I did not discuss it in the video, as I thought it a peripheral issue, but reading through the comments I'll add something else from the tafsir that will counter more of the Muslim deceit being perpetrated here in the comments section. The Muslim deceit is that Allah deceived those who were plotting against Allah, but the Christians faithful to Jesus knew the truth. The tafsir completely refutes this. It goes on to clarify Q4:157 with regards to who exactly differed over the Crucifixion and are in doubt. The tafsir is explicitly clear that it was the CHRISTIANS who differed over whether or not Jesus was killed. Some Christians said the Jews killed Him while other Christians said He was not killed: وإن الذين اختلفوا فيه يعني في عيسى وهم النصارى فقال بعضهم قتله اليهود ، وقال بعضهم لم يقتل So, according to the Quran, even the Christians who faithfully followed Jesus were deceived by Allah.
@@Deenresponds Do whatever you want. The audience can watch my presentation, they can watch yours, and make up their own minds. We aren't like Muslims whose faith gets shaken every time Islam is criticized. Just because you provided a response doesn't mean you provided a refutation nor does it mean the issue is decided by the person who last speaks on it.
@@Deenresponds There is no discourse. I made my case. You made yours. If you're confident in your position, then you wouldn't need to have further discourse, especially after claiming to have "debunked" me. You felt the need to make a response video because you find my content threatening. I'm confident in my position and the intelligence of my audience to see that your counter-arguments are weak.
@@Deenresponds I think you are embarrassing, he provided you many points yet you Muslims still fail to prove your claims. May God forgive the souls of the disbelievers. Amin
There is no deception, because those faithful followers of Jesus, even if it appeared to them that Jesus was being killed or they heard rumors of him being killed, will not have their salvation affected if they believe in him as a messenger. czcams.com/video/1IKSjbykiFc/video.html
I am surprised that amongst the many names and titles given to the Allah of Islam, one of them is not "The Deceiver". Sounds like Satan, since Satan is a liar and father of it. (John 8:44).
@@sayyidelahie9714it talks about God giving them over to their delusions because the people of the earth will follow Satan and his lies. So he’s going to hand them over to Satan because they don’t want the truth. GGs
@@sayyidelahie9714 In this verse Paul explains what happens to those who refuse the truth during the tribulation. He references an impending spiritual rebellion, and the rise of a powerful spiritual figure, the man of lawlessness. To those who are not Christians, God sends a strong delusion, so they will succumb to the false teaching of the man of lawlessness. A rejection of truth always predisposes sinners to accept error (Romans 1:18-23). In this case, unbelievers choose to reject the truth but believe the lie that the man of lawlessness is the Messiah. Paul's teaching in this passage raises an interesting question: how does the truth reach the lost in the tribulation? Based on his prior words, Christians will not be present to share the truth. They will be in heaven, having been raptured and taken from the earth (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). According to Scripture, however, God will raise up other witnesses to the truth in the tribulation. From the tribes of Israel, 144,000 Jews will believe on Jesus and evangelize the lost. Further, two faithful witnesses will preach for three and one-half years, authenticating their ministry by withholding rain from the earth and striking the earth with plagues. These witnesses will be martyred, but after three and one-half days, God will raise them from the dead. The fact that so many living in the tribulation refuse to believe in spite of such powerful witnesses shows how hard the human heart can be.
decently defended idea. how does your understanding make sense of 4:159 if it’s seemingly talking about the future? i guess u could divide the concepts jesus/isa and messiah, and have the messiah’s return be not a literal return but muhammad catalyzing the Great Conversion just before the resurrection. In any case, very interesting stuff to ponder.
Indeed, those who abuse Allāh and His Messenger - Allāh has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment - Quran 33:57
Oh please. If Allah is real, I'll be walking into Hell voluntarily anyway. Christ is King for eternity, embrace truth and strive for the kingdom of Heaven ☦✝
@Belisarius_IC_XC_NIKA hell is not what you think it is. On that day, your hands and every part of your body shall testify against you and then you shall see, by then it would be too late
TAG utterly refuted: Hoppe here, us Western peak intellectuals have gathered to have a word with this new Eastern, so called, intellectualism. So, here’s a flavour of REAL presuppositonalism, consider this a nuke (it’s all love). Hello chaps. Our (Hume & Kant) understanding is that you fine sirs ground your epistemology within the orthodox church and their bible, thus think their teachings ultimately ground the claims within your worldview. Step 1) the flank: a refutation from the esteemed Father Deacon Dr. Hume first. If I were to ask you is homosexuality is unbecoming of the gentleman, and you retorted yes, and I asked you to justify that it is the case, how would thou justifieth? You'd go to the written word within the bible et al , or listen to what a church member whom your worldview ad hocly has thrusted authority to, and if they say homosexuality is wrong you'd say this justifies it essentially. Say, how is that not deriving and ought from an is? I ask, have you read my work? Hume speaking. You are claiming you possess such knowledge, because your fickle sense data allows you to see a book makes a given claim or a person says it is so. Unless you use reason alone (sola reason) such as in natural theology, aren't you necessarily going to be making the error of assuming and IS can give you an Ought? One duly cornered & desperation ensues against Hume: you’re next move must be to appeal to the fact it's a meta-level question and it's the entire Orthodox worldview that is the justification not the evidence of a church member or the bible claiming something. Step 2) The Skirmish: my next question would be ""But are you not then being completely ad hoc and saying it's always wrong to get try and get an OUGHT from a IS, unless it's Orthodox Christianity and suddenly it's magically (whilst such miracles do not exist, chaps) okay to and dare I say it - even necessary? You claim this isn't an ad hoc distinction by essentially a weird form of pragmatism where you've actually given up on true justification. You argue that any ad hoc claims and ad hoc appeals to authority are suddenly justified when it's supporting an orthodox Christian paradigm simply because these ad hoc claims have been paired up with sound epistemology and metaphysics ect (though not really given this argument is literally proving the Christian worldview doesn't actually have sound epistemology in itself). A. Why can't I accept the properly justified claims in isolation of the wider packaged ad hoc claims within the worldview. And B. Isn't this still getting an ought from an Is ultimately in a meta-way because rather than dreaming up potential worldviews, you have relied on your sense data to find out what claims are out there in the world / culture and latched onto the one out of those limited options which you think is most sound, when in reality you could sit there and use reason alone to think of countless worldviews, each with identical sound epistemology and metaphysics. And C, Pragmatism is admitted within your own paradigm to be invalid for justification and it essentially can only be used as our best guess where uncertainty is inherent, so it's only useful for like dealing with higher material evidences, so clearly material or historical claims inherently cannot provide justification for a worldview. If you can be ad hoc, or appeal to pragmatism (ie. my worldview is true enough even if I can't justify it properly), then so can all the pragmatic empiricists (myself you’re empiricist grandaddy Hume), materialists, and anyone else who relies upon classical foundationalism because they no longer have to justify their self-evident claims as long as they pragmatically lead to a true-enough worldview. Ergo, relying on a material source or set of sources as certainly true just because they get some parts of their philosophy true, is completely self-refuting and makes epistemology and therefore knowledge / judgement past ad hocness literally impossible. This is an embarrassment to my enterprise. (Kant enters) - Hallo Hume, I see you have something of the sorts of the Prussian fire rumbling in your belly, you successfully tapped the OP, however, you didn’t go quite far enough. I prefer the double-tap variety, in fact this is my basal axiom that one ought to always double tap. Although, correction dear Hume, miracles do exist as our opponent manages to only debate the lowest stock. So, I do agree with presuppositionalism up to the point that it properly justifies logos / logic, and transcendental categories as a whole through the impossibility of the contrary. And I do agree that these categories are interlocking, and elements of reality all correspond with each other and work together perfectly, so you could infer the existence of a God from that as a kind of meta-logical fine-tuning argument. But I don't agree that God's existence necessarily follows from presuppositional argumentation or especially that specifically a given idea of God such as the Orthodox Christian God must exist for logic to be objectively true and for knowledge to be possible. I watched the Jay vs Matt Dillamonkey debate & I must say I was left unsatisfied and perturbed. My understanding is you argue presup can give you God because if you only use presup to justify logic, then the impossibility of the contrary justification we're using may just reflect the limitations of my own mind as oppossed to the limits of actual objective reality as a whole. Whereas if you believe in God, it provides a "reason' why our minds would be tailored to really be able to see objective truth. My question is this, you are deploying an epistemological nihilism argument against presup in isolation to God. But isn't presup and the necessary fact of human knowledge to be possible within each and every claim we make a refutation of EN? Because if not, and EN is a defeater for presuppositionalism, then I fail to see how EN wouldn't be a defeater for your worldview and TAG as well, and literally every possible worldview one can conjure up. The entire point of presup is that it's meant to be the justification, so if it only justifies knowledge if you then must believe in an additional claim (God exists) which is itself dependent upon the objectivity of logic to be knowable, then clearly presuppositionalism doesn't actually justify logic then so if you claim "oh yes presuppositionalism can work despite not justifying logic, we just need to accept my ad hoc claim based on the very now unjustified thing (reasoning), that could just be the limitations of my mind, to think of a way within my mind to prove that my mind isn't limited. Clearly the only actual meta-logical or justificatory element of TAG is specifically in the impossibility of the contrary, the idea of God IS logically contingent and not meta-logical by virtue of the fact it's a claim judged by logic which doesn't directly unavoidably impact logic, so TAG is basically a fallacy. I'll grant that maybe presuppositionalism proves logic, and then given that it's perhaps most reasonable to assume God exists or even that the Orthodox Christian God exists after that out of all the relevant alternatives, but I do not grant that God is a self-justifying claim unless you want to claim "God" is just a synonymous term with "logos / logic". Hume responds: don’t even get me started on my cause and effect critique. Has anyone ever read me? Funnily enough I used to be Orthodox, but with some free afternoons and basic philosophy I left that quagmire. I advise you kindly, warmly, earnestly, do not make thy nest there. In conclusion gentlemen, I think we can all agree that one is more likely to prove that a tornado has the attribute of “being correct”, than they are to surmount any of the problems we’ve imparted onto thee with this sophist-symphony. (Both speaking in unison): We have come to a gentlemen’s agreement, and how dare you use us as a crutch for promoting transcendental arguments, when our arguments transcend your own heads. Hans Hermann Hoppe: Oh dear Orthobro, I know the hold these comfy States (which we know are unacceptable always) have on one who should be a free-thinking sovereign individual. Now I may be an Ancap, but even I in my humble state can dispel such fantasies. To which I hope this letter finds you well. P. S. I’ve never interacted with relativists who claim to believe in objectivity before, any questions about your epistemological nihilism (E. schizophrenia argument) and why it’s wrong, Hoppe’s got you covered. P. P. S. Any moderator posts going for Libertarian debates, I’ll be totally fair!
@OrthodoxShahada, are you aware that the Quran uses the same word, tawafi, used in 3:55, in other verses relating to Allah taking the souls of the living during their sleep, 6:60 and 39:42. Tawafi means to take something fully and is not only applied for death. The less ambiguous word for death is mawt.
Islam defines death as separation of soul from body. What we have in Q6:60 and Q39:42 only serves to emphasize this connection to death. Moreover, in Q39:42, the context is contrasting those who die a permanent worldly death during sleep (which is reinforced using موت), with those who will have their souls placed back into their bodies thereby allowing them to awaken since their appointed time has not arrived. No matter what kind of mental gymnastics you try, these two verses do not help you get around the fact that Jesus dies in Q3:55 as per the Quran. If you want to claim that Q3:55 is talking about a bodily ascension in its totality (which is nowhere affirmed in the Quran and goes against the linguistic usage we find in the Quran related to و ف ي), then you're basically now aping Christianity, which believes Christ ascended bodily AFTER His Crucifxion, Death, and Resurrection. Check mate.
The word used in 3:55 which you say is unambiguously stating that Isa was caused to die is, as you have pointed out, from the root word و ف ي. The literal meaning of this is "to take something fully". For example, in 3:185 it says, "And you will only receive your full (tuwafawna) reward on the day of judgement", using a derivative of the same root word و ف ي. I am not denying that it can also mean death, as Allah takes the souls fully at the time of their death. For example, 32:11 states, "the angel of death will take you fully (yatawafa-kum)". However, as pointed out in 39:42, the Quran uses the same term for what Allah does to the souls in their sleep. The unambiguous term for death is موت (mawt), which unlike و ف ي, is unequivocal. The Quran says in 3:144 in relation to prophet mohammed, "if he dies (mawt) or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels?"
So according to verse 39:42, tawafi can mean death or taking the soul while the body is still alive in this world. Verse 6:60 is even clearer in the latter meaning as it says, "He is the one who takes you (yatawafa-kum) by night". So there is no basis for saying it unambiguously means death and that Muslims have to play mental gymnastics to overcome this. Perhaps Allah used this term to explain to us how Isa has been raised, namely that his soul has been raised but that his body is still alive and present in this world, as is the case when we sleep. Some Muslims to subscribe to the theory of bodily ascension, but I don't. The main reason being that being raised to God cannot be a physical ascension, as God is not physically located anywhere. It is a spiritual ascension of the soul towards a higher realm of existence.
@@hr-zn5dfYou can't be alive in the world bodily without a soul. The separation of soul from body is death. You are doing mental gymnastics. Look at ALL the verses where و ف ي is used and you can clearly see it is in the sense of موت with which it is synonymous. Now you are just splitting hairs with the "taken fully". How does a soul get taken "partially"? You're uttering nonsense. It's either the soul separates from the body, which is death, or the taking is soul+body, which is the standard Sunni position. Since you deny the latter, then the former is the definition of death. You're just playing mental gymnastics saying that Jesus' body remains "alive" on earth while His soul is taken to God. Nothing in the Quran supports that understanding, especially when you look at all the verses where و ف ي occur, which are used in the sense of موت.
You are still completely ignoring verses 39:42 and 6:60 which uses the same word for taking the soul at night. You can go to corpus quran under dictionary and select the root word wfy to see all the instances in which it appears. You will see how it is used for paying back in full, giving full measure, fulfilling covenants, taking us "fully" in our sleep and when we die. Obviously a soul cannot be taken partially. The point of using the word tawafa for taking our soul in death or in sleep implies that the immaterial soul is essentially who we are. So when God takes our soul, He is taking us fully. You are presenting a false dichotomy with your two options. Why can't it be the case that the soul has not separated and still maintains a connection with the body? Is this not what happens when we sleep? The body-soul connection is weaker but not severed. I am sure you are aware of the story of the companions of the cave who were put to sleep for 300 years. Their bodies were technically still alive in this world. Not that it should matter in regards to this discussion, but I happen to be a Shia Muslim.
I'm not wasting my time. The audience can watch my presentation, they can watch his, and make up their own minds. We aren't like Muslims whose faith gets shaken every time Islam is criticized. Just because he provided a response doesn't mean he provided a refutation nor does it mean the issue is decided by the person who last speaks on it.
@@Deenresponds I don't know who he is or what his religion is. I don't take it upon myself to go around making sure every single person agrees with me and to drop everything I'm doing to respond to bad arguments just because some random person on the internet made a video supposedly "debunking" me.
became more arrogant in the land, and intensified their plotting of evil- the plotting of evil only rebounds on those who plot. Do they expect anything but what happened to earlier people? You will never find any change in God’s practice; you will never find any deviation there. quran 35:43 This verse refutes missionaries lie. The Quran uses وَمَكْرَ ٱلسَّيِّئِ in this verse, which means 'the plotting of evil.' This shows that the word مَكْرَ can have both meanings depending on context.
According to the Qur'an, he is indeed a trickster. A good reason to have nothing to do with him. At least our Allah says what He means and means what He says.
All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) is His slave and Messenger. The trait of Makr (translated as plotting, planning, or deceiving) is not a dispraised trait in all contexts; rather, it is dispraised only when directed against someone who does not deserve it. Ibn Al-Qayyim may Allaah have mercy upon him said in his book I‘laam Al-Muwaqqi‘een: "Makr is defined as causing something to others in a hidden manner, and it also conveys the meanings of plotting and deceit. However, it is of two types: blameworthy Makr, which means causing harm to someone who does not deserve it, and praiseworthy Makr, which means causing harm to someone who deserves it as a punishment. The first type is dispraised, and the second is praised. What is attributable to Allah, The Exalted, is the praiseworthy Makr, which is indicative of His justice and wisdom. He punishes and destroys the oppressors and transgressors whence they never expected it, unlike blameworthy Makr, which is practiced by the unjust oppressors against His slaves." [End of quote] Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen may Allaah have mercy upon him said: "These qualities are indicative of perfection when they counter the opponents’ evil schemes with their like, because they point to the doer’s strength, and his being superior to his enemy, and the ability to overcome him and counter his evil acts with their like or even more severe acts. They are indicative of imperfection in any other context. This is why Allah, The Almighty, never attributes such qualities to Himself in their absolute or broader sense. Rather, He only attributes Makr to Himself to mean a counterplot to frustrate the evil plots of those scheming against Him and His messengers sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ). For instance, He Says (what means): • {And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.} [Quran 3:54] • {Indeed, they are planning a plan, But I am planning a plan.} [Quran 86:15-16] • {But those who deny Our signs - We will progressively lead them [to destruction] from where they do not know.} [Quran 7:182] • {Indeed, the hypocrites [think to] deceive Allah, but He is deceiving them.} [Quran 4:142] • {… they say, “We believe,” but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, “Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers.” [But] Allah mocks them…} [Quran 2:14-15] This is why Allah does not state that He betrayed those who betrayed Him. He Says (what means): {But if they intend to betray you - then they have already betrayed Allah before, and He empowered [you] over them. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.} [Quran 8:71] The term used was: "He empowered [you] over them," not, "He betrayed them" because betrayal means violation of trust, and it is an absolutely blameworthy quality in all contexts." [End of quote]
John 7:6-10 Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8 You go to the festival. I am not[b] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee. 10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret. Jesus the liar is false according to you 😂😂
He was talking about performing miracles, and being recognized, so he went in disguise. What he meant was they could go as themselves undisguised, but He Himself would have to go in disguise.
These videos are so dumb. The title says "proof Islamic Allah Deceives" and in the first 2 minutes it says that you can understand it both as planning and deceive.
@@IntimidatingSnail No, he literally says that the other extreme is saying it can only be interpreted as deceiving, excluding the planning. Are you saying it's irrational and 100% wrong to interpret it as planning and that the video supports this view?
@arkrou No, I'm saying quite the opposite. Since the word can mean either "planner" or "deciever," we typically understand which word is meant by reading in context of the passage. That is a logical approach. This is in regard to the verse that supposedly calls Allah a deciever.
@@aleksakovacevic3350 > Then Allah, the Most High, informs about the council of the Children of Israel regarding their plot to harm Isa عليه السلام and their evil intention to crucify him when they conspired against him. They wanted to use him to achieve their own ends, accusing him of various offenses, such as leading people astray, obstructing them from obeying their king, corrupting his subjects, and creating divisions between fathers and sons, among other false accusations that they imposed upon him. They claimed that he was born out of wedlock. These accusations eventually ignited the anger of their king, who decided to capture Jesus and crucify him, subjecting him to torment. > However, when they surrounded his house, thinking that they had successfully captured him, Allah, the Most High, saved His Prophet and raised him from their midst. He elevated Jesus from the rooftop of the house to the sky. Allah cast the likeness of Jesus onto a man who was present in the house at the time. When the conspirators entered the house, they mistakenly thought they had captured Jesus. They humiliated and crucified him, placing a crown of thorns on his head. This was a divine scheme to protect and save His Prophet. Allah rescued him from their clutches and left them in their misguided state, wandering in delusion. They believed that they had achieved their goals, while Allah implanted in their hearts hardness and stubbornness against the truth, making them carry the disgrace that would not leave them until the Day of Judgment. For this reason, Allah said, "And they plotted, and Allah planned. But Allah is the best of planners." ***Tafsir Ibn Kathir **3:54*****
@@aleksakovacevic3350 **{Christian missionaries have an issue with the words used for both the Jews and Allah. They prefer to translate this way: “and they deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers” The above translation does not exist. It is only made up by crazy deluded missionaries in order to lead people astray. Arabic word(s) makr, Makara can be used negatively and for good. So when the Jews planned to get Jesus arrested and crucified, that was evil, whereas when Allah thwarted their evil plan by saving Jesus, this was good. So, the claim by missionaries that Allah is a deceiver for helping one of the Prophet’s from slaughter at the hands of evil, wicked people, these claims have no bearing on the passage historically.}**
@@aleksakovacevic3350 LETS TURN THE TABLES Christians that try and critique the claim of Allah scheming or tricking disbelievers goes against their bible Ezekiel 14:9 God says he deceives false prophets Jeremiah 20:7 their own prophet said he was deceived by God which is 10x worse than disbelievers whose hearts were hardened to have been tricked. 1 kings 22:22 God sends a decieving spirit to a false prophet again 2 Thessalonians 2:12 God says he sends powerful delusions so disbelievers believe in the lie in the delusion god sent and this chapter is referring to lawless men, also includes those who claim to be God
I did not discuss it in the video, as I thought it a peripheral issue, but reading through the comments I'll add something else from the tafsir that will counter more of the Muslim deceit being perpetrated here in the comments section. The Muslim deceit is that Allah deceived those who were plotting against Allah, but the Christians faithful to Jesus knew the truth. The tafsir completely refutes this. It goes on to clarify Q4:157 with regards to who exactly differed over the Crucifixion and are in doubt. The tafsir is explicitly clear that it was the CHRISTIANS who differed over whether or not Jesus was killed. Some Christians said the Jews killed Him while other Christians said He was not killed:
وإن الذين اختلفوا فيه يعني في عيسى وهم النصارى فقال بعضهم قتله اليهود ، وقال بعضهم لم يقتل
So, according to the Quran, even the Christians who faithfully followed Jesus were deceived by Allah.
Thanks for your useless full of lies information by ignorant and smartest idol worshippers
@@Deenresponds Do whatever you want. The audience can watch my presentation, they can watch yours, and make up their own minds. We aren't like Muslims whose faith gets shaken every time Islam is criticized. Just because you provided a response doesn't mean you provided a refutation nor does it mean the issue is decided by the person who last speaks on it.
@@Deenresponds There is no discourse. I made my case. You made yours. If you're confident in your position, then you wouldn't need to have further discourse, especially after claiming to have "debunked" me. You felt the need to make a response video because you find my content threatening. I'm confident in my position and the intelligence of my audience to see that your counter-arguments are weak.
@@Deenresponds I think you are embarrassing, he provided you many points yet you Muslims still fail to prove your claims. May God forgive the souls of the disbelievers. Amin
There is no deception, because those faithful followers of Jesus, even if it appeared to them that Jesus was being killed or they heard rumors of him being killed, will not have their salvation affected if they believe in him as a messenger. czcams.com/video/1IKSjbykiFc/video.html
Without lies, islam dies
With every other word with ies on the end too 😊
I am surprised that amongst the many names and titles given to the Allah of Islam, one of them is not "The Deceiver". Sounds like Satan, since Satan is a liar and father of it. (John 8:44).
I've never been attracted to Islam but when I heard "Allah is the the best of Deceivers" that sealed the deal. Our Allah is Truth!
I wonder how Muslims would explain 3:54 and issue of qadr. Who decided that they would crucify Jesus?
Amen Amen
great video. It should provoke thought.
So by your Logic Worshipin a Man OUT A VAGINA is now tru🤡🤡
Read 2 Thessalonians 2:11 b4u get things outta context in the Quran
@@sayyidelahie9714 piece to you. Read in contex Tess 2.10-12.
@@sayyidelahie9714it talks about God giving them over to their delusions because the people of the earth will follow Satan and his lies. So he’s going to hand them over to Satan because they don’t want the truth.
GGs
@@sayyidelahie9714 In this verse Paul explains what happens to those who refuse the truth during the tribulation. He references an impending spiritual rebellion, and the rise of a powerful spiritual figure, the man of lawlessness. To those who are not Christians, God sends a strong delusion, so they will succumb to the false teaching of the man of lawlessness. A rejection of truth always predisposes sinners to accept error (Romans 1:18-23). In this case, unbelievers choose to reject the truth but believe the lie that the man of lawlessness is the Messiah.
Paul's teaching in this passage raises an interesting question: how does the truth reach the lost in the tribulation? Based on his prior words, Christians will not be present to share the truth. They will be in heaven, having been raptured and taken from the earth (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). According to Scripture, however, God will raise up other witnesses to the truth in the tribulation. From the tribes of Israel, 144,000 Jews will believe on Jesus and evangelize the lost. Further, two faithful witnesses will preach for three and one-half years, authenticating their ministry by withholding rain from the earth and striking the earth with plagues. These witnesses will be martyred, but after three and one-half days, God will raise them from the dead.
The fact that so many living in the tribulation refuse to believe in spite of such powerful witnesses shows how hard the human heart can be.
decently defended idea. how does your understanding make sense of 4:159 if it’s seemingly talking about the future? i guess u could divide the concepts jesus/isa and messiah, and have the messiah’s return be not a literal return but muhammad catalyzing the Great Conversion just before the resurrection. In any case, very interesting stuff to ponder.
Great video
Sir please tell me an application/ website to read greek and hebrew bible along with english translation in it.
Indeed, those who abuse Allāh and His Messenger - Allāh has cursed them in this world and the Hereafter and has prepared for them a humiliating punishment
- Quran 33:57
Oh please. If Allah is real, I'll be walking into Hell voluntarily anyway.
Christ is King for eternity, embrace truth and strive for the kingdom of Heaven ☦✝
@Belisarius_IC_XC_NIKA hell is not what you think it is. On that day, your hands and every part of your body shall testify against you and then you shall see, by then it would be too late
Twisting deceiving 😂😂😂
Super😊
TAG utterly refuted:
Hoppe here, us Western peak intellectuals have gathered to have a word with this new Eastern, so called, intellectualism. So, here’s a flavour of REAL presuppositonalism, consider this a nuke (it’s all love).
Hello chaps. Our (Hume & Kant) understanding is that you fine sirs ground your epistemology within the orthodox church and their bible, thus think their teachings ultimately ground the claims within your worldview.
Step 1) the flank: a refutation from the esteemed Father Deacon Dr. Hume first. If I were to ask you is homosexuality is unbecoming of the gentleman, and you retorted yes, and I asked you to justify that it is the case, how would thou justifieth? You'd go to the written word within the bible et al , or listen to what a church member whom your worldview ad hocly has thrusted authority to, and if they say homosexuality is wrong you'd say this justifies it essentially. Say, how is that not deriving and ought from an is? I ask, have you read my work? Hume speaking. You are claiming you possess such knowledge, because your fickle sense data allows you to see a book makes a given claim or a person says it is so. Unless you use reason alone (sola reason) such as in natural theology, aren't you necessarily going to be making the error of assuming and IS can give you an Ought?
One duly cornered & desperation ensues against Hume: you’re next move must be to appeal to the fact it's a meta-level question and it's the entire Orthodox worldview that is the justification not the evidence of a church member or the bible claiming something.
Step 2) The Skirmish: my next question would be ""But are you not then being completely ad hoc and saying it's always wrong to get try and get an OUGHT from a IS, unless it's Orthodox Christianity and suddenly it's magically (whilst such miracles do not exist, chaps) okay to and dare I say it - even necessary? You claim this isn't an ad hoc distinction by essentially a weird form of pragmatism where you've actually given up on true justification. You argue that any ad hoc claims and ad hoc appeals to authority are suddenly justified when it's supporting an orthodox Christian paradigm simply because these ad hoc claims have been paired up with sound epistemology and metaphysics ect (though not really given this argument is literally proving the Christian worldview doesn't actually have sound epistemology in itself). A. Why can't I accept the properly justified claims in isolation of the wider packaged ad hoc claims within the worldview. And B. Isn't this still getting an ought from an Is ultimately in a meta-way because rather than dreaming up potential worldviews, you have relied on your sense data to find out what claims are out there in the world / culture and latched onto the one out of those limited options which you think is most sound, when in reality you could sit there and use reason alone to think of countless worldviews, each with identical sound epistemology and metaphysics. And C, Pragmatism is admitted within your own paradigm to be invalid for justification and it essentially can only be used as our best guess where uncertainty is inherent, so it's only useful for like dealing with higher material evidences, so clearly material or historical claims inherently cannot provide justification for a worldview. If you can be ad hoc, or appeal to pragmatism (ie. my worldview is true enough even if I can't justify it properly), then so can all the pragmatic empiricists (myself you’re empiricist grandaddy Hume), materialists, and anyone else who relies upon classical foundationalism because they no longer have to justify their self-evident claims as long as they pragmatically lead to a true-enough worldview. Ergo, relying on a material source or set of sources as certainly true just because they get some parts of their philosophy true, is completely self-refuting and makes epistemology and therefore knowledge / judgement past ad hocness literally impossible. This is an embarrassment to my enterprise.
(Kant enters) - Hallo Hume, I see you have something of the sorts of the Prussian fire rumbling in your belly, you successfully tapped the OP, however, you didn’t go quite far enough. I prefer the double-tap variety, in fact this is my basal axiom that one ought to always double tap. Although, correction dear Hume, miracles do exist as our opponent manages to only debate the lowest stock. So, I do agree with presuppositionalism up to the point that it properly justifies logos / logic, and transcendental categories as a whole through the impossibility of the contrary. And I do agree that these categories are interlocking, and elements of reality all correspond with each other and work together perfectly, so you could infer the existence of a God from that as a kind of meta-logical fine-tuning argument. But I don't agree that God's existence necessarily follows from presuppositional argumentation or especially that specifically a given idea of God such as the Orthodox Christian God must exist for logic to be objectively true and for knowledge to be possible. I watched the Jay vs Matt Dillamonkey debate & I must say I was left unsatisfied and perturbed. My understanding is you argue presup can give you God because if you only use presup to justify logic, then the impossibility of the contrary justification we're using may just reflect the limitations of my own mind as oppossed to the limits of actual objective reality as a whole. Whereas if you believe in God, it provides a "reason' why our minds would be tailored to really be able to see objective truth. My question is this, you are deploying an epistemological nihilism argument against presup in isolation to God. But isn't presup and the necessary fact of human knowledge to be possible within each and every claim we make a refutation of EN? Because if not, and EN is a defeater for presuppositionalism, then I fail to see how EN wouldn't be a defeater for your worldview and TAG as well, and literally every possible worldview one can conjure up. The entire point of presup is that it's meant to be the justification, so if it only justifies knowledge if you then must believe in an additional claim (God exists) which is itself dependent upon the objectivity of logic to be knowable, then clearly presuppositionalism doesn't actually justify logic then so if you claim "oh yes presuppositionalism can work despite not justifying logic, we just need to accept my ad hoc claim based on the very now unjustified thing (reasoning), that could just be the limitations of my mind, to think of a way within my mind to prove that my mind isn't limited. Clearly the only actual meta-logical or justificatory element of TAG is specifically in the impossibility of the contrary, the idea of God IS logically contingent and not meta-logical by virtue of the fact it's a claim judged by logic which doesn't directly unavoidably impact logic, so TAG is basically a fallacy. I'll grant that maybe presuppositionalism proves logic, and then given that it's perhaps most reasonable to assume God exists or even that the Orthodox Christian God exists after that out of all the relevant alternatives, but I do not grant that God is a self-justifying claim unless you want to claim "God" is just a synonymous term with "logos / logic".
Hume responds: don’t even get me started on my cause and effect critique. Has anyone ever read me? Funnily enough I used to be Orthodox, but with some free afternoons and basic philosophy I left that quagmire. I advise you kindly, warmly, earnestly, do not make thy nest there. In conclusion gentlemen, I think we can all agree that one is more likely to prove that a tornado has the attribute of “being correct”, than they are to surmount any of the problems we’ve imparted onto thee with this sophist-symphony.
(Both speaking in unison): We have come to a gentlemen’s agreement, and how dare you use us as a crutch for promoting transcendental arguments, when our arguments transcend your own heads.
Hans Hermann Hoppe: Oh dear Orthobro, I know the hold these comfy States (which we know are unacceptable always) have on one who should be a free-thinking sovereign individual. Now I may be an Ancap, but even I in my humble state can dispel such fantasies. To which I hope this letter finds you well. P. S. I’ve never interacted with relativists who claim to believe in objectivity before, any questions about your epistemological nihilism (E. schizophrenia argument) and why it’s wrong, Hoppe’s got you covered.
P. P. S. Any moderator posts going for Libertarian debates, I’ll be totally fair!
Anita max wynn
@OrthodoxShahada, are you aware that the Quran uses the same word, tawafi, used in 3:55, in other verses relating to Allah taking the souls of the living during their sleep, 6:60 and 39:42. Tawafi means to take something fully and is not only applied for death. The less ambiguous word for death is mawt.
Islam defines death as separation of soul from body. What we have in Q6:60 and Q39:42 only serves to emphasize this connection to death. Moreover, in Q39:42, the context is contrasting those who die a permanent worldly death during sleep (which is reinforced using موت), with those who will have their souls placed back into their bodies thereby allowing them to awaken since their appointed time has not arrived. No matter what kind of mental gymnastics you try, these two verses do not help you get around the fact that Jesus dies in Q3:55 as per the Quran. If you want to claim that Q3:55 is talking about a bodily ascension in its totality (which is nowhere affirmed in the Quran and goes against the linguistic usage we find in the Quran related to و ف ي), then you're basically now aping Christianity, which believes Christ ascended bodily AFTER His Crucifxion, Death, and Resurrection. Check mate.
The word used in 3:55 which you say is unambiguously stating that Isa was caused to die is, as you have pointed out, from the root word و ف ي. The literal meaning of this is "to take something fully". For example, in 3:185 it says, "And you will only receive your full (tuwafawna) reward on the day of judgement", using a derivative of the same root word و ف ي. I am not denying that it can also mean death, as Allah takes the souls fully at the time of their death. For example, 32:11 states, "the angel of death will take you fully (yatawafa-kum)". However, as pointed out in 39:42, the Quran uses the same term for what Allah does to the souls in their sleep. The unambiguous term for death is موت (mawt), which unlike و ف ي, is unequivocal. The Quran says in 3:144 in relation to prophet mohammed, "if he dies (mawt) or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels?"
So according to verse 39:42, tawafi can mean death or taking the soul while the body is still alive in this world. Verse 6:60 is even clearer in the latter meaning as it says, "He is the one who takes you (yatawafa-kum) by night". So there is no basis for saying it unambiguously means death and that Muslims have to play mental gymnastics to overcome this. Perhaps Allah used this term to explain to us how Isa has been raised, namely that his soul has been raised but that his body is still alive and present in this world, as is the case when we sleep. Some Muslims to subscribe to the theory of bodily ascension, but I don't. The main reason being that being raised to God cannot be a physical ascension, as God is not physically located anywhere. It is a spiritual ascension of the soul towards a higher realm of existence.
@@hr-zn5dfYou can't be alive in the world bodily without a soul. The separation of soul from body is death. You are doing mental gymnastics. Look at ALL the verses where و ف ي is used and you can clearly see it is in the sense of موت with which it is synonymous. Now you are just splitting hairs with the "taken fully". How does a soul get taken "partially"? You're uttering nonsense. It's either the soul separates from the body, which is death, or the taking is soul+body, which is the standard Sunni position. Since you deny the latter, then the former is the definition of death. You're just playing mental gymnastics saying that Jesus' body remains "alive" on earth while His soul is taken to God. Nothing in the Quran supports that understanding, especially when you look at all the verses where و ف ي occur, which are used in the sense of موت.
You are still completely ignoring verses 39:42 and 6:60 which uses the same word for taking the soul at night. You can go to corpus quran under dictionary and select the root word wfy to see all the instances in which it appears. You will see how it is used for paying back in full, giving full measure, fulfilling covenants, taking us "fully" in our sleep and when we die. Obviously a soul cannot be taken partially. The point of using the word tawafa for taking our soul in death or in sleep implies that the immaterial soul is essentially who we are. So when God takes our soul, He is taking us fully. You are presenting a false dichotomy with your two options. Why can't it be the case that the soul has not separated and still maintains a connection with the body? Is this not what happens when we sleep? The body-soul connection is weaker but not severed. I am sure you are aware of the story of the companions of the cave who were put to sleep for 300 years. Their bodies were technically still alive in this world. Not that it should matter in regards to this discussion, but I happen to be a Shia Muslim.
Youve been "debunked" by a guy named deenresponds could you respond to it?
I'm not wasting my time. The audience can watch my presentation, they can watch his, and make up their own minds. We aren't like Muslims whose faith gets shaken every time Islam is criticized. Just because he provided a response doesn't mean he provided a refutation nor does it mean the issue is decided by the person who last speaks on it.
This is ironic 😂😂 Christian "debaters" have videos saying if you ever come across things which affect your faith ignore it@@OrthodoxShahada
@@HMcod Not every single criticism is worth addressing nor needs to be addressed. Christians are intelligent enough to recognize bad arguments.
@@OrthodoxShahada your argument is literally the bad one 😂😂
@@Deenresponds I don't know who he is or what his religion is. I don't take it upon myself to go around making sure every single person agrees with me and to drop everything I'm doing to respond to bad arguments just because some random person on the internet made a video supposedly "debunking" me.
became more arrogant in the land, and intensified their plotting of evil- the plotting of evil only rebounds on those who plot. Do they expect anything but what happened to earlier people? You will never find any change in God’s practice; you will never find any deviation there. quran 35:43
This verse refutes missionaries lie. The Quran uses وَمَكْرَ ٱلسَّيِّئِ in this verse, which means 'the plotting of evil.' This shows that the word مَكْرَ can have both meanings depending on context.
Allah is really Loki.
According to the Qur'an, he is indeed a trickster. A good reason to have nothing to do with him. At least our Allah says what He means and means what He says.
Astonishing trully.
Yo are you alive
1st
second 😊
All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) is His slave and Messenger.
The trait of Makr (translated as plotting, planning, or deceiving) is not a dispraised trait in all contexts; rather, it is dispraised only when directed against someone who does not deserve it. Ibn Al-Qayyim may Allaah have mercy upon him said in his book I‘laam Al-Muwaqqi‘een: "Makr is defined as causing something to others in a hidden manner, and it also conveys the meanings of plotting and deceit. However, it is of two types: blameworthy Makr, which means causing harm to someone who does not deserve it, and praiseworthy Makr, which means causing harm to someone who deserves it as a punishment. The first type is dispraised, and the second is praised. What is attributable to Allah, The Exalted, is the praiseworthy Makr, which is indicative of His justice and wisdom. He punishes and destroys the oppressors and transgressors whence they never expected it, unlike blameworthy Makr, which is practiced by the unjust oppressors against His slaves." [End of quote]
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen may Allaah have mercy upon him said: "These qualities are indicative of perfection when they counter the opponents’ evil schemes with their like, because they point to the doer’s strength, and his being superior to his enemy, and the ability to overcome him and counter his evil acts with their like or even more severe acts. They are indicative of imperfection in any other context. This is why Allah, The Almighty, never attributes such qualities to Himself in their absolute or broader sense. Rather, He only attributes Makr to Himself to mean a counterplot to frustrate the evil plots of those scheming against Him and His messengers sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ). For instance, He Says (what means):
• {And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.} [Quran 3:54]
• {Indeed, they are planning a plan, But I am planning a plan.} [Quran 86:15-16]
• {But those who deny Our signs - We will progressively lead them [to destruction] from where they do not know.} [Quran 7:182]
• {Indeed, the hypocrites [think to] deceive Allah, but He is deceiving them.} [Quran 4:142]
• {… they say, “We believe,” but when they are alone with their evil ones, they say, “Indeed, we are with you; we were only mockers.” [But] Allah mocks them…} [Quran 2:14-15]
This is why Allah does not state that He betrayed those who betrayed Him. He Says (what means): {But if they intend to betray you - then they have already betrayed Allah before, and He empowered [you] over them. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.} [Quran 8:71] The term used was: "He empowered [you] over them," not, "He betrayed them" because betrayal means violation of trust, and it is an absolutely blameworthy quality in all contexts." [End of quote]
Take meds
😂
Is it the only answer you can give? 😂😂
This recycled argument is too dumb@@devourthepower007
Cristian’s be like Jesus loves you but I don’t
Nope, Christians love everyone. That is why we don't want you to go to Hell.
Baby level arguments.
John 7:6-10
Therefore Jesus told them, “My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. 8 You go to the festival. I am not[b] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.” 9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.
Jesus the liar is false according to you 😂😂
Your not even addressing his arguments your just deflecting 😂
He was talking about performing miracles, and being recognized, so he went in disguise. What he meant was they could go as themselves undisguised, but He Himself would have to go in disguise.
As usual, it's easier to attack Christianity than to defend islam
He didn't say to them that he's never going but that he isn't going along with them.
Islamic arguments are freaking garbage bro. 😂
These videos are so dumb. The title says "proof Islamic Allah Deceives" and in the first 2 minutes it says that you can understand it both as planning and deceive.
Did you watch the rest? He explains that, we understand the sense in which things are meant by reading contextually. That's what the video is for.
@@IntimidatingSnail No, he literally says that the other extreme is saying it can only be interpreted as deceiving, excluding the planning. Are you saying it's irrational and 100% wrong to interpret it as planning and that the video supports this view?
@arkrou
No, I'm saying quite the opposite. Since the word can mean either "planner" or "deciever," we typically understand which word is meant by reading in context of the passage. That is a logical approach. This is in regard to the verse that supposedly calls Allah a deciever.
@@IntimidatingSnail Interpretations are subjective, I already explained the point twice and you don't seem to grasp it.
@@arkrou Then how else do you go over what the Quran is trying to say here, if not by appealing to context and finding the clearest interpretation?
This has literally been debunked for years. People like you just keep squeezing a dry fruit for ego. Good luck though.
Where show any video or source for this he quite literally showed u an early scholar and all you can do is talk please go ahead
Christ in the old testament refutes the quaran
czcams.com/users/shortsYp2EWVt2sBQ?si=EPO2nHmpE999g_TX
@@aleksakovacevic3350 > Then Allah, the Most High, informs about the council of the Children of Israel regarding their plot to harm Isa عليه السلام and their evil intention to crucify him when they conspired against him. They wanted to use him to achieve their own ends, accusing him of various offenses, such as leading people astray, obstructing them from obeying their king, corrupting his subjects, and creating divisions between fathers and sons, among other false accusations that they imposed upon him. They claimed that he was born out of wedlock. These accusations eventually ignited the anger of their king, who decided to capture Jesus and crucify him, subjecting him to torment.
> However, when they surrounded his house, thinking that they had successfully captured him, Allah, the Most High, saved His Prophet and raised him from their midst. He elevated Jesus from the rooftop of the house to the sky. Allah cast the likeness of Jesus onto a man who was present in the house at the time. When the conspirators entered the house, they mistakenly thought they had captured Jesus. They humiliated and crucified him, placing a crown of thorns on his head. This was a divine scheme to protect and save His Prophet. Allah rescued him from their clutches and left them in their misguided state, wandering in delusion. They believed that they had achieved their goals, while Allah implanted in their hearts hardness and stubbornness against the truth, making them carry the disgrace that would not leave them until the Day of Judgment. For this reason, Allah said, "And they plotted, and Allah planned. But Allah is the best of planners."
***Tafsir Ibn Kathir **3:54*****
@@aleksakovacevic3350 **{Christian missionaries have an issue with the words used for both the Jews and Allah. They prefer to translate this way:
“and they deceived and Allah deceived and Allah is the best of deceivers”
The above translation does not exist. It is only made up by crazy deluded missionaries in order to lead people astray. Arabic word(s) makr, Makara can be used negatively and for good. So when the Jews planned to get Jesus arrested and crucified, that was evil, whereas when Allah thwarted their evil plan by saving Jesus, this was good. So, the claim by missionaries that Allah is a deceiver for helping one of the Prophet’s from slaughter at the hands of evil, wicked people, these claims have no bearing on the passage historically.}**
@@aleksakovacevic3350 LETS TURN THE TABLES
Christians that try and critique the claim of Allah scheming or tricking disbelievers goes against their bible
Ezekiel 14:9 God says he deceives false prophets
Jeremiah 20:7 their own prophet said he was deceived by God which is 10x worse than disbelievers whose hearts were hardened to have been tricked.
1 kings 22:22 God sends a decieving spirit to a false prophet again
2 Thessalonians 2:12 God says he sends powerful delusions so disbelievers believe in the lie in the delusion god sent and this chapter is referring to lawless men, also includes those who claim to be God