Live Reaction | 1 Muslim vs. 20 Christian Women

Añadido: 2026-05-19

[00:00:41]All right, here we go.

[00:00:46]Let's get this going.

[00:00:48]Um, I know there's a first part of this, but I did not want to watch it because I could not tolerate the uh insufferable voice of the other uh Christian lady, whoever she is. Um, so I'm going to react to this for at least an hour. Inshallah, we'll see how it goes. Um, not expecting anything. I don't know what's the subject is going to be. just says one Muslim versus uh 12 Christians. I don't know who's going to be asking the questions. Uh we'll see how this goes inshallah. Right.

[00:01:33]>> Absolute oneness is more in line with God's nature than the Trinity.

[00:01:37]>> And even more scary, if God can change to become a relational God, then that means he can change again and decide that he doesn't want to be a relational God. Do you believe that the persons of the Trinity are merciful to one another?

[00:01:48]Because mercy in this instance would imply that one of the persons of the Trinity is doing something wrong. The Quran is the final revelation of God.

[00:01:55]>> The miracle of the Quran is that Muhammad is illiterate, but he gets all these things right.

[00:01:59]>> We believe that the Quran comes and it corrects aspects of the previous scriptures that were changed by the hands of man.

[00:02:07]>> The the the miracle of the Quran is that Muhammad peace be upon him is illiterate yet he gets all those things right.

[00:02:14]That's not the miracle. The miracle is that that is from God. You know, like what's your explanation come? Well, we'll see how it goes.

[00:02:24]>> The Quran actually obviously affirms the previous scriptures and the second Muhammad finds those previous scriptures for the world to see.

[00:02:31]>> Jesus is a Muslim.

[00:02:32]>> I think we can't divorce Judaism from this conversation. Jesus was Jewish. He followed Jewish traditions. He was born of Jews. So, if we're going to say anything, Jesus was a Jew. Allah rejects being a father in every sense. How can the Jesus that taught us to pray to our father? How can he be? That's not true.

[00:02:50]I believe that Jesus was a Muslim.

[00:02:51]Obviously, external to the Bible, I believe that this theology is reflected within the Quran. The crucifixion of Jesus is not a wellestablished historical event. I think that's interesting because the crucifixion of Jesus is the most well-known historically attested event. There is still documentation coming out today about archaeologists finding Old Testament like journals and stuff written on stone tablets saying claiming that they saw Jesus after he rose from the dead. Muhammad peace be upon him is the final messenger of God.

[00:03:19]>> Another requirement for prophethood is continuity. There is no continuity with Muhammad.

[00:03:24]>> You have to preach the exact same God.

[00:03:26]If you concede that the prophets of the Old Testament did not preach the Trinity, then you can say that, for example, it wasn't fully revealed and so on and so forth. Is there someone that you're thinking you may want to have a deeper conversation with? I felt like this person had some substance to offer and I did want to be able to retort to all of it.

[00:03:48]Hi everyone, welcome to the Dr. Dav Show. Today I'm here with one Muslim woman, Kora, having a conversation with 20 Christians. Kora came up with her own prompts. So we're really excited about this conversation. I'll give you the floor. All right, for sure. My first prompt is absolute oneness is more in line with God's nature than the Trinity.

[00:04:12]>> My name's Kora.

[00:04:14]>> My name is Chanasa. My name is Ty. My name is Eor. My name is Sierra.

[00:04:19]>> All right. Perfect. Nice to meet all of you guys. Uh the reason why I chose this prompt is coming from a Muslim perspective.

[00:04:26]>> I don't believe that the Trinity is portrayed anywhere in God's divine revelation. I believe that God is absolutely one both in essence and in personhood. And I do also believe, and you are going to conflict with this, that the trinity entails polytheism.

[00:04:37]What do you guys think about that?

[00:04:39]>> I disagree. Obviously, I believe that um if God is strictly monotheistic, it actually serves more problems than it solves. For example, I would be curious to know from you what would prompt a god who is strictly monotheistic, alone, and essentially isolated to decide to become a relational god. That would mean that he went from being alone at one point in time and then he changed to become a relational God in order to create creation. And the issue is that he essentially changed. And if God can change, then I would conclude that God is not eternal. And even more scary, if God can change to become a relational God, then that means he can change again and decide that he doesn't want to be a relational God. But the distinction is that with a trinity, we have a God that has always been relational because he's triune in his nature. We have a God that is love by his very essence. So when he decides to create creation and relate to them, it's not a foreign concept to him unlike it would be with Allah. The Quran, as you know, introduces nearly every surah with the most merciful and the most benevolent. And my problem with that again is how would Allah be able to be merciful if he is strictly monotheistic. And in order to demonstrate that mercy, he would have to have become a relational God.

[00:05:43]>> Okay, perfect. So do you believe that the persons of the Trinity are merciful to one another? Because mercy in this instance would imply that one of the persons of the trinity is doing something wrong. And also another point that I wanted to touch on is you said that there's a problem with and I'm going to quote your words God being strictly monotheistic. So you don't believe strict monotheism.

[00:06:00]>> Not in the sense of now to answer your second question mercy is something that is relational but it's a derivative of love. Allah to my understanding isn't love. So if God who is love and who has always been love becomes a relational God, the n national deriv natural derivative would be to be merciful. What essentially I'm saying it's not an extension for a god who has always been love. So when he comes into relationship with someone else to be mercy, but a god that is not love, it would be foreign to him to all of a sudden be merciful. And it would also be problematic because it shows that he was not merciful for all eternity.

[00:06:32]>> Okay, perfect. I want to make sure that everybody else is included, but I'm going to respond to that point right there. So there isn't a problem with God eternally possessing the ability to do specific things. For example, you as Christians believe that God is a jealous God, right? You don't believe that God was jealous before creation because he has nobody to be jealous over, right?

[00:06:48]Because jealousy in this instance is going to be talk about talking about people worshiping other gods. You don't believe that God was jealous before creation because unless you want to say that the persons of the Trinity were worshiping other gods, then you'd have to say that God in that instance would have changed. And on top of that, you guys also believe that Jesus incarnated and he is the second person of the trinity and he took on a second nature.

[00:07:09]That is also a change to God because God went from having one nature to participating in the hypothatic union and having two natures. So you as a Christian cannot have problems with God changing because within trinitarian framework you believe sorry you guys believe that God changed as well. But I want to hear from you guys as well.

[00:07:23]>> So I want to talk about the part where you mentioned the jealousy and God is love. So let's get this clear right. The Bible says that God is love. So that's not something that he does, that's something that he is. So now that we have an understanding of that, we know that it always existed because of the triune relationship. The father loves the son, the son of the father, the holy spirit binds that love. All right? So when you mention, oh, was God jealous?

[00:07:42]Did he act upon jealousy? No, jealousy is righteous in the way that god acts because it is an extension of his love.

[00:07:49]So it's not that, oh, they were jealous of each other. It's the same concept with mercy. Mercy is an extension of his love. Not that, oh, he had to be merciful to his creation to then be merciful. No, he is already love. So what stems out of love? Mercy. What stems out of love? Righteous jealousy.

[00:08:04]That's what stems out of it. So I think you have a misunderstanding of oh how God acts upon jealousy because you believe in a unitarian God. So your God does that. But on the other hand, our God doesn't do do that. Our God embodies love.

[00:08:14]>> Perfect. So you mentioned God being love and so on and so forth. Obviously according to you guys and according to >> I don't see how it follows like our God is triune. Therefore his is love. Your God is uni like unarian. You you you believe in one God, therefore is not love. Like I I don't I don't get it. I don't get it. How can God be his his own uh property? Like h how how can God be be love himself? Like what do you mean? Like no go God according to Islam we say that God is the most loving, right?

[00:08:53]Like and then he said, "No, no, no. We believe that God is triune and then he has relationship with the other two gods. Therefore, there like what? I don't get it." Like what?

[00:09:06]>> Christians God is love. Do you guys agree that God is the greatest conceivable being, the greatest being that you could possibly think of and so on and so forth? And you guys obviously believe that shared love is better than just, you know, possessing love within yourself.

[00:09:18]>> Yes. And do you guys believe that there is a form of love higher than that or is shared love the highest form of love?

[00:09:22]>> Shared love is the highest form of love.

[00:09:24]Self-directed love is not >> okay the highest form. would say God is triune and he shares the love with the other godheads like for example God is love because he shares the love with Jesus and Jesus shares the love of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit shares love with the father and therefore there is this relationship between them and therefore that's why there is >> what that's just >> triune shows that God has the highest form of love right because he's sharing love with two other persons right >> yeah so that's that's it crazy shared love corporate love relational love is the highest form of love.

[00:09:57]>> Okay. And would you also agree that sharing love with more people is greater than sharing love with, for example, only one person. Would you agree with that?

[00:10:04]>> Where are you getting with this?

[00:10:05]>> Yeah. The place that I'm getting at is if you believe that love in and of itself, in order for God to be love, he needs to be expressing love um within his essence, relational love, and you think that God is the greatest conceivable being, and you think that that's why trinitarianism is true because God needs to be doing this, then you would also be accepting that it follows that God should be more than three persons.

[00:10:22]>> Never it never was God needs to. is that I think this is the once again I think so listen listen to >> this so God doesn't need to be loving >> so >> he is loving he doesn't need to be loving and that particular phrasing is smuggling in something into the doctrine that we do not as a matter hold on so does your guy need to be loving as well >> wait so so does God can God be God without being loving that's my question when I say needs to be I'm asking can God be God without being according to you guys love >> I was going to say he doesn't have to be I think that's the point that the leaders are making he doesn't have to be he is because that's his essence and so I do have a counter question for you.

[00:10:54]>> Do you believe to be loving is to be selfless?

[00:10:57]>> Um, no, not by necessity because there's love in three forms, right? You guys would probably agree. And two of those forms are you can have self-love and you can also have relational love. Those are two of these forms. You can still be loving without having a sense of relational love. And the other point that I was getting into is the reason why I was asking do you believe that God is the greatest conceivable being is because I see a lot of people saying that the reason why we need a triune God is because we need God to possess relational love. That is something that's implied by his essence. God is love. So when we have God, we also have love. That's why I think you guys kind of have a problem with the terminology need. But all I mean by that is if there is if God exists, then there is love.

[00:11:33]And if God is not loving, then that wouldn't be the God that we're speaking about. That's what I need mean by need.

[00:11:37]I just want to say for >> Okay. All right. All right. I get it now. I get it. But I I never knew this about about Christianity. It's just wild. They believe that God is triune because God is love. And so if God is love, he is eternally sharing that attribute with the other two godheads.

[00:11:56]And therefore again that's a a very childish concept that is not biblical whatsoever. It's just their own fantasy or whatever. Um yeah so much philosophy that makes no sense in this like you know I believe this and this. I believe that no God is always loving. I believe. I believe.

[00:12:18]Yeah. But I I didn't hear I didn't hear one I didn't hear one Bible verse. You know, that's the thing when we talk when we Muslims talk about like God's attributes, who God is, what he does, etc., etc. We always appeal to scripture. There's always a verse, Quran verse. There's always a hadith, an authentic hadith that comes from the prophet peace be upon himself and so on.

[00:12:42]Okay? And if someone's going to go do his own due diligence when it comes to uh research and stuff like that, they have to bring their evidence. You know, they say, "Oh, I believe this and this and that because one, two, three," right? Not just their own belief, but they have to substantiate their belief.

[00:12:57]>> For me, when I think about the prompt that you pose, I ask myself three questions. You answer the first question, which is what is absolute oneness? You've already answered that question. You've explained what it is for you as a Muslim. The second question I ask myself is what um what is the nature of God? And when I think about the nature of God, I think about the fruits of the spirit. And one of those fruits of the spirit is really hard to showcase without selflessness. We see that Jesus is the trinity or excuse me, we see that uh God is the trinity because he gave of himself, gave his son so that we could be in right standing with him again. And we are the ones that decided to not be in right standing with him. And so that's very selfless. He could have said, "You know what? You guys forget it. You guys, you know, you you walked away. I don't have to do anything." He thought differently to say, "I love them so much that I'm actually going to give you guys another chance. I'm giving of myself." And so that's why he gave his son.

[00:13:51]>> But my issue with that would be, would you, again, because this would imply, this is why I believe that within Islam, we believe that repentance is sufficient for us to essentially be forgiven. Would you say that God required a human sacrifice in order to forgive us or would you say that he could have forgiven us without a human sacrifice?

[00:14:06]Yes.

[00:14:06]>> No, he didn't require it, but he decided to.

[00:14:08]>> Okay.

[00:14:08]>> If we're saying that you believe that God is is the ultimate God, >> he didn't have to sacrifice Jesus in order for the forgiveness of your sins.

[00:14:16]Christians, he didn't have to, but he did. He just wasted his only son to do that. If he didn't if he don't worse and worse. Oh my god. I'm losing brain cells.

[00:14:31]>> Um, the most high, right? You agree with that?

[00:14:33]>> Yeah. I believe that God is the most high. Yes. God is the most high and he does decide what he wants to do. But I'm going to ask you a question then. What what do you think is more reflective of a just God? A God that says the one who sins is the one who is held accountable or the God who says that he is going to send his innocent son to die for our sins. Who is more just to you? If you don't mind me asking.

[00:14:50]>> Can I just say this? You don't want justice. You want mercy. Because if we got justice, none of us would be here.

[00:14:55]So I don't I don't even want to acknowledge such a question because my preference will always be mercy.

[00:15:00]>> You believe God is just. Correct.

[00:15:02]>> He is just with the most. He is the most just.

[00:15:05]>> Okay. So, what's more just? Like, what is more just to you? A God who holds the people who sin accountable or a God that sends an innocent man to die for the sins of mankind? Which is more just?

[00:15:13]>> Can I start by saying that sin requires a penalty? Okay. There's a penalty that always must be satisfied and that's the justice aspect.

[00:15:19]>> Not always.

[00:15:20]>> God, not even not even according to the Christians.

[00:15:24]>> I think what she was trying to say is that we want God to judge us with his mercy, not not with his just justice.

[00:15:30]Because we believe that God is both most just and most loving and most merciful as well, right? So we yes we want his mercy because if we get judged by his uh justice then we're never going to make it. We believe the same thing. We have the same concept when it comes to Islam, right? But he doesn't have to send anyone to die for sins, whatever that means.

[00:15:52]>> To satisfy that penalty any way that he wants to. So you're trying to force a false dichotomy to make it seem as if it has to be one or the other. But the God that we serve is both equally merciful and equally just. And that is why he chose to demonstrate that justice and that mercy on the cross.

[00:16:06]>> Okay, perfect. And I want to shift over, but I'm going to respond to that as well. So God is capable of choosing whatever means. But I'm asking which option is the most just? So I mean, if you would like to answer, I would like to hear from you because it feels like I've been having a conversation with everybody else and I haven't really heard from you. But in your personal opinion, what do you think is more just?

[00:16:23]God holding the person who sins accountable, whether it be through means of, for example, repentance. We see this all over the Quran and not just the Quran but within the Old Testament where God says that if somebody upholds the law and they turn away from the sin that he will forget he will forget that they ever sinned. What do you think is more just that or a human sacrifice for these people's sins? What do you think is more just? So sacrifices were to atone for sins. Okay. So when you kind of say either or it doesn't necessarily make sense because sacrifices were to atone for the sin. So, as you can see today, we don't come to the altar with um uh blemishless animals, laying them on the altar for our sins, but we are covered in the blood of Jesus because of that sacrifice that Jesus um came to to accomplish on the cross to die for our sins. So, when we go back to the prompt, which is the nature of God, you can agree that the nature of God is love.

[00:17:15]Correct?

[00:17:15]>> I believe that God possesses love within his nature. I don't believe I don't believe that God is identical to love.

[00:17:20]No, you don't.

[00:17:21]>> I believe that God possesses love. What?

[00:17:23]So, where do you get your definition of love from?

[00:17:26]>> What does that even mean? That's going to be interesting. What does that even mean? God is love. Like God I understand we say God is powerful, right? God is all knowing. That has mean when you say God is love. What what does that even mean? Right? We have an equal uh attribute when it comes to Islam. We say God is the most loving. That makes more sense. When what do you say is >> that love is something that is relational. But when we say that God possesses love within his essence, what we mean by this is that God eternally possesses the ability to be loving to his creation and loving to things outside of himself. Relational love. He always possesses that ability. But I want to touch back because you mentioned animal sacrifice for sin atonement. I didn't ask about just sacrifice generally. I specified human sacrifice.

[00:18:09]So we obviously agree that God is just.

[00:18:11]Correct.

[00:18:12]>> Right. Okay. So human sacrifice you're talking about?

[00:18:14]>> Yes. About the Yes. Jesus incarnating and being the >> scripture tells us that when Jesus came to earth, >> it was the divinity of God within the human body. So when you're looking at it, you're only seeing the outward appearance which is the physical body, the man Jesus that came. You know that we are body, we are soul and we are spirit, right? So when you think about God, God came in a fleshly body which was the vessel to accomplish what he came to do on the cross.

[00:18:43]>> Okay, perfect. But you believe that?

[00:18:44]>> Yeah. But you believe that the father sent the son who is a man that was completely and utterly blameless.

[00:18:49]Remember your salvation is based on the fact that Jesus is completely blameless, right? And he is the only blameless man to have walked the earth and that's why he is capable of atoning for your sins.

[00:18:57]But my question because I want to tie it back cuz I >> Sorry. I just want I just want that point right there. Sorry. John 17 tells us that actually Jesus existed before the world began when he's praying to his father.

[00:19:06]>> I'm going to go off scripture because I believe in the Holy Bible, the the word of God. And John 17 tells us that Jesus existed. He's praying to the father and he's saying father glorify me in your presence in your presence which lets you know that Jesus doesn't do anything outside of the presence of his father.

[00:19:22]He says with the glory that I shared with you before the world existed which means that Jesus existed before the world was created and then he came in a body.

[00:19:31]>> Okay. Perfect.

[00:19:32]>> So that was a a specific mission that he came to reconcile.

[00:19:36]>> Okay. Yeah. I want to respond to that.

[00:19:37]So in John 17, the verse that you quoted is verse 5. What's interesting is the language that Jesus uses is he says, "Glorify me with the glory that I had with you before creation, right?"

[00:19:47]>> A very similar verse, >> a Muslim woman teaching 20 Christians their their their faith. Uh the thing is that with John with with that verse the same glory that Jesus is praying to God uh with asking God to share his glory with him. If you keep reading, I don't know if she's gonna mention this, but it says that he shared the like later he's gonna ask God the father to share the same glory with uh the disciples, right?

[00:20:14]So if that glory makes him god and makes him eternal, then the disciples as well are the same, right? Uh God is love means that all love comes from God.

[00:20:29]Um yeah, maybe I may accept that. But that's not the definition that these uh Christian ladies are given, right? I don't know if you were here in the beginning, but they literally said that God is triune because God is love and God was uh and that love is relational.

[00:20:48]They were like exchanging that love between all each other like all the three godheads like Jesus sharing that love with father and the father sharing with holy spirit and so on. uh you know that's that's why God is triune because God is love but the when it comes to Islam God is is is one therefore he cannot experience that he cannot be love like this is the first time I ever I heard this kind of argument which is childish like to be honest >> we see this language being used all over the Bible before creation before creation before creation we see a similar verse in the book of revelations where it says that Jesus was slaughtered before the creation of the world. Now, does this mean that Jesus Wait, does this mean Wait, sorry. Does this mean that Jesus was literally um slaughtered before the creation of the world? No.

[00:21:35]This is something called idiomatic prophetic language. As you said, it's prophecy. So Jesus isn't saying that he possessed glory eternally because you agree that that's prophetic language in Revelation. Jesus is saying in John 17:5 that it is so certain that Jesus was going to come and he was going to be the the Messiah and a righteous man and so on and so forth that he was going to be glorified by God. He's not saying that he possessed it from eternity. We also see another verse in I believe it's Peter where it says something similar about the disciples that the disciples were blessed before creation and it's very similar language to John 17:5 right so we see this language all over repeated both in the new and old testament but this doesn't mean that the people being spoken about are eternal >> how do you make the distinction that revelation is prophetic idiomatic language as opposed to John 17 being literal language what do you base that off of >> okay perfect so we see that every single instance in which this phrase is used before the creation, before the creation of the earth and so on and so forth. For example, in revelation, for example, the verse that I cited in um in Peter, right? We see that both of these are prophetic and we also see language like this in the Old Testament. The reason why I interpret it to be prophetic and not literal is because the other instances in the Bible where it speaks like this, it is speaking prophetically.

[00:22:43]And also another reason is I would ask, do you believe that there's anything eternal alongside God, >> the one God?

[00:22:49]>> No, but you do.

[00:22:50]>> Okay, perfect. So if an individual Okay, perfect. We'll touch on that in a second. So, if you don't believe that there's anything eternal alongside God, it's interesting that we went to John 17:5. Let's go to John 17:3 where Jesus addresses the father and says, "They may know you, the only true God." So, in John 17:3, who's Jesus calling the only true God? Who is he speaking to?

[00:23:08]>> Speaking to the father, just like the father spoke to Jesus in Hebrews 1:8 and says, "I will glorify you and your kingdom will be eternal. You have a scepter of righteousness." He says, he speaks to the son. He says, "And to the son."

[00:23:18]>> I want to tie it back to John 17:5.

[00:23:20]Sorry, John 17:3. So, Jesus is calling the father the only true God. Is Jesus the father?

[00:23:25]>> Jesus.

[00:23:25]>> Jesus is the son.

[00:23:26]>> Okay. So, he's not the father then. So, if Jesus is calling the father the only true God and Jesus is not the father, then Jesus is not the only true God as per his own words. But you touched on Hebrews, right? I have a question. Who wrote the book of Hebrews?

[00:23:36]>> I believe it's Paul, but no one knows necessarily.

[00:23:38]>> Okay, perfect. So, why should I accept the book of Hebrews as divine revelation? If we don't know who wrote it, >> do you know who wrote Revelation?

[00:23:44]>> According to you, it's John.

[00:23:45]>> Okay. Okay, perfect. So, according to you, >> because because it goes with their narrative, right? the stat that's the criteria that they use to canonize the um the gospels and all the epistles that are included in the Bible right they have a narrative they have to believe already and so whatever matches it's just canon >> John wrote the book of revelation so again I want to ask that question why do we accept Hebrews as divine revelation when we don't know who wrote it and to be consistent if hypothetically speaking we had no idea who the scribes of the Quran were and so on and so forth and it's a book that came out of thin air you guys would be pressing us Muslims and saying why would you believe in this book and we don't know who authored it and so on and so forth I'm asking for consistency. Why do you believe in the book of Hebrews if you don't know who wrote it? I don't even go that route and say who wrote question. It was just the concept of the do >> did this dude she looks like a I mean look did she just appeal to the Quran and start talking about while she received a straightforward question >> that's in it that would make us question it. It's not even about who wrote it cuz remember we believe that man was utilized as a vessel inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit to write things. So I don't think a Christian would do that. They do that they're wrong just like how they were wrong with the God needing love.

[00:24:57]>> How did you know that? How would you know that whoever wrote this is inspired by the Holy Spirit and you don't even know who wrote it in the first place?

[00:25:05]Okay. Like you you what you just read it and like oh this is this must be inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is going to be like part of the cannon.

[00:25:14]Right. And by the way, all the early scripture, like all the early books and gospels are canon today, they're like the same thing. They got um they were anonymous. So do anonymous and they added the names much later. There are the same um the same case of the book of Hebrew.

[00:25:31]It's in the gospel >> of God doesn't need to be love. And I want to ask you a question. Do you think that God needs to be omnipresent?

[00:25:37]>> What does it mean to be omnipresent? To be present every single time. Every single time.

[00:25:41]>> Wait. Wait. Do you think that God needs to be omnipresent? You're a God.

[00:25:43]>> No. I don't believe that God is omnipresent in in his essence in the first place as a Muslim. I don't believe that God is in every single place at every single point in time. My God is not in hell. My God is not in all these different impure places and so on and so forth. However, however, wait, hold on.

[00:25:54]However, I believe that God is omnipresent in terms of his knowledge.

[00:25:57]He knows all things.

[00:25:58]>> Okay. All right. So, let's go the other route.

[00:26:00]>> I I do want I do want my question >> or authorship is not the only thing that can authenticate scripture. You also have to remember that this is a spiritual book and the book of Hebrews is exceptionally consistent with the rest of the corpus of scripture. a book that's consistent divine revelation.

[00:26:14]Beyond that, there are identifiers that make it clear that the likelihood is that Paul wrote it. Personally, I'm very convinced that Paul wrote it. I don't disagree. You agree that there's a dispute. There's a disagreement in who wrote the book of Hebrews. So, you said that authorship isn't the only thing that identifies whether or not something is divine revelation. You also said consistency, but something being consistent doesn't mean that it's divine. I can write a book right now that is consistent with the four gospels, and that doesn't mean it's the fifth gospel. So, why would we apply this consistency criteria to Hebrews when we don't know who wrote it? We don't know whether or not they were reliable. We don't know whether or not he was just saying things about God that sounded similar to what was going on in the Bible and it happened sim at the same exact time in which the Bible was being canonized and so on and so forth and ended up being accepted. Why? And I want to circle back to the question. Why do we accept Hebrews as divine revelation if we don't have any criteria of authentication for it?

[00:26:57]>> So in my perspective the Holy Spirit is the author of every single book in the Bible. It's not relevant to me if the author is disputed if the message is consistent. You talked about if I shared something that comes alongside with a scripture. If it lined up with the scripture, then that's good. That means that the Holy Spirit is also within whatever you are saying. So there's not an issue to me personally as far as authorship is concerned to legitimize whether it should be canonized or not.

[00:27:21]The idea is that the Bible is written essentially by God's Holy Spirit. The book Hebrews is consistent with the rest of the corpus of scripture and it speaks the same message consistently.

[00:27:34]>> You know when your makeup looks good is the final revelation. All right.

[00:27:38]>> The main reason why I believe >> All right.

[00:27:46]All right. I don't know if I want to finish this because it's just like what what are we what are we even what are we even doing? This is why I don't want to like get into Christianity anymore. Like I don't want to study more when it comes to Christianity because it's a waste of time. It's a waste of time. You got to people who believe anything just believe whatever they believe in because they choose to believe in. There is no intellectual reasons for whatever they believe in.

[00:28:15]Oh, I believe the book of Hebrew is written by the Holy Spirit because it matches the rest of my book. It matches the rest of my belief.

[00:28:24]Um, yeah, that's not convincing, right?

[00:28:26]that that's this is why the Christians today they're losing the battle when it comes to uh inviting people to the religion and that's why they resolve to attacking Islam 24/7 instead because you know what else are they going to do right uh let me check the other prompts and see if it is interesting if not I may just skip to the next prompt and see if it's >> reason why I picked this prompt prompt is I mostly tried to pick prompts pertaining to Islam just so everybody can get their word in in terms of why they disagree and so on and so forth.

[00:29:02]But the main reason why I believe that the Quran is the final revelation of God is because I believe that it contains content that only God could have known.

[00:29:10]You guys obviously agree because I believe in second Peter it actually says explicitly that everything that is prophetic and spoken from a prophet is going to be initially from the Holy Spirit. Right? That's written in second Peter. So if there is prophetic content and so on and so forth according to you guys, it's going to be coming from God.

[00:29:26]There's a multitude of reasons why I also believe in this, but I want to hear your thoughts. Why don't you guys believe that the Quran is the final revelation of God?

[00:29:31]>> Yeah. And I actually to almost agree with you. So the miracle of the Quran is that Muhammad is like illiterate, but he gets all these things right. Right. And I don't want to talk about the theology that he gets right or, you know, morals that he gets right. I want to talk about the stories of the prophets. Because the Quran is 6,000 plus verses and it contains,00 verses about stories of the prophets. That's a whole one sixth of the Quran. Meaning if he gets any of those one sixth of the Quran stories wrong then he's not a prophet right and so for example in 12 verse3 this is the chapter of Joseph right Allah is saying before this Muhammad you didn't know anything about the story of Joseph and he reveals 98 verses in detail about Joseph and he closes this chapter in verse 111 by saying this is a confirmation of the previous scriptures and a detailed explanation of all things so it's a confirmation also in its details and so I read the 98 verses but then when I go and I search the Torah's version of Joseph, I find incredible amounts of differences and there reconcile.

[00:30:25]>> There you go. There you go. Why would you go to your Bible?

[00:30:30]Yeah. It says it matches the all scriptures, the untouched, uncorrupted scriptures, you know, that that was revealed by God.

[00:30:40]It doesn't it doesn't talk about whatever you have today in the Bible, right? So today the the scripture that you have is something that's written decades after the fact. So you cannot compare God's revelation by something that is written by anonymous people and say this is like the same scripture that the Quran is talking about. If you're going to make an internal critique, you have to stick to what the Quran is talking about. The Quran never asks you to go and compare these stories and yes it says that it's in continuity with continuity with all scripture and the prophets. It's not talking about your Bible. It's not talking about your belief. It does it doesn't care. The Quran doesn't care about, you know, what what you find in the Bible, right? So, I never ask you to go and compare those stories with with the Bible to to begin with. So, it's it's just ridiculous.

[00:31:27]Like, why why do they keep doing >> to, you know, sometimes it's like, oh, maybe he was this age and like, no, like they're irreconcilable. And there's 944 differences just in those 98 verses of Joseph. And to me, that that's really hard to reconcile. Um, and the only reason Muhammad would be it a true prophet revealing the correct Quran is that if the Quran's account of the prophets do match up and you probably know verse 10 verse 94 he says if you're in doubt go and read or go and ask those who read the scriptures >> and the context of that is right before it's stories of Moses, Noah, Jacob, sorry not Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Noah, other prophets and then like when the Israelites are like settling in in the promised land all these things which are all stories you can find in the Old Testament. And so if the people in the seventh century are in doubt that Muhammad's revealing all these stories of the prophets, they have to go read the previous scripture. And so when we go and look at not only the seventh century text, but the Dead Sea Scrolls from the 250s and the first century, not even extra biblical text, right? You have Pho of Alexandria, he's a Greek philosopher, no motive for religion. Um you have the Roman historian Josephus.

[00:32:24]And then you have the Codex Alexandrinus, Syriak, Bashida in Syriak, Greek, Latin, all these different all these different languages all talking about the same story of Joseph way before Muhammad's time. Muhammad comes with 98 verses of complete contradictions.

[00:32:36]>> Okay. I want to talk about it's interesting.

[00:32:38]>> Yeah. Yeah. All right. So the contradictions are on purpose. Yeah. So when he says go and ask the people who read the scripture before you does mean that those stories that we're giving you right now should be exactly the same.

[00:32:49]Now generally right we have like the story of Moses. You go to the Bible uh uh you know the the Torah uh that the Christians believe in today. You will find the story of Moses in the book of Exodus. you know the same thing about Noah, the same thing about uh uh Joseph etc etc. It doesn't mean that the Quran is telling you that these details are going to be identical. No, it doesn't say that because obviously the Quran multiple times it does this uh uh um editing conscious editing all the time.

[00:33:20]It gives you like a story and then it tells you what actually happened. It mentions a prophet right uh of the Old Testament or whatever and then it gives you the actual story of that particular prophet and you can see that the the Quran is correcting the stories that are given on those scriptures right it it it says go and check those right check the uh with the people who read the scripture before you know to get a general uh uh general idea about those stories doesn't say I go and check the details uh one by that you brought up specifically surah or the story of Joseph. So we believe that the Quran is a confirmation of the previous scriptures. It's detailed everywhere. However, we believe that the Quran comes and it corrects aspects of the previous scriptures that were changed by the hands of man. For example, we have 15. So in 5:15, we have detailed in the it says that the Quran comes to correct the alterations and the changes and so on and so forth. And it's interesting that you brought up the story of Joseph because that's also an instance of the Quran correcting the Old Testament. So let me ask you in the Old Testament where it talks about Joseph's story, is the sovereign in his time addressed as a pharaoh or a king in the Bible.

[00:34:33]>> So you're talking about the anacronistic um putting of Pharaoh's name, right? So the way you >> I'm I'm No, no, no. What I'm asking is I'm just asking is is he addressed as a Pharaoh or a king >> in the Torah?

[00:34:42]>> Yes. In the pre in the Old Testament.

[00:34:44]>> In the Old Testament, he is addressed as Pharaoh because we don't believe that.

[00:34:47]Well, I don't know me personally, I believe Moses wrote the Torah, right? He he it was revealed to him but I don't think that he compiled it. Does that make sense?

[00:34:56]>> Sure. So I think it's okay that later on someone wrote in the word pharaoh. I know like it doesn't come until later you know.

[00:35:00]>> Wait. So if you believe that it's divinely do you believe that the Torah is divinely inspired?

[00:35:04]>> Yes.

[00:35:04]>> Okay. So you believe that somebody can come in and add a word into the Torah and change it from king to Pharaoh.

[00:35:08]>> Wait wait wait.

[00:35:09]>> And it can still add the word crucif but don't you agree that if something is divine revelation?

[00:35:15]>> Wait. Someone add what she say? Wait.

[00:35:19]Did she Did she Did she just admit that someone corrupted that word? Someone just got in and changed the word. That's literally the definition of a corruption. He's adding or deleting something or changing the word.

[00:35:31]>> It can't be changed by the hands of man.

[00:35:33]>> No.

[00:35:33]>> No.

[00:35:34]>> So you believe we have different standards of how scriptures revealed.

[00:35:37]>> Okay. So So you believe that something can be divine revelation also simultaneously be corrupted because and I do want to let you guys hear. So corruption of a text is defined as an addition, emission or alteration done to said text by somebody that is not the author. So do you guys agree that a text can be corrupted and also simultaneously be from God?

[00:35:53]>> What you're doing right now is you're equating the idea of particular versions or specific instances where someone changed a particular book that went through one portion of society, right?

[00:36:05]One particular like let's talk about the slave Bibles, right? As black people, we know that there was a specific Bible given to African-American slaves where certain verses were removed that would have alerted them to the fact that child slavery was not of God. That God directly, Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. God directly, Hold on, cuz I'm going somewhere with this. God directly condemned the type of slavery that was being used or being, you know, enacted on African-American slaves. That said, it did not affect the totality of scripture. As she mentioned the Dead Sea Scrolls, when we look back at the earliest text, we know what the Bible is supposed to say because we have very >> So corruption can happen no problem. But as long as it does not change the core idea that change the essence of the idea of the entire Bible, then it's completely okay.

[00:36:52]>> Very very old copies. So when someone changes one book in one particular portion of the world, we can verify that or we can uh just suppose that against what other scriptures we have. So the problem with the Quran of course is we know that it has been burnt, right?

[00:37:07]>> I want to address that point. So the issue is you're saying that maybe one we have. So the problem with the Quran of course is we know so the problem with the how how do you get to that conclusion? You get all that stuff >> and then you end your sentence with with with the problem with the Quran it was burned. What are you talking about?

[00:37:24]>> That it has been burned.

[00:37:25]>> Let me address that point. So the issue is you're saying >> the Quran is not a physical thing. The Quran is a revelation that was that was revealed to the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him. It's not a physical thing, right? Yes. If if the the third caiff burned some codex codexes, personal copies of the I said this too many times >> saying that maybe one person just added the word Pharaoh in there. But the issue is even in the Dead Sea Scrolls it says Pharaoh.

[00:37:52]>> So it's clearly according to your standard original to the text that it says Pharaoh. So in Joseph's story when this sovereign is addressed as Pharaoh, you're making >> Yeah. One second. One second. So let's let's just focus. They're trying to change the subject and change the entire focus onto into the Quran. The the original claim was that the Quran makes uh uh makes assumptions about the old the old scripture, the old prophets, the history, and then it does not match.

[00:38:24]Right? And so Kora here is saying that no it does actually it makes a general uh mention of the old scripture of the old uh the old prophets and then it corrects whatever the Bible says and you can actually substantiate this right.

[00:38:40]For example, if uh u the Quran was just copying whatever the the the Bible says about those prophets, then it would be copying the mistakes as well. the the the Bible made a mistake when it called the like the the king during the time of Joseph uh Pharaoh in the Bible and then the Quran came and took that specific story of of of Joseph and then corrected that part. It did not call him Pharaoh, it called him a king. And then later we discovered this uh through the Rosetta stone that gave us the entire you know >> I think it's >> the argument now that somebody added this in to make it more adaptable to the people in the time and so on and so forth but it's original to the text that the sovereign in his time is called Pharaoh which is historically inaccurate according to Egyptologist which is why when she mentioned the uh the surah of Ysef the Quran comes and corrects this and he calls the leader in the time a king instead of a pharaoh because the term pharaoh although it did exist in the time of Joseph never denoted a ruler or a sovereign. It denoted the great house or the great temple. So, it would have been incorrect for the Bible to address faith.

[00:39:46]>> However, let's let's talk about that because you're getting into semantics, right? We know that it throughout the Bible the Jews or from the Torah.

[00:39:53]>> Damn. Wait, look look at her. Look at her face. She's so she's like, "Oh, dude, I got cooked. I got cooked."

[00:40:00]>> And then all just you're just doing semantics. Let's not focus on that.

[00:40:04]Let's talk about something else. She's going to want to talk about the car ran.

[00:40:07]Let's see. the name Yahweh very often because they considered it too sacred to read aloud. So instead they called the Lord the Lord. But that doesn't mean that they did not know who he was. So if we see that this particular writer is calling someone a pharaoh so that it is more palatable to the people that are going to be reading it in that region because they know of kings as pharaohs then that's okay. It doesn't change from the message or the overall context of the book. But what happens with the Quran and we know that we have to address this. What happened with the Quran is that it was burned. You're aware of that man. You know this yourself man when he standardized the Quran he burned everything apart from apart from the manuscript of the prophet peace be upon him.

[00:40:42]>> Sure. So when we're standardizing something it is very convenient to burn all other potential references so that we cannot possibly check if we still have the correct context of >> Okay. Okay. Let's they're going to move to this. Right. But again she completely cooked them because here's what happened. Right. She said, "Well, um, the Quran talks about the prophets in the Old Testament and my, you know, my scripture, but it's not aligned with them." And Kora basically said, "Well, yes, it's not in align." Why? Because your Bible is not accurate with his, you know, with history, you know, because your Bible is making mistakes about the story of of these prophets. And so the Quran, what does the Quran does? It corrects that history. It corrects that story. gives you the actual story of what happened.

[00:41:36]You know, it doesn't matter if if you don't care about your Bible being corrupted or not. This is a like a valid answer to, you know, to whatever she was trying to do. Yes, the Quran uh uh does correct the Bible in multiple times, especially when it comes to the prophets of the Old Testament. And this is historically uh proven. You can actually prove this, right?

[00:41:59]And this is why they want to switch the entire conversation to see where I'm getting with that. You're perfect. But the issue is let me address what your original Quran might have said.

[00:42:08]>> Perfect. We actually do because if you actually read the hadith that talks about the burning, he says that he burned everything. I am comfortable with what do you mean comfortable with hadith? The entire story of the the Quran being burned is actually a hadith, authentic hadith that is that can be found in uh Bkari. Right. The the thing with this Christian is that Christians is that they they read I don't think they read the entire hadith. Whoever spread this thing like like who burned the Quran they only read the the last sentence because the last like the entire hadith is like this. The last five words are and then u uh uh and then man ordered uh the burning of the rest of the masah which is the copies of the Quran and then they just take that and they say oh look look at man burned the original Quran like what are you talking about can you at least read the entire hadith right because that hadith actually is a proof you know of the authenticity and the trustworthiness of the Quran actually because here's the thing that man did was he standardized the Quran, right? Because during his time, everybody knew the Quran by heart.

[00:43:21]Everybody me memorized it, right? So he collected he he he made like a group a committee who were the same companions who actually collected like compiled the Quran during the time of uh Abu Bakr. So this the first kiff and they're the same uh committee who were in charge of writing down the Quran while it was still active during the time of the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

[00:43:46]Right? Okay. So those the same companions who did standardize the Quran just gave the order. That's it. That's all they did.

[00:43:57]And so they ignore the entire hadith and they just stick to the you know like man burned the Quran. Therefore, he burned the original one and then he gave his own version of it. Can you substantiate that?

[00:44:10]>> No, they can't.

[00:44:11]>> Every single authentic >> about which I'm a Sunni Muslim, so I accept every single authentic hadith.

[00:44:16]But let's go back. Hold on, hold on, hold on. So, when you're quoting a hadith, you're going to take the entirety of the hadith. The hadith that you quoted about the burning that is from a narration and it specifies that all manuscripts were burned except for the manuscript of Hapsa that belonged to the prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him. which means that we have an original text. So, let me ask you guys this because we're being uh consistent and I feel like we're not really talking enough about the Quran to be honest. I would like >> I would like to tie it back if that's all right. Um, so we're talking because you brought up the topic of burning and not having originals. Do you guys have an original of the New Testament?

[00:44:47]>> The oldest copies that we have of the New Testament or of the Gospels specifically are in Ethiopia written in Geese and they do confirm what is currently in the Old in the New.

[00:44:55]>> And what is that dated to?

[00:44:56]>> I'm not quite sure.

[00:44:57]>> Okay. So, the first instance because we have nothing from the first century of Jesus. the first instance that we get a manuscript um of one of the New Testament books. We have one of John that's about this big and it is a couple of verses from John. No, no, it's it's credit card sized. It's credit card sized.

[00:45:11]>> It's No, no, no. It's P52. Yeah. That's the first fragment that we get. So, we don't have a complete copy until some people say like Codex Caticus and so on and so forth which is compiled right some manuscripts are from earlier, some manuscripts are from later. But you made a point about not having originals and so on. So, how can you have an issue with us having uh a standardization process that a lot of people such as textual critics of the Bible actually praise Islam for and say that Christianity does not have this but rather Islam does. How can you have a problem with our standardization process when you don't even have a copy of the Bible from the first century and we have the entirety of the Quran from the first century hij who was supposed to speak?

[00:45:47]>> So me my point to prove that the Quran is not the final word of God is by his internal testimony. It's clearly in the Bible that you know first of all like she said it seemed like the Quran appealed to the Bible to prove his relevance. It's like the Quran used the Bible as a passport to get into the world of monotism and then after it kind of gaslight the Bible like it changed the author. So if the Quran have to confirm a god that was already privileged reveal it have to be consistent. So first >> so in 1211 it's a different one. It's Tuska. I'm probably butchering the >> it's it's variations of the same word.

[00:46:23]Yeah, it's it's variations of it's in 33. It's in, for example, surah 5 and it goes on. But confirmation doesn't mean that you say that every single word in a spec.

[00:46:33]>> All right, but I'm done with this. This is not going anywhere. Let's say prompt for prompt.

[00:46:37]>> I'm Lauren.

[00:46:37]>> Nice to meet you.

[00:46:38]>> I'm Shayla Perez.

[00:46:40]>> I'm Christina.

[00:46:41]>> Think you know what? I'm I'm done. I'm done. I can't I can't I can't watch this. It's just a waste of time. It's just a waste of time. I can't I can't watch this.

[00:46:55]Well, it's like those low tier uh debates that you get on TikTok. It's just the same thing. As soon as they start talking about the subject, they get corner and then they move to something else. I can't believe this is actually happening, right? Or it's just ridiculous. I mean, uh whatever it is.

[00:47:12]Actually, I'm done with this. I guess I'm not I'm not gonna I'm not going to finish this. Uh all right.

[00:47:21]I'm just