Ali Ataie – The Muslim Biblicist
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
Internets,
welcome back to another YouTube video
and audio podcast,
for Sultans and Sneakers. I'm your host, Mahinda
Podcaster. And to do today, I'm join joined
by someone who's probably,
across the the various platforms that I host
channels on, maybe one of my all time
favorite guests. And I can listen to this
guy talk, you know
you know, on any platform. I mean, I
I I remember when I first got,
with doctor Ali Atayi,
a couple years back, especially as I was
delving into my own study of Christianity, I
was binging as much as I could. And,
first of all, doctor Ali, thank you so
much for coming on the show and gracing
us with your presence today.
Thank you, Siri. Thank you so much for
having me. It's a pleasure to be here.
You know, I I actually remember the first
time,
I I never had mentioned this to you,
but the first time I had heard of
you was kind of,
unannounced. I I went to a 2011
RIS conference in, I think, in Long Beach,
California.
Mhmm. And,
I remember
hearing you talk there. I didn't know who
you were.
And at the time I was of a
certain orientation, and I remember you started you
started saying something about the school and we
do this and that. And I was like
like, it got me all nervous. And then
I kinda like went about my way, and
then later I when I, you know, started
to get interested in this,
like, Christianity on, like, a polemic kind of
view point of view,
I I came across your work. But,
yeah. So
the reason I I had you on today
is that you,
did your PhD, you completely was it a
couple years ago. Right?
2016.
Yeah. 2016. Okay.
Now,
you know, and and your PhD is kind
of like an Islamic, I guess, exegesis
or commentary
on the gospel of John, the new testament.
Before we get into that, I actually would
like you to kinda elaborate
a little bit on,
you know, when you decided to go to
grad school,
and
kind of pursue the study of the new
testament,
what led you to this path that this
was the subject that you were gonna hone
in on?
Well, I I think,
I I think growing up in,
in the East Bay in California,
you know, we were immigrants,
from Iran,
and the
the neighborhood
to which we moved into was
predominantly, you know, white Christian. So
95%
of my friends were white and Christian in
school.
My parents were not
very religious people.
And so my my friends would, you know,
invite me to their churches.
And so I'd go there quite often,
for Sunday school or for sermons, for bible
studies, things like that.
So, at the time, I didn't realize it,
but there was a constant
effort to to convert me,
even though I didn't really identify as anything,
at the time.
I just sort of believed in God,
and that was it.
So they would they would, they would teach
me bible stories.
They would have me read,
statements or stories,
passages in the New Testament,
and then ask my opinion about them.
And then they would try to work on
the theology. The the theological aspect I mean,
at the time, I sort of
fell in love with the biblical Jesus.
I thought it I thought he was an
incredible,
person.
But,
when I would ask questions of theology,
for example, why did he have to die?
You know, what what's the purpose of it?
I would get answers that were,
they they were just,
they did not satisfy me.
And so I never really bought into it.
I would kind of tell myself at the
time, maybe I just don't understand what they're
saying.
What do they mean? He he died for
sins,
and he's a savior, and things like that.
So I I I kind of told myself
to be patient about it.
But then as as I got older, that
that is exactly what they meant,
that he was a divine son of god
who came came down and incarnated, died for
our sins, vicarious atonement.
And then
as I matured,
I started to find parallels of of that
sort of mythos in pre Christian,
pagan traditions.
And I thought, well, that's kind of strange.
Why
why why are there parallels to this to
this idea in these other religions that are
clearly
in in in contrast or an opposition,
to Judaism, because Judaism is supposed to be
the sort of mother religion of Christianity.
So this idea of of a divine savior
dying for our sins,
this idea of,
you know, blood magic, human sacrifice,
these things are are totally anathema
in Judaism.
So this idea that,
the the New Testament is a sort of
natural,
progression
from from the old testament.
To me, I I didn't see that connection.
I thought there was quite a vast dissonance
between the two.
So then,
when I sort of stumbled across,
Islam,
I I noticed that Islam is, at its
essence, this type of,
Abrahamic,
reform movement, if you will. I mean, a
reformation of Jewish legalism,
as well as a reformation of Christian theology.
So really, a a restoration
of the of the teaching,
of of the prophets of God of old.
Mhmm. And and that idea to me made
sense.
Right? But that interest in Christianity always stayed
with me.
Sure. All throughout high school,
when I was an undergrad,
you know, I'd I was very active in
the Muslim community and the MSAs.
I took all of the religion classes that
I could.
I would begin debating Christian apologists
every so often.
And so, I really wanted to know,
I wanted to know the language of the
Bible. I wanted to know the historical context.
I wanted to know what these books,
were saying, why are there 4 gospels, are
they the are they sort of
the same story, are there differences,
if they're different, why are they different,
who wrote them? When were they written?
Who is Paul? What does he have to
do with anything?
Why are so many of his letters in
the New Testament? Where are the letters of
the other apostles?
What what I mean, what is original Christianity?
What what was the faith? Did did these
apostles
teach trinitarianism?
Is Paul a trinitarian?
Did Paul believe that Jesus is fully God?
What is the sort of Christology of these
4 gospels?
How are they the same? How are they
different? All of these things. It was it
was it's just sort of an avalanche that
I just wanted to know. It was this
it was sort of deep, I
almost say,
I was
obsessed with with with learning the truth about
the New Testament. Sure. Well, I I think,
first of all, people need to understand that
your own personal context is that, you know,
you grew up in a secular Shia family,
if I'm not mistaken. Right? So you weren't
really a conservative practicing Muslim. So when they
were you talk about them trying to convert
you, you weren't really anything at the point.
You were just kinda, like, you know, out,
you know, in in limbo or whatever you
wanna call it or or purgatory.
Yeah. Just But,
just like a monotheist that didn't didn't subscribe
to any religion. Sure. Believe in God. Believe
in God, but no organized religion.
You know,
man, there there's there's so much and and
you talk about so talk a little bit
about with you used to be known. A
lot of people, I think,
with your more academic approach now,
people are like, they like the old because
you used to debate, like, you know, your
YouTube videos are up, David Wood, Michael Lacone,
etcetera.
I think it's very easy to get sucked
into this back and forth apologetics
game.
It sounds to me like it's just a
nature like, I can talk about my own
experiences. Right? It's like,
many Christians tend to be very upfront about
their
their the theology, and they had this mission
to save people because that's what they you
know? And I'm like, that's fine.
And then they kinda invite you on this
turf, and then you kinda get into it,
and then, you know, I've heard so many
stories like this. Right? Was that similar to
what happened to you? Like, you know, you
learned a little bit and then, you know,
Christians will be proselytizing the Muslims and then
they call you in kinda thing?
Yeah. I mean, that's sort of how it
went for a few years.
And, you know,
I'm, you know, the Quran
is is clear that that we should engage
in in
Okay.
So don't don't debate with the people of
the book except in ways that are better.
And then
Allah, he gives us these sort of rules
of engagement.
So if you're going to engage
with
with Jews and Christians,
then it should be done with with with
Hikma. And the the ilemmas say the meaning
of that is with intellectual,
and rational proofs.
In sort of a good comportment, a good
attitude.
So there's a place for debate.
But the problem is,
people get,
they sort of get obsessed with with debating,
with proving other people wrong.
And I kinda felt myself going down that
rabbit hole.
I'm genuinely interested in the truth, but then
you start get debating people who,
are basically.
Right? People who, you know, mock the religion.
And, you know, the Quran is clear. The
prophet
the the prophet,
Allah says to the prophet
in the Quran
to leave those types of people. That Allah
will deal with them himself.
So I still do debates,
but they're not very provocative anymore because they're
not with these sort of big name Christian
apologists. I mean, I'll debate, you know, a
Christian professor in a sort of low key
event somewhere,
but you're not gonna find that on YouTube
or something. Mhmm.
So so I'm more focused on intellectual debates,
academic debates where you know, with scholars who
actually know who have studied our theology, have
studied have studied something about the Quran,
who will bring,
proofs,
with good
and not for shock value.
But, yeah, there was a point where Muslims
would call me in, and
they would say, for example, you know, there's
there's a,
at our masjid in in whatever city in
California,
there's a group of Christians standing outside,
after
and they're they're passing out literature.
I want you to come over here and
just debate them all. Just engage them on
the street and things like that.
And and
and I would go along with this for
a while, but,
I I think there are better ways to
handle to handle things. Would would you say,
like I don't know if you saw this,
Todd. Recently, doctor Yasir Kaldi, made a YouTube
video because,
individuals like Jay Smith and David Wood were,
like,
you know, dragging his name through because he
he made a, like, a statement about the
the standard narrative of the preservation of the
Quran having coals in it, etcetera, etcetera.
You know, and they they, like, took this
little statement. They ran with it. I remember
my own interaction. I remember I was talking
to some Christians online
and,
you know, they were like, hey. What do
you think about the, you know,
about, like,
the Quran you know, what Yasser Kadi said
about with the Quran about the Quran. I'm
like, what did he say? Oh, is that
there are holes in a standard narrative.
And I was like, okay. What does that
mean?
Like, what do you mean by that? Right?
Like, they couldn't he was like, well, there's
holes. I'm like, what, like so it's like
they're taking the statement, and they're just, like,
running without even understanding what what what it
is. It's kinda like,
you're on the wall. But would you say
that I I find that a lot of,
Muslims even are caught up in this whole
YouTube back and forth.
And I'm always questioned, is it like a
waste of time?
Because you've got literally people on the other
side who are making things up.
Right? Yeah. And sometimes Muslim apologists even, as
we we have talked about
before, they don't even do a proper job
in representing Christianity properly. Right? So,
you know, it's it's almost like to the
way I feel sometimes is that you're watching
these debates, people who are throwing, like, jabs
at each other,
and the information isn't even accurate. You're not
arguing based on factual
information. You're you you're arguing, like, 2 misrepresentations
against each other. Your thought about that?
Yeah. I mean, that's just a a lack
of education.
And that's when, you know, it's it's dangerous
in these types of things,
because, you know,
especially nowadays,
the the
the danger of,
the love of fame. Right? This is something
that is very, very,
difficult to deal with. And, you know, even,
you know, scholars that I studied with
overseas, they've they've confided to me that, you
know, they they struggle with that. And these
these are like bonafide scholars who have studied
for years years. One of them told me
that
the last the the last disease to leave
the heart of a scholar is
is ostentation and and, like,
this kind of love love for fame.
Right? So,
imagine, you know, a lay Muslim or sort
of a novice Muslim who's done a few
a few years of study,
and, he wants to, you know, make dua,
which is a good intention. But
oftentimes,
you know, the the nafs gets involved.
And so it's not about discovering
it's it's it's not about the truth anymore.
It's about
convincing the other person of your opinion,
and that opinion may may be true or
not.
And so, even if there's a difference of
opinion,
that's not entertained at all by the person.
They just want you to be convinced of
their personal opinion.
Mhmm. And and this is a big problem
because there there is there is some there
is,
some flexibility
within the
parameters
of of normative Islam, of of Sunni Islam.
There's difference of opinion about things. You You
know? There's there's a difference of opinion. I
think I mentioned this,
last at the at the last podcast about,
you know, who was the son to be
sacrificed? Was it Ismail or Ishaq? I mean,
that's
that's that's something that goes back to the
time of the Sahaba. That's a genuine difference
of opinion.
But most Muslims, I would wager, have not
even even Muslim apologists,
you know. I mean, I I saw a
debate one time between
a Muslim apologist and a Christian. You know,
who was the son to be sacrificed, Ishmael
or Isaac? This was the topic of the
debate.
And I just said, well, what's the point
of this debate when there's a difference of
opinion about it?
But
I guess people wanna they wanna debate these
issues,
which is I just think it's unfortunate. So
for me, I sort of take a step
back
and, and and try to reach people at
a different level, at more academic level, at
a at a level that's more respectful.
Yeah. Because usually people come out of these
debates,
you know,
even more entrenched in their own position
than they did,
going into the debate.
Yeah. So Yeah. There there's a few I've
seen that I think that, I think were
beneficial. There's there's respect there. Comes up Abdullah
Conde versus doctor James White. When I watched
recently, I thought both guys, you know, did
a you understood both points, and you could
kinda see where they agree to disagree. But,
anyways,
I wanna like, what's the basis of your
thesis? Like, if you if it's you you
sent it to me over the summer. I
had a chance to look through it, but
how would you articulate
your main point?
So the thesis is basically,
taking a certain approach,
to the,
New Testament
canon, really the 4 gospels in the New
Testament.
And my thesis specifically zeros in on the
gospel of John.
So there's an opinion,
although it's very much in the minority,
it is espoused it's, espoused by at least
one
classical Sunni scholar, ibn Umar al B'qai, who
was a scholar in the late Mamluk period
in Egypt,
who said that
what the Christians have as the gospel
right? So what he means by that are
the 4 gospels, and he actually did what's
known as a or a gospel harmony
of the 4 canonical gospels. So what the
Christians have or identify as the gospel,
is,
is the actual injil, is the gospel
that the Quran is referring to. So I'm
taking the position, okay, that's that's my sort
of premise. I accept that.
So how do we make sense then
of these statements
in the 4 gospels in the New Testament.
If this is the injil,
as Al Bukhari is saying,
what do we do with,
you know, the father and I are 1
in John 10:30?
How can that be reconciled
with our theology?
Before Abraham was, I am. You know, John
858,
John 1:1, in the beginning was the word,
the word was with God, and the word
was God.
How do you deal with that verse
if this is the?
So basically, what I did was
my thesis is something like,
that a lot of these statements in the
in the in the fourth gospel, the gospel
of John, which is the most sort of
mystical,
esoteric gospel,
is that you have to sort of
interpret these,
statements of these purported statements of Isa alaihis
salam,
through a more
esoteric lens.
That,
that one must look at the historical context,
of Isa alaihis salam. He was a rabbi
in the 1st century.
He was a, obviously, a practitioner of of
Jewish law at the time,
a Jew ethnically.
Although, we we believe that he was born,
without a human father, so he doesn't have
a tribal distinction because in Judaism,
the tribe comes from the father.
But Jewishness is established matrilineally
through the mother. So he's a Jewish rabbi
who doesn't have a tribe.
And then so,
so we situate him historically.
So what could he have meant by these
statements? Because
because if he's claiming to be God, if
he's walking around, you know, Judea
making divine claims, why would he expect anyone,
to to accept him as god? That would
be absolute
blasphemy,
on the part of any Jew.
And a Jew would be rightfully
condemned for accepting any type of divine claim
coming from any human being. I mean, it
goes against the very fabric
of their religion.
I mean, num numbers 2319.
God is not a man.
Hosea 119 or 1119. I think it's 119.
Indeed, I am God and not a man.
Right?
Mhmm. And in the previous verse,
God is not a man. There was a
a, Jewish,
apologist, anti Christian,
apologist named, Rabbi Abahu of Caesarea, who actually
said the meaning of that is,
so God is not a man that he
should lie. That's the that's the whole statement.
So what he said about that was any
man who claims to be God is automatically
a liar
because no man is God.
So the question then becomes, if if if
God revealed that statement to Moses in Numbers
23/19,
God is not a man that he should
lie, meaning any man who claims to be
God is a liar,
then why would god himself
incarnate
into flesh and then claim to be god
and then expect Jews
who have been given the Torah to accept
his claim.
Mhmm. I mean, it doesn't make any sense.
So so it's obvious
that Jesus, if he made these again,
do I personally believe that Isa, alaihis salam,
made those statements in John's gospel?
Sometimes I feel yes. Sometimes I feel no.
I'm leaning towards no, and it's it's important
to have an open mind and heart about
these things. It seems like he didn't.
Right? It seems like the synoptic gospels,
especially,
one of the sources that's used in common
by Matthew and and Luke called the q
source,
it seems like that represents kind of the
earliest of Christianity.
We could talk about that if you like.
Even maybe even the gospel of Thomas. Mhmm.
But,
so so the Christian is here,
dealing with
a major problem
with their with their claims.
That if if these if if they're saying
if their claim is this is their claim,
that here Jesus is making
divine claims,
that absolutely destroys the law and the prophets.
And Jesus says in Matthew, think not that
I've come to destroy
the law and the prophets.
I've come to to fulfill.
Now that statement by itself actually flies into
the face of Pauline Christology.
Mhmm. I mean, if you just read the
book of Galatians, it's very clear that Paul
believes
that the law is no longer binding.
He says in another place, the law is
nailed to the cross, the death of Jesus
as a divine savior,
as a man god frees us from
from the, bondage, he says, of the law.
But for Christians, if they if they're taking
these statements as divine claims,
before Abraham was, I am, the father and
I are 1, here Jesus is claiming to
be God,
then that trifles
with 1000 of years, thousands of years,
and hundreds of prophets that came from the
Jewish tradition. So why would
why would,
why would Christians expect Jews at the time,
if these are divine claims, to forsake Moses,
the prophets,
all of these prophets of the past, this
monotheistic teaching, this tradition that's been passed down
from generation to generation, forsake all of that
and believe a man who's claiming to be
god.
Okay. So sure. So we we can get
to there's a couple follow ups I have
on that. So
isn't it true that though in the in
the that the Pharisees
condemned Jesus
for blasphemy? That's what a Christian would argue.
Right? So the fact that they condemned him
for it, they would say, well, why are
they condemning him for something?
Like, how would you respond to that? Well,
it kinda depends on what gospel you read.
So in Mark, we're told this is the
earliest of the canonical gospels.
In Mark chapter 15 or chapter 14, we're
told that the chief priest and council tried
to find evidence that would warrant a death
sentence, but failed
to find any.
This is what Mark tells us. They couldn't
even get 2 witnesses to agree, and people
were bringing false testimony.
Right? Mhmm. So what they had to do,
according to Mark, and really according to the
synoptic tradition, and and John hints at this
as well,
they didn't have a
a theological,
basis
for for his execution.
So in front of Pilate, who was the
Roman governor of Judea,
they had to basically
change the charge
from blasphemy,
which is a religious crime,
to sedition, to treason,
or stasis against the state
because they knew that Pilate would not have,
mercy on on enemies of the state.
So
so even if there's even if some of
the Jews claimed, or charged him with blasphemy,
it doesn't mean that he was actually blasphemous
because the
the gospels tell us that people brought false
witnesses against him. And then what is their
definition of blasphemy? I mean, claiming to be
the messiah at the time, maybe they consider
that to be blasphemous because the Jews at
the time were actually waiting for a Davidic
King Messiah.
And I think this whole tradition of a
future Davidic King Messiah,
to come and and basically,
rule the world, I think that entire tradition
is a misreading of scripture.
And I'm I I have a forthcoming
monograph about this where I'm gonna clarify
where this idea of this future universal Davidic
King Messiah comes from.
So and then Christians here, they can't have
it both ways again. Jesus can't be the
Davidic King Messiah
and still maintain that he was born from
a virgin because his father must be from
David, and he doesn't have a father.
So so if Jesus is claiming to be
the Davidic king messiah, which I didn't I
don't believe he ever did. I believed he
I believe that he claimed to be a
type of messiah.
Of course, the Quran calls him.
Right? Mhmm. But if you look in the
Hebrew Bible, there are 3 there are 3
groups of people or 3 types of people
that are all called Messiah.
There are king messiahs.
That's true.
Right?
So you have, for example, David is called
messiah in the Psalms, Solomon.
But you also have gentile king messiahs like
Cyrus, the king of Persia, who's called messiah
in Isaiah chapter 45.
But then you also have priest messiahs like
the prophet,
Elisha
or Elisha,
who's called a messiah. And he's and he's
a sorry.
The sorry. The priest circle is also called
messiah. And then, you have, prophet messiahs like
Elisha.
So there are 3 types of messiahs in
the Old Testament. The question is, which type
of messiah
is Esai, alaih salam? Is he a king
messiah? Obviously not. He did not have a
a kingdom. He did not have power. He
didn't have political power at any time during
his life.
So he can't be a king messiah.
Is he this sort of universal Davidic messiah
to come towards the end of time?
Well, according to Jews, this Davidic king messiah,
he has to perform this kind of laundry
list of tasks in order to be accepted
as the Davidic King Messiah. And Jesus didn't
do that either.
So,
what type of Messiah was he? So, from
our perspective, the way I read the text
is that, Ysal, alaih salam, was a prophet
messiah. He was not a king messiah. He
was not a priest messiah. So so in
other words, Jews
primarily
conceive of the messiah as being a king
who has earthly power.
Christians,
they believe Jesus was the king messiah, but
that that that sort of aspect of his
messiahship will manifest in his second coming.
And that his first,
coming was as primarily a priest messiah,
and a priest offers something. He gives a
sacrifice. And what did Jesus offer according to
the book of Hebrews, which is pseudo Paul
line?
It's we don't know who wrote it, but
Mhmm.
Tradition says it was Paul, that Jesus gave
his own life as a priest. That was
his sacrifice.
And then you have,
our perspective,
which which my contention is that,
that that the type of messiah that Isa
alaihi salam was
was a prophet messiah.
Right? A prophet messiah.
So so the term messiah
is not as clear cut clear cut as
one would think. So if if Jesus is
claiming to be a messiah or the
messiah, what type of messiah?
And also this idea that, you know, he
he
he was convicted of blasphemy, therefore, you know,
he claimed to be God. I mean, that's
a big that's a big leap.
In in in the in the Torah, we're
told that the Israelites,
they tried repeatedly to stone Moses.
You'll read about this in Exodus chapter 17.
So my question to the Christian apologist is,
why was Moses
why are they trying to stone Moses?
Right? Right. Right. Did he commit blasphemy?
Is is that why? Is it for blasphemy?
Maybe maybe from the perspective of those people
that were trying to stone him, and these
are Israelites trying to stone him, maybe he
did maybe he did in their eyes,
commit some sort of blasphemy. But just because
a prophet,
is being
persecuted by by the Jewish Sanhedrin
or Jewish authorities or the Jewish people, doesn't
automatically mean that he's, in reality, committing blasphemy.
Sure. Well, I was gonna ask you this
question near the end, but since it kinda,
right first of all, I think that, like,
when I read your paper, it's,
you know, a lot of what Jesus says
in the gospel of John
can you're you're looking at it at ways
that it can be interpreted in a way
that's,
you know,
that would conform to Islamic monotheism. Right? Yeah.
One thing that you didn't mention, but across
my mind, the whole statement of
before Abraham was, I am.
Right? Yeah. I was like, why wasn't it
before Adam was, I am? I don't know
if you ever thought about that.
Yeah.
So, basically, here, the context this is John
chapter 8. First of all, whenever Jesus says
I am so, again, now we're taking a
perspective.
Okay? So we could sort of clarify our
bearings here.
I'm gonna be speaking from a perspective that
Jesus did in fact make these statements.
Okay? That's the assumption that people need the
first, like Yeah. Well, let's assume it whether
you agree with it or not. Let's be
on the point. Right? Okay. Exactly. Let's let's
just assume that he did make these statements.
So what does he mean by by this
statement? Before before Abraham was I am.
So these I am statements, they have to
be grounded in something. So so the and,
of course, Christians believe here that all of
these statements are divine claims.
So you'd actually have to go to the
the initial or the first I am statement
in the gospel of John.
Okay? So that sort of sets the the
table for us. In John chapter 4, the
woman at the well. So Jesus as at
the is sitting at the well of Jacob,
and the Samaritan woman comes and he engages
with her in a conversation.
And she says and he basically
he basically tells her,
basically, her entire sort of sexual history. You've
had so many men in your life and
so on and so forth, and the man
that you're with now is actually not married
to you. And and then and then she
says, woah. I perceive that you're a prophet.
Right?
And then she says,
we're looking forward to the day of the
Messiah who's going to tell us all things.
And then he says to her,
I am the one who is speaking with
you, in
the Greek.
I am. Right?
The one who is speaking to you.
So the initial I am statement in John
chapter 4 is a claim to be the
messiah.
It's very, very clear. That's the claim.
Not to be God.
Right? Not to be, you know,
some sort of, divine being or anything like
that. So, again, we're assuming that Jesus made
this statement.
We're also assuming
that the text
can be,
as you said, it it can be consistent
with Islamic monotheism.
So those are 2 big assumptions. Right? Right.
So so now in John chapter 8, when
Jesus is debating with the Pharisees,
right, they're saying basically that we're children of
Abraham.
Right? We have we have pedigree,
you know, and they're sort of
insinuating something about him. So they say to
him in John chapter 8, we're not born
from porneias.
That's the Greek word porneias.
Of course, the word * is related to
this. * means to depict adultery. That's literally
what it means.
So, basically, the subtext is you're born from.
You're born from adultery.
And this is a this is a charge
against Isa alaihis salam
that is that is in the Talmud. This
was recorded later in the the Jewish Talmud,
the Babylonian Gomorrah,
that he was born from adultery, that Mariam
alaihis salam committed adultery.
Allah
tells us,
what what they're saying.
So then so then Jesus says to them,
before Abraham was, I am.
So in other words,
even before Abraham was created,
I was decreed to be the Messiah.
So this is a very clever way for
him,
to or very effective way, a hard hitting
way for him
to
to to
defend his his his his authenticity as being
the Messiah. That I was in the plan
of God
as the Messiah even before
Abraham was even created. Mhmm. Right? So, I
mean, if you read our hadith, there's there's
a there's a similar statement
attributed to the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam,
right, which basically says before Adam was, I
am.
Right? I was declared a prophet
when Adam was between the and Jesad.
Right? That I was in the plan of
God. I was in
the the decree of God. Some might even
say, you know, more sort of more mystical
reading of that, that the soul
or the light of the prophet sallallahu alaihi
wasallam was created before the light of Adam
alaihi wasallam.
It doesn't mean
that the prophet is claiming to be God
here.
It's it's
the the actual messiah.
Mhmm. Okay. So so that's one way of
reading it. Right? Yeah. But there are other
ways of reading it. So the Christian way
of reading it is that, no. He says
I am
and and I am is the name that
that God gave to Moses at in Exodus
3 at the burning bush. You know, you
know, I am what I am.
And and maybe that's what John had in
mind. I don't insist
that, you know, the the former the previous
reading is correct.
Maybe that's actually what's going on here. Maybe
he is claiming to be god here.
I mean, that's that's certainly a possibility.
Of course, that would put it into conflict
with with our with our Christology.
So then we'd have to look further at
the at the gospel of John from an
academic standpoint and try to authenticate.
Could could this be authentic,
from a from a historical standpoint?
But the problem again, here, there there are
certain problems that arise for the Christian apologist
even at this point.
So in Exodus,
you know,
Moses says, when I go to the Israelites
and I ask your name, what shall I
say? And then god says
in the Hebrew, which was translated
into the Greek Septuagint. This is before the
Christian era. It was translated by by Jewish
scholars
into the Greek as ego emi, I am,
just means I am.
Ho
on, the one who is.
Right?
So, the the rabbis who understood,
the Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew into
Greek,
understood
that
that the divine name of God
was ho on in the Greek.
Ho is the,
definite article,
and on, which is spelled omega nu,
is the present active participle, meaning the one
who is, the one who is eternal.
So now and we go back to John.
Does Jesus say hoan before Abraham was hoan?
No. He simply says, Abraham
I
am.
I am who?
He doesn't use in other words, he's not
using the exact Greek term that's used in
the Septuagint, which is identified
by the rabbis as being the name of
God.
He simply says, I am.
So we have to find an antecedent in
John in which that makes sense, and we
find it in John chapter 4
that Jesus is claiming to be the messiah
here, not claiming to be God.
I see.
Yeah. Okay. So, like, I I I wanna
so earlier, you had said that okay. So
when you're writing this paper, you're assuming
that
the gospel of John is more or less
in what Jesus has
what Jesus says in the gospel of John,
we would assume that. That's a presupposition we're
gonna make. Right? Yeah.
I had listened to some of your other
I think a recent talk you gave at
MCA,
kinda covering the the gospels,
and,
trying to reconcile it. Because and it seems
to me like this is something maybe you're
going back and forth on. Because when we
did the Mad Mom, Luke's podcast a couple
years ago,
it seemed to me like your position was
that,
the
Injeel is
the 4 gospels, but a, like, a critical,
like, Greek edition.
Not
like, it it it doesn't give the Muslim
the
authority to take, like, the NIV or King
James
and start reading it and saying this is
the either.
Yeah.
But here you're you're kinda alluding to the
fact that, like, oh, there's stuff in John
that probably isn't authentic.
In fact, I think in a recent in
a recent talk you had mentioned that,
you believe that John may have been the
author of John because of its
discrepancy to the Synoptics,
you know, it may even be, like, forged.
Like, what they call it, pseudo figurias. Like,
that's that academic term I just recently learned.
I don't know if I got that right.
But,
what is your actual like, if someone were
to ask if if a Christian apologist were
to ask you, like, on the street, like,
hey, What is your take? Or if they
come up in a debate,
not like all these assumptions aside, but what
is your take on the,
gospels? Because, you know, a lot of Muslims,
and I even on the Mad Men's looks,
I didn't find your view to be like
super I didn't understand why it seemed to
be so problematic for people because
most Muslims would say, well, there's truth in
the Bible.
Or that there is, like,
you know, it's not coming out of thin
air. We believe there was a there at
some point, a revelation.
And it went through this process and this
it is what it what it is right
now. Right? So I just wanted to get
your take just to collect I think some
people may be confused right now,
about what your take is and trying to
differentiate that between maybe what's in your writings
or maybe some previous podcasts you've done.
Yeah. This is a a a bit of
a I can understand why people get confused
Because as an academic, you you sort
of you sort of have to entertain
different premises
and work from there.
So,
so the the premise I took in the
previous
podcast was that the Quran itself
is authenticating
what the Christians call the injil.
And there are certain verses that can be
read,
in the Quran
that support that thesis. And, this is this
is the position of the Imam Al Bukari,
as I mentioned.
Is that my personal view?
At this point, probably
probably not.
And,
so so my my personal view is is
is more sort
of,
gravitating
towards this idea of placing the gospels in
their historical context.
So I'm fine I'm finding this I'm finding
this position to be more convincing.
So, again, people have asked me, why don't
you debate like another Muslim on that issue?
I don't I don't debate Muslims, number 1.
And number 2,
I I'm not absolutely convinced that I'm that
I'm correct on this issue. I don't insist
on being correct. This is what I find
to be most convincing.
Okay. Maybe my view will change later.
What I find to be most convincing, actually,
at this point,
is that the in the gospel for example,
if we look at gospel of John, the
gospel of John is
is a gospel that is highly influenced by
what's known as middle platonism.
Okay. So there's this this philosophy,
this
religious understanding of of Plato's philosophy that was
very prevalent
in the in the Middle East and in
North Africa.
The the chief proponent of it among the
Jewish community was a man named Philo of
Alexandria.
So Philo spoke of,
you know, the one who was God,
who
emanated
or generated,
a a son, and he actually says a
son. And and
and the word that he uses
is is logos. Right? The logos. So this
and the term logos actually goes back all
the way to Heraclitus, a pre Socratic philosopher.
So Philo, a Jewish philosopher, is being highly
influenced by Hellenistic
ideas.
So the logos then
is not
is sort of the
the the son of God in the sense
that he's
he's
generated or begotten of the one. So he's
still divine. He's uncreated. So this begotten,
the the the causation, if you will, of
the logos,
by the one actually happened pre eternally.
Right? So the logos is pre eternal.
However, the logos,
because he is the effect of the the
the cause of the one, the logos is
not ontologically
equal in all respects to the one. He's
an inferior
deity. He's he's divine, but he's a second
god.
Okay?
And then, so, Philo will look at the
old testament.
Again, Philo was a Jewish philosopher. He he
never
saw any of the books of the New
Testament.
And he comes to the conclusion that every
single time of the Old Testament,
the word the God appears in the Greek,
theos,
it's referring to,
it's referring to
the one, the god, the source of everything,
the one who has perfect being.
Right? Whereas, if it's when it says theos
without the definite article,
it's referring to
the logos,
which is a sort of first emanation
of God.
The,
the the son of God, if you will.
Whatever he means by that. Some believe he
means an archangel of some sort,
who's also divine, but not as divine as
the one
who begot him as it were. So a
second god.
And so we we find this idea in
the gospel of John. In the beginning was
the word,
the logos,
and the word was with the God, it
says.
Right?
With a definite article.
Right? So logos was with the god,
in the beginning, so the logos is pre
eternal.
And a god was the word. There's no
definite article,
before the second occurrence of the word god
there. So Christian translations will say, the beginning
was the word, the word was with god,
and the word was god, capital g,
But the Greek,
there, the second occurrence of the word god
lacks a definite article.
So the the logos
is pre eternal.
Right? It's always been there. In the beginning
was the word.
But it is not the God. Right? It's
a separate god. And if you read the
early church fathers
I mean, I mean, this is the this
is the danger of, right, Hellenistic metaphysics, and
this is what Imam al Ghazali recognized
in the in the.
You know, this is what happens when you
when you,
when you when you mix, as it were,
you know, Semitic monotheism with Greek philosophy or
Greek metaphysics. You start saying saying things like,
you know, there
there there there's,
there are multiple persons of God or there
are multiple gods.
So so if you look at the early
church fathers, for example, Justin Martyr, he calls
the word, he calls Jesus, which
means
another god. If you read the writings of
Origen of Alexandria,
who was extremely
prolific, thousands of a 1,000 books,
right, written by Origen of Alexander. He's also
from Alexandria where Philo was from, but he
lived about 200 years later. He calls the
word
deutaros theos, a second god.
Right?
So
so
I think that the gospel of John is
in that sort of
theological or philosophical
school.
I think it is an amalgamation
of Judaism and Hellenistic thought. And I think
that, primarily,
the
the the initial influence comes from Pauline Christology.
So if you read Paul,
it's very clear that
Paul believes Jesus,
to be this
to be this divine
savior, the son of God,
who who,
died for our sins.
And so this is sort of, again, a
recycled mythos.
This was something that was prevalent in the
the ancient pagan religions, this idea of a
divine savior man god.
But I don't believe Paul believes
that
Christ was equal to the father in all
respects. I believe that Paul was
what's known as
a pano theist.
So he believed that there are many gods,
but that there's one sort of major god
and that is the father.
Sure. There's a I think that's the take,
per, that, you know, doctor people Unitarians like
doctor Dale Tuggee or sir Anthony Buzzard
kinda take.
But wouldn't
so the the thing about Paul is Paul
was a Pharisee. Right? So Christians would argue
that
because his conversion is so drastic,
You know, that's kinda where but but to
me, when I yeah. I'm like you. Like,
I'm reading I'm reading the letters and, you
know, it's not
to me, the evidence that Jesus didn't believe,
like, Paul didn't believe Jesus was God, to
me, the what's clear to me is that
if he
did, it was clear, then it wouldn't have
been debated,
like, for a couple 100 years.
Yeah. I don't know if that's a simplistic
way of looking at it, but that's just
kinda as a layman. That's how I look
at it.
I I I believe that Paul
Paul believed that Jesus was a God.
Okay. He was divine,
but he's not the God. Mhmm. Right? He's
not the God. So even in and so
and so John takes cue from that. So
So for example, in John 118, it says,
no one has at any time seen the
god.
That's the one. That's the first level of
being. That's the perfect being in this sort
of middle platonic
scheme. This hierarchy, what's called a hierarchy of
being
or ontological chain of being. No one has
at any time seen the god.
But then he says, but
the
but a an only
begotten
God, it says, who is in the bosom
of the Father, that one reveals him.
Right?
So, in John, Jesus is called theos, which
means a god. There's no definite article,
mirroring what Philo says
about the old testament.
And that Jesus
or the Christ, the logos, is this intermediate
being, that reveals,
the character of the one because the one
is too perfect. He's too great,
to reveal himself directly to creation.
So and Paul was, you know, he was
he was a philosopher. He was, he has
Roman citizenship.
You know, he's he's clearly,
versed in in Greek philosophy.
So I think he took this idea. Now,
what's interesting is if you read the book
of Acts, for example,
which is written by Luke, whoever wrote Luke,
this was probably written around 90, 85, 90,
something like that according to most scholars,
the book of Acts.
It it almost seems like there is a
sort of seamless,
agreement between all of these apostles,
between Peter and James and and Paul.
But I think the best,
the best books of the New Testament
to to read and to analyze in order
to get a grasp of the actual history
of the early church or or Paul's actual
genuine letters,
because they're the earliest.
Right? And, he's, you know, he's writing in
the fifties sixties.
These are before the gospels, probably,
most likely.
So, when you read those letters,
there's there's quite,
a
difference.
There's it's not so seamless as one would
think. Paul
is,
very, very,
much in conflict
with other Christians.
Right?
So, for example, if you read,
you know, the book of Galatians as we
said,
the standard exegesis of Galatians is that Paul
went to Galatia and he evangelized, and he
calls it my gospel.
That's what he that's what he says. Mhmm.
The gospel of me, and he says that
three times in his letters. This is my
gospel. So he's preaching something. So what does
that mean, my gospel? So when someone says
this is my gospel, that means it's over
and against a different type of gospel,
that there's another gospel being preached.
So Paul goes to Galatia
and he teaches them his gospel. And then,
the standard exegesis says that
that that apostles from Jerusalem,
sent by James,
who is a successor of Jesus,
who's you'll notice is written out of the
basically written out of the entire New Testament
Mhmm. Certainly written out of the 4 gospels
for some reason.
That apostles from James, they come into Galatia
and they correct Paul's deviant teachings.
And then Paul sort of catches ear of
this, and then he writes this letter to
the Galatians.
And he says, you know, who has bewitched
you? You know, why do you believe in
this, this this
another gospel that preaches another Jesus.
Didn't I, he says in Galatians chapter 3
verse 1, didn't I portray for you Jesus
as crucified,
Which is a very interesting statement.
So is it possible that these apostles sent
from James
did not even affirm the crucifixion?
Is it is it is it is it
beyond simply, you know, these are judicizers who
are saying you have to be circumcised?
I mean, Paul is vehemently against these people.
You know, at at one point, calling them
super apostles,
you know, in in sort of ridicule.
You know, these are, he says, so called
pillars of the church
and, you know so so Paul's,
Paul's greatest enemies
are actually other Christian missionaries,
and these are being sent by James from
Jerusalem.
Mhmm. So there's major so what I want
to see, and this is what scholars call
for. So so Paul's writing, for example, book
of Galatians in the fifties,
and Paul is saying Jesus was crucified. He
died for your sins.
He's a divine son of God.
All these types of things. And then he's
he calls Peter a hypocrite.
You know, he calls the Jerusalem apostles, so
called apostles.
What what what I wanna see is and,
unfortunately,
there's nothing extant.
But, you know, what were
where are the letters of these other apostles?
Is Paul the only one writing in 50?
What about these other apostles of Jesus? Where
are their writings?
So the Christian will say, well, they're in
the New Testament. Go look at first Peter
and second Peter and first John, second John.
Those are forgeries according to the vast majority
of New Testament scholars. These are written much,
much later. I wanna see letters of apostles
of Jesus that are written contemporary with Paul
or before Paul,
Because the first one in recorded history to
say that Jesus was crucified was Paul.
There's nothing before him. That tells us nothing
about what the actual apostles believed about Jesus'
crucifixion.
Or if he was crucified, what was the
significance of that crucifixion?
Sure. So that's 20 years after
the crucifixion. Right? And Paul wasn't there as
far as I understand. Right? Yeah.
I mean, to to me to me, it's
it it'd be curious to understand, like, Paul's
thought process. Like, it it because it seems
to me, like,
there's gotta be more to it than he
just had a vision.
Yeah. I I think I think he,
I think he had I think he had
some sort of psychological
experience.
I, you know, he was a persecutor of
the early church. So the the
the Jews at the time,
were boasting about killing Jesus. There's no historical
record of that, but this is from our
narrative. And certainly, I don't think this would
be disputed by Christians
that they were boasting that they had killed
Jesus. So so Paul took that as a
fact that Jesus must have been killed.
But I think he had some sort of
experience
where he was convinced that Jesus was the
Davidic King Messiah.
And then being a philosopher, he had to
reconcile these two these two propositions.
Jesus was killed by the Jews. He was
crucified by them. He was probably stoned and
then crucified.
And, there's we can go into, like, you
know, this this sort of historical basis of
that and the the real involvement of Rome
and so on and so forth. But, anyway,
Paul is he's taking this for granted that,
okay, Jesus was crucified. This is what Jews
like me are saying. This is what we're
saying happened to this so called messiah.
But he's also the Davidic king messiah. So
how do I reconcile this? Oh, he must've
so he wasn't he wasn't killed.
He he wasn't he wasn't killed because of
any sins that he did because because
he was the messiah. So he must have
been killed for the sins of others.
So he must have been a savior.
So Paul appeals to this Hellenistic idea of
a dying and rising savior, man god. And
he calls it my gospel. Jesus can remember
Jesus Christ, the seed of David. It didn't
appear like like Paul even believed in the
virgin birth, by the way. Jesus Christ of
the seed of David
was raised from the dead according to my
gospel. That's what he says in his letters.
Right? That's according to the gospel of Jesus.
That's according I'm sorry. According to the gospel
of Paul.
So if you read Galatians, if you read
first Corinthians, if you read second Corinthians, it's
very clear
that
Paul has detractors
that are not, you know, they're not Jews.
They're not pagans. They're actual Christians and a
fundamental difference of opinion
about what actually happened to him.
You know,
some of the scholars there there are some
scholars who believe that the gospel of Thomas,
represents,
many of the traditions found in Thomas's gospel,
represents
earliest Christianity.
And they're in they go into reasons,
for that. But,
but if you read the gospel of Thomas,
you know Aren't there 2 gospels of Thomas?
Yes.
There's an infancy gospel. Okay. Yes. We're, you
know, we're talking about the gospel of Thomas
that was discovered at Nag Hammadi.
Okay. And, again, the reasons why I'll give
you a quick read. The reason why scholars
believe a lot of these statements in Thomas's
gospel go back to the earliest of Christianity
is because it has a lot of statements
in common with q source document that Matthew
and Luke had,
access to, which probably is pre Pauline, but
I don't wanna get too technical. Yeah. But
the gospel of Thomas does not have a
passion narrative.
Whoever wrote Thomas's gospel
either did not either believed Jesus was crucified,
but believed that it had basically zero significance
for us. Sure. Okay?
Which obviously,
is is completely in contrast to Paul's gospel
or did not believe Jesus was crucified,
at all. It's not mentioned anywhere in Thomas's
gospel. In fact, in Thomas's gospel statement number
12,
the disciples come to Jesus and they say
to him, who should we follow after you?
And he says, you must follow James the
just
for whose sake heaven and earth came into
being.
So James, right, he is a successor of
Jesus in Jerusalem,
effectively written out of the New Testament itself.
And this is the person that is constantly
that Paul is constantly in conflict with if
you read his letters.
That men from James are being sent to
Corinth, to Galatia, and God knows where else,
to correct Paul's gospel, his deviant gospel.
So the question is, why are Christians taking
Paul over Peter, Paul over James?
James is the successor of Jesus. The Christian
response is James was an unbeliever
at the time. He didn't actually become
an apostle until after he saw the resurrected
Jesus.
So then why why did the apostles elect
James as their successor, as a successor of
Jesus, if he had very limited contact with
Jesus? He probably didn't know too much about
the gospel, being an unbeliever,
and any other apostle had
more contact with Jesus than James did, including
Judas.
Why would he be elected as as the
leader of the Jerusalem episcopate if he was
an unbeliever at the time?
What's the source that they voted that they
wanted him to be the successor?
Well, this is this is the general understanding
of of Okay. Scholars when we look at
I mean, there's sort of there's something called
the Clementine literature, which sort of represents Jewish
Christianity, but they're written a bit later. Right?
And then, you know, in the book of
Acts, we're told that we're told that James
is the leader of the Jerusalem apostles.
But where is he in the 4 gospels?
You know,
where are his letters and correspondences?
Why is Paul constantly in conflict with men
that are sent from James?
Right. Right. Why is he disagreeing with them?
So so
so, you know, the psychology of Paul is
is is very interesting.
I don't know if there's a good answer
for it,
but certainly, if if if, you know, if
we entertain,
Paul the Christian opinion,
okay. Jesus appeared to Paul,
and told him his his gospel.
Why is Paul now in conflict with apostles
that actually sat with Jesus for up to
3 years?
And if and if Jesus was going to
simply reveal the truth of the gospel to
Paul, what's the point of even training these
apostles?
Right. Right. Why would there be conflict?
Why would there be such massive conflict amongst
them Mhmm. During this early period?
You know? Do you feel that the early
church fathers,
because of their
supposed, like, Hellenistic tendencies,
kind of, like, decided with Paul on that
basis, or do you think there's more to
it? Like, what you know, I again, the
Christian response would be that, listen.
You know, at the end of the day,
what we have is what we have today.
Right? And, you know, the other these groups
and groups that disagreed with
what is the proto orthodox view today, they
don't they don't really exist or there's, like,
real
they're fringe groups today.
You know, and because they're like, back then,
this is what the church fathers examined and
determined to be accurate, and that's what we
got. And that's, you know, that seems to
be logical, but
do you think that those church fathers themselves
are just because of their own biases, like,
sided with Paul, or what what are your
thoughts? Well, well, the thing is, like, I
mean,
which church fathers? I mean,
early Christianity was very much,
was very diverse.
I mean, you had you had, you know,
these sort of proto orthodox church fathers, but
then you had, you know you know, gnostics,
you had Ebionite Christians or Nazarene Christians who
had a more Jewish orientation.
So so Paul's gospel is appealing
because
it's basically blending these Hellenistic ideas with Judaism.
Right? So his gospel of freedom from the
law, you don't have to be circumcised,
and, you know,
the the mitzvot, the commandments of God, are
abrogated.
Paul was very much a supersessionist
in the sense that
the Jewish covenant has been revoked. It's over.
Now we're living in a grace period where
the Messiah died for your sins. All you
have to do is believe in him as
your savior.
So so this this kinda spoke to
the the existing
philosophies and and theological understandings of of the
people at that time.
So so Paul's gospel spread very quickly because,
it was something that
it was something that was that seemed or
sounded familiar to these ancient Greco Roman peoples
living in the ancient Near East.
So so so, you know, if you look
at these early church fathers,
if you read their writings, again, many of
them, by today's standards, would be considered
heretics anyway. I mean, Origen, like I mentioned,
Origen of Alexandria,
you know, his
his contributions
were extremely influential in the development of Trinitarian
theology.
But Origen at 551
of the common era was declared a heretic.
551 is is 9 years prior to the
birth of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. So
9 years prior to the birth of the
prophet, the Christians are still still trying to
work out what is the trinity. What is
our belief?
Origen was okay for 100 of years, but
Origen,
apparently was a subordinationist.
He was in that sort of neo platonic
now,
middle or I should say,
neoplatonic
camp of Plotinus
that you have these three persons of the
godhead,
but there are different ontological
levels of perfection, which is heresy according to
the according to the council of Nicaea's decision
in 325
that the son is hamausias.
He is the same essence,
the exact same level of of perfection as
the father.
So Origen was was,
was
eventually declared to be a heretic.
If you read again Justin Martyr, the father
of Logos Theology,
he calls Jesus another God.
So, I mean, how do you square that
with trinitarianism?
So what Christians want to do is they
want to read the early church fathers and
they read the Old Testament
through the lens of trinitarian
theology.
Right? So that's a form of anachronism.
So they'll read something in the gospel of
John, for example,
the father is greater than I. And you
say, well, how can Jesus be God when
he says the father is greater than I?
Oh, Jesus here. He's talking about,
you know, the father is greater in his
in his person, in his hypostasis, but not
in his because they're
They're using all of these terms that did
not exist at the time
that are the the results of centuries of
debate
and apply them to a text in the
1st century or the end of the 1st
century.
Well, clearly, if you read these texts, they
make sense according to their historical context. The
early church fathers were neoplatonic.
That's where they're getting these ideas from. They
were they were
they were
they were henotheistic.
Right? They believed
in in in in in 3 gods, essentially,
but that the father was the greatest god.
He's the ontological cause of the father and
the son, and that's why there's a hierarchy
in the godhead.
I mean, Paul intimates this in his letters
as well. And, again, Paul is highly influenced
by these ideas. He says that the head
of every woman is the man
and that the head of the man is
Christ
and the head of Christ is God.
That's a hierarchy. He didn't say that the
head of Christ is the father. Because if
he said that, then you can sort of
you can sort of wiggle your way around
that and prove the trinity. But he doesn't
say that the head of he doesn't say
at the head of Christ is the father.
He says that the head of Christ is
God.
Right? The God who is above Christ, who
is another god according,
according to its understanding.
And then in in John itself,
for example, when Jesus says to Mary Magdalene
after his supposed resurrection, I ascend unto my
God and your God,
Jesus has a God? I thought he was
God.
I ascend unto my father and your father.
You can work with that as a trinitarian.
Jesus has a father. He's the son of
God. But then he says, my god and
your god. How can Jesus have a God
if he is a God?
Well, the the the answer is when you
read this text in in its historical context,
Jesus is the logos who is a divine
being. He is a second god
as as
as Philo said about the logos,
as Origen said about the logos, about Jesus,
as Justin Martyr said about Jesus, he is
another god. So what Christians want to do
is they want to apply all of these
late 4th century concepts,
right, and retroactively
apply them to the early church fathers and
the New Testament gospels, and it doesn't quite
work. Sure. One thing I've heard recently that,
you know, if you were some, to a
Muslim who wasn't educated in, like, maybe theology,
I think I heard the that's from doctor
James White. He was like, the idea is
because I think what he tries he's trying
to do is this, that number 1 like,
don't know the triune God's triune nature of
Christianity,
the father, the son, and the holy spirit.
And he's saying that these are pre eternal
like persons. Right? And it's no different than
Allah's names and attributes, so the 99 names.
And so he's like so he tries to
establish, like, can like because he tries to
make this this this,
equate the 2 in a way. Like, oh,
it's just like that, but it's just like
a different have you heard that argument?
Yeah. And where does that fall short? It's
a very common trope. And in fact, the,
the rationalists in our history, they they made
the same claim
about the sifat of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.
So the would say to the
that if you say that god has kalam,
an attribute
of speech, and that it's that it's pre
eternal and uncreated,
then you're doing exactly what the Christians are
doing when they're saying that the logos is
pre eternal and uncreated. What's the difference between
that and Christianity?
So the Martezilah
didn't call themselves Martezilah. That's what Ahlus Sunnah
called them. You know, the the those who
sort of broke off from us. They refer
to themselves as the Ahlus Tawhid
wal Adala, the people of true monotheism
and justice. So the analogy works to a
certain level and then it completely falls apart.
Yes. The Christian Jesus as logos is pre
eternal and uncreated,
and the attribute of Allah is, for for
example, kalam is pre eternal and uncreated.
But Christians believe that the logos in and
of itself is God.
Okay? No Muslim believes that the attribute of
Kalam in and of itself is God.
Right? So the logos by itself
by itself
is is totally God by itself.
Okay?
But with Kalam,
the the Ash'adi theologians, for example, in the
Matuidi, they would say that they would say
that the the attributes of Allah subhanahu wa
ta'ala, they are neither the essence nor anything
other than the essence,
and that separated or disassociated
from god's essence, these sifat have no meaning.
They don't have reality.
You know, they're in a for example. You
know,
omnipotence is not somewhere out there floating around
in the ether. You know, omnipotence only makes
sense when you're describing the essence of God
who is essentially omnipotent.
But what Christians are saying is that the
logos by itself, in and of itself, is
fully God.
Right? So that's very different thing than than
making that than saying that it's a it's
a it's a one to 1,
to to Kalam. It's very different it's very
different idea. Sure. I gotcha. Final question as
we wrap up here.
Earlier, you had touched upon this idea that,
during the time of Jesus, and you're talking
about how,
if Jesus came with this super radical message
that he was God,
how could we expect the Jews to accept
that when they have been trained?
Like, they are hardcore monotheists. Right?
Yeah. So if we look today, and we
are talking to Christians,
and we're Muslims,
and we're like,
now we're telling the Christians
the same thing. Isn't it a, like, a
different angle? You you see where I'm going
with it? We're telling them, like, you got
the wrong idea about Jesus Christ.
And they're real and they, you know, what
you have in the bible, you know, what's
in your in the New Testament and what
the Quran has. They would say, listen, your
book came 500 years after.
You know, there's this huge gap and etcetera,
etcetera.
How do you walk a Christian, like, you
know, someone who's, you know,
now you're doing more dialogue, I would say,
than, like, you know, polemics, so to speak.
But if a Christian's open minded, how do
you walk them through this process
to, like,
help them understand at least our point? You
know what I mean? That Yeah. Again, I
I would say that I would appeal to
research the history.
Most Christians are under the impression.
They they take it as a
as an absolute fact that Jesus claimed to
be God. They take it as an absolute
fact that the four gospels represent his literal
words that they're inerrant,
that they're that the all of all of
the apostles, the early apostles of Jesus,
they all believed seamlessly
in his deity.
They believed in the trinity.
So I I think the answer here lies
in looking at these things through historical lens,
like presenting things academically to them
and saying that, look, There were different types
of Christians early on.
And,
I mean, this whole idea you know, this
came 500 years later. If the truth comes
to you and it's true, you should embrace
it no matter when it comes.
You know? I mean, yeah. Jesus from a
Christian perspective, Jesus came 1300 years after Moses.
You know. So can you imagine, like, the
Jews at the time saying, why should we
believe you? You're claiming to be God. You
came 1300 years after Moses. They I mean,
I can use the same argument
against the Christians. The point is, if something
is true,
one should embrace it no matter what time
it is. So we actually have a very
coherent
explanation
as to what happened with Christianity.
And this comes from our primary source, the
Quran.
What happened with Christianity?
The the Quran tells us that that,
that,
Isa alaihis salam,
he, he asked, man Ansari who's going to
be my helpers to do the work of
Allah
and the disciples, the those are the original
apostles.
They said, we will be your helpers. And
then Allah says to us and then one
group from Bani Israel believed and another group
disbelieved.
Right? And then we gave victory to the
group that believed over their enemies in the
sense that according to mam al Razi, the
meaning of that is that that the final
revelation of God, the Quran came and confirmed
that Christology,
of the early Hawarion.
So that's that's an interesting argument the Quran
is making, and the Quran is that's really
a historical argument that the Quran is making.
That very early on, even during the apostolic
time, there were 2 groups of Bani Israel.
1 was upon the path of Isa alaihi
salam, and one was upon the path of
Kufur.
Right? Okay. And we see that with with
with Pauline Christianity, who's a Jew. He's from
Bani Israel, a Benjaminite Pharisee,
right,
who's teaching this this false Christology.
And even according to his own words, his
enemies are preaching another Jesus, another gospel. And
who and who are the his enemies?
According to the text, these are judicizing Christians.
In other words, these are these are,
believers into they're Jews who believe in Jesus,
who are fundamentally opposed
to the gospel of Paul,
who are, again, coming into these cities in
Paul's wake and creating and and and and,
correcting,
the the deviant teachings
of Paul and his adherents.
So the so our basis is the Quran.
The Quran tells us that Isa
never claimed to be God.
Right?
But rather, he said,
be lordly.
You know, this this, you know, be be
reflections
of of of the divine character.
So,
you know, we we we can use this
verse as a basis to demonstrate to the
Christian
that
that, you know, to to be more critical
when it comes to the
the the Christian sources. That, you know, what
would Jesus actually mean that he's God in
this context?
You know? And it's interesting. I mean, doctor
James White, he says, you know, when we
say to him, you know, Jesus in Matthew,
he says he doesn't know the day of
judgment.
And then his response was to quote Paul
from Philippians where, you know, the sun emptied
himself and became a servant.
And so he limited himself. That's his response.
The sun limited himself.
And so, that's why he didn't know the
day of judgment.
So then why would it it so why
why why would the Jews then believe his
claim to be god if he's limited? What
makes him god then?
You know, he goes around saying, I'm god,
and then the Jews say to him, when's
the day of judgment? I don't know.
So then what's the point of that? That's
a self defeating argument. Why should they believe
he's god then if he can't demonstrate omniscience?
Mhmm. So it doesn't make any sense. There's
no good reason to believe that Isa alaihis
salaam is God based on based on the
gospels. Sure.
He doesn't know the day of judgment. He
he he prays to God.
He he says that he has a God.
Right? I ascend unto my father and your
father. My God and your God. My God.
My God. Why hast thou forsaken me? Sure.
You know, this type of thing. The whole
idea of the victory, though, the Christian's argument
is, like, well, the fact that you have
the majority of the world today
is I mean, well, I mean, I don't
know what the percentages are these days, but,
like, the conversions that happened after, etcetera,
you know,
like, both arguments are some of these points
both I I think on both sides from
a layman's point of view, if you're looking
at Neutral league, kind of
they're both loose. You can you know, it
it seems like a lot of things can
be rationalized
either way.
You know what I mean?
Yeah. I mean,
the largest religious group in the world is
That's
number 1. I mean, we tend to lump
all the Christians together.
You know, protestants and Catholics, they have major
differences of opinion.
Right. You'll hear protestants to say that the
pope is the antichrist.
You know? Right. So they have massive tension.
And this is what the Quran tells us,
you know, that Allah says that he made
a covenant with the Nasar of the Nazarenes,
the original Christians,
who called
Nazarenes. But then they neglected a portion of
the message that they were reminded of, so
Allah
put enmity,
a Dawah, between them until the day of
judgment. And you see that today. So, again,
don't think that this is some seamless monolith
called Christianity, and they're all saying the same
things, and they all they all love each
other. I mean, just, you know, there's, I
mean, look at Mormon theology.
Right. Very, very interesting. Look at Jehovah's Witness
Theology,
diametrically
opposed to Mormonism. And you have the Trinitarian
somewhere in the middle. The largest group of
the largest united group
that that espouse a
a a a coherent theology is. So,
I
mean, if they wanna play the numbers game,
we could play the numbers game. But I
don't think that's a good argument because at
some point, Christians will concede
that that, you know, Jesus and the few
people that witnessed the resurrection,
they knew the entire truth and the entire
world didn't know it. You know? Mhmm. Right.
That's how it was at some point. Sure.
Absolutely. If you look at the spread of
Islam initially,
scholars to this day have no idea
how Islam spread as fast as it did
initially. The old tired argument
was that you have these Arab hoards, you
know, these Muslim hoards that are charging through
the desert with their swords and they're slaughtering
everyone. Nobody believes in that narrative anymore. Not
even Norman Giesler of answering Islam believes in
that narrative anymore. His explanation now is the
Muslims had,
they they charged lower taxes
on the Christians in the Roman provinces, and
they had a they had more they had
more,
emphasis on brotherhood than the Christians did at
the time. That's his that's his opinion.
Even someone like Fred Donner, University of Chicago,
he has this radical view that the early
Muslims were actually Christians and Muslims, and they
were together,
and that's why, you know, they were able
to spread the faith so widely. They weren't
actually known as Muslims at the they were
known as Muslims, but it they weren't they
weren't no they weren't the same Muslims that
we have today, where they make a distinction
between Muslims, you know, followers of the prophet,
and Christians. They were they were kinda like
this big Abrahamic movement.
Where is the evidence of this,
I mean, this this type of radical revisionism?
This is coming from a university professor at
at Chicago who's who's pretty good scholar.
But but this and, you know, the Quran
was put together years later, and there's
very,
very sparse evidence of that any of this
is true. I mean, you talk about holes
in the narrative.
There's there's there's a narrative that looks like
Swiss cheese if you ask me.
The the the narrative the Muslim narrative,
are the con the confessional narrative is the
most coherent. And this is something that,
that the authors of the history of the
Quran, which the seminal Western text,
of Islam and European scholarship is called the
history of the Quran by Theodore Noldeke.
And in that text, they they say that
the strongest
the strongest argument for the the promulgation
and canonization in the Quran comes from Muslim
sources itself, and they take it for granted.
There are no holes in our narrative.
Mhmm. Absolutely.
Yeah. So they they can't account for how
this how this religion just spread across the
world as they they can't say because this
was Tawfiq from Allah
and this is the dean of Allah and,
you know, you know, it was guarded by
Allah and, you know, people accepted it because
it was the truth, and this is something
that they were looking for. They can't say
that. Well, some people just say it's it's
just the devil. It's the devil's work. It's
some Pentecostals would say to my Pentecostal brethren.
Lastly, what what do you got coming up?
Anything you're working on?
Yeah. I'm I'm working on a, a short
monograph,
on,
our our Christology. So I'm I'm trying to
basically clarify what is the what is the
Christology of the Quran. What is in other
words, what does the Quran say about who
the Messiah was? Who what was the Messiah
in essence?
And then who was he.
Right? And then I'm also doing in that
in that text also, I'm looking at I'm
comparing it to,
Jewish messianism
or Jewish Christology and and Christian Christology,
and
and doing a bit of apologetics and,
because there are certain points that are are
brought up by by Jewish scholars about the
role of the Messiah in according to scripture
and,
and obviously, by Christians.
So
they'll point to things like Isaiah chapter 53
or Psalm 22. The Messiah was supposed to
be crucified. He died for your sins. These
things are in scripture. So I'm looking at
these things through a more critical lens and
just clarifying our Christology,
in in light of these things. Alright. And
then at at Zaytun, are you guys are
doing everything on Zoom right now, right, as
part of your student classes,
or is it
Yeah. No. Yeah. We're we're online on Teams.
Okay. Probably for next who knows?
It seemed like it was 1 year. Maybe
it'll be another who knows? We'll we'll see
how that goes. Well, doctor Adlietay,
again, it's a pleasure to have you on.
You know,
and you know, you're not on social media,
so I just tell people just to Google
you.
Yeah. Or people just you know, what happens
is people reach out to me and they're
like, hey, you know, he mentioned something. Can
I get his, like, paper? And I'll ask
you for it, and then we'll forward it
on that way or something. But Yeah. There
do you have a website on Zaytuna's,
website that you'll stays updated, or is it
pretty much, like, just Google, yeah, and see
what see what pops up? Pretty much. Yeah.
Just Google me. But I'll let you know
when when the book comes out, Inshallah.
Probably by next summer. Okay. I'll have a
good
I'll have a a a pretty
final draft of it going. So we'll see
how it goes with that. Alright. Sounds good.
I think I think that'll clarify a lot
of a lot of points, and
it'll be helpful.
Absolutely. Alright. Well, for our special guest, doctor
Ali Atay, I'm your host, Mahinde, the podcaster,
signing off for Sultans and Sneakers.