Testing the Historicity of The New Testament - Acts of the Apostles Pt 2

[@asadullahsaaid3794]

*Timestamps:* 0:00 - Intro 1:23 - EF Dawah Panel joins 1:31 - Format of the stream 2:15 - Summary of the previous stream 4:41 - Inconsistencies with the Conversion Experience of Paul 18:30 - Acts contradicting Matthew's Gospel with regards to Judas 20:33 - Errors made by Stephen in Acts 22:39 - Addressing the Guests joining 23:07 - *Frank joins* 23:20 - Discussion on Paul's report of his conversion experience 34:04 - Analysing the historical reliability of the Book of Acts 35:27 - Great Commission being mentioned only in Matthew 35:59 - Christians trying to fit Jesus into the Old Testament Prophecies 37:24 - Scrutinizing the Conversion Experience of Paul 42:04 - Christians trying to harmonize contradictory narratives 44:10 - Inviting Guests 46:18 - *Alwan (Muslim) joins* , shares his Background & Dawah Talk 49:08 - *Malik joins* 49:41 - Analysing the Entity which Paul encountered & his testimony 54:35 - The Council of Jerusalem on the permissible food for Christians 59:49 - Scrutinizing the vision of Peter about Food 1:02:41 - Hamza & Ijaz address the Christians in the chat 1:09:41 - *Milos joins* 1:10:37 - Discussion on Historical Criticism of the Book of Acts 1:19:10 - Discussion on the recorded text of the incidents in the New Testament 1:21:00 - Criterion of analysing the New Testament 1:22:57 - Discussion on Paul addressing the Entity 1:32:54 - Ijaz & Hamza address the Christians in the chat 1:35:29 - *Dr John joins* 1:36:03 - Use of the word "Lord" in the Bible 1:38:03 - Discussion on Paul's encounter with the Entity 1:46:57 - Discussion on the use of the word "Lord" in the Bible 1:50:06 - Was Paul following the Mosaic Laws? 1:57:56 - Gospel authors being Anonymous 1:58:53 - Invitation to Dr. John regarding challenging the Historicity of the Bible 2:06:47 - *DJ joins* & gives positive feedback 2:09:24 - Contradictions between Luke's Gospel & the Book of Acts 2:11:47 - Discussion on the authenticity of the Luke & the role of Jesus 2:14:01 - Analysing the beliefs of DJ 2:18:42 - Message to DJ 2:20:30 - *Rumzi joins* 2:21:25 - The Aftermath of Paul taking the Nazirite Vow 2:27:55 - Closing Remarks, Updates & Wrapping Up SubhanAllah ❤️🤍❤️ Fabulous Stream 👍🏻👌🏻 _May Allah ﷻ bless you all and reward you for your efforts._ 🤲🏻

[@AdrianMuslim]

Great stream. Looking forward to the next one. I make dua for you guys.

[@Nazam44]

May Allah fulfil your needs and bless you in this life and in the next! Ameen!

[@abdelhak943]

1:17:54 To answer Milos Obilc's claim about the Quran having multiple retellings of the story of Moses interacting with court of the Pharaoh, I can tell you that unlike the Bible that tells stories in a historical context, the Quran tells stories for the purpuse of deducting and teaching a specific moral or lesson. So, we have both of Surat Taha (55-76) and Surat Al-Aaraf (103-136) talking about the same story of Moses with the magcians but each Surah uses - sometimes - different expressions and adds different details. (Note that this still happens without making any contradiction between the two Surah and that the language Moses and the Pharaoh originally spoke was not the arabic language of the Quran). - In Surat Taha, The Quran tells the story of the magicians but focuses more about what the Magicians (who believed Moses) did and said. The story ends with this: "But whoever comes to Him as a believer having done righteous deeds - for those will be the highest degrees [in position]: Gardens of perpetual residence beneath which rivers flow, wherein they abide eternally. And that is the reward of one who purifies himself." (20:75-76) - Surat Al-Aaraf: The Quran tells the same story but focuses more about what the Pharaoh and his court (who disbelieved in Moses) did and said. The story ends like this: "So We took retribution from them, and We drowned them in the sea because they denied Our signs and were heedless of them."(7:136).

[@hamzazulfi]

JazakAllah bro. Very beneficial point.

[@3equals129]

👍👍👍👍🙂🙂🙂

[@sounakbanerjee1892]

Bro, open a youtube account and spread the knowledge. You are indeed knowledgeable

[@rumzih9179]

Dua and love to EF Dawah for these amazing streams. Please forgive me for getting nervous on stream.

[@Nazam44]

Please to have you on!

[@User-4517]

Guys - please ensure you sponsor/support the channel. Many of us muslims are lay people who don't have the ability/understanding to do dawah in the manner which these organisations can - so at the very least we can do is give them financial support so they can continue spreading the message Islam. Alhamdolillah.

[@AvarClan]

Alsalam Alaykum brothers and sisters. May Allah reward you in this life and after.

[@usmaniqbal836]

Make dua for Dj DJ your so close the truth DJ please come back to the next stream ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@peacenow6618]

Jazakallahu Khayran Ahsanul Jaza

[@kgdangar2]

Ijaz is diamond

[@2dar2]

thanks brothers

[@mohammadalkhalifah9310]

WE LOVE YOU guys keep going May Allah guide us all to the truth

[@coldtreasure]

BarakAllahu feekum brothers! May Allah preserve & bless you and your family

[@rizwanramzan5729]

Mylos and Dr. Owen are good Christian guests...They should be on next stream..

[@Nazam44]

I hope they come on again and stay in contact.

[@gwolf6975]

Really look forward to the Paul discussion. Great program.

[@jawaadshahid]

Regarding the discussion with Dr John Owen. The point he missed was that Paul calls the light lord BEFORE being told who he was. Dr Owen kept saying Paul knew because he was told but he didn't when he called the light lord. Paul had no good reason to call the light lord

[@huzeyfebulut9138]

May Allah bless this kind of you're work

[@peacenow6618]

Taqabbalallahu Minnaa Wa Minkum

[@NeoLegendX]

Boy that was a long talk. Miloš is fellow slav.

[@fumanekoenanemohamadou9877]

If I met Milos today and didn't know him, tomorrow when I tell the story of meeting him I'd say " and I said, "who are you Milos?""

[@nabeels7325]

What would Milos reply be?

[@loverphp5605]

Excellent al humdulillaah

[@moonlightlight5450]

nice stream

[@putnicesaquranom]

Assalamu alaykum. Do you have the link to the episode where dr. John came back ("his episode"), I can't find it Appreciate your sharing the link

[@mohdmz5698]

The Opera at the beginning, was from Destiny 2 (video game) soundtrack, Noice touch!

[@coldtreasure]

I really hope a book comes out of this, that would be very useful insha Allah jazak Allah khayr

[@User-4517]

brothers please do another pateron only livestream, would be nice to connect with you all :-)

[@nabeels7325]

Truth hurts..

[@originalsource8952]

Need help with the law? Better not call Saul (Paul).

[@asimhd1990]

😂😂😂😂😂😂 I am dying (for no one)

[@skitzwaz7019]

Lol This comment wins the Internet this week Akhi

[@reecemesser]

Without sin there is no law. Jesus Christ paid the fine on our behalf, he is the eternal begotten Son, who's in the bosom of the Father.

[@originalsource8952]

@@reecemesser Why do you believe that?

[@reecemesser]

@@originalsource8952 Because the Bible says so. Why do you believe the Koran?

[@samsungkartit]

Mashallah

[@shanecorning5222]

(after 2 hours) DJ gets it !!!!!!!!!! :-D .... ... HOPEFULLY he keeps Listening !!!!!

[@shanecorning5222]

NO he doesn't have to change "Ummah"s !!!!!!! WHY do you keep doing that. Stop it it's not even true. Go listen to Sheikh Imran. OR JUST read the Quran? :-D

[@mr.skjallow4049]

why am i unable to DOWNLOAD the video?

[@gwolf6975]

To me it sounds like Paul was admitting he was basicly cursed to carry a demon, as after recognising a " messenger of Satan" was a problem to him, he stated he asked the lord for it to leave, and the answer was that his ( the lords) strength is made perfect in weakness. .... In other words, his request was denied and said that Paul would Basicly be fine and the weakness would be a strength somehow, and Paul rejoiced in this because he believes everything his God does is good. That's how I see it,,which is still a problem, because now we have to ask if Pauls ministry is being in any way affected by a demon. According to this theoretical view.

[@سامي1016]

Please could any body give me the accounts, i didn't find it...

[@abdullahdeca8378]

Nice channel...!

[@Ray-iq3uy]

Serious questions brothers and sisters. Would I be able to eat anything that's not slaughtered in a halal manner if I say bismillah? In my area I have tried halal meat but their meat is honestly very low quality or going bad. I know Allah has allowed the food of the Christians and the Jews halal for us. Please advice I'm just trying to be better in Islam then I was the day before.

[@taufmo2564]

Go to your local mosque. The imam will be able to help you. in sha Allaah

[@eistudiesl7193]

We can't eat food that isn't halal and you should say bismillah before any meal. Allah(swt) knows best.

[@Boss-313]

Paul could have been an agent of the state infiltrating a group within the state which was gaining popularity and could be a threat to social order, hence prior was merciless towards early Christians then realising it’s not working decides to steer the religion from within to that which is agreeable to state and note how Saul/Paul was friendly with state leadership/officials...

[@frankszanto]

It is one thing to disagree with Paul, but another to misrepresent him. Ijaz quoted 2Cor 6:4 - I think he meant 6:14. This talks about being “yoked” with unbelievers. We cannot worship with or partner with unbelievers. But this is not about mixing.

[@frankszanto]

These extra lines belong to the above. In 1 Cor 10:27 Paul says that if an unbeliever invites you to a meal, you can eat whatever they give you without questions of conscience. But if they tell you the food has been offered in sacrifice, then you should refrain. In 1 Cor 5:9-11 he says not to eat with immoral people, but makes it clear he is talking about an immoral person who claims to be a brother. He clearly says he is not talking about people of the world.

[@abhmd4481]

@@Ttcopp12rt keyboard warrior hah?

[@eijakhajat8782]

Will you translate this into bahasa?

[@cainblue448]

Wasn’t lord a common greeting to any stranger in those days?

[@abhmd4481]

@@Ttcopp12rt lol

[@mohamedfaizal7150]

@frank szanto.. From panel members being rude few stream back to having mutual respect with them... Way to go frank..!!

[@MohammadAliKhalil]

Can we ever get a chance and jump on the subject of the black stone, Tawaf, where Christians are saying it’s paganism. It’s annoying me

[@MohammadAliKhalil]

Sahih Luke Rituals will be rituals as long as we don’t Associate partners with GOD like Hercules and Zeus aka CLASS A PAGANISM.

[@abhmd4481]

@@Ttcopp12rt 1+1+1=?

[@UmmFatimah20]

Assalamu alaikum- please learn about your deen and remove yourself from doubtful matters, inshallah.

[@MohammadAliKhalil]

zoogirl111 InshaAllah, recommend a video please

[@mohammedshabir2804]

It's funny how Dr John is saying the big L doesn't matter when that's what they go by big g n small g big l small l, by their standard everything goes, iv realised alot of them come on with there own meaning for words

[@farhaan1924]

1:57:35 Hamza confused 😂😂

[@neaalitygandhi]

Why didn't God preserve The Bible?

[@rizwanramzan5729]

East Enders moment!!!! 🤣🤣🤣

[@eistudiesl7193]

26:35 😂🤣

[@suadomar3939]

Christians Play word gymlastic when it comes to bible loool

[@abdullahdeca8378]

Christian Prince -- howa yukaddib-al Quran, howa yu'min bil ilmil-kaadib...!

[@shanecorning5222]

Hamza you know there are TWO , "Ummah"s , right?

[@shanecorning5222]

You know I'm not from Mo's Ummah, but, yet, I say Mohammad was a Prophet. Right? PBUH. :-)

[@balasultan9996]

paul really messed up everything

[@shanecorning5222]

(1 hour 40 minutes) .... OMG , Just read the Bible WHY do we have to explain this over and over and over and over and over and over and over. "PAUL" is opposed to JESUS. OK?

[@imtiyaz2110]

1:57:30 to 1:57:44 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@milosobilic7817]

I understand the point that Ijaz is making, but he has some assumed premises. In 1st century Judaism there was a plurality of heavenly messengers. Perfect example is in Genesis 22 it is the Angel of the Lord who speaks to Abraham and Abraham follows what he says(and identifies him as YHWH). Paul identifying this divine or supernatural speaker as a messenger of God(if that is what he is doing) is compatible with him calling him kyrios which is a broad term for authority which would apply to any of the messengers of God and then asking for a specific identity. So this point he tries to make hinges on Paul identifying the speaker immediately as God when he uses the term kyrios. My response was two pronged. I demonstrated that if we understand the text of Acts 9:5 to exactly represent the words of Paul there is no problem, then I also demonstrated that if we understand the text of Acts 9:5 to be a paraphrase where he interpolates his later theological understanding we also do not have a problem. This is not incoherent to show that in any possible interpretation of the text(or at least these two) that both are possible interpretations that are mutually exclusive but also are compatible with genuine Christianity. So my point was on either view, exact or paraphrase, we are not compelled to consider this a contradiction and Ijaz absolutely did not respond to what I said, instead I was misrepresented.

[@Nazam44]

Hi, Milos. I was one of the panelist so, please feel free to connect online. I would really like to have continued our conversation and appreciate you coming on tonight's stream. I am on Facebook, which is normally the best way to reach me or you can find me on Skype. Otherwise, feel free to come again, same time next week!

[@ijazthetrini]

Hi Milos, This is Br. Ijaz. At no point did my argument hinge on him identifying the source of the voice as being a God. I think it is either due to a misunderstanding on your part or an error altogether. What I actually said was that this could've been an Angel of the Lord, the Lord or Satan/ a demon. My actual argument was that by using a title of respect he had decided from the experience and words as it were happening that this was a good character (The Lord or an Angel of the Lord). I'm saying that using a title of respect when he didn't know if this were Satan or not was to immediately rule out that this was Satan trying to deceive him. He even articulated as part of his belief that even Satan can masquerade as an angel of light, see 2 Cor. 11:14. My point was that irrespective of either of your options, it still leads to problems. If he thought it was God then he would not need to question who the voice was, but by also affirming this supernatural entity was a Lord then this would mean he had uncritically determined who this individual was. On the other hand, if he didn't know that this was Satan or the Lord but still addressed them as such then this would be him being respectful to Satan. Lastly, if he changed the story to reflect a higher sense of respect or if he read something into the story that was not there then we can't trust him as this would be post hoc revisionism and would not represent the reality he experienced in the first place. Thanks for your comment.

[@milosobilic7817]

@@ijazthetrini > My point was that irrespective of either of your options, it still leads to problems. If he thought it was God then he would not need to question who the voice was, but by also affirming this supernatural entity was a Lord then this would mean he had uncritically determined who this individual was. I don't think this is the case. If Paul identified immediately the vision being of God even then it would be consistent with a 1st century Jewish view of God for him to still ask for the identity of which person of God he is speaking to. So as I said earlier this argument rests on the usage of the word kyrios to indicate a knowledge of the identity of the speaker, but the identity of whom Paul would consider kyrios in this situation, under practically every possible understanding of the text would include multiple persons that would be consistent with a follow up question identifying the speaker. > Lastly, if he changed the story to reflect a higher sense of respect or if he read something into the story that was not there then we can't trust him as this would be post hoc revisionism and would not represent the reality he experienced in the first place. This isn't a contradiction, as I was going to say before I was cut off the gospel of John consistently adds parentheticals to add theological explanations that may not be immediately apparent to the reader. It would be fully consistent for Paul, in relating this experience to an audience, to add information that clarifies the experience. Imagine an example where a Muslim hears the voice of Mohammed or has a vision of Mohammed that they do not immediately recognize as being Mohammed and causes their conversion, in retelling the story later they would probably apply the appropriate honorifics within Islam like adding pbuh after identifying. I doubt it would be valid to consider that example to be post hoc revisionism and it is neither the case here with Paul.

[@omaralyafai2368]

The problem with your claims is that as stated by Ben Sommers in his book "the bodies of god and the world of ancient israel" on pg 135-136 that a dying and rising god was something jews rehected in those times. James mcgrath in his book "the only true hod" dedicates his last chapter to the "two powers" theory and states that in the 1st century palestine there was an already emerging consensus that god was one and not in the xian underatanding of natures of god. Merely god was 1. Joel Marcus in his book "John the Baptist, in history and theology" on pg 15-17 states that a dying and resurecting god and a man attaining equality to god was never a jewish belief and was introduced by xianity. I dont think you understand the jewsih concept of agency milos. When one is called "god" or even given worship that doesn't mean they're god. It means that this person is God's emissary and representative on earth and thus, has the authority from God to do things god can do such as forgive sin, resurrect the dead, and accept worship but that worship because theyre seen as a way to god but not god himself. James dunn wrote about this extensively especially in his book "did the early Christians worship Jesus?" Where he says on pgs 145-146: " Yet at the same time they recalled that this was Jesus of Nazareth, who affirmed the same monotheistic creed as they did, who forbad worship of any other than God, and who prayed to God as an expression of his own need of and reliance on God. They saw that the exalted Jesus was the mediator through whom they approached God, the one in whose name and through whom they gave thanks and glory to God, the one who at God’s right hand interceded for them. They recognized that God was still Jesus’ God, even the God of Jesus as Lord. Their use of Wisdom and Logos imagery was probably intended as an extension and creative reworking of the vivid imagery used by Israel’s sages and theologians, a ‘mutation’ in Hurtado’s words. Similarly their use of theos in relation to Jesus was probably with a similar qualification that there was much more to God than could be seen in and through Jesus. In short, Jesus was Last Adam as well as Lord, mediator as well as Saviour, the one who prayed for them as well as the one whose name they invoked...... So when we transpose our findings into an answer to our central question, the dominant answer for Christian worship seems to be that the first Christians did not think of Jesus as to be worshipped in and for himself. He was not to be worshipped as wholly God, or fully identified with God, far less as a god. If he was worshipped it was worship offered to God in and through him, worship of Jesus-in-God and God-in-Jesus. And the corollary is that, in an important sense, Christian monotheism, if it is to be truly monotheism, has still to assert that only God, only the one God, is to be worshipped. The Christian distinctive within the monotheistic faiths is its affirmation that God is most effectively worshipped in and through, and, in some real but finally unquantifiable sense, as (revealed in) Jesus." We must understand the jewish understanding of agency first which xians dont even know was swapped out for neoplatonian philosophical undertakings which were late anachronistically projected instead of the jewish understanding of the new testament. Hope that helped 😊😊😊

[@milosobilic7817]

​@Tony G > Now when Paul says Lord to the being he encountered, he immediately establishes that this being is sovereign over him. AND this is the problem because if this being is Satan then he has already submitted without even considering whether his is TRUE or FALSE. If this being is Satan then Paul has taken this being as his Lord or if you want to use the term that you were using as kyrios (master), then this "Lord" (kyrios/master) becomes a FALSE LORD (kyrios). I don't think this is a coherent point, and it departs from the original point that I responded to on the video. The original point was that if Paul's words are represented exactly it represents a contradiction as Paul asks for the identity of a person that he already knows the identity of. This being a contradiction hinges on the word kyrios being an exclusive identifier of Christ, as in it would be a contradiction if Paul said "Who are you Jesus" as he's asking the identity of a person he already knows the personal identity of. I suspect Ijaz recognized this is in error so he then evolved his point to being a completely different red herring criticism, that Paul was in error to identity this kyrios as a positive being without applying the necessary discernment. I have not responded to this as it is a distraction and is completely independent to the original point(I was interrupted on the broadcast when I was going to give a supporting example from Paul on the premise that the purpose of the broadcast was to stay laser focused on Acts, but somehow 2 Corinthians is within this focus) If Paul was in error by not appropriately identifying the kyrios before he called him kyrios that is independent to the point of whether this represents a narrative contradiction. If this were true, which it isn't, it would represent a theological failure of Paul but not a narrative contradiction. As to why this is an incoherent point Ijaz has a great example to accurately represent the Christian position but failed to do so when a Muslim came on to make the point that what Paul should have done in order to make sure tha tthis vision he received was a genuine one was to compare to the disciples and ensure what he received was in accordance with what they received. We have evidence from the book of Acts that this is the case, Paul was greeted by the apostles of Jesus and spoke during the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, also in Galatians 2 Paul represents that when he did exactly the thing the Muslim said he should do, go and compare with the apostles, the apostles understanding "added nothing to him" as in they were in true accord. So even though this is beside the point and a red herring we see that there additionally is neither a textual contradiction nor a theological contradiction in this passage.

[@MohammadAliKhalil]

Using destiny 2 music 😂

[@abdisalamwarsamebono4506]

All testements are man made books

[@kaleemullah1978]

These programs waste of time come to park please bro hamza

[@asimhd1990]

I dont think they are waste of time. Although I love going to the park. But the thing with these steams is that you dont get any Hacklers unlike the park. (Apart from the angry Pastor).

[@jane29jeng]

I disagree. This is way better. You can hear everyone speak. Much more orderly.

[@frankszanto]

For next week, I put it to you that Paul did far more to spread monotheism that did Muhammad. Read the account in Acts17:16 where Paul took on a panel like yours in the Areopagus in Athens - the centre of Greek philosophy. And he argued for the One God who is creator. At the beginning of Acts, the Jews were the only monotheists. Within a few decades, the apostles, and Paul especially, had spread this teaching thoughout much of the Roman Empire.

[@ray620]

@bink bee so your saying God is a 3 headed dog. Smh, you will realize the truth in the grave, but by then, its too late.

[@frankszanto]

@Tony G Are you contradicting Ijaz?

[@frankszanto]

@Tony G I would call it TonyG in your honour.

[@jane29jeng]

Rayyon Hussain i think you misunderstood bink bee. I believe he/she is actually on the muslim’s side. If I remember correctly, Mohammed Hijab mentioned the 3 headed dog analogy in the concept of trinity in one of his lectures.

[@jib6984ify]

That has to be one of the most outrageous Christian claims I've ever heard...just...wow