This take the entire lid off islam and it’s now easy to see Islam’s Evolution and destroy the ridiculous concept that it came as a fully formed religion to one man in a cave. This series is actually painting a far more accurate analysis of the theology of the age ..
This was one the best presentation of Thomas so far, full of huge information to digest and brilliantly articulated and logically bound together in short amount of time. Thank you.
@@alonzoharris6730 you just called your own book propaganda. You said a propagandist just cherry picks data etc and any rational person lays out a methodology and criterion for their views. I asked you for the methodology and criterion that Uthman and his scholars used for the Koran? I'm still waiting for you to prove your own holy book isn't propaganda, by your own definition?
Brilliant presentation that uncovers so much of myth that was piled over like the layers of a bulbous onion getting peeled now...can't wait Thomas for your forthcoming book.God bless .
It is cabbage and not onion that came to my mind when I thought about the same thing, it can grow to an enormous size and as such would be preferred by women in Egypt to use its boiled leaves to make stuffing for their large sized families. Bulbous onion or giant cabbage, I will go for the latter.
Love the way Thomas picks a couple of coins with the name "Muhammad', makes the totally false claim that Muhsmmad was a TITLE, not a given name, and builds upon this false claim to deny the whole existence of early Islam. True genius! 😁.
Simply brilliant, dear Thomas! Fabelhaft!!! I pray that this will go viral and will finally bring our Muslim brothers and sisters home to the True One✝️
@@Dddddgjy Why make fun of trinity.. Islam is not monotheistic.. it is a dualistic faith.. without mahmet, u won’t have ur Islam.. so Allah is dependent on Mahmet , without which he won’t exist for Muslims .. can u be a Muslim without saying magnet’s name in the Shahada.. Oh and where does Allah say the sun sets ?
@@Dddddgjy What’s laughable is that u don’t dare to quote ur Koran. Let me do that for u. Surah 18:83 They will ask thee of Dhu'l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him. Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road. And he followed a road Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. Your Muslim apologists says all sorts of lies .. say that it is according to Dhu’l Qarneyen’s perspective, when it is clearly Allah talking.. And do not lie, there is no reference to the beach or sea here’s it says muddy spring..Aynin عَيْنٍ means spring , not sea.. What is so laughable is ur pathetic attempt in explaining it as beach .. Taqiah 101.. Let me continue .. Then he followed a road Till, when he reached the* rising-place of the sun 🌞 *, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom.. Ur Mahmet is so stupid, one cannot reach a place where the sun sets or sun rises.. you only see that based on the geographic location. Let me tell ur more and join me And 😂 at this stupidity by ur mahmet . Abu Dharr (one of Muhammad’s close companions) was with Muhammad during the sunset. Muhammad asked him: ‘Do you know, O Abu Dharr where this sun sets?’ He answered; ‘God and His apostle know better.’ Muhammad said: ‘It sets in a spring of slimy water’” 🤪
@@Dddddgjy Don’t obfuscate my friend .. are u ashamed .. this is not about Christianity.. don’t indulge in a red herring .. stick to the topic .. Can u say ur Shahada without mentioning Mahmet ? Can u be a Muslim without Mentioning mahmet’s name ? Can u instead say Aaron, Musa , Daud or Isa? They are all prophets according to Islam..
@@Dddddgjy Classic red herring among Muslims.. faced with criticism of mahmet or Koran they divert and deflect and talk about the Bible.. Let me repeat .. surah al kahf .. has Allah talking .. They ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about Ⱬul-Qarnain. Say, “I will relate to you something of his narrative.” Surely We established him in the land, and gave him the means to all things. So he travelled a course.. *”Who is talking here ? Is the dead zulkarnian talking ? So u worship zulkarnian?* The Surah continues : until he reached the setting ˹point˺ of the sun, which appeared to him to be setting in a spring of murky water, where he found some people. We said, “O Ⱬul-Qarnain! Either punish them or treat them kindly.” It is ur mahmet who things the earth was flat and made up stuff .. laughable stuff.. And ur taqiah is exposed .. there is no reference to sea or beach .. 🤪
This series is incredible (this is my third time watching it through) and I really hope you come back and produce more. I would like to say, however, that it’s a misnomer to suggest that Trinitarian theology is in any way “Hellenized” or not “based on the Old Testament”. Go look at the standard bearers of Orthodox Christian theology and you’ll see an explicit rejection of Hellenistic philosophy and arguments backing up every theological doctrine built directly on the Old Testament as well as the New.
14:10 about "the standing caliph" coin: this mount of stone appeared earlier on byzantine Coins (i.e. Heraclius, w H. Constantine, 610-641. Solidus Gold) but with a cross on top. It makes sense to continue symbols for the value of a coin to prevent confusion. However, "the standing caliph" is highly disputed to be the Ruler or Mohamme himself, but 2 details are usualy overlookedd: -he has no headcover (no crown, no Turban or anything we would expect for an earthly ruler). -there is a line/ string under his right ellbow (=left side) and this is understood as a whip (?) Why the hack would this guy carry a whip?
I found an expert article online by Ali Minai about early Islamic coinage. He says it's a sword or staff. But the coins are so crude its difficult to see. Some scholars think it may be Muhammad himself so eithet sword or staff would be feasible.
@@davidzack8735 I'm not ruling out that the ""standing caliph" could be Mohammed but why would you show him a: on a coin? b: with a sword? [off topic: the word "sword" does not appear in the Quran, but on several Occasions in the Tora and new testament] The "standing Caliph" is a runaway from the usualy motives before, but even exceeded by the next generation when the arab coins only show writings but no more symbols/ pictures. This becomes clearer if you compare byzantine/ persian/ arab coins over centuries, they follow some logic and sometimes relate to each other. We are already of topic but all of this is most interesting, I just can't find a site that gives a good overvier of coins from this era; If anyone knows one I would be happy to hear about :)
@@slippingsnake Last night I went online and found exactly what you are looking for. 'Viewing the early Islamic state through its coins' by Ali Minai. I made notes on every phase. The Standing Caliph coins appear at Phase V; Ummayad Consolidation.
@@davidzack8735 I have visited this site before, thanks to your reminder now I've bookmarked it. But what I mean is a comparison to byzantine and persian coins to show the evolution. 1 example: around the same time that Justinian II. changes coins to show the face of Jesus Abdul Malik changes to coins that show only writings. This looks like a coincidence but before that you find similar symbolism on byzentine and arabs coins (and actualy on persian coins too). Until then there is a convention that one side of the coin has a religious symbol, the other side shows the Ruler; Persian Kings and Byzantine Emporers justify their Reign through divine Authority. But our early islamic Arabs have no church and no Dynasty of divine origin, so they need something else :)
Hi Thomas, I have a couple of questions regarding the content of your video. 1Q. So by what date did all Arabs / Nabateans convert to Christianity? 2Q. Why would Arabs have a different theory of Anti-triniterian in spite of being natives to Israel, Jordan and Syria? I don't understand why would Christians divide on such a matter when they all were in the same places as Eastern Orthodox and Syrian Christianity?
Regarding your first questions, different tribes converted at different times. We know that by the 5th century AD, Arabs converted in large numbers. Individual tribes may have converted much earlier, possibly already in the 2nd century. The Quran seems to go back to one or more preachers converting Arabs towards the end if the 6th century. As for the second question, I’m not sure I understand you. Christological disagreements have always existed. The Arabs weren’t special in that regard.
@@TAlexander God Almighty made a testament/will in the OT with us that we should inherit His kingdom. So for this testament/will to be activated the testator has to die. Hebrews 9.16. That is why God Almighty had to die on the cross (He didnt cease to exist just like we do not cease to exist when we die) but He died in the flesh so that He could spill HIS holy blood Acts 20.28 so that whoever believes in this gift of LOVE (self sacrifice John 15.13) should receive His Holy Spirit and be sealed for the kingdom (receive the inheritance) You must believe in the LOVE (self sacrifice/death) of God in the flesh because it was the love of God that fulfilled the law (Romans 13) So if you believe in the love (self sacrifice/death) of God in the flesh, the death of the testator, you will be born again and receive His Holy Spirit and will be no longer under the law. Trinity and unitarianism will lead you to hell because both doctrines demand a faith, in which a separate father sends his separate son to the cross. Whoever believes in this, whoever puts their faith in this sacrifice of an other, does not believe in the selfless self sacrifice of God who came as a servant, and will therefore not receive the Spirit of God but the spirit of the selfish (satanic) anti (in stead of) Christ. God is SPIRIT and when He came to earth, He was still in heaven at the same time John 3.13, That is how He Himself was able to go to the cross and spill His holy bloody and therefore activate the testament/will. This is the gospel of peace which is based on the love of God. All I have told you is biblical.
Keep them coming! I'm watching the netflix series Inventing Anna, where she played every body in a time where internet, phone and information is so accessible to anybody but still she was able to fool everybody! Imagine what can be done in 600AD (relatively) with a little bit of knowledge. inventing Islam (although the same could be applied for Christianity and Judaism ).
Jesus at the end of times has a sword, but coming from his mouth - i.e. he speaks decisively, if you read it as a metaphor. He holds in his hands seven stars (Revelation 1.16).
I used to think that Muhammad was a Messianic Jew from one of the various sects that existed in Arabia at that time because his Unitarianism was so strict and particularly marked by his total rejection of the Trinity. However, this series of videos makes it quite clear that Islam basically grew out of non Trinitarian Christianity of the 7th Century and that Muhammad's references to various events in the life of Christ in the Koran reveal the view that he had a thorough knowledge of texts taken from the gnostic gospels of Saints Thomas and Bartolomew, thus making a strong case for the arguments presented in this fascinating series on the origins of Islam.
“And even if We had sent down unto you (O Muhammad SAW) a Message written on paper so that they could touch it with their hands, the disbelievers would have said: "This is nothing but obvious magic!" [Qur’an 6:7]✨ “And indeed before your time (O Muhammad!) many a Messenger has been scoffed at; but those who mocked at them were encompassed by the Truth they had scoffed at." [Qur'an 6:10]✨ “Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth).”[Qur’an 6:111]✨ “No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.” [Qur’an 10:100]✨ “What is the life of this world but amusement and play? but verily the Home in the Hereafter,- that is life indeed, if they but knew.” [Qur’an 29:64] ✨
@@Slapwithtruth it is. You need to study more. Cause Mohammed as described by Islam did not exist. Most of the stories to back up the islamic mohammed were written 200 years after his supposed birthyear.
In the long academic introduction to Alfred Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Life of Muhammad, Guillaume lists Ibn Ishaq's most important precursors, those who wrote maghazi books before him. A fragment of papyrus proves that by AH 100/718CE, 'the main facts of the prophet's life were written down much as we have them in the later works'. Th The information is detailed and precise, as is the analysis of how Guillaume was able to restore the lost original which existed in at least 15 versions.
It was claimed by the Christian Missionaries and their minions, that Islam confused Mary- The mother of Jesus with their Biblical Miriam who was the sister of Aaron as per their Bible, their evidence was the Qur’anic verse from the chapter 19: “O [Mary] sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.” Jami Al Timidhi also mentions the Hadith: Narrated Al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah: “The Messenger of Allah sent me to Najran. They said to me: ‘Do you people not recite: O sister of Harun (19:28) - while between Musa and ‘Eisa there is such (gap) as there is?’ I did not know how to respond to them. So when I returned to the Prophet. I told him about that, and he said: ‘Why didn’t you tell them that they were named after their Prophets and righteous people before them.’” Here above we see that Muhammad is himself refuting the claim This controversy is as old as the Muslim-Christian dialogue. The Prophet is said to have refuted similar arguments made by the Christians of Najran during his lifetime; “to confuse Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron in Torah is completely wrong and in contradiction to the sound Hadith and the Qur’anic text as we have established it in the Tafsir”(Isma’il ibn Umar Abu l-Fida Ibn Kathir, Qisas al-anbiya’, ed. Mustafa Abd al-Wahid, vol. II The epithet “O sister of Aaron” used by Mary’s people when they saw a baby in her arms, was simply a reminder to her of the people like her who had gone before and were pious and chaste. Furthermore, the Qur’an, just like the New Testament, associates Mary, mother of Jesus, during the time of Zakariyya. This makes the case for “confusion” between the two Marys untenable. And just a note to everyone, the Missionary may respond back by quoting historical events or genealogies from his Bible, however, the Muslims are not supposed to believe the Biblical claims, whether they claim Mary to have come from a different genealogy or line, or other claims. The current ‘Bible’ is however, a not-so-reliable source anymore for the people of Islam. So, people had the same questions as you, 1400 years ago. Keep digging!
@@Gege_MemesMary mother of Jesus and Miriam sister of Aaron are two different person in bible and that's fact in bible the thing is your quran is confused about these two people and we are not
The way I see it, the Quran is contradictory in that regard as it refers to both, Jesus being crucified and Jesus explicitly not being crucified. But since the latter element is more explicit, that’s what has become the Muslim perspective. It feels like the original Christian sect did some picking and choosing. They liked the idea of Jesus not being crucified, not seeing that they incorporated a docetist motif. Then they reinterpreted the passages that referred to Jesus’ crucifixion, claiming it refers to Jesus’ death at the end of times.
@@TAlexander thank you. The passages certainly appear to contradict each other. From my personal perspective whilst surah 4:157-8 is certainly confusing I don’t it purports to teach that Yeshua did not die but rather it was addressing the claims of the Jewish religious sects and writings who claimed they were responsible for his death. The other 2 passages in the Koran state that Jesus died. Clearly, however, as with the Christian Bible there are some passages that are ambiguous and have various interpretations and the people who have the most power will determine which interpretation wins out in general. I have found the discussions by dr khalil andani very enlightening from a Muslim perspective
If this is true that they were anti trinitarian christians. Why were the earliest mosques facing petra? Mosques as early as the 7th century are confirmed to be facing petra. As these people may have been familiar with the diatesseron, is there anything in the diateseron that would indicate for people to point their heads towards the masjid al harram in petra?
I don't think that Diatessaron inspired them to face petra...i think the remenants of arab paganism had inspired them for that...they retained their past pagan influences even though they became nominal antitrinitarian christian...
'The first coins with explicitly Islamic imprimatur appeared around 651CE during the period of Uthman after Muslim victory over the Persians. Silver Sassanian dirhams with bismillah added in Arabic in the obverse margin.' Ali Minai: Viewing the early Islamic state through its coinage.
Fun Fact : The search for historicity of Muhammad is desperately scoured through by Muslims in the only available 7th century account of Sebeos, and coins found nowhere in Arabian peninsula but in Iraq and Persia that literally debunk their standard islamic narrative about the mythical legends associated to this particular person named muhammad, as the Muhammad Sebeos describes is from Tachekestan just a little down south of Armenia as per him, Sebeos's home country while Muhammad Muslims today simultaneously worship as a God and revere as a Prophet while denying the former act is supposed to be from Arabian Peninsula. Numismatic evidence gathered from Syria traced back to Muaviyya has cross carved in it, but that's just the start, the Dome Of Rock's Shahada as well as the drastic similarity of legends found in Heretical Christian sects, Judaism, Persian Cults such as Manichaeism and Qur'an strongly hints at the possibility of Qur'an being derived from these above mentioned sources, doctored and edited as per their convenience throughout the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, while Muhammad was merely a title given to Jesus himself by the Aramaic speaking Nazarene Christians, which leaves Muslims with no option other than resorting to lie about the evidence since it's out and can't be hidden and to go through mental gymnastics in order to somehow pretend that they have made sense of all of it and that they can explain it all, this is where they confuse the questioner when he brings up the topic by bringing Unga Bunga Islamic Laws and So on that have nothing to do whatsoever with the original Syrian Islam that started out in 7th Century described by Sebeos
@@adrianbelko7683 Congratulations on producing a bunch of completely erroneous and unverifiable statements and the insulting manner you delivered them in. 😁
@@davidzack8735 Fun Fact : When Muslims are presented with irrefutable arguments about the historicity of Muhammad they don't feel ashamed in resorting to using various fallacies in order to make themselves look like they have an upper hand during the course of the discussion As Sebeos never mentions Mecca or Medina to be the place where the Arabs the sons of Ishmael as accepted by him and claimed by Arabs themselves to be place of their origin or their home country as the standard islamic narrative goes in fact the place he refers to be the deserts is nowhere located in the Arabian Peninsula, but in modern day Syria just a litte east of Jerusalem, he talks about the Jews of Edessa who go to get aid from the Sons Of Ishmael to a place called Tachekestan. Various Chinese as well as Indian inscriptions about the description of early Islamic Invaders have been referred to these people as Tajiks not Arabs, even during the construction of the grand clock Mecca is today known for there was an excavation carried out in the whole city by a team of Researchers led by Dan Gibson who found nothing whatsoever around the Kaaba or the whole cities for that matter other than an Ottoman fort. When the evidence is this darn irrefutable the Muslims are forced to label these claims as erroneous, unverifiable and nonsense, that you can tell has come out of their desperation because they're only hurling assertions and not providing any source, citation or proper rebuttal to refute these evidences that have been professed in Academia for nearly a whole century by renowned Historians and Archeologists such as Alphonse Mingana, Christoff Luxembourg, Patricia Crone etc
@@adrianbelko7683 Even Dan Gibson accepts the Medina part of the life of Muhammad, as far I can gather. And the defeat of the Byzantine Army at Yarmuk by Khalid and the surrender of Jerusalem to these 'Arab Sons of Ishmael' and their Jewish pals, the hurrying away of sacred Christian relics beforehand to Constantinople, does not lend credence to these Sons of Israel and Omar himself being any form of Christians, does it? 😁
@@davidzack8735 it doesn't until you stop ruling out the possibilities as soon as you find something convenient enough to back your wishful thinking Aramaic speaking Christians were a heretical sect (or atleast were termed so by their contemporary Christians from the Byzantine Empire) abiding by beliefs that made it into the Qur'an such as denying the Divinity of Jesus yet placing him in the sort of the same position as Muhammad today is to Muslims, denying the Crucifixion of Jesus as professed in Qur'an. Apart from that, the usage of the title Muhammad in the Dome Of Rock, the earliest inscription of the title is explicitly used for Jesus. And the strange words or sentences in Qur'an that don't make sense, once tallied with Aramaic sources as done by Gabriel Sauma start to perfectly sound sensible. All these hint to a disturbingly secret origin of Islam which were moulded and fabricated as per the convenience of Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates. And i haven't even got into the mysterious origins and unverifiable historicity of Khalid Ibn Walid and Ali Ibn Abu Taleb
Which Syrian Christians exactly are you speaking? Cause most that I know of, including my own Syrian Orthodox Church were definitely trinitarian. There were nazarean type Judeao-Syrian Christians that were more OT based and their anti-trinitarian stance was rejected by much of the churches. But then there were also many Syrian Christians that were easily swayed to Islam in later years due to privileges and tax breaks and overall similarities in the faiths anyways, not caring so much about theological disputes that plagued Christianity.
They were anti-Trinitarian Christians. But yes, they did take up Islam in the 9th century. This was a slow, evolutionary change and probably wasn’t seen as originating with the Abbasids.
@@TAlexander this is what doesn’t make sense to me. Surely the Ummayids in Spain must have been on a vendetta with the Abbassids who slaughtered their kin. So how would they succumb to their made up ideology? Otherwise everything else I have heard you say makes sense. Certainly more than the Standard Islamic Narrative
@@potkinazarmehr As I said, they likely didn’t see it as an Abbasid ideology. Keep in mind, by the time the Umayyads took over Spain, Muhammad was likely already historised. Everything else comes down to small, gradual changes. And those changes did come in handy when it came to solidifying their rule. What worked for the Abbasids in the east worked equally well for the Umayyads in the west.
@@TAlexander they just suddenly forgot about their unitary Christian religion and unknowingly succumbed to the new Abbassid ideology and Koran?! Doesn’t make sense to me. Need to do more research on this
@@potkinazarmehr You think too much in black and white. This happened gradual over centuries. Nobody just forgot about their religion. It evolved. Muhammad slowly gained in importance until at some point, he became more important than Jesus. But for the people on the ground, not much changed at any point in time. For example: Let’s assume that at the beginning, Muhammad was only believed to have been a preacher. Then the doctrine of Muhammad being a Prophet comes to Spain. That’s very helpful when it comes to arguing with local Christians who could easily dismiss a random preacher, so it got adopted, but it didn’t change the beliefs as such. Next came the belief that Muhammad was the seal of all prophets which once again is very helpful against other wannabe prophets. But nobody intended to create a new religion. Yet, with every little change, that’s exactly what has happened. The last step would be the Muhammad biography which sealed the deal. But again, it was only seen to affirm what was already believed. It’s a bit like Spanish and Portuguese being different languages. It’s not like the Portuguese decided over night to speak in a different language. It happened gradually over time without anybody on the ground noticing.
On Dr. Jay Smith's channel he has coins as well. He says the person shown was the Caliph. And he states that after 696 there was no imagery on any coins. If the person shown on the coin here was the Jesus, why was he taken off the coin?
Volker Popp‘s theory is that since Jesus was seen as the "servant of God", putting him on coins was a problem in the Persian east where the rule of kings was typically justified by a direct connection to the gods. But being the servant of the servant was one step too far away from the divine. So a religious struggle took place which Abd al-Malik won, but he adapted his symbolism to not alienate the East any more. What may also have played a role is that we‘re looking at apocalyptic imagery at a time when it was widely believed that the end is near. And al-Malik built the Done of the Rock, presumably with the expectation that it would hasten the return of the Messiah. But Jesus didn’t come back. Dogma had to be adapted to reality, which could have been the reason why the apocalyptic Jesus was taken off of the coins.
@@TAlexander wasn't the apocalypse supposed to take place in 630-640s? Isn't that the main reason for Arab takeover of Jerusalem? The project to invent Islam began only after the expected apocalypse didn't happen.
@@TAlexander I mean do we have direct evidence (manuscripts) of an earlier source of Koran, besides the "linguistic archaeology" that shows that it probably is a translation of a Syrian text?
@@meusisto There is no evidence. There is zero evidence of Syriac to Arabic. All linguistic evidence shows there is zero connection between Syriac and Arabic.
Why would people ask if we are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross or following in Jesus footsteps? Aren’t they the same thing? Wow can people really not see this? The sacrifice is what allows you to follow in his footsteps. It’s like only when having enough water to drink yourself can you share what overflows. We are saved then neither by the sacrifice of Jesus nor following in his footsteps but instead those things working in tandem. Also Jesus footsteps lead him to the cross so this really should not be a question. I can’t believe people fought over this…..
IMO it was inappropriate to call John of Damascus a Catholic theologian. Becuase this is during the 8th century which means it was pre-Schism It would have been more appropriate to call him a pre-Schism Christian or a Canonical Christian. Calling him Catholic shows some bias, which for an objective academic discussion should be avoided
@@TAlexander The Orthodox Church of Jesus Christ is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. John of Damascus was an Eastern Orthodox Theologian. Of course the Orthodox Church is also the Catholic Church. In that sense [and that sense only] you could call John of Damascus a Catholic Theologian. But I'm pretty sure you are aware that John of Damascus was not a Papist. After all, the Pope is one of the instruments of Antichrist on Earth, just like Mahomet was. The ungodly plotting of Pope Leo III and Charlemagne was motivated by greed and pride. Calling the Papist Church Catholic is like using the term "Byzantium" to refer to the New Rome. History was corrupted by the West to deny the East Roman Empire all its glory. Hieronymus Wolf certainly did his part. Why say "The Byzantine Empire" to refer to the East Roman Empire, and not say "The Empire of Londinium" to refer to the British Empire? 😊
@@JohnGeometresMaximos Well, my personal opinion differs greatly from yours, but I’m not in the business of telling people what to believe, which is why I’m sticking to established terminology and I leave the rest to the viewers. Suffice it to say, I don’t like Christian infighting.
@@TAlexander John of Damascus' most important work was titled "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith." You can't just turn him into a "Catholic" or Papist to use the correct term. John of Damascus considered himself a citizen of the Roman Empire in the East and an Orthodox Christian. You can't twist and corrupt historical fact to serve your own dogma.
@@JohnGeometresMaximos I’m not twisting anything. “Orthodox” back then was not a denomination but simply the word for “true faith”. He was part of the one Catholic Church which according to him was the “true faith”. You are working with labels that came into existence a millennium later.
Guillaume's 47 page academic introduction to his translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah mentions Abd al-Malik applying to Urwa b. al-Zubayr b. Awwam (AH23-94) when he wanted information about past exploits of the Prophet. Urwa wrote a letter to Abd al-Malik reproduced in Tabari 1284 saying 'You asked me about Abu Sufyan and the circumstances of his expedition....". Urwa then gives a full account of the circumstances leading up to the Battle of Badr 'in which Allah gave victory to His Messenger...'.
If they had the diatesseron would that not still have included many passages showing Jesus is divine? Could it be human group instincts more at work than rational thinking amongst these aberrant believers? I see many muslims commenting with great identification with their faith, but with little knowledge, and going against what the Quran teaches. Maybe often people are seeking the comfort of a "tribe" due to desires from the animal side of human nature - group instincts of identifying with a tribe without much thought, even when knowing it's baloney. If I hadn't had very supernatural experiences maybe I would think we are just some ape with some rational thinking as a result of evolution only, but often more ape than anything divine-like (I'm glad you are displaying the more divine characteristics of human nature - this is very informative and knowledge-based, thanks.)
Fun fact. Leo the Isaurian wrote to Caliph Omar II in 718CE. 'We recognise Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authors of the Gospel. This truth upsets you. You CLAIM that we say it was 'brought down from heaven' like your Furqan, although we know that it was Omar, Abu Turab and Salman the Persian who composed that.' Leo then goes on to reject Muhammad's claim to be the Paraclete, mocks 'your prophet who said 'Miriam, daughter of Amran, was the mother of our Lord' , mocks the claim that 'Jews and Christians have altered the Mosaic Code, the Psalms and the Gospel' and challenges them to produce the real ones! He accuses Muslims of venerating the pagan altar of sacrifice you call the House of Abraham, and says 'Your uncle Ibn Marwan, sacrificed a camel and mingled its blood with the blood of Christians he had decapitated that day.' So no, Pope Leo is certainly not talking about your hypothetical 'Syrian Anti-Trinitarian Christians' here, is he? 🤣
we have to bear in mind that no theory is 100% fitting to the early origins of Islam, but i find the Theory of Thomas-Odon to be the closest to the truth to the origins of Islam, although not 100% exact...
@@yakovmatityahu The theory of Odon and Thomas is full of big holes. It uses double standards in their approach of sources. All Christian sources that support them are authentic. All sources that don't support them are interpolations.🤣
@@yakovmatityahu So what is your opinion of Leo the Isaurian's letter in 718CE/100AH? Is Leo writing to Syrian Anti-Trinitarian Christians in this letter or not?
It makes sense that an avant la lettre "protestant" group with severe judaizing bias would want to try to practice mosaic law and venerate an abrahamic altar.
The Quran is not Anti Trinitarian. The Quran says that Jesus is God's Word and Spirit given to the Disciples aka He is a Divinity. It merely disputes that He is equal to the Father (Allah has no partners). It is closer to Arianism which is what early Christian Medieval writers accused Mohammed of.
so good . informative 1st century Israel = 21st century Korea . You have to know that . Amazing historical events are taking place there . Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael Jesus Huh kyung young Magnificent aletheia
Fun fact. In the 7th century AD, the Christian Armenian Bishop Sebeos who died c661CE, wrote a History of Heraclius with much detail of Mahmed's (Muhammad's) teachings and the Muslim victories over the Byzantines and the Persians, describes the First Fitnah, the deaths of Uthman and Ali and ends with the accession of Muawiya in 660. But the Muslims are referred to throughout as the 'Arab Sons of Ishmael.' And Ali and Uthman are mentioned as kings. Perhaps that's why you thought Muslims did not exist in the 7th century. Bless. 🤣
@@merlinmbuso8448 The word 'Muslim' was not used until much later. Surely you knew that. The name Mahomet and the word Mohammedans were even used by British biographers right up to the 19th century.
Abd al-Malik also wrote to Urwa b. al-Zubayr asking about Khalid b. al-Walid at the conquest of Mecca. Urwa's answer is in Tabari 1634. 'The Messenger commanded Khalid and some men who had become Muslims only a short time before to enter the lower part of Mecca'. Tabari 1770 is a letter Urwa wrote to Abd al-Malik saying that the Messenget married Aisha at age six and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine.' So no, Abd al-Malik was NOT any kind of 'Christian" as you claim. And the main inscription on the Dome of the Rock is an Anti-Christian quotation from the Quran of the Messenger of Allah.
Again, you base your claims on stories written centuries after the fact. It’s true that if you interpret things like coins or inscriptions in light of those later stories, it appears as if they are early manifestations of Islam. But there’s no reason to do so. Those later legends are all clearly written as salvation history, they are incongruent, they change in accordance with changing beliefs, they follow the same beats as many Biblical stories, they are not attested in the archaeological record and they are at odds with other contemporary writings. The simple explanation for all these problems is that later historiographers were “wondering” how the religion came about. Writing stories to explain scripture is a long standing tradition. Take for instance the story of the creation of Adam. The Quran says that Adam was created as a “successor”. Successor to whom? He was the first man after all. So a story was created wherein the Jinn ruled earth before man. Obviously there were no eye-witnesses. It was just an attempt to make sense of scripture. The same seems to be true with virtually everything else. Which is why the traditions have to be dismissed as secondary. Looking at the primary evidence without the Islamic filter however leaves little room for anything but a Christian origin.
@@davidzack8735 You can check out my video on Arab coins. That specific coin isn’t much of a riddle. Allah is simply the Arab word for God. It works equally well in a Christian context. You have to start looking at the evidence on its own terms, not through the filter of later Muslim legends.
@@TAlexander Bismillah is ARABIC for 'in the name of Allah', bro. Other pre 660CE Sassanian coins are Islamised with the ARABIC 'jayyid' (good) or ARABIC 'lillah-il-hamd' (praise Allah alone). So you are claiming that these Arabs who conquered Persia were hypothetical unnamed unknown Syrian Anti-Trinitarian CHRISTIANS! Good luck with that! 🤣
@@davidzack8735 I’m not questioning the existence of the Arabic language. I don’t get your point. As for the Arabs who conquered Persia, they were mostly Christian. Certainly not Muslim. Islam didn’t exist yet. As for the proof, I’m laying that out in my videos.
NO NO NO. Logos ('word') is 'KALIMAH' in arabic. KALIMAH does not appear in those verses which you are quoting. You are imputing words that do not exist !! This is not only dishonesty but it is not academic and certainly wastes YOUR time.
This and many issues are covered in my book, check out my videos that takes a scholarly take on exposing the information Muslim apologists hide from the masses. As an Arabic scholar and academic, I cover many of these issues.
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? ) Quran 2:62 '' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques ) Quran 22:40 [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might. Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ? ( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? ) Quran 5 48 ''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions Islam mean "submission" to God ( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God ) Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God? Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work. Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God ) The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by good deeds ) God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him. ( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa ) Quran 5:5 ''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.'' Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion. Question to Muslim and Christian: Does God / Allah only answer your pray ? And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray? Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity? Quran 5:48 '' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise ) On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils. '' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. '' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
Muhammad and Waraqa bin Naufal Waraqa was an old man and died shortly after Muhammad(P) had received the revelation of the Qur'ân; as clearly can be read from the above hadîth. While the revelation of the Qur'ân continued for more than twenty years after the death of Waraqah bin Nawfal, the Prophet was receiving the revelation in different places and even while he was among his Companions. Also, he was answering direct questions raised later by the Jews in Madinah. In addition, the Jews and the disbelievers of Mecca would be very pleased if they knew for sure that there was a knowledgeable person who was teaching Muhammad the Quran. do you know injil is greek for good news. why al lah copied from injil into quran if it has errors in it? my friend. And finally Waraqa himself announced in all of the hadîths reported in Sahih al-Bukhârî that he would support Muhammad strongly if he lived long enough: "Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly."
You will hardly prove trinity with the Bible. You wont, in fact. God is God, Jesus is the Lord. Jesus shared the same spirit with God, he could decide that his true followers will share this same spirit. This never ever make a 3rd person in Godhead or the spirit being a person. This would contradict the revealed anthropology of the Bible: the body + pneuma = soul. Soul - spirit = death. Soul - body = spiritualism. The first mentions of trinity came 200 years !!! after John, from extreemly perverse people like Tertullian and Origenes.
@@yakovmatityahu Haha, please try for yourself: teach me te reality of the Holy Spirit being a 3rd person, being a desembodied spirit, having earned merits to replace Jesus where Jesus merits are not enough, replacing the ministry of angels (show me that angels dont do nothing so the HS is made necessary). I would enjoy to have biblical arguments for that, I crave after them.
the problem with your thesis is you seem to be taken the assumptions of German higher criticism as gospel. pun not intended. Trinitarianism is not "hellenistic" and "syrian christianity" was not anti-trinitarian. I don't believe you are trying to claim the majority of syrian christians were anti-trinitarian but i think it is unclear in your wording. The old testament and second temple literature has plenty of Godhead material. Rabbinic Judaism was forced to purge many elements of their own theology to combat Christian claims, to keep Jews from converting. your thesis is compelling, but you appear to be treating some form of "anti-trinitarian" theology as being the majority, which it never was, and probably not even during the height of the arian controversy, which itself was moving away from paul of samasota's adoptionism. You cannot treat dozens of layers of speculation built off dozens of layers of speculation as evidence. It isn't. most, though not all, of the claims of higher criticism about the old testament are wrong, and this is even more true with the NT, of which there is no room for doubt because of the overwhelming manuscript evidence. the Bauer hypothesis is legless and only continues to be promoted because of the obstinacy of secularist biblical scholars. Also, the Old testament clearly has a Godhead. Hence, non-trinitarians beliefs are not "based upon the old testament." non-trinitarian christianity, which is itself not christianity, despite what diversity-obsessed academics will insist upon. I'm not claiming the islamic narrative is correct, but i think that at a certain point this is simply speculation built upon speculation built upon further speculation.
Christianity was heavily influenced by pagan Roman religions let’s talk about that. Ur whole channel is baseless theories with no historical merit it’s completely false.
@@josm1481 Oh, I know... but I want a precise recording of what is seen as propaganda. If it is listed, it can be argued through. If it is not, then it becomes clear to the casual observer that they have nothing, and thus can be ignored. Hence my request.
@@horseradishpower9947 fair enough. But if you've 'debated' an Islamist apologist you'll know to keep them to point. The religion is so deeply flawed they have to use logical fallacies, deflection and lies to defend it. Keep her to point. Don't let her drag you off on tangents.
This take the entire lid off islam and it’s now easy to see Islam’s Evolution and destroy the ridiculous concept that it came as a fully formed religion to one man in a cave.
This series is actually painting a far more accurate analysis of the theology of the age ..
Enlighten than flex ignorance th-cam.com/video/gKvRY-b0yts/w-d-xo.html
Mormonism came as a fully formed religion with one man in a forest. So I dont see why it couldnt be the case with Islam.
@@justinien1er389 Yet Mormonism is a fake religion.. It’s totally made up by a convicted fraudster..
This was one the best presentation of Thomas so far, full of huge information to digest and brilliantly articulated and logically bound together in short amount of time. Thank you.
What a nice summary 👌 Thank you Thomas
Brilliant stuff! I wish I knew this when I was a Muslim! Would have saved me many years of confusion!
May I know what you are now?
@@ronakbhadra6400 I'm an athiest agnostic
@@thenun1846 ok...🙂
@@ronakbhadra6400
He was never a muslim. He doesn't even know how to pray.
@@alonzoharris6730 you just called your own book propaganda. You said a propagandist just cherry picks data etc and any rational person lays out a methodology and criterion for their views. I asked you for the methodology and criterion that Uthman and his scholars used for the Koran? I'm still waiting for you to prove your own holy book isn't propaganda, by your own definition?
Another superb presentation Thomas, which makes things very clear indeed
I havent found any video from Thomas not well researched, i think that he has done good research on what he is saying...
@@yakovmatityahu Absolutely
Enlighten than flex ignorance th-cam.com/video/gKvRY-b0yts/w-d-xo.html
@@yakovmatityahu Enlighten than flex ignorance th-cam.com/video/gKvRY-b0yts/w-d-xo.html
Brilliant presentation that uncovers so much of myth that was piled over like the layers of a bulbous onion getting peeled now...can't wait Thomas for your forthcoming book.God bless .
It is cabbage and not onion that came to my mind when I thought about the same thing, it can grow to an enormous size and as such would be preferred by women in Egypt to use its boiled leaves to make stuffing for their large sized families.
Bulbous onion or giant cabbage, I will go for the latter.
@@atifsabat4211 Loool the choice is yours, freedom of thought.Dolmas are common to all in the Mediterranean.
Love the way Thomas picks a couple of coins with the name "Muhammad', makes the totally false claim that Muhsmmad was a TITLE, not a given name, and builds upon this false claim to deny the whole existence of early Islam. True genius! 😁.
Enlighten than flex ignorance th-cam.com/video/gKvRY-b0yts/w-d-xo.html
Nice. Very concise. informative
Another clear thesis. More, please.
Jazakallah Thomas, wonderfully done. Subhan Allah!
Great commentary as always
These lectures are amazing.
Danke schoen, Thomas!
Simply brilliant, dear Thomas! Fabelhaft!!!
I pray that this will go viral and will finally bring our Muslim brothers and sisters home to the True One✝️
Yes its bringing them home to Christ...the movement has already started pray for their return.
@@Dddddgjy
Why make fun of trinity.. Islam is not monotheistic.. it is a dualistic faith.. without mahmet, u won’t have ur Islam.. so Allah is dependent on Mahmet , without which he won’t exist for Muslims ..
can u be a Muslim without saying magnet’s name in the Shahada..
Oh and where does Allah say the sun sets ?
@@Dddddgjy
What’s laughable is that u don’t dare to quote ur Koran. Let me do that for u.
Surah 18:83
They will ask thee of Dhu'l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him. Lo! We made him strong in the land and gave him unto every thing a road. And he followed a road Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout.
Your Muslim apologists says all sorts of lies .. say that it is according to Dhu’l Qarneyen’s perspective, when it is clearly Allah talking..
And do not lie, there is no reference to the beach or sea here’s it says muddy spring..Aynin
عَيْنٍ means spring , not sea..
What is so laughable is ur pathetic attempt in explaining it as beach .. Taqiah 101..
Let me continue ..
Then he followed a road Till, when he reached the* rising-place of the sun 🌞 *, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter therefrom..
Ur Mahmet is so stupid, one cannot reach a place where the sun sets or sun rises.. you only see that based on the geographic location.
Let me tell ur more and join me
And 😂 at this stupidity by ur mahmet .
Abu Dharr (one of Muhammad’s close companions) was with Muhammad during the sunset. Muhammad asked him: ‘Do you know, O Abu Dharr where this sun sets?’ He answered; ‘God and His apostle know better.’ Muhammad said: ‘It sets in a spring of slimy water’”
🤪
@@Dddddgjy
Don’t obfuscate my friend .. are u ashamed .. this is not about Christianity.. don’t indulge in a red herring .. stick to the topic ..
Can u say ur Shahada without mentioning Mahmet ? Can u be a Muslim without
Mentioning mahmet’s name ? Can u instead say Aaron, Musa , Daud or Isa? They are all prophets according to Islam..
@@Dddddgjy
Classic red herring among Muslims.. faced with criticism of mahmet or Koran they divert and deflect and talk about the Bible..
Let me repeat ..
surah al kahf .. has Allah talking ..
They ask you ˹O Prophet˺ about Ⱬul-Qarnain. Say, “I will relate to you something of his narrative.”
Surely We established him in the land, and gave him the means to all things. So he travelled a course..
*”Who is talking here ? Is the dead zulkarnian talking ? So u worship zulkarnian?*
The Surah continues :
until he reached the setting ˹point˺ of the sun, which appeared to him to be setting in a spring of murky water, where he found some people. We said, “O Ⱬul-Qarnain! Either punish them or treat them kindly.”
It is ur mahmet who things the earth was flat and made up stuff .. laughable stuff..
And ur taqiah is exposed .. there is no reference to sea or beach .. 🤪
great work! Thanks a lot! That´s what science is supposed to be. Herzliche Grüße aus Wien!
Excellent work
This series is incredible (this is my third time watching it through) and I really hope you come back and produce more.
I would like to say, however, that it’s a misnomer to suggest that Trinitarian theology is in any way “Hellenized” or not “based on the Old Testament”.
Go look at the standard bearers of Orthodox Christian theology and you’ll see an explicit rejection of Hellenistic philosophy and arguments backing up every theological doctrine built directly on the Old Testament as well as the New.
This is fantastic
14:10 about "the standing caliph" coin: this mount of stone appeared earlier on byzantine Coins (i.e. Heraclius, w H. Constantine, 610-641. Solidus Gold) but with a cross on top.
It makes sense to continue symbols for the value of a coin to prevent confusion.
However, "the standing caliph" is highly disputed to be the Ruler or Mohamme himself, but 2 details are usualy overlookedd:
-he has no headcover (no crown, no Turban or anything we would expect for an earthly ruler).
-there is a line/ string under his right ellbow (=left side) and this is understood as a whip (?)
Why the hack would this guy carry a whip?
Looks a little like a tzitzit to an ignorant like me.
I found an expert article online by Ali Minai about early Islamic coinage. He says it's a sword or staff. But the coins are so crude its difficult to see. Some scholars think it may be Muhammad himself so eithet sword or staff would be feasible.
@@davidzack8735 I'm not ruling out that the ""standing caliph" could be Mohammed but why would you show him
a: on a coin?
b: with a sword?
[off topic: the word "sword" does not appear in the Quran, but on several Occasions in the Tora and new testament]
The "standing Caliph" is a runaway from the usualy motives before, but even exceeded by the next generation when the arab coins only show writings but no more symbols/ pictures.
This becomes clearer if you compare byzantine/ persian/ arab coins over centuries, they follow some logic and sometimes relate to each other.
We are already of topic but all of this is most interesting, I just can't find a site that gives a good overvier of coins from this era; If anyone knows one I would be happy to hear about :)
@@slippingsnake Last night I went online and found exactly what you are looking for. 'Viewing the early Islamic state through its coins' by Ali Minai. I made notes on every phase. The Standing Caliph coins appear at Phase V; Ummayad Consolidation.
@@davidzack8735 I have visited this site before, thanks to your reminder now I've bookmarked it.
But what I mean is a comparison to byzantine and persian coins to show the evolution.
1 example: around the same time that Justinian II. changes coins to show the face of Jesus Abdul Malik changes to coins that show only writings.
This looks like a coincidence but before that you find similar symbolism on byzentine and arabs coins (and actualy on persian coins too).
Until then there is a convention that one side of the coin has a religious symbol, the other side shows the Ruler; Persian Kings and Byzantine Emporers justify their Reign through divine Authority.
But our early islamic Arabs have no church and no Dynasty of divine origin, so they need something else :)
Hi Thomas, I have a couple of questions regarding the content of your video.
1Q. So by what date did all Arabs / Nabateans convert to Christianity?
2Q. Why would Arabs have a different theory of Anti-triniterian in spite of being natives to Israel, Jordan and Syria? I don't understand why would Christians divide on such a matter when they all were in the same places as Eastern Orthodox and Syrian Christianity?
Regarding your first questions, different tribes converted at different times. We know that by the 5th century AD, Arabs converted in large numbers. Individual tribes may have converted much earlier, possibly already in the 2nd century. The Quran seems to go back to one or more preachers converting Arabs towards the end if the 6th century.
As for the second question, I’m not sure I understand you. Christological disagreements have always existed. The Arabs weren’t special in that regard.
@@TAlexander God Almighty made a testament/will in the OT with us that we should inherit His kingdom. So for this testament/will to be activated the testator has to die. Hebrews 9.16.
That is why God Almighty had to die on the cross (He didnt cease to exist just like we do not cease to exist when we die) but He died in the flesh so that He could spill HIS holy blood Acts 20.28 so that whoever believes in this gift of LOVE (self sacrifice John 15.13) should receive His Holy Spirit and be sealed for the kingdom (receive the inheritance)
You must believe in the LOVE (self sacrifice/death) of God in the flesh because it was the love of God that fulfilled the law (Romans 13)
So if you believe in the love (self sacrifice/death) of God in the flesh, the death of the testator, you will be born again and receive His Holy Spirit and will be no longer under the law.
Trinity and unitarianism will lead you to hell because both doctrines demand a faith, in which a separate father sends his separate son to the cross. Whoever believes in this, whoever puts their faith in this sacrifice of an other, does not believe in the selfless self sacrifice of God who came as a servant, and will therefore not receive the Spirit of God but the spirit of the selfish (satanic) anti (in stead of) Christ.
God is SPIRIT and when He came to earth, He was still in heaven at the same time John 3.13, That is how He Himself was able to go to the cross and spill His holy bloody and therefore activate the testament/will.
This is the gospel of peace which is based on the love of God. All I have told you is biblical.
Keep them coming!
I'm watching the netflix series Inventing Anna, where she played every body in a time where internet, phone and information is so accessible to anybody but still she was able to fool everybody!
Imagine what can be done in 600AD (relatively) with a little bit of knowledge.
inventing Islam (although the same could be applied for Christianity and Judaism ).
On the "standing caliph coins" the sword is in a scabbard so I do not see how it is possible to identify it as a flaming sword ?
I knew islam was false before I began to listen to apologetics and polemics. Islam is so so false. Thank you for getting it busted
Enlighten than flex ignorance th-cam.com/video/gKvRY-b0yts/w-d-xo.html
Jesus at the end of times has a sword, but coming from his mouth - i.e. he speaks decisively, if you read it as a metaphor. He holds in his hands seven stars (Revelation 1.16).
I used to think that Muhammad was a Messianic Jew from one of the various sects that existed in Arabia at that time because his Unitarianism was so strict and particularly marked by his total rejection of the Trinity. However, this series of videos makes it quite clear that Islam basically grew out of non Trinitarian Christianity of the 7th Century and that Muhammad's references to various events in the life of Christ in the Koran reveal the view that he had a thorough knowledge of texts taken from the gnostic gospels of Saints Thomas and Bartolomew, thus making a strong case for the arguments presented in this fascinating series on the origins of Islam.
No ,he did not not have until he received the revelation.
@@techknowsimply That is the Moslem view, but not the one that stands up to historical examination. Thank you.
“And even if We had sent down unto you (O Muhammad SAW) a Message written on paper so that they could touch it with their hands, the disbelievers would have said: "This is nothing but obvious magic!" [Qur’an 6:7]✨
“And indeed before your time (O Muhammad!) many a Messenger has been scoffed at; but those who mocked at them were encompassed by the Truth they had scoffed at." [Qur'an 6:10]✨
“Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth).”[Qur’an 6:111]✨
“No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.” [Qur’an 10:100]✨
“What is the life of this world but amusement and play? but verily the Home in the Hereafter,- that is life indeed, if they but knew.” [Qur’an 29:64] ✨
Mohammed (praised one) is just another title for Jesus.
@@Ekim1740 you wish 😂
@@Slapwithtruth it is. You need to study more. Cause Mohammed as described by Islam did not exist. Most of the stories to back up the islamic mohammed were written 200 years after his supposed birthyear.
@@Ekim1740 th-cam.com/video/mhND4Ylf3CY/w-d-xo.html
In the long academic introduction to Alfred Guillaume's translation of Ibn Ishaq's Life of Muhammad, Guillaume lists Ibn Ishaq's most important precursors, those who wrote maghazi books before him. A fragment of papyrus proves that by AH 100/718CE, 'the main facts of the prophet's life were written down much as we have them in the later works'. Th
The information is detailed and precise, as is the analysis of how Guillaume was able to restore the lost original which existed in at least 15 versions.
So in a nut shell islam invented the Xerox machine.
Lol yes in the Xerox machine of Antitrinitarians.
Enlighten than flex ignorance th-cam.com/video/gKvRY-b0yts/w-d-xo.html
Mary the mother of Jesus sister of Aaron 😳😳😳😳 Islam is a confused religion
😁😁😁🤪😅When you copy paste in a hurry and dont care to cross check.
It was claimed by the Christian Missionaries and their minions, that Islam confused Mary- The mother of Jesus with their Biblical Miriam who was the sister of Aaron as per their Bible, their evidence was the Qur’anic verse from the chapter 19:
“O [Mary] sister of Aaron, your father was not a man of evil, nor was your mother unchaste.”
Jami Al Timidhi also mentions the Hadith:
Narrated Al-Mughirah bin Shu’bah:
“The Messenger of Allah sent me to Najran. They said to me: ‘Do you people not recite: O sister of Harun (19:28) - while between Musa and ‘Eisa there is such (gap) as there is?’ I did not know how to respond to them. So when I returned to the Prophet. I told him about that, and he said: ‘Why didn’t you tell them that they were named after their Prophets and righteous people before them.’”
Here above we see that Muhammad is himself refuting the claim
This controversy is as old as the Muslim-Christian dialogue. The Prophet is said to have refuted similar arguments made by the Christians of Najran during his lifetime; “to confuse Mary the mother of Jesus with Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron in Torah is completely wrong and in contradiction to the sound Hadith and the Qur’anic text as we have established it in the Tafsir”(Isma’il ibn Umar Abu l-Fida Ibn Kathir, Qisas al-anbiya’, ed. Mustafa Abd al-Wahid, vol. II
The epithet “O sister of Aaron” used by Mary’s people when they saw a baby in her arms, was simply a reminder to her of the people like her who had gone before and were pious and chaste. Furthermore, the Qur’an, just like the New Testament, associates Mary, mother of Jesus, during the time of Zakariyya. This makes the case for “confusion” between the two Marys untenable. And just a note to everyone, the Missionary may respond back by quoting historical events or genealogies from his Bible, however, the Muslims are not supposed to believe the Biblical claims, whether they claim Mary to have come from a different genealogy or line, or other claims. The current ‘Bible’ is however, a not-so-reliable source anymore for the people of Islam.
So, people had the same questions as you, 1400 years ago. Keep digging!
@@Gege_MemesMary mother of Jesus and Miriam sister of Aaron are two different person in bible and that's fact in bible the thing is your quran is confused about these two people and we are not
@@KOKONAGAMI cringe, i’m not even gonna start with that bible of yours haha.. peace
@@Gege_Memes if this is not about bible then what is all this about,,rocket science???
If this is true it’s quite disturbing. A major world religion was founded because some religious scholars struggled with reading Aramaic?
Thomas, From your personal perspective and study of the Arabic Koranic scriptures, Do you believe reveals that Yeshua was or was not crucified?
The way I see it, the Quran is contradictory in that regard as it refers to both, Jesus being crucified and Jesus explicitly not being crucified. But since the latter element is more explicit, that’s what has become the Muslim perspective.
It feels like the original Christian sect did some picking and choosing. They liked the idea of Jesus not being crucified, not seeing that they incorporated a docetist motif. Then they reinterpreted the passages that referred to Jesus’ crucifixion, claiming it refers to Jesus’ death at the end of times.
@@TAlexander thank you. The passages certainly appear to contradict each other. From my personal perspective whilst surah 4:157-8 is certainly confusing I don’t it purports to teach that Yeshua did not die but rather it was addressing the claims of the Jewish religious sects and writings who claimed they were responsible for his death. The other 2 passages in the Koran state that Jesus died. Clearly, however, as with the Christian Bible there are some passages that are ambiguous and have various interpretations and the people who have the most power will determine which interpretation wins out in general. I have found the discussions by dr khalil andani very enlightening from a Muslim perspective
If this is true that they were anti trinitarian christians. Why were the earliest mosques facing petra?
Mosques as early as the 7th century are confirmed to be facing petra.
As these people may have been familiar with the diatesseron, is there anything in the diateseron that would indicate for people to point their heads towards the masjid al harram in petra?
There's no reason to assume the Petra qibla direction was toward a masjid. It could have been toward the Stone.
I don't think that Diatessaron inspired them to face petra...i think the remenants of arab paganism had inspired them for that...they retained their past pagan influences even though they became nominal antitrinitarian christian...
'The first coins with explicitly Islamic imprimatur appeared around 651CE during the period of Uthman after Muslim victory over the Persians. Silver Sassanian dirhams with bismillah added in Arabic in the obverse margin.' Ali Minai: Viewing the early Islamic state through its coinage.
Fun Fact : The search for historicity of Muhammad is desperately scoured through by Muslims in the only available 7th century account of Sebeos, and coins found nowhere in Arabian peninsula but in Iraq and Persia that literally debunk their standard islamic narrative about the mythical legends associated to this particular person named muhammad, as the Muhammad Sebeos describes is from Tachekestan just a little down south of Armenia as per him, Sebeos's home country while Muhammad Muslims today simultaneously worship as a God and revere as a Prophet while denying the former act is supposed to be from Arabian Peninsula. Numismatic evidence gathered from Syria traced back to Muaviyya has cross carved in it, but that's just the start, the Dome Of Rock's Shahada as well as the drastic similarity of legends found in Heretical Christian sects, Judaism, Persian Cults such as Manichaeism and Qur'an strongly hints at the possibility of Qur'an being derived from these above mentioned sources, doctored and edited as per their convenience throughout the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, while Muhammad was merely a title given to Jesus himself by the Aramaic speaking Nazarene Christians, which leaves Muslims with no option other than resorting to lie about the evidence since it's out and can't be hidden and to go through mental gymnastics in order to somehow pretend that they have made sense of all of it and that they can explain it all, this is where they confuse the questioner when he brings up the topic by bringing Unga Bunga Islamic Laws and So on that have nothing to do whatsoever with the original Syrian Islam that started out in 7th Century described by Sebeos
@@adrianbelko7683 Congratulations on producing a bunch of completely erroneous and unverifiable statements and the insulting manner you delivered them in. 😁
@@davidzack8735 Fun Fact : When Muslims are presented with irrefutable arguments about the historicity of Muhammad they don't feel ashamed in resorting to using various fallacies in order to make themselves look like they have an upper hand during the course of the discussion
As
Sebeos never mentions Mecca or Medina to be the place where the Arabs the sons of Ishmael as accepted by him and claimed by Arabs themselves to be place of their origin or their home country as the standard islamic narrative goes in fact the place he refers to be the deserts is nowhere located in the Arabian Peninsula, but in modern day Syria just a litte east of Jerusalem, he talks about the Jews of Edessa who go to get aid from the Sons Of Ishmael to a place called Tachekestan. Various Chinese as well as Indian inscriptions about the description of early Islamic Invaders have been referred to these people as Tajiks not Arabs, even during the construction of the grand clock Mecca is today known for there was an excavation carried out in the whole city by a team of Researchers led by Dan Gibson who found nothing whatsoever around the Kaaba or the whole cities for that matter other than an Ottoman fort.
When the evidence is this darn irrefutable the Muslims are forced to label these claims as erroneous, unverifiable and nonsense, that you can tell has come out of their desperation because they're only hurling assertions and not providing any source, citation or proper rebuttal to refute these evidences that have been professed in Academia for nearly a whole century by renowned Historians and Archeologists such as Alphonse Mingana, Christoff Luxembourg, Patricia Crone etc
@@adrianbelko7683 Even Dan Gibson accepts the Medina part of the life of Muhammad, as far I can gather. And the defeat of the Byzantine Army at Yarmuk by Khalid and the surrender of Jerusalem to these 'Arab Sons of Ishmael' and their Jewish pals, the hurrying away of sacred Christian relics beforehand to Constantinople, does not lend credence to these Sons of Israel and Omar himself being any form of Christians, does it? 😁
@@davidzack8735 it doesn't until you stop ruling out the possibilities as soon as you find something convenient enough to back your wishful thinking
Aramaic speaking Christians were a heretical sect (or atleast were termed so by their contemporary Christians from the Byzantine Empire) abiding by beliefs that made it into the Qur'an such as denying the Divinity of Jesus yet placing him in the sort of the same position as Muhammad today is to Muslims, denying the Crucifixion of Jesus as professed in Qur'an. Apart from that, the usage of the title Muhammad in the Dome Of Rock, the earliest inscription of the title is explicitly used for Jesus. And the strange words or sentences in Qur'an that don't make sense, once tallied with Aramaic sources as done by Gabriel Sauma start to perfectly sound sensible. All these hint to a disturbingly secret origin of Islam which were moulded and fabricated as per the convenience of Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates.
And i haven't even got into the mysterious origins and unverifiable historicity of Khalid Ibn Walid and Ali Ibn Abu Taleb
Which Syrian Christians exactly are you speaking? Cause most that I know of, including my own Syrian Orthodox Church were definitely trinitarian. There were nazarean type Judeao-Syrian Christians that were more OT based and their anti-trinitarian stance was rejected by much of the churches. But then there were also many Syrian Christians that were easily swayed to Islam in later years due to privileges and tax breaks and overall similarities in the faiths anyways, not caring so much about theological disputes that plagued Christianity.
Why were ummayids in Spain not unitary Christians and oppose the Islam created by the Abbassids?
They were anti-Trinitarian Christians. But yes, they did take up Islam in the 9th century. This was a slow, evolutionary change and probably wasn’t seen as originating with the Abbasids.
@@TAlexander this is what doesn’t make sense to me. Surely the Ummayids in Spain must have been on a vendetta with the Abbassids who slaughtered their kin. So how would they succumb to their made up ideology?
Otherwise everything else I have heard you say makes sense. Certainly more than the Standard Islamic Narrative
@@potkinazarmehr As I said, they likely didn’t see it as an Abbasid ideology. Keep in mind, by the time the Umayyads took over Spain, Muhammad was likely already historised. Everything else comes down to small, gradual changes. And those changes did come in handy when it came to solidifying their rule. What worked for the Abbasids in the east worked equally well for the Umayyads in the west.
@@TAlexander they just suddenly forgot about their unitary Christian religion and unknowingly succumbed to the new Abbassid ideology and Koran?! Doesn’t make sense to me. Need to do more research on this
@@potkinazarmehr You think too much in black and white. This happened gradual over centuries. Nobody just forgot about their religion. It evolved. Muhammad slowly gained in importance until at some point, he became more important than Jesus. But for the people on the ground, not much changed at any point in time.
For example: Let’s assume that at the beginning, Muhammad was only believed to have been a preacher.
Then the doctrine of Muhammad being a Prophet comes to Spain. That’s very helpful when it comes to arguing with local Christians who could easily dismiss a random preacher, so it got adopted, but it didn’t change the beliefs as such.
Next came the belief that Muhammad was the seal of all prophets which once again is very helpful against other wannabe prophets. But nobody intended to create a new religion.
Yet, with every little change, that’s exactly what has happened. The last step would be the Muhammad biography which sealed the deal. But again, it was only seen to affirm what was already believed.
It’s a bit like Spanish and Portuguese being different languages. It’s not like the Portuguese decided over night to speak in a different language. It happened gradually over time without anybody on the ground noticing.
On Dr. Jay Smith's channel he has coins as well. He says the person shown was the Caliph. And he states that after 696 there was no imagery on any coins. If the person shown on the coin here was the Jesus, why was he taken off the coin?
Volker Popp‘s theory is that since Jesus was seen as the "servant of God", putting him on coins was a problem in the Persian east where the rule of kings was typically justified by a direct connection to the gods. But being the servant of the servant was one step too far away from the divine. So a religious struggle took place which Abd al-Malik won, but he adapted his symbolism to not alienate the East any more.
What may also have played a role is that we‘re looking at apocalyptic imagery at a time when it was widely believed that the end is near. And al-Malik built the Done of the Rock, presumably with the expectation that it would hasten the return of the Messiah.
But Jesus didn’t come back. Dogma had to be adapted to reality, which could have been the reason why the apocalyptic Jesus was taken off of the coins.
@@TAlexander wasn't the apocalypse supposed to take place in 630-640s? Isn't that the main reason for Arab takeover of Jerusalem?
The project to invent Islam began only after the expected apocalypse didn't happen.
Thomas, do we have archaeological evidence of a Syrian language lectionary?
Yes, many exist. But they typically come from Monophysite or Nestorian traditions.
@@TAlexander I mean do we have direct evidence (manuscripts) of an earlier source of Koran, besides the "linguistic archaeology" that shows that it probably is a translation of a Syrian text?
@@meusisto
There is no evidence. There is zero evidence of Syriac to Arabic.
All linguistic evidence shows there is zero connection between Syriac and Arabic.
@@alonzoharris6730 The linguistic evidence is very interesting. The blind hourris would be horrible.
@@meusisto We do have older apocryphal texts which made their way into the Quran. I’ll cover some of those next.
Why would people ask if we are saved by the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross or following in Jesus footsteps? Aren’t they the same thing?
Wow can people really not see this? The sacrifice is what allows you to follow in his footsteps. It’s like only when having enough water to drink yourself can you share what overflows. We are saved then neither by the sacrifice of Jesus nor following in his footsteps but instead those things working in tandem.
Also Jesus footsteps lead him to the cross so this really should not be a question. I can’t believe people fought over this…..
much of what is described as “Syrian” is in fact Assyrian, especially the Eastern Aramaic speakers in Mesopotamia.
Diatessaron is a gospel. It reads exactly as a gospel. It's content is a mixture of the gospels. What exactly does it have to do with the Quran?
It’s part of the Quran’s context. A context which was later replaced by Sunna and Sira.
Pre Nicene ?
Some body explain in details.
IMO it was inappropriate to call John of Damascus a Catholic theologian. Becuase this is during the 8th century which means it was pre-Schism
It would have been more appropriate to call him a pre-Schism Christian or a Canonical Christian. Calling him Catholic shows some bias, which for an objective academic discussion should be avoided
THOMAS a Legend in my Mind !🦜
Enlighten than flex ignorance th-cam.com/video/gKvRY-b0yts/w-d-xo.html
4:40
John of Damascus was a Catholic Theologian? 🤦🏻♂️
He was Orthodox Christian.
The schism hadn't happened yet.
@@TAlexander
The Orthodox Church of Jesus Christ is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
John of Damascus was an Eastern Orthodox Theologian. Of course the Orthodox Church is also the Catholic Church. In that sense [and that sense only] you could call John of Damascus a Catholic Theologian. But I'm pretty sure you are aware that John of Damascus was not a Papist. After all, the Pope is one of the instruments of Antichrist on Earth, just like Mahomet was.
The ungodly plotting of Pope Leo III and Charlemagne was motivated by greed and pride. Calling the Papist Church Catholic is like using the term "Byzantium" to refer to the New Rome. History was corrupted by the West to deny the East Roman Empire all its glory. Hieronymus Wolf certainly did his part. Why say "The Byzantine Empire" to refer to the East Roman Empire, and not say "The Empire of Londinium" to refer to the British Empire? 😊
@@JohnGeometresMaximos Well, my personal opinion differs greatly from yours, but I’m not in the business of telling people what to believe, which is why I’m sticking to established terminology and I leave the rest to the viewers.
Suffice it to say, I don’t like Christian infighting.
@@TAlexander
John of Damascus' most important work was titled "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith." You can't just turn him into a "Catholic" or Papist to use the correct term. John of Damascus considered himself a citizen of the Roman Empire in the East and an Orthodox Christian. You can't twist and corrupt historical fact to serve your own dogma.
@@JohnGeometresMaximos I’m not twisting anything. “Orthodox” back then was not a denomination but simply the word for “true faith”. He was part of the one Catholic Church which according to him was the “true faith”.
You are working with labels that came into existence a millennium later.
Issa Ibne Mariyam Rasoolallah ( pbuh) most of Nabataeans of Arab were Nastorian christians. Petra was Capital of Nabetians Christians.
Amazing how men create religions and how politics and power create and rewrite history to suit its own beliefs!
Guillaume's 47 page academic introduction to his translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah mentions Abd al-Malik applying to Urwa b. al-Zubayr b. Awwam (AH23-94) when he wanted information about past exploits of the Prophet. Urwa wrote a letter to Abd al-Malik reproduced in Tabari 1284 saying 'You asked me about Abu Sufyan and the circumstances of his expedition....". Urwa then gives a full account of the circumstances leading up to the Battle of Badr 'in which Allah gave victory to His Messenger...'.
If they had the diatesseron would that not still have included many passages showing Jesus is divine? Could it be human group instincts more at work than rational thinking amongst these aberrant believers? I see many muslims commenting with great identification with their faith, but with little knowledge, and going against what the Quran teaches. Maybe often people are seeking the comfort of a "tribe" due to desires from the animal side of human nature - group instincts of identifying with a tribe without much thought, even when knowing it's baloney. If I hadn't had very supernatural experiences maybe I would think we are just some ape with some rational thinking as a result of evolution only, but often more ape than anything divine-like (I'm glad you are displaying the more divine characteristics of human nature - this is very informative and knowledge-based, thanks.)
you can find diatessaron online in Amazon in book form...
Enlighten than flex ignorance th-cam.com/video/gKvRY-b0yts/w-d-xo.html
Fun fact. Leo the Isaurian wrote to Caliph Omar II in 718CE. 'We recognise Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as authors of the Gospel. This truth upsets you. You CLAIM that we say it was 'brought down from heaven' like your Furqan, although we know that it was Omar, Abu Turab and Salman the Persian who composed that.' Leo then goes on to reject Muhammad's claim to be the Paraclete, mocks 'your prophet who said 'Miriam, daughter of Amran, was the mother of our Lord' , mocks the claim that 'Jews and Christians have altered the Mosaic Code, the Psalms and the Gospel' and challenges them to produce the real ones! He accuses Muslims of venerating the pagan altar of sacrifice you call the House of Abraham, and says 'Your uncle Ibn Marwan, sacrificed a camel and mingled its blood with the blood of Christians he had decapitated that day.' So no, Pope Leo is certainly not talking about your hypothetical 'Syrian Anti-Trinitarian Christians' here, is he? 🤣
we have to bear in mind that no theory is 100% fitting to the early origins of Islam, but i find the Theory of Thomas-Odon to be the closest to the truth to the origins of Islam, although not 100% exact...
@@yakovmatityahu
The theory of Odon and Thomas is full of big holes.
It uses double standards in their approach of sources.
All Christian sources that support them are authentic. All sources that don't support them are interpolations.🤣
@@yakovmatityahu So what is your opinion of Leo the Isaurian's letter in 718CE/100AH? Is Leo writing to Syrian Anti-Trinitarian Christians in this letter or not?
@@davidzack8735 i am not sure exactly what you are trying to say but i wish you could ask the same to Thomas, as he has all the materials with him...
It makes sense that an avant la lettre "protestant" group with severe judaizing bias would want to try to practice mosaic law and venerate an abrahamic altar.
Arianism and anti-trinitarianism started in Palestine not in Syria. St. Arius startet preaching in Palestine
The Quran is not Anti Trinitarian.
The Quran says that Jesus is God's Word and Spirit given to the Disciples aka He is a Divinity. It merely disputes that He is equal to the Father (Allah has no partners). It is closer to Arianism which is what early Christian Medieval writers accused Mohammed of.
So where did the Meccan Mohammed come from? Was he real?
Nope
so good . informative
1st century Israel = 21st century Korea . You have to know that .
Amazing historical events are taking place there .
Longitude 127 Seoul Okinawa Soul Axis -- Bahai Faith Rael
Jesus Huh kyung young Magnificent aletheia
Syrian Monophysite Abdools😙
😁😁😁😅Syrian Antitrinitarian abdools
Insha ALLAH, the Christians will revert to Islam after reading the Quran! ALLAH bless us all!!!...
Fun fact. In the 7th century AD, the Christian Armenian Bishop Sebeos who died c661CE, wrote a History of Heraclius with much detail of Mahmed's (Muhammad's) teachings and the Muslim victories over the Byzantines and the Persians, describes the First Fitnah, the deaths of Uthman and Ali and ends with the accession of Muawiya in 660. But the Muslims are referred to throughout as the 'Arab Sons of Ishmael.' And Ali and Uthman are mentioned as kings. Perhaps that's why you thought Muslims did not exist in the 7th century. Bless. 🤣
Show it to me, I wanna see it.
Where is the word Muslim mentioned.
@@merlinmbuso8448 The word 'Muslim' was not used until much later. Surely you knew that. The name Mahomet and the word Mohammedans were even used by British biographers right up to the 19th century.
Go and pray to your stone…
Abd al-Malik also wrote to Urwa b. al-Zubayr asking about Khalid b. al-Walid at the conquest of Mecca. Urwa's answer is in Tabari 1634. 'The Messenger commanded Khalid and some men who had become Muslims only a short time before to enter the lower part of Mecca'.
Tabari 1770 is a letter Urwa wrote to Abd al-Malik saying that the Messenget married Aisha at age six and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine.'
So no, Abd al-Malik was NOT any kind of 'Christian" as you claim. And the main inscription on the Dome of the Rock is an Anti-Christian quotation from the Quran of the Messenger of Allah.
Again, you base your claims on stories written centuries after the fact. It’s true that if you interpret things like coins or inscriptions in light of those later stories, it appears as if they are early manifestations of Islam. But there’s no reason to do so. Those later legends are all clearly written as salvation history, they are incongruent, they change in accordance with changing beliefs, they follow the same beats as many Biblical stories, they are not attested in the archaeological record and they are at odds with other contemporary writings.
The simple explanation for all these problems is that later historiographers were “wondering” how the religion came about. Writing stories to explain scripture is a long standing tradition. Take for instance the story of the creation of Adam. The Quran says that Adam was created as a “successor”. Successor to whom? He was the first man after all. So a story was created wherein the Jinn ruled earth before man. Obviously there were no eye-witnesses. It was just an attempt to make sense of scripture. The same seems to be true with virtually everything else. Which is why the traditions have to be dismissed as secondary.
Looking at the primary evidence without the Islamic filter however leaves little room for anything but a Christian origin.
@@TAlexander So how do you explain the word bismillah on Sassanian coins, if not by the Muslim conquest of Persia?🤣
@@davidzack8735 You can check out my video on Arab coins. That specific coin isn’t much of a riddle. Allah is simply the Arab word for God. It works equally well in a Christian context. You have to start looking at the evidence on its own terms, not through the filter of later Muslim legends.
@@TAlexander Bismillah is ARABIC for 'in the name of Allah', bro. Other pre 660CE Sassanian coins are Islamised with the ARABIC 'jayyid' (good) or ARABIC 'lillah-il-hamd' (praise Allah alone). So you are claiming that these Arabs who conquered Persia were hypothetical unnamed unknown Syrian Anti-Trinitarian CHRISTIANS! Good luck with that! 🤣
@@davidzack8735 I’m not questioning the existence of the Arabic language. I don’t get your point.
As for the Arabs who conquered Persia, they were mostly Christian. Certainly not Muslim. Islam didn’t exist yet.
As for the proof, I’m laying that out in my videos.
NO NO NO. Logos ('word') is 'KALIMAH' in arabic. KALIMAH does not appear in those verses which you are quoting. You are imputing words that do not exist !! This is not only dishonesty but it is not academic and certainly wastes YOUR time.
Copy paste book 😅
This and many issues are covered in my book, check out my videos that takes a scholarly take on exposing the information Muslim apologists hide from the masses. As an Arabic scholar and academic, I cover many of these issues.
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? )
Quran 2:62
'' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques )
Quran 22:40
[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ?
( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? )
Quran 5 48
''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions
Islam mean "submission" to God
( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God )
Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God?
Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work.
Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God )
The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by good deeds )
God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him.
( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa )
Quran 5:5
''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.''
Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion.
Question to Muslim and Christian:
Does God / Allah only answer your pray ?
And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray?
Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity?
Quran 5:48
'' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise )
On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils.
'' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
'' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
Muhammad and Waraqa bin Naufal
Waraqa was an old man and died shortly after Muhammad(P) had received the revelation of the Qur'ân; as clearly can be read from the above hadîth. While the revelation of the Qur'ân continued for more than twenty years after the death of Waraqah bin Nawfal, the Prophet was receiving the revelation in different places and even while he was among his Companions. Also, he was answering direct questions raised later by the Jews in Madinah. In addition, the Jews and the disbelievers of Mecca would be very pleased if they knew for sure that there was a knowledgeable person who was teaching Muhammad the Quran.
do you know injil is greek for good news.
why al lah copied from injil into quran if it has errors in it? my friend.
And finally Waraqa himself announced in all of the hadîths reported in Sahih al-Bukhârî that he would support Muhammad strongly if he lived long enough:
"Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly."
The hadiths are fiction.
Early christian is the true monothethic
You will hardly prove trinity with the Bible. You wont, in fact. God is God, Jesus is the Lord. Jesus shared the same spirit with God, he could decide that his true followers will share this same spirit. This never ever make a 3rd person in Godhead or the spirit being a person. This would contradict the revealed anthropology of the Bible: the body + pneuma = soul. Soul - spirit = death. Soul - body = spiritualism. The first mentions of trinity came 200 years !!! after John, from extreemly perverse people like Tertullian and Origenes.
I smell heresy
@@yakovmatityahu try to sneeze!
@@yakovmatityahu Haha, please try for yourself: teach me te reality of the Holy Spirit being a 3rd person, being a desembodied spirit, having earned merits to replace Jesus where Jesus merits are not enough, replacing the ministry of angels (show me that angels dont do nothing so the HS is made necessary). I would enjoy to have biblical arguments for that, I crave after them.
the problem with your thesis is you seem to be taken the assumptions of German higher criticism as gospel. pun not intended. Trinitarianism is not "hellenistic" and "syrian christianity" was not anti-trinitarian. I don't believe you are trying to claim the majority of syrian christians were anti-trinitarian but i think it is unclear in your wording. The old testament and second temple literature has plenty of Godhead material. Rabbinic Judaism was forced to purge many elements of their own theology to combat Christian claims, to keep Jews from converting. your thesis is compelling, but you appear to be treating some form of "anti-trinitarian" theology as being the majority, which it never was, and probably not even during the height of the arian controversy, which itself was moving away from paul of samasota's adoptionism. You cannot treat dozens of layers of speculation built off dozens of layers of speculation as evidence. It isn't. most, though not all, of the claims of higher criticism about the old testament are wrong, and this is even more true with the NT, of which there is no room for doubt because of the overwhelming manuscript evidence. the Bauer hypothesis is legless and only continues to be promoted because of the obstinacy of secularist biblical scholars. Also, the Old testament clearly has a Godhead. Hence, non-trinitarians beliefs are not "based upon the old testament." non-trinitarian christianity, which is itself not christianity, despite what diversity-obsessed academics will insist upon. I'm not claiming the islamic narrative is correct, but i think that at a certain point this is simply speculation built upon speculation built upon further speculation.
Hot air. Fictional history.
You should listen to dr hany atchan in relation between jesus and muhammad
Christianity was heavily influenced by pagan Roman religions let’s talk about that. Ur whole channel is baseless theories with no historical merit it’s completely false.
Not the point of the video, he literally shows his references.
Poor propaganda video.
Do elaborate on what parts are propaganda.
Hahaha you're trying your hardest but you're getting nowhere. Cope little girl, cope.
@@horseradishpower9947 she is an Islamist apologist all over these sort of channels trying desperately to deflect from the facts within.
@@josm1481 Oh, I know... but I want a precise recording of what is seen as propaganda.
If it is listed, it can be argued through. If it is not, then it becomes clear to the casual observer that they have nothing, and thus can be ignored. Hence my request.
@@horseradishpower9947 fair enough. But if you've 'debated' an Islamist apologist you'll know to keep them to point. The religion is so deeply flawed they have to use logical fallacies, deflection and lies to defend it.
Keep her to point. Don't let her drag you off on tangents.