Sheik Khalid Yasin on Christianity

Manji2012

Manji2012

Well-Known Member
Messages
95
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
United States
I was watching a video clip on youtube of a presentation by, Sheik Khalid Yasin; he argued the case that we didn't get we got from Jesus Christ.

The Four Gospels:

His argument was basically that Christian Bible Scholars openly admit the Four Gospels were written by just writers and Historians who never met Jesus Christ.

The Four Gospels were not written by the Disciples of Jesus since the Four Gospels were written forty years after Jesus' ascension. That is why you can some times find the Four Gospels titled with "According to" because those four writers never met whom they were writing about.

Saint Paul, "Saul of Tarsus":

Again, Sheik Khalid Yasin, makes the same point that Paul is just another person who never met Jesus. That Paul, virtually has a monopoly of the New Testament because many of the Books from Acts on, about twelve of them, were all written by Paul; a person who never met Jesus himself.

He made the point that Paul was someone who hunted down Christians and brought them to Rome for execution. He compared Paul to Adolf Hitler by saying that if Adolf Hitler, after killing thousands of jews, claimed he had a vision, like the one Paul had, which no one ever saw, that Adolf was an apostle to the Jews, and wrote books for the Jews to follow, would the Jews follow those books? You fill in the blank but the most likely answer is no, they would not follow those books.

Jesus' Divinity:

He explained that the mentioning of Jesus being the Son of God first appears with Paul and the Council of Nicea. He claimed what I have heard other Muslims argued, Jesus never said he was the Son of God.

If you want to watch the video the Link is below but proceed with caution, you might get upset while watching.

YouTube - EX-Christian Exposes Pagan Christianity and Paul of Tarsus

Manji2012:

Now, I am not a Christian, nor a Bible scholar, and I am suspicious that something foul had occurred at the Council of Nicea but, I find a few problems with this arguments.

I do think it is safe to say that it is most likely the writers of the Four Gospels never met Jesus, they must have gotten this literature from somewhere, I mean, where did they get it? What, did it just fall out of the sky? They obviously must have been copying older manuscripts that are currently lost to us. I think the disciples wrote the "Good News" and since then it has been copied from person to person. If we found the first Gospel written by a Disciple of Jesus, we would see little error with the current ones.

Although I have a different view of the Christian religion entirely, what happened after Jesus, and why it is the way it is today, I still find problem with Khalid's argument.

As for Jesus' divinity, well, although it seems pretty true that Jesus never said he was God or the son of God, I am very confident that someone could show me a verse where Jesus did say he was God or the son of God. Something to that effect.

So, what our your opinions? Does Khalid argue a strong case or, can you pick this one apart?
 
Great topic!
I too find problems with Khalid's arguments. The authorship of the Gospels is as good a place to start as any.
In the Muslim tradition, do we have a signed and notarized original copy of the Koran? I am not aware of one. The original accounts from biblical times were possibly only oral, or were perhaps written down by the actual authors on some form of paper which does not survive. I do not agree that "most Bible Scholars openly admit the Four Gospels were written by just writers and Historians who never met Jesus Christ." They agree that the oldest copies we have are copies, but that is not the same thing.
Next, to describe Paul (Saul of Tarsus) as "a person who never met Jesus himself" ignores the central "mystery" of Christianity, specifically that Christ is still alive, and therefore we can meet Him. Paul states that he met Christ, and I believe Paul because I, too, have "met" Jesus. Jesus is real, and living, and I have encountered Him. For anyone who has not had this experience, it seems insane (just as Paul's encounter on the road to Damascus does), but if I tell you the truth and you don't believe it, is it still the truth?
Jesus consistently answered the question, "are you the son of God?" with "Who do you say that I am?" He did tell a few people that they perceived rightly, but He always stepped aside and made sure the people knew He was sent by the Father, and "if you have seen Me, you have seen Him."
At the bottom, though, Khalid puts me in mind of the great conundrum of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim conflict: Are we not arguing over the same God?
Abraham descended from Noah's son Shem. Noah's other son Ham, was the ancestor of Phillistum, Canaan, Cush, Mizraim, Sheba, Babel, Ninevah, Resen, and Rehoboth.
Abraham's first son, Ishmael, was promised 12 princes and a Nation.
Abraham's second son, Isaac, brought forth two sons, Jacob (later Israel) and Esau (later Edom).
Jacob was the father of the 12 tribes of Israel.
Esau married Hamaleth, daughter of Ishmael!
Esau and Hamaleth were the ancestors of Jethro, the herdsman whose daughter Zepporah married Moses.
So, are we not all cousins? Can we not acknowledge that, traditions aside (the traditions of our fathers are of no effect), we all look to the One True God, who does not want us to fight with each other, but rather to do battle against evil, for the advancement of Peace on earth? Who, exactly, are the Infidels?
In this light, what can be gained by the disputing of Khalid? Ultimately, the question of Khalid's motives comes into play. If we buy his arguments, what then?
 
On the issue of the Gospel writers having never met Jesus - I was actually under the impression that the writers Matthew and John were both traditionally from among the disciples?

Or is it just getting late for me? :)
 
I said:
On the issue of the Gospel writers having never met Jesus - I was actually under the impression that the writers Matthew and John were both traditionally from among the disciples?

Or is it just getting late for me? :)
Click to expand...
The argument I believe currently is that Mathew and Mark were oral traditions written down by another believed to have stemmed from the Disciples then of course there exists the Q issue. John when compared to others of John's writings it is deemed does not appear to have originated from John.

There are two huge camps otherwise, those that believe it was written as it has been purported to have been for hundreds of years, and those current scholars that believe no eyewitness testimony is contained within the gospels.

The Jesus seminar while eschewed by the former and found to faith based for the latter, indicates much of it to be likely said by Jesus.
 
It always amazes me how there are two standards for credibility: the one applied to things "everyone knows", and the one applied to such debatable items as the existence and accuracy of the accounts of religious figures. Sure, we have lots of coins and statues of Julius Ceasar, but were they made by people who actually met him and had first-hand knowledge of him? Do we doubt that Genghis Kahn existed, in the absence of documented first-hand accounts? Did Charlemagne really exist? How about the Pelloponesian Wars? What a bout the battle at Thermopalae? All we have of record of the Vikings is a few rotted boats. Are they just "a story made up by writers and historians"?
What we DO have of the accounts of the times of Jesus, were a lot of people who DIED HORRIBLY rather than recant their accounts. Kind of a long way to go to put one over on the gullible, don't you think?
"Modern scholars" seems to include many who seek to "debunk" the "myth" of Jesus because they can't bring themselves to connect with something they cannot see, or prove, or demonstrate scientifically or objectively. If we apply this level of skepticism to the entire body of human knowledge, then a PhD in History could be earned in about 20 minutes.
I am sick unto death of "Bible Scholars" who express dates in terms of "BCE" and "CE". This is political correctness run amok. One of the great testimonials to the impact Jesus had on the world is the fact that nearly half the world marks time based upon the period of His life. Show me another figure for whom this is true (other than that nutbag in North Korea, whose dating system is only observed in his own country, on pain of death)! What year is it? Pretty good for a "fictional character".
The story of Jesus' life is one of the best documented and supported stories of all time, prior to the last 4 centuries!
 
We actually do have a heck of a lot of contemporary accounts from many of the events listed above - plenty of references in history - but what we entirely lack with Jesus is contemporary records.

I mean, we have accounts after that that God walked on earth - and yet very few people have seemed to notice, let alone believe.

Hence when you start applying methods of historical analysis, the existence of Jesus as conveyed in the Gospels becomes more a matter of faith than fact.
 
We seem to expect people to write everything down that happens in history. But back then, they didn't have a printing press, and writing materials probably weren't that readily available.

....and who would write it down anyway? You'd have to be pretty well educated.

Sure, Jesus was significant, but not necessarily that notable. There would have been hundreds of other influential people out there at the time. Whose antics do you choose to record? The Jesus we read about would have been one among many. Those who recorded history would have recorded only those whom they specially noticed.

Also, due to poor communication, the political and legal systems and cultural attitudes that existed at the time cannot be determined with precision. They didn't have newspapers to keep people informed about political issues, information that would serve to give people an idea about how things in their society and government worked, ie. laws, decrees, etc. Poor communication means not only the poor spread of ideas, but also poor absorption of ideas in society. This casts doubt on the coherence of political/legal systems and cultures of the time. There may even have been contradictory ideas in existence at the time, as different social and political influences vied for dominance. Jesus may have been much less significant than we have previously thought.

Who, back then, cared about politics? Was it not just a matter of asserting yourself? Yes, but how far do you have to go? There is no printing press, so how many copies of pamphlets would you, personally, need to make? How much work would you need to do? Resources? Money? Are you wasting your effort? Could you be getting a job and doing something else? What does your wife think of you doing this? Is she happy about it?

There would have been people around promoting all sorts of ideas (orally, not in writing) but these would probably have been forgotten over time. Life goes on, life moves on, there is always work work work to do.......Some people probably thought Jesus was just a fad that would eventually disappear into oblivion. Furthermore, he wasn't the kind of "politician" who would speak on social/political issues people were most interested in in those days. People were either interested in politics or just wanted to get on with their lives. Marry and have kids. He was just a no-good attention-seeking guy who had a lot of fans. Some kind of rock star.

......and there you are.......rock stars weren't high on people's minds back then. Being obedient to God's Law was the most important thing......These good-for-nothing rock stars were just wasting time and taking up space......
 
Manji2012 said:
I was watching a video clip on youtube of a presentation by, Sheik Khalid Yasin; he argued the case that we didn't get we got from Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Yeah and as a Christian I would care what he says for what reason?

In case you did not know but Muslims have been trying to discredit Christianity ever since Mohamed*sp* decided to write his book.

I can also find plenty of people who question if Mohamed got anything from God or if Allah is even the same being. The difference is I would get hammered by the staff for posting it in the Muslim forums.
 
Dor said:
Yeah and as a Christian I would care what he says for what reason?

In case you did not know but Muslims have been trying to discredit Christianity ever since Mohamed*sp* decided to write his book.

I can also find plenty of people who question if Mohamed got anything from God or if Allah is even the same being. The difference is I would get hammered by the staff for posting it in the Muslim forums.
Click to expand...

Ummm, Mohammed didn't "write" the Qu'ran. He was illiterate. Allegedly someone else took dictation for him...and scholars believe Paul (being highly educated), did in fact write most of the letters attributed to him. Luke was not a disciple, but the other three were, and there are text (not included in the bible today) that allude to them being educated, which is surprising since they were fishermen (except Matthew who was a tax collector). Now there is irony here, that Judas appeared to be the "treasurer" for the band of twelve, when Matthew clearly was comfortable with dealing with money and budgets, etc...

People try to state that there is no reference of Jesus in secular history, and this is plain inaccurate. Josephus reflects on Jesus (100 years after the fact), as do several "Ceasars".

Another point, is that the Islamic faith did not appear until 600 years after Christ, and Mohammed wanted to make one super religion, including Christians and Jews. He got upset when they did not agree with his reasoning.
 
Well, peoples.

An outside observer would probably say we're . . . you know . . . close-minded and stubborn. When presented with a view we don't ourselves uphold do we slam the door in the face of the concept presented? Or.......do we kindly evaluate and discuss the concept so that the presenter can be provided with a new experience? What's the point of a web site like this when we don't discuss things? What's the point if we're not going to help outsiders by evaluating the concepts they propose for us?:)

It's easy to state the obvious, because then we can just get on with our lives and ignore people who are just different.

When someone else gives, you expect to receive. Here a person has given an opposing view. We have chosen not to receive, but you know.....there is something we can do in return. This is an opportunity......an opportunity for us to give so that the presenter of this "abominable concept" can receive something from us. It may change the way he thinks about us.

We have a choice. We can say we're not interested because his arguments are an insult, an offense to us......or we could be creative and provide new insights, evaluate his concept, compare his concept to other concepts, assess his approach to things, tell him what our approach is, etc. We don't have to validate his theories. Not at all.

It's like an exchange between scientists and engineers of two different countries. Oh you're German, I'm American you say. Our concepts are better than your's so we're not even going to explore what you have to offer. We do things the American way you see. We're not obliged to be German in our thinking. The American story is a success story. Look at what we've achieved and done in history. We're guns. What are you? The German replies. Fair enough. But you just can't beat German engineering. It really kicks ass. You Americans are known for your rag-tag approach to life and your decadence. That shows up in your technology. You really don't know much about quality and perfection. Your products don't last. They don't stand the test of time. You only make something to get money out of people. We make things to last.
 
Saltmeister said:
Well, peoples.

An outside observer would probably say we're . . . you know . . . close-minded and stubborn. When presented with a view we don't ourselves uphold do we slam the door in the face of the concept presented? Or.......do we kindly evaluate and discuss the concept so that the presenter can be provided with a new experience? What's the point of a web site like this when we don't discuss things? What's the point if we're not going to help outsiders by evaluating the concepts they propose for us?:)

It's easy to state the obvious, because then we can just get on with our lives and ignore people who are just different.

When someone else gives, you expect to receive. Here a person has given an opposing view. We have chosen not to receive, but you know.....there is something we can do in return. This is an opportunity......an opportunity for us to give so that the presenter of this "abominable concept" can receive something from us. It may change the way he thinks about us.

We have a choice. We can say we're not interested because his arguments are an insult, an offense to us......or we could be creative and provide new insights, evaluate his concept, compare his concept to other concepts, assess his approach to things, tell him what our approach is, etc. We don't have to validate his theories. Not at all.

It's like an exchange between scientists and engineers of two different countries. Oh you're German, I'm American you say. Our concepts are better than your's so we're not even going to explore what you have to offer. We do things the American way you see. We're not obliged to be German in our thinking. The American story is a success story. Look at what we've achieved and done in history. We're guns. What are you? The German replies. Fair enough. But you just can't beat German engineering. It really kicks ass. You Americans are known for your rag-tag approach to life and your decadence. That shows up in your technology. You really don't know much about quality and perfection. Your products don't last. They don't stand the test of time. You only make something to get money out of people. We make things to last.
Click to expand...
LOL, try correcting a Muslim on the error of their ways Salt...see how far you get.

The good Shiek knows nothing of Christianity, or else He would never have left...

I mean, why drive a Ford, when you can drive a Caddilac?
 
Quahom1 said:
LOL, try correcting a Muslim on the error of their ways Salt...see how far you get.
Click to expand...

Well, I never said I wanted to correct anyone . . .

A Muslim could just as well substitute "Christian" for the "Muslim" in the above quote. Isn't it just tit-for-tat? One's word against another?

Western Muslims like Muslimwoman and cyberpi are particularly easier to relate to as most of us here are Western anyway. Their understanding of the Western mindset and prior experience of Christianity is where we find common ground. Last time I checked, cyberpi asserted a Christian identity, if one likes the label and is proud of it, no disputes from me. It's good when Christians and Muslims evaluate each other's views and beliefs, but not good when they simply brush past each other, disparage the other and try and push the issue to make one tradition seem better than the other. It's not good when one tries to make the other look like a pile of rags.

Quahom1 said:
The good Shiek knows nothing of Christianity, or else He would never have left...
Click to expand...

Everyone has different experiences in life. If we were all-knowing and all-seeing there'd be a different argument. You can't blame anyone for choosing a particular path because it's all done with limited knowledge and experience. The world is much bigger than that, but we make a decision on the religious and spiritual based on something local to a particular part of the world. What are we to do about it? The best we can do is try and figure out whether or not the knowledge and experience we have presently accumulated is sufficient to be able to evaluate our choices. The path one chooses is only as correct or reasonable to the best of our knowledge.

What are we supposed to do? Curse away? Is this a "boys' club" or some kind of fraternity where we simply state the obvious and never ask personal questions? Once a bum always a bum?:)

How are you? How's things? How's life? Getting along at work? Don't worry I won't wait for an answer. This is just a daily ritual that I perform to let you know that everything is just the same as yesterday. Nothing's changed.

The important thing is that we're talking. Otherwise we just turn up and say nothing, and that wouldn't be good. We need something to talk about, even if we just say the same thing every day. You ask me what's happening in your life and then I ask you. I might have had a bad day yesterday, but you don't need to know. I don't want to get all emotional, so I simply decide to be cool about things.

Your response will probably be that your business is going fine, the boss is happy, the kids got to school on time, it's all hunky dorry. Same old hum drum of life.

No evaluation needed. Just have a few beers, say a few swear-words, crack a few jokes and whack on the usual response.
 
Manji2012 said:
Which Verse did Jesus say he was God?
Click to expand...
John 8:56-59 "Before Abraham was born, I Am." Kind of tough to ignore the past with the eternal present. Also kind of tough to make such a statement about a life 1400 to 2000 years before his own, yet Jesus did make that statement about being then and again at the point of being questioned. He also repeated what the Lord had said in the Old testament (though it was a mystery).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top