Jamal Badawi – Jesus 56 – Trinity Atonement Blood Sacrifice 23 Roots Of God Incarnate 4

Jamal Badawi
AI: Summary © The conversation covers the historical context of Jesus Christ's weight and the theory of the holy spirit and holy mother. Paul's weighting of Christ's body is discussed, as well as the use of the holy mother in context of Jesus Christ. The speakers also touch on the historical context of the whether or not porn has adopted the concept of expand margins and the use of the holy mother in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. The discussion also touches on the historical context of Jesus being the Son of God, the use of the word "rock" in the Bible, eschatology, and the potential for dualistic language in the next chapter.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:41 --> 00:01:07

AsSalamu Alaikum and welcome you once again to our focus, today's programming shala 56 in our series Jesus, the beloved messenger of Allah and our 23rd on sin, atonement Amba sacrifice, and today we'll continue with the possible rules of incarnation under sharpening is your host and here once again from St. Mary's University is dr. john Bercow.

00:01:09 --> 00:01:16

Could you have a summary of last week's program, please? Sure, we began to discuss the notion of God incarnate.

00:01:17 --> 00:01:27

In the immediate environment in which the early Christian doctrines developed, were referred to two very useful chapters in the volume edited by john Heck, the myth of God and carnage.

00:01:29 --> 00:01:38

First, we discussed or began discussion of the article contributed by Michael Goldberg, who teaches theology in the University of Birmingham.

00:01:39 --> 00:02:26

And his attempt to try and discover how did the writer of the Gospel According to john, came up with this idea of the Word became flesh. And his basic theme really was that it came from two routes one is the Galilean eschatology, or the idea of the end of time as understood in the Galilee. And the second route, which he focused on, which is less known, is the Samaritans must confess, or the mystic religious philosophy among the people known as the Gnostics, which was quite current among the Samaritans. We explained or identified the Samaritans as people who lived in seminary or parts of Palestine, they were the followers were followers of Moses, but they separated gradually from

00:02:26 --> 00:02:30

Jerusalem and did not accept any books beyond the Torah.

00:02:32 --> 00:03:07

We also refer to what's good, referred to as the basic or salient characteristics of their theology. And he says, first of all, the Samaritans who had a great influence in early development of Christianity, used dualistic language when they spoke about Gods. And secondly, that they also believed the incarnation of God, and that one of them. Simon Megas, actually claimed that he was the incarnation of the power of God, and He called himself a standing one.

00:03:08 --> 00:03:28

And we said that those Samaritans with this kind of background became Christians in the early period of the church life. And they were quite influential in the development of its teachings. Finally, we discussed how God does explain the impact of this theological characteristics, if you will,

00:03:30 --> 00:03:32

by referring to the early mission,

00:03:34 --> 00:03:39

that when Philip went first to the Samaritans, he could not really appeal to them

00:03:41 --> 00:03:56

on the notion of the crucified Messiah, because that doesn't resonate with the, with the Samaritans, that that tempt by Peter and Paul, to explain it in terms of the suffering

00:03:57 --> 00:04:04

of the Son of Man, according to the book of Daniel did not appeal to them because they didn't believe in any book after the Torah.

00:04:05 --> 00:04:07

But he could appeal to them, actually,

00:04:09 --> 00:04:54

by the reference to the notion that they already accept that is the incarnation of the second person in godhood, according to God, as it says the Christian mission is had to catch up with this idea or else they would have failed with the with the Samaritans. So they took the same ideas of the Samaritans but simply claimed that all of this has already been realized, in Jesus peace be upon him. And it shows quite clearly in analyzing how Philips started by first speaking about Jesus peace be upon him as a prophet like unto Moses, and then at the end, speak about him as incarnation of the great power terms which resonate with the Samaritans

00:04:55 --> 00:04:59

in essence, that could you know what cooler conclude about the end

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

Influence of Samaritan theology in explaining the nature of Jesus. five basic characteristics you seem to conclude one is the emphasis on the notions of wisdom and knowledge as roots of conversion.

00:05:16 --> 00:05:23

Secondly, the notion of the pre existence of Jesus peace be upon him, and godhood and then His incarnation.

00:05:25 --> 00:05:28

Thirdly, what Gunther called the glory,

00:05:29 --> 00:05:40

ministry, and instead of the Son of Man ministry, whereby Moses is the type figures instead of David, because as we said before, he didn't believe in anyone after Moses.

00:05:42 --> 00:05:43


00:05:44 --> 00:05:54

to minimize the issue of crucifixion and resurrection, and simply to say that Jesus went his way to the Father,

00:05:55 --> 00:05:56

faster, Sicily,

00:05:57 --> 00:06:05

again, what is called realized eschatology that is something that has already taken place instead of a futuristic, eschatology,

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

in simpler terms, instead of the old, the ideas that existed among the Galileans, that Jesus Second Coming is imminent, that is coming in the lifetime of his own generation, as something will happen in the future was replaced by the notion that, you know, the, the time of pleasure of God has already come. So they look at it more in terms of realized thing rather than something to, to look for. And good that emphasize that those basic five characteristics, if you will, where the characteristics, in fact, of the opponents of * in the city of Corinth, and that provides a sort of background of the kind of controversy that continued for the next 200 years or so. Maybe I'll ask

00:06:59 --> 00:07:02

you how to do that as the prove that

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

when he tried to prove his points by getting both

00:07:08 --> 00:07:12

evidence from the New Testament, as well as historical evidence,

00:07:14 --> 00:07:18

with respect to the New Testament, for example, Gordon does. Notice that,

00:07:19 --> 00:07:30

in the first letter, or the letter is believed to be the first letters written by Paul, to the Thessalonians, believed to have been written about the 50 or so

00:07:31 --> 00:07:39

at the time when Paul, in fact, did not have much contact, or did not come in contact with Samaritan theology.

00:07:40 --> 00:08:07

He noted that in that letter, the teachings of Paul and that was basically what he call Galilean eschatology the same common ideas that existed in Galilee, that Jesus was the Son of God. But he avoids speaking, for example, about the pre existence of Jesus, peace be upon him. He speaks about him as a man who walked on Earth, who died, resurrected,

00:08:08 --> 00:08:32

received authority that is coming back in a very, very short time. And this is what God called the takeoff. Landing. Mixolydian was quite interesting as inexpensive takeoff landing, he went, and he's coming again. Now, when pawns came into contact with theological ideas of the Samaritans,

00:08:34 --> 00:08:48

he was quite flexible. In fact, God goes to the point of saying that *, in fact, was so flexible, that he could, quote, steal the claws of his opponents while they were bathing.

00:08:50 --> 00:09:01

To explain it, he said that, on one hand, we find that * in his early writings, especially like in First Corinthians, For example, chapter one, eight and 13.

00:09:02 --> 00:09:49

He speaks negatively against the notion that we're current among the Samaritan, the idea of knowledge, and wisdom, some of the quotations that will explain that knowledge does a lot of harm. I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, Paul says, Christ did not send me to preach with all of with eloquent wisdom. So on one hand, he attacks wisdom attacks, knowledge, the common notions in Samaritan theology. But on the other hand, Paul also claims that he is imparting wisdom. But he says that this was done actually is not received from people, but received from the spirit.

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

This way, as Goldberg says,

00:09:54 --> 00:09:59

In this stage, Paul is actually as he's used the steel

00:10:00 --> 00:10:09

The wisdom of the other missionaries, but he wouldn't touch the knowledge. Now, as time went on,

00:10:10 --> 00:10:18

we find that Samaritan influence began to really affect the way that Paul speaks.

00:10:19 --> 00:10:36

Because the Samaritans continue with their belief, or emphasis on knowledge and wisdom, as to fundamental themes. Paul appears to speak later, in letter letters more positively about wisdom and knowledge.

00:10:37 --> 00:11:17

Good to notice, for example, that in his letters, to the Colossians, especially chapter one, three and 22, in his letter to the Ephesians, and chapter one and three, he speaks a little bit more favorably on knowledge and wisdom. But * still has to tackle with the problem of explaining the nature of Christ. That's the essence of the question, really? How would he reconcile the humanity of Jesus as a human being as the Jews, of course expected of the Messiah, and between the idea of the sonship, of Jesus to God.

00:11:18 --> 00:11:39

So on one hand, we find that Paul follows the steps of those before him by saying that Jesus came from the seed of David, according to the flesh. And as such, Jesus was Messiah, in body from the descent of David.

00:11:40 --> 00:12:02

And then he says, he was designated Son of God, according to the Spirit of the flesh, after resurrection. And as such, he really raises the big problem of what's the origin called the G one, paternity of Jesus, God, paternity, Son of God, Son of David, the same time.

00:12:03 --> 00:12:13

Now, Paul, trying to explain this jiren paternity by saying that Jesus peace be upon him was always the Son of God.

00:12:14 --> 00:12:28

But somehow, he had to be born from the descent or seed of David, but his sonship to God was declared in eastern that is an after resurrection.

00:12:29 --> 00:12:34

In the opinion of Gundersen, as a Catholic theologian himself, he says that

00:12:35 --> 00:13:03

this two level formula reconciling the the Jew and parenthood of Jesus is an empty formula in terms of theological contents. And he said, the way Paul tried to resolve that issue really is basically an evasion of the very uncomfortable question of this double paternity of Jesus Peace be upon you. But there is another interesting aspect also about Paul's flexibility.

00:13:05 --> 00:13:06


00:13:07 --> 00:13:39

his letters to the Romans and Galatians, which are believed to have been written somewhere between the first letter to the Corinthians and the second letter to the Corinthians, Paul does not speak much about this new Christology, this understanding or explanation of the nature of Jesus peace be upon him. But he rather speaks in a way in which his own audience are familiar with. For example, when he writes, on the other hand, to the Corinthians, For example, who were

00:13:40 --> 00:14:18

incarnation minded, he make references to this kind of Christology or double paternity of, of Jesus. But for others, he doesn't use it. So he was very flexible, and adjust the way he writes, to the understanding of the people he is addressing, even though they might be measured changes in terms of concepts, however, good that feels that they seem to be some evidence of for wavering a little bit in the very last letter, or at least the one believed to be the last letters he wrote. That is his letter to the Philippians.

00:14:19 --> 00:14:38

In that letter, Paul says that when Jesus was in the form of God, but he emptied Himself, He emptied Himself. I think we discussed that a long time. And he was born and became obedient, even unto death.

00:14:39 --> 00:14:59

As a result of this, his name was put above every name and he was exalted by God. But good That concludes that particular discussion by saying are raising a very interesting question. He says, and I quote him on that, he says, but if it was in the form of God, sorry if he was in the form of God

00:15:00 --> 00:15:34

Jesus peace be upon him, did he not have the name, which is above every name from the beginning? I mean, if Jesus really is, God is divine, his name should have been above every name before he was born even of Mary. But Paul here says that he acquired that status after he became obedient to this or after his his best, which is an interesting question, which one do you have to acquire the name if he was already, if you were already divine from the beginning?

00:15:35 --> 00:15:41

You mentioned earlier that COVID tried to show that the Samaritan influence

00:15:42 --> 00:16:17

from from the New Testament and from history now, would you like to touch on the historical aspects of this? Yes, he also touches on that and the basic point he tries, tries to make is that * seem to have adopted the idea of incarnation as a result of his controversy, or arguments will be Samaritan missionaries, especially in courting any thesis, somewhere between the ages of 50 and 55.

00:16:18 --> 00:16:19

In both of these cities,

00:16:20 --> 00:16:33

there is seem to be evidence that the nun for lean missionaries is a proline who is one measure but they were also not fully missionaries were quite active. One of them was led by a man called Apollo's

00:16:34 --> 00:16:40

This is referred to in the book of Acts in chapter 18, especially westward 24. On

00:16:41 --> 00:16:46

that when Paul came in touch with with those non Polian missionaries,

00:16:47 --> 00:17:20

at the beginning, he accused a poor loss of dividing people. And then later on, as we see in the first Corinthians, chapter 16, verse 12, that poor somehow seem to have been forced to cooperate with a polis. However, the followers of Paul and his associates were still very critical of the followers of followers, as can be discerned in the second Corinthians, especially in chapter 11, they used to speak about

00:17:21 --> 00:17:26

about Apollo's followers in some sarcastic type of terms.

00:17:27 --> 00:17:30

And it would be useful to remember that good

00:17:32 --> 00:17:37

has already mentioned as as we have already mentioned before, did use

00:17:40 --> 00:17:42

or when they are good, sorry, let me correct that.

00:17:43 --> 00:17:51

Goal goals are has already indicated in a previous section that the Samaritans use what you might call a dualistic

00:17:52 --> 00:18:03

language, to express the idea of incarnation before the emergence of Christianity. And as such, he concludes, that's good.

00:18:04 --> 00:18:19

That the, the source of this idea of God incarnate and Pauline theology seems to be quite evident. That is from the Samaritan, even though the explanation might be different.

00:18:20 --> 00:18:42

Well, maybe you can explain us how, what is the nature of the difference in explanations? What the Samaritans were quite content, based on their background, understanding and theology with what God's called the landing, take off theology. And when Jesus came, he went to the Father. So, just landing and take off.

00:18:44 --> 00:19:20

He incarnated and went back. Paul, however, seemed to be promoting What good are called or some theologian landing, takeoff landing, that is, Jesus incarnated, went to the Father and He will land again that she will come again that is imminently and the life of the generation that lived with him. And Golder indicates that this kind of ambivalence seemed to characterize the first three gospels, this is not the Gospels.

00:19:22 --> 00:19:32

Good to give any specific examples to documents which a proposition we kind of ambivalence? Yes, he does. And he did that. He does that in terms of the

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

some of the

00:19:35 --> 00:19:44

very essential issues, for example, that you find in the Synoptic Gospels, like the origin of Jesus, for example, for this Parenthood.

00:19:46 --> 00:19:53

He says that in the oldest or what is believed to be the oldest of the four gospels, Mark.

00:19:54 --> 00:19:55

Jesus is not

00:19:57 --> 00:19:59

simply the son of David

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

But also the Son of God, who is sonship, to God appeared at the time of baptism, and who is known by his acts on the cross. Okay. However, he was still a human being who was tempted. But this idea or that explanation in Mark does not seem to suit or effect. The Samaritan idea about God man as the thought of

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

Matthew, however, which was written,

00:20:33 --> 00:20:35

or believed to have been written in the 80s.

00:20:38 --> 00:21:12

Try to solve the problem of the origin of Jesus by appealing to the book of Isaiah and the Old Testament, chapter seven, verse 14, that speaks, according to some of the translation about the virgin birth, which we have explained in a previous problem that speaks about think it has nothing to do with some future event, that far back, and that the original term actually does not speak of version, but I made but again, that was another issue. But in any case, Matthew refers to Isaiah 714,

00:21:13 --> 00:21:20

and somehow indicate that Jesus peace be upon him was the Son of God, from eternity from the very beginning.

00:21:21 --> 00:21:43

But again, that explanation would neither suit the background and understanding of the Samaritans, or the Philippians, for that matter, because the Philippians believed Jesus to be the Son of God, only from the moment of conception, not from eternity.

00:21:44 --> 00:21:47

Luke, however, the third synoptic writers,

00:21:48 --> 00:22:04

follows the steps of Matthew, with respect to the question of virgin birth. But like Matthew also, he says, the same problem, to explain how could Jesus be the Son of God, and the son of David, at the same time.

00:22:05 --> 00:22:12

Now, both Matthew and Luke try to resolve that dual paternity you might say,

00:22:13 --> 00:22:16

and in different ways, for example, Matthew

00:22:17 --> 00:22:30

solved the problem or tried to solve the problem by creating an analogy for Jesus peace be upon him, tracing him back to David, and from David to Abraham,

00:22:31 --> 00:22:41

with only legal paternity, and the final link that is connected to Joseph, we're talking about Joseph de Mary's husband.

00:22:43 --> 00:22:58

As far as Luke, according to God, that He tried to have it both ways. You know, so he follows Matthew in terms of the lineage of Jesus peace be upon him, but extend the line of lineage.

00:22:59 --> 00:23:23

On the harder side, back to God, my understanding of what God is saying here, perhaps is referring to the statement that, and Jesus is the son of so and so and so and then son of Adam, who is the Son of God, or Adam celebrants, so tries to solve this, by indicating he is he was born, the Son of God, in one sense, and the son of David in another sense.

00:23:24 --> 00:23:38

Of course, that kind of explanation is basically with respect to the three synoptic gospels. But of course, by the year 100, roughly, when the writer of the gospel of john, also his book,

00:23:40 --> 00:23:43

we find that we incorporated together

00:23:45 --> 00:23:47

the two crucial Samaritan

00:23:48 --> 00:24:16

texts that I used to be recited in their worship in the service, Genesis one, and Exodus 34. And then, by putting this together, he came up with his famous statements that's found in the first chapter of john, in the word in the beginning, there was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God. And then he speaks about the word becoming flesh, and grinning among us. And that quarter will be held his glory.

00:24:18 --> 00:24:24

In other words, with this kind of a statement, the author of the gospel of john really

00:24:25 --> 00:24:39

introduced the full Samaritan doctrine, which we have discussed before, a doctrine that had some kind of dualistic language, speaking about God as the Christian God and the glory

00:24:40 --> 00:24:58

as a second person, but basically, explaining that that second person really is none but Jesus, peace be upon. This idea is of course, we're not common among Jews, but among the Samaritans in particular, and that was prior to the advent of Jesus, please feel

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


00:25:00 --> 00:25:09

Other aspects confirming evolution of how Jesus made peace be upon him, was perceived. Yes, in fact,

00:25:10 --> 00:25:35

the God that explains that in a very bright and interesting gray, to show the progression of this idea and how Jesus was perceived, for example, you take the issue of the nature of Jesus and how he combines divinity, with humanity. And it says, if you look, for example, at the oldest of the Gospels, Mark,

00:25:36 --> 00:26:09

the humanity of Jesus seems to be quite manifest. He walks somewhere in Palestine, he suffers, he gets tired, he is disappointed at times. He expresses his fears his despard he doesn't know what people are doing. So he asked him what they'd be discussed on the way. He doesn't know what's going to happen to him. He shouts on the cross at the end, God, God, why have You forsaken us very much emphasis on the human element of Jesus.

00:26:11 --> 00:26:34

And then he says, As time went on, we find that this humanity of Jesus seemed to be eroded by people who came after him. Let me quote goldrush as a Catholic theologian himself on that he says about other writers after mark, he says they omit, they gloss, they substitute. And he gives examples. He says, For example, Luke

00:26:35 --> 00:26:53

omits the shouts on the cross, the cry on the cross, God, God, why have you forsaken me which is mentioned and Mark, and he replace it with a more defined statement from the Psalms. Father, into thy hand, I commend my spirit. And that's quite different.

00:26:54 --> 00:27:03

It's a step beyond just humanity. But with the passage of time, comes the author of the Gospel According to john,

00:27:04 --> 00:27:16

who does the full word of the find Jesus peace be upon him. And the examples become very clear, and that's where john is quite different from the three synoptic gospels.

00:27:18 --> 00:27:33

As Gunter summarizes Jesus is no longer just a human being, but the incarnated Word of God, striving one inch above the ground, as he says, He knows Nathaniel, once he sees him sitting under the fig tree,

00:27:34 --> 00:27:45

and he knows his natures. Nathaniel immediately recognizes that Jesus is the Son of God. He knows that the Samaritan woman had

00:27:46 --> 00:28:00

five, five husbands, on the question of arrest of Jesus, as we mentioned in a previous program, John's description is that they were confounded. And they fell back, you know,

00:28:02 --> 00:28:10

something is not really arresting the human really, in front of them. As far as the shower on the cross, we find different.

00:28:12 --> 00:28:42

It's different, even from the previous statements, it simply says it is finished in Jan, it's finished. No expression, no, let's say human fear or human warrior. This could mean a lot of things. But definitely, it's more defined than any other statement in previous Gospels. And when john refers even to some aspects, that seem to emphasize the humanity of Jesus peace be upon him, we find that he does that

00:28:43 --> 00:29:07

in a very limited way. For example, when Jesus prays in john 1142, he does that to impress the public around him. When he says that he was thirsty on the cross, he does that only so that the Old Testament prophecies would be fulfilled. A similar thing is found also in the the evolution or development of the

00:29:09 --> 00:29:11

titans of Jesus, peace be upon him.

00:29:12 --> 00:29:59

In the issue of the second coming of Jesus, we find also interesting development. Even if you look at the writings of Paul, for example, in his first letter to the Thessalonians, he speaks about the imminent coming of Jesus almost in every chapter, some detail in First Corinthians, he explains in some detail, what will happen in the last day, but in the meantime, he also tries to appeal to the Samaritans by indicating to them that God's time of pleasures has already come. So the this seems to be a source of evolution. Even at the latest time he speaks about realized eschatology rather than futuristic. Not so much emphasis on

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

He used to about Jesus imminently coming back. But thank you very much that is your mom for attempt to clarify a very complicated subject. Thank you all for joining us once again this time and focus as always, your comments and your questions will be most appreciated. Our phone number address will be appearing on your screen from all of us as you can

Share Page

Related Episodes