Speaker 1: It's good all right, And uh now I've got Sam's
channel linked if you want to check out his material there.
But welcome to Jay's analysis. We're going to have a
pretty heavy handed approach to the trolls and the chat tonight.
So if you're going to be trolling, there's gonna be
a pretty quick bands laid laid out. This is not
a debate. We are having it. We're having a chat tonight.
Uh So a lot of people who is a debate?
It's not a debate just so I couldn't.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't be able to debate anyway. Brother, My field
is different. It's Islam and the Trinity. So I'm a
neo fight when it comes to the areas.
Speaker 1: Well, that's fine. Uh That's why I wanted to chat
with you is because now I am not a expert
in Islam by any means. I've actually kind of just
gotten interested in this topic in the last say six months,
and my discord we've had quite a few Muslims come
in and have debates, and so we've gradually been sort
of educating me on this topic through the discord and
through all of our Ortho bros there, and we've actually
had multiple guys who were formerly Muslims now are Orthodox
Christians in the server. So we've got a lot of
people who know the topic. You know this topic very well.
So why don't you tell everybody who you are and
what you do.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's let me just invoke our glorious trying God
and praise the God and Father of the Lord, Jesus Christ. Father.
We love you, Lord Jesus, we love you, Holy Spirit,
we love you. Bless this session, anoint us to glorify
Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Savor
them from error and confusion, and sanctify our motives so
that only Jesus will be magnified in this session. We
love you, Father, We love you, Lord Jesus, Son of God.
We love the Holy Spirit. Have your way in Jesus name. Amen. Yeah. So,
my encounter Islam started in the nineties. And I don't
want to spend too much time on my background because
I can be here all day talking about it and
I don't want to bore people to tears. But in
the late nineties I had an interest in God. Just
to let me backtrack, I'm Assyrian. I'm not Syrian. I'm Assyrian.
My parents are from what is called the Historian Church,
even though they're bishops, and the patriarch denies that they
believe they are two persons, that Christ is uni personal.
That's another topic, but that was my background. But I
wasn't raised in the tradition of the Church of the East,
the Historian Church, so pretty much I was exposed to
Christianity by independent fundamental Baptist King James Only Christians because
in my neighborhood we used to have this bus route
where they would come and pick up kids from the
neighborhood and drive them to this big church in Indiana, Hamon,
Indiana first Baptist Church. So my encounter with Christianity wasn't
from my own background, which was which would be an Historianism.
It was independent fundamental Baptist theology, King James Onlyism. And
then there was a young man whose grandmother also taught
me about the faith. But then when I became a teenager,
I drifted away did things I shouldn't have done, and
then around seventeen and a half eighteen, I decided that
I needed to know who God was. And then I
had my first encounter with a Muslim. But this Muslim
was a member of the Nation of Islam. Now, remember
I don't know much about Islam because though my parents
are from the Middle East, I was born in Kuwait,
but my parents are from Iraq, so they are Assyrian
Iraqi Christians. Not only did they not teach me about Christianity,
they never mentioned Islam once to me in my entire life.
I never had my parents tell me that most of
their neighbors were Muslims and their religion is Islam, So
I have no idea what Islam is. My first introduction
to Islam was by an African American, a black gentleman.
His name was Hallis, And what really confused me is
that he would keep saying Praise be to Almighty Allah.
Now why is that baffling? Because in my mother tongue
I speak Syriac offshoot of Aramaic, we say allah or
we say ad Aha. That's the definite form a Dah
means God, Adaha means the God. So when he kept
saying Ahlah, I got baffled, and so I asked him,
I said, how do you know this term a law?
Where did you learn this from?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 2: And he started talking about the honor Elijah, Muhammad, Master
Froug Muhammad, the prophet Muhammad, and Lewis Farakhan. He was
a member of the Nation of Islam. So that was
my first introduction to heterodox version of Islam. He gave
me a chron. I started studying the Koran. I was
really intrigued by the fact that in the Koran most
of the Biblical characters are mentioned, including Jesus. So that
put a fire in my heart to go back to
the New Testament. Because remember my upbringing independent fundamental Baptist
exposed to the King James. So I decided to go
back and read the New Testament, fell in love with Jesus.
And so I had a friend who was Bosnian. At
that time, you can't tell now, I mean before I
used to be into bodybuilding and kickboxing.
Speaker 1: Right now, I.
Speaker 2: Used to have a V taper, So the only V
taper haves is an upside down V right, so I'm
like the triangle. So at that time I had a
friend who was Bosian whose father was a boxing coach,
and he was teaching a professional boxer heavyweight. So he
would teach me boxing and I would teach him how
to lift weights. And then we started talking about the
faith and he was a Bosian from a Muslim background.
He got interested. His Muslim friends noticed that he was
losing interests in Islam, and they wanted to know which
Christian quote unquote missionary. Now an Islamic jargon Islamic jargon.
When you're labeled a missionary, that's a bad word. Once
they call you a missionary, that means that this man
is evil. He's an agent, a tool of the devil.
He's going to try to destroy your family values, your religions.
Stay away from him. So once a Muslim calls you
a missionary, you're blacklisted. To us, that's an honorific title.
Right When you call someone a missionary, you mean he's
going out glorifying Christ, preaching the Gospel. So then that's
a bad word. So they want to know who this
Christian missionary is. So this is all in the nineties
taking place. And then they brought in a Muslim apologist.
Now I'm green when it comes to the Bible, I'm
green when it comes to Christianity, and I'm green when
it comes to Slam. This man was prepared. He's a dai.
A dai is one who's trained to invite people to Islam.
Non Muslims to Islam, and he was studying the arguments
of someone that later on I became familiar with, the
late Ahmeddi Dad. Ahmadi Dad was a big name in
the nineties, so was Jamal Badi. Now these people are
pretty much d Dad is dead, but jam is pretty
much retired. But thank God for you too. You can
just put Ahmadi Dad and you'll see his lectures as debates.
He became famous Jay for debating Jimmy Swagger in the eighties.
That made him famous because in the eighties the biggest
televangelist in the eighties was Jimmy Swagger. He debated him,
is the Bible God's Word? Now, if you go with content,
see again, you're trained to think philosophically and logically. If
you judge the debate on content, Di Dot didn't do much,
but because of his rhetoric and his flash, he gave
the impression that he decimated Jimmy Swagger. But on content, no,
Jimmy Swaggert actually amazingly did very well. And I say
that amazing because I wouldn't expect someone to have great
depth of the Bible, but he was prepared. On content,
Swagger did extremely well, but on flash and rhetoric, he
dazzled the Muslim audience and he became a celebrity. So
this man who confronted me was studying di dot and
he destroyed me. He asked me questions about the Trinity
from the Bible, or about alleged discrepancies in the Bible,
or about Jesus's claims in the Bible, all of which
seemed to deny the Trinity. Now, mind you, I still
don't know what the Trinity is. You know, I just
came into the faith. I didn't have any formal training.
I didn't have any pastor or priest, bishop teaching me
the core doctrines of the Christian faith, or even the
history of the church or the Council, none of that.
So I still didn't know what the Trinity was. All
I knew was that Jesus is the son of God,
and somehow that means he's God. I got baffled. So
then what I did was I just cried out to
God and I said, God, please, if you help me
to find answer to these objections, I will commit myself,
by your grace to making sure that no Christian gets
humiliated and that they're an answer to their objections, and
that began my journey of studying the Koran, studying the Bible,
finding sources at that time because there was no Internet,
but there was a missionary from Pakistan who had retired.
We had a library books by Christian apologists and missionaries,
so I started reading some of those books, and then
by nineteen ninety nine I joined the website Answering Islam
and went into full time ministry and the rest is history.
So that's how I got introduced to this type of ministry.
And as you can tell my approach, I'm very harsh.
And the reason why I'm harsh is because the Muslims
I debated were harsh. They would attack, they would mock,
they would ridicule, they would blaspheme. And the more aggressive
I became, the more fearful they became of me, because
they don't like timidity, because when they see you that
you're very timid and solved, they take that as a
sign of weakness. So my approach may not endear itself
to a Western audience that thinks there is no time
or place to be harsh or cruel or even mean spirited,
but that's just the nature of the work. I do.
So that's a quick introduction the grace of Lord.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you for that. Yeah. I mean, we get
a lot of the same kind of criticisms here because
I go pretty heavy at times. I don't know if
I would say that I'm necessarily mean spirited, But you know,
if scripture in many places calls people a fool for
affirming foolish things, there's nothing wrong with us identifying when
something is foolish and calling it foolish. So yeah, yeah,
thanks for that. I had a similar situation too when
I was a young guy and I just started reading
the Bible at eighteen, and I remember I didn't know
what the Trinity was, I didn't know about the duty
of Christ. I was brand new to reading the Gospels.
And I remember I met Jehovah's witness girl and she
did the exact same thing to me, where she just
started pointing out all these texts and the New Testament
and I had no idea why I thought Jesus was
divine or where, and I didn't know how to explain
these texts. But I'm actually glad that that happened because
it prompted me to then go and start studying in
a more serious way of the New Testament and start
studying apologetics and so forth. So thank you for that.
Glad to hear your story. Tell me about let's maybe
talk about the Quran. Okay, so this is the area
that I'm not that well versed in. When I watched
the debate that you did with Shaveria Leave some nine
years ago, I noticed that right away you kind of
went in on textual issues and the textual contradictions, and
that one thing I noticed was that there seems to
be like a moving of the goalposts. A true for me,
but not for the situation where they will utilize textual
critics higher critics about the Bible. But anything that those
same textual critics say about the Quran, no, that's dismissed.
So only when it's useful against the Bible do we
use these liberal critics. And I think you had you
had a whole bunch of excellent examples of things that
were problematic, and I and as I listened, and I
didn't hear him really answering the objection objections that you gave,
it was just sort of like a well, but there's
these these problems in the Bible. There's this problem this
is this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, can you still hear me? It's curious. Yeah. And
by the way they were saying, the volumes may be
a little low on their end. I'm just watching comments,
so I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'll try to turn it up here as much as
I can.
Speaker 2: Hear let me. First of all, that was my first
public debate, and Shaverir was a seasoned debater. I would
have done some things differently now, but that's fine. I'm
my work critic. I don't like to hear myself from
watch myself now and hindsight being twenty twenty, what does
shiver like to do? And this is one thing you
can't fall for? And I say this because I want
to see more people Orthodox, whoever they are, I mean
Catholic Trinitarians get into this field and win people to
Christ whyle the grace of God's Holy Spirit. Now, they
will rarely engage in a debate where it's just exclusively
on Islam. They have to always mix in two topics together.
For example, Shibrali Bible of the chron two topics in one,
toheat or Trinity two topics in one, because that gives
him the opportunity to not address difficult questions and focus
on attacking the Bible. So now I've challenged Shibra Ali
and others debate me, but I no longer fall for
their tactics because I learn if we're going to do
if we're going to do Trinity or Toheed or the
Bible of the Chron two separate topics. One is the Bible,
God's word, one is the Chron. But we're not going
to combine both because you see what he did even
though I brought all that material from his primary sources,
and at that time, the field of textra criticism in
the chronic manuscripts was still green. It was something that
wasn't accessible to the late person. Right now, glory to God,
because of the Internet and the work of Jay Smith,
that there's someone that you should invite on chronic manuscripts.
You need to get Jay Smith involved because he's in
master at the chronic manuscripts and the thousands of variants
and showing there is no extent Kuran that's identical to
the Arabic Koran that is used to translate chrons in English,
because the particular Arabic text that Muslims use now was
only standardized and collated in nineteen twenty four, Cairo, Egypt.
Prior to that, you will not find any Arabic manuscript
of the Qoran that's identical to what they have today.
So now if I debate them, it's going to be
one topic. We thoroughly deal with that, not two topics
in one. But as you rightly know, what he did
was he ignored my objection showing that if we're going
to apply your criterion, what's your criterion? Variant readings means
the Texas corrupt. We can't trust it, we can't know
what it originally says. Well, if you're going to play
that game, your traditions and even your extent manuscripts, bury
the kron because the Koran has thousands and thousands of variants,
and in it's a text that's actually earlier, meaning the Bible,
the books of the Old Testament predate Christ. The books
of the New Testament are first century. But the Koran
supposedly was composed in the seventh century six hundred, so
it's much earlier, so we'd expect less variants. However, what
we find in the tradition and the extent manuscripts, it
has thousands and thousands of variant readings. Showing there wasn't
any one standard Quran. So if Shaber Ali and the
other Muslim polemicist like Paul Williams, whom you schooled by
the grace of God, are consistent, they're going to have
to reject the kron But again, they are consistently inconsistent.
We use unequal weights and measures. What's good for you
is not good for them. So this is the problem
of dealing with Muslim polemics. But this is why we
need to take control of the debate. Now, let them
dictate how the debate will be run or the criterion
that will be used. One criterion for you, another criterion
for me. So we need to get on board and
we need to control the discussion for the glory of
Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a great point. One problem I've noticed that
relates to that is we've had I think maybe six
or seven now, pretty lengthy debates with Muslims in my discord,
and a pattern that I see is the idea that
we only will trust the Bible or the Old Testament
insofar as the Qur'an tells us that it's not corrupted. However,
what I've noticed is that there's at no point in
this scheme ever, any clear criteria in terms of epistemic
criteria to know which of the texts are legitimate and
which ones are corrupted. So it's just sort of arbitrary.
And so they'll say, ah, you see here this text
teaches a lah Isaiah says is one he will give
his glory to no other. Oh, but wait when I
go to another text, Oh, that's corrupted because it doesn't
go along with Islam. So it begs the question to
know which of these texts are and are not corrupted,
And there's no way to know. It's just arbitrary, it
seems to me.
Speaker 2: Their argument is And by the way, because you're thinking
on a higher level, it's going to be very very
hard for you to find a Muslim that's going to
match you on a philosophical level. Those Muslims who are
philosophically trained are not doing polemics or debates. The people
that are doing polemics debates are the lay Muslims are
not qualified, even according to Islam, to be discussing Islam.
So if you ever want to engage in a rigorous
philosophical discussion, you'd have to search out the HUMSI Usus
or the ten Winter of Islam, not Paul Williams, not
Ann Rashid. You're talking on a level where they need
someone to interpret for them. When you talk about pistemic consistency,
it's like, now, for those kind of Muslims, this is
what they're going to tell you. They'll tell you that
the chron is el for Khan, right, and they're even Muslims.
In the chat they can correct me and show me
where I'm wrong. They'll say, because the chron is elfor Khan,
the Arabic word for Khan means criterion. They say that
the Koran becomes a criterion to determine what parts of
the Bible are true and what parts of the Bible
are corrupt. In other words, if there's a statement in
the Bible where Jesus or his followers or Moses says
something that goes against chron, then according to them, Jesus
could not have said it because the kron says Jesus
is a Muslim. So it's circular in its argumentation. But again,
like I said, the glorious thing about Islam is that
it's consistently inconsistent. That's what makes Islam miraculous, and that
people think it's a miracle, and they don't mind using
inconsistent arguments and using their criteria inconsistently. But with that said,
any time a passage echoes Islamic theology, that's true when
you say, how do you know? Because the Kran tells
us the prophets before Muhammad were monotheist in the same
sense that Muhammad was. In other words, they were unitarians.
But here's what's problematic. Even with that, if you read
the Koran in isolation from later tradition, because the majority
Muslims are Sunny, they don't read the Koran on its
own merits right. They read the Koran in light of
the Sunni tradition, traditions attributed Muhammad, some of which are
written one hundred years after has reported death, sometimes two
hundred years. And how Islamic theology evolved, and they evolved
this concept called toheed. Now Tohed, the Arabic word Tahed,
is not so much monotheism as its unitarianism. And in
their view, Allah is a singular consciousness. Now, they don't
like to use the term person because to them, person
is a wrong use of a term for Allah, because
person to them means someone finite temporal composed of matter,
but for lack of a better term, they believe as
a singular person. But here's what's ironic. If you actually
read the Koran carefully and contextually. And I have a
standing challenge to Muslims, and they're listening to me right now.
Bring even your scholars. I'm the Yusuf yes er Kati.
Bring them. Here's my challenge. Debate me on whether the
Koran teaches toheed has later developed. If you actually read
the Koran on its own merit, the Koran has a
convoluted war view of a trinity of sorts. It's a
Satanic counterfeit I call it. It's a Islamic trinity. And
Allah is not a singular consciousness. You can demonstrate this
from the text of the chron But once you read
the Koran light of later tradition, they're going to explain
all these passages away. And I can easily demonstrate examples
in the kron because don't forget Jay Muhammad is hearing
Christians and Jews, and he's aping much of what they
believe in order to deceive them and to thinking that
he's a prophet. So he's going to say a lot
of things that they believe. For example, could you imagine
a Christian giving Muhammad a serious hearing if he said
Mary did not give birth to Jesus while she is
a virgin. No Christian would listen to him. Could you
imagine a Christian saying that Muhammed or giving Muhammed an
audience who says Jesus in no miracles, They'll say, you
know what, You're a fraud, Get out of our face.
So Muhammad and I believe he was inspired by an
evil spirit of not saying himself. And we can get
into that evidence if you want. Muhammad being a good salesman,
he wants to affirm enough Christian truth to get Christians
to then listen to him. Mary. This is in the Quran,
chapter three, verse forty two. Mary is the greatest woman
Allah created. Mary was absolutely pure, free of all blemishes
and imperfections. Mary is the only woman mentioned by name
in the Quran, the only woman mentioned by name in
the Qoran. Women are not mentioned by name. Mary is
the only woman that has a chapter named in their honor,
so that in the Medium chapter nineteen, Jesus and Mary
the only two human beings whom Satan was unable to
touch an effect and harm when they were born. Because
there's a tradition attributed to Muhammad. He says, Satan touches
all the children of Adam when they're born, with the
exception of Mary and her son. So he says so
many things that Christians at that time would agree. And
in fact, here's what's ironic. Here's what's ironic, because Muhammad
is not dealing with Protestantism. He's dealing with these churches
and these Christian groups, whether the Orthodox, Catholic, the Miofice,
whatever it is. He affirms the perpetual virginity of Mary
in Islam. Her name is Albertun. Albertum means the virgin.
In Islam, Mary is a perpetual virgin, came out of virgin,
gave birth to Christ as a virgin, remained a virgin,
and as a virgin in heaven. Now here's where it
gets a little blasphemous, and I don't want to upset Christians.
There are traditions attributed to Muhammad where at the last day,
on the day of Resurrection, when Muslims enter Genda Paradise,
they're going to be married to what they call hoodis
these maidens. Now there's a tradition, and unfortunately I even
hate to repeat it, where the blessed mother of our Lord,
the blessed mother of the Lord, will be married off
to Muhammad because she's a righteous woman and Muhammad is
righteous and deserves to be her husband. In Jenna, utter
blasphemy and disgusting. But with that said, up until that day,
which will never happen, because Muhammad is in hell under
the feet of Jesus, Mary is viewed as a virgin.
They don't know about Joseph. They don't know about Joseph
being betrothed to her. I mean, I understand that even
though he's betrothed. Their tradition that says that they didn't
consummate the marriage. But he doesn't even know that. He
doesn't know about a Joseph because he's not mentioned in
the Koran. It's Mary and her son. And then there's
an allusion to the assumption of Mary into heaven. And
this allusion, it's not explicit, it's implicit. It's found in
chapter twenty three, verse fifty of the Koran, where it
says Mary and her son were made a sign and
they were taken into a high, lofty place. Now the
Muslim commentators are all over the map. What does that mean?
But I know what it means because Muhammed is aping
Christian theology. Mary was assumed the dormitionion right into heaven
where Jesus reigns as king of kings and lord lords.
So what am I getting at? Muhammed is aping these
things in order to get Christians to say, Man, this
guy agrees a lot with us, So let's hear him out,
and mama's to see I honor marry in Jesus. Now
here's the message except me as as messengers. So this
is why you find in the Koran aping of the Trinity,
aping of Christology, right mariology, because he's trying to and
over the Christians. So he wants to say enough truth
that Christians agree with, but then mix it in with
his lies and deceit and falsehood. This is why in
the Koran, Allah is not uni personal if you let
the Koran speak and not read it in light and
the lens of later Islamic theology.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we have one of our guys as one of
our apologists. His name is Kai, and he's got a
great channel and he actually put together about a twenty
minute video on that topic where he was showing the
first generation beliefs right after the formation of the Koran,
the first few generations of Islam, that the beliefs were
very similar in many ways to Christianity in that it
was trying to be repackaged perhaps and it, like you said,
aped and he actually shows that as well from a
lot of different texts. So I think Lewis is going
to put that video for Kai in the chat, but
that makes perfect sense of what you were saying. That
backs up what he puts in that video.
Speaker 2: I just subscribed to channel I just found Orthodox Shad.
I was impressed by this young Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he's a sharp guy. Yeah. So on that topic.
One thing I've wondered too, and I want to get
your take on this is it seems to me that
whenever I try to get into the topic of the
of God's simplicity in this theology in Islam, there's a
two ways that people take it. They either go on
a really extreme route where they sometimes not always, but
sometimes want to deny that God is absolutely simple, and
they want to make distinctions in God, and so they'll
speak of well, the attributes are distinct from his essence
in some way, or there's an eternal Qur'an that exists
alongside Allah, or they start to make these distinctions and
then turn around and say, but there's not really distinctions,
or the distinctions are real, but they're not the same
as Allah. So it seems to me to get a
little fuzzy. And my point is just to say there
that a lot of the times the problems that they
attribute to us about the Trinity, when we actually ask
about distinctions in Allah, they actually have the same problem.
They're not talking about three persons. But they'll turn around
and say, well, the attributes are not identical to Allah's essence.
But you see, what I'm saying is that they don't
really escape the dilemma that they think they put us
in because we ask them the same thing and they
don't know.
Speaker 2: Yes, you're on it. In fact, if you studies the
history of Islam, Muslims had their own version of arianism,
the Mutesalites, and you'll find them in the ninth century
where they were influenced by Greek philosophy and logic right,
Kadam right, And so they actually argued you cannot distinguish
the essence from the attributes of the law because you
inevitably end up with a plurality of divine entities and
violate the unity of a law. So they argued along
those He threw a very prominent Islamic theologian in prison
and whipped him. Sorry, we're buffering.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it says it's reconnected.
Speaker 2: It says it's so Mutim who succeeded Moun. These are
all muteslite calybs. He threw a very prominent Islamic theologian
in prison and whipped him. And there is an Islamic
school named after him, it's the hen Badi School Ahmed
ibin Henbelt. And the reason why he was thrown in
prison because you refuse to say the Koran is created.
Because the Teslites were saying, when you say the Koran
is uncreated, then you are imitating the Christians and what
they say about Jesus being the eternal logos, and so
what grounds do you have to object to what they're saying,
because you're no better than them. But they insisted no,
the Koran being calam a law, speech of a law
is uncreated, even though it's not identical Tola. So you
can't say that Allah became a book. Still it's not
other than them, so they came up with with the
fancy terminology. The attributes of a law are not a law,
but they are not other than a law. Right, so
they're not a law, but they're not other than him.
And they would say bill a kaif bill o kate
means Allah knows, we don't know. So now they're appealing
to mystery. But when we do that, no, you can't
do that, right, So Ahmed ibn Hunbaal was whipped and
thrown in jail because he said, no, the crown is
not created now then, actually, who want out? The Sunnis do.
But ironically you'll find remnants of mutezl like theology in
the Shia sect. You will have Shiah Muslims as saying
we don't distinguish the attributes from the essence because of
that problem that once you say there's a plurality, then
you are violating a Luh's unity. So they're all over
the map. But the majority Muslims are Sunni Muslims. So
when you have a Sunny Muslim in the chat and
I've done this, I've actually asked the Sunni Muslims these
questions and they end up admitting you're right, we have
a trinity of our own. So if we have problems
with your trinity, we need to eject Islam. In fact,
I did in one of my YouTube sessions about two
years ago. It's recorded on my YouTube session. There was
a Muslim in Paltalk and I asked them questions and
you can see you can see the comments say you're right,
we have a trinity of our own, and I need
to stop attacking Christians for their trinity. And that was
the last I heard of them. So the Sunni Muslims
have no grounds to object theologically logically to the trinity
being a violation of the unity of God because they
have a trinity of their own. We simply mentioned the
kron If I talk about the spirit in the Koran,
they'll have even more problems.
Speaker 1: Well, that brings me to the next question, which is
the names. Okay, the divine names. Of course, the classic
treatise of Saint Dionysius on the Divine Names is very
important in Orthodox theology, and what he tried to outline
there was how do we speak about God with human
language created phrases and terms, and what's normative for us
and our tradition is analogy. We do use analogical predication,
and that just means that if we think about God
as father, if we think about God as judge, if
we think about God as merciful, we are thinking about
the created categories. And we're not identifying God with created categories,
but we're saying that He is like those things in
his actions. The way he operates with us is like
a father, is like a judge, And that's just kind
of basic analog logical predication for us. They're applicable to
God's attributes, to God's energies in the Orthodox conception. But
what I've noticed in a lot of the Islamic debates
that I've had and discussions is that they will stress
the transcendence of God such that he doesn't even seem
to be able Allah in that conception to enter into
the creative world at all, to have any interactions. And
so then when we start to think about, well, how
does he actually relay the truths of the Qur'an to
us in a created world, this becomes problematic because guess what,
we're told that Allah is not in any way like
creatures at all. So if he's not in any way
like creatures at all. Then we use when we use
these terms that Allah as merciful, Allah as judge, or
whatever terms we're using, they don't really match up at all.
Speaker 2: Yeap, Just to piggyback what you said, Remember I said
what Islamic theology later teaches in contrasts with the Koran
teaches and even traditions attributed to Muhammad. Those Muslims who
say that Allah cannot enter his creation, he brought out
the dilemma, Well, if he can't under his creation, how
can he communicate with his creatures? After all, even if
we take the Islamic understanding that Gabriel transmitted the Koran
to Muhammad, because that's the Islamic tradition, Gabriel was the
medium that communicated the speech of a Lot to Muhammad,
But Gabriel is still a creature. He's still within creation.
For him to transmit the speech of Allah to Muhammad,
that means Allah has to interact with Gabriel in creation
for that to be possible. So, if Allah's so transcendent
and separate from creation that he can interact with it,
then how does he communicate the Qoran to any creature
within creation? If he's not able to eat enter creation
and still transcend it. Now, that's not a dilemma found
in the Koran or in the tradition, because in the
Koran you will find Allah enters his creation and he
actually manifests his presence in creation, and you find that
in the Hadiz. Now hadiz, let me let me translate
some of these terms, because I'm using terms, and I'm
assuming that most people know these terms. But again, let
me not assume that. Let me just define Hadid simply
means report narration, And when I talk about the hadiths,
I'm talking about those reports narrations attributed to Muhammad and
or his companions, and the most authentic collection of narrations
are Sahi Bukhari and Sai Muslim for the Sunny Muslims. Now, unfortunately,
Shia do not subscribe to these traditions. They have their
own traditions, and for the most part, those traditions have
been haven't been translated in English. Some have, So if
you really want to work among the Shia, you really
have to learn Arabic to learn their sources, because, unlike
the Sunni Muslims, they have been translated their primary sources
in English. Some have, but not most So, if you're
dealing with Shah, you gotta learn Arabic. But if you're
dealing with Sydney, Arabic helps. But thank god, the Sunneys
have translated their major works into English, not all, but
the major works like Sai Si Muslim. Now, let me
read to you what mah Ahamad said about Allah entering
creation Salbukharti. So that's why I want you jay make
a distinction between what they tell you what their sources
tell you. So to be an effective apologist, not only
refute them philosophically and show them the conundrum they're in.
By saying that Allah cannot interact with creation, and there's
nothing analogous olah. We're not saying equivocal univocal, but analogous olah.
It also contradicts your own Koran and your traditions, because
your Kuran and traditions don't agree with your theology. Here's
the prove Saldbuharti, Voluminine Salbukhati, Volum nine, number five eighty six,
narrated Abu Houraira, Allah's apostle said, every night, when it
is the last third of the night, our Lord, the Superior,
the blessed descends to the nearest heaven and says, is
there anyone to invoke me that I may respond to
his invocation? Is there anyone to ask me so that
I may grant him his request? Is there anyone asking
my forgiveness so that I may forgive him? Now I
can repeat other versions of this report, but I think
you get the point. Allah, who's above the seven heavens
at the last third of every night, descends to the
lowest heaven, right, and ask is there anyone to invoke me?
How could Allah do this if he cannot enter creation
while still being transcendent. So this is a problem for them,
not just from a Christian perspective, but from a Koranic
perspective and the Sunnah. If you let Muhammad speak and
the Koran speak, neither the kron nor Muhammad teach this
view of Islamic theology. And that's what I was saying.
That's my challenge to the Muslims. Debate me on your
kron and Sunnah doesn't teach your theology. It doesn't. I'm sorry. Now,
let me give you example from the chron example from
the Koran that Allah actually enters creation, interacts with his creatures, right,
I'm gonna give you this steal. I'm just gonna give
you one chapter twenty seven versus seven tonight. Now, this
passage really trouble Muslims because they try to find a
way around it. But the language is clear, and this
is what Muslims keep telling me. The Kron is clear Arabic,
and the Koran repeatedly says that it is a book
that explains everything in detail. It provides detailed explanation of everything,
full exposition of everything, all its verses, and I'm not
making it up. For the sake of time, I'll just
rent off some passages and people can write this down
to see that the Koran makes this assertion that it
is a book that explains everything in detail, meaning you
don't need anything outside of the Kron, almost like a
sola kurana. Right ironically, write down chapter six verse one
fourteen for those of you thinking notes because I'm not
gonna look at it. Chapter six verse one fourteen, Chapter
twelve verse one eleven, chapter six verse one fourteen, Chapter
twelve verse one one eleven, and do include chapter ten
verse thirty seven, Chapter ten verse thirty seven, Chapter sixteen
verse eighty nine, Chapter sixteen verse eighty nine, and then
finally chapter forty one, verses three and four. To see
that I'm not making this up, and they are Muslims
in the chat, prove that I'm lying. I'm esquoting your sources.
Now watch this this one. I love this one. Chapter
twenty seven Versus seven to nine. This is recounting the
Exodus where Moses encounters the Angel of the Lord. Can
I believe you and Jesus and Bush right?
Speaker 1: Hold on just one a second. Yes, I want you
to keep going, but I'm gonna have to step away
just a second and turn the lights on because their
sun's going down.
Speaker 2: Keep going, Okay, Now, what I'm about to quote for
the people listening is the Koran's perversion of the divine
encounter between Moses and God at the Burning Bush. The
Kuran recounts in more than one place, but I want
you to catch the language that chron uses when Moses
said to his people, I observe a fire Chapter twenty seven,
Verses seven to nine, when Moses said to his people,
I observe a fire and will bring you news of it,
or I'll bring you a flaming brand. Perhaps you shall
warm yourselves. So when he came to it. He was
called blessed is he who's in the fire, and he
who's about it, Glory bet a law, the Lord of
all being Moses. Behold, it is i Allah, the Almighty
the all wives. Let me repeat that part again, or
say so people can see. Blessed is he who's in
the fire, and who's about it? Well, the one who's
around the fire is Moses. Who in the world is
in the fire? The one speaking, and the one speaking says,
I am a Law, the Almighty, the all wise. So
now my question to the Muslims who are listening here,
because there are plenty Muslims here, can you explain to
me how does Allah manifest himself in this fire, in
this tree and speak audibly from this tree to Moses
and identify himself. I'm the blessed one in the tree,
You're the blessed one around me, and I am a Law,
the Almighty, the all wives. That's a plain reading of
the text. You can't get around it, right, And I
can give you more, But that's my point. What later
Islamic theologians came up with and what the chron and
had these teach are not the same.
Speaker 1: Specifically, the chron Now this reminds me too of another
thing that's come up a few times in the discussions,
which is that there seems to have been maybe a
period or maybe a splinter faction or a school in
the early phases that maybe still exists in some areas
that had the anthropomorphic view that God, the Father Allah
was some sort of body, and this is why we
get these phrases like the knees of Allah or something
like this.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in fact, the gentleman that you had a discussion with,
not Paul Williams. The other gentleman, Nazi.
Speaker 1: That was his name.
Speaker 2: If I recall correctly. I may be wrong, but I
believe he's a Selafi Muslim. Celafi Islam is a branch
of Sunnya Islam. Now I have to be clear. Not
all Sunnis are Celfi. So I want to just be
clear so that Christians understand, just like in Christianity, we're
not monolithic. We have different branches of Christianity. Even in
Sunni Islam. I'm not talking about Sunni Shiyad divide. I'm
talking about Sunni Islam. You have the Selafis and they're
pretty much they subscribe to what's known as the Atheitic creed,
where they take the texts on face value and do
not try to allegorize them. But then you have the
Muslim the Sunni Muslims who are ashety slash maturiri. They
would take statements of the crowns that refer to the
eyes of a law, the hands of Allah, the shin
of a Llah, the torso of a law Allah ascending
above the throne as metaphors. They're not literal. Eyes would
mean that a lass, hands would mean his power, his strength,
so on and so forth. But the celafis and Adnan Rashid,
who's another famous Muslim apologist, he's a Celafi, And I
believe Nazim is a selfie, and I want to put
words in his mouth unless he's changed his positions recanted.
They would tell you know, these statements, we take them
at face value. We do not interpret them in a
manner where they're merely allegorical expressions denoting the sight of God,
the knowledge of God. No, No Allah has eyes, Allah has hands,
Allah has a torso, a waste shin. But it's unlike
anything in creation. So that's how they get away with it.
He has a body of some sort. But this body
is unlike anything in creation, and we do not allegorize them.
We take them at face value. We know what eyes mean,
but we don't know exactly how Allah's eyes are. They're
unlike anything in creation, but he has eyes. Now here's
what's ironic, these Selafi Muslims, if they're gonna be honest
with you and they're hoping you don't know this. So
next time, Jay, when you do one of them say
is it not true if you're a Celafie that Allah
only has two right hands? He doesn't have a right
or a left hand. Why because the left hand represents
evil and Satan is left handed and a lot is
free of all imperfection, So he only has two right hands.
Speaker 1: That's a bizarre argument. But yeah, it's definitely something else
that should be brought up. If that's an actual argument. Wow. Interesting.
Speaker 2: Is I'm not lying to you?
Speaker 1: No, I believe you. I believe you. Yeah, Because one
thing I've noticed is in the last eight months a
year of people coming into discord and these debates that
we've been having, is that I don't mean this as
if this itself was an argument to disprove the position,
because I recognize within as you said, what's broadly termed Christianity,
there's many, many different schools of thought. Mean, I understand that,
but it also seems that within Islam there's many, many
different schools. And so one time you'd be hearing an
argument about anthropomorphism and the body of God, and then
you've been hearing an argument about how that's crazy and
that's heresy and idolatry. And if if the appeal of
Islam was supposed to be the simplicity of God and
the simplicity of its precepts, shouldn't we have a clear
conception of who God is in terms of his essence being,
you know, purely one. Why is there such a seeming
divide over this question?
Speaker 2: Because most people who are attracted Islam are not taught what
Islam teaches or their differences in variations. How many people
you know that converted to Islam knew what they were
getting into. And this is why this is not something
I'm saying just type in YouTube. Muslim apostates, even Muslims,
are taken aback and shocked at the number of converts
Islam that are leaving Islam, and even people who are
raising Muslim homes, they are shocked, and they even one
Muslim scholar said it's a tidal wave and there's nothing
we can do. And there are statistics that say that
when people convert to Islam, typically the majority of them
leave Islam within five years because then they get to
see what Islam is truly like, because when they're taught Isla,
they're taught this western eyed, contextualized, sanitized Islam that makes
Christianity look irrational and Islam so simple. And again, I
don't want people to take my word for it. Thank
God for the Internet and thank God for YouTube. Type
in Christian converts to Islam, Christian converts to Islam, I
don't anyway. That's another point. These Christians that convert will
tell you that they had already reached a point in
their understanding. And this is common unless it's a woman.
And I'm again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful. A
woman who fell in love with a Muslim man and
converted because she loved a man, And that happens too.
This why Muslims to tell you the highest number of
converts Islam are women, Well, yeah, because if you go
back and look, these women fall in love with Muslim
men and then they start justifying believe in Islam to
be with these men. But put that aside. Those who
do convert to Islam. This is what you're going to
find common among all of them, common among all of them.
I came to a point where the trinity it makes
sense to me. How can three be one, one b
three and then Jesus being God and men? That makes this?
How can the infinite and the finite unite? Or how
could God die? And where is the justice in the
innocent dying for the guilty. None of these doctrines made
sense to me. So they had already come to a
point in which they thought these doctrines were irrational and
inconsistent with scripture. So they were primed for Some Muslim
preachers say, Allah is only one. He's not father, SONI Spirit,
and he's not Jesus. Jesus is a messenger, can die
for your sins. And that's the appeal, because it's a
very watered down Western eyes contextualized Islam that they're presenting
to the masses until they enter it and then they
see for themselves. Oh wow. So there's a group that
says that Allah actually has eyes and two right hands
and a shin, and these are not simply allegorical or metaphorical.
They're actually even though they're unlike anything creation. Oh wow,
the chron is eternal, uncreated, and yet the chron is
not all law, but it's not other than a law.
Oh that comes after they've taken the pill.
Speaker 1: Interesting, And so that's something we see too in groups
like Mormonism. And you sort of get this outer sphere doctrine,
and then when you move into it, you realize, oh,
the grass wasn't actually greener, and there's all of these
problems that I thought I was going to get away
from are suddenly here. And I think that's is that
what you're getting at that? Let me ask you this one.
What are the problems that usually lead people out of it?
Is it those kind of fundamental contradictions that they didn't
that they're not actually resolved.
Speaker 2: Not only so much the theology, it's also the morality
of Muhammad. Most people that leave, if you hear it,
wasn't so much the theology, because I guess after a
while they just buy into okay, well, God is complex
by nature. This is God that I'm okay, I can
live with it. But ironically, when it came to Christian theology.
That was their grounds of rejecting it. A lot of
Muslims leave not so much the theology, and you can again,
I don't want people to take my word for it.
Search Muslim apostates. They were troubled. They were bothered by
Muhammad's immorality, Muhammad's lust for women, Muhammad's murder sprees and looting.
And these were the issues that really bother them, Muhammad's
gross immorality. And I can list them. I mean, so
this is the thing that bothered them. Because again they still,
you know, we believe that they created an image of God.
Those sin affects them and has them effaced it, so
their conscience starts bothering them. How can this man be
a moral example? A fifty four year old man desiring
and having sex with a nine year old and marrying
her and then in the Koran sanctuary sanctioning This is
not just Muhammad's example. This is where the Christians need
to wake up. It's not simply Muhammed marrying a nine
year old, a pre pubscent minor, a premature minor. The
Koran sanctions those marriages. It's in chapter sixty five, verse
four of the Koran, and I hope a Muslim here
it says you're lying, it doesn't. I call Islam the
religion of pedophilia because there is no set age when
a maiden is considered mature enough for marriage. You can
marry a girl if she's six or seven. There is
one criterion, however, and this is stated in sixty five vers. Four,
that you can marry a prebebissent, premature child who hasn't
even menstruted. That's in sixty five vers four. There is
one condition. Now I'm going to try to keep it
g rated. The one condition is if she can handle penetration.
If not, then you need to wait and take it
easy on her.
Speaker 1: That's it.
Speaker 2: So these are the things that drive people out of Islam.
It's not so much theological it's more the immorality, the
gross immorality of Muhammad, which is why you have even Muslims,
when they leave, they just simply become atheist and agnostic.
They just don't believe in God at all. After that
happens because they think all views of God are simply
irrational and fictional. And so if they leave, it's not
because of the complexity in the view of God. It's
because Muhammed is immral And once they're convinced Islam's false,
then all other religions are false because to them, if
there was any religion that had any chance of being true,
it's Islam, Judy's and Christianity forget about it, And that's
what happens.
Speaker 1: What do you think is the main reason most people
in that situation, or most people in Islam don't buy
into Christianity. Is it ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches.
Let me give you an example. One thing I've noticed
is a lot of ignorance about the actual Old Testament.
For example, if I were to talk about the Old
Testament picturing of the Temple and the purpose of the temple,
and how the Temple was a type of Christ and
this kind of stuff, it seems to be completely lost
on every Muslim I've ever talked to. They have no
conception of why it would even be necessary, what the
purpose of anything in Leviticus was, or anything that was
you know, typological of Christ, like the Passover, this kind
of stuff. So there seems to be like just no
knowledge of the Old Testament at all. For the most.
Speaker 2: The reason of the rejection of the Bible is because unfortunately,
the rise of liberal critical, unbelieving scholarship that pretty much
says that the books of the Bible are anonymous. Some
of them are pseudonymous, not written by the people attributed
to them, Like you're aware of bart Ermann, who's a
darling of Islam and agnostic atheists, the pastoral epistles and Barnman.
By the way, for the Christians here, Bartman didn't invent
these arguments. He's simply making popular the arguments that have
been taught since the rise of liberal critical scholarship in Germany.
And you know this because I know you went to
the seminary and I'm sure you were exposed to this
kind of scholarship. So when you have the West and
you hear from quote unquote scholars of the Christian faith, Yeah,
we don't know who wrote the Pentatude. The Pentaituk is
a patchwork of four documents, you know, the documentary hypothesis
and the gospel writers. They're anonymous. We don't know who
wrote the Gospel attributed to Matthew. These are all statements
that come from the later Church, and they're full of
irreconcilable contradictions and they're very So pretty much Western scholarship
has destroyed the confidence of people in the Christian faith
and in the authority of the scriptures. So this is
this is what's happening in the West, and so it's
not it's not so much Islam as it is these
so called scholars that supposedly someone even claimed to be Christian. Hey,
I'm Christian, and yet he doesn't believe the authority of scripture,
the preservation of scripture, the inspiration of scripture, and he
doesn't even believe the doctrines of the Trinity, and may
not even believe the bodily resurrection it was spiritual. It's
the onslaught of Western scholarship on the Christian faith that's
causing people not to even consider Christianity.
Speaker 1: Do you think that so before the modern period and
the rise of German higher criticism and this kind of
stuff like in the in the older you know, Middle
Ages period, was it just that Christianity was seen as
a Western thing. It was seen as something I mean,
it couldn't be totally Western, because you know, Christianity's been
in the East as well. What do you think most
because I've read some of the older medieval Muslim debates,
and they seem to be just pretty arbitrary. They don't
what's the what's the main reason that they that they
wouldn't have adopted even before higher criticism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so if you're talking about the Muslims not adopting it, well,
obviously their commitment to the Koran and Muhammad's prophethood and
that Muhammad cannot be false and therefore Christianity cannot be
true for the most part. But if you actually read
those kinds of scholars those Christian theologians were warriors. They
did a better job, in my view, of decimating Islam
and their arguments and what we find today right, because
that kind of scholarship back then was believing scholarship. You
won't find a Christian theologian questioning Mosaic authorship, will you
find on it? No, you won't find a Christian scholar
or a bishop or a monk questioning the authorship of
the Gospels. These were believing scholars, theologians who believe the
Bibles are to God, and that's why you can see
their arguments what's much more forceful, much more convincing. But
at the end of the day, here's what it comes down.
To If you are committed that Muhammad must be a
prophet and the Koran is a miracle, no amount of
evidence will be sufficient to convince you otherwise. But even
with that said, you did have Muslims converting to the
Christian faith even during that period. So when you ask
me during that period, what could it be, it's their
commitment to the Koran being inviolable, the Koran being infallible
because it's the speech of a law. It can't be false,
it can't be corrupted, it can't be false. Of so,
no matter what arguments Christians bring, they are guilty until
proven innocent. After all, Muhammad is a prophet and we
know this to be certainly true. So it's that circular reasoning,
the assumption Muhammed is true. Everything else that contradicts Muhammad
is false. By its very nature, it cannot be true.
Speaker 1: Well that's ironic too, because most of the time, the
more scholarly colomn type of approach. They are big fans
of Aristotle and Ariscitylian philosophy in terms of most of
the time rejects circular argumentation because it has a pretty
strict series of rule syllogisms, principal non contradict. You can't
do engage in that kind of circularity. And there's the
fact there was a guy on Twitter today who is
trying to argue with me about this, and he was saying, oh,
you affirm circular arguments, and so I'm saying, no, we
all affirm circular arguments when we believe that ultimately the
highest authority is God himself. You would do the same
thing I do. But my system doesn't rejects circularity at
a paradigm fundamental level, but your system does. Because you
will say it to us. You can't engage in any
circular argument. You say the Bible is true because the
Bible says it's true, But you do the same thing
with the kron Because so everybody does this. That's the point.
Even the atheist says, oh, my reasoning ultimately is the
highest authority principle in the world. It's inescapable at a
paradigm level that everybody kind of eventually comes back to
their highest authority. And the question then, I think, is, well,
which system of thought is coherent? That's the way I
approach apologetics.
Speaker 2: I like that I see that presupposential apologetics being used
in your argumentation exactly now, but remember this what I said.
I'm going to say, like a broken record, Islam is
gloriously consistently inconsistent. They won't use the same weights and
measures that they apply to critiguing Christianity and Judaism, let's say,
or any other religion to themselves. That's quote unquote the
beauty of a Slam. Islam is unfalsifiable. So you can
say that can refute.
Speaker 1: It, it's unfalsifible. Yeah, it's very similar to well, we
won't go down the road of the papacy. But I
see that tendency when I have a love.
Speaker 2: Debates with people Setian war right.
Speaker 1: Now, Well, when people talk about the papacy, they'll do
the same kind of unfalsifiable. But that's a different stream.
So what do you think about this objection that I've
come up with in terms of a lot of Now,
I brought it up to Paul Williams because he kind
of fell into this trap where he said, well, anything
that we say about Allah is true of all law
from all eternity. And I asked him about the name
creator because there's a great debate that Athanasius has with
the Arians where he says that you know, Creator is
not a name, nor can foreknowledge be said of God
from all eternity because it only relates to the created order.
And most of the Islamic apologists and I brought this
up to tend to fall into that same trip. They say, well,
Creator is an eternal name, because all the names are eternal,
and so if they're synonymous with Allah from all eternity,
then I said, well, did he create from all eternity?
So is there an eternal world that He's created? And
most of the time I have not gotten a clear answer.
What would you do?
Speaker 2: You won't you know why? I say it's wonderful because
Muhammad operated under the assumption that Allah's attributes presupposed relationships.
And yet because in his thinking, Allah is uni personal
even though he contradicts himself. And I need to make
this clear. I need to make this clear. Mohammad wanted
to say one thing, but he came out saying something else.
So that people don't get confused when I say that Muhammad,
because I just got done saying, if you read the Krown,
you have a trinity of sorts. The reason why you
have that is not because Mohammad wanted to have a
trinity of sorts. But because he was an ignoramus, I
have to be honest. He was aping things without understanding,
even though he made statements that contradict the very things
that he took for granted to be true, because his
aim was to do Christians and Jews to follow him.
So he'd affirm enough, let's say truth of Christianity Judaism,
but then sandwich it with his denials and thereby creating
contradictions in his chron Let me give you example what
I mean. He wants to say that Jesus is just
a man, but then he comes out saying things in
the churn about Jesus where he's aping Johannai logos christology right.
So he doesn't want to do that. He wants to
say Jesus is a man, but by taking what he
hears Christians saying about Jesus being the logos right, he
ends up making part of the Koran and therefore bearing
his Koran and exposing him as inconsistent. Now in saying that,
you'll have statements where Muhammad realizes that some of Alah's
attributes require relationships. Let me give you some of these
so you understand where I'm going with this. This comes
from Sahi Muslim number sixty sixty twenty. Now, and by
the way, all of this information is available free of
charge on the websites. I want all the Christians here
to go back use this information. In fact, you have
my permission because on our website we allow people to
upload them to their sites. As long as you just
mentioned the URL free of charge. Use it for the
glory of the Lord. Use it for the trime God. Now, Jay,
tell me what it sounds like. Doesn't it sound like
Muhammad is in a conundrum because he realizes that some
of these attributes do require relationships. But if you don't
have a multi personal God, then that means your God
needs creation to actualize these characteristics and therefore shows these
a dependent need idity. Right, let me read and you'll
see what I mean. Abu Sinema reported that when the
time of death of Abu Ayo this is by the
way Sai Muslim number sixty six to twenty. Abu Sinema
reported that when the time of the death of Abu
ayub Ansadi drew near, he said, I used to conceal
from you a thing which I heard from Allah's messenger
and I heard Allah's messenger as saying, Christians, you gotta
hear this shows you how unjust Allah is and how
needy Allah is. Had you not committed sins, Allah would
have brought into existence a creation that would have committed sins,
and Allah would have forgiven them. Now let me read
another one. Sahi Muslim number sixty six twenty two. Saia
Muslim number sixty six twenty two. Abu Hureira reported Allah's
messenger having said by him in whose hand is my life?
If you are not to commit sin, Allah would sweep
you out of existence and he would replace you by
those people who would commit sin and seek forgiveness from Allah,
and he would pardon them. Now, understand what Mohammed is thinking.
Because Allah's merciful, that is an attribute that's relational. Therefore,
there has to be someone for him to show mercy to.
So he deliberately creates a creation that's imperfect will sin
so he can show his mercy. Because if creation is perfect,
he'd wipe it out of existence and create an imperfect
one so that he could be given the opportunity of
showing his mercy. So you see somewhat of this idea
even in Muhammad's mind that some of the characteristics of
my God require relationships. But Muhammad didn't realize he made
his God dependent on creation to actualize those characteristics. So
that Islam's deity is not self existent and it's not
independent of creation.
Speaker 1: Wow.
Speaker 2: So I just wanted to drive that point home. But
I agree with you. Creator is not an essential attribute
in that God doesn't have to create to be who he.
Speaker 1: Is, right exactly. Yeah, this is stressed in Orthodox theology.
And in fact, there was a Muslim apologist today on
Twitter bringing this up to me, saying, you are neo Platonist. Hahaha,
We've got you. You've got a triad from Neoplatonism. And
I said, you realize that when most of the are
in the Orthodox tradition, very prominent theologians, Saint Maximus, Saint Athanasius,
when they go in St. Basil, when they go into
depth about arguing for the triad and for the metaphysics
of the Trinity and so forth, they're actually stressing points
that are directly refutations of Neoplatonism. For example, the notion
that eternal, that creation is an eternal reflection of God.
That's the Neoplatonic doctrine. They also stress the reality of
distinctions in God that are personal try hyposthetic, right, and
that means that we have a way to balance unity
and multiplicity in God and we don't have to balance
it in something created or something in this world. And
so for us, I think that's a better way to
ground our philosophy or epistemology or metaphysic all that just
to say that in these two points that creation was
a free action and that it wasn't a determined emanation.
Orthoxiology is grounded in rejecting those neoplatonic doctrines. And ironically
they I know that a Muslim wouldn't want to affirm this,
but I think if he were consistent, we ought to
be and is more neoplatonic than we are, because we
don't think that creating or being a creator is an
eternal attribute.
Speaker 2: And you see that Muhammad realized that Allah needed an
imperfect creation to be who he is and actualize those
characteristics that were foundational to his view of God. So
it's the Muslim God that's a needy god, not separate
from creation.
Speaker 1: And closer to neoplatonism, especially in terms of the neoplatonic
doctrine of simplicity, where everything is identical to essence. And
again I know that, as you said, some of the
schools don't want to go in that direction, but it's
very hard for me to see how what was the
phrase you used, the attributes are distinct but not different,
or what was the phrase.
Speaker 2: They came up with them? By the way, that's why
I say, Jay, to the average Muslim, you're going to
be speaking over their minds. So you got to find
a Muslim who's philosophically trained and understands these issues. And
my estimation the current crop of apologist, you're speaking a
foreign language. They can't follow you. But the term that
the Islamic scholars came up with, they said, all of those
attributes are not a law, but they are not other
than a law.
Speaker 1: There we go, yeah, yeah, which that's I think that's
kind of funny, but that's good.
Speaker 2: And then when they're oppressed on it, they would say,
bila cave. Billa cave means it's only known to him.
We don't know, mystery, Jay, But hey, I thought we
Christians when we build the mister or what you guys
are just using that as a cop out. It's ironic
they do the very thing they accuse Christians of doing.
Speaker 1: What are some good books that you would recommend? As
I'm looking through my questions here, I wanted to ask
you you mentioned it was it the J. Smith? He
has some stuff. What are some other texts we want
to look at to get into introduce to me, you.
Speaker 2: Know on books on Koran manuscripts. I know Danker Mark Hamer,
He's come up with one. I don't know of any
recent books that have come out. There was a book
done by Keith Small on comparing chronic manuscripts. But at
the end of the day, you're all number one resource
for all this information would be J.
Speaker 1: Smith.
Speaker 2: And if you can't, I can put your contact with
him because he's got the books. But I know there's
a book by Dan and I have a hard time
remembering his last thing. I even have the book in
my shelf, Dan blu Baker, I think it's Brew Baker
and Keith Small. Those are some outstanding works, but they're
then done from a Christian perspective. But as far as
an academic level type of presentation on the chronic manuscripts,
right now, it slips my mind because there's a work
done by Muslim, but I don't consider it academic because
he's biased towards the Koran, and he compares the textual
transmission of the Bible and pretty much uses it as
a plimic to attack the Bible and prop up the
kron So I wouldn't recommend that. But Ja Smith, you
got to get him on if you want, and he
will give you all the sources. And he's done metiiculous,
he himself meticulous research into the extent manuscripts.
Speaker 1: Now, I got Al Gazali's book the other day and
incoherent to the philosophers, And that's funny because doesn't he
depart from Islam. Yeah?
Speaker 2: Well, Al Kazati is an interesting figure in that his
journey takes him from where he ends up at the
from Again, this is going by those who are experts
at Alexandi like Kamsa Yusuf and Yaserkati. Even though he
tried to be philosophically rigorous and tried to show how
what they call knuckle revelation and akkhl knuckle is revelation.
Ukkl means reasoning your mind that they're not necessarily in conflict,
but they can be married and sandwiched with one another,
and you had another who's a Persian Muslim commentator who
tried to code the route of showing how ukkhel properly
used doesn't numbify knuckle. Knuckle is the term, the technical
term meaning revelation. Ukkul means intellect, reasoning Arazi. But you
find then Muslims like Iban Temia writing devastating critiques against
philosophers and ukkhol showing how well your ukkum cannot be
the determining guy cannot be the criterion to determine what
parts of the revelation can be valid or not, because
then you subject revelation to your understanding, and your understanding
is unaided by revelation, by inspiration, so you cannot know
whether you're reasoning can guide you to properly understand things
that require revelation, because after all, were finite, imperfect, temporal beings.
Our reasoning is tainted, it's corrupted, it's affected, and can
only take you so far. So you can't use reasoning
as a standard. So you're going to have a debate
among those what I call the knuckalists, that's my term,
those who say revelation is supreme and the ecoists right,
those who say no reasoning is given to us by God,
and it's a valid tool to determine whether something can
be truly considered revelation from God or something that's fabricated,
because after all, God will not go against reasoning, because
reasoning is a reflection of God's mind. And so this
was an intense debate as that he was on the
side of the philosophers. But according to some again don't
quote me on this, that honest death bet, supposedly he
returned back to his roots and pretty much denounced the philosophers.
Speaker 1: Hmm. Interesting, Yeah, there's a lot of deathbed conversion stories
like that that are always floating around. We didn't get
a whole lot into textual issues. Maybe we want to
touch on that sum because I know you're really good
with you know, your recollection and all that. Maybe if
you could, what are some of the key texts that
you think really demonstrate the triadic relationship, because the majority
of the arguments are just usually there's no trinity in
the Bible that's made up later. Well, actually no, there's
all of the hardware of what would be termed quote
trinity is all in scripture. It's not made up later.
What are some of the key things that you would
point to there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, here is where the battle is going to be won.
To show that your view, your philosophy, your tradition is
anchored in the sound interpretation of the Bible. Right, it
doesn't go against because that's your accusation that these views,
the theological jargon, the precise theological terminology that was developed
by the Church fathers, alien to the scriptures and pretty
much abandons the scripture. So one key thing, and I
say this because you come from an Orthodox perspective and
you don't believe that the tradition contradicts the scripture. Right,
the perfect c harmonious anchor what you believe in scripture
and tradition and show there is no conflict between the two.
And I would encourage everyone, especially the Orthodox brothers and
sisters here. You want to prove the Trinity not simply
from the New Testament. You have to anchor it in
the Old Testament. And I'll give you the reason why
you have Muslims who are now following and being influenced
by anti Christian missionary rabbis like Tovia Singer. Tovia Singer
has become very famous among Muslims because Tovia Singer is
actually in Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population, and
he's doing YouTube videos where he's attacking the New Testament,
attacking Christianity, attacking the deity of Christ. But he barely
says anything negative. Vaudi Islam and Muslims love him. And
one of his arguments that Muslims have picked up on
is Dounonomy chapter thirteen, Dononomy thirteen, and he uses actually
in a debate with William len craig or he alluded
to it. He didn't mention it specifically, but he was
alluding to it. And Douonomy thirteen. You have God telling
Dizelites through Moses before Moses dies. If a prophet or
a dreamer of dreams tells you about a sign that
will come to pass, and it comes to pass, but
then he says to you, come, let us follow gods
that neither you your fathers have known. Do not do
it because the Lord, your God is testing you. So
what's the point here? God is saying, don't be impressed
by miracles, don't be impressed by prophecies. If that miracle
worker or prophet then entices you to follow a God
that's foreign to you, that your ancestors did not know
and did not worship. So now what do they do
with that? But the Muslims and these Jews, the Trinity
is alien to the Old Testament. It is a God
that the Jews, the patriarchs did not know. How could
Abraham be the friend of God and not know God? Truly?
If you're telling me, God is triune. So this is
an objection. This is why folks don't take my word
for it. Read the New Testament. Notice that Jesus, who's
the god man, What does he do? And what do
the apostles do? They anchor their message, They anchor their
revelation on the foundation of.
Speaker 1: The Old Testament.
Speaker 2: There repeatedly quoting the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah
would come, that he'd be the god Man, that he
would be the Son of God, that he would die
vicariously on the cross, be raised and enter his glory.
Because it's Jesus, after all, who gave Moses the law.
And it's Jesus, after all, who's not going to contradict
the very critian he gave these raelights. So he's going
to make sure that what he says, and what is
inspired emissaries say are based on the foundation of the
Old Testament. Even though they build on it and give
us a more fuller understanding, it's still anchored in the
Old Testament. So what am I trying to say? You
must be able to ground your belief in the Trinity
in the Old Testament and then work your way into
the New Testament. And Jay, if anyone knows it, you
know it better than I. That's what the church fathers did.
Justin Martyr in his dialogue, would trifle the Jew What
is the appeal to him to show the priority of
God and the deed of the Messiah? What did Tertullian do?
What did he appeal to the Old Testament? They're appealing
to passages where you have more than one divine player,
more than one divine person, and demonstrating that one of
those persons becomes the historical Jesus, the Messiah. Right, so
number one anchor your trinitarianism in the Old Testament. The
Hebrew Bible now one of the best passages to do this.
And everyone knows this, Everyone and his mother knows this.
It's Genesis eighteen. If you want us to go through
it we can, that's up to you. I don't know
how much time we have, but I'm free all day,
so I'm not in Russia.
Speaker 1: Well we're going to get to the super chats in
a minute. But yeah. One of the things that I
do hit on quite a bit is the Old Testament
Theophanes and how they do clearly they clearly distinguish, you know,
these relationships that are divine. And so the point is
that the Old Testament saints might not have known the
term hypostasis. That doesn't matter, right, whether Abraham knew the
term or not. Whether what he knew was that he
was worshiping the coming Messiah. That's the key, and that's
Paul's imitation in the New Testament is that Abraham believed
the Gospel ahead of time because Abraham knew God the
Father through Jesus Christ. So there's a triadic relationship that's
present in the Old Testament. And even scholars have admitted
that there were these hypostatic understandings, whether they use the
term or not, in that Old Testament period, in even
the Temple period when when Christ came, there was the
Second Temple period, there was an understanding at that time
of a distinction in the hypostaces. Philo talks about this, right.
Doctor David Bradshaw has a great book on this where
he talks about the history of these notions, even all
the way back to the Mosaic period. So if you
look at the history of rabbinical debates, they actually debate
this topic too. This is not unique to Christianity. It's
actually within the history of Judaism, debates about in what
sense there are different personages, staces, powers sometimes that word
is used. Regardless of what the used, that's the idea
that's present, and so there's multiple Old Testament theophanies. I
have a three hour talk on this that I put
into the chat for everybody. If they want to link
to that, you feel free too. If you want to
mention Genesis, say team yeah.
Speaker 2: The seminal work in this field is done by the
late Jewish scholar Alan F. Siegel. He did Two Powers
in Heaven, Two Powers in Heaven. He's not a Christian,
he's a Jew, and he admits that there was a
strand of Judaism. Many most right that believe there were
at least two divine powers. Now that's the language he's using.
The term we would use two divine persons or hypostasis, right,
two divine powers. Just we're saying the same thing, we
may not be using the same language. And he says
this was a belief common among the Jews even after
the time of Christ, up until at least the second century,
when then the rabbis reacted to it because the Christians
and the Gnostic heretics were using these Old Testament passages
that the Church fathers you see them using to prove
a divine ploorer. But if we can't just one example,
because I'm going to kill two birds one stone, sure
show how Jesus claims to be God without having to
say those exact words, and how he ties himself with
the God that appeared to Abraham. And if you don't mind,
if you can't, and Christians, I want you here. There's
some of you who've been following my sessions. You already
know this. But if you go to Johnny thirty nine
to forty, and I use Muslim I use this to
Muslims to stump them. If you go to John eight
thirty nine and forty, brother p yeah, But if you
don't mind reading it, because I don't have the Bible economy. Okay, yeah,
Johnny thirty nine to forty.
Speaker 1: They said to him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said
to them, if you were Abraham's children, you would do
the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me,
a man who has told you the truth which I
heard from God. Abraham did not do this. You do
the detail.
Speaker 2: And here's where people read quickly over this. That's why
I had to stop. You notice what Jesus is saying
to the Jews to show that they're not truly the
scendants of Abraham. Yeah, physically you descend from him, but
you're not truly his spiritual heirs because you don't believe
like him, you don't act like him. And here's the proof.
You are trying to kill me, a man who told
you the truth that he did from God. Abraham did
not try to do this. What did Abraham? What did
Abraham not do? Not try to kill Christ? Did you
catch you? Jay?
Speaker 1: Didn't try to kill you?
Speaker 2: Trying to kill me? Abram didn't try to kill me? Well,
that only makes sense if Jesus and Abraham had an
encounter where Abram's reaction was different. And that's exactly what
he says. If you go to John A fifty six
to fifty nine, because I'm going to tie it in
with a passage that you mentioned because I heard one
of your sessions on your journey to Orthodox and you
mentioned Genesis fifteen, verse six. But we're going to look
at it and show you the trinity there. But if
you go to Johnny, remember guys, what he just said,
you're trying to kill me. Abraham didn't try to do this.
Abram didn't try to kill me. Assumption Abraham saw me
like you're seeing me. But one difference. I'm now in
the flesh, whereas with Abraham I didn't become flesh. I
appeared in human form, and when he saw me, he
reacted differently. And this is confirmed in John A fifty
six to fifty nine. It's confirmed because notice what he
then says about Abram's reaction.
Speaker 1: So we're doing fifty six to fifty nine.
Speaker 2: Now John fifty six. Notice what he says. In fact,
I can read it if you want, because I re
memorize this well.
Speaker 1: He says. Yeah. He says, you have not known him,
but I know him. I say to you, I do
know if wait.
Speaker 2: Now go to fifty six where it says, your father.
Speaker 1: Father, Abraham rejoiced to see me, to see my day,
and he saw, he saw it and was glad.
Speaker 2: Now, before you move on to fifty seven, notice he
goes see your father, Abraham rejoiced to see my day,
he saw it was glad. Now, any commentator will tell
you that it means that Abraham was given a prophetic
vision of the Missigas coming. That's true. Not denying that.
But Jesus is saying much more than Abraham simply seeing
My coming in the future. How do I know he's
saying more than that because notice how the Jews understood
him in fifty seven.
Speaker 1: Well they, yeah, they understand him. You are not fifty
years old and you have seen Abraham.
Speaker 2: And then notice what he does not say. He doesn't say, guys,
don't be stupid. I'm not saying I saw him. I'm
saying prophetically, God revealed to him my coming. Can now
you read at fifty eight?
Speaker 1: Yeah, then Jesus said to them most assurely, I say
to you before Abraham was I am.
Speaker 2: That's the answer. So notice, folks, what Jesus said. Yes,
I did see him. And here's why. Unlike your father Abraham,
who came into being. I am, he was created, but
I'm timeless. So I was there before he came into existence,
and I remained the same till the present moment. So
here notice what Jesus said. Abraham saw me, and I
saw him actually, and I saw his reaction. Now here's
where it gets golden. And then we can go to
super chats if you want, or if you want more examples. Guys,
here's where it gets golden. Focus on this. Jesus saw
Abraham face to face because unlike Abraham, Jesus has always
been will always be. He is the I am in flesh,
God in flesh. Now remember the proue of John. In
the beginning, was the Word in the beginning was the word.
The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning. All things came
into being through him, and without him, nothing came into
being that came into being. And then it says the
Word became flesh. Now, Jesus is the Word of God
that's been there from the beginning. Who is God in essence,
the agent of creation. But then John went eighteen, I
want everyone remember this, John oyen. I know I'm preaching
to the choir with Jay, he knows this. But for
the rest of you, John went eighteen. I want you
to remember this. It says no man has seen God
at any time, anytime, meaning even Abraham's time. But the
only begotten Son, who's in the bosom of the Father,
has explained him. So notice what it's saying. If anyone
has ever seen God, that was the agency of Christ.
Christ was the one making God known to them. So
right there, John is letting you know, expect to find
Jesus in the Old Testament, because anytime they saw God,
it was Jesus making God known to them. Now, can
you do me a favor? Can you read Genesis fifteen,
verses one.
Speaker 1: Of three one to three.
Speaker 2: Yes, After this you go on to super Chats if.
Speaker 1: You want after these things. The word of the Lord
came to Abraham and a vision saying, do not be afraid.
I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward.
Speaker 2: But Abraham, a little slower, slower, because I want you
to catch versus one, Jay, I want to catch it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the word of the Lord came to Abraham.
Speaker 2: Wow, the word of the Lord came to Abraham and
spoke to him. Now keep reading.
Speaker 1: If you can't and a vision and said, do not
be afraid, Abram, I am your shield and your exceedingly
great reward. But Abram said, Lord God, what will you
give me, seeing as I go childless and the heir
of my house is Eliezer of Damascus. Then Abraham said, look,
you have given me to offspring, and indeed one born
in my house is my heir.
Speaker 2: Now, folks, this is where you need to start paying attention.
I know you are, but now really pay attention. Pay
attention to verses four and six, because in verse five,
whoever speaking Tabram has appeared visibly to him inside the tent.
Because then he takes him out, he says, he takes
them out and shows them the stars. So, now, guys,
pay attention to four to.
Speaker 1: Six, and behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying,
this one will not be your heir, but the one
who will come from your own body shall be your heir.
And then he brought him outside and said, look now
towards heaven and count the stars. If you are able
to number them, and he said to him, so will
your descendants be.
Speaker 2: And then I want to say six.
Speaker 1: He believed in the Lord and was accounted to him
for righteousness.
Speaker 2: Irony jay, the very passage that you use to your
professors who have an answer to in the context, guys,
the word of the Lord came Tabram saying this man
will not be your air. And then it says he
took him outside. Implication, the word appeared visibly inside the tent,
and then visibly took him outside. And then he pointed
to the stars. He goes, Abram, do seventy and your
descendants will be. Abram believed him, and he was credited
as righteous. Notice who appeared to him? The word? Whom
did Abraham trust in? The word? Whom did Abraham recognize
as God? The word who made a promised Abraham that
he'd have descendants to numerous account the word and whom
did Abraham trust in resulting in his justification? The word?
Who's that word? The word who became Jesus wa llah
no wonder, Jesus said, your father Abraham rejoiced to see
me because I was that word that appeared to him
and made a promise to him, and he believed in me.
Speaker 1: Right amen. Yeah, And with that in mind, when you
go through and you read the New Testament and you
start to notice, like in John twelve where John quotes
Isaiah in thirty seven to forty one, and he says,
these things Isaiah said when he saw his glory and
spoke of him Isaiah, and John is clearly talking about
Christ there, and who did Isaiah see Christ's ironic?
Speaker 2: Just so they don't think we're making it up, go
read the Aramaic paraphrases of Genesis and Isaiah that goomime
the targets the Jews apart from the New Testament. They say,
the one who appeared to Abraham, the one who spoke
to Adam and Eve, the one who created them in
their image. The one who appeared to Isaiah was the memra,
the word of the Lord that appeared to them. That's
even the Jewish understanding. So what's the point When John
said in the beginning was the word, the word was
with God, the word was God. That wasn't something new
for the Jews. The only new thing that John added
is when he said the word became flesh. That would
have rocked them everything else. They would have said, Amen, John,
we know about the words in the Old Testament. Now, Jay,
because again you're my orthodox brother, and you believe Wisdom
of Solomon in a scripture. Can we just look at
one passage from Wisdom? Sure, go to Wisdom eighteenth thirteen
to sixteen. Guys, you're in for a treat as he
goes to Wisdom eighteen thirteen to sixteen.
Speaker 1: Before I haven't marked him on as logos God.
Speaker 2: All right, now, let me explain to them the New
Testament parallel to this. Write down Revelation three twenty one. Revelation.
I'm gonna give you a lot of guys, write these down.
We're not gonna look at him, but write these down.
I want you to write down Revelation one sixteen, Revelation
two twelve, Revelation two sixteen. I'm gonna go a little
slurre so you can keep up, okay, Amen, Revelation nineteen fifteen.
Revelation nineteen twenty one. Revelation nineteen twenty one. There it
says Jesus's mouth is like a sharpened tw edged sword,
and that sword he uses to slay his enemies. Write
down Revelation nineteen thirteen. Jesus is said to be the
Word of God. Revelation nineteen thirteen, and write down Revelation
three twenty one, where Jesus says, he overcame, and he
sits with his father on his father's throne. So Jesus
is the word of God on his his father's throne,
who has a sword that comes out of his mouth
to slay God's enemies. Remember that. So now let's go
to Wisdom eighteen verses thirteen to sixteen. I'll read it
for their benefit, because he marked it up. We can't.
Speaker 1: For they disbelieved everything because of their sorceries. But at
the destruction of their firstborn, they acknowledge the people to
be God's son. For while while gentile silence embraced, gentle
silence embraced everything, and night at its own speed was
half over. Your all powerful Word leapt from heaven, from
the royal throne into the midst of a doomed land,
a relentless warrior carrying the sharp sword of your irrevocable command.
And he stood and filled all things with death.
Speaker 2: So, jake, guys, the question, how did these Jews know?
Before the Gospel of John. God has a divine person,
an agent, honest throne, his all powerful Word, who can
appear in human form, And he is God's agent of salvation, destruction,
and has a sword by which he slays his enemies,
because that's exactly what the New Testament says about Jesus.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Yeah, I mean, because in many many places in
the Old Testament this is spoken of as the Angel
of the Lord. And he's not just a created angel.
The word angel just means messenger. He is a divine figure.
And hence why Exodus can say I have put my
name Yahweh in him.
Speaker 2: So these are the things that I would use for
a Muslim, because now the Muslim is in a dilemma.
Old Testament, New Testament perfectly agreed. Old Testament posits a
multi personal God, and I can give you more evidence
than Jake Canto. But again we're being very brief. For
the same time, God in the Old Testament is the
father to his people, the Angel of the Lord, who's
the Word of the Lord. He's a distinct messenger person
from God, who is God. The Spirit of God is
a person even in the Old Testament. He creates as
the divine attributes, all of which comports with the New Testament,
but both of which contradict the Chrome. So you got
the Old test New Testament agreeing about God. A list
of books written by different people in different places, and
their view of God is the same. He's multi personal,
and one of those persons becomes the Messiah Jesus, and
that's also in the Old Testament. We had time we
could impact that. And yet Muhammad comes and says, no,
God is not the Father, Jesus is not the Son,
and he wants us to assume all these books are corrupted,
but the chron is uncorrupt. My question would be, what
would lead the Jews to corupt the Old Testament? Agree
with Christian theology? If I read these books and I
didn't tell you it was the Old Testament, I didn't
tell you the Old Testament and I read these books,
do you think a Christian wrote them? And, by golly,
Christians did write them, because they're all Christians before Christ came,
because they all knew about Messiah, believed in him, trusted
in him, and were saved by his grace. So they're
Christians before Christ became flesh.
Speaker 1: There you go, and then you know that I would
add too, if somebody wants a good example, just off
the cough of the Father, Son and Spirit being present,
just read Zachariah one. You'll find all three hypostaces present there.
The Father, the Angel who is called Divine, and the
Spirit of the Lord are all present. In Zachariah one
as an example. Let's move on. Let's move on to
the super chest. Now we got George hayj he has joined.
Thank you, welcome George, welcome to the channel. And Constable
joined the channel. If you look into the community tab,
you'll find the extra content for those who are members
a mill for two dollars. This is a question for you.
I don't know what this is, he says. Who are
Al al Lot and Manat?
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, Zamana there mention in chapter fifty three, verses
nineteen to twenty La Crown the Pagans before and during
the time Mohammad believe there got a law, had offspring,
sons and daughters. Because remember these were Pagans, similar to
the pagan pantheons of the Greeks and the Romans and
the Canaanites. They believe there was a chief guy, the
chief God, had a consort. They were sexually active, and
they sire children, and the planets represented these deities. So
al Pozamanat were considered goddesses, were the daughters of a
lah ban not Allah there mentioned in chapter fifty three,
verses nineteen and twenty of the crime. So Muhammad takes
this pagan conception of Allah and he tries to purify
it and turn this pagan conception of a law into
a conception that's similar to the Judeo Christian concept of God.
That's who they are.
Speaker 1: Okay, Eduardo for ten bucks, he says, thank you for
this stream. Thank you, EDWARDO. By the way, everybody, I've
got Sam's channel. If you want to subscribe to him,
be sure and click on that and you can find
his link, and then you have what links to your
website at your channel probably.
Speaker 2: Or and I want the Christians to use these resources.
You have my permission download them, upload them to your
websites and use it because I want more Christians to
get in the battle for the glory of to try
and God.
Speaker 1: So also, if you want, I did do for there's
a popular talk I did on Old Testament New Testament contradictions.
This one comes up all the time. Oh, you guys
contradict the Old Testament because you don't use this and that.
Here's a three hour discussion talking about how there is
perfect continuity between it the Old and New Testament when
we understand it properly. Let's see next one Russian anime
bought ten bucks. Here are more rubles for you, comrade.
Thank you.
Speaker 3: Blessings from Russia and from Putin to you. Gwargasjorgios twenty bucks.
Thank you for having sam on Jay. You have both
taught me a lot over the years. God bless you both.
Thank you, God bless you. I appreciate that email. Five bucks.
Speaker 1: What is the originist problem and how does it relate
to Islamic theology. We touched on that earlier and in
it's the problem of predicating personal attributes or properties or
actions or attributes of God that are common to all
three persons to the Essence. So, for example, if we
say the Father is identical to the divine Essence in
a strict sense with no distinctions, then that would mean
that from all eternity there's a creation that he has
to be provident over right, If he's eternally creator, then
he has to be have a creation he's eternally This
is this was origins reasoning for why there is an eternal,
recurring creation, and so it's one of the reasons why
we don't accept the the idea in neoplatonism that the
names are all synonymous with the essence. So thank you
for bringing that up. But we did touch on that
earlier email.
Speaker 2: But he was mentioning origin because I didn't know what
he's meant the origin the theologic right.
Speaker 1: So the early Church Father Origin taught that there were
these recurring falls because there's an eternal creation, because to
be provident or to be father is an eternal essence,
essential relation in God. That's how he got to that
conclusion of eternal falls, and that's why we don't believe
organism dense c dia is twenty bucks. God, blessed God.
Lets you thank you now, Bill f ten ninety nine.
I hope you will do another stream together. Yeah. Absolutely,
I think we had a great chat. I don't think
there's any probably could we can definitely come back and
do another talk on more textual proofs. I think that'd
be a great one to do.
Speaker 2: And you of the Old Testam Yeah absolutely.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I haven't specifically done it. A talk on
Messianic prophecies, we should do that.
Speaker 2: Invite me, man, I'd love to do it. That's one
powerful tool. And just again by way, of testimony. Many
Muslims have come to faith by the grace of God
through Messianic prophecies because they're blown away.
Speaker 1: By it, right. Absolute, Yeah, it's one of the strongest
proofs of inspiration. Absolutely warm soda fifty dollars. My mom
will let me have her credit card. Thank you, Jay
and Sam well, thank you, and I'll send portion of
these super chests to Sam so much appreciated. Ing Bingi
five Canadian. He says, do Muslims consider Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John to all be corrupted?
Speaker 2: Yes, Muslims do not believe the Gospel of Jesus mentioned
in the Koran is the I was going to send
out to gospels. They don't believe Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John are the gospel that God gave to Jesus. As
far as the chron is concerned, they believe portions of
the Gospel of Jesus is found there. And how do
you know what portions of the Gospel of Jesus is there?
Use the chron that's their filter. So if Jesus says
God is one, Jesus said it son of God. Nope,
he didn't say it. That's their standards.
Speaker 1: See me up on Tim Bucks. Hey, Sam, I know
we are talking Islam, but I wanted your thoughts on
the doctrine of salvation and compared to Orthodoxy. I tried
to ask you and David this for a while.
Speaker 2: You're you're talking to a person who's so ignorant of
the Orthodox tradition it would be a sin on my
part to talk about I don't.
Speaker 1: Know if you want to come to come to our
circles that you can ask that question. We'd be happy
to answer that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And I one thing my motto is I do
not like to speak in ignorance about another tradition because
I don't want to dishonor the Lord offend people. So
hopefully if I have more time to study the Orthodox
understanding and see where the spread leads. But I do
not like to speak in ignorance and misrepresent people. Early on, unfortunately,
because I was influenced by the Jack Chick type of arguments,
I said a lot of things in ignorance and I regret,
but may God I've moscy on me.
Speaker 1: So but well, I think everybody, a lot of us
have been and that I had a radical evangelical phase
as well. So Emil for ten dollars. He says, here
are some other texts. Give me the wisdom that sits
by your throne. Whis no Solomon nine by an almighty
logos or word leapt down from heaven out of the
royal throne. Yeah, we read that when it was the
eighteen thank you.
Speaker 2: One thing I want to just encourage, sure, the brethren,
because there are passages in Sirac chapter one, verse four,
and Syrac chapter twenty four, verse nine, and Proverbs chapter
eight where wisdom is set to be created. Be prepared
to explain what it means. It doesn't mean created from nothing,
and explain that real quick. Let me just say this.
I'll call you in a minute. I'm live streaming. I'll
call you back. I'll call you back. I'm live stream,
I'm doing live stream. I'll call you right back. How
much for five minutes? I love you? Call you back
yellby Oh sorry, so yeah, sorry about that, James, my daughter.
Speaker 1: That's okay.
Speaker 2: So yeah, that was the question. Is just be prepared
to answer the charge that wisdom is created.
Speaker 1: Uh, Emperor tenfoil ten, He says, shameless sam Shamoon is
an absolute legend. God blessed fellas far from it, man,
that's traditional Christian too, he says, go another hour. I
think we'll have to set up another stream. I think
Sam's gonna have to go here a little bit, and
I may have to go to pretty soon. But we
we have, we had a good chat. I think we
can do a messy and prophecy stream in the near future.
Jay savoid too. He says, Jay, can you get Bill
Warner on I don't know who Bill Warner is.
Speaker 2: Well, he's one of the leading experts on political, social, economic, military,
jihad Islam. So if you want to know about the
politics of Islam, the social economic aspects of Islam, Sharia
and all that, he is one of the top. So
I'd highly recommend you get Bill Warner, Jay Smith, Alfadi,
David Wood on.
Speaker 1: Islam Quiet convert one five three ten dollars. This is
one of the top five streams of all time. Well,
I don't know about that, but okay.
Speaker 2: Thank you man, that's blessing to me.
Speaker 1: Much appreciated that for that compliment. Jason Void twenty a's again,
He says, can you please highlight apostasy laws in modern
Islamic countries such as Dubai. I do not hear the
West debating this issue and it is troubling as they
invest a lot in the West for their agenda to
push Islam without criticism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's very hard to pin down a country that's
follows strict Islamic