Keep fighting the good fight. Your work deserves to remain as living, evolving project, one that should, in my opinion, which should continue grow richer and more insightful over time. I've taken a similar approach with my own notes and found it invaluable. The complexity and multitude of issues within this religion often risk being overshadowed by various things or forgotten among the pile so to speak. By continually adding and refining, we can ensure these matters remain clear, accessible, and at the forefront of a meaningful discussion, and most importantly keep people informed.
Light is an Infinitive straight line like the number |. Magnetism is a repeating curved line like the number 0. The cross is a sacrificed piece of the straight light crossing over itself creating higher dimension.(geometry) (Antichrist) The circle is reincarnation with no eternal difection with light. (Insestual self consuming pleasure and pain) (the snake eating its tail)
You cannot pick out the verses without their context. The Prophet's message was gradually revealed, taking 23 years. Many verses are context-based and require historical context for full understanding. Second, the Quran is a miracle; God challenges mankind to create something like it, something yet to happen, which is living proof of Islam's validity. I ask you to debate true Muslims knowledgeable about Muslim theology, scriptures, and Muhammad's message. I am sure they can answer all your questions and doubts about this beautiful religion. And please do not insult any prophet or religion again using derogatory terms.
Muhammad was a warmongering pedophile and a false prophet. He's burning in hell. He has absolutely nothing on Christ. Muhammad is going to lead you straight into hell my friend.
Which part did it make your faith “strengthen”? Otherwise you’re just suppressing the truth which is no surprise. God saw you coming 2k years ago through Saint Paul when he wrote Romans 1:18-23. Being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: "And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church" -Homily 17 Section XIX On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.” -Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5 None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself. Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted [James 1:13) God cannot be tempted (John 1:29) Jesus was seen (1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God (Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man (Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn (Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died (1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die (Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation (Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation (Mark 4:38) Jesus slept (Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep (John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful (Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful (Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing (Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing Older one is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3). 2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain. It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two small tribes, and the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings. How can one believe that the One that decrees that which is a 'sin' and that which is good "die for their sins" ? He is the One who decreed it thus, can decree it not so. To whom does the One with whom final authority resides in sacrifice for? a registrar? - No. None are greater than He. Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1 God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@ikk_ikk 1×1×1 = 1. You cannot add mind, body and spirit and make them 3 because they are all equal to 1. This is why Abdools like you should never ever talk about other beliefs because you have goat for brains like your false prophet. You are not worthy to even mention the name of our God.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: "And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church" -Homily 17 Section XIX On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.” -Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5 None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself. Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted [James 1:13) God cannot be tempted (John 1:29) Jesus was seen (1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God (Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man (Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn (Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died (1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die (Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation (Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation (Mark 4:38) Jesus slept (Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep (John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful (Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful (Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing (Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing Older one is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3). 2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain. It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two small tribes, and the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings. How can one believe that the One that decrees that which is a 'sin' and that which is good "die for their sins" ? He is the One who decreed it thus, can decree it not so. To whom does the One with whom final authority resides in sacrifice for? a registrar? - No. None are greater than He. Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1 God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
lol, because people of the Gospel and the Torah aren’t called Christian and Jews in the Quran. They are called believers or people of the book. Christian’s and Jews are sects that derived from the religion of submission that started from Abraham, and God does not like sects. You fail to even analyze the text properly and rush to conclusions. Furthermore your tone of arrogance while being completely wrong about what the book actually says, shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Of course you go to secondary sources to denounce the whole religion at the end because if you actually analyze the primary text Muhammed is only mentioned 4 times. The Quran isn’t a book about history but a book of how to submit to God as Abraham did, which the Christians and the Jews have corrupted. People who believe in the Gospel and The Torah are not Christian and Jews once again from the Qurans perspective. But yes keep making claims which to have no knowledge of off the stories of human beings instead of the actual revelation. 👍
Aha, so you see I actually read the hadeeth there is no mention of demon in 1:52, He was just sort of scared and anxious upon experiencing a super natural experience but there was absoloute no mention of demon within his first experience and even when he returned to his wife he never said that, i know your a christian and your going to be biased either ways I would just appreciate a bit more honesty, misleading your growing audience is what apologists do, I dont think you are one.
What's up w/ muhammad simping over trees, telling his followers it's acceptable to procreate w/ your 1st cousin (not working out well for Pakistan), and his weird relationship w/ Aisha? Sounds like a doof lord, amirite? LOL
It's weird that at my phase of finding religion, I feel like Islam is calling me when I lean toward Orthodox, and Orthodox is calling me when I lean toward Islam. So I remain non-religious Not like I really can live up to the standard of both though
how are you leaning towards a religion that is based on some guy telling stories supposedly given to him by an angel? honest question, what about it interests you in particular?
Pray to the one to whom he prayed to; The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha" too sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@ranro7371 what you write is highly interesting. assuming the qur an comes from god, how do you explain the mismatch between: - old biblical prophecies that are fulfilled in jesus - jesus being the son of god, effectively god himself - mohamed saying jesus was "just some cool guy" - only the qur an is to be followed, yet people wrote hadiths which are basically just opinions, but which somehow are also to be followed
"Jesus" did not intend to establish a new religion. Soon after "Jesus" had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he " gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere. The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.", "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." This charge, as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions. Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation. The subjects to which the most space or most prominence is given in the sayings attributed, in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission. In the opening chapters of Acts we find two addresses by Peter, one delivered to the disciples when an apostle to succeed Judas Iscariot was to be chosen, and the other to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. On neither occasion did the speaker mention a new religion, or a church open to Gentiles as well as to Jews, or an abandonment of the Mosaic law. If these ideas had been in his mind at that time, he could not have omitted some reference to them. That the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem continue for at least eighteen years to comply with the requirements of the Mosaic law is proved by the epistle of Paul and also by Acts. In the latter book we read that at time not specified, probably not earlier than 40 C.E Peter went to Joppa and there ate with Gentiles-^that i he violated the Pharisaic interpretation of one of the Mosaic ceremonial rules-and after his return to Jesus; then, he was called to account by his fellow disciple He justified his conduct, not on the ground that Jesus had abrogated the ceremonial law of Moses, or any part of it, but that in a dream he had received a divine communication telling him that all manner of beasts, fowls, an creeping things were clean, and that it was lawful for him to keep company with Gentiles, who were " unclean under the law of Moses. This announcement was accepted as authoritative, but with much surprise, " becaus that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."' This statement of the revelation to Peter, and of it acceptance by the disciples in Jerusalem, is doubtless a invention of the author of Acts. It cannot be brought into harmony with later passages of his own book, nor with the statements of Paul, who is our only trustworth; witness in these matters. According to Acts, about 51 C. E. a council was held in Jerusalem to put an end to the dissension which had arisen in the church on the questions of circumcision and unclean meats. This council decided in favor of Paul, who was in attendance and the decision as given in a letter addressed not to all Christians but only to " the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia"-where Paul had been making converts, informing them that they were not required to observe the Mosaic ceremonial law. It is quite clear that no such council would have been held if the matter had been decided ten years before, as Acts says it had been. But this account of the council of 51 C. E. is also a fiction. About eight years later Paul went to Jerusalem again, and his appearance there provoked a riot. The mob wanted to kill him because of his hostility to the Mosaic law, and this mob included Jewish Christians as well as Jews. All the Christians in Jerusalem were zealous adherents of the Mosaic law. Some of the leading brethren, presumably apostles, advised Paul to take a false oath that he did not teach his Jewish converts to neglect the law. And, if we can believe Acts, he took that oath. This, however, did not pacify the mob, which would have put him to death if the Roman soldiers had not protected him. They took him to prison and finally to Rome. This story in Acts implies that the apostolic church adopted one rule of discipline for the Gentile and another for the Jewish Christians; that the latter were, and that the former were not, required to comply with the Mosaic ceremonial law. This duplicity of discipline is not recorded elsewhere. It is not known to Paul ; and if it had existed, he could neither have been ignorant of it nor remained silent about it. He tells us that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem, or those of them known to him, favored strict adherence to Moses; and the only way in which he could get along harmoniously with them was by promising to do no missionary work in Judea. He was to labor among the Gentiles, The subjects to which the most space or most prominence is given in the sayings attributed, in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission. There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. Distinguished saints and learned fathers of the faith openly commended the invention and acceptance of false- hoods designed to aid the conversion of the world to what they believed to be truth. Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1 God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
To give some context for 9:43, the justification of and for war is in quran 22:39 ''Permission ˹to fight back˺ is ˹hereby˺ granted to those being fought, for they have been wronged.1 And Allah is truly Most Capable of helping them ˹prevail˺.'' therefore this refers not to a offensive war but a rather defensive and defensive doesent always mean as in they attacked you, they could've attacked your trade vessels, killed your diplomat or kidnapped some of your people, etc. Also it says submission but not to humuliate them. When you give taxes to the IRS you are in a position of submission, since you are not giving them willingly no they are in the position of dominance and you are in submission. The Jizya tax also pays for defense, infrastructure and more but especially defense since the Jews and christians are exempt from military service which is rather mandatory for the muslims who btw pay a mandatory fixed tax of 2.5% which if they dont pay would face the same consequences as a christian who doesent pay since you know tax fraud is tax fraud. however for Christians regarding military service yes they are exempt however they could serve as say militias or volunteer groups or could aid the muslim army in different ways like logistics and more. also the Jizya is kinda sexist towards men since its accepted by scholars that only matured (adult) financially stable and healthy men have to pay jizya. This exempts women, children, elderly, sick and the poor. Checkmate feminists lmao. but in all seriousness Islam is patriarchal and it would apply its notion within a Islamic state not just to muslims but to non muslims as well in the sense where the matured christian man will always be recognized as the head of the household and the decision maker even when he lives in a Islamic society, thats why arab and other eastern christians are more patriarchal compared to you westerners, I as a Arab Muslim generally saw little to no distinciton between me and arab christians outside of religion, its almost as if culture is really important within regards to how people live or manage their lifes.
Muslims have never been oppressed at any time in human history, so this myth of “defensive war” is just a distraction. Walk around the The Pagan Built and owned Kaaba like everyone else and say your worthless prayers. If you can’t accept equality and instead want privilege you’re not being persecuted
@@Greensanctuary-c4wIf you study about Prophet Muhammads PBUH conquest against the Pagans it is very clear that the pagans were a oppressive and God hating people. Not only did they not follow God, they also routinely tortured and killed peaceful people and raped women. Their war against oppression was defensive. Today we see examples in 80’s Afghanistan, modern Gaza, Algeria, Chechnya, Bosnia, and many other region. The list goes on.
Hello. Peace be upon you, friend. I am a Muslim. I am also an American, and a veteran. I’m afraid that you have an incredibly elementary argument against Islam. It wouldn’t hold weight in a debate with real Islamic scholars. I would highly recommend speaking with an actual Islamic scholar. As Muslims, we adore Christians. And Jews. Both are referred to as “people of the book”. I wish the best for you.
I see. Do any of these Islamic scholars know how to refute the Islamic dilemma? If so, direct me to where they have done so. Note: There are multiple, but the one I am speaking of is the one most popular currently and used in debates between Christians and Muslims.
Weird, because your book calls for non-Muslims to convert or die (how loving!) and that your "brothers" are to be taxed as 2nd class citizens (how caring!).
This is a good example of a disingenuous video devoid of objectivity, rather going at it from an Christian apologist perspective, going on to not explaining the basic tenets/fundamentals of Islam even though it's titled "Everything you need to know about Islam" but the differences between Christianity and Islam. Good luck retaining the actual Christians and individuals who want to learn the truth. Sad reality of modern Christian apologetics.
False prophet Momo(police be upon him) allowed slavery and selling of female war captives 600 years later after Jesus Christ abolished it. Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah 2517
You need to spend more time on the evidence for the Cricifixion. This video's treatment of the topic is essentially an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
@@locomotive9000 I’ve covered that in other videos, that’s not primary the topic at hand. And appealing to sources isn’t an appeal to authority, otherwise no one would be able to make an evidentiary argument.
@untoages You didn't appeal to specific sources in this video, nor did you mention your other video. I'm not trying to be combative or even disagree with your premise. Just some constructive criticism.
@@locomotive9000 Gotcha, forgive my misunderstanding. This is part of a broader series, I address the resurrection more specifically here: th-cam.com/video/OLaitVhJmNQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9VzM0hzq2vSji99C
quran 9:30 ''The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded ˹from the truth˺?'' at least quote the whole thing lmao/
5:29 since you have not done proper research on the life of Muhammad PBUH you would most likely come to the conclusion that the prophet was around Christian’s and he plagiarized parts of Christianity to “invent” Islam but I’d like to point out that he PBUH was born in Mecca Arabia where at the time the Quraysh people who he was from amongst were worshipping hundreds of idols and Muhammad PBUH after receiving revelation from Jibreel AS was the one who began preaching monotheism to the point that he was persecuted and had to migrate and leave Mecca for Medinah where Islam began to take root and really grow.
Very weirdly. The U.K Government has managed to con its citizens that Muslims entering the U.K from France are Asylum Seekers . Whilst making its citizens pay for them to have a bill free life style in Hotels
@@untoagesreminds me of how he appeared to St Peter the first Athonite and tried to advise him against the command that the Theotokos and his patron Saint had given him
Its not a matter of believing or not, any Bible reader who reads those passages can tell right away that entity is no "Angel". Any time a Biblical Angel appears to anyone they insist on calming any present mortals by telling them not to be afraid. This encounter was nothing like that. This was a demon.
Christendom was always the empirial religion, born under the auspices of constantine, the subjects were converted at the edge of the sword and rendered into slaves for his majesty, often referring to him as their lord. In Islam such slavery is unthinkable. The only lordship is that of the creator, no station into which man was brought into the lands of Islam was to any degree as bad as the repugnant chattel slavery brought by the primitive tribalism inherent in their texts. Constantine chose regularly to refer to himself as the “servant of God” (famulus dei/therapon tou theou) in official writings. By the fifth century, this metaphor of subordination had been redeployed from theological to political contexts as the subjects of the emperor came to refer to themselves as “slaves of the emperor.” And by the sixth, Justinian insisted all his officials swear an oath that they would demonstrate their service to the emperor “with genuine slavehood” (gnesia douleia).b Building on Paul’s revalorization of the vocabulary of slavery, and particularly the word doulos came to be applied to a variety of hierarchical relationships, even as it also continued to be used specifically of chattel slaves. By the middle Byzantine period, this expansion of the semantic range of the root doul- eventually gave the abstract nominal form douleia, meaning laborer Insofar as everyone who partook in labor was considered to be a participant This epistemological world view is coherent with master-slave dynamic relationship between the head of the state and his subjects, or rather slaves. The word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” -Psalm 137:9 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”-1 Samuel 15:3 “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”-Hosea 13:16 The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers: “in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.” Another account by a chronicler and eyewitness-priest, Albert of Aachen, describes the killing of fleeing women, and depicts crusaders as:: “seizing [infants who were still suckling] by the soles of their feet from their mothers’ laps or their cradles…and dashing them against the walls or lintels of the doors and breaking their necks […] they were sparing absolutely no gentile of any age or kind.”The incoherence inherent in a stranger to Abraham calling the children of Abraham gentiles notwithstanding, this account evokes the very same Psalm 137:9 imprecation against Babylon, in Latin, “beatus qui tenebit et adlidet parvulos tuos ad petram.” Albert describes a massacre occurring, in cold blood, on the second day following the conquest, painting a scene that is as horrific as it is realistic and detailed: "Girls, women, matrons, tormented by fear of imminent death and horror-struck by the violent murder wrapped themselves around the Christians’ bodies in the hope to save their lives, even as the Christians were raving and venting their rage in murder of both sexes. Some threw themselves at their feet, begging them with pitiable weeping and wailing for their lives and safety. When children five or three years old saw the cruel fate of their mothers and fathers, of one accord they stepped up the weeping and pitiable clamour. But they were making these signals for pity and mercy in vain. For the Christians gave over their whole hearts to murder, so that not a suckling little male-child or female, not even an infant of one year would escape the hand of the murderer". Evoking several of these verses in practice: - (Num 31:17-18) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. - (Deut 7:2, 9:3, Num 21) thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them... - (Ezek 9:6) Slay utterly old [and] young both maids and little children and women: but come not near any man upon whom [is] mark begin at my sanctuary. This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished. This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah): "includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit." This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said: "Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal, commit treachery, mutilate, or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship." It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children." بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دعوة "To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause" -Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya More hadith from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah: حَدَّثَنَا حُمَيْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ شَيْخٍ، مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَوْلَى لِبَنِي عَبْدِ الْأَشْهَلِ، عَنْ دَاوُدَ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ إِذَا بَعَثَ جُيُوشَهُ قَالَ: «§لَا تَقْتُلُوا أَصْحَابَ الصَّوَامِعِ» "Do not kill the dwellers of monasteries" حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، عَنْ جُوَيْبِرٍ، عَنِ الضَّحَّاكِ قَالَ: كَانَ «§يُنْهَى عَنْ قَتْلِ الْمَرْأَةِ، وَالشَّيْخِ الْكَبِيرِ» سَعْدٍ قَالَ: «§نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنْ قَتْلِ النِّسَاءِ وَالذُّرِّيَّةِ، وَالشَّيْخِ الْكَبِيرِ الَّذِي لَا حَرَاكَ بِهِ» "The prophet forbids the killing of women, children, and the elderly" This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Anfal Ayah 61 in which even oath breaking deniers/unbelievers are allowed to sue for peace states if the unbelievers they ask for peace, give it to them. Stephen Langton, the writer of the Magna Carta (12th century, contemporary with the crusades for a reason) studied in the university of Paris which archives show had plenty of Arabic treatises in its procession, there can be no question about it being inspired by the "Sharia". both the renessiance and the european enlightenment were directly preceded by massive translation movements form Arabic (see the Republic of Letters by Alexander Bevilacqua, The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization By: Jonathan Lyons. The modifiable testament testament commands indiscriminate killing, genocide, plunder, mutilation, enslavement, or torture of enemies, including women, on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
There are so many things wrong with your statement. We will start with this; First off, Catholicism has never been imposed on anyone by the sword. That is done by Islam. Islam to be frank, is a heretical version of Christianity. Once you can get past your emotional response to that statement and look at what’s truly there, you will see it.
False prophet Momo(police be upon him) allowed slavery and selling of female war captives 600 years later after Jesus Christ abolished it. Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah 2517
You see contradiction because you are analyzing the text wrong. You are going in with presuppositions based off Christian and Jewish worldview, and believe that people of the Gospel and Torah are equal while in fact they aren’t. You need to reanalyze the text and pay attention to the words being used.
@@OpasgegenLinks I literally said that People of the Gospel, and People of the Torah are different than a Christian or a Jew what don’t you understand? Linguistically in the text, the terms are not synonymous? They aren’t the same groups of people. You are making the assumption that the text and the group of people is synonymous, because they follow part of the text.
The story from a gospel of Thomas is maybe included since it depicts Jesus doing miracles as a child and before his baptism, none of which we can read about in the canonical gospels. By doing so, they would take away from the importance of baptism. Just a thought.
The Oriental church unlike the Eastern Orthodox believes that god only has one nature fully divine fully human and oriental Orthodox accuse eastern Orthodox of following Nestorius without them knowing it.
This is a giggle for etymologists; Oriental means East 😂 its like a Monty Python skit. I'm in the Peoples Front of Judea! Not the Judean Peoples Front!
The Oriental Orthodox view is a composite Christ of human/Divine natures called miaphysitism. From the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy this would make Christ a chimera neither human nor Divine incompatable with offerring us complete salavation or Theosis. They further do not believe in the essence/energy distrinction which is the Theological lynchpin of Hesychism and therefore do not have an Orthodox conceptualization of Theosis which heavily depends on Chalcedron Christology. I mention these additions for those who argue we actually believe the same thing to emphasize the Theological significance of correct Christology. I do like the Oriental Orthodox as a people especially considering what type of persecutive environment they exist under and there use of Syriac which is similar to Hebrew. These fundamental Theololgical issues are why we can't share the same Eucharist even though they have a similar liturgical form of worship as Eastern Orthodox.
This thread is laughable and highlights how no amount of mental gymnastics by latter day sophists will change the fact that Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: "And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church" -Homily 17 Section XIX On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.” -Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5 None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself. Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted [James 1:13) God cannot be tempted (John 1:29) Jesus was seen (1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God (Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man (Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn (Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died (1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die (Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation (Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation (Mark 4:38) Jesus slept (Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep (John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful (Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful (Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing (Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing Older one is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3). 2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain. It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two small tribes, and the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings. How can one believe that the One that decrees that which is a 'sin' and that which is good "die for their sins" ? He is the One who decreed it thus, can decree it not so. To whom does the One with whom final authority resides in sacrifice for? a registrar? - No. None are greater than He. Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1 God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Explain why the devil will appear to say worship only one God. Believe and respect all the prophets from beginning til end (abraham, joseph moses jesus and all in between )Don’t drink alcohol, don’t do adultery etc. Please explain is love to hear your thoughts
This video is 🚮 you have done only shallow research on the subject matter…you have only regurgitated the same arguments made against Islam over the last 1400 years but yet Islam has grown to 2 billion followers despite haters like you attempting to discredit Islam as well as the prophet PBUH
Maybe the growing followership is not the case because of how great the religion is but because of how the followers conquer everything they see and murder everyone who disagrees with them.
False prophet Momo(police be upon him) allowed sl@very and selling of female war captives 600 years later after Jesus Christ abolished it. Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah 2517
When Moses PBUH is first addressed by God “the burning bush” story Moses PBUH is petrified and attempts to run away until God calms him…should we discredit Moses or say that there are red flags in this story?
It does, MANY times. To the outsider looking in, it's so obvious of Muhammad attempting to ride on the coat tails of the Bible, despite not being able to read them he must "affirm the prior revelation"
There's no evidence Aisha was that young. In fact, Shia Hadiths claim she was 17-19. Even according to Sunni Hadiths there are multiple contradictions in regards to her age. One Hadith claims she was 9. Another one that she was already engaged a few years back and that she carried water and treated the soldiers in the battle of Uhud, where not even underage boys were allowed. Even historians claim she was between 12-19. The bs hadith some Sunnis use to justify their local tradition of child marriage was narrated 150-200 years after the Prophet's death IN IRAQ. There's no way these people knew shit about Aisha's age, when there was no mention of it before and such an accusation was never used by Muhammad's ﷺ enemies against him. Besides that, the Quran forbids Muslims to follow written hadiths and claims to be the only reliable one. It is literally Haram to extend the Quran's teachings by adding stuff to it. You people cannot attack Islam by addressing its Holy Hook and have to resort to sectarian bs hadiths.
Because Muslims follow the hadith. Are you Quraniyoon? If so you are a vanishingly small minority within Islam, and most Muslims of both the Sunni and Shia persuasion consider you to not just be a heretic, but a kaffir. So if 99.99% of Muslims follow the hadith, Shia included with their Al-Kafi narrations, why shouldn't Christian apologists also apply the hadith as a tool to critique Islam? Of course I agree with you in theory, and it's hard to deny the damage hadith have done to Islam both on the ground and in the realm of public opinion, but the fact remains that the hadith are a major part of the Islamic tradition, and so it's fair to use them as evidence. I live in an area where you can buy a copy of Sahih Al-Bukhari at a grocery store. These texts are deeply ingrained in the Muslim psyche and culture.
@@glumbumble The term "Quraniyoon" is often used to disparage people who follow the quran alone in theology and practice among the majority of muslim sectarians. It is a very useful tool for critique I will say however I believe it propagates lies about the Prophet and our understanding of the Quran.
Well if you are a Quranist you have too many things which have no explanation. If you don't think so, debating Sam can prove this point. I guess one I see used very often would be "how often do you pray?"
@@AVAGA14 I apologize if I used a term that was hurtful to you. I will say "Quranist" from now on. I was not aware that it is considered harsh language.
The Holy Qur'an is not read in the same way that the Bible is, therefore cannot be interpreted the same way. There are 20+ prophets listed in The Holy Qur'an, so cherry picking Jesus (SWT) out is pretty lame. The Holy Qur'an should be compared to The 10 Commandments, not the Bible. The Hadith are the actions of life of the Prophet Mohammad (SWT).
Your videos are fantastic and I really enjoy the content & I appreciate all you do to put them together. But I find the skulls and the intro song to make me feel scared to listen. Maybe it’s your unique style and I can appreciate that, but I wanted to give the feedback. Please do not take it the wrong way. Sincerely, an Orthodox woman. God bless. ☦️ PS Keep up the good work.
Views of his death are even wilder than what you propose in some sense. Many Shia believe that Muhammad was poisoned by a conspiring Aisha and Hafsa (another wife of Muhammad).
Hadith are many different sources from many different interviews from people years after Muhammad ☪️ died. Aishas' actual age is unknown. Majority of sources from hadith say she was 16.
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha" too sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
All this said, Christian scholars fail to address the elephant in the room. The loss of 3 of the 4 Christian centers, Juresalem, Antioch and Constantinople to Islam. If this isn't God's punishment, I don't know what it is. And we have to understand why.
By that logic, it’s the Muslims who constantly get punished by natural disasters after conquering those cities. There is no Constantinopel anymore. It‘s a concrete city. The Hagia Sophia is one of the few structures which survived all these centuries. Wondering why? It’s a church.
@@Ahki_Omar An Angel calling itself Gabriel choked out Mohammad to recite the Quran. Or Jibril in Islam. Which I think is a better name for this entity.
Video supido e ignorante, perché affatto disinformato e poco documentato, solo la solita litania di letture di piccoli passi decontestualizzati e malamente interpretati, soprattutto, mai comparati con il vecchio testamento. 😂😂😂
False prophet Momo(police be upon him) allowed slavery and selling of female war captives 600 years later after Jesus Christ abolished it. Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah 2517
Islam is likely the continuation of the ebionite heresy. Ebionites respected Jesus as a prophet but denied His Divinity. Many of the critiques of early Church Fathers critique of Ebionitism translate well as critiques of Islam.
It is mutilation of several religions from Paganism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism and some Christian elements. Also they replace Jesus with OC named "Isa" who is a failure and coward like MoMo is. They only use Jesus for dawah purpose only.
@ You’re completely right and I detest muslims more for different reasons(especially when it comes to them playing the “we believe in Jesus too!” Card, But then they make him a completely pointless character who supposedly got people to follow the “corrupted religion”) but all you Abrahamic losers stole from the more creative Pagans, then you spent your first centuries arguing what % divine/human Jesus was
No there’s differences. I believe the ebionites confirmed the resurrection of Jesus and his crucifixion which followers of Muhammads Ummah Deny. Also you have to add Islam is submission to god. If they submit to the one true god, one could argue that those Ebionites were actually Muslim.
@@abdoulaye9543 My point was that Ebionites(there being multiple Ebionite sects)were an influence in the formation of Islam as this did exist in ME at time of Mohammed with other sects such as Arians. Gnostisn existed to but aside from de-emphasizing material world do not see much crossover as they tended to be more mystical and thought material world was created by a Satan. I would say Christianity is Submission to God but not just externally but inwardly. The Orthodox answer to what must one do to be saved is to crucify oneself? This is different than revisionists who say by faith alonex For Orthodox, love and faith allow us to be crucified with him and following His example we are also resurrected. Christianity Mystology has always been radical in this regard which can be seen from the procession of Saints throughout this generation who explain through their lives what this means and educate us on how to pray unceasingly. Including the Desert Fathers whose philosophy was distilled into Eastern Orthodoxy through the Philokalia.
You think that if god replaced jesus to make it seem like he died on the cross. You would know? You think you would see through god 2000 years later? Perhaps you are arrogant and overestimate yourself.
Somebody tell me where to find the; their truth shall be known by their fruits(paraphrased, forgive me I'm new to this) this concept has been burning in my mind lately.
One of the biggest obstacles for me to get over in trying to understand Christianity is the snarky clapping at legitimately valid arguments. If you were born in China, you would be Buddhist. And that’s significant whether you like it or not
@@bilbusbungledore7222 But it's a minority, China still mostly consists of Eastern religions and philosophies like Buddhism, Confucianism, and Chinese folk religions(paganism).
if you really want to understand Christianity talk to a priest, whether Catholic or Orthodox they will be happy to have a discussion with you. TH-cam/internet guys in general have a tendency to be out of touch with reality.
Bro I listened to your thing on Judaism knowing nothing about it so the video seemed ok but Islam I know about and your take is hilariously mid-wit at best. You’re essentially reviewing a sega version of a game up against the same game on Nintendo and pc and arguing your version on sega is the bestest most truest one and the others are bogus. That’s how silly your position is. In reality all three are fairy tales, to me anyways, and arguing which one is the bestest is for children.
Overall a good video, although there is one mistake. The quran itself doesn't claim that the torah and Gospel were corrupted. It in fact repeatedly affirms their inspiration, preservation and authority. One of the verses you even mentioned; "let the people of the Gospel judge by what allah has revealed therein.". There's also many more passages to the same tune. In fact, allah reassures the prophet by telling him that if he ever has doubt je should consult the people of the book and they'll confirm his message. If the previous scriptures were corrupted in the view of the quran, why would allah give such advice? The people of the book wouldn't be able to help even if they wanted to if their scriptures were corrupted. There's also many hadiths where the prophet confirms them. In one of them, he puts his hand on a physical copy of the torah and says "I believe in thee and he who revealed you". Not even early islamic scholars understood that the quran teaches corruption of previous scripture. The fact of the matter is, it was a later idea developed by them after they had become aware of the contents of the bible, as a way of reconciling the dilemma that the quran contradicts books that it simultaneously affirms. God bless.
Im a former Muslim that converted to Mormonism so im still hated by most Christians anyway but it dont bother me. Anyway, I enjoyed your video on Islam. While for Sunnis, Aisha was a beloved figure in Islam, the fact she was so young always bothered me and Muhammad was well skilled in animal husbandry and would have known being with a child would have been very dangerous for her. Plus the argument that it was another time falls flat because child marriage was outlawed in the nearby Byzantine empire. I dont hate islam by any stretch and i get way more annoyed by protestants than any other group but its good to understand your rivals i suppose Great video!
There's no evidence Aisha was that young. In fact, Shia Hadiths claim she was 17-19. Even according to Sunni Hadiths there are multiple contradictions in regards to her age. One Hadith claims she was 9. Another one she was already engaged a few years back and that she carried water and treated the soldiers in the battle of Uhud, where not even underage boys were allowed. Even historians claim she was between 12-19. The bs hadith some Sunnis use to justify their local tradition of child marriage was narrated 150-200 years after the Prophet's death IN IRAQ. There's no way these people knew shit about Aisha's age, when there was no mention of it before and such an accusation was never used by Muhammad's ﷺ enemies
I don't see how Mormonism would make sense but I mean Islam and Mormonism do have lots of overlap so I guess I can see the change. My main issue would be that Mormonism literally just makes no sense. I would recommend watching Sam (Sam Shamoun) debate Mormons. Maybe not a good choice if your sensitive as he does use harsh language pretty often, but if you can handle that he's great at pointing out issues. If you can't handle him, Jay Dyer and Testify are two great channels on that.
I think that one group of people , probably from the area of Mesopotamia, invented all the religions in the world and made them contradictory and in conflict with each other. Meanwhile those people inserted their own relligion in all of them - KaBaa'l-a from Baabylon.
Love how you insinuate that Muslims waged the crusades against Christians rather than stating that they waged crusades against eachother. Also love how you expect another religious text to be factually portrayed in another religious text. You should focus more on the religion being discussed than continuing to bring up Christianity. “Or as Jews believe deceived people” again FOCUS ON THE RELIGION BEING DISCUSSED idgaf you got offended by jews when we’re discussing Islam
This is a re-upload - had a minor issue in the previous version!
Keep fighting the good fight. Your work deserves to remain as living, evolving project, one that should, in my opinion, which should continue grow richer and more insightful over time. I've taken a similar approach with my own notes and found it invaluable. The complexity and multitude of issues within this religion often risk being overshadowed by various things or forgotten among the pile so to speak. By continually adding and refining, we can ensure these matters remain clear, accessible, and at the forefront of a meaningful discussion, and most importantly keep people informed.
Are you going to make a video about the massive amount of pedophilia cases with the catholic church and the cover up?
@@henryrivera7604 show us where Jesus Christ touched kids or k1lled people. Oh wait, the best example of all time called Momo did all of it 😂
Hope you do a video on Rabbinic Judaism someday. Nothing irritates me more than the term “Judeo-Christian”
@@calebhooper4266 That’s my next video 😉
@@untoagesgood look with the yt censors brother 🙏😂 somehow Kyle’s vid is still up I think.
@@IoannisPowell We shall see what zog permits
You do know that Christianity was born out of Judaism, right ?
@@carllucas89 I’m aware. Modern Judaism is not the same as Biblical Judaism. Stay tuned for my next video.
Men of theology…we meet again ☦️⚔️
Yesssssssir
Amén ☦️🙏🏽
Light is an Infinitive straight line like the number |. Magnetism is a repeating curved line like the number 0.
The cross is a sacrificed piece of the straight light crossing over itself creating higher dimension.(geometry) (Antichrist)
The circle is reincarnation with no eternal difection with light. (Insestual self consuming pleasure and pain) (the snake eating its tail)
May God be with us! Love form bulgarian orthodox brother ❤
☦️
Kyrie eleison!
You cannot pick out the verses without their context. The Prophet's message was gradually revealed, taking 23 years. Many verses are context-based and require historical context for full understanding. Second, the Quran is a miracle; God challenges mankind to create something like it, something yet to happen, which is living proof of Islam's validity. I ask you to debate true Muslims knowledgeable about Muslim theology, scriptures, and Muhammad's message. I am sure they can answer all your questions and doubts about this beautiful religion. And please do not insult any prophet or religion again using derogatory terms.
Pedo prophet is a false prophet.
Muhammad was a warmongering pedophile and a false prophet. He's burning in hell. He has absolutely nothing on Christ. Muhammad is going to lead you straight into hell my friend.
Not sure how I ended here, but all I can say is alhamdullilah I’m a Muslim, these videos just strengthens my faith even more!
Which part did it make your faith “strengthen”? Otherwise you’re just suppressing the truth which is no surprise. God saw you coming 2k years ago through Saint Paul when he wrote Romans 1:18-23. Being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either.
Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws.
Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity:
"And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church"
-Homily 17 Section XIX
On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said
"For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.”
-Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5
None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity.
Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself.
Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted
[James 1:13) God cannot be tempted
(John 1:29) Jesus was seen
(1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God
(Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God
(Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man
(Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn
(Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn
(1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died
(1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die
(Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation
(Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation
(Mark 4:38) Jesus slept
(Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep
(John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful
(Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful
(Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing
(Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing
Older one is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3).
2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain.
It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two small tribes, and the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings.
How can one believe that the One that decrees that which is a 'sin' and that which is good "die for their sins" ? He is the One who decreed it thus, can decree it not so. To whom does the One with whom final authority resides in sacrifice for? a registrar? - No. None are greater than He.
Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Warlord Momo allowed slavery and selling of female war captives 600 years later after Jesus Christ abolished it.
Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah 2517
@ikk_ikk 1×1×1 = 1. You cannot add mind, body and spirit and make them 3 because they are all equal to 1. This is why Abdools like you should never ever talk about other beliefs because you have goat for brains like your false prophet. You are not worthy to even mention the name of our God.
Algo boost. Recovering Baptist family here. Please continue making content.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either.
Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws.
Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity:
"And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church"
-Homily 17 Section XIX
On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said
"For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.”
-Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5
None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity.
Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself.
Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted
[James 1:13) God cannot be tempted
(John 1:29) Jesus was seen
(1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God
(Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God
(Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man
(Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn
(Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn
(1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died
(1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die
(Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation
(Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation
(Mark 4:38) Jesus slept
(Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep
(John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful
(Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful
(Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing
(Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing
Older one is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3).
2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain.
It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two small tribes, and the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings.
How can one believe that the One that decrees that which is a 'sin' and that which is good "die for their sins" ? He is the One who decreed it thus, can decree it not so. To whom does the One with whom final authority resides in sacrifice for? a registrar? - No. None are greater than He.
Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Ameen!
@ikk_ikk Khadija was literally a Christian and was the one that said he was visited by an angel.
@@ikk_ikk one 🔺️ has 3 points
@@ikk_ikk Muhammad was poisoned bc he didn't follow Allah's will
@@ikk_ikk people that can't create any technology think they can out last the Roman progeny
lol, because people of the Gospel and the Torah aren’t called Christian and Jews in the Quran. They are called believers or people of the book. Christian’s and Jews are sects that derived from the religion of submission that started from Abraham, and God does not like sects. You fail to even analyze the text properly and rush to conclusions. Furthermore your tone of arrogance while being completely wrong about what the book actually says, shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Of course you go to secondary sources to denounce the whole religion at the end because if you actually analyze the primary text Muhammed is only mentioned 4 times. The Quran isn’t a book about history but a book of how to submit to God as Abraham did, which the Christians and the Jews have corrupted. People who believe in the Gospel and The Torah are not Christian and Jews once again from the Qurans perspective. But yes keep making claims which to have no knowledge of off the stories of human beings instead of the actual revelation. 👍
Aha, so you see I actually read the hadeeth there is no mention of demon in 1:52, He was just sort of scared and anxious upon experiencing a super natural experience but there was absoloute no mention of demon within his first experience and even when he returned to his wife he never said that, i know your a christian and your going to be biased either ways I would just appreciate a bit more honesty, misleading your growing audience is what apologists do, I dont think you are one.
Using stuff from the bible like kings 22:22 and such to circumvent the lie 🤷🏻♂️
What's up w/ muhammad simping over trees, telling his followers it's acceptable to procreate w/ your 1st cousin (not working out well for Pakistan), and his weird relationship w/ Aisha? Sounds like a doof lord, amirite? LOL
16:30 *Catholic Church ❤ awesome video, keep it up, my brother in Christ. May God continue to bless you in your ministry
It's weird that at my phase of finding religion, I feel like Islam is calling me when I lean toward Orthodox, and Orthodox is calling me when I lean toward Islam.
So I remain non-religious
Not like I really can live up to the standard of both though
how are you leaning towards a religion that is based on some guy telling stories supposedly given to him by an angel? honest question, what about it interests you in particular?
@@ioioi_prx4639 Well they’re both mutually exclusive faiths, so that’s interesting.
Pray to the one to whom he prayed to; The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha" too sounds familiar?
Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization.
The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua.
infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name."
jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah )
Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language:
"From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen.
He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown.
"protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22)
𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼
ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي
A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic:
ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain
س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining
ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining
ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining
ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining
ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining
The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word.
As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate,
Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE).
And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical.
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken?
The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@ranro7371 what you write is highly interesting. assuming the qur an comes from god, how do you explain the mismatch between:
- old biblical prophecies that are fulfilled in jesus
- jesus being the son of god, effectively god himself
- mohamed saying jesus was "just some cool guy"
- only the qur an is to be followed, yet people wrote hadiths which are basically just opinions, but which somehow are also to be followed
"Jesus" did not intend to establish a new religion. Soon after "Jesus" had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he
" gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them."
This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere.
The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.", "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward."
This charge, as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions.
Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation.
The subjects to which the most space or most prominence is given in the sayings attributed, in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission.
In the opening chapters of Acts we find two addresses by Peter, one delivered to the disciples when an apostle to succeed Judas Iscariot was to be chosen, and the other to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. On neither occasion did the speaker mention a new religion, or a church open to Gentiles as well as to Jews, or an abandonment of the Mosaic law.
If these ideas had been in his mind at that time, he could not have omitted some reference to them. That the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem continue for at least eighteen years to comply with the requirements of the Mosaic law is proved by the epistle of Paul and also by Acts.
In the latter book we read that at time not specified, probably not earlier than 40 C.E Peter went to Joppa and there ate with Gentiles-^that i he violated the Pharisaic interpretation of one of the Mosaic ceremonial rules-and after his return to Jesus; then, he was called to account by his fellow disciple He justified his conduct, not on the ground that Jesus had abrogated the ceremonial law of Moses, or any part of it, but that in a dream he had received a divine communication telling him that all manner of beasts, fowls, an creeping things were clean, and that it was lawful for him to keep company with Gentiles, who were " unclean under the law of Moses. This announcement was accepted as authoritative, but with much surprise, " becaus that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."'
This statement of the revelation to Peter, and of it acceptance by the disciples in Jerusalem, is doubtless a invention of the author of Acts. It cannot be brought into harmony with later passages of his own book, nor with the statements of Paul, who is our only trustworth; witness in these matters.
According to Acts, about 51 C. E. a council was held in Jerusalem to put an end to the dissension which had arisen in the church on the questions of circumcision and unclean meats. This council decided in favor of Paul, who was in attendance and the decision as given in a letter addressed not to all Christians but only to " the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia"-where Paul had been making converts, informing them that they were not required to observe the Mosaic ceremonial law. It is quite clear that no such council would have been held if the matter had been decided ten years before, as Acts says it had been.
But this account of the council of 51 C. E. is also a fiction.
About eight years later Paul went to Jerusalem again, and his appearance there provoked a riot. The mob wanted to kill him because of his hostility to the Mosaic law, and this mob included Jewish Christians as well as Jews. All the Christians in Jerusalem were zealous adherents of the Mosaic law. Some of the leading brethren, presumably apostles, advised Paul to take a false oath that he did not teach his Jewish converts to neglect the law. And, if we can believe Acts, he took that oath. This, however, did not pacify the mob, which would have put him to death if the Roman soldiers had not protected him. They took him to prison and finally to Rome. This story in Acts implies that the apostolic church adopted one rule of discipline for the Gentile and another for the Jewish Christians; that the latter were, and that the former were not, required to comply with the Mosaic ceremonial law. This duplicity of discipline is not recorded elsewhere. It is not known to Paul ; and if it had existed, he could neither have been ignorant of it nor remained silent about it. He tells us that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem, or those of them known to him, favored strict adherence to Moses; and the only way in which he could get along harmoniously with them was by promising to do no missionary work in Judea. He was to labor among the Gentiles,
The subjects to which the most space or most prominence is given in the sayings attributed, in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission.
There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. Distinguished saints and learned fathers of the faith openly commended the invention and acceptance of false- hoods designed to aid the conversion of the world to what they believed to be truth.
Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Thank you for helping to open eyes.
To give some context for 9:43, the justification of and for war is in
quran 22:39
''Permission ˹to fight back˺ is ˹hereby˺ granted to those being fought, for they have been wronged.1 And Allah is truly Most Capable of helping them ˹prevail˺.''
therefore this refers not to a offensive war but a rather defensive and defensive doesent always mean as in they attacked you, they could've attacked your trade vessels, killed your diplomat or kidnapped some of your people, etc. Also it says submission but not to humuliate them. When you give taxes to the IRS you are in a position of submission, since you are not giving them willingly no they are in the position of dominance and you are in submission. The Jizya tax also pays for defense, infrastructure and more but especially defense since the Jews and christians are exempt from military service which is rather mandatory for the muslims who btw pay a mandatory fixed tax of 2.5% which if they dont pay would face the same consequences as a christian who doesent pay since you know tax fraud is tax fraud. however for Christians regarding military service yes they are exempt however they could serve as say militias or volunteer groups or could aid the muslim army in different ways like logistics and more.
also the Jizya is kinda sexist towards men since its accepted by scholars that only matured (adult) financially stable and healthy men have to pay jizya. This exempts women, children, elderly, sick and the poor. Checkmate feminists lmao. but in all seriousness Islam is patriarchal and it would apply its notion within a Islamic state not just to muslims but to non muslims as well in the sense where the matured christian man will always be recognized as the head of the household and the decision maker even when he lives in a Islamic society, thats why arab and other eastern christians are more patriarchal compared to you westerners, I as a Arab Muslim generally saw little to no distinciton between me and arab christians outside of religion, its almost as if culture is really important within regards to how people live or manage their lifes.
Tell us about one defensive war , just one.
Muslims have never been oppressed at any time in human history, so this myth of “defensive war” is just a distraction. Walk around the The Pagan Built and owned Kaaba like everyone else and say your worthless prayers. If you can’t accept equality and instead want privilege you’re not being persecuted
Yep, Muslims conquered the entirety of north africa, Spain, anatolia, the balkans, and west Asia all through defensive wars. Makes sense.
@@Greensanctuary-c4wIf you study about Prophet Muhammads PBUH conquest against the Pagans it is very clear that the pagans were a oppressive and God hating people. Not only did they not follow God, they also routinely tortured and killed peaceful people and raped women. Their war against oppression was defensive. Today we see examples in 80’s Afghanistan, modern Gaza, Algeria, Chechnya, Bosnia, and many other region. The list goes on.
@@Greensanctuary-c4w Badr
Hello.
Peace be upon you, friend. I am a Muslim. I am also an American, and a veteran. I’m afraid that you have an incredibly elementary argument against Islam. It wouldn’t hold weight in a debate with real Islamic scholars.
I would highly recommend speaking with an actual Islamic scholar. As Muslims, we adore Christians. And Jews. Both are referred to as “people of the book”.
I wish the best for you.
I don't care what heretics have to say to cope about their false religion
I see. Do any of these Islamic scholars know how to refute the Islamic dilemma? If so, direct me to where they have done so.
Note: There are multiple, but the one I am speaking of is the one most popular currently and used in debates between Christians and Muslims.
@@bilbusbungledore7222 heretics who call both satan and Jesus “morning star”
Weird, because your book calls for non-Muslims to convert or die (how loving!) and that your "brothers" are to be taxed as 2nd class citizens (how caring!).
Why does every Muslim criticize his arguments, yet isn’t able to point out where they are wrong?
Please do a video on Mormonism. I appreciate your videos, God bless.
Gotta remember to study these and properly learn how to defend the faith.
This is a good example of a disingenuous video devoid of objectivity, rather going at it from an Christian apologist perspective, going on to not explaining the basic tenets/fundamentals of Islam even though it's titled "Everything you need to know about Islam" but the differences between Christianity and Islam. Good luck retaining the actual Christians and individuals who want to learn the truth. Sad reality of modern Christian apologetics.
Youre right! Dhul Khalassa was left out of the video.
False prophet Momo(police be upon him) allowed slavery and selling of female war captives 600 years later after Jesus Christ abolished it.
Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah 2517
@@bizjak3246 ?
Subscribed. Great channel
Watching this video after coming home from church really hits
Thank you for covering the means of his death. People often completely pass it up.
You need to spend more time on the evidence for the Cricifixion. This video's treatment of the topic is essentially an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
@@locomotive9000 I’ve covered that in other videos, that’s not primary the topic at hand. And appealing to sources isn’t an appeal to authority, otherwise no one would be able to make an evidentiary argument.
@untoages You didn't appeal to specific sources in this video, nor did you mention your other video. I'm not trying to be combative or even disagree with your premise. Just some constructive criticism.
@@locomotive9000 Gotcha, forgive my misunderstanding. This is part of a broader series, I address the resurrection more specifically here: th-cam.com/video/OLaitVhJmNQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=9VzM0hzq2vSji99C
"hurr durr appeal to authority" strokes neckbeard "hurr durr fallacy i win checkmate lolllll hurd urr"
this video is not well researched and needs so much context. wither its done on purpose or by accident byt i hope you find truth!
good job brother!
quran 9:30
''The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah,” while the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” Such are their baseless assertions, only parroting the words of earlier disbelievers. May Allah condemn them! How can they be deluded ˹from the truth˺?''
at least quote the whole thing lmao/
5:29 since you have not done proper research on the life of Muhammad PBUH you would most likely come to the conclusion that the prophet was around Christian’s and he plagiarized parts of Christianity to “invent” Islam but I’d like to point out that he PBUH was born in Mecca Arabia where at the time the Quraysh people who he was from amongst were worshipping hundreds of idols and Muhammad PBUH after receiving revelation from Jibreel AS was the one who began preaching monotheism to the point that he was persecuted and had to migrate and leave Mecca for Medinah where Islam began to take root and really grow.
I refuse to believe that Gabriel appeared before Muhammad, in a cave of all places
@@gamertag7676 Agreed. The devil can appear as an angel of light, after all.
Very weirdly. The U.K Government has managed to con its citizens that Muslims entering the U.K from France are Asylum Seekers . Whilst making its citizens pay for them to have a bill free life style in Hotels
@@untoagesreminds me of how he appeared to St Peter the first Athonite and tried to advise him against the command that the Theotokos and his patron Saint had given him
why not a cave ?
Its not a matter of believing or not, any Bible reader who reads those passages can tell right away that entity is no "Angel". Any time a Biblical Angel appears to anyone they insist on calming any present mortals by telling them not to be afraid. This encounter was nothing like that. This was a demon.
Thanks for your great video's, keep them coming.
15:45
And yet, Jews scoff at the notion that Christians worship the God of Abraham, and call Muslims "Our Monotheist Cousins"
Christendom was always the empirial religion, born under the auspices of constantine, the subjects were converted at the edge of the sword and rendered into slaves for his majesty, often referring to him as their lord. In Islam such slavery is unthinkable. The only lordship is that of the creator, no station into which man was brought into the lands of Islam was to any degree as bad as the repugnant chattel slavery brought by the primitive tribalism inherent in their texts. Constantine chose regularly to refer to himself as the “servant of God” (famulus dei/therapon tou theou) in official writings. By the fifth century, this metaphor of subordination had been redeployed from theological to political contexts as the subjects of the emperor came to refer to themselves as “slaves of the emperor.” And by the sixth, Justinian insisted all his officials swear an oath that they would demonstrate their service to the emperor “with genuine slavehood” (gnesia douleia).b Building on Paul’s revalorization of the vocabulary of slavery, and particularly the word doulos came to be applied to a variety of hierarchical relationships, even as it also continued to be used specifically of chattel slaves. By the middle Byzantine period, this expansion of the semantic range of the root doul- eventually gave the abstract nominal form douleia, meaning laborer
Insofar as everyone who partook in labor was considered to be a participant This epistemological world view is coherent with master-slave dynamic relationship between the head of the state and his subjects, or rather slaves.
The word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses:
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” -Psalm 137:9
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”-1 Samuel 15:3
“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”-Hosea 13:16
The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers:
“in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.”
Another account by a chronicler and eyewitness-priest, Albert of Aachen, describes the killing of fleeing women, and depicts crusaders as::
“seizing [infants who were still suckling] by the soles of their feet from their mothers’ laps or their cradles…and dashing them against the walls or lintels of the doors and breaking their necks […] they were sparing absolutely no gentile of any age or kind.”The incoherence inherent in a stranger to Abraham calling the children of Abraham gentiles notwithstanding, this account evokes the very same Psalm 137:9 imprecation against Babylon, in Latin, “beatus qui tenebit et adlidet parvulos tuos ad petram.”
Albert describes a massacre occurring, in cold blood, on the second day following the conquest, painting a scene that is as horrific as it is realistic and detailed:
"Girls, women, matrons, tormented by fear of imminent death and horror-struck by the violent murder wrapped themselves around the Christians’ bodies in the hope to save their lives, even as the Christians were raving and venting their rage in murder of both sexes. Some threw themselves at their feet, begging them with pitiable weeping and wailing for their lives and safety. When children five or three years old saw the cruel fate of their mothers and fathers, of one accord they stepped up the weeping and pitiable clamour. But they were making these signals for pity and mercy in vain. For the Christians gave over their whole hearts to murder, so that not a suckling little male-child or female, not even an infant of one year would escape the hand of the murderer".
Evoking several of these verses in practice:
- (Num 31:17-18) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
- (Deut 7:2, 9:3, Num 21) thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them...
- (Ezek 9:6) Slay utterly old [and] young both maids and little children and women: but come not near any man upon whom [is] mark begin at my sanctuary.
This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished.
This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah):
"includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit."
This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said: "Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal, commit treachery, mutilate, or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship."
It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children."
بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دعوة
"To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause"
-Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya
More hadith from Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah:
حَدَّثَنَا حُمَيْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ، عَنْ شَيْخٍ، مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَدِينَةِ مَوْلَى لِبَنِي عَبْدِ الْأَشْهَلِ، عَنْ دَاوُدَ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ إِذَا بَعَثَ جُيُوشَهُ قَالَ: «§لَا تَقْتُلُوا أَصْحَابَ الصَّوَامِعِ»
"Do not kill the dwellers of monasteries"
حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ فُضَيْلٍ، عَنْ جُوَيْبِرٍ، عَنِ الضَّحَّاكِ قَالَ: كَانَ «§يُنْهَى عَنْ قَتْلِ الْمَرْأَةِ، وَالشَّيْخِ الْكَبِيرِ»
سَعْدٍ قَالَ: «§نَهَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنْ قَتْلِ النِّسَاءِ وَالذُّرِّيَّةِ، وَالشَّيْخِ الْكَبِيرِ الَّذِي لَا حَرَاكَ بِهِ»
"The prophet forbids the killing of women, children, and the elderly"
This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Anfal Ayah 61 in which even oath breaking deniers/unbelievers are allowed to sue for peace states if the unbelievers they ask for peace, give it to them.
Stephen Langton, the writer of the Magna Carta (12th century, contemporary with the crusades for a reason) studied in the university of Paris which archives show had plenty of Arabic treatises in its procession, there can be no question about it being inspired by the "Sharia". both the renessiance and the european enlightenment were directly preceded by massive translation movements form Arabic (see the Republic of Letters by Alexander Bevilacqua, The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization By: Jonathan Lyons.
The modifiable testament testament commands indiscriminate killing, genocide, plunder, mutilation, enslavement, or torture of enemies, including women, on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
You should have dumbed this down a bit for your 9yo wife to understand
@@DirtyyMike Don't you mean for the altar boys?
There are so many things wrong with your statement. We will start with this; First off, Catholicism has never been imposed on anyone by the sword. That is done by Islam. Islam to be frank, is a heretical version of Christianity. Once you can get past your emotional response to that statement and look at what’s truly there, you will see it.
False prophet Momo(police be upon him) allowed slavery and selling of female war captives 600 years later after Jesus Christ abolished it.
Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah 2517
@@ranro7371 lol your false prophet Momo was the first P-Diddy 😂
You see contradiction because you are analyzing the text wrong. You are going in with presuppositions based off Christian and Jewish worldview, and believe that people of the Gospel and Torah are equal while in fact they aren’t. You need to reanalyze the text and pay attention to the words being used.
All comments like these are the same. You just tell him that he‘s wrong but aren’t able to form a single argument against his position.
He’s doing it purposely he’s just being dishonest there’s literally no way for him to come to these conclusions with integrity
@@Name-yo2hc How was he dishonest?
@@OpasgegenLinks I literally said that People of the Gospel, and People of the Torah are different than a Christian or a Jew what don’t you understand? Linguistically in the text, the terms are not synonymous? They aren’t the same groups of people. You are making the assumption that the text and the group of people is synonymous, because they follow part of the text.
The story from a gospel of Thomas is maybe included since it depicts Jesus doing miracles as a child and before his baptism, none of which we can read about in the canonical gospels. By doing so, they would take away from the importance of baptism. Just a thought.
can you do a video on Oriental Orthodoxy an refute them to show that eastern orthodoxy is the true orthodox
@@ToddBryan-j9y I’m not quite as well versed on Oriental Orthodoxy, but I can add it to the list!
The Oriental church unlike the Eastern Orthodox believes that god only has one nature fully divine fully human and oriental Orthodox accuse eastern Orthodox of following Nestorius without them knowing it.
This is a giggle for etymologists; Oriental means East 😂 its like a Monty Python skit.
I'm in the Peoples Front of Judea! Not the Judean Peoples Front!
The Oriental Orthodox view is a composite Christ of human/Divine natures called miaphysitism. From the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy this would make Christ a chimera neither human nor Divine incompatable with offerring us complete salavation or Theosis.
They further do not believe in the essence/energy distrinction which is the Theological lynchpin of Hesychism and therefore do not have an Orthodox conceptualization of Theosis which heavily depends on Chalcedron Christology. I mention these additions for those who argue we actually believe the same thing to emphasize the Theological significance of correct Christology.
I do like the Oriental Orthodox as a people especially considering what type of persecutive environment they exist under and there use of Syriac which is similar to Hebrew. These fundamental Theololgical issues are why we can't share the same Eucharist even though they have a similar liturgical form of worship as Eastern Orthodox.
This thread is laughable and highlights how no amount of mental gymnastics by latter day sophists will change the fact that Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either.
Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity:
"And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church"
-Homily 17 Section XIX
On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said
"For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.”
-Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5
None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity.
Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself.
Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted
[James 1:13) God cannot be tempted
(John 1:29) Jesus was seen
(1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God
(Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God
(Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man
(Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn
(Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn
(1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died
(1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die
(Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation
(Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation
(Mark 4:38) Jesus slept
(Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep
(John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful
(Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful
(Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing
(Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing
Older one is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3).
2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain.
It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two small tribes, and the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings.
How can one believe that the One that decrees that which is a 'sin' and that which is good "die for their sins" ? He is the One who decreed it thus, can decree it not so. To whom does the One with whom final authority resides in sacrifice for? a registrar? - No. None are greater than He.
Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Video get taken down?
Looks like it
can we get the original somewhere?
I removed it, had a small revision that needed to be made.
@@mislav_ The only thing that was changed was my reference to the Archangel "Michael" rather than the Archangel Gabriel.
I appreciate the effort you put in ❤ @@untoages
This is AMAZING! Awesome video!
Excellent video.
Explain why the devil will appear to say worship only one God. Believe and respect all the prophets from beginning til end (abraham, joseph moses jesus and all in between )Don’t drink alcohol, don’t do adultery etc. Please explain is love to hear your thoughts
This video is 🚮 you have done only shallow research on the subject matter…you have only regurgitated the same arguments made against Islam over the last 1400 years but yet Islam has grown to 2 billion followers despite haters like you attempting to discredit Islam as well as the prophet PBUH
Maybe the growing followership is not the case because of how great the religion is but because of how the followers conquer everything they see and murder everyone who disagrees with them.
Bs
False prophet Momo(police be upon him) allowed sl@very and selling of female war captives 600 years later after Jesus Christ abolished it.
Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah 2517
Im honestly surprised that you even believe in God; considering the amount of bad faith arguments you gave
You have truly never read the Quran... but that's okay cause God has turned many blind and deaf, I'm just blessed it's not me! Ameen!
You haven’t either. Otherwise you would know that Islam is a war religion which only consists of murdering people and raping children.
@@OpasgegenLinks 💯👍
The virgin Mary is recorded to be 12 years old when she was pregnant with Jesus ✝️
We don't know the actual age of Mary when she gave birth to Jesus only an estimation which is 12 - 16 years old.
No she is not. There is no historical record about Mary’s age.
Look at these funny Mexican Mariachi people😂🇲🇽🎩
Gee... Strange entity talks to me and scares the heck out of me and makes me want to say goodbye forever. Yeah no red flags there
Haha, real.
When Moses PBUH is first addressed by God “the burning bush” story Moses PBUH is petrified and attempts to run away until God calms him…should we discredit Moses or say that there are red flags in this story?
Doesn’t the Quran also state that the Gospel is true and to be believed? It seems like the entire Quran refutes itself
Yeah becuase its entire format and theological premis is based on Johns gospel.
It does, MANY times. To the outsider looking in, it's so obvious of Muhammad attempting to ride on the coat tails of the Bible, despite not being able to read them he must "affirm the prior revelation"
where does it say that?
Nope, it says Jesus is a prophet, and his book was true, but changed. That's what muslims believe about Christianity.
@@bedelxo482 don’t hold your breath
There's no evidence Aisha was that young. In fact, Shia Hadiths claim she was 17-19. Even according to Sunni Hadiths there are multiple contradictions in regards to her age. One Hadith claims she was 9. Another one that she was already engaged a few years back and that she carried water and treated the soldiers in the battle of Uhud, where not even underage boys were allowed.
Even historians claim she was between 12-19. The bs hadith some Sunnis use to justify their local tradition of child marriage was narrated 150-200 years after the Prophet's death IN IRAQ. There's no way these people knew shit about Aisha's age, when there was no mention of it before and such an accusation was never used by Muhammad's ﷺ enemies against him.
Besides that, the Quran forbids Muslims to follow written hadiths and claims to be the only reliable one. It is literally Haram to extend the Quran's teachings by adding stuff to it. You people cannot attack Islam by addressing its Holy Hook and have to resort to sectarian bs hadiths.
Because Muslims follow the hadith. Are you Quraniyoon? If so you are a vanishingly small minority within Islam, and most Muslims of both the Sunni and Shia persuasion consider you to not just be a heretic, but a kaffir.
So if 99.99% of Muslims follow the hadith, Shia included with their Al-Kafi narrations, why shouldn't Christian apologists also apply the hadith as a tool to critique Islam?
Of course I agree with you in theory, and it's hard to deny the damage hadith have done to Islam both on the ground and in the realm of public opinion, but the fact remains that the hadith are a major part of the Islamic tradition, and so it's fair to use them as evidence. I live in an area where you can buy a copy of Sahih Al-Bukhari at a grocery store. These texts are deeply ingrained in the Muslim psyche and culture.
@@glumbumble The term "Quraniyoon" is often used to disparage people who follow the quran alone in theology and practice among the majority of muslim sectarians. It is a very useful tool for critique I will say however I believe it propagates lies about the Prophet and our understanding of the Quran.
Well if you are a Quranist you have too many things which have no explanation. If you don't think so, debating Sam can prove this point. I guess one I see used very often would be "how often do you pray?"
There is a fatwa about this. Aisha was 6 years old. It doesn’t matter how hard you cope.
@@AVAGA14 I apologize if I used a term that was hurtful to you. I will say "Quranist" from now on. I was not aware that it is considered harsh language.
☪️ ☝️🙏
The Holy Qur'an is not read in the same way that the Bible is, therefore cannot be interpreted the same way. There are 20+ prophets listed in The Holy Qur'an, so cherry picking Jesus (SWT) out is pretty lame. The Holy Qur'an should be compared to The 10 Commandments, not the Bible. The Hadith are the actions of life of the Prophet Mohammad (SWT).
Are you using hadiths or the Quran only? If so, using the Quran, only we have 0 clue what a vast majority of these prophets lives were like.
Your videos are fantastic and I really enjoy the content & I appreciate all you do to put them together. But I find the skulls and the intro song to make me feel scared to listen. Maybe it’s your unique style and I can appreciate that, but I wanted to give the feedback. Please do not take it the wrong way. Sincerely, an Orthodox woman. God bless. ☦️ PS Keep up the good work.
You like these videos because they affirm your beliefs they are surface level garbage
Would you say all "Christian" sources are accurate? 🤔
The Truth of this is flawless.
Views of his death are even wilder than what you propose in some sense. Many Shia believe that Muhammad was poisoned by a conspiring Aisha and Hafsa (another wife of Muhammad).
Hadith are many different sources from many different interviews from people years after Muhammad ☪️ died. Aishas' actual age is unknown. Majority of sources from hadith say she was 16.
The hadiths actually said Aisha was 6 & consumated at 9. Not 16. Don't lie.
No they don’t. There where multiple fatwas. Aisha was 6.
@OpasgegenLinks majority say she was older man. It's clearly stated in Quran that a woman must be fully developed b4 marriage
@OpasgegenLinks many sources say she was 26
@OpasgegenLinks many hadith tell stories of her nursing the wounded in the 1st battles. How could she be 6 and a nurse 😆
You're picking out of the versus without their context
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha" too sounds familiar?
Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization.
The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua.
infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name."
jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah )
Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language:
"From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen.
He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown.
"protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22)
𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼
ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي
A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic:
ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain
س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining
ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining
ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining
ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining
ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining
The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word.
As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate,
Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE).
And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical.
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken?
The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
All this said, Christian scholars fail to address the elephant in the room. The loss of 3 of the 4 Christian centers, Juresalem, Antioch and Constantinople to Islam. If this isn't God's punishment, I don't know what it is. And we have to understand why.
By that logic, it’s the Muslims who constantly get punished by natural disasters after conquering those cities. There is no Constantinopel anymore. It‘s a concrete city. The Hagia Sophia is one of the few structures which survived all these centuries. Wondering why? It’s a church.
Jibril almost snuck away from the original cut like the trickster he is.
@@mastermiller2944 lol
@@Ahki_Omarnewsflash, it wasnt Gabriel. It was satan
@@Ahki_Omar An Angel calling itself Gabriel choked out Mohammad to recite the Quran. Or Jibril in Islam. Which I think is a better name for this entity.
Video supido e ignorante, perché affatto disinformato e poco documentato, solo la solita litania di letture di piccoli passi decontestualizzati e malamente interpretati, soprattutto, mai comparati con il vecchio testamento. 😂😂😂
False prophet Momo(police be upon him) allowed slavery and selling of female war captives 600 years later after Jesus Christ abolished it.
Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah 2517
Boom
Based.
Good stuff
Islam is likely the continuation of the ebionite heresy. Ebionites respected Jesus as a prophet but denied His Divinity. Many of the critiques of early Church Fathers critique of Ebionitism translate well as critiques of Islam.
It is mutilation of several religions from Paganism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism and some Christian elements.
Also they replace Jesus with OC named "Isa" who is a failure and coward like MoMo is. They only use Jesus for dawah purpose only.
@ You’re completely right and I detest muslims more for different reasons(especially when it comes to them playing the “we believe in Jesus too!” Card, But then they make him a completely pointless character who supposedly got people to follow the “corrupted religion”)
but all you Abrahamic losers stole from the more creative Pagans, then you spent your first centuries arguing what % divine/human Jesus was
No there’s differences. I believe the ebionites confirmed the resurrection of Jesus and his crucifixion which followers of Muhammads Ummah Deny. Also you have to add Islam is submission to god. If they submit to the one true god, one could argue that those Ebionites were actually Muslim.
So in reference to the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad saw it’s really not a continuation of anything except pure monotheism
@@abdoulaye9543 My point was that Ebionites(there being multiple Ebionite sects)were an influence in the formation of Islam as this did exist in ME at time of Mohammed with other sects such as Arians. Gnostisn existed to but aside from de-emphasizing material world do not see much crossover as they tended to be more mystical and thought material world was created by a Satan.
I would say Christianity is Submission to God but not just externally but inwardly. The Orthodox answer to what must one do to be saved is to crucify oneself? This is different than revisionists who say by faith alonex For Orthodox, love and faith allow us to be crucified with him and following His example we are also resurrected. Christianity Mystology has always been radical in this regard which can be seen from the procession of Saints throughout this generation who explain through their lives what this means and educate us on how to pray unceasingly. Including the Desert Fathers whose philosophy was distilled into Eastern Orthodoxy through the Philokalia.
You think that if god replaced jesus to make it seem like he died on the cross.
You would know?
You think you would see through god 2000 years later?
Perhaps you are arrogant and overestimate yourself.
God bless you
Cant believe this channel exists and I love it
Somebody tell me where to find the; their truth shall be known by their fruits(paraphrased, forgive me I'm new to this) this concept has been burning in my mind lately.
Matthew 7:16-20 Ye shall know them by their fruits.
One of the biggest obstacles for me to get over in trying to understand Christianity is the snarky clapping at legitimately valid arguments. If you were born in China, you would be Buddhist. And that’s significant whether you like it or not
You act like Christianity doesn't exist in China
@@bilbusbungledore7222 But it's a minority, China still mostly consists of Eastern religions and philosophies like Buddhism, Confucianism, and Chinese folk religions(paganism).
@ exactly, and cultural influence still massively impacts a persons religious identity
if you really want to understand Christianity talk to a priest, whether Catholic or Orthodox they will be happy to have a discussion with you. TH-cam/internet guys in general have a tendency to be out of touch with reality.
@ the fact that a real, decent human being replied in the comments is enough to convince me to believe
Thank for for this
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us and our world ☦ 🙏 🌍 🙏✝️
Are mormons Abrahamic too😂
@@E-pistol Well they claim to be Christian, so I’m sure they claim all sorts of things.
You’re close in your intro. But just wrong enough to be just wrong. Know what I mean.
Boooooost!!!
Ive always felt the origin story of Islam shows how truly powerful & intelligent the devil is. With two conversations, he has sent BILLIONS to Hell.
🐿🐿🐿
Bro I listened to your thing on Judaism knowing nothing about it so the video seemed ok but Islam I know about and your take is hilariously mid-wit at best. You’re essentially reviewing a sega version of a game up against the same game on Nintendo and pc and arguing your version on sega is the bestest most truest one and the others are bogus. That’s how silly your position is. In reality all three are fairy tales, to me anyways, and arguing which one is the bestest is for children.
What is your refutation of TAG? I'd like a steelman of TAG before your refutation if you choose to give one.
Christianity is Mithra reboot
Meh, debatable.
Was this video about Muslims or Mormons?
As a former Muslims who converted to Mormonism, I'll answer.
No, but the similarities are interesting
This video is extremely flawed.
Overall a good video, although there is one mistake. The quran itself doesn't claim that the torah and Gospel were corrupted. It in fact repeatedly affirms their inspiration, preservation and authority. One of the verses you even mentioned; "let the people of the Gospel judge by what allah has revealed therein.". There's also many more passages to the same tune. In fact, allah reassures the prophet by telling him that if he ever has doubt je should consult the people of the book and they'll confirm his message. If the previous scriptures were corrupted in the view of the quran, why would allah give such advice? The people of the book wouldn't be able to help even if they wanted to if their scriptures were corrupted. There's also many hadiths where the prophet confirms them. In one of them, he puts his hand on a physical copy of the torah and says "I believe in thee and he who revealed you". Not even early islamic scholars understood that the quran teaches corruption of previous scripture. The fact of the matter is, it was a later idea developed by them after they had become aware of the contents of the bible, as a way of reconciling the dilemma that the quran contradicts books that it simultaneously affirms. God bless.
I probably wouldn't be annoyed with this video if you titled it honestly.
Im a former Muslim that converted to Mormonism so im still hated by most Christians anyway but it dont bother me.
Anyway, I enjoyed your video on Islam. While for Sunnis, Aisha was a beloved figure in Islam, the fact she was so young always bothered me and Muhammad was well skilled in animal husbandry and would have known being with a child would have been very dangerous for her.
Plus the argument that it was another time falls flat because child marriage was outlawed in the nearby Byzantine empire.
I dont hate islam by any stretch and i get way more annoyed by protestants than any other group but its good to understand your rivals i suppose
Great video!
There's no evidence Aisha was that young. In fact, Shia Hadiths claim she was 17-19. Even according to Sunni Hadiths there are multiple contradictions in regards to her age. One Hadith claims she was 9. Another one she was already engaged a few years back and that she carried water and treated the soldiers in the battle of Uhud, where not even underage boys were allowed.
Even historians claim she was between 12-19. The bs hadith some Sunnis use to justify their local tradition of child marriage was narrated 150-200 years after the Prophet's death IN IRAQ. There's no way these people knew shit about Aisha's age, when there was no mention of it before and such an accusation was never used by Muhammad's ﷺ enemies
I don't see how Mormonism would make sense but I mean Islam and Mormonism do have lots of overlap so I guess I can see the change. My main issue would be that Mormonism literally just makes no sense. I would recommend watching Sam (Sam Shamoun) debate Mormons. Maybe not a good choice if your sensitive as he does use harsh language pretty often, but if you can handle that he's great at pointing out issues. If you can't handle him, Jay Dyer and Testify are two great channels on that.
I just love how you don't mess around or speak in soft tones in regard to these false religions. Kudos to you for boldly speaking the truth.
Your religion's also false.
I think that one group of people , probably from the area of Mesopotamia, invented all the religions in the world and made them contradictory and in conflict with each other. Meanwhile those people inserted their own relligion in all of them - KaBaa'l-a from Baabylon.
You know what I notice? The voices that are speaking courageous, Godly truths are young voices. Thank God for that.
this video is flawed
Love how you insinuate that Muslims waged the crusades against Christians rather than stating that they waged crusades against eachother.
Also love how you expect another religious text to be factually portrayed in another religious text. You should focus more on the religion being discussed than continuing to bring up Christianity.
“Or as Jews believe deceived people” again FOCUS ON THE RELIGION BEING DISCUSSED idgaf you got offended by jews when we’re discussing Islam
Pisslam
400 million Chinese Christians disagree 😂😂😂
Christians in China don't make it a Christian country.😂😂😂