Ali Ataie – Interview Dr Quickie
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the significance of salvation and fulfillment of commandments in Islam, as well as the printing of the Torah and the significance of books on the Aviator and the Bible. They also mention books on Christian history, including the book of Jesus, the Torah, and the Bible. The discussion touches on the holy spirit, Christian missionary claims, beast's line, and the beast's line. The importance of evidence in Christian faith is emphasized, along with the deceptiveness of Jesus and the beast's line.
AI: Summary ©
Yeah. So
so I want you know, about salvation. You
know, Christian missionaries often
they take advantage of the ignorance of Muslims
about the salvation in Islam and stuff,
and the ignorance, you know, a Muslim person.
So what is the, the Islamic conception of
salvation?
So
our our conception is that
salvation is by grace.
So we actually have that, I think, in
common
with Christianity.
In the sense that no one can,
in the sense, work work their way, agenda.
Now the difference is in Christianity,
works are not even necessary,
but they're seen as sort of a
a byproduct of correct faith.
Right? Mhmm.
Whereas in Islam,
works are meaningful.
In fact, faith itself
is is is an act. It's it's to
have faith. Right?
So,
but we also believe that
even if someone has faith in Allah and
his messenger,
even though that will ultimately save that person,
there are, you know, there's punishment in the
grave.
There's also, you know, tribulations in the world,
and then there's punishments in the grave.
And then there's
even, according to our theology, there could be
there could be, purification in Jahannam
for certain Muslims
that were lax
or,
they missed prayers and things like that. And,
you know, they didn't, fulfill obligations.
Yeah. Right?
So we have that kind and then there's
degrees and.
Right?
So
but ultimately,
salvation
Whoever says
with with,
sincerity will enter paradise.
Yeah. So
yeah. And that I don't think that statement
minimizes works.
You know? Because if you say with sincerity,
then
you'll obey Allah and his messenger.
And Allah and his messenger tell us to
perform righteous actions.
So it's kind of a we're kind of
between Judaism and Islam wise. Whereas in Judaism,
it's basically all works
in order at least in the orthodox tradition,
in order to go to Olam HaBa, right,
the world to come Yeah. You have to
fulfill all of the 613
commandments
if you're a Jew and then the 7
Noah hidden laws if you're an non Jew.
Yeah.
Now yeah. So
talking about Polycarp, you know, I was talking
to someone about this, and they gave me
this, like, we have the epistle to, the
Philippians as evidence of Polycarp's work. I didn't
Yeah. I had this questionnaire for a while.
I didn't get an answer about this. So
what do you is that evidence for a
Polycarp's work or is it like,
Polycarp. Yeah. Yeah. Polycarp existed. Yeah. Polycarp existed.
What is what is the like, what's the
what's the point there? What is he trying
to say?
It was in context of, establishing,
with John's, you know, the chain of transmission
to John. You know? John told the chain.
Yeah.
There's no evidence that the author of the
gospel of John knew Polycarp. Yeah. And the
reason is because we have no idea who
wrote the gospel of John. Mhmm. The gospel
of John is totally anonymous.
Mhmm. You know, if if if the gospel
of John's author said, this is John.
Right? In fact, at the end of the
gospel
of John, he says the author says, this
is the witness of the beloved disciple,
and we know that his witness is true.
So he's not talking about himself. Yeah. He's
talking to someone else. He's saying that this
is sort of the teaching of the beloved
disciple, and we don't even know that disciple's
name. Yeah. In the gospel of John places
the disciple at the foot of the cross,
and he's missing in the synoptics.
So he's contradicting the synoptics. Yeah. So most
historians would say there was no disciple at
the foot of the cross. Mhmm. Because the
synoptics are multiply attested, at least more than
John. I mean, they're taken from each other.
Yeah. They're more attested than John,
and, they're earlier than John. Mhmm. And it's
not to say all of his disciples were.
So they wanna establish that sunnah. Yeah.
And they'll say they'll say things like,
a disciple wrote the gospel of John. Mhmm.
How did how on earth did a disciple
who's
probably
an illiterate
Aramaic fisherman,
Aditi, writing the gospel of John Yeah. Which
is very high Greek.
It's talking about the logos.
This is someone who's well schooled in philosophy.
Yeah. The the gospel is very well structured.
It's very symmetrical. There's there's Greek chiasmus everywhere.
They can say, well, maybe
God inspired
just like the Allah inspired the prophets. They
said, who's only Yeah. To create the Quran.
The problem with that is
that
the gospel of John was written like 90
or a 100 in the common era. Now
Christians might dispute that, but that's the historical
consensus.
So it seem it seems kind of weird
then that a disciple who's 90 years old
would sit down, finally
write his gospel, not identify himself, do it
in Greek, not in Aramaic,
and,
and contradict his colleagues, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. It's been weird.
So, yeah, I'm looking for
some good books on looking at the transmission
of the Torah and possibly, critiquing it, the
same with the Christian tradition. I gave him
the recommendations for that. Anything from Bart Ehrman
in the New Testament.
The orthodox corruption of scripture,
lost Christianities,
lost scriptures,
misquoting Jesus.
There's a book he wrote he wrote called
Forged.
Anything from Ehrman is excellent on the New
Testament and his history.
Yeah. Yeah.
As far as the Old Testament
or the Torah,
so,
beat the,
by Wellhausen.
So any so study the document documentary hypothesis.
That's all you need to get. So oh,
here's a good one. Who wrote the bible?
By Richard Elliott
Friedman, which is basically the an articulation of
the documentary hypothesis,
which is the dominant opinion
as to the literary history of the Torah.
You hope we can get around that. Then
if you want things like on Isaiah and
things like Isaiah is a major book. John
j Collins, anything from John j Collins, anything
from John j Collins,
is is excellent
Yeah. From the prophets,
the Naveen.
Now, what are some, good works on Paul's
Christology?
NT Wright. NT Wright.
Yeah. He's a Christian scholar. He writes about
Paul.
He's pretty good.
Ultimately, he's, you know, he's a Christian confessional
Christian. Yeah.
You know, David Littweiss,
excellent.
David Litt, l I t w a.
Anything from him, expert on second temple Judaism,
early Christianity,
Hellenistic Judaism.
What are some, good books on the authorship
of the gospels?
Yeah. Airman. Airman. Fireman? Okay. Yeah. Again, that's
okay. Airman. Yeah. Dale Martin,
Yale.
Dale Martin. Yeah. Good. He's good stuff. Yeah.
He did. Dale Martin commented on the the,
baptized the name of the father, the son,
the holy spirit, that passage in Matthew, I
think. He calls it the most curious,
the curious,
thing in the whole, in the test of
this. Yeah. He's a very honest one. Yeah.
And then, Christine I forgot Christine Hayes
writes on the old testament. Excellent. I know
that. Christine Hayes. Christine Hayes. He's also a
lecturer at Yale.
That's that's very good.
Okay. Yeah. Yeah. This whole thing now, the,
Christian missionary claim often I'm sure you've heard
of this. You've been in the game for
a while. Like, Allah deceived the Christians. Right?
Making making it appear to them so that
Jesus crucified on the cross, therefore,
just, you know, deceiving them for 800 years
before the prophet.
So what
in Christianity,
God is ultimately responsible
for everything.
So if I deceive you,
ultimately, it's because God willed it. Isn't it
isn't that true? So would would we call
God a deceiver here?
No. We wouldn't do that. They like to
pick on this issue. Now first of all,
Paul says in 1st Corinth in 1st Thessalonians
maybe 2nd Thessalonians I think it's 1st
that
that God sends
to certain people strong delusion
Yeah. So that they might believe a lie.
In the gospel of Mark, we're told that
Jesus
would speak only in parables
to people outside, but in his inner circle,
who would explain everything. And Martin says, this
is so
that they could not understand him so that
their sins would not be forgiven.
He doesn't want them to understand
so that they might be forgiven.
Why? Why is he deceptive? Why is he
doing this?
It's the same issue. But here's the thing
about the crucifixion.
So Christians don't believe so they'll say, like,
god deceived billions of people. Yeah. You know?
Okay.
They don't believe the prophet says, Saddam is
a prophet. Mhmm. Okay?
They believe Jesus is god,
yet Jesus allowed the prophet
to deceive billions of people Jesus. About his
crucifixion.
What the *? Yeah.
That's good. That's good.
It's we don't attribute it to God. It's
very simple. Some people thought this was Jesus.
Some people didn't think. Paul, who wasn't there,
said, I think it was Jesus. So if
you wanna blame someone, you blame Paul, who's
not an eyewitness Mhmm. And wrote this entire
Christology
based on the death of a Jewish messiah
that he borrowed from Greek metaphysics. Yeah. There's
there's her in
all in Hebrew,
Shaul means the responsible one. The responsible one.
That's literally what his name means. Mas'ul. This
is the guy you need to ask. Yeah.
That's what his name means. On a day
of judgment.
Yeah. Here's your receiver. You sure you know,
in the Quran it says, you know, there's
a verse a passage that's mistranslated sometimes. I
think God is the best of all deceivers.
Right? But I think there's another translation. God
is the best of planners. Planners. Of course.
Yeah. Planters. That's the best of Yeah. He
he plans this. Yeah. Of course. And Christians
have they have nothing to stand upon with
them. Yeah. The Jews and the Romans had
planned against Issa, and Allah planned against them.
Of course. That's what happened. Yeah. I've afforded
the enemies of Jesus because ignorant people fell
for that. That's on them. Yeah. Investigate it.
You know? Investigate it. Yeah. Of course. And
the Quran says none of these people are
eyewitnesses. It's all they're following done. It's shut.
It's doubtful. Exactly true. Hearsay. Hearsay. It's all
hearsay. None of these gospel writers were at
the crucifixion.
Paul's not at the crucifixion.
He's running 20 years later, and Paul says,
oh, I received that Jesus died for our
sins. He means he received it from a
revelation, not from human
So John the elder, you know, how much
of his gospel is he responsible for, and
what do you think of him? And what
can we know about his figure?
Nothing. These are all these are all later
attributions according to church history.
John the Elder, the author of the first
epistle. Christians traditionally believe that's the same author
as the gospel of John who also wrote
the book of Revelation. Mhmm.
I probably 0%
of critical scholars believe that today. But they
still believe it because it's tradition.
Yeah. But I'm not a I'm not a
traditional Christian. I have to go by evidence.
So evidence tells me that these books are
anonymous.
Maybe the same community that authored the gospel
of John wrote the first and second and
third epistle. Mhmm. Okay. Fine. Because it's a
similar pathology,
but but you can't tell me these are
disciples.
Yeah.
Peter did not write first and second Peter.
Almost across the board. Yeah. It's ridiculous to
even think Peter wrote these things. 2nd Peter's
written like 110, 120. You can write this.
Mhmm. He's writing in Greek. He calls Paul
our beloved brother. He calls the Pauline letters
scripture.
How convenient. Yeah.
Now okay. You're, on the, historicity of acts,
right, and the justification for it. Perhaps, a
comment on acts 21 as well.
Yeah. I think I think acts is basically
literary fiction.
More and more scholars are saying now that
Acts is is written in the 2nd century.
Even Ehrman is is is inclining towards a
second century date. Mhmm. I know, like, and,
Paula Frederiksen,
many other scholars. I'm slipping in my mind
right now. They're basically saying that acts of
2nd century and and,
even Richard Carrier, who's a mythicist, might so
I don't agree with his mythicism. Yeah. But
he he he has an incredible lecture on
the book of Acts,
showing parallels between Acts
and fictional
Roman novels.
And he shows all these parallels, and Acts
is really just sort of modeled after
so I think for the most part so
you have major major fit now between James
and Peter Mhmm. And and James and Paul
sorry. Not James and Peter. James and Paul
James and Paul. Peter and Paul. Major fit
now. You see that in Galatians. Yeah. So
Acts was written
maybe
70, 80 years later
as sort of a whitewashed,
you know,
Romanticized.
Romanticized, sanitized.
This is how it really was. Don't get
the wrong idea. They all loved each other.
Yeah. Because, you know, in acts 21, you
know, he's, you know, Paul agrees I'm, you
know, gonna do these certain things, and I'll
tell them that
you can't eat meat sacrificed to idols. But
in Corinthians, there's nothing wrong with it. Yeah.
You can eat this meat.
Strange. Strange stuff.