Muslim Christian Dialogue vs Josh #2

share this pageShare Page
Adnan Rashid

Channel: Adnan Rashid

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.


00:00:00--> 00:00:11

It's that the most firm conclusion we reach about Jesus is that he was a Jewish prophet preaching in the first century Judea, and full stop, we

00:00:13--> 00:00:15

have no problem with that. And that's that's

00:00:19--> 00:00:21

awesome support that this is the oldest part of Scripture.

00:00:25--> 00:00:28

One Corinthians 15 chapter one.

00:00:30--> 00:00:31

Sorry, first one, can I just read it?

00:00:33--> 00:00:43

Now I would remind you brothers of the gospel, I preach to you which you receive, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved. If you hold faster the word I preach to you unless you believe in vain,

00:00:45--> 00:01:21

For I delivered to you as a first important, what I also received, that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the Scriptures that he was buried that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. And that he appeared to see first and the 12th and up to more than 500 Brothers, most of whom are still alive, though some of whom are listening. Very good. Very good. This is a very good point. Yeah. 15 that once a five is not Paul's writing, right? That is an All right, read any scholar on any scholar, right, repeatable scholar, I see that this was not Paul's writing. He was reciting a creed, okay, which would have been formulated right.

00:01:22--> 00:02:00

around three years after both African and Asian societies, okay to society. Right, I received less. I'm delivering to what I was, I understand. So now I'm telling you the early idea. Sorry, this was an early idea. Three to five years after Jesus's death. Yes, there is a creed been going around was writing by the apostles. He received it all right, because Paul would have become a Christian one, two or three years after Jesus's death. Okay, he went to Jerusalem, as he says in Galatians. Most scholars will say that he received this creed around that time. So we're saying three to five, three to five years after that Jesus was. So what I'm trying to say to you is that we have here Even if

00:02:00--> 00:02:04

you say the gospels are rubbish, everything is we're not saying what's not reliable.

00:02:05--> 00:02:42

There is a creed and look it up, please. That is dating five years after Jesus's death, there is no way you can do that it is impossible for you to date. Because there is nothing changes. There is no manuscript of the New Testament, entirely all of it. The earliest we have is a fragment from the mid second century, which is john chapter 18. parts of it fragments, which is called a meeting to do is in john Ryan library, and was one Corinthians written when the most recent one printed scholars say it was Paul's writing was written early. Yes, this is what he said that I have no idea. Okay.

00:02:45--> 00:02:51

What do you think about the scholars? You just said? You said these repeatable people? Okay. The scholars themselves say

00:02:52--> 00:02:59

one second, just 15 years they work on assumptions. Have you read them? histories on assumption not? I thought.

00:03:02--> 00:03:05

They have no evidence. Who so what does that mean?

00:03:09--> 00:03:42

It's an early creed. Okay, that is repeatable, that it was an oral tradition. Is there any evidence for it? There are scholars that say it is okay. When is the evidence? I would like to I've read it. I've read it. They're all speculative. And all the speculations are based upon textual study. They assume that this text was actually written in the first century, and there's no reason why, you know, the reasoning is, please tell me one scholar, one scholar, he says one Corinthians was not written in the first century. I can't name one I have to go and not even.

00:03:44--> 00:03:45

Okay, one Corinthians.

00:03:47--> 00:03:50

Let's assume, let's assume it was written in five.

00:03:51--> 00:04:05

Rest assume it was written five years after Jesus Christ or even when he was alive, let's assume when Paul is saying, Les Paul is using two words here. The Gospel I am preaching, yes, number one, and number two, scripture,

00:04:06--> 00:04:07

scripture.

00:04:09--> 00:04:30

So he said, there are two words I want to pick on I delivered to you as a first because that was the first one that was your creed. Yes. This is the cream of the reading. Okay, so I delivered to you as a first important what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in in accordance with Scripture. Okay, stop there. Stop that. Stop that scripture. What is for talking about?

00:04:31--> 00:04:33

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

00:04:37--> 00:04:42

It's very important. Okay. Scripture, What is he talking about? I would say,

00:04:43--> 00:04:52

I do. I don't tell you why. According to scholar, yes. When Paul says all Scripture, for example, God breathed. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

00:04:53--> 00:05:00

All scholars, Christian scholars, the names you mentioned are unanimous. Paul is talking about the Old Testament. I have no problem.

00:05:01--> 00:05:21

Okay, so when Paul uses the word scripture, he's talking about the Old Testament. Now I want you to show me the resurrection and the crucifixion in the Old Testament, because it says in accordance to the Scripture, so if the resurrection, and the crucifixion is in the Scripture, resurrection in particular, for example, in the Old Testament law school,

00:05:27--> 00:05:29

I don't know where it is, I will even go

00:05:30--> 00:05:31

back and check. My,

00:05:33--> 00:05:42

my whole important thing is that he mentioned Yes, I'm not saying if you say, you might have lied about scripture, but he's speaking about death. And he's reading about Mary, to be a liar. And

00:05:44--> 00:05:46

now the thing is saying that it doesn't mean

00:05:48--> 00:05:49

being deceived.

00:05:58--> 00:05:59

No, no, no, we don't believe that.

00:06:03--> 00:06:04

Let's go with

00:06:08--> 00:06:12

that substitution theory. We don't actually believe it. What is it? What is it is it is what happens

00:06:14--> 00:06:39

when God says, Well, our kids should be alone in the Quran that it appeared to them. So yeah, right. Yeah. We have no details. God simply tells us one thing, while ma Cthulhu, yochanan. They killed him not facade. So it was not Jesus who was put on the cross. Okay. No, who was put on the cross? Why were we have no idea. Okay. The fact that we don't know we don't I don't even know how God created the heavens.

00:06:41--> 00:06:55

So someone else was put on the cross? We have no idea. We can't say that. What? Okay, we can't say that. Well, we know he was saying, We don't know what is possible. It is possible. Yeah. Maybe someone was pulling across whatever happened. Maybe the Romans took him and put him on the cross. And I know,

00:06:57--> 00:06:59

even the most radical James Dominic cross, yes.

00:07:01--> 00:07:03

Yes, yes. But why? Why do they believe it?

00:07:04--> 00:07:28

No, no, no, no. All these scholars you mentioned, I will testify to the fact historians generally accept the crucifixion as historians, based upon what? based upon what? Because they have no other information available, or example. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, if you speak, but that's not true. Well, they use a criteria, which is what the number one thing, which is the most important criterion of embarrassment. Okay, so I'll give an example

00:07:30--> 00:07:32

of embarrassment does not give you facts.

00:07:36--> 00:07:37

Patricia Crowe,

00:07:38--> 00:07:42

one of the main dogmas she uses against people saying, Oh, no, of course it wouldn't.

00:07:43--> 00:07:51

is because they believe that there are embarrassing things which someone who was writing something about Mohammed would never put in. But we have embarrassing things about him.

00:07:56--> 00:08:00

And we have other embarrassing things about him. In the Quran, we have embarrassed.

00:08:01--> 00:08:09

My point, yes, but my point here, that means Why would someone if he was making up some figures, yeah, why would he put something embarrassing? Yeah, so we can say obviously, Mohammed existed because

00:08:11--> 00:08:23

let me finish as a history. I don't accept it. Why most scholars who study New Testament holds a certain facts about Jesus. baptism. And crucifixion is the criterion of embarrassment, right?

00:08:24--> 00:08:40

No, it's a criterion, which is the criteria. Understand that his reasons is the criteria. is the standard itself speculative or factual? Is it based? Why do you use it when you have no facts? When you try to make sense of Okay, when you're trying to decipher Sorry,

00:08:41--> 00:09:12

I can give to you Yes, most scholars will say everything in the Gospel of Jesus, something that might not have happened. But they will say we can use this criteria to try and understand the things that actually occurred. Okay, baptism 100%? Because why would Jesus have a baptism of sins? If he was divided, not 100%. With the Gospels, I believe, you will at least give me that and this actually supports Islam in a way. So why would you say Jesus? Will we have a baptism of sins if he was a sinless person or if he was a divine being? So why most scholars will say tell you why why most scholars will say, john the Messiah,

00:09:13--> 00:09:19

parents, in fact, if you're writing about a crucified Messiah, and this is Christian in the

00:09:20--> 00:09:37

in the first century, if you're saying the Messiah, when there were other Messiah such as Baraka, who was a worried you're saying the Messiah was crucified in the most embarrassing way, the crucifixion was the most horrific and embarrassing. Messiah was then crucified, okay, why would you write?

00:09:39--> 00:09:40

So let's, let's say,

00:09:42--> 00:09:47

okay, okay. In that case, yes. So your only is that your only argument?

00:09:50--> 00:09:50

When looking for

00:09:51--> 00:09:53

certain things, right.

00:09:54--> 00:09:55

I'm telling you why

00:09:56--> 00:09:57

I can trust you

00:09:59--> 00:09:59

in a hand wavy way

00:10:00--> 00:10:01

Wait, we have the Quran in our hand.

00:10:03--> 00:10:36

None of the serious scholars of early Islam and the Quran non Muslims, by the way, yes question that this Quran actually came from Mohammed. He is directly responsible for the text, whether he wrote it himself, or His revelation is a question they don't indulge in, that they don't consider supernatural historians, but they have all unanimously said that bonds Royce is an exception when it was rubbished by other scholars and the discovery of manuscripts. Okay, so now we have the Quran in a hand which comes from Mohammed. When I read the Quran, I do not doubt Muhammad for a second

00:10:39--> 00:10:40

biggest testimony I have.

00:10:41--> 00:10:42

And it's truthfulness

00:10:45--> 00:10:47

from God because firstly, the Scripture is unchanged.

00:10:49--> 00:10:51

We know who bought it, but because it's not changed, it doesn't make it true.

00:10:58--> 00:11:00

Have prophecies about the Prophet Mohammed or change

00:11:04--> 00:11:09

on something where you yourself said to us, we don't know who bought it.

00:11:14--> 00:11:23

Let's get rid of every other thing. Let's do it. Let's get rid of FBI protection just with a mark. Okay, so this was one more condition of

00:11:26--> 00:11:26

support.

00:11:28--> 00:12:08

Okay, I said to you look this up, please. There is a device in biblical studies called inclusion. Okay, type it in a place where you can tell who wrote anything or the way that it is structured. Okay, so because pizza is the most prominent member outside of Jesus of Nazareth, he's the first assignment. He's the largest like, and as literary things. When it says the bookmark, he's reporting some of the things that he just said, he said, We he uses the plural we then he started using II. And most scholars will say that actually points very strangely to a singular testimony. So just looking at the text a speculator, it's all speculation, right? Yeah. What

00:12:09--> 00:12:11

I'm saying I can simply it's not speculative.

00:12:12--> 00:12:19

I to simply say, Hey, I can simply say your own transmission. transmission is speculative.

00:12:26--> 00:12:27

Okay, I'm telling you,

00:12:29--> 00:12:30

I'm telling you, I don't know.

00:12:32--> 00:12:44

If you know, when he did, he would have lived for us and Trump would have, you know, he lives message whoever works market live for us. And more than likely, it was john mark. JOHN, Mark. Okay. Sorry. I'm telling

00:12:48--> 00:12:48

you.

00:12:51--> 00:13:00

I'm telling you what, I understand what you're saying. But I'm saying that my issue is is not you report. My issue with the reports the message

00:13:03--> 00:13:20

I just said, except for Packers do a biblical study of the marking text. And most scholars are saying speculative, because your history is speculative. I'm not I can tell you transmission, I can tell all of this as a speculative, I don't trust, there are certain things

00:13:21--> 00:13:35

and certain certain things are not speculate. Let me tell you, everything about the past is probabilistic. Everything about the past even even if it's 99.999. It is probabilistic. No, it's not. I don't believe that. I don't believe that.

00:13:37--> 00:13:45

allows your question? Everything okay. Did the Egyptians build the pyramids? Very probabilistically. Yes.

00:13:46--> 00:13:49

Yes. Okay. Do the pyramids exist?

00:13:50--> 00:13:51

Very, very

00:13:55--> 00:13:58

well, but I was speaking to a man over there actually, the guy we that we're

00:14:00--> 00:14:07

all speaking to, and he said that he doesn't believe I exist, which is very strange, how there are people what

00:14:09--> 00:14:24

they are called solipsism, okay. They believe that people don't exist. Okay. So all I can say is I trust my senses. Right. And probably, you are in front. So let's talk about let's talk about our normal senses. Yes. According to our normal senses, do the pyramids exist?

00:14:25--> 00:14:26

Very

00:14:28--> 00:14:30

well, 100% certainty.

00:14:31--> 00:14:33

I have no doubt. No science.

00:14:35--> 00:14:43

You know, science. Okay. What's the theory of Hilo centricity? I don't know anything about the sun being at the center of the universe, you say it is very sensitive. Would you say it is?

00:14:45--> 00:14:59

I don't know. By the way, it is a probable theory just telling you. Okay, if I ask you, does the sun exist? What would you say was sadly I would say yes. Yeah. But if I quantified it and I was using scientific terms, I would say probabilistic Yes. No.

00:15:03--> 00:15:04

Cuz I was just being respectful.

00:15:05--> 00:15:11

I wouldn't be now. I would say yes, Jesus resurrected. Yes. Jesus crucified. Yes, all of these things.

00:15:12--> 00:15:57

Yes Mark was was testimony by Peter because if you simply do literally bisect literary criticism of the market shows that Peter was the eyewitness testimony and also the fact I was like watching what LASIK LASIK. Okay, another way you can learn about eyewitness testimony without respect to you and your students. Okay. So eyewitness testimony another way you can see it is the way that they use the names I was trying to say before the way names within scripture, Jesus's miracles, loads of things were reported with names and people who didn't have names. And one reason why, and I'm saying, the majority of scholars say is because the people who was telling those testimonies of the people who

00:15:57--> 00:16:12

are named, so Lazarus, if he was raised from the dead, He is the one who was telling people that he was raised from the dead. So Luke, Mark and the people who are compiling this, they will go into the eyewitness testimonies and say, What happened? Tell me, tell me

00:16:13--> 00:16:18

what happened? Yeah, Jesus resurrected me from that he brought me back from the dead. Okay. Now the women that

00:16:19--> 00:16:24

women are the Hindus wrong in believing in a God who has over 100,000.

00:16:25--> 00:16:27

Now, Mary,

00:16:28--> 00:16:33

Mary Magdalene, Mary Magdalene, and a few other people who are at the crucifixion,

00:16:37--> 00:16:38

boys reporting.

00:16:41--> 00:16:41

Let me just

00:16:46--> 00:17:15

give you my point. Yeah. Women at that time were seen as lesser people, sadly, in society, their testimony meant nothing at all. So for the marking texts, and most of the texts to have none of the disciples at the crucifixion event, but women, and then for the marking text in chapter 16, for Jesus to appear first to women, and not to men. It's a fair game around the ring, you're not actually landing in the right corner, laying around the rain, but you're not coming into the rings.

00:17:19--> 00:17:57

Pocket, how you get into the ring is by dealing with the question directly. So I'm asking you and you're giving me these stories are like Hindus give me stories about Rama and Krishna and Hanuman, and Ganesh and all those idols they worship, okay, they have these stories as well. Very, very beautiful story. Let me finish now. Okay. I don't doubt the stories. Because, again, the man of the desert analogy, a man from the desert walks in, and he goes, mumble Oh, my God. And I said, Oh, my God. Oh, my God. I don't question his testimony. Okay. Now you say I believe in the report. I don't care about the report. Okay. Now the issue is without the reporter the report means nothing. It is

00:17:57--> 00:18:00

just like a fart. I'm sorry to use that language. Yes. Okay.

00:18:01--> 00:18:03

Anyone can walk in and say this report

00:18:06--> 00:18:12

is so much that he came and brought this complete contradiction message. Is there a possibility?

00:18:15--> 00:18:17

I want to make the final point that you can come in, come in.

00:18:18--> 00:18:45

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and john. We have three candidates for john doe. Three candidate according to the scholars you've been mentioned yet? Yeah. Who are they? JOHN? The son of Zebedee. JOHN of efficency. JOHN the presbyter. john was a very popular name. Okay. Okay. Which one is the author that very COVID? One of the one of these, which Okay, I would not respecting history anymore. Okay. I wouldn't say probably, I would say it was john the elder. It was not john the disciple. Okay.

00:18:46--> 00:18:51

Which one is a presbyter emphasis or, or the Son of God? It was

00:18:52--> 00:18:54

the son of Zebedee dog, right. He's choking me out. Right.

00:18:55--> 00:19:11

He wasn't around. When scholars Shawn, the elder was a disciple. You know, Jesus had more disciples and scholars don't accept that. But he had more disciples as well. No, no, the scholars don't accept that this john the elder is a very, very convenient is john.

00:19:12--> 00:19:19

JOHN. JOHN. One second call me this call is that and tell me wearing a CD. Bring that out.

00:19:23--> 00:19:23

We'll read

00:19:24--> 00:19:30

the questions. Okay. JOHN, the Gospels authorship of john. Can I come?

00:19:33--> 00:19:34

This is Mark Yeah, yeah.

00:19:36--> 00:19:40

So who is this? New Jerome's commentary on the Bible?

00:19:42--> 00:19:51

It's a repeatable scholar. Yes. You know what it is contemporary scholar. Yes. Yes. Look, you know, James, what's his name? Raymond Lee Brown, do you know and get Remini he's one of them.

00:19:53--> 00:19:59

Okay, john, john, John's authorship. Okay, here is the one however I read is also appears to have confused

00:20:00--> 00:20:29

apostle john the son of 73, the press might have a major minor known as john. Since Iran is claimed to have received this information as a child from Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna, we should not be overly surprised of the confusion. The church historian Eusebius also recognized that RNs have convinced two different person known as john, Christians at Ephesus venerated john the Son of God, in the second century. In fact, you see these reports that they had two different tomes, both of which were said, whereas the other one

00:20:30--> 00:20:32

other screenshots of them are good.

00:20:35--> 00:20:39

remedy Brown, no, no, this is the commentary, the middle ground.

00:20:42--> 00:20:45

The new Jerome biblical commentary edited by Raymond Brown.

00:20:47--> 00:21:08

And Murphy who was commenting, scholars collectively is their commentary is three scholars are these three reputable scholars and articles are written by different scholars. They're the ones edited, edited, it was like, and these commentaries are free scholars. Yeah, the problem is the problem is unhappy, even if you say jobs are reliable. No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying my question in the name john attribute of

00:21:11--> 00:21:12

a man in the desert.

00:21:14--> 00:21:41

Of what I said, firstly, about you can take every text now, but one Corinthians 15. One reports, and it's very, very early. So once I finish, let me walk up to them. What do you want me to see what Scripture is? Yeah, what? When, when, when Paul says scripture, in accordance with the Scripture, what Scripture is talking about? Because we know the New Testament didn't exist? So Paul is not talking about the New Testament. So you see, when we were dancing, it

00:21:42--> 00:21:44

was the Old Testament scripture.

00:21:45--> 00:21:49

Well, at the time of Paul, yes, yes. Yes, the Old Testament.

00:21:51--> 00:21:53

Well, it depends what religious group you're talking about.

00:21:54--> 00:21:58

What Christianity didn't exist, didn't exist.

00:22:04--> 00:22:05

You know what I'm saying?

00:22:07--> 00:22:08

Whatever.

00:22:09--> 00:22:16

disciples of Jesus, his disciples were Jews. They were worshipping in the temple, right? They were not Trinitarian.

00:22:17--> 00:22:20

Trinity, the Trinity because it didn't exist at the time

00:22:21--> 00:22:40

of resurrection. Okay, so what does it say that in to Peter 315 I'll read the whole thing. Until the Second Peter says Well, before you quote from the United States, yes. What is it? That is the basis of what people say they don't know something? It could be from pizza.

00:22:42--> 00:22:42

Yeah.

00:22:44--> 00:22:46

So are you quoting from it but it's disputed why even by Christians

00:22:53--> 00:22:54

telling you why you believe

00:23:00--> 00:23:03

one second? Yes, yes, yes.

00:23:10--> 00:23:14

Yes. Can you just be a Quran only Muslim? No.

00:23:15--> 00:23:16

Yes. Authentic?

00:23:18--> 00:23:19

Confidence. Yeah.

00:23:28--> 00:23:30

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

00:23:34--> 00:23:35

I don't know. I

00:23:36--> 00:23:39

can talk and then we can talk to this year. We're talking to you right now. I'm saying

00:23:41--> 00:23:42

he can be wrong he can be

00:23:43--> 00:23:47

you might be i'm not i'm not using I'm not using david koresh.

00:23:48--> 00:23:51

I'm saying she has might be wrong. I'll leave it as that.

00:23:55--> 00:23:58

But I'm saying that it's disputed.

00:24:00--> 00:24:00

No one disputes.

00:24:02--> 00:24:06

We Yeah, of course, the Jews dispute a tradition you dispute a traditional

00:24:09--> 00:24:20

non Muslim dispute a traditional problem is she is who called himself Muslim. No, but But why did the dispute? Why do they dispute that tradition? Bring your evidence on the table, and we will we will disown it, we will disown it is true.

00:24:21--> 00:24:26

So they will be evangelical Christians who will say to you bring your evidence. And

00:24:28--> 00:24:33

please don't say go read your book. One second. I hate to just call it an unreachable

00:24:35--> 00:24:36

biblical scholar I'm telling you now.

00:24:38--> 00:24:39

Have you watched my debates?

00:24:42--> 00:24:47

Watch my debate with James White and some other scholars in the past. I haven't invaded your scholar.

00:24:50--> 00:24:51

He says

00:24:53--> 00:24:53

but I will say

00:24:55--> 00:24:59

he is not the only one. Yeah, go and get Richard Wolffe

00:25:00--> 00:25:13

They don't innovate. These people don't debate. Don't debate. I'm saying, okay, he could come. He would say the exact same thing as gospel. And he was standing here he would confirm every single thing I'm saying, You know why? Because they themselves.

00:25:15--> 00:25:38

Have you read rootsmagic? You know, Bruce Metzger, what do you think of these controversial lectures are no No, no, no, no, no. Bruce Metzger is not controversial. According to Christian, he was a conservative Christian scholar, direct Christians. And you know what the book is? The book he's wrote in his most famous book. Actually, there are a few he wrote, The most famous one is the text of the New Testament is reception corruption with you