Speaker 1: Recently, jade Iron Sam Schmun debated some Muslims on the
Speaker 1: Fresh and Fit podcast. They did an excellent job. The Muslims,
Speaker 1: on the other hand, were entirely inconsistent in their reasoning.
Speaker 1: They use a lot of facious arguments, and they even
Speaker 1: went for personal attacks. And I want to show some
Speaker 1: clips from that debate, but first I want to talk
Speaker 1: about why I'm not a Muslim, and this debate was
Speaker 1: a great example of that because in the debate we'll
Speaker 1: hear the Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupt. It
Speaker 1: actually doesn't say that anywhere in the Koran that the
Speaker 1: Bible is corrupt. It says that people will twist the scriptures.
Speaker 1: It does not say that the Bible is corrupt anywhere
Speaker 1: in the Koran. Muslims are so inconsistent about the Bible
Speaker 1: being corrupt. They'll say the Bible prophesizes Muhammed. But wait,
Speaker 1: I thought you just said it was corrupt. They just
Speaker 1: arbitrarily pick what parts of the Bible they're going to
Speaker 1: interpret in their chronic Islamic lens and reinterpret the Bible.
Speaker 1: The Bible does not prophesize Muhammed. They'll say that the
Speaker 1: Bible doesn't teach a trinity that actually the Bible teaches tahed.
Speaker 1: They will claim that the Bible is cruped, then cite
Speaker 1: the Bible. So which one is it the Bible corrupt
Speaker 1: or not?
Speaker 2: I mean, I've got the Gospel of John pulled up
Speaker 2: right now we can start going into the text. Let's
Speaker 2: start with John one about the trinity, eternal generation of
Speaker 2: the Son. In the beginning was the Word. The Word
Speaker 2: was with God. The Word was God. He was in
Speaker 2: the beginning with God. All things were through him. Nothing
Speaker 2: was made that was not made by him. Jesus is
Speaker 2: the creator of the world. There's nothing that exists that
Speaker 2: he didn't create. Therefore, the Son of God is not
Speaker 2: a creature.
Speaker 1: John one.
Speaker 2: He was in the bosom of the Father even when
Speaker 2: he was on earth, walking around eternal generation, omnipresence. After this,
Speaker 2: John said, I saw the Holy Spirit descending like a
Speaker 2: dove and remaining upon him. It is he who baptizes
Speaker 2: with the Holy Spirit. This is the Son of God,
Speaker 2: the Father. Right there in John one, verses thirty two
Speaker 2: to thirty four, the entire Trinity is revealed to you.
Speaker 1: And also in the Quran it says that you can
Speaker 1: judge the Koran on the prior revelation. You know, Muslims
Speaker 1: think that the Torah and they say the Angel or
Speaker 1: Gospel that Jesus was given book. But if we actually
Speaker 1: go to the prior revelation, the Torah and Bible, it
Speaker 1: makes Islam an impossibility and shows that Islam has no
Speaker 1: continuity with the prior revelation. And why would the Koran
Speaker 1: say to go to the prior revelation of the prior
Speaker 1: revelation is corrupt. It doesn't make any sense the Qoran
Speaker 1: either way, it is refuting itself because the prior revelation
Speaker 1: contradicts the Koran. And if the Koran says that to
Speaker 1: go to the prior revelation, but the prior revelation is corrupt,
Speaker 1: it makes no sense. For example, in the worship that
Speaker 1: we read about in the Old Testament, and we see
Speaker 1: how Christians worship, it was liturgical, with a sacrifice with
Speaker 1: the Lamb, with the Eucharist.
Speaker 3: All.
Speaker 1: You know, these principles exist in Second Temple, Judaism and
Speaker 1: Orthodox Christianity. It does not exist in Islam. It has
Speaker 1: no continuity. The worship, the entire theology of how God
Speaker 1: manifests himself, all these theophanies that I want to further
Speaker 1: later in the video. And so when you bring up
Speaker 1: to a Muslim that the Koran in Islam has no
Speaker 1: continuity with the Old Testament, it's completely arbitrary about the
Speaker 1: prior revelation being corrupt. They say, oh, the Koran is
Speaker 1: the perfect revelation from Allah. But it's a circular argument.
Speaker 1: You're just referring to the Koran, You're not actually using
Speaker 1: the prior revelation. It is very important to understand that
Speaker 1: in the prior revelation it is leading up to the Messiah,
Speaker 1: and the Islam believes in the Messiah, but they don't
Speaker 1: really understand what the Messiah is. That Second Temple Judaism
Speaker 1: in Christianity understands that the Messiah is going to be
Speaker 1: God incarnate and he's going to bring salvation to all people,
Speaker 1: a salvation to the gentiles as its promise in Genesis.
Speaker 1: The Messiah is Jesus Christ, and it's prophesied before in
Speaker 1: Zachariah thirteen that there's not going to be any more
Speaker 1: prophets after the Messiah comes. This automatically counsels out anything
Speaker 1: like Mormonism or Islam that claims that it's new public
Speaker 1: divine revelation in Zachariah. In Jude it talks about how
Speaker 1: the faith was once for all delivered to the saints. Jesus,
Speaker 1: who Muslim's claim was actually a Muslim says that John
Speaker 1: the Baptist was a last prophet. There are no prophets.
Speaker 1: And also in one Galatians eight it says that even
Speaker 1: if an angel comes from in heaven, if he preaches
Speaker 1: a different gospel, let him be a curse. And what
Speaker 1: do you know, That's exactly how the Koran was revealed
Speaker 1: to Muhammad from a quote unquote angel. So why would
Speaker 1: we trust this later revelation that contradicts the worship of
Speaker 1: the theology of the prior revelation. We have specific warnings
Speaker 1: against it. There's no reason to trust the Quran that
Speaker 1: comes six hundred years after the events of the Bible.
Speaker 1: Why would we trust that to say what actually happened.
Speaker 4: You're just a cheap knockoff. Oh no, I'm the upbring.
Speaker 1: With Jesus. The Qoran says that Jesus wasn't actually crucified,
Speaker 1: he was switched out at the last second. So why
Speaker 1: would you trust their version of God? Allah, who is
Speaker 1: deceiving at everyone because that is essential. That is a
Speaker 1: q piece of Christianity is Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection,
Speaker 1: and Islam takes that out and says he's just a prophet.
Speaker 1: Another huge fact that disproves Islam is that Jesus was
Speaker 1: not a Muslim. They'll quote verses like Jesus doing prostrations. Well,
Speaker 1: in Judaism and in Christianity, we still do prostrations, and
Speaker 1: he's prostrating towards God the Father. Allah is no father.
Speaker 1: So this whole entire theology of the trinity of the Father.
Speaker 1: Allah is not a father. It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: So how can you cite that verse? And I thought
Speaker 1: the Bible was corrupt? So it's just entirely inconsistent about
Speaker 1: how Muslims will cite the Bible. And all throughout the Bible,
Speaker 1: there's lots of verses that show that Jesus is all knowing.
Speaker 1: Even in the Qoran, it gives attributes to Jesus that
Speaker 1: only God, that only Allah can have. Because the Quran
Speaker 1: just took so much from Christianity and Judaism's that's what
Speaker 1: it ultimately did.
Speaker 2: So the doctrine in trinity is a doctrine that is
Speaker 2: not derived from philosophy, It's not derived from Saint Paul. Early,
Speaker 2: is not derived from the Council of Nicia. The Doctor
Speaker 2: the Trinity is taught in the Law and the Prophets.
Speaker 2: In fact, if you go back to my Daniel Hikikachu
Speaker 2: debate in the first ten minutes, I hold up a
Speaker 2: whiteboard that shows all the passages from the Torah and
Speaker 2: in the Prophets that we derive the doctrine the Trinity from,
Speaker 2: mainly from Jewish extragesus of the Old Testament. This might
Speaker 2: sound surprising because people think that the doctor in Trinity
Speaker 2: is something that's unique to Christianity, or that Jews don't
Speaker 2: believe in this nowadays, so therefore Jews could not have
Speaker 2: taught it back then. In fact, many Jewish scholars today
Speaker 2: eve In Summer, Alan Siegel, Schaeffer, etc. Boyar, and all
Speaker 2: of those scholars admit that the Early Church's view is
Speaker 2: not that distinct from the Judaism of the time of
Speaker 2: Christ in recognizing more than one person in the Trinity.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that Jews necessarily except trinitarianism. I'm saying
Speaker 2: that these scholars prove that in the time of Christ,
Speaker 2: there was not a generic unitarianism that characterize what it
Speaker 2: is to be quote monotheist. They didn't see a contradiction
Speaker 2: or a problem between the idea of quote monotheism and
Speaker 2: the recognition of the Father as the archae cause and fount,
Speaker 2: the Angel of the Lord as his messenger, which we
Speaker 2: see through all throughout the Old Testament, who is called God,
Speaker 2: who is called Divine, who is called the Messenger of
Speaker 2: the Covenant, who is called Yahweh in Exodus three, Exodus
Speaker 2: twenty three, throughout the Psalms and the Mini Theophanes passages,
Speaker 2: and many times in the Prophets, Jesus predicted, especially in
Speaker 2: latter Isaiah to be a divine Nosiah that would be worshiped.
Speaker 5: So a lot of these.
Speaker 2: References to the Trinity are primarily grounded rooted in the
Speaker 2: Torah and the Prophets. Islam, however, when it argues against
Speaker 2: the Trinity, does so on the basis of it not
Speaker 2: being aware of or not being informed, typically on what
Speaker 2: the actual texts teach. In terms of the Jewish texts
Speaker 2: that we as Christians also refer to. Also when it
Speaker 2: comes to the text of the Gospel and the texts
Speaker 2: of the New Testament. They're not aware of the fact
Speaker 2: that Jesus throughout the Gospel John in every chapter, refers
Speaker 2: to himself as divine and or a member of the triad.
Speaker 2: John one talks about Jesus being the Logos. John one
Speaker 2: talks about him being eternally begotten monogyne staeos, So the
Speaker 2: eternal beginning. All of that is already at the beginning
Speaker 2: of the Gospel of John, and again every chapter, whether
Speaker 2: it's John five through nine, where Jesus identifies himself as
Speaker 2: the one at Mount Sinai talking to Moses, the one
Speaker 2: that gave the law. Jesus fors to himself as the
Speaker 2: son of God many times over, which means that his
Speaker 2: God is not Allah, because Allah has no sons. So
Speaker 2: Jesus many many times over throughout the Gospel says he
Speaker 2: is the son of God and that he makes us
Speaker 2: by grace sons of God. This proves that there is
Speaker 2: not the same God of Muhammad and the same God
Speaker 2: of Jesus. Jesus is not referring to Allah as his father.
Speaker 2: Allah has no sons. So when we come to the
Speaker 2: time of the early Church fathers, they unanimously teach the
Speaker 2: deedy of Christ, the triad as well the deed of
Speaker 2: the Holy Spirit. This becomes codified by the time of Nicea.
Speaker 2: It's not invented at the time of Nicea. You can
Speaker 2: read the church fathers from Irenaeus to Ignatius to Clement.
Speaker 2: You can read Cyril, Si Chimi, Cyprian, you can read
Speaker 2: a name all these church fathers. Alexander writing prior.
Speaker 4: To the time.
Speaker 2: And I see the teach the due to Christ and
Speaker 2: what would become the doction or known as the Doctor
Speaker 2: with trinity. So the Trinity is not something foreign to
Speaker 2: the scriptures. It's rooted in the Torret's rooted in the Prophet's,
Speaker 2: root in the New Testament, root in the teaching of
Speaker 2: Christ himself. And I would add that when we compare
Speaker 2: it to what's in the Koran, the Koran makes many stakes.
Speaker 2: First of all, about what the Christians teach. They say
Speaker 2: that we take our monks as lords.
Speaker 5: We do not.
Speaker 2: They take They think that the Koran thinks that we
Speaker 2: take Mary as part of the Trinity.
Speaker 5: We do not.
Speaker 2: The Koran also is itself confused in two areas that
Speaker 2: I always like to highlight, which is that it claims
Speaker 2: that prior revelation confirms it and backs it up and
Speaker 2: many times over. Like in A five, it says that
Speaker 2: you can look to the previous revelation to confirm the
Speaker 2: new revelation, but the old revelation contradicts it. And when
Speaker 2: Muslims see the contradictions, they do the same move of
Speaker 2: ajaws and the debate to say, well, we reject all
Speaker 2: the times that it contradicts, but we accept all the
Speaker 2: time that it is with our revelation. Well, that is
Speaker 2: a circle that's arguing for the thing that's in question.
Speaker 2: We want to know, how do the prior revelation confirmed
Speaker 2: the new revelation, which the Quran says it can do
Speaker 2: if the prior revelations are corrupt, And how a foolish
Speaker 2: it would be to look to a corrupt book to
Speaker 2: supposedly prove an incorrupt book. So it makes no sense
Speaker 2: on the face of it. I would also then argue
Speaker 2: that the doctrine of Tanzi that's derived from the passages
Speaker 2: that talk about all of being nothing like creation forty
Speaker 2: two and I think around one ten somewhere in there
Speaker 2: it says that Allah is absolutely nothing like creation, and
Speaker 2: yet Muslims many times over will utilize terminology, language and
Speaker 2: so forth to liken Allah to a created thing, to
Speaker 2: say that Allah is merciful, that he is just, he
Speaker 2: has all these things. Allah has a hand, has a shen,
Speaker 2: and so forth. Things that come up in the accepted hadiths. Well,
Speaker 2: all of those things are contradictory to the notion of
Speaker 2: Talhed that God is a pure unity or pure oneness.
Speaker 2: This is why Muslims for centuries have debated amongst themselves
Speaker 2: whether the attributes are really distinct. And you have people
Speaker 2: like Jake Slafis and others who say, no, oh, yes,
Speaker 2: Allah has a foot, has a shin, We don't know
Speaker 2: the modality, but he really has these things. They're really attributes.
Speaker 2: And yet were said to be only a religion of
Speaker 2: perfect unity and perfect oneness. Yet he's many. Well, the
Speaker 2: same problem that you have with the attributes and the
Speaker 2: dependence relationship of the attributes on Allah's essence and amongst
Speaker 2: themselves is no different than the question that we have
Speaker 2: about the persons of the Trinity. It's just simply that
Speaker 2: you say that we have a problem that you don't
Speaker 2: have to answer when you have the exact same problem
Speaker 2: in relationship to the attributes in Allah's essence and their
Speaker 2: dependence relationship. And if you don't think there's a dependence relationship,
Speaker 2: then I will just simply say, do you believe that
Speaker 2: they are then assay or self existent? If they're self existent, then.
Speaker 5: You have what ninety nine gods?
Speaker 2: So you have the same problem, but a double standard
Speaker 2: as to how you answer that. I'm not saying note
Speaker 2: that you believe that the attributes of persons. I know
Speaker 2: you don't believe that. But the same problem of the
Speaker 2: one and the many and the dependence status between the
Speaker 2: attributes and the essence is a problem that you cannot
Speaker 2: answer because within Islam there are countless multiple contradictions.
Speaker 1: Many Christians are lured into Islam without actually understanding it.
Speaker 1: For example, they may say the Trinity is too hard
Speaker 1: to understand. You know, one God in three persons. I
Speaker 1: can't believe in the trinity. It's too hard. But when
Speaker 1: you actually look at Islamic theology, their version of God
Speaker 1: that Allah has two hands, he has a shin, and
Speaker 1: they believe these are real unless you're subverting the Kuran.
Speaker 4: Says that a Lah has one eye two.
Speaker 2: The shin of a nizedlation described in the Purun, that
Speaker 2: he has a face allot describing in the pun that
Speaker 2: he has.
Speaker 4: Two hands, and both of Allah's hands are right hands.
Speaker 5: We believe that both of the hands of Allah unlock.
Speaker 6: Huh say is very clearly that both his hands are right.
Speaker 4: The self here refers to a law's shine.
Speaker 1: It isn't simpler, and they haven't actually read the Quran.
Speaker 1: It's just people having a romanticized version of Islam. That's
Speaker 1: just so, it's just so simple, and it's just so unified. No,
Speaker 1: it isn't. There's lots of diversity of thought within Islam,
Speaker 1: and a lot of what we see online is a
Speaker 1: very new modern kind of restorationist sect of Slaviism. Many
Speaker 1: people also don't know about Islam, that music is haram,
Speaker 1: that dogs are haram, that an angel won't enter your
Speaker 1: house if you have a dog. But the number one
Speaker 1: reason why people leave Islam is seeing the gross immorality
Speaker 1: of the prophet Muhammad. In Christianity, we see progressive revelation
Speaker 1: with Jesus the god Man, the perfect person. He's fully
Speaker 1: god fully maned, he lives a morally perfect life, he
Speaker 1: was sinless, versus in Islam, it's a downgrade after with Muhammad,
Speaker 1: is he has sexual relations with a six year old Ayesha,
Speaker 1: And this is the number one reason that people leave
Speaker 1: is learning about this. They're great at Prophet does this.
Speaker 1: Also when they learn that the Koran has many historical
Speaker 1: and scientific errors, that it was not perfectly preserved, they
Speaker 1: think that Muhammad had it revealed, but he was illiterate,
Speaker 1: and that's part of the miracle. They can't answer the
Speaker 1: is a Kuran created or uncreated? If you have something
Speaker 1: uncreated that's not a Llah, how do they account for
Speaker 1: that on their theology. The point is is that a
Speaker 1: lot of people are intrigued by Islam, but they haven't
Speaker 1: actually studied it in depth. There are so many problems
Speaker 1: that we could get into. One last one I want
Speaker 1: to mention is Islam's iconoclasm being against religious icons and veneration.
Speaker 1: And we see this in the Sunnies versus Shia is
Speaker 1: a Shiahs are are more okay with you some level
Speaker 1: of veneration and tradition versus the Sunnis are very They're
Speaker 1: like the Calvinists of Islam. They just want to get
Speaker 1: rid of at all, especially a lot of the modern
Speaker 1: Sunnis that we see. Even though veneration happens at the Kaba,
Speaker 1: So why are they allowing idolatry? There's all these contradictions
Speaker 1: to interact with his peace. He interacted in Theophanes in
Speaker 1: a direct manifestations of God, where he is tangible and
Speaker 1: often visible to humans. But how can we make sense
Speaker 1: of this? Just based off the Old Testament, we can
Speaker 1: see from the very beginning that God said, let us
Speaker 1: make man in our image after our likeness. We can
Speaker 1: read in Genesis that the Lord appeared to Abraham. How
Speaker 1: does the Lord appear to Abraham? How does Jacob wrestle
Speaker 1: with God? In Genesis, Jacob not only wrestles with God,
Speaker 1: but he also says, I have seen God face to face.
Speaker 1: When Moses goes to the burning bush, God calls out
Speaker 1: of it. God himself is in the burning bush. How
Speaker 1: do we make sense of this? How do we make
Speaker 1: sense of Moses talking face to face with God in Exodus?
Speaker 1: All throughout the Old Testament there are these theophanies. There
Speaker 1: are these things that we read about in Isaiah. When
Speaker 1: God is referring to himself in plural and manifesting himself
Speaker 1: the spirit of God, the Word, his breath, his glory.
Speaker 1: We read about all these scenarios where God interacts with
Speaker 1: his people in a very unique way, and I will
Speaker 1: cover these in depth later in the video. One of
Speaker 1: the most interesting things in the Old Testament is the
Speaker 1: Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is
Speaker 1: not only an angel who appears continually throughout the Old Testament,
Speaker 1: referring to himself as Lord, as God in the first
Speaker 1: person and not in the second person. Three other angel
Speaker 1: refers to himself as a third person. But who is
Speaker 1: this Angel of the Lord. From the very beginning in Genesis,
Speaker 1: the Angel of the Lord refers to himself as God
Speaker 1: in the first person. All these examples in Exodus numbers
Speaker 1: Judges Zachariah of the Angel of the Lord talking in
Speaker 1: the first person, that this is God, that this is
Speaker 1: a manifestation of God. This is no accident. This is
Speaker 1: exactly why concepts like this were debated in ancient Judaism
Speaker 1: and are still debated to this day in rabbinical Judaism
Speaker 1: of who is the Angel of the Lord. Even before
Speaker 1: Christ became incarnate, there was talk of the Angel of
Speaker 1: the Lord, about God's Word, the logos, the Spirit, God's wisdom,
Speaker 1: God's glory. They struggled to make sense of this, and
Speaker 1: so when Christ becomes incarnate. The early Church fathers picked
Speaker 1: up on this. They weren't inventing anything new. That's who
Speaker 1: this is all along. It's Christ. No longer do we
Speaker 1: have to wonder of how to make sense of these
Speaker 1: Old testament Theophanes, of how Jacob wrestled with God, of
Speaker 1: how Moses saw God face to face. It's just in
Speaker 1: their mind that the full revelation was giving. That gets
Speaker 1: us into this debate that Sam and Jay recently did.
Speaker 1: I think there are some of the best Christian apologists
Speaker 1: against Islam.
Speaker 7: I mean the Bible affirms of the prophet Muhammad is
Speaker 7: a true prophet and first John Ter.
Speaker 3: I'm reading it.
Speaker 7: Yes, it's falls on his fig but it says something's
Speaker 7: occasionally invites broken.
Speaker 3: The rights.
Speaker 7: You say we never made.
Speaker 3: Praise be the Father some way spirit to one true God,
Speaker 3: and glory to the Son of God who became flesh
Speaker 3: for our salvation. May the Lord Jesus be magnified and
Speaker 3: the falsehood of Toheed exposed. Notice what Daniel did. Instead
Speaker 3: of focusing on what it means for Alla to be one,
Speaker 3: he spent the bulk of his time criticizing the Trinity.
Speaker 3: But we will answers objections in a rebuttal period. But
Speaker 3: I'm now going to turn against him because not so
Speaker 3: fast when he says he believes in Tohed, what exactly
Speaker 3: does it mean for Alla to be one? Because I'm
Speaker 3: aware that Daniel does believe the fact that Kron is uncreated,
Speaker 3: and therefore we now have two distinct eternal entities that
Speaker 3: are not identical. Because I'm going to show Daniel, from
Speaker 3: his authentic sources that the Churn and the chapters of
Speaker 3: the Churn actually one to receive and debate with a law.
Speaker 3: So now we have a paradox because if the Koran
Speaker 3: is the speech of a law and that's all us speaking,
Speaker 3: is all us speaking to himself? So is Daniel actually
Speaker 3: a mobilist or is the apolotheist? Or does he have
Speaker 3: a phone with Trinity? But his is even worse because
Speaker 3: it's not three persons, because each chapter of the Kron
Speaker 3: has the potentiality of speaking with a law. So that
Speaker 3: means his God consists of at least one hundred and
Speaker 3: fifteen divine persons, divine beings who can interact with one
Speaker 3: another and appear separately. And this is all from his
Speaker 3: authentic narrations Secondly, the second problem he has is that
Speaker 3: according to the Koran, the Spirit of Allah is not Gabriel.
Speaker 3: So I'm going to now press him. There's not a
Speaker 3: single verse in the chron it says the spirit to
Speaker 3: Ruj is Jibidir. He's now dependent on the very scholars
Speaker 3: of Islam to come centuries later to bail out Alana's messenger,
Speaker 3: because that's what he accused the Lord Jesus, that Jesus
Speaker 3: wasn't clear enough to articulate to Trinity. But he did
Speaker 3: make an admission which is not going to come and
Speaker 3: bite him. He admitted Paul taught the Trinity. It's now recorded.
Speaker 3: I want everyone to hear it. Paul taught to Trinity,
Speaker 3: because when we come to the scriptures, I'm going to
Speaker 3: show that even the Koran acknowledges that Paul was used
Speaker 3: by Allah to spread the truth of the Gospel of
Speaker 3: Jesus Christ. The Spirit, according to the Koran, is the
Speaker 3: sinc from Alah. He appears as a man, he speaks
Speaker 3: and creates. So now if we add the spirit to
Speaker 3: the Koran and a Lah he's got about one hundred
Speaker 3: and sixteen divine persons or beans, then we can go
Speaker 3: a little further and adjust the issue of the fact
Speaker 3: that according to our friend here, Allah has well, he
Speaker 3: wouldn't use the term body parts. I don't want to,
Speaker 3: mister present him. Allah has as a foot, he has
Speaker 3: a shin, he even has loins, and he has at
Speaker 3: least two eyes, if not more, in two right hands. Now,
Speaker 3: for the life of me, if All is the creator
Speaker 3: of the heavens and the earth, how does he exist
Speaker 3: as an embodied being without him dwelling in space? Because
Speaker 3: if he's a temporal, he's timeless. That means his God
Speaker 3: supposedly exists when there was no time, space in place.
Speaker 3: But if you have a foot, and you have a shin,
Speaker 3: and you have two right hands, I don't know what
Speaker 3: happened to the left one, but we'll get into that,
Speaker 3: two right hands, at least two eyes. In fact, the
Speaker 3: Arabic says three or more. We'll get into that. Then
Speaker 3: that means his God is an body being who is
Speaker 3: temporal and finite, which means that his God did not
Speaker 3: create all space or place in time, because there's a
Speaker 3: space that his body parts need to occupy in order
Speaker 3: for him to be his God. So the problem is
Speaker 3: actually worse for Daniel than for us. So he's going
Speaker 3: to have to explain how is it that he's a
Speaker 3: polytheist pagan masquerading as a monotheist.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I'd like to point out that in Daniel's opening statement
Speaker 2: he also committed a fallacy, which is a form of
Speaker 2: Oukham's razor foul. He kept appealing to the fact that
Speaker 2: because it's simple, that it must be obvious, it must
Speaker 2: be the case's just to go something scenes or appears
Speaker 2: to be simpler or more obvious, or because it was
Speaker 2: only for short and simple sentences, has nothing to.
Speaker 5: Do with whether it's true false.
Speaker 2: In fact, as we're going to see the Muslims amongst
Speaker 2: themselves and their various schools all compete and disagree.
Speaker 5: And fight not only over the attributes, but also over jurisprudence.
Speaker 3: Daniel, I want to hear from your own mouth, the
Speaker 3: yah of a law. Is it a metaphor for his power?
Speaker 8: It can be a metaphor for his power. It can
Speaker 8: be interpreted in many different ways. It does not contradict,
Speaker 8: It does not contradict, or hete that does not contradict monotheism.
Speaker 8: You can have any position and interpret it as a metaphor,
Speaker 8: or you can have a position, and differently to your position.
Speaker 4: What what do you have studied?
Speaker 5: You've studied it. You won't see your position, are you what?
Speaker 4: I have? You studied all of them? It's irrelev.
Speaker 1: Your position.
Speaker 6: Study the topic, stick to the topic on explain to me, So, moderator, moderator,
Speaker 6: he doesn't let me answer the question, doesn't let me
Speaker 6: answer the question.
Speaker 3: No, because you're not. You're you're doing a dodgeball your Koran.
Speaker 3: All right, I'm gonna have created right Daniel, Yes, okay,
Speaker 3: So the headis that I say when it says will
Speaker 3: appear as flocks of birds interceeding for those that recited them.
Speaker 3: Do you take that metaphorically or do you take it actually?
Speaker 8: This is a personification of the Quran, just like the
Speaker 8: Bible verses that I mentioned about rivers plopping their hands
Speaker 8: their stones speaking.
Speaker 4: In the psalms. I'll read them again.
Speaker 8: And yeah, you're making the claim that if the Qoran
Speaker 8: is personified, that means it has a separate mind.
Speaker 4: And I find the point. And I see now you're interrupting.
Speaker 4: Can I answer? Can I answer the question?
Speaker 3: Good? Good?
Speaker 8: So I pointed out that just because there's personification, that
Speaker 8: doesn't imply that there's a separate mind, and I cited
Speaker 8: versus the Bible. Your response. Your response was that no,
Speaker 8: this is just personification in the Bible. So personification is
Speaker 8: okay in the Bible. That doesn't imply that the Bible
Speaker 8: stones have mines and that rivers have mines.
Speaker 4: That's fine. But if the bar does it, or if
Speaker 4: he do it?
Speaker 5: Your position is that question?
Speaker 3: You ask your position? Are you going to rant and
Speaker 3: rate because you want to eat up time? Stop attacking
Speaker 3: straw man in the palm? You will not find where
Speaker 3: it says, and the moon will come and intercede for
Speaker 3: those that look to it and venerated it. The headiates
Speaker 3: I cited is about the day of resurrection. It's about intercession.
Speaker 3: So I want to know what do you mean by
Speaker 3: personification when in those headiates it's talking about the surahs
Speaker 3: interceding with a law. Will there be intercession? Is that true?
Speaker 3: Will people need intercession before a lot? Is that true?
Speaker 3: So what exactly do you mean by personification? Because your
Speaker 3: appeal to the songs shows that you you don't understand
Speaker 3: what a personification is.
Speaker 7: Sim of a question, why did those scribes omits for
Speaker 7: the in the vulgate that Jesus doesn't to day or
Speaker 7: the hour when it addresses him as this son, speaking
Speaker 7: of the person, not speaking of natures.
Speaker 3: You said about scribes changing the text, so that is
Speaker 3: referring to the veracity of the scriptures. But even if
Speaker 3: we go with your very imbalanced approach to textual criticism,
Speaker 3: they must have done a very poor job because they
Speaker 3: left intact the Father loan. So even your argument buries
Speaker 3: you because whatever the scribes did, if they inserted the
Speaker 3: word son or omitted it, because there's a debate among
Speaker 3: textual critics, that passage still has the father loan, So
Speaker 3: they must have done a very poor job because they
Speaker 3: didn't remove the word alone, and they left Mark thirteen
Speaker 3: thirty two intact. Because I know what you're referring to,
Speaker 3: Matthew twenty four to thirty seven, the grace of the
Speaker 3: Lord Jesus Christ, Muhammed's God in judge, I'm now going
Speaker 3: to show the Muslims the dilemma they're in because I'm
Speaker 3: not debating a bark Erman who doesn't care about Muhammad.
Speaker 3: I'm debating Muslims or supposedly take the position of Muhammad.
Speaker 3: So I'm appealing to Muhammad because they believe in them.
Speaker 3: I pray they repent and turn away from him because
Speaker 3: he's under the feet of Jesus Christ. But coming to
Speaker 3: that point, any time a Jazz attacks the Bible, he
Speaker 3: shows that he's smarter than Muhammad, better than Muhammad, knows
Speaker 3: more than Muhammad. Why because the consistent teaching of the
Speaker 3: Koran and the sound narrations we're going to get into
Speaker 3: this is that Muhammad confirmed the very scriptures that the
Speaker 3: Jews and Christians had in their possession at his time.
Speaker 3: And the Koran says that Jesus confirmed the very scriptures
Speaker 3: between his hands at his time. Unless now he just
Speaker 3: wants to come up with some new set of scriptures,
Speaker 3: the only scriptures that would have been in existence time
Speaker 3: of Jesus up to Mhammad are the very scriptures that
Speaker 3: have variations, just like the Koran does. Let me just
Speaker 3: go through a slow versus for the sake of time,
Speaker 3: Chapter two, verses forty to forty four, Chapter two, verse
Speaker 3: eighty nine, Chapter two vers ninety one, Chapter two verses
Speaker 3: one oh one, Chapter two verse one thirteen, Chapter two
Speaker 3: verse one twenty one, Chapter two verse one thirty six,
Speaker 3: Chapter three, Verses three to four chapter three, verse fifty,
Speaker 3: Chapter four, verse forty seven, and then we go to
Speaker 3: chapter five and we ead verses forty three to forty eight,
Speaker 3: sixty six, six sixty eight aaghos and then the sound narration.
Speaker 3: So a Jazz make my day attack the Bible for
Speaker 3: variations because you show that you know more than Muhammad.
Speaker 3: That means you expose him as a false prophet. But
Speaker 3: if you believe in Muhammad, you have to accept the Bible.
Speaker 3: And he's still a false prophet because Muhammad was an Umi.
Speaker 3: He did not know that his kron contradicts the Bible. Now,
Speaker 3: the same arguments that they're gonn level against scripture, I
Speaker 3: will use to bury their belief in scripture because Ajazz
Speaker 3: is going to have to come clean and talk about
Speaker 3: the aharuf. What are they exactly? What are the seven
Speaker 3: aharuf over thirty five opinions given by scholars? And we
Speaker 3: know it cannot be dialectal because I'm going to show
Speaker 3: from a hadith in Bukhati that Olmar heard Hasham recite
Speaker 3: chapter twenty five of the Koran so differently he dragged
Speaker 3: him to Muhammad and Mahmad said, yes, I taught it
Speaker 3: to him this way, and Olmar recited, I taught the
Speaker 3: chapter to you this way. But they were both Croatians
Speaker 3: spoke the same dialects, so it cannot be dialectal differences.
Speaker 3: And then we're going to add to the problem the
Speaker 3: missing versus and surahs found in the codeses of Abullah
Speaker 3: ibn Masud uh by bin kapp two of the four
Speaker 3: men that Muhammad said learned the Koran from, He didn't say,
Speaker 3: say it ibbin Tabit. He said, learn the Koran from
Speaker 3: Abdilabin Masud Ouh by Binkop. And yet they contradicted each
Speaker 3: other and your Othmanic codex mosaf because they're missing versus
Speaker 3: and missing service. So much for the perfectly preserved chron
Speaker 3: But then add to insult injury, your oathman decided to
Speaker 3: burn copies of the Koran that were in conflict to
Speaker 3: the point that Muslims are about to come to blows.
Speaker 3: You don't come to blows over minor differences. And he
Speaker 3: had the Korans burned, and yet Abdilivan Masud refused, to
Speaker 3: the point that your sources say that Othman instigated a
Speaker 3: mob reaction against Abdlivered Masud, who got beat and his
Speaker 3: bones broken because he thought his knowledge of the kron
Speaker 3: was superior to your Saiyah ibn Tabit, who was an ansati.
Speaker 3: Then we add insult injury. What do you do with
Speaker 3: the different paiad? According to your Muslim sources, there were
Speaker 3: twenty five paiad by the time. If the mujah had
Speaker 3: came centuries later, three hundred years later after the death
Speaker 3: of your prophet, he's the one who standardized seven. By
Speaker 3: who's the forty? So my challenge you is show me
Speaker 3: anywhere in your Qur'an or your authentic tradition where your
Speaker 3: God sanctioned all these paidot and authorized Iban Mujahit to
Speaker 3: standardize seventh yat and these peot are not identical. And
Speaker 3: then I want you to explain to me what the
Speaker 3: ahruf are. And then we're going to go into the
Speaker 3: missing versus. And we're going to go into the missing that's.
Speaker 5: Time the.
Speaker 2: Text that Sam listed presupposed that you could go and
Speaker 2: confirm the new.
Speaker 5: Revelation with the old.
Speaker 2: So if I were to set up a hypothetical scenario
Speaker 2: of a sixth seventh century you are Christian hearing this message,
Speaker 2: hearing it for the first time.
Speaker 5: It's being revealed seventh century, I should say, and.
Speaker 2: We're told that we can go check it against the
Speaker 2: prior revelation if the prior revelation is corrupt. How foolish
Speaker 2: then that we're checking it against something corrupted. And in fact,
Speaker 2: the texts actually don't say that the prior revelation is corrupted.
Speaker 5: That's a made up thing that he's talking on.
Speaker 8: Later on, can you, either of you, explain to me
Speaker 8: how many Western scholars of the Bible believe that the
Speaker 8: Old Testament can be traced back to Moses versus how
Speaker 8: many believe that the Qur'an can be traced to the
Speaker 8: life of the prophet Muhammad.
Speaker 3: I have one better for you than Western scholars. I
Speaker 3: have your prophet. So if Western scholars are right, then
Speaker 3: join me in saying Muhammad is an antichrist, a false prophet.
Speaker 3: I appeal to your prophet. You appeal to Western scholars.
Speaker 3: And it depends on which Western scholars you want appeal to,
Speaker 3: because not all Western scholars believe the same thing and
Speaker 3: hold the same presuppositions. But I can also appeal to
Speaker 3: Western scholars. I don't think that your Qur'an as you
Speaker 3: have it, it's even from Othman. It's actually from Abdulmatic
Speaker 3: from the eighth centuries. But I did you better. I
Speaker 3: went to Muhammad. Why do you have a problem Muhammad?
Speaker 3: Why are you ashamed of Muhammad? He's your prophet, right,
Speaker 3: Your prophet tells me that the scriptures that Jesus had,
Speaker 3: that Torah is the uncorrupt revelation of God, perfectly preserved,
Speaker 3: and Jesus confirmed it. And since you believe the Torah
Speaker 3: was given him, your prophet did it for me. So
Speaker 3: if you give me ninety nine percent of us in scholarship,
Speaker 3: then either your prophet is wrong and admit he is,
Speaker 3: and I agree is but for other reasons right, or
Speaker 3: the scholars are own. You can't have your cake and
Speaker 3: eat it too. Why do you keep doing gihad against
Speaker 3: your progress?
Speaker 8: You'll find other prophets in the Bible talking about ritual purity.
Speaker 8: We acknowledge that these religions were originally from God. So
Speaker 8: you do find ritual purity in the Bible or in Christianity,
Speaker 8: But that doesn't mean that Islam copied these traditions. The
Speaker 8: source is the same, it's coming from the same God.
Speaker 5: If it's from the same God, then it's continuity.
Speaker 4: No, there's no no that continuity.
Speaker 5: How is that good from the same God you just
Speaker 5: said that, Yeah, it's the same source.
Speaker 4: Where did I say continuity?
Speaker 2: Well, if the religif the rituals came to our religion
Speaker 2: from the same God to yours content.
Speaker 8: You talked about punishment for blasphemy, punishment for adultery, execution
Speaker 8: in do you condemn that or do you think that
Speaker 8: that's that the morality? You might think that it's not
Speaker 8: applicable today, fine, but Jesus is still commanding that for
Speaker 8: that time, for a previous time. So do you think
Speaker 8: that is morally justified?
Speaker 3: All right?
Speaker 4: That's Sam, Sam, Now let.
Speaker 3: Me answer yeah. Now, if you read these laws in
Speaker 3: the context from which you're quoting, Unlike your prophet who
Speaker 3: didn't give any sign that his God was backing him up,
Speaker 3: why don't you read these statements in context, in the
Speaker 3: context you're a law who you admitted Jesus according to Crown,
Speaker 3: that was Allah, which you just admitted Jesus. So Jesus,
Speaker 3: as Mohammed z Allah is God. In the context of
Speaker 3: those passages, God appears to the nation visibly in a
Speaker 3: pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire
Speaker 3: by night, not only in front of the Israelites, but
Speaker 3: he also appears to the Egyptians, leaving them with no
Speaker 3: excuse to defy his commands. In other words, unlike your Ellah,
Speaker 3: the God of the Bible prove his existence. The God
Speaker 3: of the Bible set up a theocracy honor. The God
Speaker 3: of the Bible gave them ample proof not to doubt
Speaker 3: his existence, so that when they see him in the
Speaker 3: pillar of cloud, pilor fire by night, hear his voice
Speaker 3: audibly and see the signs, so that even the Egyptians
Speaker 3: saw the pillar of cloud Exodus fourteen nineteen to thirty one,
Speaker 3: as well as Joshua two eight to eleven. He gave
Speaker 3: the nations no excuse for defying him. So when God
Speaker 3: shows up, then he has every right to tell you
Speaker 3: how to live, and if you defy him, he has
Speaker 3: every right to take away your life, because he's the
Speaker 3: God over death and life. This is unlike your prophet,
Speaker 3: who could not provide any proof that God was speaking
Speaker 3: through him, who couldnot provide that his God even exists.
Speaker 3: All he did was he borrowed the collateral of the
Speaker 3: Jews and Christians, claimed to be a prophet like the
Speaker 3: prophets found in the Jewish Christian tradition. But when he's
Speaker 3: challenged to prove that God sent him, failed miserably. So
Speaker 3: you're comparing apples and pineapples. So if God shows up
Speaker 3: and I see and I know that he exists, he
Speaker 3: has every right to tell me what to do, and
Speaker 3: every right to inflict any punishment he deems fit, unlike
Speaker 3: your e law, who doesn't exist.
Speaker 2: You notice that when I brought up the line of
Speaker 2: argumentation that Daniel had in our debate, he didn't want
Speaker 2: to go there.
Speaker 5: He immediately said that I was that he was living.
Speaker 2: Rent free in my head, in other words, deflecting away
Speaker 2: from the fact that I've called him out.
Speaker 5: On an inconsistency.
Speaker 2: Because in that debate he was arguing for Islam having
Speaker 2: more continuity with the laws of the Old Testament. That
Speaker 2: doesn't suit his purpose here, and so he doesn't want
Speaker 2: to go to that and he has to deflect a
Speaker 2: wate live in your head rent free. No, that's because
Speaker 2: I just caught you in a double standard. You're using
Speaker 2: two different.
Speaker 5: Standards as you.
Speaker 8: He's ignorant of Mosaic law because the Jews who lived
Speaker 8: after the time of Cyanai, they were still bound by
Speaker 8: the Old Testament law.
Speaker 4: They were still bound by the Mosaic law. They were
Speaker 4: still killing the.
Speaker 8: Blasphemers, executing anyone who tempted you to worship idols.
Speaker 4: You have to execute them. That's what Jesus says.
Speaker 8: Those Jews didn't see pillars of clouds, they didn't see
Speaker 8: any miracles.
Speaker 4: They're living after the time of Sianai. So your biblical
Speaker 4: or your exit Jesus is completely off base.
Speaker 3: Daniel, to listen better. I know you're gonna embarrass yourself.
Speaker 3: You just destroyed your prophet again because if you read
Speaker 3: the Old Testament, God didn't stop at Sennai. And you're
Speaker 3: concusing me and not reading the Bible. I think you
Speaker 3: want to be an Umi like your prophet. Continue reading
Speaker 3: the rest of the Old Testament. God kept sending prophets
Speaker 3: with miracles and signs to keep ratifying and confirming his
Speaker 3: existence and that this is his law and he has
Speaker 3: a right to put to death whenever he wants. Because
Speaker 3: in one King's eighteen Elijah had a shout down with
Speaker 3: your spiritual ancestors because your God all love the chron
Speaker 3: is bail and there God showed up miraculously that your
Speaker 3: God is fake and Yahweh is true. So no, I
Speaker 3: am consistent with the Old Testament narrative. All throughout God
Speaker 3: shows up miraculously through prophets to confirm I am God.
Speaker 3: This is my convenant. I have a right to do
Speaker 3: with you as I see fit. Nothing for your prophet,
Speaker 3: the prophet of bail, because your God is a fake God,
Speaker 3: and the God revealed in Jesus is the true God.
Speaker 4: End of story.
Speaker 3: Bye bye Oh.
Speaker 7: The Bible of films of the prophet Muhammad is a
Speaker 7: true prophet. And first.
Speaker 3: I'm reading it.
Speaker 7: Yes it's false and it's fig but it says something's occasionallyvite,
Speaker 7: brooken cluck, come the right, look looking the clock. Can
Speaker 7: you write twice a y?
Speaker 5: That's good here?
Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah, But we wanted to be courteous and not
Speaker 8: bring this stuff up. But when Sam gets down and
Speaker 8: dirty and starts insulting the prophet Mohammed upon then we
Speaker 8: have to respond in kind. We have to insult Sam
Speaker 8: and point out his vile history and the kinds of
Speaker 8: filth that he puts on his channel.
Speaker 4: So we're just playing fair.
Speaker 8: You wanted to go down and dirty and these filthy language,
Speaker 8: then we're going to bring up the fact that a
Speaker 8: plumber basically stole your wife and you and you had
Speaker 8: certain charges against you.
Speaker 4: That's all.
Speaker 3: That's all condemn Now, as far as those accusations, let's
Speaker 3: assume those accusations are true. All you're proving is that
Speaker 3: I'm a sinner and faithful to the teachings of Christ.
Speaker 3: But I was acting like Muhammad because Mohammad did a
Speaker 3: lot of plumbing a lot of women other than his
Speaker 3: own wives. Because when he's sanctioned married women and selling
Speaker 3: them off as chattel, that's condemned by the God of
Speaker 3: Moses in Deuroonomy twenty one ten to fourteen. So Lord,
Speaker 3: forgive me for acting like Muhammad, because I know acting
Speaker 3: like Muhammad leads me to help, so I may have mercy.
Speaker 3: And as far as violence, well, it's your chron that
Speaker 3: says that you guys can beat your wives. So if
Speaker 3: you want to accuse me of that, more power to
Speaker 3: be so.
Speaker 7: Scholars do not say it chooses back to the very
Speaker 7: words of Jesus. To say it goes back to the
Speaker 7: ideas about what Jesus could have said. It's called the
Speaker 7: ebism of vox. So what Jesus could have said, there
Speaker 7: is no way to determine that Jesus actually said anything
Speaker 7: that is claimed in the New Testaments.
Speaker 3: When he talks about it, of Ox sees some of
Speaker 3: verbal that. Now he just destroyed the Koran even worse
Speaker 3: because when we come to the case of the Gospels,
Speaker 3: no Christian denies that human authors were used to communicate
Speaker 3: the words of Jesus in translation in Greek. And God
Speaker 3: can do that, so they're not going to quote exactly
Speaker 3: the same way in the target language. But what he
Speaker 3: doesn't tell you, and I did series on this, all
Speaker 3: lah who supposedly speaking the Koran, will repeat the same
Speaker 3: story with the same speech where they're Moses and the
Speaker 3: Egyptians or Chapan it believes, and a lah or a
Speaker 3: lot and he cannot get the details in the exact
Speaker 3: same way. He'll quote the same speeches and often various conflicting,
Speaker 3: contradictory reporting. So the kron itself is one huge apsisima vox,
Speaker 3: which is surprising because I thought Allah speaking and Allah
Speaker 3: knows everything and recalls speeches perfectly, So much for a
Speaker 3: law and him being all knowing. And then if we
Speaker 3: extend that to the Hadith, your own scholars admit that
Speaker 3: when it comes to even your authentic traditions. You have
Speaker 3: absisima vox of your prophet, not a sis verba. Moreover,
Speaker 3: if the Bible is not preserved, you prove Muhammed is
Speaker 3: an antichrist because he confirm all the scriptures. He didn't
Speaker 3: make any fuss about the variant readings because if he did,
Speaker 3: he would end up bearing your Koran, because he admit
Speaker 3: that the Koran did not come down in one mode. Aharuf,
Speaker 3: with your scholars till this day don't even know what
Speaker 3: that means. That's why you have over thirty five opinions
Speaker 3: about what the aharu are, which means, if you're consistent,
Speaker 3: you just destroyed the Koran. You destroyed your prophet, you
Speaker 3: destroyed your God stopp being a.
Speaker 4: Mist there's a debate.
Speaker 8: There's not no clarity in the Christian tradition because it's
Speaker 8: a contradiction, that's why. But we don't have the same
Speaker 8: problem in Islam. The Quran doesn't have a mind. So
Speaker 8: how does it contradict monotheism?
Speaker 4: No one, No one could explain that. No one could explain.
Speaker 2: Because there's a debate, it's not clear. Would that mean
Speaker 2: that because there's a debate in as long amongst all
Speaker 2: the schools. None of it's clear about the attributes.
Speaker 8: No one debates about Islam having multiple gods having attributes
Speaker 8: that I have multiple attributes. That doesn't mean I'm multiple
Speaker 8: people like is How is that? How does that contradict debate?
Speaker 4: Explain?
Speaker 5: You know, deblame you debates.
Speaker 8: I'm not saying that there are debates that there are
Speaker 8: no debates in Islam. There are debates in theology, so
Speaker 8: that was a bad argument. But there's debate in Christianity
Speaker 8: about the nature of God. There isn't that same debate
Speaker 8: about there's being three and one? What is the difference
Speaker 8: between the auther and do they have the same knowledge?
Speaker 8: Do they have the same will? Do they have the
Speaker 8: same knowledge? Do they have the same will? We don't
Speaker 8: have the same debate. We don't have that same debate
Speaker 8: in Islama.
Speaker 5: If there's debate that's not clear, that's a fallacy. You're
Speaker 5: a fallacy machine.
Speaker 4: That's fine.
Speaker 8: First of all, the Quran says that the Torah and
Speaker 8: the Engel, the scripture of the past has been distorted.
Speaker 8: They change it with their hands. Point number two is
Speaker 8: that he doesn't understand the difference between I'm versus hass
Speaker 8: In Arabic means general general statement versus hass a specific statement.
Speaker 8: So if I point to a book and I say
Speaker 8: this is a reliable book or this book confirms what
Speaker 8: I'm saying, I don't necessarily mean that they're every single
Speaker 8: line of that book I agree with, or every single
Speaker 8: line of that book is true. I'm making that making
Speaker 8: an I'm statement a general statement that the book is true.
Speaker 8: Sam can only have an uncharitable reading or an uncharitable
Speaker 8: interpretation of the prophet's words in that hadith if we
Speaker 8: assume that that hadith is authentic. So there is a
Speaker 8: difference of opinion on the authenticity of that hadith, and
Speaker 8: he knows it.
Speaker 3: Chapter two versus seventy eight seventy nine shows again what
Speaker 3: you've been doing in the Bible. You're doing to your
Speaker 3: own Koran, and you fall under the condemnation of three
Speaker 3: seventy eight. You not only have the audacity twist the scriptures,
Speaker 3: you have the audacity twist the Kuran. Anyone I'm challenging here,
Speaker 3: Let's do a debate on two seventy five cent and
Speaker 3: in your proof text, Mono Imano, let's debate it. Go
Speaker 3: read the context. I've done an extensive study and the
Speaker 3: Muslim commentators. It's talking about a particular group identified as
Speaker 3: Jews who wrote the book with their own hands. It
Speaker 3: doesn't say all Jews everywhere, let alone mention the Christians.
Speaker 3: You just butchered the Koran like you've been butchering the Bible.
Speaker 3: But I come back to butcher you. That's number one.
Speaker 3: Number two. You said that the hadith where Mohammad confirmed
Speaker 3: the Torah, that there are differences of opinion. Well, you
Speaker 3: probably didn't hear my recent responses to your friend Jake
Speaker 3: Ibin Tayim l Jozia, which I have quoted. And if
Speaker 3: you want to read Arabic because you think about reading Arabic,
Speaker 3: I'll let you read Arabic and parson it Iibin km
Speaker 3: l Josiah said, a group of scholars believe the Torah
Speaker 3: is uncorrupt. One of the evidences they gave is the
Speaker 3: hadith of Abu Dao would they quoted it, They didn't
Speaker 3: question its authenticity, and even El Albani said it's Hassan.
Speaker 3: But put Albani aside. Ibin km l Josiah for those
Speaker 3: of you who don't know, he's the disciple of Sekhol
Speaker 3: Islam Iban Tamia, his granddaddy when it comes to selfie anthropomorphism,
Speaker 3: and he says, these scholars quoted this HEADI. I guess
Speaker 3: they didn't know about the science of Adid classification. Thank God,
Speaker 3: I'll have sent you to correct them, because they said
Speaker 3: that when Muhammad saw virek Torah, he put it on
Speaker 3: the cushion. He goes, I believe in you, and him
Speaker 3: will revealed you. And then the scholars say he would
Speaker 3: not have said it if he thought that Toro was corupted.
Speaker 3: And among the people that ibink El Josiah lists as
Speaker 3: saying that tour and the Gospel are incorruptible are El
Speaker 3: Buchhi and Razi, which you probably don't care much about. Razzi,
Speaker 3: but Imam Elbu, the one who collected it almost said
Speaker 3: some technicians. According to you. That is now the final
Speaker 3: thing is if variant readings in validate the Bible, it
Speaker 3: varies your Koran because you have thousands of variant readings.
Speaker 3: But then you explained the way as kiat, But who
Speaker 3: authorized the karate? Show me one verse from your a
Speaker 3: law that said that Mujahad would come and standardise seven
Speaker 3: readings of the Koran. You make it up as you
Speaker 3: go along. The gig is up game over free religion.
Speaker 8: Now, to be fair, Mohammed pisp upon him also commands
Speaker 8: war in some contexts, but the difference is Muhammed piece
Speaker 8: behind doesn't command Muslims to kill women, children and babies.
Speaker 3: I want to thank Daniel for proving that Jesus has
Speaker 3: got a law, because according to the Koran in Chapter five,
Speaker 3: verse twenty to twenty six, it was his allaw that
Speaker 3: ordered Moses and Israelites tenter Kanaan and wipe it out. Also,
Speaker 3: it was his a law that ordered Saal, which the
Speaker 3: Koran erroneously calls Talu in chapter two, verse two forty
Speaker 3: six to two fifty one, where it was his Allah,
Speaker 3: whom he said was Jesus. So he just I met
Speaker 3: Jesus say Allah, Mohammed's God in judge in chapter two,
Speaker 3: verse two forty six to two fifty one, who ordered
Speaker 3: salt on these expeditions, and there's not a word of
Speaker 3: condemnation by his prophet saying that what Saal did to
Speaker 3: the livestock and children was an abomination to a law.
Speaker 3: That means he's better than his God and his prophet.
Speaker 3: And again I want to thank Daniel for proving that
Speaker 3: Jesus is Allah his God, because in Saihelbuhari volume four,
Speaker 3: number three fifty three asked me to read it because
Speaker 3: I don't want to end up my time there. In
Speaker 3: an authentic narration, his prophet refers to a prophet who
Speaker 3: went in an expedition jihad and the son stood still,
Speaker 3: and his prophet narrates the injunctions of Deranmi chapter twenty
Speaker 3: and also alludes to Joshua chapter seventy ten, so that
Speaker 3: means Jesus is a law his God, Muhammad's judge. Because
Speaker 3: according to your prophet, your God sanctioned these wars, so
Speaker 3: that means you're better than your.
Speaker 5: Before time began, there was the cube.
Speaker 4: We know not where it comes from, only that it
Speaker 4: holds the power to create worlds.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for watching. God bless