Hell, everybody, and welcome. This is the Apostate Profit. Uh. And today I am live with a very interesting guest, and that would be somebody who is professionally known as Randy Balls.
Uh.
How are you doing, Randy, Hey, I'm down here in charge. Yeah.
That's my mega, mega past megachurch pastor skit. So he threw me for a loop that. I wasn't expecting Randy Balls to come up to the surface of my altered personalities, but I'm going me over.
It was. It was a very very fun thing. I watched it several times. So yeah, uh, one video. I don't know if you made more of those, but.
Yeah, they're both. Yeah, I'll de send it. I'll see, I'll send you both to see which one.
Awesome, awesome sound everything okay, everything balanced? Everyone? Yes, good, okay, wonderful. Yeah, this was supposed to happen yesterday, but then it didn't happen. Had to move it to today, which is also kind of appropriate because the date today is a good day to talk about Islam.
Uh.
Some people call it an Islamic holiday. So here we are today, gathered talking about all that. Jay, I have to correct myself. You're not Randy Balls. We have to be serious with this whole conversation.
And you're not shake your booty, uh not today. He's the final boss of Islamic debater. So we need to we need to have a debate between Randy Balls and shake your booty.
That would be fantastic. That's a good idea. Yeah, you are Jay Dyer, and you have recently been having uh interesting debates, some some very very big ones that I reviewed here on this channel that lots of people have seen. I think your debate together with Sam Shimun against the two pedophiles. I think that has like over over a million views or so.
Right, it's around nine hundred thousand on Twitter, a couple of hundred thousand on Rumble, and then eight hundred thousand on YouTube. So yeah, overall, it's it's up there.
Wow, very very nice. And I saw it. And the thing is, I mean you you guys did a fantastic job during the debate. The other side looked quite pathetic and I don't know, it's it's even even Muslims were conceding pretty much. When you look at the average response, the feedback from audiences that the Muslim side did not do a good job defending their beliefs. So it was a very very good combination to watch you and Sam Shimun.
And yeah, but but I have some problems with some of the things that you said, and I basically want to confront you on your misrepresentations of Islam, and uh, I want to correct correct you on all that. So first off, how about we start by you just telling us who you are, where we can find you, and why we should listen to you.
Uh. Yeah, my name is Jake and the Muslim metaphysician. You can find me over. The problem with rit fun is that with he debates, he lies a little bit.
So the funny thing was that it was pretty good man that was.
Actually supposed to be Daniel and Jake, and then Jake so suddenly had the Internet go out right before the debate.
Oh how does that happen?
Weird timing. But then Ijah stuff though, which is funny because I didn't think they actually were on the exact same page. Then on Jake, I mean e jaws, but I guess they pretended to be you know, buddy buddy for the sake of the debate. But whatever, Yeah, it was. It was a wild debate overall. I think it went pretty good for for our side. To look if you read the comments over on the Fresh and Fit channel,
I was kind of blown away at the comments. I thought we'd have a lot more like balance between you know, because the Muslims go to the comments are always like they're champion and cheerlead no matter what happened in the debate. But I mean the comments are just like ninety nine percent that you know, terrible for the for the side of it is. But anyway, so yeah, I'm Jay Dire. I do a lot of debates. I do a lot
of geopolitical analysis. I do film analysis, written a few books on that, books on philosophy, host The Fourth Hour of He Who Cannot Be Named every Friday, done that for four years. Yeah, so that's what I do.
Very very very very nice. You know what's funny until you just mentioned that it was supposed to be Jake the Muslim Metaphysician, but then it was it just for some reason in my mind, I was totally remembering it the wrong way, and I thought you had a debate with Donally Kikichu and Jake the Muslim Metaphysician. Despite the fact that I watched the whole debate twice and also
commented on it, which is very, very funny. It might have to do with the fact that I had my interactions with Jake, had discussions with him, was supposed to debate him. Eventually he backed out and blocked me. But it just to come in in his place was just
a very very dumb move. I don't know who organized this, who came up with him as an alternative, but at least Jake could a little bit by being coherent, you know, and speaking the same language appeal to audiences and you know, I don't know, get get some kind of popularity, even if the stuff that he says is completely nonsense. But
it is just he's not likable. He he's a little weasel, incredibly disrespectful for no reason, very dishonest person, and he's on record on audio record calling somebody a wet bag piece of shit in a debate about Christianity.
Yeah, it was an odd choice, but you know, I think if I recall in the DMS, originally it was going to be they wanted a good job, so and I don't know who who was going to be, is Mohammed a job and somebody And of course he wouldn't do it, and then he backed out of the Samshumuon thing, and so there's a lot of backing out going on
on that side. I don't know what they're so worried about, but in the case of Jake, I think the pattern I've noticed is that Jake will really only debate when it's something relating to these really sort of abstract metaphysical topics. He won't go anywhere near the Quran, you will go anywhere near comparison to biblical texts. And I think he kind of, maybe even halfway will admit he doesn't really know that stuff. So for him, it's this sort of pseudo philosophical and ever, yeah.
It's it's a funny thing. He wanted to to press me on having a debate about the existence of God. I said, look, when I joined you guys, I had that debate only because I wanted to give you guys what you want and then further have discussions about Islam. How about we have a discussion about Islam. How about we'd have a debate on Islam. He never would accept that. Eventually I pressed him to accept it, and even then, just when we were about to have the debate in
a few days. He made some dumb excuse about my post about Israel or something like that. He was like, you're horrible, I'm going to block you, and then it blocked me. And he did the same thing with lots of other people. It's just that.
With Sam too, or they were going to debate and he bled, oh, I've decided suddenly that you're too immoral for me to debate and block.
Me exactly exactly, And it's not like we're doing something different from whatever we have done for years. It doesn't make any sense. Yeah, but let's come to your your impression of Islam altogether. Of course, these are very interesting people. It's just a coincidence that they happened to have these similar personalities. Probably nothing to do with Islam. But you've had debates about Islam with Daniel Now, with a Jazz
and with other people online. You have been hosting debates on your own channel, which I've seen, which seems to be doing quite well. We had conversations you and I about Islam in the past. What is your current impression of Islam and how did it change over time?
Yeah, I would say if you go back eight or ten years ago, I knew a lot about Christian theology, and I know a lot about the inter historical disputes amongst Christian groups and whatnot church history, but I didn't really know much about Islam at all, and so I don't even remember how the Islami debates started happening. I think I had a couple of friends, the guys that run Orthodox sha Hata. They were like, hey, they were
part of the discord. They said, why don't you start debating Muslims because we've got a lot of Muslims coming into the UK, come into Europe. It's really changing the face of Europe. So this might actually be the future. Because I spent so much time debating Roman Catholics so and Protestant So I think the first debate we did
was kind of a so called debate. It was it was an no Zombga four, and then it was Paul Williams, and then it was Shabiri Le, then it was Shaike azer rashid Uh, and then it was I'm saying the big the big name, big name Muslims. And then it was Daniel and then Jake, and then it Jaws and Daniel. So uh, it's kind in the Muslim lantern. So it's kind of a snowball thing that wasn't really a planned but in that time. And I still want to call myself an expert on Islam, but I've learned a lot.
I've learned a lot from you learned a lot from from Sam and many other people. My impression now, maybe say compared to ten years ago, is that it's a lot more of a cobbled together hodgepodge of varying traditions and ideas, and it's a lot more goofy than I originally thought I would have assumed, you know, ten years ago, well, they've got you know, Abacina, and they've got you know, even Seen, and they've got these high minded philosopher guys
that people have heard AVOs. But then when you really get into, you know, what the texts of the Qur'an and these hadiths are all about, I think it becomes more and more kind of silly. And you notice the sort of outright contradictions, especially all of the reliance on prior textual traditions from Judaism and from Christianity. The more that you know those texts, and then the more that you see the chronic claims and texts, the more you
see kind of how just cobbled together contradictory. So in summation, I would say, now I see it as kind of the perfect cult engineer to doup the Arab mind, honestly, and so I see I see it as a mix of Gnosticism. I see it as a mix of Talmudic ideas. I see it as a mix of Christian texts, particularly arian and Historian Christianity. I see it as a borrowing
even from Greek philosophy. I had a recent discussion with a couple of people from the Shia tradition, and from their argumentation, the the guy was literally saying, yeah, everything that's in the Koran is ultimately neoplatonism, but that's not from the Neoplatonists, is from the Qoran. In other words, it's it's like a rip off. It's like we rip off the Bible, but it's from the Koran, not from the Bible. We rip off the Torah, but it's from
the Qoran, not from the Court. We rip off the Greek philosophers, but it's actually from the Koran, not from the Greek. As you see what I'm saying, there's a pattern here of copy paste, copy paste, copy paste, copy paste, put this thing together in a book, the thing, and then but it's not from anything before. It's it's this, this is the real true origin.
That's very very coreedient, right. It's it's like if I write a book today and say that and claim that it is actually from Allah who visited me after one four hundred years to tell me that Muhamma did a completely different message which was unfortunately distorted and perverted by the Muslims who followed after him, and here is what he tells me. And then I just write a bunch of stuff that I based on on the Quran, on different sources, but claim that this is all completely totally original.
It's it is kind of ridiculous. There is a there, there is something that you said which is which I can resonate with it. That's that's usually how I describe Islam, like it's coupled together with from different from different traditions and sources and all that. I mean, over the years, I have pretty much I would say, come to the to the to the to the idea, to the conclusion and the argument that that Islam is basically a a polytheistic religion, and culture that came out of a polytheistic
pagan Arab region. But then because Muhammad was apparently so much you know, he he looked up to Christians and Jews. Initially he wanted to adopt their beliefs and their traditions as much as much as possible, but then adopted things that he never really understood and adopted misunderstandings, and aside from that, also adopted stories about For example, I'm not sure if you if you have come across the whole narrative of Hul Karnaine in the Quran that this is
a character named little Karnane. He is. He is identified as Alexander the Great. So the Quran mentions Alexander the Great uh as little Karnaan, which means the too horned one. And this just happens because some people will come to Muhammad and ask him about a little Karnate and he's like, uh, I'll get back to you. So something happens then in the in the meantime, he gets his information about this
Alexander the Great that he doesn't know much about. And then he comes back and he starts reciting revelations from Allah about how Litul Karnate was a was was a very mighty person guided by Allah, and he went to the very west of the world and to the very east, and he saw the sun setting in a muddy spring and saw other people that the sun was rising, uh, you know above, and they had no protection against it.
And I don't know pretty pretty much that he was a servant of Allah and a good guy, which is just a very strange thing, because Alexander the Great was anything but a good guy in any morningstic sense.
He was.
He was a a syncretic polytheist guy who declared himself God, uh yeah, which.
Is actually the I mean, even if you're a liberal. A lot of people think the Book of Daniel is talking about the Greeks in that time period, particularly Alexander and then his his one of his generals, Antiochus apefans Is, who defiles the Jewish temple during the Macabean period. So that's again another irony that you know, the Biblical Revelation describes that as a pagan, polytheistic Alexander antiochis culture. Very odd they would be described as as a monotheis.
Yeah, I think you should look into that. It's in chapter eighteen of the Quran that has Sura cuff that has an account of the Seven Sleepers, which is also taken from from Christians. And then after that it goes into the whole Alexander the Great story, which is which is very very funny. We even have a what's his name?
Some Italian ex isis jihadiest guy who when he was in prison, learned about the Alexander romance and old myths about Alexander the Great and then he noticed, wait a minute, this sounds oddly similar to what I read in the Quran. And then he finds out that these stories came before the Quran, and then he thinks this does not make sense, so he ends up leaving Islam. This hardcoregi hotis to it's I think Antonio something, sar Antonio char Antonio something like that.
So listen to the question I want to I want to ask you because this is a pattern I've noticed, And when this comes up in the live stream debates that we do, I'm never actually sure what they what they actually think like. It seems to be the case that they either don't recognize or care that many of these stories, like if you read the Gabriel site, Reynolds book, he lists about I don't know, four or five different texts that were like sudabergrafa or gnostic texts that appear
in different forms in different ways in the Quran. And I'm what I'm wondering is like, do they not admit that these things came before or do they think that no, it doesn't even matter that it came before, because like when I was talking to that guy about neoplatonism and he's like, no, well, Lecorn is basically teaching platonism, And I'm like, but wouldn't neoplatonism be where the Quran is getting that if that's the case, and it's like, no,
it's actually new to the Kurn or Greek atomism, right, a lot of the Suns are atomists. And it's like, well, you know the Greeks taught atomism. No, but it's in the Koran.
Yeah, yeah, well it's the thinking evolves evolved to very much over time. Today. Generally, the response that you get when you point out that that's lots of these things come to the Quran from prior sources. What are these sources are actually correct on these things are not? Uh, they will ignore your explanation and then you know, bring an alternative explanation, or simply argue that Allat knows best, and he's he's the one who sent the Quran, and
he knows what he's talking about. It's not for us to question. This is, for example, something that's happened when I I made a video of talking about the seven Sleepers narrative and all that and how the Quran twisted and how if we accept that the seven sleeper story is authentic and that the Koran acknowledges to it, then we have to accept that the that the Triune God
is the true God and Christian true. And then when I do that, they they start it starts getting completely fallacious about how this It doesn't have to go back to the Christian story. It might be a different story. Uh, it might be the true story. It might be that the Christians took it, you know, wrongfully from somewhere else. It was actually a real story about something good, and in the end we should not question it because Alano's best.
This is usually the some of the thoughts, some of the responses that will that they will, that they will give to these things. Similar to Alexander the Great, initially within the first centuries, Muslims acknowledged generally that the references were going where about Alexander the Great. It has become the new thing lately more recently, to say, no, it's
not Alexander the Grade. It is somebody else. We don't know who it is, and we can't know because it is not specified, But it's probably not Alexander the Great, given the revelations that we have now about who he actually was. But this is just the thing, like the understanding develops and is corrupted by Muslims as they further understand how problematic it actually is what they are presenting to us, such as that the grind takes stories inappropriately,
or ideas inappropriately, or twists stories into being. There's lots we can talk about. Well, what do you think going forward?
You to move on one other question on that topic. I forgot to mention when I was talking about influences, the pre Islamic Arab paganism is also, I think pretty clearly obviously an influence. And I mean I'd heard people say that maybe ten years ago, but I never really looked into that. But I do think that's there within the tradition. I mean, you know, icons are idolatry, but you can kiss this black stone and it's not idolatry.
So it's sort of it's it's a double standard. And why is it not all all Josha, Well, because it says so on the Hot Deaths that you can do it. So yeah, I think there's a lot of double standards,
a lot of inconsistency. So my question to you would be, do you think and I think we talked about this last time we were we were discussing and you were talking about the killing all the pigs Hudith, do you think that it's a situation where you you had and I know we're kind of kind of speculating because we don't exactly know what was going on, but is it Is it a situation where you think Muhammad was like just sort of out of it and was just being
influenced by his epilepsy and seizures, or do you think that he was really kind of like or maybe maybe even him and some of his crew, like, do you think it was a situation where they were trying to put together a religion that they could manipulate for warlord purposes, you know, for wealth purpose, for all kinds of purposes.
Because even David Wood's recent video where he was talking about the places in the Chrome where it says, well, the Jews have the Hebrew Revelation and the Christians have a revelation in their tongue, this is the revelation for you Arab people. So it's it's almost like it was initially intended to be directed towards the Arab peoples as
their version. Maybe that was early in the you know, Muhammed's campaigns or something like that, before it turns into you know, this is actually a worldwide conquest.
Yeah, yeah, there there is two interesting topics here in two very very deep topics actually to go into, but one one which is the latter that you brought up, also based on what David Wood mentioned. So Mohammed initially did start out as merely a guy who is who is sent by the same God, also sent or revealed the Gospel in the Torah, as the Quran says, and Mohammad really did look up the Jews and Christians and wanted to adopt their beliefs and ideas and claim that
he comes from the same God. But the thing is, if you analyze the Quran chronologically, the Quran barely ever even touches on Jews and Christians within the first ten years or so, until Mohammad goes flees his pagan environment in Mecca and goes to Medina, where he then encounters large Jewish tribes that basically builds the city, and as he interacts with them, the Quran suddenly starts focusing on
Jews and Christians and their stories and beliefs. So it seems that the Quran's content is very very much influenced by whatever Mohammad is, where he's at, what is around him, what he interacts with, what is currently important to Mohammad's context, And initially he approaches them in a good way, like Jews, Christians, what's up, I'm just like you guys, you know, yeah,
same team. Let's join together. And it even proposes in the beginning to the Jews and Christians let us come together to an agreement that there is no God but a line so on. But as he then finds out that the Jews don't really respect him at all and think actually that he's ridiculous and full of scrap, he starts getting more and more angry at them. Then he develops this idea that the Christians. The Jews are bad,
but the Christians they are cool, They're good. Then the Christians start projecting him and then he's like, Okay, Christians are bad too, Christians will go to Hell. So but along those while having those developments, he simply takes. He absorbs whatever is, whatever he hears, and whatever is given to him. There is a I would say it is. It is quite mixed. What his motive is, what his reasoning is when he gets his his stories and beliefs
into his own religion. I would say that there is very strong evidence that suggests that he had that he had some sort of some sort of epilepsy, that he had hallucinations. UH. Their early narratives that he would he would come back from seeing the angel Gabriel, and then he would be terrified and he would fall on the ground and start shaking and making loud noises and sweating.
They would have to cover him up and he would make loud, snorting noises when he would get a revelation from Allah, which you know, sounds oddly like UH, a form of epilepsy. But it could very well be that he was actually deceived by his own by his own hallucinations, by his own insanities, and that he actually did believe
that he was getting revelations from from from Allah. But he was also convinced by other people around him that you know, who helped him basically shame the narrative that he was getting from his from his from his Gibriel character.
You have, for example, in the Quran multiple times people accusing him from taking stories from certain people around him, and they call him the ear, by which they mean that he just listens to somebody who comes to him and then takes whatever that person says and then includes it in his in his into his own religion, as if they were original stories. It's very hard to speculate
and to figure out what exactly his motive was. But there are also instances, for example, where his dear friend and second Khalif Omar openly says in the Hadith he says that Allah agreed with me on three occasions. He says, this is a follower of the close follower of Muhammad. For example, he suggests when he sees that Muhammed's wives go to the bathroom out in the desert somewhere, he repeatedly tells him, I see you, I see you, you
should be hiding very creepy. And then he goes to Mohamed and says he goes to Mohammed and says, Mohammed, cover your wife's up. They need to be covered up. And eventually Mohammed is like, okay, fine, and then he receives a revelation in which Allah says that they should not go outside anymore unless necessary, and that they should be covered up. And Omar goes, oh, good, Allah agrees
with me. It seems that you know that these people around Mohammed have an influence on what Allah reveals to Mohammed, and Mohammad also does. And it's hard to speculate always whether Mohammad was deliberately making things up, whether others were in on it, or whether he was self deceived.
Well, great parallel. I'm sure you've heard a million times, but you know it very much reminds me of Mormonism in the way Mormonism operated with you know, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, you kind of have this inner core of the original Mormon crew. You know, they have these new revelations. They say that the prior revelation is fine except when
it contradicts the new revelation. So it's really just the same circle that we find with the Islamic dilemma for Islam, for Muslims, you know, you've got the polygamy, you've got the weird polytheistic elements. In Mormonism. I mean, there's a lot of parallels there, but the patterns are always that you look back to the previous revelation only when it
confirms the new revelation. And again in the case of Joseph Smith, I think there's multitudes of influences as well, and he seems to be similar to Muhammad as well. And what you're describing that he kind of hears all kinds of different things, because there's this story that Joseph Smith went to all the different denominations, and so he hears all these different stories and then he decides they're
all wrong. He goes in the woods and praise, and then this angel appears to him, just like the angel appearing to Muhammad. And then there's a new revelation based on these new texts, and only the Book of Mormon is really the infallible text, and everything else has to be judged by it. So I mean patterns are the same for most cults. Actually, I would say, a lot
of cults. But I think if you look at Mormonism just from that cultural perspective, it's really geared towards you know, eighteen hundreds, you know, prairie minded people moving west Islam very much oriented towards you know, seventh century Arabs. And what my next question to you would be, would that explain the seeming contradictions about what Mohammad says about Christians and Jews, because it seems like at times it sounds like we're all people of the book. We all are fine.
Let the Jews judge by the Torah. Christians can go judge by their revelation. But then later we get this, but also, if you're a Trinitarian, you're going to hell fire, right.
Yeah, yeah. I actually put together a list of Quran verses about all Quran verses that address Christians or that mentioned Christians directly in chronological order, and you can observe a very very clear pattern there at the beginning, very very peaceful and you know, reconciliatory, and then it gets more like, okay, you are wrong, but we are still okay,
you are totally wrong. You should follow your book instead of making up things until Finally, the final chapter of the Quran in chronological order is that is chapter nine, where the Quran completely shifts to Christianity is unacceptable, it will not be accepted. You have to become Muslims or else.
And then finally you have chapter nine, verse twenty nine and thirty, where it says fight those who do not believe in Aligned as Messenger, who do not adopt the religion of truth, meaning Islam, among those who you know, among the people of the scripture. So Jews Christians who do not adopt Islam are now declared enemies and are
supposed to be fought and subjugated and humiliated. And then it further says that that this is because of their of their false beliefs, of their their wicked and false and corrupt beliefs, and Allah will punish them and curse them and so on. So that is indeed the explanation for it. There are some people who, of course choose to point out the good verses and leave out the padlines. But if you read it all in context, it is just a development of Muhammed's perception of Jews and Christians.
Initially he thought they were okay, then later as they didn't accept him and saw it the ignorance in him. He turned more and more against them and declared war on them.
Yeah, you have people on the left a lot of times that think that, you know, Islam is their ally. They only pick out the verses that are early on, like you're talking about well, look see it had a guy come on the stream the other day and he's like, you're totally wrong. Islam has no you know, anti Christian, anti Jewish animus. It's only conciliatory. And I'm like, you're just using the ones the tacks that are early on,
you're not using the other text. So yeah, I think that's a But again, that's why it's a it's a very crafty book because it allows let's say you're a coliaf in the Middle Ages sometime or something, and let's say you want to go to war against Christians or Jews. Well you've got ready made passages that would support going to war. Let's say you're in a political situation where you need peace, Well you've got ready made passages you
can cite about peace. So it's a it's useful for what's a nesser at the.
Time, exactly exactly, And they used this all this was always historically very important just to put on the screen. Here the verse nine nine, which is I think my go to verse when it comes to explaining the Islamic stance on non believers, specifically Jews and Christians. There are others, such as ninety eight six, which says explicitly that Jews and Christians and polytheists who don't believe in Islam are the worst of creatures and Muslims are the best of creatures.
But here nine to twenty nine says fight against those who do not believe in a law or in the last Day, and who do not consider unlawful what aligned as messenger have made unlawful, and who do not adopt the religion of truth that is Islam from those who were given the Scripture. So Jews and Christians, if they don't adopt Islam, fight them, fight until they give the jizia,
which is protection money willingly while they are humbled. And there are people who will twist what jiza actually is and they say, oh, it's just a tax man, just a tax But it's quite clear historically jisea is specifically for disbelievers. It is supposed to be taken from those who want to live as subjects of Muslims and not convert to Islam. If they fail to give it, then they are fair game. So this is basically protection money. That's literally what it is.
Yea.
And further, I had this one noted, what was the other t actually said something.
Oh.
Ninety eight verse six, that's what I mentioned, which would be this one. Indeed, they who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of hell abiding eternally they're in. Those are the worst of creatures. And it further goes on saying, indeed, they who know, indeed, they who have believed in don
Wright's deeds, those are the best of creatures. And if you read the whole chapter, which is a very short chapter within context, it does indeed talk about those Christians and Jews who refused to accept Muhammad as true messenger. So that's basically what this is about, that they were cool until Muhammad arrived. Yeah right, yeah, yeah, so yeah, what But enough about being so terribly islamophobic. What do you think with all your interactions that you've had, I'm
sure you also had some good impressions of Islam. So what do you think is actually a good Islamic argument that you've heard?
Hmmm, that is a tough question, I know, do you mean the best, which opponent performed the best, or what is if I were to steal man Islam their best argument overall.
The second one or yeah? Yeah, So something that that sounds kind of strong ish or strongest given the standards of Islam, and that is actually a good argument for Islam.
I don't think it's a good argument, but I think it's the most successful argument. Probably is the fact that they will heal to the assumption of generic Unitarianism and the idea that, well, we know, the Shamas is one God. Did an Abraham worship one God? Jesus believed in one God? And so I think that's the most successful argument. I don't because the Trinity is a complex doctrine. I don't
think it's a good argument. I think that when you look at the texts, it's very easy to see that the Torah, the prophets they do teach more than a bearer generic Unitarian deity. But I think that for most people who are not very well studying the scriptures, they don't know their Bible very well. That can be a very convincing argument, and then they always try to sort of put us on the defensive as if we have, you know, an insurmountable challenge in trying to demonstrate the Trinity.
And one way they also are successful in that is that they always try to assume that you're going to prove or disprove this by one text, one verse. And that's not really fair, first of all, because they expect us to not, you know, demand they prove a doctrine from one verse in the Koran. But yet we have this burden of proof that the Trinity or Jesus being God has to be this verse, or Jesus has to say I am you know, I am God, or I am Yahweh, or you must believe in the trinity. What
are Bibles say trinity? So those are you know, unrealistic expectations for how you know, we don't believe that that's how you would go about proving it. And by the way, you don't believe that about your books. I think those are the most successful arguments I've seen that them have. Maybe second would be you know, challenges about how can Christ be fully god fully divine? You know, they always
have these assumptions about what that must mean. It must mean that if there's an incarnation, it must mean that God changed. It must mean that, you know, there's some sort of alteration in the divine nature or something like that. Those I think are successful, I'm not. I mean, I'm being honest. I'm trying to think of what would be the best argument that they have. I think those are the most successful, but I don't think they're very good arguments.
I can't. Yeah, I can't really think of what is how I could steal men Islam other than just that most people tend to assume that mono mono theism, which actually really late term, must mean unitarianism.
It's it's a funny thing. I myself, I just asked you this question, But when somebody asks me this question, I just, I honestly don't know what to say, because I have my disagreements with with a purely atheistic perspective and the purely Christian perspective. But if somebody asked me, uh, you know, strong arguments for either one, I would be happily present those. But if somebody asked me about that about Islam, it's just I don't know, because it's all quite pathetic.
Pretty well, I think maybe the best argument I could say that I've heard maybe doctor Khalil has an interesting take because he'll go into like neo platonism. But I mean, I just really I find it really hard to believe that I'm supposed to think that unlettered, illiterate Arab guys in the in the seventh century are actually really teaching neoplatonism.
Yeah, yeah, I mean that to me, that's really kind
of out language. Also considering the fact that if you actually look into the earliest accounts of what people at that time believed, if you go by Muslim standards, who will often appeal to reports by early Muslim scholars about the earliest beliefs of Muslims, you will find that according to the traditions, according to the earliest exegetes, the companions of Muhammad believed that the world was was a shape making grounds on the back of a whale that swims
on the on the on the on the water. Well, yeah, okay, that Allah put the mountains into the earth in order to stabilize it and prevent it from shaking, but that this whale moves around and sometimes that causes you know, earthquakes and things like that.
So this is funny because I think this hits on a key point here that we brought up last time we were talking, which is when you were talking about the pigs. My assumption was, well, surely that's some sort of like symbolic language, because I think, you know, in terms of Jewish and Christian ex to Jesus, there's a recognition of symbolism, metaphor, you know, all types of different
levels of interpretation of the text. But in early especially in early Islam, no, it's literally just saying that there's no mystical meanings. And so if you were to take say a doctor Khalil position where he wants and he's very emphatic that in the Shia tradition they believe, like Christians and Jews, that they're sort of multiple layers of meaning to the text. Is a deeper sort of allegorical
or spiritual meaning to a lot of these texts. Now, look, if that's the case, if there's these deeper esoteric meanings, and if the chron is really teaching me neo platonism, I would expect that they would get the basics and the historical simple things right. If there's these deeper meanings, but if it doesn't get the basic facts about what
prior revelation said about. For example, you know, the arc of the Covenant is a box that has wings on it, that flies around that it has Moses' private family jewels in it. I mean, I would expect you would get at least what the arc of the company. That's not what the oir coven is like it. It's not an Amazon drone with Moses family jewels in it, right, It's it's a box that's in the temple, that's a big gold thing with angel golden angels on it. It's not a thing that flies. So I mean, you see what
I'm saying. If there was actually a deeper esoterics, then you would you at least be getting the literal stuff.
Right, That's correct. I saw after our discussion last time when we when we were talking about how according to Islam, Jesus will come back and will kill the pig. That was apparently a highlight, and somebody responded to it and said that there is actually a more sinister meaning behind it, and I thought, you know, I see what you mean, and I see what you're doing, and I see how you say that there is a sinister Islamic implication about
what pigs represent and what breaking the cross represents. However, you are giving Islam too much credit here. It's it's really not that deep. It is that is very very very primitive, extremely primitive, and it's and it's in the way it handles things.
Well, if it wasn't, then I mean to cut you off. But let's say doctor Khalil's correct that no, really Islam is this deeper esoteric stuff.
Well, then why is it.
So clouded and clogged up with the goofy hadiths that aren't.
Well, there are some very deep dees to be honest. For example, one uh, which I would like to have your input on, would be uh one thing that Muhammad said, which was the eyes are the leather strap of the anus.
I knew you were going to bring something. Third. I was like, for like one second, I was like, oh, what if he's gonna He's gonna bring out Mohammed's like physical treatise on like reality and being And it's like the eyes of the leather strap of the anus. That's a new one to me. I didn't know that sound pretty deep.
This isn't actual, goes I guess you could get.
You could give like a esoteric I don't know what it would be. But by the way, on that topic, you know what, this actually sounds really similar to have you ever heard of Jim Jones's Like he would he would go into these long, weird discourses and he has this idea that like farted out the universe. I mean it's I know, it's goofy, but like you find like at times these cult leaders will kind of like they'll kind of spill the beans on. It's just like crazy bs.
You know what I mean, no pun intended beans. But yeah, Jim Jones is my it's my favorite cult leader. So I know, quite's quite a bit about him.
Collection like Pokemon you got like cards?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I finally got this one, uh interesting stuff. Yeah. But just to explain to you what the deep meaning of the eyes of the letters, strap of the anus means. What Muhammed meant when he said that was so you're supposed to do the ablution whenever you do a prayer, right, But if you go to sleep and you fall asleep, you don't have full full control over your your anus anymore,
and you might fart, which might invalidate the ablution. So his his idea was the eyes are what keep the anus shut because they are the leather strap that keep it shut, like like on a bottle back. Then what what if you close the eyes, then the leather strap is loose and farts might get out. So you would have to given that that is a possibility when you wake up, you have to do another.
I'm not really into Freudian stuff, but it would be really amusing to see a Freudian analysis of these needs and like what what Mohamma was up to? Well, that's that's that's a wild one. I mean, are the hot these basically just a giant encyclopedia of like crazy stuff that people are discovering, like on a daily basis, Like is this just endless? The stuff?
It's just much of it is just so random. It's it is. So I have a collection here, Yeah, I've.
Got I've got them on order, sahib Ohari.
And so I actually have one that I recommend to you, which is Sahibukari with all repetitions removed. Oh okay, yeah, so it's it's it's relatively short compared to the whole thing.
But if if you go through it, or I have another one which is a mass transmitted verified hadiths listed in a in one book, and much of it is just it's just completely useless information that that is just put in there where somebody where Mohammad says something totally irrelevant, and then people just report on it and and and deliver it, and that's it.
I'm going to walk down to the horse store today. Okay, they're they're just random stuff.
Oh there. There's also some interesting, weird detail that, uh, that David likes to bring up. For example, like that I just says that sometimes there was a lot of semen on Mohammed's uh on Mohammed's clothes and she would have to really scrub it off very very hard, and he would still have spots on it when he would go to the mask to pray. So things like that, you know, like interesting important stuff, theologically important and crucial stuff.
Uh.
Moving on, what is the worst thing you have heard from Muslims in terms of arguments? I know this is a very tough one, even worse than I think.
One of the things that stands out as just kind of silly was when Azar Rashid, when we were debating about the incarnation, and he said that there's no way that you know, God could be incarnate and come into the womb of a woman, because he would have the pastor of vagina. Vaginas are unclean. And you know, I might have mentioned this last time. I don't know, but
it's like, well, but didn't All I create vaginas? I mean, but then but then again it's like, well, you have, but All I can create good and evil, you know, dark and light. He creates the wicked as well as the good. He wills evil directly as as well as the goods. So I mean, if All is the greatest of deceivers, the like, why is it wrong anyway? Right? So I thought that was always that always stands out as a funny objection.
Uh.
The worst stuff I think is like when they really try to go into what they think is a knock against Christianity. Oh so when you think when Christ became in carnate, he had he had body parts, and yet don't the Hadiths say that Allah has gonads and Allah is you know, ninety feet tall. And so it's like a lot of what they think is a gotcha ends up being you know, absurd in terms of their own
hadiths worst argument. I think the Islami dilemma is pretty stupid if you think about it, like you want this book to be confirmed by the prior revelation and then literally, like Ajas said the debate when Sam pinned him, he said, what it did, just say, yes, it's all corrupt, but a lot of places are in it are true when it confirms the Koran. But thank you for literally saying what we were looking for you to admit. So he didn't even that. He admitted, like the very thing that
we were saying was pretty devastating. That was that one stands out and it's.
A very very clear display of a fallacy, and he just says it right away. Yeah, it's very very interesting. But this is the perspective. This is what you are left with. Initially, the Muslims thought that that the Torah and in Jel contained truth, and they are they're the truth actually, and they were revealed by Allah and they are truth as they are, and Jews and Christians are supposed to still follow those books, and this narrative never
really changed. In the Qur'an. There is no single courn verse which which actually explicitly says that those books are no longer authentic, or that they have been literally physically corrupted. It still insists that they should have just followed those books, or should just follow those books. But but you can't really make sense of it because if you actually the open host books and read them, then you have to
conclude that Islam is false. You can't have both religions to be true at the same time, or three true at the same time.
Well, this suggests too that Muhammad was probably relying on a lot of people who couldn't read. Yeah, things are relying on an audience that even though he's saying you can check with what came before, I'm saying everything consistent with it. Well, if I actually go and read it, obviously that's not true. So I think the assumption was that maybe most you know, most of the audits is not actually going to do that, or they don't know
what the texts actually say. And then also I think this one gets overlooked because I noticed more and more Muslims saying this. But it's a really stupid argument. When Daniel said, look, Islam is simple, and wouldn't God make the true religion more simple? Therefore it's got to be
Islam right. I mean, to me, that's just such a stupid argument number one, because first of all, it's a fallacy to think that because something appears to be simple or that it's similar to grasp It's a version of Auckham's razor fallacy that has nothing to do with whether it's true or false. I mean, errors can be very simple. Does that make the errors true because they're simple? And it's silly, right, But also the Koran itself says in
multiple places We've made everything clear. Everything is extremely clear, very clear, Like it says this over and over and over. And then there's another verse where it's like, well, many of these verses, only Allah knows what they mean, well, not exactly clear, right, So wait a minute, is the Koran extremely clear or is it complex? And only Allah knows many of these passes and what they mean, So by that very definition, it's not true. And then also
Daniel knows good and well that. And by the way it's happened ever since that debate on Twitter and after the Muslim inter debate, they're all arguing over the attributes again, which is what I brought up in both debates that they've debated and killed each other over both of them both debates. The Muslims wide and acted like what is akida? I never heard of this? This is never what what
are you talking about? Acting like there weren't famous wars and debate over the eternal Quran, over the attributes in the essence, and they're now debating it on Twitter, exemplifying the thing I said that they debate this when in the debates they said, we don't debate this stuff. We all agree all as one, so they play word games. They know good and well that I wasn't saying. Yes, of course you all say Allah is one, but what that means you all fight over That's the point.
There was a very very dirty moment by Muslim lantern who probably stole his name from me. Ex Muslim lantern who said during the debate, when you talked to him about about akida is akda, I don't know what that? What's t akita? What's aekida? What's tekida?
Uh?
You know, if you want to joke about it for a second, okay, go ahead and do that. But he's actually using that as a debate tactic, pretending that he doesn't know what akda is because he's like oh, you mean Alquida, not Akida. Uh we you know exactly what is being said. You're not you're not being funny, you're not being you're not ignorant. You know exactly what's being said. But he actually dodges the issue by saying, oh, I don't know what that is, which is a very interesting tactic.
It's it's just within Islamic apologetics, it is it is considered acceptable, widely acceptable to simply, you know, deceive, to lie, to trick the opponent, to to be dishonest. And this shouldn't be the case. This shouldn't be the case for a a religion that supposedly represents these this this ultimate fantastic, great morality, as opposed to all the corruption in the world and all the you know, all the people who
went astray. This shouldn't be it. If you lie, if you act dishonestly during debate debates, this just says a lot about about your religion and is a weak position.
Yeah, yeah, exactly a strong position. I don't need a bunch of tricks and and kind and schemes and tactics. I can simply present the positions. I can present the truth. I'm not going to have to rely on tactics that again obviously signify a weak position.
Yeah. Yeah, And the whole thing about the trinity versus towhead is a very very interesting perspective. I get it. They like to appeal to that because they can catch They can get the average Muslim follower to say, oh, yeah, look makes so much sense, which is a very weird way to handle things. It mostly appeals to Muslims who already believe in the toe heat will say, yeah, look,
Trinity doesn't make sense, lok, Trinity is too complicated. Well, first off, I never agreed and personally don't agree that the simple belief in the Trinity within the trayne God is a complicated issue. It may be complicated if you go further into the first centuries of Christianity, for example, and discuss the nature of God, scussed the christology in detail and all that, But these are things that Christianity
handled uh uh in the very beginnings, long time ago. Similarly, Islam had disagreements, as you just mentioned, about the nature of Allah further about the Quran's createdness, whether the Qoran is created or not, or is an eternal speech of Allah that always pre always pre existed or not. Then they had an issue on predetermination and free will, which
they killed over. There was one group known as the Mootazila, who had who's stuck on to the point that that predestination doesn't make sense uh and that that and that the Quran is created, And they were declared heretics and
fought and also killed and punished over these things. If you want to come to the complications of the details of your theological beliefs, you can also talk about Islam in that in that regard, there is nothing really complicated about about Jesus, about the divinity of Jesus, about the Holy Spirit, about God, the Father, and so on. Plus they also engage in this tactic where they specifically talk about the doctrine of the Trinity and the Council of Nicia,
for example, and act like, act like. Prior to this, Christians didn't actually hold on to the idea that there is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, when we know very well that this is early Christianity. The first sources on Christianity talk about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If you want to specifically talk about the formalization of the of the Trinity, that is a different matter, but that does that in no way, in no way invalidates the belief in Father, Son and
Holy Spirit which was always there. Right.
Yeah, we did a stream with inspiring philosophy, which you can find on his channel still, where we spent out two and a half hours going through just first and second and third century Patristic text references to the Trinity. And so, first of all, the word is used prior to Nicea. You can find it in Theophilis, you can find it in Tertullian. And even though Tratullian did not end his life orthodox or in the Church, he does have a lot of historical texts that attest to the
beliefs of that time. And so you know, there's there's a plethora of information and texts from Irenaeus to Ignatius to Clement, to Theophilis of Antioch, to Cyprian, to Alphinatius Alexander, all who have famous written texts prior to Nicia that basically demonstrate that when Nicia comes to gather and meets,
they're not saying anything new. And this is actually another example of this is that and I'm not singling out inspiring philosophy here, But a lot of Protestants actually end up becoming Orthodox or Catholic over this point because they realized that, hey, actually I can actually go read all
these people from these first three centuries. Most Muslims that I've encountered are not even aware that there are these people, unless they want to go to one text in Tertullian or one section of justin Martyr where suddenly, now right, they teach anti trinitarianism. Well, I don't think they teach anti trinitarianism if you look at the context, and Sam has schmun As a video where he goes into what
Tertullian's actually saying. If you read that whole passage, ultimately it doesn't even matter because you know, Tertullian left the church, so I don't have a problem admitting that Totillian made errors. They'll also do this weird trick too, where they sort of expect, they expect to the Christians to hold to some standard that they have, And in our perspective, we don't think that every church father has to say everything perfectly or get everything correct. They can make a mistake.
It's it's the judgment of the church. From the Christian perspective, as to whether somebody like Origin is a hair or Trapillion is a heretic, or whether someone like Justin Martyr, even if he didn't say something perfectly, is still within the bosom of the church. So they have these kind of weird, uh, just all over the place standards that they'll expect your position to conform to what they expect. For example, yesterday I was a beating with a Muslim and he said, uh, this is a new one, and
this is a funny version of it. She says, Torah has to be like the Quran, a direct revelation to Moses that he's that Moses spits out from a lot. He says, that's what Torah is, and it's like at the end of it, it talks about Moses dying, and so therefore Torah is not what you have. I'm like, that's your idea as to what Torah is. That's not what we believe Torre is. So I'm not bound by
your standards, right. So, I think there's a real deficiency when it comes to They seem to be typically incapable of understanding what our position is, and I think they don't want to. I think there's a desire to not even care what the other position is, which is funny because if you want to be a really good debater, you want to know the other person's actual position.
That's true. The problem is that Islam is incredibly ignorant. It lacks the knowledge of the Biblical tradition, Biblical beliefs and scriptures. The Quran is a tiny book in comparison to the Bible that you have. It is a tiny book compared to the Christian Bible, a tiny book compared to the Tanakh. It is a tiny book compared to
Christian Jewish tradition. It does not compare. And coming from that position, from that perspective, from what Mohammad and his followers developed in the seventh century, and then judging the Bible and expecting it to be on your standard, iecting it to be by your standards, it's just is ridiculous. It is completely ridiculous. And they make a lot of mistakes there, including yeah, they don't understand what the Bible actually is. They don't understand what the Torah actually is.
Uh.
They don't understand what the Gospel.
Floated down right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly, they don't know. They when you explain to them what the gospels actually are. They think it can't be true whether so people wrote it. Well, no, it must be revelation, it must be a lot must be, it must be speaking it. And so this is not true, this is not gospel. Uh yeah, I was just so.
Doctor Khalil just did a long talk contrasting the athari and the well even to me, a Salafia thory view versus the review of not just attributes, but also in what way the Qur'an was spoken by Allah? And then Allah made Gabriel understand the uncreated speed each so that he could then tell mom and to write down a created version of the kron But what's missed here is that it's never really answering the objection that we have. And I've been bringing up back all the way back
to the Shabiri lead debate. I'm not saying I'm the first person to say this. I'm sure many other Christians have brought this up. But it's like, okay, but if what's if what's in here is created and there's no likeness to the uncreated, it's still begging the question, how we ever know we're being told anything accurately about a law? Because you can't have any images of a law. Alos nothing like creatures like forty two and one ten. I think there's nothing like a law okay, so there's nothing
like Allah. Then you understand these are created images on a piece of paper. How are they telling us anything about uncreated speech? And so they're always been this back and forth. We had a guy on last night, the Muslim guy, arguing this last night, and he says, well, the representations of all those attributes, okay, was a representation not an image? Is Adam not made of the end
image of Allah though there's no images? Well, their conceptions and conceptions are in the mind, okay, is your mind not created? So they just keep moving the problem back in stuff? Right? So how are we avoiding idolatry when we say, you know, this word here picks out all his attribute here, So you need some kind of analogy. If there's no analogies, then these creative things aren't telling us anything about a lot. And I've never heard them
really give any clear answer. They're all over the place, depending upon which Akia you're talking to.
This problem is why? Is why? The humbly point of view, which later developed the whole idea of the three point of view, the traditionalist or ultra traditionalist revivalist point of view, which is why they developed this whole idea of Okay, what we know about a law comes from several sources that he has at least one leg to right arms, but we are not supposed to think about this any further.
Do not ask how? So do not ask how? Then became this this phrase that is actually known as a doctrine black Cave, which was specifically established in order to prevent any further discussion about the nature of our law and how we are supposed to understand it and to simply accept the description as it is, but not to imagine it and not to discuss it. But the thing is, once to describe those things and I start imagining it, it's too late already I already have some It's articulous.
Yeah, that's what That's what I kept bringing up to Jake. It's like, what is an uncreated foot that's nothing like the human foot? But this and by the way, it gets really silly when you get into the even to me is theology of perfections, right, because he starts arguing that, well, all I have to laugh, because laughing is more perfect than not laughing. Yeah, I'm serious, And so then it becomes well, wouldn't wouldn't it then be more perfect to
eternally laugh than to just laugh once? So so All is like the joker, like he's constantly laughing, right, I mean you see how silly this gets. And then it's like, how many toes is a perfect foot? Like, wouldn't seven because that's a perfect number. Wouldn't that be more perfect to have seven toes and have five toes? Six toes? Like what's your perfect number of toes on the uncreative foot? Yeah?
Silly this is, but that's literally, It's not that's literally how even to me is arguing he's saying he actually says it is more perfect for all that to laugh and to not laugh.
Well, it is the perfect thing is to have an unlimited amount of toes actually, so so it's interesting, it's right, yeah, but that's not right.
But Christianity is absurd but not that Okay? Sure? No?
Uh.
Small question to viewers, Uh is this stream frozen? What's happening here? I don't see any uh new chat coming in the last chat is from several minutes ago. Uh, I see some reactions. What's happening. I don't get it. It's weird. I just checked on two different platforms and I don't see the chat updating.
For some weird reason, my chat was kind of freezing. But if I look, if I stream on my phone, your chat, you and I are talking.
Yeah, the last chat is from behind you pal.
Yeah, but you and I are still talking.
But people are reacting with laughter and heart and hundred and now it's going. Now it's going, Okay, fantastic. That's interesting. That was weird. That was weird anyway. Yeah, so talking about the nature the nature off of Allah, there's a okay, wait, there's a sending error, but we hear you. Okay, I see, I see. Apparently there's a there's a problem with the with the YouTube chat. But we are still on so everything. Sorry, Okay, all right, thanks for telling me, Thanks Sarah for telling me.
So.
Speaking of disagreements, speaking of Islamic beliefs and and all that, there are certain powerful Islamic positions that I would like to challenge you with today in order to I know that there are you know, some Muslims that have been intellectually stronger, some not so much. But there are some arguments that I that I have heard, which would which could change your mind when Islam. So one of those is the following, why did Jesus and Mary eat food?
Are you? I can't tell if you're like, you're being silly, right, yes? So, I mean I could understand maybe thinking, well, if Jesus is divine, why does he need to eat? But what so they include Mary in the subjection.
The Quran says that the Quran says that Jesus and Mary were just regular humans and they both ate food. So yeah, The question here is when it is quite clear, as the Quran says that Jesus and Mary both ate food, why do you consider them both gods?
So, first of all, Mary isn't a god, She's not a goddess. She's a creature. She will always be a creature. We think creatures can be exalted by God to have honor and status above others. We think about this even in the human realm, a king has honored status above you know, the rest of the people in his kingdom. So in the same way, in the kingdom of God, God can honor and exalt people. We see in Psalmn forty five, the Mother of the Queen standing next to the King in gold of Ofir. We think that's a
type and image of the Virgin Mary. Now when it comes to the Son of God, we think that as a subject or an agent, he's identical to the second person of the Godhead in the Trinity, the Logos, the Son of God. So even though he has a fully human nature, we don't believe he's a human person or a human hypostasis. That would be what's called the Nestorian view, and that's what the Council of Ephesus rejects. So we don't think that he's a human person, but he has
a fully human nature. That's premised on the Orthodox and patrictic teaching of the distinction between nature and person. And that's partly how we have the doctrine of the Trinity. It's how we have Christology, and it's how humans have a distinction. We would say between a I'm the person Jay, but I have the human nature that you have. We all have a common human nature. You're the person ridvon I'm the person Jay, and there's a distinction there between that.
So likewise, in Christ, he's a divine person, but he has a fully human nature and thus having a fully human nature, he would get tired, he would cry, he would need sustenance and food because he willed to have a fully human nature. So a lot of times you'll notice in Islamic debates everything is sort of assumed to be either or either he's this or he's that. It's either this or that, and in most orthodox theology it's a both. And so we're usually saying there's a relationship
in terms of how grace works. Grace and free will work together in synergy. Christ human nature and divine nature are fully, fully human, fully divine, and they work together in synergy. So likewise, here his human nature is real, and so there's no trick going on. You had, for example, in the early Church, certain groups that taught that Jesus didn't really have a human nature was kind of like
a phantasm or a hologram. They're called the Dacatists. And so one of the ways that Jesus, i think, wanted to demonstrate that he was fully human is that he's engaging in all of the activities that a human nature would engage in, eating, sleeping, and so forth. So as a divine subject, he didn't need those things, but he willed to undergo those things.
So basically we can't answer the question, this powerful question from the Quran, which says here in chapter five, verse seventy five, it says, the Messiah son of Mary was not but a messenger. Messengers have passed on before him, and his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how we make clear to them the signs. Then look how they are deluded. This is obviously a very powerful Quran verse.
And so the chorn trying to argue that because they hate they were only human.
I mean, yeah, yes, it's and it's a very powerful, powerful argument which nobody has has yet succeeded to debunk. So far, nobody has been able to refute this. The Kuran has put this challenge out there forever, and not a single person has ever come across and and and refuted it, which just shows that the Kuran is all powerful and fantastic.
Uh.
Even ironically, even in the Torah, you have the presentation that most went up on the mountain and had a meal with God. Abraham had a meal with God in the famous you know, yeah, meal with Abra. And so even prior to the incarnation, is still possible for God to have a manifestation and to engage in what we think are human activities, not because he needed those things, but as a condescension to us. That's that's our view of it.
Well, I would say that those those parts in the scripture which happened to disagree with the Kuran are obviously correct, obviously obviously.
But you know, it was something I noticed about that When you start to say that, I know that that's like, on the face of it, it's a double standard. But there's another level to which that argument fails because when I wait a minute, the Quran, let's say, in the first tensuras like it sort of refers to and rep and assumes like gigantic sections of the Old Testament. So in other words, you've got gigantic sections of Genesis, uh, Exodus, historical books with David Like, it's not just one person
that's referred to, it's like their story too. So we're running into deeper problems when we start to think about the fact that when I wait a minute, if if the Quran in many places of firms gigantic portions of the Torah and the writings, but then we're going to turn around and say, oh, well, that section, that part's corrupt. Do you see how it's an even deeper problem. But wait a minute, and these other places you've actually confirmed these whole.
Stories exactly exactly. Here's another churn verse that I want to show you, which in chapter Oh wait, wrong, wrong one, wrong one. I thought I just opened the right one here, okay. Koran, chapter five, verse thirty two, it says here the following.
Because of that, we decreed upon the children of Israel that whoever kills a soul, unless for a soul or for corruption done in the land, it is as if he had killed all mankind, and whoever saves one, it is as if he had saved all mankind, and our messages had certainly come to them with clear proofs than indeed,
many of them throughout the land were transgressors. So this is a This is a Quran verse in which Allah supposedly says that it was he who told the children of Israel the Jews that whoever kills one soul, that is, it is as if he killed all mankind, and whoever saves one soul, it is as if he had saved all mankind.
Isn't this from the talent?
That's the problem.
Yeah, this is the problem is the famous Talmut quote because it's yeah, it's cited even by Jews today, like Jews will cite this as a principle of Judaism.
Yeah, exactly, And this is the problem. This is actually something that displays the problem with Islam, which is uh which relates to what we talked about when we discussed where Muhammed got his information from and how much he was aware of it. So what is most likely the case here, What most likely happened here is that he's in the presence of Jews in Medina, and Jews famously say this phrase how and that this is what they are, this is what they teach and what they are taught
according to their book. And Muhammadan thinks that this is actually found in a revelation from a law, although it is not. This is literally just a Rabbinic interpretation, and then he adopts this into the Quran and says that this is what Allah said to the Jews, which is very funny because on the one hand, you have Muslims nowadays arguing that the Bible was corrupted, was partially corrupted, and there are some divine revelations in it, still but most of it is or much of it is corrupt.
But then the actually but then the Quran actually wrongly appeals to a book or a text it was written by humans as an interpretation of divine rene.
That it's that it's.
Exactly exactly.
It's just really displaced the w Yeah, that's just like, yeah, what does did Allah not know the source?
Exactly exactly?
Great point.
When you bring this up nowadays, you will get excuses from Muslims uh, which go into the direction of, well, h you know, a lot told people something and maybe this was at some point in the.
It's just well maybe at one point in Torah and it got lost or something.
Yeah. Yeah, and it doesn't even make sense, like it wasn't a Torah. But the and the Jews, they they they didn't bother putting it back into the Torah, but they did write it into the.
They put it in the in the talent. We're going to erase it from the Torah and then we'll stick it in the talent.
Okay, it doesn't make much sense.
Uh.
Next question that I have for you is we just talked about Jesus eating food, and Jesus wasn't an environment that was a Jewish environment. So Mohammed said that that meat decays and goes bad because of because of the children of Israel's because of the Jews. So can we assume therefore that Jesus most likely also ate meat that would decay.
Okay, So this is a new one to me. I'm not an understanding of the argument. I'm trying to figure out where they would the way they would get that. One thing I'm noticing is that a lot of the things that kind of sound odd or that you hear referenced in Islam like this and kind of like when you were bringing up the pig thing like it's it sounds like places in like Ezekiel, or like areas of the Old Testament where he misheard or misunderstood what it meant,
and then he like repeats it. So this sounds like like the mana would be set out over and I know that mana's not meat, but it would go bad overnight. So does he think that the food given to the Jews and the wilderness and it decayed and went bad so they couldn't collect it.
I mean, it literally says the prophet said, were it not for beny Israel, So the children of Israel, meat would not decay, and were it not for Eve, no woman would ever betray her husband.
So meat obviously get a connection between Eve and the fall in in like of Adam and Eve, the admin e fall, and so that leads to decay and corruption in the world and thus kind of like Eve fell in the garden of Eden. I mean, this is really bizarre. I have no idea. This is a new one to me.
Well, obviously meat goes bad because of the Jews, so I would I would always uh, you know, remember if you have if you ever store meat and it decays, it goes back and has a bad smell to it, and you can't use it anymore because of the Jews.
You can blame you can blame blame that for that. So in a minute, they have to have some explanation. So tell me, steal man, steal man, what's next?
I mean, you can you can look into explanations which were developed, which were developed by Muslims later on as an interpretation to what in the world this could mean. And you have different different explanations that I saw here and there, or saying oh it doesn't say that this is not making a scientific statement on how meat is decaying because Jews did something or because Jews exist. It is merely pointing out that that meat was made to decay by Allah due to the wrongdoings of the children
of Israel. That doesn't change anything at all. It's just it's it's it's ridiculous in any case. But anyway, ever since I heard this, ever since I've read this and know this, when I buy food, daili meat or something, and I see it's expired and it has a bad spellic freaking juice, man.
So this is all meat in the world though, right, Yeah, so if you're like a Chinese peasant, right and your your fish goes.
Bad juice, okay, juice, I mean.
Not even I've never even heard of Jews.
But that wants the Jews. Yeah right, it's because it's it's ignorance, of course. Something. If if you don't know that it's the Jews, then you might not know because you don't know what a Jew is, but it is. It doesn't change the fact that it's still the Jews fault.
So tiny mustache man had been successful and we didn't have Jews, would meat be like immortal.
Let's see what they took from us, like all meat would.
Would be beef jerky, automatical, eternal meat.
Exactly, we would never ever have to have to have to care about storing meat properly.
Again, uh so this is like, this is like Russian Roulette of like the craziest had eats.
So you're.
Basically you're totally debunking all Christian theology today by these iron clad hadiths that I don't know about.
So you've stopped me exactly. Speaking of culinary miracles, the next one would.
Be invoke Saint Gordon Ramsey and Saint Guy Fieri for any culinary apologetic challenges.
When a fly falls into your soup, you have to make sure that you dunk it fully in so that the other wing also touches the soup, because that will that will cure the disease that that that is in the fly, and then you can eat it again. Why did Christianity never inform us off this beautiful.
We were deceived by Jews and we we didn't tell you guys the truth about a fly in the sup.
Well that's that's actually a good point.
Wait a minute, I just realized something. Jeff Goldblum is in the fly.
He becomes the fly he's a Jew.
Jess a Jew. I'm noticing something here.
Oh oh see, it wasn't the rated from right right that the prophet said, if a fly falls into your drink. In other in other narrations, it's as soup, dip it into it, then throw it away, for one of its wings is a disease and the other is a cure.
So this almost sounds like it sounds like some kind of a parable from like the Dalai Lama or something. Right, what does this mean? I don't know, but it sounds like something that something that the Dalai Lama would say and mystify you.
Right, yeah, yeah, you could probably expect some some deeper meanings, deeper understandings, philosophical, you know, understandings revelations about this this whole.
We can ask doctor Khalil what the neo platonic esoteric meaning of that is, all right, because I know they don't he doesn't accept those.
I'm just making say, yeah, yeah yeah. The next problem would be so Christianity or Christians failed to point out why Jews are wrong forever uh and the Quran successfully came in chapter nine, verse thirty and pointed out why Jews are no longer accepted. And it's said that that Jews say Ezra is the son of our law, and Christians say the Messiah is the son of our law, and that this is what, this is why they are
regarded disbelievers and trip be fought. So why did why did Christians never say anything about the fact that Jews believe Ezra is the son of our law?
Yeah, isn't this one of those weird, mysterious passages that we don't exactly know what the heck this is talking about. I mean, first of all, where did Mohammad get the idea that anybody takes Ezra to be a son of God?
Well, if the Quran says it, it must be true, so I know.
But I mean, like it's just really bizarre. I mean, Ezra has a very minor place in the Bible. I mean there's books of Ezra, right, and then there's the you know Ezra. I mean, he's not in a minor figure. He's an important figure because Ezra is really the beginning of the Synagogue system. So after Moses, you get this idea that Israel needs to have people to teach the law all throughout Israel, and so Ezra helps to organize what's called the synagogue system throughout Israel and then by
extension outside of Israel. So, I mean, he's an important historical figure, but you know, he's not He's only referenced like in the Book of Ezra that no'more, maybe in a couple other places, So he's not a huge figure in terms of the text themselves. And so why or where they would have come up with the idea that anybody takes Ezra to be a son of God or a Messiah. Maybe because maybe he had heard that Jews believe that God is the father to Israel, and thus
Israel is a son of God. That maybe that's the explanation for the passage Ezra as son of God. And then but but no Jew thinks that Ezra was the Messiah son of God.
So I think he's also mentioned in the Book of Esther And but yeah, this is a very interesting mystery. There are some videos of that. There's this one guy, Corey gil Schuster. He goes in and asks questions to Israelis and Palestinian Arabs all the time in the streets, and I think there are two videos where he goes around and asks Jews if they believe Ezra, Ezra is the son of God. And they're all baffled. They're like, what, wait, what, I don't know what you're talking about.
Look, I'm trying to see what what would the Koran study study Bible, the Koran study Bibles. This is the opinion of one Jew, someone named finnha ibn Ozra, that it was the belief of some Jews that Ezra was the son of God. I mean, so, so the so Mohammad is taking and by the way, where does this come from? This idea that this is from a certain Jew called finnha Azura, that some Jews believed that Ezra was son of God. However, this this belief eventually disappeared.
That's funny because this is similar to their claim that, oh the real this is what the Daalwa guys that the fontane guy. Have you heard his new explanation he's saying. He's saying that, well, when the Bible talks or when the Koran talks about the checking the Koran with the Torah and and jeel, this is a Torah and in jel that existed in Medina at that time that no one has anymore. That's the explanation. Yeah, right, but if you remember the Koran says, you check it with what
they have among them. Right, Well, how could Jews do this and Christians do this if it was only this minuscule unknown Torah and in Ingeel in Medina that no one else in the world has or has anymore. Yeah, yeah, basically a pointless challenge or confirmation.
It doesn't make any sense. Also given the given the fact that the Quran basically acknowledges and endorses and guarantees, you know, safety in the hereafter to Jews and Christians initially and doesn't ever bring up any issue with the scripture that they follow. And you have to assume and given all the versions about Jews and Christians and the and the scripture, that that the scripture they have Jews and Christians at that time in general is okay, is good,
is acceptable, and that scripture is we have it. We have the contents of the Torah and the Gospel from long before Muhammed exactly.
Just the fact that we have so many manuscripts prior to the existence of Muhammad disproves this whole sol er. But what I'm saying is like it seems like the same type of ad hoc answer that they exactly. Oh so this was a specific Jew who believe that there was a sect of Jews that thought that Ezra was the son of God and that they don't exist anymore.
The problem with that explanation, which I which I heard a lot, is the following hadith here. It's a very long hardith. I'm not going to read the whole thing Sahibukari seven four three nine. And if you go through this hadith, there is here is Mohammed explaining to his followers what will happen on the day of Resurrection. And then it describes how the Christians and the Jews will be brought before Allah and what Allah will do to them,
and he will ask them questions. It says, So then Hell will it be presented to them as if it were a mirage. And it will be said to the Jews, what did you used to worship? They will reply, we used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.
Yeah, that's a great point, and that's which how eth is that gonna make a note of that?
Sa Hippocari is seven nine, or you can probably easier find it with these references here. Volume nine, book ninety three five three to two. But yeah, this this clearly says and it correctly points out this year. For example, it says, it will be said to the Christians, what did you used to worship? They will reply, we used
to worship Messiah, the son of our Law. It seems to go into the right direction here where it comes to Christians, but it makes an equivalence between them and Jews and says that Jews will say, we used to worship Asrall, as son of our Law. And if it was just one Jew or just a few Jews here and there, why would this make a generalize Jews. Yeah, exactly, exactly, And this just shows how how there was really some
confusion going on. And I would say because of this, just this verse in chapter nine, verse thirty is very strong evidence the Quran is and ignorantly written or authored book that it definitely does not come from a divine source. Yeah exactly, Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Another question is, uh, okay, I was going to bring up sister of Aaron. Have you heard of this, the argument about Mary in the Quran? Yeah, okay.
The Quran refers to Mary as mother Mary, mother of Jesus, as a sister of Aaron, which is of course very strange because yeah, mother Mary didn't have a brother named Aaron. We do, however, have another character named Mary Miriam, also known as Miriam in the Bible. Yeah, and that that seems to be. That seems to be a big issue.
I'm trying to remember. Uh. The only response I've heard to this is from when Shabi release says something like, oh, well, this was a term they would use in general, like sister could be any relative, anybody amongst the users, something like that.
Right, sure, sure, Yeah, for some reason, we never heard of that until Muslims came up with that.
Yeah. And also I thought the crime made everything really clear exactly why is this so ambiguous here? And this was obviously a very basic mistake. And if I remember that, this is one of the ones that so Gabriel Site Reynolds's book, which is really good, he lists about ten of these problems, and this is one of the problems he lists. And what's funny is that the scholarship right is pretty like unanimous that this is an obvious mistake. The Muslims themselves had to try to grapple with us
and offer these various explanations. So to me, that suggests again, like the Ezra texts, no, this is a mistake.
This is not a like you know, there is more than that really complicates this issue and just points at a clear mistake. For example, the fact that in chapter three it describes a character named Imran who is also the father of mother Mary. And it further says here in chapter sixty six, verse twelve, for example, and Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity. We blew into her through our angel, and she believed in the
words of her Lord in his scriptures. So Mary, daughter of Imran and Imran happens to sound oddly similar to Amram, who is in the Bible the father of Moses, Miriam, and Aaron. So it must it must be a huge coincidence that the Quran refers to Mother Mary as both sister of Aaron and daughter of Imran. All of it was just used as some weird you know, yeah.
And and and the sixty six text here has to be Mary because it's talking about virgin birth.
Yeah, yeah, Mary, right. There's also no doubt about that if you go into chapter three of the Quran, which uh directly it is called Imran or Ali Imran, which is the family of Imran. And it describes here how how Imron and his wife had a daughter and that and that was Mary, and Mary then gives birth to Jesus. So that's what it describes. And and why in the world where did Imron come from? How in the world does it happen that Imron sounds like Amram and it is assumed to be the Arabic of Amram.
That's the great point. I didn't notice this Imron point there. Yeah, this is a Reynolds might mention that I just forgot.
Yeah, it's a very very strong argument against us. Yeah, where it's they are a little bit dumb found that when they try to defend.
It, well, you know, and to be again, just back that point up, like if you're a Christian or a Jew, and you know the history of these texts, particularly with the Torah and the history of Moses' family, and if you're a Christian, you know the Gospel of Luke, like, you wouldn't make this mistake, right, you wouldn't speak this way. But that's just another attestation to the fact that the Koran is actually just mixing up what's in the prior revelation exactly exactly.
Two final questions. One would be, what do you think about the fact that the Christians corrupted the Bible by removing the Book of Council of Nicea from.
It, the Book of Council of Nicia. Well, that's funny because that, you know, it is so three twenty five AD is pretty late, because we would say that all the New Testament texts were pretty much completed by the death of John, which is around you know, the year one hundred or so, So there wouldn't be any new texts after that time, at least what becomes the New Testament, even though we don't have the actual what are called
autograph of the original things that Paul wrote. Just like Jews, Christians believe in tradition, so we believe in an oral tradition. We believe in a written tradition, even outside of what we call the texts, and so there were there was no new Gospels or anything that would be added post death of the Apostles. For us, that's the deposit of the faith. It's complete when the Apostles died, Jude says, contend for the faith once we're all delivered to the saints.
That means there's a completed body of doctrines that's not just written, it's also oral amongst the apostles. That for us is the Apostolic faith, the upsolde deposit. So I don't know what that's even referring to. Is this something that is in a Hudeeth or something like this?
Is this is something that is even better than how do youth and Kuran? This is what's what?
Uh?
The great scholar Sneako recently several several months ago when he was discussing with a Christian and she was citing the book matt which he didn't know what it refers to.
We have the original manuscripts from the Bible.
Have you heard of the Council of Nicea. There's been a lot of chapters that have been removed, and the Bible has been tampered and manipulated with a lot over the years.
And you could argue about specific people who might have tampered with it. But it's definitely been changed.
I mean you could say that, but still the original the original things are still there.
So most people haven't read the original version, you know, like most of the factions of Christianity, the different ones they go off of the manipulator versions. That's why there's so many different sets of Christianity and there's only pretty much one. Like you're either and most of them you're not. Islam is very consistent, like I know, there's small things like Sony and Hia, but overall it's just either small things.
Yeah, small things, it's very very small things.
Okay.
The Bible is pretty simple too.
You just gotta keep the commandments and follow Christ.
Depends on the version of the Bible you're talking about.
What other versions of the Bible are. There's so many, bro Okay, tell me some. Okay, let's look up versions of the Bible. We have the King James version, the English Standard version, the translation.
You know, you know, but there's so many different translations. Man.
So the funny thing about all those different versions, but they're all just different translations, buddy.
So which one, which one do you know is short? Is the one to go by?
The version?
That's interesting. We have to sell international version, pick twelve version as up to same version, the Harlem version and so on were in.
Those parts of the Bible Council of Nice.
Tampered.
But it's just it's just a retranslation.
That doesn't mean tampered.
It's been translated seven hundred and twenty four languages. Well, they did remove the Council of Nicea from the original Bible a lot.
Okay, Yeah, this is a new one to me. I like this, this is the Sneako challenge. Why did they remove the Council of Nicea from the original Bible? Yeah, I noticed earlier. So he's actually mixed up, which which is usually like a Baptist seven day Adventist argument. They always say, oh, the Council of Nicea happened, and they tampered with the books and they changed everything, and it's
all this new stuff. Also, Joe's witnesses use that argument too to try to say that Trinity was invented by Nicia. So he's actually jumbled up what is a like a Protestant even aryan argument. And then it turns into no, there was this Council of Nicea that was part of the Bible. That was he's actually like doubled up his mistaken understanding.
Yeah, he heard the standard narrative that's some people falsely present about the Council of Nicea, and then he totally misunderstood it and he goes on.
You're saying there's a chapter, there's a book called the Council, than I fear.
Yeah, it's not. There's not no book called the con it's it's not a whole book, but it's.
They have books like they had a counsel, they have the Apocrypher. I have an Apocrypheruh, you have a book of knock Yeah, the so yeah.
This was Stego's brilliant moment here where he pointed out that they removed the Book of Counsel of Nicia.
And I think, I guess I'm going to become a muzzle now, because.
The thing is, I wouldn't want to pick on somebody who doesn't know what the Council of thea is or who makes these this suggestion, you know, in a regular discussion. But when when you go on there and you go online, you have a massive audience and you try to assert that Christianity is false and Islam as true. And one of the reasons why is that there was this Book of Counsel of Nicia which they removed from the Bible. Then sorry, but what what is't that?
Yeah? There was another excellent I don't know if you saw a Snico's argument about prayer beads. Uh, well, he said, he said he noticed that Buddhists use prayer beads and Muslims have these prayer beads, and so he says, so we're worshiping the same God because we're all using the same beads. I'm being serious. I thought that was one of my favorite sneako apologetic arguments. So I'm not joking. I thought that was a good argument. Also, so a bunch of Satanists or you know, like if a Satanist
worships one God, then we're all worshiping one God. We're all wors to the same God because it's one God.
I I recently looked up the history of prayer beads to figure out when Muslims adopted it and who came up with it first. The first prayer beads are so old, and Muslims simply adopted it, most likely from from from Christians and then started using him it's not even the it's it wasn't even a thing in early in early Islam. Yeah, so what a stupid argument.
I don't know if you noticed, but he had another sort of flop the other day where he put up an argument that Jesus was a Unitarian because he cited Deuteronomy as the greatest commandment, loved the lords your God. And then I give him a bunch of other texts where I said, yeah, but you understand that that's admitting our position, because in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus affirms his own deity by saying that he can forgive sins, that he's the Lord of the Sabbath, that he will
come in glory on the in the second coming. And he ended up taking it down. So he had so many In other words, he's just a funny character because you know, he constantly puts up these really bad arguments and goofy things, and then he'll end up taking them.
Down and why why would you do this? There there are some they have been assertions that he was paid some high sums of money for to convert and publicly declare that he's a Muslim and to do this kind
of stuff. I can't say that that is that is that is absolutely true, But it doesn't make sense that that somebody with such a great lack of knowledge on basic things would convert to Islam and then start immediately talking about it as if he knew what he's talking about, and then attempting to refute the Bible when he doesn't even know what Matt refers to and what the Council of Nicia actually is, thinking that it's a book, it's it's just it's so silly. And this is what really gets get.
I remember right around the time, and again, this is just what was reported to be true, allegedly. I don't know if it is actually true, but there was a story that you know, Tate went and ate with and had dinner with Saudi royals and then suspicious, oh suddenly
after that, there's this gigantic push online for Islam. I've always assumed, or it's been my thesis that I think probably the Saudis are in some way pushing Islam through the Internet, through the West, through these people that we're talking about.
Yeah. Yeah. There was also a clip where when Tristan Tate had an interview. I failed to remember who it was. I think it might have been on Patrick bet David, but when he was talking to him, Tristan mentioned something very briefly about Islam. He said that he had been offered benefits and a lot of things, you know, in the Middle East for converting to Islam. But he said, but of course I didn't accept it because I know it wouldn't be genuine of me to accept such a
thing and to convert to Islam for that. But then of course the question that horizis is what about your brother?
Yeah? Well yeah, so.
They're not very smart. So it's kind of looks like he's telling on his brother without realizing it in that moment. But this is all just speculation. We don't know. We don't know anyway. Just the final thing that I have for you, and I want to actually organize another conversation with you to specifically talk about Christianity and what to believe and all that. But my final question, just to finalize this is why are you Christian?
I'm not today. I've had to renounce all that and become a Muslim because of the powerful Padis and sneak o argumentation that's been given. So you actually, I thought your channel was against Islam, and you hear you are converting me out of Christianity.
So it's because I'm being paid by.
You, were being paid to actually be a Muslim show.
Wow, exactly exactly. But but if we are to make it serious I don't know if you even can can answer this or if we should do this for the next time. But if you words to tell me in within like one minute, in one minute, why I should be a Christian?
For example, well you asked why I am? I mean in my own life. There's a personal, sort of subjective side to this, to where you know, I believe that throughout my life my many prayers have been answered. I do believe that God has blessed me, has has given me all the the things that I need. He's been a loving deity to me. So those are the personal
subjective reasons. That's not the only reasons. I think in terms of like apologetics and public public reasonings and proofs, I think that the dozens and dozens and dozens, there's not just five or six like most evangelicals think. There's dozens and dozens of Messianic prophecies that are very precise. I don't think those could have been faked or staged or you know, made up afterwards. Those are very strong proofs. Those were I think the strongest things that I always
found the most convincing about Christianity. There's philosophical argumentation that I think is convincing. The transcendental argument is something I always point to. So those are the main reasons why I personally am am Christian, and to other people, I
would say, I think that it's true. So you know, if you want to find a basis for, for example, in the philosophical sense, the things that we rely on to do science, to do logic, to do you know, calculations, all that we use, principles that can't be reduced to matter. There are immaterial things, there's universals, there's laws of logic. Those things I think make the most sense. They're most coherent in a worldview where you have a personal deity, and I think that that points us in the direction
of Christianity. There's a lot of other arguments that kind of go along with that. Maybe we'll talk about that next time. But those are some of the reasons why I'm a Christian, why I think other people should.
Be very nice. Thank you. I want to invite you again another time to have a conversation about Christianity, about God that I would be personally very very interested in. Are you cool with going through super chets here? We have about twenty of them. Our s okay, shake Mike Wingling, says, Jaye, dummy. The guy that thinks one plus one plus twenty plus three this is true doesn't know Arabic and thinks the CIA wrote the time one instead of Masade. No thanks, I'll take my tifts here from for Reid.
Well, you know, it's like I always point out, all right, I mean I think that guy's kidding obviously, but.
Like, yeah, yeah, it's true.
So here these are So people think, oh, you can't have something that's one and three. Are you sure about that? Because I could give you three examples. One times one times one Is that equal three? I wrote that wrong. It's supposed to be one one. Excuse me, one to the third power?
Is all right?
So these are all like examples of what like, this is one thing, but it's also three things. Right, this is one, but it's also raised to the third power. It's still one. Right, This is one time one times one, and that's still one. So it's actually pretty obvious that even in the created realm, something can be one and many at the same time and it doesn't involve a contradiction. And so why would we think that necessarily there's a contradiction between God being both one.
And many, but this is a perfect opportunity for Muslims. Just take this clip from before Jake made the correction, and.
Then right, it's still bad that we got him Jay refute exposed to unity by actually the.
Shake. Yeah, Dick, which sounds like a very interesting name, said j D. Would asking if God is all powerful be a good argument against God not able to become flesh.
This is a little more complex because I think what we mean by all powerful will be limited and dictated by the worldview or the theology that we have. So, for example, attempts atheists say stuff like, oh, if God's all powerful powerful, could he make himself not exist? And we would say no, because that's not what if God exists all powerful means. So it's going to be limited and conditioned by the being who is the ground and
the ultimate authority in that worldview. So what's possible for God and not possible for God is going to be determined by what kind of God you believe in. And in the Christian scheme, there's nothing inherently impossible for the second person, the God at entering the de time and space. So I don't know if I would immediately go with that route.
M Yeah. One problem that recently arose on Twitter was that God necessarily cannot eat a sandwich, therefore Christianity is false something like that.
What if God has a human nature that's full of human why couldn't he eat a sandwich?
Eternal Vigilance says, thank you both for all you dude, God bless you. Thank you so much. Eternal Vigilant appreciate it very much. Snugwig a CP showed about a loss sat on a rooster. Yeah, that's that's what I would do if I was all Stefan. The pelta said, example of Arabic eloquence, Mischkat and Massabi three fifteen. What are you talking about? Let's see Missabi three fifteen. Come on,
I already did it, man, I already did it. Muawia reported the prophet as saying, the eyes are the leather strap of the anus, and when the eye leaps, the leather strap is lucent. So this is an example of the eloquence of Arabic and the great insights that Muhammad had. Uh. There is a lot of philosophical stuff here that you can probably.
Dig into deep esoteric wisdom, very very deep.
Yeah, Uh, Jesus is at the throne Muhammed is in hell based. I want to please clip you.
It is totally based, Okay.
Joel Evers? Is that retro David oh Hi sport? It is actually yeah, uh, iron kipper considering to turn the considering to turn the Quran into bunny litter every time there is a gin attack and upload a video of my rabbit poop on it. I see, that's that's a good idea, shake head, except Moslim? What is makes a girl? Hawk tool and noise? Christian? Not sure most of them. You see, you know absolutely nothing about child marriage.
I like that. That is funny because in a lot of debates, when it starts to get a little heated for the Muslim suddenly it turns into Arab phrases, Arabic phrases, and if you don't know them, then they've won the debate. It is the religion for the whole world. But suddenly now it's just like you have to have perfect Arabic pronunciation or else you don't know anything.
It is a it is a perfect move. It's a perfect strategy. Actually, the attributes of God. I clipped this from when Mohamed a Job talked to Jordan Peterson. It was a perfect moment.
The attributes of God, how are they knowable? Is that only through relationship with the with the book?
Does that also have an experiential element as far as.
You know?
So why why do that?
To my question?
In that manner?
I don't do that?
Thangod, this is a great club. I'm glad you played that. I've forgotten about that.
That's how do you know when that's appropriate and when it's not?
Ill this is one of the funniest dreams I've been on a long time until I forgot about that club and I forgot George Pierce and reactions like why'd you do that?
I don't understand the language? Oh man l two A. What do Jews and Muslims think about Genesis when it says let us make men in our image? Who is us? Who is our?
I can tell you that Jews have a long historic debate on what the passage means. I don't know at all what Muslims would say. Perhaps they would say, oh, it's like the Quran, the Royal Wei, this is the angels? Is that is that what they would say?
Yeah, they would they would say, it's the it's the plural of majesty and i'll o refers to him itself as we as in the Kuran as well. But then again you're talking about Genesis, they would say, we don't know if it's authentic or not. It's been corrupted. Corrupted Yeshwa, the king said, Bible's main focus is redemption. In following yeahwe Yeshua. So why do we have to explain theology trinity when God never focuses on expounding on them.
Well, but he does, in fact, I mean many passages of the Gospels, and particularly say John five thor nine, Jesus disputes with the Pharisees about who exactly was appearing in the Old Testament. In fact, he even gives this dispute the essence energy distinction argument we would say as Orthodox. When he talks about to the Pharisees, no one sees the Father at any time, and so therefore who was Moses interacting with and talking to. That's proving and arguing
our position as Orthodox. I think if you get into John fifteen sixteen seventeen, Jesus goes into a lot of depth about the relationship between the Father himself and the Spirit, the eternal relationship of the procession, and then his sending of the Spirit into time and space. So, in fact, the New Testament, just in those passages discussed as the Trinity many times over, hebres one is a lengthy discourse on the relationship with the Son to the Father, that
the Son is not a creature. So, I mean, these are just two examples of where even the New Testament is debating that. The history of the Church is very much concerned with that, because our salvation in the Christ of You is bound up with whether Jesus is the Son of God or whether he's just a man. So the Bible does talk about this, and the Church fathers talk about it for a reason.
Nice, we're proud of that.
Eric, Eric, it's small compared to Hindu and Zoroastrian books. Even that's true, that's true. The Koran is tiny. Lilai Squeer says, I just thought of it when I said the Koran is tiny. I don't know if you've seen and Andrew Wilson's I knew that's where you're gonna go. Yeah, randomly came into my mind when I just said tiny. H whylight square. From an Islamic perspective, what's the problem with God giving most or Jesus a book containing details of their deaths, their profits.
After all, Well, I don't there's a problem. Well, you're saying from the from the Islamic perspective. I think the guys that I was talking to. His argument was that it has to be like this. It's like Allah possesses you and you spit out what is Torah? Yeah, therefore you couldn't have the recounting of the death. So we think Joshua added that or put that there or whatever. So he's not a problem because we don't have the same idea as to what I've noticed this too, And
I don't want to keep hold up your stream. But like a lot of times, like Muslims think that everybody in the Christian world has like this like dictatorial Protestant interpretation of what techts are from God. Right, So it's like they don't see it in the In our view, it's just like the incarnation. There's a there's a synthesis between the human author and what God intended to convey in the divine revelation.
Uh.
And I think Muslims think of it like it's a dictation from a lah, which is which actually is the traditional Islamic position, so they think that our view is that. And if you notice in the in the Daniel debate, you know he was he kept arguing, like, where's your original perfect text, And it's like, our position doesn't require that we don't have the same idea of inscripturation as you do. And he keeps foisting his his criteria, his
position on us. And I think that's that's a key point they miss.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's it's also I mean, even the the the the Jewish perspective, the orthodox Jewish perspective would be that, uh, that the Torah is as it is revealed and is the word of God directly given to given to Moses as as guidance. But the argument there never never is that it must be uh, it must be revealed in the way that Muhammad had his revelations
allegedly ac current to Islam. That's not the idea. It's just again one of those Islamic misunderstandings of how biblical tradition actually well.
And if you look at doctor Khalil's talks like whether it's the AUTHORI or the Ashari, like the their idea is that Allah has this eternal Qoran with him and then Gabriel just basically spits out the eternal Quran that Allah wanted to be in time and space. So it's like a literal, like like a program that's like an
ai that spits it out. Yeah, and it's not the what we think is like a Lot is speaking to the hearts of prophets, but they also have a human element to it, to where they're writing their thoughts and their their side of it too.
Exactly exactly. For some reason, the Quran is eternal, and a Lot delivers it in some shape or form through through Gabriel. But also the care contains several verses that are abrogated by later verses. I don't know why. Doesn't make sense, but it makes sense. If Allah has a perfect plan, divine merse, is it. AP is going to become an author, bro so said L. L. Jk uh eighteen. Ministry is high, AP. Where can I get your abridged Sahibukari?
I needed to write that down too, because I wanted to get a copy.
Honestly, Oh yeah, there is. Let me see. I don't know. I think I just ordered this from Amazon.
I think that's what I put on my Amazon list. Was I thinks, so this is this is it?
It looks like this all in one, no repetitions in this literary hadith. I'm pretty sure you can find it on Amazon, honestly, Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's a pretty good addition to you know, quick sources about all the hadeth very very nice. Can we get a Shaky booty versus move the eye to La Armine in Charlot soon? But first we have to do Randy Balls versus exactly? That will be the ultimate debit. The world is not ready for that, man, Jack said, thank you for the laughter,
So neat it. Thank you for the laughter, Jackson. So, Larry rosen Krawd, they fly cure disease nonsense sounds beils button that is true.
I don't know. I think I think that Muslims really need to capitalize on that Jeff Goldbloom fly.
There were some apologetics from decades ago. It still came up like a decade ago or so, which explained that the hadith about the fly and the soup is actually a miracle because it turns out that fly, that certain certain insects that fly may actually contain in their wings something that you could extract to use in Uh, you know, fighting or curing a certain disease. But none of it actually makes sense. It doesn't talk about Hollis flies. It doesn't talk about just donking them into your soup.
Now, I remember, wasn't that didn't they Even before I was interested in Islamic stuff, I remember seeing videos and books. I even found a book one time, maybe fifteen years ago, where they where they would argue about, oh, the you know, the Koran is proven by all these miracles about the Quran, and there's miracles within the Qoran. But I don't I don't hear them using this argument very much.
It has become very it has become less popular, especially over the last ten years. I would say you could still hear, like ten years ago, people popularly going to the idea that the Kuran contains all these scientific miracles. We had recently, even popular Muslim apologists like Ali Dhawa, who happens to be a very big intellectual powerhouse. He said, he said that the scientific miracles narrative that he himself believed in it and it made him convert to Islam,
but it has been debunked. He explicitly said that it has been debunked. That is no longer, it is not valid. It's not a good point, and people shouldn't be using it anymore because you can't appeal to science to prove that the Quran is true.
And when that's because of the Quran itself doesn't say that you can go to science, why would they not want to use that.
Well, they developed the idea that they would be giving science too much authority to judge over what is true and what is not. But the problem with that is that the Quran repeatedly says it repeatedly appeals to the natural world and says, do they not see how we how we created the heaven with no crack in it? And how we did this and that? So the Quran itself repeatedly appeals to science. Is a.
Place in the Koran. I was trying to remember this, like, isn't there something like where it says something like, oh, if you doubt this, recite it and listen to how beautiful it is, and how isn't there something like that.
There? There are references references like that there if you if you if you have doubts. I'm not sure if there is a if there is a passage specifically about the recitation if there is nothing like.
How could how could this be composed the way it was?
Yeah, it does. It makes references to that, to how how beautiful and how wonderful this this text is, or this this revelation, this message is, and how no one can make anything like this and it is perfect. This is why Also the challenge exists that nobody can bring a chapter or a verse or a book that is better than That's that's the one I'm trying toeah exactly exactly.
It's a ridiculous argument.
But yeah. I even discussed this with a Muslim academic at Harvard. I had him on my channel. I interviewed him and I asked him the question said, does this question even make sense because it seems that that that that that that the challenge would be invalid, uh and illogical. He said, yeah, I I agree, it's it doesn't make any sense because there is no standard by which you can judge whether whether a text is better or worse.
So and it would always be in the hands of the of the Muslims to decide yours is not better than the better. Yeah, obviously this is much better, but.
It's it's just that's like which one tastes better. Well, clearly this scoop tastes better. It doesn't have a fly in it.
Right, good point, Good point him, And he said, chef allah, and now for our third course, we have nearly rotten meat with a double fly wing sauce.
No, there's no Jewish chefs around, so.
I have to give them one thing. So we talk about these culinary things. We mark them and make fun of them. There's one thing that is respectable about about the culinary practices and advices, which is which would be when a group of people came to Mohammed, they felt very sick, so he told them, go and drink the milk and the urine of a camel and you will
feel you will feel better. So they went away, and then they came back and they allegedly felt better, but then they ended up killing uh this this Muslim guys, the Muslim guid and taking all these camels and then
running away with it with it. So for some reason they were convinced or they it helped them they felt better, but then they ended up robbing this guy, uh, there's Muslim, and then running away with the camels, and which is why they were apprehended and then killed by cutting off their hands and feet from opposite sides and branding them.
And.
That Mohammad and the authors might just be writing comedy.
Consider that theis I don't know, but when I read that story, it just makes me think, Wait a minute. So Mohammed gives them the advice, Hey, how about just drink some urine, drink some cameras And they're like okay. Then they go and when they come back, they're so mad that they actually kill kill Mohammed's guy and take all his camels and try to run away. It looks like they weren't really happy with the advice.
Ah okay, So, by the way, does that mean that you drink up separate or am I supposed to put them together?
Like?
Depends why your preference? Whatever you like best? Yeah, yeah, but that's why I always have to have a bottle of urine here. Uh call off? Goodora. Hello boys, Do either of you know what the Shia hadith say about aisha praise to odin? How dare you? I'm not extremely familiar with chi Id's They have the Kittaba Kafi, which is different narrations about with things that Muhammad said. They don't have a very good view of Aisha Mohammed's child bride.
They usually call her a prostitute and things like that. They're pretty harsh about her. But I'm not sure how much of that comes from Ahadith. Honestly, you'd have to ask somebody else about that. Not very good with my Shia stuff. Stumaham hey ap please life with xsom Zahil and Adam seeker Inhola one day uh tendu blood chats
bugged boys, Only super chats can fix it. You know what, It actually got fixed when I went into the settings of the stream as it was happening and switched to subscribers only mode, and then and then back again to no subscribers only. More than suddenly the chats started working again. Very very weird wild It was probably the Jews. Karamasao said, I feel like Jonathan Plejot would like to go on a hyper analysis of the symbolism of the fly in the Superdith.
That's funny. I do think you're right, though, to call attention to the fact that a lot of the symbolic and the like, even going into deep debates with Muslims above the attributes. It's like doing a disservice because it's given the impression that this is like this really sophisticated deep. Really it's just a bunch of goofy stuff.
Yeah, it's it is. It is pretty dumb. It's the example of for example, in Kuran, in the Quran, in chapter eighteen, verse eighty six, that is also the that is the part where it talks about Alexander the Great. That is where the Quran mentions that that he went to the setting place of the sun and he found it setting in a a a in a dark muddy water, and he found it near it eight people and so on, So it says he found the sun setting in a
muddy spring. Basically, nowadays, when you when you discuss this, Muslims will talk about what this actually means and the metaphorical aspect of it and how it appears when you look from a distance at the sea and so on. But the thing is, the earliest Muslim exegetes weren't quite that deep about it.
For example, have this deep symbolic guess meaning.
So Sierra Altabar is one of the earliest ext Jesus, and it says it discusses this verse on over multiple pages and all it does is it talks about where this place is where the sun sets in a muddy spring, and then it talks about how whether this spring is hot or just dark or muddy and so on. So it's Jesus, no, no, nothing at all. It's quite literally just seeing the sun actually setting anybody spring. You have to read into it to come up with something deeper.
The notes here say we need not read this in a literal way. It says, it says, it is probably just describing the way that the sun would would appear to set to the human perspective, of course.
Of course, of course, but for some reason, it's also the setting place of the sun. Yeah no, I'm mkw. Don't you feel bad for the garden kids? We can't celebrate nine to eleven and so such. That's pretty that's pretty dark. Yeah, you have. I posted it earlier today. We have always had the videos of Muslim populations including it, especially the Palestine and Era population celebrating nine to eleven. It's no lie. I grew up among Muslims. I grew
up as a Muslim immigrant in Germany. It was it was the normal thing to justify it, or to be happy about it, or to be quiet about it because we don't want to brag about it too much, or to say what about a rook and so on. This was the general almost attitude. Shouldn't be a secret, but yeah whatever, Neil seven seven seven seven. Now I know why a small mustache man hated Jews his favorite meat
decayd when he was a child. This makes sense. This explains one of the one of the reasons why Hitler went all mad or Hirschfield made a superstiket which I cannot see here, but I'm sure it's a very good one. Thank you. Rage Murray made a superstiket which I also can't see. Interesting, Jordan Floris, but thank you. Is Randy going to do an altar call.
In the in the next third installment of Randy Ball videos? I will do an altar call just for you, Jordan.
That's good, that's good. See you heard it here first, John Smith. As someone who has read the Book of the Council of Nicea, I can confirm as long as to Caleb Warku Jay thoughts on Aisha age and her marriage to.
Yeah, I mean, I think it's pretty obviously a sign that this is a weird cult, that you know they work so hard to defend this that Daniel and Jake and these people, Like, I thought it was odd in the debate. It didn't bother me, but it was like the first half of the debate it's about attributes in the Quran, and then suddenly all they wanted to debate was about trying to prove that Christianity affirms their view
of child marriage. And I'm just like, it doesn't. But even if there were younger ages of consent, Like, I just don't understand what this what they were trying to prove with that, with getting me to say that, you know, medieval Catholic canon law allows you to marry a girl after puberty if she's thirteen or four, And I'm like, but what is that. I don't understand what this is supposed to prove that therefore then a pre pubescent marriage is okay. I mean, it's just a really bizarre line
of argumentation. I think it's absurd.
Honestly, why don't condemned h Thomas Aquinas? Wasn't that what he repeated?
Yeah that was I think, uh yeah, Daniel said that, and then Jake had a video about that.
Yeah, and you even said I'm ready to condemn it. Yeah, okay, he feels to condemn.
And then and then they made a video saying that. Then they said, see he won't condemn aquinas for this. I'm like, okay, is wrong. I don't know. It's like they didn't even care that Like to the Orthodox, we're not really that concerned about the quinas. But whatever. But even if even if we accepted a coinus like, I don't have a problem saying that there can be different times in different places for what's acceptable for marriage, but that wouldn't vindicate child marriage.
They also I don't know if you looked into this afterward, but jenneally Key, could you lied in the debate about with you once again about the Catholic encyclopaedia. Yeah, when he made the claim that the Catholican's cupidias uh says that Mary was was was twelve years old or so, and that this is totally fine in the Catholics Compidia. This is not true. And he has been confronted on this multiple times.
And actually look at, uh, what what is the Catholics VIDIA say?
What does it say? I had it pulled up before because.
I went well or what whatever? What's whatever? He's been confronted with I'm not familiar with this.
Let's see. Let's see. Let's see incarnation devotion, marriage, marriage, marriage marriage marriage. Oh yeah, here, let's see. Let's see. So we have the source here. When it comes to the marriage, it says, it is probably at Nathers that Joseph bitsathed in marriageer who was to become the mother of God when the marriage took place, whether before or after, the incre nation, is no easy matter to settle. And on this point the masters of Exejesus at all times
been at variants. It will not be without interest to recall here unreliable, though they are, the lengthy stories concerning Saint Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melco or Esha by some salon by others, and so on, it then further says, oh, yeah, here they wish to find in the tribe of Judah respectable man to espouse Mary.
And then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem. Among the candidates, a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the annunciation took place, So two years according to this narrative, after she was between twelve and fourteen years.
Old fourteen to sixteen.
Yeah, these dreams is a Saint Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artists has drawn his inspirations. See for instance, Raphael's espousal of the virgins are avoid of authority. Avoid of authority, They nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity, and then some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of the Lord's Brothers and so on.
So first off, void of authority. Secondly, it explicitly says here unreliable, though they are so the Catholic encyclopedia here never makes the claim that this is the age of Mary when she was married. It only says that there are certain traditions unreliable from the perspective of the Catholic encyclopedia, and have no authority. But Daniel has been corrected on this, But he will repeatedly claim that even the today says this.
So this is another lie that he makes about that he repeatedly tells about child marriage to justify it, and it's such a horrible I mean, who is actually convinced when they debate and argue for child marriage. Who actually watches this and says, oh, okay, they're making a good point. I guess it's okay to married children.
Yeah. Yeah, it's kind of sad, but I mean, oh, that reminds me that there was that I don't know if you saw that video. Shake Uthman was doing the same thing where he was saying that the Torah has proof that Rachel was three, and it's not true. That's in the Talmud, giving an opinion that he thought she might be, which is not in the Torah.
So yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, it's it's not Yeah, it's it's all completely irrelevant and ridiculous. Jim as if all is all Paulvalant all knowing, can abrogation exist? But technically it could. It would be part of his plan right to Sandy Kuran that has prior verses that abrogate or
later verses of abrocate prior ones. But it's kind of weird that a law would have this eternal revelation sent to humanity revealed within just twenty years and within that within those twenty years there are verses that are abrogated by later verses for some reason. It's a weird plan. Then again, you can't question the wisdom of all lung just to it. Jay, what's the hardest debate you've had and why?
I guess it's a tough one because I mean you could say hard in terms of like whether the opponent is really obtuse and stupid, or hard in the sense of like did somebody propose a real challenge. I mean, we haven't really had a debate with anybody that had a significant, you know, hard argument to answer because most most of the time I try to know my opponent's
position as best I can. I'd say probably one of the better debates is maybe doctor Malpass because he because he knows I think when I debate somebody who's an actual professor or like has a degree in philosophy, those usually go better because they know philosophy and they don't make stupid arguments and you're not getting frustrated. But so far, there hasn't been a person that I think really like stumped me or like, you know one. I'm not trying to be arrogant. I'm just saying I don't think that
there's been one yet. There could be, but not so far.
What about Muslim Lantern. I heard that Muslim Lantern was really tough and really defeated you in the debate.
I actually thought he would. I expected better of him. I mean, I was not familiar with him. I've never seen any of his stuff. But then, you know, pretty quickly into that, I could see that he was not going to be a very good faith debater, so he was actually probably one of the lower tier.
Yeah. Yeah, Jerome a lot of refuting the divinity of Christ and of Mary, who is part of the trinity Quran five seventy five Jesus and Mary aged food. Never heard of the hypostatic union. Yeah, the Quran fails to completely understand anything about the nature of Christ. Go ahead.
This is a really good point too, that's overlooked. I'm glad you mentioned that, because if if I was going to believe the chron, if the chron wanted to compile, or if they want to convince me, they would at least get the theology right, you know what I mean, they would say, Oh, you know, at nicea these Aarrant Christians, you know, taught that Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, and that he's Homo lusius. But they don't even get the basics.
Right, Yeah, yeah, precisely, And this is not the only verse that is that also, by the way, references Mary as part of trinity godhead. It also refers to look at this. You might have seen this verse. If not, I would say, is definitely something to look into. So chapter five, verse one hundred and sixteen. And when Allah will say, oh, Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, take me and my mother is deities?
Besides Allah? He will say, exalted are you? It was not for me to say that, to which I have no right, and so on. So just by asking, just by saying that, Allah will ask Jesus this question, did you tell the people to take me and my mother
is deities? Besides Allah? The Quran is seemingly implying here that Christians do indeed believe in Jesus and marry as a part of the God had and divine, which Muslims today tried to explain by saying, oh, it was probably in reference to a sect of Christians and all that, but it's it's again one of those you know you can say anything. Now.
Well, this is funny because you'll notice if you have a debate with a Musulman who knows his religion, he always has the expectation and the demand that you present his position accurately. Right, Yeah, the Quran didn't present accurately the seventh centuries of Christianity prior.
To it, exactly exactly. It's because the grant's author didn't understand anything exactly that the Christians or the Jews believed, which is why he got so many things wrong. Nico, Hey, Ap, do you find moral issues in the Old Testament challenging or has David would help with interpretation? It could be fun to discuss with Jay God bless In all honesty, I had I've never really had big issues with the moral problems in the Old Testament. And this might sound
surprising to some people, especially to atheists and others. But I also said in the past, for example, that I don't that I can't condemn even slavery that took place several centuries ago. If there is if slavery is a norm that you deal with, that you do in a society where this is how you deal with your enemy in order to stop them from being a danger for you in the future, and you put them to some
use instead of massacring them. If that was the norm, I can't blame people in that time for the slavery that they participated in. I could say that that this is even I know this is very controversial, but I could even go into the future with that, to to the United States of America. I can't condemn individual slavers and slave owners in that society where it is, where it is a normal thing. I would say it's good that it is eventually abolished, but condemning individuals for doing that.
No.
In the time of the of the Old Testament, it is a time that is profoundly completely different from our modern time, where a different handling of matters may have been required, and it was okay for that time. Both Christianity and even Judaism, which does not does not believe in replacing or you know, fulfilling or abolishing the Old Law, both moved on from much of it, even depending Judaism
for example. And to tell them what discusses how certain matters are matters of the past and no longer applicable in our time, and so on. So I have no problem acknowledging that there are things that were considered okay back then not today. It's all right. Do you have any comment on that, Jay.
No, I pretty much agree with that. I think you have in the ancient world God meeting people where they were, and he didn't have. If you look at the way the Bible progresses in our perspective, you know, there's very few expectations put upon people in Noah's day, very few expectations even in Abraham's day. So the expectations kind of grow with mankind's progression. And the Church brothers discussed this from a kind of immaturity to maturation, and so the expectations.
You know, Jesus says, to who much has given, much is required. So as we progress in terms of history, I think there's a god can't expect more are because of because of progression.
Yeah, that's good.
Uh.
Grigsy Gregoriovniza refute to ap Are you really do you really want to have a discussion about Jews?
Now?
I'm pretty sure that this is what this is about. I'm not going to have that discussion. Old Testament, New Testament, truth, dinosaur, Old Testament nutisment fantastic comments here. Eric al Harp said, Jay, I'm Orthodox. A Catholic asked me what the difference between procession and inspiration is, and that that ultimately our distinctions in the hypostasis collapses into meaninglessness because we can't define these terms.
Yeah, but this is missing that this is actually his own Catholic church. In confirming Constantinople, I affirms the position that we have as Orthodox, which is the Cappadocian position. Cappadocian position is that we believe in a distinction between generation and procession, because it's revealed that way. Basil says. He says, what the distinction is, we do not know, and we're not told, but that there is a distinction. We do know, and the other way we know is
by what's called hyposthetic properties. So the father is the soul, cause the son is generated and the spirit aspirated. Those are the hypothetic properties that distinguish the persons. To the attempt by Catholics to speculate about other ways to make distinctions, we believe goes out of the balance of what's defined at the second ect Medical Council.
That sound is pretty based. I don't know what you said, but it is totally based. That's a sound by that I took from a rabbi who was discussing the difference.
I wonder what that sound is. That's fine.
I took it out of context. Of course. He was discussing how the Christian idea of original Senate the Jewish idea are differ. But he was explaining it and saying, you know, although we have disagreements, the Christian idea is totally based on the Jewish idea as well, and we know the same thing. But I thought, but he had this odd, long pause after the word base, and I thought, hey, that's perfect greeksy. I was talking about slavery. Okay, I'm
sorry for misrepresenting you. Okay, thanks, thanks. I don't know what you meant though. So, Jeffrey Anderson Quran nine thirty, what do you think about the idea that Mohammed conflated Ezra and Elijah, given the importance of Elijah in the heralding of the Messiah, not just from the Tanah but
Jewish Cedar customs. Before Jay gives his thoughts on this, I would say that I just have one problem with it, which is that so in the Arabic text in chapter nine, verse thirty, the name used as Uzair, which is then thought to be Ezra. The Quran also mentions Elijah as eli Jas in different, two different verses, which I know very well because I used it quite a bit in different discussions about how Islam is ignorant of the name
Yahweh because Elijah literally means my God is Yahweh. That's my that's my problem with it.
But what do you think, j No, I was going to say exactly the same thing that I don't know Arabic, but I had it written in my notes that when it says Ezra Hu's air. And you had that great clip where you pointed out that Daniel was ignorant of what the word Elijah means.
Oh, yeah, it's funny because he never actually he never got back to the topic on that. Yeah, when he does that, it's just it's a clear sign that he simply doesn't know how to answer.
And it's incapable of admitting any error, which.
Is exactly exactly serendipitous. Shark, did you see the Christian guy that wrote a Christian Quran in Arabic? Shabi Earlie said it wasn't equivalent since it didn't claim to be from God.
Well that's what you need, right, Like if you just say that this book's better than the other books and it's from God, that's that's what was missing.
Yeah, yeah, I I had even I worked a little bit with chat GPT to make it right versus in the style of the Quran, and was quite quite okay, I did. I did all kinds of things like write write a chapter about Chinese food in the style of Kura one fourteen. Yeah, uh, and it's pretty good. It's pretty good.
But yeah, was there a bat in the suit or a fly in the suit?
I should have should want in the fly suit? Make a chapter about the about Chinese food with both a fly and a bat in the style of Kara fourteen.
I like it.
All right. Thanks everybody for watching. This was a fantastic stream. Thank you so much, Jay for joining me. Sure anytime I want to definitely follow up and jo another live stream about religion and Christianity in general, anything else you want to add, and also quickly where people can find you.
Once again, No, it was a great chat. I appreciate you having me. I always enjoy the conversation with you. Always learned from you, So anybody I learned from a love to have conversation and joke around with you. Yeah, thanks for having me. You can find me over on my channel JADR on YouTube, Jay's Analysis website. You can find me on x Instagram. All of those TikTok under my.
Name fantastic, fantastic, awesome. God quickly read this one a mitz a bag. Here's some of my shakels shakeles I wasn't making. I was going to make a joke about shackles, but I can't find my one shakelbule that I have from someone somewhere in guys. By the way, I'm from Jaytown and I actually got out looking for you in the Old City. Unfortunately I didn't thank you for thank you for the word of truth. What I was in is we are lots of people said hey, I saw you.
Nobody actually texted me saying, hey, what's up. I see you right now, let's meet up. It's very funny, but yeah, all the best. I mean to thank you. All right, thanks everyone for watching as always, have a fantastic day, and I will end this with a wonderful message from one of my favorite goats here once again, stay away.
From a slab