Speaker 1: Hm, hey, we are live. What's up, guys, Welcome to
Speaker 1: Freshing podcast Man. I've got a special so for you
Speaker 1: guys today We're going to be having a great debate
Speaker 1: on religion, Islam versus Christianity. Let's get into a guys.
Speaker 2: Ras ship.
Speaker 3: Don't look down you're doing.
Speaker 2: I'm falling out of the state.
Speaker 1: The battle hells and we all have with you guys.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the fresh Year Podcast Man. We got a
Speaker 1: special one today for you guys. We're gonna have a
Speaker 1: religion debate Islam versus Christianity for quicking house. We get
Speaker 1: into a show though, first and foremost, Roma dot com
Speaker 1: slash Fresh Fit Cousclub dot tv. As you guys know,
Speaker 1: that's where you support free speech and support the team.
Speaker 1: Couseclub dot tv is the main place of support. So
Speaker 1: join up guys where we have a bunch of exclusive
Speaker 1: content find the scenes for you guys over there. And
Speaker 1: uh yeah, guys, we got four guys in the house.
Speaker 1: Four special guests in the house matter of fact, which
Speaker 1: I'll have real quickly go through. We got e Jazz
Speaker 1: from Uh. We got Daniel Koka jew uh, and then
Speaker 1: we got Sam Shamun and we got Jay Dyer as well.
Speaker 1: I apologize if I my lash if I butchered the name
Speaker 1: a little bit there. But we're gonna be doing a
Speaker 1: debate here on religion, guys, Islam versus Christianity. But I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have you guys personally introduce yourselves. I mean, I
Speaker 1: know who you guys are, but I guys want you
Speaker 1: guys to introduce yourselves to my audience. We can start
Speaker 1: with Ejazz from e F.
Speaker 4: YEP, Hijazz from e F Dawa, and the I three Institute.
Speaker 4: I hope that you can follow all other accounts. I'm
Speaker 4: join us on Twitter. I'm a big fun and followed
Speaker 4: by the Daniel and I look forward to seeing how
Speaker 4: this debate goes.
Speaker 1: Daniels on you sure.
Speaker 2: My name is Daniel Hairachu. I am a debater. I
Speaker 2: have a channel Muslim Skeptic on YouTube. You can also
Speaker 2: find me on Rumble and I found it muslim skeptic
Speaker 2: dot com, where we dedicate a lot of time to
Speaker 2: defending Islam against intellectual challenges Christianity included. So check that out.
Speaker 1: Happy to be here, awesome, And then can you tell
Speaker 1: them real quick about Jake because I know some of
Speaker 1: them were expecting Jake to come in, but you could
Speaker 1: plan it probably explain the best.
Speaker 2: Sure, Yeah, Jake had a last minute issue that came
Speaker 2: up and he's not in the country, so he couldn't
Speaker 2: make it, unfortunately. But yeah, that's the we have brother
Speaker 2: he Jazz here to replace him, and you just stepped
Speaker 2: up at the last minute. So appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Thank you for coming brother. And then Sam, well.
Speaker 5: Sam Shimun. I used to write for Answering Islam dot info,
Speaker 5: but they stopped publishing new articles years ago, so I
Speaker 5: started a blog, Answering Islam Blog dot WordPress dot com.
Speaker 5: You'll find me on Shimunion. That's my YouTube channel. Hopefully
Speaker 5: it stays up, but I'm also on Rumble Answering Islam.
Speaker 5: So that's pretty much my introduction. Not much to say
Speaker 5: besides that, anyway.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're coming on, man. You were highly requested by
Speaker 1: a lot of the people, so like me, Yeah, what
Speaker 1: was that.
Speaker 5: I said, A bald beast like me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot of my Christian supporters definitely asked me
Speaker 1: to bring you on. So I'm glad that you're here.
Speaker 1: And then Jay, just introduce yourself to the people.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thanks, glad to be here. I do a lot
Speaker 3: of debates. That's just part of what I do host
Speaker 3: the fourth hour of Alex Jones every Friday. I've been
Speaker 3: doing that for the last four years. I've written several
Speaker 3: books on Hollywood symbolism, philosophy, theology. So we do all
Speaker 3: of that and you can find me at my website,
Speaker 3: Jay's Analysis and then on all the social media's under
Speaker 3: jayder All.
Speaker 1: Right, awesome, thank you so much. Guys. So real quick,
Speaker 1: we're going to have Mo read a quick word from
Speaker 1: our sponsor, and then we're going to get right into
Speaker 1: the debate. Watch. I'll explain the breakdown of debate for
Speaker 1: the audience real quick. Go ahead, we'll take it away,
Speaker 1: make it quick, and then we'll get right to it.
Speaker 5: That moment I walk by.
Speaker 4: You, ma'am.
Speaker 6: This episode is sponsored by Birch Group Birch Gold Group.
Speaker 6: We recently had some monumental news that no one is
Speaker 6: talking about. For the first time ever, the interest the
Speaker 6: US pays on its depths surpassed every individual budget and item.
Speaker 1: Axcept social security.
Speaker 6: That's right, US now spends more on interest than on
Speaker 6: national defense or even Medicare, and it's only getting worse
Speaker 6: as big government continues to spend recklessly. That's why savvy
Speaker 6: Americans are turning to gold, something not tied to the
Speaker 6: inflated dollar. You can two with the help of Birch
Speaker 6: Gold Group. For over twenty years, Birch Gold Group has
Speaker 6: helped tens thousands of Americans protect their retirement savings by
Speaker 6: converting an IRA or four oh one k an ir
Speaker 6: a gold. To learn more, go to Birchgold dot com
Speaker 6: slash rumble and get a free no obligation infolkit on
Speaker 6: diversifying your retirement into goldra. Birch Gold has earned an
Speaker 6: A plus rating with the BBB, the Better Business Bureau
Speaker 6: and thousands of happy customers. Protect your IRA or four
Speaker 6: oh one k Go to Birchgold dot com slash rumble
Speaker 6: and get your free in focit on go today, and
Speaker 6: thank you Birch Gold for sponsoring this episode.
Speaker 1: All right, awesome, so thank you very much. So guys,
Speaker 1: the way it's gonna go is this, I'll explain it
Speaker 1: real quick for you. We're gonna have five minute opening
Speaker 1: between both parties. Team Islam is gonna go first. Then
Speaker 1: we're gonna go into topic one, which is theology the
Speaker 1: Trinity versus the dar Weed then we're gonna go into
Speaker 1: authenticity of scripture, which is round two, and then we're
Speaker 1: gonna do morality Bible versus the Quran on human rights. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're gonna be doing three four minute rounds. Okay, so
Speaker 1: twelve rounds total, So three four minutes or sorry, yeah,
Speaker 1: three four minute rounds. Is that what we're gonna do, guys. So,
Speaker 1: and each team has four minutes per argument, they're gonna
Speaker 1: be able to go ahead and make the argument uninterrupted
Speaker 1: for four minutes. If one party decides to go two
Speaker 1: minutes or take three minutes, or take the full four minutes,
Speaker 1: it's fine, but it's gonna be between the team. But
Speaker 1: the first round is opening statements, where a Team Islam
Speaker 1: is gonna take it first and they're gonna go for
Speaker 1: five minutes. Then Team Christian is going to go. They're
Speaker 1: gonna go to the first topic, which again is theology
Speaker 1: Trinity versus the da Weed. Second round is going to
Speaker 1: be authenticative scripture, and then third round is going to
Speaker 1: be morality Bible versus of Quran on human rights. And
Speaker 1: we agreed upon all this beforehand. Want to make sure
Speaker 1: that this is even down the middle. I'll be keeping
Speaker 1: time for the squad. I'll be saying thirty seconds and
Speaker 1: then ten seconds when they're running into last thirty and
Speaker 1: ten seconds respectively. And other than that, Team Islam, Team Christiani.
Speaker 1: Are you guys good?
Speaker 2: Yep?
Speaker 1: All right, awesome, So I got five minutes on the clock.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go ahead and turn it to Team Islam
Speaker 1: for opening statements and uh give me one secle to me. Okay,
Speaker 1: all right, Team Islam. You guys ready, yes, scaring, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I got you, We got you, loud and clear. I
Speaker 1: don't assuming Dan, you're gonna take it first? Yes, all right, man,
Speaker 1: timer is on. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: It's been a lo. Islam is monotheistic. There is only
Speaker 2: one God. This is known as toheed. Christianity is polytheistic
Speaker 2: because Christians worship three separate gods known as the Trinity.
Speaker 2: Christians claim that this is false. The Trinity is not
Speaker 2: three separate gods. The Trinity is three in one. But
Speaker 2: this does this claim make sense? First of all, there's
Speaker 2: a logical contradiction in the Trinity. How can the Father, Son,
Speaker 2: and the Holy Spirit all be one God? But they
Speaker 2: also not be identical beings? The Father is God, the
Speaker 2: Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. It's all
Speaker 2: one God. But the Father is not the Son, the
Speaker 2: Son is not the Father, and neither of them are
Speaker 2: the Holy Spirits. This is a logical contradiction. The only
Speaker 2: way to solve the contradiction is to admit that the Father, Son,
Speaker 2: and Holy Spirit are three separate Gods, not just one God.
Speaker 2: This is of course polytheism. As Muslims, we challenge Sam
Speaker 2: and Jay to resolve this logical contradiction for the audience.
Speaker 2: Explain to us how the Father, Son and Spirit are
Speaker 2: all one God, but they're not identical with each other,
Speaker 2: and explain it in a way that the average layperson
Speaker 2: can understand it. A layperson can understand that God is one,
Speaker 2: He is one God, and he can have multiple attributes.
Speaker 2: That's Islamic monotheism. I can explain it in one sentence.
Speaker 2: Can Sam and Jay explain the Trinity without resorting to
Speaker 2: a bunch of convoluted gobbledegoup we'll see. What Sam and
Speaker 2: Jay want to do is to try to claim that
Speaker 2: Islam's conception of God is actually just as complicated as
Speaker 2: the Trinity. This is a cheap debate tactic. As we'll see,
Speaker 2: they can't address the logical problem of the Trinity. So
Speaker 2: they want to make it seem like we have the
Speaker 2: same problem in Islam, but we don't. There is nothing
Speaker 2: analogous to the logical problem of the trinity in Islam.
Speaker 2: For example, they might claim that Allah's attributes in Islam
Speaker 2: are incoherent. No they're not. We can all understand how
Speaker 2: a person can have multiple attributes, how God can be
Speaker 2: all knowing, all powerful, merciful, loving, etc. This is not
Speaker 2: hard to understand. Those attributes of God are not seid
Speaker 2: separate people with their own minds. But according to the Bible,
Speaker 2: Jesus and the Father have separate knowledge. They have separate wills.
Speaker 2: For example, in Mark thirteen thirty two in the Bible,
Speaker 2: we read but about that day I ei the day
Speaker 2: of judgment. No one knows, neither the angels in heaven
Speaker 2: nor the Son, but only the Father. So the Son
Speaker 2: doesn't know when the day of judgment is, but the
Speaker 2: Father does know. So this indicates two separate minds. This
Speaker 2: is polytheism. There are more examples that we can cite
Speaker 2: in the rebuttal sections, but keep in mind that in
Speaker 2: the seventh century, the official position of the Church in
Speaker 2: the Third Council of Constantinople. They held the position that
Speaker 2: Jesus has two wills. The Church defined Jesus as having
Speaker 2: two energies and two wills, one divine and one human.
Speaker 2: Two separate wills means two separate minds. This means that
Speaker 2: Jesus and the Father have two separate minds and are
Speaker 2: therefore two separate entities. You either explain this by admitting
Speaker 2: it is polytheism, or you have to give us some
Speaker 2: convoluted explanation of how two minds or three minds are
Speaker 2: still one God. There's nothing analogous to this in Islamic theology.
Speaker 2: Islam says there's one God, he has knowledge, he has will,
Speaker 2: one will, one knowledge. These things are not divided between
Speaker 2: multiple persons or energies or anything like that. And all
Speaker 2: of this Islamic monotheism is clearly expressed in the Quran.
Speaker 2: By the way, contrast this with the Bible. Jesus is
Speaker 2: meant to be God, all knowing and the only teacher
Speaker 2: to the disciples, but the Jesus of the Gospels doesn't
Speaker 2: describe the doctrines of the Trinity. We have to rely
Speaker 2: on Paul and the Church fathers to explain what the
Speaker 2: Trinity is. That's strange. If God wants us to know him,
Speaker 2: believe in him, lay the foundation for a general understanding
Speaker 2: of him, why would he leave that to different authors
Speaker 2: at different times, in different places, over several centuries, such
Speaker 2: that when God is finally described in scripture, it results
Speaker 2: in a mystery, and we need all these church councils
Speaker 2: to figure it out. The way that Christians have come
Speaker 2: to us understand the Trinity is what we'd expect if
Speaker 2: God did not reveal the doctrines of the Trinity. On
Speaker 2: the other hand, that God in the Qur'an revealed four
Speaker 2: short lines that any human being can read and instantly
Speaker 2: understand who God is and what his attributes are. This
Speaker 2: is exactly what we would expect from an all knowing, wise, just,
Speaker 2: merciful and loving God who cares about his creation. The
Speaker 2: four lines are the one hundred and twelfth chapter of
Speaker 2: the Quran. Say he is God, one God, a Llah,
Speaker 2: the completely self sufficient. He neither begets, nor is born,
Speaker 2: nor is there to him any equivalents.
Speaker 1: Thank you, all right, still got a roughly thirty seconds
Speaker 1: on the clock. But I'll end it there. I will
Speaker 1: turn it to Team Christianity. We'll put another five minutes
Speaker 1: on the clock for you guys.
Speaker 3: Let me first, Jay, you want me to go, you
Speaker 3: go either way, go ahead.
Speaker 5: So okay, let me go.
Speaker 1: Okay, alright, timers, already, all right.
Speaker 5: Praise be the Father suddenly Spirit to one True God,
Speaker 5: and glory to the Son of God who became flesh
Speaker 5: for our salvation. May the Lord Jesus be magnified and
Speaker 5: the falsehood of Toheed exposed. Now, notice what Daniel did,
Speaker 5: instead of focusing on what it means for all it
Speaker 5: to be one, spent the bulk of his time criticizing
Speaker 5: the trinity. But we will answer his objections in a
Speaker 5: rebuttal period. But I'm now going to turn against him
Speaker 5: because not so fast. When he says he believes in Toheed,
Speaker 5: what exactly does it mean for all it to be one?
Speaker 5: Because I'm aware that Daniel does believe the fact that
Speaker 5: Kron is uncreated, and therefore we now have two distinct
Speaker 5: eternal entities that are not identical. Why Because I'm going
Speaker 5: to show Daniel from his authentic sources sahe narrations that
Speaker 5: the Churn and the chapters of the Koran actually one.
Speaker 5: To recede and debate with a law. So now we
Speaker 5: have a paradox because if the Koran is the speech
Speaker 5: of a law and that's all us speaking, is all
Speaker 5: us speaking to himself? So is Daniel actually a mobilist
Speaker 5: or is the apolotheist? Or does he have a phone
Speaker 5: with Trinity? But his is even worse because it's not
Speaker 5: three persons, because each chapter of the Koran has the
Speaker 5: potentiality of speaking with a law. So that means his
Speaker 5: God consists of at least one hundred and fifteen divine
Speaker 5: persons or divine beings who can interact with one another
Speaker 5: and appear separately. And this is all from his authentic narrations. Secondly,
Speaker 5: the second problem he has is that according to the Koran,
Speaker 5: the spirit of Allah is not Gabriel. So I'm going
Speaker 5: to now press him in rebuttal period to prove otherwise.
Speaker 5: There's not a single verse in the chron that says
Speaker 5: the spirit to Ruh is Jibidean. He's now dependent on
Speaker 5: the very scholars of Islam that comes centuries later to
Speaker 5: bail out Alana's messenger, because that's what he accused the
Speaker 5: Lord Jesus, that Jesus wasn't clear enough to articulate to Trinity.
Speaker 5: But he did make an admission which is now going
Speaker 5: to come and bite him. He admitted Paul taught the Trinity.
Speaker 5: It's now recorded. I want everyone to hear it. Paul
Speaker 5: taught the Trinity, because when we come to the scriptures,
Speaker 5: I'm going to show that even the Koran acknowledges that
Speaker 5: Paul was used by Allah to spread the truth of
Speaker 5: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. More to come. The Spirit,
Speaker 5: according to the Koran, is the sinc from a Lah.
Speaker 5: He appears as a man, he speaks and creates. So
Speaker 5: now if we add the spirit to the Koran and
Speaker 5: a law, he's got about one hundred and sixteen divine
Speaker 5: persons or beings, and he doesn't have a singular person
Speaker 5: called a law, then we can go a little further
Speaker 5: and adjust the issue of the fact that, according to
Speaker 5: our friend here this is his belief. Allah has well,
Speaker 5: he wouldn't use the term body parts. I don't want
Speaker 5: to misrepresent him. Allah has a foot, he has a shin,
Speaker 5: He even has loins, and he has at least two eyes,
Speaker 5: if not more, and two right hands. Now, for the
Speaker 5: life of me, if All is the creator of the
Speaker 5: heavens and the earth, how does he exist as an
Speaker 5: embodied being without him dwelling in space, because if he's
Speaker 5: a temporal and he's timeless, that means his God supposedly
Speaker 5: exists when there was no time space in place. But
Speaker 5: if you have a foot, then you have a shin
Speaker 5: and you have two right hands. I don't know what
Speaker 5: happened to the left one, but we'll get into that.
Speaker 5: Two right hands at least two eyes. In fact, the
Speaker 5: Arabic says three or more. We'll get into that. Then
Speaker 5: that means his God is an embodied being who is
Speaker 5: temporal and finite, which means that his God didn't not
Speaker 5: create all space or place in time because there's a
Speaker 5: space that his body parts need to occupy in order
Speaker 5: for him to be his God. So the problem is
Speaker 5: actually worse for Daniel than for us. So he's going
Speaker 5: to have to explain how is it that he's a
Speaker 5: polytheist pagan masquerading as a monotheist because what he just
Speaker 5: told you is not anchoring the kron or the authentic
Speaker 5: son of Muhammad. So good luck in chin to defend
Speaker 5: your rational selfie anthropomorphism. And last time I checked, his
Speaker 5: partner doesn't share his selfie anthropomorphism, So we're going to
Speaker 5: have a field day. Now how much nimee?
Speaker 1: Do I have one minute to go?
Speaker 5: You want to take last minute ahead?
Speaker 4: Brother?
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I'd like to point out that in Daniel's opening statement
Speaker 3: they also committed a fallacy, which is a form of
Speaker 3: Ockham's razor fallacy. He kept appealing to the fact that
Speaker 3: because it's simple, that it must be obvious. It must
Speaker 3: be the case. It's just to go something scenes or
Speaker 3: appears to be simpler or more obvious, or because it
Speaker 3: was only four short and simple sentences, has nothing to
Speaker 3: do with whether it's for awesome. In fact, as we're
Speaker 3: gonna see the Muslims amongst themselves and their various schools
Speaker 3: all compete and disagree and fight not only over the
Speaker 3: attributes but also over jurisprudence.
Speaker 1: Okay, great, so this is a little bit at a time.
Speaker 1: But so that concludes opening statements. Obviously, that segues perfectly
Speaker 1: into our first thing. What I'll do is, do we
Speaker 1: have any chests with it to read or you know,
Speaker 1: we'll just go right into the first one. Guys, get
Speaker 1: your chats in now and I'll read them after the
Speaker 1: first round. After opening statements. So segues perfectly into round one,
Speaker 1: which is theology Trinity versus the weed. I'm gonna turn
Speaker 1: it back to team Islam. You guys are gonna I'm
Speaker 1: gonna put four minutes on a clock for you guys,
Speaker 1: and we will. Are you guys ready, all right, Bills,
Speaker 1: do you have the clock or do you want to
Speaker 1: do here? Yeah? Four minutes for this one yea, and
Speaker 1: from this point for it's gonna be four minuts. Just
Speaker 1: opening statements that we're five. So once you guys start talking,
Speaker 1: hit the clock. Just we'll do that, Bills, to make
Speaker 1: it easier, once they start talking, hit the clock.
Speaker 4: Okay, I guess I'll go first. Here This Milo hundred barsla.
Speaker 4: To notice that for this debate, some Shamun had to
Speaker 4: create a religion in mockery, something which does not actually exist,
Speaker 4: in order to argue against the Muslims. No Muslim believes
Speaker 4: that Aloys one hundred and fifteen persons, not even the
Speaker 4: Christians who didn't understand Islam like Johnath Damascus, could come
Speaker 4: up with something so ridiculous. When we will find that
Speaker 4: this is the case in Christian theology, that God is
Speaker 4: another being, I mean I do believe that day, I
Speaker 4: do think that they believe in what's his name, justin
Speaker 4: matter saying that there's another entity. Of course they would
Speaker 4: like to revise that, but that's what he literally what
Speaker 4: he says. When it comes to New Testament, Jesus says
Speaker 4: it's a person cannot have two masters, or rather that
Speaker 4: he cannot save two lords. We look at the Jesus
Speaker 4: of Teen Testament, he is at odds with the Christian
Speaker 4: understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. We could even
Speaker 4: go a step further than this. For us Muslims, yes,
Speaker 4: the Koran describes our law in a simple thing, so class.
Speaker 4: But from this we get a comprehensive understanding. We say
Speaker 4: that this is a joam yo kalam, or speech which
Speaker 4: is extensive. You can ask us almost any question about
Speaker 4: the nature of all law, and in those fort Shore
Speaker 4: passages we can understand it to the point that if
Speaker 4: I were to compare this with the Bible, I would
Speaker 4: not be able to find four verses that simply and
Speaker 4: reasonably explain the nature of God. If God loved us,
Speaker 4: we cared for us, and he was merciful for us,
Speaker 4: then there's a duty there, a justice where he would
Speaker 4: want us to understand him, But our Christian colleagues fundamentally
Speaker 4: cannot and do not understand God. I'll give one simple
Speaker 4: example here. The God of the Koran was able to
Speaker 4: describe it self as one, absolutely one, needing nothing. The
Speaker 4: God of the Bible allegedly describes himself as begotten, a
Speaker 4: word of which the meaning we cannot know, and which
Speaker 4: we know. What's actually changed for those who don't know
Speaker 4: the God of the Bible when he says that he
Speaker 4: has begotten. This come from the Greek word monogenist. Unfortunately,
Speaker 4: that word today is not translated as unique. So if
Speaker 4: you're a Christian, does it matter to you that the
Speaker 4: Bible does not teach what you actually believe? My friend
Speaker 4: here Sam actually teaches that if a thing and I
Speaker 4: your belief cannot stand being tested by the Bible, then
Speaker 4: it is false. So I would like to ask him,
Speaker 4: where is the belief that Jesus is begotten? Using the
Speaker 4: Greek of the New Testaments for the Daniel, Yeah.
Speaker 2: I just want to say that they did exactly what
Speaker 2: I predicted in the opening statement. They wouldn't address the
Speaker 2: trinity at all, and the clear logical contradiction of the
Speaker 2: Trinity that everyone is aware of they had to bring
Speaker 2: up these unrelated issues like the uncreatedness of the Qur'an
Speaker 2: or that that God a law has hands, for example,
Speaker 2: This has nothing to do with monotheism. Maybe they don't
Speaker 2: understand what tohid means. To Haid means one God, it
Speaker 2: means monotheism. And this is the claim that we're making
Speaker 2: that polytheism is the Trinity. The Trinity is polytheism. So
Speaker 2: tell me how I want them to explain. Since their
Speaker 2: whole opening statement was bringing up the issue of the
Speaker 2: uncreatedness of the Qur'an and the hand of Allah, how
Speaker 2: does that contradict monotheism? How does God having a hand?
Speaker 2: However you want to explain that hand, it has nothing
Speaker 2: to do by the way o it cele Fi or
Speaker 2: the other theological schools of Klam and Islam thirty All
Speaker 2: of the schools are united on this. All Muslims are
Speaker 2: united on this. God having a hand does not mean
Speaker 2: that the hand has its own mind, that the hand
Speaker 2: is its own entity, its own God, its own person.
Speaker 2: No theologian has ever said that there's no challenge to
Speaker 2: monotheism of Islam by bringing up the hand or the
Speaker 2: on or anything like that, or the shin yeah, and
Speaker 2: that again, like you just said perfectly one hundred and
Speaker 2: fifteen got like separate gods minds. The Quran doesn't have
Speaker 2: its own mind.
Speaker 1: That is time, okay, I will turn to a team Christianity.
Speaker 3: Here.
Speaker 1: This is the bottom of the first round. Here you billsie.
Speaker 1: We got the timer for them four minutes again on
Speaker 1: the clock. And you guys start speaking, Well, we'll see
Speaker 1: at the clock. Once you start speaking, do.
Speaker 5: You ask SKay Jay, do you want to go? Do
Speaker 5: you want me to go?
Speaker 3: Let me have a one or two minutes and now
Speaker 3: I'll go it to you. So I did. I did
Speaker 3: want to address what Daniel said, because of course he
Speaker 3: misstated several things about what our position is. First of all,
Speaker 3: the argument about attributes was not that you believe that
Speaker 3: their persons. Sam was making an analogy to show that
Speaker 3: you have the exact same problem in your position, and
Speaker 3: you have a double standard when you try to say
Speaker 3: that we have to solve this trinitarian dilemma. It's a contradiction.
Speaker 3: But your view of the attributes is is not subject
Speaker 3: to that problem. That's just a double standard, was the point.
Speaker 3: Nobody said that you believe that the attributes are person,
Speaker 3: So that's a misdirection. First of all, didn't he keeps
Speaker 3: you already admit that Paul taught the trinity, and I
Speaker 3: think it Jaws disagreed with that. So which one is it?
Speaker 3: Did Paultae a trinity or did he not? And then
Speaker 3: I would also add that Christ does not have a
Speaker 3: human person, and that's why the notion about divine mind
Speaker 3: is a two minds scenario where he shares a divine
Speaker 3: mind with the Father and he has limitations in his
Speaker 3: human mind. That's why it's two minds. So you tried
Speaker 3: to say that he had one mind and it was
Speaker 3: separate knowledge. The expression where he says that he's limited
Speaker 3: in knowledge is a reference to rhetoric, and if you
Speaker 3: can read Saint Basil letter two thirty four, five and six,
Speaker 3: he talks about these issues and explains that just as
Speaker 3: Jesus says in other places that there's no one good
Speaker 3: but God, he's not literally saying that there's no one
Speaker 3: else good, because in other passages he calls himself good,
Speaker 3: he calls the Holy Spirit good as well, And so
Speaker 3: it's a feature of rhetoric. You have the same types
Speaker 3: of expressions in your own chronic exegesis where you try
Speaker 3: to solve these dilemmas, but you don't want us to
Speaker 3: have that right, Sam will throw it to you.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Notice how Daniel conveniently wants to evade what the
Speaker 5: topic is. The topic is Trinity versus Toheed, but I
Speaker 5: know he can't defend tohate because it's irrational, so he
Speaker 5: just wants attack to Trinity, thinking that Toheed wins by default. Daniel,
Speaker 5: you're the one who set up the topic Trinity versus Toheed.
Speaker 5: You didn't want to do it separately, so stop whining
Speaker 5: about it. Now coming back to the issue, Maybe you
Speaker 5: didn't hear what I said. The Koran must have a
Speaker 5: mind independent from your God if the chron is going
Speaker 5: to argue with your God and the individual individual chapters
Speaker 5: here Sahei Muslim book four, number seventeen fifty seven. Abumama
Speaker 5: said he heard all his messengers say, recite the korn,
Speaker 5: for on the day of resurrection, it will come as
Speaker 5: an intercessor for those who recited. How does the speech
Speaker 5: of a law and recede with a law? If it's
Speaker 5: a speech of a law, is all us speaking to
Speaker 5: himself in a different mode, then you are a modalist.
Speaker 5: So your to heed is modalism, but then it gets worse.
Speaker 5: For you recite the two bright ones el Bakara and
Speaker 5: to Deman chapters two and three from the Day of Resurrection,
Speaker 5: they will come as two clouds or two shades, or
Speaker 5: two flocks of birds in ranks, pleading for those who
Speaker 5: recite them, pleading with who with themselves. If the serves
Speaker 5: of the chron can appear independently, separately and appear in
Speaker 5: visible form and argue with the Law, that's either your
Speaker 5: God being schizophrenic arguing with himself in different modes, so
Speaker 5: you're modalists, or you have now separate gods argue with
Speaker 5: one another, so you're a polytheist. Or you have to
Speaker 5: believe that toheed encompasses a plurality of distinct entities who
Speaker 5: can then interact and argue with one another. So don't
Speaker 5: run and evade with your smoke and merit tactics. Deal
Speaker 5: with the issue. You didn't understand what I meant about
Speaker 5: your God's body parts, even though you don't like to
Speaker 5: use the term body parts and know not all the
Speaker 5: Sunnieds define the hand of a law as meaning what
Speaker 5: you mean. Because you have those that say that it's
Speaker 5: a metaphor for his power. You do not believe this,
Speaker 5: So I'm still trying to figure out do you believe
Speaker 5: in a finite god who assumes time and space? Because
Speaker 5: if he has a hand two right hand, that's what
Speaker 5: happened to his left. Maybe you can explain he has
Speaker 5: a shin, he has loins. That means he's an embodied being.
Speaker 5: If he's an embodied being, he requires space unless you
Speaker 5: want to create another contradiction with your irrational Celfie anthropomorphism.
Speaker 1: Still twenty on the clock, Okay.
Speaker 5: Sorry, Yeah, I don't know because I'm trying to speak
Speaker 5: past making time. So yeah, Daniel, remember what the topic is.
Speaker 5: I know, maybe sometimes being a little intimidated you forget
Speaker 5: trinity versus the heat on from shouldering the burden of
Speaker 5: proof proof.
Speaker 1: All right, so I will turn it back. That completes
Speaker 1: round one on Well, yeah, the first set of rounds.
Speaker 1: We're going to go into round two of this. For Tim,
Speaker 1: I'm going to turn it back to Team Islam here
Speaker 1: again with weed versus the Trinity. Daniel, turn it back
Speaker 1: to you or EF or either one of you that
Speaker 1: wants to take it for four minutes on the clock.
Speaker 4: Because this is quite simple. How is it possible that
Speaker 4: they don't understand that the Kuran also uses rhetoric. In fact,
Speaker 4: in the Koran always says he uses examples of every kind.
Speaker 4: So it's not that hard to understand it. But there
Speaker 4: is a problem here for j because Ja seems to
Speaker 4: think that in Mark thirteen thirty two, this is simple rhetoric. Unfortunately,
Speaker 4: describes of the Bible they don't see it that way,
Speaker 4: which is why they had to repeatedly change the words
Speaker 4: over several centuries. They clearly saw a problem with it.
Speaker 4: If there was no problem, why the describes change it. Unfortunately,
Speaker 4: Ja describes factually disagree with you. I'm sorry, but someone
Speaker 4: later like Saint Basil, trying to allegorize it is not
Speaker 4: going to solve the physical problem of your scribes change
Speaker 4: in the Bible. Secondly, some seems to not understand basic Islam.
Speaker 4: He begins by asking what is the heat? Good question?
Speaker 4: Let me teach you. Allah is absolutely one. Allah has
Speaker 4: distinct attributes, and Allah does not need anything. He's not
Speaker 4: multiple persons. He doesn't rely on anyone or anything other
Speaker 4: than himself. He is beginning less and bless me. He's
Speaker 4: the first and the last. If I were to ask
Speaker 4: the God of the Bible, is he the first on
Speaker 4: the last? We know that very recently the scholars at
Speaker 4: the ECM have decided that God the Father in Revelation
Speaker 4: twenty one six actually became the first on the last.
Speaker 4: That's the problem for the Trinity. Do you believe that
Speaker 4: God had to become the first on the last? Who
Speaker 4: made him the first on the last? For us? That
Speaker 4: just seems unvisible nonsense? Danielle.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So Sam wants to make a big deal about
Speaker 2: the Oran speaking, so he read that hadith. Sam is
Speaker 2: not familiar with the Quran. So in chapter thirty six,
Speaker 2: verse sixty five, we read in the Quran, on that
Speaker 2: day we shall seal up their mouths, but their hands
Speaker 2: will speak to us, and their feet their witness to
Speaker 2: everything they have done. Does that mean that our hands
Speaker 2: and feet have minds? Did any Muslim in history ever
Speaker 2: interpret that verse that the hands and feet of our
Speaker 2: own bodies have minds? Yet they will speak for or
Speaker 2: against us on the day of judgment. So this is
Speaker 2: an interpretation that he has that no one has ever
Speaker 2: made in the history of Islam. But many Christians and
Speaker 2: theologians and Church fathers have debated and discussed the knowledge
Speaker 2: of the of Jesus being different from the knowledge of
Speaker 2: the Father and the will of Jesus being different from
Speaker 2: the will of the Father. Jesus has a separate human
Speaker 2: will and this is what they will not explain. Also,
Speaker 2: so yeah, explain that problem. That contradiction God having a hand.
Speaker 2: Guess what, that's a problem for the Trinity as well,
Speaker 2: because the New Testament in Acts seven fifty five describes
Speaker 2: Jesus as standing at the right hand of the Father.
Speaker 2: So what is the right hand of the Father? Is
Speaker 2: that in space? Does the Father have a body? Can
Speaker 2: you explain that? What is the hand the right hand
Speaker 2: of the Father? Does he have a left hand? Does
Speaker 2: the Father have a body? Like does the Father have
Speaker 2: two sides? Explain that verse within Acts and that's in
Speaker 2: the New Testament. So I'm very interested to understand if
Speaker 2: this is a corporeal, physical Father or not, or what
Speaker 2: does the Bible mean? Do we have an explanation of that?
Speaker 2: So this it doesn't matter if you take the hand
Speaker 2: of God to be metaphorical, if you take it to
Speaker 2: be be la caf meaning without modality, that doesn't contradict
Speaker 2: O hate it doesn't contradict monotheism. Explain how having a
Speaker 2: hand God having a hand means that it's not monotheism.
Speaker 2: That's what you can't do.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 5: You want me to go time?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Ten seconds, but it's swizzling down now? Yeah?
Speaker 5: Do you want you want me to let me ask
Speaker 5: ja though, because we don't know, you havet me to
Speaker 5: split the time with you. You're me to take four minutes.
Speaker 3: I've got I need about one or two minutes. You
Speaker 3: can go ahead.
Speaker 5: Why don't you go with your one two minutes.
Speaker 1: Before you guys go Dan? Did you get everything out
Speaker 1: that you needed to get there? Because I think there
Speaker 1: might have been a confusion on the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I got everything out, thinks okay, all.
Speaker 1: Right, cool, I just want to make sure it's all good.
Speaker 1: All right, Jay, you're getting to kick it off on
Speaker 1: this one.
Speaker 3: Right, So going back to the text about uh are
Speaker 3: you ready?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 3: Well, going back to the text about the limitation of
Speaker 3: Jesus knowledge, he said the scribes changed it. If the
Speaker 3: scribes changed it, why is it still in the text
Speaker 3: talking about the exaggeration of the limitation of his knowledge?
Speaker 3: When I said exaggeration rhetoric, I didn't say allegory. So
Speaker 3: I don't think you as knows the difference between the
Speaker 3: grammatical terms of exaggeration and allegory. I did not say
Speaker 3: it's an allegory. It's similar to other passages where Jesus
Speaker 3: talks about straining in that swallowing camels. This is called
Speaker 3: it's called exaggeration. And so in the same way he
Speaker 3: can say no one is good but God. Okay, nobody
Speaker 3: believes that that literally means that there's literally no one good.
Speaker 3: Like the prophets weren't good, Jesus isn't good, the Spirit
Speaker 3: doesn't good. Out he's talking about no one is good
Speaker 3: but God the Father in a specific sense of God
Speaker 3: being the Father, being the archae the principle of the
Speaker 3: fount and the cause. The last thing I'll say is
Speaker 3: that we're not subject to the same problems as you guys, well,
Speaker 3: particularly Daniel, because we don't have the anthropomorphic error about
Speaker 3: God the Father. So what we believe about the mode
Speaker 3: of the Son coming into time and space. You have
Speaker 3: that same issue with Allah himself. You're saying that Allah
Speaker 3: has these parts which you say or attributes. And by
Speaker 3: the way, don't you two disagree on the status of
Speaker 3: those attributes between yourselves.
Speaker 5: Go ahead, Sam, Yeah, let me piggyback off the what
Speaker 5: he just said. Now, he was talking about that the
Speaker 5: Krown talks about hands and in speaking, they don't have minds.
Speaker 5: How do you know that? Where did the text tell
Speaker 5: you that? Notice his appeal to a forty He says, well, normals,
Speaker 5: some scholar, Yes, I know you live in denial, just
Speaker 5: like you live in denial that your pagans and polity
Speaker 5: is for a variety of issues, especially kissing the black Stone.
Speaker 5: It doesn't matter what your scholar says. What you can prove.
Speaker 5: So prove to me that when hands and feet are speak,
Speaker 5: they're mindless. So now let's take your analogy with the kron.
Speaker 5: So mindless Koran will be engaging a law. So you're
Speaker 5: going to have the chron engaging with a law even
Speaker 5: though it doesn't have a mind of its own. So
Speaker 5: now we're back to square one. If the chron is
Speaker 5: the speech of a law, how does Allah's speech speak
Speaker 5: to himself? Is Allah speaking to himself but in a
Speaker 5: different mode. You didn't answer that dilemma. Now, coming back
Speaker 5: to the issue of God in the right hand, unlike you,
Speaker 5: according to the scriptures, unlike your position as a selfie anthropomorphist.
Speaker 5: The Bible says God is spirit. So I'm going to
Speaker 5: challenge you to show me your chrown and sone where
Speaker 5: it says you're alla a spirit and in the context
Speaker 5: of John four twenty four, God a spirit, meaning that
Speaker 5: he is bodyless in corporeal because he's the creator of
Speaker 5: heavens and earth, but that God can appear visibly. God
Speaker 5: the Father appears visibly in heaven. That's Daniel seven nine,
Speaker 5: verses ten, Chapter seven, verse nine to ten, Revelation chapter four.
Speaker 5: So when it says that Jesus and his glora fight,
Speaker 5: physical body enters this heavenly realm where angels dwell, Heaven
Speaker 5: itself is created, and God can manifest in heaven and
Speaker 5: Jesus physically being seen by the heavens of heaven, sitting
Speaker 5: at the right hand of the Father who appears visibly.
Speaker 5: But you don't believe that about the body parts of
Speaker 5: your God. You're not like Ijaza Maturidi. You believe your
Speaker 5: God has two right hands. Where's the left one? I'm
Speaker 5: still waiting for the answer. He has loins, he has
Speaker 5: his shin, and he's going to put his foot overhead,
Speaker 5: and then you have the womb yanking on his loins
Speaker 5: that's inside bukati. How many seconds do I have?
Speaker 1: You got fifty seconds? You're good, keep going fifty fifty seconds.
Speaker 5: Yes, So now come back and address your polytheistic pagan beliefs.
Speaker 5: Since the chapters of the Koran can appear separately invisible form,
Speaker 5: and they are interceding with the law, they're disputing with
Speaker 5: the law. How if the Koran is a speech of
Speaker 5: a law?
Speaker 1: Time on, no, No, thirty thirty. I'm just saying, how is.
Speaker 5: The how is the Koran? How are the individual serves
Speaker 5: of the Koran disputing with the law? According to you,
Speaker 5: no one thinks they have a mind, So mindless surahs
Speaker 5: have the mind enough to know who recites them? Who
Speaker 5: would defend an argue on behalf of and argue with
Speaker 5: a law? Well, this is supposedly speech of a law.
Speaker 5: So is you're all law speaking to himself schizophrenic deity? Anyway,
Speaker 5: I think my time is up.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Okay, that is that is time now, So
Speaker 1: we're gonna go into round three now. This is the
Speaker 1: final round of Tawied versus Trinity. This is the top
Speaker 1: of the last round four minutes on the clock. I'll
Speaker 1: turn into Team Islam here. Whenever you guys go, we'll
Speaker 1: start the timer.
Speaker 4: You John go, Yeah, this is quite easy. So none
Speaker 4: of these points defeat us for Islam, nor do they
Speaker 4: change or attack with Muslims actually believe. Notice the struw
Speaker 4: men that they have to create. They have to think
Speaker 4: that these are parts of all lot. Even some admitted,
Speaker 4: you don't use this language. So if we don't use
Speaker 4: that language, we don't describe it that way, we don't
Speaker 4: teach it that way. Why is your opinion of how
Speaker 4: you read it? In a very Christian way? I would
Speaker 4: say it's very natural for you to create different persons
Speaker 4: for God. That's the very definition of schizophrenia. Let's get
Speaker 4: something straight here. Jay is incorrect. He made the statement, Well,
Speaker 4: if it's so there in the Bible for market in
Speaker 4: Jty two that Jesus does don't know the day or
Speaker 4: the hour, what does that mean that describes changed it? Yes,
Speaker 4: the scribes actually changed the meaning of the term. And
Speaker 4: what the academics have gone and done is translate and
Speaker 4: they've tried to fix under just what diverse means, because
Speaker 4: it occurs twice in the Bible and in the two
Speaker 4: places where Jesus has no knowledge of the day or
Speaker 4: the hour described, try to amend it. There is no
Speaker 4: text to a critical life today. Who will not testify
Speaker 4: to that? So I put it back to j Let's
Speaker 4: look at the manuscripts. Sam says that your manuscripts are
Speaker 4: from the fourth century and Verberton. He says that the
Speaker 4: problem because the further they go back, the more that
Speaker 4: they disagree. And this refers to cordectxcited, curs, Vardicanus, alexandrenas, fremi, rescriptors,
Speaker 4: et cetera. He says that it's a problem, So peace
Speaker 4: address the problem. Please answer how God can be ignorant?
Speaker 4: Please answer how God can not move things? That is
Speaker 4: a God who is fundamentally agile. Lastly, on this point
Speaker 4: of all not having parts, Muslims don't believe that Muslims
Speaker 4: do not see as well that when the day of
Speaker 4: judgment comes and things testify, parts testify, that these mean
Speaker 4: that they are the mind of all that No one
Speaker 4: says that, Daniel.
Speaker 2: Yes, there's a lot to say here. They keep saying
Speaker 2: that I'm sell a fie this and sell a fee
Speaker 2: that me and Ijaz are on the same page. On
Speaker 2: all of these issues. You don't have to be a
Speaker 2: particular school of Islamic thought to defend or heat. So
Speaker 2: you keep projecting this onto us because you have no
Speaker 2: way to respond to our argument. And it's interesting that
Speaker 2: you're bringing up sects because he has claimed that Catholics
Speaker 2: are modalists, that they're heretics, and that basically they are deviant.
Speaker 2: So what does Jay have to say about Catholics. He
Speaker 2: thinks that you're a deviant and a heretic, Sam, and
Speaker 2: maybe that you're going to hell. So did you clarify
Speaker 2: that with Jay before you even agree to this debate?
Speaker 2: Second of all, for Sam, look at what Luke nineteen
Speaker 2: forty says, I tell you, he replied, If they keep quiet,
Speaker 2: the stones will cry out, stones will cry out. According
Speaker 2: to the New Testament, do the stones have mines? Isaiah
Speaker 2: fifty five twelve, You will go out in joy and
Speaker 2: be led forth in peace. The mountains and the hills
Speaker 2: will burst into song before you, and all the trees
Speaker 2: of the field will clap their hands. Does that mean
Speaker 2: that the hills and the trees have mines? Sam explained that,
Speaker 2: Or how about Psalm ninety eight eight, Let the rivers
Speaker 2: clap their hands. Let the mountains sing together for joy.
Speaker 2: Does that mean that the rivers have hands and they're
Speaker 2: clapping for joy? Do they have mines? Sam Please explain
Speaker 2: all of those verses. You want to have that kind
Speaker 2: of understanding of mountains, rivers and whatever, and you say that,
Speaker 2: you'll say that these are not minds. But the problem
Speaker 2: with the trinity is that Jesus has a separate mind
Speaker 2: than the Father. The Father has a separate mind from Jesus.
Speaker 2: They both have a separate mind from the Holy Spirit.
Speaker 2: That means they're three separate entities and therefore three separate gods.
Speaker 2: This is polytheism. We don't have that problem in Islam.
Speaker 2: The Quran doesn't have its own mind. There's no one
Speaker 2: who ever has thought the Quran has its own mind
Speaker 2: that is separate from God. But this is what you're
Speaker 2: trying to claim, not based on any text, not based
Speaker 2: on any hadith. This is just your assertion based on nothing.
Speaker 2: So address the trinity. Why can't you address the trinity?
Speaker 2: You have to raise these straw men against Islam. It
Speaker 2: sounds kind of ridiculous.
Speaker 3: Frankly, Jae, you want me to take it? Uh?
Speaker 1: You guys still got Muslims. You guys are done. You've
Speaker 1: only got one forty two left. You still got one
Speaker 1: forty two that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So I just want to emphasize that they did
Speaker 2: not address the Trinity at all. We addressed all of
Speaker 2: their complaints against the Quran, against Monotheism, against to heat.
Speaker 2: They haven't even started to defend the Trinity. So this
Speaker 2: is a fail. What we can do and Sam proof
Speaker 2: for Christians? Okay, go ahead?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Could I point out as well, they didn't address the
Speaker 4: problem of Jesus' status has been begotten being changed in
Speaker 4: the actual text. Okay, seems you've missing the point that
Speaker 4: some admitted was a problem. Sam says that the manuscripts
Speaker 4: from the fourth century are a problem. He says, critics
Speaker 4: and because it's and heresies, real quick, defend this year.
Speaker 1: So this will do, This will do, This will do.
Speaker 1: Since you guys still have some time on the clock
Speaker 1: and it seems like this is you guys kind of
Speaker 1: want to have a little bit of a dialogue here.
Speaker 1: If you guys want, I'm going to have Team Christianity
Speaker 1: go right now. I'm going to give them their full
Speaker 1: four minutes, and then what we can do is if
Speaker 1: you guys want. I could put another three or four
Speaker 1: minutes on the clock where we'll finish off this round
Speaker 1: with Tweed versus Trinity, where you guys have open dialogue
Speaker 1: with each other and.
Speaker 5: I could perform better and I can corner them they
Speaker 5: can't run.
Speaker 1: Okay, So that's what I'll do. So I'll give you
Speaker 1: four minutes on a clock. Are well, Team Aslam? Are
Speaker 1: you guys okay with that? Do you guys want that?
Speaker 1: Because it seems like you guys want open dialogue here.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's what we want.
Speaker 1: You guys, what you want? Okay? Cool? So to give
Speaker 1: to people what they want, this is what you guys want. Awesome.
Speaker 1: So Tim Christiana will put four minutes on a clock
Speaker 1: for you guys, and then after this we'll do either
Speaker 1: three between three to five minutes. What do you guys decide?
Speaker 1: I'll just open dialog between the four of you. So
Speaker 1: I'll perform minutes on the clock here. Whenever you guys
Speaker 1: are ready, go ahead and we'll start the clock.
Speaker 5: Lad Jay, you want to go first?
Speaker 1: Suh?
Speaker 3: Yeah? So again, Jesus doesn't have a separate divine mind.
Speaker 3: He shares the same divine mind as the Father, and
Speaker 3: when he assumed human nature. He assumed a human mind.
Speaker 3: That's part of the fullness of human nature. So we
Speaker 3: don't say that he's separate, just like the persons of
Speaker 3: the Trinity are distinct but not separate, just like you
Speaker 3: believe attributes are distinct, not separate. Now, I know that
Speaker 3: you can't seem to follow the fact that we're not
Speaker 3: saying you believe the attributes actually have minds. We're just
Speaker 3: pointing out that you have the same metaphysical problem that
Speaker 3: you have a double standard for saying I'm not liable
Speaker 3: to explain that, you have to explain it. And then
Speaker 3: when we bring that up, every one of your responses
Speaker 3: on that is a two quote way. Well, doesn't the
Speaker 3: Bible talk about body parts? Doesn't the Bible? Yeah, but
Speaker 3: we don't have the same metaphysical problems as you because
Speaker 3: we don't have the same metaphysics. So but you don't
Speaker 3: seem to be able to follow that. So that's a
Speaker 3: two quot way. But other than that, the other thing
Speaker 3: I would just reply to is that you jas kept
Speaker 3: saying that all of the scholars and in the world
Speaker 3: believe this, so there's not a single one that would disagree.
Speaker 3: Has he read all of the scholars. He asserted all
Speaker 3: of these things. He says, the scribes changed it, yet
Speaker 3: it's still there in the text. So he's just asserting
Speaker 3: these things. We don't know where he's where this is
Speaker 3: coming from. These are all assertions. Go ahead, So.
Speaker 5: Yeah, we will get into scripture authenticity the second part.
Speaker 5: But he wants to change a topic because it's too
Speaker 5: hot for him. And in the second part he just
Speaker 5: proved Mohammed as a false prophet, and he is, but
Speaker 5: for other reasons. But let me come and address guys.
Speaker 5: You see how desperate Daniel is. And he's talking about
Speaker 5: we're evading the topic. Read Luke nineteen three eight to forty.
Speaker 5: Let me show you the context as my time is fleeding. There,
Speaker 5: Jesus is being praised by children and the scholars are
Speaker 5: saying rebuke them. He goes, well, if they were silent,
Speaker 5: even the stones were cry out anyone with any common sense,
Speaker 5: but understand it's hard for them to read a text
Speaker 5: in its literary context. He's using hyperbole that even if
Speaker 5: they don't praise me, creation will praise me. That's exactly
Speaker 5: the context of the Psalms. The Psalmist, which is politic literature,
Speaker 5: is personifying creation to show that all creation glorifies God
Speaker 5: because creation is a testimony to the greatness and existence
Speaker 5: of God. Nice try with that false analogy, But I
Speaker 5: want him now when I engage you, I'm when I
Speaker 5: ask you, so, are you saying to me that when
Speaker 5: the Hadeed not your Quran says that thesaurus will intercede
Speaker 5: with the law that's not literal. Are you saying to
Speaker 5: me when the Koran will intercede with the law that's
Speaker 5: not literal? I hope you say that. And on top
Speaker 5: of that, what do you do with the Hadiz where
Speaker 5: it says the trees greeted your profit, stones greeted your
Speaker 5: profit and at the last day a stone will crowd saying, Hey,
Speaker 5: there's a Yahoo behind me, come and kill him. Are
Speaker 5: you going to allegorize those statements, Daniel hakika Chu, I
Speaker 5: hope not, because I'm going to have a field day
Speaker 5: at your expense. And what are you going to do
Speaker 5: with chapter forty seven, verse twenty two of the Koran
Speaker 5: When you go to Bukhati, your prophet says there's a
Speaker 5: primordial rachem womb that yanked on your God's gonads, and
Speaker 5: he said stop stop. Are you going to allegorize that too,
Speaker 5: the fact that your God has loins, the fact that
Speaker 5: there is a womb yanking on his gonads, which is
Speaker 5: actually in BUKHATI cited even in Imocathar. You're comparing apples
Speaker 5: and pineapples. Because the debate is over, you can't defend
Speaker 5: your irrational, incoherent sell a feebabbel. And yes, I know
Speaker 5: you don't want to say the hand is literal in
Speaker 5: the sense that it's a hand, my hand. But I
Speaker 5: want to hear you from your own mouth, Daniel, Are
Speaker 5: you telling me that almost hand is a metaphor for power?
Speaker 5: I want to hear it. Are you gonna say, build
Speaker 5: a cave? It's a hand. We know it's a hand.
Speaker 5: It's unlike anything. We don't know how, but it's a hand.
Speaker 5: Because your God is not the true god. Your God
Speaker 5: is the figment of Muhammed's imagination. How much time I have?
Speaker 1: Thirteen seconds?
Speaker 5: So now an interaction. Get ready, boys, I know you
Speaker 5: want to change the subject. We're gonna say you're gonnadjust
Speaker 5: these issues, so let's it go.
Speaker 1: All right? Okay, So do you guys want three minutes,
Speaker 1: four minutes or five minutes for open dialogue between the
Speaker 1: four of you. Five minutes. Okay, can we put five
Speaker 1: minutes on the clock please, Bills. So what we're gonna
Speaker 1: do here, guys, is we're gonna have it just open dialogue.
Speaker 1: We're on the topic of Trinity versus dot Weed, and
Speaker 1: then we're gonna go into scripture next to authenticity for
Speaker 1: the next round. So I will go ahead. Who wants
Speaker 1: to kick it off first? I guess we want to
Speaker 1: do that, Jay for me or our team.
Speaker 3: Is like, I mean, the textual stuff is round two.
Speaker 3: I don't know why he just but the whole time
Speaker 3: because you can't.
Speaker 2: Deal with the.
Speaker 4: Bible. The Bible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, Okay, so I want to know, I want
Speaker 1: to know, hold on, hold on. What I'm going to
Speaker 1: do is I'll just have someone who wants to kick
Speaker 1: off the first question of this open dialog, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to start the timer. Who wants to do it? Nobody?
Speaker 5: Okay, Well let me know, I'll do it, Okay, Sam, I'm.
Speaker 1: Going to turn the clock on once you go, uh,
Speaker 1: and then this open downlogue between the four of you, guys,
Speaker 1: try please not to interrupt each other so they can
Speaker 1: hear you because of zoom. So they really won't be
Speaker 1: able to hear you if you guys interrupt each other. So, uh,
Speaker 1: go ahead, Samuell kick it off with you God.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Daniel, I want to hear from your own mouth
Speaker 5: the yaha a law? Is it a metaphor for his power?
Speaker 2: It can be a metaphor for his power. It can
Speaker 2: be interpreted in many different ways. It does not contradict.
Speaker 2: It does not contradict, so hate. It does not contrad monotheism.
Speaker 2: You can have an shary position and interpret it as
Speaker 2: a metaphor, or you can have a thirty position and
Speaker 2: differently that explained to me? How it contradicts?
Speaker 5: You?
Speaker 1: Can?
Speaker 2: You? Can you explain to me? I answered your question?
Speaker 2: How does how does a hand? How does God having
Speaker 2: a hand? However it's interpreted contradict monotheism? Can you explain this?
Speaker 4: How?
Speaker 2: How does how does having a hand? How does a hand? Contradict?
Speaker 2: Tell me monotheism? Explain it? No, you asked me questions
Speaker 2: open dialogue. You asked me a question and I answered you.
Speaker 2: Now answer my question? Are you I answered your question?
Speaker 2: I answered your question. Now you answer my question?
Speaker 3: Your position?
Speaker 2: What what you I've studied.
Speaker 3: You've studied it. You won't say your position?
Speaker 5: Are you what?
Speaker 2: I have studied all of them. It's irrelevant debates.
Speaker 3: Study to the.
Speaker 2: Topic, Stick to the topic. Explained to me, moderator operator.
Speaker 2: He doesn't let me answer the question. Doesn't let me
Speaker 2: answer the question.
Speaker 5: No, because you're not. You're you're doing a dodgeball.
Speaker 2: Let me answer. This is not this is not you
Speaker 2: don't have to like my answer. This is not interrogation.
Speaker 2: This is not cross examination. You already asked me one question.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you a question, now, Jay, is Catholicism modalism?
Speaker 2: Is it a heresy?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: Or no?
Speaker 3: It can lead to that if they're consistent whether it.
Speaker 2: Yes, no, no? Is it is it or not?
Speaker 3: Well, it's a false either or because not everybody who's
Speaker 3: wrong is necessarily a heretic. They're not necessarily formal heretics.
Speaker 3: You can have a material heresy.
Speaker 2: So the Catholic position, now, is it a Harris You're not.
Speaker 3: It depends on the person whether they're hardened in that heresy.
Speaker 2: No, No, it doesn't depend on a person.
Speaker 3: There's I mean, you're asking you're asking me my Yeah,
Speaker 3: I'm telling you my position. Tell you what my position is.
Speaker 5: Let me help you the Catholic is we don't let
Speaker 5: him full of buster because he wants the time. Now,
Speaker 5: let me ask you the question, because I know that's
Speaker 5: what you're to do.
Speaker 2: What do you think about that Jay just called your church.
Speaker 5: I'm a heretic, I deserve help. Jay pray for me
Speaker 5: and asked the decission of the saints. Now let's come
Speaker 5: back to the Koran.
Speaker 2: That's ironic that you're trying to pit me ask the question.
Speaker 4: Jazz scared when you went him believed the same thing.
Speaker 2: You don't believe in the same god. You and Jay
Speaker 2: don't believe in the same god. That's what the point
Speaker 2: that we're trying to make me moderator.
Speaker 1: You're gonna have to do a better job, and I'm
Speaker 1: trying to have it. You know how about this? Can you?
Speaker 1: Lets say im asked this question?
Speaker 2: Dan, please go ahead.
Speaker 5: And are you scared? Daniel? Ticket easy? All right? Now
Speaker 5: here's your Can you let me make my comment?
Speaker 1: Dude?
Speaker 5: Well your Koran you'll never get here we go, all right,
Speaker 5: I'm going to have created right Daniel? Yes, okay, So
Speaker 5: the headis that I cited when it says will appear
Speaker 5: as flocks of birds interceeding for those that recited them.
Speaker 5: Do you take that metaphorically or do you take it actually.
Speaker 2: This is a personification of the Quran, just like the
Speaker 2: Bible versus that I mentioned about rivers flopping their hands
Speaker 2: their stones speaking in the psalms. I'll read them again.
Speaker 2: And yeah, So you're making the claim that if the
Speaker 2: Qoran is personified, that means it has a separate mind.
Speaker 2: And I find the point to And see now you're interrupting.
Speaker 2: Can I answer? Can I answer the question?
Speaker 5: Good?
Speaker 2: So I pointed out that just because there's personification, that
Speaker 2: doesn't imply that there is a separate mind, and I
Speaker 2: cited versus the Bible. Your response, Your response was that no,
Speaker 2: this is just personification in the Bible. So personification is
Speaker 2: okay in the Bible. That doesn't imply that the Bible
Speaker 2: stones have mines and that rivers have mines. That's fine.
Speaker 2: But if the Quran does it, or if I do it.
Speaker 3: Your position is that question?
Speaker 5: You ask your position? Are you going to rant and
Speaker 5: rate because you want to eat up time when I'm
Speaker 5: answering you.
Speaker 4: You want to ask the question shouldn't we be able
Speaker 4: to ask? No, you just asked a question we should
Speaker 4: be able to answer you. So no, no ask the question.
Speaker 5: I ask you a question.
Speaker 4: I'm asking you a question. Some answer the question.
Speaker 5: Never get to get We're going to keep running moderations.
Speaker 4: I'll be able to ask questions.
Speaker 1: Okay, at thirty seconds of o'clock, we're gonna let say
Speaker 1: I finished this point, and then we'll go ahead and
Speaker 1: let you ask your question.
Speaker 4: Making points, asking questions.
Speaker 5: So no, Daniel, Daniel, let him make his stop attacking
Speaker 5: straw man. Because the Psalm you will not find where
Speaker 5: it says, and the moon will come and intercede for
Speaker 5: those that look to it and venerated it. The head
Speaker 5: dates I cited is about the day of resurrection. It's
Speaker 5: about intercession. So I want to know what do you
Speaker 5: mean by personification when in those head dates it's talking
Speaker 5: about the Surrahs interceding with a law. Will there be intercession?
Speaker 5: Is that true? Will people need intercession before a law?
Speaker 5: Is that true?
Speaker 4: So?
Speaker 5: What exactly do you mean by personification? Because your appeal
Speaker 5: to the psalms shows that you don't understand what a
Speaker 5: personification is.
Speaker 2: Answer without interruption. Answer, We'll see without interruption. Great answer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'll give you j just some time as well,
Speaker 1: because he didn't get a chance. So go ahead.
Speaker 4: Yeah, sound didn't come to me here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're just dictating the question. So I cited verse
Speaker 2: of the Quran in chapter thirty six that even your hands,
Speaker 2: even your feet will intercede. There are many things that
Speaker 2: will intercede on the day of judgment. That doesn't mean
Speaker 2: that those things have minds. Those things don't. Those things
Speaker 2: don't imply that those things are God, that those are
Speaker 2: God's minds. That's the thing. The point that we made
Speaker 2: against the Trinity is that Jesus has a separate mind,
Speaker 2: a human mind, and the Father has a separate mind. Now,
Speaker 2: Jason says that the mind of Jesus is a fully
Speaker 2: human mind, But does that mean the Father has a
Speaker 2: fully human mind as well? If not, those are two
Speaker 2: separate minds of God. So those are two separate minds,
Speaker 2: two separate entities, to two separate beings. That's not analogous
Speaker 2: to your hands interceding on your behalf on the day
Speaker 2: of judgment, or the or on or your feet or
Speaker 2: anything else that will intercede on your behalf on the
Speaker 2: day of judgment. Explain how Jesus can have a separate
Speaker 2: mind from the Father and they be the same mind.
Speaker 5: So I did interrupt, So you want to answer Jay
Speaker 5: because he just wants to ask questions.
Speaker 3: So the separation comes in the fact that he has
Speaker 3: a human mind that he assumed, but he retains the
Speaker 3: divine mind that he shares with the Father because he's
Speaker 3: a divine person. He's not a human person. This is
Speaker 3: an important distinction in Christian theology that we don't accept
Speaker 3: the Nestorian teaching that Jesus is a human person. He's
Speaker 3: a divine subject. That is, assume the human mind, a
Speaker 3: human nature, human will, human energy. So he shared It's
Speaker 3: a both and and on either or. So your whole
Speaker 3: question is predicated on false either or.
Speaker 2: All right, so that the Father has a human mind.
Speaker 2: So so real quick, this has a time that the
Speaker 2: Father doesn't have.
Speaker 1: That is time. But did you guys want to ask
Speaker 1: you Jazz a question or did you guys have a
Speaker 1: question for you guys?
Speaker 4: There was I want.
Speaker 5: To answer that, go ahead of Jess. What's your question?
Speaker 4: Simple question? Why did those scribes omits uh for the
Speaker 4: in the Vulgate that Jesus is more today or the
Speaker 4: well when it addresses him as the son speaking of
Speaker 4: the person, not speaking of natures.
Speaker 5: Yeah, ask me that in the scriptural debates, because I
Speaker 5: want to.
Speaker 4: Use this is theological? Is theological? I'm asking you theologically?
Speaker 4: Is this son the person? They want to son?
Speaker 5: Excuse me?
Speaker 4: Can you answer the question? Okay, answer it?
Speaker 5: Talk over again one more time.
Speaker 4: I asked the question. Quite simple, you know one it
Speaker 4: says this son. Listen to my question.
Speaker 1: Jest.
Speaker 4: You don't have to change my question for me.
Speaker 5: You just my question about changing.
Speaker 4: Listen to what I said, matter asked.
Speaker 5: Question.
Speaker 1: He heard your question, Just let him answer. He heard
Speaker 1: your question.
Speaker 5: You said about scribes changing the text, so that is
Speaker 5: referring to the veracity of the scriptures. But even if
Speaker 5: we go with your very imbalanced approach to textual criticism,
Speaker 5: they must have done a very poor job because they
Speaker 5: left intact the father loan. So even your argument buries
Speaker 5: you because whatever the scribes did, if they inserted the
Speaker 5: word son or omitted it, because there's a debate among
Speaker 5: textual critics, that passage still has the father loan, So
Speaker 5: they must have done a very poor job because they
Speaker 5: didn't remove the word alone, and they left Mark thirteen
Speaker 5: thirty two intact. Because I know what you're referring to
Speaker 5: Matthew twenty four to thirty six.
Speaker 4: So I wasn't my question?
Speaker 5: Okay, can you ask me about textual criticism?
Speaker 4: Doug used was not about textual criticism as you's this son.
Speaker 4: Listen one more time, listen one more time. I'm asking
Speaker 4: you describes me to change to omit all this son,
Speaker 4: and I'm asking you why is it specific for the
Speaker 4: son to be omitted? If the son is the same
Speaker 4: person you have the same knowledge as the father. Just
Speaker 4: a simple question, as the same knowledge as the father,
Speaker 4: why does it ignorant.
Speaker 5: Of it take?
Speaker 2: You can't answer the question? They can't answer it.
Speaker 5: Actually, I move on.
Speaker 2: Okay, you didn't understand understand.
Speaker 1: Question? Chance, give me chance to answer this that we're
Speaker 1: going to move on to the scripture because we have
Speaker 1: went on a little bit longer here.
Speaker 5: Could I make a final point to Daniel one final point?
Speaker 1: Yeah, go ahead, if you can answer their question as well.
Speaker 5: Please all brought this debate. He shows that he's a
Speaker 5: very poor debater because he's attacking straw man. Unlike the
Speaker 5: examples of your hands and feet, the serves are supposed
Speaker 5: to be uncreated and eternal. So you still live with
Speaker 5: the dilemma that the chapters of the Crown uncreated a
Speaker 5: eternal we'll be speaking with God, So you have uncreated
Speaker 5: entities unlike your hands and feet. So I'm gonna now
Speaker 5: agree with you. Your Kuran is a mindless entity who
Speaker 5: will appear to a law with out of mind argue
Speaker 5: with the law. So you're left with a mindless entity
Speaker 5: interacting with your God. So either that means your God
Speaker 5: is speaking through different modes, or you have a set
Speaker 5: of one hundred and fourteen uncreated eternal divine objects who
Speaker 5: are mindless and you have the audacity attack to Trinity.
Speaker 5: So this is.
Speaker 2: Answer is okay.
Speaker 1: What we'll do guys next time is I'm going to
Speaker 1: have a question answer for each person and when we
Speaker 1: do this open dialoguecause I can see that this can
Speaker 1: easily spiral, and we'll fix that on the next one.
Speaker 1: Let's just move to scripture because we're getting there anyway,
Speaker 1: so we'll move on to the scripture apart. So team
Speaker 1: isam you guys are going to take kick it off
Speaker 1: again unless you walk Team Christianity kick it off on
Speaker 1: this one.
Speaker 2: I let them go first. Sorry, Now do you want
Speaker 2: to go first?
Speaker 4: I would like I would like some to hung himself
Speaker 4: so he can go for this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're going first.
Speaker 5: I'll use that or hang your religion, by the grace
Speaker 5: of Jesus Christ and barrier. But now let's start time.
Speaker 5: By the way, Jay, you want me to take the entirefinment.
Speaker 1: So so just for the audience knows, this is going
Speaker 1: to be round two. Now same thing, guys, three rounds,
Speaker 1: four minutes each. Now we're going to talk about scripture
Speaker 1: authenticity between the Quran and the and the Bible. So
Speaker 1: I'll turn over to you, say im go ahead, all right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, by the grace of Lord Jesus Christ, Muhammed's God
Speaker 5: in judge. I'm now going to show the Muslims the
Speaker 5: dilimma they're in because I'm not debating a bark Erman
Speaker 5: who doesn't care about Mohammad. I'm debating Muslims or supposedly
Speaker 5: take the position of Muhammad. So i'mppeeling to Muhammad because
Speaker 5: they believe in them. I pray they repent and turn
Speaker 5: away from him because he's under the feet of Jesus Christ.
Speaker 5: But coming to that point, any time a Jazz attacks
Speaker 5: the Bible, he shows that he's smarter than Mohammad better
Speaker 5: than Muhammad, knows more than Mohammad. Why because the consistent
Speaker 5: teaching of the Qoran and the sound narration. So we're
Speaker 5: going to get into is that Muhammad confirmed the very
Speaker 5: scriptures that the Jews and Christians had in their possession
Speaker 5: at his time. And the Koran says that Jesus confirmed
Speaker 5: the very scriptures between his hands at his time. Unless
Speaker 5: now he just wants to come up with some new
Speaker 5: set of scriptures, the only scriptures that would have been
Speaker 5: in existence time of Jesus up to Muhammad are the
Speaker 5: very scriptures that have variations, just like the Koran does.
Speaker 5: Let me just go through a slew of versus for
Speaker 5: the sake of time. Chapter two, Verses forty to forty four,
Speaker 5: Chapter two, verse eighty nine, Chapter two vers ninety one,
Speaker 5: Chapter two verses one oh one, Chapter two, verse one thirteen,
Speaker 5: Chapter two verse one twenty one, Chapter two verse one
Speaker 5: thirty six, Chapter three, verses three to four, Chapter three,
Speaker 5: verse fifty, Chapter three vers sorry not Chapter three, Chapter four,
Speaker 5: verse forty seven. And then we go to chapter five
Speaker 5: and we read verses forty three to forty eight, sixty six, six,
Speaker 5: sixty eight, and on and on. It goes and then
Speaker 5: the sound narrations. So hey, jas, make my day, help
Speaker 5: me to hang. You attack the Bible for variations because
Speaker 5: you show that you know more than Muhammad. That means
Speaker 5: you expose him as a false prophet. But if you
Speaker 5: believe in Muhammad, you have to accept the Bible. And
Speaker 5: he's still a false prophet because Muhammad was an Umi.
Speaker 5: He did not know that his kron contradicts the Bible. Now,
Speaker 5: the same arguments that they're gonna level against Scripture, I
Speaker 5: will use to bury their belief in scripture because Hejazz
Speaker 5: is going to have to complete and talk about the aharuf?
Speaker 5: What are they exactly? What are the seven aharruf? Over
Speaker 5: thirty five opinions given by scholars? And we know it
Speaker 5: cannot be dialectal because I'm going to show from a
Speaker 5: hadith in Bukhati that Olmar heard Hasham recite chapter twenty
Speaker 5: five of the Koran so differently. He dragged him to
Speaker 5: Muhammad and Mahmad said, yes, I taught it to him
Speaker 5: this way, and Olmar recited, I taught the chapter two
Speaker 5: this way. But they were both Croatians, spoke the same dialects,
Speaker 5: So it cannot be dialectal differences. And then we're going
Speaker 5: to add to the problem the missing versus and surahs
Speaker 5: found in the codeses of Abullah ibn Masud uh By
Speaker 5: bin Kab, two of the four men that Muhammed said
Speaker 5: learned the Koran from, He didn't say, say it mun Tabit.
Speaker 5: He said, learn the Korn from Abbit Massoud, who vibin
Speaker 5: cop And yet they contradicted each other and your othmonic
Speaker 5: codex Mosaf because they are missing versus and missing service.
Speaker 5: So much for the perfectly preserved chron. But then add
Speaker 5: to insult injury, your oathman decided to burn copies of
Speaker 5: the Koran that were in conflict to the point that
Speaker 5: Muslims are about to come to blows. You don't come
Speaker 5: to blows over minor differences. And he had the korans burn,
Speaker 5: and yet Abdilivan Masoud refused, to the point that your
Speaker 5: sources say that Othman instigated a mob reaction against Abdolivered Masud,
Speaker 5: who got beat and his bones broken because he thought
Speaker 5: his knowledge of the chron was superior to your Saiah
Speaker 5: ibn Tabit, who was an Ansadi. Then we add insult
Speaker 5: and injury. What do you do with the different pairod.
Speaker 5: According to your Muslim sources, there were twenty five paiad
Speaker 5: by the time. Ifn Rijah had came centuries later, three
Speaker 5: hundred years later after the death of your prophet, he's
Speaker 5: the one who standardized seven. By who's the forty? So
Speaker 5: my challenge you is show me anywhere in your Quran
Speaker 5: or your authentic tradition where your God sanctioned all these
Speaker 5: paidot and authorized ib Mujahit to standardize seventh pia and
Speaker 5: these paidot are not identical. And then I want you
Speaker 5: to explain to me what the ahuf are. And then
Speaker 5: we're gonna go into the missing verses and we're gonna
Speaker 5: go into the missing time. Okay, so let's have a
Speaker 5: found all right.
Speaker 1: Okay, we will turn it over to team Azad for
Speaker 1: round one. And this is authenticity of scripture one sect.
Speaker 4: Let me just reset my time there, we go.
Speaker 1: Stop, We'll start on our side once you start speaking.
Speaker 4: Okay, sounds good, Yeah, you can stop. So here's the thing.
Speaker 4: Revelation comes with the expectation of validation. Scriptural texts and
Speaker 4: doctrines are authentic. We traced back to the figures to
Speaker 4: whom they were revealed in the way that they were revealed,
Speaker 4: otherwise they are inauthentic. Christians believe that the Testament can
Speaker 4: go back to Jesus Christ and his apostles. However, some
Speaker 4: disagrees because Sam said in his live stream with Crisco
Speaker 4: that the disasterment comes after the time of Christ, probably
Speaker 4: the second century. So I guess it's not really that
Speaker 4: early good that he omitted the first century. Well done,
Speaker 4: some to continue with this. The books of the Bible
Speaker 4: as we have them today, we can't authenticate them. We
Speaker 4: can't trace their lineage back. We call the stematics or genealogy.
Speaker 4: You have different manuscripts at different times. Are we're trying
Speaker 4: to understand are they written, why they're known with whom.
Speaker 4: The thing that we have to keep in mind is
Speaker 4: that describes who've written these things, and the authors do
Speaker 4: not identify themselves as having been inspired whatsoever. And we're
Speaker 4: very little knowledge as to where and when these things
Speaker 4: were written. For example, if I were to give the
Speaker 4: most famous risks the Bible, John three sixteen, academic scholars
Speaker 4: don't know if Jesus actually said those words. We think
Speaker 4: it could be the author or a later scribe. In fact,
Speaker 4: even the words of that very verse the most famous,
Speaker 4: the most popular, has a difference in it. They've changed
Speaker 4: it to say that Jesus is no longer begotten. The
Speaker 4: thing is, if they can't get their most famous verse right,
Speaker 4: what else can they get wrong? What about the shamai Israel?
Speaker 4: When Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy has to explain
Speaker 4: who God is? That differs to the Greeks of triagents
Speaker 4: and a difference with what Jesus says in the in
Speaker 4: the Testament, in each gostel. So if Jesus can't get
Speaker 4: his basic beliefs rights in the Testaments, Moses makes mistakes
Speaker 4: in the Old Testament, then these are scriptures I can't
Speaker 4: believe in. And these prophets seem to have done a
Speaker 4: very bad job, especially if one of them were meant
Speaker 4: to be Psalm's God. Let's continue here we have that.
Speaker 4: Let's consider Isaiah chapter forty, verse eight. It says that
Speaker 4: the word of God will stand forever. Jesus says something
Speaker 4: similar in Matthew five eighteen, that not the smallest letter,
Speaker 4: not the least stroke of a pen, will disappear from scripture. Unfortunately,
Speaker 4: this prophecy is false. How do we know this? They
Speaker 4: admit that don't know too. Manuscripts are the same, down
Speaker 4: to the letters and the strokes. And I want you
Speaker 4: to notice here, Jay cannot identify for me which biblical
Speaker 4: tradition you holds to textually, and neither can Sam. Sam says,
Speaker 4: the only textual tradition you would accept if it's from
Speaker 4: a Trinitarian. You don't know what the early Christians believed
Speaker 4: in the first century, so how can you make that
Speaker 4: distinction and determination. I would add one more thing here
Speaker 4: that it's actually a list kept by the Jews, but
Speaker 4: the changes that they made the scripture. This isn't a
Speaker 4: Muslim invention. Historically there's a list called the changes by
Speaker 4: the scribes tikun sofam describes changed words in the toler
Speaker 4: We find that in the Christian version of the of
Speaker 4: the Old Testament that those changers are also present there.
Speaker 4: So we ask ruling over the fact that changes when
Speaker 4: we ad vice scribes, did Jews say yes? And the
Speaker 4: Christians have it in their Bible? And these are not
Speaker 4: menial changes? We continue here. Christian scholars believe that the
Speaker 4: Bible could be reliable for two reasons. One that it's
Speaker 4: early enough in time to the time of Jesus and
Speaker 4: two the vast amount of manuscripts that they have. The
Speaker 4: problem here, however, is if some appeals to those scholars
Speaker 4: and their reason, and then the same metrics when used
Speaker 4: for the Koran completely authenticated. We know exactly what the
Speaker 4: Koran is. We can recreate its prototype text, we have
Speaker 4: a stammard that we can develop for it, and we
Speaker 4: have the manuscripts from the lifetime of the profits of
Speaker 4: one novel. All he was solid.
Speaker 1: Sorry we will no no, no, I just say I
Speaker 1: was giving you the last ten seconds A sorry, that's
Speaker 1: time right there. No, it's fine. Okay, So that completes
Speaker 1: round one of topic two, which is authenticity of scripture.
Speaker 1: We're gonna do. Go ahead, mo, we're gonna turn it
Speaker 1: real quick, quick work from our sponsor, guys that we're
Speaker 1: gonna get right back into it. Go mo, this batters.
Speaker 1: If you guys gotta use the bathroom or whatever, go
Speaker 1: ahead and go real quick this episode.
Speaker 5: You want me to take this for if you want
Speaker 5: what do you want to do?
Speaker 3: Yeah you can. I'll have maybe one or two points
Speaker 3: I can do briefly on that.
Speaker 1: Okay, go ahead, more read through it and then yeah, guys,
Speaker 1: and we'll get right back into it after this episode
Speaker 1: is sponsored by The Kid's Guide.
Speaker 6: I have an important message about President Trump for all
Speaker 6: the parents out there, so please listen up. President Trump
Speaker 6: said he wants to take back America and teach our
Speaker 6: kids to love our country. That's why it's so important
Speaker 6: to make sure that our kids are learning the truth
Speaker 6: about President Trump, not the distorted lies that they're hearing
Speaker 6: in the mainstream media. This good news is that Mike
Speaker 6: Huckaby's team put together the Kid's Guide to President Trump.
Speaker 1: And right now you can get it for free.
Speaker 6: With fun illustrations and easy to follow content. This important
Speaker 6: guide to teach es kids about all about President Trump's
Speaker 6: accomplishments during his first term, and it helps kids understand
Speaker 6: his goals for twenty twenty four. Mike Hugaby wants to
Speaker 6: send you this free guide so that you can teach
Speaker 6: your kids the truth. But please hurry because supplies are limited.
Speaker 6: To claim your free Kid's Guide to President Trump right now,
Speaker 6: just visit kids Trumpguide dot com. That is kids Trumpguide
Speaker 6: dot com. And thank you Mike Hugabye and The Kid's
Speaker 6: Guide for sponsoring this episode.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much more appreciate that the show bringing
Speaker 1: on a round two guys of authenticity of the scripture
Speaker 1: is going to be on team Christianity. I believe you wanted.
Speaker 1: We're going to take this one right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just have one brief point, then I'll hand
Speaker 3: it back over to Sam. Yeah. I think that he
Speaker 3: jaws unknowingly sort of shot himself on the foot there,
Speaker 3: because the text that Sam listed presupposed that you could
Speaker 3: go and confirm the new revelation with the old. So
Speaker 3: if I were to set up a hypothetical scenario of
Speaker 3: a sixth seventh century Jew are Christian hearing this message,
Speaker 3: hearing it for the first time, it's being revealed seventh century,
Speaker 3: I should say, and we're told that we can go
Speaker 3: to check it against the prior revelation. If the prior
Speaker 3: revelation is corrupt, how foolish then that we're checking it
Speaker 3: against something corrupted. And in fact, the texts actually don't
Speaker 3: say that the prior revelation is corrupted. That's a made
Speaker 3: up thing that he's attacking on. Later on, go ahead, Sam, Yeah, Now,
Speaker 3: I want.
Speaker 5: To congratulate a jazz for now doing what I said,
Speaker 5: and he pretty much destroyed his religion because I appeal
Speaker 5: to mom. But he'll be able to biblical scholars. Isn't
Speaker 5: an ironic a Christians? Mamma is a false prophet? An
Speaker 5: antichrist is appealing to Muhammad. He's appealing to uninspired textual critics,
Speaker 5: which means he just proved these scholars know better than
Speaker 5: his prophet. Good job he does. Why are you still
Speaker 5: a Muslim? You need to repent. So if these textual
Speaker 5: critics that you are selectively slighting and misquoting because you
Speaker 5: don't quote in context, all right, Muhammad is wrong. Allah
Speaker 5: is wrong because Mohammad had no problem with the variations
Speaker 5: and the manuscripts that existed amongst the Jews and Christians,
Speaker 5: unless you're saying he was that much of an umi,
Speaker 5: that much ignorant. He didn't know that the Christians their
Speaker 5: Old Testament would have variations with the Jewish scriptures because
Speaker 5: he confirmed them. You'll find that in chapter three, verses
Speaker 5: three to four, five, verse forty eight, Chapter two versus
Speaker 5: forty forty four. But then Tad insult an injury to
Speaker 5: your case in chapter three, verse fifty. In chapter five,
Speaker 5: verse forty six. In chapter sixty one, verse six, it
Speaker 5: says Jesus confirmed Musseddep and Limabina Yadeh confirm the scripture
Speaker 5: between his hands. Well, did Allah not know that at
Speaker 5: the time of Jesus there were different textual traditions of
Speaker 5: the Old Testament that were not uniformed. They had variations.
Speaker 5: So is he deceiving Jesus? Did your God deceive Jesus
Speaker 5: to confirm all the scriptures? Not a word about the
Speaker 5: variations proving textual corruption? So you know more than your
Speaker 5: God and your prophet. Why are you a Muslim? But
Speaker 5: now let's talk about the variant readings in your Qoran
Speaker 5: that are significant that you don't find in the Othmonic codecs.
Speaker 5: For example, chapter thirty seven, verse twelve of the Churn.
Speaker 5: When you read it today, it says, in fact, you
Speaker 5: are astonished by their denial while they ridicule you. But
Speaker 5: Imantamia uses a variant to prove that your God gets
Speaker 5: shocked and amazed. And here's how he quotes it, In fact,
Speaker 5: I was astonished by their denial while they ridicule you. So, now, Ijaz,
Speaker 5: who's getting astonished? Does your God get astonished a jeptu
Speaker 5: or you were astonished? That's not the same and it
Speaker 5: doesn't affect theology because shows that your God is affected
Speaker 5: by your actions in time, which means he was caught
Speaker 5: by surprise. So this is a meaningful variant. But wait,
Speaker 5: we got another variant chapter thirty three, verse six, according
Speaker 5: to the Ubai bin Kapp as well as Abdullah Ebin
Speaker 5: Masud and others, a host of them Mujahid Katl Hassan.
Speaker 5: There was an additional line in thirty three sixty for
Speaker 5: thirty three verse six where it says, and he is
Speaker 5: a father to you and his wives are your mothers.
Speaker 5: A father to you and his wives are your mothers.
Speaker 5: Where is that phrase a father to you? And this
Speaker 5: is confirmed by Muhammad Asad ab Yusefali, which is why
Speaker 5: Muhammad Asad includes the words a father to them a
Speaker 5: father to you in brackets. That's significant, don't you think?
Speaker 5: But where is it now? How much time I have?
Speaker 5: Because I got a lot of these fifty seconds shows
Speaker 5: Kron is corrupted?
Speaker 1: How many twelve seconds?
Speaker 5: Twelve second? Anyway, the point is your own standard berries
Speaker 5: or Kron. Because there are no two chronic manuscripts that
Speaker 5: are one hundred percent identical. Point to the two chronic
Speaker 5: manuscripts that are time identical.
Speaker 1: Let's see, all right, turn it back to the team.
Speaker 1: Is love bottom of the second round?
Speaker 4: Yep, So let me just wrench through this quickly.
Speaker 2: Wait, can I make some points first?
Speaker 3: Yes?
Speaker 2: So what the audience should know, like all that gobbledy
Speaker 2: group that we just heard from the Christian side. When
Speaker 2: it comes to the textual preservation of the Quran, we
Speaker 2: have manuscripts, physical manuscripts that archaeological archaeologists have found that
Speaker 2: date are radio carbon dated to the time of the
Speaker 2: prophet Peace be upon Him, that match with what Muslims read, memorize,
Speaker 2: and recite today. There is nothing like that. When it
Speaker 2: comes to the Bible, the earliest complete manuscript of the
Speaker 2: New Testament is from the fourth century, over three hundred
Speaker 2: years after Jesus. So the audience needs to remember this
Speaker 2: is a huge difference. How can we tell that between
Speaker 2: the three hundred years that Jesus alive to the first manuscript,
Speaker 2: complete manuscript of the New Testament being found, so many
Speaker 2: of the teachings of Jesus haven't been distorted, have n't
Speaker 2: been changed, haven't been altered for the sake of political
Speaker 2: expedience or whatever theological experience, whatever it may be. So
Speaker 2: this is a huge difference between the or on in
Speaker 2: the Bible. Let's look at apocryphal text. Let's look at
Speaker 2: the fact that the Catholic Old Testament has more books
Speaker 2: than the masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. You have
Speaker 2: entire books we're not talking about. Like all Stam can
Speaker 2: bring up are like difference in pronoun usage, like yah
Speaker 2: malun versus tam malun in Arabic. He doesn't even know Arabic.
Speaker 2: That's like pronouns, Like a difference in pronouns, and he
Speaker 2: wants to make it a big Oh, this is so significant. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Muslims know about the ad Muslims memorize the different modes
Speaker 2: of recitation. So what even people, many people that I
Speaker 2: know have memorized them. But how about the Catholic Bible
Speaker 2: having the Book of Judith, having first and second Maccabees,
Speaker 2: having additions to the Book of Daniel, the additions to
Speaker 2: the Book of Esther, the Book of Susannah, all of
Speaker 2: these editions that are not found in the Masoretic text.
Speaker 2: Then you have another variation of the Old Testament with
Speaker 2: the Dead Sea Scrolls, the septuagen is the Catholic version.
Speaker 2: You have all of these different manuscripts that are not
Speaker 2: small little differences. There are entire books that are not found.
Speaker 2: Now he wants to mention the suras from Obeban cap.
Speaker 2: One thing that Muslims also know is that there is
Speaker 2: disagreement about whether certain verses are part of the Koran
Speaker 2: or not. A very well known disagreement is on the
Speaker 2: besmla bis mila is that part of every sura of
Speaker 2: the Quran? Is it only part of There is a
Speaker 2: well known disagreement among the schools of thought on this.
Speaker 2: But that's not some mind blown It's not like a
Speaker 2: completely different book that's not found in the Catholic version
Speaker 2: or the Orthodox version of the Bible. It's just one
Speaker 2: word bis mila. Or if you're looking at the the
Speaker 2: the different suras that you're claiming are missing. Any Muslim
Speaker 2: who reads these, I can even read you the translation
Speaker 2: of these suras. They're just the d'a, the prayer that
Speaker 2: is read in Khunut, in the pri in the Khunut prayer.
Speaker 2: And there was a different disagreement among some of the
Speaker 2: companions on whether this is part of the Koran, just
Speaker 2: like there's a disagreement on the best mela, on the
Speaker 2: bismula being part of every single verse or not. This
Speaker 2: is not like some missing book that we don't know about, Like,
Speaker 2: this is what Muslims are reciting in prayer every day
Speaker 2: or every week on a regular basis. So you're trying
Speaker 2: to make a big deal out of the Qoranic variation
Speaker 2: to hide the fact that the text of the Bible
Speaker 2: is not preserved. You can't find authentic manuscript within three
Speaker 2: hundred years of Jesus' life, let alone Moses. You have
Speaker 2: all of these variations with the Old Testament. The sects,
Speaker 2: the Christian denominations do not agree on what the books
Speaker 2: of the Bible are. What is the canonical books of
Speaker 2: the You have all of these disagreements, but we should
Speaker 2: ignore all that. And you want to bring up yeah,
Speaker 2: malun versus tom Adlon or edgip to it like this
Speaker 2: is a joke. So your audience is ignorant of Arabic.
Speaker 2: That's why this seems like a big revelation to them.
Speaker 2: But for Muslims it's laugh of time.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, okay, thak for four minutes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I just have two points, Sarah. First of all,
Speaker 3: Daniel said the sub tuagent is the Catholic version, which
Speaker 3: is not true. It's that's the Orthodox Old Testament. This
Speaker 3: really has nothing to do with the topic that we're discussing.
Speaker 3: Because the Masoretic text was used by some of the Jews.
Speaker 3: There were other groups of Jews that also use the
Speaker 3: subtu agent. So you seem to be totally unaware of
Speaker 3: any of that, which has nothing to do with which
Speaker 3: ones are the correct canon. And Sam and I agree
Speaker 3: on that point. So Sam will let you go.
Speaker 5: Yeah, now, guys, noticed the deceit in the Smoke and Mirrors.
Speaker 5: You see the deception on part of Daniel. He appealed
Speaker 5: to the Birmingham Kuran, and then he compared that to
Speaker 5: the later codices, which were more complete, not to the
Speaker 5: papyri that appears from the second, third, fourth centuries. Now,
Speaker 5: when a challenge Daniel the Birmingham Koran that you say
Speaker 5: is from the time Muhammed, how many surahs are contained?
Speaker 5: You have all one hundred and fourteen surahs. You have
Speaker 5: every verse of every sur in the Birmingham Koran. See again,
Speaker 5: this kind of deceit and dishonesty is unbecoming someone who
Speaker 5: claims to follow the God of Truth. Now let's come
Speaker 5: back to how we try to brush aside the variant readings.
Speaker 5: Notice what I said about thirty seven to twelve. One
Speaker 5: says you were astonished. The one has is God saying
Speaker 5: I was astonished. Oh, but that's no big deal, that's
Speaker 5: something minor. We can brush it aside. Oh really, So
Speaker 5: are you acknowledging that the variant reading affects whether your
Speaker 5: God can be impacted by the actions of his creatures
Speaker 5: in time and space. Because I was astonished and you
Speaker 5: are astonished is not the same unless you think Muhammad
Speaker 5: is a lah and what Muhammad feels Allah feels. Thirdly,
Speaker 5: notice again he compares apples and pineapples. He's comparing a
Speaker 5: collection of different books the Bible, written by different authors
Speaker 5: at different times and comparing it with one Koran that
Speaker 5: supposedly came through one medium, and yet the companion's Muhammad
Speaker 5: cannot agree on the content of that one Koran. You
Speaker 5: just buried yourself, Daniel, because that argument works more forcefully
Speaker 5: against your Koran, because you're comparing the work of one
Speaker 5: author and his companions can't figure out how many sort us,
Speaker 5: how many chapters with a collection of books written by
Speaker 5: different people at different times, so there'll be some natural
Speaker 5: confusion whether this book really comes from an inspired author.
Speaker 5: But we shouldn't find that problem with your Koran if
Speaker 5: there's only one medium and they all memorize the Koran perfectly,
Speaker 5: which is a lie from the pitavel. Moreover, deal with
Speaker 5: the actual argument I brought up. Abdullah ibn Masud is
Speaker 5: no Joshmo Obi bin Kab no Joshmo. They are two
Speaker 5: of the four men that your prophets said learn the
Speaker 5: Koran from, and I have here traditions Sahi. That's an
Speaker 5: Abdillah bent Massud recite it the Koran in front of
Speaker 5: compantits Muhammad, and they agreed that his recitation is fresh
Speaker 5: and the way it was revealed by Gabriel through Muhammad.
Speaker 5: And yet your Othmanic Koran doesn't agree to the point
Speaker 5: that your uthman wanted to burn Abdillah eben Masuit's khan.
Speaker 5: Why if they are slight variations, you don't go to war.
Speaker 5: You don't accuse each other of corrupting the Koran over
Speaker 5: slight durations. Stop with the lies sailed Bukhati, volume six,
Speaker 5: five oh nine, five ten. So again we're gonna ask you,
Speaker 5: how come the competitis of Muhammad could not figure out
Speaker 5: how many chapters abdulah Ban Wassud said only one hundred
Speaker 5: and eleven, Obi bin Kopp said one sixteen, which you
Speaker 5: tried to pass off as dua. Are you saying, Obi
Speaker 5: bin Kapp, the master of the chronic reciters did not
Speaker 5: know those two chapters were not suris but prayers. So
Speaker 5: you know more than Ubai, which means that your prophet
Speaker 5: made a pathetic judgment call because he mentioned him as
Speaker 5: one of the four. Not you, Daniel Hakikachu. Thank you
Speaker 5: for bearing your Koran and thank you for showing the
Speaker 5: Mahma didn't know what he's talking about. Muhammad confirmed the Bible,
Speaker 5: and you're saying, no, he's wrong. Why are you a Muslim? Repent?
Speaker 5: Come to Jesus Mohammed's God and judge. Think my time
Speaker 5: is up?
Speaker 1: All right? Now? You still got fifteen seconds, but if
Speaker 1: that are.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm saying, now stop what the paganism. Come to
Speaker 5: Jesus moments God. But thank you, Daniel, you helped me
Speaker 5: show that you don't believe Muhammad. You think Muhammad didn't
Speaker 5: know what he's talking about, and I agree, and the
Speaker 5: scholars know more than Muhammad. Stop being a.
Speaker 1: Muslim, all right, and that is time So this is
Speaker 1: going to be the bottom of the third round again
Speaker 1: Authenticity of Scripture. So I'm going to turn into team
Speaker 1: as I'm to finish this up and then if you
Speaker 1: guys want, we will go ahead and have another open
Speaker 1: dialogue round.
Speaker 5: You can tolerate it good, yeah, yeah, But what I'm.
Speaker 1: Gonna have to do is for this open dialogue round,
Speaker 1: it's going to be a question answered. So both parties
Speaker 1: will be able to ask a question to the other party.
Speaker 1: Other party answers and then they ask a question in return,
Speaker 1: but you have to answer the question. So that's how
Speaker 1: we'll have to do a question answer for each each
Speaker 1: party goes ahead and gets a question. We'll start with
Speaker 1: U with Dan, he could just ask a question to
Speaker 1: the team or to a particular person and then that
Speaker 1: person answer that question. They can go ahead and ask
Speaker 1: another member of the team. That will keep a fair
Speaker 1: for five minutes on o'clock. So teamsam, are you guys ready?
Speaker 1: But again this is your guys four minutes uninterrupted. Notes
Speaker 1: to you guys for the last round of Authenticity in Scripture.
Speaker 1: Whenever you guys start speaking, we'll turn the clock on.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, this is the last round, or do they
Speaker 2: get a response after.
Speaker 1: No, this is the last round, and then it's opened
Speaker 1: to all log after this go ahead.
Speaker 2: You just you're on mute. You're still on mute, he jes.
Speaker 4: Yeap, so I'll just starting the time out. So I
Speaker 4: think that's some to spent most of his time reading
Speaker 4: lists of verses that he does not understand Jeff's consensus
Speaker 4: among the early Muslims as to what the is and
Speaker 4: in fact what he's appealing to. Visit the codec from
Speaker 4: some of the companions. These are only found in a
Speaker 4: tradition that are to Jeffrey translated I think in the
Speaker 4: nineteenth or twentieth century. It does not refer to the
Speaker 4: actual physical manuscript that is actually known and dated and seen.
Speaker 4: So there's a difference between a tradition being said in
Speaker 4: past as oppose the physical manuscript in existence. And the
Speaker 4: same people that transmit to kdid the same people that
Speaker 4: transmit the Koran, they transmitted to Masud. They transmitted through
Speaker 4: the companions, and at least three of the seven chains
Speaker 4: that are well known, so there's no difference among the
Speaker 4: companions as the number of sewers in the Quran. Please
Speaker 4: don't bring me something at art Jeffrey randomly translated that
Speaker 4: no academical life accepts. And by academic here we refer
Speaker 4: to the Muslims who transmitted the Koran because they would
Speaker 4: counted letter by letter, line by line psychometry. So we
Speaker 4: actually have a way that we can mathematically know how
Speaker 4: many a yats were written in manuscripts. It isn't done randomly.
Speaker 4: So I'm not going to be like Sam and pretend
Speaker 4: to know what the Quran says. There is consensus that
Speaker 4: the Muslims never took the Bible descripture. How do we
Speaker 4: know that because a lot of commands is to Suo
Speaker 4: Buck to testify and believe in the scriptures that he
Speaker 4: has revealed. And when we find us in the Quran,
Speaker 4: we find no companion saying that it is required as
Speaker 4: a mission to believe in the Bible as it exists today.
Speaker 4: There is no such compulsion, whereas we have been are
Speaker 4: composed to believe that the revelations were given to profits
Speaker 4: in the past. When he mentioned Jesus in the Kuran,
Speaker 4: Jesus affirms the Revelation revealed it to him. This is
Speaker 4: what a lot mentions in the Kuran. He is not
Speaker 4: testified to a book that came after him, which is
Speaker 4: what some believes in. And let's be clear here we
Speaker 4: have call forty seven sonariotop copy top copy survi Medino
Speaker 4: one A. We have so many manuscripts after Kuran within
Speaker 4: the first one hundred years of the prophet Muhammad, p
Speaker 4: spe upon him that complete the Kuran. This is complete
Speaker 4: in distinction to the Bible, where you don't have anything
Speaker 4: even similar to it. You have no second century manuscripts,
Speaker 4: no third century manuscripts. How do we notice Elijah Hickson text,
Speaker 4: your critic, he dates manuscripts, dates an entire institutes at
Speaker 4: the University of Moans, so that determines the propriety under
Speaker 4: manuscripts after New Testament. And they don't determine that there's
Speaker 4: a single manuscript in the second century. And when it
Speaker 4: comes to the third century, as Sam has admitted, he
Speaker 4: believes that Credets Nyaks in the fourth century is full
Speaker 4: of errors. Here seasoned lies, that's your most reliable manuscript,
Speaker 4: if the most reliable physically, if still with lies, don't
Speaker 4: pretend to tell me what the Kuran says, because you
Speaker 4: simply don't know it. And I'll end with this, The
Speaker 4: God of the New Testament you said, I don't think
Speaker 4: he's intelligent, or how do I say this? Understand scripture?
Speaker 4: How could the God of the Old Testament and the
Speaker 4: New Testament forget his name in Exodus three fourteen in
Speaker 4: the Greek subtulogen the name that he's supposed to give
Speaker 4: is our own women. The being Jesus in New Testament
Speaker 4: gives the wrong frise ego. He misquotes his own sacred name.
Speaker 4: That generation for generation must be mean. It's ridiculous. Titus
Speaker 4: three nine. God has to tell you that don't be
Speaker 4: genealogies because they're glad to foolish arguments. Two of your
Speaker 4: gospels use genealogies as a basis the messianic place of Christ.
Speaker 4: It's ridiculous. I'm sorry. Address the questions under claims on
Speaker 4: the manuscripts. Don't bring me random things that you don't understand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so, I mean, there's twenty seconds one of the
Speaker 2: things about the Houronic manuscript. It seems like Sam only
Speaker 2: knows about the Birmingham manuscript. There are many manuscripts if
Speaker 2: you take attention. When he was speaking in the opening,
Speaker 2: he listed the different code of Sees, the different manuscripts.
Speaker 2: All of those together are the or on that we
Speaker 2: read today. It's not just contained to one manuscript.
Speaker 1: All right, So what I'll do is, so, do you
Speaker 1: guys want to do the open dialog or do you
Speaker 1: guys want to move on to the third way?
Speaker 5: Yeah, if it doesn't go into like a free focus.
Speaker 1: So this is how we're going to do it, guys,
Speaker 1: five minutes on o'clock. I will go ahead and kick
Speaker 1: it off with whoever wants asked for a question. Let's say,
Speaker 1: for example, who was asking Dan?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Okay, so Dan, when you ask your question, you can
Speaker 1: direct to either to Sam or Jay. Once answer the question,
Speaker 1: now they get to go ahead and direct the question
Speaker 1: back to a member of whether it be you or
Speaker 1: to Ejazz. So, and then you got to answer the question,
Speaker 1: and then you get the ability to ask a counter
Speaker 1: question back after you answer it. Okay, fair enough. That
Speaker 1: way we're able to keep this thing moving. Everyone's able
Speaker 1: to be involved and to get their questions asked and answered,
Speaker 1: and we can still have open dialogue here to some degree.
Speaker 1: I'll turn it over to you, Dan. We got five
Speaker 1: minutes on a clock, guys, let's be strict on the time.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, please, okay, can you either of you. Explain
Speaker 2: to me how many Western scholars of the Bible believe
Speaker 2: that the Old Testament can be traced back to Moses
Speaker 2: versus how many believe that the Qoran can be traced
Speaker 2: to the life of the prophet Muhammad.
Speaker 5: Do you want an answer that, jay, Sure? Yeah, Well
Speaker 5: I have one better for you than Muslim scholar Western scholars.
Speaker 5: I have your profit, so I keep appealing to your profit.
Speaker 5: So if what's the scholars are right, then join me
Speaker 5: in saying Muhammed is an antichrist, a false prophet. I
Speaker 5: appeal to your prophet. You appeal to Western scholars. And
Speaker 5: it depends on which Western scholars you want to appeal to,
Speaker 5: because not all we scholars believe the same thing and
Speaker 5: hold the same presuppositions. But I can also appeal to
Speaker 5: Western scholars that don't think that your Qur'an as you
Speaker 5: have it, it's even from Othman. It's actually from Abdolmatic
Speaker 5: from the eighth centuries. But I did you better. I
Speaker 5: went to Muhammad. Why do you have a problem Muhammad?
Speaker 5: Why are you ashamed of Muhammad? He's your prophet, right,
Speaker 5: Your prophet tells me that the scriptures that Jesus had
Speaker 5: that Torah is the uncorrupt revelation of God, perfectly preserved,
Speaker 5: and Jesus confirmed it. And since you believe that Torah
Speaker 5: was given to Moses, your prophet did it for me.
Speaker 5: So if you give me ninety nine percent of uston scholarship,
Speaker 5: then either your prophet is wrong and admit he is
Speaker 5: and I agree is but for other reasons right, or
Speaker 5: the scholars are wrong. You can't have your cake and
Speaker 5: eat it too. Why do you keep doing jihad against
Speaker 5: your prophet? Fisa bi la lah? Should I agree with them?
Speaker 4: Now? Yeah, this is a false dilemma because we have
Speaker 4: the physical monugs.
Speaker 1: Well, so now Sam, guests answer that I ask a
Speaker 1: question back in return, Let's put twenty seconds on the clock,
Speaker 1: real quick. Go ahead, Sam, ask the question, and then
Speaker 1: they get to respond answer your question to respond to you.
Speaker 5: Okay, Now, you guys have been straw manning the arguments
Speaker 5: I've been presenting. So now I'm going to ask both
Speaker 5: of you give me the date of the oldest extent
Speaker 5: Mosaf that has all one hundred and fourteen chapters, the
Speaker 5: oldest copy that has one hundred and fourteen chapters, and
Speaker 5: point out to two chronic manuscripts that are one hundred
Speaker 5: percent identical.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, So we address the question by saying there
Speaker 2: is not one manuscript, there are several that date to
Speaker 2: within the lifetime of the profit piece to be upon him.
Speaker 2: You can go to Ejazz's opening statement. He lists them.
Speaker 2: You didn't pay attention to what he said, so you're
Speaker 2: asking the same question over and over again. The answer
Speaker 2: to how many Western scholars think that the pentitude the
Speaker 2: Old Testament goes back to Moses is zero zero Western scholars.
Speaker 2: How many Western scholars scholars of the Bible think that
Speaker 2: the New Testament goes to the time of Jesus zero
Speaker 2: zero Western scholars. How many academics of Quronic studies who
Speaker 2: are non Muslim, by the way, they don't necessarily even
Speaker 2: like Islam, believe that the Quran can be dated radiocarbon
Speaker 2: dated scientifically to the time of the prophet. That is
Speaker 2: the academic consensus, and you can read about that in
Speaker 2: books like the Kurana Historical Critical Introduction by Nikolai Sinai
Speaker 2: Sana and the Origins of the Quran by behn Am
Speaker 2: Sadafy and Mossa and Godharzi and Islam and the Empires
Speaker 2: of Faith by Sean Anthony. These are non Muslim, many
Speaker 2: of them, and they believe that the Qur'an not just
Speaker 2: one manuscript, but multiple manuscripts that are aligned and aligned
Speaker 2: with what we as Muslims read and recite today. Of
Speaker 2: the Quran is dated scientifically to the time of the prophet,
Speaker 2: Peace be upon him. You can't say that about the
Speaker 2: Old Testament going back to Moses. You can't say that
Speaker 2: about the New Testament going back to Jesus. The earliest
Speaker 2: full manuscript of the New Testament only goes to the
Speaker 2: fourth century, over three hundred years after Jesus lived. Why
Speaker 2: don't you address that?
Speaker 4: But Doniel just says, but that manuscript is belongs in
Speaker 4: the trash. Si says this strip.
Speaker 5: I asked you question.
Speaker 1: Okay, pause clock real quicker pause, pause, clock real fast.
Speaker 1: Did answer that question?
Speaker 2: It will?
Speaker 5: Sammy'll ask you a question matter you I'm asking you
Speaker 5: for me. Do you want to answer the question he
Speaker 5: asked me? When I asked him the question? He then
Speaker 5: answered my answer to his question. Do I have a
Speaker 5: right not to refute his lies?
Speaker 2: You can wait till we ask a question and then
Speaker 2: refute the life.
Speaker 5: Okay, I'm just saying because he didn't stay on topic.
Speaker 5: He didn't answer my question.
Speaker 2: You haven't stayed on topic whole debate.
Speaker 1: Okay, So this this is what this what we'll do.
Speaker 1: Let me go ahead and uh. Let we'll let you
Speaker 1: Jazz ask the question because they did answer the question
Speaker 1: just now and then and then you can go and
Speaker 1: then that will probably it'll probably go to you to
Speaker 1: answer and then you can go ahead and address what
Speaker 1: you have.
Speaker 5: Let me know if you want to say something to brother.
Speaker 5: I don't want to have out.
Speaker 4: Okay, So my question is to Jay dial when Sam Chumun,
Speaker 4: let me just quote this so I don't get it wrong.
Speaker 4: When Sam Shumun says, and he agrees with the statement,
Speaker 4: the siniatical documents is full of errors and heretical statements,
Speaker 4: struggles and hopefully someday in the near future should be
Speaker 4: discarded to the trash. Can is the alignment with your
Speaker 4: beliefs or not?
Speaker 5: Well? Your article I said that, Jay, I just want
Speaker 5: to ask him. Give me the link to the article
Speaker 5: I said those exact words. Give me the It's on
Speaker 5: my Twitter.
Speaker 4: It's on my Twitter right now. What's on my twitter?
Speaker 4: You can go to it on my Twitter you can
Speaker 4: go to it, and I can actually quote from you
Speaker 4: from chrisco that the New Testament comes in the second century,
Speaker 4: not even the first to my twitter.
Speaker 3: So the whole of this argument supposing that something has
Speaker 3: to be immediately recorded at the time of the event,
Speaker 3: and you're just using your own positions, uh standards to
Speaker 3: judge our position. We don't believe that. We believe in
Speaker 3: the ability of oral tradition to transmit just as well
Speaker 3: as something written. So you have an artificial standard that
Speaker 3: you expect of us that is not our standard. So
Speaker 3: I don't believe. We don't worship a book. We're not
Speaker 3: a book based religion like you are.
Speaker 5: So that was my question, your question.
Speaker 4: I read. Just to be clear, you didn't answer my question.
Speaker 3: We don't follow on codesy, I don't have your suppositions,
Speaker 3: so we're not Protestants at the.
Speaker 4: Answer my questions questions.
Speaker 3: That it's basically.
Speaker 4: Do you agree.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter, trust, it won't matter which text.
Speaker 4: A million of trash, As you said, it doesn't, it
Speaker 4: doesn't match. It belongs in the trash.
Speaker 1: That's bess.
Speaker 3: The codex sign I, I guess, is not what the
Speaker 3: tradition hinges on that's what your argument hinges on.
Speaker 4: It's the earliest complete does matter, it doesn't.
Speaker 1: Here, I'll say that's okay. So I'm gonna let Sam
Speaker 1: go ahead and come in. Because there were some allegations
Speaker 1: made about something he said or whatever. Maybe and he
Speaker 1: did answer your question. He says, I know that you don't.
Speaker 1: You don't like to answer, but he did answer it.
Speaker 4: No, I asked if he agreed, but snup, I answer it.
Speaker 1: And now we'll go ahead and go what Sam said
Speaker 1: on those comments.
Speaker 5: Notice notice neither of them answered my specific question. He
Speaker 5: says that Jazz rattle off some manuscripts, Tobak tesch Can
Speaker 5: whatever it is. That wasn't my question. Let me try
Speaker 5: it again. But you can't answer guys. Remember, they failed miserably.
Speaker 5: I said, point to the earliest Mussaf codex that has
Speaker 5: all one hundred fourteen surahs of the Koran with all
Speaker 5: the verses that they accept today, and they're in nineteen
Speaker 5: twenty four Cairo edition. They couldn't do that. Then I asked,
Speaker 5: show me any two chronic manuscripts that are identical one
Speaker 5: hundred percent. You didn't answer the question, Daniel, neither did
Speaker 5: your friend. And again, if Western scholars are right. Your
Speaker 5: prophet is a fraud and you're wrong. There are many
Speaker 5: Western scholars. You may not like them because they're conservative.
Speaker 5: They do believe that Moses wrote the Torah, and they
Speaker 5: believe there's enough evidence for it, not only because Jesus
Speaker 5: confirmed it, but if Western scholars are right, I don't
Speaker 5: know what you guys don't get. You just proved Muhammed
Speaker 5: is a false prophet antichrist because he doesn't agree with
Speaker 5: Western scholars. He agrees with me, and here I am
Speaker 5: defending your false prophet glory to Jesus.
Speaker 1: Okay, did you have something else that you wanted to
Speaker 1: and then we'll finish off with that. I just want
Speaker 1: to make sure everybody got their question off that they
Speaker 1: wanted to get off.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he gave us a question about the prophet upon
Speaker 2: him confirming the Torah, and we didn't address that question.
Speaker 2: So I can address it right now during the.
Speaker 5: Four minutes you never addressed. You want ads it out,
Speaker 5: then I need a response.
Speaker 1: On the Q and a session. Okay, so let me
Speaker 1: let me respond to one and then we'll go to
Speaker 1: Bible versus crowd for the last topic.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's fine. First of all, the Quran says that
Speaker 2: the Torah and the Engeal, the scripture of the past
Speaker 2: has been distorted. They change it with their hands. This
Speaker 2: is something that we read in the Quran. So that's
Speaker 2: point number one. Point number two is that he doesn't
Speaker 2: understand the difference between i'm versus hass In Arabic means
Speaker 2: general general statement versus hass a specific statement. So if
Speaker 2: I point to a book and I say this is
Speaker 2: a reliable book or this book confirms what I'm saying,
Speaker 2: I don't necessarily mean that there every single line of
Speaker 2: that book I agree with, or every single line of
Speaker 2: that book is true. I'm making that making an i'm
Speaker 2: statement a general statement that the book is true. Sam
Speaker 2: can only have an uncharitable reading or an uncharitable interpretation
Speaker 2: of the prophet's words in that hadith. If we assume
Speaker 2: that that hadith is authentic. So there is a difference
Speaker 2: of opinion on the authenticity of that hadith and he
Speaker 2: knows it second of all, or the third point, actually,
Speaker 2: what Torah is the prophet or telrat is the prophet
Speaker 2: sola la jaya Sam referring to is he referring to
Speaker 2: the Mazaretic text is he referring to the Dead Sea scrolls?
Speaker 2: Is he referring to the Subtuagen? Like which version of
Speaker 2: the Old Testament is he referring to? And why do
Speaker 2: you incorrectly assume that the Old Testament that you have,
Speaker 2: your particular sect or denomination has is the same thing
Speaker 2: that the profit piece be upon Him is referring to.
Speaker 2: Like this is a very flawed logic that you have
Speaker 2: sam to take this Hadith and think that the profit
Speaker 2: piece be upon him is confirming the book that you
Speaker 2: have in your hand today. By the way, there are
Speaker 2: all these different variations. And the fourth point is that
Speaker 2: if Muslims believed that the Bible was uncorrupted because of this,
Speaker 2: why didn't they canonize the Bible? And the way that
Speaker 2: the Christians canonized the Old Testament. Christians canonize the Old Testament.
Speaker 2: Muslims never did that because they never saw the Bible
Speaker 2: as fully reliable. They never saw the Old Testament as
Speaker 2: fully reliable. And the actual academic evidence shows that the
Speaker 2: Bible is not reliable because there's all these different variations
Speaker 2: and they change, like the differences between the Dead Sea
Speaker 2: Scroll and the Mastertitexts and the super Septuogen These are
Speaker 2: major theological differences because of changes and wording in the
Speaker 2: original manuscripts. Why don't you deal with that?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 5: I have the same time to respond to his wives
Speaker 5: and bluster.
Speaker 1: Okay, and then I'll have your.
Speaker 5: Go to let me Let me go, because I want
Speaker 5: to destory that, all right. Number one, Chapter two versus
Speaker 5: seventy seventy nine shows again what you've been doing with
Speaker 5: the Bible. You're doing to your own korng and you
Speaker 5: fall under the condemnation of three seventy eight. You not
Speaker 5: only have the audacity twist the scriptures, you have theudacity
Speaker 5: twist the kron anyone I'm challenging here, Let's do it
Speaker 5: on two seventy five cent and your proof text, Mano Imano,
Speaker 5: Let's debate it. Go read the context. I've done an
Speaker 5: extensive study and the Muslim commentators. It's talking about a
Speaker 5: particular group identified as Jews, who wrote the book with
Speaker 5: their own hands. It doesn't say all Jews everywhere, let
Speaker 5: alone mentioned the Christians. You just butchered the Qoran like
Speaker 5: you've been butchering the Bible. But I come back to
Speaker 5: butcher you. That's number one. Number two. You said that
Speaker 5: the hadith where Mohammed confirmed the Torah that there are
Speaker 5: differences of opinion. Well, you probably didn't hear my recent
Speaker 5: responses to your friend Jake ibin KM L Josiah, which
Speaker 5: I have quoted. And if you want to read Arabic
Speaker 5: because you think your votes about reading Arabic, I'll let
Speaker 5: you read Arabic and parse it. Ib and L Josiah said,
Speaker 5: a group of scholars believe the Torah is uncorrupt. One
Speaker 5: of the evidences they gave is the headith of Abu
Speaker 5: Dao Wud. They quoted it, they didn't question its authenticity,
Speaker 5: and even El Albani said it's Hassan. But put Albani
Speaker 5: asai I K. L. Josiah for those of you who
Speaker 5: don't know. He's the disciple of Schekhalistam ibn Tamia, his
Speaker 5: granddaddy when it comes to celifie anthropomorphism, and he says
Speaker 5: these scholars quoted this said, I guess they didn't know
Speaker 5: about the science of Adeid classification. Thank God, I'll have
Speaker 5: sent you to correct them, because they said that when
Speaker 5: Muhammad saw virek Tora, he put it on the cushion.
Speaker 5: He goes. I believe in you and him who revealed you.
Speaker 5: And then the scholars say he would not have said
Speaker 5: it if he thought that Toro was corrupted. And among
Speaker 5: the people that I El Josiah lists as saying that
Speaker 5: tour and the Gospel are incruptible are El Buchhari and Razi,
Speaker 5: which you probably don't care much about. Razzi, but Imam
Speaker 5: El Bukhari, the one who collected third almost said some technicians.
Speaker 5: According to you, dadis no, my time's on.
Speaker 1: No, No, you got twenty vis on guess okay.
Speaker 5: The final thing is if variant readings in validate the Bible,
Speaker 5: it buries your Quran because you have thousands of variant readings.
Speaker 5: But then you explained kat but who authorized the karate?
Speaker 5: Show me one verse from your law that said that
Speaker 5: Mujahad would come and stand verse seven readings of the Koran.
Speaker 5: You make it up as you go along. The gig
Speaker 5: is up, game over for your religion.
Speaker 4: How could I answer, my son? Could I could I
Speaker 4: answer this? We don't have to make up anything because
Speaker 4: we actually have the genealogical trees of the manuscripts of
Speaker 4: the Quran, the stammer of the Koran, and there's so exhaustive.
Speaker 4: There is not a single textual critic of the Koran
Speaker 4: that would say that we can't identify the Koran. There
Speaker 4: was at the time of Muhammed that they would say
Speaker 4: that we don't know what it is. This is in
Speaker 4: contradiction to what you said just now that they don't
Speaker 4: know what it is. And secondly, when it comes to
Speaker 4: the tour with the perfect piece perpon him, never authenticated
Speaker 4: your torah. You never authenticated the tour that you believe
Speaker 4: in today, there's no one, there's multiple The perfect piece
Speaker 4: of him authenticated a judgment from that tour, which is
Speaker 4: a word Jim, so read the hedits in context. And lastly,
Speaker 4: there is no disagreement upon this with about the scholars
Speaker 4: on the tradition of the Koran, what it includes one
Speaker 4: hundred and fourteen sewers, no distinction, nothing. This is a
Speaker 4: difference to you and your scholars who leave books, who
Speaker 4: leave chapters, who leave the wizard Jesus out and change them.
Speaker 4: They're not the same. So why do you try to
Speaker 4: focus on a false Islamic dilemma of virtual false dilemma?
Speaker 4: You don't answer the question of how the Bible could
Speaker 4: be authentic, unreliable. And I'm shocked that as a Christian
Speaker 4: you allowed Ja to say that it's fine, it's okay
Speaker 4: if Correctinaticus's me thrown into the trash. I mean, as
Speaker 4: I musdam, I have no respect for the Bible than
Speaker 4: Jay and some to put together. But it's ridiculous that
Speaker 4: he allowed that statement to go unchallenged. Jay, why would
Speaker 4: you do that through the Bible, not under the bus,
Speaker 4: but in the trash. I'm shocked at that.
Speaker 3: Well, you're just too silly to think that the Bible
Speaker 3: is reducible to one textual tradition. That's your whole argument.
Speaker 3: I didn't I didn't say that what you just said,
Speaker 3: I asked one claims. So by the way, I don't
Speaker 3: want to I want I've got other things i want
Speaker 3: to talk about. So we've got multiple scholars. By the
Speaker 3: way that both of you said to him, I'm replying
Speaker 3: to him. You said that there are no modern scholars
Speaker 3: that believe in the veracity of the text the whole
Speaker 3: New Testament. I've got three here for you, lightheart, F
Speaker 3: F Young.
Speaker 4: What's the texting well known? What's the text?
Speaker 2: Which text? Which text?
Speaker 3: There cons variants, which variant of them, which variant of
Speaker 3: we don't.
Speaker 2: It doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: You don't even know argument. You don't even know the
Speaker 3: your argument, don't open the book and the book argument
Speaker 3: is tradition, and that's not our position, your.
Speaker 5: From We're going to move down.
Speaker 3: In our position.
Speaker 4: Textual edition, guys, texturexedition. You can't because they're doing.
Speaker 1: Because they don't follows going to top three.
Speaker 3: You understand I could tell.
Speaker 1: You, guys, Guys, guys, guys, guys.
Speaker 3: Orthodox. Let me give an example, the Orthodox study Bible.
Speaker 1: Guys, guys, guys. All right, I'm meeting everybody, Okay. I
Speaker 1: knew that this was going to go crazy. Anytime we
Speaker 1: open up the dialogue, it's going to go crazy. I
Speaker 1: understand you guys are not going to agree on this
Speaker 1: with with the text in the scripture. But yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: but here's the thing. He's getting frustrated because he's he
Speaker 1: answered your question and you know, you made some personal
Speaker 1: attacks about throwing things in the trash or whatever. So
Speaker 1: obviously he's going to.
Speaker 3: Respond position, what's Sam's view of cup.
Speaker 1: Let's just move on to the third topic, guys. All right,
Speaker 1: So the third topic here, guys, is going to be
Speaker 1: morality bibble versus Kuran on human rights which you guys
Speaker 1: can go ahead and talk about this a bit, because
Speaker 1: I see that there's some personal differences. Who wants to
Speaker 1: take this one first team Christianity or a team?
Speaker 2: Is they can go first?
Speaker 1: TEAMSM wants to go to the first on this one. Okay, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: they can go oh cheep Christianity. You guys, Okay, we'll
Speaker 1: go first. Jay.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would say that if we think about this idea,
Speaker 3: the transition from the previous topic to the next topic.
Speaker 1: I quick, sorry, sorry, real quick, Jay, We're going to
Speaker 1: put four minutes on o'clock so that you can go,
Speaker 1: so that we don't uh and five minutes.
Speaker 2: He gets five minutes, right, not four.
Speaker 1: No, it's it's four because now we're on the new topic. Three.
Speaker 1: It's per round.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So the opening statement, Yeah, the openings are five,
Speaker 2: aren't they.
Speaker 1: No, it's opening statement from the very beginning, and then
Speaker 1: once we get into the debate rounds is four. If
Speaker 1: you guys want, if this is the topic that you
Speaker 1: guys want to expand on more, we can go ahead
Speaker 1: and give you guys five minutes, but we do it
Speaker 1: four minutes for all the rounds. But if you guys
Speaker 1: want five minutes for this particular topic.
Speaker 2: That's fine, that's fine, whatever, just five minutes. We need
Speaker 2: five minutes for our opening.
Speaker 1: That's fine. Well, you know what for this whole route,
Speaker 1: for this this is the last one to go five
Speaker 1: minutes for each round three times, no problem. So Jag
Speaker 1: got five minison o'clock for you. Whenever you're ready, will
Speaker 1: turn the calo.
Speaker 3: I'll go one or two, and then I'll pass it
Speaker 3: over to Sam because I don't know what his arguments
Speaker 3: are going to be, but I would say that, you know,
Speaker 3: if we think about this previous topic, it relates to
Speaker 3: the new topic, which is that there needs to be
Speaker 3: a consistency of continuity between what was expected and what
Speaker 3: was later revealed or given. Now, in the Old Testament
Speaker 3: we have a pretty consistent pattern, not of wrath or
Speaker 3: of anything extreme, but rather Jesus confirms in many places
Speaker 3: the morality of the Old Testament. For example, in Matthew five,
Speaker 3: people think that the beatitudes are contrary to the law.
Speaker 3: In fact, Leviticus says that you have to love your neighbor.
Speaker 3: Jesus says that you can't exact personal revenge, and that
Speaker 3: was actually part of the Old Testament law. So for us,
Speaker 3: Christ's exposition of the Old Testament is a consistent, true
Speaker 3: exposition of what the Torah always meant. Jesus isn't contradicting it.
Speaker 3: In fact, he gave it. He's the one that fulfills it.
Speaker 3: When we get to the time of this law, we
Speaker 3: have a totally different expectation. For example, many of these
Speaker 3: ceremonial ideas that are borrowed from Judaism and Christianity actually
Speaker 3: have no meaning and no significance. They're not clear as
Speaker 3: to why we do them. It's just what Allah wills. Well,
Speaker 3: in Christianity, there's a specific meaning for things like an alter,
Speaker 3: things like cleansing, baptisms that are washings. And when I
Speaker 3: debated Daniel, we talked about this issue of continuity, how
Speaker 3: God always had an alter, a temple, a priesthood. Islam
Speaker 3: has none of that. So there's no continuity there in
Speaker 3: terms of morality or in terms of the theology. Islam
Speaker 3: has a totally different set of standards that are completely arbitrary.
Speaker 3: Sam will pass it over to you, all.
Speaker 5: Right, yes, now, remember why I had asked to do
Speaker 5: the previous debate before this one, Guys, Remember they failed
Speaker 5: miserably to show that their profit did not confirm the scriptures.
Speaker 5: Any attack on the scriptures. Again, prus e. Muhammad is
Speaker 5: a false prophet Antichrist. He is, but for other reasons.
Speaker 5: And Mohammad confirmed all the scriptures in circulation. He didn't
Speaker 5: make any difference between the variation or diversions to him.
Speaker 5: They're all God's work. Now, with that said, that means
Speaker 5: Mohammad's morality must live up to the biblical morality. Otherwise
Speaker 5: he is a false prophet. And so when we look
Speaker 5: at even the Torah, even though Jesus is the consummation,
Speaker 5: and we are told clearly in the Old Testament and
Speaker 5: in the teachings of Christ, that God in his love
Speaker 5: condescended to the Israelites and allow things.
Speaker 4: He did not like.
Speaker 5: For example, if you go to First Samuel, chapter eight,
Speaker 5: if you go to First Chronicles, chapter twenty two, verse eight,
Speaker 5: First Chronicles twenty eight, verse three, and on and Onigos,
Speaker 5: and then the words of our Lord Matthew nineteen, the
Speaker 5: Lord allowed and tolerate things that he himself was not
Speaker 5: pleased with until Jesus came and perfected the revelation and
Speaker 5: took us to our standard. Muhammad devolves and his ethics
Speaker 5: are even worse than that found in the Old Testament,
Speaker 5: and I can give you several examples. In twenty Deuteronomy
Speaker 5: twenty four, verse one of four, the true God of
Speaker 5: Moses says that if I divorce a woman she marries
Speaker 5: and either or he dies, I can't take her back.
Speaker 5: It's an abomination. What God says is an abomination. Mohammed
Speaker 5: Zelah says is moheeded the only way you can take
Speaker 5: your spouse back. In chapter two, verses two twenty nine
Speaker 5: to two thirty of the Koran, if Daniel makes the
Speaker 5: mistake of irrevocably divorcing his wife, she has to marry
Speaker 5: someone else. He has to have sex with her, and
Speaker 5: then if he divorces her he can take her back,
Speaker 5: adding insult injury. So the God of Moses says, Muhammed's
Speaker 5: God stands condemned. Another aspect Douranmi twenty one ten to fourteen,
Speaker 5: unlike what we find in the chron and the Sunna,
Speaker 5: where Daniel's God says, if you're out in jihad, you
Speaker 5: can take women captive, even married one. You can then
Speaker 5: molest them, even though they won't call it rape, because
Speaker 5: by taking them captive you've numbliflied their marriage, have sex
Speaker 5: with them, and sell them off to your property. Whereas
Speaker 5: the God of Moses says in Douranami twenty one ten
Speaker 5: to fourteen, if you find a captive woman, you make
Speaker 5: her your wife. She's not married, You give her a
Speaker 5: month to mourn, shave her head, and you give her
Speaker 5: the full status of a wife and his light wife.
Speaker 5: And if you divorce her, she's free. You don't sell her.
Speaker 5: So even though the Old Testament it's the ideal standard,
Speaker 5: even the Old Testament condemns the kron and the Sunnah
Speaker 5: as being barbaric and Droeconian, beneath even the standard the
Speaker 5: Old Testament, which does not live up to the standard
Speaker 5: of Jesus Christ. And any attack in the Bible, they
Speaker 5: again prove Muhammad as a fraud. And I hope you
Speaker 5: attack the Bible because Muhammad is a fraud, but for
Speaker 5: other reasons.
Speaker 1: Gloryd to Christ forty five seconds.
Speaker 5: So all right, well, yeah, so keep that in mind.
Speaker 5: As Jay said, the Old Testament is fulfilled in Christ.
Speaker 5: Jesus perfects the Old Testament. Mohammed perverts the Old Testament,
Speaker 5: let alone the New Testament, so that he doesn't even
Speaker 5: live up to the standard the Old Testament, which is
Speaker 5: an ideal Jesus is a standard.
Speaker 1: Third.
Speaker 5: And when you can Muhammad to Jesus, he's many the
Speaker 5: fear of Christ.
Speaker 1: But you still got twenty five? Still good? Okay?
Speaker 5: All right, So any attack am mourning you guys, keep
Speaker 5: attacking the Old Testament make my day. Because your prophet
Speaker 5: confirmed that Old Testament in his possession. Make my day.
Speaker 5: And to answer the question, why didn't canonize it? Because
Speaker 5: your Koran said the Tours for the Jews, the Gospels
Speaker 5: for the Christians. The Koran is for you, but all
Speaker 5: of you follow it because then it is guidance, a light,
Speaker 5: very simple. Your chron refute you, Daniel, do a better
Speaker 5: job studying your time.
Speaker 1: All right, five minutes on o'clock. The topic again is
Speaker 1: morality Quran versus the Bible on human rights. This is
Speaker 1: round one of topic three. This is going to be
Speaker 1: a team opening statement. We haven't done the opening yeah
Speaker 1: of course, yeah, yeah, So five five minutes on o'clock.
Speaker 1: Doory h sure, sir, yeah, yeah, five minutes for everybody
Speaker 1: on each round of this is this is last one, okay.
Speaker 2: Christian Christians often attack the morality of Islam. They say
Speaker 2: Mohammed upon him taught war and taught misogyny, but Jesus
Speaker 2: teaches love and peace. They say, Mohammed so I said
Speaker 2: them promoted child marriage, whereas Jesus believes women should only
Speaker 2: be married when they reach eighteen. But this Christian perspective
Speaker 2: is contradicted by the Bible. The Bible promotes far more war, killing,
Speaker 2: and misogyny than anything in the or honor the life
Speaker 2: of the prophet Muhammad. Pist people. Let's go through a list.
Speaker 2: The Bible says in Levidigus chapter twenty to execute a
Speaker 2: woman who engages in adultery. Many Christians will say, oh,
Speaker 2: this is the old Covenant, it's no longer applicable. Fine.
Speaker 2: That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact
Speaker 2: that God commanded executing adulterers at one point in history,
Speaker 2: and God, according to the Trinity, is also Jesus. So
Speaker 2: Jesus commanded the Israelites to kill adulterers. Does that sound
Speaker 2: very peaceful? Later in Leviticus, Jesus says homosexuals should be executed.
Speaker 2: If a father sleeps with his daughter in law, they
Speaker 2: should both be executed. Here's a brief list of sins
Speaker 2: that Jesus requires you to be executed for, according to
Speaker 2: the Old Testament, engaging in idolatry, breaking the sabbath. So
Speaker 2: an Israelite three If an Israelite three thousand years ago
Speaker 2: accidentally did some work on Saturday to break the sabbath,
Speaker 2: Jesus wanted that israel Light to be executed. A son
Speaker 2: striking his parents deserve death, or even if he curses
Speaker 2: his parents, Jesus say, kill him. A sorceress, Jesus say,
Speaker 2: kill him. A blasphemer, Jesus says, kill him. A brother, son, daughter, wife,
Speaker 2: or friend who entices you to worship other gods. That
Speaker 2: says in Deuteronomy thirteen, Jesus says, stone them to death
Speaker 2: and have no pity on them. So Jesus is pro
Speaker 2: death penalty for a lot of things. To be fair,
Speaker 2: Islam also has the death penalty for adultery, sorcery, and blasphemy.
Speaker 2: But if we're judging who is more pro death penalty
Speaker 2: Jesus or Muhammad, Jesus wins hands down. According to the Bible,
Speaker 2: Jesus is also pro genocide. In Deuteronomy twenty, Jesus commands
Speaker 2: Moses to attack the Canaanites and other peoples and quote
Speaker 2: leave nothing alive that breathes. In Deuteronomy chapter two, Moses
Speaker 2: requested safe passage for the wandering Hebrew people from Sihon,
Speaker 2: king of Heshman, but the king refused. Jesus then commands
Speaker 2: his followers to conquer and possess Sihan's lands. As Moses says,
Speaker 2: quote the Lord our God, meaning Jesus, delivered him before us,
Speaker 2: and we smote him and his sons and all his people.
Speaker 2: And we took all his cities at that time, and
Speaker 2: utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little
Speaker 2: ones of every city. We left none to remain. Now,
Speaker 2: to be fair, Muhammed peace be upon him also commands
Speaker 2: war in some contexts, but the difference is Muhammed peace
Speaker 2: behind him doesn't command Muslims to kill women, children, and babies.
Speaker 2: He says the opposite. He says, to spare women and children.
Speaker 2: But Jesus, according to the Bible, is not so merciful.
Speaker 2: Then we go to slavery. The Old and New Testament
Speaker 2: both endoored slavery, including taking girls as slaves for potential brides.
Speaker 2: Numbers thirty one says. In Chapter thirty one says, Moses
Speaker 2: said to them, have you let all the women live.
Speaker 2: Now kill every male among the little ones, and kill
Speaker 2: every woman who has known man by lying with him.
Speaker 2: But all the young girls who have not known man
Speaker 2: by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. End quote Again.
Speaker 2: Islam also endorses his slaves and concubinage, but the difference
Speaker 2: is that in the Bible, Jesus says you can sell
Speaker 2: your own daughter into slavery. Exodus, chapter twenty one, verse seven,
Speaker 2: Jesus says when a man sells his daughter as a slave,
Speaker 2: she will not be freed at the end of six years,
Speaker 2: as the men are. Unlike Jesus, Islam doesn't allow parents
Speaker 2: to sell their little girls into slavery. Finally, on the
Speaker 2: topic of age of marriage, nowhere in the Bible does
Speaker 2: Jesus specify a minimum age for marriage. Jesus had no
Speaker 2: problem with child marriage, and if he did, he never
Speaker 2: told anyone, even though as a common practice in his
Speaker 2: time in the Old Testament times. Furthermore, many church authorities
Speaker 2: endorse child marriage. For example, Saint Augustine himself was set
Speaker 2: to marry a ten year old when he was thirty
Speaker 2: one before he became a priest. Thomas Aquinas says that
Speaker 2: sex depends on maturity, which he says happens at twelve
Speaker 2: years old for girls, and he says it can even
Speaker 2: happen earlier for some girls. The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes
Speaker 2: that Man was betrothed to Joseph when she was just
Speaker 2: a twelve year old little girl, and in the Canon
Speaker 2: law and Catholicism this minimum age of marriage verse twelve.
Speaker 2: I want the Christian audience to know that the Bible
Speaker 2: and the Catholic Church have fully endorsed Marian girls as
Speaker 2: young as twelve or even younger. So if you want
Speaker 2: to attack Islam and the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon
Speaker 2: him and say that they endorse pedophilia, well so does
Speaker 2: your Bible, and so does the Church, and so does Jesus.
Speaker 2: Note that I'm not condemning the Bible or the Church
Speaker 2: for this reason. So this is not a two quote
Speaker 2: quay fallacy, as Jay is sure to say. But I'm
Speaker 2: just pointing out the lack of consistency among many questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you, all right, Okay, So what I'll do real
Speaker 2: I want to a brief responsor.
Speaker 1: Know that, Yeah, that's that's the rest of the time.
Speaker 1: What I'll do is Okay, So Bill's can we have
Speaker 1: the chats ready? I'm gonna let them go another round.
Speaker 1: Then I'll read the chats after this, because obviously I
Speaker 1: know that they want to really respond to this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: pull the chats up on the side and we'll have it.
Speaker 1: So don't worry. I was going to read the chats,
Speaker 1: but I know that you guys really want to respond.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to have a Jay. You wanted to
Speaker 1: go first, right, Okay, you're going to put five minutes
Speaker 1: on a clock. I'll reach out after they finished both
Speaker 1: rounds of this word round two of the Bible versus
Speaker 1: the Kuran, five minutes on a clock, Go ahead, Jay,
Speaker 1: take it away.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So the first thing I would say that you'll
Speaker 3: notice the double standard again because Daniel tried to argue
Speaker 3: quite a bit for continuity there. But you'll notice that
Speaker 3: earlier we had heard the Bible was corrupted, but now
Speaker 3: all of these verses from the Old Testament somehow match
Speaker 3: up to a kind of continuity with Islam. Well, wait
Speaker 3: a minute, I thought all the Old Testament, Jesus, all
Speaker 3: this was was corrupted. It's only corrupted when it doesn't
Speaker 3: suit their purpose or their argumentation, that's a double standard. Next,
Speaker 3: I would say that even in the Old Testament, the
Speaker 3: rabbinic tradition, Jews did not always act upon these penalties.
Speaker 3: Many of these penalties that were listed were about ritual impurity,
Speaker 3: not all of them, but many of them were. And
Speaker 3: ritual impurity does carry over into the New Testament when
Speaker 3: in our view what happens is that not so how
Speaker 3: much the state, although Christian states have at times enacted
Speaker 3: some things like that pulpy for the things that were listed,
Speaker 3: it's ritual and purity in terms of coming to the liturgy.
Speaker 3: So in the Orthodox and in the Calviny Church, we
Speaker 3: both share this position. You do confess your sins before
Speaker 3: you come to the Eucharist. That's because if you have
Speaker 3: committed these sins, you are ritually and in a sense morally,
Speaker 3: because the ritual refers to the moral, you're morally impure,
Speaker 3: and so that's the purpose of confession. So many of
Speaker 3: these things do carry over, just not in the way
Speaker 3: that they assume. And I would say that that's a
Speaker 3: much better notion of continuity.
Speaker 5: I'll let you go ahead, Sam, Yeah, I want Daniel
Speaker 5: to think. I want to thank Daniel for proving that
Speaker 5: Jesus has got a law. Why because according to the
Speaker 5: chron in chapter five, verse twenty to twenty six, it
Speaker 5: was his a law that ordered Moses and Israelites tenter
Speaker 5: Kanaan and wipe it out chapter five, verse twenty twenty six.
Speaker 5: Also it was his a law that ordered salt, which
Speaker 5: the kron erroneously calls talu, because he fought jalut. And
Speaker 5: I want him to justify tahu as a form of salt.
Speaker 5: In chapter two, verse two forty six to two fifty one,
Speaker 5: where it was his Allah, whom he said was Jesus,
Speaker 5: So he just met Jesus, says Allah Mohammed's god in
Speaker 5: judge in chapter two, verse two forty six to two
Speaker 5: fifty one, who ordered Saul on these expeditions, and there's
Speaker 5: not a word of condemnation by his prophet saying that
Speaker 5: what Sal did to the livestock and children was an
Speaker 5: abomination to a law that means he's better than his
Speaker 5: god and his prophet. And again I want to thank
Speaker 5: Daniel for proving that Jesus is Allah his god because
Speaker 5: in Saihel Buhari, Volume four, number three fifty three asked
Speaker 5: me to read it because I don't want to eat
Speaker 5: up my time. There in an authentic narration, his prophet
Speaker 5: refers to a prophet who went in an expedition jihad
Speaker 5: and the son stood still, and his prophet narrates the
Speaker 5: injunctions of Deuran me chapter twenty and also alludes to
Speaker 5: Joshua chapter seventy ten. So that means Jesus is a
Speaker 5: law his god, Mohammad's judge, because of according to your prophet,
Speaker 5: your God sanctioned these marriages. I'm not marriage. I'm sorry
Speaker 5: these wars, so that means you're better than your God. Now, ironically,
Speaker 5: he quoted Exodus twenty one seven, but as he's been
Speaker 5: doing all night, all day, and all night, he didn't
Speaker 5: quote the entire context because if you read the context,
Speaker 5: the reason why she couldn't be let out is because
Speaker 5: a woman that time can't be let go to be
Speaker 5: on her own. She has to be under the protection
Speaker 5: of the master or her father. But then the text
Speaker 5: says that she's to be married, not raped like what
Speaker 5: Mohammad did in chapter four Verus twenty four and the
Speaker 5: Sunna when they took married captives and raped them and
Speaker 5: sold them Exodus twenty one seven to eleven says he's
Speaker 5: to marry her or her son marries her, and if
Speaker 5: he cannot be fair with her, she is to be
Speaker 5: divorced and let go. So conveniently, he doesn't show that
Speaker 5: this context again condemns Mohammad and his morality. And ironically
Speaker 5: he mentions about the age of marriage well in the tullmood,
Speaker 5: because Muhammad quotes Tomud, and I'll show you where even
Speaker 5: his prophet said that according to the Torah. He confused
Speaker 5: the Tumud the Torah, a woman has to be past
Speaker 5: the age of twelve and show signs of maturity, and
Speaker 5: he called that injunction in the Tumut the Torah. But
Speaker 5: that means even by that standard his prophet is condemned
Speaker 5: to hell because at the age of fifty four he
Speaker 5: slept with a nine year old minor and sanctioned pedophilia.
Speaker 5: Because there is no limit or age in Islamic shetty,
Speaker 5: according to his scholars, that would say a woman has
Speaker 5: to be yahai or this age in order for a
Speaker 5: man to mount her. And in the same tolament it
Speaker 5: says you are not to give a girl who's mature
Speaker 5: enough for marriage to an old man and Muhammad was
Speaker 5: fifty four years old. You don't get any older than that.
Speaker 5: He was old enough to be her great granddaddy. So
Speaker 5: I'm glad you're appealing to the Jewish Christian sources because
Speaker 5: these very sources to say your prophet is a false
Speaker 5: prophet and Antichrist. Under the feet of Jesus.
Speaker 3: How much time I have?
Speaker 1: Twenty seconds?
Speaker 5: Yeah, ironically you mentioned it. Let me show you where
Speaker 5: it says and the tall mut right here where it
Speaker 5: says that you cannot give a young girl maturnoff for marriage,
Speaker 5: which is past the age of twelfth to an old man. Here,
Speaker 5: let me read this verse is referring to one who
Speaker 5: marries his daughter to best time.
Speaker 4: Timbs up.
Speaker 1: That's time.
Speaker 4: I know you want it to be okay physically.
Speaker 2: All right, So I'm just showing a picture of Mario
Speaker 2: here because he's a famous plumber and he's with his princess,
Speaker 2: so I think that has significance. Plumbers, for Sam, can.
Speaker 1: I just ask you a question? You have just ask
Speaker 1: him questions. You have a chance to ask him a
Speaker 1: question when we do the fire round. But I'm going
Speaker 1: to turn it back to Team Islam here. We're going
Speaker 1: to give you guys. One, No, we got one more
Speaker 1: round five minutes for five minutes that you guys got,
Speaker 1: So this is going to be teams now. It's going
Speaker 1: to be on you guys five minutes.
Speaker 2: Uh. Would you notice Christian audience that your champions here
Speaker 2: did not mention child marriage? Are they dodging that issue?
Speaker 2: Why didn't Jay or Sam mention child marriage? I thought
Speaker 2: that Islam promotes pedophilia. You know why they didn't address
Speaker 2: child marriage because they know that can in law in
Speaker 2: the Catholic Church and Thomas Aquinas endorse child marriage and
Speaker 2: marriage at age twelve twelve years old? Is that pedophilia?
Speaker 1: Sam?
Speaker 2: Why don't you answer that question? How about you? Jay?
Speaker 2: You want to condemn the church for endorsing pedophilia, and
Speaker 2: then he makes a big deal about how oh the
Speaker 2: Old Testament you take the captives for marriage, as if
Speaker 2: that's any different. You're taking captives. It's not a consensual relationship, Sam, Like,
Speaker 2: who are you trying to fool? The Bible says take
Speaker 2: these women and then shave their heads and then marry them.
Speaker 2: It's not giving them a humiliate them, it's not giving
Speaker 2: them an option. So I'm not condemning. Notice, get the logic, right,
Speaker 2: Sam and Jay, I'm not condemning the Bible for slavery.
Speaker 2: I believe that Islam also endorses slavery. Islam also endorses war,
Speaker 2: but we don't go as far as Jesus in command
Speaker 2: and killing babies like he does in Deuteronomy in numbers.
Speaker 2: I don't condemn Christianity or the Bible or Catholicism for
Speaker 2: this minor marriage, marrying girls as young as nine, ten, eleven.
Speaker 2: I don't condemn that because I think that there's nothing
Speaker 2: wrong with that. But I want your audience to know
Speaker 2: that you don't find anything wrong with that. You don't
Speaker 2: find anything wrong with a twelve year old getting married,
Speaker 2: because that's what the Catholic Church, that's their morality, and
Speaker 2: that's what this section of the debate is about. It's
Speaker 2: about morality. So I'm giving it to you.
Speaker 4: Juzz Yeah, I'm just interested in Sam, just a quick question,
Speaker 4: why didn't you mention anything about abusing wives beaten wives?
Speaker 4: I understand why you mentioned rape. I mean, I can
Speaker 4: understand why you did that. Like what is the god
Speaker 4: of the Bible that I mean? Which one? So just
Speaker 4: to be clear here, Sam, can you let us know
Speaker 4: what does the Bible teach about violence against your wives,
Speaker 4: the limits at which you can umiliate them. Let's keep
Speaker 4: in mind that Jesus in Matchew twenty three commands the
Speaker 4: disciples and Christians to do and believe as the Pharisees believe.
Speaker 4: And if I'm not wrong, they really liked young girls
Speaker 4: three years older than one day. I mean, Jesus seems
Speaker 4: to ocup with it. But are you ok with that?
Speaker 5: Some?
Speaker 4: Are you ok with that side of Jesus seems a
Speaker 4: bit haughty for you, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're pointing out plumbers because I think Sam has
Speaker 2: a lot of experience with plumbers. He wants to insult. Hey,
Speaker 2: don't interrupt our time, brother, don't interrupt, don't interrupt our time, moderator, moderator.
Speaker 1: Just let them up. So we want to we want God.
Speaker 2: We wanted to be courteous and not bring this stuff up.
Speaker 2: But when Sam gets down and dirty and starts insulting
Speaker 2: the prophet Mohammed, then we have to respond in kind.
Speaker 2: We have to insult Sam and point out his vile
Speaker 2: history and the kinds of filth that he puts on
Speaker 2: his channel. So we're just playing fair. You wanted to
Speaker 2: go down and dirty and use filthy language. Then we're
Speaker 2: going to bring up the fact that a plumber basically
Speaker 2: stole your wife and you and you had certain charges
Speaker 2: against you. That's all. That's all. Now, condemned, child condemned. No,
Speaker 2: our time is not up.
Speaker 1: They got tom.
Speaker 2: We have some time left. So we want to hear
Speaker 2: you condemn child marriage. I didn't. And to go back
Speaker 2: to what Jay said, I never said anything about continuity.
Speaker 2: I never said that. Oh, what we find in the
Speaker 2: Old Testament is continuous in terms of morality with the Quran.
Speaker 2: I never claimed this. You just pulled this out of
Speaker 2: your back pocket. Jay. We were not talking about rituals.
Speaker 2: We're talking about practice of practices of war. The thing
Speaker 2: is that the Bible says to genocide little babies, to
Speaker 2: leave nothing that breathes alive. The Quran never says this. Yes,
Speaker 2: the Quran commands war. There is the story of Moses
Speaker 2: going to battle, Yeah, that exists, but there's no genocide
Speaker 2: that is mentioned. Because the Quran is correcting the false
Speaker 2: narratives that are found in the Old Testament, all the
Speaker 2: additions that we find in all the different variations of
Speaker 2: the Bible that we've discussed in the previous section. So
Speaker 2: that's the difference. And yes, please, everyone is waiting. Stop
Speaker 2: dodging the issue. Condemn child marriage. Tell us that the
Speaker 2: Catholic Church is really a pedophilia organization over the centuries,
Speaker 2: because canon law not the tal mood. We're not talking
Speaker 2: about the tal mood. We're talking about Canon law says
Speaker 2: that twelve years old is the age of marriage acceptable
Speaker 2: age of marriage. So condemn that, please. We're waiting, Jay
Speaker 2: and Sam, go ahead, you Jess.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean they're going to condemned that because they
Speaker 4: accept it historically. At least. Let's just be clear here.
Speaker 4: We're not saying that this is hypocritical, but you're not consistent.
Speaker 4: Who cares about virtuals in Greece When it comes down
Speaker 4: to the meats and the matter, You guys approve child marriage.
Speaker 4: Jesus approved it, the Pharisee has approved it, and this
Speaker 4: is what you believe. I really want some to speak
Speaker 4: on whether know a person can abuse their wife, whether
Speaker 4: a person can take donation money, spend it incorrectly, maybe
Speaker 4: spend it on young girls. Wouldn't be surprised to find
Speaker 4: you enough Stein's list to be honest. So I just
Speaker 4: really want some to ask and answer the question, do
Speaker 4: you accept Sam do you accept child marriage? Yes or no?
Speaker 4: And based on what we would like to know Jesus
Speaker 4: is Jay condemn it? You condemned it?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 4: Five seconds? Five seconds? He take it back five seconds
Speaker 4: when just reclaimed the five seconds.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we're gonna don't demand something.
Speaker 4: From us that you yourself aren't consistent with.
Speaker 1: Okay, We're gonna add ten seconds to the clock for
Speaker 1: Team Christianity for that. Okay, I'm gonna give you guys
Speaker 1: five minutes on o'clock. This is gonna be the beginning
Speaker 1: of round three. Okay. Uh So this is gonna be
Speaker 1: the final round on Bible versus kron uh morality, human morality.
Speaker 1: Uh So, I'll put five minutes on the clock. What
Speaker 1: I'll do is I don't want to interrupt this. So
Speaker 1: what we'll do is we'll read the chats after they
Speaker 1: complete this round and then before they do the fire
Speaker 1: round where they you know, open dialogue, then we'll do
Speaker 1: the chats. Sorry to you, guys, I don't want to
Speaker 1: interrupt it. You know what I mean, and the flow
Speaker 1: and everything else like that. My job here's to monterie
Speaker 1: give you guys, the best show. Don't want to interrupt
Speaker 1: it with super chats right now. I'll do it after
Speaker 1: we finished this and then we'll do the final thing.
Speaker 1: So round three, five, ten on the clock for a
Speaker 1: team Christianity. I know, Sam, you got a lot to say,
Speaker 1: so go ahead.
Speaker 5: Well, but Jay, do you want to say something real quick?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Briefly so, I was referring to the topic that
Speaker 3: Daniel and I debated and the way he's using these
Speaker 3: texts here in this debate. Both of those situations show
Speaker 3: that Daniel only uses the Old Testament when he suits
Speaker 3: his purposes, and he's not consistent with it. In that debate,
Speaker 3: he argued that Islam has more continuity with the Old
Speaker 3: Testament because of whether there's some loose similarities between the
Speaker 3: moms and places where you go and pray in a
Speaker 3: mosque or whatever. That has nothing to do with the
Speaker 3: continuity that the argument and that debate was about. Here,
Speaker 3: he's using it as another way to say, these are
Speaker 3: the texts and the Old Testament that are valid to
Speaker 3: teach this. And my point is that he's arbitrary and
Speaker 3: he has a double standard, and that's an internal critique
Speaker 3: which neither of them have ever never understood. I've made
Speaker 3: this point in every debate we have. They don't know
Speaker 3: what an internal critique is. They think that it means
Speaker 3: that you hold to your position. That's not what an
Speaker 3: internal critique is. It's just showing that you have a
Speaker 3: double standard. I'll let it go to you, Sam.
Speaker 5: Yeah, Now, let me get back and answer the questions.
Speaker 5: They think that I'm going to run like they've been
Speaker 5: running by the Great of Jesus Christ. Now, as far
Speaker 5: as those accusations, let's assume those accusations are true. All
Speaker 5: you're proving is that I'm a sinner. I'm faithful to
Speaker 5: the teachings of Christ. But I was acting like Muhammad
Speaker 5: because Muhammad did a lot of plumbing with a lot
Speaker 5: of women other than his own wives. Because when he's
Speaker 5: sanctioned the rape of married women, raping them and selling
Speaker 5: them off as channel, that's condemned by the God of
Speaker 5: Moses and Deronomy twenty one ten to fourteen. So Lord,
Speaker 5: forgive me for acting like Muhammad, because I know acting
Speaker 5: like Mohammad leads me to hell, So I may have mercy. Now,
Speaker 5: let's come back to the issue you kept saying that
Speaker 5: will we condemn child marriage absolutely. And here Ezekiel sixteen
Speaker 5: versus sixty eight, first quenteen seventh verse, chapter seven, verse
Speaker 5: thirty six, the dedicate in chapter two, as well as
Speaker 5: a tulmud. The reason why they say twelve if you
Speaker 5: are in context, and I'm going to challenge Daniel, give
Speaker 5: me the full quotation of Thomas and Quinas unedited, because
Speaker 5: you're like your prophet, you like to edit and quote
Speaker 5: out of context. They're placing it at twelve because that's
Speaker 5: when they assume that a woman will reach puberty. And
Speaker 5: even then they say she has to wait a little
Speaker 5: time beyond twelve. For example, here in the Tomat says
Speaker 5: not only twelve, but sometime after that when her breast
Speaker 5: start formed, because they took that as indication that she's
Speaker 5: now pubescent and that she's now knowledgeable enough to choose
Speaker 5: marriage or reject marriage. So even by their standards, you
Speaker 5: condemned Mohammad a hell because according to that very standard,
Speaker 5: Mohammed mounted a nine year old. He was fifty four.
Speaker 5: So Christian and Jewish sources would condemn him as a
Speaker 5: petal file who desired a nine year old and he
Speaker 5: mounted her. And then your Kuran and sixty five ors
Speaker 5: four doesn't even have the age of twelve as the limit.
Speaker 5: So yes, I condemn it, which is why I condemn
Speaker 5: your prophet. And as far as violence, well, it's your
Speaker 5: Kuran that says that you guys can beat your wives.
Speaker 5: So if you want to accuse me of that, more
Speaker 5: power to you. Lord Jesus forgive me. I'm a sinner
Speaker 5: because I was.
Speaker 3: Acting I at one point, Santa. I want to add,
Speaker 3: just to point out aromic, I'm not Catholic. And as
Speaker 3: a side note, I don't care what Thomas Aquinas says,
Speaker 3: but irregardless of all that, it's not even true in
Speaker 3: Catholic canon law that that's the age. It's sixteen for
Speaker 3: a guy and it's fourteen for a woman, which again
Speaker 3: presupposes that puberty has already happened.
Speaker 5: Now, how much time we have minute? Yeah, and now
Speaker 5: notice again they just prove that Jesus is a lot
Speaker 5: Mohammed's god because their god Allah, who is Jesus. He's
Speaker 5: the one who sanctioned what Moses did and canaan what
Speaker 5: Joshua did, and I gave him a sources. Now notice
Speaker 5: what they did. Oh yeah, it's just you know, an
Speaker 5: instruction to go go ahead and carry out these expeditions generally.
Speaker 5: But where does it say that in the Koran. And
Speaker 5: here's my challenge to Daniel and Ijaz. Show me in
Speaker 5: your Koran the explicit condemnation prohibition, explicit condemnation prohibition of
Speaker 5: killing children, because I'll show you in your Koran where
Speaker 5: your own God destroyed women, children, cattle, for example, in
Speaker 5: the flood of Moses. I'm sorry, Noah, because the chron
Speaker 5: does confuse two floods when a time of Moses and Noah,
Speaker 5: and as well as Sodom tomorrow where he pelt them
Speaker 5: with stones. Can you show me where your God discriminated
Speaker 5: and said, oh okay, hey stone, that's a baby, avoid him.
Speaker 5: That's California. But that pagan right there, recommend head show
Speaker 5: it to me. And you're fully aware that your own
Speaker 5: hadith mention where your prophet allowed women and children to
Speaker 5: be killed indiscriminately. That's even in your own Hadith. But again,
Speaker 5: like you've been doing with the Bible, you've been butchering
Speaker 5: your Koran and your son now. And I don't blame
Speaker 5: you because if I I'd have to resort to these
Speaker 5: tactics because you can't define a lie mamma is then,
Speaker 5: and Jesus is alive. End up story thirty seconds, all right,
Speaker 5: So that's it. Anytime they attack the morality, they just
Speaker 5: prove Mammaeda is a false prophet, their god Allaw is
Speaker 5: a false god. And they are for other reasons because
Speaker 5: your prophet confirms the Bible. My Bible doesn't confirm Muhammad,
Speaker 5: and they keep forgetting Jesus is now the standard. And
Speaker 5: even though the Old Testaments not the standard, even the
Speaker 5: laws of the Old Testament are better than your prophet.
Speaker 5: And notice what he said about captives. The reason why
Speaker 5: she's taken captive there was a war, but that shows
Speaker 5: to the humanity of the God of Moses. You don't
Speaker 5: take a captive woman and raper like your prophet did.
Speaker 1: All right, So what we're gonna do now is I'm
Speaker 1: going to read the chats real quick, and then we're
Speaker 1: going to go ahead and do a What I'll do
Speaker 1: is I'll probably put ten minutes on a clock, says
Speaker 1: it's the last one where you guys can go back
Speaker 1: and forth with your discourse, and we'll do the same thing.
Speaker 1: Question answer, question answer. We'll try to bop it around
Speaker 1: and guys, if you could please answer each other's question please.
Speaker 1: Uh so, I'll read these chats real quick and then
Speaker 1: we'll get right back into it. What do we got here? Bills? Okay,
Speaker 1: Dan Fry says the guy in the top corners opening
Speaker 1: statement with shash water could be solid, liquid, could be gassed.
Speaker 1: But there are some things in different father forms father son,
Speaker 1: holy goes of course, and just you guys know, debaters,
Speaker 1: the chatter is going to be bias towards their religion,
Speaker 1: so it is what it is. Silad Sort says Sam.
Speaker 1: Why would you say the words prove and rational in
Speaker 1: a debate about religion? Why is it left hand such
Speaker 1: an issue? Please mind etiquette when you're in a debate,
Speaker 1: because pointless jab derailed the conversation. Okay, that's what Silace Sword,
Speaker 1: We got h mark you, Matt. I know you're trying
Speaker 1: to be professional timing rounds, but people want to see
Speaker 1: blood blasts, so you should add an actual last round
Speaker 1: where both parties just go at it. We did, we
Speaker 1: got that. Don't worry, we were already on that. Mark you.
Speaker 1: This Sam guy is unseerious. He goes and craatezone understanding
Speaker 1: of his lump shows as integrity. I bet you will
Speaker 1: find many contradictions if his understanding of Christianity is investigated. Okay,
Speaker 1: Odi didan How come Islam was created six thirty five
Speaker 1: and the Gospel John was created one hundred a d.
Speaker 1: John was an eye witness. He saw I lived and
Speaker 1: eat eating with Jesus. Should I believe in a cave
Speaker 1: or a witness of Jesus Christ? Okay, Andrew Wilson, and
Speaker 1: this is from army killo. We got snow, Valentine says,
Speaker 1: just asking aren't we all going to hell under Islam?
Speaker 1: And there's nothing we can do to correct it because
Speaker 1: of our sinful nature? Okay, Snow, Valentine, we got here.
Speaker 1: Mayn thank you for bringing this great debate together in
Speaker 1: respect to all four men who are participating, Can I
Speaker 1: recommend Christian Price to join? The next to me, Sam
Speaker 1: can ask to join if you approved?
Speaker 5: Thanks again, Yeah, Prince, he means prince.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's when beings burner and guys. Sorry, my voice
Speaker 1: is like this. I'm a little sick. So that's why
Speaker 1: I've been like meeting myself in coughing on the side,
Speaker 1: trying not to interrupt the debate. Does se Muslims even
Speaker 1: know who Canaanites were they were an abomination, descendants of
Speaker 1: neph frillen, fallen angels, demons, et cetera. Okay, Muslims struggle
Speaker 1: with grasping nuanced concepts and have low cognitive flexibility. That's
Speaker 1: from Saint Craper. This is why Sam's in the kitchen always, man,
Speaker 1: stay cooking us from stone. Yeah t three, See guys,
Speaker 1: You guys got supported on both sides every day. Young
Speaker 1: And says this might be to Skitzo, but Zurka and
Speaker 1: Sicco big spiritual influencers. One thing Sirka said that has
Speaker 1: me learning more Christian is why is Jesus' most mock
Speaker 1: figure if he wasn't God? Okay. Hamza says, Islam translates
Speaker 1: the submission to God in Arabic language, all lot translates
Speaker 1: to God in Arabic and Arabic languages. Christiated comes from
Speaker 1: the word Messia in Greek language refers to Prophet Jesus.
Speaker 1: Judaism comes from the tribe of Judah. Only Islam doesn't
Speaker 1: associate anyone with God. The first human being a prophet,
Speaker 1: Adam submitted himself to God, not the Messiah or Judah tribe. Okay.
Speaker 1: And then the man Matt says, if you follow any
Speaker 1: religion to the tea with fear or just blind faith,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but you are a slave and cannot think
Speaker 1: for yourself. There's no separation between us and God. We
Speaker 1: are all a part of God. We all do what
Speaker 1: Jesus did, who was black, by the way, and his
Speaker 1: name was Yeshua. Yeah, yeah, yes Shua. Modern society has
Speaker 1: forced the masses to believe that we all like peasants
Speaker 1: to some omnipresent on the potent being, which couldn't be
Speaker 1: farther from the truth. Everyone here needs to study Neville
Speaker 1: Goddard's cheek teachings. Okay, wfn F, guys for making this
Speaker 1: happen question for Sam and Jay if prova of Jesus,
Speaker 1: peace be upon him, were to come back, which will happen?
Speaker 1: What would happen to the Muslims who believe in him
Speaker 1: as a prophet Banaa's God. Anyways, guys, we have much
Speaker 1: more common than in differences, So he asks this question
Speaker 1: for Team Christianity. Says, here, if Jesus came back, and
Speaker 1: what would happen to the Muslims who believe him as
Speaker 1: a prophet versus as a god?
Speaker 5: That's question you wantest answered, Jay. Do you want to
Speaker 5: take it first or you want me to take it.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: When you say that the Muslims are reject Jesus, well
Speaker 5: you got to take into consideration when you mean Muslims.
Speaker 5: Not all Muslims know what they're rejecting. Not all Muslims
Speaker 5: know this Islam Islam. Not all Muslims are educated. The
Speaker 5: Lord Jesus is a god of infinite compassion and mercy.
Speaker 5: He sees your situation, he meets you where you're at,
Speaker 5: and if to no fault of your own, you didn't
Speaker 5: know the truth of the Gospel, he extends mercy. So
Speaker 5: this is my belief. Again, I'm speaking from my perspective.
Speaker 5: Jay may have a different perspective. So you can't just
Speaker 5: generalize all Muslims because not all Muslims know Islam. They
Speaker 5: don't even know what Christians believe, just like Christians may
Speaker 5: not know their faith right, let alone what Muslims believe.
Speaker 5: God is a god of infinite mercy. And I don't
Speaker 5: think the Muslims would disagree with me because you take
Speaker 5: into consideration your circumstances, your knowledge, and your status and
Speaker 5: position in life. That's my answer. I don't know if
Speaker 5: Jay wants to answer some add.
Speaker 1: Something to it. Jay, what do you think? What's yours?
Speaker 4: Just that with me?
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I want to add I think, I mean,
Speaker 3: I think I pretty much agree. I think Romans to
Speaker 3: Paul addresses this. He says that those without law will
Speaker 3: be judged on the basis of moral law or the
Speaker 3: natural law that they have within them. So, you know,
Speaker 3: we don't know people's destinies other than God tells us
Speaker 3: to tell them to repent, and then ultimately God is
Speaker 3: their merciful judge.
Speaker 1: All right, any more chats in there? We all right,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna fly through these. Okay. Victor says wise Man
Speaker 1: once said you can't solve today's problems politically because men's
Speaker 1: problems are spiritual. All agree? Okay. Slavii's uphold this is
Speaker 1: from Gambler, So Lafi's uphold God's transcendence and reject anthrop anthromorphism.
Speaker 1: They interpret chronic descriptions like hand or face as symbolic
Speaker 1: of allows power, not literal human traits, ensuring that his
Speaker 1: attributes remain distinct from human characteristics. Okay. Aristotle Online says
Speaker 1: Islamic tawheed has been proven contradict this from titias. Okay,
Speaker 1: go ahead, we can play. It just came in earlier
Speaker 1: tour if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, it came in a
Speaker 1: way early. I can't even hear.
Speaker 7: Islamic tom feed has been proven contradictory. But the response
Speaker 7: from Team Islam is askonis, don't think tom feed is contradictory.
Speaker 1: Okay, says Allah made mercy into one hundred parts and
Speaker 1: that he's sent down one part to the earth. How
Speaker 1: does Allah's divine attribute have parts? How did Allah's attribute,
Speaker 1: which divided on created free from limitation enter into creation? Okay.
Speaker 1: David respond to doctor hythem Sidki, where he has shown
Speaker 1: that the Quran MSS exhibit a stemna due to discrepancies
Speaker 1: medine the first four copies these were codified in today's Quran. Also,
Speaker 1: doctor Eleanor cellard that the Sudden MSS was a separate
Speaker 1: accepted codex. Okay, and then Aristotle says, goobl duke, oh, gooblegook.
Speaker 1: This level of handwaving requires tight titanium risks ok gobledygook okay,
Speaker 1: and acy one says, why are you always quoting quote
Speaker 1: mining Justin Martyr from Jehovah's witness and ignoring the rest
Speaker 1: of the rebuttal, lying your balls up. That's from ac
Speaker 1: one okay. And then David says for Muslims, is it
Speaker 1: true that today's Quran is not based on early chronic
Speaker 1: manage scripts, rather on the work of a man named
Speaker 1: El Danny and his medieval Mussulai.
Speaker 7: You always quote mining Justin Martyr from Johns witness and
Speaker 7: ignoring the rest and the rebuttal. Okay, line your bulls off.
Speaker 5: Okay, whose voice is that?
Speaker 1: It's it's a random person to talk, you know, to
Speaker 1: talk to speech that I liked his voice, it says here, okay,
Speaker 1: So this is what doctor Marjin van Putin and others
Speaker 1: have studied. How can that be trusted? So they're saying
Speaker 1: today's Quran is not based on early chronic manuscripts, rather
Speaker 1: on the work of a man named Abu Ama Danny.
Speaker 1: Is that true, guys or you guys want to answer me?
Speaker 4: That's not true. Doctor Morin is a friend and colleague.
Speaker 4: This is ridiculous. He doesn't accept that whatsoever. In fact,
Speaker 4: he actually attests to the fact that is reliable. It's
Speaker 4: in the lifetime of the prophet.
Speaker 1: Okay, last few here, I can book. The top renowned
Speaker 1: Israelite official scholars and camp leaders for simulcast debates learned
Speaker 1: the proper interpretation of our sacre detection from the descendants
Speaker 1: of the biblical authors. I g okay, he puts ig
Speaker 1: Alsie says, Jesus said love your enemy. But Muhammad dors
Speaker 1: graping slaves and selling them for ransom. He'll Muslim fourteen
Speaker 1: thirty eight google it. And what world would anyone think
Speaker 1: these two prophets come from the same god. Okay, Aristotle online,
Speaker 1: says gobbledy. Okay, all right, we're crought up. So okay, guys,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go ahead and put ten minutes on the clock.
Speaker 1: Is that okay with you guys? Because I've noticed that
Speaker 1: we won over time.
Speaker 5: What we're doing now at this final part just to
Speaker 5: get an idea.
Speaker 1: This is going to be a question answer, open dialogue
Speaker 1: between you guys, and this is going to be on
Speaker 1: the morality of the Quran versus the Bible. I'm plenty
Speaker 1: ten minutes on a clock because I've noticed that we've
Speaker 1: before you do that. Is this the last?
Speaker 4: This is it?
Speaker 1: Yeah? This is the last one.
Speaker 3: Yep.
Speaker 5: So this last ten minutes.
Speaker 1: This is the last ten minutes right here. So it's
Speaker 1: gonna be a question answer. I will and guys please
Speaker 1: try to answer each other question. So the way it
Speaker 1: goes is you asked your question, the answer after the
Speaker 1: person that answers it dictates the next question, and who
Speaker 1: goes too fair?
Speaker 5: Oh?
Speaker 1: Yes, awesome? Who wants to kick it off first?
Speaker 2: Awesome?
Speaker 5: Okay, Jay, go ahead.
Speaker 2: Well, I heard Sam condemned child marriage and he asked
Speaker 2: me for a quote from Thomas Aquinas. I can read
Speaker 2: the quote if you want, but he does say, huh,
Speaker 2: you want me to read it? Y, yes, okay, I'll
Speaker 2: read it. But my question for Jay he can think
Speaker 2: about it. In the meantime. Sam condemned child marriage. I
Speaker 2: wonder if Jay will also condemn child marriage despite the tradition,
Speaker 2: the church tradition. Here's the quote. Let me just bring
Speaker 2: it here. I'll read the whole thing since quote. Since
Speaker 2: marriage is affected by way of a contract, it comes
Speaker 2: under the ordinance of positive law like other contracts. Consequently,
Speaker 2: according to law, it's determined that marriage may not be
Speaker 2: contracted before the age of discretion. When each party is
Speaker 2: capable of sufficient deliberation about marriage and of mutual fulfillment
Speaker 2: of the marriage debt, and that marriages otherwise contracted are void. Now,
Speaker 2: for the most part, this age is fourteen years old
Speaker 2: for males and twelve year old twelve year old for women.
Speaker 2: But since the ordinance of positive law are consequent upon
Speaker 2: what happens in the majority of cases, if anyone reached
Speaker 2: the require perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature
Speaker 2: and reason are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age,
Speaker 2: the marriage is not annulled. Wherefore, if the parties who
Speaker 2: marry before the age of puberty have marital intercourse before
Speaker 2: the aforesaid age of twelve, their marriage is nonetheless perpetually indissoluble.
Speaker 2: End quote. I stopped fining. So my question now there, Jay,
Speaker 2: is does he condemn child marriage?
Speaker 1: Okay, I stopped the clock. We can start the clock
Speaker 1: back up again, because you're reading something lengthy and any
Speaker 1: one time you can get eaten by that.
Speaker 3: Go ahead, Jay, Sorry, so there's ambiguity about quote child.
Speaker 3: I'm not a Catholic, so again, I don't care what
Speaker 3: Thomas Aquinas says. He's not part of my tradition. And
Speaker 3: even Thomas Aquinas's positions on many things are not part
Speaker 3: of the overall Roman Catholic position. Roman Catholic canon law
Speaker 3: in ten eighty three says again that the age is
Speaker 3: sixteen for a guy, fourteen for a girl. Orthodox canon
Speaker 3: law is different. In Greece. For example, the age of
Speaker 3: question for Team.
Speaker 8: Islam is the Q created created answer without communising shirt
Speaker 8: violating tar feet or violating Tanzy or making the Koran unknowable. Sorry, buddy,
Speaker 8: if you think this question is irrelevant, you have no
Speaker 8: grounds to criticize the Trinity.
Speaker 1: We'll have a well, well, we'll address that after the fact.
Speaker 1: We'll put that back on the clock and continue.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So Orthodox canon law is there's not a one
Speaker 3: size fits all in the sense of being identical to
Speaker 3: like Roman Catholic ideas. So for example, in Greece, the
Speaker 3: parents can be involved and it's under eighteen. If the
Speaker 3: parents agree, it could be it can be fifteen. So
Speaker 3: it's we don't have one size fits all, but for
Speaker 3: us adult or it's not a child marriage because again,
Speaker 3: as Sam was pointing out, the assumption would be either
Speaker 3: their past puberty.
Speaker 1: All right, Jake, now you question is to you go
Speaker 1: ahead and toss it to anyone from the Teamazon.
Speaker 3: In terms of morality. What is the purpose of the
Speaker 3: rituals in the various postures or cleansings that you might
Speaker 3: do in your religion. If they come out of a
Speaker 3: tradition that has a specific purpose for them, that now
Speaker 3: your religion divorces it from that from that tradition. I'm
Speaker 3: curious what the purpose of those rituals are. Is it
Speaker 3: just because you're told to do.
Speaker 2: It, Well, that's your assumption that it's coming from the
Speaker 2: Bible or the Christian tradition or a Jewish tradition. That's
Speaker 2: your assumption that we don't share. The ritual purity is
Speaker 2: part of it is what God has commanded and it's
Speaker 2: supposed to be Cleanliness will bring you closer to God.
Speaker 2: Cleanliness is from godliness. This is a principle within Islam.
Speaker 2: So ritual purity before prayer, like will do or making
Speaker 2: a hustle, after certain actions like intercourse, you have to
Speaker 2: do a ritual wash. These are commands of God. And
Speaker 2: it's understood that water has been created as something to purify,
Speaker 2: but it's not something where Yeah, you'll find other prophets
Speaker 2: in the Bible talking about ritual purity. We acknowledge that
Speaker 2: these religions were originally from God. So you do find
Speaker 2: ritual purity in the Bible or in Christianity, but that
Speaker 2: doesn't mean that Islam copied these traditions. The source is
Speaker 2: the same, it's coming from the same God. So I
Speaker 2: don't see how this is some kind of interrogation of
Speaker 2: Islamic morality.
Speaker 3: If it's from the same God, then it's continuity.
Speaker 2: No, there's no no continuity. How is that good from
Speaker 2: the same God. You just said that it's the same source.
Speaker 2: Where did I say continuity?
Speaker 3: Well, if the relief, the rituals came to our religion
Speaker 3: from the same God to yours, continuity.
Speaker 2: No God can change God. God can have a ritual
Speaker 2: for specific race, like in Judaism. You can burn calves,
Speaker 2: you can burn certain livestock as a form of ritual practice.
Speaker 2: That doesn't mean God has required that for Christians or Muslims.
Speaker 2: It's still the same God. But there isn't continuity, there's
Speaker 2: not particular practice. Yeah, there's not continuity because I said
Speaker 2: that it's coming from the same source. You're claiming that
Speaker 2: there's continuity.
Speaker 3: But didn't you argue for continuity and our debate.
Speaker 2: No, you didn't understand what I argued for an art debate.
Speaker 3: Well, you argue for continuity.
Speaker 2: You didn't understand that debate. I don't know why you're
Speaker 2: bringing it up. I don't know why you're bringing it
Speaker 2: up in this debate. You're still living I'm living in,
Speaker 2: living in your head, living in your head, rent free.
Speaker 2: I'm living in your head, rent free. You're still debating
Speaker 2: like a previous debate. We're talking about we're talking about
Speaker 2: child marriage. We're talking about child marriage. And you can't
Speaker 2: even give a condemnation. Neither you, neither you or Sam
Speaker 2: can say Thomas Aquinas. Neither you or or Sam can
Speaker 2: say that Thomas Aquinas, our pedophile is a pedophile.
Speaker 3: I don't follow Thomas Aquinas. You're bringing irrellab Why can't
Speaker 3: you condemn him?
Speaker 2: Why can't you condemn him Aquinas? Yeah, why can't you?
Speaker 3: I don't have a problem.
Speaker 2: Can you condemn him? Say he's a pedoph? Here, he's
Speaker 2: a pedophile, Then he's a pedophile?
Speaker 5: Correct that what pedophy? Did he sleep with a girl
Speaker 5: like your prophet did?
Speaker 2: He said it's fine too, he said, he said that's
Speaker 2: fine for twelve years older.
Speaker 4: Young.
Speaker 5: I read the quote, Sam, I read the quote and
Speaker 5: he's dressing a leak.
Speaker 2: I read the quote child he says you can have
Speaker 2: intercourse with under twelve. The intercourse is that a pedophilia?
Speaker 1: It's your question.
Speaker 2: I read the entire pace.
Speaker 1: You want to turn it to it's it's your question, Dan,
Speaker 1: it's your's your turn asked a question, unless you want
Speaker 1: to turn it to Sam, and you can ask you
Speaker 1: guys something.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So my question is that we didn't just talk
Speaker 2: about child marriage. We talked about punishment for blasphemy, punishment
Speaker 2: for adultery, execution, punishment for homosexuality. Do you condemn all
Speaker 2: of these things and the Old Testament? Do you think
Speaker 2: that these are wrong things? When I read the quotes,
Speaker 2: the Bible is saying that you execute one who blasphemes.
Speaker 2: Do you condemn that or do you think that that's
Speaker 2: the morality. You might think that it's not applicable today, fine,
Speaker 2: but Jesus is still commanding that for that time, for
Speaker 2: a previous time. So do you think that is morally justified?
Speaker 1: All right, that's Sam, Now.
Speaker 5: Let me answer.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Now, let me give you a thori answeren Let's see
Speaker 5: if you're going to get it. If you read these
Speaker 5: laws in the context from which you're quoting. Unlike your prophet,
Speaker 5: who didn't give any sign that his God was backing
Speaker 5: him up, why don't you read these statements in context.
Speaker 5: In the context, you're a law who you admitted Jesus.
Speaker 5: According to cron that was a law which you just
Speaker 5: admitted Jesus. So Jesus, as Mohammed z Allah is God.
Speaker 5: In the context of those passages, God appears to the
Speaker 5: nation visibly in a pillar of cloud by day and
Speaker 5: a pillar of fire by night, not only in front
Speaker 5: of the Israelites, but he also appears to the Egyptians,
Speaker 5: leaving them with no excuse to defy his commands. In
Speaker 5: other words, unlike your Ellah, the God of the Bible
Speaker 5: prove his existence. The God of the Bible set up
Speaker 5: a theocracy honor. The God of the Bible gave them
Speaker 5: ample proof not to doubt his existence, so that when
Speaker 5: they see him in the pillar of pillar fire by night,
Speaker 5: hear his voice audibly and see the signs, so that
Speaker 5: even the Egyptians saw the pillar of cloud Exodus fourteen
Speaker 5: nineteen to thirty one, as well as Joshua two eight
Speaker 5: to eleven. He gave the nations no excuse for defying him.
Speaker 5: So when God shows up, then he has every right
Speaker 5: to tell you how to live, and if you defy him,
Speaker 5: he has every right to take away your life because
Speaker 5: he's the God over death and life. This is unlike
Speaker 5: your prophet, who could not provide any proof that God
Speaker 5: was speaking through him, who couldnot provide that his God
Speaker 5: even exists. All he did was he borrowed the collateral
Speaker 5: of the Jews and Christians, claimed to be a prophet
Speaker 5: like the prophet's in the Jewish Christian tradition, but when
Speaker 5: he's challenged to prove that God sent him, failed miserably.
Speaker 5: So you're comparing apples and pineapples. So if God shows
Speaker 5: up and I see and I know that he exists,
Speaker 5: he has every right to tell me what to do
Speaker 5: and every right to inflict any punishment he deems fit,
Speaker 5: unlike your elaw who doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: All right, Tim, you're going to turn it back to
Speaker 1: them with a question or a team Christianity? Did you
Speaker 1: turn you answered the question? Out's back to you, guys.
Speaker 1: You got two minutes leven o'clock.
Speaker 5: Now, Jay, do you want to ask you let me
Speaker 5: to ask?
Speaker 3: Oh, well, I want to address first of all, I'll
Speaker 3: let you ask the question, but I want to reply
Speaker 3: since we have two minutes that you'll notice that when
Speaker 3: I brought up the line of argumentation that Daniel had
Speaker 3: in our debate, he didn't want to go there. He
Speaker 3: immediately said that I was that he was living rent
Speaker 3: free in my head, in other words, deflecting away from
Speaker 3: the fact that I've called him out on an inconsistency
Speaker 3: because in that debate he was arguing for Islam having
Speaker 3: more continuity with the laws of the Old Testament. That
Speaker 3: doesn't suit his purpose here, and so he doesn't want
Speaker 3: to go to that and he has to deflect the way, Oh,
Speaker 3: I live in your head rent free. No, that's because
Speaker 3: I just caught you in a double standard. You're using
Speaker 3: two different standards as usual. So Sam, I'll vote to
Speaker 3: you how many seconds we have to for this minute
Speaker 3: and a half.
Speaker 1: Have you got a question or something that you want
Speaker 1: to ask the team?
Speaker 5: Well, I got a question. I'm sorry. Okay, ask these
Speaker 5: guys a question because they have the final right they're
Speaker 5: going to answer.
Speaker 3: This is the final one, right, yep, okay, okay.
Speaker 5: Now I want you guys to show me anywhere in
Speaker 5: your Koran explicit not inference anywhere in your Koran explicit
Speaker 5: where it says do not kill women and children. In
Speaker 5: light of all the verses such as the ones I
Speaker 5: mentioned where your God rainstones on Sodom Gomora indiscriminately killing
Speaker 5: children and women in cattle, as well as flooding the
Speaker 5: people of Noah, including women, children, and cattle. Can you
Speaker 5: show me a single verse in the Koran where when
Speaker 5: he orders your prophet to go and performs jihat, not
Speaker 5: to kill women and children when his pattern is he
Speaker 5: destroys everything.
Speaker 1: All right, no team is leam, go ahead and we'll
Speaker 1: put the clock back on. Just sweak and answer.
Speaker 2: So, first of all, we don't just go by the Koran.
Speaker 2: We also go by the example of the Prophita be
Speaker 2: upon him. This is the Koran and Sunna. So there
Speaker 2: are explicit hadith that say do not kill women and
Speaker 2: children and the elderly. And we see this in the
Speaker 2: example of the Seller as well. You just go ahead
Speaker 2: and read the hadith for them.
Speaker 4: Yes, it's pretty simple. The first d is a woman
Speaker 4: was found killed in one of these battles. So the
Speaker 4: messenger of God Sola I forbade the killing of women
Speaker 4: and children, Sahi Muslim and Kitabo Ji had the first halifa.
Speaker 4: Rebecca da Huan gave the following command to his arms.
Speaker 4: So this is other than the prophet, but his followers,
Speaker 4: immediate followers. Do not kill a woman or children, one
Speaker 4: aged infirm person. Do not cut down fruit bearing trees.
Speaker 4: Do not destroy in habits a place. Do not slaughter
Speaker 4: sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees
Speaker 4: and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the booty,
Speaker 4: and do not be cowardly. That would be tough. I
Speaker 4: guess you for some Just to be clear here, just
Speaker 4: so we establish this. When you claim that Koran approved
Speaker 4: re this was your claim, and you claimed that the
Speaker 4: Koran approved genocide when you spoke of soul, Why does
Speaker 4: the Kuran do that? Never does that once? And the
Speaker 4: Klan actually says in the same chapter I'm asking the
Speaker 4: question only in a statement. The Klan actually says in
Speaker 4: that chapter, do not transgress beyond the limits which on
Speaker 4: law has established. Are we more what those limits are
Speaker 4: based on the durations we just read.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Also to answer what Sam said that, oh, there's a
Speaker 2: pillar of cloud that the Israelites saw, so therefore you
Speaker 2: can kill homosexuals. He's ignorant of Mosaic law because the
Speaker 2: Jews who lived after the time of Cyani, they were
Speaker 2: still bound by the Old Testament law. They were still
Speaker 2: bound by the Mosaic law. They were still killing the blasphemers,
Speaker 2: killing the sorcerers, killing the adulters, executing them, executing anyone
Speaker 2: who tempted you to worship idols. You have to execute them.
Speaker 2: That's what Jesus says. Those Jews didn't see pillars of
Speaker 2: clouds and they didn't see any miracles. They were living
Speaker 2: after the time of Sina. So your biblical all or
Speaker 2: your exegesis is completely off base. And also Jay is
Speaker 2: misrepresenting the Catholic Church. He's misrepresenting Canon law. I'll read
Speaker 2: more quotes for you. In the twelfth century Canon law,
Speaker 2: jurist gration stated that consent for marriage could not take
Speaker 2: place before the age of twelve old, twelve years old
Speaker 2: for female than fourteen years old for males. Also, consent
Speaker 2: and betrothal could not take place before the age of
Speaker 2: seven year old from females and males, as that is
Speaker 2: the age of reason. So it's actually seven years old
Speaker 2: and twelve years old. The Church of England after breaking
Speaker 2: away from the Roman Catholic Church, carried with it the
Speaker 2: same minimum age requirements age of consent for marriage of
Speaker 2: twelve years old for girls and fourteen year old for
Speaker 2: boys is written into English law and then the Catholic Church.
Speaker 2: Before the nineteen seventeen Code of Canon Law, the minimum
Speaker 2: age for a dissoluble betrothal was seven years seven years
Speaker 2: in the contractees, minimal age for a valid marriage was
Speaker 2: puberty or nominally fourteen years for males and twelve years
Speaker 2: old for females. This is the nineteen seventeen Code of
Speaker 2: the Church, so this is something that was up until
Speaker 2: very recently. The Catholic doctrine. I reference Thomas Aquinas, I
Speaker 2: reference Gration. Sam is a heretic. He's throwing all of
Speaker 2: the Catholic Church bus. He's throwing Canon law under the bus.
Speaker 2: And Jay refuses to say that these are all pedophiles.
Speaker 2: Jay refuses to condemn Thomas Aquinas as a pedophile. That's shocking.
Speaker 2: I hope all the Christian listeners, especially the Protestants listening,
Speaker 2: note that these heretics, Sam and Jay are down with
Speaker 2: pedophilia all right.
Speaker 3: So I explicitly said I don't have a problem condemning you, Aquinas,
Speaker 3: so you just BLUETI.
Speaker 2: As a pedophile. As a pedophile?
Speaker 1: Answer, Yeah, do we answer?
Speaker 2: Do we ask a question? Now?
Speaker 1: Well, he asked you guys a question. You guys gave
Speaker 1: a very lengthy answer.
Speaker 4: So it is.
Speaker 1: It is on team Christianity here. I'll let them he
Speaker 1: the last time because we're way over time here, and
Speaker 1: I know you have.
Speaker 5: To because of the time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll let you guys, Daniel better.
Speaker 5: I know you're going to embarrass yourself. You just destroyed
Speaker 5: your prophet again because if you read the Old Testament,
Speaker 5: God didn't stop at Sennai. And you're concusing me and
Speaker 5: not reading the Bible. I think you want to be
Speaker 5: an Umi like your prophet. Continue reading the rest of
Speaker 5: the Old Testament. God kept sending prophets with miracles and
Speaker 5: signs to keep ratifying and confirming his existence and that
Speaker 5: this is his law and he has a right to
Speaker 5: put to death whenever he wants. Because in one King's
Speaker 5: eighteen Elijah had a show down with your spiritual ancestors
Speaker 5: because your God will love the chron is bail and
Speaker 5: there God showed up miraculously that your God is fake
Speaker 5: and Yahweh is true. So no, I am consistent with
Speaker 5: the Old Testament narrative. All throughout God shows up miraculously
Speaker 5: through prophets to confirm I am God. This is my convenant.
Speaker 5: I have a right to do with you as I
Speaker 5: see fit. Nothing for your prophet, the prophet of bail,
Speaker 5: because your God is a fake God, and the God
Speaker 5: revealed in Jesus is the true God. End up story,
Speaker 5: Bye bye, you lost.
Speaker 2: You saw you saw a miracle, therefore kill the adulter. Oh,
Speaker 2: you saw a miracle, therefore kill the homos. Yeah, that's
Speaker 2: that makes sense. That's real, great morality there.
Speaker 1: I got two questions for the Muslims here, I think
Speaker 1: from the supporters here real quick, and then we'll close
Speaker 1: this thing out. But then you guy, you guys, that
Speaker 1: was a fantastic debate. By the way, I was taking
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of notes. I learned a bunch of myself.
Speaker 1: I was learning a bunch because I'm not the most
Speaker 1: religious guy. So it was great to see both perspectives here.
Speaker 1: Razor Sharp one thirty five says, uh, it's a tts okay.
Speaker 1: I just came in all right, So we'll let this
Speaker 1: play it's actually talk to speech here.
Speaker 7: It's Sam's just curious here, how is sin defined in
Speaker 7: Islam and in Christianity?
Speaker 3: To say it this way?
Speaker 7: Well, she is sin in Islam and in Christianity.
Speaker 1: All right, so I'll let each team just give their
Speaker 1: quick definition of it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you want to answer, Jay or.
Speaker 3: We would just say that any sin is just simply
Speaker 3: a moral move of the will against the good, away
Speaker 3: from the good against goslaw. That's it.
Speaker 1: Ain't that for Islam? Or do you guys agree with
Speaker 1: that definition?
Speaker 2: Yeah? I mean that's a similar definition like God sends
Speaker 2: a law and then if you disobey it, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2: You have to see a miracle to obey the law.
Speaker 2: Like God sends the law. If you disobey it, then
Speaker 2: that's a sin, and then you can ask for forgiveness
Speaker 2: and God will forgive your sins.
Speaker 1: All right? What else do we got here? Danny Danis says,
Speaker 1: is it soon not to get ridden by naked dark
Speaker 1: gin like Mohammad did? Question for Jiz and Homo and
Speaker 1: Daniel the.
Speaker 3: Rough all right?
Speaker 2: Raging, Yeah they're raging. Yeah, I think I got under
Speaker 2: their skin.
Speaker 1: Islam only says forty two eleven in the Quran makes
Speaker 1: it pretty clear that a lot having body parts is
Speaker 1: to be taken figuratively. Okay, this thing is like split
Speaker 1: down the middle with people that support you know I
Speaker 1: both either or the religious aristotles. Question for our Team Islam,
Speaker 1: is the crowd created or uncreated? Answer without committing shirk,
Speaker 1: violating that weed, or violenting ten Zi, or making the
Speaker 1: crowd unknowable. If you think this question is irrelevant, you
Speaker 1: have no grounds to criticize the Trinity.
Speaker 4: The Koranas uncreated?
Speaker 1: We don't question for.
Speaker 7: Team Islam, is the Quran created or uncreated? Answer without
Speaker 7: commuting shirk, violating tar feed, or violating Tanzi, or making
Speaker 7: the Quran unknowable. If you think this question is irrelevant,
Speaker 7: you have no grounds to criticize the Trinity.
Speaker 1: Well you were answering her. Sorry, go ahead, brother.
Speaker 4: The Korana is uncreated. We don't dispute this.
Speaker 5: We don't doubt claim.
Speaker 2: The claim was that the Trinity is incoherent because there
Speaker 2: are multiple minds. That was our critique. That's why this
Speaker 2: is either polytheism or it's incoherent. The Quran isn't created,
Speaker 2: but it doesn't The Quran doesn't have a mind. Is
Speaker 2: not a person. No one has claimed this, but people
Speaker 2: do claim. Christian theologians do claim that Jesus has a mind.
Speaker 2: Isn't the same mind as the fathers and the Holy spirits.
Speaker 2: There's a debate. There's not no clarity in the Christian
Speaker 2: tradition because it's a contradiction, that's why. But we don't
Speaker 2: have the same problem in Islam. The Quran doesn't have
Speaker 2: a mind. So how does it contradict monotheism?
Speaker 3: No one could that.
Speaker 2: No one could explain that. No one could explain that.
Speaker 3: Because there's a debate, it's not clear. Would that mean
Speaker 3: that because there's a debate in as long amongst all
Speaker 3: the schools, none of it's clear. About the attributes.
Speaker 2: No one debates about Islam having multiple gods having attributes,
Speaker 2: that I have multiple attributes. That doesn't mean I'm multiple people.
Speaker 3: Like is how is that?
Speaker 2: How does that contradict?
Speaker 1: Debate?
Speaker 2: Explain?
Speaker 3: You know, de blame, you know your debates.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that there are debates that there are
Speaker 2: no debates in Islam. There are debates in this theology exactly.
Speaker 2: So that was a bad argument. No, No, But there's
Speaker 2: debate in Christianity about the nature of God. There isn't
Speaker 2: that same debate about there's being three and one? What
Speaker 2: is the difference between the Father and do they have
Speaker 2: the same knowledge? Do they have the same will? Do
Speaker 2: they have the same knowledge? Do they have the same will?
Speaker 2: We don't have the same debate, Branson, We don't have
Speaker 2: that same debate in Islam at that.
Speaker 3: If there's debate that's not clear, that's a fallacy. You're
Speaker 3: a fallacy machine.
Speaker 2: No, that's not what I said. Actually, so you don't
Speaker 2: follow the argument, that's the problem.
Speaker 1: All right, I'll fly through these real quick and close out.
Speaker 1: Chris Procession says, Hi, Sam, it's bored, Cody, I have
Speaker 1: a question for a jazz You're citing scholars approve reliability,
Speaker 1: but plenty of scholars met Sir Gerdison Joy to see.
Speaker 1: Rayner Raisner says the anti traces to actual words of Jesus.
Speaker 1: What scholar says, cron traces actual Jesus.
Speaker 4: Do you want me to answer this? It's quite simple. Sure,
Speaker 4: So scholars do not say it traces back to the
Speaker 4: very words of Jesus said. It goes back to the
Speaker 4: ideas about what Jesus could have said. It's called the
Speaker 4: epistem of Vox. So what Jesus could have said, there
Speaker 4: is no way to determine that Jesus actually said anything
Speaker 4: that is claimed in the New Testament, and between the
Speaker 4: Gospels themselves, they're not datable to the first century, see,
Speaker 4: which is the big problem. We can largely assume that
Speaker 4: they're from the second century onwards, as Sam claimed in
Speaker 4: his interview with Chattiscoa. I think was the name or yeah,
Speaker 4: just to be clear. As for the Quran, however, they
Speaker 4: don't have to guess because the manuscripts of it in
Speaker 4: the light time of the perfect Peace per Oponem. But
Speaker 4: the manuscripts aside, they have inscriptions. But the inscriptions aside,
Speaker 4: we have other geographical data that is widespread enough to
Speaker 4: definitively prove that the Quran as we have it today
Speaker 4: is from the light time of the profect Peace Perponem
Speaker 4: and his companions. We call this, just to be clear,
Speaker 4: and archetypal text. This is what we accept as Muslims.
Speaker 4: But for Christians there is no such thing. I would
Speaker 4: like some or j. Toy really point out that the
Speaker 4: Bible as they have it, the scholars refer to it
Speaker 4: as a voltage or a hypothetical reconstruction. It's not actually
Speaker 4: the word of God when you see it mentions that
Speaker 4: every word, every word in scripture is God readed. They
Speaker 4: should amended to stay. It may be God readed, but
Speaker 4: we can't actually know. I mean, for goodness sake, Jesus
Speaker 4: got God's name wrong.
Speaker 5: Can I respond to him because he brought a question
Speaker 5: for us?
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean he was answering a question from one
Speaker 1: of the chapter.
Speaker 5: Answer.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure everybody gets a fair say here,
Speaker 1: because my thing is I want you guys to make it.
Speaker 1: Put your ideas out there and let the Chat decide
Speaker 1: who they thinks went. So go ahead please okay.
Speaker 5: Now number one again, because he doesn't know much how.
Speaker 4: We got them to do responses to this chapter. We
Speaker 4: didn't agree on that.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean you answered the chat and then he
Speaker 1: wants to give his perspectives.
Speaker 2: You asked answer, Let him respond, and then we can
Speaker 2: respond to that.
Speaker 5: Okay if you response number one, okay, when he talks
Speaker 5: about it, some of oxy some of Verba. Now he
Speaker 5: just destroyed the Koran. Even worse because when we come
Speaker 5: to the case of the Gospels, no Christian denies that
Speaker 5: human authors were used to communicate the words of Jesus
Speaker 5: in translation and Greek and God can do that, so
Speaker 5: they're not going to quote exactly the same way in
Speaker 5: the target language. But what he doesn't tell you, and
Speaker 5: I did series on this, Allah, who's supposedly speaking the Koran,
Speaker 5: will repeat the same story with the same speech, whether
Speaker 5: Moses and the Egyptians or Chapan Ebliez and Allah or
Speaker 5: a lot, and he cannot get the details in the
Speaker 5: exact same way. He'll quote the same speeches and often
Speaker 5: various conflicting, contradictory reporting. So the churn itself is one
Speaker 5: huge ipsissima vox, which is surprising because I thought Allah
Speaker 5: speaking and Allah knows everything and recalls speeches perfectly. So
Speaker 5: much for Allah and him being all knowing. And then
Speaker 5: if we extend that to the Hadith, your own scholars
Speaker 5: admit that when it comes to even your authentic traditions,
Speaker 5: you have i seima vox of your prophet, not ep
Speaker 5: sees some of Verba. Moreover, if the Bible is not preserved,
Speaker 5: you prove Mohammed is an antichrist because he confirmed all
Speaker 5: the scriptures. He didn't make any fuss about the variant readings.
Speaker 5: Because if he did, he would end up bearing your
Speaker 5: Koran because he admit that the Koran did not come
Speaker 5: down in one mode. Aharuf, with your scholars till this
Speaker 5: day don't even know what that means. That's why I
Speaker 5: have over thirty five opinions about what the aharu are,
Speaker 5: which means, if you're consistent, you just destroyed the Koran.
Speaker 5: You destroyed your prophet, you destroyed your God. Stop being
Speaker 5: a Muslim, joined Barber Madam.
Speaker 4: So I could just respond to this quickly. I mean,
Speaker 4: the Bible affirms that the prophet Muhammad is a true
Speaker 4: prophet in first John I'm reading it. Yes, it falls
Speaker 4: on its fig but it says something's occasionallyvites brooken cluck
Speaker 4: come the rights, brook looking cluck come, he write twice
Speaker 4: a deep right. I don't deny that the Bible God
Speaker 4: is one.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, job.
Speaker 4: You never say we never made the claim that here.
Speaker 5: So we can interrupt you.
Speaker 2: We can interrupt you to you want, because.
Speaker 4: Neither Daniel or I made the claim that all of
Speaker 4: the Bible is for so wrong. It gets things right
Speaker 4: that men, Jesus, Mother, Jesus, well, it gets advice when
Speaker 4: God's wold agrees with it, not when it's allows genocide
Speaker 4: in your case.
Speaker 3: So that's what we have.
Speaker 5: So you Jesus, Jesus, Mom's God.
Speaker 4: And keep keep interrupting because you don't like the answer.
Speaker 4: But let's be clear here that the Bible first joined
Speaker 4: for two versus two and three. It mentions directly anyone
Speaker 4: who testifies that Jesus is the Christ and that Jesus
Speaker 4: came in the flesh. It's a true spirit from God.
Speaker 4: So you may not have to like it, but your
Speaker 4: Bible of films Muhammad, And secondly, secondly, you know genu Secondly,
Speaker 4: secondly to be good because I it doesn't have to
Speaker 4: be genuine for me as well as you believe in it.
Speaker 4: It's for me to there's that point the Bible against you.
Speaker 4: I can pre the Bible against you. I don't have
Speaker 4: to assume to use it against you. It's not secular
Speaker 4: reasoning because I'm not implying the consequence to becose. So
Speaker 4: one more time, please try not to interrupt. And then
Speaker 4: you don't like the answer. Secondly, you made the claim
Speaker 4: that the prophet Peace be upon him committed rape. We
Speaker 4: asked you to show where he did so, and you
Speaker 4: could not. On the upper hand. On the other hand,
Speaker 4: I showed you were Jesus with Jesus the Christ, the
Speaker 4: firms that whatever the Pharisees tell you, do it, it's
Speaker 4: just not your Chapter twenty three the hypocrites sys the hypocrites.
Speaker 4: But he also says obear them or bear them. We
Speaker 4: know that, and the committed genocide. I don't need to
Speaker 4: I quote exactly what I want. Thirdly, Thirdly, thirdly, you
Speaker 4: made the claim. You made the claim that Jesus never
Speaker 4: affirmed anything extreme. But if you believe he affirmed the
Speaker 4: Old Testament, he affirmed the crimes to rapes, the genie babies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's killing babies.
Speaker 1: Them.
Speaker 5: He's thank Moses to do that, So thank you.
Speaker 4: Don't believe that and never says that your assumption.
Speaker 3: Confirm the flood.
Speaker 4: I said the genocide that some wants to believe in.
Speaker 2: The difference between the Bible and the difference between the
Speaker 2: Bible and the or on, Yeah, the flood happens. There's
Speaker 2: different than the Bible. The Bible says the soldiers animal,
Speaker 2: Jesus says. Jesus says, the soldiers go kill those babies.
Speaker 2: That's what Jesus says. There's nothing like that Jesus says.
Speaker 2: When Jesus says, Jesus says, go and kill Jesus says,
Speaker 2: go and kill those babies, don't leave anything that. Take
Speaker 2: their women as captives. Go take the the girls with
Speaker 2: any man, the girl the girls who haven't slept with
Speaker 2: any man. Makes them as your captives and shave their
Speaker 2: heads and humiliate though. Okay, we didn't deny the flood.
Speaker 2: We didn't deny that. Just pointing out that's a stupid argument.
Speaker 2: It's a stupid no. It's it is a big difference.
Speaker 2: God want order people.
Speaker 1: To uncreated things.
Speaker 7: Nice to be clear, do uncreated things communicable attributes with
Speaker 7: created things? Sich that we can have knowledge of them.
Speaker 4: Question.
Speaker 1: So okay, So it's it's I think it was a chat. Okay,
Speaker 1: this on I'm gonna do. I think Dan, you got
Speaker 1: to say what you want to say about talking about
Speaker 1: what Jesus had had done. Sam, I'll let you respond because.
Speaker 2: You were trying to I didn't get to finish my point.
Speaker 1: Interrupted finished finish your point, and then it goes to
Speaker 1: Sam and then Jay and then we'll finish off on this.
Speaker 2: There's a difference between God sending pestilence or God like
Speaker 2: sending a catastrophe to punish a people. That's a that
Speaker 2: is a natural disaster that God commands. That's different from
Speaker 2: what the Bible says. The Bible Jesus is telling Moses
Speaker 2: go and kill the women, children and leave nothing that breathes.
Speaker 2: That is a command to people, to soldiers to yog
Speaker 2: and actually commit that. And the interpreters of the Bible,
Speaker 2: including the Christians, took those verses to justify their genocidal
Speaker 2: programs in the Roman Empire, in the Byzantine Empire, all
Speaker 2: the way to the colonial period. They use these versus
Speaker 2: the Bible. Israel today, they're using these verses of the
Speaker 2: Bible to justify their genocide throughout history.
Speaker 4: Now you have Orthodox Church as well, the Russian or
Speaker 4: the Church uses the verses to justify the murders and
Speaker 4: Ukraine as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Muslims don't say, oh, we can go chill kill
Speaker 2: babies because there was Noah's flood. Like, no one Muslim
Speaker 2: has had this interpretation. But that's the difference between the
Speaker 2: Bible and the churn.
Speaker 1: Let me go to Sam and Jay so they can
Speaker 1: respond and then we'll finish this topic. Yeah, go ahead, Sam,
Speaker 1: I know you're trying to say some.
Speaker 2: Do we lose them?
Speaker 1: Is he muted? He's muted? Sam?
Speaker 3: Are you muted?
Speaker 1: Yeah? You can out mute yourself, Samm. We'll try to. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, we'll all go.
Speaker 5: Well ahead, go ahead, you ready or read me to
Speaker 5: go for you get the last word, Jay, let's go ahead. Okay,
Speaker 5: all right. I know you guys have a hard time hearing,
Speaker 5: because let me repeat again what you fail to address adequately.
Speaker 5: You just prove Jesus as a love Mohammed's God, and judge,
Speaker 5: let me repeat they again.
Speaker 2: Everything we said proves that apparently so well.
Speaker 5: Chapter two, verse forty six to fifty one. Read Chapter two,
Speaker 5: verse two forty six two fifty one. Read Chapter five,
Speaker 5: verse twenty to twenty six. Jesus, you're a lah Mohammed's
Speaker 5: God who gave him the Koran, and you corrupted it.
Speaker 5: He's the one who ordered what Moses and Joshua and
Speaker 5: Saul did. And there's nothing in these passages that say
Speaker 5: that when you.
Speaker 1: Go ahead this.
Speaker 2: That yours read the Koran.
Speaker 5: Let me speak, stop following, let me.
Speaker 1: Read read and I read an.
Speaker 5: I know you're about to recite the Koran, and from
Speaker 5: let me read.
Speaker 1: Let him speak.
Speaker 5: I'll read both. He's they won't let me finish their manifest.
Speaker 1: You guys, yeah.
Speaker 5: SIBHATI, Volume four, number three fifty three narrated Abah. The
Speaker 5: prophet said, a prophet amongst the prophets carried out a
Speaker 5: holy military expedition. So he said to his followers, anyone
Speaker 5: who has married a woman wants to consummate the marriage
Speaker 5: and has not done so yet, should not accompany me.
Speaker 5: Nor should a man who has built a house but
Speaker 5: has not completed through, nor a man who is sheep
Speaker 5: or she camels and is waiting for the birth of
Speaker 5: their young ones. So the prophet carried out the expedition,
Speaker 5: and when he reached that town at the time or
Speaker 5: nearly at the time of the act prayer, he said
Speaker 5: to the son, O, son, you're under Allah's order, and
Speaker 5: I'm under Allah's order. Oh Allah, stop the sun from sitting.
Speaker 5: It was stopped till Allah made him victorious. Then he
Speaker 5: collected the booty, and the fire came to burn it,
Speaker 5: but it did not burn it. He said to the men,
Speaker 5: some of you have stolen something from the booty. So
Speaker 5: one man from every tribe should give me a pledge
Speaker 5: of allegiance by shaking hands with me. They did so,
Speaker 5: and the hand of a man got stuck over the
Speaker 5: hand of their profit. Then that prophet said to the man,
Speaker 5: the theft has been committed by your people, so all
Speaker 5: the persons of your tribe should give me the pledge
Speaker 5: of allegiance by shaking hands with him. The hands of
Speaker 5: two or three men got stuck over the hand of
Speaker 5: their prophet. He said, you have committed the theft. Then
Speaker 5: they brought a head of gold, like the head of
Speaker 5: a cow and put it there, and the fire came
Speaker 5: and consume the body. The prophet added, then Allah sorrow,
Speaker 5: weakness and disability, so he made booty legal for us. Here, Sahibukati,
Speaker 5: your profit confirms dur on me twenty verses one to nine,
Speaker 5: which you just attacked earlier, meaning you're better than your prophet.
Speaker 4: I didn't get the murder.
Speaker 5: Don't interrupt me, Boddy.
Speaker 2: Where's the murder of the rape?
Speaker 3: Where was that?
Speaker 2: You didn't say any of that yet when he goes, yeah, why.
Speaker 5: I got to destroyed destroy gad.
Speaker 1: Yeah, all right, Jake, finish, finish up here, and then
Speaker 1: when we want to the next topic, and then Dan,
Speaker 1: I know you said, you have to go right at
Speaker 1: eight thirty.
Speaker 2: You have to pray. Yeah, I have to pray pre soon.
Speaker 2: So okay, are we finishing up, finishing up? Yeah, we
Speaker 2: are finishing up here. Okay, go ahead, Jay.
Speaker 3: No, Sam, you can finish that point.
Speaker 5: You can take the rest of Oh, they're going to
Speaker 5: manifest because it's time for prayer. So let's see if
Speaker 5: they can control themselves. Okay, guys, did you hear me
Speaker 5: read Nothing in the context makes any any exceptions Mohammed's
Speaker 5: confirming these stories as fund in the Bible. Nothing in
Speaker 5: the context says that Joshua was told all but spare
Speaker 5: women and children. They have to read it because they
Speaker 5: got humiliated. So please keep keep manifesto.
Speaker 2: Just let them finish. Limb finished, and then we'll make
Speaker 2: your points.
Speaker 5: So now the burnup proof is on Daniel before he
Speaker 5: goes and praise to Bab. Show me in these passages
Speaker 5: and sorted the five twenty to twenty six, two two
Speaker 5: forty six to two fifty.
Speaker 2: One and this, and I can again let him finish.
Speaker 5: Just show me man to follow the son of your prophet.
Speaker 5: So now, Jesus, in those passages your prophets said that
Speaker 5: when Allah sent Musa and Joshua that he gave them
Speaker 5: the orders spare the women and children, because he quotes
Speaker 5: them as is, and he confirms the Torah in his possession.
Speaker 5: So now go ahead condemn your prophet. Christ wins, Muhammad
Speaker 5: loses again.
Speaker 2: Go ahead, are you done so? First of all, First
Speaker 2: of all, you didn't show that the verses of the
Speaker 2: Quran or the hadith are condoning rape and murder. That's
Speaker 2: your first lie from as found in the Bible. We
Speaker 2: read verses the Bible. We'll read it again. Jesus said
Speaker 2: to Moses, have you let the women live? Now kill
Speaker 2: every male among the little ones, and kill every woman,
Speaker 2: every woman who has known man by lying with him.
Speaker 2: So basically, save the virgins for yourself, that's what Jesus says.
Speaker 2: And then you can force them to marry you, shave
Speaker 2: their heads and humiliate them. This is what we're reading
Speaker 2: from numbers. So this is like you didn't mention it
Speaker 2: any rate. The Hadith that Hejazz read earlier says that
Speaker 2: there's no killing of women and children. Why can't you
Speaker 2: deal with that? We don't read one kadith and say that.
Speaker 1: You let me do it.
Speaker 5: See we didn't interrupt you, right, okay, good, No, you
Speaker 5: actually had just it, so stop lying.
Speaker 2: And we told him not to. I told him.
Speaker 5: He kept doing it. He kept manifesting the moment. Albert,
Speaker 5: you want me to give me a minute, Watch what
Speaker 5: I do with number thirty one. I'll bury.
Speaker 4: And say that's on my face.
Speaker 5: Yeah, well, a little short guy like you, you need
Speaker 5: Daniel to help you.
Speaker 1: Guys see that this isn't gonna you guys are just
Speaker 1: gonna keep going in a circle. It's fine.
Speaker 2: Just the point was that there's no passage in the Oran.
Speaker 2: There's no verse that condones genocide. Whereas we read the
Speaker 2: explicit words of Jesus saying to go and kill the babies.
Speaker 2: You can't. How are you coping with this? It's all
Speaker 2: just a coke from Sam and it looks silly. So
Speaker 2: this is you didn't quote anything. We quoted you the
Speaker 2: hadith that says don't kill women and children. We don't
Speaker 2: just take the qorm, we take the So when you
Speaker 2: cite one hadith, you didn't show. You didn't show where
Speaker 2: that hadith says kill women and children. You didn't show that.
Speaker 2: Where does the hadith say kill women and children? Don't
Speaker 2: just fill a buster and pretend we're not going to notice.
Speaker 2: As you don't pretend we're not going to notice that
Speaker 2: nothing that you read says kill women and children. I
Speaker 2: don't where does it say, Where does it say where
Speaker 2: does it say kill women and children?
Speaker 3: Where?
Speaker 1: Where does it take kill women?
Speaker 5: And I answer you their question. I know you don't
Speaker 5: know logic and you want to shift to burn a proof.
Speaker 5: You quoted adith where your prophet said it. But there's
Speaker 5: the same Hadith that says, but if women and children
Speaker 5: are killed, they are of them. It's inside Muslim. I
Speaker 5: mentioned it, but you in the chapter, Read the chapter,
Speaker 5: Read the chapter.
Speaker 4: Heaven says the chapter prohibition of killing women and children,
Speaker 4: and it was not a permission to killing women and
Speaker 4: child glory.
Speaker 1: We're going to move on position. We're just gonna move on.
Speaker 1: There's no question here for the for for team as well,
Speaker 1: there's a question follow my team your life. You claim
Speaker 1: the one the one that you assaulted, and let me
Speaker 1: let me just read this. Let me just read this
Speaker 1: a follow for team as loam. You claim the Qoran
Speaker 1: was uncreated and uncreated things noble. To be clear, I
Speaker 1: do uncreated things, share communic communicable attributes. Was created things
Speaker 1: such that we can have knowledge of them. I think
Speaker 1: that's that's a question for team as. I'll turn that
Speaker 1: to a because he answered the.
Speaker 4: First indicative, it's indicator. We can indicate things, but not
Speaker 4: the exactly but not not the exact essence of them,
Speaker 4: which is why establishes commentary. There is nothing absolutely like him,
Speaker 4: but he can indicate knowledge which is familiar to us. Okay,
Speaker 4: that's pretty much.
Speaker 1: It fair enough, So what I'm gonna do is I'm
Speaker 1: gonna uh And then last one here one question for Daniel.
Speaker 1: If your prophet is a representation of what you should be,
Speaker 1: why don't all Muslims have intercourse with nine year olds?
Speaker 1: And why don't you allow your daughter to get married
Speaker 1: when she is six? Do you want to address that?
Speaker 1: Because there's this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely, I have an entire debate with a Christian
Speaker 2: on this opiy right, and well what sorry on the
Speaker 2: asia if I'm not mistaken, right? The nine year old
Speaker 2: is aglisha yeah, rug ala, I don't have the wife
Speaker 2: of the prophet peace fee upon him. This is the
Speaker 2: number one thing that Christians want to bring up against Islam.
Speaker 2: And we pointed out in this debate that the Bible
Speaker 2: has no problem with child marriage. The Church actually has
Speaker 2: no problem with child marriage and actually endorses it with
Speaker 2: twelve years old or younger. Canon law, gration endorses it.
Speaker 2: And even Jay could not condemn Thomas Aquinas as a pedophile.
Speaker 2: He condemns him, he condemns him, but he doesn't say
Speaker 2: that he's a pedophile. So actually, within this debate, we've
Speaker 2: seen plenty of resources within Christianity that child marriage is condoned,
Speaker 2: it's accepted, and that's the Christian tradition. Now Christians want
Speaker 2: to throw their entire Bible, their church tradition in the
Speaker 2: trash go ahead. Muslims were consistent. We say that look,
Speaker 2: marriage can happen at the age of puberty. When a
Speaker 2: girl goes through puberty or a boy goes through purity puberty,
Speaker 2: then they can get married. And that is what God
Speaker 2: has allowed, and that's what every culture and religion has
Speaker 2: practiced historically. It's only become a problem in modern times
Speaker 2: because of modern educational system that requires you to go
Speaker 2: through twelve years of education so you can become a
Speaker 2: wage slave, go and work in the factories, go and
Speaker 2: work for the industries. So they want to prevent you
Speaker 2: from getting married younger as a teenager. Instead, they want
Speaker 2: you to fornicate. They want little girls at nine years
Speaker 2: old to fornicate with each other. And a lot of
Speaker 2: these Christians, they don't have problems with their kids having
Speaker 2: a girlfriend or boyfriend or experimenting with sex at age nine, ten, eleven, twelve.
Speaker 2: That's happening rampant within Western society. All we hear is
Speaker 2: about how Islam is pedophilic. Well, look at your own societies.
Speaker 2: Marriage would be the solution to the amount of degeneracy
Speaker 2: that unfortunately we see in the West. And maybe Jay
Speaker 2: would agree with me, Maybe not Sam, but Jay would
Speaker 2: might agree that marriage can be the solution for a
Speaker 2: fifteen year old to get married, a fourteen year old
Speaker 2: to get married. That was certainly the church's position.
Speaker 1: Okay, anything else, all right, that was the last one.
Speaker 1: So guys, thank you so much for coming on the podcast.
Speaker 1: I want you, guys to all just kind of to
Speaker 1: say where the people can find you, where they can
Speaker 1: you know, get their get your content. If they're interested
Speaker 1: in learning more about you, we'll turn it over to
Speaker 1: we can start with you.
Speaker 4: Jays go ahead, yeah, yes, Dawa and everywhere you go hes.
Speaker 1: YouTube channel, guys, go check them out. Ef Dawa Okay,
Speaker 1: what about you, Daniel.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Muslim Skeptic that's the channel. You google it muslim
Speaker 2: Skeptic with a K, and we have a lot of
Speaker 2: debates playlists where I debate Christians, Jews, Hindus, atheists. So
Speaker 2: you can check me out on muslim Skeptic. There's also
Speaker 2: muslim Skeptic dot com with the website with a lot
Speaker 2: of material as well.
Speaker 1: Awesome, Sam, Oh you're mute it.
Speaker 3: Sam.
Speaker 1: You might have to unmute yourself.
Speaker 2: Here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you have to just unmute yourself. Okay.
Speaker 5: If you go to YouTube, it's shamuonion s h A
Speaker 5: m o U N I A N. And also on
Speaker 5: Rumble it's Answering Islam, and I have answering a Slam
Speaker 5: blog dot org, press dot com. I try to stream daily,
Speaker 5: so Lord Lank, you can find me there and you
Speaker 5: can find the articles and all the material we use
Speaker 5: there as well as an answering is slum dot info,
Speaker 5: so that's where you can find me.
Speaker 3: Awesome, Jay, Yeah, Jayson alsos dot com. You can find
Speaker 3: me on all the socials under my name Jadi, or
Speaker 3: you can also find me every Friday hosting the Alex
Speaker 3: Jones Show.
Speaker 1: All Right Awesome on Info Wars. Uh guys, Uh, I
Speaker 1: hope you guys enjoined the debate. Man, we'll probably host
Speaker 1: something like this maybe in the future. You know, got
Speaker 1: a little personal there times, but the guys still remained
Speaker 1: extremely professional, which I thank you guys for that. Thank
Speaker 1: you guys so much. It was great to have you guys. Guys,
Speaker 1: go please go follow them, go check them out. We'll
Speaker 1: be back here with some lovely ladies in about forty
Speaker 1: five minutes. In about an hour, we'll have some after hours.
Speaker 1: It won't be as kosher as this debate was here,
Speaker 1: so we'll catch you guys. Thank you guys so much
Speaker 1: for coming on the podcast. Great to have you guys.
Speaker 2: Peace.