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