Ali Ataie – The Bible Through a Muslim Lens Matthew, Mark, Luke & John
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
spend a lot of fun a lot of him solo lasuna Mohammed didn't bother
early he was savage but in Subhanallah in Medina Illa Allah
tena in the country I didn't want Hakeem Hola Hola, wala Quwata illa
biLlah in ideal rbwm Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
This is a class on the New Testament Gospels Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John and introduction for Muslims. I will be your instructor
inshallah to Allah the authority.
Before we begin the actual first gospel, which is going to be the
Gospel according to Mark, just a few words about the importance of
having interdisciplinary knowledge.
This vastly improves our outreach efforts or dallah efforts to non
Muslim community, especially the Judeo Christians in the West, it's
important for us to understand where they're coming from, and to
be able to make those connections in in our religious faiths. The
discipline of comparative religion is really a Muslim contribution to
the world. And this is basically by consensus of even Western
scholars, that the first scholars to actually write objectively
about religion, religions in general, documenting them, talking
about their historical development, their origins, and
founders, really Muslim theologians. And some of the great
ones are a shahada Stani. And I've already had I'd be Rooney who's
polymath, who's basically credited for inventing this discipline
known as comparative religion. So this is something that is an art
form, or a science that is part of our tradition as Muslims. This is
something that we gave to the world. And this is something that
we need to engage in the Christians at the time in the
middle medieval times when these scholars were writing.
Most of their works were primarily polemical in nature, they weren't
trying to objectively or near objectively present other
religions, especially Islam, they're basically vilifying
Muslims in Islam and attacking them.
The first Christians who really write a sort of academic, if you
will, refutation of Islam was a man named John of Damascus, or
John Denison, lived in the eighth century. In Damascus, obviously
under Muslim rule, the majority populace at the time, however, was
Christian and he knew Arabic, with the problem with John Damascene is
that he actually believed that Islam was a Christian heresy, not
a separate independent faith. So his understanding of the religion
was very weak. And he has a Book concerning heresies. And the final
chapter is called concerning the Ishmael light, heresy. He doesn't
even call them Muslims, Muslims. He calls him Israelites or Haggar
Ian's
then we have Peter the venerable, so called venerable, he was the
abbot of Clooney,
who wrote books about Islam as well, and in order to refute
religious beliefs of the Muslims. But here again, primarily, we
don't have objective presentations of the religion. What we have is
polemical sort of attacks, vitriolic sort of attacks against
the prophets of the body. So for example, the actually claims
Peter, the venerable, he actually claims that the Prophet
sallallaahu, Selim was born are actually passed in the year 666.
And of course, if you know anything about the date, 666 this
was the number of the Antichrist, according to the Book of
Revelation, which is a book that we're going to be talking about
briefly, although this class is basically focused, more more
focused on the four Gospels and a unit out about Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John, in the New Testament tradition, we're going
to talk about these other books as well, as well, to understand these
books a little more in detail. Of course, we have Thomas Aquinas,
who is theology and philosophy is still the standard in the Roman
Catholic Church, even to this day. And of course, he's known for the
Summa Theologica, which is his his masterpiece, his magnum opus,
where he talks about, it's really three sections there, Pema
piarsaigh,
which is talking about God and the second part talks about
virtue ethics. And then the third part talks about a Saudi Salam who
is Jesus in the in the Christian tradition, but he wrote another
book as well, which is not as well known, but it's called the sumo
contra gentillesse, which means basically, the refutation of the
infidels or the the non Christians. And this book is
really geared towards Jews and especially Muslims. And a lot of
scholars actually believe that Thomas Aquinas here is
specifically
rebutting some of the things that he's read from Abu Hamad Al
Ghazali.
So this is the Christian tradition in the medieval times. We don't
have really thing anything really objective, again, more polemical
in nature, nothing ironic. Nothing really
scholarly or academic. But in Muslim circles, you have this
unbelievable growth of knowledge
And this birth of this discipline known as comparative world
religion, so it's important for Muslims, not only to be able to
present the religious beliefs of others objectively, or near
objectively, because true objectivity is probably a myth,
but at least present the religion in a sense, that is fair and and
try to be balanced, and at least, you know, represents the majority
of what those people actually believe regarding the religion.
But also there's a hermeneutical aspect to it. In other words,
there has to be an aspect of the study where you can actually
evaluate the religious claims of others as well. So this is very,
very important. Of course, every science has 10 modality, as
they're called, there's 10 foundations of every fan or every
in every science, or art. And we won't go through those. But
traditionally, this is called a middle one, they had
studies in nations and creeds and catabolism in Laguna Niguel, for
example. But even hasn't
he talks about this, this aspect, analyzing other religions, but
also giving an evaluative sort of commentary on the truth or falsity
of these religions as well. And this is obviously done with with
academic rigor, not to be disrespectful towards those
religions. The first thing we'll do Inshallah, is sort of give you
an introduction to the Bible itself. What is the Bible, the
word Bible comes from a Greek word? Thanh bibliothon, which
means the book. So for example, many of the Anima believe that
when ALLAH SubhanA, Allah says in the Quran, Al Kitab, the People of
the Book, Al Kitab, here is the Bible, because the word Bible
literally means the book. Now, more in detail. More specifically,
the Bible is actually a collection of books. It's actually a
bibliography, a collection of books, you have the Old Testament,
the so called Old Testament. And of course, this is Christian
terminology. When we say Old Testament, and I do the Kadeem,
for example, a Jewish rabbi would actually be offended by that
terminology, because he doesn't consider the Old Testament to be
old at all, that the Old Testament is binding, and that the laws and
commandments are eternally binding upon every person that believes in
those scriptures. So this is a Christian terminology. If we want
to be more precise, in our language, we would call the Old
Testament, but Tana, Tana, and this is really an acronym.
And it's it stands for Torah, and the beam and Ketuvim. So we look
at the Old Testament, we're looking at 39, books, 39, books,
beginning with the todo, this is the Written Torah, right? Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. This is called the
Written Torah. This is the beginning of the Christian Bible
at the beginning of the Old Testament. Then after that, after
these five books, you have 34 other books, but concentrating on
these five books, so at least five books you have, like we said,
Genesis, this is, you know, in the beginning, God created the heavens
in the earth, this is how it begins.
And you have the story of the creation of Adam it so now there's
two different versions of it. You have the flood, you have the you
have the story of Ibrahim alayhis salam, the book of Genesis will
actually end with the death of use of it Sudan, in Egypt, Genesis,
then you have Exodus, which is a story of Musa al salaam,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy,
Leviticus and Numbers, is the 613 mitzvot are the commandments that
are given to the Prophet Musa alayhis. Salam, according to
the religion of Judaism, that are recorded in these two books in
Deuteronomy means second law, Deuteronomy no most, which is
basically a summary of what was already stated in the first four
books, and a few more prophecies and laws, and whatnot. So this is
called the Torah. And we have to remember also that the Jews
believe in in to Torah is not just one Torah, there's the Written
Torah, which is the first five books that I just explained
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But Jews
also believe and this is a classical Jewish position. And,
you know, the religion of Judaism has gone through a lot of turmoil,
it was effectively ended when the Second Temple was burnt and 70 of
the Common Era. We'll talk more about that when we talk about the
gospel of Mark Inshallah, to Allah. But the principle
formulators or articulators of the Jewish religion, are also from the
Middle Ages. So we have people like my mom oddities, and you have
people like Joseph albeau, and you have Bahia, you have Rashi these
different rabbis and sages in the Middle Ages, most of them working
in Arabic in Muslim countries, articulating their religion, and
being systematic. These are systematic theologians. And this
is the first time in their history that they really have the ability
to do this, because under Christian Europe and Christendom
A lot of these things were outlawed, and the Jews were pretty
much under a microscope during their entire existence in
Christian Europe, and oftentimes they were exiled from different
countries. We'll talk about that as well that comes into play when
we look at the gospel of Mark and Matthew, as well. But the Jews
believe in addition to these written books, there's an oral
Torah, right in oral Torah. So this is called the core This is
called the Torah, the tooth in Hebrew, the Written Torah, and
there's a Torah, B pair, which is by mouth in oral Torah. And this
oral Torah was also given to Moose is a synonym, and it was not
intended to be written down. And the purpose of the Oral Torah was
to, to safeguard the true meanings of the Written Torah. So this
would safeguard against somebody, for example, going to the, to the
to the Written Torah, and extracting, you know, legal
rulings or exegeting the text by himself if he doesn't have the
requisite knowledge, so he'd have to actually go to a rabbi and the
rabbi, he would sit with the rabbi, and the rabbi would teach
him the Written Torah, in light of the Oral Torah. Right? So oral
tradition was very, very important. And this is interesting
in our tradition, as well, we have the tradition of the Senate,
right, the chain of transmission. And it's really incredible because
Islam did not have these church sin odds and councils that we'll
talk about as well, where he does bishops come together, and they
literally will vote on a certain issue to make a Christian
orthodoxy. And the reason for that is because there's such disunity
in the religion. And there's so much sectarianism, you know,
federal cop
that these these ecumenical, so called Ecumenical Councils are
something that was very much needed. If you look at Islam,
Muslims, you go to Mecca, for example, Muslims are basically
doing the same thing, whether they're Maliki or Shafi or if
they're Shiite, er, ivaldi, whatever they are Salafi,
basically, they're doing the same thing. So this is a testament to
the strong Senate in our tradition. However, the early
scholars of Islam, for example, even I showed when he wrote his
motion and moraine.
You know, 300, some odd lines of poetry, which is really a
distillation to use the words of Sheikh Hamza Yusuf and sort of a
mukhda sar, a summary of a greater text, which was a summary of a
greater text, which was a summary of a greater text, which was a
summary of a major text by email Matic even enters. The reason why
these texts were distilled, or made more comprehensive, is
because the seller would write these books and treatises, under
the impression that the student of knowledge would sit with a
scholar, who would then give that student the oral transmission of
that text. So the oral transmission is very, very
important. In the Gospels, as I base it on when he's in Jerusalem,
he's approached by Pharisees, a group of Jewish scholars, doctors
and lawyers of the law, and they say, under whose authority are you
doing these things, they want to know the Senate of a side a setup
is very, very important. And of course, these days Sinha is a
messenger of God. And that's what he said, I'm a messenger of God.
Of course, according to the tradition in the New Testament, he
actually gives a different answer because he's very confrontational
at times. But the Pharisees but obviously, the Senate of Isa de
Sena, is that he's a messenger of God, and he receives revelation
from Allah subhanahu wata island.
So that's important to understand as well. Now the Oral Torah,
eventually was written down. And it was written down after the
Christian era. And again, the reason why that happened, is
because when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans, in 70, of
the Common Era, in order to preserve the ethos of the religion
of Judaism,
the Oral Torah was eventually written down. And now you have the
beginning of what's known as rabbinical Judaism, right, you
know, post Temple Judaism.
And the first part of the Talmud, which is called the Mishnah,
that's the actual Oral Torah that was eventually written down, we'll
talk more about what is the tongue look later inshallah to Allah,
because it's going to come up when we talk about the Gospel of
Matthew, which is the most Jewish, if you will, of the four Gospels,
of the New Testament. So you have the Torah, then you have the next
34 books in the Old Testament, which are split between what's
known as the prophets and the writings. So basically, if a book
in the Old Testament is named after a prophet, it's considered
to be from the prophets, which is called near beam in Hebrew, if
it's not the name of a prophet, like for example, if it's first
Kings or Second Kings, or
first a second Samuel
or other books like that, First and Second Chronicles, then this
is called Kitchel beam the writings so you have Naveen and
Ketuvim. So then you have so therefore, you have the tota first
five books, then you have the new beam, and Kitchel beam which
represent the ladder 34
Are books of the New Testament. So you take the tea, or the towel
from Torah, the noon from the beam, and the calf from Quito
beam, U of T and K, and you add a few vowels and you have the word
Tada. So this is what the Jews call the Old Testament. It's an
acronym Torah, Nadeem kitto, being the Tanakh. Christians call this
the Old Testament. Jews call this the Tanakh. Okay. Now the
Christians also believe that all of the cam,
all of the legal rulings of the Old Testament have been abrogated.
And this is a very
controversial issue in the news today, with different most of them
are either fundamentalist Christian authors, some of them
are atheists, that will bring up this issue with regards to the
Quran that Muslims believe that the latest revelation will cancel
the one that came before that, and they say, Well, this is true in
every case, therefore, all of the verses in the Quran that talk
about peace have been abrogated. Of course, this is not true. And
it's not as simplistic as that. And this requires a lot of
scholarship. But basically, they'll say this idea of nests,
right, this idea of cancellation, abrogation of different verses in
the Quran, they find it kind of take this as being a way of
Muslims sort of covering up these contradictions, so called
contradictions in the Quran, not realizing that this actually
happens in the Bible as well. Christians believe that all of the
camp of the Old Testament are summarily abrogated by the New
Testament, they've been completely abrogated their monsoon of the New
Testament. So that's important to understand. So basically,
Christians now are under no obligation of the Torah, that they
don't have to circumcise their male children, they can eat pork,
right, they're allowed to get a divorce now, because in the Torah,
apparently, it says that you're not allowed to get a divorce. Even
within the New Testament itself, right into a New Testament, you
have abrogation you have NESC. You can see this very clearly Matthew
1524, which we'll talk about, obviously, the Gospel of Matthew,
When Jesus Commission's, his disciples initially, he says, go
into he says, entry, not into any Gentile land, don't go into the
lands of the Gentiles into the go, you only go to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel, but at the end of the gospel, right, Matthew
chapter 28, you have the great commissioning go into all nations,
right, so inside so now at least what it says in Matthew is
abrogating the previous command that he had given to the * out
of you and, or to the disciples, because now they're training has
been complete as it were. So we have this evolution of teaching.
We have this in the New Testament, we have it going from Old
Testament to New Testament, we have this in the Quran as well,
because this is how ALLAH SubhanA wa, tada speaks to humanity.
Humanity needs progression. That's how we are, right.
So that's the Tanakh. Now, what's interesting also, is that the
oldest complete version of the Old Testament, in the Hebrew language
is dated to 1008 of the Common Era 1008 of the Common Era milady. So
this is after Islam. This is the oldest complete version of the Old
Testament in the Hebrew language. So this is Psalm 2300 years
removed from Musa today, Sudan. Right. So that's a big span of
time. Of course, you have the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
which were discovered by a Muslim Bedouin in Lebanon and Palestine,
in 1947, but the Dead Sea Scrolls are not complete. There are
missing books, The Book of Esther is completely missing. There's
portions of the book of Isaiah that are missing. There are no
tisski there no diacritical notations in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
so it's a big mystery as to how to actually pronounce many of the
passages there, so it's not considered to be complete. The
oldest complete version of the Old Testament is dated 1008 of the
Common Era. This is called the Masoretic text, the name of the
scribes that produced the textbook called the Mazur eats, it's also
called the Codex Leningrad.
So that's important to understand. Now talking about the New
Testament coming to the New Testament. Now, the New Testament,
obviously, again, is Christian terminology. The Jews do not
believe in the New Testament in any way, shape, or form. Jews do
not believe in Sid salaam at all. There's no belief about him. He is
mentioned in the Talmud, at times. You know, Christians will point to
certain things in the Old Testament, as far as prophecies of
any side a sinner, and Allahu Adam, some of them seem to be
pretty legit. There are prophecies of the Prophet sallallahu it was
said of them in the in the Tanaka as well, that are very compelling.
But Jews they don't believe in a side ace and I'm in any way shape
or form they don't believe in the Prophet salallahu Salam. The
Talmud mentioned some few disparaging things about the Saudi
salaam that we won't go into. But Allah subhana wa
Allah tells us basically when they said well Cody him in the Catalan
mercy He said no Miriam Rasool Allah that they said in boast. We
killed a Saudi Salam and then they have some sort of descriptions
that they give on how they killed him and
cursing him and things like that that we won't go into. And they
also say a few things about Maryam Ali Salam as you can imagine Allah
subhanho wa Taala also addresses this will be Kufri him McCauley
him Allah Maryam of Bhutan and Alima that they utter against
Maryam, how do you send them a colonist grave charge. So that's
mentioned in the Talmud. And this was written by rabbis after the
Christian era.
This is also one of the reasons why many times in the Middle Ages
in Christian countries, the Talmud was ordered to be burned by by
church authorities, because they came to learn of these things that
are written in Jewish Scriptures. We'll talk more about that insha
Allah as well. So when we look at the New Testament, basically, we
have four gospels that begin the New Testament. These are Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John, this is the focus of our study for this
course, looking at these four books, and looking at their, their
origins, or authorship, basically, the who, what, when, where, why,
of these four books, looking at the evolution of Christology of
these four books? What is Christology? This comes from a
word Christoph, which means Christ or Messiah in Greek, and logos are
loggia, which means the study so Christology is the study of
Christ. So how does Mark look at Jesus? How does Matthew, envision
Jesus from a theological standpoint? How does Luke How does
John, right? Are they the same? Are they different? It's very,
very important. Who wrote these books? Were they written by
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Who are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
How do we know that they wrote these books? What language? Did
they write these books? And where were they written? Why are they
important? Why are there only four of them? Right? All of these
questions are very, very important. And the vast majority
of Christians that I have come across in 15 years or so of
interfaith work, the vast majority of Christian laity, you know,
those who kind of just go to church once a week, and that's
about it, they have no idea, the origins of these books, he's gonna
go to church and listen to the sermon. And that's spiritually
uplifting for them, obviously. But if you want to actually get into
the the studies a little more in depth, we have to sit with
scholars of the New Testament, and listen to what they have to say
about the state of the book. And it's very, very interesting for
Muslims. And this could really be a good starting point. For very
quality Dawa, or an invitation to the religion of Islam. Many of the
issues that they have with the New Testament, in particular, the
Gospels can be resolved by studying Islamic tradition, the
Quran, the Hadith of the Prophet, salallahu, alayhi, salam, and the
work of the aroma of Islam.
So you have the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
This begins the New Testament. And then you have what's known as the
book of Acts,
which is called another Rasul, the Acts of the Apostles and the, the
Catholic version. So this is basically early Ecclesiastical
History or church history, or apostolic history, what was
happening to the Sahaba, if you will, of a sign of a Salam, after
His ascension, into the heavens. So here we have the book of Acts,
which documents the early church, what was going on with James and
Peter and Paul, in the early church. And then you have
what's known as the apostolic letters and epistles.
And this makes up the greater or the greatest portion of the New
Testament.
And there's 11 of these apostolic letters, and epistles, and these
are written by Paul. And Paul is an interesting person. He actually
authored 14 of the 27 books of the New Testament, Paul of Tarsus, he
was a, a Pharisee, from the tribe of Benjamin, who initially
persecuted the early Christian movement. And then according to
his own testimony, that we read in the book of Galatians, and also
what Luke says in the book of Acts a few times a couple of times, at
least, on the way to Damascus, he has this vision of the resurrected
Christ, and he's immediately converted, and then Eastside as,
according to Paul tells Paul to go in evangelize the Gentile nations
around the Mediterranean. So Paul goes to places like Ephesus in
Rome, and Athens and Thessalonica, and Corinth, and he evangelizes
them with his own understanding of what he believes the gospel to be.
And that's fine. But the problem now is when we actually read the
letters of Paul, we see that he has major conflict, major
difference of opinion, not with pagans and Jews, obviously, that's
a given, but with other types of Christians, fundamental
differences of opinion that he has with them. And if you read the
commentaries, again, if you read from Christian scholars, who are
Paul's opponents, like the book of Galatians
When he rails against these people and calls them hypocrites and so
called pillars, he calls them dogs and so on and so forth. Who is he
talking about? The vast majority of Christian commentators FCX
Bauer is the authority on the book of Galatians. He says, Paul is
actually talking about other disciples of Jesus that were sent
from Jerusalem, who studied with James who's the brother of
Eastside Hmm. So in other words, and we'll go over this later when
we talk about the Gospel of Matthew inshallah. In other words,
Paul has major, major difference of opinion, fundamental difference
of opinion with other apostles that are from Jerusalem, that have
studied with James and who is James James is the brother of a
silent Salam according to history and according to Christian
history, and he's also the Khalifa if you will, of Eastside A salaam,
James, and James in Hebrew is Yaakov had Sadiq, Yaakov or
Yaqoob, which is James and English. And the reason why Yakov
became James is because early on many of the Christians they tried
to distance themselves from their Jewish roots because there was a
lot of animosity between Christianity and Judaism. But
James is Yaakov and his lockup that was given his sort of surname
or nickname that was given to him by Eastside Islam, according to
Christian history is hot Sadiq which is the exact equivalent of
acidic, so his lockup is the same as the lockup of the Khalifa of
the Prophet salallahu Salam, Abu Bakr as Siddiq, and this is an
interesting coincidence, they have the same nickname.
So then you have the Catholic epistles. So basically the four
Gospels, you have the book of Acts, and then you have 21, total
epistles letters, or correspondences, most of them
written by Paul, some of them written by Peter and John, one
written by James and one written by Jude. But we have to say at
this point, the vast majority of these books, all of the books in
the New Testament, the vast majority are actually anonymous.
Nobody knows who wrote them. And this is not my opinion. This is
not the opinion of, of, you know, secular Western scholarship. This
is the opinion of Christian scholars and Christians seminaries
because this is a fact of the issue. When we say Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John, these books are anonymous. Nobody knows who wrote
these books. Why are they called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
we'll talk about that. When we get to the Gospel of Mark Inshallah,
to Allah. So you have four gospels, the book of Acts, 21,
letters in epistles. And then finally, at the end of the New
Testament, you have the book of Revelation, which is an
apocalypse, which are basically a dream that a man named John of
Patmos had, while he was on this island, he was exiled. And he had
these visions of the end of time, what's going to happen if you're
awkward is a man and he wrote those visions down, and that's the
end of the Bible. So the Bible very linear book, right? So you
have Genesis one, one Genesis, means beginning. Because the first
word of the Bible, Genesis one one is been a sheet that a sheet means
in the beginning, but if she'd bought Elohim, at Hashem, Iam that
had her edits in the beginning, God created the heavens and the
earth. That's how it begins, right once upon a time, and then you
read through the entire Bible, very linear, right? You go through
the ancient patriarchs, then you go to the time of David and
Solomon the time of the judges in the in the divided the kingdom,
then you have the Babylonian, the Assyrian invasion, Babylonian
invasion, then you have the Persian period, then you skip
across the Greek period into the Roman period and the New Testament
at the end of the New Testament of the book of Revelation. So again,
very linear once upon a time and then they lived happily ever
after. And this is how man will Right? Right. But if you look at
the Quran, the Quran is not linear, the Quran is circular. So
initially when the Western Orientalist who has a for
structure that is very much Christian, because he is
Christian, when he reads the Quran, it seems like it's a
jumbled, you know, a chronological mess. Why isn't this an order and
the Quran actually addresses this issue. The Quran says they say to
you, why don't you have this in order? Right? Why don't you have
it in chronology, because that's how a man thinks. But the Quran is
not written linearly, it's written circularly. And there's a great
wisdom as to why Allah Subhana Allah will return to certain
themes in the Quran, and will not present his book in a linear
fashion.
The oldest complete version of the New Testament. So remember, we
talked about the Old Testament, the oldest complete version of the
Old Testament in Hebrew, like we said, is dated to 1008 of the
Common Era. This is after Islam. This is a medieval text called the
Masoretic text. When it comes to the New Testament, the oldest
complete version of the New Testament, in Greek is dated to
375 of the Common Era, so considerably earlier than the Old
Testament, which is very strange, because obviously, the Old
Testament was written first. However, this text, which is
called the Codex Sinaiticus,
or is catalogued as Alif oh one, the entire text is actually
online, I think it's a Codex sinaiticus.org or.com or
something, if you can read Greek, although it is translated there,
the actual, the actual manuscript
was photographed under two different types of light. And you
can actually read it, that website. But this still dates to
about 330 some odd years after the ascension of E, Sybase, and I'm so
this is also very, very late. And the thing about the Codex
Sinaiticus is, is that there's actually extra books in the Codex
Sinaiticus, like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas.
These are extra books that are not found in the traditional 27 Canon
books of the New Testament as we have them today. And there's
reasons for that as well. And we'll talk about those as well is
that you know, why are there 27 books in the New Testament? Why
not? 28? Why not? 29? Why are there four gospels? Why are there
why is there only one Ecclesiastical History, the book
of Acts, what about these other letters in epistles that were
written? Why aren't those included in the New Testament? So this is a
very interesting study, when it gets to that inshallah to Allah,
but just a word quickly about our Christology as Muslims. So it's
very important to very interesting things here
is that again, Christology is the study of a site a setup, the study
of a site of the study of Christ. And obviously our primary text in
this area of study in this discipline is the Quran. The Quran
is considered Delila poetry, it is a definitive proof text. It's
motor water in its transmission. It's multiple tested. In his
transmission. We believe that the Quran is the word of God the
speech of Allah subhanaw taala.
So we believe that Eastside a tsunami is a genuine prophet, a
prophet, the word prophet comes from the Greek preface, I just say
actually a Greek word, we say Nebby, in Arabic, and the word in
Hebrew is NaVi. And the word NaVi is found many, many times in the
Old Testament, there's actually a prophecy that we'll talk about in
the book of Deuteronomy, which is called Hana V. Camel, Moshe, in
Hebrew, the prophet who was like Moses, and this is a prophecy of
someone to come in the future, that Musa lays, and I'm
prophesized that will come in the future that is similar to him. And
we'll talk about that very, very interesting. We believe that a
Saudi Saddam was born of a virgin, we believe that he could perform
miracles, but isn't the law. So this is important. We believe in
mortgages that are different types of miracles. There's Mark G's Act,
which are miracles that are performed by prophets, and via,
well, more saline, the izany Lie to Allah. So prophets, they have
this ability by the permission of Allah subhanho wa taala, to
produce these physical tour sorts of signs, you know, how to call it
that these breaks of natural law in order to sort of support their
missions. Now, these are not definitive proofs, because false
prophets can also perform miracles. So you have to look at
the sincerity of a prophet, you have to look at the nature of his
message, if he's preaching Tawheed if he's preaching, selflessness,
altruism, all of these types of things have to be considered
considered and taken into consideration is the comma in the
Shetty of the religion, all of these things are very, very
important. Because there are different types of miracles. There
are there are things called assisted Raj, which are, which
sometimes translated as divine beguilement that a non Muslim can
do, which seems to be a breaking natural law. But in reality,
there's no tofield and what that person is doing, and that person
does not have to stick on, and that person is calling to his own
how. So it's very, very important that when we see these types of
things, and these things don't happen much anymore, is because
the state of the human state of the human condition.
But in the pre modern world, these things were very, very common. And
the alumni have certain stringent measures that they would look to
when these things would happen.
Of course, we have miracles karamat these charismatic exploits
are talents and only up of saints and there's these are well
documented, as well. 1000s of miracles and it's part of our
Aveda, as Muslims at least as a sundial Jamaat, that we believe in
the bucket of methyl odia the miracles of the Olia and there's
many of them mentioned like we said, and Imam Abu Jaffa to how he
mentions them. IMANI bohem Lakhani in the Joe Hara, he mentions that
those who deny the miracles of the OER then you deny them, it's part
of our essential Updata so easily Salam, he could perform these
miracles because he has a station of Naboo he is a prophet. We also
believe that he's a Sudan is a messenger of God and apostle of
God. Apostle also comes from a Greek word a pasta loss, which
means someone who is sent out or sent forth a Saudi Saddam he or
someone who receives some sort of message and he saw this and I'm
obviously receives a revelation from Allah subhanaw taala which is
called an injeel in
jheel seems to be the Arabic sort of way of saying Iwan Gillean or
Evangelion right, which is also a Greek word.
According to the Quran, he cited Salam is also the Christ. He is
HaMashiach, he is the Messiah, He is the Christ. In other words, he
is the one, the anointed one that the Benny is set up, were waiting
for, to come and unite them or to give them the true essence of
their religion. According to our conception of the Christ. One of
his primary functions is to prepare the bunnies to not yield.
And by extension, prepare the world for the coming of Ashley
Madison, Allahu Allah Salam, who is the final messenger of God. And
this is based on a verse in the Quran which ALLAH subhanaw taala
tells us that Ysidro Salam said, oh children of Israel, and the
messenger of God sent to you confirming the Torah which came
before me. And this is very important when we talk about does
it use it Salam confirmed the Torah, or does he cancel it? Or is
it somewhere in the middle? This is a big controversy, a big
difference of opinion, at least amongst Christians,
as to the function of the law, the Torah, when it comes to isa de
Sena. And then he says, and to give you glad tidings of a
messenger to come after Me, whose name is Akhmat. And of course, we
know the name. Ashman is another name for the name of the Prophet
sallallahu. I do send them some of the aroma have mentioned that the
name of the Prophet salallahu Salam in the terrestrial in the
celestial realm above the the moon in the Mallacoota Jabba route is
Ahmed sallallahu alayhi wa sallam or his name on the Yama Yama will
be Akhmad.
Allahu Allah. So unlike Judaism that does not believe that
Eastside Islam is the Christ. So even though this is a Jewish
concept, right, the concept of the Messiah is a Jewish concept. The
Jews did not accept a Saudi Salam as the Messiah and there have been
many would be messiahs, in their in their history. A lot of
Messianic claimants, Eastside a salam to them is just another one
of those.
And then they had,
you know, in the year six of the Common Era, Judas the Galilean who
claimed to be the Messiah. But Rubus at the time of Isa, they
said, I might have claimed to be the Messiah, certainly Barabas,
the son of the father is a messianic patronymic. And it seems
like his followers were touting him to be the Messiah, after
Eastside, a Sudan you have a number of Messianic claimants. The
most famous, of course, is Simon Bar Kokhba, who was executed by
the Romans in 125. of the Common Era, this was a global movement of
basically 1000s 60,000 or so Jews were killed in Jerusalem, by the
Romans because of this uprising, and you have other ones down the
line. In the Middle Ages, you have sharp ties, feet, who died in
1666, or he actually claimed to be the Messiah in the year 1666. And
he was a European Jew who went to Jerusalem was endorsed by big
rabbis in Jerusalem to be the Messiah, he was captured by the,
the Ottoman Sultanate, and because he was claiming to be the Messiah,
and you know, just claiming to be the Messiah. It's not like you're
claiming to be some spiritual mystic, it carries with it a very
clear political implication. So anyone who claims to be the
Messiah is basically claiming to be the rightful King of the planet
Earth. So the Ottomans, they understood that about his claim.
So this is treason. This is clear Fianna so they gave him a choice
because Fianna even by today's standards, if you may Fionna
against, for example, an American citizen
conspires against his own government. This is treason. And
it's punishable by death. And it's the same in the pre modern world
as well. So the Ottoman Sultan, he said to Schultheiss feet, he said,
You have a choice, either repent
of your claim, and we'll let you go, you can be Muslim, or you're
going to be put to death and of course, shoutouts feet very
famously, he relinquished his claim to Messiah ship, and became
a Muslim and changed his name to Muhammad something and he lived
the rest of his life as a normal Muslim. So there's always been
these messianic claimants, the most famous of them was Sid
Saddam, at least from a Jewish perspective, he was not the
Messiah, Christians, and Muslims obviously, accept Him as the
Messiah. And this is a great
topic of unity, that we can come together as Muslims and
Christians. Of course, the significance, the significance of
what it means for him to be the Messiah, at times is radically
different between Christianity and Islam. But nonetheless, we both
both groups believe that he was the Messiah. So again, when I say
the words, you know, the Christ,
we immediately we think of Christianity, and that's just the
way that we've been,
you know, sort of socialized, it's an immediate signifier of
Christianity, but the Christ constant
is a very Jewish monotheistic concept, oh four. So if I say for
example, if I say the Holy Spirit, right, if I say the Holy Spirit
immediately, most people at least will think of Christianity,
because the Christians are sort of monopolized this term, the Holy
Spirit, but the Ruach Kadosh. And Hebrew Holy Spirit has its origins
in Judaism, not in Christianity, the Christians took from that
concept, obviously, and they changed it theologically. But it
is a Jewish concept. It is a monotheistic concept, even if I
say something like God the Father, right, that sounds like Christian
confessional language, right? If, for example, if I quote to you,
the Nicene Creed, this is basically the the Orthodox Aqeedah
of Christianity. It says in the Greek language, Castillo Omen, and
Ace henna, Theon Putera, pentyl Cateura, we believe in one father,
God, the Creator of All right God the Father, it immediately reminds
you or makes you think of Christianity, but God the Father,
I mean, God has called Father in the Old Testament in the book of
Isaiah, chapter 64, verse 16, one of the DUA that are mentioned by
Isaiah, one of the supplications is at night a V. No, you are the
Lord our father. Right? And of course, the Jews do not mean this
in a literal sense. Right? So again, when the Jew says God is
our father, he means Rob, he is our Sustainer. He is our cherisher
we have that sort of, it's a symbolical title, right that we
have that love of God as if Cana as if he is our Father. Of course,
this whole concept, according to Islam,
was destroyed this sort of metaphysical, metaphysical aspect
of God being our Father, and it was made very much literal by the
Christian bishops and various ecumenical church councils that,
that, that God the Father is literally literally the father of
Jesus who begat a Saudi sunnah. So that's obviously something that's
condemned in the Quran, also condemned in Jewish circles as
well. So that's important to remember how did a citation
because if you read in the New Testament Gospels, you read a
citation, I'm referring to God as his father. How does he mean it?
Does he mean that God is his father who begat him literally,
No, Jesus, peace be upon him a Saturday Sanam is in a very Jewish
context. So the way that he's using these terms, is in a very
Jewish way, we cannot ignore the social and theological context of
the Christ event of the Jesus event. Because then we're reading
into things anachronistically essentially, salam, when he refers
to God as his father, he doesn't mean it in the Nicene sense of the
word that's an unnatural, anachronistic reading outside of
time, that's not being logical in the way we approach the New
Testament. That's not how he meant it. He simply using the the
terminology, or the synagogue liturgy that's available to him.
That's why when we read the Lord's Prayer in Matthew chapter six, and
Matthew chapter 11, I'm sorry, Matthew, chapter six of Luke
chapter 11, something that Matthew and Luke have in common. When he
teaches His disciples how to pray. He says in the in the Syriac
language of wound of Ishmael, Our Father who art in heaven, not just
my father, but all of us, right? And he means this obviously, in a
metaphorical sense, not in the literal sense. But Allah Subhan
Allah to Allah in the Quran, he refrains from using this attribute
of OB, or while ad or even we don't use these you know, Avinash,
Oh Allah, we don't use these types of things anymore, because they've
been corrupted over time,
by Christian orthodoxy.
So that's important to understand as well. So the Quran says that
they say that Allah has begotten children battle, a battle Mokra
moon? No, these are servants raised to honor these are servants
that have taken em, right, that they're simply saying these are
sons and daughters of God. They're not literal sons and daughters of
God. We don't say that anyone. We do not say that Allah subhanaw
taala begets nor nor was he begotten we that's what we
believe. lamea lead well, um, you let that's what we say. Lamb Yeah,
little lamb you let and that's what we believe. God did not give
birth, nor was he given birth to. Right. So that's very, very
important. Of course, when Christians say that Jesus is
begotten, not made, right? Unless they're Mormon, they're not saying
that. You know, God had physical relations with Matteotti. Sudan,
for example, the Mormons will say that, right. But the vast majority
of Christians that are Protestant, Orthodox, and Easter and and
Catholic, they don't believe that when they say Jesus is begotten,
and this is important, when Jesus is begotten, not made, they simply
mean that inside SNM is uncreated. He's not created by
God, he's not from the Mac Alucard. Right? This is what they
mean that the Son has pre eternality. Right? Which again, is
a paradox, because they still believe, however, that he was
caused by God. Right? He was caused by God, which means what?
That God is a monarch then that God has priority over the sun,
because he is the cause of the Sun, who is the effect? But
Christian scholars would say, No, there is no essential, or temporal
or ontological priority of the father over the sun, because these
things were done outside of time. Right? Nonetheless, Muslims would
disagree and say, Even so, if something causes something else,
the effect of that cause is by its very nature, inferior to the
primal cause, whether it was inside or outside of time. For
example, I have a ring on my hand, right? And if I move my hand like
this, the ring moves, right? It's done at the same time, my hand and
my ring moves at the same time. But Can my ring move without my
hand? No, my hand is still causing it to move, even though it's done
at the same time, therefore, my hand is superior to the ring,
because my ring cannot do anything by itself. Right? So this is one
of the logical arguments we can use against this idea that
Eastside a Salam is uncreated, yet caused by God. This is an orthodox
belief of the Christians.
And some of it is based on Neoplatonic ideas, we won't get
too much into Christology, because this is supposed to be a basic
course. So we're going to look at the four Gospels, but maybe in the
future, inshallah I will talk more about Christian theology, the
origins of theology, what is Christian theology or orthodox
Christology? And we'll talk more about that. Inshallah. So even if
you look at the Old Testament,
you have titles like Ben Alien, right, like in Psalm 82, six,
it says that you are all gods, all sons of the Most High been alien
sons the Most High. So this is an honorific title that God calls the
Israelites You are my son's is not meant to be in the literal sense.
So this idea of Triune God's right, a trinity, divine
incarnation, right, that God comes down to earth in the form of a
living creature, an incarnation, this is a Latin root, incarnate to
be in flesh, God does not come down and reside in flesh. These
are Christian ideas. These are Christian dogmatic beliefs that
Jews do not believe in. They don't believe in these things. The Jews
will use this type of language in a figurative sense, it's very
important for us to understand that Jews will say yes, God is our
Father, we are sons of God, there's a Holy Spirit, but none of
that is meant literally. They believe very much as Muslims do,
that Allah subhanaw taala is white and I had he's one of a kind is
nothing like unto him LASIK. Admittedly, he one, this is what
they believe. And this is evident if we read the Old Testament, as
well. So we would say as Muslims, then that Islam restores the true
Christology the true belief about Eastside A salaam,
the the actual teaching of Eastside a salon because we
believe the Quran is a revelation of God. Right? And we'll talk more
about that later. What's interesting here we're looking at
the gospel of Mark initially, is Mark chapter 12, verse 29, when a
scribe comes to Jesus, peace be upon him according to Mark, and he
says, What is the greatest commandment? Right, and Jesus
responds in the Greek language, of course, he spoke Syriac. And the
New Testament books are in Greek, which is an immediate
disadvantage. For Christians. The reason why they're in Greek, we'll
get more into this later. But the reason why they're in Greek
because Greek was the language of the colonial power of that day,
the Roman Empire spoke Greek. So it's considered to be the lingua
franca of that area and Palestine. So Syriac was a language that the
Jews were speaking, most of the peasants were speaking. So Syriac
really didn't have and Syriac is a is a dialect of Aramaic, very
similar to Arabic, a Semitic language, it really didn't have
that ability to go into these Gentile lands
and to be used in other Christian congregations, that Paul
eventually evangelized. So Greek was sort of the language of the
elites, the language of the the colonizer. So the language of the
New Testament became Greek and not Syriac. So immediately, we don't
have what's known as the system of Verba of East Saudi cinema in the
New Testament. IP system of Verba is a Latin phrase that means the
very words of Essenes and we don't have those, right, because it uses
a synonym his response to this rabbi in Mark chapter 12, verse
29, what
was in Syriac, we have no idea what he said in Syriac, or might
have been in Hebrew, right. But what we do have our Greek
translations at best. So that's a difference between IP system of
Verba and IP system of books, IP system, a Verba are the very words
of someone, like we have Hadith of the Prophet sallallaahu Salam, we
believe that these are the actual words of the prophets of the
license. Of course, we have Hadith that have variations and so on and
so forth. But it's still in his language, right. And if a hadith
is mostly transmitted, and it's a strong Hadith and all of the
requisites of the strong Hadith are there, these represent the
very words of the Prophet sallallahu IDIQ, sending them the
very words he chose the word order the syntax that he chose to
express it. And this is very, very important because one of the first
levels of Tafseer is what's known as syntactical exegesis. You can
extract meanings by simply looking at grammar. Just by looking at the
grammar, you can extract meanings, right for example, in I'll tell
you that Kelco are taught our painter this is in the past tense.
Why does Allah Subhana Allah severely we have given you
coauthor in the past tense. So now the grammar has a theological
dimension, right? But if you don't actually have those actual words
of a prophet, then you lose that dimension. So this is the problem
now with the New Testament. We don't have the Gospel of Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John. In Syriac, we have them in Greek. Nonetheless,
Eastside a salon, it responds to this.
Rabbi, he says Akua is Sianna Khudi us Hafez Haman kuti us
Hastin. He says here, O Israel, when he's asked a question, what
is the greatest commandment here or Israel, the LORD our God, the
Lord is one. Right? And here he's actually quoting from the Torah.
This is very, very important. He sadly Salam is asked point blank,
what is the greatest commandment? And what does he do? Does he talk
about the Trinity? Does he talk about vicarious atonement? Is he
talking about he's the son of God? Does he talk about
Transubstantiation and all these other sacraments that these
Catholics believe in? Or the Orthodox believing? No, what does
he say? He appeals to the Old Testament, he reappears, he
appeals to the concept of God in the Torah, right will suddenly
call him Albania de Amina Torah is quoted in the Quran as saying, I
confirm the Torah. So he's quoting from Deuteronomy six, four,
Deuteronomy six, four sounds like this in Hebrew, Shema Yisrael
Adonai Eloheinu. Heard here, O Israel, the LORD our God, the Lord
is one, right? How hard is Ali Salam, he uses his word ephod he's
quoting from the Torah is hard, and I had our exact cognates Of
course, the Quran says cuando Allahu Ahad. And there is a
difference between wa hit and I had. So students of Arabic, this
is something that's very interesting. And a nuance is that
when we say that Allah has wa had, we're saying he's one, but that
doesn't negate the possible existence of other deities. Right?
because by and large, the Arabs at the time of the Prophet salallahu
Salam, they worshipped Allah subhanaw taala, but they also
believed in the existence or the possibility of other deities,
right. So this is not to hate. This is not monotheism. This is
Heno theism is a difference. These are Greek terms that are English
now, monotheism means you believe in one God, and you worship one
God, there's only one God had no theism means that there's many
gods but you choose to worship only one. Right? So for example,
if I say that I am one man, I say, I know Raja, and warhead in
Arabic, I am one man. That doesn't mean that there aren't other men
in the world. Right? There's other men in the world, obviously.
Right? But I happen to be one of them. But if I say analogical, and
I had, I am one man I had. Now what I'm saying is, I am the only
man in existence. There's no one else in all of existence that has
the qualities of origin, man, except for me. So one of a kind,
when we say Allah is had, we made the one of a kind, right? So this
is the word that's used by Eastside s&m, and Mark 1229. How
do we know he use this word? Because he's quoting from the Old
Testament. And the Old Testament is in Hebrew, and is the Shema
Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai ha Akkad. Very, very important
concept. And then he says, If you keep reading the passage and Mark,
he keeps quoting the Torah, he quotes the Torah over and over
again. Why does he do that? Because we saw Dicalcium Albania
de Yamuna, toda, Eastside, A salaam, he confirms the Torah. He
says there I have to add Adonai ILAHA Bico Lavaca overcoat Neff
shaker over call me, Odessa. He says, And you shall love the Lord
thy God with all
All of the heart, all of the lathe, right the pipe all of your
heart and all of your nephesh are neffs all of yourself and with all
of the strength, right? So loving Allah Subhana Allah, belief God is
one and love Allah subhanho wa taala. And then he says, Love your
neighbor as yourself. Right? This is the essence of the message of a
silent Salam, the message of Musa alayhis salam and the message of
the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, this is the essence of the
message. Right? So it's very, very important.
And then
you know this word, Allah very interesting word.
That, you know, hola. The dominant opinion is that because we hear a
lot of things from different types of people, different you know,
Christian polemicists, you have you know, Muslim haters, you know,
profligate on TV, or making a lot of money writing books about
Islam, and so on and so forth. And they're saying, you know, Muslims
worship a different God. Allah is not the Judeo Christian God.
Right? What's interesting is that a citation on himself, the word he
used for God was Allah. And this is evident if you study or if
you've read the Syriac translation of the New Testament. So here we
have the New Testament in Greek translated back into the language
of Eastside SNM, which was done in the fourth century of the Common
Era is called the ashita. On Arabic, the BA Sita, meaning it's
very simple, but Sita means simple in Arabic, and that's what it
means in Syriac as well. Very simple to understand. Syriac. And
the word that Eastside. Asin Eastside as what I'm uses, over
and over again, for God is Allah, Allah, Allah, this is the word
that he uses. So the next time somebody comes to you and says,
Muslims worship Allah who has a different God or the moon god or
the Muslim God, whatever they want to say, you can tell them a
Saturday Sunday himself uses the word Allah for God as evident in
the machine translation of the New Testament.
The Old Testament also says hello to asset less fissile, the quilter
Munna You shall not make unto thyself the image or the likeness
of anything. So very, very important. Establishing Tawheed in
the Old Testament, what does that mean? That means lay second
Mythili he shaped one, there's nothing like God, whatsoever. So
the Christian will say, for example, Yes, God is one God has
had, but Eastside Islam as I had. So then we say, how can he be had
when he's a man, a man, there's other men. That's not a had.
Right? Also, I had entails that he's independent, Allahu Samad.
He's independent of everything. Meaning that he doesn't depend on
food and water and gravity, and sun and all of these types of
things, like we do. He is completely independent of
everything. This is the meaning of Summit. And the word summit in the
Quran is called the parks are dominant, which means that it's
the only occurrence of this word and the entire Quran. What does it
mean? means everything is dependent on Allah. Everything is
dependent cool, Lucia. Yeah, casual Allah. But Allah does not
need anything like I told you Illa shape. This is the meaning of
Summit. So when we bring God down, incarnate him and put them into
flesh, this is called to seem right to just when we do that,
what we're doing that is making God dependent on certain things.
And this is a breach of the Old Testament that says, Thou shalt
not make unto thyself and image or the likeness of anything. Right?
This is God's commandment to humanity. God did not breach his
own commandment, theological commandment and then become a
human being.
So that's the end of our first session. Next time inshallah to
Allah, we're going to continue
talking about the concept of God. Very briefly, again, it's not a
theology class, the concept of God in the Christian tradition, and
then we're gonna get right into the gospel of Mark Inshallah, to
Allah. So Allah Allahu Allah say that Muhammad did when he was
talking send them when hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen Salam
aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.
spun out from under him so the law stated Mohammed didn't want to
either he was sacrilege marine Subhanallah in Medina dilemma alum
tena indica Antal Alamo, Hakeem Hola Hola. Hola. Quwata illa
biLlah Elohim Salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa barakato.
Welcome to our second session on the four gospels in the New
Testament,
a class for Muslims introduction to the four Gospels. Last time we
talked about
some of the theological trends that we see. In the Old and New
Testaments. We had mentioned a few things about Eastside A salaam,
and how he confirms the theology of the Old Testament. This is
something that's a recurring theme in the Quran was that the Kalima
veiny idea Mina Torah. We find this in the Quran many times that
Eastside Islam is quoted as saying I have come
To confirm the theology of the Torah and timing again in the New
Testament, Eastside acnm, he will quote from the Old Testament you
will quote from the Torah, in order to teach, the bunnies sight
yield, their theology, a reminder of their theology. So we talked
about Exodus chapter 20, which is the beginning of the 10
commandments. And there are two versions of the 10 commandments in
the Torah, there's one in Deuteronomy five and Exodus 20.
Exodus 20, appears to be the older text. If you're familiar with
higher criticism of the Old Testament, Julius Wellhausen, his
documentary hypothesis, that there are four different sources,
basically, of the Torah, we won't get into that much of detail.
Again, this class is more focused on the Gospels. But basically, to
make the long story short, the text of Exodus seems to be older
than the text of Deuteronomy. And it's very, very clear, the first
three commandments are dealing explicitly with theology, Thou
shalt not make a device out the image of the likeness of anything
in the heavens, or in the earth or in the oceans, RIGHT LASER
committed to his shape when we see this theme again, in the book of
Deuteronomy, Isaiah, right, which is, you know, the the middle
portion of the Book of Isaiah, this proto, Isaiah deutero, Isaiah
deutero. Isaiah basically states that God is completely
transcendent of His creation, in any material, or temporal or
spatial sense. He transcends space, time, and materiality. And
this is true theology as we would see it as Muslims.
So the definition of idolatry according to deutero, Isaiah, and
Exodus 20, this is Old Testament, or Jewish theology, the very
definition of idolatry is that is when we bring God down into his
material creation, right, is when we say that this stick or this
statue, or this animal, or this human being, whatever that thing
is, if that's if we believe that's God, then this is the very
definition of idolatry. Because Allah subhanaw taala is by his
very nature transcendent of space time, in materiality, that doesn't
mean that he's not close to us in a relational sense. Of course, he
is, he is transcendent in a physical sense, but also close to
us in a metaphysical sense, in a relational sense, in the sense
that Allah subhanaw taala loves us, and He cares for us. And this
is evident in the Quran, in the Corrib. What you the Salah,
Kariba, the need for in the Corrib when My servants asked you
concerning me, say indeed I am close to them. So ALLAH SubhanA
wa, tada is a personal deity. Again, if you listen to rhetoric,
or if you listen to Christian fundamentalist polemicists, you'll
hear a lot of things like the God that that Muslims worship is not a
personal deity. He's far removed, he's remote, he's unapproachable,
things like that. That's not true at all. In the Corrib, Allah is
close to us whether the Namu Aisha do her buddy law, those who
believe are overflowing in their love for Allah subhanho wa taala.
And what dude, he is the all loving these are, this is a name,
one of the great attributes of Allah subhanaw taala. In the
Quran, this whole idea of God having sons we reject physically,
but that doesn't mean that the meaning the manner, isn't there.
Right. And this is indicated in Hadith, when the Prophet salallahu
it it was send them when he saw that woman running around looking
for her son that was lost. And then she picked him up, picked up
her son, and she hugged him and squeezed him and kissed him. And
she and he said to the Sahaba, can you imagine this woman throwing
her son into a fire and this allow Allah He, he said, Allahu Allah
humblebee, bad to human, heavy, heavy what to do. Allah is more
more merciful to His servants than this woman is to her son. So he's
using that. That filial parental
analogy, when describing the love of God, is it literally like that?
No, it's not literally like that. Allah subhanaw taala is not our
literal father. We're not his literal children. Right? We're not
the epanet Allah. Right. As you know, when this verse, I have to
empty Han according to the Memphis City and was revealed, called
including tomb to Hebrew and Allah fertility only your come Allah
say, if you love Allah.
If you love Allah, you have to follow me, then Allah will love
you. Why was this verse revealed? According to some of the X digits,
like a bass, he says, Because Benny is Surah Al the Jews said,
natinal Abba, now Allah, we are the sons of God. And they didn't
even mean that in a literal sense. They meant that in the sense that
Allah loves us so much, we don't even have to believe in your
message. Right? And that's a form of Khufu. So even if you love
Allah in the true sense in the correct sense, if you reject His
messengers, then this is not
True Love this love will not be reciprocated from Allah subhanho
wa taala. If we want to be loved by ALLAH SubhanA wa Tada, that's
where the orlimar say it's much more important for you to be loved
by Allah than for you to love Allah. Right? Because that's what
counts at the end of the day. Does Allah love you? And one of the
ways that we can tell or indications that Allah loves us is
when we meet the Allah ma. When they look at us, how do they feel
when they look at us? Do they have love for us? That's a good
indication that Allah loves you as well. And the indication that you
love Allah is if when you look at the Allah ma, what comes into your
heart? Do you feel jealousy? Do you feel hatred? Do you are you
disgusted by them? Or is there love? Do you want to adhere to
what they're saying? If that's true, the latter is true, then
it's an indication that you love Allah subhanho wa taala.
So, you know, this was a problem early on, you know, Thomas
Aquinas, because he's a NEO Platanus. Again, we talked about
Thomas Thomas Aquinas last time. Thomas Aquinas wrote to Therma is
the Summa Theologica, the most comprehensive one of the most
comprehensive expositions of Orthodox Christianity, or at least
Catholic orthodoxy,
dealing with virtue ethics, the nature of God, the nature of a
silent salon nature of Jesus Christ. And he's thoroughly
Neoplatonist in his in his orientation. So Thomas Aquinas is
known as being the great synthesizer of Orthodox
Trinitarian, Christianity, and Neo Platonism, which is from the
ancient Greeks, obviously. So he's trying to work with this idea of
Aristotle, Aristotle, who said that it's impossible for God to
love human beings, and vice versa. Why did Aristotle say that?
Aristotle said, because human beings and God are not the are not
the same genus. They're not the same species. So it's really
impossible for God to love you, and for you to love God. So
Aristotle's God is a God that is totally transcendent. A God
removed, right, the deist, the deistic, God, right, like the God
of the founding fathers of America, probably the first six
presidents were a Deist. They're not Christian, right, which means
that they did not believe that a Salesianum is even a prophet. They
didn't believe in the Bible at all. Thomas Jefferson, for
example, did not believe that God has any interaction with humanity,
that he simply created us. And then he leaves us to our own
devices. This is deism, right? And it's really from, you know, the
post Enlightenment period that has its origins in Neo Platonism,
which has its origins in these ancient Greek philosophers, like
Aristotle and Plato. So, Aristotle very clearly says, It's impossible
for God to love you, there's too big of a gap, you're not the same
species. So he would also argue, for example, you don't truly love
your pet, your cat or your dog, because you're not the same genus.
So what Aquinas does, and again, Aquinas is theology and philosophy
is still the standard in the Roman Catholic Church. He integrates the
two he tries to find a medium position or solution for this
dilemma. And he says, Yes, that's true. God and man are not of the
same genus, how does how do we bridge this gap is that God
becomes a man. Right? So he asked a question, in his Summa
Theologica. He says, could he says, current day use Homer? Why
did God become a human being? Because he wants to demonstrate
love to us, right? But the problem with this idea is that when we
bring God physically into his creation, again, this is the very
definition of idolatry as espoused by the Old Testament, so this is
not a solution. This is unnecessary. God does not dwell
within his creation, because then it becomes dependent on things.
Right. And this is, you know, the Roman Catholic Church, they
accused the Jews of deicide, of killing God, because Catholics
believe Christians in general believe that God came down to
earth in the form of a man. It's very, very so the answer
Islamically Imam Ghazali, for example, who is one of the
the influences of Thomas Aquinas, his virtue theory, not necessarily
his theology, but his virtue theory, Imam Ghazali would say
that God demonstrates His love to us by sending messengers, not
becoming a messenger, becoming a human being, because Subhana who
He is above such things, he transcends space, time, and
materiality. The greatest demonstration of God's love
towards humanity is the sending of messengers. And the greatest
messenger is the prophets on the body. So this is why he's called
the mutton the anatomy, right? This is truly how to bridge the
gap. And this stays in line with the theology that was given to
both sides. And given to how to and it is, and in the US, and
UNICEF, these
great prophets of Bani Israel. This was their theology, laser
committed he shaitan. The book of Hosea in the Old Testament,
chapter 11, verse 19, says very clearly in the Hebrew language,
key, I know he aid Villo Eesh Verily I am God and not a man.
Right? It's very clear. And this is mentioned a few times in the
book of Numbers also, right? Low each alle God is not a man. What
does that mean? That God and man are mutually exclusive. That's
what it means. God and man are mutually exclusive in Jewish
theology, and in what we would consider to be true, original
Christian, if you want to say Christian,
or the theology of Esau, the center and the how are you? And
this does not mean again that we can't have a personal relationship
with God. We can't love God no. Why levy that? I shared to her
Bella, we love Allah subhanho wa taala. Why do we love Him because
we recognize His blessings is in them. And the greatest
manifestation of the Name of Allah is the sending of NBR and the
greatest NBA is the Prophet salallahu Alaihe Salam, this is
why he's rough material enemy. So this verse 21 107, verse 21 107,
similar to NDI, a 107. This is our equivalent of John 316. So I'm
sure many Muslims when you watch like a football game or a
basketball game, somebody in the crowd will pull out a a posters as
John 316. Or if you go to a restaurant In and Out Burger or
forever 90, and you look on the tags on the bottom of the cup,
sometimes it says John 316, what is John 316? We'll talk about that
when we get to the Gospel of John, very interesting gospel, by the
way, by far my favorite gospel, the gospel of John, but John 316,
has one verse in the New in the New Testament, which is sort of
the summation of how Christians feel or what they believe about a
Salesianum. Right? If you were to, if you were to take Christian
theology, and and break it down to its essence, its core, or in a
nutshell, right, you would quote John 316, I would say, certain
Anbiya is number 107. That's our equivalent of John 316, that if
you were to take the profits, nobody said them, and you had one,
one statement, you can say that captures the essence most fully
about who he was warmer outside of NACA Illa. Rough mountain, Neil
Alameen. This is the verse that we all of us should have memorized.
So talking about the gospel of Mark, one more thing will mention
here, and this is also found in Mark. And this is very, very
important for Muslims to make a note of Mark chapter 10, verse 18.
And, you know, Western historic secularist historians like Dale
Martin at Yale, they have, you know, certain methods of
historiography that they use to analyze the New Testament. And one
of these methods is called one of these
criteria is called dissimilarity. In other words, if something is in
the New Testament, that sort of cuts against the grain of what
early Hellenistic Christians would have wanted to have said about
Jesus, then that's probably true. Because it's, it's embarrassing
for them. Right? To give an example, in in Mark 1018, a scribe
comes to Jesus and he says, Good Master, right? Did Duska they
offer a good master? What must I do to gain eternal life? Right?
Jesus responds by saying, according to the Greek he says, T
men legis agathon, who dates agathon, ma haste, Hafez. He says,
Why me? Are you calling good? No one is good, but one, that is God.
Right? This is very embarrassing for Hellenistic Trinitarian
Christians. So del Martin, according to his historiography,
he says that this verse is probably authentic then, because
it cuts against the grain of what early Christians would have wanted
to have said about Jesus. Right? Very interesting. But an
interesting sentence structure here in the Greek, you know, some
translations say, it says, you know, why are you calling me good?
Right. But the Greek actually says team may lagers, so it brings them
a fool, which is the direct object forward and essentially saying,
Why me? Do you call good? Right? So it's almost as if a salad slam
is offended by the question is offended by being called Good. And
this is from his terroir. This is from his humility. There's no one
good but one, and that is God. He's teaching them you know, this
type of really rigid, strict Tawheed is monotheism. But still
that relational aspect, that love of God, of course, is there as
well.
So orthodox Trinitarian Christology, you know, as we know
it
today did not really
starts to take shape until
after 381 of the Common Era. That's when Athanasius.
You know, he was represented, representing the Orthodox
position, proto orthodox position at the Council of Nicaea. We'll
talk more about these councils. After that was after the, the, the
de trinity of Augustine, of Hippo, the capitation, for church
fathers, as well, and so on and so forth.
So we'll talk more about that. Now we're gonna get into the actual
first gospel
in the New Testament. Now, you might say the first gospel
according to my New Testament is the Gospel of Matthew, right?
That's the first book in the New Testament. However, by consensus,
the first gospel out of these four to be written was not Matthew, it
was Mark. Mark was the first one to be written out of Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John. So why is Matthew at the beginning of the
New Testament? Scholars say it's because Matthew provides a more
fluid transition from the old testament to the New Testament,
right? Because Matthew is the most quote, Jewish gospel, Eastside s&m
In the Gospel of Matthew
quotes most extensively from the Old Testament. Matthew alludes to
the Old Testament over 100 times in his Gospel, the Gospel
according to Matthew, so it makes a more smoother transition. Right?
But if we're going to study chronologically, then we would
study first the gospel of Mark. This was the first of the four
Gospels. Of course, there are many other gospels that did not make it
into the New Testament. Right? And we'll talk about that as well.
There's a gospel according to Peter, right. There's a gospel
according to Mary Magdalene, there's a Gospel According to
Philip. There's the Gospel according to Judas. There's the
gospel going to punches Pilate, the Roman procurator. Right. Well,
it's very interesting why these books were rejected by the bishops
at certain church, St. John's and councils, why were these rejected?
And these four books accepted? Right? So, you know, the gospel of
Mark?
Who is Mark, you know, Mark is called John Mark. He was a student
of Peter, according to Christian tradition, right. Mark was a
student of Peter, but we have a gospel according to Peter, why is
this book not in the New Testament? Because Christian
scholars say all that book book is, is spurious. It's, it's, it's
apocryphal, right? It's heresy. Right. But he's the teacher of
Mark. So there's an inconsistency here, you're taking the book of a
tabby a follower, but not the book of the sahabi. Peter. Right. So
the reality of the situation is this, that Mark did not in fact,
right, Mark, nor did Peter right, Peter, no real scholar believes
that you might get some really fundamentalist type Christians
that will believe that the vast majority of Christian scholars do
not believe that Matthew wrote Matthew that Mark wrote Mark,
Luke, Luke, John, John, no one really believes that, again, these
books are anonymous.
So we look at the gospel of Mark, for example, Mark does not
identify himself. Right? He doesn't say for example, this is
the gospel of me, Mark. I'm a student of Peter, there's no such
identification, self identification, this book is
totally anonymous. That How did they come up with the word mark?
How did they come up with this title? You see, there was a
Christian bishop, who lived at the very beginning of the third
century, the end of the second century, his name was Irenaeus of
Leon Irenaeus, one of the early church fathers, the patristic,
leaders of the church, and he was the actual one that named these
four books. He named them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Wright. And
why did he name them these four books? Why did he pick these four
names? Because at that time, there were so many gospels floating
around, that were attributed to companions of Esau, these
disciples of a silent salaam, and he liked these four books. So in
order to bolster their credibility, right, he ascribed
them to two disciples of a Saudi Saddam and two pupils of two
disciples, in order to do what in order to bolster their
credibility. So these books are basically what's known as pseudo
anonymous, pseudo anonymous, so they're anonymous, which means
they're not identifying themselves. But above and beyond
that, they're sued anonymous, which means they were falsely
ascribed to different to different people, to people that did not
write them. This was pseudonymity. This was quite common in the
ancient world. But it was not an accepted practice. Some Christians
will say, Oh, that was just you know, that's just the way the
world was and it was an accepted practice. It was not an accepted
practice. It was
In its forgery, it was seen as deception. Right? So these four
books are really essentially forgeries. And if you want a
really good book that talks more about this, I recommend Dr. Bart
Ehrman, eight, EHR ma N, who is very famous, you know, he wrote
Misquoting Jesus, the Orthodox corruption of Scripture, truth and
fiction in the Davinci Code, he has another book called forged, we
actually goes into these issues, implications of people writing in
the name of God, not just in the name of an apostle or a prophet,
but in the name of God, what are the implications of that? So even
though this was common in the Greco Roman world, pseudonymity,
it was always looked down upon.
Because the main reason for doing something like that was to deceive
people. Now, why do you want to deceive people, there's a number
of reasons, maybe you want to
make a lot of money, this certainly is very plausible today,
you have people that forge a lot of things, and you know, forge
autographs, for example, take it to the pawn shop, and say, this is
an autograph of, you know, whoever the President or something like
that, and trying to make a lot of money, but back then there's
really no money to be made. Why would people forged things back
then, is because they wanted their own ideological positions to take
the upper hand, because there's always a political aspect to
things, and politics is a very corrupting factor as we know.
So in the ancient world, for example,
if somebody was a student of Aristotle, and you know, they were
brilliant, and they wanted their opinions to get out there to make
a difference in the world. They might write something and say,
this is by Aristotle and sign Aristotle. And that's a form of
forgery. Now, in his mind, he might be totally justified and
say, Well, my intentions are good. I have good things to say to
people. But still, that's a form of forgery, right? And that's
something that was condemned in the ancient world. What's really
interesting is, if you read the book of Second Thessalonians, and
the New Testament, this is a book that apparently was written by
Paul, the person who wrote this epistle, identifies himself as
Paul, and in this epistle, the author Paul, he condemns a letter
or another letter that has been circulated around the churches.
That is a false letter of forgery. Right? So this was very common,
even in the first century, someone in the first century is writing,
pretending to be Paul, the irony of all of this is that most
scholars actually believe the author of this of the book of the
Second Thessalonians is not Paul, it's someone pretending to be
bull. So in other words, someone pretending to be Paul is
condemning someone who's pretending to be Paul. And the
reason that person would do that is sort of cover his own track,
right? Condemning something that he's already doing. So this is
very, very interesting.
So Mark did not write the gospel. According to mark this is by
consensus of New Testament scholarship. The only people that
really believe that again, are people that study like Jerry
Falwell's University, Liberty University, or the Moody Bible
Institute, you know, these people, even the literal fundamentalist
type of interpretation of the Bible, the vast majority of
Christian scholars do not believe Irenaeus of Leon who died 202 of
the Common Era, he was the one who attributed apostolic authorities
to these four books, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And the
reason why he did that is to bolster their credibility amongst
all in the face or visa vie all of these opposing
writings that claim to have apostolic authorities as well.
But traditionally, Christians do believe that Mark is a student of
Peter, and who is Peter, the Christian? The Catholic
Christians, Roman Catholics believe that Peter was the first
pope, the first pontiff, right and that he's buried in Rome, that he
died in Rome, and the actual site of the Vatican is buried on his is
built upon his grave, and they use a verse that's found in the
synoptic tradition, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. For example, in Mark
chapter 16, verse 18, Jesus says to Peter sue a pet to Ross, you
are Peter. So the word Peter is not his actual name. It comes from
the Greek pet Ross and pets Ross means a stone like Petra, right? A
stone or a rock. This is the nickname that a site a slum gave
to him according to the New Testament. His actual name was
Shimon Bar Jana Shimon Bar Jana Simon, the son of Jonah, but he
was surnamed Peter, or pet terasse in Greek, or suffer in Hebrew
by isa lay Salam. Now, there's also with regards to the author of
the gods
Gospel of Mark, there's an incident very interest interesting
incident that happens at the end of the gospel, or towards the end
of the gospel in Mark chapter 14, when a sigh de Salaam is on the
Mount of Olives, and he's praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, and
according to Mark, some of the temple guard from from the temple
in Jerusalem, they come to arrest him. And there's a youth and the
word in Greek is the nice SCOTUS and the nice cos A young man is
there. And he is seized by the Temple Guard, but he manages to
kind of slip out of his garments and he runs away, goodness, he
runs away naked. As youth who's there, he runs away naked.
According to many scholars, this is actually mark, right, that is
on the Mount of Olives with a stylus and and slips away from
them. Many other scholars believe that this person is a fictional
person that Mark invented, for the purposes of getting a theological
message across that we have to be as innocent as children, we have
to follow Jesus as innocent as children. And it may require us to
strip off the clothes of the dunya. And if you notice, at the
end of the gospel of Mark, when Mary Magdalene and the other
women, they look inside the tomb, they see this young man sitting in
the tomb, and it's probably the same young man. Again, the message
here is not that this was literally what happened. But that
we need to consider ourselves to be people of the grave while we're
still living. Well, Allahu Alem. When was the gospel written?
by consensus, it was written around 67, to 70, of the Common
Era 67 to 70, of the Common Era in the state is significant, and
we'll talk about it in a minute. Where was it written, it was
written in Rome, that's the dominant opinion. So again, Rome,
is where Peter and Paul died, and were buried. Traditionally,
historians in reality, have no idea really, where these men were
buried, or even if they lived, especially Peter. But
traditionally, it's in Rome. And that's where the gospel was
written by the dominant opinion of New Testament scholars, for whom
was the gospel written, Hellenistic Christians living
around the Mediterranean, Hellenistic Christians living
around that. So basically, the Christian congregations that were
founded by Paul in his missionary activity, Paul in his adherence,
like Timothy and Titus, and Barnabas and the rest of them,
right, so these are churches that Paul founded in Ephesus and Rome
and Athens and in Corinth, in
other places, Colombia, first Salonika.
Alright, so then the historical background here is very, very
important to understand the gospel of Mark. This is very time very
much a war time gospel. Okay, 67 to 70 of the Common Era was the
time of the Jewish war. So there was a Jewish philosopher and
historian named Flavius Josephus, who actually has a book called The
Jewish War in which he documents what happened during this time. Of
course, this was the time when a group of zealot Jews were holed up
in the temple precincts. And the Emperor Vespasian sent his son,
General Titus, to crush the rebellion, these Jews refused to
come out of the temple, they had sought sanctuary, Titus told them
to leave, they did not. So he completely destroyed, He burned
the temple to the ground, the only remaining part of the temple that
stands to this day is called Hawk hotel, or the Wailing Wall, the
Western Wall, where we've seen pictures where Jews go, and they
will pray standing in front of this wall.
So this was happening at the time of the composition of Mark's
gospel, the Jewish War, which is obviously a time of turmoil
happening in Palestine. The temple was destroyed at this time, for
the second time. It was destroyed in 586, before the Common Era, the
first time by the Babylonians with under the leadership of
Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and it happened on the
ninth of all of this is the Hebrew calendar, the ninth of August, the
ninth of the month of August and 586. Before the Common Era, the
temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. And now in 70, of
the Common Era, again on the ninth of of the temple is destroyed by
the Romans, under General Titus. So this ninth of of is a day of
fasting. For Jews, there's four major fasting days for Jews, of
course, Yom Kippur War, and the ninth of August is also included
included amongst the major fasting days and this again is the
beginning of what's known as
rabbinical Judaism, right the temple is destroyed. The Rabbi's.
They start this council at gem Nia, Rabbi Akiva Rabbi Hillel are
the founders, Rabbi, Judah HaNasi, Judah, the prince, what do we do
now? So they decided we need to write down the oral law we talked
about the oral law needs to be written down, it became the first
part of the Talmud. And then rabbis would comment upon the
tongue, the first part of the Talmud, which is called the
Mishnah. And the commentaries are called the Gomorrah, together, the
Mishnah. And the Gomorrah, these make up the Talmud. Right? So this
is the beginnings of rabbinical Judaism, or post Second Temple,
Judaism.
Of course, also, at this point, the Roman emperor, the fifth, he
was the fifth Roman emperor, was named Nero. And Nero did not like
Christians at all. In fact, he persecuted Christians, his reign
ended around 68 of the Common Era, again, contemporary with the
composition of the gospel of Mark Nero, actually, according to the
Roman historian, Tacitus, and Suetonius, he actually burned
down, set ablaze, a great part of the city of Rome. And the reason
he did that is because he wanted to construct a new architecture
for himself. So he tripped, he burnt down intentionally, a major
part of the city, and then he blamed it on the Christians of the
city of Rome. So this is known as a false flag operation, right,
where the government will do something and blame a minority
within his country. So then it takes the focus off of him. And
this happened, you know, the Vietnam War, the Gulf of Tonkin,
for example, to get America into the war, and other instances as
well, that we won't go into right now, but very common toward this
type of thing to do. Governments in power, false flag operation. So
this is what Nero did, he said, a major part of the city of Rome, on
fire, and then he blamed the Christians, and Tacitus, Antonius
and Josephus, they mentioned some of the horrific ways in which Nero
would torture and execute the Christians living in the city.
Also, during this time, you have natural disasters, earthquakes,
Pompey, Naples, Eastern Mediterranean, and 79. You have
Mount Vesuvius, right, exploding. So these were seen by early
Christians as poor tense of the end of time, right? Christians
believed, at the time of the gospel of marks composition, that
all of these things meant that the end of time what's known as the
eschaton, right in Greek, the eschaton
was imminent. It was about to happen. Right? A silent Salam had
come.
That he was rejected, he was crucified, according to
Christians, is resurrected, He promises to come again in the
future, right? Then you have these natural disasters, you have Nero
persecuting Christians, you have the temple being completely
destroyed. Right? So these were seen as major portents of the end
of time. So we have to remember this. Mark is writing in this
context. Mark believes very much like Paul believed that the End of
Time was in his lifetime. This is very, very apparent when you read
the Pauline epistles. If you read the 14 epistles, that are
attributed to Paul Paul actually only wrote seven of them
genuinely, the other seven are forgeries in the name of Paul. But
the central Pauline theme is at the end of time is going to happen
very soon in his own lifetime. So Paul's advice on marriage,
celibacy, divorce, slavery, all of that is predicated upon his belief
in an immediate perosa, an immediate second coming of
Essenes. And that's what he believed in. It didn't happen.
Right? Paul says, we're going to be transformed in the twinkling of
an eye caught up in the clouds with the Lord, the very frame of
the world is passing away. He tells people don't even worry
about getting married, you're not going to have enough time to enjoy
yourself. Don't even count on using your goods that you just
bought in the marketplace. Right? It's going to happen very, very
quickly. Not in the sense of Yeah, relatively speaking, like the
Prophet sallallahu sallam said Anna was sad, kaha Ting, that I
and the hour are like this, relatively speaking, right?
Because human beings have been on the earth for 10s of 1000s of
years. But that's not how Paul is speaking here. Paul is saying in
his own lifetime, the end of time will happen. And this is
verifiably false. Right Paul made a major error here. So we can rule
out Paul as being a true prophet even by the standards of the Old
Testament.
The Book of Deuteronomy says if a would be Prophet says something
will come to pass and it does not then he is a false prophet is very
simple.
And it's very interesting, we talked about the book of Second
Thessalonians. Second Thessalonians, which is not
written by Paul, but written in the name of Paul will actually try
to delay the end of time to sort of save Paul some face. Very, very
interesting. But that's outside the scope of this, this class. So
anyway, the bottom line here is that the mark and Jesus right, the
Jesus in the Gospel of Mark will call him the mark and Jesus, he
also believes that the end of time is going to happen during his
lifetime. He says in Mark chapter nine, he says, for example,
there's some standing here that will not taste death, until they
see the Son of Man coming in great power. Right. So in immediate
second coming, and immediate Second Coming.
There were some standing here, who will not taste death until they
see the Son of Man referring to himself, the second coming, he
says, the present generation will live to see it all. So these words
were put into the mouth of the market Jesus, by Pauline elements,
all four Gospels have been influenced by Paul Paul was the
first one to write anything down. That was later to be considered
scripture of the Christians, right, Paul is writing around 4550
of the Common Era, the gospel of Mark is written 67 to 70 of the
Common Era to those same congregations that were founded by
Paul in those congregations around the Mediterranean.
So that has to be made clear.
Now, there's two periods that Mark is talking about, right? You can
divide the gospel of Mark into two distinct periods, the Galilean
period, right, of a sign days. So the ministry of Esau days,
according to Mark is only about one year. So he starts when he's
30. By 31, he's already been ascended. Right? According to the
Gospel of Mark, the vast majority of his ministry almost the entire
year. He's in Galilee, Galilee is a northern Palestine, the province
of Galilee. He's in a city called Nazareth.
This is called the Galilean ministry. So this is basically the
first eight chapters of the gospel of Mark chapters one through eight
is Jesus's Galilean ministry. And the gospel of Mark begins with
Jesus's baptism by John the Baptist. There is no nativity
narrative. There's no Molad mentioned the recite s&m, there's
no virgin birth mentioned by the gospel of Mark. There's no virgin
birth. It begins with the baptism of Esau, there's no there's no
nativity narrative, in the Gospel of Mark, okay? The Nativity
narrative comes later in the Gospel of Matthew, And in Luke,
Mark begins at the baptism. The second half of the gospel of Mark
is the Judean ministry. Juday in ministry, this is a Silas and I'm
when he goes to the province of Judea, the city of Jerusalem, and
he's only there for about a week. So basically 51 weeks, he's in
Galilee. And one week he's in Jerusalem, according to the Gospel
of Mark. He enters Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Right? He manages to
seize the temple. Right, which again, this is something that is
it sort of cuts against the grain of what early Christians would
have wanted to have said about Jesus. The early Christians want
to say about Jesus, that he's God, He's a son of God, Hellenistic
Christians that is, and that he is the prince of peace, he turns the
other cheek. But now you have this incident of Jesus seizing the
temple, right. And this had mentioned as mentioned in all four
Gospels, actually twice in the Gospel of John, how does someone
sees the temple, if not through military means? This is, you know,
the week of Passover. There's 10s of 1000s of Jews in the temple
precincts, the Roman centurions everywhere How does a Sybase sees
the temple if people aren't armed? This is so somewhat embarrassing
for Christians to talk about, because that's the only logical
sort of explanation for what happened. The Gospel say that
Eastside a salami simply went and rode a donkey into Jerusalem, he
took a small whip and started turning over tables. But that's
not how you seize an entire temple. It must have been done
through military means, at least according to Dale Martin, who is a
Christian
historian at Yale University. So this is kind of an embarrassing
sort of thing for Christians. But if you think about it, that's
probably what happened. Allahu Alem. Anyway, so he enters, he
enters the, the city of Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, he seizes the
temple. So for that entire week, he's teaching in the temple, right
at that time, you don't just let any Rabbi into the temple. If he's
teaching in the temple, that means he has authority. He has indeed
seized the temple through militaristic means. Allahu alum.
However, by Good Friday, he's already dead. Right? So he's
enter, he enters the city of Jerusalem. On Sunday. He preaches
throughout the week on
Friday, which is called Good Friday by 3pm. According to the
Gospel of Mark, he dies on the cross. And then two days later on
Easter Sunday, he's resurrected according to the Gospel of Mark.
And then he ascends A short time later, although the ascension is
not mentioned by Mark, the ending of Mark is very interesting, and
we'll talk about that
as well. So basically, again, these are the two periods of the
gospel of Mark, you have the Galilean ministry, then you have
the Judea in ministry.
Now we have major themes, major themes of the gospel of Mark, one
of the major themes, as we mentioned earlier, is that Mark
believes in an imminent eschaton. Right, that the end of time is
going to happen during his lifetime, during the lifetime of
Esau de Salaam. This is a central theme in the Gospel of Mark in
imminent eschatology. Eschatology means the study of the last
things, right, so like, a hadith of Africanism. And we have a very
large literature in our tradition, of End of Time literature, right,
we would say these are eschatological Hadith of the
prophets that a lot you send them, the central theme of the gospel of
Mark is an immediate end of time. That's why Mark uses the adverb,
and use those up time and time again, dozens of times in the
Gospel of Mark, Mark uses the Greek a with us, which means
immediately, suddenly, immediately, suddenly, because he
wants to give you that impression that this thing is coming to an
end, it's going to be over esala Islam is going to return anytime
now. And it's going to be the end of the world. Also, another theme
of the gospel of Mark is that you have somewhat of this. In our
tradition, we would say like a Nazi be sort of the sort of hatred
of the family of a side a salon, or this at least the sort of
sliding of the family of a silence. And this is apparent in
the Gospel of Mark chapter three, verse 35, when a group of
disciples come to East LA salaam, and they say, your mother and your
brother are waiting outside, and he says, Who are my mother and my
brother, whoever does the will of God, or my mother, my brother and
my sisters, and this is seen as sort of a sign a Salam according
to Mark sliding his family, which is very, very interesting. Because
remember, the, the Khalifa, if you will, of a Salah salam after His
ascension was his brother James. Right? His brother, James was the
successor of Esau they set up. But James has no real role in any
gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, you don't come across James
at all, really. And it's very, very strange that you don't hear
about him. And it's not until the book of Acts, or James has a very
central role that he is the actual successor of Saudi Saddam. And
don't forget, as well, as we mentioned in the last class, that
Paul's enemy, if you will, is in fact, James, there is a very
clear, Paul line, James Sonian.
Tension that happens in the New Testament that these two men are
teaching fundamentally different things. Right. And that's going to
be made more clear. When we study the Pauline corpus of literature.
You also have this sort of,
I guess, we would say in our tradition, kind of raffia, these
kind of this hatred of the disciples of any Sunday salaam,
and the Gospel of Mark as well, not only of his family, but of the
disciples in general, the disciples in the Gospel of Mark
are truly inept people, right, they just don't understand
anything. They're always making mistakes and judgment. Jesus is
always lecturing them. I mean, it's a really sad situation, that
the the disciples of Eastside escena, are really kind of just
insulted, looked down upon people who just simply don't get it. And
this might be an indication of Mark, sort of anti Jewish, anti
James Sonian sort of orientation or stance he's taken as favoring
Paul's position on certain things, as well. So the gospel of Mark is,
is somewhat anti Jewish, in that sense is that the disciples
because they're Jews, they just don't get a Saudi Salam at all.
So this idea also supersessionism that Judaism has effectively been
replaced by Christianity that Judaism really doesn't have any
site any type of reality anymore. Early Christian fathers like
Justin Martyr in origin of Alexandria, they actually believe
that the temple
the destruction of the temple, and 70 of the Common Era, was a direct
result of the Jews.
disbelief in isa de Sena, very, very interesting.
Another major theme, so you have eschatology, you have anti
Jewishness. Another theme is it's very secretive. The Gospel of
Mark, if you read the gospel of Mark, you'll find when a silent
Salam is extracting demons, for example, he tells those demons,
when they you know, they bow down to him and say, You are the son of
the blessing. You are the king, you are the Son of David. And
Jesus is always saying to them, Be quiet. Don't tell anyone he
commands and not to tell anybody. This is called a messianic secret,
and it's found only in the Gospel of Mark. Why is that? Why is it
such a secret? You know, this phrase messianic secret was coined
by the German scholar William Reed. And there's many theories as
to why Jesus is keeping these things a secret. While he's in
Galilee. One prominent theory is that the Galileans Of course, the
Jews in northern Palestine, they were known for two things they
were known for, for fishing, and they were known for zealotry,
zealotry or insurrection ism against the Roman occupiers. So if
Jesus comes out and says, for example, yes, I am the Messiah,
again, that has political ramifications. It's not just him
being a mystic, sort of itinerant teacher, if you say that you are
the Messiah. What you're saying basically is, you're the king of
Israel, in fact, the king of the world, eventually, so this is
something that would get him killed very quickly. So this is
one of the theories of New Testament scholars as to why
Eastside s&m is always commanding people not to divulge that he is
the actual Messiah. Of course, when Jesus was young, and living
in Nazareth, he probably remembers what had happened to Judas the
Galilean one of the Messianic claimants who in six of the Common
Era, was crucified by the by the Romans and a bunch of his men as
well for making messianic claims and for general insurrection ism
against the Roman Empire.
Another reason scholars have surmised that
explains the Messianic secret is because maybe there just wasn't a
lot of Christians at the time of the gospel of Mark. And so Mark
kind of embarrassed as to why this movement is so fledgling, and it's
not growing, he has Jesus, command people not to divulge his true
identity, Allahu Adam. But this is definitely a major theme in the
New Testament, in, in specifically in the Gospel of Mark, exclusively
in the Gospel of Mark. So you have eschatology, you have anti
Jewishness, you have the Messianic secret. Another theme is the cross
right, the death of Isa Lisa, again, according to the Gospel of
Mark. In fact, the entire Gospel of Mark is basically an extended
Passion narrative of East La Santa. So this is the whole point
of the gospel of Mark is the death of a Sunday snob that he has to
die, right. Instead extended passion, the Passion narrative,
which is Passion narrative mean, it means basically, the final
week, or the final,
the final weekend, or the final few days of the life of ESA lesson
lab. So remember, when we look at the gospel of Mark, you have eight
chapters about, you know, 51 or so weeks, and then another eight
chapters about one week. So this is the focus of the gospel of Mark
is that final week of the life of a silence. So the cross or the
death of Esau de Salaam. This is the seminal moment of all of
history, according to Mark. And again, this is influenced from
Paul. So Paul's Gospel in Paul's interpretation of what happened to
a Saudi Salam, the cross is very central. He says, for example, at
first Corinthians 1517, If Christ is not raised, our faith is in
vain. In other words, if Jesus was not killed, and resurrected, then
there's no point to Christianity, Christianity hinges on this whole
idea, this whole concept of a dead Messiah, right, which Paul
recognizes, is a contradiction for Jews, because the Jews did not
believe that the Messiah was going to be killed. And they still
maintain that and of course, Islam has a very interesting answer to
reconcile this, this problem within Judeo Christianity.
And then we have another theme, which is the part Lucia the Second
Coming. So the really,
you know, five main themes of the gospel of Mark, you have
eschatology, right, and belief at the end of time, which is going to
be imminent. You have this sort of anti Jewishness, the sliding of
Jesus's family
And his disciples, you have the Messianic secret, it's very
secretive. Number four, you have the cross, which is central. And
then you have the second coming, right that Jesus is promising that
he'll come again, in the lifetime of the disciples. Of course, this
did not happen. And we don't we don't ascribe this false prophecy
to the actual Eastside, a salon. This is what the market Jesus is
saying. And again, the market Jesus is influenced by Pauline
elements, because the market Jesus community was founded by Paul, and
his adherence, and Paul was verifiably wrong about the second
coming of esign, etc.
And also, something interesting here about the gospel of Mark, is
that it's crystal logically anemic. And what do I mean by
that?
So the concept of Christ in the Gospel of Mark, right, is
basically that Jesus is a suffering prophet, and that he's a
hidden Messiah. Right.
And,
you know, Jesus is only called God as Son of God, in the New
Testament, two times, right? And that's, you know, basically
nothing compared to like the Gospel of John, which we'll get
to, and you'll see how much this Christology has evolved.
The first time he's called the Son of God, is the very first verse of
the gospel of Mark. Right? So if you turn to the Gospel of Mark,
and I have the United Bible Societies, Greek edition here, so
look at the original languages, it's important to look at the
actual Greek when we read, so John, sorry, mark one, one, write
chapter one verse one of cut emoticon. That's what it's called
in. In Greek, it says, r k to a one girl, you EA su Cristo, the
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who you say you the son of
God. And if you look at the English translation, that's what
it says exactly the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but
in the Greek, the phrase, Son of God is in brackets. It's in
brackets. And the reason why it's in brackets,
is because the scholars or the editors of this critical Greek
edition, United Bible Society, is telling us that this phrase was
not in the original Gospel of Mark, it was added later, right?
That's what they're telling us. Why do they retain it in brackets
is because Christians traditionally, they like to hear
that Jesus is the Son of God. So they'll retain it in the text, but
they let the scholars know who read the text, that the brackets
mean, that the scholars don't believe Mark actually wrote that.
So the actual first verse of the gospel of Mark is the beginning of
the gospel of Jesus Christ period. It doesn't say anything about the
Son of God.
Dr. Bruce Metzger, who is the head of used to be the head of the
United Bible Society. He says this was a scribal expansion. Right? A
scribal expansion means that it's a forgery somebody later on a
scribe, proto orthodox scribe, later on, went back into a
manuscript of the gospel of Mark, and added Son of God. Why? Because
again, the gospel of Mark is crystal logically anemic? It's
not, it's very weak in its Christology, right? It's very
weak. So in order to bulk it up a little bit, right, this phrase,
Son of God, was entered into the text. If you read again, the
Gospel of John, it's very high Christology. Jesus is called the
Son of God, in many places. Jesus has called God in the prologue of
the Gospel of John, In the beginning was the Word, the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. Right? So it's very high
Christology, but Mark is a very frail, anemic Christology. So the
proto orthodox bishops and fathers and scholars, they didn't like
that about the gospel of Mark. So in order to bulk it up a little
bit, make it more orthodox. Right? They went back into the gospel of
Mark, and they put in these two words, when you fail, the Son of
God, to Mark chapter one, verse one, last class, we talked about
the the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest Greek version of the New
Testament on Earth, right, which was found at St. Catherine's
Monastery 320. In it was written in 375 of the Common Era. It was
found by a German scholar named Tischendorf, in the 19th century.
And if you read Mark one one indeed, it does not say Son of
God, it says, our K to get to you, EA su Christou, without the phrase
Son of God, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ period. So
the oldest and best manuscripts of the New Testament of the gospel of
Mark
do not contain the phrase Son of God. Okay, so that's we've
established now that there has been
scribal
fabrications made to the New Testament. This is just one
example. We'll come across many other examples as well, especially
when we talk about the end of the gospel of Mark, there are actually
four endings to the Gospel of Mark.
So again, the gospel of Mark is, you know, Crystal logically
anemic. If you look at the actual
crucifixion of East LA Salam, according to the Gospel of Mark.
It's very, very kind of different than what we have in Matthew, Luke
and John.
The the crucifixion of Eastside s&m, according to the Gospel of
Mark is kind of pathetic. He's interviewed at his trial, they
asked him, Are You the Messiah? He says, It is, as you say, and then
he doesn't say another word until the very end when he's on the
cross. And He cries out this what's known as the cry of
dereliction, when he says ilaha illa. He Lama Saba funny, My God,
My God, why hast thou forsaken me? And of course, he mumbles Zadie
and his Raghu, Jamil, who basically takes the text and says
the text is fine. The hadith, the corruption of the New Testament
comes in the manner. And he says here that this, this cannot be
easily said, I'm a scientist. And I would never say such a
statement, oh, my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Alright, so we compare now, when we get to Matthew, Luke and John,
we look at the passion narratives of all four gospels, we'll notice
that they're very different, they might initially seem basically the
same, because we're used to reading the gospels, versus what's
known as horizontally. In other words, we start with Mark and then
Matthew, and Luke, and John. But the real way to read the gospels,
according to Bart Ehrman is to read them vertically. In other
words, read the Passion narrative of Mark, and then immediately read
the Passion narrative in Matthew and then in Luke and John. And
then you can compare, right? how different they really are, because
they are different. And there are marked differences between them
that are very significant.
So
next time in sha Allah to Allah, we're going to talk more about the
gospel of Mark, we're going to talk about marks source, where is
Mark getting his information from? Right? So this is very, very
important. And we're going to talk about what's known as a Synoptic
Problem, because we're going to move from the Gospel of Mark
towards the Gospel of Matthew. And why is Matthew different than
Mark? Why is Luke different than Mark? How did they use mark if
they use mark at all? So that's next time in sha Allah to Allah,
wa salam ala Muhammad in one only he was happy we send them when
hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen wa salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa
Smilla Rahmanir Rahim salam ala sayyidina. Muhammad didn't write
it. He was a huge marine Subhan Allah and Melanie Lemma and mtna
in a candle animate Hakim well Hola, hola. Hola. Ellerbee LA, are
you loving family kumara amatola Iwo Barakatuh. Continuing with our
class on the four gospels in the New Testament, last time, we
talked about the gospel of Mark. And we talked about how Mark is
divided into two periods. The Galilean ministry and the Judean
ministry, we also talked about something very important, major
themes of the gospel of Mark, we said some of the major themes are
eschatology
an expectation of the end of time to come immediately. And we said
the reason for that is because of things that were happening around
the world, major natural disasters, you have persecution of
Christians in Rome, by the Emperor Nero.
You have the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, you have
rejection of a silent Salam by the vast majority of the Jews. So this
immediate eschatology, we also said another major theme, is the
anti Jewishness of the gospel of Mark. And that's primarily because
the gospel of Mark is reflective of Paul line Christianity, or
Hellenistic Christianity as opposed to a more Semitic or
Jewish Christianity that was found in Jerusalem at that time under
the
the guidance of James or Yaakov had said the UK who was the
brother and successor of Isa it set up so very clearly, we have
two different distinct strands of Christianity, even from an early
period. You have Paul line, Hellenistic Christianity, which
eventually became the Orthodox Christianity. And then you have
the James Sonian, Semitic or EB
Good night. Sometimes it's called Tawheed Christianity which
believed that Eastside a Salam was simply the Messiah and a prophet
of God. And of course we have that reconfirmed in the Quran. Why did
Pauline Christianity win? The primary reason is because when the
Emperor the Roman Emperor becomes Christian, he becomes a Paul line
Christian. And that was Constantine in 318 of the Common
Era. If you see the US is Ecclesiastical History is correct.
And there's a lot of question whether it is correct. But
according to Eusebius, Constantine was fighting his enemies at the
Milvian Bridge. And suddenly he looked at the sun because he used
to worship the sun, he worshipped the Sol Invictus. And he saw a
cross in the sun. In fact, it was actually not across it was the
Cairo the first two letters of the name of Christ, which is happens
also to be the symbol of Cronus, the father of Zeus. And when he
saw that he took it as a sign, because he heard a voice that
said,
in Hockessin, K or in Hawk signal being K in this sign, you will
conquer. So he apparently converted to Christianity. And
some say he actually converted on his deathbed, in 337, of the
Common Era. The point is, when Constantine when the Roman Emperor
endorses one brand of Christianity, then everyone is
mandated also, to follow that version of Christianity. There's
no individualism in the Roman Empire at this point. This is a
Christianity that he chose to go with, therefore, everyone else has
to sort of fall in line. So James Sonian, or ebonite, Christianity
was basically marginalized completely. And this Paul line
Trinitarian, Christianity became the dominant Christianity, of
course, with the coming of the Prophet salallahu Salam, that
original Christianity was once again revived and brought
center stage with the revelation of the Quran. And the Quran really
is a revelation that incorporates the essence of all the previous
Kutub all of the previous books of Allah subhanho wa taala. Right. So
like in Surah, Al bayyinah, Allah subhanaw taala he describes the
Prophet salallahu Salam Rasulullah Mina, Allah here to do superfan
Mota Hara fee have kootu boon, the UMA that he is reciting scrolls
that are pure in it are books that are made straight. What what does
that mean scrolls, and inside the scrolls are books or crypto, that
the Prophet salallahu Salam is reciting Kutub. What does that
mean? According to the Allama, that means he's reciting the
essence of the previous books. The correctness could have been a Yama
what is true, essentially, from the Torah, in the Cebu. And the
Injeel is also found in the Quran, that the Quran it affirms the
truth elements of those books, but also renders them now obsolete,
because now the revelation is the Quran. And now the prophet is the
Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.
So, we have also we have this. So immediate eschatology. We have
this idea, anti Jewishness, it's very secretive, we talked about
the Messianic secret, we talked about the cross being
a central motif of the gospel of Mark, the gospel of Mark, again,
is essentially an extended passionate narrative. Half of the
gospel of Mark talks about one week in the life of Eastside
esalaam. So that's what really counts for Paul line Christianity.
So what we would say is then James, Sony and Christianity, if
you look at the ebonite, Christianity, you know, as opposed
to Paul, the focus there is not on the death of Isa de Salam, or the
apparent significance of the death of Isa de Salam. That's what Paul
is saying. The point of, of James Sonian, or Eponine. Christianity
is what is the religion of a Sunday sunnah? What is his actual
teaching? That's what's important, right? Not a Religion about him,
but the religion of him. That's the difference between Paul line
Christianity and what we would say Islamic teaching about a Saudi
Sunnah the Muslim claim is that Islam is the religion of a Saudi
Salam, right. Whereas Christianity is a religion about a Saudi
sunnah, where they're worshipping these days, but we say no, he
said, he was not a Christian. He didn't say I'm a Christian, he
never even heard of this word. He was a Muslim, in the sense that
he's actively creating peace in the world. This is what this is
what the word Muslim means. Right? So the Muslims before the Prophet
sallallaahu Salam were those who believed in the prophet of their
time, and that was a sign of a sunnah. So the word Muslim by
itself does not technically mean a foul.
all aware of the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu sallam. That's not what
it technically means. Nowadays. That's what it means, right?
Because now we are in the time of the Prophet salallahu Alaihe.
Salam, his the Quran has been revealed he was sent as a
messenger, but before the Prophet was sent, who are the Muslims by
the surah Eid, right? But when they rejected the Prophet
sallallahu sallam, they are no longer in a state of added Islam.
They're not no longer in a state of submission, because some people
were perennial lists. And this is people who asked you actually
masquerade as Muslims. They say things like,
Jews and Christians and Buddhists and everyone, all of these people
are Muslims with a capital M, we would say no, they're Muslims in
the sense that they submit and they must submit to Allah subhanaw
taala everything is in submission to Allah subhana wa Tada. This is
Islam with a lowercase i or Islam moon with a 10 ween indefinite
article, everything is in submission to Allah subhanaw taala
whether they're Muslim or Kaffir, whether they like it or not,
whether they know it or not, everything is in submission,
right? Everything. So Allah subhanaw taala, wills everything
and he can will evil. He can will evil, but he doesn't call towards
evil, nor is he pleased with evil. So this is very important
distinction. Allah subhanaw taala is part of irida his will to will
shatter evil, but he doesn't call people to do that. Nor is he
pleased with it. But Al Islam, Alif Lam, right Islam with a big
eye. These are people who are following the guidance of the
Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi salam, these are people who simply
want to please Allah subhanho wa taala. They want to actively
please him, right? They don't want to do evil, they don't want to
disobey Allah. They want to please Allah subhanaw taala by following
the guidance, which was brought by the Prophet salallahu Alaihe
Salam.
So this is the difference here. So this perennial is philosophy that
is so prevalent in western Academy, that all religions are
basically the same, you know, and it doesn't matter which religion
you follow, it doesn't matter. If you believe in the Prophet
sallallaahu Salam, it doesn't matter. Nothing matters. They're
all the same. This is just patently false. And the reason why
it's false is because of a logical fallacy. Right? How can
Christianity and Islam be the saint be? Both correct at the same
time? How can they both be true? Either a Salesianum is God or he's
not? He can't be both. Right? So the Quran is very, very clear. The
Quran has a clear polemic against Christian theology, right very
clearly criticizes Christian theology. If all religions are the
same, and it doesn't matter. Why do we have this very prevalent
polemic in the Quran against Christian theology? Right? So
look, I've covered Alina Kado in Allah, while mercy hoping to
Miriam is very, very clear that whoever says that Allah is a side
a sunnah they have disbelieved, right? That now we're not in a
position to say, oh, this person is gonna go to * that no, we
don't cosign people to the fire that's actually impermissible for
Muslims to do that. We don't know how a person is going to die. We
don't establish tuck leaf for people. We don't know whether that
person was exposed to a good prophetic summons or not. These
are variables that are best left with Allah subhanaw taala. But
what we can say is that this belief is upon coup for those who
believe Saudi Islam is God, this belief is true for whether that
person is going to go to jahannam forever, Allahu Allah, we're not
in a position to judge if he dies upon that belief, and technique
leaf has been established, that indeed, this person is in trouble.
But that's not for us to judge. We don't know a person's state of
death. We don't know our own state of death. So we ask Allah subhana
wa Tada to give us personal hajima to give us a good ending, we
should worry about ourselves and preach the message and make Dawa
to people and ask Allah subhanaw taala for he Jaya for them people
forget dua one of my teachers said that 50% of Dawa is dua that if
we're not making dua for people, then we're missing half of Dawa
half of Dawa is speaking and doing this and organizing lectures and
in your locker. The other half is dua so we have to make to offer
people inshallah to Allah. The final thing we said here regarding
the major themes of the gospel of Mark is the part of Lucia the
second coming of sia Salaam.
Now,
let's talk a little bit about marks source, according to
the vast majority of Christian scholars.
So Mark's gospel is reflective of Hellenistic oral tradition. Right,
Hellenistic Kaoru Kemal Kerygma is a Greek word which means
proclamation. So remember, when he Sally salaam preached his message
around 30
to 33 of the Common Era, there's two distinct interpretations, at
least two, but two major distinct interpretations of that message.
There's sort of a Hellenistic understanding that Paul is
bringing, which we would say is incorrect. And then there's a sort
of Semitic or Jewish monotheistic way of interpreting the message
that is exemplified by James and the other disciples, we would say,
that's correct. What mark represents now is the oral
traditions of Hellenistic Christianity, right of Paul line
Christianity, the poor line proclamation, the Paul and Kay
ruga that is floating out there amongst these Paul line churches
around the Mediterranean. And the reason why these things weren't
written is probably oral tradition is because the vast, vast majority
of people at that time were illiterate, and they simply can't
read or write. So oral tradition was very, very strong. In fact,
according to Bart Ehrman at the height of Athens civilization in
ancient Greece, the time of Plato and Socrates 90% of the general
populace did not know how to read and write. Right This was
something that only a few people knew how to do. Also, according to
Ehrman, and majority of scholars, probably all of the disciples of
Isa de Sena, were unlettered people unlettered men, they had
simple craft, they were carpenters, they were fishermen,
they were this and that they didn't know letters. So everything
is by oral transmission. But when you have things by old
transmission, of course, it develops the memory. So like the
Arabs at the time of the Prophet sallallaahu Salam also, many of
them were unlettered. But the the concept of Senate was so strong
for the Arabs before Islam, that they would not only memorize the
late their own lineages back several generations, but they
would also memorize the lineage of their horses, all the way back
several several generations, and also poetry. They were masters of
poetry in the Arabic language. And these two things, knowledge of
Senate knowledge of poetry, help them recognize that this
revelation is in fact, from Allah subhanho wa taala. And also in the
promulgation of the Hadith literature, when your masters have
said, then you already have that part as part of your culture, as
part of your expertise. It makes compiling the Sunnah, that much
easier for that generation. So these are things that were done.
Tofik from Allah subhanaw taala, but here in the Gospel of Mark,
the gospel of Mark is reflective of that Hellenistic Kerygma. And
there's truth in there and there's falsehood in there. Because this
is indicative of what Paul is teaching his churches, not what
the Ebionites the Semitic Christians are teaching. Right. So
basically, what Mark had then is a bunch of Peric cuppies Peric EP is
a Greek word, which means literary units. He had these stories of E
silanes. Salaam, you know, these sayings, these aphorisms, you
know, the Hickam literature, for example, parables brief narrations
that people were saying about a Saudi Sena. So Mark has these
things, you know, he has these oral traditions. But now mark is
able to write them down whoever mark is, We're conveniently
calling him mark. But we don't know the actual again, these books
are anonymous, the gospel of Mark, we don't know who wrote it, but
some educated Gentile Christian in Rome has all of these oral
traditions. Now he's going to write them down. And instead of
writing them down, like Jesus said, Jesus said, Jesus said, like
Hadith for example, or like the Gospel of Thomas, that Southern
Gospel of Thomas is, Jesus said, Jesus said, Mark knows because
he's smart, that that's not going to fly with a Greco Roman audience
that might fly that might work with a Jewish audience. But the
Greco Romans are used to reading the Iliad and Odyssey of Homer,
they want a narrative. They don't want just a bunch of statements.
So what Mark has to do now is take these Peric apiece, these literary
units, right, these a for isms, these sayings, these parables, he
has to make it into a narrative, a chronological narrative. So he has
to put these cricket bees into context. So the vast majority of
scholars say, Mark puts these cricket bees in context that he
simply invents their subjective and their contrived contexts. You
see, because Mark doesn't know the context of these brick hippies.
But in order to placate his audience, which is a Greco Roman
audience, he has to have it into a narrative. For example, we read
the Syrah of the Prophet salallahu Salam, we know that there was the
prophets of the mighty salaam he was taken to Jerusalem, and later
on a surah on Mirage, we know that he, he went to talk if for Dawa,
we know that the Quraysh put a micarta they put a boycott on the
Vanny Hashem, we know these stories.
We know these Peric copies of the prophets of Illinois to them. But
what is the chronological order of these? Right? Somebody might say,
who doesn't know the chronological order? Perhaps the Israa was
first, perhaps is surah was first. And then when he came back, the
Prophet says said, and he said, Okay, now I'll go to the bunny
thuc. If he went there, he was rejected when he came back to
Mecca. And then the courage became angry because he went to the
bunny, ducky, and now they implemented the micarta. And that
makes sense. But that's not the correct chronological order. So
even if something makes sense logically, as far as
your justification of that order of events or that sequence, it
doesn't mean that it's true. And this is the problem that Mark had,
Mark has all of these stories of these ideas. And he has to put
them into a context in a narrative. Right? So the narrative
of Mark then, is something that he invented. This is according to the
vast vast majority of scholars of the New Testament.
Okay, so, you know, we have a principal in a school, and you
know, the Hanafis have something a little bit different. But if you
have, for example, two Hadith that are saying two different things,
right, they contradict each other.
You have to try to make them out, you have to harmonize them, try to
make them work. For example, it says, one Hadith says the prophesy
said he had his chest split, when he was a child. And other Hadith
says it happened on the night of the Israel. Which one is correct.
The one MSA, both of them are correct, it happened twice. This
is called jump out. Or if you can't make jump out, you have to
make what's known as delta G or you have to pick a tradition based
on the preponderance of evidence. For example, if Syrah literature
says that a man named libido put a spell on the prophesies of them,
and he started to forget things, that's what sera says, but the
Quran says, well, Allah Who yeah, as you look, I mean, the nests
that Allah protects you from humanity than the Quran takes
preponderance over Sera. Right? So you don't have to believe in that
story from Syrah because the Quran says very clearly, we protect you
from these things that people are doing to you. Right? So can this
be done with the New Testament, this was actually attempted to be
done by a Christian scholar named tation. tation lived in the second
century, he was a student of Justin Martyr, who's one of the
chief
architects of the Logos Trinitarian theology tation, he
took all four gospels, because there's a lot of contradictions in
the Gospels. And when we actually get to the Gospel of John, after
we study mark, and Matthew and Luke, you'll see that there's so
many discrepancies in these four books that it's virtually
impossible to reconcile, because you can't have for example,
something happened and not happen at the same time. Right. So either
Eastside a Salam, he was either crucified on the night of the Eve
of Passover or the night before passing Passover. It can't be
either one. Right, Matthew, Mark, and Luke says he was crucified on
the Eve of Passover. John says it was the night before the Eve of
Passover, both cannot be correct, somebody is wrong. There is no way
to make Gemma of this, somebody has to be wrong, unless Christians
believe that he was crucified twice, which of course is
ridiculous, right. In fact, he wasn't crucified at all, according
to the Islamic orthodox position. Well market aloo masala boo. We'll
talk more about that. Inshallah, when we get to the Passion
narrative
mutation. What he tried to do is he took Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John. And he tried to harmonize them. And his harmonization is
called the D tesseron. Which means through four, right through four.
In other words, he took all four gospels, and he made it into a
single narrative. And apparently, he was able to
reconcile all of the contradictions
and discrepancies in the New Testament. I'd like to see how he
did that. I've only read some of it. But the one thing he couldn't
reconcile are the genealogies that are given by Matthew and Luke, and
we haven't talked about Matthew, Luke, but Matthew and Luke give a
genealogy, right? A lineage of a Salesianum that are completely
different. Right? And he couldn't reconcile that aspect.
So Mark source again. So to put things in perspective a little
bit, you have the gospel, the evil one Galleon in Greek, the Injeel,
revealed at Eastside A salaam, between the year 3031 3233 right
around there. So then you have what's known as oral loggia. Oral
logorrhea. In other words, oral sayings Peric hippies, right.
Kerygma proclamation, every Salah that's oral tradition, and you
have two interpretations of it very early. You have the
East Semitic Kerygma. Right? You have the sort of ebonite Jewish
Christian traditions and interpretations. And then you have
the Paul line or Hellenistic? Cayuga, right. So you have two
different camps. And this happens almost immediately.
So then, and this, you know, these sayings proliferate, in Palestine,
and around the Mediterranean in the 40s 50s, and 60s, and of
course, Paul is now writing in the 50s, right, so, when Paul is
starting these congregations, and making converts to his sort of
school of thought, right?
Another so that school begins to really grow and take and take and
make a lot of converts, now, and 70 or so of the Common Era, a
person
decides to write down these oral traditions of Jesus, in line with
Pauline dogmatism, and this person was Mark, right. So the gospel of
Mark again, represents the Hellenistic, Paul line
interpretation of these oral Kerygma. These oral proclamations
for copies of a Saudi Salam,
an 85 and 80 or so of the Common Era. Then you have the Gospel of
Matthew, we'll talk about this. So Matthew was written about 8085, of
the Common Era. Matthew, according to church tradition, is a disciple
of Esau de Sena. Matthew, of course, is not a Hebrew way of
pronouncing his name, he was either Muy Thai or Levi, right,
his actual name. But again, during this time, there's
sort of distancing of Judaism from Christianity's animosity between
the two religions. So Matthew, the book of Matthew, which is our next
gospel, is also anonymous. No one knows who wrote the Gospel of
Matthew. So even when Matthew two is talking about Matthew, in his
gospel, he talks about him in the third person. Right? So in other
words, Matthew doesn't say, and then Jesus came up to me, and he
said, Follow me. And I'll make you a fisher. He doesn't say that. He
says, Then Jesus came to Matthew, and a third person, right? So
again, it wasn't until I Rene is this time that these four books
were named Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All four gospels, again,
are anonymous. And more technically, they're pseudo
anonymous. They're ascribed later on to disciples of Esau, Jason.
So what does Matthew do here? Matthew, he uses Mark's gospel as
his sort of skeleton.
So you know how we said that Mark took these loose traditions of
Jesus, and he put them into a narrative. So Mark, so Matthew, He
takes Mark's skeleton, he likes that chronological order. Okay,
but Matthew also has other material in his Gospel, right. He
has material in his gospel that is not found in any other gospel.
This is called M material, uppercase M or Mathieson material.
Matthew also has material in his Gospel that he has in common with
Luke, that is not found in Mark. Okay, Matthew has material and his
gospel that is in common with Luke, but not found in Mark. That
means that Matthew and Luke had a source of some sort that Mark did
not have access to.
And scholars have called this source this hypothetical source Q,
the letter Q, which stands for the German quella, meaning the
unknown. Q is also called the same as gospel. Okay, so there's
actually work a lot better if I made a diagram, but let's explain
it again. Inshallah, if there's any questions,
email me your questions. And I can explain this a lot better. Maybe I
can give you a chart. But basically, you have Mark written
in 70, the Common Era. Then you have Matthew around 80, and Luke
around 90, Matthew and Luke, they both take the basic skeletal
structure of the gospel of Mark. Right. So 80% of Mark is
incorporated into Matthew, and about 65% of Mark is incorporated
into Luke. Okay. And then Matthew and Luke also have material that
they share that is not in Mark.
That's called cue source material. So Matthew, Luke, then they had
access to some other source that Mark did not have access to.
Matthew also has material that's only found in his gospel. That's
called M. Murphy and material. And Luke also has material only found
in his Gospel, that's called L
little special Lukin material. Okay, so this is really, really
important. Now, Christian fundamentalist will say
that Matthew is a disciple of esala Salaam, and a disciple wrote
the Gospel of Matthew. The problem with that is if Matthew is a
disciple of esigning Salam.
Why is he using the skeletal structure of the chronology of
Mark, who was not a disciple of these artists?
Mark is a student of Peter Mark was not a disciple. Mark was 10
years old when he saw the Islam walk the earth, right, he studied
under Peter, but he's still not an eye and ear witness. Matthew is an
eye and ear witness of the ministry of Jesus, yet 80% of
Mark, Matthew will incorporate into his gospel. So this doesn't
make a whole lot of sense. Now, one more thing, that's
interesting.
We talked about the Q source document, right? Again, to make
this really, really, it's very, very important that we understand
Q.
That Q is some sort of document, it was probably written, it's
probably before Mark wrote his gospel, right, that Mark did not
have access to, for some some reason, maybe Q represents the
other oral proclamation, the Semitic James Sonian School of
Christianity, the true Christianity. Maybe Mark knew
about Q and purpose purposefully or intentionally did not use it in
his Gospel, because he thought this is from the other side of
Christianity. These are the Jewish Christians that are saying these
things, right, that could be a possibility. But the mystery of
why Mark doesn't know about Q is a mystery that continues to baffle
New Testament scholars today, Matthew and Luke definitely had
access to Q, because they have material that they have in common.
That is almost verbatim. They're quoting things almost verbatim
from some other source. That's not in Mark. Right. So what is cue?
Now this is called the to source theory. The to source theory says
that Mark wrote first. And then Matthew, and Luke, they took from
Mark's basic skeletal structure, that's called the to source
theory. It assumes mark in priority that Mark wrote first and
then these two other gospels, there's another theory, which is
very much in the minority, almost an extinct opinion, which is
called the two gospel theory, or the former Dreisbach. Theory. And
according to this theory,
Matthew and Luke wrote first, and then Mark wrote after that, but
the reason that this theory is not very, and this is the theory that
Augustine of Hippo actually subscribed to. But the reason this
is not very popular is that why would mark if he had access to
Luke and Matthew, why wouldn't he record so much of this, so much of
these beautiful teachings of Jesus sermon on the mount the Lord's
Prayer, you know, all these beautiful the prodigal son, you
know, the Good Samaritan, he just ignores all of that, why would
mark do that? It doesn't stand to reason why he would ignore some of
the most celebrated teachings of Esau de Salaam. Indeed, he wrote
after Luke and Matthew, the dominant opinion here is that
Matthew, sorry, Mark wrote First, there's my mark and priority. Mark
wrote first, and then Luke and Matthew, they used Mark skeletal
structure to formulate their own gospels, and they have material in
common. What is that material? It's called Q. What does Q
contain? Parables of a Silas Anna, his HECM his wisdom teaching?
Right? These are called a for isms. What else? The ministry of
John the Baptist? Yeah, this is contained in Q. What else? The
Sermon on the Mount? Right? This beautiful teaching that we found,
we find in Matthew chapter six, Luke chapter 11, which includes
the Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes, right, the series of
blessings that he saw he gives.
Also interesting, there's no passion material, there's no,
there's no Passion narrative in queue. Right? In other words,
there's nothing about the death of a salad salon. In queue. There's
nothing about even a passion prediction in queue. Right? In
other words, Matthew and Luke, and the material that they have in
common that is missing from Mark, nothing in their material that
they have in common, has anything to do with the death and
resurrection of Esau they Salam, what does that mean? That means
the author of cue, whoever it was, maybe, you know, Jewish Christian
community from James.
They didn't value, the crucifixion and resurrection of Esau, etc. Why
Maybe it wasn't important for them, or maybe they didn't even
believe in it, which is a possibility. Right? So it's very,
very important. It's called a Synoptic Problem, right? Dealing
with the interdependency of these three gospels. Right? Why does
mark not use Q? Did he know about it? Did he not know about it? What
does Q contain? We can sort of, we can underline, we can sort of
ascertain what Q contained, because it's simply what Luke and
Matthew have in common, right? When we read what Q contains, none
of it contradicts Islam. None of it contradicts Islam. So this cue
the sayings gospel could actually be the Injeel of a silent Salam.
But we haven't actually found anything. You know, Matthew, Luke
probably had something. But it's been lost to time. Right? Maybe
they buried it somewhere, you know, quite often, Christian
archaeologists, they'll go on a dig. This happens all the time.
And they'll find something extraordinary. Right? Like in, in
1887, they found this document called the decay. Decay is Greek
for teaching. Right? The decay was written in the second century,
some say first century. And it represents the teaching of the
disciples to Gentile converts. It's very interesting. It's like a
church manual. Right? The teaching of the disciples, the actual
disciples, to Gentile converts. And when something interesting, it
mentions, the dedicated that Christians will fast twice a week,
right? So the, the concentration on the actual fasting, and
prayers, and so on, and so forth. This wasn't discovered until 1887,
or so in a monastery, but scholars believe it was written in the
second century.
Now, what's also interesting about Mark, we're going to finish up
with Mark in sha Allah is that there's actually four endings for
the gospel of Mark. Remember, we talked about the beginning of the
gospel of Mark, that the beginning of the very beginning of the
gospel contains a fabrication. It says rk to you and give you a so
crystal, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And then
it says, who you feel the Son of God, this phrase, Son of God is
not in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts of the gospel of Mark.
Okay, it was added later, Bruce Metzger, the President of the
United Bible Society, he called it a scribal expansion is not found
in the oldest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
So this was an example of how
the gospel of Mark is crystal logically anemic, it's very weak
in its Christology. So a scribe went back, and they had to sort of
pad it a little bit, and put these put that phrase in there. Now, if
you look at the end of the gospel of Mark, so the gospel of Mark is
the shortest of the four Gospels, it has only 16 chapters, right?
And
the true ending of the gospel of Mark is actually 16 Eight, chapter
16 verse eight. So this is what happens. Basically, Jesus is
apparently crucified, and
he's put into a tomb. And then on Sunday, a group of women, they go
to the tomb, they look inside, and they see a young man sitting in
the tomb. And they say, and the young man says to them, that
basically, he's not here. He's gone to Galilee. And then it says,
chi, ooh, Dene udon, a Pon F, Ubuntu Ah, God, then they said
nothing to no one, for they were afraid. And that's the end of the
gospel. That's the true end of the gospel of Mark. What does that
mean? That means basically, we have no idea what happened to you
Sally Sinha. All we know is apparently he was crucified. They
go to the tomb. He's not there. There's an angel or maybe says a
young man sitting in the tomb. It says he's not here. He's in
Galilee. Right? And that's the end of the gospel. What does that
mean? That means that according to the earliest gospel in the New
Testament, nobody sees a resurrected Jesus. Nobody sees the
resurrected Jesus. In fact, it's quite questionable whether he was
crucified at all. Because in the Gospel of Mark, if you read
chapter 15, it says that after a few hours, Jesus had apparently
died on the cross. And when this news was brought to punch his
pilot, the man who made a profession out of crucifying Jews,
it said, He marveled he couldn't believe it. This man is already
dead after a few hours, three hours and he's dead. Because he
knew from experience, it took days to die on a cross. And now we're
told that the women go on Sunday to the suppose a tomb and somebody
tells them Oh, he's not here. He's in Galilee. So what have
boundaries
is very, very interesting. So the end of this gospel is very
ambiguous. And the Christian scholars of the second and third
centuries in the fourth century, they didn't like this ambiguity,
because they wanted to tell you they wanted to drive the point
home, that he indeed was killed. And he rose from the dead. Right?
So they added an ending to this gospel. Right? They added,
so the true end is Mark 16, eight. That's called the true end. But
then we have the longer ending of Mark, which is in later
manuscripts of the gospel of Mark. And here now, what does it say? It
says that Jesus came and appeared to Mary Magdalene, and then he
appeared to two disciples. Right? Why two disciples, because the
true end of the gospel, it says that women went to the tomb, they
saw was empty. There's a young man is that he's in Galilee. He's
going he's gone to Galilee. Right. And that's the end of the gospel,
a woman's testimony and in in Judaism in the first century, is
basically worthless. Right? A woman's testimony is not taken
into consideration in any court, in Judaism and the first century,
right? So what you need is male witnesses.
So what happens here is that some clever scribe recognized the need
for male witnesses. So he went back and added this longer ending,
where Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene, but also to two
disciples, male disciples, right? And then he Commission's them,
the commissioning of the disciples to go into all nations. And then
he says something interesting to His disciples, according to the
longer ending, which is actually actually a fabrication.
He says to them, that you'll speak in many tongues, you'll lay your
hands on people, and they'll be cured. You could drink poison, and
you'll live, you can handle poisonous snakes, and it won't
harm you. And then he ascends into heaven. Right? This is the longer
ending of Mark. What's interesting about this ending of Mark here is
you have a group of Christians in America that are called
Appalachian snake handlers. This is a sort of offshoot of what's
known as Pentecost penta, Costa lism. These Christians who speak
in tongues, right, the charismatic type movement there in the south
in America, you have these Appalachian snake handlers who
bring snakes into church and they handle snakes. And one of them
recently, his name was Mark Wolford, he was bitten by a snake
and he died. In fact, his father also died from doing the same
thing bitten by a snake.
I feel like telling his son now that the scripture that says that
you can handle snakes is actually a fabrication to the end of Mark's
gospel. I debated a Christian one time. I don't know if this has
been recorded. Maybe you can find this on YouTube. I debated a
Christian one time. This happened a couple of times where I use this
is really an old Ahmed Deedat Rahim Allah to Anna old trick from
Ahmed Deedat. When it's very effective, and it's because I
said,
Is the Bible the word of God? He says yes. And he said,
Are you a true Christian? He says, yes. So true. Christians,
according to Jesus can drink poison, and nothing can happen to
them. So I took some white out in a liquid paper out of my bag,
which is not really poisonous, but it will make you pretty sick. And
I put it on the table and said, I want you to drink this white out.
And if you drink it, and you survive, then you are too
Christian. And then you know what he said, This Christian man, I was
debating in a university, academic setting. He said, Oh, you're
talking about the longer ending of Mark. That's a fabrication to the
Gospel of Mark. And there was this collective gasp from the audience.
They, they couldn't believe that he had said that. So I said, if
it's a fabrication, here's my Bible, rip it out of my Bible.
It's a fabrication, take it out, throw it on the ground. He said,
No, I refuse to do that. So why do you refuse to do that? It's a
fabrication.
Right? So you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either fabrication
or it's not. But scholars are unanimous that this longer ending
of Mark is a later addition to the Gospel of Mark. So the earliest
gospel in the New Testament has the fabrication of the very
beginning by calling Jesus the Son of God. And as a fabrication at
the very end, because it ends very briefly. It's up it's like a
cliffhanger. And we don't really know what happened to Jesus. All
we know that. Apparently he was killed on a cross. And then
suddenly, there's an empty tomb. Was he resurrected? Was he
actually dead? Is it the wrong tomb? What happened? We have no
idea. So they went in and actually added this longer ending. There's
actually two more endings of the gospel of Mark but the other two
are not very important.
But there's what's known as the shorter ending of the gospel of
Mark, which is in some in a few manuscripts. And then you have
another ending of the gospel of Mark, which is found in one
manuscript called the Codex Washingtonia is where he says,
a bunch of things about Satan's power over the age, there's a
bunch of hypoxylon gum annoy, you know, these words that are not
characteristic of Mark's writing style. And that's how you can tell
that that's also a fabrication.
So next time in sha Allah, so we're done with the Gospel of
Mark, next time in sha Allah to Allah, we're going to go into the
Gospel of Matthew, and the Gospel of Matthew is very, very
interesting. Gospel to say the very least, we're going to go
through the basics, the who, what, when, where and why, of the Gospel
of Matthew, we're going to look at the structure, the new characters
of the Gospel of Matthew, we're going to look at the major themes
of the Gospel, the sources, how did mark how did Matthew deal with
the Gospel of Mark, because he had mark on his table when he wrote
his gospel? How did he deal with the Gospel of Mark we're going to
talk about that next time inshallah solo Latina Muhammad
didn't want it. He was happy to send them what hamdu Lillahi
Rabbil Alameen wa salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa
salam ala sunnah Muhammad didn't want to only he was a huge marine
Subhanak Allah in Milena Illa Magnum tena in animal Hakeem what
a whole lot like water illa biLlah in Ali Rahim Salam aleikum wa
rahmatullah wa barakato. So last time, we talked about the gospel
of Mark, we finished up talking about the gospel of Mark. And we
had said that mark, wrote around 70 of the Common Era, as gospel
represents the oral Cayuga or proclamation of Hellenized, or
Paul line Christianity. Then we said, Matthew, he wrote around 80,
or 85, of the Common Era, Luke, also around 85, possibly 90 of the
Common Era. And we had said that Matthew used marks kind of
skeletal structure chronological order,
in his own gospel, about 85% of Mark is incorporated into Matthew.
And this establishes the interdependency of Matthew, Mark,
and Luke, right. And these three gospels are therefore called the
Synoptic Gospels, synoptic. synoptic means literally the same
eyed gospel, meaning that all three of these gospels basically
follow the same chronology of events, right? Because Mark wrote
first, Matthew and Luke, they take for Mark's chronology. This is why
there's an interdependency in these three gospels, hence,
they're called the Synoptic Gospels. So let's not talk more
but we'll get back to this idea later when we talk about the
sources of Matthew more in detail inshallah. But let's talk now
about the gospel. According to Matthew, this is called katha, my
Theon in Greek, according to Matthew, so who was Matthew,
Matthew is according to tradition, the disciple a disciple of Sid
sinner, he's one of the 12 disciples of ESRI, they set up. Of
course, scholars don't believe that Matthew wrote the Gospel of
Matthew, the gospel of Matthew Again, just like Mark is
anonymous. Nobody knows who wrote it. It was ascribed to Matthew by
Irenaeus, of Leone, around 180 or 190, of the Common Era, in order
to bolster its credibility as an authentic gospel by giving it
apostolic attribution.
So it was therefore pseudo anonymously ascribed to a disciple
of Isa, it is set up, the Gospel of Matthew was the most popular
gospel in all of antiquity, it was the most popular, the least
popular was a gospel of Mark, because it's the shortest gospel
and very crystal logically anemic. As we said, Jesus is only called
the Son of God, twice in the Gospel of Mark, once at the
beginning, which we have already established is a fabrication. And
once in chapter 15, where a Roman Centurion calls him, the Son of
God at the crucifixion, but when a Roman calls someone, the Son of
God, of course, that has a very different connotation than a Jew,
calling someone, the Son of God. So there's a lot to be said about
that as well. It also said the end of the gospel of Mark, there are
four different endings to the Gospel of Mark. So Matthew was the
most popular by far in antiquity.
Where was it written? According to the dominant opinion, the Gospel
of Matthew was written in Antioch, in Syria. When was it written?
Around 8085, possibly 90, maybe even as late as 95 of the Common
Era. Now, keep in mind again, there's major turmoil happening
right now in Palestine with Judaism all around the world.
During the time of the composition of all four of these gospels, we
had said in 70 of the Common Era, General Titus, under a commission
of his father the Emperor Vespasian.
had destroyed the temple, the Second Temple never to be rerate,
rebuilt again, that happened in 70, of the Common Era. And then
you have this persecution during the 80s, the 90s
of Christians living in the Mediterranean, especially in Rome,
125 of the Common Era, you have a final defeat of the Jews in
Palestine. And in fact, this was a time when this man named Simon
claimed to be the Messiah. We talked about him briefly in past
classes, Simon, he was endorsed by big rabbis to be the actual
Messiah. And he was given the name, bought a cookbook, Simon or
Shimon Bar Kokhba, the son of the star, right, which is the word co
cub, and Arabic which means star our planet. The reason he was
given this name is because in numbers 2417, it says that a star
shall rise out of Jacob, right, so this is seen as a messianic
prophecy. So this man, Simon Bar Kokhba, he was essentially
eventually defeated by the Romans, and the Emperor Hadrian exiled all
of the Jews out of Jerusalem, and he put a temple, he put a statue
of Zeus, on the temple site where the temple used to be on the
Temple Mount. And then he renamed Jerusalem Elia capital, Lena. And
the Jews were expelled from that city for many centuries. So that
was kind of the final solution for the Jews in Palestine. That
happened in 125, of the Common Era. So Matthew was written about
2535 years before that ad, possibly as late as 95. of the
Common Era, who is the Gospel of Matthew written for it was written
for Jews living in diaspora, diaspora means the Jews living
outside of Palestine. And this was sort of a propagation pamphlet for
these Jews to read, and to understand who in fact, was
Eastside a Salam, also written for Christians in the Mediterranean to
increase their certitude is really a polemical tractate against the
Jews. Remember, the Gospel of Matthew is the most Jewish gospel,
Matthew will quote or allude to the Old Testament, some 80 or 90,
or maybe maybe even 100 times, because he wants to prove that
every single prophecy in the Old Testament is a reference to Esau,
they said up to Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, and nobody else
was very, very important. We're going to come back to this idea in
a minute in sha Allah, but let's look at the structure of the
gospel. So when we looked at the Gospel of Matthew, sorry, the
gospel of Mark, we said, basically, there's two periods.
There's a structure, very basic structure. The Gospel of Mark
chapters, one through eight represents the Galilean ministry,
and chapters eight through 16, or nine through 16, represents the
Judean ministry. When it comes to the Gospel of Matthew, we have
basically four parts to the structure. We have the first part,
which is the genealogy and nativity narrative. So Matthew
begins his gospel member how Mark started his gospel, Mark started
the gospel with the baptism of a silent salaam, by John the
Baptist. Yeah, here it is. Matthew begins his gospel by giving you a
genealogy of Esau Desana. What is the genealogy, he's giving you his
ancestry? That goes all the way back to Ebro him at a salon? Why
is Matthew doing that? Because, again, Matthew is the most Jewish
of the Gospels. That's why it was placed first in the in the order
of the New Testament, although it's the second gospel to be
written, because it makes a smooth transition from the Old Testament,
which is full of genealogies, right? So Matthew, in order to
sort of have that theme of genealogical information that the
Jew is so used to, he includes also a genealogy of Eastside a
son, that goes from Abraham, to Joseph the carpenter. And then we
have what's known as a nativity or infancy narrative, a Molad
narrative, if you will. And of course, there's two infants or
there's two nativity narratives in the Quran. And so that Imran and
Sunnah Maryam in the Quran as well. These are called Molad
narratives. So in the Gospel of Matthew, we have Maryam, it has
salaam we have this person called Joseph the carpenter, and we have
the virgin birth. We'll talk more about that. So that's the first
part of the structure is the genealogy and nativity narrative.
The second part of the structure is the beginning of the ministry,
the beginning of the Ministry of Esau today, so then, the third
part of the structure is called the five major discourses, the
five major discourses, and Matthew does this intentionally. He
divides this section of his gospel into five distinct sections.
The reason he's doing that, again, is this sort of mirror, the
Toyota, there's five books in the Toyota. It's called the penta
Touge in Greek pentatone, which means the five scrolls, Genesis,
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. So Matthew, in this
middle section of his gospel, he's mimicking those five scrolls. So
the first major discourse in Matthew is called the Sermon on
the Mount. Right? The Sermon on the Mount, the second major
discourse, or the instructions to his 12 disciples, the third major
discourse, or the parables of the kingdom of God. The fourth major
discourse are the instructions to the church, and the fifth major
discourse or warnings of the final judgment.
So these five parallel, the five scrolls in the Old Testament,
again, Matthew is the most Jewish of the Gospels, and he's trying to
mirror what's happening in the Old Testament.
And of course, we have
prophecy that Matthew believes is fulfilled in Eastside A salaam,
that we'll talk about later, as well. And finally, the last part
of the structure is the Passion narrative of Matthew. So to recap,
the structure of Matthew is genealogy. That's the first
genealogy with nativity narrative, beginning of ministry, number two,
the five major discourses, number three, and then the Passion
narrative. Number four new characters in Matthew's Gospel,
what do I mean by new characters? I mean, characters that are found
in Matthew and not in Mark. Right, Matthew introduces these
characters. Who are they Joseph the carpenter, there's no mention
of Joseph the carpenter and the Gospel of Mark, because there's no
virgin birth. Who is Joseph the carpenter, Joseph, the carpenter
is the man who was engaged to marry Maryam or betrothed to marry
Maryam and Islam, according to the Gospel of Matthew. Now, depending
on who you ask, but church tradition, Catholic as well as
Eastern Orthodox, they both say that Joseph the carpenter, was
actually in his 90s, when he was betrothed to Matteotti, his Salam,
and Maryam was 11 or 12 years old. So there's obviously a cultural
thing that we have to understand, we have to have a cultural
consciousness sounds kind of strange for us nowadays, but this
was quite common in the pre modern world.
Why does Matthew include this person called Joseph the
carpenter, is because of prophecy. Remember, Matthew was very
concerned with proving that a side ace is the fulfillment of all of
these Old Testament prophecies. So in the Old Testament, you have
what are known as Christological typologies. What are these
typologies foreshadowings of Eastside SLM? So for example, when
when Musa alayhis salam, he comes out of Egypt, right, he leaves
Egypt makes an Exodus Out of Egypt, essentially, Islam and the
Gospel of Matthew also goes to Egypt and leaves Egypt. We'll talk
about that in a minute here. But the point of Joseph the carpenter,
is to fulfill Old Testament prophecy, the Jews believed that
the Messiah will come from the tribe of Judah. Okay, this is what
it says, For example, in the book of Hosea, the book of Amos, and
the book of Jeremiah, although many scholars contend that those
passages are actually later additions to the Old Testament
books. Generally the Jews believe that HaMashiach The Messiah will
come from the tribe of Judah, which means what he'll be a
descendant of David. Right. So Matthew knows this. He also knows
that this is one of the reasons why
the Jews at the time of esignlive Salaam are not accepting a Saudi
Salam as the Messiah, because his mother is not from the tribe of
Judah. Madea Madea Salam is a Levite she's from Levi, she's from
the tribe of Harun Ali Salaam. That's why the Quran is a Yahuda.
Haroon, right Oh, sister of Aaron, which can mean basically
reminding her of her priestly lineage not necessarily she's the
sister literally, of Harun it is to them how to live much earlier
than about 14 centuries before mid mid escena. But the reminding her
of her kinship to the tribe of Levi,
right? Just like in the New Testament, you have, you know, the
demons referred to Eastside a salon as the son of David. Well,
that doesn't mean that he's, you know, the son of David literally
that means he's a descendant of David. Right. So, we have to
understand that subtlety. So the Jews believed at the time of Esau
today Salam by and large, that the Messiah will be a descendant of
David and
This is based also on a verse in the book of Micah, chapter five,
verse two that says, Oh Bethlehem, small as you are amongst the towns
of Judah, from you, though shall arise a king, who shall shepherd
my people Israel, right? And he saw a Salam, of course, is born in
Bethlehem according to Matthew, but notice here and Micah chapter
five, verse two and that verse, it does not say that you will be a
descendant of David or of Judah. It says that simply, he'll be born
in Bethlehem or David was born. But for Matthew, this is very
crucial. He has to sort of, he has to connect a Saudi Saddam with the
tribe of Judah. So what does he do? Because he knows that Mary is
not from the tribe of Judah. He invents this person called Joseph
the carpenter, use of a nutjob, Joseph, the carpenter, and Joseph
is actually from the tribe of Judah. He's a descendant of David.
But then the question is, well, so what? A Saudi Saddam was born from
a virgin, that's not his father, a Saudi son does not have a father.
Yet the Christian will say, Even so he somehow mystically
inherited, the Davidic line from Joseph, the carpenter, his suppose
that Father, this is how they reconcile the contradiction in the
scripture that says, that ortho tradition amongst the Jews, that's
based on scripture, that the Messiah will be a descendant of
David. So Matthew, He says, there was this person called Joseph the
carpenter, who's from David, even though he's not the real father of
East Saudi Salam.
So Joseph, the carpenter, another new character, in the book of
Matthew, Gospel of Matthew, is Herod the Great. So Herod the
Great was the puppet king of Judea. At the time, Eastside s&m
was born between 40 and four before the Common Era, Herod the
Great, he was a puppet king in the sense that he's one of the kings
that the Roman colonial powers put into power, because he would
basically placate his Roman authorities. So he was considered
to be a Jew by religion, but basically in the back pocket of
the Roman Empire, Herod the Great. So what Herod the Great does very
interestingly, according to Matthew, because again, you have
to keep this in mind that Matthew is constantly trying to connect
Jesus with the Old Testament. This is his Dawa tactic in order to
convert Jews to Christianity, he has to show that there's a
consistency with the old the New Testaments. So remember Pharaoh,
when Mousavi Salam was born, what did the fit out? And do? What did
Pharaoh do that he instituted this slaughter of the innocents that
the firstborn sons of the Israelites are going to be killed
thrown into the Nile River? Right? So what does Herod the Great, do
Herod the Great, he
hears about these wise men who come from Persia, right? And
tradition says there were three of them. The Gospel doesn't actually
say, there's three, but they brought three gifts. So they
assumed that there was three of them. Wise men from Persia, they
were probably Zoroastrian. Apparently they follow a star into
Palestine, into Bethlehem.
And Herod hears about them. So he interrogates them. And he said,
What are you doing here? Basically, they say, we're here to
worship the King of Judah, the king of Israel, we have seen a
star in the east. So Now Herod understands that the Messiah is
going to be born. So what does Herod do? Much like Pharaoh, he
Institute's the slaughter of the innocents. So the firstborn sons
of Bethlehem are killed, right? Why did why does this happen?
Because for Matthew, Pharaoh is a typology of Herod the Great. You
see, Matthew is again, trying to
connect the Old Testament with the New Testament with typologies. So
what happens next that Esau de Salaam is born, according to
Matthew, and then Joseph has a dream that says go to Egypt, they
go and they stay in Egypt until they're it safe. And then they
leave Egypt. They make Exodus Out of Egypt, and they settle in the
north, and Galilee, and isolation I was raised in Nazareth. So
again, Matthew was trying to connect a Saudi salaam with
Mousavi salaam, just as Musab al salam made the Exodus Out of
Egypt. So does a Saudi Sudan make the Exodus Out of Egypt? Because
he said Islam is the prophet like Moses. And we talked about this in
past classes, as well, that one of the great prophecies of what I
believe to be the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu Sallam in the Torah is
in Deuteronomy 1818 that says, Nivi I came to him because of him.
como ha, that I shall raise a Prophet from their brethren who is
going to be like you is going to be like Moses, although Matthew
never quotes Deuteronomy 1818 in his Gospel, it's sort of a given
that he believes that Jesus I think
Cena is the prophet like unto Moses, when it seems still a
little strange that he never used that as a proof text. But he said
he said I'm, according to Muslim conception is not exactly like
Mousavi setup, but rather the Prophet salallahu Salam is very
similar in the sense that they were both given Shetty, ah, they
were given a system of law, codes and ethics that was not given to
Sid. So now, although Sid, some according to the Muslim
Christology did make certain amendments and addendums to the
Torah, but by and large, he confirmed the total. Right, even
though he is still over soon, but the Prophet salallahu Salam
basically was in a position of power over his people, he was the
primary law giver, just like Musa it, Salam. And there's other
points of comparison, as well, that we can look at. But again,
Joseph, the carpenter, Herod the Great, right? These people are
introduced by Matthew, in order to show some sort of type of logical
foreshadowing of what's going to happen in the life of esign. Hmm.
So it's very, very important. These are connections to the Old
Testament, also the Magi, we talked about them, this is these
are people that that Matthew
invents, or talks about in his Gospel that are not mentioned in
the Gospel of Mark. And finally, Satan, Satan now in, in the Gospel
of Matthew has a speaking role. Of course, in the Gospel of Mark,
Jesus is tempted in the wilderness by Satan, but he doesn't speak
that we don't hear his speech. But now we have a lot more information
about this, this tempting in the wilderness, just before the gospel
was revealed to Esau de salaam, we have Satan tempting, a silent
Salam, which is very, very strange.
The Book of James actually says that God cannot be tempted. So if
Christians want to believe that a side A salaam is affected God,
then how can they reconcile this with what James says in his
epistle in the New Testament, that God certainly cannot be tempted?
So these are the new characters of James Joseph the carpenter, Herod
the Great, the Magi, the wise men from the East, and Satan, who have
now has a speaking role. Some major themes now, in the Gospel of
Matthew,
is that Jesus now is the open teacher, the true Messiah, member
in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus was the suffering Prophet, right. He
was the hidden Messiah, the Messianic secret. Remember, we
talked about the Messianic secret one of the major themes of the
gospel of Mark is that Jesus is constantly telling people in
demons, rebuking them, don't tell anyone who I am. This is called a
messianic secret. That was this term was coined by the German
William Reed. And we talked about the different reasons why there is
this secret. But in Matthew, there is no secret whatsoever. Jesus is
the open teacher, he is the true Messiah. Right? That's the point
again, of the genealogy that goes from Abraham all the way to
Joseph, the carpenter, he's the he's the true interpreter of the
Mosaic law. That's a silent salon. That's the mithya. And Jesus, as
we would say, there's the mark in Jesus, the mithya, and Jesus, the
Luke and Jesus in the Johannine, Jesus, that we'll talk about, when
we get to the Gospel of John Inshallah, to Allah. So this is a
major theme, Jesus is the open teacher.
The second major thing
are these Christological typologies, that Matthew is
constantly quoting from the Old Testament, right? Something
happens in life of Jesus. Matthew will say, this is because of what
Isaiah said, this is because of what Jeremiah said, Right?
Constantly making that connection over 100 times probably, but
something we should keep in mind. When Matthew quotes from the Old
Testament, he's not quoting from Hebrew, and then translating it,
His own translation into Greek. He's trying, he's actually quoting
from the Greek translation of the Old Testament to very important
translation. It's called the Septuagint Septuagint. And in
academic books, it's called the LX x, which is the Roman numeral for
70.
Septuagint means 70. So this translation was done in 250,
before the common era before the common era in Alexandria, Egypt,
right. So there's a big story about how this happened in a
document called the letter of aristeas. But many scholars
believe this is a fabrication. But basically, what we can tell from
historical standpoint that's authentic, is that a group of Jews
they translated the Tanakh the Hebrew Bible into Greek and 250,
before the common era in Alexandria, Alexandria at the time
was this
center of learning of Judaism. So this kind of became the standard,
the Greek translation in the sort of Mediterranean, as well as in
Palestine, for learning to Jews. So Matthew here is quoting
verbatim, not from
a translation that he's doing with the Hebrew Scriptures, he's
quoting directly from the Septuagint, the translation of the
Hebrew Bible.
So that's another major theme Christological typology. Another
theme, which is very interesting is that Matthew performs what's
known as Midrashim. In Hebrew, Midrashim comes from the root
dotdash, or data in Arabic, which means to study. But Midrashim
means exegesis. He's commentating upon the text of the Old
Testament, and putting these comments into the mouth of
Eastside a Salem. And Matthew performs two types of Midrashim,
or exegesis, as we would say, he does what's known as Holika, which
is commenting upon verses in the Old Testament that deal with
atcom, legal rulings, right, or the VA, her aspect of Scripture.
And then he also does what's known as haga da, which is commentating
upon the esoteric or the botton aspect of Scripture. For example,
with respect to Holika, with respect to the outward or
legalistic aspect of Scripture, he has Jesus. say in Matthew chapter
five, verse 17, Think not that I've come to destroy the law or
the prophets, I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. As for
verily I tell you, as long as heaven and earth endure, not a jot
or tittle shall pass by the law, until all is fulfilled valve,
therefore, whoever sets aside one of the one of the least of these
commandments, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, who will
whoever does them, and teaches them shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven. And then he says to the disciples, that unless
your righteousness exceeds that of a scribe, or a Pharisee, you shall
in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. And then he says, You have
heard it say that You shall not commit adultery. But I say unto
you, if you look at a woman with lust, you have already committed
adultery. Right? So he's taking these verses that deal with atcom.
Right? Thou shalt not commit adultery. This is a legal ruling,
and he's commenting upon them. This is called Midrashim. What
type of Midrashim Midrashim that deals with Holika with Shediac
with a cam, right? Very common in the Gospel of Matthew, but he also
does haggadah. haggadah means that he's giving esoteric
interpretation of things that happen in the Old Testament. And
this is with regards to Christological typology. For
example, it says in Isaiah chapter seven, Isaiah is speaking to King
Ahab, and he says to him, that a son is going to be born, right?
Whose name is going to be Emmanuelle right that a young
woman will give birth to a son and his name shall be met Emmanuelle.
So it seems like a very mundane sort of detail that Isaiah gives
to this king. And in chapter eight of Isaiah, you know, this son is
born named Emanuel, but Matthew season that something much more,
right. So in Matthew, in chapter one of his gospel, he says Jesus
is Emmanuel, right? So he takes this idea that has nothing to do
with an outcome that's not related to Holika. It's just a narrative
sort of detail. And Matthew gives it a really kind of esoteric
meaning or interpretation that foreshadows Christ. So Matthew
says Emmanuelle is Jesus because a man who ale in Hebrew means God
with us. Right? So for Matthew, this is a typology of the coming
of Eastside, a sunnah. So this is what Matthew does. And this is
true with the Quran, Imam Al Ghazali says and then we got to
Anwar he said What Al Quran Eva he roboton that with the Quran,
there's an there is an exoteric element and there's an esoteric
element as well. So that's in our tradition as well. And that's also
in Jewish tradition.
Although you know, it's haggadah is very difficult to do and one
must have, you know, some sort of openings in order to perform this
type of Tafseer tufts had been a shara, as we would say.
If you take classes on pseudo Dean on a pseudo Quran, or lwml Quran
so that's another theme. So let's recap the themes. Jesus is the
open teacher. There's no longer a messianic secret. There's, there's
Christological typologies write. Matthew alludes to the Old
Testament. Number three, Matthew performs Midrashim of Old
Testament
scripture, which also
relates to Christological typology. Number four Matthew's
Gospel is very anti Jewish. Probably the most anti Jewish have
of any book in the New Testament, even though he's writing really
for Jewish audience, is really showing a lot of animosity towards
the Jews. So this very strong supersessionism sentiment, this
idea that Christianity completely replaces.
Judaism is very strong motif in the Gospel of Matthew, that the
Christian community is the new Israel, right. And this is seen
very clearly in the seven woes of Matthew chapter 23. So this is
when Jesus is in Jerusalem using the temple precincts, and he gives
the Jews the seven woes. Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites. How can you escape the punishment of *? You have
overlooked the weightier demands of the law, justice, mercy in good
faith, you strain at the net and you swallow the camel. You're
like, Why did sup liquors on the outside? You're clean, but on the
inside you reek of death. Woe unto you hypocrites, brood vipers, this
is his, you know, his invective against the Pharisees. The Benny
is sort of you according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus, and the
Pharisees and the Gospel of Matthew are constantly butting
heads. They're debating, they just don't like each other whatsoever.
And this culminates
in Matthew chapter 27, verse 25, this is when Pilate Pontius
Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea. he interrogates a side a
Salam, according to Matthew, and he finds no fault with him
whatsoever. So he says, I'm going to chastise him and release him,
I'm going to release them, I don't find fault in him. And then the
Jewish mob, they say, No, you have to Crucify Him, Crucify Him. And
then they say to him, may his blood be upon us and and on our
descendants after us. Right? And then Pilate takes a basin of
water, and he washes his hands and he says, I am free and clear of
the blood of this innocent man. So this one verse here, right, this
one statement mentioned in Matthew chapter 27, verse 25, this was
sort of the cue for a lot of anti Jewish sentiment in Christian
Europe, that the Jews basically according to this verse, curse
themselves, that if they don't believe in Eastside A salaam, that
his blood, his death, the responsibility of killing a
prophet is upon him, upon the Jews, the typhus who said, this,
the high priest, and all the Jews after him. So there was a movie
made called The Passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson in 2004. Very
controversial movie, it was seen as very anti semitic, anti Jewish.
And what's interesting about this movie, and I don't know if a lot
of people caught this, but I caught this is when this scene is
played out in the movie, everything is translated, Pilate
washing his hands, because the movie is in Aramaic, it's also in
Latin. But when Caiaphas says, May His blood be upon us, and on those
after us, Mel Gibson decided not to translate that part, you just
sort of hear it in the background, for obvious reasons, it would have
caused a great stir, right for him to reproduce this curse, that chi
F is pronounced upon all of the Jews. So you don't see it actually
translated, but you can actually hear it. And if you understand
Aramaic, you would understand what the actor actually said. During
that part of the movie.
Of course, in 1974, the Roman Catholic Church officially
apologized to the Jews, and pardon them for deicide right for the
killing of God. And of course, time and again, we have
Christians clashing with Jews in medieval Europe. We talked about
this as well. We said that most of the great systematic theologians
of Judaism came from Muslim Spain Muslim countries. They wrote an
Arabic My Montes, the guide of the perplexed, his masterpiece was
written in Arabic, Bahia Ibn Pakula, he wrote an Arabic a great
systematic theologian, right Rashi you know, he's a European Jew.
Many of these filo Saudia who translated the, the Old Testament
into Arabic, he wrote in Arabic, and his masterpieces are an
Arabic, they didn't really enjoy that freedom of religion until
Islamic Sharia was set into place. And they were considered to be
added kitab. But what we have with Jews living in Christian
countries, especially in medieval Europe, is you have terrible
things happening to them. Of course, we know in the 13th, the
14th century, there was the bubonic plague, which wiped out
1/3 of the populace of Europe. And at the time, the Christians had no
idea what was happening. Of course, it was, you know, rats and
it was fleas and things like that. And they noticed that the Jews
they weren't being killed by this plague. And the reason is because
the Jews
We have this idea, this concept of Tahara. They make listen, they
make wudu. These types of things, they keep clean. And the
Christians at that time, they didn't have these types of things.
Apparently that's why there was so much disease. But the Jews, they
weren't dying. So of course, then the Christians, they escaped go to
the Jews and say, Oh, that's because the Jews have cursed us.
That's why we're dying. So in Strasburg, Germany, on Valentine's
Day, it's called the Valentine's Day Massacre. On July, February
14 1349 1000. Jews, men, women and children are burned alive, they
were told to convert or die. So eventually the Jews were
scapegoated, even for the Black Plague.
Of course, on September 12 1553, Pope Julius the third ordered all
Talmudic literature to be burned. Many Tom woods at this time, were
also censored. The main reason for this is because of what the Talmud
actually says about Ysidro salaam, the Babylonian Gomorrah mentions
very disparaging, disrespectful things about him, and Maryam it is
Salam. So they were censored, many of them were burned. What's also
very interesting about this is that 1952, the Revised Standard
Version of the Bible came out in America, Revised Standard Version
of the Bible. So this is a revision of the traditional King
James Version.
And the 1952, Revised Standard Version was based on much earlier
manuscripts than the 1611, King James Version. But it was very
controversial, primarily because the only verse in the entire New
Testament that explicitly mentions the Trinity was taken out of the
1952, Revised Standard Version. And here's the King James Version,
right. And you notice how it's read on the edges here, and it's
kind of faded. But in 1952, the Revised Standard Version had that
redness to it as well. And of course, this started this whole
conspiracy theory about this is a communist Bible. And it was done
by communist and it was a witch hunt for these communists in the
streets of America. But nonetheless, this is the King
James Version of the Bible. And if you read the first epistle of
John, chapter five, verse seven, in this King James Version, it
says, There are three the best record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one. So this is
very clearly a reference and
an explicit reference to the Trinity that's found in the New
Testament. But the 1952 Revised Standard Version removed these
verses or changed them significantly. So what we have
here now is the critical Greek edition. This is the actual New
Testament now what's going on in the English. This is what the
scholars are putting out there and revising from time to time.
There's 27 versions now of Nestle, Allen's critical Greek edition.
This is what the verse sounds like, in this United Bible
Society. It says,
verse seven, it says, There are three that bear witness and then
suddenly moves. The verse eight in the Greek says, top Pineau, Amma
chi taco door Keita Hamer que hoy today's a stool Hain Asin.
There are three that bear witness the spirit, the water, and the
blood. And these three are one, very, very different than the
Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, right? Spirit, water and
blood, meaning you have spirit in your body, you have water, you
have blood, and these are all one and their submission to God, very,
very different than the father of the Word, the Holy Ghost. And
these three are one.
Why am I mentioning this is because when this 1952, Revised
Standard Version of the Bible came out, Christians were buying them
up and then burning them in the streets of America, all around
America, especially in the Bible Belt, you'd go to bookstores,
Christians are buying them up and then going out in the street and
burning them all. Very, very interesting. In fact, the, the
head of the Committee of the Revised Standard Version of the
Bible, in 1952, Dr. Bruce Metzger, he, quite
regularly would receive a package on his office door, and he'd open
it into be a bowl of ashes. Right? So the Christians are burning his
Bible translation, been sending him the ashes, right as a threat.
And then he was asked by a reporter one time, what do you
think about this? And he said, well, at least now, they're
burning translations and not translators. That was his comment.
Because if you go back again into medieval Europe, even as late as
1525, of the Common Era, William Tyndale, the first man ever to
translate the Bible, from Sacred languages into English, right.
This is in England, translated the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into
English. He was tortured and burned at the stake for making a
translation. That's all he did.
Should you never apostate Did you simply do the translation, but the
church's grip was so intense that they didn't want any laity to read
what the Bible had to say. They wanted to just give them
portions of the Bible on Sunday to think about not read the entire
Bible. So this was happening in America.
Of course, you have the Jews being expelled from England and 1290 and
happened twice in France and 15 1315 to 39 before Austria and
1421, Spain and 1492.
With the Inquisitors, you might want to put it to be just before
that time, he writes in his diary, he says, These Christians are
coming in. They're calling me Diablo Diablo. I don't know what's
going on here. What is Diablo? Of course Diablo means satan. That's
what they were calling a moment to be Rahim Allah to Allah. So that's
another theme of the Gospel of Matthew. So these are the major
themes. Jesus is the open teacher. There's Christological typologies.
Matthew performs Midrashim. And the gospel is very anti Jewish as
well.
So the Christological aim, then, is to prove that Jesus is the
Messiah, and that he fulfills all of the Old Testament, right
sometimes in Matthew's overzealousness, to prove that a
Saudi Salam is a fulfillment of all of the prophecies of the Old
Testament. Sometimes Matthew will make a mistake. For example, when
Judas Iscariot, the man who supposedly betrayed Eastside a
Salam, right, and sold them out for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew
says that this is what Jeremiah prophesized Jeremiah, but Matthew
is citing the wrong verse. This is not in Jeremiah, this is in
Zechariah, chapter 11, verses 12 through 13. So Matthew here makes
a mistake. So then Matthew cannot be inspired by God here. So the
Christians, again, most of them, they don't hold to this belief
anymore, that the Bible is the inerrant Word for word literal
word of God. Only Christians that are very literalist fundamental
type of evangelical Christians will actually believe that about
the Bible, because it's been demonstrated to be false, that the
Bible is literal word for word, the word of God is not the system
of Verba of God, because Matthew makes mistakes. If Matthew
believed that the gospel of Mark was the Word of God, certainly he
wouldn't edit portions of Mark's gospel while he was writing his
own gospel. We'll talk more about that in a minute. Also, Matthew,
in chapter 12,
of the book of Matthew, He says that Eastside a Salam is a
fulfillment of the great prophet of Isaiah chapter 42. Right, so
Isaiah chapter 42 says, When IDF Maqbool, he clearly that's enough,
she Behold my servant,
the one in whom my soul delights. So and then it goes on to say that
this servant of Isaiah chapter 42, he will bring the message of God
to the cataracts, right to the tribes of $1. And feather is the
descendant of a smile it is, these are Arabs, the cataracts are
Arabs. So this is not applied to a Saudi Salam. But Matthew, and
chapter 12. He says, Indeed, Isaiah chapter 42, is a servant of
God. And the light to the Gentiles is indeed a Saudi Salam. And he
doesn't give a lot of reasons why he believes that. Finally, Matthew
chapter two, verse 23, Matthew says that Jesus is from the city
of Nazareth, so that it was fulfilled what was written by the
prophets, He shall be called the Nazarene. So Matthew here is
quoting something from the prophets from the Nadeem that
says, the Messiah shall be called a Nazarene. But this verse is
nowhere to be found anywhere in the Old Testament, whether inside
or outside the canon of the Old Testament, where does it say he
shall be called a Nazarene? It seems like Matthew simply invented
this verse to further solidify his belief that a Saudi Salam is the
Messiah and every single prophecy of the Old Testament is fulfilled
by a Saudi Salam. So, next time in sha Allah to Allah, we're going to
look at new characters in the Gospel of Matthew, we're going to
talk about the source of the Gospel of Matthew. And then from
there, we're going to do a quick look into some of the
Christological differences of opinion amongst the first four
centuries of Christians with regard to who was a scientist.
Well, suddenly, I'll say to Mohammed didn't bother me. He was
happy you sent them what hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen
speler monitor him salah, la Salah Muhammad, Allah Allah He was a
huge marine Subhanak Allah and Milena Ilana antenna in an animal
Hakeem Hola Hola, La Quwata
illa Billahi alila
Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh this class in sha
Allah to Allah, we're going to continue with looking at the
Gospel according to Matthew. Last time we had said that some of the
major themes of the Gospel of Matthew, is that Eastside they
said, Jesus Christ peace be upon him, is the open teacher, he is
the true Messiah. He is the supreme and true interpreter of
the Mosaic Law. We had also said that Matthew uses Christological
typology quite often in his Gospel. In other words, he will
interpret a story from the Old Testament to be a foreshadowing of
the birth or the life or the death of Isa idea Salam, from his
perspective. So over 100 times, from the Septuagint, from the
Greek translation of the Old Testament, Matthew will allude to
it, although actually quote from it. For Batum. We also said that
Matthew performs what's known as Midrashim, which is, he interprets
the text of the Old Testament with respect to an exoteric, as well as
esoteric dimension. This is related to what's known as halacha
and haggadah in Hebrew, respectively. We'd also said the
Gospel of Matthew is vehemently anti Jewish, in the sense that the
Christian community is the new Israel. And there's a very strong
supersession earnest, a sentiment in the Gospel of Matthew. So we
talked about those things. Last time, we'd also said that the
Christological aim of the Gospel of Matthew is to prove that a side
is Salam that Jesus Christ peace be upon him is the Messiah, he
fulfills all of the Old Testament prophecies. And Matthew will
downplay the immediate eschaton. That was such a major theme in the
Gospel of Mark, where Jesus says things like those who are standing
here will not taste death until they see the Son of man coming,
the present generation will live to see it all. And we had said as
well, that this idea of an immediate eschatology and
immediate end of time, this is something that the gospel of Mark,
the community that wrote the marketing gospel, this is
something that influenced them from the Pauline school of
thought, because Paul very clearly in his letters, and of course,
again, this class is not about Paul, and the letters and
epistles. But if we're going to talk about the Gospels, Paul is
indispensable because he highly influenced these communities that
authored these gospels. And in a central theme in the letters of
Paul is an immediate Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Again, Paul says
that people shouldn't even worry about getting married because
there's no time, we're going to be transformed and the twinkling of
an eye caught up in the clouds of the Lord, and with the Lord, and
so on and so forth. So the source now of the Gospel of Matthew, so
he had said last time, most scholars believe in what's known
as a two source theory, the two source theory assumes marking
priority that Mark wrote first around 70 of the Common Era. And
then Matthew and Luke, they used Mark's gospel as their skeleton.
So if you look at Gospel of Matthew, Then he has three sources
that he's using. He's, of course, using Mark's gospel. So we use the
analogy of last time I imagined Matthew is sitting at his desk, he
has on his desk, the gospel of Mark, right, he also has on his
desk, the Q source document, right, so remember, Q, which
represents the unknown quella in German. This is a source that
Matthew and Luke had that Mark did not. This explains what's known as
the Synoptic Problem, which is, you know, the interdependency of
the three gospel authors, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Why does Luke and
Matthew have material in common that is missing from Mark. So
scholars have surmised, there must have been another source that
Matthew and Luke had, that Mark did not or mark rejected.
Remember, the gospel of Mark is basically the the oral Kerygma, or
the oral proclamation, the oral tradition of the Hellenistic
churches that were founded by Paul, that Mark sort of strung
together and made into a narrative. Right. So then,
Matthew, He takes Mark's skeleton or his skeletal narrative and
about 80% of Mark has been incorporated into the Gospel of
Matthew it is his narrative frame. We also have the Q source
document, integrated into the Gospel of Matthew and of course,
some of the
some of the material that's found in queue source is the ministry of
John the Baptist, the sermon on the mount the Beatitudes, various
parables, Peric hippies that are given by a silencer. And the
interesting thing is, none of the material in the Q source document
contradicts anything that the Quran or Hadith say about the
Prophet Isa today. Salaam
So that could actually represent the true E, G. And when we say in
G with a capital I, L in G, not these energy, but what was the
true gospel given to a Saturday so that possibly the Q source
document, of course, nothing physical has ever been found.
Again, this is a theory, but it's a highly developed theory. And
it's a theory that's very popular amongst New Testament scholars
that there was a queue dot source document, because this is the only
thing that really explains why Matthew and Luke have so much
material in common almost verbatim that Mark did not they must have
had access to another source. And again, we can sort of reconstruct
what cute contained by looking at the similarities between Matthew
and Luke. And another thing we mentioned last time as well is
that most scholars will actually date the Q source document to
about 55. Or, or earlier, some even say in the 40s. And if it's
dated to the 40s, that means that it's not been influenced it was
not influenced by Pauline dogmatism or Paul's interpretation
of the gospel of Isa de Salaam. So it's very, very primitive and very
uncorrupted. If this document could ever be found, it would be
very, very interesting to analyze it. But so far, nothing has been
found. And of course, the Vatican has 55 miles of shelf space. So we
have no idea what they have buried there in the Vatican vault, maybe
they have something similar to this a local item. So Matthew,
then on his desk, he has the gospel of Mark, he has accusers
document, and he might have another document as well, because
member Matthew also have also has material in his gospel that is not
found in any other gospel. Right, no other gospel contains
this material which is called M. Right, M material special
Mathieson material. For example, Matthew chapter seven, verse 21,
when he when Jesus says, On that day, many will come to me and say,
Master, master to be not prophesizing, your name and cast
out demons. We mentioned this last time as well, that's only found in
the Gospel of Matthew. So either Matthew has a third
source, a physical manuscript of some sort, or this is oral
tradition, right that he has, that he is remembered from his
community. So we don't know exactly. Now Matthews edits and
redactions. So this is very interesting, because most
Christians will say that the gospel of Mark is the word of God,
it's inspired by God. And again, we make a difference between
inspiration and revelation, or as we say, as Muslims. The Quran is
the revelation of God in the sense that the Prophet salallahu Salam
is simply repeating what he is hearing
in the form of Arabic, that he is not interested, he is not
articulating the inspiration himself. We would call that
hadith, the Quran or literally the word spoken by God the system of
Verba of Allah subhanho wa Taala that the prophets of Allah the
Salam is simply a vessel by which Allah subhanaw taala speaks to us
through him. So every single
sentence, every single kalima every half of the Quran was chosen
by especially by Allah subhanho wa taala. This is what we believe
about the Quran. So then we said, studying the syntax of the Quran
is part of the process of commenting then upon the Quran,
but what we have with the Gospel of Mark is basically like our
interpretation of hadith is that Christians believe Mark was
inspired by the Holy Spirit, and then through his own mind, and
through his own heart, he would try to articulate that
inspiration. Now, if Matthew believed that certainly he would
faithfully represent or reproduce what Mark was inspired to write by
the Holy Spirit. In fact, that's not the case. We find Matthew time
and again, redacting, revising what he has, as far as the gospel
of Mark just a few examples of this in Mark chapter one, we are
told that you saw a Salam He cleanses a leper, right, this man
who had leprosy obvious very,
very dangerous and very contagious. skin disease. It says
in the Gospel of Mark that Eastside a Salam he was moved by,
or geese face. This is the Greek word that's used by Mark or
distaste means that Jesus was moved by anger and wrath, and he
finally decided to clean the man or the cleanser to heal the man.
Matthew changes this word completely and says he was moved
by compassion. So Matthew reproduces this Peric up for Mark
chapter one in Matthew chapter eight, but he removes this word
that he found to be problematic. So this is an example of Mark
redact of Matthew redacting. Mark. If Matthew believed that Mark was
inspired by God, certainly he wouldn't redact a text that was
inspired by God. Of course, as we had said, again, none of the four
gospel authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John explicitly
mentioned, that they're being inspired by anyone to write
anything. Actually Luke at the beginning of his gospel, called
the preamble and that's our next gospel. We'll get to
In a few minutes in sha Allah, Luke actually gives his reasons
why he writes his gospel. It has nothing to do with being inspired
by the Holy Ghost or by God or anyone. We'll get to that in sha
Allah to Allah. But another example of Matthew's edits and
redactions are the marking text. In Mark chapter three, this is the
perfect copy of the man with the withered hand. And Mark says that
Jesus looked around with anger and grieved at the hardness of their
hearts. So in Matthew chapter 12, Matthew completely removes this
entire line from the narrative again, he found it very
problematic that Jesus can become angry, that He is complaining
about people that sort of against the Christology that Matthew wants
to convey about a Silius to them because he saw a salaam, his
MACOM, if you will, is growing and growing and growing amongst these
gospels, there's an evolution of Christology. Right? In the Gospel
of Mark again, we have Jesus as the suffering Prophet, the hidden
Messiah, right? His Passion narrative is somewhat pathetic.
It's a very anemic Christology in the Gospel of Mark. And then
suddenly, in Matthew, he's the open Messiah, right, and Matthew
begins to make these edits of the marking,
narrative,
reforming a silenced character, making him more like a demigod
than a than a prophet. And then we get to Luke and then we get to
John, and John, obviously, is the crescendo of Christology. And
that's the that's the book The Gospel of John, that had the most
profound influence on Orthodox Christianity, more than any other
book of the New Testament, the Gospel of John, and that's the
gospel, we're going to be looking at, in future classes, Inshallah,
to Allah, we're going to spend several classes looking at the
Gospel of John, because of its extreme importance to understand
Orthodox Christianity.
And then another example of a mat Muthi. An edit of a mark in Peric,
could be happens in Matthew chapter nine. So in Matthew,
chapter nine, Matthew is taking the story of Jarius, his daughter,
whom Jesus raised from the dead, and Matthew basically cuts the
entire narrative in half. Right? Because he found mark to be a
little too wordy. Again, if Matthew believes that Mark's
narrative is the word of God, certainly he wouldn't do something
like that. And finally, in Matthew, chapter 15, Matthew, He
reproduces the healings that Mark describes in Mark chapter seven.
And Mark describes these healings with 65 Greek words. So it's
somewhat long, the process of the healings How did a silent Salam,
according to Mark, heal people, according to Mark, he would put
his fingers in their ears, he would use his saliva, right? He
would, you know, spit in their face, and rub his saliva on their
faces because the the the saliva of a prophet has healing
properties, as mentioned in a hadith as well, you would touch
their tongues if they were mute, and they would speak again. So
Matthew doesn't like any of these details. So he takes these 65
words, and he makes it into three words, he says, Kai, a thorough,
pale son outdoors, he simply says, and he healed them. Right? So
again, Matthew is trimming down, paring down these marking Peric
cuppies, you find some too wordy, you find some unnecessary, let's
get on to bigger and better things. Don't worry about the
process of the healing. Let's just talk about what he actually did.
He just healed them. So these details are not important for the
Gospel of Matthew.
Now, what's interesting now, if we talk about textual criticism, so
we talked about, you know, there's different types of criticisms in
the New Testament, this is called the HCM, the historical critical
method. So this really began in the 19th century in Germany, you
have redaction criticism, source criticism, form, criticism,
textual criticism, something we touched upon, in previous classes,
I believe. This is when you actually study the text itself and
try to determine what is the original reading of the text, if
you have two different texts, you have a contradiction, for example.
So we have this issue in the Hadith. For example, if there's
Hadith that that seemed to contradict one another, the aroma
will try to make Jamaat they'll try to harmonize the account.
Right. So we mentioned last time, for example, one Hadith says a
Prophet salallahu Salam, he had his chest split, and his heart was
washed when he was a child. Another tradition says that this
happened when he was an adult, just before the later till is
Surah El Mirage. So is this a contradiction? The ultimate say,
Well, it happened twice, right? Or if one is a stronger tradition,
then you give that one to God. You give it preponderance, you give it
priority. So with the Gospel of Matthew, we have something
interesting in Matthew chapter 24, verse 36, it's Jesus. It is seldom
as reported to have said, he said of that day, no, with no man, not
the angels, not even the Son, but only the Father. Right. And
remember, again, we can't stress this enough, that when acla Salam
talks about the Father in heaven,
He's not talking about his his literal father who begat him. This
comes much later in the church, St. John's and Ecumenical Councils
in the fourth century this, this definition of God being the
literal father of Jesus, who begat Jesus, He didn't create him. This
was articulated much, much later. We're talking about first century
Palestine. In that context. God was the father of Bani Israel,
even in a metaphorical sense, again, Isaiah chapter 64, verse
16, one of the prayers of the prophet Isaiah is at ta I deny a
view You are the Lord our father. So no Jewish rabbi in the history
of Judaism has ever said that God is our literal father, or God is a
literal father of the Messiah. This is a Christian idea that does
not really come to fruition, in its orthodox sense, until about
the fourth century of the Common Era. So don't let this kind of
language in the New Testament sort of dilute you and say, Oh, this is
this is immediate call for how can we even read these types of
things, when Jesus of that day knoweth, no man, not the angels,
not even the sun, when he refers to himself as the sun. This is
simply a messianic title in the first century. First of all, any
Jew who was a practicing Jew,
is called the Son of God. In the book of Psalms, chapter 82, verse
six, it says, Kula cam, all of you are B'nai and yon, you are all
sons of the Most High God. Again, this was not literal, right?
Battle, a battle Mokra Moon as the Quran says, they say God has sons.
No, they're just servants raised to honor that was the point of it
in the Old Testament, but because this concept of filial love father
and son, mother and son, mother and daughter, this concept was
corrupted over time. Therefore, the Quran refrains from using that
analogy, because the Christian started saying things like Jesus
is the literal begotten Son of God. And this obviously, is very
clearly repudiated in the Quran. lamea lit well, and you let in
many and many other places, in the Quran as well. Anyway, so getting
back to this verse 2436, of Matthew, He says, of that day, the
day of judgment, nobody knows, not, not the angels, who day he is
not even the sun, referring to himself. So, so this appears in
very early manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew, but later
manuscripts actually have that part removed from the text. It's
removed from the text because scribes of the proto orthodox
persuasion, those who had come to, to articulate Trinitarian
positions, they didn't like the fact that a Sunday Salam doesn't
know the day of judgment. So they had it removed. So textual
criticism, what does it do? It looks at what's known as external
evidence. That's the first kind of thing they look at textual
critics, what is external evidence? external evidence is do
other gospels record the saying of esign A salaam? If it does, then
we could probably establish multiple attestation. So if if
Matthew has two different readings of the same verse, right, like one
one of them says, The sun doesn't know one of them says this, one of
them doesn't say that at all. The action, that part has been
removed. What do we do? How do we know which one is the true one?
Well, what does Mark say? Because Mark predates the Gospel of
Matthew, and in Mark chapter 13, verse 32, that's exactly what it
says that the sun does not know, the Day of Judgment. So from the
standpoint of external evidence, it seems like the reading where it
says oh day Haha, yes, not even the sun seems to be the more
authentic reading.
And then you look at something called internal evidence. So
Textual Criticism again, you look at external evidence, other
manuscripts, other gospels, how is the reading preserved? Right? Is
it a popular reading? What does Mark say about it? What does Luke
say about it was John say about it, if anything, and then you look
at internal evidence, and internal evidence has two categories. The
first one is called intrinsic probabilities. Intrinsic
probabilities means you have to look at Matthew himself, his his
vocabulary, his theology, right? Which reading seems to be more in
line with how Matthew presents Jesus. Right? So which one is it?
Is it that the sun does not know? Or that the sun knows the Day of
Judgment? Well, in Matthew, chapter 21, it says that Jesus
doesn't know and fig trees are in and out of season. So this idea
that Jesus doesn't know a few things is already mentioned in the
Gospel of Matthew. So again, this gives support to the idea to the
to the theory that the original reading is the correct reading,
that who de haut we should be in that verse that Jesus simply does
not know the day of judgment. And then you look at something called
transcriptional probabilities. transcriptional probabilities
means okay if the scribe added it or
took it away. Why did the scribe do that? And we touched upon that
earlier. Why would the scribe reading Matthew take out that one
clause that says Jesus does not know the day of judgment? The
reason why he would do that is again, because at this point,
probably in the late second century, early third century,
there's a strong trend to deify a Sunday, so not to say he was a
divine being, he's not just a prophet, he's not just the
Messiah, that he's actually the son of God. In fact, He is God. So
they found that verse problematic. It explicitly says, Who day haha
yes, not even the son knows the day of judgment. So that was
removed from the text. So this is called textual criticism. So that
ends our, our look at the Gospel of Matthew, we're going to move on
now to the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of Luke is called Cutter
loucon, according to Luke, Luke actually wrote in two volumes. So
there's the Gospel of Luke. And then there's the book of Acts A C
T. S. This is called another Russell, the Acts of the Apostles
Russell here meaning the disciples of Sid Salaam. So the book of Acts
is sort of the early ecclesiastical or early church
history, the history of the Sahaba, if you will, a very
Silius.
It's the fifth book of the New Testament. So Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John. And then you have the book of Acts or apostolic history,
you know, how did the movement go from Jerusalem, a small movement
to Rome, right? So the book of Acts, it basically ends with Paul
going into Rome, and falls short of explaining how he actually had
died. But now the the message of East LA salon basically goes
global, right? That's the book of Acts. Getting back to the Gospel
of Luke. However, the gospel of Luke who is Luke, Luke is a pupil
of Paul, this is the Christian claim that Luke studied with Paul
and of course, Paul, is the messenger to the Gentiles, right,
as also is the Christian claim. This is highly unlikely, however,
because Luke never mentions any of Paul's letters in the loop or x,
right, which is very strange that if someone studies under somebody,
he doesn't mention any of his principal letters or
correspondences that he had with the churches that he founded.
Also, sometimes Luke's account of certain events is different than
Paul's account of certain events. For example, Paul's conversion,
the details of Paul's conversion in the desert on the way to
Damascus, there's different versions of it, Luke and Paul seem
to be in disagreement at some time. Therefore, just like Matthew
and Luke, and John as well, most scholars will say the Gospel of
Luke is anonymous. No one knows who wrote the Gospel of Luke, it
was sort anonymously ascribed
to a student of Paul later on, and of course, Irenaeus,
the church, the early church, father and Bishop of Lyon in
France, he was the first one to really name these four gospels,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, before that time, they were
anonymous. And then he thought that they need to have some
apostolic credibility. So he named them, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John. Where was the gospel written? We don't know. It's
unknown, possibly in Antioch, possibly in Ephesus. There's
difference of opinion about that, of course, these are places where
Pauline influence was heavy. But we'll see, however, that there's
something that Luke believes about Jesus that Paul totally disagrees
with, we'll get to that in a minute. Very, very interesting. In
sha Allah, we'll get to that. When was the gospel written? Most
scholars say about 85 to 90 of the Common Era. So this is after the
destruction of the Second Temple. So remember, the temple of
Jerusalem was destroyed by Gen, Titus, and 70 of the Common Era.
The temple was never to be rebuilt. Again, that's around the
time that Mark wrote his gospel. Therefore Mark, is very
apocalyptic is very, it's very eschatological Mark believes the
end of time is going to come any minute just based on what's going
on, around him what happened in Jerusalem, the natural disasters,
so on and so forth. Then Matthew wrote a few years later, and
finally Luke, around 85 to 90 of the Common Era. So the Christian
movement is in somewhat disarray during this time, but it is
starting to grow and is starting to enter into the Gentile lands,
and the congregations are beginning to grow. Who is the
gospel for?
New Testament scholars will say that it's written for Gentile
Christians dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. Now, I want you
to turn to the Gospel of Luke at the beginning, because here's
Luke's preamble, and it's very, very revealing because no other
gospel author really gives his intention.
As to why he wrote his gospel, maybe except for the Gospel of
John, at the end of the Gospel of John, he says these things were
written, because some people say all these things are history, and
they're trying to present accurate history, history is very much
secondary to the gospel authors. They're writing their history
through the lens of theology. I mean, this is theological history.
They're not trying to present historical facts and figures,
there is some of that happening. But by and large, they're trying
to write theological history. So. So John, he actually says, the
point of all of this is that, so that you might know that Jesus is
the Son of God, not that he was crucified in truth, or that he
lived in certain dates, and that those things are secondary, for
the authors of the Gospels. So you really can't separate.
You know, you can't separate history from theology when
studying these gospels, these gospels are thoroughly drenched in
theology. And that's the point of view from which they were written.
Anyway, so the Gospel of Luke, He says, here in as much as many have
taken in hand, to set an order a narrative of those things which
have been fulfilled amongst us. So what is he talking about here?
Luke is saying, many people have written about what I'm about to
write about. What is he about to write him he's about to do a
gospel of Jesus Christ of Eastside, a sinner, and you Luke
uses the word many the Greek heroes polloi. Like we get the
word polytheism. Many, right, so we have to ask ourselves, there
are many gospels at this time when Luke is writing, what what is he
talking about which gospels, the only ones we know of? Right? From
an Orthodox Christian perspective, is the gospel of Mark. Yes, he had
that. He had Q, which can be called the sayings gospel, but he
did not have Matthew. So that's only that's only two gospels. So
what is Luke taught? So this is evidence here, that at Luke's time
85 to 90 of the Common Era, there were many gospels that were
floating around, right? This is very revealing that where are all
these gospels? What did they contain? We know that there was a
gospel according to the urbanites, we know there was a gospel
according to the Hebrews. These are from the Jewish Christian
perspective, the perspective of James Soni and Christianity, but
these books are lost today. We know that they existed, though,
because proto Orthodox Church Fathers would quote from them in
the refutations of them, and their polemical works. Is this what Luke
is talking about? If so, these are very early gospels then. Right? We
have no idea. In reality, what Luke is talking about when he says
there are many gospels, because from again, an orthodox
perspective,
it's only mark and Q at this point. So that's interesting.
Keep, keep that in mind. And then he says, just as those who were
from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers to the
word delivered amongst us, it seemed good to me also, he says in
a Greek doc said, Come Moy, Catholics, us soy, grubs, sigh,
which means literally, it seemed like a good idea to me to write
this gospel. So this is Luke's intention. Luke is saying, it just
seems like a good idea. He's not saying, you know, I'm being
inspired by the Holy Ghost. You know, God came to me in a dream or
vision or awakened state. And he said to me, oh, Luke, you have to
write the gospel of Jesus Christ. No, he's saying, it seems like a
good idea to me to write a gospel of Jesus Christ. He says, having
had perfect understanding of all things, from the very first to
write to you in orderly account, most excellent Theopolis. So this
is very, very interesting. Luke here is saying that this gospel is
actually a letter that he's writing to a man named Theopolis.
Right. So who is the office? So different opinions about this?
So one opinion, a strong opinion, the stronger opinion is that the
office is some sort of Roman official who wants to know about a
Saudi Salam. So he, he hires Luke, who's a physician, right? Luke is,
is traditionally known as a physician. And Luke obviously can
do things more orderly, as he says, then a bunch of fishermen
and you know, a bunch of tax collectors like the previous
gospel authors.
So he because he's more educated, so he pays Luke to write this
gospel. So Theopolis could be Luke's patron. Right? And this is
a letter that he wrote to the Oculus. Another opinion, which is
an interesting opinion, is that this this is this is a dedication
to Theopolis not as a literal person, but the awfulness in the
sense that because the name Theopolis means a lover of God.
Right? So maybe Luke here is saying to you
As a reader, if you're a lover of God, then this gospel is for you.
And that's a very interesting interpretation. But the first
opinion is the strongest, that there's an actual man named
Theopolis, a certain individual who probably patronized Luke, and
therefore Luke is writing his gospel because he was hired by
Theopolis. To do so, some new characters that are mentioned in
the Gospel of Luke, we have Elizabeth and Zechariah. Mentioned
Elizabeth, is the mother of Yeah, it is set up. She is the mother of
John the Baptist, according to the Gospel of Luke. And Zachariah is
the priest, who is the father of John the Baptist, according to the
Gospel of Luke, both are aged in childless. So Isaac then become
sort of this typology of John the Baptist. So remember, the story of
Isaac is mentioned Book of Genesis. It's also mentioned a few
times in the Quran like surah. Hood, in which we are told that
Surah it has Salam, the mother of Isaac was very, very old at the
time the angels came to her home, and he brought him at a salaam
obviously was there, and then they told her she was going to give
birth for diecut. And she laughed. And interestingly enough, the name
Yitzchok in Hebrew is actually in hock in Arabic, the haircut, your
Haku. To laugh, right? That's what his name actually means. In
Hebrew, his name means laughter. So because for decades, she
laughed, Sada said I'd use him or her the valley share her, you
know, in the heather Shea with a jeep. I'm an old woman, my husband
is an old man, this is a
wonderful, strange thing. She said to the angels. Right? So Isaac
then is sort of this typology of John the Baptist. So Elizabeth and
Zechariah, also were aged, they were childless. So according to
Luke, then John is like the link between Israel's past and future
blessings in Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. So then Jacob then is
because Jacob is the son of Isaac. Jacob is then seen as sort of this
typology of a side a some foreshadowing of Esau, this and
um, Jacob had 12 sons that represent the 12 tribes of Israel.
And of course, a Salah Salem, according to the Gospels, has 12
disciples, also new characters in the Gospel of Luke, we have in
Matthew, in Matthew, we had the Holy Spirit coming to Mary Maryam
Alia Salaam and telling her that the Holy Spirit will come upon
you. So she was inspired, that the Holy Spirit come upon you, and you
shall give birth to a son, and shall name his name Jesus. It says
that was the Holy Spirit. But in the Gospel of Luke, it says that
an angel came to marry her uncle us. Gabrielle, the angel Gabriel
came to Maryam Anna his Salam. So if we were to harmonize these two
accounts, because it seems again, like there's a contradiction here,
the Gospel of Matthew, it says that it was the Holy Spirit who
announced to Maryam that she was going to have a son. In the Gospel
of Luke, it says it was an angel named Gabriel. So how do we
harmonize these two accounts? Is there a contradiction? No, it's
very clear that the rules are not what those are Rua Kadosh. That's
mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, this is uberlandia Sadam.
It simply means that an angel came and announced that we've audited
Metallica to Yama, Yama, it says in Sudan in Milan on sort of
medium that it says that an angel came to her in the form of a man,
and she was afraid, right, who is this man coming near me. So she
said, Get away if you fear almost violence, and he said, Don't be
afraid. I'm only here to give you glad tidings of a pure and holy
son. So this is very interesting that the angel here, or the Holy
Spirit, as it were, is identified by Luke as being Gabriel. Also
another new character and Luke is Simeon. Simeon has mentioned early
in the Gospel of Luke as a just man, he is a Pharisee. He
foretells Jesus's and Messiah ship as a revelation to the Gentiles.
So he's somewhat of a prophetic figure, and keep this kind of
theme in mind as well. When we look at the Gospel of Luke, God,
the gospel of Luke, the author of Luke is trying to really
universalize the message of ESA lesson. So you had the gospel of
Mark, right, the Messianic secret, which sort of helped helps explain
why the gospel wasn't spread so much. It wasn't very popular. The
Gospel of Matthew Jesus says I was only sent into the lost sheep of
the house of Israel. So as message is more tailored almost
exclusively to Bani Israel, but in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is seen
as sort of like this light to the Gentiles. More universe
So, in his message, we'll talk more about that later, inshallah
Tada. We also have the sisters, Mary and Martha, that are
introduced to us in the Gospel of Luke. This is not Mary, the mother
of a Saudi Saddam, these are the sisters of Lazarus. Lazarus is
apparently a friend of Eastside esalaam. That's mentioned the
Gospel of Luke in the Gospel of John. He's actually raised from
the dead. But he says to them, in John chapter 11. And finally, we
have Herod and tapas mentioned in the Gospel of Luke mentioned
during the Passion narrative of Luke's gospel. So in the Gospel of
Matthew and Mark, there's no mention that a Salvation Army was
taken to Herod, he was simply taken to Caiaphas, the high priest
of the Sanhedrin. Right, so it's more localized. But here Herod
Antipas, who is Herod Antipas, Herod Antipas, is the Roman
appointed kind of king of Judea. Right? So he's a Roman puppet. So
Luke here he wants to aggrandized the Jesus event, the Passion
narrative, that this has global implications, right, that this is
touching upon Rome as well, not just kind of a localized thing
that happened in the temple with the high priest and a few and a
few people. And then there was a crucifixion know that Jesus was
actually taken to Herod and tapas, the sort of Roman political
leader, the Roman puppet, a Jew by religion, but in the back pocket
of the Roman Empire, and Herod will and will interrogate Ysidro
salaam as well, again, this sort of universalize is our grand dies
is the message of the gospel. And that's an important theme for
Luke.
And so major concepts that are found in the Gospel of Luke, we
have an extension of Israel's blessings to the world. Right? So
John's successor, who is Jesus is seen as like the pivot by which
history is now turning. So Matthew had this very strong kind of anti
Jewish supersessionism, the Jews had been replaced and they're
done. And member kaifa said, May His blood be upon us and upon our
descendants after us, right, the Jews have sort of been replaced,
and sort of forsaken by God, at this point and cursed by God,
according to Matthew's apparent understanding, but Luke sort of
softens the image on the Jews and says, No, Israel's blessings are
now extended to the rest of humanity. And Jesus is sort of
that axis by which the world sort of pivoted. And this is
interesting because theologians and scholars of religion
historians of religion, they talked about certain epics in
history that are known as axial ages, right an axial age. This
this term was first coined by a German philosopher named Jasper's
Karl Jasper's, he called it ash insight, which means access time.
So for example, the time between 900 Before the Common Era, and
200, before the Common Era, that 700 year span there, that's known
as the Great Axial Age. That's also during the the Iron Age. What
happened during that time, is you have a massive increase in
violence in the world because of iron weaponry. Right? And you have
these massive, huge coercive,
tyrannical governments all over the world that are now declaring
war on people and oppressing people. And there is massive
oppression and loss, sensuousness and all of these types of things.
So it's really interesting during this time, you have these axial
sages and profits springing up all over the world, really from five
distinct geographical locations. And those prophets and sages,
their teachings still reverberate to this day. The vast majority of
humanity today is still swayed by what happened during that Axial
Age. For example, you have in India, you have the dharmic,
faiths with stretch, ortho praxis, right doing the right thing.
Dharma means orthopraxy is the right action to be compassionate,
to be merciful. You have the emergence of the Buddha during
this time, whose name is Siddhartha Gautama, who was a
model of compassion, who told people that you need to be people
have mercy and compassion. And that the the first noble truth is
that the world is in a state of suffering. And the reason for that
suffering is hurt. But dunya he said, It's Thanh Ha which means
attachment or selfish craving. So he's kind of reacting to what's
going on during this time in the Axial Age. And then you have
Maha Maha Vera, also the founder of Jainism, who is a contemporary
of, of the Buddha in India. And then you have in Persia you have
the emergence of Zorro Aster during this time, and zero after
he stressed on, you know, good thoughts, good words and good
deeds, and then you have in China
China, Confucius and Lao Tzu. And Confucius this idea of Jen the je
n, which means goodness, or love or beauty, you can even translate
Ersan that you should have beauty and everything that you do. And
then you have in Greece, philosophical rationalism with
Socrates, and Plato and Aristotle during this time during this Axial
Age, they're about fifth century before the Common Era. And
finally, you have in Canaan, or in Palestine or in Israel, you have
the great prophets of Bani Israel. During this time, Elijah in ileus,
you have Ezekiel, you have Daniel, you have Jeremiah, you have Amos.
You have Hosea, and many, many more during this time. So this is
a time in which history pivoted right, a turning point in history.
So this is how Luke sees
that Jesus event that essentially Salaam is the pivot by which
history has now turned, that the blessings of Israel are now
extended to all of humanity. That's a major concept. Another
major concept in the Gospel of Luke is Jerusalem as sort of a
sacred stage, right Jerusalem. The Gospel of Luke is focused on
Jerusalem, not so much on Galilee. Right? Because again, Galilee at
the time northern Palestine, especially Nazareth is sort of his
backwater town that is not very well known. Some scholars actually
denied actually existed during that time, and that it's sort of
an anachronism to talk about Nazareth being in the first
century. But nonetheless, Jerusalem is something that Luke
concentrates on because again, he wants to aggrandized Eastside
acela, he wants to universalize right, this was the center, this
was the hub. This is where everything was happening. So
Jerusalem is quite frequently the, the great setting of the Gospel of
Luke, in fact, 10 chapters, Luke chapter nine, to 19, that's called
Luke's travel narrative, right. So basically, this is Jesus and his
disciples, making hijra, if you will, walking from Nazareth into
Jerusalem, and his teaching during this walk during their traveling
during this hijra, from north to south, Luke devotes 10 chapters to
just the travel narrative. And this material is not found in any
other gospel. This is special Luke and material, Luke chapter nine to
19. We'll talk about some of the the celebrated teachings of the
travel narrative a little bit later in Charlotte to Anna, also
it is in Jerusalem, where all of the post resurrection appearances
happen,
as well as the ascension into heaven. So remember here,
according to Matthew, the post resurrection appearances as well
as the ascension happened in Galilee, not in Jerusalem. So this
is a clear contradiction here, between Luke and Matthew, of
course, and Mark, Mark, the true ending of the gospel of Mark, if
you remember, was Mark chapter 16, verse eight, so no one actually
sees a resurrected Jesus, according to the Gospel of Mark,
the women go to the tomb, it's empty, they run away, and they're
afraid. But the angel inside the tomb, or rather, the young man, as
it's called, inside the tomb, they tell though he tells the women
that Jesus is not here, he's gone before you to Galilee, and that's
where you can meet him. He's in Galilee, Jesus is no longer in
Jerusalem, according to Mark and Matthew. But for Luke, Galilee is
not very important. It's Jerusalem, which is the center of
the hub of Judaism. This is where it has to happen. So according to
Luke, Jesus appears to His disciples several times in the
Gaza in the city of Jerusalem, and this is actually where he ascends
into heaven as well. So this is a clear contradiction between Luke
and Matthew or between Luke, and mark. The third major theme we
have here with the Gospel of Luke is a sort of a modified mark in
eschaton eschatology that Luke modifies mark an expectation of an
immediate end, to show that Jesus's work is continued by the
believing community in Luke chapter 19, the parable of the
talents that demonstrates that there's still some work to be done
here. So again, Luke, as well as Matthew, this sort of downplay
this idea that the end of time is imminent any day now, because
obviously, it didn't happen. Right? So again, Luke is riding
around 85 to 90 Mark believed around 70 that yes, the
destruction of the temple means that any day now it's going to be
over. So he's taking that from Paul, that's Pauline influence,
whereas Luke as well as Matthew, they downplay this idea if
The immediate end.
Another major concept of the Gospel of Luke, is this
exoneration of Gentiles, that the Gentiles are not guilty for doing
anything wrong, and neither is Jesus for that matter. So if you
look at Luke chapter 23, verse 17, this is the Roman centurion, when
he's at the site of the crucifixion, of course, in the
Gospel of Mark the Cinterion says, Truly this was this man was the
Son of God. And he uses that phrase, Son of God. Of course, a
Roman pagan, saying, Son of God, is very different than a Jew at
the time saying Son of God, because the Romans believed that
Zeus has many sons. And of course, that's a complete pagan theology
when compared to the theology of Benny's Surah eel, but here in
Luke 23, the Roman Centurion says something different. He says, in
the Greek, he says unto us, hot Anthropos, who ties the Kairos
ain, he says, Truly, this man was innocent, or this man was
righteous de chaos means innocent, righteous. He was just right. So
what is he doing here? The Roman centurion is exonerating Eastside
as and I'm saying he's not guilty of anything. Right? What's the
significance of that? We have to remember, at this time,
Christianity was seen by many Romans as a threat to the Empire,
that these Christians, they have these secret underground meetings,
where they're eating flesh, there was a lot of rumors about them,
that they were cannibals that they would engage in immoral practices
underground, and things like that. So there's a lot of variables
there a lot of unknowns about this small Christian group that sort of
infiltrating these Roman societies. So what does Luke do,
instead of having the Centurion Say, Indeed, this was the Son of
God, and make it more focused on theology. Luke says, No, I'm going
to have the century and say, Verily, this man was innocent, and
kind of focus it more on the political scene at the time, and
sort of quelling sort of this, this sort of fear that the Romans
had about the growing Christian movement. So that's very
interesting that Luke actually chooses that wording.
Also, there's an interesting verse when a citation when Jesus
apparently according to the Gospel of Luke, is on the cross. In Luke,
He says, Father, forgive them Patera face out toys for a Father
forgive them, for they know not what they're doing. Of course,
that verse and I think we've mentioned this in past classes, if
not, we'll mention that now again, because it's very important point,
that that verse of Jesus saying that is not part of Luke's
original Gospel. That verse was added much later by consensus of
New Testament textual critics. So Eastside a Salam, according to
Luke, he never actually said, Father, forgive them. What's the
point of him saying that is because there was a Christian
heretical movement known as Marcion ism, that was extremely
vehemently anti Jewish, they hated the Jews, they believe that the
God of the Jews was actually a different God, right, a Lesser
God. So they were by theistic, they said, there's two gods,
there's a God of the Old Testament, and then there's Jesus
the true God, and that the Jews are cursive and the the sons of
Satan. So the proto orthodox Scribes and Scholars, they didn't
like Marcy's position, and Marcion was growing. His movement was
growing in Rome, you know, which was considered to be the capital
of the world at the time. So somewhere down the line, probably
in the second or third century, a scribe went back into the Gospel
of Luke.
And put these words into the mouth of Jesus on the cross Father,
forgive them, meaning the Jews, for they know not what they do.
Right. But according to New Testament scholars, and you saw
this I've never actually said such a thing. That's a ladder. It's a
later fabrication to the text of the Gospel of Luke again,
according to external and internal evidence of textual criticism.
Another major concept, the gospel of Luke, is Christological
revisions, right. Christological review revisions in terms of
vicarious atonement. So here we're talking about what's known as
soteriology. soteriology means the study of salvation. How does one
go to heaven? What do they do? Is it by is it strictly by good works
like in the religion of Jainism, right? Or is it is it vicarious
atonement? Does someone else going to pay the price for you? Or is it
works and a trust in God that he's going to have mercy on you, or
anything in between those positions? So this is very
important to understand from Luke's perspective, because in
Mark, it's very clear that Jesus dies according to
Mark 1045 as a ransom for many. And of course, again, Mark is
highly influenced by Paul, because they're very close. As far as
timeframe. Right, Mark took this idea or theme of an immediate
second coming directly from Paul. He also takes this Christological
idea that Jesus died for your sins from Paul as well. So that's found
in the Gospel of Mark. And it seems like Matthew subscribes to
that idea, as well. But Luke says something very different. Instead,
in Luke, Luke makes Jesus an example of someone an example of
service for his disciples. In other words, in Luke, Jesus does
not die for your sins. There's no mystical atonement, Jesus sets an
example of service and sacrifice, right. And in the book of Acts,
Luke's second part, you see Paul, and Peter and Steven, exemplifying
that same type of service and sacrifice, willing to give their
lives for the sake of the cause. Not that Jesus is the savior in
the sense that he dies for your sins, no, but rather, in the sense
that he makes you conscious of sin and teaches you how to deal with
it. And as is a living exemplar, for how to conduct your lives.
We'll talk more about this idea because it's very, very important
in the next class of how Luke conceives of Jesus being the
savior, right and how it's different than how Paul interprets
this role of savior. We'll do that next time in sha Allah to Allah or
Salah Latina Muhammad didn't matter it he was talking he was
salam. What Hamdu lillahi rabbil aalameen Salaam Alaikum wa
Rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh
spin out from under him Salah lasuna Mohammed and Allah Allah He
was salam Subhanak Elohim Allah eliminate them turn it in the
Gandel adding one Hakeem Hola, hola, La Quwata illa biLlah Hill
Rd Laulima moto LA, he will be the cattle. So last time we were
talking about the Gospel of Luke, we had mentioned some of the major
concepts that are found in Luke's gospel, something that we talked
about last class at the end of class that we're going to repeat
and sort of drive home because very, very important is this idea
of a Christological revision of soteriology. That happens in Luke.
So the word soteriology, again comes from the word Soto and
Lugia, the study of salvation. How does Luke conceive of Jesus with
respect to his role in the salvific process? Is it like
Matthew and Mark say that Jesus died for your sins? Because
they're taking that directly from Paul line influence? Or is there
something else? So here's something interesting. In Luke,
Jesus again, does not die for your sins. He doesn't vicariously or
mystically atone for your sins. He doesn't do that. He dies to set an
example of service and sacrifice, just like the apostles did in the
book of Acts, which again, is a Luke second volume is
Ecclesiastical History, the history of the early church, Paul,
Peter, Steven and many other disciples willing to give their
lives emulating the beautiful example of a Silius. None of these
Peter Paul or Steven or Jesus, none of them died for your sins.
What do they do? They're simply presenting themselves as examples
on how to deal with sin in a sinful world. So that's very
important to be compassionate and forgiving. This is the chief
component or the chief attribute of ACI they set up in the Gospel
of Luke. So with respect to soteriology, the gospel of Luke
confirms what it says in the Old Testament. And he's equal chapter
20 Verse, I'm sorry, chapter 18, verse 20, is very clear. The soul
that sins and shall die, die, meaning in the sense of a
spiritual death. It says that the iniquity of the father shall not
be on the son, the iniquity of the Son shall not be on the Father.
Right? And then it says, however, if the wicked would turn from his
sin and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live,
he shall not die. What does turn me in here in Ezekiel chapter 18.
Turn in Hebrew is called teshuva. Right, like right now.
During the recordings of the sessions, were in something called
the Assad it yo meme to tshuva the 10 days of Toba for the Jews. This
is this begins on Rosh Hashanah, the first day of the year. Rosh
Hashanah is right, Susannah, right, the head of the year, the
new year, and it goes 10 days until Yom Kippur, the Day of
Atonement. So these 10 days for the Jews are called the 10 days of
teshuva. What does it mean according to Judaism? So Rosh
Hashanah, Jews believe that the taqdeer more I luck
is written, right. So suspended, talk to you, suspended
pother right preordained meant that the the names of those who
are going to go to heaven, and the names of those are going to go to
*. They're written in a book, but the book is not sealed yet. So
these 10 days, what are the Jews doing? They're making dua, they're
supplicating. They're making Toba so that their book might be their
names might be moved to the book of life, and then sealed, right.
So this is very important concept for Jews. This concept of Toba in
Hebrew again, it's called tissue but it comes from the verb shoe
via shoe taba, to boo Toba. It's the same meaning means to reorient
oneself to turn oneself towards Allah subhanaw taala. Right. And
this is the message of the gospel, a major theme of the Gospel of
Luke is personal responsibility, that no one's going to die for
your sins, right? That you are responsible for your own actions.
Right. So this is very, very important that in Gospel of Luke
again, Jesus does not die for anyone's sins, we'll return to
this idea in later in sha Allah. Now also the Luke and Jesus is
what's known as what airman says imperturbable, the Luke and Jesus
is very calm. He's very cool. He's very collected on the order of a
stoic philosopher he's in control is a lot of self discipline. You
know, Luke eliminates marking descriptions of Jesus, that make
him to humanly vulnerable, right? The Luke doesn't like that. So for
example, in the Gospel of Mark, we have what's known as the cry of
dereliction, when he silenced them, according to Mark, Matthew
records this as well, when he's on the cross. He says, ilaha illa, he
lemma Subak. Nanny, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Right? So Luke doesn't like that. Luke says, basically, that Jesus
would never say something like that. So he doesn't include that.
When Jesus is on the cross. He doesn't say anything like that in
the Gospel of Luke, and for people to say, well, you know, because of
the Gospel of Luke, he says something different. He says,
Father into your hands, I commend my spirit. And some people say,
Well, he said, both, he said, Father into your hands and commend
my spirit. But before that, he said, Eli, Eli Lama said back,
Danny, you can believe that. But if you do that you're really
writing your own gospel. Right? Because Luke, remember, Luke is
writing his gospel, believing that what he is saying, is the truth, a
more orderly account for this person named Theopolis. He's not
saying, Well, this is a gospel that supplements other gospels. So
if you want more information, go read Matthew, or go read, Mark.
No, Luke is saying that my gospel stands on its own. Therefore what
I'm saying is true. So Luke does not believe that Eastside a Salam
said, Allah, He never said Afghani, when he was on the cross,
he does not believe he said, he said that. And how do we know that
because he had that text in front of him. He has mark in front of
him, where Jesus apparently said that he did not include that in
his Gospel. Of course, he might, because Ali when he read the
gospel, in his words of Jimmy, if you wrote it, some people say
pseudo anonymous, but he says very clearly, obviously, this is not a
Saudi Salam saying this on the cross. A prophet would never say
this, of course, a Saudi Salam was in crucified to begin with a
market Allahu wa masala Boo who would like it should be a level.
And of course, well, that can should be alone. This actually
supports this idea that this person on the cross might have
actually said that that some person who was made to appear like
Jesus, possibly the trader, the man who betrayed him, he would say
something like that, but certainly not a prophet of God. Certainly
not. Sid said um,
what's also interesting here is you have this scene in the Garden
of Gethsemane in the Gospel of Luke, where it says that Jesus,
suddenly he falls down and he sweats and the sweat becomes like
blood. Now, this is interesting, because this goes back to what's
known as textual criticism. Did this actually happen? Now, there
are some manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke that don't contain this
incident. For example, the Elif o one, the Codex Sinaiticus that we
talked about the oldest complete version of the New Testament in
Greek does not contain these verses of Jesus breaking down in
the garden and sweating like blood. It's also not contained in
the manuscript known as B, which is a Codex Vaticanus, also a
fourth century, very early, complete Greek version of the New
Testament. And it's, you know, when we talk about intrinsic
probabilities, right, we look at internal evidence, intrinsic
probabilities, meaning that you know, isn't even in the style of
Luke to have Jesus break down and sweat blood. It isn't. Because
again, the Luke and Jesus is imperturbable. He's cool, calm and
collected for him to suddenly break
Unlike that, it's completely out of character. So it doesn't match
the personality type of ESA at least, at least the Lukin, a
Silius. And also in that, in that section of blood and sweat, these
words are hypoxia gamma noi, they appear no other place in the
Gospel of Luke nor in the book of Acts. So this lends credence to
the fact that this verse is inauthentic, that this actually
did not happen. So the point of this is to tell you that the
Gospel of Luke as well is not immune to scribal fabrications. So
then the question then becomes what's known as transcriptional
probabilities, is why were these verses added to the Gospel of
Luke. Why do you want to make Jesus break down and start
sweating like blood? The reason is because again, this was a response
to a Christological heresy known as Marcion. ism. This shows you
how influential Marcin ism was during this period. Again, Marcion
was a Christian who said that there's two gods, there's the God
of the Old Testament, there's the God of the New Testament, the Jews
are the sons of Satan. Right? He said that Jesus didn't actually
have a physical body. He was a phantom. Right? So Marcion is a
dosa test from the Greek Docomo, which means to seem, Jesus only
seemed to have a body, but he was actually a pure spirit. And so
Marcian love the Gospel of Luke, because Luke presents Jesus is
sort of this really calm, cool and collected person who's not really
affected by a lot of emotion. So he said, That's because he's
actually a spirit. So what happened is that the scribes
understanding this, but proto orthodox scribes, they went back
and they added this section, Luke chapter 22, verses 43 and 44, of
Jesus suddenly breaking down out of character and sweating like
blood, because they want to prove that No, Jesus was a human being.
And he did have his moment, so to speak. But this verse is
inauthentic. Again, the point of mentioning this to you is that the
Scripture even in the very early period, is in flux. It's changing.
It's being affected by heterodox, or heretical movements. So scribes
are going in and making these changes. And Origen of Alexandria
who lived in the third century, who wrote over 1000 books, the
most prolific of the pre Nicene, early church fathers, he admits
very clearly that yes, scribes went into the New Testament, and
they added things and they deleted things. And he actually condemns
the scribes for doing that. He says, You shouldn't do that. Why
do you keep doing that? Right? This is admitted by Origin of
Alexandria, one of the champions of proto Orthodox Christianity. So
that's very, very interesting. Now, some Lukin themes, what are
some of the themes of the Gospel of Luke, one of the major themes
is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a major actor in the
Gospel of Luke, as well as the book of Acts. So the Christian
community in the Gospel of Luke is quite charismatic, right? And the
word charismatic comes from karama right that their spirit led, they
their Spirit empowered, they can perform miracles, and Acts chapter
two, for example, number X, also written by Luke, Acts, chapter two
on the day of Pentecost, we are told that 120 disciples were in
the upper room where Esau thy son had his last supper. And you know,
the book of the day of Pentecost was 50 days after the suppose it
resurrection I believe, in when they're in the upper room, the
Holy Spirit will descend, like fire and the disciples start
speaking in tongues, right? So if you go to like Pentecostal
churches today in America, this is what happens in their church, you
go to the church, and people are speaking in tongues. And it's
really not any type of intelligent language, though there actually
take classes on how to how to say things. It's gibberish, not really
saying anything. One time this lady, she thought I was possessed
by a demon. Because I was, you know, I knew the Bible, I guess.
So she said, Oh, Lord, give me a language that he'll understand.
She started speaking in tongues, but it was complete gibberish, and
she asked me, Do you understand this language? And I said, No,
that's not any type of language. Right? So this is most of these
people are, you know, it's a demagoguery. They're charlatans.
But according to the Gospel of Luke, and I'm sorry, the book of
Acts. That's what happened. According to Acts chapter two, the
Holy Spirit descended on the day of Pentecost, and 120 disciples,
they start speaking, the tongues of all the world and Arabic is
actually mentioned as one of the tongues that they were speaking in
Acts chapter two. So I asked this Christian lady, I said, look, the
disciples can speak in Arabic. Can you please ask the Holy Spirit to
give you Arabic so I can understand it? And of course
That didn't happen. So this is an important event because there's
also 120 Cardinals in the Vatican, right? So the number of cardinals
is supposed to be the same as the number of disciples that were
inspired by the Holy Spirit. So the logic here is that the
Cardinals really kind of represent that original first community of
the Christians. So when the Cardinals and the Vatican they get
together in Conclave, and elect a pope, the assumption is that the
Holy Spirit also will guide them into picking the correct Pope.
So that's very interesting. The Holy Spirit is a major player in
the in the book of Luke, as well as the book of Acts. Also, a major
theme in the Gospel of Luke is prayer. Right? You see people
praying all the time. Jesus prays a lot, the disciples pray a lot.
Right. Another major theme, our crowds, crowds in Greek, it's
called Okoye, that wherever Jesus goes, there's a lot of crowds
everywhere. What does that have to do with anything? Remember, the
gospel of Mark is very localized, messianic secret. You know, nobody
really knows Jesus has small group of followers. Again, Luke is
trying to aggrandized Jesus, he's trying to say that this was a very
big deal. There's crowds wherever he goes, hundreds and 1000s of
people following him around. So this is very important for the for
the author of the Gospel of Luke is that Jesus is universal in his
appeal.
Another major theme is concerned for women, women are essential to
the divine plan, according to the Gospel of Luke. So you have
Elizabeth and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus, you have I'm sorry,
Elizabeth and Mary, the mother of John and Jesus, respectively, you
have Mary and Martha, the sisters of, of Lazarus, also disciples of
Jesus, you have the women going to the tomb on Easter Sunday, which
is also found in the gospels of Matthew, and Mark. And of course,
when Jesus according to the Gospel of Luke is going to his
crucifixion. Of course, he's very stoic, he's imperturbable. The
women are crying for him. And he's saying, if you if you knew what I
knew you would cry for yourselves. Right? So women are a constant
theme in the Gospel of Luke. Again, he's Luke is trying to
appeal to a wider audience. He's trying to universalize the message
of Jesus. Now getting back to this idea as Jesus as Savior, because
this is very, very important, because he asked Christians today
how do I get to heaven? Christians will tell you, you have to believe
that Jesus is your Lord and Savior. Right lord and savior does
cootie OS chi SOTA curiosa chi SOTA. This was the title of the
Roman emperor, right? So Christians took this directly from
the Emperor cult. They called the Roman Emperor Claudius chi Soto,
lord and savior or master and Savior. Right? So what does it
mean for Jesus to be savior? Because it's mentioned that Jesus
is the savior in chapter two, verse 11, for Luke, Savior, not in
the sense again, that He died for your sins not in that sense, but
rather as one who teaches you how to deal with sin and a means of
salvation. So the revised the I'm sorry, the new English Bible,
right? It translates Soter as deliver, and that's a better
translation. One who delivers you from sin, just like Moses did to
Bani Israel in Musa alayhis. Salam was a vehicle by which
God delivered to Bani Israel, not just delivered them physically
from the Pharaoh, but delivered them from sin by means of the
Torah. Right. So in that sense, every prophet is then a savior.
Never in the sense that a prophet dies for the sins of humanity.
This has nothing to do with Judaism. Christians will try to
say, this is something that's foretold in the Old Testament,
right that on Yom Kippur war, you sacrifice one lamb and you let one
go into the, into the wilderness and the sins of the community are
scapegoated upon. Well, that's that was an outward ritual of an
inward reality, which was Toba. The real forgiveness was an inward
state called teshuva. For the Jews. It was Toba. It was not
vicarious atonement, that goes against the very fabric of the
religion. We quoted at the book of Ezekiel chapter 18, verse 20, the
sin of the Father is not on the sun and vice versa. The
righteousness of the righteous righteous shall be upon him, the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him, as it says in Ezekiel
chapter 18, in the book of Deuteronomy in the Torah, chapter
24. It says, Every man shall be put to death, according to his own
sin. Very clearly. Deuteronomy chapter 24, verse 17, every man is
put to death for his own sin. No one is put to death for someone
else's sins, right? No one can vicariously atone for your sins.
Take your sins away like that. That doesn't mean that there isn't
Shiva and things like that on the Yom Okayama. That's not what we're
talking about here. That's different. That's not vicarious
atonement, right? It's intercession with God. Right? That
person doesn't take your sin, that person appeals to God and ask God
to forgive you that's very, very different than someone physically
taking on your sin and being killed because of that sin. And
therefore you're set free and you can go to Jannah. And you're in
your in your home free. So it's very, very different idea when you
get down to the, to the nuances.
So this is important, his death, right? Christians believe He died.
His death for Luke
really makes people realize that they're guilty before God.
So they turned to God and repentance, and then he forgives
their sin. Right? So Jesus, in the Gospel of Luke, is not a sacrifice
for sin. He is an example of compassion for all to emulate. He
and his followers are completely innocent of any crime against
Rome. Jesus is the martyr prophet. So this is a major theme of the
Gospel of Luke, Jesus is the martyr prophet. He's not that's
the meaning of savior. Savior here does not mean one who hid the Lamb
of God, like John says, who takes away the sins of the world, John
gets back to this idea of Jesus as Savior, right, because his
community was highly influenced by Pauline dogmatism. And that's very
interesting because Luke is supposed to be a disciple of Paul.
But Luke completely disagrees with Paul, in the sense that Jesus is
not the savior, in the sense that He died for your sins, but rather
as a martyr Prophet, one who gives you an example on how to live your
life and delivers you by means of His teaching, not by him taking
the sins of you in some mysterious type of way.
So let's look at and there's parables that Eastside A salaam
gives, according to Luke, that demonstrate this very, very
clearly. And maybe we'll get to that this class or maybe the next
class. But let's look at the structure first of the Gospel of
Luke. So the structure is really 888 parts. You have the preface,
right that we read Luke's preamble or dedication to his patron, or
Theopolis. Then you have the Infancy Narratives of John the
Baptist and a Saudi Salaam. Then you have the prelude to the
ministry, which includes the baptism of Isa Ali salaam, the
genealogy of Isa de salaam, in his temptation in the wilderness by
Satan. Now I want to talk about this genealogy for a second member
Matthew also gave a genealogy of East Jerusalem in Matthew chapter
one. Matthew says that, and he Matthew traces, Eastside asylums,
ancestry all the way back to Abraham. Right? Luke actually
traces it all the way back to Adam. Right? What's interesting
is, if you look at these genealogies
if you look at these genealogies, the first if you start with
Abraham, the first 13 names on both lists are the same.
Okay, basically, Adam,
I'm sorry, Abraham to David. They're the same. After that
point. No two names are identical. When you look at Matthew and Luke,
in other words, here's a man Jesus, who has two very different
genealogies. So the question then becomes, which one of these is a
correct genealogy? Is there a way to make Jamaat to harmonize these
this clear contradiction? Christians have attempted to do
it? Some of them say the genealogy in Matthew chapter one is Joseph,
the carpenter's genealogy because that's the final name on the list.
Whereas in Luke chapter three, this is the genealogy of Maryam
Aeneas. However, this does not work. Because if you look at the
final name in Luke's genealogy, it is not Mary. It's Joseph the
carpenter. Mary has nothing to do with this genealogy. In fact, Mary
is not a descendant of David at all. According to Luke, she does
ascendant she's a descendent of Erin. She's from the tribe of
Levi, right? According to the Gospel of Luke, we'll talk about
that verse. So that explanation that attempt at harmonization does
not work. So this is a clear contradiction in the New
Testament, that essentially Salam has two separate and distinct,
very different genealogies. So there was a second century
Christian scholar named tation, T, A Tian tation. And he was a
student of Justin Martyr, one of the great proto orthodox scholars
tation did something called the Diatessaron. Maybe we mentioned
this in the past class. The tests are on means through four through
four What is this mean? Diatessaron what is it? It's his
gospel harmony
So this would be a this is what tation did. He took Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John. And he took them and he put them into a single
narrative. Right? So instead of four different narratives of a
scientist, he wanted to put them all and harmonize them, harmonize
all of their contradictions and make it into a single narrative.
And the Diatessaron was really the standard in the Syriac speaking
churches. Until the fourth century, when the ashita with the
basilica took its place in the casita is not a harmony. It's
actually four gospels like it is in the traditional New Testament.
But what's interesting about tation is, he said that he was
able to harmonize every single contradiction in the New
Testament, except for the genealogies he could not figure
out what to do with these genealogies. So he doesn't even
attempt to reconcile them, it was too difficult for him to do that.
So going back again to the structure, you have the preface,
you have the Infancy Narratives. Number three, you have the prelude
to the ministry, which includes the baptism, the genealogy, the
temptation, number four, you have the Galilean ministry. Number
five, you have Luke's travel narrative is very important is
kind of the heart of the Gospel of Luke, Luke's travel narrative
right in the middle of the gospel, right, chapters nine through 19.
Again, the travel narrative is when Jesus and his disciples are
walking from Galilee into Jerusalem. What is Jesus saying to
His disciples during that long trip, it's represented by Luke
chapter 19, verses nine through 19. It's called the travel
narrative. So this is special Luke and material, just like Matthew
had special Mathieson material represented by m. We also have now
a special Luke in material. We'll talk more about that when we talk
about the sources of the Gospel of Luke. But just to finish the
structure here, number six, then you have the Jerusalem ministry,
which lasts about a week, then you have the final conflict and
passion, and then chapter and then the eighth part is the epilogue,
the resurrection appearances that happen again, exclusively in
Jerusalem, nothing in Galilee, again. And that's also a clear
contradiction between Luke and Matthew or Luke and Mark. Remember
in Matthew and Mark, Jesus does not appear to His disciples in
Jerusalem, but rather in Galilee.
So now let's look at the sources of the Gospel of Luke. So remember
what we said about Matthew, we said, Matthew has three sources on
his desk when he's writing his gospel. He has Mark's gospel
there, he has the Q source document. They're probably in
written form. And then he has special Mathieson material, either
in the form of a manuscript or it's just in his head, in the form
of oral transmission. That's what Matthew has. What does Luke have?
Luke also, like Matthew has the gospel of Mark at his desk. He's
working from Mark, Mark is his narrative skeleton, just like it
served for Matthew. Right? So the basic chronology of the Gospel of
Luke is the same as Mark. Right. So this is called the synoptic
tradition, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, they follow the Bates basic,
same chronology of events. Luke also has the Q source document at
his desk, just like Matthew does, right? Mark doesn't have that.
Luke then also has special ELA material called Lukin. material.
This might have been in the form of a manuscript of some sort, some
papyrus or something written on leaves or something, or it's
simply in his head as oral tradition. Right? So we have the
Gospel of Luke 65% of Mark integrated in the Gospel of Luke,
that we have q, then we have L. What did Matthew have? Mark, Q and
M. Right?
So let's look at some of this special Lukin material. Okay. So,
in chapter 10, of Luke, we have this parable of the Good
Samaritan. The Good Samaritan, you probably heard this, right. If,
for example, you're going across the Bay Bridge, and you pay for
the person behind you, and you don't even know that person.
Right? You'd say that that person who paid for you was a good
Samaritan. Right? He's a good citizen. He did something good. He
was a selfless person. He helped the stranger. Right? This is the
point of the Good Samaritan. Is that essentially Saddam here is
trying to again universalize the Gospel according to the Gospel of
Luke Samaritan
At the time of ESA de salaam, were known as sort of these pseudo
Jews. They weren't known as real Jews. The Samaritans were sort of
a mixed race. So when the Jews the Bani Israel you, they returned
from Babylon. Right? They found this group of people claiming to
be Jews that had intermixed with other ethnicities. And they were
known as the Samaritans. In fact, the Samaritans have their own
version of the Torah. They have their own version. They have their
own temple. In the north, they have different ways in which they,
they worship. So it is a different sect of Judaism. So they were very
much reviled. At the time of Esau they set up. So we read this
parable of a Good Samaritan, we should keep this in mind that the
word Samaritan, for the Pharisees of his day was a hated word. They
did not like the Samaritans, right? So Jesus's parable here is
quite revolutionary, in the sense that he's saying there's a good
Samaritan, and that a Levite and a priest, a Levite. And a Pharisee.
They did the wrong thing, according to this parable. What is
the parable? It says that a Samaritan, that a man, it says
that a certain man, he was walking down the road, and then a group of
thieves came and robbed him, and beat him and stripped him and left
him to die on the side of the road. And then a Sunday Salam
says, according to the parable, the Good Samaritan and Luke
chapter 10, a priest walked by, and he totally ignored him. And
then he said, a Levite walked by, and totally ignored him. Then he
saw a Samaritan, right, a Samaritan came, and he gave him
food, and he gave him clothing. And he took him and took care of
him. Right. So he's saying, this is the point. This is the point of
the parable is the universality of the message of Eastside a setup
that a Sunday Saddam is teaching universal compassion, according to
this parable.
And then we have something interesting. Luke chapter 15. This
is also in the travel narrative. This is what's known as the
prodigal son. And there's also something we hear sometimes,
right, like, if, if a son was you know, he left the house, and he
went to college or something, and then he dropped out of school and,
you know, he had a rough life. And then he comes back home to his
parents. You say, Oh, the prodigal son returns, right, this type of
thing. This comes from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 15, a man had two
sons, one of his sons stayed with him in the house and took care of
his father, the other son went out to earn a living, but then he fell
on hard times. And then he began to waste his wealth. And then he
began to act in a very sinful manner. And then finally he comes
back home to his father, and he's quite contrite. And He's his
father opens, welcomed him with open arms. What is the point of
this parable? The whole point is Toba. That's the whole point of
the terrible, the parable, or you saw the Sunnah. Right? He said,
Hmm, is teaching Toba that the father represents God, right? And
that the Son represents the servant who went astray, but that
he's contrite. He has, you know, he feels bad. He has remorse. And
he has a resolve not to return to the sin. And his father welcomed
him with open arms. Right, and the Prophet salallahu Salam, he gives
certain parables about Toba. He says, imagine a man who's out in
the desert, right? And so he Behati imagine a man out in the
desert. And he he loses his conveyance right? With all of his
supplies, were on his conveyance, and his his camel, his horse,
whatever it was his convenience. It runs away. Now the man is
thinking I'm going to die. So he's walking through the desert. He is
filled with with with pain, he's getting becoming thirsty. He's he
knows he's going to die soon. He's very afraid. And then he suddenly
sees his conveyance and he grabs its reins, right and he's so happy
that he's found his conveyance you know salvation that it says Ya
Allah and Abdi one another a book so he lost even control of his
speech. He's Oh Allah, you are my servant, and I am your Lord.
That's how happy the apt was. Right? That now he has found his
his conveyance. So the Prophet sallallahu sallam, he said, Allah
is more happy. Allah is more happy when a sinner when someone a
Muslim who is sinning when a sinner makes Toba to him. Allah is
more happy when one of his servants makes Toba to him, then
that man was at that moment when he lost control of his speech.
Right? So this entire parable of the Good Samaritan, I'm sorry, the
the prodigal son. This is about Toba and a Salah Islam he prefaces
the parable by saying how gladly how gladly will a a chef
voted to leave 99 of his flock to chase the one that went astray.
Right? 99 are in line and they're fine. They're in line. They're
doing what they're supposed to, but one of them went astray. The
shepherd will leave 99 To find the one that went astray. He says how
glad is he when he brings him back? Right. All of these are
parables are metaphors for Toba, not for vicarious atonement. This
is not the teaching of the Gospel of Luke, and the Gospel of Luke.
Remember, Luke x represents over a quarter of the New Testament,
right? So this should be the dominant soteriology in the Gospel
of Luke, not vicarious atonement, it should be this idea of Toba.
This is very, very important for Luke's Gospel.
Also, we have what's known as the parable of the Pharisee, and the
tax collector, which is in Luke chapter 18, also part of the
tribal narrative. Luke chapter 18. So we have a Silas lamb says there
was a Pharisee, who went to the temple, and next to him was a tax
collector, and the Pharisee when he is praying to God, he says to
God, thank you, God, for not making me a tax collector, like
this person here. And he says it in a in an arrogant way, right,
that I'm better than this tax collector, and then a silence. And
I'm says, but the tax collector when he goes, he is so repentant,
he can't even raise his eyes. And he stays back because he feels
he's unworthy to approach the front of the temple. And he says,
Oh, God, have mercy on me what sinner I am. And then he sadly
Islam says to His disciples, He says, the tax collector will be
forgiven, and not the Pharisee. Right? The point of all that is
not to be arrogant. Right? Again, you saw the slide here is teaching
Toba that they're both asking forgiveness from Allah Subhana
Allah to Allah, but you don't just ask for forgiveness in an arrogant
way. You do it in a way that has to adore you do it in a way that
has humility, right? So it's it's Toba, that has humility, right? So
even I try Allah says in one of the HECM, he says sin that leads
to brokenness, before Allah is better than a good action that
leads to Kibber. That leads to arrogance, right sin that leads to
brokenness, because that is going to lead to Toba. And Allah loves
when people make Toba when people reorient themselves towards him,
Allah loves that, right? In fact, there's a hadith that says, if
people did not sin, Allah would destroy them and create a people
that did sin, just so that they make Toba to him. There's a hadith
of our Prophet sallallahu. I mean, what are you sending them?
Also, interestingly, we find in the Gospel of Luke chapter 14, the
parable of the great banquet, right, the great banquet, so this
is a master who tells his servant, He says, Go invite a bunch of
people to a banquet. So the servant does it. He does that. And
then, but a lot of people, they don't show up to the banquet, so
it's like half empty. So then the master says, go into the streets
and force them to come to the banquet, right? So you can make up
this parable, what you want. But interestingly, Augustine of Hippo,
who is the fourth century scholar,
he wrote data and taught a
probably the most influential book ever written on the Trinity. He
said that this parable allows for Christians to coerce people into
becoming Christian. Right, that you can force people to become
Christian, and you can actually torture people. Right? So this is
this is one of his, this is something he said about Luke
chapter 14. And of course, he's talking about something specific
here. There was a group in in Northern Africa called the
Donatists, who were basically the, the equivalent of the heritage in
our history, and group that were, you know, fire and brimstone type
of theology. They believe that if you committed a even a minor sin,
you know, a venial sin that you had forfeited your faith as a
Christian. So these are the types of people that Augustine was
working with. So he used that verse, it's just something
interesting for your information, that Augustine actually will use
that verse, that parable, Luke chapter 14, to get a great banquet
to justify his position of torture of tithe even ikura of torture and
coercion. And of course, Christians abused his fatwa, if
you will. And for example, in in Muslim Spain, and under Lucia
during the Inquisition, of course, you have the Crusades and other
many other times, as well throughout Europe, in Christendom
with the Jews, and so on and so forth.
And then, you have in chapter 16 of Luke, also during the travel
narrative, something very interesting a parable of Lazarus
and the rich man. Right. So here we have a Sal Islam says
There was a rich man who lived a very opulent lifestyle. And he
says there was a beggar named Lazarus, who used to come and
sleep on his doorstep on the rich man's doorstep. And the rich man
would never let him into the house. And Lazarus, he had all
these sores around his body, and the dogs would come and licked his
sores. And then both of these men died. Right. And these are Ali
Salam says that Lazarus was taken to the bosom of Ibraheem
Alehissalaam. So Lazarus is now being held by Ibrahim de Sena. And
the rich man is in jahannam. He's in the fire. And the rich man
says, oh, Lazarus, remember me? I'm that rich man, can you just
give me a drop of water? And Lazarus says, No, you had your you
had your chance you had your lifestyle. Now, it's a reversal of
roles. So this also very common theme in the Gospel of Luke, that
there's going to be a reversal of fortunes, right? That you're gonna
see people in this world that were the sub altern, right. They were
downtrodden. They were marginalized or oppressed. People
took advantage of them. These people are going to be given
status in Africa, and the people who are oppressing them, and we're
arrogant. And we're rich, right? And II Sally salaams. judgment on
the rich is not very good, according to the New Testament is
easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a
rich man to enter paradise. These people are going to be brought
down and debased in the Alaska so this also very common theme in the
Gospel of Luke, this kind of reversal of fortunes.
Something also interesting about Luke, is that Luke juxtaposes
Gabriel's visit with Mary during the Annunciation with her visit to
Elizabeth, right. And Elizabeth is called her cousin, and Luke
chapter one verse 36. Elizabeth who is the mother of Yeah, Lisa
lamb is called the cousin of Mary. Why is that important? It's
important because Elizabeth is married to Zecharia. And Zecharia
is a priest in the temple. He's a Kohane. He's a priest, and the
Kohanim the priests, all of them are Levites. They're Levites. This
is important because Christians believe that the Messiah will come
from the tribe of Judah. And this is a belief they inherited from
Bani Israel. But Eastside Islam clearly is not from the tribe of
Judah. Because his mother is a Levite and he does not have a
father. So nessa is passed. And according to Benny Israelite, you,
the nessa is taken from the mother in all of the tribes except for
Levi, right? If you're in the tribe of Li phi, the nessa is
taken from your father. So Eastside a Salam because his
mother is a Levite. He is not a Levite. Right? He is whatever his
father is, but he doesn't have a father. What does that mean? That
means that he signed a salaam does not have a tribal distinction he's
not from the Ummah many so he's from the ummah of the Prophet
sallallahu sallam.
We'll take a break inshallah.
Smilla rahmanir rahim. So we were saying that you silently Salam
because his mother is a Levite
his nessa will be taken from his father. But he said he does not
have a father. What does that mean? That means he cannot be from
Bani Israel. Right? So he is not from that OMA, he is an aroma. He
is a Sahaba of the Prophet sallallahu Sallam Imam. So ut says
he is the greatest Sahabi he is in the home of the Prophet Muhammad
sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. So this is an important port point
that in the Quran, every prophet is quoted as saying, yeah call me
every prophet except to East LA salaam, Isa at least lunches.
Yeah, Bani Israel you because in order for a silent salam to say
yeah, call me. His father must have been from that comb, but he
does not have a father. Muslims believe in the miraculous birth of
Isa de Sena. So this is something very, very important. And Luke
tells us very clearly again, that Maryam and Elizabeth are cousins.
Somebody might say, okay, they're cousins, but they're from
different tribes. But here's the point of that. Here's the problem
with that, that the tribe of Levi was not allowed to intermarry
between the tribes. Okay, the Levites had to keep their tribe
distinct. The Levites were distinct in many regards. They
weren't allowed to drink any alcohol. They were exempt from
military service because they had to attend to the temple. Right.
They're not allowed to intermarry. The nessa was taken from the
Father, there are certain things that are exclusive about the
Levite. Of course, the Levites are descendants of Harun ra Salam, who
is the brother of Musa alayhis salam, and something analogous to
this is like the actual date of the Prophet sallallahu sallam, the
descendants of Imam Ali right who was the brother the sword
Speak of the Prophet sallallaahu Salam, his son in law, right and
there's certain things about Al Bayt that are different than the
other people. They don't take sadaqa for example, right? They
don't they don't take Dukkha things like that. And of course
the Prophet salallahu Salam, he said about Imam Ali, he said,
Aren't you content that you are to me as Harun was to Musa alayhis
salam. So there's similarity there as well, that the added value of
the Prophet salallahu Salam, they're special, they have special
status. Nobody can doubt it. And the Levitical tribe of the Bani
Israel, who are considered if you want an Invader of Musa alayhis,
salam, or of how not Islam, they have special status, as well.
So that has to be made very, very clear that the Gospel of Luke does
not support this idea of a Davidic Messiah in the Gospel of Luke, he
sadly Salam is not from the tribe of Judah. He's not from the tribe
of David. That's not That's not what he says. It says that
Elizabeth and Maryam are cousins, therefore Esau they Salam really
does not have a tribe. Something else that's interesting about the
Gospel of Luke, and we'll finish with this point is that the Gospel
of Luke says that there was a decree or a dogma in the Greek a
decree a of a census, to be taken by Caesar Augustus, Caesar,
Augustus decreed a census, that it was a universal census, right of
the whole world. And the word here is all equal mundane, which really
means the Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire was seen as the
empire that ruled the world. And what was the census every man in
the world had to return to his place of birth, in order to be
counted? Right? This was something that the Gospel of Luke says
happened by decree of Caesar, Augustus.
What's the point of this? Matthew doesn't mention this member
Matthew, doesn't mention this at all. Matthew says there was a
slaughter of the innocents. Remember, Matthew is trying to
find Old Testament typologies. So in the Gospel of Matthew, Herod
slaughtering the firstborn of Bethlehem was was sort of
foreshadowed by what happened with Pharaoh in Egypt. Right? Luke
doesn't mention that slaughter of the innocents. So most scholars
conclude that it's myth, it didn't actually happen. There's zero
historical evidence of it. There's zero historical evidence of this
dogma as well, that Caesar Augustus, right the Roman Emperor
again, Luke is trying to aggrandized universalize, the
message of the gospel, that Caesar Augustus, the ruler of the world,
as it were, is saying, Every man has to return to his place of
birth. So in the Gospel of Luke, then there's no flight to Egypt,
like we had in the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus is still born in
Bethlehem, but Matthew and Luke have their own creative ways of
putting Jesus in Bethlehem. Because remember, Micah chapter
five, verse two says, oh, Bethlehem, small as you are
amongst the towns of Judah, from you, they'll shall arise a king
who shall shepherd my people, Israel. So the Messiah will be
born in Bethlehem. That's what it says in the Old Testament. But how
does he get to Bethlehem? Matthew says, Joseph and Mary, they lived
in Bethlehem. And then the wise men came and inherit, and tapas he
interrogated them. So he decreed the slaughter of the innocents. So
then the Holy Family, they had to move to Egypt, and then they
relocated north into Nazareth. Luke says something very
different. Luke says, Joseph and Mary, they lived in Nazareth
originally. And then this census was put out this decree of a
census by Caesar Augustus, right, not by Herod Antipas. Now it's has
universal implications. Caesar Augustus says, Every man has to go
to his place of birth. So Joseph and Mary, they traveled down to
Bethlehem, because Joseph was born in Bethlehem. And then when
they're talented, they don't go to Egypt, they simply relocate back
into Nazareth. So again, here is a clear contradiction between
Matthew and Luke. And both of them cannot be true. Did Jesus go to
Egypt or not? Luke, again, believes his gospel stands on its
own two feet, he does not mention the slaughter of the innocents,
either because he doesn't agree that it happened, or that
he summarily ignored it, and doesn't feel that it's very
important. Either way, we have a clear contradiction with the two
gospels.
So inshallah we're going to stop at this point. We're going to
continue with the rest of the Gospel of Luke next time. And then
we're going to get into our final gospel, which is the Gospel of
John, which is a very, very interesting, very, very important,
probably the most important part of this class is the study of the
Gospel of John, because it is again, the most influential book
of any book in the New Testament as far as influence upon Orthodox
Christian
and theology are sold last year Mohammed didn't bother me he was
happy. When hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen Salam Alikum just been out
of town or famous on Allahu Allah say to Muhammad in Walla and he
was a huge Marine, Salaam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh Welcome
to another class of the four gospels from a Muslim perspective.
The last class we started to talk about the gospel or last couple of
classes, I believe, we had started to talk about the Gospel of Luke,
we're going to conclude the Gospel of Luke in this class Inshallah,
and begin probably the most important gospel of the of the New
Testament tradition, which is called the Gospel of John. Looking
back at Luke for a minute, though, we had said last time that there
are certain things in the Gospel of Luke that are considered Luke
and themes that we should be familiar with. Number one is that
Jesus has called savior in the Gospel of Luke. However, this term
sotera, which means Savior, is very misleading. It's not savior
in the poor line, sort of way where Jesus died for your sins.
That's not how Luke means it. What he means it here is that Jesus is
simply someone who informs you about sin, and teaches you how to
deal with it. So he's a means of your salvation. He doesn't die for
your sins. There's no vicarious atonement, in the Gospel of Luke.
And this is very, very interesting because again, this idea that
Jesus died for your sins has origins in Paul's letters, and the
Pauline epistles, which are 14 of the 27 books of the New Testament.
However, Luke, according to Christian tradition, is a student
of Paul, yet Luke does not
subscribe to this idea that Jesus is a sacrifice for sin, He is
simply an example of compassion for all of humanity. So scholars
have called the Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, the martyr
Prophet, that he and his followers are completely innocent of any
crime against Rome, and that he is an example, a beautiful example
and a swatch on Hassan if you will to use the Quranic verbiage of how
Christians should live their lives. So again, in Luke, Jesus
does not die for your sins, he, he dies to set an example of service
and sacrifice. That's very, very important. The Gospel of Luke also
stresses personal responsibility. We quoted this. In our last we
talked about this in our last class as well, this idea that
everyone is put to death for their own sins. And that's exactly what
it says in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 24, verse 17,
as well as easy kill chapter 18, which is the famous verse we
quoted last time, that the iniquity of the Son shall not be
upon the father and the iniquity of the father shall not be upon
the son, that the wickedness the wickedness of the wicked is upon
him, and the righteousness of the righteous is upon him. But if the
wicked would turn from his sin and do that which is lawful and right,
he shall live, and he shall not die shall turn from his sin. What
does that mean to make Toba? The word in Hebrew is to tshuva. And
this is the teaching of a Saudi Salam, or the Luke in Jesus peace
be upon him. The parable of the prodigal son, we mentioned this
last time as well. This is just to refresh your memories, that this
son who was a prodigal son, a sinful son, a spendthrift, who
came back and his father opened, welcomed him with open arms, just
as God will welcome his his sinful servants, with open arms, as it
were, if one makes Toba. There's a beautiful Hadith of the Prophet
sallallahu. It it was suddenly when he mentioned this is an
Buhari. It's a sound tradition, which the Prophet salallahu Salam,
he gives an analogy of parable or similitude. He says, imagine a man
he's in the desert. He's on his conveyance, and he dismounts for a
moment. And then his conveyance runs away from him. And now he's
in the desert walking around, he doesn't have his conveyance. He
doesn't have his food, no provisions, anything like that.
And he's on the brink of death. And suddenly he sees his
convenience and he grabs its reins, and he looks to the heavens
and he says, Yeah, Allah Anta Abdi, we're under a book, Oh
Allah, I am your servant. And you, Oh Allah, you are my servant, and
I am your Lord. In fact, he was so happy that he lost control of his
speech. And this, this hadith is actually used as a proof of what's
known as Chautauqua or Theo Pathak utterances. When one goes into a
mystical state, you'll start saying things that one is not
aware of, and that's a sort of type of intoxication in the love
of God. But the Prophet sallallahu alayhi salam uses this parable to
say that Allah subhanho wa Taala is more joyous than that man, when
one of his disbelieving servants makes Toba and turns back to him.
So this is Pamela. This is the major theme of the Gospel of Luke.
Some other things we're going to mention about the Gospel of Luke,
is that Luke, He juxtaposes Gabriel's visit with Mary with her
visit to Elizabeth. So there's a kinship here between them
Elizabeth
Of course, is the mother of John the Baptist, according to the
Gospel of Luke. So the Gospel of Luke says that Elizabeth is her
cousin. So they are related. It also says that Elizabeth is a
daughter of Aaron, I think we mentioned this last time as well.
So this idea that the Messiah will be from the tribe of Judah, which
is basically a normative Christian belief that they inherited from
the Jews. If you look at the Gospel of Luke, it's basically an
untenable belief,
to say that Jesus is from the tribe of Judah, because Mary was a
Levite. And the Levites were the priests in the temple. And that's
a completely different tribe in the tribe of Judah. So that has to
be made clear. We'd also said last time again, that there was a
decree in Greek it's called a dogma, a decree of a census by
Caesar Augustus, which was basically Empire wide, that every
man has to return to the city of his birth. And this is why Joseph
the carpenter, according to the Gospel of Luke, He comes out of
Nazareth and goes down to Bethlehem. Of course, this is not
mentioned by Matthew, if you remember, when we talked about the
Gospel of Matthew, we had said that, that Mary and Joseph lived
in Bethlehem and Herod Antipas, because he was informed by the
wise men that came from the east, he was informed that there was
going to be a king a saw a Messiah that was going to be born at that
time. So the Holy Family Jesus, and are Mary and Joseph, they flee
to Egypt. So this is not mentioned in the Gospel of Luke. So in other
words, there is a very clear contradiction here, between
Matthew and Luke, and Luke, there's a slaughter of the
innocents and they go to Egypt. And then they relocate to Nazareth
and the Gospel of Luke, they already live in Nazareth, and they
come down into Bethlehem. Because of this, suppose that consensus
that was decreed by Caesar Augustus. And something else we
had said also is Caesar. Augustus, of course, is the Roman emperor.
So the Gospel of Luke is trying to put Jesus on the world stage is
trying to universalize the gospel. There's no historical proof that
either of these events happen, there's no historical proof that
Herod Antipas decreed the slaughter of the innocents to kill
the firstborn sons of Bethlehem. There's no historical proof of
that. And there's no historical proof of Caesar Augustus, issuing
this decree that every man has to go back to his place of birth at
the time of a Saudi Saddam or the time around his birth. Something
also interesting is the Gospel of Luke gives a different version of
the Lord's Prayer. So we had said that Matthew Chapter Six
tells us about the Sermon on the Mount, right, and the Sermon on
the Mount. One of the key aspects of the sermon on the mount is
what's known as the Lord's Prayer, Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name, so on and so forth. Luke uses a slightly
different version of it, and it seems like Christians prefer the
Mathieson version, the version that's given in Matthew, because
in Luke chapter 11, something interesting it says, Forgive us,
not our debts, but forgive us tous hamartomatous Haman, which means
forgive us our sins. So they didn't like Christians don't like
this idea that Jesus is praying to the Father and asking the Father
to forgive his sins, because Jesus is supposed to be sinless. And of
course, a prophet is sinless, according to our Prophet otology.
A prophet is protected from disobeying Allah Subhan Allah to
Allah, consciously disobeying Allah subhanho wa taala. That does
not mean that a prophet doesn't have human characteristics. A
prophet can make an error in judgment, for example, but
willfully disobeying Allah subhana, Allah to Allah is
something that was impossible for prophets. So this could be the
meaning of the Gospel of Luke, and the word sin being used here, but
Allahu Adam, but Christians prefer to use the MFI and version of the
Lord's Prayer.
Something also interesting, in the Gospel of Luke, Luke will take
something from Mark, for example, Mark chapter six, which is Jesus's
basically his rejection in Nazareth, and Luke will bring it
up to Luke chapter four. So it will take a story you mentioned
and mark, and he'll manipulate the context of the story to make a
theological point. Because, again, we mentioned this several times in
the past, that the point of these Gospels is not to present accurate
history. Okay. I don't think Luke would be bothered by the fact that
there's simply no proof of the census that was taken by Caesar
Augustus. He's trying to make a theological point that Jesus was
born in Bethlehem, and so is Matthew by inventing the story of
the slaughter of the innocents and connecting it to the story of
Moses.
is like Pharaoh tried to kill the firstborn sons of Egypt. And he
did succeed except killing Musa alayhis salam. So this is very,
very interesting that Luke will take this story from Mark, Mark
chapter six, and we'll move it up to the beginning of his gospel.
And he'll call it the inaugural address, or essentially salaam,
this is when he first declares that he's the Messiah in the
synagogue, he opens the scroll of Isaiah. And he says something to
the effect of
that the Spirit of God is upon me to preach the gospel to the poor,
and to heal the brokenhearted. And this is very, very interesting,
because this reveals that God has a preferential aspect. In other
words, God is with the poor, he's with the oppressed, he's with the
downtrodden, he's with the marginalized, what's known as a
sub alternative society. So contemporary theologians like
Cornel West, he'll say something like, you know, these types of
Christians that are constant Tinian. They're not in the spirit.
They're not in the true spirit of Eastside, a salon, empire building
Christians, right Christians who believe it's their mission to
conquer the world, they advocate imperialism, a great author that
you should read Chris Hedges, who is a Christian man, he writes
these beautiful books, this one called American fascism, where he
indicts his own co religionists, other Christians who have bought
into this idea that God is with those who exert a strong hand and
those who are dropping bombs on innocent populations. And he says,
that is not the case. That is not the true gospel of a silent Salam,
that God has a preferential aspect, and that God is with those
who are being marginalized and being oppressed. So this is very,
very important. And this is basically the Inaugural Address of
the Gospel of Luke in chapter four. So Luke edits mark,
at times, for his own theological reasons. Luke also edits mark to
show an indefinite length
between the city of Jerusalem is fall, and the actual Second Coming
of Jesus, like Luke chapter 19, the parable of the talents that
the master will go go away on the long journey, also Luke 2129, that
Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles, until their day has run
its course. So Luke, found this idea in Mark very disturbing, that
Mark believes in in an immediate second coming of E Silius. And I
remember the second coming in Greek is called a pot of Lucia.
And this is primarily taken from Paul again, Paul very clearly
believes the second coming will be during his own lifetime. Right.
And this is a central Pauline theme, and loop and the Gospel of
Mark, it takes that theme from Paul and puts the words into the
mouth of a Saudi salaam, for example, there are some standing
here that will not taste death until they see the Son of Man
coming in great power, the present generation will live to see it all
this type of thing, that there's going to be an immediate second
coming. And Luke will downplay that, Luke will say no, Jerusalem
will be trampled by Gentiles, until their day has run its
course. So he delays the part Lucia he'll delay the second
coming. Why does he do that? Because again, Luke is writing his
gospel around maybe 85, or 90 of the Common Era. And by this time,
it's very, very clear that essentially, Saddam did not return
during the generation of the disciples. So he's trying to sort
of clean up what Paul had started, what Paul erroneously believed, to
be fact is that Christ will come back in the time of the disciples,
that simply did not happen. What's also interesting about the Gospel
of Luke is when we get into the later parts of the gospel, like
Luke chapter 22, we have this idea of Jesus at the Last Supper, and
chapter 22, verse 20, we have Jesus sort of establishing the New
Covenant, right, and this is chapter 22, verses 1717 through
20. We're basically the past a couple rounds in the bread, this
is my blood, this is my body. This is the blood of the New Testament,
so on and so forth. There are many manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke,
that do not contain these verses. Right. In other words, you know,
the bread and blood or the the wine and the bread are not
mentioned in some versions of the Gospel of Luke. In other words,
the Eucharist or the mass the Holy Communion, which is a central
Christian sacrament in all three major Christian denominations,
Eastern Orthodox Catholicism, and Protestantism. That belief seems
to be missing and many versions of the Gospel of Luke because again,
it doesn't jive well, it doesn't agree with one of a one of the
central Lukin theme
means that Jesus did not die for your sins that Jesus is the Savior
again, in the sense that he gives you an example. He tells you how
to deal with sin by setting a great example. That's why he's the
martyr prophets. So many, many versions, many Greek manuscript
early Greek manuscripts of Luke's gospels do not contain those
verses chapter 2217, through 20, this is this is my blood, this is
my body. This is the blood of the New Testament, so on and so forth.
They don't contain those verses. What's also interesting we might
have mentioned this in the past as well, is that there was a document
written in the first century called the decay, which is Greek
for teaching, which many, many scholars believe represents the
teaching of the original disciples of sia salaam, those Jews who
simply believed that essentially Salam was the Messiah. And they
were called by different names. Sometimes they're called the evio
name, which means the spiritual poppers are the Debian knights.
Sometimes they're called the note serine in Hebrew, which means the
Nazarene, which is the cognate of the Arabic and Massara, right, and
that's taken from synagogue liturgy, we know that Jews in the
very late first century, early second century, as part of their
synagogue liturgy, were pronouncing mal addictions, they
were pronouncing curses upon a group known as the Nord Stream.
And these are obviously the Christians they believe the
Christians were a, an accursed group, because they simply
believed in a Saudi Salem, and that's how they refer to them as
Nazarene ins. So anyway, in that document that did it K. We don't
have this establishment of the Eucharist, that Jesus is your
Savior who died for your sins, and that his flesh is is to be eaten,
in that the wine is his blood to be to be drunk, none of these
things are mentioned. What simply mentioned is that the disciples
would gather on Sunday, and they would, they would give thanks to
God for sending a sign a tsunami was sort of a Thanksgiving
celebration, if you will, that they would have on Sunday. And
again, many scholars believe that the dedicated di D, a CH E
represents the actual teachings of the historical disciples of a
Silas salaam, so there's no Eucharist. What's interesting is,
again, this is a central sacrament in Roman Catholicism. Catholics
actually believe that at Mass on Sunday, when the priests will
consecrate the bread and the wine that a process happens, known as
Transubstantiation in which the Holy Ghost will come, and He will
change the very essence of the bread into the flesh of Christ,
and the very essence of the wine into the blood of Christ, and the
people, the parishioners will partake of that. So it seems to be
a very paganistic type of ritual. Interestingly, again, it's not
mentioned in the dedicate, and there are many, many versions of
the Gospel of Luke, that do not mention that as well. Steven L.
Harris, a very eminent New Testament scholar believes that
definitely those verses are an interpolation a fabrication to the
Gospel of Luke and Bart Ehrman, who is also a very eminent
probably the most eminent foremost scholar of textual criticism. He
also says that there are good reasons for believing that the
passage that seems to indicate the Eucharist were added later to the
Gospel of Luke.
Also, something interesting is that according to the Gospel of
Luke, when Jesus is on the cross, he cries out and says, Father,
forgive them Patek I face Oh toys, for they know not what they do.
Most scholars believe that those verses were also added later by
Christians to sort of soften Luke's image because Luke was seen
as some somewhat anti Jewish, and there was a group of Christians.
At the time in the first century, called the Marcia knights, who did
not like the Jews, they hated the Jews. And they said that the Jews
killed Jesus and the God of the Old Testament was a different god.
So they put these words into the mouth of Christ on the cross,
forgiving those who crucified Him. But again, the vast, vast majority
of eminent New Testament textual critics, including Airman and
boots, Metzker, they believe that these verses were added later. So
we've established now that the author of the Gospel of Luke, He
will go into the gospel of Mark, and he will clearly edit Mark's
gospel again, if Luke believed that Mark's gospel is the word of
God, he would never do that. What does that tell you? That tells you
that Luke did not believe that Mark was being inspired by God.
But he simply believed that Mark gave a good effort and trying to
write about Jesus, but he believes that he has a better mind to do
something like that. Remember the prologue of the Gospel of Luke,
where he tells us very, very clearly his intention of writing
his gospel, when he says, oh, Excellency Theopolis it seems like
a good idea for me to write on
to you in orderly account. So the Gospel of Luke again was meant as
a letter to probably a Roman official named Theopolis. He
doesn't claim that it's a revelation of God or that he's
inspired by God, the Holy Ghost is inspiring him, nothing like that.
They're simply writing an account of what they believe happened to
Jesus, based on their own theological perspectives. So that
brings us to the end of the Gospel of Luke Inshallah, to Allah, we're
going to start with the Gospel of John. Now, the Gospel of John is,
as we stated, forms basically the foundation of all Christian
theology, it is the most
fundamentally, sound from an orthodox perspective of all the
four Gospels, it clearly delineates Christian, traditional
Trinitarian theology, and is the most significant of the four
Gospels.
In the New Testament, so the Gospel of John, at first was seen
as a very alien type of gospel. So this is very, very important
because if you notice, if you read the Gospel of John, and compare to
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, you'll immediately notice that this
gospel is very, very different. It doesn't follow the same type of
chronology that Matthew, Mark and Luke follow. It's very, very
unique. It begins with something called the prologue, right, which
is John chapter one, verse one to verse 18, where you have this sort
of hymn to the logos, as it's called, In the beginning was the
Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And of
course, this formula in the beginning, this was meant to kind
of mirror what happens at the beginning of the book of Genesis,
where it says in the beginning about a sheaf of Bara Elohim. In
the beginning, God created the heavens in the earth. Right, so
John is mimicking what's happening at the beginning of the book of
Genesis. And if you read the Gospel of John, again, it's very,
very different in its chronology and its content in its themes,
than the synoptic gospel. So initially, it was seen as a very
alien, very strange gospel. Okay, and very suspicious. And many
early Christians believed that the Gospel of John was actually a
Gnostic gospel, which advocated that a Saudi Salam didn't actually
have a physical body, that he was a pure spirit, a phantasm. So how
did the Gospel of John become so popular? Well, it was basically
three early church fathers who sort of saved the gospel from the
fires of heresy, if you will. So Irenaeus of Lyons, the bishop of
Lyons, his name was Irenaeus, he actually will quote from the
Gospel of John 40 some odd times in his different commentaries on
the New Testament. And he actually wrote a commentary on the prologue
of the Gospel of John as well. And he is seen as a proto Orthodox
church father, so he gave credence to the gospel and legitimized the
Gospel of John. Also you have someone, an early church father,
and him, Clement of Alexandria, who was the Bishop of Alexandria,
Egypt, who also liked the Gospel of John. And he said that the
Gospel of John, it talks about the spiritual things of Christ, he
called it Top pan you Mochica as opposed to the toss so Matica, as
opposed to the bodily things. So the Gospel of John talks about the
spirit that pin Noma have a side A salaam, whereas Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, the Synoptic Gospels really focuses more on the soma, below
historical the physical things of a Saudi citizen. And of course,
the third church father was named Justin Martyr, and Justin Martyr,
he really loved the Gospel of John, and he is seen as basically
someone who formulated what's known as the logos Christology,
the logos Christology, meaning that a Saudi Saddam has a pre
existent nature, that he existed before his physical body. Right?
And this is now Orthodox Christianity. Now, what does that
mean that Jesus existed before his physical body, that means that he
has some sort of metaphysical precedence over the rest of
creation, and we'll talk about that later when we talk about
Arianism, for example, and its influence upon the first
ecumenical church council called the Council of Nicaea. So anyway,
in the Gospel of John Jesus is presented as the infinite wisdom
of God personified. Right the infinite wisdom of God personified
in Greek This is called a logos, Logos l o g, O S. Right. So when
you take classes in college, for example, biology, right biology is
the logos of BeOS, right the study or the wisdom of life, so logos
means wisdom. And in Hebrew, it's called hochma or Hekima. In Arabic
hochma is something in the Old Testament. That is
personified as being God's agent of creation. So essentially Salam,
according to the Gospel of John, is the human form of God's
celestial word, that cosmic expression of divine wisdom by
which God created the universe. So in Arabic translations of the
Gospel of John, it'll say something like Philby Dyer Kena
Kalama. In the beginning was the Kelly mechanics and Kelly met the
Kalima. Kenny Matala is essentially Salam according to the
Gospel of John. Now in the Quran, a Salah Salam is also called
Kadima to Allah will Kalamata who right is mentioned in the Quran.
So is there a similarity? Is there a difference? Of course there's a
difference. And this is very important to understand the
difference that when Allah Subhan Allah to Allah in the Quran refers
to East LA Salaam. As Kenny matola. It's very different than
when Christians inspired by the Gospel of John refer to isa the
salam as Kelly metal lock in the Quran a Salah Salam is God's
created word, right? Allah Subhana Allah to Allah created a silence
so that in the method that isa in the like a method he Adam Halacha,
who mean to rob through makalah, who Kuhn for your Quran, that the
similitude of a side Islam with Allah is like that of Adam Alayhis
Salam, he created it from dust. And then he said to him be and
there he was. So when Islam was growing very early on Muslims
would come into contact with Christian Hellenistic
philosophers, and they would engage in debate because these
Christians would read the Quran and say, look, the Quran says that
Jesus is the Word of God Kadima to Allah, and the Gospel of John
says, and our K in Ha Lagace, in the beginning was the Word. So
this is the same thing, the Quran is confirming what the Gospel of
John is saying. So Christian scholars were quick to point out
that no East Side Islam is created. He's Bashar, he's from
the MK Alucard. He's created by Allah subhanho wa taala. So He is
the Word of God only in the sense that Allah subhanaw taala created
him in a very unique way, because East LA Salam did not have a
father. Esau lesson was created by Allah subhanho wa taala, without
any type of male intervention by saying B and there he was, in that
sense, he is the Kelly metal law. So this is very, very important to
understand. Now, some Muslims will also draw an analogy between a
silent Salam being the Word of God and the Quran being the Word of
God, that essentially Salam, this is incarnation, that God becoming
flesh and the Quran in bibley in Biblio nation, that the word
becoming book and this analogy is also erroneous. And we have to be
careful about that as well. Because if we say that, yes, there
are similarities to a point, Christian say that Eastside a
Salam is pre eternal and uncreated. And we also say about
the kalam of Allah subhanaw taala, as an attribute of Allah subhanho
wa taala, that it is pre eternal and uncreated. But that's where
the similarities have to stop. They have to stop at that point,
because Christians will go on to say that a silent Salam is the
word of God is in and of himself God, right, that he is a distinct
person of God, but we cannot say that the kalam of Allah subhanho
wa Taala is Allah is a God in and of itself. No, this the fact that
Allah Subhana Allah to Allah, they are not the essence of ALLAH, nor
are they anything other than the essence, and distinct from the
essence, they have no meaning they give an additional, they give an
additional manner, in additional meaning, to the essence, that they
are not God, we cannot say Qalam of Allah, is Allah Subhana Allah
to Allah or is a deity or a divinity, in any sense of the
word. So we have to make that distinction, very, very clear that
the SIFAT of Allah subhanho wa taala, they suffer of Allah
subhanho wa taala. Although they're pre eternal, and they're
uncreated, they are not in and of themselves, divine beings. And
that's what the Christians are saying, about a silent silence. We
have to be careful about that type of analogy. You know, what's also
interesting is that Jewish mysticism, based on the what's
known as the Kabbalah, there's a book of the Kabbalah called the
Zohar, which was probably written in the 13th century, although
Orthodox Jews, at least if they're Hasidic, or they're mystically
inclined, they believe the teachings of the Zohar go back all
the way to Musa alayhis salam
even be before him, but they have this myth. They have this idea of
the primordial man. So mystically inclined Jews believe that God
whom they call ain solf, in Hebrew, which is the name of gods
that the name of his essence Ain Soph means without limit, that God
he did something called soon in Hebrew, so means that God withdrew
from himself to himself, creating an empty void that was full of
himself. This is all paradoxical obviously, but in in that void
that he creates
Did he casted a light, a primordial light, and this is the
light of what they call a dumb Cardamone or the primordial man.
So this light is personified as a human being, and then God the ain
self, he emanated his see fat, his attributes through the, through
the skull of this primordial man, right as a lights. So they call
these Kitab and hochma in hesed, which are Iraida in Hekima, and
muhabba. So, will and wisdom and love. These are three attributes
of the Ainsworth that were emanated from the essence of
Ainsworth, that were emanated through the skull of Adam
Cardamone. And this light that emanated from Adam Cardamone,
created the universe. So this is also mentioned in Jewish
mysticism. However, the Jews believe that this light of the
primordial Man is created, it was created by God. Right. Christians,
however, do not believe that the Son of God is created. They
believe that a Saudi Salam has pre eternality that he shares an
essence with God. So again, this is very different than what we
have in Jewish mysticism. There's something similar to this in
Islamic mysticism, in the light of the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu.
It it was Saddam, that this is a belief, that is that his job is if
you want to believe in it, you can if not, you don't have to that the
initial creation of Allah subhanaw taala was the light of the Prophet
sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and from the light of the Prophet all
subsequent creation was created. But Muslims are very, very clear
that the prophet is created by Allah subhana, Allah to Allah, and
anyone who says that the prophet is is uncreated, obviously has
fallen outside the pale of Islam and the Prophet sallallahu sallam,
he warned us about doing that in a hadith that you'll find in many,
many books, including a tenement the in the Shema, l, that don't do
to me what the Christians did to a silent Salam, I am simply a
servant of God, so refer to me as the servant and His messenger.
Right? So we have to be very, very careful about that as well. So
there is a very distinct difference between what Muslims
are saying about the Prophet salallahu Salam, what Jews are
saying about Adam Cardamone, whoever that is, the primordial
human being, and what Christians are saying about the logos, what
Christians say about the logos, is that that's a silent Salam and
that is uncreated, and pre eternal. Also, something
interesting of the Gospel of John, is that in the Gospel of John,
there isn't a single exorcism performed by Eastside SLM. If you
look at Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is always exercising demons,
right extracting demons from people who are possessed. None of
this is found in the Gospel of John, because John wants to make
it very clear that inside the sun is above dealing with demons, he's
above these petty types of types of things. Also, in the Gospel of
John 90%, of John, is exclusive to his account. There's no parallel.
We mentioned this earlier, there's no parallel to anything in the
synoptics not in other words, 90% of the Gospel of John is only
found in the Gospel of John, right. This is why many scholars
will say the Gospel of John seems to be sort of sort of non
historical, even more so than the four Synoptic Gospels, where there
is some sort of attempt at accurate history, the Gospel of
John seems to be a sort of profound theological meditation on
the East Side A Salam, instead of parables. And instead of this sort
of chronology that we find in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, we have a
Silius around the Gospel of John, giving these very long theological
monologues and debates that he's engaging with with the Pharisees
is very, very different than a synoptic tradition. So this idea
that the Gospel of John is very unique, again, according to modern
historiography suggests that much of what's written in the Gospel of
John is not actually historical at all. It's simply a theological
meditation on what Christians believe actually happened to E
Silius. And I'm keys historians, they look at these four criteria.
And one of the things they look at is the earlier the better if
something is closer to the source, right? It must be more accurate.
This is a general criterion. So the Gospel of John is very, very
late. The Gospel of John was written between 90 and 100. And
some say even 110, of the Common Era. So it's very, very late. It's
also
not very contextually cohesive, right, because you have any silent
Salam who's a Palestinian, a northern Galilean preacher, who
was talking about things like that he the Father and I are one and
before Abraham was I AM things
like that, which don't seem to be theologically consistent with the
beliefs of the Jews at that time, at least, at a quick glance. So it
doesn't seem to agree with the historical context of Esau, the
salam as well. Also something they look at in modern historiography
is multiple attestation, and multiple attestation, we would
call gelato and Arabic. In other words, if it's mentioned by
different independent sources, then historians will say that's
probably true then, right? If something's mentioned, for
example, there's a Hadith of the Prophet salallahu Salam, which
says that whoever sees me in a dream has seen me and reality men
that are men that are only for the Miami, Florida Ronnie finish, a
tanah liat, and method will be Okama color, whoever see me is in
a dream, as truly seen me, because shaytaan cannot imitate my form.
This hadith is related to multiple chains of transmission. It's a
motor water, Hadith, it's undeniable that the Prophet
salallahu alayhi salam, he made this statement, right. But we have
in the Gospel of John, you have all of these statements that
Christians will say, are divine claims of East Saudi Salam, but
they're not found in any other gospel. So this is very
problematic. For example, The Father and I are one and we can
deal with this verse. And we can interpret it actually in a very
monotheistic, Islamic way. But Christians will say that this
verse in this verse, Jesus is claiming to be God, the Father and
I are one they say one essentially, in their essence and
their goose EOS is a Greek word. Right? However, this verse, which
is John 1030, is not found in Matthew, Mark, or Luke,
which is very, very strange, that if IE Silas, and I'm truly made
the statement, you would think that Matthew, who is a disciple of
Jesus apparently, and is sitting with Jesus and learning from him
for three years of his ministry, or one or something one year to
three years of his ministry is an eye and ear witness to the message
of Christ. He never hears the statement, this very profound
theological claim of Esau lace and I'm so historians will say, the
reason why Matthew Mark and Luke did not record that statement is
because Eastside s&m, probably did not make that statement. This is
what John is trying to convince his audience that Jesus is God,
because again, for many of these Christian communities,
truth, in fact, don't have to be the same thing. Right? That Jesus
may not have said that, but it's true that he is God. So that's the
message we're trying to trying to convey. Very, very kind of
unorthodox type of way of, of doing theology, but this is how
they believe that was done at the time. So this gospel, again,
probably written around 90, if we're generous,
around 100, maybe as late as 110, of the Common Era, Christians
believe the author of this gospel was John, who is the son of
Zebedee, a disciple of a Saudi Salam, right, which again, is
very, very strange, because a disciple of a sila salaam, if he
wrote this gospel, if you wrote it in 90 will use the much earlier
date, if you wrote it in 90, that makes him around 90 years old at
the time, that he finally decided he's going to write this gospel,
because the crucifixion or the ascension, according to Christians
was around the year 33. Esau thy son was 33, probably John, his
disciple was around 33. Let's just say he was 20 at the time. And the
by the year 90, he's 70 years old, right? So
or over 70 years old. So why is he waiting so long to write his
gospel? Right? This is the whole point that most scholars will say,
the Gospel of John was not written by a disciple of Jesus, because it
doesn't make sense logically, that a disciple would wait so long, and
then write the gospel finally, as a very old man in a foreign
language, because a silent tsunami spoke Syriac. But the original of
the Gospel of John is in Greek. So he waited, you know, years and
you're seven years later, he finally writes it down. Right? And
he writes it in a foreign language. So this doesn't stand to
reason.
So when was this gospel written? 9100 110? What was happening at
the time, the Christians were being expelled from the
synagogues. Right? The Christians were being expelled from the
synagogues. So keep that in mind. Where was it written? People don't
know, maybe an emphasis, but it's unknown. The audience is an
audience who believes in Jesus's pre human existence as cosmic
wisdom as logos, or a sort of proto Gnostic group that didn't
believe that essentially, Islam even had a physical body. So this
idea that first of all this idea that Eastside is
Salam as a pre human existence, this is also a Unitarian belief.
This is not simply a Trinitarian belief. Now as Muslims, we believe
that every human being predated their physical body. Right? We
believe that there was a covenant that we entered into with Allah
subhanaw taala as mentioned in surah talara of iron number 172. I
believe that Allah subhanho wa Taala asked us when we were
outwash when we were souls, I less to be rough become and we said
Bella, yes. Am I not your Lord? We said yes. Right. He didn't ask
this of our physical bodies. This was in our pre existent stage as
souls. Right. So, Unitarians also believe that isa Ali Salam, he
predates his physical body. There's two types of Unitarians
there, Unitarians who are called, so kinyan s OC. Inian. So kinyan
Unitarianism. They believe that a Sally's Salam, he does not his his
essence does not predate his physical body. In other words,
when he was created, and when his body was created 2000 years ago,
that's when his ruler, that's when his soul was also created. Right?
And it's interesting because so Kenyon Unitarianism, was the
belief of Harvard University for many, many years. Starting in
1805, when a man named Henry were became the hauless, Chair of the
School of Divinity. At Harvard University, he was a so Kenyon
Unitarian, and again, in 1963, when a man named George H.
Williams, I believe, became the the chair of divinity from 1963 to
1980. So even Harvard seminary was Unitarian. So kinyan Unitarianism.
There's another type of Unitarianism called Aryan
Unitarianism, A r i a n area named after areas. Now these Unitarians
did believe that Esau de Saddam had an aspect that predated his
physical body. And they'll say that a silent Salam was called the
logos just like the Gospel of John, and they believed in the
Gospel of John, however, they'll say the logos was created by Allah
subhanho wa taala. And that it was his first creation, that the
Father in heaven, if you will, created the logos, it was the
initial creation. So they're still Unitarian, but they'll say that
Jesus Christ's peace be upon him, was created by God. So there was a
time when Jesus did not exist, right? That's called Aryan
Unitarianism. What do the Trinitarians believe, the
Trinitarians believe that essentially, Islam also obviously,
has a pre human existence. And it's called the logos however,
they however, they're going to say that this logos is actually of the
same essence, as God as the Father. And there was never a time
when the sun did not exist. Right. So we'll talk more about that more
we talk about theology, and sha Allah. But the point here is to
let you know that this idea that Jesus existed, that his soul
existed before his human body is also a Unitarian belief. However,
the Unitarians will all maintain that a silent salaam, whether in
body or in soul, at some point in time was created. He's a created
entity, they might call him Curtis sama today on the best of
creation, but they'll always maintain as Aryans used to say,
and PATA hottie, again, there was a time when he was not meaning a
Saudi Salam was at some point created out of nothing, and that
he does not share an essential essence with the father or with
Allah subhanho wa taala. The Christians call Him the Father.
So continuing, So traditionally, this gospel was believed to have
been written in Ephesus.
And, again, that John, the son of Zebedee, a disciple of Jesus,
actually wrote this gospel. And then he also wrote three letters
that are also in the New Testament, called The First
Epistle of John, the second epistle of John, and the third
epistle of John, this was the traditional opinion that John the
son of Zebedee, you wrote the Gospel of John, and then first,
second, and third John, which will find that the end of the New
Testament just before the book of Revelation, and he also wrote the
book of Revelation. So you have these five books in the New
Testament, the Gospel of John, First John, second, John, third,
John, and the book of Revelation. All five of these books, is
collectively referred to as the Johannine. Literature, the
Johannine literature, or the literature that was written by the
community that authored the Gospel of John, right. Traditionally,
these five books in other words, traditionally, these five books
were believed to have been written by the same author, almost all
modern
critics of the New Testament disagree with that today they have
different authors will talk about the authorship more in general
inshallah to Allah.
So, again, Clement of Alexandria, early church father, around 200,
of the Common Era, he said that the synoptic gospels, Matthew,
Mark, and Luke wrote, quote, The facts of history, they were
dealing with a Silius. More on historical basis. But we know that
today that that's not accurate, that the for that the three
synoptic authors, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were doing history, but
they were doing it through the lens of their theology. Right?
That's why Luke will very commonly go to Mark and move things around.
Luke knows that successive generations will look back at him
and say, Look, Luke, move something around. He's
manipulating the chronology because again, for Luke, it's not
about presenting total accurate history. It's about making a
theological statement.
Clement goes on to say that John wrote a spiritual gospel. Now,
some early scholars said that the author of the Gospel of John and
this is very interesting. They said that the author of the Gospel
of John was a man named Corinthia. This which is spelled C E R, I N,
T, Hu s Corinthia. This and Corinthia this was a Gnostic
Christian. He was a Gnostic. What is a Gnostic Christian? Generally,
a Gnostic Christian was an early Christian who did not believe that
essentially, Salam had a physical body. So by today's standards by
today's Trinitarian standards, Gnosticism is seen as total
blasphemy. They're seen as schismatics. But it's very
interesting that many early scholars believe the Gospel of
John to be from that school of thought, to be a Gnostic gospel,
in other words, to be a totally blasphemous gospel. Right?
Or they say someone called John the elder, right, John, the elder,
a presbyter, at the church of Ephesus wrote the Gospel around
the year 100, of the the bottom of the Common Era. The bottom line,
however, is that the gospel is anonymous. No one knows who wrote
this gospel, the author of the Gospel of John never identifies
himself. Traditionally, again, the four gospels were attributed to
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Matthew and John are disciples of
a silent Salam of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, while mark is a
student of Peter, a disciple of Jesus. And Luke is a disciple of
Paul, who is a self proclaimed apostle of a solace to them. But
again, according to modern scholarship, these four books are
totally anonymous. Nobody knows who wrote these books.
Now, the Gospel of John also talks about someone called the beloved
disciple, the beloved disciple, and many Christians believe that
this is the actual author of the Gospel of John, the beloved
disciple, and in fact, John, this, son of Zebedee, might actually be
that beloved disciple, if you read the Gospel of John, this beloved
disciple is presented to be in competition with Peter and Peter,
according to Roman Catholicism, is the chief disciple of Eastside
acnm. And according to the synoptic tradition, seems to be
the greatest of the apostles of Esau, thy salon, but he's
presented in competition with Peter, that the beloved disciple,
he has special knowledge, more special knowledge about Eastside a
salon, then does Peter. So the author of the Gospel of John is
saying that I have knowledge that even Peter doesn't have. This is a
way of grandest sizing his gospel over and against what the churches
that revered Peter, were actually teaching about a Silas Anna.
Interestingly, in the Gospel of John, while Peter denies Jesus
three times, John, the son of Zebedee, who is presumably the
beloved disciple, he goes to the cross and is actually a witness to
the crucifixion of Eastside escena. We also have this very
interesting passage, during the crucifixion where Jesus says to,
to John, the beloved disciple who is at the foot of the cross,
behold your mother and points to Mary. What does that mean? That
means that this is the successor of Eastside a salon. So again,
this helps bolster the credibility of the Gospel of John, that the
Gospel of John was written by someone who is actually a witness
to the crucifixion, which is a clear contradiction to what we
have in the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in the
gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, very clearly were told that when
they come to arrest, a sign a Salam, all of his disciples
forsook him and fled. They all left him in the lurch. They all
fled from him, and none of them was an eyewitness to the soap
called crucifixion. And this is very interesting because the Quran
as you know, categorically denies that essentially Saddam was
crucified while Mercato Allahu wa masala boo will like and shouldn't
be alone in the Quran says that that they follow than it did back
then they only follow conjecture. This is what people were saying,
right? And interestingly in Matthew, Mark and Luke, there
isn't a single disciple who witnesses this crucifixion. So in
the Gospel of John, what John does the author of the Gospel of John
is he places a disciple at the site of the crucifixion. And he
has Jesus say to this disciple, that you are now my brother, and
this could be a slight against James, remember who is James James
is called Yakov had said deep in Hebrew, James the Sadiq the
truthful one, this is a title. This is a lookup that was given to
James according to Christians by Sid salaam, himself. In other
words, James is the true successor of a scientist, James Sonian.
Christianity, is that true Christianity? That was preached by
Eastside A salaam, they were called the evio name or the North
Stream. But what the Gospel of John is trying to do is trying to
replace James as the head of the disciples of essentially salaam
replace him with this person called John, the beloved disciple.
Also something interesting you have, you have this beloved
disciple, out running Peter to the empty tomb on Easter Sunday. And
again, that's significant, theologically, that he's out
running Peter, he knows more than Peter, right. He's better than
Peter, that this beloved disciple, he recognizes the risen Christ on
the shore, and then tells Peter what had happened, that Peter, he
feeds the quote, unquote, sheep, but the beloved disciple will live
until the master returns, which is one of the only references to the
second coming of East Saudi Salaam in the Gospel of John. The point
here, again, is to rival the P trein. Or the James Sony and
churches in a more glorious Christology. The Gospel of John is
trying to say that it contains knowledge that the other
disciples, the other churches that are founded upon the teaching of
Peter and James, don't have so it's very sectarian gospel, the
author, the community that authored the Gospel of John, it's
a very sectarian community.
The gospel is also rooted in Palestinian Judaism, in the sense
that it parallels the scene community at Qumran, member of the
community at Qumran they wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, they're called
the scenes and the Gospel of John, the vocabulary of the Gospel of
John is somewhat similar in its usage of dualism, right? Although
this dualism is also found in in Platonism, as well, but we find
that similarity. So the Gospel of John is also rooted in Palestinian
Judaism, those who walk in light and darkness, good and evil,
spirit and flesh, children of God, children of Satan, all of these
types of opposites, right, this type of really strict kind of
dualism, this dichotomy, this bifurcation of the world into good
and evil. This is all similar to the writings of the scenes that
were at Qumran. Why were the scenes at Qumran because they
believe that the entire priesthood of the Jews in Jerusalem was
completely corrupt, so they separated from them. So this is
very similar to their writings, what's known as a community rule
of the Essenes, the community rule, in which the universe is
seen as a battleground of polar opposites. So John, the Gospel of
John is rigorously sectarian. It's very exclusivist, the Gospel of
John the author, the community that authored this book is
basically a fiddle ca. They are a sect that believes that they only
have the truth, and everyone else is not a true believer. It they
are the only guardians of light and truth and a fatally benighted
world.
Also interesting in the Gospel of John, John chapter nine, we have
this reference to believers being put out of synagogues, right? And
this is an example of an anachronism in the Gospel of John,
because this didn't actually happen until the year 90 or so.
Right? At the time of essentially Salaam. Everyone was Jewish,
whether you believed in acla Salam or not. There were no distinct
groups called Christians at that time. This didn't happen till much
later. So we have an example of an anachronism. For example, if I say
that a Muslim couple in January of 1998, were insulted because of
what happened on 911. You would find that statement very, very
problematic, because he would say wait a minute, January of 1998.
That's so many years before 911. That doesn't make any sense.
Right. And that's what's happening in the Gospel of John, you have
John presenting, Christians being kicked out of synagogues with this
wasn't actually happening at the time of a Sunday, Salam. So we do
have an example of a historical inaccuracy. In the Gospel of John,
this is called an anachronism. And this obviously is very problematic
if Christians want to say that the Gospel of John is verbatim or
inerrant Word of God, right, that a decisive break between
Christians between the church and the synagogue happened around 90
of the Common Era. So what John is doing, he's writing around this
time around 100, of the Common Era. And that's what's happening
at the time of the composition of the Gospel of John. But what the
author does, unfortunately for him, is that he will retro
actively import this phenomenon at his time upon the time of a
Silius. And that simply was not happening. The Krishna believers
and acla salaam at the time of a silence, were not being expelled
from synagogues.
So it's gnostic, also, in the sense that a silent Salam was
God's eternal Word that descended from the heavens, to reveal divine
knowledge and then re ascended to his celestial place of origin and
caused his followers to be born from above. So next time,
inshallah to Allah, we're going to talk more about this idea of
Christian Gnosticism. And what is the basic Christian Gnostic myth
that the Gospel of John seems to buy into? And also we'll talk
about this character in the Gospel of John, who is known as the
parakeet, which is mentioned in John chapter 14, and John chapter
16. And how the author of the Gospel of John is used utilizing
this tradition of the parakeet right the comforter there
intercessor. So we're going to do that next time in sha Allah to
Allah so we've come to the end of this class will sell Allah Allah
say to Muhammad, Anwar Ali, he was salam. Ala hamdu Lillahi Rabbil
Alameen
wa Rahim Salam, ala Muhammad didn't want it. He was a Marine
Soleimani kumara Allah he will barakato so continuing with our
lessons in the gospels, Muslim interpretation of the New
Testament, we're looking at the Gospel of John. And initially what
we want to do before we continue looking at the content and themes
of the Gospels, I want to take you through sort of a chart of
Christology
interpretations of who was a Saudi Saddam and the first four
centuries of the Common Era. So we have a Saudi Saddam we have
historical Jesus. So historians will say this, historians like
Albert Schweitzer, Bart Ehrman, Dale Martin, they'll say that
Jesus Christ peace be upon him. He was a prophet, he believed himself
to be a prophet in some sort of King. But they don't say that he
claimed to be the Messiah or God or son of God. So historically, he
was he viewed himself as being some sort of eschatological
prophets and Prophet of the End of Time, possibly, and a kingdom,
some in some sort of way.
And then we have three different ways in which early Christians
viewed a Silius lab. So these are early Christian views,
you know, confessional views about Essenes. And this is what
Christians believed. One view was that a Saudi Salam was simply a
human being, he was only human. Okay. And as we said before,
there's different groups that confess to this type of belief.
Probably the most famous are called the iView name or the
Ebionites. So this is a very interesting group. I highly
encourage people to do further research on the Christology of the
Libyan knights and be a knights means the spiritual poppers,
right? This was a group of Jews who continue to follow the Shetty
are the mitzvot of Musashi Salaam. They prayed in the temple. They
believe in the oneness of God, the oneness of Adonai Eloheinu, the
Oneness of Allah subhanho wa taala. The only difference between
them and other Jews was that they believed that Eastside a Salam was
How mushiya He was the Messiah, that they had been promised.
Another group of Christians that we mentioned also, that we're
going to elaborate that also believe that Jesus was only human.
They're called the note stream, note stream. So we know of their
name, because when the Romans attacked the Temple of Solomon, in
the year 70 of the Common Era under General Titus, there was a
rabbi in the city, whose name was Yohanan, ben Zakkai. Benza chi, he
went to the temple before they actually destroyed it. And he took
the scroll of the Torah, and he snuck out of the city of
Jerusalem. And he went to a coastal city right on the coast of
the Mediterranean called the off net. In English, it's called
Gemini.
In Hebrew, it's called the alternate and he began the
rabbinical Academy at JavaOne. So this is actually where
The modern day Judaism was born. rabbinical Judaism is from that
Academy at JavaOne. And the Oral Law is called the Mishnah. That's
where it was initially written down at that Academy. And a few
things were instituted by the Jews during this time. The writing of
the Oral Law obviously, they set the Old Testament canon 39 books
are going to be the authoritative canon of the Old Testament, going
from the book of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, all the way into the
book of Malikai 39 books, and also they had something called a bit of
cots hominin. The bit of caught Hominem in Hebrew means the
cursing of the apostates or the cursing of the not apostates the
heretics, right, the moneyed means heretics or the malediction upon
the heretics, and included amongst the heretics are a group called
the notes Salim. So it's really interesting as part of the
synagogue synagogue liturgy, as articulated by the Academy at
JavaOne. In the second century, part of the synagogue liturgy
became cursing of note sodium cursing of the Christians. So the
Jews, rabbinical Jews, the Pharisees, they did not like these
Christians, right? They call them not scream. Of course, the word
Nazi comes from the word nuts, wrath, which is Nazareth, which is
the city that SIV salaam according to the New Testament, was raised.
So this was a sect of Jews that were identified was with Nazareth,
and this is probably the cognate of the word, no surah in the
Quran, when Allah subhanaw taala refers to the Christians. He calls
them Masada. So what is their Christology though the view name
and the note stream, is that a silent Salam was only a human
being. So another way of saying this is called symmetric adoption
ism. Adoption is Christology. What does that mean? Adoption is
Christology that means that you sideways to them was, quote,
unquote, adopted to be God's son at His baptism. What does it mean
to be adopted? So they mean this language to be figurative, this is
my jazz that not that Jesus is the literal Son of God. No, they
didn't believe that. Because again, these are Christians, if
you want to call them Christians, that believe in the Oneness of
Allah subhanaw taala, just as their Jewish brethren believed in
the oneness, so when they use the term, you know, adopted to be the
Son of God, they simply mean that Jesus was given the mission of the
Messiah, that at the baptism of Christ, by John the Baptist, this
is his bit of the of source of sorts. This is when he was
commissioned to be the Messiah. So that's what it means to be an
adoption as Christian, Semitic adoption ism.
This Christology is also known as dynamic monarchism, dynamic
monarchism. What that means is that the father, meaning God, He
is the monarch he is the first principle and everything else is
subordinate to the Father, including Jesus, it his setup, so
it's very, very interesting. This type of Christology was the
Christology of the Bishop of Antioch in the third century,
whose name was Paul of Samos SATA, so you can look him up as well. I
highly encourage people when you hear some of these terms that I'm
putting out there. Obviously, we don't have a live audience right
now. But in future classes, we're going to have a live audience and
also email me your questions.
Write these names down, write these terms down and we can
elaborate on them. But very important name that you should
make note of is the Bishop of Antioch who died in 275 of the
Common Era. His name was Paul of Samos, SATA. And Paul of Samuel
SATA was a Unitarian. Okay, a Unitarian Christian, he was
actually a so kinyan so so Kenyon Unitarian believes that there's no
aspect of Jesus Christ peace be upon him, that predated his
physical body, right that he was purely a human being. He was a
mere man, as he said, and this type of Christology is also
referred to as facil Anthro prism, which means mere man ism, that
easily Islam was a mere man, he has nothing special metaphysically
he's just like everybody else, his specialness, right. His his, his
hospital associate comes later on in his life because he was so
righteous, that God chose him and adopted him as it were, again, my
jazz this is figurative to be his Messiah. Right? But the first
principles of Jesus are like everybody else, that God is the
only monarch This is called Semitic adaption ism. It's also
known as dynamic monarchism or pissin. Anthro. PRISM, mirror min
ism, right. So Paul of San Masada, his student was named Lucien of
Antioch, and he also believed in this type of Christology and of
course, and he died in 312.
of the Common Era, and Lucien student was named areas. And this
is the famous areas of Alexandria, who was a Presbyterian at the
church in Alexandria, Egypt, who caused so much trouble as it were
for the proto Orthodox, that Constantine finally called the
first Ecumenical Council, the first World Council, the Council
of Nicaea, to decide once and for all, who is right, is it areas and
those who are saying that Jesus Christ is a human being, and that
he's not God, and that he's dissimilar to God? Or is it
Athanasius and the proto orthodox Trinitarians that are saying
basically that a Silius shares an essence with God.
So, what happened at Nicaea was the vote was taken. And Jesus was
declared to be Hamas who see us, which means of the same essence as
God. Right? This was done by vote 318 bishops were invited to Nicaea
modern day Turkey. So what the other position said, what the note
stream or the adoption lists were saying, what dynamic monarchism is
teaching is that a sign a Salam is hetero see us, meaning that he is
completely different in his nature, in his essence, than God
and this is also Islamic Christology, and Islamic
Christology, no one and nothing shares an essence or the
attributes or the actions of Allah subhanho wa taala, that Lisa
committed ly sheet one, that there's nothing like the likes of
Allah subhanaw taala nothing shares his essence nothing has his
attributes. Anyone who says that any human being has an attribute
of Allah Subhana Allah data, for example, somebody who claims that
they're omnipotent, they know everything, right? Because that is
a qualitative attribute of Allah subhanaw taala from the sea,
Fatima Annie, this is what qualifies Allah. So anyone who
makes that claim is claiming to be God, and that's rejected because
no human being can ever be God. Right? So the Quranic Christology
if you will, and Christology is a good term that you should become
familiar with. Christology means the study of the nature and
function of a Silius Anna right what do and it's not just you know
what Christians believe what everyone believes Jewish
Christology Muslim Christology, atheist, first of all, what did
the atheists believe about Esau? They said no, right? Everyone has
a Christology. So in the Quran, it's very clear that a Sunday
salaams Christology is similar to this egg Good night, or not
supreme Christology, and there's evidence actually also that the
evio Nene believed in the virgin birth of a Sunday so that and of
course the Quran confirms that because Essenes is a prophet, and
there are certain genes that there are certain miracles that are
ascribed to him, I need his Salatu was Salam. So in the Quran, he is
the messenger of God. This is very, very clear. He sadly Salam
is Rasool Allah and Muslims believe that and we have to
believe that he signed Islam and the Quran is a Nabi. He's also a
profit of course, the station of a Rasul is over a profit, according
to the mid Arcada. The difference is that a profit confirms the
prophetic dispensation of the Rasul that came before him, or he
receives the prophetic dispensation, but it's not ordered
by Allah Subhan Allah to Allah to tell it to the people, right?
There's no to believe that there's an order of to have a dispensation
or conveyance of the message, whereas Rasul receives that
dispensation, and he is ordered by Allah subhanho wa taala. So
Muslims believe according to the Hadith, there's about 124,000
prophets, we don't know the exact number, but it's around it's in
that ballpark 124,000 prophets from these 124,000 prophets 313
According to the Hadith, these are the Russell these are the
messengers, right, so this is the next tier above NBR and then from
the 313. There are five that are called Arun Azmi Mina Russell, the
people affirm determination that people affirmed resolve these are
the five most exalted prophets, the five most exalted messengers
of God. And of course these messengers in chronological order,
are Satan a new and Sydney Ibrahim Sedna Musa senior isa bin Maryam
incedo, Muhammad Ali hemos Salatu was Salam, a peace and blessings
be upon all of the prophets. These are the five great ones. Right? So
and we also believe that a Salah Islam is a slave of God. It's
very, very interesting. It's very, very interesting when we read the
Molad or the birth a narrative of a silent salon which is given
twice in the Quran once in Surah Ali Imran and once in surah.
Maryam that the first words of a Saudi Sena as recorded in the
Quran is very first words to his people. Is or was in need Abdullah
attorney al Kitab or Jalla Nina via what your attorney Mubarak and
aina control. Wow. Sunniva Salatu was the case
Imagine to hire the his first words, were defending his mother's
honor and chastity. This is the first miracle of a sideways setup,
as recorded in the Quran. Of course, there's another narration
that when Maria and his mom gave birth, according to the Quran that
you heard a voice, right saying, Don't fear and there's a spring of
water underneath you, and wash yourself and drink of it and be
refreshed. There's an opinion that that was also the voice of a
Saudi, so that and some of the LMS some of the facility they say that
was Gbit setup. But nonetheless, one of the first miracles if not
the first miracle of Italia salaam, as recorded in the Quran
is what defending his mother's honor and chastity because when
she brought the baby in the sight of her family, they start
insinuating things about her, right because she's unmarried and
she's holding a baby. So they automatically suspect her of
committing adultery, harshly law, but that's what they thought that
she had done and the Jews to this day in the Talmud, they say things
like that about Maryam and his surname in the Quran tells us what
we call for him or Cody him or her mother, Yama, Bhutan and Alima.
So easily so what can she say for Ashati? Lay the Quran say she
pointed to a solicitor and they said Kay for new Kennedy woman
Caniff in Mandisa, how can we speak to one who is a an infant, a
child in the cradle. And then he said Indeed, in me, I am the slave
or the servant of Allah subhanho wa taala. These are his initial
words, I need to set up a Silius is first miracle as recorded in
the Quran. It's interesting, the first miracle of a site as
recorded in the New Testament actually comes in the Gospel of
John, although John again was the last gospel to be written, John is
presenting something that happened in the life of Jesus that predates
the miracles ascribed to him and Matthew, Mark and Luke. So in John
chapter two, this is his first miracle that a citation I'm
according to the Gospel of John is at a wedding in Cana, and people
are having a good time of this wedding, and they're out of wine.
So they come to him and they say, can you know, can you give us some
wine, and then eventually, he transforms water into wine so
people can, you know, drink wine and have a great time. This is his
first miracle. In the Gospel of John, look at the difference here
between the miracle in the Quran where he's defending his mother's
honor and chastity as an infant, the infant Allah by the permission
of Allah subhana wa taala. And the first miracle in the, in the
Bible, attributed to him is turning water into wine. Right, so
this is the difference here. Also, he is the true Messiah in the
Quran. The Quran calls him atomosphere, he is the Messiah.
And a lot of Christians, they don't know this. And this is quite
revelatory for them, that Muslims actually believe because if you
listen to people like Martin Luther, not Martin Luther King,
Martin Luther, the German theologian, and Augustinian monk,
who was one of the pioneers of the Protestant Reformation, he lived
in the 16th century, Martin Luther writes a lot about Muslims. And he
calls Muslims antichrist, right. That's what he calls us. These are
antichrist. And Martin Luther, obviously was very, very
influential. The second there's maybe 900 million Protestants on
Earth right now. And the largest sect of Protestantism is
Lutheranism. So they take Luther very, very seriously. And this is
what Luther said, about the Muslims that they're Antichrist.
And a lot of these people have no idea that Muslims actually believe
that a silent Salam is a Messiah. But what does it mean for him to
be at the mercy here? And they forget also sometimes that the
whole concept of the Messiah is a Jewish concept. What did the Jews
believe about the Messiah is that the Messiah will come and he will
usher in an era of world peace, right? The Christians borrowed
this concept. And they said, the way in which the Messiah will do
this is that he will die from your you'll die for your sins who will
vicariously atone for your sins? And of course, this comes from
Paul, this is Paul line Christianity. If you read the
letters of Paul, like Ephesians, For example, Jesus is a sin
offering a sacrifice for the sins of humanity, the book of Romans,
the book of First Corinthians goes into things like that. This is not
the teaching of a silent cinema. This is not what Luke is saying,
Remember the Gospel of Luke very, very clearly, in the Gospel of
Luke II Silius does not die for your sins, He makes you conscious
of your sin and teaches you how to make repentance for your sin. In
that sense. He is the Savior. So what does it mean for esigning
salam to be the Messiah in Islamic Christology? Well, it means that
he was specially chosen by Allah Subhana Allah to Allah to bring a
special message to the Bani Israel at the time of a silent Salam.
Many of the Bani Israel are in they had deviated from the
teachings of Musa they said that, in fact, the Sadducees who were
the high priests of the temple, they totally denied and I
afterlife. Right? I didn't believe that I'll ask you that what's
known as Olam Haba in Hebrew, the world to come, they didn't even
believe in that. So essentially Islam is giving them spiritual
teaching, and also
giving them Bushra of the final messenger of God, the Prophet
Muhammad Sallallahu. I know he went it was send them and this is
where the Paraclete will come into play of the Gospel of John that
we've talked about. We're going to talk about that a little bit
later. But just to conclude here with this with this idea of Jesus
being only a human being the Quranic Christology, again says
that acla Salam is hetero goosey is that he's wholly dissimilar in
his essence from Allah subhanho wa taala. Now we have these concepts
of mystical union, right, so many of the mystically inclined Sufi
writers will say things that are things like you know, mystical
union with Allah subhanho Finance Illa that one is, once ego is
annihilated in the love and contemplation of Allah subhanaw
taala. And yes, this is the state of all of the prophets and this is
the state of Alia and many of the meaning in that they've fallen in
love with Allah subhanho wa taala. And they've emptied themselves
have every type of egotistical vise and they've become law Lord
like or God Lee, albeit in a non absolute and contingent matter.
Allah Subhana Allah to Allah, He says in the Quran Coonrod up
bandha Yin.
So this verses Ali Imran verse number 79, is very, very
interesting, according to him, almost so you're at the suburban
nozzle of this idea. The occasion of its revelation came when a
group of Christians came to the Prophet salallahu Salam, and they
said, Don't you know that essentially, Suriname commanded us
to worship Him? So this verse was related, that it's not befitting
for any Bashara for any human being, to whom Allah gave the book
in wisdom and the office of prophecy to say Kunal a bad day
Lehman Dooney, Allah, for him to say worship me in derogation of
Allah subhanho wa Taala what I can Kunal Rabbani Yin, rather, he
would say, the lordly have these divine attributes. In other words,
Allah is merciful His mercy he's a rough man, which is absolute,
right and infinite, but we can also be people of mercy. We can
model our behavior and our actions after Allah subhanho wa taala.
Right, knowing that we're Allah's creation, this is called mystical
union. Right so this is not a tea had. This is not our essence
mingling with Allah's essence. No, that's not what that's not what
the Mystics are saying. That's that's not what imamo Junaid is
saying. That's not what Abu Hamad Al Ghazali is saying, They're not
saying that at all. They're so that's not even out of he is
saying no, they're saying that one becomes annihilated to the self.
And one's only thought once only object of love is Allah Subhana
Allah to Allah. And when that happens, according to the Hadith
glitzy a law says that I am the eye by which he sees and the hand
by which he grasps and the foot by which he walks. And if you were to
ask anything from me, I shall surely give it to him, meaning
that we become guided in our actions, we become sanctified. So
this we would say about a Saturday setup that Eastside a Salam, he
was someone who was annihilated in the love and contemplation of
Allah subhanho wa taala. But essentially, he is completely
dissimilar. Nothing is similar to Allah subhanho wa taala. Lisa can
live to be he shaitan nothing shares in his essence, his that is
the fact or his idol. Nothing shares in his essence, nothing
shares in his attributes, and nothing shares in his actions.
Subhanahu wa taala.
Now we have another Christology. So that's the group of Christians
who said that Jesus was only human. We have another group of
Christians in the first four centuries, who said that Jesus
Christ's peace be upon him, was only divine. He's only divine, he
wasn't human at all. In other words, he's not even flesh. That's
just how he appears to be. Right? So because he's only God, and God
is not flesh and blood. So when you saw you saw a Salam, that was
something that was a vision that God gave you, in order to make
sense of this phenomenon known as God, that God gave you something
to understand, but in reality, it was an illusion. It was a Phantasm
he wasn't a real human being. He just assumed he just seemed to be
that way. So these these are group of these are groups of Christians,
known as Gnostic Christians. And of course, Christian Gnosticism is
extremely vast. You have many, many different groups. But
generally the Gnostics believed that a Sunday salaam was only a
Divine Being and he wasn't really human, he just appeared to be
human. And if he walked on the sand, he wouldn't even leave
footprints, because he's not actually there. It's a Phantasm
there's no flesh there.
No blood. He's not there's no mass, right? There's no volume to
him nothing like that. Right? So you have different groups of of
Gnostics. You have some Gnostic saying that Jesus is the only God.
You have other Gnostics saying that Jesus is one of many gods.
You have other Gnostics who say like the Marcy Ian's right ma RC
IO n. That's the founder Marcion. We talked about him in the past as
well. He was a bi theist. He said, The God of the Old Testament is a
different God, then the God of the New Testament. There's two Gods he
said. And this was a very, very influential movement, especially
in Rome.
And modern day, contemporary atheists like Christopher
Hitchens, who passed away recently, he actually says Marcion
was onto something. Because if you look at the descriptions of God
and the Old Testament, you know, going around and ordering armies
to completely obliterate city states and nations 31 city states
were completely destroyed. Men, women and children are the armies
of God under Moses and Joshua, according to the Old Testament,
they'll say, Well, Marcion, he understood that that can't be the
God of the New Testament. So he was a bi theist, he believed in
two gods. So this whole idea, right, that Jesus is only divine
and not flesh. This is called Docetism Docetism, which comes
from the Greek verb, a doe kale, which means to seem to appear. So
Jesus only appear to be human, you only appear to eat and drink and
walk and talk, he only appeared to die, right? So this is this was a
very, very prevalent type of Christology.
And then you have a third type of Christology, which is that Jesus
is human and divine. He's both human and divine. Right? Now the
question becomes, well, when did he become divine? So you have a
group of Christians who say, he became divine when he was born.
You have other Christians say, he became divine at His baptism. You
have other Christians who say he became divine at his resurrection.
Right. So here we have difference of opinion.
The early church father named origin of Alexandria,
the most prolific of any Christian writer in the history of
Christianity, was this meant origin O R i, G. E. N of
Alexandria. He lived around 250 of the Common Era, he wrote over 1000
books, right 1000 books. He believed that Jesus was a divine
being, however, he said that Jesus was created by the Father, and was
subordinate to the Father. So what does it then mean for him to be
divine? Does he mean that he's also God or a Lesser God? It's
unclear, but it seems as if he's saying he's divine in the sense
that he's been again sanctified by God. He's not deity. He's a human
being who is holy. That's what it seems to be that they're teaching.
This is called origin ism, or subordination ism. So sometimes
you'll hear this term subordination is Christology. What
does that mean? That means the Son of God is subordinate to the
Father. They're not equal. The son serves the Father. And there's a
lot of biblical backing for this. And the New Testament, we hear
essentially, Salam reported to have said, The Father is greater
than I, this is from John, The Father is greater than all again
from John, I can have my own self do nothing. This is also from
John, in all four Gospels, we have Jesus going and praying and
worshiping God falling down on his face, it says, For us Conejo in
Greek, which means to prostrate oneself before God. So Jesus, it
seems like in the New Testament, is subordinate to, and worshiping
the Father in heaven. So origin here, he has a point, however,
origin was eventually anathematized, which means he was
eventually declared a heretic, to anathematized. Someone means to
pronounce, took field upon them, this person is a heretic, right?
And this was eventually done in the year 553, of the Common Era,
at a church council, called the Council of Constantinople to
Constantinople to in the year 553. Origen was declared a heretic. He
was the most again, the most prolific of the early church
fathers, the most prolific Christian author of all time. So
when we say that there were groups of Christians who believe Jesus
was human and divine, that's also very ambiguous. What does that
mean for him to be divine? Does it mean that he was the same as the
Father? Or was he a demigod of some sort? Or was he half god?
When was he made God? There's a lot of difference of opinion.
There was another group who said Jesus was human and divine, and he
was always divine.
He was always divide, right? And now the question becomes what
happened when he became human then
one group said that he became an additional person with an
additional nature. So in other words, Jesus had two
personalities. One person was Jesus of Nazareth. The other one
was the Christ. So literally, he has multiple personalities. He
also has two natures. This group of Christians are called
separation earnest Christology. Separation is they actually
believed that when Jesus was crucified according to their
belief, the person of Christ and His divine nature left Jesus. This
is why he said, Allah, He Allah, He led us aback Danny, oh, my God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me? This is the meaning of this verse
according to separation as Christians, who believed again
that Jesus was two persons, and he had two natures, obviously, this
is total kofler. This is blasphemy for Orthodox Christians, who
believe that Jesus needs to die as God in order to redeem humanity.
Right. So even though they believed that Jesus was human, and
divine, and that he's always been divine, right, they were still
declared heretics, because they said that when he became
incarnated, he was actually two persons now, and that divine
nature completely left him leaving just a human being on the cross.
And of course, one human being that's totally human being cannot
redeem the sins of all of humanity. So this was seen as
total heresy. You had another group, who said, that Jesus, when
he became human, became
another mode of the Father. This is called modal monarchism. Modal
monarchism. What does that mean? It means that Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, they're all referring to the same person. So Orthodox
Christianity Trinitarian, Christianity says that God has one
essence, one, Lucia and Greek, and three hypotheses, three persons,
one essence, and three persons. What the modal Monarcas are saying
is that it's only one person, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are
the same person, that there's no hypostatic distinction between the
three persons is actually one person. What that means is, God
was the Father, and then he literally became the Son and died
on the cross. So this belief is also called Petrie, PASI anism,
which means the father suffers, that God literally died
completely, according to this Christology. And then, when he was
dead, he became the Holy Spirit, resurrected, the son became the
Son again, and then went back and became the father. So God
basically puts on three different masks, one God, one person, one
essence. So obviously, this was also seen as heresy by Trinitarian
Christians, because Trinitarians believe that God was three
persons, not one person. So even though this was actually a
Unitarian Christology, it seen as total heresy, because Trinitarians
again, believe in three persons, not one. And then you have finally
the belief that, yes, Jesus was human and divine, and he was
always divine. And when he became human, he became human with an
additional nature. So he's one person with two natures. And this
is the Orthodox Christian position. This is the Christian
position of the world today, whether you're Catholic, or your
Eastern Orthodox, or your Protestant. This is also known as
Joe Henein Christology, and this is taken directly from the Gospel
of John is also known as logos Christology, a reference to the
prologue of the Gospel of John. So you can see how influential the
Gospel of John was, and determining normative Christian
orthodoxy with respect to Esau days. So what I've just named for
you is at least what I've just described for you with this
Christology chart I have in front of me and inshallah to Allah, we
can put this online so you can look at it, when the classes
actually begin is that I've described for you nine different
Christology keys that were very prevalent during the first three,
three and a half centuries of the Christian era. And amongst these
nine, you have you have several subdivisions, dozens and numerous,
numerous subdivisions of these nine chronologies, as well. So one
of these crystal ologies became what we know today as Orthodox
Christianity, that Jesus is human and divine, and that he's always
been the
Fine. And when he became human, he became one person with two
natures, meaning, divine nature and human nature. So that when he
was when he died on the cross, he died with that divine nature
within him, so to speak, although the divine nature survived the
cross, and this again is very much paradoxical.
Now returning to the Gospel of John. So, the Gospel of John, as
we said, was written by the Johannine community, that's how
they are referred to in academic research, the Johannine community.
And if you read the first epistle of John, so remember, we said
this, in our last class, we said traditionally,
Christians believed that five books were written by the author
of the Gospel of John, the Gospel of John, the first epistle of John
second epistle of John, third epistle of John, and the book of
Revelation. Today, scholars will say this, the book of Revelation
was not written by the Johanna community, it was written by a
different community.
And the author of the three epistles, although that author is
reflecting the same type of Christology, as the Gospel of
John, it is not the same author as the Gospel of John, although he's
reflecting the same again type of Christology is very exclusive, his
type of Christology. So in the first epistle of John, right, if
you look towards the back of the New Testament, before the book of
Revelation, you'll find something called the first epistle of John,
the first epistle of John chapter two, verses 18 to 25, the author,
whom we'll call John describes a type of anti Christian
Christology. He says, there are certain groups of people that are
antiChrist, right? And these are, these are people who don't believe
that Jesus is the Christ. So here he's talking about Jews, that Jews
here are the Antichrist. If you keep reading First John, chapter
four, verse one, you have another group that he calls Antichrist,
and these are people who believed that Jesus was not in the flesh.
What does that mean? That means Christian Gnostics, Christians,
who said that Jesus was only divine and did not have a human
body. Right? So the first epistle of John is condemning these two
groups of people is condemning the Jews, because they didn't believe
Jesus was Christ, he calls them Antichrist, and also those who
said, Jesus did not have a physical body. Right? That he
says, whoever does not believe Jesus Christ came in the flesh is
a curse it right, so you have these two Antichrist threats. Now,
most authors know most scholars actually believe that the Gospel
of John has at least two authors. And this is very important. So
they believe one of them, they call the evangelist, whoever
actually wrote this book. It's called the evangelist. And then
you have someone called the redactor. Someone who took the
Gospel of John, as it was originally written, and made some
additions to it, to kind of clean it up a little bit, because
remember this, we mentioned this the last class amongst many early
Christians. The Gospel of John was initially seen as this alien sort
of gnostic gospel that was very, very different than the Synoptic
Gospels. In fact, many Christians believe that a Gnostic named
Carinthia, this was the was the actual author of the Gospel of
John. So a later redactor goes into the Gospel of John, and, and
adds, according to this theory, chapter 21 of the gospel, he adds
what's known as the, the epilogue of the Gospel of John, right? Why
does he add the epilogue? Because in the epilogue, Jesus comes back
after his resurrection, he goes to Galilee and he eats breakfast with
his disciples, and you think what does that have to do with anything
who cares if he ate breakfast? Well, this was added, in order to
refute this idea that Jesus was only God, he was also a human
being who's eating food. That's why that was added at the end of
the gospel.
Because the redactor wanted to show that Jesus was also a human
being. So this last chapter of the Gospel of John was added to the
end of it because the original Gospel of John according to most
scholars, ended at John chapter 20. And now we have this epilogue
that was added later. Also, Chapter Six of the Gospel of John
is believed by many scholars to be a later addition to the Gospel of
John Chapter Six actually describes the mass the Holy
Communion, where Jesus says and according to the
This chapter, whoever the that you must eat my flesh and drink my
blood if you want eternal life, things like that. The reason that
was added is because the Last Supper in the Gospel of John does
not have the institution of the Eucharist, of eating the bread and
drinking the wine as being the trench should transubstantiated
flesh and blood of Christ, that whole Holy Communion is not
mentioned during the Last Supper of the Gospel of John, so many
scholars, including Rudolf Bultmann, who's eminent New
Testament scholar and German scholar, he said, Chapter Six was
added later by someone called the ecclesiastical redactor. And we
have also chapters 15 through 17, as being candidates for letter
later additions to the Gospel of John. Even some scholars say the
prologue itself, the hymn to the logos was added later, Bart Ehrman
will suggest this, in his book, for example, a great book that you
should get is called Misquoting Jesus. It's written for a lay
audience, about textual criticism of the New Testament. And he'll go
into the Gospel of John, and he'll look at the prologue the first 18
verses of John chapter one, where Jesus is explicitly called God
twice in the prologue and Ehrman will argue that that prologue is a
later addition to the Gospel of John. A later addition, this is
quite significant, because nowhere else in the Gospel of John is
Jesus directly called God, or does he make a claim directly to be
God? Right. So the prologue, he says was added later. And why does
he say this is because you find it in a certain different style. Its
vocabulary is different than the rest of the gospel. Its style is
very different than the rest of the gospel, at least according to
the textual analysis of Bart Ehrman. So that's very, very
interesting.
Now,
what happened, according to scholars was, you have the
Johannine community, you have this community that authored the Gospel
of John, scholars believe that
a significant segment of that community became Gnostic in their
Christology. In other words, they said, Jesus did not have a
physical body. So they took the gospel with them and started their
own community. So in response to that, the other half of the
community, they made these additions to the Gospel of John to
present more of the humanity of Jesus, but at the same time, also
present him as being God. That's why the prologue was added as
well. So that's pretty much standard amongst New Testament
scholars. So this succession is or separatist movement, took the
gospel with them and became full, full blown Gnostics. Member It is
a historical fact that the gospel was used by Gnostic circles. In
fact, the first commentary on the Gospel of John, and this is
historical fact. The first commentary ever written on the
Gospel of John was written by a man named Heraclea on H. E. R, A,
Cleon Heraclea. On was a Valentinian gnostic, he was a
Gnostic. So it's very, very interesting that many scholars
believe the Gospel of John was written by a Gnostic Corinthians.
And it is a historical fact that the first commentary ever written
on the Gospel of John was written by a Gnostic named correctly. And
that tells us that originally the Gospel of John was a Gnostic
gospel that would have been totally rejected by the vast, vast
majority of Christians today, but it was eventually cleaned up by
someone called the redactor. And Jesus was presented as human and
divine, and eventually it was accepted as a canonical text.
What's also interesting about the Gospel of John, is that there's no
birth narrative of a sideways enough to remember, the gospel of
Mark doesn't have a birth narrative. It begins with Jesus's
baptism. But Luke and Matthew taken from the Q source document,
apparently, we talked about the Q source document. They include a
Molad, or a birth narrative of ESA lesson. In the Gospel of John,
there is no birth narrative, what we have is the prologue of John's
gospel, because Jesus becoming flesh as man, that's the most
important thing, right? That Christ has pre eternality. So the
author of the Gospel of John doesn't bother himself with the
virgin birth. The most important thing is that Jesus in the
beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. So who cares if it was a virgin birth? Jesus is God
according to the understanding of at least the prologue of the
Gospel of John.
There's also no baptism of Jesus. So if Matthew, Mark and Luke all
three of them say that John the Baptist baptized Jesus, John
doesn't mention that at all. The reason why he doesn't mention it
is because
Again, it's shorter, it sort of shows or demonstrates that Jesus
is inferior to the Baptist, that Jesus is sort of taking the
Baptist mantle, if you will, the Baptist is passing the baton to
him. The Baptist is giving him permission now to teach, and so on
and so forth. So the Gospel of John didn't like that Jesus is
independent of and superior to the Baptist. So in the Gospel of John,
the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of John, the Baptists,
are actually concurrent. Whereas in the synoptic, tradition, he
cites them, Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, his ministry comes after
the Baptist was put in prison and beheaded by Herod and tapas. In
fact, in the Gospel of John, we have this very bizarre statement.
We have John the Baptist, when he sees Jesus for the first time, he
says, Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world,
this message is vastly different than what we have in the synoptic
traditions, where John the Baptist is saying, Repent, and bear fruits
of righteousness, you know, work hard and repent to God. And
suddenly, in the Gospel of John, we have the statement, the Lamb of
God who takes away the sins of the world, of course, this
is in sharp contrast to the synoptic tradition. So the Gospel
of John is trying to do in other words, is trying to promote Jesus
and give him this really high type of status higher than John the
Baptist, or even John, the Baptists recognize that this is
someone who's going to die for your sins, right? We don't find
that
interpretation in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
We also have no temptation of Isa Lisa, you know, in the in the
synoptic, Gospels, Jesus goes to the wilderness, and Satan will
tempt him. Right? We don't find that at all, in the Gospel of
John, because, you know, it's not befitting of Christ, to be tempted
by Satan. Again, we also have no exorcisms performed by Jesus,
Jesus is above such petty types of tricks. Jesus is too powerful to
be devalued and ignored. So there's really no clear rejection
of Jesus at Nazareth. So in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, very
clearly, he's rejected by the people of Nazareth. But the Gospel
of John, he doesn't like the author of the Gospel of John
doesn't like that idea that Jesus is rejected by anyone, because for
Jesus, for him, Jesus is again, very, very exalted, a very high
Christology.
The teaching style in the Gospel of John is very different as well,
the Gospel of John, we don't have any of the parables that figure so
prominent in the Synoptic Gospels, no types of parables. Instead, you
have these very long, philosophical, theological
speeches of Jesus, about his own nature, these very long monologues
right. None of Jesus's reinterpretations of the Law of
Moses that are again, very, very prevalent. In Matthew, Mark and
Luke, are found in the Gospel of John, right, we talked about the
antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount, you have heard. In other
words, when Jesus says something like you have heard them say this,
but verily I say this unto you, he quotes the law and he gives his
own interpretation of it. There's none of that found.
In the Gospel of John, the only thing that Jesus commands in the
Gospel of John is to love one another. That's it. There's no
prediction of Jerusalem this fall in the Gospel of John, because
it's not important. That was 30 years ago, it's not an important
thing. There's no prophecy of the Second Coming of Jesus. There's no
stress on future eschatology. Because John believes, very
important theme, and the Gospel of John is what's known as realized,
eschatology that the second coming of Christ has already happened in
the form of the parakeet, right? We'll talk about the Paraclete
in subsequent sessions in sha Allah to Allah, so we're going to
spend quite a significant amount of time actually on the Gospel of
John. Again, there's no institution of communion or
Eucharist, in the Gospel of John, at the Last Supper scene. So in
the last supper, according to Matthew and Mark Jesus, you know,
he takes the bread and the wine, this is my body, this is my blood.
This is the blood of the New Testament that's going to be shed
for many. There's nothing like that in the Gospel of John. In the
Gospel of John, The Last Supper is not even a Passover meal. It
happens the night before Passover. So Matthew, Mark and Luke, the
Last Supper is on Thursday night in the Gospel of John, it's on
Wednesday night and all Jesus does on Wednesday night at the Last
Supper is washed the feet of his disciples, there's no institution
of communion. So this is a clear contradiction in the New
Testament. Both cannot be correct. There's no way to harmonize this.
When did the Last Supper happen that it happened on Thursday night
or Wednesday night you cannot harmonize it somebody is right
here or and somebody is wrong.
wrong, or both accounts are wrong. Right? But they both cannot be
right, very clear contradiction.
There's no Agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. So in Matthew, Mark,
and Luke, you have Jesus going to the garden, and he collapses on
the ground, you know, Father removed this cup away from me, not
as I will, but as thou will, this type of trying to get out of his
trying to get out of death trying to be saved by God. None of that
is in the Gospel of John, because, again, John, the author of the
Gospel of John doesn't like this idea that Jesus has any type of
weakness, it's a very high Christology. In fact, in the
Gospel of John, very interestingly, it says that a
cohort of soldiers came to the mountain as well. And this implies
that there were a Roman legionnaires that came to to
arrest him. And they asked, where is Jesus? And he says, he says, I
know who in Hebrew, which means I am him. And when he says that
everyone's falls down in frustration, when he says that
very, very strange type of thing that's mentioned in the Gospel of
John, that I've never seen any movie depicts. Because it would
seem very, very strange for that to happen. But that's what the
Gospel of John actually says. Next time, we're going to talk about a
very important topic when it comes to the Gospel of John is not only
the parakeet, but also the differences in the Passion
narrative of the Gospel of John, if you read Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, especially Mark's gospel, you may conclude that maybe it
wasn't Jesus who actually died, or maybe that Jesus was put on a
cross, but he didn't actually die. What happened? It's a little
ambiguous. So the Gospel of John is trying to make it clear for you
that Jesus was crucified and He was killed, he was buried and he
was resurrected. And I'm going to show you how John actually does
that. Because again, John, one of the advantages that John has, is
retrospect he can look at all these gospels, he can look what
the Christians are believing in and he can tailor his gospel
exactly to what he wants to teach. So we'll talk about that next
time, inshallah to Allah subhanho rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh
and hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen wa salatu salam ala Rasulillah
Mustafa sallallahu alayhi wa ala he was a huge marine to kind of go
out and Milena LM LM tuna in an animal Hakeem Hola Hola, wala
Quwata illa biLlah Ali love him. Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi
Wabarakatuh. Welcome to another class, we're looking, continuing
to look at the Gospel of John, we started this last time. A few
things as reminders from last time, we had said that the Gospel
of John initially was seen as sort of an alien gospel next to the
Synoptic Gospels. If you look at the Gospel of John and read it
carefully, you'll notice that the chronology and content are very
different than the Synoptic Gospels. We also said the Gospel
of John was a foundational book of Orthodox Christology. 90% of John
is exclusive to his account, there's no parallel in the
synoptics. So it was a few Church Fathers early on, that sort of
saved the Gospel of John. And eventually the Gospel of John was
considered to be canonical gospel. And these Church Fathers, as we
discussed last time, are Irenaeus of Lyons, and Clement of
Alexandria, as well as Justin Martyr, who's called the father of
logos, Christology, something we had mentioned about the Gospel of
John last time, is that Jesus is called the Logos, the Word, the
Word of God. And the Gospel of John begins with a hem until the
logos John one one says, in the Greek language and RK ain Ha, log
us, in the beginning was the word
chi, chi Hai, Lagace, process tun, Theon in the Greek and the Word
was with God, chi chaos, ha, ha Lagace. And the Word was God.
That's usually how it's translated in the vast majority of Christian
bibles. However, what's interesting here in the Greek,
this is why it's very important to understand the original language
is that the second occurrence of the word Fayyaz or God, in that
statement, in that verse, John, one, one does not have the
definite article. So in other words, we can translate in the
beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God. And a god
was the word that what does that mean that Jesus is somehow a
diminutive God, or a second God, or a Lesser God or something like
that, we have to remember the word God and Hebrew, as well as Greek,
can be applied to man or to God. And this is quite strange in those
languages for us as Muslims, or even in English. When we say God,
we're talking about one God, we know who we're talking about. If
we say Allah, subhanaw taala. We're just talking about one
entity, one person, we're not talking about anybody else.
However, in Hebrew, the word Elohim, which is translated as
God, in the Old Testament is applied to Kings, to judges, to
prophets, to Satan, even. So, what does it mean in the New Testament?
Second Corinthians, Satan is called the god of this world. So
what does that mean?
For somebody be called Elohim or someone to be called se os, it
simply means that person has some ability that is unique and ability
that makes them extraordinary. Right. So when, in the prologue
when Jesus is called theosophy, which means, God what how we can
really understand that is someone who has a unique type of ability,
someone who has a divine aspect to them not deity, but divine like we
would say someone who is Divine is sanctified, right in Eastern
Orthodoxy. The point of mysticism and Eastern Orthodoxy is what's
known as Theosis. Theosis means mystical union. And there's a
three step process to get there. Just like we have in our
tradition, our tradition of mysticism. Imam Ghazali talks
about this. The first step is Talia which means an emptying or a
purging in Latin This is called a via Perga Teva, a purging of all
vices from the heart. And the way that one does this is that they
sit with the people of knowledge, and they take from their car they
take from their vicar and in Eastern Orthodox tradition, this
is called catharsis, which comes from the Greek verb cathedra,
which means to cleanse or to purify something. The second step
is called the Orea in Greek, which literally means to see God. And
what that means is one prays to God with a contemplative heart.
One prays to God, as if one sees God as the Prophet salallahu
Alaihe Salam, he says, when asked by Gbit salaam what is Hassan, he
says meant he says, untangled Allah kaneka Tara is to worship
Allah subhanho data so you can see him. The third step in the final
step is called Theosis, which is mystical union. This is not a
merging of our essence with the essence of God. This is not what
we believe this is not what Jews or Christians believe. This is
when the person becomes divine as it were sanctified, or someone
whose whose mind and limbs and movements become guarded or guided
by Allah subhanahu wa taala. For example, Abul Qasim al Junaid
Rahim Allah to Allah He takes us Hadees Bootsy. And he says this is
an example of this type of Theosis or mystical union, that when Allah
Subhana Allah says, My servant does not draw close on to me with
anything more beloved than his photo ID. And then he continues to
draw close to me when I use that new idea to Colorado Ilya been no
fly with his no orphan, hetero hitbox, until I love him, than I
am the AI by which he sees the hand by which he grasps and the
foot by which he walks and he were to ask anything from me, I should
surely give it to him. So in this sense, we become godlike in our
character in our actions, but not ontologically. No one essentially
becomes God. Right? So this is how we can understand the word logos
in John one, one and this is how the Unitarians understood it. So
one definite article in Greek makes a lot of difference.
Now, we also said last time, that some early scholars actually
attributed the authorship of the Gospel of John to a Gnostic name
Corinthians and I remember from our Christology that we went over,
maybe a couple of sessions ago and we'll put a copy of the
Christology chart online inshallah to Allah so you can look at them
Gnosticism was very vast and early Christianity, and it's very,
there's a lot of different groups of Gnostics. But one of the major
groups of Gnostics they said that a Sally's Salam, he had two
natures, as well as two persons and this is considered to be a
heretical position according to the Orthodox Christian
Christianity. So there's two persons in two natures and when
they crucified Him, His divine nature as well as his divine
person, left his body separated from his body. Thus we have
something called separation hast Christology and of course again,
this is considered heresy, according to Trinitarian
Christians, so what they crucified was simply a human body and all
respects. And this is the meaning according to the separation is
Gnostics of the cry of dereliction, when a sila Islam
apparently said, Allahu alayhi Lama Subak nanny in Syriac My God,
My God, why hast thou forsaken me? This is an Mark and Matthew, of
course, when Imam Ghazali read this verse, when he was doing his
refutation of the divinity of Christ from the Gospels themselves
in his route of Jamil, although some say pseudo anonymous, the
author whoever wrote this, maybe bizarrely, or someone of that
school of thought, said a prophet would never ever make such a
statement. And Prophet would never say and cry out to God, why hast
thou forsaken me? Obviously, this wasn't isa de Salam. So that was
one Gnostic belief, another Gnostic belief, which actually was
more prevalent and seems to be
In the Christology that John is arguing against at times,
although, like we said corinthis was believed to actually have been
the author of the original Gospel of John. There Christology was
that Jesus was only divine, he wasn't man at all. And he was
flesh he was not he was not flesh and blood, he was only a spiritual
being. So what people saw appeared to be flesh and blood, right? But
it was really a phantasm. So this is another word for this is called
Docetism, or from the Greek bloqueo, to seem that Jesus only
seemed to be flesh and blood, when in reality, he was a spiritual
being.
We'd also said that the gospel is rooted in Palestinian Judaism and
there are parallels between the Johannine communities Christology
and what do I mean, when I say the Johannine community? I'm talking
about the community that authored the the Gospel of John, the
Johannine community? Where was the gospel written? Last time we said
probably in Ephesus, which is in modern day Turkey. So the Sen
community then were a group of Jews in the first century of
monastic order at Qumran who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. So we find
this similar dualism in the Gospel of John, those who walk in light,
those who walk in walk in darkness, good and evil, truth and
untruth, spirit and flesh, the children of God, the children of
Satan. John is also rigorously exclusivist, very sectarian like
the Essenes, that the only guardians of light and truth are
the Johannine community, the adherence of the Johannine
community. And if you remember when we talked about the gospel of
Mark, I believe that it's in Mark chapter 10, when the rich man
comes to resign A salaam and says, I want to be your follower, how do
I go to paradise? And then Jesus tells him, follow the
commandments. And the man says, I've already done that. Now Mark
says here, when he said that the Jesus I followed all the
commandments, Mark says Jesus looked at him and loved him, and
then said, there's something you're lacking. Go sell all that
you own and follow me. And the man couldn't do it because he was a
well, very wealthy man. The point I'm trying to make here is in the
Gospel of Mark, a Jew who follows the commandments is loved by
Jesus. He doesn't even believe in Jesus yet, as the Messiah, he is
simply a Torah abiding Jew. And Jesus loved him. As Mark says,
when we get to the Gospel of John Chapter Nine, you're going to
notice something very strange. In the Gospel of John, even Jews who
believe in Jesus it says, Jews who have pistis means faith. They
believe that Jesus as the Messiah, Jesus calls them the children of
Satan. Why does he call them that? Because of the Gospel of John the
Christology has been very much rarified. It's very exclusivist.
It's very sectarian in the Gospel of John, it's not even good enough
to be a Christian, you have to be a Christian, exactly. As the
Johannine community believes that you must be Christian. So it's
very, very
sectarian. Now we also says that we also we also said last time
that Jesus, according to the Gospel of John, was God's Word or
his Lagace, who descended from the heavens to reveal divine
knowledge, and then reassigned it to the celestial place of origin
and cause his followers to be born. From above. Again, this is
kind of the basic Gnostic myth that this world that we live in is
was a cosmic cosmic catastrophe, that the true God. He is pure
thought, and his first emanation according to Neo Platonism his
first emanation was involuntary a spillage of light, if you will.
And the ancient Greeks they call this first emanation the noose
which means the mind or the the aka the rational faculty, middle
plate mislike Philo, they refer to this first emanation as logos,
right Alexandrian Jews in the first century, who were
contemporaries of a silent Salam, like Philo but obviously did not
meet Eastside A salaam. So this is a, a
Neoplatonic idea that found its way into the Gospel of John. Very
interestingly, John also talks we'll talk more about the logos in
a minute, or in later sessions, Inshallah, to Allah. John also
talks about someone called the parakeet, and a lot of Muslims
will say, the parakeet here is actually a prophecy of the Prophet
Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. We'll talk about that as
well. In the Gospel of John, the parakeet seems to be Jesus's post
ascension presence, which illuminated the Johannine
community's understanding of Jesus's divine nature. So really,
there's no stress on the second coming of Jesus. In the Gospel of
John, if you notice that if you remember in the guy
Gospel of Mark in the Gospel of Matthew, especially in Mark, there
is a central motif of an imminent eschaton in an imminent parotia,
an immediate end, and an immediate second coming of Christ. And of
course, we said Mark was influenced by Paul, Paul's central
motif and his genuine seven letters, is that Jesus will come
during the lifetime of the disciples. Of course, this didn't
happen. This was a big disappointment. Mark is very
early, he's riding around 6770 of the Common Era. And he borrows
this central Paul line motif. By the time you get to Matthew's
Gospel, a few years later, about a dozen years or so after the gospel
of Mark, the Second Coming is also mentioned, but it's very much
downplayed. Luke downplays it further. Finally, you get to the
Gospel of John written around 9095, maybe as late as 100, in its
final form, and the second coming is virtually absent. What we have
in the Gospel of John is what's known as realized eschatology.
What does it mean realize eschatology that means Jesus has
already come back in some form, and what form in the form of the
Para cleat, right that this the coming of the Paraclete, which is
described apparently, in Acts chapter two of the day of
Pentecost, this is Jesus's post Ascension Presents, which helps
the disciples understand the true theological significance of the
coming of Christ.
Now, what's interesting also we mentioned last time, is that
the
there's also an opinion that John's Gospel actually this is a
fact that John's gospel, the first commentary written by John's
gospel, was by a Gnostic named Heraclea. On write the first
commentary so while it's a strong opinion, that Corinthians is a
Gnostic wrote the Gospel, there is difference of opinion about that.
However, it is a historical fact that the first commentary or at
least the first commentary, that is extant that has been found, was
written by a Gnostic named Heraclea on as well. We'd also
said last time that there's no birth narrative, there's no
virginal birth or conception in the Gospel of John, because the
Word became flesh as the man Jesus of Nazareth. So John is apparently
talking about what many Christians would call the incarnation, the
spiritual logos becomes physically human. So the virgin birth of
Eastside, a sunnah is just not that important. Christ has pre
eternality as it as it were, according to this understanding of
the logos, of course, there's different understandings of the
Christology of John's gospel, and we're gonna get to that. And I
think when you look at the Bible, as it is, with all of its
problems, obviously, we don't believe that the Bible is the Word
of God. There may be elements of truth in the Bible, maybe elements
of truth in the New Testament, I think there are, however, if we
take the text at face value and say, okay, good. This is the New
Testament, these 27 books, and then we compare arguments between
Trinitarians and Unitarians, I think the Unitarian position is
much, much stronger,
much, much stronger than a Trinitarian position, even when we
look at the Gospel of John. All right, so there's other ways to
look at this concept of the logos, all of these verses in the New
Testament and the Gospel of John, which Trinitarians claim are
divine claims of Eastside hmm, is there another way of looking at
them through a Unitarian lens, and I think there is, and Unitarians,
since the beginning of the composition of the Gospel of John,
they have their own interpretations of these verses.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Christians are Trinitarian. And
Trinitarians. Believe that the Father is God, the Son is God and
the Holy Spirit is God. There are three persons in one essence. Of
course, there are major problems with this, right? And if you ask
Christians on the street, your average Christians, even your
Christian scholars, and the church, go ask local pastor to
explain the Trinity, you will get a lot of different answers. A
pastor one time told me, Well, just as I have three parts, I have
a brain I arrive a mind I have a spirit and I have a body. God has
three parts. Well, God doesn't have three parts. According to
Trinitarian dogma, it's actually heresy to say that Jesus is a part
of God, and that the Father is a part of God. They are in and of
themselves fully God. So they don't understand this certain
person who was a pastor of a church certainly didn't understand
what he was talking about. Also, in the New Testament, we heard in
past sessions that Jesus doesn't know the day of judgment. Matthew
2436, or if you want to say he's referring to a second coming, he
doesn't know his second coming. He doesn't know when fig trees are
out of season, which is mentioned in the Gospel of Mark. Right and
Jesus up
errantly according to the New Testament dies, so a God who
doesn't know something and a God who dies, what kind of God is
that? How do you square this with your Trinitarian Christology, and
there are a lot of linguistic gymnastics, that Trinitarians will
dive into a lot of convoluted kind of explanation, explanations for
these verses that are very clear, very clearly showing that Jesus at
a Salaam is a great human being, He's the Messiah, but he's not
God. So I think we're gonna get to some of this apologetics a little
bit later inshallah to Allah. But continuing now also we had said,
there's no baptism in the Gospel of John, Jesus is independent and
superior to the Baptist, their mission minister, Minister, their
ministries actually run concurrently in the Gospel of
John. There's no temptation by Satan. In the Gospel of John, it's
not befitting of Christ, to be tempted by Satan.
As we have in the synoptic, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus was
tempted by Satan in the wilderness.
We also said that the teaching style of the Gospel of John is
radically different than the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark,
and Luke. We don't have the type of parables that we have in the
Synoptic Gospels. Instead, we have these long philosophical speeches
about his own nature, these monologues or dialogues. In the
Gospel of John.
We had also mentioned again, there's no clear prophecy of the
Second Coming, there's no stress on future escuela eschatological
return, we'd set that there's a Realized eschatology. There's no
institution of the communion or the Eucharist. at the Last Supper,
Jesus simply washes the feet of his disciples, there's no Agony in
the Garden. And there are passion differences. So this is where we
left off last time. So if you look at the Passion narrative, this is
very important. The Passion narrative of the Gospel of John,
it seems as if John is trying to prove he's taking great pains to
prove that a silent Salam was in fact, crucified. Let me quote to
you, a New Testament scholar, eminent New Testament scholar,
Raymond Brown, who says jobs, admissions and inclusions with
regard to the Passion narrative, are determined almost exclusively
by his special theological convictions, what are his special
theological convictions? John tells you the purpose of writing
his gospel in chapter 20, verse 30, to 31, that you might believe
Jesus is the Son of God, which means Christ. So we have to get
that clear as well. When the New Testament talks about the Son of
God, it's simply a messianic title. It wasn't until the Council
of Nicaea and 325 of the common era
where a vote was taken, and the Son of God became God the Son,
right, so the Jews in the first century, they did not believe that
the Messiah was going to be some divine person with a dual nature,
who is going to die for your sins. They did not believe that about
the Messiah, that the title Son of God simply meant in the Old
Testament, it meant a righteous Jew. If you read the book of
Psalms, chapter 84, verse six, it says that God tells the
Israelites, I said, You are gods, all of you who like him, Benny,
and Leon, all of you are children of the Most High God. This was a
metaphorical title. This is my jazz. This is figurative, just as
the Old Testament in the book of Isaiah, one of the prayers of
Isaiah is to God, he says, I taught I do night, a vino, You are
the Lord our Father. God is not a literal father. Again, this is my
jazz. This is figurative, meaning God is like a father figure. He
watches over you like a father, he provides for you, He loves you, He
gives you shelter, so on and so forth. So we have to remember
that. In the New Testament, we're talking about
the phrase Son of God, which is thoroughly Jewish, it's Judaic.
This is a Hebrew ism, that was basically taken by the Christians
and colonized and given a different meaning. So it's like
this movie I saw a while ago called Back to the Future, where
this kid goes back in time, 30 years, and he goes to a restaurant
and he orders a tab, right in the park and the bartender, or the
person working at the store. He says, You're not old enough to
have a tab? Well, he didn't know how he was using that term. In
1985. A tab is a soft drink. It's like Pepsi or Coke. But in the
50s, a tab meant that you were a regular patron to a restaurant or
something. And you had a running tab like you say, put it on my
tab. So words have different meanings at different times.
Certainly in our times. If you say the Son of God, immediately it's a
Christian.
And signifier, immediately you think of Christianity,
immediately, you might think that the Son of God is a divine being.
And the son of God shares an essence with God the Father, and
there's a trinity. But you have to remember when these terms are
being used in the first century, even in the Gospel of John, the
Son, the term Son of God, right, which is the Son of God and a son
of the Lord. It simply means someone who is considered to be
the Messiah. Remember, in the Gospel of Matthew, we told the
story in Matthew chapter 27, of Barabbas, this brigand, as he's
called a lay states, in Greek, which means a common criminal. He
was probably a messianic claimant, how do we know that he was a
messianic claimant, because of the name Barabbas. His name wasn't
Barabas This is a title. It's a Petro nem bar above what is Bharat
Berman, the son of the father, right, the Son of the Father. So
this is a title that his followers gave him because they hailed Him
as the Son of God. Right? The Messiah, this is a messianic
title. Right? So when Jesus is called the unique Son of God, mono
kinase Helios to say you in the New Testament, unique Son of God,
that means simply He's the Messiah, because there are other
sons of God. Paul says in the book of Romans, chapter eight, as many
as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. Right?
If you have the Spirit of God, You're a son of God, even in the
Johannine literature, if you're familiar with First John, very
clearly, it says, If you love God, you are born of God, you are the
sons of God. In the prologue of John's gospel, very clearly, it
says that Jesus gave them authority to be sons of God. What
does that mean? That means beloved of God, as if sons of God, not in
the literal sense. So when we talk about Jesus as the unique Son of
God, what that simply means in biblical language, it means that
he is the Messiah. The Quran doesn't use such terms, because by
the time of the Quranic revelation, the term Son of God
had a different meaning. That's why the Quran refrains from using
that. Allah Subhan Allah to Allah says, we'll call it into Surah
lmsc, her Ebola, that he could Colombe FYE him, that the
Christians say, Jesus is the Son of God, this is what they're
saying with their mouths, right? This is something that they're
saying about him. But this is not the original meaning of the term.
This is something they're ascribing to a silent salaam, and
they're giving it a different meaning. But if you're familiar
with Old Testament, literature, and even New Testament literature,
God has many sons and daughters, these are not literal, right, Val,
a bad democra Moon, the Quran says and another idea that these people
who ascribe children to God, not just to Christians, but you have
the pagans of the Quraysh at the time of the Prophet salallahu
Alaihe Salam who are saying that I Latin Ursa and monad or Ben Atala,
these false idols are the daughters of God, Allah subhana wa
Dallas's Bell, a bad lucra moon, no, these are servants raised to
honor that at one time, maybe there was someone called that Oza
or something like that, who was a great human being a great person,
they made a statue out of him. And eventually they started to worship
that statue. And eventually they made that statue a rival to Allah
subhana wa Tada. We know that Sid salaam was a great human being. He
was a prophet of Allah subhanaw taala. He is the Messiah. He's a
messenger of God, he is from the oil as the five most exalted human
beings ever walked the planet Earth. We know that about a Saudi
Salam. But eventually they started making icons and images of him.
And eventually, they made him into God, that he shares an essence
with Allah subhanho wa taala.
So the Quran doesn't use that title, Son of God, but we have to
understand how it's being used in the New Testament. There's nothing
in that New Testament that says Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and these
three are one, the only verse in which that was said, was first
John five seven, which is internationally known by Iijima of
Christian scholars, as a fabrication to the gospel to the
first epistle of John, First John five, seven, it says, For there
are three that bear record in heaven, the Father of the Word,
and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. This first was
taken out of almost all Greek critical editions, all Greek
critical editions, I should say, every single one of them and most
translations of the Bible, in English, the only English
translation that I know of that retains that verse is the New King
James Version, because it was brought back by popular demand.
But scholars do not believe that the author of First John actually
wrote that so there's nothing in the Gospel. There's nothing in the
New Testament that says Father, Son, Holy Ghost, and that they're
of one nature, co equal co eternal, co substantial. There's
nothing like that the new
testament, never in the New Testament does a side hmm, does
Jesus peace be upon him? Say I am God or worship me. There's nothing
like that in the New Testament. And if this is essential Christian
truth, if this is the truth about God, that Jesus is God and there's
a trinity, why can't we find evidence for it? In their
scripture? This is very, very important. Again, this is why I
say that. When you look at the Bible as it is at face value, and
you look at Trinitarian proof text and Unitarian proof text, I think
overwhelmingly, you'll agree that the Unitarian position is much,
much stronger.
So it happens in the Passion narrative of John, if you recall,
in the Synoptic Gospels, we were told that when they were going to
crucify a silent salaam,
they gave his cross to a man who was simply standing there watching
the proceedings. His name was Simon of Cyrene. And they
compelled him to bear the cross. Right. Now, interestingly, the
author of the Gospel of John, he completely eliminates this whole
episode of Simon of Cyrene. We might have mentioned this before,
but it's very important to understand this again, we're going
to reiterate the reason why the author of the Gospel of John
intentionally says Jesus bore his own cross cross to Golgotha.
Right. And he eliminates the episode of Simon of Cyrene is very
clear that according to most extra digits, and historians, there are
many Christians at the end of the first century, who denied that
Eastside Islam was crucified, right, some of them actually said
that Simon of Cyrene was crucified and not Jesus. This was a group
called the basilica Diens. John also says that when Jesus was on
the cross, he actually died, not from asphyxiation, which is the
usual way of dying on the cross. Of course, that took days. That's
why in Gospel of Mark, when Jesus was dead after a few hours,
apparently, and this news was brought to punch his pilot, he
marveled, because he knew from his experience, it took days to die on
the cross. Right. So what does John do, John has him impaled with
a spear on the cross to let you know that, indeed, he was dead.
This is only found in the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John also
says that the on the night of the crucifixion, Jesus's body was
anointed with 100 pounds of oils and aloes, on the night of the
crucifixion, which which makes it very problematic here, because we
are told that on Easter Sunday,
in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that the women come to the tomb to
anoint the body of Jesus. Now, this is very, very strange. Is
this Jewish custom, that after three days, you would go inside of
a tomb and anoint a body? How are they planning on getting access to
this body? If the tomb has been sealed? Is it even permissible for
a woman to anoint the body of a strange man she's not related to
know. So this is very, very, this is very convoluted. What's going
on here? What's the real reason these women are coming to the
tomb? And what further complicates things is, if we take John's
gospel that says he was already anointed, before he was placed in
the tomb, than why is Mary Magdalene coming to the tomb on
Sunday? What is she doing at the tomb? So it doesn't make any
sense? Obviously, she's not coming to anoint the body, it's already
been done. What is she coming to do? Right? There's no answer from
Christian exigence here.
So there's a lot of discrepancies in the passion narratives. Now
material that is only found in the Gospel of John, as we said, the
doctrine of the Lagace, the logos, that before coming to earth, Jesus
pre existed in heaven, as God's mediator, in creating the
universe, right. Now, again, there's different ways of
understanding the logos, did he pre exist, there's different
schools of Unitarianism that say he did pre exist. So Aryan
Unitarianism, AR I, a n, named after the presbytery of
Alexandria, who lost the day at Nicaea, who said Jesus pre existed
his physical body, yet he was created by God. He is the initial
creation of God, that God created the logos who would become Jesus.
And the logos means wisdom, that the first initial creation was
wisdom. And through this wisdom, God created the rest of the
cosmos, and then this wisdom, became flesh and became Jesus. So
that's the Unitarian position is slightly higher Christology than
the other Unitarian position, which is called soakin. Ian
Unitarianism, which says that Jesus did not pre exist in his
physical body, but his spirit as well as his body was created when
he was conceived 2000 years ago
Like everybody else, right? Both positions, however, are Unitarian
positions, because both say that Jesus is still created. It's kind
of like the difference. We have some times between Muslims, you
have some Muslim saying that the initial creation of Allah subhanaw
taala was the light of the prophets of Allah who either he
was It was said that this is called by different the archetypal
Mohamed, the the reality of the Muhammad and nature and have taken
to Muhammadiyah there's different names that this is called that the
initial creation was the light of the Prophet salallahu Salam, and
then through that light, the rest of Isla Amin was created. So if
you want to believe this believe it is just as you can believe in
it. It's it's permissible to believe and there's certain
indications in the Hadith, for example, meta content to be and
when did you become a prophet and the prophet Sallallahu Sallam he
says when Adam was being the rule, while just said so he predates
Adam Alayhis Salam ontologically, you can believe that as long as
you believe that he is still created. The Prophet salallahu
Salam is created his fate and halachot Allah is the best of
God's creation. He has ontological precedence over the whole of
creation. That's fine, but he's still created, he might have been
the primal or the initial creation. But he still created the
only thing or entity, the only person that is uncreated is ALLAH
SubhanA wa Tada. And there are other Muslims who say, No, that
belief is not correct. There is no pre existent light of the Prophet
sallallahu alayhi salam, and if you want to choose to believe
that, then that's also jazz. That's fine, no problem. There's
no tech fear on either side. Right. So this is what we're doing
dealing with, with the logos and Unitarian Christianity, did Jesus
pre existence human body, if he did, he was logos, he was wisdom
that God created initially, and through this wisdom, through this
wise decree, if you will,
God created the heavens, and then this wisdom became and fleshed
into a human being called the Jesus of Nazareth.
The Trinitarians will say, the logos, right, that was Jesus pre
existent before his physical body, but the logos never had a
beginning. The Logos is pre eternal, in fact, shares in
essence with God, and this is cool for this is infidelity. This is
heresy according to Islam. Because nothing, nobody shares the that
the F file or the C fat of Allah subhanaw taala. And anyone who
gives any type of divine attribute to any prophet, even the Prophet
salallahu Salam, if anyone tells you that the prophet is all
hearing, all knowing, all seeing, he's all powerful. This is cool
for the Prophet when he's in his grave. He says, I am alive in my
grave, not like we're alive, but a type of life that he has in his
grave. And he says in a sound Hadith, that I can hear your
benedictions upon me a Salah. I can hear the Sunnah and then the
beat, the benediction is upon the Prophet salallahu Alaihe Salam,
and he said on Friday, I can he says actually that in the hadith
of
Ibnu headband, that there's an angel that seated at my head, and
he conveys to me your salaams right, except on Friday for a
smelter, would be Alderney or to be sunny, except on Friday, I can
hear your benedictions and I answered with my own tongue. This
does not mean that the Prophet sallallahu Sallam has all hearing
that he's all seeing that he knows everything. Of course not. You
look at the world, all the human beings on planet Earth, we're just
a speck compared to the rest of the cosmos. So the Prophet
salallahu Salam is limited in everything, but the unlimited
absolute is only Allah subhanaw taala. Right. So this is where the
Christian has made grave errors. And the way he looks at the logos,
when he calls Jesus the Word of God. The Koran correctly calls
Jesus the Word of God, but in the sense that the Word of God is a
manifestation, a manifestation of an attribute of Allah subhana wa
taala. So you have ALLAH SubhanA wa Tada you have is your Radha,
you have his divine will. And then you have Allah subhanaw taala
creating a site a setup couldn't fail Kuhn, this is called to I
look to go from something uncreated, and then you have some
sort of process in which a attribute is used, and then
something is manifested. So you have that era, you have Allah
subhanho wa taala, the ability to create and then Allah subhanaw
taala creating and then you have my look, this is the
manifestation. So this is the Kennametal Allah, this is E
silanes Salam, Isa Ali Salam is a manifestation of an attribute of
Allah subhanho wa taala. He is not the attributes of Allah subhanho
wa Taala nor is he
somehow identified with the essence or the uncreated nature of
ALLAH SubhanA wa Tada. So this much has to
be made very, very clear. Also material found in John, we have
this incident of the first miracle of a silent Salam. According to
the Gospel of John. We mentioned this before, this happens in John
Chapter Two at a wedding in Cana. And this is very interesting
because we can compare here with the Quran. So the first miracle of
a site, as Anna mentioned in the New Testament, right, if we take
this chronologically, because this is right at the outset of his 30th
year apparently, is when he's at a wedding, and there's no wine, so
he turns some jugs of water into wine so people can have a good
time and drink some wine. Right? And then in the Quran is First
Testament. His first miracle is defending his mother's chastity
and honor against those who are slandering her. Because remember,
Maryam it is sunnah is very, very young, maybe 1112 13 years old.
She's holding a baby, and she's saying, you know, I miraculously
conceived the child and her family begins to insinuate things about
her for a shout out to LA. All she can do is point to the baby. She
knows that the baby is miraculous. How can she possibly defend
herself? She can say, well, Allahu, Allahu Allah, He, I didn't
do anything. This is true. The baby, immediately, miraculously,
or is anyone going to believe her? No. Would anyone believe a girl
today? Even if she was a saintly woman? Would they believe her?
Probably not a few people might that have good faith in her and
they believe her, and so on and so forth. But something needs to
happen here. So a shout out to LA and they call and they say Paula K
for new Telugu, Montana, Phil, Maddy Swabia. We can speak to a
child in the cradle. And then as we know, as a special miracle
esigning salaam, he defends himself and ironically, the first
thing that comes out of his mouth is eeny abdollah. How ironic. This
person who is worshipped by a billion people, 2 billion people,
2 billion people, many of them is in so called civilized first world
countries around the world. The first words of this human being
was in ni not Ana in ni, which has emphasis. There's tau keyed Verily
I am the servant of God. I tiny al Kitab wa Jai La Nina Vidya wa
Jalla nee Mubarak and aina malcode to wow Sani the Salafi was like it
madam to higher so I encourage you to read those verses. In Surah
Maryam surah Maryam there's no book in the New Testament called
Mary. This is in the Quran. She is preferred in Allah stuff, Aki,
what the hierarchy was stuff Aki, Allah Nisa in Isla Amin. She is
preferred over the women of all nations. This is in the Quran. We
have to share these things with our Christian friends.
So we have water into wine. We also have this doctrine of
spiritual rebirth. In John chapter three, when Jesus is speaking to
this secret disciple named Nicodemus at night that you have
to be born again. And of course Nicodemus he says, How can a man
go back into his mother's womb? And Jesus says, No, you have to be
born of spirit and of water. We'll talk about what that means. And
then you have these I am sayings of the Gospel of John. Right. So
if you ask any Christian who knows the Bible, most Christians don't
know the Bible. In fact, 50% of Christians, I read in an article
called The greatest book never read 50% of Christians who go to
church can't even name the four Gospels. They don't know Matthew,
Mark, Luke, and John Wright, but Christians who know the Bible, you
can ask them, Where does Jesus claim to be God? And they'll say,
Well, you have to look at the Gospel of John, in the Gospel of
John, Jesus says, I am the Way the Truth and the Life. I and the
Father are one before Abraham was, I am, right. He said, Well, so
what what does that mean? Oh, he means I am God. And we'll deal
with these verses in a minute. But it's interesting that immediately
we'll go to the Gospel of John. Now our question is,
hypothetically, let's say the Gospel of John was never included
into the New Testament canon. Because again, it was Irenaeus,
and Clement and Justin, who really pushed for this gospel to be
included, to be noteworthy, and to be accepted by the churches.
Right. But if the gospel was originally gnostic, and was
condemned, then we don't have the Gospel of John, if we only had
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, where does Jesus claim to be God, and
you'll be hard and the Christian will be hard pressed to find a
single statement that is comparable to these if statements
in the Gospel of John, right. So the Gospel of John is very crucial
for them. And here's another thing the Gospel of John again, probably
found its final form in the year 100, of the Common Era. So
Christians for 70 years, did not have access to the Gospel of John
at least on paper. So they did they believe that Jesus was God,
that they believe that Jesus said before Abraham was I
Am I? Right? What about those Christians? What about those
Christians who lived and died and never heard of the Gospel of John,
that they believe that He was God? So it brings up a lot of issues.
Right? If you're going to use the Gospel of John to prove that Jesus
is God, we're going to look at these im statements, and we're
going to interpret them according to their context. And looking at
the whole the gospel in its entirety. We're not going to pick
and choose certain verses like Trinitarian Christians do. Like
for example, when Jesus says, The Father and I are one and John
1030, and they say, haha, did you see Jesus is one with Father, he
shares an essence with God? Is that what he says? That he shares
an essence with God? What does it say in the New Testament that
Jesus shares an essence with God? Or that Jesus has two natures? Or
that these three are one? Where's that in the New Testament? It's
nowhere there reading into the text. This is called
hermeneutical. waterboarding, you know, you waterboard someone is a
form of torture. Right? They'll admit to anything you waterboard
someone and you say, did you kill
Jimmy Hoffa? And so yes, I killed Jimmy Hoffa, because people don't
want to be tortured. So if you strangle a text long enough, the
text will say what you want it to say. Right? But you have to look
at the context, you have to give it a simple reading, not some
convoluted reading, that really has no place in the in that
original Christian community. A reading that was an understanding
of that text that was retroactively applied to that text
by generations of Christians that came later who came to believe in
the Trinity? How did the original Johannine community understand the
father and iron one that Jesus was God? No, they didn't. And we'll
talk about that verse.
Later. Very important to understand those im statements.
Also you have in the Gospel of John, something that's not in the
other gospels, you have the raising of Lazarus. So Lazarus,
according to the Gospel of Luke, that's when we first meet Lazarus.
He was someone who apparently knew he Silas Salam in the Gospel of
John, he is a friend of a Saudi Salam, whom Jesus raises from the
dead. And it's very interesting. How does Jesus I know his Salam,
according to the Gospel of John, chapter 11, how does he raise
Lazarus from the dead? So he goes into Jerusalem, he's told Lazarus
is dead. And Jesus wept. This is the shortest verse in the entire
Bible. It's only two words long, Jesus wept. And then Jesus goes to
the tomb. And he says, Father, thank you for hearing my prayer.
And I know that you always have heard me. And then he stands up
and he says, lacerate, digital XO in Greek, Lazarus come out. But
did you see what he said before that? It actually says, Jesus
raised his eyes towards the heavens. And then he said, Father,
thank you for hearing my prayer. Right. So the order must say that
the Kaaba is the Qibla of the Salah. We faced acaba we don't
believe that ALLAH SubhanA wa Taala is in the Kaaba hashanah
Allah of course not. This is beta Allah this is for Tisha leave. It
offered to Sharif rasool Allah for example, someone who is owned by
ALLAH SubhanA wa Tada. This is called Tisha leave the beta Allah,
the house of God, the house owned by Allah subhanho wa taala. Not
something that encloses Allah subhanho wa taala. So that's our
Qibla the tibula of dua, a sunnah a summit Dibbler to do on the
heavens is the Tabler of the DUA. So the Prophet sallallahu either
he would it was seldom he used to look to the heavens, when he would
make dua one time he looked to the heavens and he had Ashok in his
heart he had this week, he had a longing in his heart and Allah
subhanaw taala reveals in the Quran, God Nara, Toka Luba watch
he Kofi sama. Indeed, we see you turning your face towards the
heavens. For the Fulani, one of the young Nikka tibula 10 Thoreau
da, indeed, we will turn you to a Qibla that will please you, right?
The Prophet sallallahu sallam, he looked at the heavens, a silence,
and I'm here in John chapter 11. It says he turned his eyes towards
the heavens. And he said, Father, again, when we say Father, don't
think of the Trinity. This is not what he means. This is the Gospel
of John, we're not talking about the Council of Nicaea. Don't
retroactively import upon the text. A later Christian
understanding. Father here simply means, Rob, Rob be that's what it
means in first century Judaism. Father is something that Jews to
this day called God, and they don't believe that God is a
literal father. Okay, so we can't get hung up on language. We have
to understand these terms and context. Switch says, Father,
thank you for hearing my prayer. And I know that you always hear me
and then he stands up and he says, lacerate do XO, Lazarus come
forth. So how did he raise
Lazarus from the dead. He prayed to Allah subhanho wa Taala a
silent Salam has no intrinsic power, nothing and no one has any
intrinsic power except by the permission of Allah subhanho wa
Taala This is the meaning of this beautiful statement. Hola Hola
wala Quwata illa de la nothing has any strength nor power except by
means of Allah subhanho wa Taala Allah subhanho wa Taala tells us
in the Quran that he sided Salam said that he heals the lepers and
he heals the blind will yield Mota be Ethernet Allah that He raises
the dead by the permission of Allah subhana wa Taala everything
is by to permission of Allah subhana wa Tada. So no one and
nothing has any intrinsic ability to do anything except by the power
of Allah subhana wa Tada. And this is what it mentions in the Gospel
of John. And we find this consistently in the New Testament,
Christians will try to say Jesus is God because He can forgive
sins. If you read the Synoptic Gospels, for example, Jesus says
to someone be of good cheer, Your sins are forgiven. Right and so
the only God can forgive sins. Yes, this is true. Only God can
forgive sins, but who is a Saudi sunnah? He is Rasul Allah. He is
the agent of God. He is a shoo in Hebrew, meaning a messenger of
God. He is simply informing that person that God has informed me
that your sins are forgiven. One time a person prayed, one time a
person committed a great sin. And he came in he prayed behind the
Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and the Prophet salallahu
Salam. After the prayer this man came up and he said yes will Allah
I have broken a command of the book of Allah. So punish me
according to the book of Allah. And the Prophet sallallahu sallam
said,
he said, he said he had held her vata mana, he said, have you? Did
you just pray with us? I don't remember the left of the Hadith.
He said, Didn't you just pray with us? And the man said, None. He
said yes, the prophet of God who feels like it's already been
forgiven you. It's already been forgiven you right? Now is the is
the prophet forgiving this person's sin? The Prophet
sallallahu Sallam have the authority to forgive sin? No. What
is how does he know that? Because Allah Subhana Allah, Allah
revealed to the Prophet sallallahu Sallam that this person sin is
forgiven. This is what we find in the New Testament, that
essentially salaam, he says in John, in the Gospel of John, I can
have my own self do nothing. This is what he says, I can have my own
self do nothing. And Matthew, He says, All power is given unto me
all authority is given unto me, given it's not his, he takes it
from somewhere. So this cannot be God. Allah subhanho wa taala, a
God does not take authority from another power, a higher power.
That's not God. That's a messenger of God. And this is a sign of a
Saddam according to our understanding.
Now characters that are given new emphasis in the Gospel of John,
are Jesus's unbelieving brothers. Right. So this might be another
jab at the brother of Christ, whose name was James, Yakov had
said Deke, who is the actual successor of a silent cinema,
according to the book of Acts, and according to history, so in the
Gospel of John, Jesus's brothers are totally unbelieving people. We
also find this interesting scene during the Crucifixion scene of
the Gospel of John, of course, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all three
of them say that there wasn't a single
eyewitness from the disciples to what happened to a Silas Salaam.
We are told all of his disciples for certain and fled. None of them
was an eyewitness to this suppose it crucifixion of a Sally cinema.
So what does John do? Remember John is trying to prove that a
Sally salaam was crucified, so he puts John, this disciple, the
beloved disciple at the foot of the cross, and what does Jesus say
to him? And John is standing next to Mary, the mother of Jesus, and
Jesus from the cross, according to the Gospel of John, he says, Good
night, he day who Yasu women, Woman, behold your son, we're
referring to John the Apostle. And then he says, a day Hey, met today
may tear Sue, behold your mother. So what is he doing here? He's
saying, John, the beloved disciple is now your son, right? He is my
brother. So this has this. You might say, well, who cares about
this? What does this have to do with anything? This is an
endorsement for John to be the spiritual heir of the true
Christology or teaching of Jesus. This is the significance of this
statement, because we know that James he's the brother of Jesus J.
hymns as a son of Mary, as a side a Saddam is the son of Mary James
is the real Khalifa of a silent cinema. But what is what is the
Gospel of John doing here? It's replacing James. It's, it's
usurping from James, his position as the true successor of Esau a
cinema and given it to this beloved disciple, this disciple
who most Christians believe to be John the son of Zebedee.
So there are differences also in the chronology of the Gospel of
John. In the Gospel of John, we have Jesus moving back and forth
between Galilee and Jerusalem. We don't find this in the Synoptic
Gospels. In the Synoptic Gospels, we have Jesus basically spending
the vast majority of his life in Galilee, in Nazareth, right?
Nazareth is a city in the province of Galilee, and the north of
Palestine. And then for one week, he comes into Jerusalem. However,
in the Gospel of John, we have Jesus going back and forth between
Galilee and Judea.
Also the assault on the temple in John happens at the beginning of
His ministry, in John Chapter Two through remember in the Synoptic
Gospels, this happened towards the end of his ministry, actually,
during that final week of his life, where he assaults the
temple. So what do we make of this? So Christians, they have
this idea like Muslims have in Hadith authentication, if there's
two Hadith that seem to
contradict one another. What you would do initially is try to make
Jamaat you try to harmonize the two accounts, you try to make the
text work together, right. But if you can't do that, then you have
to pick one based on a preponderance of evidence, and
this is called Terra gear. For example, it says in sera
literature that there was a sorcerer, a Jewish magician, who
placed a spell on the Prophet sallallahu Sallam his name was
lobbied he took some of the hair of the prophet and he tied knots
into it. Right? And this began to play with the Prophets memory a
little bit. So that's what we read in sera literature. However, in
the Quran, and the Quran is delille Kateri. The Quran is a
definitive proof. We read a verse in the Quran Wallah who yeah I see
mocha Amina Ness, that Allah subhanho wa Taala is protecting
you, you are mas whom Allah subhanho wa Taala protects you
from the people. So what do we do here? So the majority of scholars
will say in this situation, I imagine, many scholars in this
situation would say we have to pick one of these. And the Quran
obviously is going to take precedence over a story in Syria
literature. So this is what we have. With the New Testament, you
have the Synoptic Gospels saying that a Saudi Islam, he went to the
temple towards the end of his life, and He cleansed the temple
and the Gospel of John, you have him doing this at the very outset
of his ministry. So how did Christians make Gemma they say he
did it twice? He did it at the beginning. And he did it at the
end.
So sometimes this will work. Other times it won't work. When will it
not work? Well, for example, in the synoptic tradition, we are
told that the Last Supper was on the Eve of Passover, right? That's
when he had his last supper with His disciples. In the Gospel of
John, we are told that the Last Supper happened on the eve of the
Eve of Passover, so not on Thursday night, but on Wednesday
night. Both cannot be correct. Then some clever Christian might
say something like this. They'll say, Well, maybe because there was
a difference of Moon sighting opinion. Right? How do you
establish the months in ancient Israel, you have to cite the moon.
So maybe there's no contradiction here. Maybe in the Synoptic
Gospels, they're taking one opinion that the moon was cited at
a certain time. And the Gospel of John is taking another opinion
that the moon was cited a day earlier or something? Well, this
is not true. Because if we study ancient Israel, we'll know that
the whole city of Israel, they would begin their months together.
It was only one opinion, how would they do it? So basically, what
would happen is a group of men will go stand on the Mount of
Olives on the night before Yom is check. Right? The night before the
Yom of check the day of doubt, which of course we know about in
our books of fiction. They would try to cite the moon, if they saw
the moon, they will go to the to the high priest of the Sanhedrin,
which is the high religious court of Second Temple Judaism. The
priest he would look at the evidence and he would if he
accepts the moon sighting, then he would tell the men to go back to
the Mount of Olives, and light these special fires on the
mountain that are visible from anywhere in the city. And then the
whole city would begin
And
to
begin that month, if the moon was cited, so there's no difference of
opinion in Jerusalem regarding the day of Passover. My point here is
John is either correct, or the Synoptic Gospels, that Jesus that
he saw today salaam either had his last supper on the Eve of
Passover, or the night before the Eve of Passover, but both cannot
be correct. They both can't be correct, because he didn't have
more than one last supper. So somebody here is wrong. This
demonstrates that there's errors in the New Testament, some
Christians will say this, they will say the New Testament is
inerrant, infallible, there's no mistakes in the New Testament
whatsoever. This is more of an evangelical or litoris
understanding of the New Testament, which you might get
like at the Moody Bible Institute, or an Oral Roberts University or
that Jerry Falwell was at Liberty University, that the New Testament
is inerrant, like basically what we say about the Quran, right?
That's why the Quran says f Allah, yet that balloon Al Quran, do they
not have to duckboard of the Quran. And then Allah says, if
this were from other than God, you will have found if the left and
cathedra many contradictions and discrepancies within the Quran,
and they've tried hard to find contradictions in the Quran. Well,
we can harmonize these apparent apparent contradictions. But what
do we do with something like this? Jesus had his last meal on the Eve
of Passover, or the day before the Eve of Passover, both cannot be
correct. Somebody here is wrong. Right. So
we also have
the Ministries as we said, of John and Jesus, overlapping in the
Gospel of John, we don't find this in the synoptic tradition. In the
synoptic tradition, Jesus's ministry is three years long, I'm
sorry, one year long. In the Gospel of John, it's three years
long. And interestingly, most historians will actually agree
with John here, right that it was three years long,
which is quite interesting.
And then there's some Gnostic ideas in the Gospel of John. Now
we're out of time for this session. But next time, inshallah
we're going to continue looking at the Gospel of John, we're going to
look at John's purpose and method, what is his method? When he's
writing the gospel? Why is this gospel so different than the three
other gospels? Right? And doesn't John know that future generations
are going to read his gospel and wonder why it's so different? So
John actually has an interesting,
implicit way of justifying the differences between his gospel and
the Synoptic Gospels. So talk about that next time in sha Allah
to Allah, wa salam ala Sayyidina Muhammad wa ala alihi wa sahbihi
wa salam, Al hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen wa salam aleikum, wa
Rahmatullah
just went out from under him. So the lawsuit of Muhammad in one
early he was a huge Marian Subhanak Allah and Milena Illuma.
Antenna in Uganda, animal Hakim? What a hello La Quwata illa biLlah
Hill de la the cinema Aliko Mara como la, we're gonna go to.
So welcome to another class, we're continuing to look at the Gospel
of John, which again, is the foundational book of the New
Testament, with respect to Orthodox Christian theology,
belief in the Trinity belief in divine sonship belief and
vicarious atonement. It's a very important book. That's what we're
spending a little more time on this gospel than the other
gospels.
So we said last time, as a quick review, we said there's
differences in the chronology of the Gospel of John when compared
to the Synoptic Gospels. Remember, synoptic in Greek means through
the same eye, right? So Matthew, Mark and Luke basically follow the
same narrative skeleton. However, the Gospel of John, we have a
completely different narrative. We have Jesus going back and forth
between Galilee and Nazareth, we have Jesus cleansing the temple at
the outset, the beginning of His ministry, not at the end. We have
Jesus's ministry three years long in the Gospel of John, as compared
to one year long, apparently, according to the Synoptic Gospels.
There are also some Gnostic ideas that are found in the Gospel of
John, remember, again, we had said, this is important, that's
why we're repeating it that many early scholars believed that the
Gospel of John was initially written by a Gnostic named
Corinthians, and of course, Gnosticism by today's standards,
is considered to be a Christian heresy. The Gnostics believed that
a Sallys did not have a physical body, that he was simply a Divine
Being who appeared as a Phantasm to people who encountered him that
he would not even leave footprints on the sand, as they say, right.
And it's a historical fact that the first Commentary of the Gospel
of John was actually written by a Gnostic Valentinian Gnostic named
heracleum
So the Gospel of John has the sort of gnostic ideas. In John chapter
six, verse 63. He says, The spirit alone gives life the flesh is of
no avail. So this downplay of the flesh. This is very gnostic, and
its idea, and it's all about the spirit, that we are trapped in
these mud bodies. And we have to, we have to escape this reality,
because again, the world is this cosmic catastrophe, right? That's
how Gnostics looked at the world. It was created by a Lesser God,
and that the true God comes as a redeemer and blows on our sparks,
as it were, which are our souls, and then through enlightened
knowledge, we transcend our mud bodies.
So this idea is also clearly presented in John chapter three,
with his doctrine of spiritual rebirth. Now, let's talk about the
Paraclete. Again, we said the Paraclete is Jesus's Spirit,
according to the Gospel of John, that enables the Brotherhood, as
John calls the Johannine community to interpret Jesus's life and its
full theological significance. So when Jesus says, for example, in
John chapter 14, that He will glorify Me, right? In other words,
Jesus, he's making Jesus's cosmic meaning known to the author's
privileged group, right. So John is creating a portrait of Christ
that duplicates what the parakeet reveals. So what is John's purpose
and method? John's purpose is to reveal the true Christ, the real
Christ, by allowing the parakeet to inspire him, again, who is the
parakeet this kind of invisible surrogate, that inspires the
Johannine community. In other words, John believes that the
parakeet is telling him the narrative. Okay. This is why
there's such a big difference between the Gospel of John and the
synoptic, gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Somebody might say,
well, the Gospel of John is some theological afterthought is not
meant to be historical. It's completely different than the
Synoptic Gospels, and it just cannot be true. John realizes
this, but he is saying implicitly, that the reason why his gospel is
so different is is because it's actually presenting the real
Jesus, the True JESUS. This is the true gospel. How, because the
parrot cleat is inspiring the author, and by extension, the
Johannine community. So this is very, very important. So these
long metaphysical philosophical discourses, these monologues and
dialogues that we find exclusively in the Gospel of John, about
cosmic status, divine nature, are because John believes he's being
inspired by the parakeet, these are not the tube sysm of Verba of
Jesus, because John is writing in Greek, these aren't the very words
of Jesus. But they do represent
what's known as the system evokes the very speech of Jesus. And this
accounts for John's alien chronology and content. So the
reason why John's Gospel is so different, vastly different again,
mentioning this, again, the reason why John's Gospel is vastly
different in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is because the author
himself believes that he's being inspired by the Spirit of Christ,
who is called the parakeet, and the Gospel of John. And the
parakeet is inspiring him to write the gospel, and by extension,
guard, guarding and preserving that Christology, the Christology
of the Johannine community.
In John, Jesus of the past, and believers of the present, perform
the same kind of spirit directed work in John chapter 20, verse 23,
very interesting. Jesus tells His disciples, after his resurrection,
so called resurrection, he says, If you forgive sins, if you
forgive the sins of men, they are forgiven. So again, Chris, most
Christians will say Jesus is God because He can forgive sins. Some
Christians will say, Jesus is God because he can perform miracles.
Right? If they want miracles, how Jesus could heal people, according
to the book of Acts, the this the shadow of Peter, when he walked by
this lame man, his shadow fell upon this lame person and he was
healed just the shadow of Peter, and he didn't even intend to heal
that person. So miracles are not a proof of someone's deity. They
say, Well, Jesus can raise the dead, right? Well, if you look at
the Old Testament, if you look at the book of First and Second
Kings, we find the Prophet First Kings chapter 17, we find the
Prophet Eliyahu Elijah raising
The boy from the dead, the isn't Allah by the permission of Allah
subhanaw taala. Again, just because someone can perform a
miracle does not make them God. An average person, according to our
theology can perform a miracle false prophets can perform
miracles, in fact, a silent cinema in the Synoptic Gospels. He says,
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after signs, people who
always want miracles after miracles, that's a wicked and
adulterous generation. He says that he says, There shall arise
many false prophets and Christ's who shall show you signs and
wonders to deceive even the very elect, a false prophet, a false
prophet, according to the New Testament, can perform a miracle.
And of course, we know from our theology, there are several types
of miracles you have the Marchesa, which is a true prophetic miracle.
And there's difference. There's there's two different types of
divine miracles of prophetic miracles. There's a miracle of
dunamis, which is a miracle of power, which is an A prophet does
something that is physically impossible by the permission of
Allah subhanaw taala, like a prophet will split the moon, for
example, or water will run from his fingers, which are stated in
our sound traditions about the Prophet sallallahu it it was
setting them that's called the Miracle of dunamis. dunamis means
power in Greek, there are also miracles of a pista may miracles
of knowledge, like clairvoyance, like when the Prophet sallallahu
Sallam told that man who's coming to Medina, why do you have the
sword? And he said, Oh, I, you know, I just have carried my
sword. And the Prophet said, No, you've you've, you've come to kill
me. And I heard about that conversation you had with your
companion and Mecca. So did you read it salaam told the prophet
Sallallahu sallam, this is impossible for a human being to
know, who doesn't have that ability or that recourse to an
angel or to or to divine inspiration. So we believe in the
more G's that we also believe in karma. And karma probably comes
from the Greek charismata. Right. And these are spiritual gifts. And
Christians believe in these two
that saints can do, we also believe in Merona Merona, are
miracles that are given to average believers that helped them along
the Ciloxan was stuck in. And then we have something called instead
the large, divine beguilement, as it's sometimes translated, in
which a non profit a non Saint will seemingly break natural law.
Right. So we have to be careful. And instead Raj, the result of
that there's no tow feet in it. Right? So it's an ability that
someone can do. Maybe he learned some sort of ability, like you
might have like Buddhist monks, who will sit in ice, almost
completely naked, and start sweating and melt the ice around
them, they can stop the beating of their heart. For a few moments,
you might think, well, that's a miracle, or they have some sort of
ability, you only use 10% of your brain. But there's no Tofik who
cares if you can, if you can melt ice, who cares? What does it have
to do with anything, there's no toe feet and anything like that.
And then you have something like
ihana which are miracles that Allah allows a false prophet to
do. Right? Like Musa al Khattab but the point of those miracles is
to humiliate that false prophet. Like one time Musella man like had
that he tried to heal the eye of a man, right? And there was Rama,
there was a disease in his eye. And we'll say, he took his saliva
and put it on the man's eye, and suddenly the other eye, that was
fine, it began to become diseased. So this is a miracle, but it's
ihana. It's a miracle to humiliate this false prophet. So miracles
are not a proof of deity. They can be a proof of prophecy, or Wilaya
of sainthood, but they can also write, they can also be miracles
that are done, or so called miracles done by false prophets.
So you have to look at what you have to look at someone's is the
karma. This is the true miracle. According to the aroma achromat
another Rifai, he said either or a tomato Raju learn
your beautiful Hawaiian howa Oh yum she Phil. Phil Matt AEMC
Island Matt. La to set the Kobe he if you see a man flying through
the air or walking on the water, don't believe in Him unless you
check is is stick armor. What is the karma his adherence to the
commandments of Allah subhanho wa taala. This is how you can tell
the Kurama from is to drudge or the Kurama from ihana. As you look
at that person's is the karma, his adherence to Allah and His
messenger. This is how you can tell. Right? So this is very
interesting and John 2023. If you forgive people their sins, Jesus
is telling the disciples and by extension, the Johannah and
community and by extension, all of the Christian believers who
believe in that thing
ology that they can forgive people sins. Right? He also says a John
1412, that Christians will do greater works than him to you will
do greater works than these. This is very interesting that
Christians today should be able to raise the dead, heal lepers heal
the blind. Why don't we see these happening? Why don't we find these
people on TV? Most of them charlatans who are getting a lot
of money driving around, and they're flying around in their
private jets, right? Performing the so called miracles on TV.
Jesus says to Christians, at least according to John, this is what he
says that true Christians will do greater miracles than the pre
ascension Christ. And Jesus, according to John 11, raise the
dead. Why don't we see Christians raising the dead? Are they not
true believers? Or is there something wrong with this text? It
also says in First John three, six, the first epistle of John,
which was also from that Johannine community, it says that Christians
don't sin. Christians are not sinners, because they have the
Spirit of God, and they're sanctified to Christian sin or
not, I would say yes, they do sin. So we have a problem here. Now.
Look at the organization of this gospel. It's very interesting.
So basically, the gospel is four parts. You have the prologue,
right. The Prologue is chapter one, verses one through 18. This
is called the hem to the logos. Right? So you read that it's sort
of a song, right? Very poetic. We quoted part of it in the last
class, it begins and our k Ain't her Lagace K hallazgos, prestan
Theon chaos in her Loggos. In the beginning was the Word, the Word
was with God, and the Word was a divine being right. Most
translations say, and the Word was God. Right. And that's very
misleading. And then it goes on to talk about the Word the Word
became flesh, so on and so forth. Right. That's called the prologue.
The second part of the Gospel of John is called the Book of signs,
Si, G and S, the book of signs. And this is basically John
chapter
one, chapter one, verse 19, to 1250, Chapter 12, verse 50, where
seven miracles are described, in that section seven miracles,
ascribe to a side A salaam. The third part is called the Book of
glory, which is basically chapter 13, verse one, to chapter 20,
verse 31, and this is the plot, the Last Supper, the passion, the
resurrection. And then chapter 21, is called the epilogue, right?
Jesus's post resurrection appearances in Galilee. So this is
the organization of the gospel, you have the prologue, which
begins at John one, one, and ends at 118. Then you have the book of
signs, which begins at John 119, until John 1250. And then you have
the book of glory, which begins John chapter 13, to John chapter
20, verse 31, then you have the epilogue, which is chapter 21.
So let's look more at this term logos, right? Because again, the
term logos, in the prologue of John's gospel is identified with
God. Right? It says, In the beginning was the Logos, the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the logos was God, right? That's how
sometimes it's translated. So in John's day, Logos was a popular
stoic term, who are the stoics. They were a group of
Greco Roman philosophers that believed in God, but they were
Deist. They believe that God does not reveal himself to humanity.
They were rationalist they believe that reason was all you needed to
understand the true nature of the universe. They were very
unemotional, they considered emotion to be a sign of someone
not being very intellectual. So the word logos was quite popular
in stoic philosophy. And it was viewed as synonymous with divine
intelligence that created and sustained the world. So this is
God's project, his decree, his plan, his blueprint, that becomes
manifest, right. This is the meaning of logos. So when we say
in the beginning was the Word, what that really means is in the
beginning, there was a plan a divine plan, God decreed
something. What was his decree? So here, we're not talking about the
sun. Some Christians will say logos means son of God, and the
Logos is a person, right? No, that's not what it's saying. In
the beginning was the word not the sun.
doesn't say sun. beginning was the word and the word meaning the word
meaning that this decree this plan, this Iraida, this decree
that Allah subhanaw taala had, if we were to use Arabic, at this
point in our translation, the beginning was the Word. And this
plan was with God, of course, the decree of God is with God. Right?
And the plan was God, meaning that this plan is godly, if you will,
it's being used qualitatively here. Right? So a, a noun in
Greek, that is an arthritis, which means that it's indefinite, quite
often is used adjective civilly, meaning qualitatively, so we're
not going to translate and the Word was God, we're going to say
and godly, right, and godly was the word. Right. In other words,
this word, this Divine Decree, this plan is divine, it is godly,
it is from God. It is of the things divine, right? It's an
attribute of God. That's the meaning here, according to a
Unitarian understanding, we can't translate here, Logos as Son, and
God as Father. We can't say, for example, in the beginning, was the
Son, and the son was with the Father, and the son was the
father. We can't say that. Why can't we say that? Because that's
heresy. According to Trinitarian, doctrine, son, the son and father
are not the same person. And a lot of Christians, they make that
mistake, because they can't explain the Trinity. The Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, the son is not the father, the father is not
the Spirit, the Spirit is not the son. But all three are God.
There's three who's and one what, that's how they describe the
Trinity, three, who's three persons, and one what one God,
right, this kind of convoluted type of explanation. But it's very
easy. In the beginning was the Word, God's plan, God's decree,
and the Word was with God, and God's decree and plan was with
him, and gods.
And the Word was God, meaning that this decree was of the things
godly, right, because the second occurrence of the word chaos,
again, does not have a definite article. So we can say that the
word was qualitatively divine.
And then the Word became flesh. And John chapter one, verse 14. So
again, we have God's plan, his Radha, which is uncreated. He has
a plan, what is his plan to create a side A salaam,
God, you irida is to create everything I was in that plan, you
were in that plan. All of us were in God's Inada, which is pre
eternal, we were in God's plan, you can use the term if you like,
Mind of God, it's kind of platonic, Neil, it's kind of
Platonic to use that term, that we were some sort of archetypal form
in God's mind or something like that. I'd rather not use that type
of language. But some philosophers will use that type of language,
especially Christian philosophers. I prefer to say we were in God's
ear. All right, so as Sid said, um, he was in God's plan, right?
There's irata. And then there's a tie look, right? There's a, a
manifestation of God's attribute to God has irata. And then he
creates, and then we have a manifestation. So the Word became
flesh means that this decree became manifest in the person of a
silent Salam. This is how we understand the prologue of John's
gospel, we don't understand the prologue, in a sense that the word
is the Son of God, and that the Son is God himself. That doesn't
work. Why doesn't it work?
Because if we look at John 17, three, for example, I want
everyone to look at
John 17, three, very interestingly, here.
He says, This is eternal life. Right? John? 17. Three, this is
eternal life. So Jesus is talking to who he says the father, right?
He says it father, he's praying to the god he's to his father,
meaning God, again, not father in the literal sense, we have to get
this notion out of our mind. That's not what it means in the
New Testament. It means the rub. So he says, Father, this eternal
life, to know you the only true God to know you, and the Greek
says, tone manaan and a thin on theon, the only true God is who?
The father,
right, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent. This is a beautiful
creedal statement. And it's very, very clear. It's very clear, the
only true God is the Father. And Jesus is
is the one sent by God? Jesus is the agent of God. A Christians
will say, well, it doesn't say that the sun isn't a true God
either or the New Testament doesn't say a lot of things. This
is a weak argument. This is called an argument from absence. The New
Testament also doesn't say that God will become a dog or a cat. So
is it possible for God to do that? No, let's not mystify the verse.
Let's not take something that's clear and convoluted. Let's not
have these convoluted
verbal gymnastics to prove the Trinity and very clearly, this is
eternal life, to know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom
thou has sent. So we're gonna take a short break, Inshallah, to Allah
because it's time to pray, we'll come back and finish the show in
sha Allah subhanho wa taala, who are back from the prayer. So
continuing talking about the Gospel of John, we're talking
about the logos before we took a break. So we said in stoic
terminology, the term logos was synonymous with divine
intelligence that created and sustained the world the project or
decree of God. And this is a way to understand the prologue of
John's gospel, in the beginning was the Word, meaning God's decree
to create a Silius of the word here is not a person, it's
impersonal. It is a decree. And the Word was with God, God's
decree is with him. And the word was of things godly, again, no
definite article on the second occurrence of the word chaos in
John one, one. So we have Hulk, which is an attribute, we'll also
find out what the Allah that's related to his irata in his Quadra
in his earland, which is not locked. So we have Hulk and
quadra, and then we have Allah subhanaw taala, who is alcoholic,
who is actively creating and then we have the manifestation of the
attribute which is Maha loop. So we have Allah subhanaw taala, who
had decreed to create a silent Salaam and then we have ALLAH
SubhanA wa Jalla creating a Silius and um, as Allah says, In the
Quran, in the method, ERISA and Allah, He can method he Adam
Halacha, whom interrupt thermocol Allah who couldn't for your own,
he similitude the similitude of a Saudi Salam with Allah is like
that of Adam. He created him from dust. And then he said to him be,
and there he was. Now also in Judaism, this idea of hochma, or
Hekima, which is wisdom is very much prevalent, especially in the
book of Proverbs chapter eight, which is depicted symbolically as
God's companion when he created the universe, God's helper, if you
will, in the creative process, but also God's channel of
communication to humanity. So the celebrated first century Jewish
theologian of Alexandria, his name was Philo. He's really the one who
synthesized Hellenistic logic with the Hebrew Bible, the one who
synthesized in other words, Greek and Semitic thought, he referred
to wisdom as logos, wisdom hochma, in the Old Testament, and he said,
It is the creative intermediary between the transcendent creator
and the material creation. He didn't like to use the word
Sophia, because Sophia is feminine. So he used the word
logos. So when God spoke, according to this understanding,
he created the word or he created
wisdom, He created the the logos, than the cosmos is born, created
through wisdom. So when God spoke, for example, in the Torah, he
said, Yeah, he Yeah, he means let there be Yeah, he or let there be
light. When he said, Yeah, he that's when he manifested the
creation and the first creation was hookman according to this,
Jewish Alexandria and understanding, when he said Cohn
when he said, be fire corn there he was, right. So this wisdom is
created, right? So if you read Proverbs chapter eight, verses 22
to 23, we read the Lord created me, the Lord created me at the
beginning of his work. And this verse was actually quoted by
Aryans. Remember, who were the Aryans? Again, this is review. The
Aryans were the Christians at Nicaea, who lost to the proto
Trinitarian Christians by vote and 325 of the Common Era, the Aryans
were Unitarian. What that meant was they believed in the monarch,
the first principle in the Father as being the only true God. So the
Aryans believed that Esraa Salam, he did pre exist his physical
body, as hochma as wisdom as logos, however this logos is
created. And in Proverbs chapter eight, verse 22, the Lord created
me at the beginning of his work, also in the book of
Ecclesiasticus, which is not in the Old Testament. It's considered
Apocrypha, but we have this idea of the Hebrew Bible, in the Hebrew
Bible of wisdom speaking as the first person I
Am I right? Then defining her activities as God's agent? Before
time He created me, I am the word which was spoken by the Most High.
Also you find similar statements in the wisdom of Solomon. So this
is, these are the references for the I am statements of the Gospel
of John, the Christians will try to say that when are you sorry,
they said, according to John, chapter eight, verse 58, when he
says in the Greek print and goodness thigh, Abraham Eggo, me
before Abraham was I AM, they will try to say here, that Jesus is
claiming to have ontological precedence before Abraham. Now if
you're an Aryan, that's fine, because they do believe that a
Sybase and I'm predates Abraham, but Jesus was still created. But
they what what they really mean to say, hear the Trinitarians is,
Jesus here is saying I am. And that's the name that God gave
Moses at the burning bush. So if you go back to Exodus, chapter
three, verse 14, we were told that when Moses is at the burning bush,
and he is speaking with God, he says, when I go to the Israelites,
they're going to ask me your name, what should I tell them? And then
Hebrew, God tells him, Hey, I shot a DA, which means I am who I am. I
am who I am a DA Asha a DA, right? So this is translated I am who am
I? And so Jesus in 858, he says, Before Abraham was I AM, so he's
using the same name he's claiming to be God. Now, what's interesting
here is that Jesus simply says, a goal a me, right, he says, I am He
doesn't say I am God. If you look at that verse in Exodus, a Asha
AKA, this verse was translated in the Septuagint, which is the Greek
translation of the Old Testament, done in Alexandria and 250. Before
the Common Era, this was translated into Greek as a Go me,
hold on, I am the one who is, I am the one who who is the isn't mo su
masculine, singular, the relative pronoun hold on on is where we get
the word ontology from, I am the one who self exists, but a silent
Salam, according to John 858, he doesn't say print Abraham genista
ego me Hold on. He doesn't say that. If he said that, then
indeed, it's a divine claim. But what he simply says is, before
Abraham was I am meeting who I am he who is he the Messiah. This is
his claim. This is a claim he's made the one you're waiting for
the one you you need, the one who is going to come the promised one,
the Messiah, HaMashiach, the Christ how Chris does, this is who
I am. Now, why did you say before Abraham was I AM, because here he
is trying to defend his legitimacy, that even Abraham knew
about me, he prophesized of me, he spoke of me or that possibly, he
is he is preeminent. He has higher status than Abraham and not some
sort of ontological precedence over or before Abraham. So I am
here.
I am the Messiah. Now if you look at John chapter nine,
verse nine, we're told that he saw the tsunami Jesus Christ He heals
a man born blind, right and the Pharisees they went they want to
investigate this miracle right now when the man has his sight
restored to him there's a discussion amongst the people and
there there's there's a difference of opinion whether this is the the
actual blind man so some say no, it's him some say No, it looks
like him.
So then the blind man says, ergo me, alright, I am he. So he uses
the same words that Jesus uses an 858 So what does the blind man
mean here? Does he mean I am God? Right here go he said a Go me
know. What does he mean? I am the blind man. I'm the same one.
Right? Because that's the context of the situation. They want to
know if he's the blind man or not in the context of John chapter
eight. They want to know if he's the Messiah. And he says Aygo me I
am. This has nothing to do with Exodus chapter three, verse 14, in
the synoptics, right Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus is reported to
have said many will say that I am He Aygo me I am the Christ I am
the Christ he said don't believe them. Right many will say Aygo me
again, I am here meaning the Christ. The first occurrence of
one of these I am statements in the Gospel of John comes in John
chapter four, when Jesus is speaking to the woman at the well.
Right? And the woman says to Jesus, I know that the Messiah
will come listen to the context. They're discussing the coming of
the Messiah.
I know that the Messiah will come. So Jesus says there according to
the Greek it says Leggett ow Tae ha esos Jesus said to her Aygo, me
ha la lune su
he says, I am he the one you are speaking with. I am Who? The
Messiah. That's what that's what he's talking about this this is
the whole context of the situation of John 858 When John when a Saudi
Salam uses Aygo me according to John, he's claiming to be the
Messiah he didn't say Go me Hold on, he simply says Aygo me.
So there is at this echo of Exodus 314. However, it's very clear from
the context that a Silius is simply claiming to be the Messiah.
If you want to find some sort of
source of the I am statements with the Gospel of John, the more apt
source would be the I am statements of wisdom personified
in the Old Testament of hokhmah of the Logos final called hookah
wisdom or hikma logos, but wisdom was created it's the initial
creation it's not uncreated. It doesn't share an essence with God.
Okay, so that's important. Now, if you look at John 1319 He says to
the Jews, I tell you that you must believe that Ergo me that I am He
Aygo, me again, I am who the Christ, this is what it's all
about. Because John chapter 20, verse 31, he says, that these
things were written so that you might know that Jesus is the
Christ, now that Jesus is God. It doesn't say that. Nowhere does
Jesus. Nowhere does the author of the Gospel of John directly and
unambiguously refer to Jesus as the god. Right. Nowhere in the
Gospel of John does that Eastside Islam claim to be God, or does he
say, worship mean, when he says Aygo me in the Gospel of John,
which is usually translated I am you should really translate that I
am he who? The Messiah that's the context of the verses. Here's
another one for you in the Gospel of Mark chapter 14 verses 61 to
62. When the high priests ask, asks Jesus a Saudi said, um, Are
you the Christ, the Son of the blessing again, this title son of
the blessing or son of God? Again, we shouldn't confuse this we
shouldn't be convoluted here that this is simply a messianic title.
That's why the high priest is using it. Son of God means the
Christ. Are you the Christ, Jesus responds, Aygo me. He says, I am,
I am who I am God, no, I am the Christ. That's what it means.
Again, our anchor verse in John chapter in the Gospel of John, is
John chapter 17, verse three, he says, This is eternal life, to
know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent.
This is very, very clear. It's a beautiful creedal statement, the
only true God is the Father. He's the only true God according to the
Gospel of John. Right, and Jesus is the one sent by God, the
Messenger of God, the agent of God. Right. And again, Christians
will try to say here what it doesn't say Jesus is not the one
true God. Again, this is an argument from absence. It's a very
weak argument, the Bible doesn't say a lot of things. Does it mean
that they're true? What does the Bible actually say? That's what's
important. And clearly here, the only true God is the Father and
St. Augustine, right? Found this verse very, very problematic. One
of the architects of the Trinity, he wrote de Trinity. And he
actually in his homilies, he rearranged the verse, because the
way it appears in the Gospel of John, it clearly denies that Jesus
has got limits or restricts the Godhead only to the Father. So
what did what did Agustin do? He rearranged the verse and he said,
This is eternal life, to know you, to know you, and Jesus Christ whom
You have sent as the only true God. You see how he manipulates
the verse to implicate Jesus as also being that one true God, but
that's not how the verse goes to know you the only true God and
Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. It's very, very clear. Another
verse in the Gospel of John Chapter 20, verse 17, this is
apparently after the so called resurrection of Jesus, when Mary
Magdalene is going to touch him, he says, Touch me not. I have not
yet ascended unto my Father. He says, Go and tell my brethren, I
ascend unto my Father and your Father, no problem so far, Crystal
logically, from a Trinitarian perspective. And then he says, my
God and your God, He says, My God, say us mu My God. So if Jesus has
a God, how can he be God? Isn't this two gods? Jesus can't have a
god
Jesus, according to the Trinitarian physician has a father
and he is CO equal in his essence with the Father. Yet he is
subordinate to the Father in His person, if you want to say that,
that's fine. However, if Jesus has a God, then we run into a serious
problem. When we talk about God in heaven, and then God on earth, the
Father in heaven, the Son walking the earth, isn't that to God? That
sounds like to to me. Jesus says in Mark chapter 29, to chapter 12,
verse 29, he O Israel,
the LORD our God, the Lord is one the Shema Yisrael Adonai, you
know, who do not hurt God is a hot I had, I had means one is very
clear. And Christians will say, Yeah, but it's one but there's an
allowance of plurality. So language has no meaning anymore.
One is one. That's what it means. I don't say this is one pencil,
yet it's three pencils. That's nonsense. That's gibberish. Right?
It's one pencil God is One holla. That's it, God is one. And the
father is the only true God, according to John 17. Three, and
Jesus admits in John 2017, that he has a God. He says, I ascend on to
my Father and your Father, my God and your God, if Jesus is God, how
could he have a god? Are there two gods in there's a hierarchy of two
gods? Is this by theism? Try theism? No. So Christians have a
lot of work to do with these verses. And they'll take these
verses, and they'll interpret them and again, very kind of convoluted
ways in order for the Trinity to work that nobody really
understands. But I don't think that the original authors of these
books had anything to do with the Trinity. Of course, we know the
Trinity wasn't
formally articulated until the fourth century of the Common Era.
And this scripture is supposed to be from the end of the first
century, very clearly, from this scripture, it is clear from the
Gospel of John, it's clear that there is no such thing as a
Trinity. And that a silent Salam, even according to the high
Christology of the Gospel of John, is God's agent, He is a messenger
of God, He is not God, He is the Christ, he is the Messiah.
Now if we continue to look at the Gospel of John here,
so he said, The Gospel of John is organized with the prologue, right
the hem to the Lagace. And that ends at John chapter one, verse
18. And then you have what's known as the book of signs, right for
the next few chapters, I think, until Chapter 12, verse 50, the
book of sight is basically seven miracles that
appear in the Gospel of John the seventh miracles.
The only miracle in the synoptics is the sign of Jonah. Right, the
prophets escaped from death.
So
some say that this portion of the Gospel of John was actually
written originally around 50, or 60 of the Common Era, right around
the time of the Q source document. Of course, we talked about the Q
Source or the sayings gospel, when we talked about Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, and that it was compiled by Jewish Christians, and it sort of
served as John's narrative framework. And then the author the
autograph author of the Gospel of John, when he had this book of
signs, he inserted these lengthy dialogues and speeches
into the text in order to explicate his Christology or the
Johannine Christology So what are these seven miracles that are
mentioned in the book of signs, Jesus turns water into wine,
that's number one, John chapter two. Number Number two, you have
the healing of the official son, which is also John Chapter Two,
you have number three, the healing of the crippled man, in John
chapter five, you have the feeding of 5000. In John chapter six,
that's also found that a synoptics, then you have walking
on water, which is also found in the Synoptic Gospels. That's John
chapter six, restoring sight to a blind man. That's John chapter
nine. And then finally, the seventh sign is raising Lazarus
from the dead with John chapter 11. We've talked about that in our
last class, that Jesus, he directed his vision towards the
heavens, and prayed to God, and God answered his prayer. And of
course, in the Gospel of John, the raising of Lazarus, this leads to
Jesus's death, not the temple assault, which is what we find in
the Synoptic Gospels. Of course, we have also this story in John
chapter eight, verses one through 12, which is called the pericarp.
Pay. adulterer. I. This is an incident where a woman was caught
in the act of adultery. And the Pharisees are chasing her to stone
her, which is the penalty of adultery. According to the TODO
and a silent Salam, he sees what's happening. He stands in front of
the Pharisees he right
put something in the sand and then he stands up. And he makes this
famous statement that he who is without sin may cast the first
stone. This is included in every Jesus movie. If you watch any
Jesus movies, you'll see this in every Jesus movie. Right? What's
interesting about this Peric up this this passage from the Gospel
of John Chapter Eight, is that almost all scholars believe it was
a later addition to the text that this story actually never
happened. But it was later included into the Gospel of John,
so you have scribes writing things later. And interpolating the
stories bringing the stories into the text of the Gospel of John,
this person could be adultery, sometimes actually shows up in
versions of the Gospel of Luke. So anytime you have this kind of
mobility of verses, shows that these verses are actually not
original, but were added later.
Now there is some
evidence, however, that the raising of Lazarus was also
originally found in a synoptic tradition in 1958, a Christian
scholar named Martin Smith, he was in Marsa library, in Palestine.
And he found what appears to have been another version of Mark's
gospel called The Secret Gospel of Mark, which actually does include
the raising of Lazarus, as well. And then the third part of the
Gospel of John is called the Book of glory, which may or may be
based on the Passion narrative of the synoptic tradition, or John,
or it could be from an independent source, although most scholars
believe that John simply reworked or reinterpreted the older
synoptic tradition. So John insists on Jesus's unique
relationship to God, that He and the Father are one that's John
chapter 10, verse 30, but it's a unity of heart and purpose. So
again, this is another one of those verses that Christians will
point to and say look, Jesus is claiming to be God, where he says,
The Father and I are one Aygo, chi pothead mu haste esteem, or
Essman, the father and I are one so they say one in what in
Trinitarian. Christians will say, one in essence, how am I will see
us right this Greek term, which is non biblical, but was made
Orthodox Christianity at the Council of Nicaea and 325. of the
Common Era, Hamas UCS means of the same essence, right? And this was
their favorite verse. But if you read the context of that, what is
it say? Jesus is talking about his disciples. And he says, he says, I
watch over my disciples, no one can * them out of My hand.
And then he says, My Father who is greater than all very, very clear,
the father who is greater than all he is watching over them, and no
one can * them out of his hand. The father and I are one. So
isn't it clear that the context of this verse is that Jesus and God
are united in purpose, they are of one heart, one goal, one
objective, united in action, united in character, not united,
essentially, no one can be united essentially, with God. This is the
context of the verse. It's very, very, very clear. However,
Christians, again, they pick up these verses out of context, the
father and I are one and they say, Look, right here, oneness of
essence. And we can make the same mistake with the Quran. If I say
for example, whoever obeys the messenger is obeying God. May ut
rasool Allah Allah, there's a verse in the Quran in surah, An
Nisa, whoever obeys the messenger is obeying God, someone who
doesn't know the context of the Quran, who doesn't know about
Islamic Tawheed he might conclude, oh, maybe that's because the
messenger is God. Of course not. No Muslim exegete in the history
of Islam has ever said that the Prophet salallahu Salam is ALLAH
SubhanA wa Taala essentially, what does this verse mean? Why don't
why Mara meter either AMITA Well, I kidding Allah Rama. Allah says
to the Prophet sallallaahu Salam, you did not throw those pebbles.
Right. When you threw it, I threw it a lot through it. What does
that mean? Allah subhanho wa taala, somehow incarnated into the
body of the Prophet salallahu Salam and threw some pebbles. No,
what does that mean? That means that the Prophet sallallahu alayhi
salam is guided in his actions. He is doing exactly what Allah
subhanaw taala wants him to do. He is sanctified, right? He is
protected is Matt assume well, Allahu Yasumi come in and nuts.
Allah subhanho wa Taala will protect you from the people. All
of the prophets are met assume they are free of major sin. They
have they're under the shelter of Allah Subhan Allah to Allah, so
they cannot willfully disobey Allah subhanho wa Taala they're
doing their doings their words and their speeches are exactly
according to the person
It will and irida of Allah subhanho wa taala. This is the
meaning of the verse, The Father and I are one.
So,
this is very important for us to understand this, this concept. Now
also in the Gospel of John, we talked about this already, John
makes certain crucial amendments to the synoptic tradition with
respect to the Passion narrative. Remember, in the passion in the
Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel according to Mark, Jesus is only
apparently on the cross for a couple of hours, pilot marvels
that he's taken off the cross, right in. And the gospel of Mark
ends quite ambiguously. The women go into the tomb. The stones
already been rolled away. They see an angel who says, Jesus is not
here. He is risen. He is in Galilee, go see him in Galilee.
He's left the city of Jerusalem, and then the women run around.
Afraid. So nobody actually knows what happened. What happened? He
was resurrected. Was he was Did he swoon on the cross? did he survive
the crucifixion? What happened? Did he leave in secret because of
fear of the Jews that are in the city? What happened here? So what
John wants to do, he wants to make it very, very clear that Jesus was
killed on the cross, no Simon of Cyrene incident he's impaled on
the cross. He's anointed on that very night.
So next time inshallah to Allah because we're out of time. Now.
Next time, we shall Allah Tada, where should we should conclude
the Gospel of John.
And then we're going to have
our last two classes that are recorded, we're going to look at
more Muslim apologetics approving the Muslim position from the
Christian scripture, we're going to look at some important verses
in the Bible in which Muslims can use to show that there's a
continuity between the Bible in the Quran and that the Quran is
the true confirmer of the message of esign. A sunnah even as it
appears in the Bible. Of course, the Bible as we know it is not the
preserved Word of God. But again, there are elements of truth there.
And we're going to sort of look at the look at those verses from a
humanitarian perspective, and inshallah to Allah learn how to
deal with them. So when we call Christians to Allah and His
messenger, we can use their own text and show them an alternative
way. That is free from Trinitarian confusion in which they can
understand their own text and hopefully introduce them also to
the progressive aspect of our deen so that if they accept the unity
of Allah subhanho wa taala, and they accept the messenger ship of
East LA salaam, that his deity, the messenger ship, then maybe
they can accept the messenger ship of the successor of a Saudi Salam,
the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa salam and come to
believe in the Quran as the true confirmer of the Torah and the
Gospel inshallah to Allah. So we'll do that next time or Salah
La Silla Mohammed in while early he was on hamdu Lillahi Rabbil
Alameen Salam aleikum, wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.
That's Minara. A lot of humans on the lawsuit of Mohammed in one
early he was a huge Marina Salam alaykum Warahmatullahi
Wabarakatuh.
So we're continuing to talk about the Gospel of John in this class.
This is the second to last class in sha Allah, I plan on finishing
our discussion about the Gospel of John, also known as the fourth
gospel in this class. So last time, we had said that the Gospel
of John is organized. In four sections, there's the prologue,
which is the very beginning of the gospel. So it begins in the, in
the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. And last time, we talked about the significance of that
statement, and how there's multiple ways of understanding
that statement. So that's called the prologue also known as the
hymn to the Lagace. And that begins at chapter one, verse one
and ends chapter one, verse 18. And then we said, the next part of
the Gospel of John is called the Book of signs. And this consists
of seven miracles that were performed by Eastside A salaam,
according to the Gospel of John, and this begins at John chapter
one, verse 19, and ends John chapter 12, verse 50. The third
part of the Gospel of John is called the Book of glory. And this
begins at John chapter 13, verse one, and ends John chapter 20,
verse 31, which is believed to be the actual real ending of the
Gospel of John 2031. And the book of glory consists of the plot to
assassinate Jesus peace be upon him, as well as the Last Supper
than the Passion narrative than the resurrection. And then you
have the last part, which is called the epilogue, which again,
most scholars of the New Testament believe was added later. The
epilogue is basically chapter 21 of the Gospel of John. And these
are post resurrection appearances of a Sunday. So
in Galilee in or around Galilee,
Lee.
So we had said also last time that if you go to your average
Christian, on the street or at church or at school, and you ask
them, Where does inside a salon claimed to be God in the New
Testament, right? So this belief that Eastside Islam is God, right?
This is a foundational belief, supposedly a foundational belief
of Christian orthodoxy. We ask this question to your Christian
friend. If he knows his way around the Bible, he will invariably
point to something in the Gospel of John. Right? So that's very
important to understand that they're going to quote probably
one of the I am statements. If you look at the synoptic tradition,
Matthew, Mark and Luke, it becomes very, very clear and we have to
reason with people say, look, is Jesus God? They will say, yes. Is
Jesus a man they have to say, yes. You say, Well, the Old Testament
says God is not a man. It's very, very clear. Hosea, the book of
Hosea in the Old Testament, chapter 11, verse nine says, key I
know he ain't Hello, ish. Verily, verily, I am God and not a man,
because God and man are mutually exclusive. Right? You look in the
Old Testament, sorry, in the New Testament, synoptic tradition as
well. We have a silent Salam, according to Matthew 2436, not
knowing the day of judgment or the day of His return. How can God not
know something? If a Saudi Saddam is supposed to be this omniscient
deity, as Christians believe him to be why doesn't he know the day
of His second coming of the Perugia or the Day of Judgment?
Why doesn't he know that? So we've demonstrated that a Silas um,
doesn't know something in passages like that. Matthew 2436, where he
says of that day knoweth, no, man, not the angels, not even the Sun,
who day Haha, it's not even the sun. But only the Father passages
like this. This particular passage actually, greatly stumped. Many
church fathers, and the Church Fathers had these really
interesting and convoluted ways of dealing with patches passages like
this very disturbing to them, that a psilocin doesn't know something.
So let's say well, as a man, he didn't know. But as God, he
doesn't know. So if he would just think a little bit harder, the
answer would come to him. It's like asking someone, are you
blind, who's blind in one eye? And he says, Yes, I'm blind, but he
can still see out of one of his eyes. So he's not really blind. So
these kinds of linguistic gymnastics or theological
convoluted sort of responses from the early church fathers, and keep
in mind as well, the early church fathers are in no way shape or
form. Jewish theologians, you know, if you look at the post,
Apostolic Church, a lot of these terms, most of the Church Fathers,
in fact, probably all of the Church Fathers, these, you know,
what are known as the patristic figures, the pre Nicene, proto
orthodox scholars, and bishops and so on and so forth theologians.
They're actually from pagan backgrounds, like Justin Martyr
and Irenaeus, of Lyons, in origin of Alexandria. So they're
borrowing these kinds of pagan ideas and Neo Platonism, and so on
and so forth. Greek influence, and they're basically rewriting the
Gospels through the lens of their former paganism, so are you siding
with them eventually becomes the second person of a Triune God. But
again, you look at the synoptic tradition. A good passage to point
out to your Christian friends and neighbors, is Mark chapter 12,
verse 29, that whole exchange with his Jewish scribe, right, the
Jewish scribe, who's a theologian comes to a Saudi salaam to Jesus.
And he says to him, which is the greatest commandment and if Jesus
was going to teach Trinitarian doctrine, right, as Athanasius
says, you know, we worship one God and Trinity and Trinity and unity,
The Father is God, the Son has God, the Holy Spirit is God, but
they are not three gods but one God. And then he says, The Father
is a person, the son is a person, the Holy Spirit is a person, but
they're not three persons, but one person. language doesn't have
meaning anymore, apparently, right? Listen to what Jesus says
in a very clear, unambiguous, concise statement. What does he
say? When this Jewish theologian is asking him the question? What
is the foremost of all of the commandments? He says, the first
and the foremost foremost commandment is here are Israel the
Lord our God? The Lord is one. He is one he quotes Deuteronomy six,
four, the Quran says Musa Dicalcium, Albania de I mean a
Torah that a Sallys Salam, he confirms the theology of the Old
Testament, God is a had God is hot in Hebrew, and are hot means one,
right? And one, he's one entity. He's one person. He's one essence
and that's all he is. There's no plurality. There's no multiplicity
in him. subhanho wa Taala
You know, when we say one, we mean one, right? When I say I'm one
person, I don't mean to say, I'm also three persons. No, I'm one
person. Right? So we have to stop mystifying language. Right? This
is my message to some of our Christian brethren, who may be
watching this class, is that when Jesus says God is one, that's the
creed of Jesus, he's confirming the theology of the Old Testament.
And nowhere in the Old Testament is God presented as a triune
deity. In fact, nowhere in the New Testament is God presented as a
triune deity. You won't find a single verse in the entire New
Testament, where the word three and God appear. The word three and
God appear in the same verse, it just doesn't happen. First John
five seven there are three that by record and heaven, the Father the
word of the Holy Ghost, and these three are one that's a fabrication
to the text universally accepted to be a fabrication of the text.
So the Christian will immediately say, well look in John 858, right
the Jews they're having this dialogue or debate if you will, if
you like with with Jesus. And Jesus says to them before Abraham
was I am in Greek it says print up but uh hum Guinness, die me. I am
and they usually write I am in big capital bold letters, right? If
you have English translations, what are they trying to tell you
here? What are the translators trying to tell you? Because the
first level of of commentary the first level of exegesis is
translation, when you translate you automatically are interpreting
the text, they are inseparable. So what are the translators trying to
do when they capitalize I am there trying to tell you that here
Eastside a Salam is claiming to be the God of the Old Testament? And
you might say, Well, how is that? Well, again, if you look at the
story in Exodus when Moses is at the burning bush, and he says,
when I go to the Israelites, you're gonna ask me, What's your
name? And then God says to him, aka Asha, aka, I am whom I am,
right? I am what I am, I am who I am. Something like that. And
interestingly,
this is translated into the Greek is Eggo. Me, hold on, right? I am
the one who is Hold on. That's the, that's the divine aspect of
the statement. Whereas a sideways mm according to John eight, he
doesn't say ergo, me Hold on. He doesn't say ego me half AOSS. He
didn't say ego, ego, me theosophy, he didn't say I am the one who is
I am God, I am a God. He doesn't say anything like that. He simply
says, Before Abraham was, I am, I am what I am the Messiah, because
this is the entire context of the Gospel of John. Again, at the very
end of the Gospel of John, the true ending of John is chapter 20,
verse 31, in which the author writes, these things have been
written to convince you that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
again, Son of God here means Messiah, we cannot import our post
biblical or post apostolic understanding of the phrase, Son
of God onto the Bible. That's to be anachronistic, we can't do
that. Right? Because in the Bible, again, the phrase Son of God does
not mean God does not mean deity does not mean any type of divine
incarnation. This is totally cool for, for the Jewish mindset, for
according to Jewish theology, what Son of God simply means is an
exalted human being. And in the context of first century
Palestinian Judaism, it means the Messiah, how Merci, monsieur
mushy, that's what it means. So this has to be made clear that
when a Saudi Salam, if he made the statement, of course, the vast
majority of historians don't even believe that the historical Jesus
made these statements in the Gospel of John, why don't they
believe that? Number one, these statements are not multiple
attested? They're not at the level of tomahto, if you will, right. So
again, if you ask a Christian, where does Jesus claim to be God,
John 858, John 1030, right, John 14, six, Before Abraham was I AM,
the father and I are one, I am the Way the Truth and the Life, right.
These statements are called the I am statements from the Gospel of
John. But the problem here is that Matthew, Mark and Luke do not
record a single one of these statements. So what does that tell
you about the supposedly authenticity of these im
statements a Christian will try to say, well, it's that classic
example of the four blind men touching four different parts of
the elephant. John's simply touched a different part of the
elephant. So he has a different description. But that's an
inadequate description, or explanation. Simply because if
these are divine claims, and they're being heard by disciples,
like Matthew, who has an eye and ear witness, he's not blind. He's
listening to these statements of a silent cinema. He doesn't even
record a single one of them. Right? Whereas John has all of
these if statements five, six
Seven of them. Matthew doesn't record a single one of them. What
does that tell you, then? That tells you that John either made
them up? Or Matthew knew them, but didn't include them in his Gospel,
for some reason, right? Which is very troubling for Christians to
hear sometimes. Why didn't Matthew include these im statements in his
Gospel if he's a disciple of Jesus, right? These are essential
divine claims, you would think if Matthew worshipped Jesus as God,
which is the claim of all traditional Orthodox Christians.
Why does it include these I am statements, by the way, nowhere in
the gospels, there's a sign of a Salam command anyone to worship
Him. And again, this is a problem of language. You know, we have the
word Helios to say you are the Son of God. What does that mean?
Right? In the post apostolic churches, it means God the sun,
that's not what it means in the Bible. You have this idea of the
Hagia unpin OMA, the Holy Spirit. What does that mean? Yes, in the
post apostolic churches, right, in contemporary Christianity, it
means the third person of a triune godhead, but that's not what it
means at the time of the New Testament. Right? So people get
caught up in these languages, they don't know what they're talking
about. Right? What do these terms actually mean? At the time of a
silent cinema?
So when we look at this, look at these im statements, right? We
have to determine how is John using the statement? Right? Well,
let's go back to Matthew for a minute, because that's what we
were talking about. So if Matthew believe these statements, again to
be divine claims, oh, that's what I wanted to mention. The word for
worship and the New Testament. So the word for worship in the New
Testament is proscuitto, which means to revere or to worship, it
can be done to deity or to human beings. It depends on context.
Right? So for example, if we read in the Quran, the brothers of use
of Allison and we used to have it Saddam had a dream right at the
beginning of Surah Yusuf and he saw ash, I had a shed a coca bun
was shumsa. Well, a camera, or a to whom Lee saggi Dean, he says
that he saw
11 planets and the sun and the moon. And they were prostrating to
him. saggi Dean, this comes from Sajida Sajida. Right. And when he
told this dream to his father, Yaqoob it is set up. It's also
mentioned in the book of Genesis. What did Yaakov say? Did he say, a
stone for Allah? Who do you think you are? Do you think your god
people are making such that you you know, because at that time,
this was a different type of Sajida. It's the same word, right?
And we find this interestingly, in Hebrew, the word for worship in
Hebrew. Pillock can also mean to revere or to pay homage to, and in
the Old Testament, this word is applied to prophets and kings, as
well as to God. Right, that people come in they, they pay homage, for
example, to the Prophet Eliyahu, the prophet Elijah, or Ilyas,
right? This does not mean that they're worshipping him. Right? So
when the when the disciples are quote, unquote, worshipping Jesus,
right, that's really not the right word to use. The word in Greek,
that designates worship as God is called the lead today, oh,
lottery, Oh, right. That means to worship someone, as God, prescribe
a Oh means to worship as God could be, or to pay homage or to respect
someone as a great human being. So pro school, NATO is for both,
right? It's, it's it's not exclusive to God. But the verb
lead trio is only for God. Nowhere in the New Testament, does it say
that anyone made a lot today, oh, to a side a setup, this does not
occur. But in the Old Testament, in the Hebrew, in the Greek
translation of the Hebrew, God is worshipped by using this word,
Allah subhanaw taala, the God of Israel is worship the God of
Abraham, by using this word. So Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all of
them record that a silent Salam, he rode a donkey into Jerusalem.
You might think, well, what's the big deal about that? Who cares
about riding a donkey into Jerusalem? But apparently, it's
based on a prophecy in the book of Zechariah. Right? So Matthew
thought it was so important to record that Jesus rode a donkey
into Jerusalem. Matthew actually says he wrote a donkey and a colt.
He wrote to animals into Jerusalem. He takes that passage,
quite literally, right. But Matthew, who apparently is a
disciple in Iran, I witness of the Ministry of a Salah Salam, he
doesn't record a single I am
statement, essential divine claims he doesn't record them. So what
does that tell you about these statements? So that's a problem,
that from from a historical perspective, the vast majority of
historians don't believe that the historical Jesus of Nazareth made
these statements before Abraham was I AM, because they're not
multiple attested. They're not recorded by Matthew, Mark or Luke,
right? Also these statements, they're not early. And historians
like statements that are earlier they're closer to the source, the
more authentic that's the general rule, and the Gospel of John was
written about 9095, maybe 100. In the year 100, of the Common Era,
also, they also they don't appear to be contextually coherent, with
the time and the place of their occurrence. So a silent Salam
supposedly made these statements in Galilee, which was a
monotheistic environment, you have Jews believing in the rigid
oneness of God, and then suddenly you have a man saying, Before
Abraham was I AM. And that's supposed to mean that he's
claiming to be God. So this does not fit the context, socially,
theologically, right. So these are a few a few things that historians
look at.
But let's just humor that Christian for now and say, okay,
he made these statements. He made that statement. Before Abraham
was, I AM. So what does it mean? I am what I am God. We mentioned
this last time. The first of these im statements occurs, actually, in
John chapter four, verse 2627 28, and thereafter, where Jesus peace
be upon them is speaking to a woman at the well. And this woman
says to him, I know that the Messiah will come, I know that the
Messiah will come. And then John says in the Greek here Liggett
Altay, ha da Seuss, Jesus said to her, a Go me, I am hot, let alone
Sue. I am the one who is speaking with you. I am who the Messiah.
Right? So here in this verse in John, chapter four, are you silent
Salam is tying he's connecting this phrase agle me with his claim
of Messiah ship. They're identical. He's claiming to be the
Messiah. Right? And again, if we go back to the Gospel of Mark,
chapter 14,
back into the synoptic tradition, there's another im statement here.
So Jesus peace be upon him. He's being interrogated by the high
priest. And he says to him, Are you the Christ, the Son of the
blessing, and the answer of Eastside As Salam is a goal me I
am, I am what I am God, no, I am the Christ. I another example from
the Gospel of John, one of the miracles of the Gospel of John,
according to the book of signs, this is miracle number six out of
seven, is when a silent Salam, he heals the blind man. And we also
mentioned this last time, he heals the blind men, and the Pharisees
are investigating the so called Miracle. So and some of the people
can't discern Is this the same man or not? So they say, Are you the
blind man? And he says, agle me, I am, I am what I am God, is he
claiming to be God? So what is the meaning then the Christian will
report and say what why does he say that print Abraham Guinness
die? Before Abraham was? I am. Why does he make that statement before
he says I am? What does that mean? That Eastside esalaam
ontologically can predate? You've got to him at least? Well, there's
different ways of looking at that statement as well, that don't
necessarily make a Silius. Salam God, right. So you have two types
of areas of Unitarianism. We talked about this in the past as
well, we have so Tinian Arianism, which says that a silent Salam
there's no aspect of him that predates his physical body, right?
That his soul and his body were created. At the same time, there
is no pre existed pre human aspect to Eastside, a sunnah. So the
meaning of the statement then putting Abraham Ginestra ego me
simply means that since I am the Messiah, I am foremost over
Abraham. That's what the statement means that he has a higher MACOM a
higher station, then Abraham Ibrahim alayhi salam, simply by
virtue of him being the Messiah, right, just like we say that the
Prophet salallahu Salam, he is so you don't I mean, he is the master
of the first and the last, which means, which means to say that his
MACOM is the greatest MACOM he has Mohamed Mahmoud, but in
temporality Yes, he was the last prophet, but he is the foremost of
the prophets, in the sense that he has the highest station. It
doesn't necessarily make a silence to them God by saying before
Abraham was I AM, that's one way of looking at it. That's called so
Kinyon you didn't Unitarianism and that was actually one
of the dominant theologies at Harvard seminary from 1805 to
1840. It was the dominant Theology at Harvard seminary during those
years, when a man named Henry ware became the hauless, Chair of
divinity, who was a soaking in Unitarian. That was his belief
about isa de Sena. Another way of looking at this statement is a
another thread of Unitarianism, which is called Aryan
Unitarianism. And Aaron Unitarianism, believes that a
silent Salam did pre exist, his physical body, and he was called
the logos he was called the Word of God, but this word is created.
It is the initial creation, and it is the best creation. Right? So in
this sense, when he says print, Abraham Guinness die, ago, me
before Abraham was, I AM, he is saying, Yes, I have literally
ontological precedence over Ibrahim it is, because I was
created before he was, but I'm still created. Right for the
Trinitarian wants to do here is he wants to say, when a Saturday
salaam claims to be foremost over Abraham, he's suddenly God, He's
the second person of a triune deity, and that's a big leap. And
that doesn't work with the internal consistency of the
Christology of the Gospel of John, remember, our anchor verse in the
Gospel of John, and this is very important is John chapter 17,
verse three, this is our anchor verse. This is what anchors the
entire Christology of the Gospel of John, Jesus says, speaking to
the Father, again, when I say speaking to the Father, we're not
talking about this post apostolic post biblical Trinitarian,
Athanasian Nicene way of saying that he's the first person of a
triune Godhead. Know when Jesus refers to God as the Father, he's
doing exactly what many of the Jews of the his time are doing.
That's how they would call God. And the import of that statement
above is the rugby. That's what that means, when the juice is
above or Avena. Like it says, In the book of Isaiah 6416, one of
the prayers of the Jews is at I do not have you know, You are the
Lord, our Father, and the metaphorical sense completely. So
Jesus is speaking to the Father. It's very clear in John 17, verse
one, it says, he's speaking to the Father, and he says, This is
eternal life. What is eternal life have a Serato stuck him, this is a
straight path. This is guidance, he's going to tell you what it is.
What is he going to say? You can ask almost any Christian, how do I
go to heaven, and the Christian will start spouting off these sort
of ambiguous convoluted creedal statements that they've been
taught that the Father is God, the Son of God, the Holy Spirit has
got but they're not three gods with one God, Jesus died for your
sins, Jesus as your Lord and Savior, things like that. But what
does a silent Salam himself according to the Gospel of John,
how does he define eternal life? He says to know You, the only true
God right, he said in the In the Greek it says, Turn men on a lay
thing on say on Manon is is like the word mono theism. Right, only
Aleksey known true, saying, God, who is the only true God, the
Father is the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent.
Right. So here clearly he's limiting the Godhead to only the
Father, right? That they're mutually exclusive. The Son of
God, meaning Messiah, and the father, meaning the only God are
mutually exclusive, just like it says in the book of Hosea tea and
coffee at Villa Eesh. Indeed, I am God and not a man. Right? This is
very, very clear. And the Christian reads that statement
that Trinitarian. And he starts doing these verbal and mental
gymnastics, to try to justify a Trinitarian reading of the
Scripture, where it's very, very clear that Jesus is speaking to
the Father, that the Father is the only true God. So how can Jesus
also be a god if the father is the only true God? Right? That's why
we said last time Augustine of Hippo, one of the architects, one
of the pioneers of the Trinity, he's called the theologian by
Aquinas, in the Summa Theologica. Augustine of Hippo, you lived in
the in the fifth century, right? He wrote the famous book de
Trinity on the Trinity, one of the greatest if not the greatest of
the Latin theologians. He came across that verse and he was
completely stuck. He did not know what to do with it. So in his
homilies, he changed the verse around and he says, This is how he
wrote it. This is eternal life, to know, to know you,
to know you, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent as the only true
God. You see, oh, he flipped it around. We mentioned this in the
last class as well. I'm reiterating this because this is
very, very important, because in this verse, John 17, three very
clearly the father is the only true
God, not the sun, the sun is not God. No, where in the New
Testament does it say God the sun? Nowhere in the New Testament? Does
it say God the sun, nowhere in the New Testament is there a single
verse where it says God and three are God and Trinity. So this has
to be made very, very clear. This is the clear, unambiguous creed of
a silent set up, Mark 1229. Here, or Israel, the LORD our God, the
Lord is One, John 17. Three, this is eternal life to know You, the
only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent. So that's
very, very important. If language means anything, then I'm, and a
lot of Christians will say, Well, when we talk about God, language
is inferior, and we can't really express ourselves adequately.
That's true. But if this is a scripture, right, there is an
element that we can understand. And there's an element that is
essential for us to understand. And if God wants to reveal
something to us to teach us fundamentals of his theology, then
certainly it's going to be comprehensible, especially if it's
about you know how many gods there are? Yes. When we talk about the
essence of God and who Allah is, essentially, it's beyond speech,
but we're not we're not asking who is Who is Allah describe his
essence. What we want to know is how many gods are there? That's
it? Is there one God is your two gods is your three gods. Because
when you say the Father is in heaven, and the son is walking the
earth, that sounds like two persons, right? That sounds like
two gods. And that sounds like by theism, and if you believe that,
that's taking you outside, outside the pail of Judeo, foundational
bedrock of monotheism, and that's the milieu if you will, that's the
context in which a sila Islam came out of. He was a practicing Jew in
northern Palestine, in the province of Galilee, raised in
Nazareth, he believed and loved the the theology of his
forefathers, that God is one God is so hot, and yes, he'd which
means that he is one and he is totally unique. There's nothing
like him whatsoever. The Book of Deuteronomy, Isaiah makes it very
clear that the minute we bring God down into his creation, we make an
idol out of God. That's idolatry. So, Christian missionaries go to
India, and they say, look at these pagans, they believe in divine
incarnations, the seventh, eighth and ninth incarnations, Rama,
Buddha, Krishna, they're all pagans. I don't see a difference
between what Hindus are doing and what Christians are doing. Hindu
saint Brahman, he incarnated. If you subscribe to that school of
thought and Hinduism, it's called bhakti yoga. There are different
views in Hinduism, that are more transpersonal. Right. But this
sort of imminent personal theology of of Brahmanism believes in
numerous, endless incarnations of Brahman Brahman comes down to
earth in the form of a man, a woman, an animal of some sort,
right? What's the difference between that and God coming down
to earth, in the form of a human being a Jewish carpenter from 2000
years ago? That's idolatry. Idolatry isn't simply worshiping a
statue of gold, silver, or bronze or wood, or worshipping some sort
of monument or something like that. Because flesh and blood is
also matter. And God transcends matter. God transcends space, time
and direction, the minute we bring him down into his creation, which
is matter, we make an idol out of God. This is why it's very, very
clear in the Old Testament, in the Decalogue, the first four
commandments are all about theology, Thou shalt not make unto
thyself, the image of anything in the heavens above or in the waters
or on the earth, there is nothing like unto God LASIK, admittedly
shaitan. What's interesting is Paul, in the book of Romans, he
actually gives the reason why he believes there are homosexuals in
the world. This is very, very interesting. What is the cause of
homosexuality? According to Paul, in the book of Romans,
he says, Professing themselves to be wise, they turned the, the
invisible incorruptible God into an image like that of corruptible
man, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.
What does that mean? Paul is saying, the reason why you have
homosexuals is because of idolatry is because of men worshipping
other men. This is the reason why there's homosexuality, according
to Paul, even Paul, who in my mind makes a lot of mistakes in his
letters and Epistles first and foremost, he believes that Jesus
died for your sins, and that he's going to come again during his own
lifetime, which is verifiably wrong. Nonetheless, Paul never
ever calls Jesus God or God the Son, or equates him with the
Father. He never
Does that not even Paul does that. So what does this belief come
from? Where does the belief come from? Right? I meet Christians all
the time, just the other day I met a Christian. And I said, Do you
believe Jesus is God? He says, yes. I said, Where does he claim
to be God? And he had to stop and he had to think for a minute. He
says, In the Gospel of John is aware of the Gospel of John, he's
somewhere in John. So maybe somewhere in John, you worshiping
Jesus. If you ask me, this is Allah God? I say, yes. Instead
we're in the Quran does he claim to be God? In the very first I'd
Hamdu lillahi, Rabbil Alameen. That's where he claims to be God.
He is horrible. I mean, he is the Lord of all of creation. It's a
very first verse of the Quran. Bismillah R Rahman r Rahim, our
rough man seehotel mobiola. He is infinitely absolutely most
Merciful. So as a Christian brother, where does Jesus claim to
be God, somewhere in John, there's somewhere he says there was
somewhere he says that he's one with the OSA John 1030. Is it?
Yes, exactly. John 1030. The father and I are one.
So what does that mean, though? One and what is not another one
there? One person said, You believe the Father and the Son are
the same person? He says yes, was that's not Trinitarianism. They
don't even know that Trinitarian believes that the Father, Son,
Holy Spirit are separate and distinct persons, but one essence
three who's in one what? That's what the belief says. So they
don't even know their own belief. Why? So I'm, you know, in John
chapter 17. Jesus says about the disciples, he's praying to the
Father, this is in his prayer, right after he says, to know You,
the only true God and Jesus Christ from now has sent right after that
he says that they the disciples may be one in Us. What does that
mean? The disciples are also one in Jesus. And the father. Does
that mean the disciples are God, they also share an essence with
the Father and the Son. What does that mean? The same word is used
hen and hen means one, that means that the disciples, that means the
Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. There's a
trinity. But then there are 12 disciples who are also God. So
there's a 15 unit Godhead, and they're all God, because Jesus
says about the disciples, they're also one in us. So what does that
mean? And he says, Oh, I don't know. So you need to know the
context of these things. Why is he God? I said, Have you heard of the
Council of Nicaea? He said, never heard about this council. This is
a college educated Christian. Right? He's almost got his
bachelor's degree at a school of higher education, who's never
heard of the Council of Nicaea. This is when it was officially
declared that son of God is God, the Son officially declared by
vote, right, they voted on this.
And the Aryans lost the Aryans who said that Jesus pre existed his
physical body, but he was created. He's too smart to lay on. He's the
best of creation. But they said ain't pate hottie again, there was
a time when he did not exist. He sadly came into being they said,
and the Trinitarian said, No, he's eternally begotten, which is a big
contradiction. It's an oxymoron, eternally begotten, they say that
Jesus was caused by the father, he's an effect of the the effect
of the father. But they're equal in their, in their, in their
union, in their essence, that there was never a time when the
son did not exist, yet. He's an effect of the Father. This doesn't
make any sense. to beget something needs to come into existence. How
can one be eternally begotten?
This is a contradiction of terms. It's gibberish. It doesn't mean
anything. It's like I say, I can draw a four sided triangle. And he
said, No, you can't you just have to believe that. I can say that.
No, that doesn't make any sense. No, you just have to believe it. I
can draw a four sided triangle, we say try and go means three. What
you're saying doesn't make sense, eternally begotten doesn't make
any sense. Right? So you're violating a, a classic rule of
logic. Right? That one thing is one thing or it's another thing,
it can't be both things at the same time. This is called the
principle of contradiction as as articulated by Aristotle.
He says, for example, it's either day or night, it can't be both.
You're either here or you're not, you can't be both. Jesus is either
begotten, he comes into being or he's eternal, but you can't say
eternally begotten.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And no one can explain
these things. So why do people believe in these things? What does
it say in the New Testament, Jesus is eternally begotten? It doesn't
say that anywhere. Right? It's very, very clear his statements in
the New Testament, the father is the only God God is One is a hard
he's had. That's the word he uses. In the New Testament, we see that
Jesus is the Son of God. Well, Paul says in the book of Romans
chapter eight, that as many as are led by the Spirit of God
God, these are the sons of God.
What does that mean? That's a metaphorical, it's majestic. It's
figurative, meaning that your beloved of God, the first epistle
of John says, Whoever loves Christ is begotten of God. What does that
mean? That means God loves them. Right? So why are we making a
silent Salam part of God or sharing an essence with God?
There's no warrant for doing that whatsoever.
So we have to reason with our Christian friends. Right? Because
they're gonna pull these issues up. The father and I are one read
the context of that exchange. What Why does a silent Salam make that
statement? Again, most historians do not believe he made that
statement. But if we take an affirmative textual approach of
Abu Hamid Al Ghazali, and his rattle Jamil, who says, okay,
Jesus said that, what does he mean by it? So, listen to what he says.
He says, you know, these disciples of mine, I watch over them, no one
can take them away from me, meaning he's a shepherd, he's
watching out for his flock, like the Prophet salallahu it it was
sent him he's a universal Shepherd. He cares for his Oma.
Right? Even after his passing. He cares for his OMA because he says
that your deeds are presented to me. This is a sound Hadith in
other bizarre Torah, do Allah Allah, Allah come, your deeds are
presented to me and at his grave? He says, if I see good I asked
forgiveness for you. I'm sorry, if I see good, I praise Allah. If I
see evil, right, then I ask Allah to forgive you. So he's one of
Matilija Alameen, even after his passing, so he's still our
shepherd. He's Erhai. He's the shepherd of the entire humanity,
because he's Rahmatullah Allah mean. So easily. Salam says in the
context of John chapter 10, I'm watching over my disciples and
then he says, My father, who is greater than all, this is how he
makes the say, he prefaces the statement, my father who is
greater than all the father, the person of the Father is greater
than the person of the Son, I thought they were co equal, co
substantial co eternal. What happened to that? Suddenly a
Sally's Alia, Salah himself is negating Trinitarian doctrine. He
says, My Father who is greater than all is watching over them, no
one can * them from his hand, the father and I are one. So what
is he talking about? Oneness of purpose, oneness of objective,
right? Oneness of this there they are, of, quote unquote, of the
same heart, that a silent Salam, he doesn't do his own will. He is
doing exactly what Allah wants him to do. And whatever he does is
according to the perfect will of Allah subhanaw taala, because it's
impossible for a prophet to disobey Allah subhanho wa taala.
Whatever a prophet does is guided the prophets, Allah subhanaw taala
says in the Quran, when Maya and Tico and in Hawa that the Prophet
never speaks from his own Hawa.
Somebody might say, Well, yeah, when he's reciting the Quran
that's not know Allah doesn't say why and Tiku Anila he doesn't use
La La Elif, which usually negates the imperfect tense, federal
Medallia, alright, you say La? Yes, I do. But here Allah says,
one my and diku Mayan Tico he's using math to negate a imperfect
tense the verb which gives an emphasis which means never, ever
does the Prophet salatu salam speak from his own house, in Hua
Allah wa you you have, it is only ye whatever he says. So Allahu
alayhi wa Salam is why, right so when you follow the Prophet, it is
as if you are following Allah subhanho wa Taala as if Cana but
he is not Allah subhana wa Tada. He is a Bashara in Mr. Bashara
Miss LUCAM you have a layup. I am a man like you, except I received
the white. Right my YouTube rasool Allah Allah, whoever obeys the
messenger is obeying Allah subhana wa Tada. Because they're one in
their objective. They're one in their goal. They're one in their
aim, and their obedience is the same. Right? You cannot obey the
messenger and disobey Allah, or vice versa.
You can't do that. Right? They're equal in their obedience.
So this is what we have to get across to our Christian brethren.
We look at some of the statements, right? Invariably they're going to
look at John, in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus doesn't know when fig
trees are out of season. This is a big problem. Why doesn't an
omniscient deity know when fig trees are out of season? You can
ask your Christian friends. Certainly if a Saudi Salam created
the fig tree, right and he's God. He knows when fig trees are in and
out of season. But according to the reading and the Gospel of
Mark, chapter nine, when he's coming into the city of Jerusalem,
he says the fig tree from afar thinking that it has fruit that it
has figs which he's wrong.
bout if this is God, it's very problematic. If he's a human
being, then it's understandable human beings makes mistakes and
prophets can make errors in judgment. It's not watch it for a
profit to know everything about everything. It's not it's not
logic, for example, a prophet to know how to change the oil on a
car. If that's not his specialty, but he knows about theology, you
cannot lose a theological debate. Right? Like the, there's a hadith
about the palm trees and how they're seated in the Prophet
sallallaahu. Salam, he didn't know how that process works. That's
okay. He doesn't need to know that about palm trees. It's not watch
it for a profit to know something specific about a certain vocation
or trade. Right? So he's highlighted so I'm according to
Mark chapter nine, he expects to find figs. He doesn't find any.
And then he curses the fig tree. Why is he cursing the fig tree for
doing something that he himself willed that fig tree to do if he's
got a lot of theological problems with this statement? A lot of
theological problems with the Trinity. Right? It doesn't make
any sense. It's not cogent is not based on Scripture. It comes after
the biblical period, though it's comes from the post apostolic
period. The writers of the New Testament were by and large,
Jewish mono theists, who believe that he Silas was the Messiah,
they called him the Son of God in a figurative sense. And then in
the middle of the second century, you have all of these pagan
philosophers, converting to Christianity, and start writing
about Jesus and someone like justin martyr. He says about
Jesus, that He is a loss theists, which means another God. This is
what he said Justin Martyr, who is the chief architect of the Logos
Christology, one of the greatest commentators on the Gospel of John
called the Jesus quote, a loss theists, another God. Word as
Jesus claimed to be God, anywhere in the New Testament never says it
never says it, right. Like we have in the Quran. I think I mentioned
this in the previous show as well. chapter three, verse 79. What is a
suburban Newsela This is the Christians came to the Prophet
sallallahu sallam, and they said essentially Salam commanded us to
worship Him. And this verse was revealed McEnany Bhushan and it is
not for a bishop, to whom Allah gave the Kitab when hokhmah one
Naboo WA, the revelation, the wisdom, the application of that
revelation, and, and, and the office of prophecy to say, who
knew a bad day leading into Nila worship me in derogation of God?
Well, I can who knew Rabbani Yean. Rather you would say, become
lordly this a beautiful ayah in the Quran? Very, very beautiful I
in the Quran, what does that mean? Who knew that Benny Yin become
like God become God? Like, what are we can be like God what does
it what is that *? What What is he talking about? Become lordly?
No, the Prophet sallallahu Sallam he said to Hello Kubiak Allah
Allah, there's weakness in the Hadith, but it sounded its
meaning, meaning that Allah subhanaw taala is our rough man.
He is the Most Merciful so we should be people of mercy. Of
course we could never ever, ever reach the level of Mercy of Allah
Subhana Allah because Allah subhana wa Taala is infinite and
absolute. And we are finite and limited, but we can reflect Allah
subhanho wa Taala by becoming people of mercy. The Prophet
sallallaahu Salam is called the role for Rahim in the Quran. Bill
BootMii Nina Rufer Rahim. When was beautiful passages of the Quran.
The last two is of Surah Toba. What are all four right? These are
divine attributes. Does that mean the Prophet sallallaahu Salam is
Rahim as Allah is Rahim? No, of course not. Right? He is Rahim in
the sense that he's the Most Merciful of all human beings. It's
limited and contingent. His nature is a human being. Right? So we try
to be godlike in the sense that we want to, we want to have our
character like, like God.
We want to be divine with a lowercase d. This is called
Theosis. In Greek Orthodox tradition, this is called mystical
union. Right? This is called
it goes by different names Theophany to experience ALLAH
SubhanA wa Tada. Right, so that we become godlike in every sense,
except in our ontology, we can never merge our essence with God.
This is called Jihad and this is cool photo. We don't share an
essence with Allah subhanho data, we don't share anything with Allah
subhanaw taala his essence his attributes or his actions, but if
we become Rabbani, even if we become lordly, and how do we do
that? How do we become lordly we follow our example who is our
example? Who is swattin Hassan, who is who has hold of him is the
Prophet salallahu it it was his reflection of his Lord in human
terms as the Sun as the moon.
reflects the light of the sun. Right? He is not Allah. He doesn't
have the attributes of Allah the Prophet, the Prophet sallallahu
sallam, he is not Allah essentially, he's not Allah in His
attributes. He doesn't do the work of Allah subhanho wa Taala did the
actions of Allah subhanho wa Taala he is the pure action of Allah
Subhana Allah to Allah, the Prophet sallallaahu Salam is
totally guided by Allah subhanho wa Taala so when he does
something, it is as if ALLAH SubhanA wa Tada is doing it. Well
I'm out I made to either AMITA Willa Qin Allah Rama, when you
through you didn't throw Allah through, does that mean Allah
incarnated into the body of the Prophet? And through some stones?
No, it means that the actions of the Prophet are totally guided by
Allah subhanaw taala This is called Theosis. Right? And when we
become like our Lord, in that sense, right, when we come like
our Lord, and then we start breaking the laws of nature,
right, the owl Yeah, we believe in karma. Charismatic exploits,
charismatic talents, there's miracles that can be done by them.
Right? Because they've become beloved to Allah subhana wa Tada
and their only object of contemplation and, and love is
ALLAH SubhanA wa Tada. They've been annihilated, the ego was
gone, they've been annihilated in Allah subhanho wa taala. That does
not mean that they've merged with Allah's essence, or that they've
become divine incarnations, or something, that whole duel and to
just suit it. He had all of these ideas, these are all, Cofer.
That's not what we're talking about. That's what Christians
believe, in Eastside Islam and the Gospel of John is not talking
about those things. Right. He's talking about mystical union with
God in the sense that you fall in love with Allah subhanho wa taala.
So that your only thought is of Allah, your only motivation and
doing anything is to please Allah subhana data. In that sense, you
become one with the Father, if you will. And that's why he prays that
they the disciples may be one in Us, that's the meaning it's
Theosis. It's not some sort of merging of our essence with the
essence of ALLAH SubhanA wa, tada. That is totally cool for right.
And unfortunately, the Christian philosophers have the second and
third and fourth and fifth centuries, when they're dealing
with these texts.
It got to a point where the New Testament was actually thrown on
the backburner, and now they're just talking about how to justify
their own prejudiced theology about Jesus without even having
recourse to the New Testament. The New Testament does not endorse the
deity of Esau acela in any way, shape, or form. I don't care which
book of the New Testament you read, nowhere does it mention that
he is God.
So when we talk about these I am statements. We shouldn't connect
it to the statement of Moses in Exodus, chapter three, verse 14,
that's not what a Silius and I'm here is quoting again, if he made
these statements, he's not quoting from Exodus. Right? If anything,
he's quoting from the wisdom literature. In the Hebrew Bible,
the Hebrew Bible writers often depict wisdom or Hakama. Philo
called it logos, which is what John calls Jesus speaking in the
first person, by using I am I am the word which was spoken by the
Most High, the Lord created me at the beginning of his work, right,
the sort of I before time He created me. What does that mean?
The areas actually quote these verses, these are verses found in
the Book of Proverbs, the wisdom of Solomon, the book of
Ecclesiasticus. Right, that the Aryans would quote these and say,
Look, this is what it means for a silent salam to predate Abraham.
It simply means he was the first created entity. That's all it
means. He's still created, you can say is uncreated. Because these
verses, and this is what he's talking about when he says I am.
He's talking about how he was before Abraham, in the sense that
He was divine wisdom that was created by Allah subhanho wa
taala, by the Father in heaven, if you will.
Right. So that's very, very important. In fact, Paul says in
the book of Colossians, Paul himself, chapter one, verse 15,
another verse quoted by the Aryans, he says that Jesus is the
image of the invisible God. So think about what that means. The
image of the invisible God, what is he talking about here? How can
something invisible have an image he's contradicting himself? Or is
he contradicting himself? No, he's saying that Jesus reflects divine
attributes. That's what he's saying. That Jesus is a perfect
reflection of God, you follow Jesus? It is as if you're
following God because God is invisible. We can say the same.
The Prophet says salam is an image of the invisible God. This type of
very high sounding language could be very misleading for people who
don't have a theological foundation because the Gospel of
John wall's
says, No man has at any time seen God. This is what it says in the
Gospel of John Chapter Five. No man has at any time seen God,
Jesus Christ, who is in the bosom of the Father made Him known.
Jesus makes God known. Jesus exegesis, if you will, God, right,
he is the vessel, the agent, the shoe Luuk, don't assume the mercy,
whatever you want to call him, by which he informed by which God
informs himself about himself through a human messenger. Right?
Jesus Christ made him No, no one has at any time, seen God, this is
what it says in John chapter five, and then listen to what Paul says
back to Colossians 115. He says, in the Greek, he says, proto
takase pass says katisa us, he says, Jesus is the first of all
creation.
Right? Can taste set us literally, this is what the Aryan said
charisma to lay on. Jesus is the best of creation, Paul says Jesus
is created.
And if you say this to your average, Trinitarian Christian who
knows something about their theology, you say Jesus has
created he's going to say, God forbid, that's heresy. Well,
that's what Paul says, Paul calls Jesus, the image of the invisible
God, the God that no one has ever seen. Right? And that Jesus is the
firstborn of creation. Jesus is created. Everything is created in
the method ISA and Allah, He can method Adam Halacha, who mean to
Rob So makalah, who Kuhn via Kuhn, the similitude, of Jesus
is like that of Adam. God created him from dust. And then he said to
be in there he was, right? Some Christians will try to say, well,
you know, simple minded kind of people will say, Well, Jesus
doesn't have a father. So therefore God must be his father.
Right? God must be the father of Jesus. We'll add them in the New
Testament is called the Son of God. In the Gospel of Luke, Adam
is called the Son of God. But Christians here will say, Oh,
that's metaphorical. That's metaphorical. But when Jesus
called a son of God, that's literal. Why why making fish of
one and fall of the other? No, it's all metaphorical. Adam did
not have a mother or a father. Shouldn't he deserve to be called
the preeminent Son of God, whereas Jesus did have a mother which is a
greater miracle. All of them are easy for Allah subhanho wa Taala
everything is easy for Allah subhana wa Tada, everything. So
when we say Son of God, of course we don't use this phrase anymore.
But Allah subhana wa Tada tells us in the Quran, this means a bat
democra Moon servants raised to honor servants raised to honor but
Son of God became corrupted and he became God the Son. Therefore in
the Quran, Allah subhanho wa Taala condemns calling a Salah salaam,
the Son of God, right, we'll call it in the Surah animacy her
Abdullah, daddy could call him BF Why him? This is just something
that they're saying that he's God, the Son, the Son of God, even no
law, that He's the Son of God, this is just something that
they're saying. Right? There's no basis for it, they've changed the
meaning of the phrase Son of God, which is a messianic title.
So, we've basically finished the Gospel of John
Inshallah, to Allah in our in our final class, we're going to do a
review of all four gospels. That's our final class or 12 class, our,
our 12th recorded class, and then during the course of the semester,
Inshallah, we're going to have three or four live sessions.
Hopefully you guys are listening to these things, and pushing pause
and rewinding and writing down questions because I know we're
going very quickly. And hopefully, you're speaking with some of your
Christian friends and neighbors, obviously, in a very polite way,
as Allah Subhana Allah says, speak with them with hikma and beautiful
exhortation, and argue with them in ways that are best, but
definitely engage with people. People are lost. People don't know
what they're believing in people who go to church, they have no
idea what their theology is about. They're worshipping a silent
salaam, because their father is telling him to worship he saw a
tsunami, the worshipping him blindly, this is idolatry. They're
putting themselves in a dangerous position. We need to buy little
Annie Willow either, right? So the Prophet sallallahu sallam said, to
convey for me even one verse or one statement, right? Just let
them hear about the Prophet sallallaahu Salam people don't
know. They don't know anything about him. If you say something,
for example, the Prophet salallahu Salam is a descendant of Abraham.
Most people will find this revelatory. They have no idea if
you say the Kaaba was built by Ibrahim. Most people will find
this completely revelatory. They have no idea that these things are
part of our tradition, that we're in that progressive revelation of
Judeo Christianity, and that the scripture has found its finality
in the Quran and the prophets, Allah
Lolly Salam is the hot tamale NBR in the long line of prophets that
began with Adam and goes through Abraham through the Hebrew
patriarchs, even Moses and Esau they set up so next time inshallah
we'll do a quick review of the four gospels inshallah Toronto so
the LA City Mohammed and whatnot he was talking of Salah Mohammed
Allah
subhanahu wa Rahim salam ala said Muhammad wa ala alihi wa sahbihi
wa salam alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatu. So this is our final
recorded session for this class on the four gospels in the New
Testament. So I'm going to take the opportunity in this final
class session to review some of the key concepts and ideas that we
talked about, with regards to the four canonical gospels.
Beginning with the Gospel of Mark. First of all, we had said that
these four gospels, they're actually anonymous books. They
weren't named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John,
until about the year 180, of the Common Era by the Bishop of lions
named Irenaeus. So at that point, there were suit anonymously
ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. And we had said that
Mark was a student of Peter, and Luke was a student of Paul. So
they're considered from the tabby ain, if you will. And then John is
supposed to be John, the son of Zebedee, disciple of Jesus, who's
probably the beloved disciple that the gospel talks about. And then
Matthew is also a disciple of a Saudi Saddam, but remember, these
books are in reality, anonymous. So another thing about these four
books is that none of the people who wrote these books, the
autograph authors, none of them claim that what they're writing is
divine inspiration.
None of them claim that they're being inspired by the Holy Ghost,
if you will, when they're writing. So if you look at the Quran, AR
Rahman ILM Al Quran very clearly, we read in the Quran, that the one
who taught the Quran the one who is revealing the Quran is a rough
man, and our rough man is one of the most exalted Names of Allah
subhanaw taala. This is a divine revelation. This is a Tenzin Nero
Bill alanine many times in the Quran, we are told that this is a
revelation of God. Revelation and it's from Allah subhanho wa,
taala, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, nowhere is this claim made
that by the author's that what they're writing is a revelation of
God. And again, they're anonymous books. Another thing that they're
in the wrong language. They're written in coin a Greek. And as
the vast, vast majority of New Testament scholarship, and
historians will attest, the actual spoken language of any silent
salaam was not coin a Greek. It was Syriac, which is a
a dialect of the Aramaic language, a Semitic language. That was the
language of the children of Israel. At the time they had
borrowed that from the Persian Empire. When they were in
captivity in Babylon. They still continue to pray in Hebrew. In the
synagogue, the liturgy was conducted in Hebrew, the spoken
language of the masses was Aramaic or Syriac, the late the lingua
franca of the empire in that region was Koine. Greek. So the,
the aristocracy, the Roman legionnaires, they would speak
Greek, but the people on the ground at the grassroots level,
the the alarm, if you will, the laity. They spoke Syriac. So we
don't have a gospel in the first century. That's written in the
first century that's written in the language of Esau today. So no,
we don't have anything like that. extant it might have been out
there somewhere. But we haven't discovered it. So remember
something? When we said, we looked at the sources of Matthew, Mark,
and Luke, right. So it's very important. So Matt, So Mark, for
example, Mark is the first gospel to be written, according to the
consensus of New Testament scholars, the first of the four
gospels in the New Testament to be written, even though Matthew comes
first when you read the New Testament, and that's because
Matthew is the most Jewish gospel, and it seems like a good segue
from the Old Testament to the New Testament. But by and large, the
vast majority of scholars believe Mark was the first to be written
mark is the shortest gospel. Mark's gospel is the most
unpolished. In its Greek 16 chapters. There's a there's
several fabrications that were made to the Gospel of Mark. The
very first verse of the gospel of Mark contains a fabrication of
fabrication. Mark one one in the Greek it says RK
RK evangelio EA su Christou, who you say you the beginning of the
gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Now this phrase coil for you
in the critical editions
of the New Testament that Greek critical editions are in brackets.
You won't find those brackets in English translations. So you'll
think that's what Mark actually wrote. But Mark didn't write that
that phrase Son of God was added later by admission of the United
Bible Society, brutes Metzker Bart Ehrman
and the vast majority of textual critics believed that that phrase
Son of God was added later again, Son of God does not mean God.
Right? So why did the author Why did a scribe add that because the
gospel of Mark is quite a Mnemic. In its Christology, it's very weak
in his Christology, right? Jesus has only called the Son of God in
two places, mark one one, which is a fabrication. And also in Mark
chapter 15, the Roman centurion who is witnessing the crucifixion,
he says, Truly, this was the Son of God. Or, in fact, he says,
Truly, this was a son of God. Right? And what does that mean for
a Roman pagan to say, Son of God, certainly when a pagan at that
time says, Son of God, because for them, god Zeus as sons by the
tons, right? It's a very different meaning than if a Jewish
monotheist says Son of God. So some scribe who was editing Mark's
gospel did not like the fact that the only time the phrase Son of
God appears in the Gospel of Mark is when a Roman Centurion says it.
So he went back to the very beginning of the gospel, and he
put the phrase where you say, you after RK you and give you a su
Christou, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, now Son of
God, also, we said, the end of the gospel has a fabricated insertion.
The true end of the gospel of Mark is Mark chapter 16, verse eight,
that's when the gospel actually ended. And then this is by
consensus of New Testament scholars. What happened in Mark
chapter 16, verse eight, you have the women that go to the tomb, and
they find that the stone has been rolled away, there's a little boy
who's sitting on the right side of something inside the tomb. And he
says, Oh, you're looking for Jesus, He is risen, and risen
doesn't necessarily mean resurrected, right? He is risen,
go to Galilee, He'll meet you in Galilee. Right? And then it says,
The women ran away, and they were afraid. And that's the end of the
gospel of Mark, the true end of the gospel of Mark, nobody saw a
resurrected Jesus, according to the earliest, canonical gospel. In
fact, it's quite a cliffhanger. What actually happened, right. And
interestingly enough, in Jewish culture at that time, the witness
of a woman doesn't mean anything, even if it's 10 women, it's
completely inadmissible in court, for a woman should not even
allowed to give witness to anything. So the fact that a group
of women are saying, Oh, he might have been resurrected, that really
holds no weight in their society at that time. So what happens?
Somewhere down the line, a scribe, he goes back and he adds a better
ending to the Gospel of Mark, he adds 12 verses, Mark chapter 16,
verses nine through 20. He adds that where the women go, and they
tell male male disciples, right? And these male disciples, now they
go, and they confirm, oh, yes, the tomb is empty. And then you have
Jesus appearing to His disciples in Galilee, and telling them that
if they handle snakes, they can drink poison, they're not going to
be harmed. Of course, just last year, a man named Mark Wolford who
was a pastor in the south of America, and Appalachian snake
handler, he was holding a poisonous snake during church and
the snake bit him and he died. Right. And interestingly enough,
his own father died from the same thing. And now he has a son, who's
going to inherit his father's legacy of this type of church
liturgical service. And I feel like calling or emailing him and
saying, you know, when Jesus says, you can hold poisonous snakes, and
they'll bite you and he won't be harmed, that's a fabrication to
the Gospel of Mark. Jesus never said that, according to the vast
vast majority of New Testament scholars. So there's the gospel of
Mark. So where does Mark get his gospel from? So Mark, basically
has a group of a, a set of Peric APYs Peric hippies means
statements or Hadith, right, about a side a setup, you know, he has
narratives, you know, he has sayings, he has a for isms, he
has, you know, these brief narratives, right, just these kind
of loose sayings about a Saudi setup. And he has all these
sayings, and he wants to put them down into a narrative, right?
Because he can't just say, Jesus said, Then Jesus said, Then Jesus
said, that's what the Gospel of Thomas does. The Gospel of Thomas
does not pretend to know the context of the statements of
Jesus. It simply says Jesus said
Like Hadith, Jesus said, Jesus call it isa kala isa call it 114
statements of East LA sunnah. That's the Gospel of Thomas. He
doesn't know the context, he's being very honest. This is simply
what I heard from Jesus, right? But Mark, that's not going to
work. Because Mark is writing for a Greco Roman audience. In the
Greco Romans are used to reading these elaborate epic narratives,
like Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, right? So he needs to have a
narrative. So Mark then takes all of these loose Peric copies, and
he puts them down into a narrative. And this narrative is
something that he basically constructed, it's subjective and
contrived contexts. That's why Mark, quite often he'll use the
adjective, aaa, throughs, AAA throughs, as it was, immediately,
immediately, Jesus did this, then immediately he did that, then
immediately he did that, which many scholars believe, is a cover
up for his lack of knowledge of the contexts of which Jesus is
saying something. So Jesus did this. And then, and then he did
that somebody might ask, Well, what do you do? In the meantime,
nothing. Immediately he did this. And then immediately he did that.
Right? So it's a cover up for his lack of knowledge of the context
of this oral tradition of Esau today setup. So Mark had this oral
tradition, right? And he wrote it down. Now Matthew, and Luke, now
come and talk about Matthew and Luke.
How did they write their Gospels, Matthew and Luke, they had access
to Mark's gospel. And again, this is according to the dominant
position in New Testament, Academy, New Testament
scholarship, that Matthew and Luke, they had Mark in front of
them, right. And they used mark as their narrative skeleton. Right?
So Mark was very important for them. But there are times when
Matthew and Luke will edit Mark's gospel. So Mark will have a public
IP of Jesus saying something, and Mark will put that correct up in a
certain context that he feels is correct. And for the most part,
Matthew will agree with Mark, but sometimes you'll disagree with
Mark, and put that prick up in another context. This is why we
have discrepancies in the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Right. Which begs another question, if Matthew truly
believed that Mark's gospel is divine inspiration, would Matthew
edit Mark's gospel?
Of course not. Matthew, If Matthew believed, Oh Mark, my colleague, a
student of Peter was inspired by the Holy Ghost to write an
inerrant gospel and error free gospel of Jesus. But Matthew, go
in there and start editing, redacting, changing things in the
Gospel of Mark. No, of course not. What does that tell you? That
means that the author of the Gospel of Matthew believed that he
believed not only that his gospel wasn't the revelation of God, but
he believed that the gospel of Mark also was not the revelation
of God, because certainly you're not going to edit and redact
something you believe to be the revelation of God. Right? So
basically, Matthew is sitting down, he has Matthew, He has
Mark's gospel in front of him, right. He also has another
document in front of him, which scholars have called que, que is
from the German quella, which means the unknown. So in this
culture would say, gospel X, the unknown gospel, some have called
this the sayings gospel, some have called this the Q source document,
right? Gospel X. And how do we know he had this source called
gospel x? Because Luke, he also quotes from it. So what does that
mean? That means we have Matthew and Luke, and both of them are
using mark as their narrative skeleton. But sometimes, Matthew
and Luke, they have material in common, that's almost verbatim in
many places that's missing from Mark's gospel. That means they
have access to a source document that Mark does not have access to
or Mark did have access to but rejected it, which is unlikely.
So what is this material? What is this cue source material? What
does queue contain? Some of the most celebrated teachings of Jesus
peace be upon him? You have various parables of the kingdom of
God, you have descriptions of John the Baptist, the Sermon on the
Mount, the Lord's Prayer, the Nativity the birth of a site,
acela, right, what you don't have in the queue source document, is
any Passion narrative material. There's no Passion narrative
material and the Q source document. Right. In other words,
the Q source document does not mention that Jesus died, or that
he died for your sins, or that he was resurrected, not even a
passion prediction is in the queue source document. How do we know
that because
We look at Matthew and Luke, all of their passion material comes
either directly from Mark, or it comes from their own unique
material. Right?
So that's very important to understand that there was this
document. It's called the sayings gospel, or gospel X. And many
scholars actually believe that this gospel was written either
concurrently or before the letters of Paul were written. And
remember, Pauline Christianity basically set the entire
foundation for the New Testament, that Jesus is someone who died for
your sins, and the law has been abrogated by the death of Jesus,
and that the Second Coming is imminent. These are central
Pauline motifs. But if you look at the Q Source material, right,
there's no passion material, primarily because the author of
this sayings gospel, this gospel X, either believed Jesus was
crucified, but put no theological weight on it whatsoever, or didn't
believe Jesus was crucified at all. That's why there's no passion
material.
So again, this is called the to source theory. And this is the
most prevalent theory and New Testament scholarship. It assumes
mark in priority, Mark wrote first, then you have Matthew and
Luke, who are using mark as their chief source. Matthew and Luke
also have access to this sayings gospel that's in both of their
narratives. Matthew also has material that's called M special
Mathieson material that's only found in his Gospel. Luke also has
material called L, special Luke and material, which is only found
in his Gospel. Right.
So this whole idea is called the synoptic. problem, right? The
Synoptic Problem, meaning that there's definitely an
interdependency of the three gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
But how are they dependent? One theory, and actually Augustine of
Hippo, he actually believed that Mark was written after Matthew and
Luke, right? But almost all modern scholarship disagrees with
Augustine. Because if that's true, why would mark ignore so much of
the celebrated sayings, the Sermon on the Mount, bless it on the
peacemaker, let's say, the poor, Our Father who art and have the
Lord's Prayer, why would he ignore all of this beautiful material?
Why would he do that? Right? It doesn't make any sense why Mark
would ignore that. So most scholars believe that Matthew and
Luke followed Mark's gospel,
a central theme of the gospel of Mark is imminent, eschatology, the
end of the world is going to come imminently. And again, this is
something that the marking community, which was probably in
Rome,
inherited from Paul, remember, Paul believes that the second
coming of Christ will be in his own lifetime. So his advice on
celibacy, marriage, divorce, buying and selling goods, all of
that is predicated on his immediate expectation of the
Prusa, the second coming of Jesus, it simply did not happen. It
didn't materialize. And this was very, very troublesome, very
disturbing for many early Christians, that Paul is
verifiably wrong about something here, Mark is writing around 70,
of the Common Era inherited that so he puts words into the mouth of
Jesus, like there are some standing here that will not taste
death, until they see the kingdom of God coming in great power, the
present generation will live to see it all. This is what Mark says
that Jesus said, and of course, we know Jesus, peace be upon him, was
a true prophet of God. So he could never make these statements, he
can never make a false prophecy. What's the problem here is that
Mark is putting these words into the mouth of Jesus, because he's
inherited this Paul line baggage that Jesus will come back in the
lifetime of the apostles, and it just simply did not happen. So
imminent eschatology.
We also have this thing called the Messianic secret. And the gospel
of Mark, the Messianic secret is, if you notice, if you read the
gospel of Mark, for example, Jesus heals a leper. And then he said,
he tells him Go wash yourself, but don't tell anyone that I'm the
Messiah. Don't it's a big secret, right? Or he, you know, he does
something else. He asked Peter, who am I? Peter says, You're the
Christ. And he says, Don't tell anybody. Right, the Messianic
secret this was a, a phrase that was coined by German scholar
William Reed. And scholars have difference of opinion as to
why that is one opinion is that Mark invented the Messianic secret
to sort of explain why the vast majority of Jews simply didn't
believe in Jesus is because Jesus is not really telling them
anything about
himself, which is a little strange. Another opinion is that
Jesus is very fearful of telling the people of Galilee, that he's
the Messiah, because he is afraid that he won't complete his missing
mission, and that he has to actually go to Galilee to, to
Jerusalem to complete his mission. And if he goes around telling
people, He's the Messiah in Galilee, authorities will take him
and kill him in Galilee. Before he's completed his mission, Allahu
IAM, God knows best. The reason for that? So that's the, that's
the gospel of Mark. So we look at Matthew Now, Matthew, writing
around 80 to 85 of the Common Era.
Some of the major themes of the Gospel of Matthew is Jesus is the
open Messiah. He's teaching, he's not afraid. There's no messianic
secret. He is the supreme authority and interpreter of the
Mosaic Law. Matthew has over 100 allusions and
citations of the Old Testament in his Gospel. So Christological
typologies. Right, is a major theme in the Gospel of Matthew. In
other words, every single prophecy of the Old Testament is a
reference to Jesus Christ, peace be upon him that he fulfills.
So Matthew, he does a few things here. Matthew does Midrashim
Midrashim is to exegete. Right is to make a commentary or to
interpret the Old Testament. There's two types of Midrashim.
There's Midrashim daluz, that is called halakhic halakhic
Midrashim, which is basically Tafseer of verses that are more
Kemet. Right, so you're explicating upon verses that have
primarily a legal aspect. So for example,
in the Sermon on the Mount, chapter five, verses 17 through
14, Jesus says, according to Matthew, You have heard it say
don't commit adultery, right? That's a clear, mosaic
conjunction. But he says, But I say unto you, if you look at a
woman with lust, you have already committed adultery in your heart.
So this is an example of what's known as Midrashim of the Halacha
or halakhic Midrashim. He also does something called Haggai, adic
Midrashim. So this is more we'll have motor shabby hat. So esoteric
interpretation of verses that are obscure or that are not clear
immediately, in their meaning. So for example, it says, In the book
of Isaiah chapter seven, it says that a young woman will give birth
to a son, and his name shall be Emmanuel, right? And Matthew says,
oh, Emanuelle, a man who ale in Hebrew, literally is Allah, Who am
I now? Right? God is with us. So it's oh, this is a reference to
Jesus. Now Matthew is not saying that Jesus is God here. We have to
be very, very clear. When Matthew says, oh, Jesus is Immanuel,
Immanuel means God with us. Remember, the word ail the word
Elohim. The word theists in Greek and in Hebrew, are applied to
human beings, to Kings, to priests, even to Satan. Satan, in
Second Corinthians, chapter four, verse four, is called theosophy
to, he's called the god of this world, the god of this world. So
God chaos in Greek simply means someone who has some sort of
extraordinary ability, not necessarily the God, right. So if
you read, for example, another example in Exodus chapter seven,
we mentioned this in the past.
God says to Moses, I will send you as a low him, as God unto Pharaoh,
and and Aaron as your prophet. Right? Does that mean Moses is
God? He is the God. No, no Jewish exigent in the history of Judaism
ever said, Oh, I guess we have to start worshipping Moses. Now,
because the Torah calls Moses Elohim. No angels are called
Elohim, kings, priests, judges, even Satan in the New Testament.
So we have to look at context, the New Testament, the Old Testament
does not subscribe to divine incarnations. The name of the
Prophet, Ismail Ali, salaam, Yeshua ALA, means God hears, does
that mean? That is my L that the Prophet Ishmael has? He's severe.
He's all hearing, because his name means a God will hear? No, of
course not. We don't take these names. Literally. These names are
to remind us of God, the name Hezekiah means the mighty God.
Mighty God. Hezekiah was a king of Israel, does it? Is he the mighty
God? Because that's what his name means? Of course not. Right. These
names remind us of God's greatness. That's what they mean.
Right. And that's, that's clear. So anyway, also in the Gospel of
Matthew.
We have this sort of anti Jewish sentiment that, that the Christian
community is
The new Israel so so basically is a very strong supersession dentist
type of sentiment that that Judaism has been summarily
replaced by, by the Christians. And this culminates in Matthew
chapter 23 to seven woes when Jesus is speaking to the scribes
and the Pharisees in Jerusalem.
He says to them, Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, Woe unto
you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites. You've overlooked the
weightier demands of the law, how can you escape the punishment of
*? This type of thing, right? And then you have Pilate washing
his hands, right? And say, I am free of the blood of this innocent
man. So the Romans are just a tool that these venomous Jews are using
to get Jesus killed. And then you hear the crowd. According to
Matthew, this is all according to Matthew, it says that the last
which is the crowd, they say to him out to F Hey, mas, que epi ta
tech Na, Haman, may his blood be upon us and our children after us.
Right? So that one verse, which is Matthew 2725, was used as an
excuse all throughout Christian Europe to terrorize and demonize
and kill and commit genocide against Jews living in Europe,
because the Jews, they cursed themselves according to the Gospel
of Matthew, kill him, may his blood be upon us and our
descendants after us, whereas the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate who
had killed 1000s of Jews in the past, he washes his hands, and he
simply has Felix culpa, he has good blame. He's just a pawn that
these demonic Jews are using to kill Jesus. He's totally innocent,
though. It was the Jews that did it. And that's what Matthew was
trying to say. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church in 1974, had to
officially pardon the Jews for what they call deicide. You heard
a suicide. Suicide means to kill oneself. Homicide means you kill
another person, but deicide means you killed God. Right. So in 1974,
the Roman Catholic Church officially declared that we are
pardoning the Jews of deicide. God has willed that now they are
pardoned for killing God. So Matthew's Christological aim is
very easy. It is to prove that a silent Salam is the Messiah, who
fulfills all of the Old Testament, and at times, Matthew in his
overzealousness, to prove that Jesus is a fulfillment of the Old
Testament will misquote the Old Testament, like he does in Matthew
27, nine, he says, you know, this is what Jeremiah wrote about that
in reality, that's what Zechariah wrote about the 30 pieces of
silver. And sometimes you'll make something up like in Matthew
chapter two, he says, Jesus dwelt in Nazareth, so that it might be
fulfilled what was said by the prophets than the beam, he shall
be called the Nazarene. That verse is nowhere to be found in the
whole of Jewish literature.
Right?
So we look at Matthew sources, we're going to take a break
Inshallah, to Allah. And we'll, we'll come back, but we're going
to look at Matthew sources. Inshallah, we have Matthew, who
uses 80% of the gospel of Mark, right, like we said, earlier, we
talked about Mark, Matthew basically uses the same chronology
of events. Sometimes we'll take a mark and Peric up and he'll tweak
it a little bit, it'll change it, he'll clean it up, clean up the
grammar, he'll make it cleaner and move it to a different context.
Sometimes he does that also. But basically, he uses the same
chronology of the gospel of Mark, he has the cue source document in
front of him. We mentioned that as well. Right? Something that he has
in common with Luke, that Mark does not know about or mark does
know about and is simply rejecting. And then he has
material called em special Mathieson material, which is only
found in his gospel, the gospel of Matthew. So we're going to take a
break at this point for the prayer and inshallah we'll come back and
we'll do the final half an hour. We're going to talk about a recap
of the Gospel of Luke in the Gospel of John inshallah Salah
Latina Muhammad in Milan, he was happy to send them on hamdu
Lillahi Rabbil Alameen
Rahim salam ala Muhammad in one early he was really Marines.
mmamoloko MURAMATSU, Allahu Akbar curtain. So this is the second
half of our final session, session number 12.
We're continuing our summary review of the four gospels in the
New Testament last time. Before the break, we talked about the
gospel of Mark, we talked about the classical of Matthew, and now
we're talking about Kutta. Luca and the Gospel of Luke. We had
said that the Gospel of Luke is actually the first volume of a two
volume work Luke acts the book of Acts was also written by the
author of the Gospel of Luke who according to the
vast majority of scholars
some of these major concepts of the Gospel of Luke, is that Luke
is trying to universalize the gospel message, so aggrandized
what's going on with Esau today. So them. A very common word that's
used in the Gospel of Luke is the word Oculus. And Oculus means a
large crowd of people. So wherever Eastside a Salam goes, according
to the Gospel of Luke, there's a large crowd of people. Luke also
uses this he employs in the Passion narrative, this episode of
Herod Antipas, also interrogating a silent Salam, which is not
mentioned, by Mark or by Matthew. And again, this is simply to let
you know the reader know that this isn't simply some localized
disturbance.
That this has global implications. Herod Antipas, of course, as we
know, is the king of the Southern southern half of Palestine known
as Judea.
So again, Luke is trying to aggrandized the the Jesus event.
And also, interestingly enough, in the Gospel of Luke, something that
he reveals that is not found in the other Synoptic Gospels, Luke
actually gives, in his preamble, his reasons for writing his
gospel. So he says, for example, in the very first verses of the
Gospel of Luke, that this is actually a letter to a man named
Theopolis. And the awfulness, according to the vast majority of
New Testament scholars, was some sort of Roman Greco Roman official
who's probably the patron of Luke. So this is a man who has paid Luke
to write a gospel about a Saudi Salaam. And so Luke is dedicating
his gospel here to Theopolis. And there is a minority of scholars
who will say, well, the awfulness is simply the reader, because the
awfulness in Greek means the lover of God. So Luke is actually
addressing the reader of his gospel. What's really interesting
when it comes to Christological revisions that Luke undertakes is
that in terms of vicarious atonement, right, Jesus of the
Gospel of Luke does not die for your sins. Right. So this is with
respect to soteriology. soteriology means the study of
salvation, how is one saved? In the Synoptic Gospels, Mark and
Matthew as well as the Pauline letters, it's very clear that
Jesus died for your sins. Put your trust in Jesus, He paid the price
for you this type of vicarious atonement. This is really not
found in Luke and Christology. In Mark 1045, Jesus is recorded to
have said that the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve
and give his life as a ransom for many. Instead, in the Gospel of
Luke, you have Jesus as an example of service for his disciples, he
is known as the martyr prophet. So we imitate Christ in Matok, to
Christie, as the Latin theologians used to say you imitate Christ in
his virtue ethics, and you have that same willingness to give your
life for your cause. But the death of Jesus does not vicariously
atone for your sins. That's something that's foreign to Judeo
Christianity, at least as Luke sees it. If you look in the Old
Testament very clearly Deuteronomy chapter 24. Verse 17, says every
man is put to death for his own sin. No one is killed in a place
of another, it would not fly in any modern court. If someone is
guilty of murder, and then the judge decides to execute another
person instead of the guilty party that does not fly. That's a breach
of justice. That's not justice whatsoever. So are you silent
salaam, Jesus Christ, being this lamb led to the slaughter as it
were, being killed for our sins, is something that Muslims and Jews
and apparently, the Lukin community would consider to be
anathema, something that is truly disturbing that an innocent man
will be killed in place of another. And if you actually just
read the narratives in the New Testament, you have Jesus on the
Mount of Olives, sweating blood, according to the Gospel of Luke,
begging for his life in the Synoptic Gospels, remove this cup
away from me. And it's interesting because Orthodox Christians will
say before the foundations of the world, God the Father and God, the
Son entered into a metaphysical covenant or contract stipulating
that in the year 4000, after Adam, the sun would incarnate into a
human being, and die for the sins of humanity. Yet Jesus is on the
Mount of Olives, crying and begging for his life. It doesn't
seem like he knows anything about such a covenant. In fact, Jesus
says that, that the Father will give you whatever you ask, he says
that when he would any father amongst you give his son, a
serpent when he asks for a fish? You say no, then why would God do
that to his own son, quote, unquote, son, if his son is asking
to for his life to be saved, and then God decides to reject his
son's request, and have him beaten and spat upon and flogged down to
his bowels, according to traditional Christian iconography,
and descriptions of the Passion narrative, and then crucified
nailed to a cross between two thieves and then sent to * for
three days. This is not love. This is sadistic murder, first degree
murder. This has nothing to do with Judaism. There's no
indications that that anyone will die for anyone's sins. This is a
pagan belief that was adopted outside of Palestine and the
Mediterranean lands. This idea of a dying and rising Savior man God
very, very common in Greek mystery religious cults. The Old Testament
is very, very clear. The way to become right with God is through
to tshuva, which is Toba, which is repentance is equal chapter 18.
Verse 20, says very very clearly, that the the iniquity of the Son
shall not be upon the Father, and the iniquity of the father shall
not be on the son the sin is not inherited by anyone, no one has
killed in place of another. And then it says, the wickedness of
the wicked is upon him, the righteousness of the righteous is
upon him but if the wicked would turn from his wickedness and do
that which is lawful and right, and turn here in Hebrew, is Yeshua
you've right Yeshua of his shoe via shoe to shoe that's the past
present and infinitive tab. Yeah to boo Toba
turn meaning reorient oneself, make repentance which requires
contrition, right and the dama, which is remorse, and affirm
resolve as Eema, not to return to the sin. Then Ezekiel says,
if he does that, that he shall surely live, he shall not die.
This is how we make ourselves right with God, we have to be in
constant repentance with God. We don't
place our sin on some vicarious atonement, or some savior, other
than Allah subhana, Allah to Allah, other than God, blessed and
Exalted is He and this is how Luke,
the Luke and Jesus is, is described, that he dies to set an
example of service and sacrifice. That's why you read the book of
Acts, which again, was written by Luke, depicting, you know, the
early apostles, especially Steven, who was the first Christian
martyr, willing to give his life for the cause, in that sense,
emulating Jesus, that in Jesus's willingness to give his life for
the cause, to be compassionate and forgiving, like Jesus, to be non
resistant, like Jesus, not in the sense that Jesus is your savior,
in the sense that he quite literally takes on your sin, and
he's killed for your sin. This is a breach of justice. And the
example I give all the time is quite simple example, is, let's
say, for example, that I come home from work one night, and I'm very,
very tired. And I had a very rough day at work. And then you're my
neighbor, and your dog is barking all night long, and I get very
upset, I go outside, I throw a rock over my fence and it hits
your dog in the head, and it kills your dog. And they go back to
sleep. But the next morning, I wake up, and I'm full of remorse.
So I go to your house and I say, you know, last night, I was very
tired, and I couldn't sleep, your dog was barking all night long.
And I threw a rock I was very angry, and I think it hit your dog
and it died. And then you say, Oh, that's okay. Because you see me,
I'm crying. I'm full of remorse. I'm very contrite. And you said
that's okay. Don't worry about it. I forgive you. Now, this matter is
closed. I sinned against you. And you have the position to forgive
me. It was your dog, right? So the no matter is over. Now, let's say
I go back to my house. I take my own dog and I cut its throat. And
I say, hey, there has to be justice, Blood for blood. Somebody
has to die. Did I have to kill my dog? No, it's completely
unnecessary. In fact, it is injustice. It is unjust. For me to
have killed my dog. They sinned against you. I was contrite and
you forgave me. So nobody has to die. we sinned against God, we
make Toba we have a good opinion of God that He will forgive us.
Nobody has to pay the price for us. That is a breach of justice.
So in Luke that's let's Luke's soteriology. Now Luke, does call
Jesus savior. So Taylor, we have to understand by that he simply
means in the sense not that He died for your sins, but rather as
one who teaches you how to deal with sin, and is a means of your
salvation. So the new English Bible which was done by pre
eminent European scholars, the way they translate Soto is actually
deliver. So Moses, in the sense is a savior, he's a deliver in the
sense that he teaches us how to deal with to how to recognize sin,
how to deal with sin, how to make us right with God, right. And
that's very, very apparent in the Gospel of Luke, that the death of
Jesus makes us realize our guilt before God so that we turned to
God and repentance and God will forgive our sin. That's Luke's
Christology, right? So it's very, very important.
To understand that also something that's very important about the
Lucan Jesus is that he is as Ehrman calls quite imperturbable,
which means that he is very cool. He is very calm. He's very
collected on the order of a stoic philosopher, because Luke again is
writing for a Gentile audience of Greco Roman audience. He's also a
physician. And he can do things more systematically. His his
gospel is actually the best gospel as far as grammar and syntax than
was polished in its Greek. So he seems to be the most educated and
he's writing for a an audience that is basically very academic,
very imperturbable, very stoic in their orientation. The Stoics
believed in a deistic, God and impersonal God, they were all
about self discipline. And reason that reason is all you need to
understand the true makings of the universe. So Luke, what he'll do
is he'll eliminate mark in descriptions of Jesus, that make
him seem to human right. So as we know, in the Gospel of Mark, as
well as the Gospel of Matthew, they tell us that when Jesus was
put on the cross, He made this cry of dereliction Allahu Allah, He
lamb as a Bethany, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? Right,
which is very disturbing for a prophet to have said something
like that that says, This is why Imam Ghazali again says in his
Jamil that there's no way that Jesus Christ peace be upon him.
Whatever makes such a statement, a prophet would never make such a
statement. Luke agrees with Imam Ghazali, actually, and he doesn't
record Jesus making this cry of dereliction. Jesus in the Gospel
of Luke, again, is imperturbable. He's always in control. So in the
Gospel of Mark, if remember, the death of Jesus was quite pathetic.
He's interrogated by Pilate, Are you the king of the Jews? He says,
Sue, lay gays. That's what you say. And then he's completely
silent up until the cry of dereliction. And then he dies,
that women go to the empty tomb. They don't find him there. It's
kind of a cliffhanger. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is in
control. He's on his way to go. Gotha to his own execution is a
group of women who are weeping. He says, Don't wait for me, wait for
yourselves a reference to the destruction of the temple. That's
imminent. Of course, it had already happened. By the time Luke
had written his gospel, and then Jesus on the cross. He simply
says, Father into your hands, I commend my spirit, no cry of
dereliction, no Ilahi Ilahi lemma Subak. Danny, because for Luke, he
found that quite disturbing. This is also one of the reasons why the
Gospel of Luke was so beloved by a group of Christians called the
Marcia knights. So if you remember Marcion, he was a second century,
anti Jewish dosimetrist by theist. In other words, he was someone who
believed that Jesus actually did not have a physical body. He was
of the Gnostic persuasion that Jesus did not have a flesh and
blood body, he was simply a phantasm. He was a Docetism, from
the Greek in Tokyo, which means that Jesus only seemed to have a
physical body, but in reality, he didn't have a physical body. And
he believed that the God of the Old Testament was actually a
different god. Right? a Lesser God, a, he called him the
Demiurge, or the yoga bow is this God who is a trickster, and that
Jesus is the true God. So Marcion was a bi theist. And this movement
Marcion ism was quite popular, especially in Rome and Marcion.
Love the Gospel of Luke, because the way Jesus is so imperturbable
he's, he's so a nonhuman seeming, right, he doesn't get upset. He's
always calm, cool and collected, he commands His own Spirit into
the hands of his father. So he started to say things like, Well,
Jesus wasn't actually flesh and blood. And the Gospel of Luke
proves that. And Marcion again, also hated the Jews. He said, They
were sons of the devil, right? And they were a curse at people. And
he incited violence against the Jews. So it's interesting.
There are late manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke, which include an
additional statement of Jesus on the cross, where he says pothead,
I phased out toys in the Greek language, which means Father
forgive them, for they know not what they do. You've probably
heard this, if you watch any Jesus movie. Usually they have this. The
actor portraying Jesus will say this, because it's quite beautiful
statement that Jesus is forgiving his, the people who crucified Him,
forgiving the Jews from the cross for crucifying Him. In fact, that
statement was not part of the original Gospel of Luke. It was
added later by consensus of New Testament scholars, because it was
a Christological
reply to what Marcion was saying it was a polemical response to a
Christological heresy that Marcin was saying that Jews are a curse
word, and the God of the Old Testament was a different
God, we have a few examples of fabrication in the Gospel of Luke,
that was motivated by a response to what Marcion is actually doing.
We talk about the sources of the Gospel of Luke. They're almost the
same as the Gospel of Matthew, you have Luke using Mark Mark's gospel
as his narrative skeleton, although making a few changes here
and there, which of course means that Luke did not believe Mark was
inspired by God, because Luke believed that Mark was inspired by
God that certainly he wouldn't redact and change and revise and
change the context of certain curricula B's, and the example we
give of that, it's Mark chapter six, Jesus, it's called the
rejection at Nazareth, Luke will take that Peric, up in Mark six,
which is almost halfway through Mark's gospel, the end of the
Galilean ministry, and he'll move it up to Luke chapter four. So
he'll compromise the context of this Peric up to make a
theological point. And that's what the four Gospels are. The four
gospels, the four gospel authors are not trying to necessarily give
you accurate history, history is by far secondary primary of
primary importance is theology. They're trying to teach you what
to believe about Jesus Christ, even if it means distorting the
historical aspect. There is no historical record that there was
ever this census taken in the entire Roman Empire, at the time
of the birth of Jesus, peace be upon him. Luke probably made this
up in order to get the Holy Family into Bethlehem, because according
to Luke, that we're living in Nazareth, and it really doesn't
make a difference for Luke probably, whether this is true or
not, whether it's factual or not, is very, very important to
understand the mindset of the gospel authors, that something can
be true and not factual. Something can be true and not factual. It's
probably not factual. That the that people came out of their
graves, the saints of old came out of their graves when Jesus was
crucified. And there was an eclipse there was a thunderstorm,
the skies darkened, as Matthew says, that probably didn't happen.
It seems like Matthew is kind of copying what some of the ancient
historians Roman historians said about the death of, of ROM, like
what Plutarch says about the death of Romulus, the founder of the
Roman Empire. For Luke, it doesn't make a difference whether that was
actually factual did the saints come out of their graves, he's
trying to make a theological point, a theological truth is that
the death of Jesus was a really big deal. And to demonstrate that
you can think of like saints coming out of the graves, there's
an eclipse, these things didn't really happen, probably, according
to Matthew, but he's trying to make a theological point, that the
death of Jesus was truly a pivotal moment, an axial moment in the
history of the world.
Anyway, so we have our Another example is the slaughter of the
innocents member Matthew says that when Jesus was born in Bethlehem,
Herod and tapas, he decreed the slaughter of the innocents very
much like the Pharaoh did. At the time of Moses. There is no
historical evidence of this happening whatsoever. Again, for
Matthew, it's not really important whether this is actually factual,
but it's true in the sense that the birth of Jesus was a really
big deal. And Jesus is the new Moses. And Jesus is the prophet
like unto Moses, as was prophesized in Deuteronomy 1818,
which was actually, in my opinion, a clear prophecy of the Prophet
Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa Salatu was Salam. And in the
Quran, again, you find that correspondence many times between
Musa alayhis salam and the Prophet salallahu Salam,
for example, watercop in no fall, when the initial revelation came
to the Prophet salallahu Salam, he said to him, Khadija animals will
Akbar Kumar Jha Illa Musa, to you has come the great law, Kumar Jha,
just as Karma is a particle of similarity, right? Just as it came
to Moses, the great law the nomos, now Musa and Arabic has come to
you, just as it came to Musa Ali Salam.
So we find that correspondence quite often between the Prophet
sallallahu alayhi wasallam, and and Musa alayhis salam. And
there's other examples of that. Now one of the interesting things
about the Gospel of Luke sources, so we have again, Mark's gospel as
forming the skeleton, we have the Q source document that Luke has in
common with Matthew, and then we have special l material, Luke and
material, which is only found in the Gospel of Luke. Now, the
special Luke material is quite memorable. It's very famous Peric
copies of Jesus peace be upon him, basically takes place between
chapters nine and 19 of the Gospel of Luke. This is called the Luke's
This is called Luke's travel narrative.
So one of my favorites here is the what's known as the Good
Samaritan.
And, and the prodigal son. Well, we'll start with the prodigal son.
This is an interesting, a parable a pick up that was given by Jesus.
This is Luke chapter 15, in which he says a man has two sons and
older son and a younger son, his younger son goes off and does his
own thing, and becomes practical, becomes a spendthrift and becomes
a sinner actually ends up hurting a bunch of, of pigs of swine,
loses all of his money, and then decides to go back home to his
father. And Jesus says, peace be upon him, according to Luke
chapter 15, that from afar, when his father saw him, he welcomed
him with open arms and they hugged each other. Right. And then the
son that was the older son said, you know, I've been here this
whole time. I've never disobeyed you, and you show this kind of
love. Right? And then the father says, Yes, but you've always been
I've always loved you, but this son of mine was lost and is now
find is now found, right? He was dead, it is now alive. What does
that mean? How do you go from death to life? This this whole
parable is about Toba. The whole point of the terror of the parable
is about to tshuva in Hebrew, Toba, just like we said, Ezekiel,
chapter 18, verse 20, if the wicked would turn and do that,
which is lawful and right, that if you turn towards God, you reorient
yourselves towards God, you will find God as it were not in any
anthropomorphic sense, welcoming you with open arms, if you make
Toba. That's the whole point of the parable. Jesus is not making a
point here that I'm going to come back from the dead I'm going to
die for your sins. I'm the son of God in the literal sense, nothing
like that. Nothing like that. As mentioned, the whole point of the
of the of the prodigal son
is repentance. So that's very, very clear.
Also, we have this parable chapter 18, the Pharisee and the tax
collector, chapter 18, of Luke, that's also very clearly about
Toba. Again, the the soteriology of the Gospel of Luke is very,
very different than what we find in Mark and Matthew and the
Pauline epistles. Jesus does not die for your sins. Jesus is not a
vicarious atonement, a lamb led to the slaughter, anything like that
Jesus is Savior in the sense that he makes you aware of sin and
teaches you how to deal with sin, so that you might turn to God
yourself and repentance. And Jesus is someone that you emulate. He is
also attune Hasina, as the Quranic language would say, in the Quranic
nomenclature, he is who he has hold of him, he has great moral
and virtue, great moral virtue ethics that we need to emulate.
That's the point of the Gospel of Luke. So that was, that's Luke's
Gospel running out of time. Now, if we go to the Gospel of John,
this is the gospel that we covered last time. In the Gospel of John,
we had said originally was seen as a very strange alien body of
literature. Next to the synoptics members. synoptic means one eyed
Matthew, Mark and Luke basically follow the same chronology of
events. In their tellings of the narratives of the life of Eastside
s&m In the Gospel of John, however, we have something very,
very different. The narrative, the chronology of events is very
different. The content of the Gospel of John is also very, very
different. You have Jesus going back and forth between Galilee and
Nazareth. You don't have these parables. You don't have these
exorcisms that we have in a synoptic tradition. Rather we have
a silent salaam giving these really long monologues or
dialogues or debates he has with the Pharisees, Jesus, in the
Gospel of John is presented, or is ascribed the highest Christology.
And this is again, this is the gospel that most Christians will
use and quote, to show you or to demonstrate that a silent Salam is
God. Right? For example, it says, Jesus says in John chapter 10,
verse 30, the father and I are one, right and we talked about
this in our last class. What does he mean by the nature of this
oneness? Does he mean essential oneness? Does he mean that the
debt that Jesus shares in essence with God, there's no verse in the
Bible that mentions that nowhere in any gospel does a silent Salam
say I am God? Nowhere does he say worship me. There is no verse in
the Gospel that contains the word God and three in the same verse,
There is no verse in the Gospel that contains the words God and
Trinity in the same verse. There were Trinity is in the Quran, it
says, well, that's a Colusa don't say Trinity into Hokkaido, Lacan.
It is better for you in them Allahu Allahu wa had for your God
is one God is one. Again, there are certain anchors that you have
to know. Mark chapter 12, verse 29, Shema Yisrael, Adonai
Eloheinu, Adonai, had he or Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is a
hot God means one, it only means one. Christians will try to say
something like yes, it means one, but there is an allowance for
multiplicity or plurality within oneness. No one means one. This is
one pencil. I'm not going to say this is one pencil
but it's also three pencils. This is gibberish This is nonsense,
right? When the when the when the gospel of Mark are you silent
salaam the gospel of Mark confirms the theology of Bani Israelite
yield. That's exactly what it says he's confirming Musa kalima been a
day I mean, I told her he is He is quoted in the Quran is saying, I
confirm the tota the theology of sia Salam is no different than the
theology of Musa alayhis salam. And that's no different than the
theology presented in the Quran called who Allah who had the same
word as used in the Quran, I had means one, it means one and only a
radical, rigid, monotheistic God, the God of the Hebrews, the God of
the Israelites, the God of Abraham. So that's very, very
clear. John 17 Three, again, another verse you should be very,
very familiar with. When Jesus peace be upon him apparently says,
speaking to the Father in heaven, you are the only true God and
Jesus Christ whom thou has sent, that the Father is the only God
the only true God very, very clear, right? If you look at this
reading from a clear, simplistic, very superficial, easy to
understand perspective, it's very clear that the only God is the God
of ECI. They set up another verse that's important. And John, we
didn't cover this verse last time, we talked about John, but I just
remembered it. John, chapter 20, verse 17, this is when he tells
Mary Magdalene, he says, tell him my brother, and and I'm going to
ascend unto my Father, and your father, my God, and your God.
Here, Jesus says that He has a god. I thought Jesus was supposed
to be God. If Jesus has a God, then certainly he himself cannot
be God. Can God have a God? Well, if you want to believe that, then
you believe in two gods, you can't say Jesus is God, and he also has
a God. He says, in the Greek, they asked mu, My God, how can Jesus
have a God and be God, at the same time, this is not even within the
bounds of Trinitarian theology.
So these are some things that we should bring up with our Christian
friends. We're actually out of time right now. I hope this class
has been beneficial. We've done 12 recorded sessions, Inshallah, to
Allah when we actually start with the semester, in the spring of
2014. We're going to have two or three live sessions, and I hope
people again are writing down their questions, and you can email
me your questions as well. But if you want to ask me on live shows,
and certain live classes, certainly we can take those
questions at that time as well. I hope you've enjoyed the class,
please keep us in your DUA, you are in our dua inshallah to Allah
wa salam ala Sayyidina Muhammad wa ala alihi wa sahbihi wa salam, Al
hamdu Lillahi Rabbil Alameen wa salam aleikum wa rahmatullah wa
barakato.