Reza Aslan, Author of Zealot: The Life of Jesus of Nazareth, speaks at FCNL's 2013 Annual Meeting. For more information www.fcnl.org and rezaaslan.com/
Most Christians don't even understand their own religion. A notable point is that like Christian doctrines, Islam, can and does have sects that are peaceful. Interesting lecture and dialog, informative and interesting perspective on Jesus.
Treat him as if he were a priest, a rabbi, imam, pujari or monk because he has studied and is a scholar in all of them and deserves our respect and admiration.
I don't see why so many people are reacting so viciously. Reza is accurately describing on the basis of what is historically known who Jesus was and what most likely happened. Reza's propositions are very basic, and the worst thing that can be said about them is that they are not very original. They have been discussed in University and Divinity School Religion courses for who knows how long. They were discussed excellently in the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ." Some of the things he is describing have even been portrayed in Hollywood movies. If he wrote a similar book about Islam they would probably put out a fatwa on him, so you can't blame him for not doing so. But I am a Christian (also a Buddhist, a Muslim, and a Jew (but the Jews won't accept me, breaks my heart) (Yes, I am all of them. Why not? They are all basically the same. Anyway, my spiritual needs are so intense and my propensity for sin is so great that I need three prophets and a bunch of oppressive nit picking laws to keep me blissful and in line) and I do not think he is "going after" Jesus. So, all of you who think so, tell me, please. How do you think he is "going after" Jesus?
+The Peace Project People hate him because he attacks Christianity and promotes islam. He has no critical view of islam whatsoever. But allows himself to speculate about Jesus Christ.
The Peace Project i am a Christian Science student. Mary Baker Eddy. We are eternally, students. Learning to be closer to our father in practice and faith. The doubt that strike me here, is his connection to zionist left associations. CNN, etc. He's accepted with open arms, which makes me doubt his leanings as scholar. Hollywood is satanic.
We can also say that many people spread at least an oral history of Jesus. Obviously, the written and oral history spread his message consistently. Oral tradition was very strong in ancient times and much more accurate than it would be today.
1:00 so the temple in jerusalem was like the later vatican in rome? the vatican was also a vault, a library, a treasury etc. and, like the high priest in jerusalem, the pope was for a long time the most desired job for powerful families like the Medici who's growth of wealth and power depended on having a family member as a pope or cardinal etc.
Sir let me tell you one thing which is that there was no one claim about messiah.. and first you said that he had 72 disciple than you say there was no man name jesus..so here I m confuse a little bit ....what
Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world. He took on humanity so that we can put on divinity. Reza was educated at a Jesuit college as a "Christian" and was deceived by them to pursue a human Jesus. Jesus was not uneducated, He was able to read and write which was a privilege in His day. Reza went back to Islam because he was never a true Christian.
Jesus arrival to Jerusalem was a lot more mundane than Aslan describes: Jesus entered along with many other rabbi's from different localities on a donkey and it was expected to be so: It was a parade before the rigorous celebration of Passover. Then just like everyone else who just arrived to town, goes to the temple to offer sacrifice and gets exuberant in face of the extravagant and onerous trade. His attack on the banks and then intent with others to create confusion, followed by a reward on his head, the betrayal of one of his own group, and arrest outside city walls was his undoing. the gospel basically describe him, in todays parlance as "sweating bullets" . He never called himself messiah, he was accused of being that, to which he responded, "not my word, you are the one saying it", construed to be a confession. Just like Martin Luther King, he was born the day he died...when he was alive no one gave a hoot.
In 12:44 minutes of a podcast, and one open mind, and my world was rocked! Dogma keeps us from logic, but why can't we be logical? Maybe THAT would bring us closer to the truth.
I agree, he has "a lecture" that he's given to various venues. I think that's good, it means he's prepared. It also means it's intended for the audiences he's been invited to speak to, not for TH-cam, where each one would need to be different. Even so though, I too have watched several videos where he gives essentially the same lecture, but I always learn something new from each one.
I'm agnostic and I don't have that much knowledge about different religions (just a well educated person) and I really enjoy Reza's view on the subject. Could someone clarify what he means when he says that "You don't have to be a Christian to be a follower of Jesus, just like you don't have to be a follower of Jesus to be a Christjan"? 18:30 thanks!
Reza means that Christ is not his (reza's) messiah...and he does not believe Christ is the Messiah period because Reza is a Muslim. A basic tenet of Christianity is that Christ is Lord and Savior sent by GOD to redeem all sinners by cleansing them from all their sins but only to sinners who repent and accept Christ as their Messiah, Savior, and Lord by accepting Jesus's sacrifice as the Lamb of GOD. Reza thinks Jesus is a great guy and he admires his teachings in the New Testament but Reza is intrinsically and existentially a Muslim and does not believe Jesus is the Great Messiah like Christians believe he is.
1212sweetgirl I understand, but what is the irony about this quote? Why is it funny that "You don't have to be a Christian to be a follower of Jesus, just like you don't have to be a follower of Jesus to be a Christjan"? Are there Christians who don't follow Jesus or people who follow Jesus are not Christian? What is he implying between the lines - he clearly is implying to something considering his tone and the people laughing. It is like he is making an intelligent joke about something but I don't understand exactly what he is referring to.
Freezzz111 Sorry, I forgot to address the mocking Christians part. "...don't have to be a follower of Jesus to be a Christjan"-Reza is mocking the fact that some "Christians" are ignorant of Christ's teachings and call themselves Christians but do not follow his teachings about Loving their neighbor, humility, temperance, depising glory, and commit to sacrifice. So yea, your right that is a dig toward so called "Christians".
29:34 The earliest reliable mention of Jesus, outside the NT, does not come in 94CE. It is contained in the work of Tacitus in 116CE. Annals 15.44 Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...." He offers nothing new that he couldnt have learned by questioning gospel literate Christians.
I love Modern Christians: "You can't know the history of Jesus! Unless it supports my belief in magic resurrection or justifies the ways in which I am a bigot."
36:24 "There are still scholars" bloody oath there are Reza and here are two of them..... " Jesus, neither God nor Man. Earl Doherty. "On the historicity of Jesus, why we have reason to doubt. Dr.Richard Carrier PhD.
Jesus would not say that he was Israelite as they were lost. He came for the lost sheep of Israel. He was a Jew (Yehud) because he was of the rule of territory of Yehudah
That YHVH is one (the source of everything) is the "greatest commandment" according to Jesus. This teaching is ignored because the Church teaches how he describes this "great commandment" according to other gospels, and not Mark's. The fact that the first generation sect of Jesus's were ZEALOTS toward the Torah (Mosaic Law) [Acts. 21:17-20] and are no longer is evidence that Jesus's sect did not "withstand the gates of hell." (Matt. 16:18)
I did not want this to be, but let me share the strong evidence to support this that this scholar will not even share, the family of this lead revolter all has the same names as the names of Jesus family, which would not be that much of a coincidence, because there were not two sets of famous people who all had the same names in this small window of time, but in my next post, since my phone has a word limit, I will share the next large evidence which will not be touched on.
The next piece of evidence that this scholar may not even know, is a reference in one of the apacrophal books, see, to reference a man as a Galilean during the time of Jesus is to indicate that he was a revolter, or Zealot, well in this book, Simon Peter is called Simon the Galilean, which is a rare reference, but a very strong evidence to point that Peter, James, and Jesus himself were revolters, which that means to us that they were probably murders, which obviously is not good if the truth.
Yes I have done many in depth investigation since then and there is no doubt whatsoever, Christ and his followers were 100 percent pacifists, they had no violence in them whatsoever.
I am in a tremendous shock of how although he is so well informed on the historical Jesus, he didn't mention PAUL'S LETTERS when he was asked by the lady if Jesus existed. My God, all scholars know that Paul's letters are first of all, the oldest manuscripts and secondly, Paul mentions Jesus and his brother and Peter, and Jesus's mother, and Jame's wife etc Come on man. Paul left a great deal of proof about Jesus being a real human. Also, Jesus believed in violence given by God. That there will be punishment and death by Gods will, but on the other hand he smashed the temple and drove out the merchants and money changers beating them with a whip Yep, that's my God❤️
@@SKILLIUSCAESAR Well,if you've met other apostles and lived 15 days with people that did know him(Peter)i am guessing that he existed.Also if you have a brother again,you exist.
@@ritagi837 except we’re using the same exact source to conclude they exist (or any of that happened) as we have for jesus… fallacious argument right there
@@SKILLIUSCAESAR That's what happened in those times though,i mean there were no cameras or social media. Billions of people existed in ancient times but we have no sources. To have a source is something important for back then. I am pretty sure if we lived in those times there would be zero mentions about us
@@ritagi837 Josephus and other contemporary historians write extensively about other wanna-be messiahs with far smaller movements in their lifetime, yet not a single peep about jesus. There’s a long list of contemporaries, like Philo, who one would’ve expected to write about Jesus, bc they’re documenting religion/philosophy in the area, so the absence is striking. There IS independent evidence about Pilate and his governorship (completely contradicting NT)
Your not saying anything significant the book is abstract not clear just repeating what we already know doesn't justify Jesus and what he did more about nothing tangible. Reza is trying to make money we should demand our money back from him.
OK, so what is he trying to say that Jesus is a radical idiot? Just because he claims he's the Son OF GOD he is not a idiot. What is Faith and how does it play into religion. To me it sounds like he is trying to justify himself in returning to Muslim. I am personally insulted that he compares Jesus as a country bumpkin. Wisdom doesn't always come from education its how a combination of both education and life that makes a wise person.
Barebone facts: Jesus was an illiterate, uneducated, poorest of the poor, pious, marginal, Jew from the backwoods of Galilee, what we would call a Hillbilly. Yet, he was able to form a movement on behalf of the poor and dispossessed, the weak and the outcast.
Aslan's claim that the Gospel of Mark was written after 70 in Rome is wrong. The narrative arc of Mark, exclusive of the content of Peter, was being circulated among the Roman soldiers within a few days after the first Easter and circulated through the Roman legions long before Peter, Mark or Paul got to Rome, The Gospel of Mark, as we have inherited it, was written by Cornelius, the centurion in Acts 10 and was begun by 40 CE and completed before Mark returned from his missionary with Paul and Barnabus. As Aslan points out, the Romans had a genius for documentation and the narrative arc of Mark begins wnen Jesus appears above the Roman military horizon and was the result of an intelligence dossier maintained on Him as a potential resurgent. This journal was combined with the debriefing Cornelius conducted of Peter in Acts 10 and an enormous amount of Roman testimony, plus, in all likelihood, from material provided by Herod's spies. It is my assumption that John and Mark was the same person, but that Mark didn'e write Mark for a Roman audience, but that Mark was written, in Latin, by a Roman soldier, CO. rnelius, as a companion literature for the oral confession that was being presented around camp fires throughout the Roman empire. Mark may have translated the Latin into Greek, which explains the crude Greek and idiomatic language, but he didn't compose the text. As a Muslim, Aslan has a political interest in delaying the creation of Mark 40 years. The reason why the Gospel of Mark is created is in response to the resurrection of Jesus from the experience of the man who watched Him die and reported His death to Pilate. Just the Roman content suggests that there was considerable Roman involvment in all four gospels that John makes clear was no available to the Jews who avoided the defoulment of the Praetorium and the Synoptic Gosples make clear that Peter was the last friendly face Jesus sees before being handed over to Pilate. But the most important detail coming out of Mark is that everything is a result of eyewitness reports of His public activities that was largely collected before He was arrested. Aslan points out, there were at least a dozen people claiming to be the Messiah with a larger following than Jesus (which may be a bit debatable in Galilee). but He was the only one to be resurrected within the purview of a pagan who had confessed to His authority before He died and His divinity at His death. And the 500 or so Roman soldiers who were part of the torment of Jesus shared in this witness and began confessing the gospel before His disciples discovered the tomb was empty. And that is what Aslan prefers to suppress.
Tom, did you learn all this in Sunday school? Nothing that you put forth as fact is correct at all, at least in the research that I have done. The entire new testament was written in Greek. None of them were written originally in Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, or anything else. They were written in Greek. If you disagree, please provide references for your information (unless you yourself were an eyewitness to the account.) While I do not profess to be a Biblical scholar, I have read the works of many, including Aslan's. All of them agree about the general timing of the writing of the Gospels. Dating the Gospels can certainly be a challenge, but your claim that "Aslan's dating is wrong" is like saying "the majority of Biblical scholars are wrong". Don't act like this was his own crazy dating. These are the generally accepted dates for the writing of the Gospels. Also, I'm curious, where did you complete your biblical studies? Are you fluent in Greek? What books have you written and in what scholarly journals has your scholarly work been published? I would very much appreciate the opportunity to read your professional work. You tell a nice story, Tom. Unfortunately, while it may be "true" for you, it has no basis in historical fact, that I have seen. As I said, if you have some reliable evidence for your claims, please provide them. Maybe I'll learn something new. Thanks for sharing, though.
Mike Williams I don't say that Aslan's dating is his: I;,m saying it is wrong. I am not necessarily saying that Mark was composed in Latin: I am saying that sources for Mark were collected and stored by Roman authorities in Latin as part of their on-going routine defensive intelligence gathering. I am saying that elements of Mark are part of this intelligence portfolio that was assembled before Jesus was arrested: in particular, all the passages with the warning to tell no one by Jesus was collected as proof of Jesus's insurgent intentions. In addition, Jiarius's story was probably recorded from Cornelius's acquaintance with Jiarius (it is my conjecture that the centurion in Matthew 8 is the same as the centurion in Luke 7 and both are Cornelius, who. at some point, helped Jiarius build the synagog), As I say, the narrative of Mark begins at the point where Jesus appears above the Roman military horizon, as does John. I assume that Mark was written about 40 CE, after Cornelius debriefs Peter in Acts 10. Mark is infused with the Holy Spirit, but I think that the story of Jesus was being retold by the Roman soldiers who were there immediately after the first Easter and that it spread through the Roman legions long before either Peter or Paul got to Rome. It was being told around camp fires: speaking as an old soldier, it has the quality of a war story, but Cornelius did not put stylus to papryus until his vision brought him into contact with Peter and then was impelled by the Holy Spirit to create the record, at which time he incorporated the military records he had into Peter's narrative. In this regards, it appears to me that the Gospel of Peter is the Roman experience transmitted by Cornelius and employed by Matthew and Luke. I cannot read Greek, but I can read the commentaries of those who do, all of whom testify that the Greek in Mark is crude and unlike any of the other Gospels, which suggests to me that Mark is a translation by someone for whom Greek was a second language. In addition, whatever embellishment occurs in Peter is transmitted to him by his source. Remember, he was not there after the second cock crowed. The issue of Luke and Acts comes down to what the purpose of Acts was, Acts appears to be something of an amicus brief which was composed to defend Paul when he got to Rome, but was researched, if not commenced, at the time of Paul's imprisonment in 59. It was at this time that Luke interviewed a number of participants in his gospel, including Mary, mother of God. Sura 19 in the Qur'an validates Luke's version of the nativity. At this time, Luke also interviewed Peter and was referred to Cornelius who was located in Caesarea in Acts 10. It is possible that Luke was already located in Jerusalem as a proto-gynecologist to a Jewish clientele since he lacked the inhibition about purity during menstruation. Much of his narrative has the quality of waiting room gossip that led him into his inquiry which led to Luke and Acts. Paul seems to hold a singular ignorance of the gospels, generally, The gospel was named after Mark because he became the distributor, going to Alexandria and establishing various outlets and copy centers. As I understand it, Matthew acquired his access to Mark in Alexandria. Matthew was an eyewitness to the encounter between Jesus and the centurion in Mt 8. Luke embellished his version of that encounter from what he learned from Peter and Cornelius, directly. In regards to Aslan's dating, he has a vested interest in placing the composition of all the gospels as far from the events as possible, in orde to support the Muslim claim that the Gospels and the Torah were systematically corrupted AFTER the advent of Mohammad's revelations. The fact is that even John, which is the latest gospel to be written, was being copied as early as 90 CE, according to the evidence of P52, The problem with all the dating later than 59 CE is the Roman content: where did it come from? Like I say, this story would have gone through the Roman legions like grass through a goose and there were at least 500 soldiers in the Praetorium with Jesus. The Gospel of Mark was being told around campfires before Pentacost and the aspects of blood sacrifice probably contributed to the rapid spread of Caesar Worship Paul was running into by the time he got to Ephesus and contributed directly to the adoption of Christianity throughout the Roman empire. Finally, while the theology of the narrative of the Gospel of Mark is Peters, the theology of the author of the Gospel according to Mark was duty, as in, Duty, Honor Country, the Trinity of West Point. The remark that Jesus taught with authority is echoed in Mt 8 and Lk 7 by the centurion, who compares himself to Jesus as also being under authority. And Jesus is amazed "Not in all of Israel have I found such faith" This is who wrote Mark, some one who recognized the mission focus of Jesus as He cantered towards the cross. I don't love Jesus: I believe in Him, but I know God and the Holy Spirit has impelled me to fashion this inquiry in this manner and the Holy Spirit has validated its thrust. I expand upon this theme in: The Qur'an is a parable. ramrodd.tumblr.com/post/95076882131/the-quran-is-a-parable I am way past sunday school. If you prefer Aslan's version of events, it is your privilege.
Curtis B Well, at this moment, you might say the evidence is circumstantial. and derivative of on going scholarship, For example, Richard Bauckman's research into the mission names in Mark suggests that Peter's content in Mark was circulating within the Christian community as early as 37, which the general content of Peter's confession in Acts 10: 34 - 43 was probably available to the community within 18 months and, of course, Paul refers to this material in I Corinthians 15. Now, the argument has been that John Mark wrote Mark in Rome in cured Greek for a Roman audience. I happen to think that John Mark is probably the author of the Gospel according to John, which was being written when he visited Paul in Rome and his Greek (as I understand it) didn't display the clumsy construction of Mark. The reason is that Cornelius was translating much of the text from his bureaucratic Latin (remember, the Legion fought in Latin and the bookkeeping was done in Latin) and he was writing in Greek as a second language, plus he was writing in idiomatic phrase. A good example is the description of the Jewish traditions in the opening of Mark 7, which has a certain anthropological quality, tht is, the perspective of the writer is from outside the culture. These lines do not exist in Matthew and they are familiar with anyone who has been in the military and posted to a foreign culture, which has been my experience growing up and as a soldier. In terms of the idiomatic nature of the prose, there are 15 Roman terms employed throughout the text, such as legion and centurion, plus various other words.\ Finally, there is the sheer quality of the Roman content in all the Gospels, but in Mark, in particular, we know exactly when Peter's eyewitness content ends, which is at the last word of Mark 14 and, based on the other Gosples, he is not reintroduced into the narrative until Mary fetches him to the tomb. This is why I say the Gospel of Peter is a result of the eyewitness report Cornelius gives Peter in Acts 10, while the eyewitness account Cornelius employs in constructing the narrative of Mark is given to Cornelius by Peter at the same time, The reason why the content of the Gospel of Peter does not appear Mark is the same reason Bauckmah assumes the missing names are missing: to conceal the identities of everyone involved. Luke is probably the best argument for this timing, because certain scholars (such as David Pawson) speculate that Acts was developed as an amicus brief for Paul's defense, which meant that both it and the Gospel of Luke were started by 59. And this gives Luke two years to research everything that happens before Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea, especially the Nativity (Sura 19 of the Qur'an confirms Luke's version of the Nativity, which does not appear in Mark). But it can be inferred from this research that Luke had a copy of Mark to work from, which I contend was available in written form soon after 40 and before Mark returns from his aborted missionary with Paul and Barnabus. Aslan has a vested interest in pushing the appearance of the Gospels as far away from 33 as possible, as does Bart Ehrman. Whether or not the Gospel of Peter is an authentic artifact, it does suggest pretty convincingly what was being circulated in the Roman legions before Peter arrived at the empty tomb. The resurrection is what drove the proliferation of Christianity. I think that there is probably a direct connection between the story of the resurrection circulating in the Legions and the explosion of Caesar Worship which was exploding around Paul's missionary, especially in Ephesus. One of the rituals involved was initiate new recruits into a pit, cover it with planks and slaughter an ox over them so they would be baptized in blood. I find it hard not to see parallels with the language of the cross. But it is all speculation. Below, I have posted something far less speculative.
19 is a song of praise for Farther, Son and Holy Ghost. 19 is the Jesus Prayer on your tongue: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on me, a sinner. 19 falls on the eye like the love of Jesus Pouring from His eyes like honey to sooth the soul The 19 letters of the Bismillah is a call to prayer: Come to Jesus, Son of God, Most Gracious and Compassionate. 19 is the Breath of YHWH Elohim, woven into each Sura, The very fabric of the Qur’an is of the warp and woof Of the 19th chapter of the 19th book of the Bible. 19 is the language of the Kingdom of God, Dispelling the jinn and unclean spirits of Arabic. 19 is the Light of Truth, Illuminating the apostasies of Sura 9 19 is the Alpha and the Omega, The Trinity of God the Father. And God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, 19 is the Hidden Secret of the Qur’an\ As it is written in Sura 74 ayat 30 “And above it (the Qur’an) is nineteen:” 19 is a song of praise for Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen.
JESUS is the Messiah whether you or I believe it or not. What we think or say does not matter. The reason why Jesus is still called the Messiah today is because he IS the Messiah. John 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, John 11:25
This man has never met Jesus in one way or another. He is always a liar and always will be. But I am certain, that unfortunately, many people like his lies ... Jesus is Lord. MARANATHA !
Don't believe his charms. He wants to get into the goverment and push his Islam ideas to bring them all here. He seems very charming, but a very dangerous man.
Love listening to Aslan - he is refreshingly honest - which is a novelty in these days of extreme Bigotry. All bigots - be they Muslim, Christian, Jew or Atheist - all of them hate his honest truths.
Aslan is an academic who happens to hold a personal belief that he does not push on others. He sees religion for what it is- an important stepping stone from animal to sentient. It is a lie.. but it is necessary. To be religious these days is a personal (and often cultural) choice. Don't shit on him because of his roots. That's called racism.
unfortunately many people treat atheism as a scape-goat for bigotry, racism, pro-'west' propaganda and unprecedented ignorance. Yes, many of the worlds problems have a face of religious beleifs, yes their books are old and have a lot of dated information. This misses the point, for many it is a binding moral code that gives people identity, and stories to live their lives by. No more. no ghosts, no faries, but connections between people. and no, that is not reason enough for the sweeping statements of 'us good, religion bad'. All aslan suggests is that we be very careful and selective in how we face these problems, as belief has nothing to do with human ignorance. that exists without religion. you are a perfect example of that Layalya.
Raza never explains why all large computer firms denounce Islam as an abomination. He loves to reward all 911 cut-throats and travels all over God's creation to help Islamic causes. Nusrat Rizvi Palm Beach Gardens FL
Most Christians don't even understand their own religion. A notable point is that like Christian doctrines, Islam, can and does have sects that are peaceful. Interesting lecture and dialog, informative and interesting perspective on Jesus.
Treat him as if he were a priest, a rabbi, imam, pujari or monk because he has studied and is a scholar in all of them and deserves our respect and admiration.
There are few haters who attack his credentials.They are jealous of him. Love you Reza. Keep up the good work.
I love this man and his brilliant mind so, so much.
May Allah (swt) keep this man
Great Balanced Message!
I don't see why so many people are reacting so viciously. Reza is accurately describing on the basis of what is historically known who Jesus was and what most likely happened. Reza's propositions are very basic, and the worst thing that can be said about them is that they are not very original. They have been discussed in University and Divinity School Religion courses for who knows how long. They were discussed excellently in the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ." Some of the things he is describing have even been portrayed in Hollywood movies. If he wrote a similar book about Islam they would probably put out a fatwa on him, so you can't blame him for not doing so. But I am a Christian (also a Buddhist, a Muslim, and a Jew (but the Jews won't accept me, breaks my heart) (Yes, I am all of them. Why not? They are all basically the same. Anyway, my spiritual needs are so intense and my propensity for sin is so great that I need three prophets and a bunch of oppressive nit picking laws to keep me blissful and in line) and I do not think he is "going after" Jesus. So, all of you who think so, tell me, please. How do you think he is "going after" Jesus?
+The Peace Project People hate him because he attacks Christianity and promotes islam. He has no critical view of islam whatsoever. But allows himself to speculate about Jesus Christ.
The Peace Project i am a Christian Science student. Mary Baker Eddy. We are eternally, students. Learning to be closer to our father in practice and faith.
The doubt that strike me here, is his connection to zionist left associations. CNN, etc. He's accepted with open arms, which makes me doubt his leanings as scholar. Hollywood is satanic.
Que buen vídeo!!!
Nice lecture Reza
We can also say that many people spread at least an oral history of Jesus. Obviously, the written and oral history spread his message consistently. Oral tradition was very strong in ancient times and much more accurate than it would be today.
You are amazing how you make things clear
1:00
so the temple in jerusalem was like the later vatican in rome?
the vatican was also a vault, a library, a treasury etc. and, like the high priest in jerusalem, the pope was for a long time the most desired job for powerful families like the Medici who's growth of wealth and power depended on having a family member as a pope or cardinal etc.
Pope Borgia for example
No hunger or poverty, etc... He came to bring the Kingdom of God. Makes sense.
Sir let me tell you one thing which is that there was no one claim about messiah.. and first you said that he had 72 disciple than you say there was no man name jesus..so here I m confuse a little bit ....what
Tell to people what they want to hear,they will applause!
Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world. He took on humanity so that we can put on divinity. Reza was educated at a Jesuit college as a "Christian" and was deceived by them to pursue a human Jesus. Jesus was not uneducated, He was able to read and write which was a privilege in His day. Reza went back to Islam because he was never a true Christian.
Jesus arrival to Jerusalem was a lot more mundane than Aslan describes: Jesus entered along with many other rabbi's from different localities on a donkey and it was expected to be so: It was a parade before the rigorous celebration of Passover. Then just like everyone else who just arrived to town, goes to the temple to offer sacrifice and gets exuberant in face of the extravagant and onerous trade. His attack on the banks and then intent with others to create confusion, followed by a reward on his head, the betrayal of one of his own group, and arrest outside city walls was his undoing. the gospel basically describe him, in todays parlance as "sweating bullets" .
He never called himself messiah, he was accused of being that, to which he responded, "not my word, you are the one saying it", construed to be a confession. Just like Martin Luther King, he was born the day he died...when he was alive no one gave a hoot.
Reza is quickly becoming a 'faith' preacher!
In 12:44 minutes of a podcast, and one open mind, and my world was rocked! Dogma keeps us from logic, but why can't we be logical? Maybe THAT would bring us closer to the truth.
Great speaker. He is quite relative and repetitive. I've heard some of his lectures and they are similar.
I agree, he has "a lecture" that he's given to various venues. I think that's good, it means he's prepared. It also means it's intended for the audiences he's been invited to speak to, not for TH-cam, where each one would need to be different. Even so though, I too have watched several videos where he gives essentially the same lecture, but I always learn something new from each one.
Brilliant, just one thing, although Jesus was adopted by the West, he was not Western, he was born in Mideast as all the Prophets!
That's not what he said.
prophets were a bunch of dickheads!
@@sabzikhoshk
Your opinion only of course.
I'm agnostic and I don't have that much knowledge about different religions (just a well educated person) and I really enjoy Reza's view on the subject. Could someone clarify what he means when he says that "You don't have to be a Christian to be a follower of Jesus, just like you don't have to be a follower of Jesus to be a Christjan"? 18:30 thanks!
Reza means that Christ is not his (reza's) messiah...and he does not believe Christ is the Messiah period because Reza is a Muslim. A basic tenet of Christianity is that Christ is Lord and Savior sent by GOD to redeem all sinners by cleansing them from all their sins but only to sinners who repent and accept Christ as their Messiah, Savior, and Lord by accepting Jesus's sacrifice as the Lamb of GOD. Reza thinks Jesus is a great guy and he admires his teachings in the New Testament but Reza is intrinsically and existentially a Muslim and does not believe Jesus is the Great Messiah like Christians believe he is.
1212sweetgirl I understand, but what is the irony about this quote? Why is it funny that "You don't have to be a Christian to be a follower of Jesus, just like you don't have to be a follower of Jesus to be a Christjan"? Are there Christians who don't follow Jesus or people who follow Jesus are not Christian? What is he implying between the lines - he clearly is implying to something considering his tone and the people laughing. It is like he is making an intelligent joke about something but I don't understand exactly what he is referring to.
Freezzz111 Sorry, I forgot to address the mocking Christians part. "...don't have to be a follower of Jesus to be a Christjan"-Reza is mocking the fact that some "Christians" are ignorant of Christ's teachings and call themselves Christians but do not follow his teachings about Loving their neighbor, humility, temperance, depising glory, and commit to sacrifice. So yea, your right that is a dig toward so called "Christians".
1212sweetgirl Great, thanks!
+1212sweetgirl Just for your information you ignorant, Muslims DO believe that the Jesus is the Messiah.
An interesting prospective
Jesus was not against all powers. He pushed submissive to Pharisaic authority. (Matt. 23:2-3)
29:34 The earliest reliable mention of Jesus, outside the NT, does not come in 94CE. It is contained in the work of Tacitus in 116CE. Annals 15.44
Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...."
He offers nothing new that he couldnt have learned by questioning gospel literate Christians.
I love Modern Christians: "You can't know the history of Jesus! Unless it supports my belief in magic resurrection or justifies the ways in which I am a bigot."
are you a Muslim?
Clint Wes Do you know any ancient Christians?
That's an awesome comment 🤣
Jesus was against the priesthood because they were illegitimate. The Sadduccees bribed their priesthood from the Romans through Herod.
36:24 "There are still scholars" bloody oath there are Reza and here are two of them.....
" Jesus, neither God nor Man. Earl Doherty.
"On the historicity of Jesus, why we have reason to doubt. Dr.Richard Carrier PhD.
I read the book in 2013 and felt like wow..I love Jesus of Nazareth best of all.
Most of all because he was a Jew ✡.
Jesus would not say that he was Israelite as they were lost. He came for the lost sheep of Israel. He was a Jew (Yehud) because he was of the rule of territory of Yehudah
That YHVH is one (the source of everything) is the "greatest commandment" according to Jesus. This teaching is ignored because the Church teaches how he describes this "great commandment" according to other gospels, and not Mark's. The fact that the first generation sect of Jesus's were ZEALOTS toward the Torah (Mosaic Law) [Acts. 21:17-20] and are no longer is evidence that Jesus's sect did not "withstand the gates of hell." (Matt. 16:18)
People here saying aslan is anti christian. Thats pathetic, perhaps if ppl would read his book and arguments then read the new testament and compare.
I did not want this to be, but let me share the strong evidence to support this that this scholar will not even share, the family of this lead revolter all has the same names as the names of Jesus family, which would not be that much of a coincidence, because there were not two sets of famous people who all had the same names in this small window of time, but in my next post, since my phone has a word limit, I will share the next large evidence which will not be touched on.
The next piece of evidence that this scholar may not even know, is a reference in one of the apacrophal books, see, to reference a man as a Galilean during the time of Jesus is to indicate that he was a revolter, or Zealot, well in this book, Simon Peter is called Simon the Galilean, which is a rare reference, but a very strong evidence to point that Peter, James, and Jesus himself were revolters, which that means to us that they were probably murders, which obviously is not good if the truth.
Yes I have done many in depth investigation since then and there is no doubt whatsoever, Christ and his followers were 100 percent pacifists, they had no violence in them whatsoever.
I would love to hear his interpretation of Mohammad
You can tear every thing this man says apart. He was trained by Jesuits.
Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Huh?
TAQIYYA
I am in a tremendous shock of how although he is so well informed on the historical Jesus, he didn't mention PAUL'S LETTERS when he was asked by the lady if Jesus existed. My God, all scholars know that Paul's letters are first of all, the oldest manuscripts and secondly, Paul mentions Jesus and his brother and Peter, and Jesus's mother, and Jame's wife etc
Come on man. Paul left a great deal of proof about Jesus being a real human. Also, Jesus believed in violence given by God. That there will be punishment and death by Gods will, but on the other hand he smashed the temple and drove out the merchants and money changers beating them with a whip
Yep, that's my God❤️
Cool more super biased hearsay from a guy who didn’t know him.
@@SKILLIUSCAESAR Well,if you've met other apostles and lived 15 days with people that did know him(Peter)i am guessing that he existed.Also if you have a brother again,you exist.
@@ritagi837 except we’re using the same exact source to conclude they exist (or any of that happened) as we have for jesus… fallacious argument right there
@@SKILLIUSCAESAR That's what happened in those times though,i mean there were no cameras or social media. Billions of people existed in ancient times but we have no sources. To have a source is something important for back then. I am pretty sure if we lived in those times there would be zero mentions about us
@@ritagi837 Josephus and other contemporary historians write extensively about other wanna-be messiahs with far smaller movements in their lifetime, yet not a single peep about jesus. There’s a long list of contemporaries, like Philo, who one would’ve expected to write about Jesus, bc they’re documenting religion/philosophy in the area, so the absence is striking.
There IS independent evidence about Pilate and his governorship (completely contradicting NT)
Baaa Baaaa Baabaa baaa baaaa ba baaa baaa ba ba baaa. Never confuse truth with metaphores.baaa baa baa
Reza does not speak Judaism as he claims in this video. He only thinks he does. I say this out of listening to many of his lectures.
People are stupid.
Your not saying anything significant the book is abstract not clear just repeating what we already know doesn't justify Jesus and what he did more about nothing tangible. Reza is trying to make money we should demand our money back from him.
OK, so what is he trying to say that Jesus is a radical idiot? Just because he claims he's the Son OF GOD he is not a idiot. What is Faith and how does it play into religion. To me it sounds like he is trying to justify himself in returning to Muslim. I am personally insulted that he compares Jesus as a country bumpkin. Wisdom doesn't always come from education its how a combination of both education and life that makes a wise person.
Taqiyya.
Jesus said he came to fulfill the prophesies. He would apply the Ten Commandments to guns. You should not kill.
Barebone facts: Jesus was an illiterate, uneducated, poorest of the poor, pious, marginal, Jew from the backwoods of Galilee, what we would call a Hillbilly. Yet, he was able to form a movement on behalf of the poor and dispossessed, the weak and the outcast.
Reza forgive me. But you have no concept of the palm branch or other Jewish symbols. You should become a Jew before you can say, "I speak Judaism."
He studies the religion. He does not need to be a Jew to talk about Judaism.He knows more about Jewish history than ordinary Rabbis.
Aslan's claim that the Gospel of Mark was written after 70 in Rome is wrong.
The narrative arc of Mark, exclusive of the content of Peter, was being circulated among the Roman soldiers within a few days after the first Easter and circulated through the Roman legions long before Peter, Mark or Paul got to Rome,
The Gospel of Mark, as we have inherited it, was written by Cornelius, the centurion in Acts 10 and was begun by 40 CE and completed before Mark returned from his missionary with Paul and Barnabus. As Aslan points out, the Romans had a genius for documentation and the narrative arc of Mark begins wnen Jesus appears above the Roman military horizon and was the result of an intelligence dossier maintained on Him as a potential resurgent. This journal was combined with the debriefing Cornelius conducted of Peter in Acts 10 and an enormous amount of Roman testimony, plus, in all likelihood, from material provided by Herod's spies.
It is my assumption that John and Mark was the same person, but that Mark didn'e write Mark for a Roman audience, but that Mark was written, in Latin, by a Roman soldier, CO. rnelius, as a companion literature for the oral confession that was being presented around camp fires throughout the Roman empire. Mark may have translated the Latin into Greek, which explains the crude Greek and idiomatic language, but he didn't compose the text.
As a Muslim, Aslan has a political interest in delaying the creation of Mark 40 years. The reason why the Gospel of Mark is created is in response to the resurrection of Jesus from the experience of the man who watched Him die and reported His death to Pilate. Just the Roman content suggests that there was considerable Roman involvment in all four gospels that John makes clear was no available to the Jews who avoided the defoulment of the Praetorium and the Synoptic Gosples make clear that Peter was the last friendly face Jesus sees before being handed over to Pilate.
But the most important detail coming out of Mark is that everything is a result of eyewitness reports of His public activities that was largely collected before He was arrested. Aslan points out, there were at least a dozen people claiming to be the Messiah with a larger following than Jesus (which may be a bit debatable in Galilee). but He was the only one to be resurrected within the purview of a pagan who had confessed to His authority before He died and His divinity at His death.
And the 500 or so Roman soldiers who were part of the torment of Jesus shared in this witness and began confessing the gospel before His disciples discovered the tomb was empty.
And that is what Aslan prefers to suppress.
Tom, did you learn all this in Sunday school? Nothing that you put forth as fact is correct at all, at least in the research that I have done. The entire new testament was written in Greek. None of them were written originally in Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, or anything else. They were written in Greek. If you disagree, please provide references for your information (unless you yourself were an eyewitness to the account.)
While I do not profess to be a Biblical scholar, I have read the works of many, including Aslan's. All of them agree about the general timing of the writing of the Gospels. Dating the Gospels can certainly be a challenge, but your claim that "Aslan's dating is wrong" is like saying "the majority of Biblical scholars are wrong". Don't act like this was his own crazy dating. These are the generally accepted dates for the writing of the Gospels.
Also, I'm curious, where did you complete your biblical studies? Are you fluent in Greek? What books have you written and in what scholarly journals has your scholarly work been published? I would very much appreciate the opportunity to read your professional work.
You tell a nice story, Tom. Unfortunately, while it may be "true" for you, it has no basis in historical fact, that I have seen. As I said, if you have some reliable evidence for your claims, please provide them. Maybe I'll learn something new. Thanks for sharing, though.
Mike Williams When do you think Mark's gospel was written? How about Paul's Romans and Luke's Acts?
Mike Williams I don't say that Aslan's dating is his: I;,m saying it is wrong. I am not necessarily saying that Mark was composed in Latin: I am saying that sources for Mark were collected and stored by Roman authorities in Latin as part of their on-going routine defensive intelligence gathering. I am saying that elements of Mark are part of this intelligence portfolio that was assembled before Jesus was arrested: in particular, all the passages with the warning to tell no one by Jesus was collected as proof of Jesus's insurgent intentions. In addition, Jiarius's story was probably recorded from Cornelius's acquaintance with Jiarius (it is my conjecture that the centurion in Matthew 8 is the same as the centurion in Luke 7 and both are Cornelius, who. at some point, helped Jiarius build the synagog), As I say, the narrative of Mark begins at the point where Jesus appears above the Roman military horizon, as does John.
I assume that Mark was written about 40 CE, after Cornelius debriefs Peter in Acts 10. Mark is infused with the Holy Spirit, but I think that the story of Jesus was being retold by the Roman soldiers who were there immediately after the first Easter and that it spread through the Roman legions long before either Peter or Paul got to Rome. It was being told around camp fires: speaking as an old soldier, it has the quality of a war story, but Cornelius did not put stylus to papryus until his vision brought him into contact with Peter and then was impelled by the Holy Spirit to create the record, at which time he incorporated the military records he had into Peter's narrative. In this regards, it appears to me that the Gospel of Peter is the Roman experience transmitted by Cornelius and employed by Matthew and Luke. I cannot read Greek, but I can read the commentaries of those who do, all of whom testify that the Greek in Mark is crude and unlike any of the other Gospels, which suggests to me that Mark is a translation by someone for whom Greek was a second language. In addition, whatever embellishment occurs in Peter is transmitted to him by his source. Remember, he was not there after the second cock crowed.
The issue of Luke and Acts comes down to what the purpose of Acts was, Acts appears to be something of an amicus brief which was composed to defend Paul when he got to Rome, but was researched, if not commenced, at the time of Paul's imprisonment in 59. It was at this time that Luke interviewed a number of participants in his gospel, including Mary, mother of God. Sura 19 in the Qur'an validates Luke's version of the nativity. At this time, Luke also interviewed Peter and was referred to Cornelius who was located in Caesarea in Acts 10. It is possible that Luke was already located in Jerusalem as a proto-gynecologist to a Jewish clientele since he lacked the inhibition about purity during menstruation. Much of his narrative has the quality of waiting room gossip that led him into his inquiry which led to Luke and Acts.
Paul seems to hold a singular ignorance of the gospels, generally, The gospel was named after Mark because he became the distributor, going to Alexandria and establishing various outlets and copy centers. As I understand it, Matthew acquired his access to Mark in Alexandria. Matthew was an eyewitness to the encounter between Jesus and the centurion in Mt 8. Luke embellished his version of that encounter from what he learned from Peter and Cornelius, directly.
In regards to Aslan's dating, he has a vested interest in placing the composition of all the gospels as far from the events as possible, in orde to support the Muslim claim that the Gospels and the Torah were systematically corrupted AFTER the advent of Mohammad's revelations. The fact is that even John, which is the latest gospel to be written, was being copied as early as 90 CE, according to the evidence of P52,
The problem with all the dating later than 59 CE is the Roman content: where did it come from? Like I say, this story would have gone through the Roman legions like grass through a goose and there were at least 500 soldiers in the Praetorium with Jesus. The Gospel of Mark was being told around campfires before Pentacost and the aspects of blood sacrifice probably contributed to the rapid spread of Caesar Worship Paul was running into by the time he got to Ephesus and contributed directly to the adoption of Christianity throughout the Roman empire.
Finally, while the theology of the narrative of the Gospel of Mark is Peters, the theology of the author of the Gospel according to Mark was duty, as in, Duty, Honor Country, the Trinity of West Point. The remark that Jesus taught with authority is echoed in Mt 8 and Lk 7 by the centurion, who compares himself to Jesus as also being under authority. And Jesus is amazed "Not in all of Israel have I found such faith"
This is who wrote Mark, some one who recognized the mission focus of Jesus as He cantered towards the cross. I don't love Jesus: I believe in Him, but I know God and the Holy Spirit has impelled me to fashion this inquiry in this manner and the Holy Spirit has validated its thrust. I expand upon this theme in:
The Qur'an is a parable.
ramrodd.tumblr.com/post/95076882131/the-quran-is-a-parable
I am way past sunday school. If you prefer Aslan's version of events, it is your privilege.
And what is the source for your claims?
Curtis B Well, at this moment, you might say the evidence is circumstantial. and derivative of on going scholarship, For example, Richard Bauckman's research into the mission names in Mark suggests that Peter's content in Mark was circulating within the Christian community as early as 37, which the general content of Peter's confession in Acts 10: 34 - 43 was probably available to the community within 18 months and, of course, Paul refers to this material in I Corinthians 15.
Now, the argument has been that John Mark wrote Mark in Rome in cured Greek for a Roman audience. I happen to think that John Mark is probably the author of the Gospel according to John, which was being written when he visited Paul in Rome and his Greek (as I understand it) didn't display the clumsy construction of Mark.
The reason is that Cornelius was translating much of the text from his bureaucratic Latin (remember, the Legion fought in Latin and the bookkeeping was done in Latin) and he was writing in Greek as a second language, plus he was writing in idiomatic phrase. A good example is the description of the Jewish traditions in the opening of Mark 7, which has a certain anthropological quality, tht is, the perspective of the writer is from outside the culture. These lines do not exist in Matthew and they are familiar with anyone who has been in the military and posted to a foreign culture, which has been my experience growing up and as a soldier. In terms of the idiomatic nature of the prose, there are 15 Roman terms employed throughout the text, such as legion and centurion, plus various other words.\
Finally, there is the sheer quality of the Roman content in all the Gospels, but in Mark, in particular, we know exactly when Peter's eyewitness content ends, which is at the last word of Mark 14 and, based on the other Gosples, he is not reintroduced into the narrative until Mary fetches him to the tomb. This is why I say the Gospel of Peter is a result of the eyewitness report Cornelius gives Peter in Acts 10, while the eyewitness account Cornelius employs in constructing the narrative of Mark is given to Cornelius by Peter at the same time, The reason why the content of the Gospel of Peter does not appear Mark is the same reason Bauckmah assumes the missing names are missing: to conceal the identities of everyone involved.
Luke is probably the best argument for this timing, because certain scholars (such as David Pawson) speculate that Acts was developed as an amicus brief for Paul's defense, which meant that both it and the Gospel of Luke were started by 59. And this gives Luke two years to research everything that happens before Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea, especially the Nativity (Sura 19 of the Qur'an confirms Luke's version of the Nativity, which does not appear in Mark). But it can be inferred from this research that Luke had a copy of Mark to work from, which I contend was available in written form soon after 40 and before Mark returns from his aborted missionary with Paul and Barnabus.
Aslan has a vested interest in pushing the appearance of the Gospels as far away from 33 as possible, as does Bart Ehrman. Whether or not the Gospel of Peter is an authentic artifact, it does suggest pretty convincingly what was being circulated in the Roman legions before Peter arrived at the empty tomb. The resurrection is what drove the proliferation of Christianity. I think that there is probably a direct connection between the story of the resurrection circulating in the Legions and the explosion of Caesar Worship which was exploding around Paul's missionary, especially in Ephesus. One of the rituals involved was initiate new recruits into a pit, cover it with planks and slaughter an ox over them so they would be baptized in blood. I find it hard not to see parallels with the language of the cross.
But it is all speculation. Below, I have posted something far less speculative.
19 is a song of praise for Farther, Son and Holy Ghost.
19 is the Jesus Prayer on your tongue:
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God,
Have Mercy on me, a sinner.
19 falls on the eye like the love of Jesus
Pouring from His eyes like honey to sooth the soul
The 19 letters of the Bismillah is a call to prayer:
Come to Jesus, Son of God,
Most Gracious and Compassionate.
19 is the Breath of YHWH Elohim, woven into each Sura,
The very fabric of the Qur’an is of the warp and woof
Of the 19th chapter of the 19th book of the Bible.
19 is the language of the Kingdom of God,
Dispelling the jinn and unclean spirits of Arabic.
19 is the Light of Truth,
Illuminating the apostasies of Sura 9
19 is the Alpha and the Omega, The Trinity of God the Father.
And God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost,
19 is the Hidden Secret of the Qur’an\
As it is written in Sura 74 ayat 30
“And above it (the Qur’an) is nineteen:”
19 is a song of praise for Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Amen.
JESUS is the Messiah whether you or I believe it or not. What we think or say does not matter. The reason why Jesus is still called the Messiah today is because he IS the Messiah.
John 1:4
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, John 11:25
HISTORICAL PROOF
Hasn't this guy been outed as a liar and apologist for terrrorists?
Derp on this dude.
+Serena Smith of course because the truth hurts, right in the ass.
This man has never met Jesus in one way or another. He is always a liar and always will be. But I am certain, that unfortunately, many people like his lies ...
Jesus is Lord. MARANATHA !
Honestly pray for guidance from the most merciful
+Liette Bowes
jesus is who he is
Don't believe his charms. He wants to get into the goverment and push his Islam ideas to bring them all here. He seems very charming, but a very dangerous man.
Please, take you medications and leave the discussion of serious subjects to the sane.
Love listening to Aslan - he is refreshingly honest - which is a novelty in these days of extreme Bigotry.
All bigots - be they Muslim, Christian, Jew or Atheist - all of them hate his honest truths.
Aslan is an academic who happens to hold a personal belief that he does not push on others. He sees religion for what it is- an important stepping stone from animal to sentient. It is a lie.. but it is necessary. To be religious these days is a personal (and often cultural) choice. Don't shit on him because of his roots. That's called racism.
unfortunately many people treat atheism as a scape-goat for bigotry, racism, pro-'west' propaganda and unprecedented ignorance. Yes, many of the worlds problems have a face of religious beleifs, yes their books are old and have a lot of dated information. This misses the point, for many it is a binding moral code that gives people identity, and stories to live their lives by. No more. no ghosts, no faries, but connections between people. and no, that is not reason enough for the sweeping statements of 'us good, religion bad'. All aslan suggests is that we be very careful and selective in how we face these problems, as belief has nothing to do with human ignorance. that exists without religion. you are a perfect example of that Layalya.
Raza never explains why all large computer firms denounce Islam as an abomination. He loves to reward all 911 cut-throats and travels all over God's creation to help Islamic causes. Nusrat Rizvi
Palm Beach Gardens FL