vs Jay Smith

share this pageShare Page
Mohammed Hijab

Channel: Mohammed Hijab

Episode Notes

Episode Transcript

© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.


00:00:00--> 00:00:11

Muhammad, we're friends, are we not? We are definitely not friends. I'm your friend. No, no, no, no, he hates me but I love you in the in the conventional sense of

00:00:12--> 00:00:13

respectful to each other.

00:00:16--> 00:00:21

I think that's the most understatement. I can't be friends with anyone who's to be honest with you so outrageous.

00:00:24--> 00:00:50

God bless him for everything you say, I know you hate my Lord, my God, Jesus. But I love you. Now what we're gonna do today, we're gonna have a debate, five minutes, five minutes, five minutes, five minutes. And I'm gonna let you be getting began with a five minutes and what you bypass Muhammad to do is to show me and to prove to us how Islam began from the classical model, and I'm going to say and critique him. One historical what history tells

00:00:52--> 00:00:52

us

00:00:53--> 00:01:07

the emergence of Islam, how Islam began, but the birth of Christianity from it, the classical model, versus the historical model. This is going to be interesting, ladies and gentlemen, when somebody wants to start, okay, let's start right here.

00:01:09--> 00:01:47

All right. Well, I want to say generally, is that Islam, as a basic thing, has two connotations. You can say there's Islam with a small eye. And the smell with Islam with the big Islam with a small I literally means submission in Arabic, comes from the Arabic word Islam. We believe that every prophet was a Muslim, in the sense that they were submissive to the Lord. So we believe that the first human being to be on this planet, Adam, was, in fact submissive and was Muslim. So if the question is how did Islam emerge? The answer was simply nice lamp emerged, when the first human being.

00:01:49--> 00:01:51

That's how Islam emerged.

00:01:52--> 00:02:09

Islam with the big eye, which has a connotation of harmony, and other than that, clearly that happens in the seventh century, with the birth and Prophethood of Muhammad Allah from tribal messengers, we say that these two profits came,

00:02:10--> 00:02:32

who came between them where somebody says 124,000 profits, all came with the same fundamental message, to believe in one God and to worship the one God. This message is not only iterated and reiterated in the Quranic discourse, or no doubt is iterated and reiterated in the biblical discourse, which is why you'll find in Deuteronomy chapter five and six, verse number four,

00:02:36--> 00:02:37

Hero Israel.

00:02:41--> 00:02:56

My question is, this has always been the theological underpinning of all of the prophetic saints, including Moses and Abraham and Jesus, which is why you'll find them the Old Testament, that there really is nothing

00:02:57--> 00:03:10

that indicates a trinity. And I challenge J. Smith today to prove to the contrary of that, I challenge J. Smith today to give me one unequivocal and I'm talking about the Trinity notes.

00:03:11--> 00:03:55

Excuse me an ambiguous verse in the Old Testament, which refers to the Trinity because what we're saying is, how did both of these religions start? How did Islam saw photography Christianity? So? The answer is this Islam has always been there. As I've just explained my model. However, Christianity undertook a historically acclaimed historical development, which is what I will prove today, which started with trinitarianism and continued on to trinitarianism. And Theodosius The second is the F 381. Literally forced Christians literally forced Christians to adopt the position. And to completely forget about all of the other models including arianism, and subordination ism. So

00:03:55--> 00:04:30

if you compare the theological underpinnings of Islam, and how Islam is consistent with all of its profits, with the Christian message, and how, number one, the Old Testament is not consistent with the New Testament, and number two, that it is clear to any any objective historians that there was a clear historical development in Christianity, that which meant for the council's like Council of Museum, Constantinople, Calcio, calciner, 325 381, and 451, respectively, to formulate the theological creed,

00:04:31--> 00:04:42

Christians, my question is, why don't you just go back to what the Old Testament says, Why don't you go back to Deuteronomy, chapter number six, verse number four, where it clearly states Shem is

00:04:45--> 00:04:57

here, O Israel, the Lord, our Lord is one God. This is the kind of thing that all of the prophets came with. This is the same message that the Prophet Muhammad came with another we believe this is the same message that Jesus came with

00:04:59--> 00:05:00

one

00:05:00--> 00:05:11

minute. Okay. Now, so the things I've been able to raise here in this today's discussion, point, one, that Islam has two different connotations, you have Islam with a small light,

00:05:12--> 00:05:18

Islam, with the big eye, Islam with the small eye is submission which all of the prophets

00:05:20--> 00:05:21

before a second

00:05:26--> 00:05:32

line has always been in existence, in fact, exists for inanimate, inanimate because anything.

00:05:34--> 00:05:36

And this is exactly the same thing, as Jesus said,

00:05:37--> 00:06:06

have come to submit myself to the Father who sent me a chapter in john chapter five. First I just say listen, let's go back to Jesus to being a true Christian. If you want to be a true Christian today, it's not to follow this made up concept by the churches of the Trinity, ladies and gentlemen, to be a true Christian means to go back to what Moses says to Abraham says into what Jesus says, Jim is alive. Hello, he know, as an AI, hero, Israel.

00:06:08--> 00:06:08

Thanks.

00:06:10--> 00:06:54

Have you noticed, he used Islam with a big eye and Islam with a small line, his definition of Islam with a small eye are all people that want to believe, but the big guy are those who specifically follow the Prophet Muhammad, I'm going to use two different definitions for small life and big guy, I would suggest that the big guy is the historical Islam. The small lie is that Islam of faith and Islamic faith is dependent on some fraudulent material. Let me What do you mean by fraudulent material? everything he's going to tell you about how Islam beget. Now he says that Abraham was a Muslim, I'm sure he wasn't. Moses was a Muslim. I'm sure he wasn't. Jesus was a Muslim. None of the

00:06:54--> 00:07:22

prophets were Muslim. This word didn't even exist at the time that they were living in 1900 bC 1400 bc and the first century, but what we do know is that even the Prophet Muhammad his problem, Mohammed, we have difficulty knowing who he was, because you will hurt the Prophet Mohammed was born in 578, and died in 632. started receiving revelations in 610 to 632 for 22 years. But where does that story come from?

00:07:23--> 00:08:13

Where does the story of Muhammad come from? Does it come from people that knew him? No, that doesn't. Who was the first to write down the birth the story of Mohammed that we have today? Where's the first x 10 material written by him in his shot is his name he died in a 33. Muhammad died in 630 to 200 years before they finally get the story of Mohammed doubt. Now, what about the things he said, The Huddy. You have to hurry so he Muslim evened out? Timothy, look at all these are the the sayings of the Prophet. When did he die 870. That's 240 years after Muhammad died. So everything he's going to tell you about that Muhammad, or Islam with the small eye is dependent on source

00:08:13--> 00:09:04

material that comes from him in his shot a 33. Of what Katie a 35 Sahih Muslim 870 every woman comes after saw Buhari his posts 870 the tafsir only get first written down by man named 3923. Now can you see the problem? All they know about Islam with a small lie comes from two to 300 years later, when you look at Jesus Christ, folks, we have material from the very century and from the very time period he lived. Matthew, Mark and Luke, and john were all living at the time of Jesus Christ. Matthew, Mark and Luke. were writing within 30 to 40 years of Christ's death. Did they know Jesus? Yes, they did. Did they see Jesus? Yes, they did. Did they hear what he said? Yes, they did. Matthew

00:09:04--> 00:09:46

and john were eyewitnesses to that which they wrote, Mark and Luke got it from the eyewitnesses. Show me one eyewitness Muhammad from with any of his traditions, from what he said, and what he did. You cannot show me anybody that was living at that time. They live hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. Therefore, I would suggest now Islam though, is the big Islam of history is not the real Islam. And we need to go back and unpack what we do now know about Islam. Where is it that this religion began? I only have a minute to do that. I can't do it in the first minute. But can you see we're gonna do like with like, we're gonna look at the historical record for both

00:09:46--> 00:09:59

religions. We're gonna show that when you look at Christianity, when you look at the person of Jesus Christ, the fact that he died on the cross, something that Islam disputes, the fact that he rose again. That's what true Christians were

00:10:00--> 00:10:53

Every Christian wants to know, did God in the form of Jesus Christ? Did he die and rise again? Is that a historical fact? Can we show that Jesus didn't die? Muslims can't do that. Muslims can only assume he did not die. There's only one reference in the Quran surah, four Ayah 157, one reference to say he did not die. If he did not die and rise again. I'm dead. And so is everybody here who's listening to me. Christianity is not just the Trinity. Like he would like to say, Christianity is the fact that God came to earth. God died on the cross. God rose again, for everyone here. And that's a historical event. What Muhammad did what Muhammad said, we're now seeing is not historical.

00:10:53--> 00:11:12

We're gonna unpack that for you and show you what we mean. And we're gonna show you how difficult it is going to be for Mohammed to show me that Islam the big eye, the real historical Islam is the real Islam. We're gonna show you the big see Christianity, there is only one Christianity, and that's the historical. God bless you.

00:11:14--> 00:11:24

This is really gonna become very embarrassing today. No, no, no, no, let them decide that no, no, no, no, no, no, no, this is gonna be really, really embarrassing today.

00:11:25--> 00:11:30

He says that the first books of Hadith, or the first books of let's say, compiler, English,

00:11:32--> 00:11:39

which you cannot pronounce properly. And I'm sure that he has not been able to tap those books in the primary source material, because that's

00:11:47--> 00:11:48

Arabic, so you can't access.

00:11:53--> 00:12:42

Point number two is what I wanted to make. Can you hear me guys? Yeah, is that he is making the fallacy of believing that because the compilers compiled the hadebe 200 to 300 years after the Prophet death that didn't exist before that. How embarrassing. How ridiculous. How a historical. Do you don't know how the science of Hadith works? According to the Muslims, you've been standing here for years, my friend, and you haven't bothered to ask someone like me how science of how this works. Let me educate you. I know you might help the boss, I must educate you today. Yes, it will happen. You'll be educated j Smith, by someone who is at least the thought of your age, at least actually,

00:12:42--> 00:13:25

maybe. Maybe you know that. Okay, how so? Let me tell you something, the way that chains work, we have a chain. We have a chain for the Quran. We have many chains for the Quran, we have changed for the Hadith. All of those chains are for people that have actually met the Prophet seen the profit. Let me give you one example. One Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, which says man, catabolite, Mohammed and phileas Ababa Mercado, whom Mr. Wonka lies about me intentionally. So let him prepare the CPC and helpfile. This is narrated by at least 42. So hobbies according to scholars of Hadith, some scholars have already say 120 are hobbies, meaning companions

00:13:25--> 00:13:39

of the Prophet SAW this and narrated it to other people. He's making his embarrassing himself Additionally, by trying to compare the Hadees sciences, which is something he doesn't have with the biblical narrative. Now, let's read the book.

00:13:41--> 00:14:06

He said that the people that saw Jesus Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and john Solomon, Jesus Christ, not in scholarly circles, you can say that to your audiences, to your passive audience that are not educated maybe, to the rednecks in the Bible Belt region who are racist, some of them and they're just accept any picture's worth, maybe you can make those statements that Well, my friend, you can make those statements to an educated audience, you know very well, that the scholarly works like the ones that indicate very well,

00:14:15--> 00:14:16

very clearly guys,

00:14:20--> 00:14:32

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and john, first of all opinions, we don't know who these guys are. The actual audio sources are sources like Matthew, Mark, and Luke. JOHN is the oldest one according to

00:14:33--> 00:14:55

these these sources come as he said, about 100 years after Jesus Christ, no one saw Jesus and told us about him from the people that he's mentioned. He's lying to you as he does usually. And he's been caught on camera talking about there's no book being sold in Morrison's That's a lie. And this is a lie. And that's an historical a historical account. So how can you account for the fact that you're standing here

00:14:56--> 00:14:58

and the people who are your Christian friends and selling us

00:14:59--> 00:14:59

your time

00:15:00--> 00:15:35

us all to believe in a Bible which is not reliably transmitted. No, I challenge you, I challenge you to give me one chain of narration, which goes back to the companions of Jesus. If you do the same to me, I will easily do it. In fact, let's do it now. We have changed with narration, for example, asked him, he has been taught by me, who's been told by us man, he's been taught by the prophet Muhammad Sallallahu, wasallam, one chain, okay, do the same thing. Now I've shown you that then this is just one singular chain. But actually, you have 1000s of Sahaba of companions of the Prophet Muhammad wa sallam meeting him and writing down as well as verbally transmitted, what he's done. How

00:15:35--> 00:16:03

do you account for that, my friend, you can't read the primary source materials, I have to be the translating link that helps you don't stand there in a position of education, you're there in a position of learning now, you're in a position of learning now, the child is going to teach the old man No problem, the child is going to teach the old man because you don't know what I know. And that's the bottom line. Challenge one, get me a chain, get me a chain that goes back to Jesus Christ, a chain of provenance that goes back to Jesus Christ.

00:16:06--> 00:16:08

After you've given me the chain, if you can't get me the chain,

00:16:09--> 00:16:50

then admit that actually the first person to see you are the first compilation that we have 100 years after Thank you very, very much. This is gonna be fun. All right, let's go and let's just unpack each one of the major manuscripts that he doesn't work. He's not aware of the Topkapi manuscript. When was it written? See, he says it's been written by Boothman. Let's look and see what the Muslim scholars are saying today. Dr. Todd of the college, Dr. McMillan is sonyliv, Europe's leading scholars in Islam, they have now looked at the six major manuscripts from 2000 to 2007. over five years, they are the only ones that have looked at all of these six major manuscript, they've

00:16:50--> 00:16:57

looked at the top copy, what are they now saying, This is from the mid 18th century, that's 100 years after

00:16:58--> 00:17:23

it only had 78 to 99% depending on how much you want to which one you're gonna have the Quran that is readable today. But even in the Quran that is readable today. There are 2230 manuscript variants from the Quran that we use today, the hubster on 2230 manuscript berries, that words or phrases that are different than the Quran we use today.

00:17:25--> 00:17:37

2270 Thanks for correcting me. Let's look at the top copy. Sorry, let's look at the summary cut in Tuscan in Uzbekistan, that only goes up to several 43 114 swords in the Quran.

00:17:40--> 00:17:59

What's more time to go check Dr. Titles gonna change. When you look at this manuscript, it is so full of errors. It has so many grammatical mistakes. It's an embarrassment. whoever wrote it did not know very good Arabic, don't use it. It is from the early 18th century 60 to 70 years after.

00:18:00--> 00:18:45

Let's go to the hussaini manuscripts in Cairo. That's from the ninth century. That's 200 years later, it has a manuscript variants. Let's go to the mature manuscript right here in the British Library. That only goes up to Surah 43. But you didn't know that, did you? Because Muslims refuse to look at the newest research. Keep up with the newest research by your own scholars, Bart Ehrman has never done any major material on the Quran. Now let's see what it has. Let's go to the sun a manuscript that you love so much. The Sona manuscript as many different small pieces, the largest piece of it only is 23% of the God. And in that 23% it has 93 manuscript variants. It is dated to

00:18:45--> 00:19:32

705. But that's only part of it. Much of it also is laid at a later part at a later date. The Petra Polina I'm sorry, that's the principal in this manuscript. Can you see folks, six major manuscripts, they are all from the eighth century. Now. One of them's from the seventh century. Now one of them is complete, not one of them agrees with each other, and not one of them agreed completely with the Quran that we have today. So what was your cron canonize? When was the Quran that we have today? finalized in 1924 at Allen's University, buy a bunch of scholars 93 years ago, Prince, what's his name? Prince Philip is older than your Quran. And that's why you need to look at the historical

00:19:32--> 00:20:00

evidence. Don't come to me with platitudes. But did you notice he still hasn't come up with any manuscripts that are existing today for the huddinge prior to 833? He cannot prior to 833 even though one thing he's gonna come up with for a gohari is not from age 70. It is from the 11th century. The earliest manuscript we have is from the 11th century we have nothing even from the time of August

00:20:00--> 00:20:45

Hurry, so be careful what he's gonna say. I'm not gonna sit and Mark him as he talks like he does with me. I'm just gonna ask every one of you to realize that the history is now catching up with Islam and with the Quran. He said that the Sunnah manuscript has been carbon dated. Yes, it has. Look at the dates of the carbon dating that's coming now out of two loops. That's coming out of Leo, that's coming out in Arizona at the carbon dating labs. The carpet dates for those manuscripts. Go back to 443 ad. Muhammad was born in 570 ad. That's over 100 years before Muhammad, what are you gonna do with that? Be careful the claims you make. And if you're going to use Bart Ehrman for

00:20:45--> 00:21:21

heaven's sakes, that's laughable. Bart Ehrman has been destroyed by almost by most of the refutable Christian scholars today. He does not know his material, he does not know his crap, I wouldn't bother you and go back to the Muslim scholars go back to Alto, alto, alto, Alto College, go to Dr. Egg building assignment, go back to the men who know their craft, who have seen the material who have looked at it and who have also come up with their conclusions. Thank God, we've done that with our Bible. I'll show you what we have in the next five minutes concerning what we have for our Bible verses what you have for your karate.

00:21:24--> 00:22:08

Listen to me, this is I'm telling you the most outrageous claim, the first thing he said, was that the I don't know what advice you gave. You go to any repeatable search search, or any kind of anyone who knows anything? When did when is the manuscript providential? 651, which is the time of Othman law firm? How do we know that? Because my law firm came around in that time, that's when it was kind of nice. For the second time, there was a first customization and time what is today, Wednesday doing Sabbath did the first customization. And then the second one, as for the various sites talking about, that's a lie. There isn't 2700 variants, what he's talking about is the touch with not only

00:22:08--> 00:22:13

what we mean, just in a very simple way, say for example, if I say

00:22:14--> 00:22:24

if I say for example, what? And another words, sometimes you have something called for for Hanukkah, yeah. So I say, I'm making a metaphor for for Hanukkah, like that.

00:22:25--> 00:22:59

His variant is basically, if I say, like that, that he considers a variant. This is not what we're talking about. If you look at the variants that are actually changes in meetings, there are a few in number and they are justified by the fact that Mohamed Salah, Salah, has revelation of seven. Now, let me ask you a very simple question. What is this? What is the difference between the hot since you know, now, your stuff and you've been reading your stuff? And I'm sure you're doing the things? In your opinion, what's the difference between a half and a cut off, because if you don't know what half is,

00:23:01--> 00:23:40

that cannot us have a health differences. And these differences go back to the blue chains, and all been written down. So it's not completely a lie, and false. For example, let me give you an easy example. If you've got Mexican Malik, Malik, his opinion of Nakamura is 10 karat, six of those cannot have melick. And four of them have many of them have many. So you have two differences represented over 10 different cannot, these two differences go back to the Amazon seller through a chain and through the written put up. That was to facilitate for different tribes and they do have different meanings. We've made this very clear. Now 2000, that's a number which cannot be justified,

00:23:40--> 00:23:57

they will never be able to prove it. Third point, he saying that I've not been able to bring any evidences for the Hadith. I say generally, that's completely aligned. The thing is, it doesn't have a name like, like the sort of hard to determine logical expression to use. Sometimes it's just named often it's a hobby, if

00:23:58--> 00:24:17

all of these individuals they wrote it down. So you say that the Soho photo the writings of and then we say the name of this hobby, and these things are still available with us. So for you to say it's not been written is nothing but a lie. It's not true. You cannot substantiate that you have to disprove what I've just said. You say no, actually.

00:24:20--> 00:24:24

You have to say that, that these exist these manuscripts I'm telling you

00:24:25--> 00:24:59

don't exist, you have to say that you'll never be able to make that claim, because that claim would be nothing but false. It is now having defended Islam. Let's go back to Christianity. It seems to me like you have not answered the question of where is the provenance the chain of provenance that goes back to Jesus Christ? Where is the person where are the people that have seen Jesus Christ? Where is the Bible anyways? Why is 97% of the Bible according to Bart Ehrman manuscripts that came after the ninth century? onto the questions, these are questions I've answered your questions. Now it's time for you to answer my questions. Then

00:25:00--> 00:25:43

is how people reach true conclusions. You bring your claims, I bring my claims, you asked your questions. I asked my questions, I answered yours. Now it's time for you to answer mine. Well, the manuscripts, where is the Bible? Where is the original Bible? Who saw Jesus? This is my question, give me an answer. Why are there so many variants which have your logical implications, not different to each other? to each other? I tell you today to find one variant to find this thing which goes back to the first parameter, which contradicts each other, I can find you a dozen that has your logical implication contradict the Bible? How can you explain the fact that the church had

00:25:43--> 00:25:51

the creedal development 25 381, for 51 times have shown that there

00:25:53--> 00:26:02

was nothing but change, they've changed time and time again. My question to Joe Smith, is how comes your belief in your Christianity, which has been developed after Jesus?

00:26:05--> 00:26:11

When he asked the people to only accept the understanding of Jesus, where is this in the Bible?

00:26:12--> 00:26:17

In the Old Testament that the Holy Spirit has done? Your theology is built on

00:26:19--> 00:26:20

your theology?

00:26:22--> 00:26:33

Have you noticed he still doesn't want to go back to to the manuscript evidence, but unless you have manuscripts, you can make all the claims you want. If you don't have the manuscript evidence.

00:26:36--> 00:27:19

If we don't have the manuscript evidence, then you're gonna have a problem. That's why I said Islam with a small eye is what he's telling you that Islam was a big guy that historical Islam is proven to be inaccurate. He has not kept up with the latest material. He's not even read. Nick Miller did he's not been read sonyliv he's not coming back to Iota author calls out to college. He wouldn't, you must go back to your own Muslim scholars. Stop going to Bart Herman. He's got nothing on the Quranic manuscripts. He won't know diddly squat. But more than that, folks, have you noticed? Unless you're gonna show historically, from the seventh century, that you can even show one Quran that

00:27:19--> 00:27:47

comes from the time of stuck claiming it. You can't prove it. There's not a good existence. In the six earliest manuscripts that you have. Every one of them are full of manuscript berries. Now, Dr. David rhew, Baker, Andrew Baker, did his doctoral thesis in 2014. Looking at all the six manuscripts, he wanted to find manuscript barriers. He wanted to find maybe 15. That's all he needed.

00:27:48--> 00:28:36

He looked at he he took pictures of all the manuscripts. Yes, what he found, he found over 200 insertions. In the manuscripts he found over 500 erasers, where they erase complete words, complete phrases. He found puppies that had copies of copies where they had tapings, where they had numbering, where they had writings over top of the coverings, and over top of the tapings, 2200 different changes in these manuscripts. What was most troubling is that these changes continued up until the ninth and 10th centuries, for 200 years, they were still changing the Quran, they were still changing the six manuscripts. None of them are from the seventh century, they only begin to

00:28:36--> 00:29:15

appear in 705. And they continue to be changed up until the 10th century, two to 300 years later. Now deal with that, Mohammed, I know this is not over yet. This cannot be over your head because they can all understand it. Now let's go back to the biblical manuscripts. He said that none of the biblical manuscripts are none of the writers knew Jesus. I've already said Matthew and john were with Jesus for the last three years in his ministry. They were eyewitnesses to what they wrote. Did they rehab the manuscripts their original No, because they were written on for pirates, which disintegrates. That's why copies needed made immediately. But that's why we do have Popeye, right?

00:29:15--> 00:29:59

You can see it even the British Library. And by the sixth century, we have 235 of these copies, sorry, 365 of these copies, that's 100 years before the first Islamic manuscripts. I'm sorry, 150 years before the first Islamic manuscript even comes into existence. What is interesting, go and look at the cinionic is here in the British Library. It's there you can go look at it. All 27 books written in the fourth century, 300 years before Islam, and yet it identifies with the code the Bible that we have today. More than that, we have 19,800 translation in 11 different languages. These all are the same

00:30:00--> 00:30:18

More than that we have 2000 135 scenarios from the sixth century, 100 years before Islam, which agree with the manuscript evidence. We have 5300 Greek manuscripts 10,000, Latin vulgate, 9000 and other language, take a look and see if they all agree. So we're getting

00:30:19--> 00:31:02

having a debate. Sure. Where does it get off talking about Berman till I say 97% of the of the Bible disagrees? prove it to me. And I love to say we're Bart Ehrman ever said that. You're lying when you say 97%. He never said that. He wouldn't be so stupid to say that. But folks, we have something even better. The early church fathers quotations. The early church fathers wrote letter after letter, and they would write down scripture verse after scripture verse in these letters. Dr. David gadelle, riffle and Dr. Jean Bergen spent their whole lives collecting these quotations. And they came up with 86,000 of these quotations, 36,000 of them that predated the fourth century, that's 300 years

00:31:02--> 00:31:23

before Islam. They look at those quotations and look and see if they don't agree with the manuscript evidence, and they don't agree with the translations. And they all agree also with the heritage, they the lectionary, every one of them agrees. So where is Bart Ehrman coming up? That's why we don't accept Bart Ehrman. And that's why I love my Bible.

00:31:31--> 00:31:32

You do the first.

00:31:34--> 00:32:12

Okay. Some of what he said is falsehoods, which was true. And other parts of what he says is beautiful. So so let me go with the first one which was truth. But he said that there are some copies of the Quran, which have passed second in a second now and things read on the side, that's true. Some puzzles are put on written by some of the Sahaba themselves, which have this which have, for example, things written on the side, why is that? That is there to see it was basically the Sahaba in order to do tafsir exegesis of the Quran, they will have their own copy of the Quran, and they would write the top on the top of that, but on certain things which are additional to it, which

00:32:12--> 00:32:22

are not part of it. Now, these books are known by the scholars of Islam to be books which are not the Quran. Why? Because as I've mentioned to you before, in the book,

00:32:24--> 00:32:35

by in New Jersey, he mentioned three conditions for something to be called the prime I told one of them is that has to be concurrent with that way for many, which is the script of mathematics. Number two is

00:32:38--> 00:32:39

the profit and loss.

00:32:41--> 00:32:48

Now that's easily dismisses all of these various sites talking about which are not necessarily fitting into that category.

00:32:53--> 00:32:54

But they are

00:32:55--> 00:32:59

basically, in a nutshell, we only do cut off, we only do

00:33:01--> 00:33:12

out on that which has fulfilled those three criteria, which can be summarized in the Quran, attend the righteous of the Quran. And this has all changed.

00:33:14--> 00:33:28

As for the Hadith thing I did mention, I mentioned it once, twice, and thrice. That's different companions, many of them don't sit down, and the names of the manuscripts or the names of the companions, they're merely called the competitor, the scriptures, according to

00:33:31--> 00:34:05

these things are written down before the party before if you have not answered this, how could you access it anyways, this is Arabic resources, I've proven to you that you don't know how to speak Arabic. So how can you access materials you can't understand, finally go into a Chinese library and trying to understand what's going on. So you have no right to tell me what doesn't doesn't exist from an Arabic primary source material perspective, you have to learn from you not tell me. that's point number one. Point number two as it relates to the Bible, I'm happy that he admitted that generally, there is nothing at the time of Jesus, why are you making an argument against me, then

00:34:05--> 00:34:41

you're throwing a stone and you live in a glass house? You're telling me that you don't have anything, when you've just admitted you have nothing yourself? what you're talking about? You asked me to prove it? I've done so using three methods, and you have failed to do so using even one. So here's the question will remain for you in the summation. Give me one chain of provenance that goes back to the Jesus Himself. Were the companions of Jesus. They saw Jesus, they wrote about Jesus he said Matthew, Mark, Luke, your pet names, their pet names, who was Matthew, what was the second name? Give me some information information about him. We have something called the Alamo. Alamo.

00:34:41--> 00:34:52

Rizal is the biographical information of all of the people that are in the chain of narration for the Muslims. We know we have an EMI five record, CIT record, we have an FBI record

00:34:57--> 00:34:59

as needing to be in contact with terrorism or

00:35:00--> 00:35:07

mistakes. But generally speaking, we have an M i five record of all of the people by the biographies of these people in the chase.

00:35:08--> 00:35:46

Biography biographical information, who was Matthew, give me some information about him, according to scholarly works? No, don't tell me he was someone who just saw Jesus, give me historical independent information from the biblical discourse don't come to come to that with this such a weak argument. Point number two, he said that the early church fathers, he talked about the early church fathers. And these things, they agreed in the same things. No, they didn't give me one early church father that talks about the Trinity as you believe it today. That's my challenge. Before you leave, if you don't do it, give me one. And there are quotes that they believe Father, Son, Holy Spirit,

00:35:47--> 00:36:25

all of them are one, one early church father before 381. Yeah, one early church father, yes, you say that he doesn't exist, such a church doesn't exist. That would be to say that the predecessors knew more than their successes knew more than their predecessors. You're saying that the older people, then you have people in you more than the younger people? As you quoted, they are not scholars that we are relying upon. We told you, we have information based on the Arabic record, you don't have that. So how could you tell me about the Arabic scholarship? So hey, wait, number one chain of provenance that goes back to Jesus, wait, number two, one early church father, who said that he

00:36:25--> 00:36:58

believes Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and one, only one? And number three? If you can't do that, will you admit that you have nothing to say anymore? Let's start with that. He's had his donation. Let me give you some names. Ignatius, he was writing in the late second century, he knew the Father, Son and Holy Spirit Tertullian. He was one of the coins. He was the one that coined the name of the Trinity. He was one that actually gave us the word. It's nothing more than a doctrinal representation of what we see in the Bible. But what about climate? What about Polycarp? What about?

00:36:59--> 00:37:05

These were all early church fathers, every one of them believed in the Trinity one, I've already given you five.

00:37:10--> 00:37:19

manuscript just from the seventh century. He cannot make any manuscript from the seventh century. Have you noticed? Secondly, he has not given you any manuscripts.

00:37:21--> 00:37:38

That is the ninth century he still cannot do it. He says, We trust in old tradition. We trust in the chain of the snide folks, why did they not write down what they were quoting? Why could they not write it down?

00:37:39--> 00:38:24

Were they isn't capable of doing it? Were they poorly educated? Please don't say that. The fact is, they didn't write it down because there was nothing to write down. We haven't even done what we know know about Muhammad, historically, that will have to be for another debate. We haven't even told you what we know know about your earning, earning. We get fine. One must that is finishing NACA until 731 ad, Muhammad died in 632. We're gonna get into that in another debate. But let's just look and see what I was talking about. Take a look at these insertions. These are just a few of the over 200 insertions we have been able to find the earliest manuscripts take a look at the research