Transcription
We have a special guest that just showed up. I can't believe this is happening, but it is the very honorable blogging theology here. How are you doing today, Paul?
>> Please. Oh, please don't flatter me. Uh, no, it's uh, thank you for suddenly uh, taking me on like this. I was just passing by. Uh, Nazam from Speakers Corner sent me your link and you said if you want to go on, click on the link. So, I thought why not? Uh, I was listening to Dr. Joshua. Do you know I met Dr. Joshua, first of all, in fact, the only time I've ever met him is at Speaker's Corner where he bravely came down and uh debated uh Muslims and uh I had one or two very stimulating uh discussions with him as well. He's been on my channel once, but that was the only time I met him at Speaker's Corner.
>> Oh, you Yeah, you just missed him, man. He He's super late where he's at. He to take off, but yeah.
>> No, >> but yeah, man. It's cool to see you here. What what how long you been watching? You said you just tuned in a little bit here. Have you been paying attention?
>> 10 10 15 minutes. I was uh much taken by the line of questioning and I thought um I'm no expert but I thought I'd pop in and uh have a chat as well. Is was that the the dominant uh discourse about Islam and the crucifixion? Is that the
>> Yeah, we were talking about crucifixion. Uh I mean I'm what is if I remember your position correctly. I remember watching a couple of the podcast episode you did. You you deny the crucifixion. Is that correct?
>> Well, I I I have no idea what happened. So I just go by what the Quran says. As a Muslim, I just accept uh the very very brief uh statements in the false surah about that. And so what it says is the word of God. So I accept revelation as we should. We should always accept God's revelation even when I have no personal knowledge of of the matter. So
>> interesting. So then you cool if we ask you some questions about that.
>> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Yeah. So like so then what do what do you do like with for example surah 4 uh 47 where it says that let me you know I'll just put it up and read it for you because I think that that'll be best instead of
>> yeah I'll look it up on the I've got my uh Abdul Haleem translation 447 is it?
>> Yeah, I'll go to there. I'm going to put on the screens for the audience sake since it's better for them. Oh you who were given the book believe in what have we revealed confirming your scriptures before we wipe out your faces turning them backwards. Uh so it's it's talking you know those who were given the book believe in what we have revealed confirming your scriptures talking about the Quran. So then my issue is if if we believe in the Quran that Jesus wasn't crucified but then it also says in the very same chapter that in confirming our scriptures I'm going to go well that doesn't make sense because very clearly in our scriptures it says Jesus was crucified. I'd love your thoughts on that.
>> Yeah. Well, um it's a complicated subject actually and there are many nuances to this. Um my understanding is when we're dealing with revelation, God's revelation to prophets, to humankind, um God says in the Quran that God sent the Inil singular to Jesus. Um it's not the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they weren't written at the time of Jesus obviously. So even our four gospels say Mark for example says that Jesus went around Galilee preaching the gospel in Arabic. So clearly there's a gospel there which is not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which were written anonymously many decades later. It also says that it sent the Torah to Moses and it sent the sent uh the Psalms to David and scriptures to Abraham and other prophets as well. So we know that they're not identical to our modern scriptures because there's the allegation in the uh the Quran of uh corruption both oral and textual uh corruption of those scriptures but also the inial the Christian scriptures have been misidentified. I think what the Quran is saying it's not the letters of Paul it's not anonymous second generation evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The revelation the Quran is referring to is the the inil itself and even the gospels in your Bible refer to that. Now the Quran can't be endorsing the New Testament you have because it denies it denies that Jesus is the son of God. It denies that he was crucified. It denies he is God in the sense that John John's gospel may say in some sense that Jesus is divine. So clearly it's not endorsing that. is is endorsing the original revelation given to the people of the scripture i.e the original followers of Jesus and the original followers of Moses and all the other prophets as well.
>> So then again let me go back to the verse here. So like would at when this verse is being given what scriptures did the Jews and the Christians possess because it says confirming your own scriptures. Didn't we or didn't Christians wouldn't they have considered Matthew, Mark, Luke and John scripture at this point though? Wouldn't they have?
>> Well, we must look at all the verses in uh the Quran, not just one to understand the totality of what the Quran is saying and also other other references in as well. When you look at the the overall picture, um there are the other verses I could refer to in the fifth surah where the Quran is a muan a quality control over the scriptures with the implication being that where there are differences differences between what the Quran says and what the extent scriptures of the people of the book say, we should go with the final uncorrupted pure revelation that has not been distorted and changed. So, I think we need to take all of these factors into consideration and not just isolate one text because there isn't a there is a a complicated and nuanced message going on here. But the the Quran's rejection of the of the crucifixion is absolutely important here. It's the elephant in the room, isn't it? That the Quran can't be endorsing the Bible we have because the Bible we have, the New Testament clearly affirms that.
>> So, you brought up Sah uh 548, which again I I we go to that one all the time. Uh let me make sure I got this up here. Um let me scroll up a little bit here. So my my problem is you said it's to I can I just come back to you. What what is the revelation given to to Jesus do you think? What is the revelation that Jesus himself preached? What was that?
>> So that would have been the gospel message that he would have gone around preaching which is in the go four gospels we have. Go ahead. Do you want to add something?
>> Yeah, I was just going to say the gospel that Jesus is preaching is not a written book or anything like that that you see recorded in like the gospel of Mark or anything like that. the and when you even look at like the gospel of Luke or the um the gospel of Mark when you look at the Greek word at like evangelion evangelis menu when it's like preaching the gospels the verb form of the Greek when you look at the septuagent rendering of that word you can then look back into the parallels for the Hebrew Bible and it's the same type of messages you'll see in for instance like the psalm where it says like he who brings the good news of Yahweh to your feet or anything like that it's a message not a physical book if that make sense.
>> No, I I think it could be argued both ways and I don't really have a view on that. It could could have been a could have been like the prophet Muhammad upon whom be peace um had as well. It could be an oral recitation. Um I'm not sure to be honest.
>> So,
>> but I mean like but Oh, go ahead. I'll let you go.
>> Yeah.
>> I was just going to ask a quick uh question because this is one of the this is one of the things I was thinking about even earlier. Let me just make sure I'm understanding you correctly too really quickly. Are you saying your hypothesis is that the injil is a book given to Jesus um and that at the time of the prophet Muhammad that book was intact and that's what these verses are talking about when it says Christian to judge by that
>> as I said I'm agnostic I don't know if it was a written text or it was more of an oral citation like I was given the problem but what I do want to stress I mean look at Quran 5:48 uh for example um you get a sense of Um, yeah,
>> I'll put it back up, but you could keep talking. Yeah, I accidentally closed out of the window.
>> I to I to I totally understand that you're agnostic there. Um,
>> entertain the hypothesis really quickly. My my issue there is just going to be like even if we want to posit that to explain it,
>> then one of my issues is going to be that that that source whether it's written or oral would seem to directly contradict the canonical gospels that the that the church had
>> for a very long time.
>> True.
>> And it's I just want to share with you sorry um Quran 540. I just want to read it out. Uh this is from um Muhammad Assad's amazing translation. And unto thee, O Muhammad, we have vouched saved this divine rich, this revelation, the Quran, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations, and determining what is true therein. Judge then between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto them. So, my understanding is that that the Quran confirms and determines what is true in previous revelations. Um, and and this is an important point. It's not simply uh endorsing the Bible. I've got a friend of mine, Usman Shake, who is currently doing his PhD at Oxford University and has written extensively on this subject and um is being quoted um by by leading uh scholars such as Nikolai Sinai, Nicholas Sinai, Nicholas Nicholas Sinai. and his thesis is that the Quran retells the stories of say the birth of Jesus or the stories about uh Moses and other and other key figures but in accordance with his own understanding of the truth what really happened. So there's a subtle correction of the biblical stories. It's not simp it's a very nuanced thing the Quran is doing and it's not simply a is it endorsing it or not when you get down into the weeds in in the kind of depth of it. the Quran is doing something remarkably subtle and uh the other western scholars like Sydney Griffiths who's a professor uh at the Catholic University of America a leading scholar of the Quran also notes that on his book uh the Bible in uh yeah the Bible in Arabic so this is many scholars recognize this very nuanced uh dialectic between affirmation and also critique when it comes to the scriptures the people of the book and these are prominent western scholars So I want to address that because you said a lot there. So my my first thought is okay. So like who is Allah through Muhammad talking to in surah 5 when he tells people in like the previous verse for example? Let me just put that back up there. Um uh oh people of the oh people of the gospel judge by what Allah is revealed in it. So who is he talking to here?
>> Well, the people of God would be will be Christians of course uh uh uh well all Christians because it's not just the people of Muhammad upon whom peace is ded Christians throughout history.
>> But I want to come back to 548 here.
>> Well, hold on, hold on. I I saw I have still like same thing in surah 568 too. So, oh people of the book, you've nothing to stand on unless you observe the Torah, the gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord. I'll I I'll just say my point. I'm not gonna just lead you down a series of questions, but it seems as though if Allah is talking to me as a Christian and he says,
>> "Hey, believe in what we revealed to you, my my if he does not say on top of that, by the way, that includes the Quran and only the parts of your scripture that agree with it. My that gives me the free range to go, okay, I'm going to go to the Old New Testament. That's what God has revealed to us." It's like if I went to you, and I said this to a Muslim earlier in the stream, if I went to you and said, "Hey, I'm a prophet, Paul. you should believe in what has been revealed to you from your Lord. You're not going to go to the New Testament. You're going to go to the Quran. Likewise, if Allah is talking to us Christians, we're not going to go to the Quran. We're going to go to the New Testament for what has been revealed to us from our Lord because Allah nowhere in this specifies which part of the revelations to believe in and which not to. If you have other verses in the Quran where it says our scriptures has been corrupted, that just shows a contradiction there because we're to believe in our scriptures wholesale. sewer 285, uh, sewer 568, but you know, if they've also been corrupted, that's just that's going to create a huge problem. So, that's what I'm trying to get at here, if that makes sense. But, I'll go back up to the verse you wanted to go to.
>> Yeah. No, I I think um this question of methodology here, my method, it may not be the same as yours, is to look at all the verses pertaining to this subject in revelation in the book of re book of book of the Quran. You need to take them all, both those that affirm and those that critique. And if you take some and not the others, you're going to get a less than four picture. So let's go back to uh surah uh 548 in Muhammad Assad's translation which is certainly gets the gist of it very accurately. And and again, this is this is this is the message. And unto thee, talking to the prophet, have we vouched safe this divine revelation, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth, or whatever there still remains of earlier revelation, and determining what is true therein, judge them between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high. But don't follow their mistaken or their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto them. Now a Christian who or anyone reading this would understand the Quran is is both confirming uh the truth but in the sense that also there is corruptions mixed in with it and it's this total picture that is missing from what you are saying the hadith also that also give a very similar view that uh where the prophet teaches uh to mankind to people that there has been this textual corruption and I come back again to this very subtle point that to my knowledge no Christian other scholars ever ever acknowledges. If you look and I can send you I can send you a PDF of the uh the academic treaties which got a distinction at Oxford from my my uh my friend and was quoted by Nikolai Sinline many times in his recent academic work. Nikolai Sina's professor of Islam at Oxford and he's not a Muslim. Um um as I was saying uh Usman Shakes's work is a very fine detection work in seeing how the Quran corrects and retells the stories you find in the Bible telling the truth about what really happened and you find it all over the place. So to simply have this kind of binary does it or doesn't affirm is missing the point. If you look at the whole of the Quran's interaction with the Bible Sydney Griffith also does this as well you will get this complicated and fascinating picture. But if you don't do that and you just pick on an isolated verse here and there and say, "Well, that's it." You're going to miss this.
>> And >> I get I totally agree. I actually agree with what you're saying here.
>> I do call on Christians who involved in PMIC to acknowledge this because um the Christian scholar Sydney Griff is actually a Catholic priest um and others do recognize this and they will acknowledge experts in the field.
>> So I totally agree with what you're saying here. We we do need to look at multiple verses. I totally agree. We we've done that on this channel a lot. We've gone to sewer two, sur three, sewer four, sewer five, sewer 10, sewer 29, all over to make this argument. But you you met you said something interesting I do want to comment on. You said the Quran is subtly correcting the stories.
>> Um here's my problem with that. Let's just we can I want to come back to Muayan here in surah 548 because I do have some issues with that and I want to bring up a scholar. But in surah 1094, we we don't get that message from Allah. in surah 1094.
>> Hold on, hold on. Let me finish my point here.
>> You're avoiding So, so you're avoiding this verse like the plague. Can we focus please on Quran 5:48? Because it is a very
>> Hold on, hold on. Oh, you just said we got to take a holistic view and now you want to focus in on one verse. I'm like, yeah, holistic. Let's go all the verses. Now you're like, no, one verse.
>> But this is the one verse you're ignoring, sir. You don't want to talk about it. So, can we look at this verse, please? Because you don't want to focus it in. If you did, your case would collapse. That's why you're avoiding it. I would I would respect
>> I will I will immediately go back to surah 540 as soon as I read this. But again, if the if the Quran is correcting stories, it says the opposite. If you owe prophet or doubt about about that what we have revealed to you, then ask those who read the scriptures before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord. So do not be like one of those who doubt. In other words, hey, the stories that we have in the Quran should be the same as what we have in our other scriptures because that's what Allah is telling him. Now, I'll go back to surah 5 right away, but if you want to talk about that, I'll give you that last word on that.
>> That verse that verse, yeah, it does say that, but you're not you're not taking it into context, this historical context of revelation, which is talking about something very specific. But coming back to uh 5 uh 48. So this is addressing the idea the muhemen the kind of quality control uh that the Quran is exercising over previous uh revelations pointing out what is true and where it's been falsified as I uh this has been noted by a number of western scholars not something I've invented so I think it's an important verse that that you and others always kind of step over and don't want to confront because it doesn't fit in with your your thesis really
>> I I'll be honest with you Paul we have talked about this verse extensively on this channel. I have slides made here for previous streams I can bring up on this verse if you want me to. We love this verse.
>> I'm not I'm not going to do a deep dive without having done my own preparation on this. I'm simply quoting from a good translation of the Quran.
>> Totally fair.
>> So I think you know I just popped in. I was walking by. You obviously prepared for this. I haven't. Um, but I am
>> Where can I find a translation really quickly? So, just I can really quickly
>> if you just Google Muhammad Assad's uh translation um and
>> Paul I I totally get you're not prepared. I I to if you want you know it but like just hear me out for a second. You've been talking about scholars. Let let me bring up a scholar who I I love to read Sean Anthony when he talked he did a whole he's got he's an Islamic scholar as you know he's done a lot of work on this. He's got an interesting thread he posted a while on the whole issue of Yumon. And what he does is he connects it to Aramaic cognets. He comes to the conclusion I'll just jump to the conclusion and let you jump in here. But he says it speaks of two servants each a good and faithful servant because he is faithful over little in the Quran. Similarly, Muaymon Allah is the past scriptures as it's faithful to. So his conclusion is Muaymon does not mean like supreme authority or criterion for Khan in like surah 253 means criterion. But here he's arguing that it actually means guardian or faithful servant.
>> Yeah. I I mean, if you put me back on the main screen again, I want to show you something.
>> Yeah, go for it.
>> This is what key terms of the Quran, a critical commentary by Nikolai Sinai, professor at Oxford University. Uh if you look up the chapter on Muaymon, which I have, you you'll find in a much more rigorous and scholarly way uh what I've just said. I I'm not saying 100% of scholars all agree on everything. They don't. But I'm saying a very strong scholarly case can be made by non-Muslim top scholars. um uh that in fact Moan does have that function of a overseer as a final determinant of what is and what isn't uh true remaining in the extant scriptures of the people.
>> What's the name of the book?
>> Uh it's called key it's just been published actually key terms of the Quran a critical commentary by Nikolai Sinai published by Princeton University Press um Nikolai Sinai where professor of Islamic study university of Oxford one of the world's leading experts and he's not he has a big a big section on precisely this question again this is above my pay grade I'm not professor Oxford but I do refer you to that a very different perspective than the one you uh just mentioned
>> I I have put that in I have I'm only. I will put that in my Amazon. I just put I will buy that book today just for you.
>> Well, no, Don't No, don't buy it just for me. Buy it just for you.
>> That's what I mean. I'm buying I'm buying it on behalf just out of respect for you.
>> No, no, no. Just buy it for your own education, please. And I'm not dogmatically saying this is an inherent text like the word of God. I'm simply saying it's an excellent resource uh that's been endorsed by a whole heap of top scholars on the back. It's a good it's a good resource to have. But can we move either we move on from this because I'm tired of it or perhaps maybe you can draw a veil over this now because uh I've said my piece and I'm not going to budge from my insistence that the Quran says what it says or do you want to talk about something else?
>> I want to just go back to to surah 548 here again. I want to put that back on the screen because I think this is very important.
>> Yeah, I I just said uh can we draw a line on this now? I I've kind of said what I'm going to say this evening without further preparation. Is there another subject talk about or is that it for the moment which is fine? I'm happy to withdraw.
>> I I'm more than h I would I actually would really be interested to hear your take on Sura 61 because this is something that I've talked about before on the channel.
>> Can I ask you a question? Maybe maybe I can
>> You know what? Yeah, you go for ahead. We've been we've been hammering you a little bit here on on Muayan and
>> that's that's speakers. I get this all the time as speakers. So, this is this is cool. No, I I would refer you to the scholars I mentioned for a more in-depth discussion which is in align with the the common Muslim view. So um in your view um I ask you as attributes of God is in your view is God eternal, immortal or knowing or powerful?
>> Wait, never mind. I'm sorry. You guys moved on. You guys moved on.
>> Yeah. Yeah. But thing then you this is this is this is definitely your topic. So feel free to jump in. We would both It's an it's not my No,
>> you you guys you guys moved on from I was reading the translation. I was reading the translation while you guys were talking. I'm so sorry. I just have a potential thing.
>> So, so the question was, do you believe, if you if you allow me, uh, in terms of your understanding of who God is, uh, is he all powerful or knowing, immortal, eternal? Um, does he have those attributes?
>> Yeah. Well, we could we could that's we can start there with loose definitions if you're happy with that.
>> It's not a loose definition. I think it's a very precise definition. For example, is God all knowing? Is is he omnisient? What do you mean by all knowing?
>> Omniscient.
>> What does that mean?
>> Knowing all true propositions,
>> right? So, so I'm not trying to be ped I'm not trying to be pedantic here. It's just like when when philosophers talk about some of these terms
>> way too many ways to model them out.
>> I'm absolutely I'm absolutely not asking for a definition given by an analytical philosopher in Cambridge. I'm asking you everyday definition. It does.
>> That's why I'm saying we can start there. We can start there. But
>> here's what I would say. Let me just answer this. Yeah. We believe God is omnisient in the sense that he knows all true propositions,
>> right? So, does he know everything though?
>> No, he knows all true propositions. Yeah. So, that would I think that's that'd be a colloquial sense of what we're saying. Yeah.
>> No, I mean, is he all knowing? Does he possess complete and unlimited knowledge of everything that exists or has existed or will exist?
>> Yeah. Yes.
>> Yes.
>> You both agree that. Excellent. My next question
>> Yes.
>> Do you believe Jesus is God?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we know where you're going. But yeah, we believe Jesus is God. Yeah.
>> Right. So you believe that Jesus possessed complete and unlimited knowledge awareness of everything that existed or has existed or would exist? Yeah,
>> he does now. Yes.
>> Oh, he does now.
>> Yeah.
>> So there was a time when he didn't.
>> There was a time when according to Philippians 2, he emptied himself and became the took the form of a slave.
>> No, no, no. I'm talking about knowing things. Was he all knowing in the sense you've disagreed uh or not? when he was a human when he before his death and resurrection.
>> I'm just saying Jesus acquired Jesus. Jesus is Jesus as God. You agreed he's God. Jesus is God. Therefore, it follows very simply and logically that he must have possessed complete and unlimited knowledge. So I I'll just say this there there it doesn't logically follow because it depends on whether or not you want to say um perfect knowledge is an essential attribute um or a like a fundamental attribute and then there's going to be other parts of it like so if it's an essential attribute of God that God is going to be at all times at all times and places all knowing
>> then this argument might run but there's models of God and models of divine properties that are going to logically cohhere with each other that don't entail that
>> you saying that God has charact as attributes. Some are essential and some are like a like a piece of clothing. You can just take them off.
>> So when I say by essential, I'm saying essential attributes but in metaphysics are going to be things that are going to be essential to identifying a thing as that thing in of itself. If that makes sense. And all I'm saying is that there are models of theism that do not posit omniscience as a as an essential property. But but but you you just said that God was uh all knowing uh as an attribute but you're saying this attribute can be disengaged that sometimes God knows everything and sometimes he doesn't know things. So sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn't.
>> So when you're saying God is you're predicating God cont has this property. Right.
>> Absolutely.
>> Right. Being having that property does not equate to being identical to that property.
>> True.
>> Yeah. Right. But that wasn't my my question is you you suggest changeability in God. So sometimes God knows everything and that other times he doesn't know everything. God changes, sometimes he's ignorant. All wait. So, so
>> so right now all I'm saying is that I'm I'm pointing to just a logically possible way to model out God's relation to this particular property of omniscience in a way that even if we would say for instance that Jesus became incarnate and was God and did not know everything, we we have no logical contradiction because of the nature of our our understanding of properties and how they relate to identity. But God God changes in other words. Sometimes he's one thing and sometimes he's another. He's not consistent obviously.
>> No, God's still God the whole entire time the time if omnicience is not very interesting because there's a whole bunch of properties I mentioned omniscience omni omnipotence or powerfulness eternity and so on. Which of these is essential property of God and which of these are kind of occasionally redundant and and not and not part of God's nature? So what is God's nature?
>> Yeah. me. So, so I mean like I I think the best model out there is going to be like omu uh omnipotence being in a central
>> powerfulness. Is that the one attribute that God doesn't change?
>> Uh wait, what
>> is that the one attribute of God that never changes in your view?
>> That doesn't change or is not
>> isn't done away with at some point? So you're saying that God sometimes doesn't know things, sometimes uh that's not what I said. Okay. So, so, so again let's take omnipotence for instance, right? Jes God becomes God the son becomes incarnate. Jesus still contains that essential property of omnipotence but then can choose to not utilize those things. Right?
>> So what is that essential property of go of deity minus his omni omnipotence minus all the other attributes we've yet to go through. What is this this this rump deity that is God that is not essential that is essential? Sorry. But the other Paul, hold on. There's a there's a categorical difference between what I'm doing here and what you're trying to do, right? In order for the because right now what you want to say is Jesus cannot be incarnate because God is
>> I haven't said anything yet. I'm asking you a question. Please don't put words in my mouth here. That's not quite fair. I'm I'm trying to get to who who is God in your Christian faith. So you'll say he's not essent it's not a central attribute of God that he knows all things. And we're going to go the next question would be is God immortal? Is he is eternal? And you're going to say no he's not because Jesus died. Are you not?
>> Well no that's actually not what I'm going to say.
>> No.
>> But remember when I'm saying essential properties right? I am saying the rel the word essential is describing the relationship of that property with the identity of the thing that we're attaching that property to. So in order to be God, you have to at all times know all true propositions at all times. Right? But if it's just not the case that it is an essential property of God
>> to have omniscience,
>> right? And that is a logically possible state of affairs.
>> Okay. But I I've asked you, what are the essential attributes of God such that God could not have them to be God? And I'm still not clear what your answer is. Could you perhaps have another go and try?
>> Well, no matter how I answer that at the end of the day, right, the the the line of questioning that you're trying to ask right now as it pertains to omniscience.
>> Oh, so yes, but then my next question as I've already revealed to you is, is God immortal?
>> Okay. And and
>> Sure. Sure. We can go down that route.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Sure.
>> Yeah. I think Jesus physically died.
>> That wasn't my question. Is God immortal?
>> Yes. Yes,
>> he is. Oh, I see. So, you don't you don't believe Jesus died on the cross then?
>> Paul, I got a question to answer that question. If you die, does you do you got existence?
>> No. No. Sorry.
>> You go you go to Johanna.
>> That's not an answer. My question is if if God if Jesus is God, which you've already said you believe, and God is immortal, the Bible clearly states that and you said yes. I would say that Jesus in in your logic could not have died on the cross because Jesus was God. It's a simple logical.
>> What does die mean? What does die mean?
>> No. No. Because he is immortal. Because he is immortal. You if you want to know what immortal means, I can look it up for you. But it means
>> No, I want you to define die. Define the word die for me.
>> No, no. The word, what does the word immortal mean? Because the Bible uses this term. I'm not inventing
>> cannot fail to exist. cannot fail to will cannot fail to exist or will continue to exist depending on how you're because we would say we will be immortal with God. So we will continue to exist uh or you could say possibly in people may define it in terms of like cannot fail to exist but I would define that more as necessity. So I would say continue to exist.
>> It's not something it's not come it's not subject to death something that cannot die. Um, but you believe that Jesus did die.
>> So this is why we're asking you to find death. I'm confused about your logic here. You basic theological logic. You you're attributing to one person both immortality and that he is subject to death and he did die. And I'm saying I for the life of me can't see the coherence in that belief.
>> Sure. Let me let me explain to you. So here's here's here's what we're doing. The reason why we keep asking you to define death is because when Jesus died, he did not go out of existence. We talked about im immortality as like cannot fail to exist depending on how you define it or will continue to exist. When Jesus on the cross, he said to the thief, "Today I will be with you in paradise." It's not that he like went out of existence or lost his immortality. The spirit of Jesus continued on. Therefore, he still existed. He didn't what he lost was his physical body died for three days and then he came back to life. So therefore there and again here here's a simple thought analog. If God wanted to experience physical death, how would he do it? Well, he would become a man and then die. But that doesn't mean he'd go out of existence, Paul. It means that he would continue to exist as a spirit. Right? Now, God, for example, God the Father is a spirit and always has been a spirit. He does not, he's not failing to exist because he lacks a body. When Jesus lost his body, he did not come out of existence.
>> Did his divine nature die on the cross?
>> Did his divine nature die on the cross?
>> Correct.
>> Absolutely. Simple question. Yes. Well,
>> and ask me a question.
>> You need to ask his physical body died on the cross. And like just like when I die, I will still have a human nature that will continue on after my death. So his physical my physical body will die. My human nature will continue. Jesus's human and divine nature continued on.
>> Right? So my question was, let's let's try again. Did Jesus divine nature die on the cross? Yes or no?
>> No. I have said it does it does not. It continues on. I see. I see. So Jesus death for you was just his human nature like a human sacrifice, a human physical sacrifice on the cross. Not it wasn't Jesus as one person because you believe Christians believe Orthodox Christians anyway with a small O that Jesus was one person not two. So that one person only part of him died the human bit the bodily bit and the other bit the divine bit didn't die because as you correctly say God is immortal. And this this distinction is very peculiar because I'm told that you you know a human being can't die to reconcile the sins of the world. And now now you're telling me actually a human being and only a human died not Jesus's divine nature.
>> So his divine and human nature went through the process of death like my human nature will go through the process of death. But what dies is of course the physical body. It is not it is not our spirit. It is not our soul. Our souls continue on. We'd say our mind, our consciousness continues on. And so that all continues on. But he went through the process of death. Now, you talked about atonement theory there a little bit. I you kind of implied penal substitution. I I don't hold a penal substitution. So I actually hold a ransom theory. So this is a little bit different.
>> Want to work out your concept of God. So you're being consistent. You don't be God doesn't die. That God is immortal despite your fact that you believe Jesus died on the cross. So you believe in human sacrifice. God desires a human sacrifi and nothing but a human sacrifice to atone for sin. At least Paul teaches that in Romans and and many other places.
>> I just said I reject penal substitutions. So why did you just ask me?
>> I'm justing your scriptures. If you don't agree with them, that's fine. I'm not saying you must I don't want you to agree with everything in your Bible. But Paul says that uh does teach that Jesus's death was an atoning sacrifice. Are you denying that that Paul
>> Can you Why don't we read the verse? Why don't you bring up the verse and let's read it?
>> Well, Paul, wait. What? Really really quickly too, Paul. Are you familiar with the disputes about like the atonement theory in general?
>> Yeah, there are lots of in the early church there are many many uh understandings of it. But the the problem is this. If you at the end of the day are saying that human sacrifice was in was required to atone for our sins. What's the verse? This is a repugnant uh a repugnant idea.
>> So wait wait wait holding. You you think sacri atonement sacrifice for someone's sins that's immoral. That should be rejected. Is that what you're saying? I'm saying human sacrifice which is what you believe in because you do you believe Jesus death was a sacrifice at all?
>> We believe that he was a ransom as Paul says he was given as a ransom for many. So it's a ransom to Satan on ransom theory. This is what the early church fathers talked about. But my question is are you saying that God someone died for someone? Romans 3:25, Christ presented God presented Christ as a propitiation or mercy seat in in Greek translation blood by his blood
>> uh to be received by faith.
>> The the better the better translation there can be
>> draws on sacrificial imagery from the Hebrew Bible especially yap Paul there.
>> Say that again.
>> The better translation for that word that you I forget what the Greek is off the top of my head for propitiation is expeation. H well uh this is a dispute as as you say but sacrificial imagery is clearly there. He says in Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us for is written curses to everyone everyone who hangs on the tree. So Jesus crucifixion absorbs the curse due to sin. That is a kind a kind of atonement is it not?
>> Yeah we we hold to atonement but again we have to take this in the context of our theory. My my question are you saying seriously I I need to know I need to know what you're getting at. Are you saying atonement theory any sort of atonement for sin is wrong or immoral?
>> I'm saying that God uh uh in the Torah and many other places says that human sacrifice for what whatever reason is an abomination and it's simply unJewish. It's repugnant to Jews. That's why they don't follow the Christian Jesus because it you don't need it. Most most sins can be forgiven for even in the Torah on the basis of asking God to forgive. And that's what Jesus taught in many many places in the synoptic gospels.
>> So God is forgiving.
>> Just ask I'm just asking is God immoral for having certain people like be like a ransom for us in terms of taking away our sins. Is that what you're saying?
>> No, no. I'm talking about human sacrifice. The idea
>> Yeah. I to Exactly. You're saying that's immoral, right?
>> Well, God condemns human sacrifice. Are you aware of those verses? Would you like me to show them to you?
>> I'm totally aware of the verses, but I need to know. Are you saying that a human ransom for sins is immoral?
>> A human sacrifice is immoral. Of course it is. Are you I need to know from you, Mike, for the sake of your salvation. Are you seriously saying that you believe in a human sacrifice to save your soul?
>> We believe again in Do you want me to explain ransom theory and how this actually plays out? Because I don't think you understand.
>> I don't want you to explain ransom. I want you to tell me what you think. I'm not interested in a textbook.
>> That's what that's what we're trying to
>> That's what we're trying to do. We we believe theories. We believe a human being is sacrifice on a cross is somehow what God desires and God cannot.
>> No, no, no, no. See, okay, let me let me let me stop you right there really quickly because the way you're rhetorically framing this is is it's carrying subtext that Mike and I would deny.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. Tell me tell me about the see subtexts are not explicit. So you're kind of read you're doing is Jesus so to speak into what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that God does not require any kind of sacrifice to forgive. Look at the law's prayer in in in the sermon on the mount. Forgive us our trespasses. The paradismatic prayer as we forgive those who sin against us. The idea of debt and sin is simply uh done away with by God's forgiveness and mercy. It's very Islamic actually. And it isn't there's there's also another
>> No, it isn't. It's not Islamic at all. It's exact opposite of what Islam teaches.
>> It's it's the curse of sin. And what
>> I'm So here's why it's because and again it's and here's we have this this this hadith here, messenger of Allah said on the day of the resurrection, Allah will deliver to every Muslim a Jew and a Christian and say this is your ransom from hellfire. So it's not so much in Islam that you just get forgiven. We are your saviors in Islam. We are the ones who atone for your sins.
>> This is the day of resurrection. I'm talking now how are sins forgiven today. So when I pray uh five times a day and ask God forgive my sins, am I thinking of the day of resurrection? No. I'm relying on as the first surah surah fata which we recite 17 times a day that God is most merciful and compassionate. And so this is the essence of Islam in Christianity. However, as as you understand it, a sacrifice is required before God can forgive us our sins. And this is very uncristlike and it's not required by Jesus teaching. Certainly not by Islamic teaching, which is why if you want to follow Jesus, you need to be a Muslim and not follow these later theologies.
>> This is this is again this is again a sacrifice here. We are the ransom from hellfire for you. It doesn't matter what you do now because you're praying to God for him to deliver you from that hellfire. And who that
Does it? Through us. That's the problem.
So, this is, remember what I said today, if I that we receive forgiveness of sins because God is merciful and just. That's the teaching of the Quran, all the way through. This is referring to, uh, the day of resurrection. And I'm not sure ransom here refers to sacrifice, certainly not human sacrifice, which is what you appear to believe.
You don't think we're going to be sacrificed in the fire for you? Look at that. That looks like a sacrifice to me.
It's, it's not a sacrifice for sin. Well, that's exactly what it is for a Jew or Christian. This is your ransom from hellfire.
No, it's not. How is, how am I given forgiven my sins today in Islam, do you think?
So, I, I have to bring up, how, how is a Muslim, what is the understanding of the Quran when it says, how are sins forgiven? Now, Sahih Muslim 2767 says that it's similar thing here is that we atone for your sins.
No, we don't. No, you don't atone for sins. How are we forgiven today? The answer is in the Quran that we return to a merciful God who forgives us our sins. This is very, this is very much what Jesus taught in Luke 15, for example, the parable of the prodigal son, or, or the, the story of the tax collector and the Pharisee. But I mean, according to the hadith here, there will come people amongst the Muslims on the day of resurrection with as heavy sins as mountains, and Allah will forgive them, and he will place on their stead the Jews and the Christians. So, no, it's, you're forgiven because your sins are going to be placed on us, according to authentic hadith.
That's not what it says. It says Allah will forgive them. Forgiveness. That's exactly what I've been saying all along. Christian Jesus didn't teach human sacrifice. Uh, Muhammad and all the prophets didn't teach that. This says Allah will forgive them.
Forgiveness is atonement is not forgiveness. Atonement is a sacrifice. It's a payment of a sin debt. And the two are not the same. Forgiveness and sin debt are not the same. They are different conceptually. And you're conflating the two. But I, I, you're accusing us of stuff we don't believe. Like, I would like for Than to actually explain ransom theory because this is what the church fathers taught. He's very good at this. And I think that that will help some of this confusion because you're, you're pushing penal substitution. We don't hold to that.
That's what Paul teaches in Romans chapter 3. I've already quoted the verse to you, but you don't accept. Okay, let me just, I'll pull, I'll pull up.
I want to come back to, as, as I'm asking you the questions, as, as we agree. So, you, we, we've agreed, uh, that, uh, Jesus, um, didn't know everything because there's an attribute of God that can be discharged at will if.
Again, remember, just really quickly, Paul, really quickly, Paul, I provided, I provided a logical defeater to the, to the, to the line of questioning, right? If I were to take your line of questioning and put it into a form of deductive argument, the conclusion is at the end of the day going to be.
It's not contradiction, right?
It's not a deductive argument, it's a question about, uh, God's attributes. I, you agree that God is all-knowing, but you believe that God can sometimes be ignorant. I'm arguing that's a change in God's nature. You say, "Oh, it's not an essential."
Hold on. Okay. So, so here's an assumption, here's an embedded assumption.
Hang on a second. Let me, let me just recapitulate.
Right. If you, if every single sentence you say has an embedded metaphysical assumption into it.
Everything, everything anyone ever says about this has.
And I'm just, I'm showing one right there, really quickly, which is points out God as if it's a bad thing, not subject to death. But you.
You had an opportunity to talk for a really long time, right?
Now, the other attribute is.
So, let me just, really quickly, point to the assumption that's embedded, right? You are, you, you said the phrase, "Okay, well, that means God changed."
Yes, of course it does.
The subtext there tells me you think that's a bad thing, that I shouldn't want that.
Well, God's, God doesn't change. God's character is eternal. His nature is eternal.
Hold on. Well, that, that's completely different, right? Is God, like, does Christian doctrine necessitate the idea that God is immutable in the sense that there is no changes whatsoever?
It has done, actually. Yes, particularly, uh, in Christian theology influenced by Greek metaphysics. You must know this. But God's perfection requires that God doesn't change. This is true.
That doesn't seem intuitive to me at all.
Well.
Sure. Sure. Some Christians thought this. Well, hold on. Hold on. Some Christians have thought this, but there are other Christians who have not.
You ask me, no question about what seems intuitive to you. You asked me about Christian theology, which is not you. That is.
Yeah. So, so where within Christian theology, where within Christian theology, right? What authoritative source.
Oh.
Is going to, what authoritative source is demanding.
Right. That I have to hold to some sort of like Thomistic metaphysics?
You see, what are you, an orthodox Christian, Russian or or Greek or something?
I, I don't, publicly.
We have a, we have a, we have a strong policy on this channel that we just identify as Christian.
You don't identify, you won't tell me what church you belong to?
No, we're not on this channel. We have, we've been, we've been for years.
You see, this is the problem. He works for me.
If you're not going to disclose your beliefs, where you're coming from, if you, if you want to hold back and not tell people what church you belong.
This is not really, Paul, Paul, that's not fair because, really quickly, hold on, hold on.
I am not disclosing this publicly because of a further goal. It's not, has nothing to do with the fact that I don't want to talk to you. Right.
Yeah. So, the question you asked was a very unfair one. Let me explain why. You asked me to point to authorities, ecclesiastical.
And we can traditionalize on different sects if you want, right? So we can say you're Catholic, and this, if you're an Orthodox, this, right? Totally fine.
Then let me finish that. The question is premised on what your authorities are you willing to accept, but you won't tell me because they will, they will disclose what your real Christian views are. So that's a very unfair question. So I'm going to.
That's totally fine. Again, that's why I'm saying, let's conditionalize.
And also, I don't accept them as authorities anyway. So, this is a bit redundant in the first place.
We will tell you our beliefs. Paul, we will tell you our beliefs. What we don't tell you is our denomination. I'll tell you right now, I'm a monarchical trinitarian, like Joshua.
Sui. I ask Pam, "What's your ecclesiology? What's your ecclesiology?"
What do you mean when you ask that question?
Do you believe the Pope is the vicar of Christ, for example?
I'm not answering that question.
But like, again, Paul, this is, this will be the fourth time I'm saying this. Hold on. This is the fourth time I'm saying this. I am willing to entertain conditionals to talk with you through this, right?
I'm asking what you believe, but you're not willing to disclose fundamental matters of your opinion.
Are you not? Well, hold on. It sounds like, hold on. It sounds like you're just refused to do conditional thinking with me, then.
I'm refusing. You're refusing to tell me what you think about fundamentally.
Yeah. And I, so I've established a personal boundary that you're that I've established a personal boundary that you're attempting to use as a rhetorical tactic against me when I'm saying, "Hey, because of these personal reasons, I'm not going to use this. Here's the boundary, but let me meet you halfway. Let's do some conditional thinking."
Yeah. You see, I, I've never come across a Christian before who won't tell me what they, what they believe on fundamentals. I've never come across a person that's going to try to have a useful, fruitful conversation and refuse to do conditional thinking.
Ecclesiology is rooted in fundamental message. It tells me what.
Conditional thinking is rooted in if-then statements. If, let me tell you how difficult it is because if you won't tell me your ecclesiology, I don't know what your authorities are. Let me, if you're evangelical.
That's totally fine. That's why I'm saying, let's conditionalize. If I'm a Catholic authority, the Pope is the final authority. Fine. Then what?
Yeah.
Because if you're evangelical, and millions of Americans are, you will not accept the authority of the creeds and councils of the church.
Okay. Whoa. Paul, you just did it. You just did it. You just did exactly what I'm asking for. Conditional thinking. If you were an evangelical, then.
Yeah. But I want to know what you think. And you.
Why do you need to know what I think? Why do you need to know what I think?
I'll tell you why.
In order to disprove the Christianity as an overall hypothesis. No, it's not an overall hypothesis. It's a set of concrete beliefs in particular doctrines. It's not an abstraction. And when I, you ask me about what authority.
Hold on. Islam has the same thing. Islam has the same thing. Anytime Mike and I present the Islamic dilemma. Hold on. Hold on. Anytime Mike and I bring up the Islamic dilemma, you can have the general category of Islam, and then you can have Islam sub-one whenever somebody takes one horn of the dilemma, and Islam sub-two when somebody takes another horn of the dilemma, or Islam sub-three when they do the mystery and ge thing. Those are all different sub-models of Islam in the same way. Christianity is a broad category. Protestantism and the things that fall under there, Orthodox and the things that fall under there, and Catholicism, things that fall under there, are all just sub-models. Do you accept the first seven councils? Ecumenical councils, I mean, of the church.
I'm not answering that question, but I'm happy. I'm happy.
We accept the nine creeds. I have met you accept answering a question. My goodness me. So, Fan, do you accept the council of Nicaea?
Yeah, of course.
When you say of course, you've been telling me you won't tell me anything until now.
Well, that's because that is not telling me anything about my denomination. Oh, my goodness. You think I'm an Orthodox Christian like.
You accept the Catholic doctrine of the, of the council of, of Nicaea in. That's great. What about the second council of Nicaea?
Yes, I accept that as well.
Oh, good. What about you, S?
Yep.
Good. So now, right, what about the, the Lateran Councils of the, of the 12th and 13th century? The closer and closer you get to things that me answering the question is going to reveal my denomination, the further away you're going to get from an answer from me. Which is again, why I'm saying, well, let's just see if it's a problem for the Protestant, if it's a problem for the like, we would have been done with this by now.
Yeah, this is absurd at this point. Like, you're now just, you're now just Paul, Paul, real quick, Paul, you're just interrogating us on personal beliefs. This is so firm on the topic. We want to get into atonement theory and ransom theory and explain your belief.
About my beliefs repeatedly. And when you see the thing is, when I do it to you, you don't want to disclose what your beliefs are. You, you practice, you hide them. You say, "Oh, I don't want to tell you what I believe about."
I believe in about what the Pope is.
None of that has to do with what we told you. We believe in ransom theory. We told you a belief. We wanted to talk about it. And then you just go down this long tangent. We told you we're monarchical trinitarians. We will defend that. We told you that we believe this about the Bible or that. Then you just go off on these other things that are irrelevant to the original topic.
Do you accept Thomas Aquinas as, as, as a doctor of the church? Thomas Aquinas.
He is a doctor of, as a doctor of the church. Yes, he is a doctor in the church.
What about you?
That doesn't mean I agree with everything.
That doesn't mean. Yeah, I can accept that and I don't have to agree with him.
Well, hang on. You do have to agree with him if he's a doctor of the church. Don't you understand what it means?
No, that's a Muslim.
Well, it's logically possible.
He's a doctor of the church. You're not supposed to reject fundamental doctrines of, of Thomas Aquinas.
No, that doesn't follow. I know it might be a Muslim belief. It's not a Christian one.
You're, you're not Catholics then. You're not Roman Catholic. I deduce from your the way you've answered that in the kind of yes, no answer. Yes, he's, you like him, but no, you don't agree with him. That you're, you're author.
I didn't say I don't agree with him.
I thought you just did.
No, I said I don't have to agree with him.
Okay, you're being a bit, a bit of a lawyer now.
No, look, again, I'm just, Paul, Paul, clear. I'm assuming you care about logic, right? All I'm doing is saying, all I'm doing is laying out the logical possibility space and I'm saying, "Hey, you asked this question. No matter how I answer it, nothing's really at stake here."
Right?
Everything is at stake. Do you know why? It's all to do with authority. If you can't tell me what your authority is, unless you're saying, uh.
Right. So if I'm a, if I'm a Catholic, what authority do I need to hold to that prescribes the belief in the immutability of God in the Thomistic sense?
Yeah. But are you though?
Answer. Wait, what? Okay. So this whole time you're badgering me because I'm afraid to answer a question. So now you're not answering the question.
I don't want a straw man argument about what you don't either you or I believe.
It's not a straw man. If I'm willing to entertain a conditional.
Do Mormons believe in the hypostatic union? Let's talk about Mormons. I mean, who cares? I mean.
Mormons are atheists. I don't care about what Mormons think.
Precisely my point. You see, you are quick to say that about them, but I, I have no idea because you won't tell me what your authority structure is about your beliefs.
Why do you care? Okay, Paul.
Why do I care?
Paul.
Okay.
Paul, for somebody that was saying, well, I'm agnostic as to what happened with the geo. Right. When you did that, you established a boundary and I respected that and we entertained other things or went about things in a different way, right?
Right. Now, the way it feels is you have a particular script of line of questioning that you want to run. You run into somebody that doesn't want to do that, but is offered an avenue of conditionalizing on different models of Christianity, but because you can't run your script, you're just upset. Like that's the way I feel right now.
Well, that's interesting how you feel. But my problem is this. I'm talking to people who won't disclose their fundamental beliefs on important matters. For example, on ecclesiology and, and consequently about the authority of various traditions and creeds and councils. When you're asking me questions about Christian.
If somebody walks into your house and says, "Hey, let me do this and this and this and this." And then they say, "No, personal reasons. I don't want you to do this, but we."
The analogy is the analogy is completely.
Is that going to be okay?
So, because I don't know, we're gonna have to draw the conclusion. Let me just make a final point. We're going to end the.
Go for it. Go for it. Well, here. Go. We'll let you go. Just, we won't interrupt you. Go.
Right. Please don't. The, the problem is this. Because you won't disclose what you believe on fundamental matters, I can't really honestly interact with you because you're hiding things from me and all the viewers. You really need to be, uh, much more explicit. I'm a, uh, follow the Roman, uh, Orthodox, uh, sorry, the Russian Orthodox position, and we believe in these councils, this tradition, these theologians, this creed, but you won't give me any of us that information, and therefore I can't really interact with you because you hide your beliefs from everyone. And that is the problem. That's why one of the main reasons why I'm disengaging now. I'm, you have me back on when you're willing to be open about what you believe about authority, ecclesiology, accepting councils, and everything. Until you do, we're not really having an honest conversation, are we?
Can I just ask a quick question in response to this?
Okay.
Well, you could answer what I'm saying instead of asking me further questions because that's my point.
Well, no, no, no. Okay. Can I, let me just ask this question now? Okay. Because presumably at the end of the day, you want to argue that in some way, shape, or form, Christianity is false, and you want to do that by identifying some sort of contradiction within any particular framework.
It's not my, we didn't let him interrupt you. Let him go.
No, I'm, I'm correcting him. I know what I believe, and what he's saying is not my belief. My belief.
I'm asking about your rhetorical goal, right? That's what you want to do by identifying my beliefs. I believe that Christianity is mostly true. I've always said this. The vast majority of Christianity is true. You believe in one God. You believe in heaven and hell and the angels and demons. You believe in the prophets. You believe Jesus the Messiah, born of the virgin. I go on, an awful lot of stuff we have in common. We don't just.
Okay. Am I right or wrong?
Hindus or Sikhs or whatever. So, so when I'm saying disprove Christianity, that's not true. I.
Fine. Disprove the hypostatic union, the incarnation, the Trinity. Look, we have views, but to keep.
It's true views. It's.
Paul. Paul, you're Paul. Look, for somebody again that's trying to give me a hard time for just not disclosing some personal things. I'm asking you a very impersonal question, which is what are your rhetorical goals, right? You're sidestepping the question.
You don't have rhetorical goals. But you did say that I wanted to disprove Christianity.
Your rhetorical. Yeah. You want to disprove the Trinity, incarnation, hypostatic, all that stuff, right?
You do have rhetorical goals. You just said them. Most Christian doctrine is true. When it comes to other things, we never. That's fine, Paul, but answer the question. You want to disprove those three, four things? Yes or no?
Is or other people. We share an awful lot.
I let you talk without you interrupting me, okay? Come on.
You said you want to disprove those three, four things. Yes or no?
Uh, my point was in conclusion that unless you disclose.
It's a yes or no question. No, this is my. No, you, you, you're getting me back on the track again. I've said you before.
No, no, no. I, I'm, look, I, there's, okay, fine. If you're not going to, if you're not going to discuss with me here, then let me just.
If you're not going to let me speak, I'm just going to talk over and and basically push me into your rut that I must follow. My my final word and.
That's very ironic, Paul, coming from somebody that refuses to do conditional thinking. Okay, so instead, let me just make my point then, your further thought. I'm just going to reiterate my final point again. I, I, because you're not willing to disclose who your authorities are, whether in terms of creeds and councils or magisterium or traditions or whatever, I find it very difficult to dialogue with Christians who hide their beliefs on fun.
You should. We've not hid our beliefs. We've told you we believe in this theory. We believe in monarchical trinitarianism. We believe in this. You're trying to bring a thought.
Really quickly. Okay. In the later council.
I'm not going to ask you. I'm not going to ask you a question.
Aquinas is is fundamentally right as a doctor. No, he's not.
I'm not going to ask you a question. Let me just make this point then. Okay.
Hold on. No, no, dude. Come on. I've let you, I've let you talk and you've even talked over me a couple of times. Give me some space to say what I want to say, really quickly, please.
No, because I'm going now because you won't be clear.
So, you don't even want to hear me out. Because you won't be clear about what you believe. We're going to have to end this conversation.
Because you're so, you clearly do not want to engage in conditional thinking.
You're the one who won't dis get engaged with what you believe with me. You're not being honest and open.
We told you what we believe. We keep telling you beliefs. And then you're like, well, what are your authorities? That's different.
Tell me what he believes about councils, about the papacy, about magisterium and tradition when it comes down to the details. Then he asked me about what authority I would accept. When you leave and look back at these these clips.
I want you to count how many times I've asked I, I explicitly said something that's fine. Let's just say if I'm a Catholic, then what follows. If I'm a Protestant, then what follows.
This is, this is a game. This is.
Actually, no, it's not a game. In fact, it's even more nuanced than what you want to say.
Interested in saying, well, do Mormons believe this? Do Catholics believe this? Do Pros?
No, I put three broad categories on the table. Not Mormons. I want to know what you believe, but you will not tell me what you believe on fundamental.
Here's the problem, Paul. Here's the problem, Paul. Let's just say, no. Let's just say hypothetically speaking, I let out my denomination, all that other stuff right now on the table. And let's just say, hold on. Let's just say all of a sudden when we go through that conversation, can you please stop interrupting me?
We go through that conversation after I tell you my denomination, right? And just for sake of example, let's just say you found a contradiction. Do you know what ends up happening there? I think that denomination is false and I switch denominations.
Okay. Well, that's fine. That's what happens. Good. Fine.
Okay. But that's why I'm saying.
Because maybe you're saying you should conditionalize on those things.
You move towards say, you move to a more Unitarian position, a Unitarian Protestant position.
I will not. I probably will not do that because it has nothing to do with the church.
We're talking, remember, we're talking hypothetically here. This is your example, not mine. Maybe you would switch denominations. Maybe that's great if you move towards closer to the truth. So, this is maybe a good thing. But the problem is we're never going to have that conversation because you won't disclose your fundamental authority.
We should have pretend. Let's pretend I'm an evangelical. And do you accept the Pope is the authoritative vicar of Christ on earth? That has.
That has nothing to do with what we were talking about with atonement theory or attributes of God.
It has nothing to do. This is deflecting from a way we were talking about 30 minutes ago.
Do you believe that that the Pope is the, uh, the vicar of Christ on earth?
I'm willing to entertain. I'm willing to entertain the conditional.
Yes or no? I missed the subtlety in what you were saying there.
I mean, I.
Yes. He's willing to entertain the conditional.
No, no. I'm asking you, do you believe? I'm not asking you to abstract.
It does not matter what I believe, right? That the Pope is the the vehicle of Christ on earth. Yes.
Paul, Paul, do you believe that the Injil is the Wait, no. No. No. Stop. Do you say that the law do you believe that Injil is a lost book given to Jesus?
You're running away.
No, no, no. It's a yes or no question, Paul.
Rules for me and not for you. I'm going to go now because you want to answer basic theological questions. You avoid, avoid, avoid. I, I want to deal with people who want you to be open and honest, explicit about. Hide them. So, I thank you for having me on. Mike Jones, I think you're on as well. Inshallah, but I do hope to be more open and honest about your beliefs in future, if not today. So.
Thank you for coming on.
I know we got heated, but nothing but love.
Well, nothing but love for you, Paul, but holy crap. Okay, breakdown. Okay, he's allowed to be agnostic about the geo when we throw the Islamic dilemma on him, but we're not allowed to entertain conditionals. We have to tell everybody exactly what we believe. So, notice I want the audience to see the very obvious double standard, the very obvious deflection away from, "Hey, let's talk about atonement." It's bad. Oh, well, you have that in yours. Look, here it is right here. We have this right here in this lovely hadith, as well as in another hadith we brought up earlier, where it talks about Christians and Jews being a ransom from the hellfire. Deflect, deflect, deflect. We get back to attributes of God. He realizes he's not defining immutability, right? And what does he do? Well, I need to know everything you believe. And he's equating authorities and beliefs. Man, that was that was something, man. I was, I was having a ball. I don't know about you guys watching, but man, that is a, that, that's what they do, guys. This is what we, I, I love Paul. I pray for him. I am so happy he came here. But man, there was a lot of deflecting from him. There was a lot of interrupting. There was a lot of double standard going on there. That was something. Yeah, because again, I, what I look on, on just on a like on a social level, right? I, I can't put myself in a position of thinking, hey, this person has established a personal boundary and I'm going to use that against them as a weapon.
Yeah. Yeah. In, in the debate.
Well, when he said he's agnostic about the geo, what did we do? All right, bro. We'll give you that. We help you think more about this. And we were like, but I mean, we can still, the Islamic dilemma is still successful, but what, but when it comes to us, no, no, no. I need to know exactly what you believe. Everything. And we're like, we will entertain a conditional here. If Catholicism is true, if we are Catholics, then what follows? Wouldn't do that. And again, here's what I found very revealing, and I hope the audience saw this as well. We kept saying we believed a ransom theory. Can we explain it to you? He wouldn't let us. He did not want ransom theory explained to him. He wanted to push this penal substitution implied in his comments, and we were like, "Dude, you're not, your objections aren't going to land here because you're talking to people that hold to ransom theory." So, let us explain it. No, move on to the next subject.
Yeah. Really quickly, too, on, on the Islamic dilemma front, I was looking at the translation. I think the dilemma still runs actually, even with this translation because.
First of all, I, I was gonna say his translation was was wild, man. That is not what it says.
Well, wait, just to be, maybe I'm looking at the wrong one too, since I'm not too familiar with all the translations. It's called the, the, uh, Assad.
I think I don't remember. This is all happening in real time. Go back and look.
If I'm looking at the right translation, um, these are the, these would be like the modified horns, right? Which is, the Quran says the Bible was corrupted before Muhammad, then the Quran cannot confirm what came before, right? How are you establishing the criterion and all this other stuff if it was corrupted prior to this? Um, if the Quran says that the Bible was uncorrupted in Muhammad's day, then the Quran affirms the authority of the Bible as it was then, which means it wasn't corrupted.
Yeah, same. Yeah, good point. I don't know. It'd be nice to ask him that. I mean, here's the thing. He's like, let's take a holistic approach of the Quran. Great idea, Paul. Let's go to Surah 109:4. Whoa, whoa, whoa. I want to talk about this specific verse here. I don't want to go look at other verses over there. Nigh, nigh, nigh.
It's like.
And then go back to this problem for you.
I'm actually still processing the whole, look, I'm not going to tell you my beliefs, but I'll defend each denomination and I'm the bad guy.
That was amazing. First of all, again, I'm very happy to thank, thank Paul for coming on. We appreciate the conversation. It got heated. No hard feelings, buddy. Honestly, I mean, I mean that sincerely. I'd love for him to come back on again. Uh, but unfortunately, he was the most interruptive Muslim we've dealt with all day. As you guys saw earlier in the stream, we had great conversations with Muslims. We were talking and then all of a sudden Paul's just like, "No, no." And was like, "Bro, come on, man." Of of the earlier Muslims. I was, I, you know what I was thinking before we jumped in? I'm like, man, maybe, maybe I've been kind of too harsh on some of the Dawa guys because these Muslims come in, are great. They're respectful. They're nice. And then nope. Paul goes in. Go, let me remind you what we do here, folks. And I was like, there it is. There's the Dawa. But, uh, definitely doesn't represent all Muslims. And.
Yeah.
But we will, we will have to upload that as his own private conversation because that was that was an incredible gift. I'm so glad he showed up. We had a great conversation. We got a lot of our points across as, as you guys saw, and he just had to keep deflecting. So, you made it to the end of this video, which means this message matters to you. If you want to see more content like this reaching people for Christ, you can help make it happen. Your support makes these videos possible. Click the link below and donate today. And if you want to go even deeper, consider joining our Patreon community. You'll get early access to videos, behind-the-scenes content, and a place to connect with others passionate about this mission.