Please note: This episode was recorded before the war between Israel and Hamas began, which is why I didn't discuss it in my thoughts about the relationship between Islam and violence.
@@sethsuleiman4419 Yes! The Word of God and God are the same from our perspective. From a divine perspective, they are eternally engaged in an unbreakable relationship of love, and this is why we say that they are different persons, since only different persons can engage in a relationship of love. From our perspective, God is always One, because, for us, God is always that Love between the Father and the Son. And that love is ONE and is the reason why the other two persons are and live in each other: a perfect and eternal unity.
Anyone and everyone are welcome at any Catholic Church! Find the one nearest you and attend the Mass. I did that for almost a year before I entered RCIA. You can receive a blessing at Holy Communion as well, just cross your arms across your chest or place your hand on your heart when it's your turn and the priest will bless you. God bless
You should see if you have a traditional Latin mass parish near you (just google traditional Latin mass near me) not that there’s a problem with the novus ordo, but unfortunately the regular parishes can be very hit or miss these days. They are either really good or really bad. If you have a TLM then you can be pretty certain that the parish will give the best impression of what the church and faith is all about
I was a Baptist for almost 40 years, and I am in the process of entering the Catholic Church, in no small part to Trent’s amazing apologetics. Hear the arguments for the Catholic faith, and determine for yourself if they are true. I wish you happy searching!!!
Catholics are not Christians. You should visit a catholic church with caution. I recommend not attending a mass. If you understand what actually goes on, it is an abomination to God. - With love
I'm glad you and other CA apologists make these videos we can point people to. If I ever got into conversation with a Muslim about anything like this, I would have to send them to a video or CA article. I have a learned a lot from watching you and CA; but I don't feel confident enough in an evangelization situation to not make a critical mistake. You might only get one chance to be heard by someone.
It doesn't matter if you make mistakes. As long as you're a docile instrument of the Holy Spirit, is he who does the work. A good carver can still produce something good with blunt tools. Just try to stay as sharp as you can, and God will do the rest (probably when you're not there to see the results... He tends to do that kind of thing. Maybe he doesn't trust our pride too much... I wonder why...)
I see what you're saying. At the same time, I've seen interactions online where people aren't prepared to answer a question about the Faith and it makes the other side look correct. I think it was Trent who showed an exchange a while back where someone at March for Life was approached because they had a sign that said, "God is Pro Life." The opponent brought up the fact that God kills people in the bible in the flood, sodom/gomorah, etc. The guy was stymied and was made to look stupid in the video. The answer, of course, is that we believe God is only one who has the right to decide who lives and dies, and that he has perfect motivations to do so that can't be rooted in evil. But the marcher didn't come up with that. It's things like that which make me hesitate to say anything concrete in an exchange. I just point people to sites/videos that get it right. @@xaviervelascosuarez
To be blunt, citing a video or article isn’t a good idea. How often do people have time to engage source material? Usually, people don’t feel like watching videos or reading articles that challenge their views, especially if they last twenty minutes or more. Place the shoe on the other foot. If a Muslim or Buddhist recommend I watch an hour-long video, that would be a buzzkill for me. I don’t have time for that! You’re better off actually learning the material; learn how to summarize the points within the span of a couple of minutes. That’s more realistic and respects the time of the other person.
In an ideal world, you're right. And I'm spending all the time I can learning the material to become a better apologist. But in situations where I don't know the answer, I think it's better to send them to someone who does. After all, in this hypothetical conversation, they were asking me for information anyway. So if they're taking the time to get info from me and I don't have it, perhaps they will take time to look at a video or article. If they're not truly interested in learning more about the subject, it doesn't really matter what I know or say, anyway; they won't listen to me or Trent Horn. So I'm not saying that point people to the internet every time. Most of the time, I can answer people's questions, as I don't talk with scholars. But if talking to someone who seems to be more well-read than I am, I have to point them to someone better than myself. From your point of view, it sounds like I should avoid all evangelization until I'm as good as Trent.@@zekdom
@@xaviervelascosuarez Your comment is the closest to the term "evangelization" used here, which means to personally testify the good news of the Gospel and the love of God to other people. Apologetics is just a "defense" of the faith, which, of course, one already needs to have.
Also, I think these Christians were arguing why Islam is a problem not just to other Christians but I think they were trying to appeal to non Christians and others as well. Atheists and Agnostics aren't going to be persuaded by truth claims from Christians.
Showing that Muhammad was a false prophet and so everything in the Quran reflects medieval Arabian human sentiments is a very good way to show non-Christians they should not become Muslim.
@@TheCounselofTrent You totally missed the goals of this discussion which was to build bridges so in effect proving that Mohammed was a false prophet is irrelevant So instead their focus was to point out why Christianity cannot coexist in a society with Islam. And the number one reason for them was because of the violence and the apostasy laws. Trent you need to get out of your apologetics mindset and try to see things from the intended framework that way you can give critics that are more relevant and understanding. I say again you may be able to convert some people with your apologetics mindset but you're going to forget to warn people about the dangers of Islam as a parasitic mind virus If you allow it to grow unabated.
@@HodgePodgeVids1 It depends on the goal. In this case, the goal is to determine if these two sides can build bridges. Whether Mohammad was a true prophet or not should not influence the possibility of this. However, the possibility is affected if the other side aims to annihilate you.
You are always so calm and thoughtful in your debates, which I think speaks volumes to the fact that what you are saying is the truth, no need for anger. Thanks!
it is about time that Elitist Muslim Ubermenschen got into these debates. They have a lot to contribute to counter this false religion called cat-holic-ism.
it also calls for the deaths of all jews, christians, and unbelievers. mass extermination to the point where everyone converts to being a muslim or is feared into pretending they are muslim
@@_ready__This is mere diplomatic niceties, anyone with a moments common sense will know that they deny the Trinity so we shall all carry on regarding them as Unitarians whether they call themselves Christian or not, or we will regard the as an Unholy Terror when they're in stabby mode, and avoid.
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ جَاءَتْ سَهْلَةُ بِنْتُ سُهَيْلٍ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ فَقَالَتْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنِّي أَرَى فِي وَجْهِ أَبِي حُذَيْفَةَ الْكَرَاهِيَةَ مِنْ دُخُولِ سَالِمٍ عَلَىَّ . فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ " أَرْضِعِيهِ " . قَالَتْ كَيْفَ أُرْضِعُهُ وَهُوَ رَجُلٌ كَبِيرٌ فَتَبَسَّمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ وَقَالَ " قَدْ عَلِمْتُ أَنَّهُ رَجُلٌ كَبِيرٌ " . فَفَعَلَتْ فَأَتَتِ النَّبِيَّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ فَقَالَتْ مَا رَأَيْتُ فِي وَجْهِ أَبِي حُذَيْفَةَ شَيْئًا أَكْرَهُهُ بَعْدُ . وَكَانَ شَهِدَ بَدْرًا . It was narrated that 'Aishah said: “Sahlah bint Suhail came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I see signs of displeasure on the face of Abu Hudhaifah when Salim enters upon me.” The Prophet said: “Breastfeed him.” She said: “How can I breastfeed him when he is a grown man? The Messenger of Allah smiled and said: “I know that he is a grown man.” So she did that, then she came to the Prophet and said: “I have never seen any signs of displeasure on the face of Abu Hudhayfah after that.” And he was present at (the battle of) Badr. Sunan Ibn Majah 1943
These discussions are a good thing because they motivate people to really think about what they believe (especially muslims) and at the same time as catholics we are even more affirmed in the Truth. Every time Trent and other catholic apologists really dig into it to produce valid counter arguments against non-catholic apologists I am amazed at how clear and solid our Faith is.
The reality says otherwise honey, it's the Christians who start doubting their scriptures when they learn about Islam. And in the other hand, the small percentage of Muslims who leave the religion 99.9% of them become atheists. Who in the right mind would believe that God was a human 🤦🏻♀️
The claim that Christians used to do violence being compared to Muslim violence is wildly inaccurate since the Qur'an literally instructs followers to commit violence whereas the "Christians" that committed violent acts, were doing it of their own accord since the Bible doesn't call for violence. It (the Bible) does document violence in the Old Testament, committed by the Jews as called for by God at that time, but it does not call for (Christian) followers to do so.
@@hamba458 SAHIH MUSLIM BOOK 41, HADITH NUMBER 6985. Chapter : The Last Hour would not come until a person would pass by a grave and wish that he should have been the occupant of that grave because of this calamity. Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. SAHIH MUSLIM 22 BOOK 1 HADITH 36 t has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
@@hamba458no part. It literally instructs the opposite: As Shura:36-37 “Whatever pleasure you have been given is no more than a fleeting enjoyment of this worldly life. But what is with Allah is far better and more lasting for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord; who avoid major sins and shameful deeds, and forgive when angered;” As Shura:40-44 “The reward of an evil deed is its equivalent. But whoever pardons and seeks reconciliation, then their reward is with Allah. He certainly does not like the wrongdoers. There is no blame on those who enforce justice after being wronged. Blame is only on those who wrong people and transgress in the land unjustly. It is they who will suffer a painful punishment. And whoever endures patiently and forgives-surely this is a resolve to aspire to.” The part which deceptive people love to quote is Al Baqarah:191. I challenge readers to read within context from 190 to 194 to clarify conditions. Muslims are forbidden from transgressing. But a Muslim can retaliate against zalimun (cruel people) who are oppressing and humiliating, although it is preferred to be patient and forgive.
with the coming of Christ even war of defense is gone. but it is all about natural desire to survive that Christians took up arms to defend themselves. in Islam, however, chapter 9 of the quran even commanded violence and war.
The question of the discussion was "building bridges between Christians and Muslims." When Robert Spencer was asked what his biggest problem with Islam is, he did not answer "Why am I not Muslim" but "What's the biggest obstacle to a bridge between Muslims and Christians?" Spencer answered "The biggest obstacle to that bridge is that the Muslims want to kill us." To which the Muslim interlocutors responded "yes." So I think that "they want to kill us" was a great answer to PBD's question. And that is what your average person will remember from the debate. Sure there are better foundational objections, like the Surah 5:47 Dilemma or the Created vs Uncreated Quran, but in terms of obstacles to building bridges, "Fundamentalist Muslims want to kill us" is probably number 1.
The problem with that answer is if one finds the Quranic objections to Christian doctrine is compelling, then the answer is to "become muslim". The muslims claimed that too during wars in the Marawi Siege in the Philippines = "They want to kill us (the muslims) so that's why we fight." Therefore whatever "bridge" you think is affable, you can reason anything in your position that you are at a disadvantage with and they can only claim "then be muslim then". If your questions arrive at the point where being "muslim" is the endpoint, then you have failed. You must absolutely cut the head of the snake, not equip yourself with more armor assuming to be bit.
@@user-ow9zi8uc8gThe discussion was not originally about whether you should be Christian or Muslim. It was an attempt to build bridges, specifically alliances against modern secularism and degeneracy. There are plenty of groups I disagree with that I can work with towards a common cause. I have reasons I am not one of them, and can debate why. Robert Spencer is also clearly the same, as shown by him working with Protestants and atheists for example, even though he obviously disagrees with both. Consider, for example, a discussion between pro-life Catholics and pro-life Baptists on building bridges to work towards their common cause. Not about why the Catholics aren't Baptists or vice versa, but the biggest problem in working together. Catholics may say the congregationalist Baptisr model makes it hard to organize and coordinate, or perhaps the anti-Catholic rhetoric ruffles feathers. Not foundational objections to Baptists, but obstacles to working together. "They want to kill us" is not one of them. It is for Fundamentalist Muslims. Again, I agree that there are better foundational objections, better answers to the question "Why aren't you Muslim?" like I listed. And again, if the question is instead "What's the biggest obstacles for to working with Muslims without becoming a Muslim," the answer "They want to kill us" is somewhere close to the top.
@@user-ow9zi8uc8g No, problem with that answer: Islam is a total Apostasy of Rabbinic Judaism and was given to Muhammad by a jinn: Islam doesn't have any good evidence and Satan's objective is to destroy mankind: Islam is following his desires! That's why Muslims R spreading Islam by violence and actually aren't going to Stop at ridding the Jews from Israel: they want world domination as per : Hamas , iSIS and All other Muslim terrorist groups. The more Islam attacks the Jews and Christians the sooner Christ returns and destroys Islam and their supporting countries. Becoming Muslim is becoming an Apostate for any Jew or Christian ! No way Jose !
@@user-ow9zi8uc8g those muslims took other muslims and used them as human shields along with non-muslims and used their beloved mosques as cover causing them to become military targets. They also have elections there and that region was part of an autonomous muslim majority region called Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in muslim Mindanao. We want to delete them? It's the other way around. Tf are you talking about? I'm from the Philippines, cut your bs
Good Vidéo. Most of the arguments presented by Trent can only be used if one is catholic. It would be tough to use those as a protestant. This is why the living magisterium makes more sense than anything else.
“Okay spiritually” is ambiguous and not what the Vatican II documents say about Muslims. Lumen Gentium: “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” Note that the Church says nothing more than that they are included in the God’s plans and that Muslims have some teachings in common. Notre Aetate: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is ‘the way, the truth and the life’ (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2Co 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life.” The Church forever proclaims Christ as our salvation, yet we may also acknowledge those good things those who do not follow Christ believe and practice. While the Muslims deny many truths, we can admire their dedication and zeal.
@@thecasualchemist2511 There are no teachings of Islam that has anything to do with Christianity. Islam is a false religion. Women are treated like third class citizens. And they say a pedophile (which is what you call a 50 year old man that has sex with a nine year old girl) is the perfect man. Shudders… Plus, there’s that thing about **four witnesses** needed to prove a rape
For what it’s worth, I lived like 200 yards from that shooting in North Carolina, and it was over a parking space. As ridiculous as it sounds, parking was a very contentious issue in that community because guests were always parking in our spots, and the guy had apparently become obsessive about it to the point where the towing company wouldn’t respond to his calls anymore.
Sharia law is not a side issue. It comes directly from their religious texts. You know the Bible does not leave us standing orders to behead or rape or commit violence or even taxes on non-Christians. Records of past wars are not standing orders. If anything the first problem you adress is really with the question. Someone's biggest problem askes them to weigh multiple factors and make a choice that appears to make other problems less bad instead of differently bad. Beheadings are pretty bad. Legalized sex-slavery is pretty bad. A fair hearing of Islam's violence and it's legality in Islam is not something Christians are vulernable.
It's also important that Islam doesn't merely _permit_ war and sex slavery. Under the hadith tradition, Muhammad commanded his followers to fight Holy War to get to heaven and commanded them to not refrain from sex with their slaves. Islam explicitly commands the ongoing practice of these heinous acts
The Bible Promises Abraham and Hagar he would save Ishmael and give him huge nation that would last for all time. You really think you can prevent Gods promise from coming to pass? And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation Come, lift up the boy and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make a great nation of him
Huh. Didn't Daniel advocate for child marriage in his debate with InspiringPhilosophy? Like it's not even an offhand comment. It's the meat of his argument.
Before 1917 the church allowed 12-year-old girls and 14-year-old boys to get married to someone no matter how much older. A 12-year-old is only 3 years older than Aisha when she had sex with Muhammad at 53. According to the church, it would been okay if she was 12 with a 53-year-old. Even though Aisha didn't have a period yet she could have had a period at 9. A 9 and 12-year-old are still going through puberty. That is hypocritical to say it's not okay for a 9-year-old but it's okay for a 12-year-old. Even though the church raised the minimum to 14 for girls and 16 for boys they still have no age restriction. Meaning a 14-year-old and a 50-year-old could marry. Even if it doesn't happen often the problem is the church allows it to.
Cant we, as catholics, claim that the Old Testament commandments dont bind us the same way they did jews at the time, since it was God preparing his people for his coming and once he came were to follow Jesus' rules?
Half-way right. Your wording is a little bit loose, but you pretty much have the idea. Some instructions in the OT were limited-time-only instructions. The trick is to know which ones were intended by God to expire. The solution to that problem is official Church teaching. For example, the OT instructs God's people to offer burnt sacrifices very frequently, but we don't have to do that anymore because there was one final and ultimate blood sacrifice, and we know this because the Church has the correct relationship with God to have that information.
The problem with jihad is not that religious violence is per se bad. But it's that offensive jihad was prescribed in the final major sura of the Qur'an and is the final marching order of Muhammad. Biblical violence is always read in light of God's commands to love our neighbor and, later, love even our enemies. But the Qur'an has no mitigation on its prescriptions of violence.
Islam mitigates violence a lot, even more so than Christianity does. "Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair." - 60:8 "Fight in the cause of Allah against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors." - 2:190 "It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forbade the killing of women and children." - Sahih Muslim 1744b
@@lygun5581 All of that is abrogated by the end. In either case muslim "mitigation" comes down to stuff like continual ritual humiliation in exchange for not getting beheaded.
@@lygun5581 suras 60 and 2 were revealed before sura 9 which abrogated both. Traditional Islamic scholarship has always treated jihad as having three stages. Sura 2 is stage 2 where Muhammad waged defensive jihad. Sura 9 is stage 3 where Muhammad waged offensive jihad. All the defensive verses were revealed when Muhammad's army was still small and weak. But at the end of his life, he launched unprovoked raids and massacred the Jews and pagans.
@@sivad1025 Both of you are wrong. Neither 60:8 nor 2:190 are abrogated according to the vast majority of scholars including Ibn Katheer. Only a minority of scholars hold the belief that those verses are abrogated. The Islamic concept of abrogation(al-naskh) isn't as one-dimensional as "the new verses replace the old verses". We don't believe in covenants like Christians do. While it's true that Islam grew a huge part due to conquest(just like Christianity), saying that Muhammed went around attacking and massacring innocent people is just false. The Muslims were still attacked from every direction and being persecuted during the Meccan period. And I can show multiple Hadiths and sayings where the killing of non-combatants was strictly forbidden by the Muslims.
@@lygun5581There is a key difference between Christian and Muslim conquest expansion. There’s a reason why our side is valid to use but yours isn’t. Islam was originally built because of violent conquest, Christian started via solely debate and peaceful martyrdom. The Christian conquests-of South America-happened over 1000 years after the birth of Christianity. Both are bad, but one only says something about the Spanish Empire and the values of Medieval Christians while the other one says something about the structural integrity of Islam.
A Cambridge University Professor of Islamic studies and a devout Muslim himself, Abdal Hakim Murad, has said: "The jurists reached the conclusion that Islam requires consistent military action against unbelieving peoples if no treaty exists with them". There are, he notes, some exceptions to this rule but generally it holds. Islam does in fact teach that the caliph has an obligation to expand the boundaries of Islamic rule through warfare and this is why Islamic rule spread all over the world. Islam conquered North Africa, Spain, the Middle-East, Byzantium, India, and so on. This was not accomplished through 'peace' but through bloody warfare.
Muslims when questioned about Islam’s faults often resort to saying Christianity has faults too but it’s so disingenuous because it assumes we’re on the same playing field and overlook dimension and scale of such flaws. Also when the flaws comes from the ideology is much different than when it comes from flawed individuals
This is a note for Kyle/The Distribution team, but it likes like any of your podcast episodes older than about #250 are no longer found on spotify, i dont know if thats a limit on spotify, or a conscious decision on your part, or a problem with my phone. But you reference older episodes to check out on occasion which I can no longer find on either youtube or spotify. Just throwing it out there, love your vids and love to Kyle and his family
Looks like it’s a problem on your end perhaps. I’m seeing all the uploads still available. Not everything has been uploaded to Spotify, and not everything has been numbered. So if you’ve made it back that far, looks like you’re caught up! -Kyle
@@TheCounselofTrent Do a blog about the relationship between false rabbinical talMUDism / & judeo-bolshevist anarchist Nazionism....& their links to violence. You can add how Christ said in the bible on the Holy Land ( present day occupied semetic~ gentile Christian Palestine ) how that territory belongs to the followers of his new covenantal law ( they being the Catholic apostles & disciples)! The talMUDists goyim got a circa 600 year head start on violence vs Islam when they killed God & his innocent followers.
Yes, an Arab christian apologist like Sam Shamoun would slay them, as know muslims tendency to lie and mislead as the Koran advises them to (Taqiyya). Sam's speed of precise response is too good.
@@ninjason57 There'd be no dialogue cuz sam shamoun doesn't know how to behave, he just yells, gets upset, then starts cussing people's mothers. Depraved and abhorrent individual. I can't believe he's someone christians actually look up to as a follower of christ.
Trent's last point applies to Protestantism's claims as well in opposition to the Apostolic Church. "We have the Bible alone, the "right" of private judgement, etc."
@@hggfhh4449 How many have already. Even a child can challenge his stupid misconceptions about Islam. And even a child can tell you the Catholic church is false. Worship God alone. Not bread.
@@hggfhh4449 nope. Only the uncorrupted revelation of the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel (singular). Not the bible that you have today which is replete with additions and subtractions. For eg. The Pericope Adulterae. Does the Catholic Church confirm the bible though? At one point it said that the bible sanctioned the death penalty citing Ananias and Sapphira. Now it says it does not.
My wife is a convert from Islam to Christianity while she still lived in Nigeria, and eventually Catholicism when she met me in the US. My inlaws are all still Muslim. Please pray for their conversation.
Daniel defends child marriage in the modern world. Did you watch his debate with Inspiring Philosophy? Why anyone would give this creep airtime after that I don't know. @@stcolreplover
There is also the problem (for Muslims) of the early descriptions of how the Quran was revealed to Muhammad and his own descriptions of the affect it had on him. They are very troubling and problematic for Muslims to explain. I hope that there are many debates between Catholics (and other Christians) and Muslims, done respectfully and with a seeking of understanding and truth. Thanks Trent.
I disagree. It is actually Christian Prince. You should watch his videos, he goes live for hours on end debating Muslims. He is Arab himself and understands Arabic. He shows all the Quran verses relevant to the discussion using English and Arabic translations from official Government websites. He also shows Hadiths and Tafsirs in Arabic and English. He is not for the faint of heart, you people will truly see what it means to be in a spiritual battle between Christians and Muslims in his videos and streams. Robert Spencer is a former Catholic turned Eastern Orthodox (as of this writing), and has written articles in Catholic Answers. They know each other in an institutional level I'm sure. I don't feel Robert Spencer is up for it, but that is my opinion.
@@user-ow9zi8uc8gThere are two problems with Christian Prince: His knowledge of Islam is very great, but his knowledge of his own faith is significantly less than what it ought to be. As well, he has a bit of an issue with insulting.
Sam Shamoun is another great opponent of islam and he doesn't hold back. He reminds me of st Nicholas who was a fearce defender of the faith Also, he's on the journey to becoming a catholic which is awesome
@@jeremias-serus the first statement is definitely untrue I am sure he has more knowledge in the bible than you do I've watched hundred of his videos, maybe even all of them, and the way he defends Christianity is not that of a layman. and when did Christians become so soft that they can't take insults? christian prince doesn't insult people who are genuine in their responses most of the muslims who call him use taqiya if insulting is wrong, then you should also condemn the insults in the bible as well
Robert Spencer left the Catholic Church because he could not accept the Pope's remark on Islam several years ago. Spencer said that this is a serious error taught by the Church and thus nullifies the doctrine of infallibility and invalidates the Church's claim as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The more I've looked into Islam, the more it seems to fall apart and look like a clearly man-made fiction. Christianity is backed by historicity and philosophy that are leagues ahead of Islam.
@@killerbee6484 I've watched Muhammad Hijab. All the guy does is yell when his opponent is trying to form an argument lol. Very annoying and not convincing.
I always find it interesting that a common Muslim response to any objection to Islam is basically "Oh yeah? Well you do it, too!" or some other variation of the "Tu Quoque Fallacy". It doesn't get called out enough, because it's not a response or rebuttal to the objection, it's actually an acknowledgement of the objection.
No. It's not a tu quoque fallacy to ask whether the proposition you say is wrong is actually wrong in the first place by your own parameters. Tu quoque is saying I'm doing a bad thing but you're doing a bad thing too. We are saying we are not doing a bad thing (punishing apostates) but why do YOU think it's bad?
@@hamba458 Because we're not doing the same thing. There's a distinctiveness from the religious consequences and the secular ones. Also none of it is part of the dogmatic claim of Christianity at all. You judge the world by your own condition, but there are people's that have learnt not to treat others like animals.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Please your fake book of acts says God killed two people for lying and not giving all their money to Peter. So let's not talk about punishment for apostasy
I’m not religious, but I have a lot of respect for this man. One of the most reasonable christian apologists I’ve listened to. Keep doing your thing Trent!
This has actually really shaken my Protestant faith. I criticized Islam for making Jesus out to be an incompetent preacher who couldn't establish the true faith. But then I turned around and used the exact same arguments to rebut Catholic doctrines like baptismal regeneration or the authority of the Bishop. Plus, John Calvin stole the Islamic argument for the canon
@@sivad1025Exactly! You’re waking up! Essentially you’re (Protestant mindset) Theology is God/Jesus couldn’t establish the true faith till the 15th/16th century till Martin Luther came along and read scripture and was like “nope, don’t like this, must not be from God” and preached differently from his point of view. Didn’t Muhammad do the same?
@@sivad1025 Please explain... I'm not sure how an argument can be used successfully against one thing and fail at another? "But then I turned around and used the exact same arguments to rebut Catholic doctrines like baptismal regeneration or the authority of the Bishop." Kindly explain.
*starting the video as background noise* 0:20 “Don’t get attached to the set behind me.” *glances to see what set looks like* Too late, now I’m attached! Thanks, Trent. 😂 As to the main theme of this episode, it is sort of funny to me to have Protestant Christians go up against Muslims and not have a very strong foundation to build. There is of course the low hanging fruit one can pick to criticize Islam with, but a smart Muslim will have looked into Protestant objections to Catholicism and be able to tear down the Protestant’s argument because they can just as easily point out seemingly contradictory passages and Church Fathers who support their Islamic views. With Catholicism, there is a more robust understanding of how Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition supports and shapes our believes while the Protestant Scripture-only focus makes it relatively easy to knock down. Which is kinda similar to Islam since they place a high value on the Quran, but allow some traditions and leaders to shape their understanding as well. Personally, I’m tired of Christians being told we can’t criticize MODERN violence carried out by Muslims with expressed Islamic views because of the Crusades. For one, the Crusades were the result of Islamic aggression in the regions against Christians and Jews, so the Crusaders was a defensive war. Later battles and scrimmages (such as the Siege of Vienna and the Battle of LePanto) were the result of invading enemy forces into Europe which the Church supported because of the relationship of Religion and State at the time. Instances of current Christian violence is not very common, is usually between groups for reasons beyond religion (such as territory, resources, etc), and/or is not condoned by the religious authorities. It’s a very weak argument from the Islam side, but Christians are usually too scared and hesitant to push back against the narrative for fear of being labeled and cancelled.
Did the Father send His only begotten Son to die for our sins? I hear this from Christians all the time. If the answer is yes, how can the Son be equal to the Father?
@@Gargoyle1958 As far as I understand, Christians believe God is one in 3 persons. They also believe God is eternal- without a beginning or end. Does this mean the Holy Spirit & Jesus are eternal?
Why? Hijab shown himself to be nothing than a Muslim fanatic when talking to Jordan Peterson or Mikhaila Peterson. And they don't even have the knowledge or interest to refute Islam faith.
So basically his whole argument is “our biblical values and rules change according to time” so it’s very convenient that your whole values and rules is accordance to liberal secular modernity of today 🤦🏾♂️ 13:58 did he say violence in the bible “God apparently commands”? So Richard Spencer was right there certain Christians and religious Jews that believe certain violent passages are “fables” mmmm 🤔 As soon as started discussing Trinity and never doctrines of the Trintiy you lost me there. But then again Christian’s do say “Trinity is a mystery” whatever that means. Alhamdulillah for Islam we submit our will to the one *AND ONLY* creator Allah Also if you do believe God commanded those violent acts in the bible and not “apparently”, is it “inherently” wrong? Can’t wait for the reply’s 🍿
Trent, I’d like you to do a whole episode for the “everything can change, drag queen story hour/ LGBTQ acceptance.” This would be great considering what is going on with the church. As Catholics we need to understand this. I think your being entirely to charitable on the violence, there are a LARGE portion of Muslims who support death. Not showing the conversation between them starting both Christian talkers should be put to death for apostasy and speaking against Muhammad. You make intelligent arguments, however highlighting their insane behavior must be shown.
@@M-gv7di The point in the video when the Muslim apologist pushed back talking about trans and SSA and modernization of biblical thinking… I’m talking about the Synod, and the controversies. If you don’t know your probably not paying attention.
@@tc9459 I’m not sure where you’re coming from which is why I am asking you these questions. The Church isn’t changing its moral teachings and the purpose of the synod isn’t to change them. The primary task of the synod” is to “refocus our gaze on God, to be a Church that looks mercifully at humanity.” “We do not want to make ourselves attractive in the eyes of the world, but to reach out to it with the consolation of the Gospel, to bear witness to God’s infinite love in a better way and to everyone,” -Pope Francis in the opening homily I will say that there is a lot of confusion about what’s happening because of ‘trad’ online influencers that are bearing false witness for clicks and media outlets that are willfully distorting things. Michael Lofton at Reason and Theology has made some good content on whats happening right now
They were asked what they saw as the biggest problem with Islam and they answered, why do you see a problem with that. They are both under a death sentence so it was appropriate. Reasoning with them is not going to work. You need to not put so much faith in the power of your argument. Don't think if I just explain they will be convinced. You aren't Muslim therefore whatever you say is nothing to them.
The goal isn't to convince the Muslims but the audience. The Muslims got the better over the christians here and you can see it in the response of the apologetic world
They will not be convinced but their listeners might. It is important not to be selfish in your own answers and only see your position in a debate. Debaters not only have the responsibility to say the truth, they have to claim it too. Those that do not, will fall. Whether you are wrong or not is as important as whether you are seen as wrong or not in a debate. Not by your debater, but by your audience.
@@angeryitalymanQuran 5:119 says, "Thereupon Allah will say, 'This day truthfulness shall profit the truthful. For them are Gardens beneath which rivers flow. There they will abide for ever. Allah is well- pleased with them, and they well-pleased with Allah. That indeed is the mighty triumph.' Sorry, there is no trinity in this verse. Believe me, there is no trinity taught in the quran, 100% none. You hv made a false claim that in the quran, there is trinity of mary, son and father.
@@sethsuleiman5104He is referring to this that the Quran claims about Christians: "Those who say, “Allah is one in a Trinity,” have certainly fallen into disbelief. There is only One God. If they do not stop saying this, those who disbelieve among them will be afflicted with a painful punishment." Al-Mai'dah 5:73 "And ˹on Judgment Day˺ Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you ever ask the people to worship you and your mother as gods besides Allah?” He will answer, “Glory be to You! How could I ever say what I had no right to say? If I had said such a thing, you would have certainly known it. You know what is ˹hidden˺ within me, but I do not know what is within You. Indeed, You ˹alone˺ are the Knower of all unseen." Al-Mai'dah 5:116 The first verse identifies that Christian's believe in the Trinity, the second verse identies the persons of the Christian Trinity as Allah, Jesus, and Mary. This is further supported by 5:75 which states that both Jesus and Mary ate food and therefore were not divine.
Surah almaidah 5:73-75 and 5:116 clearly is talking about the "trinity" that suppously people believed although there is no evidence of that. Sam Shamoun and Christian prince have talked about it too
Trent is one of the best debators I've seen, and I respect and look up to him very very much but I don't think he'll do very well against muslim apologists, except maybe shabir ally. Trent uses sound Logic and reasoning whereas almost all of the muslim apologists today twist Logic and reasoning to suit their position whenever convenient, It reminds me of an old saying, Debating a muslim apologist is like playing chess with a pigeon, the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit all over the board and claim victory, It's Impossible to use civil Logic and Reasoning against an opponent who has none. Right now the best debators against muslim Apologists are David Wood And Sam Shamoun, simply because they Understand the muslim mindset very well, which I'm afraid I'm not sure how much Experience trent has in that department, He's too Nice!!
Yeah to debate Muslim apologists you really need to know Islam ,stay rational and be militant with staying on point, otherwise they’ll just lie about Islam and deflect to Christianity without skipping a beat.
@@hamba458 Thomas Aquinas would Laugh at you considering his choice words on muhammad and islam, google them, but then again you know jack shit about Aquinas or Islam
@@hamba458 So because Aquinas used 1 argument originating from a Muslim, that means? Aquinas also used Aristotelian logic, him & Plato were pagans. Does that mean Greek mythology isn’t dum? As the original guy said, Muslims tend to not use logic. You proved him. Did you also forget he’s the same guy who exposed Islam & Muhammad’s lustfulness?
The Muslim apologists should explain how 'revelation' in the Quran consists of numerous contradictions, scientific errors and hate verses against unbelievers and people of other faiths all of which are believed and implemented even today by most Muslims He should have explained what revelation means to Muslims
With all due respect, Trent, you should be doing your best to present these arguments in actual debates with Muslims. While Rashid and Richard may have made these errors, at least they put themselves out there. It wouldn't be difficult to go on Modern Day Debate or some other analogue and try your hand. This elephant in the room should be the priority, not the Christian denominational feuding Catholics get caught up in. No Protestant is literally butchering other Christians like what is happening in Nigeria etc.
One point that I will contend with and completely rebut in its paradigm is that violence, especially that sanctioned by God or for the good of his flock is NOT an evil, and the absolute aversion to violence and apologetic attitude towards it by modern Christians proves time and again to be one of our ultimate weaknesses in these debates. We live in a society so far removed from the natural order of the world that even the thought of action, whether defensive or aggressive, makes people uneasy. The world outside the West's paradigm does not view things this way as life for them continues much the same as it always has, fraught with peril and conflict. We have to face as Catholics the fact that in times when many of our nations were filled with piety the church actuvely encouraged the faiths defense, by force when it was necessary. This does not mean it was always just, but actions such as repelling invading heathens, crushing heresies, or the execution of schismatics were instrumental in maintaining order for the wider flock of Christendom. We cannot criticize fairly Islam for its religious warfare and efforts to maintain the faith when we ourselves did the same; and should be proud of it. There is little to apologize for or be ashamed of.
The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians understand that God is love. It is the self-giving love between the father and son that generates the holy-spirit. Islam views Allah as the inscrutable and unapproachable.The notion of God taking the form of man is anathema to Muslims. As Catholic Christians we believe that a divine logos governs the universe.
this is a great video for any Christian. the muslims know a lot and have made my faith stronger. hope i can plant those seeds of our faith when we dialogue. ❤
You should just follow the bible and cover your head (1 Cor 11:4) and be subservient to your husband (Eph 5:23). Your religion does not permit you to teach other men on religion (1 Tim 2:12)
If you want to learn more about Islam, follow C-I-R-A I-ntern-at-ional, Pfa-nderFil-ms, R-ob C-hristian, I-slam Critiq-ued, Reason-ed An-swers and Da-nie|Apo|oge-tics etc. (Sorry for the dashes, they’re necessary)
@@hamba458 Also Btw, *Quran 2:223* calls Muslim’s husband’s wives pr-perty. Which is why if they refuse to sleep, Allah will kurse her all night (Sahih al-Bukhari 3237, Sahih Muslim 1436 c, etc.) It is obligatory for them to give s-x when he asks or else her husband isn’t entitled to support her anymore (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Section m5.1 & m11.9). She must comply if she’s baking at the oven, or better, if she’s riding a camel🤦♂️ (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1160 & Sunan Ibn Majah 1853)
@@hamba458 And don’t forget how women can be o-wn-ed by men (including s-x s|-ves), all sanctioned by Allah. (Quran 4:24, 23: 5-6, 70:28-30, And Sunan Abi Dawud 2155, Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3016 etc). Even if they’re married. Disgusting.
@@hamba458 Men can dis-cip|-ine their wives because men are ‘in charge’ of wo-men (Quran 4:34). (Muhammad did this in Sahih Muslim 4:2127). This matter is made worse by not being allowed to ask a man why he be-at his wife. ‘…A man should not be asked why he bea-ts his wife…’ (Sunan Ibn Majah 1986)
Hi, thanks for this video. I think for us in Islamic majority countries, we want to defuse violence as the first reaction. If we argued Islam is false from the outset, it could mean your death. No further conversation.
Don't be so dramatic. You come from Southeast Asia. Islam was spread there peacefully through trade and conversion from Hindu Paganism. Catholicism on the other hand was spread by the sword. Compare the conversion of the Malays and Indonesians as with the Philippines. Shameful
@@hamba458 If we are to go back to the past, admitted we will find violence on both sides. We accept that Mohd was a military man and there has been a history of violence since. Catholicism has apologised especially in year 2000 for being unfaithful to the Faith. While there are moderates in Islam, Sura 9:29 and 5:51 make it impossible to renounce violence completely. In 2017, in Malaysia Pastor Raymond Koh, Joshua Hilmy and wife (Muslim converts) have disappeared without a trace. In the same year, in Indonesia Christian governor of Jakarta, Ahok was sentenced to imprisonment just for refering to the Quran. In Pakistan, look up Asia Bibi. And of course, ISIS. For us, It's not Islamophobia. Its real
@@AdrianNgHK It's not real. It's drama. None of the cases you cited follow the established principles of Islamic Shariah as espoused by the four mahzabs of the sunni school of Islam. In fact for Asia Bibi and Ahok, they were charged using laws based from CHRISTIAN colonisers. Both of them would not be convicted if Shariah rules of evidence applied. Secondly, Asia Bibi was acquitted on appeal, which meant she was never convicted in the first place. So why lie? As for Raymond Koh, this is nothing to do with Shariah or Islam. It is an act done by mad fanatics. You citing this as an example is like saying the acts of the provisional IRA is doctrinally Catholic. As for the Quranic verses you cited, read the tafsir. There are interpretations that limit the uses of these verses to a certain time and place. We are not Protestants who interpret scripture based on the whims and fancies of the Holy Ghost. Lastly, will you condemn the Book of Revelation which slanders Jesus a.s. as a child killer (Rev 2:23)? Revelation makes abortionists look mild. But of course. This stems from the disgusting doctrine of original sin, where everyone is born evil and deserving of hell. So different from the beautiful and loving concept of Fitrah in Islam. In our religion God loves children.
@@AdrianNgHK the Quranic MHMD and the Islamic Muhammad are not the same. The Quranic MHMD is actually a biblical term for a Messianic figure. Another example for the pre Islamic MHMD is in an inscription dated in 523 AD (forty-seven years before the birth of the Islamic Muhammad) in Yemen. The inscription is believed to have been written during the Himyarite kingdom ruled Yemen and at that time the kingdom had adopted Judaism as its official 'religion'. But it is believed that the type of Judaism that was adopted by the Kingdom was a Priestly Judaism, not a typical Rabbinic Judaism that you can find nowadays on TH-cam. The word MHMD itself means the Praised One (compare it with the meaning of the biblical term MHMD and also the biblical term the Christ, the Anointed One). In the Himyarite inscription, the word MHMD is used as part of the invocation, meaning it's part of a divine name. …w-k-b-ẖfrt s1myn w-ʾrḍn w-ʾʾḏn ʾs1dn ḏn ms1ndn bn kl ẖs1s1m w-mẖdʿm w-rḥmnn ʿlyn b(12)n kl mẖd (ʿ)m bn m (ṣ).. wtf w-s1ṭr w-qdm ʿly s1m rḥmnnwtf tmmm ḏ-ḥḍyt rb-hd b-mḥmd With the protection of the Sky and the Earth and the capacities of men, may this inscription [be protected] against any author of damage or degradation, and Raḥmānān Most-High, ag(12)ainst any author of degradation [… …] The narration of Tamīm dhu-Ḥaḍyat was composed, written, and carried out in the name of Raḥmānān, Lord of the Jews, with the Praised One (Please search or google: The Judaism of the Ancient Kingdom of Ḥimyar in Arabia: A Discreet Conversion by, Christian Julien Robin (you can download the online publication). Some of the descendants of the prominent figures in the kingdom played important roles in the early Islamic Syria. in one of Al Tabari's book (in the english translation) Vol IX, the Last Years of the Prophet, mentions that the meaning of the word MHMD in page 156 "I am Muhammad the (One who is praised) ...". Thus, the Quranic MHMD is not a personal name, it's a title (just like the Christ is also a title). Moreover, QS 33.40 clearly disqualifies the Islamic Muhammad as the Quranic MHMD "MHMD is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets. Allah has full knowledge of everything". In my opinion: if you want to understand the concept of MHMD, you have to understand the concept of the messengers in the hebrew bible. In the hebrew bible there are two types of messengers, human and divine. The human messengers are the prophet (nafi or nabi) while the divine messenger is the Angel of the LORD, Angel of GOD. If you read the Quran, you can find similar distinction about the messengers, human (prophet) and divine (rasulu ilahi), the Messenger of GOD (please note that the meaning of the Arabic word Rasul is messenger). The Quran attributes the title of the Messenger of GOD to only two "people" which are Jesus (ISA) and MHMD. It means the author of the Quran believed that Jesus and MHMD are divine beings, and the Quran is not talking about MHMD as a person, the Quran is talking about a divine messenger that can be also a divine Messiah that was believed by the Judaism in the Himyarite Kingdom (the word MHMD is only mentioned four times in the Quran). Thus, the Quranic MHMD is not a name, it's a title and it's a divine title. (It could have been attributed to Jesus during the Ummayad). The author of the Quran also believed that Jesus had two natures, divine and human: Divinity of Jesus in the Quran: - Jesus is the Messenger of GOD, Rasulu Ilahi, the Angel of the LORD (Annisa 157) - The Quran confirms the virgin birth of Jesus, a divine birth. Virgin Birth stories in ancient times mean divine birth for example the story of Athena that was believed to have been born without mother, etc. (You have to read and understand the verses of the Quran as if you lived in the 7th century) - Al Lah (the LORD) raised Jesus unto Himself (Annisa 157); How could ALLAH raise Jesus unto Himself if Jesus was merely human being? - the meaning of the Quranic word ISA is the Redeemer and it had been used by Christians, who lived in Syro Jordanian desert before Islam, as a divine name to render the Jewish name of Jesus. (please read or watch Ahmad Al Jallad "invocation to Jesus in Safaitic inscription). - Note: in my opinion Al Maidah 116 is not the refutation of divinity of Jesus in the Quran because I think the verse is meant to discuss the Theotokos controversy not the divinity of Jesus. Theotokos can make Mary to become God/divine being because Mary gave birth to a divine being. Thus Al Maidah 116 clearly refutes that Jesus 'elevated' Mary to become God (divine) by giving birth to Jesus. And [beware the Day] when Allāh will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allāh?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
The Human Nature of Jesus in the Quran: - there are so many verses in the Quran that assert the human characteristic of Jesus but, the main difference between Mainstream Christianity and the author of the Quran on the human nature of Jesus is in Annisa 157. - the author of the Quran believed that the human nature of Jesus was not fully human (only half human). Thus, the human nature of Jesus was only the apparition of His divine Nature, Thus, The Human nature of Jesus didn't suffer on the cross because it was only His apparition because the divine nature of Jesus had been raised by ALLAH unto Himself (DOCETISM). to what type of people was this verse intended? this verse was intended to be preached or recited to the audience of the Quran that had Jewish background who believed that everyone hanging on tree is cursed of God (Deut 21.23). Thus, this verse solve the problem. Thus, the Quran is trying to preach to the Jews that Jesus is indeed the Jewish Messiah, something that modern Muslims cannot answer because they don not understand the concept of the Jewish Messiah. And I don't understand why Christian apologists and the Atheists are busy talking about the Islamic Muhammad from the hadith while they clearly understand that the hadith are all man made and all of them were made at least 200 years after the year of the Hijrah. The problem with the Muslims is that they do not understand their own Quran (the enemy of ISLAM is freedom, science and the Quran) because they are being misled by the hadith. the hadits was invented to cover the true meaning of the Quran (a non trinitarian text), while the problem with the Non Muslims (especially the Christians) is they commit the same mistake by repeating the same hadith. === the first book to read to understand the evolution of the word religion and the recent publication about the meaning of the Quranic word ISA: 1. "Before Religion, A History of Modern Concept", a book by Nongbri Brent that asserts that there were no words in the ancient languages that are equivalent to the modern concept of Religion. the word Religion itself came into the English Language in 1200 AD, and the meaning of which had been through an evolution. at that time, the meaning of the word religion was 'ritual' or 'way of worship'. if there was no religion in the 7th century, when did the word ISLAM (originally meant submission) become the name of a religion? what was the real meaning of the Quranic word DEEN (originally meant Law or Judgement, just like the hebrew word DIN), a term that has been increasingly translated into the English Language as 'religion' in the last few decades. How could the different groups of people differentiate themselves if there was no religion at that time? Did the prophet know the modern meaning of the Quranic word DEEN? did the prophet know the modern meaning of the word ISLAM? did the prophet know that ISLAM was the name of a religion? did the prophet know that he adhere to a religion, a concept that didn't even exist at that time? 2. the recent publication and lecture by Ahmad Al Jallad on the meaning of the Quranic word ISA. You can find his publication online or you can also watch his lecture on TH-cam (Invocation to Jesus in Safaitic inscription). I just want to add several things: - there are two ways in rendering the Hebrew name of Jesus into different languages, translation and transliteration. if you transliterate His Hebrew name, you will end up with names such as Yasu, Jesus, Yesus, etc. but, if you translate it, then you can end up with different names that have totally different sounds and pronunciations than His Hebrew name (depending on how you want to portray Jesus) for example if you want to portray Jesus as the one who save , then you will translate His Hebrew name as the Savior, or if you want to portray Jesus as the one who redeem then you will translate His Hebrew name as the Redeemer. below is a very interesting TH-cam video about how the Hebrew name of Jesus was rendered in the Old English translation of the Gospels:
The Wessex Gospels Translated Christ’s Name th-cam.com/video/oTccsqtE2c8/w-d-xo.html and you can compare it with how the pre-Islamic Christians (and subsequently the author of the Quran) rendered the Hebrew name of Jesus in their languages. ACOR Lecture: "An Invocation to Jesus in a Safaitic Inscription?" th-cam.com/video/Pc6Rv8d63hE/w-d-xo.html the only thing to note is that in the inscription the word ISA is used as a divine name.
How confident a Christian sounds in the comfort of his recording room with no one else to interfere or ask basic questions about the new testament or Paul's authenticity.
David Wood should have been on the panels of Christians because he is a scholar on Islam. On second thought, Sam Shamoun should have been the other Christian who knows the Quran and speaks Arabic. But Jake would have probably backed out.
IMO the main Christian objection to Islam is that it's blasphemous to the Christian faith, since it explicitly denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. A secondary objection could be that Islam's version of heaven sounds very much like Christianity's vision of Hell, given that Islamic heaven indulges all of (almost exclusively male-centric) carnal desires instead of being a place without carnal desires.
One can only ravage so many virgins before getting bored. 😂 I agree I think Jesus promising that "in my father's house there are many rooms" is a rather beautiful description. In Christianity we are promised a place of belonging with God the father rather than carnal delights.
Trent, the debate you critiqued had an Orthodox and Protestant Christian debating Muslims, HOWEVER, some of the main disputes the Muslims present are uniquely problematic to Catholic Christianity - i.e. why not change everything, trans reading hour, homosexuality, etc. If you want to realistically engage with Muslims you're going to have to confront reality - which means that you're going to have to be more honest and forthright than you usually are and be critical of Pope Francis and many of his appointed spokespersons. Unfortunately, there's a wing of social media Catholics like yourself, Michael Loftun and Catholic Answers who frankly are out of touch and leave an impression of cowardice because you're more interested in having comfortable and supported relationships with Church hierarchy - even when the hierarchy leans toward dissent of Magisterial teaching.
The Church hasn't changed her teachings on any of these things though... It's literally just stuff you're making up in your own head to justify your dislike of Pope Francis.
@@glumbumble I'm not as (wilfully?) ignorant as you - I've read Amoris Laetitia, Desiderio Desideravi, Abhu Dhabi - to name a few of the Doctrinal errors of Pope Francis. Wilful ignorance is a sin - just as is divorce & "re-marriage" - it's what Christ and Catholic teaching called adultery but what Pope Francis calls "irregular marriages" in Amoris Laetitia AND when St Paul described Sacrilege in the Scriptures and the Council of Trent condemned as an anathema - Pope Francis described verbatim "all that is required is faith" in Desiderio Desideravi. Are you WILFULLY IGNORING the fact that he issued that document on the Eucharist that makes absolutely no mention of repentance, Confession or being in a state of grace on the very same day of the Feast of Sts Peter & Paul when pro abortion US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi visited Pope Francis and then received Communion in the Mass Pope Francis celebrated IN DEFIANCE to her Archbishop Cordileone who had said she may not receive Communion until she make public repentance. Why do you ignore this outright sacrilege & blasphemy and make false accusations against me and defend these malicious actions & teachings from Pope Francis?! Abhu Dhabi document states contrary to Catholic teaching that "God wills a plurality of religions". Why do you think that hundreds of prominent, internationally recognized Catholic theologians have formally issued accusations listing several de facto heresies from Pope Francis? And good Cardinals have been removed from their very competent positions and several of them have made clear statements of concern. Are you a practicing homosexual or do you have some other agenda that you're wanting to promote that has always been condemned by the Church or are you just simply ignorant? For your sake I hope that you're simply and not wilfully ignorant because then you're not in sin and just need to open your eyes to the truth.
@@glumbumble You also owe me an apology and all the people you are misleading because of your calumny directed at those of us who care about the salvation of souls - including Pope Francis'!!!.
God was dealing with brutally violent times. The people who think this is a valid objection reveal tremendous ignorance about how human beings throughout the known world in the OT era conducted themselves when in conflict with their enemies. They weren't settling scores over tea and crumpets
@Eh-Mungu-Nguvu-yetu Professor *Gavin d Costa* , Oxford university: VATICAN 2: Catholic doctrines on Jews and Muslims page 160: The following doctrines on the Muslims are taught at the Council. First, Lumen Ggentium contains a clear doctrinal statement on the nature of God worshipped by Muslims: that this *is the same God worshipped by Christians* . Second, the development is that Islam is now seen to operate within an Abrahamic typology, not in historical covenantal lineage to Abraham, but in a typology of faith: seeking submission to God. This renders Islam, as seen by implication in Dei Vverbum, as a pre-Mosaic-type religion, but *also as having supernatural elements* . Third, Nostra Aaetate reinforced both these developments: *Islam had elements of supernatural divine revelation* ; and Islam operates within an Abrahamic typology, thus sharing the faith typologically of this great Patriarch.
@Eh-Mungu-Nguvu-yetu Professor *Gavin d Costa* , Oxford university: VATICAN 2: Catholic doctrines on Jews and Muslims page 160: The following doctrines on the Muslims are taught at the Council. First, Lumen Ggentium contains a clear doctrinal statement on the nature of God worshipped by Muslims: that this *is the same God worshipped by Christians* . Second, the development is that Islam is now seen to operate within an Abrahamic typology, not in historical covenantal lineage to Abraham, but in a typology of faith: seeking submission to God. This renders Islam, as seen by implication in Dei Vverbum, as a pre-Mosaic-type religion, but *also as having supernatural elements* . Third, Nostra Aaetate reinforced both these developments: *Islam had elements of supernatural divine revelation* ; and Islam operates within an Abrahamic typology, thus sharing the faith typologically of this great Patriarch.
@Eh-Mungu-Nguvu-yetu Professor *Gavin d Costa* , Oxford university: VATICAN 2: Catholic doctrines on Jews and Muslims page 160: The following doctrines on the Muslims are taught at the Council. First, Lumen Ggentium contains a clear doctrinal statement on the nature of God worshipped by Muslims: that this *is the same God worshipped by Christians* . Second, the development is that Islam is now seen to operate within an Abrahamic typology, not in historical covenantal lineage to Abraham, but in a typology of faith: seeking submission to God. This renders Islam, as seen by implication in Dei Vverbum, as a pre-Mosaic-type religion, but *also as having supernatural elements* . Third, Nostra Aaetate reinforced both these developments: *Islam had elements of supernatural divine revelation* ; and Islam operates within an Abrahamic typology, thus sharing the faith typologically of this great Patriarch.
I believe the strongest argument for the Christian faith and against Islam is to prepare a good comparison between the life histories, teachings, works and effects on their followers’ lives of Jesus and Mohammed. Then rest your case.
Hello! I am a relatively recent Christian. I recognize that Jesus was a real figure in history, and I believe he is God, died for our sins and all that jazz. but I am not "catholic" or "protestant" yet. I have found these videos very useful so far but I am just putting myself out there until I get a response because I have a lot of questions. How could I talk to someone, like a priest or IDK maybe just some catholic dude to help me understand a bit more about why one "ought" to be a catholic. I have seen lots of videos but I want to start having actual 1-on-1 conversations with someone very learned in the field. I tried to reach out to some local parish but apparently you have to be a "member" or something? I really just wanna discuss it with someone. Anyone on here have any pointers? I just wanna get this whole Jesus thing right.
@@liza_k9774 I don't know what I am talking about. That is why I am asking for advice. Do I just like show up to a Catholic Church and ask to speak to a priest or what?
@@josephtattum6365 why not? Yes.. go after a mass or something and Ask for a conversation. If they can't talk on a spot then you can always ask to set up a time and day.. especially if that will be a longer conversation. But basicly go, ask , explain and see.
Hi fellow Joseph, the parish likely misunderstood you and thought you were asking for the sacrament of confession, which you can only receive after baptism, as its purpose is to renew all our baptismal graces. You should reach out again and say that you are a recent Christian convert who is interested in Catholicism and would like to discuss the Catholic faith with someone knowledgeable. Priests are often very busy, but there may be a deacon or well-educated layman the parish could point you towards.
I recommend calling your local Catholic Church and ask about their RCIA program for new wannabe Catholics or those interested, it's usually weekly for 1-2hrs and about 1year long. It's an introduction to Catholicism facilitated usually by a priest or deacon or qualified lay person. At the end of that time if you still want to be Catholic you will be welcomed into the Church on Holy Thursday with baptism if you haven't been baptized.
The best argument against Islam is the Satanic Verses. Surah 53 vs. Deuteronomy 13. For an excellent breakdown on this see David Wood. There is no better argument. It is the most solid argument of all.
I agree with what Trent says, but the fact is that violence is an essential part of Islam and the Catholic CHurch ignores this. The Pope says Islam doesn't teach violence because he wants to justify mass Islamic immigration.
@@sivad1025 yes. A lot of people aren't aware of the rule of abrogation in Islam. Where there are differences in rules and practices recorded in the Koran the chronologically later texts take precedence over earlier texts... and the peaceful nicey-nice texts are the earlier ones. This is complicated tremendously by the fact that the Koran isn't written in chronological order. I'm unaware about the applicability of the Sunnah and Hadiths when it comes to abrogation however, and it may vary among the different schools of Islamic jurisprudence
@@ironymatt This is definitely the classical understanding. Muslims never questioned the authority of At-Tahbah until they were Westernized by Christianity
Islam equal violence. Meanwhile Colonializations, the World Wars (1&2) are done by the Wester Europe and last apartheid from South Africa, also last slavery abolished are from the U.S
Who was the Guy who open fired in a mosque Is Christchurch Newzealand ?😂😂😂😂If he was not a Christian and if that's not Christian terrorism , then what it is ?
Hi Trent, I'm Muslim and I'm a huge fan of your channel. I have some constructive feedback! You see, you stand out from other Christians because you're more respectful, balanced, and nuanced. You try and present what you believe are the strongest and most appropriate arguments. You don't try to win points. It's great. However, in this video, while I admire your honesty and critical thinking in admitting bad Christian debating, I would like to correct you on a few things. From what I remember, you mentioned the age of Aisha (controversial, I know) and you implied that because the Prophet (upon whom be peace) married her at a young age, and Islamic law does not adapt to our times, it's immoral. However, you should take into account that Muslims do not marry women specifically at the age of 9: the Prophet's first wife was older when she married the Prophet Muhammad, around the age of 29 or 40, depending on the sources. This does not entail we marry women specifically at those ages. This is the same for when Muslims travel, we are not obliged to specifically use camels or horses for travel, rather, what is more appropriate in our times, cars and motoe vehicles (weird example, I know). Of course, you know this. What is missing from your knowledge however is that Islamic jurisprudence has always taken mental maturity, psychological readiness, and spiritual maturity (as well as other factors like societal norms in some of the major madhabs) into account. (This is something Daniel Haqiqatjou completely ignores because his debate tactic is to accept the worst case scenario and cut the problem/objection by its roots. In the hypothetical questions Inspiring Philosophy gave for ages of consummation in marriage, Daniel did not take into the other fiqh-related factors aforementioned.) In Islam, we have sharia law, but we always refer to our schools of thought in jurisprudence to interpret the divinely revealed laws. In sunni Islam, we have 4 major, extant, and orthodox madhabs. In modern times, one can also count the Salafi madhab, although that may be controversial. So, marriage to someone at the age of 9, right after the onset of puberty, would not be allowed unless, of course, other criteria are met. In modern times, people mature very differently and undoubtedly our laws consider this. Our mother Aisha was considered a woman in her times, and if you consider the sources from age to be historically accurate and reliable, you'll have to concede that there are her testimonies and reports where she said she was a mature woman; that, according to her, others mature by her age; that she was not harmed; and that she was already to be married to someone else of a similar age before the Prophet sought her marriage. Despite this, you may object that this was still an abhorrent act committed by the Prophet, who is supposedly the role-model for all of mankind. In this case, you'll be heading toward a better line of reasoning and your debate will be more fruitful (though beware of rebuttals). Next, you mentioned that if you were to debate Islam, you would confute the very foundations of our theology. You mention an easy target, such as Prophetic miracles. On this note, you should be made aware that Prophetic miracles and even Prophecies are not the main proofs for Islam, they merely corroborate our case. The veracity of our theology does not rest on this. What is the main miracle is the Quran, the word of God. You say that it is considered miraculous merely because it is beautiful-this is false. In brief, we fully acknowledge that beauty is indeed subjective and we offer criteria from the linguistic structure and literary features of the Qur'an that are unmet by detractors of Islam. I can provide some great books on this topic because it would take some time to explain this further. Anyway, I hope you read this, Trent. Forgive me for any factual blunders and grammatical errors. Thanks for your respectful engagement, I hope my comment helps.
Brother there is no 9 year old ever who was mature enough to marry a 50nyear old man. Mohammad was a man and sinned on multiple occasions. Answer me honestly... Have you ever considered following the teachings of the Jesus's sermon on the mount? I'm not asking you to proffes that Jesus is your lord because I know that his considered a sin in Islam but the Quran calls on you to accept an follow the teachings of all prior prophets. There is nothing incompatible with Quran found in the sermon on the mount in which we find the greatest commandment and the beatitudes. Follow the teachings of Jesus found in Matthew 5 through 7. If you follow these teachings you will see that Jesus is the greatest example.
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - สาวสอง ( มีมี่ของอ้าย ) ft. ตาต้า,ต้องเต [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mqlMjnP08XI/mqdefault.jpg)
Please note: This episode was recorded before the war between Israel and Hamas began, which is why I didn't discuss it in my thoughts about the relationship between Islam and violence.
you need to hold up a newspaper at the beginning of each episode.
Is jesus god?
@@sethsuleiman4419Big G, my friend, big G.
@@sethsuleiman4419 Yes! The Word of God and God are the same from our perspective. From a divine perspective, they are eternally engaged in an unbreakable relationship of love, and this is why we say that they are different persons, since only different persons can engage in a relationship of love. From our perspective, God is always One, because, for us, God is always that Love between the Father and the Son. And that love is ONE and is the reason why the other two persons are and live in each other: a perfect and eternal unity.
@@userJohnSmithThere is no big g, small g in greek!
Now, is the father god?
Am not a catholic Christian,but I love what you do for christ..I would love to visit a catholic church...
Anyone and everyone are welcome at any Catholic Church! Find the one nearest you and attend the Mass. I did that for almost a year before I entered RCIA.
You can receive a blessing at Holy Communion as well, just cross your arms across your chest or place your hand on your heart when it's your turn and the priest will bless you.
God bless
You should see if you have a traditional Latin mass parish near you (just google traditional Latin mass near me) not that there’s a problem with the novus ordo, but unfortunately the regular parishes can be very hit or miss these days. They are either really good or really bad. If you have a TLM then you can be pretty certain that the parish will give the best impression of what the church and faith is all about
I was a Baptist for almost 40 years, and I am in the process of entering the Catholic Church, in no small part to Trent’s amazing apologetics. Hear the arguments for the Catholic faith, and determine for yourself if they are true. I wish you happy searching!!!
Catholics are not Christians. You should visit a catholic church with caution. I recommend not attending a mass. If you understand what actually goes on, it is an abomination to God.
- With love
@@_ready__ you are confusing Christianity with protestantism if that confuses you
Thank you, Trent! This is excellent as usual. Ex-Muslim here. May the Lord in whose grace you walk continue to bless you and your family!
You traded one addiction for another...
You just changed versions of flavors of a certain geographically dependent fairy tale.
@@JattaMD
So..... a story about an magical Arab in Mesopotamia started in Cuba?.....
@@JattaMD
You stay silent long....
Welcome home 🙏
Im not a catholic but in all honesty, catholicism really is perhaps the greatest defender of the faith and gospel
That's because Catholicism has the FULLNESS of Truth, friend. A Bride the LORD Jesus died for.
For 2,000 years 🙏
When even all the other Christians attack her (the RCC), not to mention the world, she might be the one holding the truth
Amen just as we defended Europe and eastern christians!
So what's holding you back?
I'm glad you and other CA apologists make these videos we can point people to. If I ever got into conversation with a Muslim about anything like this, I would have to send them to a video or CA article. I have a learned a lot from watching you and CA; but I don't feel confident enough in an evangelization situation to not make a critical mistake. You might only get one chance to be heard by someone.
It doesn't matter if you make mistakes. As long as you're a docile instrument of the Holy Spirit, is he who does the work. A good carver can still produce something good with blunt tools. Just try to stay as sharp as you can, and God will do the rest (probably when you're not there to see the results... He tends to do that kind of thing. Maybe he doesn't trust our pride too much... I wonder why...)
I see what you're saying. At the same time, I've seen interactions online where people aren't prepared to answer a question about the Faith and it makes the other side look correct. I think it was Trent who showed an exchange a while back where someone at March for Life was approached because they had a sign that said, "God is Pro Life." The opponent brought up the fact that God kills people in the bible in the flood, sodom/gomorah, etc. The guy was stymied and was made to look stupid in the video. The answer, of course, is that we believe God is only one who has the right to decide who lives and dies, and that he has perfect motivations to do so that can't be rooted in evil. But the marcher didn't come up with that. It's things like that which make me hesitate to say anything concrete in an exchange. I just point people to sites/videos that get it right. @@xaviervelascosuarez
To be blunt, citing a video or article isn’t a good idea. How often do people have time to engage source material? Usually, people don’t feel like watching videos or reading articles that challenge their views, especially if they last twenty minutes or more.
Place the shoe on the other foot. If a Muslim or Buddhist recommend I watch an hour-long video, that would be a buzzkill for me.
I don’t have time for that!
You’re better off actually learning the material; learn how to summarize the points within the span of a couple of minutes. That’s more realistic and respects the time of the other person.
In an ideal world, you're right. And I'm spending all the time I can learning the material to become a better apologist. But in situations where I don't know the answer, I think it's better to send them to someone who does. After all, in this hypothetical conversation, they were asking me for information anyway. So if they're taking the time to get info from me and I don't have it, perhaps they will take time to look at a video or article. If they're not truly interested in learning more about the subject, it doesn't really matter what I know or say, anyway; they won't listen to me or Trent Horn.
So I'm not saying that point people to the internet every time. Most of the time, I can answer people's questions, as I don't talk with scholars. But if talking to someone who seems to be more well-read than I am, I have to point them to someone better than myself. From your point of view, it sounds like I should avoid all evangelization until I'm as good as Trent.@@zekdom
@@xaviervelascosuarez
Your comment is the closest to the term "evangelization" used here, which means to personally testify the good news of the Gospel and the love of God to other people. Apologetics is just a "defense" of the faith, which, of course, one already needs to have.
Also, I think these Christians were arguing why Islam is a problem not just to other Christians but I think they were trying to appeal to non Christians and others as well. Atheists and Agnostics aren't going to be persuaded by truth claims from Christians.
Showing that Muhammad was a false prophet and so everything in the Quran reflects medieval Arabian human sentiments is a very good way to show non-Christians they should not become Muslim.
@@TheCounselofTrent You totally missed the goals of this discussion which was to build bridges so in effect proving that Mohammed was a false prophet is irrelevant So instead their focus was to point out why Christianity cannot coexist in a society with Islam. And the number one reason for them was because of the violence and the apostasy laws.
Trent you need to get out of your apologetics mindset and try to see things from the intended framework that way you can give critics that are more relevant and understanding. I say again you may be able to convert some people with your apologetics mindset but you're going to forget to warn people about the dangers of Islam as a parasitic mind virus If you allow it to grow unabated.
@@jourdan4amTelling the truth and being right is never irrelevant.
@@HodgePodgeVids1 It depends on the goal. In this case, the goal is to determine if these two sides can build bridges. Whether Mohammad was a true prophet or not should not influence the possibility of this. However, the possibility is affected if the other side aims to annihilate you.
@@HodgePodgeVids1 There exists an almost boundless array of truths, alongside an equally vast collection of irrelevant ones.
Would have been better if they invited Christian Prince and Sam Shamoun for this type of debates.
Pretty sure the Muslim apologists all know to avoid Christian Prince and Sam at all costs by now.
I agree
Christian Prince doesn't do debates. And he doesn't show his face, so it wouldn't have worked.
Yeah and Shamoun needs to pay his child support for abusing his wife. And talk about his strange obsessions of other mens penis sizes@@morghe321
@@morghe321oh he doesn't? we must be living in different realities
You are always so calm and thoughtful in your debates, which I think speaks volumes to the fact that what you are saying is the truth, no need for anger. Thanks!
it is about time that Catholics got into these debates. They have a lot to contribute to counter this false religion called islam.
it is about time that Elitist Muslim Ubermenschen got into these debates. They have a lot to contribute to counter this false religion called cat-holic-ism.
@@louseveryann2181okay do it
@@louseveryann2181we dare you. Islam will be crushed under the feet of Lord Jesus Christ.
@@caritamundo9316
Do what?
@@kazumakiryu157
we dare you. "cat-holic-ism" will be crushed under the feet of Lord Allah.
My biggest problem with Islam is that it denies the divinity of Christ.
And death burial and resurrection
it also calls for the deaths of all jews, christians, and unbelievers.
mass extermination to the point where everyone converts to being a muslim or is feared into pretending they are muslim
@@_ready__This is mere diplomatic niceties, anyone with a moments common sense will know that they deny the Trinity so we shall all carry on regarding them as Unitarians whether they call themselves Christian or not, or we will regard the as an Unholy Terror when they're in stabby mode, and avoid.
@@_ready__
The Catholic Church wants to convert them to Gods One True Apostolic Catholic Church.
That, amd it endorses child molestation.
I, admittedly, don't know much about Islam because I've always lost interest due to its weak foundations. Thank you Trent.
Its foundations are satanic and pagan.
Christian Prince on TH-cam ❤️
What? Christians are just as bad.
Neither does Trent.
@@hamba458 Once the foundation is proven false, the whole structure is worthless. Lies built on lies.
"Most people breastfeed children and marry adults, In Islam you can marry children and breastfeed adults"
In Islam, a man can beat a slave, a child and his wife with a single punch.
Yikes, where did you get breastfeeding adults from?
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworkerMohammad told people to it
@@SaintCharbelMiracleworker حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ الْقَاسِمِ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ جَاءَتْ سَهْلَةُ بِنْتُ سُهَيْلٍ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ فَقَالَتْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنِّي أَرَى فِي وَجْهِ أَبِي حُذَيْفَةَ الْكَرَاهِيَةَ مِنْ دُخُولِ سَالِمٍ عَلَىَّ . فَقَالَ النَّبِيُّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ " أَرْضِعِيهِ " . قَالَتْ كَيْفَ أُرْضِعُهُ وَهُوَ رَجُلٌ كَبِيرٌ فَتَبَسَّمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ وَقَالَ " قَدْ عَلِمْتُ أَنَّهُ رَجُلٌ كَبِيرٌ " . فَفَعَلَتْ فَأَتَتِ النَّبِيَّ ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ فَقَالَتْ مَا رَأَيْتُ فِي وَجْهِ أَبِي حُذَيْفَةَ شَيْئًا أَكْرَهُهُ بَعْدُ . وَكَانَ شَهِدَ بَدْرًا .
It was narrated that 'Aishah said: “Sahlah bint Suhail came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, I see signs of displeasure on the face of Abu Hudhaifah when Salim enters upon me.” The Prophet said: “Breastfeed him.” She said: “How can I breastfeed him when he is a grown man? The Messenger of Allah smiled and said: “I know that he is a grown man.” So she did that, then she came to the Prophet and said: “I have never seen any signs of displeasure on the face of Abu Hudhayfah after that.” And he was present at (the battle of) Badr.
Sunan Ibn Majah 1943
Lol! Twisted!!
These discussions are a good thing because they motivate people to really think about what they believe (especially muslims) and at the same time as catholics we are even more affirmed in the Truth. Every time Trent and other catholic apologists really dig into it to produce valid counter arguments against non-catholic apologists I am amazed at how clear and solid our Faith is.
The reality says otherwise honey, it's the Christians who start doubting their scriptures when they learn about Islam. And in the other hand, the small percentage of Muslims who leave the religion 99.9% of them become atheists. Who in the right mind would believe that God was a human 🤦🏻♀️
@@fztheamazighiya1047 excuse me, “honey” ?? 🤭. Please don’t call people that in a discussion if you want to be taken seriously
@@fztheamazighiya1047believing God came down as a human is much more believable than believing God sent a pedophile warlord as his final prophet
@@fztheamazighiya1047thats not true not most of the people leaving islam became athies
@@nicenice3509 that what I'm saying. No one in the right mind believes that God is a human 🤦🏻♀️
I’m sorry, but I really do love that set behind you. And have become very attached to it.
It is a beautiful set
It is indeed a nice set, would be cool to visit for a bit, they got books there 🙏🙏
The claim that Christians used to do violence being compared to Muslim violence is wildly inaccurate since the Qur'an literally instructs followers to commit violence whereas the "Christians" that committed violent acts, were doing it of their own accord since the Bible doesn't call for violence. It (the Bible) does document violence in the Old Testament, committed by the Jews as called for by God at that time, but it does not call for (Christian) followers to do so.
Which part of the Quran said that?
@@hamba458
SAHIH MUSLIM BOOK 41, HADITH NUMBER 6985.
Chapter : The Last Hour would not come until a person would pass by a grave and wish that he should have been the occupant of that grave because of this calamity.
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
SAHIH MUSLIM 22 BOOK 1 HADITH 36 t has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said:
I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.
@@hamba458no part. It literally instructs the opposite:
As Shura:36-37
“Whatever pleasure you have been given is no more than a fleeting enjoyment of this worldly life. But what is with Allah is far better and more lasting for those who believe and put their trust in their Lord;
who avoid major sins and shameful deeds, and forgive when angered;”
As Shura:40-44
“The reward of an evil deed is its equivalent. But whoever pardons and seeks reconciliation, then their reward is with Allah. He certainly does not like the wrongdoers.
There is no blame on those who enforce justice after being wronged.
Blame is only on those who wrong people and transgress in the land unjustly. It is they who will suffer a painful punishment.
And whoever endures patiently and forgives-surely this is a resolve to aspire to.”
The part which deceptive people love to quote is Al Baqarah:191. I challenge readers to read within context from 190 to 194 to clarify conditions. Muslims are forbidden from transgressing. But a Muslim can retaliate against zalimun (cruel people) who are oppressing and humiliating, although it is preferred to be patient and forgive.
@@hamba458Watch Sam Shamoun, David Wood, or Apostate Prophet and you will find out.
with the coming of Christ even war of defense is gone. but it is all about natural desire to survive that Christians took up arms to defend themselves. in Islam, however, chapter 9 of the quran even commanded violence and war.
The question of the discussion was "building bridges between Christians and Muslims." When Robert Spencer was asked what his biggest problem with Islam is, he did not answer "Why am I not Muslim" but "What's the biggest obstacle to a bridge between Muslims and Christians?" Spencer answered "The biggest obstacle to that bridge is that the Muslims want to kill us." To which the Muslim interlocutors responded "yes." So I think that "they want to kill us" was a great answer to PBD's question. And that is what your average person will remember from the debate. Sure there are better foundational objections, like the Surah 5:47 Dilemma or the Created vs Uncreated Quran, but in terms of obstacles to building bridges, "Fundamentalist Muslims want to kill us" is probably number 1.
The problem with that answer is if one finds the Quranic objections to Christian doctrine is compelling, then the answer is to "become muslim".
The muslims claimed that too during wars in the Marawi Siege in the Philippines = "They want to kill us (the muslims) so that's why we fight." Therefore whatever "bridge" you think is affable, you can reason anything in your position that you are at a disadvantage with and they can only claim "then be muslim then".
If your questions arrive at the point where being "muslim" is the endpoint, then you have failed.
You must absolutely cut the head of the snake, not equip yourself with more armor assuming to be bit.
@@user-ow9zi8uc8gThe discussion was not originally about whether you should be Christian or Muslim. It was an attempt to build bridges, specifically alliances against modern secularism and degeneracy. There are plenty of groups I disagree with that I can work with towards a common cause. I have reasons I am not one of them, and can debate why. Robert Spencer is also clearly the same, as shown by him working with Protestants and atheists for example, even though he obviously disagrees with both.
Consider, for example, a discussion between pro-life Catholics and pro-life Baptists on building bridges to work towards their common cause. Not about why the Catholics aren't Baptists or vice versa, but the biggest problem in working together. Catholics may say the congregationalist Baptisr model makes it hard to organize and coordinate, or perhaps the anti-Catholic rhetoric ruffles feathers. Not foundational objections to Baptists, but obstacles to working together. "They want to kill us" is not one of them. It is for Fundamentalist Muslims.
Again, I agree that there are better foundational objections, better answers to the question "Why aren't you Muslim?" like I listed. And again, if the question is instead "What's the biggest obstacles for to working with Muslims without becoming a Muslim," the answer "They want to kill us" is somewhere close to the top.
@@user-ow9zi8uc8g No, problem with that answer: Islam is a total Apostasy of Rabbinic Judaism and was given to Muhammad by a jinn: Islam doesn't have any good evidence and Satan's objective is to destroy mankind: Islam is following his desires!
That's why Muslims R spreading Islam by violence and actually aren't going to Stop at ridding the Jews from Israel: they want world domination as per : Hamas , iSIS and All other Muslim terrorist groups.
The more Islam attacks the Jews and Christians the sooner Christ returns and destroys Islam and their supporting countries.
Becoming Muslim is becoming an Apostate for any Jew or Christian !
No way Jose !
@@billcynic1815the voice of reason😊. I got almost discouraged by the other comments. People have no idea about islamic teachings, unfortunately.
@@user-ow9zi8uc8g those muslims took other muslims and used them as human shields along with non-muslims and used their beloved mosques as cover causing them to become military targets. They also have elections there and that region was part of an autonomous muslim majority region called Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in muslim Mindanao. We want to delete them? It's the other way around. Tf are you talking about?
I'm from the Philippines, cut your bs
Good Vidéo. Most of the arguments presented by Trent can only be used if one is catholic. It would be tough to use those as a protestant. This is why the living magisterium makes more sense than anything else.
Even though that magisterium says Muslims are okay spiritually and links arms with them 😜
“Okay spiritually” is ambiguous and not what the Vatican II documents say about Muslims.
Lumen Gentium:
“But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
Note that the Church says nothing more than that they are included in the God’s plans and that Muslims have some teachings in common.
Notre Aetate:
“The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is ‘the way, the truth and the life’ (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2Co 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life.”
The Church forever proclaims Christ as our salvation, yet we may also acknowledge those good things those who do not follow Christ believe and practice. While the Muslims deny many truths, we can admire their dedication and zeal.
@@thecasualchemist2511 There are no teachings of Islam that has anything to do with Christianity. Islam is a false religion. Women are treated like third class citizens. And they say a pedophile (which is what you call a 50 year old man that has sex with a nine year old girl) is the perfect man. Shudders… Plus, there’s that thing about **four witnesses** needed to prove a rape
@@TommyGunzzzThis is more so speaking in terms of invincible ignorance.
@@TommyGunzzz Lying is a sin ! Better read Lumen gentium by yourself and if you don't get It, ask someone ti explain you.
For what it’s worth, I lived like 200 yards from that shooting in North Carolina, and it was over a parking space. As ridiculous as it sounds, parking was a very contentious issue in that community because guests were always parking in our spots, and the guy had apparently become obsessive about it to the point where the towing company wouldn’t respond to his calls anymore.
That's crazy. The guy is paying the towing company, you'd think they're making serious bank by his obsession.
You are a breath of fresh air Trent. Love tuning in. God bless. ❤🙏🏾
I dig. Nice setup, and awesome video as always. Keep up the great work, Trent!
Sharia law is not a side issue. It comes directly from their religious texts. You know the Bible does not leave us standing orders to behead or rape or commit violence or even taxes on non-Christians. Records of past wars are not standing orders.
If anything the first problem you adress is really with the question. Someone's biggest problem askes them to weigh multiple factors and make a choice that appears to make other problems less bad instead of differently bad. Beheadings are pretty bad. Legalized sex-slavery is pretty bad. A fair hearing of Islam's violence and it's legality in Islam is not something Christians are vulernable.
It's also important that Islam doesn't merely _permit_ war and sex slavery. Under the hadith tradition, Muhammad commanded his followers to fight Holy War to get to heaven and commanded them to not refrain from sex with their slaves. Islam explicitly commands the ongoing practice of these heinous acts
What about the Talmud?🎯🎯🎯🎯
@@PeterLamin-bw5rsChristians don't follow the Talmud. Go ask the Jews.
Go into a debate with a Muslim with this attitude you’re getting slammed, better listen to Trent
@@sivad1025 No. Not even true.
I think it's important we start covering more Islam on our apologetics. Islam is animated by the enemy of men and must be fought with all our strengh.
Yes. You are right. We need to have more such debates
The Bible Promises Abraham and Hagar he would save Ishmael and give him huge nation that would last for all time. You really think you can prevent Gods promise from coming to pass?
And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation
Come, lift up the boy and hold him fast with your hand, for I will make a great nation of him
Christian unity is important
@@grinningchickenmuslim scholars themselves cannot prove Muhammad.was from Ishamael.lineage anyway
The way the protestants say the Bible is self authenticating is similar to the Muslim approach to the Koran.
No it’s not lmao
@@bruhmingoname a difference
@@bruhmingo why not?
@@jackieo8693It's not a bad thing. We should our bible as the highest form of authority.
@@razoredge6130 just like the Muslims and the Koran
Amen, this is an excellent Insightful commentary.
God bless you Trent
is jesus god?
@@sethsuleiman4419Amen Hallelujah.
@@Mach15-20It is a simple, short question. Is jesus god?
@@sethsuleiman5104 he has answered your question. Look up the definition of "amen"
@@sethsuleiman5104 YES!
Huh. Didn't Daniel advocate for child marriage in his debate with InspiringPhilosophy? Like it's not even an offhand comment. It's the meat of his argument.
Just in the same way Catholics advocate child pregnancy.
Before 1917 the church allowed 12-year-old girls and 14-year-old boys to get married to someone no matter how much older. A 12-year-old is only 3 years older than Aisha when she had sex with Muhammad at 53. According to the church, it would been okay if she was 12 with a 53-year-old. Even though Aisha didn't have a period yet she could have had a period at 9. A 9 and 12-year-old are still going through puberty. That is hypocritical to say it's not okay for a 9-year-old but it's okay for a 12-year-old. Even though the church raised the minimum to 14 for girls and 16 for boys they still have no age restriction. Meaning a 14-year-old and a 50-year-old could marry. Even if it doesn't happen often the problem is the church allows it to.
@@princessc660so you agree that it is outdated and backwards.
@@bignev NO ITIS STILL HAPPNING OUTSID MERIGE SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
@@user-es2bq2bf1bspeak English
Cant we, as catholics, claim that the Old Testament commandments dont bind us the same way they did jews at the time, since it was God preparing his people for his coming and once he came were to follow Jesus' rules?
Half-way right. Your wording is a little bit loose, but you pretty much have the idea. Some instructions in the OT were limited-time-only instructions. The trick is to know which ones were intended by God to expire. The solution to that problem is official Church teaching. For example, the OT instructs God's people to offer burnt sacrifices very frequently, but we don't have to do that anymore because there was one final and ultimate blood sacrifice, and we know this because the Church has the correct relationship with God to have that information.
@@paxChristi123 Your bible makes Jesus kill babies - Revelations 2:22-23
The problem with jihad is not that religious violence is per se bad. But it's that offensive jihad was prescribed in the final major sura of the Qur'an and is the final marching order of Muhammad. Biblical violence is always read in light of God's commands to love our neighbor and, later, love even our enemies. But the Qur'an has no mitigation on its prescriptions of violence.
Islam mitigates violence a lot, even more so than Christianity does.
"Allah does not forbid you from dealing kindly and fairly with those who have neither fought nor driven you out of your homes. Surely Allah loves those who are fair." - 60:8
"Fight in the cause of Allah against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors." - 2:190
"It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) forbade the killing of women and children." - Sahih Muslim 1744b
@@lygun5581
All of that is abrogated by the end. In either case muslim "mitigation" comes down to stuff like continual ritual humiliation in exchange for not getting beheaded.
@@lygun5581 suras 60 and 2 were revealed before sura 9 which abrogated both. Traditional Islamic scholarship has always treated jihad as having three stages. Sura 2 is stage 2 where Muhammad waged defensive jihad. Sura 9 is stage 3 where Muhammad waged offensive jihad. All the defensive verses were revealed when Muhammad's army was still small and weak. But at the end of his life, he launched unprovoked raids and massacred the Jews and pagans.
@@sivad1025 Both of you are wrong. Neither 60:8 nor 2:190 are abrogated according to the vast majority of scholars including Ibn Katheer. Only a minority of scholars hold the belief that those verses are abrogated. The Islamic concept of abrogation(al-naskh) isn't as one-dimensional as "the new verses replace the old verses". We don't believe in covenants like Christians do.
While it's true that Islam grew a huge part due to conquest(just like Christianity), saying that Muhammed went around attacking and massacring innocent people is just false. The Muslims were still attacked from every direction and being persecuted during the Meccan period. And I can show multiple Hadiths and sayings where the killing of non-combatants was strictly forbidden by the Muslims.
@@lygun5581There is a key difference between Christian and Muslim conquest expansion. There’s a reason why our side is valid to use but yours isn’t. Islam was originally built because of violent conquest, Christian started via solely debate and peaceful martyrdom. The Christian conquests-of South America-happened over 1000 years after the birth of Christianity. Both are bad, but one only says something about the Spanish Empire and the values of Medieval Christians while the other one says something about the structural integrity of Islam.
A Cambridge University Professor of Islamic studies and a devout Muslim himself, Abdal Hakim Murad, has said: "The jurists reached the conclusion that Islam requires consistent military action against unbelieving peoples if no treaty exists with them". There are, he notes, some exceptions to this rule but generally it holds. Islam does in fact teach that the caliph has an obligation to expand the boundaries of Islamic rule through warfare and this is why Islamic rule spread all over the world. Islam conquered North Africa, Spain, the Middle-East, Byzantium, India, and so on. This was not accomplished through 'peace' but through bloody warfare.
Muslims when questioned about Islam’s faults often resort to saying Christianity has faults too but it’s so disingenuous because it assumes we’re on the same playing field and overlook dimension and scale of such flaws. Also when the flaws comes from the ideology is much different than when it comes from flawed individuals
Yes. Complete avoidance & whataboutism
The core difference between Islam and Christianity, is that Islam's God would never condescend to become human and live down here with us.
They place God in a box, blind him and gag his mouth.
Richard Spencer's expertise is the Islam side issue. I always enjoy his live streams with David Wood.
*Robert* Spencer. Richard isn't a pleasant guy
This is a note for Kyle/The Distribution team, but it likes like any of your podcast episodes older than about #250 are no longer found on spotify, i dont know if thats a limit on spotify, or a conscious decision on your part, or a problem with my phone. But you reference older episodes to check out on occasion which I can no longer find on either youtube or spotify. Just throwing it out there, love your vids and love to Kyle and his family
I’ll look into it. Thanks! -Kyle
Looks like it’s a problem on your end perhaps. I’m seeing all the uploads still available. Not everything has been uploaded to Spotify, and not everything has been numbered. So if you’ve made it back that far, looks like you’re caught up! -Kyle
@@TheCounselofTrent sounds good, thanks a bunch :)
@@TheCounselofTrent Do a blog about the relationship between false rabbinical talMUDism / & judeo-bolshevist anarchist Nazionism....& their links to violence.
You can add how Christ said in the bible on the Holy Land ( present day occupied semetic~ gentile Christian Palestine ) how that territory belongs to the followers of his new covenantal law ( they being the Catholic apostles & disciples)!
The talMUDists goyim got a circa 600 year head start on violence vs Islam when they killed God & his innocent followers.
You should reach out to PBD and get on his podcast.
Oh boy, I wish Sam Shamoun had been on that panel. It would have been fantastic!!!
Would have been too much 😮💨😮💨😮💨
They can’t get him on because there would be no dialogue. Just him refuting everyone into silence.
Sam Shamoun is a clown.
Yes, an Arab christian apologist like Sam Shamoun would slay them, as know muslims tendency to lie and mislead as the Koran advises them to (Taqiyya). Sam's speed of precise response is too good.
@@ninjason57 There'd be no dialogue cuz sam shamoun doesn't know how to behave, he just yells, gets upset, then starts cussing people's mothers. Depraved and abhorrent individual. I can't believe he's someone christians actually look up to as a follower of christ.
Trent's last point applies to Protestantism's claims as well in opposition to the Apostolic Church. "We have the Bible alone, the "right" of private judgement, etc."
Most of these guys refuse to go on shows if the argument is about the fundamentals of Islam.
We need more debates like the pbd podcast. We must expose the Islamic ideology. Be nice if you were on some of those debates
He won't dare to debate a Muslim. Lol
@@hamba458 a Muslim would never challenge him to a debate
@@hggfhh4449 How many have already. Even a child can challenge his stupid misconceptions about Islam. And even a child can tell you the Catholic church is false. Worship God alone. Not bread.
@@hamba458 does the quran confirm the Bible?
@@hggfhh4449 nope. Only the uncorrupted revelation of the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel (singular). Not the bible that you have today which is replete with additions and subtractions. For eg. The Pericope Adulterae.
Does the Catholic Church confirm the bible though? At one point it said that the bible sanctioned the death penalty citing Ananias and Sapphira. Now it says it does not.
The biggest issues is that Muhammad lie about Jesus, and distort christ teaching
My wife is a convert from Islam to Christianity while she still lived in Nigeria, and eventually Catholicism when she met me in the US. My inlaws are all still Muslim. Please pray for their conversation.
Please learn about those two Muslims before you call them civil.
At least they aren’t decapitating Infants
Daniel defends child marriage in the modern world. Did you watch his debate with Inspiring Philosophy? Why anyone would give this creep airtime after that I don't know. @@stcolreplover
@@stcolreplover No, just marrying them.
The bar for civil is set lower with some persuasions .... specifically Muslim persuasions
He didn't call them civil, he said the debate was relatively civil.
This is a very good video, and I will absolutely take your advice in any future conversations with muslims. Also it was good to see you at 3❤️
There is also the problem (for Muslims) of the early descriptions of how the Quran was revealed to Muhammad and his own descriptions of the affect it had on him. They are very troubling and problematic for Muslims to explain.
I hope that there are many debates between Catholics (and other Christians) and Muslims, done respectfully and with a seeking of understanding and truth. Thanks Trent.
Can you elaborate? Can this topic be searched on TH-cam?
@@MrWeebable The early Islamic sources: the Sunnah and Hadith (and some of the commentaries) and the early biographical material on Muhammad.
there is no problem. It seems to you because of your ignorance.
@@waliul280 Its in the Quran and Hadith, so its not me thats saying it.
A video on abrogations in the Quran is needed
Great video brother. Thanks for the information on fasting before the Eucharist--I didn't know that ✌🕊
Robert Spencer is the number one person to explain Islam! You should invite him on sometime.
I disagree.
It is actually Christian Prince. You should watch his videos, he goes live for hours on end debating Muslims. He is Arab himself and understands Arabic. He shows all the Quran verses relevant to the discussion using English and Arabic translations from official Government websites. He also shows Hadiths and Tafsirs in Arabic and English.
He is not for the faint of heart, you people will truly see what it means to be in a spiritual battle between Christians and Muslims in his videos and streams.
Robert Spencer is a former Catholic turned Eastern Orthodox (as of this writing), and has written articles in Catholic Answers. They know each other in an institutional level I'm sure.
I don't feel Robert Spencer is up for it, but that is my opinion.
@@user-ow9zi8uc8gI'd prefer Sam Shamoun over Prince but I believe all three are really good.
@@user-ow9zi8uc8gThere are two problems with Christian Prince: His knowledge of Islam is very great, but his knowledge of his own faith is significantly less than what it ought to be. As well, he has a bit of an issue with insulting.
Sam Shamoun is another great opponent of islam and he doesn't hold back.
He reminds me of st Nicholas who was a fearce defender of the faith
Also, he's on the journey to becoming a catholic which is awesome
@@jeremias-serus
the first statement is definitely untrue
I am sure he has more knowledge in the bible than you do
I've watched hundred of his videos, maybe even all of them, and the way he defends Christianity is not that of a layman.
and when did Christians become so soft that they can't take insults?
christian prince doesn't insult people who are genuine in their responses
most of the muslims who call him use taqiya
if insulting is wrong, then you should also condemn the insults in the bible as well
I think any Christian can simply argue that they follow jesus and quote him. Pretty sure Jesus teachings are vastly diff than Mohammed, in a good way.
Brilliant! Thank you Trent. I hope that Apostate Prophet and David Wood will see this video.
Robert Spencer left the Catholic Church because he could not accept the Pope's remark on Islam several years ago. Spencer said that this is a serious error taught by the Church and thus nullifies the doctrine of infallibility and invalidates the Church's claim as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I think it would be good if Trent brought David Wood on the show to discuss Islam.
The more I've looked into Islam, the more it seems to fall apart and look like a clearly man-made fiction. Christianity is backed by historicity and philosophy that are leagues ahead of Islam.
Source trust me bro see and watch Islam from credible muslim sources watch for example jake brancetella or Mohammad hijab debate against david wood
@@killerbee6484 I've watched Muhammad Hijab. All the guy does is yell when his opponent is trying to form an argument lol. Very annoying and not convincing.
I love how we all disagree with one another, yet we can all come together and agree that Islam needs to be fought against.
Why is that ?
Thanks much for this video.
Trent, Violence is never a side issue when it comes to Islam.
"pray the rosary every day" --- Our Lady of Fatima --- 1917 - ⚔
I always find it interesting that a common Muslim response to any objection to Islam is basically "Oh yeah? Well you do it, too!" or some other variation of the "Tu Quoque Fallacy". It doesn't get called out enough, because it's not a response or rebuttal to the objection, it's actually an acknowledgement of the objection.
They assume the whole world is savage. I don't think they can fathom civility.
We don’t see the apostasy law as a bad thing, so we just point out the Christian hypocrisy
No. It's not a tu quoque fallacy to ask whether the proposition you say is wrong is actually wrong in the first place by your own parameters.
Tu quoque is saying I'm doing a bad thing but you're doing a bad thing too.
We are saying we are not doing a bad thing (punishing apostates) but why do YOU think it's bad?
@@hamba458
Because we're not doing the same thing. There's a distinctiveness from the religious consequences and the secular ones. Also none of it is part of the dogmatic claim of Christianity at all.
You judge the world by your own condition, but there are people's that have learnt not to treat others like animals.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Please your fake book of acts says God killed two people for lying and not giving all their money to Peter. So let's not talk about punishment for apostasy
I’m not religious, but I have a lot of respect for this man. One of the most reasonable christian apologists I’ve listened to. Keep doing your thing Trent!
Are you down to debate Jack?
You should do an episode called, "When Protestants argue like Muslims" :)
I might be going crazy but didn't he already do that?
This has actually really shaken my Protestant faith. I criticized Islam for making Jesus out to be an incompetent preacher who couldn't establish the true faith. But then I turned around and used the exact same arguments to rebut Catholic doctrines like baptismal regeneration or the authority of the Bishop. Plus, John Calvin stole the Islamic argument for the canon
Yes. Please.
@@sivad1025Exactly! You’re waking up! Essentially you’re (Protestant mindset) Theology is God/Jesus couldn’t establish the true faith till the 15th/16th century till Martin Luther came along and read scripture and was like “nope, don’t like this, must not be from God” and preached differently from his point of view. Didn’t Muhammad do the same?
@@sivad1025 Please explain... I'm not sure how an argument can be used successfully against one thing and fail at another? "But then I turned around and used the exact same arguments to rebut Catholic doctrines like baptismal regeneration or the authority of the Bishop." Kindly explain.
*starting the video as background noise*
0:20 “Don’t get attached to the set behind me.”
*glances to see what set looks like*
Too late, now I’m attached! Thanks, Trent. 😂
As to the main theme of this episode, it is sort of funny to me to have Protestant Christians go up against Muslims and not have a very strong foundation to build. There is of course the low hanging fruit one can pick to criticize Islam with, but a smart Muslim will have looked into Protestant objections to Catholicism and be able to tear down the Protestant’s argument because they can just as easily point out seemingly contradictory passages and Church Fathers who support their Islamic views. With Catholicism, there is a more robust understanding of how Scripture, Magisterium, and Tradition supports and shapes our believes while the Protestant Scripture-only focus makes it relatively easy to knock down. Which is kinda similar to Islam since they place a high value on the Quran, but allow some traditions and leaders to shape their understanding as well.
Personally, I’m tired of Christians being told we can’t criticize MODERN violence carried out by Muslims with expressed Islamic views because of the Crusades. For one, the Crusades were the result of Islamic aggression in the regions against Christians and Jews, so the Crusaders was a defensive war. Later battles and scrimmages (such as the Siege of Vienna and the Battle of LePanto) were the result of invading enemy forces into Europe which the Church supported because of the relationship of Religion and State at the time.
Instances of current Christian violence is not very common, is usually between groups for reasons beyond religion (such as territory, resources, etc), and/or is not condoned by the religious authorities. It’s a very weak argument from the Islam side, but Christians are usually too scared and hesitant to push back against the narrative for fear of being labeled and cancelled.
Did the Father send His only begotten Son to die for our sins? I hear this from Christians all the time. If the answer is yes, how can the Son be equal to the Father?
Don’t let Christians use their mind
Christ is equal to the Father in their divinity, which He put aside to become flesh in the form of a human being.
@@Gargoyle1958 As far as I understand, Christians believe God is one in 3 persons. They also believe God is eternal- without a beginning or end. Does this mean the Holy Spirit & Jesus are eternal?
Yes, they are both eternal.
So Jesus, the Son, is eternal? Prior to the creation of the Universe, where was Jesus? Was he with the Father & the Holy Spirit?
Looking sharp and based Trent
No disrespect, but not all your arguments answer them.. I came here cause I thought you had a good argument
Great video! I would love to see a theological discussion or debate between Trent and Mohammed Hijab.
Id prefer Trent and Jake,hijab is a bit of a showman
Why? Hijab shown himself to be nothing than a Muslim fanatic when talking to Jordan Peterson or Mikhaila Peterson. And they don't even have the knowledge or interest to refute Islam faith.
Mimi Hijab does not debate. He spits.
Hijab will end his career like what happened to David Wood
David wood got finished by him, would not want to see this guy get as well
So basically his whole argument is “our biblical values and rules change according to time” so it’s very convenient that your whole values and rules is accordance to liberal secular modernity of today 🤦🏾♂️
13:58 did he say violence in the bible “God apparently commands”? So Richard Spencer was right there certain Christians and religious Jews that believe certain violent passages are “fables” mmmm 🤔
As soon as started discussing Trinity and never doctrines of the Trintiy you lost me there. But then again Christian’s do say “Trinity is a mystery” whatever that means. Alhamdulillah for Islam we submit our will to the one *AND ONLY* creator Allah
Also if you do believe God commanded those violent acts in the bible and not “apparently”, is it “inherently” wrong?
Can’t wait for the reply’s 🍿
The answer to the first question should be: "Stop denying that He is risen!"
Trent, I’d like you to do a whole episode for the “everything can change, drag queen story hour/ LGBTQ acceptance.” This would be great considering what is going on with the church. As Catholics we need to understand this.
I think your being entirely to charitable on the violence, there are a LARGE portion of Muslims who support death. Not showing the conversation between them starting both Christian talkers should be put to death for apostasy and speaking against Muhammad. You make intelligent arguments, however highlighting their insane behavior must be shown.
What do you mean by “everything can change” and what do you think is going on in the Church?
@@M-gv7di The point in the video when the Muslim apologist pushed back talking about trans and SSA and modernization of biblical thinking… I’m talking about the Synod, and the controversies. If you don’t know your probably not paying attention.
@@tc9459 I have, the Church hasn’t changed any teachings that I am aware of. What specifically are you referring to?
@@M-gv7di I believe your being dim on purpose. Good day
@@tc9459
I’m not sure where you’re coming from which is why I am asking you these questions. The Church isn’t changing its moral teachings and the purpose of the synod isn’t to change them.
The primary task of the synod” is to “refocus our gaze on God, to be a Church that looks mercifully at humanity.”
“We do not want to make ourselves attractive in the eyes of the world, but to reach out to it with the consolation of the Gospel, to bear witness to God’s infinite love in a better way and to everyone,”
-Pope Francis in the opening homily
I will say that there is a lot of confusion about what’s happening because of ‘trad’ online influencers that are bearing false witness for clicks and media outlets that are willfully distorting things. Michael Lofton at Reason and Theology has made some good content on whats happening right now
They were asked what they saw as the biggest problem with Islam and they answered, why do you see a problem with that. They are both under a death sentence so it was appropriate. Reasoning with them is not going to work. You need to not put so much faith in the power of your argument. Don't think if I just explain they will be convinced. You aren't Muslim therefore whatever you say is nothing to them.
The goal isn't to convince the Muslims but the audience. The Muslims got the better over the christians here and you can see it in the response of the apologetic world
I was speaking of the way Trent thinks
They will not be convinced but their listeners might. It is important not to be selfish in your own answers and only see your position in a debate.
Debaters not only have the responsibility to say the truth, they have to claim it too.
Those that do not, will fall.
Whether you are wrong or not is as important as whether you are seen as wrong or not in a debate. Not by your debater, but by your audience.
@@user-ow9zi8uc8g I was speaking of how Trent thinks.
@@user-ow9zi8uc8g So if I can be a better lawyer is most important?
I have been watching your contents until now I have never thought of subscribing until you just said it now!
Thank Trent! ❤
Great content. Very well done
What's your biggest challenge?
Answer: the call for violence.
Trent Horn: that's not your opinion. It should be that Islam is wrong.
For anyone wondering, Haqiqatjou is said huh-keek-uh-chu. But I like to call him Daniel He-kick-a-Jew.
Would love to see a debate between Trent and Jake the Muslim Metaphysician
Oh wow! An intelligent man discussing religion rationally and coherently!
He is as coherent as the purge of a man having a stomach flu
Quran believes Trinity is Mary, Son and Father.
Which verse in the quran that say trinity is mary, son and father?
@sethsuleiman4419 it is seemingly indicated in the 5th chapter, 119th verse.
@@angeryitalymanQuran 5:119 says, "Thereupon Allah will say, 'This day truthfulness shall profit the truthful. For them are Gardens beneath which rivers flow. There they will abide for ever. Allah is well- pleased with them, and they well-pleased with Allah. That indeed is the mighty triumph.'
Sorry, there is no trinity in this verse. Believe me, there is no trinity taught in the quran, 100% none.
You hv made a false claim that in the quran, there is trinity of mary, son and father.
@@sethsuleiman5104He is referring to this that the Quran claims about Christians:
"Those who say, “Allah is one in a Trinity,” have certainly fallen into disbelief. There is only One God. If they do not stop saying this, those who disbelieve among them will be afflicted with a painful punishment." Al-Mai'dah 5:73
"And ˹on Judgment Day˺ Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you ever ask the people to worship you and your mother as gods besides Allah?” He will answer, “Glory be to You! How could I ever say what I had no right to say? If I had said such a thing, you would have certainly known it. You know what is ˹hidden˺ within me, but I do not know what is within You. Indeed, You ˹alone˺ are the Knower of all unseen." Al-Mai'dah 5:116
The first verse identifies that Christian's believe in the Trinity, the second verse identies the persons of the Christian Trinity as Allah, Jesus, and Mary. This is further supported by 5:75 which states that both Jesus and Mary ate food and therefore were not divine.
Surah almaidah 5:73-75 and 5:116 clearly is talking about the "trinity" that suppously people believed although there is no evidence of that.
Sam Shamoun and Christian prince have talked about it too
Trent is one of the best debators I've seen, and I respect and look up to him very very much but I don't think he'll do very well against muslim apologists, except maybe shabir ally. Trent uses sound Logic and reasoning whereas almost all of the muslim apologists today twist Logic and reasoning to suit their position whenever convenient, It reminds me of an old saying, Debating a muslim apologist is like playing chess with a pigeon, the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit all over the board and claim victory, It's Impossible to use civil Logic and Reasoning against an opponent who has none. Right now the best debators against muslim Apologists are David Wood And Sam Shamoun, simply because they Understand the muslim mindset very well, which I'm afraid I'm not sure how much Experience trent has in that department, He's too Nice!!
I agree. Sam and David make solid arguments and then mock the Muslims for acting like they do. It's really the only way that works.
Yeah to debate Muslim apologists you really need to know Islam ,stay rational and be militant with staying on point, otherwise they’ll just lie about Islam and deflect to Christianity without skipping a beat.
Thomas Aquinas will laugh at you considering the origins of the Kalam cosmological argument.
But then again. You know jack all about Islam
@@hamba458 Thomas Aquinas would Laugh at you considering his choice words on muhammad and islam, google them, but then again you know jack shit about Aquinas or Islam
@@hamba458 So because Aquinas used 1 argument originating from a Muslim, that means? Aquinas also used Aristotelian logic, him & Plato were pagans. Does that mean Greek mythology isn’t dum? As the original guy said, Muslims tend to not use logic. You proved him.
Did you also forget he’s the same guy who exposed Islam & Muhammad’s lustfulness?
Thanks for the info, God bless you and your team
The Muslim apologists should explain how 'revelation' in the Quran consists of numerous contradictions, scientific errors and hate verses against unbelievers and people of other faiths all of which are believed and implemented even today by most Muslims
He should have explained what revelation means to Muslims
With all due respect, Trent, you should be doing your best to present these arguments in actual debates with Muslims. While Rashid and Richard may have made these errors, at least they put themselves out there. It wouldn't be difficult to go on Modern Day Debate or some other analogue and try your hand. This elephant in the room should be the priority, not the Christian denominational feuding Catholics get caught up in. No Protestant is literally butchering other Christians like what is happening in Nigeria etc.
One point that I will contend with and completely rebut in its paradigm is that violence, especially that sanctioned by God or for the good of his flock is NOT an evil, and the absolute aversion to violence and apologetic attitude towards it by modern Christians proves time and again to be one of our ultimate weaknesses in these debates. We live in a society so far removed from the natural order of the world that even the thought of action, whether defensive or aggressive, makes people uneasy. The world outside the West's paradigm does not view things this way as life for them continues much the same as it always has, fraught with peril and conflict. We have to face as Catholics the fact that in times when many of our nations were filled with piety the church actuvely encouraged the faiths defense, by force when it was necessary. This does not mean it was always just, but actions such as repelling invading heathens, crushing heresies, or the execution of schismatics were instrumental in maintaining order for the wider flock of Christendom. We cannot criticize fairly Islam for its religious warfare and efforts to maintain the faith when we ourselves did the same; and should be proud of it. There is little to apologize for or be ashamed of.
The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians understand that God is love. It is the self-giving love between the father and son that generates the holy-spirit. Islam views Allah as the inscrutable and unapproachable.The notion of God taking the form of man is anathema to Muslims. As Catholic Christians we believe that a divine logos governs the universe.
this is a great video for any Christian. the muslims know a lot and have made my faith stronger. hope i can plant those seeds of our faith when we dialogue. ❤
Amazing ad always Trent! Maybe my debating skills will come in handy soon haha.
You should just follow the bible and cover your head (1 Cor 11:4) and be subservient to your husband (Eph 5:23). Your religion does not permit you to teach other men on religion (1 Tim 2:12)
If you want to learn more about Islam, follow C-I-R-A I-ntern-at-ional, Pfa-nderFil-ms, R-ob C-hristian, I-slam Critiq-ued, Reason-ed An-swers and Da-nie|Apo|oge-tics etc.
(Sorry for the dashes, they’re necessary)
@@hamba458 Also Btw, *Quran 2:223* calls Muslim’s husband’s wives pr-perty.
Which is why if they refuse to sleep, Allah will kurse her all night (Sahih al-Bukhari 3237, Sahih Muslim 1436 c, etc.)
It is obligatory for them to give s-x when he asks or else her husband isn’t entitled to support her anymore (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Section m5.1 & m11.9).
She must comply if she’s baking at the oven, or better, if she’s riding a camel🤦♂️ (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1160 & Sunan Ibn Majah 1853)
@@hamba458 And don’t forget how women can be o-wn-ed by men (including s-x s|-ves), all sanctioned by Allah. (Quran 4:24, 23: 5-6, 70:28-30, And Sunan Abi Dawud 2155, Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3016 etc). Even if they’re married.
Disgusting.
@@hamba458 Men can dis-cip|-ine their wives because men are ‘in charge’ of wo-men (Quran 4:34). (Muhammad did this in Sahih Muslim 4:2127).
This matter is made worse by not being allowed to ask a man why he be-at his wife. ‘…A man should not be asked why he bea-ts his wife…’ (Sunan Ibn Majah 1986)
Hi, thanks for this video.
I think for us in Islamic majority countries, we want to defuse violence as the first reaction. If we argued Islam is false from the outset, it could mean your death. No further conversation.
Don't be so dramatic. You come from Southeast Asia. Islam was spread there peacefully through trade and conversion from Hindu Paganism. Catholicism on the other hand was spread by the sword. Compare the conversion of the Malays and Indonesians as with the Philippines.
Shameful
@@hamba458 If we are to go back to the past, admitted we will find violence on both sides. We accept that Mohd was a military man and there has been a history of violence since. Catholicism has apologised especially in year 2000 for being unfaithful to the Faith. While there are moderates in Islam, Sura 9:29 and 5:51 make it impossible to renounce violence completely.
In 2017, in Malaysia Pastor Raymond Koh, Joshua Hilmy and wife (Muslim converts) have disappeared without a trace. In the same year, in Indonesia Christian governor of Jakarta, Ahok was sentenced to imprisonment just for refering to the Quran. In Pakistan, look up Asia Bibi. And of course, ISIS.
For us, It's not Islamophobia. Its real
@@AdrianNgHK It's not real. It's drama.
None of the cases you cited follow the established principles of Islamic Shariah as espoused by the four mahzabs of the sunni school of Islam. In fact for Asia Bibi and Ahok, they were charged using laws based from CHRISTIAN colonisers. Both of them would not be convicted if Shariah rules of evidence applied. Secondly, Asia Bibi was acquitted on appeal, which meant she was never convicted in the first place. So why lie?
As for Raymond Koh, this is nothing to do with Shariah or Islam. It is an act done by mad fanatics. You citing this as an example is like saying the acts of the provisional IRA is doctrinally Catholic.
As for the Quranic verses you cited, read the tafsir. There are interpretations that limit the uses of these verses to a certain time and place. We are not Protestants who interpret scripture based on the whims and fancies of the Holy Ghost.
Lastly, will you condemn the Book of Revelation which slanders Jesus a.s. as a child killer (Rev 2:23)? Revelation makes abortionists look mild.
But of course. This stems from the disgusting doctrine of original sin, where everyone is born evil and deserving of hell. So different from the beautiful and loving concept of Fitrah in Islam. In our religion God loves children.
@@AdrianNgHK Lastly on ISIS. They are heretical takfiris and outside the fold of Islam. Please just study a bit of Islam before you blab nonsense away
@@AdrianNgHK the Quranic MHMD and the Islamic Muhammad are not the same. The Quranic MHMD is actually a biblical term for a Messianic figure. Another example for the pre Islamic MHMD is in an inscription dated in 523 AD (forty-seven years before the birth of the Islamic Muhammad) in Yemen. The inscription is believed to have been written during the Himyarite kingdom ruled Yemen and at that time the kingdom had adopted Judaism as its official 'religion'. But it is believed that the type of Judaism that was adopted by the Kingdom was a Priestly Judaism, not a typical Rabbinic Judaism that you can find nowadays on TH-cam.
The word MHMD itself means the Praised One (compare it with the meaning of the biblical term MHMD and also the biblical term the Christ, the Anointed One). In the Himyarite inscription, the word MHMD is used as part of the invocation, meaning it's part of a divine name.
…w-k-b-ẖfrt s1myn w-ʾrḍn w-ʾʾḏn ʾs1dn ḏn ms1ndn bn kl ẖs1s1m w-mẖdʿm w-rḥmnn ʿlyn b(12)n kl mẖd (ʿ)m bn m (ṣ).. wtf w-s1ṭr w-qdm ʿly s1m rḥmnnwtf tmmm ḏ-ḥḍyt rb-hd b-mḥmd
With the protection of the Sky and the Earth and the capacities of men, may this inscription [be protected] against any author of damage or degradation, and Raḥmānān Most-High, ag(12)ainst any author of degradation [… …] The narration of Tamīm dhu-Ḥaḍyat was composed, written, and carried out in the name of Raḥmānān, Lord of the Jews, with the Praised One
(Please search or google: The Judaism of the Ancient Kingdom of Ḥimyar in Arabia: A Discreet Conversion by, Christian Julien Robin (you can download the online publication).
Some of the descendants of the prominent figures in the kingdom played important roles in the early Islamic Syria.
in one of Al Tabari's book (in the english translation) Vol IX, the Last Years of the Prophet, mentions that the meaning of the word MHMD in page 156 "I am Muhammad the (One who is praised) ...". Thus, the Quranic MHMD is not a personal name, it's a title (just like the Christ is also a title).
Moreover, QS 33.40 clearly disqualifies the Islamic Muhammad as the Quranic MHMD "MHMD is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets. Allah has full knowledge of everything".
In my opinion: if you want to understand the concept of MHMD, you have to understand the concept of the messengers in the hebrew bible. In the hebrew bible there are two types of messengers, human and divine. The human messengers are the prophet (nafi or nabi) while the divine messenger is the Angel of the LORD, Angel of GOD.
If you read the Quran, you can find similar distinction about the messengers, human (prophet) and divine (rasulu ilahi), the Messenger of GOD (please note that the meaning of the Arabic word Rasul is messenger). The Quran attributes the title of the Messenger of GOD to only two "people" which are Jesus (ISA) and MHMD. It means the author of the Quran believed that Jesus and MHMD are divine beings, and the Quran is not talking about MHMD as a person, the Quran is talking about a divine messenger that can be also a divine Messiah that was believed by the Judaism in the Himyarite Kingdom (the word MHMD is only mentioned four times in the Quran). Thus, the Quranic MHMD is not a name, it's a title and it's a divine title. (It could have been attributed to Jesus during the Ummayad).
The author of the Quran also believed that Jesus had two natures, divine and human:
Divinity of Jesus in the Quran:
- Jesus is the Messenger of GOD, Rasulu Ilahi, the Angel of the LORD (Annisa 157)
- The Quran confirms the virgin birth of Jesus, a divine birth. Virgin Birth stories in ancient times mean divine birth for example the story of Athena that was believed to have been born without mother, etc. (You have to read and understand the verses of the Quran as if you lived in the 7th century)
- Al Lah (the LORD) raised Jesus unto Himself (Annisa 157); How could ALLAH raise Jesus unto Himself if Jesus was merely human being?
- the meaning of the Quranic word ISA is the Redeemer and it had been used by Christians, who lived in Syro Jordanian desert before Islam, as a divine name to render the Jewish name of Jesus. (please read or watch Ahmad Al Jallad "invocation to Jesus in Safaitic inscription).
- Note: in my opinion Al Maidah 116 is not the refutation of divinity of Jesus in the Quran because I think the verse is meant to discuss the Theotokos controversy not the divinity of Jesus. Theotokos can make Mary to become God/divine being because Mary gave birth to a divine being. Thus Al Maidah 116 clearly refutes that Jesus 'elevated' Mary to become God (divine) by giving birth to Jesus.
And [beware the Day] when Allāh will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allāh?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
The Human Nature of Jesus in the Quran:
- there are so many verses in the Quran that assert the human characteristic of Jesus
but, the main difference between Mainstream Christianity and the author of the Quran on the human nature of Jesus is in Annisa 157.
- the author of the Quran believed that the human nature of Jesus was not fully human (only half human). Thus, the human nature of Jesus was only the apparition of His divine Nature, Thus, The Human nature of Jesus didn't suffer on the cross because it was only His apparition because the divine nature of Jesus had been raised by ALLAH unto Himself (DOCETISM).
to what type of people was this verse intended?
this verse was intended to be preached or recited to the audience of the Quran that had Jewish background who believed that everyone hanging on tree is cursed of God (Deut 21.23). Thus, this verse solve the problem. Thus, the Quran is trying to preach to the Jews that Jesus is indeed the Jewish Messiah, something that modern Muslims cannot answer because they don not understand the concept of the Jewish Messiah.
And I don't understand why Christian apologists and the Atheists are busy talking about the Islamic Muhammad from the hadith while they clearly understand that the hadith are all man made and all of them were made at least 200 years after the year of the Hijrah.
The problem with the Muslims is that they do not understand their own Quran (the enemy of ISLAM is freedom, science and the Quran) because they are being misled by the hadith. the hadits was invented to cover the true meaning of the Quran (a non trinitarian text), while the problem with the Non Muslims (especially the Christians) is they commit the same mistake by repeating the same hadith.
===
the first book to read to understand the evolution of the word religion and the recent publication about the meaning of the Quranic word ISA:
1. "Before Religion, A History of Modern Concept", a book by Nongbri Brent that asserts that there were no words in the ancient languages that are equivalent to the modern concept of Religion. the word Religion itself came into the English Language in 1200 AD, and the meaning of which had been through an evolution. at that time, the meaning of the word religion was 'ritual' or 'way of worship'.
if there was no religion in the 7th century, when did the word ISLAM (originally meant submission) become the name of a religion? what was the real meaning of the Quranic word DEEN (originally meant Law or Judgement, just like the hebrew word DIN), a term that has been increasingly translated into the English Language as 'religion' in the last few decades. How could the different groups of people differentiate themselves if there was no religion at that time? Did the prophet know the modern meaning of the Quranic word DEEN? did the prophet know the modern meaning of the word ISLAM? did the prophet know that ISLAM was the name of a religion? did the prophet know that he adhere to a religion, a concept that didn't even exist at that time?
2. the recent publication and lecture by Ahmad Al Jallad on the meaning of the Quranic word ISA. You can find his publication online or you can also watch his lecture on TH-cam (Invocation to Jesus in Safaitic inscription).
I just want to add several things:
- there are two ways in rendering the Hebrew name of Jesus into different languages, translation and transliteration. if you transliterate His Hebrew name, you will end up with names such as Yasu, Jesus, Yesus, etc. but, if you translate it, then you can end up with different names that have totally different sounds and pronunciations than His Hebrew name (depending on how you want to portray Jesus) for example if you want to portray Jesus as the one who save , then you will translate His Hebrew name as the Savior, or if you want to portray Jesus as the one who redeem then you will translate His Hebrew name as the Redeemer.
below is a very interesting TH-cam video about how the Hebrew name of Jesus was rendered in the Old English translation of the Gospels:
The Wessex Gospels Translated Christ’s Name
th-cam.com/video/oTccsqtE2c8/w-d-xo.html
and you can compare it with how the pre-Islamic Christians (and subsequently the author of the Quran) rendered the Hebrew name of Jesus in their languages.
ACOR Lecture: "An Invocation to Jesus in a Safaitic Inscription?"
th-cam.com/video/Pc6Rv8d63hE/w-d-xo.html
the only thing to note is that in the inscription the word ISA is used as a divine name.
Almost 100k. Congrats😊
What I noticed about that discussion is that the two Muslims were theologians/philosophers and the two Christians were not.
As a Muslim watching the debate, the two Christians was not the best choice for debating and I feel was unfair and one sided debate.
Robert Spencer and David Wood have been engaging Islam for years. I think a better approach would to be humble and learn from them.
How confident a Christian sounds in the comfort of his recording room with no one else to interfere or ask basic questions about the new testament or Paul's authenticity.
What a ridiculous comment. You sound bitter.
David Wood should have been on the panels of Christians because he is a scholar on Islam. On second thought, Sam Shamoun should have been the other Christian who knows the Quran and speaks Arabic. But Jake would have probably backed out.
IMO the main Christian objection to Islam is that it's blasphemous to the Christian faith, since it explicitly denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. A secondary objection could be that Islam's version of heaven sounds very much like Christianity's vision of Hell, given that Islamic heaven indulges all of (almost exclusively male-centric) carnal desires instead of being a place without carnal desires.
One can only ravage so many virgins before getting bored. 😂 I agree I think Jesus promising that "in my father's house there are many rooms" is a rather beautiful description. In Christianity we are promised a place of belonging with God the father rather than carnal delights.
Trent, the debate you critiqued had an Orthodox and Protestant Christian debating Muslims, HOWEVER, some of the main disputes the Muslims present are uniquely problematic to Catholic Christianity - i.e. why not change everything, trans reading hour, homosexuality, etc. If you want to realistically engage with Muslims you're going to have to confront reality - which means that you're going to have to be more honest and forthright than you usually are and be critical of Pope Francis and many of his appointed spokespersons. Unfortunately, there's a wing of social media Catholics like yourself, Michael Loftun and Catholic Answers who frankly are out of touch and leave an impression of cowardice because you're more interested in having comfortable and supported relationships with Church hierarchy - even when the hierarchy leans toward dissent of Magisterial teaching.
The Church hasn't changed her teachings on any of these things though... It's literally just stuff you're making up in your own head to justify your dislike of Pope Francis.
@@glumbumble I'm not as (wilfully?) ignorant as you - I've read Amoris Laetitia, Desiderio Desideravi, Abhu Dhabi - to name a few of the Doctrinal errors of Pope Francis. Wilful ignorance is a sin - just as is divorce & "re-marriage" - it's what Christ and Catholic teaching called adultery but what Pope Francis calls "irregular marriages" in Amoris Laetitia AND when St Paul described Sacrilege in the Scriptures and the Council of Trent condemned as an anathema - Pope Francis described verbatim "all that is required is faith" in Desiderio Desideravi. Are you WILFULLY IGNORING the fact that he issued that document on the Eucharist that makes absolutely no mention of repentance, Confession or being in a state of grace on the very same day of the Feast of Sts Peter & Paul when pro abortion US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi visited Pope Francis and then received Communion in the Mass Pope Francis celebrated IN DEFIANCE to her Archbishop Cordileone who had said she may not receive Communion until she make public repentance. Why do you ignore this outright sacrilege & blasphemy and make false accusations against me and defend these malicious actions & teachings from Pope Francis?!
Abhu Dhabi document states contrary to Catholic teaching that "God wills a plurality of religions". Why do you think that hundreds of prominent, internationally recognized Catholic theologians have formally issued accusations listing several de facto heresies from Pope Francis? And good Cardinals have been removed from their very competent positions and several of them have made clear statements of concern.
Are you a practicing homosexual or do you have some other agenda that you're wanting to promote that has always been condemned by the Church or are you just simply ignorant? For your sake I hope that you're simply and not wilfully ignorant because then you're not in sin and just need to open your eyes to the truth.
@@glumbumble You also owe me an apology and all the people you are misleading because of your calumny directed at those of us who care about the salvation of souls - including Pope Francis'!!!.
@@glumbumble…spot on!!🎯
@@MPFXTget ratio’d
God called for a lot of violence in the Bible
Not the same as Momo using it to justify his selfish actions
He did not leave standing orders to kill non-converts.
@@loulasher Exactly.
God was dealing with brutally violent times. The people who think this is a valid objection reveal tremendous ignorance about how human beings throughout the known world in the OT era conducted themselves when in conflict with their enemies. They weren't settling scores over tea and crumpets
lol tea and crumpets...are you English?@@ironymatt
According to real Christian scholarship, Muhammad was a genuine prophet of God.
who are they...
@Eh-Mungu-Nguvu-yetu
Professor *Gavin d Costa* , Oxford university:
VATICAN 2: Catholic doctrines on Jews and Muslims page 160:
The following doctrines on the Muslims are taught at the Council. First, Lumen Ggentium contains a clear doctrinal statement on the nature of God worshipped by Muslims: that this *is the same God worshipped by Christians* . Second, the development is that Islam is now seen to operate within an Abrahamic typology, not in historical covenantal lineage to Abraham, but in a typology of faith: seeking submission to God. This renders Islam, as seen by implication in Dei Vverbum, as a pre-Mosaic-type religion, but *also as having supernatural elements* . Third, Nostra Aaetate reinforced both these developments: *Islam had elements of supernatural divine revelation* ; and Islam operates within an Abrahamic typology, thus sharing the faith typologically of this great Patriarch.
@Eh-Mungu-Nguvu-yetu
Professor *Gavin d Costa* , Oxford university:
VATICAN 2: Catholic doctrines on Jews and Muslims page 160:
The following doctrines on the Muslims are taught at the Council. First, Lumen Ggentium contains a clear doctrinal statement on the nature of God worshipped by Muslims: that this *is the same God worshipped by Christians* . Second, the development is that Islam is now seen to operate within an Abrahamic typology, not in historical covenantal lineage to Abraham, but in a typology of faith: seeking submission to God. This renders Islam, as seen by implication in Dei Vverbum, as a pre-Mosaic-type religion, but *also as having supernatural elements* . Third, Nostra Aaetate reinforced both these developments: *Islam had elements of supernatural divine revelation* ; and Islam operates within an Abrahamic typology, thus sharing the faith typologically of this great Patriarch.
@Eh-Mungu-Nguvu-yetu
Professor *Gavin d Costa* , Oxford university:
VATICAN 2: Catholic doctrines on Jews and Muslims page 160:
The following doctrines on the Muslims are taught at the Council. First, Lumen Ggentium contains a clear doctrinal statement on the nature of God worshipped by Muslims: that this *is the same God worshipped by Christians* . Second, the development is that Islam is now seen to operate within an Abrahamic typology, not in historical covenantal lineage to Abraham, but in a typology of faith: seeking submission to God. This renders Islam, as seen by implication in Dei Vverbum, as a pre-Mosaic-type religion, but *also as having supernatural elements* . Third, Nostra Aaetate reinforced both these developments: *Islam had elements of supernatural divine revelation* ; and Islam operates within an Abrahamic typology, thus sharing the faith typologically of this great Patriarch.
I believe the strongest argument for the Christian faith and against Islam is to prepare a good comparison between the life histories, teachings, works and effects on their followers’ lives of Jesus and Mohammed. Then rest your case.
I think the Strongest argument for Islam is that the other scriptures have been corrupted
Hello! I am a relatively recent Christian. I recognize that Jesus was a real figure in history, and I believe he is God, died for our sins and all that jazz. but I am not "catholic" or "protestant" yet. I have found these videos very useful so far but I am just putting myself out there until I get a response because I have a lot of questions. How could I talk to someone, like a priest or IDK maybe just some catholic dude to help me understand a bit more about why one "ought" to be a catholic. I have seen lots of videos but I want to start having actual 1-on-1 conversations with someone very learned in the field.
I tried to reach out to some local parish but apparently you have to be a "member" or something? I really just wanna discuss it with someone. Anyone on here have any pointers?
I just wanna get this whole Jesus thing right.
You don't have to be a " member" of anything if you want to talk to a priest..what are you talking about?
@@liza_k9774 I don't know what I am talking about. That is why I am asking for advice. Do I just like show up to a Catholic Church and ask to speak to a priest or what?
@@josephtattum6365 why not? Yes.. go after a mass or something and Ask for a conversation. If they can't talk on a spot then you can always ask to set up a time and day.. especially if that will be a longer conversation. But basicly go, ask , explain and see.
Hi fellow Joseph, the parish likely misunderstood you and thought you were asking for the sacrament of confession, which you can only receive after baptism, as its purpose is to renew all our baptismal graces. You should reach out again and say that you are a recent Christian convert who is interested in Catholicism and would like to discuss the Catholic faith with someone knowledgeable. Priests are often very busy, but there may be a deacon or well-educated layman the parish could point you towards.
I recommend calling your local Catholic Church and ask about their RCIA program for new wannabe Catholics or those interested, it's usually weekly for 1-2hrs and about 1year long. It's an introduction to Catholicism facilitated usually by a priest or deacon or qualified lay person. At the end of that time if you still want to be Catholic you will be welcomed into the Church on Holy Thursday with baptism if you haven't been baptized.
Exactly. Wrong target when the OT has God commanding violence like eliminating the canaanites, jezebel, etc.
Gotta focus on other things.
Is jesus god?
@@sethsuleiman4419 Duh
@@thehitomiboy7379It is a simple, short question. Is jesus god?
@@sethsuleiman5104 and i gave a simple short answer. Duh.
Which is to say yes.
@@thehitomiboy7379 Oh, duh means yes; ie. jesus is god.
TQ. Now, is the father god?
The best argument against Islam is the Satanic Verses. Surah 53 vs. Deuteronomy 13. For an excellent breakdown on this see David Wood. There is no better argument. It is the most solid argument of all.
th-cam.com/video/ZjMGLIjraHI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=z2nLdpfsPhinVBGh
I agree with you Trent. I wish they invited Sam Shamoun and David Wood or someone else on that panel. That would be lethal.
Shamoun is a foul mouthed coward who can do is hide behind his echo chamber and swear at people.
I agree with what Trent says, but the fact is that violence is an essential part of Islam and the Catholic CHurch ignores this. The Pope says Islam doesn't teach violence because he wants to justify mass Islamic immigration.
That sounds like a bit of a stretch. Do you have a link showing the Pope's actual statements regarding this?
It's also the final order of Muhammad. The fact that At-Tahbah was the last major surah fundamentally changes the role of violence in the religion
@@sivad1025 yes. A lot of people aren't aware of the rule of abrogation in Islam. Where there are differences in rules and practices recorded in the Koran the chronologically later texts take precedence over earlier texts... and the peaceful nicey-nice texts are the earlier ones. This is complicated tremendously by the fact that the Koran isn't written in chronological order.
I'm unaware about the applicability of the Sunnah and Hadiths when it comes to abrogation however, and it may vary among the different schools of Islamic jurisprudence
@@ironymatt This is definitely the classical understanding. Muslims never questioned the authority of At-Tahbah until they were Westernized by Christianity
@@sivad1025
I think it's shias who deny abrogation, then again they're also likelier to engage in taqiyya
Islam equal violence. Meanwhile Colonializations, the World Wars (1&2) are done by the Wester Europe and last apartheid from South Africa, also last slavery abolished are from the U.S
The first country to abolish was Christian France.
Exactly how can’t this be so obvious
Who was the Guy who open fired in a mosque Is Christchurch Newzealand ?😂😂😂😂If he was not a Christian and if that's not Christian terrorism , then what it is ?
Having a Christian sounding name does not make you a Christian
Hi Trent, I'm Muslim and I'm a huge fan of your channel. I have some constructive feedback! You see, you stand out from other Christians because you're more respectful, balanced, and nuanced. You try and present what you believe are the strongest and most appropriate arguments. You don't try to win points. It's great. However, in this video, while I admire your honesty and critical thinking in admitting bad Christian debating, I would like to correct you on a few things. From what I remember, you mentioned the age of Aisha (controversial, I know) and you implied that because the Prophet (upon whom be peace) married her at a young age, and Islamic law does not adapt to our times, it's immoral. However, you should take into account that Muslims do not marry women specifically at the age of 9: the Prophet's first wife was older when she married the Prophet Muhammad, around the age of 29 or 40, depending on the sources. This does not entail we marry women specifically at those ages. This is the same for when Muslims travel, we are not obliged to specifically use camels or horses for travel, rather, what is more appropriate in our times, cars and motoe vehicles (weird example, I know). Of course, you know this. What is missing from your knowledge however is that Islamic jurisprudence has always taken mental maturity, psychological readiness, and spiritual maturity (as well as other factors like societal norms in some of the major madhabs) into account. (This is something Daniel Haqiqatjou completely ignores because his debate tactic is to accept the worst case scenario and cut the problem/objection by its roots. In the hypothetical questions Inspiring Philosophy gave for ages of consummation in marriage, Daniel did not take into the other fiqh-related factors aforementioned.) In Islam, we have sharia law, but we always refer to our schools of thought in jurisprudence to interpret the divinely revealed laws. In sunni Islam, we have 4 major, extant, and orthodox madhabs. In modern times, one can also count the Salafi madhab, although that may be controversial. So, marriage to someone at the age of 9, right after the onset of puberty, would not be allowed unless, of course, other criteria are met. In modern times, people mature very differently and undoubtedly our laws consider this. Our mother Aisha was considered a woman in her times, and if you consider the sources from age to be historically accurate and reliable, you'll have to concede that there are her testimonies and reports where she said she was a mature woman; that, according to her, others mature by her age; that she was not harmed; and that she was already to be married to someone else of a similar age before the Prophet sought her marriage. Despite this, you may object that this was still an abhorrent act committed by the Prophet, who is supposedly the role-model for all of mankind. In this case, you'll be heading toward a better line of reasoning and your debate will be more fruitful (though beware of rebuttals).
Next, you mentioned that if you were to debate Islam, you would confute the very foundations of our theology. You mention an easy target, such as Prophetic miracles. On this note, you should be made aware that Prophetic miracles and even Prophecies are not the main proofs for Islam, they merely corroborate our case. The veracity of our theology does not rest on this. What is the main miracle is the Quran, the word of God. You say that it is considered miraculous merely because it is beautiful-this is false. In brief, we fully acknowledge that beauty is indeed subjective and we offer criteria from the linguistic structure and literary features of the Qur'an that are unmet by detractors of Islam. I can provide some great books on this topic because it would take some time to explain this further.
Anyway, I hope you read this, Trent. Forgive me for any factual blunders and grammatical errors. Thanks for your respectful engagement, I hope my comment helps.
Brother there is no 9 year old ever who was mature enough to marry a 50nyear old man. Mohammad was a man and sinned on multiple occasions. Answer me honestly... Have you ever considered following the teachings of the Jesus's sermon on the mount? I'm not asking you to proffes that Jesus is your lord because I know that his considered a sin in Islam but the Quran calls on you to accept an follow the teachings of all prior prophets.
There is nothing incompatible with Quran found in the sermon on the mount in which we find the greatest commandment and the beatitudes.
Follow the teachings of Jesus found in Matthew 5 through 7. If you follow these teachings you will see that Jesus is the greatest example.