Speaker 1: But I joined it. So apparently they had a rage
quit or something. I don't know the details of what
all went down. Oh crap, I'm supposed to haven't than
its supposed to be with Richard Grove right now. I
forgot about that. Uh So anyway, so I DM Sneako
that I'm in his thing. Let's see. He says, I
friended you. Uh friend requests.
Speaker 2: Kahm.
Speaker 3: Then I said, what about breakfast around here? Revenue is
ship I don't think.
Speaker 1: I run huh.
Speaker 4: We both kind of like it.
Speaker 5: Bet on air air and air in a room there there, okay, yeah,
I added you.
Speaker 1: The server set up where I don't see where they where.
Speaker 6: The debate is waiting room uhh.
Speaker 3: And I said, hood bye brain rest. I'm both kind
of lad.
Speaker 1: All right, I'm here, I said, yo, So what's up?
I'm a waiting.
Speaker 3: Yo yo.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's in the religion section. Let's see. I still
can't talk. I'm gonna beate on rumble. I thought the
debates in here, dude, h m hm, still making me wait.
You may not talk for four minutes. M Trinidad James
Gold all over my chain and go over my watch
and nonet believe he'll just watch. I guess the ten
minute rule is for bots or something, But I mean,
how many bots are trying to join servers? I don't know.
Maybe he's got a bunch of haters. I don't know.
Shout out to Stuart, thank you for that super jet.
Speaker 3: Be careful. Snico and his.
Speaker 1: Friend pulled a fast one on Andrew when they change
the agreements of the debate. Well, I don't. I haven't
agreed to anything other than to come into this room,
So I don't know what the topics are. I'm not
debating this age of Ayisha stuff. That's not I'm a
I debate the philosophy stuff. So we're going to debate
theology philosophy. I'm not here to debate all this degenerate,
pre pubescent stuff. That's not what I That's not what
I do. Plenty of people can debate that topic. Still
making me wait to talk in the chat. So I mean, yeah,
I think I don't know who Muslim lantern is. So
I have no idea what what's going on here. But
number one, I'm not afraid of doing these debates, obviously,
So Sneako's debate. Stop ducking. They're telling me I'm ducking.
I literally just.
Speaker 4: Yo, hello, yo, hey, can you hear me?
Speaker 1: Yeah? What's up?
Speaker 4: Nice?
Speaker 1: Hey?
Speaker 4: How you guys doing doing good?
Speaker 7: Doing good? So this is Muhammad Ali and then we
also have a fellow Christian, Jacosi here, a representative of
the Love Spech community. So we just had I'll keep
you up to just bring you up to speed. We
just had a half debate kind of Andrew Wilson versus
Muslim lantern. This Muhammad a live here, and we weren't
able to agree with to the terms of the Asia
concent but we do really want to hear about the Trinity.
If we could do a Trinity debate, I don't know
if you're if you're ready or if you want to
do that right now, but me and Dracosa, because he's
a Christian, I would be unbiased. We can moderate it
right now. You versus the Muslim lantern.
Speaker 1: Uh yeah, I'm not opposed to debating Trinity. I have
just debated for the last four hours, so I'm a
little bit tired, but I'm not opposed to doing it.
Speaker 7: Okay, we can keep it short. I want to keep it.
How's forty five minutes. Let's we can start five Well,
I mean you don't have an opening statement prepared.
Speaker 1: I do everything extemporaneous. I would, I mean, I would,
I can do an opening statement extemporaneous, doesn't matter. I mean,
did you want to do timed or a conversation or
what style debate?
Speaker 2: So that's listen to now.
Speaker 7: Ideally, Okay, so I'll do the same terms that we
had for the last debate, but it went itself. So
I think having an opening statement for both sides would
be fair around five minutes cap. We'll cap in five
minutes and then we can go free flowing back and forth.
But if there's too many interruptions, then we'll have to
do timing things, and then that's when the moderators will
have to stuppen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good idea. I can do that.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 8: So the thing is, like Andrew I was having a
discussion with him. He was wanted to talk about the
age of manager, of the age of consent right versus
the Trinity. So I don't know if you want to
mention something about it slam as well to be fair,
because talken just about the Trinity is just a Christian thing.
Speaker 1: Well, no, I mean usually Trinity versus how heat is
what we debate.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you have that.
Speaker 8: So if you want to debate that, that's fine. And
you already debated that, so you should already have your
notes ready, I believe, right, because your last debate was
kind of I don't do.
Speaker 1: Nutes, man, I just I just do everything eximper in
this I.
Speaker 2: No, no, I'm just making that point clear.
Speaker 8: They've already had a debate on this topic just recently,
so if you did have notes, you would have them prepared,
so you can say that.
Speaker 2: But something they've already done. Right, So we were having
a discussion, me and Andrew.
Speaker 8: We can do that if we allow each other to speak,
finish the points and ask questions.
Speaker 2: I think that can work with me and you.
Speaker 8: If the moderators not the stage just becoming interrupting and
stuff like that, and someone's trying to take over, then
what we can do is just turn it into timing.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, it's be fair, all right. So, and I
made this and I don't think you will.
Speaker 8: But I made this point before in the previous discussion,
is like, no insulting of the profit directly by mentioning,
calling him names and stuff like that.
Speaker 2: I don't think you will do that.
Speaker 8: But I'm just highlighting that because that's I guess it's
my faith. So I cannot be in the call if this,
if this is happening, If that's fair, you can let
me know.
Speaker 2: If not, you can also tin me in a position.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, do you have a camera. I mean
we're live on YouTube, so my camera as active for
YouTube right now?
Speaker 7: Oh okay, okay, you can activate it on Discord two.
Speaker 1: Yeah, one, I know.
Speaker 7: Uh yeah. A lot of guys are used the stream
yard and stuff. H all right, yeah, listen, all right,
all right, okay, who would prefer to go first? As
a matter, I.
Speaker 8: Don't mind you if you would like to. I don't
know you would like me to go first. We would
like to go first.
Speaker 2: I'm a very.
Speaker 1: Let me find a piece I need a piece of paper.
I always taking notes, so hold on, segain Okay.
Speaker 7: They were complaining about the volume earlier, mohammed, your your
your volume is a little low. I had you all
the way up, but it's and then even at the
Christians something, No, it's a little low.
Speaker 2: Okay, you could turn it up, but don't.
Speaker 8: I think it's the loudest I can get it right now.
But I'm just also speaking. I'm not speaking loudly because
it's too am you know, right, Yeah, I mentioned to
you about the neighbors and stuff.
Speaker 2: I don't want to be waking them up or something.
Speaker 1: All right, who's that?
Speaker 7: Okay, this is a Trinity versus to Heat debate. Let's
get an opening statement from I'll sell with Jay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, So, the doctrine in Trinity is a doctrine
that is not derived from philosophy. It's not derived from
Saint Paul primarily, it's not derived from the Council of Nicia.
The Doctor the Trinity is taught in the Law and
the Prophets. In fact, if you go back to my
Daniel Hikikachu debate, in the first ten minutes, I hold
up a whiteboard that shows all the passages from the
Torah and then the prophets that we derived the Doctrine
the Trinity from, mainly from Jewish Extejesus of the Old Testament.
This might sound surprising because people think that the doctor
in Trinity is something that's unique to Christianity, or that
Jews don't believe in this nowadays, so therefore Jews could
not have taught it back then. In fact, many Jewish
scholars today. I reference many of those in that opening
statement of the Daniel debate. I can refer to them now.
This would be Benjamin Summer, Alan Siegel, Schaeffer, etc. Boyar,
and all of those scholars admit that the early Church's
view is not that distinct from the Judaism of the
time of Christ in recognizing more than one person in
the Trinity. Note, I am not saying that the Jews
at that time were all Trinitarians. I'm not saying that
it's okay. I'm not saying that Jews necessarily accept Trinitarianism.
I'm saying that these scholars prove that in the time
of Christ, there was not a generic Unitarianism that characterized
what it is to be quote monotheists. They didn't see
a contradiction or a problem between the idea of quote
monotheism and the recognition of the Father as the archae
cause and fount, the Angel of the Lord as his messenger,
which we see through all throughout the Old Testament, who
is called God, who is called Divine, who is called
the Messenger of the Covenant, who is called Yahweh in
Exodus three, Exodus twenty three throughout the Psalms, in the
Mini Theophanes passages, and many times in the Prophets, Jesus predicted,
especially in latter Isaiah, to be a divine Nosiah that
would be worshiped. So a lot of these references to
the Trinity are primarily grounded rooted in the Torah and
the Prophets. Islam, However, when it argues against the Trinity,
does so on the basis of it not being aware
of or not being informed, typically on what the actual
texts teach in terms of the Jewish texts that we
as Christians also refer to. Also when it comes to
the text of the Gospel and the texts of the
New Testament, they're not aware of the fact that Jesus,
throughout the Gospel John and every chapter refers to himself
as both divine and or a member of the triad.
John one talks about Jesus being the Logos. John one
talks about him being eternally begotten monogyen aesteos, so the
eternal beginning. All of that is already at the beginning
of the Gospel John and again every chapter, whether it's
John five through nine, where Jesus identifies himself as the
one at Mount Sinai talking to Moses, the one that
gave the law. Jesus firs to himself as the son
of God many times over, which means that his God
is not Allah, because Allah has no sons. So Jesus
many many times over throughout the Gospel says he is
the son of God and that he makes us by
grace sons of God. This proves that there is not
the same God of Muhammad and the same God of Jesus.
Jesus is not referring to Allah as his father. Allah
has no sons. So when we come to the time
of the early church fathers, they unanimously teach the deedy
of Christ, the triad, as well the deed to the
Holy Spirit. This becomes codified by the time of Nicia.
It's not invented at the time of Nicia. You can
read the church fathers from Irenaeus to Ignacious to Clement.
You can read Cyril, sip Schimi, Cyprian, you can read Athanasius,
all these church fathers. Alexander writing prior to the time,
and I see that teach the deed to Christ and
what would become the doction or known as the Doctor
with trinity. So the Trinity is not something foreign to
the scriptures. It's rooted in the Torret's rooted in the Prophet's,
root in the New Testament, root in the teaching of
Christ himself. And I would add that when we compare
it to what's in the Quran, the Koran makes many stakes.
First of all, about what the Christians teach. They say
that we take our monks as lords. We do not.
They take They think that the Koran thinks that we
take Mary as part of the Trinity, we do not.
The Qoran also is itself confused in two areas that
I always like to highlight, which is that it claims
that prior revelation confirms it and backs it up and
many times over, Like in a so five, it says
that you can look to the previous revelation to confirm
the new revelation, but the old revelation contradicts it. And
when Muslims see the contradictions, they do the same move
of Ajaws and the debate to say, well, we reject
all the times that it contradicts, but we accept all
the time that it is with our revelation. Well, that
is a circle. That's arguing for the thing that's in question,
we want to know, how does the prior revelation confirm
the new revelation, which the Quran says it can do
if the prior revelations are corrupt, and how a foolish
it would be to look to a corrupt book to
supposedly prove an incorrupt book. So it makes no sense
on the face of it. I would also then argue
that the doctrine of Tanzi that's derived from the passages
that talk about all of being nothing like creation forty
two and I think around one ten somewhere in there
it says that Allah is absolutely nothing like creation. And
yet Muslims many times over will utilize terminology, language and
so forth to liken Allah to a created thing, to
say that Allah is merciful, that he is just, he
has all these things, Allah has a hand, has a shen,
and so forth. Things that come up in the accepted
hadeds well, all of those things are contradictory to the
notion of taal Heed that God is a pure unity
or pure This is why Muslims for centuries have debated
amongst themselves whether the attributes are really distinct. And you
have people like Jake Slafis and others who say, no, oh, yes,
Allah has a foot, has a shin, and we don't
know the modality, but he really has these things.
Speaker 3: They're really attributes.
Speaker 1: And yet we're said to be only a religion of
perfect unity and perfect oneness. Yet he's many. Well, the
same problem that you have with the attributes and the
dependence relationship of the attributes on Allah's essence and amongst
themselves is no different than the question that we have
about the persons of the trinity. It's just simply that
you say that we have a problem that you don't
have to answer when you have the exact same problem
in relationship to the attributes in Allah's essence and their
dependent's relationship. And if you don't think there's a dependence relationship,
then I will just simply say, do you believe that
they are then asse or self existent? If they're self existent,
then you have what ninety nine gods. So you have
the same problem, but a double standard as to how
you answer that. I'm not saying note that you believe
that the attributes of persons. I know you don't believe that,
But the same problem of the one and the many
and the dependence status between the attributes and the essence
is a problem that you cannot answer because within Islam
there are countless multiple contradictions. How much time do I have?
You're good?
Speaker 2: I don't think I can give you a specific time.
Speaker 4: Good.
Speaker 1: I thought he said five minute opening or whatever.
Speaker 9: That was good.
Speaker 7: That was precise. I think that's fine. You want to
respond with some antern.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay.
Speaker 8: During my response, I want to ask you questions, if
that's fine, right, I just want to ask The first
question is what is.
Speaker 2: The trinity in your belief? What is the trinity?
Speaker 8: Just because we're talking about the trinity, so I think
defining terms is appointed because you said you found it
present in the old systems.
Speaker 2: So why is the trinity?
Speaker 1: So doctrine that God is first and foremost identified with
the person of the Father. The Father is what we
call the arkaeount, the source, the cause, the supreme beginning
of the other two persons, and that's revealed to be
the person of his eternally begotten son, who identify as
the Lord Jesus Christ, and with his eternal Holy Spirit.
So they are three in one. They share a common
essence or nature in that they come from the Father,
and they derive the same nature from the Father, as
Jesus says in John five and six. But they're also
really and truly distinct, which is why we see Jesus,
for example, praying to the Father, asking things of the Father,
and so forth. So the Bible, we believe, teaches both
of those things that he is one and three. And
it's not a problem for monotheism because actually the word
monotheism is a really late term that you don't see
until the sixteen hundreds.
Speaker 8: So I'm sorry I didn't get a definition, but I'll
give a definition and then you can confirm with me.
Speaker 2: You said few things.
Speaker 8: I understand them, but I wanted like a concise definition.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: You tell me whether this is like represented as the.
Speaker 4: Trinity or not.
Speaker 8: You have God, the Father, God, the Son, God, the
Hot Spirit. Okay, Father is not the Son's Son, is
not the Holy Spirit. Three persons in one being as
as one being, but there's three persons that are within
that one being, and.
Speaker 2: The quote equal coote eternal, so.
Speaker 8: They share they are equal in everything and they're eternal
the same way. Is that a good representation of for
the train, Well.
Speaker 1: Some of that terminology is a little ambiguous, which is
why I gave you a specific monarchical trinitarian definition. So
the model that I gave you was a definition. It's
called monarchical trinitarianism, and it's distinct from a lot of
Western trinitarian theology that you might find in Romatholicism. So
I was being very precise in the response that.
Speaker 7: I gave no.
Speaker 8: No, but do you agree You have not told me
do you agree that if you say something is ambiguous?
You can tell me that this specific part is I
don't agree with it is ambiguous, and then you can
clarify it. What I've said is that the definition of
the trinity or not. I just want a concise definition.
Is it that there are three persons in one being
the quote equal quote external and they're not the same,
like the Father's not the Sun sentits on the horstrait,
but they won't God sure.
Speaker 2: Very simple way. Do you agree with that? Okay?
Speaker 8: So, because this is how I see people, anyone who've
seen define the trinity define it that way.
Speaker 2: So I just wanted the agreement to that. Okay.
Speaker 8: So that's the trinity. Now you quote it, John one,
and you tried to say that the scripture shows the trinity,
et cetera. Quoting John one is not an evidence for
the trinity. A trinity says three persons in one be
person is separate from the being. John one doesn't say that, says,
in the beginning was the word, the word was with God,
and the word was with God, was God? The word
became flush of mangol monas. If this is what you're
referring to, that's not three persons in one being there.
It does not talk about the fact that they are
distinct persons.
Speaker 1: And I didn't say that.
Speaker 4: John.
Speaker 2: I didn't my it's my it's my time.
Speaker 1: You said you wanted conversation. You didn't say you want no, no, no,
no no.
Speaker 8: I said, I'll ask you a question with him my time.
Because you've made many points, I have to respond to
the well.
Speaker 1: But I didn't say that the trinity is three persons
in John one, I said.
Speaker 2: That, Okay, you said many things that I disagreed with
as well.
Speaker 1: Okay, but what you're saying is a strong man. That
wasn't what I said.
Speaker 8: No, no, we'll we'll have it back and forth after
I'm done. But I did allowed to speak for like
five minutes and make so many points.
Speaker 1: So the back and forth is only when you ask
a question. I'm confused. You don't want a five minute open.
Speaker 3: I thought you want a five open.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I have an opening statement.
Speaker 8: I'm saying, within my opening statement, I'll ask you questions
for clarification.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 8: So you responded to the question, and the question was
what is the trinity? Because it's the debate of the topic,
that's it. So I needed the clarification of that. But
but other than that, I wanted to finish as well,
responding to all the points that you made, right, and
then we can get into back and forth on problem.
I don't mind, but I got to respond because you
made so many points, right.
Speaker 7: Continue? Does that sound okay for both sides? Okay? Would
say that you know with your with your question there
why you were speaking and kind of gave the impression
that you were looking for back and forth, right, because
if he's.
Speaker 8: Going to clarify, you know, a question, he had to
fully clarify that.
Speaker 7: You understand that he wasn't really done with the clarification,
is what I no.
Speaker 8: No, no, we passed from the point of the trinity.
He nodded his head this is a trinity, and then
I went to something else and then he said I did.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I'm supposed to know when yeah, okay.
Speaker 8: No, no, just a question. I'll ask for example, is
the trinity? You give response? And that's it, Like that's
all I wanted. I didn't want like everything I all
mentioned and then you will come up. It's not going
to be an opening statement.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: So you said that church fathers were unified on the
idea of the trinity. That's that is false. I have
got many examples.
Speaker 1: There's just another strong man.
Speaker 8: Okay, but I'm not going to be able to talk
if you everything I say that.
Speaker 3: You're so I can't rely can.
Speaker 8: When we get can, when we get can, when we can,
you write down what you believe. I'm strong manning you end,
and then we can have an open discussion about that
one sometime with opening Okay, that fine, Okay, clarify you
what you meant, what you said about the church brothers.
Speaker 2: What did you say about the church bathers?
Speaker 1: Right, So it's a fallacy of ambiguity to say that
I mean that they don't have debate. I said that
they're unified on teaching the three persons and that there
is the duty of Christ. They do teach those things.
They also have debates on these topics too.
Speaker 2: They have a unified agreement on what the trinity is.
Speaker 1: That's not what I said.
Speaker 2: Okay, good, So we have that established that the church
brothers don't.
Speaker 1: Agree, No, not agree with twist what I okay, I'm
asking is there a unified teaching of unity in a law? No,
so there's debate over it. You know that. So you're
trying to pin me into saying something I'm not saying.
Speaker 2: That's not my questions.
Speaker 1: You it's called a fallacy, Then it's a fallacy. Then
do you know what that is? Okay, that's what the
fallacy is, making a simple question for a complex response.
Speaker 2: That's that's the problem always in questions like allow.
Speaker 1: That we know fallacy.
Speaker 2: That's the problem I'm asking. I'm asking a simple question.
Speaker 1: That's the fallacy position. That's the fallacy is that it
requires a complex response.
Speaker 2: Questions that fallacy, I asked, It.
Speaker 1: Is a fallacy. You don't even know that this is
a fallacy.
Speaker 8: You finished the question and stop interrupting. I asked a
simple question. You can say yes or no. You can
say that's a fallacy. That is a fallacy, and can
make it, can make a judgment. I asked a simple question.
Did the church fathers have an agreed These.
Speaker 1: Trips might work on your audience, they don't work over here.
Speaker 8: Okay, so you're just this is how Christians are always
We try to have questions.
Speaker 1: You you create a complex question fallacy and make it
an either or. That's why you keep saying it's a
simple question, not a simple question. It's a difficult question.
Look you, is it a simple question about Allah and
his attributes?
Speaker 3: Is that a simple question?
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, it's simple.
Speaker 3: So there's not debates amongst the aqdas on that.
Speaker 2: It is a simple question and I'm going to respond
to it.
Speaker 3: But it's not a simple question, you know.
Speaker 1: Okay, so what's the relationship volition?
Speaker 8: It's not going to worry. Okay, you're interrupting, and this
is not how this question.
Speaker 1: Is just because you're playing, You're you're erecting. False is
a false either or a fallacy? Is that a fallacy?
Is a false either or fallacy?
Speaker 8: If the mother answers are not going to enjoy it,
so you won't answer, no, I can speak of my
opening statement about you asking me questions. It's my opening statement,
not yours.
Speaker 1: You opened your statement asking questions playing games. Dude, Come on, okay,
how about this.
Speaker 7: How can you ask the question? And because Jay is
saying that it's a complicated question, can you respond to it?
And under a minute you can ask a question again
it's complicated. You can have a minute to respond to
the question.
Speaker 1: That's fair.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 8: Look, look, I'm not going to ask him any questions
because what he's trying to do is just waste time.
I was making a point. Then he said you misrepresented me.
I said, okay, go ahead, represent yourself. He doesn't want
to represent himself.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, I already gave you. I gave you a
super precise I don't want to represent myself when I
gave you a super precise definition of the turnery.
Speaker 2: Come on, you didn't the question I didn't get.
Speaker 1: I gave you a five minute, super precise monarchical turn.
Speaker 2: Here's my argument. Anyways. Okay, so yeah, I'm not going
to ask you questions.
Speaker 8: I'm gonna I'm gonna say my opening statements like you did,
like I love to speak with the interruption.
Speaker 1: No, you don't get another five minutes. It's your fault
that you asked me questions. A stupid thing to ask
me questions in your opening statement. That was dumb of you.
Speaker 8: Okay, okay, I'm gonna continue with my opening statement.
Speaker 3: Minutes how many?
Speaker 1: How many minutes?
Speaker 2: No, no, at the same time that you had I'm going.
Speaker 4: To be continue.
Speaker 3: You've already gone for what four or five minutes. It's
not you asked the question.
Speaker 1: That's you.
Speaker 8: You've been talking to me. It's a waste of time.
I'm not gonna waste my time allowing you.
Speaker 1: You asked the question, and I'm.
Speaker 2: Going to continue.
Speaker 8: I'm going to continue with my proposition and you can.
You're not going to keep jumping by saying you're misrepresenting
me as a strong man.
Speaker 2: You're going to.
Speaker 8: Like I listened to you, and then we can have
a discussion and you can have one to one back
and forth and you can say what everyone.
Speaker 7: We'll give you two minutes to finish your segment at
least three minutes.
Speaker 2: Two minutes is nine off. First, he made multiple points.
Speaker 8: Okay, okay, without interruption, I'm going to continue now with
whatever open statement this Okay, chist fathers were in complete
disagreement on their beliefs and what constitutes the Trinity. There's
many quotes that I have over here I can demonstrate that.
So to try and come and say there's kind of
a unified agreement or whatever it is, that's completely not true.
They had complete different beliefs from one another. I'm going
to read just quickly. Maybe some of these positions so ignacious.
For example, how to put a position of subordinism. You
can lead in his Letter to Magnesians, chapter thirteen, be
subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus
Christ to the Father.
Speaker 2: So he believes that Jesus Christ was subject to the Father.
Speaker 8: You have scholars who say these positions, so it's not
be taking a quotation off of context like some people
who try to come and pretend.
Speaker 2: For example, Virginia crowd.
Speaker 8: Says in Ignesious and Christianity in Antioch in page one
hundred and forty three, none of these passages. After she's
mentioning some passages of the beliefs that Ignitius had adds
to the understanding of the trinity meant to Ignitius. We
are forced to conclude there was a very undefined belief. Indeed,
so he didn't have a defined belief. William Shaddel says
in Ignacious Commentary, page twenty, Ignacious casually uses traitorian formulas.
Speaker 2: He does not. He makes little of them.
Speaker 8: Theologically, so he does not make theological arguments and repulse
to the Trinity.
Speaker 2: So this is not a specific person believe. I can
do the same thing with urinees. Now with the Trautulian,
I don't have much tibe, but I can do that.
Speaker 8: He is welcome to USK, and I can give the
quotations of every single one of them. Some of them
would believe that the son was created by the father.
Some of them would believe that the father is superior
to the son. They're not co equal, as a doctor
of the Trinity says, now, he says for ancest that
it confirms the previous scriptures. Yeah, well, you know what
it means. But confirms the previous scriptures.
Speaker 2: You can open up branch chapter five or seven forty
seven forty.
Speaker 8: Eight where it says that it's a criterion over it,
which means whatever disagrees. That's not an e Jazz position,
as you tried to make it as a Muslim position.
Speaker 2: And it is mentioned by scholars that the.
Speaker 8: Scripture is changed, and if it is changed, they know
ever would disagree with that, then we completely disagree with it.
Speaker 2: And what does confirm mean?
Speaker 8: It means it confirms that there was previous revelations that
was revealed to the previous profits, and it confirms the
existence of previous profits.
Speaker 2: That's what confirmed means.
Speaker 8: Doesn't mean that we say that everything in there is
completely Okay. You said proven a corrupted scripture, and not
corrupted scripture is a corrupted scripture.
Speaker 2: We don't try to prove Islam using the Bible. Let
we never try to do that.
Speaker 8: You said, then ze a doctrine that you've made so
many fallacies trying to equate an attribute to a part,
which is something that we don't believe.
Speaker 1: Where facy, So.
Speaker 7: You got one more minute?
Speaker 8: Yeah, so we don't believe attributes are parts. We don't
use that terminology when it comes to attributes.
Speaker 2: Of alara Yea. To say that just because God has.
Speaker 8: Attributes that therefore God has many parts is ridiculous.
Speaker 2: To say that.
Speaker 8: We say that a lie is not like anyone, and
we have an attribute, he has an attribue before he's
like us. No, we believe for instance, Our knowledge is
limited is the dependent on all law.
Speaker 2: We don't know the future.
Speaker 8: We forget the knowledge of all lies ultimate. You knows
the past, present of the future. He knows a hypothetical situation.
So it's not the same. So do we say it's
not like it, and it is not like it? Because
God's knowledge is perfect, hour knowledge is limited. And that
is the same with all of the attributes of God.
The way a lot of posesses them is perfect, the
way you persist them or not. An attribute is something
that does not exist, an abstract exist within something, and
that something remains one. Nobody says that having attributes makes
few more than one. I have love, compassion, hat, three year,
all of that. No one says, therefore a hundred or
two hundred because I have different attributes.
Speaker 2: Ridiculous.
Speaker 8: Yeah, so it's just to put it in. They like
to say, black cannot exist whether it self has to
exist in a shirt or an object. Attributes do not
exist in vacuum.
Speaker 7: Okay, Jane, we'll give you three minutes to respond.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was foolish, schoolishness, because now this is my time. Dude,
shut up the schoolishness because he admitted that the analogy
that he gave to parts of a shirt, like attributes
like color, the color black.
Speaker 3: Those are parts.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I didn't argue that you thought
all I had parts. I know that you don't think
he does. My argument is that you contradict when you
say that he has attributes that are dependent. Do you
believe that the attributes are self existent or they do
they depend upon all his essence and amongst themselves in
a dependence relationship. That's the question.
Speaker 7: Sure, okay, but then the three minutes.
Speaker 1: It's not forfeited. He asked me a question in his
opening statement. I can ask him a question, and.
Speaker 7: Then we decided to go three minutes back and forth.
I mean, if we're going to do questions, then we
can't do the three minutes. Underrupt it again. So okay,
un lets you respond to this muscle answer question thirty
seconds to respond.
Speaker 8: Yeah, he mentioned something about the color being a part.
I mentioned many attributes like love and age and this,
and that's that's that is a strong.
Speaker 1: Man, I said, are they dependent relationship?
Speaker 8: Now to respond to the dependence or not dependence? We
don't use the terminology a lot us user, so therefore
I don't use it. I believe it's an attribute, and
an attribute exists within the creator.
Speaker 2: We don't use the term dependent depend.
Speaker 1: Are the distinct and by the way, you do, do
you do use that terminology and debates because Jake used
that terminology in many of his debates. I'm not Jake,
I know, but what you're saying, you know, you guys
don't use that terminology he did.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about from an Islamic position.
Speaker 1: So are they dependent on himself? Okay? So in other words,
you have a doublet you have a double standard. Notice
that he has a double standard to where in his
position he's allowed to say, I don't have to answer
these questions. I don't know the relationship.
Speaker 3: That is what you said. You said, we don't have
to answer that. That's what you said dependent.
Speaker 2: I asked you what you mean.
Speaker 3: Are they are saying?
Speaker 1: Are they are saying you have to are they are said?
Speaker 3: Are they self existent? Are they self existing? I'm sorry,
you don't know the terms. Are they self existent?
Speaker 2: What do you mean by self existence?
Speaker 1: Do they exist of themselves? You don't know that word.
Speaker 2: They exist within the created? As I said to.
Speaker 8: You, they're dependent will Allah, they exist will Allah, And
there's nothing that exists separate from his attributes.
Speaker 3: You're making are the attributes.
Speaker 1: It's it's a classic debate within Youraquita you Raquita's debate
this and you know.
Speaker 2: That I don't know what you don't.
Speaker 1: Know what a school is. Now he's lying like he's
playing like he doesn't. This is what they do. They
pretend that they don't know. These are classic debates that
they killed each other over the relationship of like like
the Mutazila, the Multa, the Salafi, you all do this
does all?
Speaker 3: I have an uncreated foot.
Speaker 8: Okay, so you talked about what did they leave the
give me the four principles of five.
Speaker 7: Principles and.
Speaker 1: The neo platon the neol So here's what he does.
So he's deflecting away because he won't answer these questions.
Speaker 3: Notice he won't answer their questions.
Speaker 1: Argument. So, whether it's the people who believe in the
body parts of all law or whether it's the neo
platon is, he won't answer.
Speaker 3: They have the same position as the neo platonist.
Speaker 7: She do.
Speaker 2: That's what you said to present.
Speaker 1: You're not No, I don't have.
Speaker 3: To define your schools for you. You tell me what.
Speaker 1: So you don't have it. It doesn't matter the four principles.
When you can't answer the question, if you can't notice,
he won't answer the question of Allah and the attributes
of relation because he doesn't know what the word self existed.
And I mean, you're incorrectly what's your position?
Speaker 3: I don't care about them. What's your position? What's your position?
Speaker 2: My positions?
Speaker 3: Which is what? So you're obfuscating.
Speaker 2: You got to give me a question.
Speaker 3: And then what is the relationship of Allah to his attributes?
Are they? Are they as or not?
Speaker 2: I responded, You're going to know you're doing it.
Speaker 1: You're deflecting, and you're you're collapsing human The attribute is
not everyone knows this.
Speaker 3: No they don't.
Speaker 1: You're saying that you're you're saying your schools don't debate
this is you don't even know what.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter what you do, It doesn't matter. Maybe
I don't know anything. Maybe I don't know anything. That's
a fallacy. That doesn't prove your position. Okay, so you're
a fallacy machine.
Speaker 1: So you can't answer this basic question, can you? You
don't know the relationship of all to his attributes. For
the fourth time, but you didn't answer.
Speaker 3: I told you, deflect.
Speaker 8: I told you the attributes of Allah are not something
that we say is a part or separated from a lot.
Speaker 2: Believe that.
Speaker 1: How does that solve the question?
Speaker 3: So are they?
Speaker 1: Are?
Speaker 3: They?
Speaker 2: Just like you cannot separate my love and hate from me?
Speaker 3: But those are parts of you that I thought all
that is nothing like I thought. He's nothing like creatures.
I thought he's nothing like creatures.
Speaker 2: You say the sport, So it shows that.
Speaker 1: You are saying you said the parts.
Speaker 3: You can't understand that I'm putting you into.
Speaker 1: A putzel bar like a kid.
Speaker 2: Like a child.
Speaker 8: You're just exposing your ignorance attribute parts because that's your position.
Speaker 1: You contradicted yourself when you compared it to parts of
your shirt.
Speaker 10: Dude, does your shirt have parts? Does your shirt have parts?
Now I go back to the dollarscript. Now I go
back to the dogars script. You you have none or
nine gods?
Speaker 2: Independent? Existence is independent?
Speaker 1: Wells oh, so now you know the word I'll say.
Speaker 3: Now you know what I'll say.
Speaker 4: You mean?
Speaker 1: So this guy's a snake. Look, he knows what the
word I say means. He pretended like you didn't know earlier,
because now he says, the trinity is that they're not independent.
We don't believe in independent exists. They're not independent. That's
not our position.
Speaker 2: I'm prostrating to him. That's not attribute.
Speaker 1: You don't even you don't even know what I already refuted.
That's when I gave you monarchical trinitarianism. All he does,
that's monarchical trinitarianism.
Speaker 3: That's the position I gave you the outset.
Speaker 2: Losing it and acting like a child. And I think
you gotta know because.
Speaker 1: You're saying this, because you literally didn't answer any of
the questions I asked you about the attributes.
Speaker 3: You said parts like shirts. Shirts have parts. Dude, that's
your analogy.
Speaker 2: I said, black I think that's part of you.
Speaker 3: You don't think shirt. You know, so blackness is not
part of your shirt?
Speaker 2: Showed me the existence of.
Speaker 3: What does that have to do? It's a part. Say
it's accidental. I don't care.
Speaker 2: It's not attribute.
Speaker 1: And also so it's an attribute of a shirt which
is made up of parts.
Speaker 2: Okay, okay, Well.
Speaker 1: So you use the analogy to a creature when all
is nothing like creatures, I'll give.
Speaker 2: It an imergy.
Speaker 8: So well, like you said, they can't understand. We can't
have attributes on a.
Speaker 1: Look, but All is nothing like creatures, so it doesn't.
Speaker 2: Work his attributes. That does not what we mean.
Speaker 8: No Muslims called in Isamic history, he said that there's
nothing like.
Speaker 2: It means he doesn't have attributes.
Speaker 1: No, it says that he's nothing like creatures.
Speaker 3: So it's a contradiction.
Speaker 2: The attributes of all lot makes me perfect.
Speaker 8: We can have attributes, butted attribute the creator can have
Mexic prefect.
Speaker 1: I know you believe that, but you don't even understand
the contradiction. I'm pointing out, how is there a comparison
of all to creatures when he's nothing like creatures.
Speaker 3: You compared him to your shirt and the parts of
your shirt?
Speaker 8: What do you mean? What do you mean by nothing like?
What do you mean by that? Like honestly such a
child thing?
Speaker 2: What do you mean by it? There's nothing like love?
Speaker 1: What we mean by I mean when it says that
in the in forty two it says Allah is nothing
like creatures.
Speaker 2: Okay, And I responded to you and you gave.
Speaker 1: An analogy of a created shirt and it's parts.
Speaker 8: No, No, I didn't do that, Yes, you did, as
I said.
Speaker 1: You just said that. Look, he says, no, I did
not know that. You said, the black on my shirt
is an attribute.
Speaker 2: Colors? I said, colors don't exist at abstract.
Speaker 3: What does that have to sell?
Speaker 2: That has to exist, has to exist.
Speaker 3: It's so, is your shirt that created analogy? Is it
a created analogy?
Speaker 2: The shirt?
Speaker 3: Is it a created analogy?
Speaker 2: The color black is an attrib Is.
Speaker 3: It an analogy?
Speaker 1: Create the things analogous to law?
Speaker 3: That's the point.
Speaker 1: No, you're just not answering, you're avoiding it. So you're
using creative things with parts that are composite as an
analogy to Allah, who's nothing like creatures.
Speaker 2: All right, let's do timing because as you can see, it's.
Speaker 1: Just because he's running over me. Let's do the do
the timing because I can't do it.
Speaker 2: Because other people.
Speaker 7: Well, we'll go, we'll resume from Jay's question, and then
we'll do thirty seconds back and forth. He shian, I'm
going to be specific with the timers. So Jay, can
you repeat your question?
Speaker 1: And the other question was very explicitly, you made an
analogy to Allah and his attributes to a shirt with
parts and accidental things like colors. When the Quran says
twice that Allah is nothing like creatures. So your analogy
doesn't work and it doesn't tell us anything. How do
you resolve that?
Speaker 7: Thirty seconds?
Speaker 8: Okay, I never made that. He doesn't understand what he's
talking about. I made an analogy for him about the
idea of an attribute, the attributes. Now the analogies to
do the attributes, not to do with all lies conflicting
the two.
Speaker 2: It's not the idea is that attributes do not existing.
Come on, yeah, he can't do it right.
Speaker 8: The attributes do not exist and abstract they have to
exist to them something. They're not saparable, they're not parts.
And that's how we look at that.
Speaker 2: It's not like anything that's attributes are maximally perfect. They're
not like ours. Simple. It's very very simple.
Speaker 7: And people listening, he doesn't even unerstand the critique.
Speaker 2: Okay, do you want to do the question thing? So
I should give.
Speaker 3: It so once again?
Speaker 7: Okay, okay, so now let's let's let answer respond with
the question. But we have to do uninterrupted or else
this is a this is waste of time. So I'll
let answer pose a question here. You could also respond
to where you wanted the last one, but the thirty
seconds back and forth, answer and.
Speaker 8: Go ahead, all right, So he agreed that the trinity
means that the three persons are quote equal quotes. We
look at Jesus and Mark thirteen thirty two, who explicitly
mentions and says that he does not know the hour
while the Father knows the hour.
Speaker 2: And I can bring a quote from a church father
right now.
Speaker 8: Always explaining that this priority of the father over the
son did not equal because one of them knows when
the hour is going to happen, the other doesn't know.
GeSe is going to say that his human nature, it's
irrelevant because he had both natures, divine and human natures.
Speaker 2: You cannot come and say does the human nature? So
how does Jesus not know something?
Speaker 8: And you clear that he's equal to the Father and
the Holy Spirit doesn't know as well, because the verse
says only the Father knows Mark thirteen thirty two.
Speaker 7: Okay, do you have a question to follow up?
Speaker 2: I know is he is supposed to answer right? Question? Answer?
Speaker 7: Did you?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 7: Was the question?
Speaker 2: The question is how.
Speaker 1: It's about Jesus? Yeah, so I agree, I agree, understands yeah,
and no I don't answer it the way he thought
I was going to answer. I answer it according to
the way Saint Basil does in letter two thirty five
and six, where he says that the limitation there is
a form of rhetoric or exaggeration, which Jesus does in
many places where he says, for example, that there's none
good but the Father. Does that mean that no one
else is good? No, it's rhetoric because in other places
he also qualifies that and says that the Son also
is good. He says that people are good, the Holy
Spirit is good, a good man will do this or that.
So no, when he says things like that, we have
a consistent exegetical pattern as to how we explain those passages,
and we don't believe the Bible contradicts. So there are
passages that talk about the subordination, which, if he understood
what monarchical trinitarianism is, we recognize a subordination of the
son to the Father, but not according to essence. So
he doesn't understand that that's different. That's a different theology
than he has. He thinks that distinction entails like differences
in terms of ontology. We believe that just as a
son can show the same nature as his father. He
can be subject to the father. That doesn't doesn't mean
the father has more human nature than a son. That's
an analogy. Your position, by the way, doesn't make sense
in terms of analogies, because you said you made an
analogy to help me. But your very analogy doesn't work
because Allah's attributes and his existence are nothing like the
thing and things in the created order, So your analogy
doesn't work. That was the critique, and you just keep
saying that was a.
Speaker 7: Bit over a minute on Langard. If you responded a minute, yeah.
Speaker 8: Okay, I was pulling very, very simply. That's how Christians
try to away from this scripture. I just said, I
can present quotations that can present commentary if people explicitly
saying that this is an issue, that one knows something
well the other doesn't know something.
Speaker 2: But oh, this is just sy meetric critric.
Speaker 8: Jesus says there's no one good but the Father. He
means ultimately good. Yes, there is no one perfect in
his goodness except the Father.
Speaker 2: We agree there's no issues there.
Speaker 8: So that verse that Jesus says doesn't have an issue,
we also agree with. He says he doesn't know that
he doesn't know. And you cannot be God and you
don't know something because God knows everything all the time,
so you cannot run away from the subject in something.
And you said, by the way, the son is subject
to the father, you believe the son is subject of exactly,
so it's.
Speaker 2: Subject to the Father.
Speaker 8: They're not quite equal in the sense that they are
equal in every position, in every way, every shing. And
that's why we say that what you call the Father
is a true God, but.
Speaker 2: Jesus is someone who's subjected to him. There is not
some belief.
Speaker 7: Okay, Jay figures find in a minute.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're missing the point that at the beginning
I said that I wouldn't immediately commit to your understanding
of the words coequal, because in some ways they are
equal in terms of power and in terms of nature,
but that doesn't mean they're equal in every sense. So
that's why I was hesitant to agree to your tricks
of terminology there with making it simple and making it easy.
That's why I use monarchical trinitarianism, which again to use
the analogy of a father or a king and his son.
The king and the son the prince possessed the same natures.
The king is not more human than the son, and
yet the son still is subject to the Father. This
is orthodox trinitarianism. I'm not a Roman Catholic, so this
is our position, which I stated from the very outset
in the first five minutes. But you just didn't know
about that. But when you gave your analogy again of
the attributes, you didn't answer the question. You avoided it,
you ignored it, and you wanted to switch over into
the question of Jesus knowledge, Which is fine. I don't
have a problem of mentioning the fact that Jesus uses
rhetoric and exaggerated language all the time. He says if
your hand caused you to cut it off, He's not
saying literally cut your hand off. He's also not saying
that no one is good but the Father.
Speaker 3: It's rhetoric.
Speaker 1: So in the same way he can express that the
Father is the sole source of all existence, goodness, knowledge, etc. U.
And yet at the same time the other passages also
confirm in John five and six that Jesus has all
the same powers, knowledge, and activities as the Father. Everything
the Father has has been committed to the son. So
you selectively choose the passages, and I want to go
back to my question. Then, how do you know which
passages are the correct passages in the Bible and which
ones are the corrupted ones? When Allah's work cannot be corrupted.
And I'm told in uh five four, well over.
Speaker 7: A minute, I'll if you can response to that question.
I'll give you ninety seconds.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 2: I'm very happy that. Look he shows that he changes
his position. He agreed, and I said, is that the trinity?
He shakes his head and he said, yes.
Speaker 8: Now he knows that this is going to be problematic,
so he admits that they're not equal.
Speaker 2: That I'm happy. That's it. That's what we will not.
Speaker 1: No, you're just you're just confused on the interrupting.
Speaker 2: Don't interrupt. Shut up. Like you said to me, I'll
say the same thing.
Speaker 8: They're not they're not equal. With your own statement, you
said that they are not equally. Yes, they are not equal. Exactly,
so we believe is Muslims, the father, who you call
the father superior to what you call the son. You
give an analogy of king and son. Exactly, the king
came as the son is superior to the son.
Speaker 2: It's not equal to him.
Speaker 3: So ill nature.
Speaker 1: You're lying.
Speaker 3: I said your nature.
Speaker 8: You're interrupting again. You're interrupting it. Say thank you, please
don't interrupt. When it comes to e retric and a
retric they run away from.
Speaker 2: Anything which is key.
Speaker 8: For example, I'll bring him now, John seventeen three. When
Jesus say is explicitly it is no true God. The
only true God is the Father. He says, the only
true God addressing the Father is the only true God,
and he doesn't get, which means that any other deity
is false. We have all of the Bible Jesus making
statements that can be a pei divine. I can say
it's retaker as well. Anyone can say a trick. Okay,
whatever verse you got to bring up is also the trick.
And we play this game which versitt all life. We
just call it a retric. The game with playing with
these things that don't agree with you is you try
to escape the position and the fact that Jesus subordinate
is submissive.
Speaker 2: So you have people arguing it in.
Speaker 8: The counsel of m I say, and other councils because
they believe they was subordinated, didn't believe he was equal.
You have tons of harrisies due to that, because the
trinity makes no sense. Now you lie by the way,
and you said, there's a verse in John. This is
that they have the same power, they have the same knowledge,
You have the same wisdom. Whoever it is, I head
and read that verse for us exactly what it says.
Now you said in the Paranah'm responding to what you said,
the paran which verse which verses are product, to which
verses are not. Whoever agrees with the poran we believe
that is therefore accepted untrue. Whatever it disagrees, we reject.
Whatever doesn't agree or disagree. We are agnostic about it.
That is the Islamic position given by the prophet.
Speaker 2: And now you.
Speaker 1: Ninety tects respond, Yeah, this guy's playing games because he
knows that nobody interprets any text as if every single
phrase or idea that is expressed is in that single text.
The trinity is a doctrine that's derived from all the
texts of the scriptures, not from this or that verse.
And so he's setting up a false criteria for me
to use the exact terminology in any single verse. Jesus
says in John sixteen fifteen that everything that the Father
has has been given to the Son. That means all
of his existence, all of his powers, all of his attributes.
Son also shares. I answered his question when he asked,
what use equal? Yeah, co equal in nature. Hence the
example of the Father in the Son being distinct persons,
same in nature, equal in nature. Equal in nature means
that equal in the power that proceeds from that nature.
So yes, throughout the Gospel of John, every chapter, every book,
excuse me, every chapter in the Book of John includes
a reference to the deed of Christ and or a
reference to the triad. No goofus. That doesn't mean the
word trinity is in the book. It means the concept
the teaching of the Trinity is in the book, just
like it's throughout the Old Testament, not the words. It
doesn't have to have the words. That's your criteria that
you are made up for me. Now, I asked you
a specific question about you going to the text and
the prior revelation of what your criteria was. You ignored it,
you didn't answer it. I want to know what is
your criteria for knowing when in the Old Testament it's
true and when it's false. Is it not the Quran,
the very thing in question.
Speaker 7: It's for Lanzwern, all right.
Speaker 8: So clearly he said it is not from a part
of the things, is derived from everything.
Speaker 2: It is not.
Speaker 8: He's essentially saying it's not clear, which is what we
love to hear, is that the doctrine of the Trinity
is not clear in the Bible thattually. That's why I said,
I can preserve any quotes from church Father in which
they disagree with one another and what they believe the
Son was and the Father was. You had all of
these counsels, You had all of these disagreements, theoretical people
who were killed because the idea of the Trinity is
not there. I never asked him for the word. He
like tried to strow man as I ask him, where
is the word trinity?
Speaker 2: I never said that.
Speaker 8: I said the concept. That's why I started by defining.
He didn't answer John seventeen three, because he knows it's
a thorn in his side.
Speaker 2: When I said, Jesus.
Speaker 8: Said the only true God is the Father, he did
not respond to that, or he completely ignored it. I
responded to his question about the verses, which verses I
said to you, I ever agrees with Islam generally, Alan
had it, we will accept that this statement is true.
Speaker 2: So when it says in.
Speaker 8: John and the Shrowby sixty four that there's one God,
we except that it's true.
Speaker 2: No problem.
Speaker 8: Anything which would disagree we were rejected. Like if something
says Jesus died, we could say that it's also is corrupted.
Change now, lad By, Because scholars agree that the Bible
has been corrupted, I don't need to do any a
lot of research regarding that. Now, what you said the
God's words doesn't change. Change that verse you quote. It
is talking about a lost promise, and you're quoting it
out of.
Speaker 2: Context.
Speaker 8: Is like I said, I don't change my words. I
keep my words. We're talking about promises. We're not talking
about the revelation of the previous structures, because the Kuran
already explains that the revelation of the previous scriptures has
been changed. Now he said whatever the Father has been
given been given to me. That's clearly not the case,
because Jesus did not know, and he said he didn't know,
and he said only the Father knows. And what he
means by that is not talking about attributes.
Speaker 7: Perfect Jay ninety seconds.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I notice he did not answer the exact challenge
I gave him. I asked him what the epistemic criteria was,
and he said that the Quran backs up the promises
of prior revelation when it's worth So, in other words,
the Quran proves the Quran by citing the Quran passages
in the Old Testament. And yet we read in the
Quran that it actually says that you can go to
the prior revelation to see that the new rebelation is
consistent with it. We have revealed to you a prophet,
the Book of truth, confirmation in the previous scriptures, and
a supreme authority upon them. So you judge between them
what Allah has revealed. And now he's admitting what was
his source. Many scholars say the Bible's corrupted. Oh really,
so many scholars who are atheist unbelieving. Is what you
go to, not to your prophet Muhammad, who said that
you can go to the prior Jewish Torah scriptures and
Christian scriptures. Those scriptures confirm supposedly what's in the Qoran.
You just said, no, they're all corrupt. So Allah and
Muhammad are directing me to go to a corrupt book
to prove your book. You don't see how silly that is.
And then when I ask you for a standard, you said,
the standard is the Koran. But the thing in question
is the Koran. So you're in a circ gole, a
circ goal. And it's a fallacy to appeal to authorities
to say we all know the boby, let's come up.
That that's a fallacy. I know you guys don't know
what fallacies are the Haram in Islam, logical fallacies, right,
logic is haram?
Speaker 3: So uh, what's the standard again?
Speaker 7: Okay? Ninety seconds for a muscle lantern?
Speaker 2: And he said, I think givemcretia. I clearly did.
Speaker 8: I said, to agree with the crad had it it is,
we accepted, wheree to reject it.
Speaker 2: He said, proves nobody here is talking about proving the Kran.
Speaker 8: Nobody's also talking about the Koran proving the Bible.
Speaker 2: You just misunderstanding things here, and you're just completing terms
and you're just going around in circle.
Speaker 8: Nobody's talking about anything proving anything. I already explained to
you what the word confirmed there means. You clearly don't
understand what you're saying. There's nothing there that says that
is proving it the verst you that is refreating you
mentioned refuty.
Speaker 2: I was laughing, how could you read this verse? I
think is supporting you.
Speaker 8: First of all, the chapter five of the krevers forty eight,
which you were reading, is refuting you. It is literally
saying to judge between them with the Khoran with what
all was revealed to you, and do not listen to
their desires.
Speaker 2: And the next verse is the same thing.
Speaker 8: And you read yourself for this is a supreme authority
over it, which means that whatever the horrandic say dictates
is a supreme authority over the Bible. That's exactly what
I've been saying all this time. And I'm laughing, how
could you read that verse? I think that's supporting you. Now,
this is just is completely ridiculous. So now the Koran
says it's also corrupted.
Speaker 2: It's mentioned in multiple parts.
Speaker 8: For example, the Koran says in chapter two, verse seventy five,
and mentioned in chapter two, verse seventeen, how did write
the scripture of their own hand? And the claim it
is from God? You said logic is harm? Nobody said
anything about logic is harm. Again, coming back to seventeen,
John seventeen.
Speaker 2: Verse three.
Speaker 8: What he explicitly says the only true Again, you're avoiding
the question. You're running away from the question. Also, we
haven't joined chapter twenty. Since he has a god, he says,
I'm going back to my God and your God. So
how can you be God? And you have a god?
He didn't say I have a person. I have a father.
He said Father and God. So he has a god
above him, and he believes the only true God is
the Father. And he doesn't have the knowledge of the hour.
And this is what we mean by him not being
equal to the Father.
Speaker 7: Okay, j ninety seconds and then after this or go Jay,
then lantern ninety second station. Now we could do closing
statements finishing with a Muslim lanstern because Jay DIYer started,
So let's go ninety seconds Jay.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The argument in both of those passages is not
judge the revelation on the Quran. The argument is that
they that you can go again to eighty five. The
messenger believes in what has been revealed to him is
from his lords, so do all the believers, his angels
and his books, the books that are referenced in many
other passages as well. This includes six one point fifteen
eighteen twenty seven. These are the words of Allah previously
in the Torah and the Angel They cannot be corrupted
and changed. He believes they're corupted and changed. Why because
atheist scholars said so. And guess what, the same atheist
scholars don't believe in his books and his Quran. They
are all the time reject So it's a double standard.
They always do this. They have a double standard of
citing the atheist scholars who reject the Bible but also
reject the Quran. And your Kuran does say many times
over that I can go and check the previous revelation
to be consistent, and then when we find out that
it's not consistent, you say, oh, that's because it's corrupted.
So I'm supposed to look at a corrupted thing to
confirm in a non corrupted thing. That makes no sense.
That's why when I said, what's the epistemic criteria to
know the Koran is true? He said, the Koran that's
a circle. You explicitly affirmed the very thing I wanted
to affirm that it is a circle.
Speaker 3: You said, no one wants to know that one's asking
what's true.
Speaker 1: I'm asking how do we know it's true? What do
you mean?
Speaker 3: No one's asking this question.
Speaker 1: I'm asking you this question for the third time. How
do we know it's true? And in regard to in
regard to John seventeen three, I said, monarchical trinitarianism, Jesus
does submit to the Father. That doesn't mean he has
a different nature than the Father, any more than a
son sub maody to a father means he has a
different nature.
Speaker 8: Okay, for ninety seconds, amazing you saw he jumped from
another verse of book because he realized that.
Speaker 1: There's also both.
Speaker 8: I know he's interesting because he knows he's being and
the other verse that he also has nothing to do
with what you're saying is believe.
Speaker 2: One of the bores is the books, to the books.
Speaker 8: That are previous revelations that have been reviewsed, to previous prophets.
Speaker 2: When we talk.
Speaker 8: About that, and you can you can read it in
context and everyone can read that.
Speaker 1: And you can read the talk.
Speaker 2: You will see it's talking.
Speaker 8: You can read it and you can see it's expecially
talking about the problems for like, you see how interrupting
he is because you know he's being destroyed. Now it's
if if the scholars since the Bible is yes, so
you agree, I'm happy we agree that the scholars and
academy agree that the Bible has been changed, corrupting, there's
no original, etcetera. Now these same eighties scholars and in academy,
you will see that they admit that I've made views
about this before. How the Kuran is preserved. You have
doctor and Jeric and units is not almostly articologue.
Speaker 2: You have many people I.
Speaker 8: Can mention now Jerr boy, I can mention many miniy
names of different people who do believe. Or if you
sort almost but academic that the Koran is preserved, there's
a whole book stritten on that. On the manuscripts, for example,
I'm Manu script and how they show the preservation of
the craw Koran. Never said the Bible is consistent. You're saying,
we've been talking about the.
Speaker 2: How to prove a Karan.
Speaker 8: We never talked about talking about the Bible is corrupt
has nothing to do with proving the cra Proving the
Kuran has a I have a video of my channel.
Speaker 2: Everyone is welcome to watch. Call.
Speaker 8: Competic evidence is for the truth for this or we
see the prophecies in the Koran. And how do you
to say all of these different things. I don't know
what you mean by proving. Maybe you're talking about different things.
Now we are talking about the corruption of the Bible.
The Bible has been changed. Why would been corrupted? Is
accepted in academia. I'm happy you through your whole religion
under the post all. I agree that the Son is
subordinate to the Father, and I want Christians to listen
to this. He's through everything other of us. He said, yes,
we agree, is abordinate to the Father. Excellent, that's what
we believe. It is Muslim Jesus is submitting to the Father.
That's what a Muslim is. A perfect Mohamed was submitting
to a lot and that he is Muslim.
Speaker 7: Is ok to Jay. Let's do uh five minutes each,
five minutes for Jay and then five minutes for Muslims.
Will wrap it up here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, six one fifteen. Again, neither of the passages that
he's talking about confirm what he's saying. Six one fifteen.
The word of the Lord is perfected in truth and justice.
None can change Allah's words. He just admitted that the
words of a law in the previous passages. You heard
him say in the last section there that no those verses,
those verses of the books, the message that's talking about
the previous revelations of the prophets, which he just said,
is corrupted when his own Koran says, the word of
a law right there cannot ever be corrupted. So he's
smarter than a law and the prophet according to his
attachment to unbelieving scholars. What I pointed out was his
double standard and the fact that he's going to appeal
to the same scholars. Oh, but there's a bunch of
other scholars that like the Quran. This is a fallacy
of authority. Appealing to scholars is a fallacy of authority.
If you think that proves a position, you argue that
there's a bunch of scholars that debate the early Church,
So what that has nothing to do with proving a position.
You could bring in scholars to back up a position,
but they don't prove anything. That's called the fallacy of
appeal to authority. So multiple times he's made countless fallacies.
He doesn't even know what they are. I point them out,
and he laughs and talks past it. He appealed to.
He said that I made many fallacies talking about this
problem of Allah's relationship to his attributes a one in
many which, by the way, he believes in an uncreated
foot and uncreated shin if.
Speaker 3: He's a Salafi.
Speaker 1: If he doesn't, then he has to metaphorically interpret those things.
Wait a minute, now, he's afforded the ability to metaphorically
interpretate interpret these texts, but he doesn't grant that to
us when we talk about these passages where Jesus clearly
uses rhetoric, clearly uses exaggeration. No, no, no, we're not allowed
to do that. And by the way, he did try
to say that I have to prove in John one
because there's no mention of three hypostass Hypostasis is mentioned
in Hebrews one, where it's identified that the son is
the eternal son of the Father and he's equally divine.
He constantly misunderstood what monarchical trinitarianism is because he doesn't
know what it is. Because it recognizes this distinction between
the father and the son in terms of monarchia, that
doesn't mean that there's a difference in essence. So his
whole argumentation, this entire time was assuming that distinction between
the persons necessarily and tells the distinction of or a
diminution of essence, which I said from the very opening
statement is not our position. So again, Allah's words are
not corruptible. He believes they've been corrupted. Allah is one,
But you heard him use analogies to the blackness of
his shirt to help me. But his own Kuran says
that Allah is nothing like things in creation. I'm pretty
sure your shirt is a creature. I'm pretty sure black
is a part or an attribute of a shirt. So
your own analogies refute you. And that's why I'm constantly
calling you out on a double standard. I'm not saying
you don't answer by stating your position, but like many
people who are no good at debate, you think answering
your position is refuting an argument, calling out a contradiction.
I'm arguing your position contradicts. I'm not asking you to
restate the position. I'm saying your position contradicts in many ways.
These things contradict. The word of Allah cannot be corrupted
or changed. You just said the prior revelations were corrupted
and changed.
Speaker 7: Okay, I'll give a final statement to muscle lantern. He
went around three minutes. If you can keep it three
to four, I think to be fair.
Speaker 2: All good, no problem, All right.
Speaker 8: So you mentioned chapter six of the Paran, and as
I said, already, there's two only two business. Lefron talks
about Doors of a Life chapter six and another chapter
the cap chapter eighteen.
Speaker 4: Of the Pran.
Speaker 8: One explicitly talks about the Kurran mentions the AA the
verses of a lot, specifically referring to the Koran, and
the other one, which he quoted in six, is talks
It talks about the judgment and the promise of all
How do you know?
Speaker 2: Read the verse before a lot of the justices in.
Speaker 8: Is there any judge that I will take other than
a lot talking about the judgment of a lot? And
then it says that that with and the promise of
your order the world, the judgment of your world has
been fulfilled. What he's not talking about, I'm talking about
versus definitely not talking about.
Speaker 9: Because I've already says Lion says, don't cry, don't cry,
don't cry. Mute him by the way, he's you should
other than I let you speak, You should be.
Speaker 7: Your time.
Speaker 2: Can you please mute him because he's going to try.
Speaker 8: And all right, okay, so again we'll say this is very,
very very simply the verse of the Koran.
Speaker 2: I mentioned it.
Speaker 8: I mentioned the verse and opening excisions, open excsures of
the scholars. Nobody have said in Islamic history that this
is fairy to the previous scriptures. And I give evidences
why this is not referring to the previous scriptures, that
they are corrupt, and I give evidences.
Speaker 2: He give it evidence by himself. Take the verse in
chapter five.
Speaker 8: Also, I give chapter to seventy five.
Speaker 2: Which is clearly this guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
Now he said, oh, we do metaphors, win did they
do it before? Or if you're this, if you you
don't even know what I am, that's that's the problem.
You come to argue it.
Speaker 3: But you don't stay where you are. You don't stay
where you are.
Speaker 2: I only stay I'm a Muslim. I don't do other
than that.
Speaker 3: That's deceptive. You're not You're not they do this as why.
Speaker 10: He knows that's a deception.
Speaker 2: It's not like he doesn't understand this. He doesn't understand that.
Speaker 3: He's freaking out because you got what.
Speaker 8: We call UK waffle in the UK, it's just someone
waffle's few words.
Speaker 2: He thinks he's making big words. We can confuse the audience.
Speaker 1: Will never answer any objection, and he's not allowed to.
You have to have a school. There's no no, no
school or another. So he's actually he's actually acting doesn't
have so.
Speaker 2: There's no contradiction. So I was refuting him.
Speaker 8: Came to the black and white shirt and all I
already told him this analogy to do with the attributes,
not to do with a loss, So do not.
Speaker 2: I'm not trying to say.
Speaker 7: The shirt is a lot.
Speaker 1: It's an analogy to anything, and the analogy doesn't do anything.
Speaker 2: That's look, Jay left defending this guy. He's supported. He
started to use some morefully.
Speaker 8: All the essence is not as that it doesn't matter
what we can see scriptures, because before all of this.
Speaker 2: Philosophy have been introduced.
Speaker 8: Now it's phil is that clearly Jesus was supported, and
that's why we have the earliest groups like the United
and did not believe that traditarian believes we have the
Church fathers.
Speaker 2: And I said, I can easily.
Speaker 8: Give more quotes that they didn't agree on the concept
that Jay has in his mind. So simply Ja has
put Jesus under the bus from a position that he
believes in the trinity. And he clearly admitted he doesn't
know the hour. It is not the same. I think
it's just contradicting himself. It is he doesn't know the hour,
but in the same time, they're not equally this is
but at the same time they're the same. But he
just keeps contradicting himself and going in the same circle.
So is it the four He doesn't really know the
hour and they're supported into what he doesn't know his
own positions.
Speaker 1: And with that I answered everything that nobody's bonding.
Speaker 8: Except the Lord of Jesus, who he said he's coming
back to, say, going back to my God. We asked
you to worship that lord that Jesus came to, and
he said he's going to worship. He's going to go
back to. That is the Lord that we called you
to worship. The Lord of Jesus most is not profect.
Speaker 2: Muhammad, and peace be upon all of the prophets and messengers.
Speaker 8: And I'll conclude here with this cooking and because it's
burning in the kitchen now, all right, person.
Speaker 7: Hold on, Jay, I want to get because he we
there was interruptions. I did said that it was going
to be the closing statements, but because it seems like
there's more, do you think we could do one more
back and forth two minutes?
Speaker 8: Teaches, I don't care what both parties I No, I
think that's it's good to edit here.
Speaker 2: I don't want to go more.
Speaker 1: He doesn't want to go anymore. Right, he knows I'm
going to the same thing. No, I have a three
seventy eighth, says the book is not three seventy eight,
says the book is. So he doesn't want anymore because
he knows.
Speaker 3: He got bodied.
Speaker 2: We already had a debate that now you're losing christ
I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: If we're bringing up more of your problems. I'm not crying.
You're the one snickering with that gig because you got cooked.
It's all rhetoric.
Speaker 7: Jay. It was nice to meet you, and I appreciate
you coming on here. This is much more civil than
the earlier data. I hope to do this again. I
think this was anytime.
Speaker 3: Yeah, what a joke, dude.
Speaker 1: That guy was pitiful dude, And yeah, I I butted
him many times, because this whole thing was resting on
miss misinterpreting and misunderstanding and ignoring. And uh, I hope
everybody heard him completely collapse on the attributes and no
idea what monarchical trinitarianism is and what the position is.
The passages that we're talking about in the Koran. Do
not say that they're only talking about the Quran. This
is talking about the text of the Jews and the Christians.
And it's here saying that do not say the book
is corrupt. That is not corrupt. And on that last
passage he said, this is talking about all those judgments,
not a book.
Speaker 3: It set a book.
Speaker 1: Allah has revealed to you, the Torah and the Gospel
three three. Allaw's words cannot be corrupted anyway. I hope
everybody clips the heck of the heck out of that
and shows the parts where he especially, I felt like
on the attributes, like he was completely demolished. So everybody
should clip that. I hope that goes viral. We got
some super chats here, zalmonics five. I'm a lawyer and
a Christian. I've been practicing. You're the best debater I've
ever seen. This is even in litigation, thank you. I mean,
I think debate and you know law they overlap quite
a bit. In fact, we were watching a movie last
night that had a lot of courtroom stuff going on,
and Jamie was asking me we were talking about debate
related issues. Yeah, it is interesting. You could probably find
a lot of parallels with the way that I go
about and do debate in the way that lawyers do stuff.
I don't actually know a lot about, you know, law
and litigation and all that. But again, I do imagine
that there's a lot of overlap there. But you know,
really it's I guess the comparison would be like a
lawyer wants to probably trip somebody up in their statements,
and I'm kind of doing the same thing, except that
I'm also looking for not just will they trip up,
but are they violating the laws of logic? Right? So
that's a big part of it. You notice that guy
never he didn't even understand any of the fallacies, what
the fallacies are, why it's even wrong to make fallacies.
This is the death knell of anybody in a debate.
Fallacies might not be that relevant in a litigation setting
or in a courtroom, although they might be to some degree,
but that's an interesting question. I imagine they have some
overlap with a courtroom sitting. Jeremiah James five dollars. Muslim
lantern hasn't had any oil since Mohammed was with Aisha Oh.
Rachel Wilson one hundred dollars. Thank you so much, Rachel,
appreciate that. That's a big fat superche You don't have
to give me that, but that's really sweet of you
appreciate it. And I didn't want. I hope Andrew didn't
think that I was like streaming over his debate. I
actually forgot that he was doing that debate tonight. I
thought that was like several days in the future. So anyway,
I didn't mean to step over you know you guys
in terms of streaming time. But thank you for that,
But it sounds like it was kind of a it
didn't go as planned there. Well, Am annual five dollars.
Thank you for the extra time with patience. Yeah, I
mean again, I've already been debating for four hours straight.
So how long was this one? I don't even know,
another hour and a half. It looks like, yeah, what
did you guys think about this? How do you guys
think Muslim lantern did. I really feel like he was
collapsing on the attributes part, because everything he said about
the attributes was like, what do you mean that's embarrassing? Jay?
Church fathers under the bus? What are you talking about?
I did throw the church fathers on the bus. What
I said was he was oversimplifying it by saying, do
the church fathers teach the Trinity? And do they teach
it without debate? And I said, no, they teach that
the persons are distinct and that there's the divinity of Christ,
but they do debate things. And so that's why I
didn't agree to his oversimplified questions. So Muslims, you notice
Daniel did the exact same thing, didn't he. Daniel did
the exact same thing. Where Daniel said, I want the
simple answer. Look how simple Islam is? You guys have complex,
difficult doctrines. But the reality is Muslim also have complex doctrines.
And so he lied when he said, what is this akida?
I don't know.
Speaker 3: He knows what akida is. It's the different schools.
Speaker 1: He knows that there's different traditions and that they've killed
each other over these things. And that's why he tried
to deflect away from it, tell me the four principles
of the multa kalim like as that that has anything
to do with the argument I'm making about his position.
So that was all deflections.
Speaker 3: Bryce.
Speaker 1: But you notice what he did the same things as
Daniel by arguing that you set something up as an
overly simple It's called a complex fallacy of oversimplication. That's
what it's called. Right, So the Trinity is a complex doctrine,
and so you say something like, I give an example
of this, where's the verse that proves the doctrine of
the Trinity. There isn't one. You see, the Trinity can't
be proven from scripture. Well, the argument assumes that the
Trinity is a doctrine that would only come from a verse.
So it's a fallacy, right. Over simplification fallacy is the
fallacy of the single cause. Over simplifies a complex issue
to imply that a single cause produces the same effect.
It doesn't have to be causalor it can also be
a false either or right. Either the Church fathers taught
the Trinity or they didn't. Well, the Church fathers did
teach the doctrine of trinity, and there was a lot
of debate, but he was trying to make it like
if there's debate, they didn't teach it and it wasn't clear. Remember,
Daniel made this point, he said there was debate, and
if there's debate over it, it's not true. And then
Daniel turn around said, Muslims have debated this. Oh but
wait a minute, Daniel, you said that debate means that
it's not true if people are debating it. So you
see how silly these people are. John Z one hundred dollars,
Thank you so much, you destroyed that clown. God blurss,
thank you God bless you as well much appreciating those
fat super chats cards one dollar To confirm the Quran,
you go to the Koran. Yes, he said that, didn't he?
He said, No one here is asking about proof of
the Kuran. I'm asking about proof of the Koran. What
are you talking about? What do you mean nobody's asking
That's the very thing I asked you more than once. Yeah,
you go through the Koran to prove the Koran exactly exactly,
the logic is haram. Exactly, logic is haram. Jake Bernitt's
thirty three dollars I recently had a debate with a Muslim.
He made a similar point, saying that the son is
subordinate to the father, so they're not equal. So something
can be subordinate and equal and distinct in different ways.
And every analogy that I gave was to that effect.
A father and a son are distinct. The son is
subordinate to the father, but they have equal nature. The
king can invest the prince with all the power of
the king. They're distinct persons, but the king can grant
to the prince all the powers of the king. So
they have the same nature, human nature, and all the
same powers. Remember he said there is no verse word.
Does Jesus say the Father have given all the power
of till son? Yeah, there is, I read it John sixteen.
Speaker 11: And then he's like, this doesn't say trinity, doesn't say hypostasis. Yeah,
hypostasis is using other passages. Dude, please go into more
depth about the training. So the people that are interested
in this, all of the monarchical trinitarian talks of doctor
Bo Branson cover this in great detail. So if you
go to Bo Branson dot com and you come over
here to meet I think it's media. Yeah, so Bobranson
dot com media appearances, and on this page is a
five part lecture series and then other interviews on monarchical trinitarianism.
You know, the funny thing is that the very first
thing that I said answers half of his objections. I
in the first five minutes mentioned monarchical trinitarianism, and then
he spent half of the dam ofn debate arguing against
texts that.
Speaker 1: Proved monarchical trinitarianism. Have you ever brought up First John
five to seven to a Muslim? I don't know. Let's see,
I don't usually because they don't care. On most of
the time, they don't care about the text. Oh that's
the Joan comma. I mean they're going to just say, well,
that's not in all the old manuscripts. But I mean,
there's plenty of passages to teacher. We don't it's not
like we have to have the y comma. So it
looks like a lot of people are saying they think
that he's one of the worst debaters. He was definitely
pretty sneaky, slippery. Who's is he one of the worst?
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean that's my that's my only experience of that dude.
I've I've never heard or seen anything about him, so
he's kind of sneaky hints sneak. Oh but alulah three
dollars crisis King. Yeah, absolutely, Yeah, I know, the the
yawning comma is uh, I don't I mean we call
we covered that in the James Snap interview. Sneak o
mods will block Christians in the chat? Well, yeah, I mean, look,
Islam is not a position that relies on logic. It's
a position that relies on trickery, tomfoolery and sneakery. So
what do you expect so voting the poll? There's a poll,
So yeah, I mean he just basically went to all
the classic dollars script stuff. What's funny about all of that?
I think that really, all the dollars script stuff and
all of what they do, it's really just meant to
like try to capture the low tier, lowest common denominator audience,
to bring them in who are aren't interested in any
kind of like distinctions or any kind of nuance. And
it's just intended really to be a way to capture
low tier stuff. And then when they deal with people
who aren't low tier, it becomes very obvious. I think, oh,
that's the poll from their stream. Oh they have a stream. Well,
I'm sure all Muslims are in their stream. So so
here let's see here you Yeah, definitely if you want to, Yeah,
definitely go debate. I mean, oops, here we go, I
mean vote, excuse me, not debate? Who won? I think
I won, So I'm gonna say I won, But I
should do my own poll because I'm sure there's a
bunch of Muslims silent one dollar. It's crazy how Lantern
was using fallacies when he twists your words and just lies,
and the Muslims eat it up. They don't actually read
their sources. Correct toy five dollars. I recently listened to
all the Bo Branson lectures on that page because you
recommended it. It blew my mind. It's very interesting. Yeah, exactly.
Doctor Branson's monarchical trinitarian talks are essential, So definitely head
on over here and watch these. But that's okay. I
mean the people that want to be idiots and they
want to be you know, low tier, and they want
to believe stupid stuff. You're you're never going to change
people that are not open to what's true. Yeah, I'll
be sure, and vote so that these people don't just
promote their own Muslim polls, which is I'm sure what
they're gonna do, but straw pole here, and keep in mind,
I had no idea what's going on. I didn't even
I didn't even know what topic until I went in
the room. I've already been debating for four hours. So
there we go, Tamata, Oh no, excuse me, Italian King.
Ten dollars, Good job, Jay, crisis King, love and forgiveness
they're lacking nowadays. Yeah, I would agree with that, Hunter
Tyler three fifty five one dollars. Muslims reject Paul. Paul
is a transgressior in Galatians won it absolutely recxs Islam
and shows Mohammed as a false prophet. Yeah, doctor feaded again.
And Eys and I have made this point many times
that the finality of revelation, which is taught very clearly
even in the Old Testament, that when the Messiah comes
the Messianic era, well there was an end of divine revelation. Okay,
there's no new revelations after the death of the apostles.
That's it. So that right there cuts off all of
the future cults Mormons, Mohammedan's it doesn't matter, eric Ze
three dollars three thirty seven. You're very patient arguing with
a wall like that. Well, they always play this game
where they're like, oh, we want to have a conversation,
we want to have a conversation, and then they immediately
start with all the tricks, because theirs is a system
and a position that has to rely on a bunch
of tricks. So we don't really on tricks over here.
I will interrupt people, and I'll call people out when
they start lying and saying something I didn't say. Jake
Burnett's one dollar. What do you think the Muslims insist
on everything being simple because they're appealing to simple people.
The whole position is about making it simple as a
sales pitch for simple minded people. So the only people
who fall for this are people who are unfortunately not
very sophisticated. Now, I don't want to make it only
an intellectual thing, because not only intellectual, right, there's also
a spiritual delusion component of this too. But spiritual delusion
effects our intellect, you see, it can darken the intellect
so that we don't have discernment. They always say that
if you can explain the trinity to be simple, then
it's proven, and if not, it's relacious. Yeah, this is
an oversimplification fallacy. It's also an arbitrary expectation, like I
could make the same point, make Allah and his relationship
to his attribute simple, or else I won't believe it.
You see how silly that is? Well, this that's funny.
If i'm it's funny. Even if I'm two percent I
had on their pole, this is their Muslim pole, and
I'm two percent ahead. That's funny. So you can go debate,
Go bait u, debate, go vote.
Speaker 3: Right there.
Speaker 1: My mind is beginning to turn the mush because we're
like six hours into debate now. But I do appreciate
Sneako at least finally sort of coming around and and
addressing this because people have been vote uh calling out
sneak oh and asking him to come debate for a
long time. That's funny.
Speaker 3: So they're gonna tell you quick, go vote, quick vote
quick one one one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I really, I really think they think that if
it's simple, it's got to be true. I mean, did
you notice too that he lied, like he said, we
don't know what is Akida? What is that he like,
he doesn't know what akda is. And by the way,
Muslims aren't allowed to ignore.
Speaker 3: A school. You have to be in some school.
Speaker 1: But he was being disingenuous, right and acting like, I
don't know what this word is? What are these what's
what are the schools? And acting like they don't disagree
amongst themselves. Come on, I hope everybody saw how ridiculous
that was. Right, Akda creed? Which creed?
Speaker 3: Which school of Islamic theology? Are you a part of?
What is akida?
Speaker 1: I don't know what is this world? I don't know
his word? What is this work made up?
Speaker 2: Are you?
Speaker 3: He's making up words? Doesn't know what it mean?
Speaker 1: And what have we done but call out people like
Jake and the others that change their akida depending upon
the debate that they're in, which you're not allowed to do,
but you are allowed to do it in a religion
that's deceptive and allows you to lie and trick and
do all this, do this trickery. So I guess they
are allowed to do it even though technically they're not
allowed to do it.
Speaker 3: What is this adida? I don't know what adidas?
Speaker 7: Are these shoes?
Speaker 3: What is the shoes. Look at a black shirt like
a lah has parts, but he doesn't have parts. It's
an analogy to help you with my shirt, but it's
done like a lot. You see how silly this was.
Speaker 4: This was so bad.
Speaker 1: But even their own poles, they're having a hard time.
Speaker 3: Even even their own poles. Look at that ten.
Speaker 1: Percent above in their own pole. Oh man, Muslim take loss,
Muslim take a big l Okay, I'm about totally exhausted. No,
so thank you guys for all of this. I'm definitely
gonna clip this one up because this one was funny.
All you guys, definitely clip clip clip because the clips
go out crazier and further than the actual long live shoots.
A lot of people are not going to watch this
six six hour live stream, but zillion people watch these clips.
Sam's channels of clips blew up bigger than his main
Shammounian channel. So guys, you guys, clip clip, clip, clip away,
especially clip him making all those dumb mistakes and saying
all that stupid stuff. Clip it to oblivion, Bros. Clip channels,
please clip gubb clip it all those other clippers clipper ships,
clip it. Texas guy. One great performance appreciate you. Hey,
thank you so much. You guys are being so generous.
I guess I guess it was worth it to come
to work tonight to debate for six freakin' hours and
get a nice paycheck. Thank you guys so much, appreciate it.
Much love to you guys. God bless everybody. Uh again,
Please guys, start your own clip channels to our bro
clip channels, jub all the other ones, Kyle guys, clip
it and be sure and head over to chalk dot com.
Use promo code J forty to get forty percent off
or J forty four life to get forty four percent
off that amazing chalk dot com. If you want to
get my books, you can head over to Jasonnoulsons dot
com in the shop and get all of my books
signed copies. You can also subscribe to my website or
subscribe to me on Rockfinn and uh everybody, have a
good night.