format_quote Originally Posted by
khairullah
Christianity in Five Minutes
Khalid Yasin embraced Islam in 1965 and is currently the Director of the Islamic Teaching Institute in the USA. He specializes in a variety of topics and areas including: Youth, Islamic History, Culture, community development and Dawah work. He has lectured in a variety of places and locations both nationally and internationally and has been the means by which a large number of non-Muslims have reverted to Islam.
Extracts from the lecture:
Mathew, Luke, mark and john who were they?
Mathew who?
Luke who?
John Who?
And mark who?
What were their last names?
Very few people in the first century AD had last names. Note that even Jesus is known as Jesus "of Nazareth", not by a last name. But some people did have surnames, and among those was a fellow named Mark. You see, Mark is his last name. His full name was John Mark.
When did they write?
Did they know Jesus Christ (PBUH)?
Did they walk with Jesus Christ (PBUH)?
Did they eat with Jesus Christ (PBUH)?
Did they talk to Jesus Christ (PBUH)?
Did they even meet Jesus Christ (PBUH) PBUH)??!
The answer is NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
He errs in that assessment. I believe that John did indeed know, walk with, eat with, and talk with Jesus. I also believe that this is true with regard to Matthew, though not with the same level of confidence that I have for John. I don't believe it is likely that Luke or Mark knew Jesus, however I do not suppose that it was beyond the realm of possibility.
Conclusively they wrote those books 40 years after Jesus Christ (PBUH) PBUH) they never met him
The last one they wrote was 80 years after Jesus Christ (PBUH) they never met him
"Conclusively"?? One who would make such a statement regarding these books simply doesn't know the meaning of the word "conclusively". Given that we have the testimony of John's own disciples (plural) that John wrote the gospel that bears his name, if anything is going to be found to be conclusive it is that John DID write the book that bears his name and that he did know Jesus, not the other way around.
As far as the estimated dating of the other gospels, the estimated time of Jesus death is 29 AD, with Mark, Luke and Matthew being written between 64 and 75 AD (roughly 35-46 years after Jesus' crucifixion) and certainly such close enough in time that they could have known him, for if they were the same age as him (and they could have been younger) they would only be around 70 years of age. Before you object to that being well beyond average lifespan, such averages were shortened because of infant mortality. It was not unusual for folks who survived into adulthood to live well into advance years, including 70 and even older.
The other thing is all of them seem to have written the gospel (pause) according to
According to according to according to!!!
Now when you write a letter do you sign it according to? (Sigh!)
According to is the third party!
This is the most ludicrous of the comments thus far. The phrase, "The Gospel according to _______________" is just a title added to the completed document by the church. It was a way of identifying one gospel account from another. And precisely because when handled by the church they did become third party documents they thus needed to say, this is the gospel according to (whoever was the accepted author of that particular gospel they were referencing).
When Jacky, Johnny or bobby told me something and I wrote it I would say according to Joe, Johnny Tommy or bobby.
According to.
But those four people would not write a letter and in front of it say Jacky according to
Jacky.
They not even right their last names.
Because if Jacky right me a check and only write Jacky I couldn't cash it. And if I was a
Policeman and I stop Johnny on the road and he has a license that only say Jacky he is going to jail. (Laugh! from the audience)
Where in the world is a document with only one name of four different writers that didn't
Meet the one whom they writing about where is that accepted in the whole world?
No where except in the Bible.
This is obvious nonsense with no other comments than what I have noted above being necessary.
And the church fathers, historians and the Christian writers. They all agree that perhaps
Those four writers themselves were only pen names.
This is not even close to true. Please, if you can support this, provide a quote from the church fathers where they agreed these are pen names.
While you are looking, please read this which is the actual statement of Papia, an early church father:
And the Presbyter used to say this, "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. He had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as a necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them."
The "Presbyter" that Papias refers to is John the Presbyter.
In addition to Papias, another church father, Irenaeus, also identifies Mark as the disciple and interpreter of Peter. (See Irenaeus'
Against Heresies, III. i. 2.)
Because a writer would not write his own only first name ACCORDING TO.
There is a great amount of suspicion that the man called Paul, Saul of Tarsus because he
Wrote all books from acts all the way to the end of the New Testament, How many books is that?
How many?? 15, 16, 17 or 19!!!
All those books of Acts Colossian Corinthians Romans Ephesians Galatians all of those books are written by whom?
PAUL Saul of Tarsus.
The comments get more and more outrages.
First, simply reading Acts it is clear that it is not written by Paul. It is written by the same person who addressed the 2nd gospel to Theophilus and this subsequent history of the acts of the apostles to the same Theophilus as his second book. This person is NOT Paul because it speaks of Paul in the third person throughout, and many of the specific incidents of Paul's life that are mentioned in his letters are completely left out of Acts. And the author of Acts differs considerably from Paul in the recollection of the council of Jerusalem. The author of Acts fails to have knowledge of much of what Paul has written in his letters to the churches his visited.
Also, we see that much of the book of Acts is written in the third person. But that suddenly changes to first person in Acts 20 as Paul prepares to leave Greece after several months there. I suggest that this is were Luke joins Paul in his journeys. Whoever it is, it certainly isn't Paul who is doing the writing.
Another man who never talked who never walked, never eat, never met, never prayed
Who never knew Jesus Christ (PBUH) (PBUH) isn't that something???!!
It isn't true the Paul never met Jesus. He had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus.
Now here we find a four writers and another one between them that wrote all the new
Testament books:
They never talked never walked never eat never met and never prayed the man called
Jesus Christ (PBUH)!
Already shown to be baseless, unfounded, and actually false.
Yet in their words the first mentioning of the Trinity came from where??!
The use of the term "Trinity" doesn't come from any of these sources. It is used by Tertullian before the Council of Nicea but long after all books that became part of the New Testament. And Tertullian did it to emphasized that when Christians, who from the beginning had been speaking of Jesus as himself divine, spoke of either Jesus and then later also expressed their understanding of the Holy Spirit as both being themselves God equally with the very Jewish concept (at least in the first century) of God as father, that Christians were NOT referring to three different gods or any tri-theistic concept but were referring to one God in completely unity with himself. But make no mistake, even before the first book of the New Testament was written, in records that predate Paul, in works such as the Didache and others there are baptismal forumlas that were used by the church in which people are initiated into a brand new covenant with God by being baptized "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Such has been the understanding of the Church since even before Paul stopped his persecutions of it and himself became a Christian.
The first mentioning of Jesus Christ (PBUH) being divine a man god came from whom?!
From them.
No. There is no mentioning of Jesus being a divine man god. If this is what you think that is expressed in the Bible or any of Christian literature, then you must be reading the works of gnostics and do not understands the teachings of historic orthodox Christianity at all. For that concept is specifically what the forumlation of the concepts of the Trinity into creedal statements was designed speak against. You will find the whole concept of a man-god being rejected by every book of the Bible in which it is introduced. My guess is that you simply are not understanding the difference between this man-god concept and the truly Biblical concept that Jesus has two natures being both 100% God and 100% man at the same time comingled without any loss of either. And the first mention of it is on the lips of the disciple Thomas, who on meeting Jesus following his resurrection addressed him as "my Lord
and my God", as recorded by the Apostle John who was present at the time (John 20:28).
The first mentioning that Jesus Christ (PBUH) being son of god came from whom?
From them.
Jesus Christ (PBUH) never said in his words any such words, but that was the man who never met him to claim to have written who didn't know their last names.
You keep mentioning this bit about the last names of the gospel writers, which only makes you sound like an idiot. I suggest you just drop that foolishness and deal with things more constructive to your argument.
As to the first referrring to Jesus by the title "Son of God", that honor appears to go to John the Baptist who shares this information with the Baptist's own disciples (John 1:35), though certainly a case could be made that it is God the Father who makes this known first as he proclaims at Jesus' baptism "This is my Son." (Matthew 3:17). And of course, even before that, the angel had years earlier announced to Mary that her son "will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). As for being the first to write it in something that would later become scripture it appears to be a toss up between Paul in his letter to the Galatians or Mark in declaring that his gospel is about "Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1) as both were written about the same time. Though even before that, Christians throughout the Roman world had devised a code by which they would greet one another with the sign of the fish, which in Greek is spell
iota, chi, theta, upsilon, sigma an acronym for the Christian slogan "Jesus Christ God's Son Savior". So there you have several choices as to who was the first to mention the Jesus being son of God.
And Paul by the way- before he had that vision on the road to Damascus that only he saw and only he heard, Guess what his occupation was??? (Pause)
Do you know?!!
He was a bounty hunter!!!
A hunter! Of Christians!! Hunting them down like animals!! And binding them and bringing them to where?!!
To Rome so that they could be Executed.
Again, wrong. Here is Paul describing himself: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today." (Acts 22:3) He was a pharisee. He was no bounty hunter.
But you are right that he was indeed a persecutor of Christians. Do you know why? Because they were lifting up and talking about this man Jesus as if Jesus were God. Paul, being a good Jew, believed that any such talk was blasphemy. He was not interested in having these Christians taken back to Rome, where at the beginning of the first century there was a great deal of tolerance for the many and various Jewish beliefs and Jewish Christians would not have been in any more danger than any other Jew. No, he wanted them brought before the high priest in Jerusalem, just as had been done with Stephen (see Acts 7). So, you see it is ridiculous to speak of Paul being the originator of the very idea that he was trying to arrest Christians for having already proclaimed themselves.
Now if Hitler after killing thousands of Jews says to on the road to Berlin he had a vision
That he was named an apostle to the Jews and he wrote 20 books that all the Jews suppose to follow Do you think they would be following that book?
I don't understand how people just don't read history.
First, Paul did not write anything immediately. Not until well after he was accepted as a leader in the Christian Church.
Second, if you had bothered to actually read what you so want to debunk, you would have avoided making some of the mistakes you have made. Take a look at the initial action to Paul when he arrives in Damascus. Even though God himself told Ananias to go to Paul, how does Ananias respond: "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name" (Acts 9:13-14). And when Paul began to preach, "All those who heard him were astonished and asked, 'Isn't he the man who raised havoc in Jerusalem among those who call on this name?' " (Acts 9:21)
So, Paul had to first prove himself. The key is that he did.
This is not what Khalid said so don't get angry with me. This is your own scriptures your Own bibles scholars your own church fathers all of them agree! That Paul never met Jesus Christ (PBUH).
That John, Luke, Mark and Mathew never met Jesus Christ (PBUH).
By the way they were not disciples.
Nor were they talkers and walkers of the disciples, they were just writers and historians.
From the lecture of Former African-American Christian: Sheikh Khalid Yasin
Watch this lecture in youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_gt-3plqf4
Official website of Sheikh Khalid Yasin:
http://www.challengeyoursoul.com/
khairullah,
I suggest you find someone more learned than Sheikh Khalid Yasin to teach you about Christianity. He doesn't know what he is talking about, and it is evident on so many levels it is ridiculous. If you wish to be Muslim and reject Christianity, I know that this is what you will do. But, if you are going to attack or debate it, do yourself a favor, and learn about it from those who are not themselves fools so that they don't make you look like one as well. The Ahmadi are better representatives of Islam than this man is of Christianity.