Speaker 1: Hell, everybody, and welcome. This is the Apostate Profit. Uh.
And today I am live with a very interesting guest,
and that would be somebody who is professionally known as
Randy Balls.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: How are you doing, Randy, Hey, I'm down here in charge. Yeah.
Speaker 3: That's my mega, mega past megachurch pastor skit. So he
threw me for a loop that. I wasn't expecting Randy
Balls to come up to the surface of my altered personalities,
but I'm going me over.
Speaker 1: It was. It was a very very fun thing. I
watched it several times. So yeah, uh, one video. I
don't know if you made more of those, but.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they're both. Yeah, I'll de send it. I'll see,
I'll send you both to see which one.
Speaker 1: Awesome, awesome sound everything okay, everything balanced? Everyone? Yes, good, okay, wonderful. Yeah,
this was supposed to happen yesterday, but then it didn't happen.
Had to move it to today, which is also kind
of appropriate because the date today is a good day
to talk about Islam.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: Some people call it an Islamic holiday. So here we
are today, gathered talking about all that. Jay, I have
to correct myself. You're not Randy Balls. We have to
be serious with this whole conversation.
Speaker 3: And you're not shake your booty, uh not today. He's
the final boss of Islamic debater. So we need to
we need to have a debate between Randy Balls and
shake your booty.
Speaker 1: That would be fantastic. That's a good idea. Yeah, you
are Jay Dyer, and you have recently been having uh
interesting debates, some some very very big ones that I
reviewed here on this channel that lots of people have seen.
I think your debate together with Sam Shimun against the
two pedophiles. I think that has like over over a
million views or so.
Speaker 3: Right, it's around nine hundred thousand on Twitter, a couple
of hundred thousand on Rumble, and then eight hundred thousand
on YouTube. So yeah, overall, it's it's up there.
Speaker 1: Wow, very very nice. And I saw it. And the
thing is, I mean you you guys did a fantastic
job during the debate. The other side looked quite pathetic
and I don't know, it's it's even even Muslims were
conceding pretty much. When you look at the average response,
the feedback from audiences that the Muslim side did not
do a good job defending their beliefs. So it was
a very very good combination to watch you and Sam Shimun.
And yeah, but but I have some problems with some
of the things that you said, and I basically want
to confront you on your misrepresentations of Islam, and uh,
I want to correct correct you on all that. So
first off, how about we start by you just telling
us who you are, where we can find you, and
why we should listen to you.
Speaker 3: Uh. Yeah, my name is Jake and the Muslim metaphysician.
You can find me over. The problem with rit fun
is that with he debates, he lies a little bit.
Speaker 1: So the funny thing was that it was pretty good
man that was.
Speaker 3: Actually supposed to be Daniel and Jake, and then Jake
so suddenly had the Internet go out right before the debate.
Speaker 1: Oh how does that happen?
Speaker 3: Weird timing. But then Ijah stuff though, which is funny
because I didn't think they actually were on the exact
same page. Then on Jake, I mean e jaws, but
I guess they pretended to be you know, buddy buddy
for the sake of the debate. But whatever, Yeah, it was.
It was a wild debate overall. I think it went
pretty good for for our side. To look if you
read the comments over on the Fresh and Fit channel,
I was kind of blown away at the comments. I
thought we'd have a lot more like balance between you know,
because the Muslims go to the comments are always like
they're champion and cheerlead no matter what happened in the debate.
But I mean the comments are just like ninety nine
percent that you know, terrible for the for the side
of it is. But anyway, so yeah, I'm Jay Dire.
I do a lot of debates. I do a lot
of geopolitical analysis. I do film analysis, written a few
books on that, books on philosophy, host The Fourth Hour
of He Who Cannot Be Named every Friday, done that
for four years. Yeah, so that's what I do.
Speaker 1: Very very very very nice. You know what's funny until
you just mentioned that it was supposed to be Jake
the Muslim Metaphysician, but then it was it just for
some reason in my mind, I was totally remembering it
the wrong way, and I thought you had a debate
with Donally Kikichu and Jake the Muslim Metaphysician. Despite the
fact that I watched the whole debate twice and also
commented on it, which is very, very funny. It might
have to do with the fact that I had my
interactions with Jake, had discussions with him, was supposed to
debate him. Eventually he backed out and blocked me. But
it just to come in in his place was just
a very very dumb move. I don't know who organized this,
who came up with him as an alternative, but at
least Jake could a little bit by being coherent, you know,
and speaking the same language appeal to audiences and you know,
I don't know, get get some kind of popularity, even
if the stuff that he says is completely nonsense. But
it is just he's not likable. He he's a little weasel,
incredibly disrespectful for no reason, very dishonest person, and he's
on record on audio record calling somebody a wet bag
piece of shit in a debate about Christianity.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was an odd choice, but you know, I
think if I recall in the DMS, originally it was
going to be they wanted a good job, so and
I don't know who who was going to be, is
Mohammed a job and somebody And of course he wouldn't
do it, and then he backed out of the Samshumuon thing,
and so there's a lot of backing out going on
on that side. I don't know what they're so worried about,
but in the case of Jake, I think the pattern
I've noticed is that Jake will really only debate when
it's something relating to these really sort of abstract metaphysical topics.
He won't go anywhere near the Quran, you will go
anywhere near comparison to biblical texts. And I think he
kind of, maybe even halfway will admit he doesn't really
know that stuff. So for him, it's this sort of
pseudo philosophical and ever, yeah.
Speaker 1: It's it's a funny thing. He wanted to to press
me on having a debate about the existence of God.
I said, look, when I joined you guys, I had
that debate only because I wanted to give you guys
what you want and then further have discussions about Islam.
How about we have a discussion about Islam. How about
we'd have a debate on Islam. He never would accept that.
Eventually I pressed him to accept it, and even then,
just when we were about to have the debate in
a few days. He made some dumb excuse about my
post about Israel or something like that. He was like,
you're horrible, I'm going to block you, and then it
blocked me. And he did the same thing with lots
of other people. It's just that.
Speaker 3: With Sam too, or they were going to debate and
he bled, oh, I've decided suddenly that you're too immoral
for me to debate and block.
Speaker 1: Me exactly exactly, And it's not like we're doing something
different from whatever we have done for years. It doesn't
make any sense. Yeah, but let's come to your your
impression of Islam altogether. Of course, these are very interesting people.
It's just a coincidence that they happened to have these
similar personalities. Probably nothing to do with Islam. But you've
had debates about Islam with Daniel Now, with a Jazz
and with other people online. You have been hosting debates
on your own channel, which I've seen, which seems to
be doing quite well. We had conversations you and I
about Islam in the past. What is your current impression
of Islam and how did it change over time?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would say if you go back eight or
ten years ago, I knew a lot about Christian theology,
and I know a lot about the inter historical disputes
amongst Christian groups and whatnot church history, but I didn't
really know much about Islam at all, and so I
don't even remember how the Islami debates started happening. I
think I had a couple of friends, the guys that
run Orthodox sha Hata. They were like, hey, they were
part of the discord. They said, why don't you start
debating Muslims because we've got a lot of Muslims coming
into the UK, come into Europe. It's really changing the
face of Europe. So this might actually be the future.
Because I spent so much time debating Roman Catholics so
and Protestant So I think the first debate we did
was kind of a so called debate. It was it
was an no Zombga four, and then it was Paul Williams,
and then it was Shabiri Le, then it was Shaike
azer rashid Uh, and then it was I'm saying the
big the big name, big name Muslims. And then it
was Daniel and then Jake, and then it Jaws and Daniel.
So uh, it's kind in the Muslim lantern. So it's
kind of a snowball thing that wasn't really a planned
but in that time. And I still want to call
myself an expert on Islam, but I've learned a lot.
I've learned a lot from you learned a lot from
from Sam and many other people. My impression now, maybe
say compared to ten years ago, is that it's a
lot more of a cobbled together hodgepodge of varying traditions
and ideas, and it's a lot more goofy than I
originally thought I would have assumed, you know, ten years ago, well,
they've got you know, Abacina, and they've got you know,
even Seen, and they've got these high minded philosopher guys
that people have heard AVOs. But then when you really
get into, you know, what the texts of the Qur'an
and these hadiths are all about, I think it becomes
more and more kind of silly. And you notice the
sort of outright contradictions, especially all of the reliance on
prior textual traditions from Judaism and from Christianity. The more
that you know those texts, and then the more that
you see the chronic claims and texts, the more you
see kind of how just cobbled together contradictory. So in summation,
I would say, now I see it as kind of
the perfect cult engineer to doup the Arab mind, honestly,
and so I see I see it as a mix
of Gnosticism. I see it as a mix of Talmudic ideas.
I see it as a mix of Christian texts, particularly
arian and Historian Christianity. I see it as a borrowing
even from Greek philosophy. I had a recent discussion with
a couple of people from the Shia tradition, and from
their argumentation, the the guy was literally saying, yeah, everything
that's in the Koran is ultimately neoplatonism, but that's not
from the Neoplatonists, is from the Qoran. In other words,
it's it's like a rip off. It's like we rip
off the Bible, but it's from the Koran, not from
the Bible. We rip off the Torah, but it's from
the Qoran, not from the Court. We rip off the
Greek philosophers, but it's actually from the Koran, not from
the Greek. As you see what I'm saying, there's a
pattern here of copy paste, copy paste, copy paste, copy paste,
put this thing together in a book, the thing, and
then but it's not from anything before. It's it's this,
this is the real true origin.
Speaker 1: That's very very coreedient, right. It's it's like if I
write a book today and say that and claim that
it is actually from Allah who visited me after one
four hundred years to tell me that Muhamma did a
completely different message which was unfortunately distorted and perverted by
the Muslims who followed after him, and here is what
he tells me. And then I just write a bunch
of stuff that I based on on the Quran, on
different sources, but claim that this is all completely totally original.
It's it is kind of ridiculous. There is a there,
there is something that you said which is which I
can resonate with it. That's that's usually how I describe Islam,
like it's coupled together with from different from different traditions
and sources and all that. I mean, over the years,
I have pretty much I would say, come to the
to the to the to the idea, to the conclusion
and the argument that that Islam is basically a a
polytheistic religion, and culture that came out of a polytheistic
pagan Arab region. But then because Muhammad was apparently so
much you know, he he looked up to Christians and Jews.
Initially he wanted to adopt their beliefs and their traditions
as much as much as possible, but then adopted things
that he never really understood and adopted misunderstandings, and aside
from that, also adopted stories about For example, I'm not
sure if you if you have come across the whole
narrative of Hul Karnaine in the Quran that this is
a character named little Karnane. He is. He is identified
as Alexander the Great. So the Quran mentions Alexander the
Great uh as little Karnaan, which means the too horned one.
And this just happens because some people will come to
Muhammad and ask him about a little Karnate and he's like, uh,
I'll get back to you. So something happens then in
the in the meantime, he gets his information about this
Alexander the Great that he doesn't know much about. And
then he comes back and he starts reciting revelations from
Allah about how Litul Karnate was a was was a
very mighty person guided by Allah, and he went to
the very west of the world and to the very east,
and he saw the sun setting in a muddy spring
and saw other people that the sun was rising, uh,
you know above, and they had no protection against it.
And I don't know pretty pretty much that he was
a servant of Allah and a good guy, which is
just a very strange thing, because Alexander the Great was
anything but a good guy in any morningstic sense.
Speaker 3: He was.
Speaker 1: He was a a syncretic polytheist guy who declared himself God,
uh yeah, which.
Speaker 3: Is actually the I mean, even if you're a liberal.
A lot of people think the Book of Daniel is
talking about the Greeks in that time period, particularly Alexander
and then his his one of his generals, Antiochus apefans Is,
who defiles the Jewish temple during the Macabean period. So
that's again another irony that you know, the Biblical Revelation
describes that as a pagan, polytheistic Alexander antiochis culture. Very
odd they would be described as as a monotheis.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you should look into that. It's in
chapter eighteen of the Quran that has Sura cuff that
has an account of the Seven Sleepers, which is also
taken from from Christians. And then after that it goes
into the whole Alexander the Great story, which is which
is very very funny. We even have a what's his name?
Some Italian ex isis jihadiest guy who when he was
in prison, learned about the Alexander romance and old myths
about Alexander the Great and then he noticed, wait a minute,
this sounds oddly similar to what I read in the Quran.
And then he finds out that these stories came before
the Quran, and then he thinks this does not make sense,
so he ends up leaving Islam. This hardcoregi hotis to
it's I think Antonio something, sar Antonio char Antonio something
like that.
Speaker 3: So listen to the question I want to I want
to ask you because this is a pattern I've noticed,
And when this comes up in the live stream debates
that we do, I'm never actually sure what they what
they actually think like. It seems to be the case
that they either don't recognize or care that many of
these stories, like if you read the Gabriel site, Reynolds book,
he lists about I don't know, four or five different
texts that were like sudabergrafa or gnostic texts that appear
in different forms in different ways in the Quran. And
I'm what I'm wondering is like, do they not admit
that these things came before or do they think that no,
it doesn't even matter that it came before, because like
when I was talking to that guy about neoplatonism and
he's like, no, well, Lecorn is basically teaching platonism, And
I'm like, but wouldn't neoplatonism be where the Quran is
getting that if that's the case, and it's like, no,
it's actually new to the Kurn or Greek atomism, right,
a lot of the Suns are atomists. And it's like, well,
you know the Greeks taught atomism. No, but it's in
the Koran.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, well it's the thinking evolves evolved to very
much over time. Today. Generally, the response that you get
when you point out that that's lots of these things
come to the Quran from prior sources. What are these
sources are actually correct on these things are not? Uh,
they will ignore your explanation and then you know, bring
an alternative explanation, or simply argue that Allat knows best,
and he's he's the one who sent the Quran, and
he knows what he's talking about. It's not for us
to question. This is, for example, something that's happened when
I I made a video of talking about the seven
Sleepers narrative and all that and how the Quran twisted
and how if we accept that the seven sleeper story
is authentic and that the Koran acknowledges to it, then
we have to accept that the that the Triune God
is the true God and Christian true. And then when
I do that, they they start it starts getting completely
fallacious about how this It doesn't have to go back
to the Christian story. It might be a different story. Uh,
it might be the true story. It might be that
the Christians took it, you know, wrongfully from somewhere else.
It was actually a real story about something good, and
in the end we should not question it because Alano's best.
This is usually the some of the thoughts, some of
the responses that will that they will, that they will
give to these things. Similar to Alexander the Great, initially
within the first centuries, Muslims acknowledged generally that the references
were going where about Alexander the Great. It has become
the new thing lately more recently, to say, no, it's
not Alexander the Grade. It is somebody else. We don't
know who it is, and we can't know because it
is not specified, But it's probably not Alexander the Great,
given the revelations that we have now about who he
actually was. But this is just the thing, like the
understanding develops and is corrupted by Muslims as they further
understand how problematic it actually is what they are presenting
to us, such as that the grind takes stories inappropriately,
or ideas inappropriately, or twists stories into being. There's lots
we can talk about. Well, what do you think going forward?
Speaker 3: You to move on one other question on that topic.
I forgot to mention when I was talking about influences,
the pre Islamic Arab paganism is also, I think pretty
clearly obviously an influence. And I mean I'd heard people
say that maybe ten years ago, but I never really
looked into that. But I do think that's there within
the tradition. I mean, you know, icons are idolatry, but
you can kiss this black stone and it's not idolatry.
So it's sort of it's it's a double standard. And
why is it not all all Josha, Well, because it
says so on the Hot Deaths that you can do it.
So yeah, I think there's a lot of double standards,
a lot of inconsistency. So my question to you would be,
do you think and I think we talked about this
last time we were we were discussing and you were
talking about the killing all the pigs Hudith, do you
think that it's a situation where you you had and
I know we're kind of kind of speculating because we
don't exactly know what was going on, but is it
Is it a situation where you think Muhammad was like
just sort of out of it and was just being
influenced by his epilepsy and seizures, or do you think
that he was really kind of like or maybe maybe
even him and some of his crew, like, do you
think it was a situation where they were trying to
put together a religion that they could manipulate for warlord purposes,
you know, for wealth purpose, for all kinds of purposes.
Because even David Wood's recent video where he was talking
about the places in the Chrome where it says, well,
the Jews have the Hebrew Revelation and the Christians have
a revelation in their tongue, this is the revelation for
you Arab people. So it's it's almost like it was
initially intended to be directed towards the Arab peoples as
their version. Maybe that was early in the you know,
Muhammed's campaigns or something like that, before it turns into
you know, this is actually a worldwide conquest.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, there there is two interesting topics here in
two very very deep topics actually to go into, but
one one which is the latter that you brought up,
also based on what David Wood mentioned. So Mohammed initially
did start out as merely a guy who is who
is sent by the same God, also sent or revealed
the Gospel in the Torah, as the Quran says, and
Mohammad really did look up the Jews and Christians and
wanted to adopt their beliefs and ideas and claim that
he comes from the same God. But the thing is,
if you analyze the Quran chronologically, the Quran barely ever
even touches on Jews and Christians within the first ten
years or so, until Mohammad goes flees his pagan environment
in Mecca and goes to Medina, where he then encounters
large Jewish tribes that basically builds the city, and as
he interacts with them, the Quran suddenly starts focusing on
Jews and Christians and their stories and beliefs. So it
seems that the Quran's content is very very much influenced
by whatever Mohammad is, where he's at, what is around him,
what he interacts with, what is currently important to Mohammad's context,
And initially he approaches them in a good way, like Jews, Christians,
what's up, I'm just like you guys, you know, yeah,
same team. Let's join together. And it even proposes in
the beginning to the Jews and Christians let us come
together to an agreement that there is no God but
a line so on. But as he then finds out
that the Jews don't really respect him at all and
think actually that he's ridiculous and full of scrap, he
starts getting more and more angry at them. Then he
develops this idea that the Christians. The Jews are bad,
but the Christians they are cool, They're good. Then the
Christians start projecting him and then he's like, Okay, Christians
are bad too, Christians will go to Hell. So but
along those while having those developments, he simply takes. He
absorbs whatever is, whatever he hears, and whatever is given
to him. There is a I would say it is.
It is quite mixed. What his motive is, what his
reasoning is when he gets his his stories and beliefs
into his own religion. I would say that there is
very strong evidence that suggests that he had that he
had some sort of some sort of epilepsy, that he
had hallucinations. UH. Their early narratives that he would he
would come back from seeing the angel Gabriel, and then
he would be terrified and he would fall on the
ground and start shaking and making loud noises and sweating.
They would have to cover him up and he would
make loud, snorting noises when he would get a revelation
from Allah, which you know, sounds oddly like UH, a
form of epilepsy. But it could very well be that
he was actually deceived by his own by his own hallucinations,
by his own insanities, and that he actually did believe
that he was getting revelations from from from Allah. But
he was also convinced by other people around him that
you know, who helped him basically shame the narrative that
he was getting from his from his from his Gibriel character.
You have, for example, in the Quran multiple times people
accusing him from taking stories from certain people around him,
and they call him the ear, by which they mean
that he just listens to somebody who comes to him
and then takes whatever that person says and then includes
it in his in his into his own religion, as
if they were original stories. It's very hard to speculate
and to figure out what exactly his motive was. But
there are also instances, for example, where his dear friend
and second Khalif Omar openly says in the Hadith he
says that Allah agreed with me on three occasions. He says,
this is a follower of the close follower of Muhammad.
For example, he suggests when he sees that Muhammed's wives
go to the bathroom out in the desert somewhere, he
repeatedly tells him, I see you, I see you, you
should be hiding very creepy. And then he goes to
Mohamed and says he goes to Mohammed and says, Mohammed,
cover your wife's up. They need to be covered up.
And eventually Mohammed is like, okay, fine, and then he
receives a revelation in which Allah says that they should
not go outside anymore unless necessary, and that they should
be covered up. And Omar goes, oh, good, Allah agrees
with me. It seems that you know that these people
around Mohammed have an influence on what Allah reveals to Mohammed,
and Mohammad also does. And it's hard to speculate always
whether Mohammad was deliberately making things up, whether others were
in on it, or whether he was self deceived.
Speaker 3: Well, great parallel. I'm sure you've heard a million times,
but you know it very much reminds me of Mormonism
in the way Mormonism operated with you know, Joseph Smith,
Brigham Young, you kind of have this inner core of
the original Mormon crew. You know, they have these new revelations.
They say that the prior revelation is fine except when
it contradicts the new revelation. So it's really just the
same circle that we find with the Islamic dilemma for Islam,
for Muslims, you know, you've got the polygamy, you've got
the weird polytheistic elements. In Mormonism. I mean, there's a
lot of parallels there, but the patterns are always that
you look back to the previous revelation only when it
confirms the new revelation. And again in the case of
Joseph Smith, I think there's multitudes of influences as well,
and he seems to be similar to Muhammad as well.
And what you're describing that he kind of hears all
kinds of different things, because there's this story that Joseph
Smith went to all the different denominations, and so he
hears all these different stories and then he decides they're
all wrong. He goes in the woods and praise, and
then this angel appears to him, just like the angel
appearing to Muhammad. And then there's a new revelation based
on these new texts, and only the Book of Mormon
is really the infallible text, and everything else has to
be judged by it. So I mean patterns are the
same for most cults. Actually, I would say, a lot
of cults. But I think if you look at Mormonism
just from that cultural perspective, it's really geared towards you know,
eighteen hundreds, you know, prairie minded people moving west Islam
very much oriented towards you know, seventh century Arabs. And
what my next question to you would be, would that
explain the seeming contradictions about what Mohammad says about Christians
and Jews, because it seems like at times it sounds
like we're all people of the book. We all are fine.
Let the Jews judge by the Torah. Christians can go
judge by their revelation. But then later we get this,
but also, if you're a Trinitarian, you're going to hell fire, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah. I actually put together a list of Quran
verses about all Quran verses that address Christians or that
mentioned Christians directly in chronological order, and you can observe
a very very clear pattern there at the beginning, very
very peaceful and you know, reconciliatory, and then it gets
more like, okay, you are wrong, but we are still okay,
you are totally wrong. You should follow your book instead
of making up things until Finally, the final chapter of
the Quran in chronological order is that is chapter nine,
where the Quran completely shifts to Christianity is unacceptable, it
will not be accepted. You have to become Muslims or else.
And then finally you have chapter nine, verse twenty nine
and thirty, where it says fight those who do not
believe in Aligned as Messenger, who do not adopt the
religion of truth, meaning Islam, among those who you know,
among the people of the scripture. So Jews Christians who
do not adopt Islam are now declared enemies and are
supposed to be fought and subjugated and humiliated. And then
it further says that that this is because of their
of their false beliefs, of their their wicked and false
and corrupt beliefs, and Allah will punish them and curse
them and so on. So that is indeed the explanation
for it. There are some people who, of course choose
to point out the good verses and leave out the padlines.
But if you read it all in context, it is
just a development of Muhammed's perception of Jews and Christians.
Initially he thought they were okay, then later as they
didn't accept him and saw it the ignorance in him.
He turned more and more against them and declared war
on them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you have people on the left a lot of
times that think that, you know, Islam is their ally.
They only pick out the verses that are early on,
like you're talking about well, look see it had a
guy come on the stream the other day and he's like,
you're totally wrong. Islam has no you know, anti Christian,
anti Jewish animus. It's only conciliatory. And I'm like, you're
just using the ones the tacks that are early on,
you're not using the other text. So yeah, I think
that's a But again, that's why it's a it's a
very crafty book because it allows let's say you're a
coliaf in the Middle Ages sometime or something, and let's
say you want to go to war against Christians or Jews.
Well you've got ready made passages that would support going
to war. Let's say you're in a political situation where
you need peace, Well you've got ready made passages you
can cite about peace. So it's a it's useful for
what's a nesser at the.
Speaker 1: Time, exactly exactly, And they used this all this was
always historically very important just to put on the screen.
Here the verse nine nine, which is I think my
go to verse when it comes to explaining the Islamic
stance on non believers, specifically Jews and Christians. There are others,
such as ninety eight six, which says explicitly that Jews
and Christians and polytheists who don't believe in Islam are
the worst of creatures and Muslims are the best of creatures.
But here nine to twenty nine says fight against those
who do not believe in a law or in the
last Day, and who do not consider unlawful what aligned
as messenger have made unlawful, and who do not adopt
the religion of truth that is Islam from those who
were given the Scripture. So Jews and Christians, if they
don't adopt Islam, fight them, fight until they give the jizia,
which is protection money willingly while they are humbled. And
there are people who will twist what jiza actually is
and they say, oh, it's just a tax man, just
a tax But it's quite clear historically jisea is specifically
for disbelievers. It is supposed to be taken from those
who want to live as subjects of Muslims and not
convert to Islam. If they fail to give it, then
they are fair game. So this is basically protection money.
That's literally what it is.
Speaker 4: Yea.
Speaker 3: And further, I had this one noted, what was the
other t actually said something.
Speaker 4: Oh.
Speaker 1: Ninety eight verse six, that's what I mentioned, which would
be this one. Indeed, they who disbelieve among the people
of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the
fire of hell abiding eternally they're in. Those are the
worst of creatures. And it further goes on saying, indeed,
they who know, indeed, they who have believed in don
Wright's deeds, those are the best of creatures. And if
you read the whole chapter, which is a very short
chapter within context, it does indeed talk about those Christians
and Jews who refused to accept Muhammad as true messenger.
So that's basically what this is about, that they were
cool until Muhammad arrived. Yeah right, yeah, yeah, so yeah,
what But enough about being so terribly islamophobic. What do
you think with all your interactions that you've had, I'm
sure you also had some good impressions of Islam. So
what do you think is actually a good Islamic argument
that you've heard?
Speaker 3: Hmmm, that is a tough question, I know, do you
mean the best, which opponent performed the best, or what
is if I were to steal man Islam their best
argument overall.
Speaker 1: The second one or yeah? Yeah, So something that that
sounds kind of strong ish or strongest given the standards
of Islam, and that is actually a good argument for Islam.
Speaker 3: I don't think it's a good argument, but I think
it's the most successful argument. Probably is the fact that
they will heal to the assumption of generic Unitarianism and
the idea that, well, we know, the Shamas is one God.
Did an Abraham worship one God? Jesus believed in one God?
And so I think that's the most successful argument. I
don't because the Trinity is a complex doctrine. I don't
think it's a good argument. I think that when you
look at the texts, it's very easy to see that
the Torah, the prophets they do teach more than a
bearer generic Unitarian deity. But I think that for most
people who are not very well studying the scriptures, they
don't know their Bible very well. That can be a
very convincing argument, and then they always try to sort
of put us on the defensive as if we have,
you know, an insurmountable challenge in trying to demonstrate the Trinity.
And one way they also are successful in that is
that they always try to assume that you're going to
prove or disprove this by one text, one verse. And
that's not really fair, first of all, because they expect
us to not, you know, demand they prove a doctrine
from one verse in the Koran. But yet we have
this burden of proof that the Trinity or Jesus being
God has to be this verse, or Jesus has to
say I am you know, I am God, or I
am Yahweh, or you must believe in the trinity. What
are Bibles say trinity? So those are you know, unrealistic
expectations for how you know, we don't believe that that's
how you would go about proving it. And by the way,
you don't believe that about your books. I think those
are the most successful arguments I've seen that them have.
Maybe second would be you know, challenges about how can
Christ be fully god fully divine? You know, they always
have these assumptions about what that must mean. It must
mean that if there's an incarnation, it must mean that
God changed. It must mean that, you know, there's some
sort of alteration in the divine nature or something like that.
Those I think are successful, I'm not. I mean, I'm
being honest. I'm trying to think of what would be
the best argument that they have. I think those are
the most successful, but I don't think they're very good arguments.
I can't. Yeah, I can't really think of what is
how I could steal men Islam other than just that
most people tend to assume that mono mono theism, which
actually really late term, must mean unitarianism.
Speaker 1: It's it's a funny thing. I myself, I just asked
you this question, But when somebody asks me this question,
I just, I honestly don't know what to say, because
I have my disagreements with with a purely atheistic perspective
and the purely Christian perspective. But if somebody asked me, uh,
you know, strong arguments for either one, I would be
happily present those. But if somebody asked me about that
about Islam, it's just I don't know, because it's all
quite pathetic.
Speaker 3: Pretty well, I think maybe the best argument I could
say that I've heard maybe doctor Khalil has an interesting
take because he'll go into like neo platonism. But I mean,
I just really I find it really hard to believe
that I'm supposed to think that unlettered, illiterate Arab guys
in the in the seventh century are actually really teaching neoplatonism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I mean that to me, that's really kind
of out language. Also considering the fact that if you
actually look into the earliest accounts of what people at
that time believed, if you go by Muslim standards, who
will often appeal to reports by early Muslim scholars about
the earliest beliefs of Muslims, you will find that according
to the traditions, according to the earliest exegetes, the companions
of Muhammad believed that the world was was a shape
making grounds on the back of a whale that swims
on the on the on the on the water. Well, yeah, okay,
that Allah put the mountains into the earth in order
to stabilize it and prevent it from shaking, but that
this whale moves around and sometimes that causes you know,
earthquakes and things like that.
Speaker 3: So this is funny because I think this hits on
a key point here that we brought up last time
we were talking, which is when you were talking about
the pigs. My assumption was, well, surely that's some sort
of like symbolic language, because I think, you know, in
terms of Jewish and Christian ex to Jesus, there's a
recognition of symbolism, metaphor, you know, all types of different
levels of interpretation of the text. But in early especially
in early Islam, no, it's literally just saying that there's
no mystical meanings. And so if you were to take
say a doctor Khalil position where he wants and he's
very emphatic that in the Shia tradition they believe, like
Christians and Jews, that they're sort of multiple layers of
meaning to the text. Is a deeper sort of allegorical
or spiritual meaning to a lot of these texts. Now, look,
if that's the case, if there's these deeper esoteric meanings,
and if the chron is really teaching me neo platonism,
I would expect that they would get the basics and
the historical simple things right. If there's these deeper meanings,
but if it doesn't get the basic facts about what
prior revelation said about. For example, you know, the arc
of the Covenant is a box that has wings on it,
that flies around that it has Moses' private family jewels
in it. I mean, I would expect you would get
at least what the arc of the company. That's not
what the oir coven is like it. It's not an
Amazon drone with Moses family jewels in it, right, It's
it's a box that's in the temple, that's a big
gold thing with angel golden angels on it. It's not
a thing that flies. So I mean, you see what
I'm saying. If there was actually a deeper esoterics, then
you would you at least be getting the literal stuff.
Speaker 1: Right, That's correct. I saw after our discussion last time
when we when we were talking about how according to Islam,
Jesus will come back and will kill the pig. That
was apparently a highlight, and somebody responded to it and
said that there is actually a more sinister meaning behind it,
and I thought, you know, I see what you mean,
and I see what you're doing, and I see how
you say that there is a sinister Islamic implication about
what pigs represent and what breaking the cross represents. However,
you are giving Islam too much credit here. It's it's
really not that deep. It is that is very very
very primitive, extremely primitive, and it's and it's in the
way it handles things.
Speaker 3: Well, if it wasn't, then I mean to cut you off.
But let's say doctor Khalil's correct that no, really Islam
is this deeper esoteric stuff.
Speaker 1: Well, then why is it.
Speaker 3: So clouded and clogged up with the goofy hadiths that aren't.
Speaker 1: Well, there are some very deep dees to be honest.
For example, one uh, which I would like to have
your input on, would be uh one thing that Muhammad said,
which was the eyes are the leather strap of the anus.
Speaker 3: I knew you were going to bring something. Third. I
was like, for like one second, I was like, oh,
what if he's gonna He's gonna bring out Mohammed's like
physical treatise on like reality and being And it's like
the eyes of the leather strap of the anus. That's
a new one to me. I didn't know that sound
pretty deep.
Speaker 1: This isn't actual, goes I guess you could get.
Speaker 3: You could give like a esoteric I don't know what
it would be. But by the way, on that topic,
you know what, this actually sounds really similar to have
you ever heard of Jim Jones's Like he would he
would go into these long, weird discourses and he has
this idea that like farted out the universe. I mean
it's I know, it's goofy, but like you find like
at times these cult leaders will kind of like they'll
kind of spill the beans on. It's just like crazy bs.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean, no pun intended beans. But yeah,
Jim Jones is my it's my favorite cult leader. So
I know, quite's quite a bit about him.
Speaker 3: Collection like Pokemon you got like cards?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I finally got this one, uh interesting stuff. Yeah.
But just to explain to you what the deep meaning
of the eyes of the letters, strap of the anus means.
What Muhammed meant when he said that was so you're
supposed to do the ablution whenever you do a prayer, right,
But if you go to sleep and you fall asleep,
you don't have full full control over your your anus anymore,
and you might fart, which might invalidate the ablution. So
his his idea was the eyes are what keep the
anus shut because they are the leather strap that keep
it shut, like like on a bottle back. Then what
what if you close the eyes, then the leather strap
is loose and farts might get out. So you would
have to given that that is a possibility when you
wake up, you have to do another.
Speaker 3: I'm not really into Freudian stuff, but it would be
really amusing to see a Freudian analysis of these needs
and like what what Mohamma was up to? Well, that's
that's that's a wild one. I mean, are the hot
these basically just a giant encyclopedia of like crazy stuff
that people are discovering, like on a daily basis, Like
is this just endless? The stuff?
Speaker 1: It's just much of it is just so random. It's
it is. So I have a collection here, Yeah, I've.
Speaker 3: Got I've got them on order, sahib Ohari.
Speaker 1: And so I actually have one that I recommend to you,
which is Sahibukari with all repetitions removed. Oh okay, yeah,
so it's it's it's relatively short compared to the whole thing.
But if if you go through it, or I have
another one which is a mass transmitted verified hadiths listed
in a in one book, and much of it is
just it's just completely useless information that that is just
put in there where somebody where Mohammad says something totally irrelevant,
and then people just report on it and and and
deliver it, and that's it.
Speaker 3: I'm going to walk down to the horse store today. Okay,
they're they're just random stuff.
Speaker 1: Oh there. There's also some interesting, weird detail that, uh,
that David likes to bring up. For example, like that
I just says that sometimes there was a lot of
semen on Mohammed's uh on Mohammed's clothes and she would
have to really scrub it off very very hard, and
he would still have spots on it when he would
go to the mask to pray. So things like that,
you know, like interesting important stuff, theologically important and crucial stuff.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: Moving on, what is the worst thing you have heard
from Muslims in terms of arguments? I know this is
a very tough one, even worse than I think.
Speaker 3: One of the things that stands out as just kind
of silly was when Azar Rashid, when we were debating
about the incarnation, and he said that there's no way
that you know, God could be incarnate and come into
the womb of a woman, because he would have the
pastor of vagina. Vaginas are unclean. And you know, I
might have mentioned this last time. I don't know, but
it's like, well, but didn't All I create vaginas? I mean,
but then but then again it's like, well, you have,
but All I can create good and evil, you know,
dark and light. He creates the wicked as well as
the good. He wills evil directly as as well as
the goods. So I mean, if All is the greatest
of deceivers, the like, why is it wrong anyway? Right?
So I thought that was always that always stands out
as a funny objection.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: The worst stuff I think is like when they really
try to go into what they think is a knock
against Christianity. Oh so when you think when Christ became
in carnate, he had he had body parts, and yet
don't the Hadiths say that Allah has gonads and Allah
is you know, ninety feet tall. And so it's like
a lot of what they think is a gotcha ends
up being you know, absurd in terms of their own
hadiths worst argument. I think the Islami dilemma is pretty
stupid if you think about it, like you want this
book to be confirmed by the prior revelation and then literally,
like Ajas said the debate when Sam pinned him, he said,
what it did, just say, yes, it's all corrupt, but
a lot of places are in it are true when
it confirms the Koran. But thank you for literally saying
what we were looking for you to admit. So he
didn't even that. He admitted, like the very thing that
we were saying was pretty devastating. That was that one
stands out and it's.
Speaker 1: A very very clear display of a fallacy, and he
just says it right away. Yeah, it's very very interesting.
But this is the perspective. This is what you are
left with. Initially, the Muslims thought that that the Torah
and in Jel contained truth, and they are they're the
truth actually, and they were revealed by Allah and they
are truth as they are, and Jews and Christians are
supposed to still follow those books, and this narrative never
really changed. In the Qur'an. There is no single courn
verse which which actually explicitly says that those books are
no longer authentic, or that they have been literally physically corrupted.
It still insists that they should have just followed those books,
or should just follow those books. But but you can't
really make sense of it because if you actually the
open host books and read them, then you have to
conclude that Islam is false. You can't have both religions
to be true at the same time, or three true
at the same time.
Speaker 3: Well, this suggests too that Muhammad was probably relying on
a lot of people who couldn't read. Yeah, things are
relying on an audience that even though he's saying you
can check with what came before, I'm saying everything consistent
with it. Well, if I actually go and read it,
obviously that's not true. So I think the assumption was
that maybe most you know, most of the audits is
not actually going to do that, or they don't know
what the texts actually say. And then also I think
this one gets overlooked because I noticed more and more
Muslims saying this. But it's a really stupid argument. When
Daniel said, look, Islam is simple, and wouldn't God make
the true religion more simple? Therefore it's got to be
Islam right. I mean, to me, that's just such a
stupid argument number one, because first of all, it's a
fallacy to think that because something appears to be simple
or that it's similar to grasp It's a version of
Auckham's razor fallacy that has nothing to do with whether
it's true or false. I mean, errors can be very simple.
Does that make the errors true because they're simple? And
it's silly, right, But also the Koran itself says in
multiple places We've made everything clear. Everything is extremely clear,
very clear, Like it says this over and over and over.
And then there's another verse where it's like, well, many
of these verses, only Allah knows what they mean, well,
not exactly clear, right, So wait a minute, is the
Koran extremely clear or is it complex? And only Allah
knows many of these passes and what they mean, So
by that very definition, it's not true. And then also
Daniel knows good and well that. And by the way
it's happened ever since that debate on Twitter and after
the Muslim inter debate, they're all arguing over the attributes again,
which is what I brought up in both debates that
they've debated and killed each other over both of them
both debates. The Muslims wide and acted like what is akida?
I never heard of this? This is never what what
are you talking about? Acting like there weren't famous wars
and debate over the eternal Quran, over the attributes in
the essence, and they're now debating it on Twitter, exemplifying
the thing I said that they debate this when in
the debates they said, we don't debate this stuff. We
all agree all as one, so they play word games.
They know good and well that I wasn't saying. Yes,
of course you all say Allah is one, but what
that means you all fight over That's the point.
Speaker 1: There was a very very dirty moment by Muslim lantern
who probably stole his name from me. Ex Muslim lantern
who said during the debate, when you talked to him
about about akida is akda, I don't know what that?
What's t akita? What's aekida? What's tekida?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 1: You know, if you want to joke about it for
a second, okay, go ahead and do that. But he's
actually using that as a debate tactic, pretending that he
doesn't know what akda is because he's like oh, you
mean Alquida, not Akida. Uh we you know exactly what
is being said. You're not you're not being funny, you're
not being you're not ignorant. You know exactly what's being said.
But he actually dodges the issue by saying, oh, I
don't know what that is, which is a very interesting tactic.
It's it's just within Islamic apologetics, it is it is
considered acceptable, widely acceptable to simply, you know, deceive, to lie,
to trick the opponent, to to be dishonest. And this
shouldn't be the case. This shouldn't be the case for
a a religion that supposedly represents these this this ultimate fantastic,
great morality, as opposed to all the corruption in the
world and all the you know, all the people who
went astray. This shouldn't be it. If you lie, if
you act dishonestly during debate debates, this just says a
lot about about your religion and is a weak position.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, exactly a strong position. I don't need a
bunch of tricks and and kind and schemes and tactics.
I can simply present the positions. I can present the truth.
I'm not going to have to rely on tactics that
again obviously signify a weak position.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, And the whole thing about the trinity versus
towhead is a very very interesting perspective. I get it.
They like to appeal to that because they can catch
They can get the average Muslim follower to say, oh, yeah,
look makes so much sense, which is a very weird
way to handle things. It mostly appeals to Muslims who
already believe in the toe heat will say, yeah, look,
Trinity doesn't make sense, lok, Trinity is too complicated. Well,
first off, I never agreed and personally don't agree that
the simple belief in the Trinity within the trayne God
is a complicated issue. It may be complicated if you
go further into the first centuries of Christianity, for example,
and discuss the nature of God, scussed the christology in
detail and all that, But these are things that Christianity
handled uh uh in the very beginnings, long time ago. Similarly,
Islam had disagreements, as you just mentioned, about the nature
of Allah further about the Quran's createdness, whether the Qoran
is created or not, or is an eternal speech of
Allah that always pre always pre existed or not. Then
they had an issue on predetermination and free will, which
they killed over. There was one group known as the Mootazila,
who had who's stuck on to the point that that
predestination doesn't make sense uh and that that and that
the Quran is created, And they were declared heretics and
fought and also killed and punished over these things. If
you want to come to the complications of the details
of your theological beliefs, you can also talk about Islam
in that in that regard, there is nothing really complicated
about about Jesus, about the divinity of Jesus, about the
Holy Spirit, about God, the Father, and so on. Plus
they also engage in this tactic where they specifically talk
about the doctrine of the Trinity and the Council of Nicia,
for example, and act like, act like. Prior to this,
Christians didn't actually hold on to the idea that there
is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, when
we know very well that this is early Christianity. The
first sources on Christianity talk about the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit. If you want to specifically talk
about the formalization of the of the Trinity, that is
a different matter, but that does that in no way,
in no way invalidates the belief in Father, Son and
Holy Spirit which was always there. Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we did a stream with inspiring philosophy, which you
can find on his channel still, where we spent out
two and a half hours going through just first and
second and third century Patristic text references to the Trinity.
And so, first of all, the word is used prior
to Nicea. You can find it in Theophilis, you can
find it in Tertullian. And even though Tratullian did not
end his life orthodox or in the Church, he does
have a lot of historical texts that attest to the
beliefs of that time. And so you know, there's there's
a plethora of information and texts from Irenaeus to Ignatius
to Clement, to Theophilis of Antioch, to Cyprian, to Alphinatius Alexander,
all who have famous written texts prior to Nicia that
basically demonstrate that when Nicia comes to gather and meets,
they're not saying anything new. And this is actually another
example of this is that and I'm not singling out
inspiring philosophy here, But a lot of Protestants actually end
up becoming Orthodox or Catholic over this point because they
realized that, hey, actually I can actually go read all
these people from these first three centuries. Most Muslims that
I've encountered are not even aware that there are these people,
unless they want to go to one text in Tertullian
or one section of justin Martyr where suddenly, now right,
they teach anti trinitarianism. Well, I don't think they teach
anti trinitarianism if you look at the context, and Sam
has schmun As a video where he goes into what
Tertullian's actually saying. If you read that whole passage, ultimately
it doesn't even matter because you know, Tertullian left the church,
so I don't have a problem admitting that Totillian made errors.
They'll also do this weird trick too, where they sort
of expect, they expect to the Christians to hold to
some standard that they have, And in our perspective, we
don't think that every church father has to say everything
perfectly or get everything correct. They can make a mistake.
It's it's the judgment of the church. From the Christian perspective,
as to whether somebody like Origin is a hair or
Trapillion is a heretic, or whether someone like Justin Martyr,
even if he didn't say something perfectly, is still within
the bosom of the church. So they have these kind
of weird, uh, just all over the place standards that
they'll expect your position to conform to what they expect.
For example, yesterday I was a beating with a Muslim
and he said, uh, this is a new one, and
this is a funny version of it. She says, Torah
has to be like the Quran, a direct revelation to
Moses that he's that Moses spits out from a lot.
He says, that's what Torah is, and it's like at
the end of it, it talks about Moses dying, and
so therefore Torah is not what you have. I'm like,
that's your idea as to what Torah is. That's not
what we believe Torre is. So I'm not bound by
your standards, right. So, I think there's a real deficiency
when it comes to They seem to be typically incapable
of understanding what our position is, and I think they
don't want to. I think there's a desire to not
even care what the other position is, which is funny
because if you want to be a really good debater,
you want to know the other person's actual position.
Speaker 1: That's true. The problem is that Islam is incredibly ignorant.
It lacks the knowledge of the Biblical tradition, Biblical beliefs
and scriptures. The Quran is a tiny book in comparison
to the Bible that you have. It is a tiny
book compared to the Christian Bible, a tiny book compared
to the Tanakh. It is a tiny book compared to
Christian Jewish tradition. It does not compare. And coming from
that position, from that perspective, from what Mohammad and his
followers developed in the seventh century, and then judging the
Bible and expecting it to be on your standard, iecting
it to be by your standards, it's just is ridiculous.
It is completely ridiculous. And they make a lot of
mistakes there, including yeah, they don't understand what the Bible
actually is. They don't understand what the Torah actually is.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: They don't understand what the Gospel.
Speaker 3: Floated down right?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly, they don't know. They when you
explain to them what the gospels actually are. They think
it can't be true whether so people wrote it. Well, no,
it must be revelation, it must be a lot must be,
it must be speaking it. And so this is not true,
this is not gospel. Uh yeah, I was just so.
Speaker 3: Doctor Khalil just did a long talk contrasting the athari
and the well even to me, a Salafia thory view
versus the review of not just attributes, but also in
what way the Qur'an was spoken by Allah? And then
Allah made Gabriel understand the uncreated speed each so that
he could then tell mom and to write down a
created version of the kron But what's missed here is
that it's never really answering the objection that we have.
And I've been bringing up back all the way back
to the Shabiri lead debate. I'm not saying I'm the
first person to say this. I'm sure many other Christians
have brought this up. But it's like, okay, but if
what's if what's in here is created and there's no
likeness to the uncreated, it's still begging the question, how
we ever know we're being told anything accurately about a law?
Because you can't have any images of a law. Alos
nothing like creatures like forty two and one ten. I
think there's nothing like a law okay, so there's nothing
like Allah. Then you understand these are created images on
a piece of paper. How are they telling us anything
about uncreated speech? And so they're always been this back
and forth. We had a guy on last night, the
Muslim guy, arguing this last night, and he says, well,
the representations of all those attributes, okay, was a representation
not an image? Is Adam not made of the end
image of Allah though there's no images? Well, their conceptions
and conceptions are in the mind, okay, is your mind
not created? So they just keep moving the problem back
in stuff? Right? So how are we avoiding idolatry when
we say, you know, this word here picks out all
his attribute here, So you need some kind of analogy.
If there's no analogies, then these creative things aren't telling
us anything about a lot. And I've never heard them
really give any clear answer. They're all over the place,
depending upon which Akia you're talking to.
Speaker 1: This problem is why? Is why? The humbly point of view,
which later developed the whole idea of the three point
of view, the traditionalist or ultra traditionalist revivalist point of view,
which is why they developed this whole idea of Okay,
what we know about a law comes from several sources
that he has at least one leg to right arms,
but we are not supposed to think about this any further.
Do not ask how? So do not ask how? Then
became this this phrase that is actually known as a
doctrine black Cave, which was specifically established in order to
prevent any further discussion about the nature of our law
and how we are supposed to understand it and to
simply accept the description as it is, but not to
imagine it and not to discuss it. But the thing is,
once to describe those things and I start imagining it,
it's too late already I already have some It's articulous.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what That's what I kept bringing up to Jake.
It's like, what is an uncreated foot that's nothing like
the human foot? But this and by the way, it
gets really silly when you get into the even to
me is theology of perfections, right, because he starts arguing that, well,
all I have to laugh, because laughing is more perfect
than not laughing. Yeah, I'm serious, And so then it
becomes well, wouldn't wouldn't it then be more perfect to
eternally laugh than to just laugh once? So so All
is like the joker, like he's constantly laughing, right, I
mean you see how silly this gets. And then it's like,
how many toes is a perfect foot? Like, wouldn't seven
because that's a perfect number. Wouldn't that be more perfect
to have seven toes and have five toes? Six toes?
Like what's your perfect number of toes on the uncreative foot? Yeah?
Silly this is, but that's literally, It's not that's literally
how even to me is arguing he's saying he actually
says it is more perfect for all that to laugh
and to not laugh.
Speaker 1: Well, it is the perfect thing is to have an
unlimited amount of toes actually, so so it's interesting, it's right, yeah,
but that's not right.
Speaker 3: But Christianity is absurd but not that Okay? Sure? No?
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: Small question to viewers, Uh is this stream frozen? What's
happening here? I don't see any uh new chat coming
in the last chat is from several minutes ago. Uh,
I see some reactions. What's happening. I don't get it.
It's weird. I just checked on two different platforms and
I don't see the chat updating.
Speaker 3: For some weird reason, my chat was kind of freezing.
But if I look, if I stream on my phone,
your chat, you and I are talking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the last chat is from behind you pal.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but you and I are still talking.
Speaker 1: But people are reacting with laughter and heart and hundred
and now it's going. Now it's going, Okay, fantastic. That's interesting.
That was weird. That was weird anyway. Yeah, so talking
about the nature the nature off of Allah, there's a okay, wait,
there's a sending error, but we hear you. Okay, I see,
I see. Apparently there's a there's a problem with the
with the YouTube chat. But we are still on so everything. Sorry, Okay,
all right, thanks for telling me, Thanks Sarah for telling me.
Speaker 4: So.
Speaker 1: Speaking of disagreements, speaking of Islamic beliefs and and all that,
there are certain powerful Islamic positions that I would like
to challenge you with today in order to I know
that there are you know, some Muslims that have been
intellectually stronger, some not so much. But there are some
arguments that I that I have heard, which would which
could change your mind when Islam. So one of those
is the following, why did Jesus and Mary eat food?
Speaker 3: Are you? I can't tell if you're like, you're being silly, right, yes? So,
I mean I could understand maybe thinking, well, if Jesus
is divine, why does he need to eat? But what
so they include Mary in the subjection.
Speaker 1: The Quran says that the Quran says that Jesus and
Mary were just regular humans and they both ate food.
So yeah, The question here is when it is quite clear,
as the Quran says that Jesus and Mary both ate food,
why do you consider them both gods?
Speaker 3: So, first of all, Mary isn't a god, She's not
a goddess. She's a creature. She will always be a creature.
We think creatures can be exalted by God to have
honor and status above others. We think about this even
in the human realm, a king has honored status above
you know, the rest of the people in his kingdom.
So in the same way, in the kingdom of God,
God can honor and exalt people. We see in Psalmn
forty five, the Mother of the Queen standing next to
the King in gold of Ofir. We think that's a
type and image of the Virgin Mary. Now when it
comes to the Son of God, we think that as
a subject or an agent, he's identical to the second
person of the Godhead in the Trinity, the Logos, the
Son of God. So even though he has a fully
human nature, we don't believe he's a human person or
a human hypostasis. That would be what's called the Nestorian view,
and that's what the Council of Ephesus rejects. So we
don't think that he's a human person, but he has
a fully human nature. That's premised on the Orthodox and
patrictic teaching of the distinction between nature and person. And
that's partly how we have the doctrine of the Trinity.
It's how we have Christology, and it's how humans have
a distinction. We would say between a I'm the person Jay,
but I have the human nature that you have. We
all have a common human nature. You're the person ridvon
I'm the person Jay, and there's a distinction there between that.
So likewise, in Christ, he's a divine person, but he
has a fully human nature and thus having a fully
human nature, he would get tired, he would cry, he
would need sustenance and food because he willed to have
a fully human nature. So a lot of times you'll
notice in Islamic debates everything is sort of assumed to
be either or either he's this or he's that. It's
either this or that, and in most orthodox theology it's
a both. And so we're usually saying there's a relationship
in terms of how grace works. Grace and free will
work together in synergy. Christ human nature and divine nature
are fully, fully human, fully divine, and they work together
in synergy. So likewise, here his human nature is real,
and so there's no trick going on. You had, for example,
in the early Church, certain groups that taught that Jesus
didn't really have a human nature was kind of like
a phantasm or a hologram. They're called the Dacatists. And
so one of the ways that Jesus, i think, wanted
to demonstrate that he was fully human is that he's
engaging in all of the activities that a human nature
would engage in, eating, sleeping, and so forth. So as
a divine subject, he didn't need those things, but he
willed to undergo those things.
Speaker 1: So basically we can't answer the question, this powerful question
from the Quran, which says here in chapter five, verse
seventy five, it says, the Messiah son of Mary was
not but a messenger. Messengers have passed on before him,
and his mother was a supporter of truth. They both
used to eat food. Look how we make clear to
them the signs. Then look how they are deluded. This
is obviously a very powerful Quran verse.
Speaker 3: And so the chorn trying to argue that because they
hate they were only human.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, yes, it's and it's a very powerful,
powerful argument which nobody has has yet succeeded to debunk.
So far, nobody has been able to refute this. The
Kuran has put this challenge out there forever, and not
a single person has ever come across and and and
refuted it, which just shows that the Kuran is all
powerful and fantastic.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: Even ironically, even in the Torah, you have the presentation
that most went up on the mountain and had a
meal with God. Abraham had a meal with God in
the famous you know, yeah, meal with Abra. And so
even prior to the incarnation, is still possible for God
to have a manifestation and to engage in what we
think are human activities, not because he needed those things,
but as a condescension to us. That's that's our view
of it.
Speaker 1: Well, I would say that those those parts in the
scripture which happened to disagree with the Kuran are obviously correct,
obviously obviously.
Speaker 3: But you know, it was something I noticed about that
When you start to say that, I know that that's like,
on the face of it, it's a double standard. But
there's another level to which that argument fails because when
I wait a minute, the Quran, let's say, in the
first tensuras like it sort of refers to and rep
and assumes like gigantic sections of the Old Testament. So
in other words, you've got gigantic sections of Genesis, uh, Exodus,
historical books with David Like, it's not just one person
that's referred to, it's like their story too. So we're
running into deeper problems when we start to think about
the fact that when I wait a minute, if if
the Quran in many places of firms gigantic portions of
the Torah and the writings, but then we're going to
turn around and say, oh, well, that section, that part's corrupt.
Do you see how it's an even deeper problem. But
wait a minute, and these other places you've actually confirmed
these whole.
Speaker 1: Stories exactly exactly. Here's another churn verse that I want
to show you, which in chapter Oh wait, wrong, wrong one,
wrong one. I thought I just opened the right one here, okay. Koran,
chapter five, verse thirty two, it says here the following.
Because of that, we decreed upon the children of Israel
that whoever kills a soul, unless for a soul or
for corruption done in the land, it is as if
he had killed all mankind, and whoever saves one, it
is as if he had saved all mankind, and our
messages had certainly come to them with clear proofs than indeed,
many of them throughout the land were transgressors. So this
is a This is a Quran verse in which Allah
supposedly says that it was he who told the children
of Israel the Jews that whoever kills one soul, that is,
it is as if he killed all mankind, and whoever
saves one soul, it is as if he had saved
all mankind.
Speaker 3: Isn't this from the talent?
Speaker 1: That's the problem.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is the problem is the famous Talmut quote
because it's yeah, it's cited even by Jews today, like
Jews will cite this as a principle of Judaism.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, And this is the problem. This is actually
something that displays the problem with Islam, which is uh
which relates to what we talked about when we discussed
where Muhammed got his information from and how much he
was aware of it. So what is most likely the
case here, What most likely happened here is that he's
in the presence of Jews in Medina, and Jews famously
say this phrase how and that this is what they are,
this is what they teach and what they are taught
according to their book. And Muhammadan thinks that this is
actually found in a revelation from a law, although it
is not. This is literally just a Rabbinic interpretation, and
then he adopts this into the Quran and says that
this is what Allah said to the Jews, which is
very funny because on the one hand, you have Muslims
nowadays arguing that the Bible was corrupted, was partially corrupted,
and there are some divine revelations in it, still but
most of it is or much of it is corrupt.
But then the actually but then the Quran actually wrongly
appeals to a book or a text it was written
by humans as an interpretation of divine rene.
Speaker 3: That it's that it's.
Speaker 1: Exactly exactly.
Speaker 3: It's just really displaced the w Yeah, that's just like, yeah,
what does did Allah not know the source?
Speaker 1: Exactly exactly?
Speaker 3: Great point.
Speaker 1: When you bring this up nowadays, you will get excuses
from Muslims uh, which go into the direction of, well,
h you know, a lot told people something and maybe
this was at some point in the.
Speaker 3: It's just well maybe at one point in Torah and
it got lost or something.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, and it doesn't even make sense, like it
wasn't a Torah. But the and the Jews, they they
they didn't bother putting it back into the Torah, but
they did write it into the.
Speaker 3: They put it in the in the talent. We're going
to erase it from the Torah and then we'll stick
it in the talent.
Speaker 1: Okay, it doesn't make much sense.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: Next question that I have for you is we just
talked about Jesus eating food, and Jesus wasn't an environment
that was a Jewish environment. So Mohammed said that that
meat decays and goes bad because of because of the
children of Israel's because of the Jews. So can we
assume therefore that Jesus most likely also ate meat that
would decay.
Speaker 3: Okay, So this is a new one to me. I'm
not an understanding of the argument. I'm trying to figure
out where they would the way they would get that.
One thing I'm noticing is that a lot of the
things that kind of sound odd or that you hear
referenced in Islam like this and kind of like when
you were bringing up the pig thing like it's it
sounds like places in like Ezekiel, or like areas of
the Old Testament where he misheard or misunderstood what it meant,
and then he like repeats it. So this sounds like
like the mana would be set out over and I
know that mana's not meat, but it would go bad overnight.
So does he think that the food given to the
Jews and the wilderness and it decayed and went bad
so they couldn't collect it.
Speaker 1: I mean, it literally says the prophet said, were it
not for beny Israel, So the children of Israel, meat
would not decay, and were it not for Eve, no
woman would ever betray her husband.
Speaker 3: So meat obviously get a connection between Eve and the
fall in in like of Adam and Eve, the admin
e fall, and so that leads to decay and corruption
in the world and thus kind of like Eve fell
in the garden of Eden. I mean, this is really bizarre.
I have no idea. This is a new one to me.
Speaker 1: Well, obviously meat goes bad because of the Jews, so
I would I would always uh, you know, remember if
you have if you ever store meat and it decays,
it goes back and has a bad smell to it,
and you can't use it anymore because of the Jews.
Speaker 3: You can blame you can blame blame that for that.
So in a minute, they have to have some explanation.
So tell me, steal man, steal man, what's next?
Speaker 1: I mean, you can you can look into explanations which
were developed, which were developed by Muslims later on as
an interpretation to what in the world this could mean.
And you have different different explanations that I saw here
and there, or saying oh it doesn't say that this
is not making a scientific statement on how meat is
decaying because Jews did something or because Jews exist. It
is merely pointing out that that meat was made to
decay by Allah due to the wrongdoings of the children
of Israel. That doesn't change anything at all. It's just
it's it's it's ridiculous in any case. But anyway, ever
since I heard this, ever since I've read this and
know this, when I buy food, daili meat or something,
and I see it's expired and it has a bad
spellic freaking juice, man.
Speaker 3: So this is all meat in the world though, right, Yeah,
so if you're like a Chinese peasant, right and your
your fish goes.
Speaker 1: Bad juice, okay, juice, I mean.
Speaker 3: Not even I've never even heard of Jews.
Speaker 1: But that wants the Jews. Yeah right, it's because it's
it's ignorance, of course. Something. If if you don't know
that it's the Jews, then you might not know because
you don't know what a Jew is, but it is.
It doesn't change the fact that it's still the Jews fault.
Speaker 3: So tiny mustache man had been successful and we didn't
have Jews, would meat be like immortal.
Speaker 1: Let's see what they took from us, like all meat would.
Speaker 3: Would be beef jerky, automatical, eternal meat.
Speaker 1: Exactly, we would never ever have to have to have
to care about storing meat properly.
Speaker 3: Again, uh so this is like, this is like Russian
Roulette of like the craziest had eats.
Speaker 1: So you're.
Speaker 3: Basically you're totally debunking all Christian theology today by these
iron clad hadiths that I don't know about.
Speaker 1: So you've stopped me exactly. Speaking of culinary miracles, the
next one would.
Speaker 3: Be invoke Saint Gordon Ramsey and Saint Guy Fieri for
any culinary apologetic challenges.
Speaker 1: When a fly falls into your soup, you have to
make sure that you dunk it fully in so that
the other wing also touches the soup, because that will
that will cure the disease that that that is in
the fly, and then you can eat it again. Why
did Christianity never inform us off this beautiful.
Speaker 3: We were deceived by Jews and we we didn't tell
you guys the truth about a fly in the sup.
Speaker 1: Well that's that's actually a good point.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, I just realized something. Jeff Goldblum is
in the fly.
Speaker 1: He becomes the fly he's a Jew.
Speaker 3: Jess a Jew. I'm noticing something here.
Speaker 1: Oh oh see, it wasn't the rated from right right
that the prophet said, if a fly falls into your drink.
In other in other narrations, it's as soup, dip it
into it, then throw it away, for one of its
wings is a disease and the other is a cure.
Speaker 3: So this almost sounds like it sounds like some kind
of a parable from like the Dalai Lama or something. Right,
what does this mean? I don't know, but it sounds
like something that something that the Dalai Lama would say
and mystify you.
Speaker 1: Right, yeah, yeah, you could probably expect some some deeper meanings,
deeper understandings, philosophical, you know, understandings revelations about this this whole.
Speaker 3: We can ask doctor Khalil what the neo platonic esoteric
meaning of that is, all right, because I know they
don't he doesn't accept those.
Speaker 1: I'm just making say, yeah, yeah yeah. The next problem
would be so Christianity or Christians failed to point out
why Jews are wrong forever uh and the Quran successfully
came in chapter nine, verse thirty and pointed out why
Jews are no longer accepted. And it's said that that
Jews say Ezra is the son of our law, and
Christians say the Messiah is the son of our law,
and that this is what, this is why they are
regarded disbelievers and trip be fought. So why did why
did Christians never say anything about the fact that Jews
believe Ezra is the son of our law?
Speaker 3: Yeah, isn't this one of those weird, mysterious passages that
we don't exactly know what the heck this is talking about.
I mean, first of all, where did Mohammad get the
idea that anybody takes Ezra to be a son of God?
Speaker 1: Well, if the Quran says it, it must be true,
so I know.
Speaker 3: But I mean, like it's just really bizarre. I mean,
Ezra has a very minor place in the Bible. I
mean there's books of Ezra, right, and then there's the
you know Ezra. I mean, he's not in a minor figure.
He's an important figure because Ezra is really the beginning
of the Synagogue system. So after Moses, you get this
idea that Israel needs to have people to teach the
law all throughout Israel, and so Ezra helps to organize
what's called the synagogue system throughout Israel and then by
extension outside of Israel. So, I mean, he's an important
historical figure, but you know, he's not He's only referenced
like in the Book of Ezra that no'more, maybe in
a couple other places, So he's not a huge figure
in terms of the text themselves. And so why or
where they would have come up with the idea that
anybody takes Ezra to be a son of God or
a Messiah. Maybe because maybe he had heard that Jews
believe that God is the father to Israel, and thus
Israel is a son of God. That maybe that's the
explanation for the passage Ezra as son of God. And
then but but no Jew thinks that Ezra was the
Messiah son of God.
Speaker 1: So I think he's also mentioned in the Book of
Esther And but yeah, this is a very interesting mystery.
There are some videos of that. There's this one guy,
Corey gil Schuster. He goes in and asks questions to
Israelis and Palestinian Arabs all the time in the streets,
and I think there are two videos where he goes
around and asks Jews if they believe Ezra, Ezra is
the son of God. And they're all baffled. They're like, what, wait, what,
I don't know what you're talking about.
Speaker 3: Look, I'm trying to see what what would the Koran
study study Bible, the Koran study Bibles. This is the
opinion of one Jew, someone named finnha ibn Ozra, that
it was the belief of some Jews that Ezra was
the son of God. I mean, so, so the so
Mohammad is taking and by the way, where does this
come from? This idea that this is from a certain
Jew called finnha Azura, that some Jews believed that Ezra
was son of God. However, this this belief eventually disappeared.
That's funny because this is similar to their claim that,
oh the real this is what the Daalwa guys that
the fontane guy. Have you heard his new explanation he's saying.
He's saying that, well, when the Bible talks or when
the Koran talks about the checking the Koran with the
Torah and and jeel, this is a Torah and in
jel that existed in Medina at that time that no
one has anymore. That's the explanation. Yeah, right, but if
you remember the Koran says, you check it with what
they have among them. Right, Well, how could Jews do
this and Christians do this if it was only this
minuscule unknown Torah and in Ingeel in Medina that no
one else in the world has or has anymore. Yeah, yeah,
basically a pointless challenge or confirmation.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense. Also given the given the
fact that the Quran basically acknowledges and endorses and guarantees,
you know, safety in the hereafter to Jews and Christians
initially and doesn't ever bring up any issue with the
scripture that they follow. And you have to assume and
given all the versions about Jews and Christians and the
and the scripture, that that the scripture they have Jews
and Christians at that time in general is okay, is good,
is acceptable, and that scripture is we have it. We
have the contents of the Torah and the Gospel from
long before Muhammed exactly.
Speaker 3: Just the fact that we have so many manuscripts prior
to the existence of Muhammad disproves this whole sol er.
But what I'm saying is like it seems like the
same type of ad hoc answer that they exactly. Oh
so this was a specific Jew who believe that there
was a sect of Jews that thought that Ezra was
the son of God and that they don't exist anymore.
Speaker 1: The problem with that explanation, which I which I heard
a lot, is the following hadith here. It's a very
long hardith. I'm not going to read the whole thing
Sahibukari seven four three nine. And if you go through
this hadith, there is here is Mohammed explaining to his
followers what will happen on the day of Resurrection. And
then it describes how the Christians and the Jews will
be brought before Allah and what Allah will do to them,
and he will ask them questions. It says, So then
Hell will it be presented to them as if it
were a mirage. And it will be said to the Jews,
what did you used to worship? They will reply, we
used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a great point, and that's which how eth
is that gonna make a note of that?
Speaker 1: Sa Hippocari is seven nine, or you can probably easier
find it with these references here. Volume nine, book ninety
three five three to two. But yeah, this this clearly
says and it correctly points out this year. For example,
it says, it will be said to the Christians, what
did you used to worship? They will reply, we used
to worship Messiah, the son of our Law. It seems
to go into the right direction here where it comes
to Christians, but it makes an equivalence between them and
Jews and says that Jews will say, we used to
worship Asrall, as son of our Law. And if it
was just one Jew or just a few Jews here
and there, why would this make a generalize Jews. Yeah, exactly, exactly,
And this just shows how how there was really some
confusion going on. And I would say because of this,
just this verse in chapter nine, verse thirty is very
strong evidence the Quran is and ignorantly written or authored
book that it definitely does not come from a divine source.
Yeah exactly, Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Another question is, uh, okay,
I was going to bring up sister of Aaron. Have
you heard of this, the argument about Mary in the Quran? Yeah, okay.
The Quran refers to Mary as mother Mary, mother of Jesus,
as a sister of Aaron, which is of course very
strange because yeah, mother Mary didn't have a brother named Aaron.
We do, however, have another character named Mary Miriam, also
known as Miriam in the Bible. Yeah, and that that
seems to be. That seems to be a big issue.
Speaker 3: I'm trying to remember. Uh. The only response I've heard
to this is from when Shabi release says something like, oh, well,
this was a term they would use in general, like
sister could be any relative, anybody amongst the users, something
like that.
Speaker 1: Right, sure, sure, Yeah, for some reason, we never heard
of that until Muslims came up with that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. And also I thought the crime made everything really
clear exactly why is this so ambiguous here? And this
was obviously a very basic mistake. And if I remember that,
this is one of the ones that so Gabriel Site
Reynolds's book, which is really good, he lists about ten
of these problems, and this is one of the problems
he lists. And what's funny is that the scholarship right
is pretty like unanimous that this is an obvious mistake.
The Muslims themselves had to try to grapple with us
and offer these various explanations. So to me, that suggests again,
like the Ezra texts, no, this is a mistake.
Speaker 1: This is not a like you know, there is more
than that really complicates this issue and just points at
a clear mistake. For example, the fact that in chapter
three it describes a character named Imran who is also
the father of mother Mary. And it further says here
in chapter sixty six, verse twelve, for example, and Mary
the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity. We blew
into her through our angel, and she believed in the
words of her Lord in his scriptures. So Mary, daughter
of Imran and Imran happens to sound oddly similar to Amram,
who is in the Bible the father of Moses, Miriam,
and Aaron. So it must it must be a huge
coincidence that the Quran refers to Mother Mary as both
sister of Aaron and daughter of Imran. All of it
was just used as some weird you know, yeah.
Speaker 3: And and and the sixty six text here has to
be Mary because it's talking about virgin birth.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, Mary, right. There's also no doubt about that
if you go into chapter three of the Quran, which
uh directly it is called Imran or Ali Imran, which
is the family of Imran. And it describes here how
how Imron and his wife had a daughter and that
and that was Mary, and Mary then gives birth to Jesus.
So that's what it describes. And and why in the
world where did Imron come from? How in the world
does it happen that Imron sounds like Amram and it
is assumed to be the Arabic of Amram.
Speaker 3: That's the great point. I didn't notice this Imron point there. Yeah,
this is a Reynolds might mention that I just forgot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a very very strong argument against us. Yeah,
where it's they are a little bit dumb found that
when they try to defend.
Speaker 3: It, well, you know, and to be again, just back
that point up, like if you're a Christian or a Jew,
and you know the history of these texts, particularly with
the Torah and the history of Moses' family, and if
you're a Christian, you know the Gospel of Luke, like,
you wouldn't make this mistake, right, you wouldn't speak this way.
But that's just another attestation to the fact that the
Koran is actually just mixing up what's in the prior
revelation exactly exactly.
Speaker 1: Two final questions. One would be, what do you think
about the fact that the Christians corrupted the Bible by
removing the Book of Council of Nicea from.
Speaker 3: It, the Book of Council of Nicia. Well, that's funny
because that, you know, it is so three twenty five
AD is pretty late, because we would say that all
the New Testament texts were pretty much completed by the
death of John, which is around you know, the year
one hundred or so, So there wouldn't be any new
texts after that time, at least what becomes the New Testament,
even though we don't have the actual what are called
autograph of the original things that Paul wrote. Just like Jews,
Christians believe in tradition, so we believe in an oral tradition.
We believe in a written tradition, even outside of what
we call the texts, and so there were there was
no new Gospels or anything that would be added post
death of the Apostles. For us, that's the deposit of
the faith. It's complete when the Apostles died, Jude says,
contend for the faith once we're all delivered to the saints.
That means there's a completed body of doctrines that's not
just written, it's also oral amongst the apostles. That for
us is the Apostolic faith, the upsolde deposit. So I
don't know what that's even referring to. Is this something
that is in a Hudeeth or something like this?
Speaker 1: Is this is something that is even better than how
do youth and Kuran? This is what's what?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 1: The great scholar Sneako recently several several months ago when
he was discussing with a Christian and she was citing
the book matt which he didn't know what it refers to.
Speaker 4: We have the original manuscripts from the Bible.
Speaker 2: Have you heard of the Council of Nicea. There's been
a lot of chapters that have been removed, and the
Bible has been tampered and manipulated with a lot over
the years.
Speaker 5: And you could argue about specific people who might have
tampered with it. But it's definitely been changed.
Speaker 4: I mean you could say that, but still the original
the original things are still there.
Speaker 2: So most people haven't read the original version, you know,
like most of the factions of Christianity, the different ones
they go off of the manipulator versions. That's why there's
so many different sets of Christianity and there's only pretty
much one. Like you're either and most of them you're not.
Islam is very consistent, like I know, there's small things
like Sony and Hia, but overall it's just either small things.
Speaker 1: Yeah, small things, it's very very small things.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 3: The Bible is pretty simple too.
Speaker 4: You just gotta keep the commandments and follow Christ.
Speaker 5: Depends on the version of the Bible you're talking about.
Speaker 2: What other versions of the Bible are. There's so many,
bro Okay, tell me some. Okay, let's look up versions
of the Bible. We have the King James version, the
English Standard version, the translation.
Speaker 1: You know, you know, but there's so many different translations. Man.
Speaker 4: So the funny thing about all those different versions, but
they're all just different translations, buddy.
Speaker 5: So which one, which one do you know is short?
Is the one to go by?
Speaker 3: The version?
Speaker 1: That's interesting. We have to sell international version, pick twelve
version as up to same version, the Harlem version and
so on were in.
Speaker 5: Those parts of the Bible Council of Nice.
Speaker 3: Tampered.
Speaker 1: But it's just it's just a retranslation.
Speaker 3: That doesn't mean tampered.
Speaker 2: It's been translated seven hundred and twenty four languages. Well,
they did remove the Council of Nicea from the original
Bible a lot.
Speaker 3: Okay, Yeah, this is a new one to me. I
like this, this is the Sneako challenge. Why did they
remove the Council of Nicea from the original Bible? Yeah,
I noticed earlier. So he's actually mixed up, which which
is usually like a Baptist seven day Adventist argument. They
always say, oh, the Council of Nicea happened, and they
tampered with the books and they changed everything, and it's
all this new stuff. Also, Joe's witnesses use that argument
too to try to say that Trinity was invented by Nicia.
So he's actually jumbled up what is a like a
Protestant even aryan argument. And then it turns into no,
there was this Council of Nicea that was part of
the Bible. That was he's actually like doubled up his
mistaken understanding.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he heard the standard narrative that's some people falsely
present about the Council of Nicea, and then he totally
misunderstood it and he goes on.
Speaker 4: You're saying there's a chapter, there's a book called the Council,
than I fear.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's not. There's not no book called the con
it's it's not a whole book, but it's.
Speaker 4: They have books like they had a counsel, they have
the Apocrypher. I have an Apocrypheruh, you have a book
of knock Yeah, the so yeah.
Speaker 1: This was Stego's brilliant moment here where he pointed out
that they removed the Book of Counsel of Nicia.
Speaker 3: And I think, I guess I'm going to become a
muzzle now, because.
Speaker 1: The thing is, I wouldn't want to pick on somebody
who doesn't know what the Council of thea is or
who makes these this suggestion, you know, in a regular discussion.
But when when you go on there and you go online,
you have a massive audience and you try to assert
that Christianity is false and Islam as true. And one
of the reasons why is that there was this Book
of Counsel of Nicia which they removed from the Bible.
Then sorry, but what what is't that?
Speaker 3: Yeah? There was another excellent I don't know if you
saw a Snico's argument about prayer beads. Uh, well, he said,
he said he noticed that Buddhists use prayer beads and
Muslims have these prayer beads, and so he says, so
we're worshiping the same God because we're all using the
same beads. I'm being serious. I thought that was one
of my favorite sneako apologetic arguments. So I'm not joking.
I thought that was a good argument. Also, so a
bunch of Satanists or you know, like if a Satanist
worships one God, then we're all worshiping one God. We're
all wors to the same God because it's one God.
Speaker 1: I I recently looked up the history of prayer beads
to figure out when Muslims adopted it and who came
up with it first. The first prayer beads are so old,
and Muslims simply adopted it, most likely from from from
Christians and then started using him it's not even the
it's it wasn't even a thing in early in early Islam. Yeah,
so what a stupid argument.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you noticed, but he had another
sort of flop the other day where he put up
an argument that Jesus was a Unitarian because he cited
Deuteronomy as the greatest commandment, loved the lords your God.
And then I give him a bunch of other texts
where I said, yeah, but you understand that that's admitting
our position, because in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus affirms
his own deity by saying that he can forgive sins,
that he's the Lord of the Sabbath, that he will
come in glory on the in the second coming. And
he ended up taking it down. So he had so
many In other words, he's just a funny character because
you know, he constantly puts up these really bad arguments
and goofy things, and then he'll end up taking them.
Speaker 1: Down and why why would you do this? There there
are some they have been assertions that he was paid
some high sums of money for to convert and publicly
declare that he's a Muslim and to do this kind
of stuff. I can't say that that is that is
that is absolutely true, But it doesn't make sense that
that somebody with such a great lack of knowledge on
basic things would convert to Islam and then start immediately
talking about it as if he knew what he's talking about,
and then attempting to refute the Bible when he doesn't
even know what Matt refers to and what the Council
of Nicia actually is, thinking that it's a book, it's
it's just it's so silly. And this is what really
gets get.
Speaker 3: I remember right around the time, and again, this is
just what was reported to be true, allegedly. I don't
know if it is actually true, but there was a
story that you know, Tate went and ate with and
had dinner with Saudi royals and then suspicious, oh suddenly
after that, there's this gigantic push online for Islam. I've
always assumed, or it's been my thesis that I think
probably the Saudis are in some way pushing Islam through
the Internet, through the West, through these people that we're
talking about.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. There was also a clip where when Tristan
Tate had an interview. I failed to remember who it was.
I think it might have been on Patrick bet David,
but when he was talking to him, Tristan mentioned something
very briefly about Islam. He said that he had been
offered benefits and a lot of things, you know, in
the Middle East for converting to Islam. But he said,
but of course I didn't accept it because I know
it wouldn't be genuine of me to accept such a
thing and to convert to Islam for that. But then
of course the question that horizis is what about your brother?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Well yeah, so.
Speaker 1: They're not very smart. So it's kind of looks like
he's telling on his brother without realizing it in that moment.
But this is all just speculation. We don't know. We
don't know anyway. Just the final thing that I have
for you, and I want to actually organize another conversation
with you to specifically talk about Christianity and what to
believe and all that. But my final question, just to
finalize this is why are you Christian?
Speaker 3: I'm not today. I've had to renounce all that and
become a Muslim because of the powerful Padis and sneak
o argumentation that's been given. So you actually, I thought
your channel was against Islam, and you hear you are
converting me out of Christianity.
Speaker 1: So it's because I'm being paid by.
Speaker 3: You, were being paid to actually be a Muslim show.
Speaker 1: Wow, exactly exactly. But but if we are to make
it serious I don't know if you even can can
answer this or if we should do this for the
next time. But if you words to tell me in
within like one minute, in one minute, why I should
be a Christian?
Speaker 3: For example, well you asked why I am? I mean
in my own life. There's a personal, sort of subjective
side to this, to where you know, I believe that
throughout my life my many prayers have been answered. I
do believe that God has blessed me, has has given
me all the the things that I need. He's been
a loving deity to me. So those are the personal
subjective reasons. That's not the only reasons. I think in
terms of like apologetics and public public reasonings and proofs,
I think that the dozens and dozens and dozens, there's
not just five or six like most evangelicals think. There's
dozens and dozens of Messianic prophecies that are very precise.
I don't think those could have been faked or staged
or you know, made up afterwards. Those are very strong proofs.
Those were I think the strongest things that I always
found the most convincing about Christianity. There's philosophical argumentation that
I think is convincing. The transcendental argument is something I
always point to. So those are the main reasons why
I personally am am Christian, and to other people, I
would say, I think that it's true. So you know,
if you want to find a basis for, for example,
in the philosophical sense, the things that we rely on
to do science, to do logic, to do you know, calculations,
all that we use, principles that can't be reduced to matter.
There are immaterial things, there's universals, there's laws of logic.
Those things I think make the most sense. They're most
coherent in a worldview where you have a personal deity,
and I think that that points us in the direction
of Christianity. There's a lot of other arguments that kind
of go along with that. Maybe we'll talk about that
next time. But those are some of the reasons why
I'm a Christian, why I think other people should.
Speaker 1: Be very nice. Thank you. I want to invite you
again another time to have a conversation about Christianity, about
God that I would be personally very very interested in.
Are you cool with going through super chets here? We
have about twenty of them. Our s okay, shake Mike Wingling, says, Jaye, dummy.
The guy that thinks one plus one plus twenty plus
three this is true doesn't know Arabic and thinks the
CIA wrote the time one instead of Masade. No thanks,
I'll take my tifts here from for Reid.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, it's like I always point out, all right,
I mean I think that guy's kidding obviously, but.
Speaker 1: Like, yeah, yeah, it's true.
Speaker 3: So here these are So people think, oh, you can't
have something that's one and three. Are you sure about that?
Because I could give you three examples. One times one
times one Is that equal three? I wrote that wrong.
It's supposed to be one one. Excuse me, one to
the third power?
Speaker 4: Is all right?
Speaker 3: So these are all like examples of what like, this
is one thing, but it's also three things. Right, this
is one, but it's also raised to the third power.
It's still one. Right, This is one time one times one,
and that's still one. So it's actually pretty obvious that
even in the created realm, something can be one and
many at the same time and it doesn't involve a contradiction.
And so why would we think that necessarily there's a
contradiction between God being both one.
Speaker 1: And many, but this is a perfect opportunity for Muslims.
Just take this clip from before Jake made the correction, and.
Speaker 6: Then right, it's still bad that we got him Jay
refute exposed to unity by actually the.
Speaker 1: Shake. Yeah, Dick, which sounds like a very interesting name,
said j D. Would asking if God is all powerful
be a good argument against God not able to become flesh.
Speaker 3: This is a little more complex because I think what
we mean by all powerful will be limited and dictated
by the worldview or the theology that we have. So,
for example, attempts atheists say stuff like, oh, if God's
all powerful powerful, could he make himself not exist? And
we would say no, because that's not what if God
exists all powerful means. So it's going to be limited
and conditioned by the being who is the ground and
the ultimate authority in that worldview. So what's possible for
God and not possible for God is going to be
determined by what kind of God you believe in. And
in the Christian scheme, there's nothing inherently impossible for the
second person, the God at entering the de time and space.
So I don't know if I would immediately go with
that route.
Speaker 1: M Yeah. One problem that recently arose on Twitter was
that God necessarily cannot eat a sandwich, therefore Christianity is
false something like that.
Speaker 3: What if God has a human nature that's full of
human why couldn't he eat a sandwich?
Speaker 1: Eternal Vigilance says, thank you both for all you dude,
God bless you. Thank you so much. Eternal Vigilant appreciate
it very much. Snugwig a CP showed about a loss
sat on a rooster. Yeah, that's that's what I would
do if I was all Stefan. The pelta said, example
of Arabic eloquence, Mischkat and Massabi three fifteen. What are
you talking about? Let's see Missabi three fifteen. Come on,
I already did it, man, I already did it. Muawia
reported the prophet as saying, the eyes are the leather
strap of the anus, and when the eye leaps, the
leather strap is lucent. So this is an example of
the eloquence of Arabic and the great insights that Muhammad had. Uh.
There is a lot of philosophical stuff here that you
can probably.
Speaker 3: Dig into deep esoteric wisdom, very very deep.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Uh, Jesus is at the throne Muhammed is in
hell based. I want to please clip you.
Speaker 5: It is totally based, Okay.
Speaker 1: Joel Evers? Is that retro David oh Hi sport? It
is actually yeah, uh, iron kipper considering to turn the
considering to turn the Quran into bunny litter every time
there is a gin attack and upload a video of
my rabbit poop on it. I see, that's that's a
good idea, shake head, except Moslim? What is makes a girl?
Hawk tool and noise? Christian? Not sure most of them.
You see, you know absolutely nothing about child marriage.
Speaker 3: I like that. That is funny because in a lot
of debates, when it starts to get a little heated
for the Muslim suddenly it turns into Arab phrases, Arabic phrases,
and if you don't know them, then they've won the debate.
It is the religion for the whole world. But suddenly
now it's just like you have to have perfect Arabic
pronunciation or else you don't know anything.
Speaker 1: It is a it is a perfect move. It's a
perfect strategy. Actually, the attributes of God. I clipped this
from when Mohamed a Job talked to Jordan Peterson. It
was a perfect moment.
Speaker 5: The attributes of God, how are they knowable? Is that
only through relationship with the with the book?
Speaker 1: Does that also have an experiential element as far as.
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 1: So why why do that?
Speaker 5: To my question?
Speaker 1: In that manner?
Speaker 4: I don't do that?
Speaker 3: Thangod, this is a great club. I'm glad you played that.
I've forgotten about that.
Speaker 1: That's how do you know when that's appropriate and when
it's not?
Speaker 3: Ill this is one of the funniest dreams I've been
on a long time until I forgot about that club
and I forgot George Pierce and reactions like why'd you
do that?
Speaker 1: I don't understand the language? Oh man l two A.
What do Jews and Muslims think about Genesis when it
says let us make men in our image? Who is us?
Who is our?
Speaker 3: I can tell you that Jews have a long historic
debate on what the passage means. I don't know at
all what Muslims would say. Perhaps they would say, oh,
it's like the Quran, the Royal Wei, this is the angels?
Is that is that what they would say?
Speaker 1: Yeah, they would they would say, it's the it's the
plural of majesty and i'll o refers to him itself
as we as in the Kuran as well. But then
again you're talking about Genesis, they would say, we don't
know if it's authentic or not. It's been corrupted. Corrupted Yeshwa,
the king said, Bible's main focus is redemption. In following
yeahwe Yeshua. So why do we have to explain theology
trinity when God never focuses on expounding on them.
Speaker 3: Well, but he does, in fact, I mean many passages
of the Gospels, and particularly say John five thor nine,
Jesus disputes with the Pharisees about who exactly was appearing
in the Old Testament. In fact, he even gives this
dispute the essence energy distinction argument we would say as Orthodox.
When he talks about to the Pharisees, no one sees
the Father at any time, and so therefore who was
Moses interacting with and talking to. That's proving and arguing
our position as Orthodox. I think if you get into
John fifteen sixteen seventeen, Jesus goes into a lot of
depth about the relationship between the Father himself and the Spirit,
the eternal relationship of the procession, and then his sending
of the Spirit into time and space. So, in fact,
the New Testament, just in those passages discussed as the
Trinity many times over, hebres one is a lengthy discourse
on the relationship with the Son to the Father, that
the Son is not a creature. So, I mean, these
are just two examples of where even the New Testament
is debating that. The history of the Church is very
much concerned with that, because our salvation in the Christ
of You is bound up with whether Jesus is the
Son of God or whether he's just a man. So
the Bible does talk about this, and the Church fathers
talk about it for a reason.
Speaker 5: Nice, we're proud of that.
Speaker 1: Eric, Eric, it's small compared to Hindu and Zoroastrian books.
Even that's true, that's true. The Koran is tiny. Lilai
Squeer says, I just thought of it when I said
the Koran is tiny. I don't know if you've seen
and Andrew Wilson's I knew that's where you're gonna go. Yeah,
randomly came into my mind when I just said tiny.
H whylight square. From an Islamic perspective, what's the problem
with God giving most or Jesus a book containing details
of their deaths, their profits.
Speaker 3: After all, Well, I don't there's a problem. Well, you're
saying from the from the Islamic perspective. I think the
guys that I was talking to. His argument was that
it has to be like this. It's like Allah possesses
you and you spit out what is Torah? Yeah, therefore
you couldn't have the recounting of the death. So we
think Joshua added that or put that there or whatever.
So he's not a problem because we don't have the
same idea as to what I've noticed this too, And
I don't want to keep hold up your stream. But
like a lot of times, like Muslims think that everybody
in the Christian world has like this like dictatorial Protestant
interpretation of what techts are from God. Right, So it's
like they don't see it in the In our view,
it's just like the incarnation. There's a there's a synthesis
between the human author and what God intended to convey
in the divine revelation.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 3: And I think Muslims think of it like it's a
dictation from a lah, which is which actually is the
traditional Islamic position, so they think that our view is that.
And if you notice in the in the Daniel debate,
you know he was he kept arguing, like, where's your
original perfect text, And it's like, our position doesn't require
that we don't have the same idea of inscripturation as
you do. And he keeps foisting his his criteria, his
position on us. And I think that's that's a key
point they miss.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's it's also I mean, even the
the the the Jewish perspective, the orthodox Jewish perspective would
be that, uh, that the Torah is as it is
revealed and is the word of God directly given to
given to Moses as as guidance. But the argument there
never never is that it must be uh, it must
be revealed in the way that Muhammad had his revelations
allegedly ac current to Islam. That's not the idea. It's
just again one of those Islamic misunderstandings of how biblical
tradition actually well.
Speaker 3: And if you look at doctor Khalil's talks like whether
it's the AUTHORI or the Ashari, like the their idea
is that Allah has this eternal Qoran with him and
then Gabriel just basically spits out the eternal Quran that
Allah wanted to be in time and space. So it's
like a literal, like like a program that's like an
ai that spits it out. Yeah, and it's not the
what we think is like a Lot is speaking to
the hearts of prophets, but they also have a human
element to it, to where they're writing their thoughts and
their their side of it too.
Speaker 1: Exactly exactly. For some reason, the Quran is eternal, and
a Lot delivers it in some shape or form through
through Gabriel. But also the care contains several verses that
are abrogated by later verses. I don't know why. Doesn't
make sense, but it makes sense. If Allah has a
perfect plan, divine merse, is it. AP is going to
become an author, bro so said L. L. Jk uh eighteen.
Ministry is high, AP. Where can I get your abridged Sahibukari?
Speaker 3: I needed to write that down too, because I wanted
to get a copy.
Speaker 1: Honestly, Oh yeah, there is. Let me see. I don't know.
I think I just ordered this from Amazon.
Speaker 3: I think that's what I put on my Amazon list.
Was I thinks, so this is this is it?
Speaker 1: It looks like this all in one, no repetitions in
this literary hadith. I'm pretty sure you can find it
on Amazon, honestly, Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a pretty good
addition to you know, quick sources about all the hadeth
very very nice. Can we get a Shaky booty versus
move the eye to La Armine in Charlot soon? But
first we have to do Randy Balls versus exactly? That
will be the ultimate debit. The world is not ready
for that, man, Jack said, thank you for the laughter,
So neat it. Thank you for the laughter, Jackson. So,
Larry rosen Krawd, they fly cure disease nonsense sounds beils
button that is true.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I think I think that Muslims really
need to capitalize on that Jeff Goldbloom fly.
Speaker 1: There were some apologetics from decades ago. It still came
up like a decade ago or so, which explained that
the hadith about the fly and the soup is actually
a miracle because it turns out that fly, that certain
certain insects that fly may actually contain in their wings
something that you could extract to use in Uh, you know,
fighting or curing a certain disease. But none of it
actually makes sense. It doesn't talk about Hollis flies. It
doesn't talk about just donking them into your soup.
Speaker 3: Now, I remember, wasn't that didn't they Even before I
was interested in Islamic stuff, I remember seeing videos and books.
I even found a book one time, maybe fifteen years ago,
where they where they would argue about, oh, the you know,
the Koran is proven by all these miracles about the Quran,
and there's miracles within the Qoran. But I don't I
don't hear them using this argument very much.
Speaker 1: It has become very it has become less popular, especially
over the last ten years. I would say you could
still hear, like ten years ago, people popularly going to
the idea that the Kuran contains all these scientific miracles.
We had recently, even popular Muslim apologists like Ali Dhawa,
who happens to be a very big intellectual powerhouse. He said,
he said that the scientific miracles narrative that he himself
believed in it and it made him convert to Islam,
but it has been debunked. He explicitly said that it
has been debunked. That is no longer, it is not valid.
It's not a good point, and people shouldn't be using
it anymore because you can't appeal to science to prove
that the Quran is true.
Speaker 3: And when that's because of the Quran itself doesn't say
that you can go to science, why would they not
want to use that.
Speaker 1: Well, they developed the idea that they would be giving
science too much authority to judge over what is true
and what is not. But the problem with that is
that the Quran repeatedly says it repeatedly appeals to the
natural world and says, do they not see how we
how we created the heaven with no crack in it?
And how we did this and that? So the Quran
itself repeatedly appeals to science. Is a.
Speaker 3: Place in the Koran. I was trying to remember this, like,
isn't there something like where it says something like, oh,
if you doubt this, recite it and listen to how
beautiful it is, and how isn't there something like that.
Speaker 1: There? There are references references like that there if you
if you if you have doubts. I'm not sure if
there is a if there is a passage specifically about
the recitation if there is nothing like.
Speaker 3: How could how could this be composed the way it was?
Speaker 1: Yeah, it does. It makes references to that, to how
how beautiful and how wonderful this this text is, or
this this revelation, this message is, and how no one
can make anything like this and it is perfect. This
is why Also the challenge exists that nobody can bring
a chapter or a verse or a book that is
better than That's that's the one I'm trying toeah exactly exactly.
Speaker 3: It's a ridiculous argument.
Speaker 1: But yeah. I even discussed this with a Muslim academic
at Harvard. I had him on my channel. I interviewed
him and I asked him the question said, does this
question even make sense because it seems that that that
that that that the challenge would be invalid, uh and illogical.
He said, yeah, I I agree, it's it doesn't make
any sense because there is no standard by which you
can judge whether whether a text is better or worse.
So and it would always be in the hands of
the of the Muslims to decide yours is not better
than the better. Yeah, obviously this is much better, but.
Speaker 3: It's it's just that's like which one tastes better. Well,
clearly this scoop tastes better. It doesn't have a fly
in it.
Speaker 1: Right, good point, Good point him, And he said, chef allah,
and now for our third course, we have nearly rotten
meat with a double fly wing sauce.
Speaker 3: No, there's no Jewish chefs around, so.
Speaker 1: I have to give them one thing. So we talk
about these culinary things. We mark them and make fun
of them. There's one thing that is respectable about about
the culinary practices and advices, which is which would be
when a group of people came to Mohammed, they felt
very sick, so he told them, go and drink the
milk and the urine of a camel and you will
feel you will feel better. So they went away, and
then they came back and they allegedly felt better, but
then they ended up killing uh this this Muslim guys,
the Muslim guid and taking all these camels and then
running away with it with it. So for some reason
they were convinced or they it helped them they felt better,
but then they ended up robbing this guy, uh, there's Muslim,
and then running away with the camels, and which is
why they were apprehended and then killed by cutting off
their hands and feet from opposite sides and branding them.
Speaker 4: And.
Speaker 3: That Mohammad and the authors might just be writing comedy.
Speaker 1: Consider that theis I don't know, but when I read
that story, it just makes me think, Wait a minute.
So Mohammed gives them the advice, Hey, how about just
drink some urine, drink some cameras And they're like okay.
Then they go and when they come back, they're so
mad that they actually kill kill Mohammed's guy and take
all his camels and try to run away. It looks
like they weren't really happy with the advice.
Speaker 3: Ah okay, So, by the way, does that mean that
you drink up separate or am I supposed to put
them together?
Speaker 5: Like?
Speaker 1: Depends why your preference? Whatever you like best? Yeah, yeah,
but that's why I always have to have a bottle
of urine here. Uh call off? Goodora. Hello boys, Do
either of you know what the Shia hadith say about
aisha praise to odin? How dare you? I'm not extremely
familiar with chi Id's They have the Kittaba Kafi, which
is different narrations about with things that Muhammad said. They
don't have a very good view of Aisha Mohammed's child bride.
They usually call her a prostitute and things like that.
They're pretty harsh about her. But I'm not sure how
much of that comes from Ahadith. Honestly, you'd have to
ask somebody else about that. Not very good with my
Shia stuff. Stumaham hey ap please life with xsom Zahil
and Adam seeker Inhola one day uh tendu blood chats
bugged boys, Only super chats can fix it. You know what,
It actually got fixed when I went into the settings
of the stream as it was happening and switched to
subscribers only mode, and then and then back again to
no subscribers only. More than suddenly the chats started working again.
Very very weird wild It was probably the Jews. Karamasao said,
I feel like Jonathan Plejot would like to go on
a hyper analysis of the symbolism of the fly in
the Superdith.
Speaker 3: That's funny. I do think you're right, though, to call
attention to the fact that a lot of the symbolic
and the like, even going into deep debates with Muslims
above the attributes. It's like doing a disservice because it's
given the impression that this is like this really sophisticated deep.
Really it's just a bunch of goofy stuff.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's it is. It is pretty dumb. It's the
example of for example, in Kuran, in the Quran, in
chapter eighteen, verse eighty six, that is also the that
is the part where it talks about Alexander the Great.
That is where the Quran mentions that that he went
to the setting place of the sun and he found
it setting in a a a in a dark muddy water,
and he found it near it eight people and so on,
So it says he found the sun setting in a
muddy spring. Basically, nowadays, when you when you discuss this,
Muslims will talk about what this actually means and the
metaphorical aspect of it and how it appears when you
look from a distance at the sea and so on.
But the thing is, the earliest Muslim exegetes weren't quite
that deep about it.
Speaker 3: For example, have this deep symbolic guess meaning.
Speaker 1: So Sierra Altabar is one of the earliest ext Jesus,
and it says it discusses this verse on over multiple
pages and all it does is it talks about where
this place is where the sun sets in a muddy spring,
and then it talks about how whether this spring is
hot or just dark or muddy and so on. So
it's Jesus, no, no, nothing at all. It's quite literally
just seeing the sun actually setting anybody spring. You have
to read into it to come up with something deeper.
Speaker 3: The notes here say we need not read this in
a literal way. It says, it says, it is probably
just describing the way that the sun would would appear
to set to the human perspective, of course.
Speaker 1: Of course, of course, but for some reason, it's also
the setting place of the sun. Yeah no, I'm mkw.
Don't you feel bad for the garden kids? We can't
celebrate nine to eleven and so such. That's pretty that's
pretty dark. Yeah, you have. I posted it earlier today.
We have always had the videos of Muslim populations including it,
especially the Palestine and Era population celebrating nine to eleven.
It's no lie. I grew up among Muslims. I grew
up as a Muslim immigrant in Germany. It was it
was the normal thing to justify it, or to be
happy about it, or to be quiet about it because
we don't want to brag about it too much, or
to say what about a rook and so on. This
was the general almost attitude. Shouldn't be a secret, but
yeah whatever, Neil seven seven seven seven. Now I know
why a small mustache man hated Jews his favorite meat
decayd when he was a child. This makes sense. This
explains one of the one of the reasons why Hitler
went all mad or Hirschfield made a superstiket which I
cannot see here, but I'm sure it's a very good one.
Thank you. Rage Murray made a superstiket which I also
can't see. Interesting, Jordan Floris, but thank you. Is Randy
going to do an altar call.
Speaker 3: In the in the next third installment of Randy Ball videos?
I will do an altar call just for you, Jordan.
Speaker 1: That's good, that's good. See you heard it here first,
John Smith. As someone who has read the Book of
the Council of Nicea, I can confirm as long as
to Caleb Warku Jay thoughts on Aisha age and her
marriage to.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I think it's pretty obviously a sign
that this is a weird cult, that you know they
work so hard to defend this that Daniel and Jake
and these people, Like, I thought it was odd in
the debate. It didn't bother me, but it was like
the first half of the debate it's about attributes in
the Quran, and then suddenly all they wanted to debate
was about trying to prove that Christianity affirms their view
of child marriage. And I'm just like, it doesn't. But
even if there were younger ages of consent, Like, I
just don't understand what this what they were trying to
prove with that, with getting me to say that, you know,
medieval Catholic canon law allows you to marry a girl
after puberty if she's thirteen or four, And I'm like,
but what is that. I don't understand what this is
supposed to prove that therefore then a pre pubescent marriage
is okay. I mean, it's just a really bizarre line
of argumentation. I think it's absurd.
Speaker 1: Honestly, why don't condemned h Thomas Aquinas? Wasn't that what
he repeated?
Speaker 3: Yeah that was I think, uh yeah, Daniel said that,
and then Jake had a video about that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you even said I'm ready to condemn it. Yeah, okay,
he feels to condemn.
Speaker 3: And then and then they made a video saying that.
Then they said, see he won't condemn aquinas for this.
I'm like, okay, is wrong. I don't know. It's like
they didn't even care that Like to the Orthodox, we're
not really that concerned about the quinas. But whatever. But
even if even if we accepted a coinus like, I
don't have a problem saying that there can be different
times in different places for what's acceptable for marriage, but
that wouldn't vindicate child marriage.
Speaker 1: They also I don't know if you looked into this afterward,
but jenneally Key, could you lied in the debate about
with you once again about the Catholic encyclopaedia. Yeah, when
he made the claim that the Catholican's cupidias uh says
that Mary was was was twelve years old or so,
and that this is totally fine in the Catholics Compidia.
This is not true. And he has been confronted on
this multiple times.
Speaker 3: And actually look at, uh, what what is the Catholics
VIDIA say?
Speaker 1: What does it say? I had it pulled up before because.
Speaker 3: I went well or what whatever? What's whatever? He's been
confronted with I'm not familiar with this.
Speaker 1: Let's see. Let's see. Let's see incarnation devotion, marriage, marriage,
marriage marriage marriage. Oh yeah, here, let's see. Let's see.
So we have the source here. When it comes to
the marriage, it says, it is probably at Nathers that
Joseph bitsathed in marriageer who was to become the mother
of God when the marriage took place, whether before or after,
the incre nation, is no easy matter to settle. And
on this point the masters of Exejesus at all times
been at variants. It will not be without interest to
recall here unreliable, though they are, the lengthy stories concerning
Saint Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty
years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melco or
Esha by some salon by others, and so on, it
then further says, oh, yeah, here they wish to find
in the tribe of Judah respectable man to espouse Mary.
And then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who
was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem.
Among the candidates, a miracle manifested the choice God had
made of Joseph, and two years later the annunciation took place,
So two years according to this narrative, after she was
between twelve and fourteen years.
Speaker 3: Old fourteen to sixteen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, these dreams is a Saint Jerome styles them, from
which many a Christian artists has drawn his inspirations. See
for instance, Raphael's espousal of the virgins are avoid of authority.
Avoid of authority, They nevertheless acquired in the course of
ages some popularity, and then some ecclesiastical writers sought the
answer to the well known difficulty arising from the mention
in the Gospel of the Lord's Brothers and so on.
So first off, void of authority. Secondly, it explicitly says
here unreliable, though they are so the Catholic encyclopedia here
never makes the claim that this is the age of
Mary when she was married. It only says that there
are certain traditions unreliable from the perspective of the Catholic encyclopedia,
and have no authority. But Daniel has been corrected on this,
But he will repeatedly claim that even the today says this.
So this is another lie that he makes about that
he repeatedly tells about child marriage to justify it, and
it's such a horrible I mean, who is actually convinced
when they debate and argue for child marriage. Who actually
watches this and says, oh, okay, they're making a good point.
I guess it's okay to married children.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah, it's kind of sad, but I mean, oh,
that reminds me that there was that I don't know
if you saw that video. Shake Uthman was doing the
same thing where he was saying that the Torah has
proof that Rachel was three, and it's not true. That's
in the Talmud, giving an opinion that he thought she
might be, which is not in the Torah.
Speaker 1: So yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's it's not Yeah, it's
it's all completely irrelevant and ridiculous. Jim as if all
is all Paulvalant all knowing, can abrogation exist? But technically
it could. It would be part of his plan right
to Sandy Kuran that has prior verses that abrogate or
later verses of abrocate prior ones. But it's kind of
weird that a law would have this eternal revelation sent
to humanity revealed within just twenty years and within that
within those twenty years there are verses that are abrogated
by later verses for some reason. It's a weird plan.
Then again, you can't question the wisdom of all lung
just to it. Jay, what's the hardest debate you've had
and why?
Speaker 3: I guess it's a tough one because I mean you
could say hard in terms of like whether the opponent
is really obtuse and stupid, or hard in the sense
of like did somebody propose a real challenge. I mean,
we haven't really had a debate with anybody that had
a significant, you know, hard argument to answer because most
most of the time I try to know my opponent's
position as best I can. I'd say probably one of
the better debates is maybe doctor Malpass because he because
he knows I think when I debate somebody who's an
actual professor or like has a degree in philosophy, those
usually go better because they know philosophy and they don't
make stupid arguments and you're not getting frustrated. But so far,
there hasn't been a person that I think really like
stumped me or like, you know one. I'm not trying
to be arrogant. I'm just saying I don't think that
there's been one yet. There could be, but not so far.
Speaker 1: What about Muslim Lantern. I heard that Muslim Lantern was
really tough and really defeated you in the debate.
Speaker 3: I actually thought he would. I expected better of him.
I mean, I was not familiar with him. I've never
seen any of his stuff. But then, you know, pretty
quickly into that, I could see that he was not
going to be a very good faith debater, so he
was actually probably one of the lower tier.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, Jerome a lot of refuting the divinity of
Christ and of Mary, who is part of the trinity
Quran five seventy five Jesus and Mary aged food. Never
heard of the hypostatic union. Yeah, the Quran fails to
completely understand anything about the nature of Christ. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: This is a really good point too, that's overlooked. I'm
glad you mentioned that, because if if I was going
to believe the chron, if the chron wanted to compile,
or if they want to convince me, they would at
least get the theology right, you know what I mean,
they would say, Oh, you know, at nicea these Aarrant Christians,
you know, taught that Jesus is the second person of
the Godhead, and that he's Homo lusius. But they don't
even get the basics.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, yeah, precisely, And this is not the only
verse that is that also, by the way, references Mary
as part of trinity godhead. It also refers to look
at this. You might have seen this verse. If not,
I would say, is definitely something to look into. So
chapter five, verse one hundred and sixteen. And when Allah
will say, oh, Jesus, son of Mary, did you say
to the people, take me and my mother is deities?
Besides Allah? He will say, exalted are you? It was
not for me to say that, to which I have
no right, and so on. So just by asking, just
by saying that, Allah will ask Jesus this question, did
you tell the people to take me and my mother
is deities? Besides Allah? The Quran is seemingly implying here
that Christians do indeed believe in Jesus and marry as
a part of the God had and divine, which Muslims
today tried to explain by saying, oh, it was probably
in reference to a sect of Christians and all that,
but it's it's again one of those you know you
can say anything. Now.
Speaker 3: Well, this is funny because you'll notice if you have
a debate with a Musulman who knows his religion, he
always has the expectation and the demand that you present
his position accurately. Right, Yeah, the Quran didn't present accurately
the seventh centuries of Christianity prior.
Speaker 1: To it, exactly exactly. It's because the grant's author didn't
understand anything exactly that the Christians or the Jews believed,
which is why he got so many things wrong. Nico, Hey, Ap,
do you find moral issues in the Old Testament challenging
or has David would help with interpretation? It could be
fun to discuss with Jay God bless In all honesty,
I had I've never really had big issues with the
moral problems in the Old Testament. And this might sound
surprising to some people, especially to atheists and others. But
I also said in the past, for example, that I
don't that I can't condemn even slavery that took place
several centuries ago. If there is if slavery is a
norm that you deal with, that you do in a
society where this is how you deal with your enemy
in order to stop them from being a danger for
you in the future, and you put them to some
use instead of massacring them. If that was the norm,
I can't blame people in that time for the slavery
that they participated in. I could say that that this
is even I know this is very controversial, but I
could even go into the future with that, to to
the United States of America. I can't condemn individual slavers
and slave owners in that society where it is, where
it is a normal thing. I would say it's good
that it is eventually abolished, but condemning individuals for doing that.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 1: In the time of the of the Old Testament, it
is a time that is profoundly completely different from our
modern time, where a different handling of matters may have
been required, and it was okay for that time. Both
Christianity and even Judaism, which does not does not believe
in replacing or you know, fulfilling or abolishing the Old Law,
both moved on from much of it, even depending Judaism
for example. And to tell them what discusses how certain
matters are matters of the past and no longer applicable
in our time, and so on. So I have no
problem acknowledging that there are things that were considered okay
back then not today. It's all right. Do you have
any comment on that, Jay.
Speaker 3: No, I pretty much agree with that. I think you
have in the ancient world God meeting people where they were,
and he didn't have. If you look at the way
the Bible progresses in our perspective, you know, there's very
few expectations put upon people in Noah's day, very few
expectations even in Abraham's day. So the expectations kind of
grow with mankind's progression. And the Church brothers discussed this
from a kind of immaturity to maturation, and so the expectations.
You know, Jesus says, to who much has given, much
is required. So as we progress in terms of history,
I think there's a god can't expect more are because
of because of progression.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's good.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 1: Grigsy Gregoriovniza refute to ap Are you really do you
really want to have a discussion about Jews?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure that this is what this is about.
I'm not going to have that discussion. Old Testament, New Testament, truth, dinosaur,
Old Testament nutisment fantastic comments here. Eric al Harp said, Jay,
I'm Orthodox. A Catholic asked me what the difference between
procession and inspiration is, and that that ultimately our distinctions
in the hypostasis collapses into meaninglessness because we can't define
these terms.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but this is missing that this is actually his
own Catholic church. In confirming Constantinople, I affirms the position
that we have as Orthodox, which is the Cappadocian position.
Cappadocian position is that we believe in a distinction between
generation and procession, because it's revealed that way. Basil says.
He says, what the distinction is, we do not know,
and we're not told, but that there is a distinction.
We do know, and the other way we know is
by what's called hyposthetic properties. So the father is the soul,
cause the son is generated and the spirit aspirated. Those
are the hypothetic properties that distinguish the persons. To the
attempt by Catholics to speculate about other ways to make distinctions,
we believe goes out of the balance of what's defined
at the second ect Medical Council.
Speaker 1: That sound is pretty based. I don't know what you said,
but it is totally based. That's a sound by that
I took from a rabbi who was discussing the difference.
Speaker 3: I wonder what that sound is. That's fine.
Speaker 1: I took it out of context. Of course. He was
discussing how the Christian idea of original Senate the Jewish
idea are differ. But he was explaining it and saying,
you know, although we have disagreements, the Christian idea is
totally based on the Jewish idea as well, and we
know the same thing. But I thought, but he had
this odd, long pause after the word base, and I thought, hey,
that's perfect greeksy. I was talking about slavery. Okay, I'm
sorry for misrepresenting you. Okay, thanks, thanks. I don't know
what you meant though. So, Jeffrey Anderson Quran nine thirty,
what do you think about the idea that Mohammed conflated
Ezra and Elijah, given the importance of Elijah in the
heralding of the Messiah, not just from the Tanah but
Jewish Cedar customs. Before Jay gives his thoughts on this,
I would say that I just have one problem with it,
which is that so in the Arabic text in chapter nine,
verse thirty, the name used as Uzair, which is then
thought to be Ezra. The Quran also mentions Elijah as
eli Jas in different, two different verses, which I know
very well because I used it quite a bit in
different discussions about how Islam is ignorant of the name
Yahweh because Elijah literally means my God is Yahweh. That's
my that's my problem with it.
Speaker 3: But what do you think, j No, I was going
to say exactly the same thing that I don't know Arabic,
but I had it written in my notes that when
it says Ezra Hu's air. And you had that great
clip where you pointed out that Daniel was ignorant of
what the word Elijah means.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah, it's funny because he never actually he never
got back to the topic on that. Yeah, when he
does that, it's just it's a clear sign that he
simply doesn't know how to answer.
Speaker 3: And it's incapable of admitting any error, which.
Speaker 1: Is exactly exactly serendipitous. Shark, did you see the Christian
guy that wrote a Christian Quran in Arabic? Shabi Earlie
said it wasn't equivalent since it didn't claim to be
from God.
Speaker 3: Well that's what you need, right, Like if you just
say that this book's better than the other books and
it's from God, that's that's what was missing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I I had even I worked a little
bit with chat GPT to make it right versus in
the style of the Quran, and was quite quite okay,
I did. I did all kinds of things like write
write a chapter about Chinese food in the style of
Kura one fourteen. Yeah, uh, and it's pretty good. It's
pretty good.
Speaker 3: But yeah, was there a bat in the suit or
a fly in the suit?
Speaker 1: I should have should want in the fly suit? Make
a chapter about the about Chinese food with both a
fly and a bat in the style of Kara fourteen.
Speaker 3: I like it.
Speaker 1: All right. Thanks everybody for watching. This was a fantastic stream.
Thank you so much, Jay for joining me. Sure anytime
I want to definitely follow up and jo another live
stream about religion and Christianity in general, anything else you
want to add, and also quickly where people can find you.
Speaker 3: Once again, No, it was a great chat. I appreciate
you having me. I always enjoy the conversation with you.
Always learned from you, So anybody I learned from a
love to have conversation and joke around with you. Yeah,
thanks for having me. You can find me over on
my channel JADR on YouTube, Jay's Analysis website. You can
find me on x Instagram. All of those TikTok under my.
Speaker 1: Name fantastic, fantastic, awesome. God quickly read this one a
mitz a bag. Here's some of my shakels shakeles I
wasn't making. I was going to make a joke about shackles,
but I can't find my one shakelbule that I have
from someone somewhere in guys. By the way, I'm from
Jaytown and I actually got out looking for you in
the Old City. Unfortunately I didn't thank you for thank
you for the word of truth. What I was in
is we are lots of people said hey, I saw you.
Nobody actually texted me saying, hey, what's up. I see
you right now, let's meet up. It's very funny, but yeah,
all the best. I mean to thank you. All right,
thanks everyone for watching as always, have a fantastic day,
and I will end this with a wonderful message from
one of my favorite goats here once again, stay away.
Speaker 4: From a slab