you're only seeing the outward appearance, which is the physical body, the man Jesus that came. But you know that we are body, we are soul, and we are spirit, right? So when you think about God, God came in a fleshly body which was the vessel to accomplish what he came to do on the cross. Okay, perfect. But you believe that father

Yeah. But you believe that the father sent the son who is a man that was completely and utterly blameless. But your salvation is based on the fact that Jesus is completely blameless, right? And he is the only blameless man to have walked the earth. And that's why he is capable of atoning for your sins. But my question because I want to tie it back because I told

Sorry, I just want to I just want to that point right there. Sorry. John 17 tells us that actually Jesus existed before the world began when he's praying to his father. I'm going to go off scripture because I believe in the Holy Bible, the the word of God. And John 17 tells us that Jesus existed. He's praying to the father and he's saying, "Father, glorify me in your presence." In your presence. Which lets you know that Jesus doesn't do anything outside of the presence of his father. He says with the glory that I shared with you before the world existed, which means that Jesus existed before the world was created. And then he came in a body.

Okay, perfect. So that was a a specific mission that he came to reconcile.

Okay. Yeah. I want to respond to that. So in John 17, the verse that you quoted is verse 5. What's interesting is the language that Jesus uses is he says, "Glorify me with the glory that I had with you before creation." Correct? Right.

We have a very similar verse because we see this language being used all over the Bible. before creation, before creation, before creation. We see a similar verse in the book of Revelations where it says that Jesus was slaughtered before the creation of the world. Now, does this mean that Jesus Wait, does this mean Wait, sorry. Does this mean that Jesus was literally um slaughtered before the creation of the world? No. This is something called idiomatic prophetic language. As you said, it's prophecy. So Jesus isn't saying that he possessed glory eternally because you agree that that's prophetic language in Revelation. Jesus is saying in John 17:5 that it is so certain that Jesus was going to come and he was going to be the the Messiah and a righteous man and so on and so forth that he was going to be glorified by God. He's not saying that he possessed it from eternity. And we also see another verse in I believe it's second Peter where it says something similar about the disciples that the disciples were blessed before creation. And it's very similar language to John 17:5. Right? So we see this language all over repeated both in the New Testament. But this doesn't mean that the people being spoken about are eternal.

How do you make the distinction that revelation is prophetic idiomatic language as opposed to John 17 being literal language? What do you base that off of?

Okay, perfect. So, we see that every single instance in which this phrase is used before the creation, before the creation of the earth, and so on and so forth. For example, in Revelations, for example, the verse that I cited in um in Peter, right? We see that both of these are prophetic. And we also see language like this in the Old Testament. The reason why I interpret it to be prophetic and not literal is because the other instances in the Bible where it speaks like this, it is speaking prophetically. And also another reason is I would ask, do you believe that there's anything eternal alongside God?

The one God.

No, but you do.

Okay, perfect. So if an individual Okay, perfect. Well, we'll touch on that in a second. So if you don't believe that there's anything eternal alongside God, it's interesting that we went to John 17:5. Let's go to uh John 17:3 where Jesus addresses the father and says, "They may know you, the only true God." So in John 17:3, who's Jesus calling the only true God? Who is he speaking to?

He's speaking to the father just like the father spoke to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8 and it says, "I will glorify you and your kingdom will be eternal. You have a scepter of righteousness." He says, he speaks to the son. He says, "And to the son,

I want to tie it back to John 17:5. Sorry, John 17:3. So Jesus is calling the father the only true God. Is Jesus the father?

Jesus.

Jesus is the son. Okay. So, he's not the father then. So, if Jesus is calling the father the only true God and Jesus is not the father, then Jesus is not the only true God as per his own words. But you touched on Hebrews, right? I have a question. Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

I believe it's Paul, but no one knows necessarily.

Okay, perfect. So, why should I accept the book of Hebrews as divine revelation if we don't know who wrote it? And to be consistent, if hypothetically speaking, we had no idea who the scribes of the Quran were and so on and so forth and it's a book that came out of thin air, you guys would be pressing us Muslims and saying, "Why would you believe in this book and we don't know who authored it and so on and so forth." So, I'm asking for consistency. Why do you believe in the book of Hebrews if you don't know who wrote it?

I wouldn't even go that route in saying who wrote who wrote the Quran. It was it's just the concept of the doctrines that's in it that would make us question it. It's not even about who wrote it because remember we believe that man was utilized as a vessel inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit to write things. So I don't think a Christian would do that. If they do that they're wrong just like how they were wrong with the God needing love. Um God doesn't need to be love. And Cory I want to ask you a question. Do you think that God needs to be omnipresent?

What does it mean to be omnipresent? To be present in every single time every single time.

Wait. Do you think that God needs to be omnipresent? You're a God.

No. I I don't believe that God is omnipresent in in his essence in the first place as a Muslim. I don't believe that God is in every single place at every single point in time. My God is not in hell. Wow.

My God is not in all these different impure places and so on and so forth. God is not. However, wait, hold on. However, I believe that God is omnipresent in terms of his knowledge. He knows all things.

Okay. All right. So, let's go to the other route.

I I do want I do want my question

or authorship is not the only thing that can authenticate scripture. You also have to remember that this is a spiritual book and the book of Hebrews is exceptionally consistent with the rest of the corpus of

But writing a book that's consistent with this divine revelation.

Beyond that, there are identifiers that make it clear that the likelihood is that Paul wrote it. Personally, I am very convinced that Paul wrote it.

There's a disagree. You agree that there's a dispute. There's a disagreement in who wrote the book of Hebrews. So, you said that authorship isn't the only thing that identifies whether or not something is divine revelation. You also said consistency, but something being consistent doesn't mean that it's divine. I can write a book right now that is consistent with the four gospels, and that doesn't mean it's the fifth gospel. So, why would we apply this consistency criteria to Hebrews when we don't know who wrote it? We don't know whether or not they were reliable. We don't know whether or not he was just saying things about God that sounded similar to what was going on in the Bible and it happened sim at the same exact time in which the Bible was being canonized and so on and so forth and ended up being accepted. Why? And I want to circle back to the question. Why do we accept Hebrews as divine revelation if we don't have any criteria of authentication for it?

So in my perspective, the Holy Spirit is the author of every single book in the Bible. It's not relevant to me if the author is disputed. If the message is consistent, you talked about if I shared something that comes alongside with the scripture. If it lines up with the scripture, then that's good. That means that the Holy Spirit is also within whatever you are saying. So there's not an issue to me personally as far as authorship is concerned to legitimize whether it should be canonized or not. The idea is that the Bible is written essentially by God's Holy Spirit. The book Hebrews is consistent with the rest of the corpus of scripture and it speaks the same message consistently. You know when your makeup looks good at first, but a few hours later it just feels heavy and off, almost like it's caking and working against your skin. If you can relate, I'd recommend trying organic makeup that works more like skinincare. That's actually what led me to OG, a certified organic beauty brand that performs like luxury makeup. What stood out to me is how different their formula is. Most products are 80 to 90% pigment and filler, but OG flips that. Their crystal contour collection is made with nearly 90% skinare ingredients. Things like green coffee oil, elderberry extract, and cold pressed Hoba. These ingredients I would normally invest in for skin care. With OG, they just happen to be in my makeup. I also used to like to shop in the clean beauty section until I realized that term doesn't really mean anything, but OG is NSF certified organic, which is one of the most rigorous standards out there, so you know exactly what you're putting on your skin every day. No synthetic fragrance, artificial fillers, or unnecessary additives. It's also just really easy to use. three sticks, copper for warmth, rose quartz for natural flush, and opal for glow. I can do my whole face in about 5 minutes, and it looks just like I'm having a really good skin day. And what I love is that it actually lasts by the end of the day. It still feels light, and my skin still looks fresh and defined. The contour collection blends effortlessly, and the finish is breathable. It enhances my skin instead of just sitting on top of it. If you're ready to raise your beauty standards, OG's got you covered. Go to og.com/daf and use a code daff for 20% off. That's og.com/daf and enter the code daff to get 20% off.

My next prompt is the Quran is the final revelation of God. My name is Kora. My name is Shanasa. My name is Danielle Olivia. I'm Marian. My name is Belle.

All right, perfect. Uh, the reason why I picked this prompt is I mostly tried to pick prompts pertaining to Islam just so everybody can get their word in in terms of why they disagree and so on and so forth. But the main reason why I believe that the Quran is the final revelation of God is because I believe that it contains content that only God could have known. You guys obviously agree because I believe in second Peter it actually says explicitly that everything that is prophetic and spoken from a prophet is going to be initially from the Holy Spirit right that's written in second Peter so if there is prophetic content and so on and so forth according to you guys it's going to be coming from God there's a multitude of reasons why I also believe in this but I want to hear your thoughts why don't you guys believe that the Quran is the final revelation of God

yeah and I actually to almost agree with you so the miracle of the Quran is that Muhammad is like illiterate but he gets all these things right. Right. And I don't want to talk about the theology that he gets right or you know morals that he gets right. I want to talk about the stories of the prophets because the Quran is 6,000 plus verses and it contains 1100 verses about stories of the prophets. That's a whole 16th of the Quran. Meaning if he gets any of those 16th of the Quran stories wrong then he's not a prophet. Right? And so for example in 12:3 this is the chapter of Joseph. Right? Allah is saying before this Muhammad you didn't know anything about the story of Joseph and he reveals 98 verses in detail about Joseph and he closes this chapter in verse 111 by saying this is a confirmation of the previous scriptures and a detailed explanation of all things so it's a confirmation also in its details and so I read the 98 verses but then when I go and I search the Torah's version of Joseph I find incredible amounts of differences and they're irreconcilable too you know sometimes it's like oh maybe he was this age and like I mean no like they're irreconcilable and there's 944 differences just in those 98 verses of Joseph and to me that that's really hard to reconcile um and the only reason Muhammad would be a true prophet revealing the correct Quran is that if the Quran's account of the prophets do match up and you probably know verse 10 verse 94 yes I do it says if you're in doubt go and read or go and ask

go and ask those who read the scriptures

and the context of that is right before it's stories of Moses Noah Jacob Jacob, sorry, not Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Noah, other prophets. And then like when the Israelites like settling in in the promised land, all these things, which are all stories you can find in the Old Testament. And so if the people in the seventh century are in doubt that Muhammad's revealing all these stories of the prophets, they have to go read the previous scripture. And so when we go and look at not only the seventh century text, but the Dead Sea Scrolls from the 250s and the first century, not even even extra biblical text, right? You have Pho of Alexandria. He's a Greek philosopher, no motive for religion. Um you have the Roman historian Josephus and then you have the Codex Alexandrinus Syriak Bashida in Syriak Greek Latin all these different all these different languages all talking about the same story of Joseph way before Muhammad's time Muhammad comes with 98 verses of complete contradictions

okay perfect I want to touch on that it's interesting that you brought up specifically surah Ysef or the story of Joseph so we believe that the Quran is a confirmation of the previous scriptures it's detailed everywhere however we believe that the Quran comes And it corrects aspects of the previous scriptures that were changed by the hands of man. For example, we have this verse 15. Wait, hold on. So inah 5:15, we have detailed in the it says that the Quran comes to correct the alterations and the changes and so on and so forth. And it's interesting that you brought up the story of Joseph because that's also an instance of the Quran correcting the Old Testament. Let me ask you in the Old Testament where it talks about Joseph's story, is the sovereign in his time addressed as a pharaoh or a king in the Bible?

So you're talking about the anacronistic um putting of Pharaoh's name, right? So the way you

I'm No, no, no. What I'm asking is I'm just asking is is he addressed as a Pharaoh or a king?

In the Torah.

Yes. In the pre in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament, he is addressed as Pharaoh because we don't believe that. Well, I don't know. Me personally, I believe Moses wrote the Torah, right? He he it was revealed to him. But I don't think that he compiled it. Does that make sense?

Sure.

So I think it's okay that later on someone wrote in the word pharaoh. I know like it doesn't come until later. Do you know?

Wait. So if you believe that it's divinely do you believe that the Torah is divinely inspired?

Yes.

Okay. So you believe that somebody can come in and add a word into the Torah and change it from king to Pharaoh and it can still

someone add the word crucif. But but don't you agree that if something is divine revelation, it can't be changed by the hands of man?

No.

No.

So you believe Wait. So we have different standards of how scriptur is revealed to.

Okay. So so you believe that something can be divine revelation also simultaneously be corrupted because and I do want to let you guys hear. So corruption of a text is defined as an addition, emission or alteration done to said text by somebody that is not the author. So do you guys agree that a text can be corrupted and also simultaneously be from God? What you're doing right now is you're equating the idea of particular versions or specific instances where someone changed a particular book that went through one portion of society, right? One particular like let's talk about the slave Bibles, right? As black people, we know that there was a specific Bible given to African-American slaves where certain verses were removed that would have alerted them to the fact that cattle slavery was not of God. that God directly hold on hold on hold on hold on God directly Hold on because I'm going somewhere with this. God directly condemned the type of slavery that was being used or being you know enacted on African-American slaves. That said, it did not affect the totality of scripture. As she mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls, when we look back at the earliest texts, we know what the Bible is supposed to say because we have very very old copies. So when someone changes one book in one particular portion of the world, we can verify that or we can uh just suppose that against what other scriptures we have. So the problem with the Quran of course is we know that it has been burned, right?

I want to address that point real quick. So the issue is you're saying that maybe one person just added the word pharaoh in there, but the issue is even in the Dead Sea Scrolls it says Pharaoh.

So it's clearly according to your standard original to the text that it says Pharaoh. So in Joseph's story when this sovereign is addressed as Pharaoh, you're making the argument now that somebody added this in to make it more adaptable to the people in the time and so on and so forth, but it's original to the text that the sovereign in his time is called Pharaoh, which is historically inaccurate according to Egyptologists, which is why when she mentioned the uh the surah of Ysef, the Quran comes and corrects this and he calls the leader in the time a king instead of a pharaoh. Because the term Pharaoh, although it did exist in the time of Joseph, it never denoted a ruler or a sovereign, it denoted the great house or the great temple. So, it would have been incorrect for the Bible to address faith.

However, let's let's talk about that cuz you're getting into semantics, right? We know that throughout the Bible, the Jews or from the Torah, the Jews do not use the name Yahweh very often because they considered it too sacred to read aloud. So, instead, they called the Lord the Lord. But that doesn't mean that they did not know who he was. So if we see that this particular writer is calling someone a pharaoh so that it is more palatable to the people that are going to be reading it in that region because they know of kings as pharaohs then that's okay it doesn't change from the message or the overall context of the book but what happened with the Quran and we know that we have to address this what happened with the Quran is that it was burned you're aware of that man you know this you're man when he standardized and he burned everything from exactly apart from the manuscript of the prophet peace be upon him

sure So when we're standardizing something, it is very convenient to burn all other potential references so that we cannot possibly check if we still have the correct context of the text. Do you see where I'm getting with that? But the issue is let me address what your original Quran might have said.

Perfect. We actually do because if you actually read the hadith that talks about the burning, he says that he burns everything. which I am comfortable with. Yeah, I'm comfortable with every single authentic

about which I'm a Sunni Muslim so I accept every single authentic hadith. But let's go back. Hold on, hold on, hold on. So when you're quoting a hadith, you're going to take the entirety of the hadith. The hadith that you quoted about the burning that is from a narration and it specifies that all manuscripts were burned except for the manuscript of Hapsah that belonged to the prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him. Which means that we have an original text. So, let me ask you guys this because we're being uh consistent and I feel like we're not really talking enough about the Quran to be honest. I would like

I would like to tie it back if that's all right. Um, so we're talking because you brought up the topic of burning and not having originals. Do you guys have an original of the New Testament?

The oldest copies that we have of the New Testament or of the Gospels specifically are in Ethiopia written in geese and they do confirm what is currently in the Old in the New.

And what is that dated to?

I'm not quite sure.

Okay. So, the first instance because we have nothing from the first century of Jesus. The first instance that we get a manuscript um of one of the New Testament books, we have one of John that's about this big and it is a couple of verses from John. No, no, it's it's credit card sized. It's credit card sized.

It's No, no, no. It's P52. Yeah, that's the first fragment that we get. So, we don't have a complete copy until some people say like CEX cinaticus and so on and so forth, which is compiled, right? Some manuscripts are from earlier, some manuscripts are from later. But you made a point about not having originals and so on. So, how can you have an issue with us having uh a standardization process that a lot of people such as textual critics of the Bible actually praise Islam for and say that Christianity does not have this but rather Islam does. How can you have a problem with our standardization process when you don't even have a copy of the Bible from the first century and we have the entirety of the Quran from the first century hij who was supposed to speak? So me my point to prove that the Quran is not the final word of God is by his internal testimony.

It's clearly in the Bible that you know first of all like she said it seemed like the Quran appealed to the Bible to prove his relevance. It's like the Quran used the Bible as a passport to get into the word of monotism and then after it kind of gaslight the Bible like it changed the author. So if the Quran have to confirm a god that was already privilegedly revealed it have to be consistent. So first um I don't see the consistency. I see that um I I clearly see that the Quran is revealing something but it's not revealing God. I pray I think that the Quran is revealed something else. But not just that I think in his internal testimony of the Quran. So who was the person that revealed the Quran? If we look at the Bible the consistency right because God is the alpha and the omega the beginning of the end which mean that he's consistent in his revelation right? If we look at the way the angel appear into the prophet is always making sure that they are not afraid. And when we look at how Muhammad have received the Quran, it sounds more like a demonic um attack or possession other than a divine. And number two, um I would say psychologically possible he was illiterate and someone that is illiterate don't have a a don't have a very good time retaining things. So for me, the Quran cannot reveal God because the way it was revealed to the prophet was not aligned with the way God revealed himself to any other.

All right. You made two great points that I actually want to address. I'm going to address the second one first. However, you said that somebody being illiterate means that they don't have that great of an ability to retain information

in the trauma that he described.

Okay, perfect. So wait, hold on. Hold on, hold on, hold on. So sorry. I I just wanted to establish that. So if you say that somebody being illiterate or unlearned or whatever it may be means that they have a lack of ability to process or retain information. Are you are you aware that the Bible portrays John as illiterate and unlettered?

Well explicitly it says that. So but you agree that John was still capable of retaining and conveying information right what am I illiterate I'm sorry I'm just curious what in the book of Acts in the book of Acts it says that he is unlearned un mean illiterate. That's a different John.

No. Oh, wait. So, it's is it the John that wrote the Gospel or the John that wrote Revelations? Because some people say it's the same and some people say it's

John Mark. Nobody says John Mark is the same John that wrote I think you run away from the subject. I'm talking about the revelation that Muhammad have.

Yeah. Yeah. But you said the revelation that Muhammad have sound like a demon possession other than

The reason why you said that is because you said that somebody being illiterate means they have a lack of ability to information.

That's my second point. I'll address the first point. I'll address the first point because I think you run away from the question. So the first point that you made is that we want to see consistency not just with the revelation itself. So what the revelation reflects, but also the way that the revelation is revealed, right? And you mentioned that when angels come to people, whether it be in the Old Testament or the New Testament, it's the case that it's peaceful and it's the case that even if hypothetically speaking, they are afraid at first, they are comforted, right? So and you said that Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, was not comforted. Correct?

No, I didn't say that. I say that the way

he was comforted by the angel. Actually, we have an authentic narration inb. If you want, I can tell.

Wait, hold on. I'm I'm just going to answer that. She said not by the angel. So, inb. It's actually authentically reported that in the incident of the cave, Jirel says to the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, do not fear, for I am Gibl and you are the messenger of God. So that's actually expounds on the hadith that we have in Bkari, the one that does not say that, but we have it authentically narrated that not only does he comfort him, but he identifies himself as Gabriel.

But I would I just want to chime in just to give my perspective on the

prompt. Sure. Go ahead.

Um, my position is just very straightforward. Surah 6:15 says that the words of Allah can never be altered. So, I think it's convenient that if the Quran affirms that the revelation of the Torah and the Injil are revelation, they conveniently are altered, yet the Quran is not altered.

Secondly, I wanted to just inquire if do you know who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Um, no, not.

Okay. Interesting story. So, the person who actually discovered the Dead Sea ah, Dead Sea Scrolls is a man named Muhammad. He was a shepherd. Yes, he was a shepherd who was searching for his lost goat. Now, if that's not the gospel, I don't know what is. He ended up finding the Dead Sea Scrolls in a cave. And what he found dates back to 250 AD, which matches the modern Bibles that we have, essentially exactly.

So, we have the first Muhammad who actually affirms the Torah and the Injil, such places like Surah 7:57. I'm sure you know it, the unlettered prophet where he's written about. Yes. And then we have the second Muhammad that confirms what was actually found. A Muslim man actually finds the very text that his a descendants are going to now call corrupted. And I feel like that is God's God's sense of humor all over that. So, my perspective is that the Quran actually obviously affirms the previous scriptures and the second Muhammad finds those previous scriptures for the world to see.

Perfect. So, what's interesting is you touched upon um, Surah 6:15. Correct. Surah 6:15 says that Allah's words cannot be changed. What's interesting is if you read that verse in context, verse 114 says that that's talking about the Quran. So, 115 says that these words cannot be changed. 114 says that the previous revelations were not God's words.

No, I believe that the previous revelations were God's words.

Does the Quran that the previous revelations are God's words? I just want to know.

Yeah. Wait, hold on. Yes. Yes. The previous scriptures are God's words. However, Allah does not promise to preserve the previous scriptures. Why? Because they're not meant for us.

Very convenient. So, that's the problem with that.

I ask what was preserved. Like, so only let me concede this, okay? So, some of some of it was preserved, some of it wasn't, right? So, can you can you list some things that were preserved? For example, the stories of the prophets.

Yeah, you can say the aspects of the stories of the prophets because we believe in something within Islam and it's also quite interesting because this is

Aspects of it, so not all of it.

Yeah, aspect.

That's actually incorrect according to the Quran. Can I tell you?

No, no, no. According to the Quran, it actually says explicitly, right? It says that these um, these previous scriptures were altered in some ways. It says in Surah 5:13-15, it speaks about the children of Israel changing the words around. So, it's not talking about necessarily.

Is it talking about textual corruption?

It's talking about corruption vaguely. So, it doesn't specify textual nor have perfectly preserved another.

Not perfectly. We have very.

Very good.

Not perfectly. Okay.

Very, we have very good Torah that are preserved from way before that. And so if a group of Jews actually, even the Bible says this with Deuteronomy 2:70-78, where there was a group of Jews who knowingly corrupt the scripture, right? And so if you know the truth, how do they know the truth? The text has to be there. So.

Yeah, the text was within the time of Moses, right? Because wait, no, no, not by necessity. Because the Quran specifies that the Torah was given, it was entrusted to a group of individuals to preserve. The Quran specifies that it was and then it was also entrusted to John Baptist. No, no, no. That the Quran says, wait, no, no. The we're talking about what the Quran says. The reason why, and I want to tie it back to what we were talking about, which is consistency and confirmation, right? Because she said that the Quran confirms the previous scriptures and the Quran says that Allah's words are not changed. The verse that she brought specifies which means that in.

I wouldn't use that verse for my argument.

Yeah, I I'm just addressing it because I didn't get to fully before you jumped in. So, um, Surah 6:115, when it says God's word, and this is going to tie into what you said because we're talking about corruption now and whether or not God's word can be changed. God's word in this instance is not unrestricted. It is speaking specifically to the Quran and about the Quran. It's not speaking about the previous scriptures because even if in some hypothetical instance, if we had the entirety of the Torah and the Injil with us in our laps, it would have been abrogated. It wouldn't have been binding upon us. But just to touch on your point because.

What does confirmation mean? Could you just define?

Yeah, confirmation means that you can say that it has divine origins. Now.

What's the Arabic word for confirmation?

What, what do you mean?

Like when it says it comes to confirm the previous scriptures.

Okay. So in 12:11, it's a different one. It's task. I'm probably butchering the.

It's it's a variations of the same word.

Yeah, it's it's variations of the same. It's in 3:3. It's in, for example, Surah 5, and it goes on. But I got confirmation doesn't mean that you say that every single word in a specific uh scripture is preserved because we as Muslims, and you might have heard this verse before, believe that although your revelations have been corrupted in some way, which you also agree with, you believe that there are instances where there are things that were changed later.

Yeah, I know your stance. We believe in something called general confirmation.

Very good. So, what? So, but so I'm trying to press here. You said general, right? So, not all of maybe prophecies of.

Yeah. What, what we have today, some of the stories of the prophets. But I want to bring up so 2:252. Okay. This is talking about stories of the prophets again. So, for example, Saul, right? Because you believe Saul was a prophet. And so what happened in 2:246 to 2:52? It talks about Saul's story. It says that Saul and his army charged at Goliath. It also said that he tested his army with a river, saying, "If you drink from your hands, you're with me. If you're not." And then it also says that the sign of his kingship was that the ark of the covenant would come to him. If anyone has read the Old Testament from anywhere in the world, in any language, they would know that those three things are completely, completely divergent from what the Torah says. And then Imam al-Razi and uh Ibn Kathir, they have a commentary on 2:252, which says, "These revelations are revealed by Allah, and you, Muhammad, sallallahu alaihi wasallam, are truly well, it doesn't say truly, are a messenger." And so the commentary on that verse says, and they're coming in the 13th century by, he's says, uh, these details, sorry, this story conforms to the exact manner at which they still have in their books today. That's what Ibn Kathir says. Imam al-Razi says there are no differences in this. He says there's no differences. And so even your scholars think that during the time of Muhammad, and even in the 13th centuries, that the Old Testament stories from both books should be the same. That's what Kathir says. That's what Imam Razi says. I you can go look. I'm not going to deceive you. Your soul is on the line. Okay? I've read the texts in Arabic as well. I don't read Arabic, but I've confirmed it. And so I just want to say that to you, and then I'll just add this last point. The again, the the miracle of the Quran, according to you guys, is that Muhammad is illiterate, but he gets all the details correct. And we see that all over the place. And so he gets, he gets thousands and thousands of details irreconcilably incorrect in the stories of the prophets. And I, as a Christian, can never come and say he is from God because that just doesn't make sense.

My next prompt is Jesus is a Muslim. My name is Kora.

Hi, I'm Christine.

Hey girl, how you doing?

I'm good.

Hanging in there. I'm Lauren.

Nice to meet you.

I'm Shayla Perez.

I'm Christina.

All right, nice to meet you guys. So, obviously, as a Muslim, I believe that every single prophet of God from Adam all the way to Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, submitted to the one and only true God, which is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. So, why do you guys believe that Jesus was not a Muslim?

Jesus believed that God was the father. Do you affirm as a Muslim that God is a father?

Yeah. So, what do we mean by father here? What does father mean?

Father can mean metaphorical or literal. So, we believe that Jesus is the begotten son of God. And we believe that God is a father metaphorically, and that the children of Israel are his children.

Yeah, I want to add something. I think we can't divorce Judaism from this conversation. Jesus was Jewish. He followed Jewish traditions. He was born of Jews. So, if you're going to say anything, Jesus was a Jew. So, I'm curious why you're not leading with that or acknowledging that.

Yeah. Because I I'm asking you guys why you do not believe that Jesus was a Muslim. So, I'm asking from your perspective, what exactly is deterring you from the belief that Jesus was a Muslim, and you essentially establishing that he was a Jew?

Can you define the word Muslim? I know you said.

A submitter to the one true God. Okay. Could I could I say something really quick? Because I know you have a lot to say and so these are such beautiful sisters and you are doing a great job. I love your psychology. What I'm noticing about you is that you interrupt us when you feel like you have to defend yourself, right? And so, what I ask is that this be a good debate where we all let each other talk. Okay? In Jesus mighty name, can we do that?

Yeah, of course. By all means. What, what I usually.

So, what I was going to say, what I wanted to say is that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, he cannot be put in a religion. In a religion that came 600 years after he died and rose from the dead and was and and and ascended to heaven with so many witnesses. This religion comes over 600 years later in the seventh century. How are you going to tell us um all these things when it happened first? Jesus came first. He lived. There's historians um that prove this. But what I do know is that there's two definitions to Muslim. There's lowercase m, which means one who um can submit to God, lowercase m. Then there's uppercase, right? There's uh capital M, which means one who follows Islam. Okay? One who prays uh towards Mecca, one who uh reads the Quran, one who does all that. So, there's two different meanings that we're working with that we need to understand what meaning you're talking about because Jesus Christ, he uh, he's our Lord and Savior, and he he did not teach what Islam teaches. Absolutely not. And this is what we're going to talk about right now.

Absolutely. So, my point is, I want to see if we agree on like the main thing that she said. She said that Jesus cannot essentially be ascribed to a specific religion. Do you guys believe that Jesus was not part of a specific.

Jesus was a Jew. Okay. So.

That's not what she said. She said you can't put him into a religion six years later. But.

Y'all know what?

Seven centuries later, baby.

600, whatever. My main question to you, because you're asking us Christians why we believe that Jesus was not a Muslim. Allah rejects being a father in every sense. How can the Jesus that taught us to pray to our Father, that's how he taught us to pray, how can he be Muslim?

Okay, perfect. So, first off, that's actually based off of a false presupposition. Allah does not negate being a father in every single sense. He negates being a father in the ontological sense. The sense that you Christians believe today, which is that Jesus proceeds from the essence of God, or that the child of God, in this instance, the son of God, proceeds from his essence and thus is identical to that essence. I just want to make sure that you're you believe that Allah does not reject being a father in the metaphorical sense. So, are you saying that there's nowhere in the Quran where the Jews and Christians are referring to themselves as the children of Allah and he rejects that claim?

Okay, perfect. So, that's actually interesting. I was going to mention in Surah 5 where they are calling themselves children of Allah. What's interesting is that in the tafsir, what type of rejection this is. He is rejecting it in the incorrect senses. However, I want to answer the question that you had because you asked, are you affirming that Allah is a, sorry, is not rejecting that he's a father in the metaphorical sense? I believe that the title father is something that could have been used in previous times, and you can make a very probable case for that. However, I believe that due to progression of the term's meaning and it being ascribed with false meanings, such as the one that I mentioned, which is the son proceeding from the essence of God, it was thus abrogated as a title that was capable of being used. For example, we have in the Old Testament where God abrogates the title Baal from himself. And the reason why.

Nope.

Wait, so he doesn't say that you can no longer call him Baal.

Where does he say that?

In the Old Testament, it's. Are you not familiar with that? Abrogation. First of all.

What is abrogation?

Well, can you answer my question where you just, you quoted it?

She, she just agreed that the verse is there. You, you agree that he abrogates the name Baal, sorry, the title Baal from himself. And not only does he do that, but that shows that God is capable of, if a meaning of a term or a title is skewed, he can disallow the people from using it and give them a better title. For example, in Isaiah 56.

Both points. Let me address what you brought first, and then you can give an example. So, when people are calling God Baal, they're not talking to God the Father. They're they're committing idolatry. So, they were not speaking to Yahweh. So, Yahweh is telling them, "I'm God. You will no longer refer to God as Baal." So, that's not abrogation. Abrogation is taking a verse out or forgetting it and then it being replaced with something like it or better. And that's according to your sources.

Okay, perfect. So, that's exactly why I was going to tie to Isaiah 56, right? So, Isaiah 56, God is speaking to his people and he says explicitly that I will give you guys a name better than sons and daughters. Right? So, let me ask you, what is the name better than sons and daughters that Isaiah 56 is speaking about?

How is that relevant? I'm asking the correct. Hold on, let me finish right quick, and then I'll let you have the floor. I really want to know what this correct sense that Allah can be referred to as a father is, and if so, can Allah also be referred to as a mother?

No.

Why? The answer is because there is no well-established evidence that that was ever allowed. The reason why I am even granting that in a sense is because you can make a historical case that this was something that took place in the time of the children of Israel. Now, is correct in that grant that if I'm I'm the one speaking. So, if we grant that if it was correct in that specific instance, it would have been correct in that specific meaning. So, and the reason why, perfect, in the sense that creator, sustainer, the one who created, the way that they were using it was in the context of a creator or a sustainer or essentially a a slave and a master relationship. Say we only see any reference to that in Hosea. And he's specifically correcting that. He said, "You will no longer call me Baal." Do you know who Baal is?

Yeah. I believe that that was a false god that the Canaanites worshiped. Correct.

Yes. Yes. And that was they were a false god that they were doing sex orgies with. Do you believe that at any point in time that God Yahweh the Father was okay with?

No.

Okay. So, absolutely not.

So, he never allowed for them to call him Baal.

Well, what does Baal mean?

You tell me.

Okay. Does Baal not mean husband? It, it does, but.

Okay, perfect. So, do you believe that there was ever an instance in which that name would have been okay to have been used prior to, for example, this being a false god that the Canaanites worshiped? Is the meaning, wait, is the meaning correct?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Yeah. So, when we say Baal, you agree that we're not Yahweh allowing them to call him under the name of Baal? But also, I also want to just say right now, you started the prompt with Jesus was a Muslim, and then you got, you changed it to a question, why don't you believe Jesus is a Muslim? The burden of proof is on you to tell us all 20 Christians in this room today, why do you believe Jesus was a Muslim? Because you're making a claim about our Lord and Savior. So, the burden of proof is on you.

Perfect. The reason why I asked why you guys don't believe is because I wanted to let you guys start leading the conversation, right? And giving your reasons why. But we can go ahead and start with the reasons why I believe that Jesus was a Muslim. Obviously, external to the Bible, I believe that this theology is reflected within the Quran. I believe that Jesus is explicitly called a servant of God, and he explicitly identifies himself as such, that he is a submitter to God. And not only does it do that, but it also says that the people who followed him in graciousness and righteousness were also Muslims. Right? But the main point that I want to make, because I want to tie back to what you said, lowercase m and uppercase M. So, when the reason why I specified submitter to the one true God is because I wanted to make sure that there was no confusion on what I meant by Muslim. When I say Muslim, I don't mean somebody who uh does pilgrimage and somebody who gives Zakat today and somebody who accepts the Quran and so on and so forth, because we believe in different Sharia, law, different laws for different people. So, for different people, specific things were obligatory. We believe that when Jesus came, he abrogated some things from the law before him, and he made permissible some things. That's a difference in law. So, in the time of Jesus, what it would have meant to be a Muslim would be to abide by the revelation that he was given by God in that specific time. And obviously, I believe that. And in Surah 19, it also says that Jesus was proclaiming that he was a blessing everywhere he went. So, you guys agree that Jesus is a blessing.

Let me ask you a question before you ask us another question. So, for example, why would I say Moses is a Muslim if he comes from, you know, the the Old Testament? Uh, the Torah does not reflect at all anything the Kalam says. And so, I just am confused right now because it just doesn't make sense. You know, the religion came centuries after Jesus was here. So, I'm just I'm lost. Like, I don't understand.

That would be like me saying, "I'm Chinese." And then 600 years later, they're like, "No, you're African." It's like.

Yeah, but hold on. Jesus had already claimed final authority, you know, and there's witnesses of him, you know, he died, he rose three days later, um, ascended back to heaven, like I said. So, I just I'm so lost. I'm so confused. And I know you talk fast, and I love that, but how does that make sense? It's a religion that came seven centuries later, um, after Jesus already claimed final authority. He's not. And there's two different types of Muslims, like we're talking about. You you mentioned the submitting part, which is the lowercase m. Um, and then there's the uppercase M, which someone who reads the and stuff like that. So, I just don't see the connection that we're.

I think what, what I'm understanding you say is because Jesus submitted to who you believe Allah to be, that he is considered a Muslim.

Yes. And I'm specifying lowercase m because obviously she brought it up, but I tried to make it very clear at the beginning of the conversation that I didn't mean Muslim in the sense that he abides by the Sharia in the Quran and he does pilgrimage and Zakat and so on and so forth. Of course, Jesus submitted to God. That should be the question.

One true God is.

But the question should be, is, uh, is Jesus, did Jesus teach what Islam teaches? And no, he did not.

I, I agree. I agree that should be the question. Let me ask you this. Did Jesus submit to the one true God?

All of us too.

Okay. Did, did Jesus submit to the one true God?

We believe in two different one true gods. But, but I know I'm asking.

Yes, he did. Yes, he did. Yes, he did. To Yahweh. Yes, he did. He is Yahweh.

And the one true God is triune and has a begotten son. Okay.

So, back to the fact that Jesus taught that God is the Father.

The fact that God rejects, Allah rejects being a father in the metaphorical sense, and he rejects being a father in the literal sense. So, in what sense is Allah a father? Because you can be a creator without being a father. Correct?

U, this instance, but let me ask you this. You said that he rejects fatherhood in the metaphorical sense. What verse is that?

I already referred to it. However, I want you to, I, I would like a quotation.

That's great. But.

Girl, you've been shining for this whole time. Can you just let her talk? What was the question?

I asked what verse, so I want to know.

You did ask me a question instead of answering mine. So, it would be great if.

It's a clarification.

Yeah, that's great. However, I think you can answer my question without needing clarification. It's called engagement. And that's something that the sister on the end was asking about, if you can engage.

Of course. And I would like to engage. Yeah, I would like to engage. But in order for us to engage.

I want to know the evidence for your claim because you made the claim that he rejects it in the metaphorical sense.

And you made the claim that Jesus is a mother.

I feel like we're getting in the weeds, though. I want to focus on Jesus.

Oh, let me, let me answer her question, then I'll go back to that.

In order for you to prove, again, the burden of proof is on you because you did say that Jesus is a Muslim. You agreed that Jesus taught that Allah is a father, and we talked about where Allah rejects it. You said that there was a correct sense in which Allah is a father. We are asking you what that correct sense is, because Allah rejects it throughout your book.

Okay, perfect. So, the reason why I asked where he rejects father in the metaphorical sense is because that doesn't exist. So, Allah does not reject fatherhood in the way that I defined it. He does not reject the meaning that is being the creator and the sustainer and the way that the Old Testament ascribes it to individuals and the correct sense that I mentioned. That's exactly why I asked you what the reference was because when we quoted the verse in Surah 5, it specifies the meaning that he is rejecting, and it's not the meaning that I specified. So, let me ask you this. What verse does he reject fatherhood in the sense that I referred to it?

There is no verse where father is connected to being a creator. That is why I asked you the question, can you be a creator without being a father? Allah himself says that none can come to him as other than a slave. So, can you come to Allah as a child of him in the sense that he's your creator, according to him?

With that title? Absolutely not. If you can't get as to why that I was in the middle of responding.

Okay, sure.

Okay, perfect. So, and the reason as to why I specified that title is because as Muslims, we believe that we come to Allah with what he accepts from us. So, if Allah specifies that he is not he's not allowing us to refer to him as a father in this, then we are not allowed to do so. But we are also not capable of making positive claims that there was never a point in time in which that title was not used.

If Allah is rejecting that you can come to him as anything but a slave, can you come to Allah as a child?

Beautiful. I answered that question. I said with that specific title, no. And the reason as to why that Jesus isn't a Muslim.

Is because Allah does not permit that in this. So, let me ask, does Jesus abide by the Sharia that's in the Quran, or does he abide by the.

Absolutely not. That's another reason why he's not a Muslim. What you guys are having to do because the claim is made in the Quran is you're having to go back and try to reconcile something that Muhammad said that is blatantly wrong. Muhammad obviously didn't know the contents of the Bible well enough to know that this claim would completely fall apart.

And that's. Go ahead. I was going to say, and what you're asking us to do is to listen to Muhammad, who came 600 years after, as opposed to the eyewitness testimonies of the apostles who were with Jesus, who said that he claimed to be God, that he was not a Muslim, that he came to fulfill the old, uh, the old covenant, covenant. He was a Jew. He wasn't a Christian. He was a Jew who fulfilled the old law, and then he came and he fulfilled it by saying, "I am the Son of God." In John 5:18, he says, "I, uh, I am the Father of." Well, John specifically says that they wanted to kill him because he claimed to be one with God. He claimed to be one with God, and that's why they wanted to kill him.

And, and what, what does he say after that, though?

Uh, verse, what verse?

So, yeah, you're quoting John 10. Yeah, you're.

John 5:18. It says that they wanted to, John wrote that they wanted to kill him because he claimed, he claimed to be one with God. He claimed to be on the same level as God.

Perfect. What's interesting is that Jesus himself responds to this, though, because, for example, when he makes the claim, "I and the Father are one," when they pick up stones to stone him, he asks, "For what crime are you stoning me for?" And he says, "We do not stone you for some sort of a crime, like for example, adultery and whatnot, but rather we stone you for blasphemy, for you are a mere man claiming to be God." Right? And then he says after that.

He says, "Is it not written in your law that you are gods? Why would you stone me for claiming to be the Son of God?" So, he qualifies that. So, Jesus says, "Why would you cla, sorry, stone me for a claim that God makes about you when I claim to be the son?"

What you're asking for us to believe as Christians is the word of Muhammad over the words of the people who were with Jesus, who said that he claimed to be God, who said he didn't write anything about how he claimed to serve the one true God, Allah. And all I have to say is this, is that I don't think it's a coincidence that we continue to see prophets that come after prophets that come after Jesus, and they're always trying to change his message. We see this in Joseph Smith. We see this in Muhammad. We see this in Charles Russell. They always try to get close enough to the truth. What does that sound like? A deceiver. Close enough to the truth to sound like it is Jesus's message, but they twist the, what is the most important part, which is that he is God. He's the Son of God. So, I don't think it's a coincidence that we see Muhammad claiming, "Yes, Jesus was a Muslim," or that, or any of the any of the claims that we see in the, uh, Islamic religion, that Jesus was a good prophet, or, you know, he was a messenger of God. It's sounds good, but it's a little bit of a twist that actually causes the truth to be a lie because I think it's demonic in nature. There's this, there's this demonic entity that is saying, "Say the truth just enough that you can deceive."

Right? And we need to really quickly, and we need to understand one thing. It's always going to be a little circle between me and I, us, right? So, in the Quran, Jesus, uh, is a servant. He, um, he's a prophet of God. But in the Bible, he is known to be Jesus, Lord and Savior. He forgave sin. He allowed to be worshiped. So, no matter what, there's going to be a little thing right now. So.

The crucifixion of Jesus is not a well-established historical event. My name is Kora.

Hi, Cora. I'm Johanna.

Hi, Kora. I'm Rayisha.

I'm Jessica.

Hi, Delaneie.

Hi. Nice to meet you guys. All right. So, my position on the crucifixion of Jesus is that rather than him being crucified at the hands of both the Jews and the Romans, he was saved and raised to the second heaven by God. God did not allow a soul to harm him in that instance in terms of death and so on. Right? And I obviously believe that although you guys believe that Jesus was crucified, and that that theology is echoed within Christianity and so on and so forth, I do not believe that this is an undisputed fact, not just extra biblically, but even within the Bible due to a multitude of different inconsistencies and so on and so forth. So, what are you guys' thoughts on that?

I, I think that's interesting because the crucifixion of Jesus is the most well-known historically attested event, not only by biblical sources, but also extra biblical sources. So, I know that your Quran mentions that it only made for him to appear that way, but it just confuses me. We have all these um historical evidence, and the historians written about this, but 600 years later, you have Allah saying that it only appeared that way. So, how does that make sense?

Okay, beautiful. So, the Quran isn't actually the only instance in which somebody disputes the crucifixion taking place. We have historians also acknowledging the same exact historians that you will appeal to, sorry, appeal to to say that the crucifixion happened, also say that there were early groups disputing the crucifixion. Right? For example, we have groups such as the Basilidians, who deny the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and they, there, they also believe that somebody else was crucified in his place, right? They believe in something called substitution theory. We also have some atheists that believe in something called swoon theory. Swoon theory is essentially Jesus being put on the cross and not passing away, and then when he was taken off and so on and so forth, that reconciles the gospel accounts when people saw him again. So, we see a multitude of disputes, not just within theists, but within historical groups in the first and second century, and we see church fathers acknowledging this as well. For example, we have Ignatius's congregation. We even have Paul in first Corinthians. We have a multitude of different study Bibles that say that Paul is addressing groups that denied the crucifixion in his time. So, we see early dispute. This isn't a 600 year um year later development. This is something that was always going on in the first century. But I wanted to ask because you said that this is a well-established historical event. Right? Right.

Can you give me an example of a source that establishes this without a shadow of a doubt?

Well, we definitely have the Gospels, which are eyewitness accounts, and we also have Jewish historians. We have Roman historians. We have other extra biblical accounts of this.

Okay, perfect. So, let's start with the Gospels, because obviously that's going to be your foundation as Christians. So, you say that the Gospels were authored by eyewitnesses. Do you have any evidence for that?

I don't. But what I can ask you is this. If Allah made Jesus to appear that way, why would he allow millions of people to be deceived for 600 years? If he's the most merciful, wouldn't that be kind of cruel for millions of people to be deceived by this?

Beautiful. So, that kind of deflects from the topic itself, because obviously I can answer that question. That's not a problem. But I'm emphasizing on you saying that there were eyewitness accounts. If you say that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts, how can you simultaneously say that you don't know who wrote them? How can you now verify that they're eyewitness accounts if you can't even prove that the people who you claim wrote them actually wrote them?

Well, we also had Paul who mentioned that there were 500 eyewitness accounts that were still alive today.

Yeah, but that that's not 500 eyewitnesses. That is one non-eyewitness mentioning that there were 500 eyewitnesses, not to the crucifixion, but allegedly to the resurrection. So, that's completely different. But it seemed like you wanted to get a word out.

Yes. I actually wanted to say, so five, she said there was 500 eyewitnesses, and you brought up atheists, but there were also agnostics. These people could have believed otherwise. They had no reason to make others believe that Christianity was what it said what it is. And also, she mentioned about 600 years going by that um, why would God allow that? That goes against his nature. God would not allow for people to be deceived, for Jesus Christ to appear to be crucified, because that's that goes against his nature. God says in Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man that he should lie, or a son of man that he should change his mind." You keep mentioning things that God changes his mind. That God, God is faithful. God's word is upright. God's word is perfect. It's complete. Nothing outside of the Bible is something that we, it's everything we need is in the Bible. It's inherent. There's no errors in the Bible. And she mentioned the 500 eyewitnesses. Mary was there as well. There was also also a centurion that was there as well. A Roman that walked by and said, "That is truly a man of God that's on that cross." There's people that that were, the 500, the the texts aren't just religious texts. These are eyewitness accounts. And if you go into a court and you say, "Oh, this happened." That's a burden of proof if you do not have an eyewitness to attest for that. And we have witnesses. But the, but the issue is the way that I'm going about this is I'm saying, if you are claiming that the Bible contains eyewitness testimony, how can you claim that the Bible contains eyewitness testimony if you can't prove that it was written by eyewitnesses? Then I'll ask, where does the testimony come from? To which she responded, she said, "Okay, we have Paul attesting to 500 eyewitnesses, not to the crucifixion, but rather the resurrection." But that's not 500 testimonies. If I come to you and let's try and be a little bit consistent, right? If I come to you in the seventh century and I say that I saw the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, split the moon, and 500 people were with me. Is that one source or is that 501 sources?

Okay. Well, let's forget about the eyewitness and testimony.

Wait, I, I want that question answered. Is that 500 sources or is that one source claiming that there are 500 sources?

So, I'll, I'll just chime in, um, something that I find interesting is you can say like 500 or one, one sees the 500 see Jesus, whatever, um, raised from the dead. The fact is that there is eyewitness accounts. But here's even like the bigger thing is like, it's not just in the Bible, and it's not just with these scholars that we find. Like, when we just Google, oh, who saw Jesus, who wrote about Jesus, there is still documentation coming out today about people, dis, archaeologists finding Old Testament like journals and stuff written on stone tablets saying claiming that they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead. There was one a discovery just a few years ago actually that, um, and you can look this up afterward, like people are still discovering real people, like eyewitness accounts on tablets, on stone, on whatever it is when they do digging on archaeological sites in in the Middle East. And so, um, yeah, again, you can look that up afterward and and see it. But I think that that's just so true because that's such an outside point of view, right? You can say 100, 500.

Okay. So, to answer to speak to your point, these people that said the eyewitnesses that stated that Jesus Christ testified, sorry, testified that Jesus Christ was in fact crucified on the cross, people could have refuted that at that given time. People did not refute that. They actually acknowledged that and said, "This, it did in fact."

Yeah. But my, my question is not being answered though. Would that be one testimony, um, allegedly, or would that be 500 testimonies from Paul specifically? Because Paul, when he claims 500 eyewitnesses, he is the only person who makes this claim. And to that fact, we don't have all of these individuals' names, right? So, I'm asking, would that be 500 sources or one source? So, I'll, I'll just chime in, um, something that I find interesting is you can say like 500 or one, one sees the 500 see Jesus, whatever, um, raised from the dead. The fact is that there is eyewitness accounts. But here's even like the bigger thing is like, it's not just in the Bible, and it's not just with these scholars that we find. Like, when we just Google, oh, who saw Jesus, who wrote about Jesus, there is still documentation coming out today about people, dis, archaeologists finding Old Testament like journals and stuff written on stone tablets saying claiming that they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead. There was one a discovery just a few years ago actually that, um, and you can look this up afterward, like people are still discovering real people, like eyewitness accounts on tablets, on stone, on whatever it is when they do digging on archaeological sites in in the Middle East. And so, um, yeah, again, you can look that up afterward and and see it. But I think that that's just so true because that's such an outside point of view, right? You can say 100, 500.

I do, I do want to touch on that because I did want to mention data outside of the Bible as well, but I wanted to emphasize on the Bible first, just because that's something that will unite the four of you guys. We all, you all accept the Bible, right? So, I wanted to touch on that first, but it seems like there's really not much of a response in terms of whether or not it's one source or 500 sources. But even if, like, let's say it's one source in this instance, it's Paul saying that 500 people attested to this. Um, was Paul himself an eyewitness of either the crucifixion event or the resurrection event? Did he ever meet Jesus physically? Apart from his claims to having visions, did he ever meet Jesus?

No. But apart even from the eyewitness accounts, we can even talk about the prophecies that have been that have come to pass about Jesus's death, crucifixion, and resurrection. So, what do you have to say about these prophecies that came to pass?

Okay, perfect. We can talk about that. I do want to talk about the extra biblical data first. Um, so, give me an example of somebody outside of the Bible that attests to the crucifixion of Jesus, and we can say, uh, a firsthand source in this instance, because they don't have to be an eyewitness, but they can be somebody who met an eyewitness or whatever it may be. Do you have anybody like that?

Yeah. So, I mean, I feel like we all, if we've done our research, we know like Lucian or whatever, or from the Romans, like he was, he was mocking Christians for believing in a man who was put on a cross, right? I think a lot of the people of the time, Jewish religious leaders, they believe that Jesus died, but it's not a dispute of who, like, who died on the cross, it's who he means to us as people. And I want to encourage, just what you said, of like, who, who else can we bring into the testimony? The example that I found when I did research of like the modern-day examples, these modern, or it's not modern tablets, they're old tablets being found now in the new age, like today, throughout archaeologists, these are just random people. Like these are just artifacts that are there that are hidden away that, you know, archaeologists have to find. They don't have a name. And I think that that's even more so solidification of like, this is real, because they're not, they're not named. It's not Lucian that we can debate. I do want to talk about what establishes a historical event, because you would agree that the first thing that we go to when we want to establish that something happened is testimony, right? That's the first source that we'll go to. So, since you, we kind of touched on the Bible, I do want to let you talk because you haven't really gotten a word out. Um, so, we were talking a bit about biblical data and whether or not the Bible contains eyewitness testimony about the crucifixion. Do you have anything to say about data outside of the Bible that attests to the crucifixion, whether it be first-century people who saw it themselves or people who met people that saw him, saw it himself? Do you have anything to say to that?

Well, the person who embalmed Jesus was actually one of the people, one of the Jews who were accusing him of sorcery, which is why they crucified him in the first place. But I did have a question. You believe Jesus is in heaven right now, and he's going to come back to kill the Antichrist?

Yeah, I believe that he's resting in the second.

And why would he come back and break the cross as well?

Okay, beautiful. Because he was not crucified and he is diminishing.

Break a cross that had no significance to Christians.

There's also, uh, a reason that that's said. It's to essentially establish that the idea that Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of mankind is something completely and utterly false. So, it has a meaning behind it. It's not just an action. He breaks the cross for the love of the game. Of course not. There's something that is signified by that. It is essentially saying that the Christian belief is not true. But I did want an answer to the question because I did ask you something and it wasn't answered. Do we have any data outside of the Bible? Since I was asking about eyewitness testimony within the Bible, but we weren't getting anywhere with that.

Pontius Pilate, Thadius, the person who ordered his.

Oh, yeah. And where, what documents do we find those in?

Roman documents. Roman historical.

Okay. And what's the first manuscript that we get for those Roman documents, when?

Tell me. I don't know.

Yeah. So, it's post-10th century. So, we have instances of these manuscripts. For example, if you want to mention, because somebody mentioned Josephus, I believe it was you who mentioned Josephus. You can talk about, for example, uh, you mentioned, sorry, you didn't mention, but a lot of people mention Tacitus and things of that nature. All of these instances mention writings from individuals who lived in the first or second century, and we only see these writings being shown in manuscript form post-Islam, which we can say is like, what, sixth, seventh century.

Yeah. Yeah. And I love that you like have those resources ready and and um, give you testimony to kind of your facts of like, okay, this happened years later, these people, whatever. But again, going back to the point that I brought up, like archaeologists are finding tablets. So, what do you have to say about that of like people discovering it now? Random eyewitness accounts.

Yeah, perfect. People discovering tablets of people portraying crucifixion events doesn't mean that those events actually happened. We have tablets of people documenting the existence of sun gods and moon gods and things of that nature. That doesn't establish that these things actually existed. All this can do is establish that this was an early belief. But something being believed in does not mean that it happened. That's why I'm emphasizing on historical substantiation, not what the people believed in, but what actually happened. Which is why I'm asking for eyewitness testimony.

Yeah. So, you're saying if there's no eyewitness testimony.

It did not happen. I'm saying that the first source that we go to is eyewitness testimony. And if we don't have eyewitness testimony, that's why I also mentioned you can have somebody who essentially met an eyewitness or somebody who met somebody that was an eyewitness and so on and so forth. There can be sources like that as well.

>> Yeah. But that eyewitness testimony is not the only evidence that something existed or happened. If we take Alexander the Great, we don't have historical facts about him until 400 years later. But people don't deny that Alexander the Great existed. So you can't just you cannot say that it's just because we don't have historical accounts with eyewitnesses does not make it true. Where I can remember so you agree that we don't have the account was in the cave with Muhammad.

>> Okay. To me that kind of just seemed like you're conceding that we don't have any eyewitness testimony because you saying that eyewitness testimony is not the only fact after I've been spending the past couple of minutes trying to get eyewitness testimony seems like a concession that there is none. So, I'm just going to ask simply, do we have wellestablished eyewitness testimony to the crucifixion? I would like a yes or no if that's okay.

>> Yes, we have the gospels.

>> Okay. And can you prove that the gospels are eyewitnesses?

>> Can you prove that Muhammad had an eyewitness in the cave?

>> Uh, that's a twoquay fallacy. You're going to you're going to need to answer my question before I answer your question.

>> Let's say that we didn't know.

>> You're going to need to answer my question. So, do we or do we not?

>> Take the argument. Let me say no so I can piggy back on that.

>> Okay. So, so you agree that we can't establish that the gospels are eyewitness testimony?

>> I do not agree on that.

>> Okay. So, can you prove that they're eyewitness testimony?

>> I told you the gospels.

>> Okay. No, I'm asking can you prove that the Gospels are right testimony?

>> I thought God's word can't be changed.

>> Yeah, exactly.

>> Wait, but we're talking about within Christianity. We're not We're also talking about historic

>> scriptures. You're talking about historical documents

>> because we're talking about whether or not something is historically prompt. The prompt has nothing to do.

>> Wait, hold on. The prompt has nothing to do with Islam. So, if we want to go by that standard, you guys mentioning Islam is also a deflection from the prompt. So, I'm just going to ask simply, can we prove that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses? It's a yes or no question.

>> Other than historical evidence? No.

>> Okay. And what historical evidence do we have to the Bibles being authored by eyewitnesses?

>> We have the Bible.

>> So,

>> okay. So, that's circular. That's a circle. So, we're using the Bible to prove the Bible.

>> So, my question is my question is

>> my question is, why do you believe in Muhammad if there's no proof? There's no other eyewitnesses that this man had a revelation. And your your scriptures affirm our scriptures. The scriptures tell you guys to go back to our scriptures. Go to the previous scriptures because there is it's inherent. It's our our scriptures are God breathed. I would love to our scriptures our scriptures are come through the Holy Spirit.

>> They're God breathed. So the our scriptures also say if you do not have the truth the those who don't have the truth is are being veiled in their parishes.

>> Okay, perfect. But my issue is the only way that you can prove that your scriptures were revealed by the Holy Spirit is if you appeal to your scriptures. So that's again a circle. But you asking me about why I believe in the prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him is again a deflection from the topic because this isn't about whether or not and why I believe I'm using I'm using your logic but the issue is though you're using my logic before answering my question. So that's not something that needs to happen.

>> We have history we have archaeology agnostics we have

>> so what historical documents

>> testify that who test excuse me who testify that this indefinitely happened that this is the wellestablished historical event.

>> Okay, perfect. But but the issue is because my question was what historical documents do we use to prove that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses? Because that's what we're kind of in now. We're talking about historical evidence for the crucifixion. And the first thing we mentioned was the Gospels. So I'm asking very simply, what historical evidence doesn't need to be eyewitness. What historical documents or evidence do we have to prove that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses without using the Bible because that's circular?

>> What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do you affirm those at all?

>> That's not New Testament. We're talking about the New Testament. But okay, but the Dead Sea Scrolls was a pro is a fulfillment. I Isaiah 53 is it says that he would be pierced by our transgressions that he would be led like a lamb to the slaughter that he would

>> and that's that's echoed in Jeremiah that's also echoed in Jeremiah and that's attributed to Jeremiah. So my issue is with this that's also kind of deflection from the writing aspect from who authored it. You mentioning the Dead Sea Scrolls is a deflection because we're not talking about Old Testament. We're talking about New Testament and we're also talking about history. fills it.

>> Wait, hold on. But we're not talking about Let me ask you this. So, let me ask you this. Does history acknowledge prophecy, which is something miraculous? Do historians acknowledge supernatural things such as prophecy?

>> Some do.

>> No, that's false. Because history and the reason why every

>> No, the reason why is because history is something naturalistic, which means they don't appeal to supernatural things such as prophecy or miracles. That's also why, wait, I'm in the middle of speaking. That's also why, for example, atheists and historians don't agree with the resurrection. Not because there aren't people who believed in it, but because it's a supernatural event. So, naturally, they're not going to accept things such as prophecy and so on and so forth. We're talking about historical documents backing the crucifixion. So, I want to go back to my point. Do you have historical documents that prove that the Bible was written by eyewitnesses?

>> Okay. Aside from the eyewitness, because I feel like there's like a catch 22. Let's say, okay, we do not have them other than the Bible. We all agree we do not have them. Okay. Do you believe that your Quran

>> Do you guys agree? Do you agree that we don't have any evidence

>> other than the Bibles?

>> Okay. So it it seems like

>> based on my knowledge I could be I'm learning about this every day based on my knowledge. No. Okay. From what I know. But do you believe that your Quran is a wellestablished historical event? Do you

>> that that's that's a first off the Quran isn't an event. But regardless that's also a deflection from the top. So would you guys agree that is a deflection point because the topic is the crucifixion.

>> I'm trying to land here.

>> I just want to say I think you're doing a great job. Like truly, and I I know, sorry, but I just want to say that the what you have to bring to the table is so unique. Like I just genuinely feel like you're so smart. Like you like truly like you you're trying to catch us all and I and I appreciate I appreciate the dedication and the heart that you have behind this. Like truly hear me say that genuinely. But

>> we're going back and forth in a circle of eyewitnesses. I believe that we have eyewitnesses, the tablets, the shroud, etc. Okay. But I want to just say why it matters, right? Because if the crucifixion was fake, right, and if Jesus just ascended into heaven, um like the Quran says with because God loved him essentially more so than anybody else, that he ascended Jesus into heaven, right? To send somebody else to the cross because somebody died on the cross, right? Somebody had to have died on the cross. If you believe he ascended, somebody still was hanging on that cross. So you're saying that Allah loved Jesus more than anybody else on earth because he spared him. He didn't he didn't spare Muhammad from dying, right? He he spared Jesus. So why that's not that's not the same God of like the Quran that's allloving, that's good, that's merciful, and it's not the God that we believe in. And it's so important to know that Jesus Christ chose to go to the cross because he is God and he loves us so much that he wanted a personal relationship with us. And and if again he didn't die and it was some man then like the first point was then we're just deceived. We're all deceived. And you can say in the revelation, he breaks the cross. And and that's another thing. But truly, it's so important to know that like without the cross, I wouldn't be here today. My I wouldn't I would have taken my life, right? Like my life, it's not mine because of what Jesus did. Jesus said, "I forgive you." And that's only because of his death and resurrection. Because there's no body in the tomb, right? And so because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, because he loved me so much, he loves you so much. He loves everybody in this room so much that he chose to die on the cross not to be. He could cuz remember he he rose again and he ascended into heaven then, right? But he could have chose to do that before he died and he didn't because he loves us. And there's eyewitness accounts, right? The tablets, the shroud, the the

>> Wait, I I just want to hold it there because you you've made a lot of points. So you mentioned explicitly that if it's the case that Jesus was not crucified that we were all deceived. But the issue is we are all capable of now looking into whether or not this is a wellestablished historical event. And this conversation if anything has proven to me that um generally speaking people are not capable of presenting wellestablished historical evidences for the crucifixion taking place if you genuinely crack down on the narrative. You can say that you were deceived before, but after this conversation and you realizing that we aren't capable of establishing this without a shadow of a doubt, you clearly wouldn't be deceived now. You would realize the issue with this.

>> All right. And my final prompt is Muhammad peace be upon him is the final messenger of God.

>> I'm Kora.

>> Hi Kora. My name is Hapsa. Hi, I'm Chantel. I am Janette. I'm Akyra.

>> All right. Nice to meet you guys. So, obviously this is something that we're going to have a lot of dispute on whether or not the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, was a true prophet of God. So, I first want to establish what it means to be a true prophet of God. Um, according to you guys and according to Christianity, a trait of prophethood is to fulfill prophecy and also prophesize correctly. For example, it's said in Deuteronomy 18, it says that one who speaks not in the name of the Lord, it will not come into fruition. So, a trait of a false prophet would be saying false prophecy, for example. And another trait of a false prophet, we we see this for example in Deuteronomy 13 is that they preach a god different from the God of Abraham. Right? So, I just want to touch on whether why you guys don't believe Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him is a true prophet.

>> So, I'd like to begin and I definitely agree with your definition of what a prophet is. We would say that Muhammad is a false prophet because he contradicts two things. The the divinity of Jesus Christ, right? His revelation does not agree with or uh validate the divinity of Jesus Christ. And it says in Galatians uh 1:8-9 that if anybody comes to you preaching a different gospel, then let him be as one of those under the aurse, right? So he's an aured prophet. we would look at him as a false prophet also because the Quran which is the revelation that he has established does um try to undermine the Jesus as a part of the trinity as a part of God he is directly like blaspheming god in his nature as being triune as it being Jesus as a person of the trinity so that's why we would say that it is a false prophet

>> okay so then let me ask you this so you believe that a false prophet is going to teach a god other than the god of for example um Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob, right?

>> Yes. And I don't believe that the concept of God as understood in the Quran is the God of Abraham, Isaac.

>> Okay, perfect. So, let me ask you this. Uh does Abraham teach the Trinity?

>> Even if you want to say that Abraham No, I I'm going to I'm going to expound on it. Um even if you want to say that Abraham doesn't teach the Trinity, when you see in scripture, right, the words that are used when Abraham is in the Bible, Elohim, Elohim is a plural word. If you even go back to Genesis where it says let us make God in our image that's it's clearly a plural word us right so that that's not if if there's one God right three persons if God is triune and he's speaking to himself then Abraham which is in the scriptures of Genesis is a triune God so yeah so perfectly so so you mentioned Genesis where it says let us make man in our image you know what the verse right after that says

>> go ahead if you want to

>> it says so God made man in his image so it's it's singular pronouns right after that. So that doesn't necessitate trinitarianism because both plural pronouns and singular pronouns are used. So you trying to go but the god I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to I'm not done talking you word in the original text in in the Hebrew Elohim is a pural word.

>> Okay. And and Elohim is the pronoun his to refute that you must refute the fact that Elohim is a plural word first.

>> Okay. So I have a question on that question. I have a question. Is Moses one person or multiple people?

>> He's one person.

>> Okay. So, why is Moses called Elohim?

>> In the Old Testament, Moses is called Elohim.

>> And that Yeah. For I believe it's in the book I believe it's in the book of Exodus. Mo is made an Elohim.

>> If you cannot call Wait, hold on. Do you disagree that that's in the Bible?

>> Plurality though is so Elohim is a word that can have plurality,

>> but it can also have singularity. Correct.

>> Okay, beautiful. So if we concede that Elohim can have both plurality and singularity, then the only way that you can already presuppose that Elohim in this instance is going to indicate plurality is if you're already reading your Trinitarian view into the Old Testament, which is disingenuous because what you should be doing is reading the text for what it says, not reading your belief into the text. But I wanted to also touch on another thing because we already established that Abraham doesn't necessarily preach explicitly a triune God. But I'm going to ask you this. Do you believe that the Old Testament itself or the prophets of the Old Testament, any of them preach a triune God?

>> Yes, I believe that they're speaking of God, Yahweh, which is three persons, the Holy Spirit, Yahweh the Father, and Jesus Christ. So there is when you say preaching a triune God. God in his nature is triune. You cannot preach of any God. Well, the God that we believe in, which is the only God, you cannot preach of him or speak of him without his nature being there implied or explicit. And back to your first point, you said, "Would a f a a false prophet preach a god that is contrary to the nature of um Abraham, right?"

>> Of Abraham's God.

>> Yes. Exactly. I would say that your God Allah is not the same nature as our God Yahweh. Why? And even though it might just be uh we I'm saying that in the fundamental understanding as the Islamic God Allah. I know that it just means God, right? But I'm saying that it's not the same nature of our God because our God is not a man that he should lie as one of our sisters pointed out before. So why would Allah be deceiving the entire world by the event of the crucifixion? And also why would he allow his words, his words, if we want to count Torah and the Bible as his words, why would he allow them to be misunderstood and wait for a correction so long after the establishment of his first prophets and his final messenger, which is his son, which is himself, which is God.

>> So you said first off that the prophets of the Old Testament do preach a triune God. But I didn't, you know, because

>> the only God is triune because there's only one God in triune.

>> Perfect. Okay. Can you prove that the God of the Old Testament is triune using the Old Testament instead of reading in your

>> in Isaiah in Yeah, I was going to say in Isaiah um a lot of times um there it's mentioned multiple times where it says the Lord God and his spirit have sent me. So if you go and you look into Isaiah, there's a lot of times where three are referenced in in terms of of God.

>> Okay, perfect. But in Isaiah when it says um what is it called? The Lord and the Spirit have sent me. Where's the third person?

>> Jesus.

>> No, I'm saying where is the third person in the verse? Because only two are mentioned.

>> The Lord.

>> The Lord and the spirit. So where's the son?

>> So the Lord is the father God. His spirit is the Holy Spirit has sent me as Jesus.

>> No, because Isaiah is speaking because you just quoted Isaiah 56. Isaiah is saying that he's the one.

>> That's 53. But yeah,

>> that's right. 53. Yeah. So Isaiah,

>> they're talking about the coming Messiah, which is

>> No, no, no, no, no. What what's happening here is that Isaiah is saying that he was sent because you believe that Isaiah was a prophet, correct? Yes.

>> Was Isaiah sent by God as a prophet?

>> Yeah.

>> Okay, perfect. So Isaiah is saying that he was sent. So there's no third person in that verse. But even then, you're presupposing. But hold on. But even then, you're presupposing that this spirit in this instance is Yahweh himself. That's also a presupposition that's baked in there. But

>> it's the word of God that's being preached through Isaiah and prophesying the coming Messiah. So I don't

>> believe Isaiah speaks in first person sometimes. So my friend, you said that my friends over there couldn't use the Bible to justify the crucifixion like context the use the scripture to defend the crucifixion. So what other sources do you have other than the Quran to prove that Muhammad is the final messenger?

>> Yeah. So we can use the hadith that attests to pro uh prophetic miracles as well as prophecies and we can also

>> false prophets can also create miracles and create false prophecies

>> according to Christianity or Islam

>> in Islam and Christianity.

>> Wait, so where does Islam say that false prophets can do miracles

>> in general? Well, just because a prophet makes miracles or creates miracles, yeah, we can go to a circus for that. That doesn't make him a prophet.

>> Can you prove it from Islam?

>> In Islam, the way that Prophet Muhammad got his revelation in the cave when Adel Gabriel came to him and choked him three times and told him to read, but he couldn't because he was illiterate.

>> Don't you guys believe that?

>> He had no eyewitnesses account. You're talking about eyewitnesses account. There was no eyewitness account for the prophet Muhammad.

>> So, don't you believe her, Cover me. Cover me. because he thought he was possessed by a demon. I that's why I don't think that he's a messenger of God. That's not a way of revelation.

>> Perfect. Perfect. So the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him being pressed. Do you think that that's a problem? Right. But don't you believe that the angel of the Lord dislocated uh Jacob's hip?

>> Yeah. The angel talking about Okay. So he Okay, perfect. So you have no problem. Okay. So that's not a way that that's your stand.

>> Okay. So I want to compare scriptures to the Quran. And um is it in chapter 33:40? It says that Muhammad is the final messenger and he is the seal of the prophets. But in Hebrews 1, it says that God spoke through the prophets, but in the last day, he speaks to his son. In Sudah 5:3, it actually tells you that Muhammad perfected your religion for you. But in Jude 3, it says that the faith was already handed to the saints and that they are to defend it. In surah 459 it says that um it actually talks about how uh Muhammad I think in surah 45 in surah 385 it talks about that Islam is the only way but the entire new testament tells me that Jesus is the only way in suda in surah 34:28 it tells me that Muhammad is actually the messenger of good news and the warner of all humanity but actually Luke 4 says that Jesus was sent to preach good news and in the entire gospel he's warning humanity so it doesn't sound to me that Muhammad was trying to complete Jesus. He was actually trying to replace Jesus. Okay, perfect. It feels it feels that Islam couldn't handle Jesus. It couldn't fit. It couldn't get rid of him. So, it tried to fit him in. And so, what happens is you remove his crown, you remove his crucifixion, you remove his lordship, his sunship, and his resurrection. And so, you give us a good prophet and an anointed Messiah, which is great because he was all those things. But if you were to look at the tombs nowadays, one is filled with Muhammad's body. The other one is actually Christ's risen. So if I had to choose between the two, Muhammad can't be the final prophet because Christ is the king.

>> And the reason why one tomb is uh empty and the other tomb is filled is because Jesus didn't die.

>> Another requirement for prophethood is on continuity. There is no continuity with Muhammad.

>> Yeah. Continuity of

>> continuity in any of the text. He's not prophesied in any in any in the Islam in any of the hadith in the in the Bible. He's not prophesied in the Old Testament or the New Testament. No, because he would have quoted it if he was. Okay, perfect. There's no quote of Prophet Muhammad taking anything from the Bible and quoting it and saying, "Hey, that's me." Anyone can come and and start a new religion. I can come right now in 2026 and say, "Hey, you guys, um, I'm a prophet. This is why um, that's me right there in Isaiah. That's me right there in, you know, first Peter on all these things." That doesn't make me a prophet.

>> Okay, perfect. So, what let me respond to that real quick. So, she mentioned continuity. But every single time I asked continuity in what the point continu continuity in message in preaching who God is which is why I asked do the prophets preach a triune God explicitly or even if you want to say implicitly in some way shape and or formally

>> the trinity was revealed in the New Testament.

>> Okay. Wait. So if

>> but it was it was t but three three was talked about in the old testament but Jesus talked about

>> but were the prophets teaching the people the trin were the prophets teaching the people the trinity?

>> The revelation came in the new testament. But I'm asking were the prophets prior to Jesus preaching the trinity?

>> They weren't teaching the print trinity. No.

>> Okay. So Okay. So if they weren't preaching the trinity then according to your standard. Okay. Perfect. So if they weren't I I I need to speak but I I need to speak. I need to speak. So if he wasn't if the prophets before Okay, perfect. So you said the full truth which means the prophets before only had apparently half of the truth or something like that. But the issue is according to the standard that I established at the beginning of this, you have to preach the exact same God. If you concede that the prophets of the trin uh sorry the prophets of the old testament did not preach the trinity then you can say that for example it wasn't fully revealed and so on and so forth but according to Deuteronomy 13 um it's going to be the case that if somebody preaches a god other than the true god and you believe that a non-triune god is a god other than the true god and the prophets were not teaching a triune god then according to your standard everybody prior to Jesus was a false prophet

>> okay there's a fundamental un misunderstanding here the prophets were speaking of Yahweh Yahweh is established as a triune God outside of space and time. As it was mentioned before, Jesus was here before the foundations of the earth. That is literal and spiritual. There's the Holy Spirit, eternal. There's father God, eternal. There's the son, eternal. He was slain before the foundations of the earth. That is something that is one establishing his divinity and his eternity as God outside of space and time. So when you're trying to make the point and contend that oh um the prophets are preaching of a god that's not triune they the only god that there is is triune he's triune in their natur in his nature. Yes. And it's even if you disagree the Christian god Jesus the father the son they are not each other but they are still one and uni unified in the trinity. So when you're saying that oh did the prophets uh preach a triune god? Did they teach the the doctrine of the trinity? No they did not. that the same God that they are referring to is triune. And even back to it, we're talking about the trinity, but the point is, is Muhammad a prophet? Is he the final messenger? And the point, we can get to it, but the point we're saying is that Muhammad is not the final messenger. There's no point for a final messenger after the person of Jesus Christ. Why? Because Jesus Christ is the alpha and omega. Just as Yahweh is the alpha and omega, he's the beginning and the end. There is nothing else needed after the son. Why? Because remission of sins and reconciliation and oneness theosis only happens through the person of Jesus Christ. That's why he says nobody comes to the father except through me. I am the way, the truth and the life. So there is no point for another prophet 600 years later. And especially if the prophet is trying to refute the divinity, the nature of the person Jesus Christ and also the whole um uh messianic prophecy of the old uh old stat uh testament. It's no point. It's redundant. And not only is it redundant, it's um it's not a progression, it's a recession into what was prophesied.

>> I'm gonna respond to that real quick and then I want to go back because you mentioned because I feel like talking about the thing in question right now is your prophet Muhammad. That's why I'm referenced that that's why I'm trying to affirm the Bible. We affirm the Old Testament and the New Testament. What do you affirm? Do you What's your What's your stance on the Bible? If you allowed me stance on the Bible, is it partially corrupted or is it fully corrupt? If you allowed me to speak, I would have responded to that after responding to her for 15 years. The point that you made is explicitly, okay, the prophets, they did not preach a trinity. Sorry, they did preach a trinity and that God's essence is triune. So, if they speak of God, they are by necessity speaking of someone who's triune. But the issue is that's exactly what we're discussing. We're asking if the scriptures reflect a triune God. Because the issue that you had with Muhammad peace be upon him's prophethood is that he does not preach the same exact god. So, I'm asking you to prove that the God that the previous prophets preached was a triune God. And if you're incapable of doing this, then your own like I guess standard in this instance for proving that the prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, is not a prophet is null and void.

>> Can I ask a question? She asked a question. Wait, she asked a question. So,

>> what is your stance on the Bible? Do you believe that it's partially corrupted or do you believe that it's fully corrupted?

>> I believe that it's partially corrupted. I believe

>> how do you pick and choose which parts are corrupted?

>> Yeah. Beautiful. I use the divine revelation of God the same way that the author of for example the Quran you said okay what exactly do we use to quote unquote pick and choose obviously it's going to be the case that the Quran would be the supreme authority and that it's the criteria for truth um and there's no problem with me picking particular aspects of the Bible that are true as accord like in accordance to the Quran or the divine revelation because we also see things like this going on with the Bible right let me ask you this um do you have any denomination

>> I'm non-denominational

>> okay non-denominational assume that's correct I I want to wait I want to respond. Wait, I I want to finish responding. Wait, I I asked a question so I can establish

>> cherry pick what parts of or

>> Okay, I was going to respond to that. I was going to respond to that. Wait, hold on.

>> Why would you use a corrupted book to use your reference as as if Muhammad is the final messenger of God?

>> Okay, perfect. Let me respond to that real quick. So, first off, the reason why I'm started with the Bible is because you guys are all Christians. So, I'm going to Yeah. So, I'm going to use something that you guys affirm to first establish a standard for prophethood, but I want to respond to that real quick. So, you said there's a problem with you picking and choosing. You said that you're non-denominational, which means I assume that you accept the 66 well 66 book cannon that does not include the book of Enoch. So, in the New Testament, it includes the book of Jude. And the book of Jude, wait, I'm in the middle of the prophet Muhammad. My issue with you saying that there's a problem with me picking specific aspects that are in line with divine revelation is because your Bible itself does that. For example, the book of Jude cherrypicks specific aspects of the book of Enoch and deems them divine revelation. Whilst you as a non-denominational Christian do not believe that the book of Enoch is divine revelation at all, which means

>> takes apocrypha. You don't know that.

>> She just said she's non-denominational.

>> The Old Testament and the New Testament.

>> Do you accept the book of Enoch?

>> All right, Cora, this is going great. You're a sharp girl. Um, is there someone that you're thinking you may want to have a deeper conversation with that you

>> Yeah, absolutely. there is somebody that I was thinking about, somebody that I did kind of want to go on a back and forth with. It was kind of diminished due to the fact that there was, you know, three other people that needed to speak, but I felt like this person had some substance to offer, and I did want to be able to retort to all of it. So,

>> all right. And who is that lady?

>> It's Shinasa.

>> Shinasa.

>> Come on down.

>> All right. My claim is that Jesus is God.

>> All right. So, your claim is that Jesus is God. So what evidence do we have to indicate that Jesus himself either preached to be God or preached that he should be receiving worship and so on and so forth? Doesn't have to be verbatim, but even you know um uh I guess we can say some sort of an illusion to it,

>> right? So first I want to start by going back to the Torah because there was a verse that was misqued in the previous one of the previous prompts. It's one of my favorite verses. This verse is one of the clearest verse or passages that demonstrate the triune nature of God which then would point to Jesus being amongst that triune nature. And it was Isaiah, you said 56 and I think Chantel said 53, but it's Isaiah 48 12-6. That passage you said was Isaiah, but it's actually a person that identifies himself as such. Verse 12 starts off by saying, "I am he. I am the first. I am also the last." It says, "I have laid the foundations of the earth with my hand, and I have stretched the heavens with my right hand." Notice this person doesn't even need two hands to lay the foundation of the earth. He says, "From the beginning, I was there, and now the Lord God and his spirit have sent me." That's Isaiah 48:es 12-16, where the speaker identifies himself as the first and the last. He gives you his spiritual resume, how he created the heavens and the earth with one hand each. And then he goes on to say, "The Lord God." Wait, I thought this was the Lord God. I thought the first and last would be the Lord God. And now his spirit, which the Christian would say is the Holy Spirit, has sent me. And that's one of my favorite verses because I think it's one of the clearest passages that demonstrate the triune nature of God. But to my prompt, Jesus is God. And you ask, where in scripture does he receive worship? Where does he allude to or make it plain that he is God or should be worshiped? And one of my favorite passages to demonstrate that is Mark 2, which you know is the earliest gospel. Mark 2, first of all, any the only way you can claim to be anything is by your action or by speech. Those are the only two ways you can communicate something about your character. And Jesus did that both ways. In Mark 2, you know the story. I'm sure you know the paralyzed man. He is brought through the roof by four friends. As soon as he's brought through the roof, he says, "Son, your sins are forgiven." In that passage, he starts off by forgiving the paralyzed man's sins. And what happens? The Pharisees thinking in their head, not uttering anything out loud, which is an illusion to Psalms 95:11, which says, "The Lord hears the thoughts of men." That's a divine prerogative to read them the minds of human beings, which Jesus does with ease. He says, "Why do you think within yourself who can forgive sins but God? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins, I say to you, take up your mat and walk." So he says it with his speech because the son of man is a divine title as you know Daniel 7:13-14 which speaks of the two powers in heaven the ancient of days who sees power to the son of man who then is given dominion glory and kingdom and is given it forever for eternity. So you would have to explain to me how Jesus in those texts did not forgiving sins, declaring that he is God by labeling himself the son of man, reading the thoughts of man does not fit into the divine trinity that we spoke of in Isaiah 48.

>> Okay, perfect. So first off, I don't believe that son of man is an a divine title. Second off, you mentioned Jesus forgiving sins and having the ability and you mentioned the power, right? The power, the authority to forgive sins. Let me ask you this. Does Jesus inherently possess the authority to do anything or does he gain that authority from the father? And if the answer to that is yes, does God need to be given authority or does God possess that inherently?

>> Jesus is eternally powerful. That's why this chapter I referenced speaks of the two powers in heaven. Now, when you see anything about authority being seated or given, it speaks to when Jesus Christ is here on this earth. Because as you understand, Jesus Christ is fully God and he is fully man. And so when the scripture speaks of God being given authority, it's not speaking of it in the sense that he's being given authority as a divine being, but is speaking of his earthly ministry.

>> Okay, perfect. But if you believe that Jesus is the son who is also a divine person within the Trinity, then what's the significance of the father giving the authority and him having to receive it from the father? If he was a divine person who inherently possessed authority on his own and you obviously believe that Jesus had the hypothatic union, he had the divine essence whilst he was a person. If it's the case that he possessed the divine essence which inherently has authority, then there would be no need for him to receive authority from the father because he already has the divine essence that possesses authority. So to me it just seems indicative of Jesus making it very clear that he needs to receive things from the only true God who he also uh talks about in John 17:3 when he addresses the father as the only true God. So Jesus obviously according to you you believe that the god is the lord of all flesh and so on and so forth. And if Jesus comes down and he humbles himself, he receives the authority from the father, the power from the father, not because he's necessarily deficient, but because he humbled himself, there's no significance of him receiving that from the father if he's capable of giving it to it, sorry, giving it to himself on his own by virtue of the divine essence. To me, it kind of just seems like an evasion from the point that is he needed to receive authority from the father. He does nothing except that the father gives him permission or the ability. Why exactly is that? He didn't need to receive authority. Philippians 2 tells us that Jesus being equal to God did not think of it as robbery, but he made himself of no reputation. He came in the appearance of man. So he humbled himself in a way that would be relatable to his creation. And in that humbled state, he received authority as an old and a humble service to the father. And I don't see a contradiction or issue with that.

>> Okay. What does it mean to be equal to God here? Does it mean equal in divine essence or can it mean equal in some other sense? Some other sense that is more paralleled to other passages within the New Testament. What sense do you mean equal in?

>> What other sense besides divine essence could it could it could you be referring to?

>> Yeah. The sense in John 17 20-23 where Jesus says that the disciples are one with the father in the same exact way that he is one with the father. He says let them be one oh father just as I am one with you let us all be one. So that is also a sense in which he can be equal or one. So what makes you think that Jesus being equal means that it's equal in divine essence? Why can't it be equal in teachings, equal in having the same exact purpose or the same exact message, him coming to be a righteous man and the Messiah and to preach on behalf of God but not necessarily be that God

>> because scripture makes it clear that Jesus is one with God when you take it in context and not just isolate verses. There are verses that I referenced that I don't think that you've spoken to. the two powers in heaven that specifically says the ancient of days approaches the son of man and gives him dominion, glory and kingdom for eternity. You see certain things that Proverbs 30:4 they says that says it says um who has ascended to the heavens and come down. It says who has gathered the winds in his fist? Who has gathered the water in his cloaks? Who has laid the foundations of the earth? What is his name? What is his son's name? Surely you know. So scripture in context makes it clear not just when you isolate and speak of a verse in John 17 which speaks of unity amongst the church which is a good thing and which is the goal for children that follow Christ to be unified with the with the Lord. That's not the same way that Jesus is unified with God because Jesus makes it clear what that unity means. It means that he's unified in his essence.

>> Yeah. Beautiful. But the issue is Jesus does not make that clear because he never makes any explicit divinity claims. Now I want to talk a bit about the son of man in Daniel 7. So do you believe that when it speaks about giving dominion, did this happen because you believe that the son of man is Jesus, right?

>> Yes.

>> Yes, I do.

>> Do you believe that this uh receiving of dominion happened prior to the incarnation or post incarnation?

>> I think that's a reference to the millennial kingdom.

>> Okay. So So would it be prior or post? Before he came as a human being to die for us.

>> Prophecy. I think that's a reference to the millennial kingdom where he will rule and reign here on this earth for a thousand.

>> Okay, beautiful. So then I'll just tie this back to my original question. Does God need to receive dominion or does he inherently have it? Because if it's after, then he's going to be in his glorified body, right? So, it's going to be past the state in which he is just a mere human being that is subject to all of the deficiencies in the world and so on and so forth. He is going to be in his glorified body. So, if you believe this, then why is God receiving dominion if God inherently has dominion?

>> Again, that's a reference to Jesus in the millennial kingdom. When Jesus receives any form of dominion, it speaks to him being physically here on this earth. Jesus made the choice and the conscious decision to humble himself. Jesus is equal in essence. There are different ranks. 1 Corinthians 11:3 says, "I want you to know that the head of every man is God. The head of every woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Women and men are both humans, and they're both equal in essence. But there's an order within that framework. In just the same way, there's an order within the Trinity, but it doesn't detract from Jesus's deity. And he emphasizes his deity all throughout scripture. So, when you reference the giving of authority, again, it goes back to Philippians 2 where Jesus made the conscious decision to humble himself to come to this earth to take on flesh. Yes. In that nature, he received authority. And again, I don't find that to be inconsistent or problematic.

>> Yeah. But the issue is if you believe that Jesus had two natures, a human and a divine nature, and that this divine nature essentially subsisted within his body in a way, then you wouldn't have to believe that the father is the one that gives dominion in this instance because Jesus would inherently possess it. It wouldn't be given to him because he already would have it by virtue of the fact he has two natures, the divine and the human. Even though he has a human nature, that divine nature according to you guys still persists. meaning according to you he would either inherently possess dominion and authority and power and ability to do miracles and so on and so forth. But instead, we see this repeated over and over and over again in the New Testament that he receives authority and power and so on. And if he truly had the divine essence subsisting within him, then that wouldn't need to happen. But you said that it was very clear, and I do want you to respond to the previous point, but I want to get this out. Um, you said that it's very, very clear that Jesus claims to be God. Can you give me an instance, and it doesn't have to be verbatim, where he claims to be God or divine?

>> I believe I answered that with the Mark 2 passage. There's also John 8 that says, "Before Abraham was, I was." You mentioned Abraham also and asks that Abraham preached the trinity and Abraham preached a multi-personal God. In Genesis 18, the chapter literally begins, "And the Lord visited Abraham, but we know that no one can see God." Abraham has a conversation with someone that he's physically standing next to. He turns to him at some point and when he's pleading that Sodom and Gomorrah wouldn't be destroyed and he says, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right." Ab points back to that same instance because he said, "Abraham rejoiced at seeing me. Abraham did see him. He experienced him in Genesis 18." So Jesus claimed to be God. I feel like I've answered that sufficiently. And there's verses that we can exchange and go back and forth. It's dependent on whether you want to receive them or accept them. But Jesus, as I said, claims to be God both with his action and with his speech. the divine titles, the divine prerogative of reading minds, the divine prerogative of forgiving sins. All of these make it abundantly clear, which is why the Pharisees literally said, "Who can forgive sins but God in their head?" Which they were right. And he answered and said, "So that you may know that the son of man has power on earth to forgive sins." He's telling you in those words that he is God. So Kora, that was great. That was a wonderful debate. How was the experience for you?

>> It was great. I feel like all the points that I wanted to touch on were touched on. I think that there was a good amount of back and forth. I was expecting back and forth. I I expected like a lot of push back and so on. And I do think that I did get a lot of good substance and a lot of decent responses um throughout the entirety of the conversation, especially to some of the points that I didn't really expect people to want to fight back on. Right? For example, the topic of the crucifixion. Uh people don't usually touch on that topic, which is why I picked it. So I am satisfied with the way this went.

>> That's great. Is there anything that surprised you or made you rethink some of your previous thoughts on any topics?

>> No, not necessarily. I I do think that, you know, since I do deal with uh you know, people discussing religion day in and day out, I did really anticipate almost every single response. So nothing necessarily surprising, but I am impressed with the way that people did prepare.

>> Yes. And you had the one-on-one conversation with Chanasa. How did that go for you? I think it went quite well. I'm I was actually um quite happy that she went the route of, you know, Mark and talking about the Son of Man because that is something that I really do like discussing and I'm glad that she went that route instead of the route that most people do. So, I think that the conversation, as I anticipated, was fruitful.

>> Why do you like that particular conversation?

>> Yeah, because it's not necessarily a point that a lot of people bring up, right? It's kind of, you know, people jump to specific passages and obviously there's always a response uh to every single passage. This isn't really one that I address too often. So, when she brought it up, I was very happy because I like getting my thoughts out there. I like people hearing exactly what I have to say pertaining to specific topics, even ones that I don't really speak about as often. So, it was exciting.

>> That's great. So, overall, how was your experience?

>> It was great. I enjoyed myself a lot and thank you so much for having me. I genuinely do appreciate it. I'm glad that I had this opportunity.

>> Thank you for being here and thank you ladies as well for being here and having this conversation was really good. And thank you at home for watching. Let us know in the comments what your thoughts are on the topics that we discuss. We would love to hear from you. And until next time, bye-bye.