@@lovetwentyfourseven7428Has anyone seen Archangel Gabriel visit the self proclaimed Arab prophet? Has anyone seen the self proclaimed prophet perform miracles? Did the Torah, Psalms or Gospels prophesy such an Arab prophet from Arabia? What was the religion of the self proclaimed prophet religion at the time of his birth? If God wanted to send a prophet, He would have chosen from the People of the Book and not a person born in a family practicing polytheism. Also as per the scripture believed to be recieved by the self proclaimed prophet, God doesn't know that Christians don't worship Mary, Mother of Jesus as God and mistakes Jesus mother as Moses sister. The following verse is from another holy book sent by God to Prophet Musa or Prophet Moses. “Yes, this is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have. They are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them,’ declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 29:8-9). This could help you. May your prayers be not abandoned by God for following a man from Mecca who self proclaimed God sent. May God of Abraham guide you.
What some of you Muslims can't grasp is. Alot of us, don't accept our faith. Ask a Christian ,Hindu Buddhist their faith. What gives you the right. To slander their faiths. When you have a hissy it if any question your belief. Is not religion about, peace understanding. Getting along why is it Islam is only faith, with terrorists associated with it.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 God Almighty - The God of Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all) in His FINAL Testament reminds the people of the truth. Truth has come and falsehood perishes. One of the names of The Quran is The Reminder. God Almighty in His FINAL Testament calls the people of the previous scriptures BACK to the straight path - the path which they have abandoned / forgotten / c0rrupted / no knowledge of. Jesus of your Bible preached and practiced: Who is THE ONLY TRUE GOD? ✅ The Father (John 17:3) Who is the God of Jesus? ✅ The Father (John 20:17) Who alone to be worshipped? ✅ The Father (John 4:21) Whose name be hallowed? ✅ The Father (The Lord's prayer) Whose kingdom come? ✅ The Father (The Lord's prayer) Whose will be done on earth as it is in heaven? ✅ The Father (The Lord's prayer) Whom to ask for daily bread? ✅ The Father (The Lord's prayer) Whom to ask for forgiveness? ✅ The Father (The Lord's prayer) Whom to pray to for guidance? ✅ The Father (The Lord's prayer) Who delivers from the evil one? ✅ The Father (The Lord's prayer) Of course the term "The Father" in the J_ew_ish context. It's nothing more than a term of endearment. Christianity because of its adoption of p-a-g-a-n-i-s-m, gave God a literal Son and later made him into "God". The greatest I-N-S-U-L-T h-e-a-p-e-d on Jesus of the Bible. No wonder he will C0ND3MN ONLY the Christians and tell them. 👉 *I NEVER KNEW YOU* 👉 DEPART from me. It's there in the Bible. Foretold.
@imranbasit8276 Kind of remiss of God not to omnisciently foresee how things were going to be hijacked by Saul of Tarsus and then lazy not to do anything about it. So we ended up with 2 millennia during which women have been suppressed and treated as property that can be beaten and abused. That is NOT what Jesus taught, as far as we can tell, from the scant few bits in the NT that can be attributed to him.
The letters of Paul are actually very gnostic and are obviously very genuine. Yet they never refer to the Gospel narratives. Therefore, the impression is there was a gnostic movement, such as related The Essenes, and the Gospel narratives were created with their simple common man understandable moral narratives after Paul.
Brother Muhammad Paul Williams: You are doing a brave and truthful job. By clearing the teachings of Iesa ibn Meryam Jesus Christ you are clearing your own path to the Kingdom of Allah. Today you stand for Islam Tomorrow Allah stands for you. May Allah empower you to do more for the religion of Allah.
@BertoKinawamy friend in Islam actually not 2 prophets but all prophets came with same message to believe in Oneness of God and not to associate partners to him ( from Adam AS to Mohammad SAW ) with no distinction and that including Jesus ( peace be upon him) . While in Christianity God of bible change his mind and decided to have a son and spirit as other Gods asside him and also to sacrifice his son in order to forgive mankind while before in old testament says God is One Alone and I desire not a sacrifice but a forgiveness. No grounds to stand for my friend. You just believe in blind faith
And from those who say, “We are Christians,” We took their covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they had been commanded to uphold. So We let hostility and enmity arise between them until the Day of Judgment, and soon Allah will inform them of all they have done. -Surah Al-Māʾidah, Ayah 14 Mark 12:29 [29]“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord OUR God, the Lord is ONE. We don't have The Gospel of Jesus (Injeel) anymore , but his most important teaching is still there , that's how Allah makes His signs clear to us , Alhamdulillah.
Allah has allowed enmity and hostility among Muslims so much that they fight and killed each other from fitna upto to today. Over 100k were killed Sunni and shia are against each other
You are not informed. The lord God is one and you can not explain from Quran who his spirit is whom he says he blew into Mary's private parts and he sends to strengthen all Muslims .who is he ? Use Quran verses not lies of scholars
Though I'm a born Muslim i was skeptic about Islam. Islam seems perfect in any aspects. But my doubt was basically other religions. What if one of them is right and makes more sense!! After a long journey, i came to the conclusion that only Islam has the unbiased, pure answers to every possible question. Now,Alhamdulillah I'm a Muslim by choice. Brother Paul, you helped me a lot to know about christianity and It's errors. May Allah swt. Reward you Jannah. Barakallahu fikum wa barakallahu fi Hayatik
Education is very important. We must strive to study our religion. When we finished secondary school my friends and I said if we should do Islam we must study it, if we will not do it, we can stay like that and practice it the way we saw all others observing it (pure taqleed). We all did memorised at least 10% of the Qur'an but we could not tell the meanings of what we were reciting. So we started to study, Alhamdu lillah i am now a pupils teacher in Qur'an memorization, translation to the children in our local language, fiqh, and history of the prophets as story telling for the children.
Wallah this is exactly my story, Allah SWT brought me back during Ramadan this year. Now I appreciate my religion soooo much and am super proud of it. Alhamdulilah for the gift of Islam. My prayer is for Allah SWT to give us guidance and prevent us from being a mushriki.
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. 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. 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 requiments 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 A.D 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, " because 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 trustworthy 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, 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," There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. 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. 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 “Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.” -Jeremiah 6:11 “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.” 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): 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 دع "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 The modifiable testaments testament genocide 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. Surah Al-Baqarah Aya 1-7 The first Surah after the opening has all the point addressed and example of people like him rebuked Surah Al-A'raaf Aya 171 to 178 - Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge Surah Al-Nisaa Aya 46 - Addresses people like those in the video who take verses from the Quran out of their context Surah Al-Ma'idah Aya 48 - shows that the Quran supersedes all other revelations Surah Aal-Imraan Aya 96 - Addresses all of mankind Surah Al-Anbiya Aya 107 - The role of the prophet Surah Al-Hujurat Aya 13 - Addresses the creation of humanity into different peoples Surah Al-Jumu'a Aya 1 to 8 Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
I have always believed that historical facts can't be left out when studying the scriptures... because thats one way to filter lies from truth... amd you're doing an awesome job bringing this to my doorstep; something i can only dream of. Thank you sir ❤
Paul said there was a book in hebrews among the first christians where paul (of tarsus) was considered as an heretic . that's a lie this book does not exist . Paul said the apostles stayed in jerusalem. That's a lie everybody knows the apostle john went to ephesus and patmos peter went to rome all of this is documented you just have to search. Muslims have to understand the concept of searching informations, it require basic respect for truth.
In the early days, people did not claim themselves christians but followers of Jesus. Today being followers/believers/worshippers of Jesus, they called themselves as christians, be catholics or protestants!
@BertoKinawa every single prophet said being Muslim is the only way to and to understand that you have to know the meaning of Islam and Muslim a Muslim is the one who submits his will to God almighty Moses Ibrahim Jesus and Muhamed may peace be upon them all preach the same message worship God alone and your reward will be paradise so Islam means the worship of one God and one god alone there is versus in the Quran where Ibrahim says I am Muslim so did Jesus so did Moses may peace and blessings be upon them
@Ish_Tsadiq_Tamim @dakrontu To put it bluntly, Early Christianity was not Christianity. It was a reformed Judaism with teachings from Jesus to reform the wrong doings of the religious order. Fake Apostle Paul founded Christianity.
Yes, Christianity was pretty much monolithic for most of history, which is the definition of 'Catholic'. When they had political power, any 'unorthodoxy' aka non-Catholic Christianity was pretty much repressed with force. If the Muslims hadn't come to Egypt, there would be no 'Coptic Church' today, because they were on their way to being wiped out by Roman Catholicism. In fact, their pope was forced into hiding until the Muslims came and restored their Coptic pope and religion.
No, the definition of Catholic is “ universal”. Jesus was made the Almighty in 325 and later in 381 the Trinity was created as a dogma. No apostle was Trinitarian, they believed in YHWH as the ONE true God. Unfortunately that believe was twisted and corrupted for 1500 years, many still embrace that believe unfortunately.
@@azfin7430 The worship of heroes religion. Basically Greco Roman Polytheism pretending to be monotheistic. And speaking of heroes, you should get a copy of "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell, noted 20th Century mythologist.
@user-uo7fw5bo1o " The worship of heroes religion. Basically Greco Roman Polytheism pretending to be monotheistic." -so as long as you are true "monotheists" can u explain to me why allah says in chapter 23:14 there are many creators (aka gods) but hes the best of them ???🤣🤣🤣🤣 and why allah keeps reffering to himself as "we" "us" "ourselves" if theres only one allah??🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣😆😆🤣😂😂😂😂 and why allah prays for mohammad together with his angels in chapter 33:56???he prays to who?? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂🤣😅😆🤣😂😂🤣😆😆😅😆 go ahead answer, i give u 10000 yrs.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. 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. Christendom was always an 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) 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. 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. 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. 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 beieve 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.
The Qur'an is the final testament, true and unaltered he is Muslim because he professed the oneness of his lord in public. Shahada means the bearing of witness. 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 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. Even Paul himself only called his teachings "the way" he never referred to it as a new religion, the controversy was surrounding the gentiles who, having no desire for circumsiciion had no willingness to follow "the way" as preached for judeans, another "way" was devised for them, one without the trappings of Mosiac law. Indeed that was the reason why the pharises came after paul in the first place. The first appearance of the collected set of "genuine" letters of Paul was in Marcion's Gnostic Bible, in 130AD. Marcion thought the Hebrew God was a different God than the kindly Father of Jesus. It was the bad creator god. Three centuries later, under the auspices of Constantine, who forbade the celebration of easter, whose arch of victory displays no crosses but a 'sacrifice to Apollo instead', only on his death bed did he verbalise his commitment, Paul was made an apostle by imperial decree, a new creed was devised following the teachings of Marcion, someone that was excommunicated for heresey by the church fathers, who heavily edited the pauline epistles and distanced "the way" further from the original teachings of the prophet Jesus PBUH. Aided with the writings of Augustine of Hippo and John Chrysostom an entirely new religion called christianity was devised, an imperial creed with clear pagan underpinnings most prominent of which is the neoplatonic trinitiy, an idea devised inorder to argue with philosophers at the time for in his words he wanted to distanced his new religion from that of judaism by saying it has nothing to do with these "parasites". Indeed it was during constantine's era that "christians" faced the most repression and persecution. Christendom was always an 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) 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. 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; and popular speech recognized that, calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. I'll make this simpler, the teachings of Jesus PBUH are only found in Islam. So follow his teachings as they are only found in Islam. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Language; When you look at the actual linguistics, you'll find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" (why in quotes will be revealed later) 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). |Classical Arabic | 28 consonants, 29 with Hamza and 6 vowels; some consonants are emphatic or pharyngealized; some vowels are marked with diacritics | Complex system of word formation based on roots and patterns; roots are sequences of consonants that carry the basic meaning of a word; patterns are sequences of vowels and affixes that modify the meaning and function of a word | Flexible word order, but VSO is most common; SVO is also possible; subject and object are marked by case endings (-u for nominative, -a for accusative, -i for genitive); verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different moods and aspects | | Akkadian | 22 consonants and 3 vowels; some consonants are glottalized or palatalized; vowels are not marked | Similar system, but with different roots and patterns; some roots have more than three consonants; some patterns have infixes or reduplication | Fixed word order of SVO; subject and object are not marked by case endings, but by prepositions or word order; verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different tenses and aspects | | Aramaic | 22 consonants and 3 vowels (later variants have more); no emphatic or pharyngealized consonants (except in some dialects); vowels are not marked (except in later variants such as Syriac) | Simple system of word formation based on prefixes and suffixes; some roots or patterns exist, but are less productive than in Arabic or Akkadian | Arabic is the only corollary to proto-semitic, infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning mass between their ears. hebrew, aramaic, rest of madeup dialect continua only have 22 letters of the 29 protosemitic letters Arabic has all 29. The difference betweeen Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as that between Latin and pig latin or italian. Arabic is written in an alphabetic script that consists of 28 consonants and three long vowels. For example: قرأ زيد كتابا qaraʾa zayd-un kitāb-an Zayd read a book This sentence is composed of three words: qaraʾa (he read), zayd-un (Zayd), and kitāb-an (a book). The word order is verb-subject-object, which is different from English but similar to Proto-Semitic and Akkadian. The word zayd-un has a suffix -un that indicates the nominative case, which is equivalent to "the" in English or "-u" in Akkadian. The word kitāb-an has a suffix -an that indicates the accusative case, which is equivalent to "a" in English or "-a" in Akkadian. Proto-Semitic is the reconstructed ancestor of all Semitic languages. It is not written in any script, but linguists use a system of symbols to represent its sounds. For example: ʔanāku bēlīya ʔašū I am his lord This sentence is composed of three words: ʔanāku (I), bēlīya (my lord), and ʔašū (he). The word order is subject-object-verb, which is different from English but similar to Arabic and Akkadian. The word bēlīya has a suffix 'ya' that indicates possession, which is equivalent to "my" in English or "-ī" in Arabic. The word ʔašū has a prefix ʔa- that indicates the third person singular masculine pronoun, which is equivalent to "he" in English or "huwa" in Arabic. I'll compare Arabic with Proto-Semitic and show how Arabic preserves features that are lost or changed in other Semitic languages. Let's start with a simple sentence: ## The house is big Arabic: البيتُ كبيرٌ al-bayt-u kabīr-un Proto-Semitic: *ʔal-bayt-u kabīr-u Hebrew: הבית גדול ha-bayit gadol Akkadian: bītum rabûm Amharic: ቤቱ ገደሉ betu gedelu As can be seen, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (noun-adjective), the same definite article (al-), and the same case endings (-u for nominative). Hebrew and Akkadian have lost the case endings and changed the definite article (ha- and -um respectively). Amharic has changed the word order (adjective-noun) and the definite article (u-). But Arabic is not only similar to Proto-Semitic, it is also pre-Semitic, meaning that it is the original form of Semitic before it split into different branches. This is because Arabic preserves many features that are not found in any other Semitic language, but are found in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. These features include: - The definite article al-, which is derived from the demonstrative pronoun *ʔal- 'that'. This article is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the article n- in Berber and the article p-, t-, n- in Egyptian. - The dual number for nouns and verbs, which is marked by the suffix -ān or -ayn. This number is rare in other Semitic languages, but it is common in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. - The imperfective prefix t- for verbs, which indicates the second person singular feminine or third person plural feminine. This prefix is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the prefix t- in Berber and Egyptian. - The passive voice for verbs, which is marked by the infix t between the first and second root consonants. This voice is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the passive voice in Egyptian and Berber. Finally, a more complex sentence: The letter was written with a pen. Arabic: كُتِبَتِ الرِّسَالَةُ بِالقَلَمِ kutiba-t al-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Proto-Semitic: *kutiba-t ʔal-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i Hebrew: המכתב נכתב בעט ha-michtav niktav ba-et Akkadian: šipram šapāru bēlum Egyptian: sḏm.n.f p-ẖry m rnp.t Berber: tturra-t tibratin s uccen Here, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (verb-subject-object), the same passive voice marker (-t-), the same definite article (al-), and the same preposition (bi-). Hebrew has changed the word order (subject-verb-object), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (ha-) and the preposition (ba-). Akkadian has changed the word order (object-subject-verb), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (-um) and the preposition (bēlum). Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Thank you Paul for your posts, your last comment about a quote being omitted from the latest edition made me rewind and listen again. Very thought provoking indeed. Looking forward to your next post. 🤲🏼
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, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a Muslim, one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. 600 years? Trinitarians seem to be in the habit of forging dates ,in believing their own forgeries. The new testament was finished at around the 600's actually. Indeed it was only after Constantine made it an official religion in the 4th century, and 2 centuries later that the current calendar being used today was even devised. No errors, just evil brought by one own's deeds. Those with sickness in their heart will never accept the truth, because they are unworthy. Worship does not increase the creator in anything, it is from him that the created gain. Christendom was always an 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. Textual criticism in christianity began when the bible was first translated into european vernavular in the 16th century (was translated into Arabic in the 19th century), it reached a professional level around the 19-20th century and is still ongoing today, In Islam however it started in the first century. Unlike the Quran, the hadith are transmitted oral accounts which were written 2-3 centuries after they happened and even in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim there are several narrations of the same hadith due to some people paraphrasing and others forgetting part of it. Most of the hadith are without context, this is not to take from the value of hadith as in practice it was the first serious endeavor of having authentication of the historical record. The hadith are transmitted by way of chains of narration, x heard from y who heard from z that .... took place, a study of who x, who y, and who z were and whether what they are saying is true by checking what others had said about them and whether they had indeed met those who they are purported to have taken the accounts from began and so the first "peer review" mechanism took place, all before the internet in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the hijra, which unlike the christian calendar has been continously kept, the current gregorian calendar for example was first instanced int he year 535 CE by Dionysius Exiguus, the 25th of December in addition for example being the pagan holdiay of the roman deirty 'Sol Invictus' is clearly shown in the "Chronograph of 354", the earliest christian calendar predating the current one, but I digress, the writing down of hadith was forbidden by the prophet himself for the aforementioned issue (people forgetting, paraphrasing, taking words out of context) only the Quran was ordered to have been written and linguistically they are too far apart, it is clear that the Matn of the hadith, the substance or the wording was altered as the language used seems to be more modern in many instances (Arabic had not changed in any significant way since the Abbassids, 1200 years ago sound as "modern" as things written in the last 50 years. Arabic is the oldest continuously spoken language in the world, the only possible corollary, chinese, has script which has no relation to the actual language hence why Japanese and old vietnamese use it, event the script itself was only codified in the 1700s in the kangxi emperor's dictionary. A miracle in plainsight blinded by familiarity). 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 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. 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. Older one is no different; only collated around the year 1000 CE (Yes, that late) in the Masoretic text in Egypt. in it , 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. There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. 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.
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. 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. 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 requiments 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 A.D 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, " because 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 trustworthy 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, 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," There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. 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. 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 “Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.” -Jeremiah 6:11 “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.” 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): 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 دع "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 The modifiable testaments testament genocide 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. Surah Al-Baqarah Aya 1-7 The first Surah after the opening has all the point addressed and example of people like him rebuked Surah Al-A'raaf Aya 171 to 178 - Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge Surah Al-Nisaa Aya 46 - Addresses people like those in the video who take verses from the Quran out of their context Surah Al-Ma'idah Aya 48 - shows that the Quran supersedes all other revelations Surah Aal-Imraan Aya 96 - Addresses all of mankind Surah Al-Anbiya Aya 107 - The role of the prophet Surah Al-Hujurat Aya 13 - Addresses the creation of humanity into different peoples Surah Al-Jumu'a Aya 1 to 8 Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
To any unbiased skeptic, it is easy to see how the pagans managed to dissolve the message of Jesus and Moses into paganism and non-adherence to the law. That is why, and if you believe in the everliving God, he sent another messenger that will succeed in making the message of Jesus predominant yet again, in the form of Islam. Alhamdulillah.
@BertoKinawa go find out which one of your scriptures you are citing from then come ask these nonsensical questions... according to our account sof Moses, Jesus, Abraham (Peace and blesing be on them all) they werent as you describe... they were kind yes but when it came to establishing the message they were very very harsh with the disbelievers(mostly polytheists of the time or people following corrupted previous religion)
@BertoKinawaYou say these things because you have no knowledge of religion, every messenger is a prophet of Allah Ta'ala. Every Prophet, Messenger gave only one invitation that is Allah is One and Unique with no partners. And not only Muhammad SAW but all the Prophets gave one good news that is Paradise. I request you to read Quran.
Allah is Satan and Islam is a religion of Satan and his demons they are still worshipping an idol in the Kabba Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven not Allah not Buddha and not Krishna God warned us about false religions and false profits
Prophet Isa/ Jesus ( as) was surprised at this sudden change in condition, He thus performed Salaah and engaged in du'aa begging Allah ta'ala to reveal to him what had caused the punishment of the inmate to cease and be replaced with his spicial mercy ( At-Tafseerul Kabeer vo 1, -pg, 143 )
@@BloggingTheology talk about a hypocrite with double standards. So Muhammad killed his enemies, Jesus didn't kill his enemies, Isaiah 53:9. Don't destroy lives save lives, love your enemies, repay evil with good. Enough said your a despicable human. Jesus is the prince of peace he must be a pacifist or he is a hypocrite. I need to puke bro, metaphorically. Have fun in hell bro. I believe the Holy Spirit is God the Father not the man Jesus. I don't believe in oneness PENTECOSTAL doctrine God the Man, not JW, SDA, Baptist, Mormon, in fact, I have not found a true teacher except, the Holy Spirit and the man Jesus, the Son of God. Your in for a rude awakening bro.❤❤❤❤❤
@@BloggingTheology So you think the torah and all the human knowledge prior to islam is wrong? In the Torah as understood by the jews in Genesis 22, 2, it says Abraham stood on Mount Moriah which is in Jerusalem. It's also true that Solomon built the temple on top of mount Mariah in Jerusalem. Therefore the koran is simply wrong about Abraham and full of contradictions. Whatever your issue with Christianity is. Gospel was originally in aramaic and first followers of Jesus were jews who became christian. The Christianity you talk of is the version for the gentiles/non jews, and you just talk pro "im now a muzza" nonsense imao.
Very well said. I am very appreciative for the willingness and delivery to display some of the obvious truth found by those who truly study and discern the history. Dogmatics and self assurances have stood in the way predominantly in these generations and yet the realities are imperative even in that retrospect.
Praise to the One True God and Creator of both the Messiah Jesus son of Mary and the Holy Spirit Archangel Gabriel (peace be upon them all) cause the ICC is seeking arrest warrant against israelis criminals Netanyahu and Gallant Allah bless you brother Paul. Ameen ya Rabb alaalameen
@BertoKinawa your whole argument negates the fact that being a "muslim" means submitting your will to god, so whoever followed the prophet of their time accurately was a muslim. "From Adam (asws) the first human, to Mohamed (saws) came roughly 124.000 prophets, so don't worry about them. every time people forgot Allah (swt) would send a prophet to those people. al-Aswad ibn Saree, who reported that the Prophet of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: There are four (who will protest) to Allaah on the Day of Resurrection: the deaf man who never heard anything, the insane man, the very old man, and the man who died during the fatrah (the interval between the time of Eesaa (Jesus, upon whom be peace) and the time of Muhammad SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)). The deaf man will say, "O Lord, Islam came, but I never heard anything." The insane man will say, "O Lord, Islam came, but the children ran after me and threw stones at me." The very old man will say, "O Lord, Islam came, but I did not understand anything." The man who died during the fatrah will say, "O Lord, no Messenger from You came to me." He will accept their promises of obedience, and then word will be sent to them to enter the fire. By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, if they enter it, it will be cool and safe for them."
@BertoKinawa already destroyed the whole "acceptance of Islam is the only way to heaven" argument with a hadith attributed to the prophet himself. As for your other argument, what's different about all the prophets' messages? They all taught God was one and early Christians, aka messianic Jews beliefs were aligned more similarly with Islam than Pauline Christianity. On top of that, nothing can accurately be confirmed to be the direct words of moses or jesus, so it's a stalemate at best that still favours Islam. I suggest you drop the whole intellectual superiority act because your arguments are rooted in an almost childlike notion of ignorant bias
@BertoKinawaIslam was there since Adam was created. And not really, you must not be familiar with hadith saying that there will be 71 sects of Judaism and only one will go to heaven, 72 sects of Christianity and only one will go to heaven and 73 sects of Islam and only one will go to heaven. What does it mean whoever believes in oneness of God will be indeed in heaven. But must also listen to commandments sent by prophets.
The New Testament (NT), particularly the Gospels and the letters of Paul, often references Jewish law and tradition, given that early Christians were primarily Jewish and emerged from a Jewish context. In these texts, the teachings of Jesus and the early apostles often engage with, affirm, or reinterpret Jewish law in light of the new covenant established through Jesus. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who lived in the late first to early second century (around 35-107 AD), wrote several letters to various Christian communities that stress the importance of a distinct Christian identity separate from Judaism. In his letters, he emphasizes beliefs and practices that were emerging in the early church, including the role of bishops, the significance of the Eucharist, and the understanding of Jesus as both fully divine and fully human. Ignatius often speaks against Judaizing tendencies, indicating a shift toward a more defined Christian theology and ecclesiology. While Ignatius's letters reflect this emerging sense of a Christianity that is distinct from Judaism, calling it the "oldest reference to pure Christianity" may be too definitive. Different communities and leaders in early Christianity had various interpretations and practices, and the process of defining what it meant to be "Christian" was ongoing and complex. Therefore, Ignatius's writings are significant in highlighting this shift toward a more distinct Christian identity and practice, but they are part of a broader tapestry of early Christian thought and should be understood in conjunction with other writings from the same period.
If you doubt that Paul was in effect the founder of Christianity as a separate religion, then consider how different things would have been if he had not been there.
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 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. Christendom was always an 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) 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. 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. There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. 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. 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. 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.
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 “Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.” -Jeremiah 6:11 “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... - (Deut 20:16-17) thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth - (Josh 6:21, 8:24-27, 10:, 11:11-14,21-22) And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword... And cut off their thumbs and their great toes... He left none remaining: - (Judg 18:27) And they took [the things] which Micah had made ...and came unto Laish ...and smote them with the edge of sword burnt city fire. - (1 Sam 15:1-9) 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 Sam 27:9,11) And David smote the land and left neither man nor woman alive ... - (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 of how the crusaders were treated in return; Eyewitness-chronicler of the fifth crusade, Oliver of Paderborn writes on how the starving defeated crusaders were treated after their defeat: "Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power." 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. 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. Surah Al-Nisaa Aya 46 - Addresses people who take Ayat from the Quran out of their context God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@ranro7371 bro, calm down loool. they were indoctrinated not to know the true face of their religion!!!. This is white supremacy by excellency. always a false justification behind their actions. like a whore who complains that her clients harass her!!!.🤣🤣🤣
Textual criticism in christianity began when the bible was first translated into european vernavular in the 16th century (was translated into Arabic in the 19th century), it reached a professional level around the 19-20th century and is still ongoing today, In Islam however it started in the first century. Unlike the Quran, the hadith are transmitted oral accounts which were written 2-3 centuries after they happened and even in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim there are several narrations of the same hadith due to some people paraphrasing and others forgetting part of it. Most of the hadith are without context, this is not to take from the value of hadith as in practice it was the first serious endeavor of having authentication of the historical record. The hadith are transmitted by way of chains of narration, x heard from y who heard from z that .... took place, a study of who x, who y, and who z were and whether what they are saying is true by checking what others had said about them and whether they had indeed met those who they are purported to have taken the accounts from began and so the first "peer review" mechanism took place, all before the internet in the 2nd and 3rd centuries fo the hijra, which unlike the christian calendar has been continously kept, the current gregorian calendar for example was first instanced int he year 535 CE by Dionysius Exiguus, the 25th of December in addition for example being the pagan holdiay of the roman deirty 'Sol Invictus' is clearly shown in the "Chronograph of 354", the earliest christian calendar predating the current one, but I digress, the writing down of hadith was forbidden by the prophet himself for the aforementioned issue (people forgetting, paraphrasing, taking words out of context) only the Quran was ordered to have been written and linguistically they are too far apart, it is clear that the Matn of the hadith, the substance or the wording was altered as the language used seems to be more modern in many instances (Arabic had not changed in any significant way since the Abbassids, 1200 years ago sound as "modern" as things written in the last 50 years. Arabic is the oldest continuously spoken language in the world, the only possible corollary, chinese, has script which has no relation to the actual language hence why Japanese and old vietnamese use it, event the script itself was only codified in the 1700s in the kangxi emperor's dictionary. A miracle in plainsight blinded by familiarity). Hadith for example has several levels of correctness, from Hasan which means "well" to rejected as pertains to the Matn or the substance of the hadith itself, the "isnad" of the Hadith or the chains of transmission / citation also have varying levels from Marfu' meaning quoted without having actually met any of the people in the transmission chain or a second hand account or Mudalas meaning plagarised from another transmitter of hadith without citing and Marfud meaning outright rejected for various reasons, There is another layer of complexity here called ilm-aa-rijal, the study of the bibilogrophy of those in the chains of transmission themselves and their soundness whether objectively by crosschecking where they lived and whome they met or subjectively by seeing what their peers said about them regarding their character. Those unaware of the aforementioned would not only have not been allowed to cite hadith it would have been a criminal offense and there are hadith which clearly contradict one another and one ought not be citing hadith without knowing all other hadith from the colossal hadith collections that were written, even the earliest hadith collection, Musannaf Abdel Razaq Al-Sanani ( 137-211H / 744- 827 CE) and Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah ( 159H-235H / 775-849 CE). for instance had over 53,000 hadith with their chains of transmissions included has yet to be translated into English . Yes, Bukhari and Muslim are taken the most correct as they had the most narrow criterion, but an enormous study is required before citing either one of them. Later scholars such an Al-Darqutni show that there were mistakes made. I say later here though he is still over a millennium old this seriousness of scholarship was the first endeavor of its kind in human history, what became today known as university degrees started with the institutions giving "ijaza" or certificate t transmit hadith and talk about it , indeed they are the origins of the University system we know today. This scientific method of studying hadith and jurisprudence was developed and already in practice in the 2nd and third centuries of the hijra (around 800 CE) back when most of europe did not have a written script for their vernacular, enormous encyclopedia such as the 40 volume history of Al-Tabari which, averages 400 pages per volume (and is only one of his works) were written, the only corollary of which in the west would have been the "decline and Fall of The Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons in the 1700s, considered a watershed, a monument of its time, with a span that would have hardly constituted a volume and a half of Al-Tabari's encyclopedia and written a millennium later. Jabir Ibn Hayyan (101-199 H / 721-815 CE) the father of chemistry whose theories (distillation, measurement system, oxidaton, nature of substances, etc) remained dominant until the 18th century. and who was the first to elucidate the scientific method said: "The first thing that is required for anyone who seeks the knowledge of chemistry is that he should work with his hands and experiment, for he who does not work with his hands and does not experiment will not attain any degree of knowledge." Ibn al-Haytham (4th century of Hijra), referred to as "the Physicist" in Europe is famous for the first comprehensive scientific book on optics, before his study of optics and perspective paintings were entirely 2 dimensional, a leap after his treatises and works were translated is visible in how paintings became three dimensional, He discovered integral calculus (physicist, mathematician and astronomer who discovered calculus, Newton often references Arabic in his writings for a reason), is even still argued with today the work "The Enigma of Reason" primarily deals with his arguments. regarding the scientific method he said "The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and... attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency." There are texts from the 800's CE debating whether, if one for example were to take a log of wood that was not theirs, make a column out of it and have it as a foundation of a house, later the original owner of the column comes back and demands the log to be retrieved into his custody and refuse monetary compensation ought the judge comply, tear down the structure and give him the log or ought he enforce a monetary compensation. this was 1200 years. Property rights were taken that seriously, you could not simply handwave it and enforce a monetary compensation as that property in question was not attained by proper channels, hence it' s ownership and how much ought be the compensation for it is judicated by its owner and no one else has the right to, not the governor or even the caliph. 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. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@mznxbcv12345 Brother now you are flexing...and I am enjoying it. I hope you don't mind me copy pasting that comment as it needs to read more than once.
@BertoKinawa Hi Berto, I fully agree with your logical sequence, short of your conclusion. If you care knowing how, then you need to read the following and do some digging. Let us first switch the term "entering heaven" into "salvation." In Judaism, salvation is granted to the "chosen people." Others may be saved if they fulfill seven requirements. You may like to dig them out. Despite the different denominations of Christianity, almost all Christians believe that salvation comes with the believing in Jesus. To have an idea about salvation in Islam -in five minutes-, you may check Verses 62 of Chapter 2, and 69 of Chapter 5. Here is some extra point from the Quran: no one in the universe has the authority to judge any one in the Judgement Day, but God, check Verse 17 of Chapter 22.
@BertoKinawa Well, I was not aiming at convincing anybody to consider anything. I was trying to say that there are at least three ways for salvation, and one can choose any of the three, or even none. In addition, what has been attributed to Muhammad (PBUH) in your comment did not conform with the above mentioned Verses in the Quran. It's been nice chatting with you.
@BertoKinawa yeah 2 prophets must inform the same thing...unfortunately your scriptures is so corrupted that you cant say with any aithority what They said
Elkesaites, Nazoreans, Ebionites, these/other early Jewish-Christians were scattered post-70AD. A terrific volume, slightly technical but very accessible is The Brother of Jesus (J. Butz), broaches a lot of these topics. Also see Geza Vermes' Jesus the Jew.
I enjoy your posts. In the gospel of Mark I don't see "today I have begotten you" but rather " you are my son the beloved with whom I am well pleased". Which version are you using? This quote appears to be from Psalms 2, which weakens your argument a bit. Thank you.
@BertoKinawaIf you check the Old Testament you will find out Jacob, Abraham and Solomon were called sons of God that’s doesn’t mean they are his begotten sons, and Jesus never claim to be God and the first example of false prophet is Paul and the next one is dajjal. Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet who was sent to whole mankind while Jesus was only a prophet to the children of Israel
The idea that Jesus was "adopted" by God at his baptism comes from a particular interpretation of the Gospel of Mark. In Mark 1:9-11, the passage reads: "In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.'" This passage is interpreted by some to suggest that it was at this moment that Jesus was acknowledged or "adopted" by God as His son. The phrase "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased" can be seen as a divine declaration of sonship. The concept of adoptionism, which holds that Jesus was not divine by nature but was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, is a belief held by certain early Christian groups. However, it is not a mainstream Christian interpretation, which generally holds that Jesus is the Son of God by nature and from eternity. See Hebrews 5:5; Acts 13:33; Psalm 2:7, which reads "today I have begotten you".
assalamualikum brother, last time when i saw this channel it was 100k now 400+ k congrats brother may your knowledge benefit many others and in the hereafter Akhira
@BertoKinawa actually, all abrahamic religions can acquire heaven. Any person of any religion that believes in one almighty god can. Did you not read the Quran?
Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was most likely what psychologists used to call a "nervous breakdown" and today generally call a "psychological break". His job at the time was to ferret out and put to death members of the rebellious movement inspired by the Nazarene. Paul's mother was a follower, and by rule of law Paul's job required him to nail his mother to a cross. His drinking and drug use was probably escalating as a way to deal with the overwhelming guilt and mental anguish from having to sentence to death his neighbors, friends and family. It was about that time he made a trip to Damascus.
Please, where can I find some sources for your claim that Paul's mother was a believer in Christ - and Paul's drug abuse? Or is this merely speculation?
@@verenatuna9010 I didn't say believer, I said follower. Here's some info on Paul's mother: www.google.com/search?q=was+paul%27s+mother+a+christian&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1043US1043&oq=was+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgAEEUYJxg7MggIABBFGCcYOzIGCAEQRRg5MgYIAhAjGCcyBwgDEAAYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyBggFEEUYPTIGCAYQRRg9MgYIBxBFGD3SAQg0NDQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1 The drinking and drugs part is pure speculation..... An educated guess based upon personal experience, if you will.
@@James-re6co This is actually information about Rufus' mother, not Paul's...there's absolutely NO information on his mother in the Bible - and also outside of it, there seems to be no information available... I actually am familiar with Romans 16:13, but the problem seems to be the differing translations...the King James Version translates: ..."and his mother and mine", whereas all the Bible translations in my native language translate: "and his mother, who has also (become) a mother to me", which makes it more clear, that Paul was talking about Rufus' mother exclusively. Nice story, though ;).
Hello brother Paul salam ,i have question please answer, jews say if they are wrong then why did zechariah write this prophecy that will happen in end time, zechariah 14:16 and zechariah 8:23 ,i hope you will explain it thank you!!!❤
Jesus indeed did not come to start a new religion but to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. He came as the Messiah. The Apostles did continue to attend the Temple and the Synagogues but also met on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) to break bread (Eucharist). Eventually they stopped attending the Synagogues because of the trouble caused by the Jews who didn’t want to accept Jesus as their Messiah and they only met on Sunday. Once the Temple was destroyed (as prophesied by Jesus) animal sacrifice ended. Prior to Jesus ascending to heaven He told Peter that on His confession ( Peter recognizing Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God) He would build His Church and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. That church is the Orthodox Church, the One Holy Catholic (universal) Apostolic Church. It’s a continuation of the Jewish faith, with priests, houses of worship (churches) priest vestments like the priests of the Temple used to wear, hierarchy, and the Eucharist the body of Christ and the blood of Christ which replaced the sacrificial lamb. So, the only religion which is a continuation of the Jewish faith is not Islam who reject Christ as Lord and Savior, but the Orthodox Church, unchanged for 2,000 years.
The Sabbath was instituted, sanctified and blessed by God at the creation of man. Christ kept the Sabbath along with all of the Apostles, the first century Church and true Christians up until Constantine outlawed the same on penalty of death. No scripture in Hebrew/Greek texts declare any other day being sanctified, set apart, blessed or commanded to observe other than the seventh day Sabbath.
@@mikebrown9850 The Orthodox Church commemorates the Sabbath every Saturday by remembering the dead because that was the day Jesus descended to Hades and released the righteous souls.
Christ specifically stated at the end of Mar. 2 that He is Lord of _the Sabbath_ , not the day of the false sun gods. It's just like the counterfeit Christian religions to promote their false versions of Christian history. Acts 15:21 shows the true Church still observing the Sabbath in the synagogues yrs after the Jewish persecution started in Acts 8, so that puts a gigantic, noticeable dent in your false narrative.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 The Didache-Teachings of the Apostles dated 70AD Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. Lord’s Day, Sunday.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 The Didache-Teachings of the Apostles dated 70AD Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. The Lord’s Day, the day Christ was resurrected is Sunday.
Ustadh, you should set up a course where you take us through the history of Christianity. You are too well acquainted with Christianity for you to give us such short gems of videos now and then. I'd really appreciate it, and I'm sure many more will be, if you set up a semester long course on the history of Christianity, at least until the sending of Rasulullah ﷺ.
Hello. Sitting with you Paul is equal to the value of the world. And I noticed how classy and sofsticated in academic work. I salute you for that. you do truely deserve such words. I noticed from the video that "as if" Ignatius is the real serious inventor of Christianity and not Paul (not you of course Paul blogging theology😊) . Did I understand you correctly?!? This seems sorta critical as many accuse Paul of him being the inventor. God Blessings on you. Salaam.
Tbh, the annointment of Jesus during his baptism by John the baptist only makes sense if and only if Jesus was a human being upon whom the divine Spirit descended. If Jesus had been that Spirit himself or had been in any way identical or equal to it, this descending of the Spirit upon Jesus would have been redundant and totally unnessecary.
Am 56. So many opinions l encountered thru my years. The 16 century up until to this present day, opinions continues to spread and updated. But let me tell you all, GOD'S WORD NEVER CHANGE NOR UPDATED.😊
@@Truth-Is-a-Hard-Pill Maybe you are speaking of another god. Numbers 23:19 Elohim is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through? Hosea 11:9 “I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I devastate Ephraim again. For I am Elohim, and not a man- the Set-apart One among you. I will not come against their cities.” Malachi 3:6 “I, YaHUaH, do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.” Mark 12:29 “The most important one,” answered YaHUShA, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: YaHUaH our Elohim, YaHUaH is One.”
How old is Christianity?? I think it's already more than 2000 years yet they're still confused about the fundamental core belief about divinity. Where are you really going with such broken religion?? In Islam the belief system is final, the difference among muslim communities is only about law and fiqh.
A. JESUS CLAIMED HIMSELF WAS ONLY A PROPHET Matthew 13:57 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.” B. PEOPLE WHO LIVED WITH JESUS CALL JESUS AS A PROPHET Matthew 21:11 11 The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 24:19 19 “What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. C. JESUS SAYS ALLAH IS GOD Mark 12:29 29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. D. PAUL SAYS JESUS IS GOD Philippians 2:11 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Romans 10:9 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. E. CHRISTIAN TERM FOR FOLLOWERS OF PAUL Acts 11:25-26 25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. F. FALSE TEACHINGS Matthew 7:15-23 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ My question: Who is the false prophet in Matthew 7:15-23 who taught heretical teachings claiming that the Prophet Jesus was God, so that his followers were expelled from the kingdom of heaven by the Prophet Jesus? If we refer to Philippians 2:11, Romans 10:9, Paul is the person.
The coming of the prophet Muhammad signifies the end of Jesus' book injil. The prophet Muhammad completed the establishment of the new religious 631 AD, which came with the prophet not from the traditional Issac lineage but Ishmael and Quran replacing old revelations and makkah replacing the Al Aqsa.
Randomly found this channel and for the last 15 years I’ve studied history the quote you made about the Christian sect that lost at the council of Nicaea became Islam makes so much sense when I piece together everything I know about the history of that region. Definitely subscribing.
This is a further proof of the divine origin of the Quran. While the Quran has "no historical connection to Jesus", as Bart Ehrman says, yet the Quran is perfectly consistent with the original Jewish Christianity, which has taken scholars hundreds of years to piece together. Therefore the Quran's accuracy means it must be divine, because it cannot be both "made up ahistorical stories" and yet be perfectly historically accurate..
Exept what paul said in this video is false. Paul claim the apostles stayed in jerusalem which is false we know the apostle john went to ephesus and patmos to preach the gospel and peter went to rome, it's well documented and you can search it for yourself. He said the first christians had a book in hebrew that rejected paul which is false there is no proof for this book in the first century .
@@arbitScaleModels Avoid books of lies and conspiracies paul and others muslims apologists tell you to read and research actual history. John the apostle went to ephesus and patmos, peter went to rome it's documented . Don't denie history and truth fo the sake of islam
@@Jesus-Yeshua-saves There is no "lying" involved here. Nobody knows exactly who travelled where. But historians don't believe Peter and Paul went to Rome, and they do not believe John of Ephesus is the disciple John. What we do know for a fact is that the disciples did not write the Gospels, nor did the disciples of the disciples. The Gospels were written by hellenistic Greek Romans who knew nothing about Palestine, Judaism or Hebrew/Aramaic. They were Greeks who entirely misunderstood and mistranslated whatever traditions reached them from the Semitic Hebrews of Palestine. And what we also know for sure is that the first 100 years after Jesus, the leadership of the Church centered in Jerusalem and was led by "Hebrews" as a law abiding Jewsish Christian sect that could not possibly worship a man nor engage in blood rituals. Thereafter, the Greek Romans took over the movement with scant knowledge of its Semitic monotheistic origin, and melded it with Roman philosophy and theology. Christianity today is entirely a Roman product, not a product of Hebrew from Jerusalem who followed the Messiah Jesus. Muslims are perfectly comfortable with what the original Jewish Christians believed, but we do not follow polytheists from Rome.
@@arbitScaleModels the gospels of luke mark and john were written for believers living in first century turkey not israel. Peoples spoke greek in first century turkey. Most books of the new testament were written for peoples living outisde of israel that's what you don't understand. As for historians , many historians actually believe john went to patmos and ephesus and peter died in rome , but you got historians with different theories that contradict each others. Don't think you need others to know the truth you are capable to search informations for yourself don't depend on others
Assalam alicum Paul love your work but I’m confused are you referring to psalms 2:7 when the Lord said TODAY I am pleased with you, couldn’t find TODAY in any translation of mark 1:11 and chat gpt says it’s not aloud to talk about it 😂 jzk
Br. Paul you are doing an amazing job, mashallah. This episode wud b a good source on my upcoming "book". I gave the title "jesus son of Mary, the forgotten status". I wish this open eyes for other Christians and they realize the historical jesus amen.
@Blogging Theology Brother Paul could you please read out and explain the hadith where Salman al-Farsi (may Allah be Pleased with him) narrated his story where he went from bishop to bishop of a dying (most likely, monotheistic and for sure messianic) Christian sect to finally come to the Final Prophet (may the Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him). I think it would be beneficial for the audience.
Even Paul was not the founder of Christianity. It was the 4 century church leaders established Christianity based on the teachings of Paul. Paul was the first person to preach and write that Jesus died for your sin.
Hi moslems this are the site or cherns you have to watch or listen not that laiya Cristian Prince or c.p.so that you Will not give him creadeat to his chern thanks to you all
"it's not the eyes that are blind but it's the heart". Because Western Christians have been brainwashed by their politicians propaganda that anything related to Arab is a terrorist.. but how many countries has the West destroyed. After destroying others and then playing victim
Thank you Paul so much. As a Muslim, im also learning from you so much about how early Jewish Christians during the time of jesus reached 2024 to following different beliefs of Jesus under the tiltle of "Christianity."
@BertoKinawa I don't blame you for being so confused and so lost if your church leaders are corrupt. No church preaches the same as the other. Your Pope is blessing the marriage of LGBTQ which is totally against the preachings of Jesus. Do not kill Do not lie Do not steal Do not comit adultery Do not comit abortion Do not eat pork Do not drink Tranquit wine alcohol Look after thy neighbour Love , protect family etc....
What do U, as a Muslim, think of the following scenario. It’s Mohammed up their on the cross not Jesus. God saves him on the cross and M hangs arround for say, 4O days and rumours circulate….
God didn't put him there he allowed it , u either against it or for it , no matter who it was, Jesus, Issac, Mohamed, Abraham, Adam, Jacob, Elijah.... u either bow down and submit to God or u fly by lost, ignorant, with aragonce, until the day comes, doomed from the start, unless u blessed to wake up @chriswest8389
Asalmulaikum brother paul. There are some provocatively dressed women's profiles that have left comments here and i have reported them to TH-cam as i believe they are troll
Rome, as nationalist and racist as it was, would have never, ever, accepted the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Paul knew it had no chance whatsoever, so this, the central pillar of Jesus' message, was compromised and left out. In its place, he substituted the church. It was a deathblow.
One key point that we really need to understand about the first Christians is that they did NOT seek diversity. They sought unity, they sought orthodoxy. They wanted to be in the Church that Jesus founded and they wanted to follow the Way that Jesus established for his Church. They recognised that the Marcionites were going their own way --- these are the guys who thought the OT was evil. They recognised that the Gnostics were going their own way --- those were the guys who believed in two gods and that the God of the Bible was the evil demiurge. They recognised that the Arians were going their own way --- these are the guys who thought Jesus was not divine. Another key point that we really need to understand is that the early Church fathers, her Apostles, her bishops, her theologians are quite capable of proclaiming Truth against falsehood and are defenders of Truth. All of these other movements were NOT mere differences of opinion or matters of flavour. To compare the Catholic liturgy with an evangelical rock concert is to entirely miss the point. The point is that modern flavours of Protestantism are just that --- minor differences among sects whose stated goal is to stand in opposition to the Church that Christ founded. Yet almost all of them share the same fundamental faith: God exists, God is One and Triune, God created everything, Christ is God incarnate who announced the immanence of the Kingdom, who suffered his passion, truly died, truly rose again, ascended back to the Father and that the Holy Spirit was sent to rightly guide the Church that Christ founded. Protestants don't understand the nature of the Church, but we see the visible and corporate reality of the Church from the first Pentecost right up to today. The Gnostics don't have this. The Arians don't have this. The third point we need to understand is that indeed the Church is a historical institution. That the Church is not just a bunch of people getting together to remember Jesus, but rather that the Church is a Divine institution, that it was actually established on Earth by Yahweh, by God the Son. We know that Jesus existed and that he was no ordinary man --- even the Atheists know this and recognise that there are facts about Jesus that they can not explain from an atheistic or materialistic perspective. We know that God founded his Church within history, during a time when and in a place where humanity was sufficiently civilised to record and understand its own historical record. We know that this same Church that Christ founded nearly 2000 years ago is the same Church that exists today. We literally call it just that: The Church; and we also go by the name the Catholic Church. To all pious Muslims: one thing we love about Muslims is that you have a very great faith! It is deep seated and strongly rooted. We believe that this faith became misplaced early in your history --- please check out what one of our theologians, St John of Damascus, recognised about the early Muslims. We also love how frequently Mary and Jesus are spoken of in your Quran! Mary is worth our veneration! She is the one woman in all of history who fully trusted God and answered his call! She is not a goddess, and we never worship her, but she is a role model for all of us! And she, Mary, always leads us to her Son, who is Yahweh that became incarnate, becoming one of us! Remember, too, that Mary was sent by God and she appeared to you at Zeitoun in Egypt! You understand that Allah is merciful, and that's good! We know that Yahweh, that God, that Allah IS mercy. He is Mercy itself. He is Love itself. He is Truth itself. Muslims! Come back home! Come back to the One God who revealed himself to us and among us! Come back to the worship of God as he revealed true worship to us! Come back to the Truth! Just open your heart the tiniest fraction and God will flood you with his Love, his Mercy, his Truth and with his Very Self!
I agree that catholic along with orthodoxy have the strongest traditions. The question is does that tradition goes back to Jesus & the epistles? And do they fatefully represent them? Many of said church fathers had what would be deemed later as heretical believes. I know that catholics have the concept of doctrinal development, but then it is futile to claim protestants are different if they can also claim inspiration by the holly spirit. As someone who strive to become a pious muslim, I never understood the christian concept of God, or found a christian that can explain it in a non heretical or polytheistic terms. how can anyone say they believe something they don't know/ cannot know? Can I truly say "I believe hukagrhogilvf8776nzoighr is true"? If the trinity is clear & was taught by Jesus, why didn't the early church fathers see it then, when they know the epistles, understood the language & lived the same circumstances? And if church fathers couldn't hold non heretical believes, what makes you think that you could? I am Egyptian and I can assure you that 'Mary appearanceS' ( because it is more than others one at Zeitoun) is a matter of embarrassment for my fellow coptic christians that feel that some are doing publicity stunts to collect donations & turn their church to a pilgrimage sites. We live in a police state, and it was even more so in the 60s especially after the devastating defeat by Israel. That defeat shock the secular Pan-Arab project from its foundation & the state were making concessions to some religious elements muslim & christians. Part of being in police state is if you ally with the government, you can, nay encouraged to make ridiculous claims to be partners in crime, and just like in the soviet union you didn't question the prevailing narrative .
@@ΑλξΠλξ He is very respectful & share what you both think is true, which show generosity & care. I hope we can establish the truth using logic & proves rather than just declaring it to ourselves.
@@hwary7187 most Catholic and Orthodox traditions came from the apostles. Which sounds bad at first until you realize they died for what they were claiming. If they were lying then st.peter would not want to be crucified upside down for claiming Jesus was God.
@@SyntheticSand Dying for your believe is a mark of conviction, not necessarily truth. Plenty of muslims , jews, buddhists & even communists die for their convictions. I agree, I think a lot of traditions came from Jesus & the apostles while others came from the philosophical logos theories that predates christianity & Hellenistic culture that can be seen clearly especially when it is chosen in spite being condemned in the bible. Another key difference is whether Paul was an apostle? Did he came with the same teaching? For example, he came in conflict with them over the law for non jew & even for the jews. And even contradicted on what he himself agreed on in the jerusalem council 1 Corinthians 8 (The Jerusalem Council settled the matter by urging Gentile converts to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols) (Acts 15:29). These are most important questions in any faith, which should tell us if that faith is true or false, who is God? How should He be worshipped? We believe that every human have an internal intuition to recognize One true God, just like we know reality from tricks & magic which even when we see it ,we feel something is amiss. The truth is people are so invested in Jesus being God, because it is hard to face The all knowing Ever Present God & we feel we need someone that can understand us( as if God can't really understand unless he becomes a man) & we feel that we can pass without the total judgement of The One true God through the intercedence of an angelic being. God made Dajjal (the antichrist) for those who wants a man-god and they will get to see his extra-natural powers and believe he is god even though he is just a man with one eye. Our intuition is at its fullest when we are in imminent danger. When a polytheist is in danger, he calls on One God but when he is saved, he thanks the travel gods for example. The only way we have our intuition at full alert without dander, is asking the Creator for guidance, and I pray that God guide us to the truth and keep us upon it.
@@hwary7187 "Dying for your believe is a mark of conviction, not necessarily truth. Plenty of muslims , jews, buddhists & even communists die for their convictions." Of course I agree, the difference is that the Apostles knew the truth so if Jesus isn't God than they Died for a lie they knew not to be true "Another key difference is whether Paul was an apostle?" He was not, St. Paul was Roman who executed Christian for not following Caesar. St. Paul said to had an encounter with Jesus were he went blind and was healed by an apostle (Read this story if you want) and became the most important Christian who isn't an Apostle. " And even contradicted on what he himself agreed on in the jerusalem council 1 Corinthians 8 (The Jerusalem Council settled the matter by urging Gentile converts to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols) (Acts 15:29). " Im confused on what the contradiction is here "The truth is people are so invested in Jesus being God, because it is hard to face The all knowing Ever Present God & we feel we need someone that can understand us( as if God can't really understand unless he becomes a man) & we feel that we can pass without the total judgement of The One true God through the intercedence of an angelic being." I personally think its because Jesus is relatable, which is a main strong point about it. Everyone has suffered, and Christianity believes that our God is suffering too when we sin going agiesnt him hurts him because he loves us. Also God suffer when he became man. "Our intuition is at its fullest when we are in imminent danger. When a polytheist is in danger, he calls on One God but when he is saved, he thanks the travel gods for example." Also you gotta realize that only Mormons say that there is 3 different Gods and most Christians don't consider them Christian
Buddha wasn't a Buddhist, people who follow his teachings are Buddhist, by the same logic people who follow Christ 's teachings called themself Christians. Do you understand? God didn't say he was Muslim, Jew or Christian. People called themselves so according to their beliefs.
Jesus cannot have been a muslim since Mohammed was much later. Jesus wants us to become sons of Allah. Nobody has to be member of Jewish or Christian or Islamic institutions. These will turn out to be evil. They are not peaceful.
To say this is interesting would be a gross understatement. An incredible insight of colossal implications. One of the most insightful videos I've ever seen. Any Christian of true Fidelity must take note and seriously contemplat. What I can't fathom is how Jimmy dunn and others can't be muslim in light of this evidence - please interview him!
I've read your canonical Bibles and your apocryphal Bibles, but I - I did not find Christ in those Gospels saying that he is God. I did not find Christ in those Gospels saying that he came to redeem you from the sin of Adam. I did not find Christ in that Gospel saying that he came to non-Jewish Gentiles - I did not find - God - in the Bible saying that Christ is - His Son - I did not find - God - in the Bible asking for the worship of Christ. But - I found Christ in the Gospel - a servant of God - I found Christ in the Gospel praying to God and pleading with Him - I found Christ in the Gospel - a messenger of God - I found Christ in the Gospel - carrying a commandment from God, what to say and what to speak - And I found Christ in the Bible - he cannot speak on his own - And I found Christ in the Gospel - he cannot do anything on his own - I found hes is just another prophet like many before him but a great one. Christians' have no right to declare anything about other religion caused their believes its all man made tradition persuaded to think Jesus is God and that the biggest trick Satan done.
Yes, i agree and believe Jesus never claim to be god or son of god. If Jesus had preached to his followers that he was god or son of god, they would have been immensely awed and their awe would have been recorded in history and the bible... and they would have asked for fantastic things from him. But they didn't, since there are no records of such happenings. Even if he had forbid them from asking like that, surely there would be historical records of their conversations. Imagine if god is infront of you, surely you would want something big from him like a mountain of gold, a big fleet of ships, a big herd of super fine horses, and a request to send you immediately straight to heaven or paradise. So, the reason why there is no such records of those kind of conversations is that Jesus never claim to be god or son of god. Isn't it strange that no one asked for fantastic things from him those time if he had claimed to be god or son of god ?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 it is to much to even know where to begin. But compared to several good people whose main purpose in life is to want to understand the Bible, and doing a good job at it, many people commenting here, on the other hand, seems unaware and with strange missconceptions.
For example, right at the begining of the video, Paul says that in Mark it says "when he emerged from the Waters of the River Jordan he saw the heavens open up and the spirit descend upon him as a dove while a voice from Heaven proclaims you are my son today I have begotten you". Now this is what the gospel of Mark tells us of course. The gospel of Mark does not say that. It says, "Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” In all the 50 or so translations / versions of Mark that I have to hand non of them say what Paul says which rather undermines his arguement.
One thing few scholars focus on: James, and presumably the community of the "early church", were strict vegetarians. Paul came along and said "eat anything you'd like."
If you want to find more about a topic, ie rocket science, you go to the top rocket scientists in the world. You do not go to the top literature PH graduates. If I want to learn more about Islam I go to the top Islam scholars in the world. If I want to learn more about Christianity I go to...
Can the truth come from someone who admits to lie to people to convert them to His religion? Can the truth come from someone who confessed before the Real apostles of Jesus (AS) to accusations about calling believers to abandon the Law then denying that he did this? I think not.
13:00 it actually does NOT say the Holy Spirit came upon only Jews in Acts 2:10. Acts 2:10 is part of an existing thought and cannot be cited out of context. What these people heard were the language[s] in which they spoke or had learned since childhood. So, basically their native tongues. Based on the geographic locations mentioned in verses 9-10. It wasn't the Holy Spirit that was given in these verses (one has to read into the verse to come to that conclusion) but rather they heard their own language[s]. Most likely Koine Greek since those geographic locations had been Hellenized already. We don't get to the promise of the Holy Spirit until verses 17-18 and notice in verse 22 that we see that Peter is speaking to the "men of Israel" so it's not just "Jews" here. Though some might argue that the "Jews" at this point is synonymous with "Israel".
Assalamualaikum, I am Christian (Old) it is more missing to that story. Please check New Chronology prof A Fomenko Dr G Nosovsky , the Bethlehem Star is still visible in tbe Crab Nebula, it was visible for us in 1154-55 a d. Jesus was born 1154-55 and died around 33 years later . Etc etc
@@abuzarghafari7893Recently learned about Torah (Moses), Psalms (David) and Gospels (Jesus) in the Bible. But what I understood is that the Gospels is entirely different from the scripture of the prophet from Makkah. The following makes sense: 1.Why God is unaware that Mary is not God for Christians. 2.Why is God who knows everything is asking Jesus whether Jesus ask people to worship Him and His mother Mary as God. 3.Why God as per the scripture is making it appear that it was Jesus who was crucified. Why is God unaware of the fact that making it appear that Jesus being crucified would further worsen people's belivee that Jesus is God? Why God is unaware of all this. 4.Why would an Archangel sent by God act so rude to the prophet? Also why God is unaware that none would believe that God sent the prophet when he doesn't perform miracles like Jesus or Moses. 5.Why Would God make Jesus the Messiah and he come again which is like forcing people to worship Jesus as God.
Brothers, no , first, we genuine Christian we recognize Prophet Muhammad , pracę be upon Him, as Messenger of One God. Second, the Trinity is only One : Mother , Father and Childe. I am not talking religion now, I am talking history , check New Chronology, Fomenko Nosovsky , that's all.
I always hear Muslims like this guy say Christian teaching is an accretion overtime. But I would rather trust the people who knew Jesus and learned directly from the apostles, rather than someone in Arabia over 600 years later lol. You claim council of nicea, etc, but even that was closer than your religion creation. Its clear the creation of Islam happened after Muhammed ran into a Christian sect of Arianism who was a known heresy and taught him things they believed. Thats why stories from the Quran are clear rips from later apocryphal texts like Thomas and so on. Read john of Damacus text on Islam and see what the early ideas of Islam were.
@@BuffaloPros exactly. There were Christian groups at the time who had different beliefs, like the flood not going over the entire earth, differences between Jesus true nature, etc. the majority , belief about Jesus “won” which is Christianity today. The fact that Muhammed ran into a different group of Christian’s who believed differences than the majority proves he ran into a minority Christian group and took what they said ( along with other texts at the time ) and created
MashALLAH Brother ! What a great and crucial quality work that you produce ! Appreciate the richness of contents with your conciseness ! May Our Lord Creator increase even more your "noorullah" !
Thank you brother Paul for this very interesting video. Sincerly, i didn't understand it well because of the language. Please, do an arabic translation of it.
@@staffan144 apparently Christians in the first century did too. Read Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities." Research the book our brother Paul is discussing with his audience. RESEARCH IT. Keep your emotions and bigotry for Islam out of it.
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antiokia.And it came to pass, that a whole year they and taught much themselves with the church, and taught much people.And the disciples were called Christians first in Antiokia
This is so intriguing to me. I'm on a mission to find how we are all connected. I'm a Christian, friend of the Jews and Muslims. Very informative. I'm watching this over and over
Bible warns ... Those who deny Jesus being the Son of God... is anti- christ. Is excactly what islam teaches: Jesus is not the son of God, did not die on a cross and so did not rise from the death. Islam is anti- bible anti-Jew and anti- Christians.
The only connection the Jews believe in the Torah, and believe a false oneness god. The Muslims also believe in a false oneness god, the Theology derived from gnosticism, paganism and butchering of the Bible. The true God is triune, as per the Old and New Testament and consistent with Theology of the Church.
According to the English dictionary the word “son” means - 1. A male child of either parents 2. A male descendant 3. A male off spring 4. A boy in relations to either parents The question is WHERE did god get the “ son” FROM?
@@nadeemlakhi9206 Yes I do. But the Christian belief is he is literally the “ son” of god So the question remains - WHERE did the Father GET the “son” FROM??
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the first three questions below? Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.....
In the end, if you're a Christian, Muslim, or Jew and you do not follow the greatest commandments. We call the golden rules, then you are just another person who doesn’t love.
from the 3 religions u mentioned..the ones who claim to be all about "love" are the least people to follow the laws and commands..as some people say "don't tell me.. show me"
@GTari-ob6bj Jesus taught to follow the golden rule 1st, and we're all falling short. Any command that violates this command is not from God. Views on slavery, including Muslim, Jews and Christians' actions for 2000 years, prove we missed God's message to humanity. We chose law over love. Love your neighbor as yourself is the highest law. Only now, Muslims are defending slavery and other evil practices that violate the golden rule. It's simple, do you want to be a slave? If no stand aganist it in all it's forms and seek a higher path for us all using innovation, science, but especially love.
@@TagEngravings your whole arguments seem to focus more on humans than on God..that's not what the prophets taught..worshipping the one and only true God was always the first and most important command in every single message sent by God..stop making your own religion by cherry picking verses and ignoring others in your book..im all for the golden rule and treating others like u want to be treated and it's all in islam as well and more but we should focus first on God then everything will follow, jesus like every prophet of God taught to worship the one and only true God (that he called the father) as a 1st command (u falsly said the golden rule 1st) and y'all still worshipping 3 and brainwash yourselves into thinking they're 1 even though according to y'all each one is 100% God and each one is a person that's not the other person but somehow still one God..go figure..but appearently the golden rule is more important than worshipping others with God that's how little u think of God.. and btw the golden rule you're talking about was taught thousands of years before jesus walked on earth..look it up it's much older than u think..but my whole point i was just proving to u that "love" when talking about God means adhering to the law of God to the best of your ability.. that's what the faithful people who love God do (like jesus and james and his disciples did btw even after jesus ascension his disciples kept the law.. unlike y'all who follow paul )they adhere to the law and work. not just say" i believe" and "i love" with little to no work.. if u say to your wife i love u without showing it with actions do u even love her? this is my original point that i was talking about in my first comment..also u falsly said "We chose law over love" as if they're in conflict but law IS love..(law of God of course) when u adhere to God's law u show your love for him by listening to him and even between us as humans when u follow God's law like don't steal don't kill don't grape don't curse u also show love to humans and law makes our community healthier and more loving and trusting instead of lawless chaos ..and btw do yourself a favour and read your own book ..your God permitted and even commanded slavery in your own book..and you're talking about " prove we missed God's message to humanity" u mean the message that he himself commanded in it slavery? or u're going to pretend that these texts don't exist? and not just in exodus and leviticus and deuteronomy btw it's also in the NT aswell.. Paul (who 50% of the NT is written by him) and also Peter many times told the slaves to submit to their owners..were is the "love" and the "golden rule"? i thought they are inspired and guided by the holy spirit no? also who said this? ''Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.''Exodus 21:20-21..who said these words? your God? or the OT God is different? where is the golden rule here? let's use your rule of "Any command that violates this command is not from God" and start filtering and throwing verse out of your book..if u think that slavery is immoral then your God did command an immoral thing and u can't pull the "it's the old days" excuse either an immoral act is always an immoral act and your God at some point in time commanded that "evil" command. i dare u to find me in islam commands of God telling us that it's okay to sell our own kids as slaves.. but i can show it to u from your own book. was jesus the God of the OT? also the slavery allowed in islam is people that fought you in battle and instead of kiling them with cold blood after their army lost the battle you take them as captures of wars and make them your slaves while treating them like family in hope of them becoming muslims to be saved cause we want what's best for them that's love..(if u hit a slave once then u have to free him by law) read about the slaves in islamic empires..im not saying every muslim in the old days was good to slaves that's not true but im realisitc and i can see the wisdom of such system in the old times..many salves in the muslim lands became kings (something u won't hear a christian say about their slaves even though christianity is 600 years older) even crazier some slave groups even had their own muslim empires ..like the mamluks who literally saved islam from the mongols..some of y'all will literally condemn your own God's commands just cause u were born in the 21 century and raised to look at things from a liberal (Small-l liberal ) POV..i believe in an all wise God..im not that arrogant to say i know what best for humanity more than who created it..even with my limited wisdom i can see many wisdoms behind such system and as they say God has the picture, we just have the pixel
@GTari-ob6bj You are mistaken, but "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " You allow your need to be "right" supersede the highest laws of love. Jesus was considered a law breaker by the Jewish leaders of his day because he would not follow laws that violate the highest commandments to love. He healed on the sabbath. He touched the sick. Allowed women to wash his feet. He hung out with tax collectors and sinners, he would not stone a Prostitute even though the law said he should, and he even broke physics by walking on water. Jesus lived and taught the highest commandments. Matthew 22:36-40 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
@@GTari-ob6bj Jesus also said, 1 John 4:19-21 If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
Mashallah brother Paul . Great work pulling out these paradoxical and contradictory comments from those humongous books. May Allah reward you for the effort of highlighting these issues in christianity thereby elevating the truth in Islam.
I have been listening to and reading Qur’an over the past few months, and I have loved every minute of it. What is your opinion of the religion called Manichaeism? Where the prophets include Zarathustra, The Buddha, Jesus, and the eponymous Mani. This religion predated Islam and their prophet claimed to have been the “Seal of the Prophets”. Thank you for your content!
I do come across this days ago: The problem is with the TIMELINE, carbon dated, available manuscript etc. Everything topsy turvy with scant references. So, there is NO need for me to dwell on it
If the jews and Christians say that Islam is a false religion, they are also automatically saying that their religions are false as well. In the bible, God made a promise to Hagar and Abraham that he would make the descendants of Ishmael a great nation. Arabs, descendants of Ishmael became a great nation only through Islam. When the world was drowned in polytheism of the trinity, Islam restored the pure and strict monotheism of abrahamic faith. The Bible says that God will bless those who bless Abraham. The muslims are the ones who bless Abraham most daily in every prayer.
Issac was the promised child... Ishmael was born out of disbelief of Abraham when he slept with his maid/slave..Ishmael is not from God but from carnal production of Abraham and Hagar.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17 What do you mean founder of Christianity?
The very first sentence is mistaken. Speaking of a "first century" or "Jews" at the time of Christ is being trapped inside an illusion Once you BEGIN with falsehoods, then the Truth lies beyond what you say.
Paul is reading from the opinions of scholars, including Christian biblical scholars and theologians. Perhaps your qualifications make you uniquely knowledgeable about the subject? Could you point is to your publications, so we can become better educated?
@thetriumphsprint The first book that really goes into it was "The Pauline Epistles" by Edwin Johnson. Johnson was dismissed out of hand as a "conspiracy theorist" by "mainstream scholars", simply for quoting actual writers and theologians of the past. Others have expanded on his work. Although, it's not really "his work". He merely pointed out what people in the past actually thought and wrote, rather than what people today choose to believe they thought and wrote.
@@danielburger1775 perhaps a better reply would have been a) I'm sorry, I shouldn't have been disrespectful to Paul or b) here's a list of my publications as requested. But no, you have introduced an author in egos opinion reflects your own. Actually, I don't know Johnson or his cat. Perhaps that is a topic Paul might find of interest to speak about. I enjoy his synthesis of the available works.
@thetriumphsprint I was making an observation. If one is speaking on apples, and starts with the belief that "All apples are triangular and orange", then whatever follows will be starting from a point of error. Even if there are "leading experts" whose works state that 'All apples are triangular and orange'. In this case, the vast illusion was created by the precursors to the very people who now "study" it, and use it for "confirmation" of their own beliefs. That's neither scientific nor academic. And anyone examining details INSIDE the illusion is starting from a point of error. If one wants to get towards the truth, one needs to step outside the illusion entirely.
For the Ebionites, see the Gospels of Hebrews, the Gospels of the Nazareans, and the Gospels of the Ebionites. We see that they viewed Jesus as an angel. A distinction is made between "Jesus the son of Mary" as a human and "Jesus to whom the Holy Spirit descended like a dove" One is said to "suffer neither pain nor death" the other is human
@@komaichan99 In Islam, only Gabriel (AS) is Roohul Qudus (Holy spirit). He is the only one sent to the Prophets (AS). Micheal (AS) apportions sustenance, as has been decreed by his Lord (Allah). Gabriel (AS) serves soul food, whilst Micheal (AS) serves body food.
@@saninakakana6931 The Ebionites, a Judeo Christian, regarded Jesus as an angel (Michael) Jesus, son of Mary, is a separate entity. The Messiah descended upon Mary's son at his baptism.
@BertoKinawa of course , in the Islamic paradigm, Islam has existed as long as humanity has, since Adam AS. All of the Prophets were Muslim by Islamic standards. Islam through the ages may have had different sets of laws e.g sharia of Musa AS is not what we follow today , but the core beliefs were the same e.g the oneness of God , affirmation of the Prophets of God, the angels, Heaven and Hell, the last day, God's books and God's decree
Mr Williams have you seen Brandon Peterson's work on the King James Bible. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. His book is called Sealed By The King and TH-cam called Truth is Christ. Have a great week 🙏 ❤
See Al-Ghazali, Ihya Ulumuddin, chapter Hearing. According to Al-Ghazali, all kind of music, poet, sound, rhythm are "mubah" (neutral or permitted) not halal or haram.
You can't ask Paul to make fatwah about such a topic. It is too complex and not his or our area of expertise brother. Go to your local mosque or Islamic society and ask the Sheikh there. Follow what they advise. Alternatively follow what the acknowledged great Sheikhs advised and ruled upon.
@@sweeyong7756 there aren't any verses in Qur'an specifically mentioning music, unless I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, please provide the sources from Qur'an so I can learn. If you are convinced that it is Haram, in the Qur'an, what was the purpose of asking your original question? It seems you already have the answer.
How likely is it that: - Simon of Samaria created the christian christ character and associated it with the Galilean Jew Yeshu the Egyptian? - Simon created as Hebraic christianity based on: his christ character, apocalyptic thought, and yahweh god fearer theology? - Greek christians later evolved the christ character into a Hellenistic character; evolved Simon's Hebraic religion into a Greek religion; created the Saul/Paul character based on Simon, Saul of Tarsus, and the christ character; and backdated the christ character in order to falsely claim primacy over other Greek christianities? - The Jewish followers of Yeshu the Egyptian rejected Simon, his christianity, and the christian christianities?
Jesus did not create Christianity nor preach to mankind to be their religion. It was Paul of Tarsus , the pagan devotee who founded it.
Saul was a genuine convert, and those letters later corrupted, under the Flavian dynasty!
@@rj_olive7
It could be a made-up story of his own.
@@lovetwentyfourseven7428Has anyone seen Archangel Gabriel visit the self proclaimed Arab prophet? Has anyone seen the self proclaimed prophet perform miracles? Did the Torah, Psalms or Gospels prophesy such an Arab prophet from Arabia? What was the religion of the self proclaimed prophet religion at the time of his birth? If God wanted to send a prophet, He would have chosen from the People of the Book and not a person born in a family practicing polytheism. Also as per the scripture believed to be recieved by the self proclaimed prophet, God doesn't know that Christians don't worship Mary, Mother of Jesus as God and mistakes Jesus mother as Moses sister. The following verse is from another holy book sent by God to Prophet Musa or Prophet Moses.
“Yes, this is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: ‘Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have. They are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them,’ declares the Lord” (Jeremiah 29:8-9).
This could help you. May your prayers be not abandoned by God for following a man from Mecca who self proclaimed God sent. May God of Abraham guide you.
@@rj_olive7 Christianity dont exist during jesus' time. jesus preach pure monotheism.
@@lovetwentyfourseven7428 If Prophet Abraham had taught your way, worship of One True God wouldn't be possible.
“The truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Indeed, falsehood is bound to vanish.” ~ Qur’an 17:81
Say what you want about Islam , you can't say it's tainted. The prophet peace be upon him wrote every word heard from Gabrielle.
I'm not Muslim but I really like that verse from the Quran. What does it mean?
Peace...
What some of you Muslims can't grasp is. Alot of us, don't accept our faith. Ask a Christian ,Hindu Buddhist their faith. What gives you the right. To slander their faiths. When you have a hissy it if any question your belief. Is not religion about, peace understanding. Getting along why is it Islam is only faith, with terrorists associated with it.
@@BuffaloPros Thank you for your clarification. Interesting comment.
@@johnbrzykcy3076
God Almighty - The God of Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them all) in His FINAL Testament reminds the people of the truth. Truth has come and falsehood perishes.
One of the names of The Quran is The Reminder. God Almighty in His FINAL Testament calls the people of the previous scriptures BACK to the straight path - the path which they have abandoned / forgotten / c0rrupted / no knowledge of.
Jesus of your Bible preached and practiced:
Who is THE ONLY TRUE GOD?
✅ The Father
(John 17:3)
Who is the God of Jesus?
✅ The Father
(John 20:17)
Who alone to be worshipped?
✅ The Father
(John 4:21)
Whose name be hallowed?
✅ The Father
(The Lord's prayer)
Whose kingdom come?
✅ The Father
(The Lord's prayer)
Whose will be done on earth as it is in heaven?
✅ The Father
(The Lord's prayer)
Whom to ask for daily bread?
✅ The Father
(The Lord's prayer)
Whom to ask for forgiveness?
✅ The Father
(The Lord's prayer)
Whom to pray to for guidance?
✅ The Father
(The Lord's prayer)
Who delivers from the evil one?
✅ The Father
(The Lord's prayer)
Of course the term "The Father" in the J_ew_ish context. It's nothing more than a term of endearment. Christianity because of its adoption of p-a-g-a-n-i-s-m, gave God a literal Son and later made him into "God". The greatest I-N-S-U-L-T h-e-a-p-e-d on Jesus of the Bible. No wonder he will C0ND3MN ONLY the Christians and tell them.
👉 *I NEVER KNEW YOU*
👉 DEPART from me.
It's there in the Bible. Foretold.
Pauline Christianity has nothing to do with Jesus’ teaching.
@imranbasit8276 Kind of remiss of God not to omnisciently foresee how things were going to be hijacked by Saul of Tarsus and then lazy not to do anything about it. So we ended up with 2 millennia during which women have been suppressed and treated as property that can be beaten and abused. That is NOT what Jesus taught, as far as we can tell, from the scant few bits in the NT that can be attributed to him.
Jesus teachings have nothing to do with Islam
The letters of Paul are actually very gnostic and are obviously very genuine. Yet they never refer to the Gospel narratives. Therefore, the impression is there was a gnostic movement, such as related The Essenes, and the Gospel narratives were created with their simple common man understandable moral narratives after Paul.
The same can be said by the ahlul hadith and ibn taymmiyya have nothing to do with Islam
@@ashot1969gh oneness of god. thats what Jesus (as) taught us. not the 3 in 1 pre mix coffee theory of the church.
Brother Muhammad Paul Williams:
You are doing a brave and truthful job. By clearing the teachings of Iesa ibn Meryam Jesus Christ you are clearing your own path to the Kingdom of Allah.
Today you stand for Islam
Tomorrow Allah stands for you.
May Allah empower you to do more for the religion of Allah.
Did you modify your name Brother Paul???
Masha-Allah
Your name shud be Arabic now Paul shouldn't exist your Muslim now right?
@BertoKinawamy friend in Islam actually not 2 prophets but all prophets came with same message to believe in Oneness of God and not to associate partners to him ( from Adam AS to Mohammad SAW ) with no distinction and that including Jesus ( peace be upon him) . While in Christianity God of bible change his mind and decided to have a son and spirit as other Gods asside him and also to sacrifice his son in order to forgive mankind while before in old testament says God is One Alone and I desire not a sacrifice but a forgiveness. No grounds to stand for my friend. You just believe in blind faith
I
And from those who say, “We are Christians,” We took their covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they had been commanded to uphold. So We let hostility and enmity arise between them until the Day of Judgment, and soon Allah will inform them of all they have done.
-Surah Al-Māʾidah, Ayah 14
Mark 12:29
[29]“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord OUR God, the Lord is ONE.
We don't have The Gospel of Jesus (Injeel) anymore , but his most important teaching is still there , that's how Allah makes His signs clear to us , Alhamdulillah.
Allah has allowed enmity and hostility among Muslims so much that they fight and killed each other from fitna upto to today. Over 100k were killed
Sunni and shia are against each other
You are not informed.
The lord God is one and you can not explain from Quran who his spirit is whom he says he blew into Mary's private parts and he sends to strengthen all Muslims
.who is he ? Use Quran verses not lies of scholars
You guys are fulfilling Satan's work. If you knew what is happening in hell you wouldn't believe me
@@MakaiJohnkenneth🤧🤧🤧🥱
@@BuffaloPros thats true.. Why does Allah help Satan Torture the souls in hell?
Though I'm a born Muslim i was skeptic about Islam.
Islam seems perfect in any aspects.
But my doubt was basically other religions.
What if one of them is right and makes more sense!!
After a long journey, i came to the conclusion that only Islam has the unbiased, pure answers to every possible question.
Now,Alhamdulillah I'm a Muslim by choice.
Brother Paul, you helped me a lot to know about christianity and It's errors.
May Allah swt. Reward you Jannah.
Barakallahu fikum wa barakallahu fi Hayatik
Education is very important. We must strive to study our religion. When we finished secondary school my friends and I said if we should do Islam we must study it, if we will not do it, we can stay like that and practice it the way we saw all others observing it (pure taqleed). We all did memorised at least 10% of the Qur'an but we could not tell the meanings of what we were reciting. So we started to study, Alhamdu lillah i am now a pupils teacher in Qur'an memorization, translation to the children in our local language, fiqh, and history of the prophets as story telling for the children.
fi Hayati? Is this supposed to be Hayatik? cause this means "my life"
@@ranro7371 my arabic is not good.
Jajhakallah khair
Wallah this is exactly my story, Allah SWT brought me back during Ramadan this year. Now I appreciate my religion soooo much and am super proud of it. Alhamdulilah for the gift of Islam. My prayer is for Allah SWT to give us guidance and prevent us from being a mushriki.
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. 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.
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 requiments 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 A.D 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, " because 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 trustworthy 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, 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,"
There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. 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.
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
“Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.”
-Jeremiah 6:11
“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.”
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):
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 دع
"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
The modifiable testaments testament genocide 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.
Surah Al-Baqarah Aya 1-7 The first Surah after the opening has all the point addressed and example of people like him rebuked
Surah Al-A'raaf Aya 171 to 178 - Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge
Surah Al-Nisaa Aya 46 - Addresses people like those in the video who take verses from the Quran out of their context
Surah Al-Ma'idah Aya 48 - shows that the Quran supersedes all other revelations
Surah Aal-Imraan Aya 96 - Addresses all of mankind Surah Al-Anbiya Aya 107 - The role of the prophet
Surah Al-Hujurat Aya 13 - Addresses the creation of humanity into different peoples
Surah Al-Jumu'a Aya 1 to 8 Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
I have always believed that historical facts can't be left out when studying the scriptures... because thats one way to filter lies from truth... amd you're doing an awesome job bringing this to my doorstep; something i can only dream of.
Thank you sir ❤
'Great ironies of history' is an understatement.
Paul said there was a book in hebrews among the first christians where paul (of tarsus) was considered as an heretic . that's a lie this book does not exist . Paul said the apostles stayed in jerusalem. That's a lie everybody knows the apostle john went to ephesus and patmos peter went to rome all of this is documented you just have to search. Muslims have to understand the concept of searching informations, it require basic respect for truth.
The Muslims love this guy. So he must be an atheist & Islamic follower.
Your channel contains awsome content sir. Thank you so much. Lukas, Denmark.
In the early days, people did not claim themselves christians but followers of Jesus. Today being followers/believers/worshippers of Jesus, they called themselves as christians, be catholics or protestants!
@BertoKinawa every single prophet said being Muslim is the only way to and to understand that you have to know the meaning of Islam and Muslim a Muslim is the one who submits his will to God almighty Moses Ibrahim Jesus and Muhamed may peace be upon them all preach the same message worship God alone and your reward will be paradise so Islam means the worship of one God and one god alone there is versus in the Quran where Ibrahim says I am Muslim so did Jesus so did Moses may peace and blessings be upon them
@Ish_Tsadiq_Tamim @dakrontu To put it bluntly, Early Christianity was not Christianity. It was a reformed Judaism with teachings from Jesus to reform the wrong doings of the religious order. Fake Apostle Paul founded Christianity.
Yes, Christianity was pretty much monolithic for most of history, which is the definition of 'Catholic'. When they had political power, any 'unorthodoxy' aka non-Catholic Christianity was pretty much repressed with force. If the Muslims hadn't come to Egypt, there would be no 'Coptic Church' today, because they were on their way to being wiped out by Roman Catholicism. In fact, their pope was forced into hiding until the Muslims came and restored their Coptic pope and religion.
No, the definition of Catholic is “ universal”. Jesus was made the Almighty in 325 and later in 381 the Trinity was created as a dogma. No apostle was Trinitarian, they believed in YHWH as the ONE true God. Unfortunately that believe was twisted and corrupted for 1500 years, many still embrace that believe unfortunately.
Indeed, the proper translation of katholikós is "universal".
Jerusalem and Asia Minor at that time was Greek speaking world.
They just wanna be hero...hero is "God" for them..worship heroes religion.really falsehood
@@azfin7430 The worship of heroes religion. Basically Greco Roman Polytheism pretending to be monotheistic. And speaking of heroes, you should get a copy of "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell, noted 20th Century mythologist.
@user-uo7fw5bo1o
" The worship of heroes religion. Basically Greco Roman Polytheism pretending to be monotheistic."
-so as long as you are true "monotheists" can u explain to me why allah says in chapter 23:14 there are many creators (aka gods) but hes the best of them ???🤣🤣🤣🤣
and why allah keeps reffering to himself as "we" "us" "ourselves" if theres only one allah??🤣🤣🤣🤣😂🤣😆😆🤣😂😂😂😂
and why allah prays for mohammad together with his angels in chapter 33:56???he prays to who??
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂🤣😅😆🤣😂😂🤣😆😆😅😆
go ahead answer, i give u 10000 yrs.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either.
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.
Christendom was always an 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) 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.
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.
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. 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 beieve 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.
Amazing.
The Qur'an is the final testament, true and unaltered he is Muslim because he professed the oneness of his lord in public. Shahada means the bearing of witness.
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
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.
Even Paul himself only called his teachings "the way" he never referred to it as a new religion, the controversy was surrounding the gentiles who, having no desire for circumsiciion had no willingness to follow "the way" as preached for judeans, another "way" was devised for them, one without the trappings of Mosiac law. Indeed that was the reason why the pharises came after paul in the first place. The first appearance of the collected set of "genuine" letters of Paul was in Marcion's Gnostic Bible, in 130AD. Marcion thought the Hebrew God was a different God than the kindly Father of Jesus. It was the bad creator god.
Three centuries later, under the auspices of Constantine, who forbade the celebration of easter, whose arch of victory displays no crosses but a 'sacrifice to Apollo instead', only on his death bed did he verbalise his commitment, Paul was made an apostle by imperial decree, a new creed was devised following the teachings of Marcion, someone that was excommunicated for heresey by the church fathers, who heavily edited the pauline epistles and distanced "the way" further from the original teachings of the prophet Jesus PBUH. Aided with the writings of Augustine of Hippo and John Chrysostom an entirely new religion called christianity was devised, an imperial creed with clear pagan underpinnings most prominent of which is the neoplatonic trinitiy, an idea devised inorder to argue with philosophers at the time for in his words he wanted to distanced his new religion from that of judaism by saying it has nothing to do with these "parasites". Indeed it was during constantine's era that "christians" faced the most repression and persecution.
Christendom was always an 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) 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.
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; and popular speech recognized that, calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity.
I'll make this simpler, the teachings of Jesus PBUH are only found in Islam. So follow his teachings as they are only found in Islam.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Language; When you look at the actual linguistics, you'll find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" (why in quotes will be revealed later) 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).
|Classical Arabic | 28 consonants, 29 with Hamza and 6 vowels; some consonants are emphatic or pharyngealized; some vowels are marked with diacritics | Complex system of word formation based on roots and patterns; roots are sequences of consonants that carry the basic meaning of a word; patterns are sequences of vowels and affixes that modify the meaning and function of a word | Flexible word order, but VSO is most common; SVO is also possible; subject and object are marked by case endings (-u for nominative, -a for accusative, -i for genitive); verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different moods and aspects |
| Akkadian | 22 consonants and 3 vowels; some consonants are glottalized or palatalized; vowels are not marked | Similar system, but with different roots and patterns; some roots have more than three consonants; some patterns have infixes or reduplication | Fixed word order of SVO; subject and object are not marked by case endings, but by prepositions or word order; verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different tenses and aspects |
| Aramaic | 22 consonants and 3 vowels (later variants have more); no emphatic or pharyngealized consonants (except in some dialects); vowels are not marked (except in later variants such as Syriac) | Simple system of word formation based on prefixes and suffixes; some roots or patterns exist, but are less productive than in Arabic or Akkadian |
Arabic is the only corollary to proto-semitic, infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical for anyone with a somewhat functioning mass between their ears. hebrew, aramaic, rest of madeup dialect continua only have 22 letters of the 29 protosemitic letters Arabic has all 29. The difference betweeen Arabic and the other creoles and Pidgin is the same as that between Latin and pig latin or italian.
Arabic is written in an alphabetic script that consists of 28 consonants and three long vowels. For example:
قرأ زيد كتابا
qaraʾa zayd-un kitāb-an
Zayd read a book
This sentence is composed of three words: qaraʾa (he read), zayd-un (Zayd), and kitāb-an (a book). The word order is verb-subject-object, which is different from English but similar to Proto-Semitic and Akkadian. The word zayd-un has a suffix -un that indicates the nominative case, which is equivalent to "the" in English or "-u" in Akkadian. The word kitāb-an has a suffix -an that indicates the accusative case, which is equivalent to "a" in English or "-a" in Akkadian.
Proto-Semitic is the reconstructed ancestor of all Semitic languages. It is not written in any script, but linguists use a system of symbols to represent its sounds. For example:
ʔanāku bēlīya ʔašū
I am his lord
This sentence is composed of three words: ʔanāku (I), bēlīya (my lord), and ʔašū (he). The word order is subject-object-verb, which is different from English but similar to Arabic and Akkadian. The word bēlīya has a suffix 'ya' that indicates possession, which is equivalent to "my" in English or "-ī" in Arabic. The word ʔašū has a prefix ʔa- that indicates the third person singular masculine pronoun, which is equivalent to "he" in English or "huwa" in Arabic.
I'll compare Arabic with Proto-Semitic and show how Arabic preserves features that are lost or changed in other Semitic languages.
Let's start with a simple sentence:
## The house is big
Arabic:
البيتُ كبيرٌ
al-bayt-u kabīr-un
Proto-Semitic:
*ʔal-bayt-u kabīr-u
Hebrew:
הבית גדול
ha-bayit gadol
Akkadian:
bītum rabûm
Amharic:
ቤቱ ገደሉ
betu gedelu
As can be seen, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (noun-adjective), the same definite article (al-), and the same case endings (-u for nominative). Hebrew and Akkadian have lost the case endings and changed the definite article (ha- and -um respectively). Amharic has changed the word order (adjective-noun) and the definite article (u-).
But Arabic is not only similar to Proto-Semitic, it is also pre-Semitic, meaning that it is the original form of Semitic before it split into different branches. This is because Arabic preserves many features that are not found in any other Semitic language, but are found in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber. These features include:
- The definite article al-, which is derived from the demonstrative pronoun *ʔal- 'that'. This article is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the article n- in Berber and the article p-, t-, n- in Egyptian.
- The dual number for nouns and verbs, which is marked by the suffix -ān or -ayn. This number is rare in other Semitic languages, but it is common in other Afro-Asiatic languages, such as Egyptian and Berber.
- The imperfective prefix t- for verbs, which indicates the second person singular feminine or third person plural feminine. This prefix is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the prefix t- in Berber and Egyptian.
- The passive voice for verbs, which is marked by the infix t between the first and second root consonants. This voice is unique to Arabic among Semitic languages, but it is similar to the passive voice in Egyptian and Berber.
Finally, a more complex sentence: The letter was written with a pen.
Arabic:
كُتِبَتِ الرِّسَالَةُ بِالقَلَمِ
kutiba-t al-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i
Proto-Semitic:
*kutiba-t ʔal-risāla-t-u bi-l-qalam-i
Hebrew:
המכתב נכתב בעט
ha-michtav niktav ba-et
Akkadian:
šipram šapāru bēlum
Egyptian:
sḏm.n.f p-ẖry m rnp.t
Berber:
tturra-t tibratin s uccen
Here, Arabic and Proto-Semitic have the same word order (verb-subject-object), the same passive voice marker (-t-), the same definite article (al-), and the same preposition (bi-). Hebrew has changed the word order (subject-verb-object), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (ha-) and the preposition (ba-). Akkadian has changed the word order (object-subject-verb), lost the passive voice marker, changed the definite article (-um) and the preposition (bēlum).
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Thank you Paul for your posts, your last comment about a quote being omitted from the latest edition made me rewind and listen again. Very thought provoking indeed. Looking forward to your next post. 🤲🏼
what quote? mention timestamp
@@ranro7371 29:30 onwards. The statement in Paul’s book that he shows is not in the latest edition of the book.
Same, I had to rewind it to hear it correctly too.
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, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a Muslim, one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either.
600 years? Trinitarians seem to be in the habit of forging dates ,in believing their own forgeries. The new testament was finished at around the 600's actually. Indeed it was only after Constantine made it an official religion in the 4th century, and 2 centuries later that the current calendar being used today was even devised. No errors, just evil brought by one own's deeds. Those with sickness in their heart will never accept the truth, because they are unworthy. Worship does not increase the creator in anything, it is from him that the created gain.
Christendom was always an 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.
Textual criticism in christianity began when the bible was first translated into european vernavular in the 16th century (was translated into Arabic in the 19th century), it reached a professional level around the 19-20th century and is still ongoing today, In Islam however it started in the first century. Unlike the Quran, the hadith are transmitted oral accounts which were written 2-3 centuries after they happened and even in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim there are several narrations of the same hadith due to some people paraphrasing and others forgetting part of it. Most of the hadith are without context, this is not to take from the value of hadith as in practice it was the first serious endeavor of having authentication of the historical record. The hadith are transmitted by way of chains of narration, x heard from y who heard from z that .... took place, a study of who x, who y, and who z were and whether what they are saying is true by checking what others had said about them and whether they had indeed met those who they are purported to have taken the accounts from began and so the first "peer review" mechanism took place, all before the internet in the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the hijra, which unlike the christian calendar has been continously kept, the current gregorian calendar for example was first instanced int he year 535 CE by Dionysius Exiguus, the 25th of December in addition for example being the pagan holdiay of the roman deirty 'Sol Invictus' is clearly shown in the "Chronograph of 354", the earliest christian calendar predating the current one, but I digress, the writing down of hadith was forbidden by the prophet himself for the aforementioned issue (people forgetting, paraphrasing, taking words out of context) only the Quran was ordered to have been written and linguistically they are too far apart, it is clear that the Matn of the hadith, the substance or the wording was altered as the language used seems to be more modern in many instances (Arabic had not changed in any significant way since the Abbassids, 1200 years ago sound as "modern" as things written in the last 50 years. Arabic is the oldest continuously spoken language in the world, the only possible corollary, chinese, has script which has no relation to the actual language hence why Japanese and old vietnamese use it, event the script itself was only codified in the 1700s in the kangxi emperor's dictionary. A miracle in plainsight blinded by familiarity).
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
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. 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.
Older one is no different; only collated around the year 1000 CE (Yes, that late) in the Masoretic text in Egypt. in it , 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.
There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. 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.
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. 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.
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 requiments 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 A.D 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, " because 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 trustworthy 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, 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,"
There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. 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.
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
“Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.”
-Jeremiah 6:11
“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.”
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):
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 دع
"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
The modifiable testaments testament genocide 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.
Surah Al-Baqarah Aya 1-7 The first Surah after the opening has all the point addressed and example of people like him rebuked
Surah Al-A'raaf Aya 171 to 178 - Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge
Surah Al-Nisaa Aya 46 - Addresses people like those in the video who take verses from the Quran out of their context
Surah Al-Ma'idah Aya 48 - shows that the Quran supersedes all other revelations
Surah Aal-Imraan Aya 96 - Addresses all of mankind Surah Al-Anbiya Aya 107 - The role of the prophet
Surah Al-Hujurat Aya 13 - Addresses the creation of humanity into different peoples
Surah Al-Jumu'a Aya 1 to 8 Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
To any unbiased skeptic, it is easy to see how the pagans managed to dissolve the message of Jesus and Moses into paganism and non-adherence to the law. That is why, and if you believe in the everliving God, he sent another messenger that will succeed in making the message of Jesus predominant yet again, in the form of Islam. Alhamdulillah.
Assalam Alaykum brother Paul. Thanks so much for this production. Amazing insights into early Christianity.
wa alaikum assalam
@BertoKinawa go find out which one of your scriptures you are citing from then come ask these nonsensical questions... according to our account sof Moses, Jesus, Abraham (Peace and blesing be on them all) they werent as you describe... they were kind yes but when it came to establishing the message they were very very harsh with the disbelievers(mostly polytheists of the time or people following corrupted previous religion)
Love from Bangladesh 🇧🇩
My brother allah bless you ❤
Ameen
আমিন।
Ameen
@BertoKinawaYou say these things because you have no knowledge of religion, every messenger is a prophet of Allah Ta'ala.
Every Prophet, Messenger gave only one invitation that is Allah is One and Unique with no partners.
And not only Muhammad SAW but all the Prophets gave one good news that is Paradise.
I request you to read Quran.
Allah is Satan
and Islam is a religion of Satan and his demons they are still worshipping an idol in the Kabba Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven not Allah not Buddha and not Krishna God warned us about false religions and false profits
Prophet Isa/ Jesus ( as) was surprised at this sudden change in condition, He thus performed Salaah and engaged in du'aa begging Allah ta'ala to reveal to him what had caused the punishment of the inmate to cease and be replaced with his spicial mercy ( At-Tafseerul Kabeer vo 1, -pg, 143 )
Very enlightening! Thank you for sharing the truth.
Thank you for your immense and sincere efforts Paul
You are very welcome
@@BloggingTheology talk about a hypocrite with double standards. So Muhammad killed his enemies, Jesus didn't kill his enemies, Isaiah 53:9. Don't destroy lives save lives, love your enemies, repay evil with good. Enough said your a despicable human. Jesus is the prince of peace he must be a pacifist or he is a hypocrite. I need to puke bro, metaphorically. Have fun in hell bro. I believe the Holy Spirit is God the Father not the man Jesus. I don't believe in oneness PENTECOSTAL doctrine God the Man, not JW, SDA, Baptist, Mormon, in fact, I have not found a true teacher except, the Holy Spirit and the man Jesus, the Son of God. Your in for a rude awakening bro.❤❤❤❤❤
@@BloggingTheology So you think the torah and all the human knowledge prior to islam is wrong? In the Torah as understood by the jews in Genesis 22, 2, it says Abraham stood on Mount Moriah which is in Jerusalem. It's also true that Solomon built the temple on top of mount Mariah in Jerusalem. Therefore the koran is simply wrong about Abraham and full of contradictions. Whatever your issue with Christianity is. Gospel was originally in aramaic and first followers of Jesus were jews who became christian. The Christianity you talk of is the version for the gentiles/non jews, and you just talk pro "im now a muzza" nonsense imao.
He was killed for a reason, you know!😮
What is a "Jewish - Christian!" 😮
Very well said. I am very appreciative for the willingness and delivery to display some of the obvious truth found by those who truly study and discern the history. Dogmatics and self assurances have stood in the way predominantly in these generations and yet the realities are imperative even in that retrospect.
Praise to the One True God and Creator of both the Messiah Jesus son of Mary and the Holy Spirit Archangel Gabriel (peace be upon them all) cause the ICC is seeking arrest warrant against israelis criminals Netanyahu and Gallant
Allah bless you brother Paul. Ameen ya Rabb alaalameen
Very interesting. Being born in a Muslim family (but never practiced), I have learned a lot about all religions from your channel.
@BertoKinawa what is this garbage logic?
@BertoKinawa your whole argument negates the fact that being a "muslim" means submitting your will to god, so whoever followed the prophet of their time accurately was a muslim.
"From Adam (asws) the first human, to Mohamed (saws) came roughly 124.000 prophets, so don't worry about them.
every time people forgot Allah (swt) would send a prophet to those people.
al-Aswad ibn Saree, who reported that the Prophet of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: There are four (who will protest) to Allaah on the Day of Resurrection: the deaf man who never heard anything, the insane man, the very old man, and the man who died during the fatrah (the interval between the time of Eesaa (Jesus, upon whom be peace) and the time of Muhammad SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)). The deaf man will say, "O Lord, Islam came, but I never heard anything." The insane man will say, "O Lord, Islam came, but the children ran after me and threw stones at me." The very old man will say, "O Lord, Islam came, but I did not understand anything." The man who died during the fatrah will say, "O Lord, no Messenger from You came to me." He will accept their promises of obedience, and then word will be sent to them to enter the fire. By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, if they enter it, it will be cool and safe for them."
@BertoKinawa I just did based on your comment?
Explain further what your reasoning is and what you need in order to prove Muhammad saw as a prophet
@BertoKinawa already destroyed the whole "acceptance of Islam is the only way to heaven" argument with a hadith attributed to the prophet himself.
As for your other argument, what's different about all the prophets' messages? They all taught God was one and early Christians, aka messianic Jews beliefs were aligned more similarly with Islam than Pauline Christianity. On top of that, nothing can accurately be confirmed to be the direct words of moses or jesus, so it's a stalemate at best that still favours Islam.
I suggest you drop the whole intellectual superiority act because your arguments are rooted in an almost childlike notion of ignorant bias
@BertoKinawa I've just done it lad, you laid out multiple points which could be demolished with the same argument and that's what's happened.
"Lost Christianities" by BART EHRMAN is a good book on the various forms of Christianity
@BertoKinawaIslam was there since Adam was created. And not really, you must not be familiar with hadith saying that there will be 71 sects of Judaism and only one will go to heaven, 72 sects of Christianity and only one will go to heaven and 73 sects of Islam and only one will go to heaven. What does it mean whoever believes in oneness of God will be indeed in heaven. But must also listen to commandments sent by prophets.
The New Testament (NT), particularly the Gospels and the letters of Paul, often references Jewish law and tradition, given that early Christians were primarily Jewish and emerged from a Jewish context. In these texts, the teachings of Jesus and the early apostles often engage with, affirm, or reinterpret Jewish law in light of the new covenant established through Jesus.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, who lived in the late first to early second century (around 35-107 AD), wrote several letters to various Christian communities that stress the importance of a distinct Christian identity separate from Judaism. In his letters, he emphasizes beliefs and practices that were emerging in the early church, including the role of bishops, the significance of the Eucharist, and the understanding of Jesus as both fully divine and fully human. Ignatius often speaks against Judaizing tendencies, indicating a shift toward a more defined Christian theology and ecclesiology.
While Ignatius's letters reflect this emerging sense of a Christianity that is distinct from Judaism, calling it the "oldest reference to pure Christianity" may be too definitive. Different communities and leaders in early Christianity had various interpretations and practices, and the process of defining what it meant to be "Christian" was ongoing and complex.
Therefore, Ignatius's writings are significant in highlighting this shift toward a more distinct Christian identity and practice, but they are part of a broader tapestry of early Christian thought and should be understood in conjunction with other writings from the same period.
If you doubt that Paul was in effect the founder of Christianity as a separate religion, then consider how different things would have been if he had not been there.
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
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.
Christendom was always an 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) 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.
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.
There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. 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.
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.
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.
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
“Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.”
-Jeremiah 6:11
“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...
- (Deut 20:16-17) thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth
- (Josh 6:21, 8:24-27, 10:, 11:11-14,21-22) And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword... And cut off their thumbs and their great toes... He left none remaining:
- (Judg 18:27) And they took [the things] which Micah had made ...and came unto Laish ...and smote them with the edge of sword burnt city fire.
- (1 Sam 15:1-9) 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 Sam 27:9,11) And David smote the land and left neither man nor woman alive ...
- (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 of how the crusaders were treated in return; Eyewitness-chronicler of the fifth crusade, Oliver of Paderborn writes on how the starving defeated crusaders were treated after their defeat:
"Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power."
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.
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.
Surah Al-Nisaa Aya 46 - Addresses people who take Ayat from the Quran out of their context
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@ranro7371
bro, calm down loool. they were indoctrinated not to know the true face of their religion!!!.
This is white supremacy by excellency. always a false justification behind their actions.
like a whore who complains that her clients harass her!!!.🤣🤣🤣
Masha'allah brothers may Allah guide you both and guide many by your words.
Textual criticism in christianity began when the bible was first translated into european vernavular in the 16th century (was translated into Arabic in the 19th century), it reached a professional level around the 19-20th century and is still ongoing today, In Islam however it started in the first century. Unlike the Quran, the hadith are transmitted oral accounts which were written 2-3 centuries after they happened and even in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim there are several narrations of the same hadith due to some people paraphrasing and others forgetting part of it. Most of the hadith are without context, this is not to take from the value of hadith as in practice it was the first serious endeavor of having authentication of the historical record. The hadith are transmitted by way of chains of narration, x heard from y who heard from z that .... took place, a study of who x, who y, and who z were and whether what they are saying is true by checking what others had said about them and whether they had indeed met those who they are purported to have taken the accounts from began and so the first "peer review" mechanism took place, all before the internet in the 2nd and 3rd centuries fo the hijra, which unlike the christian calendar has been continously kept, the current gregorian calendar for example was first instanced int he year 535 CE by Dionysius Exiguus, the 25th of December in addition for example being the pagan holdiay of the roman deirty 'Sol Invictus' is clearly shown in the "Chronograph of 354", the earliest christian calendar predating the current one, but I digress, the writing down of hadith was forbidden by the prophet himself for the aforementioned issue (people forgetting, paraphrasing, taking words out of context) only the Quran was ordered to have been written and linguistically they are too far apart, it is clear that the Matn of the hadith, the substance or the wording was altered as the language used seems to be more modern in many instances (Arabic had not changed in any significant way since the Abbassids, 1200 years ago sound as "modern" as things written in the last 50 years. Arabic is the oldest continuously spoken language in the world, the only possible corollary, chinese, has script which has no relation to the actual language hence why Japanese and old vietnamese use it, event the script itself was only codified in the 1700s in the kangxi emperor's dictionary. A miracle in plainsight blinded by familiarity).
Hadith for example has several levels of correctness, from Hasan which means "well" to rejected as pertains to the Matn or the substance of the hadith itself, the "isnad" of the Hadith or the chains of transmission / citation also have varying levels from Marfu' meaning quoted without having actually met any of the people in the transmission chain or a second hand account or Mudalas meaning plagarised from another transmitter of hadith without citing and Marfud meaning outright rejected for various reasons,
There is another layer of complexity here called ilm-aa-rijal, the study of the bibilogrophy of those in the chains of transmission themselves and their soundness whether objectively by crosschecking where they lived and whome they met or subjectively by seeing what their peers said about them regarding their character.
Those unaware of the aforementioned would not only have not been allowed to cite hadith it would have been a criminal offense and there are hadith which clearly contradict one another and one ought not be citing hadith without knowing all other hadith from the colossal hadith collections that were written, even the earliest hadith collection, Musannaf Abdel Razaq Al-Sanani ( 137-211H / 744- 827 CE) and Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah ( 159H-235H / 775-849 CE). for instance had over 53,000 hadith with their chains of transmissions included has yet to be translated into English . Yes, Bukhari and Muslim are taken the most correct as they had the most narrow criterion, but an enormous study is required before citing either one of them. Later scholars such an Al-Darqutni show that there were mistakes made. I say later here though he is still over a millennium old this seriousness of scholarship was the first endeavor of its kind in human history, what became today known as university degrees started with the institutions giving "ijaza" or certificate t transmit hadith and talk about it , indeed they are the origins of the University system we know today.
This scientific method of studying hadith and jurisprudence was developed and already in practice in the 2nd and third centuries of the hijra (around 800 CE) back when most of europe did not have a written script for their vernacular, enormous encyclopedia such as the 40 volume history of Al-Tabari which, averages 400 pages per volume (and is only one of his works) were written, the only corollary of which in the west would have been the "decline and Fall of The Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons in the 1700s, considered a watershed, a monument of its time, with a span that would have hardly constituted a volume and a half of Al-Tabari's encyclopedia and written a millennium later.
Jabir Ibn Hayyan (101-199 H / 721-815 CE) the father of chemistry whose theories (distillation, measurement system, oxidaton, nature of substances, etc) remained dominant until the 18th century. and who was the first to elucidate the scientific method said: "The first thing that is required for anyone who seeks the knowledge of chemistry is that he should work with his hands and experiment, for he who does not work with his hands and does not experiment will not attain any degree of knowledge."
Ibn al-Haytham (4th century of Hijra), referred to as "the Physicist" in Europe is famous for the first comprehensive scientific book on optics, before his study of optics and perspective paintings were entirely 2 dimensional, a leap after his treatises and works were translated is visible in how paintings became three dimensional, He discovered integral calculus (physicist, mathematician and astronomer who discovered calculus, Newton often references Arabic in his writings for a reason), is even still argued with today the work "The Enigma of Reason" primarily deals with his arguments. regarding the scientific method he said "The duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and... attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency."
There are texts from the 800's CE debating whether, if one for example were to take a log of wood that was not theirs, make a column out of it and have it as a foundation of a house, later the original owner of the column comes back and demands the log to be retrieved into his custody and refuse monetary compensation ought the judge comply, tear down the structure and give him the log or ought he enforce a monetary compensation. this was 1200 years. Property rights were taken that seriously, you could not simply handwave it and enforce a monetary compensation as that property in question was not attained by proper channels, hence it' s ownership and how much ought be the compensation for it is judicated by its owner and no one else has the right to, not the governor or even the caliph. 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.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@mznxbcv12345 Brother now you are flexing...and I am enjoying it.
I hope you don't mind me copy pasting that comment as it needs to read more than once.
Smooth and simple! Yet, right to the point. Great job.
@BertoKinawa Hi Berto, I fully agree with your logical sequence, short of your conclusion. If you care knowing how, then you need to read the following and do some digging. Let us first switch the term "entering heaven" into "salvation."
In Judaism, salvation is granted to the "chosen people." Others may be saved if they fulfill seven requirements. You may like to dig them out.
Despite the different denominations of Christianity, almost all Christians believe that salvation comes with the believing in Jesus.
To have an idea about salvation in Islam -in five minutes-, you may check Verses 62 of Chapter 2, and 69 of Chapter 5. Here is some extra point from the Quran: no one in the universe has the authority to judge any one in the Judgement Day, but God, check Verse 17 of Chapter 22.
@BertoKinawa Well, I was not aiming at convincing anybody to consider anything. I was trying to say that there are at least three ways for salvation, and one can choose any of the three, or even none. In addition, what has been attributed to Muhammad (PBUH) in your comment did not conform with the above mentioned Verses in the Quran. It's been nice chatting with you.
@BertoKinawa yeah 2 prophets must inform the same thing...unfortunately your scriptures is so corrupted that you cant say with any aithority what They said
@BertoKinawa your premise is wrong because your scripture is corrupted and you DONT know what they actually said about salvation
Elkesaites, Nazoreans, Ebionites, these/other early Jewish-Christians were scattered post-70AD. A terrific volume, slightly technical but very accessible is The Brother of Jesus (J. Butz), broaches a lot of these topics. Also see Geza Vermes' Jesus the Jew.
Thanks
th-cam.com/video/mS2vxqOmC6w/w-d-xo.htmlsi=vEBdK1FXyByTUu6A
'The Lost Religion of Jesus' by Keith Akers is also very enlightening.
@@shlomogrundy Watch this video and see if it changes your mind.
@@mattschneider78 thank you matt
I enjoy your posts. In the gospel of Mark I don't see "today I have begotten you" but rather " you are my son the beloved with whom I am well pleased". Which version are you using? This quote appears to be from Psalms 2, which weakens your argument a bit. Thank you.
@BertoKinawa
well, prophets in the OT never did say a humangod sacrifice is needed for human to enter heaven.
@BertoKinawabro crying in every comment 💀 May Allah help you
@BertoKinawaIf you check the Old Testament you will find out Jacob, Abraham and Solomon were called sons of God that’s doesn’t mean they are his begotten sons, and Jesus never claim to be God and the first example of false prophet is Paul and the next one is dajjal. Prophet Muhammad is the last prophet who was sent to whole mankind while Jesus was only a prophet to the children of Israel
The idea that Jesus was "adopted" by God at his baptism comes from a particular interpretation of the Gospel of Mark. In Mark 1:9-11, the passage reads:
"In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.'"
This passage is interpreted by some to suggest that it was at this moment that Jesus was acknowledged or "adopted" by God as His son. The phrase "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased" can be seen as a divine declaration of sonship.
The concept of adoptionism, which holds that Jesus was not divine by nature but was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, is a belief held by certain early Christian groups. However, it is not a mainstream Christian interpretation, which generally holds that Jesus is the Son of God by nature and from eternity.
See Hebrews 5:5; Acts 13:33; Psalm 2:7, which reads "today I have begotten you".
@BertoKinawaSo the Jews who rejected Jesus are okay? Or did they have to convert when Jesus came?
Your discussions are always enlighting,
Thank you and may Allah bless you.
assalamualikum brother, last time when i saw this channel it was 100k now 400+ k congrats brother may your knowledge benefit many others and in the hereafter Akhira
Ameen
@BertoKinawa actually, all abrahamic religions can acquire heaven. Any person of any religion that believes in one almighty god can. Did you not read the Quran?
This is very enlightening, thank you for your time and effort.
Brilliant lecture, especially the points made in the last 10 minutes summarizing. الله يكثر من امثالك
The Muslims love this guy. So he must be an atheist & Islamic follower.
Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was most likely what psychologists used to call a "nervous breakdown" and today generally call a "psychological break". His job at the time was to ferret out and put to death members of the rebellious movement inspired by the Nazarene. Paul's mother was a follower, and by rule of law Paul's job required him to nail his mother to a cross. His drinking and drug use was probably escalating as a way to deal with the overwhelming guilt and mental anguish from having to sentence to death his neighbors, friends and family. It was about that time he made a trip to Damascus.
Please, where can I find some sources for your claim that Paul's mother was a believer in Christ - and Paul's drug abuse?
Or is this merely speculation?
@@BuffaloPros Thank you!
@@verenatuna9010 I didn't say believer, I said follower.
Here's some info on Paul's mother:
www.google.com/search?q=was+paul%27s+mother+a+christian&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS1043US1043&oq=was+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgAEEUYJxg7MggIABBFGCcYOzIGCAEQRRg5MgYIAhAjGCcyBwgDEAAYgAQyBwgEEAAYgAQyBggFEEUYPTIGCAYQRRg9MgYIBxBFGD3SAQg0NDQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1
The drinking and drugs part is pure speculation..... An educated guess based upon personal experience, if you will.
@@James-re6co This is actually information about Rufus' mother, not Paul's...there's absolutely NO information on his mother in the Bible - and also outside of it, there seems to be no information available...
I actually am familiar with Romans 16:13, but the problem seems to be the differing translations...the King James Version translates: ..."and his mother and mine", whereas all the Bible translations in my native language translate: "and his mother, who has also (become) a mother to me", which makes it more clear, that Paul was talking about Rufus' mother exclusively.
Nice story, though ;).
PTSD
Hello brother Paul salam ,i have question please answer, jews say if they are wrong then why did zechariah write this prophecy that will happen in end time, zechariah 14:16 and zechariah 8:23 ,i hope you will explain it thank you!!!❤
Jesus indeed did not come to start a new religion but to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. He came as the Messiah. The Apostles did continue to attend the Temple and the Synagogues but also met on the Lord’s Day (Sunday) to break bread (Eucharist). Eventually they stopped attending the Synagogues because of the trouble caused by the Jews who didn’t want to accept Jesus as their Messiah and they only met on Sunday. Once the Temple was destroyed (as prophesied by Jesus) animal sacrifice ended. Prior to Jesus ascending to heaven He told Peter that on His confession ( Peter recognizing Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God) He would build His Church and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it. That church is the Orthodox Church, the One Holy Catholic (universal) Apostolic Church. It’s a continuation of the Jewish faith, with priests, houses of worship (churches) priest vestments like the priests of the Temple used to wear, hierarchy, and the Eucharist the body of Christ and the blood of Christ which replaced the sacrificial lamb.
So, the only religion which is a continuation of the Jewish faith is not Islam who reject Christ as Lord and Savior, but the Orthodox Church, unchanged for 2,000 years.
The Sabbath was instituted, sanctified and blessed by God at the creation of man. Christ kept the Sabbath along with all of the Apostles, the first century Church and true Christians up until Constantine outlawed the same on penalty of death. No scripture in Hebrew/Greek texts declare any other day being sanctified, set apart, blessed or commanded to observe other than the seventh day Sabbath.
@@mikebrown9850
The Orthodox Church commemorates the Sabbath every Saturday by remembering the dead because that was the day Jesus descended to Hades and released the righteous souls.
Christ specifically stated at the end of Mar. 2 that He is Lord of _the Sabbath_ , not the day of the false sun gods. It's just like the counterfeit Christian religions to promote their false versions of Christian history. Acts 15:21 shows the true Church still observing the Sabbath in the synagogues yrs after the Jewish persecution started in Acts 8, so that puts a gigantic, noticeable dent in your false narrative.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779
The Didache-Teachings of the Apostles dated 70AD
Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day
But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.
Lord’s Day, Sunday.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779
The Didache-Teachings of the Apostles dated 70AD
Chapter 14. Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day
But every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.
The Lord’s Day, the day Christ was resurrected is Sunday.
Ustadh, you should set up a course where you take us through the history of Christianity. You are too well acquainted with Christianity for you to give us such short gems of videos now and then. I'd really appreciate it, and I'm sure many more will be, if you set up a semester long course on the history of Christianity, at least until the sending of Rasulullah ﷺ.
Amazing! Thank you for sharing. A little correction:
Mustafa Akyol is a Turkish scholar.
Hello. Sitting with you Paul is equal to the value of the world. And I noticed how classy and sofsticated in academic work. I salute you for that. you do truely deserve such words.
I noticed from the video that "as if" Ignatius is the real serious inventor of Christianity and not Paul (not you of course Paul blogging theology😊) . Did I understand you correctly?!? This seems sorta critical as many accuse Paul of him being the inventor.
God Blessings on you. Salaam.
Tbh, the annointment of Jesus during his baptism by John the baptist only makes sense if and only if Jesus was a human being upon whom the divine Spirit descended.
If Jesus had been that Spirit himself or had been in any way identical or equal to it, this descending of the Spirit upon Jesus would have been redundant and totally unnessecary.
Very nice video. Many will choose the comforting illusion over the inconvenient truth.
💯✅️
Thank you for sharing may Allah always protect you and always guide you and Grant you higher Jannah brother Paul 💕
Masya Allah
Interesting lecture brother Paul
Barakallaahu feek
Am 56. So many opinions l encountered thru my years. The 16 century up until to this present day, opinions continues to spread and updated. But let me tell you all, GOD'S WORD NEVER CHANGE NOR UPDATED.😊
The Bible testifies to the opposite.
@@Truth-Is-a-Hard-Pill
Maybe you are speaking of another god.
Numbers 23:19 Elohim is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not human, so he does not change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act? Has he ever promised and not carried it through?
Hosea 11:9 “I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I devastate Ephraim again. For I am Elohim, and not a man- the Set-apart One among you. I will not come against their cities.”
Malachi 3:6 “I, YaHUaH, do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.”
Mark 12:29
“The most important one,” answered YaHUShA, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: YaHUaH our Elohim, YaHUaH is One.”
@@marsonofjo344
❌ Old Covenant
✅ New Covenant
Isn't that what you believe?
So the Bible refutes you.
@@marsonofjo344
- Old Covenant
- New Covenant
👉 FINAL Covenant
@@Truth-Is-a-Hard-Pill
?
How old is Christianity?? I think it's already more than 2000 years yet they're still confused about the fundamental core belief about divinity. Where are you really going with such broken religion?? In Islam the belief system is final, the difference among muslim communities is only about law and fiqh.
Exactly... Christians differ in the core beliefs while in muslims differences arise cuz of laws so even comparing them doesnt make sense
A. JESUS CLAIMED HIMSELF WAS ONLY A PROPHET
Matthew 13:57
57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”
B. PEOPLE WHO LIVED WITH JESUS CALL JESUS AS A PROPHET
Matthew 21:11
11 The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.”
Luke 24:19
19 “What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.
C. JESUS SAYS ALLAH IS GOD
Mark 12:29
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
D. PAUL SAYS JESUS IS GOD
Philippians 2:11
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Romans 10:9
9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
E. CHRISTIAN TERM FOR FOLLOWERS OF PAUL
Acts 11:25-26
25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul,
26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
F. FALSE TEACHINGS
Matthew 7:15-23
15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
My question:
Who is the false prophet in Matthew 7:15-23 who taught heretical teachings claiming that the Prophet Jesus was God, so that his followers were expelled from the kingdom of heaven by the Prophet Jesus?
If we refer to Philippians 2:11, Romans 10:9, Paul is the person.
The coming of the prophet Muhammad signifies the end of Jesus' book injil. The prophet Muhammad completed the establishment of the new religious 631 AD, which came with the prophet not from the traditional Issac lineage but Ishmael and Quran replacing old revelations and makkah replacing the Al Aqsa.
Randomly found this channel and for the last 15 years I’ve studied history the quote you made about the Christian sect that lost at the council of Nicaea became Islam makes so much sense when I piece together everything I know about the history of that region. Definitely subscribing.
became islam?? do you mean muslim?
@@hahaloser3914 Islam is right in the context I was talking
This is a further proof of the divine origin of the Quran. While the Quran has "no historical connection to Jesus", as Bart Ehrman says, yet the Quran is perfectly consistent with the original Jewish Christianity, which has taken scholars hundreds of years to piece together. Therefore the Quran's accuracy means it must be divine, because it cannot be both "made up ahistorical stories" and yet be perfectly historically accurate..
Exept what paul said in this video is false. Paul claim the apostles stayed in jerusalem which is false we know the apostle john went to ephesus and patmos to preach the gospel and peter went to rome, it's well documented and you can search it for yourself. He said the first christians had a book in hebrew that rejected paul which is false there is no proof for this book in the first century .
@john-ge2br you need to study real history. Everything you mentioned is a myth, not real history.
@@arbitScaleModels Avoid books of lies and conspiracies paul and others muslims apologists tell you to read and research actual history.
John the apostle went to ephesus and patmos, peter went to rome it's documented . Don't denie history and truth fo the sake of islam
@@Jesus-Yeshua-saves There is no "lying" involved here. Nobody knows exactly who travelled where. But historians don't believe Peter and Paul went to Rome, and they do not believe John of Ephesus is the disciple John. What we do know for a fact is that the disciples did not write the Gospels, nor did the disciples of the disciples. The Gospels were written by hellenistic Greek Romans who knew nothing about Palestine, Judaism or Hebrew/Aramaic. They were Greeks who entirely misunderstood and mistranslated whatever traditions reached them from the Semitic Hebrews of Palestine. And what we also know for sure is that the first 100 years after Jesus, the leadership of the Church centered in Jerusalem and was led by "Hebrews" as a law abiding Jewsish Christian sect that could not possibly worship a man nor engage in blood rituals. Thereafter, the Greek Romans took over the movement with scant knowledge of its Semitic monotheistic origin, and melded it with Roman philosophy and theology. Christianity today is entirely a Roman product, not a product of Hebrew from Jerusalem who followed the Messiah Jesus. Muslims are perfectly comfortable with what the original Jewish Christians believed, but we do not follow polytheists from Rome.
@@arbitScaleModels the gospels of luke mark and john were written for believers living in first century turkey not israel. Peoples spoke greek in first century turkey. Most books of the new testament were written for peoples living outisde of israel that's what you don't understand.
As for historians , many historians actually believe john went to patmos and ephesus and peter died in rome , but you got historians with different theories that contradict each others.
Don't think you need others to know the truth you are capable to search informations for yourself don't depend on others
Assalam alicum Paul love your work but I’m confused are you referring to psalms 2:7 when the Lord said TODAY I am pleased with you, couldn’t find TODAY in any translation of mark 1:11 and chat gpt says it’s not aloud to talk about it 😂 jzk
Br. Paul you are doing an amazing job, mashallah. This episode wud b a good source on my upcoming "book". I gave the title "jesus son of Mary, the forgotten status". I wish this open eyes for other Christians and they realize the historical jesus amen.
@Blogging Theology Brother Paul could you please read out and explain the hadith where Salman al-Farsi (may Allah be Pleased with him) narrated his story where he went from bishop to bishop of a dying (most likely, monotheistic and for sure messianic) Christian sect to finally come to the Final Prophet (may the Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him).
I think it would be beneficial for the audience.
This!
Awesome bro Paul for your commendable sharing
Even Paul was not the founder of Christianity. It was the 4 century church leaders established Christianity based on the teachings of Paul.
Paul was the first person to preach and write that Jesus died for your sin.
Hi moslems this are the site or cherns you have to watch or listen not that laiya Cristian Prince or c.p.so that you Will not give him creadeat to his chern thanks to you all
"it's not the eyes that are blind but it's the heart". Because Western Christians have been brainwashed by their politicians propaganda that anything related to Arab is a terrorist.. but how many countries has the West destroyed. After destroying others and then playing victim
A very good explanation. Thank you, Mr. Paul. I hope more people watch this.
This is incredibly enlightening!
Thank you Paul so much. As a Muslim, im also learning from you so much about how early Jewish Christians during the time of jesus reached 2024 to following different beliefs of Jesus under the tiltle of "Christianity."
@BertoKinawa
I don't blame you for being so confused and so lost if your church leaders are corrupt.
No church preaches the same as the other.
Your Pope is blessing the marriage of LGBTQ which is totally against the preachings of Jesus.
Do not kill
Do not lie
Do not steal
Do not comit adultery
Do not comit abortion
Do not eat pork
Do not drink Tranquit wine alcohol
Look after thy neighbour
Love , protect family etc....
@BertoKinawanot true, Muhammad preached what all prophets preached which is God is ONE! ☝️ not 3 in 1 lol
The Muslims love this guy. So he must be an atheist & Islamic follower.
What do U, as a Muslim, think of the following scenario. It’s Mohammed up their on the cross not Jesus. God saves him on the cross and M hangs arround for say, 4O days and rumours circulate….
God didn't put him there he allowed it , u either against it or for it , no matter who it was, Jesus, Issac, Mohamed, Abraham, Adam, Jacob, Elijah.... u either bow down and submit to God or u fly by lost, ignorant, with aragonce, until the day comes, doomed from the start, unless u blessed to wake up @chriswest8389
Asalmulaikum brother paul. There are some provocatively dressed women's profiles that have left comments here and i have reported them to TH-cam as i believe they are troll
Thanks!
They're bots. I see them on other TH-cam channels too
But yeah good job 👍
Rome, as nationalist and racist as it was, would have never, ever, accepted the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Paul knew it had no chance whatsoever, so this, the central pillar of Jesus' message, was compromised and left out. In its place, he substituted the church. It was a deathblow.
Thanks!
Many thanks!
One key point that we really need to understand about the first Christians is that they did NOT seek diversity. They sought unity, they sought orthodoxy. They wanted to be in the Church that Jesus founded and they wanted to follow the Way that Jesus established for his Church. They recognised that the Marcionites were going their own way --- these are the guys who thought the OT was evil. They recognised that the Gnostics were going their own way --- those were the guys who believed in two gods and that the God of the Bible was the evil demiurge. They recognised that the Arians were going their own way --- these are the guys who thought Jesus was not divine.
Another key point that we really need to understand is that the early Church fathers, her Apostles, her bishops, her theologians are quite capable of proclaiming Truth against falsehood and are defenders of Truth. All of these other movements were NOT mere differences of opinion or matters of flavour. To compare the Catholic liturgy with an evangelical rock concert is to entirely miss the point. The point is that modern flavours of Protestantism are just that --- minor differences among sects whose stated goal is to stand in opposition to the Church that Christ founded. Yet almost all of them share the same fundamental faith: God exists, God is One and Triune, God created everything, Christ is God incarnate who announced the immanence of the Kingdom, who suffered his passion, truly died, truly rose again, ascended back to the Father and that the Holy Spirit was sent to rightly guide the Church that Christ founded. Protestants don't understand the nature of the Church, but we see the visible and corporate reality of the Church from the first Pentecost right up to today. The Gnostics don't have this. The Arians don't have this.
The third point we need to understand is that indeed the Church is a historical institution. That the Church is not just a bunch of people getting together to remember Jesus, but rather that the Church is a Divine institution, that it was actually established on Earth by Yahweh, by God the Son. We know that Jesus existed and that he was no ordinary man --- even the Atheists know this and recognise that there are facts about Jesus that they can not explain from an atheistic or materialistic perspective. We know that God founded his Church within history, during a time when and in a place where humanity was sufficiently civilised to record and understand its own historical record. We know that this same Church that Christ founded nearly 2000 years ago is the same Church that exists today. We literally call it just that: The Church; and we also go by the name the Catholic Church.
To all pious Muslims: one thing we love about Muslims is that you have a very great faith! It is deep seated and strongly rooted. We believe that this faith became misplaced early in your history --- please check out what one of our theologians, St John of Damascus, recognised about the early Muslims. We also love how frequently Mary and Jesus are spoken of in your Quran! Mary is worth our veneration! She is the one woman in all of history who fully trusted God and answered his call! She is not a goddess, and we never worship her, but she is a role model for all of us! And she, Mary, always leads us to her Son, who is Yahweh that became incarnate, becoming one of us! Remember, too, that Mary was sent by God and she appeared to you at Zeitoun in Egypt! You understand that Allah is merciful, and that's good! We know that Yahweh, that God, that Allah IS mercy. He is Mercy itself. He is Love itself. He is Truth itself. Muslims! Come back home! Come back to the One God who revealed himself to us and among us! Come back to the worship of God as he revealed true worship to us! Come back to the Truth! Just open your heart the tiniest fraction and God will flood you with his Love, his Mercy, his Truth and with his Very Self!
I agree that catholic along with orthodoxy have the strongest traditions. The question is does that tradition goes back to Jesus & the epistles? And do they fatefully represent them? Many of said church fathers had what would be deemed later as heretical believes. I know that catholics have the concept of doctrinal development, but then it is futile to claim protestants are different if they can also claim inspiration by the holly spirit.
As someone who strive to become a pious muslim, I never understood the christian concept of God, or found a christian that can explain it in a non heretical or polytheistic terms.
how can anyone say they believe something they don't know/ cannot know?
Can I truly say "I believe hukagrhogilvf8776nzoighr is true"?
If the trinity is clear & was taught by Jesus, why didn't the early church fathers see it then, when they know the epistles, understood the language & lived the same circumstances?
And if church fathers couldn't hold non heretical believes, what makes you think that you could?
I am Egyptian and I can assure you that 'Mary appearanceS' ( because it is more than others one at Zeitoun) is a matter of embarrassment for my fellow coptic christians that feel that some are doing publicity stunts to collect donations & turn their church to a pilgrimage sites. We live in a police state, and it was even more so in the 60s especially after the devastating defeat by Israel. That defeat shock the secular Pan-Arab project from its foundation & the state were making concessions to some religious elements muslim & christians. Part of being in police state is if you ally with the government, you can, nay encouraged to make ridiculous claims to be partners in crime, and just like in the soviet union you didn't question the prevailing narrative .
@@ΑλξΠλξ He is very respectful & share what you both think is true, which show generosity & care. I hope we can establish the truth using logic & proves rather than just declaring it to ourselves.
@@hwary7187 most Catholic and Orthodox traditions came from the apostles. Which sounds bad at first until you realize they died for what they were claiming. If they were lying then st.peter would not want to be crucified upside down for claiming Jesus was God.
@@SyntheticSand Dying for your believe is a mark of conviction, not necessarily truth. Plenty of muslims , jews, buddhists & even communists die for their convictions.
I agree, I think a lot of traditions came from Jesus & the apostles while others came from the philosophical logos theories that predates christianity & Hellenistic culture that can be seen clearly especially when it is chosen in spite being condemned in the bible.
Another key difference is whether Paul was an apostle? Did he came with the same teaching? For example, he came in conflict with them over the law for non jew & even for the jews. And even contradicted on what he himself agreed on in the jerusalem council 1 Corinthians 8 (The Jerusalem Council settled the matter by urging Gentile converts to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols) (Acts 15:29).
These are most important questions in any faith, which should tell us if that faith is true or false, who is God? How should He be worshipped?
We believe that every human have an internal intuition to recognize One true God, just like we know reality from tricks & magic which even when we see it ,we feel something is amiss.
The truth is people are so invested in Jesus being God, because it is hard to face The all knowing Ever Present God & we feel we need someone that can understand us( as if God can't really understand unless he becomes a man) & we feel that we can pass without the total judgement of The One true God through the intercedence of an angelic being.
God made Dajjal (the antichrist) for those who wants a man-god and they will get to see his extra-natural powers and believe he is god even though he is just a man with one eye.
Our intuition is at its fullest when we are in imminent danger. When a polytheist is in danger, he calls on One God but when he is saved, he thanks the travel gods for example.
The only way we have our intuition at full alert without dander, is asking the Creator for guidance, and I pray that God guide us to the truth and keep us upon it.
@@hwary7187 "Dying for your believe is a mark of conviction, not necessarily truth. Plenty of muslims , jews, buddhists & even communists die for their convictions."
Of course I agree, the difference is that the Apostles knew the truth so if Jesus isn't God than they Died for a lie they knew not to be true
"Another key difference is whether Paul was an apostle?"
He was not, St. Paul was Roman who executed Christian for not following Caesar. St. Paul said to had an encounter with Jesus were he went blind and was healed by an apostle (Read this story if you want) and became the most important Christian who isn't an Apostle.
" And even contradicted on what he himself agreed on in the jerusalem council 1 Corinthians 8 (The Jerusalem Council settled the matter by urging Gentile converts to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols) (Acts 15:29). "
Im confused on what the contradiction is here
"The truth is people are so invested in Jesus being God, because it is hard to face The all knowing Ever Present God & we feel we need someone that can understand us( as if God can't really understand unless he becomes a man) & we feel that we can pass without the total judgement of The One true God through the intercedence of an angelic being."
I personally think its because Jesus is relatable, which is a main strong point about it. Everyone has suffered, and Christianity believes that our God is suffering too when we sin going agiesnt him hurts him because he loves us. Also God suffer when he became man.
"Our intuition is at its fullest when we are in imminent danger. When a polytheist is in danger, he calls on One God but when he is saved, he thanks the travel gods for example."
Also you gotta realize that only Mormons say that there is 3 different Gods and most Christians don't consider them Christian
Jesus Christ peace be upon him is Muslim, his not Christian for sure, Alhamdulillah...
😁
1000% TRUE!!!
And Muhammad is Pagans, right? 😂
Buddha wasn't a Buddhist, people who follow his teachings are Buddhist, by the same logic people who follow Christ 's teachings called themself Christians. Do you understand? God didn't say he was Muslim, Jew or Christian. People called themselves so according to their beliefs.
Not for any "religion"
He came to show the way not start a cult
Jesus cannot have been a muslim since Mohammed was much later. Jesus wants us to become sons of Allah. Nobody has to be member of Jewish or Christian or Islamic institutions. These will turn out to be evil. They are not peaceful.
The blaspheme of 1st century Paul of Tarsus being refuted and exposed by 21st century Paul of England. Allah is the best of planners!
Above comment. Roman Catholics are not believers r in t he bible. Islam false
A fan from Pakistan
You are doing a wonderful job by bringing the historical facts to light. Please keep it up.
To say this is interesting would be a gross understatement. An incredible insight of colossal implications. One of the most insightful videos I've ever seen. Any Christian of true Fidelity must take note and seriously contemplat. What I can't fathom is how Jimmy dunn and others can't be muslim in light of this evidence - please interview him!
I've read your canonical Bibles and your apocryphal Bibles, but I -
I did not find Christ in those Gospels saying that he is God.
I did not find Christ in those Gospels saying that he came to redeem you from the sin of Adam.
I did not find Christ in that Gospel saying that he came to non-Jewish Gentiles -
I did not find - God - in the Bible saying that Christ is - His Son -
I did not find - God - in the Bible asking for the worship of Christ.
But - I found Christ in the Gospel - a servant of God -
I found Christ in the Gospel praying to God and pleading with Him -
I found Christ in the Gospel - a messenger of God -
I found Christ in the Gospel - carrying a commandment from God, what to say and what to speak -
And I found Christ in the Bible - he cannot speak on his own -
And I found Christ in the Gospel - he cannot do anything on his own -
I found hes is just another prophet like many before him but a great one.
Christians' have no right to declare anything about other religion caused their believes its all man made tradition persuaded to think Jesus is God and that the biggest trick Satan done.
Yes, i agree and believe Jesus never claim to be god or son of god.
If Jesus had preached to his followers that he was god or son of god, they would have been immensely awed and their awe would have been recorded in history and the bible... and they would have asked for fantastic things from him.
But they didn't, since there are no records of such happenings.
Even if he had forbid them from asking like that, surely there would be historical records of their conversations.
Imagine if god is infront of you, surely you would want something big from him like a mountain of gold, a big fleet of ships, a big herd of super fine horses, and a request to send you immediately straight to heaven or paradise.
So, the reason why there is no such records of those kind of conversations is that Jesus never claim to be god or son of god.
Isn't it strange that no one asked for fantastic things from him those time if he had claimed to be god or son of god ?
Thank you !!
Paul was never an apostle
The unawareness (of what the Bible actually says) among the people posting comments to this video (and including the video itself) is astonishing.
Can you clarify what you are referring to ? Thanks.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 it is to much to even know where to begin. But compared to several good people whose main purpose in life is to want to understand the Bible, and doing a good job at it, many people commenting here, on the other hand, seems unaware and with strange missconceptions.
For example, right at the begining of the video, Paul says that in Mark it says "when he emerged from the Waters of the River Jordan he saw the heavens open up
and the spirit descend upon him as a dove while a voice from Heaven proclaims you are my son today I have begotten you". Now this is what the gospel of Mark
tells us of course. The gospel of Mark does not say that. It says, "Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” In all the 50 or so translations / versions of Mark that I have to hand non of them say what Paul says which rather undermines his arguement.
One thing few scholars focus on: James, and presumably the community of the "early church", were strict vegetarians. Paul came along and said "eat anything you'd like."
Thank you brother Paul for brining this knowledge to the rest of people that does not have access to all of the historical facts.
If you want to find more about a topic, ie rocket science, you go to the top rocket scientists in the world. You do not go to the top literature PH graduates. If I want to learn more about Islam I go to the top Islam scholars in the world. If I want to learn more about Christianity I go to...
Paul had no nervous breakdown. He taught the truth
Paul called Jesus a liar.
Can the truth come from someone who admits to lie to people to convert them to His religion?
Can the truth come from someone who confessed before the Real apostles of Jesus (AS) to accusations about calling believers to abandon the Law then denying that he did this?
I think not.
@@eskatonica exactly
Paul cursed our beloved Jesus (PBUH) Galatians 3:13
Ассаламу Алайкум ВарахматуЛлахи вабаракатуху. Из Москва.
❤❤ WE ALL MUST KEEP THE COVENANT SABBATH AND ALLLLLLL LAWS, for Eternal Life
13:00 it actually does NOT say the Holy Spirit came upon only Jews in Acts 2:10. Acts 2:10 is part of an existing thought and cannot be cited out of context. What these people heard were the language[s] in which they spoke or had learned since childhood. So, basically their native tongues. Based on the geographic locations mentioned in verses 9-10. It wasn't the Holy Spirit that was given in these verses (one has to read into the verse to come to that conclusion) but rather they heard their own language[s]. Most likely Koine Greek since those geographic locations had been Hellenized already. We don't get to the promise of the Holy Spirit until verses 17-18 and notice in verse 22 that we see that Peter is speaking to the "men of Israel" so it's not just "Jews" here. Though some might argue that the "Jews" at this point is synonymous with "Israel".
Very good
Assalamualaikum, I am Christian (Old) it is more missing to that story. Please check New Chronology prof A Fomenko Dr G Nosovsky , the Bethlehem Star is still visible in tbe Crab Nebula, it was visible for us in 1154-55 a d. Jesus was born 1154-55 and died around 33 years later . Etc etc
Is it possible that you may misunderstand the whole Bible?
Alaikum Salam sister!
@@abuzarghafari7893Recently learned about Torah (Moses), Psalms (David) and Gospels (Jesus) in the Bible. But what I understood is that the Gospels is entirely different from the scripture of the prophet from Makkah. The following makes sense: 1.Why God is unaware that Mary is not God for Christians. 2.Why is God who knows everything is asking Jesus whether Jesus ask people to worship Him and His mother Mary as God. 3.Why God as per the scripture is making it appear that it was Jesus who was crucified. Why is God unaware of the fact that making it appear that Jesus being crucified would further worsen people's belivee that Jesus is God? Why God is unaware of all this. 4.Why would an Archangel sent by God act so rude to the prophet? Also why God is unaware that none would believe that God sent the prophet when he doesn't perform miracles like Jesus or Moses. 5.Why Would God make Jesus the Messiah and he come again which is like forcing people to worship Jesus as God.
WHAT?!???
Brothers, no , first, we genuine Christian we recognize Prophet Muhammad , pracę be upon Him, as Messenger of One God. Second, the Trinity is only One : Mother , Father and Childe.
I am not talking religion now, I am talking history , check New Chronology, Fomenko Nosovsky , that's all.
I always hear Muslims like this guy say Christian teaching is an accretion overtime. But I would rather trust the people who knew Jesus and learned directly from the apostles, rather than someone in Arabia over 600 years later lol. You claim council of nicea, etc, but even that was closer than your religion creation. Its clear the creation of Islam happened after Muhammed ran into a Christian sect of Arianism who was a known heresy and taught him things they believed. Thats why stories from the Quran are clear rips from later apocryphal texts like Thomas and so on. Read john of Damacus text on Islam and see what the early ideas of Islam were.
What did john of Damacus say about early islam?
@@BuffaloPros exactly. There were Christian groups at the time who had different beliefs, like the flood not going over the entire earth, differences between Jesus true nature, etc. the majority , belief about Jesus “won” which is Christianity today. The fact that Muhammed ran into a different group of Christian’s who believed differences than the majority proves he ran into a minority Christian group and took what they said ( along with other texts at the time ) and created
@@Beyond470 he said it was a heresy
@@BuffaloPros see previous reply
@@Namename-so1dj I mean what is his evidence? the She-camel? And what other heresies call people to worship God alone?
MashALLAH Brother ! What a great and crucial quality work that you produce ! Appreciate the richness of contents with your conciseness ! May Our Lord Creator increase even more your "noorullah" !
Thank you brother Paul for this very interesting video. Sincerly, i didn't understand it well because of the language. Please, do an arabic translation of it.
As a whole: BS
Islam (is lost and) believes that Jesus was not resurrected from death.
@@staffan144 apparently Christians in the first century did too. Read Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities." Research the book our brother Paul is discussing with his audience. RESEARCH IT. Keep your emotions and bigotry for Islam out of it.
christian believe god died / killed / suicided at least once.. BS
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antiokia.And it came to pass, that a whole year they and taught much themselves with the church, and taught much people.And the disciples were called Christians first in Antiokia
Thank you. I love this series. Please share more of your knowledge and study!!!
This is so intriguing to me.
I'm on a mission to find how we are all connected.
I'm a Christian, friend of the Jews and Muslims.
Very informative.
I'm watching this over and over
Bible warns ...
Those who deny Jesus being the Son of God... is anti- christ.
Is excactly what islam teaches: Jesus is not the son of God, did not die on a cross and so did not rise from the death.
Islam is anti- bible anti-Jew and anti- Christians.
The only connection the Jews believe in the Torah, and believe a false oneness god. The Muslims also believe in a false oneness god, the Theology derived from gnosticism, paganism and butchering of the Bible. The true God is triune, as per the Old and New Testament and consistent with Theology of the Church.
You need to watch the two Jewish men who are on TH-cam. One is a regular man who says do your research and the other is an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi.
According to the English dictionary the word “son” means -
1. A male child of either parents
2. A male descendant
3. A male off spring
4. A boy in relations to either parents
The question is WHERE did god get the “ son” FROM?
Do you understand the meaning of the term "figurative"?
@@nadeemlakhi9206
Yes I do. But the Christian belief is he is literally the “ son” of god
So the question remains -
WHERE did the Father GET the “son” FROM??
@@elitezafficobra2288 but the jewish term is figurative
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the first three questions below?
Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.....
In the end, if you're a Christian, Muslim, or Jew and you do not follow the greatest commandments. We call the golden rules, then you are just another person who doesn’t love.
from the 3 religions u mentioned..the ones who claim to be all about "love" are the least people to follow the laws and commands..as some people say "don't tell me.. show me"
@GTari-ob6bj Jesus taught to follow the golden rule 1st, and we're all falling short. Any command that violates this command is not from God. Views on slavery, including Muslim, Jews and Christians' actions for 2000 years, prove we missed God's message to humanity. We chose law over love.
Love your neighbor as yourself is the highest law.
Only now, Muslims are defending slavery and other evil practices that violate the golden rule.
It's simple, do you want to be a slave? If no stand aganist it in all it's forms and seek a higher path for us all using innovation, science, but especially love.
@@TagEngravings your whole arguments seem to focus more on humans than on God..that's not what the prophets taught..worshipping the one and only true God was always the first and most important command in every single message sent by God..stop making your own religion by cherry picking verses and ignoring others in your book..im all for the golden rule and treating others like u want to be treated and it's all in islam as well and more but we should focus first on God then everything will follow, jesus like every prophet of God taught to worship the one and only true God (that he called the father) as a 1st command (u falsly said the golden rule 1st) and y'all still worshipping 3 and brainwash yourselves into thinking they're 1 even though according to y'all each one is 100% God and each one is a person that's not the other person but somehow still one God..go figure..but appearently the golden rule is more important than worshipping others with God that's how little u think of God.. and btw the golden rule you're talking about was taught thousands of years before jesus walked on earth..look it up it's much older than u think..but my whole point i was just proving to u that "love" when talking about God means adhering to the law of God to the best of your ability.. that's what the faithful people who love God do (like jesus and james and his disciples did btw even after jesus ascension his disciples kept the law.. unlike y'all who follow paul )they adhere to the law and work. not just say" i believe" and "i love" with little to no work.. if u say to your wife i love u without showing it with actions do u even love her? this is my original point that i was talking about in my first comment..also u falsly said "We chose law over love" as if they're in conflict but law IS love..(law of God of course) when u adhere to God's law u show your love for him by listening to him and even between us as humans when u follow God's law like don't steal don't kill don't grape don't curse u also show love to humans and law makes our community healthier and more loving and trusting instead of lawless chaos ..and btw do yourself a favour and read your own book ..your God permitted and even commanded slavery in your own book..and you're talking about " prove we missed God's message to humanity" u mean the message that he himself commanded in it slavery? or u're going to pretend that these texts don't exist? and not just in exodus and leviticus and deuteronomy btw it's also in the NT aswell.. Paul (who 50% of the NT is written by him) and also Peter many times told the slaves to submit to their owners..were is the "love" and the "golden rule"? i thought they are inspired and guided by the holy spirit no? also who said this? ''Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.''Exodus 21:20-21..who said these words? your God? or the OT God is different? where is the golden rule here? let's use your rule of "Any command that violates this command is not from God" and start filtering and throwing verse out of your book..if u think that slavery is immoral then your God did command an immoral thing and u can't pull the "it's the old days" excuse either an immoral act is always an immoral act and your God at some point in time commanded that "evil" command. i dare u to find me in islam commands of God telling us that it's okay to sell our own kids as slaves.. but i can show it to u from your own book. was jesus the God of the OT? also the slavery allowed in islam is people that fought you in battle and instead of kiling them with cold blood after their army lost the battle you take them as captures of wars and make them your slaves while treating them like family in hope of them becoming muslims to be saved cause we want what's best for them that's love..(if u hit a slave once then u have to free him by law) read about the slaves in islamic empires..im not saying every muslim in the old days was good to slaves that's not true but im realisitc and i can see the wisdom of such system in the old times..many salves in the muslim lands became kings (something u won't hear a christian say about their slaves even though christianity is 600 years older) even crazier some slave groups even had their own muslim empires ..like the mamluks who literally saved islam from the mongols..some of y'all will literally condemn your own God's commands just cause u were born in the 21 century and raised to look at things from a liberal (Small-l liberal
) POV..i believe in an all wise God..im not that arrogant to say i know what best for humanity more than who created it..even with my limited wisdom i can see many wisdoms behind such system and as they say God has the picture, we just have the pixel
@GTari-ob6bj
You are mistaken, but "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. " You allow your need to be "right" supersede the highest laws of love.
Jesus was considered a law breaker by the Jewish leaders of his day because he would not follow laws that violate the highest commandments to love. He healed on the sabbath. He touched the sick. Allowed women to wash his feet. He hung out with tax collectors and sinners, he would not stone a Prostitute even though the law said he should, and he even broke physics by walking on water. Jesus lived and taught the highest commandments. Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
@@GTari-ob6bj Jesus also said,
1 John 4:19-21
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
Even B. Erhman says mark is actually trinitarian. Where he differs is on what Jesus actually claimed for himself.
Mashallah brother Paul . Great work pulling out these paradoxical and contradictory comments from those humongous books. May Allah reward you for the effort of highlighting these issues in christianity thereby elevating the truth in Islam.
I have been listening to and reading Qur’an over the past few months, and I have loved every minute of it.
What is your opinion of the religion called Manichaeism? Where the prophets include Zarathustra, The Buddha, Jesus, and the eponymous Mani.
This religion predated Islam and their prophet claimed to have been the “Seal of the Prophets”.
Thank you for your content!
I do come across this days ago: The problem is with the TIMELINE, carbon dated, available manuscript etc. Everything topsy turvy with scant references.
So, there is NO need for me to dwell on it
By the way, I noticed Paul Williams didn’t put up his debate with the Eastern Orthodox christian Jay Dyer. I wonder why?
If the jews and Christians say that Islam is a false religion, they are also automatically saying that their religions are false as well. In the bible, God made a promise to Hagar and Abraham that he would make the descendants of Ishmael a great nation. Arabs, descendants of Ishmael became a great nation only through Islam. When the world was drowned in polytheism of the trinity, Islam restored the pure and strict monotheism of abrahamic faith. The Bible says that God will bless those who bless Abraham. The muslims are the ones who bless Abraham most daily in every prayer.
Issac was the promised child... Ishmael was born out of disbelief of Abraham when he slept with his maid/slave..Ishmael is not from God but from carnal production of Abraham and Hagar.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17
What do you mean founder of Christianity?
Go watch the video again, please.
The very first sentence is mistaken.
Speaking of a "first century" or "Jews" at the time of Christ is being trapped inside an illusion
Once you BEGIN with falsehoods, then the Truth lies beyond what you say.
Paul is reading from the opinions of scholars, including Christian biblical scholars and theologians. Perhaps your qualifications make you uniquely knowledgeable about the subject? Could you point is to your publications, so we can become better educated?
@thetriumphsprint The first book that really goes into it was "The Pauline Epistles" by Edwin Johnson.
Johnson was dismissed out of hand as a "conspiracy theorist" by "mainstream scholars", simply for quoting actual writers and theologians of the past.
Others have expanded on his work. Although, it's not really "his work". He merely pointed out what people in the past actually thought and wrote, rather than what people today choose to believe they thought and wrote.
@@danielburger1775 perhaps a better reply would have been a) I'm sorry, I shouldn't have been disrespectful to Paul or b) here's a list of my publications as requested. But no, you have introduced an author in egos opinion reflects your own. Actually, I don't know Johnson or his cat. Perhaps that is a topic Paul might find of interest to speak about. I enjoy his synthesis of the available works.
@thetriumphsprint I was making an observation.
If one is speaking on apples, and starts with the belief that "All apples are triangular and orange", then whatever follows will be starting from a point of error. Even if there are "leading experts" whose works state that 'All apples are triangular and orange'.
In this case, the vast illusion was created by the precursors to the very people who now "study" it, and use it for "confirmation" of their own beliefs. That's neither scientific nor academic. And anyone examining details INSIDE the illusion is starting from a point of error.
If one wants to get towards the truth, one needs to step outside the illusion entirely.
@@thetriumphsprint Oh, wow.
My reply was deleted...
For the Ebionites, see the Gospels of Hebrews, the Gospels of the Nazareans, and the Gospels of the Ebionites.
We see that they viewed Jesus as an angel.
A distinction is made between "Jesus the son of Mary" as a human
and "Jesus to whom the Holy Spirit descended like a dove"
One is said to "suffer neither pain nor death"
the other is human
The Qur'an says Jesus (AS) was supported by Angel Gabriel (AS) probably by possessing his body. So they might well have thought him an angel.
@@saninakakana6931 The Holy Spirit is the four archangels .
Michael is also the Holy Spirit, who is the Messiah Melchizedek
A
Surah an nisa 171
@@komaichan99 In Islam, only Gabriel (AS) is Roohul Qudus (Holy spirit). He is the only one sent to the Prophets (AS). Micheal (AS) apportions sustenance, as has been decreed by his Lord (Allah). Gabriel (AS) serves soul food, whilst Micheal (AS) serves body food.
@@saninakakana6931 The Ebionites, a Judeo Christian, regarded Jesus as an angel (Michael)
Jesus, son of Mary, is a separate entity.
The Messiah descended upon Mary's son at his baptism.
I love episodes where it's just ustadh Paul in his room talking about critical scholarship on Christianity
@BertoKinawa of course , in the Islamic paradigm, Islam has existed as long as humanity has, since Adam AS. All of the Prophets were Muslim by Islamic standards.
Islam through the ages may have had different sets of laws e.g sharia of Musa AS is not what we follow today , but the core beliefs were the same e.g the oneness of God , affirmation of the Prophets of God, the angels, Heaven and Hell, the last day, God's books and God's decree
As always great research & insight, may Allah bless you with more knowledge & wisdom.
Nicely done akhi Paul. Saving this as a favorite
Mr Williams have you seen Brandon Peterson's work on the King James Bible. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. His book is called Sealed By The King and TH-cam called Truth is Christ.
Have a great week 🙏 ❤
Is music haram or permissible /halal and not haram? Thank you. There is a huge discussion on this topic.
See Al-Ghazali, Ihya Ulumuddin, chapter Hearing. According to Al-Ghazali, all kind of music, poet, sound, rhythm are "mubah" (neutral or permitted) not halal or haram.
You can't ask Paul to make fatwah about such a topic. It is too complex and not his or our area of expertise brother. Go to your local mosque or Islamic society and ask the Sheikh there. Follow what they advise. Alternatively follow what the acknowledged great Sheikhs advised and ruled upon.
Thats the thing, in the quran its haram, word of allah says its haram. Why would ustad imam sheik says its permissible or even halal? Who is right?
@@sweeyong7756 there aren't any verses in Qur'an specifically mentioning music, unless I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, please provide the sources from Qur'an so I can learn.
If you are convinced that it is Haram, in the Qur'an, what was the purpose of asking your original question? It seems you already have the answer.
In Indonesia music is permissible Alhamdulillah
Excellent work Paul. Thankyou.
How likely is it that:
- Simon of Samaria created the christian christ character and associated it with the Galilean Jew Yeshu the Egyptian?
- Simon created as Hebraic christianity based on: his christ character, apocalyptic thought, and yahweh god fearer theology?
- Greek christians later evolved the christ character into a Hellenistic character; evolved Simon's Hebraic religion into a Greek religion; created the Saul/Paul character based on Simon, Saul of Tarsus, and the christ character; and backdated the christ character in order to falsely claim primacy over other Greek christianities?
- The Jewish followers of Yeshu the Egyptian rejected Simon, his christianity, and the christian christianities?