Khalid Yasin and Inconsistent Islamic Arguments #3

I'm continuing my responses to the YouTube videos that have been posted of Khalid Yassin. I like responding to Khalid Yassin. I think partly because I like responding to people who clearly believe what they're saying.

They're passionate about what they're saying. They're unequivocal about what they're saying. Because when you then prove that they are simply completely wrong, the contrast is very, very clear. I would very much enjoy the opportunity of engaging not just in one debate with Khalid Yassin.

I would like to see a series of debates done over the course of a couple of days on the key issues, especially given the clarity of the claims that Khalid Yassin makes. I think the crucifixion, his claims about the New Testament, the deity of Christ, all need to be examined.

And I have in my queue of materials to be covered some comments that he's made, some presentations he's made, in which he argues rather strenuously that Jesus predicted the coming of Muhammad as well.

And so I really think that these are very useful because his preaching style is very clear. I've noticed that when I review DDot, when I review Nike, some of these others, because of the heavy accent that they have, a lot of American and English viewers struggle to understand what they're saying.

And when you struggle to understand what someone's saying, you're not quite as interested in hearing what the response is going to be. So Khalid Yassin is very clear, but he's very wrong. And I believe that would be demonstrated in debate.

So I hope that that can take place. So I continue with the last section of the previous sermon presentation talk that we were looking at. Then we'll transition into some discussion about sin. And like I said, down the road, looking at his comments about Jesus allegedly prophesying the coming of Muhammad.

Jesus, the New Testament, and Islamic Anachronism

We cannot take Jesus out of the context of what Jesus said himself and make Jesus what we want him to be. We can't make Jesus a man God because the Romans and the Greeks had men God.

Khalid Yassin is correct. We cannot take Jesus out of his own context, which is exactly what Khalid Yassin does over and over. And he's forced to do so because of the fundamental contradiction between the Koran and the New Testament.

The Koran is based upon the writings of a man who did not know the New Testament. He did not understand the New Testament. He may well have been convinced that he was teaching in accordance with it, but he was ignorant of it.

He therefore made mistakes. This is what demonstrates the Koran is not, in fact, the word of God. It was not netzal. It was not sent down through the angel Shabriel because God, at least in 610, knew what Christians believed.

And Muhammad did not and continued to the end of his life to not understand the teaching of the New Testament. So he is right. We cannot take Jesus out of the context that we find him in in the New Testament.

Not a book written 600 years later, but in the actual writings of his followers, those who were ministering with him, who listened to him teach. They're the ones we have to listen to. Now, Khalid Yassin makes a fundamental error.

It's the same kind of error made by atheists and secularists. It's very common today to try to say that the God-man Jesus is in some way parallel to or related to the idea of God-men amongst the Romans or the Greeks.

This is a fundamental flaw. This has been pointed out by many of the books that Christians are now starting to put out to say, wait a minute, all this stuff about pagan gods has no parallel to Jesus. The most fundamental difference between all of those religions and the religion of Jesus Christ is monotheism.

We believe that there is one transcendent God who created all things, who does not change, who is eternal, who is not dependent upon his creation. None of these man-gods of the Greeks and Romans came from that milieu, came from that background.

The incarnation is absolutely unique in that we are talking about the creator of all things entering into his own creation. So to even make the parallel shows an abysmal lack of understanding of what the doctrine of the incarnation is actually saying.

Now, I admit the doctrine of the incarnation is radical, but it is its radical nature that separates it from all these alleged parallels that are normally tortured horribly out of their original context.

The Greeks and Romans wouldn't even recognize what most people say these days about these alleged parallels. But the fact of the matter is, the unique incarnation of Jesus Christ has no parallel to the Greek or Roman mythology of their polytheistic gods in any way, shape, or form.

And Khalid Yassin, if he wants to claim to have once been a Christian, should at least recognize these things.

Jesus Sent to Israel and the Great Commission

Because Jesus said, take not my message unto the Greeks, the Romans, the Samaritans. For my message and I was sent to whom? The lost sheep of the tribe of Israel. Isn't that what Jesus said? So Paul was mistaken when he said, I became apostle to the Gentiles.

Jesus said, don't take my message to them.

Here is another glowing example of Islamic anachronistic eisegesis. Because you take the Koran as your final authority and you look back on the New Testament as the Koran, what you do is you chop up the New Testament so it fits into your paradigm.

I don't understand how any of these apologists could say, well, Jesus said this. He said, I'm only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. They'll take that. But what about everything else Jesus said about the gospel going to the Gentiles?

What about everything else? The Great Commission. What about all the rest of these same books tell us about how Jesus, during his earthly ministry, indicated that once his sacrifice was completed, that message would go out to all the world.

It is grossly inconsistent to just take one text and say, we're going to say this is accurate and everything else isn't. That's what I mean by Islamic anachronistic eisegesis. But that's what the Muslim is forced to do.

Listen to Jamal Badawi. Listen to Shabir Ali. What do they say when you ask them, how can we know anything in the New Testament is inspired? What's their response? Well, that which agrees with the Koran, and what they really mean is with our modern reading of the Koran, that which agrees with the Koran is inspired, that which doesn't isn't.

Well, that's just a wonderful standard. But it's backwards. Because, you see, the New Testament came before the Koran. And the one guy in another culture, in another language, who shows no familiarity whatsoever with the New Testament or the Old Testament, writing 600 years later, has to be tested by the eyewitnesses, not the other way around.

And yet, this is what the Islamic apologist is forced to assert.

Submission to God and the Meaning of Muslim

Brothers and sisters, we can immediately see by such an example and definition that Jesus Christ himself submitted himself to God, that Moses and Abraham submitted themselves to God, that Isaac and Ishmael submitted themselves to God, that John the Baptist submitted himself to God, and submission means surrender, and surrender means salama, salama.

The one who does that is called Muslim. So what was Jesus?

Now, obviously, if merely submission to God means you're a Muslim, then, of course, they were all Muslims. All Christians are Muslims because we're submitted to God through Jesus Christ as he has revealed himself.

But that's not really much of an argument, is it? Because to be a Muslim is also to confess that Muhammad is the Rasul of Allah, the last of the prophets, and hence to believe what the Koran says, which means you can't believe what the New Testament says.

And so to say, well, these men were submitted to Allah, well, the problem is these men did things Muslims don't do and they believe things that Muslims do not believe. That is the problem. And to just go, well, we're just going to accept what the New Testament says when it fits with what we believe and reject it when it doesn't, is a circular argument.

It's irrational. It doesn't carry any weight with someone who doesn't already believe that the Koran is the word of God. And since the Koran comes 600 years later, it can't just simply go, well, here I am.

You just have to accept me. That's not the kind of argumentation that's going to carry the day. And I would invite Khalid Yassin to step up to the challenge with significantly more insightful argumentation, more accurate argumentation, on the subject of Christianity and Islam.

We're going to continue examining his statements and his presentations here on YouTube. Thanks for watching.