Speaker 1: Be careful. Snico and his friend pulled a fast one
on Andrew when they changed the agreements of the debate. Uh, well,
I don't. I haven't agreed to anything other than to
come into this room. So I don't know what the
topics are. I'm not debating this age of Aisha stuff.
That's not I'm a I debate the philosophy stuff. I
don't know who Muslim lantern is. So I have no
idea what what's going on here. But number one, I'm
not afraid of doing these debates obviously, So Sneako's debate.
Stop ducking. They're telling me I'm ducking. I literally just
he can hear. Yeah, what's up? Nice? Hey, how you guys.
Speaker 2: Doing doing good?
Speaker 3: Doing good?
Speaker 4: So this is Muhammad Ali and then we also have
a fellow Christian, Jacolsi here, a representative of the love
speech community. So we just had I'll keep you up
to just bring you up to speed. We just had
a half debate kind of Andrew Wilson versus Muslim lancer.
Speaker 1: And this Muhammad live here, and we.
Speaker 4: Weren't able to agree with to the terms of the
Age of concent But we do really want to hear
about the trinity. If we could do a trinity abant.
I don't know if you're if you're ready or if
you want to.
Speaker 5: Do that right now.
Speaker 4: But me and Jocosa, because he's a Christian, I would
be unbiased. We can moderate it right now, you versus
the musclem lantern.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not opposed to debating trinity. I have just
debated for the last four hours, so I'm a little
bit tired, but I'm not opposed to doing it.
Speaker 4: Okay, we can keep it short.
Speaker 1: I want to keep it.
Speaker 4: How's forty five minutes. Let's we can start five? Well,
I mean you don't have an opening statement prepared?
Speaker 1: I do everything extemporaneous. I would, I mean I would,
I can do an opening statement extemporaneous, doesn't matter. I mean,
did you want to do timed or conversation or what
style debates?
Speaker 5: So listen to now.
Speaker 4: Ideally, Okay, so I'll do the same terms that we
have for the last debate, but it went south. So
I think having an opening statement for both sides would
be fair around five minutes. Cap. We'll cap in a
five minutes and then we can go free flowing back
and work. But if there's too many interruptions, then we'll
have to do tim and things, and then that's when
the moderators.
Speaker 1: Will have to stuppen. Yeah, that's a good idea. I
can do that.
Speaker 5: Yeah. So the thing is, like Andrew, I was having
a discussion with him. He was wanted to talk about
the age of Manager, of the age of concent right
versus the Trinity. So I don't know if you want
to mention something about Islam as well, to be fair,
because talking just about the Trinity is just a Christian thing.
Speaker 1: Well no, I mean usually Trinity versus tweed is what
we debate.
Speaker 5: Yeah, if you have that, So if you want to
debate that, that's fine, and you already debated that, so
you should already have your notes ready, I believe, right,
because your last debate was kind of.
Speaker 1: I don't do nuts, man, I just I just do
everything exceptes.
Speaker 5: I no know. I'm just making that point clear. They've
already had a debate on this topic just recently, so
if you did have notes, you would have them prepared
so you can say that, but something they've already done. Right,
So we were having a discussion me and Andrew. We
can do that if we allow each other to speak,
finish the points and ask questions.
Speaker 2: I think that can work between me you.
Speaker 5: If the moderators not to stage, just becoming interrupting and
stuff like that, and someone's trying to take over, then
what we can do is just turn it into timing.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, that's fair.
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 5: So, and I made this and I don't think you will,
but I made this point before in the previous discussion,
is like, no insulting of the profit directly by mentioning,
calling him names and stuff like that. I don't think
you will do that, but I'm just highlighting that because
that's I guess my faith. So I cannot be in
the call if this, If this is happening, if that's fair,
you can let me know.
Speaker 2: If not, you can also in me a position.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, do you have a camera. I mean
we're live on YouTube, so my camera as active for
YouTube right now?
Speaker 4: Oh okay, okay, you can activate it on on discord two. Yeah,
hold on, okay, this is a Trinity versus to heat debate.
Let's get an opening statement from I'll sell with Jay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, So the doctor in trinity is a doctrine
that is not derived from philosophy. It's not derived from
Saint Paul primarily is not derived from the Council of Nicia.
The doctri the Trinity is taught in the Law and
the Prophets. In fact, if you go back to my
Daniel Hikikachu debate, in the first ten minutes, I hold
up a whiteboard that shows all the passages from the
Torah and then the prophets that we derived the doctrine
the Trinity from, mainly from Jewish Extrajesus of the Old Testament.
This might sound surprising because people think that the doctor
in Trinity is something that's unique to Christianity, or that
Jews don't believe in this nowadays, so therefore Jews could
not have taught it back then. In fact, many Jewish
scholars today I referenced many of those in that opening
statement of the Daniel debate. I can refer to them now.
This would be Benjamin Summer, Alan Siegel, Schaeffer, etc. Boyar,
and all of those scholars admit that the early Church's
view is not that distinct from the Judaism of the
time of Christ in recognizing more than one person in
the tree. Note, I am not saying that the Jews
at that time were all Trinitarians. I'm not saying that
so okay, I'm not saying that Jews necessarily accept trinitarianism.
I'm saying that these scholars prove that in the time
of Christ, there was not a generic unitarianism that characterized
what it is to be quote monotheists. They didn't see
a contradiction or a problem between the idea of quote
monotheism and the recognition of the Father as the archae
cause and fount, the Angel of the Lord as his messenger,
which we see through all throughout the Old Testament, who
is called God, who is called Divine, who is called
the Messenger of the Covenant, who is called Yahweh in
Exodus three, Exodus twenty three, throughout the Psalms, in the
Mini Theophanes passages, and many times in the Prophets. Jesus predicted,
especially in latter Isaiah, to be a divine Nosiah that
would be worshiped. So a lot of these references to
the Trinity are primarily grounded rooted in the Torah and
the Prophets. Islam. However, when it argues against the Trinity,
he does so on the basis of it not being
aware of or not being informed typically on what the
actual texts teach in terms of the Jewish texts that
we as Christians also refer to also when it comes
to the text of the Gospel and of the texts
of the New Testament, they're not aware of the fact
that Jesus, throughout the Gospel John and every chapter refers
to himself as both divine and or a member of
the triad. John one talks about Jesus being the Logos.
John one talks about him being eternally begotten monogene staeos,
so the eternal beginning. All of that is already at
the beginning of the Gospel John and again every chapter,
whether it's John five through nine, where Jesus identifies himself
as the one at Mount Sinai talking to Moses, the
one that gave the law. Jesusirs to himself as the
Son of God many times over, which means that his
God is not Allah, because Allah has no sons. So
Jesus many many times over throughout the Gospel says he
is the son of God and that he makes us
by grace sons of God. This proves that there is
not the same God of Muhammad and the same God
of Jesus. Jesus is not referring to Allah, as his
father has no sons. So when we come to the
time of the early church fathers, they unanimously teach the
deedy of Christ, the triad, as well the deed of
the Holy Spirit. This becomes codified by the time of Nicia.
It's not invented at the time of Nicia. You can
read the church fathers from Irenaeus to Ignatius to Clement.
You can read Cyril, sip Schimi, Cyprian, you can read Athanasius,
all these church fathers, Alexander writing prior to the time.
And I see that teach the deed of Christ and
what would become the doctionn or known as the doction
of Trinity. So the Trinity is not something foreign to
the scriptures. It's rooted in the Torret's rooted in the
Prophet's rooting the New Testament, root in the teaching of
Christ himself. And I would add that when we compare
it to what's in the Quran, the Koran makes many stakes.
First of all about what the Christians teach. They say
that we take our monks as lords. We do not.
They take They think that the Koran thinks that we
take Mary as part of the trinity. We do not.
The Koran also is itself confused in two areas that
I always like to highlight, which is that it claims
that prior revelation confirms it and backs it up and
many times over, like in a so five, that you
can look to the previous revelation to confirm the new revelation,
but the old revelation contradicts it. And when Muslims see
the contradictions, they do the same move of Ejaws and
the debate to say, well, we reject all the times
that it contradicts, but we accept all the time that
it is with our revelation. Well, that is a circle
that's arguing for the thing that's in question. We want
to know, how does the prior revelation confirm the new revelation,
which the Quran says it can do if the prior
revelations are corrupt, And how a foolish it would be
to look to a corrupt book to supposedly prove an
incorrupt book. So it makes no sense on the face
of it. I would also then argue that the doctrine
of Tanzi that's derived from the passages that talk about
all of being nothing like creation forty two and I
think around one ten Somewhere in there it says that
Allah is absolutely nothing like creation. And yet Muslims many
times over will utilize terminology, language, and so forth to
liken Allah to a created thing, to say that Allah
is merciful, that he is just, he has all these things.
Allah has a hand, has a shen, and so forth.
Things that come up in the accepted hadiths, Well, all
of those things are contradictory to the notion of Talhed
that God is a pure unity or pure oneness. This
is why Muslims for centuries have debated amongst themselves whether
the attributes are really distinct. And you have people like
Jake Slafis and others who say, no, oh, yes, Allah
has a foot, has a shin, and we don't know
the modality, but he really has these things. They're real attributes.
And yet we're said to be only a religion of
perfect unity and perfect oneness. Yet he's many Well, the
same problem that you have with the attributes and the
dependence relationship of the attributes on allah essence and amongst
themselves is no different than the question that we have
about the persons of the trinity. It's just simply that
you say that we have a problem that you don't
have to answer when you have the exact same problem
in relationship to the attributes in Allah's essence and their
dependent's relationship. And if you don't think there's a dependence relationship,
then I will just simply say, do you believe that
they are then assay or self existent? If they're self existent,
then you have what ninety nine gods. So you have
the same problem, but a double standard as to how
you answer that, not saying note that you believe that
the attributes of persons. I know you don't believe that.
But the same problem of the one in the many
and the dependence status between the attributes and the essence
is a problem that you cannot answer because within Islam
there are countless multiple contradictions. How much time do I have?
Speaker 5: You're good. I don't think I can give you a
specific time.
Speaker 1: I thought he said five minute opening or whatever.
Speaker 5: That was good.
Speaker 4: That was decisive. I think that's fine. You want to
respond with some answern.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay.
Speaker 5: During my response, I want to ask you questions, if
that's fine, right, I just want to ask the first
question is what is the trinity in your belief? What
is the trinity? Just because we're talking about the trinity,
so I think defining terms is important because you said
you found it present in the old systance.
Speaker 2: So why is the trinity?
Speaker 1: So doctrine that God is first and foremost identified with
the person of the Father. The Father is what we
call the ArKade, the fount, the source, the cause, the
supreme beginning of the other two persons, and that that's
revealed to be the person of his eternally begotten son,
who identify as the Lord Jesus Christ, and with his
eternal Holy Spirit. So they are three in one. They
share a common essence or nature in that they come
from the Father, and they derive the same nature from
the Father, as Jesus says in John five and six.
But they're also really and truly distinct, which is why
we see Jesus, for example, praying to the Father, asking
things of the Father and so forth. So the Bible,
we believe, teaches both of those things that he is
one and three. And it's not a problem for monotheism
because Actually, the word monotheism is a really late term
that you don't see until the sixteen hundreds.
Speaker 5: So I'm sorry I didn't get a definition, but I'll
give a definition and then you can confirm with me.
You said few things. I understand them, but I wanted
like a concise definition. Right, you tell me whether this
is like represented as the Trinity or not. You have God,
the Father, God, the Son, God, the Holy Spirit. Okay,
Father's not the Son's son is not the Holy Spirit.
Three persons in one being. So there's one being, but
there's three persons that are within that one being, and
they are co equal, cote eternal, so they share, they
are equal in everything, and they're eternal the same way.
Is that a good representation of for the.
Speaker 1: Trendy, Well, some of that terminology is a little ambiguous,
which is why I gave you a specific monarchical trinitarian definition.
So the model that I gave you was a definition.
It's called monarchical trinitarianism, and it's distinct from a lot
of Western trinitarian theology that you might find in Romatholicism.
So I was being very precise in the response that
I gave no.
Speaker 2: No, but do you agree. You have not told me.
Do you agree that if you say something is ambiguous.
Speaker 5: You can tell me that this specific part is I
don't agree with it is ambiguous, and then you can
clarify what I've said. Is that the definition of the
trinity or not. I just want a concise definition. Is
it that there are three persons in one being the
coote equal quote eternal and they're not the same, like
the Father's not the sun sents on the horstrait, but
they won't God.
Speaker 2: Sure, very simple way. Do you agree with that?
Speaker 5: Okay? So, because this is how I see people, anyone
who've seen de fine the trinity define it that way.
So I just wanted agreement to that. Okay. So that's
the Trinity. Now you quoted John one and you try
to say that the scripture shows the trinity, et cetera.
Quoting Joan one is not an evidence for the trinity.
The trinity says three persons in one b person is
separate from the being. John One doesn't say that, says
in the beginning was the word, the word was with God,
and the word was with God was God? The word
became flush of mangolama. If this is what you're referring to.
That's not three persons in one big there. It does
not talk about the fact that they're distinct persons.
Speaker 1: And I didn't say that.
Speaker 5: I didn't say it's my it's my time.
Speaker 1: You said you wanted a conversation. You didn't say you.
Speaker 5: Want no, no, no, no no. I said, I'll ask
you a question within my time. Because you've made many points,
I have to respond to the well.
Speaker 1: But I didn't say that the trinity is three persons
in John one.
Speaker 5: I said that, Okay, you said many things that I
disagreed with as well.
Speaker 1: Okay, but what you're saying is a strong man. That
wasn't what I said.
Speaker 2: No, No, we'll we'll have it back and forth after I'm done.
Speaker 5: But I did allowed to speak for like five minutes
and make so many points.
Speaker 1: So the back and forth is only when you ask
the question. I'm confused, you don't want to five minute.
I thought you want to.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I have an opening statement. I'm saying within my
opening statement, I'll ask you questions for clarification.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 5: So you responded to the question, and the question was
what is a trinity? Because it's the debate of a
topic that's it. So I needed the clarification of that.
But but other than that, I wanted to finish as well,
responding to all the points that you made, right, and
then we can get into back and forth.
Speaker 2: I'm problem.
Speaker 5: I don't mind, but I got to respond because you
made so many points right before you continue?
Speaker 4: Is does that on? Okay?
Speaker 3: For both sides?
Speaker 5: Okay, I would say that you know with your with
your question there.
Speaker 4: Why you were speaking and kind of gave the impression
that you were looking for back and forth, right, because
if he's.
Speaker 5: Going to clarify, you know, a question, he had to
fully clarify.
Speaker 4: You understand that he wasn't really done with the clarification, is.
Speaker 5: What I no, no, no, we passed from the point of
the trinity. He nodded, his hit his head, this is
a trinity, and then I went to something else and
then he said I did.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I'm supposed to know when yeah, okay.
Speaker 5: No, no, just question I'll ask for example, is the trinity?
You give response? And that's it. Like that's all I wanted.
I didn't want like everything Ell mentioned and then you
will come up. Then it's not going to be an
opening statement, right, So you said that church fathers were
unified on the idea of the trinity. That's that is false.
I have got many examples.
Speaker 1: There's another strow Man.
Speaker 5: Okay, but I'm not going to be able to talk
if you everything I say that.
Speaker 1: You're okay, so I can't rec can when we get.
Speaker 5: Can, when we get can we we can. You write
down what you believe on strongmanning you end, and then
we can have an open discussion about that once some
time with opening.
Speaker 1: Say that fine, sure.
Speaker 5: Okay, clarify what you meant you said about the church fathers.
What did you say about the Church fathers?
Speaker 1: Right, So it's a fallacy of ambiguity to say that
I mean that they don't have debate. I said that
they're unified on teaching the three persons and that there
is the deuty of Christ. They do teach those things.
They also have debates on these topics too.
Speaker 5: They have a unified agreement on what the trinity is,
not what I said. Okay, good, so we have that
established that agree, no.
Speaker 1: Agree twisting what okay, I'm asking is there a unified
teaching of unity in a law? No, so there's debate
over it. You know that. So you're trying to pin
me into saying something I'm not saying.
Speaker 2: That's not my questions.
Speaker 1: It's called a fallacy. Then it's a fallacy. Then good,
do you know what that is? Okay, that's what the
fallacy is, making a simple question for a complex response.
Speaker 5: That's that's the problem. Always questions like we allow that
we know fallacy. The problem I'm asking, I'm asking a
simple question.
Speaker 1: That's the fallacy position. That's the fallacy is that it
requires a questions.
Speaker 2: That fallacy, I asked, it.
Speaker 3: Is a fallacy.
Speaker 1: You don't even know that this is a fallacy.
Speaker 5: You finished the question and stopting. I asked the simple question.
You can say yes or no. You can say that's
a fallacy, that is a fallacy, can make can make
a judgment. I asked the simple question. Did the church
agreed these.
Speaker 1: Trips might work on your audience? They don't work over here?
Speaker 5: Okay, So you're just this is how Christians are always
we try to have these questions.
Speaker 1: You you create a complex question fallacy and make it
an either or. That's why you keep saying it's a
simple question, not a simple question. It's a difficult question. Look,
is it a simple question? About Allah and his attributes.
Is that a simple question?
Speaker 5: Yes, yes, it's simple.
Speaker 1: So there's not debates amongst the aqdas on that.
Speaker 2: It is a simple question and I'm going to respond
to it.
Speaker 1: But it's not a simple question, you know.
Speaker 3: Okay, So what's the relationship apologization?
Speaker 5: It's not going to work. Okay, you're interrupting, and this
is not how discussions.
Speaker 1: Because you're playing, You're you're erecting false is a false
either or a fallacy? Is that a fallacy? Is a
false either or fallacy?
Speaker 2: If the mother is, I'm not going to enjoy it.
Speaker 1: So you won't answer.
Speaker 5: No, I can speak of my opening statement about you
asking me questions. It's my opening statement, not yours.
Speaker 1: But you you opened your statement asking questions playing games.
Speaker 3: Dude, Come on, okay, how about this?
Speaker 5: How can you ask the question?
Speaker 4: And because Jay is saying that it's a complicated question,
can you respond to it? And under a minute you
can ask the question again it's complicated. You can have
a minute to respond to the question.
Speaker 1: That's fair.
Speaker 5: No. Look, look, I'm not going to ask him any
questions because what he's trying to do is just waste time.
He I was making a point. Then he said, you
misrepresented me. I said, okay, go ahead, represent yourself. He
doesn't want to represent himself.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, I already gave you. I gave you a
super precise Well, I don't want to represent myself when
I gave you a super precise definition of the turner.
Speaker 2: Come on, you didn't the question I didn't get.
Speaker 1: I gave you a five minute, super precise monarchical trinity.
Speaker 5: And here's my argument. Anyways.
Speaker 2: Okay, so yeah, I'm not gonna ask you questions.
Speaker 5: I'm gonna I'm gonna say my opening statements like you did,
like I love to speak with the interruption.
Speaker 1: No, you don't get another five minutes. It's your fault
that you asked me questions. A stupid thing to ask
me questions in your opening statement. That was dumb of you.
Speaker 5: Okay, okay, I'm gonna continue you with my opening statement.
Speaker 1: How many how many minutes?
Speaker 5: No, No, at the same time that you had, I'm
going to be equal.
Speaker 1: You've already gone for what four or five minutes. It's
not much. You asked a question. That's you.
Speaker 5: You've been talking to me. It's it's a waste of time.
I'm not gonna waste my time allowing you to if
you asked the question, and I'm going to continue. I'm
going to continue with my proposition, and you can You're
not going to keep jumping by saying you misrepresenting me
that a strong man you're going to like. I listened
to you, and then we can have a discussion and
you can have one to one back and forth and
you can say whatever you want.
Speaker 4: We'll give you two minutes to.
Speaker 5: Finish your statement now at least three minutes. Two minutes
is nine First, he made multiple points. Okay, okay, without interruption,
I'm gonna continue now withever opening statement is okay. Church
fathers were in complete disagreement on their beliefs and what
constitutes the trinity. There's many quot quotes that I have
over here I can demonstrate that. To try and come
and say there's kind of a unified agreement or whatever
it is, that's completely not true. They had complete different
beliefs for one another. I'm going to read just quickly.
Maybe some of these positions so ignacious. For example, had
a position of subordinism. You can lead in his Letter
to Magnesians, chapter thirteen, be subject to the bishop and
to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father. So
he believes that Jesus Christ was subject to the Father.
You have scholars who say these positions, so it's not
be taking a quotation after quontext, like some people who
try to come and pretend. For example, Virginia Crowd says
in st Ignacious and Christianity in Antioch in page one
hundred and forty three, none of these passages after she's
mentioning some passages of the beliefs that Ignatius had as
to the understanding of the Trinity meant to Ignitians, we
are forced to conclude there was a very undefined belief indeed,
so he didn't have a defined belief. William Shaddel says
in Ignacious Commentary, page twenty, Ignatius casually uses to Etherian
formula he makes, he does not He makes little of
them theologically, so he does not make theological arguments and
recause to the Trinity. So this is not a specific
person believe. I can do the same thing with arenas
now with the Trutulian. I don't have much time, but
I can do that. He is welcome to ask and
I can give the quotations of every single one of them.
Some of them would believe that the son was created
by the father. Some of them would believe that the
Father is superior to the son. They're not co equal.
As a doctor of the Trinity says, now, he says
for ances that it confirms the previous scriptures. Yeah, well,
you know what it means. But confirms the previous scriptures.
You can open the brand chapter five, verse forty seven,
forty eight, where it says that it's a criterion over it,
which means whatever disagrees. That's not a Jazz position, as
he tried to make it as a Muslim position. And
it is mentioned by scholars that the scripture is changed,
and if it is changed, they know what ever would
disagree with that, then we completely disagree with it. And
what does confirm mean? It means it confirms that there
was previous revelations that was revealed to the previous profits,
and it confirms the existence of previous prophits. That's what
confirms means, doesn't mean that we say that everything in
there is completely okay. You said proven a corrupted scripture
and not corrupted scripture is a corupted scripture. We don't
try to.
Speaker 2: Prove Islam using the Bible. Let we never try to
do that.
Speaker 5: He said the ze doctrine that you made so many
fallacies trying to equate an attribute to a part, which
is something that we don't believe.
Speaker 1: Where is the fallacy? So you got one more minute.
Speaker 5: Yeah, So we don't believe attributes are parts. We don't
use that terminology when it comes to attributes of alasta Ya.
To say that just because God has attributes that therefore
God has many parts is ridiculous. To say that. We
say that all is not like anyone, and we have
an attribute, has an attribute before he's like us. No,
we believe, for instance, our knowledge is limited, is dependent
on all law. We don't know the future. We forget
the knowledge of all lies ultimately knows the past president
of the future. He knows a hypothetical situation. So it's
not the same. So do we say it's not like it,
and it is not like it? Because God's knowledge is
perfect and hon knowledge is limited. And that is the
same with all the attributes of God. The way a
lot of possesses them is perfect, the way you posist them,
and not. An attribute is something that does not exist
an abstract exist within something, and that something remains one.
Nobody says that having attributes makes you more than one.
I have love, compassion, hate, year, all of that once
is therefore.
Speaker 2: A hundred or two hundred because they have different attributes.
Speaker 5: Ridiculous. Yeah, so it just to put it in. They
like to say black cannot exist whether it self has
to exist in a shirt or an object. Attributes do
not exist in vacuum.
Speaker 4: Okay, Jane, we'll give you three minutes to respond.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was foolish. Cotue foolishness because now my time.
Shut up the foolishness because he admitted that the analogy
that he gave to parts of a shirt like attributes
like color, the color black, those are parts. And by
the way, I didn't argue that you thought all I
had parts. I know that you don't think he does.
My argument is that you contradict when you say that
he has attributes that are dependent. Do you believe that
the attributes are self existent or they do they depend
upon all his essence and amongst themselves in a dependence relationship.
That's the question.
Speaker 4: Sure, Okay, but then the three minutes forfeit.
Speaker 1: It's not forfeited. He asked me a question opening statement,
I can ask him a question, and then.
Speaker 4: We decided to go three minutes back and forth. I mean,
if we're going to do questions, then we can't do
the three minutes un interrupted again. So okay, ull, lets
you respond to this muscile answer question thirty seconds to respond.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 5: He mentioned something about the color being apart. I mentioned
many attributes like love and age and this and that's
that's that is a strong man.
Speaker 1: I said, are they dependent? Is a relationship? Now?
Speaker 5: To respond to the dependence or not dependence? We don't
use the terminology A lot of us and uses, so
therefore I don't use it. I believe it's an attribute,
and an attribute exists within the creator. We don't use
the term dependent depended.
Speaker 1: And by the way, you do, do you do use
that terminology and debates because Jake used that terminology in
many of his debates. I'm not Jake, I know, but
what you're saying, you know, you guys don't use that terminology.
He did.
Speaker 2: I'm talking about from an Islamic position.
Speaker 1: So are they dependent on himself? Okay? So in other words,
you have a double that you have a double standard.
Notice that he has a double standard to where in
his position he's allowed to say, I don't have to
answer these questions. I don't know the relationship of all
the attributes. That is what you said. You said, we
don't have to answer that. That's what you said.
Speaker 5: Dependent.
Speaker 1: I asked you, what are they all saying? Are they
all say you are? They are saying? Are they self existent?
Are they self existing? I'm sorry, you don't know the terms.
Are they self existent?
Speaker 2: What do you mean by self existence?
Speaker 1: Do they exist of themselves? You don't know that word.
Speaker 5: They exist within the create as I said to you,
So they're dependent Allah, they exist with a law and
there's nothing that exists separate.
Speaker 2: From his attributes.
Speaker 1: Are the attributes?
Speaker 3: It it's a classic debate within your aquitas.
Speaker 1: You raquita's debate this and.
Speaker 5: You know that I don't know what you don't know.
Speaker 1: What a school is in your system. Now he's lying
like he's playing like he doesn't This is what they do.
They pretend that they don't know. These are classic debates
that they killed each other over the relationship of like
like the Multazila, the multi calaim them, the Salafi you
all do this does all, I have an uncreated foot.
Speaker 5: Okay, so you talk about what do they believe? The
give me the four principles.
Speaker 1: Of principles and the neo platon is the neol So
here's what he's do. So he's deflecting away because he
won't answer these questions. Notice, he won't answer their question.
So whether it's the people who believe in the body
parts of all or whether it's the neo platon is,
he won't answer. They have the same position as the
neoplaton as I do.
Speaker 5: That's what you said to present. You're not.
Speaker 1: No, I don't have to define your schools for you.
You tell me what so you don't have it. It
doesn't matter the four principles. When you can't answer the question,
you can't notice he won't answer the question of Allah
and the attributes because he doesn't know what the word
self existed.
Speaker 2: And I mean, you're incorrectly.
Speaker 1: What's your position? I don't care about them. What's your position?
What's your position?
Speaker 5: My position?
Speaker 3: Which is what?
Speaker 1: So you're obfuscation.
Speaker 2: You got to give me a question.
Speaker 1: And then what is the relationship of Allah to his attributes?
Are they? Are they say or not? I know you'd
know you're doing it.
Speaker 3: You're deflecting, and you're you're collapsing.
Speaker 5: The attribute is.
Speaker 1: Everyone knows this, No they don't. You're saying that you're
you're saying your schools don't debate.
Speaker 5: This is you don't even know.
Speaker 1: What It doesn't matter what you do, It doesn't matter.
Maybe I don't know anything. Maybe I don't know anything.
That's a fallacy that doesn't prove your position. Okay, so
your fallacy machine. So you can't answer this basic question,
can you? You don't know the relationship of all his
attributes for the fourth time, but you didn't answer. I
told you deflected.
Speaker 5: I told you the attributes of Allah are not something
that we say is a part or separated from a lot.
Speaker 2: Believe that.
Speaker 1: How does that solve the question? So are they? Are? They?
Speaker 2: Just like you cannot separate my love and hate from me.
Speaker 1: But those are parts of you that I thought all
that was nothing like preatures. I thought he's nothing like creatures.
I thought he's nothing like creatures.
Speaker 5: You said parts. So it shows that you are saying,
have you said the parts?
Speaker 1: You can't understand that I'm putting you into a.
Speaker 2: Putzel bar like a kid, like a child. You're just
exposing your ignorant attribute parts.
Speaker 1: That's your position. You contradicted yourself when you compared it
to parts of your shirt. Dude, does your shirt have parts?
Does your shirt have parts? Now I go back to
the Dollar's script. Now, let me go back to the
dollar script. You you have nine or nine gods?
Speaker 5: Independent existence is independent?
Speaker 1: Wells, oh, so now you know the word I'll say.
Now you know what I say mean. So this guy's
just snake. Look, he knows what the word I say means.
He pretended like you didn't know earlier, because now he
says the Trinity is that they're not independent. We don't
believe in independent existence. They're not independent. That's not our position.
Speaker 5: I'm prostrating to him. That's not attribute.
Speaker 1: You don't even know. You don't even know what I
already refuted. That's when I gave you my archical trinitarianism.
All he does, that's monarchical trinitarianism. That's the position I gave.
Speaker 5: You the outset losing it and acting like a child,
And I think you got because.
Speaker 1: You're saying this, because you literally didn't answer any of
the questions I asked you about the attributes you said
parts like shirts. Shirts have parts. Dude, that's your analogy.
Speaker 3: I said, black I think that's part of you.
Speaker 1: You don't think shirt. You know, so blackness is not
part of your shirt.
Speaker 5: It showed me the existence of.
Speaker 1: What does that have to do. It's a part. Say
it's accidental. I don't care.
Speaker 5: It's not attribute.
Speaker 1: So it's an attribute of a shirt which is made
up of parts.
Speaker 5: Okay, okay, Well.
Speaker 1: So you use the analogy to a creature when all
has nothing like creatures.
Speaker 5: I'll give it an energy. So well, like you said,
they can't understand we can't have attributes on a look.
Speaker 3: At but all is nothing like creatures, so it doesn't
work attributes.
Speaker 5: That does not what we mean. No Muslims called in
Isamic history. He said that there's nothing like. It means
he doesn't have attributes.
Speaker 1: No, it says he's nothing like creatures life. So it's
a contradiction.
Speaker 5: The attributes of a lot are maxically perfect. We can
have attribute, but a limited attribute. The creator can have
mexic perfectly.
Speaker 1: I know you believe that, but you don't even understand
the contradiction. I'm pointing out, how is there a comparison
of all its creatures. When he's nothing like creatures? You
compared him to your shirt and the parts of your shirt.
Speaker 2: What do you mean? What do you mean by nothing like?
What do you mean by that?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 5: Honestly such a child's thing? What do you mean by it?
There's nothing like a love? What we mean by I mean?
Speaker 1: When it says that in the car in forty two,
it says all is nothing like creatures?
Speaker 5: Okay? And I responded to.
Speaker 1: And you gave an analogy of a created shirt and
its parts?
Speaker 2: No, No, I didn't do that.
Speaker 3: Yes, you did, as I said. You just said that.
Speaker 1: Look, he says, no, I did not do that. Term
you said, the black on my shirt is an attribute?
Speaker 5: I said, colors don't exist at abstract.
Speaker 1: What does that have to do?
Speaker 2: That has to exists to exist?
Speaker 1: It's so, is your shirt a created analogy? Is it
a created analogy?
Speaker 5: It?
Speaker 1: Is it a created analogy?
Speaker 2: The color black is an.
Speaker 1: Is it an analogy? Creative things analogous to law? That's
the point. No, you're just not answering, you're avoiding it.
So you're using creative things with parts that are composite
as an analogy to Allah, who's nothing like creatures?
Speaker 2: All right, let's do timing because as you can see, it's.
Speaker 1: Just because he's running over me. Let's do the timing
because I can't do.
Speaker 5: It other people.
Speaker 4: We'll go, we'll resume from Jay's question, and then we'll
do thirty seconds back and forth each time. I'm going
to be specific with the time or so, Jay, can
you repeat your question?
Speaker 1: And the other question was very explicitly, you made an
analogy to Allah and his attributes to a shirt with
parts and accidental things like colors, when the Quran says
twice that Allah is nothing like creatures. So your analogy
doesn't work and it doesn't tell us anything. How do
you resolve that thirty seconds?
Speaker 5: Okay, I never made that. He doesn't understand what he's
talking about. I made an analogy for him about the
idea of an attribute the attributes. Now the analogy to
do the attributes, not to do with all lies conflicting
the two. It's the idea is that attributes do not exist.
Speaker 2: Come on, yeah, he.
Speaker 5: Can't do it right. The attributes do not exist, and
abstract they have to exist to them something.
Speaker 2: They're not saparable, they're parts.
Speaker 5: And that's how we look at that it's not like
anything that attributes are maximally perfect. They're not like ours simple.
It's very very simple, and people listening.
Speaker 1: He doesn't even understand the critique.
Speaker 2: Okay, do you want to do the question thing? So
I should give.
Speaker 1: It up again because okay, okay, okay.
Speaker 4: So now let's let's let answer respond with the question.
But we have to do uninterrupted or else this is
this is waste of time. So I'll let answer pose
a question here. You could also respond to where you
wanted the last one, but the three seconds back and
forth answer and go ahead.
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 5: So he agreed that the trinity means that the three
persons are quote equal quotes. We look at Jesus and
Mark thirteen thirty two, who explicitly mentions and says that
he does not know the hour. Well, the father knows
the hour. And I can bring a quote from a
church father right now, who is explaining that this superiority
of the father over the son did not equal because
one of them knows when the hour is going to happen,
the other doesn't know. She is going to say that
his human nature, it's irrelevant because he have both natures
divine and human natures. You cannot come and say does
the human nature? So how does Jesus not know something?
And you clear that he's equal to the Father and
the Holy Spirit doesn't know as well, because the verse
says only the Father knows Mark thirteen thirty two.
Speaker 1: Okay, do you have a question to follow up?
Speaker 5: I know is he is supposed to answer? Right question?
Speaker 2: Answer? Did you well?
Speaker 1: Was the question?
Speaker 2: The question is how.
Speaker 1: It's about Jesus. Yeah, so I agree he understands. Yeah.
And no, I don't answer it the way he thought
I was going to answer. I answered it according to
the way Saint Basil does in Letter to thirty five
and six, where he says that the limitation there is
a form of rhetoric or exaggeration, which Jesus does in
many places where he says, for example, that there's none
good but the Father. Does that mean that no one
else is good? No, it's rhetoric because in other places
he also qualifies that and says that the Son also
is good. He says that people are good, the Holy
Spirit is good, A good man will do this or that.
So no, when he says things like that, we have
a consistent exegetical pattern as to how we explain those passages,
and we don't believe the Bible contradicts. So there are
passages that talk about the subordination, which, if he understood
what monarchical trinitarianism is, we recognize a subordination of the
son to the father, but not according to essence. So
he doesn't understand that that's different. That's a different theology
than he has. He thinks that distinction entails differences in
terms of ontology. We believe that just as a son
can show the same nature as his father, he can
be subject to the father. That doesn't mean the father
has more human nature than a son. That's an analogy.
Your position, by the way, doesn't make sense in terms
of analogies, because you said you made an analogy to
help me. But your very analogy doesn't work because Allah's
attributes and his existence are nothing like the thing things
in the created order, So your analogy doesn't work. That
was the and you just keep over an That was.
Speaker 4: A bit over a minute, all lantern to figures fond
in a minute.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, I was puned very very simply. Let's have
Christians tried to away from this cripture. I just said,
I can present quotations that can present commentary if people
explicitly saying that this is an issue that one knows something, well,
the other doesn't know something. But oh, this is a
pyetric critric. Like Jesus says, there's no one good but
the Father. He means ultimately good. Yes, there is no
one perfect in his goodness except the Father. We agree
there's no issues there. So that verse that Jesus says
doesn't have an issue, we also agree when he says
he doesn't know that he doesn't know. And you cannot
be God and you don't know something because God knows
everything all the time, so you cannot run away from
the subject in something. And you said, by the way,
the son is subject to the father, we believe the
son is subject of exactly, so it's subject to the Father.
They're not quite equal in the sense that they are
equal in every position, every way, every shing. And that's
why we say that what you call the Father is
a true God. Jesus is someone who's subjected to him.
Speaker 2: There is not some belief.
Speaker 4: Okay, Jay figures fond in a minute.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you're missing the point that at the beginning
I said that I wouldn't immediately commit to your understanding
of the words coequal, because in some ways they are
equal in terms of power and in terms of nature,
but that doesn't mean they're equal in every sense. So
that's why I was hesitant to agree to your tricks
of terminology there with making it simple and making it easy.
That's why I use monarchical trinitarianism, which again to use
the analogy of a father or a king and his son.
The king and the son the prince possessed the same natures.
The king is not more human than the son, and
yet the son still is subject to the father. This
is orthodox trinitarianism. I'm not a Roman Catholic. So this
is our position, which I stated from the very outset
in the first five minutes. But you just didn't know
about that. But when you gave your analogy again of
the attributes, you didn't answer the question. You avoided it,
you ignored it, and you wanted to switch over into
the question of Jesus' knowledge, which is fine. I don't
have a problem of mentioning the fact that Jesus uses
rhetoric and exaggerated language all the time. He says, if
your hand caused you to cut it off. He's not
saying literally, cut your hand off. He's also not saying
that no one is good but the Father. It's rhetoric.
So in the same way, he can express that the
Father is the sole source of all existence, goodness, knowledge,
et cetera. And yet at the same time, the other
passages also confirm in John five and six that Jesus
has all the same powers, knowledge, and u activities as
the Father. Everything the Father has has been committed to
the Son. So you selectively choose the passages, and I
want to go back to my question, then, how do
you know which passages are the correct passages in the
Bible and which ones are the corrupted ones? When Allah's
work cannot be corrupted. And I'm told in uh five four, all.
Speaker 4: Over a minute. I'll if you can respond to that question,
I'll give you ninety seconds.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 5: I'm very happy that. Look he shows that he changes
his position. He agreed, and I said, is that the Trinity?
He shakes his head and he said, yes. Now he
knows that this is going to be probmatic, so he
admits that they're not equal. I'm happy. That's it. That's
what we will thats not what.
Speaker 1: No, you're just you're just confused.
Speaker 5: On this interrupting. Don't interrupt. Shut up. Like you said
to me, I'll say the same thing. They're not equal.
With your own statement, you said that they are not equally. Yes,
they are not equal. Exactly, that's what we believe is Muslims.
The Father, who you call the father, is superior to
what you call the son.
Speaker 2: You give an analogy of king a son.
Speaker 5: Exactly, the king came as the son is superior to
the son.
Speaker 2: It's not equal to him.
Speaker 1: So ill nature. You're lying, I said in nature.
Speaker 5: You're interrupting again, you're interrupting it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Please don't interrupt.
Speaker 5: When it comes to e retric and a retric they
run away from anything which is key. For example, I'll
bring him now John seventeen three, where Jesus is explicit
it is no true God. The only true God is
the Father, he says, the only true God addressing the
Father is.
Speaker 2: The only true God.
Speaker 5: And he doesn't get, which means that any other the
is false. We have all of the Bible, Jesus making
statements that can be a pure divine I can say
it stretaker as well. Anyone can say, ari trick. Okay,
whatever verse you got to bring up is also a trick.
And we play this game. Whichever versity I all life.
We just call it a retric The game with playing
with these things that don't agree with you is you
try to escape the position and the fact that Jesus
subordinated submissive. So you have people arguing it in the
counsel I see in other councils because they believe they
were supported in it.
Speaker 2: Didn't didn't believe he was equal.
Speaker 5: You have tons of harrisies due to that, because the
trinity makes no logical sense. Now you lie by the way,
and you said, there's a verse in John. This is
that they have the same power, they have the same knowledge,
You have the same Waysdom whoever it is, I headn't
read that verse for us exactly what it says. Now
you said in the Paranah. Responding to what you said,
the Koran, which versus, which verses are product to which
versus are not? Whatever agrees with the paran we believe
that is therefore accepted untrue.
Speaker 2: Whatever it disagrees, we reject.
Speaker 5: Whatever it doesn't agree or disagree, we are agnostic about it.
That is the Islamic position given by the prophet, and
the now.
Speaker 1: Respond, Yeah, this guy's playing games because he knows that
nobody interprets any text as if every single phrase or
idea that is expressed is in that single text. The
trinity is a doctrine that's derived from all the texts
of the scriptures, not from this or that verse, And
so he's setting up a false criteria for me to
use the exact terminology in any single verse. Jesus says
in John sixteen fifteen that everything that the Father has
has been given to the Son. That means all of
his existence, all of his powers, all of his attributes.
The son also shares I answered his question when he asked,
what use that equal? Yeah, coequal in nature. Hence the
example of the Father in the Son being distinct persons,
same in nature, equal in nature. Equal in nature means
that equal in the power that proceeds from that nature.
So yes, throughout the Gospel of John, every chapter, every book,
excuse me, every chapter in the Book of John includes
a reference to the deed of Christ and or a
reference to the triad. No goofus. That doesn't mean the
word trinity is in the book. It means the concept
the teaching of the Trinity is in the book, just
like it's throughout the Old Testament, not the words. It
doesn't have to have the words. That's your criteria that
you made up for me. Now, I asked you a
specific question about you going to the text and the
prior revelation of what your criteria was. You ignored it.
You didn't answer it. I want to know what is
your criteria for knowing when in the Old Testament it's
true and when it's false? Is it not the Quran
the very thing in question.
Speaker 4: Ninety ponds for Lancern.
Speaker 5: All right, so clearly he said it is not from
a part of the things is derived from everything. It
is not. He's essentially saying it's not clear, which is
what we love to hear, is that the doctrine of
the Trinity is not clear in the Bible.
Speaker 2: That sual.
Speaker 5: That's why I said, I can present many quotes from
church Father in which they disagree with one another and
what they believe the Son was and the Father was.
You had all of these counsels, You had all of
these disagreements. The heretical people who were killed because the
idea of the trinity is not there. I never asked
him for the word. He tried to strow man as
if I ask him, where is the word trinity? I never
said that. I said the concept. That's why I started
by defining. He didn't answer John seventeen three, because he
knows it's a thorn in his side. When I said,
Jesus said the only true God is the Father, he
did not respond to that, or he completely ignored it.
I responded to his question about the verses, which verses,
I said to you, I ever agrees with Islam generally
Alan had it. We will accept that this statement is true.
So when it says in John and the Shrowmy sixty four,
there's one God, we scept that it's true.
Speaker 2: No problem.
Speaker 5: Anything which would disagree we were rejected. Like if something
says Jesus died, we will say that it's as corrupted.
Speaker 2: That is changed.
Speaker 5: Now already the biblical scholars agree that the Bible has
been corupted. I don't need to do any a lot
of research regarding that. Now what you said, because words
doesn't change change. That verse you quote. It is talking
about a lost promise, and you're quoting him out of
out of context. Like I said, I don't change my words.
I keep my words. We're talking about promises. We're not
talking about the revelation of the previous structures, because Pard
already explains that the revelation of the previous scriptures has
been changed. Now he said, whatever the Father has been
given been given to me. That's clearly not the case,
because Jesus did not know. And he said he didn't know,
and he said, only the Father knows. And what he
means by that is not talking about attributes.
Speaker 4: Perfect jade ninety seconds.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I notice he did not answer the exact challenge
I gave him. I asked him what the epistemic criteria was,
and he said that the Quran backs up the promises
of prior revelation when it's worth so, in other words,
the Qoran proves the Koran by citing the Koran passages
in the Old test And yet we read in the
Qoran that it actually says that you can go to
the prior revelation to see that the new revelation is
consistent with it. We have revealed to you a prophet,
the book of truth, confirmation in the previous scriptures, and
a supreme authority upon them, So you judge between them
what Allah has revealed. And now he's admitting what was
his source. Many scholars say the Bible's corrupted. Oh really,
so many scholars who are atheist unbelieving. Is what you
go to, Not to your prophet Muhammad, who said that
you can go to the prior Jewish Torah scriptures and
Christian scriptures. Those scriptures confirm, supposedly what's in the Qoran.
You just said, no, they're all corrupt. So Allah and
Muhammad are directing me to go to a corrupt book
to prove your book. You don't see how silly that is.
And then when I ask you for a standard, you said,
the standard is the Koran. But the thing in question
is the Koran. So you're in a circ goal, a
circ goal, and it's a fallacy to appeal to authorities
to say we all know the Bible's corupted. That's a fallacy.
I know you guys don't know what fallacies are. The
horrem in Islam, logical faulcis right, Logic is Haram. So uh,
what's the standard again? Okay?
Speaker 5: Ninety seconds for muscle lantern, he said, I think give
him act I clearly did I said it agree with
there it is we accepted, disagree to reject it said proves.
Nobody here is talking about proving there. Nobody's also talking
about the m proving the Bible.
Speaker 2: You just misunderstanding things.
Speaker 5: Here are you just completing terms and you're just going
around in circle. Nobody's talking about anything proving anything. I
already explained to you what the word confirmed their means.
You clearly don't understand what you're saying. There's nothing there
that says that it is proving it. The first you
that is refreating you mentioned refety was laughing. How could
you read this verse I think is supporting you. First
of all, the chapter five of the Crevers forty eight,
which you were reading, is refuting you. It is literally saying,
so judge between them with the Khoran, with allays revealed
to you, and do not listen to their desires. And
the next versus the same thing, and you read yourself
for this is a supreme authority over it, which means
whatever the Horandic say dictates is a supreme authority over
the Bible. That's exactly what I've been saying all this time.
Speaker 2: And I'm laughing.
Speaker 5: How could you read that verse. I think that is
supporting you. Now this is just is completely ridiculous. So
now the Koran says it's also corrupted. It's mentioned in
multiple parts. For example, the Koran says in chapter two,
verse seventy five, and mentioned chapter two, verse seventeen, how
they write the scripture of their own hand and declaim.
Speaker 2: It is from God.
Speaker 5: You said logic is harm. Nobody said anything about logic
is harm.
Speaker 2: Again, coming back to seventeen.
Speaker 5: John seventeen, verse three, what explicitly says the only true Again,
you're avoiding the question. You're running away from the question. Also,
we haven't joined Chapter twenty, verse seventy. It says he
has a god. He says, I'm going back to my
God and your God. So how can you be god?
And you have a god?
Speaker 2: He didn't say I have a person. I have a father.
He said father and God.
Speaker 5: So he has a god above him, and he believes
the only true God is the Father. And he doesn't
have the knowledge of the hour. And this is what
we mean by him not being equal to the Father.
Speaker 4: Great Ja ninety after this or ro Jay then lances
ninety secretation or we could do closing statements finishing with
a Muslim wlantern because Jay Dyer start is so let's
go ninety seconds.
Speaker 1: Jay, Now yeah. The argument in both of those passages
is not judge the prior revelation on the Quran. The
argument is that they that you can go again to
eighty five. The messenger believes in what has been revealed
to him is from his Lord, as so do all
the believers, his angels, and his books, the books that
are referenced in many other passages as well. This includes
six one point fifteen eighteen twenty seven. These are the
words of Allah previously in the Torah and the angel
They cannot be corrupted and changed. He believes they're corupted
and changed. Why because atheist scholars said so. And guess what,
the same atheist scholars don't believe in his books and
his Quran. They are all the time reject So it's
a double standard. They always do this. They have a
double standard of citing the atheist scholars who reject the
Bible but also reject the Quran. And your Quran does
say many times over that I can go and check
the previous revelation to be consistent. And then when we
find out that it's not consistent. You say, oh, that's
because it's corrupted. So I'm supposed to look at a
corrupted thing to confirm in a non corrupted thing. That
makes no sense. That's why when I said, what's the
epistemic criteria to know the Koran is true? He said,
the Koran that's a circle. You explicitly affirmed the very
thing I wanted to affirm that it is a circle.
You said, no one wants to know that. No one's
asking what's true. I'm asking how do we know it's true?
What do you mean no one's asking this question. I'm
asking you this question for the third time. How do
we know it's true? And in regard to in regard
to John seventeen three, I said, monarchical trinitarianism, Jesus does
submit to the Father. That doesn't mean he has a
different nature than the Father, any more than a son
sub mandy to a father means he has a different nature.
Speaker 2: Okay, for ninety seconds, amazing you, Sai.
Speaker 5: He took from another verse of look because he realized
that I know he's interrupting because he knows he's.
Speaker 2: Being, and the other verse that he also has nothing
to do with what you're saying.
Speaker 5: One of the bores this is the books to the
books that are previous revelations that have been revised to
previously prophets. When we talk about in that versus, and
you can you can read it in context, and everyone
can read that versus and you will see it's talking.
You can read it and you can see it's explicitly
talking about the problems. For you see how interrupting here
is because he knows he's being destroyed. Now, it's if
if the scholars, since the Bible is yes, so you agree,
I'm happy we agree that the scholars and academy agree
that the Bible has been changed, corrupting, there's no original, etcetera.
Now these same eighties scholars and in academy, you will
see that they admit that I've made videws about this before.
How the Kuran is preserved. You have doctor and Jeric
and UITs is not almost have elticolage. You have many
people I can mention now, general boy, I can mention
many mini names of different people who do believe. Or
if you's almost but academic that the Koran is preserved,
there's a whole book strengthen on that. On the manuscripts
for examples, I'm a new script and how they show
the preservation of the Koran. Never said the Bible is consistent.
You're saying, we've been talking about how to prove the Koran.
We never talked about talking about the Bible is corrupt.
Has nothing to do with proving the cra Proving the
Kuran has a. I have a video of my channel.
Everyone is welcome to watch. Is called competic evidence is
for the truthful Isam. We see the prophecies in the Koran,
and how do you see all of these different things?
A little what you mean by proven? Maybe you're talking
about different things now we are talking about the corruption
of the Bible. The Bible has been changed. The Bible
has been corrupted. Is accepted in academia. I'm happy you
through your whole religion under the puss Oh. I agree
that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and I
want Christians to listen to this. He's through everything other
of us is said. Yes, we agree is subordinate to
the Father. Excellent. That's what we believe is Muslim Jesus
is submitting to the Father, and that's what a Muslim is.
A profect Mohammed was submitting to a lot, and that
is with the Muslim is okay to Jay.
Speaker 4: Let's do uh five minutes each, five minutes for Jay
and then five minutes for Muslims.
Speaker 1: Whore wrapping up here? Yeah, six one fifteen. Again, neither
of the passages that he's talking about confirm what he's saying.
Sixty one fifteen. The word of the Lord is perfected
in truth and justice. None can change Allah's words. He
just admitted that the words of a law in the
previous passages you heard him say in the last section
there that no, those verses, those verses are the books
the message that's talking about, the previous revelations of the prophets,
which he just said is corrupted when his own career
on says the word of a law right there cannot
ever be corrupted. So he's smarter than a law and
the profit according to his attachment to unbelieving scholars, what
I pointed out was his double standard and the fact
that he's going to appeal to the same scholars. Oh,
but there's a bunch of other scholars that like the Quran.
This is a fallacy of authority. Appealing to scholars is
a fallacy of authority. If you think that proves a position,
you argue that there's a bunch of scholars that debate
the early Church, so what that has nothing to do
with proving a position. You could bring in scholars to
back up a position, but they don't prove anything. That's
called the fallacy of appeal to authority. So multiple times
he's made countless fallacies. He doesn't even know what they are.
I point them out and he laughs and talks past it.
He appealed to He said that I made many fallacies
talking about this problem of Allah's relationship to his attributes
a one in many, which, by the way, he believes
in an uncreated foot and uncreated shin if he's a Salafi.
If he doesn't, then he has to metaphorically interpret those things.
Wait a minute, now, he's afforded the ability to metaphorically
interpretate interpret these texts, but he doesn't grant that to us.
When we talk about these passages where Jesus clearly uses rhetoric,
clearly uses exaggeration. No, no, no, we're not allowed to do that.
And by the way, he did try to say that
I have to prove in John one because there's no
mention of three hypostaces. Hypostasis is mentioned in Hebrews One,
where it's identified that the son is the eternal son
of the Father and he's equally divine. He constantly misunderstood
what monarchical trinitarianism is because he doesn't know what it is.
Because it recognizes this distinction between the father and the
son in terms of monarchia. That doesn't mean that there's
a difference in essence. So his whole argumentation this entire
time was assuming that distinction between the persons necessarily and
tells a distinction of or a diminution of essence, which
I said from the very opening statement is not our position.
So again, Allah's words are not corruptible. He believes they've
been corrupted. Allah is one, But you heard him use
analogies to the blackness of his shirt to help me.
But his own Kuran says that Allah is nothing like
things in creation. I'm pretty sure your shirt is a creature.
I'm pretty sure black is a part or an attribute
of a shirt. So your own analogies refute you. And
that's why I'm constantly calling you out on a double standard.
I'm not saying you don't answer by stating your position.
But like many people who are no good at debate,
you think answering your position is refuting an argument, calling
out a contradiction. I'm arguing your position contradicts. I'm not
asking you to restate the position. I'm saying your position contradicts.
In many ways. These things contradict. The word of Allah
cannot be corrupted or changed. You just said the prior
revelations were corrupted and changed.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'll give a final statement to muscle lantern. He
went around three minutes, if you can keep it three
to four.
Speaker 1: I thing to be fair.
Speaker 2: A good problem, all right?
Speaker 5: So you mentioned chapter six of La Pran, and as
I said, already, there's two only two business lefronts about
doors of all life chapter six and another capt chapter
eighteen of La Pran. One explicitly talks about the Kuran,
mentions that the verses of a lot, specifically referring to
the Qoran, and the other one which she quoted in Sexes,
talks about it talks about the judgment and the promise
of all. How do you know read the verse before
a largely justices in the Koran? Is there any judge
I will take other than a lot? Talking about the
judgment of a lot, and then it says that that
with and the promise of your lorder the world, the
judgment of your word has been fulfilled. What he's not
talking about, I'm talking about versus definitely talking about, because
I already says don't cry, don't cry, don't cry. By
the way, he's you should other than I let you.
Speaker 1: Speak, you should be book don't your time?
Speaker 5: Can you please mute him because he's trying. All right, Okay,
so again we'll say this is very, very very simply
the verse of the Koran. I mentioned it. I mentioned
the verse and opening excuse open extedues of the scholars.
Nobody have said in Islamic history that this is referring
to the previous scriptures. And I give evidences why this
is not referring to the previous scriptures, that they are corrupted,
and I give evidences. He give an evidence by himself.
It's the verse in chapter five. Also I gave chapter
seventy five, which is clearly this guy doesn't know what
he's talking about. Now he said, oh, we do metaphours.
Speaker 2: W did I do met before?
Speaker 5: Or if you're this, if you you don't even know
what I am. That's that's the problem. You come to
argue with.
Speaker 1: You don't stay where you are, You don't stay where
you are.
Speaker 2: I only state I'm a Muslim. I don't do other
than that.
Speaker 1: That's deception. You're not you're not. They do this as
why like us, he knows that's a deception.
Speaker 5: It is not like he doesn't understand this. He doesn't
understand that.
Speaker 1: He's freaking out because you got what we.
Speaker 5: Call UK waffle in the UK, just someone waffle's few words.
He thinks he's making big worse. We can confuse the audience.
Speaker 1: Never answer objection, and he's not allowed to. You have
to have a schools, no another he's actually he's actually having.
Speaker 5: So there's no contradictions. So I was refuting him. He
came to the black and white shirt and all I
already told him an analogy to do with the attributes,
not to do with a loss.
Speaker 2: So I'm not trying to say the shirt is a lot.
Speaker 3: It's an analogy to attributes, not all anything.
Speaker 1: And the analogy doesn't do anything.
Speaker 5: That's look Jay left defending supported. He started, urefully, Oh,
the essence is not as as that. It doesn't matter
what we can see scriptures, because before all of this
philosophy have been introduced. Now it's philos is that clearly
Jesus was supported, and that's why we have the earliest
groups like the United and did not believe the traditary
and believes we have the Church Fathers. And I said,
I can easily give more quotes that they didn't agree
with the concept that Jay has in his mind. So
simply Ja has put Jesus under the bus from a
position that he believes in the trinity. And he clearly
admitted he doesn't know the hour. It is not the same.
I think it's he's contradicting himself. This is he doesn't
know the hour, but at the same time they're not
equally but at the same time the same. But Heesus
keeps contradicting himself and going in the same circuit. So
is it before cold he doesn't really know the hour,
and there's supported into one another. He doesn't know his
own positions.
Speaker 1: And with that I answered everything that he nobody's buying the.
Speaker 5: Lord of Jesus, who he said he's coming back to,
going back to my God. We asked you to worship
that Lord that Jesus came to and he said he's
going to worship. He's going to go back to That
is the lord that we call you to worship, the
Lord of Jesus, Moses, no profect Muhammad, and peace be
upon all of the prophet and messengers. And I'll conclude
here with this cooking. And because it's burning in the kitchen, now, all.
Speaker 4: Right, person, hold on, Jay, I want to get because
he we there was interruptions. I just said that it
was going to be the closer statements. But because it
seems like there's more, do you think we could do
one more back and forth?
Speaker 5: Two minutes?
Speaker 1: Teaches?
Speaker 5: I don't care what both parties I No. I think
that's it's good to edit here. I don't want to
go more.
Speaker 1: He doesn't want to go anymore.
Speaker 2: Right, He keeps repeating the same thing.
Speaker 1: No, I have a three seventy eight, says the book is,
not three seventy eight, says the book is. So he
doesn't want any more because he knows he got bodied.
Speaker 5: We already had a debase. That's bringing up more.
Speaker 1: Of your problems. I'm not crying. You're the one snickering
with that because you got cooked. It's all rhetoric.
Speaker 4: Jay, it was nice to meet you, and I appreciate
you coming on here. This is much more civil than
the earlier data. I hope to do this again.
Speaker 1: I think this was anytime. Yeah, what a joke, dude.
That guy was pitiful, dude. Uh And yeah, I I
butted him many times because this whole thing was resting
on miss misinterpreting and misunderstanding and ignoring. And uh, I
hope everybody heard him completely collapse on the attributes and
no idea what monarchical trinitarianism is and what the position is.
The passages that we're talking about in the Koran. Do
not say that they're only talking about the Koran. This
is talking about the text of the Jews and the Christians.
And it's here saying that do not say the book
is corrupted. Is not corrupt. And on that last passage
he said, this is talking about all those judgments, not
a book. It set a book. Allah has revealed to you,
the Torah and the Gospel three three Alaw's words cannot
be corrupted anyway. I hope everybody clips the heck of
the heck out of that and shows the parts where
he especially I felt like on the attributes like he
was completely demolished, So everybody should clip that. I hope
that goes viral. We got some super chats here Zalmonics five.
I'm a lawyer and a Christian I've been practicing. You're
the best debater I've ever seen. This is even in litigation,
thank you. I mean, I think debate and you know, law,
they overlap quite a bit. In fact, we were watching
a movie last night that had a lot of courtroom
stuff going on, and Jamie was asking me we were
talking about debate related issues. Yeah, it is interesting. You
could probably find a lot of parallels with the way
that I go about and do debate in the way
that lawyers do stuff. I don't actually know a lot about,
you know, law and litigation and all that, but again,
I do imagine that there's a lot of overlap there.
But you know, really it's I guess the comparison would
be like a lawyer wants to probably trip somebody up
in their statements, and I'm kind of doing the same thing,
except that I'm also looking for not just will they
trip up, but are they violating the laws of logic? Right?
So that's a big part of it. You notice that
guy never he didn't even understand any of the fallacies,
what the fallacies are, why it's even wrong to make fallacies.
This is the the death knell of anybody in a debate.
Fallacies might not be that relevant in a litigation setting
or in a courtroom, although they might be to some degree,
but that's an interesting question. I imagine they have some
overlap with a courtroom setting. Jeremiah James five dollars. Muslim
lantern hasn't had any oil since Mohammed was with Aisha Oh.
Rachel Wilson one hundred dollars. Thank you so much, Rachel,
appreciate that. That's a big fat super chet. You didn't
have to give me that, but that's really sweet of
you appreciate it. And I didn't want. I hope Andrew
didn't think that I was like streaming over his debate.
I actually forgot that he was doing that debate tonight.
I thought that was like several days in the future.
So anyway, I didn't mean to step over you know
you guys in terms of streaming time. But thank you
for that. But it sounds like it was kind of
a it didn't go as planned there well at anual
five dollars. Thank you for the extra time to patience. Yeah,
I mean again, I've already been debating for four hours straight.
So how long was this one? I don't even know,
another hour and a half. It looks like, yeah, what
did you guys think about this? How do you guys think?
Muslim lantern? Did? I really feel like he was collapsing
on the attributes part because everything he said about the
attributes was like, what do you mean that's embarrassing? Jay?
Church fathers under the bus? What are you talking about?
I did throw the church fathers on the bus. What
I said was he was oversimplifying it by saying, do
the church fathers teach the Trinity? And do they teach
it without debate? And I said no, they teach that
the persons are distinct and that there's the divinity of Christ,
but they do debate things. And so that's why I
didn't agree to his oversimplified questions. So Muslims, you notice
Daniel did the exact same thing, didn't he. Daniel did
the exact same thing where Daniel said, I want the
simple answer. Look how simple Islam is? You guys have complex,
difficult doctrines, but the reality is Muslims also have complex doctrines,
and so he lied when he said, what is this akida?
I don't know. He knows what akida is. It's the
different schools. He knows that there's different traditions and that
they've killed each other over these things. And that's why
he tried to deflect away from it. Tell me the
four principles of the kalm like as that that has
anything to do with the argument I'm making about his position.
So that was all deflections Bryce. But you notice what
he did the same things as Daniel by arguing that
you set something up as an overly simple It's called
a complex fallacy of oversimplication. That's what it's called. Right,
So the trinity is a complex doctrine, and so you
say something like, I give an example of this, where's
the verse that proves the doctrine of the trinity is one?
You see, the trinity can't be proven from scripture. Well,
the argument assumes that the trinity is a doctrine that
would only come from a verse. So it's a fallacy, right,
oversimplification fallacy is the fallacy of the single cause over
simplifies a complex issue to imply that a single cause
produces the same effect. It doesn't have to be causal.
It can also be a false either or right. Either
the church fathers taught the Trinity or they didn't. Well,
the church fathers did teach the doctrin of Trinity, and
there was a lot of debate. But he was trying
to make it like, if there's debate, they didn't teach it,
and it wasn't clear. Remember, Daniel made this point. He
said there was debate, and if there's debate over it,
it's not true. And then Daniel turnround said, Muslims have
debated this. Oh but wait a minute, Daniel, you said
that debate means that it's not true if people are
debating it. So you see how silly these people are.
John Z one hundred dollars, Thank you so much, you
destroyed that clown. God Burss, thank you, God bless you
as well much. Appreciating those fat super chats cards. One
dollar to confirm the Kuran. You go to the Koran? Yes,
he said that, didn't he He said, no one here
is asking about proof of the Kuran. I'm asking about
proof of the Koran. What are you talking about? What
do you mean? Nobody's asking that's the very thing I
asked you more than once you go through the Koran
to prove the Koran exactly exactly, the logic is haram. Exactly,
logic is haram. Jake Bernitt's thirty three dollars, I recently
had a debate with a Muslim. He made a similar point,
saying that the son is subordinate to the father, so
they're not equal. So something can be subordinate and equal
and distinct in different ways. And every analogy that I
gave was to that effect. A father and a son
are distinct. The son is co ordinate to the father,
but they have equal nature. The king can invest the
prince with all the powers of the king. They're distinct persons,
but the king can grant to the prince all the
powers of the king. So they have the same nature,
human nature, and all the same powers. Remember he said
there is no verse word. Does Jesus say the father
have given all the power to his son? Yeah, there
is I read it John sixteen. And then he's like,
this doesn't say trinity, doesn't say hypostasis. Yeah, hypostasis is
using other passages. Dude, please go into more depth about
the train. So the people that are interested in this.
All of the monarchical trinitarian talks of doctor bo Branson
cover this in great detail. So if you go to
bo Branson dot com and you come over here to media,
I think it's media. Yeah, so bo Branson dot com
media appearances, and on this page is a five part
lecture series and then other interviews on monarchical trinitarianism. You know,
the funny thing is that the very first thing that
I said answers half of his objections. I in the
first five minutes mentioned monarchical trinitarianism, and then he spent
half of the damn debate arguing against texts that proved
monarchical trinitarianism. Have you ever brought up First John five
seven to a Muslim? I don't know. Let's see, I
don't usually because they don't care. On most of the time,
they don't care about the text. Oh that's the comma.
I mean they're gonna just say, well, that's not in
all the old manuscripts. So but I mean, there's plenty
of passes that teacher Trinity. We don't it's not like
we have to have they in comma. So it looks
like a lot of people are saying they think that
he's one of the worst debaters. He was definitely pretty
sneaky slippery. Who's is he one of the worst? I
don't know. I mean that's my that's my only experience
of that dude. I've never heard or seen anything about him,
So he's kind of sneaky hints sneak Oh but alulah
three dollars crisis King, Yeah, absolutely, yeah, I know the
the yawning comma is uh, I don't I mean, we
call we covered that in the James Snap interview. Sneak
o mods will block Christians in the chat? Well, yeah,
I mean, look, it islam as not a position that
relies on logic. It's a position that relies on trickery,
tomfoolery and sneakery. So what do you expect so voting
the poll? There's a poll, So yeah, I mean he
just basically went to all the classic dollars script stuff.
What's funny about all of that? I think that really,
all the dollars script stuff and all of what they do,
it's really just meant to like try to capture the
low tier, lowest common denominator audience to bring them in
who are aren't interested in any kind of like distinctions
or any kind of nuance. And it's just intended really
to be a way to capture low tier stuff. And
then when they deal with people who aren't low tier,
it becomes very obvious. I think, oh, that's the pull
from their stream. Oh they have a stream. Well, I'm
sure all the Muslims are in their stream. So so here,
let's see here you Yeah, definitely if you want to, Yeah,
definitely go debate. I mean, oops, there we go. I
mean vote, excuse me, not debate who won? I think
I won, So I'm gonna say I won, But I
should do my own poll because I'm sure there's a
bunch of Muslims silent one dollar. It's crazy how Lantern
was using fallacies when he twists your words and just lies,
and the Muslims eat it up. They don't actually read
their sources. Correct toy five dollars. I recently listened to
all the Bo Branson lectures on that page because you
recommended it. Blue my mind is very interesting. Yeah, exactly. Uh,
doctor Branson's monarchical trinitarian talks are are essential.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 1: Definitely head on over here and watch these. But that's okay.
I mean, the people that want to be idiots and
they want to be you know, low tier, and they
want to believe stupid stuff. You're you're never going to
change people that are not open to what's true. Yeah,
I'll be sure to vote so that these people don't
just promote their own Muslim polls, which is I'm sure
what they're going to do. But straw pole here, and
keep in mind, I had no idea what's going on.
I didn't even I didn't even know what topic until
I went in the room. I've already been debating for
four hours. So there we go. Timate. Oh, no, excuse me,
Italian King ten dollars, good job, Jay, Crisis King, love
and forgiveness they're lacking nowadays. Yeah, I would agree with that,
Hunter Tyler three fifty five one dollars. Muslims reject Paul.
Paul is a transgressior in Galatians won it absolutely rexs
Islam and shows Mohammed as a false prophet. Yeah, Doctor
Feaddigan and Iyas and I have made this point many
times that the finality of revelation, which is taught very
clearly even in the Old Testament, that when the Messiah comes,
the Messianic era. Well, there was an end of divine revelation. Okay,
there's no new revelations after the death of the Apostles.
That's it. So that right there cuts off all of
the future cults, Mormons, Mohammedan's it doesn't matter, Eric Ze
three dollars three thirty seven. You're very patient arguing with
a wall like that. Well, they always play this game
where they're like, oh, we want to have a conversation,
we want to have a conversation, and then they immediately
start with all the tricks, because theirs is a system
and a position that has to rely on a bunch
of tricks. So we don't rely on tricks over here.
I will interrupt people, and I'll call people out when
they start lying and saying something I didn't say. Jake
Burnett's one dollar. What do you think the Muslims insist
on everything being simple because they're appealing to simple people.
The whole position is about making it simple as a
sales pitch for simple minded people. So the only people
who fall for this are people who are unfortunately not
very sophisticated. Now, I don't want to make it only
an intellectual thing, because not only intellectual right. There's also
a spiritual delusion component of this too, but spiritual delusion
effects our intellect, you see, it can darken the intellect
so that we don't have discernment. They always say that
if you can explain the trinity to be simple, then
it's proven, and if not, it's relacious. Yeah, this is
an oversimplification fallacy. It's also an arbitrary expectation, like I
could make the same point, make Allah and his relationship
to his attribute it's simple, or else I won't believe it.
You see how silly that is? Well, this that's funny.
If I'm it's funny. Even if I'm two percent I
had on their pole, this is their Muslim pole and
I'm two percent ahead. That's funny. So you can go debate,
Go bait up, debate, go vote. Right there, My mind
is beginning to turn the mush because we're like six
hours into debate now. But I do appreciate Sneako at
least finally sort of coming around and addressing this because
people have been vote uh calling out sneak oh and
asking him to come debate for a long time. That's funny.
So they're gonna tell you quick go vote, quick vote
quick one one one. Yeah, I really, I really think
they think that if it's simple, it's got to be true.
I mean, did you notice too that he lied, like
he said, we don't know what is akida?
Speaker 5: What is that?
Speaker 1: He like, he doesn't know what akita is? And by
the way, Muslims aren't allowed to ignore a school. You
have to be in some school. But he was being disingenuous,
right and acting like I don't know what this word is.
What are these what's what are the schools? And acting
like they don't disagree amongst themselves. Come on, I hope
everybody saw how ridiculous that was. Right, Akda creed? Which creed?
Which school of Islamic theology? Are you a part of?
What is akida? I don't know what is this world?
I don't know his word?
Speaker 3: What is this work made up?
Speaker 1: What are you taking up words? Doesn't know what it mean?
And what have we done? But call out people like
Jake and the others that change their akida depending upon
the debate that they're in, which you're not allowed to do,
but you are allowed to do it in a religion
that's deceptive and allows you to lie and trick and
do all this to do this trickery. So I guess
they are allowed to do it, even though technically they're
not allowed to do it. What is this Adida? I
don't know what Adidas? Are these shoes?
Speaker 5: What is the shoes?
Speaker 1: Looking a black shirt like a law has parts but
he doesn't have parts. It's an analogy to help you
with my shirt, but it's done like a lot. You
see how silly this was. This was so bad. But
even their own poles, they're having a hard time, even
even their own poles. Look at that ten percent above
in their own pole. Oh man, Muslim take loss. Muslim
take a big l Okay, I'm about totally exhausted now,
so thank you guys for all of this.