What just happened?

[sun rise]

Sorry but I don't have time to spend an hour on the video. I did watch a few very short segments. I don't find arguing about scripture to be very personally interesting. Because I believe that no book of scripture is 100% reflective of the teachings that were originally given. They've been altered and mis-translated. Or at best people find what they're expecting to find which is different from what's there.

 

[England my lionheart]

Reminds me of this

but naik is at least funny.

 

[sayak83]

Reminds me of this

but naik is at least funny.

He is a fundamentalist wanted in India for links with Islamic terrorists.

 

[Kemosloby]

I think it represents that Christians are people of faith who have a Bible and take it seriously. Christians are an important group of people. I did not find either speaker particularly expert in the gospels.

At minute 53 the fellow with the red beard says the Christian's problem is that he keeps falling back on the 'Old Testament' which does not support him, and then says he's going to prove that the author of Matthew is a liar. His opponent is weak and does not understand Matthew. Thus he is vulnerable to this strategy. At minute 58 the man says that the 3 day resurrection suggests Matthew has been embellished, creating doubt in the Christian. In fact there is no prediction in the Tanach predicting a three day resurrection. In this he is correct, but in fact nowhere in Tanach are the fulfillments of Matthew predicted. Both opponents in the conversation are ignorant of this, that Matthew is not a literal book.

The main point of contention, as usual, surrounds the death and resurrection of Jesus. Neither opponent understands just how non-literal Matthew is. This is more embarrassing for the Christian, since he is the loser of the debate. The fellow with the red beard assumes falsely that Matthew is lying. His opponent who is not a strong Bible student finds that he has built his foundation on sand.

Three day resurrection is predicted in Jonah, 3 days in the belly of a fish.

 

[England my lionheart]

He is a fundamentalist wanted in India for links with Islamic terrorists.

I only meant he's funny in his argument and not funny that he's wanted for that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Three day resurrection is predicted in Jonah, 3 days in the belly of a fish.

I see what you're doing there, and its not going to fly. The sign of Jonah does not predict anything. Where in Jonah does it say that it is predicting something? Nowhere does it, so the 3 day resurrection is a re-enactment. That is a much more accurate way to look at it and more meaningful, too. The next logical question is why Jonah is in the fish for three days, and the three days points to a law in the Torah. He is in the fish for three days because he represents Israel which is given as a sacrifice for everyone else. Jonah is like a sacrifice which atones for Ninevah. He suffers, and the Ninevites partake of his suffering. Similarly Jesus is like a sacrifice that atones for the world.

 

[Kemosloby]

I see what you're doing there, and its not going to fly. The sign of Jonah does not predict anything. Where in Jonah does it say that it is predicting something? Nowhere does it, so the 3 day resurrection is a re-enactment. That is a much more accurate way to look at it and more meaningful, too. The next logical question is why Jonah is in the fish for three days, and the three days points to a law in the Torah. He is in the fish for three days because he represents Israel which is given as a sacrifice for everyone else. Jonah is like a sacrifice which atones for Ninevah. He suffers, and the Ninevites partake of his suffering. Similarly Jesus is like a sacrifice that atones for the world.

Where anywhere in the Old Testament does it say the miracles are prophecies? It's doesn't spell it right out but they are prophecies. Jonah was spit out of the whale after 3 days and according to Leadbelly landed in a sweet potato patch. After three days Jesus was resurrected from the belly of the Earth. It's prophecy.

 

[Mohsen]

He is a fundamentalist wanted in India for links with Islamic terrorists.

Prove it!

 

[sayak83]

Prove it!

Done

Zakir Naik, wanted on terror charges, seeking Malaysian citizenship: NIA sources

 

[Mohsen]

Done

Zakir Naik, wanted on terror charges, seeking Malaysian citizenship: NIA sources

Two months later: Zakir Naik gets clean chit from Maharashtra intelligence department; no arrest on his return to India

As you can see, no case to be made against him.

He is still preaching in India and his channel is still receiving advertising revenue from predominantly western and Hindu companies!!! The Hindustan times - which you plugged - has been caught with its pants down many times now. Lol.

If that was your evidence, then you don't know how make a measure of it!

Peace

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think it represents that Christians are people of faith who have a Bible and take it seriously. Christians are an important group of people. I did not find either speaker particularly expert in the gospels.

At minute 53 the fellow with the red beard says the Christian's problem is that he keeps falling back on the 'Old Testament' which does not support him, and then says he's going to prove that the author of Matthew is a liar. His opponent is weak and does not understand Matthew. Thus he is vulnerable to this strategy. At minute 58 the man says that the 3 day resurrection suggests Matthew has been embellished, creating doubt in the Christian. In fact there is no prediction in the Tanach predicting a three day resurrection. In this he is correct, but in fact nowhere in Tanach are the fulfillments of Matthew predicted. Both opponents in the conversation are ignorant of this, that Matthew is not a literal book.

The main point of contention, as usual, surrounds the death and resurrection of Jesus. Neither opponent understands just how non-literal Matthew is. This is more embarrassing for the Christian, since he is the loser of the debate. The fellow with the red beard assumes falsely that Matthew is lying. His opponent who is not a strong Bible student finds that he has built his foundation on sand.

I find it curious that you feel Matthew is non-literal, subjective, when the writer quotes Tanakh multiple times. Anyone who looks at this list would be convinced otherwise: OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew

 

[Mohsen]

I find it curious that you feel Matthew is non-literal, subjective, when the writer quotes Tanakh multiple times. Anyone who looks at this list would be convinced otherwise: OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew

Interestingly enough, this is precisely what hamza (ginger bearded fellow in the video) was making a point of!

Peace

 

[Jumi]

Anyone who suggest critics of his religion or minorities should be killed isn't a good guy in my book no matter what other views they may have. If it's true for him, then he is following the same stereotype he claims to work against.

 

[sayak83]

Two months later: Zakir Naik gets clean chit from Maharashtra intelligence department; no arrest on his return to India

As you can see, no case to be made against him.

He is still preaching in India and his channel is still receiving advertising revenue from predominantly western and Hindu companies!!! The Hindustan times - which you plugged - has been caught with its pants down many times now. Lol.

If that was your evidence, then you don't know how make a measure of it!

Peace

You can't read the dates apparently. Your news is from 2016, and mine is from 2017. Zakir Naik is wanted in India on terrorism charges, he has fled India and his property has been usurped and interpol to issue a red corner notice for him.

March 2017
Zakir Naik Summoned By Anti-Terror Agency NIA, Sister Questioned

April 2017
Second Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Against Zakir Naik In One Week

Rs 18 Crore In Assets Of Zakir Naik's Outfit Seized By Authorities

July 2017
Controversial Preacher Zakir Naik's Passport Revoked

September 2017
Kanpur IS men influenced by Zakir Naik: NIA report - Times of India


So.. stop embarrassing yourself by supporting the cause of a wanted terrorist.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I find it curious that you feel Matthew is non-literal, subjective, when the writer quotes Tanakh multiple times. Anyone who looks at this list would be convinced otherwise: OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew

Notice Jeremiah 31:15. There's no prediction here. Matthew knows his audience is not ignorant of this, and it is well established that Matthew is an educated person. He writes like one. He's not making mistakes in ignorance. Nobody reading Jeremiah 31:15 thinks "Oh this is clearly a prediction." Matthew is saying something other than Jesus fulfills prediction X. He is talking about something very important that Hamza has overlooked.

 

[Mohsen]

You can't read the dates apparently. Your news is from 2016, and mine is from 2017. Zakir Naik is wanted in India on terrorism charges, he has fled India and his property has been usurped and interpol to issue a red corner notice for him.

March 2017
Zakir Naik Summoned By Anti-Terror Agency NIA, Sister Questioned

April 2017
Second Non-Bailable Warrant Issued Against Zakir Naik In One Week

Rs 18 Crore In Assets Of Zakir Naik's Outfit Seized By Authorities

July 2017
Controversial Preacher Zakir Naik's Passport Revoked

September 2017
Kanpur IS men influenced by Zakir Naik: NIA report - Times of India


So.. stop embarrassing yourself by supporting the cause of a wanted terrorist.

I admit I had no idea of his terrorism charges and found the article via my mobile. I'm now at my laptop and its easier to read from here.

apparently, Naik's lawyer Mubeen Solkar, told Al Jazeera that he will "challenge the ban before an appropriate court". and also added "We have got sufficient grounds to show that the ban was not only illegal but also unjustified and unwarranted," he added.

Meanwhile in India:

ironically, Hindu extremists burn effigies of Naik! Small wonder he left the nation

for more info: Zakir Naik: Why India wants to arrest the preacher

Now, back to regular scheduled

peace

Notice Jeremiah 31:15. There's no prediction here. Matthew knows his audience is not ignorant of this, and it is well established that Matthew is an educated person. He writes like one. He's not making mistakes in ignorance. Nobody reading Jeremiah 31:15 thinks "Oh this is clearly a prediction." Matthew is saying something other than Jesus fulfills prediction X. He is talking about something very important that Hamza has overlooked.

His audience were Israelites, right? Not Gentiles!!! As for the Gospel according to Matthew - you do realize that scholars claim the source of Matthew - is anonymous? Right? So when you say "Matthew knows his audience is not ignorant of this, and it is well established that Matthew is an educated person." what are you talking about? Scholars of Christianity have claimed that the source of the gospel of Matthew is "anonymous". In others words, Matthew is a Q Source - tell me you knew this? And if you do know this, then your claim is one which should not be pushed. And interpreting the bible to fit your bias is not how scripture should be studied - the right thing to do would be to verify first, the authenticity of scripture instead of accepting it dogmatically. Which to my knowledge, it doesn't seem like you are doing.

Peace

 

[sayak83]

I admit I had no idea of his terrorism charges and found the article via my mobile. I'm now at my laptop and its easier to read from here.

apparently, Naik's lawyer Mubeen Solkar, told Al Jazeera that he will "challenge the ban before an appropriate court". and also added "We have got sufficient grounds to show that the ban was not only illegal but also unjustified and unwarranted," he added.

Meanwhile in India:

ironically, Hindu extremists burn effigies of Naik! Small wonder he left the nation

for more info: Zakir Naik: Why India wants to arrest the preacher

Now, back to regular scheduled

peace


His audience were Israelites, right? Not Gentiles!!! As for the Gospel according to Matthew - you do realize that scholars claim the source of Matthew - is anonymous? Right? So when you say "Matthew knows his audience is not ignorant of this, and it is well established that Matthew is an educated person." what are you talking about? Scholars of Christianity have claimed that the source of the gospel of Matthew is "anonymous". In others words, Matthew is a Q Source - tell me you knew this? And if you do know this, then your claim is one which should not be pushed. And interpreting the bible to fit your bias is not how scripture should be studied - the right thing to do would be to verify first, the authenticity of scripture instead of accepting it dogmatically. Which to my knowledge, it doesn't seem like you are doing.

Peace

You can't expect Naik to admit his nexus with terrorists. If he is not guilty, he should come to India and defend himself in court. If he is afraid of violence by rogue Hindu groups, he can get bodyguards or police protection. Effigies are burnt in India all the time, it's a well accepted means of protest in India

Congress workers burn effigy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Amethi

Anyways..

 

[Mohsen]

You can't expect Naik to admit his nexus with terrorists. If he is not guilty, he should come to India and defend himself in court. If he is afraid of violence by rogue Hindu groups, he can get bodyguards or police protection. Effigies are burnt in India all the time, it's a well accepted means of protest in India

Congress workers burn effigy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Amethi

Anyways..

Yawn!! Indians have an habit of burning stuff... including their dead. And I can guess many Hindu's would like to see Naiks head on a platter too.

Do you have anything to say about the original post? or are you just fishing for reactions?

Peace

 

[sayak83]

Yawn!! Indians have an habit of burning stuff... including their dead. And I can guess many Hindu's would like to see Naiks head on a platter too.

Do you have anything to say about the original post? or are you just fishing for reactions?

Peace

Not interested in Muslim-Christian debate. Nothing in it for me. I am against using Zakir's youtube videos here in RF due to his status as wanted for terrorism. That's the only point in my original post here.

 

[Brickjectivity]

His audience were Israelites, right? Not Gentiles!!! As for the Gospel according to Matthew - you do realize that scholars claim the source of Matthew - is anonymous? Right? So when you say "Matthew knows his audience is not ignorant of this, and it is well established that Matthew is an educated person." what are you talking about? Scholars of Christianity have claimed that the source of the gospel of Matthew is "anonymous". In others words, Matthew is a Q Source - tell me you knew this? And if you do know this, then your claim is one which should not be pushed. And interpreting the bible to fit your bias is not how scripture should be studied - the right thing to do would be to verify first, the authenticity of scripture instead of accepting it dogmatically. Which to my knowledge, it doesn't seem like you are doing.

Peace

Very respectfully put, but I disagree about something. I am not saying Matthew must be a genius, only that he is familiar with the scriptures he is referring to. All he has to do is have a copy in front of him. What you are suggesting is that Matthew is a hoax, containing alterations so bad that no Jewish person would have tolerated them; but this requires Matthew to be both intelligent and stupid. His work is obviously adopted, so he is intelligent yet his alterations are quite obvious.

What you are suggesting is far more unlikely that he would write this expecting no one to notice. Put yourself into this writers shoes. So you think he is dishonest? Ok, then what does a dishonest person do. A dishonest person would relies upon ignorance to prey upon others. An honest person is careful not to make mistakes and respectful, however they might use figures of speech and other figures. For example they might use blatant inventions to indicate something is not literal. People do this all the time, so why may Matthew not do so?