 Hey everybody, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. This is going to be a great one, folks. Very excited for it. This is Moderate Debate. Today we're debating prophecy. I'm your host James Coons and want to let you know that your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have a lot more debates coming up. So for example, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen this Friday night, Skyler Fiction and Eric Hernandez will be going toe to toe on whether or not lack theism is reasonable. Should be a very fun one. So with that, I want to let you know, folks, today is going to be a pretty flexible one and that we'll have five minute opening statements from each or one five minute opening statements from each speaker followed by open discussion. We'll have Q&A after that open discussion. So if you have a question fired into the old live chat, if you tag me with an at Moderate Debate, it makes it easier for me to make sure I don't miss it when putting them in the list. Also, Super Chat is an option. So if you want to send a Super Chat, that can also give you the opportunity to make a comment toward one of the speakers during the question and answer to which they of course would get a chance to respond to. And we ask that whether it be a question or a comment, you be your kind and regular friendly selves in the live chat. We only have one rule here, which is as always, no hate speech. Otherwise, you know, if it gets a little rough and tumble, you're debating all that kind of stuff, not a huge deal. But we do ask that you hopefully get along well here and feel welcome as we're a neutral channel. We have no actual positions or belief statements or anything like that. We leave it completely up to the debaters. So with that, we're going to get it started with Samuel, who's going to have a five minute opening statement. I want to say... James, actually, I think we agreed that it would be a 10 minute opening statement. I think that was in the last video. You're right. Sorry about that, Samuel. Long day. So it's going to be a flexible 10 minute opening statement. Each speaker may not use their full 10 minutes, but they have up to 10 minutes. And so, Samuel, thanks so much. I want to let you know, folks, all of these gentlemen who we're very thankful to have here, I've linked all of their channels down in the description. So that way, if you're listening and you want to hear more, you can hear more by clicking on those links. Samuel, the floor is all yours. Thanks again for being here. All right. Thank you, James, for setting this entire debate up. And thank you, Nadir, for proposing this debate topic and for basically requesting this. And also, grateful to Tom for jumping in. No pun intended. Maybe I did. The topic today would be on who is the prophet of Deuteronomy chapter 18. And one of the things that I need to mention before I start is that the original topic proposed by Nadir was whether Muhammad was the prophet of Deuteronomy 18. And it would be much easier for me to actually go on with that and just spend the entire discussion showing why it is not Muhammad. But I'm not interested to do that. I'm much more keen to tell you what the text does say rather than what the text does not say. And so I insisted and said that I would only participate in this debate if the topic was, if I could defend the contention, that Jesus is the prophet of Deuteronomy 18. And I'm glad that we could get that agreement. So then, in my opening statement, I'm going to present first of all the criteria laid out by the text itself for being a prophet like Moses, who this prophet like Moses will be in Deuteronomy 18. And I will go from there to demonstrate a list of attestations, which I think will back up my contention that that is Jesus Christ. And finally, if we have time, I know time is a little bit tight, we'll get to a whole list of about 30 different parallels between Moses and Jesus. Which are spectacular and not superficial. So with that, my first point, the textual criteria. In the text that is the Deuteronomy 18, verses 15 to 19, I stated about eight different points that the qualifications for the prophet like Moses to have. The first one in Deuteronomy 18, 15 is that he must be raised by God, number one. Meaning he is sent by God. In John 537, Jesus says, and the Father has sent me and has testified concerning me. Notice two things here in Jesus' statement. Number one, it's the Father that sends Jesus. And number two, it's the Father that testifies that he would send Jesus. In the past tense, testified. So where did the Father testify? Well, Deuteronomy 18, 15 to 18 is where that testimony comes from. So the fact that the Father sends Jesus means that he is indeed raised or sent by God. Secondly, it says that the God, the prophet is being raised by God for you. And we need to ask the question, who is the you? In Deuteronomy 18, verse 15 to 18. The Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 15 to 18, Moses is speaking to Israel. So it's very clear, it's undisputed based on the context that you here can only refer to the Israelites. God is going to raise up a prophet for Israel. And that's the key words today. And this coincides perfectly with Jesus' words in Matthew 15, 24, which says, I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Why did Jesus minister only within Israel? Well, that's because God had raised him for that purpose as Moses had prophesied. And don't take my words for it. Peter says in Acts chapter 3, verse 26, when God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you, referring to the Israelites. So Jesus meets the criteria of for Israel. Number three, Moses says, come morning in Deuteronomy 18, 15, which means like me in Hebrew. What does it mean to be like Moses? And this is where the contention today is going to be particularly between Nadir and myself. What does it mean to be like Moses? And I want to state really clearly from the get-go. Deuteronomy explains it for us beyond any shadow of doubt. In what way does the prophet need to be like Moses? It says in the final three verses of the book of Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy chapter 34 was 10 to 12. What does it mean to be like Moses? Number one, it indicates that an algorithm for Deuteronomy 34 was 10 to 12. And there has not risen a prophet since in Israel like Moses. Okay, how like Moses? Whom the Lord knew face to face, number one. And none like him for all the signs and wonders that the Lord had sent him to do in the land of Egypt and to Pharaoh and to all his servants and to all the land. And for all the mighty power and all the great deeds of terror that Moses did in the eyes of all Israel. So here are a few things that meets the criteria based on the text itself as to what the prophet like Moses ought to be. Number one, knowing God face to face. This is the key thing. He has to know God face to face. And as Moses has seen God, this prophet would need to see God. Matthew 11, 27 says no one truly knows the Son. I'm sorry, Jesus claims to have seen God in John chapter 6, verse 46. And saying that not everyone has seen the Father except he who is from God. Matthew 11, 27, Jesus says no one truly knows the Son except the Father. And no one truly knows the Father except the Son. So first thing, he needs to have a face to face relationship with God. Jesus meets that. Number two, none like him in the sense that for all the signs and wonders. The question you give me and I got to ask is this and I trust that Tom will bring this up later as well. How would the people expected to know who the prophet like Moses is? Do you expect the people to go up studying the background of the prophet as he comes along to know how he's like Moses? No, the way the people would know he's a prophet like Moses according to Deuteronomy 34 is by the signs and wonders. In other words, if you see signs and wonders to the extent that Moses did, there you have your indication that you have a prophet like Moses. And when we look at the miracles of Jesus, there is a parallel that is undisputed. For example, Moses' first plague was to turn water into blood. Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into wine. Moses in the wilderness fed 5,000 people miraculously through bread. Jesus also in the wilderness fed the multitude with bread miraculously. And you also see, for example, that Moses exercised power over the sea. Jesus too exercises power over the sea. So there's an unmistakable parallel in the signs and wonders in which he's performed. Next, great deeds of terror. I don't have time to get to you to how many places in the New Testament that it actually says that after Jesus did a certain miracle, the disciples were terrified, the people were terrified. And so the miracles of Jesus fit perfectly within the description of Deuteronomy 34 in parallel to Moses. Number four, back to our context as to the criteria. It must be from among you or from your midst. And this is a keyword. Mechern Beka is the term here. And this phrase means within a city or a land. The phrase always refers to something within Israel or someone within Israel. And therefore the prophet like Moses has to come from within Israel geographically, within Israel geographically speaking, within the land of Israel. Number five, from your brothers, Meachekah. And this simply means as the NASB renders it, fellow countryman. So the phrase here is fellow countryman. It has to be from your brothers in the sense that it's a fellow countryman. And Deuteronomy 24-14 uses the same phrase again, Meachekah. And it draws the distinction saying that you shall not oppress a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brothers or one of your the sojourners who are in your land within your towns. Meaning, even if you lived in Israel, you are not of your brothers if you're not a fellow Israelite. And that key distinction is there. These are the only two places in the Bible where the phrase, where the term Meachekah is used. And this is one of the textual reasons Jesus meets that requirement because the entire ministry of Jesus primarily was within the land of Israel. Number six, I will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I command. Jesus says in John 12-49, for I'm not spoken on my own authority. The Father who has sent me has given me a commandment. What to say? What to speak? Jesus' words correspond precisely to Deuteronomy chapter 18 and thus meet this requirement as well. Seven, speak in my name. The prophet who comes will speak in the name of Yahweh. And this is seven times in the Gospel of John. We find Jesus using the name that God revealed to Moses, I am. Seven I am in the Gospel of John. In fact, when Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, the crowd gathered and basically greeted him with the words, Baruch Hababashem Adonai, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Jesus bore the name of the Lord that is beyond the Spirit and he meets that requirement as well. And finally, number eight, it says of them. And this is perhaps one of the most telling one. It says in Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 19, and whoever will not listen to my words or the one that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him, meaning God himself will judge. Now, bad is in mind here. The people that rebelled against Moses died in the next 40 years in the wilderness. The people that rebelled against Christ that rejected him died in the next 40 years in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. If that's not a parallel, I'm not sure what is. My time is up. I hope this has been... We can expand on this in the discussion period, but thank you. Thanks so much, Sammy. Well, we will now kick it over to T-Jump. And these are flexible statements. So if you guys go a little bit over, we'll let it fly. So feel free to have that luxury. Tom, thanks so much for joining us again. Always good to see you. It's like my twin brother. Look at it. Crazy. Glad to have you. The floor is all yours, Tom. Yeah. So the question today is who is the representative of the Deuteronomy 18? And so I wanted to first just read it. The Lord of thy God will rise up onto the prophet from the midst of the my brethren, like unto me, unto him ye shall hearken. And at the end of the chapter, after it's saying it's going to raise up a prophet, it says how to know it won't be the prophet. So I think it's 20. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of another God, even that prophet shall die. And they ask, well, how do we know if this is not a prophet? Well, when a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken presumptuously, and you shall not be afraid of him. So there's two criteria here to know that someone isn't the prophet. And the first one is he's going to die. And the second one is the things he says is not going to come to pass. The problem is, is that both Jesus and Muhammad, after claiming to be the Messiah prophet, neither of them died. So either they're both the Messiah, or maybe the passage just meant they're going to die eventually at some point, but they both died eventually at some point. So that can't be what it meant. So there's a problem here. The Bible says if someone claims to be the prophet and isn't, they're going to die, but they both claimed to be Messiah and made claims in the name of God, but neither of them died. And not just these two, there's quite a number of people who claim to be the Messiah across many, many generations. Muhammad Junipari, Bob Muhammad Ahmad, David Quresh, Jose Luis de Jesus, Luis Matayoshi, that Valerian guy who claims to be Jesus in Russia. There are hundreds and hundreds of people who claim to be the Messiah. You just go to a list of Messiah claimants on the Wikipedia list. You have all kinds of them. None of them died after claiming to be the Messiah and claiming to speak for God. So there's a problem here. If the Bible passage is true, and that anyone who speaks a word in God's name that God did not utter, and they will die, then all of these people must be speaking in God's name as approved by God. In fact, I imagine anyone here could claim to be a Messiah of God and then speak in God's name, and they won't die either because the Bible's false. I mean, that's kind of the conclusions that Deuteronomy 18 isn't referring to anybody. It's just an arbitrary statement made up by a bunch of people thousands of years ago, which is then attributed to modern day people where they want to pick up the title in order for the prestige and glory. But it's not referring to anybody at all. It's just a made-up story. And again, we can demonstrate this because the things it specifically says is that if someone claims to speak in the name of God and say something God has not condoned, he will die, surely die. But neither Muhammad nor Jesus died, and none of these other people died. So there's a problem, and it seems to be a pretty big one in the literature. That's all I got. Thanks so much, Tom. We will now kick it over to Nadir. Thanks so much for being here again, Nadir. It's a pleasure to have you, and the floor is all yours. Oh, I think you might have yourself on mute yet. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Nice meeting you, Sam and Tom. You brought up some very interesting points. So let me go ahead and first start off by saying probably one of the biggest mistakes people make when discussing this topic is that they discuss the dissimilarities, how Moses and Jesus are not like Moses. And I was very happy to see that Sam did not make that mistake. Because if you look for dissimilarities between Moses and Jesus, both will be disqualified. You will find big differences in both of them. For example, Moses was a military prophet. He was a great warrior. He committed genocide against people. He murdered, I mean, told people to kill the men, women and children. And even in all the little girls, but the little virgin girls, you could keep them for yourselves. That's found inside Numbers, chapter 31, verse 18. Now, how is that like Jesus? Of course it's not. Jesus says, put down the sword. For he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. And then Moses bought a theocratic law to the people. Jesus did away with the law. They don't have to live by the law of Moses anymore. So there's big differences now. Just because we see big differences between Moses and Jesus, does that mean that he cannot be that prophet? No. Just because you see differences, there could be some similarities that would make Jesus that prophet. So I'm glad to see that we didn't start off by trying to tear down either Jesus or Muhammad because at the end of the day, no one will win because we can see differences in all of them. Okay, so I want to just kind of address some of the points which Sam raised. He sees that there are criterias which makes Jesus qualify for that prophet. But what you are going to find is these criterias are actually everything which people bring up to make Jesus like Moses, is all based upon personal interpretation. Why is Muhammad like Moses is because it is based upon fact. And this is a very important point here. Whatever the Christians bring up, it is only interpretations. And what the Muslims bring up is will be only fact. In fact, what I'd like to ask you to do, even Tom or Sam in my presentation, if you feel like I'm giving my own presentation, go ahead and say that's your interpretation. You can shout that out. That'll actually help me. So feel free to do that. So let me go ahead and first start with Deuteronomy 1815. He said the first criteria is, you know, which he said Jesus that he has to be sent by God. We as Muslims believe Muhammad was sent by God. And it should be only for Israel. That's an interpretation that text doesn't say that it should only be for Israel or first the Israelites. That's not what Deuteronomy 1818 is. Basically, I will raise up a prophet for you referring to the Israelites. And Muhammad, apart from Islam, did come for the Israelites and so did Jesus. So here's my point. The criterias which Samuel bringing also applies to Muhammad. So if you accept Jesus based on these criterias then you have to accept Muhammad as a criteria as well because he fits both criteria. He fits the exact same criteria as you're bringing up. So what we need to do, we need to bring up criterias in which Muhammad and Jesus do not share. For example, you mentioned that Jesus fed the multitude. He did miracles, signs, and wonders. Muhammad also did miracles, signs, and wonders. He also did miracles of feeding the multitudes as well. So the question that needs to be asked is how is Jesus, like Moses, subtract out how the same similarities he has with Muhammad and the general characteristics like, well, he's an Israelite. Millions of people are Israelites. I can consider myself to be like Moses. I don't eat pork, circumcised, much as a law of Moses. I also keep myself. There you see, I'm like that person. So my point here is we need to find unique defining characteristics. And when we ask that question, what are the unique defining characteristics between Moses and Jesus? We will find there is nothing. There is no similarity between Moses and Jesus. Now, you also, I think I gave a wrong interpretation inside Deuteronomy chapter 34, verse 10. It said that Moses did these, who did great terror in the eyes of Israel, and you try to interpret Jesus as being this great prophet of terror. No, the terror which is referred to here is what I was referring to you. He says, what? People are living? Kill all the men, women, and children. Slay them all, except the little girls who are virgins. You can keep them for yourselves. That's Deuteronomy chapter 31, verse 18. He also slaughtered the Medianites, men, women, and children. Kill them all. Kill the five kings. This was a great terror of Moses. This is not like Jesus. That's what it meant by terror, which he did inside Israel or in Egypt. Now, let's talk about Deuteronomy chapter 34, verse 10. Over there, let me see if I'm able to share my desktop. Last time I tried, it didn't work, but I'll try it again. You ready for this converse? Converse might not be there. This is a challenge. So sorry about that. Once converse gets us started, sometimes he goes in the other room and puts together a puzzle. Okay, well, let me see if this shares for you. Can you see that? Actually, I can't even see it through the stream yard. Oh, okay. Well, you know what? I'll tell you what. Let me let me let me let's just read Deuteronomy chapter 34 in its proper context. Okay, it says, And Joshua, the son of noon, was filled with a spirit of wisdom for Moses has laid his hands on him and the children of Israel harken unto him and did as a Lord commanded Moses. And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like Moses. So who is this prophet is talking about Joshua. He was a great warrior prophet. Again, let me repeat it again. It says, and there arose not a prophet since in Israel like Moses, referring to Joshua. And that's what the Jews believe. The Jews believe that Deuteronomy 1818 was fulfilled in Joshua because Joshua is like Moses. And there's also another very important point. There is only one place in the Bible which defined what it means to be like Moses and that it means to be like Joshua. Now it continues to say, Whom the Lord knew face to face. It doesn't say that you have to speak to God face to face. That's not what the text literally says. It says, Whom the Lord knew face to face. God knows everybody to face to face. And in all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh. What is that miracle? Throwing down the stick and it turned into a snake. Muhammad and Jesus didn't do these miracles. So and again, it goes on as it did all this great terror in the sight of Israel. Muhammad and Jesus didn't do that. So here's my point. If you read Deuteronomy chapter 34 verse 10, the likeness of Moses is only referring to Joshua. When it continues to say, Whom the Lord knew face to face in all the signs and wonders. This is just edifying Moses. This is just glorifying him. As you can see, there's two interpretations which you can read it this way. And I want to point that out. The first interpretation is correct. Maybe the likeness of Moses should also be... I'm sorry, what's that? We'll let you finish this point and then we've got to wrap up pretty soon. Oh, sure, sure. I think I got eight minutes here. But it said Whom the Lord knew face to face. This is just edifying and glorifying Moses. And that's also what the commentary of this verse says. And I think I responded to all the points. I didn't get a chance to show you how Muhammad is like Moses. But I guess in our cross examination, I will show you how Muhammad is like Moses. Go ahead. I can give you a chance to do that. Forgive me. All I saw was that the timer was at zero. And I might have actually forgotten to reset it for you. So we'll give you that if you make this last point. Sorry about that. And then we'll... Yeah. Okay. And the last point also you mentioned that you will speak in the name of Yahweh. In the New Testament, Jesus never referred to God as Yahweh. But now let me go ahead and say how Muhammad is like Moses. Now there is an acronym, M-A-S-T-M-L. Can I forget all the likeness? I got to use an acronym to remember it. So what is an acronym set? Is Muhammad and Moses were both military prophets. Both of them dispatched armies to go on fight. They both built an army from ground up, from scratch. And they were both successful prophets. And they both established a theocratic state. And they both gave a theocratic judicial law to the people. And they both made a historic migration. You can imagine people from your fellow followers are behind you and you're migrating through the land. So the point here is these are intrinsic qualities between Jesus, between Muhammad and Moses. And this is defining characteristics. And we have not found a single type of one of these characteristics in Jesus. So I would ask Sam to please show me one characteristic, like a defining characteristics which they have in common. So I'll go ahead and end over there. Thanks so much, gentlemen. We'll jump right into the open conversation. This is going to be very fun, folks. So gentlemen, the floor is all yours. Okay, shall I go ahead and start her? Absolutely. Okay, so well, let's just start for first start with Muhammad. And I'll start with two minutes and a question for Sam. So as you can see this MAS, TML and acronym, they were both military prophets. This is some kind of genetic attribute to be a warrior prophet and to be successful. And not only that, but they both gave a theocratic law to the people. Do you know of anybody in history who resembles Muhammad, who resembles Muhammad and Moses like this? Go ahead, please. All right, so it's the time. Have you gone into the discussion period because I just got disconnected for about a good 20, 30 seconds? Well, yeah, take 10 seconds. Take 10 seconds of my two minutes just to answer that question. No, I didn't get the question. I was just completely honest. Okay, yeah. So we see there's this great similarity between Muhammad and Moses. Both of them were warrior prophets, militaristic prophets. They both were not only militaristic prophets, they're successful. They both established a theocratic state and they both made this great migration. And they both built an army from ground up. Do you know of anybody else in history who have all these these similar characteristics? I think I think first of all, that's a a tertiary issue that you're bringing up because first of all, remember what I said in the opening statement and actually, regrettably, we all love and respect for you. I need to say this. We agreed before we start that we will not get into a rebuttal period during the opening statement. And I think you've violated that in spite of agreeing to that. I just want to bring that up and say that's a little bit of a misunderstanding going on that we were not going to engage each other's points. But in response to your question, the fact that you bring up the military aspect of it is quite unique. And the fact that you brought up a theocratic aspect to Moses, I thought was quite unique because the scriptures actually provide both for Jesus. Jesus is going to come back with his 10,000s. In fact, that's what Jude was 14. If I'm not mistaken, say the Lord comes with his 10,000. Psalms 110 talks about a holy army that is with him. Psalms 110 was three, if I'm not mistaken. Talks about that. So in a sense, Jesus is bringing his armies back with him. He's the Lord of hosts. He's going to be coming back. In that sense, he's the greater Moses. Number two, establishing a theocratic state, Jesus is going to come back and establish a world where he rules. And that's key when you look at the Gospels, Nader. Jesus begins by saying the kingdom of God has come. The kingdom of heaven has come. What do you think he means when he's saying that? So I think that even though I've answered you, the issues that you're bringing up a tertiary, because before you even deal with that, you've got to go through my opening statement and say, well, here are the eight points I've brought down. You've got to show why that's not true. And I can tell you this, that there's been a mischaracterization in terms of bringing up Joshua in, in terms of bringing all that in. It's just completely distorted what the text is actually saying. And I'll be happy to look at your autonomy if you want to go there. Okay. Well, okay. So if I understand it correctly, when Jesus comes back again in the book of Revelation, let's be clear what's going to happen here. He's going to attack the different nations. So basically it says a sword will come out of his mouth, like this, right? And he will strike the nations who do not turn convert to Christianity. Is that correct? Not quite. Not quite. So what I believe in terms of eschatology, and now bear in mind, again, we're strained from the topic again, and I don't want to do this. I'll answer this question there, but I do want to get back to Deuteronomy 18 because that's the topic of tonight's discussion. Our eschatology that I hold to, and many Christians hold to, a various variety of different eschatology, is that Jesus is going to come back to judge the living and the dead. And what is spoken about us, the sword coming out of his mouth, in my view, my view, and I'm still exploring, I'm not made up my mind in terms of eschatology, the study of last things, involves that it basically means that Jesus is going to pass judgments on basically the army of the beast, described in the book of Revelation. So that's my understanding of that, and that's how I see the rapture being described, ticking off the people, the believers in Christ, before that event happens. But I don't want to get sidetracked, and I think we've got to go back to Deuteronomy 18. And I also want to get back to Tom's point as well, after this, if you can. But feel free to jump in anytime, Tom. We don't want to leave you out of this. But back to Deuteronomy 18. You said that everything that I said and that there has been, it's my personal interpretation, but everything that you are saying is fact. Could you name me one of the things I said that is my personal interpretation, and we'll zoom in on that. Now, we didn't finish the topic about how Muhammad is like Moses, and can we finish that one first, and then we can go into Deuteronomy 18? No, I'll tell you why. We can come back to my topic. How about that? No, I'll tell you why you said that I don't think we should be discussing Muhammad versus whether Muhammad is like Moses or not, because notice what my opening contention was. I said that if Jesus is like Moses, then there's no need to find someone else. It's done. It's finished. So in that sense, I think the focus should be back to Jesus, and that's what I said. I would participate in this debate because of that. Okay, so once we do get that response, then we'll kick it over afterward to Tom as well. Thanks so much. Okay, so what does like Moses mean? Well, one of the interpretations you gave, you know, the Bible said that he did great acts of terror in the site of Israel, and we know what that terror was. It's all over the Bible, the terrible massacres he basically invoked in order to do. You tried to say Jesus is like that by because people felt scared of his miracles. That is your interpretation. Am I correct? No, I was just basically linking the parallels between the fact that he brought great terror in the midst of Israel in the sense that when Israel saw this, and that's what the text says in Exodus, when Israel saw the signs and wonders that were done by Moses, the fear of the Lord came upon them, and they realized that God was in their midst. It's the identical thing that we see when we go to Jesus, that when Jesus did the miracles, say for example, walking on the water, the disciples get terrified. When Jesus, for example, comes back from life again, they get terrified because they can't believe, and the terror that I'm talking about is not a terror of terrorizing people in a negative way necessarily. Remember, the context is the people of God. I'm speaking about terror in that people are filled with amazement and that God is there. It is terrifying. The same kind of terror, which when God comes to Mount Sinai, the people basically experience it. That's what we're talking about, but I do want to let Tom get into this as well. So go ahead, Tom. Well, yeah, so my question is, so if whoever is the prophet doesn't speak or misaccurately speaks the Word of God, they're going to die. Both Muhammad and Jesus claimed to accurately speak the Word of God, neither of them died, like right away. So doesn't that kind of prove the Bible's wrong? Or are they both God's prophets, messiahs? But he only said there was one. So let me add another. If you want to go ahead, I'll let you go ahead. No, actually, I'd like you to go ahead because he's probably a better off for this. Yeah, so what I'll respond to that, Tom, is that I believe that the word shall used in Deuteronomy, I believe 1820 is what you're referring to, which says, you know, the prophet that shall do this shall be put to, shall be, shall be, let me find the exact, the exact, let me read it for you here. I have it right here. It was 20, it was 20. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I've not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. The shall die here is not descriptive of what will happen to that prophet, Tom. It's rather prescriptive that the people of Israel ought to put that prophet to death as they did the false prophets. You will remember in the time of Elijah, those prophets of Baal, they put them to death. It is prescriptive telling the people of Israel, you've got to put such people to death. And that's what I think the text said. It's not descriptive, it's prescriptive. Well, that doesn't make any sense, because if he says that, that if he speaks a word that I have not commanded him, well, how do the people know that God hasn't commanded him to speak that word? I think that makes sense, because he is the person who's supposed to be telling them the words that God commanded them. So that interpretation doesn't really make a lot of sense. Great question, Tom. Great question, Tom. Just let me get a quick word in and I'll pass the time to you, Nadir. Yeah, so great thing. The way you would know, in fact, the text, if you read it, if you actually read it, Tom, it actually tells you how you would know. It says here, when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously and you need not be afraid of him. That's the one. But if the prophet, you know, basically speaks and it comes true, that's going to be the test, Tom, to see whether the prophet is from the Lord. Now, I say this here. Go look at the life of Jesus. What is the fundamental prophecy that Jesus spoke in his lifetime? It was this. The Son of Man is going to Jerusalem. He's going to be killed. On the third day, he will be raised from the dead. That was the prophecy that Jesus kept repeating during his life. And when did the disciples basically know that he was the prophet like Moses? When did they become confirmed at his resurrection, Tom? The resurrection of Jesus was the vindication that what he said had come true. He had predicted his death and he had raised himself from the dead. That is the way we know that Jesus indeed is the prophet of God. Now, I want to let Nadir have a go at this as well. You know, I think there are things inside the Bible, Tom, which are figurative. And so I want to get back to your point, Sam. You know, one of the, as I said, everything you basically said of how you tried to make Jesus like Moses is based upon interpretation. Now, one of the questions I want to ask you, you know, when we talk about like Moses, you know, we should be, we should be looking for intrinsic unique qualities. Like, for example, Donald Trump, he has very unique qualities. And since he's a real estate billionaire. Now, if I was a real estate billionaire, I could say, okay, I'm like Donald Trump. But of course, I'm not. Donald Trump did engage in real estate. I engage in real estate. That doesn't mean I'm like Donald Trump. So my question here is unique attributes of who Moses was. Can you show me anything like that of who Jesus was, something of his intrinsic nature? I can give you about 30. Would you, would you want me to give you one? Just give you one. Just give you one. Let me, let me go through my list because I have about 30 here that I think. Well, I just want to, I just want you to bring up one and I'd like to just respond to that real quick. Okay, so let me, let me just deal with a category, for example. Okay, I'll deal with a category. I call it a parallel of duration. In this, in this parallel duration, I'll give you four then we can discuss that. So number one, I'm talking when I speak about a parallel of duration, I'm talking about timelines. For example, Moses was sent by God 400 years after the affliction of his people. Jesus was sent by God after 400 years of affliction, AKA the 400 years of inter-testamental period. Number two, Moses spent 40 years in the wilderness. No, let me finish. I just want to try. Let me, let me go through the four first and then we'll do one at a time if that's okay. Because it comes in a set. It's the parallel of duration. So number one, Moses was sent by God 400 years after the affliction of God's people in Egypt. Jesus was sent by God 400 years of affliction under Rome. Moses spent 40 years in the wilderness before his ministry. Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness before his ministry. Exodus 34 says, Moses fasted 40 days, 40 nights. The identical phrase is used of Jesus who in Matthew 4 too fast for 40 days and 40 nights. Like I said earlier, the generation that destroyed Moses, that rejected Moses was destroyed in 40 years. Identically, the generation that rejected Jesus was also destroyed in 40 years. Now you can pick which one of these you want to go to and we can zero in on that. But I want you to know that we are not shot of any spectacular parallels between Jesus and Moses. So let me just, so I think what we see here is exactly what I, what I stated in the beginning. There is nothing in common between Jesus and Moses. And let me just address some of the things you are bringing up because you might have misunderstood the topic, the question here. You said that Moses was sent by God after like 400 years of affliction. Jesus was sent by God after 400 years of affliction. This doesn't tell us anything about who you are and what you are an intrinsic quality. But rather you're basically showing that God has some kind of timeline in which he's got Moses and Jesus on some kind of same timeline. That doesn't mean that you share some intrinsic quality of that person. You said that 40 days of fasting people, you know, 40 days and 40 nights they both fasted in the wilderness or Jesus faster than the wilderness. Well, this is something which many people do. Many people fast. But once again it doesn't tell you anything about intrinsically an attribute or quality of that person. So generations were destroyed after 40 years. Again, same answer. So you have not shown us anything. Like for the example I gave you is like a unique quality about Donald Trump is that he is a real estate billionaire. Now that's not something I could try to do. That's something very unique with him. Not absolutely unique. There are the billionaires like that, but it's very unique about him. And so that's kind of what I was shooting for. And as we can see here, there is no difference. There is no similarities between the two. So I want to give you one last chance to try to show one similarity between them. No, you see, this is what we are doing. You seem to be doing what we call an after the fact justification there where you set the terms and you say, well, in this sense, he's like Muhammad. But well, Jesus doesn't quite meet that. I want to, I went in my opening statement. In fact, regrettably, I should say it is not there. I spent my entirety of my 10 minute opening statement building on how the criteria is set by the tax and how Jesus fulfills that. I didn't quite see that from you. Maybe if I did, I do apologize. I misunderstood. But let's go back to my opening statement where I did that because I did answer that in the opening statement. I gave eight criteria that the tax demands, not that I demand, not that you demand, not similarities between you and Donald Trump. I brought out eight criteria that the tax demands and all of them, the fact that 40 years after the destruction of, the Jews were destroyed 40 years after the rejection of Jesus actually parallels what the tax says. The tax, I'll read the tax back to you. The tax actually says, you're going back to Deuteronomy 18. Let me read from you verse verse 19. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. That phrase, I myself requires it of him occurs a few times in the Bible and every time it speaks about bloodshed, revenge or death. So it's clear that God is saying, unlike other Mosaic laws where if you disagree, like what I said to Tom just now, if you go against that, the people should put you to death. This one is unique. God himself will avenge and we see that parallel between Moses and Jesus. If you want to dismiss that in Deuteronomy, say, well, that doesn't matter. That's on you. But you can't come and say, I'm missing the point. I'm going to get back to you. And Deuteronomy will come right back to you, but I do want to give Tom a quick chance. And I promise to Deuteronomy, hold that thought. We'll come right back to you. Yeah. So I don't think your response to my argument made a lot of sense because the Bible commands people to kill all the time. And so the fact that it would be such strangely interpreted in this one sense doesn't really make a great deal of sense. So it seems like it's just, they're going to die if they don't speak something out in my name. So I just want to reply, Sam, you are giving a terrorist interpretation. But can I respond to Tom first? Because I just want to get Tom involved in this as well. I don't want Tom to be left out of this discussion. Or you don't go to jail after this discussion, okay? Tom, sorry. Could you please repeat your question again, Tom? You made the claim that when it says he shall surely die to command for the people to kill him. But that doesn't make any sense because the Bible often commands people to kill. And it officially says you shall kill or go kill. It isn't as vague as this where it just says he shall die. So I don't think that response makes a great deal of sense in this context. Right. So if I could just say one thing, both, I want to just clarify, both Muslims and Christians, I want to clear that if you reject Mohammed, if you reject Jesus, you are not to be killed. Okay? And so I think you are giving a false interpretation of that verse. And it's kind of being- I want to respond to, I want to respond to Tom because I think this is going somewhere else. I've been trying to respond to Tom. And I definitely will let you come back in as well on this. So Tom, what you're saying is, so what I mentioned in my response to you is that there's a difference, Tom, between a prescriptive shall die and a descriptive shall die. And that's the way basically we read. In the context, it determines that if you look, for example, later on, the idea that false prophets should be killed is derived from this passage as well. So it's not talking about God doing it. With the passage that I spoke about God doing it comes in verse 19. That's pretty clear that God says, I myself will do it. But when it says the prophet shall die, I don't deny, for example, that God could kill such a false prophet. But you see many times in the Bible that false prophets arise and God doesn't do it. I'm looking at the text and saying that's not the application for it. So it's prescriptive. They were meant to stone them to death. I'm not sure if you get that from the text because simply saying they will die, everyone's going to die, Tom. Well, Sam, can I just jump? And you said there are eight criteria by that text itself. There is no eight criteria. These were all your eight interpretations which you tried to impose upon the text. There's only one criteria of what that prophet is supposed to be like. And that was found inside Deuteronomy, chapter 34, verse 10. In fact, just so we could read it again because once again we see that Muhammad fits that criteria. So it says over here, And Joshua, the son of noon, was filled, was full of the spirit of wisdom for Moses has laid his hands on him. And the children of Israel harken unto him and did as a Lord commanded Moses. And there arose not a prophet since in Israel likened to Moses. Who? Joshua. Now Joshua was a warrior military prophet. Moses was also the same. And Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, is also a warrior prophet. Jesus is not a warrior prophet. Remember, he comes back as a judge. He's not going to get into some kind of military battle. Rather, a sword will come out of his mouth and anyone who doesn't convert to Christianity, he's going to kill. That's what the book of revelations says. So Jesus is very different. He doesn't fit this. In fact, I'll tell you what, if you just type warrior prophets in Google, and I'm going to say this because Google said so, I know. But I just find it interesting. Guess who comes up? Number one, Muhammad. And guess who also comes up on the same page? Joshua. My point is here. Is this even the scientific algorithm can link Joshua with Muhammad? So here we have a smoking gun. And if you recall my discussion with James, well, I'm sorry, not James, Michael, Dr. Michael Brown, I think you watched that. He was not able to respond to this point. In fact, he said, I will arrange a debate later. Would you debate me? I said, yeah, sure, no problem. After that debate, he ran away. He wrote, sent me an email. He will not debate anymore. Now here's what's interesting. He's an Old Testament scholar. He knew the implications of this, that Muhammad fits us like a glove. And that's why he ran away from our scheduled debate. So I just wanted to do, do you have any, can you explain to me from looking at the text here, how does Jesus fit in here? Right, I'm happy to do that. But before that, before I do that, I do want to get Tom to follow up first. And I promise you, Nadir, I'll get back to your question. Tom, do you want to follow up, Tom? Because, yeah. Yeah, again, so the Bible commands people to kill all the time saying, it's this strange usage of this word when it would be different in every other case doesn't make a great deal of sense. It seems like you're stretching the interpretation. You mean in the sense that when I say that, it's prescriptive rather than descriptive? Yeah, because they use other ways to prescribe killing people all the time in every book of the Old Testament, everywhere saying, go kill them. It specifically says, go kill them. So it seems rather strange that this would be prescriptive in a very different sense than all the other times they've said, go kill them. Right, and if that's the case, if that's the case, I'm looking at the context here. Why then does it say in verse 22, you need not be afraid of him? Why is it saying that you need not be afraid of him, Tom, is if that's the case? Because it seems to be that you need not be afraid of him. It's also prescriptive. You can do that. You need not to be afraid of him. It comes in the context of you killing him. You don't have to be afraid of him. You can take him out. What he says does not come true. Let me read again from verse 20. The prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name, that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, how may we know that the word of God has not spoken? Why would they say in their hearts that God has put that prophet to death? It seems logically, Tom, that the reason they would ask in their hearts, how would we know, is because God is not going to strike that prophet down. That's something they need to do. And they need to ask themselves, how do we know whether to pass judgment on this prophet or not? So I think the passage is rather clear. And I think that you do have a point when you say that Shell can be descriptive. I just don't think this is the occasion in which it is. Well, guys, can we like move on from this point? I mean, I think Tom, your point was made. And maybe we're just going to have to agree to disagree because it's getting very much deep into interpretations. Tom, I want to ask you a question. You know, the Bible said that it'll raise up a prophet like Moses. Now, from the description or the similarities which Sam brought up, do you see anything which he raised, which could say, okay, that person is intrinsically like Moses in terms of his attributes and who Moses was. Did you see anything like that? Intrinsically, it depends on what you mean by intrinsically because you interpret it in lots of different ways. Like Moses has special unique characteristics. Do you see any special unique characteristics in Jesus? Sure, I guess. I have no idea. Like, I'm not a bit of a scholar in that sense. So, yeah, I mean, I would say that his interpretation makes sense. I think that due to the ambiguity of language, you can make up similarities between anybody and anybody else and make them seem unique. I don't think there's any specialness to that at all. I don't think there's any more or less relevant than claiming he's similar to Muhammad. I don't think there's any big difference there. Well, so I think we, as far as intrinsic, like a unique characteristic of who Moses was, Sam, we don't find anything in there. I think what he, what, what Tom is saying is you can try to interpret and you can try to make these vague similarities to make Jesus look like Moses. And that's what the New Testament authors did. But when you really look at them, it is, I mean, put aside their differences. It's actually preposterous and ridiculous to compare Moses with Jesus because Moses was a bloodthirsty murderer. He was almost like a Hitler. He said, kill all the men, women and children and the little girls. You can keep them for yourselves. Is that how you compare? Can you compare a man like that with Jesus? Little girls are for you, Jesus? But the difference is now, there could still be some similarities. So my point here was Sam, where I'm trying to corner you at, if you look at who Moses was and you look at who Jesus was, I don't see any similarity between them. Obviously, and one of the interesting things that I noticed is that you brought up migration. Now, by the way, I just wanted to address because I'm really sorry that I wanted to let Tom get in first earlier, but I did badly want to address your previous point. I'll answer that and I'll get back to this because I think that if you use Joshua, if you actually use Joshua as the next Moses, I think they have a lot of texture problems there, but I kind of like that answer. I'll tell you why. Because if you use Joshua, what you're essentially saying is that even though Joshua was there and Joshua was mentioned in the previous verse, verse nine of Deuteronomy 34, the author of the Bible or whoever was writing it, actually most Jews based on tradition believe Joshua wrote that passage, could have actually said that Joshua was the one who was going to be replacing Moses, but in fact, the text clearly says, till this day, the day when Joshua is there, no one has risen like Moses. That seems really weird because if Joshua is the one who is writing that, he ought to know he was like Moses. So in number two, the people, and this is an important point, Nadir, and I think you and I are going to have to agree on this. If you take Joshua to be the prophet like Moses, you are basically seeing the prophecy of Moses in Deuteronomy 18 to be forth-telling. Fort-telling in the sense that it was speaking about the people at their time, but you and I, if you believe it's Muhammad and I believe it's Jesus, we both agree that it is fort-telling, speaking about something that's going to happen in the future. The group that don't believe of the fort-telling are the group that is actually saying it is Joshua. And you don't want to go to that, Nadir, because you believe in the fort-telling element. Number three, and finally, the reason why I think it, I kind of like the fact that you mentioned it's Joshua. It's because actually the name Jesus is a Greek rendering of the Hebrew Yeshua, which is actually Joshua. Jesus is actually a Greek for Joshua. So in a sense, I think you're right. It is Jesus after all. It's Joshua, if you like. You're giving us like a response from that. Of course, of course. Go ahead. So it's actually the Jews, not at all, but many Jews believe that it was actually Joshua who fulfilled the prophecy of Deuteronomy 1818 based on 3410. I don't believe that. But my point here is, you said that there was eight criteria for this prophet in the Bible. Yes. All seven were your own interpretation. There's only one. And that is, there's only one criteria for who that prophet is, is that he should be a prophet like Joshua. Muhammad fits that perfectly to a T. Muhammad, Moses, and Jesus were all these militaristic great warrior prophets. And not only that, but they were a successful warrior prophet. You could try to pick up a gun and claim to be a prophet and try to, but you're not going to succeed. You can't fake it till you make it, is what my point here is. So question for Tom, though. Tom, I want to quickly, before I get Tom involved, I just want to quickly just respond. You mentioned the historic migration. And I'll just say this, and we can get into this in the next one. First of all, the eight points that I brought up was not my own interpretation there. And I'll repeat that again and again. It is not, it's directly from the Hebrew derived out of the text. And we can go back in each one of the eight, if you want to. It's not my interpretation. It's directly taken from the Hebrew itself. Number two, when you talk about a historic migration, just a point of interest. Moses migrated from Egypt to Israel, the borders of Israel. Where did Jesus migrate from? He also, if you look to Matthew chapter two, migrates from Egypt to Israel. It's in the case of Jesus, it's not just a historic migration there. It's an identical migration. But let's go ahead, Tom. Well, he didn't migrate. He just traveled. There was a different, I mean, migration here means that there's a, you are going with all your followers with their, all their belongings on their back, on camels, on mules, and you're moving out. That's not what Jesus did. We can disagree on the definition of migration. But the thing is, they made the journey. I want to get Tom involved this one. Go ahead, Edith. Yeah, please go ahead. Yeah, so I don't see the difference. When you're claiming that there's a near, when you're claiming that there's some kind of intrinsic similarity to Moses, I don't see that intrinsic similarity. I actually think Samuel has a more of a point here when it says that they're going to bring up a profit from within your like brethren in Israel. It seems to me, more so, he's going to be related to Jesus. Right, well, let me answer that. Well, we haven't talked about brethren yet. Unfortunately, we totally, I guess I got sidetracked. But let's talk about that next, but the thing which the intrinsic quality, which you're going to see in Moses and Muhammad, Moses was a military warrior prophet. He dispatched armies to go out and conquer. Muhammad was also a military warrior prophet who dispatched armies to go out and conquer. But now here is also the most important intrinsic quality. They had the ability as a military commander to succeed and win and conquer. That is something which is an, wouldn't you agree, Tom, to have that ability to actually do this? This is an intrinsic unique quality of that person. Oh, it never says it needs to be an intrinsic similarity in the verse. But it is a quality between, whether it's specifically stated in the Bible that you have to meet this criteria is another thing. But we could at least agree that they do share this similarity. Sure, and they both have the first letter of their name is M, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Well, sure. But I think what you're missing here, these are not, you cannot fake it till you make it. I cannot go out and be a military prophet and actually succeed and conquer. This is not something I can do, you can do or anybody, but it is something intrinsic. It takes a unique quality or attribute to do that. Wouldn't you agree? Sure, but I don't see that being a requirement to be the Messiah. I've ever said that in the passages far like that. The only two things that mentioned were like you said, similar to Moses and where he came from, from your brethren. Those are the two things that mentioned, I think the only two. Well, now we go to Deuteronomy chapter 34 verse 10. It says over there that, And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like Moses. And who is this referring to? This is referring to Joshua. Guess who Joshua was? He was a warrior prophet, again a successful warrior prophet. So the definition of what the criteria for who this prophet, like Moses is being defined here, it's giving us a hint, like Joshua. Do you, wouldn't you agree with that? What hint is it giving us? Okay, so let me just read the text to you very clearly. Just for your information, Joshua was a great warrior prophet. He led armies and he conquered lands. And Joshua the son of noon was full of the spirit of wisdom for Moses had laid his hands on him and the children of his Israel harken unto him and did as a Lord commanded Moses. And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses. So it's comparing Joshua to Moses. Say there has never been a prophet like Joshua. I mean, there's never been a prophet like Moses. It doesn't seem it. You don't think this is, well, from the text, can you see this is referring to Joshua? Nadir, I just gave you an explanation why you cannot be referring to Joshua. I just did. I think what Tom is asking is talking about the, he was, Tom mentioned specifically, just correct me if I'm mischaracterizing what you said, Tom, you're talking about the location from your brethren, right? Is that what you meant? Well, we haven't got there yet. We'll talk about that. Well, we'll definitely talk about that. But let's first deal with this. But I don't think there's anything there to deal with because again, I don't read that in the text. That isn't one of the requirements. It doesn't say you specifically need that referring to Joshua or similar to Joshua. I don't see that in the text. Sure. We can agree that what the exact attributes of what that like prophet like Moses is not defined anywhere in the Bible? In my opinion, I think. It is. No, it's not. That's your own interpretation. No, it's not. Look, it's right there. You want to get to brethren now? Let's get to brethren. Go ahead. Wait a minute. Actually, you said there is, it is specifically defined where the comparison to Moses is made. Could you tell us where is that? No, no. What I meant is I'm referring to my eight points just now. It tells you what the prophet will be and what the prophet is not. That's not my own interpretation. It's directly from the text. That's what I meant. We're in the text. Could you tell us where in the text? Sure. I'd love to. So we go back to Deuteronomy chapter 18, verse 15 to 18. It says, and I'm going to read the text now, the Lord your God will raise up. So the first thing is, it's someone raised up by God, number one, number two, for you. And the text is very clear here for you, meaning who is you? I spend a lot of time explaining you in that context when Israelite, number three, a prophet like me, what does it mean to be a prophet like me? I went to Deuteronomy 34, verse 10 to 12. What does it mean in the next? It says from among you. And this is a key point I noticed that neither is not touching. But I would love, I mean, we should get to this as we said. Well, yeah, let's stop there. And Nadir, what is your response to that? Were you saying you specifically refers to Israelites? Okay. So let me first, the criteria is, and I think you might have missed this point, Sam, raised up by God for you, for the Israelites. Muhammad meets all these criteria, all these criteria as well. That's why we really cannot use them. And so, or else, because we'll get nowhere. Now let's get to what the text means from thy brethren. So just to give you a little bit of history of who the brethren, so Isaac had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. From Isaac came the lineage of the 12 tribes of Israel. And Jesus comes from the lineage of Isaac. Now, Muhammad comes from the lineage of Ishmael. So as you can see, the brethren of the Israelites are the Ishmaelites. It's their half-brother. And that's specifically stated inside Genesis, chapter 16 verse 11. And this makes it very clear that they are brethren. So my point to you here is, the verse is definitely open for interpretation. You can read it. It can either be Israelites or it could be the Ishmaelites. You are not going to be able to decipher. And I'll just read this text to you over here. It says, talking about Ishmael. And he will be a wild ass of a man. His hands will be against every man and every man's hands against him. And he shall dwell in the presence of all of his brethren. This is talking about Ishmael. He shall dwell with his brethren. Who are the brethren, the Israelites? So my point here is, it can go, if you just read the text. What chapter is that? Now there, sorry. Which chapter is that that you just read? Oh, that's chapter 16 verse 11 and 12. You read Genesis 16, right? Oh, Genesis 16. Yeah, Genesis 11 and 12. Correct. Just a quick point here, Nadir. You read Genesis chapter 16 and you said that referred to Israel. Jacob was not even born yet in Genesis chapter 16. It's not talking about, Nadir, this is a very important thing. We should not twist the scripture, Nadir. Jacob was not born. And remember, Jacob later in his life had his name changed to Israel. It's not talking about Israel. It's talking about before that, the way before that you're talking about. In fact, just so that we are clear, the birth of Isaac itself was promised in from chapter 17 to 18. So you're not talking about Israel, Nadir. I think that point is really important in response to Tom's question, but go ahead. Well, I would disagree with you. We know that this is referring to Ishmael. It said very clear over here. I agree. Okay. And he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. So we can kind of look at this as a prophecy. So the brethren here are clearly the 12 tribes of Israel and the lineage from Isaac. Absolutely not. I'm sorry, Tom. If you want to go in, just let me know if you want to go ahead. I would just... Yeah. I wanted to interrupt because Nadir said that Muhammad meets all the criteria that you listed in the eight things and that when it refers to, he's coming for you, the Israelites, that Muhammad also meets that criteria. Would you... Because I think he is tech... Nadir has a point that if you do interpret it in a vague kind of a way, you can get Muhammad to meet all the eight criteria you listed. Would you disagree? Is that for me or... For Samuel. I'm saying Nadir said that Muhammad can meet all the criteria Samuel listed. And what is your response to that, Samuel? What one can't he meet? Oh, I mean, I don't think he can meet the criteria of chapter. Basically that he has to be from you, for you, first of all. Again, remember what I said I don't want to do. I don't want to get to deal with Muhammad. I just want to strictly deal with Jesus. But since you asked me that, Tom, let me just go ahead and say that the number two, it's for you. The Hebrew word here is lechah. And the prophet is for you, for Israel. Number three, it says... Sorry, number four, it says from among you. And here's where I noticed that, Nadir, you went... And this is something that went back and forth in your conversation with Michael Brown as well. The phrase that Michael Brown used, from among you or from your midst, Mekker Bechah, is used 15 times in the entire Bible and every single time. No exception, not interpretation. It refers only to the Israelites. Nothing outside of that. It means within a city or a land. And the number five, I said meachekah from your brothers. The NASB renders it fellow countrymen. Nadir, you have actually taken issue with the NIV for using Israel here. But that is actually the best rendering if you want to make it more dynamic. Equivalent, it's fellow countrymen. Okay. So I think that's my response to Tom. Just a second, Nadir. If you want a quick follow-up, Tom, or else I'll respond. Yes, Samuel, you mentioned at the beginning that if Jesus meets all these criteria, then that's enough and it doesn't matter if anybody else meets the criteria. And that's why you didn't want to talk about Muhammad. That seems like an unsupported argument because I'm assuming there could probably be people who could meet that criteria before even Jesus. Why would it just be the fact that Jesus meets these criteria and that's enough and you could just let everybody know? Did you say before? Sure. I imagine there's lots of people all over the world that met this criteria a long time before. Absolutely. I think that's a good point, Tom. You see, my only reason was saying that was because it would be anachronistic. For example, if Jesus already meets the criteria, there's no need to wait for someone after Jesus to meet the criteria. But if you want to talk about people meeting that criteria before Jesus, then I think that's a good point. We can talk about that. So I'm just saying that if you want to bring up someone before Jesus, that's a good thing to bring up, but not after. Well, not necessarily because the same thing would apply. Why would it? There's not like a timeline in the criteria. It doesn't say the first person who meets this criteria is going to be the Messiah. It just says here are the criteria and there could be lots of people who meet that criteria. I think it's important, Tom, to I think you seem to be conflating the Messiah with this. I'm surprised that Nadir didn't bring out John chapter 1 where sometimes in the Jewish understanding, they would distinguish between the Messiah and the Prophet. I actually thought that Nadir would actually bring that up and I'll get a chance to respond to it, but maybe later on he might. But the point I'm trying to say here is that the Jewish understanding was that they say Prophet and then they say Messiah. And so you seem to be talking about the Messiah and Messiah claims, Tom, you're not talking about Messiah claims here. We're talking about a Prophet like Moses whom the Jews in the period we call Second Temple Judaism between just during the time of Jesus actually predominantly held that this Prophet is a different person and a Messiah is someone else just to make that clear point of clarification. We're not talking about Messiah claims. Well, that's fine, but that doesn't address my point is that there could be earlier people who meet the same criteria. No, absolutely. Absolutely not. We can't know that. Age in general, you're a criteria. Nadir, let me respond to this and I promise you I'll get back to you, Nadir. So we can look at people now if you want to say that someone meets the criteria, here's what I'm going to say here. Did they do the signs and wonders in the same way that Moses did? Because that's the criteria laid down in Deuteronomy 34. Nadir doesn't seem to agree. It doesn't matter because the text seems to indicate that, but does it meet the criteria of the signs and wonders? Tom, if you know anyone who has done of the same magnitude as Moses, I would love to see that, Tom. So if you know anyone who has done that and then Nadir, I'll get back to you right after this. Go ahead, Tom. But can I just say something real quick? Yes, go for it. Okay, see, you've misquoted the text. If you read Deuteronomy chapter 34 verse 10, it says they did the signs and wonders which Moses did in Israel to Pharaoh. This disqualifies both Jesus and Muhammad. The miracle is talking about, so Moses had the staff and he threw it on the floor and it turned into a snake. These were the signs and wonders which he did. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad did that. So you just quoted, they did signs and wonders. No, read the text carefully that he did in Egypt to Pharaoh. Now, the criteria which you are bringing up, this can fit so many people and it fits Muhammad perfectly. Muhammad came for the Israelites. He can be considered from the brothers. And this is something which Tom, I want you to understand. You see, the Bible could have said it could have, and this prophet is going to come from your Israelites. It could have said that, but it used a term brethren. If you take it literally, it can refer to the Ishmaelites. If you take it figuratively, it could refer to the 12 tribes of Israel. We just don't know. And that's my point that if you listen to what Sam is really bringing, he's just giving you his interpretation. But I hope you can see I'm actually giving you fact. And I'm staying away from saying, no, this can only refer to Ishmaelites. I'm showing you it can be read either way. Well, I would say that's your interpretation just as much as his, where he says it more literally, you're taking it more figuratively. But I'm not saying anything. Samuel, how would you respond to what he said about the snake that specifically the one miracle that is being referred to in that passage is about the snake, which would disqualify both Jesus and Muhammad? No, again, Tom, I would agree if that's what the text says, but that's not what the text says. The text doesn't talk about the particular miracle. But what we're looking at is a typology. And this is a keyword in understanding the fulfillment here. Whoever it is, does he represent a type of Moses? Remember, let me explain the context. Unless you think that I'm just pulling this out of thin air. Think about this. How would the people of Israel know when this prophet arise? Are they meant to go and look at certain signs and all that? No, it's by the magnitude of that that they would know. So yeah, no, Jesus didn't do the snake thing. Jesus didn't do a lot of things that Moses did. But the key things, turning the first one water into blood, Jesus did that water into wine. We're looking at the feeding of the water. Water into wine is not blood. It's not blood. Indeed, actually, I wanted to address that, Nader. There are some parallels of what I call parallels of contrast, which is very important. Where Moses' plagues brought death, Jesus' plagues brought life. And that's an interesting point you make. I agree with you. But responding back to Tom, we are looking at the magnitude of Moses' miracles. You do see that appearing in Jesus Christ. No doubt about that, Tom. And my response to you earlier is, if you see anyone doing those kind of things, well, please bring that out, because then we can see, you know, make that comparison. But yeah, any one of you, feel free to come. So Nader, how would you respond to that? You said the quote that he was referencing specifically mentions or the one done for Pharaoh. Do you find, do you know where that is? Can you read that for us? That's the same passage, Deuteronomy chapter 34 verse 11. It said, And there rose not a prophet since in Israel, like unto Moses, referring to Joshua, whom the Lord knew face to face in all the signs and wonders, which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt to Pharaoh. And to all the servants and to all the land. Then he said, he's a great man of terror. So my point here is you just, I mean, you're basically, you know, giving your own interpretation here. And so you're saying that water, when Jesus turned water into wine, that's like Moses turning water into blood. It's a parallel idea. So I think that's a good point is that, like Nader is saying, turning water into wine is different from turning water into blood. And just like what Samuel is saying, the literal interpretation of the passage says it'd be Israelized, but Nader is then interpreting it into a more broad sense to be Muslims. It seems like you're both just picking and choosing and saying, we're going to interpret this part literally and this part figuratively, and I'm going to interpret this part literally and this part figuratively, and then just trying to get it to fit your preferred Messiah. Well, I'll clarify my point on Deuteronomy 1818. I'm not saying that this only means Ishmaelites. I'm not saying that. What I am trying to point out here is how Deuteronomy 1818 has two different valid interpretations. It could mean Israelites. It could mean Ishmaelites. So I'm taking a very neutral, objective approach to it, and I showed you how it could refer to both because Isaac had, I'm sorry, Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. They were both brothers. One Ishmaelites comes from, Ishmael comes from Muhammad comes from Ishmaelites. Jesus comes from Isaac. Yeah, but I just want to point out one thing on Deuteronomy 34 verse 10. The likeness of Moses, I don't think he's referring to this here because the likeness to Moses is only talking about in terms of how Joshua is like Moses. The verse continues just to edify, to glorify the fact of who Moses was. It doesn't mean that you have to do all these things. We do have to close pretty soon. So basically a two-minute warning, letting you guys know, and then we will go into the Q&A. So maybe if we just give each of you a chance to, within maybe just like two minutes to draw together the threads from the discussion. Could I just give one more question in James and then I'll be done. Just one more question. Is that all right? Okay. All right. Just want to get this one more question in and that's done. Nadir, you said that it could refer to Ishmaelites or you could refer to Israelites. I would like you to show me one place where the Hebrew word Meachekah could refer to anyone or Mekir Bechah could refer to anyone apart from Israelites. Just one would do. And we'll be done with this. I won't follow up. Sure. So if you look inside the word which is inside Genesis chapter 16 verse 11, the word there is ach. And what that... Hello? I'm so... Okay. We do have to let him finish though, just to wrap up here pretty quickly. I'll be very quick. The word there is ach, okay, which means brother and it also means brother in Arabic. Now, if you look at the word inside Deuteronomy chapter 1818, though it's the exact same word, from their brethren. So Genesis chapter 16 verse 11, I was talking about Ishmael. So once again, my point here is that it is clearly open for interpretation. Go ahead. I said I won't follow up, but again, my question, just repeat my question and I'll pass the time back to James. I just asked, show me one place where Mekir Bechah or Meachekah could refer to anyone apart from Israelites and Nadir has not. He went to a different word ach instead, which I already addressed, but James, I'll pass the time back to you. Thanks so much. And Tom, if you have any last remaining threads you'd like to draw together from this debate, we'll give you a shot at doing that. Yeah, as far as I can tell, they just seem to be picking and choosing the things, the similarities that they want to identify their preconceived beliefs and then choosing those as opposed to the other ones and then taking the things that don't quite fit and then interpreting those in a more vague sense to make it fit their belief system. It just seems like any other man-made religion, as far as I can tell, is a vague prediction about a vague messiah and then people claim to be that messiah to get notoriety and that's kind of it. It just seems to be like another human book, as far as I can tell. Ooh, sassy. All right, we will go into the Q&A, folks. Thanks so much. Really excited to get through these. A lot of great questions and want to let you know, as I mentioned earlier, I've put all of the links for the speakers in the description so that their links are conveniently waiting for you if you're listening and you're like, I want more, but you can hear more at those links. Next up, thanks for your super chat, starting with our dearest friend, a familiar around these parts. Hold on a second, worded. Okay, thanks so much. Steven Steen, who says, Tom and I once spent an hour in the car with James. This is true. That was a good old time. You remember that, Tom? Yes, I do remember that. You guys were doing something weird in the back. Yeah, it was strange. All right, very good, Tom. It's a sick burn. Caleb, club, as he likes to be called. Thanks for your super chat. Who, he says, everyone's thoughts on Isaiah 53, please. Who wants to go first? I'm happy to go first. Short and pithy, gentlemen. Sorry, James. I didn't go for it. Short and pithy, you got 48 seconds each to address Isaiah 53. Sure, Isaiah 53 talks about the suffering servant. And I think in Known House, it actually refers to Jesus Christ. Simply because of this, look at this. In Isaiah 53, it talks about the suffering servant who will be killed and who will later be raised from the dead again. Words 4 says, He surely has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God and afflicted. It was peers for our transgressions. Remember, peers meaning, peersing through. And He was crushed for our inequities. Upon Him, the chastisement that brought us peace. And with His wounds, we were healed. We like sheep have gone astray. We have turned everyone to His own ways. And the Lord has laid on Him the inequities of us all. And when you look at this, at the end of Isaiah 53, it talks about He will see the light of life again. Stuck in by someone who dies for the sins of the people. And then it's raised to life again in vindication of that. If anyone wants to say there was anyone other than Jesus Christ, with His own words, admit that He was going to die for the sins of the people and be raised again from the dead. That would be really interesting, but no one has ever made that claim. And I think Jesus is unique in that fulfillment of Isaiah 53. Okay, I guess I can probably go next on that. So that's something, you know, kind of like something my grandma can do, in the sense like the people who wanted to make Jesus look and fit these characteristics that, oh, he, you know, he pierced his all, you know, whatever the text says. I'm sure they probably went to Isaiah chapter 53, copied it and made Jesus try to fit exactly like that. And they were, the gospel writers are very notorious for doing that. So this is not impressive at all. But we as Muslims, we believe that Jesus was actually saved from crucifixion. So that's all I have to say. I would, I interpreted as probably fitting Jesus in more of a sense, but I think you can ambiguous it to make it fit either one. Not a problem. Spicey. Okay. Here's our next one. Thanks for your super chat from club strikes again. It says puzzles are for old people. Converse contender. Very embarrassing. Holy skepticism. Thanks for your super chat. And it says Dear AM, your buds Mike and strike lost last night. We got some going on. How do you read it right now? You serious? Yeah, really loud. Oh, that's embarrassing. You have to stay in front of everybody, Tom. Colab, thanks for your super chat. He says, quote, he shall die. It doesn't mean God. It immediately or direct. They said your volume down. Thomas volume is perfect. Okay. So take it. It's a bit too loud. Too loud. Okay. We're all fine. Oh, that's right. I did actually turn my game up last night. Desperate times call for desperate measures. But Colab, thanks for your super chat. Who says, quote, he shall die. Doesn't mean God. Does it immediately or directly, Tom? God works through people as well. All right. What was the question that I was trying to do? Dang it, Thomas. Okay. Can you keep the mic like a foot away? We're just no Tom. Colab, thanks for your super chat. Who said, quote, he shall die. Does not mean God does it immediately or directly, Tom. God works through people as well. Yeah, it could be interpreted as either. Would I like to interpret it that way? I don't think it's, you can interpret it any way you want. It's kind of ambiguous. Gotcha. Was that, I think that was all. Okay. Thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat from S.J. Thomason, who says Muhammad from the 17th century said Jesus wasn't crucified. Early sources such as the Talmud, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian and Celsus show he's wrong. Islam is wrong. Well, I think this is kind of off topic. I think we were supposed to be talking about Deuteronomy 1818. So let's, we could just stick with the topic, but the issue about the crucifixion, it's a hoax, simple. And we see inside the writings of Josephus, that was actually edited by Christians. So there is a lot of fabrications, and there's a lot of hoaxes, which basically, which the crucifixion is based on. So I don't see Islam as being, I think people believe are believing in a hoax. Gotcha. Let me know what my volume is like. Apparently the entire chat erupted to yell at me about my volume. Thank you for that. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Michael Dresden, who says T jump getting spanked tonight. And spanked is in all caps. T jump, if you want to respond, you can. I think he says that every debate. I think he has some, some weird fetishes going on. A lot of spanking going on. Converse contender. He's a little loud, a little loud. So converse contender. I'm not tender crap. Okay. Converse contender, thanks for your super chat, who says James won by default. Nice haircut. Thanks Converse. Next up, a poser of religion. Thanks to your super chat who says, hit that like button. If you want T jumps chair. Nice. That's very good. As you Thomas and thanks for your super chat, who says in all caps, Islam was built on conquering force conversions and death for apostasy, even today. Then she says, heart emoticon one three. Christians had no legal protections built on peace in all caps. Jesus versus Muhammad, which had the superior lifestyle. Well, let me just respond to that real quick. So the whole thing about force conversions and Islam was built on conquering. This is all hoodwinkles and fairy tales, which people try to tell about Islam to basically to spook them. So I'll give you an example. The largest Islamic country, Muslim country in the world today with the greatest population is Indonesia. No Muslim army went to Indonesia. They were converted to Islam through merchants and people basically meeting with them and through role modeling. They liked the Islamic way of life and now they're the largest Islamic country in the world. You know, if I could just say something which Thomas mentioned, he said, well, it looks like we're picking and choosing how we want to make Moses look like Muhammad or Jesus. And that actually is true because the Bible doesn't give us a lot of criteria for what that prophet is like. But what I wanted you to see, Tom, was whatever Sam was presenting, it has nothing to do with the intrinsic, unique characteristics of who Jesus was. He couldn't give anything. They were all these, well, you know, they both did these things, you know, which is not telling you who or what you are. But if you look at what I presented to you, they were intrinsic, unique qualities. And I think you saw that. So that's what I think the distinct difference is. And that's why I said all he was giving is his own interpretation. Gotcha. Thanks for that. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Colubb, as he goes by, who says, Tom's chair has been in the family for over 400 years. So true. Cesar Frego Zorabia in the house, straight out of Los Angeles. Thanks for your super chat. Who says, Nadir, in the Surah 1094, so if you have any doubt in which we, in all caps, have revealed to you, ask those who have read scripture before you, who is, quote, we, and the prophet of, quote, those. Who is we? So we here, this is a royal, we, which is referring to God. So God, there's two types of plurals in the Arabic and also the Hebrew language, one which is a plural of respect, and one which is a plural, of course, of more than one. So, so God is addressed in a plural of respect. But the part about who is the prophet, I'm not sure what he meant by that. Gotcha. Thanks for your super chat. Next up from, let's get one, hold on. Skeptic Wiz says, these theists take in turns spanking T-Jump. What is, okay. Stupid, I mean, if you want to respond to that, you can. I don't think any, but he wants to. Stupid war energy strikes. Yeah, yeah. We had a very meaningful discussion, and I really enjoyed that. I'm not spanking in any sense of the word. No spanking. Stupid war energy, thanks for your super chat. Who says, Tom, you are the sofa king. You are sofa things. Oh, I get it. Oh, I get it. People are more interested in the sofa than the special. No, that's, you know, you know the Bart Ehrman, the Bart Simpson jokes, if you call in to a show and he says like, I'm looking for Amanda Hagenkiss. Yes. Sofa king. Say that in your head slowly. Yeah, I know Tom, seriously, we learned that in like fifth grade. Okay, next up, thanks for your super chat from, let's see. Locan 16, you got a fan here, Tom. Locan 16 says, T-Jump wins again. You got a fan, Tom. Nathan Foster, thanks for your super chat. All of these are about T-Jump. Okay, they say T-Jump thinks about Carol Baskin rubbing his chair. I still don't remember. I don't know who that is. I think it's from the Tiger King, right? Sam, that's your favorite show, right? The Tiger King. Absolutely not. Don't know what you're talking about. Just kidding. I'm sorry. They're not teasing. He's not. Sam, you always like above reproach. Sorry. Nathan, he's a good sport. Nathan Foster, let's see, we've got that one. Skeptic Wiz says, The Theists are passing Tom around like a bag of Oreos. That's kind of good. Now, Steve Thomason, thanks for your super chat. Who says, Nadir, is the Madhi superior to Jesus? No, I don't believe so. But I guess I never looked at it that way, that one would be superior. They basically will work together. So the Madhi is kind of like an introduction to Jesus. First, the Madhi will come, and then he will actually kind of pave the way for the Second Coming of Christ. Gaja, thanks so much. I think that's it for our super chat questions. Let me jump into the standard questions. We'll get just a couple, because I know Sahi Luke is going to murder me if we don't ask him these, because Sahi Luke has been really excited to ask these. Question for Nadir, why do you still think Muhammad was the person prophesied in Deuteronomy 18, when Dr. Brown proved to you the other day that it was, quote, in all caps, impossible that he could be, and why not load the vid? Yeah, so Dr. Brown actually cowardly ran away from the debate. I don't know if you know that Sahi Luke. So basically, he was cornered with Deuteronomy chapter 34 in which it showed that the criteria for that likeness of Moses was Joshua. Joshua was a warrior prophet. Muhammad was a warrior prophet. In Moses and Jesus, Moses was a warrior prophet, but not Jesus. I told him, Jesus doesn't fit in here, and this is the only criteria. So he said, you know, okay, well, we'll debate this at another time. And guess what? He ran away from the debate challenge. So I don't know if you are aware of that, but in front of all of his fans and folks, he said, we will debate that at another time. But in the back of my mind, I knew this guy's gonna run because he knew the implications of Deuteronomy chapter 34 that it excludes Jesus because he's not a warrior prophet. And the winning argument of that discussion was this, that Muhammad was a military prophet like Moses. He built an army from scratch. He brought a theocratic state and he was a great success of a prophet. These are not things you can just duplicate or copy. And he had nothing, but he had no refutation to that. But again, he was a very rude overbearing person. It wasn't a debate. It was just a discussion. I was in the position where I was supposed to really ask him questions. So go ahead. You should ask him why he ran away. Could I just quickly respond to that really quick? Just give me five seconds. Now, I just need to stand up for Michael Brown here. It's a brother in Christ for me as well. Now, just from what I understood, Nadir, you shared that video with me. Michael Brown wanted to do a debate first. It was whatever Islamic organization was contacting him. They were the ones that said they didn't want to do a debate even though Michael Brown wanted to just to put that on record because that's what I understood, not that he ran away. But yeah. No, but for a record, he ran away after he was confronted with Deuteronomy chapter 34 verse 10. One second. One second. Like he literally ran out of the building like on his feet? No. So basically, he said after that question as well. One second. Hold on. I'm just kidding. I'm sorry. I don't want to. Oh, I just want just to keep us moving. We do have a couple more questions. Sorry about that. I'm just teasing you. Brian Stevens, thanks for your super, your Patreon question who said, how do you know all the signs, wonders, and miracles in the Bible happened? Do you have good reason outside the Bible? Who's the question addressed to me? Yes. And the question is, how do you know the signs and wonders happen? Yeah. And they're asking if you have evidence of outside of the Bible for that. Right. And here's the interesting thing. If you have evidence outside of the Bible for, say, let's take the miracle of the resurrection, for example, anyone who believes or produces or who actually believes that Jesus actually rose from the dead would not remain a non-Christian. So if they genuinely believe these miracles to be true and they're not, they would actually become Christian so that you can't really have someone believing in evidences like, say, miracles like the resurrection and still remain non-Christian in the face of it. So that would be my response. But just a quick thing is that, actually, I wanted to do a debate with Tom on the resurrection. I was really looking forward to that. That would have been in Arlington on April, was it April 14th, Tom? Yeah, April 4th, wasn't it? 4th yesterday. Thought of April, yes. Thought of April, yeah. That's my girlfriends, but I needed to remember so yeah, April 14th, we were supposed to do that. And in that resurrection debate, I intended to just show why, for example, that we have actually extra biblical evidence that points not to the resurrection, but leads up to the facts, which, if true, point to the resurrection. So I think, for example, that the resurrection did happen and if Jesus was raised from the dead, you can deduce from that that he was reliable in the other things, for example, so the gospel's record. But that's a much bigger topic, one that I think would have, you need to have a separate debate for that. Dr, really quick just to keep moving. Thanks for that. And do appreciate Brian Stevens. Well, we got that one, Amy Newman. Thanks for your question. If you all remember Amy, she partnered with Tom Jump in their last tag team match. She and Tom will also be partnering again because they were a good duo this Saturday. It's going to be terrific. And that's against John Maddox and the one and only Tom's dad, Nephilim Free. It's going to be really good. So as Amy Newman asked to T jump, do you feel like you're a few conversations away from Nadir de-converting? Yes. Yes. I'm going to convert them both to post-afari, that's going to be there. Sassy. Next up, I think we got a couple of super chats I missed. So sorry about that, folks. Ryoszinski would agree with you, as they said in their super chat, Tom's doing the spanking. And he says, Jay Thomason, thanks for your super chat. Who says Islam says women have half a brain. No, Nadir. That's in quotes. Yeah. So that's another fabrication about Islam that they have half a brain. This is another, like just like the fabrication about that Islam teaches forced marriages. And unfortunately, there's a lot of misinformation people put out there about Islam. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Adam C. Monster, for your super chat, who said, T jump always slouching or just a big chair? Big chair. Without a doubt, the biggest chair. It's a terrific chair. People are saying it's the best. And very excited to want to let you know, folks. This has been a total pleasure to have these guys on here. As mentioned, they're laser in the description. It's always fun to have you there in the audience. We really appreciate you hanging out with us. No matter what walk of life you're from, Christian, Muslim, atheist, you name it, we do hope you feel welcome. And once again, gentlemen, thank you so much for being with us tonight. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having us on. Absolutely. So with that, folks, oh, I forgot. Converse, if you're there, our producer Converse, our dearest friend. Oh, I forgot. He told me to text him. So, folks, as you know, we basically the internet, the internet I've had recently, I think it's because of, maybe because of like the kind of added weight to the internet connection in the area. I have no idea. I'm not a, do I look like a tech person? I mean, you've seen this channel. So let me, I'm going to, you said, Jeff. You're going to give us games. I got you. Oh, thank you, Converse. I didn't even have to text him. I'm learning how to do this texting thing. I'm a boomer. We're good to go. I'm ready. Keep sifting the reasonable from the unreasonable. Thank you. Keep sifting out the reasonable from the