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