Introduction to the New Testament (Part 1) with Br. Ijaz Ahmad

I recently did a quick 15 minute introduction to the New Testament that seems to have benefited quite a few folks, here’s the video:

and God knows best!


Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christianity

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

9 replies

  1. Very muchenjoyed reading this. It’s a fascinating topic that really interests me, and i think your analysis and articulation is brilliant.
    Give me a follow on my atheist blog at to support me for free!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. as salaamu alaykum, Ijaz

    (I think around 12:30)

    I don’t think Paul endorses the use of falsehood. I think Philippians 1 can be read very charitably, since Paul was being charitable towards those who preach Christ for themselves. Paul did not want to obsess with those people, so he focused on the good that came from their insincere actions.

    I feel worried about Brother Paul “Bilal”. He does not have his twitter account anymore.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Ijaz,
    Very informative and interesting video!! The information about Simon Peter was to be expected, but it is very interesting to hear a conservative Scholar saying that there is no historically credible information available about the historical Peter, and that the two Petrine letters and the Gospel of Mark have no likely connection to Simon Peter. If Peter actually existed (or not), the Roman Church most certainly must have altered his story after his demise, in order to create their own Romanized narrative about the early origins of the Church that bolstered their own theological claims and to support their own ecclesiastical authority.

    The quotes you gave from Eusebius were both new and shocking to me. I had never heard those quotes, in which he approves of “useful fiction/good lies” and even encourages missionaries and church leaders to use falsehood in spreading and teaching the Gospel……Wow! This would seem to vindicate the Qur’anic charge that the Christians have altered their own books and replaced Gods words (if they ever had them in the first place) with lies.

    Liked by 2 people

    • so it seems like what you are saying is that peter was not one who supported the idea of crucified and resurrected messiah.

      quote :
      Bringing up the idea of Christians absolutely needing the Crucifixion, I feel the inherent bias extends also to non-Christians including historians, because I sometimes feel a same hostility from atheists, the Crucifixion seemingly running through the veins of Westerners.

      I would like to present here a brief argument, logic based as you might make (regarding method), that I will argue supports the idea that another man was crucified and misidentified as Jesus. It has to do with Peter’s denial of Jesus, which everybody knows is true.

      1. If Peter denied Jesus it is unlikely he would have gone and told people about it, and is equally unlikely that the girl or whoever asked him the question would have gone around telling people, and if she or they had, it is unlikely that Jesus followers who were now followers of Peter would have wanted that story to be told. We might thus argue it is more likely that this story was added later.

      2. This “point 1” is problematic too, because why would somebody make up something that makes the new head of the Christians look weak? Why would a story of Peter’s denial, which probably only Peter would have really known about, become so lasting in the records. This story smacks of mischief-making, added later for some other purpose.

      3. The problem is resolved when we consider that Peter denied the man was Jesus because the man was not Jesus. If Peter went about telling people that it was not Jesus who was crucified, then this event becomes highly important and most certainly must be addressed, particularly as Paul’s salvation message emerges. A spin of Peter disavowing Jesus is the perfect answer, explaining for the doubters that Peter was not really saying that Jesus wasn’t crucified, getting rid of Peter’s problematic claim that the man on trial was not Jesus, while also weakening Peter further, as having behaved cowardly.

      Historians have this certainty that Jesus was crucified, and they give this and that explanation based on their methods. As I say above, I think secular historians should not be so certain about the Crucifixion and should consider the legitimate alternative that Jesus was credited for another man’s execution. This alternative resolves other problems as well. And I wonder if there could be a Muslim bias for Western historians steering clear of this possibility.


      what are your thoughts ibnissam ? is there an argument here?

      ehrman says that peters DENIAL is made up crosstian belief

      he things that NO one from jesus’ companions witnessed crucifixion and that those who did see him get crucified didn’t even know who he was just like they didn’t know who the two crucified beside him.

      but ehrman sticks to his belief that crucifixion really took place and so does shabir ali. the question is , why ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Tony,
      Your argument certainly is quite an interesting proposition, and it deserves further study and consideration.

      I do think that there is some anti-Muslim bias against substitution theory, but we should not be surprised. since traditionalist Christians generally oppose any theory or argument (from Muslims or otherwise) that does not support their own orthodoxy.

      What we do know is that, in spite of special pleading by fundamentalist Christians, it cannot be historically proven that Jesus was actually crucified and/or Resurrected, and to believe so requires a huge leap of faith on the part of Christian believers.


  4. Tony, I too have thought along the same line as you regarding Peter. Another odd story is the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. Too me it’s quite odd that a disciple who witnessed Jesus’ miracles, first hand, would betray him for all the money in the world, let alone for 30 silver coins. Although this theory is problematic for many reasons it might be the case that Judas was instructed not to lead the authorities to Jesus but to another person who then was crucified in the belief that he was Jesus. This theory is a bit far fetched I admit but there’s something fishy about Judas’ betrayal story.


  5. As a matter of fact there are tons of tell tale signs of the crucifixion of Jesus being based on conjecture. You happen to have the release of someone just by coincidence called Jesus Barabbas and the tradition that nobody actually knowing Jesus witnessing the actual crucfixion and why on earth didn’t Jesus show himself to everybody after his resurrection? Wouldn’t that have been the ultimate opportunity to showcase christianity and make everybody believe and be saved.


Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: