 Go Hey everybody tonight, we're debating Christianity versus Islam Which is the religion of the prophets and we are starting right now with Jay's opening statement Thanks so much for being with us Jay. The floor is all yours Let me share my screen here and make sure that we can get everybody seeing it or is that visible there? Is that visible? Yep, it's streaming to my side. Okay, so today the debate is about in my view I would argue continuity. We want to see which religion whether Islam or Christianity actually has continuity with the religion That's laid down in the law on the prophets and that image there We're not gonna go too deep into it right now But we'll get into it here in a little bit and I might go back and forth between screen share and some of the stuff I've got over here to show The first question I would ask in regard to this debate is how would a seventh century Jew or Christian verify the Quranic claims in the Quran many places were told that its hearers and readers should go to the Torah into the in-deal with the gospel This assumes a degree of continuity Which could only be validated with the existing manuscript scripts and textual traditions that are already possessed by both Jews and Christians In the previous centuries as laid down in a divine revelation in Deuteronomy 13 and 18 any subsequent prophetic revelation must meet the test of consistency with prior revelation This here would refer to the prior existing Torah whether oral or written Including subsequent divine revelation found in the wisdom tax the historical books liturgical tax in the major and minor prophets Islam in the Quran do not merely contradict prior revelation in a few minor areas But rather gigantic portions of the Torah and the prophets are discarded Due to obvious contradictions and accuracies and inconsistencies with the Quranic account Deuteronomy 13 and 18 for example Lay down the law that I mentioned earlier about how we test for subsequent prophetic claims So thankfully a Jew or a Christian in the seventh century who would hear the claims of the Quran has it a convenient test a way to go and see if The revelations give it to Muhammad are consistent with prior revelation So we know here in Deuteronomy 13 and 18 that they would have to be consistent with prior revelation That test is also echoed as you see there in Isaiah a 20 to the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this law There is no light in them the next thing that has to be shown which I may cause some people some surprise Is that the Old Testament prophets were Trinitarian? They were not Unitarian Judaism as specifically in the second temple period was not a monolithic Unitarian enterprise The question becomes what are the teachings of the prophets at in the Old Testament? Did they actually teach as those on says a radical Unitarianism or is it something more fluid or is there? differentiation in Yahweh in fact modern Jewish scholarship unanimously is Undecided on this question. There's a lot of Jewish scholarship that is listed here for example Daniel Boyle Aaron Later I have summer and I have a seagull and they admit that in the Old Testament itself Not due to Christian Deviation but in in the Old Testament itself we find many many passages that show Differentiation in Yahweh that differentiation is not just located in rabbinic debates It also continues into later medieval debates with Jewish Kabbalah and you can see there for example Gershom Sholam in his book on Kabbalah He's the respected Kabbalah Theologian of the Middle Ages or scholar of medieval Kabbalah He points out for example the three beginningless lights that are mentioned now. I'm not a Kabbalah I'm just pointing out that this shows that the Jewish tradition is not monolithic in its presentation So I'd like to come back then to my screen to me here and point out that The first display of Trinitarian theology in the law of the prophets is for example Here on this whiteboard and I'm showing this whiteboard because hopefully you guys can see this This is a tremendous amount of text and I'm just citing these because there's too many to fit on a single Screen there with typing it all out. You can screenshot this later and go check the various textual references here for Just examples of theophanies and the reason I've included theophanies is that these are particularly useful for demonstrating The manifestation of Yahweh in the Old Testament proving differentiation So not just Yahweh, but also the angel messenger that he sends Who has the name of Yahweh as a written exodus the same angel that's present in the burning bush that angel has spoken of as The messenger of the covenant he's spoken of as in judges Turning the face of Yahweh towards Gideon in judges six and many many other passages where he's identified for example in judges 13 as the angel of wonderful counsel So you can check those references Later or we can go back to any of those and so let me go back to my screen share here and points out that the Triad there I don't mean to argue either that the Old Testament explicitly uses the words triad No, all this necessary as the Jewish scholars are admitting is that the The Old Testament believers spoke of father angel the lord or son of man and the spirit In a real distinctive way and they do although many in modern in modernity assume that the law and the prophets were strictly unitarian Jewish scholar Daniel Buren notes that early Christianity actually represents a conservative form of Judaism that sought to remain faithful to the totality of revelation and the law and the prophets Including the text was a portray differing his hypostasis in God Another example of this is a recent Jewish scholarship on divine fluidity and divine embodiment in the law and the prophets Now again, I'm not Jewish I'm just pointing out that the admissions of Jewish scholarship are to our position nowadays We are in in the Jewish gospels the story of the Jewish christ notes for example just from the example from the text of daniel 7 We have the discussion of the Messiah being divine the Messiah being in human form the Messiah appearing as younger than the ancient of days The divinity of ancient of days we have the Messiah appearing Eventually enthroned upon high and being given dominion and authority over earth. That is the ascent the ascension and christian theology now Early on in the early days of christianity There were already rabbinical debates before christianity and rabbinic Judaism completely parted ways Where you even have people like famous rabbis at rabbi kiva for example admitting that there is multiplicity in some sense in the Godhead this is covered in alan seagull's two powers in heaven and in shaver's two gods in heaven Now god is a generic term that can pick out a specific hypostasis and it can also pick pick out a generic nature So when it says two gods or two powers, there's not indicating Polytheism, it's merely indicating differentiation in the text now. Again. I'm not arguing for kabbalah I'm just pointing out as an example that rabbinic Judaism is not a monolithic unitarian Philosophy as summer notes. This is a later mime anidian feature and not a kabbalistic or early christian judaic feature second temple judaism and christian in jewish scholarship Was not monolithic. It was not radical unitarian. It was fluid and it did not admit god to be multiple due to later accretions. In fact Seagull and summers and other admit that you can have a multiplicity of personae in early jewish theology without that Necessitating for example, multiple wills. This is also seen in the process of the rabbis in their eventual exclusion of logos theology Which is not a direct import from helendism per se But rather from the wisdom tax of the whole testament the solemonic literature and so forth Jewish scholars like simon jalevi sholem We are in seagull and some are admit that rabbinical dialogues and debates on the wisdom logos tax And the murkabah chariot mysticism that draws from both the sohams Ezekiel daniel and inoculate literature all posit various divine embodiments manifestations and even incarnation In fact, ain't your rabbitical dialogues discuss the divine messiah suffering dying and perhaps even atoning One example is rabbi hagalili in boyar and jewish gospels Discussing the atoning death. Uh, and then my friend, uh, the jewish messianic christian Kenami has a book jewish that the jewish messiah is a is a judeism versus judeism debate again Just illustrating that judeism is not a monolithic enterprise now As we get back to embodiment Jewish scholar benjamin somer notes in his law and the prophets that they themselves in many texts that i cited in my Big whiteboard there display what he calls fluidity of ya always ability to be both imminent and transcendent As well as manifesting at certain times and in certain places in special modes and in special presences This is not entail or necessitate a change in yahweh's essence or nature But rather that he's able to be embodied or to manifest In various and distinct ways some are even amidst the dispute again was not over a strict numerical oneness Because many people in the ancient world did not always count by strict identity, but rather by division Whether this distinction the hypostasis allowed for multiple wills is the real issue according to somer and that of course Is something that trinitarian's reject. We do not believe in multiple wills in the godhead Somersights many of the holy places and iconography the iconography replete throughout the old testament law and prophets Including altar stones trees which are dedicated to yahweh They're made wholly in anticipation of the temple and tabernacle liturgical services Which will also embody yahweh above the ark of the shekaina and so forth the cloud While at the same time not embodying the divine essence or in any way altering yahweh This as a side note the koran also appears to have inadvertently left these references to this special presence In texts like sure a 671 to 80 1171 and 51 28 Now the challenge then as I would put it to daniel would be to leave him in a on the horns of a dilemma Because daniel can admit the law and the prophets are thus Majorly corrupted or entirely corrupted But if this is the case you will have to give an account for why the koran sites massive portions of the law and the prophets as reliable And the very thing that christians and jews can go to to verify the claims the koran In fact, this is more challenging than it might first be apparent because we've already seen From the test itself in terms of prior revelation that this places the burden of proof on the newer later revelation and not vice versa Second daniel must also give a non-circular epistemic criterion For how he knows which texts in the law and prophets are now quote corrupt and which ones are quote authentic He cannot simply cite the koran as his epistemic principle since the koran is the very thing in question Remember the later revelation as a burden of proof or consistency And hence why the seventh century jew or christian has no other possible means to verify the koranic claims Then to go to the older extant jewish and christian texts as it turns out this option is arbitrary And a double standard on the part of daniel picking and choosing hundreds of texts that he does like Well, then simultaneously tossing out hundreds of other texts that he will see as corrupted without a clear epistemic principle to justify this Out art position is completely incoherent daniel should also show that that at the time of the koran's appearance There was proof or evidence of mass textual corruption at that time And not a later islamic accretion argument based on the arbitrary ad hoc use of liberal textual scholarship daniel by the way Is arbitrary in the hashmi debate when he says that he does not mind the Hierocritical method being used against judieism and christianity because he argues that they evolved Of course, i doubt that daniel would like that to be done to islam and he would reject those out of hand the other option on the horns of the dilemma for daniel is to Say that the law and the prophets are not essentially corrupted or made unreliable But that they do not teach any form of real differentiation or trinitarianism or distinction in yaw way In this case, you will have to explain the vast sampling of texts that i showed on the whiteboard and there are more examples than what i gave The than just the oftenies there are plenty of texts that even show for example through hypostasis father angel and spirit As somehow consistent then with his radical unitarian presupposition That's what islam is based on a radical unitarian presupposition And this of course is part of the reason why they reject The new testament and its argumentation for distinctions in god and jesus being the messiah somehow I think this is going to be well, this is an impossible task And this is why the jewish scholars i mentioned back up what i'm arguing Second temple judeism was just simply not a monolithic Entity next i want to go to coran scholar gabriel syed reynolds and in this text We're going to see several examples of where the coran presupposes the biblical narratives But offers no coherent account in fact that garbles and messes up a lot of the stories And the narratives are not even consistent For example angels angel are told to prostrate to adam But adam is said to be still the image of a law and yet nothing is like a law This is coran 4211 where it says nothing. It's like a law site satans fall the entire cosmology is assumed You can look at reynolds page 54 And there's a multiple text is why i put reynolds 54 abraham is a rational natural Theologian but also perhaps an idolater who changes position And also genesis 18 has a lot in their midst there coran 11 6772 sarah lasts before the announcement, uh, which doesn't make any sense because that's the naming of her son On the basis of the laughing when she's told that she would have a son in her old age Nimrod and hey mother can shoot confused with pharaoh There are Sabbath contradictions of the Sabbath is not from god. The jonah story is incoherent. It's not explained why he leaves Rather, uh, jonah is mentioned and this is a really important point And yet crucial major and minor profits are never given any place or listing in terms of their significance in the coran We have for example, cora's rebellion mentioned in the coran But nothing from jeremiah i xeah or the psalms and perhaps that's because jeremiah i xeah and the psalms are tremendously important for the meaning and significance of jesus's life and ministry particularly i xeah as what Many have called the fifth gospel because there's so many messianic prophecies there But it makes sense that if you were a religion based on a hodgepodge You would want to ignore or you just simply don't understand things like what's in i xeah There's other examples too that you can see there the martyrs eating and the Reliance of the coran on things like the protoday vangelium of james the talmud But i want to move on down to the key point here, which is that it's not just a question of the divine unity But a question of the work of the messiah The heavenly temple an everlasting priesthood a sacrifice and worship all of which are required including the altar In the old testament which as you can see islam has none of and so it has no continuity with the old testament For that opening we are going to kick it over to daniel for his opening as well And want to let you know folks just a couple of things first if it's your first time here at modern day debate I am your host james Welcome no matter what walk of life you're from Modern day debates vision is to provide a neutral platform so that everybody has their chance to make their case On a level playing field so don't forget to hit that subscribe button as we have many more debates coming up In fact as you can see at the bottom right of your screen Daniel hokikachu the muslim skeptic and matt dillahunty will be debating in september in person in houston Link for the tickets in the description box below if you're near houston With that we're going to kick it over to daniel. Thank you very much daniel The floor is all yours for your 15 minute opening statement as well Um can i just share my screen Sorry one second. Is that good james? Yep We're still clear Okay starting The debate topic is christianity versus islam which is the religion of the prophets The first question is what do we take as our source of information about the prophets? Is it the bible or is it the quran? Obviously if we use the bible as our only source of information that biases the debate in favor of christianity And if we use the quran as our source that biases the debate in favor of islam So this is a kind of stalemate because ultimately christians don't take the quran as authoritative and muslims don't take the bible as Authoritative so there has to be a separate argument Let's play on the christian home field for a second and take the old testament as the definitive source of information about the prophets Even in that case there's a strong argument that islam is more aligned with the prophets than christianity is The most important prophet in the old testament is moses Moses preaches monotheism and bans idolatry very similar to islam Moses establish establishes mosaic law which has many similarities with the sharia in islam For example mosaic law includes an extensive set of rituals involving animal sacrifice periodic liturgical prayer pilgrimage fasting and Purification rituals analogs of which are found in islam Also mosaic law includes various moral norms like charity punishment for sex crimes like adultery and homosexuality Patriarchal marriage including polygyny blasphemy punishments rules and regulations concerning slavery the prohibition of usury dietary restrictions and much more all of which are preserved and practiced in islam Fourth the mosaic law similar to the sharia mandates theocratic governance because a theocratic state is necessary to apply all these mosaic rules Fifth the mosaic law prescribes imperial warfare just like islam and we could go on But the point is that when it comes to beliefs rituals and norms islam has a great deal of continuity With the old testament and in particular the doctrines attributed to the most important prophet in the old testament Namely moses The major difference between the mosaic law and sharia is that the mosaic law was for the israelites But sharia is for all Gentiles in other words moses brings divine laws to the israelites But muhammad sallallahu alaihi salam brings divine law to all peoples So we could make this debate all about the old testament and go back and forth arguing for a muslim reading or a christian reading Unfortunately, this back and forth would go nowhere and this is because the old testament is Fundamentally contradictory. That's the root of the problem For example, the old testament contains statements endorsing monotheism islam is consistent with those statements But the old testament also contains statements endorsing polytheism and christianity is more consistent with those So if we're just limiting the debate to which religion is consistent with the old testament There isn't going to be a decisive winner simply because the old testament and the bible as a whole Contradicts itself on many fundamental questions Here are the biggest examples Is there one god or multiple gods? Some biblical passages endorse strict monotheism others endorse polytheism All academic scholarship on the bible recognizes that it contains many polytheistic statements And this is apparent when we read academic translations like the new revised standard version In exodus 1511 moses declares who is like you among the gods or yaoi the phrase among the gods implies There are multiple gods who exist but yaoi is superior to those other gods Psalm 82 1 reads god has taken his place in the divine council in the midst of the gods He holds judgment Psalm 86 8 reads there is none like you among the gods Oh lord many more passages could be cited with this same idea that multiple gods exist This is not monotheism to complicate matter matters further The old testament also refers to jewish kings such as david and solemn as messiahs and sons of god In some passages such a messiah is even referred to as god This can be seen in psalm 45 where the king is addressed as a god who has been anointed by the supreme god Number two, what is jesus's relationship to father god? The new testament has different views including jesus is less than the father and jesus is identical to the father Later christians mix these ideas into the trinitarian doctrine Number three should mosaic law continue to be observed the new testament has different views including a jewish christian view That endorses continued torah observance versus a pauline christian view that endorses a general abolition of the mosaic law Number four do religious authorities like priests have the ability to significantly alter or add to religious doctrines by way of ongoing Prophecy or councils the old testament and new testament contain contradict reviews on this So on a plain reading there are these are major contradictions in the bible concerning the most fundamental questions of theology Due to these contradictions we can argue endlessly about whether islam or christianity is more consistent with the prophets Ultimately, i think islam is more consistent with the law oriented monotheism of moses and the old testament Whereas christianity is more consistent with the polytheism found in some passages But we don't have to limit the debate to just analyzing the bible There are other arguments that can be made to show that christianity Due to its structure is not able to preserve teachings over time whereas islam is able to do so Consider the following argument When scripture has deep internal contradictions the contradictions produce radical sectarian splits within the religious community That community can only be kept together by organizing religious councils with the authority to resolve the contradictions And establish more coherent doctrines that are not explicit in scripture itself This is what church councils are for the new doctrines established by these church councils are then treated as ongoing New revelation christians believe that after the time of jesus the apostles and then later bishops meet in these infallible councils Which are divinely guided by the holy spirit in other words revelation did not stop with jesus Rather revelation is ongoing through these councils that are guided by the holy spirit Now there are two major problems with this specifically when it comes to the issue of preservation of doctrine First is the problem of circularity. We can ask j or any eastern orthodox christian who defines christianity He would answer the church tradition Okay, so where can we find the proof that the church tradition preserved the religion of the prophets? He would say the proof is the bible Okay, but how do we correctly interpret the bible? He would say we correctly interpret the bible by referring to the church tradition. So this is a circle There's no independent reason outside of the church tradition to accept that christianity has preserved the teachings of the prophets We just have to accept it based on assertion So why even have this debate if there's no independent reason that can be supplied to support the christian position? If my opponent does have a reason independent of the church for believing that christianity is the religion of the prophets I hope to hear what it is so that I can respond But if he has no independent reason outside of the authority of the church, then he should acknowledge that Now christians might say that islam has the same exact problem But this is not true islam is radically different from judaism and christianity Islam's key religious text was laid down by its founder prophet Muhammad The Quran puts forth the fundamental teachings of islam with respect to theological doctrines Like the six pillars of iman rituals like the five pillars and other norms such as sexual prohibitions patriarchal marriage prohibition of intoxicants etc All of which have been preserved to this day The Quran is delivered to us via one messenger and the text was all established within his lifetime over the course of just 20 years by contrast the bible comes to us via dozens or hundreds of authors and editors over many centuries For this reason the Quran is a more coherent cohesive text compared to the bible But the important key here is that this is not just the opinion of muslims This is established academic consensus on the origins and the preservation of the Quran Academics agree that the Quran has a core theology For example, non-muslim academics agree that the Quran is a monotheistic text Non-christian academics would not say the same thing about the bible on the question of the relationship between god and other figures Like jesus again Non-muslim academics agree that the Quran is clear that god does not have a son or take on a human nature or anything else like that But non-christian academics could not confirm that the bible is clear on this issue Same for the issue of observing the law non-muslim academics agree that the Quran sets out a religious law and expects muslims to follow it non-christian academics cannot make any such definitive statement about the bible And finally do religious figures have the authority to set new theological or moral doctrines? Academics agree that no such concept is set in the Quran, but the bible is at best ambiguous Another way to express this fundamental difference between the bible and the Quran is like this If academics want to know what abraham lincoln believed they go to the historical record If academics want to know what julia caesar believed they go to the historical record If academics want to know what muhammad sallallahu ala salam believed They go to the historical record to the Quran to inscriptions to syriac manuscripts and other historical sources And based on these sources academics have confirmed that the core beliefs and teachings of muhammad sallallam Have been preserved and are adopted by muslims today But the same cannot be said about the teachings of jesus Academics will speculate what jesus may have believed by trying to piece together some coherent doctrine from the gospels And other biblical manuscripts usually they can't come to a consensus And even when they do christians reject their conclusions and assert that the only way to know what jesus believed and taught is through the church This is the key difference between islam and christianity There's independent proof that islam actually preserves teachings over time Whereas there's no independent proof that christianity has been able to preserve the teachings of jesus let alone the prophets The second problem is that because christianity has this concept of ongoing revelation through infallible church councils theology morality and ritual become highly susceptible to change over time Councils introduce new doctrines such that traditional teachings are not preserved including the teachings of the prophets This is the biggest critique that many christians made against the catholic church Which ultimately led to the schism between catholic and orthodox in 1054 The catholics kept introducing new doctrines that the orthodox didn't accept like the filio quay papal supremacy etc Obviously the protestants rejected the catholic church in the 16th century for the same reason This problem also affects the eastern orthodox because orthodoxy relies on this notion of divinely guided councils These councils are highly influenced by political authority. This is called caesero papism Political rulers appoint bishops with their preferred doctrinal views They convene councils and affirm those preferred views which are then enforced by the political authority We see this from the beginning of christianity with constantine and other Byzantine emperors As a result the church tradition starting with the earliest church fathers is full of contradictions on fundamental theology Here are just seven examples number one Justin martyr one of the earliest church fathers clearly says that jesus the son is another god that is numerically distinct from the father Martyr also says that jesus the son is a lesser divinity that acts as a mediator between god the father and the physical world Post nicene christianity considers both of these ideas heresy So how can justin martyr be both the saint according to the orthodox but also advocate heretical understandings of god Number two iron a is also considered a saint says that the knowledge of the father is distinct from the knowledge of the son This implies that the father and the son are of two distinct minds This belief was later deemed a heresy by the church Arianism the claim that the son is not co-eternal with the father was hotly debated in the first three centuries of christianity Constantine convened the council of nicaea to establish trinitarianism and to eliminate arianism Monophysitism is the view that jesus has only one divine nature rather than both divine and human natures Emperor theodosius the second calls the second council of Ephesus which affirms monophysitism Several later emperors uphold this council But ultimately the second council of Ephesus was rejected in favor of the council of chalcedon which denied monophysitism number five iconoclasm is opposition to the veneration of religious images Emperor constantine the fifth supports iconoclasm the council of hyera Endors the iconoclast position, but the second council of nicaea rejected it in the 18th and 19th centuries number six liberal dictators in russia like peter and catherine the great Sees control of the russian orthodox church and pushed liberal reforms For example, peter appointed fio fan prokupovich as archbishop to spearhead his church reforms fio fan championed reforms such as absolute political submission of the church to the state and replacement of the traditional Patriarchate of russia with the most holy governing sinod This sinod consisted of a mix of clerics and laymen appointed by the czar It was designed to give the czar more direct control of the church for secular purposes fio fan also adopted the Protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone Number seven in recent years both the russian and greek orthodox churches have put forth declarations favoring human rights notable as the 2020 declaration for the life of the world towards a social ethos of the orthodox church It endorses freedom of religion freedom of speech abolition of slavery and capital punishment Condemns patriarchal sexism But all this clearly contradicts the bible the patristic writings orthodox canon law and the normative positions of the orthodox church for centuries These are clear examples of how the church reverses itself due to political pressure To recap even if we concede that the old testament is the only source of information about the prophets Islam is clearly more consistent with their overall teachings However, the root problem is the bible is self contradictory highly self contradictory Islam is consistent with the law oriented monotheism of moses Whereas christianity is consistent with the polytheism found in the old testament But we don't have to get mired in negotiating these contradictory passages in the old testament There are independent reasons to believe that christianity cannot even preserve the teachings of jesus let alone the teachings of the prophets Whereas with islam there are independent reasons to believe it is able to preserve prophetic teachings over the centuries. Thank you Thank you very much for that opening as well daniel We're going to go into the rebuttals But do want to let you know folks just a couple of quick housekeeping things if you happen to have a question That's great Do want to encourage you to submit your questions if you either tag me with at modern day debate in the live chat Or if you use a super chat we read those first We just want you to keep your questions civil rather than attacking the individual as well as we'd like it to You could say be as related to this topic for this debate in particular In addition if you haven't yet hit that share button And we really do want to get this neutral platform out to as many ears as possible With that. Thank you very much j the floor is all yours for your rebuttal I think yeah, I think uh daniel did exactly what I expected So I'm glad that he uh said what he did because a lot of what he said would Really, I think shoot him in the foot and he and he has done so because as I pointed out in my opening statement The argument is is really what is going to be the coran's relationship to the old testament since it's the new revelation daniel went to great lengths to explain that the coran was consistent coherent in his mind historically accurate and so forth and the bible was full of predictions mistakes and errors and I'm glad he did that because I have a list for example here Of all of the many places just in two suras where we have vast assumptions about the old testament texts and its veracity being the case For example, we have in sura to the story of satan's fall and his relationship to adam in the garden being correct God's choice of the jews and their uh exaltation in the in the nations That's being uh affirmed the exodus narrative is affirmed The party of the red sea is affirmed the gold calf golden calf moses quote got scripture. We're told in sura to from from ala Cloud and manna rebellion of pora is cited the book of the covenants is giving we're told about animal sacrifices. We're told about We sent quote prophets. Well, who would that be? Would that be isekiel isa and germaya that are completely ignored in the crown for example? We're told that the quran confirms the scripture that we have already given So the presupposition of the quran is not that the bible is full of errors and contradictions It is the quran that misunderstood and jumbled up the stories. We're told that abraham was tested We're told that the story of uh, jakeb is correct. We're told that the lineage from abraham to jakeb to isek We're told about the ark that it flies to saul. We're told about the temple. We're told about david and his conquest. We're told about uh, Solomon we're told in sura seven for example the story of no is accurate exodus babel lot And so the problem here is that we have A sampling just from two suras of gigantic portions of the old testament assumed presupposed as accurate as correct as authentic now many many more examples can be given I've got a whole list over here of all the chronic references to the old testament This is just a sampling but what you didn't hear from him was a coherent epistemic principle For the arbitrary choices of how he knows when he goes to the bible Which things are contradictions which things are correct and that's why it would have been better and more consistent If the quran had purged itself of things like references to theothenies references to god's allah's presence In their midst in the midst of abraham at the meal or allah's presence In the voice in the burning bush Now as he moved through his statement He said some really interesting things like that the old testament teaches polytheism But the examples that he gave were examples that nobody would necessarily believe are polytheistic They're just based on misinterpretations of the generic word god and you'll notice that a lot of islamic apologetics still hinges itself on a Word concept fallacy that the word divinity or god only has a single reference It can only refer to god the father or the divine essence and nothing else But of course throughout scripture divinity can be referred to to the demonic to angels To god to the divine essence and to the divine nature So only on the word concept fallacy can that be shown to be a contradiction? No, in fact There are even discussions in the quran and various commentators on the possibility of a divine council That is god speaking to the angelic ministers. That's the phrase gods. It doesn't mean polytheism. It means angels and demons Now he goes on to talk about uh messiah anointed one he misunderstood that The meaning of anointed one comes from the liturgical ceremonies that anoint erin So to say someone is an anointed one or masiaka messiah anointed one does not entail that they're divine or the messiah There are many anointed ones. This is just a simple basic grammar misunderstanding Now orthodox christianity perfectly explains the uh old testament laws that he said were unclear Even in the old testament is it was not the case that all the ceremonial laws Or the land laws were for the gentiles in fact orthodox christianity itself preserves the meanings of these things and i want to go back to the screen share here because This was in a port at port that point that i didn't get to when i was going through My last few slides there, which is that Islam does not have the things that he says it has like priesthood in these elements It has might maybe loose similarities. There is no priesthood in islam and yet we are told in the Book of melchizedek in the book of genesis the story melchizedek genesis 14 We're told in the book of uh a second peter that there is an eternal priesthood song 110 You are a priest forever according to order melchizedek And so the phrase anointed one or mushiak cannot be understood apart from the rest of the messianic prophecies that are there Here's a board. I'll have for you here if you want to look at All of the different messianic prophecies and you can see that there's many of this is just a sampling So you can screenshot that and look at them later These messianic prophecies explain in totality the work and the meaning and the purpose of the coming in the life of the messiah So they're not Random references. They actually have a holistic context and meaning. So let's go back to this. We're told for example that The worship of jojoba When it's established at the temple and you'll notice that picture of the temple there, you'll see a lot of things going on there You'll see images. You'll see icons. You'll see vestments. You'll see incense This everlasting priesthood is continued in the new testament where the ministers are called Priests after the order of melchizedek You'll notice that sacrificial worship and liturgy there of vestments incense iconography that we see in 1st Kings 4 through 8 Are continued in Hebrews 13 10 to 15 and revelations chapter revelation chapters 4 through 6 where john sees into the heavenly worship And he sees it as a liturgical ceremony Thus the church's worship as we would expect would have the heavenly worship on earth It would be the fulfillment of the worship that ya'll way instituted there And I would add that it's funny because when you go to islam and you ask for or look for in the Quran An explanation of all of this liturgy all this altar all this sacrifice all this stuff that is not there Right Because what do we have we have no temple we have no priesthood. We have no altar We have no sacrifice no heavenly liturgy thus no continuity So all of the arguments did not prove the very thing that he needs to prove Thank you very much for that rebuttal and what I'll let you know folks if you're watching live elsewhere We have a poll in the live chat right now. It's got 993 votes on which is the religion of the prophets islam christianity Another religion or no religion Stop on by modern day debate click on that poll as it'll be open for a few more minutes And with that thank you very much daniel the floor is all yours Okay, thank you james and j So Jay wants to insist that we stick to the old testament as the basis for judging the religion of the prophets In my opening I I said very clearly that We don't accept this muslims don't accept the old testament as an authority and even amongst christians different denominations except different books of the old as part of the old testament And even amongst the jews they have differences on what they consider to be the canon So which old testament are we even talking about the problem is that even if I concede that okay Let's take the old testament as the basis for judging the religion of the prophets. That's not even enough for j I have to also accept j's particular interpretation of the old testament Namely the interpretation of his particular church So this is I have to make double concession to even get close to the same page With j he has this kind of epistemic requirement on me Jay also doesn't seem to understand the concept of tariff in the quran and in islam in general because islam Has always been clear on the fact that we don't take the old testament as an authority or think that it has been preserved And there are many verses of the quran that speak to this so in the quran surat al-baqarah verse 75 through 79 do you believers expect them to be true to you though a group of them would hear the word of Allah then knowingly corrupted after Understanding it and then continues and among them are the illiterate who know nothing about the scripture except lies And so they wishfully speculate So woe to those who distort the scripture with their own hands then say this is from Allah Okay, so and then in the quran Surah three verse 78 There are some among those who distort the book with their tongues to make you think this distortion is from the book But is not what the book says they say it is from Allah, but it is not from Allah And so they attribute lies to Allah knowingly So this and other verses as well. So this is the concept of tahrib and Muslims have always had a critical perspective on the scripture of the jews and the christians From the earliest time of the sahaba and the salaf, but even later scholars way before Biblical criticism became a thing within europe Muslim scholars like ibn hazam or ibn tamia were Arguing that the scriptures of the jews and the christians have been corrupted And they did they had all of this kind of historical critique In their works critiquing the scripture of the jews and christians, and this was over 500 years ago So this is the concept of tahrib that i don't think that jay is familiar with And we also find this concept of the scribes lying This is also found in the bible. So Jeremiah 8 chapter 8 verse 8 is famous How can you say we are wise for we have the law of the lord when actually the lying pen of the scribes have handled it falsely So there are examples of this within the bible itself But the overall point is that tahrib is something that jay does not seem to recognize Now, um, he mentioned some of uh, let me address some of the points in the opening So, uh, boyeran boyeran doesn't say that the old testament theology is trinitarian Boyeran simply holds that there are multiple theologies including ones that are not simple monotheism So there's hinotheism. There's biphism. There's divine kingship boyeran as an academic doesn't say that Oh, yeah, the message of the old testament is trinitarian um Also, jewish scholarships that you mentioned acknowledges multiple theologies including polytheism Modern jewish scholarship does not claim that the old testament uniformly affirms trinitarian theologies And also I noticed that when you were discussing second temple Judaism, you didn't mention pre second temple Judaism period Because in that period there's clear polytheism being practiced where they're talking about yahweh as having a body And other deities in addition to yahweh So this is part of the uh, pre second temple Theology that we that academics write about and you already reference boyeran, but you didn't represent Uh, everything that boyeran actually says um, let's see Okay, you also mentioned that again, you're using the old testament as the standard by which to Judge the koran and that's the assumption of gabriel syed reynolds that you Cited as well. His assumption is that the Koran is taking from other sources because he doesn't believe in the koran, but that's an assumption on his part and um, the fact of the matter is that the gospels that were available to the Arab christians at the time of the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam They're not the orthodox and catholic version of the bible anyway So it doesn't make sense for you to Refer to them or appeal to that. These were the syriac texts of that time. So those wouldn't even match up with the The septuagint or the masoretic text that you that people christians use today Let's see Yeah, you said the koran jambles the message of the old testament. Well, the old testament is not a coherent message It's it's jumbled already. So that's not really a knock against islam Um, yeah, I would like to know if Jay concedes that the western academic scholars Academics say that the old testament has polytheism part of the theology of the old testament is polytheism And we can refer to boyer in statement. We can also refer to our book We can also refer to mark smith the origins of biblical monotheism And they all say the same thing like there's polytheism in the old testament That's endorsed and we see this also from the dead sea scrolls Um, so that's something that jay should acknowledge. She mentions, uh Melchizedek, so that's like a small part of the old testament. It's not like this big deal. You're talking about priests and this kind of priesthood. Well in islam, we have imams We have imams who are teachers who lead prayers. They lead liturgical prayers communal prayers For the community. So that's something that we have in islam. You want to say that's a loose connection. Well What who defines what is loose or what's not loose? And this is where jay has to refer again to the church tradition to define that But we don't accept the church tradition. So what give us an objective standard for deciding? What is loose or what is not loose when it comes to comparing some of these aspects of mosaic flaw with islam Versus what we see in orthodox christianity. That's the whole debate. Like what is the objective standard? Thank you very much for that rebuttal as well We're going to jump into the open dialogue a couple of quick housekeeping type things folks First if you haven't already hit that like button. We do appreciate your support and if you feel that your Prevision is being represented. Well in this debate a great way of That position being heard by more people as you hitting like means that this video will pop up With a higher ranking in the search results when people type in for example christian versus muslim debate So do appreciate that we're going to jump into it with jay's first Two minutes and then as mentioned earlier, we're going to go with two minute or alternating statements. Thanks jay. The floor is all yours No, so i'm going to ask daniel a question because uh, daniel never really Responded to the actual argument that was given the argument first of all was not that boyoran as a trinitarian The argument was that jewish scholarship admits differentiation in the trinity. Those are two different things So you misunderstood what i was saying Um, also, uh, i'm fully aware that jewish scholarship has all kinds of differing and liberal perspectives My only point in all of that was just to say that it's not a monolithic thing And so you can't argue from early christianity or early judeism at this time period that it was a monolithic unitarian Presentation there's fluidity there and so the point then is that as boyoran says Christianity represents a conservative early reading of judeism that meaning that a conservative reading of the existing texts My argument was more specific that the koran itself assumes the validity of giant portions of the old testament And i asked daniel for his epistemic criteria to know When to pick and when to reject And his response was we go to the historically accurate presentation in the koran That's a circle explain to me how it's not a circle I can see whatever else Uh, sure So i never Said that i take the old testament. I'm not taking any portion of the old testament I'm not taking any portion of the old the koran's presentation not you Yeah, I accept the koran obviously as a muslim. I accept the koran But i'm not saying i'm not saying that oh, I I think this or that portion of the old testament Is correct and is from god and another portion is not what i'm not that's not the argument that i'm making Like i for example, I never know i'm asking you to answered my argument Yeah, I am answering it. It's not your your answered question. It's not the argument you're making You answered with that. It's not the argument you're making I can't correct. That's because i'm making the argument restate restate your Claim the koran presupposes large sections of the bible to be correct. Does it presuppose up? Here in these examples The examples that I listed for you I can't read all of those Oh, i'm sorry that you can't read it, but these are these are moses got scripture. What does that say moses got I read all of these previously to you cloud and manna. What does that mean? You're saying that you're saying that you're saying that the koran refers to like stories in the bible that are found on the That are prior correct Yeah, I acknowledge the koran has many biblical stories. That doesn't mean that what is in the bible What is in the question that you have is correct criteria that is so you can't answer this So what is the I didn't answer the but you don't understand you don't understand the distinction that I make All right gentlemen, I hate to do this but just because it has been two minutes I gotta cut it back going over to daniel for his two minutes and then We'll kick it right back over to uj for yours Yeah, so I accept the koran and of course the koran is mentioning things that are also found in the Old testament your argument seems to be that because the Old testament is older or the Hebrew bible is older That means it's more accurate or that is a more authentic text. So why should I expect? Why should I expect that the koran has to conform to what the Bible says like I don't have that assumption. Why would I why should I have that assumption because I didn't make No, the koran doesn't make where does the koran say that the Old testament is fully accurate I didn't say anything about fully accurate. I'm giving you all you're showing our I'm giving you guys want to keep the two minutes if you guys want to try open dialogue. I'm totally open to that No, I prefer the uh Two minute back and forth, but he keeps right because he doesn't want to be pinned down. Wait, we know no because You don't understand the answer Okay So the what you put on your whiteboard are just examples in the koran that oh the koran mentions Moses and it mentions joseph and it mentions The garden it mentions adam and eve Therefore, this is the the koran is saying that the Old testament is accurate. That doesn't follow The koran is giving a record independently of the Old testament of what actually took place With the prophets with the with revelation. My argument does is not contingent on the koran I'm saying that I don't take anything from the Old testament as necessarily accurate in and of itself independently Uh, I made that clear in my opening statement. The thing is that um those parts of the Old testament even if assuming that they are accurate even assuming that they are representative of the prophets We could argue we could hypothetically argue that islam is more consistent with that than christianity That's the argument That's been two minutes. Go ahead jay for two You're muted. Yeah, so I mean, I guess there's kind of a lack of uh, you know understanding basic argumentation here because I understand that you don't accept the Old testament I'm well aware of that I'm making a very specific argument that the koran does not merely in passing mention these things It in fact presupposes that entire stories and narratives are correct And you admitted that those stories and narratives are older, correct? Yes, you said that they're older now. I'm not saying they're true because they're older I'm saying that this is your books your authoritative books This is just an example. We can go to other examples about Uh, the burning bush right and these kinds of stories I understand that you don't think that the Old testament is authoritative You don't have to repeat that to me. I'm making an internal critique Apparently, I don't you don't understand what an internal critique is because The book that you accept as authoritative presupposes not passing references entire stories and narratives That are correct and often that are authentic Because it says for the seventh century jura christian. How else would we do it? We would go to the prior existing revelation. How was if I'm a seventh century jura christian How else would I confirm? What the koran is saying if I don't go to the previous text like it says to do So it's a very simple argument and I'm asking you. How is it not circular for you because you're just saying Well, we we know that the koran is correct The koran is the epi statement principle for proving that the Old testament is wrong and the koran is correct Don't you see that that's circular You can order Daniel for two minutes Yeah, so The koran does presuppose that some of the things that are mentioned in the Old testament are correct. Okay, right Um, what's your epistemic principle for when you know? I have to keep it with the two minutes I didn't like my Like the presentation and the argument that I gave wasn't to establish that the koran is the word of god That wasn't what like the argument that I gave in this presentation I I'm the one who gave the internal critique Because I'm not priest but what I said that the the koran is preserved And that is a matter of academic objective fact Whereas when it comes to the Old testament, yeah, the the koran Does say that parts of the Old testament are correct, but there's no full endorsement of the Old testament Now if you did find me a verse that says that everything In the Torah and the injil that the christians and the jews have is accurate if you can find me that verse Okay, then I'll say yeah, you have a point there. That is a good internal critique Because then I would have no position to to criticize the Old testament But there's no such verse like that. So there's no internal critique here Um, the circularity is on your part like go back to the argument on the preservation Of the koran versus preservation of the bible No academic is going to say that. Oh, yeah the the Bible that we read today has been preserved and this is coming from the prophets and there's been a change of chain of transmission There's no academic that says that about the bible, but you have plenty of academics In fact, that's the consensus about the koran. So that's an independent argument for why the Koran or white islam preserves Scripture preserves teachings norms rituals doctrine Whereas christianity doesn't or hasn't that so there's nothing that's circular about that and time right so in other words a bunch of assertions and again I'm doing a specific critique Not that you think the Old testament is infallible or correct, but that the koran itself presupposes Gigantic portions to be correct. I understand that you don't accept the other portions That's why I specifically asked you for the epistemic principle That tells you when you go to the Old testament Which things are true which things are false you then appeal to the fallacy of consensus was that there's a lot of scholars Who who who agree with me? That's a fallacy of consensus. Did you know that's a fallacy? It doesn't prove anything. Now, maybe it's true. Maybe it's not true. That's why it's a fallacy It doesn't follow necessarily from that argument that a bunch of scholar I could find a bunch of scholars that do affirm the reliability of the new testament For example, Craig Blombard or uh Blombard or uh ff bruce So there's plenty of scholars who admit the reliability of the old and new testament You just simply wouldn't want those and so you're picking and choosing the scholars again How would a seventh century jew or christian? Know that the claims of the koran as they are newly presented at that time What would they go to to verify that its claims are true? And you keep saying the koran is consistent. It's historical scholars like it A lot of scholars don't like it and those are fallacious arguments. Do you not understand what a fallacy is? my turn okay, good word of daniel for two minutes Yeah, so they answered your question the seventh century jew or christian could see that islam is consistent with the old testament Or with whatever texts that they had with them at the time They would see that because muhammad sallallam is like moses That's how that's how they would see that islam is true that the teachings of muhammad are consistent with the teachings of moses That's that's exactly you know, how they would know you just said moses was inconsistent. I have to I have to keep with that No, I did not say moses is inconsistent. I said you said that the Torah I did not say I did not say that moses was inconsistent I said the old testament a book uh that has been distorted over time as mentioned in the koran Is inconsistent The fact that the koran doesn't the fact that the koran affirms parts of the old testament does not mean that the old testament is Uh is infallible or hasn't been corrupted. Like I don't understand the logic here that you're using I I acknowledge I acknowledge from the beginning. Yes in the old testament You'll find stories that are affirmed in the koran That does not mean that everything in the old testament is considered to be Correct according to the koran. So what is the what is the contradiction? Like what is the internal critique? This this is not making any sense to me I'm sorry And then again, I answered the the basis for a seventh century jew or christian to know That the koran and the and that muhammad saw aslam as a prophet Is because there is all this continuity with the teachings of moses and the teachings of muhammad That's how they would know what are the teachings of moses? You see you just Uh, there's still 30 seconds. I hate to do this, but just because I promised Yeah, so the teachings of moses are for the koran No, the teacher we can look at the koran or the jews themselves in the seventh century. They're not looking at the koran They're looking at the old testament. They're looking at the hebrew bible. They're looking at the hebrew. They're looking at the hebrew bible exactly Exactly, which you just said is full of corruptions and errors And the seventh century jew or christian would see that as well The seventh century jew or christian would also see the corrupt No, your answer is that your epistemic principle is that the koran is true because the jews or christians could go to The books of moses and see that it teaches what the koran teaches But the books of moses are full of contradictions because of the koran You have a circle I just you just said they go to the books of moses Yeah They go to the books of moses and they see They see that has contradictions Yeah, they see the they see the things that confirm muhammad sallallam And they don't see the things and they see the contradictions like the monotheism versus polytheism They see the divine kingship. They see all of those things as well All right, what i'm going to do is i'm going to kick it over to jay for two minutes And then we'll kick it back over to daniel so as we can hear there with this absurdity he said that they would go to The books of the bible they would go to the books of moses Which is where we would get the teaching of moses as the koran itself says We gave them the books the covenant the scriptures He's saying that the seventh century jew or christian would go to those texts to see if it's in continuity with the new revelation But then he says that the new revelation Is the principle for judging the other revelation? This is such a dumb argument. I can't believe that he can't see this Because it's it's a circle. He's saying that they're going to see that the koran's presentation is correct When they look at their authoritative texts But you judge those authoritative texts on the koran the very thing that is in question It is a very simple circular argument And that's why he keeps stating that no they just go to their texts to see that the koran is true The koran is the thing that's in question. Is it in continuity with the prior revelation? So daniel's force in the position of saying that the prior revelation is full of contradictions It's full of inconsistencies as he said Which I said in the in the horns of the limit that he would have to do that I'm well aware. He doesn't think that the old testament is reliable But his koran relies on large portions of the prior revelation being reliable. That's the argument That's the point and then daniel picks and chooses arbitrarily at hawk Based on his presupposition that the koran is correct Which old testament things he likes and doesn't like so I asked for an epistemic principle and I heard fallacy of consensus I heard because the koran is historically reliable and because the koran is true That's a circle They're misconstruing my statements. There are independent reasons to take the koran as true Well, let's put that aside like if you want to have the debate on whether the koran is the word of god That's a separate debate and there are independent reasons that I can give for the koran being true That doesn't depend on the koran itself Once you have accepted the koran is as true, then you take it as a criteria Okay, then you take it as a criteria the jews and the christians in the seventh century They're told by uh by allah to check with their own scriptures And they'll see that muhammad sallallahu alayhi sallam is a true Prophet it the koran doesn't assume that oh you have to accept the koran And then you you judge the old testament That's not the way that's not what the koran is saying. So you're misconstruing the argument. You're misconstruing the koran Once you have accepted the koran as the revelation of god Yeah, then you take it as a criteria, but there are independent reasons to take the koran as Um as being from god So this is uh, there's there's no circle here And also look at deuteronomy 18 15 in the septu again. It reads the lord thy god shall raise up to be a prophet of thy brethren Like me him shall ye hear Okay, this has been altered in the maseretic text which reads the lord your god Will raise up for you a prophet like me from a young among your own people you shall heed such a prophet So muslims quote this passage as proof of the prophethood of muhammad sallallahu alayhi sallam Although we believe nonetheless that much of the bible has been corrupted through this doctrine of tahrif Which you haven't given any indication that you know what tahrif even means So to sum up the seventh century jewer christian could decide to follow islam based on parallels between moses and muhammad's message prophecy and deuteronomy Of a prophet like moses Their perception that jewish and christian doctrine has changed over time and is corrupted So they'll see the contradictions within the within the text themselves their perception that the bible is deeply contradiction Contradictory and also miracles of muhammad sallallahu alayhi sallam. So these are all independent reasons for that jewer question to accept islam Yeah, exactly. So once you accept that it's true, you'll see that it's true That was exactly my point Daniel said that once you accept the koran you'll understand that the koran is the Superior revelation and that it's the the thing by which we judge the past revelation Now daniel said there's other independent arguments. I'm not concerned. I didn't answer or reply to what you called independent arguments Other than to say that those were fallacies to just cite consensus of fallacy of consensus I specifically address the specific claim that you said That a seventh century christian or jew could go to their text to see what the muslim reading of those texts That is what you said you said that that muhammad is like moses that that there's some similarities and that the old testament has contradictions Those are arguments based on the presupposition that the koran is true. That's the thing that's in question That's why I keep asking you before an epistemic principle that isn't ad hoc arbitrary or circular Because every argument that you present is just a restatement of the koranic position And that's why you have to say well what you accept that it's true. You'll see that it's true. You see that's a circle So again, all the shows is just inconsistency and that the prior revelation Has to be cited and given some credence because they know that They want to have continuity and that's what this debate is ultimately about But then when other things are brought in from prior revelation that are even assumed and mentioned in the koran like these manifold examples of large narratives The response is that those are the ones that we don't like and we don't accept those because they're problematic for our position And then he just cited unbelieving scholars and so forth as if Citing us a consensus has anything to do with a debate. It doesn't matter When I cited the jews as scholars that was just attestation to prove that it's not monolithic wasn't a proof But daniel seems to think that citing somebody makes it a proof which is again a fallacy So all of this just shows again inconsistency in his presentation And time we'll kick it over to daniel So again, you keep asserting that it's circularity. There's there's no circularity the jew and the christian in the seventh century or today They see similarities between moses and muhammad salam With their eyes, they look at empirical data. They look at the historical record These are people who are not assuming that the koran is true Then on the basis of those similarities basis on an empirical empirical observation using their reason Using, you know, their intuitions then they come to accept that muhammad salam is a true prophet This is this is not circular Um So, yeah, and and referring to academic consensus again, I'm not just saying oh the academic consensus is what it is and I I don't know what they're actually saying the academic consensus is based on data. It's based on radiocarbon dating it's based on um Paleographic data, it's based on inscriptions. It's based on all of this data that then the academics reach this consensus About the koran as opposed to the bible. So that this is not circular. It's not a fallacy Citing research is not fallacious unless you have a problem with the research You can bring up that those problems. I'm happy to hear your critique Of the historical critical method. That's fine But I mean I want to ask you what percentage of scholars at research universities and ivy league schools j Agree that the old testament and the new testament have been accurately transmitted and are free from polytheism Can you answer that question? Like what is the percentage really of these ivy league schools? That consider the old testament and the new testament to be accurately transmitted from the time of the prophets or the time of jesus And how many of them will say that the old testament is free from polytheism Time for jurors j Maybe if I draw a circle for you, it'll help because I can make it really easy Because what you just said in your uh comment there You said what's the epistemic principle? They'll go look at their text and find similarities similarities to what? To the Koran's presentation of who Muhammad is That's a circle Daniel Dude, yeah, you're laughing because I guess you just realized there's a circle behind you on the wall Maybe that helps you understand how a circle goes it goes from asking the question of epistemic principle You said a similarity in their text to the Koran So in other words reading their texts according to the presupposition of the superiority of the Koran when the Koran is the thing That's in question That's a circle Daniel now in regard to again the consensus of percentage of scholars What would that have to do with anything being true or false? You could have 99.9% Of scholars saying any number of things what would that have to do with whether it's true or false now? Maybe it's true, but you understand that this is a fallacy again Now If we surveyed what evangelical scholars Well, most of them are going to believe in the reliability of the text But your survey would presumably not have those people Also, by the way in your hashmi debate you said for example that about 37 minutes in Oh The historical critical method is perfect for deconstructing Judaism and Christianity But what about the other one? Oh your position? Yeah Islam So are you really going to tell me that modern critical scholarship unanimously accepts the Koran? As an authentic historic document, you know, that's not true. That's ridiculous. No, they don't Here you over there bobbing your head Unbelieving scholars don't present that now you could rely on some fallacies like well, uh, it has some things that it presents like Unitarianism Well, so what a lot of religions present unitarianism that doesn't prove or disprove anything So you're just deflecting into topics to get away from the epistemic principle what you just showed us a circle And time can you explain to me how it's not a circle? Yeah, if if I say something like Okay, yeah, just hold keep hold it up jay Okay, so if I say that uh, jay is living in a five-story house Okay, I make that claim And then I go and I explore someone goes and explores jay's house and says oh, yep. That's a five-story house Is that is that a circular type of reasoning? He's just confirmed it with his eyes A claim that is made in the Quran is then confirmed by people who are observing the world Where is the circle? Like when you have a circle just drawing arrows on a whiteboard doesn't make it a circle jay Um and about the academic consensus. Yes, it is a consensus Yes, this the that's the point that I keep trying to make to you The academic consensus is that the Quran has been preserved They've radiocarbon dated the Quran to within the lifetime of the prophet muhammad sallallam And there and the academic consensus is that there is one author of this Quran Is not dozens or hundreds of different authors and editors that was a theory that was a theory about the Quran But it was refuted it was debunked how because they the academic researchers Found evidence. They found all kinds of records. They did the radiocarbon data They did research empirical research and they came to that consensus That's that's not a circle jay Um, so you mentioned my debate on the historical critical method if you listen to the full debate I said, yeah Muslims can't endorse the historical critical method and we can apply it to the Quran The thing is that when we do apply the historical critical method to the Quran it comes out on top That's why as a muslim I want to endorse that methodology I do want to endorse it, but you as a christian cannot you have to say that? Oh, you can't appeal to consensus Because oh, that's a fallacy or that's a circle or some way to hand wave away the academic consensus So go to For the Quran a historical critical introduction by nicolai cyanide go read that book And it'll explain that there's a consensus on the preservation of the Quran Time we'll figure over to jay Yeah, so again, maybe daniel's not familiar with Informal fallacies, but The appeal to consensus is a fallacy now you might bring in the appeal to consensus to back up a claim or to Demonstrate that there's evidences for a claim It's not a proof And so it really has nothing to do with the thing that we're debating today because the debate is not about Whether or not the Quran was written by one person I could concede that it was and I don't really have any opinion either way That doesn't mean that it's true or that it has anything to do with being consistent with the religion of the prophets So total irrelevance to the topic of the debate and I'd like to go back to what you said as your answer to explain this with You just see it with your eyes Really, you think that's how epistemology works because I gave you your exact statements about the epistemic principle for how we know The continuity exists and you said that the seventh century jura christian Looks to see the similarities to what to the Quran and you just see it with your eyes that's called circularity And i'm surprised that you can't see this Because this is just assuming that the thing that is in question is the case That the Quran is correct and that the Quran has Continued with prized prior revelation And so you're just basically restating again that a seventh century jura christian Just simply goes to see in the books of moses or in whatever the the gospels The principles of the Quran already there and anything else that's not Consistent with the principle of the Quran you arbitrarily toss away And so that's why I keep asking you for the epistemic principle That isn't circular based on the presuppositions of the Quran's theology That lets them verify it So you've already admitted that they go to their texts But you said their texts are full of contradictions on the basis of what on the basis of what the Quran presents But the Quran's presentation is what's in question So you understand the burden of proof is on you with the new revelation to make it consistent with the prior revelation That's the prior test in deuteronomy 13 and 18 So you just keep restating again the position of the Quran So i'm going to ask you again. How is you just see it? a resolution to the problem of circularity And time two minutes for daniel Not just like if the bible makes a claim about something like there are unicorns We go to the world and we see if that's the case or not And then we determine if the bible is correct or not same with the Quran if the Quran made a claim that you know moses was a You know a prophet who had wings and he could he could fly or something like that And we don't have any historical record of that or the jews and christians say like we don't have any concept of that Then that would be evidence for them to say that okay. Well, this is not adding up So we don't accept the Quran But what has happened with a lot of jews and christians over history is that they see that the Quran is making claims that then they as unbelievers go and Look not only in scripture. They look to themselves. They look at their lives. They look at ayat the signs of allah and then based on a All of that evidence together then they come to the conclusion that this is true or this is false That's that's not circular reasoning So the claim that and this is why presented in the opening statement like these are all the similarities Between Muhammad sallallam and moses these are things can they can be confirmed or they can be denied and you see a lot of Parallels that confirm that similarity and that becomes a non-circular reason to accept the Quran And the claims of the Quran We'll give it to you two minutes. Oh wait, don't I have 30 seconds if you if you still wanted that last Yeah, I still wanted the rest of it So seven century christian can notice contradictions in the bible without relying on the Quran Seven century christian can notice that doctrine changes over time without relying on the Quran Seven century christian can notice that the trinitarian concept is illogical and polytheistic without relying on the Quran So there's nothing circular about any of those conclusions and again referring to academic consensus Is not circular. It's not I can't believe that you take references to academia as a circular I didn't say it was circular. So it's a fallacy. It's called the fallacy consensus or the fallacy We'll kick it over to jay for his start of his two minutes So I would like to point out that daniel just said that appealing to the consensus is not a fallacy So I would uh, again, maybe you should rush up on basic fallacies appeal to consensus and appeal to authority as a fallacy So I think again, we're we're seeing some embarrassment here on the basics But let's go back to this again because when he restated himself about this question He just restated again that will you just go and look with your eyes To see what the question is about epistemic principle not empirical data So he's just restating a basic naïve empiricist position That's not going to solve the epistemic principle about how he knows or how a seventh century jure christian knows that the Quran Is the true way to read the old testament that's the thing that he's doing But i'm saying well if I want to verify that the Quran is the new revelation that i'm supposed to follow He said go to moses and you'll see what oh contradictions Contradictions on the basis of what the teaching of the Quran well, then he said no no actually There's other historical things that I could point to you like the trinity being illogical Oh, you mean like how I could ask you the exact same problem of a dependence relationship between the attributes of Allah I could ask you the exact same problem of how Allah has two right hands And how he descends from the throne to the lower heavens, but he doesn't enter into creation and those things are all metaphorical There's a dependence relationship between the attributes. Oh, but also that's also It's maybe something we just read literally and we don't go into the speculations because daniel's a salafi Maybe he doesn't want to go into metaphysics. Oh, no, he doesn't allow any of that for his stuff He doesn't want you to know that oh the unity of Allah, which everybody's supposed to just appeal to and know as those This is so clear everybody believes this Well, there's actually six different schools debating for centuries what the unity of Allah actually means So he knows that it's not a simple obvious thing the dependence relationship between the attributes Shows that his position is not immune to the very one and many problem that he's trying to throw on the on the trinity And again the prior revelation of moses in the Torah is full of texts that have references to and Yeah, so, I mean we can ask the same thing of Jay, you know, how would a jew know that the New testament is true or that the new testament is transmitted accurately How would how would a jew know that like on what basis could a jew conclude that? Oh, yeah, this new testament is consistent with the hebrew bible So what we actually we actually have Hundreds of examples of the new testament citing the old testament to demonstrate that continuity for example the How would citing the how does citing the old testament confirm that the new testament is? Correct. I could just write I could write a revelation right now I could write a revelation to jump in really quick just to give Daniel that two minutes uninterrupted You know, I'm sorry. I go ahead and finish your thoughts. Yeah question. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry go ahead Well, the question was about how would a jew or christian Know prior to say the Quran say the third fourth fifth century How would they know that the revelation of the new testament is consistent? Well, the new testament says in hundreds of places. Here's where we're getting our argumentation. For example Jesus and john 5 all the way through john 9 gives many many examples of how he's the one that appeared at mount sinai He's the one that spoke to moses. He's the one that You know was speaking and eating with abraham. So these are the examples That are cited in the new testament not in every place but in many places for continuity. That's what i'm getting at So we have tremendous continuity particularly in orthodoxy So a jew would know that the new testament is true because the new testament No, that's not what I said because you just said you just said I said the citations of the old testament You understand so the jew would know that you're not familiar with these texts. These are old testament a jew Okay, so now two minutes. So I can make a point Well, it's my time you asked me all right your time james is it his time or my time? I thought he finished and then I was gonna start from my time If I remember right, I think we're in daniel's time Daniel you were sometimes asking questions to jay. So jay was obviously talking because he was Go ahead jay then once you're finished. I'll have my time. I didn't say that the new testament cites the new testament I said that the new testament argues Consistently throughout all of the books about continuity with the old testament. That's crucial That's why jesus says that not one jot or one tittle will pass from the law until all these things are fulfilled It's very crucial to our theology That the triad be in the old testament and it is and it's in these kinds of passages that i'm linking here We'll kick it over to Jay would now have his two minute statement go ahead jay Do I remember right if you asked me a question as part of your time? I mean Yeah, unless I misunderstood that was I was under the impression that daniel during your time You asked jay a question and then the reason jay was talking was because he's answering your question But if you want to ask another question, that's okay All right, I want to make a statement now based on the answer that you give so the The question was how does a jew know that the new testament is true? And your answer was well here are all the passages in the new testament So that the jew or the muslim or the pagan has to refer to the new testament to know that the new testament Is true. That's a circle that that is the very definition of the circle Yeah, so he sees conformity. Oh, so he sees conformity between the new testament and the hebrew bible How is that any different than what I I uh was saying about the quran? You you're only cherry picking the passages in the hebrew bible that are consistent with the new testament There are plenty of passages that are inconsistent with the With the new testament. So how is that not cherry picking jay these this seems like a very clear double standard You have one standard for the quran and you have another standard for the new testament Explain that The trinity is not consistent with the monotheistic parts of the old testament This is what the boy you're in that you're citing or mark smith that I cited There's they're the ones who are saying That there is no consistent theology in the old testament There's no consistent theology in the old testament. You don't take them as experts. That's fine You just want to refer to the church the authority of the church You want to refer to the authority of the new testament? That's what's the circle jay I'm willing to cite outside authorities non-muslim authorities and it's not a fallacy because I'm citing their actual research We can go through the research You want to read nicolai sinai and we can see his conclusions I can show you his argumentation for why the quran is preserved I'm not just saying I'm not presenting a deductive argument here Such that oh citing academic consensus is a is a fallacy. No, it's not It's evidence for a position in an in a broader argument not a deductive argument So this is not a fallacy You're not able to cite any kind of academic source I ask you about what is really the consensus on the new testament and the old testament being preserved within academia What do what do the experts say jay about textual preservation? You just conveniently avoided that question and you want to Set standards for islam that you don't have for yourself. Okay, get over to jay for two minutes You know, let me check if you're on mute There you go should be able to unmute now Yeah, so again, daniel. I did not say that a person goes to the new testament to see if the new testament is true I said that in the question of continuity with the old testament the new testament argues From the these are old testament passages daniel. Do you understand? That's what I'm saying today's debate is about continuity These are old testament passages about Theophany's many of those theophany's such as Judges 13 judges 6 is equal 1 to 10 zekarii 1 to 3. They're specifically messianic in nature They're about the coming of the messiah and what he would do So you restated twice incorrectly that I was claiming that the new testament proves the new testament No, you ask about continuity with the Hebrew bible And I'm saying that the new testament cites the messianic prophecies and cites the theophany's as proof for the continuity That's what I argued the whole time that our position is in continuity with the Hebrew bible It doesn't matter to me that unbelieving Jewish scholars think that there's multiple different theologies in the old testament That's not my position. My position is that the old testament is consistent. There is a consistent triadic position That's what I've argued the whole time. You did appeal to the consensus of Authorities and scholars as if that proved your argument and then you scaled it back just now to say well It's just kind of like an evidence and I didn't ignore you. I cited two evangelical scholars ff bruise craig blumberg They believe in the reliability of the transmission of the text But you don't accept them and so it really doesn't matter because we can throw out scholars all day long of people That do and don't accept you're just not going to accept any of the evangelical scholars or orthodox or catholic or whoever That do believe in the the the veracity and the authenticity of the old testament and new testament text in fact According to ff bruise the new testament texts have over 5 000 early manuscripts with attestation to their 98 to 99 percent veracity which is far higher than any other ancient texts including The writings of play-doh, which the latest are the middle ages So in reality, no I answered all of your objections I specifically argued for continuity and the basis of the the text Time we're going over to Daniel for two minutes. Yeah, where is the proof? Show me the proof of transmission of the pentateuch From moses like where is the proof of that transmission? Uh, I don't think even any evangelical Christian scholar is going to claim that the pentateuch has been preserved Uh, or any other parts of the hebrew bible from moses or from the prophets Okay, so where are the where are the actual radio carbon dated texts? Where are the inscriptions your argument about consistency? Well, and you show the different verses On the board that are consistent with the new testament. Okay This is exactly the kind of argument that I presented in the opening statement There's all kinds of things that are consistent between the quran and what we find in the hebrew bible So what you know, what does what does that actually prove? And and the second point that you want to that you should not ignore and no christians should ignore is that okay? Which version of the hebrew bible are we talking about? Are we talking about the maseretic text? Are we talking about the septuagint? Are we talking about the dead sea scrolls? Are we talking about the samaritan pentateuch? Are we talking about the peshita? Are we talking about the targumim? Which version right these are all very different versions the jews themselves do not agree on what is canon They have canon and they have apocrypha texts and books that they don't don't accept And between catholics and orthodox and protestants and coptics and all these different denominations of christianity There's not agreement on what the books of the old testament actually consist of there's why there's entire books That are not included in the canon of some denominations So when you hold up your chart that really doesn't tell us anything because you have all of this variation in the books Of the bible that kind of variation is not an issue with the quran because again go read nicholai sinai Go read marin van putin. Go read any of these academics. It's the consensus people can Take my word for it or not go read these texts and they'll they'll cite Okay, this is the research and the consensus position on the quran. Where does the quran come from? Do you think there's a consensus about abraham lincoln and what abraham lincoln's thoughts and beliefs were academically or julia cesar? Yeah, there's going to be some variation, but there's going to be on the core beliefs of abraham lincoln julia cesar george washington any historical figure you can have a consensus because there's actual empirical data that you cite And you do the research and determine that that's the case also That's the case also with the quran and with muhammad slice on him not the case with the bible Time we'll figure over to jay Yeah, I mean there's one glaring obvious thing that daniel's not getting which is that Our position argues that the old testament is not full of contradictions and it is divine revelation because of course That's partly what it claims for itself And that's part of the presupposition of continuity daniel's position is very different It argues that there's not continuity with the things that he doesn't like in the old testament. I didn't do that I don't have a ad hoc I throw out elements of the old testament. I don't like the orthodox christian interpretation Of the trinity again is arguing that it is in the old testament. It is in the torus in the pentatube That's the reconciliation that explanation for the text that daniel just doesn't like and doesn't want That's why I keep asking about the episcinic principle, which we've seen throughout the whole debate is just him reasserting and reaffirming the quran's presupposition So when he talks about The fact that people disagree amongst christianity again daniel You should have reviewed fallacies because the number of people that disagree or agree amongst varying groups Guess what that has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of any position It doesn't matter how many people in the world disagree or debate or question. For example, the two plus two is four It wouldn't matter It has nothing to do with whether two plus two is four So you keep bringing up things that are red herrings and fallacies that have nothing to do with the question of the debate Which is who's in continuity with prior revelation with the prophets? And when we ask how do we identify an old testament prophet Over and over you say well, you just go and look and you see that it's the quran's presentation That is the true prophet you read the old testament through the eyes of the quran and you will see the quran is true That's a circle daniel. That's why every time I ask you for an episcinic principle You say well, you got the same problem You got this and you got to do this No, but I don't have the problem because I don't believe that prior revelation contradicts daniel But you do that's why you're in a completely impossible position and time and want to remind you folks I just put up this is actually a new poll in the live chat right now Whose arguments have you found to be most persuasive tonight? independent of your own position so you Obviously these polls most of the time people just They'll vote according to what they already believed in but we want to encourage you. Hey like hey, you just like try to say hey Regardless of what my prior previously how beliefs are I'm just gonna say this is these are the arguments I found most persuasive So that poll is pinned in the modern day debate live chat now. We'll kick over to daniel for his two minutes You're saying that oh, we just don't Unlike muslims. We just we don't just throw out whatever we don't like. Yes, you do the church Rejects apocrypha the church rejects certain books and other Denominations accept those books. So your church literally throws out what you the Hebrew Bible. Yeah, the Hebrew Bible I need to keep it with that too. Okay. Let me let me pull it irrelevant. He's talking about so this is not what He's arguing against some other position. I'm not I'll give you a chance to respond in your next two-minute statement, but otherwise I've got to give daniel. It's two minutes here Okay, so Let's what does what do we throw out of the orthodox or the Hebrew Bible? There is apocrypha. So no the Hebrew books of estrus for example Daniel the the full two minutes I'm gonna put you on mute, but I promise to give you a chance to respond in one minute and 19 seconds j All right, let me let me pull that up. Just give me a second, but let me just address Uh, the other statement that you made like you are there are many things in the old testament That christians do not accept you don't accept the mosaic law many of the practices within mosaic law You throw out. Okay. So this is Why because they're not consistent with the new testament and you will you will refer to the authority of the church and how you interpret the old testament So how is that any different you're referring to the authority of the new testament in order to x out nicks throw out different parts of the mosaic law Circumcision polygyny Having multiple wives. These are the things that you're throwing out Um from the old testament and if I and then you can give me like a elaborate explanation for why Uh, those things should be thrown out But again, you're you have to refer to your own doctrines of the church in order to do that So how is this any different jay? You're not explaining the difference The distinguishing thing between what I presented in my opening statement with As opposed to what you're presenting is that I did refer to an outside authority time project Yeah, well an even stronger argument would be an internal critique of your ultimate authority Which was the Quran and its inconsistency in your arbitrary ad hoc approach to the old testament So that's an even stronger argument than an empirical external authority And no, uh, again, you were incorrect that we throw out elements of the Hebrew Bible you referenced as risk No, those are all in the orthodox bible. We don't throw those things out. So you're completely false about wrong about that Um, now when it comes to uh, the ceremonial law, we do keep those things Maybe you didn't know that but in the new testament paul for example cites how those things are kept for christians They're kept spiritually speaking because something like for example, not sowing two seeds in a field or Not sowing two patches on a cloth the real meaning paul and jesus argued was the spiritual meaning That was always the case and the ceremonial laws were always meant just for the jews. That's jewish theology The ceremonial laws are not meant for all of the nations. They're only meant for the jews So in fact, we're perfectly consistent with how we approach the old testament And I will refer you again to the arguments that I made in my screen share here Where you will notice in the orthodox church, we have a temple. We have a sacrifice to have an alternative preset We have icons. We have heaven on earth That you see on the right side of those things Just like you see on the left side of those things from the old testament You don't have those things you're an iconoclastic religion You believe in the absolute transcendence of Allah and so Allah is not knowable You can't predicate of Allah because he's not at all like creatures Although you believe that Allah has hands and somehow he descends into the lower parts of to the lower heavens Which is the creation so you can explain to me how he does that Even though there's no spatial location for Allah and when you said that we have a e-moms that pray That's not what a priest is a priest offers sacrifice by definition You do not have sacrifice in your religion your religion is premised on. They're not being sacrificed So it is Directs to imply that you have continuity and consistency with the old testament on the basis of priesthood and time Right daniel. Yeah, so there's no you've given no reason There's no principled basis for which laws and which things within the old testament are meant for jews And which are meant for all people which are meant for agentiles. What is the principle? I asked you like you say the real meaning is the spiritual meaning This is exactly what I said like you're reinterpreting what the real meaning of the old testament is based on your church doctrine The real meaning is not there in the text You have to infer that or you have to use some kind of typological interpretation on the basis of the church the academic scholars muslims hindu pagans anyone else Is going to read those same verses and not take that typological Meaning that or interpretation that you give it that interpretation is on the basis or it presupposes The authority and the interpretation of the church That's that's the problem with all of your arguments jay And then the thing about islam doesn't have sacrifice. Yes, we do. We have all kinds of animal sacrifice Edel of ha. Have you heard of edel of ha? Have you heard of the arka when a new child is born? Have you heard of all of these kinds of animal sacrifices that take place in islam? That's animal sacrifice. How is that not consistent with the animal sacrifice? within the old testament Also temple we have mosques. We have literature liturgical prayers. We have animal sacrifice Priesthood like this concept like this is all parallels, but you cherry pick you say that no, no, no That's not really similar to the old testament Well, we have is the spiritual meaning and that's similar to the old testament Don't you see how that's this is all comes off as post hoc This this all comes off as Just on the basis of what the church says we find these similarities with christianity in the old testament But islam is not similar like this is What is the objective basis for determining that christianity? Is taking more or is more similar to these practices in the old testament as opposed to islam Okay, good order to jay Yeah, so again, I didn't say that you didn't have animal sacrifice I said that you didn't have a priestly sacrifice and you also were incorrect when you said that melchizedek doesn't really have a Significance in the old testament. He's only in genesis 14 No, he's mentioned in psalm 110 about the messiah and then when the messiah comes his priesthood is forever According to the order of melchizedek. It's an eternal priesthood So the animal sacrifices have a significance that is intimately bound up with The actual priesthood in the old and new testament. It's an eternal priesthood that offers sacrifice And you you know very well that your religion doesn't even though it has something like that That doesn't mean it has the same significance. I'm not arguing that there's no No similarities at all between islam and christianity and judaism Of course, you're gonna have uh similarities because islam, I think is again a patchwork of jewish tradition uh, hagada Nestorian philosophy and theology and christian stories as well It's all of those things mixed together and that's why it relies on things like the proti ben jilliam of james and the account of Mary in uh, the quran for example, but no, I made a very specific argument that temple sacrifice altar and priesthood are essential elements of biblical Hebraic theology which christianity has and if you want to talk about how do we know which principles carry over and which ones don't Well, that's what that's already in the old testament It's already in the old testament that the ceremonial law is the mosaic commandments. Therefore israelites. Therefore israel they're not even for the Gentile nation jews still believe this right now the specific How would we know that controversy already arose and if christ is the fulfillment of the law? Which I would argue that he is he is the messiah Then he has the authority to say in what way and in how the gentiles will or will not be bound to certain ceremonial things There's a council that happened in acts 15 to discover and decide this very issue And that issue decided on the basis of what? arbitrary no The covenant with no which by the way your coran affirms that the story is correct time Daniel Yeah, I mean this is like you're you're saying that okay the temple the sacrifice the icons the priesthood the liturgical prayers These are not just for the jews Okay, that's that's what you're saying everything else That's mentioned in mosaic law. That's that's for the jews all the things that islam is Is continuous with those are for those are just for the jews But when it comes to these particular things that actually is not just for the jews those parts of the law That those are things that we actually Are applying and then when I give you when and then you justify this by saying oh, we have councils That tell us this fact. So that's circular jay. You're just appealing to the authority of your church I don't accept your church jay. I don't most christians don't accept your church either Why should so the only justification that you have the only principle that you're giving me is Well, our councils decided this our councils determined that these aspects of the old testament are meant for Not just jews. They're meant for gentiles as well That's the circle that I presented in my opening statement and you're just falling exactly into the pattern that I Spelled out and predicted in the opening. So yeah, give me a principle outside of your church's authority Why certain rules in the old testament part of the mosaic law are only for jews And others are for gentiles. Yeah, I heard you say that our church said that we had councils and the council determined That's what I heard I do want to give That last 30 seconds of daniel. Yeah, I heard what you said jay. You said the council is the one that determines that You didn't give me an independent reason so go ahead kick it over Are you asking I guess yeah, kick it over to jay. Yeah, I gave two arguments You addressed the second argument the first argument was that jews themselves have their own principle and criteria For what the mosaic law was about and who it was for that was the first argument Which you blew past and ignored and you said, oh, you're just saying it's your council and your church and your tradition No, you asked a specific question about how is it consistent? And I'm saying well, it's consistent number one with the principle that jewish theology never considered the ceremonial laws for all the nations It's for israel obviously because so many of those laws are about the temple which can only be in jerusalem Now I have another question. I want to ask you which is What is the significance of the temple and all of those liturgical ceremonies that are in the torah? In your religion given the fact that many of these texts specify that it's an eternal covenant an eternal priesthood That's what i'm arguing you say and that's how christianity has continuity jews don't have that because when they lost the temple No more animal sacrifices no more temple 70 ad is the sign according to genesis 49 and daniel 9 That the coming of the messiah has appeared messiah appears We have the removal of the temple that happened in 70 ad as jesus says in matthew 24 and lube 21 Now if you're in continuity I want to know where is the eternal priesthood? Where is the altar? Because you mentioned sacrifice You mentioned prayers led by your moms, but you know, that's not what a priest is We'll kick it over to daniel and this is actually the last two minutes segment So daniel the floor is yours then we're going to the q&a folks if you happen to have any questions I got to be honest We are going to work through as many as we possibly can we have a huge amount of questions So I got to tell you from right now this point on I can't guarantee that your question will be read We're going to move as fast as we can go ahead daniel for that last two minutes. Didn't he want to do prayers? I got to yeah, I have to oh, that's right. We'll give We'll take about five minutes. So in the meantime, I'll do a couple of house keeping things Can I do the two minutes first and then yep that works Okay, so um just as a final point like if we follow what the jews say jay or the israelites They say that christians should be executed because they're polytheists. So how do we determine like if this is an argument for Which parts of the old testament to continue or not then Why don't we take that aspect of jewish theology jay or are you just cherry picking which aspects of jewish Judaism you want to follow Or not Yeah, the eternal priesthood argument you're exaggerating that it's I didn't say it only appears in one part of the old testament It appears in a couple of parts, but it's not this huge concept This important central thing of the old testament Yeah, it is for you. I know that's exactly what i'm saying. It's for you because that's what the church says So this is this is a circularity that two minutes Yeah, so everything that you're saying is just a circular reference to your church's authority, which no one accepts other than yourself Um as for the temple, we have pilgrim No, no, yes, it's ridiculous Then as for the temple, we have pilgrimage. We have you know animal sacrifice We have you know, we pray in the direction like there's directionality to prayer There's liturgical prayer like these are all similarities Between the mosaic law and what islam practices You have a very post hoc way to dismiss any similarities that are between islam and the mosaic law And prioritizing the similarities that you're drawing on the basis of church authority between Uh The new testament or christianity and the hebrew bible. So this is just post hoc. It's not consistent I didn't I wanted to actually get into larger epistemological issues in this debate and talk about okay What about the trinity? What about, you know, what we know? For as for preservation like which religion is actually able to preserve texts over the centuries Islam has a proven track record of that you couldn't cite me any scholar that says Oh, yeah, the pentateuch has been preserved that the hebrew bible has been preserved from moses from, you know These prophets until today. There's no because there's no academic authority that actually claims that there's no radiocarbon dated Manuscripts that go back that far. There's no manuscripts that go to jesus or to his immediate Disciples there's actually no text like that. So that's the difference between islam and christianity We're going to have a long q&a section folks. So stick around to be patient. We try we try to get to your questions I'm going to give daniel five minutes or whatever it be that you need daniel is going to take time To pray i'm also going to give housekeeping stuff in particular folks. I mentioned earlier This in person event is happening saturday september 16th In houston, texas as you can see at the bottom right of your screen aren't raw versus jake muslim metaphysician You don't want to miss it that debate is going to be huge by itself But this is actually a two debate mini conference. So you're like, oh, wow that sounds amazing Let me tell you it is going to be amazing as you can see at the bottom right of your screen Additionally the main event for that night will be matt delahunty versus daniel hakekechu the muslim skeptic And whether or not islam is true. It's kind of a three-part debate. So that one's going to be even longer So I mean if you come to this conference remember it's in the houston area technically it's in perlund So just south of houston right next to the airport You don't want to miss it. It is going to be huge The link for the tickets is in the description box if you're anywhere near the houston area I mean even dallas, that's only about three Um, maybe like three hours 45 minutes You know kind of three hours You guys you want to make this little mini conference. We're calling it modern day debate live and in person So it's just a self titled conference. We are still doing Debate con which is our big you could say kind of our wrestlemania type conference. That's where we have this year saturday november 4th and sunday november 5th It's going to be huge. That's going to be in dallas. You don't want to miss that either but One event at a time So I do want to call your attention if you are in the houston area Check out that link in the description box right now It is going to be huge or excited to travel down to houston and do this one in person In the old live chat keeping an eye saying hello. I hope you're all doing well. Thanks for all of your support Seen a huge amount of likes even before this debate started, but as well right now We're at 698 likes so if you haven't yet, please do hit that like button You might be thinking uh james. It's pointless. It doesn't make a difference. I suspect it does I really do believe that you could say it's a tiebreaker So when the algorithm sees that there's you could say mutual interest between two videos or like let's say average watch times It makes sense that the like button may be a tiebreaker in terms of Rankings in search results. So if you want people to see this debate if you thought that your side was more persuasive tonight It's a great opportunity To hit that like button and that means that this debate will probably be recommended by more people So we do appreciate your support and frankly. We're not ashamed of wanting to grow We at modern day debate are excited about the future We're optimistic and we frankly do want to grow because we think that we're offering something valuable on youtube We are trying to provide a neutral platform so that everybody has their chance to make their case on a level playing field So if you haven't yet Hit that subscribe button. We have many more juicy debates coming up So you don't want to miss out on them hit that subscribe button right now Holy so much. We just jumped up from six hundred and ninety eight to seven hundred and fifty three likes Thanks so much for your support folks. That really does mean a lot. So thank you if you hit that like button I am personally saying thank you Eloronte, thanks for your kindness Says james coons is the man james for president. Thanks. Eloronte for your kind words. Thanks for always supporting modern day debate, man I see you all the time on twitter and I see you in the live chat. We do appreciate that support Seriously, it means more than you know as well as I see you there in the old live chat Steve Watson. Thanks for being with us Hj. Evan glad that you were here gaming joe. Glad to have you Salmon darro wall. Thanks for being here. Luke wane says amazing Moel, thanks for coming by Texas money man, Texas says we appreciate you coming by this one from we will All return to all of thanks for coming by we appreciate you whether you be muslim Christian Atheists we really do hope you feel welcome here. We strive to be fully neutral So there are no aftershows where let's say I would go, you know and put out a video on my own Where it's just me talking and I go oh man Wow that atheist or oh that muslim or that christian did so bad in the debate their arguments were so bad We don't do that here. We want it to be such that if one view is presented on modern day debate It's always going to be opposed as well in that same video. So we do appreciate you. Thanks for all of your support folks That poll is still in the live chat on terms of who you thought had the most persuasive arguments for tonight's debate And not only that but I've got to tell you folks We are excited about a couple of things. I don't think I mentioned this yet during the stream, but It's an ad-free podcast modern day debate uploads these debates onto the podcast so that you can listen Two debates on the go. It's not monetized. You don't have any sort of you know Whenever I listen like the joe rogan experience and they're like so many Stars It's not like that the modern day debate podcast is completely ad-free So I highly encourage you folks. Check it out on your favorite podcast app Right now. You got your phone. Pull you just pull up your favorite podcast ad. All right, here we go We're going to go into the q&a. Are you both ready daniel and jay? Oh, let me unmute you jay Paceless joke on my part and and then I'll unmute you too. So the format says five minute closing Oh, you're right. Sorry about that. All right. We do indeed have five minute closings and then we're going to go into the q&a folks So We're gonna first kick it over jay for his closing. Thank you very much jay for that reminder as well on the floor It's all yours Right, so we saw quite a few times throughout this debate that daniel committed multiple fallacies When uh, those became evident He then reformulated and refitted the argument to try to throw it upon me to be internally consistent with My presentation and then he said things like most christians don't have your view No, in fact, most christians do believe that the old testament and the ceremonial approach that we have is orthodox Is consistent given the fact that the romechalic church would agree with this as well So the fact that he said most christians don't have your view. It's just patently false uh furthermore daniel cited uh text like Deuteronomy 18 as if that was about muhammad, which is laughable because the text actually says We will I will raise up somebody from among your brethren. That means a jew and muhammad is not a jew So, uh, this is creative interpretation that daniel utilizes By the way, how does daniel not know that that text in deuteronomy 18 isn't corrupted Unless that text is cited in the coran and maybe he thinks it is but again We're back at that problem of no epistemic criteria that was consistent other than that The coran is just simply the the correct religion and what's true and we should accept that But the question is about how do we know and recognize what the religion of the prophets is Now when I gave a list of things like temple sacrifice all the priesthood icon, et cetera, et cetera incense bestaments and so forth Uh daniel said well, we got a few of those things and so some of it's kind of similar. So see No, the argument was all of those things And the meaning of those things it wasn't just listing similarities And daniel's whole argumentation this whole time has been well, there's some similarities between the old testament It is on but but not any of the multitudes of dozens of passages that I arbitrarily say are corrupted and not true And by the way, let me pull in an unbelieving academic scholars who he knows Don't follow the coran. It is simply not true that unbelieving Hire textual critical scholars in some majority consensus Affirm the accuracy of the coran. It's just not true Now they might affirm something like it was written by or recorded by a single person That is nothing to do with whether it's true or not And by the way, the fact that the bible is a bunch of different books over over time has nothing to do with whether It's true or false either daniel's just assuming that it can't be preserved or that it's not preserved Providentially by the fact that there's a bunch of authors, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is or isn't accurate and historical furthermore daniel argued throughout the presentation that His view was not circular and I want to stress again that it absolutely was circular because Over and over we had requests. I don't know if I saw my my board here to remind you That the requests were specifically About the epistemic principle for how he knows or how any seventh century jura christian could know That the teaching of the coran is correct prophecy prior revelation deuteronomy 13 and 18 as we saw Specified that it would be consistent with prior revelation But daniel's now saying that no, there is no consistent prior revelation So the very thing that he said that christians and jews could appeal to mosaic Torah prophets in jeal he says Only if it's consistent with the similarities to the coranic presentation in other words The epistemic principle is the Koran by which we know that the Koran is the true revelation of the prophets But it's not And when daniel's pressed on the issue he just restates things like well, you just go look with your eyes This is completely naive when it comes to epistemology I could just say the same thing. Well, I just go look with my eyes that it's not You see how this doesn't resolve anything and it's not an answer to the epistemic question It's just restating the position over and over and over And then when he says it's not a circle ironically, he just rephrases what it means to go look with your eyes and to see So we never got an answer to that we never got a presentation about The actual meaning of the consistency of those texts and when he asked me how is your view consistent with the old testament I start to give answers of consistency and he says Well, uh, you know, most christians don't believe that no actually most christians do believe that Protestants are in the minority Orthodox and roman calvics do Constitute the majority and do agree with the transmission of these principles of Let's go back to it temple sacrifice altar priesthood icon Incense vestments we can include them as a package deal now daniel says but you don't have a consistent way to present Uh, how you follow and don't follow the old testament. I gave a consistent presentation I said well first of all in the jewish theology itself not all of those things are for the gentiles So that's that's not me saying that it's true because you said it. I'm just saying that that's one argument from older theology The question then about the new testament is who's in continuity with that and that continuity What about 20 seconds? Okay, that continuity is proven by the the meaning being consistent over time of temple sacrifice altar priesthood icon Liturgy incense, etc And daniel does not have those things and he knows that and so he's citing loose similarities to prove continuity When as we saw it's not it's all arbitrary and he rejects Giant portions of the old testament Time we'll kick it over to daniel for his five minute closing as well the floor is all yours daniel Yeah, so the point that From Deuteronomy 18 the lord thy god shall raise up to the prophet of thy bed brethren Yeah, mohammad is a descendant of ismael and abraham. So he is the brethren Of of moses and jesus and all of the prophets. So that is he is of the brethren Of those prior prophets by that argument my sir brethren So can I get that time back? So Islam has far more similarities with the mosaic law than christianity The only way that jay denies this is through a post hoc reasoning by appealing to the church When I say that most christians don't accept your position I just meant that most christians are not orthodox So many of the interpretations that the orthodox give to the new testament and the requirements of certain rituals And the requirement of certain kinds of liturgical prayers. That's not accepted by the majority of christians You have protestants who disagree and you have catholics who disagree on the details That's the only point that I was making um Let's see Yeah, so overall the entire argument I mentioned from the beginning is that I started with the question of should we look at the Old testament to determine what the religion of the prophets are Or should we look at the quran And jay completely ignored that and he just insists or he just presupposes that of course We're going to use the bible to determine the religion of the prophets But that's something that I don't accept you didn't establish why the old testament is The source of information about the prophets the definitive source of information You didn't establish that in the debate. I only for the sake of argument I said, okay, sure fine. Let's look at the old testament as if it is the definitive source on the prophets even though Muslims don't necessarily accept that And even then when we do so we see that the There's all kinds of similarities between islam the sharia mosaic law the teaching and practice of moses look at the Theocracy that is established by mosaic law look at the imperial conquest that's established by mosaic law look at Look at all of the rituals regarding animal sacrifice. Look at all the rituals involving purification Look at all the rituals involving pilgrimage and on and on look at the norms Look at the prohibition on certain kind of sexual behaviors and the punishment that is prescribed for those sexual behaviors Look at the prohibition of usury. Look at polygyny. Look at having multiple wives. Look at the dietary restrictions All of these are major similarities between islam and mosaic law What does jay do exactly as I predicted? He just hand waves and says no, no, no Those aren't real similarities. These are the real similarities and that's why he kept emphasizing over and over again The icons the temple the priesthood, etc, etc But my whole question which he did not address is give me a principled reason Why those are actual similarities between christianity and the hebrew bible versus islam similarities The only thing he could do is give a kind of typological interpretation based on church teaching and church tradition and these councils So that's why I said at the very beginning That we can't have a debate just on what is the similarity on the basis of the hebrew bible on the basis of the old Testament we have to have arguments beyond that jay did not provide any argument beyond references his biased Interpretation of the hebrew bible. He didn't provide a single argument outside of that Whereas I did give an argument. I said that look the quran has a track record of being a preserved text And this is a tested to by non muslims Now my argument wasn't as simple as like, okay, there's a consensus on the quran being preserved. Therefore it's preserved No, I said that this consensus we can investigate it. We can analyze it. We can look at what kind of Explanation and evidences are brought by the academic researchers to say that the quran is Can be radiocarbon dated to the time of the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam And it's been preserved and the gharah at like the different modes of reading the quran have also been preserved That is all things that non muslims in academia Uh, will claim based on their research and based on their evidence and I cited several works nicolai cyanide Maron van puten and others. So this is something that is independent of the quran It's independent of the islamic tradition that I can cite to show that islam has a track record of preserving religion Jay could not provide that because there that does not exist. There isn't a Preserved version of the pentatouk that can be traced back to 1300 bc or 2000 bc There isn't a version of the gospels that can be radiocarbon dated to within the first two centuries of christianity a complete Manuscript of the gospels let alone the rest of the new testament So there there is no actual independent evidence of that And I asked jay to provide any and he he couldn't respond So this is this this is the actual difference between our positions This is the actual difference between islam and christianity and that's what my whole argument was based on But I didn't get a response to any of those claims Time we're gonna jump into the q&a want to say We're gonna move fast folks So I do want to ask gentlemen if you can be a favor just because this way if we Have it where each of you or I should say not each Only one of you responds to each question Without the rebuttals that'll help me get through a lot more questions because there are so many and I want people to But some of these are also comments as well. Just so you know, so This one from Elder rack Let me know if I pronounce the right says daniel. How would you feel if you didn't eat breakfast this morning? Alternatively if you didn't eat breakfast, how would you feel if you did? If I didn't eat breakfast, I would feel pretty hungry right now if I did eat it, I'd feel satiated Thank you for that maximo says christ is victorious Yeshua the king says for both All 66 books and all jewish and christian history teach by curious atonement and not one scholar would say otherwise Or say it was added yet islam rejects this concept. So how can daniel reconcile this? Which concept They say teach vicarious atonement And in other words that jesus Was taking the place of people's penalty for their sin that like people are counted as right as a result of christ doing that Well, islam does have the concept of sacrifice as a way to atone, you know, when you sacrifice it's meant for piety The Quran explicitly refers to this the Quran says that when you do an animal sacrifice, it's not like the blood reaches Allah It's your piety your piety reaches Allah and you can sacrifice for the purpose of Atonement and this is also what the pilgrimage is about because when people make pilgrimage. They do hajj To mecca That is a way to atone for their sins and their sins are wiped like a lifetime of sins are wiped out And there is a sacrifice that occurs at the pilgrimage. So this is we have that concept within islam is preserved within islam You got it this one coming in from do appreciate it Try it and find her says christ died for our sin being our atonement Muslims believe he's just a prophet in general. They are wrong Give you a chance if you're on a spawn daniel Um, yeah, we believe that most uh, jesus PSP upon him is the messiah the great prophet who is going to return to Save humanity from the antichrist. He will kill the antichrist. We believe in him and love him And we have to believe in him And when he comes he will be a king and the authority who we have to submit to So we have great love and respect for jesus and consider him the messiah the virgin messiah So but we don't elevate him to the status of the godhead or the second of the godhead This one coming in from do appreciate your question t s apostolos says jay. Would you debate a biblical unitarian? Not many go deep on the two powers in heaven theology with orlov Slash boy are in Slash summers etc. Well made debate made mate Oh, let me unmute you if you guys mute yourselves. I still have to unmute you. Let me turn that rule off Okay, go ahead j Yeah, I mean, so is there any amount of time that We have to respond to these or is it? I mean Can can daniel just talk for like five minutes and I mean like what what's the time limit on these responses? Do we have a limit? If you'd like we can set Uh limit because it is true. There are more questions so far for daniel than and you is this 30 minutes or how long is this section? It's supposed to be 30 minutes. Okay. Yeah, so, uh, sure. I would debate a unitarian If they have, you know, some Background or knowledge of philosophy or theology or degree of some kind and if they have some kind of audience I typically don't just debate anybody who has a small audience or just wants to debate You gotta this one coming in from do appreciate your question bling. Cicero says why does the Koran misunderstand the trinity? Maybe we'll try to keep it with 30 seconds or so for each The Koran doesn't misunderstand the trinity The Koran refers to the trinity in a and actually refers to the nicene creed This is found in surat al-ekhlas and angela nerwith, I believe is the academic non-muslim academic who points out that the that surat al-ekhlas is Responding to the nicene creed in a in a very direct way And this is one of the miraculous aspects of the Koran because how did the Muhammad sallallahu alayhi sallam Know the nicene creed to respond to it in surat al-ekhlas So the Koran doesn't get the trinity wrong. It gets it exactly right and I have responded that Uh, let's see. I mean people are not going to get their questions read if we have too many rebuttals That's why I said earlier ideally we can have it where it's only one person All right, if it's short and pithy Yeah, I would just say go watch the video at orthodox shahada illustrating that the Koran does misunderstand it This one coming in from do appreciate it. Mr. Memphis has questioned for jay. Why does math you 26 14? state that judas Negotiated to give up jesus to be crucified Well, I mean it was prophesied in Zechariah that there would be a uh discussion about the Uh betrayal of christ for 30 pieces of silver. So it was predicted in Zechariah You got this one coming in from memory 28 17 says Daniel fell for jay's trap card Awesome loss in clips says for daniel the bible says quote the wages of sin is death but the gift of god is Eternal life through jesus christ the gift has already been given. Why won't you just take it islam offers no hope not? Okay, I mean islam gives a lot of hope it's forgiveness through Direct from god directly from a log a law is the one who forgives he doesn't need to take on the uh the person Or to be to give his eternally begotten son as a sacrifice in order to forgive us He can just forgive us directly. We don't need any kind of mediary between us and god. That's the beauty of islam Um, a law has the power god has the power to forgive you directly. It's not some kind of Obstacle for god that he can't forgive us without a sacrificing himself slash his eternally begotten son This one from brain mule has thanks for your super chat I didn't see a question attached if you had one josh says today's debate on which version of Let's see. Oh, you've got one of those. I think this is an atheist They say on which version of superman is best. It's pretty interesting. Can we do marvel heroes next? He's very salty There's one debate ever or we don't have an atheist Uh, but he's james. I've never seen you without green screen what you got back there You don't even want to know but this one coming in from dante spardas There's a question of j if orthodoxy is the true religion. How could orthodoxy have lost Hans st. Opel to muslims at its apogee apogee Well, I mean we don't measure the truth of the religion on the basis of who has worldly or temporal success if we did We might be papas and we would think that it's true because You know the vatican bank has a lot of money or something like that So those are ridiculous arguments for truth or false. So I mean I could point out muslim losses of the battles would that have anything to do with whether islam is true or false? No, it wouldn't you'd also point out that um when constant the noble fell it was actually uniate So it had become a union with the papacy. So I mean, perhaps that's why it fell I mean, there's a lot of different ways that this argument can be fleshed out But none of that has anything to do with whether Uh orthodoxy is true or false This one coming in from by the way folks if you happen to submit an insult I'm just not going to read it obviously. So we're going to try to speak through brain Dante sparda says a question to jay if orthodoxy is the true religion. How could orthodoxy have lost? We got that sorry contrarian 420 says do both panelists concede that god is ultimately transcendent and cannot be framed by any concept form of knowledge or scripture No This one from brain mulehead says Question for jay. Who are matthew mark luke john q source and the men in black I don't know what men in black has to do with the The gospel writers and the theorized original source that they might have pulled from known as q so to relevant Patricia for your question. I or a super chat. I didn't see your question attached Let me know if you had one yawa osman says has paganism seeped into the abrahamic religions For who? No, both of you Yeah, so the paganism that we see in the Old testament there are these references to divine counsel of gods When you look at the dead sea scrolls, it seems to be describing yawa as one of the sons of l Um as opposed to yawa being l or being uh the godhead So this kind of paganism is is found within these manuscripts of the Hebrew bible and they've been preserved in the old testament. Sometimes you have to read the new revised standard Version of the old testament in order to get the correct translation or the most academic translation I know that christians would dispute that but yeah, that paganism has crept into The bible into judaism and into christianity Yeah, and like I said when I was responding in the debate the idea that the term l Uh, which just means divinity just like the word god is a generic term It's not a proper noun So a lot of daniel's arguments were based on word concept fallacies that god Or l or whatever is a proper noun and it's simply not it can pick out different things Also, I mean everything that he was saying too about you know historic sources and radiocarbon dating and all this kind of stuff As the way that we would identify the Koran none of that was available in the 7th century So none of that had anything to do with how we would determine The true revelation versus the one influenced by paganism and again It's just assuming that there's no differentiation in yawa to say that that's therefore paganism Well, maybe there is differentiation in yawa and it's not paganism This one from el orante says question for j. How do you reconcile turn the other cheek? With darpa and world war one and world war two as well as the crusades I mean, how would the existence of darpa and world war one have anything to do with turn the other cheek? And return the other cheek is about uh, jesus saying that you don't have the right as an individual to take vengeance It has nothing to do with whether or not there are law courts or whether or not there can be Self-defense and warfare which orthodoxy does hold to and also holds to theocracy too By the way, which is something i always argue for in regard to what daniel was saying You got it this one from low-key says did he just say that the koran is not the word of god? um I think that jay did say that josh says daniel buffering and stuttering I'm to okay Looking for anything substantive in here This one from el orante says j epistemic principle is radical monotheism Lack to jews, but without supremacy Remove roman shenanigans after counsel of nicaea. You are welcome I mean you could go uh Say it would take you about five minutes to find a patristic citations from the first second and third century prior to not see I that teach the deity of christ That teach the deity the holy spirit again, it would take you about five minutes if you wanted to look through Uh, I mean there's uh ignatius of any august and martyr theophilus diddakie Irenaeus they all talk about the full deity There's distinctions in the in the godhead. Um, and we saw daniel for example site, uh, justin and Irenaeus, but he didn't understand that those distinctions had to do with the human knowledge of god How we distinguish god it didn't mean that there's different minds in god That's not what justin says That's not our no, i was talking about Irenaeus Irenaeus and Justin Irenaeus and Justin are distinguishing the will of god and the Knowledge of god so the knowledge of god had by humans and i'm saying that Knowledge the son the son's knowledge is not the same as the father's knowledge That's the mode the refers to mode two different minds Yeah, no refers to mode So there's this the mode that the mind exists in the person the father's not identical to the mode that it exists in the Son, but it's the same mind. So this is how can it be the same mind if they have different knowledge It's the mode that's different So you don't understand the difference between the thing qua thing and the mode of the thing mode refers to the Way of thing exists versus what it is in itself But with with thoughts and knowledge, it's just the thought it's just the knowledge No minds are not reducible to thoughts. They're not the same thing. I didn't say that their minds have thoughts They're not I said that a thought or a piece of knowledge Doesn't have this numinous phenomenon distinction that you're trying to draw when it comes to physical things a thought We're talking about god. That's not a physical thing. Exactly. That's exactly why your distinction makes no sense We have to go we have to move forward I can hear if it's I hate to do it, but somebody has to have a last word So I got to move forward the famous is j the main core of religion is who one worships Not only is the trinity a paradox, but Christianity isn't even clear on who or what god is Yeah, it's completely not true every orthodox church in the world confesses that We believe in a monarchical trinitarianism the Nicene creed says I believe in one god The father almighty maker code on earth and then it says god from god light from light in regard to the sun And into the end regard to the holy spirit. That's in the original Nicene creed as well So no, I mean you might disagree with that But whether or not a orthodox Christianity clearly teaches that is not it absolutely does teach that everywhere This one coming in from graze 174 says what does Daniel think? About Galatians 1 8 that says but even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel Contrary to the one we preach to you let him be accursed um Yeah, I mean that's a good claim but then when you see The text I cited like Jeremiah 8 8 or even kings like let me read you these passages How does how do you know that Jeremiah is not corrupted there? Yeah, I mean that's a question for I can assume that it's corrupted But a christian who's citing it a christian who's citing it is going to be uh, but you're not a christian Exactly. So this is a problem for a christian. This is a problem for the problem for you When the christian says look when the when Jeremiah 8a says how can you say we are wise for we have the law of the lord When actually the lying pen of the scribes is handled it falsely. Yeah, you just assume that's about that Yeah, so this is an example of Um Assuming or this is a claim that the text has been corrupted because the scribes are the ones who are writing down the scripture So you're citing a potentially corrupted text to prove the texts are corrupted Yeah, this is an internal contradiction for the bible because second timothy. No, it's only an 316 says all scripture is god breath and it's useful for teaching rebuking correcting and training Jeremiah's so this is a on the reading talking about rabbi's on the plain reading on the plain reading This is a contradiction. Yeah, you can yeah, you're telling me what he's talking about but that's what the text actually says Text don't work. I'm just going I'm just going by the plane. That's not how it were. You know text don't work that way They don't just go by the plane reading Everybody reads the text. There's no such thing as a plane reading the pran. For example, everybody reads text on the plane reading No, there's a monotheistic on the plane reading this but just because the pran is monotheistic on the plane So many questions. El Orante says radical monotheism is the epistemic criterion here j pran is fracan. Am I saying that right i.e criterion So question for you. What did dead sea scrolls reveal? I don't Based any of my argumentation on the dead sea scrolls So it has no no relevance to me. I mean there might be historical references that could be had through the dead sea scrolls To for example the veracity of isaia or something like that Because I think large portions of isaia are there if I recall But it has no Relevance to to my worldview this one coming in from must fat says question for j. Do you believe that you? Uh that god had gone to the bathroom in his clothes. They say surely jesus must have as a baby It's a heresy to say no since that means he's not fully man Yeah, I just like uh a law creates vaginas and penises. I don't have any problems saying that when he took on human nature Absolutely christ went through all of the normal functions of human nature So i'm from sick parvis magna says shake imran hossain is the only based muslim That one of your buddies daniel imran hossain if if it's the guy i'm thinking about that's a heretic Okay, this one from esio prowesses j how the logos could be god immutable and eternal and yet ontologically change to become man Yeah, we precisely do not confess that he ontologically changed in fact We confess that he quote underwent no change. So god in his divine nature undergoes no change even though he Uh steps into a new mode of being and this is why mode is very important I was trying to explain motive a minute ago But he didn't have any interest in hearing what i meant by mode So the second person of the god had enters into a mode of being namely being human The same way that those theophanies throughout the old testament the daniel chunks out Show the second person of the god of the angel the lord Entering into a mode of being which by the way is also in the crown the crown references Alla in the midst the voice in the midst of the fire, which i'm sure daniel would explain a way No, no, that's not a that's you're just projecting what you think my position is This one from grave is alla in creation No, he's he's separate from his creation, but so what's the voice in the fire? What's the voice? Yeah, he can affect his creation. What's the voice? Is it his voice? Yeah, it's his voice, but that's i mean he's in creation. Oh, but he's in the fire He's not in the fire. He's separate. It says the voice is in the fire Yeah, his voice. That's not necessarily god. Oh, so all our speech is not divine Uh, look, this is not a problem for our opposition now. This is not a problem Right, this is like this is not the problem of the trinity like the trinity is our problem with the trinity is the problem of multiple minds Which you didn't address the voice. So you won't answer the voice as you guys can see I said that the god is one answer from his creation God is separate from his creation Revelation his I know I know you just think from creation, but your your karan says he's in creation No, it doesn't This one how is the voice in the fire do this this one coming in from graze 174 says what's more likely that god allowed thousands of years of corruption And finally revealed the truth for his for real this time or that yet another new A reticle sect popped up in 7th century Arabia exactly Well, is that question for me? I think it is just a statement. I think it's meant to be an objection to you So there's it's some kind of contradiction for there to be new revelation Like this is something that christians accept. They think that they have we know is new revelation Yeah, you you have even new revelation until today because you have these infallible church councils That's not revelation. So you don't even know our positions. No, we don't the church council. No, we don't You're telling me that I don't know the orthodox position. You don't consider them new revelations, but they are treated as No, they're doctrine. That's not Revelations The death of the apostles Explication and a council is not a new revelation. So the apostles are getting to know our position The apostles die. There's no new revelations. So like the 7th ecumenical council is not guided by the the holy spirit They're not the revelations. They're explicated. Are they guided by the holy spirit? That's not a revelation. Are they got it? So when the holy The holy spirit comes and guides the council, you don't even know our position Is again, you're a displaying it would have been a good idea to understand you We're not roman calvates. Daniel I'm not a roman. You don't you don't accept arguing the roman calvate. You don't you don't accept the the first seven councils They're not the divine revelation Does the is the holy spirit involved? There's no divine new divine. Are they infallible all the are the first seven councils Are the first seven councils? I can make it. Why can't you answer between the revelation and explication? Is that a soy question? gentlemen Do you just have to keep going the eleuron? He says j the Quran removed council of nicaea shenanigans where ancient roman principles have been smuggled Why does arianism? Nestorianism and more Close to aronic theology than modern-day christians Why are arians and historians closer to muslim because islamic error comes out of an historian and arian presuppositions? Listen from franco true. Hello and graze 174. Thanks for your encouraging words Spartan up north says secret. Okay says daniel used circular reasoning. Okay Uh, daniel. Do you want to address the claim that used circular reasoning? Yeah, I failed to see what the circle was The circle circular reasoning doesn't mean you put words on a whiteboard and draw circle Like you have to explain what the actual yeah, I explained the other reason is It's the circle behind you see that see on the wall. You think that you explain it. That's a circle You think that you explained it l2a says within islam How do we in the created order come to know the uncreated god only by Other created things in frenzy's strict empiricism slash natural theology Exactly You accept natural theology. No, that was the question that you Are we I have the same position as you then you explain how you can have a transcendental How do you how do you name and predicate of god without using created objects? You tell me I believe in analogia. You don't Who why do you know? I believe Because you're salafi Salafi. I'm not salafi. Salafi. You mean? Oh, Salafi Okay, so yeah, so deflect the way to the pronunciation. No, no, but Because because you couldn't answer my position though, because you could what is why do you say why do you claim that? I don't know why you couldn't answer the voice. Hold on. There's a little too much talking over each other The way that you couldn't answer the voice in the bush that tells me your position on this No, that what it tells you is that you've just assumed my position And you don't actually know my position because you because you couldn't like we don't believe in divine simplicity We don't hate to I know you believe there's a distinction in attributes Yeah, so this is So he said I have the same position. I have the same position. I have the same position as you. How do you know? Oh, you don't because my position is generally my position analog. What is my position really quick? I hate to just You said Allah is not liking. Okay. Sorry guys. I hate doing this, but we just to knock it too bogged down This one coming in from neophyte once is daniel Do you also recognize the consensus of western academics when they agree the Quran has interpolations? See the works of nukolai sanai Let me also unmute you No interpolations. What is referred to are the qiraat so there are Textual variants in different readings or modes of recitation of the Quran all of those have been preserved And what are the nature of these differences? Or these quote-unquote interpolations things like maliki or middin instead of maliki or middin So is malik the same as malik? No one means sovereign or owner one means king But it's this is not like a theological problem or a theological issue with the Quran or Ya maloon instead of ta maloon, you know, they did they do versus you all do You know, these are the these this is the nature of the variants that are preserved in the Qiraat of the Quran that Muslims have been reciting Since the first generation of Islam This is very different than the textual variations that we find within the bible and in the old testament As I mentioned the denominations can't even agree on which books to include In their canon. That's why all of these bibles that depending on the denomination you have We'll have different books and then beyond that They'll have like entire sections like the ending of mark is something that is agreed is an addition to the gospel of mark um, so that that's the kind of Difference or variations that we find in the bible versus like one letter difference in the different qiraat Have to keep moving. I hate to do this, but just because we have a If we can try to shoot for the 30 seconds even though I admit that's hard because some of these questions are asking you guys Don't unpack a lot. You'll fight once is daniel. Do you also recognize that can we got that one? El Orante says j speaking of circles Al baruni ibn hazam ibn taz Taimiya al Fargani al Tusi argued that earth is spherical eight over 800 years ago anything from you I don't know what that has anything to do with this debate today about continuity and I would just say that To an earlier point two plus two is four and we could say that's infallibly true Without saying that two plus two equaling four is divine revelation So maybe that'll help daniel understand the difference between councils and infallibility divine revelation This one from Ahmed Ahmed asturk. Thanks for your question says doctor Or they say daniel. What is Allah's? One parentheses philosophically one of nature one numerical species or genus and if Of nature how can you on principle say christians are polytheists? Well the polytheism of christianity is as I explained the problem of multiple minds multiple wills multiple Instances instantiations of knowledge. This is what makes christianity polytheistic or the trinity. I should say polytheistic You have a logical problem of the trinity Whereas islam it's based on to heed oneness So it can encompass multiple different notions of oneness numerically or in terms of genus However, you want to define it that oneness is based on not having any partners lesa kamith lihi sheyoon. There's no Partners or likeness to Allah? That doesn't mean that Allah can't have this similarity or analogs With things that are created like Allah having a hand or Allah having knowledge or Allah existing There is similarity But the modality is completely different. This is bila cave doctrine within Islam so This is the difference between My actual position and what jay is projecting or he thinks my position is you guys have to get out of here by Can you give me 18 more minutes? I can't blame you if you need to go because I know that we said he was going to be 30 minutes q&a, but I can start are you uh, are you able to give me are you on the east coast jay? No, okay. Good. Uh, let's see jan you all don't care You just stand like This is rough. They say to jay was abraham a christian please provide evidence that he was Yeah, well again, if you go to the list of the the authentic text that I have Abraham was having a meal with god the same experience occurs when moses goes in the mountain has a meal with god These covenantal meals are fulfilled in the new testament's establishment of the covenant meal with god That jesus fulfills in the eucharist or we call the lord suffer so Within the old testament itself I would just say the multiple passages of theophanies in genesis 12 15 17 22 We'll tell you that abraham was not a radical unitarian Abraham was a trinitarian and that's why jesus says in john 5 To chapter 9 that abraham rejoiced to see my day so I was glad that's why the new testament says that the gospel was preached beforehand to abraham a christian you've got it this one coming in from and Grace 174 says jay is it possible for any amount of historical critical evidence to falsify your religion given that you're a presuppositionalist Yeah presuppositionalism doesn't deny or reject evidences, but it notes that we interpret everything through our worldview or through the lenses that we have There are governing governing uh network of beliefs or or categories So it's not an anti-evidentialist position. It's just saying that evidences are interpreted through our presuppositions and for example In tonight's debate. I was talking about uh cases where Daniel thinks that there's just a simple clear plain reading of the text Missing the fact that all texts are interpreted through a network of presuppositions or that all reality is theory laden So no i'm not ants against evidences, but uh, I don't think that there's going to be evidences that would falsify christianity No, well i can't respond to that It's like super short. I agree like I agree that our Ideas can be theory laden or that we're coming to the world with certain presuppositions I can't agree with that the difference is that the presuppositions that I brought to the explanation were empirical things that are based in actual observation and I critique I critique your criticism the presuppositions that you bring to the debate are well the church My church is true. No, I critique your presuppositions. I did an internal critique I did an internal critique, which you didn't get. Can I finish my statement? Can I finish my statement? So my presuppositions are shared universally by humanity your presuppositions are only shared by orthodox christians. That's not true They're not shared by humanity universally. How can you? Empiricism is not shared by humanity. You think empiricism is universally true that itself is a Empiricism being empirical observation. We have eyes to see ears to hear Are senses? That's why I'm a universal. That's what I mean That's why you think a universal claim. You don't think empiricism is universal. You don't think humans get knowledge from there Empirical data. Those are two different things. So you don't even know. Let me let me Maybe you should go learn some philosophy because maybe you should listen listen So you can't use empiricism with empirical. Why are you running jay? Why are you running? Why are you running? Is it universal that people get data humans get data from Is that is that more is that more universal or that the church is true Which one's more universal jay? Can you answer that? He can't answer that Basically, can you answer that? Why don't you answer there? Which one is more universal? Which one's universal? Yeah, I got it. I I disambigued you didn't get it. You keep I disambigued me guys I hate to do this. Which one's more universal. Why can't you everybody just really quick? Okay, sorry to do this but just because we have so many questions I want to say folks there's if you submit a question now I gotta get these guys out of here at a decent time so they get some sleep tonight So there's no chance you can read your question if you submit it now or frankly like in the last like probably like 10 minutes Uh, we're gonna try to speed through as many of these. I won't edit the Start of the video out like the pre-stream part that way your super chats are at least seen But I can't guarantee we're gonna get to read all of them. This one coming in from They say Jay the viable objectively has contradictions You'll have one verse say one thing and a different verse contradict it like with the age of ahaziah right, so we didn't get into the topic of Uh Copyist errors, which I did a if you're interested in that I did a live stream with a guy named James snap who's a new testament historian and we go into the Textual evidence for the end of mark and the section of john But I don't have a problem with there being a textual variance and copyist errors. I mean daniel himself just admitted that Oh, well, there might be some letters that are Different in different versions of the Quran So so he's allowed a little bit of wiggle room, but I mean our position is not Protestant So it doesn't hinge on a perfect autograffa You got it this one coming in from do appreciate it fame Alarante says Jay you are committing two fallacies false analogy or non sequitur in latin and also presox In other words hasty generalization. They say similarities between both does not mean coupling of falsifiability The argument was about who's in continuity with the prophets the the prophets are in the old testament So that's why we would go to the bible. I don't know if people didn't understand that but Uh, when we ask who the prophets are we're talking about moses. We're talking about isiah We're talking about david. We're talking about people who we have extant text prior to islam So no if you ask me about continuity with those texts We have to go to those texts. That's what the debate is about now daniel thinks that those texts are contradictory and the Quran is not But how exactly my argumentation was fallacious in the way that you're claiming. I don't understand that I don't I don't see how that follows This one from no name says to jay can the wills of the persons of the trinity differ Then they differ There are no wills in the trinity. There's only one will in god But the mode by which that will has had is hypostatic So each person has the one will in their own mode of being and we get that not because we made a pagan stuff Or we wanted to read greek philosophy We get that precisely because of all of those theophanic texts that I listed As well as the many other trinitarian texts throughout the old testament. So no god does not have multiple wills He has one will but it's had in the mode of the three persons You go ahead of this one coming in from oh it cannot mute you I think you should be able to unmute yourself But yeah, so if it's just one will Did the son will himself to be the begotten son? The father wills the son wills the begotten son. Does the son will himself? The one will is had in the mode of the three persons that have that will so anything to answer the question Does the son have the will to be get himself your question is premised on a false either or and i'm answering Did the son will himself? So you're not going to so the father sends the son is the kind of debate you wanted to holy spirit And you want an interruption the one action consider this cross Yeah, so he doesn't want me to answer. He just wants a false side. This is the debate you wanted, right? If there's nothing Just to hurry let's let's let's give you a chance to speak and then we'll come right back to you daniel Or so in our view any action that occurs in the godhead is triadic meaning that each person Uniquely instantiates that one action according to their role or mode So there's one action for example in creating the world The world is is created from the father through the son and in the spirit So there's one action, but it exists or occurs or is actualized in the mode of the triad Who has that one action likewise the coming of the son the father sends the son The son comes to be in the world and the son then sends the holy spirit into the world So one action that's triadic is manifest or actualized in the three hypostases that have that one will Yeah, that doesn't address the point because the whole spirit didn't You didn't explain how because the holy spirit didn't will himself to proceed I said one will exist in three modes and you just don't understand how so the holy spirit has It's mode, right? This is modalism. Basically. No, you're saying the holy spirit has you don't even understand the difference between mode and modalism So just like you don't know that it was between you're saying that you don't know the difference between modalism and mode The only the point that I'm making is that it's a separate will. It's a separate will You're saying that they're different Yes, I do a philosophy course, dude. You don't know basics. They don't teach your theology and philosophy course Is in purple data. They're different What is modalism? So can I make my point? All right gentlemen, I need you to not speak over each other because otherwise nobody can hear either of you so What was the who is the original question for? I can't even remember Okay, this one from al-arante says jay's whiteboard is more consistent than jay Uh spartan up north. I'm not exactly sure that means spartan up north says Oh, let me if you if you want to respond to that you can but otherwise I don't I don't it's just a joke go ahead say daniel a la is the greatest of deceivers How do we know a la didn't have his fingers crossed when talking to muhammad? Yeah, so go to first kings chapter 22 verse 20 and the lord said who will entice ahab into attacking ramoth gilead And going to his death there one suggested and another that Finally a spirit came forward stood before the lord and said i will entice him by what means the lord asked I'll go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets He said you will succeed in enticing him and the lord Go said the lord go and do it second thessalonians chapter 2 verse 11 for this reason god sends them a powerful delusion So that they will believe the lie your position. Jeremiah 4 10 then I said Daniel answers with a fallacy code. I didn't finish my I didn't finish my answer Let's give daniel. Let's give daniel a little bit longer to wrap up If you let me finish I can explain how this is not a fallacy I'm just pointing out that you have all of these verses in the bible that are talking about god deceiving in the quran The deception of god is in response to those who think that they are deceiving god and god because of their lies And because of their attempt to deceive god, he reciprocates by lent by leading them to delusion. So that is a just Uh consequence for their lies and their deception So that's that this is not too quote-quade. This is Explanating explaining the Quran and showing how the bible says god deceives people and leads them to delusion this one from No name they say to jay. We're we're adam and eve christians yes This one from el orante says circular argument files out flies out of the window with quote unquote false analogy logical fallacy enforcement here jay Read Aristotle muslims preserve that for you So i'm supposed to believe that islam preserves Aristotle and that Circular argumentation is what christians do because muslims preserve Aristotle I don't see how that how that what that means This one from neo fight ones says daniel all can we take the quran seriously wanted to firms known legends like the two horned One of the syriac alexander legend and sleepers in the cave as true see the works of dr. Tomasso Tessai No, that's just your presumption that that's a that's a myth You had many of these kinds like the epic of gilgamesh for example or the Other kinds of ancient texts that refer to things that are found in the hebrew bible They're found in the new testament and they're found in the quran Just because they're found in previous epics or texts like the flood That flooded the earth just because that precedes the bible That doesn't mean that the bible stole that from the epic or from those from that mythology and it doesn't mean that The quran stole it either so just because something is prior. This is the kind of fallacy that jay uses Oh, just because it was older Just because the text I didn't know that's not that's not what i heard dude You know, that's not what I argued. That's not true. Yes. It is what you are. No, it's not That is what you said. No, you're lying. You know, I didn't argue that we'll play back We'll play back Exactly what you said No, you're lying. You know, I didn't I'm lying. This one from all around. That's why you got the condescending. I'm lying. Look at the lie smile We have to move all around he says zolkering Zolkering main is not a lexander probably syris Yeah, though carnain the figure mentioned in the Oran Some have speculated that it's syris the great only god knows this one from Ranny al-sanan says to daniel quran prohibited adoption after muhammad saw zainab His adopted son's wife and wanted to marry her. What can you justify this immoral act? Adoption is not prohibited in islam Muslims adopt all the time. There are many imams even that I know personally who will adopt children Adoption is not what's prohibited in islam. What's prohibited is when you adopt someone and you mislead the child into thinking that The child is a biological child of of yourself. That's what is prohibited in islam You cannot deceive the child and say yeah, i'm actually your blood father or mother That's prohibited, but actually adopting taking care of orphans. This is one of the Best acts of charity in islam. It's highly encouraged in islam muhammad says since islam claims that the texts of past prophets have been corrupted What external evidence demonstrates islam's consistency with those prophets? So we accept the Prophets like moses and abraham on the basis of the quran Um, I've been consistent. Yeah, I know I've been consistent about exactly I've been consistent about that on the from the beginning of this debate But there is independent evidence to show that the quran can actually preserve text And the islam can actually preserve text. It can actually preserve Teachings and doctrine whereas christianity has not been able to preserve Basic texts like you can't even show me a manuscript of the gospels that dates to the first century or the second century Or the third century. So this is the difference between islam and christianity and our textual tradition Yeah, so i'm from i want to i want to address that because he just admitted the very thing that I argued the entire time It is from the beginning. Yeah, I admitted that from the beginning. Yeah, I did so so the circle So it's true because the quran exactly. No, that's what you just said. That's what you just said Yeah, I accept the prophets ibrahim and moses because of the quran. There's no actual textual evidence Which is that ghost of moses that's called a circle daniel. No, that's the thing behind your head. That's a circle The argument was too sophisticated for you to understand jay. That's all you didn't get it until halfway Go back and review go back and review the opening statement That's why you had to hold on so that you actually understand my opening statement And you'll see what the argument was All right I'll give you a really quick pithy response jay because I know that you want to say something in response But then we got to move on to the next question. So give you the last word this time jay Right. So again, uh, he admitted the very thing that I accused him of the entire debate Which was appealing to the quran to know what true prophets are when the question was about the the quran's reliance on prior revelation And he knows that's the debate This one from benny red pilled They say daniel preservation doesn't mean veracity any bedouin like mohammed can claim that his quote unquote visions are a revelation from god and write them down lol in all caps Like heavy chances of ideal. They uh, there's sassy. What have you got daniel? Yeah, so this argue this debate wasn't about which text is true. Which scripture is true That's a separate debate our debate was about preservation and I show that Continuity because it's continuity Hold on. I I hate to do it jay, but I gotta give I gotta give this guy can't let me talk for five seconds without interrupting look Yeah continuity means preservation like to be continuous with the past scripture or past teachings You have to preserve the past teachings and the past scripture and the past doctrines that preservation is Intimately connected to the concept of continuity. So I I demonstrated in this debate with citations that islam can preserve a text How can we debate what religion has preserved the teachings of the prophets when christianity can't even preserve the teachings of jesus Like that's the fundamental question on to that He's responding to everything if he wants to yeah, it is kind of true Again preservation is not the Preservation is not the same thing as continuity. And so that's why he wanted to shift to what wasn't actually the topic of the debate This one from el orante says jay divine unity Hypothesis is logically consistent with laws of nature where we have Uniformity islam is epistemically based on divine unity Yeah, but islam also has to answer the problem of the one and the many as it relates to the Interdependence of the attributes and whether each attribute has a seity or not And whether certain attributes rely on or depend on other attributes such as divine knowledge or divine will depending upon divine life So to just pass this off as oh, we don't have that philosophical problem because of divine unity ignores the problems with naming a law This one from neophyte once is daniel. Why was the ball? Am I saying this right kibla? Originally towards the temple in jerusalem when it was structured only for priests And it was believed god dwelled there Yeah, the kibla the direction of prayer was originally towards Jerusalem and then it was changed to mecca within the lifetime of the prophet sallallahu alaihi sallam and in the quran itself After the quran after the lifetime of the prophet sallallahu alaihi sallam. There was no new revelation This is not the same situation as christianity You have all of these councils that are considered to be guided by the holy spirit and considered to be infallible So they're introducing all kinds of new dot new revelation Yeah, Daniel doesn't understand that that's the cope. It's not new So you think two plus two you cope in jay your copation. So you think two plus two is four Oh, that's what the that's what the church is agreed on. That's what the councils don't even know our positions The councils agreed on two plus two equals four like that's the doctrine of the church That's the doctrine of the you're too dumb to even understand the analogy You can't even understand the analogy you think so because two plus two is four infallibly true It's divine revelation. That's the argument you're making. That's such a ridiculous strawman strawman you said that Does the holy spirit come to the councils It's just there's too much speaking over each other and then they can't hear either of you guys I hate to do this to you. I appreciate your passion It's just that not everybody can hear you This one coming in from vesper says appealing to expert consensus To increase the probability or suggest that it's more probable that something is a case is not a fallacy I didn't say that appealing to suggest it's the case of the fallacy Daniel tried to pull that out as an independent proof and it's not and then he later scaled it back and said it's an evidence But it doesn't matter because I can he just doesn't accept the scholars that I could appeal to and when I mentioned scholars Said you never mentioned any I mentioned blonde. Yeah, you mentioned two evangelicals. So I mentioned two But yeah, I said what percentage of scholars actually accept there's no on what basis are we supposed to accept the percentage By the way, you just argued that preservation means a true which is a fallacy No, that's not my argument. That is what you argued. You said it's preserved. So it's true That's what I said. That's that's what I said. This has been a very lively debate Tim Nolan says Muhammad was caught Okay, that's I don't think it's really relevant. Hello, Ron. He says Jay, there are three whole branches of Islamic theology developed specifically to avoid Anthropomorphism in Islam keep the blonde Jesus to yourself Yeah, we don't believe that Jesus is blonde. I mean you can see in every orthodox icon For example, you'll see him as the high priest for example here. He always looks the same orthodox iconography So there's no blonde blue haired Jesus in orthodox theology because he's a Hebrew See him as the high priest here This is ignorance. You'll fight one says Daniel. We got that one Tim O'nell says Jay, I thought you are Strolled opposition with no other than Alex Jones being your boss selling I don't work for Alex Jones. That's nothing to do with this debate. I'm on info war. So it doesn't mean I work for Alex Jones El Aronte says Jay your whiteboard has information from you. It could be read without you Does this mean whiteboard? You're writing and you are three in one or one in three I don't understand how Making distinctions and created things is relevant here because I could argue that the one in the mini proves a trinity. Sure That's what you're arguing. How does it do that? Because it grounds the problem of the one in the mini How what does grounding mean? Maybe if you understood basic epistemology you would know a grounding Yeah, if I accept the churches if you actually knew if I presuppose it. Yeah, because you don't know what you don't know What grounding means, right? No. No. Yeah, I don't have your Go have a philosophy course and then you would just using one app would understand that I'm using basic terms And then pretend like you're explaining and this is hand waving No, it's not my fault. It's not my Grounding mean what does it sound like to educate you on epistemology and a debate? Well, someone is asking a question for you to explain you make a claim that oh the problem of the one in the mini It's all by the trinity. I explained. I asked you how does it do that? You say it was grounded debate. It's grounded by it You'll have a trinity debate with jake. I want to see you versus jake. That would be great Listen from lord stanis says the initially Polytheistic israelite god was hijacked and plagiarized by paul and company then later by mohammed and eventually by joseph smith Fiction they say I think this might be an atheist You're both you both don't look convinced. Okay This one coming in from Momin says jay jesus is part of the omniscient trinity yet mark 1332 quotes quote No one knows nor the son, but only the father. How do you explain this? First of all the trinity doesn't have parts god has no parts god is simple meaning that he's indivisible Uh distinctions do not entail composition or division just like he would say the distinction the attributes does not entail Composition and division and a lot we make the same argument about the persons And there's multiple statements in the gospels where you have uh what are called figures of speech where for example Jesus says no one is good, but god other statements say well Yeah, but also the sun is good or the holy spirit is good So you can't take a phrase that's a figure of speech and act as if the sun has no omniscience when other texts explain that the sun Does him have omniscience and so jesus frequently uses figures of speech like that This one coming in from mirage zero zero two seven two zero zero four says when the Quran makes references to the quote On quote corrupted prior books without presupposing the Quranic correctness. What's the standard for believing those? We can just look at what non-muslim academics say about the preservation of the bible We can look at the fact that there is no preserved text that goes back to Abraham or moses or or many of the prophets that are in the Old testament and even the ones the texts that are attributed to them. There's no evidence There's no independent evidence that they actually A manuscript actually goes to their time of life of living the Quran We can date it to the life of the prophet Muhammad's isam So that's that's one big difference when you look at all of these different variants that I mentioned between the masoretic The septuagint between the dead sea scrolls and on and on that's the proof that there's all these variations And most christians actually accept that look there and even jay right now Except that oh well You just admitted in the q&a that you don't have like this solar scriptura Protestant mindset So it's not even important that the text has been preserved so you can see There are variations. I want to put you can see that Yeah, so preservation itself does not entail Accuracy or veracity. I mean we could look at the book of Mormon being being preserved nowadays through the printing press That is absolutely nothing to do with whether it's accurate or correct No, it does it does matter that it's accurate Whether it's correct or not Yeah Book of Mormons true because it's preserved by the I didn't say the Quran is true because it's preserved I've never said that you know You've been arguing that no, I said that islam has a has a proven track record of preservation I didn't make that's irrelevant. I didn't relevant to whether it's true or false I was it I didn't come that that makes it you are now your trip. I said it just proves that it doesn't preserve Islam can preserve It was preserved. Good job. Yeah preservation shows that can Doesn't entail Christianity has no They're preserving It's a fact of difference. It's doesn't have to go to the next one gentlemen. We can't admit that I didn't say preservation means True, that's just your misunderstanding of the argument. I must do this board alchemist Board alchemist says how come all the rabbis say Jews can't pray in a church As it's a house of demons and idols, but they can in a mosque if Christianity is the continuation Well, rabbinic Judaism departed from Christianity because of the question of the messiah So the fact that rabbinic Judaism later puts curses on Christians has nothing to do with whether or not New testament Christianity is in continuity with the Old Testament Hebrew revelation This one from Timon or Timon I normally I thought this wasn't earlier. I said it wasn't relevant, but I'm kind of like I was like Maybe it's relevant because it is the debate is on which is the religion of the prophets So Muhammad being I think it's fair to say the central prophet of Islam They say Muhammad they say allegedly Muhammad was caught having an affair with his son's wife Daniel maybe this person is making this up. So I want to give you a chance to respond Yeah, this is uh, just Christian apologetics that have been refuted thousands of times. So this is just False aspersions being cast on the prophet Muhammad. So I saw them, you know, the thing that I appreciate about jay actually I want to say a kind word to jay. I find his apologetics more intellectually stimulating and Rigorous than a lot of Christian apologetics a lot of Christian apologetics is just like oh Muhammad did this and that Contradictory to liberalism, but jay actually, you know, if I can say something kind about his work It's actually intellectually rigorous He puts a lot of effort and explaining a lot of doctrines and I appreciate that about jay's work So I want to give him a thumbs up for that as a muslim He really distinguishes himself from other apologists who use these kind of tired worn out arguments And I say too that I've appreciated this debate In terms of its rigor as well. It's been better than either the shabira lee or the uh, Paul williams debate So I would say that this one is up there probably with uh, shake eyes or a sheet debate. So, uh, thank you as well, daniel It has been a tremendous debate and we've also gone over so I want to say a huge Thank you jay and daniel for going over the promise time by a long shot I owe you guys for that and issa is in the uh Live chat issa was recently on to debate It was a great debate issa a very friendly guy well spoken If there are any other muslim folks, that's how issa actually came on modern day debate as I wanted to say folks If you happen to be a muslim or if you if you happen to be a christian or an atheist and you're like man I really love these debates We have a link in the description box that explains how you come on a modern day debate We are looking for new debaters all the time and we do appreciate people like issa as like I said Really funny. We're good to see issa in the live chat. I want to say Folks Email me at moderndaydebate at gmail.com if you do want to come on here that link for vetting in terms of how we bring in New debaters again is in the description box, but most of all Thank you jay. Thank you daniel. This has been for real. This has been a like high octane like rigorous Back and forth like non-stop action like there was an adult moment where you saw this has been An amazing debate. So thank you guys Thank you. Thank you so much And last but not least folks Crack out our guests who are linked in the description So if this is your first time somehow you haven't heard of these guys because they're big time They're heavyweight debaters But if you somehow haven't heard of them Track out their link in the description box You can hear more and even if you disagree with them At least if you go to the primary source and you hear it out You know what they really have said not what others have said that they say so I highly encourage you Check out both jays and daniel's links in the description box That includes at the podcast we put our guest links in the podcast description box too So thank you guys. It's been a true pleasure Folks stick around i'll be back in about 14 seconds to let you know about upcoming debates You don't want to miss it as a quick post credit scene But one last thank you to our guests and i'll be back in just a moment Ladies and gentlemen, I've got to tell you that was fantastic I seriously enjoyed that debate so much and not only that but i've got to tell you Let me just load my picture up here I think I logged out of zoom and i've got to tell you my dear friends seriously This is always fun. I appreciate you being with us. We want to say Here I come i'm gonna be a little jumbled up two seconds Join the computer audio. There we go two fair. All right It's my first time but want to say thank you guys. It's been so fun This was a really good debate. I that would be an understatement I do want to say Like I said our guests are linked in the description. What what are you waiting for? At least you can go to the primary source understand it even if you're going to critique it Well, then even better. I mean if you're going to do a critique go to the primary source So you know exactly what it is that they're saying want to say thank you guys for your support though I see you there in the old live chat. Kevin. How good to see uh, thanks for your membership support kevin Howe song I see you there in the live chat. Thanks for being with us ranny elson on thanks for being with us Anathema good to see you there. Oh, yeah folks anathema in the live chat has shared The discord link for modern day debate That's also in the description box. So if you hang out on discord I highly encourage you check out our discord seriously. It's amazing I want to tell you we're excited that it's in the thousands now so Jane and hannah and others have done a fantastic job of working on the discord to make sure that everybody has their chance to make their Case on a level playing field there as well As you know if you didn't know modern day debate Is determined to provide a neutral platform so that everybody can make their case on a level playing field We want to say thank you to our guests. They are the lifeblood of the channel So just both jay and daniel are amazing. We do appreciate them. They are the lifeblood of the channel So if you are a sweet channel member Which was he in talks? I see you there in the whole live chat isa cabir Thanks for being a member. I appreciate you signing up as well If you are a member you can use those based And amazing modern day debate custom emoticons They're in the normal spot where you look for the smiley faces and you can call your friends a soy boy You can say amazing. You can call them nasty. We got a nasty emoticon say nasty guy He's a nasty guy. You can do that. Thanks for your super chat El Orante says dear christian brothers and sisters. We have a lot more common than you think Resist antichrist together preserve family unit preserve human dignity. We appreciate your Message of unity and I've got to say folks. This is one thing we all agree on for one thing in addition to el orante El orante saying hey like be kind to each other I agree And in addition to that We all want a neutral platform where people are treated fair and we try our best to do that It's a tough job because it's the kind of always like wow, I was like I'm trying to be fair I was like, you know, I want to call it right down the middle and I'm always, you know, I think that's the one thing that I like is that I'm not always sure That I'm like being fair completely fair And you may think well that sounds bad james and it's like well that could be bad for two reasons though It could be because I'm not doing a good job of being fair and it's kind of like well, that's yeah That's why you're not sure james or It could be that it's like you do a pretty good job of being fair. It's just that you're You're pretty cautious. You're kind of vigilant. You're always looking around and questioning your you know, you're self examining All the time to be sure of your fair and that's something I think I do is I really do try To actually say okay, like am I being fair here? Like maybe I'm not let me think through this Let me mull this over is that we do want to say we appreciate all of our guests. They make this fun And my dear friends I gotta say I'm in a good mood. It's been a fun debate. It's been an intense debate that was High like I said high octane It was amazing And I do want to say other housekeeping stuff But you guys let me show you this this is important because you might be thinking like james. What's important. Tell me while I will Let me show you this right now because this is like as you can see I'm going to pull this up in the bottom right of your screen if you live in the Houston area or frankly anywhere in the state of texas or louisiana no joke We highly encourage you to come out to this event that you see at the bottom right of the screen in particular Modern day debate live and in person. This is our self titled conference You could call it more of a mini conference to be fair Is that this is our little mini conference two debates? That's it And I'm excited though because I'm like hey like this isn't just like oh two average debates This is going to be again too high octane debates. Like I am really excited about this You guys you don't want to miss it Modern day debate is going to be throwing a huge event. We are doing this event in Houston texas as you can see at the bottom right of the screen you guys it's going to be gigantic for real You really have to check this out If you are anywhere near now if you're like james come on, you know, you guys want to guess what city Modern day debate gets the most viewers from You might be thinking oh well, you just mentioned houston. It's probably houston. No, it's not actually houston It's surprising I'm pretty surprised. I'm very serious Uh that I'm surprised at this It's not los angeles. It's not chicago And it's not even because you're thinking like yeah james. Why are you starting with like The like populated like highly populated cities, but not the most populated city. Obviously it's new york james No, it's not. It's crazy We have more viewers in london Then from new york, isn't that crazy? That's amazing I'm very flattered because I've been to london. I've been to stonehenge just outside of london It's a tremendous place. It's a beautiful place. The people were so friendly I remember I got lost and a nice very like yeah, just congenial fellow a local He helped me find my place because I got lost while I was trying to find my bus to go see stonehenge I got to meet justin briar lee Who lives in london? You guys know who that is, right? He's hosted the unbelievable podcast Which is a kind of a christian debates podcast and justin briar lee is fantastic. I dream of being As good of a moderator as justin. I got to meet him once. I think I already told you that But yeah, I got to meet him. I'll show you the picture sometime I've got the picture. I was a young chap. I was still only 30 Now. Oh my gosh. Can you believe before I started this doctorate? I didn't have any gray hairs in my beard I had zero Now I had some along the side here But I didn't have any up in front like the front middle Now I've got grays in my beard. I got grays in the middle, but don't worry. I'm not complaining. I like I'm For real you might think like uh, oh james. You're hoping I'm happy to have I'm happy to be a silver fox as they say You know But I gotta tell you the doctorate has been it's been time consuming It's taken a lot of energy. There are some nights where I've just worked through the night Like it's been a long haul, but I'm thankful and lord willing I will be Graduating this December. That's the plan. So if I can keep my dissertation on task like on this timeline that it's supposed to be on Then I will be at some point probably in December That's my hope it could spill in in January, but I really want to work hard to stop that but Lord willing by this December, it'll be dr. James And it'll be modern day debate led by dr. James coons and believe me folks. We are excited about the future We are optimistic. We are continually refining how we do things We're not afraid to admit there are things that we can improve on for real You have to be real if you're not you're not gonna fix anything if you're not willing to admit That's something needs to be fixed to yourself You have to be real and that's the kind of stuff that we have to say. Hey, no We we are not good at that we've got to get better at that because that's the first step to actually fixing it So you're actually are good at it Amazing. It's just today, you know, I've got this hyper politeness of like You can't say that, you know, someone's like, you know, you can't say yourself that somebody else isn't good at something And you know, you just have to tell your yourself and everybody else that they're all right just they're all right just the way they are We're just like what like what's so bad about Improving yourself and having things to improve. That's what it meant to be human Anyway, you just own it and you start pulling yourself up. You start working at it Agent black good to see you. Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate your support there friend Alonzo Harris. Good to see you there in the old live chat. Holy water. Thanks for coming by 1d glad to have you with us cool servant. Jesus swag. Thanks for coming by mo salla 100 thanks for coming by oh ho negano. Thanks for dropping in raiders cat Happy to have you here lion jr. Happy to have you here Milo be happy to have you with us john mc glad you're with us peter too Apologetics glad that you're here gill oh gill This is simpson's reference, but gill. We're glad to have you here. I see there as well as Sinimo and knob They can't even tell it might be in russian It might be in greek. I can't tell what those letters are but in either case, we're glad you're here Thanks for your support. Allerante. Thanks for your kind words. So james high mountains have white snow equals gray hair Thanks for that. I appreciate that don't give you rug. Yeah, I that's actually why I like now I'm kind of getting to the point where I'm like, okay. Now. I've got it like ages enough because in a way age kind of does There are good. There's good things about being younger. There's good things about being older There's pros and cons and I'm quite happy like as I've aged Like I've enjoyed it. I've been happy with it. So I've got no regrets or sadness or anything else including my crown of glory So, but yeah, that's what gray hair crown of glory. You guys know what the reference is. Come on. You should know this But want to say my dear friends Thank you for your support. If you are new to the vision of modern day debate I'm going to quick share it and then I'm going to let you guys go But of course before I share that vision. I want to tell you this Modern day debate is available on your favorite podcast app. So if you're like james, really I know because youtube creator studio has statistics and it tells me most of you Listen to modern day debate on your phone. Okay, so there's no Avoiding that there's no escaping that there's you can't I know it Which means your phone is probably nearby You're maybe even holding it in your Rubby little hands right now I highly encourage you if you haven't yet you can search on your favorite podcast app to type in modern day debate the name of the youtube channel obviously We just same name. It's just different platform And you can find modern day debate the podcast It's on spotify. It's on apple podcast. It's on We're on everything. I've worked really hard to get out everywhere. I heart radio All the like small ones like cast away and pocket casts And you know, uncle joe's podcast. I made that one up there But we're on like through we're on like every podcast So I want to encourage you if you like listening to debate say this is a great opportunity You can listen debates on the go whenever i'm on a plane. I almost always fly frontier I just take a backpack. Hey, it's cheap And no wi-fi usually pretty much ever on white on frontier I always have my podcast. I have plenty of stuff downloaded because that way I can listen to stuff on the go I don't need wi-fi. I can be on a plane that doesn't have wi-fi and I have plenty of entertainment Same thing if i'm driving through town My town has bad service, but If you've got these debates downloaded on your phone You can listen to those debates on the go and even if you drive through a patch with no service Or maybe you're on the subway and you have low service because you're underground or whatever it is You have modern day debate with you wherever you go And our vision is this We are not ashamed of the fact that we want to grow. We at modern day debate want to grow We don't feel bad about it or like oh, you you mean like are you competitive? Yes, we are competitive We want to grow. We're providing a neutral platform We want to make sure that's available on youtube We're saying hey If there's another channel that doesn't do that we're gonna say hey, you know what we're going to do it We're going to fill that niche We're striving to grow and expand Modern day debate believes in a neutral platform so that everybody has their shot to make their case on a level playing field I'd say everybody agrees with that everybody thinks that's a good thing Let me tell you about some of our values In particular one, obviously you can guess people even fairness when everybody had a fair shot two We believe in free speech that people can say what they want. We think that is a good thing It might be controversial. It might be weird It might be all sorts of stuff, but for us it's very important you say hey We're gonna let it at least be authentic That's the difference between modern day debate and let's say the mainstream media So if you like have all the mainstream It's overly produced Do you notice that? It's so you know, you can't say that you know, there's so much of like you can't say this you can't say that And it's oftentimes edited for crying out loud. So we're like hey, it's raw Here it's authentic. It is organic. It's real and last but not least We believe in competition I feel like being competitive oftentimes it's like a thing that they try to shame you So, oh, yeah, that's kind of bad, you know competitive, you know, it's like harmful or whatever Maybe they say it's like mass. What is it toxic masculinity? They say We say hey, you know what? We don't think it's bad at all. Here's why Debaters are competitive they make their case The cream will rise to the top and some people say well james But what if you have these bad, you know, potentially dangerous views? That's bad Why is that? If you have competitive debates Those dangerous views will get exposed. That's a good thing In other words, it's like the survival of the fittest ideas the best ideas win out That's important and think about it It's like the cream will rise to the top If you let the chips fall where they may if you let a thousand flowers bloom The best arguments will win out. And so if people are like, oh, well, I'm nervous What if there's a dangerous view on, you know Honor data bait modern database Dangerous they're they're platforming dangerous ideas These are the types of people they wear their bicycle helmet not only when they're riding their bike They even wear it when they're not Riding their bike. Yeah, they just worry about it. Oh, it's dangerous. They worry about everything How do they sleep at night? They just worry. Oh, this this mattress might be dangerous. I don't know But we would say hey, you know what? Competition is good because if there are dangerous ideas, which I would say hey, we've hosted some controversial stuff I'm not denying it. But the idea is The strongest arguments will win out. That's what the empirical evidence says So you say hey competition's a good thing You let a thousand flowers bloom. You let the chips fall where they may and the best arguments are going to win out I want to say thank you guys for all of your support. It means more than you know Slava, cocaine. Good to see you there in the live chat. Thanks for coming by night rider Thanks for being with us carry and chrysler. Thanks for being here Thank you guys for your support. Marcy Lynn. Thanks for coming by Marcy Lynn says we'd love to listen to the debate, but this host won't shut up But you just have to pull you didn't know about this in youtube You just have to pull like the time meter and you just have to pull it to the front of the debate You're gonna listen to it while it's live. You know that right? kind of in a way it is basically a video on demand The moment of live stream because you can just back up the live stream marcy come on Are you new to youtube? But jeez Okay boom. Okay boomer. Okay. I want to say thanks for your support though added. Yeah That core thanks for coming by says hey james. Thanks for your support. Seriously. It means more than you know Oh says by james the best mod. Thanks for your kind words. It means more than you know Want to say thank you guys for your love and support. I'm excited about the future lathe Thanks for coming by see you there in the old live chat. Thanks for your kind words Mouse person. Thanks for coming by Appreciate all of your support my dear friends. We're excited about the future Big things are happening here at modern day debate. We are like a locomotive and no matter how many Roadbox are put in our place no matter how many people are haters or complainers And people you know, the people have tried to boycott modern day debate I get a lot of satisfaction out of that That's like they even have a facebook group But my thought is hey, I'm excited. We're doing big things if you're doing big things You're always gonna have some people who hate it and they just despise it And we say hey no matter how many haters no matter how many hurdles no matter how many roadblocks We are going to keep Rusing forward like a locomotive as modern day debate continues to grow. Thanks for your guys's support We're excited about the future keep sifting all the reasonable from the unreasonable and we will see you next time at modern day debate amazing