Sheikh Uthman vs 10 Christian Apologists | DSH #2089

Summary

---

Digital Social Hour – Episode DSH #2089

Title: Sheikh Uthman vs 10 Christian Apologists
Date: August 1, 2026
Host: Sean Kelly

---

Episode Overview

This explosive episode pits Sheikh Uthman, a prominent Muslim debater, against a panel of ten Christian apologists, theologians, and critics. The dialogue dives into three central prompts:

1. Is Jesus Almighty God according to the Bible?
2. Is the name "Muhammad" clearly mentioned in the Bible?
3. Is the Bible the perfectly preserved word of God?

The conversation is marked by rigorous scriptural cross-examination, sharp theological contention, debates over the nature of textual authority, and a focus on inter-faith understanding (and at times, personal shots and heated exchanges). The moderator, Elijah, and host, Sean Kelly, do their best to keep the conversation focused amid digressions and persistent “line of logic” strategies from both sides.

---

Contents

• Main Theme & Structure
• Key Discussion Points: Jesus’ Divinity in the Bible
• Key Discussion Points: Muhammad in the Bible
• Bible Preservation & Textual Integrity
• Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
• Timestamps: Key Segments

---

Main Theme & Structure

The episode is a high-stakes, academic showdown on pivotal matters of Christian and Islamic belief. Each prompt forms a distinct section:

1. The divinity of Jesus—debated through contrasting biblical readings, challenges over definitions and attributions of divine titles, and the boundaries of language and tradition.

2. The prophethood of Muhammad in the Bible—with focus on claims of explicit mention, the meaning and context of Songs of Solomon 5:16, and the validity of lexicons and translation arguments.

3. Textual reliability of the Bible—scrutiny around claimed scribal errors, the authority of biblical scholars, and standards for scriptural authenticity.

Much of the episode is characterized by pressing for “yes/no” answers followed by qualifiers, ‘meta’ debates about scholarly authority, and theological one-upmanship.

---

Key Discussion Points: Jesus’ Divinity in the Bible

I. Divine Titles and Christological Claims

• The “First and the Last” Argument

  • Christians assert that Jesus, by claiming titles like "the first and the last" (Revelation 22:13), appropriates titles for God alone in the OT (Isaiah 48, etc.), making a direct claim to divinity.
  • Sheikh Uthman counters that linguistic and contextual factors—especially between Arabic, Hebrew, and Greek—undermine a direct equivalence. He insists that the Quranic "Awwal wal Akhir" can't simply be imposed on biblical usage.
    • (17:33) Sheikh Uthman: “Just because one word has the same meaning in another language, does that mean every word in that language has the same meaning? Absolutely not.”
    • (18:14) Sheikh: “If you try to take something from Islamic concept and try to prove the Bible by it, that’s just not going to work in Islam.”

• On Jesus Using “My God” Post-Resurrection

  • Sheikh constantly returns to the fact that even after resurrection, Jesus refers to God as "my God" (e.g., John 20:17, Rev 3:12), arguing that's incompatible with Jesus being Almighty God.
  • Christian interlocutors argue this distinction is compatible with Trinitarian doctrine: the Son relates to the Father.

• Honoring the Son as the Father

  • The Christians raise John 5:23, "all should honor the Son as they honor the Father," arguing the highest honor is worship—hence, divinity.
    • Orthodox Christian: “If you honor the Son the same as the Father, you must include worship.” (63:20)
  • Uthman disputes this, stating honor doesn’t necessarily mean worship (analogy: an ambassador honored for the king).

• Jesus’ Self-Descriptions

  • Christian side repeatedly references Jesus’ claims ("I and the Father are one," John 10:30; "before Abraham was, I am," John 8:58) as evidence of divinity.
  • Uthman argues that language like "one" etc. appears in broader unity/context in John (see John 17:21)—referring to mission and purpose, not essence.

II. Yes/No Exchanges, Interruptions, and Meta-Debate

• Numerous "yes/no" demands to pin the other side to a single line of logic:
  • (16:34) Christian Apologist: “When Jesus says I am the first and last, does he qualify it? Yes or no?”
  • Uthman, often frustrated by the constraints, insists on nuance and context.
  • Moderator Elijah often steps in to manage tempers and keep each side focused on the line of argument.

---

Key Discussion Points: Muhammad in the Bible

I. Is Muhammad Explicitly Mentioned? Songs of Solomon 5:16

• Sheikh Uthman’s central claim: The Hebrew “Machmadim” (altogether lovely) in Song of Solomon 5:16 linguistically points to the name Muhammad.
  • (148:45) “His mouth is most sweet. He is altogether Muhammad. That is his name…”
• Christian critics respond:
  • The term is a common noun (lovely/desirable) and not a prophetic personal name.
  • In context, it's part of a love poem, spoken by Solomon's wife—so it makes little sense as a prophecy about Muhammad.
  • Plural grammatical form disputes (Machmadim) are raised, but Uthman counters this is a “plural of majesty” like “Elohim.”
  • Multiple side debates erupt:
    • Who is speaking in Song of Solomon? (Solomon’s wife or a prophetic figure?)
    • Can “Muhammad” be used as a name in this context linguistically and historically?
    • Uthman and his critics go back and forth about the authority of Hebrew lexicons and the value of comparative linguistics.

II. Corruption or Preservation of the Biblical Text

• Jewish-Christian scholar argues that biblical narratives around Ishmael and Abraham differ fundamentally from Islamic tradition and cannot be accidental (Genesis 21’s differences from Islamic Hagar/Ishmael narrative, etc.).
• Uthman concedes there are scribal errors in the Bible but maintains—on the authority of early Jewish converts like Abdullah ibn Salam and Ka’ab al-Ahbar—that Muhammad used to be clearly referenced in their Torahs, and corruption occurred later.
• An extended dispute unfolds about whether these historical reports are reliable, whether the Torah variant they possessed matches today’s, and the nature of textual corruption.

III. Ahmad vs. Muhammad

• Interlocutors invoke Quran 61:6, which states Jesus names a prophet “Ahmad”—suggesting, if the claim is that “Muhammad” is mentioned, one should expect “Ahmad” instead.
• Uthman insists the prompt is about the name Muhammad, not Ahmad, and keeps reining the discussion in.
• Much wrangling over definitions and the question of prophetic references.

---

Bible Preservation & Textual Integrity

• Uthman brings up textual variants and “scribal errors” in the Old Testament (e.g., differences regarding numbers of chariots in 1 Chronicles 19 vs. 2 Samuel 8).
  • Uses John MacArthur’s Study Bible notes and other Christian sources to demonstrate biblical textual variances.
• Christian critics push back, highlighting that serious textual criticism acknowledges minor errors but claims core teachings are preserved; MacArthur himself says textual errors can be identified and corrected, hence “inerrant content” is preserved.
• Extensive debate over what constitutes an "authority"—orthodox church fathers, modern academic biblical critics, denominational scholars, etc.
• Uthman maintains that only the Quran is unaltered, thus the “gold standard.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Claiming Divinity and Language Nuance

• Sheikh Uthman [17:33]:
  "Just because one word has the same meaning in another language, does that mean every word in that language has the same meaning? Absolutely not."

• Orthodox Christian Debater [41:52]:
  “If Jesus says, ‘I am the Almighty,’ what other Almighty can you be?”

• Sheikh Uthman [63:36]:
  "[Worship] is one way for sure...for me as a Muslim, submitting myself to the will of my Creator."

• Sheikh Uthman [91:13]:
  "If God doesn’t have a God according to you, then how do you explain that?"

On Authority and Authority Disputes

• Sheikh Uthman [57:58]:
  "Who is the authority? That’s going to be up for debate among your Christian people as well... If you’re quoting to me verses that clearly were not in early manuscripts and were added, then I’m not going to credit them as authentic."

• Orthodox Christian Debater [75:51]:
  "It’s not about academia. It’s specifically about who’s an authority."

On Muhammad and Biblical Texts

• Sheikh Uthman [148:45]:
  “His mouth is most sweet. He is altogether Muhammad. That is his name...”

• Christian Critic [153:38]:
  “You’re telling us as a Muslim who, you’re not a biblical scholar, you don’t know Hebrew because it’s plural, that’s a problem for you. You think you can just transpose Arabic with Hebrew. You cannot.”

---

Timestamps: Key Segments

• Opening challenge: Is Jesus God in the Bible? (00:00–40:00)

  • Titles of God, Trinitarian distinctions, semantic debates (first and last, Alpha and Omega)
  • [00:33] – Revelation 22:13 and Jesus' alleged divine self-claims
  • [05:21]–[10:00] – Deep argument on divine attributes and shirk

• Authority, textual variants, and yes/no standoffs (41:00–72:00)

  • [41:09] – “If somebody says ‘I am the Almighty’, is that a claim to be God?”
  • [54:07] – Debates on what constitutes a ‘scholar’ or ‘authority’
  • [59:08] – “Do you think early Christians worshipped Jesus?” (James D.G. Dunn cited)

• Bible manuscripts, worship, and honor (61:00-78:00)

  • [63:09] – Definition of worship/honor in John 5
  • [68:27] – Meta-discussion on semantics and cherry-picking

• Old Testament & Prophecies (80:00–99:00)

  • [80:27] – “Jesus is not almighty God according to the Bible.”
  • [91:13] – Hebrews 1 “your throne, O God” debated
  • [98:49] – “We do not believe the verses I brought up were addressed.”

• Textual reliability and error – MacArthur Bible and scribal issues (132:05–137:00)

  • [134:54] – “What we can agree on: that there are scribal errors.”

• Muhammad in the Bible: Song of Solomon argument (148:02–154:00)

  • [148:45] – Uthman reads Song of Solomon 5:16 inserting “Muhammad”
  • [149:32] – Debate over plural forms and linguistic transpositions

• Closing debates: preservation, authority, cross-claims (161:00–173:00)

  • [166:53] – “If the Bible is corrupt, what’s the point of finding Muhammad in it?”
  • [173:17] – Final statement from Uthman: “Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? Right here it is done.”

---

Summary Table: Arguments and Rebuttals

| Prompt/Theme | Sheikh Uthman Position | Christian Apologists’ Position | Key Verses/References | |----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | Jesus as God? | Jesus never unequivocally says so; post-resurrection “my God”; divine titles contextually differ | Direct claims (First/Last, Alpha/Omega, “I and Father are one”); worship of Jesus in early church | Rev 22:13, John 5, John 8:58, John 17, Song 5:16 | | Muhammad in the Bible? | “Machmadim” in Song Solomon 5:16 is “Muhammad”; early Jewish converts saw it | “Machmadim” means “lovely/desirable” not a name; context is love poem; plural issue | Song of Solomon 5:16, lexicons, Jewish sources | | Bible’s Preservation | Bible contains scribal errors, additions, textual variations | Core doctrinal integrity intact; errors minor and correctable | MacArthur Study Bible, NET Bible, James D.G. Dunn | | On Shirk/Divine Attributes | Some divine attributes can be shared in degree—nuanced; certain names unique | To share God’s unique titles is shirk; Jesus does so, thus claims divinity | Quran 4:48, attributes discussion |

---

Conclusion & Utility for Listeners

For new listeners or those interested in comparative theology, this episode provides:

• A masterclass in interfaith argumentation, scriptural analysis, and the intricacies of both Islamic and Christian theology.
• Live demonstrations of how language, history, context, and manuscript evidence are weaponized in apologetics.
• Real-time illustrations of meta-debate: what counts as evidence/authority; how much weight is given to tradition, modern scholarship, early manuscripts.
• A case study in the challenges of public debate—tone, interruptions, moderator mediation, and the difficulty of sticking to a prompt.

Whether you are a scholar or casual listener, the episode is most valuable for seeing the best arguments that each side deploys, how points are conceded, and how “meta” the discussion quickly becomes under pressure.

---

Recommended Segments (Timestamps)

• [00:33–05:00] Titles and Names of God; discussion of “shirk”
• [17:33–21:00] Language differences—First and Last, Alpha/Omega, and translation debates
• [41:05–41:52] “If Jesus says ‘I am the Almighty’…”: Claim vs. Reality
• [68:27–69:52] Semantics of “honor” and “worship” in John 5
• [91:13–93:29] Hebrews 1 and “throne, O God” discussion
• [148:45–150:40] Song of Solomon “Machmadim”/Muhammad debate
• [166:55–167:59] The “Bible is corrupt, why insist Muhammad is in it?” dilemma

---

Episode Tone

The exchanges are direct, often combative, but interspersed with moments of humor, exasperation, and philosophical candor. Both sides display deep scriptural knowledge and a commitment to having “unfiltered” dialogue—even when tensions mount and the moderator has to arbitrate.

---

Final Word:
This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in the hottest flashpoints between Islamic and Christian theology, showcasing the thorough arguments brought by expert apologists and the force of personality that Sheikh Uthman and his interlocutors bring to the table.

Transcript

[Sheikh Uthman]

According to the Christian Bible, after he's been and resurrected in heaven after being glorified, he still says my God.

[Christian Apologist]

So Jesus here, as you just admitted, unqualified, claims to be the first and the last. So by your own admission, can you admit that even by Islamic standards, Jesus claims to be God?

[Sheikh Uthman]

These people who were Jewish scholars, people of the Bible that you have conceded and quoted actually said, yes, we saw the Prophet Muhammad clearly mention the Bible more than what we would even see today. Very interest and they accepted Islam from it.

[Christian Theologian]

The speaker says, I am Yahweh, I am the first and the last. In Revelation 22:13, Jesus identifies Himself as I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

[Sheikh Uthman]

For example, in 1 John 5. 7, you will find the Heavenly Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit. These were infamous additions from later generations. Evidence both external and internal show that they are against their authenticity.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

It says in chapter three, verse 55 that Allah will make the followers of Jesus uppermost until the day of resurrection. That means that the message of Jesus could never have been corrupted. This text could never have been corrupted. So it looks like according to you, Allah failed to keep his promise to the believers to the previous prophets, therefore Allah is false. Jesus never mentioned Ahmed. Ahmed is not in the Bible.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Jesus is not Almighty God according to the Bible.

[Christian Apologist]

All right, so I kind of want to take a little bit of a different angle. I want to do this in a way that relates to you and your theology. So the Quran has names and titles of Allah that you would agree only apply to Him. No creature, no angel, no prophet can claim these titles or else it'll be what is called shirk or associating a partner with him. Just quickly, you agree with that.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That is incorrect.

[Christian Apologist]

It's incorrect.

[Sheikh Uthman]

It's incorrect.

[Christian Apologist]

So. So just because.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Do you want to get into Islamic aqeedah? Because that's off the prompt.

[Christian Apologist]

No, it's not. It is tying into the point, which is.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, so do you want me to explain that point then? Because you're incorrect on it.

[Christian Apologist]

So you're saying it's so creatures can actually share in the names and titles of Allah.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I respond please?

[Christian Apologist]

It's a yes or no because I'm not going to.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes or no? If you're going to ask a question, I'm going to respond.

[Moderator Elijah]

It sounds like a line of logic that he's trying to run by. So if you're asking for a yes or no, you can do a yes and, and I have a clarifier and then if you want to get through your thought on the line of logic and then offer the clarifier.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes, I have a clarifier which is that there are certain sifaat that are only for Allah, subhanahu wa ta', ala, like Ar Rahman, that cannot be used for any of the creation. But there are sifaat like Rahim, which can be used for creation. Allah is wudud, he's loving. That doesn't mean that creation are not loving. Of course the characters of Allah are unique to him, but there are some that the humanity does share in as well. Allah is living, we are all living. But the way Allah is living is unique to him. So your base point was incorrect and I hope that's clarification helps.

[Christian Apologist]

It's not because I didn't ask about whether or not we share in his attributes. Like, oh, I'm merciful. Allah's merciful. So yeah, we're both merciful. I didn't ask that. So for example, can someone be called Al Rahim?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, for Rahim, if you put the parti. Can I, Can I speak? I didn't interrupt. Okay, I got you. Seemed like you're about to speak. So like Allah, subhanahu wa ta' ala is Ar Rahman, that is unique to him, nobody can be called. Right. But even the indefinite al can be used with certain characteristics. For example, Al Wudud, the most loving. But the way that it applies to Allah is unique to him. But as you earlier said that those are only for Him. That is incorrect. Some are shared not just that they are merciful, very merciful, but. But to the level of Rahman. No.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so I'm not asking if we can be merciful similar to how Allah, he's just more merciful than us. I'm asking about his specific titles. So he's called Al Rahman al Rahim alud, meaning the most loving. Can any creature share these titles? I'm not saying, oh, Allah's loving. I'm also loving. Can I be called the most loving? Can I be called the most Merciful? Can I be called the Living One, which is one of his names? Can I be called any of these things? Can any prophet claim these things? Any angel?

[Sheikh Uthman]

There's a point. Okay, again, certain ones, no. And that's why you have to understand the nuance here, because you don't understand. Right. Certain ones, no. Certain ones, yes. You can be the loving.

[Christian Apologist]

The most loving.

[Sheikh Uthman]

The most loving. Of course, amongst a. Go for it. Yeah, amongst. For example, if I said these are all my kids, but this one, he's Al Wadud. He is the most loving of them. Right. That can be in that context. There you go. Right, now the clarification here is, yes, even Al can be used with certain things of the creation. But Allah is unique. That is his level is unique to him. But answer your question. Yes, even the infinite of Al can be used.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so what you just did is you qualified. You said, the most loving of my children. I didn't ask that. I'm not asking. Can someone use these terms in qualification of certain things? I mean, in general, outright absolute. Can someone claim themselves to be, in general, the most loving? Allua, dude, yes or no?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Once again, I'm gonna.

[Christian Apologist]

Yes or no, please.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'm sorry. You know, yes, I would say yes and.

[Moderator Elijah]

Or no.

[Christian Apologist]

Yes, exactly.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Please do not interrupt.

[Christian Apologist]

I won't. Just get. Just answer straight away, please.

[Moderator Elijah]

Again, that's why he's trying to run the line of logic, because that's where. Where we're running into. That's how he's trying to get to his point.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I get that.

[Christian Apologist]

So, yes and. Or no and.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes and. Okay, so when we're talking about, for example, somebody being very loving. Are you calling me mushrik here?

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah, you're.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Nobody gave you that authority. Thanks a lot. You're not. You're not a Muslim. You're not a shaykh. You don't know anything about Islam. I'm a shaykh. You're not a shaykh out of the meta.

[Moderator Elijah]

Let's get back to it.

[Christian Debater]

Thank you.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So please refrain from calling me a mushrik, because that's an insult.

[Christian Apologist]

That's disbelief.

[Sheikh Uthman]

How's that an insult?

[Moderator Elijah]

I don't know what that means.

[Christian Apologist]

Mushrik just means he's a disbeliever, that's all.

[Sheikh Uthman]

He just called me a disbeliever. In Islam, that is definitely an insult. Thank you so much. We don't need your takfir. Keep it to yourself. You don't know the wabit of tafir.

[Christian Apologist]

I do. You're not a Muslim anymore.

[Moderator Elijah]

Let's get back to the point so that we don't escalate this any further.

[Sheikh Uthman]

He said he knows that the wabi to takfir. What are they?

[Christian Apologist]

You just committed.

[Sheikh Uthman]

What are they?

[Christian Apologist]

You commit.

[Sheikh Uthman]

What are dawabi al tafir.

[Christian Apologist]

You can't commit shirk.

[Sheikh Uthman]

What is that? You do not know. You are ignorant. We are caught you right now.

[Christian Apologist]

Be a Muslim Commission.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes, you can. You can. Let me. Sit down, Sit down, sit down. Somebody Somebody who does. What about that?

[Christian Apologist]

This is why I didn't want to do this for.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Go ahead. What is it?

[Christian Apologist]

It's okay, man. You can. You can be a Muslim and commit shirk. You can associate partners with Allah.

[Moderator Elijah]

Whenever the two of you are done with your measuring tools, maybe we can put them away.

[Christian Apologist]

I can guarantee you I'm ready to hear his answer.

[Moderator Elijah]

It's not going to get us anywhere. We have a prompt. We have a debate. I'd love to get back.

[Sheikh Uthman]

He's already gone off the prompt.

[Christian Apologist]

No, I didn't. I'm right here.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You're struggling now. Once again, I'm not struggling at all. Your ignorance. When you said you're a shaykh and you said, I'm doing shirk and I'm a mushrik, not understanding what dawabit takfir even is. You don't even know what the word means. If a Muslim does shirk, but he's ignorant of it, he's forced by it. There are many dawabit that he would still remain a Muslim. These are called dawabit, which is forced ignorant.

[Christian Apologist]

You do it by your own free will.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You are ignorant of dawabit. That's why I said, even if a Muslim does shirk, we don't say he's kafir. We don't he's mushrik. Until those safeguards are put into place, which you are absolutely jahil of. So you do not know. You're not a sh. You do not know Islam.

[Christian Apologist]

Now, can I respond to that?

[Moderator Elijah]

I would rather get out of the personal insults, preferably, and get back.

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah, this is all religious. This is all. This is all religious.

[Moderator Elijah]

Okay, but you were. It was all based off of some kind of insult that interrupted when he was trying to answer the. Yes, and. Okay, so I would love to get back to the original prompt, if you gentlemen don't mind, because this personal insult stuff can go off screen somewhere else.

[Christian Apologist]

Can I. So can I reiterate then the question?

[Moderator Elijah]

Do you need the question Re.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I already answered it, so I don't know why we're redoing it over and over again.

[Moderator Elijah]

You were. You were saying yes, and. And then he said something.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So I can finish with yes and no, bro.

[Moderator Elijah]

And then you were on an insult.

[Christian Theologian]

Let me.

[Christian Apologist]

Let me re. Let me reiterate this. The point.

[Moderator Elijah]

Re. Ask the question. It had to do with the.

[Christian Apologist]

With the titles of Allah. And he's saying. And so this is why I said this. This isn't a personal insult. If you, according to Islam, attribute the Names and attributes and titles of Allah to any of his creatures, then you have committed shirk. You have associated a partner with him and you are no longer a Muslim. Now, if you.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

You.

[Christian Apologist]

What you just said is from your Quran.

[Sheikh Uthman]

From your Quran, which I.

[Christian Apologist]

We'll do this in a second. We can talk after.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I speak like that?

[Christian Apologist]

Can I speak.

[Moderator Elijah]

Hold on, let me.

[Christian Apologist]

Let me speak. Please get to the point of this.

[Moderator Elijah]

You asked a very specific question before we went off guards.

[Christian Apologist]

Yes, I'm trying to get there. So, for example, Allah is called the first and the last. Can anybody be identified as the first and the last unqualified? I'm not saying, putting it in a context of I'm the first and last of my parents. No, in a general absolute sense, when they say I am the first and the last, would that be shirk? Would that be associating partner? Can anyone claim to be. To do this, be this and it not be blasphemy, yes or no. And then explain.

[Moderator Elijah]

That's a good point.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So he made a point earlier and then he went to a yes or no.

[Moderator Elijah]

So he's jumping, he's asking the question.

[Sheikh Uthman]

First thing.

[Moderator Elijah]

First thing he qualified to. There was a condition built into asking the question. I'll allow it. The question is a yes or no. Right. So you can offer a qualifier for it. But he asked the question right there at the tail end. That's what I'm looking for.

[Sheikh Uthman]

In the Arabic context, being used without any qualification can only be used for Allah. Now having said that, I will address first thing you said. The Quran says that and you have not given us a verse. You're lying on the Quran.

[Christian Apologist]

I'll give you the verse.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Secondly, you're.

[Christian Apologist]

Go ahead. In chapter four where Allah says that he can't, that he will not forgive. Shirk. And if you don't, and if you don't forgive, and if he doesn't forgive,

[Sheikh Uthman]

you're not a Muslim. You see how he jumped from it? Earlier he said, no, no.

[Christian Apologist]

This is where he stopped on the front anymore.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I.

[Moderator Elijah]

You guys are giving me a run for my money.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay. No, earlier he said, now you're not

[Christian Critic]

on the prompt anymore.

[Sheikh Uthman]

If you use any of the means of Allah like Rahim or Raouf and so on for anybody else, the Quran says your mushrik. Now he doesn't have a verse for that.

[Christian Apologist]

I just did.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, no, you did not. That's just saying shirk. That is not saying. If you give one of the names which are not unique to Allah to other than Allah's creation. That is not shirk. I explained that already. The Prophet is called Rahim. In the Quran, is he called Al Rahim? He can be called Al Rahim as well. In certain contexts, Muhammad can be called Al Rahim. Again, you're jumping off. But you have. Show me the verse from the Quran that you said that if you take any of those names and give them to the creation, it is ship. Yes.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, I just give it to you.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Show me the verse that does not say. That does not say that.

[Christian Apologist]

Brother, you asked me a question.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That verse does not.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, that's cool and all. Let me.

[Moderator Elijah]

You did ask him a question. Go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I appreciate it.

[Christian Apologist]

So the verse in chapter four, ladies and gentlemen, says that there's one sin, there's one sin that Allah does not forgive, and that is shirk. For those who do not know what shirk is like, I guess Uthman doesn't shirk is when you associate a partner with Allah. What does that mean, y'? All? That means when you equate someone with Allah, when you give names and titles that are attributed to Allah, uniquely to Allah, to a creature, to anyone other than Allah in his lordship and his attributes and his names, you are associating a partner, which is. That is shirk. So when he says, hey, guys, there's one sin that I will not forgive, that is shirk. When you associate a partner with me, naming someone, a creature, attributing them names or qualities or attributes that belong only to Allah, to a creature, is shirk, which takes you out of Islam. Allah won't forgive you. And you did that today. You might as well come to Christ now. Let me land this, too.

[Podcast Host]

Come on.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, I'm getting back to the point.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, no, no, hold on, hold on.

[Christian Apologist]

Let me.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah, let me finish my. So in all of this, like you just said, you just said, for example, that Allah being identified as the first and the last, this is something unique to him. No one can be attributed this name and title. So now when we go to the Bible and Jesus identifies himself, he says, I am the first and the last, the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, specifically, first and the last. Can you agree that by Islamic standards that when Jesus claims to be the first and the last, that he's claiming to be God Almighty?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Are you done?

[Christian Apologist]

Yes. No, please expound.

[Podcast Host]

Hey, guys, you know I don't do promos for just anybody. The only reason I'm talking about legends right now is because they completely flip the script look, the reason I know it's different is because I actually met the team in person in Las Vegas. I trust these guys. And how they run the site changes everything. Legends is a premium US Sweepstakes casino. It's free to play, and when you win, they feature lightning fast redemptions. They have a massive game variety, hundreds of premium slots, sports, and live tables. You can play entirely for free. Stop dealing with platforms that lock up your funds. Hit my link right now and go see why Legends has earned its name. Hit the link below.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No. And now I will expand. First off, what's the verse in chapter four?

[Christian Apologist]

Thank you. 48.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Oh, you didn't know it, huh? I got you. Indeed. Allah subhanahu wa ta' ala does not forgive association with him, but he forgives that which is less than that. Now, earlier, what he's caught in the lie of is he says the Quran says that if you take any of the names of Allah and give it to the creation, then that is in the Quran. You're a mushrik. The verse does not state that he lied.

[Christian Apologist]

That's not what I said.

[Sheikh Uthman]

First off, he's interrupting. Now you interrupt the two. No, I did not. I'm gonna speak if you don't mind.

[Moderator Elijah]

Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

If somebody like, no, that is a lie. Right? Secondly, you called me a mushrik without even understanding dawa' bi tul shir, the wabi takfir. You're absolutely ignorant of it. And even here, you're ignorant of it because there are asmaa al husna that can be used for the creation. And any book, a beginning book of aqeedah on Asmaa Hasna, if you picked up, you would have known that. But there are those that are unique to Allah, and the way it befits Allah is unique to Allah. So, for example, Allah has a yad. And if we were to say, oh, you have a yad, that doesn't make me a mushrik. Allah's yad is unique to him, so that does not make me a mushrik. You have a hand. Allah has a hand. Saying that those two exist does not make me a mushrik. You're absolutely ignorant of. Touch be. Now, let me.

[Moderator Elijah]

Let me.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Let me finish.

[Moderator Elijah]

Thank you your time.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Now, when you go to the alpha and omega, that is not awul and

[Christian Apologist]

akhr, because first and the last, not alpha and omega. That's what I'm focusing on.

[Moderator Elijah]

Okay, let's be mindful. Let's be mindful. Let him. Let him finish through his thought. You Want a pen? You can write down some notes.

[Christian Apologist]

That's okay.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

So.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So once again, when you. When you take something that is in the Arabic language and you try to associate with something else, for example, alpha and omega in the Greek Alphabet is the first and last of the Alphabet. In other instances, you can say somebody is the first and the last. If I was to say that Michael Jordan is the alpha and omega of basketball, he is the first and last of basketball, that is not the same as saying Abwal and Akhr in the Arabic language. So for you to say that because of the Arabic, abu and Akhir, that means nobody but Jesus could be called God. By being called that is equating apples and oranges. Secondly, I have not made the point of the Bible saying that alpha and Omega are first and last. My point that he still hasn't addressed the original points was the verses in the Bible that clearly shows that Jesus is not God because he calls out to a God even post resurrection.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so, Sheikh Uthman, I need you to, for the sake of this argument, brother, please track what I'm asking you, man. I'm not asking you about in general, I'm sorry, with qualifications. I actually made it clear so that you wouldn't waste our time talking about. Well, if I said Michael Jordan is the first and the last in basketball, that's a qualification. Whenever you say in this or of that, you're qualifying it. I'm specifically talking about unqualified, which you said, only God can be identified unqualified as the first and the last. So yes or no on this. So I could build my point.

[Sheikh Uthman]

When Jesus says, can I say yes or no? And then we're talking yes.

[Christian Apologist]

I need a yes or no on this because I'm building my point.

[Moderator Elijah]

Asking the question yes.

[Christian Apologist]

When Jesus says I am the first and the last, does he qualify it? Yes or no?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can you give me the verse?

[Christian Apologist]

Revelation, chapter 22, verse 13. He says, I'll read it for you. He says, I am the first and the last, the alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Does he qualify when he says, I am the first and the last?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Revelation 22. What?

[Moderator Elijah]

He just. He just read it to you?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I just quoted it to you, brother. I would like to see it from my own bible.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, verse 13, you got the open. All of them.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Revelations 22, verse 13, 13. Okay. I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

[Christian Apologist]

Does he qualify first and last? Yes or no?

[Sheikh Uthman]

He does not.

[Christian Apologist]

Thank you. All right, so he doesn't qualify.

[Moderator Elijah]

Remember, he's running the line of logic. These are yes or nos. But that means you got to do yes or nos.

[Christian Apologist]

Absolutely, absolutely. So the only I asked him for yes or no to build this point and I'm going to give it over to you. Okay, so remember you said when I asked you, can anyone claim to be the first and the last unqualified? And it's not a claim of being God. Can anyone claim that unqualified? You said, no, that belongs to Allah alone. God alone. So Jesus here, as you just admitted, unqualified claims to be the first and the last. So by your own admission, can you admit that even by Islamic standards Jesus claims to be God?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Absolutely not. I mean you can laugh track all you want, but that's okay. Now once again, you're taking something that is in one language and equating with a different language whether you're saying qualified or not. If I tell my wife you are the first and the last doesn't mean that she's God. That shows my love for her. Absolutely, you're the first and the last. So for me she is no problem with that. Understanding Greek context understanding that the clarification here of Alpha and Omega here in the verse that you quoted, that's why I wanted to bring the verse up myself as well, shows that this is not what we would consider ABW al Akhr in the Quranic context.

[Christian Apologist]

For example.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Let me finish. If you're trying to take something from an Islamic concept and try to prove the Bible by it, that's just not going to work in Islam. For example, if you say God has a son, that by itself would be rejected in the Bible. Obviously that's used all the time. And if in Islam somebody says for example God like you were talking about, God came in the form of a man, that would be shirk by itself. So you cannot take Aww al and Akhir from the Quranic aspect and try to put it with the biblical aspect. The Bible has many things that would not work with that concept to begin with. For example, many gods being referenced. For example gods being judges, for example, many people being sons of God, none of that would work. So if you were to show me in Islamic context Abbar and Akhir, that's different. But seeing the first and the last in a biblical context is not the same. So those two do not match. And my answer is clear to you now.

[Christian Apologist]

No it's not. So watch this. When you said that the first and the last, the first and last in Islam in the Quran is different from the first and last in the Bible. Because that's why. Can you tell me, Listen, Uthman, Uthman, I'll give you a chance, brother. You got all the time in the world. Can you tell us very intricately with verses and references, what is the difference when Allah claims to be the first and the last in the Quran and when Jesus claims to be the first and last in the Bible, what's the difference?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Absolutely. First thing I didn't say, just why. So don't put words in my mouth. Thank you so much. Stay out of my mouth. Now, secondly, yeah, secondly, we're talking about two absolutely different languages. What's the difference? Please don't interrupt me.

[Moderator Elijah]

He's getting there.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So we're talking about two absolutely different languages that use language differently. So you cannot take something from one language and bring it into another language. For example, the word son, as you have seen in the Bible, it has been used for other than even Jesus, right? Sons of God. That could never work in the Quran. So if I was to say, hey, because in Islam, Allah has no son, son is not used.

[Christian Apologist]

So it means the same thing.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I, Can I.

[Christian Apologist]

Sorry.

[Christian Debater]

You know what?

[Christian Apologist]

My bad.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Does not mean the same thing. Because here, obviously, because you are using an Islamic context into the Bible. Just like the Bible's language would not work in the Quran, you cannot take the Arabic of the Quran and try to bring it in the Bible. Those are two different things. In Hebrew, in Greek, certain terms are used in certain ways for other than God, other than even the pious people and so on. That would not be in Islam. So when in the Quran it says Allah has no sons, if you were to say, oh, if you bring that in the Bible, would that mean that these are not sons? Well, as you know, in the Old Testament and even in the New Testament, son is used as a term of endearment. That's why there are sons of God, whether they're angels or pious. That would not work in the Arabic language, but it did in Hebrew, in Greek and so on. So I do not say that the awal and akhir of the Quran can be used in the Bible. They're two different languages that do not correlate. Okay, so that is not just why.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, but yes, it is. It's because that's why. Look, Uthman, I'm going to break down what you just did. You just said it's different languages. That's why it's different.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Hold on, I'm gonna let you speak.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Thank you.

[Christian Apologist]

I let you get it all out. So I'M about to break this down to you in very, very simple terms. I'm gonna give you examples, since you love to use examples. Allah says he does not beget or is he or is begotten when he says he does not beget. But when Jesus says that God for God so love the world that he sent his only begotten Son. Or in Hebrews chapter one, where it says about Jesus, today I've become a father to you. Today I have begotten you. Let me just ask you yes or no, because I'm building my point. When it says, today I have begotten you, can that language be used in the Quran? Yes or no?

[Moderator Elijah]

It is a. It's an easy yes or no.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No problem. But I'm going to clarify that, right?

[Christian Apologist]

No, it's a yes or no.

[Moderator Elijah]

Can it or can it not?

[Sheikh Uthman]

It cannot.

[Christian Apologist]

Thank you.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, no, no. I cannot. I cannot be told. You can't clarify your point.

[Moderator Elijah]

Hold on. She's finishing the line of logic. Finish it? Yes, it's a lot.

[Christian Apologist]

It's a line of logic.

[Moderator Elijah]

These are how line of logics work. It's a yes or no. I see.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I understand it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I know where.

[Moderator Elijah]

I know what he's doing right now in terms of trying to get this.

[Christian Apologist]

Even Ahmad gets it. All right, so that language cannot be used in the Quran. But wait, I thought it's different. It's a different language. So what about begotten in the Arabic? Wouldn't that work? But no, he rejects it. He rejects all these terms. He rejects sonship in any sense. He rejects being begotten in any way, shape or form. He rejects these terms. It doesn't matter what language you use. If I say in Spanish that Allah is begotten, guess what? I'm a mushrik. I'm a disbeliever. Right? So according to you, when you say, oh, the language is different, so therefore it doesn't mean the same. According to what? When I say Allah and I say deals, do that mean the same thing?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Unless it does not.

[Moderator Elijah]

I'm going to let you do your response and then we're going to maneuver into some final statements. So then we'll go to you and then you. But yeah, I want you to have one more response to that and then you build your, your final into that.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah, Absolutely not. If you were to say Allah and Diyus, it would not be the same thing. Even though sometimes the word Diyus is used for translation, even the word God does not befit Allah because God has gender for example, goddess. And Allah is unique to that. I'm gonna speak now. I haven't interrupted now once again. So the childish attitude here is pathetic, where you would say that just because one word has the same meaning in other language, does that mean every word in that language has the same meaning? Absolutely not. So, for example, when we talk about sons of God in the Bible, there are references where it's not for the begotten. And that is something that, according to Christians and Jews, whether you go to Rashi or others is a reference to just people for piety or angels, not literal sons. So here that son would be different in use than begotten son. Here you could say that these were pious people that were close. For example, even in the Arabic language, walad is used for endearment. For example, if I was to say walad, come speak to me in endearment, that is used. And that would mean that you are wrong. Your equation is wrong. Sorry, what is walad? No, can I finish? Can I finish?

[Christian Apologist]

I'll just ask for clarity. What does walid mean?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Walid means son. Oh, yeah. And it's a term of endearment, not of necessarily, of physical relation. So even if I told you, oh, child, come here, my son, I don't mean that I literally had intercourse with your mother. What I mean is a term of endearment. In that sense, yes, you could use it. But in the sense of actual physical children of God, that would not work. So equating one aspect of one language to another is childish. It's a trick. Now, if we go to the word dios or God, those words are only represented when somebody doesn't understand the concept of Allah. Because the word God does not equate to Allah. God can be used for other than Allah. While the word Allah is unique to Allah, God has gender, way, could be goddess. So your dios example is also wrong. And in the end, should I finish or should I let him?

[Moderator Elijah]

We'll let him do a final and then. Yeah, so build it into your final, because I know you have a response to that. Take your time with it. I know. I see where you're going. I know what you want to do. Go ahead.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so, Sheikh, you completely undermined your entire rebuttal when you just admitted that son of endearment or walid in Arabic. The word for sun in English can be used, I guess, as a term of endearment. It can still work in the Arabic because it means that in a particular context. That's how it defines. So what you just showed me is that words even in different languages can still work in the Quran, in the Bible, in other different whatever walk you're coming from. So when you say when the. When the. And by the way, this will be also. It's also interesting, anybody can look this up. Look up Revelation 22:13 in an Arabic Bible. Look up Revelation chapter 1, verse 17 in an Arabic Bible. It says the same thing, the same name, the same titles that is said in the Quran. And so when you look this up, his whole excuse of well the languages are different doesn't even work. We were just having fun with that. So by your own admission, let me just work this off to my closing. By your own admission, the unqualified titles of Allah cannot be applied to anyone else. When it's unqualified for Allah like the first and the last, only God can have those titles. These are your words, not mine. I agree with you though. And so when Jesus says I am the first and the last unqualified, that demonstrates even by your own standards that Jesus is claiming to be God Almighty. And what you did was, is when you saw the problem, you still said no. You said no because you couldn't admit that even in the Bible Jesus claims to be God. And your prompt is over.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Once again the concept that you brought of sun also clearly indicates that languages do not go over equation. This is why I said son as the scenes of begotten or would not work with the Arabic language, but sun in the sense of endearment would. So that means first and last has to be understood in the same manner. When you say first and last in a different language, it works different than Awad and Akhr in the Arabic language. Even in that context you were wrong. Secondly, when you said the Arabic Bible, the childish thing here is the fact that the Bible wasn't written in Arabic, it was written Koneic Greek. So all your actual understanding of the words have to come from Koneic Greek, not from Arabic. Those are translations and they wildly vary because the Arabic Quran is the original language of the Quran, not of the Bible. So Quranic Arabic cannot be understood to understand biblical theological concepts. That would be in Greek and you know that, but you brought that up to show your ignorance. Last thing I will say on this, you did not address any of the point from the prompt that all the verses that I had mentioned, he didn't address any of them. He just ran on this first and the last point which according. That's why I brought up the verse itself because Alpha and omega, the qualifiers that are used in there are used for other than God. First and last are used. Yes. In the Greek language, alpha and omega can be used for other than God. You can Google that. Show the.

[Christian Apologist]

Show the verse. I'm sorry. Show the verse.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Shake hands, gentlemen.

[Moderator Elijah]

This was beautiful. I love it.

[Podcast Host]

If you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel. It helps us grow the podcast. It means a lot to us. Thank you so much.

[Moderator Elijah]

All right, and we already know the prompt, but if you do want to say it again, please, Elijah, if you

[Sheikh Uthman]

want, you can say it. Just. Should we start or.

[Moderator Elijah]

Let's go. It's all on you.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Jesus is not almighty God according to the Bible.

[Christian Debater]

Okay, you agree that according to the Bible, Yahweh is the almighty God?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I believe that is one of the names used for God in the Bible. But again, as you have seen, in the Bible, names are used differently. Even BAAL was referenced once, and then it was taken not as the names of God.

[Christian Debater]

Is Yahweh the name of the almighty God?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes.

[Christian Debater]

Okay, can you open up to Psalm

[Sheikh Uthman]

83:18 and that they may know that you whose name along alone is the Lord are the most high over all the earth.

[Christian Debater]

That Lord is in all caps, right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

It is.

[Christian Debater]

And you know what it means when the Lord is in all caps?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, I don't think the original Bible is written in caps, so.

[Christian Debater]

No, it's not. That's why in English, they. They make sure that we're able to identify what's there in the Hebrew. So do you what it means when the Lord is in all caps?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I would assume that's a reference to being God.

[Christian Debater]

Well, specifically in the Hebrew, it's the divine name Yahweh. Okay, so it says that you alone whose name is Yahweh is the most high God. Right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, so.

[Christian Debater]

So Yahweh alone is the most high God, right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

According to this verse, yes.

[Christian Debater]

Okay, cool. So now can we go to Jeremiah 23, verse 5, 6? You understand that Jesus is the Messiah?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I do believe he is the Messiah. Yeah.

[Christian Debater]

Yes. Yeah. Okay. He's specifically the Messiah. And the Messiah comes from David 23, verse 5 and 6.

[Sheikh Uthman]

23:5. Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord on all caps. That I will raise to David a branch of the righteousness. A king shall reign and prosper and execute judgment and the righteous in the earth.

[Christian Debater]

All right, can we stop there real quick?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure.

[Christian Debater]

So you understand that this is speaking about the Messiah? The Messiah all throughout The Scriptures is named the righteous king that comes from David. You understand that, right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, so I do want to understand something here then. So the Lord here, Yahweh, is not the one that's coming. He's the one speaking.

[Christian Debater]

Yeah, Yahweh is speaking.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yahweh speaking?

[Christian Debater]

Yeah, Yahweh is speaking.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That I will raise. God will raise to David righteousness, and that's the Messiah. A king shall reign and prosper and execute judgment and righteousness on earth.

[Christian Debater]

Okay, and that's the Messiah, right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Who is that referring to?

[Christian Debater]

The Messiah? David. The righteous branch of David, who's going to be a king and execute judgment in the land. That's the Messiah.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, but again, according to Jewish scholars who study this, this is the Messiah, not a reference to Jesus.

[Christian Debater]

That doesn't. Right now you believe that Jesus is the Messiah. They don't believe that a Messiah is here. I'm not here arguing a Jew. I'm here arguing somebody who knows that Jesus is the Messiah. What the Jews do say about this verse is that this verse is a messianic prophecy and they don't know who their Messiah is. So that's not what we're talking about right now. This verse, even according to the Jews, is speaking about the Messiah.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, are you done?

[Christian Debater]

Yeah, I'm done.

[Moderator Elijah]

It's okay. This is healthy. This is good.

[Christian Debater]

It's. We're getting there. So this verse is speaking about the Messiah. Yahweh is saying, I will raise up for David a righteous branch. He will reign as king and deal wisely and execute justice and righteousness in the land. Speaking about the Messiah, he makes it very clear. Can you read verse six?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay. In his days, Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely. Now that is his name, by which he will be called, which is the Lord of righteousness.

[Christian Debater]

Is that Lord in all caps?

[Sheikh Uthman]

It is. And righteousness also. I don't know why.

[Christian Debater]

Yeah, because that name specifically that's attributed to that person is Yahweh, which we don't see that happen anywhere else because as Psalm 83:18 says, Yahweh alone is the most high. This just called the Messiah the most high. You know that Jesus is the Messiah. So very clearly in the Bible, Jesus is the most high.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Good. You done? All right, cool.

[Moderator Elijah]

Go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So first thing, my belief in Masih in the Messiah is that he's not God. So if you're asking me.

[Christian Debater]

What?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Thank you so much. Yeah, because you kept asking me. You believe this. So I'm just explaining my belief. Then My belief is not based on this, okay? My belief is based on the Quran and that tells us that he is a Messiah, but he's a slave of God. He's not God himself. Okay. Secondly here it has some statements that Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell in safety. That never happened in the lifetime of Jesus that I know of on earth even according to Christian or Jewish scholars. That's why Jewish scholars who study these texts have said Jesus does not fit this Messiah. Right. Thirdly, which I would like to make a point that you said in caps, even our righteousness is all in caps and this qualifies the Lord our righteousness altogether. Very interestingly, if you believe that this Messiah is God and he was sent by God, then even by your own admission you have two gods.

[Christian Debater]

No? So can you read the prompt again?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure, yeah. Jesus is not almighty God according to the Bible.

[Christian Debater]

Okay, so according to the Bible where it says that Yahweh alone is the most high God and it says that the Messiah who's being spoken about here is Yahweh, then according to the Bible the Messiah is the most high God. Right.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, let me read the prompt again, yes or no?

[Christian Debater]

Let me finish.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You just read it once because the

[Christian Debater]

word's not going to change when you read it again.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Then why'd you ask me to read again?

[Christian Debater]

Because you got off topic.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'm not off topic. You start talking about Europe now you're

[Moderator Elijah]

interrupting the Quran or we're going to dive into the text. I think you guys need to really,

[Sheikh Uthman]

if you don't mind the reason as to why Jesus is not almighty God. According to the Bible, this in no way, shape or form mentions the word of Jesus or that this is Jesus himself. That's why here it is your belief set that this reference is to Jesus, not the verses in the Bible.

[Christian Debater]

Is Jesus the Messiah?

[Moderator Elijah]

Right. We went in the message, I already explained that, that thought process of this. So I go ahead and elaborate on that because I know where you want to go with that.

[Christian Debater]

Yeah. So here as a matter of fact, let's go to Luke 24 verses 44 on. Because you understand that the, the Greek word for Messiah is Christ. So if we see that Jesus calls himself the Christ and this is a messianic prophecy, then you see that Jesus recognizes himself as the Messiah. So let's go to Luke 24 and we could start at verse 44, I believe.

[Sheikh Uthman]

24. What?

[Christian Debater]

We can start at verse 44.

[Sheikh Uthman]

24, 44.

[Christian Debater]

Yeah, I believe so.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Then he said to them, these are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you. And that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the laws of Moses and the prophet and the psalms concerning me.

[Christian Debater]

Keep going. We can stop at verse 46.

[Sheikh Uthman]

And he opened the understanding that they might comprehend the Scripture. Then he said to them, thus it is written. And thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the death of the third day. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached by his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses.

[Christian Debater]

You can stop there.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay.

[Christian Debater]

You just started. So congratulations. You just started preaching the Gospel. That's beautiful.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So I like this little.

[Christian Debater]

So you see that. You see that Jesus clarifies and says that he is the Christ, right? Which is the Messiah, Right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I mean, I'm letting you speak.

[Moderator Elijah]

He's asking if you agree.

[Christian Debater]

He says that he's the Christ, right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I do agree that he claims to be the Messiah.

[Christian Debater]

Okay. And in Jeremiah 23, this is a messianic prophecy. So Jesus is identifying himself as the Messiah. And in Jeremiah 23, does it say that the Messiah's name is Yahweh? Yes or no?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I don't see the Greek here, but I see the Lord. Yes.

[Christian Debater]

We could. You could pull up the Hebrew. I could pull it up for you.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay.

[Christian Debater]

You want me to.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, no. I have a question about this first, though.

[Christian Debater]

Does this. Okay, can you answer mine first?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure.

[Christian Debater]

Does Jeremiah. You'll concede that. So. So. Okay, cool. Then it's done.

[Sheikh Uthman]

It's not done. Let me explain why. First thing. First thing, you're.

[Christian Debater]

Who's next?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Now you just want to run. That's quick. It's funny. Yeah.

[Christian Debater]

We're in a time crunch, right?

[Moderator Elijah]

Like if everybody. If. If he wants to. If he wants to. I'm sure he wants to.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Rebuttal, if you don't mind. Yes. So again, rebuttal to his own concession.

[Christian Debater]

Go ahead, bro.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You want to run, you can run, bro.

[Christian Debater]

No problem.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Go for it. Put somebody else.

[Christian Debater]

You want to talk?

[Sheikh Uthman]

If you don't mind.

[Christian Debater]

You just say it then.

[Moderator Elijah]

I don't want the meta.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So here you're saying a king shall reign and prosper and execute judgment and righteousness on earth. This day Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell in safety. When did happen? That happened in the lifetime of Jesus.

[Christian Debater]

Is that talking about the Messiah?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah, it is. This is worth you pointing. Jesus is the Messiah according to you. This is the reference. But these don't match.

[Christian Debater]

So we'll do closing.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Doesn't match.

[Christian Debater]

You just conceded that the Messiah.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I just conceded that Jesus claimed to be a Messiah, but your reference doesn't match Jesus.

[Christian Debater]

You just conceded that Jesus is the mess in. In Jeremiah 23, and you just conceded that the Messiah in Jeremiah 23 is Yahweh, and Yahweh alone is the most high God. That's what you just did. So very clearly, according to the Bible, Jesus is God in the Bible. That's all that needs to be said. I think that's it. It was a good try.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I appreciate that.

[Moderator Elijah]

I will allow, if you. If you want to make a final statement and.

[Christian Apologist]

Or.

[Moderator Elijah]

Because that sounded like your final statement. Correct. Okay. So if you. Okay. If I can have quiet in the room, please. We are still doing this. If you would like to make a final statement.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You asked me a question and I answered it. But when I asked you a question, you just ran from it. I told you in this verse that you're trying to tie with Jesus. There is a qualifier that these days Judah will be saved and Israel will dwell in safety and so on that are not there. And when I asked you that, you didn't even answer. You just ran from it. So this reference being Jesus, whether the New Testament claims Jesus is that Messiah or not is very different from saying that this fits Jesus. It doesn't. And you didn't answer that. So nice try. Have a nice day.

[Christian Debater]

Yeah.

[Moderator Elijah]

So thank you, gentlemen. Well done.

[Podcast Host]

Thanks for watching. All the way to the end, guys. Please hit like and subscribe. It helps us grow the show and helps us get bigger guests. Thank you so much.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

It's all good. Where do we begin, man?

[Moderator Elijah]

All right, go ahead and just state your prompt, and that'll kick him off.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Jesus is not almighty God according to the Bible.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Jesus Christ is not almighty God according to the Bible. You quoted a lot of verses. I've been sitting there all day just listening to verses being quoted by yourself. Verses being quoted by my compatriots here as well. So I do want to ask you a question. If Jesus said that he was the Almighty, would you say that he would be almighty God according to the Bible?

[Sheikh Uthman]

That's a strange question. Can you qualify that? What does that mean?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

If Jesus says, okay, if I said, I, Jerome, I'm the Almighty, like I look in that camera there. I said, I, Jerome, I'm the Almighty. I said to you, I'm the Almighty,

[Sheikh Uthman]

you would not be.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

No. Would I be claiming to be God?

[Sheikh Uthman]

You would claim that, but that doesn't mean you are.

[Christian Theologian]

Cool.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So first of all before we can get to Jesus being God, let's see if he even claims it. Would that be fair?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, so if Jesus said, I am the Almighty, would he be claiming to be God?

[Sheikh Uthman]

That would be a claim made, yes.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Would you agree that he's claiming to be God?

[Sheikh Uthman]

What's your question?

[Moderator Elijah]

What he's asking is if I make a claim to say the same whether

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

you did it for me, it's okay.

[Moderator Elijah]

So if I made a claim to say I'm the best moderator, you would

[Sheikh Uthman]

definitely be making that claim. But that may not be true.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

She'd be making the claim that she's the best mob.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, so same way. The same way that you use your reasoning, Glory to God. Could you use that same reasoning and apply that to. If Jesus said, I'm the Almighty, would he be saying Almighty God, Would he be claiming that Almighty what? What other Almighty can you be?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I mean, people go all the time, they say, I'm the Almighty in this and that Almighty what? Again, when you ask Almighty and Almighty God, I just want to clarify between that. Are you asking me, does he say, I am almighty God, or is there.

[Moderator Elijah]

No, no, just hold your thoughts. Hold on. He's trying to get through it.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I'm allowing you to finish. I'm not going to be disrespectful.

[Sheikh Uthman]

If somebody says I am the Almighty, that does not necessitate that he's saying he's God.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Are you very sure about that?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I think so. You're asking a question. Okay, but I mean, if you want to make that reference, let's do it.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I mean, that's you. I mean, now we know your character. Look, here's the thing that I want to say. Look, if I claim. Remember how we started off this conversation? We're very cordial. We're very nice with each other. If I say I'm the Almighty, you said I would be claiming to be God.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, if you made that. Can I finish?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Yeah, go on.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You said, if I said I am the Almighty, am I making that claim? I said, yes, you are.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So I am making.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I would say that the claim that I am Almighty God is much clearer than somebody simply saying I'm the Almighty.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, so remember how I'm just used your words. You said to me, and I take, you're an honorable man. You said to me that if I, Jerome said, I looked at that camera right there with all my acne and I said, look, I am the Almighty. That means I'm claiming to be. I'm claiming to be God you're making

[Sheikh Uthman]

a claim of being the Almighty? That is correct.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay. Am I making the claim that I'm God?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Not necessarily.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

In what other way? And this is. This is what? You know what? You're a sheikh. Please, scholar. Could you please tell me what other words Almighty can mean?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure. There's movies called the Almighty, Norm and Almighty, this and that. You can go Google them.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Sorry.

[Christian Debater]

Sorry.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

We're quoting movies as your evidence.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Is this what we're doing again? You said? Yes, I am quoting movies as evidence because you're asked, how can Almighty be used for other than God? There are movies called Almighty, Bruce. Right. There are movies. Given that.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

You mean the movie Bruce Almighty?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure. Why not?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay. We've all seen the movie.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, no, no, no. We've all seen the movie.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

We've all seen the movie. We've seen the movie. Okay, okay.

[Moderator Elijah]

Look, look.

[Christian Debater]

Go, go. I.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Look, I like you.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

You lie a lot. But this is what I'm trying to say to you, okay? And I don't mean that you're dishonest. I don't mean you're dishonest.

[Christian Critic]

It's okay.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Obviously. Here's what I'm trying to do. Please, we understand. I understand the way that you're running things. I won't disrespect you. And we all know that when I'm saying this is for a joke. Okay. We're not obviously calling you a liar.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I don't see this as a joke, but it's okay.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

It's a German joke. It's not meant to be funny. Here's the thing that I have to say to you. So my problem with you is this. You said Bruce Almighty. We all know the premise of that movie is that Bruce Almighty becomes God for a day.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'll let you finish.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So when Bruce Almighty is called Bruce Almighty, he's being called God, okay?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Now, just because he's called Almighty, does that necessitate that he's God in the movie?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Yes, because he's God for a day.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Gotcha. So do you believe Bruce is God? I don't believe Bruce is God.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I believe that Bruce was claimed to be God in the movie. I don't believe in the movie. It's divine scripture, though. So let's get back to it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, get back to it.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So your example proved, BT Dubs, that that guy was God. Okay, let's just put that there for the side. Now, here's what we need to do. You need to show me, either that you can call yourself Almighty and you're not God. Even though the prompt right here, and everyone can read it out says, Jesus is not almighty God. Could you be an almighty? Not God, please.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, if you're saying in the linguistic sense, yes, you could. You could be almighty in other things.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Do you know what the word is?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes, I do know the word. What's the all powerful Almighty?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

The Greek word? The word that we use?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I don't know.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay. Pantokrato. Yeah. So pantokrata, literally, you are having might over every single thing conceivably existing. You understand that, right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Is that for everything existing? Has it been used in Greek for other than God?

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

No.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Are you sure?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Pantocrato.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

When Christ says, I am Pantocrato. Specifically, when Christ is making that any single person that use the term pantokrato is claiming that absoluteness.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, so where is this made?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

When Christ says it?

[Sheikh Uthman]

When.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, you have a red letter Bible with you, right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I do, yeah.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, pull up Revelation 1:8 1:8 right here. Read it out, please.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end says the Lord, who is and was and who is to come? The Almighty.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

What color is it?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Red. So who said it according to this? Jesus.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So Jesus said, I'm the Almighty.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You know what's interesting is I do have a Bible.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

And what does the Bible say this is again, I don't care about commentaries. No, no, no, hold on.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

No, no.

[Sheikh Uthman]

He's going to cut it off.

[Christian Debater]

Right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

He says this is a shorter reading of Omega as found in the manuscripts earlier. The longer reading, which indicates the beginning and the end of the Almighty, is not found in the early manuscripts. That this is a little reason why scribes would have deleted some words in the shorter. So it shows that this indicates this was a secondary addition to the text. Okay, so remember your whole biblical.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I'm just going to continue. No, your biblical. You're trying to debunk me by using not the Bible. You understand, right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So you said, I'm going to the Bible. You're trying to use people that aren't the Bible to debunk my biblical claim. That's fine. That's like me. Whoa, you interrupted me. And that's okay. I don't have a problem with it. Okay.

[Moderator Elijah]

It goes both ways. Go ahead.

[Podcast Host]

Exactly.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

It goes both ways. So here's what I want to do. Okay. Here's what I want to do. Okay. If you want to look at my scholars, of course. I wouldn't quote anyone that just has an Islamic PhD like Sabah Mahmoud. Okay. She thinks that Islam can be Updated. Obviously, she's not a scholar for you.

[Christian Debater]

Right?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

She's not exactly. She thinks that there are certain problems. You could sort of mix feminism and Islam together. You wouldn't call her a scholar, would you?

[Moderator Elijah]

Right.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I don't know.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I don't know who that is. That's my point. So my point, though is I wouldn't take unknown people that aren't authorities upon me. You know the kind of Christian that I am. I'm an Orthodox Christian.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Right.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So who are my authorities with man? Do you know?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'll let you speak and tell us. I know the Orthodox Church, but I don't know you.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

But I'm not going to because you're a man. I'm not going to tell you things you already know. So do you know it or not?

[Sheikh Uthman]

The Orthodox Church takes the authorities.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Who are my authorities?

[Sheikh Uthman]

The Orthodox Church.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay. And in the Orthodox Church, who are the authorities?

[Sheikh Uthman]

You tell me.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Do you know it?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I don't.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay. Thank you. You don't know this?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I don't.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Here's what I want to do. The authorities are the church fathers, the fathers of the Church. If you could look at those scholars, could you show me any of those church fathers that said Jesus didn't say that.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That you're done. Okay, first thing, I don't know your church fathers.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I know you don't.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, please don't. Sorry.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

That was.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I apologize.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sorry. Thank you.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Your church fathers can hold any view they like, but these are not church fathers. These are people from cross denominations who came together looking at manuscripts. So if your manuscripts don't have them, then for you to just say, well, if my church father said it's there, it's there. This is Taqlid. Then there's no discussion. Again. Again, I do want to pick up.

[Moderator Elijah]

Write it down.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Write it down.

[Christian Theologian]

Write it down.

[Moderator Elijah]

Write it down. We're going to come back. So he didn't interrupt you? Let's.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I mean, he did.

[Moderator Elijah]

He did, but he didn't. He did, but he didn't. Okay, you're trying to interrupt to. To tack on something. Okay, let's get through the thought.

[Sheikh Uthman]

When you have verses that were not in original context, they were not in original Bibles that were written in sometime 7th century, 10 or 12 centuries later, you can say, my church fathers accept them. That's up to you. But biblically, those are additions. And again, I can definitely sit with you offline. We can go over early manuscripts and you can go through them to understand from a manuscript perspective what that means. Not a theological perspective that you have made taqlid, or blind following of your church fathers, Arabic.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So I'm not going to do it. So here's what I'm going to do, right. I'm actually going to address the cane because I think you finished. There's no other things you're going to say. It's fine.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I did have something to say, but please continue.

[Moderator Elijah]

I thought that was a pause too. Right. Looked at me.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So here's the thing that I want to say, okay, Number one, when we talk about biblical data, we want to talk about the earliest manuscripts those church fathers used, earlier Christian manuscripts. So when they quote that verse, they're using manuscripts that aren't even extant to us today. They're using earlier manuscripts. For example, St. Jerome, when he was making his translation of the Bible, when he was making the Bible for the Pope and things like this, he says for himself, I'm using the ancient manuscripts. That means that those manuscripts that Jerome was using weren't ancient for us, they were ancient for him. So he had access to data that even we might not have access to. And if he had it in his one, and if other Christian fathers of the Church, for example, St. Augustine, who used Jerome's translations as well, if he had it in his one, that would mean it was there. Now, here's the thing that I want to get at too. You said I addressed this point. It's ok if I want to build.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I address on that?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

You want to address Jerome.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I do want to address that point.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay. So my point, just to reiterate so that you can actually address this thing. Does Jerome say it's not in there?

[Sheikh Uthman]

That's not what I want to address. So my.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So what are you going to use?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I speak and then I can address.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Go ahead, man.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So the first thing is for you to say there was a manuscript that is not existent today. Right. So that means we don't have those manuscripts today. Then that doesn't prove it existed. What if there were references people made? They could be referenced from their own theologically, people added to the references. And you can find that in First John 5. 7 very easily. Can I finish? Can I finish? If you don't mind. That was a clear.

[Moderator Elijah]

Sometimes it's better if you just keep talking and then I can stop them while you keep talking.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I'm not ever gonna again derail.

[Moderator Elijah]

I see the derailment. We'll come back to it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So here, for example, in 1 John 5:7, you will find the Heavenly Father, the ward and the Holy Spirit, these were infamous additions from later generations. Evidence both external and internal show that they are against their authenticity. The reading is not found except in late 10th century MSS manuscripts. These range from 10th to 18th century. The oldest manuscripts do not contain these. Before the 14th century we do not find this documented. Thus it is sure evidence the reading in Greek is a fabrication to prove the trinitarian formula. So what does that mean? That means that, yes, later and Psirmis probably altered the text because of political, theological, economic concerns. This is right here in a cross denominational Bible study that is telling you that these additions were made into the Bible. So if they're not in the manuscripts that you have, you cannot say just because a church father quoted it, it existed.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I'm sorry, so if the church father quoted it, then they're quoting something that exists. You understand how a quotation works. If you quote, for example, that book, does that book exist? Uthman just says yes or no. If you quote that book, that's right there in front of us that we can all see, does that book exist?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, your, your paradigm is incorrect because you're busy.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Yes, that's an easy answer.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That's, that's basic because you're saying it's right there in front of us. You quantified that.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

No.

[Sheikh Uthman]

If not again, let me finish.

[Moderator Elijah]

Now hold on, hold on.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I said yes.

[Moderator Elijah]

Allow me, allow me to translate here, please. What you're saying is the church fathers are quoting something. You're even telling him your church fathers are quoting something. Correct?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Means a thing.

[Moderator Elijah]

So that means what are we quoting? That has to cite from something. Something has to exist in order for me to quote from it, Right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

It does not.

[Christian Critic]

Because.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

And that's why he's asking, how can you quote another.

[Moderator Elijah]

I'm not done yet, gentlemen. And that's why he's asking you, you are quoting from this book right here. You are citing it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes.

[Moderator Elijah]

Okay, now if that book, if I threw it out the door and it's not with us here, does that still mean that you can still quote that book? Yes.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Excellent question. So let me respond to that. Now when a church father quotes something, unless we can review that and check it, we don't know if it actually existed or if he was adding something of his own. As things have been added to the Bible and I've proven it from a biblical study. Now if I have a book here, if I have a book here and I'm quoting it, that's one thing. If I come to you right now and said I read in A book. This and this and this. You are perfectly in your presence to say, can you bring me or show me that book? Because I don't know what you are quoting to be authentic or not. Can I finish speaking, Son?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Son?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah, son.

[Christian Debater]

Wow.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Why do I have to tell you

[Sheikh Uthman]

my English if I call you son?

[Moderator Elijah]

Let's not go first.

[Sheikh Uthman]

If you come here and quote a book to me.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Yes.

[Sheikh Uthman]

For me to say, can you show me that book? Is perfectly acceptable. And if you don't have that original book, then I can definitely lay doubt to its authenticity, as has been done by Christian scholars right here.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So the Christian scholars that had. So this is the thing that I want to talk about. Okay. Because you're doing this thing where you are mentioning random academics that I don't necessarily care about those particular Christians. They are academics specifically. Do they call themselves authorities on the subject? Those people that you want to quote, do they say, I'm an authority of the subject. And if they say that, I would even grant that. Does the church at large. Do the Christian community at large, the analysis, these texts say they are authorities to make this claim? Just say yes or no. That's what I want.

[Moderator Elijah]

You brought up the authenticity.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes.

[Moderator Elijah]

He's dismantling it. I think that's fair.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Thank you. Sure.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes. And I will read the quote from them, which is from the print house here. That 1995 multiple denominational team of more than 25 of the world's foremost biblical scholars.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

What does a scholar mean? Does authority.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Biblical scholars gathered around a shared version and the vision of creating a biblical text that is checked against manuscripts and so on.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So now can I finish speaking now?

[Sheikh Uthman]

You are interrupting me now when you.

[Moderator Elijah]

I want to ask a question. Can we define what a scholar is? What's a scholar to say? A scholar versus an authority are two very different things.

[Christian Critic]

Yeah.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

What's a scholar?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I think it's. Again, what is it? A scholar. And it's not necessarily my definition, but the definition that is taken is somebody who studies and is an authority in that text.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

When did they tell you that?

[Sheikh Uthman]

This is what they mentioned, that they were scholars now?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

No, it doesn't say that they're authorities.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I did not say they were authorities. I read.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

You literally did. Did he not. Can I finish speaking to a third party? Did he not say their authority? He said, yes, and I'll quote them.

[Moderator Elijah]

The entirety of the authority has been subject to this conversation.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Thank you.

[Moderator Elijah]

Why?

[Christian Debater]

We're.

[Moderator Elijah]

Quite frankly, I don't want to get into the deep dive semantics of whether this is an authority of the Bible or not? Hold on, stop. But if that's the case, we're going to take it back to your initial piece of the red line. Red line warning. Because that's how we veered off.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Exactly. So, so here's the problem that we have. So just to round off that, because he gave a lot of words and I need to make sure I say a lot of words because I have a lot to say. You say a lot of words because you have to say something. But we need to make sure that we're keeping to the substance. Here's what I want to say. Absolutely. Because you quoted people that you couldn't prove. Our authorities. You just said that they're scholars. A scholar is just a person that learns. It's a person that's learned. It's a person that went to university to study, for example. I went to university. Am I a scholar? No, obviously not. Right. It takes much more time. It takes much more things to be doing things. And even if I got to that level, that wouldn't make me an authority on the subject unless the community that I administer to says that I am. Nobody said that they were. You picked 25 random people that nobody cares about and said that those people are authoritative as to what the Bible's supposed to say. And then I give you actual authorities of the church, people who oversaw massive communities of millions of people. And those people quoted those extant texts. And you said, eh, I don't really care. That's fine. To get back to the red letter, which is actually included for those people in there. And the reason they include it is because it is in other versions as well, in other manuscripts as well. And it's in all the early patriotic citations, for example, in the 2000 AD as well, which you know of, or maybe you don't, which is fine. It says that Jesus says Almighty. So let's get back to the actual substance. Jesus says, I'm the Almighty in Revelation because you were quoting red letter, not me. In your red letter, he says that he's Almighty. What does he mean by that?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Excellent. So going back to your point, first thing you said, authority. Is there a consensus amongst Christians? No, no, that's not gonna. I'm not gonna jump.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

You said it's the last thing. And then we're gonna go back.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I mean, I have to be able

[Moderator Elijah]

to nail back on to the credit. But we either accept the writing as it is or we don't. Because again, we're gonna use it. We accept it or we don't. And if, if not, if you'd love

[Sheikh Uthman]

to take my Bible away,

[Christian Theologian]

are we

[Moderator Elijah]

rejecting it in its entirety because it's not an authority, or are we accepting it for the purposes of the conversation?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, what I'm saying is, when he says what is an authority? Can you not interrupt me, please?

[Moderator Elijah]

I'm handling it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

She's handling it. When you're saying an authority, the first thing I would like to say, that he's making the Church fathers and his Orthodox Church as the authority, his church leadership. That's not a consensus even amongst Christians. Many Christians sitting here are not Orthodox. They would not take the Orthodox Church as an authority. Many Christians, Christians would not take even the Church fathers as an ultimate authority. I have debated Christians who say we go solely by what is proven from the biblical manuscripts, not by the writings of men. Catholics, for example, would have their own chain of authority that would go to popes. So for him to say that, I'm not going to go to. Can I, can I, can I finish speaking without being interrupted? So I'm not taking 25 random people. These are cross denominational scholars of the Christian faith who have studied it way more than me and you put together. So don't tell me you're just taking random people. As far as authority and scholar goes, this is something that's going to be up for debate amongst your Christian people as well. Who's going to take what's in authority? But if you're quoting to me verses that clearly were not in early manuscripts that were added, then I'm not going to credit them as authentic.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, Church Father texts do count as manuscript citations and manuscript data. So if I show you a church,

[Sheikh Uthman]

are you saying there's consensus on that amongst the Christian faith?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So academics you were talking about, because those people, academics, and you couldn't tell

[Sheikh Uthman]

me one of their names, you're saying.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

But it's fine, it's okay. No, no, I wanted to understand as well and apparently I was rejected. So here's the thing. We already have demonstrated an early Christian source. I can give you an early Christian source earlier than all of those manuscripts where they say it and they have no reason to lie about it and they have no other political motive. You couldn't show me a shred of political motives that Saint Cyprian of Carthage had, by the way, every single person on this panel, although they might not be orthodox, they would say that the Church Fathers are an authoritative source. They might not say that they are the ultimate infallible source. Neither do I. I'm Orthodox. I don't think all Church fathers are infallible. What I do believe, though, is that when the Church fathers say something, they are an authority on the subject. Authority means that they combine the conscience to believe certain things, depending. But you can't do that. You then try to quote the Catholics. Every single Catholic is going to watch this video, is going to be like, wait, no, we do take the Church Fathers. What are you talking about? You don't know these kinds of things. So stop. Number two, though, here's what we need to do to actually get the red letter, please, because my jaw's getting unhinged. Here's what I need to do when it comes. But here's the thing.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So I mean, he's making a bunch of points, and then you want to jump.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

No, I made one point.

[Sheikh Uthman]

More than one point.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I'm counting.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I got a pen.

[Moderator Elijah]

I'm over the authority point.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So here's what I'll do. I think it's very clear that Jesus Christ in Revelation said almighty. And the reason he doesn't want to do it is because he knows if Jesus says that, it would mean that he's claiming it. Because he said, I was claiming it. He said Bruce was claiming, and he said Sarah was claiming it. So here's the thing that I want to do. Do you think. And I want to ask you, because we know that the author of the Gospel of John, for example, says that Jesus Christ and God the Father are equal. You agree, right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Does not.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, go to John, chapter five. The author of the Gospel of John believes that Jesus and the Father are equal. You said that you don't think that. Right, right.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Let's read it.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

You said that you don't think that. Right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I do not believe that they're equal. I. Go ahead.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay. No, no. Do you think that in.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can you read the verse?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I need to clarify questions.

[Sheikh Uthman]

And again, there's three points that I need to address. Let him get John 5.

[Moderator Elijah]

John 5. Yeah, let him.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, so here's the thing that. Okay, Uthman, when we have conversations with people. When we have conversations with people. I don't want to attack a point that you're not interested in. We are both interested in whether or not the author of this gospel, St. John, he says, can you. Whether the author. I'm still finishing my point. Please. If you want interruptions, it's fine. I don't care.

[Moderator Elijah]

Stop.

[Christian Theologian]

Let's.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I don't want to be messing.

[Moderator Elijah]

Pan through to. Are you at John 5?

[Christian Critic]

Yeah.

[Sheikh Uthman]

What verse, though? That's what I was.

[Moderator Elijah]

John 5, was it?

[Christian Critic]

Yeah.

[Moderator Elijah]

In your thing.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Yeah. So what I want to do.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That's why I asked.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, that's fine. I want to go to John, chapter 5, verse 18. I just want to establish quickly, verse 18, that the author of this gospel does believe that Jesus and the Father are equal. Now, obviously, if you're equal to the Almighty God, you would be almighty as well. A not almighty thing can't be equal to an almighty thing.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I read the verse 18?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Please do. Verse 18. Go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

What do you want me to verse? So therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill him because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also that said that the God was His Father, making himself equal to God. Then Jesus answered to them.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Just verse 18.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I finish reading?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Because I just wanted to.

[Moderator Elijah]

Was it done? Was that.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Yeah, because I asked him to read one verse.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Correct. I'm not done reading. I can read any verse I like. Because you're caught. The next part of the verse catches him. That's why he doesn't want me to read Kryptonite in action. Can I read?

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

No.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Look, I want to talk to the Moderator. Moderator. He wants to keep reading. If he ever stops reading until verse 23, call him out on it. Okay, you keep reading. Keep reading. Go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No problem. So therefore, the Jews sought all the more to kill him because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making himself equal to God. Then Jesus answered to them and said, most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself but what he sees the Father do. Okay, the Son can do nothing.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Finish it. Finish it.

[Podcast Host]

I'm reading.

[Christian Critic]

Finish it.

[Christian Debater]

Let me read.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Nothing of Himself but what he sees the Father. Yeah, right. Let's continue.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Go on.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, I'm reading.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Yeah.

[Sheikh Uthman]

For whatever he does, the Son also does in a like manner. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all things that He Himself does. And he will show him greater works than these. He will show him greater works than these that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, then even the Son gives life to Whom he wills. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son that all should honor the Son. As I'm reading. I'm reading.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Keep reading.

[Sheikh Uthman]

As they honor the Father, for who does not. Can we get rid of the laugh track? He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father whom He sent.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So here's the point that I want to make us.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, you wanted to do your reading.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

You did the quotation. Here's my question to you. How do you honor God?

[Sheikh Uthman]

You honor God by respecting his laws.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

What's the highest way you can honor God many ways. What's the highest way again?

[Sheikh Uthman]

For me, as a Muslim, submitting myself to the will of my Creator, there's

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

a word beginning with W. Don't you

[Sheikh Uthman]

think worship is one way for sure.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Is that the highest?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure, why not? Let's take worship.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Let's take worship. Okay. I think the highest form of veneration for God is worship as well. So if I say honor, I don't know, if I say honor me the same way that you would honor the king. I'm saying that the. Whatever respect you would give to the king, give it to me, Right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay. Jesus says, honor me the same way that you would honor the Father. Whatever honor you would give to him, veneration, prayer, worship, you would also have to give it to Him, Right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, I'll explain how. So here, this is the interesting part that he wanted to skip over. I'm not getting away from it, all right? I'm 100% not right. So you're going to use. I'm not running from nothing. I don't have to only use verse 23 because he knows the rest of the Bible goes against his point. Watch him run from it. Right.

[Moderator Elijah]

Do want to be mindful of our time. We're going to start wrapping these up here shortly.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So, interestingly, the author of John does not say that Jesus did make himself equal, but rather the Jews sought that, and that's why they went to kill him. That's the first point that I want to make. Secondly, now he's interrupting, right? Interruption, interruption, interruption.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Same as you, same as you, same as you. There's no problem.

[Christian Critic]

Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Now, interestingly, in the same chapter which he doesn't want me to read, I can of myself do nothing.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Continue.

[Sheikh Uthman]

The Son can do nothing. Can God? Don't tell me to continue.

[Christian Critic]

I did.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, no, no. Thank you.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So you don't want to keep reading the words.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You let me read and let me speak, and I don't need you to tell me when to continue. I can of myself, do nothing. As I hear. I judge, my judgment is righteous. Why? Because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. Therefore, another who bears witness of me, and I know that the witness which he witnesses of me is true. In fact, in the same chapter, same down, not Running from anything. It says, I have come in my Father's name and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, him you receive. How can you believe who receives honor from another and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God who sent who? Only God who sent Jesus.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, so that was absolutely rubbish. So here's the problem that I have. Don't close my holy book. Open it up again. So here's the problem in verse 19, because you actually quoted verse 30. You didn't actually quote verse 19. Verse 19 specifically says this is the one that you wanted to do.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Nope, Most tell me what I wanted to do.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I wanted to do 18. You wanted to do 19 and then I made you do 23. So anyway, so to get back to it, verse 19 says Jesus answered and said to them, most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself. That's a half sentence. Would you ever make me quote a half sentence? Moderator she's shaking her head. So here's the thing. It's not my mother. I don't know her from anywhere. I don't know her from Adam. So it says, most assuredly, the Son can do nothing but himself. But then it says, but whatever he sees the Father do. So we can both agree in the Bible that Jesus Christ became a human being. He was a human being, right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Are you asking me a question?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Yes. It's a yes.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You made comments.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Become a human being, yes or no?

[Sheikh Uthman]

According to the Bible, Yeah. He was human. Yes.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay. Did he have to watch the Father do it first?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can you repeat the verse that you

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

were quoting just so I can follow along verse 19? The Son can.

[Sheikh Uthman]

John. What?

[Moderator Elijah]

John 5.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

The same one you did.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I did.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I did not read a different chapter entirely. It's the same one. So John 5:19 says the son can do nothing of himself, but whatever he sees the Father do, the Son does in like manner. So for you, you're saying that he has to not do anything of himself, but the qualification is whatever he sees the Father do. So he became a human. Right? Jesus, did he have to watch the Father do it first?

[Sheikh Uthman]

He did not.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So this is specifically the verse doesn't

[Sheikh Uthman]

make sense then it's not that the

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

verse doesn't make sense.

[Sheikh Uthman]

He just ruined his own point.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

How am I ruining my own point?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I explain now?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

He said I ruined my own point. I'm going to explain why it's not ruining. So the reason why it's not a ruin is this just St. Augustine's Point St. Augustine's Point is saying that this is not talking about the fact that the Son doesn't actually have a will at all. It's saying that the Father and the Son's will themselves are united. And we understand that. Specifically where Jesus Christ says, I am the Father, one, that means the unity of will. We also see the same way where he says that the Father has given the Son life, which is all the properties that actually are associated with that as well. So to actually get back to John 5. 23, you said, okay, that if we honor the Son the same way that we honor the Father, whatever honor you would give the Father, which includes worship, you give it to the Son as well. Can we agree on that? Do you agree, Uthman? No, you don't agree. So you are not honoring the Son the same way you're honoring the Father.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I speak?

[Moderator Elijah]

That's the question. Go ahead and elaborate.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, because again, when you're saying honor, that's a broad category. It does not. Again, if I keep getting interrupted, then I can't speak.

[Moderator Elijah]

Hold on. We understand words colloquially.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Thank you. Okay, so he should use honor.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

That's not what that's used in the text.

[Moderator Elijah]

That's, that's, that's what we need to understand. So far we've debated the idea of the word Almighty, We've debated the idea of honor. Now we're, we're getting into these very weird semantics where we're trying to claim we don't understand the word colloquially, but then trying to veer it in. It's a cherry pick.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Right, Exactly.

[Moderator Elijah]

Well, it's against you.

[Sheikh Uthman]

It's not. All right, because I'll let you finish.

[Moderator Elijah]

I'm not trying to embarrass you. What I'm saying is if we say, well, yes, I would understand this colloquially, but then later say, no, I'm not going to take it colloquially. I'm going to separate it from that. Right, so. So that's what he's trying to, that's what he's trying to communicate to you. But then you're trying to separate it in a cherry picking sense.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'm actually not. Because when you say, you honor somebody, it does not necessitate worshiping them. If I say, for example, I was sent by the President and you need to respect me because I come with his authority. Not my authority, his authority. It means that you need to obey me because I've come with that authority. It does not mean that everything that you necessitate to the President, you necessitate to me. And the Interesting thing, which he has ruined. His own point here is when he says that the Son cannot do in the like manner except what he sees the Father doing. That's a great point that he's made against himself because obviously the Father did not become a human, even according to Christian ideology, right? So that means that verse actually flips on him. Now, when I quoted the further verses, he didn't even address them. That Jesus cannot do anything of himself. Can God be at the mercy of anybody else? That God does not have his own will? Obviously not. God is all powerful and all capable at all times. When he. Again, you're cutting.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

You're going to a different point.

[Moderator Elijah]

I'm not saying to yourself, let's try to at least.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Thank you. Please don't mumble. It is not a different point. In fact, these verses I read to you from the same chapter and just absolutely skipped over them, that only the true God is the one that sent Jesus is in those verses. You don't even address any of that. Now, to the point of Jesus saying I and the Father are one. Then in the same chapter of John, he also says that the disciples in him are one. And this is here in John 17:20, I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they all may be one as you, in the same manner as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they may be one in us. So if the premise is Jesus saying I and the Father are one makes him God, then everybody who comes after it would be as well.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Never said it. Just never said it.

[Moderator Elijah]

And for timing purposes, here's what we're going to do. Because I know that one, that one's probably going to irritate the crap out of you.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

You have to respond.

[Moderator Elijah]

I'm going to let you know that I am going to let you respond to that. And then he gets a response and then we will. We. It's been like 30 minutes.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, so here's the thing that we're going to do. So I have to make sure that I respond to this. Very, very fair. Okay? So remember that he keeps saying the not do anything of yourself. I addressed all of that because that's a point. Those aren't the verses. There is a point. So there's a distinction, a difference which, you know, between the point that you make and the verses that you cite. I can cite 10 verses. They all make one point. All I need to do is address this really big thing that I have with my ring here, okay? It's a point, the point that you're saying, Uthman Ibn Farok, what you're saying specifically is this, that when the Son doesn't do anything of his own, it means that he has to be having some sort of deference to the Father, and that this will of the Father and Son is sort of diminished. But the point that's being made is that the Father and the Son actually are identical in will. That's why when he says, which you don't know, the Greek word specifically means separate of himself. Literally means. It literally means a separate will. He doesn't have a separate will from the Father, which number one is a proof of him being God. But anyways, right? So you actually get Back to John 5:23. You specifically, by your own mouth today, you said that the honor that Jesus Christ gives, the honor that Jesus Christ receives is not worship. You never explained the reason why specifically that. All the honors, all of them, all of them given here that are given to the Son, the same honors that you give to the Father are not. You didn't want to go to the worst. You wanted to use something colloquial, and the moderator called you out for it. So to actually get to the. I can say that. I can say that. It's not ridiculous. It's not ridiculous to say that. So here's the thing that I want to do. When it comes to the actual word honor, that's the word that's used specifically. That is the correct opinion that you have of someone. That's the actual way that you regard them, the way that you would regard God as the most powerful, as the most mighty, as the all powerful, as it says in Revelation 1:8, which you wanted to dispute, that specifically is supposed to be regarded as Jesus as. Well, now I know you don't know that because you don't know a lick of Greek, which is fine. I don't know Arabic.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay. I do know some Greek, by the

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

way, do you know the word Timosi?

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, I don't.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Thank you.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That doesn't mean I don't know Greek.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

So here's the thing that I'm trying to say. Here's the thing that I say. Like, if I said, for example, Tikanis, could you respond to me?

[Sheikh Uthman]

No.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Exactly. Because you don't know Greek. So to actually continue, when it comes to. You can say the same thing with Arabic, I wouldn't know anything. So when it comes to that specifically, my friend, what I'm saying to you is that the honors, the prerogatives, the Glorification that you would give to the Father, which is part of honoring the Father. This specifically has to be given to the Son. It's in exactly the same way that you would give to the Father. Didn't address it. You wanted to go to John 5, verses 25 to 30. John 5, 25, 30, like I said before, is just demonstrating the fact that the Father and the Son have an equality in will. They don't have separate wills. Now, to actually address the last point about the authority thing, I think I've been pretty, pretty clear that we actually take early Christians as our authority in the church. As Christians, we take early Christians, not later academics and themselves, when we put themselves above Cyprian and things of that nature as well. As a matter of fact, give me the name of any of the people that did your translation of the Bible. See if they would call themselves as more of an authority in the church than the saints themselves. Go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Are you done?

[Christian Theologian]

Yeah.

[Moderator Elijah]

And so I'm gonna let you respond to this, and then we'll move into final thoughts. So make it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I thought this was the final thought.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Could I get the last word then for the final thought since.

[Moderator Elijah]

No, that's not how it works.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Okay.

[Moderator Elijah]

He'll respond to this. That wasn't your. That was your final thought.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I thought that was the final thought.

[Moderator Elijah]

No, no, no, it wasn't.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

He.

[Moderator Elijah]

This was a response to things you said. You respond, and then we will move into final thoughts, Please.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, setting up a false narrative, saying which one of the authors thought that they were more knowledgeable than the Church fathers. You would have to speak to them. I'm not here speaking on their authority and understanding that. You said you follow early Christians. Now, interestingly, you yourself have admitted that you're not a scholar, but James DG Dunn, which I'm sure you know who he is, one of the most authoritative and respected scholars. You don't think he is interesting?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

I don't.

[Sheikh Uthman]

All right. Well, interestingly, he as anybody who's Christian and does. Can I finish speaking? Anybody who has actually studied Christianity and understands, knows who he is. He actually mentioned that Christians of the earliest generations did not worship Jesus. And in fact, he considered that if Christians of the early generations saw this, they would consider it Jesus lottery, like adultery, like idolatry, which simply would mean that Jesus is worshipped, but also would fall short from the worship of you to the one true God of the Father. Now, you're more than welcome to buy the book and read it and look at his actual academic research that the first Christians did not worship Jesus right here. Now, after that understanding that the verses that I quoted to you, you just said, oh, that just means I have the same will. If the will is the same, that would make no sense. Then it would be no two wills. But for him to say, I can do nothing of myself because if I judge my judgment is not true shows that there is another judgment. His judgment and his authority comes from the Father. And God does not take authority from anybody else.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay, so that was your response. To be honest with you, it was lackluster. So here, let me get to the actual final point. This is my final point.

[Moderator Elijah]

Yeah, these are our final points.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

This is my final point. We can go academic for academic. James himself is a respected academic in his specific circle in academia. In modern academia, the academy is very split on a number of issues. And not just that the academy themselves have multiple different conferences and people that they would actually appeal to. For example, the scholarship in early Byzantine theology would not be the same academia that would have for early Christian studies or for example, manuscript notation and things of this nature. James Dunn is an academic, but he wouldn't call himself an absolute authority of the issue. Neither would he call himself a minor authority in the issue. All he does is publish papers and makes case. I can give you multiple academics. For example, Mark J. Edwards. I can give you people like Johannes Zachoba. I could give you people like Bo Branson. I could give you people like Joshua Sichuade. All of these other academics themselves would actually say, the early Christians obviously did worship Christ as God. So if you want to do one scholar, I can give you 10. It doesn't really matter. But instead of though doing those kinds of petty games, I would actually give you. And do you. If you want the books as well, I can give them to you as well. You can do Christianity and Catholicism, for example, by Mark Edwards. That's a book that he's written as well. You can also do from, I want to say Michael Gartner as well. He's done early Christian iconography. And he specifically, as an academic, he has, I believe he has his master's now. He's worked on showing early Christian veneration of God and early Christian veneration of Christ as well. I can keep going and going. For example, Father Dr. Reverend Father Dr. Stephen D. Young. He specifically shows in his book Religion of the Apostles that the early apostles actually worship Christ as God. I can keep going. For example, John Behr, father Dr. John Baer. He does. He does with the scholarship as well. I can keep going. You understand the point. The point is it doesn't matter. Academic. I can see behind the sunglasses, bro. Now, here's the thing that I want to do. It's not about academia. It's specifically about who's an authority. Those academics aren't authorities. The authorities are the early Christians, and I can name them. Saint Cyprian of Carthage believed the early Christians worship Jesus Christ as God. Hippolytus of Rome, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Polycarp, Saint Ignatius, Saint Augustine, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Nicholas of Methone, Saint Gregory Palamas, and Gregory Palamas is even in the second millennium. But I can show you multiple early Christian scholars and early Christian authorities. I just gave you six. Okay, six. None of whom you know. And that's fine. Now, to conclude on this point, if we actually want to use the biblical data specifically, you need to show. And this is the only thing I want to hear, and you can do whatever you want, is your closing. Please show me how you can honor Jesus Christ. Honor, the specific biblical term meaning every sense of honor that you would ever give to the Father. How you can do that without the honor of worship? My final thoughts are basically, he doesn't know what he's doing, and that's okay. We love you guys.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I appreciate you. Thank you so much for the conversation. All right, now can I speak?

[Moderator Elijah]

Yes, sir.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, going scholar for scholar again. If you like, I can send you many more as well. You can look at Bart Ehrman and others as well who have written early, and you can laugh all you want. That was respectful. That was the most respectful.

[Moderator Elijah]

More to the room.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, from his academic perspective and his authority on the Bible itself, you cannot doubt him. But because the fact that he doesn't fall in line with your church mindset, you're going to laugh it off. That's all right. Now, if we look at the biblical text of Jesus having a different will, him saying, the Father is greater than I, him saying, why do you call me good? No one is good but the one that is God. You have so many references that show a different will, a different person. That is Jesus Christ on earth and after earth. In fact, the funny thing is, the original verses that I quoted, you didn't address any of them. You did not address any of them. Instead, you went into these loops of your Orthodox Church and. And who do you consider to be an authority? Now, I never said Catholics do not take the Church Father's authority, which is another lie that he said about Me. But that's okay. What I did say, Catholics have different people they take as authority than the Orthodox. For example, the Pope is an authority according to Catholics, and he would not be according to you. Just like that. There are other Christians, for example, Unitarians, that would not take the Orthodox Church to be an authority. And they are Christians. Again, you can. You can say they're not Christian, but they definitely do claim to be Christians. They have churches, they have crosses. They believe in Jesus now. Again, again. Yeah, they got crosses, y'.

[Christian Apologist]

All.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, again, again, again, again, Please.

[Moderator Elijah]

It is his final thought. Let's be respectful.

[Sheikh Uthman]

The fact that you want to throw other Christians under the bus does not make your point valid. Whether you take the Latter Day Saints or Joel witnesses or Unitarians or Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, they all have their own chain of authorities. And that's not what we're going to go by. These clear biblical texts show Jesus is not the one only true God.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Great pen drop, but it doesn't mean anything.

[Moderator Elijah]

Well done, gentlemen. Very well done.

[Podcast Host]

Listen, man, if you learned anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Jesus is not almighty God according to the Bible.

[Christian Theologian]

I'm going to ask you to establish why you make that claim. What verses, what's.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure, no problem. So first thing, if you look in the Bible, and this is in John, chapter of John, you see, in 8, 40. But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I have heard from. From God so clearly according to the Christian Bible. Again, this is not my belief. This is what I'm quoting from your own scripture. Jesus according to Red line, saying that I am a man who heard the truth from God. He's not claiming to be God in this verse at least, so it's very clear that he's not almighty God. If God heard from God, then he wouldn't say, I heard from God. And I mean, if you don't mind. Yeah. And then in verse 42, he goes, I proceed forth and came from God, nor have I come of myself, but he sent me. So Jesus, according to the Bible, is clearly saying that he is a man who was sent by God, not the Father, by God, who heard a truth from God. In fact, if we Continue In John 17:3, he says, this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. Very explicitly, Jesus is saying that there is only one true God who sent Jesus Christ, separating himself again from almighty God. If we look at the fact that Jesus according to the Bible and this is post resurrection, so we don't say this is pre resurrection. In John also says I am ascending to my Father, your Father, my God and your God. God doesn't have a God. If it's God, Almighty God, he wouldn't be saying my God post resurrection. By the way. And I believe that when Jesus is called the servant of God in Acts 3:13, he says the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus. So if Almighty God glorified Jesus, I really don't see how that could be God himself. In fact, in Acts we also see God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power who went about doing good, healing all that were oppressed by the devil for God had sent him or God was with him. So again God anointed Jesus, God helped him. It's not God himself. In fact, if we look at the last verse or two verses that I'll quote to end this with Jesus also says the God of our Lord. I'm sorry, in the Bible it also says that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom. Post resurrection we're talking about the God of Jesus, not even while he's on earth. And the last verse that I quote here is in Revelations where according to the Christian Bible this is again redlined. After risen, after being exalted in heaven. Jesus says, he who overcomes I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of my God, the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which comes down from heaven from my God four times Jesus continuously says my God again post resurrection, post being exalted, post heaven, all of that. Still Jesus is saying my God many times. The Bible, you also see Jesus on the right hand of God, not God himself. So from where I see it, I'm open to your understanding. Jesus is an almighty God himself according to the Bible.

[Christian Theologian]

So that's interesting. So what you did, Sheikh Uthman, is you brought up a myriad of verses that pertain to Jesus's humanity. And all you established is that there's a distinction between the Father and the Son. But distinction does not equal non divinity. We know that in the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit are all God, but they all have different roles and so Jesus being sent by God or being, you know, speaking the word of the Lord doesn't mean that he's not also divine in his nature. Jesus temporarily submitted to the will of the Father while he was on earth in his incarnate role in terms of role and function in order to accomplish the greater plan and purpose of salvation. And so from eternity's past, Father, Son and Spirit have all worked together, all in one accord, under one unified will. There has never been a separation. So that's why Jesus said says things like, I seek not my own will, I speak not of myself. They have all been unified, all one will, working together in perfect unity. Now, it's interesting that you know the verses you present, because in I, when we look at the whole context of Scripture, the witness of Scripture is clear. Jesus is presented as ontologically God. He is presented as Yahweh. So in Isaiah, in Isaiah 40, in Isaiah 48, the speaker says, I am the first and the last. He says, my own hand laid the foundations of the earth. This is echoed in Isaiah 46, where again the speaker says, I am Yahweh. I am the first and the last. In Revelation 22, verse 13, Jesus identifies Himself as I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Not only that, but in Psalm 102 it says that in the beginning you laid the foundation of the earth. The heavens are the works of your hands. And we see that echoed verbatim in Hebrews chapter one, where God the Father says to the Son, in the beginning, lord, you laid the foundations of the earth. The heavens are the work of your hands. The language is very clear. Jesus is identified as the Creator. Secondly, Jesus both implicitly and explicitly claims to be God. He. He accepts worship in John 20:28, when Thomas says to him, my Lord and my God. In John, in. In various parts in the Gospel, he forgives sins, which the religious leaders identified was something that only God could do. And they had an objection. With this, Jesus makes claims such as John 8:58, before Abraham was I am. He was alluding to Exodus 3:14, where Yahweh reveals his identity to Moses as the source of existence. And the Jewish opponents understood that and they wanted to stone him. John 10:30, I and the Father are one. Once again, they wanted to stone him for claiming to be God in John. It's interesting you brought up John John 17:3, because in that in the next two verses, John 17:5, Jesus says, Father, glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world began yet. But Isaiah 42. 8 says, I am Yahweh. I will not give my glory to another. So how then can Jesus claim to share eternal glory with the Father if Yahweh does not give his glory to another? And so I just want to. I just want to end with. There's, there's, there's various more Old Testament verses which we see in connection to Jesus's role and his earthly ministry. For example, in Zechariah 10, this is a future prophet. Sorry, Zechariah 2, verse 10 to 13, this is a future prophecy, hasn't been fulfilled yet, but it's. It says the Lord said he is coming to live amongst his people and he will unite all nations together. And then you will know that the Lord has sent me. The Lord is saying, the Lord will come to live among his people. And the. And then you will know the Lord has sent me. So. And I also want to mention Isaiah 53, where this is probably the biggest messianic prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. It was written about 700 years before his birth. And it talks of a suffering servant who would be sinless, who would face the wrath of God, who would exercise divine prerogatives, and who would ultimately be resurrected to victory. We see Jesus fulfilling that all throughout the Gospel. In John chapter 5, Jesus says, Whatever the Father does, the Son does also. He also says, all should honor me the same way that they honor the Father. I want to ask you, how do you reconcile all that if.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No problem, sorry.

[Christian Theologian]

How do you reconcile all that if Jesus is not God? And if a prophet like Moses came along saying everyone should honor me the way they honor the Father, and I had glory with the Father before the beginnings of the earth, he would be accused of blasphemy.

[Moderator Elijah]

And I do want to say we've gotten really well with you both, got all of your claims out. So if we want to maneuver into a little bit more of a back and forth and then we'll wrap it up.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Right? So the first thing is the verses that I quoted, especially post resurrection, you didn't really address any of them. Meaning that. Okay, I get your point about Igu Imai, and I will address that. And I get your point about me and the Father. 1 and Alpha and Omega and glorifying servants, Isaiah, I will address all those points one by one, no problem. But when you see Jesus continuously saying that I'm a man sent by God, are you saying that on earth Jesus wasn't God?

[Christian Theologian]

So can I answer?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes.

[Christian Theologian]

Perfect. So I Did answer that question. So I said those verses where Jesus is saying I am sent by God, I speak of the Lord pertain to his incarnate role, his earthly ministry. We know that Jesus had a human nature, but that doesn't negate from his divine nature. Like I said, distinction does not equal non divinity. We know that the Son is distinct from the Father and the Spirit is distinct. That's not the debate here. But Jesus saying I was sent by God pertains to his earthly ministry. Once again, Jesus voluntarily submitted his will to the Father for a time while he was on earth in order to accomplish the plan of salvation. And they're, they're, they've all been unified in will, not accomplishing separate wills. So that's why Jesus says everything that I'm doing, the Father is also doing.

[Sheikh Uthman]

But that doesn't address the point because post resurrection, not earthly ministry, post earth, according to the Christian Bible, Jesus still says my God. It's not his earthly ministry. We're not talking about while he was on earth and his human nature. We're talking about according to the Christian Bible, after he's been killed and resurrected in heaven after being glorified, he still says my God. So I mean again, so that doesn't address the, the point because earthly ministry and, and two natures on earth don't address the fact that even past that Jesus is saying my God.

[Christian Theologian]

So yeah, so in, in Hebrews chapter one, we see the Father also calling Jesus God. He says, your throne, oh God will last forever. So if God doesn't have a God according to you, then how do you explain that?

[Sheikh Uthman]

So, so can I answer that? Because we don't want to just keep jumping. So again, you're, you're throwing another verse at me to try to answer. Instead of addressing the points, you're jumping from the actual point by throwing a different verse and saying, oh yeah, well how do you address this? And I will address that. No problem. But I do want to be clear that you haven't addressed those points of Jesus post resurrection, still saying my God. Now since you asked me to address this, I will. No problem. I will address all of your points one by one. When you look at in Hebrews 1, the throne, O God is forever, forever and ever. If you keep reading, actually it says therefore God, your God has anointed you. And that's why in the Christian Study Bible it says your throne forever and ever. This translation is quite doubtful. The context of the sun being contrasted with the angels is what is being present in the context. So what it is is that God, your God is actually that your God is the one giving you the authority. Authority. This again Christian net Bible study saying here Jesus is not being called God, rather your throne, by the authority of your God. Again, not my understanding. You can go home and research this more is that this is not Jesus being called God because in the next verses you see right there, therefore God your God has anointed you. So does God get anointed by another God?

[Christian Theologian]

So can I answer?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes.

[Christian Theologian]

Yeah. So what you just. Therefore God your God. That's a quotation from. Comes from Psalm 45 or 43, I believe. But to answer the question Jesus say, or Jesus calling God the Father, whatever, doesn't. Doesn't take away from the fact that he is also God.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That's not the question.

[Christian Theologian]

There's no contradiction there.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'm sorry, that wasn't the question. The question is that Jesus, even past resurrection, past being crucified, past being glorified, continues to call my God. He doesn't just say Father. And here when you said that, did I not get interrupted?

[Christian Theologian]

Please.

[Moderator Elijah]

Yeah, let him finish.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I didn't interrupt you. I'd expect the same respectful conversation. Thank you. So again here when you see, when you're saying that Jesus was called God according to Christians, this is not him being called God because the context is him being higher than the angels in Hebrew. So obviously God's not going to be arguing whether he's higher than angels or not. Rather this is on the authority of God. And the next verses clearly says therefore your God has anointed you. God anointed Jesus in the same next verses. If you had read ahead. So that point definitely doesn't make it. But let's address the rest of your points because I like to take everything one by one.

[Christian Theologian]

Can I reply?

[Moderator Elijah]

Yeah, we're gonna let her do one more wrap up and then move on to. We'll do one more point on your end and then we'll move on to the next.

[Christian Theologian]

Next person.

[Moderator Elijah]

Yeah.

[Christian Theologian]

So you said according to Christians, Jesus being called God there doesn't mean he's God. It just means he's higher than the angels. According to which Christians. Because you said that.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Did I say that? According to. According to Christians Bible study here.

[Moderator Elijah]

If you're gonna say that he said. And he wants to clarify, let him clarify and let her finish her piece.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So it says your throne is God forever and ever. This translation is quite doubtful. He says since the context of the sun being contrast to the angels is presented. This is not my opinion I'm reading to you from a study Bible that has been put together by 25 of the top biblical scholars across denomination. So again, when you're saying which Christians. I'm not making up my own. Can I finish if you don't mind? This interruption is getting interesting.

[Christian Theologian]

And he keeps.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah, sorry, I'm just addressing.

[Moderator Elijah]

Hold on, we're gonna finish your point. And then. And then because you keep going on

[Christian Theologian]

and on and on.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah, I'm sorry, you went on and on and on into a bunch of different points.

[Moderator Elijah]

Stop. Okay, you're gonna finish your point in clarification of whether you said the angel thing or not.

[Christian Theologian]

Okay.

[Moderator Elijah]

Then she's going to finish her thought that she was going through before she allowed you the room to clarify whether you said or did not say. Does that make sense? That's where we left off.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

That's what we're gonna.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That's fine. Okay, so this is from in 1995, multi denominational team of more than 25 of the world's foremost biblical scholars gathered around and they went to do this study of the Bible. From that study, I'm reading to you that the meaning here is the authority of God. Because the context, according to those Christian scholars is the discussion of Jesus being higher than the angels. This is not my opinion. I'm reading the text to you.

[Christian Theologian]

Okay, so you brought up a lot of verses. Sorry, a lot of information that I want to respond to. So again, so as I was. The point I was making the first with, according to Christians and according to the early church fathers, even if you want to, when we want to grant you that verse, the early church fathers unanimous, unanimously agreed that Jesus was divine. Okay, that's the first thing I want to say. And then I also want to mention, even if you want to bring this one verse you did not negate, you didn't address my central arguments where I showed you connections from the Old Testament to the New Testament that point Jesus as having the same divine nature as Yahweh. All you're doing, Sheikh Uthman, is throwing me a bunch of other verses because you have to reframe the argument as Jesus said this. So he's not God if you have to, and you're trapped inside that frame. If you step in outside of that frame of bringing me verses where Jesus submitted and you know, oh, it's not. He's not the Almighty. If you step outside that frame, your whole worldview is constructed.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I think it's funny.

[Christian Theologian]

So if you step outside.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sorry, that I'll let you finish Though

[Christian Theologian]

if you step outside of that view or. Sorry, if you step outside of that frame, your whole worldview falls apart.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Is that good? Can I speak now?

[Christian Theologian]

Yeah.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, good. So my worldview doesn't fall apart either way because my view is Islamic view. So I don't know why you're.

[Christian Theologian]

Yeah, and the Islamic view doesn't mean.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I maintain. Please not be interrupted. I mean, this is the third time.

[Moderator Elijah]

Now, hold on. Okay, here's what. Here's we're letting him get his thought out. He's responding to you. Okay, go ahead and finish your response.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I mean, this is the third time I've been interrupted. I'd please like not to be interrupted. Once again, I put the verses to you first, so I'm not throwing verses at you to try to get out of your verses. You haven't addressed my verses that I put first. And I'm addressing your points. And I said I will address them if the chair allows me, one by one. No problem. The Old Testament prophecies that came out, whether they were about Jesus or not, this is obviously a hot debated. It's not a fact. Obviously Jewish scholars did not consider that to be. That's why they're still Jewish. So none of those verses clearly mention Jesus. You're saying that they were mentioned here in the Old Testament and now there are references in the New Testament that we can match them up whether you can or not. Again, it is a scholarly discussion. But the verses where Jesus even post resurrection, post exaltation, not earthly ministry, says my God. You haven't addressed when you mentioned this verse, which you granted me. I appreciate that you've conceded that point.

[Christian Theologian]

Again, I haven't.

[Podcast Host]

I'm sorry.

[Moderator Elijah]

I actually have your gift from me, Smalls.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You did he.

[Moderator Elijah]

Okay, he is talking. Write your notes down so that if he says something that you're like, I didn't do that. You can come back when he's done and then we can move forward. Okay. Thank you.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I am glad this is recorded as well, because you said if we concede you that verse. So anyway, that still doesn't prove Jesus to be God. Now I'm willing to move forward from my verses which I originally put forward, which you haven't answered and answer all of your. No problem with that. Do you want me to take them from the church fathers first?

[Christian Theologian]

So I feel like you again, you mentioned a lot. And I would like to respond to that before we move on. We switched gears.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Let's.

[Moderator Elijah]

Let's do this. The other two points, we're going to table those and maybe we can come back because I want to make sure everybody has time. I'm going to let her finish her rebuttals to all of what you just said because that is kind of a big chunk. And then we'll give you a final thought on that and then we'll move to the next person and we can come back later if we need to. That way I'm just respectable of everybody's time.

[Sheikh Uthman]

But go ahead.

[Christian Theologian]

So when you mentioned that the Old Testament, the Jewish scholars, these verses don't mention Jesus and so they don't agree that this is Jesus. I didn't say that they mentioned Jesus. My argument is that they prophesy about his identity, his nature. And when Jesus comes, his incarnate role, we see that he fulfilled these prophecies. The New Testament identifies Jesus as the person of whom this, these Old Testament verses were prophesied about. So my argument isn't language or semantics or what did they use? My argument is Jesus's identity and nature fulfilled.

[Moderator Elijah]

That okay. And then a final thought from you and then we'll let her go.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So again, I would definitely disagree with that. In fact, if you look at Isaiah, the, the Messiah that was supposed to be sent was supposed to be made victorious. And that's why Christians have to now come back and change that go. That's about the second coming, even though none of that is in scripture. In fact, a lot of what we find, for example, the Messiah being saved, Jesus was, according to Christians, crucified. And that's why scholars like Bart Ehrman and others have written an entire book saying that Jesus did not meet those criterions. Again, I'm refuting that, saying that those are ambiguous verses, new verses that you are putting forward do not necessarily match one by one to them. And that's why that argument can be made. But the fact that continuously Jesus is shown not to be almighty God, praying to God, calling out to God, even past resurrection calling my God shows that he's not almighty God. And if post resurrection he's sitting on the right hand of God, then I don't know how many gods you have now just to. Because I don't want to act like I ran from any of the points. I just want to make sure Ego imai, no problem. I can address that. Me and the Father are one. Jesus in the same chapter continues to say is used for other than Jesus. It's a word, it's not a special name of God. And that's why the blind man, he also says the exact Same word ego imai. And I can show you that with the Greek. I have the Bible with me. Regarding I and the Father are one. Jesus continues and says that those that believe in me be one in me as the Father are in me and I in him in the same way they be one in us. So if Jesus saying I and the Father one makes him God, then that would mean every believer is God because he said in the same way. Same chapter. By the way, regarding Alpha and Omega. Again, first thing is, as the Christian study Bible.

[Christian Theologian]

Are you going to let it go on this monologue?

[Moderator Elijah]

Final thought.

[Christian Theologian]

It was supposed to be a final closing sentence. So now I have to respond because that's not fair. He listed a bunch of.

[Moderator Elijah]

I will say that is kind of fair to them.

[Christian Theologian]

No, no, no. He brought up a mirror. He. He brought up a lot of verses.

[Moderator Elijah]

Everybody stop. Final thought to address. You are addressing the stuff that she said in her opening thoughts. Okay, but keep a precise and short.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, I'm just gonna give one thought then. But I gotta end with this.

[Christian Theologian]

Yeah, you gave a lot of thoughts. If I respond, can I at least give a closing line? A quick.

[Moderator Elijah]

You had your closing thought and then

[Christian Theologian]

he went on a monologue.

[Moderator Elijah]

This. He has the initial claim. Because he has the claim, he gets the final thought to it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

It.

[Moderator Elijah]

Does that make sense?

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, thank you again. Closing thought then. I don't believe that the verses that I have that I brought up were addressed. Everything you brought up, I have Again. This is interruption again. So I don't know, are we going to be doing this the whole time or.

[Christian Theologian]

Okay, go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I mean, this is like the fifth.

[Moderator Elijah]

I will handle this after we're done with this. Please get through your final thoughts.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, so my final thought is Jesus calling out to God as my God sitting on the right hand of God, even being post earthly ministry clearly shows he's not God. Unless you believe in multiple gods, Everything that you have brought forth I addressed and these verses still are not addressed. So I do not believe that Jesus is God according almighty God according to the Bible. Thank you.

[Moderator Elijah]

Thank you, thank you.

[Christian Theologian]

Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

All right. Well, I think that was excellent exchange. Look, I think it's very important for us to be able to exchange these ideas. But the prompt still stands. Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus can clearly say he's almighty God. Just because you're saying he's almighty, even like the almighty dollar doesn't make the dollar God. Those arguments don't hold. God clearly says he is God in the Bible. Jesus nowhere in the Bible clearly says that he is almighty God. Rather, the verses that I brought up about Jesus being a man who was sent by God were never addressed. The verses that I brought up in the first part of the debate weren't addressed by any of the speakers. But again, we appreciate everybody's input. Great. Let's get to the next prompt.

[Podcast Host]

Thanks for watching all the way to the end, guys. Please hit like and subscribe. It helps us grow the show and helps us get bigger guests. Thank you so much.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So second prompt, which is the Bible is not the perfectly preserved words of God, free from errors or human tampering. None of them chose to debate this point. None of them. All of you guys sitting here, all of you guys that flew out from different cities, in different countries, even didn't even dare to choose this prompt. And that tells you something that they know they cannot defend. This prompt Bible is not the perfectly preserved words of God. The Quran is. Go check it out. So my prompt is that the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Thank you, Sheikh. Of course I disagree. But even if I grant the fact that some sort of form of the name Muhammad is in the Bible, that's not enough to prove that that is Muhammad IBN Abdullah from the Meccan Arabs. Correct. Oh, let me just finish my statement actually. And so we do need to characterize Muhammad before we just say just because a name is in there, because I personally know many Muhammad. And so with that being said, I'd like to look at some Muslim sources about what it, what, how clear Muhammad is being described in the Bible. So go for it. In Surah 2, 146, it says they recognize Muhammad clearly in their scriptures as they recognize their own sons. Abdullah IBN Salam, one of the first converts to Islam, who is a rabbi, he says in Azbar that you could pick out his own son from a group of children. That's how specific it should be. So this description of Muhammad is not ambiguous, but very specific. Or as Kyle Bel Akbar says, another Jewish convert, he says that you can find in the Torah Muhammad IBN Abdullah, not Ahmed or Mahmudin, Muhammad IBN Abdullah, that he's born in Mecca, that he will migrate to Taiba and that his kingdom will be the Sham. And so which according to you guys, of course, is why Jews relocated to Medina in anticipation of an Ishmaelite prophet from the Hajj region of Arabia. And just like the Quran and Sahih Al Bukhari state, Abraham took Ishmael and Hagar went all the way down to Mecca from the Sham them Left them in the Zamzam spots, which is of course where the SAI ritual is established. Marwan Safa. And also eventually when Ishmael reaches the age of puberty, because he's an infant at this time when he goes down there, right, he marries a woman from the tribe of Jerhum in Mecca now. And with that being said, of course, later, Abraham and Ishmael come. Abraham comes back and he lays the foundation of the COVID afterwards. And in your own words, actually a lecture about Ishmael a few years back in 2021. This is in December, around minute four, you said, how can Muhammad be born in Mecca if Ishmael never went there? And I, I fully agree. Yeah, you said that verbatim in one of your lectures. So it's December 15, 2021.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I ask for a clarification?

[Moderator Elijah]

Yeah, sure.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Are you thinking that I said that Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam wasn't born in Mecca?

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

No, no, sorry, you were making your point. Okay, he was. And it's so vital that he was born there.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So, so again, because that, that kind of misrepresented my point. So I didn't say that Muhammad wasn't born in Mecca.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Yeah, my apologies. That's what I meant. We agree on that. My apologies.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

You were asking rhetorically, you said, how can Muhammad be born in Mecca if Ishmael never went there? So you were trying to establish how important 64 is. Because it's just so important that, that that was what I gathered.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Lesson was this in.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Because I just wanted December 15, 2020.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I mean, the time I don't memorize every day. What was the name of the lecture? Yeah, I have like millions of lectures on my channel.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

No problem. They find minute four, it says Prophet, Prophet Ibrahim, left Hajar and Ishmael and some Arabic in Mecca. By Allah.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Some Arabic.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Yeah. You want to see it?

[Moderator Elijah]

I think the. You even got the thing.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Oh, alayhi salaam. Peace be upon them in Mecca.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Okay, so.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So the point of the lecture was that Ishmael was in Mecca.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Very vital. Sorry, go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, go ahead.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Yeah, I think, I don't think we disagree here. I'm saying that according to the Islamic tradition, it is important that Ishmael actually went to. Went to Mecca because that's where Muhammad, the whole, his whole prophethood ties back to Abraham. Right. So the idea is that it's very important that Ishmael went to Mecca. So now back to the prompt. Right. Because we're talking about the Bible. The thing is it's not only that we have that the Bible is silent about this journey of Ishmail, it's that in the Torah we see a clear disconnect between Muhammad and Ishmail because the parallel story of Abraham's separate separation from Hager and Ishmael is completely different. And so I'll give you some examples this, I'm comparing everything to Sakya.

[Moderator Elijah]

Yeah, I'm losing ground.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Yeah, so, so no problem.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So are you saying Muhammad wasn't born.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

No, he's born in Mecca. Here, let me, let me. Okay, Muhammad is born in Mecca.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Muhammad Abdullah, he's born in Mecca. So he. And he, according to you guys, is a descendant of Ishmael.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Keep going.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

And we draw this from the source, Bukhari 3, 3, 6, 4. Because it's not just his genealogy that's important, it's also tied to this journey that Ishmael, Abraham and Hagar made to Mecca, which establishes the Kaaba, the Hajj and also the SAI rituals and, and so forth. And so this is important. Now my argument here is that that is what characterizes Muhammad. The Muhammad who is an Ishmaelite from the Meccan tribe of Jerome, who eventually of course lines up with the Quraysh clan, which is where Muhammad, that's the Muhammad, not Muhammad my Uber driver, Muhammad, my neighbor, because I've had both. Okay, so this is that, that specific Muhammad. Okay, I'm saying that, that Muhammad is not compatible with the Torah. So I'm about to tell you why. In Genesis 17 it says that Ishmael was 13 when he circumcised in Canaan. Okay, this is not compatible with Bukhari because he's a little infant already when he separated from Abraham. And so Genesis 21 later on he's actually around 17 years old when. And Genesis 21 is the parallel story when he separated from Abraham. Verse 14 actually sent. This is 21, verse 14 sends. Abraham sends them out. So again, that's not what happened. Bukhari, Abraham goes with them. Abraham drops off Hagar and Ishmael in Mecca. Correct?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Correct, yes.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Okay, so and then, but in Genesis they don't go to Mecca, they go to Beersheba, which is only about 20ish miles away and 800 plus miles north of Mecca. So Beersheba clearly is not Mecca. So that's the first problem. Verse 21. Now it's the genealogy says that Ishmael marries an Egyptian woman, which is, which means none of his children were ethnically Arab. We know that at that time Arab is not an ethnicity at all.

[Sheikh Uthman]

During that time period they were Arab as an ethnicity.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

The word Arab. Sure, but it wasn't used. Okay, sure it wasn't used.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Arabs were an ethnicity way before that time. Sure, but they were nomadic tribes.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Let me clarify. I apologize. I agree they were a nomadic tribe, but as it pertains to.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That was incorrect. They did exist. Arabs.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Yes, Arabs did exist.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, go ahead.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

I meant to say. Let me clarify what I'm trying to say. The biblical usage of Arab, especially in the Old Testament and in the New Testament as well. But right now, since we're talking about the Old Testament is not referring to any sort of ethnicity, but more so a geographical region. Now with that being said, the problem still stands that Ishmael marries an Egyptian woman, meaning his. His. His mom Hagar is Egyptian. We can both agree on that. So his, his immediate children are 75 Egyptian, 25 Hebrew and 0% ethnically Arab. Now we'll grant that in Genesis 25 and other places in the Bible that the Ishmaelites do migrate to.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Good.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Go. They go eastward, you know, to, to What? Well, Genesis, one at a time, right. So Genesis 25 it says they go eastward and that's Midian. And we see that corroborations of that later on with Ishmael. It's a Midianites intermix and of course what is now modern day Jordan. Okay. And so the thing is that's northern Arabia, that's nowhere near Mecca, still hundreds and hundreds of miles away from Mecca. And so therefore, even if I grant that the Bible has prophecies about an Ishmaelite prophet or even an Arabian prophet, which I don't. They have no connection to Muhammad just because it's about an Arabian prophet. Because according to the Torah, Muhammad is not an Ishmaelite. And so not only do we not have a clear connection in the Bible between Muhammad and Ishmael, what we actually have is a clear disconnect. Go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Oh, thank you. Appreciate the history lesson. All right, so the first thing is that if we go back to the Bible itself, the discussion was whether the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned or not. But I definitely will respect the fact that you want to discuss whether the office or the person of Muhammad is in the Bible or not. Right. So before we go there, let's discuss one thing. You're quoting the Old Testament as an authority here about different times and places and so on. Would you agree that there are numerous errors, scribal errors, names flipped, ages flipped in the Old Testament.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

So do you want to run the corruption claim?

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, I'm just asking a question. Yes. No. And then you can follow up with

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

that as it pertains to Ishmael currency.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That wasn't the question.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Well, I'm going to clarify.

[Moderator Elijah]

Hold on. Can you ask the question one more time?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Once again, as I was asked to do, Please respond with yes and no. And then you can add your clarification with that. Would you agree that the Bible, as it is today, that we have in front of us the Old Testament that you're quoting as an authority, show that the lineage of the Prophet or where Ishmael was, is in contradiction with it is riddled with copyist errors and mistakes that were flipped back, names flipped, ages flipped, and so on. Would you agree to that?

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

So that's very generic, but I'll say yes and clarify.

[Christian Theologian]

Yes.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Wait, sorry. Yes, yes. In that I do agree that there are scribal errors.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, good.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

However, my clarification is that none actually pertain to anything regarding Ishmael. Supposed corruptions, the nature of them.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Supposed.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Yeah, like. And suppose as in, like, if you do claim those, you.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You conceded that there are.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

No. No.

[Moderator Elijah]

Okay. She's saying yes. Overall, she's agreeing with you. Yes. There are issues, known issues. Generally, the. The issues are not in the terms of the Ish, is it? You said Ishmael.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

So. Yes. So, yes.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So I think if I clarify my

[Moderator Elijah]

question, I think that's gonna. I think we're good with understanding that. I'm gonna accept that as the answer. She says yes, but with the condition that she knows that they're not pertaining to Ishmael.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay. Yes, that's okay. So again, because of the fact that we do know that there are scribal errors, mistakes that were made, names, numbers, and this is the McCarthy Study Bible, again, from a Christian authority, I'm not coming at it from a Muslim perspective. It shows that 707,000 scribal error. Secondly, I mean, how many chariots were there? Scribal errors, names that are flipped, copious errors that go throughout the Bible, and I can give you 100 if you like. But we would agree that there are scribal errors and mistakes that are in the current Old Testament, whether it has to do with the story of Ishmael or not. When we concede that, then to say that because this doesn't meet the Islamic version of the story means that that's not Muhammad. Doesn't make sense because you know that there are things that were flipped. Now, very interestingly.

[Moderator Elijah]

Let him build.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah. Very interestingly, you actually did me a great favor by making the point that Ka' Ab Al Ahbar and Abdullah IBN Salam and other Jewish rabbis from very early times saw in what they had of Scripture clearly the name of the Prophet Muhammad and they accepted Islam from it. So that's the end of that right there. That these people who were Jewish scholars, people of the Bible that you have conceded and quoted actually said, yes, we saw the Prophet Muhammad clearly mention the Bible more than what we would even see today, very interestingly, and they accepted Islam from it. So that would actually end my point that it was there, they saw it and they became Muslim.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Okay, okay, so two things real quick. One, you, you kind of mentioned that there's this general, there's general errors within the Old Testament. Right? Now, of course that my, my point is that everything that contradicts the Hadith and, and Quran, you would of course have to claim that that is a corruption. Right. Because the original answer. Sorry.

[Moderator Elijah]

Well, no, I think she's just making

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

the, the, Well, I guess yes or no, like anything that contradicts the Hadith and Quran pertain to Ishmael would mean that the Quran Hadith would be correcting the Old Testament.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Yes.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Okay, perfect.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I did have explanation, but do you want me to just keep.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Oh, no problem. I don't think, No, I think that that's, that's fine. I, I, okay, yeah, so I can work off of that. And you also bring up Abdullah IBN Salam and Kabul Akbar, which would you say?

[Sheikh Uthman]

You brought them up, actually.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Okay, yeah, I actually like them as well. Do you, would you say they are pretty learned scholars of the Torah?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

And would you say they are also authentic or reliable. Authentic scholars, just in Islam in general.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I mean, they're not scholars of Islam. Like, like for example, you would take Abdullah IBN Abbas and so on. Many of their narrations, for example, had to be checked because they brought Israeli into it. But they did definitely knew the Torah. Yes. And they, as you said, claimed, again, not every narration from them is going to be authentic because we do check asanid in Islam. Yes, of course, but you made the claim which.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Can I continue? That's fine. That's all I need to know. Okay, so the idea here is that these, this claim that the Ishmael narratives are corrupted. Okay. There's two types of corruption. It's accidental or intentional. Okay. If it's neither, it didn't happen at all. So first of all, I want to get rid of the possibility that this is on accident. So the nature of these specific contradictions. They are not scribal errors. Whoever tampered with these texts have to be do it intentionally. I have a list of possible scribblers.

[Christian Debater]

Do.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

I may read them out because they don't apply to any of the. So cannot be accidental. It was intentional. Correct.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I respond to that? Because I don't.

[Moderator Elijah]

Hold on. She's. She's trying to get through her. Okay, here. Let's let her.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

So. So for example, you know Mecca and Beersheba. That's not a scribal error. Would you agree?

[Sheikh Uthman]

It could be.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

No, it's not.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I. So that's why you asked me a question. Can I answer it?

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

You can answer. And then I'm gonna read out a list of possible scribal errors which don't pertain to any of these type of contradictions. Go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, so I mean, I'll answer you, but there's just one point that I would like to make which I think would save us a lot of time because. Which is that once you know there are errors and we have agreed now that there are errors, some are scribal, some are intentional, and so on, then that by itself takes it away from being the gold standard. That means that without error is the gold standard. Everything else has to be checked according to the gold standard. If I handed you a calculator and said, you know what, it does make mistakes once in a while in calculations, you couldn't say, well, maybe it didn't this time. Right. That just doesn't make sense. So the whole lineage idea would not make sense. The lineages of even Jesus in the Bible contradict the Old Testament and so on. So those are going to go back and forth. What I would say is, why don't we get back to the point? Is the Prophet Muhammad mentioned in the Bible? Because you've already conceded that early Jewish rabbis did find it there and accepted Islam because of it.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Yeah. Thank you. So I wasn't there with my point. First of all, there's. When you. When you cannot say, when you look at these, this narrative of Ishmael, that those are specifically accidental. That's my point. There are scribal errors that are accident, but these are not. Okay. If we are actually reading through Genesis,

[Sheikh Uthman]

how do we know that?

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Because of the nature of them. So for example, her finish. Okay, okay. I didn't want to pull this out,

[Moderator Elijah]

but seriously, are you kidding me right now?

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Sorry, continue. So there's different types of corruptions. Okay, so it could be a spelling mistake. That's on accident. It could be when, you know, two paragraphs start with the same type of word and then you skip a paragraph on accident. That's a copyist or a transmission error. So there's a whole list of these, and I'm not going to read every single one because there's quite a few. But my point is, I've gone through each of them and they don't. They do not apply to this narrative of Ishmael. Now, with that being said. Right. Would you say Abdullah IBN Salaam and Kaab Al Akbar had the correct version, your version of Ishmael, the one that connects Ishmael to Muhammad?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I don't know. I mean, all I'm going by is what you told me right now, which I have read in the book Al Shifa of Qadyayad, that they said, we saw the Prophet Muhammad in the Bible and we recognized him and we became Muslim because of the fact that we recognize him. Now, did they have. Can I can.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

I wasn't done with that.

[Moderator Elijah]

Well, let him ask the question.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I gotta ask the question.

[Moderator Elijah]

You gotta let him finish.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So when you say that, then I can agree and we've both come to that. It was there and they saw it and they became Muslim from it. Great.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Now I want to investigate that claim.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That was your claim. You stated at the beginning of this that.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

No, I was appealing to Islamic sources. I did clarify. Let's look at some Islamic sources.

[Moderator Elijah]

Finish it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So again, you began this, and I'm glad it's recorded saying that these scholars who are Torah scholars said they found the name Muhammad Abdullah and they found the characteristics.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

I asked you, do you what you

[Podcast Host]

say to my guy?

[Moderator Elijah]

Let him finish his thought.

[Christian Debater]

Thank you.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Yeah, my bad. Sorry.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So again, that by itself does show that they saw this. Now, there are things that Kabul Akbar narrated that later scholars like Ibn Abbas refuted because that was stuff that they brought from Israeli and they could be making mistakes. They're not prophets, they're not Sahaba. But that doesn't change the fact that they did become Muslim from what they affirmed was the name of the Prophet Muhammad in the Bible.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Thank you. So let me respond to that. My question was Abdullah IBN Salam and Kaaba Akbar, the tour that they had, did it have details that match with today's Bible?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I have no idea.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

So it's either yes or no. Right? So let's. Let's investigate.

[Moderator Elijah]

Okay, so let me.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

No, let's.

[Moderator Elijah]

No, no, hold on for a second. Because I feel like this is like veering in 20 different directions. Now I could be totally wrong, but I'm, I'm waiting for you to like really just get to the points of things.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Yeah. If I can finish.

[Moderator Elijah]

Because let's get to the points of things and then we're going to start wrapping up because we've been in a long.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Okay. Yeah.

[Moderator Elijah]

Long way to get it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I said I don't know how is that unacceptable?

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Let me just read this quote real quick. From Abraham fulfilled. Okay. This is on page 407. And you, you say yourself, you know Adnan Rashid.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I do know.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Awesome. So, so it goes. It says that there were rabbis and monks or Jews and Christians who were aware of the imminent advent of Muhammad in Arabia, heralding from locations as diverse as Syria and Turkey. And they were so convinced that he would appear imminently that they made the journey into Arabia. What's, what's, what's amazing is that this was not only cross religious, but had a wide geographic distribution. People of different religious persuasions, speaking different languages and living in different lands all arrived at the same conclusion both in terms of timeline and location. A prophet would be arising soon, identifying specific the city of Medina. This is evidence that their sources were genuine revelation from God. Whatever all these rabbis and monks were reading seems to have not only been widely accessible outside of Arabia, but also had a large degree of overlap. Again, this points to the Bible of today or perhaps variants of it which we know was readily available in all these locations in the 7th century. Now Adnan Rashid seems to think that, you know, people like these, these comrades had the same Bible we had today. I know it's a variance of it, right? And so if there are variants of it. So let's, let's go with that possibility that somehow today's is a variant of whatever they had at the time, right? Their motive to remove the name of Muhammad or change this narrative of Ishmael. Because it can't be on accident, okay? This is on purpose.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Could be.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Okay, on accident, okay? So the Jews act. So Genesis 17 was on accident.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I respond?

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

So Ishmael. So let me. This is my point. It's not an accident. If you're being entirely honest to the text, it's not an accident, okay? Ishmael gets three blessings. Ishmael gets three blessings in the Old Testament, okay? Two of those blessings happen in Genesis 17 and also Genesis 21. And both of those in the circumstances at which the blessing is given. In Genesis 17 it says that that was the circumcision covenant, right? That is given to Abraham. Ishmael is also circumcised on the same day as Abraham. Right. And this is what you guys appeal to, to say that Ishmael is made into a great nation because this is the same passage that he's given that prophecy of a great nation. Now, if this was written in on accident, then why would Jews accidentally bless Ishmael when clearly you guys always claim that they want to lower Ishmael? So the whole context of Genesis 17. The whole context of Genesis 17 contradicts what Muhammad revealed in the hadith. Because Muhammad according to. Because actually Muhammad says that Abraham was circum. He circumcised himself when he was 80 years old. Okay, but that is completely contradictory. Contradictory to Genesis 17. My point here is that if you're saying Genesis 17 was messed up on accident, how do you accidentally write in the scenario, a very specific scenario about Ishmael's age where he gets this blessing?

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Okay.

[Moderator Elijah]

And let's do a quick response to that and then we'll move into final thoughts from there. Okay?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay. So first thing to say that it's definitely there cannot be an accidental error is just absolutely preposterous because people can accidentally write their name for a wrong city. People, as in the Bible, for example, when it says God inspired David to number the people of Israel. Another verse says Satan inspired David to number the people of Israel. Many biblical scholars, including one that I just had debate with, say that this was an error. They actually missed the names. Now, others will give different explanations, but the point there being this could definitely be an accidental error. You cannot say. It could not possibly be. That's just not possible. Secondly, it could also be on motive. I don't know. I'm not making that claim, so it doesn't matter. My claim, very simply, is that if what we have in front of us does have errors, then I will trust that which I see with no errors comparison to the one that has errors. So I will take the Quranic narrative over the biblical about Ishmael and Ishaq, because if I know for sure, including Bible scholars up and down that, you know, Avery brought with him this particular study Bible, and that tells you that there are errors. So I'm not going to trust that over that without errors. All right, now I would like to just address one more thing. You're quoting Adnan Rasheed as if he's a. Like a hadith or something. I know Adnan Rashid, he's a friend of mine. But he's not like a hadith for us. Like you're quoting it as if, like, oh, no, Adnan Rashid wrote it. With all due respect and love to Adnan Rashid. Right, so if we just go back to the actual source that you quoted beginningly, in the beginning, that Abdullah IBN Salam and Kabul Akbar, who were Jewish scholars that you quoted in the beginning of this conversation, accepted Islam because they said the Torah that they had in front of them had the name Muhammad. That's the end of it, to be honest.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Okay, thank you.

[Moderator Elijah]

And we're gonna move into final statements.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

No, let me respond.

[Moderator Elijah]

No.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

And then final statement.

[Moderator Elijah]

Final statement.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

I'm very.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Oh, my God.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

I have a very long final statement.

[Moderator Elijah]

There are two other people that have to go on after you. And we're on a time crunch. Final statements, please.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Okay, so this is a quote by Kab al Akbar. And this is apparently what got him to convert. If you implicit.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Where's that from?

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

This is authenticated. This is authenticated by Albani. From where this is from. This is from Bassam Zawadi's article. He's a Muslim.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Bassam Zawadi is not a. Is not a book. Can you tell me, do you want

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

me read the whole thing? Sunnah Al Darimi, Kitab Al Mukad?

[Sheikh Uthman]

If you can't even read the name of the book, I don't think you can quote it as an authority. I'm sorry.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Really?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah, really. But if you want to, go ahead, go.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Wow.

[Moderator Elijah]

Okay. I'm gonna put a timer on it. You've got. You've got exactly two minutes to get through your final statement. I would make it very clear.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

So this is Bassam Zwadi's article. Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

And he just puts together who that is, but.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Okay, that's fine. So this is what Kabbalah said. The first line of the Torah says, muhammad is the messenger of Allah and my chosen slave, Medina Taiba, whatever. The second. Second line of the Torah says, muhammad is a messenger of Allah, his nation are constantly praising. And he goes on for another paragraph. And so this is according to Kaaba Akbar, how he converted to Islam because he. He recognizes his description. Right? Now, that's. First of all. That's the first point I want to make. Where. Where if that was actually in the tour in the seventh century. Well, I really want to know where that Torah is. And let's say it actually existed, right? Maybe a tour in Yemen, because he's from Yemen.

[Christian Theologian]

Right.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Or even a tour in Medina, which. Which was where Abdullah IBN Salam is from. But there are manuscripts and also corroborations that completely contradict Ishmael in not just biblical sources, but extra biblical sources like Josephus. He rewrites the whole history of the Jews and he corroborates the entire Abraham story that we have in the Bible today. Contradictory to Sahar Bukhari 364, you have Philo, who is a renowned.

[Moderator Elijah]

It's her final statement.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

First century. The point is these are people writing in the first century referring to a Torah. Okay. Philo quotes the Torah, some often verbatim and sometimes paraphrases. And he corroborates the Ishmael story that we have in our Bible today. Contradictory to Sakia Bukhari, the book of Jubilees, that. That predates. That's like around the 200s B.C. the Book of Jubilees rewrites the first Genesis and Exodus and also corroborates the exact same details. And so for a corruption to happen, this cannot be accidental. Someone would have to perpetuate. Someone have to corrupt Jubilees, corrupt Josephus, corrupt the church fathers in. Because the church followers quote Ishmael extensively. And then a group of. A group of Jews in Medina would have to travel and knock on every church and synagogue and get. Get everyone to say, hey, let's change this specific part about Ishmael. And that's very intentional. That cannot be on accident.

[Moderator Elijah]

All right, and your final thoughts on this?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Thank you. So again, Sunnah Nadarami is a book of hadith, which, I mean, I would have to look at the chain and so on. And again, this is a statement of a person could be wrong. This is not a marfuh hadith even. Do you know what a marfu hadith is or.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

No, I don't.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay. It's one of hadiths from the Prophet that's considered Wahi. The statement of Kabul Akbar are not considered wahi. So he could have been wrong in what he stated there. But the fact of the matter still stands that according to what you're quoting, he became Muslim. And he said that the Torah had the name of the Prophet Muhammad in it. So that again, still proves the point that those Jews did see it and accept Islam from it. And not just him, Abdullah IBN Salaam and others. And Al Shifa Qadyayad has Amr Ibn as and Abdullah IBN Amr Ibn as and many other names of those. And you can look this up in a book called Al Shifaqadi Ayat. If you want, I can send you a PDF. Now, having said all of that, it does not change the fact that the name Muhammad Sallallahu alaihi wasallam is clearly in even the Bible of today, let alone whatever early scriptures that they may have seen. And that that is still the prompt and it still stands. So thank you.

[Moderator Elijah]

All right, thank you. So both of you, if you learned

[Podcast Host]

anything from this episode or got any value at all, please share this episode with a friend. It helps us grow the channel, it helps us grow the podcast, and it means a lot to us. Thank you so much.

[Sheikh Uthman]

The name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible.

[Christian Critic]

Right on.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Thank you.

[Christian Critic]

A couple of the sources you had that used earlier. Will we able to turn to that. That John MacArthur study by what you have?

[Christian Debater]

Sure.

[Christian Critic]

There's something in First Kings 9. One that I think is. Is relevant. It seemed like when you went there, you said that there was like 700,000 tribal errors. I think is what.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I did not say that when you were there.

[Christian Critic]

But you said it. You said it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Mentioned about it. Can I respond to what I said? Well, I was just going to see

[Christian Critic]

if you could read this and then you could comment on it.

[Moderator Elijah]

I don't know. Yeah.

[Christian Critic]

From the source you use in regards to textual corruption and things like that, because I. I think it'll be. Be helpful. Do you remember what you said, though?

[Moderator Elijah]

It was something about the errors, Correct?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah. I mean, the difference between 700 and 7,000 is what I was mentioning. Not that there are.

[Christian Critic]

Oh, the chariots. The chariot number. Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah, the chariots. How many people David killed? It's right there if you want to.

[Christian Critic]

Gotcha.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I got it highlighted and. All right.

[Christian Critic]

Okay. Well, there's something from the MacArthur study Bible level. Okay, that's good clarification.

[Sheikh Uthman]

What would you like me to read?

[Christian Critic]

That. That when it talks about the sources of the Book of the Kings.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Where do you want me to read?

[Christian Critic]

The thing is, I was looking for the page. I got the digital version. I think it's page 856 or so.

[Sheikh Uthman]

But I'm gonna read from 856.

[Christian Critic]

Yeah. If I could read from.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I mean, what verse is it under? I can look it up.

[Christian Critic]

It's in the beginning of where it talks about the Chronicles sources. Because here's what.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'm confused.

[Moderator Elijah]

Yeah.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So do you want me to give me the verse so I can look it up?

[Christian Critic]

Let me read it to you and then I'll.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I don't know what you're reading off of. Can we look at the book?

[Christian Critic]

Yes, the Chronicle sources. Here's what it says, though.

[Moderator Elijah]

Hold on.

[Christian Critic]

From the MacArthur study book.

[Moderator Elijah]

Is it from that book?

[Christian Critic]

Yeah, But I had the digital copy, so it's hard to find it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

But what verse and chapter would it be? Because I can. I can turn to it. That's not an issue.

[Christian Critic]

I think it's at the beginning of the Book of Chronicles where it says the Chronicle sources.

[Sheikh Uthman]

We don't have time to do this. If you want to. If you want to look it up and give it to me, I'll take a look at it. All right.

[Christian Critic]

Well, let me read what it says. Although relatively.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Actually look it up.

[Christian Critic]

I mean, yes, but I have it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I don't trust digital copies. Copies I like. That's why I brought all these books with me.

[Christian Critic]

Okay. Okay. But I'm gonna read you what it says, and I'll try to find it in your copy. Okay. Maybe I could do it during the discussion.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Go ahead.

[Christian Critic]

Although relatively few scribal errors have been made in copying Scripture, they can be identified and corrected. Thus, the original inerrant content of the Bible has been preserved. That's from the MacArthur Study Bible that you used to try to show that it had corrupted sources.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Did you want me to respond or. Yeah, okay.

[Christian Critic]

But you used it to show corruption, Right? Now I'm gonna try to find it in here. But it is in here because I have Lagos. So I looked it up when you were talking.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, I'll concede that for you. No problem. I thought you were going to give, like, a particular verse, which I wanted to look into, where you're seeing a general statement. So you're saying MacArthur is saying there

[Christian Critic]

are scribal errors MacArthur study Bible you used.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes.

[Christian Critic]

So they cannot be identified and corrected. Do you agree with that?

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, I don't.

[Christian Critic]

Okay, but you use it as a source to show scribal error.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I speak? If you don't mind. I let you speak, and when I start speaking, you start cutting me out. Right. So again, the fact that there are scribal errors, till today, they have not been changed, even in my Bible. Right here I can find those. And scholars will even debate what the actual verse is supposed to say. And that's why NIV and other translations have been rejected by most Christians that I've spoken to that have stuck to the KGV even when NIV tried to get rid of those scribal errors, saying that. No, that these corrections are wrong. So that doesn't make sense. What we can agree on, that there are scribal errors.

[Christian Critic]

It's page 514. I found it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Thank you.

[Christian Critic]

Right there above that box. Yeah, but I just. I think it's disingenuous to try to prove the Bible with a corrupted. You're saying it's corrupted, but the very source you use says they can be identified and corrected. So do you agree with your source you brought today?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, this is. Let me, Let me answer you one more time.

[Christian Critic]

Do you see where it is in the book too?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I just want to make sure I see it.

[Christian Critic]

Okay, that's good. So now you trust digital. That's good.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I don't. I still don't. That's why I'm looking at the source that you showed me right now. Again, to say that McCarthy has an opinion. He has many opinions that I think even you and me might disagree with him on. But the fact that he points out in his study Bible that these errors do exist, that's something that can be identified, that can be verified against manuscripts. Not an opinion of MacArthur.

[Christian Critic]

They can be identified and corrected is what it says. You see where it says corrected.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Once again, it could be corrected. But even those corrections then are rejected by other scholars. Just like the NIV corrections were rejected by the. No, no, don't try to let me finish.

[Christian Critic]

I'm not allowed to shake my head, sir.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, no, no. But I can shake my head all day. Let me finish what I'm saying. Right? Yeah, yeah, go ahead. The fact that MacArthur feels that he could correct them still stands. The fact that every Bible that we are reading today that I have my hands on is either disputed by other Christians or still contained those errors, so has not been corrected. Now, when you start the last line,

[Christian Critic]

could you just read that last line on top of the box? The very last line?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure. Although relatively few scribblers have been made in copying scriptures that can be identified and corrected, thus the original intent content of the Bible has been preserved.

[Christian Critic]

Thank you. Appreciate it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I do not agree with that statement. As I said. Thank you.

[Christian Critic]

I respect that.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Thank you.

[Christian Critic]

But I just want to point out you miss. Misuse your sources.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I do not miss you earlier, I did not. That. That was. That was the ne. It was not this. It was the net. By now that we're talking about authority. No, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Let me, Let me finish now, because you can't just roll over me. No, well, it already happened. It already happened. You're not rolling over anybody. Bro, calm down. Don't, don't, don't, don't flatter yourself.

[Moderator Elijah]

You made a point. Let him, Let him at least.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Thank you.

[Moderator Elijah]

All right. But I swear you made that an authority earlier.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, no, we Were the issue of authority was an nit Bible.

[Moderator Elijah]

It was the scholar thing.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I mean, you can. Listen, listen. You can. You can look up the video later. But this is the one that we were discussing about the 25 scholars regarding the authority. I can show you the verse that I read from it. That's okay. But MacArthur is.

[Moderator Elijah]

No doubt about scholars not having authority or having authority.

[Jewish-Christian Scholar]

Authority.

[Sheikh Uthman]

And you were giving us for sure again. And scholars will hold opinions. That's one thing. And none of us will say that we agree with every opinion. In fact, Avery threw this under the bus when he brought up the two different ages. You did, you did. Yeah. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish.

[Moderator Elijah]

Everybody try it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

When Avery first came to us, he brought this. And in front of Sneako. And this video is online.

[Christian Critic]

When I brought this out, Avery's over there. You already had your time.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Listen, don't interrupt me. Thank you. Please, please don't interrupt me. You're gonna fill her, but please don't interrupt me.

[Moderator Elijah]

Stop, stop, stop, stop, stop.

[Sheikh Uthman]

When I had brought this up to Avery, he had said, this is MacArthur's opinion, right? I'm not taking people's opinions. You can look at the video. Sneako's there. You can look at that. He threw MacArthur under the bus on that one. Right? But here, when I'm saying that there's scribal errors that you can verify against manuscript that is very different from the opinion of a scholar. Those are two different things.

[Christian Critic]

Right? Thanks, Jake MacArthur over the shake now, on page 28 of James Dunn's book that you brought as well, I bookmarked for you on page 28. If you could just read that top sentence of that second paragraph, please. This is about in relationship to worship of Jesus. What's it say?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Same to all. The fact that such worship language is used in reference to Jesus, even if only occasionally, is very striking. This would.

[Christian Debater]

I don't know.

[Sheikh Uthman]

What, you gotta go to the bathroom or something, bro? This would have been entirely unusual and without precedence in the Judaism of the time. I'm gonna keep reading or.

[Christian Critic]

So was worship language used in relationship to Jesus? First question, was it unusual? Second question. And then if you could read the last two sentences, that same paragraph.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay. It's interesting. You want me to skip over a lot?

[Christian Critic]

You can read the rest if you want.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay.

[Christian Critic]

It's not gonna help.

[Sheikh Uthman]

What? What last two sentences? Where do you want me to start?

[Christian Critic]

The same paragraph. You just send out a book.

[Sheikh Uthman]

In fact, that this definition is in the wider Mediterranean world. The fact that this Definition could be used as casual and as taken for granted as it is in. I could be used first.

[Christian Critic]

Corinthians 1:2.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah, I just has a number one.

[Christian Critic]

It means first.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, gotcha. Corinthians 1:2 assuredly indicates that invocation of the Lord Jesus in prayer was a regular feature in early Christian worship.

[Christian Critic]

Early Christian.

[Sheikh Uthman]

What worship was Jesus worshipped again? Do you want me to answer according to this? Yes. But in the same book that you read and the same book that you're quoting that you're now trying to jump away from what I read earlier, it says Christian worship as defined simply as the worship of Jesus. For that would emerge as an inequity is taken seriously. It would soon become evident that Christian worship can deteriorate into what would be called Jesus olatry. Like idolatry, it is not simply into the worship of Jesus, but the worship that falls short of the worship of the one true God, the Father, the Lord of Jesus Christ. I use the term jesolatry as an important sense parallel to that of ideolatry. So if you're going to quote him, then continue the worship.

[Christian Critic]

Jesus is God.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Right? That's what it's saying though that would be. Again, it's not. I'm not, I'm reading it. I'm not filler busting anything right here. As Israel prophets pointed out on several occasions, the calamity of idolatry is that of idols in substitution of God. So if somebody takes the worship of God, it would take away from Jesus, takes the place of God, the worship due is to God and absorbed by the idol. The danger of Jesus olotry is the place of one creator God, Jesus absorbing the worship of the true one Creator. Now because he mentions. Let me finish, let me finish, let me finish the quote. It's just one liner. Yeah, it's one liner again. He goes through many ideas of whether they're worshiping or not. But in the conclusion, in the end, he says the first Christians did not worship Jesus as such. Worship is always and should always be offered to the glory of God the Father. That's the conclusion.

[Christian Critic]

That's why you got to read the whole book.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes, I did read the whole book.

[Christian Critic]

And you didn't have that section highlighted?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I didn't have it highlighted for you. I didn't highlight the whole book. But that doesn't mean I didn't read the whole book. When an author goes through a book, he presents this side and that side, but his conclusion is where the end is. Thank you. That's not rolled over.

[Christian Critic]

Commenting on I Corinthians. That's what he was saying.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Are we talking about Muhammad in the Bible or are we talking about worshiping? Oh, well, don't bring done.

[Christian Critic]

If you don't want to talk about. About done. Now, let's point.

[Sheikh Uthman]

We're on a prom that you're running from.

[Moderator Elijah]

Let's find your point.

[Christian Critic]

Okay, so the point was to show you misused sources. Now, regarding this source, Surah 7, 157 is Muhammad the unlettered Prophet.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Surah.

[Christian Critic]

Surah 7, 157 is Muhammad, unlettered prophet? There

[Sheikh Uthman]

are the prophet, noting that the Jews and Christians find him ascribed in their scripture. Yes. Surat al anfal. Yes, yes.

[Christian Critic]

Okay. Does it say that the description of the unlettered prophet will be found in the Torah and the Gospel?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Let's bring up the surah because I don't want to misquote things for you, but.

[Christian Critic]

No, it's the same. Same place.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'm going to bring up the actual surah.

[Moderator Elijah]

Yeah.

[Sheikh Uthman]

All right. Oh, can I. You want me to read it from the book? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Great.

[Christian Critic]

Surah 7, 157 right there. And I just want to let everyone know you gave this to me when I was in San Diego, so thank you. I appreciate that.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Thank you.

[Christian Critic]

It was a gift. So I brought it to here for that reason.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Surah 7, 157. And they are the ones who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, whose description they find in their Torah and the gospel. He commands them to do good and forbid them from evil, permits them of what is lawful and forbids them from what is impure, and relieves them from their burdens and the shackles that are bound them. Only those who believe in him honor him and support him. And I just want to clarify. Honor him doesn't mean worship him and follow the light and sent down to him will be successful. Yes.

[Christian Critic]

Is John 1:19 one of those places where the unlettered prophet is described in the Gospels?

[Sheikh Uthman]

I don't believe so.

[Christian Critic]

Then why do you have a video that says John 1:19? Is this you, fam?

[Sheikh Uthman]

That is me, yeah.

[Christian Critic]

Where you said that was the prophet they were waiting for.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Go ahead.

[Christian Critic]

This is your video, though.

[Sheikh Uthman]

All right, I'll let you continue.

[Christian Critic]

That's you, right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

If you're. If you're done with the theatrics, I will respond.

[Christian Critic]

It literally says that is the Prophet Muhammad and It's from John119.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'll just wait for the theatric to finish. Before I can respond.

[Christian Critic]

So it's weird you said no, but your video says otherwise. So that's cotton 740.

[Sheikh Uthman]

There is no point. He just wants to run from the actual.

[Christian Critic]

It's funny, I figured you might do that. But that's why I had to have that screenshot, because I knew you would deny it. Now, now, if that's the case, why does Peter apply this passage, Deuteronomy 18, the prophets being asked about in John 1:19 to Jesus? Why does Peter apply it to Jesus if it's supposed to be Muhammad according to the shaykh in this video?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Are you done with your question? Okay, first thing, I may have held that view, but right now what I have come with is a discussion that you don't even allow me to bring up. Right? Secondly, I could be wrong in things and I could be right. I'll have to research that again before I come back to you. I'm not just gonna here try to get clickbaits like you. Secondly, Peter taking John one has nothing to do with being the Prophet Muhammad being mentioned the Bible. That's not the prompt. The prompt is the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible. Do you agree or disagree?

[Christian Critic]

That's why I set you up with asking you if you identify Muhammad as the unletter prophet. You've been set up by that initial question and you told this poor man who said this was Jesus, you said no, that was Muhammad. So you're going to go back and

[Sheikh Uthman]

correct your mistake about running from the prompt you're running from. Your prompt is very clearly the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible. Do you agree or disagree?

[Christian Critic]

Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Do you agree or disagree?

[Christian Critic]

So I take it you don't.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, no. We need to respond, right?

[Moderator Elijah]

I want you to get to it with points of what you can get there.

[Christian Critic]

All right, so is.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'm not going to.

[Moderator Elijah]

Hold on, hold on.

[Christian Critic]

Go to the next point.

[Moderator Elijah]

Then he's get to it.

[Christian Critic]

Is Deuteronomy 18 describing the prophet Muhammad?

[Sheikh Uthman]

He did not answer my question. Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? That's a prompt.

[Christian Critic]

Yes or no, you identified him as the unlettered prophet. Okay, so I see you responding.

[Moderator Elijah]

Okay, now hold on. Let's ask question, let's ask this question.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

The title.

[Christian Critic]

So that is a name that.

[Moderator Elijah]

So that's where I want to say is what is Muhammad in the Bible? In the text, define what that is.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Very clearly. Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned the Bible? Yes or no.

[Moderator Elijah]

But in your prompt, what is the definition of, of Muhammad?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Who is the name Muhammad.

[Moderator Elijah]

Just the name.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Just the name.

[Moderator Elijah]

Does this name.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yes.

[Christian Critic]

So I thought that would happen. So if you remember when you're first

[Sheikh Uthman]

asked, he's not answering yes or no. I've asked like six times.

[Christian Critic]

Please stop interrupting me.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'm not interrupting you.

[Christian Critic]

I asked you a question to a different topic.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Since I asked you a question, you're not answering it. You're transitioning. Who's the one running?

[Christian Critic]

Stop interrupting.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Question from the prompt. You are running from the prompt. No, I'm not very clear.

[Christian Critic]

Clear.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Question from the prompt.

[Moderator Elijah]

What is the importance of the name Muhammad?

[Christian Theologian]

Okay.

[Christian Critic]

He said it has to be the name Muhammad, but he himself already identified Muhammad as the unleaded prophet, thereby identifying Muhammad as the unleaded prophet. That's the line of questioning. You knew you were trapped because I have you here. So you want to. You want to do it on the technicality. But that's okay because I plan for the technicality. So let's go to John 1 and we'll transition to his Jesus God, because that's in the same pattern. No, it's this.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, no, no.

[Christian Critic]

Hold on.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Let me explain why.

[Christian Critic]

No, I'm explaining why. Because it's in the same passage that also refers to Muhammad. Supposedly it's the same place of John 1. So what I'm going to do is show you what John the Baptist was actually talking about.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Look, you're running like as if you're in a marathon. Very clearly the prompt is. Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible, yes or no?

[Christian Critic]

No.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That's the problem. Not Jesus being God.

[Moderator Elijah]

I asked earlier what the importance was. Was Right. And you said you would oblige the different directions of coming in.

[Christian Critic]

I heard.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can he actually answer the question, though? Yes or no. And then he can go into any psych.

[Christian Critic]

He said no.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, I did not hear you say that. Good.

[Christian Critic]

Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So you're saying no, Muhammad. The name Muhammad did not mention the Bible.

[Christian Critic]

Go ahead. So you, you now, do I want to give you a choice?

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

All right.

[Christian Critic]

Would you rather continue on about the unlettered prophet being Muhammad and John 1, or would you. Do you want to see who John the Baptist says John 1 is about? Which is going to go to the deity topic? Door A, door B?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Neither. Because the prompt we're on is, is Muhammad mentioned in the Bible? And you said no. Can you not interrupt me now? Can you not interrupt me now?

[Christian Critic]

Remember that.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can you not interrupt me? Thank you. All right, so now the prompt that we're on, which you're running to Jesus, divinity and all the stuff because you're scared of is is Muhammad mentioned in the Bible? Now right here in Songs of Solomon the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned and this is not my opinion. This again I'm bringing Christian scholars from a lexicon that Brown, Driver and Briggs brought together. Let's do it then. Can I not be interrupted? Can I not be interrupted? Can I not be interrupted?

[Moderator Elijah]

My question is who is Muhammad in the name that you're referring to in this.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Excellent. Let me me first establish the prompt that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible and then I'll speak about who that person is.

[Moderator Elijah]

Well and here's my clarification why this is important because I asked you earlier why it's it's important that the name and you said it's just a name. It's, it's textual, right, Just basic text. But if we dive in in a different realm of that then you're going back on the prompt and then I have not really open up the door for them.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I will not go back on the prompt. Let's stick to is the name Muhammad mentioned in the Bible? That's the problem.

[Moderator Elijah]

I said who is Muhammad?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again then we can discuss that. But first prompt is, is the name Muhammad mentioned in the Bible And I will answer the plural issue as well. Now again this is the actual prompt that you're running from because according to your Old Testament you're the one who wrote. I never changed the prompt.

[Moderator Elijah]

Please stop.

[Christian Critic]

I got an email that says otherwise.

[Moderator Elijah]

Please go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You, you are lying and I have Sean call you out right now on it. I did not change that.

[Moderator Elijah]

We don't have time for meta that we don't have time for get to so much here.

[Sheikh Uthman]

The name Muhammad is such so clearly mentioned that even in your own lexicon it says this comes from Hamida of Arabic and is mentioned Muhammad dim. Now dim even though it has a institution of being plural. But Elohim doesn't mean that there are multiple gods that majesty and honor. Ephraim the younger son of Joseph also has that im. It is a majestic plural and just like the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible cannot be translated into the overall lovely because for example the word Avery means the king of the elves. But I'm not going to go and say the king of the elves was debating me right? Just like David is the most beloved Emmanuel, God is with us. Elijah God is my Yah and Daniel God is my judge. All of those have meanings but they are names and that is why the name Muhammad is clearly Mentioned in the Bible by name.

[Christian Critic]

Could you read the song of Song 5:16 and replace the word that you're saying should be Muhammad and read out Muhammad when you read it?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay. My mouth is most sweet. He is altogether lovely. Which is Muhammad. He is my beloved and he is my friend.

[Christian Critic]

Just the phrase. Just the word. Don't add a new phrase.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Muhammad. I was just.

[Christian Debater]

Okay.

[Christian Critic]

What word are you replacing it with, though?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Lovely.

[Christian Critic]

Okay, the most lovely. So can you say it how it would be read if the word, the original word that's translated here, the translators are wrong about you're saying there should be Muhammad. Could you read it? Okay, put his name in there.

[Sheikh Uthman]

His mouth is most sweet. He is altogether Muhammad. That is his name that I've just read for you now. He is my beloved and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem. So who's talking here again? Do you want me to just ask you a question?

[Christian Critic]

Who is speaking here in song of

[Sheikh Uthman]

Song 5 according to biblical sources, and I have brought this together, this is a prophecy about the prophet that is

[Christian Critic]

to come is speaking in song of song 5:16. Who is the one speaking? I didn't ask you what it was. I didn't ask you for a literary classification of the genre. Ashley, who was speaking? Do you know?

[Sheikh Uthman]

This is a love song that is written as a parable for the prophet to come. Whose wife? Again, this is not an actual wife and husband. It is a prophetic. Can I speak or am I just going to be cut off?

[Moderator Elijah]

He's running the line. He's asking you a question.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I'll let you go ahead.

[Christian Theologian]

Ask the wife.

[Christian Critic]

Okay. You're saying this is not in Song of Solomon. This isn't Solomon's wife.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can you continue that question?

[Christian Critic]

That's a question. This was Solomon, Solomon's wife.

[Christian Theologian]

Is it?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I finish?

[Christian Critic]

But can you answer?

[Sheikh Uthman]

It is not. It is a parable. It is a reference. It is not an actual love song. This is mystical symbolism as your own Christian study Bible, the Orthodox and other study Bible points out that. Can you read one? One. A mystical symbolism is involved in a highly figurative language. It is included in the Old Testament to be explained from the prophetic figure of the Lord as the husband. So this is a referring. Can I not get interrupted?

[Christian Critic]

Please read.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I not get interrupted, if you don't mind.

[Moderator Elijah]

I thought you were closing, but go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I was closing, if you had let me finish. So this is a mystic symbolism for the prophet is going to be referenced as the husband, not Solomon himself.

[Christian Critic]

That's not what that Says, can you read Song of.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I just read it, quote unquote.

[Christian Critic]

It doesn't say anything about Muhammad in there.

[Sheikh Uthman]

There again, I did not say it said anything about Muhammad. I did not. The prophetic figure is what I said. I'm glad it's being recorded.

[Moderator Elijah]

We're very tight on time right now.

[Sheikh Uthman]

The Song of Songs, which is Solomon. Who's Solomon?

[Christian Critic]

Who's.

[Sheikh Uthman]

If you're done with the theatrics, I'll continue.

[Christian Critic]

Okay, so. No, no, because you spoke, so I'm responding by reading context. You're telling us as a Muslim who. You're not a biblical scholar, you don't know Hebrew because it's plural. That's a problem for you.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

You're.

[Christian Critic]

You think you can just transpose Arabic with Hebrew. You cannot. You ran to this because you thought it was a strong place and I was okay with that. This is Solomon's wife. Why is Solomon's wife telling him how fine Muhammad is?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Great question. Now let me answer.

[Moderator Elijah]

Here's what we're going to do. For purposes of time, we're going to let you respond. Respond. And then we're gonna do a closing and a closing. Okay, thank you.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Thank you once again. No, no, I'm here all night if you want to be here. Don't think you got nothing on.

[Moderator Elijah]

I thought you had the out at 4.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I do have an appointment, but that doesn't mean I'm running from his time wise. Don't be.

[Christian Critic]

That's what the wife said to Solomon. I'm here all night, not Muhammad.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, once again, as clearly mentioned in your own Christian study Bible, this is not a literal poem back and forth. Rather it is. And I did not say that it said Muhammad. He lied about me again. But the mystical symbolism is involved here in a highly figurative language. Figurative language. The inclusion of the Old Testament is to be explained from the prophetic figure of the Lord as the husband, not Solomon as the prophetic figure of the Lord. Right. And this is again mentioned from many different sources that you can see that this was actual figurative language telling you about the prophet that is to come. And the actual name Muhammad is in there. Actually, I showed it to you from the Bible. So in verse 16, there's again in

[Christian Critic]

verse 16, who are the daughters of Jerusalem in relationship to Muhammad there?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Is this your clothing?

[Moderator Elijah]

Yeah. We're going to move to closings now.

[Christian Critic]

So it says, my beloved and my friend, build it into. And it says, oh, daughters of Jerusalem. The last question, if you could answer, who are the daughters?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Are we doing closings Are we doing questions back? Because I'm going to ask why you

[Moderator Elijah]

look into the woman.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Don't be greater.

[Christian Debater]

Stop.

[Moderator Elijah]

We don't have time for this. Gentlemen.

[Christian Critic]

Who are the daughters?

[Moderator Elijah]

Build it into your closing, please.

[Christian Critic]

Okay, if you answer, I'll build it right on.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Who are the daughters of Jerusalem? I'm awaiting your closing statement.

[Moderator Elijah]

Build it. Build it in. Say who the daughter.

[Christian Critic]

That's fine. That's fine because. Because daughters of Jerusalem were not big fans of Muhammad. I'll just say that.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Absolutely not. Why would you say that?

[Christian Critic]

Yeah, because that's verse 16 that you brought us to. So it shows your reading is absolutely a contextual. So here's my closing statement. It I started off destroying you in MacArthur, your own source about textual variants. That was strike one. Then what happened is I went to Dunn and showed you how done refers to Christians worshiping Jesus and even mentions a specific verse. That was strike two. You're done. Just like done. Three. You ran from the question that you set yourself up with about the unlettered prophet because you knew you were in a box. You affirmed the unleaded prophet was Muhammad, but I was leading you down the path, dog walking you and you didn't want it to happen, so you ran the song, a song 5:16, which you thought you were safe in. But then when we got there, you had to answer all kinds of questions and you couldn't. So you did this. And that's my closing statement. Thanks for the Quran, by the way.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You're welcome.

[Moderator Elijah]

Thank you. Kev, go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

To you, your theatrics are cute, but they're not academic. Again, the prompt was is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Quran? And you ran from it. You tried to go for John here and there. You never answered the question until you were put on the spot. And when you were put on the spot and you had to say no, I showed you from your own lexicon, the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in your Bible. And this is a commentary of the own Christian Bible saying that this is the prophetic figure that is to come, that is who's being spoken about as husbands. And when you talk about the daughters of Jerusalem hating Muhammad, that is absolute. Just something you pull out of the air with no evidence.

[Christian Critic]

The one who poisoned

[Sheikh Uthman]

the daughters of Jerusalem didn't come together and poison anybody. Now, regarding MacArthur.

[Moderator Elijah]

Cab, please.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Regarding your little theatrics, it's cute, but not academic. Again, you've been proven wrong. The prompt has been proven in front of your face that the name Muhammad is mentioned I already addressed the issue of plural. And you just skipped over it because you knew that you had no response from it. Elohim doesn't mean many gods. Right again. Ephraim doesn't mean that the younger son of Joseph was more than one person. That is honor and glory. That is used in the Hebrew language, not the Arabic. I didn't just bring it into Arabic. Now, MacArthur, just since you brought it up, still shows there are errors in the Bible. Just because he has a different view on what he feels can be corrected doesn't mean that it is. Those scribal errors still stand in the Bible in front of me today and in front of you as well. And even with Don, you went to an earlier chapter where he's discussing, but you skipped over his conclusion, which I'd already commented because you are the one running from it. Thank you.

[Podcast Host]

Thanks for watching all the way to the end, guys. Please hit like and subscribe. It helps us grow the show and helps us get bigger guests. Thank you so much.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Thank you for doing this face to face with everybody.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I appreciate being.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

So the prompt is right. Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible. His name, Right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

His name, yes.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You want me to read it or you Good.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Yeah, I mean, just.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Just to clarify for the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible. That's the prompt.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

That is awesome. I like that. So would you agree that chapter 61, verse 6 says that Jesus mentions Ahmed in your Quran?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Quran. What was the chapter?

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Chapter 61, verse 6.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Six again.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Yeah, 61.

[Sheikh Uthman]

But it's all right. Yes, let's take it. Yes. Ahmed is mentioned.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

So Ahmed is mentioned. Right. Do you have a source that says that Jesus mentioned Ahmed?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Sure. You want me to get into that source? Again, that's not the prompt we're discussing. Whether Ahmed is clearly mentioned in the Bible or not is not Ahmed. Can I answer now? You asked a question.

[Moderator Elijah]

Okay, yeah, go ahead.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I got you. Right.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

I didn't read your body language. Right.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I got you.

[Orthodox Christian Debater]

Okay.

[Podcast Host]

Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

So again, the prompt is whether the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible or not. That's the first thing. Right. As your friend earlier mentioned. Thank you. Many of the earlier Jewish scholars did say that even the name Ahmad is in there. Muhammad IBN Abdullah is in there. I'm not seeing those here today, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't there. Obviously many chapters have been changed. Many things have been taken out as the Quran clearly mentions. People will write with their own hands and ascribe it to God. So the prompt, once again, Is, Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? Yes or no?

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Okay, so do you have, you have a, you have a source that says Jesus mentions Muhammad, my name?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, that's not the prompt.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Is that not the prompt?

[Moderator Elijah]

The prompt is the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the prompt.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

So then I mentioned it. Where do you get the words of Jesus from?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, what is mentioned in the Quran? We believe, because it's in the Quran, the true words of Jesus, that he spoke to his followers in his native tongue of Aramaic, we don't have today. For example, when Allah said in the Quran, we did not send a prophet to his nation except in the language of his people. So that would mean that what you have in Koneic Greek, that was written centuries later, at least 70 or 90 years later, it's not necessarily the exact words that were taught from Jesus to his followers. Somebody had it. Obviously they had it, they used it. But the prompt, again is, Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? And it clearly is as your own

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

lexicon text asking you specifically about the words of Jesus. Because you don't get the words of Jesus only from the Quran. The Quran is making the claim. So I'm, I'm here to verify. Okay, well, I'm verifying the claim that the Quran is making because that is your authority. Right? So I'm quoting the words of your God and you're saying, no, I don't want to deal with that right now.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I did not.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

But earlier, earlier when you were talking to my boy Sig about how people were just quoting stuff and we have no evidence of it, so they could just be quoting it from their own mouths and from their own minds. If the Quran has no evidence and we don't have the words of Jesus because they've all been corrupted, then by default, your own argument that you used earlier against Sig means that the Quran, your Allah who has no evidence for his word, is just making stuff up from his mouth because he has no evidence for his word for it.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Good point. Can I now respond first thing again, you're running from the prompt itself, right? The prompt is, is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned the Bible and you're running from it, Right? You tried to run to Ahmad, you had to run here, right there. And now you're trying to run to. Oh, you're not willing to answer your credal issues? I'm more than willing. We can set up another debate and we can sit all day long on that, no problem. Awesome. But I would like to stick to the prompt Today. But just to let you know, I'm not running from any of that. I will answer this, but I request you to stick to the prompt after this. Okay? Now when you say that there is no authority when you don't have an original text for us, the Quran is the original text. So if you want to come debate, to me as a Muslim, I would say that even your Bible today, which again throughout has been shown to have errors, has things that were inserted, things that were not in original manuscripts until the 12th century and they were added in to justify creedal issues, is not an authority. Right. But if I was to come to you and say I read a book and it said this, there's more than you have more than the right to ask me where's that book? And if I don't produce it, then it's not an authority. But the Quran itself is the authority. This is the words of Allah that were revealed, not the words of Muhammad, not the words of Sahaba, but the words of Allah. So that is the authority. When you have something that's been corrupted, changed, added to, subtracted from, then you don't take that as the authority. You take from the unchanged, unaltered words of God.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Awesome. I like what you did there.

[Christian Critic]

Good.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

So everything before is corrupted, right? We don't have any of it. It's just gone poof.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I did not say that.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Okay, so we have some of it, right? We have some of it, but it's still corrupted, right? Just a yes or no. So I can continue.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Okay, so we have, is that, I

[Moderator Elijah]

don't think that's what I think you're kind of mixing up what he's saying. I, I, I hear what you're saying and I don, can I just ask my question? Yeah, go ahead.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

So what we have today are the corrupted words of Jesus. Right?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again. What we have today are conic Greek writings by later anonymous authors. Some may contain some words of Jesus that may be true, but we have to verify against the Muhammad as the Quran. In Surat Al Maidah, 5th Surah mentions that this is the Quran. If you want to verify of the past scriptures, the Muayman, the criterion, the supreme authority is the Quran.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Okay, so your commentators say that the, that Muhammad is the Muhammad over the Quran. So he's the supreme authority over that. And you know this. No, this is going to build on my point.

[Moderator Elijah]

Hold on, I, I didn't even hear what that was because that was his

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

own Islamic scholars say that the Muhammad, the supreme authority over the Quran, the criterion is Muhammad who? Okay, so you know them and.

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, I don't.

[Moderator Elijah]

Scholars.

[Christian Debater]

Which scholars?

[Sheikh Uthman]

But I just want to know. Hold on, hold on. You can't just make claims and run for me, right?

[Moderator Elijah]

Hold on, hold on. That is kind of big because you're making a claim to his, like the authority of everything, right? And then you're just giving a name and he says no. So I want to.

[Sheikh Uthman]

You're saying the Muhammad is not a reference to the Quran but that to the Prophet.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Some of your scholars say that.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can you show me that?

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Do you want me to just take 10 minutes to pull up the source or just get through the line of questioning?

[Sheikh Uthman]

No, no, no, no. Because you can't just make a point and run from chapter five. No, no, no. Go ahead, bring it up. And again, this is why I brought all these books with me. Ready? Because I don't want to just make statements and run from it.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

And what's even funnier is that chapter 45, chapter 5, verse 47 and 48 tell the Jews and Christians to stand on their scripture, otherwise they're disbelievers. So I guess according to you, they're standing on corrupted scripture.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That is not my point. Again, he's running from the prompt.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

That's what you said.

[Sheikh Uthman]

This is running from the prompt. What he thinks is Islamic dilemma. No, no, I'm gonna have to respond to that now because you're running from the prompt. When. When the Quran talks about Yahlul, Injeel or the people of Injeel, this is a reference to people of Jesus. That's why when ya is used for example with Musa Ya, Musa khudha latakhav. It doesn't mean we right now go and grab it.

[Moderator Elijah]

It.

[Sheikh Uthman]

That's why I mentioned the verse again that Allah subhana wa ta' ala clearly tells us that the final authority, the Muhyman, is this Kitab that we have revealed to you. So the Quran is the final authority on the previous scriptures. Refer to it and stick to it. So you are absolutely jumping from the prompt and you're wrong.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Okay, so I'm jumping from the prompt.

[Moderator Elijah]

I think what I would like you to do is get to the point. I see a lot of like beat around the bush type of arguments.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

No, it's because the thing was, is that I'm trying to get a specific place of where do we find the words of Jesus? He's saying the ones that we prompt. Hold on. Because it's. It's pertinent to your Quran says that Jesus mentions Ahmed. Where do we get the words of that? Obviously the Bible, but you're saying it's not a reliable source. So you're jumping from Jesus, mentioning Ahmed, who is Muhammad, according to your sources. Right. And now we have to go through this whole rabbit hole of whether the Scripture is corrupted or not. I see.

[Moderator Elijah]

So like the very. Okay, what he's saying is the very text you're pulling to make your claim saying, okay, the name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible. But then you're saying like, but that Bible is corrupt.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Exactly.

[Moderator Elijah]

So therefore, I guess, what's.

[Christian Theologian]

What.

[Moderator Elijah]

What does it matter at this point?

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Yeah, that's why I.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Can I respond?

[Moderator Elijah]

Yeah, absolutely. I wanted to make sure we had a translation. Let him respond to that.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Just 10 more seconds and now.

[Moderator Elijah]

No, let him respond to it. I translated. He gets it.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Okay.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Yeah, I speak English. I'm good. All right, so now when we go back to this, I made it very clear from the beginning that the prompt is not about the preservation of the Bible or the Islamic dilemma, which is your own dilemma. We don't have one. It is about, is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? Yes or no? That's the prompt. Right. And that's what you're skipping from. But if you want to ask the question, why does it even matter? No doubt we do believe that there is some truth in the earlier scriptures. We don't think David didn't exist or, you know, for example, Jesus didn't exist. We do believe those things existed. But as we have seen clearly that there have been corruptions, there have been changes, there have been additions, there have been subtractions. So the Muhammad, the judge over the earlier scriptures is the Quran, as Surat al Maida clearly says. But that doesn't mean we throw everything in the trash. No. Now if you can please get back to the prompt. Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? Yes or no?

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

It's not. Because I'm asking you about the words of Jesus which you hold authoritative. So you're trying to, you're trying to pivot to the generality of the Bible. Are Jesus's words in the Bible?

[Sheikh Uthman]

Once again, the prompt isn't whether Jesus words are in the Bible. Again, again, you're cutting me off, coming

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

to a Christian and he's asking a Christian and he's telling a Christian, your prophet, your God mentions Muhammad and I'm asking him, where do I get the words of this guy who you say mentions Muhammad? But then all of a sudden it's a corruption. We can't find them. So now you're pivoting to corruption when we should be proving the words of Jesus according to your Quran.

[Moderator Elijah]

Here's what we're going to do know we're gonna find you're gonna have a rebuttal to that and then you give a final thought. And a final thought. I see the circular. I see what you're doing. It's like a internal critique based on what he's saying. But it, because it's circular, he's not going to be able to combat it at this point.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Exactly.

[Sheikh Uthman]

I did not point of it. I did not bring up the words of Jesus. I did not bring up the Quranic verses. I did not bring up any claims of the sort. You went to all of that just to run from the prompt. The prompt's very clear. Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible, yes or no? And when you say no, I'm showing you right now from your own lexicon, the name Muhammad is clearly and evidently mentioned in the Bible. That's it. You lost that prompt for you to jump to like, where are the words of Jesus? I didn't mention any of that. I didn't bring that as a prompt. If you want to discuss with me about scriptures of Jesus and where they may be and so on, we can discuss that all night long. But that's not the prompt. The prompted is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible and the answer is yes, even according to Christian sources, lexicons, end of deal.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Okay, so there are other lexicals and lexicons and other scholars that disagree with that. So we can go tit for tat on scholars. Okay? See what I'm saying?

[Moderator Elijah]

Like it's your.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

Because, yeah, this is your. Yeah, this is my closing. So you can't ask me questions I

[Moderator Elijah]

should have like re. No, you said that. That's okay.

[Interlocutor on Muhammad in Bible]

You're good. It's okay. So here's where we land at, folks. We land at we're trying to find the words of Jesus, right? Because Jesus says that Muhammad is mentioned somewhere, right? But we can't find these words and he can't prove that Jesus didn't mention or did mention Muhammad. So it looks like we're stuck in a dilemma that we can't find the words of Jesus. That's your dilemma, not mine. Because you go to a source to prove your book, but then the moment that source backfires on you, it's a done deal. It's corrupted. We don't like it. But let me give you the words of your God because in chapter three, verse 81, your God says that he makes a covenant with the previous prophets, right? If he makes a covenant and a promise, and then he says that a future prophet will come and confirm their scriptures, that means that their scriptures have to stay intact because that is a promise of Muhammad or of Allah, right? So because of that, now we see that your God says he will uphold the promises to these previous prophets. But to make it even worse for you, you it says in chapter three, verse 55 that all that Allah will make the followers of Jesus uppermost until the day of Resurrection. That means that the message of Jesus could never have been corrupted. This text could never have been corrupted. So it looks like according to you, Allah failed to keep his promise to the believers to the previous prophets. Therefore Allah is false. Jesus never mentioned Ahmed. Ahmed is not in the Bible.

[Sheikh Uthman]

Again, none of that's from the Prophet. He just totally went on a tangent because he can't answer the prompt. The prompt isn't about whether Jesus words are preserved. It's not about whether Allah says anything of that or who will be the people victorious. None of that. You know why? Because he's running. He's running a marathon right now. The prompted is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible. That's the prompt. And yes it is. It does not mention Jesus. It does not mention anything about the dilemmas that you have. But to answer you, the Quran in Surat al baqarah in verses 75 and 79 clearly shows that the people wrote with their own hands to try to dilute and put their own ideas forward. This is also in the next Surah, surah Al Imran, that is in the 78th verse. Again, if you keep going in Surah al Maidah, all of them, Surah al Nisa in the 46th verse, Surah Al Maidah 13 to 15 and the end, all of it is Surat Al Maidah 48 that clearly mentions to the Prophet that we have revealed to you upon you in the truth and a Musaddiqa, that which will show you the truthfulness of what is behind or not. And Muhayman, that is going to be a criterion of supreme authority. So when the Quran clearly mentioned that people do write things with their own hands, and this is something again, not just from the Quran, but biblical scholars have also shown that verses like one John that I pointed out before were added to justify theological ideas like the trinity till the 12th century, you don't have that verse right. Just like MacArthur has also shown that these were added scribal errors, additions that were made by people for political and other causes. Those things. How do you know the truth? You go back to the Quran. What I will end with is none of that. Even though I just wanted to clarify your delusion. None of that has to do with the prompt. The prompt is. Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? Right here it is done. The last prompt. The name Muhammad is clearly mentioned in the Bible. We had some amazing discussions. Amazing conversation. I appreciate all of you, I appreciate the knowledge that you brought. But the prompt still stands. Saying that, you know, John 1:1. That's not the point of today's prompt. Jumping to the word Ahmad is not the point of the prompt. Is the name Muhammad clearly mentioned in the Bible? Yes, it is. In Songs of Songs of Solomon. Right there. We've given evidences with books, lexicons, names. Clearly, prompt still stands.

[Podcast Host]

Thanks for staying all the way to the end, guys. Means a lot to me. If you could please leave a review on Apple that helps us climb the charts, it helps us get way more guests, and it helps us continue growing the podcast and the team. So it would mean a lot to me if you left the review on Apple or wherever else you're listening. Thanks so much.