Earn On-Going Rewards Now
Mary The Mother Of
Channel: Khalid Yasin
File Size: 38.68MB
Episode Transcript ©
Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate and at times crude. We are considering building a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system. No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever.
mentioned the capture of 100,000 people were marching through Central London to protest against those plans for a war on Iraq and to demand just
regime change in Baghdad. I'm beginning to think we need a regime change right here in Washington, DC.
Thank you for the Islamic Society for having me here to speak this afternoon. And all of you as well for giving up your precious lunch time to hear what we have to say on this topic. Mary, mother of question mark, the opposite in the Catholic position here today, of course. And as we know, the Catholic Church has many titles for the Virgin Mary, some as follows. We call the daughter of God the Father, because it was God who created her. We call her mother of God, the son, mother of Jesus, she bought for a divine person who we believe Of course Jesus to be. We call it the spouse of the Holy Spirit, because it was a holy spirit that conceived the divine the person of Jesus in her womb,
as any good spouse does. We also call her mother of the church. There are many other titles, as I said, as well, to announce Oreo. Some of these titles may appear to be strange, if not blasphemous.
Is there any justification for these titles? Let's have some thoughts, introductory thoughts to consider.
The Virgin Mary is mentioned 19 times in the Scriptures, actually, in the Quran, she's mentioned 34 times, and always respectfully, the 19 times tell us that the Virgin Mary was involved in all the major events of the life of Christ, from the very beginning to the very end, at the Annunciation, at his birth, when he was when they fled into Egypt, when he was lost for three days at the age of 12. At the beginning of his public mission and his first miracle,
and later on in his preaching, sheepies there as well, and his crucifixion at the foot of the cross, no doubt elbow, that piece of her after his resurrection. And we see the Virgin Mary, together with the church, praying Pentecost, a very central role that God had dying for her from all eternity. And the central role was Christ was was true God who was to be true man, and he received that humanity through the Virgin Mary.
She was not just an eggshell that was used and cast out, but she was there from the beginning and the only creature from the beginning throughout to the end.
She was entirely faithful to that calling to that vocation from God to that election. That's why she could say in her prayer glorifying God for the whole from henceforth, all generations shall call me bless it and salute 148 of prophecy that is being fulfilled to this day.
Well, I'll focus on the title Mother of God, because that for some is the most controversial. What justification is there for such for those who believe in Christ can we find in the scriptures? Let's look at the first Firstly, in the Old Testament. Isaiah, a century BC, prophesied the coming of the Messiah. He wrote the following, and he the quote is submitted.
Use quote is from the Greek Septuagint of Isaiah, behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear. His name shall be called Emmanuel. And son Matthew develops that his gospel and translates that to me, God among us, this virgin who can seize miraculously brings forth a child, she bears that child, she's the mother of that person, that person is God among us. Later on, said Elizabeth says these words recorded in St. Luke's Gospel again 143. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of mine Lord comes to me, she was a Jew, she knew Deuteronomy six, the Lord your God is one law, we can presume she had a revelation to know the nature of the child that this great woman who still only 15
years old was very.
Let's have one commentary on this verse from john Calvin himself who wasn't Catholic. He quote, to quote him, he says, it cannot be denied that God in choosing and destiny marry, to be the mother of his son, granted her the highest honor. Elizabeth calls Mary mother of the law, because the unity of the person in the two names for Christ that is one person, divine, two natures, human and divine, was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time, the eternal God.
Mother of Jesus is a term we find six times mentioned in the New Testament, notably by some john in particular, in chapter two of his gospel, mother of Jesus, essentially, is the same as Mother of God. If we believe Christ to be a divine person.
Then we believe Jesus to be that divine person, the mother of Jesus is synonymous substantially and entirely, essentially with Mother of God, because that person was a divine person.
Now, of course, there's controversy about the term Mother of God, its origins are Greek for your tickets, which strictly translates to me, God bear, and was a church council emphasis and 431 that resolve the issue whether this term was the chittum nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople. He had the problem with the term, but his problem wasn't with the Virgin Mary. His problem was with Christ because he denied that Christ was one person. He said Christ was to human and divine and our separate, not united in the Virgin Mary was only the mother of the human person, and therefore could only be called Mother of Christ.
The Council held otherwise and in doing so reaffirm, the tradition that already existed in athanassios 100 years earlier, was using the term theocracy and his work apology against the areas. Some of the misconceptions about the term Mother of God are tragic. Sometimes you have to assume that is a Catholic term, therefore it must be wrong. She the Catholics believe that the Virgin Mary is a goddess for persons of lesser Trinity, that calling her mother they believe she exists before God, and she gave birth in existence to God is a common, but completely erroneous understanding of the term.
She's a mother like any other human mother, your mother did not supply to you, your body and soul, just your body in cooperation with your father, God infuse your spiritual soul was cooperation between your mother, your dad and God. Likewise, in the conception and the birth of Christ, there was a cooperation. God, the son is a divine person, or eternal and pre existing the Virgin Mary from all eternity, cooperation of the Holy Spirit who conceives him in his mother's womb, the Virgin Mary doesn't supply the Divinity doesn't supply the human soul of Jesus, but supplies his physical human nature to a person as any mother does. And when she gave birth, she gave her to a person who was
God, divine second person literally dwelling in her soul, she was an enclosed garden, faithful spouse of the Holy Spirit, no one else could enter into. And once you gave birth to the articles, the god bear she born gave birth to God, a person not just the nature, you're not a mother just of a nature but of a person.
These misconceptions, unfortunately a wide spread, and I do apologize, but I think I should mention that in Surah number five I believe that misconception is continued in the Quran when it says and remember when Allah was side of Easter son of mme Did you sound to me? worship Me and my mother is to God besides Allah. Catholic Church does not worship Mary as any god or goddess or any person of lesser Trinity.
But venerates with the greatest respect to that should be given to any creature faithful creature of God predestined vessel of election created by him for this purpose to bring forth the god man into the world for our redemption. Christ without a human nature could not have redeemed us according to God's plan. God redeemed us anyone anyway he chose but in this plan, God Christ had to be man to be the new Adam and our representative. And he obtained that human nature through the consent freewill consent given by the Virgin Mary to the angel Gabriel and in that way, she undid the knot of disobedience tidebuy he, and she became the new he has some great saints in the second century, say
suggest to Marcus and Aaron is and to Talia,
mother of the church I mentioned earlier. Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration some could say
the Virgin Mary at the foot of the cross. lol Jesus Christ said to her and son john, citizen john sang behold your mother that has particular interest because St. John's mother salami was there, the natural mother Christ was establishing a supernatural motherhood they see john representing the church of Faithful Remnant, the only apostle of the foot of the cross. In addition to his natural mother, Sal, Amit received the spiritual map. And cynjohn again reaffirms that in Revelation 1217, when he says that the dragon went to make war against the woman, and the rest of her offspring, the woman and her offspring, a mother and children on die, who are the offspring to quote on those who
keep the commandments of God and their testimony to Jesus. This woman is the is the Virgin Mary because she brings forth a child in verse five of chapter 12, bears a child who's to rule the nations with a rod of iron that's Jesus Christ, the Davidic King,
title Son of God, Mary's Mother of God, Jesus called Son of God, we find that in the Scriptures, the Gospels alone in the gospels align, the title Son of God is given to price Without objection, and at times even congratulates those who give it to him 12 times he received his title just in the Gospels. So Matthew 820-914-3516 16 he congratulate Simon by China, for calling him Son of the living God, is not me flesh and blood that is revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven, 2750 force a mass gospel 311, five 715 39, Luke 441-828-2272, john 149 1127, Christ Himself spoke, called himself the Son of God three times as recorded St. John's Gospel 1036 11, four and 1127
There are numerous quotes we can look at the scriptures concerning this person that married was
about what whether he was God or man or God and man. I can't go into all of them now too numerous but I refer to the following shed more light on the divine attributes of cross. Yahweh was called the God of glory. Psalm 29. The resurrected Christ is the Lord of Glory, one Corinthians two if God is lord of Lord Deuteronomy 10. Christ is Lord of lords revelation 17 God is the only Savior Isaiah 43. Christ as Savior sent Luke to God as a source of living water Jeremiah 17, Christ as a source of living waters and john for the Lord's thoughts cannot be directed Isaiah 40. So to instruct the mind of Christ, one Corinthians to the Lord God owns earth and all its fullness Psalm 24. Likewise does
the Lord Jesus one Corinthians 10, God never changes Psalm 102. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Hebrews 13. God is the light Psalm 27. Christ as the light of the worlds and john a. God is a searcher of hearts and minds Jeremiah 17, Christ as he who searches mind and heart revelations to Christ will come with all the holy ones. Zechariah 14, Christ will come with all the signs, one Thessalonians three. Well, that sounds good, but you're just reading from the Christian scriptures. The Old and New Testaments. We believe in the Old and New Testaments, but the version you use Mr. had had in the Catholic Church have been fraudulently
misrepresented, doctored, their fortunes have been tampered with. That's the accusation generally that Catholic Church will receive.
Was there however, the possibility of forgery of the Old and New Testaments in the past? What we have an evidence, manuscript and historical evidence concerning the Old and New Testaments
The day whether the scriptures the church possesses are accurate historical, are they the same scriptures written by some Matthew, Mark, Luke and john or as some side of the Gospels just second and third century forgeries are written by some Paul himself as some image without evidence. We have manuscript evidence, Dead Sea Scrolls produced 250 bc to 78 D. There we find the Old Testament the same as the new Old Testament we possess today no substantial alterations forgeries or tampering. The q seven fragment dates pre 70 fragment of Mark's gospel, the opposite the Priory found the deeds of just a few years ago. It's a fragment of symmetric chapter 26.
The john Lyons manuscript written about the 138, a small fragment of St. John's gospel, the Chester Beatty party found in 1931 data to the 155 and 180 leaves of the Old Testament 30 leaves of the Gospels and acts 20 leaves from St. Paul in Revelation, the bookmark Codex, the Codex vaticanus, the Codex and it calls the Codex alexandrinus, the Codex beside the Codex, the Codex and the Ottomans, these are all manuscripts fragments of hardnesses data.
mid second century, fourth century, fifth century, seventh century etc. I haven't got time to elaborate it on full but the general principle is that the experts examining these documents find a remarkable and total consistency between those ancient fragments, manuscripts and coders. With the Old and New Testament we have today.
There are no contradictions in any of them with our modern divergence of the Bible with respect to the person mission and works of Christ. Even though we find numerous, you might find in the in the manuscript copies of which there are around 24,000, we find numerous variations, simple variations in spelling, tense words or sentences are missing in the various manuscripts which are not protected divani. The Originals were inspired by God and are inherent, but the copies that we possess, have no such promise or guarantee of inerrancy. Nevertheless, there is no difference in any of them with respect to the modern scriptures we have today. The challenge is therefore,
who was Christ, we now have to be divine person. What's his claims reasonable? Was he mad? Was he a liar? Was he a fraud now is now when we look at the overall personal crisis represented in the scriptures are the Scriptures for by historic standards accurate, there is not evidence that shows in any way shape or form of any tampering, forgery, etc. My challenge is, if you present a different Christ, one that is not the true God and true man, and you base it on the late scriptures, that are LED your version of a tour of the of the New Testament, then please show us please produce your version of the original Torah and New Testament, your your manuscript fragments, your codicils,
etc, etc. and you show us please, that historical evidence of a tampering or forgery that was so messy, that the entire Christian world was duped without question, because in the past, throughout church history, we've always had controversies. We've had people who have denied certain parts of the Scriptures, and they have historically recorded marcion in the second century denied the Old Testament as a Christian. In certain parts of the New Testament, there was a controversy, people are posted, writings were written argument debate back and forth. Here we find no such historical evidence or manuscript evidence of forgery. So by any objective standards, the scriptures when we
compare them to other ancient writings, like the writings of seasons, pioneers, etc. by those time standards are historically accurate. And they wish to conclude my presentation today. And again, give thanks for the host, thank you very much, and God bless.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. I partook of the interfaith forum last year, and it was an exciting and stimulating experience. And I also appreciate that we can have such a frank and open discussion in the context of mutual respect.
I'm going to suggest some gentle critique of both alternative speakers, as well as presenting my own position on the matter. And it's precisely because I respect them, and take them seriously as making claims to truth that are regarded as important to engage in this way. So if you hear me reflecting not only on my own tradition, but also in interacting with alternative points of view that are presented here, it is in fact, not a matter of disrespect, but a respect because of the truth claims that are inherent
being made by both Roman Catholic and Muslim scholars
this afternoon can be understood in two ways. On the one hand, it can be taken to be questioning and making a point about with an exclusive focus on Mary herself.
To be honest, as an evangelical Protestant Christian, I have not much to say here. Mary plays virtually no role in Protestant theology, other than as the human bearer of Jesus of Nazareth. Have, I wanted to immediately correct a misconception that may be potentially available here, there are not three faiths represented. Today, there are only two faiths represented.
There's the Muslim faith and the Christian faith. Now, although at points I will have a difference of emphasis between the previous speaker Robert had that difference of emphasis does not constitute a different file.
So to basically take out focus on the person of marry,
but I thought that the topic was really about the question mark, and the question that was before us was, who is Mary, the mother of
particularly, given my understanding of the relative lack of significance of marriage in evangelical Protestant theology? That I think becomes a key question that we need to ask who is married? The mother of?
There's a lot that I would agree that Robert, with what Robert had said, But contrary to the Roman Catholic line, I will argue that the question in one sense is an unfortunate accident of translation.
That, as Rob pointed out, the original Greek phrase, the autocross Theo tacos, means not so much Mother of God is acknowledged by God bearer, and therefore says virtually nothing about Mary herself.
And as a consequence, all the exalted claims that are made for Mary, within the Roman Catholic Church, her perpetual virginity, the Immaculate Conception of Mary that is that she was conceived without a fallen human nature, the therefore the seamlessness of Mary, the bodily assumption of Mary, and consequently, the mediator ship of Mary, leading to a veneration of her
a theologically and biblically unwarranted.
At the same time, interacting with Muslim claims, are we arguing that the question of who marries the mother of a loan agreement with Robert at this point, is precisely the divine Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, that that's the only theologically and historically adequate position with respect to Jesus to recognize him, not only as a prophet Allah, certainly that, but as himself, the divine Son of God.
at all, I knew that a failure within Islam to recognize Jesus as the divine Son of God has significant consequences for Muslim faith and practice.
First, and if I can start by bridging backwards to what Robert had said, and then bridging forwards
to our successive speaker, I'll start with Roman Catholicism.
My whole claim here is that the Roman Catholic assertion
which leads to a veneration of Mary along the chain that I outlined previously, essentially is a process of reasoning backwards from the nature of Christ via via I suppose, a logical chain through to a particular position with respect to married
you could you please explain
what I said. He said marriage is almost no role in evangelical Protestant life.
Now, I was trying to describe one category from Sony, I have a great respect for it. I was just wanting to interact with it.
I can sit down as you prefer.
Yes, I'm being asked to speak on the role of marry plays in evangelical chorus unbelief, and the answer is virtually not. That's why I took the question to be who is married a mother off, and a rock wall Roman Catholic assertion marries the mother of who marries a Roman Catholic
faith includes various logical reasonings back to the nature, so on and so on, and I wasn't sure after that.
You haven't committed continue. What would you prefer? Now
In ID 54
is the knife in a table declaration or what is known as a papal bull, titled ineffable as I pronounced, that Mary was herself immaculately conceived,
the Most Holy Virgin Mary was in the first moment of her conception, by a unique gift of grace and privilege, our mighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin.
This led to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the seamlessness of Mary. So
we're having a bit of interaction here, that's good.
And it's good to see that vigorous discussion can take place in that this is the way we want things to be. And in fact, it's the Roman Catholic
chaplaincy coordinator who's insisting that I continue here. As I write some questions about Roman Catholic doctrine. What's more, I would expect nothing less. And we'll do the same myself. So I'm awesome. I appreciate that gesture.
I've only you know,
I've made the point that in Roman Catholic doctrine, marriage is understood to be immaculately conceived, that is the self without the Stein of sin, original sin. And it's like secondly to the doctrine that Mary was herself sinless throughout her life.
In consequence of a special privilege of grace from God.
Mary was free from every personal scene during her her law her life.
What was the Council of Trent declared that no justified person can for his whole life avoidable sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God, such as the church halls was given to the blessing married.
I've simply got one point to make about that, which is actually two points. Firstly, this was denied by many of the Church Fathers origins and basil, john chrysostom. And in particular, since Cyril of Alexandria, who was himself responsible for the conclusion of the debate with respect to the term theater costs. It was he was primarily significant in the council's after which Robert referred, and yet he denies this, scientists and Cyril denied the seamlessness of Jesus, we have one quotation from Marian so it was described God has her Savior.
And later in that chapter, Luke chapter one and verse 77. What needs to be saved, is couched in terms of being forgiven for sins.
I take it then that, from a biblical point of view, Mary is not to be understood as sinners, but as in the same position as all human beings are in need of saving by God, our Heavenly Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ,
as a person of sin, who was saved through Jesus,
the chain continues
to include the bodily assumption of Mary that she did not suffer death, but was assumed directly into heaven bodily. And in the papal bull infallible as to which I referred earlier, Mary is described as a mediatrix, that is a female mediator of some form.
At this point, again, the Bible is clear that there's only one mediator between God and humankind, and that is Jesus Christ Himself human.
And at this point, I think, what I'd like to say is that, although
Robert gave, I found a very persuasive and interesting presentation about the person of Jesus, as the as the son of Mary, who did not speak as as fully as he might have done on the work of Jesus. And in particular, there's a work of Jesus, especially in his death and resurrection that constitute him as the Lord the Divine Law of Christian faith. And therefore, I want to swing in the second half of my presentation, to speak of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Completing the picture that Robert began.
And these are I understand that I'm
interacting with some vigor with a Muslim position on Jesus, which in my understanding is, I regard Jesus as a prophet of God, nonetheless, inferior to Muhammad, but to be honored, and deny that he's the divine Son of God, to be worshipped
in particular, that there is a strong tradition within Muslim faith. That Jesus did not die.
That was preserved from death by God, and therefore consequently did not arise.
From an airline, I think very persuasively arguments both historically and theologically. Why this is important to hold from a Christian point of view.
I simply want to reinforce that it is through His death and resurrection that Jesus is constituted as the divine Lord, who is worshipped in the Christian tradition.
And particularly to add to the historical testimony that Robert presented with respect to the Bible, with regard to Jesus life.
the testimony of both Christian and non Christian scholars is that Jesus died on the cross under the Roman rulership of the time. And particularly, there's a quotation from tacitus, I ran a small stroke of the time, which confirms his point,
is a very important issue, because it is a straightforward Matter of fact, that either Jesus did die, or he did not die, both both of those things cannot be true. In particular, the significance of the death of Jesus is not only in itself, but also what followed, which is that Jesus rose from the dead. Again, there's a growing consensus of both Christian as well as non Christian scholars, that the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is persuasive, if not overwhelming.
The point of that is this.
Upon his resurrection, Jesus was worshipped.
If Jesus is not understood as the divine Son of God, then such worship would be blasphemous. And all Christians have been conducting and
given be guilty of blasphemy, for we worship Jesus.
At the same time, if Jesus did rise from the dead, and is rightly to be worshipped, then it would be on the other hand blasphemous not to worship Jesus, as God
is a particularly significant consequences to understand Jesus as divine, that is that Mary is the Son of God Himself. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, within Christian teaching,
leads to an understanding of God that is distinctly personal,
and not merely undifferentiated power.
It's precisely because God is himself, three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that God is intrinsically and inherently personal, on a Christian conception,
and in particular has, if you like personal space in his relations, this means that the way we have to relate to God is itself to be personal. And the way that God relates to us is likewise personal. In other words, whether or not married was a son of God is not a mere abstract and slightly obscure question of doctrine, which may be debated here or there. The question of whether Mary was the son of God is a decidedly spiritual question that shapes the hole of one's spirituality is God to be understood as a person
and to whom we relate with personal relationship, or on the other hand, is going to be understood as undifferentiated power?
volley is precisely because of the death of Jesus, that is a Christian person understand that God upholds justice and mercy, at the same time in his personal relations with us, is because Jesus, the divine Son of God, fully divine, fully human died on the cross in our place, that the Christian faith affirms that God's justice and his mercy do not compete with one another, but about fully expressed in the person of Jesus Himself.
Mary, the mother, who
argued in agreement with much of what Robert had said, that Mary is the mother of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. And I've sought to extend Roberts analysis by including not only his person, but his work, his work of dying on the cross and rising to new life that constitutes His Lordship, and is the reason therefore that Christians worship this one, who is the son of Mary
Thank you very much.
adjudicators and to the sponsors of this
wisely decided for and to our two previous speakers, I want to share my my gratitude and my appreciation for having the ability to share this platform in these views. I think that such dialogue is much needed,
and pointment. And, and should be done in more occasions, to show the tolerance, and also not only to show tolerance, but to expose the historical views that exists concerning Jesus Christ, and his blessing mother, and what the church should follow us, and what the evidence of history will point out to these points, that in the past, perhaps there wasn't a very broad view of this particular subject. Now, for me, what I'd like to do is to offer,
first of all, the statement that that we would all agree about, because to start off with disagreement, would be to start off with a negative
one, we believe, as Muslims,
that Jesus Christ
is the Son of Man.
So we all agree to that, that Jesus Christ is the Son of Man. So that's the question
that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ. Now, the other appellations that are given to Jesus Christ, history and documentation will give reference to that. But as to the question mark here, there is no doubt that Mary, who, by the way, is the daughter of Hannah, who, by the way, is the niece of Zachary, who, by the way, is the cousin of Jada, who, by the way, was the son of Zachary, who, by the way, all of them were servants of God.
All of those people who married us related to we're also servants of God.
And they themselves never claimed any divinity. So from a historical point of view, we know who Mary was. And we also know how she was conceived. Hubbard
a mirror, as well as the birth of her cousin john, because I think all of us here would agree that a child that's born from a father that's 110, and a mother, that's 90, I think that's a miracle itself.
And Hannah was a woman of high repute, a woman who dedicated herself to God, that is the mother
of married. And she prayed to God, asking God to give her a son that she could give over to
the rabbi's of the temple, dedicate him to the worship of God.
Her prayer was answered that she became pregnant. But when she conceived, she gave forth a daughter. And she asked, Oh, God, you answered my prayer. But I bought a daughter, the angel Gabriel, that service angel that always appeared to profits, and other people whom God chooses, said to her, so be it. You've been given a child, but she will be the mother
of a son,
who will be the Messiah. And she will also be one of the chiefs of the women in the hereafter. So Hannah was given her prayer in two ways. One, she was given a daughter, who will be the chief of the women in the hereafter. Of course, this is our concept, saying good marriages. And secondly, the son that she was asking for was given to her through that daughter marry. That's our concept.
Now, we take our concept, not from the Muslim church, or from the Muslim mosque, but we take our concept directly from the source of revelation itself.
Now, that's the question
In here, for the Catholic Church of the for the N value angelical church or any other church, the question is, do they take the definition of that question mark, from the mouth of Jesus himself from the force of revelation itself? Or do they take it from as our good
person is to her dad said, from the, from the church fathers, from the councils that were held in nicea, whether in the fourth century or the fifth century? Or was it taken from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself? This is what we want to discuss.
So let me begin by saying that in Luke 135, please make a note of this.
It was mentioned and by the way, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and john for the for the four
gospels, synoptic gospel writers.
There is no evidence in history as to who they were, because they didn't give their last names like most people do. But we'll accept that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and john are considered to be gospel writers, although none of them claim to have met, walk, talk, slept, ate directly with from Jesus Christ Himself.
Nevertheless, will accept that they are
writers, and as writers and people who record will say that their recording could be accepted as well as anyone elses.
And Luke 135 said that the power of the Almighty shall overshadow V
is in regards to how Mary became pregnant. The power of the Almighty
shall overshadow the
and Luke 137.
For with God, nothing is impossible.
So this is the answer, because Mary herself was surprised, how will she become pregnant with no man ever touched her?
when no man ever touched her, and she didn't walk the streets, and she was not a woman? unchaste? The answer? For with God, nothing is impossible. Now both of these two relate
both these two definitions Islam agrees with for the power of the Almighty shall become the that is the power of the Almighty, however, God since his power shall overshadow overcome Mary and she conceived. And when she asked, and I was scripture, as well as the other scriptures, how should that happen? The answer in the Quran is that that is easy for all mighty God for whatsoever he says Be, it's just his word. And it becomes like the creation of the world.
And Luke 134 says, Jesus was conceived
that Mary conceived Jesus, as a virgin, we also believe that
it's another point of agreement here, we believe. And no Muslim can be a Muslim, it does not believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus while she was untouched. That means no male sperm into her for this conception to take place. We agree.
And look 323 23 to 38.
There's a long genealogical tree back to Joseph. And let me just say this, that in your scriptures, I don't know whether the, the the Catholic version or the evangelical version or the other many versions, it This seems to be a big conflict about the genealogy of Jesus. On one hand, one traces the genealogy back to Joseph
and gives it suddenly six generations
back to Joseph,
and Matthew, one, one through 116, one through 16. It gives 41 generations. So there's evidently some historical biblical conflict about the many generations of Jesus Christ. The third thing is that Jesus is considered to be in the Bible, from the generation of Abraham. So here we have Abraham, we have David, and we have Joseph, certainly he couldn't have been from the tree of all of them. It had to be two of them had to be wrong. One had to be right. All three had to be wrong.
Now if we say that Jesus is the son of Mary, which we believe that's who he was, that in that case, his genealogy traces directly back to his mother, then from his mother, to her mother, back forward, that would eliminate Joseph, David and Abraham. But that would not mean that he was the son of God, simply because he was the son of Mary, and that we could not chase she traced his genealogy, back to other David Joseph or Abraham.
Now we see that Jesus Christ has sometimes been called here, the son of David, the son of Joseph, the son of Abraham, but never, ever, ever, that Jesus Himself claimed that his genealogy was, I am the Son of God, except
in a very
And let me remind the Christians here, in case you forgotten,
the Lord's Prayer says,
When they asked you, oh, Rabbi, and by the way, they didn't say, Oh, God, teach us how to worship you. They said, Oh, Rabbi, teach us how to pray. Because that's what they call Jesus of Nazareth means those that follow Jesus Christ, from Jerusalem to Nazareth, those who follow them, they call them that man from Nazareth, that man from Galilee, they call him Rabbi or teacher. So they said, Oh, Rabbi, teach us how to pray. And what did Jesus say? He said, Our Father, who art in heaven, He didn't say, my father, how will be that name, he didn't say my name, thy kingdom come, not our kingdom come on my kingdom come, thy will be done. Not my will be done to our will be done on earth,
as it is in heaven, Give us this day, US me eating meat, and my mother and everybody with me.
Our daily bread. So Jesus ate bread, and his mother ate bread, as other people eat and drink and eat bread. Then Jesus after he, he drank, what his body didn't use, he urinated. And Jesus after he ate, what his body didn't use, he deprecated and God did not advocate and God did not urinate.
So Jesus made it clear, he could not have been God in that speech. Let me move on what he said, Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil for vine, not mine, is the kingdom, the power and the glory forever and ever. That doesn't sound like God speaking to himself or praying it to himself?
No, man. Now, let me give you his two speeches.
Let me give you a few references of what Jesus said about himself. And let me give you a few references of what Jesus said about God. So we're not we don't get mixed up between what Jesus said, and the church fathers said, and the Council of Nicea, or the Council of Ephesus or any other Council. Let's talk about what Jesus said about him. And what he said about God. So we don't get hung up on the different denominations, and the different Appalachians and the different allegorical explanations of what it could be a would be should be.
In john 118, he says, no man has seen God at any time as Jesus speech. That was the people looking at Jesus. were they looking at him? was a hearing him? Of course, they were, while he said that no man has seen God at any time.
You know, while you're thinking about that,
that they may know the
the only true God and Jesus Christ who has been fed, that's john 17. Three, write that down.
And when Jesus entered Jerusalem, this is what the multitude of people said he was those who saw him enter Jerusalem, and by the way, and the Bible said, he wrote on a horse and a coat, that's really a trick.
He wrote on a horse, and then on to ask a donkey, and a coat as a young horse. So now that's really a circus act if he was riding on two animals at the same time. Nevertheless, let's go a little further. This is what Jesus said.
I'm being facetious here, so I don't want you to get uneasy. I'm just giving the speeches of Jesus Himself as opposed to my opinions.
said here that Jesus, the multitude when he entered Jerusalem said, They called him that prophet of Nazareth, Jesus of Galilee, Matthew 2111. I'm going to save what the Quran says about Jesus and his mother for last. Because first, I think it's only respectful that I give to you people here. Okay, what's your own book says? Not that I'm using as an evidence, but I'm just using it to say that this is what we find in your scriptures. That Jesus also said.
When someone called him good,
he became insulted.
On one occasion, when a woman touches garment and smashes garment from my hands, they said, Why does that call me good? When there's no one that is good, except the one that odd in heaven.
Massive 1917. Jesus called himself the Son of Man.
Now he's a he's the son of man, or he's the son of God, he cannot be both. But in his speech, he said, The Son of Man. And when Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God, he also referred to everybody as sons of God, because if you read the Bible, when the Son of God has used issues in many places in the Bible, sons of God, meaning people of God, people that God loves, and if that's the case, God got sons by the tons.
Jesus said, and that's 1722, by the way, and also 1811, Matthew, he's ever seen me, receives the one that sent me, Matthew 1040. Jesus said, I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, Matthew 1228. Jesus said, the Lord's prayer that
Jesus fell down on his face,
and prayed toward God, Matthew 2639, so I asked him, did he fall down his face and pray to himself,
Jesus said, The doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me john 716, not mine, but his that sent me. Jesus said, I do nothing of myself. But as my father has taught me, I speak these things, john 828.
Now, brothers, and sisters, and esteemed guests and speakers.
20 minutes is what we will allow. So it is, it is a matter of ethics, that we don't go beyond our time.
I would have liked to give to you.
What the end since about married, but I can only say this, because our good Reverend had already said that, that the Quran speaks about marriage more times in the Bible itself.
And I'll go look further with you to say this, that had the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him had he offered to plan and
lead man has he done so suddenly, he would have dedicated a chapter to his mother, but he didn't. There's no chapter called Amina, he would have certainly dedicated the chapter to himself. His name is Mohammed. There's no chapter called Muhammad. And the name Jesus is mentioned in the Qur'an
25 times, while the name of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon him is only named mentioned maybe 10 or 12 times. Yet, the Quran has dedicated an entire chapter
to the mother of Jesus Christ called money
and has dealt with the birth of Jesus Christ, the birth of Mary, the miracles of Jesus Christ, the the the alleged death of Jesus Christ, the alleged crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the alleged resurrection. And I say a legend, a legend, a legend. Because in my answer to my friend here, of Jesus Christ, died on the cross died when death and we know that crucifixion means death on the cross. We know the crucifixion took at least three to five to seven days. We know Jesus Christ allegedly was put on the cross in the morning of what day Friday, wasn't it? Good Friday? Yeah, in the afternoon, and he was taken down the same day.
That would not have proven definitely cross although he might have been nailed on the cross. We don't know. Second thing is that if he rose as a spirit, he would not have said feel me a spirit.
I am not. That's what he told the people that he appeared in front. Do not fear. But feel me a spirit I am not. So he made it clear to them that was him, and that he was not a ghost. And if he wasn't ghosts, the rock would not have been moved from his place, he would have walked through the rock. So we got many different substantiation. But that's another subject. What I want to do here is say that we believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, an immaculate woman, a pure woman, but not a woman who herself was God, no venerated, to be worshipped, no giving birth to a god, man, man, God, three gods, or someone to be worshipped, but that she gave birth, as God ordered her to do so.
And that Jesus's birth was like the birth of Adam. Only it was less complicated. Adam had no father, no mother, at least Jesus had a mother. That's our position. And we believe that is a sacred position, and a fair position and one built on revelation. Thank you very much.
What I'll do is I'll answer that question, since it's the first question, but I just want to say to you, I don't think it's relevant to the topic. I mean, the topic here has to do with Mary and who she is. But if you want me to give definitions about Arabic words, or the word Islam, I mean, the word Islam come from an Arabic root cellar.
Solomon, he was at peace, or it needs to be at peace or safety or with security. The word Islam means to attain peace, and surrender and submission and security with God. And the way we do so is through submitting ourselves to God and surrendering ourselves to God's legislation. Hence, the person who surrenders the person who submits, the person that subscribes is given peace and security through that and is called a Muslim. And we believe, therefore, that this is a title and a description of all the prophets of God, therefore, they were all Muslims.
As far as the issue of Messiah, the word Messiah comes from the Arabic terminology, Messiah, Messiah in Arabic means to rub. It also means to anoint, it also means one that God has appointed. We believe that this was not a name for Jesus, but was one of his titles. It also therefore means
Christ, when someone says Jesus the Christ, it means of mercy, because to christen in the Christian, or according to the Christian church to Christian, it means to anoint. But the Arabic terminology means Messiah, one who was anointed and appointed by God, that's one. The second thing is that our position regarding God can do anything he wants to do this is correct. But God has given to us revelation to determine what he has done. And this is what we follow. We have scripture that says they killed him not, nor was he crucified, but that's our scripture.
Now, I could give historical reference to support that scripture, but I won't do so just for the length of time that we have here. But I would say to the lady who asked the question, I could provide you with some of the historical evidence that seems to support the fact that Jesus Christ, neither was he killed,
nor was he crucified, in the sense crucified has a specific meaning. For instance, if a man was was given the sentence of death by electrocution.
That means doesn't mean he was strapped in the electric chair and some electric went through him but he didn't die so it's okay to go home.
Death by electrocution means he was trapped in the electric chair and enough electric went through him until he was absolutely dead. And they pronounced him as such. So the fact that Jesus Christ may have been melted because that is not crucifixion, and that is the state that I'm making. And I get historical evidence basically to support that, but I don't think it would be fair to the other speakers or
Other people who have questions that go into the full historical support that I'm just giving you that say that we have historical evidence to support that point, and that it is a matter for us of Revelation, not a matter of our own supposition or allegory. Thank you.
For your question, if Mary is the mother of God, then why is it that she is not getting the recognition?
The straightforward answer that question is that the key part of the phrase, Mary, the mother of God is, who is married, the mother of that is God, the recognition given or not given to Mary is precisely a verse inversely proportional to the recognition that's given to her son, that is to the Lord Jesus Christ.
It's for this reason, and the reason for that, rather, is that, in the words of John's Gospel, which were quoted by the shake, no one has ever seen God. The second half of that verse is precisely a claim by Jesus. It is God, the only son who has made known in his own way, after his resurrection. It is Jesus who is worshipped by Thomas as my Lord and my God. And Jesus not repudiate that worship, which he would certainly do as a Jewish man if he were not himself, and understood himself to be the divine Son of God. Why does Mary have very little place because she's a, merely a vessel I God bearer, that focus for the Christian fight in the evangelical Protestant tradition is not on Mary,
who is a vehicle, it is on the one whom she has born, namely Jesus, who was worshipped and received worship himself, and claimed to be God Himself. In the words of the Old Covenant yafai, or I am.
I've been given the following question. You claim that Mary is not worshipped as a god or goddess, yet at the same time, there are many Catholics who pray to Mary for help and guidance, who have a picture statue and look at it in their time of need.
I'll answer this question because bear with me for a few moments. I'll give you an in depth analysis and question the scriptures etc. We believe that the Virgin Mary is in heaven, glorified in heaven with Christ, Christ at the right hand of the Father, the Virgin Mary's in heaven with all those other faithful who have died in Christ, we don't believe that the souls of the deceased are extinguished, or they're in sleep, slumber, etc. Because we do what's important in two Corinthians five eight than expected to die and he's actually hoping so he could be with Christ. The obvious reading of it is that he didn't take he did not wish to die so he could go to sleep or annihilation.
We looked at before that the Transfiguration award on Mount Tabor appearing and showing forth His divinity, the great light that Sean who appeared with him, but Moses and Elijah Moses had died, but we don't find him asleep, but rather conversing with Christ, the parable that our Lord gives of Lazarus and Devi is the rich man, rich man who was sent to hell. And he's crying out and he says, Abraham up there. And he cries out to father Abraham, for assistance, to send an angel to dip a finger in water to touch his tongue, which is much of flying, neither Abraham or they in, in Abraham's bosom, or David in hell were extinguished or in slumber, but even a soul in hell is
praying to Abraham, speaking, not worshiping not adoring as God but praying for assistance to Abraham in this parable that Christ Himself gives, of course, he couldn't receive that, though it was in vain because he was in hell. In Hebrews 12, one, simple speaks about the great heroes of the Old Testament in chapter 11. And then in 2001, refers to them as witnesses, cloud of witnesses, what is a cloud but something above multitude above us? Who witnesses who are aware, and like the angels in heaven? they rejoice over one sinner who repents, how do they know what's happening on Earth, not through their own power, but because they behold God face to face in the beatific vision, and he
himself infuses that knowledge into them. Revelation chapter six, verse 10, we see the martyrs, their souls under the altar and in the vision of cynjohn, crying out to God, praying to God, they're in heaven. They're praying to God asking these are the souls of the martyrs, praying for God to bring retribution on those who caused their deaths unjustly. Added to that, that together, the Catholic Church believes that those in heaven as part of the church, church triumphant, the victorious in Christ, and the Virgin Mary must certainly be there, while otherwise how can all generations call her blessing as she promised
Saw she's there in heaven and through her prayers can assist us she has knowledge of what's happening on earth through God infusing that into her son James chapter five, verse 16, says that prayer adjust man is upgraded vow is the Virgin Mary unjust, quite the opposite. So we believe that she can intercede and pray for us as all the other signs. It's called the communion of saints, the ancient belief of the church, the church is one that doesn't separate us, those who in heaven are glorified in God. And now what's going on earth concerning statues for the past worship any statue, as a God will give any divine attributes to such Of course there will be idolatry. But do we regard
it as idolatry when you have pictures of our loved ones on the walls or in our wallets? Or if we might have an affection showing affection through our hearts to the person in that image?
Or if it is a picture of our young child? Are we showing worship to our child adoring the massage? logic tells us now. And Christ redeemed the church shows her practice the artwork in the catacombs of the early church pre Constantine.
The people believe the church of Rome was founded by Constantine, while the category paintings are largely pre Constantine. Constantine in the church saw that art needed to be redeemed out of the hands, art and sculpture and architecture out of the hands of idolatry and paganism, and to serve the true God and to depict those who are of God.
Not me so we can, we can show their respect, and it is respected his honor, in the scriptures show this in one example, though, just before that there are statues of angels in the temple of Jerusalem. There are statues of angels creatures in heaven above, on the Ark of the Covenant carried by the Jews in the battle. The Jews had the 10 commandments, the first and what our evangelical friends believe is a second commandment which Catholics believers incorporate into the first commandment. They had the commandments against statues and images, yet they had those statues in the temple where they committed idolatry now, number 2721. Seven, God said through Moses, to those Jews
bitten by the snake bite if you want to be healed, not dive the steak but venerate the image of the snake, the brazen serpent on the pole, which is a pre figment of Christ, with a committed idolatry, when they under God's orders went to that image of the snake on the pole, and not to God Himself until
they showed veneration to Sacramento to hold the object consecrated by Gaul. Later on, they arrived, they adore the image on the pole, and God commanded it to be destroyed. So we see there, the use of images, which is legitimate, and the abuse of images, which is illegitimate. We don't have it's not a prohibition of images per se. In the commandment, it's the use of images in idolatrous manner. And no pathway that I've ever met, knowledgeable, ignorant, who regard statues of the Virgin mirror or any other saints or pictures or artwork, pictures and kids book Bibles books that many Protestants have to be images of gods or goddesses.
Of course, Christ ate and drank and slept. Because Christians believed it was not just true God, he was true man. Otherwise, it would not have been the new Adam, our representative to die on the cross to make the atonement to reconcile us with God the Father to be his children by adoption, sacrifice I just mentioned briefly because the question was, can I show from the Bible quotes that Jesus was true God? Is that right? The question just very briefly, Christ was accused of blasphemy, what was the blasphemy the source of the accusation? Because you being a man, make it yourself, God, that's how the Jews understood it, that when he was being given the term Son of God, Christ said the
following, very, truly, utterly before Abraham was I am the coordinates and john 858. I'll just focus on that point. And then I'll conclude conclude my answer with that, quote, there are many others. The Jews picked up stones to stone him to death for blasphemy, because he identified himself in the language of the Jews at that time with the name of God revealed to Moses Yeah, why I am who I am, who am and when Christ said before Abraham was, I am not before Abraham was, I was, I am, is showing his pre existence, divine pre existence before Abraham was 1819 centuries earlier. And in doing that he equated he's not
The very name of God, which was unnatural in normal circumstances, they understood him correctly. That's why they picked up stones to stone him.
The question is, is going to be understood as Jesus to be understood as God or the Son of God? I think it's very important to not caricature your Christian faith.
It's easy to contract or construct straw men. I don't know if you've heard that phrase straw man a untrue and caricatured version of a position to then light that straw. And but then it goes through in the face. It's actually a counterproductive tactic to construct straw men. The Christian claim is never that Jesus was God in a straightforward way, in the sense that when Jesus prayed to God, he was talking to himself. That would be ludicrous. And the Christian climb never has been and never is, that God somehow talked to himself when he prayed over when Jesus on a goddess, his father, that Jesus was somehow honoring himself. Now the question is then appointed from a Christian perspective,
demonstrated by Jesus resurrection and the worship that he received by his disciples. And the objection, as Robert has said, that he received from his contemporaries for blasphemy was that God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Not that the Father is the son know that the Son is the Father, and not that there are three gods, but that God is himself constituted by relationships between father and son in the spirit,
so that the God in Jesus is not God in Australia, in a straightforward sense, at least if you mean by that Jesus is the father. No, that's never been the Christian climate simply inaccurate to accuse Christians of saying that some have designed it as three gods or that, that Jesus was God or the Son of God, how can you be your own father at all, that's simply to misunderstand Christianity could not have done the hard work. The Christian claim is that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that is a complex monotheism. As I mentioned, in my speech, the reason that this is so important is that it creates personal relationships and love as the heart of the universe, instead of undifferentiated
power, and authority, per that personal reality is reality at its deepest. That's why the love between people is not just a thing we might do, but in fact, is reflecting the very heart and character of God, who is himself, Father, Son, and spirit.
With all due respects, and
we'll take your question next. But since the two gentlemen on the Christian side, seem to be giving mixed signals,
I want to just say, God,
as the Creator of the heavens and earth,
has been known as God's straightforward
from Abraham and Moses, and David and Solomon, john the baptist, Jesus Christ, the prophet Mohammed, all the prophets of God knew God was sent by God. And their concept of God was always straightforward. Now, when it became somewhat less than straightforward, as the gentlemen just related to us, as the Reverend good Reverend related, and as Robert had also related, let me tell you what it became sort of and straightforward. Were three gods or three persons was one God, yet one was not the father of God, but they will all seem to be God, where they sat and how they sat and how they discharge their responsibilities, how it became that how the mystery began to become a
mystery, and how it become to be personal, because it is personal. I do agree that the understanding of how God is three, and how God Jesus is man and God, and how Jesus is God and the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, and how they are three persons, but one God, every Christian has their own personal understanding of that mystery. It is personal. It became personal because all of these claims regarding Jesus Christ, including the dogmas that Robert just mentioned to us, by the way, all of this, these claims and dogmas came at least 350 years after Jesus Christ, from Paul, the Synoptic Gospels, and all the interpreted interpretation from the church came from the fourth century
onwards. What we find therefore in confusion, is the Pauline doctrine
and the Roman Catholic doctrine.
doctrines of paganism and doctrines of idolatry of with Jesus
Christ refuted when he said, If you asked me, I'll tell you which of the commandments are the greatest. Do you Christians here know which of the commandments are the greatest?
Helio Israel? The LORD thy God is how many?
One, and thou shalt not worship anyone except the Lord, that God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all that mind, and thou shalt not worship any graven images in the heavens, or in the earth, or in the sea below. Now, you tell me, what these doctrines involve? Do they involve graven images, paganism and idolatry? Is that what Jesus preach? Absolutely not Jesus, and those that follows him, they will call the naza rings, by the way, they weren't called Christians, Christ, he was Christ, they will call Nazarene.
The original followers of Christ did not observe or knew these beliefs and principles. In fact, they were systematically slaughtered and eliminated by the people who put forward these new doctrines of paganism and idolatry.
Did you know that suicide is among the three leading causes of death in the western developed world, the western developed world
with a semblance, and the trappings
are the most preeminent
means After all, this time,
and the people walk away from that grave?
What about that person in the grave? What's happening?
Because you know, and I know that death is almost like sleeping.
But that's the only theologically and historically adequate position with respect to Jesus to recognize him, not only as a prophet Allah, certainly that, but as himself, the divine Son of God.
argue that a failure within Islam to recognize Jesus, as the divine Son of God has significant consequences for Muslim faith and practice. And you show us please, that historical evidence of a tampering or forgery that was so messy, that the entire Christian world was duped without question, because in the past, throughout church history, we've always had controversies. We've had people who have denied certain parts of the Scriptures, and they have historically recorded marcion in the second century denied the Old Testament as a Christian and certain parts of the New Testament, there was a controversy, people are posting writings were written argument debate back and forth. Here we
find no such historical evidence or manuscript evidence of forgery, from the church fathers, from the councils that were held in nicea, whether in the fourth century or the fifth century? Or is it taken from the mouth of Jesus Christ himself? This is what we want to discuss. We believe that Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, an immaculate woman, a pure woman, but not a woman who herself was God nor venerated, to be worshipped, no giving birth to a god man, man, God, three gods, or someone to be worshipped, but that she gave birth, as God ordered her to do so. And that Jesus Christ was like the birth of Adam. Only it was less complicated. Adam had no father. No mother, at least Jesus
had a mother.
If a man goes into the store down the street, and the Muslim is selling her on demand, so what you're doing brothers Hannah law
This is fenzi are you selling
this alcohol you selling?
This is my sir. Gambling that you doing? You facilitating for what his?
What you're doing brothers. Are you standing on the corner selling drugs? What are you doing? It tell him you don't get out. It will shoot you too.
And for our young people that are in the streets,
We don't like you to be in the streets.
We don't like who you are within the streets. We don't like what you are doing in the streets. We don't like what it does to the image of Islam, but we love you.
We love you. You are the sons of Islam and the daughters of Islam and the future of Islam and inshallah to Allah among you, there is an apple vote and
the miracle of the Quran
is that there is no question a human being can ask about life,
any aspect of life but the Quran has given the answer.
Not only has the Quran given an answer, but the Quran has directed us towards an example that illustrates for us that example that that answer
at this point now My advice for you is that what you should continue to do is you should move on from that 1315 year old experience, to the experience where you are right now and understand that there's a whole nother stage. There's no ceiling on this issue. Esau didn't bring no ceiling, he brought a ticket. And the Holy Spirit that you're talking about that was Gabriel.
So we're not followers of Gabriel, we follow that next prophet that also jabril came to and brought that scripture, you should read the quote and you should read the life of the Prophet peace and blessings be upon them and not be afraid of it.
Okay, and by doing so, you may find out that the natural progression of where you are right now is Islam. That's just my advice to
get off the shelf and look at it. Not for its content. Look at the quality the Christmas. Look at the advancement. Look at the graphics. Look at the color. Listen to the sound,
And for the Muslims.
Go to the bookstores and see what's available their inferior treasure.
So the coupon they are making the investment to make trash. Superior. But the Muslims, they're not making any investment to make the treasure.
Better than the trash.