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