Transcription
So you, you are a non-Muslim? Yeah, I'm not Muslim. No. Yeah, you are a non-Muslim? Basically, yes. Okay. So what, what is your background? I'm a born-again believer in Jesus Christ. Okay. Born-again believer in Jesus Christ. Okay. How can I help you? Born-again believer in Jesus Christ. Okay. So I have a question about what you believe is the reliability of the Bible. So you believe it's corrupt? Yeah. And why is that? Many reasons. Simply, the, the textual criticism. Scholars agree on this. Read a very good book by Bruce Metzger, it's called "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, Restoration." If you look at the Old Testament, it's like almost 2,000 years separate from the source from Moses, written by unknown heretic group. That Jew, the Jews of people today reject, which is the earliest. You have the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jews don't even accept these. The believers from a heretic group. And even the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Christians themselves do, do not accept the full Dead Sea Scrolls to begin with. They accept some parts in faith and they reject other parts. So, first, this is the Old Testament. The New Testament, the you have is a cathartic full manuscript script of the New Testament and and written by unknown people again. And and it's a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. And then you have the source Q and Source M and Source this and that. The textual criticism scholars, they say that the these writers have been copying from that they do not know what it is. So, uh, essentially, uh, you just look at what the Bible is and and you ask the question, what, which Bible are you referring to to begin with? The 66 or 73 or the 82 or 88 or which one are you referring to? When you ask me, do you believe it's corrupt? I think the existence of the Bible itself is a demonstration that it's corrupt. Essentially, okay.
Um, what does the, is the Quran your ultimate authority? So now we, we want to move to the Quran. What do you mean by ultimate authority? You mean, do I believe everything that it says? Do you put it above your scholars? So if it disagrees with scholars, you go with the Quran as the truth? Right. The Quran and the Hadith come before anyone else's say-so. The Quran comes first, of course, is God's words. And then the Prophet Muhammad, which is the bringing the revelation from God as well. And then scholars. What scholars do is that they expound upon the tradition, what is mentioned in the Quran, the Hadith, etc. We don't worship scholars. Even the main scholars, like in Islam, there's schools of thought, for example. And all of the the the scholars, the for the four scholars of the schools of thought, they said that if what I say goes against what the Prophet says or the Quran, reject it. This is a fundamental thing. And Imam Malik, for example, which is the head of the Maliki school of thought, he said that everyone you take from and you reject, except the person in this grave. And he pointed at Medina to the Prophet's grave. Meaning, the only the Prophet, we, we take everything he says because it's revelation. But any other human being, you take from and you reject. They make mistakes. They say correct things and incorrect things. Yeah.
Uh, does, does your Quran say that the Bible's corrupt? Quran says that, yes. When you say the Bible, the Quran says about the books, the scriptures of the Jews and the Christians. Where exactly? Open the Quran, chapter two. I'll pull it up on my computer. Go ahead. Go to chapter two, verse 75. Let's start from 75. 75. Okay. What does it say? Uh, "Do you believers still expect them to be true to you, though a group of them would hear the word of Allah, then knowingly corrupt it after understanding it?" Okay. No, no, no. That's fine. And it says that they hear the the words of Allah, then they corrupt it after understanding it and knowing it. Unknowingly. So they're doing these actions knowingly. It's not like a mistake, this a scribal error? No, no, no. It's an action done with intention. Then you can go to, uh, 79, same, the same Surah. So, "Woe to those who distort the scripture with their own hands, then say this is from Allah, seeking of fleeing gain. So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned." Uh, what translation, what translation do you guys like mainly use? Is there transl? I don't rely on a translation. I read the original. I know what the original it says. But I recommend to the people, Sahih International translation, sometimes. But I can always look at the original because any translation can have a mistake. Like, this is like basic thing. So, uh, I don't, translations is not the important thing for me. I look at the scripture itself. Why it says in the Arabic language, I understand, understand it. The language is there, we can understand it. Don't need to rely on a translation, basically. Unlike, for example, languages which might be dead, like Aramaic or this or that, where you have to rely on a translation of a translation of a translation. This is not the case with the Arabic language. Okay.
And, um, so you believe the Old Testament is corrupt too, right? Not just the New Testament? Yeah, absolutely. Um, so what do you think about the Dead Sea Scrolls? I was telling you in the beginning. I was telling you in the beginning. Dead Sea Scrolls are scriptures that are written by a heretic group, according to the Jewish people. They say it's a heretic group whoever wrote it because we don't have the source of who wrote it. So we know it's written by unknown people. That's what we know. Just scriptures found in in the cave of Qumran near the Dead Sea. This is, we found some scriptures there, some written scriptures. You do not know who wrote it. You don't have the names of who wrote it there. It is separate almost 2,000 years from Moses, like depending which dating you want to take over the existence of Moses and the information within it. I was just telling you, even Christians do not accept the whole everything in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A lot of the things they will claim it's Apocrypha. So they pick and choose what they like. Well, and and it doesn't even have most of the Old Testament, which is a lot of Christians do not know. It has the most of Isaiah and then some parts of the Old Testament. But Christians think that Dead Sea Scrolls have had the Old Old Testament, for example, from beginning to end, the same way they have it in their hands. It doesn't. And this is what a lot of Christians don't know. And and I, I recommend a lot of Christians to actually pick up a copy, translation for the Dead Sea Scrolls, and you see how big it is and how contradictory it is and how many things it has that is not in their scriptures that they reject and removed. All right.
And I have one more question. I say you guys don't believe Jesus was crucified, right? And you, you guys's, uh, Quran comes about 500 to 600 years after Jesus, right? That you guys affirm, right? You guys agree with that? We agree that the Quran comes after Jesus, of course. Why do you believe Allah waited 5 to 600 years to correct a belief system that grew after Jesus, which is Christianity? Because that belief system is irrelevant. It's not important. And I say that a lot. And this is a lot of Christians, uh, do not understand. And and why do I would say it's important? If there's, if you allow me, you allow me, if you allow me to explain it, you'll get why I'm saying it's not important. The reason it's not important, it's important for Christians is because Christians have a belief that they held into that death. It's not just a normal death for them. It is that they have all the theology behind that death. The idea of the original sin, that this death was taking the sins of the whole mankind. This was God's coming in human form. So from our perspective, we reject all of this package that you have for the death. Now, if someone, and I mentioned this before, it's a very important point. I think a lot of Muslims should be mentioning when they have discourse on this point, is that whether someone believed in Jesus and thought that Jesus died or didn't think Jesus died, as long as he was a monotheist and believed Jesus was just a messenger of God, that does not affect his salvation. So if I was living on the life of Jesus and I was a Muslim following Jesus, my messenger from God, and I thought he died, that doesn't affect my salvation. Has no effect on my salvation. There were previous messengers that were killed. It's not like Jesus who, even the Bible mentions that Matthew mentions that the Old Testament mentions that how the children of Israel killed many prophets. If a prophet dies or doesn't die, that doesn't change my salvation. What will change my salvation though, if I start adding all of those different beliefs that came later on, that, you know what, actually, no, that it was a Trinity, and that he was God coming in human form, and all of the package of Christians, and the original sin, which came later on from the Roman Empire adoption of Christianity, that came later on. So there's no waiting of 600 years because this was not the case in the beginning. You can look at the Nazarenes, you can look at the Ebionites, very early groups. But the Quran wasn't around during that time. Doesn't have to be. We don't believe the Quran is the only scripture that comes from from God. We believe there was, we believe there were previous messengers. But the Quran had to come and correct the belief system that people made up, right? Not just this belief system. The Quran corrects every wrong belief system, including the, the belief system of of Hindus who believe in multiple gods, of idol worshippers who were worshipping multiple idols. Of the job of a messenger is to correct incorrect beliefs of the people in general. Don't, the Quran didn't come just to correct what, what Christians believe. Quran came. Yeah, the Quran came to teach people. That's the main thing for us. That's like the number one thing for us. For Christianity, is Jesus is God in human form, and he died for our sins, and he rose from the dead. So that's a huge change for us, you know.
Let's move into that then. Where did Jesus tell you he is God in human form? Where is that? Oh, uh, I don't have it memorized exactly. But the verse where he says, "I and the Father are one." Okay. No, no, no, no, no. Look, look, look. I'm happy to talk about the Bible. I'll tell you where all the verses where you say they are. Yeah. So, "I am the Father one" is in John, John 10, specifically verse 30. Before you search it up, can you tell me the context? Uh, context? Yes. In what context did he make the statement? Now, off the top of my head. Okay. And this is my problem with Christians, is that they don't read the context. And if they were to read the context, you'll understand that the argument doesn't work. Okay. If you read the context, you'll see that Jesus was walking in Solomon's Porch. The Jews surrounded Jesus. You can, you can, you want to get the context? You can. Yeah. I'm telling you the context while you get it. So they surrounded Jesus and they said to him, "Are you the Messiah? Tell us clearly." He said, "I told you, but you do not believe. My sheep know me, they hear my voice. You know, no one can pluck them out of my hand. No one can pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." So look at the context. Now, he's referring to taking the believers away from him. He's referring that no one can take them from my, my Father's hand or my hand. "I and the Father are one" meaning in this, this is not a claim of divinity. Now, what's interesting is this is the following verses is that they pick up stones to stone him. So they do what the Christians of today do. They misunderstand his statement. They, they, they think his statement means that he's claiming to be God. But how do they misunderstand? We're coming to that. I'm just continuing to read your scripture. You can continue to read with me. By the way, I'm going to the next few verses, by the way. I'm just reading the scripture now. So they misunderstand. They pick up stones and then he asks them, "Why are you stoning me? For which of the good works are you stoning me?" Look, I'm doing all of these good works through the Creator, through God. Are you stoning me for the good works? They say, "We don't stone you for the good works. We stone you for blasphemy because you are a mere man that claims to be God." Then what does he say? He says, "I only said I said I'm the Son of God." He didn't say I said I'm God. He says, "I said I'm the Son of God." And then it says, "Doesn't it say in your scripture, 'You are gods'?" It says, "You are gods." He's referring to Psalms 82:6 specifically. So he says, "In your scripture, the judges of the Jews are called gods. Why do you have an issue with me when I only said I'm the Son of God?" Now, what would he say if he was God, like Christians believe? He'd say, "Of course I'm God. Why are you talking about blaspheming? I'm God walking on Earth." He's not going to say, "No, no, no. You know what? I just claimed I'm the Son of God. And you're called gods in your own book in the Old Testament in Psalms 82:6." So, so my problem with Christians. Now, now I'm not, I'm still going to give you on one more point as well, and then I'll let you come in. So my issue with Christians is this. Is they leave all of this context which actually disproves what they believe, and they hold on to just one verse out of context, and then they say, "Jesus claimed this." No, he didn't claim this when you read the context. Not only that, if you read the Bible and you read, for example, John chapter 17, and you go to verse 21, Jesus says, "What does he say?" He says, "All the believers will be one, just like He and the Father are one." So now, do we believe now every Christian is a part of the Trinity? If you believe "I and the Father are one" is a divine statement? Jesus says, "Just as I and the Father are one, all the believers will also be one with us." So if you're claiming this is just as, so is the same exact way. It's not me saying this. This is your Bible saying this. So what happens is the Christians do not read things in context. They do not read other verses which talks about the same thing to understand that you being one with someone does not mean divinity. Does not mean that you're also God. Okay. So this is the answer to "I and the Father are one." Should we move to the next one, or you want to make a point on this one? Because I know I want to make, I want to make a point.
Um, so saying something like this, um, can Muhammad saying "him and Allah are one"? It depends on the context. It depends on the context. So if he, if he explains what he means by that, then we don't have an issue. If he is saying it's not a claim of divinity, that that he's not claiming that he is one, meaning he's one. If he means one in purpose, meaning the unfulfilling the purpose of Allah, I'm telling you what Allah told me to say. It depends on the context. Every statement is held within context. That's why you should read the verses before the verses after to understand what the context of the verses mean, etc. But, okay, we move to the next one. Hold on. Okay. Go ahead. What else you want to say? Why, how would the, how would the Jews misinterpret at that time when they themselves, um, of course, you know, uh, the Jews knew exactly what he was claiming. Though I don't think it was misinterpretation that they were going to pick up stones to stone him because it was clear what he was claiming. You know, they didn't have, they didn't have a problem understanding what he just said. But then, uh, you guys come and say that they misinterpreted it. When I would say that they have, when do they say they misinterpreted it? I said they said that they, what they did is they did the same thing the Christians did. But now I agree with you and I disagree with you at the same time. First, first, we understand. If you read the Bible, have you read the Bible, the New Testament? The whole New Testament? Yeah. Okay. If you're reading the New Testament, you will see how many times Jesus had a problem with the Pharisees and them misinterpreting what he said. So to say that, to say that they were not misinterpreting the Bible itself is a refutation of of your statement because literally every, every few minutes, Jesus was saying that these people are misinterpreting, not understanding the parables I'm giving. They are misrepresenting and misunderstanding them. So they were misunderstanding. But the, what I'm saying is this, it was an intentional misunderstanding. So this is where I, where I agree and disagree with you at the same time. Agree. And what is the reason? Now, what is the motive? Is completely different to what you said. The motive was is that they rejected him as the Messiah. They didn't want to accept him to be the Messiah. So they were looking for any excuse to accuse him of blasphemy and then get him killed. That was their job. We don't agree that you are a messenger. You came on Jerusalem on a donkey. You did not bring peace into the world. You did not sit on the throne of of David. You did not fulfill the the promises in the Old Testament. We reject you as the Messiah. Don't accept you as the Messiah. You're claiming to be the king of the Jews. We're not going to let you get away with this. So we do is we try to frame you like they do today with many people. They frame them with false charges to get them to be punished for something that they didn't do. So that is why they were intentionally misunderstanding, misrepresenting what he was saying. Okay.
So what about Jesus? By the way, and by the way, sorry, sorry to interrupt you. And by the way, all of this I'm saying, I'm, I'm, I'm pretending as if the Bible is reliable and I'm using the Bible, an interpretation of the Bible, pretending it's reliable. So I'm being very generous here. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. Yes. So what about all the times that, uh, Jesus didn't deny worship? Shouldn't a prophet, if they're being worshipped, deny and correct somebody that's worshipping them? So like Daniel, was Daniel God? What Daniel, the Old Testament? Huh? My God, that's fine. Was Daniel God? No. Was David God? No. Both of them were worshipped, and they didn't rebuke anyone for their worship. The Bible literally said they worshipped David, they worshipped Daniel. Okay. I'm not, by the way, the word used for worship. And by the way, the word used for worship in the New Testament does not mean, if you look at that word, which is proskuneo, proskuneo refers to reverence more than it does actual worship of God, because there are other words used in the New Testament in Greek for worship that are different than it, that is used for God, that is not used for Jesus. But I'm saying, even if it was the word of worship, you find in the Old Testament that the word worship is used for other than God, like Daniel and and David, etc. Doesn't make them God. Okay.
What about when in the New Testament, when Jesus is risen from the dead, and Thomas calls him, "My Lord and my God"? Again, no. I can give you a response, but you're not going to like that response. I would say the response is simply because this is the thing. I think, I think it's very clear. And he, I'll tell you why. I think, I'll tell you why you think it's very. This is what Christians do. They take everyone else's words and they leave Jesus's words. What about what the Jews said when they said that that he's blaspheming? What about what Thomas did? What about what this guy did? Okay. But where is what Jesus did? No, it's not there. Because they have nothing from Jesus. So if you claim it's clear, you would have a verse where Jesus says, "I'm God, worship me." And this is what you don't have. So what you have to do is to jump into all of these different things trying to, in a way, support the belief that you have that is not there in the scripture. If you really look what Jesus said, what he said is the opposite of everything you claim. Do you believe that God knows everything? Yeah. Does God know everything all the time? Yep. Does Jesus know everything all the time? Yes. Okay. But that's, that's wrong. According to, you said you read the New Testament. Go to Mark chapter 13. You're talking about, "No one knows the hour." Yes. Yep. I know about that. Okay. Did he say that he doesn't know? Uh, yes. So why did you claim a minute ago that he knows everything? Because the interpretation isn't about lack of knowledge. It's, no, we're talking about what he said, not interpretation. Did he say, "No one knows"? It's, look, I, I don't, not know how Christians read, read the scripture. Not clear. You know, no, no. He says, "No one knows the end, the hour." Not the angels in heaven, not the Son. You cannot be more clear than this. Only the Father knows. It's something unique to the Father. It even excludes the Holy Spirit. Do you believe, do you believe that the word "no" can be used differently? No means, means no, except when it comes to Christians. In 13:32, "no" becomes something else because you cannot claim that Jesus was all-knowing. You cannot claim that Jesus was God. You cannot claim that Jesus knows everything all the time. What he says to you, "I do not know," and you say, "Oh, I do not know doesn't mean I do not know." "I do not know" means I know. Okay. But, okay. So Paul in the New Testament, he says something that's very crucial. And I'm not interested in what Paul says. I know, but I'm just, there's just an example of how the word "no" can be used. So, for example, he uses, um, the word "no" and he says, "I declare to know nothing except Jesus and him crucified." So is that technically all he knows? No, right? Okay. This is an expression in language, different from what Jesus is talking about. Why is it different from what Jesus is talking about? Because he was referring to a specific thing. He's saying he does not know it. He does not say, "I only know this thing." He says, "I do not know this specific thing." This is not a linguistic expression. Him. And that is why, and that is why he excluded everything else because he's trying to make a point here. He's trying to make, look, this is important knowledge is only unique to the Father that no one else possesses. And there's another verse where Jesus says, "It is not for you to know." So if you know, uh, no, but not this verse. We're talking about 13:32. And not only 13:32, this is also the verse of the fig tree. Also cross-references to this verse about knowing the return. No, no, no. It was, it was also, there's also other verses like, for example, the fig tree where it says Jesus did not know it was the season of fig. This is not the only verse where Jesus does not know something like this. Is if you read the Bible, this is not the only place that you'll find Jesus not knowing something. Let me see if I can just find the, um, I think it's in Acts. Okay. Look, look, before, look, look. Yeah, let's save ourselves time because we don't want to go too many, too much circles. My point is very simple. What I'm using here, unlike you, I'm not using other people's claims about Jesus. I'm using the, the claims of Jesus himself. And what you're trying to do is to change the words of Jesus and then use other people's statements to support your faith. And then you come to Muslims and claim that it is clear. Like, for example, John 17:3, it says, "The only true God is the Father." Yep. I believe that. The only true God is the Father. Is the Son? No. Is the Holy Spirit? No. Okay. So if the only true God is the Father, then the Son and the Holy Spirit are false gods. That's if you assume that God is one being. No, we believe three beings. We believe the Trinity is, uh, three divine beings that, uh, correlate in perfect union as one God. They share the same essence. So they all share the same divine nature. You, you answered my question a minute ago, but now you, you kind of. Is the Father the Son? No. So when I describe something, I say, "The Father did this or that." That does not include the Son and the Holy Spirit, correct? So when you say Jesus died, you do not say the Father died, and you're not saying the Holy Spirit died. You're saying Jesus died. Yes. Yeah. So when you describe only one of the persons of the Trinity, that is only unique to that one of the persons of of the Trinity, which is why that verse of 30:32 works because he's only describing the Father to have something that he, he doesn't have, which means there's a distinction. So when Jesus makes the same distinction in 17:3, all of a sudden Christians pretend as if there is no distinction. There is a distinction. So when Jesus says the Father, addressing one person, not the two other persons, which are not the Son or the Holy Spirit, and he says, "You, the only true God," and then says, "Him sent by the only true God," you cannot then come come and pretend that this is the full Trinity because he's only addressing one person in the Trinity. So what if the Father addresses Jesus as God? If you find the verse, which you don't have. Even if you find the verse that that Jesus is addressed to be God, it's not going to support your claim because it does not mean a Trinity. There, it will mean two gods. It would mean, it would mean the Trinity if he's calling him God. Not only, not only it will not mean the Trinity, it would, it would, it would mean two gods. And that's if you want to take the word God literally, which is not used literally in the in the in the Old Testament or the New Testament multiple times anyway. Give example. God has to exist like us? Sorry. Do you think God has to exist like us? One being, one body? God is not like us. That's what the Quran says. There's nothing like Allah. He's not like us, right? So it's possible that he doesn't have to exist as one, as one body, right? Yeah, yeah. But that's, that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is why do you believe that? Where is the evidence for that in the scripture? We've not found any. You already believe it. That's a different story. Like, there is no, no verses in the Bible that says that. So I can believe it. It's not about the possibility of it. Like, this is the problem you're making. You're saying it's rationally possible. No one is disagreeing with whether it's rationally possible or not. That's irrelevant now. Some people who disagree, it's rationally possible. I don't care. I'm saying, where does the scripture itself mention it to begin with? So I think we go. Look, honestly, look, look, you brought verses and I believe I did answer them very, very rationally, or using your own scripture, you know, not just, not just rationality. I would sincerely, I would sincerely ask you to actually investigate the things that we say, like, for example, how the scripture is not reliable to begin with. And and this idea that that you already believe in the Trinity and you have to rely on what this person said, or what this person said, what it means, what he did, why he did what he did, and you have nothing from what Jesus himself says, except statements which contradicts your belief, which is very problematic. So I will, I will let you go here. I know we got, we had some like a good amount of time talking, you know, so I gave you a fair amount. So I hope you can reflect on that. And I appreciate the the manners and listening. And thank you very much. And I hope I didn't say anything wrong, you know. Okay. It was nice talking to you, Eric. Have a good one. Bye-bye.