Paul vs. Muhammad: Who's Right about Jesus? 

Thank you!

Three different nations, three different religions. Did God choose the Hebrews, choose the Arabs, or did he choose the Greeks? If God chose the Hebrews, why did he choose the Greeks after him? God chose the Arabs to impose his laws on the world paul always lied

@@necmettinmutlu306he didn’t lie

He chose the hebrews as a nation, who told you otherwise? ​@@necmettinmutlu306

Allah chose the Arabs and sent down the book only to them. Allah did not send down anything to the Hebrews They wrote the Torah themselves. The prophets mentioned in the Quran are Arabic and the books mentioned in the Quran are Arabic. The Bible and Torah are fabrications because their language is not Arabic.​@@ugandan216

Thats, WOW thats really awersome

❤❤❤❤❤

Hi Paul. God bless

Welcome to the truth & light brother 🙏❤️

Bless you brother!

Welcome sister

Leave youtube and go to church, kid. This channel isn't for kids.

Welcome back to the path of the truth of Jesus, sister in christ ❤

Jesus love you sweet angel. I will share with you almost 70 yrs. of Jesus unconditional love with you; Holy Ghost baptized me with flames in my 20's. Holy Ghost drove my car & saved our life, literally. Name of Jesus stopped satan himself from throwing me all over the house, Jesus raised me from the dead after being beat to death, literally. Vision of Jesus coming on a cloud with hands outreached, during daytime. Just to name a few things Jesus has done for me throughout my life; giving God all the glory of course should prove the unconditional love Jesus has for all his creations by the Father. To be saved one must believe with all their mind & say aloud with their mouth that Jesus died & was raised the 3rd day & you are saved; than go get baptized and be God's witness. Welcome to our family beloved one.

@@maryshahbazi5996 iam planning to get baptised as soon as possible thank you for sharing your experience ❤ such kind words xx

well first of is that its mostly one sided and non of his claims are correct!! he just made those historic events up as he went along with the video. twisted the historic events to be precise just to make the prophets look bad and islam look bad he got his ass whooped logically and verbally when he went to debate a proper scholer

Do you realize you're simply telling all of us you haven't read the Bible?

I'm looking forward to seeing Muhammad Hijab do mental gymnastics, 😂 I can't fathom beginning to overcome this smackdown 😂

@@hammertimebabyso Muhammad did not marry his adopted son’s wife? That is one of David Wood’s many claims.

@@Disciple1433 what did I say? Do u understand English?

Thankyou Lord Jesus for saving our brother.❤Welcome to Christ brother.

Thank you for sharing this brother! So happy to hear this, praise God!

Your brother from another religion here. All prophets are the same to us mosa (moses), isa (or as you call him jesus), and mohammad (peace be upon them all). I could do like he does but I wont. I will just advise you to read the whole quran, and if you have any questions you are welcome to reply. I believe in what was sent to you and what was sent to us and our god is one and to him we submit.

Praise God!

Praise God. I’m glad to find another person that has chosen Jesus as their savior! God bless you, brother.

Without the law against apostasy islam was already history

​@@pindakaas4443so true

I like this modified version.

And without lies, Allah cries.

Without corruption Christianity goes into eruption

I once had a very good friend that lived in Saudi Arabia, she was a very kind person. She taught me about Islam and I taught her about Jesus Christ. I encourage you to explore all your options. I am hoping that you choose any option, they are all better than atheism. I suggest you form a private relationship with God. He will take care of the rest. I love you my friend, good luck on all of your travels in life. Matthew 6 5:6 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Assalamualaikum. If you can, see if there is an Orthodox Christian church near you. It is the true faith brother.

Praise be to God you are out of Islam brother. I would advise you to call on Jesus to help. You should consider relocating to a safer place. Whatever difficulties we Christians face, we endure for the love of Jesus our Savior and Lord.

@@sonusancti Yeah I’m currently reading the Bible rn, after avoiding it for so many years its refreshing to finally read it. Better than the Quran tbh the Quran is an incoherent mess

I will pray for u to find Christ. Remember, he is always waiting for you.

Those who spout lies will hate truth-tellers, for fear of their lies falling apart.

Could Muhammadin hate Truth because Jesus said: “No one who practices Lying will be granted paradise” and 43 bible verses confirm that Liars end up in Hell? al’Lah said: “I am Master of Deceivers” As we all know, Muslims are encouraged to deceive the kafir & dhimmi But in practicing the art of deceit, Muslims are actually doing the works of the devil...“Thou do the deeds of thou father (the devil).” John 8:41...who, as it happens, is the best of deceivers Quran3:54, 8:30, 7:99, 27:50, 8:43 etc…

And the true Gospel and the true Christ.

im a jew and in i hate Paul so judasim is a cult now ? christians so stupid my god 😅

All Jews hate paul , are they a cult ?😂😂😂

Periodt

Come to Jesus and you will have life in abundance.

I love you ❤

just remember, he will always be waiting for you, with open arms.

Turn to Christ. He is the true God.

I’m literally going through his video series to help me better understand! I have a lot of “Muslim” family and friends who are more enamored with saying a few Arabic words and tribalism, legalisms, and Asceticism, than they are about exegeting their holy books.

⁠@@chanel498-n1i Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings are not opposed to one another. Jesus did not do away with the law, he fulfilled (or completed) it. Paul wrote that Christians are released from the law, because the law had been fulfilled (or completed) by Jesus.

i feel sorry for you and any one else who believes anything he says!! all the things he said was historically inaccurate. basic meaning would be all of things he said was lies. just to make muslims look bad.

@@hammertimebaby When you don''t give specific examples you lose credibility.

@@paxChristi123 Typical. Would liars ever approve of truth-tellers? Ofc not

Paul said that the reason people don't believe in Jesus is because they are evil. That's reason enough to hate him.

@@davepugh2519 Makes sense. Look at the doctrines promoted in Islam. Who would agree that they're from a loving, just and merciful God? No one

​@@davepugh2519everyone is born a sinner. Sin is evil. Everyone is evil. Jesus gives us a chance to not be evil.

Please make more videos like this one.

​@@chanel498-n1i"I lied and put words into gods mouth that he never said" -muhhamad Muhhamad LIED!

​@@chanel498-n1iRomans 3:8 says you should not lie. His glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner? 8Why not say, as some slanderously claim that we say, “Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved! See

@t.a.n.v43 verses in Bible say: “Liers are bound for He!! Fire”

Most of them have hardened their heart to the truth because as the scriptures says@ 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 " 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God"..... Only the humble among them will become ex Muslims!

​@t.a.n.valready debunked

@@chanel498-n1iPaul was quoting what self righteous people said in those verses. He was explaining how other people use their sins for good, but Paul is saying that this is incorrect. Please read the rest of the text before commenting on it. Surah 3:3 affirms the gospels. So if we go to the gospels (specifically John 14:6) we can conclude that Islam is false.

@@chanel498-n1i Bro just read the passage before quoting: “But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?-as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just“ - ‭‭Romans‬ ‭3‬:‭5‬-‭8‬ ‭ESV

@@chanel498-n1i ha ha. abdi the troll account was created last month. how can we trust you on anything muslim liar? rather you are proving islam is the religion of deception. from allah the greatest deceiver to muhammad the first deceiver to the ordinary muslim who will lie in any discussion to gain the victory for islam.

@@chanel498-n1i By posting this lack of an argument, who do you think you are deceiving? We know our Scriptures, unlike you, and many of us are in the scientific field so critical thinking is one of the most basic skills we learned. I would ask you to apply the same level of criticism to your texts, instead of misquoting a passage from the Bible, when we have access to the whole passage. Seriously, one Google search will get you the whole chapter and you can see that you're not presenting that verse in its entirety (and the message of the passage isn't what you're making it seem it is). At the end of the day, you're just deceiving yourself

​@@chanel498-n1ithis just makes you look really ignorant. Oh wait. Understandable. Critical thinking isn't encouraged in your death cult.

@t.a.n.v from your response, this video wasn't meant for you. Facts are only verifiable with no grounds for argument. If you have to argue facts, it means there is a disability in understanding somewhere.

@t.a.n.vnumber 9 of 10 commandments: “Thou shall not Lie…”

Legend my as

2 Corinthians 11:14-15 and Galatians 1:8 !

Obviously Paul had some kind of psychotic event.

@@davepugh2519 that's too easy for the non critical thinkers.... Paul had a supernatural conversion, and experience with the Lord. on the road to Damascus. Its in scripture. only a non believer would say something like that..

Reminds me of an indie game called FAITH: The Unholy Trinity. Ik the name sounds blasphemous but it really isn’t! It’s a fantastic game and there is a part in the game where a demon disguised its self as an angel. It’s so subtle and terrifying.

From what someone else in a video about islam showed. The loser didn't even try do disguise as anything divine. The thing looked straight out like a reject from someone's sketchbook

Amen🙏🙏🙏🙏 Hugs and prayers from germany 🙏 😇 🤗 🥰

Amen. The best way to avoid the false is to come to the Truth. May all those who may come to Truth , be given the sight to come to Truth.

Both peoples have been deprived, biblical Hebrew and the fundamental truth within The Original Testament

HalleluYAH 🙏🙏🙏

Messianic Jews are on the rise as Islam dies. I think those end times might be finally neigh. Never been extremely religious, more spiritual, but the writing does seem to be on the wall. Like a pregnant cat, it seems like they're NEVER gonna actually have those kittens and then, one day, when the time is right, BAM!! Kittens. I think the second coming is gonna be like that.

@@chanel498-n1iPlease dont use our bible out of context.

@@chanel498-n1i dont take this Verse out of Context bro💀 did you even read the full verse or the chapter from the beginning? You’re Kinda stupid are you?

​@@chanel498-n1iIn verse 7 Paul is quoting a hypothetical argument that someone might use in order to justify lying: having quoted this argument he then refutes it! There is no way in which, having read the quotation in context, you could honestly accuse Paul of deception by teaching Christians to tell falsehoods, nor could you accuse him of contradicting Proverbs 14:5.

​@@chanel498-n1iThis is a rhetorical question which Paul then refutes. And your assertion then exposes your deception, like your prophet and your god, the "best of deceivers".

@@chanel498-n1i 36.13-17 Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir The Story of the Dwellers of the Town and Their Messengers, a Lesson that Those Who belied Their Messengers were Destroyed. Allah says, `O Muhammad, tell your people who disbelieve in you,'مَّثَلاً أَصْحَـبَ القَرْيَةِ إِذْ جَآءَهَا الْمُرْسَلُونَ(a similitude; the Dwellers of the Town, when there came Messengers to them.) In the reports that he transmitted from Ibn `Abbas, Ka`b Al-Ahbar and Wahb bin Munabbih - Ibn Ishaq reported that it was the city of Antioch, in which there was a king called Antiochus the son of Antiochus the son of Antiochus, who used to worship idols. Allah sent to him three Messengers, whose names were Sadiq, Saduq and Shalum, and he disbelieved in them. It was also narrated from Buraydah bin Al-Husayb, `Ikrimah, Qatadah and Az-Zuhri that it was Antioch. Some of the Imams were not sure that it was Antioch, as we shall see below after telling the rest of the story, if Allah wills.إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَآ إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا(When We sent to them two Messengers, they denied them both;) means, they hastened to disbelieve in them.فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ(so We reinforced them with a third,) means, `We supported and strengthened them with a third Messenger. ' Ibn Jurayj narrated from Wahb bin Sulayman, from Shu`ayb Al-Jaba'i, "The names of the first two Messengers were Sham`un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was Antioch (Antakiyah).فَقَالُواْ(and they said) means, to the people of that city,إِنَّآ إِلَيْكُمْ مُّرْسَلُونَ(Verily, we have been sent to you as Messengers.) meaning, `from your Lord Who created you and Who commands you to worship Him Alone with no partners or associates.' This was the view of Abu Al-`Aliyah. Qatadah bin Di`amah claimed that they were messengers of the Messiah, peace be upon him, sent to the people of Antioch.

💖💗💖

In fact whoever accept the Truth (Jesus Christ) is on the right path to Eternity with his Grace hallelujah Amen 🙏🏻✝️

​@matttim5095 lol nice

@matttim5095But he did deny Jesus is the Christ. The Christ is the begotten Son of God who will take away the sins of the world. Isaiah 53 is prophecy of Jesus. Plus, many more.

Muhammad does believe that but Jesus isn’t God himself playa

That's what 1.5 billions people still think

Muslims sure seem to.

Islam does state this yes. It's actually the main subject of controversy

@@maddclangaming8793 It's controversial for good reason!

​@@hahahihi6123Serious, perhaps, but apparently not serious enough to have taken this fulfilled prophecy into account.

At d. wood. 🤜🤛🙏🙌

That’s actually true. Muslims never learn to understand Quran. They know how to read it but don’t understand it.

i see a lot of smart ppl who study quran they convert to islam... either ex muslim convert because the want to do prohibited things in islam or either is because bad influence from someone or family...islam is not easy i guess...require much more patience and do practical rather than talking

​@@Jejai-ln6if like who specifically

​@@Jejai-ln6ifGive proper examples

God gave us the tools called logic and truth and pattern recognition. It's up to us to use them. Once you fixate on just these three things, anyone can be an expert. You just need to be willing to be damned by the truth before you can be blessed by it.

ApologeticCon 2 will be next year in the same church!

@@apologeticsroadshow How is it possible that the video has been posted like 8 mins ago and this comment thread is from 7 hrs ago? 🤔

@@DileepWinston Because I released it yesterday for channel members and supporters.

@@apologeticsroadshow Okay, thanks for the quick reply ♥

Thank you Evangelist DW, you sound like Paul and you nailed it. I don’t think anyone a pull all these together. I have thought about it several times that it is an insult to compare Muhammad and Jesus.. Momo is not even close to untie the shoes of the “least of Jesus apostles” - Paul. What a shame! No wonder Muslims hate Paul with great disdain. I won’t be surprised if Farid plans to refute this video… it will take him 10years to upload and doing it will show that Those Allah has misguided, even if you show them the truth as you just did, can never be guided again. Advise to all sincere and honest Muslims, men and women, not those who want to argue why they should end up in hell, to rethink and pause and ask The True Living God to show them the truth and start checking the scriptures with sincere intentions and read all the gospels and the letters of Paul.

Truly and always

Everybody is.

sadhguru is more greater than both

​@@InsideBharat-i3ohow you compare sadhguru with Paul, you can compare sadhguru with Muhammad both are cult

@@InsideBharat-i3o SADhguru is just as lost as mohamMAD was, and both of their teachings will lead you to hell. so, Paul is greater than both SADhguru and mohamMAD.

What Islam attempted to do was to hijack the Scriptures and apply it to themselves. It was a rather pathetic attempt at doing so.

@@70AD-user45 The same devious and thieving methods that these people use today. It's probably in their culture.

One died for his God, while the other took lives in the name of his false god. Clearly the one who died for his beliefs is more noble, as his testimony just became more credible with his death.

@@a.f.2330 not to mention the other dies from poisoning.. I mean if you killed a woman's father, uncle and son, don't expect her NOT to poison you

@Joelchee My friend the Biggest difference was Jesus said, "I am going to my Father" whereas Allah telling Mhmd to tell his follower "I DONT KNOW WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH ME OR WITH YOU" in surah 46:9

@@childofgod4862 what allah told mohamed isn't something God the Father would have said to his people.. but rather some weird entity trying to create confusion and misinformation

@@childofgod4862 well, Paul is at peace and has the assurance he will meet God and Jesus in the afterlife, while Mohamed is scared of the reality of death

Hallelujah!!! Thoughts and prayers from germany 🙏 😇

Paul said even if an angel preaches different gospel than this. He is under God's curse

@@chanel498-n1i quran is written by unknown becz Mo was illiterate

@@chanel498-n1i Paul is the only one warns against Mo that some day an angel would come and five a fake gospel.

​​@@chanel498-n1iIs someone suffering from epileptic seizures and temporary psychosis after the seizures like Muhammad evidence of revelation? Also this dream you state is not evidence of anything is literally about the end times and the return of Jesus which Muslims also believe in. So how is that even possible if that dream was just a dream?

The same religion that started the crusades, invaded other lands, same religion that killed many incident women and children

most of the war start from other religions...dumbwit

Most colonizer are live in Christianity lol 😂😂

One could not put it any truer yet simple..

😂kadoooosshhhhhhh!!!

and then you fell for this lying clowns lies!! congratz

Don't forget: make the virgins, not virgins... especially that one specific child...

Exactly!

Brought a message from God to bring back people to the straight path because christians went astray to worship God alone, that was the message every prophet brought is to worship him alone. Jesus said to the Jews "why you call me good ? There is only one good that's God in heaven" is that not enough for you? The Council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a formulation of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, one human and one divine, "united with neither confusion nor division". So the devinty of Jesus was made by humans.

@@vehicross3837 That verse of Jesus talking about being good isn't about denying his divinity, it's about the nature of good and evil 🤣 If you could like read and interpret, you can find that out...

@@vehicross3837 mohamed came in the name of satan.

**scratches head** thats going to be awkward.

And there is no evidence that the body of Muhammad is actuslly held there. It's another fabrication of Islamic char latans.

@@NewLayersPodcast🤣😂😂

Even in Islam, Jesus’ grave is empty 😂😂

LMAO

Welcome to Christianity brother!!!

@@vladodobleja748 thank you my brother! May the Lord bless you❤️🕊️

Bless you brother. Jesus loves you. ❤❤❤

@@William_Snowfox.01 thank you brother! Praise the Lord, he gave me new brothers and sisters in the faith🌄🕊️

Do you follow Jesus?

Bless Mohammad forhe. Shall come to repentance ✝️

Source? You stink of islamphobia

Occording to them, it is actually that there is too many prophets and only mentioned are either ones that were given word of god and others who sent to reinstate it. Honestly both of them have paralel teachings. Only diffrence is just that culture was diffrent. A brit could kill a irish as gleefully as a arab could kill a persian. This compersion is dumb because if you aren't sleeping with the book at your side, what is said is clear. Live as a decent person. Americans made the banana company, belgium had its colony, awful people and ideas existed lomg before. If people converted to either religon it is because they hated the last religon's people too much or they were helped by a community of the converted religon. There is converts of Islam in the west and converts of Christianity in the east. Both sides push their religon to gather power and attention. I see no diffrence between preachers of either. Have jolly day.

😂😂 the false god used to have false messengers😂😂 funny Islam😂😂

exactly@@livestudio5476

Muslims just heard from their leaders and they believe blindly they don't even read the Quran and the hadit so they believe anything those fake Leaders told them

I admit ignorance of Islam before I watched this mostly. I'm a southern Baptist so studying Muhammed never made my list. However this was fascinating and informative. I enjoyed it.

@@monsieurcharcutier4490 Same here. + Points for the Mug Dr. David Wood carried. 🤣

The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, |Classical Arabic | 28 consonants, 29 with Hamza and 6 vowels; some consonants are emphatic or pharyngealized; some vowels are marked with diacritics | Complex system of word formation based on roots and patterns; roots are sequences of consonants that carry the basic meaning of a word; patterns are sequences of vowels and affixes that modify the meaning and function of a word | Flexible word order, but VSO is most common; SVO is also possible; subject and object are marked by case endings (-u for nominative, -a for accusative, -i for genitive); verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different moods and aspects | | Akkadian | 22 consonants and 3 vowels; some consonants are glottalized or palatalized; vowels are not marked | Similar system, but with different roots and patterns; some roots have more than three consonants; some patterns have infixes or reduplication | Fixed word order of SVO; subject and object are not marked by case endings, but by prepositions or word order; verb agrees with subject in person, number, and gender; verb has different forms for different tenses and aspects | | Aramaic | 22 consonants and 3 vowels (later variants have more); no emphatic or pharyngealized consonants (except in some dialects); vowels are not marked (except in later variants such as Syriac) | Simple system of word formation based on prefixes and suffixes; some roots or patterns exist, but are less productive than in Arabic or Akkadian | Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a Muslim, one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: "And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church" -Homily 17 Section XIX On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.” -Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5 Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims. Soon after Jesus had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he " gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere. The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.", "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." This charge as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions. Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation. The subjects to which the most space given in the sayings attributed in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission. Paul's epistles are indicative of his claims to independence and originality: " I am the apostle of the Gentiles.", " I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." There is no passage in Paul inconsistent with these quotations; no passage suggesting that the admission of the gentiles into the Christian church was an idea of Jesus, or that it was accepted by the twelve apostles in Jerusalem before the conversion of Paul, or that he received any instruction from them or acknowledged any duty of obedience or submission to them. This gospel which Paul preached and which, according to his boast, was original with him, included many tenets not found in the four gospels or not set forth there in unmistakable terms. By implication, it repudiated the ascetic maxims of the synoptic gospels, It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion later on having its adherents called Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

@@mznxbcv12345 ​ @mznxbcv12345 Good sir ... 1. Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only translated into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticism, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a Muslim, one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. - Answer: Jesus did not actually bring religion - Being called "Christian" during the very times of the early churches were a form of ridicule as being taken to called "little christs". Jesus already claimed to be God as the very "I AM" of the Exodus proving also the very miracles that He has done attributed to the very existence of the Father. He never claimed to be a founder of this "Christianity" religion, rather He came to bear witness to the Truth. 57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. Jn 8:57-59 - In this passage already reading at the very context here, He already claims to be God as the evidence shown here is claimed that Jesus blasphemed, and so therefore the Jews attempted to stone Him. And Jesus is not a "Christian" as you claim to say He is, for He is God and Man. - As for the Apostle Paul - He had more credibility as stated in this video that he tests his revelations and aligning his apostleship to the other Apostles as well. Evidently aligning also having the same message he bear as the Apostles had. 2. Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: "And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church" -Homily 17 Section XIX - Answer: Once again, let us read the Scripture here: 11 For I make known to you, brothers, that the gospel which I am proclaiming as good news is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being far more zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who had set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might proclaim Him as good news among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which are in Christ; 23 but only, they kept hearing, “He who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the good news of the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they were glorifying God because of me. Galatians 1:11-24 (an evidence here reading at the very New Testament in Galatians 1 already has debunked this false claim here, as he was baptized by Ananias: 17 So Ananias departed and entered the house. And he laid his hands on him and said, “Brother Saul, the Lord sent me-that is Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming-so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he rose up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened. Acts 9:17-19) - Your source for this: 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1. Please and once again, before you explain that Paul is false here states you never took the time to read the Bible itself, but I will give the time to answer your claims. 3. Summarization of the Trinity and Below #2 of your Category lets me see that you're initiating here are copies of a Roman Catholic fallacy, which to say once again ... On Trinity: If you are serious really of asking this, then be like a scholar and sit down. Open your Bible and read this passages: (Examples): Old Testament: Genesis 1:1-2, 26, Daniel 3:19-25 New Testament: John 1:1-2, Matthew 3:13-17, John 17, Acts 7:56, 1 Timothy 3:16, Colossians 1:15-17 3.1) The New Testament Canonicity - As we know from the very time of the Inter-testamental Period, and also from the time of Alexander the Great (356 BC) - That was at the very time when Greek was made as the International Language of that time (Just as of today we have English as our Modern International Language) The Language of those days were in Hebrew / Aramaic and Greek which is from that standpoint, being understood and written dating 4 BC -> 96 AD (the last letter being Revelation of John) written by eyewitness accounts Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (Gospels), the history of the early church, persecution and establishment of churches, namely Acts (authored by Luke), the 13 Pauline Epistles by Paul, the General Epistles till Revelation. In light of this, most of your sources come from a Roman Catholic source, by which far, Christianity has been tested under scrutiny since thousands of years, manuscript after manuscript stood the tests of time written by men, inspired by God's Holy Spirit. Translated over thousands of languages written across the globe, accessible to billions of people in different languages Unlike your Quran, to be understood only in 1 language (Arabic) which in reality is, even if you claim that your book was handed down from Allah (as Muhammad claims to say) - how sure are you really that Muhammad was telling the truth that it came down on its own for Muhammad, where in reality he was illiterate and can't read? Or was he the Abd Al-Malik? Even as historians, archaeologists and etc. already have proven enough the authenticity of the Bible's claims and stood already the tests of time. Rather than citing Roman Catholic sources and if you are actually claiming to debunk Christianity, why not read first the Bible and all its contents if you are doing this first. Also there are many videos here that have already debunked the claims of Muhammad.

Me too peace real one as a Christian

Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a Muslim, one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: "And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church" -Homily 17 Section XIX On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.” -Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5 Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims. Soon after Jesus had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he " gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere. The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.", "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." This charge as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions. Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation. The subjects to which the most space given in the sayings attributed in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission. Paul's epistles are indicative of his claims to independence and originality: " I am the apostle of the Gentiles.", " I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." There is no passage in Paul inconsistent with these quotations; no passage suggesting that the admission of the gentiles into the Christian church was an idea of Jesus, or that it was accepted by the twelve apostles in Jerusalem before the conversion of Paul, or that he received any instruction from them or acknowledged any duty of obedience or submission to them. This gospel which Paul preached and which, according to his boast, was original with him, included many tenets not found in the four gospels or not set forth there in unmistakable terms. By implication, it repudiated the ascetic maxims of the synoptic gospels, It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion later on having its adherents called Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

​@@mznxbcv1234527:19

​@@mznxbcv12345 how can he be jew by birth when he is born out of no man? Do moslems call sons by their fathers' names or by that of their mothers'? Yeah he was the only one born of no man but the word of god and a spirit from him as the koran says, making him pretty much the son of god as he shares the spirit with him as well as being the eternal word. Prophet Paul peace be upon him was a prophet according to early moslems but later moslems were embarrassed by the so many contradictions and inconsistencies and had to blame on someone since their master was a demon possessed illiterate.

@@mznxbcv12345ONLY ILLITERATES PEOPLE BELIEVE IN THE QURAN LIKE MO HAM MAD

here i am!! if u need help let me know !! i can suggest where u can find true events of those events he mentioned!! he is just mad that he got his ass whooped verbally and logically by a muslim schooler when he went to debate him

​@@hammertimebabyhahaha

Bro Christians are seen nowhere after that comment came out

last week a girl 12 years old pregnant and she claim that baby in het womb will be a god one day.

pretty easy,look at Biden voters

​@@jackbraden134 It is remarkable isn't it?!

@@graceselvaraju7956 wow should call the cops on this pedophile...is his name Mohammed lol

In the old testament Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3). 2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain. It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two small tribes, and the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings. Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself. Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted [James 1:13) God cannot be tempted (John 1:29) Jesus was seen (1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God (Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man (Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn (Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died (1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die (Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation (Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation (John 4:6) Jesus grew weary (Isaiah 40:28) God cannot grow weary (Mark 4:38) Jesus slept (Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep (John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful (Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful (Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing (Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1 God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger. Textual criticism in christianity began when the bible was first translated into european vernavular in the 16th century (was translated into Arabic in the 19th century), it reached a professional level around the 19-20th century and is still ongoing today, In Islam however it started in the first century. Unlike the Quran, the hadith are transmitted oral accounts which were written 2-3 centuries after they happened and even in the canonical collections of Bukhari and Muslim there are several narrations of the same hadith due to some people paraphrasing and others forgetting part of it. Most of the hadith are without context, this is not to take from the value of hadith as in practice it was the first serious endeavor of having authentication of the historical record. The hadith are transmitted by way of chains of narration, x heard from y who heard from z that .... took place, a study of who x, who y, and who z were and whether what they are saying is true by checking what others had said about them and whether they had indeed met those who they are purported to have taken the accounts from began and so the first "peer review" mechanism took place, all before the internet in the 2nd and 3rd centuries fo the hijra, which unlike the christian calendar has been continously kept, the current gregorian calendar for example was first instanced int he year 535 CE by Dionysius Exiguus, the 25th of December in addition for example being the pagan holdiay of the roman deirty 'Sol Invictus' is clearly shown in the "Chronograph of 354", the earliest christian calendar predating the current one, but I digress, the writing down of hadith was forbidden by the prophet himself for the aforementioned issue (people forgetting, paraphrasing, taking words out of context) only the Quran was ordered to have been written and linguistically they are too far apart, it is clear that the Matn of the hadith, the substance or the wording was altered as the language used seems to be more modern in many instances (Arabic had not changed in any significant way since the Abbassids, 1200 years ago sound as "modern" as things written in the last 50 years. Arabic is the oldest continuously spoken language in the world, the only possible corollary, chinese, has script which has no relation to the actual language hence why Japanese and old vietnamese use it, event the script itself was only codified in the 1700s in the kangxi emperor's dictionary. A miracle in plainsight blinded by familiarity). Hadith for example has several levels of correctness, from Hasan which means "well" to rejected as pertains to the Matn or the substance of the hadith itself, The isnad of the Hadith or the chains of transmission / citation also have varying levels from Marfu' meaning quoted without having actually met any of the people in the transmission chain or a second hand account or Mudalas meaning plagarised from another transmitter of hadith without citing and Marfud meaning outright rejected for various reasons, there is another layer of complexity here called ilm-aa-rijal, the study of the bibilogrophy of those in the chains of transmission themselves and their soundness whether objectively by crosschecking where they lived and whome they met or subjectively by seeing what their peers said about them regarding their character Those unaware of the aforementioned would not only have not been allowed to cite hadith it would have been a criminal offense and there are hadith which clearly contradict one another and one ought not be citing hadith without knowing all other hadith from the colossal hadith collections that were written, even the earliest hadith collection, Musannaf Abdel Razaq Al-Sanani ( 137-211H / 744- 827 CE) and Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah ( 159H-235H / 775-849 CE). for instance had over 53,000 hadith with their chains of transmissions included ahas yet to be translated into English . Yes, Bukhari and Muslim are taken the most correct as they had the most narrow criterion, but an enormous study is required before citing either one of them. Later scholars such an Al-Darqutni show that there were mistakes made. I say later here though he is still over a millennium old this seriousness of scholarship was the first endeavor of its kind in human history, what became today known as university degrees started with the institutions giving "ijaza" or certificate t transmit hadith and talk about it , indeed they are the origins of the University system we know today. There are texts from the 800's CE debating whether, if one for example were to take a log of wood that was not theirs, make a column out of it and have it as a foundation of a house, later the original owner of the column comes back and demands the log to be retrieved into his custody and refuse monetary compensation ought the judge comply, tear down the structure and give him the log or ought he enforce a monetary compensation. this was 1200 years ago back when in the west they were hilariously pondering questions like the video here. property rights were taken that seriously, you could not simply handwave it and enforce a monetary compensation as that property in question was not attained by proper channels, hence it' s ownership and how much ought be the compensation for it is judicated by its owner and no one else has the right to, not the governor or even the caliph. Stephen Langton, the writer of the Magna Carta (12th century, contemporary with the crusades for a reason) studied in the university of Paris which archives show had plenty of Arabic treatises in its procession, there can be no question about it being inspired by the "Sharia". This scientific method of studying hadith and jurisprudence was developed and already in practice in the 2nd and third centuries of the hijra (around 800 CE) back when most of europe did not have a written script for their vernacular, enormous encyclopedia such as the 40 volume history of Al-Tabari which, averages 400 pages per volume (and is only one of his works) were written, the only corollary of which in the west would have been the "decline and Fall of The Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons in the 1700s, considered a watershed, a monument of its time, with a span that would have hardly constituted a volume and a half of Al-Tabari's encyclopedia and written a millennium later, indeed over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel speaks volumes as to whom civilisation ought to be ascribed to if one were to compare camps. Both the renaissance and the european enlightenment were directly preceded by massive translation movements form Arabic (see the The Republic of Arabic Letters: Islam and the European Enlightenment by Alexander Bevilacqua, The House of Wisdom: How the Arabs Transformed Western Civilization By Jonathan Lyons) What started this intellectual revolution, what started this sharp contrast between before Islam and after it, what started the real Enlightenment of humanity? God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: "And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church" -Homily 17 Section XIX On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.” -Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5 Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a Muslim, one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. In the opening chapters of Acts we find two addresses by Peter, one delivered to the disciples when an apostle to succeed Judas Iscariot was to be chosen, and the other to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. On neither occasion did the speaker mention a new religion, or a church open to Gentiles as well as to Jews, or an abandonment of the Mosaic law. If these ideas had been in his mind at that time, he could not have omitted some reference to them. That the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem continue for at least eighteen years to comply with the requiments of the Mosaic law is proved by the epistle of Paul and also by Acts. In the latter book we read that at time not specified, probably not earlier than 40 A.D Peter went to Joppa and there ate with Gentiles-^that i he violated the Pharisaic interpretation of one of the Mosaic ceremonial rules-and after his return to Jesus; then, he was called to account by his fellow disciple He justified his conduct, not on the ground that Jesus had abrogated the ceremonial law of Moses, or any part of it, but that in a dream he had received a divine communication telling him that all manner of beasts, fowls, an creeping things were clean, and that it was lawful for him to keep company with Gentiles, who were " unclean under the law of Moses. This announcement was accepted as authoritative, but with much surprise, " because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."' This statement of the revelation to Peter, and of it acceptance by the disciples in Jerusalem, is doubtless a invention of the author of Acts. It cannot be brought into harmony with later passages of his own book, nor with the statements of Paul, who is our only trustworthy witness in these matters. According to Acts, about 51 C. E. a council was held in Jerusalem to put an end to the dissension which had arisen in the church on the questions of circumcision and unclean meats. This council decided in favor of Paul, who was in attendance and the decision as given in a letter addressed not to all Christians but only to: " the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" - where Paul had been making converts, informing them that they were not required to observe the Mosaic ceremonial law. It is quite clear that no such council would have been held if the matter had been decided ten years before, as Acts says it had been. But this account of the council of 51 C. E. is also a fiction. About eight years later Paul went to Jerusalem again, and his appearance there provoked a riot. The mob wanted to kill him because of his hostility to the Mosaic law, and this mob included Jewish Christians as well as Jews. All the Christians in Jerusalem were zealous adherents of the Mosaic law. Some of the leading brethren, advised Paul to take a false oath that he did not teach his Jewish converts to neglect the law. And, if we can believe Acts, he took that oath. This, however, did not pacify the mob, which would have put him to death if the Roman soldiers had not protected him. They took him to prison and finally to Rome. This story in Acts implies that the apostolic church adopted one rule of discipline for the Gentile and another for the Jewish Christians; that the latter were, and that the former were not, required to comply with the Mosaic ceremonial law. This duplicity of discipline is not recorded elsewhere. It is not known to Paul ; and if it had existed, he could neither have been ignorant of it nor remained silent about it. He tells us that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem, or those of them known to him, favored strict adherence to Moses; and the only way in which he could get along harmoniously with them was by promising to do no missionary work in Judea. He was to labor among the Gentiles," There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. Distinguished saints and learned fathers of the faith openly commended the invention and acceptance of false- hoods designed to aid the conversion of the world to what they believed to be truth. Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1 God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims. Soon after Jesus had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he " gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere. The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.", "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." This charge as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions. Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation. The subjects to which the most space given in the sayings attributed in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission. Paul's epistles are indicative of his claims to independence and originality: " I am the apostle of the Gentiles.", " I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." There is no passage in Paul inconsistent with these quotations; no passage suggesting that the admission of the gentiles into the Christian church was an idea of Jesus, or that it was accepted by the twelve apostles in Jerusalem before the conversion of Paul, or that he received any instruction from them or acknowledged any duty of obedience or submission to them. This gospel which Paul preached and which, according to his boast, was original with him, included many tenets not found in the four gospels or not set forth there in unmistakable terms. By implication, it repudiated the ascetic maxims of the synoptic gospels, It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion later on having its adherents called Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. The word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” -Psalm 137:9 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” -1 Samuel 15:3 “Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.” -Jeremiah 6:11 “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” -Hosea 13:16 The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers: “in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.” This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished. This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah): It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children." بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دع "To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause" -Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya The modifiable testaments testament genocide on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context. Surah Al-Baqarah Aya 1-7 The first Surah after the opening has all the point addressed and example of people like him rebuked Surah Al-A'raaf Aya 171 to 178 - Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge Surah Al-Nisaa Aya 46 - Addresses people like those in the video who take verses from the Quran out of their context Surah Al-Ma'idah Aya 48 - shows that the Quran supersedes all other revelations Surah Aal-Imraan Aya 96 - Addresses all of mankind Surah Al-Anbiya Aya 107 - The role of the prophet Surah Al-Hujurat Aya 13 - Addresses the creation of humanity into different peoples Surah Al-Jumu'a Aya 1 to 8 Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.

Mohamed married a 6 year old! Yuck “mic drop”

Mohammed was a child molester, rapist, slaver, and murder. He married and had sexual intercourse with a child. He caused countless deaths and made slaves of those who did not follow him. He provided guidance to his followers to enslave and rape the women of lands he conquered. While on earth he was driven by greed, lust, and anger. All of these things are sins. Mohammed lived a life full of sin. Jesus Christ, Lord and savior of all mankind lived a perfect and sinless life. He (willingly) was unjustly mocked, tortured, and murdered on the cross for our salvation. He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. While Jesus walked the earth, he faced the same temptations as all men (I would argue He actually faced greater temptations than us), but He rebuked satan, and did not sin, ever, not even once. The Allah of Islam is not the God of Abraham. Allah is satan. Mohammed was a puppet of satan. I say these things with love in my heart, and I pray all Muslims will realize this truth and turn to Jesus Christ.

Sound like you like to listen to negative things.

As you read the Quran and the Hadiths more, you'll discover how much the book (the Quran) was corrupted and fabricated 😂

@@chanel498-n1iis this the only verse you know by keep sharing on others comments? The truth is so obvious…… did you even watch finish this video to see what Muhammad did?

​@@chanel498-n1iignorant parroting of lies is really the Muslim way.

​@@chanel498-n1i Way to take that verse completely out of context. Here's what it really says, Romans 3:1-8 (NLT) Then what’s the advantage of being a Jew? Is there any value in the ceremony of circumcision? 2 Yes, there are great benefits! First of all, the Jews were entrusted with the whole revelation of God.[a] 3 True, some of them were unfaithful; but just because they were unfaithful, does that mean God will be unfaithful? 4 Of course not! Even if everyone else is a liar, God is true. As the Scriptures say about him, “You will be proved right in what you say, and you will win your case in court.”[b] 5 “But,” some might say, “our sinfulness serves a good purpose, for it helps people see how righteous God is. Isn’t it unfair, then, for him to punish us?” (This is merely a human point of view.) 6 Of course not! If God were not entirely fair, how would he be qualified to judge the world? 7 “But,” someone might still argue, “how can God condemn me as a sinner if my dishonesty highlights his truthfulness and brings him more glory?” 8 And some people even slander us by claiming that we say, “The more we sin, the better it is!” Those who say such things deserve to be condemned.

@@chanel498-n1i Read the whole text satan.

@@chanel498-n1ihere is the full verse, "Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?'" As you can see with just a small amount of context it completely changes what is being said. He is presenting this as a hypothetical argument, not as a claim about himself.

Are you really Christian?

He clearly mentioned in the Bible, Mathew 24:11 and Galatians 1:8 😊

He set the rule and God delivered by his wish the way to die.

​@@bananatank9048As a false prophet

@@Retarded9-11 yeah he is the false prophet in those verses

​@@chanel498-n1ithis was assuming God didnt reveal himself to him, which is blasphemy.

​@@chanel498-n1iu read and memorized but clearly have no heart of understanding.shame

Amen...and that was written to GALATIA!!! Galatia is modern day Turkey and The capital used to be the capital of Eastern Christianity and was called Constantinople until ,715 when Muslims invaded, and changed it to " Istanbul". ,. Clearly a prophecy!

​@@chanel498-n1iIn verse 7 Paul is quoting a hypothetical argument that someone might use in order to justify lying: having quoted this argument he then refutes it! There is no way in which, having read the quotation in context, you could honestly accuse Paul of deception by teaching Christians to tell falsehoods, nor could you accuse him of contradicting Proverbs 14:5.

@@chanel498-n1i Jesus didn’t detest the Pharisees He detested their teachings. While Jesus disciples were in hiding .. it was Jesus’ Pharisees followers who boldly showed their colours in tears and demanded Jesus’ body from the Roman Governor.. it was Jesus’s Pharisee follower who got Jesus buried in him own tomb that he prepared for himself when he died .. something the disciples could not do and appreciated. Paul declaration is beautiful. It applies to himself, Angel Gabriel and ent supposed future prophets. If anyone goes against the biblical canon teaching let them be cursed.

The same as nowadays mega church pastors. Using the name of God for their pursuit of worldly desires and pleasures. 🤦

​@@francisanthonyanana7590 Such pastors need to go immediently!

😅😅😅😅😊😅😅😊😊😅😅😅😅😅

😊😊😅😊

Honestly, religious beliefs like Islam are founded on herd mentality. They won't accept that Muhammad is a false prophet because their entire religion is based on bogus stuff like: 1) Everyone including the religious figures of prior Abrahamic religions are Muslims (even though Muhammad claims to be the first Muslim) 2) Religious books like the Bible and the Torah are corrupt even though Muhammad cherry picked verses from those books to create Islam If Muslims were open to the idea that Muhammad wasn't a legitimate prophet, it would cease to exist. Muslims don't want that because they want everyone to submit before their false God and fake prophet

You know, that is a very strong and fair point. It alleviates all the stresses of having to converse w/ Muslims on secondary topics, as we get straight to the core issue. Love your thinking.

I disagree. Then when you debate atheists or others who doubt the Prophethood of Jesus or in you view his divinity, the burden of proof will be on you to prove either the Prophethood of Jesus (what Unitarians believe) or his divinity (for those who believe in the Trinity).

@@AttorneyBmw1200RT What you said doesn't address anything he said. Lol What the OP said was Muslims, (more accurately Muhammed) hold the burden of proof for providing evidence as to why Muhammed is a authentic prophet, as their Quran relies on the authenticity of the Torah and the New Testament writings for its verification. Of course, when it comes to Yeshua HaMashiach, the burden of proof lies not only on Him, but on us, to provide evidence to the claim that He is the Son of the Living God, our Father, and a prophet of God.

@@AttorneyBmw1200RT My argument is specifically for Islam, but of course Christians should engage in different arguments for different beliefs, the fact is Christianity is much older than Islam, so logically speaking new revelations should always be judged by previous revelations, If we judge the New Testament by the Old Testament shouldn't we judge the Quran and it claims by the Old and New testament? What happens in these debates is that Christians are letting Muslims pitch the Quran and Old testament against the New testament, which doesn't really make any sense if you exime the argument closely, and you give them the high ground by doing so.

Why don't you use the ENGLISH language? You did it before!😊

​@@arnoeeuwigheid4499Warum verwenden Sie nicht Deutsch? Es macht mehr Spaß.

​@@arnoeeuwigheid4499 Waarom niet gewoon in je eigen taal spreken als er een translate optie is🫡

@@the_guitarcade Da hast du recht😉👍; die deutsche Sprache ist auch mir nicht fremd!

@@arnoeeuwigheid4499 Ich kenne eigentlich nur die Texte zu Liedern von Rammstein und 99 Luftballons.

For sure!!

Know him & AP have said they're more than ok with anyone translating their videos for a broader audience. Not sure how it works with the auto generated? Thats proably something on YTs end I'd imagine & Christians arent a "protected class" to them as Islam is for some odd reason? Muslim girls arent being kidnapped & converted by force as Christians & other minorities are in places like Pakistan. They arent being murde*ed in large numbers as they are in Nigeria (of course 10/7 in Israel) & large numbers kidnapped & enslaved in Nigeria, Sudan etc. They arent being arrested in places like London, a city in a Christian country where Christians strangely are for praying to themselves, street preachers simply preaching on the Golden Rule who are detained by the police after getting a call about "hate speech" smh its all absolute madness

DDub has said previously if anyone can do subtitles in different languages, they are more than welcome to take the video and do it. You’re right, everybody in those other languages needs to hear this kind of stuff. But you know it’ll end up getting banned in those other countries. 🙄

The winner takes it all. John 10:30. John 14:6. Vulnerable. Psalms 144:9. Proverb 27:1. Proverh 16:5. Hebrew 4:12.

@@chanel498-n1ibrother you need to read the whole chapter then you will understand. Just picking one line does not give absolute meaning

@@jasmineabraham7103he’s just copying and pasting he’s not gonna listen

Saul for a persecutor of christians then encountered yeshua on the road to Damascus ❤❤❤

@@chanel498-n1i That was said about what people thought about God sending His own Son to die for people's sins. People thought that was a foolish thing to do, especially if it required the Son of God to die on the cross (a brutal death). Therefore, Paul's saying that even though that appears foolish in the eyes of man, that will be wiser than man's wisdom (i.e. whatever humans can come up with). If you truly wanted to know the meaning behind these verses, you can just look it up, you know. This isn't like the verses your imams hide from you guys (non-Arabic speakers) and then reinterpret entire sections of the Quran to say whatever they want. Christians have access to the Bible in their native languages so we know what is said in it and we have read these verses. There's no need to act as though you're the only one with access to a Bible.

Allah use the word we when talking about his adopted sons wife

@@chanel498-n1i Abd, he was speaking sarcastically. SMH. Read the context and try to understand. I know the Quran's context is jumbled up, but the Bible is different. It has ideas you can follow, not just sound bites Muhammad thought were meaningful.

Wrong ​@@chanel498-n1i context: Romans 3:1-8 contains a series of questions which might have come from someone opposed to Paul's teaching in Romans 2. Using this challenge-response structure, Paul clarifies that being Jewish and circumcised still comes with great advantages. He also points out that God remains faithful to the Jewish people in spite of their sin. In fact, His faithfulness in the face of unfaithfulness increases His glory. That does not mean, however, that God wants human beings to continue to sin, as some were accusing Paul of teaching. Commentary: Paul returns again to the question raised in verse 5, somewhat re-phrasing it, using a more specific example. This challenge strikes at Paul's argument about God's judgment on human sinfulness. The basic claim is this: If telling a lie further displays God's truthfulness, leading to His glory, why should He condemn me for that lie? Paul has previously said that our sin does indeed result in proving God's righteous sinlessness. So if our sin brings glory to Him, in a sense, should He really condemn us for it? Paul states in the following verse that some people were accusing him of teaching exactly this: that human sin leads to God's glory, so we might as well do more of it. Paul refutes the very idea of this in two directions. First, God's righteousness means, by definition, that He cannot be unrighteous. He is the standard of goodness and truth, so His judgment of our sin is by definition completely fair and justified. We deserve it. Second, as Paul will write in the following verses, human sinfulness is inevitable. We do not sin, in any way, with an intent to bring glory to God. We sin because we are sinners. Later, Paul will more directly refute that salvation is a license to sin (Romans 6:1). For now, particularly in the next verse, he will brush aside this criticism as rank slander (Romans 3:8).

@@chanel498-n1i Have you read the context, Abd? Have you even read the Quran in a lsnguage you understand?

“Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, ‘If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?’” Romans 3:6-7 Brother, Paul is literally quoting people who say stuff like that. He is not saying it himself.

@@chanel498-n1i Abd, you are so ignorant of literature. It was a justipostition. The relative comparison of absurdity.

Not just put back up by him on his own channel but together as one when it was originally separate videos somehow some of our Muslim friends can't quite grasp that concept.

​@@adamstewart9052half, max 1 verse or Sura is enough for majority of them, it often seems.. at least online

I thought for a moment he cut his hair as well but then I noticed there are no grey hair in this video so I remembered that this is an old video.

Yes

You bet!

Give it ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ too.

FATALITY

​@@chanel498-n1i continue to read Romans 3:7-10 [7] But if through my lying God's truth appears more clearly to show his glory, then why am I still condemned as a sinner? [8] Some insult us, and these people deserve to be condemned. They accuse us of saying: “Let us do evil so that good will come out of it!” » So why not do this evil? [9] But what? Are we Jews above the rest? No way ! I have already shown one thing: Jews and those who are not Jews are all under the power of sin.[10] In the Holy Books we read: “No human being is righteous, not even one!”

@@chanel498-n1i Bro see your being deceitful, you quoted half of the verse and none of the context😭 Again please just seek the truth, there’s no salvation in Islam. Take an honest position and watch the video and evaluate its points. Quoting verses out of context only works on Christians unfamiliar with the Bible.

​​​@@chanel498-n1i You really love cherrypicking the bible to lie and deceive others. 😂😂😂 Your insinuation that the bible is altered runs directly against what was written in quran that allah's words cannot be altered. So who is the deceiver, you or allah?? 😂😂 If the bible is false, then allah and quran are false as allah affirmed that the bible is the TRUTH. Your words are worthless and don't hold any truth because your allah has declared the torah and gospel as the TRUTH. If you insist that the bible is altered, then you will have to accept that your allah is a false and useless god who can't even protect his own words. 😂😂😂 Without the bible to lean on, quran is just a piece of toilet paper. 😂😂 Truly, without LIES, islam DIES!! اَفَغَيْرَ اللّٰهِ اَبْتَغِيْ حَكَمًا وَّهُوَ الَّذِيْۤ اَنْزَلَ اِلَيْكُمُ الْـكِتٰبَ مُفَصَّلًا ۗ وَا لَّذِيْنَ اٰتَيْنٰهُمُ الْـكِتٰبَ يَعْلَمُوْنَ اَنَّهٗ مُنَزَّلٌ مِّنْ رَّبِّكَ بِا لْحَـقِّ فَلَا تَكُوْنَنَّ مِنَ الْمُمْتَرِيْنَ "[Say], "Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?" And those to whom We [previously] gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters." (QS. Al-An'aam 6: Verse 114) وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ صِدْقًا وَّعَدْلًا ۗ لَا مُبَدِّلَ لِكَلِمٰتِهٖ ۚ وَهُوَ السَّمِيْعُ الْعَلِيْمُ "And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. NONE can ALTER His WORDS, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing." (QS. Al-An'aam 6: Verse 115) 💀☪️😈😈

​​@@chanel498-n1i Mohammad was poisoned by a jewish woman Zaynab that he raped, and her kins he murdered. That jewish woman literally said, "if you truly are a prophet of your allah, he will protect you from the poison". Mohammad died an excruciatingly painful death. In contrast, Paul was bitten by a very poisonous snake, a viper and witnesses expected he will die in an hour. Paul went on to preach christianity to the romans for years. So who is false, mohammad or Paul? According to quran and hadiths allah and the other islamic gods killed mohammad by cutting his aorta for being a false prophet. False prophet means, islam is false and allah is a false god. SAHIH AL BUKHARI 4428 Narrated Aisha: the prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaybar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison". Prophet mohammad died the same way he prophesied if he was a false prophet. Surah 69:44-47 وَلَوْ تَقَوَّلَ عَلَيْنَا بَعْضَ الْاَ قَاوِيْلِ  "And if Muhammad had made up about US some [false] saying لَاَ خَذْنَا مِنْهُ بِا لْيَمِيْنِ  "WE would have seized him by the right hand;" ثُمَّ لَقَطَعْنَا مِنْهُ الْوَتِيْنَ  "Then WE would have cut from him the aorta." فَمَا مِنْكُمْ مِّنْ اَحَدٍ عَنْهُ حَا جِزِيْنَ "And there is no one of you who could prevent [US] from him." 😈☪️💀

@@chanel498-n1i why are you copy pasting the same comment? Don't be afraid and watch the video carefully.