Ali Ataie – Understanding Christian Theology
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
We're going to read this pre read, which
is universally accepted amongst,
Trinitarian Christians,
amongst the
Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, as well as
Protestants.
All of them affirm,
this creed.
And like I said, there's we only have
now less than an hour, so there's no
time to get into, like, the history of
Christian,
especially the first three centuries,
and not a lot of time to get
into, refutations and things like that, but we
are going to simply read these and do
a little bit of commentary on them. It's
very important for us to understand exactly what
Christians believe,
so that we won't,
assume,
incorrect things and then simply build straw men.
So beginning with this,
creed here,
this is the creed that was, like I
said, ratified 325 of the Common Era after
the Council of Nicaea. This was the first
ever
ecumenical
church council,
the creedal exposition of the faith by the
318
fathers, who are the church, the church bishops,
the Christian bishops that attended the council.
So the bishops
begin by saying,
we believe in 1 God,
the Greek says this the Greek is the
original,
So we believe in 1 god, the father,
who is the creator of all.
In the Latin translation,
if you'll notice, the word is which
means the omnipotent.
It continues, the maker of all things seen
and unseen.
And we believe
in 1,
and the word here is Kurian,
which is translated as Lord. The word Kurian
is a bit ambiguous.
It's used in the New Testament,
for,
God, but also for human beings.
The word Kurian could mean master or teacher
or even rabbi.
Certainly, here in the Nicene Creed, the authors
of the creed meant it, as a way
of saying god,
and we'll see that, in a minute.
But this is a common juxtaposition you'll find
in Christian literature
of God the father
father and the Lord
Jesus Christ. This is a juxtaposition you find
in a in epistles,
in the New Testament, letters written by Paul,
where where God equals the father and lord
is Jesus Christ.
And Paul actually most likely meant,
this juxtaposition
as a way of demonstrating that they are
actually unequal,
that they're not the same,
that Jesus is not, or Jesus Christ is
not equal, to God,
but is,
somehow,
divine nonetheless. It's very difficult to
wrap our hands around exactly what Paul is
saying about Jesus, what exactly is his Christology.
Is he saying that Jesus is not god?
Is he saying that he is God in
some some way, but it's a limited way?
Or are you saying that he is in
fact God and he's the same
essence as, the father? There's different ways of
reading,
Paul.
But here in the the Nicene Creed,
God the father and the lord Jesus Christ
are or will be, you'll see,
equalized
explicitly.
So this is what Christians believe.
Christians believe
that,
the son of God is God, essentially.
So he continues here.
They continue saying in the creed,
the son of god,
in the Greek, which means,
this is from in the son is from
the essence.
The essence of,
the father. The the word here for essence,
ousios,
is not a biblical term,
but it's the word that the early church
fathers,
use to denote God's essence.
Right? So when we talk about Trinitarian theology,
we're talking about one essence of God.
Right? God is one essence, but he has
3 persons,
3
particulars.
1,
that
is shared by 3 hypotheses.
Those are the Greek terms. If we're to
translate that into English, one essence or one
nature that is shared,
by 3
separate and distinct persons.
Right? So it's important for us to get,
this distinction between nature
or essence and person,
or you can say,
universal and particular.
Right? So, for example, let's imagine
that,
there are only 3 species of shark. Right?
There's a great white shark. There's a hammerhead
shark,
and there's a tiger shark.
So all 3 of them are essentially shark.
Even though the great white shark doesn't have
a head like a hammer, it doesn't make
him any less
shark.
Nothing of his sharkness
is deprived,
right, by not having a hammerhead. He is
a 100% shark.
So all 3 are shark 100%
in essence, but they are also 3 particulars
who are different.
Right? So the 3 persons of the trinity
are not the same person. They're 3 separate
persons,
3 separate particulars,
but they share the same essence.
Right? So that's that's an important,
distinction.
But going on here,
they continue to,
as we said, begotten of the father uniquely.
This is from the essence of the father.
And then they go on to describe
who is the son of god. Right? Because
the issue at Nicaea
was,
the son of god. Who is the son
of god? Is the son of god
somehow ontologically inferior to god the father,
or is he god the father?
So there are 2 camps represented at the
Council of Nicaea. Again, this is the first
ever, ecumenical
church council
held in the early 4th century.
Now mind you, by this time,
there were no more, you know, what what
are known as judicizers or or Jewish Christians.
You know, the first Christians,
they were, not Christians at all. They were
actually a sect of Judaism who happened to
believe
that Isa, alaihis salam,
was the messiah,
in some sense, and that he was a
prophet. And there's different names that that are
given in early literature
for this group. One of the names is
the,
which is Hebrew, the Nazarenes.
And it seems like the Quranic
epithet for Christians, Anasara,
is related to
the the word.
And why they called the Nazarenes? It's because
Aesalai Salam was raised
in a city called Nazareth, which is in
the north
of Palestine in the province called Galilee.
The early Christians were also called Evunim,
which
means something like the spiritual paupers
or the poor people.
But nonetheless
so here in the creed, we have,
that so, basically, what I was I kinda
lost my trail of thought there. At the
council of Nicaea,
you don't
have,
Ebionite or Nazarene representations
of Christians
that have some authority in the empire,
that have difference of opinion regarding
the ontological status of the son of god.
On one side, you have Arius of Alexandria
who did not believe
that,
that the son of god was
divine in the sense that he was equal
to god the father.
Now there's a lot of speculation about Arian
Christology.
We don't really know what Arius really believed
about the son of God, but it appears
as if Arius believed that the son of
God was
a created entity
and totally,
ontologically,
that is to say, essentially
inferior to god the father. So he's representing
one side. And then you have Athanasius on
the other side,
who is representing the position
that the son of God is in fact
God the son. Right? That the father and
the son are equal, essentially. And then they
took a vote at the Council of Nicaea,
very democratic
that indeed, the vote favored
the latter position of Athens, and so the
son of God officially became,
God the son.
And, of course, Krish believed that whatever,
dogma is hammered out or is produced
at these ecumenical church councils, and, of course,
NICE being the first one, whatever dogma comes
out of these councils,
considered to be actually infallible,
right, and binding
believe in.
Every Christian has to believe
that the Son of God is equal to
God the Father.
Since we have the statement here
in the Nicene Creed about the son of
God that says,
god from god,
phos,
light from light,
you know,
Right? You guys see that true god from
true god. And then that,
begotten not made.
What does that mean, begotten not made? So,
again, here at fathers,
the bishops are talking about the son of
God, that he's begotten. What does it mean?
What do they mean by begotten?
Well, here they don't mean anything physical. They
mean generated or caused naturally.
That the son of God,
was caused by the Father. Right?
So they they freely say that the Son
is the effect, and the call and the
Father is the cause.
Now logically speaking, an effect is always after
the cause.
Right?
In earthly relationships,
son is always after the father in temporality
because the father causes the son. Trinitarian
exegetics,
Trinitarian theologian did say,
that there is,
no time between the father and the son.
That even though the
father is the of the son,
the father does not have a temporal precedence
over the son. Why? Because the son was
begotten, the father was caused or generated
in preternality,
right, before
time.
Right?
So the father does not have
temporal,
precedence,
over the son,
nor does the father
have
ontological
superiority
over the son. Why?
Because when the father generated the son or
when the father caused the son, and they
use that word begotten, when the father begot
the son in pre eternality,
The father begot the son from his own
essence, from his own us, that term again,
essence or substance.
So then the son is exactly equal to
the father even though the son is caused
by the father.
And this is a a bit of a
a paradox,
in their theology. So
but this is something they believe in. Begotten
not made means the Son is cause. Naturally,
the Son was not willed into existence. This
is not a trinitarian belief.
In other words, because when god will something
into its existence, it means that,
this thing was created by god. Right?
So, for example, in Arabic, the word sha'a,
the verb verb sha'a you sha'u
is related to the noun.
Right?
A is something that is willed into existence.
Right? The word is related to the word
will.
But for Christians, the son of God
is not willed into existence. In other words,
he's not created.
Right?
So it's not like,
in Judaism
where or in Islam where everything other than
God is willed into existence because it is
created.
In Trinitarian Theology,
the son of God
is not willed to exist. He always existed.
Right? It is just part of the nature
of God,
they say,
to be a father. Right? There was never
a time when he was not a father.
Arius actually had to position, you know, the
position that was defeated at Nicea.
He called the son of God by the
Greek,
which
means the best of creation.
So it seems again, we don't really know
exactly, but it seems like the position of
Arius
that was who was defeated at the council
of Nicaea by Athanasius
and the proto praetarians,
it seems like his position was that the
son of god was in fact created and
willed into existence.
So that's
the the Neoplatonists,
and,
I recommend people,
you
know, conduct further research and studies into early
Christian origins
and the,
incredible influence of a philosophy known as Neo
Platonism,
upon the early Trinitarian,
thinkers.
There are certainly very clear parallels between,
Plotinus' thinking,
the founder, if you will, of Neo Platonism,
and the early, Trinitarian,
theologians, especially the Cappadocians
and Athanasius and, Augustine of Hippo.
But the one point of difference between,
Trinitarian theology and Neoplatonic
theology, if you will, is that the Neoplatonists,
they said that the second emanation of God
that they call the logos,
right, the word,
was the result of a sort of involuntary
spillage of light,
without really god's concern.
So the the Christian position is certainly not
that.
In other words, the son was not caused
by the father
due to
some involuntary emanation.
And at the same time, the son was
not caused by the father,
through an act of will. In other words,
the son is not created.
Right?
Both of these positions, the what you can
say is sort of the Jewish position as
well as a neoplatonic position,
with respect to the, quote, unquote, origins of
the sun are rejected by Christians.
Their position is that,
the sun,
always existed
and that God is just naturally a father,
and he always was a father. And And
even though the father caused the son,
there was never a time when this when
the father existed and the son,
did not because the father begot the son
in pre eternality
from his own essence.
I know that's a bit confusing, but watch
this over again and meditate on it,
and it'll sink in a bit more.
If you're interested in a quick sort of
a great book on this that's short and
and doable is Tormo Tuum, t o o
m, Tormo Tuum, classical Trinitarian theology, an excellent
resource.
But continuing here,
so God from God so they're again, they're
talking about the Son of God here. He's
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God, and then that
famous phrase, begotten, not made. So again, begotten,
not made. What does that mean? It means
that he was caused
not created.
Right? The son of God is uncreated.
Here we're talking about the son of God
in the sort of celestial realm of things
or what you might say,
in the in the world of universals,
as someone like Plato might have said. We're
not talking about the physical body of Jesus
Christ. Obviously, that was created. That was flesh
and blood. So that's a separate issue. We're
not saying that Jesus Christ as a as
a man is uncreated.
That's not what Christians believe. The body of
Jesus Christ, the flesh and blood is certainly
created.
We're talking about the instance that incarnated
into
the flesh.
You know, if you studied
platonic metaphysics, Plato has this idea of it
of the divided line, that everything above
the line is in the world of universals
and particulars and immutables and everything below the
line is particular and created
and mutable.
Right? So the body of Christ, the physical
body of Christ is below Plato's divided line.
It's certainly flesh and blood. It's mutable. It
aged. Right?
It could be hurt,
but his essence is from,
the celestial realm.
Okay.
And then you have this very, important term
here in the creed.
The Greek is
but I've translated it as
cosubstantial,
cosubstantial
with the father. So what does
mean? Again, this term is not biblical.
You won't find it in the New Testament.
So these are sort of Greek philosophical
terms,
that were used,
by
the proto orthodox church fathers
in order
according to them as as relating what they
believe to be true about what the New
Testament is teaching.
So chamaousian
christolo.
Right? This is the position of trinitarians.
Right? It literally means
amin, same,
and then usian
or usios. There's that term
essence,
same essence Christology,
you know, comes from Christos and Lagos,
basically belief about Christ.
So homoousian
Christology
is basically this belief that
the the son of god,
is
of the same
exact essence as the father.
Right?
And there are different types of Christologies.
You also have something called
which looks the same as
but there's an iota in there, the Greek
letter iota that makes a world of difference,
which
Christology means,
similar essence. So not quite,
but,
somehow less. There's been sort of a privation
of perfection,
but still
possibly a divine
being. So that's that's not the position of
the of the, trinitarians.
And then, of course, you have heteroousian.
Hetero. Right? Hetero means other.
Other essence Christology.
This is a position of Arius.
This is a position of, like, Jews, right,
when it comes to,
the Messiah, although Jews don't believe that,
Isa alaihi salaam was the Messiah.
They believe that the Messiah is yet to
come, but the Jews do not believe that
the Messiah will be a divine being. Right?
The Messiah's essence is other than that of
God. The Messiah will be created.
What's going on here with this with the
Internet connection?
Okay. So to continue,
we were talking about
cosa
cosa substantial with the father,
through whom all things in heaven and earth
became.
So this is the Christian position that all
things were created through the word of God,
through the logos. By the way, logos or
word of God is another way of saying
the Son of God.
Right? Those two terms are interchangeable.
And then he says or they say, the
one, meaning the son,
who for the sake of us human beings
and for the sake of our salvation
came down and became
flesh
and dwelled in man.
Right? So here, the term,
right,
in the in the Latin,
incarnatus
est, right, incarnation.
So in obviously means in and in Latin
means meat or flesh.
So became flesh. So this is a Christian
belief now
that the second person
of the trinity, right, the son of god,
also called the logos,
the one who was caused, that is to
say, begotten from the essence of the father
before time,
at some point in history,
came down into,
he into into his creation
and assumed human flesh,
right, as Jesus of Nazareth,
as Isa alaihis salaam,
according to,
the Christians.
And he says here again, the one for
who, the sake for the sake of us
human beings and for the sake of our
salvation,
came down and became flesh and dwelled in
man.
Right?
Suffered and rose on the 3rd day.
So the question is, why did God become
a man?
You know, this is a belief that, obviously,
we would repudiate,
not only us.
This is a belief that Jews,
find
absolutely
blasphemous.
It's very interesting that Christians believe
that their theology can be grounded in the
Old Testament. Of course, the term Old Testament
is also
Christian terminology.
You know, Jews don't like the term Old
Testament.
It implies that their scripture is superseded or
abrogated.
And in fact, it is from our position.
But,
the term that they prefer, that Jews prefer
is Tanakh.
And in the Tanakh or the, we can
say, Hebrew Bible,
you can even call it the Torah if
you want. Well, I'll call it the Tanakh.
In the Tanakh, it's very, very clear,
in several places that God is not a
man.
Right? Just to give you one quick reference,
Numbers 23/19.
So the book of Numbers is in the
first 5 books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers.
So it's the 4th book of the Pentateuch,
the 4th book of the Torah, what Jews
and Christians believe was revealed to Musa alaihis
salaam.
There's a lot of questionable things in the
Pentateuch from our perspective,
but numbers 23/19
is just there's a there's a 3 word
phrase there, lo ish eil, which is Hebrew,
which means God is not a man.
Right?
God is not a man. So this idea
that this Christian idea that is laid out
here in the in the Nicene Creed
that God,
incarnated into human flesh,
is, absolutely,
considered to be,
blasphemy
according to
Jewish authorities,
according to Jewish theology.
But why did God have to do that
from the Christian perspective?
Well, according to the Christians,
the old covenant,
right, that
the Mosaic covenant, that if you obey God
and fulfill his commandments, then he will forgive
you.
God, in effect, changed his mind,
and decided to go with a new covenant.
And the new covenant
was quite radically different than the old one,
and this is something that is
mentioned by Paul. So,
this is very important that I would say
that probably
the principal founder of Trinitarian
Christianity
is in fact Paul.
Most of Christianity
as we know it is based on the
teachings and writings
of Paul and not the teachings of Isa,
alaihis salaam,
not even the teachings of Isa, alaihis salaam
according to the 4 canonical gospels.
So this idea of a savior man god,
a dying and rising
savior man god.
Right? This was a very prevalent belief in
the ancient Near East, in the Mediterranean
around the time of Paul.
So this is, this appears to be a
a motif that he incorporated
in order
to explain what he considered to be the
message of Isa alaihi salam, that now we
need a savior to die for our sins.
And that's the only way to sort of
reconcile ourselves,
to,
to god.
Yeah. And, set yeah. There's a there's a
good book. There's a there's a comment here
in the chat box. There's a book by
Kersey Graves, and there's some of the historical
issues with this text. It's an old text,
but it's called The World
The World's 16 Crucified Saviors. And in this
text, he goes on to document how
this idea, this motif
of a dying and rising savior man god
is quite common,
in the ancient world.
Right?
You you see it
in several
around the world.
And what what Paul did basically is that
he gave it sort of a Jewish makeover.
And, again, he Paul uses it to explain
what he believes to be the gospel.
Right?
So before Christianity, you had, you know, Osiris,
a a a deity who was worshiped in
Egypt. You have Adonis in Syria.
You have Romulus in Rome, Zalmoxus
in in Thrace,
Inanna,
an ancient Sumerian,
goddess, Mithras, the Persian,
sun god.
All of these were considered savior gods. All
of them were called the sons of God,
not the God, but the son of God.
So these religions were all sort of henotheistic.
Right? They believed in the multiplicity of gods,
but there was sort of one major god.
All of these,
gods under underwent some sort of
a passion.
All of them obtained victory over death.
So this idea of a dying and rising
savior, man, God, this is not something new.
This is a recycled
mythos
that Paul incorporates
into his understanding,
of of the gospel. Right?
That the Christians say that the Christ is
the son of god the son of god.
Right? This is something that they utter with
their mouths. In this, they but imitate what
the unbelievers of old used to say. This
is just a recycled mythos.
You see, Hellenistic,
religion,
Greco Roman religion tended to be syncretistic.
It would take elements from different religions. It
would mix and match
different elements.
So for example, the cult of Mithras, the
Persian sun god,
is really an amalgamation
of
of Hellenistic and Persian elements.
The cult of Dionyses
was an amalgamation
of Hellenistic
and Phoenician elements.
So Pauline Christianity
is really an amalgamation
of Hellenistic
Greek and Jewish beliefs
creating a new hybrid religion
called Christianity.
Right?
So, certainly, this idea of a,
of a
incarnating savior man god dying for the sins
of humanity. This has nothing to do with
Judaism.
This is held in anathema by by Jewish
authorities. I mean, it's it's kofor
to the 10th degree.
Right? God becoming flesh.
The messiah was
divine. He was god. And then he kills
himself essentially
for the sins of mankind, that god can
die.
Very, very strange,
for for
for Jews. This is why essentially,
this is essentially why
most Jews
in the late 1st century and going into
the early 2nd century, the vast, vast majority
of Jews did not become
Christian,
because by that time,
Pauline influence had infiltrated so many of the
the church congregations around the ancient Near East,
that it's just impossible for a Jew to
accept that another Jew was god and that
God died.
Right? It's just impossible. It's inconceivable
for a Jew to accept that.
Okay.
And then he continues to say they continue
to say, suffered and rose on the 3rd
day, ascended into heaven,
and will come to judge the living and
the dead.
So here we have what's known as a
reference to the parousia,
the second coming of Jesus.
So here is the sort of Jewish argument.
The Jews have all of these prophecies in
the Hebrew Bible about what they believe to
be the coming of the future Davidic king
messiah,
that this messiah will have power on the
earth,
that he will,
he will gather the,
the remnant of Israel and Judah and gather
them back into Palestine,
that,
he will, basically be the king of the
world. He will spread knowledge to every nation.
He will have earthly dominion.
He will be from the seed of David,
and he will rebuild the temple.
Right?
And
Isa, alayhis salam, did none of these things.
So the Jewish response is, well, he can't
be the Messiah.
Right?
So the Christian response is,
well, he's going to do those things, but
he's gonna do them in the second coming.
Now what is the Muslim position? Because the
Muslims call the Quran calls Isa al Masir,
which means the Messiah.
However, I would argue that this whole idea
of a Davidic king messiah to come at
the end of time was going to rule
the world.
This is a this is a fabrication in
the Old Testament. All of those texts that
talk about
a coming future Davidic messiah,
They're either talking about Hezekiah, which was an
ancient Jewish king,
or another king, or their fabrications
that were written during the exilic or post
exilic period that simply did not come true,
which exposes them as false.
But that's a different that's a different story.
But just to say for now that that,
that Christians believe in the second coming
of.
And then at the very end of this
paragraph, they say, and we believe in the
Holy Spirit. So they threw in the Holy
Spirit at the end here.
Again, this council of Nicaea is not really
dealing with the Holy Spirit at all.
That's not going to come until the next
ecumenical church council in 381
of the common era.
But for now in 325,
the issue is who is the son of
God? And then there's a second paragraph here
in the Nicene Creed
that says, and those who say and the
Greek says,
There was a time when he was not.
Right? So now the the,
the proto trinitarian
bishops are quoting their theological
opponents.
Who are they? The Arians
who took the position that there was a
time when the sun did not exist. The
s o n, the son of god did
not exist.
Right?
There was once when he did not exist.
In other words, the Arians appeared to have
said that the sun does not have essential
pre eternality,
that the sun is is inferior to the
father in his essence.
And before being begotten, before being caused, he
was not. That's also the Arian position, and
that out of nonbeing, he became.
Right? So
the the trinitarians
here are saying or at least the proto
trinitarians are saying that anyone who says that
the son of god,
came out or was caused by non being,
in other words, ex nihilo,
that the son of God was created out
of nothing,
that person who says that according to the
creed
is,
accursed and anathematized
is the actual
Greek term. Anyone who says the son of
god is created,
changeable, or alterable,
all,
these people we consider to be,
accursed and anathematized.
So in other words, they're pronouncing takfir
upon those who say that the son of
God is is created,
ex nihilo, he's created out of nothing.
Right?
So that's that's the Nicene Creed.
Now
the
second part here is a a slight revision
of the Nicene Creed.
It's called the Nicio Constantino
Politan
Creed,
that was ratified 3.81
of the common era. And if you look
at that creed here,
and this was, again, 381. The emperor was
Theodosius, a 150
church fathers.
It's basically the same as the Nicene Creed,
but they did add a few things. And
so now this is the first true Trinitarian
creed right here. The
Niceno Constantinopolitan
Creed of 381
is the first true, because all
three principles,
all all three persons
of the trinity now are dealt with, the
father, son, holy spirit. So you can see
the trinity did not crystallize
into
what it is today until 381
of the common era. That's a long time.
Right?
So what did Christians believe in the 2nd
century? What did they believe in the 1st
century?
According to historians,
as I said, the first Christians were not
actually called Christians. They were Jews,
but they happen to believe
in the messiahship of the Israelite sallam. They
were Jews. They followed the mitzvot, the Jewish
law. They worshiped in the synagogues.
Right? They kept the kosher laws.
They were completely outwardly and inwardly Jews. The
only difference is that they believe that Isa
alai sallam
was the Messiah.
So we've gone from that now to 381
BCE
sorry. 381 of the common era,
where,
you have,
3 persons of a godhead,
the father, the son, and the holy spirit.
So this creed begins the same way as
the Nicene Creed. We believe in one God,
the Father, the creator of all, the maker
of heaven and earth, and all things seen
and unseen. That's the same language as Nicaea.
And we believe in 1 lord Jesus Christ,
unique son of God. They did add this
thing here, the one begotten from the father
before the ages.
So that's new that they
modified here in the in the creed of
381.
The one begotten, the one generated or caused
from the father before all the ages. So
here, they're not saying,
they're not they're not stressing,
simply the the the pre eternality of the
sun. Right? I mean, that could probably be
that that was probably the Arian position. In
other words, the son of god was created
before time, but he's still created.
He just happens to be the first thing
created.
So he's pretemporal,
but that that does not mean he's pre
eternal. He doesn't have a divine attribute.
In other words, he still possibly could not
have existed.
Right? The one who has preternality
has necessary existence.
Right?
That's that's God. That's Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala.
That would be the father in heaven to
use the Christian terminology.
The Arian position appears to have been that
the son of God is pretemporal.
He's before time, but he's still created.
Okay? Whereas the trinitarian position
is that the sun is pre eternal.
He always existed,
and he is essentially
pre eternal. So he's not a possible being.
He's a necessary being.
He's not from the mumkinat,
as we would say in Islamic theology.
That he his existence is wajib wajib but
wajib
He has a necessary existence.
And that's what they're saying here,
the church fathers in 381,
that the the son shares an essential
pre eternality
with the father.
Right? He's not a possible being. He's a
necessary being.
And then again, light from light, true god
from true god. Begotten not made, co substantial
with the father, through whom all things became,
the one for the sake of us human
beings and for the sake of our salvation
came down from the heavens
and became flesh. So far, it's the same
as Nicaea. And then we have,
an addition,
by the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin.
Right? So that's something new. We didn't see
that in Nicaea.
By the Holy Spirit, so he became,
he became flesh by the Holy Spirit, and
Mary
these are sort of, you know, Jesus'
quote, unquote parents,
if you will. So Mary is mentioned explicitly.
And, of course, the status of Mary,
the status of Mariam alaihis salam keeps climbing
over the ages.
By the by the time we get to
the Council of Ephesus,
which is the 3rd ecumenical church council after
this Council of Constantinople,
the Council of Ephesus held in 431,
Mary is given the title of theotokos,
which is sometimes translated as mother of God,
but that's not a good translation,
rather the carrier or bearer of God.
Right? One who handles God,
if you will.
And then over the years
in 20th century,
Mary was,
given other types of statuses.
The Vatican,
declared that
Mary was,
immaculately conceived. She didn't have original sin, and
that she was assumed into heaven, that she
didn't actually,
she didn't actually die or suffer a physical
death, but she was assumed
body and spirit into heaven.
So those are those are much later beliefs.
Okay. Continuing then.
And then they say here in this
updated read,
that
he was crucified
for our sake
under Pontius Pilate.
Right? So what did we get in the
Nicene Creed? We simply got the statement.
What did they say here?
Let me see if I can
They they just say,
Just one word. He suffered.
He suffered, right, and rose on the 3rd
day.
So that's a bit vague. What do you
mean he suffered? How did he suffer? So
here in the Niceno Constantinopolitan
Creed, the bishops are much more clear, and
they say that he was crucified.
Right? Crucified
here.
The term here,
yeah,
Right? He was put on a,
which is like a pole or a stake.
Doesn't really mean cross,
but that's usually how it's translated,
that he was crucified for our sake under
Pontius Pilate, the epi
pontioupilato,
who is Pontius Pilate when he was the
Roman
governor of Judea at the time. So why
do the bishops mention these details in 381?
Well, it seems like they want to situate,
Jesus historically.
Right? They want to say that he was
really crucified.
It's historical.
Right? It's not a myth or a rumor
or something like that,
that he was actually crucified, and this was
the Roman governor at the time, and he's
a historical person. So Jesus was in fact
a historical person.
And then he continues and suffered and was
buried. So that's something new. They mentioned here
in this creed that he was buried.
It doesn't mention that. The bishops don't mention
that in 325 of the Nicene Creed.
So what they mean to say here is
that it was an actual body.
Right? Because you have different types of Christologies
in the 1st 3 centuries
that the proto orthodox did not find to
be,
kosher, if you will,
or acceptable.
For example, there was something called literal docetism.
Right? So the docetists were a group of
Christians, and there's different groups of them,
that believed
that
something else sort of happened to Jesus at
the end of his
life. Right?
They're called the docetae.
So dokao. It comes from the Greek dokao,
which means to seem or to appear.
We saw something
in appearance, but that's not what really happened.
Right? They're called the literal docetists, and this
takes on many forms.
One form is called docetic gnosticism.
Right? So there were a group of Christians
early on
who believed
that Isa, alaihis salaam, didn't actually have a
physical body.
There was no flesh and blood Jesus, that
he was a phantasm,
that he was sort of a thick ghost.
He appeared to people like he had a
physical body,
but he wasn't actually a physical body because
they believed that Jesus was totally God. There
was nothing human about him.
So and and matter,
you know, is something that is,
that is just,
it's it's it's,
it's it's changeable. It's it's,
you know, it's,
it's it's part of the earth, and,
it's just a low material. Matter is just
low, so God cannot be matter. He just
appeared to be matter. So that was the
position of the docetic Gnostics,
that he was a phantasm. So really,
the what was crucified
was not a person at all, was not
a body at all. It was just an
illusion.
There was another type of,
docetic belief called, docetic substitutionism.
Now the docetic substitutionists
like Vasilides,
who lived in the 2nd century, his position
is that Isa did
have a physical
body, but
his body was not the one crucified, that
someone else was substituted in his place.
This is a Christian belief,
that was apparently pretty widespread
at the time.
Even you can argue even before the time
of the composition of the gospel of John,
which was at the end of the 1st
century. So this is a 1st century Christian
belief
that someone else was crucified
instead of Isa alaihis salam.
And then you have something called docetic separationism.
So this is also an early belief
that espoused this idea that,
Isa alaihi salam was god and man,
but his divine nature
was able to detangle
itself
from the human body of Jesus,
leaving only a human body and a human
person
of Jesus to die on the cross,
while his,
divine
nature or divine person
exited his body.
Right? So we have that famous cry of
dereliction.
My god, my god, why hast thou forsaken
me? That's mentioned by Mark and Matthew. They
said that when Jesus was on the cross,
he cried out to God, my god, my
god, why hast thou forsaken me?
Right? And the, early docetic separationists,
they said, well, this is because the divine
person of God had left,
separated himself from the body
of of Christ.
So
so they're they're they're emphasizing here he was
buried. There was a body that was buried.
Right?
And rose on the 3rd day according to
the scriptures. That's something new also
in this creed of 381. We didn't see
that in the Nicene Creed.
That here,
the Christian bishops wanna tell us that this
whole idea of god becoming man
and and and,
dying, suffering for our sins, and then resurrecting,
this is something that is fulfilled. This is
a fulfillment of scripture. This is the claim,
of the Christians.
And there are different,
passages that the New Testament authors
will cite. For example, Psalm 22,
Isaiah chapter 53, which is,
probably,
the quintessential,
prophecy of the Christian version of of Jesus,
Isaiah's,
suffering servant that's quoted all the time. The
gospel of John quotes it. The book of
Acts, who is Luke, he quotes it.
Paul in Romans, he he quotes it as
well.
Right? So here, the the church fathers are
trying to trying to tell us that this
is not some foreign idea
that comes from,
you know,
a foreign place.
The idea of God becoming man and suffering
and dying and resurrecting,
this is an idea that is found in
the scriptures, they're saying. Right? According to the
scriptures is the term,
that they're using here,
that which is written. And the scriptures that
they're referring referring to is the Hebrew Bible.
Right?
So the Christians have the
difficult task
of trying to prove their theology
through the Hebrew Bible, and I think it
is quite difficult task.
I'll give you an example.
In the book of Leviticus chapter 3 verse
17, it says that you shall not drink
blood,
and this is an everlasting
statute.
Right? This is a statute,
a law
that is never going to be canceled.
Right?
Do not drink blood. Right?
Leviticus 317.
Now Christians believe
that,
that in order to properly
commemorate
the sacrifice of Jesus,
one must participate in something called the Eucharist,
which is one of the 7 sacraments.
What is the Eucharist? Well, this is when
bread and wine are presented on the altar
on Sunday,
and Catholics believe
that
and every Christian used to be Catholic.
Now there are about a 1000000000 Catholics. I
think they're the they're, yeah, they're the largest
denomination.
The Catholics believe
that the Holy Spirit descends at mass on
Sunday and will transform
the accidents of the wine
into the literal blood of Jesus.
This is literal according to the Catholics. It's
not figurative.
It literally becomes
the blood of Jesus. Now you might say,
well, it still looks and smells like wine.
That's true.
Right?
The accidents
remain wine.
The essence has changed. It's called it's called
transubstantiation.
That's the actual term for it.
The essence of the wine has become the
blood of Jesus, but the accidents remain
wine. So it still smells like wine. It
tastes like wine.
It feels like wine,
but the essence is actually the blood of
Jesus.
Right?
So that's an example. I mean, how do
you square that with Leviticus
chapter 3?
I'm I'm out of time, actually. I don't
know if,
we can do a little bit more. You
can keep going because we started a little
bit late and with the interruption. So please
go ahead. Okay. Just let me know when,
you want me to make a hard stop
And, again, if people have questions, they can
or clarifications, they can type it into the
chat box or just start speaking. It's okay
if you interrupt me. I don't know what's
going on. I can't see anyone's faces. Usually,
when I give a lecture to students, I
can tell if people are following me, if
people are falling asleep, and people are confused,
but I can't see any faces.
So, actually, there are a few questions. Yes.
Actually,
instead of I think you left the chat,
but it's happening.
Actually, it's how
holy spirit came into.
What is the concept of holy ghost?
And after the other question is, what is
the difference between
the Trinity
between the Protestant and the Catholics.
Okay. So the the the Holy Ghost, we're
going to, get to that now, inshallah, because
that's at the very end of the,
the Nicio Constantino Politician Creed in 381. So
we'll we'll get to that. I'll end that
in a in a minute, Insha'Allah.
As far as the differences between
belief in the trinity,
between Protestants and Catholics, there there are no
major differences.
The Protestants accept
this creed. They accept the first seven, actually,
ecumenical church councils.
The Council of Nicaea 1, Constantinople
1, Ephesus after this. They accept the Council
of Chalcedon.
They keep they accept Constantinople 2, Nicaea 2,
Constant so the first the first seven ecumenical
councils
are accepted by Protestants.
Okay?
The differences with Protestants and Catholics the main
difference is that the Protestants do not accept
a lot of the church tradition,
that comes,
after
the the the 7th ecumenical council. They don't
accept the infallibility of the pope.
And there are certain other,
doctrines,
that when you get down to the sort
of the theological nitty gritty about sin and
the nature of sin and things like that,
that there are differences,
as well.
But when it comes to the trinity,
you know, I can't really think of major
differences between
protestants,
Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox.
All three of these groups, which make up,
you know,
99.999
percent of Christians all around the world.
I mean, there are few Unitarian Christians as
well that don't accept these creeds, but those
are very, very few.
All of these all 3 of these groups
accept these creeds.
Now regarding the Holy Spirit,
they go on to say here,
right, that,
they go on to say that, you know,
Jesus, he ascended into the heavens. He's seated
at the right hand of father. He'll come
again in glory. He'll judge the living and
the dead whose kingdom has no end, and
we believe in the Holy Spirit. Okay. So
what is the Holy Spirit?
The the creed says the Holy Spirit is
Kurian,
Lord,
and
zoa zoaipoian,
life giver.
Right? So the Holy Spirit is that which
gives life
to all
sentient,
beings,
and is the one priest proceeding, it says,
from the father.
Right? So the holy spirit is also
also has this this,
essential
pre eternality
as the son. All 3 are equal.
Right?
And the holy spirit also, it goes on
to say, is coworshipped, coglorified,
and spoke to the prophets. So this is
basically
basically the role of the Holy Spirit
is to give the messages of God to
the prophets
according to this creed.
So the primary duty of the father is
creation, creation out of nothing.
That doesn't mean that the son and holy
spirit, according to Christians,
don't participate
in creation out of nothing. They do, but
this is sort of the primary
like, the father sort of takes the lead,
when it comes to creation from nothing.
Christians cannot say the father created out of
nothing and the son has nothing to do
with that, because then they're saying
that, basically,
the the son is is,
is,
is essentially inferior to the father.
They can't say that. They have to say
that the son somehow participates
in the actions of the father. They're inseparable
in action,
or else they're going to be or else
it's going to be 2 different consciousnesses, and
that's 2 different gods.
Right? So so the the major role of
the father is to create. The major role
of the son is redemption.
The son
comes down into human flesh and dies for
the sake of,
humanity.
So that's his major role. And then the
major role of the holy spirit is sanctification,
is to bring the messages of God to
human beings.
Right? So the
the holy spirit according to Christians is the
3rd person of the trinity,
who inspires the prophets,
if you
will.
I was raised Roman Catholic. Most Christians don't
know any of this unless they're scholars. I
study because I found out Mithra was born,
December 25th. I accepted Islam 9 years ago.
Yeah. So definitely,
what we see with,
early
what what we see with, the Catholic church
in the 3rd 4th centuries, I would say,
is a clear mirroring,
of ancient pagan beliefs. I mean, you can
go back even, as I said, as early
as Paul.
What Paul I mean, Paul really set the
trend there
by accepting this Greco Roman,
motif of the dying and rising savior man
god.
Right?
But, yeah, I mean, the Vatican, the side
of the Vatican used to be a necropolis.
It was a city of the dead. It
was revered by
by Roman pagans before the advent of Christianity.
And so a lot of these,
so, yeah, December 25th was a birthday was
was the birthday of Mithras, the sun god.
Constantine chose it as the birthday of Jesus,
because
possibly he wanted to sort of facilitate,
easy, you know, sort of conversion process
of pagans to Christianity.
Doctor Ali, I have a question. I just
have 2 questions.
So based off this kind of study of
core,
Christian theology,
is it correct to say, like, when we're
talking to, like, Christians and we've talked to
them about, you know, religion typically has, like,
the 3 components of beliefs, practices, and values,
and often they share in their values, like,
love and generosity and all that. And some
they share in their practices too, like, prayer
and charity. But then in terms of, like,
the core beliefs, so
the the the major distinctions with Christianity and
Islam,
obviously, we believe the prophet Muhammad sallai sallam,
but after that, it's the identity of Jesus
that we assume full humanness to him,
and then profitably. And also, salvation
doesn't come through with sufficient salvation, it comes
through, like, just the thought and just following
the commands of Allah. Like so that's one
question. And then my other question is, when
you look at,
like, just practical dawah with Christians, like,
I remember once in one of your lectures,
you were saying that there's, like, a study
of of churchgoers and
a significant portion that couldn't have named the
the 4 bospels. So, like, so we're kinda
seeing that the the level of knowledge of
their own religion is is a little bit
lower. What have you found to be effective
Dao with Christians? You know, like, is it
getting into, like, the deep studies of of,
theology or is it kinda I don't know.
I just want to know about your experience.
Yeah. So regarding the first question, I would
say yeah. I would say a major difference
in our Christology
is the concept of soteriology,
like, how does one become saved.
Right?
Now if you if you go to a
Christian at random that's coming out of a
church that knows a thing or 2 about
Christianity
I disconnected for a second there.
So I was saying that if you go
to a Christian at random and ask them
about how do I get saved,
they're going to invariably quote to you from
Paul.
So he'll say something like, in order for
you to be saved, you have to believe
that Jesus is your lord and savior, that
he rose from the dead, he died for
your sins.
Right?
But,
if you,
if you actually go to the gospels
and,
and, read the gospels, this question is posed
directly to Isa, alay salaam, according to the
Christian gospels. Now the Christian gospels,
obviously, they're problematic
from our perspective,
but it's interesting that in this text, you
find it in 3 different places.
Matthew 18 18
sorry, Luke 18 18, Matthew 19 17, Mark
10 18, the good master, what must I
do to gain eternal life?
How do I go to heaven? This is
a question posed to Isa, alay salam, to
Jesus, peace be upon him, according to
3 gospels, And his answer is, why are
you calling me good? There's no one good
but 1. That is God.
So Isa, alayhi salam, in this text doesn't
even accept the title of good
because good means perfect.
Right? One of the names of Allah Subhanahu
Wa Ta'ala
is a salaam, and a salaam doesn't mean,
like, the peace or something like
that. A salaam comes from,
salin, right, the one who was perfect.
Why are you calling me good? There's no
one good but 1, and that is God.
So here, Isa alaihi salam in this text,
Mark 10 18, Luke 1818, Matthew 1917,
is creating a very clear distinction between himself
and god. And then he says, follow the
commandments, and you shall enter the life.
Right? Follow God's commandments. What are God's commandments?
God commands us to make toba
very, very,
important,
theological
virtue
in the Hebrew bible as well as the
Quran.
Right?
Allah loves the people who make Tawba.
Right?
And, we would say as Muslims that this
is the actual teaching of Isa alayhi salaam.
It's not the teaching of, this is that
the teaching of Paul is that is that,
is is the idea of vicarious atonement,
through, you know, blood magic,
and things like that. But if you read
the gospels even, you know, in Luke 15,
you have the parable of the prodigal son.
Ask a Christian.
You asked me, like, what what are some
of the things that I that that are
effective
in making dua to Christians?
Well, Christians do not expect you at all
to know anything about their scripture.
Right? Any Christian, even if they've never really
studied the Bible at all,
they do not expect you to know anything.
Right?
So if you,
are able to,
if if you are able to,
use an example from their text,
which confirms our theology,
and you have to be good at this
because you have to and and if the
Christian is clever, he'll go to some place
else and say, well, over here, it says
this, and that's again and that you have
to have an answer for that too.
Right? You have to be able to deal
with with every scenario. So this takes practice.
But ask a Christian, you know, after you
ask him, you know, how do I go
to heaven? The Christian will probably say something
like,
accept Jesus as God, he died for your
sins, and say, well, Jesus didn't say that
in 3 gospels. You know, kind of stare
at you with a blank look,
and then say, well, what does Jesus mean
in Luke 15, the parable of the prodigal
son?
And most Christians will
not know. I mean, if they're laity. I
mean, they've heard you've probably heard the expression,
the prodigal son returns. Right? What does that
mean?
What's the context? Well, Luke chapter 15, Jesus
says a man has 2 sons. 1 of
them stays with him. The other one goes
out, and he's a mustrif. Right? He's prodigal.
He's a he spends all his money, and
he lives a life of sin. He ends
up sleeping in a pigpen. And then after
some time, that son, he comes home to
his father.
This is mentioned in Luke chapter 15. And
his father sees him from a distance, and
they run towards each other, and they hug
each other.
So that's the parable. What is what is
this parable teaching?
Is it teaching vicarious atonement through blood magic?
Is it is this what he's teaching?
This is a parable about Toba.
Right? The man had 2 sons, this father
and the word father.
Right? This is a Hebraism.
This is what the Jews used to call
god.
Right?
The Christians took this term and they literal
they made it literal.
Right?
But it doesn't mean father in the literal
sense. This is majaz. This is figurative language.
It means rub. Ab means rub in the
Hebrew Bible.
Right? Isaiah prays,
Adonai.
Oh, lord, you are our father, meaning our
rub.
Right?
So this man has 2 sons. 1 of
them obeys him, the other one disobeys him,
and then he comes back. Right?
Means to turn around,
to reorient yourself. It's the same word in
Hebrew.
Teshuva means to reorient yourself towards God.
He turns around towards the father, his father,
meaning the rub. So this father is sort
of an analogy for God.
And he repents to his father, and his
father accepts him. This is the teaching of
Risa alaihi salam. It's about repentance. And then
what about the second part of that question
about your own factual experience in doing dawah
with Christians? What have you found to be
effective?
I think just having,
just having, like, a dub with people
and, you know, not losing your temper. People
people tend to remember,
you know, people's attitudes and how they sort
of felt at the moment of an interaction.
You know?
So,
and you might say that's good or bad,
but,
that's usually what people remember. So I think,
I think sometimes if you're if you're actually
having a discussion with a Christian
and,
they're getting sort of riled up a little
bit, I think at that point, we sort
of have to make a decision. Do I
really want to win this argument, or do
I just want to sort
of show good character?
Right?
And and,
just be polite,
and, just just put your point across, obviously.
So, I mean, the best advice is the
advice we find in the Quran.
Allah, Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala, he says,
So I try to live by this. You
know, call people to the way of Allah,
meaning to the dean of Islam,
with wisdom,
and the ulama here, the exegetes, they say
that this means
with into intellectual academic
proofs, you have to know your stuff. You
have to do your homework.
Right? It's not all just charisma. There's some
people who can sort of schmooze their way
through life because they have a lot of
charisma.
But when you actually get down to the
nitty gritty of what they actually know, they
don't know much at all. So here, the
Quran is saying you have to have wisdom.
You have to have
academic sophistication.
So you have to know what your text
says. You have to know how people are
interpreting our text, know what their text says.
You have to you have to sort of
deal with scenarios as they might come up.
Well,
is the second part. And with beautiful exhortation,
in the here, the meaning of this is
with a good sort of good attitude,
right, with,
and debate with them. The word here is
debate.
Jidal is debate. Right? People don't like that
word for some reason.
But, you know, jidal is with the alid
kitab. It's with the mushrikeen.
Right?
Muslims shouldn't be debating each other,
because we're
if you're Sunni, you're the the differences are
negligible. They're not a big deal. They're not
I mean, some of these discussions are just
they they don't have no practical application in
the world today. These old theological debates,
were united upon. And it's incredible
the miracle that happened in our tradition. We
never had a single council, ecumenical
council.
Right?
Yet you have this incredible,
cohesiveness,
in our theology. Of course, there are differences,
but, again, they're minor. They're neg negligible.
So debate is with.
A
debate with them in ways that are good,
in ways that are beautiful.
Right?
So it's a beautiful ayah. This is ayah
number 1,
I believe, 120 of Surat Al Nahal, if
I'm not mistaken.
So that's that's what I try that's what
I find to be effective. And
I mean, I this is something that I
can testify is true. Allah
says it in the Quran, and I found
it to be true, is that when you
have academic sophistication
and you also have good comportment, right,
and those are working together, There are some
people who are very, very sharp intellectually,
but they have bad bad adam.
And you might destroy a Christian in a
debate and just, like, wipe your feet on
him,
and then this Christian will rise up, and
he will do some serious homework because he
won't forget that humiliation.
He might even dedicate his life to destroying
Islam after that, and I've actually seen people
like that. I've seen this happen.
Or you might have the opposite. You might
have someone, again, who's very charismatic or he's
very humble person.
Right? Very good attitude,
but just doesn't know anything when it comes
to
when it comes to academics, when it comes
to apologetics,
when it comes to textual studies, when it
comes to loha, the the language, when it
comes to sharia, when it comes to, you
know, theology.
And so this person will go and try
to, you know, present good character, and that's
the extent of what he should do. Everyone
should know their limitations.
Right? If you have good character, show good
character, but don't try to engage in a
theological debate,
you know, with somebody,
and then end up losing, and then that
person feels emboldened because because they've, just destroyed
this Muslim in a debate. Obviously, his theology
is false. And, you know, obviously, he couldn't
answer
simple things about how Jesus is God, how
Jesus must be God, and things like that.
So that's that's sort of the approach is,
is and and, you know, it's
it's difficult sometimes. If if you're dealing with
very, very emotional Christians, I would just not
even waste my time. I would just make
dua for them. It it's,
you know, the kind of Christian that, you
know, kind of gets a megaphone and starts
shouting at you. And,
there are there are people like that that
come to college campuses. I wouldn't even engage
with them. And these and they're sort of
trained to to,
you know, they're they're they they sort of
throw something out there, and they want you
to respond to something so they can because
they have this sort of response that they
want everyone to hear.
Right?
So their tactic is really one of humiliation.
But Christians that are you know, they're they're
sincere and you know them and or they
have genuine questions, engage with them with with
wisdom and beautiful exhortation.