 Our Master Issa, when the Quran's Christology, its statements about Christ, even though the Quran's Christology make more historical sense than what the New Testament even teaches about Jesus, peace be upon him, even though the Quran came 500 years after the New Testament. This is amazing. Most historians today do not believe that the historical Jesus, peace be upon him, claimed to be divine. They say he claimed to be a prophet and a healer who taught a more relaxed interpretation of the Torah, and that he spoke of someone to come after him who would bring the kingdom of God on earth. And when it comes to the crucifixion, so here the Christian will point will point out to the Muslim and say, look, here the historian says, peace be upon him, was crucified, but the Quran denies it. But here I would say that historians have highly overemphasized the historicity of the crucifixion. I think if they look closely at the evidence again, many of them will affirm at least the historical plausibility that Issa was not crucified. What does the Quran say? It says those who differed about it, meaning the crucifixion, were in doubt and shak concerning it. They did not have certain knowledge. They did not have except that they followed the conjecture. In other words, none of the evidence that Jews and Christians marshal to support Jesus's crucifixion, none of it was written by an eyewitness of this alleged historical event. Every epistle, every gospel, every statement in Christian Jewish and Roman sources without exception came much later and were authored by people who were not there. Paul was the first person in recorded history to claim that Jesus was crucified. This was 20 years later after the alleged event and he wasn't even there. Paul never met the historical Jesus. He was not a disciple. So these sources are conjectural. They are Dhanni. Today we know that this is true. The Quran is correct. But back when the Prophet Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam first ordered these words, Christians and historians believed that the four gospels, that two of them are written by two disciples of Jesus and the other two are written by disciples of disciples. No historian really believes that anymore. The Quran is correct. Yet most historians continue to drag their feet on this issue. There's a dogmatism among even secular historians. Don't think these people are objective, but put 50 quote on quote, objective secular historians in a room and give them a topic. You have 50 different responses, 50 different opinions. So allow me to paraphrase an excellent point made by Dr. Louis Fatouhi. It was what he says. It's a paraphrase. He says if the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is the real author of the Quran and he desperately hoped to convert Jews and Christians to Islam and to become his followers, then why in the world did he deny the crucifixion of Jesus when both Jews and Christians maintained that he was crucified? Why would he invent an uncrucified Jesus? Why would he create an unnecessary barrier to conversion? The answer seems to be that the Quran is stating an actual fact since it has direct access to history as a divine revelation. It is simply a fact that Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Mary, peace be upon them was not crucified. So here's the main point. The Quran's version of the flood, the Exodus, the story of Joseph, the teachings of Jesus are more historically accurate than what the Bible says.