Video

Damn when did darth vader become a Muslim apologist?

Five Nights at Sammy's

Imam ar Razi 🫡❤️

Yall kiss a stone hurr durr 🤪🤪

Based Maturidi Sultan Mehmed Fatih ☪️🥱

Sam is such a cutie patootie 💖😫🫣

Hadith rejectors gotta watch this video

Damn Sufi boy cooking 🍣🔥🔥

You sound nearer to Islam.... I would not be surprised if you become Muslim soon.....🇵🇸😍

YHWH is the Truth

Okayyyyy THAT verse dosent teach a Trinity. Your point???? He obviously still believes in a Trinity. He plainly says this is a verse he would not use, in sure replying to the question of the person to whom which he is speaking.

Whoever made this video is a fake liar because the clipped it way out of context. Here’s the part of the nicene creed that it left out We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, GOD FROM GOD, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation ALSO GIVE US THE LINK TO THE ORIGINAL VIDEO SO WE CAN DEBUNK YOUR LYING DECEPTIVE CLIP

Without lies islam dies

Trinity = logical problem Knowing God fully = lack of knowledge problem

Can you Explain Rev 1:17

That has nothing to do without theology and it’s so funny that’s the best you have against us😂 that’s the reason we don’t have a pope if some bishop does something like that well excommunicate him that’s not a argument. There are women abused in Mecca does that disprove mohammadanianism?

Dude, even if the church fathers were Unitarian (which they absolutely wasn’t) that doesn’t make them Muslim 😭

Mary (and others) were very much aware of Jesus’ divinity. Yeshua means “Yahweh saves”, but when the angel comes to Mary it says about Jesus “He will save his people”, so Jesus is the Yahweh that saves Furthermore, when Elizabeth was visited by Mary she said “Who am I, that the mother of My Lord should come to me?” This is a reference to 2 Samuel 6:9 that says “Who am I, that the Ark of My Lord should come to me?”

“No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.”

Ain’t no way bro just said “Unitarian, ie Muslim” 😭🙏

A wholesale misunderstanding and erroneous portrayal of the veneration of those represented in pictures. The pictures are there to help us focus on the person represented. If it were writing which said God or writing that said Jesus, the effect is the same, the word would help us focus on the one mentioned. One would not worship a picture or a written or painted word, they are merely aids to help focus on the one mentioned. In the pictures, there are reminders of the lives of each saint. In Orthodoxy, most of the saints are unknown as we should have all obtained holiness before we fall asleep in the Lord. Eastern Orthodoxy, is where all are welcome, but it is not for appropriate or suitable for everybody, just as Islam is not suitable or appropriate for me as I could not tell you what the point of Islam is or how the old testament consistently refers to it.

💥 Seeking Allah Finding Jesus By: Nabeel Qureshi . Great book and testimony.

Jay Dyer destroys Muslims in debates.

Can tell youre ashari from the intro alone

Don't you guys consider buddha to be a prophet as well?? as dhu al kifl?

hadra name?

It’s true, the first Quran was in Aramaic why? Which was similar to Aramaic speaking Christians gospels and then the Quran was changed to Arabic language and modified

Great video. Subscribed!

Pope is the Beast

The Quran also does a pretty poor job of describing the doctrine of the Trinity.

Asalamu Alaykum do you have telegram akhi kareem

What an absolutely puerile argument. You are trying to suggest the quran is accurate or corrects an error in bible by critiquing biblical commentaries. Surely the logical reasoning is that it is the commentary that may be faulty not the biblical text. You also want to rely on tasfirists who were not contemporary to the event and not a single one of their sources goes back beyond the 6th century so how can their opinions be authoratitive on events that took place 1400 years before that gap is as old as islam is today. Arguing the biblical text is wrong because a commentary interprets figures within it as potraying something different just does not make sense. An analagous example of this faulty or deliberately faulty interpretation is the lie that some muslims, full of hatred, fabricated against the words of a Saudi monarch. Making up the most crazy soliloquy about the house of saud having Jewish roots. The king simply said something along the lines of; "we should not fight with Jews as we are brothers" (referring to the lineage of ishmael and isaac) but some psychotic people have interpreted this as meaning 'we' (house of Saud) are brothers because we also are jews. You are suggesting we should believe this twisted version over what the king actually said and meant. Or as you argument here suggests because the interpretation is wrong so is the King's utterance ? The first approach would be to take the biblical text as it is and it is clear and straight forward. Nor can you compare texts of other books of the bible such as Deutoronomy as the authorship of Jonah is different and the events centuries apart and thus ideas, idioms, figurative speech would have changed in the way it is understood. So meaning in the different books are not always comparable. Let me pre-empt the dawaist retort "ah so you admit the bible has different authors", . Yes because it was written by different people at different times with the exception of a few books. They were then canonised. Which also is another error in the quran as it claims all these books were revelations by G_d, they are not and were never seen as that. The book of jonah gives a figure close to the quranic estimate . But Appearing centuries later quran is just a copyist version and a poor one at that. In the story of Jonah or Yunus The quran's author misses the most salient points of this story. Whilst they caught the part about the kikayon (ricinus plant) they totally failed to comprehend the significance of its allegorical example and thus completely omits the last paragraphs or Jonah 4 in which G_d and Jonah discuss G_d's mercy and compassion extending to even animals and all his creations. Those last few lines are so significant they encapsulate the whole idea being conveyed in the book of Jonah and the rest of it provides just context for this ending. This narrative is totally missing from quran and in fact author of the quran is far from merciful as it narrates "they enjoyed for a while" thus the mercy shown the people of Nineveh was a temporary reprieve. Or how about the suggestion in the quran that the ship was overladen but this was not discovered until it is into its journey when they cast lots and Jonah was thrown overboard to save the ship. Ships may have been smaller then but one man lightening the burden seems unlikely especially if it was not noticeable at port and there was no change in conditions or water density (e.g. sea to fresh water ). In that event why didnt they jettison the cargo (which they tried first in book of Jonah)? This illustrates quran version is a poorer copy because even if abridged it does not make sense why the ship came in to distress. So much for corrections, quran version is comical ! Notably this story challenges quran in other ways too. Who wrote this story? It has always been acknowledged that maybe Jonah or a recorder told this story in fact the story may be entirely allegorical and the events never happened. But since it features in the quran we can assume authorship is claimed by G_d . The quran mentions Taurat, Zubr and Injil as the only books and revelations but Jonah is in non of these it is a separate book that was canonised. Additionally if in its original form authorship is from a man then the challenge to write sura or ayat as good as the quran is annihilated as the author of the book of Jonah did just that as quran gives a close copy of this same story in terms of prose and meaning. G_d of quran plagiarises the book of Jonah and claims it as his own. But let us go with your approach that the text becomes faulty because of some commentary. Do you accept that when the quran says Jews take Ezra as the Son of G_d that the commentary that suggests it should mean 'some Jews' and not all Jews is flawed . Oh but wait we dont even need to critique the commentary as the quran text is faulty as the statement it makes is not true. This is pretty desperate reasoning !

Objection: According to John 17:3, the Father is the only true God therefore Christ cannot be God. Reply: This verse is part of Jesus’ prayer to the Father. He is simply affirming the Father's identity as the “only true God” in contrast to the many false gods worshipped at that time. This does not negate Jesus’ deity. Jesus makes numerous claims about his divinity and equality with the Father throughout the Gospel of John (e.g. John 8:58, 10:30, 14:9). Other New Testament passages explicitly call Jesus “God” (e.g. John 1:1, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8). If Unitarians use this logic, they would have to also conclude the Father is also not our only true Master (Jude 4) but the Father is our only true Master along with the Son. Unitarians beg the question with their interpretation. That is, they assume Unitarianism-that God is one being and one person. If God is only one being and only one person, then this would exclude Jesus as being God. However, if God is three persons, then Jesus could call the Father the only true God-just as the Father could call the Son the only true God. Both persons are God in their nature. The greater context supports the Trinity. In John 17:5, Jesus, praying to the Father, asks Him to glorify Himself with the glory He had with the Father before the world was. This shows that Jesus had a heavenly pre-existence and that He has the same glory that Yahweh said He would never give to another (Isaiah 42:8), making Him Yahweh with the Father.

Real Ahlus Sunnah aqeedah 🔥

Are you guys still ashari

New subscriber. Great presentation brother

this is so desperate and weak xDDDDDDDDDDDD

appealing to some weirdo gnostics is truly desperate xDDDDDDD

funny channel xD absolute state of tatar apologetics

Jake the Muslim good guy

Read the 7th ecumenical council, it exposes iconoclasts like you showing them to be illogical.

Does a sexual scandal mean that the position is false? If so you will have to reject Islam because of the mass rape of 400,000 Bangladeshi women which was done by pakistani soldiers having been given a fatwa by islamic clerics that they were allowed to take women as spoils of war.

You realise the Saints are not infallible 😂 We reject alot of what Augustine said but he’s still a saints, your holy book says God deceived, we don’t have to accept whatever Gregory says as infallible

Good points from Jay 🙏 thanks for the clips ☦️

Stop kissing a stone, fragments of what is left from a stone, for the forgiveness of sin, and then talk about someone else.

Trying to look up something on your website brother on disproving Irenaeus’ claim that Policarp studied under John. Is the website down?

Secondly the truth is based on Tanakh Outside that we enter lies. The Quran presents a messiah who is short of the one in Tanakh. Gods covenant with Abraham is fulfilled in messiah. Who is high Siitted at Gods right hand Comes to be given a kingdom of David to reign with all people's on earth serving him. Islam and Quran fall short of that. Not the complete truth.

Muslims are misled by their scholars like Jews and christians . The one God is not the proof of true faith. Can you Muslims explain this Allah is one absolute Allah is on the throne Allah is carried on a throne by 8 angels Allah is nearer to you than your jugular vein Allah blew of his Spirit into Mary The Spirit is sent to strengthen believers so is with 2b Muslims So spirit of Allah comes from him and is omnipresent with 2b muslims so who is this Spirit from Allah but distinct from him

Salam aleykoum, your website is down ?

Jesus’ baptism showed that He identified with sinners. His baptism symbolized the sinners’ baptism into the righteousness of Christ, dying with Him and rising free from sin and able to walk in the newness of life. His perfect righteousness would fulfill all the requirements of the Law for sinners who could never hope to do so on their own. When John hesitated to baptize the sinless Son of God, Jesus replied that it was proper to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). By this He alluded to the righteousness that He provides to all who come to Him to exchange their sin for His righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21).