@AxtoxthexJ My point still stands. He's not a scholar and he's dishonest when dealing with the New Testament. Anyone can memorize snippets of verses and take them out of context. He's not an honest man, and actually his personal beliefs are scary and fanatic.
Bible says that u should folow the last guidance of god.
Muhammed pbuh is in the bible. Deuteronomy 18:18 Deuteronomy 18:19 Isiah 29:12 Song of Solomon 5:16 (with name) John 14:16 John 16:7 John 16:12 John 16:14. Christian means following of jesus pbuh Think, how many Christians are in the world? Guess how many? The answer is Z.E.R.O
@mattetho THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF RELIEGON IN THIS WORLD. BUT ONLY ONE RILEGION SHOULD BE TRUE.
quran makes every thing clear and gives you clear signs “It is He Who has mixed up (maraja) the two seas, this (one) very fresh [river], and this (other one) very salt, and has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition.” (Quran 25: 53)
" Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?"(Surah 55. Ar-Rahman)
@mattetho There is NO support to that statement, contrarily, there is much evidence to the opposite. The Quran itself was changed over 63% in 23 short years and its called abrogation. The Bible has NO place where any Word of YHWH has been changed into opposites, or ever did a 180 on any issue, There are some changes in laws but none are opposing. The Bible builds on principles and is not opposite of previous doctrines.
@afterray Simple Question.Why do we find jewish folk tales and 2nd and3 rd century heretical christian stories in the qu ran assuming that the qu ran comes from God?
@SonofJaphet my friend. if i were you, i'll take a GOOD intense look into the mirror and ask: why did I (Son of Japhet) replied (prior post) to his (afterray) question Unanswered with a question (i thought that my A to your Q was clear).
now you are insinuating that i'm "running" away from your Q. the WAY you think is telling.
@afterray I answered you ,since 34 AD that Christians know Jesus as the Messiah Son of God ,King of kings
its obvious why would christians let themselves be persecuted and killed for a lie?And why do we find Jewish folk tales and false gospels stories in the qu ran since its suppose to come from God?can you explain this?
@SonofJaphet i can tell by ur comments that u are in the impression tht i'm a muslim. sorry, i'm not. i'm just a reader / slow learner with respect to all religions. i know that my qs can seem as a mockery. but i assure u, the reasoning tht travels through my brain is (i hope) based on rationalism.
it's true that there are similarities between the two canons. it's just as equally true about the epic / poems of the Gilgamesh. of course we make exceptions when talking about faith / truth.
@SonofJaphet i'v humbly pored the bible about the king of the jews. there's no room for doubt that he was a great man. (as for the concept of his being, tht's for another chapter where faith must be put to the side)
i argue tht the catechism of the godhead is incongruous to the core teachings of the christ and the bible / quran.
* there was a vivid REASON why there were two proponents (arthanasius / arius) at the nicean meeting. the weakness of the fathers considered arianism a heresy....
@afterray In the beginning God (Elohim: word used both singularly and plurally) created the heavens and the earth (Ge. 1:1). And God (Elohim) said, Let Us (plural) make man in Our (plural) image and in Our (plural) likeness. (Gen. 1:26). So God created man in His (singular) own image...(Gen. 1:27). And the Lord (Jehovah) said, the man has become as one of Us (plural)... (Gen. 3:22) Then the Lord rained...brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven (Gen. 19:24): note the 2 Lords.
@55k3v1n SIMPLE is my favorite word.i don't know if it's me or is this equation (plural / singular) bent. hmm, lets see:
IF "in the beginning" elohim(s) created, then * the greatest commandment * : "the lord is one...well said teacher...god is one" (mk. 12:28-32) can't possibly be valid (unless the # 1 is an even # or that the # 1 in greek means 3. if that's the case, then i could perhaps try my best to grasp "god is one" not 1 but some).
@55k3v1n the clouds are clear. language is interesting:
In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'." Elohim is singular. Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we"). -- wiki
@afterray How convenient to ignore the clear plurality in the verses and invent some excuse so as to not have to deal with the obvious. Why would God in the singular say Let US make..." Make is the key word because creation can never be attributed to an angel or any lesser being than God. Also if one studies the text of Gen 18 verses 1 + 2 speak of the Lord appearing as 1 of 3 men to Abraham who relates to 1 of the 3 as My Lord vs.3 Later 2 of the visitors leave for Sodom vs. 22. (con't)
@55k3v1n i'm not an inventor ( especially bending the hebrew grammatization, so that ones creed looks appealing). the A to ur Q has BEEN Ad (reminder: wiki). yet, u think that i "conveniently ignored"..that's ok.
any1 can study the text ( 3 visitors) but, not any1 can c the careened equation: i will go..reached me..i.. (gen. 18: 20-21). yet, these SINGULARS mysteriously converted into plurals (g. 22). not only did 1 turn into 2, the 1(lord) contradicted himself (unless the 2 angels r 1).
@afterray I'm not referring to you as being an inventor, but the sources that deny the literal translation and attempt to add meaning where additional meaning is not required. These kind of verses blew me away after becoming a Christain. God consists of more than one personality (not separate Gods), yet the separate persons are in perfect harmony as the one Godhead. It means that God has always from eternity past had relationship within Himself, if you will.
@55k3v1n be it theology / philosophy / metaphysics etc., there's always room for another critical theory that just might revolutionized the present core. this is normal, unless the present theory insist on other avenues / possibilities. many of people find discomfort when looking at another interpretation...
the godhead concept is very interesting, and i ( non-christian) must respect it. on the flip side, i find this dogma to be abstruse: elohim is 1 but also 3. not 3 elohims but 1...
@afterray It's difficult to conceive of a triune God. Some may picture a 3-headed God or a God with 3 faces. The idea of the one Godhead consisting of three distinct persons who are in complete harmony and purpose is somewhat easier to comprehend. It is also helpful when studying Gen. 1: 26, 27; 3:22; 11:7; 19:24; Ps 110:1; Isaiah 7:14 (compare Mt. 1:23); 9:6,7; Micah 5:2 (compare Mt. 2:6).
@55k3v1n some formulas are difficult to grasp. yet, when the elements of a particular formula collides within itself, i think that it's reasonable without a doubt, to re - examine the structure. your references were helpful to my better understand of the triune concept. unfortunately, they were not convincing and sparked further compelling questions:
lets commence with gen. 1:26-27. the "us" and the "we" are not the same as the "us / we" in the hebrew language....
@afterray What are the correct translations of the Hebrew words if they are not "us" and "our" in Gen. 1:26? Why is it "our" in vs. 1:26 and "His" in verse 27? Why are two Jehovahs working together in Gen. 19:24?
@55k3v1n it's vital to appreciate the "we / us" hebrew grammitization before applying it to the english principals:
In Hebrew the ending -im, mainly indicates a masculine plural. However with Elohim the construction is grammatically singular, (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective) when referring to the Hebrew God, but grammatically plural elohim (i.e. taking a plural verb or adjective) when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7).
@afterray The word Elohim can be used both singularily and plurally like the English word sheep. It is used in a plural sense in Gen. 1:26 and in a singular way in Ge. 1:27.
The noun elohim is used with a plural verb in 1 Samuel 28:13. The witch of Endor tells Saul that she sees 'gods' (elohim) coming up (aliym עֹלִים, plural verb) out of the earth; this seems to indicate that the term was used to mean something like 'divine beings' among spiritists in ancient Israel.
@afterray Elohim can be translated gods (plural) if more than one god is implied and God (plural) as in the sense it is used in Gen. 1:26. That's why the pronouns "us" and "our" are used with "Elohim" in that verse.
In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'." Elohim is singular. Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we") - wiki
@afterray Why would the "one" creator god say, let "us" create? Who are the "us"? Only God can create. This lines up perfectly with meaning of John 1:1,2. The writer was familiar with the Hebrew God. God said "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..." (Isaiah 42:8) In Jn. 17:5, Jesus said "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee BEFORE THE WORLD WAS". What does that say?
@55k3v1n how interesting is your reference of gen. 3:22. this tells me (other then the "us" hebrew grammar) that evil was in existence PRIOR to their rebellion. also, what's wrong with knowing BOTH : good / evil?
it's amazing how the "us" were concerned about "the man" BECOMING an ACTUAL god / gods / "us": he must bot be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life - gen. 3:22
wow. not only was mans views LIKE GODS, BUT he could have lived forever - A GOD himself !
@afterray Evil was present prior to the rebellion. Lucifer the archangel had fallen long before this time (Isaiah 14:12-15) and was clearly in the fallen state when he tempted Adam and Eve in the garden. Good and evil can be equated with light and darkness. God is light and has no darkness in Him and would have always known that darkness could only exist apart from Him. God gives free will to both angels and men as opposed to programming them to love Him. Turning from God brings darkness.
@55k3v1n "Evil was present prior to the rebellion...God gives free will to both angels and men " perfect. the psychology of this concept only compels reason to ask: this FREEDOM of thought was obviously influenced via a negative / force and energy that was PRIOR in EXISTENCE to the actual influenced thought of the first rebellion ever (interesting).
* we can't pretend that someone / something did not made that negative / force / energy.
@55k3v1n if the hebrew of immanuel is defined to the christ (isaiah 7:14) can you give me some references (gospels) were the christ was exceptional called Immanuel? ( not the son of man).
mat. 9:6-7 shows without a doubt, super human power. but, we must not be too hasty and disregard the actual force BEHIND the super human phenomenon. they praised god, who had given such authority to men. (8)
* what did the crowd thought is vital to further understanding of the miracles of the christ.
@afterray In Matthew 1:21 the angel commands Joseph to name his son Jesus (the eartly name of God's Son) and two verses later He is referred to as Immanuel "God with us". He is Immanuel, but was to go by the name Jesus while on earth. In Mt. 9:6-9 the crowd had yet to make the connection that the scribes had made in verse 3. They knew that only God can forgive sins and rightly accused Jesus of blasphemy IF He wan't God.
1) in mt. 1:21 the name jesus (gk. jashua 'the lords saves')
2) the prophet said call him immanuel (heb. "god with us") is.7:17
both are clearly addressing to the birth of a child that will be given / call a SPECIFIC NAME. to make exceptions is not befitting to reason. the fact that jashua is mention throughout the gospels and immanuel is missing (with the gospels) is telling...
@afterray Think about the writer of the Gospel of Matthew. It's highly unlikely that he made such an obvious blunder of having Jesus given one name in 1:21 when He is really supposed to go by the name given two verses later in 1:23. The one born to the virgin is indeed Immanuel, but He is to go by the name Jesus, which is also a name that carries much significance: The Lord Saves, especially considering that God said "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11)
@55k3v1n "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11) plus immanuel = confusion.
all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me - mt. 28:18 (how clear is his statement).
1) the power (while in heaven (spiritually)) was GIVEN to him.
2) the authority (while on earth (bio)) was GIVEN to him.
* if we were to add the later verse with the "we / us / i" (gen.), it would equal a suspicious answer ( that's if the "we /us / i" are equal / harmonic).
@afterray (con't) The 1 who remains and speaks with Abraham is clearly the Lord vs. 23-33. In Gen. 19:1 the other 2 visitors are identified as angels, then in vs. 24 the Lord who appeared as 1 of the visitors and remained on the earth "rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD OUT OF HEAVEN" Two Jehovahs are involved in the distruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, one is on the earth, the other in heaven. These scriptures cannot be ignored or explained away.
@55k3v1n IF "The 1 who remains and speaks with Abraham is clearly the Lord" is true, THEN ex. 33:20 is a fake (this equation is interchangeable. either way, proving the other wrong).
i find it very interesting / telling that abraham actually used reason / logic to convince (by definition) an omniscient lord (gen. 18:23-25). AND it actually worked (gen. 18:26-33)
* the only way one can ignored scriptures, is if doesn't make any sense.
@afterray I think God sometimes allows for us to think we have something to do with the outcome or he has preordained for us to recognize situations where we pray to God to work things out. But it still comes down to the final outcome being according to His will.
@afterray Ex 33:20 doesn't necessary have to be fake. It may mean that no man can see God in His glorified state, but if He appears, say as a man in Gen. 18:23-33, then the situation becomes similar to angels appearing as men instead of in their angelic state. Moses was said to have spoken to God face to face (Ex. 33:11), yet was not permitted to see His face or His entire glory another time (Gen.33:18-23). Strange how both situations occur in the same chapter.
@afterray The three work together in total unity. The 1st Person was unlikely referred to as the Father nor the 2nd Person as the Son before the incarnation. This relationship as Father and Son was established at the moment of conception. Jesus was conceived of the 3rd Person: the Holy Spirit, yet is later referred to as the Son of God. This means the Holy Spirit is also God. The egg in Mary's womb became fertilized without the usual requirement of a sexual act. She remained a virgin.
simple is my favorite word: the reason why i'm a father is because i have a son / child. i don't have to emphasize why i'm wiser / smarter etc., then my son /child /adolescent.
my point is that the son of god is also telling that there's a clear distinguished status / degree ( without using the scripture). this order / status (father / son) to me is commonsensical. i can't help but to think this way.
* there's a sound reason why elohim / son / hs can not be interchanged.
@afterray Jesus only took on the title of Son of God the moment conception occured. Being fully God and fully man necessitated this designation. He wasn't the Son of God at any time prior to the moment of conception. Some teach the wrong theology that Jesus has always been the Son.
if your view is true, then why would the christ ( or god himself scream and seek aid to another distant god (which is himself)) : eloi , eloi, lama sabachthani ? mt. 27: 46
* simple: this equation isn't rocket science. i'm troubled with trying to connect the dots.
one can try to reason that this was his body screaming and not his spirit (another unique god). this will only prove that his birth (biology) name of immanuel is an improper fraction...
@afterray As a man, Jesus was to exemplify how humans were to relate with God. When the second person of the divine trinity willingly left the heavenly realm to enter the lowly earthly realm, He became subject to the position of a man obediently fulfilling the mission that He was sent to earth to complete. When He took the sins of the world upon Him it meant that He had to experience a sense of total darkness. This included a sense of being foresaken by His Father and the fear that goes with it.
@55k3v1n well then, it would stand to reason that if the encounter of "total darkness" (made him (the lord saves) fell vulnerable / fear / helpless, then that would spell a breach of the godhead.
it's also interesting to think that this "we / us / i" (omniscient) godhead had to actually experience pain...
@afterray The second person of the divine trinity could only be subject to pain IF He willingly leaves the heavenly realm and enters the earhly realm as a flesh and blood human being. The question is whether God could do this if He chose to. The obvious answer is "yes" The next question would be "Why do it?". "For God so loved the world (all who are in need of redemption) He gave His only begotten Son (only an unblemished man can redeem humanity by dying in their place)...(John 3:16) (CON'T)
@afterray "For the wages of sin is death (all die because all sin); but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). Jesus, being divine, was sinless and was thus worthy to die as a substitute for fallen humanity. This was a great expression of God's love. The wages of sin were paid in full by the Savior's act of sacrifice. All one has to do is accept the free gift of salvation made possible by the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. This also results in changed lives.
@55k3v1n i would go one step further and say it must result in a chaged life. otherwise u have had a false converstion which is all over the place with american evangelism. not everyone who says to me lord lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who does the will of my father will enter in. not that u earn ur entry but are merely living out ur new nature in christ. any man who is in christ is a new creature
@lravenhill Accepting the free gift of salvation fills one's heart with such gratitude it inspires one to better one's life. It results in a desire to love, worship and obey God and love one's neighbor as oneself. The changed life doesn't "earn" salvation, but is a result of the "free gift" of salvation. One can receive salvation, have a desire to serve God, yet struggle with sin. His assurance comes in Heb. 4:14-16 "With Jesus as our Great High Priest, we can come boldly to the throne of grace.
@afterray God has a spirit body and sits on a throne in heaven. Heaven would be located, as does God, outside the realm of time and space. Jesus as the resurrected Savior sits at the right hand of the Father (see Psalm 110:1, Mt. 26:64, Mk. 16:19, Acts 2:33,34; 5:31, etc.). Jesus continues to exist in an immortal resurrected physical body and will return to rule the world for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:4).
@55k3v1n if this "throne" that god sits on is true, and next to it is the christ (minus the holy spirit). then the simplicity of the question is manifested:
the " throne" ( a single type of chair) is engineered for one person...
* the order of operations (who's the real boss) is cleared when we know the difference between a president / vice president.
there's no need to account why the vice president is next to the president...to think that they are both equal, would spell confusion...
@afterray The second person of the trinity reflects His position after entering the earthly realm. Prior to that He could be referred to as one member of the trinity. When Jesus entered the earthly realm He willingly took on a ranking that was a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. It was necessary for Christ to be capable of dying so that He could make atonement for all (Heb. 2:9)
@55k3v1n for god did not send his son into the word... jn. 3:17
to think that the son sent himself, would spell confusion. i've tried to-reason that if god sent himself (lord saves) and then he asked himself for help (father, if you are willing luke. 22:42 (clearly, the choice is the fathers.not possibly "our" choice. ) tells me that the ocean of reason has tidal waves.
1 can believe (nature / nurture) in whatever he/she wills. as far as whether their belief is on solid ground is another Q.* sometimes it can take the deepest dialogue to convince oneself OR a basic equation will suffice.
simple:
i look at the concept of the trinity from the basic commulative law of multiplication (CLM): if we were to mult 2/5/7 or 5/7 /2 or 2 /5/7 the A would always be 70. why? because changing the order of factors (#s), doesn't change their product...
@55k3v1n [ 2of 4]...the fact that the product is the same tells us the the order doesn't matter, because the #s are basically in harmony with each other (despite a prime / even #). the biblical fundationalism and the mode of substance can demonstrate a careened equation when looking at the trinity...lets apply the CLM n c if there's an agreement within the factors.
case: father / son / holy spirit (F / S / HS) = father (F).
* it's clear that there's an order WITHIN the factors...
@55k3v1n [3 0f 4}...of F / S / HS = F. this is in itself telling ( BEFORE we look at the product of (F), that there's an hierarchical structure ( can't be ignored). this is beside the point. back to CLM:
if the factors (F/S/HS) are in true harmony for the product of (F), THEN there shouldn't be an issue with the interchangeability of the actual factors ( * that's IF the factors (F / S / HS) are in essence equal * )...
so, lets have a little fun and interchange the CLM using the above..
clarification: IN ESSENCE, the F is equal to the S and the S is equal to the HS. they are in harmony WITH EACH OTHER. if that's the case, then it shouldn't be problematic to interchange this overt hierarchical structure to the following:
1) S / HS / F = F
2) HS / F / S = F
3) S / F / HS = F
the above formula confutes the order of operations and bends the allege equality / harmony of the godhead...something is wrong and there's a sound reason why...
@afterray Are you asking why there would be an order F, S and HS when together they are equal? Part of the the Son's mission was to communicate to the Father as a man would. He entered the earthly realm by being born as a child and then develop communion with the Father as He got older. His actual mission didn't begin until He was well into His twenties. The heavenly-based plan of redemption required the formula to be F + S + HS = Elohim
i'm saying that the order of the catechism can not be interchanged. why not IF the factors (so to speak) are in harmony with each other (" "we / us / I"). i think that there's a suspicion reason why this flow of operation can not intermingle ( as illustrated in my CLM ).
it's interesting that jesus seemed to NEED a level of knowledge in order to commence "his" mission.
@SonofJaphet U r An idiot The Early Christians were Judeo-Christians n Believe in the One God of Jesus who Jesus himself prayed n Worshiped who he asked n Begged take this Cup from me!! Son of God means Servant of God Adam n David both were refereed to as "son of God" n David was refereed to as The "fist begotten son" in Psalms 2:7 in bible by God almighty! Does this mean God has Offspring's "No" this is an Innovation of Paul n Council of Nicca that Jesus was God/Son of God a Fabricated Lie!
I know this has nothing to do with the topic, but without listening to the rest of the discussion, it dawned on me. The Christian is first and the muslim is second. I can't wait to hear the rest because I have a feeling that the second speaker will piggy back on whatever Dr. Craig has already spoken of adhoc.
SIMPLE. ALLAH REWARDS THOSE WHO DO GOOD. IF YOU ARE AT WORK AND YOU ARE WORKING HARD AND YOUR CO WORKER IS LAZY AND STEALING FROM THE COMPANY, WHO SHOULD BE REWARDED? WOULD YOUR COMPANY LOVE THE LAZY GUY? WOULD YOU LOVE THE LAZY GUY? DO YOU LOVE CHILD MOLESTERS? DO YOU LOVE RAPISTS? CHRISTIANS ARE SO IRRATIONAL. YOU "LOVE" EVERYONE, EVEN THE VILEST OF CRIMINALS.
@Propaine187 No need to use caps. If what you say is true, then my parents are more loving and moral than God. My parents love my un conditionally. I don't have to earn God's love. And any who TRULY believe in Jesus Christ will change. The vilest of sinners will change because they have been forgiven, and they will want to do good things in the name of the Lord. Please educate yourself more.
Greybear, unfortunately your arguments are outdated and disproved. I used to be an atheist (from age 13 till 26) and hated Christianity...and stated similiar ignorance. My suggestion is to try doing more open research and not just one sided. I am not saying you will change your opinions and beliefs like I did. But you might come up with some updated arguments at the very least.
There ARE no new testament manuscripts from before the middle of the 4th century, and some have been hidden or left out, the rest have been changed i.e. council of Nicea and the rest are FULL of contradictions.
The revised version of the bible which left out ANY mention of the Trinity as a fraud was removed after 6 months and replaced again haha.
I'm sorry but the Bible is a work of many men who contradict themselves.
Morally, ha! what morality are yo talking about. A Moral God who expects morality yet does not stand for what he preaches. what a fallacy of love. the mere fact of being a perfect God means a highly Moral God means illogical to love immoral.
Indisputable fact of Crucifixion still need to be proved to be a fact as there are more disputes. Oh Robert X says so, I see.
What a Wonderful Love a Conditional Love: if you accept that my son died for your sins I forgive NOT ask forgiveness, I forgive.
Dr.Craig lays it our pretty good now doesn't he? I'm so glad I am with Christ and my belief as strong as it is. Isn't God wonderful? I hope Muslims will watch this with an open heart. I think they would be such great converted Christians. And could help many stuck in the lie of Islam!
@Gooberlicious54 You had your chance. I posted 3 pages and you critiqued grammar? You are a loser. You lost. Now GET LOST! If I find someone worthy I will debate them. If they give credible debate back. You are in your basement eating cheetos turning your willy orange. Continue to enjoy. Do not message me
@SuperGuitarman69 "You had your chance" And I spanked you all over the place. You claim I can't "redeam" myself because I lack "intellegence". LOLOL!!!! Learn to spell you illiterate douchebag. "Do not message me" Then save some face and stop responding....unless you are finally going to produce some evidence for your claims...but we both know you're not going to do that. Now go away. You lost. Game. Set. Match. "Do not message me" Then stop making public false claims. CIAO! LOL
@Gooberlicious54 This proves my point. You keep following me around YouTube. I had presented you with 3 posts with my lucid argument. Which you posted back Genesis LOL LOL LOL You think the first book was Genesis LOL LOL LOL Total OWNAGE. After which I had recieved 3 PM's from people that informed me you were not worth the time along with their opinions of you. So, based on that? I ended it there. You were no longer worthy of my time. Now, to redeem yourself you chase me? You lost! Move on!
@Gooberlicious54 Oh my god! I'm dealing with someone who is mentally disturbed. Look, you won! Congratulations! I hope you are as successful in your next debate! I've learned the error of my ways. You are superior to my limited intellect. Thank you for disproving god to me. I can go on with my life now. You are my mentor and master! There, Now you've got what you wanted. Go away
@SuperGuitarman69 Did you know that if you report someone for harassment, and youtube finds out that the person doing the reporting is leaving nasty personal messages for the person being reported, THEY will be the ones to get punished.
@Gooberlicious54 I've copy and pasted everything including my replies to you kid. Just from after I left and said goodbye til the time I reported it. Which had my comments back in reply. So yes it was obvious you went to my channel and had to have it blocked where I was going. I'm just letting you know. Some of us use YouTube to debate seriously. We debate and it's always respectful. But, you are the first. I've never experienced that before. In the future? Try being respectful!
@SuperGuitarman69 Hey Supe. It is amazing whem Muslim's convert. Check my YouTube channel as I feature the testimony of Kamal Saleem which I recorded here in NY. He has lead many Muslim's out of Islam and into a personal relationship with the real Jesus, the Son of the Living God.
@honesttechnoathiest You have a choice, if you wanna love the god who created you, you can live with him forever, if you dont want to love him, why would you want to go to heaven? why are you complaining? obviously you would prefer hell.
@sonicyon But he made hell. And he made the rules that say hell or heaven. There is no reason that he can't make a third option other than the fact that he is evil.
great opening by Craig. Having converted to Christianity and considering Islam I too could NEVER put my trust in a book that was as historically unreliable as the Quran much less entrust my very soul to its teachings. Thanks for posting this C4.
@GodLovesUs100 Yes I am truly grateful. I was so ignorant of the evidences. Not one religion in the world has such hard evidences behind it as Christianty does and a personal relationship with the living Christ.
@formeragnostic Well yes of course truth would have evidence, even despite the countless efforts to make the truth seem less true.God still works for his own glory.But the reason one believes is not cause of the evidence but because it has been granted to them by the Father.Blessed are those who have saving faith in Christ and whose eyes are open to truth! God is Good! And may he bless you.
@lukeism2 Hi lukeism. Can't count how many. One thing I kept noticing in each of them however is that they would all refer to Jesus of Nazareth and say how Jesus said this, Jesus said that, Jesus agrees with our teaching on this etc. ad nauseum. I finally decided to research the historical evidence concerning Jesus of Nazareth and found many of these sayings (including those quoted in the Quran from the gnostic gospels) to date a full 200-300 years after the gospel writers.
@lukeism2 Ie. The God of the Bible calls us to use our "reason" and the use of our "mind" in our worship of Him. He does not ask us to check our brains in at the door and reject historical or even scientific facts. My research into these very things have only strengthened my faith. Thanks for asking.
@darklight254 Absolutely. The Satanic verses (Sura 53) is a perfect example. On top of that Aiesha (Mohammed's 9 year old wife) in your Hadith openly confesses that parts of the Quran were lost and eaten by animals.
@darklight254 Old? Perhaps as old as the Hadif itself my friend. I look at Islam with an open mind darklight. If anything I have said has truly been refuted SHOW ME. The Satanic verses are fact and recorded in Muslim resources as well as the fact that parts of the Quran are lost and were eaten. Would you like some references?
Dr. Craig was in error with historical facts that the NT was written by eye-witnesses of Jesus, coz Jesus' disciples used Aramaic as their mother-tongue language and they were NOT learned in the Greek language, where the ancient scriptures were in Greek instead of in Aramaic.
It was the innovator Saul or Paul who was learned in the Greek language as well as in Greek mythology about God-man. In fact, Saul or Paul never met with nor saw Jesus in person. Check it out!!!
@the1qb needs to see that the ancient Greek scriptures were never translated from Aramaic, coz the original manuscripts in Aramaic, the mother-tongue language of Jesus were unavailable and never found. Only the ancient Greek manuscripts were available and found. So, use the Greek word "Theos" for God out of respect for the ancient Greek scriptures.
@formeragnostic Historically, the Aramaic speaking Jews were liberated from their captivity in Babylon. The gentiles were primarily Romans. Saul or Paul was a Jew who became a Greek scholar heavily influenced with the Greek myths about God-man.
@saidinmas Then perhaps you are ignorant of the Jewish Old Testament teaching (centuries before the Greek Empire existed) that the Messiah would be born "the Son of God" and that he is called rather plainly and illicitly "El Gibbor" which in the Hebrew is plainly translated "The Mighty God". Have you ever bothred to research this evidence?
Also of note, it appears you are unaware of the fact that 1st century Jews spoke and wrote koine Greek. Did you know this?
@saidinmas Also ... how many people do you know who speak and write in one mother tongue yet speak and write in a secondary language just as well as they do the first? Let's say you are a 1st century Jew whose native tongue is Hebrew/Aramiac but the empire you live in speaks a different language (which you also know) and you want to get that message out? Would you write it in your native tongue (limited audience) or in the common language of the entire empire?
@formeragnostic Jesus preached in synagogues to the Aramaic speaking Jews instead of in the Greek temples, coz he was sent to the lost sheep (tribe) of Israel (See reference in Bible), NOT to the gentiles or Romans.
@saidinmas Of course saidinmas. I don't disagree with taht. Think logically with me for a second. If you moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia into a neighborhood with other Saudi's and you went to the Mosque *you would all speak in your native tongue* with one another. At the same time you can speak and write English. Now suppose you have a message you want to share with the people of this empire. Are you going to write it in Saudi or American?
@formeragnostic needs to find the original Bible in Aramaic, the mother-tongue language of Jesus, coz the original Quran in Arabic of the Quraish dialect as spoken by Muhammad has been found already.
Civilized man and Love versus primitive man and unenlightened society. An easy victory..
davveist 1 month ago in playlist ISLAM DEBATE! William Lane Craig vs Jamal Badawi Debate
@mattetho you really need to watch DR zakir naik.. and watch your whole rewrited-religion get reveled
AxtoxthexJ 2 months ago
@AxtoxthexJ Zakir Naik is an idiot. Islamic apologetics are a joke.
empreme 2 days ago
@empreme ya ya ya am sick of this just get the fuck out of youtube
AxtoxthexJ 2 days ago
@AxtoxthexJ My point still stands. He's not a scholar and he's dishonest when dealing with the New Testament. Anyone can memorize snippets of verses and take them out of context. He's not an honest man, and actually his personal beliefs are scary and fanatic.
empreme 2 days ago
@empreme bla bla bla get a fucking life, like anyshit you gonna say here will change anything in real life, just leave me ya ??
AxtoxthexJ 23 hours ago
@AxtoxthexJ Sure I'll leave you. You're closed minded, ignorant, perverse, and unlearned. You don't contribute at all to anything.
empreme 22 hours ago
@empreme wow what a true christian good luck bro
AxtoxthexJ 2 hours ago
William Lane Craig is the best! :)
Thuva44 4 months ago in playlist ISLAM DEBATE! William Lane Craig vs Jamal Badawi Debate 3
@mattetho i think you listen only to dr craig.
ahmrou82 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
William lame crap are an idiot person.
Bible says that u should folow the last guidance of god.
Muhammed pbuh is in the bible. Deuteronomy 18:18 Deuteronomy 18:19 Isiah 29:12 Song of Solomon 5:16 (with name) John 14:16 John 16:7 John 16:12 John 16:14. Christian means following of jesus pbuh Think, how many Christians are in the world? Guess how many? The answer is Z.E.R.O
OnyxArrow 6 months ago
Comment removed
OnyxArrow 6 months ago
Comment removed
OnyxArrow 6 months ago
0:18
"God's love must be unconditional and impartial"
if only every Christian lived up to that understanding. this world would be a so much better place ...
StarSpawn06 8 months ago
@StarSpawn06 read about the life of saints
lovellespice 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we are all his children! moeazysgc
kdcox1205 11 months ago
@mattetho THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF RELIEGON IN THIS WORLD. BUT ONLY ONE RILEGION SHOULD BE TRUE.
quran makes every thing clear and gives you clear signs “It is He Who has mixed up (maraja) the two seas, this (one) very fresh [river], and this (other one) very salt, and has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition.” (Quran 25: 53)
" Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?"(Surah 55. Ar-Rahman)
impeace1 1 year ago
@mattetho There is NO support to that statement, contrarily, there is much evidence to the opposite. The Quran itself was changed over 63% in 23 short years and its called abrogation. The Bible has NO place where any Word of YHWH has been changed into opposites, or ever did a 180 on any issue, There are some changes in laws but none are opposing. The Bible builds on principles and is not opposite of previous doctrines.
GodsSeer 1 year ago
SIMPLE question: who made the KING of the jews (messiah) a deity?
a) the nicean fathers of 325 b) ignorance c) misinterpreted idioms d) all of the above.
afterray 1 year ago
@afterray Simple Question.Why do we find jewish folk tales and 2nd and3 rd century heretical christian stories in the qu ran assuming that the qu ran comes from God?
SonofJaphet 1 year ago
@SonofJaphet simple answer. i can not answer it. why? (not because i don't know) because you have read my question and unanswered it with a question.
afterray 1 year ago
@afterray Early christians 34 AD
SonofJaphet 1 year ago
@SonofJaphet epic of Gilgamesh.
afterray 1 year ago
@afterray This is 2700 bc ,you re running from my question that you cant obviously answer
SonofJaphet 1 year ago
@SonofJaphet my friend. if i were you, i'll take a GOOD intense look into the mirror and ask: why did I (Son of Japhet) replied (prior post) to his (afterray) question Unanswered with a question (i thought that my A to your Q was clear).
now you are insinuating that i'm "running" away from your Q. the WAY you think is telling.
afterray 1 year ago
@afterray I answered you ,since 34 AD that Christians know Jesus as the Messiah Son of God ,King of kings
its obvious why would christians let themselves be persecuted and killed for a lie?And why do we find Jewish folk tales and false gospels stories in the qu ran since its suppose to come from God?can you explain this?
SonofJaphet 1 year ago 15
@SonofJaphet i can tell by ur comments that u are in the impression tht i'm a muslim. sorry, i'm not. i'm just a reader / slow learner with respect to all religions. i know that my qs can seem as a mockery. but i assure u, the reasoning tht travels through my brain is (i hope) based on rationalism.
it's true that there are similarities between the two canons. it's just as equally true about the epic / poems of the Gilgamesh. of course we make exceptions when talking about faith / truth.
afterray 1 year ago
@SonofJaphet i'v humbly pored the bible about the king of the jews. there's no room for doubt that he was a great man. (as for the concept of his being, tht's for another chapter where faith must be put to the side)
i argue tht the catechism of the godhead is incongruous to the core teachings of the christ and the bible / quran.
* there was a vivid REASON why there were two proponents (arthanasius / arius) at the nicean meeting. the weakness of the fathers considered arianism a heresy....
afterray 1 year ago
@afterray In the beginning God (Elohim: word used both singularly and plurally) created the heavens and the earth (Ge. 1:1). And God (Elohim) said, Let Us (plural) make man in Our (plural) image and in Our (plural) likeness. (Gen. 1:26). So God created man in His (singular) own image...(Gen. 1:27). And the Lord (Jehovah) said, the man has become as one of Us (plural)... (Gen. 3:22) Then the Lord rained...brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven (Gen. 19:24): note the 2 Lords.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
Comment removed
afterray 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n SIMPLE is my favorite word.i don't know if it's me or is this equation (plural / singular) bent. hmm, lets see:
IF "in the beginning" elohim(s) created, then * the greatest commandment * : "the lord is one...well said teacher...god is one" (mk. 12:28-32) can't possibly be valid (unless the # 1 is an even # or that the # 1 in greek means 3. if that's the case, then i could perhaps try my best to grasp "god is one" not 1 but some).
"our image OR own image"?
a clear abstruse creation...
afterray 8 months ago
@55k3v1n the clouds are clear. language is interesting:
In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'." Elohim is singular. Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we"). -- wiki
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray How convenient to ignore the clear plurality in the verses and invent some excuse so as to not have to deal with the obvious. Why would God in the singular say Let US make..." Make is the key word because creation can never be attributed to an angel or any lesser being than God. Also if one studies the text of Gen 18 verses 1 + 2 speak of the Lord appearing as 1 of 3 men to Abraham who relates to 1 of the 3 as My Lord vs.3 Later 2 of the visitors leave for Sodom vs. 22. (con't)
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n i'm not an inventor ( especially bending the hebrew grammatization, so that ones creed looks appealing). the A to ur Q has BEEN Ad (reminder: wiki). yet, u think that i "conveniently ignored"..that's ok.
any1 can study the text ( 3 visitors) but, not any1 can c the careened equation: i will go..reached me..i.. (gen. 18: 20-21). yet, these SINGULARS mysteriously converted into plurals (g. 22). not only did 1 turn into 2, the 1(lord) contradicted himself (unless the 2 angels r 1).
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray I'm not referring to you as being an inventor, but the sources that deny the literal translation and attempt to add meaning where additional meaning is not required. These kind of verses blew me away after becoming a Christain. God consists of more than one personality (not separate Gods), yet the separate persons are in perfect harmony as the one Godhead. It means that God has always from eternity past had relationship within Himself, if you will.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n be it theology / philosophy / metaphysics etc., there's always room for another critical theory that just might revolutionized the present core. this is normal, unless the present theory insist on other avenues / possibilities. many of people find discomfort when looking at another interpretation...
the godhead concept is very interesting, and i ( non-christian) must respect it. on the flip side, i find this dogma to be abstruse: elohim is 1 but also 3. not 3 elohims but 1...
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray It's difficult to conceive of a triune God. Some may picture a 3-headed God or a God with 3 faces. The idea of the one Godhead consisting of three distinct persons who are in complete harmony and purpose is somewhat easier to comprehend. It is also helpful when studying Gen. 1: 26, 27; 3:22; 11:7; 19:24; Ps 110:1; Isaiah 7:14 (compare Mt. 1:23); 9:6,7; Micah 5:2 (compare Mt. 2:6).
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n some formulas are difficult to grasp. yet, when the elements of a particular formula collides within itself, i think that it's reasonable without a doubt, to re - examine the structure. your references were helpful to my better understand of the triune concept. unfortunately, they were not convincing and sparked further compelling questions:
lets commence with gen. 1:26-27. the "us" and the "we" are not the same as the "us / we" in the hebrew language....
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray What are the correct translations of the Hebrew words if they are not "us" and "our" in Gen. 1:26? Why is it "our" in vs. 1:26 and "His" in verse 27? Why are two Jehovahs working together in Gen. 19:24?
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n it's vital to appreciate the "we / us" hebrew grammitization before applying it to the english principals:
In Hebrew the ending -im, mainly indicates a masculine plural. However with Elohim the construction is grammatically singular, (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective) when referring to the Hebrew God, but grammatically plural elohim (i.e. taking a plural verb or adjective) when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7).
[edit] "gods" plural, with plural verb - wiki
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray The word Elohim can be used both singularily and plurally like the English word sheep. It is used in a plural sense in Gen. 1:26 and in a singular way in Ge. 1:27.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n more about the "we / us":
The noun elohim is used with a plural verb in 1 Samuel 28:13. The witch of Endor tells Saul that she sees 'gods' (elohim) coming up (aliym עֹלִים, plural verb) out of the earth; this seems to indicate that the term was used to mean something like 'divine beings' among spiritists in ancient Israel.
[edit] God of Israel, with singular verb - wiki
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray Elohim can be translated gods (plural) if more than one god is implied and God (plural) as in the sense it is used in Gen. 1:26. That's why the pronouns "us" and "our" are used with "Elohim" in that verse.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n "we / us" (gen. 1:26-27) hebrew grammar:
In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'." Elohim is singular. Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we") - wiki
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray Why would the "one" creator god say, let "us" create? Who are the "us"? Only God can create. This lines up perfectly with meaning of John 1:1,2. The writer was familiar with the Hebrew God. God said "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..." (Isaiah 42:8) In Jn. 17:5, Jesus said "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee BEFORE THE WORLD WAS". What does that say?
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n how interesting is your reference of gen. 3:22. this tells me (other then the "us" hebrew grammar) that evil was in existence PRIOR to their rebellion. also, what's wrong with knowing BOTH : good / evil?
it's amazing how the "us" were concerned about "the man" BECOMING an ACTUAL god / gods / "us": he must bot be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life - gen. 3:22
wow. not only was mans views LIKE GODS, BUT he could have lived forever - A GOD himself !
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray Evil was present prior to the rebellion. Lucifer the archangel had fallen long before this time (Isaiah 14:12-15) and was clearly in the fallen state when he tempted Adam and Eve in the garden. Good and evil can be equated with light and darkness. God is light and has no darkness in Him and would have always known that darkness could only exist apart from Him. God gives free will to both angels and men as opposed to programming them to love Him. Turning from God brings darkness.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n "Evil was present prior to the rebellion...God gives free will to both angels and men " perfect. the psychology of this concept only compels reason to ask: this FREEDOM of thought was obviously influenced via a negative / force and energy that was PRIOR in EXISTENCE to the actual influenced thought of the first rebellion ever (interesting).
* we can't pretend that someone / something did not made that negative / force / energy.
afterray 8 months ago
@55k3v1n if the hebrew of immanuel is defined to the christ (isaiah 7:14) can you give me some references (gospels) were the christ was exceptional called Immanuel? ( not the son of man).
mat. 9:6-7 shows without a doubt, super human power. but, we must not be too hasty and disregard the actual force BEHIND the super human phenomenon. they praised god, who had given such authority to men. (8)
* what did the crowd thought is vital to further understanding of the miracles of the christ.
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray In Matthew 1:21 the angel commands Joseph to name his son Jesus (the eartly name of God's Son) and two verses later He is referred to as Immanuel "God with us". He is Immanuel, but was to go by the name Jesus while on earth. In Mt. 9:6-9 the crowd had yet to make the connection that the scribes had made in verse 3. They knew that only God can forgive sins and rightly accused Jesus of blasphemy IF He wan't God.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n peace. simple is my favorite word.
lets see:
1) in mt. 1:21 the name jesus (gk. jashua 'the lords saves')
2) the prophet said call him immanuel (heb. "god with us") is.7:17
both are clearly addressing to the birth of a child that will be given / call a SPECIFIC NAME. to make exceptions is not befitting to reason. the fact that jashua is mention throughout the gospels and immanuel is missing (with the gospels) is telling...
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray Think about the writer of the Gospel of Matthew. It's highly unlikely that he made such an obvious blunder of having Jesus given one name in 1:21 when He is really supposed to go by the name given two verses later in 1:23. The one born to the virgin is indeed Immanuel, but He is to go by the name Jesus, which is also a name that carries much significance: The Lord Saves, especially considering that God said "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11)
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior." (Isaiah 43:11) plus immanuel = confusion.
all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me - mt. 28:18 (how clear is his statement).
1) the power (while in heaven (spiritually)) was GIVEN to him.
2) the authority (while on earth (bio)) was GIVEN to him.
* if we were to add the later verse with the "we / us / i" (gen.), it would equal a suspicious answer ( that's if the "we /us / i" are equal / harmonic).
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray (con't) The 1 who remains and speaks with Abraham is clearly the Lord vs. 23-33. In Gen. 19:1 the other 2 visitors are identified as angels, then in vs. 24 the Lord who appeared as 1 of the visitors and remained on the earth "rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD OUT OF HEAVEN" Two Jehovahs are involved in the distruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, one is on the earth, the other in heaven. These scriptures cannot be ignored or explained away.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n IF "The 1 who remains and speaks with Abraham is clearly the Lord" is true, THEN ex. 33:20 is a fake (this equation is interchangeable. either way, proving the other wrong).
i find it very interesting / telling that abraham actually used reason / logic to convince (by definition) an omniscient lord (gen. 18:23-25). AND it actually worked (gen. 18:26-33)
* the only way one can ignored scriptures, is if doesn't make any sense.
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray I think God sometimes allows for us to think we have something to do with the outcome or he has preordained for us to recognize situations where we pray to God to work things out. But it still comes down to the final outcome being according to His will.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n peace.
we do have something to do with an outcome (cause and effect).
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray Ex 33:20 doesn't necessary have to be fake. It may mean that no man can see God in His glorified state, but if He appears, say as a man in Gen. 18:23-33, then the situation becomes similar to angels appearing as men instead of in their angelic state. Moses was said to have spoken to God face to face (Ex. 33:11), yet was not permitted to see His face or His entire glory another time (Gen.33:18-23). Strange how both situations occur in the same chapter.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n good point.
is this glorified state of god totally his or is there a division?
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray The three work together in total unity. The 1st Person was unlikely referred to as the Father nor the 2nd Person as the Son before the incarnation. This relationship as Father and Son was established at the moment of conception. Jesus was conceived of the 3rd Person: the Holy Spirit, yet is later referred to as the Son of God. This means the Holy Spirit is also God. The egg in Mary's womb became fertilized without the usual requirement of a sexual act. She remained a virgin.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n
simple is my favorite word: the reason why i'm a father is because i have a son / child. i don't have to emphasize why i'm wiser / smarter etc., then my son /child /adolescent.
my point is that the son of god is also telling that there's a clear distinguished status / degree ( without using the scripture). this order / status (father / son) to me is commonsensical. i can't help but to think this way.
* there's a sound reason why elohim / son / hs can not be interchanged.
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray Jesus only took on the title of Son of God the moment conception occured. Being fully God and fully man necessitated this designation. He wasn't the Son of God at any time prior to the moment of conception. Some teach the wrong theology that Jesus has always been the Son.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n "Being fully God and fully man"
if your view is true, then why would the christ ( or god himself scream and seek aid to another distant god (which is himself)) : eloi , eloi, lama sabachthani ? mt. 27: 46
* simple: this equation isn't rocket science. i'm troubled with trying to connect the dots.
one can try to reason that this was his body screaming and not his spirit (another unique god). this will only prove that his birth (biology) name of immanuel is an improper fraction...
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray As a man, Jesus was to exemplify how humans were to relate with God. When the second person of the divine trinity willingly left the heavenly realm to enter the lowly earthly realm, He became subject to the position of a man obediently fulfilling the mission that He was sent to earth to complete. When He took the sins of the world upon Him it meant that He had to experience a sense of total darkness. This included a sense of being foresaken by His Father and the fear that goes with it.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n well then, it would stand to reason that if the encounter of "total darkness" (made him (the lord saves) fell vulnerable / fear / helpless, then that would spell a breach of the godhead.
it's also interesting to think that this "we / us / i" (omniscient) godhead had to actually experience pain...
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray The second person of the divine trinity could only be subject to pain IF He willingly leaves the heavenly realm and enters the earhly realm as a flesh and blood human being. The question is whether God could do this if He chose to. The obvious answer is "yes" The next question would be "Why do it?". "For God so loved the world (all who are in need of redemption) He gave His only begotten Son (only an unblemished man can redeem humanity by dying in their place)...(John 3:16) (CON'T)
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@afterray "For the wages of sin is death (all die because all sin); but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). Jesus, being divine, was sinless and was thus worthy to die as a substitute for fallen humanity. This was a great expression of God's love. The wages of sin were paid in full by the Savior's act of sacrifice. All one has to do is accept the free gift of salvation made possible by the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. This also results in changed lives.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n i would go one step further and say it must result in a chaged life. otherwise u have had a false converstion which is all over the place with american evangelism. not everyone who says to me lord lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who does the will of my father will enter in. not that u earn ur entry but are merely living out ur new nature in christ. any man who is in christ is a new creature
lravenhill 4 months ago
@lravenhill Accepting the free gift of salvation fills one's heart with such gratitude it inspires one to better one's life. It results in a desire to love, worship and obey God and love one's neighbor as oneself. The changed life doesn't "earn" salvation, but is a result of the "free gift" of salvation. One can receive salvation, have a desire to serve God, yet struggle with sin. His assurance comes in Heb. 4:14-16 "With Jesus as our Great High Priest, we can come boldly to the throne of grace.
55k3v1n 4 months ago
@55k3v1n before me was throne and someone sitting on it. and the one who sat on it had the appearance of jasper and carnelian...(rev. 4: 2-3).
is this the glorified state of jehovah that john actually saw?
it's interesting that jehovah should actually sit and be surrounded ( encircled the throne).
this demonstrated to the contrary of an omniscient power.
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray God has a spirit body and sits on a throne in heaven. Heaven would be located, as does God, outside the realm of time and space. Jesus as the resurrected Savior sits at the right hand of the Father (see Psalm 110:1, Mt. 26:64, Mk. 16:19, Acts 2:33,34; 5:31, etc.). Jesus continues to exist in an immortal resurrected physical body and will return to rule the world for 1,000 years (Rev. 20:4).
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n if this "throne" that god sits on is true, and next to it is the christ (minus the holy spirit). then the simplicity of the question is manifested:
the " throne" ( a single type of chair) is engineered for one person...
* the order of operations (who's the real boss) is cleared when we know the difference between a president / vice president.
there's no need to account why the vice president is next to the president...to think that they are both equal, would spell confusion...
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray The second person of the trinity sits at the right hand of the Father as the glorified resurrected Son of God/Son of Man.
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n peace.
the fact that you acknowledge this order of operation ( "second person of the trinity") puzzles me. why? because the homoiousios is blatant.
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray The second person of the trinity reflects His position after entering the earthly realm. Prior to that He could be referred to as one member of the trinity. When Jesus entered the earthly realm He willingly took on a ranking that was a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. It was necessary for Christ to be capable of dying so that He could make atonement for all (Heb. 2:9)
55k3v1n 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@55k3v1n for god did not send his son into the word... jn. 3:17
to think that the son sent himself, would spell confusion. i've tried to-reason that if god sent himself (lord saves) and then he asked himself for help (father, if you are willing luke. 22:42 (clearly, the choice is the fathers.not possibly "our" choice. ) tells me that the ocean of reason has tidal waves.
afterray 8 months ago
@55k3v1n [1of 4]
1 can believe (nature / nurture) in whatever he/she wills. as far as whether their belief is on solid ground is another Q.* sometimes it can take the deepest dialogue to convince oneself OR a basic equation will suffice.
simple:
i look at the concept of the trinity from the basic commulative law of multiplication (CLM): if we were to mult 2/5/7 or 5/7 /2 or 2 /5/7 the A would always be 70. why? because changing the order of factors (#s), doesn't change their product...
afterray 8 months ago
@55k3v1n [ 2of 4]...the fact that the product is the same tells us the the order doesn't matter, because the #s are basically in harmony with each other (despite a prime / even #). the biblical fundationalism and the mode of substance can demonstrate a careened equation when looking at the trinity...lets apply the CLM n c if there's an agreement within the factors.
case: father / son / holy spirit (F / S / HS) = father (F).
* it's clear that there's an order WITHIN the factors...
afterray 8 months ago
@55k3v1n [3 0f 4}...of F / S / HS = F. this is in itself telling ( BEFORE we look at the product of (F), that there's an hierarchical structure ( can't be ignored). this is beside the point. back to CLM:
if the factors (F/S/HS) are in true harmony for the product of (F), THEN there shouldn't be an issue with the interchangeability of the actual factors ( * that's IF the factors (F / S / HS) are in essence equal * )...
so, lets have a little fun and interchange the CLM using the above..
afterray 8 months ago
@55k3v1n [4 0f 4]...F / S / HS = F.
clarification: IN ESSENCE, the F is equal to the S and the S is equal to the HS. they are in harmony WITH EACH OTHER. if that's the case, then it shouldn't be problematic to interchange this overt hierarchical structure to the following:
1) S / HS / F = F
2) HS / F / S = F
3) S / F / HS = F
the above formula confutes the order of operations and bends the allege equality / harmony of the godhead...something is wrong and there's a sound reason why...
afterray 8 months ago
@afterray Are you asking why there would be an order F, S and HS when together they are equal? Part of the the Son's mission was to communicate to the Father as a man would. He entered the earthly realm by being born as a child and then develop communion with the Father as He got older. His actual mission didn't begin until He was well into His twenties. The heavenly-based plan of redemption required the formula to be F + S + HS = Elohim
55k3v1n 8 months ago
@55k3v1n no.
i'm saying that the order of the catechism can not be interchanged. why not IF the factors (so to speak) are in harmony with each other (" "we / us / I"). i think that there's a suspicion reason why this flow of operation can not intermingle ( as illustrated in my CLM ).
it's interesting that jesus seemed to NEED a level of knowledge in order to commence "his" mission.
afterray 8 months ago
@SonofJaphet U r An idiot The Early Christians were Judeo-Christians n Believe in the One God of Jesus who Jesus himself prayed n Worshiped who he asked n Begged take this Cup from me!! Son of God means Servant of God Adam n David both were refereed to as "son of God" n David was refereed to as The "fist begotten son" in Psalms 2:7 in bible by God almighty! Does this mean God has Offspring's "No" this is an Innovation of Paul n Council of Nicca that Jesus was God/Son of God a Fabricated Lie!
moeazysgc 1 year ago
@mattetho
lmao
"A book of plagarisim is the koran."
skepticnyc 1 year ago
@mattetho prove your claim. dont blurt blatant lies without proof, instigator.
Pr1nceAli 1 year ago
@mattetho
You claim the Quran has copied parts of the Bible.
We claim that the Quran and Bible have common origins. The Quran was sent as the Bible has been corrupted.
This is something which is attested by Biblical Scholars. The Bible is in parts a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation!
The trinitarian concept has been admitted to have been added in by a scribe in translation.
I stand by my comment. #The Quran has and always will be preserved to the last letter.
darklight254 1 year ago
I know this has nothing to do with the topic, but without listening to the rest of the discussion, it dawned on me. The Christian is first and the muslim is second. I can't wait to hear the rest because I have a feeling that the second speaker will piggy back on whatever Dr. Craig has already spoken of adhoc.
cutenu2 1 year ago
THIS DUD NEED TO READ BIBLE WELL B4 HE PREACH , HE IS BAD PASTOR
faroukghana 1 year ago
@faroukghana
This "dude" is not a pastor and he has certainly read the bible more often than any of you spooks have read the Koran.
sooperfukker 1 year ago
It makes sense that Muslims earn their god's approval and must EARN salvation, now their God is indebted to them and becomes their slave, owing them.
GodsSeer 1 year ago
SIMPLE. ALLAH REWARDS THOSE WHO DO GOOD. IF YOU ARE AT WORK AND YOU ARE WORKING HARD AND YOUR CO WORKER IS LAZY AND STEALING FROM THE COMPANY, WHO SHOULD BE REWARDED? WOULD YOUR COMPANY LOVE THE LAZY GUY? WOULD YOU LOVE THE LAZY GUY? DO YOU LOVE CHILD MOLESTERS? DO YOU LOVE RAPISTS? CHRISTIANS ARE SO IRRATIONAL. YOU "LOVE" EVERYONE, EVEN THE VILEST OF CRIMINALS.
Propaine187 1 year ago
@Propaine187 No need to use caps. If what you say is true, then my parents are more loving and moral than God. My parents love my un conditionally. I don't have to earn God's love. And any who TRULY believe in Jesus Christ will change. The vilest of sinners will change because they have been forgiven, and they will want to do good things in the name of the Lord. Please educate yourself more.
TheAntiochus 1 year ago
Greybear, unfortunately your arguments are outdated and disproved. I used to be an atheist (from age 13 till 26) and hated Christianity...and stated similiar ignorance. My suggestion is to try doing more open research and not just one sided. I am not saying you will change your opinions and beliefs like I did. But you might come up with some updated arguments at the very least.
TraumaConcept 1 year ago
@TraumaConcept
props to you, for converting.. God bless
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
There ARE no new testament manuscripts from before the middle of the 4th century, and some have been hidden or left out, the rest have been changed i.e. council of Nicea and the rest are FULL of contradictions.
The revised version of the bible which left out ANY mention of the Trinity as a fraud was removed after 6 months and replaced again haha.
I'm sorry but the Bible is a work of many men who contradict themselves.
greybear3 1 year ago
Morally, ha! what morality are yo talking about. A Moral God who expects morality yet does not stand for what he preaches. what a fallacy of love. the mere fact of being a perfect God means a highly Moral God means illogical to love immoral.
Indisputable fact of Crucifixion still need to be proved to be a fact as there are more disputes. Oh Robert X says so, I see.
What a Wonderful Love a Conditional Love: if you accept that my son died for your sins I forgive NOT ask forgiveness, I forgive.
thousteadfast 1 year ago
Everything is wrong here.
God is not just love, God is actually a very morbid entity.
Fear of God is one of the premises in religion.
Love is not impartial, love is very subjective instead.
We are all sons of God. But still the only truly son was Jesus.
Religion and its sophism!
jimo1150 1 year ago
How about this? THERE IS NO GOD! This debate is over.
novazee 1 year ago
Comment removed
GetRealHoustonOdessa 1 year ago
Dr.Craig lays it our pretty good now doesn't he? I'm so glad I am with Christ and my belief as strong as it is. Isn't God wonderful? I hope Muslims will watch this with an open heart. I think they would be such great converted Christians. And could help many stuck in the lie of Islam!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Ah THERE you are!
I wondered where you fled to after making silly magic claims and then running away.
So, are you EVER going to back your claims? LOL
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "my belief as strong as it is"
LOL
So strong you run like a spineless douchebag when called out on your lies.
OWNED
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 You are following me around? Haven't you had enough? You lost get over it
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "You lost get over it"
You provided evidence for your claims?!
Oh...no, you did no such thing.
Creationist Coward, grow some balls you spineless douchebag.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 You had your chance. I posted 3 pages and you critiqued grammar? You are a loser. You lost. Now GET LOST! If I find someone worthy I will debate them. If they give credible debate back. You are in your basement eating cheetos turning your willy orange. Continue to enjoy. Do not message me
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 This proves my point. You keep following me around YouTube. I had presented you with 3 posts with my lucid argument. Which you posted back Genesis LOL LOL LOL You think the first book was Genesis LOL LOL LOL Total OWNAGE. After which I had recieved 3 PM's from people that informed me you were not worth the time along with their opinions of you. So, based on that? I ended it there. You were no longer worthy of my time. Now, to redeem yourself you chase me? You lost! Move on!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperGuitarman69 "You keep following me around YouTube"
You keep making absurd claims and then fleeing before you back them.
"you posted back Genesis"
I posted your quote claiming Genesis was the first book ever written.
I also showed this claim to be 100% FALSE - remember??
"no longer worthy of my time"
So then back your claims and defeat me.
Running away like a spineless douchebag is NOT a good way to win a debate.
Ciao! LOL
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperGuitarman69 "You keep following me around YouTube"
You keep making absurd claims and then fleeing before you back them.
"you posted back Genesis"
I posted your quote claiming Genesis was the first book ever written.
I also showed this claim to be 100% FALSE - remember??
"no longer worthy of my time"
So then back your claims and defeat me.
Running away like a spineless douchebag is NOT a good way to win a debate.
Ciao! LOL
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "to redeem yourself"
You learned how to spell Redeem! Yay!
Now work on "intellegence"
LOL!
CIAO!
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "You lost!"
I did?
You said you were going to prove god through Christ.
You weren't even able to prove Christ!
LOL
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 Oh my god! I'm dealing with someone who is mentally disturbed. Look, you won! Congratulations! I hope you are as successful in your next debate! I've learned the error of my ways. You are superior to my limited intellect. Thank you for disproving god to me. I can go on with my life now. You are my mentor and master! There, Now you've got what you wanted. Go away
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "I hope you are as successful in your next debate!"
I wasn't successful - you lost - you made claims and refused to support them.
"Genesis was the first book written. EVER!"
LOLOLOL
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 Seek mental help!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "seek mental help!"
What for?
I'm not the one who claims to hear angels talking to me.
LOL
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 You've been reported
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "You've been reported"
LOL what a pussy.
You said you could win in a debate against me.
Now, you keep running away like a little girl.
And now you're crying to Mommy?!
LOLOL!!!
What a loser!
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Did you know that if you report someone for harassment, and youtube finds out that the person doing the reporting is leaving nasty personal messages for the person being reported, THEY will be the ones to get punished.
Good luck with that, you spineless cumguzzler.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 I've copy and pasted everything including my replies to you kid. Just from after I left and said goodbye til the time I reported it. Which had my comments back in reply. So yes it was obvious you went to my channel and had to have it blocked where I was going. I'm just letting you know. Some of us use YouTube to debate seriously. We debate and it's always respectful. But, you are the first. I've never experienced that before. In the future? Try being respectful!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "Some of us use YouTube to debate seriously"
You aren't one of "us" - do you really think anyone who reads your barely literate, horribly misspelled rants and false claims takes you seriously?
Not to mention the false claims! LOL
"Try being respectful!"
Respect is EARNED, douchebag.
All you've earned thus far is scorn and ridicule.
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@Gooberlicious54 I'm on another post with your buddy mano come over there
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "I have 3 college degrees" - SuperGuitarman69
"you lack the intellegence" - SuperGuitarman69
"Chao" - SuperGuitarman69
"Genesis was the first book written. EVER!" - SuperGuitarman69
LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
SuperGeetarFail69 1 year ago
Comment removed
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 "Genesis was the first book written. EVER!"
LOLOLOL
OWNED
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Hey Supe. It is amazing whem Muslim's convert. Check my YouTube channel as I feature the testimony of Kamal Saleem which I recorded here in NY. He has lead many Muslim's out of Islam and into a personal relationship with the real Jesus, the Son of the Living God.
formeragnostic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@formeragnostic I will, thank you for the heads up on that.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
haha that is hilarious, jesus came out of the womb droppin' rhymes
lukeism2 1 year ago
@honesttechnoathiest You have a choice, if you wanna love the god who created you, you can live with him forever, if you dont want to love him, why would you want to go to heaven? why are you complaining? obviously you would prefer hell.
sonicyon 1 year ago
Perhaps neither the quran or the NT is correct.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
God doesnt put people in hell, they put themselves there
sonicyon 1 year ago
@sonicyon But he made hell. And he made the rules that say hell or heaven. There is no reason that he can't make a third option other than the fact that he is evil.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
Craig is just slimy. I wouldn't buy a used car from him.
ClumsyRoot 1 year ago
LOL 3:23- 28...seriously?
discipleyosef 1 year ago
The search for any god is the wish to be a slave. Pure masochism...
setmedic 1 year ago
'Cause the qu'ran Jesus stories are unbelievable. Walking on water and being born of a virgin and turning water into wine is way more believable....
alexkidd3d 1 year ago
great opening by Craig. Having converted to Christianity and considering Islam I too could NEVER put my trust in a book that was as historically unreliable as the Quran much less entrust my very soul to its teachings. Thanks for posting this C4.
formeragnostic 2 years ago 16
@formeragnostic Praise God, you have found the truth.
Love and blessings to you my fellow servant.
GodLovesUs100 1 year ago
@GodLovesUs100 Yes I am truly grateful. I was so ignorant of the evidences. Not one religion in the world has such hard evidences behind it as Christianty does and a personal relationship with the living Christ.
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@formeragnostic Well yes of course truth would have evidence, even despite the countless efforts to make the truth seem less true.God still works for his own glory.But the reason one believes is not cause of the evidence but because it has been granted to them by the Father.Blessed are those who have saving faith in Christ and whose eyes are open to truth! God is Good! And may he bless you.
GodLovesUs100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@formeragnostic also the prophet mohamed himself said he did not know whether he was going to heaven.
GWSTYLES 1 year ago
@formeragnostic how many religions did you consider?.. why do people go looking for these cults?.. what was your reasoning?
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2 Hi lukeism. Can't count how many. One thing I kept noticing in each of them however is that they would all refer to Jesus of Nazareth and say how Jesus said this, Jesus said that, Jesus agrees with our teaching on this etc. ad nauseum. I finally decided to research the historical evidence concerning Jesus of Nazareth and found many of these sayings (including those quoted in the Quran from the gnostic gospels) to date a full 200-300 years after the gospel writers.
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@lukeism2 Ie. The God of the Bible calls us to use our "reason" and the use of our "mind" in our worship of Him. He does not ask us to check our brains in at the door and reject historical or even scientific facts. My research into these very things have only strengthened my faith. Thanks for asking.
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@formeragnostic
Wow!
Never. Actually I'm not even joking...never have I heard this claim before! and 11 people seem to agreed.
With all respect to you and the speaker, what you've just claimed is false to the core.
Historically, the Quran is preserved to the very letter. Millions of people having memorized it are walking on the planet today.
The Bible is known to be in places a translation of a translation of a translation...now you are trying claim the Quran is unreliable?
darklight254 1 year ago
@darklight254 Absolutely. The Satanic verses (Sura 53) is a perfect example. On top of that Aiesha (Mohammed's 9 year old wife) in your Hadith openly confesses that parts of the Quran were lost and eaten by animals.
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@formeragnostic lol eaten by a sheep in particular.
GodLovesUs100 1 year ago
@GodLovesUs100 That would be correct. I couldn't remember whether it was sheep or goats. =)
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@formeragnostic
Your claims are old. They have been refuted again and again. Yet ignorance prevails.
It has become almost laughable - but my sadness at your knowledge truly overwhelms any humorous sentiment.
darklight254 1 year ago
@darklight254 Old? Perhaps as old as the Hadif itself my friend. I look at Islam with an open mind darklight. If anything I have said has truly been refuted SHOW ME. The Satanic verses are fact and recorded in Muslim resources as well as the fact that parts of the Quran are lost and were eaten. Would you like some references?
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@formeragnostic
this satanic verses nonsense is really a manipulation.
watch?v=_V9xN51cun4
With all respect, I don't have the time at the moment analyse your references/ claims.
If you really want to know about Islam, I suggest looking beyond the moron - Salman Rushdie.
If you are sincere, check out scholars like Yasir Qadhi, Bilal Philips, Zakir Naik, The Deen Show....I can give you more scholars if you like.
darklight254 1 year ago 2
@formeragnostic
Dr. Craig was in error with historical facts that the NT was written by eye-witnesses of Jesus, coz Jesus' disciples used Aramaic as their mother-tongue language and they were NOT learned in the Greek language, where the ancient scriptures were in Greek instead of in Aramaic.
It was the innovator Saul or Paul who was learned in the Greek language as well as in Greek mythology about God-man. In fact, Saul or Paul never met with nor saw Jesus in person. Check it out!!!
saidinmas 1 year ago
@saidinmas The original manuscripts were in aramaic and were later translated into Greek.
the1qb 1 year ago
@the1qb needs to see that the ancient Greek scriptures were never translated from Aramaic, coz the original manuscripts in Aramaic, the mother-tongue language of Jesus were unavailable and never found. Only the ancient Greek manuscripts were available and found. So, use the Greek word "Theos" for God out of respect for the ancient Greek scriptures.
saidinmas 1 year ago
@saidinmas Exactly what evidence do you have that 1st century Jews (including Jesus and the disciples) did not know Greek?
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@formeragnostic Historically, the Aramaic speaking Jews were liberated from their captivity in Babylon. The gentiles were primarily Romans. Saul or Paul was a Jew who became a Greek scholar heavily influenced with the Greek myths about God-man.
saidinmas 1 year ago
@saidinmas Then perhaps you are ignorant of the Jewish Old Testament teaching (centuries before the Greek Empire existed) that the Messiah would be born "the Son of God" and that he is called rather plainly and illicitly "El Gibbor" which in the Hebrew is plainly translated "The Mighty God". Have you ever bothred to research this evidence?
Also of note, it appears you are unaware of the fact that 1st century Jews spoke and wrote koine Greek. Did you know this?
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@saidinmas Also ... how many people do you know who speak and write in one mother tongue yet speak and write in a secondary language just as well as they do the first? Let's say you are a 1st century Jew whose native tongue is Hebrew/Aramiac but the empire you live in speaks a different language (which you also know) and you want to get that message out? Would you write it in your native tongue (limited audience) or in the common language of the entire empire?
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@formeragnostic Jesus preached in synagogues to the Aramaic speaking Jews instead of in the Greek temples, coz he was sent to the lost sheep (tribe) of Israel (See reference in Bible), NOT to the gentiles or Romans.
saidinmas 1 year ago
@saidinmas Of course saidinmas. I don't disagree with taht. Think logically with me for a second. If you moved to the USA from Saudi Arabia into a neighborhood with other Saudi's and you went to the Mosque *you would all speak in your native tongue* with one another. At the same time you can speak and write English. Now suppose you have a message you want to share with the people of this empire. Are you going to write it in Saudi or American?
formeragnostic 1 year ago
@formeragnostic needs to find the original Bible in Aramaic, the mother-tongue language of Jesus, coz the original Quran in Arabic of the Quraish dialect as spoken by Muhammad has been found already.
saidinmas 1 year ago