This all kinda is what I have been saying for a while. The Ishmaelites were a Jewish sect that split off at the beginning of the development of Judaism. The sect was still henotheistic at the time Muhammad lived and it was Muhammad that turned it into a strict monotheistic religion called Islam. It was Uthman that was the final blow against the sect by destroying all pre-Islamic Ishmaelite Quranic texts seeing them as "corrupted" Quranic texts. Yet the Islamic Quran is the corrupted version of those earlier Ishmaelite texts. But only what Muhammad revealed was important and true anyway in their eyes. Everything in the Quran and hadith points to his companions not really understanding the religion of Muhammad, they just do as he does without knowing the reason or backstory. Which is logical. They were not raised as Ishmaelites, they were polytheists and Muhammad never told them anything except "just do" and believe things. The worst part of the development of the religion is that these people got in charge after Muhammad died without knowing anything about the religion. They enforced the "just do and believe" route of Muhammad without knowing themselves why.
There was, and still is, a tradition to change your personal name at conversion. The possibility exists that one person could be known by two names- one prior to conversion and the other - after conversion.
@arauna palm, that is the case during the Reconquita of Spain for both Jews and Moors and was carried on across both Roman and Protestant regions of Europe into the mid 1800's.
Not regarding pagan converts ..... Within the Catholic and Orthodox churches a person choses a saint's name (to be added to their name, usually, as a middle name) upon their Confirmation (Rome) or First Communion (Orthodox) Orthodox are confirmed at their baptism. The person's first communion is when the child is older, in their teens. In the Catholic church, there is a 3-step process. Baptism, (usually during infancy) First Holy Communion (childhood) Confirmation (mid-late teens)
Jay needs to update his wonderful timelines. Now we have a Messianic Sadducee warlord accepting Monophysite Christianity and issuing a coin to commemorate it. Gabriel abu Turab edin turns out is a real person not the angel jibreel ! Gabriel may be the author of the Birmingham manuscript!! Love it!
---- > The Saducees didn't believe in an afterlife. A monophysite could be any unitarian religion (including Islam) or a Modalist. It could even apply to the Jews who said Jesus was only a man and rejected Christ..
@@jannmutube No, and absolutely not Only someone has completely has no the slightest knowledge about Islam could say that. and I'm sorry to say. The core doctrine of Islam is believing in people after life, resurrection both body and soul and judgement day and that everyone will be judged by Allah and that some people will enter hell for eternity and other will enter heaven for eternity. And that called the six article of faith. Denying one of them will make you non Muslim. So, muslims are totally different from Sadducees. The Six Articles of Faith Faith (iman) breaks down into six axioms: 1-Belief in the existence and oneness of God (Allah). 2-Belief in the existence of angels. 3-Belief in the existence of the books of which God is the author: the Quran (revealed to Muhammad), the Gospel (revealed to Jesus), the Torah (revealed to Moses), and Psalms (revealed to David). 4-Belief in the existence of all Prophets: Muhammad being the last of them, Jesus the penultimate, and others sent before them [like Moses, Abraham, David, Joseph, Jacob]. 5-Belief in the existence of the Day of Judgment: in that day, humanity will be divided into two groups: that of paradise and that of hell. These groups are themselves composed of subgroups. 6- Belief in the existence of God's predestination due to God's omniscience, whether it involves good or bad.
@@mahmoodali1533 ----> You seem like a nice person but Islam is not a true revelation, it is historically inaccurate, and it violates its own claim of unitary monotheism. 1) Read for yourself: Unitary monotheism in Islam: ... ...." The statement that Allah is "All-Embracing, All-Knowing" and/or "all-Encompassing and Knowing." only refers to the knowledge of Allah. Allah, himself, does not encompass or dwell within his creation. The correct, traditional understanding is that Allah created the creation outside Himself and has never dwelled in them." ... Where is Allah? sunnahonline.com/library/beliefs-and-methodology/180-where-is-allah#h2-where-is-allah (This discourse has been based mainly on two books: Ithbat Uluwi'l-Lah by Usamah ibn Yusuf al-Qassas, may Allah grant him His mercy, and Ar-Rahman alal-Arsh Istawa by Dr. Awad Mansur) 2) Joe's opinions are based on beliefs of the Sadducees, a Jewish sect which was prevalent in the time of Messiah Jesus. But they were not the only group. Fpr example: other Jewish groups included the Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Hasmonians. Saducee: A member of a Jewish sect or party of the time of Jesus Christ that denied the resurrection of the dead, the existence of spirits, and the obligation of oral tradition, emphasizing acceptance of the written Law alone. www.lexico.com/en/definition/Jewish www.dictionary.com/browse/sadducee 3) >> Denying one of these (core doctrine of Islam) will make you non Muslim. .... #3-The 1st century Holy Bible contradicts the Quran. The Quran doesn't include the Old Testament (Torah and prophets) or the Gospel. The only way you can believe #3 is if you throw the Bible out. .... #5- Not sure why this is relevant since, in Islam, a person's destiny is written before they are born. sunnah.com/muslim:2643a Mutilating Allah: How Tawhid Turns Islam's God Into a Mute Idol (Anthony Rogers) th-cam.com/video/-ZUgzn2SvgI/w-d-xo.html ---- > I hope you will reject Islam and turn to the Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
@@jannmutube You seem like a nice person Thank you for very much that and I really, appreciate and I think you are also a nice and polite person and you argue in civilized way which very rare here in you tube and I hope we continue in this civilized argument. But the issue you cite a lot of argument at once and that causes distractions, hope that in the future if you could cite one argument and then when we fully finish it you move to the next one. Unitary monotheism in Islam: ... ...." The statement that Allah is "All-Embracing, All-Knowing" and/or "all-Encompassing and Knowing." only refers to the knowledge of Allah. Allah, himself, does not encompass or dwell within his creation. The correct, traditional understanding is that Allah created the creation outside Himself and has never dwelled in them." ... Where is Allah? Yes, in Islam Allah does not dwell among his creations and can not be within his creation and that simply because no creature can contain the creator. If the creature can contain the creator, then the creator ceases to be creator and became a creature himself. We do not know where Allah exactly is because he did not tell as his exact location, but he told us he is above the seven heaven , but where we do not know. We cannot say God is everywhere because on earth there are dirty places and the creator could not be in such place, but we say Allah is everywhere by his knowledge. You see the sun rays it is everywhere, and that the knowledge of Allah , I'm not saying the knowledge of Allah is the same like the sun, but i'm giving just example as the sun rays is everywhere such the knowledge of Allah also. 2) Joe's opinions are based on beliefs of the Sadducees, a Jewish sect which was prevalent in the time of Messiah Jesus. But they were not the only group. Fpr example: other Jewish groups included the Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Hasmonians. I'm not sure how that relevant to Islam, aducess belief is totally different from Islam belief. 3) >> Denying one of these (core doctrine of Islam) will make you non Muslim. .... #3-The 1st century Holy Bible contradicts the Quran. The Quran doesn't include the Old Testament (Torah and prophets) or the Gospel. The only way you can believe #3 is if you throw the Bible out. There is differences between believing that there is something was revealed and between believing that the revelation is still stand. When Islam came, Allah aborgated every other religion and every other revelation. We are required to believe that Allah revealed books to prophets in the past like he revealed the Torah to Moses and the injeel to Jesus christ, but we are not required to follow them.There is difference between believing Allah sent messenger in the past and between and between following them. we are required to believe Allah sent messengers, but not required to follow them. As Allah abrogated the Torah with the injeel, and aborgated the teachings of Moses with the teachings of Jesu christ, he also abrogated both the torah and the injeel and the teachings of moses and the teachings of Jesus christ with the quran and the teachings of prophet muhammad. .... #5- Not sure why this is relevant since, in Islam, a person's destiny is written before they are born. sunnah.com/muslim:2643a If you are a teacher and giving student a test, sure you already know that some of your students will fail the test, but despite that you will have to give them the test why? Same with Isalm. Mutilating Allah: How Tawhid Turns Islam's God Into a Mute Idol (Anthony Rogers) th-cam.com/video/-ZUgzn2SvgI/w-d-xo.html Im not sure if i understood what roger say if you could summarize it here in your own understanding. ---- > I hope you will reject Islam and turn to the Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
This is a very interesting and original line of research. It shows that it is possible to establish a coherent and plausible narrative of the origins of Islam based on a careful examination of the sources that have long remained untapped due to the dominance of the traditional narrative of Islam (SIN). The situation has completely changed in the last 60 years. The traditional narrative has become less and less credible because more and more researchers have carried out long-overdue challenges.
Thank you so much. The power of the Abbasids SIN is still making itself felt in Academic circles who trust it ore than non-Islamic sources which they tend to dismiss but at least my presentation shows that a coherent alternative is plausible if only we can break free of the scepticism that the Abbasid Narrative has planted in the public consciousness.
@@jannmutube Sorry, but, I think Joe nationality has nothing to do to the topic. Stick to the topic and leave his nationality alone. He has theory regardless of his nationality, so refute his theory and forget his nationality. And By the way, I do not believe this Joe nonsense. 1- First the text he based his theory on that Gabriel met Umar is doubtful. And I doubt that he will ever be able to prove it the authentic. 2-Jay Smith drilling Muslims that there is nothing from the 7 century and the life of Gabriel is 8th-century manuscript, so, when ever Jay opens his mouth just tell him what century that manuscript was. 3-Quran clearly states and without doubt that Jesus Christ was a human being and prophet. And Gabriel was Christian believed in the deity of Jesus Christ. Joe claims the quran portrays Jesus Christ as Docetic or had Docetic nature. And he got that notion from Luxenberg, who by some twisting and marathon jumping made a Syriac reading of the quran were he made of himself just a joke in the internet. Luxenberg was the same man who claimed Martyrs in the quran will be given 70 grapes. One sacrifices his life for 70 grapes in heaven. I just had to shake my head when I read that. 4-They have to come up with a new convincing interpretation for the whole quran to prove that quran does not say Jesus Christ was merely a human and messenger. 5-They have to proof that Umar was Jew or at least embraced Judaism Whatever sect they claim. What they claim now Umar was Sadducee was just claim without proof. And I think that nearly impossible to prove without using the Islamic traditional sources that they reject in the first place. 6-They have to prove the reason that Gabriel instead of translating the Bible, wrote to Umar a new Bible that is totally different from what Gabriel himself believed. 7-There are a lot of things in the quran that contradicts the Christians belief even for a heretic sect. Muslims can take four wives, prohibition of drinking, eating pigs meat ...ect. At the end I have just one question who for those who whole this claim, why in hell Gabriel, a Christians monk, writes a whole new book that total different and totally in contradicting to the Bible, instead of simply translating to him the Bible and why in hell gabreil write him a book and just after that he return to his church instead of using Umar to spread his belief?
@@mahmoodali1533 ----> The video says Joe is giving a Jewish perspective so, he has to expect comments on that. Also, he's only representing Saducess. 2) I did refute his theory. His claims are not based in solid evidence. Joe's interpretation of the coin and his supposition that Muhammad, Umar, Emir (ambrose), and Khalid are all the same person is subjective ... And not supported by other sources. Khalid, Umar, and Muhammad died at different times and are all buried in separate graves. So, they wouldn't all be the same person. Emir or Ambrose of Milian lived 340 - 397 AD before the time of Muhammad @ 7: 49, he used an UN-referenced statement from the comment section as a source @ 11: 46, Abd Malik's Islam was not a Messianic Hebrew religion. ... @ 8:33, the Quran is not "all about Jesus. According to Joe's sources, it is about waging war and using the Gospel story to replace Jesus as King (by denying his deity and claiming power by a human lineage),. "In 651 AD, King Tashik (Tazig) of the Arab Empire (also called Tashik in the Chinese sources and in Tachkastan in Sebos)told the Tang Imperial Court that the founding of their Empire concerns a story where a Lionman told a Camel Herder where he could find an Armoury and a instructions on how to be King." (The Tang Chinese Record)"
@@jannmutube Yeah, sure I read your comment and your refutation in another comment. But, the issue I think that you did not realize is that they already know everything you said and that your information was coming from the Islamic traditional narrative.. But they issue, and I'm not sure if you are following Jay smith for a little long, is that Jay Smith, Mel, and Joe do not accept anything from the Islamic traditional narrative. Their argument is that the Islamic traditional narrative was written at least a century after prophet Muhammad. So, everything you said probably has no value to them. Probably the only thing that may have some value is what you said that the quran denies the deity of Jesus christ, and gabriel was firm believer in the deity of jesus christ, but again Joe is using Luxenberg syriac reading of the quran to claim that the quran portrays Jesus is more like a Docetic figure meaning the quran does not fully denies the deity of jesus christ., so your argument is hard to convince them. Probably the only things that can refute them the points I listed in my previous comments. If you find something wrong with them let me know and I will research them more.
On my comment count it is 231. Running over 3 hours reading most of them. I want to complement you all for the honest or knowledgeable comments or replies. Most of you are getting a strong sense of what academic research is and can produce. There are a number of comments that suggest more doors to open and research. Dr Jay, thank you and Mel for using Jo's research to bring to us a source of information outside the parochial vision of most Christians and academics. We are getting a sharper picture of the milieu of the era and the light of veritas is illuminating like a black light aspects of the SIN reveling it's antecedence making clear how much, how deep the SIN is a crafted con by the Abbasid Persians on the Arab peoples. Amazing........ I'd play Who let the Dogs out but too many would not get the joke.
John Moschus, in the Spiritual Meadow repeatedly mentions the use of wooden gongs to call monks to prayer in Egypt. John died is 615 so his experience predates the meeting of Umar with Gabriel. John was from Damascus.
@@Bei-Abedan You get the most views on You Tube. However, they censor heavily. All channels need a back-up posting site & I would suggest also posting on Bit Chute. Rumble is also O.K.
@@tyh3120 You get the most views on You Tube. However, they censor heavily. All channels need a back-up posting site & I would suggest also posting on Bit Chute. Rumble is also O.K.
My hat is off to you sir. In my case the delay in coming to this understanding was cognitive dissonance (I did not study Jewish theology before about 2015 and could not conceive of a divine Jewish Messiah for example) and not wanting to accept that my own beloved Messianic Hebrews might have had anything to do with it. It is intuitive at the end of the day that there must have been Monophysite Messianic Hebrews who opposed Nazarene Dyophysites. But I tried out every other hypothesis first. I only started to realize slowly that there was probably no way to fight the Monophysite Messianic Hebrew origins of the Quran in about 2013. But I still had to finish trying out every other hypothesis first before I realized there is no escaping it, no matter how uncomfortable it felt for me to admit it. I think that is also what some of the Catholics are also experiencing with regards to Pope Martin and Pope Honorius. They would much rather like to keep such things buried. But in the end, the truth will set us free, and thankfully there are plenty of Catholics who are brave enough to face it and let the light shine in.
@@stephenbaptist3077 I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. What about them? Pope Honorius died in heresy, Pope Martin was a martyr for orthodoxy.
14:02 A reference to Gabriel is only significant if Gabriel is a rare name in the part of the world, but it isn't. It was likely a very common name. Gabriel of Sinjar is one famous example that Joe is familiar with. Leaving this point out is a fallacy of exclusion. 14:39 It is a hasty generalisation to suggest to jump from Gabriel getting favourable terms to their being of the same religion. (This is the very subjectivity he referred to when he spoke about the methodology.) "Clearly of the same religion." To take an example from similar events that occurred, Karol Wotyla, an archbishop went to the communists in Krakow in the1970s and asked to be given permission to build a seminary. He gets a favourable reply. Based on Joe's logic, therefore Wotyla was a communist. It is an absurd logic.
Hey Mel. Please check your emails. I sent you an email regarding a very interesting connection between Muhamad and Balaam from the book of Numbers. I would also like to talk to you about other important matters that are best discussed in private.
Joe should unravel two verses in Qur'an,that has Gibrael word.quran 2:96,97.and see if that is the same match. NB.the above verse in English,may be no match to what the arabic is saying,and Joe knows that.
In the book "Christian-Muslim Relations, A Bibliographical History", vol. 1 (600 - 900), p.893, ch. "The Life of Gabriel of Qartmin", they mention "poll-tax" and "land-tax", ("paqrātā" and "madʾatā"). It also explains the issue with the gong and how they probably never met in person -> An important element in the Life as it has come down is a chapter about the supposed treaty that was concluded between Gabriel and the Arab conquerors of northern Mesopotamia. The Chronicum anonymum ad A.D. 819 pertinens confirms that Gabriel was enthroned between 1 October 633 and 31 September 634, and the most likely date is 1 May 634. Thus, he was a contemporary of the Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khatṭạ̄b (634-44), under whom northern Mesopotamia was incorporated into the Arab Empire (al-Balādhurī and al-Khwārizmī date the conquest of Ṭūr ʿAbdīn to 640). The Life (Ch. 12, LXXII) claims that Gabriel received from ʿUmar in person a written assurance that priests and deacons should not pay the poll-tax (if this is the right interpretation of the word paqrātā, literally ‘vertebrae’), and that monks should be free from the land-tax (here termed madʾatā). This alleged assurance also stated that the sounding of the gong for the times of prayer should not be abolished and that anthems might be sung in public funeral processions. But all this is highly suspect. Gabriel is unlikely to have met ʿUmar himself, but rather one of his subordinates, possibly ʿIyāḍ ibn Ghanm, and it is also unlikely that the poll-tax and land-tax were yet distinguished, since there is no such distinction in treaties recorded elsewhere for northern Mesopotamia at this time. Furthermore, the treaty between ʿIyāḍ and the people of Callinicus, as recorded by al-Balādhurī, explicitly abolished the sounding of the gong and the Christian practice of processing in public. The Life of Gabriel was most likely written sometime in the period, in the 9th century, when debates over the stipulations of the so-called Shurūt ̣ʿUmar (q.v.) were at their most heated (see al-Tạbarī, Taʾrīkh i, pp. 2405-6). All the specific concessions allegedly made to Gabriel in the Life read like wishful thinking on the part of the Christians - the concession to sound the gong is clearly formulated as an exception to the rule explicitly laid down in the Shurūt.̣ In sum, when the inherent implausibility of the treaty allegedly obtained by Gabriel in person from ʿUmar is weighed against the evidence from the Life itself, that no narrative of Gabriel’s life existed before the late 8th century apart from a brief curriculum vitae appended to the record of his funeral, the conclusion has to be that the two men never met. Significance A rural area such as ṬūrʿAbdīn would have been included under the treaties made with surrounding cities, though it appears that in the period when the Life fabricated this special treaty for ṬūrʿAbdīn the practice of sounding the gong for prayer and processing with anthems to the cemetery was still in force in villages where perhaps no Muslims lived. The higher clergy, apparently, were exempt from the poll-tax and the monasteries did not have to pay the land-tax (thanks to Symeon of Ḥarrān, who died in 734, the monastery of Qartmīn had many properties and extensive estates in and around Nisibis). A study of the churches of ṬūrʿAbdīn, and notably that of the monastery of St Jacob near the village of Ṣalāḥ (Palmer, Monk and Mason, Appendix on inscriptions, pp. 206-8, 212-13), suggests that some of them were rebuilt in the 8th century. If this is true, it provides evidence that the restriction on repairs to existing churches was ineffective in the remote plateau of ṬūrʿAbdīn. These exemptions may have been challenged in the late 8th century, no doubt beginning with the manifest iniquity of the monastery of Qartmīn being exempted from the land-tax, which will have grated in the minds of other property and land owners in and around Nisibis. The Life of Gabriel is evidence of the strategy adopted by this monastery to answer this challenge. It may well have been unsuccessful, which would help to explain the decline discussed in the final chapter of Palmer, Monk and mason (pp. 182-90).
More info on Gabriel from: " Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage" "By the time of the Arab Conquest, in 639/40, the abbot of Qarṭmin, now Gabriel of Beth Qustan (Bequsyone), was managing two dioceses from his monastery: that of Ṭur ʿAbdin and that of Dara. No doubt the success with which he negotiated a treaty with the Arab conquerors, protecting the rights of the Christians in his region, made him great in the eyes of later generations. When his Life came to be written, little was remembered about him, which shows that it took time for him to acquire the reputation of a saint. He had certainly acquired it by the year 774, in which the plague raged in Ṭur ʿAbdin, killing 94 monks at Qarṭmin and all the prominent people at Dayr al-Ṣalīb. After 30 Qarṭmin monks had died in a single night, the corpse of Gabriel was exhumed and fixed upright in the church to pray for an end to the plague. After this, the right arm was detached and taken to Ḥaḥ, near Dayr al-Ṣalīb, to bring an end to the plague there also."
Thank you for the encouragement brother, Iyas doesn't fit into this at all because someone promoted Iyas ibn Qabisa to distract us from the REAL ibn Qabisa called Hani ibn Qabisa who was an Abu Bakr. So we were all looking at the wrong ibn Qabisa. I posted a video about the error at the beginning of March which has caused a lot of people to hate me. Still, we have to be honest and face the facts and not hold onto false theories once they have been exposed.
@@Bei-Abedan In which video you identify Hani ibn Qabisa as Abu Bakr? If that's true, then Hani ibn Qabisa is buried in the Green Dome alongside with Umar aka Muhammad, according to Muslims.
An excellent and well structures presentation. I feel many of the narratives that have been rehearsed here are now beginning to cohere into a robust sequence of events. It would have been good practice , I think, for O'Sullivan to have referenced the Umar visits but that is not your problem and having worked on a PhD myself I know how easy it is to be overwhelmed with detail. This new narrative needs to be presented in both a popular and peer reviewed set of publications.
@@glennewell2436 Right observation Glen. I've done many comments on the topic in different Jay videos and you're the one who read Greek. Read them carefully 😉
@@glennewell2436 'Hearing, listening' is also being (sometimes) deceived. To avoid this, it is then important (for me...) to know who is speaking and why. Generally, it corresponds: what is said is directly in relation with what is the one who speak. Who am I then? An agnostic cultural Catholic guy, graduated in History at the Sorbonne and working on this topic.
Mel Joe and Jay: It will interesting perhaps if you look into Kaʽb al-Aḥbār: The companion of Umar, he is said to have been Jewish but "converted to Islam", and who encouraged Umar to recapture Jerusalem from the Byzantines and to reconsecrate the Temple Mount as a house of worship (subsequently the Dome of the Rock). He is especially interesting because, this "conversion to Islam" seems, on your theory, like an a posteriori falsification to disguise the fact that, prior to his conversion to monophysite Christianity, Umar himself was with Jews and doing their bidding - including sparing the Jews from taxes, as he later did for Christians after his supposed conversion - because Umar himself was a (Sadducee) Jew. Hard evidence of this character Kaʽb al-Aḥbār might go some way to showing that Umar was no Muslim, but was in fact a Jew.
Umar's concessions to patriarch Gabriel of Qartmin, 11:20, also seem to echo the immunity & exemptions said to have been granted by the armies of the Caliphate (rather, signed by Muhammad himself!) to the St. Catherine's monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai.
If genuine then it would be after Umar was baptised and took on the new name Muhammad. According to the Coptic Church he loved the Coptic pope Benjamin most of all.
GOD said to Moses, "I Am Who I Am, this is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation" (Exodus 3:13-15) Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I Am" (John 8:53-58) ▪︎God is one Spirit Being, eternally present as three distinct centers of consciousness within God (hence the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) One Being, One Essence, yet three distinct persons. As persons each is definitely not either of the other two. However, as One Spirit Being we can definitely say that the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of Man, and God Almighty simultaneously. Jesus has always existed and was never a created being. He had a physical birth of a Virgin and of the Holy Spirit, thereby He did not inherit the sin nature of Adam. “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9) Jesus is God Incarnate, ▪︎"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1-4) "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14) The Word became Flesh (Jesus), God took on human nature. (John 1:14) So Jesus is both fully God and fully Human... Jesus has 2 natures.. Both Divine and Human but with a Sinless Soul Jesus as Human with a Sinless Soul: ate, slept, wept, spoke to the Father and was crucified etc. Jesus as God: is One with the Father, raised the dead, forgave sins and created etc. Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day victorious over sin and death (past, present and future). Jesus Christ atones for our sins and not only ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1John 2:2) Jesus Christ and the Gospel are the final revelation (1John 2:22; 2John 1:7-11; Galatians 1:8-9; Revelation 22:13; Revelation 22:18-19) Amen.. Jesus Claimed To Be God ▪︎Justice Is Civil and/or Divine - God's Divine Mercy and Justice is Love. ▪︎The Rabbis, High Priest Caiaphas and Roman Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus because He claimed to be God. ▪︎Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, the Word who became Flesh is the Son of God who lived a perfect and sinless life and whose Sacred blood was spilled by the High Priest, Rabbis and Romans and offered to pay for the sins of the whole world. (1John 2:2) On our behalf. ▪︎The High Priest Caiaphas said, “We have a law, according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God" (John 19:7) ▪︎Jesus said, "What about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" (John 10:36) "Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” (John 10:30-33) ▪︎The High Priest said, “We are not stoning you for any good work, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:27-33) ▪︎"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18) Jesus Saves ▪︎Salvation comes through accepting the free gift of Christ's redemptive grace and not by the law. ▪︎"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it" (James 2:10) No man can keep the whole law so our salvation is through Christ's redemptive grace. ▪︎"And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace" (John 1:16) ▪︎"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome" 1John 5:3 ▪︎"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" 1John 1:9 ▪︎"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" Ephes 2:8-9 ▪︎"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" Rom 11:6 ▪︎"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to everyone who believes" Rom 10:4 ▪︎"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12) ▪︎"Love does no wrong to a neighbor therefore Love is the fulfilling of the Law" Rom 13:10; Matt 22:30-40 ▪︎"Whoever does not Love does not know God because God is Love" 1John 4:8 ▪︎In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13) ▪︎"Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him" (1John 3:15) Christ's 2 Greatest Commandments are: ▪︎"Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 1. Jesus replied, "The first is to Love God.......and the second is like it.. 2. "To Love your neighbor as yourself and love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 22:30-40) ☆ "On these 2 hang all the prophets and law" (Matt 22:30-40; 1 Cor 13) ▪︎Christ's Law, the New Covenant, overrules Mosaic Law Matt 5:38-48 ▪︎Jesus said, "You have heard it said, "An eye for an eye" etc. But I tell you, Love your enemy" Matt 5:38-48 JESUS Is Risen - MIRACLES of Christ's Shroud: ▪th-cam.com/video/bkvoAJp4dGI/w-d-xo.html ▪th-cam.com/video/KBycQZug8Fo/w-d-xo.html ▪th-cam.com/video/Pj9ruYf7e9U/w-d-xo.html ▪th-cam.com/video/efEDb2jHyMY/w-d-xo.html ▪︎ "The Son of Man will give you everlasting life, because God the Father has set His seal on Him" (John 6:27) ▪︎View The Cross in Whirlpool Galaxy - Nasa th-cam.com/video/RvzA9Pv3pcM/w-d-xo.html ▪︎Understanding The Trinity By Bishop Barron: th-cam.com/video/IqjFe3AoZYw/w-d-xo.html Amen... God Bless You.
It all coming together nicely, this echo echo echo fits most of the SIN, look at the Quran you have one part in Mecca and one part in Medina, this can be the change over of Umar belief in Jesus, then you have their prophet dying of poison but really dying by execution, echo's changing the narrative to fit their agenda... Ask Dr. Qadhi I think he knows the truth hence his putting it out there, holes in the SIN. Bless you guys and thanks for the strong evidence that no one can denie.
I reckon all the top clerics and scholars know the truth. I also reckon MBS knows, hence his radical moves. He is trying to reform Islam, and drag it away from the Abassid ministrations.
@@horseradishpower9947, yip he is going to either change Islam as we know it or he be assassinated time will tell. I believe Islam is dying in the middle east hence they moving to western non Muslim countries to try to reboot its ideology all over again. If Islam is so good then why do they want to come to a country not under Islamic state...
@@Bei-Abedan, thanks looking forward to more of your talks... Tom Holland did a gr8 doco in Islam the untold story, I'm hoping once you guys fill in the holes you too can make a doco.
27:00 Dr Smith please note that a leader of a monastery would have been an ordained Bishop - Abbot. And in the English Parliamentary system Bishops and Abbots were members of the House of Lords, ie. a memory of what was the thinking for the local laity. In Rome after the demise of the western emperor it was the Bishop of Rome that took over the admin of the truncated governmental structure. Since the Byzantine governmental structure oversight was gone by the 7th century it would make sense that the local Bishop would take on the oversight in the urban centers separated from military affairs but may have some hand in taxes as tithes were collected for monastic centers.
@@ralphcravey4904 Who is a monk assigned over a priory. Or a Hieromonk who is a priest monk who ministers outside the priory. But an Abbot would more likely have greater local authority in the communities and be known as lord.
Abbots are not normally bishops, and if elevated to the episcopacy, will not have time to oversee the monastery. An abbot is likely to be addressed as father rather than lord. A hieromonk is a monk who has been ordained to the priesthood, but he normally resides and performs his priestly duties in the monastery and may not travel outside without the permission of his abbot. Or at least, these are the eastern customs.
the input feed by Jo[e] is wealth material those interest reaching Muslim to Christ is excellence use academic and Church seminar. Anyway, I already put my comments before since share this origination of Muhammad person by Jay Smith to Al-Fadi and other Pfander group Smith collaborated. For me this unique information of Muhammad life origin is no longer NEW, I feed informed since I was in high school taught us by our seminarian teacher from Catholic Church religion. The Seminarian teacher told us that Muhammad had became disciple by the Catholic Monk in Nabatean region. Later he rebel after knowledge or learned the pros and con of Catholic theology and about heretic he left and built his own sect outside Catholic and prepare to call his follower Muslim (surrender one to Allah) because of the division and disagreement of various Christian sects at that time of Six century so severe both in religion and political (ex. Byzantine vs Persia) division within Christendom. So I suggest to inform Jay Smith send team to get that information from Vatican Library or interviewed Catholic historian to solidify the exposition of Muhammad origination is I myself believe open that Islam came from Roman Catholic as understand the puzzling parallel of Koranic from the extra biblical doctrine-tradition-theology indirect forgery today we understood. Good external evidence is the Muslim tradition told us of the term "Haniffiya" it indicates those pagan Arab background seriously seek the true Abraham religion and some of them came to true Church and other built their own sect consider heretic and Muhammad belong on this group that reflect his prayer and fasting in the cave of Mount Hira is the original practice of Christian Monk and most of the early time of Muhammad met those monks influenced him and in their environment from travel-caravan and cured him too! The Qur'an gave favor to the Monk of being pious and hate worldly matter give them credit too. lastly, I found a Catholic symbol of the icon-Sun found in common Catholic Churches altar and this found inside the shrine of Kaaba too! .....CHECK IT!!!
@Ya Ma My Response to Eight Lists Ya Ma Arguments: > commiting blashmey against the Lord Almighty, denying His commands and those whom He honored (I quote). More emotional but not define those addressed “Blasphemy” for what act or foul words made? Are you refer to Jew or Christian? What command denying? (note, word “denying” is continuous tense until at present!). Who is that men/prophets honored denying? If the phrase “honored” you describe to Muhammad the son of Abdullah of Mecca from Qureish Arab tribe then for what evidence Muslim able prove in Judeo-Christian history before Islam in Sixth century back from first century toward the birth of Muhammad and beginning propagate Islam in 610 AD? As well is there any Bible proof Muhammad is prophesied or else before Muhammad the Bible advance warning the People of the Bible BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHET. The definition of “False Prophet” is convince people especially believer of the Bible is TO PRETENDING AND DECEIVE but in the eyes of pagan Meccan and Medinan pagan Arab he is Rasul (Apostle) of God, but NOT those well versed the bible how distinguish between GENUINE vs FORGERY and TRUTH vs FALSE (fake!) > Muhammad was know as gentile prophet (I quote). Can you cite any passage in the Bible that there is a prophesy foretold outside Israel Children and race to be a Gentile Prophet? As far as I know well this phrases use entitled to Apostle Paul when he himself confirm claim this title in the Letter to Romans 11:13 “APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES”. > both brothers are monotheist and believe in the one God of Moses (I quote). Is propagate the ONENESS OF GOD/GOD IS ONLY ONE is evidence it came from SAME TRUE GOD? Like I said the term FALSE is old deception tactic used by Satan himself to the first human race Adam and Eve to encourage and hope they shall be LIKE GOD! (read Genesis 3: 5). > And it was Christian jews that attacked previous propherts not the muslim (I quote). Can you give passage in the Bible or historical fact or seem you are distort or twist the context and to what connection Muslim not involve in this attack within People of the Book because Muslim is OUTSIDER to link connection to internal problem of the People of the Book (Jew & Christian). Please plainly to that term ATTACK!!! Or else you make your accusation by oath before Holy God falsely and no evidence. > You men make islam look bad, but theres nothing worse than persecuting the messiah (I quote). Whom you address “Persecuting the Messiah”? (Note, you used “Persecuting” it is in imperfect verb tense means continuation until today since the time of Jesus on earth)??? Your argument no foundation just babbling accusation consider FALSE/FAKE propagation. > Also, every muslim believes in the resurrection of Christ (I quote). WOW! Every Muslim believes in the RESURRECTION OF CHRIST!!! ARE YOU STILL MUSLIM??? Are you not aware for thousand years about 1, 400 years Muslim believer believe that Jesus NEVER DIED NOR CRUCIFIED ON THE CROSS??? Please read Surah al-Nisaa:157!!! >Every Muslim honors every prophet since day one of Muhammad becoming a messeger of God (I quote). Yes, I know that Muhammad of 610 AD honors and acknowledge all Bible Prophets BUT BUT BUT before Muhammad born around 570 AD both Judaism and Christian world NEVER RECOGNIZE NOR HONOR MUHAMMAD IS A PROPHET CAME FROM SAME GOD OF ABRAHAM-ISAAC-JACOB-MOSES-DAVID-SOLOMON-ISAIAH-EZEKIEL-JEREMIAH-DANIEL TO JESUS AND APOSTLE AND CHURCH PEOPLE!!! So for what Mr. Ya Ma you attempt and hope Christian world of the Bible believer welcome Muhammad in the UMBRELLA OF PROPHETS but Muhammad only SELF-claim being RASUL and NABI. The Biblical believer criteria or background check to be surety that self-proclaim man of God need examine found in the Holy Bible then the historical tradition before and after life of Muhammad harmony with to what he claim in agrrement but what we found for 1, 400 years (610 AD-2021 AD) since begun at the cave of Mount Hira no Church record there be a GENTILE PROPHET ARAB OF MECCAN, EVEN HIS ALLEGED CLAIM DESCENDED IS GENEALOGY BACK FROM ISHMAELITE IS LACKING CONNECTION BUT ALL ENDED BEFORE JESUS TIME NOT ABRAHAM ERA FOR OVER 2, 500 YEARS AGO. Note. Genealogy of Muhammad Ended to Adnan. So from Muhammad to Adnan is 21 generation times 40 it arrive on 270 BC. Ishmael generation 2074 BC the gap is 1, 804 years!!!
Deae@Ya Ma : The Armies of JIHAD only honors VIOLENCE, Persecution & Piracy and NOTHING about Honoring Jewish Prophets and sons of Abraham. * Bye bye Armies of JIHAD!
I always knew the beginning of islam is a protestant movment against the holly church. The same happend in the 15 centurry and from that you got the mormons. Give the mormons a 300 years and a sword and you got another islam. Ore give a jehova witnes 300 years and a sword and a lot of changing of the bible You got islam. But islam i blame the mongolian adaptetion Of christianity.
Indeed, as his followers grew, at one point Joseph Smith seriously contemplated leading a revolt and making himself a king or emperor of the United States, which is not quite as crazy as it sounds since the US armed forces were very meager in that period. However, I don't think he had any competent generals.
@Ya Ma try just to proof mohammad in the 7 centurry preach in makka. You may also use your quran. As proof. Dont forget only 7 centurry document. Your prophet preach in makka where your kaaba is now. Try hard my friend.
Wooden Bell? The semantron came into being in the 6th century within monasteries of Palestine and Egypt, including Saint Catherine's in the Sinai; the rhythmic blasts, an iconography of trumpeting.
@@Bei-Abedan I found the following in the book "Christian Muslim Relations", vol. 1, p.893, ch. "The Life of Gabriel of Qartmin", they mention "poll-tax" and "land-tax", can you clarify how the original words "paqrātā" and "madʾatā" are a reference to the famous Muslim taxes? It also explains the issue with the gong -> An important element in the Life as it has come down is a chapter about the supposed treaty that was concluded between Gabriel and the Arab conquerors of northern Mesopotamia. The Chronicum anonymum ad A.D. 819 pertinens confirms that Gabriel was enthroned between 1 October 633 and 31 September 634, and the most likely date is 1 May 634. Thus, he was a contemporary of the Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khatṭạ̄b (634-44), under whom northern Mesopotamia was incorporated into the Arab Empire (al-Balādhurī and al-Khwārizmī date the conquest of Ṭūr ʿAbdīn to 640). The Life (Ch. 12, LXXII) claims that Gabriel received from ʿUmar in person a written assurance that priests and deacons should not pay the poll-tax (if this is the right interpretation of the word paqrātā, literally ‘vertebrae’), and that monks should be free from the land-tax (here termed madʾatā). This alleged assurance also stated that the sounding of the gong for the times of prayer should not be abolished and that anthems might be sung in public funeral processions. But all this is highly suspect. Gabriel is unlikely to have met ʿUmar himself, but rather one of his subordinates, possibly ʿIyāḍ ibn Ghanm, and it is also unlikely that the poll-tax and land-tax were yet distinguished, since there is no such distinction in treaties recorded elsewhere for northern Mesopotamia at this time. Furthermore, the treaty between ʿIyāḍ and the people of Callinicus, as recorded by al-Balādhurī, explicitly abolished the sounding of the gong and the Christian practice of processing in public. The Life of Gabriel was most likely written sometime in the period, in the 9th century, when debates over the stipulations of the so-called Shurūt ̣ʿUmar (q.v.) were at their most heated (see al-Tạbarī, Taʾrīkh i, pp. 2405-6). All the specific concessions allegedly made to Gabriel in the Life read like wishful thinking on the part of the Christians - the concession to sound the gong is clearly formulated as an exception to the rule explicitly laid down in the Shurūt.̣ In sum, when the inherent implausibility of the treaty allegedly obtained by Gabriel in person from ʿUmar is weighed against the evidence from the Life itself, that no narrative of Gabriel’s life existed before the late 8th century apart from a brief curriculum vitae appended to the record of his funeral, the conclusion has to be that the two men never met. Significance A rural area such as ṬūrʿAbdīn would have been included under the treaties made with surrounding cities, though it appears that in the period when the Life fabricated this special treaty for ṬūrʿAbdīn the practice of sounding the gong for prayer and processing with anthems to the cemetery was still in force in villages where perhaps no Muslims lived. The higher clergy, apparently, were exempt from the poll-tax and the monasteries did not have to pay the land-tax (thanks to Symeon of Ḥarrān, who died in 734, the monastery of Qartmīn had many properties and extensive estates in and around Nisibis). A study of the churches of ṬūrʿAbdīn, and notably that of the monastery of St Jacob near the village of Ṣalāḥ (Palmer, Monk and Mason, Appendix on inscriptions, pp. 206-8, 212-13), suggests that some of them were rebuilt in the 8th century. If this is true, it provides evidence that the restriction on repairs to existing churches was ineffective in the remote plateau of ṬūrʿAbdīn. These exemptions may have been challenged in the late 8th century, no doubt beginning with the manifest iniquity of the monastery of Qartmīn being exempted from the land-tax, which will have grated in the minds of other property and land owners in and around Nisibis. The Life of Gabriel is evidence of the strategy adopted by this monastery to answer this challenge. It may well have been unsuccessful, which would help to explain the decline discussed in the final chapter of Palmer, Monk and mason (pp. 182-90).
@@Bei-Abedan I did, thanks, however I'm adamant to be born, live and die as anonymous as the vast majority of the human beings that ever existed and will ever exist. I'm still curious about any insights you might have in the words used for "tax" in the book I'm quoting in the post above.
Daniel 9:21 - Gabriel the man- While I was speaking, praying, confessing my sin and that of my people Israel, and presenting my petition before the LORD my God concerning His holy mountain- 21while I was still praying, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22He instructed me and spoke with me, saying: “O Daniel, I have come now to give you insight and understanding.…
@Ya Ma You have a problem with people who are after the truth? They just people who want to know the truth. Older Quran were burned in favor of more perfected one. How can you assure that people didn't corrupt later one? I'm not saying they did. God is critical of those who reject faith, blaspheme, practice evil and violate His Commandments. These evildoers are condemned by God. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist etc. There are many verses in the Quran where God condemns the hypocrites among the Muslims and promises them a great punishment in this life and the Hereafter. Also those among the Muslims who wage war against God and His Messenger. As to people of Jews not all are a like many believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten in all good works. They are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them, for God knows well those that they do right. “And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, in the Revelation to you, and in the Revelation to them, bowing in humility to God.They will not sell the Revelation of God for a miserable gain. For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account.” Please remember that Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, married a Jewish woman who is given by God the title of “The mother of the believers”. His swords were made by a Jew in Medina and when he died his shield was mortgaged with a Jew, to show us that among the Jews there are those who abide by God’s Commandments and do not take usury.
Very interesting thesis. But when was the meeting between Umar and Gabriel after which he according to the thesis became Muhammed? Does it fit with the early reports of "Tayyaye of Muhammad" from Thomas the Presbyter?
The meeting was some time between 644 and 646. And it fits with Thomas the Presbyter who wrote about him at that time because he knew him from his final name Muhammad not by his earlier name Amrh. Sebeos gets both names right.
@hikmah bersama Jesus Christ said:"From the fruits Ye shall know! "... Paul teaching is to love fellow human being & even your enemy... that's proves that Paul is not satanic compare to Arabic Quraish man title Muhammad who taught his follower to kills the Jews & Christians in line with Alfatihah prayers. Christians never taught by Paul to kill in the name of Jesus Christ. ☝
@hikmah bersama Try to live up to your name Hikmah! You can find anything you want on TH-cam, but that doesn't make it true. Paul praised the Bereans for their discernment which they applied on finding out whether his preaching was true according to the Scriptures.
@hikmah bersama easy to check---from 624, the qibla was changed from Jerusalem to the city of Mecca. But the pagan Mecca was conquered in 630 only. It means that from 624 on, you pray in the direction of the Mecca of the pagan Arabs, whose moon god was al Lah!
@hikmah bersama So what is wrong with that? Paul was a Jew from birth and he was a self righteous Pharisee until he was called by the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus. When he started to preach the gospel he would start at the local synagogue to give the Jews the chance to accept the gospel just like he did with the Bereans. But he preached to the gentiles as well which took different skills as they were not the same way acquainted with the law and the prophets and for whom it was more difficult to accept Jesus Christ intellectually as fulfilment of prophesy. If you like to find inconsistencies yojr Qur'an is a much better place to look
Very interesting material Joe. I was expecting a reason for something happening north of the Jazeera just before the conquest though and i did not see anything about that. Only stuff of 644 646, interesting ones but nevertheless.
It is of great important to identify the spirit who squeezed mohd at the cave of Hira near Mecca . Was the spirit really angel Gabriel ?? The answer is absolutely NO !!! Had the spirit been Gabriel , he would have calmed mohd and relieved his fear, but the spirit left him in extreme distress .
@@jonnyy4088 I think that the cave of hira story is just a mish-mash of several different events all hashed together. Its just a legend invented by the Abbasids to obscure and blur together various historical events.
I do not know whether you have spoken in other episodes about the effect of Waraqa Bin Nawfal and Khadija (Waraqa's first cousin) in the life of Mohamed and how they were the first two who believed his claims. Waraqa Bin Nawfal was according to the Arabic sources very eloquent in Arabic and he used to write in Arabic as much as he could from the Torah and the Injeel (as referred to by muslims in a singular form). In Islamic books Waraqa Bin Nawfal is thought of being a Jew or Nisrani (the derogatory word used by Muslims to refer to Christians) and he was the one who married Khadija, Mohamed's first wife. Islamic books also mention that when Waraqa died, revelation to Mohamed stopped and Mohamed was very sad.
Great observations. Nawfal and Khadija were Nestorian Christians. This sect was considered heretical in the lifespan of Mohammad. At the time Nicene (Trinitarian) Christianity was the only legal religion in the Roman/ Byzantine empire. Jews, Gnostics, Pagans and members of heretical Christian sects often chose to move to the fringes/ frontiers of the empire to be able to practice their religious beliefs in peace. The one exception was Spain where the Visigoths were predominately Arians (heretical according to the empire) but they were so numerous that the state had to accommodate them and to slowly convert them. (Initially, both northern Italy and North Africa also had a large number of Arians) The Filioque controversy was jump-started by the Latin church seeking to reinforce the idea that Jesus co-equal with the Father to the Arians. The problem was that Rome's change to the Nicene Creed was not discussed with the bishops of the eastern portions of the Roman/Byzantine empire, prior to implementation Eventually, both Rome and the Eastern churches excommunicated each other.
In regards to the SIN of the revelation with Gabriel, is it true that if you change a dot in the Arabic word for "choke" you would get the word "baptize"? Then you've got the significance of three times.
Great finding, they also name it "Jazirat Ibn ʿUmar" and "Madinat al-Jazira". "Cizre was founded as Jazirat Ibn ʿUmar in the 9th century by al-Hasan ibn Umar, Emir of Mosul". "al-Hasan ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab was appointed governor of Mosul by Caliph al-Amin in 813." Not to be confused with the Umar in the video: "Abdullah ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab (c.610-693 CE) was companion of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and son of the second Caliph Umar. He was a prominent authority in hadith and law."
@@_John_P yes thanks, I read that. Just wondering whether the naming it of Jazirat Ibn ʿUmar or the mention of Umar might have been in memory of Umar bin Al Khattab who received Gibril in this town?
@@Fay1298 No, the town was founded by a 9th century Umar. It may be that the document was written for 9th century Umar but redacted back to the more prestigious 7th century Umar for additional effectiveness.
Jay, regarding this angel Gabriel, I theorized that the original Gabriel probably a messenger (of which what 'angelos' word actually mean), but probably Islam mistook that angel as a heavenly being like what we know today
Glad you mentioned it. I found some interesting sources that mentioned Umar is not killed by Abu Lu'luah of Persian, but the website is taken down and it can't be tracked online anymore. Most probable to your view is the angry "sadducees" mob who's not accepting Umar's conversion i guess. Maybe it can be right, but maybe it isn't. Ka'b Al-Ahbar (Arab wiki, his life chapter) وقد كانت مسألة ذكر النبي محمد في كتب اليهود وفق اعتقادات المسلمين، تشغل بال الكثيرين بمن فيهم الصحابة والتابعين والمؤرخين والمحدثين وعوام الناس. فكان كعب وأمثاله مصدرهم لمثل هذه القضايا والأمور،[6] ومن الأمثلة على سعة علمه وتبحره في علوم اليهود حكاية أوردها الطبري في تفسيره لآية :"يا أخت هارون ما كان أبوك إمرأ سوء وما كانت أمك بغيا" فقال كعب أن هارون المذكور ليس بهارون أخ النبي موسى فكذبته عائشة فرد قائلًا: "إن كان النبي قال هذا فهو أعلم وأخبر وإلا فإني أجد بينهما ستمائة سنة"، فسكتت عائشة،[7] اتهم كعب كثيراً في كتابات متأخرة منها أنه كان مشاركا في مؤامرة اغتيال عمر بن الخطاب،[8] وجاء فيها أنه أنذره بمقتله بثلاثة أيام زاعمين أنه قال لعمر أنه وجد ذكره في التوراة. ويرجح عدد من الباحثين أنها قصة مُختلقة، لإنه لو كان كما روى أولئك الرواة لعد شريكاً صريحاً في المؤامرة وقُتل على إثرها ولكنه لم يُقتل بل عاش إلى خلافة عثمان،[9] فعبيد الله بن عمر قتل الهرمزان الفارسي وابنة أبو لؤلؤة الصغيرة فلو كان كعب معهم لما تردد في قتله، كان عمر بن الخطاب قد زجره قائلًا «لتتركن الحديث عن الأول أو لألحقنك بأرض القردة» وفي الأثر «لَمَّا دخل عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ الْبَيْتَ الْمُقَدَّسَ وَأَرَادَ أَنْ يَبْنِيَ مُصَلًّى لِلْمُسْلِمَيْنِ : قَالَ لِكَعْبِ ؟ أَيْنَ أَبْنِيهِ ؟ قَالَ ابْنِهِ خَلْفَ الصَّخْرَةِ . قَالَ : خَالَطَتْك يَهُودِيَّةٌ يَا ابْنَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ ؛ بَلْ أَبْنِيهِ أَمَامَهَا» قال ابن تيمية "وذلك لأن اليهود تعظم تلك الصخرة، ولم يأت ديننا بأي فضيلة لها".[10] I guess it's an enough introduction to the topic
@@NoOne-zm5wh Jay fixed the the problem and I can post again but sadly I ran out of free time today. Thank you so much for your constructive contributions!
What Jay and Joe seems to say is that later some people (or just one person) wanted to create one religion, *Islam* which for whatever reasons had little to do with Christianity, turned the *human saint/priest Gabriel into the Angel Gabriel* and declared the Koran as the word of Allah. What would this Umar get out of it if he invented this religion? He was going the way of all humans, the way to the grave, why would he care if there was one new religion? Furthermore this religion would be based just on lies, and this is something the inventors would know, and for the rest of their lives required to lie. Maybe lying was not such a big issue for them. Joe seem to *downplay the fact that these people had to be very bold-faced liars. Ah they had just to change here and there a bit of the story or bend the truth... Whoever came up with the Koran, must have known that the Jews still awaited one human, liberator kingly Messiah, and invented a person who then was accepted by Pagans as such. As to pact of Umar, didn't Jay once also maintain that one particular letter of the monks from one monestary which Christians in the Middle East still cite as authentic was just a forgery. Does Joe use here some other sources which just refer back to this fake letter?
Amazing! Thanks for this - very plausible narrative (backed by credible evidences), and actually more so than the narrative of islam itself - it seems to me that islam (as the presenter put it) wanted to play a kind of Anglican "game" when the ruler disassociated himself from a codified/established clergy (i.e. patriarchy) by making the calif/emperor quasi head of the religion. It explains why after the dissolution of each and every caliphate, empire islam doesn't have a "Vatican" (well, in Egypt there is some school which play somehow such role (kind of quasi ultimate authority on interpreting the Koran) but in theory every imam can interpret it on whatever way it wants...
Daniel 9:21 - Gabriel the man- While I was speaking, praying, confessing my sin and that of my people Israel, and presenting my petition before the LORD my God concerning His holy mountain- 21while I was still praying, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22He instructed me and spoke with me, saying: “O Daniel, I have come now to give you insight and understanding.…
I did not find any clear or elaborate picture of Abbasid origins or theological dispositon from Joe, i mean he did say in the Thrid part that they were from Hijaz but i think the kind of thread that Jay and others have been presenting contradicts that, I hope to see a more clear view on that.
@Sneaker's Corner one should consider that the Abby's standard modus operandi in editing as they assemble their recension material would also extend to adjusting the dates with in the material. In other words we can not accept their narrative at any level with any credibility.
Sebeos never says that Umar was assassinated in 644 and succeeded by another king. The only time king of saracens gets assassinated is just before the first civil war. Also a chinese source says that tayyaye kingdom started in 618 and it was the second king ruling in 651. The first king was Ibn Qabisah, the second was Umar. There is no room for a third person who was later called Uthman. It also explains why all sources talk about Umar and none about an Uthman and Umar's coin was in 647 when Uthman should have been ruling.
Also, people from the levant, Lebanon etc were well known as master craftsmen in metal and producing coins. If you wanted a rare coin made, thats where you'd go. Just thought.
647 should be the time of Uthman, which have a blood relative to Mu'awiya (According to SIN). Need to dig a little bit more of this narrative (because its quite important too)
Islam is so proud of its oral tradition and tries to convince us, that it is trustworthy. But when we are looking into history, anywhere in the world, true stories are getting embellished when only passed on orally. A good example are the Deutsche Heldensagen (German hero tales). Didn't happen the same with many of the stories of saints, yes even with Mary? For me it is easy to imagine, that over 200 years or so, Saint Gabriel developed into the Angel Gabriel.
@@Bei-Abedan Last Friday is the famous sorrowful day, Tisha b'av, the day of the destruction of the first and second Temples in Jerusalem. Do you know what's happened last Friday in the Catholic Church? The Church of the Christ built by the St. Peter ( buried under the Vatican) and the Apostle Paul ( whose tomb is a Catholic Church, St-Paul hors les murs in Rome ) was restricted ( for the purpose of cancelling ) by the Pope. It's about the Latin Mass begun from the 3rd until 1970. Today the Catholic Mass is called Nuvo Ordo ( the New Order!!!) The time of Gentiles ( Romains 11) is over before our eyes. But helas! most Christians ignore that the Church of the Christ just got cancelled ( as important as the first and the Second Temples of Jerusalem ), the Destruction is before us, on All Nations ( Catholic means the nations outside Israel ). This silence before the massive Death to come makes me tremble!-------The Wall Street Journal have noticed it!--www.wsj.com/articles/pope-francis-lets-bishops-ban-old-latin-mass-reversing-move-by-pope-benedict-xvi-11626444372
@@tyh3120 Actually it was Saturday, but since fasting is not permitted when entering onto a Sabbath and fasting on Sabbath is not permitted either, the Fast was on Sunday. I am familiar with the correspondence to the Fast of the Apostles and the Feast of Peter & Paul which follows. My Minhag also has a tradition of a feast after the Fast the same as you. This is because traditional Christianity was built upon Judaism. It is very interesting isn't it? :) God bless you Brand X, I see your reply below, but for some reason I am restricted from being able to reply to you. So this is whart I have been trying to say. If there is something wrong with what I said, please point it out to me and explain, otherwise why do you scold? If you want to see the video of why I am editing my comment like this you can go to my channel.
@@Bei-Abedan ( July 17/18 ) By an ex-Havard University professor, Jew now Catholic, Roy Schoeman----July 17 Tisha b'Av and the Carmelite Compiegne Martyrs--th-cam.com/video/vdWg8Gm1nKM/w-d-xo.html
LOL, love this video. Haha. :) I've been listening to Christian apologetics defending against muslim dawah, its been noted that Quran never once confirmed that Jibreel was an angel. Even the sentence structures whenever jibreel is mentioned seem to hint at him being something Other than an angel. Whether this theory gains credibility or not. I'll smile at the thought that there might have been a real person named Gabriel skulking around the "prophet" and once in a while squeezing him and forcing him to read. ;)
@Ya Ma well my friend, you live and you learn. You dont rely on what you are being told. Dont just believe in one book. If you are not sure of something do your research and ask more questions especially ancient beliefs and cross reference with history. The search for answers is not foolishness. The act of asking questions is not blasphemy. Know that life is too short to live in falsehood and believing in a scam. Learn from christianity, learn from judaism. We are children of God, not slaves of allah.
@@Sam-bc6sr ive heard some muslim apologist use this argument to prove "something" about their prophet's worthiness... But for the life of me.. i cant understand why use this as a quote.. i could literallly ask some locals here and ask them to read a foreign book... And their most obvious answer would likely be.."i cant read".. its almost an embarrasment... I could only imagine Gabriel's frustration that drove him to "force choke" his Chosen One because he cant even read what his god wants to reveal to him... He should have chosen someone else huh..
This is all tenuous or speculative in the specifics, but has a certain credibility in the generality. Judaism and Christianity clearly carry elements of pre-existing religions, so why not Islam? All are the work of flawed men.
@@brendabrenda6782 I am not sure how much of that can be credited to their religions except in so far as they have (eventually) allowed secularism to develop. The biggest correlation between societal success and religion seems to be in the waning of the latter.
@@markaxworthy2508 There has never been any society that has not emerged from religious outbreaks. Europe did not develop at its best because it allowed secularism.
@@brendabrenda6782 So it is just coincidence that on almost every material measure life in Europe improved dramatically at just the time its societies became more secular?
@@arwandajunior1122 ahan understand but which history ? First jay and co said mecca was originally petra, now they are saying Prophet Muhammad was from araq, in some other video they said Muhammad was actually a title for jesus and in some other video they said Muhammad was actually was a ruler of hira named ilyas ....what exactly mr jay and co wanna say ....why are they making so desperate assumptions
@@arwandajunior1122sis I'm not getting angry.. I'm just frustrated at this propaganda on this channel but i guess you have watched their previous videos that's why you didn't understand my previous comment
28.10 what exactly does joe mean by the use of the term Sadducee? These were the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem who controlled the temple cult. They disappeared after ad70. Their function had gone and rabbinic Judaism was having to refashion (or perhaps fashion) Judaism into what has survived till today. Who, where and what were these “Sadducees” that joe would have us believe survived to the 7th century?
@Christain Chris, not the Chinese Whispers Dr Jay is so fond of use but a deliberate recasting of the shattered Ummy history by recension of the historical, revision of the principal individuals and especially a rewriting of the quaranic materials, both Monophite and Jewish source documents.
John P just posted a comment here and it was deleted so I had to delete my reply. But I will re-post here just for the record from John P's message his main criticism which also came to my email the main body of what they said: "...others perceive you as creepy... one reason is the way you appeal to the person's ego in a presumed intention to "fish" them, or gain their hearts, or their support, which might be an automatic, unconscious behaviour, and the other reason is the way you compliment those that agree with your presentation, which are a big red flag for a manipulative personality, as perceived by most. In part because people expect a presenter to remain neutral and humble during the discussion of the material they brought forward, and in a major part because it clearly shows that since you agree with yourself on your own position (which is perfectly fine) and you tell people that they are really "intelligent" for agreeing with your position, which inevitably implies that the ones that disagree with it are not as gifted, which is insulting, it becomes also immediately self-evident that you think very high of yourself. In recent times, that makes the behaviour you present in writing form, accidentally or not, a mirror image of a certain famously narcissistic ex-public official that has been haunting America for many years now. But since most of the behaviour is in writing form, I'm sure it's easy to correct if you police yourself before posting, that if you really care at all about the perceived "creepiness" by the general public." What I see here is projection. Frank people like me have become so unusual that some people can not fit us into any of their categories. In such cases, suspicious people generally project their own perception of what their own motivations would be onto others in order to work out their behaviour. This is normal. Sadly it is also naturally going to backfire unless you have a lot of in-depth real-life understanding of a person. Because every text is always open to interpretation, it is not possible to psycho-evaluate a person based on their writings especially across language barriers like US-English vs UK-English which have very different uses of expression and "phatics" just for 2 examples. Never assume what "most people" think.
I don't actually think very highly of myself as a person. But I do think extremely highly of my own research and knowledge on matters relevant to Messianic Noahites. Anyone who has put a lot of effort into some work has a very good right to feel proud of their achievements. There is nothing wrong with that.
Diatessaron was in use by the church of the east in Syria/Persia until post nicea when bishop rabbula standardised the use of the four gospels 411-435. Diatessaron would have been disused for more than 200 years by the time of Islam and is not associated with the Egyptian church. The Chalcedonian problem Monophysite/Diophysite is from 451 “Monophysites” have no reason to be associated with this text.
I don't think we have to accept the standard line presented in Roman Christianity as infallible. The Acephali could easily have still been using it. May I ask why does it have to be associated with the Egyptian Church?
@@Bei-Abedan Copts and Ethiopians were the foundational Monophysite community. Syrian Monophysites linked to the mission of Jacob baradaeus in 6th century. Church of the east is diophysite. Aremenians became “Monophysite” not so much by force of reason as that they were prevented from being present at Chalcedon by plague and Persian Roman warfare. They became Monophysite by default
The diatessaron is an engaging subject. It remained the standard gospel text across Syria in the 4th century so that people like Ephraim use it without issue. After rabbula it falls into disuse. There are no surviving manuscripts but it can largely be reconstructed by references to the church father such as ephraim and aphrahat. Tatian is said to have come from Rome but the text as I remember was in syriac. This was not the language of Egypt and Ethiopia.
I notice that Joe uses such words as *could, probably, might, echo, likely, etc." with a discomfiting frequency. As I noticed the verbal pattern, my skepticism rose.
Haters will be haters. #AdHominem But if you had actually listened to the definition of Echo you would realise that means independent fact-corroboration.
The reason is that Joe is being objective rather than biased. Hence, he's admitting openly that what's being presented is a theory. However, it is a theory that is based on facts and therefore is likely to be true.
You don't seem to be very familiar with how theories and academic reports, etc. work. As a clinical psychologist, I use similar words including "seem, appear" when writing assessment and diagnostic reports.
Yes Old One. That is the problem with all of the nay-sayers whose comments I have read on this wall so far. Looks like the undercover Dawa team is really angry about the last 4 videos. Even the ones who have been posing as Christians and atheists have let their masks slip recently. They have been spreading a false report between themselves that I work for MI5 to undermine Islamism and have all lost their cheer. Before this, their undercover sneaky mission to muddy the waters with chaos was going so well.
I think Abu Talib was part of a secret society of Christians and maybe Khadijah and they created and/or revived an orthodox version of messianic Judaism lost to Paul. James the Justs handful of churches after the temple burned... the followers went into hiding in Arabia along with two actually three Judean tribes that lived in yathreb and mecca. they lived in peace side by side. I've paralleled shiite Islam and Judaism and they are extremely similar down to detailed unique beliefs and rituals that differ between shiite and sunni.
Well if we look at the word Kadijah and put Muhammed Kadijah together and root is back it can translate to : The Praised One that Ascends to Heaven. The Praised One Lifts to Heaven. The Ladder to Heaven. Ka Diger(Dingir)
@@davidchase1439 I am certain that the Abbasids were Satanists. They were obsessed with demonism, black-magic and inventing satanic verses and even P-dophilia.
About Gabriel who is saint or priest and also other things you mentioned. It will be helpful if someone asks for the source. Appreciate all that you do. Thanks 🙏
No problem brother, God Bless You and thank you for the support. Just so you know most of the reference works for these sources were discussed in part 2. Have you watched the whole series yet?
Actually any thinking person would have questioned why did it take 23 years to whisper messages to Muhd via another so called angel . This begs the question is this Deity the same who spoke directly to the Jewish prophets and gave the 10 commandments directly by him using tablets.. Remarkably the angel disapp when Muhd dies never to be seen again in Islam's march onwards
@torsten magnusson the only consential Assyriac quarnic book shows that the assemble quarn is a compellation of Monophiite lectionaries, Assyriac Hymns and Jewish Yeshiva discussions. Anything else is a late translation into Assyriac, which by the way would be a contradiction of the use of Arabic only.
Many thanks for this video. I hope this somewhat long comment will be worthwhile. Concerning the Christological doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, of which Gabriel’s Syriac Orthodox church became a branch, the Wikipedia entry for “Miaphysitism” says: “…While historically a major point of controversy within Christianity, several modern declarations by both Chalcedonian and Miaphysite churches state that the difference between the two Christological formulations is essentially semantic and does not reflect any significant difference in belief about the nature of Christ…” It seems that even the word “semantic” has a problem with semantics as it may refer to _logical_ semantics, “concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication”, and _lexical_ semantics, “concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them”. I assume that the Wikipedia entry on miaphysitism is referring to lexical semantics, as if distinctions between Chalcedonian Christianity and Oriental Orthodox Christianity are primarily a matter of verbal preference rather than understanding. Thus, reading Wikipedia articles on distinctions between dyophysitism, miaphysitism and relevant monophysitism, and on the Oriental (not to be confused with the dyophysite “Eastern”) Orthodox Church and its Syriac branch may ultimately leave uncertainty whether these isms are pointing to different _past_ understandings of Jesus, between the Chalcedonian and Oriental Orthodox Churches, that were something more than word-preference; different _present_ understandings of Jesus that are something more than word-preference; different _past_ understandings that were something more than word preference but at _present_ do not exist (and, in this case, what changed to what); and how does, or might have, the historic miaphysite-monophytism of the Syriac Oriental Church via Gabriel fit with what Joe described of a monophysite belief in Jesus, compatible with the Hebrew tradition, to which Omar converted (@c. 29:00): “…It’s compatible with the Hebrew tradition, this monophysite view…Light from Light ~ You know the angels are created from Light, the same substance we call God the Father, Ein Soph Or (אֵין סוֹף אוֹר), Infinite Light. So he’s of the same essence of the Father, if you like. So that’s compatible with Judaism, that there is this angelic messenger who is like Light…That is the correct view of the messiah in Judaism, as he is right now, until he comes as the son of David at the end of time…” In another video, on his Red Judaism channel, Joe speaks some more about this “angelic messenger” (th-cam.com/video/gZmOyc5bzFU/w-d-xo.html&t; @c. 4:00): “…One of the limitations on this belief [that Jesus is the messiah] is that Jesus himself says, in the Gospel of Matthew [23:2], that the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’s seat, and he goes on to say in the following verse…‘So practise and observe everything they tell you, but do not do what they do, for they do not practise what they preach’…So, they tell us that there are no more prophets after the Sanhedrins closed down…and they also are telling us that Jesus is not the messiah, so how do we reconcile this? The Gospel is telling us to do as they say, and they say that these are not prophets and this is not the messiah. So how do we balance all of that? What do we do with all of that?…If we are regarding Jesus as just a man, just a prophet…we’ve got serious problems. Judaism doesn’t accept any more prophets of Judaism…The solution is to regard him as yet another visitation of that same messianic being which walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, which spoke to Noah, which came to Abraham as three visitors, which spoke to Moses from the burning bush and appeared as a column of fire, which appeared to Joshua as a soldier holding a sword, and to various others throughout the history of the prophets ~ and we can regard Jesus as just another occurrence of that same angel. Now, this is not possible to respond to in Judaism. You can say, ‘Well, that’s crazy, but if you think that that’s the case, who can stop you?’ Everybody knows that this is the messianic angel, the messianic messenger; and when he comes in the end-times the Sanhedrin will declare him to be the messiah. Everybody knows that he is going to be the messiah: he’s confirmed again and again throughout Jewish scripture as the messiah ~ Yeshua Sair haPanim, Metatron, many different names for him. We know…that he exists, we know that he is the messiah, we know that there’s no argument about it; and if you want to believe that (I don’t know) something you saw last night was that angel, then who can argue with you?…They can call you mad, they can call you crazy; but they can’t say that’s not the case and they can’t say that this is not the messiah, because if you’re saying ‘I’m not saying another person in _place_ of the Jewish messiah is the messiah. I am saying that the Jewish messiah, Yeshua Sair haPanim, Metatron, that angelic being, _is_ the messiah and I saw him in this place’, well, they can say ‘You’re crazy! I don’t believe you!’ but they can’t say that that’s not the messiah…There’s no trouble in regarding Jesus as a visitation from that same messianic being…So, there we have a place for Jesus inside of the Jewish tradition, and that is one which can’t be argued with; but if you were to regard Jesus as just a normal man who was a prophet, then you would have a problem because that can be argued with from Judaism…” Some sources consider that the language and style of the fourth Gospel point to an author of Greek origin, perhaps John the Elder (Presbyter), who compiled and presented reminiscences of the “dear disciple” John, a Jewish priest (not John, son of Zebedee) who perhaps hosted the Passover supper and whose Judaic monotheism appears evident in the koine Greek of his “Revelation”. Whoever the writer, he seems familiar with the type of monophysite belief described by Joe… Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Jesus to be God, and my copy of their New Testament scriptures with interlinear koine Greek has an interesting entry about the first verse of John’s Gospel. The koine Greek is: “ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”; ὁ λόγος is “the word”, τὸν θεόν is the accusative form of ὁ θεὸς “the god” (ie. θεὸς preceded by the definite article), and the second mention of θεὸς has no definite article (anarthrous construction). Greek language does not have an indefinite article, so there was no option for the Gospel writer to include one just to distinguish between ὁ θεὸς and θεὸς. The commentators remark that absence of the definite article before θεὸς in “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος” does not identify the Word as one and the same as ὁ θεὸς (“the God”) but that, while the first construction of the noun (articular) in the verse points to a particular identity, an anarthrous construction signifies a certain quality (here, a quality of the Word or Logos); thus, they proffer, translation as “the Word was divine” is suitable but not “the Word was [the] God”. Their quite detailed article (I have included only a portion) goes on to say “John’s inspired writings and those of his fellow disciples show what the true idea is, namely, the Word or Logos is not God or _the_ God, but is the Son of God, and hence is _a_ god. The authors quote Dr A T Robertson, in his book on Greek New Testament grammar, that “Among the ancient writers ὁ θεὸς [ho theos] was used of the God of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods.” Thus, they say, “John 1:1, 2 uses ὁ θεὸς to distinguish Jehovah God from the Word (Logos) as a god, ‘the only begotten god’ as John 1:18 calls him.” In Jewish Qabalah and other Judaic sources, the Archangel Metatron (?Yahoel) is sometimes called “the lesser YHVH” (YHVH ha-katan, יהוה הַקָטָן) or “lesser Lord” (adonai ha-katan, אֲדֹנָי הַקָטָן) and “Prince of the Face” (Sair ha-Panim, שַׂר הַפָּנִים), but is under the authority of God and not inferred as ‘the God’. I think that modern translators of the New Testament have tended to follow the grammatic principle outlined above regarding articular and anarthrous constructions in translations for general Christian readership, though some readers tend to hark back to the KJV. Yet even with newer translations, I wonder how many modern Christians would infer a distinction between “divine” and “[the] God”. However, the writer of the fourth Gospel seems to be transmitting a perspective consistent with Judaism by which Omar could accept belief in Jesus as crucified lord.
I heard this years ago. A New who wanted to "start" a New religion. Hè was the informant of Mohammed. Hè onze the Bible but made misstakes in the dialect.
According to Wikipedia, Cizre was founded in the early 9th century by some Arab ruler... Apparently not? What was the Greek name of the city? Wikipedia doesn't say anything about it.
Hi Xargxes, I mentioned in the video that I changed a few words to make it more easy to understand for the greater audience. Before the 9th century Czre was known as "Ad flumen Tigrim".
@@Bei-Abedan AND: "In 639 AD, the seat of the Syriac Orthodox Church was established in Cizre." thekurdishproject.org/kurdistan-map/turkish-kurdistan/cizre/
According to the Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN), John of Damascus had a direct line to Muawiya, via his father, and Mauwiyah’s would have observed the entire history of Islam according to the SIN. This is something I think is overlooked: analysis based upon the life of Mauwiyah. Mauwiyah’s life spans both the “traditional/standard Islamic narrative” as well as general history and some specific history - a tie, I think to John of Damascus. Mauwiyah was born around 600. He would have been 12 when Mohammed started preaching, so would have witnessed it in his active memory. Mohammed’s preaching was hostile to the commercial interests of Mecca, because it attacked the idol worship which helped Meccan ties with the Bedouin tribes, whose territory Mecca’s caravans had to travel through, and whose wells they would have had need of access too. That created hostility between Mecca and Mohammed. In his early 20s Mauwiyah would have observed the Muslim’s move to Medina/Yathribe. He would have witnessed the warfare that took place over the next 8 years. His family was on the opposing side of Mohammed then from 612 to 630, when they finally submitted according to the SIN. Mauwiyah was literate, and Abu Sufyan got him a job as a scribe to Mohammed, according to the SIN, rather remarkable after 18 years of hostility between Abu Sufyan and Mohammed. Mauwiyah held leadership roles in the assault on Syria and Palestine. The Muslims were eventually successful and Mauwiyah had a role of Governor there. The Standard Received History now says that the Muslims got help from the Monophysite Christians who were persecuted for not being Orthodox which was the official Byzantine religion. Mauwiyah is said to have been married to a Monophysite christian. From a very early period in the conquest, Mauwiyah is said to have advocated to the Caliph that they construct a navy and take naval warfare to the Byzantines. The Standard Received History says that the Monophysites in Egypt helped the Muslims build this navy and they took it to the Byzantines, winning their first big battle in the Battle of the Masts. Received history tells us that Mauwiyah as Caliph employed Syrian Christians in his administration, including the father of the Scholar John of Damascus - both John and his father were well educated scholars. So, John would have had access to his father, John’s father would presumably have access to Mauwiya and the real narrative coming from Mauwiya who should have been a witness to the entire Islamic development. That means whatever John of Damascus has written about the contemporary and recent events of his time has to have special significance. His father would have had access to information on that narrative that no one else had, and then could have passed at least some of it on to his son. There are books about John of Damascus that Jay has suggested. I currently do not have the time or the money to get to those books. How they reconcile with what you are digging up could be very important in filling out the entire picture. There are reasons to believe that some of the SIN has truth in it like all foundational stories. The Geography is the biggest avenue of doubt. Mecca & Medina were far from each other and far from the productive lands to the north, both remote and tiny. Perhaps the real Mecca and Medina were Petra and Jerusalem (or perhaps some other town). Mohammed is said to have killed and beheaded 700 Jewish men in Medina. If the Muslims want to prove the SIN they could dig up the bones of the deceased underneath Medina, but I suspect that if the event did happen they are lying underneath some other city in the Middle East. Again, Western Morocco and Andalusia Spain were never under the control of the Abbasids, and Umayyad Spain was strong and vigerous until past the year 1000, by which time the Abbasids were merely symbolic heads of Islam. There should be some literature left over from pre-1000ad Spain. If so, it should be informative. The best part of that, the Spanish don’t seem to have much of a stake in exposing whatever the truth might be.
It's difficult to accept that so many verses of violence against christians & jews, poligamy, slavery, discrimination, hatred & other barbaric & fool & damned ideas coming from a priest named Gabriel. I prefer to theory of Luling & Luxenberg that SOME PARTS of quran belong to a kind of non trinitarian christian in the form of lexicon & poems. These verses had been around before the rise of saracen's movement . They were originally written in aramaic and later were transliterated into arabic in a hasty way that risk its original meaning. While other parts are written in the mid of the movement of saracenes themselves during war to justify their bloodthirst aim. And in this very point Odon's theory works. During the Abdul Malik these writings were collected regardless the origin causes & groups that made these verses come into existence. The proto islam is not linear events from a single group of people, it came from so many groups.
Yes, the surahs contain very unchristian sentiments totally out of tune with the New Testament and christian belief, so it would be hard to imagine them as a collection of things given to Omar by a christian priest, unless the priest was in a very unorthodox and unbiblical sect of christianity; maybe such sects were present in the chaotic times of the 7C, but this Gabriel does not look like some backwoods kind of believer, if he got sainted by mainline Syrian churches.
I believe that the mistake that you are making is in thinking that the entire Quran was written down at one time by one person. Of. course that is the SIN, but the Quran contradicts itself so the SIN is not correct. Joe is only suggesting that some of the early Quranic verses were written by Gabriel, the priest, not the entire document, parts of which may have been written in the 700's, 800's, or possibly even the 900's.
I have built upon the Luxenberg/Luling/Von-Sivers perspective and now I can show every verse of the Quran can be explained from a Monophysite Messianic Hebrew perspective. It is not Orthodox Roman Christianity but it is Christian nevertheless.
23:00 discussion of the 'low church'. The only church organization in 2021 that I know of that has this is the Anglican Communion (worldwide). They have a division of accepted worship and structure with three forms, a high church (full catholic rites), broad church (less formal in attire but full liturgical use) and low church were the minister is addressed as Mr. rather than Padre, Father, Rev or Pastor as they are the descendance of the Puritans incorporated into the Church of England after Cromwell and the Republic. The low church is more like the Calvinist denominations in regard to worship style of hymns and sermons. Which may also have been the source population that the Methodist drew from in England and expanded in America, west of the Appalachian mountains. I know that the wooden gong has been used in the Balkans in the Orthodox National Church monasteries to this day and makes sense for the Mid East over the use of bronze bells which are more associated with the Greek and Russian Orthodox (Byzantines). When you tie in the Lectionaries you obtain a broader picture of the variations within the Christian population and need for church leadership especially when plagues and war periods were common in this era, reducing the population including reductions in clergy and means to train them properly.
The Acephali rejected bishops. The relevance to the story is that after Umar's conversion and assassination the other Messianic Hebrews opted for an Acephali type belief rather than join the emerging official Oriental Orthodox Orthodox Church.
@@Bei-Abedan “oriental” Orthodox Church is a modern courtesy title distinguishing the ancient eastern churches that share a non Chalcedonian cristology. Principally Ethiopian Egyptian Syrian and Armenian. They were not an emerging communion but were very long established apostolic communities. Armenians and Ethiopians rival for the title of being the oldest national churches tracing their history to the 1st century. The church across Syria/Persia was still governed from Antioch until the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410. This was not so much to break communion with Antioch as to give the church of the east a separate identity in Persia that did not make reference to Rome/Byzantium as the Persian king yazdegard viewed the Christians as a fifth column of an enemy superpower. They were in no sense “low church” but continued with the same “Catholic” creeds, canon and sacraments. They believed that Christ was present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist
I'm not talking about what we can now refer to as the official Oriental Orthodox communion which was established in the 7th century. I am talking about the Monophysite Acephali like the Severian Paul.
@@Bei-Abedan the Monophysite churches take great pride in their apostolic inheritances. They are by no means “headless” and never have been. “Autocephalous” (self governing) perhaps but with apostolic pedigrees.you are coming up with some very contrived sweeping ideas
@@Basaljet You know how Muslims think they don't need to try and understand Christians of Jews because they trust blindly everything that they have been told about us from their teachers and official Islamic sources? That's what you are doing right now against Monophysites. You need to inform yourself about Acephali Monophysites because you are severely lacking in understanding in this regard and are only looking at the matter from within your own dogmatic world view. Having Presbyters and Bishops is not the same as having an official Church hierarchy. Acephali Monophysites preserved an apostolic succession but it was without any authorities higher than local bishops under their own authority either in-communion or out of communion with the next bishop. I know it might seem agree with the Roman Church's propaganda against protestants but Protestants have always existed. I am sorry you can not see this.
I think the red logo is the symbol of Rothschild family. Their symbol was the red star. The star has nothing to do with Israelites or David. It’s merely that Rothschild banking family that dominates all jews and insisted that its star be on the Israeli flag so that you know who controls them. So I think the star here is this guys way of showing alliegence to the Rothschilds, who by the way are zionists.
@@Bei-Abedan much of these people are effected by Sabbatai Levi and Frankest groups that have given Judaism as a whole a bad name. Similar to the crimson stain Nazism and the KKK have given Protestant Christianity by their actions and statements. When the silver trumpet sounds again from the walls of the 3rd Temple and the Son of David sits on his throne in the Temple precinct all those who are kin by adoption or linage (some are both:) to Him will bend their knees and together use their tongues to Praise the Most High.
Well done! Joe's theory is both plausible and shocking at the same time! Has anyone investigated caves near Al-Hirah/al-Ḥīra? (located southwest of Kufa, Najaf, Najaf Governorate, Iraq) *I am not sure how Petra, Damascus and Al-Hirah connect* ??? [Damascus: capital of the Umayyad Caliphate (661-744) Harran (in modern Turkey) was the capital of the Umayyad Caliphate (744-750) before the 750 CE Abbasid Revolution] Also, possibly in the mix as a predecessor, was the Emesa Kingdom (capital located in Homs, Syria) *whose* *king/high priest performed oblation to a black stone* [1] This dynasty existed long before Mohammad. One of the king/priests of this dynasty became a Roman emperor (Elagabalus r. 218--222 CE) who took this black stone to Rome (What happened to the black stone, after the fall of Elagabalus has not been recorded) Elagabalus's grandfather (Roman name: Julius Bassianus) was "from Arabia" and was also a priest of Ilāh gabal (i.e. a mountain and sun god wroshiped in Emesa as well as in other places and represented by a black stone) However the worshiping of a black stone in what is now Syria is a reminder of how old the belief in a god being represented by a black stone was common in Arab lands; in particular around the area of modern Jordan/Syria and perhaps as far east and north of the border of Iranic/Persian kingdoms (i.e. Parthian and Sasanian Empires) _________________________________________________ 1.) *Emesene dynasty.* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emesene_dynasty "" The Emesene (or Emesan) dynasty, also called the Sampsigeramids or the Sampsigerami or the House of Sampsigeramus (Arabic: آل شمسيغرام, romanized: ʾĀl Šamsīġirām),were a Roman client dynasty of Syrian priest-kings known to have ruled by 46 BC from Arethusa and later from Emesa, Syria, until between 72 and 78/79, or at the latest the reign of Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161). Iamblichus, the famous Neoplatonist philosopher of the third century, was one of their descendants, as was empress Julia Domna, matriarch of the Severan dynasty."" -- Wikipedia Arethusa -- Arethusa, ancient name of Al-Rastan, Syria (other places also had/have this name) Emesa -- ancient name of Homs, Syria Julia Domna -- Roman empress from 193 to 211CE. She was the first empress of the Severan dynasty[2] 2.) *Severan dynasty* (r. 193 -- 235 CE) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severan_dynasty Septimius Severus (founder of the dynasty) fought against the Persians (Parthians) and secured the city of Palmyra, Syria [where he built a triumphal arch marking his victory over the Parthians (Persians) This arch was destroyed by ISIS, along with other architecture in Palmyra in 2015)[3] 3.) " *Isis’s destruction of Palmyra: ‘The heart has been ripped out of the city'.* " www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/isis-destruction-of-palmyra-syria-heart-been-ripped-out-of-the-city
You are forgetting something important: there were Arabs living around the regions of modern Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Iran. Yet, they were following Eastern Christianity sect. So, someone called Omar in 647 with the cross sign on the coin should not be surprising because İslam was yet to be created by Abbasids a century later.
It probably refers to some kind of Adoptionist related to Hani ibn Qabisa but it is very difficult to know if this is just from some other Arabian legend that was later included into the narrative by the Abbasids.
This all kinda is what I have been saying for a while. The Ishmaelites were a Jewish sect that split off at the beginning of the development of Judaism. The sect was still henotheistic at the time Muhammad lived and it was Muhammad that turned it into a strict monotheistic religion called Islam. It was Uthman that was the final blow against the sect by destroying all pre-Islamic Ishmaelite Quranic texts seeing them as "corrupted" Quranic texts. Yet the Islamic Quran is the corrupted version of those earlier Ishmaelite texts. But only what Muhammad revealed was important and true anyway in their eyes.
Everything in the Quran and hadith points to his companions not really understanding the religion of Muhammad, they just do as he does without knowing the reason or backstory. Which is logical. They were not raised as Ishmaelites, they were polytheists and Muhammad never told them anything except "just do" and believe things. The worst part of the development of the religion is that these people got in charge after Muhammad died without knowing anything about the religion. They enforced the "just do and believe" route of Muhammad without knowing themselves why.
I like your synopsis.
Its not clear to me that Joe was reiterating your theory here.
I am blessed to find this channel. Thank you our father in heaven
There was, and still is, a tradition to change your personal name at conversion. The possibility exists that one person could be known by two names- one prior to conversion and the other - after conversion.
@arauna palm, that is the case during the Reconquita of Spain for both Jews and Moors and was carried on across both Roman and Protestant regions of Europe into the mid 1800's.
Yes, Judaism also has the tradition of changing name after a spiritual conversion experience like Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel etc..
@@Bei-Abedan could that be the reason muslim like to change name of someone that converts to islam
@@midcha1578 Non-Protestant Christians follow this custom too.
Not regarding pagan
converts .....
Within the Catholic and
Orthodox churches a
person choses a saint's
name (to be added to
their name, usually,
as a middle name) upon
their Confirmation (Rome)
or First Communion (Orthodox)
Orthodox are confirmed at
their baptism. The person's
first communion is when the
child is older, in their teens.
In the Catholic church, there
is a 3-step process. Baptism,
(usually during infancy) First
Holy Communion (childhood)
Confirmation (mid-late teens)
Jay needs to update his wonderful timelines. Now we have a Messianic Sadducee warlord accepting Monophysite Christianity and issuing a coin to commemorate it. Gabriel abu Turab edin turns out is a real person not the angel jibreel ! Gabriel may be the author of the Birmingham manuscript!! Love it!
So, you agree that gabriel was a heretic monk who wrote the quran which denies the divinity of jesus christ.
---- > The Saducees didn't believe in an afterlife. A monophysite could be any unitarian religion (including Islam) or a Modalist. It could even apply to the Jews who said Jesus was only a man and rejected Christ..
@@jannmutube
No, and absolutely not Only someone has completely has no the slightest knowledge about Islam could say that. and I'm sorry to say. The core doctrine of Islam is believing in people after life, resurrection both body and soul and judgement day and that everyone will be judged by Allah and that some people will enter hell for eternity and other will enter heaven for eternity. And that called the six article of faith.
Denying one of them will make you non Muslim. So, muslims are totally different from Sadducees.
The Six Articles of Faith
Faith (iman) breaks down into six axioms:
1-Belief in the existence and oneness of God (Allah).
2-Belief in the existence of angels.
3-Belief in the existence of the books of which God is the author: the Quran (revealed to Muhammad), the Gospel (revealed to Jesus), the Torah (revealed to Moses), and Psalms (revealed to David).
4-Belief in the existence of all Prophets: Muhammad being the last of them, Jesus the penultimate, and others sent before them [like Moses, Abraham, David, Joseph, Jacob].
5-Belief in the existence of the Day of Judgment: in that day, humanity will be divided into two groups: that of paradise and that of hell. These groups are themselves composed of subgroups.
6- Belief in the existence of God's predestination due to God's omniscience, whether it involves good or bad.
@@mahmoodali1533 ----> You seem like a nice person but Islam is not a true revelation, it is historically inaccurate, and it violates its own claim of unitary monotheism.
1) Read for yourself: Unitary monotheism in Islam: ...
...." The statement that Allah is "All-Embracing, All-Knowing" and/or "all-Encompassing and Knowing." only refers to the knowledge of Allah. Allah, himself, does not encompass or dwell within his creation. The correct, traditional understanding is that Allah created the creation outside Himself and has never dwelled in them." ...
Where is Allah? sunnahonline.com/library/beliefs-and-methodology/180-where-is-allah#h2-where-is-allah
(This discourse has been based mainly on two books: Ithbat Uluwi'l-Lah by Usamah ibn Yusuf al-Qassas, may Allah grant him His mercy, and Ar-Rahman alal-Arsh Istawa by Dr. Awad Mansur)
2) Joe's opinions are based on beliefs of the Sadducees, a Jewish sect which was prevalent in the time of Messiah Jesus. But they were not the only group. Fpr example: other Jewish groups included the Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Hasmonians.
Saducee: A member of a Jewish sect or party of the time of Jesus Christ that denied the resurrection of the dead, the existence of spirits, and the obligation of oral tradition, emphasizing acceptance of the written Law alone. www.lexico.com/en/definition/Jewish
www.dictionary.com/browse/sadducee
3) >> Denying one of these (core doctrine of Islam) will make you non Muslim.
.... #3-The 1st century Holy Bible contradicts the Quran. The Quran doesn't include the Old Testament (Torah and prophets) or the Gospel. The only way you can believe #3 is if you throw the Bible out.
.... #5- Not sure why this is relevant since, in Islam, a person's destiny is written before they are born. sunnah.com/muslim:2643a
Mutilating Allah: How Tawhid Turns Islam's God Into a Mute Idol (Anthony Rogers) th-cam.com/video/-ZUgzn2SvgI/w-d-xo.html
---- > I hope you will reject Islam and turn to the Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
@@jannmutube
You seem like a nice person
Thank you for very much that and I really, appreciate and I think you are also a nice and polite person and you argue in civilized way which very rare here in you tube and I hope we continue in this civilized argument. But the issue you cite a lot of argument at once and that causes distractions, hope that in the future if you could cite one argument and then when we fully finish it you move to the next one.
Unitary monotheism in Islam: ...
...." The statement that Allah is "All-Embracing, All-Knowing" and/or "all-Encompassing and Knowing." only refers to the knowledge of Allah. Allah, himself, does not encompass or dwell within his creation. The correct, traditional understanding is that Allah created the creation outside Himself and has never dwelled in them." ...
Where is Allah?
Yes, in Islam Allah does not dwell among his creations and can not be within his creation and that simply because no creature can contain the creator. If the creature can contain the creator, then the creator ceases to be creator and became a creature himself. We do not know where Allah exactly is because he did not tell as his exact location, but he told us he is above the seven heaven , but where we do not know. We cannot say God is everywhere because on earth there are dirty places and the creator could not be in such place, but we say Allah is everywhere by his knowledge. You see the sun rays it is everywhere, and that the knowledge of Allah , I'm not saying the knowledge of Allah is the same like the sun, but i'm giving just example as the sun rays is everywhere such the knowledge of Allah also.
2) Joe's opinions are based on beliefs of the Sadducees, a Jewish sect which was prevalent in the time of Messiah Jesus. But they were not the only group. Fpr example: other Jewish groups included the Pharisees, the Essenes, and the Hasmonians.
I'm not sure how that relevant to Islam, aducess belief is totally different from Islam belief.
3) >> Denying one of these (core doctrine of Islam) will make you non Muslim.
.... #3-The 1st century Holy Bible contradicts the Quran. The Quran doesn't include the Old Testament (Torah and prophets) or the Gospel. The only way you can believe #3 is if you throw the Bible out.
There is differences between believing that there is something was revealed and between believing that the revelation is still stand. When Islam came, Allah aborgated every other religion and every other revelation. We are required to believe that Allah revealed books to prophets in the past like he revealed the Torah to Moses and the injeel to Jesus christ, but we are not required to follow them.There is difference between believing Allah sent messenger in the past and between and between following them. we are required to believe Allah sent messengers, but not required to follow them. As Allah abrogated the Torah with the injeel, and aborgated the teachings of Moses with the teachings of Jesu christ, he also abrogated both the torah and the injeel and the teachings of moses and the teachings of Jesus christ with the quran and the teachings of prophet muhammad.
.... #5- Not sure why this is relevant since, in Islam, a person's destiny is written before they are born. sunnah.com/muslim:2643a
If you are a teacher and giving student a test, sure you already know that some of your students will fail the test, but despite that you will have to give them the test why? Same with Isalm.
Mutilating Allah: How Tawhid Turns Islam's God Into a Mute Idol (Anthony Rogers) th-cam.com/video/-ZUgzn2SvgI/w-d-xo.html
Im not sure if i understood what roger say if you could summarize it here in your own understanding.
---- > I hope you will reject Islam and turn to the Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Joe is never short of surprises. Awesome work👍
God bless you!
@@Bei-Abedan Be blessed by the divine too, brother 🙏
This is a very interesting and original line of research. It shows that it is possible to establish a coherent and plausible narrative of the origins of Islam based on a careful examination of the sources that have long remained untapped due to the dominance of the traditional narrative of Islam (SIN). The situation has completely changed in the last 60 years. The traditional narrative has become less and less credible because more and more researchers have carried out long-overdue challenges.
Thank you so much. The power of the Abbasids SIN is still making itself felt in Academic circles who trust it ore than non-Islamic sources which they tend to dismiss but at least my presentation shows that a coherent alternative is plausible if only we can break free of the scepticism that the Abbasid Narrative has planted in the public consciousness.
Jay, it's beginning to seem like Islam is the Camel of Religions i.e. an animal designed by committee!
---- > ,@ 7: 49, Speaks volumes that Jewish Joe used an UN-referenced statement from the comment section as a source.
With your understanding that Islam is a camel of religion...is it fair to say that Xtianity is the Donkey of Xtianity?
@@jannmutube
Sorry, but, I think Joe nationality has nothing to do to the topic. Stick to the topic and leave his nationality alone. He has theory regardless of his nationality, so refute his theory and forget his nationality. And By the way, I do not believe this Joe nonsense.
1- First the text he based his theory on that Gabriel met Umar is doubtful. And I doubt that he will ever be able to prove it the authentic.
2-Jay Smith drilling Muslims that there is nothing from the 7 century and the life of Gabriel is 8th-century manuscript, so, when ever Jay opens his mouth just tell him what century that manuscript was.
3-Quran clearly states and without doubt that Jesus Christ was a human being and prophet. And Gabriel was Christian believed in the deity of Jesus Christ. Joe claims the quran portrays Jesus Christ as Docetic or had Docetic nature. And he got that notion from Luxenberg, who by some twisting and marathon jumping made a Syriac reading of the quran were he made of himself just a joke in the internet. Luxenberg was the same man who claimed Martyrs in the quran will be given 70 grapes. One sacrifices his life for 70 grapes in heaven. I just had to shake my head when I read that.
4-They have to come up with a new convincing interpretation for the whole quran to prove that quran does not say Jesus Christ was merely a human and messenger.
5-They have to proof that Umar was Jew or at least embraced Judaism Whatever sect they claim. What they claim now Umar was Sadducee was just claim without proof. And I think that nearly impossible to prove without using the Islamic traditional sources that they reject in the first place.
6-They have to prove the reason that Gabriel instead of translating the Bible, wrote to Umar a new Bible that is totally different from what Gabriel himself believed.
7-There are a lot of things in the quran that contradicts the Christians belief even for a heretic sect.
Muslims can take four wives, prohibition of drinking, eating pigs meat ...ect.
At the end I have just one question who for those who whole this claim, why in hell Gabriel, a Christians monk, writes a whole new book that total different and totally in contradicting to the Bible, instead of simply translating to him the Bible and why in hell gabreil write him a book and just after that he return to his church instead of using Umar to spread his belief?
@@mahmoodali1533 ----> The video says Joe is giving a Jewish perspective so, he has to expect comments on that. Also, he's only representing Saducess.
2) I did refute his theory. His claims are not based in solid evidence.
Joe's interpretation of the coin and his supposition that Muhammad, Umar, Emir (ambrose), and Khalid are all the same person is subjective ... And not supported by other sources. Khalid, Umar, and Muhammad died at different times and are all buried in separate graves. So, they wouldn't all be the same person. Emir or Ambrose of Milian lived 340 - 397 AD before the time of Muhammad
@ 7: 49, he used an UN-referenced statement from the comment section as a source
@ 11: 46, Abd Malik's Islam was not a Messianic Hebrew religion.
... @ 8:33, the Quran is not "all about Jesus. According to Joe's sources, it is about waging war and using the Gospel story to replace Jesus as King (by denying his deity and claiming power by a human lineage),.
"In 651 AD, King Tashik (Tazig) of the Arab Empire (also called Tashik in the Chinese sources and in Tachkastan in Sebos)told the Tang Imperial Court that the founding of their Empire concerns a story where a Lionman told a Camel Herder where he could find an Armoury and a instructions on how to be King." (The Tang Chinese Record)"
@@jannmutube
Yeah, sure I read your comment and your refutation in another comment. But, the issue I think that you did not realize is that they already know everything you said and that your information was coming from the Islamic traditional narrative.. But they issue, and I'm not sure if you are following Jay smith for a little long, is that Jay Smith, Mel, and Joe do not accept anything from the Islamic traditional narrative. Their argument is that the Islamic traditional narrative was written at least a century after prophet Muhammad. So, everything you said probably has no value to them. Probably the only thing that may have some value is what you said that the quran denies the deity of Jesus christ, and gabriel was firm believer in the deity of jesus christ, but again Joe is using Luxenberg syriac reading of the quran to claim that the quran portrays Jesus is more like a Docetic figure meaning the quran does not fully denies the deity of jesus christ., so your argument is hard to convince them.
Probably the only things that can refute them the points I listed in my previous comments. If you find something wrong with them let me know and I will research them more.
On my comment count it is 231. Running over 3 hours reading most of them. I want to complement you all for the honest or knowledgeable comments or replies. Most of you are getting a strong sense of what academic research is and can produce. There are a number of comments that suggest more doors to open and research. Dr Jay, thank you and Mel for using Jo's research to bring to us a source of information outside the parochial vision of most Christians and academics. We are getting a sharper picture of the milieu of the era and the light of veritas is illuminating like a black light aspects of the SIN reveling it's antecedence making clear how much, how deep the SIN is a crafted con by the Abbasid Persians on the Arab peoples. Amazing........ I'd play Who let the Dogs out but too many would not get the joke.
Just briefly mention the relationship between Muhammad, dogs and the Antichrist and then play the song.
Wow.... Gabriel's echo certainly gives it all to the legend of Omar or Mohamad and Al Qur'an.
Jabriel is that you ? ..say it ain’t so. 😂
😂 👍
Mor Gabriel, aka Angel Jibreel pbuh 😁😁😁
Great job as usual God bless
John Moschus, in the Spiritual Meadow repeatedly mentions the use of wooden gongs to call monks to prayer in Egypt. John died is 615 so his experience predates the meeting of Umar with Gabriel. John was from Damascus.
My Messages keep getting deleted but I want you to know that I am very impressed by your knowledge.
@@Bei-Abedan It seems that youtube narrows our space of speech everyday.
@@Bei-Abedan You get the most views on You Tube. However, they censor heavily. All channels need a back-up posting site & I would suggest also posting on Bit Chute. Rumble is also O.K.
@@tyh3120 You get the most views on You Tube. However, they censor heavily. All channels need a back-up posting site & I would suggest also posting on Bit Chute. Rumble is also O.K.
@@sheikhboyardee556 I trust Odysee more than Bitchute. Bitchute has started tightening up its restrictions lately, probably to appease the EU.
This is a thesis worthy of a PhD degree 📜
I always thought it had to be like this. There's no other explanation. I'm surprised it has taken so long to come to this conclusion.
My hat is off to you sir. In my case the delay in coming to this understanding was cognitive dissonance (I did not study Jewish theology before about 2015 and could not conceive of a divine Jewish Messiah for example) and not wanting to accept that my own beloved Messianic Hebrews might have had anything to do with it. It is intuitive at the end of the day that there must have been Monophysite Messianic Hebrews who opposed Nazarene Dyophysites. But I tried out every other hypothesis first. I only started to realize slowly that there was probably no way to fight the Monophysite Messianic Hebrew origins of the Quran in about 2013. But I still had to finish trying out every other hypothesis first before I realized there is no escaping it, no matter how uncomfortable it felt for me to admit it. I think that is also what some of the Catholics are also experiencing with regards to Pope Martin and Pope Honorius. They would much rather like to keep such things buried. But in the end, the truth will set us free, and thankfully there are plenty of Catholics who are brave enough to face it and let the light shine in.
@@Bei-Abedan I'm a catholic, what about Pope Martin and Pope Honorious ?
@@stephenbaptist3077 I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. What about them? Pope Honorius died in heresy, Pope Martin was a martyr for orthodoxy.
@@Bei-Abedan oh okay. 👍
14:02 A reference to Gabriel is only significant if Gabriel is a rare name in the part of the world, but it isn't. It was likely a very common name. Gabriel of Sinjar is one famous example that Joe is familiar with. Leaving this point out is a fallacy of exclusion. 14:39 It is a hasty generalisation to suggest to jump from Gabriel getting favourable terms to their being of the same religion. (This is the very subjectivity he referred to when he spoke about the methodology.) "Clearly of the same religion." To take an example from similar events that occurred, Karol Wotyla, an archbishop went to the communists in Krakow in the1970s and asked to be given permission to build a seminary. He gets a favourable reply. Based on Joe's logic, therefore Wotyla was a communist. It is an absurd logic.
Hey Mel. Please check your emails.
I sent you an email regarding a very interesting connection between Muhamad and Balaam from the book of Numbers.
I would also like to talk to you about other important matters that are best discussed in private.
@@Danielst15lm I'm not engaging with emails until September. I will check it then.
Joe should unravel two verses in Qur'an,that has Gibrael word.quran 2:96,97.and see if that is the same match.
NB.the above verse in English,may be no match to what the arabic is saying,and Joe knows that.
In the book "Christian-Muslim Relations, A Bibliographical History", vol. 1 (600 - 900), p.893, ch. "The Life of Gabriel of Qartmin", they mention "poll-tax" and "land-tax", ("paqrātā" and "madʾatā"). It also explains the issue with the gong and how they probably never met in person ->
An important element in the Life as it has come down is a chapter about the supposed treaty that was concluded between Gabriel and the Arab conquerors of northern Mesopotamia. The Chronicum anonymum ad A.D. 819 pertinens confirms that Gabriel was enthroned between 1 October 633 and 31 September 634, and the most likely date is 1 May 634. Thus, he was a contemporary of the Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khatṭạ̄b (634-44), under whom northern Mesopotamia was incorporated into the Arab Empire (al-Balādhurī and al-Khwārizmī date the conquest of Ṭūr ʿAbdīn to 640).
The Life (Ch. 12, LXXII) claims that Gabriel received from ʿUmar in person a written assurance that priests and deacons should not pay the poll-tax (if this is the right interpretation of the word paqrātā, literally ‘vertebrae’), and that monks should be free from the land-tax (here termed madʾatā). This alleged assurance also stated that the sounding of the gong for the times of prayer should not be abolished and that anthems might be sung in public funeral processions. But all this is highly suspect. Gabriel is unlikely to have met ʿUmar himself, but rather one of his subordinates, possibly ʿIyāḍ ibn Ghanm, and it is also unlikely that the poll-tax and land-tax were yet distinguished, since there is no such distinction in treaties recorded elsewhere for northern Mesopotamia at this time. Furthermore, the treaty between ʿIyāḍ and the people of Callinicus, as recorded by al-Balādhurī, explicitly abolished the sounding of the gong and the Christian practice of processing in public.
The Life of Gabriel was most likely written sometime in the period, in the 9th century, when debates over the stipulations of the so-called Shurūt ̣ʿUmar (q.v.) were at their most heated (see al-Tạbarī, Taʾrīkh i, pp. 2405-6). All the specific concessions allegedly made to Gabriel in the Life read like wishful thinking on the part of the Christians - the concession to sound the gong is clearly formulated as an exception to the rule explicitly laid down in the Shurūt.̣ In sum, when the inherent implausibility of the treaty allegedly obtained by Gabriel in person from ʿUmar is weighed against the evidence from the Life itself, that no narrative of Gabriel’s life existed before the late 8th century apart from a brief curriculum vitae appended to the record of his funeral, the conclusion has to be that the two men never met.
Significance
A rural area such as ṬūrʿAbdīn would have been included under the treaties made with surrounding cities, though it appears that in the period when the Life fabricated this special treaty for ṬūrʿAbdīn the practice of sounding the gong for prayer and processing with anthems to the cemetery was still in force in villages where perhaps no Muslims lived. The higher clergy, apparently, were exempt from the poll-tax and the monasteries did not have to pay the land-tax (thanks to Symeon of Ḥarrān, who died in 734, the monastery of Qartmīn had many properties and extensive estates in and around Nisibis). A study of the churches of ṬūrʿAbdīn, and notably that of the monastery of St Jacob near the village of Ṣalāḥ (Palmer, Monk and Mason, Appendix on inscriptions, pp. 206-8, 212-13), suggests that some of them were rebuilt in the 8th century. If this is true, it provides evidence that the restriction on repairs to existing churches was ineffective in the remote plateau of ṬūrʿAbdīn. These exemptions may have been challenged in the late 8th century, no doubt beginning with the manifest iniquity of the monastery of Qartmīn being exempted from the land-tax, which will have grated in the minds of other property and land owners in and around Nisibis. The Life of Gabriel is evidence of the strategy adopted by this monastery to answer this challenge. It may well have been unsuccessful, which would help to explain the decline discussed in the final chapter of Palmer, Monk and mason (pp. 182-90).
@@Mr.PhatsVarietyVibesShow Red Judaism is cancelled because he cancelled everyone.
This is amazing research, just this bit of St Gabriel ends Islam. That's it game over!
Crow on. LOL!
I think so too. That's why the masks are slipping on all the undercover internet jihadists, they can't handle it.
Mind blowing!!!!!!!!!
A lot of fun (Umar the monophysite!!!) Thanks Joe!
More info on Gabriel from: " Encyclopedic Dictionary of Syriac Heritage"
"By the time of the Arab Conquest, in 639/40, the abbot of Qarṭmin, now Gabriel of Beth Qustan (Bequsyone), was managing two dioceses from his monastery: that of Ṭur ʿAbdin and that of Dara. No doubt the success with which he negotiated a treaty with the Arab conquerors, protecting the rights of the Christians in his region, made him great in the eyes of later generations. When his Life came to be written, little was remembered about him, which shows that it took time for him to acquire the reputation of a saint. He had certainly acquired it by the year 774, in which the plague raged in Ṭur ʿAbdin, killing 94 monks at Qarṭmin and all the prominent people at Dayr al-Ṣalīb. After 30 Qarṭmin monks had died in a single night, the corpse of Gabriel was exhumed and fixed upright in the church to pray for an end to the plague. After this, the right arm was detached and taken to Ḥaḥ, near Dayr al-Ṣalīb, to bring an end to the plague there also."
So there was an active campaign to make him into a Saint. That supports the reason why the Muslims bigged-up his role.
He is a Saint for the syriac churches
@@amm6838 But not for the Dyophysite Churches.
@@Bei-Abedan do u mean the syriac nestorian church?
@@amm6838 the western and eastern orthodox church
Great work chaps
reminds me the dispute pact of Umar vs assurance of safety ... two quite contradictory documents.
Mr Joe take a bow for your incredible work. Mind blowing. But wanted to know where Ilas Ibn Qabiza fits in here.
Thank you for the encouragement brother, Iyas doesn't fit into this at all because someone promoted Iyas ibn Qabisa to distract us from the REAL ibn Qabisa called Hani ibn Qabisa who was an Abu Bakr. So we were all looking at the wrong ibn Qabisa. I posted a video about the error at the beginning of March which has caused a lot of people to hate me. Still, we have to be honest and face the facts and not hold onto false theories once they have been exposed.
@@Bei-Abedan How can I search it as I want to see it now. Please let me know the title of the video & thanks once again.
@@Bei-Abedan In which video you identify Hani ibn Qabisa as Abu Bakr? If that's true, then Hani ibn Qabisa is buried in the Green Dome alongside with Umar aka Muhammad, according to Muslims.
@@_John_P I mentioned it in Part 1 as well as the following video I think:
th-cam.com/video/BEhniPVH-oc/w-d-xo.html
This is getting towards curious suspense. I like it.
.
Joe outstanding work and deductions 👍👍🍻
An excellent and well structures presentation. I feel many of the narratives that have been rehearsed here are now beginning to cohere into a robust sequence of events. It would have been good practice , I think, for O'Sullivan to have referenced the Umar visits but that is not your problem and having worked on a PhD myself I know how easy it is to be overwhelmed with detail. This new narrative needs to be presented in both a popular and peer reviewed set of publications.
It will never be presented anywhere, it is only for a Christian audience (you).
An interesting observation Mr Statue but a more robust and reliable history is good for all religions and no religion alike.
@@glennewell2436 Right observation Glen. I've done many comments on the topic in different Jay videos and you're the one who read Greek. Read them carefully 😉
There's another ancient Gk. word that applies 'Parrhesia', so you tell me. I am more than happy to hear.
@@glennewell2436 'Hearing, listening' is also being (sometimes) deceived. To avoid this, it is then important (for me...) to know who is speaking and why. Generally, it corresponds: what is said is directly in relation with what is the one who speak. Who am I then? An agnostic cultural Catholic guy, graduated in History at the Sorbonne and working on this topic.
amazing !!!
Mel Joe and Jay: It will interesting perhaps if you look into Kaʽb al-Aḥbār:
The companion of Umar, he is said to have been Jewish but "converted to Islam", and who encouraged Umar to recapture Jerusalem from the Byzantines and to reconsecrate the Temple Mount as a house of worship (subsequently the Dome of the Rock).
He is especially interesting because, this "conversion to Islam" seems, on your theory, like an a posteriori falsification to disguise the fact that, prior to his conversion to monophysite Christianity, Umar himself was with Jews and doing their bidding - including sparing the Jews from taxes, as he later did for Christians after his supposed conversion - because Umar himself was a (Sadducee) Jew.
Hard evidence of this character Kaʽb al-Aḥbār might go some way to showing that Umar was no Muslim, but was in fact a Jew.
Hi Levi. Yes, I have mentioned Kab al-Akhbar and included him in part 2. Another important Echo!
@@Bei-Abedan I must've missed it. Great work.
@@Louis.R Thanks!
Umar's concessions to patriarch Gabriel of Qartmin, 11:20, also seem to echo the immunity & exemptions said to have been granted by the armies of the Caliphate (rather, signed by Muhammad himself!) to the St. Catherine's monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai.
If genuine then it would be after Umar was baptised and took on the new name Muhammad. According to the Coptic Church he loved the Coptic pope Benjamin most of all.
Please Dr. Smith, enable subtitles !
GOD said to Moses, "I Am Who I Am, this is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation" (Exodus 3:13-15)
Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I Am" (John 8:53-58)
▪︎God is one Spirit Being, eternally present as three distinct centers of consciousness within God (hence the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
One Being, One Essence, yet three distinct persons. As persons each is definitely not either of the other two.
However, as One Spirit Being we can definitely say that the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is the Son of God, the Son of Man, and God Almighty simultaneously.
Jesus has always existed and was never a created being.
He had a physical birth of a Virgin and of the Holy Spirit, thereby He did not inherit the sin nature of Adam.
“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9)
Jesus is God Incarnate,
▪︎"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1-4)
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14)
The Word became Flesh (Jesus), God took on human nature. (John 1:14)
So Jesus is both fully God and fully Human...
Jesus has 2 natures.. Both Divine and Human but with a Sinless Soul
Jesus as Human with a Sinless Soul: ate, slept, wept, spoke to the Father and was crucified etc.
Jesus as God: is One with the Father, raised the dead, forgave sins and created etc.
Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day victorious over sin and death (past, present and future).
Jesus Christ atones for our sins and not only ours but also for the sins of the whole world (1John 2:2)
Jesus Christ and the Gospel are the final revelation (1John 2:22; 2John 1:7-11; Galatians 1:8-9; Revelation 22:13; Revelation 22:18-19)
Amen..
Jesus Claimed To Be God
▪︎Justice Is Civil and/or Divine - God's Divine Mercy and Justice is Love.
▪︎The Rabbis, High Priest Caiaphas and Roman Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus because He claimed to be God.
▪︎Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, the Word who became Flesh is the Son of God who lived a perfect and sinless life and whose Sacred blood was spilled by the High Priest, Rabbis and Romans and offered to pay for the sins of the whole world. (1John 2:2) On our behalf.
▪︎The High Priest Caiaphas said, “We have a law, according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God" (John 19:7)
▪︎Jesus said, "What about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" (John 10:36)
"Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” (John 10:30-33)
▪︎The High Priest said, “We are not stoning you for any good work, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:27-33)
▪︎"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God" (John 5:18)
Jesus Saves
▪︎Salvation comes through accepting the free gift of Christ's redemptive grace and not by the law.
▪︎"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it" (James 2:10)
No man can keep the whole law so our salvation is through Christ's redemptive grace.
▪︎"And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace" (John 1:16)
▪︎"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome" 1John 5:3
▪︎"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" 1John 1:9
▪︎"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" Ephes 2:8-9
▪︎"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace" Rom 11:6
▪︎"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to everyone who believes" Rom 10:4
▪︎"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 7:12)
▪︎"Love does no wrong to a neighbor therefore Love is the fulfilling of the Law" Rom 13:10; Matt 22:30-40
▪︎"Whoever does not Love does not know God because God is Love" 1John 4:8
▪︎In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13)
▪︎"Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him" (1John 3:15)
Christ's 2 Greatest Commandments are:
▪︎"Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.
One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
1. Jesus replied, "The first is to Love God.......and the second is like it..
2. "To Love your neighbor as yourself and love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 22:30-40)
☆ "On these 2 hang all the prophets and law" (Matt 22:30-40; 1 Cor 13)
▪︎Christ's Law, the New Covenant, overrules Mosaic Law Matt 5:38-48
▪︎Jesus said, "You have heard it said, "An eye for an eye" etc. But I tell you, Love your enemy" Matt 5:38-48
JESUS Is Risen - MIRACLES of Christ's Shroud:
▪th-cam.com/video/bkvoAJp4dGI/w-d-xo.html
▪th-cam.com/video/KBycQZug8Fo/w-d-xo.html
▪th-cam.com/video/Pj9ruYf7e9U/w-d-xo.html
▪th-cam.com/video/efEDb2jHyMY/w-d-xo.html
▪︎ "The Son of Man will give you everlasting life, because God the Father has set His seal on Him" (John 6:27)
▪︎View The Cross in Whirlpool Galaxy - Nasa
th-cam.com/video/RvzA9Pv3pcM/w-d-xo.html
▪︎Understanding The Trinity By Bishop Barron:
th-cam.com/video/IqjFe3AoZYw/w-d-xo.html
Amen...
God Bless You.
It all coming together nicely, this echo echo echo fits most of the SIN, look at the Quran you have one part in Mecca and one part in Medina, this can be the change over of Umar belief in Jesus, then you have their prophet dying of poison but really dying by execution, echo's changing the narrative to fit their agenda... Ask Dr. Qadhi I think he knows the truth hence his putting it out there, holes in the SIN. Bless you guys and thanks for the strong evidence that no one can denie.
I reckon all the top clerics and scholars know the truth. I also reckon MBS knows, hence his radical moves. He is trying to reform Islam, and drag it away from the Abassid ministrations.
God bless you Bob!
@@horseradishpower9947 You might be right.
@@horseradishpower9947, yip he is going to either change Islam as we know it or he be assassinated time will tell.
I believe Islam is dying in the middle east hence they moving to western non Muslim countries to try to reboot its ideology all over again. If Islam is so good then why do they want to come to a country not under Islamic state...
@@Bei-Abedan, thanks looking forward to more of your talks... Tom Holland did a gr8 doco in Islam the untold story, I'm hoping once you guys fill in the holes you too can make a doco.
Please bring out the objective facts. Thanks for the excellent research.
27:00 Dr Smith please note that a leader of a monastery would have been an ordained Bishop - Abbot. And in the English Parliamentary system Bishops and Abbots were members of the House of Lords, ie. a memory of what was the thinking for the local laity. In Rome after the demise of the western emperor it was the Bishop of Rome that took over the admin of the truncated governmental structure. Since the Byzantine governmental structure oversight was gone by the 7th century it would make sense that the local Bishop would take on the oversight in the urban centers separated from military affairs but may have some hand in taxes as tithes were collected for monastic centers.
In Eastern Orthodoxy we have archimandrites.
@@ralphcravey4904 Who is a monk assigned over a priory. Or a Hieromonk who is a priest monk who ministers outside the priory. But an Abbot would more likely have greater local authority in the communities and be known as lord.
Abbots are not normally bishops, and if elevated to the episcopacy, will not have time to oversee the monastery. An abbot is likely to be addressed as father rather than lord. A hieromonk is a monk who has been ordained to the priesthood, but he normally resides and performs his priestly duties in the monastery and may not travel outside without the permission of his abbot. Or at least, these are the eastern customs.
A timeline of original books that contain these quotes is needed
If I knew how to make presentations as beautifully as Paul Ellis can then I would.
@@Bei-Abedan : Just a little list will do -- like that of the Lord High Executioner's in "The Mikado."
Thank you Joe, there are documents online about how they got Damascus and it was by Christian priests against Byzantine's empire. Thanks Jay Smith.
This is very relevant, please email me redjudaism(at) gmail.com
@@Bei-Abedan Hi Joe, I emailed you. Thank you.
the input feed by Jo[e] is wealth material those interest reaching Muslim to Christ is excellence use academic and Church seminar. Anyway, I already put my comments before since share this origination of Muhammad person by Jay Smith to Al-Fadi and other Pfander group Smith collaborated. For me this unique information of Muhammad life origin is no longer NEW, I feed informed since I was in high school taught us by our seminarian teacher from Catholic Church religion. The Seminarian teacher told us that Muhammad had became disciple by the Catholic Monk in Nabatean region. Later he rebel after knowledge or learned the pros and con of Catholic theology and about heretic he left and built his own sect outside Catholic and prepare to call his follower Muslim (surrender one to Allah) because of the division and disagreement of various Christian sects at that time of Six century so severe both in religion and political (ex. Byzantine vs Persia) division within Christendom.
So I suggest to inform Jay Smith send team to get that information from Vatican Library or interviewed Catholic historian to solidify the exposition of Muhammad origination is I myself believe open that Islam came from Roman Catholic as understand the puzzling parallel of Koranic from the extra biblical doctrine-tradition-theology indirect forgery today we understood. Good external evidence is the Muslim tradition told us of the term "Haniffiya" it indicates those pagan Arab background seriously seek the true Abraham religion and some of them came to true Church and other built their own sect consider heretic and Muhammad belong on this group that reflect his prayer and fasting in the cave of Mount Hira is the original practice of Christian Monk and most of the early time of Muhammad met those monks influenced him and in their environment from travel-caravan and cured him too! The Qur'an gave favor to the Monk of being pious and hate worldly matter give them credit too.
lastly, I found a Catholic symbol of the icon-Sun found in common Catholic Churches altar and this found inside the shrine of Kaaba too! .....CHECK IT!!!
Sadly I think it won't just be Muslims who will be trying to belittle the significance of this research.
@Ya Ma My Response to Eight Lists Ya Ma Arguments:
> commiting blashmey against the Lord Almighty, denying His commands and those whom He honored (I quote). More emotional but not define those addressed “Blasphemy” for what act or foul words made? Are you refer to Jew or Christian? What command denying? (note, word “denying” is continuous tense until at present!). Who is that men/prophets honored denying?
If the phrase “honored” you describe to Muhammad the son of Abdullah of Mecca from Qureish Arab tribe then for what evidence Muslim able prove in Judeo-Christian history before Islam in Sixth century back from first century toward the birth of Muhammad and beginning propagate Islam in 610 AD? As well is there any Bible proof Muhammad is prophesied or else before Muhammad the Bible advance warning the People of the Bible BEWARE OF FALSE PROPHET. The definition of “False Prophet” is convince people especially believer of the Bible is TO PRETENDING AND DECEIVE but in the eyes of pagan Meccan and Medinan pagan Arab he is Rasul (Apostle) of God, but NOT those well versed the bible how distinguish between GENUINE vs FORGERY and TRUTH vs FALSE (fake!)
> Muhammad was know as gentile prophet (I quote). Can you cite any passage in the Bible that there is a prophesy foretold outside Israel Children and race to be a Gentile Prophet? As far as I know well this phrases use entitled to Apostle Paul when he himself confirm claim this title in the Letter to Romans 11:13 “APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES”.
> both brothers are monotheist and believe in the one God of Moses (I quote). Is propagate the ONENESS OF GOD/GOD IS ONLY ONE is evidence it came from SAME TRUE GOD? Like I said the term FALSE is old deception tactic used by Satan himself to the first human race Adam and Eve to encourage and hope they shall be LIKE GOD! (read Genesis 3: 5).
> And it was Christian jews that attacked previous propherts not the muslim (I quote). Can you give passage in the Bible or historical fact or seem you are distort or twist the context and to what connection Muslim not involve in this attack within People of the Book because Muslim is OUTSIDER to link connection to internal problem of the People of the Book (Jew & Christian). Please plainly to that term ATTACK!!! Or else you make your accusation by oath before Holy God falsely and no evidence.
> You men make islam look bad, but theres nothing worse than persecuting the messiah (I quote). Whom you address “Persecuting the Messiah”? (Note, you used “Persecuting” it is in imperfect verb tense means continuation until today since the time of Jesus on earth)???
Your argument no foundation just babbling accusation consider FALSE/FAKE propagation.
> Also, every muslim believes in the resurrection of Christ (I quote). WOW! Every Muslim believes in the RESURRECTION OF CHRIST!!!
ARE YOU STILL MUSLIM??? Are you not aware for thousand years about 1, 400 years Muslim believer believe that Jesus NEVER DIED NOR CRUCIFIED ON THE CROSS??? Please read Surah al-Nisaa:157!!!
>Every Muslim honors every prophet since day one of Muhammad becoming a messeger of God (I quote). Yes, I know that Muhammad of 610 AD honors and acknowledge all Bible Prophets BUT BUT BUT before Muhammad born around 570 AD both Judaism and Christian world NEVER RECOGNIZE NOR HONOR MUHAMMAD IS A PROPHET CAME FROM SAME GOD OF ABRAHAM-ISAAC-JACOB-MOSES-DAVID-SOLOMON-ISAIAH-EZEKIEL-JEREMIAH-DANIEL TO JESUS AND APOSTLE AND CHURCH PEOPLE!!!
So for what Mr. Ya Ma you attempt and hope Christian world of the Bible believer welcome Muhammad in the UMBRELLA OF PROPHETS but Muhammad only SELF-claim being RASUL and NABI.
The Biblical believer criteria or background check to be surety that self-proclaim man of God need examine found in the Holy Bible then the historical tradition before and after life of Muhammad harmony with to what he claim in agrrement but what we found for 1, 400 years (610 AD-2021 AD) since begun at the cave of Mount Hira no Church record there be a GENTILE PROPHET ARAB OF MECCAN, EVEN HIS ALLEGED CLAIM DESCENDED IS GENEALOGY BACK FROM ISHMAELITE IS LACKING CONNECTION BUT ALL ENDED BEFORE JESUS TIME NOT ABRAHAM ERA FOR OVER 2, 500 YEARS AGO.
Note. Genealogy of Muhammad Ended to Adnan. So from Muhammad to Adnan is 21 generation times 40 it arrive on 270 BC. Ishmael generation 2074 BC the gap is 1, 804 years!!!
Deae@Ya Ma : The Armies of JIHAD only honors VIOLENCE, Persecution & Piracy and NOTHING about Honoring Jewish Prophets and sons of Abraham.
* Bye bye Armies of JIHAD!
I agree 💯% 👍👍
I always knew the beginning of islam is a protestant movment against the holly church.
The same happend in the 15 centurry and from that you got the mormons.
Give the mormons a 300 years and a sword and you got another islam.
Ore give a jehova witnes 300 years and a sword and a lot of changing of the bible
You got islam.
But islam i blame the mongolian adaptetion
Of christianity.
Islam is this global religion that everyone is talking about. Islam contains all religions outside the Christ.
Indeed, as his followers grew, at one point Joseph Smith seriously contemplated leading a revolt and making himself a king or emperor of the United States, which is not quite as crazy as it sounds since the US armed forces were very meager in that period. However, I don't think he had any competent generals.
@Ya Ma Well said! Can you show me the verse in the Quran, which says that Muhammad was Arabic, from Ismael? Thanks!
@Ya Ma try just to proof mohammad in the 7 centurry preach in makka.
You may also use your quran.
As proof.
Dont forget only 7 centurry document.
Your prophet preach in makka where your kaaba is now.
Try hard my friend.
Wooden Bell? The semantron came into being in the 6th century within monasteries of Palestine and Egypt, including Saint Catherine's in the Sinai; the rhythmic blasts, an iconography of trumpeting.
Thank you for your valuable input Dafydd. Many scholars agree with you. It makes one wonder why Robert would have doubted this.
@@Bei-Abedan I found the following in the book "Christian Muslim Relations", vol. 1, p.893, ch. "The Life of Gabriel of Qartmin", they mention "poll-tax" and "land-tax", can you clarify how the original words "paqrātā" and "madʾatā" are a reference to the famous Muslim taxes? It also explains the issue with the gong ->
An important element in the Life as it has come down is a chapter about the supposed treaty that was concluded between Gabriel and the Arab conquerors of northern Mesopotamia. The Chronicum anonymum ad A.D. 819 pertinens confirms that Gabriel was enthroned between 1 October 633 and 31 September 634, and the most likely date is 1 May 634. Thus, he was a contemporary of the Caliph ʿUmar ibn al-Khatṭạ̄b (634-44), under whom northern Mesopotamia was incorporated into the Arab Empire (al-Balādhurī and al-Khwārizmī date the conquest of Ṭūr ʿAbdīn to 640).
The Life (Ch. 12, LXXII) claims that Gabriel received from ʿUmar in person a written assurance that priests and deacons should not pay the poll-tax (if this is the right interpretation of the word paqrātā, literally ‘vertebrae’), and that monks should be free from the land-tax (here termed madʾatā). This alleged assurance also stated that the sounding of the gong for the times of prayer should not be abolished and that anthems might be sung in public funeral processions. But all this is highly suspect. Gabriel is unlikely to have met ʿUmar himself, but rather one of his subordinates, possibly ʿIyāḍ ibn Ghanm, and it is also unlikely that the poll-tax and land-tax were yet distinguished, since there is no such distinction in treaties recorded elsewhere for northern Mesopotamia at this time. Furthermore, the treaty between ʿIyāḍ and the people of Callinicus, as recorded by al-Balādhurī, explicitly abolished the sounding of the gong and the Christian practice of processing in public.
The Life of Gabriel was most likely written sometime in the period, in the 9th century, when debates over the stipulations of the so-called Shurūt ̣ʿUmar (q.v.) were at their most heated (see al-Tạbarī, Taʾrīkh i, pp. 2405-6). All the specific concessions allegedly made to Gabriel in the Life read like wishful thinking on the part of the Christians - the concession to sound the gong is clearly formulated as an exception to the rule explicitly laid down in the Shurūt.̣ In sum, when the inherent implausibility of the treaty allegedly obtained by Gabriel in person from ʿUmar is weighed against the evidence from the Life itself, that no narrative of Gabriel’s life existed before the late 8th century apart from a brief curriculum vitae appended to the record of his funeral, the conclusion has to be that the two men never met.
Significance
A rural area such as ṬūrʿAbdīn would have been included under the treaties made with surrounding cities, though it appears that in the period when the Life fabricated this special treaty for ṬūrʿAbdīn the practice of sounding the gong for prayer and processing with anthems to the cemetery was still in force in villages where perhaps no Muslims lived. The higher clergy, apparently, were exempt from the poll-tax and the monasteries did not have to pay the land-tax (thanks to Symeon of Ḥarrān, who died in 734, the monastery of Qartmīn had many properties and extensive estates in and around Nisibis). A study of the churches of ṬūrʿAbdīn, and notably that of the monastery of St Jacob near the village of Ṣalāḥ (Palmer, Monk and Mason, Appendix on inscriptions, pp. 206-8, 212-13), suggests that some of them were rebuilt in the 8th century. If this is true, it provides evidence that the restriction on repairs to existing churches was ineffective in the remote plateau of ṬūrʿAbdīn. These exemptions may have been challenged in the late 8th century, no doubt beginning with the manifest iniquity of the monastery of Qartmīn being exempted from the land-tax, which will have grated in the minds of other property and land owners in and around Nisibis. The Life of Gabriel is evidence of the strategy adopted by this monastery to answer this challenge. It may well have been unsuccessful, which would help to explain the decline discussed in the final chapter of Palmer, Monk and mason (pp. 182-90).
@@_John_P God bless your soul John. Did you hear me credit you in this video at 7:30?
@@Bei-Abedan I did, thanks, however I'm adamant to be born, live and die as anonymous as the vast majority of the human beings that ever existed and will ever exist. I'm still curious about any insights you might have in the words used for "tax" in the book I'm quoting in the post above.
Daniel 9:21 - Gabriel the man- While I was speaking, praying,
confessing my sin and that of my people Israel, and presenting my
petition before the LORD my God concerning His holy mountain- 21while I
was still praying, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision,
came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22He
instructed me and spoke with me, saying: “O Daniel, I have come now to
give you insight and understanding.…
@Ya Ma You have a problem with people who are after the truth? They just people who want to know the truth. Older Quran were burned in favor of more perfected one. How can you assure that people didn't corrupt later one? I'm not saying they did.
God is critical of those who reject faith, blaspheme, practice evil and violate His Commandments. These evildoers are condemned by God. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhist etc. There are many verses in the Quran where God condemns the hypocrites among the Muslims and promises them a great punishment in this life and the Hereafter. Also those among the Muslims who wage war against God and His Messenger.
As to people of Jews not all are a like many believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten in all good works. They are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them, for God knows well those that they do right.
“And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, in the Revelation to you, and in the Revelation to them, bowing in humility to God.They will not sell the Revelation of God for a miserable gain. For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account.” Please remember that Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, married a Jewish woman who is given by God the title of “The mother of the believers”.
His swords were made by a Jew in Medina and when he died his shield was mortgaged with a Jew, to show us that among the Jews there are those who abide by God’s Commandments and do not take usury.
Amen🙏 praise the Lord YAHWEH
Commendable discovery
angel 'Angellus' in Greek simply means messenger anyway. A human may be an angel [messenger] or a heavenly being may be a angel [messenger].
Very true.
The term is never used for mere human beings.
@@wretch1 yes it is. Anyone heavenly or earthly can be an angelous a messenger.
There were no such thing as human angels. 😢😢
@@sattaurnikki Angellous in Greek simply means messenger. Therefore a human or a heavenly being can be an angelous.
Can we please have some reading of the Christian Hymns from the Quaran/Kariana? Thanks
Very interesting thesis. But when was the meeting between Umar and Gabriel after which he according to the thesis became Muhammed? Does it fit with the early reports of "Tayyaye of Muhammad" from Thomas the Presbyter?
The meeting was some time between 644 and 646. And it fits with Thomas the Presbyter who wrote about him at that time because he knew him from his final name Muhammad not by his earlier name Amrh. Sebeos gets both names right.
@@Bei-Abedan Thank you for answering
@@korankaffe4112 You are always welcome my friend :)
As soon as I saw 'Gabriel' in the title, I said, 'Ya gotta be kidding!" This looks to be good!
@hikmah bersama According to the islamic tradition, the Quran 53/19-21 are called the satanic verses where al Lah, the moon god has 3 star daughters.
@hikmah bersama Jesus Christ said:"From the fruits Ye shall know! "... Paul teaching is to love fellow human being & even your enemy... that's proves that Paul is not satanic compare to Arabic Quraish man title Muhammad who taught his follower to kills the Jews & Christians in line with Alfatihah prayers. Christians never taught by Paul to kill in the name of Jesus Christ. ☝
@hikmah bersama Try to live up to your name Hikmah! You can find anything you want on TH-cam, but that doesn't make it true. Paul praised the Bereans for their discernment which they applied on finding out whether his preaching was true according to the Scriptures.
@hikmah bersama easy to check---from 624, the qibla was changed from Jerusalem to the city of Mecca. But the pagan Mecca was conquered in 630 only. It means that from 624 on, you pray in the direction of the Mecca of the pagan Arabs, whose moon god was al Lah!
@hikmah bersama So what is wrong with that? Paul was a Jew from birth and he was a self righteous Pharisee until he was called by the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus. When he started to preach the gospel he would start at the local synagogue to give the Jews the chance to accept the gospel just like he did with the Bereans. But he preached to the gentiles as well which took different skills as they were not the same way acquainted with the law and the prophets and for whom it was more difficult to accept Jesus Christ intellectually as fulfilment of prophesy.
If you like to find inconsistencies yojr Qur'an is a much better place to look
Very interesting material Joe. I was expecting a reason for something happening north of the Jazeera just before the conquest though and i did not see anything about that. Only stuff of 644 646, interesting ones but nevertheless.
Wow I think Muhammad and Gabriel and the Quran are found.
It is of great important to identify the spirit who squeezed mohd at the cave of Hira near Mecca . Was the spirit really angel Gabriel ?? The answer is absolutely NO !!!
Had the spirit been Gabriel , he would have calmed mohd and relieved his fear, but the spirit left him in extreme distress .
That spirit is called the S. I. N. of the Abbasids.
Shouldn't the cave of Hira have some relation to the Hira where Ibn Qabisa was?
@@jonnyy4088 I think that the cave of hira story is just a mish-mash of several different events all hashed together. Its just a legend invented by the Abbasids to obscure and blur together various historical events.
Started with fear and controlling with fear
So definitely Not The Loving Father
The title of video make sense ! "Joe Claims"
I do not know whether you have spoken in other episodes about the effect of Waraqa Bin Nawfal and Khadija (Waraqa's first cousin) in the life of Mohamed and how they were the first two who believed his claims. Waraqa Bin Nawfal was according to the Arabic sources very eloquent in Arabic and he used to write in Arabic as much as he could from the Torah and the Injeel (as referred to by muslims in a singular form). In Islamic books Waraqa Bin Nawfal is thought of being a Jew or Nisrani (the derogatory word used by Muslims to refer to Christians) and he was the one who married Khadija, Mohamed's first wife. Islamic books also mention that when Waraqa died, revelation to Mohamed stopped and Mohamed was very sad.
Great observations.
Nawfal and Khadija
were Nestorian
Christians.
This sect was considered
heretical in the lifespan
of Mohammad. At the
time Nicene (Trinitarian)
Christianity was the only
legal religion in the Roman/
Byzantine empire.
Jews, Gnostics, Pagans
and members of heretical
Christian sects often chose
to move to the fringes/
frontiers of the empire to
be able to practice their
religious beliefs in peace.
The one exception was
Spain where the Visigoths
were predominately Arians
(heretical according to the
empire) but they were so
numerous that the state
had to accommodate them
and to slowly convert them.
(Initially, both northern Italy
and North Africa also had a
large number of Arians)
The Filioque controversy
was jump-started by the
Latin church seeking to
reinforce the idea that
Jesus co-equal with the
Father to the Arians.
The problem was that Rome's
change to the Nicene Creed
was not discussed with the
bishops of the eastern portions
of the Roman/Byzantine empire,
prior to implementation
Eventually, both Rome and the
Eastern churches excommunicated
each other.
In regards to the SIN of the revelation with Gabriel, is it true that if you change a dot in the Arabic word for "choke" you would get the word "baptize"? Then you've got the significance of three times.
من. يغمد. ال يعمد.
How that happened?
Coincidentally, Cizre, the town in Turkey, is also known as Jazirat al Madina. From Wikipedia.
Great finding, they also name it "Jazirat Ibn ʿUmar" and "Madinat al-Jazira". "Cizre was founded as Jazirat Ibn ʿUmar in the 9th century by al-Hasan ibn Umar, Emir of Mosul". "al-Hasan ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab was appointed governor of Mosul by Caliph al-Amin in 813." Not to be confused with the Umar in the video: "Abdullah ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab (c.610-693 CE) was companion of the Islamic prophet Muhammad and son of the second Caliph Umar. He was a prominent authority in hadith and law."
@@_John_P yes thanks, I read that. Just wondering whether the naming it of Jazirat Ibn ʿUmar or the mention of Umar might have been in memory of Umar bin Al Khattab who received Gibril in this town?
@@Fay1298 No, the town was founded by a 9th century Umar. It may be that the document was written for 9th century Umar but redacted back to the more prestigious 7th century Umar for additional effectiveness.
Jay, regarding this angel Gabriel, I theorized that the original Gabriel probably a messenger (of which what 'angelos' word actually mean), but probably Islam mistook that angel as a heavenly being like what we know today
I mentioned this before but something keeps deleting my messages. I have a source which says Umar died in 646.
Glad you mentioned it. I found some interesting sources that mentioned Umar is not killed by Abu Lu'luah of Persian, but the website is taken down and it can't be tracked online anymore. Most probable to your view is the angry "sadducees" mob who's not accepting Umar's conversion i guess. Maybe it can be right, but maybe it isn't.
Ka'b Al-Ahbar (Arab wiki, his life chapter)
وقد كانت مسألة ذكر النبي محمد في كتب اليهود وفق اعتقادات المسلمين، تشغل بال الكثيرين بمن فيهم الصحابة والتابعين والمؤرخين والمحدثين وعوام الناس. فكان كعب وأمثاله مصدرهم لمثل هذه القضايا والأمور،[6] ومن الأمثلة على سعة علمه وتبحره في علوم اليهود حكاية أوردها الطبري في تفسيره لآية :"يا أخت هارون ما كان أبوك إمرأ سوء وما كانت أمك بغيا" فقال كعب أن هارون المذكور ليس بهارون أخ النبي موسى فكذبته عائشة فرد قائلًا: "إن كان النبي قال هذا فهو أعلم وأخبر وإلا فإني أجد بينهما ستمائة سنة"، فسكتت عائشة،[7] اتهم كعب كثيراً في كتابات متأخرة منها أنه كان مشاركا في مؤامرة اغتيال عمر بن الخطاب،[8] وجاء فيها أنه أنذره بمقتله بثلاثة أيام زاعمين أنه قال لعمر أنه وجد ذكره في التوراة. ويرجح عدد من الباحثين أنها قصة مُختلقة، لإنه لو كان كما روى أولئك الرواة لعد شريكاً صريحاً في المؤامرة وقُتل على إثرها ولكنه لم يُقتل بل عاش إلى خلافة عثمان،[9] فعبيد الله بن عمر قتل الهرمزان الفارسي وابنة أبو لؤلؤة الصغيرة فلو كان كعب معهم لما تردد في قتله، كان عمر بن الخطاب قد زجره قائلًا «لتتركن الحديث عن الأول أو لألحقنك بأرض القردة» وفي الأثر «لَمَّا دخل عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ الْبَيْتَ الْمُقَدَّسَ وَأَرَادَ أَنْ يَبْنِيَ مُصَلًّى لِلْمُسْلِمَيْنِ : قَالَ لِكَعْبِ ؟ أَيْنَ أَبْنِيهِ ؟ قَالَ ابْنِهِ خَلْفَ الصَّخْرَةِ . قَالَ : خَالَطَتْك يَهُودِيَّةٌ يَا ابْنَ الْيَهُودِيَّةِ ؛ بَلْ أَبْنِيهِ أَمَامَهَا» قال ابن تيمية "وذلك لأن اليهود تعظم تلك الصخرة، ولم يأت ديننا بأي فضيلة لها".[10]
I guess it's an enough introduction to the topic
@@NoOne-zm5wh Jay fixed the the problem and I can post again but sadly I ran out of free time today.
Thank you so much for your constructive contributions!
What Jay and Joe seems to say is that later some people (or just one person) wanted to create one religion, *Islam* which for whatever reasons had little to do with Christianity, turned the *human saint/priest Gabriel into the Angel Gabriel* and declared the Koran as the word of Allah.
What would this Umar get out of it if he invented this religion? He was going the way of all humans, the way to the grave, why would he care if there was one new religion? Furthermore this religion would be based just on lies, and this is something the inventors would know, and for the rest of their lives required to lie.
Maybe lying was not such a big issue for them.
Joe seem to *downplay the fact that these people had to be very bold-faced liars. Ah they had just to change here and there a bit of the story or bend the truth...
Whoever came up with the Koran, must have known that the Jews still awaited one human, liberator kingly Messiah, and invented a person who then was accepted by Pagans as such.
As to pact of Umar, didn't Jay once also maintain that one particular letter of the monks from one monestary which Christians in the Middle East still cite as authentic was just a forgery. Does Joe use here some other sources which just refer back to this fake letter?
Amazing! Thanks for this
- very plausible narrative (backed by credible evidences), and actually more so than the narrative of islam itself
- it seems to me that islam (as the presenter put it) wanted to play a kind of Anglican "game" when the ruler disassociated himself from a codified/established clergy (i.e. patriarchy) by making the calif/emperor quasi head of the religion. It explains why after the dissolution of each and every caliphate, empire islam doesn't have a "Vatican" (well, in Egypt there is some school which play somehow such role (kind of quasi ultimate authority on interpreting the Koran) but in theory every imam can interpret it on whatever way it wants...
Yes, Islam is a lot like Protestantism and there are many sects.
PHOTO OF THE COIN????
In the hadiths, Umar is the author of at least two Quranic verses by virtue of an influencer on Mohammed's Prophesies.
Another Echo!
Very Interesting
Thank you! :)
Hmm. Could this Gabriel story be a bastardization of Moe's cave encounter?
To quick to post. Jay alluded to this.
@@Bei-Abedan
It does sound that way.
NB someone or something is deleting my messages.
Daniel 9:21 - Gabriel the man- While I was speaking, praying, confessing my sin and that of my people Israel, and presenting my petition before the LORD my God concerning His holy mountain- 21while I was still praying, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. 22He instructed me and spoke with me, saying: “O Daniel, I have come now to give you insight and understanding.…
So Gabriel of Qartmin was living up to his namesake.
I did not find any clear or elaborate picture of Abbasid origins or theological dispositon from Joe, i mean he did say in the Thrid part that they were from Hijaz but i think the kind of thread that Jay and others have been presenting contradicts that, I hope to see a more clear view on that.
The coin is interesting but the date needs explanation: 647. Umar died in 644. So is it a memorial coin or is it referring to his successor?
@@jeybi675 Notice what?
@Sneaker's Corner one should consider that the Abby's standard modus operandi in editing as they assemble their recension material would also extend to adjusting the dates with in the material. In other words we can not accept their narrative at any level with any credibility.
Sebeos never says that Umar was assassinated in 644 and succeeded by another king. The only time king of saracens gets assassinated is just before the first civil war. Also a chinese source says that tayyaye kingdom started in 618 and it was the second king ruling in 651. The first king was Ibn Qabisah, the second was Umar. There is no room for a third person who was later called Uthman. It also explains why all sources talk about Umar and none about an Uthman and Umar's coin was in 647 when Uthman should have been ruling.
Also, people from the levant, Lebanon etc were well known as master craftsmen in metal and producing coins. If you wanted a rare coin made, thats where you'd go. Just thought.
647 should be the time of Uthman, which have a blood relative to Mu'awiya (According to SIN). Need to dig a little bit more of this narrative (because its quite important too)
Islam is so proud of its oral tradition and tries to convince us, that it is trustworthy. But when we are looking into history, anywhere in the world, true stories are getting embellished when only passed on orally. A good example are the Deutsche Heldensagen (German hero tales). Didn't happen the same with many of the stories of saints, yes even with Mary? For me it is easy to imagine, that over 200 years or so, Saint Gabriel developed into the Angel Gabriel.
Yes, and so far it is the only source-based alternative to the SIN.
Chinese Whispers....
Robert Hoyland has refuted this particular event as a later fabrication.
As I dealt with in the video. You should try watching it.
@@Bei-Abedan Last Friday is the famous sorrowful day, Tisha b'av, the day of the destruction of the first and second Temples in Jerusalem. Do you know what's happened last Friday in the Catholic Church? The Church of the Christ built by the St. Peter ( buried under the Vatican) and the
Apostle Paul ( whose tomb is a Catholic Church, St-Paul hors les murs in Rome ) was restricted ( for the purpose of cancelling ) by the Pope. It's about the Latin Mass begun from the 3rd until 1970. Today the Catholic Mass is called Nuvo Ordo ( the New Order!!!) The time of Gentiles ( Romains 11) is over before our eyes. But helas! most Christians ignore that the Church of the Christ just got cancelled ( as important as the first and the Second Temples of Jerusalem ), the Destruction is before us, on All Nations ( Catholic means the nations outside Israel ). This silence before the massive Death to come makes me tremble!-------The Wall Street Journal have noticed it!--www.wsj.com/articles/pope-francis-lets-bishops-ban-old-latin-mass-reversing-move-by-pope-benedict-xvi-11626444372
@@tyh3120 Actually it was Saturday, but since fasting is not permitted when entering onto a Sabbath and fasting on Sabbath is not permitted either, the Fast was on Sunday.
I am familiar with the correspondence to the Fast of the Apostles and the Feast of Peter & Paul which follows. My Minhag also has a tradition of a feast after the Fast the same as you. This is because traditional Christianity was built upon Judaism. It is very interesting isn't it? :)
God bless you
Brand X, I see your reply below, but for some reason I am restricted from being able to reply to you. So this is whart I have been trying to say.
If there is something wrong with what I said, please point it out to me and explain, otherwise why do you scold?
If you want to see the video of why I am editing my comment like this you can go to my channel.
@@Bei-Abedan such a bad attitude!
@@Bei-Abedan ( July 17/18 ) By an ex-Havard University professor, Jew now Catholic, Roy Schoeman----July 17 Tisha b'Av and the Carmelite Compiegne Martyrs--th-cam.com/video/vdWg8Gm1nKM/w-d-xo.html
Bilal also moved to Syria converted to Christianity and died there. The first person to perform the Azhan or Muslim call to prayer.
LOL, love this video. Haha. :) I've been listening to Christian apologetics defending against muslim dawah, its been noted that Quran never once confirmed that Jibreel was an angel. Even the sentence structures whenever jibreel is mentioned seem to hint at him being something Other than an angel. Whether this theory gains credibility or not. I'll smile at the thought that there might have been a real person named Gabriel skulking around the "prophet" and once in a while squeezing him and forcing him to read. ;)
@Ya Ma well my friend, you live and you learn. You dont rely on what you are being told. Dont just believe in one book. If you are not sure of something do your research and ask more questions especially ancient beliefs and cross reference with history. The search for answers is not foolishness. The act of asking questions is not blasphemy. Know that life is too short to live in falsehood and believing in a scam. Learn from christianity, learn from judaism. We are children of God, not slaves of allah.
th-cam.com/video/2R30TkTj1tY/w-d-xo.html
You don't have knowledge about that.Angel Gabrijrl did bring Holly Kur'an to Mohammed resulAllah salallahu alejhi wesellem!
Does anyone else think this supposed, "Read!"/"I cannot read!" exchange might have been taken from Isaiah 29:12 ?
@@Sam-bc6sr ive heard some muslim apologist use this argument to prove "something" about their prophet's worthiness... But for the life of me.. i cant understand why use this as a quote.. i could literallly ask some locals here and ask them to read a foreign book... And their most obvious answer would likely be.."i cant read".. its almost an embarrasment... I could only imagine Gabriel's frustration that drove him to "force choke" his Chosen One because he cant even read what his god wants to reveal to him... He should have chosen someone else huh..
Can we trace this Gabriel furthermore?
This is all tenuous or speculative in the specifics, but has a certain credibility in the generality. Judaism and Christianity clearly carry elements of pre-existing religions, so why not Islam? All are the work of flawed men.
a provocative comment - but inaccurate!
It has a great superiority in Christianity and Judaism that it does not have in Islam. Just look at societies produced by these religions.
@@brendabrenda6782 I am not sure how much of that can be credited to their religions except in so far as they have (eventually) allowed secularism to develop. The biggest correlation between societal success and religion seems to be in the waning of the latter.
@@markaxworthy2508 There has never been any society that has not emerged from religious outbreaks. Europe did not develop at its best because it allowed secularism.
@@brendabrenda6782 So it is just coincidence that on almost every material measure life in Europe improved dramatically at just the time its societies became more secular?
so funny to learn how history and folk stories mix well to give new mystery
Dr Jay your destroying Islam's completely with history, anyway God bless you for your good work
Hahaha in your dreams onlyyy...truth is islam always prevails 💚
You can't do away with history any intelligent person will agree to it, it's unfold
@@arwandajunior1122 ahan understand but which history ? First jay and co said mecca was originally petra, now they are saying Prophet Muhammad was from araq, in some other video they said Muhammad was actually a title for jesus and in some other video they said Muhammad was actually was a ruler of hira named ilyas ....what exactly mr jay and co wanna say ....why are they making so desperate assumptions
Let's learn bro I don't understand why you are getting angry anyway
@@arwandajunior1122sis I'm not getting angry.. I'm just frustrated at this propaganda on this channel but i guess you have watched their previous videos that's why you didn't understand my previous comment
28.10 what exactly does joe mean by the use of the term Sadducee? These were the priestly aristocracy of Jerusalem who controlled the temple cult. They disappeared after ad70. Their function had gone and rabbinic Judaism was having to refashion (or perhaps fashion) Judaism into what has survived till today. Who, where and what were these “Sadducees” that joe would have us believe survived to the 7th century?
The Priest Gabriel looking at what happened to the information he gave 🤷🤦♂️🤷🤦♂️🤷🤦♂️
Very good example.
@Christain Chris, not the Chinese Whispers Dr Jay is so fond of use but a deliberate recasting of the shattered Ummy history by recension of the historical, revision of the principal individuals and especially a rewriting of the quaranic materials, both Monophite and Jewish source documents.
Or at least something for the more intelligent viewers like you to get their teeth into. Thank you brother.
John P just posted a comment here and it was deleted so I had to delete my reply. But I will re-post here just for the record from John P's message his main criticism which also came to my email the main body of what they said:
"...others perceive you as creepy... one reason is the way you appeal to the person's ego in a presumed intention to "fish" them, or gain their hearts, or their support, which might be an automatic, unconscious behaviour, and the other reason is the way you compliment those that agree with your presentation, which are a big red flag for a manipulative personality, as perceived by most. In part because people expect a presenter to remain neutral and humble during the discussion of the material they brought forward, and in a major part because it clearly shows that since you agree with yourself on your own position (which is perfectly fine) and you tell people that they are really "intelligent" for agreeing with your position, which inevitably implies that the ones that disagree with it are not as gifted, which is insulting, it becomes also immediately self-evident that you think very high of yourself. In recent times, that makes the behaviour you present in writing form, accidentally or not, a mirror image of a certain famously narcissistic ex-public official that has been haunting America for many years now. But since most of the behaviour is in writing form, I'm sure it's easy to correct if you police yourself before posting, that if you really care at all about the perceived "creepiness" by the general public."
What I see here is projection. Frank people like me have become so unusual that some people can not fit us into any of their categories. In such cases, suspicious people generally project their own perception of what their own motivations would be onto others in order to work out their behaviour. This is normal. Sadly it is also naturally going to backfire unless you have a lot of in-depth real-life understanding of a person. Because every text is always open to interpretation, it is not possible to psycho-evaluate a person based on their writings especially across language barriers like US-English vs UK-English which have very different uses of expression and "phatics" just for 2 examples.
Never assume what "most people" think.
I don't actually think very highly of myself as a person. But I do think extremely highly of my own research and knowledge on matters relevant to Messianic Noahites. Anyone who has put a lot of effort into some work has a very good right to feel proud of their achievements. There is nothing wrong with that.
Diatessaron was in use by the church of the east in Syria/Persia until post nicea when bishop rabbula standardised the use of the four gospels 411-435. Diatessaron would have been disused for more than 200 years by the time of Islam and is not associated with the Egyptian church. The Chalcedonian problem Monophysite/Diophysite is from 451 “Monophysites” have no reason to be associated with this text.
I don't think we have to accept the standard line presented in Roman Christianity as infallible. The Acephali could easily have still been using it. May I ask why does it have to be associated with the Egyptian Church?
@@Bei-Abedan Copts and Ethiopians were the foundational Monophysite community. Syrian Monophysites linked to the mission of Jacob baradaeus in 6th century. Church of the east is diophysite. Aremenians became “Monophysite” not so much by force of reason as that they were prevented from being present at Chalcedon by plague and Persian Roman warfare. They became Monophysite by default
@@Bei-Abedan that is not the line presented by Roman Christianity that is the line presented by Assyrian Christianity
@@Bei-Abedan to whom are you referring to by the term “acephali”?
The diatessaron is an engaging subject. It remained the standard gospel text across Syria in the 4th century so that people like Ephraim use it without issue. After rabbula it falls into disuse. There are no surviving manuscripts but it can largely be reconstructed by references to the church father such as ephraim and aphrahat. Tatian is said to have come from Rome but the text as I remember was in syriac. This was not the language of Egypt and Ethiopia.
I notice that Joe uses such words as *could, probably, might, echo, likely, etc." with a discomfiting frequency.
As I noticed the verbal pattern, my skepticism rose.
Haters will be haters.
#AdHominem
But if you had actually listened to the definition of Echo you would realise that means independent fact-corroboration.
The reason is that Joe is being objective rather than biased. Hence, he's admitting openly that what's being presented is a theory. However, it is a theory that is based on facts and therefore is likely to be true.
You don't seem to be very familiar with how theories and academic reports, etc. work. As a clinical psychologist, I use similar words including "seem, appear" when writing assessment and diagnostic reports.
Yes Old One. That is the problem with all of the nay-sayers whose comments I have read on this wall so far. Looks like the undercover Dawa team is really angry about the last 4 videos. Even the ones who have been posing as Christians and atheists have let their masks slip recently. They have been spreading a false report between themselves that I work for MI5 to undermine Islamism and have all lost their cheer. Before this, their undercover sneaky mission to muddy the waters with chaos was going so well.
Thank you for noticing Adrian, God Bless You!
I think Abu Talib was part of a secret society of Christians and maybe Khadijah and they created and/or revived an orthodox version of messianic Judaism lost to Paul. James the Justs handful of churches after the temple burned... the followers went into hiding in Arabia along with two actually three Judean tribes that lived in yathreb and mecca. they lived in peace side by side. I've paralleled shiite Islam and Judaism and they are extremely similar down to detailed unique beliefs and rituals that differ between shiite and sunni.
Well if we look at the word Kadijah and put Muhammed Kadijah together and root is back it can translate to : The Praised One that Ascends to Heaven. The Praised One Lifts to Heaven. The Ladder to Heaven.
Ka
Diger(Dingir)
Still think Satan might have appeared just as did to Joseph Smith!
Joseph Smith did not require Satan's presence, the man was a convicted fraudster already.
@@_John_P true but that was why he was open to demonic as was into occultism !
@@davidchase1439 I am certain that the Abbasids were Satanists. They were obsessed with demonism, black-magic and inventing satanic verses and even P-dophilia.
@@Bei-Abedan seems fertile soil for Antichrist religion
@@davidchase1439 You said it brother.
Interesting! Where can I find all the resources mentioned in this video to verify?
Which resource do you want to know about first? I will post you a link or something.
About Gabriel who is saint or priest and also other things you mentioned. It will be helpful if someone asks for the source. Appreciate all that you do. Thanks 🙏
No problem brother, God Bless You and thank you for the support. Just so you know most of the reference works for these sources were discussed in part 2. Have you watched the whole series yet?
No worries. I will watch the other series. Thanks 🙏
💐💐✝️✝️❤️👍
Actually any thinking person would have questioned why did it take 23 years to whisper messages to Muhd via another so called angel . This begs the question is this Deity the same who spoke directly to the Jewish prophets and gave the 10 commandments directly by him using tablets..
Remarkably the angel disapp when Muhd dies never to be seen again in Islam's march onwards
The priest was the angel Jubreel
Or vice-versa :)
@Ya Ma Muhammad was a pagan . He told you that kissing and touching black stone(ordinary meteor) forgives your sins
@Ya Ma Love is better than hate
So is this the first pre-Abd-al-Malik coin or inscription with MHMD on it? When was it discovered?
look up syro aramic quran
@torsten magnusson the only consential Assyriac quarnic book shows that the assemble quarn is a compellation of Monophiite lectionaries, Assyriac Hymns and Jewish Yeshiva discussions. Anything else is a late translation into Assyriac, which by the way would be a contradiction of the use of Arabic only.
Many thanks for this video. I hope this somewhat long comment will be worthwhile.
Concerning the Christological doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, of which Gabriel’s Syriac Orthodox church became a branch, the Wikipedia entry for “Miaphysitism” says: “…While historically a major point of controversy within Christianity, several modern declarations by both Chalcedonian and Miaphysite churches state that the difference between the two Christological formulations is essentially semantic and does not reflect any significant difference in belief about the nature of Christ…” It seems that even the word “semantic” has a problem with semantics as it may refer to _logical_ semantics, “concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication”, and _lexical_ semantics, “concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them”. I assume that the Wikipedia entry on miaphysitism is referring to lexical semantics, as if distinctions between Chalcedonian Christianity and Oriental Orthodox Christianity are primarily a matter of verbal preference rather than understanding. Thus, reading Wikipedia articles on distinctions between dyophysitism, miaphysitism and relevant monophysitism, and on the Oriental (not to be confused with the dyophysite “Eastern”) Orthodox Church and its Syriac branch may ultimately leave uncertainty whether these isms are pointing to different _past_ understandings of Jesus, between the Chalcedonian and Oriental Orthodox Churches, that were something more than word-preference; different _present_ understandings of Jesus that are something more than word-preference; different _past_ understandings that were something more than word preference but at _present_ do not exist (and, in this case, what changed to what); and how does, or might have, the historic miaphysite-monophytism of the Syriac Oriental Church via Gabriel fit with what Joe described of a monophysite belief in Jesus, compatible with the Hebrew tradition, to which Omar converted (@c. 29:00): “…It’s compatible with the Hebrew tradition, this monophysite view…Light from Light ~ You know the angels are created from Light, the same substance we call God the Father, Ein Soph Or (אֵין סוֹף אוֹר), Infinite Light. So he’s of the same essence of the Father, if you like. So that’s compatible with Judaism, that there is this angelic messenger who is like Light…That is the correct view of the messiah in Judaism, as he is right now, until he comes as the son of David at the end of time…”
In another video, on his Red Judaism channel, Joe speaks some more about this “angelic messenger” (th-cam.com/video/gZmOyc5bzFU/w-d-xo.html&t; @c. 4:00): “…One of the limitations on this belief [that Jesus is the messiah] is that Jesus himself says, in the Gospel of Matthew [23:2], that the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’s seat, and he goes on to say in the following verse…‘So practise and observe everything they tell you, but do not do what they do, for they do not practise what they preach’…So, they tell us that there are no more prophets after the Sanhedrins closed down…and they also are telling us that Jesus is not the messiah, so how do we reconcile this? The Gospel is telling us to do as they say, and they say that these are not prophets and this is not the messiah. So how do we balance all of that? What do we do with all of that?…If we are regarding Jesus as just a man, just a prophet…we’ve got serious problems. Judaism doesn’t accept any more prophets of Judaism…The solution is to regard him as yet another visitation of that same messianic being which walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, which spoke to Noah, which came to Abraham as three visitors, which spoke to Moses from the burning bush and appeared as a column of fire, which appeared to Joshua as a soldier holding a sword, and to various others throughout the history of the prophets ~ and we can regard Jesus as just another occurrence of that same angel. Now, this is not possible to respond to in Judaism. You can say, ‘Well, that’s crazy, but if you think that that’s the case, who can stop you?’ Everybody knows that this is the messianic angel, the messianic messenger; and when he comes in the end-times the Sanhedrin will declare him to be the messiah. Everybody knows that he is going to be the messiah: he’s confirmed again and again throughout Jewish scripture as the messiah ~ Yeshua Sair haPanim, Metatron, many different names for him. We know…that he exists, we know that he is the messiah, we know that there’s no argument about it; and if you want to believe that (I don’t know) something you saw last night was that angel, then who can argue with you?…They can call you mad, they can call you crazy; but they can’t say that’s not the case and they can’t say that this is not the messiah, because if you’re saying ‘I’m not saying another person in _place_ of the Jewish messiah is the messiah. I am saying that the Jewish messiah, Yeshua Sair haPanim, Metatron, that angelic being, _is_ the messiah and I saw him in this place’, well, they can say ‘You’re crazy! I don’t believe you!’ but they can’t say that that’s not the messiah…There’s no trouble in regarding Jesus as a visitation from that same messianic being…So, there we have a place for Jesus inside of the Jewish tradition, and that is one which can’t be argued with; but if you were to regard Jesus as just a normal man who was a prophet, then you would have a problem because that can be argued with from Judaism…”
Some sources consider that the language and style of the fourth Gospel point to an author of Greek origin, perhaps John the Elder (Presbyter), who compiled and presented reminiscences of the “dear disciple” John, a Jewish priest (not John, son of Zebedee) who perhaps hosted the Passover supper and whose Judaic monotheism appears evident in the koine Greek of his “Revelation”. Whoever the writer, he seems familiar with the type of monophysite belief described by Joe… Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe Jesus to be God, and my copy of their New Testament scriptures with interlinear koine Greek has an interesting entry about the first verse of John’s Gospel. The koine Greek is: “ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”; ὁ λόγος is “the word”, τὸν θεόν is the accusative form of ὁ θεὸς “the god” (ie. θεὸς preceded by the definite article), and the second mention of θεὸς has no definite article (anarthrous construction). Greek language does not have an indefinite article, so there was no option for the Gospel writer to include one just to distinguish between ὁ θεὸς and θεὸς. The commentators remark that absence of the definite article before θεὸς in “θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος” does not identify the Word as one and the same as ὁ θεὸς (“the God”) but that, while the first construction of the noun (articular) in the verse points to a particular identity, an anarthrous construction signifies a certain quality (here, a quality of the Word or Logos); thus, they proffer, translation as “the Word was divine” is suitable but not “the Word was [the] God”. Their quite detailed article (I have included only a portion) goes on to say “John’s inspired writings and those of his fellow disciples show what the true idea is, namely, the Word or Logos is not God or _the_ God, but is the Son of God, and hence is _a_ god. The authors quote Dr A T Robertson, in his book on Greek New Testament grammar, that “Among the ancient writers ὁ θεὸς [ho theos] was used of the God of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods.” Thus, they say, “John 1:1, 2 uses ὁ θεὸς to distinguish Jehovah God from the Word (Logos) as a god, ‘the only begotten god’ as John 1:18 calls him.” In Jewish Qabalah and other Judaic sources, the Archangel Metatron (?Yahoel) is sometimes called “the lesser YHVH” (YHVH ha-katan, יהוה הַקָטָן) or “lesser Lord” (adonai ha-katan, אֲדֹנָי הַקָטָן) and “Prince of the Face” (Sair ha-Panim, שַׂר הַפָּנִים), but is under the authority of God and not inferred as ‘the God’. I think that modern translators of the New Testament have tended to follow the grammatic principle outlined above regarding articular and anarthrous constructions in translations for general Christian readership, though some readers tend to hark back to the KJV. Yet even with newer translations, I wonder how many modern Christians would infer a distinction between “divine” and “[the] God”. However, the writer of the fourth Gospel seems to be transmitting a perspective consistent with Judaism by which Omar could accept belief in Jesus as crucified lord.
Could Kayseri be Caesarea?
I heard this years ago.
A New who wanted to "start" a New religion.
Hè was the informant of Mohammed. Hè onze the Bible but made misstakes in the dialect.
According to Wikipedia, Cizre was founded in the early 9th century by some Arab ruler... Apparently not? What was the Greek name of the city? Wikipedia doesn't say anything about it.
Hi Xargxes, I mentioned in the video that I changed a few words to make it more easy to understand for the greater audience. Before the 9th century Czre was known as "Ad flumen Tigrim".
@@Bei-Abedan AND: "In 639 AD, the seat of the Syriac Orthodox Church was established in Cizre."
thekurdishproject.org/kurdistan-map/turkish-kurdistan/cizre/
Did the iconoclastic controversy coincide with the rise of Islam as competing ideologies?
According to the Standard Islamic Narrative (SIN), John of Damascus had a direct line to Muawiya, via his father, and Mauwiyah’s would have observed the entire history of Islam according to the SIN.
This is something I think is overlooked: analysis based upon the life of Mauwiyah. Mauwiyah’s life spans both the “traditional/standard Islamic narrative” as well as general history and some specific history - a tie, I think to John of Damascus.
Mauwiyah was born around 600. He would have been 12 when Mohammed started preaching, so would have witnessed it in his active memory. Mohammed’s preaching was hostile to the commercial interests of Mecca, because it attacked the idol worship which helped Meccan ties with the Bedouin tribes, whose territory Mecca’s caravans had to travel through, and whose wells they would have had need of access too. That created hostility between Mecca and Mohammed.
In his early 20s Mauwiyah would have observed the Muslim’s move to Medina/Yathribe. He would have witnessed the warfare that took place over the next 8 years. His family was on the opposing side of Mohammed then from 612 to 630, when they finally submitted according to the SIN. Mauwiyah was literate, and Abu Sufyan got him a job as a scribe to Mohammed, according to the SIN, rather remarkable after 18 years of hostility between Abu Sufyan and Mohammed.
Mauwiyah held leadership roles in the assault on Syria and Palestine. The Muslims were eventually successful and Mauwiyah had a role of Governor there. The Standard Received History now says that the Muslims got help from the Monophysite Christians who were persecuted for not being Orthodox which was the official Byzantine religion. Mauwiyah is said to have been married to a Monophysite christian. From a very early period in the conquest, Mauwiyah is said to have advocated to the Caliph that they construct a navy and take naval warfare to the Byzantines. The Standard Received History says that the Monophysites in Egypt helped the Muslims build this navy and they took it to the Byzantines, winning their first big battle in the Battle of the Masts.
Received history tells us that Mauwiyah as Caliph employed Syrian Christians in his administration, including the father of the Scholar John of Damascus - both John and his father were well educated scholars.
So, John would have had access to his father, John’s father would presumably have access to Mauwiya and the real narrative coming from Mauwiya who should have been a witness to the entire Islamic development.
That means whatever John of Damascus has written about the contemporary and recent events of his time has to have special significance. His father would have had access to information on that narrative that no one else had, and then could have passed at least some of it on to his son.
There are books about John of Damascus that Jay has suggested. I currently do not have the time or the money to get to those books. How they reconcile with what you are digging up could be very important in filling out the entire picture.
There are reasons to believe that some of the SIN has truth in it like all foundational stories. The Geography is the biggest avenue of doubt. Mecca & Medina were far from each other and far from the productive lands to the north, both remote and tiny. Perhaps the real Mecca and Medina were Petra and Jerusalem (or perhaps some other town).
Mohammed is said to have killed and beheaded 700 Jewish men in Medina. If the Muslims want to prove the SIN they could dig up the bones of the deceased underneath Medina, but I suspect that if the event did happen they are lying underneath some other city in the Middle East.
Again, Western Morocco and Andalusia Spain were never under the control of the Abbasids, and Umayyad Spain was strong and vigerous until past the year 1000, by which time the Abbasids were merely symbolic heads of Islam. There should be some literature left over from pre-1000ad Spain. If so, it should be informative. The best part of that, the Spanish don’t seem to have much of a stake in exposing whatever the truth might be.
It's difficult to accept that so many verses of violence against christians & jews, poligamy, slavery, discrimination, hatred & other barbaric & fool & damned ideas coming from a priest named Gabriel.
I prefer to theory of Luling & Luxenberg that SOME PARTS of quran belong to a kind of non trinitarian christian in the form of lexicon & poems. These verses had been around before the rise of saracen's movement . They were originally written in aramaic and later were transliterated into arabic in a hasty way that risk its original meaning.
While other parts are written in the mid of the movement of saracenes themselves during war to justify their bloodthirst aim. And in this very point Odon's theory works.
During the Abdul Malik these writings were collected regardless the origin causes & groups that made these verses come into existence.
The proto islam is not linear events from a single group of people, it came from so many groups.
Yes, the surahs contain very unchristian sentiments totally out of tune with the New Testament and christian belief, so it would be hard to imagine them as a collection of things given to Omar by a christian priest, unless the priest was in a very unorthodox and unbiblical sect of christianity; maybe such sects were present in the chaotic times of the 7C, but this Gabriel does not look like some backwoods kind of believer, if he got sainted by mainline Syrian churches.
I believe that the mistake that you are making is in thinking that the entire Quran was written down at one time by one person. Of. course that is the SIN, but the Quran contradicts itself so the SIN is not correct. Joe is only suggesting that some of the early Quranic verses were written by Gabriel, the priest, not the entire document, parts of which may have been written in the 700's, 800's, or possibly even the 900's.
I have built upon the Luxenberg/Luling/Von-Sivers perspective and now I can show every verse of the Quran can be explained from a Monophysite Messianic Hebrew perspective. It is not Orthodox Roman Christianity but it is Christian nevertheless.
The Quran underwent significant editing (both deletions and additions) after its initial form appeared.
ܡܪܝ ܓܒܪܐܝܠ - is the Syriac version of Lord/Mar - Gabriel/Gawriel
Check out mor Gabriel monastery still maintained by the Syrian Orthodox Church in Turkey Mardin
Gabriel of Beth Qustan en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_of_Beth_Qustan
Brillient.the jigsaw starts to come together.corroborated with the evidence and dates thks
23:00 discussion of the 'low church'. The only church organization in 2021 that I know of that has this is the Anglican Communion (worldwide). They have a division of accepted worship and structure with three forms, a high church (full catholic rites), broad church (less formal in attire but full liturgical use) and low church were the minister is addressed as Mr. rather than Padre, Father, Rev or Pastor as they are the descendance of the Puritans incorporated into the Church of England after Cromwell and the Republic. The low church is more like the Calvinist denominations in regard to worship style of hymns and sermons. Which may also have been the source population that the Methodist drew from in England and expanded in America, west of the Appalachian mountains. I know that the wooden gong has been used in the Balkans in the Orthodox National Church monasteries to this day and makes sense for the Mid East over the use of bronze bells which are more associated with the Greek and Russian Orthodox (Byzantines). When you tie in the Lectionaries you obtain a broader picture of the variations within the Christian population and need for church leadership especially when plagues and war periods were common in this era, reducing the population including reductions in clergy and means to train them properly.
The Acephali rejected bishops. The relevance to the story is that after Umar's conversion and assassination the other Messianic Hebrews opted for an Acephali type belief rather than join the emerging official Oriental Orthodox Orthodox Church.
@@Bei-Abedan “oriental” Orthodox Church is a modern courtesy title distinguishing the ancient eastern churches that share a non Chalcedonian cristology. Principally Ethiopian Egyptian Syrian and Armenian. They were not an emerging communion but were very long established apostolic communities. Armenians and Ethiopians rival for the title of being the oldest national churches tracing their history to the 1st century. The church across Syria/Persia was still governed from Antioch until the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 410. This was not so much to break communion with Antioch as to give the church of the east a separate identity in Persia that did not make reference to Rome/Byzantium as the Persian king yazdegard viewed the Christians as a fifth column of an enemy superpower. They were in no sense “low church” but continued with the same “Catholic” creeds, canon and sacraments. They believed that Christ was present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist
I'm not talking about what we can now refer to as the official Oriental Orthodox communion which was established in the 7th century. I am talking about the Monophysite Acephali like the Severian Paul.
@@Bei-Abedan the Monophysite churches take great pride in their apostolic inheritances. They are by no means “headless” and never have been. “Autocephalous” (self governing) perhaps but with apostolic pedigrees.you are coming up with some very contrived sweeping ideas
@@Basaljet You know how Muslims think they don't need to try and understand Christians of Jews because they trust blindly everything that they have been told about us from their teachers and official Islamic sources? That's what you are doing right now against Monophysites. You need to inform yourself about Acephali Monophysites because you are severely lacking in understanding in this regard and are only looking at the matter from within your own dogmatic world view. Having Presbyters and Bishops is not the same as having an official Church hierarchy. Acephali Monophysites preserved an apostolic succession but it was without any authorities higher than local bishops under their own authority either in-communion or out of communion with the next bishop. I know it might seem agree with the Roman Church's propaganda against protestants but Protestants have always existed.
I am sorry you can not see this.
Jay needed to stop this monologue & give us recaps in stages. Listening to the whole thing at once made me go to sleep
What does the Red Judaism logo mean? Does it spell a word? Thanks
It is a reference to God the Father and the Temple of His Spirit in my sect of Judaism.
Edumian Judaism.. Successors of Esau, brother of Jacob..Esau was supposed to be red.
I think the red logo is the symbol of Rothschild family. Their symbol was the red star. The star has nothing to do with Israelites or David. It’s merely that Rothschild banking family that dominates all jews and insisted that its star be on the Israeli flag so that you know who controls them. So I think the star here is this guys way of showing alliegence to the Rothschilds, who by the way are zionists.
@@BreakFix Don't Hate Judaism.
@@Bei-Abedan much of these people are effected by Sabbatai Levi and Frankest groups that have given Judaism as a whole a bad name. Similar to the crimson stain Nazism and the KKK have given Protestant Christianity by their actions and statements. When the silver trumpet sounds again from the walls of the 3rd Temple and the Son of David sits on his throne in the Temple precinct all those who are kin by adoption or linage (some are both:) to Him will bend their knees and together use their tongues to Praise the Most High.
Well done!
Joe's theory is both plausible and shocking at the same time!
Has anyone investigated caves near Al-Hirah/al-Ḥīra? (located southwest of Kufa, Najaf, Najaf Governorate, Iraq)
*I am not sure how Petra, Damascus and Al-Hirah connect* ???
[Damascus: capital of the Umayyad Caliphate (661-744) Harran (in modern Turkey) was the capital of the
Umayyad Caliphate (744-750) before the 750 CE Abbasid Revolution]
Also, possibly in the mix as a predecessor, was the Emesa Kingdom (capital located in Homs, Syria) *whose*
*king/high priest performed oblation to a black stone* [1] This dynasty existed long before Mohammad. One of
the king/priests of this dynasty became a Roman emperor (Elagabalus r. 218--222 CE) who took this black stone
to Rome (What happened to the black stone, after the fall of Elagabalus has not been recorded) Elagabalus's
grandfather (Roman name: Julius Bassianus) was "from Arabia" and was also a priest of Ilāh gabal (i.e.
a mountain and sun god wroshiped in Emesa as well as in other places and represented by a black stone)
However the worshiping of a black stone in what is now Syria is a reminder of how old the belief in a god being
represented by a black stone was common in Arab lands; in particular around the area of modern Jordan/Syria
and perhaps as far east and north of the border of Iranic/Persian kingdoms (i.e. Parthian and Sasanian Empires)
_________________________________________________
1.) *Emesene dynasty.*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emesene_dynasty
"" The Emesene (or Emesan) dynasty, also called the Sampsigeramids or the Sampsigerami or the House of
Sampsigeramus (Arabic: آل شمسيغرام, romanized: ʾĀl Šamsīġirām),were a Roman client dynasty of Syrian priest-kings
known to have ruled by 46 BC from Arethusa and later from Emesa, Syria, until between 72 and 78/79, or at the
latest the reign of Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161). Iamblichus, the famous Neoplatonist philosopher of the third
century, was one of their descendants, as was empress Julia Domna, matriarch of the Severan dynasty."" -- Wikipedia
Arethusa -- Arethusa, ancient name of Al-Rastan, Syria (other places also had/have this name)
Emesa -- ancient name of Homs, Syria
Julia Domna -- Roman empress from 193 to 211CE. She was the first empress of the Severan dynasty[2]
2.) *Severan dynasty* (r. 193 -- 235 CE)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severan_dynasty
Septimius Severus (founder of the dynasty) fought against the Persians (Parthians) and secured the city of
Palmyra, Syria [where he built a triumphal arch marking his victory over the Parthians (Persians) This arch
was destroyed by ISIS, along with other architecture in Palmyra in 2015)[3]
3.) " *Isis’s destruction of Palmyra: ‘The heart has been ripped out of the city'.* "
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/isis-destruction-of-palmyra-syria-heart-been-ripped-out-of-the-city
There are still Syriacs living in Tur abdin, although the majority lives nowadays in Europe, America and Australia.
You are forgetting something important: there were Arabs living around the regions of modern Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Iran. Yet, they were following Eastern Christianity sect. So, someone called Omar in 647 with the cross sign on the coin should not be surprising because İslam was yet to be created by Abbasids a century later.
Dr. Jay, just to ask if there is an echo of Warraka bn Nufa of the SIN in the work of Joel?
It probably refers to some kind of Adoptionist related to Hani ibn Qabisa but it is very difficult to know if this is just from some other Arabian legend that was later included into the narrative by the Abbasids.
Very interest study......