James White vs. Jalal Abualrub: "Does the New Testament Teach that Jesus Is God?"
As far as I can tell, this debate was over by the time James finished his opening statement. (One important note: Jalal admitted that God can enter into His creation.)
Yeah for Jalal to debate Christian Theology he was bound to lose, that was pitiful. I believe Jalal was completely wasted, ill equip and a very poor speaker. No doubt the same will for go for Zaatari vs White, Muslims can't debate, Shabir is the only thing that comes even close.
Fascinating that Jalal refers to Christian denominations to argue for the authorship of the Gospels. As far as I know all Christians believe that the apostles, Matthew, Mark (who dicated the apostle Peter), John, and the apostolic successor Luke (a companion of the eyewitnesses)wrote the Gospels. The argument against this is posed by the atheist scholarship that needs to propose this to avoid a reliable, historical chain of witness.
Amen, i praise the Lord for people like Dr.James White he didnt even want the audience to clap for him after he made such a strong and convincive statement.
Wow.. couldn't follow Jalal at all. What was his point?? He really didn't have a foot to stand on in that debate. Zero evidence, zero citations, only twisted interpretations of greek words which he, by his own admission, didn't understand at all. Wow.
Listening to this debate, I always dread when it is Jalal's turn to speak... Not that he was throwing out convincing or dreadful arguments... but that he was just such a terrible speaker and was making no sense whatsoever in his arguments...
I salute Dr James White that he was able to maintain his cool and continue with properly debating Jalal.. I was practically ignoring Jalal whenever he speaks.
Awesome. Loved the part at the end when James basically said there was absolutely no proof in the Quran to accept Muhammed as a prophet of God.
But the moment Jalal started attacking the authenticity of the Bible and claimed that we don't have the original taurat and injil, White should have quickly come up with some verses from the Quran (that clearly attests to the fact that Muhammed had access to the original and authentic and uncorrupt versions of the injil and taurat during his lifetime) and then attack and bring him down.
I believe Sam Shamoun would have made a living fool out of Jalal if he was in this debate. I am not saying White didn't do good, and I agree that Jalal intentionally used deceit and lies like typical muslims do and was not able to refute even a single argument and proof presented by White, but....
White actually doesn't attack his opponents like Sam does.
it's a funny that bro jalal accused that bible is corrupt n change here n there but can't prove it with solid n strong argument, well most in the world if you make an argument of something (accused) with no references to back it up people would call you a liar or just bluffing.
the topic of the debate is NT teach that Jesus is God, bro james presented is solid but bro jalal jump here n there pick a text that supported his argument without read all complete text n context.
why jalal always ask bro james to prove who wrote or authenticity of the NT, for what ? for generations christianity believe that NT teach about who Jesus is what he done for all mankind, if bro jalal said that Jesus only for bani israil then jesus would not do miracle to roman officer or other people outside jews since they are all gentiles but jesus did do miracles to them.
correct me if i'm wrong, is there a muslim soldier in US Army who fight in Iraq ? well if yes then bro jamal could not use the politic into religion teaching.
well put it this way, if i a gentiles / non believer then i read about Jesus born was miracle prove by prophecy also from kings from east, his teaching, miracles which beyond our thought (water to wine, walk on water, winds, fish in lake, blind to see, cripple to walk, possess by demons is release, even death would raise again. as for jesus himself yes he died for the sake of all our sin but remember he rise n ascendant to heaven ... n then would return again not as a savior just like the first coming but as a judge for all man.
well for muhammad who came later after jesus should he do better than Jesus ? history told otherwise and he died as a normal human being and in the last his breath still doesn't know would he go to heaven or not
well let me put this way .. if there are two men want to direct me how the best way go to some place which one do i believe ? a guy who still uncertain about it or a person who already got there ?
How did James put up with Jalal? Jalal is face palm worthy. Ahmed Deedat Arguments, Straw man, Misrepresentation and of course the Catholic argument which Gomerozdubar used against me. Honestly.
And I have heard of the argument of "You don't know who wrote it therefore it cannot be trusted", Used with me it was. AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRG.
Seriously, I wouldn't waste time with Jalal, it's casting pearls.
Listen i will agree that James White is a good debater but so is Jalal Abualrub too. James white scored some points so did jalal abualrub too. About your gospels in the first place why are there so many gospels. Shouldn't be just one gospel the gospel that was send to Jesus (pbuh). Like the moslims the quran that was send to prophet muhammed (pbuh) and not of John or Mark and shouldn’t bethere chains of narrations that backs up the gospels of John or Mark like the way it's done by the moslims. By the moslims you have alot of chains of narrations that backs up every story in the quran. From the time of the prophet untill now. So that you can at least prove that it's true. And storys of the people who narrated it. Thats not done by the gospels. and the quran was always preserved in arabic so that it couldn't be changed. There are translations of the quran but not in the way that is done like in the gospels. Because if you translates something from arabic to english it's not 100% accurate so thats why you have on the one page in arabic and on the other side english thats not done by the gospels. thats why it's changed over and over again. Because the gospel wasn’t send in english, german or greek it was send in Hebrew and you can not tell me that what is written in hebrew is exactly the same in greek, german or english. So that why your book are corrupted. Because you have changed it in a way that you like. And Jalal Abualrub proved that in this debate.
LOL, You think the Gospels where written in Hebrew? That's a BAD argument, all the manuscripts of the NT are written IN GREEK. We don't have ANY Hebrew manuscript of the Gospels or the Epistles, why? Because they don't exist.
There are four Gospels and any other "gospel" is not to be accepted. I hardly think it matters that there are 4 Gospels, they contain the message of Jesus anyway.
Lol yea and if you want the Greek check out blue letter bible where they give you the exact Greek. N the reason why you have 4 gospels is because they are all different account of one life Jesus. If there was any gospel written after a certain time then it was not accepted n it had to be written by an apostle or disciple of Jesus. O n check out Luke 24:7 which Jesus himself says that he was going to be handed over to be killed crucified n resurrect if he is a beloved prophet who doesn't lie as my good Muslim friends say then this means that if Jesus was not crucified or die it would make him a liar which Muslims don't believe in the death n crucifixion. You can check out the Greek word for word and the muslims have to believe in the gospels
I find it interesting that of all the debates I have watched that not one Islam cleric has touched on the Holy Spirit. Now that would be interesting to see.
I find the more one protests the deity of Jesus, using the fact that the Jews of the time Jesus walked upon this earth did not recognize Yeshua as an argument that he was not the Messiah, shows a fear of the truth and their hearts, as were the Jews, are hardened. It's like watching a child who has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and even with the proof will still not listen.
It is too bad when Muhammad tells the people you have your religion and I have mine that they can't let others alone and just go with their beliefs, but wait, Allah in later "revelations" tells them to go and subdue the world in his name till everyone confesses the Shahadah and becomes Muslim.
As far as debates go, I guess they're ok in getting out the education, but I still believe the one on one relationship still needs to emphasized.
As those who follow Christ Jesus we are to go and share the Gospel. The Muslims are told to go and subdue the world and by force if necessary.
@Ahmed Mahamed, I know this is so much later, and perhaps you've come across the answer to your question, and I'm sorry no one who knew happened to see your question here when you posted it: There is only one gospel. Originally, all four gospels were collected and titled "The Gospel according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke and according to John. These are witness statements, and exactly in the same way that there can be ONE event, witnessed by several people with different perspectives, so is the Gospel. Mark was the first to use the term (he was Peter's interpreter, and so it was mostly Peter's perspective. Matthew wrote his down from the perspective of a Jewish believer who happened to be a tax collector (there are SO many more references to specific types of money in his gospel lol) and there is some evidence that he originally wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic, which makes sense, he was writing to a mainly Jewish audience, and evidently there are some idioms, and word pictures that don't translate to the Greek, that bit about paying debts and a complete heart for instance in Matthew 18....there's also some reference by early Church fathers (or at least one I can think of) that his gospel was originally in Hebrew. Luke interviewed eye witnesses (and mentions Peter and several women in specific) and he also traveled with Paul--it was Luke who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, later shortened to Acts. Lastly (gospel wise) John wrote his, it's thought after the epistles, after the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul. They were collected copied and distributed very quickly and as far and wide as was possible at the time, which has left us with massive amounts of fragmentary survivors--it's truly amazing how much we've found! None of the gospels has ever been attributed to anyone else, or anonymous.
19 comments:
Yeah for Jalal to debate Christian Theology he was bound to lose, that was pitiful. I believe Jalal was completely wasted, ill equip and a very poor speaker. No doubt the same will for go for Zaatari vs White, Muslims can't debate, Shabir is the only thing that comes even close.
Brilliant job James, I loved it!
Fascinating that Jalal refers to Christian denominations to argue for the authorship of the Gospels. As far as I know all Christians believe that the apostles, Matthew, Mark (who dicated the apostle Peter), John, and the apostolic successor Luke (a companion of the eyewitnesses)wrote the Gospels. The argument against this is posed by the atheist scholarship that needs to propose this to avoid a reliable, historical chain of witness.
Can't wait to see the London debates!
We'll be praying for Dr. White and you David.
Idem, ibidem... may the true God of our Lord, saviour and himself God, Jesus Crist guide you both... i'l be praying...
Jalal seems to be one of the more pleasant islamic debaters.
Amen, i praise the Lord for people like Dr.James White he didnt even want the audience to clap for him after he made such a strong and convincive statement.
islaam is truth
Wow.. couldn't follow Jalal at all. What was his point?? He really didn't have a foot to stand on in that debate. Zero evidence, zero citations, only twisted interpretations of greek words which he, by his own admission, didn't understand at all. Wow.
at the end jalal didnt want to get up and shake hands. he was starting to hate ."smiling to your face whilst cursing you in their heart"
I just had to drop a comment on this debate...
Listening to this debate, I always dread when it is Jalal's turn to speak... Not that he was throwing out convincing or dreadful arguments...
but that he was just such a terrible speaker and was making no sense whatsoever in his arguments...
I salute Dr James White that he was able to maintain his cool and continue with properly debating Jalal.. I was practically ignoring Jalal whenever he speaks.
Awesome. Loved the part at the end when James basically said there was absolutely no proof in the Quran to accept Muhammed as a prophet of God.
But the moment Jalal started attacking the authenticity of the Bible and claimed that we don't have the original taurat and injil, White should have quickly come up with some verses from the Quran (that clearly attests to the fact that Muhammed had access to the original and authentic and uncorrupt versions of the injil and taurat during his lifetime) and then attack and bring him down.
I believe Sam Shamoun would have made a living fool out of Jalal if he was in this debate. I am not saying White didn't do good, and I agree that Jalal intentionally used deceit and lies like typical muslims do and was not able to refute even a single argument and proof presented by White, but....
White actually doesn't attack his opponents like Sam does.
it's a funny that bro jalal accused that bible is corrupt n change here n there but can't prove it with solid n strong argument, well most in the world if you make an argument of something (accused) with no references to back it up people would call you a liar or just bluffing.
the topic of the debate is NT teach that Jesus is God, bro james presented is solid but bro jalal jump here n there pick a text that supported his argument without read all complete text n context.
why jalal always ask bro james to prove who wrote or authenticity of the NT, for what ? for generations christianity believe that NT teach about who Jesus is what he done for all mankind, if bro jalal said that Jesus only for bani israil then jesus would not do miracle to roman officer or other people outside jews since they are all gentiles but jesus did do miracles to them.
correct me if i'm wrong, is there a muslim soldier in US Army who fight in Iraq ? well if yes then bro jamal could not use the politic into religion teaching.
well put it this way, if i a gentiles / non believer then i read about Jesus born was miracle prove by prophecy also from kings from east, his teaching, miracles which beyond our thought (water to wine, walk on water, winds, fish in lake, blind to see, cripple to walk, possess by demons is release, even death would raise again.
as for jesus himself yes he died for the sake of all our sin but remember he rise n ascendant to heaven ... n then would return again not as a savior just like the first coming but as a judge for all man.
well for muhammad who came later after jesus should he do better than Jesus ? history told otherwise and he died as a normal human being and in the last his breath still doesn't know would he go to heaven or not
well let me put this way .. if there are two men want to direct me how the best way go to some place which one do i believe ? a guy who still uncertain about it or a person who already got there ?
well i think you know who would i choose ...
God Bless U All ...
How did James put up with Jalal? Jalal is face palm worthy. Ahmed Deedat Arguments, Straw man, Misrepresentation and of course the Catholic argument which Gomerozdubar used against me. Honestly.
And I have heard of the argument of "You don't know who wrote it therefore it cannot be trusted", Used with me it was. AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRG.
Seriously, I wouldn't waste time with Jalal, it's casting pearls.
Listen i will agree that James White is a good debater but so is Jalal Abualrub too. James white scored some points so did jalal abualrub too.
About your gospels in the first place why are there so many gospels. Shouldn't be just one gospel the gospel that was send to Jesus (pbuh). Like the moslims the quran that was send to prophet muhammed (pbuh) and not of John or Mark and shouldn’t bethere chains of narrations that backs up the gospels of John or Mark like the way it's done by the moslims. By the moslims you have alot of chains of narrations that backs up every story in the quran. From the time of the prophet untill now. So that you can at least prove that it's true. And storys of the people who narrated it. Thats not done by the gospels. and the quran was always preserved in arabic so that it couldn't be changed. There are translations of the quran but not in the way that is done like in the gospels. Because if you translates something from arabic to english it's not 100% accurate so thats why you have on the one page in arabic and on the other side english thats not done by the gospels. thats why it's changed over and over again. Because the gospel wasn’t send in english, german or greek it was send in Hebrew and you can not tell me that what is written in hebrew is exactly the same in greek, german or english. So that why your book are corrupted. Because you have changed it in a way that you like. And Jalal Abualrub proved that in this debate.
LOL, You think the Gospels where written in Hebrew? That's a BAD argument, all the manuscripts of the NT are written IN GREEK. We don't have ANY Hebrew manuscript of the Gospels or the Epistles, why? Because they don't exist.
There are four Gospels and any other "gospel" is not to be accepted. I hardly think it matters that there are 4 Gospels, they contain the message of Jesus anyway.
Lol yea and if you want the Greek check out blue letter bible where they give you the exact Greek. N the reason why you have 4 gospels is because they are all different account of one life Jesus. If there was any gospel written after a certain time then it was not accepted n it had to be written by an apostle or disciple of Jesus. O n check out Luke 24:7 which Jesus himself says that he was going to be handed over to be killed crucified n resurrect if he is a beloved prophet who doesn't lie as my good Muslim friends say then this means that if Jesus was not crucified or die it would make him a liar which Muslims don't believe in the death n crucifixion. You can check out the Greek word for word and the muslims have to believe in the gospels
This debate is really hard to watch. I felt sorrow for Jalal, and any Muslim in the audience.
I find it interesting that of all the debates I have watched that not one Islam cleric has touched on the Holy Spirit. Now that would be interesting to see.
I find the more one protests the deity of Jesus, using the fact that the Jews of the time Jesus walked upon this earth did not recognize Yeshua as an argument that he was not the Messiah, shows a fear of the truth and their hearts, as were the Jews, are hardened. It's like watching a child who has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and even with the proof will still not listen.
It is too bad when Muhammad tells the people you have your religion and I have mine that they can't let others alone and just go with their beliefs, but wait, Allah in later "revelations" tells them to go and subdue the world in his name till everyone confesses the Shahadah and becomes Muslim.
As far as debates go, I guess they're ok in getting out the education, but I still believe the one on one relationship still needs to emphasized.
As those who follow Christ Jesus we are to go and share the Gospel. The Muslims are told to go and subdue the world and by force if necessary.
Peace be with you all;
Albert
@Ahmed Mahamed, I know this is so much later, and perhaps you've come across the answer to your question, and I'm sorry no one who knew happened to see your question here when you posted it: There is only one gospel. Originally, all four gospels were collected and titled "The Gospel according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke and according to John. These are witness statements, and exactly in the same way that there can be ONE event, witnessed by several people with different perspectives, so is the Gospel. Mark was the first to use the term (he was Peter's interpreter, and so it was mostly Peter's perspective. Matthew wrote his down from the perspective of a Jewish believer who happened to be a tax collector (there are SO many more references to specific types of money in his gospel lol) and there is some evidence that he originally wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic, which makes sense, he was writing to a mainly Jewish audience, and evidently there are some idioms, and word pictures that don't translate to the Greek, that bit about paying debts and a complete heart for instance in Matthew 18....there's also some reference by early Church fathers (or at least one I can think of) that his gospel was originally in Hebrew. Luke interviewed eye witnesses (and mentions Peter and several women in specific) and he also traveled with Paul--it was Luke who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, later shortened to Acts. Lastly (gospel wise) John wrote his, it's thought after the epistles, after the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul. They were collected copied and distributed very quickly and as far and wide as was possible at the time, which has left us with massive amounts of fragmentary survivors--it's truly amazing how much we've found! None of the gospels has ever been attributed to anyone else, or anonymous.
Post a Comment