Contradiction is that, Allah says muslims would be judged by the gospel, muslims says Qur'an tells gospel is corrupted, then why Allah said muslims would be judged by the gospel, now it's proved Allah is the deceiver he is not god , Allah is Satan promoter of ISIS JIHAD and killer of innocent people and brain washer of 2 billion muslims 😂😂😂
The greatest lie the devil ever told was that he and God doesn't exist. The second greatest lie the devil ever told is that the Quran is God's word and that Muhammad is a prophet of God.
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@mznxbcv12345 Rationality was born with Islam? Did you just tell a joke? Is rejecting reality rational? Did anyone witness Mohammed receive revelation? Who saw this quran "come down"? Where is the evidence? Apply this same level of criticism to your religion, and it will come crumbling down like a house of cards. Also, Peter does acknowledge Paul as "our dear brother" and an Apostle, and calls Paul's letters Scripture. You didn't even get your facts right.
There is this quran we have at home in my Dad's library shelf. My Dad bought it alongside a Bible when he was in his youth and was undecided which faith he should believe in. So few years back I saw the quran in his shelf and showed interest in reading it. I only just started reading when my Dad came to my room one night and saw it. He knew I was showing some interest in it. He just told me that I should be careful with the book and if I love myself I would stop reading it. I was surprised he said that, so that made me more curious, so I continued reading the book. I used to be a person with this mindset that both Christianity and Islam are same in belief that only difference is how we pray, but after reading that book halfway I realised how wrong I have always been and the contradiction with what the Bible say is just so unbearable. My father was right. It was actually this topic about Christ crucifixion and resurrection that made me angry the most. That was were I drew the line and said, "enough of these lies". How can this book deny the death and resurrection of Christ which is the foundation of the Christian faith. It was just so clear and evident that the author of the book had no iota idea of what he was writing. Truly without lies, Islam dies! Mohammed is the biggest con man in the history of the world.
Funniest thing for me is:: i wasnt really religious before (and im still not that big of an "believer" like i believe that the big bang created the universe but why did the big bang happen? - because of god IMO etc.) i always had this good image about islam - muslims too but i still have a good image about them since most dont even know what islam preaches as you can see cause they live in germany (in a non-muslim country) and talk to me normally without doing buisness with me or trying to convert me which is haram but well) i read the quaran or at least 1/2 and i just noticed this book is just badly written, its really hard to understand cause theres often no connection, read an sahih hadith collection and after that educated myself about other law schools, different things in islam like sunnah, fiqh etc etc. and damn after that i understood how more sense the bible and christianity makes, like the quran is flawless cause its the direct word from god (for sunnis which are like 95%) the bible on the other hand is an collection of books and stories (be it the tora or stories that happened in the area of palestine like the samaritan, and its written by HUMANS, a creation of god that have free will and make mistakes, of course the bible has mistakes and contradcition in it, but thats just a point for it IMO cause it shows that we make mistakes, wer arent god/jesus we arent sinn-free - the quran and muhammad on the other hand are perfect, and are an perfect model every muslim should believe.
To be worse, quran is the direct revelation from the devil(saitan) which no doubt about it since its writing is based on contradicting bible. Its very scary when reading it.
@@funfungerman8401 if u believe the Big Bang then u believe that the entire universe was once all squashed into a tiny dot. The singularity. Is that correct? I wanna make sure that’s right before I ask my next question and I am being genuine I’m not here to ridicule or anything.
Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims. In the opening chapters of Acts we find two addresses by Peter, one delivered to the disciples when an apostle to succeed Judas Iscariot was to be chosen, and the other to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. On neither occasion did the speaker mention a new religion, or a church open to Gentiles as well as to Jews, or an abandonment of the Mosaic law. If these ideas had been in his mind at that time, he could not have omitted some reference to them. That the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem continue for at least eighteen years to comply with the requiments of the Mosaic law is proved by the epistle of Paul and also by Acts. In the latter book we read that at time not specified, probably not earlier than 40 A.D Peter went to Joppa and there ate with Gentiles-^that i he violated the Pharisaic interpretation of one of the Mosaic ceremonial rules-and after his return to Jesus; then, he was called to account by his fellow disciple He justified his conduct, not on the ground that Jesus had abrogated the ceremonial law of Moses, or any part of it, but that in a dream he had received a divine communication telling him that all manner of beasts, fowls, an creeping things were clean, and that it was lawful for him to keep company with Gentiles, who were " unclean under the law of Moses. This announcement was accepted as authoritative, but with much surprise, " because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."' This statement of the revelation to Peter, and of it acceptance by the disciples in Jerusalem, is doubtless a invention of the author of Acts. It cannot be brought into harmony with later passages of his own book, nor with the statements of Paul, who is our only trustworthy witness in these matters. According to Acts, about 51 C. E. a council was held in Jerusalem to put an end to the dissension which had arisen in the church on the questions of circumcision and unclean meats. This council decided in favor of Paul, who was in attendance and the decision as given in a letter addressed not to all Christians but only to: " the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" - where Paul had been making converts, informing them that they were not required to observe the Mosaic ceremonial law. It is quite clear that no such council would have been held if the matter had been decided ten years before, as Acts says it had been. But this account of the council of 51 C. E. is also a fiction. About eight years later Paul went to Jerusalem again, and his appearance there provoked a riot. The mob wanted to kill him because of his hostility to the Mosaic law, and this mob included Jewish Christians as well as Jews. All the Christians in Jerusalem were zealous adherents of the Mosaic law. Some of the leading brethren, advised Paul to take a false oath that he did not teach his Jewish converts to neglect the law. And, if we can believe Acts, he took that oath. This, however, did not pacify the mob, which would have put him to death if the Roman soldiers had not protected him. They took him to prison and finally to Rome. This story in Acts implies that the apostolic church adopted one rule of discipline for the Gentile and another for the Jewish Christians; that the latter were, and that the former were not, required to comply with the Mosaic ceremonial law. This duplicity of discipline is not recorded elsewhere. It is not known to Paul ; and if it had existed, he could neither have been ignorant of it nor remained silent about it. He tells us that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem, or those of them known to him, favored strict adherence to Moses; and the only way in which he could get along harmoniously with them was by promising to do no missionary work in Judea. He was to labor among the Gentiles," There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. Distinguished saints and learned fathers of the faith openly commended the invention and acceptance of false- hoods designed to aid the conversion of the world to what they believed to be truth. The word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” -Psalm 137:9 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” -1 Samuel 15:3 “Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.” -Jeremiah 6:11 “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” -Hosea 13:16 The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers: “in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.” This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished. This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah): It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children." بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دع "To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause" -Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya The modifiable testaments testament genocide on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context. Surah Al-Baqarah Aya 1-7 The first Surah after the opening has all the point addressed and example of people like him rebuked Surah Al-A'raaf Aya 171 to 178 - Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge Surah Al-Nisaa Aya 46 - Addresses people like those in the video who take verses from the Quran out of their context Surah Al-Ma'idah Aya 48 - shows that the Quran supersedes all other revelations Surah Aal-Imraan Aya 96 - Addresses all of mankind Surah Al-Anbiya Aya 107 - The role of the prophet Surah Al-Hujurat Aya 13 - Addresses the creation of humanity into different peoples Surah Al-Jumu'a Aya 1 to 8 Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@mznxbcv12345 you know that the Trinity is basically mentioned in the old testament, right? The angel of the lord The spirit of Yahweh Yahweh. In the verse: Hear o' Israel, the lord our God is one. The word used for God has the same ending connotation used in plural words in the old testament (fathers,etc.), thus some suggest the Translation: Hear o' Israel, the lord our Gods are One(united)
@@Powerviolenc3 Islamic teachings acknowjedge that jesus: a. a man, approved of god, as in acts 2:23 b. sent by god, as in john 17:3 c. miraculously born of virgin mary, with god permission d. heal the blind and lepers, with god permission e. bring dead to life, with god permission. f. pray to god, as in john 17
The Islamic dilemma, not ONLY confused about allah, the spirit of allah, angel Jibrial, but terribly confused about JESUS. Islam gets everything wrong about Jesus z starting with his name, his birth, his death, his titles, his purpose, his resurrection and his second coming. 🙄🤯🥺
What do expect by someone who wanted to be a Jewish prophet, was rejected, then wanted to be a Christian prophet, was rejected again, so he twisted their scriptures and declared war on them.
As Mohammed twisted all as you stated. What's one of the most twisted teachings in Islam is, the drinking of camel urine for health purposes. Copy and paste......The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron. Reading between the lines, these sick Bedouin's realized Mohammed was mocking them, and they rebelled. Instead of just killing them Mohammed decided to torcher them.
Most importantly, they don't know what he teached (forgiveness and abstaining from revenge and sexual fantasies), the fact that he was baptized, what the name of his mother's father was, and even how the word messiah is translated. but the most convincing thing for me is that they cut the throats of those who dare to draw Muhammad, but remain silent when the crucified figure is ridiculed at gay parades. This is the strongest evidence for me, along with the fact that Satanists use an inverted crucifix to symbolize their hatred of God - the only real God who matters. Obviously, Christians should not persecute blasphemers, but Islamists are ordered to do the exact opposite - but they don’t care, although they claim to believe in the same God and respect the same Jesus as us. because their god is the greatest deceiver, our God is the savior of the world.
3:55 the word ‘mutawaffika’ means take u...not spread the lie...In 4:157-‘subbiha’ came from word tasabaha means look alike /it was made to appear. it's clearly says it has made to appear but wasn't actually irl..& the next verse resurrection means the hour when Israfil Aw blowing his trumpet for 2nd time...he didn't do it for first yet bit**...and the real follower of Yeshua pbuh is Muslim not you who's bring out the world all types of crime such as:porn industry, killing innocent, LGBTQ 🖕🏻
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha" too sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. "Mother of God/Theotokos" title has been in use since the 3rd century, in the Syriac tradition (as Classical Syriac: ܝܠܕܬ ܐܠܗܐ, romanized: Yāldath Alāhā) in the Liturgy of Mari and Addai (3rd century) and the Liturgy of St James (4th century). That too is Arabic, Yaldath here is a mumbled Walydath (WALDH / والدة ), meaning mother of. Written with Y for obfuscation. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Say not 3 for allah is 1. No christian denomination says this. Allah asks Jesus why he told the people to exalt him and his mother to god hood. No christian believes marry is God The denial of the crucifiction is historically debunked @@ishfaqshah7393
Beloved Muslims are throwing away a precious *SALVATION* (which guarantees eternity in Heaven TODAY) by dismissing the crucifixion and believing, instead, in a fuzzy and unclear verse which comes a good SIX HUNDRED YEARS after the event, shared by a man who spoke a different language, lived far away in place and time from the location and witnesses of the crucifixion and whose god confesses to being the greatest of all makereen (deceivers). Blessings.
Nobody is allowed into heaven accept those given by God. Salvation or not heaven wasn't made for us that's a lie you were told not even that you read but was told by someone in church probably the leader himself
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@mznxbcv12345 Friend, the ALAHA argument is a thoroughly false dawah script. It's shocking that most beloved Muslims are ignorant of the fact that *Allah'/'Alaha'* are *common noun/generic words* for just about any god an Arabic/Aramaic speaker worships. The pagan Hubal ☪️ of the Kaaba 🕋 was also called 'Allah' ('al-ilah'/the god). Hubal means 'He who is Baal'. Baal is a is a manifestation of Satan. So one has to be specific which Allah they are referring to! In fact, believers in Hubal were Abdullah (slaves of Allah). Muslims are also slaves of Allah. In truth, going by the dawah argument of similarly of *name* (Allah), *shrine* 🕋 and the *symbol of Islam* ☪️, Hubal (Allah) ☪️ of the Kaaba 🕋 surely has more in common with Allah of the Muslims than Allah of the Arab Christians! It seems like Muslims are not aware that the Arab/Aramaic Bible is exactly similar to the Old and New Testament (they read Mathew, Mark, Luke, John and the epistles of Paul) which the rest of Christian groups have. It's just in a different language! about the God who is the Father and Jesus who is the Son. In the Arabic/Aramaic Bible, Jesus is still the one who will *RESURRECT* mankind, *JUDGE* the world and give *ETERNAL LIFE* to those who believe in him. Only God can do that. In Isaiah 40:3-5, Malachi 3:1 and John 1:1, 14 (for example) the Arabic/Aramaic Bible teaches that Jesus is God ('Allah') in the flesh. Arab and Aramaic Christians believe in the one the God of Abraham, Isaac and and Jacob as a *triune* God. When Jesus would have called out to ALAHA in Aramaic, he was on the cross! But Allah of the Qur’an rejects the crucifixion. So Jesus was referring to the ALAHA who had sent him to be crucified for the sins of mankind, not Allah of the Qur’an who rejects the crucifixion! The 'Allah'/'Alaha' mentioned in the *Arabic Christian Bible* is the one God of Deuteronomy 6:4- *("O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one").* All the Prophets of Israel (from Moses to Malachi) worshipped this one God of Deut 6:4 who descended and dwelt with mankind in the tabernacle or *TEMPLE* of Moses and Solomon.* (Exodus 40:34) and Solomon (2 Chronicles 7:1-3). This is what Arab and Aramaic Bible teaches about their 'Allah'. Is this one God of the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:4) who descends and dwells with mankind 'Allah' of Muhammad and the Qur’an? No! Does similarity in name ('Allah') mean that Arab Christians worship Allah of the Muslims? No. It's ridiculously false! It's what is called a *word concept fallacy* or *false equivocation fallacy!* When Arabic-speaking Christians use the word Allah, it is usually used in combination with the word *al-Ab.* *Allah al-Ab* means “God the Father,” and this usage is one way Arab Christians differentiate their true God from the false Islamic god of the Hajr e aswad (Black stone) and Kaaba. Can you, as a Muslim, say: *"Allah is my Father and the Father of Jesus and Muhammad"?* No! Allah is father to no one (QS 6:100). To be honest, Arab and Aramaic Christians *reject* 'Allah' of the Qur’an as the true God of the previous scriptures because in the Bible of the Arab or Aramaic Christians, the prophet Isaiah warned that the Great Deceiver would claim to be the Most High God (Isaiah 14:12-14). Allah of the Muslims' claim to be the Most High God (Al-Aʻla 87:1) of the precious scriptures (QS 29:46) is a fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy.
Script? I wrote it. @TheWatchmanWebsiteis does the bidding of shaytaan though. Even YHWH is Arabic, as mentioned. Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself. Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted [James 1:13) God cannot be tempted (John 1:29) Jesus was seen (1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God (Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man (Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn (Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died (1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die (Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation (Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation (John 4:6) Jesus grew weary (Isaiah 40:28) God cannot grow weary (Mark 4:38) Jesus slept (Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep (John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful (Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful (Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing (Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing
Glad you bring up 3:55 , as not many have commented on this so far. But I know any Afghan man, who when studying the Quran in arabic found this verse and Began to question Islam. He later became a christian.
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself. Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted [James 1:13) God cannot be tempted (John 1:29) Jesus was seen (1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God (Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man (Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn (Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died (1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die (Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation (Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation (John 4:6) Jesus grew weary (Isaiah 40:28) God cannot grow weary (Mark 4:38) Jesus slept (Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep (John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful (Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful (Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing (Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a Muslim, one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: "And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church" -Homily 17 Section XIX On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.” -Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5 In the opening chapters of Acts we find two addresses by Peter, one delivered to the disciples when an apostle to succeed Judas Iscariot was to be chosen, the other to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. On neither occasion did the speaker mention a new religion, or a church open to Gentiles as well as to Jews, or an abandonment of the Mosaic law. If these ideas had been in his mind at that time, he could not have omitted some reference to them. That the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem continue for at least eighteen years to comply with the requirements of the Mosaic law is proved by the epistle of Paul and also by Acts. In the Acts we read that at time not specified, probably not earlier than 40 C.E Peter went to Joppa and there ate with Gentiles-that i he violated the Pharisaic interpretation of one of the Mosaic ceremonial rules-and after his return to Jesus; then, he was called to account by his fellow disciple He justified his conduct, not on the ground that Jesus had abrogated the ceremonial law of Moses, or any part of it, but that in a dream he had received a divine communication telling him that all manner of beasts, fowls, an creeping things were clean, and that it was lawful for him to keep company with Gentiles, who were " unclean under the law of Moses. This announcement was accepted as authoritative, but with much surprise, " because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."' This statement of the revelation to Peter, and of it acceptance by the disciples in Jerusalem, is doubtless a invention of the author of Acts. It cannot be brought into harmony with later passages of his own book, nor with the statements of Paul, who is our only trustworthy; witness in these matters. According to Acts, about 51 C. E. a council was held in Jerusalem to put an end to the dissension which had arisen in the church on the questions of circumcision and unclean meats. This council decided in favor of Paul, who was in attendance and the decision as given in a letter addressed not to all Christians but only to " the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia"-where Paul had been making converts, informing them that they were not required to observe the Mosaic ceremonial law. It is quite clear that no such council would have been held if the matter had been decided ten years before, as Acts says it had been. But this account of the council of 51 C. E. is also a fiction. About eight years later Paul went to Jerusalem again, and his appearance there provoked a riot. The mob wanted to kill him because of his hostility to the Mosaic law, and this mob included Jewish Christians as well as Jews. All the Christians in Jerusalem were zealous adherents of the Mosaic law. Some of the leading brethren, presumably apostles, advised Paul to take a false oath that he did not teach his Jewish converts to neglect the law. And, if we can believe Acts, he took that oath. This, however, did not pacify the mob, which would have put him to death if the Roman soldiers had not protected him. They took him to prison and finally to Rome. This story in Acts implies that the apostolic church adopted one rule of discipline for the Gentile and another for the Jewish Christians; that the latter were, and that the former were not, required to comply with the Mosaic ceremonial law. This duplicity of discipline is not recorded elsewhere. It is not known to Paul ; and if it had existed, he could neither have been ignorant of it nor remained silent about it. He tells us that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem, or those of them known to him, favored strict adherence to Moses; and the only way in which he could get along harmoniously with them was by promising to do no missionary work in Judea. He was to labor among the Gentiles," There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. Distinguished saints and learned fathers of the faith openly commended the invention and acceptance of false- hoods designed to aid the conversion of the world to what they believed to be truth. Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1 God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a Muslim, one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. Soon after Jesus had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he " gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere. The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." This charge, as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions.Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation. The subjects to which the most space or most prominence is given in the sayings attributed, in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission. The new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: The old testament is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3). 2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain. It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two Ssmall tribes, ana the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings. The word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” -Psalm 137:9 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” -1 Samuel 15:3 “Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.” -Jeremiah 6:11 “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” -Hosea 13:16 The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers: “in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.” This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished. This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah): It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children." بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دع "To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause" -Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya The modifiable testaments testament genocide on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context. Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1 God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
That's just funny. You all should realize that both of your religions are falsehoods and we should inform our beliefs through sound epistemology, not superstition/fear/ingorance based nonsense that has absolutely no objective evidence and doesn't warrant beliefs.
@Squidgyy_ That's just an assertion and unknowable. It's dishonest to make such statements. You can't demonstrate that a personal god or divine mind exists. Therefore, you can't make that claim. How do you know what you asserted? And don't quote me the bible, I don't care about your bible and its stories and claims.
@@Alen-gr1xm take this for example: we right now are having a conversation and we are giving transcendental meanings to our words, thus becoming mediums to information that we can’t empirically verify. However if we look at its face value, what is really being seen here is just markings on a screen that we apply an immaterial meaning and value to. These transcendentals like meaning, time, morals, numbers, words, the past, the self, and so on are all immaterial aspects of our reality that work in tandem with one another for the possibility of knowledge. None of these can be empirically verified or grounded, but they are rather presupposed as tools for us during our empirical investigations. It is by necessity that a personal God exists for these and knowledge itself to be grounded and existent themselves. If we deny that transcendentals and knowledge exists, we are left with absurdity (think back to my example of the conversation). Therefore, the existence of knowledge is what proves the existence of a personal god with a divine mind because of said being’s role in giving knowledge an account. Without God, you can’t give an account for transcendentals or knowledge and it becomes relative (which is self refuting); adding on to its impossibility without the divine mind. To sum it up: God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. We have knowledge, therefore God exists.
Yet another great video from this channel. This is the kind of first class apologetics I have come to expect from Apologetics Roadshow and Dr. Wood. A very logically sound argument and you delivered it perfectly. I have learned so much about Islam from David Wood & the Apostate Prophet. At one time I was considering converting to Islam and then I found a video on this channel that truly opened my eyes. Thank you for that Dr. Wood. And may the Peace of Christ be upon you and your loved ones! ✝️
🗣CHRISTIAN ALLAH GIBRIL FAKE I D OF MOHAMMAD😉 🗣MUSLIM PROVE IT 🗣CHIRISTIAN I WILL PROVE THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE GOD JESUS YES OR NO. plz reply😇 🏃🏃 👈MUSLIM RUN
🗣CHRISTIAN ALLAH GIBRIL FAKE I D OF MOHAMMAD😉 🗣MUSLIM PROVE IT 🗣CHIRISTIAN I WILL PROVE THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE GOD JESUS YES OR NO. plz reply😇 🏃🏃 👈MUSLIM RUN
As a orthodox christian ☦️ convert from islam with My family and many family friends. All Muslims will see the truth like we did. Bless you ☦️☝️ Have a great day or night depending where you are.
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself. Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted [James 1:13) God cannot be tempted (John 1:29) Jesus was seen (1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God (Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God (Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man (Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn (Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn (1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died (1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die (Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation (Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation (John 4:6) Jesus grew weary (Isaiah 40:28) God cannot grow weary (Mark 4:38) Jesus slept (Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep (John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful (Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful (Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing (Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1 God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims, often boastful of his innovations he said " I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." There is no passage in Paul inconsistent with these quotations; no passage suggesting that the admission of the gentiles into the Christian church was an idea of Jesus, or that it was accepted by the twelve apostles in Jerusalem before the conversion of Paul, or that he received any instruction from them or acknowledged any duty of obedience or submission to them. This gospel which Paul preached and which, according to his boast, was original with him, included many tenets not found in the four gospels or not set forth there in unmistakable terms. By implication, it repudiated the ascetic and communistic maxims of the synoptic gospels, It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It proclaimed that the unsearchable riches of Christ were to be distributed as freely among the Gentiles as among the Jews. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; and popular speech recognized the correctness of the claim by calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. Soon after Jesus had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he " gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them." This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere. The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." This charge, as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions.Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation. The subjects to which the most space or most prominence is given in the sayings attributed, in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission. The old testament is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3). 2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain. It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two Ssmall tribes, ana the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings. The word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses: “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” -Psalm 137:9 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” -1 Samuel 15:3 “Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.” -Jeremiah 6:11 “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.” -Hosea 13:16 The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers: “in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.” This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished. This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah): It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children." بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دع "To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause" -Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya The modifiable testaments testament genocide on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a 'Muslim', one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either. Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity: "And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church" -Homily 17 Section XIX On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.” -Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5 In the opening chapters of Acts we find two addresses by Peter, one delivered to the disciples when an apostle to succeed Judas Iscariot was to be chosen, and the other to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. On neither occasion did the speaker mention a new religion, or a church open to Gentiles as well as to Jews, or an abandonment of the Mosaic law. If these ideas had been in his mind at that time, he could not have omitted some reference to them. That the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem continue for at least eighteen years to comply with the requiments of the Mosaic law is proved by the epistle of Paul and also by Acts. In the latter book we read that at time not specified, probably not earlier than 40 A.D Peter went to Joppa and there ate with Gentiles-^that i he violated the Pharisaic interpretation of one of the Mosaic ceremonial rules-and after his return to Jesus; then, he was called to account by his fellow disciple He justified his conduct, not on the ground that Jesus had abrogated the ceremonial law of Moses, or any part of it, but that in a dream he had received a divine communication telling him that all manner of beasts, fowls, an creeping things were clean, and that it was lawful for him to keep company with Gentiles, who were " unclean under the law of Moses. This announcement was accepted as authoritative, but with much surprise, " because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."' This statement of the revelation to Peter, and of it acceptance by the disciples in Jerusalem, is doubtless a invention of the author of Acts. It cannot be brought into harmony with later passages of his own book, nor with the statements of Paul, who is our only trustworthy witness in these matters. According to Acts, about 51 C. E. a council was held in Jerusalem to put an end to the dissension which had arisen in the church on the questions of circumcision and unclean meats. This council decided in favor of Paul, who was in attendance and the decision as given in a letter addressed not to all Christians but only to: " the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" - where Paul had been making converts, informing them that they were not required to observe the Mosaic ceremonial law. It is quite clear that no such council would have been held if the matter had been decided ten years before, as Acts says it had been. But this account of the council of 51 C. E. is also a fiction. About eight years later Paul went to Jerusalem again, and his appearance there provoked a riot. The mob wanted to kill him because of his hostility to the Mosaic law, and this mob included Jewish Christians as well as Jews. All the Christians in Jerusalem were zealous adherents of the Mosaic law. Some of the leading brethren, advised Paul to take a false oath that he did not teach his Jewish converts to neglect the law. And, if we can believe Acts, he took that oath. This, however, did not pacify the mob, which would have put him to death if the Roman soldiers had not protected him. They took him to prison and finally to Rome. This story in Acts implies that the apostolic church adopted one rule of discipline for the Gentile and another for the Jewish Christians; that the latter were, and that the former were not, required to comply with the Mosaic ceremonial law. This duplicity of discipline is not recorded elsewhere. It is not known to Paul ; and if it had existed, he could neither have been ignorant of it nor remained silent about it. He tells us that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem, or those of them known to him, favored strict adherence to Moses; and the only way in which he could get along harmoniously with them was by promising to do no missionary work in Judea. He was to labor among the Gentiles," Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. Distinguished saints and learned fathers of the faith openly commended the invention and acceptance of false- hoods designed to aid the conversion of the world to what they believed to be truth. Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1 God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
The Qur'an claims that those who believe in the crucifixion of Jesus are in *CONJECTURE,* but as we now know, it is the Muslims who are in conjecture with their many theories about what may have happened! We Christians are all in agreement about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ!
Yeah. Ask our Muslim friends what actually happened. How can the Jews say that Jesus was the Messiah? How can the Jews say that Jesus was a messenger of Allah? Was there any crucifixion? And if so, then who was actually crucified? Simone from Cyrene, Judas Iskariot, Tatianos, etc... And when was Jesus raised to heaven? How can Jesus Christ be saved before the crucifixion? Meanwhile He predicted and confirmed His crucifixion, death, and resurrection many times. It states also that it was made to appear to them. Why should everybody be tricked? What do you call it when someone makes you believe something as true when it is not true? The Quran says also that the disciples are the helpers of Allah and they submit to Allah, Surah 3:52. So according to Islam, they are Muslims. So why are these Muslims also tricked? Can one of our Muslim answer these questions?
If we just read the verse carefully it saids “THEY” didn’t kill hon not crucified him. It was Allah that cause his death He killed him He crucified him. He died! But it wasn’t from their own doing. The son of man was a sacrifice from God. He put him to the slander for remission of sins. They weren’t responsible for his death God cause his death it was preordained from the beginning!
"If Christianity is true we don't just have a hope, we have the best hope imaginable, the resurrection of Jesus, which reverses suffering and death and turns it back to glory. And amazingly, if we're united to Jesus that will be true for every single one of us at the most vivid personal level." - Gavin Ortlund
Idk who U r but frm ur comment I will share with U what I PERSONALLY KNOW FOR SURE.Ur comment couldn't be any TRUER!Just that The words used isn't enough to describe such a Glory.I EXPERIENCED IT!Last Friday morning,as I wld usually do I woke up at 4 got up and prayed for abt 15 mins,I then Statred ro listed to a sermon From William Branham(The hidden Life) abt 30 mins after I drifted off frm physical into Spiritual,it lasted abt 10 mins,The Love I felt,the Joy I felt,there is absolutely NOTTING on Earth that can compare to it.There was also a Being that Presented Himself to me,I Beleive it was Jesus because what I felt CAN ONLY be the Presence of God.🙏
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims, often boastful of his innovations he said " I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." There is no passage in Paul inconsistent with these quotations; no passage suggesting that the admission of the gentiles into the Christian church was an idea of Jesus, or that it was accepted by the twelve apostles in Jerusalem before the conversion of Paul, or that he received any instruction from them or acknowledged any duty of obedience or submission to them. This gospel which Paul preached and which, according to his boast, was original with him, included many tenets not found in the four gospels or not set forth there in unmistakable terms. By implication, it repudiated the ascetic and communistic maxims of the synoptic gospels, It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It proclaimed that the unsearchable riches of Christ were to be distributed as freely among the Gentiles as among the Jews. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; and popular speech recognized the correctness of the claim by calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity. Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
3:55 the word ‘mutawaffika’ means take u...not spread the lie...In 4:157-‘subbiha’ came from word tasabaha means look alike /it was made to appear. it's clearly says it has made to appear but wasn't actually irl..& the next verse resurrection means the hour when Israfil Aw blowing his trumpet for 2nd time...he didn't do it for first yet bit**...and the real follower of Yeshua pbuh is Muslim not you who's bring out the world all types of crime such as:porn industry, killing innocent, LGBTQ 🖕🏻
It probably doesn't help that the average Muslim doesn't carry the full Quran, they have bits and pieces.... the bits that would make them Christian are conveniently removed.
In my life, I've never seen a better example of someone who loves Muslims than David Wood. They shout, he reasons with them. He forgives and tries to give them a way out of their dilemma. Even in sarcasm, there is an invitation. "Students are not greater than their teacher. But the student who is fully trained will become like the teacher." Like 6:40. I see the likeness of your teacher, you take after him well.
Jesus the sovereign God loves you : ) may we too be like that, love and truth in hand not forsaking one or the other please screenshot these and read them my friend ephesians 4:29-32 1 corinthians 13:1-7 2 timothy 2:22-26 matthew 6:14-15; 18:21-35
@@Dinobs8089 well my friend, in mark its saying that the world would have tried to harm his disciples but God had given them authority over such things, obviously not in all circumstances but this isnt about "drinking poison to prove your belong to God" rather, its about the miracles God's people will accomplish, healing the sick if it be God's will still happens today, I personally have experienced it, I know other testimonies of people who have aswell and more, when it comes to demons, were called to use the Authority of Jesus to stop them since they are beneath Him and He is our protector and King, may we obey and trust the Lord whom loves us I have a question however, if you believed, would you want a relationship with the Lord Jesus? Would you want to be His friend whom you confide and walk with? The one who can make you pure day and as clean as snow? The one true king who offers salvation which He forged through taking upon Himself the death we deserved, He, yes He loves you
@@SongsOfRelief HEY EGO MAN YOU THINK DAVIDS A SOFTY,AND YOUR A WHAT "MAN" OK DEBATE ME, YOUR A XTIAN,SO EXPLAIN HOW JESUS CAN HAVE A MOTHER....DONT BE SCARED KIDDO ITS ONLY A DEBATE
I've never seen anyone who hates Muslims more. He says the most filthy and disgusting things to them. He's a well known islamophobe. Also known to fund and support the tragedy that's taking place in the holy land
they never explain WHY it is important for Jesus to die. they only simply say that he didn't. but Why is it important? maybe it's implied for remission of sins, but Muslims just make it easy and deny it. same for Jesus being born of a virgin. If he's born of a virgin, he must have a father.... no? that's what I don't understand about Islam, they believe half the things we do, yet make up some other implausible thing just to make it a whole different religion.
no, it's simply because mr muhammad was jealous to Jesus.. early on he wanted to be the prophet for christian jews but being rejected by em so that's why he simply denying what christians said
@@leevonismetbf ur not that far off, dood did get a power trip when he had like 17 wives plus a child who he eerily disturbs like m-lester when hes interrupting her play session with dolls with her friends and the beatings of women dood even gets triggered by a child who called him a prophet for the ignorants
Jesus is our champion and our only way, by saying he didnt die and ressurrect you conclude that he didnt overcome death and thus cant do the same for you sorry for my poor english
Wow! You did a good job explaining this verse in reality of the truth. So, the Jews didn’t kill him because God raised him up so their killing was in vain. That’s what the Surah says.
Note Muslims: this is a much simpler and contextual reading of your own Quran than all the traditions that come hundreds of years later trying to make sense of the verse. So it’s ironic that verse 157 says “they follow nothing but conjecture” when it’s you Muslims who follow nothing but conjecture. None of you can come to agree on what this verse is implying.
Correct. You can go to ten different commentaries on 4:157 and get ten different explanations of what happened, all of them completely fabricated by "scholars."
@@apologeticsroadshowYou remember when Shaikh Uthman embarrassed you when you tried to debate him? 😂 you will never learn the true meaning of the Quran until you learn Arabic. Secondly spending your life trying to bash on Islam with all the videos you have made shows your pure hatred. People like you are the reason why Islam is growing so rapidly, propaganda and lies only exposes the truth.
Is the fruit modern christians r showing us better??most modern muslims are a scum bcz we r near end days and corruption is everywhere check the history of Islam from a unbiased source
Obviously you (DW) are aware of Sheikh Imran Hussein's interpretation as you've covered it very well a couple times already. He holds that Jesus didn't die, in that the spirit of Jesus was eventually returned to his body. This is a rare case of a Muslim who affirms the resurrection of Jesus bodily. There is another interpretation of 4:157,158 that I've heard that you might not be familiar with, that affirms the death by crucifixion, while the bodily resurrection stance is a little bit more ambiguous. This is a view held by another Imran (surprising correlation between this name and intelligence apparently). His name is Imran Usmani and he has done a couple episodes on Reasoned Answers "A Muslim Proves Jesus was Crucified", in case anyone wants to check it out. The interpretation is as follows: In 4:157 the word "killed" has an implied meaning (this is the claim, I don't know enough about Arabic to confirm or deny) of "killed justly" or "killed rightfully". So it would become "We killed Christ Jesus [justly]" and later Allah corrects them by saying "for of a surety they killed him not [justly]". This interpretation changes the ontology, from not dying to dying. And the discussion changes to one of ethics, whether this was a just or un-just execution. Obviously we Christians believe it was a terribly unethical act, which was also necessary to occur for the salvation of the world. As God does time and again, accomplishing His will even with sinful mankind. "You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."
do you also speak Coptic? it is the native Egyptian language(with some Greek influence) so... i would expect you will try to keep the heritage alive, in the face of Arabic efforts of erasing others' cultures.
@@porphyry17ur very well informed bro, i appreciate u spreading the awareness, the arabs pride in their culture, religion and language is erasing and enslaving the minds of other third world country, im not a christian but i can only hope that not all is lost yet
@@porphyry17sorry I am late in this message. I wanted to add that we Coptic Orthodox Christians have never forgotten our Coptic roots because to this day we still use the Coptic language to praise the Lord and our prophets ❤️
Great work as always Dr Wood. Islam is riddled with Gnostic Heresies. In his work Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 24, Part 4) St. Irenaeus describes in detail the Doctrines of Saturninus and Basilides who teach "He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all." Sound familiar?
God became man. That is the something missing in this passage and Mohammed's beliefs. The eyewitness who returned to the tomb first had expected the dead body to be there and told Peter, they have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have put him. The video indicates Mohammed thought Jesus was crucified and buried and lives on in heaven, but was a man like any other. Those gnostics thought Jesus was not fully human. Christian belief is that Jesus is of one being with God the Father and that he died and rose again on the third day. It is an interesting thought experiment comparing where the beliefs differ. Thanks for posting those gnostic versions. I looked up the Nicene Creed and John Chapter 20 to compare them to christianity.
bro im the furthest away from being muslim granted i wasnt religious at all before i read the quran after i read it and then a few storys in the bible, i read more hadiths and and informed myself about islamic history and laws etc and after that im now a little more religious but not for islam but christianity xD@@jooo7011
This was very well done. I hope and pray that many Muslims actually listen to and digest the very clear and concise arguments presented in this video. Of course, we always have to anticipate the copy/paste bandits who post pages of irrelevant arguments and paid no attention to the video at all.
I study this way as well. Really getting into it now. I plan on practicing Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, and, hopefully, Aramaic. It’s amazing how people are so aggressive with half baked ideas. I used to be, but by the Holy Spirit I see different now.
@user-ii5wu5uq8q Dawa and taqiyyah are done right now It's is coming from holy taqiyyah Quran. This Muslim guy is pimp for prophet. Prophet said you get 72 virgins and 300 young, handsome boys in Islamic haven. Prophet married a 6 year old girl Prophet married his adopted sons wife. Prophet slept with his dead aunty In the grave Prophet kissed little boys ( tongue) Prophet had 13 wives and sex slaves Prophet split the moon Prophet ordered to kill unbelievers Prophet said pray 5 times cursing Jews and Christians. Prophet said, "Drink camel urine if you have an upset stomach Prophet gave instructions on how men should urinate Prophet hated black dogs Prophet said do Dawa Prophet said do taqiyyah Prophet said kill those who leave Islam Prophet couldn't read or write Prophet set all these examples for men kind. There is only one book in the entire world that promises 300 young boys to serve adult men. Wicked, perverted and pedophilea
When I was away from my faith, I used to think David was just some intentional inflammatory person who wanted to provoke Muslims with his content. But through my own personal growth, rediscovering of my faith, and critically listening to his content I have a new appreciation for him and what he does. Thank you David. I know this is not always a safe line of work and you have lost many people close to you during your time doing this. God bless.
3:55 the word ‘mutawaffika’ means take u...not spread the lie...In 4:157-‘subbiha’ came from word tasabaha means look alike /it was made to appear. it's clearly says it has made to appear but wasn't actually irl..& the next verse resurrection means the hour when Israfil Aw blowing his trumpet for 2nd time...he didn't do it for first yet bit**...and the real follower of Yeshua pbuh is Muslim not you who's bring out the world all types of crime such as:porn industry, killing innocent, LGBTQ 🖕🏻
Jesus (his real name was Emmanuel by the way) did not die on the cross\crucifixion. He fell into somati (look it up: Samādhi समाधि). He has been trained into it (for the mission) by the "three kings\teachers" who came to greet him at the cradle when he was born. At around 14~15 years of age Emmanuel went to the East to study under the guidance of his three teachers - in India (Bharat). He then travelled all around and at about 29~30 returned to Israel to fulfil his mission and be crucified. The soldier (allegedly roman or mercenary) who was sent to break his bones and pierce his lungs was a secret follower of Emmanuel (Jesus). Therefore he did not break his bones (the break was a common practice to accelerate the death of the crucified) or pierce his lungs, rather made a non-vital infliction to his abdominal area - a common check for vital signs. At that day Emmanuel was already in a somati state (his heart beat pulse was around 2~3 per minute or so). For the ignorant on the training - it is equal to death. Emmanuel stayed for about three days (till Sunday) in this state. Then his BIOLOGICAL father Gabriel came down from his ship with two "angels" (assistants) and performed the necessary procedures to bring him back from somati to normal vitality and save him from possible infections. In somati a person could stay for months even years. Emmanuel therefore was " " "resurrected " " " as the ignorant would call it, though technically he never died! After those event (" " "resurrection " " ") he joke with Saul\Paul and Thomas (who were in disbelief) but that is not important. Emmanuel went to Syria, then Smirna (Izmir, today Turkey) then East again to Kashmir with his mom who died in North Western Pakistan. He died much later at about 111 years of age in The Roza Bal, Rouza Bal, or Rozabal located in the Khanyar downtown area of Srinagar in Kashmir, India. The word roza means tomb, the word bal mean place. He was remembered there as the holly man Yuz Asaf (or Isa Yosef).
3:55 the word ‘mutawaffika’ means take u...not spread the lie...In 4:157-‘subbiha’ came from word tasabaha means look alike /it was made to appear. it's clearly says it has made to appear but wasn't actually irl..& the next verse resurrection means the hour when Israfil Aw blowing his trumpet for 2nd time...he didn't do it for first yet bit**...and the real follower of Yeshua pbuh is Muslim not you who's bring out the world all types of crime such as:porn industry, killing innocent, LGBTQ 🖕🏻
@@shingAMarieI agree, and if the muslims learn from this, we can have an islam one step closer to christianity. I hope for their salvation sooner rather than later
It's easy to believe someone else is deceiving you but the most dangerous person who deceives someone is themself. As the prophet Jeremiah points out, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17: 9 When a young Muslim who thinks he must go to the point of direct physical jihadi violence and show He is willing to die in the name of Allah, it would be better for them to stand up in their mosque and repeat David's message. You know exactly what kind of response you will receive from those who are deceived.
The line about the tattoo saying, "Hi! I'm a false prophet. Don't believe anything I say, ever"... that line made me laugh so hard 😂😂😂😂 nice one!! Love this video, you just gained a new subscriber ❤
@@SalimPureHey brother! I believe your heart is being a bit blind to the truth right now. It’s very clear that the Bible is the truth as the Quran affirms it (2:41, 5:47). We have New testaments from before the 7th century so there’s a few explanations, either Allah is pointing the people to a corrupted book, he’s pointing them to a book they don’t have anymore, or it’s a blatant error on his part. Please just have an open mind and seek truth, don’t just respond to me trying to blindly defend with some interpretation. Amen and if you have any questions about Christianity or would like to convert feel free to message me!
I always get this feeling when I talk to them, they always talk in circles, andthats about almost everything they talk about, not just religious stuff - imo
Maybe this is yet to be said in the video… but they sacrificed an awful lot and made a tons of theological problems in order to keep from accepting that Jesus died on a cross… why? What was worth protecting to them that they would create this travesty of an interpretation? What weakness did they think they were covering up?
My personal thoughts on this is that Muhammed was deceived by Satan .....the resurrection of Christ defeats Satan completely. Since Judaism and Christianity was well know and established multiple centuries before Islam in that area , and as most ppl at that time were illiterate I think Muhammed blended the well known ideas of both religions into his religion to give it more credibility or familiarity with the ppl around him .....however if the resurrection was true , then Muhammed would obviously not be who he claimed to be ( the final prophet ) ....Satan has a lot of souls to gain if ppl don't believe in Christ ....it's his main job ...doubt ....in any form possible....different religions....aliens...ghosts ...Atheisim....the list is endless . If Jesus's resurrection wasn't true , then he failed ....just another victim of the Roman Empire ....and obviously not who he claimed to be ....the resurrection is the defining moment ....why wouldn't Satan want that disputed ....doubt ensures non belief .
Jesus (his real name was Emmanuel by the way) did not die on the cross\crucifixion. He fell into somati (look it up: Samādhi समाधि). He has been trained into it (for the mission) by the "three kings\teachers" who came to greet him at the cradle when he was born. At around 14~15 years of age Emmanuel went to the East to study under the guidance of his three teachers - in India (Bharat). He then travelled all around and at about 29~30 returned to Israel to fulfil his mission and be crucified. The soldier (allegedly roman or mercenary) who was sent to break his bones and pierce his lungs was a secret follower of Emmanuel (Jesus). Therefore he did not break his bones (the break was a common practice to accelerate the death of the crucified) or pierce his lungs, rather made a non-vital infliction to his abdominal area - a common check for vital signs. At that day Emmanuel was already in a somati state (his heart beat pulse was around 2~3 per minute or so). For the ignorant on the training - it is equal to death. Emmanuel stayed for about three days (till Sunday) in this state. Then his BIOLOGICAL father Gabriel came down from his ship with two "angels" (assistants) and performed the necessary procedures to bring him back from somati to normal vitality and save him from possible infections. In somati a person could stay for months even years. Emmanuel therefore was " " "resurrected " " " as the ignorant would call it, though technically he never died! After those event (" " "resurrection " " ") he joke with Saul\Paul and Thomas (who were in disbelief) but that is not important. Emmanuel went to Syria, then Smirna (Izmir, today Turkey) then East again to Kashmir with his mom who died in North Western Pakistan. He died much later at about 111 years of age in The Roza Bal, Rouza Bal, or Rozabal located in the Khanyar downtown area of Srinagar in Kashmir, India. The word roza means tomb, the word bal mean place. He was remembered there as the holly man Yuz Asaf (or Isa Yosef).
Nice one David! I totally agree with you. When I heard you said “Allah trick people that Jesus is dead for no reason..” 😂😂😂😂 this cracked me up.hahahahhaa!
From an Islamic site. All comments are theirs: اِذۡ قَالَ اللّٰہُ یٰعِیۡسٰۤی اِنِّیۡ مُتَوَفِّیۡکَ وَ رَافِعُکَ اِلَیَّ وَ مُطَہِّرُکَ مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا وَ جَاعِلُ الَّذِیۡنَ اتَّبَعُوۡکَ فَوۡقَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡۤا اِلٰی یَوۡمِ الۡقِیٰمَۃِ ۚ ثُمَّ اِلَیَّ مَرۡجِعُکُمۡ فَاَحۡکُمُ بَیۡنَکُمۡ فِیۡمَا کُنۡتُمۡ فِیۡہِ تَخۡتَلِفُوۡنَ ﴿۵۶﴾ Translation: When Allah said, ‘O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will exalt thee to Myself, and will clear thee from the charges of those who disbelieve, and will place those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you differ. [3:56] Proof: The word mutawaffeeka means “I will cause you to die”. Whenever God is the fa’il (subject) and man is the maf’ul (object), it always refers to death. It means that God takes the soul of the man. In this case, it applies to Jesus(as) which in turn means that he has passed away. فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّیۡتَنِیۡ کُنۡتَ اَنۡتَ الرَّقِیۡبَ عَلَیۡہِمۡ ؕ Translation: Since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them. [5:118] Proof: In the whole of the Quran, the word tawaffaa means taking of the soul and leaving aside the (physical) body as mentioned in 32:12, 10:105, 4:16, 7:38, and 6:62. The same word or one of its varying formations has been used in 23 places in the Quran always in reference to death and taking of the soul. Similarly, the word tawaffeehas been used in reference to death in the Ahadith, and the entire collection of Sihah Sitta (6 authentic books of Ahadith). مَا الۡمَسِیۡحُ ابۡنُ مَرۡیَمَ اِلَّا رَسُوۡلٌ ۚ قَدۡ خَلَتۡ مِنۡ قَبۡلِہِ الرُّسُلُ ؕ وَ اُمُّہٗ صِدِّیۡقَۃٌ ؕ کَانَا یَاۡکُلٰنِ الطَّعَامَ ؕ Translation: The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely, Messengers like unto him had indeed passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. [5:76] Proof: It is clearly stated that both Jesus(as) and his mother no longer eat food as understood from the Arabic word kaanaa, which is for past tense. Just as Mary(as) no longer eats food and has died, the same applies to Jesus(as) وَ مَا مُحَمَّدٌ اِلَّا رَسُوۡلٌ ۚ قَدۡ خَلَتۡ مِنۡ قَبۡلِہِ الرُّسُلُ ؕ اَفَا۠ئِنۡ مَّاتَ اَوۡ قُتِلَ انۡقَلَبۡتُمۡ عَلٰۤی اَعۡقَابِکُمۡ ؕ Translation: And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, all Messengers have passed away before him. If then he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? [3:145] Proof: The reasoning of this verse is as follows: If it is necessary for a Prophet to live forever in this world, then present an example of such a Prophet from the past. If Jesus(as) were considered as an exception to this, the verse will lose its meaning. وَ اَوۡصٰنِیۡ بِالصَّلٰوۃِ وَ الزَّکٰوۃِ مَا دُمۡتُ حَیًّا Translation: And has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live. [19:32] Proof: If Jesus(as) never died, it means that he is obliged to continue to offer prayers and pay the Zakat. However, as he is in heaven, he cannot give Zakaat and cannot encourage others to give Zakaat or to offer the kind of prayers he used to offer while on earth. These actions relate to a physical earthly body and cannot continue in heaven. وَ السَّلٰمُ عَلَیَّ یَوۡمَ وُلِدۡتُّ وَ یَوۡمَ اَمُوۡتُ وَ یَوۡمَ اُبۡعَثُ حَیًّا ﴿۳۴﴾ Translation: ‘And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace there will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.’ [19:34] Proof: There are only three episodes mentioned here for Jesus(as), namely, his birth, death, and life in the hereafter. If his physical ascent to heaven and physical descent from heaven were supposed to occur, they should have been mentioned here وَ مَاۤ اَرۡسَلۡنَا قَبۡلَکَ مِنَ الۡمُرۡسَلِیۡنَ اِلَّاۤ اِنَّہُمۡ لَیَاۡکُلُوۡنَ الطَّعَامَ وَ یَمۡشُوۡنَ فِی الۡاَسۡوَاقِ ؕ Translation: And We never sent any Messengers before thee but surely they ate food and walked in the streets. [25:21] Proof: According to this verse, prophets used toeat food but no longer eat food. For the physical body to exist, it needs nourishment through food. Since all the prophets do not eat food any longer, they are all dead, including Jesus’s Christ(as)
The Arabic language also abides by substitution theory...words don't actually have true meaning, the meanings depend on wind direction and weather patterns on any given day. You can never pin a muslim down on the meaning of a single word, only he must decide what it means in the moment 😅
Seems as if Barack Hussein Obummer was not the only Muslim US president---> William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton, with his "Depends on what the word 'is' is" blather, apparently was translating in his mind from the original Arabic. (^-_-^)
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar? Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization. The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua. infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name." jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah ) Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language: "From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen. He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown. "protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22) 𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼 ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic: ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word. As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries. The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate, Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE). And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical. Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken? The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study. God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Or in this sense, it’s not an error, but a misinterpretation. If what he is offering is a reclassifying of the correct theology, then Islam would be the Arabic variant of Christianity. Therefore edifying the Arabs though their faith in Jesus as the messiah who actually died on the cross. But must also live by higher standards and completely submit to God the way Mohammad told them. In such a case. It would imply that the Ishmaelites do indeed have hope. And that Jesus is their messiah. And that Mohammed was a prophet to them, but his writings are being mistranslated and misrepresented. In that case, Islam is true for ishmaelite. But they are getting it wrong. The problem we have comes to a conclusion when Jesus comes back the 2nd time. That we know for sure.
@@BeholdIamaNewCreation there is no name under heaven and earth by which men may be saved. That name is Jesus. Muslims do not have any assurance of salvation because they deny the fundamentals of the Gospel, viz., that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who was with the Father from the beginning, that He is fully human and fully divine at one and the same time, that He died on the cross, was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. We can argue about Mohammed, the Quran and a heap of other stuff but until Muslims accept this fundamental doctrine as truth there is no hope for them. Praise God that thousands have seen the truth and have been born again. Their problems are compounded by the fact that they have no archaeological evidence or eye witness accounts regarding Islam or the existence of Mohammed. It’s too easy to blame misinterpretation of their writings, corruption of the Bible for the woeful lack of concrete proof that would substantiate their claims. They need to provide real proof that dates back to when their prophet is said to have lived.
Nice & concise, as well as pertinent. Have a Tunisian friend, speaks only French. Gets more and more open but still sticks to his roots. Any chance to have it translated in French, either written or vocal? Many thanks
The worst part about Substitution theory is then Jesus and God tell the apostles to go preach whatever message the Jews just tried to crucify Jesus for. The Islamic Jesus is a terrible example and leader : martyrdom for thee but not for me.
"die" is translated properly in one verse(19:33) and in a more vague way in another(3:55) which... anyway: 1. Christian view: Jesus was arrested, lashed, crucified, relatives were allowed to get his body off the cross(unusual for the Roman as they tended to leave their body to rot as a threat and disrespect), was burried, he was revived, showed himself to the apostles and was raised to the heavens. 2. muslim view: Jesus was thought-to-be arrested but him and the apostles either prepared a martyr-volunteer(like Simon) or captured an opponent-traitor(like Judas) to be tortured and crucified, they somehow looked like Jesus to the crowd(Allah or the apostles-Jesus doing some plastic surgery to Simon or Judas), those present got to burry the unfortunate fellow, the tomb was found empty after. meanwhile the escapee Jesus will... die around the same period due to obscure reasons and... go to heaven while... not having the wounds Thomas saw on him... so... yeah... did Jesus migrate to China/India/Europe/Africa? or are the mormons(America) right? is Hirohiko Araki right?(JoJo part 7 and 8. with Jesus' c0rpse being scattered in America? not being raised to heaven)
You know I just realized the Muslim explanation has literally no explanation for an empty tomb being there where the fake Jesus was buried. It’s not even thought of, it seems. No good answers just more questions!
You know I just realized the Muslim explanation has literally no explanation for an empty tomb being there where the fake Jesus was buried. It’s not even thought of, it seems. No good answers just more questions!
You know I just realized the Muslim explanation has literally no explanation for an empty tomb being there where the fake Jesus was buried. It’s not even thought of, it seems. No good answers just more questions!
You know I just realized the Muslim explanation has literally no explanation for an empty tomb being there where the fake Jesus was buried. It’s not even thought of, it seems. No good answers just more questions!
![What the Quran REALLY Says about the Gospel [From Beginner to Expert in 35 Minutes!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/46e7bfIlauE/mqdefault.jpg)
Does the Quran really deny the crucifixion of Jesus, or have Muslims been misinterpreting the Quran?
Contradiction is that, Allah says muslims would be judged by the gospel, muslims says Qur'an tells gospel is corrupted, then why Allah said muslims would be judged by the gospel, now it's proved Allah is the deceiver he is not god , Allah is Satan promoter of ISIS JIHAD and killer of innocent people and brain washer of 2 billion muslims 😂😂😂
Anyone who denies the resurrection is raise-ist hehe
Allah is deceiver
Raise-ist, .................................... funny!@@Crocalu
@@daviroza4700Your book makes many false claims about Christians and so we have a duty to respond.
The greatest lie the devil ever told was that he and God doesn't exist.
The second greatest lie the devil ever told is that the Quran is God's word and that Muhammad is a prophet of God.
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar?
Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization.
The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua.
infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name."
jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah )
Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language:
"From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen.
He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown.
"protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22)
𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼
ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي
A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic:
ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain
س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining
ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining
ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining
ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining
ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining
The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word.
As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate,
Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE).
And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical.
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken?
The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
The greatest lie the devil told was: "surely you will not die."
Did you copy paste these or your own argument ?? Damn I can't believe someone have this much knowledge @@mznxbcv12345
@@mznxbcv12345 Rationality was born with Islam? Did you just tell a joke? Is rejecting reality rational? Did anyone witness Mohammed receive revelation? Who saw this quran "come down"? Where is the evidence? Apply this same level of criticism to your religion, and it will come crumbling down like a house of cards.
Also, Peter does acknowledge Paul as "our dear brother" and an Apostle, and calls Paul's letters Scripture.
You didn't even get your facts right.
So mznxbcv12345, is that why Mohammad raped the 9 year old?
There is this quran we have at home in my Dad's library shelf. My Dad bought it alongside a Bible when he was in his youth and was undecided which faith he should believe in. So few years back I saw the quran in his shelf and showed interest in reading it. I only just started reading when my Dad came to my room one night and saw it. He knew I was showing some interest in it. He just told me that I should be careful with the book and if I love myself I would stop reading it. I was surprised he said that, so that made me more curious, so I continued reading the book.
I used to be a person with this mindset that both Christianity and Islam are same in belief that only difference is how we pray, but after reading that book halfway I realised how wrong I have always been and the contradiction with what the Bible say is just so unbearable. My father was right.
It was actually this topic about Christ crucifixion and resurrection that made me angry the most. That was were I drew the line and said, "enough of these lies". How can this book deny the death and resurrection of Christ which is the foundation of the Christian faith. It was just so clear and evident that the author of the book had no iota idea of what he was writing.
Truly without lies, Islam dies! Mohammed is the biggest con man in the history of the world.
Amen!
Aisha and possessions of the right hand did it for me.
And Jinn .
Funniest thing for me is:: i wasnt really religious before (and im still not that big of an "believer" like i believe that the big bang created the universe but why did the big bang happen? - because of god IMO etc.)
i always had this good image about islam - muslims too but i still have a good image about them since most dont even know what islam preaches as you can see cause they live in germany (in a non-muslim country) and talk to me normally without doing buisness with me or trying to convert me which is haram but well)
i read the quaran or at least 1/2 and i just noticed this book is just badly written, its really hard to understand cause theres often no connection, read an sahih hadith collection and after that educated myself about other law schools, different things in islam like sunnah, fiqh etc etc. and damn after that i understood how more sense the bible and christianity makes, like the quran is flawless cause its the direct word from god (for sunnis which are like 95%) the bible on the other hand is an collection of books and stories (be it the tora or stories that happened in the area of palestine like the samaritan, and its written by HUMANS, a creation of god that have free will and make mistakes, of course the bible has mistakes and contradcition in it, but thats just a point for it IMO cause it shows that we make mistakes, wer arent god/jesus we arent sinn-free - the quran and muhammad on the other hand are perfect, and are an perfect model every muslim should believe.
To be worse, quran is the direct revelation from the devil(saitan) which no doubt about it since its writing is based on contradicting bible. Its very scary when reading it.
@@funfungerman8401 if u believe the Big Bang then u believe that the entire universe was once all squashed into a tiny dot. The singularity. Is that correct? I wanna make sure that’s right before I ask my next question and I am being genuine I’m not here to ridicule or anything.
I support people being saved from Islam. Greetings from an Eastern Orthodox Christian! 👋❤☦
As much as I hate Christianity and all religion......we all must band together to eradicate this putrid, cancerous evil that is Islam
I support people being saved from Eastern Orthodox Christianity!
until you wakeup with a belt or coat of exxxpl00s11f!!! Or if you are lucky you wakeup with a young girl of (3x3)old...
Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up.
No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims.
In the opening chapters of Acts we find two addresses by Peter, one delivered to the disciples when an apostle to succeed Judas Iscariot was to be chosen, and the other to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. On neither occasion did the speaker mention a new religion, or a church open to Gentiles as well as to Jews, or an abandonment of the Mosaic law.
If these ideas had been in his mind at that time, he could not have omitted some reference to them. That the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem continue for at least eighteen years to comply with the requiments of the Mosaic law is proved by the epistle of Paul and also by Acts.
In the latter book we read that at time not specified, probably not earlier than 40 A.D Peter went to Joppa and there ate with Gentiles-^that i he violated the Pharisaic interpretation of one of the Mosaic ceremonial rules-and after his return to Jesus; then, he was called to account by his fellow disciple He justified his conduct, not on the ground that Jesus had abrogated the ceremonial law of Moses, or any part of it, but that in a dream he had received a divine communication telling him that all manner of beasts, fowls, an creeping things were clean, and that it was lawful for him to keep company with Gentiles, who were " unclean under the law of Moses. This announcement was accepted as authoritative, but with much surprise, " because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."'
This statement of the revelation to Peter, and of it acceptance by the disciples in Jerusalem, is doubtless a invention of the author of Acts. It cannot be brought into harmony with later passages of his own book, nor with the statements of Paul, who is our only trustworthy witness in these matters.
According to Acts, about 51 C. E. a council was held in Jerusalem to put an end to the dissension which had arisen in the church on the questions of circumcision and unclean meats. This council decided in favor of Paul, who was in attendance and the decision as given in a letter addressed not to all Christians but only to:
" the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" - where Paul had been making converts, informing them that they were not required to observe the Mosaic ceremonial law. It is quite clear that no such council would have been held if the matter had been decided ten years before, as Acts says it had been.
But this account of the council of 51 C. E. is also a fiction.
About eight years later Paul went to Jerusalem again, and his appearance there provoked a riot. The mob wanted to kill him because of his hostility to the Mosaic law, and this mob included Jewish Christians as well as Jews. All the Christians in Jerusalem were zealous adherents of the Mosaic law. Some of the leading brethren, advised Paul to take a false oath that he did not teach his Jewish converts to neglect the law. And, if we can believe Acts, he took that oath. This, however, did not pacify the mob, which would have put him to death if the Roman soldiers had not protected him. They took him to prison and finally to Rome. This story in Acts implies that the apostolic church adopted one rule of discipline for the Gentile and another for the Jewish Christians; that the latter were, and that the former were not, required to comply with the Mosaic ceremonial law. This duplicity of discipline is not recorded elsewhere. It is not known to Paul ; and if it had existed, he could neither have been ignorant of it nor remained silent about it. He tells us that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem, or those of them known to him, favored strict adherence to Moses; and the only way in which he could get along harmoniously with them was by promising to do no missionary work in Judea. He was to labor among the Gentiles,"
There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. Distinguished saints and learned fathers of the faith openly commended the invention and acceptance of false- hoods designed to aid the conversion of the world to what they believed to be truth.
The word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses:
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
-Psalm 137:9
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
-1 Samuel 15:3
“Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.”
-Jeremiah 6:11
“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”
-Hosea 13:16
The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers:
“in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.”
This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished.
This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah):
It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children."
بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دع
"To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause"
-Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya
The modifiable testaments testament genocide on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context.
Surah Al-Baqarah Aya 1-7 The first Surah after the opening has all the point addressed and example of people like him rebuked
Surah Al-A'raaf Aya 171 to 178 - Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge
Surah Al-Nisaa Aya 46 - Addresses people like those in the video who take verses from the Quran out of their context
Surah Al-Ma'idah Aya 48 - shows that the Quran supersedes all other revelations
Surah Aal-Imraan Aya 96 - Addresses all of mankind Surah Al-Anbiya Aya 107 - The role of the prophet
Surah Al-Hujurat Aya 13 - Addresses the creation of humanity into different peoples
Surah Al-Jumu'a Aya 1 to 8 Addresses those who refuse to acknowledge
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@mznxbcv12345 you know that the Trinity is basically mentioned in the old testament, right?
The angel of the lord
The spirit of Yahweh
Yahweh.
In the verse:
Hear o' Israel, the lord our God is one.
The word used for God has the same ending connotation used in plural words in the old testament (fathers,etc.), thus some suggest the Translation:
Hear o' Israel, the lord our Gods are One(united)
Jesus Christ is Lord, Amen
Amen! 🙌
THESE PEOPLE ARE ENEMIES OF ✝️RU✝️H
Jesus is lord. Is he the only god, the only almighty, the only all-knowing?
Islam shahadah is the antixhrist mark
@@Powerviolenc3 Islamic teachings acknowjedge that jesus:
a. a man, approved of god, as in acts 2:23
b. sent by god, as in john 17:3
c. miraculously born of virgin mary, with god permission
d. heal the blind and lepers, with god permission
e. bring dead to life, with god permission.
f. pray to god, as in john 17
The Islamic dilemma, not ONLY confused about allah, the spirit of allah, angel Jibrial, but terribly confused about JESUS. Islam gets everything wrong about Jesus z starting with his name, his birth, his death, his titles, his purpose, his resurrection and his second coming. 🙄🤯🥺
They copied and twisted stories by jealous wannabe prophet
Its almost as if the quran is just perverted plagiarism of the Bible and gnostic text with a muhammad twist🤔
What do expect by someone who wanted to be a Jewish prophet, was rejected, then wanted to be a Christian prophet, was rejected again, so he twisted their scriptures and declared war on them.
As Mohammed twisted all as you stated. What's one of the most twisted teachings in Islam is, the drinking of camel urine for health purposes.
Copy and paste......The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron.
Reading between the lines, these sick Bedouin's realized Mohammed was mocking them, and they rebelled. Instead of just killing them Mohammed decided to torcher them.
Most importantly, they don't know what he teached (forgiveness and abstaining from revenge and sexual fantasies), the fact that he was baptized, what the name of his mother's father was, and even how the word messiah is translated. but the most convincing thing for me is that they cut the throats of those who dare to draw Muhammad, but remain silent when the crucified figure is ridiculed at gay parades. This is the strongest evidence for me, along with the fact that Satanists use an inverted crucifix to symbolize their hatred of God - the only real God who matters. Obviously, Christians should not persecute blasphemers, but Islamists are ordered to do the exact opposite - but they don’t care, although they claim to believe in the same God and respect the same Jesus as us. because their god is the greatest deceiver, our God is the savior of the world.
Thanks! Keep exposing Islam AND sharing the Gospel! ✝️
3:55 the word ‘mutawaffika’ means take u...not spread the lie...In 4:157-‘subbiha’ came from word tasabaha means look alike /it was made to appear. it's clearly says it has made to appear but wasn't actually irl..& the next verse resurrection means the hour when Israfil Aw blowing his trumpet for 2nd time...he didn't do it for first yet bit**...and the real follower of Yeshua pbuh is Muslim not you who's bring out the world all types of crime such as:porn industry, killing innocent, LGBTQ 🖕🏻
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha" too sounds familiar?
Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization.
"Mother of God/Theotokos" title has been in use since the 3rd century, in the Syriac tradition (as Classical Syriac: ܝܠܕܬ ܐܠܗܐ, romanized: Yāldath Alāhā) in the Liturgy of Mari and Addai (3rd century) and the Liturgy of St James (4th century). That too is Arabic, Yaldath here is a mumbled Walydath (WALDH / والدة ), meaning mother of. Written with Y for obfuscation.
The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua.
infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name."
jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah )
Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language:
"From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen.
He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown.
"protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22)
𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼
ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي
A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic:
ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain
س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining
ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining
ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining
ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining
ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining
The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word.
As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate,
Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE).
And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical.
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken?
The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Jesus is LORD
No dispute.
Amen
Amen!
Amen!
Amen
It's sad when an American Christian can make more sense of the Quran than Muslim "scholars". They should start listening and actually try to learn
Abdul response: How can the worst of creatures teach us, the best of creatures, about OUR religion of Islam????
Kaffir!!!
Their book is filled with logical and theological contradictions. It is as readable as the twilight books.
@@KeiKAndLies over 100 contradictions in the bible, not even one in the quran. Cope harder with your lies 😂
God promises the 'spirit of truth' to Christian believers, so it is no surprise.
Say not 3 for allah is 1. No christian denomination says this.
Allah asks Jesus why he told the people to exalt him and his mother to god hood.
No christian believes marry is God
The denial of the crucifiction is historically debunked
@@ishfaqshah7393
Christ is king
Beloved Muslims are throwing away a precious *SALVATION* (which guarantees eternity in Heaven TODAY) by dismissing the crucifixion and believing, instead, in a fuzzy and unclear verse which comes a good SIX HUNDRED YEARS after the event, shared by a man who spoke a different language, lived far away in place and time from the location and witnesses of the crucifixion and whose god confesses to being the greatest of all makereen (deceivers). Blessings.
It's all God's Purpuse.
Nobody is allowed into heaven accept those given by God. Salvation or not heaven wasn't made for us that's a lie you were told not even that you read but was told by someone in church probably the leader himself
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar?
Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization.
The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua.
infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name."
jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah )
Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language:
"From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen.
He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown.
"protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22)
𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼
ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي
A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic:
ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain
س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining
ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining
ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining
ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining
ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining
The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word.
As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate,
Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE).
And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical.
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken?
The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@mznxbcv12345 Friend, the ALAHA argument is a thoroughly false dawah script. It's shocking that most beloved Muslims are ignorant of the fact that *Allah'/'Alaha'* are *common noun/generic words* for just about any god an Arabic/Aramaic speaker worships.
The pagan Hubal ☪️ of the Kaaba 🕋 was also called 'Allah' ('al-ilah'/the god). Hubal means 'He who is Baal'. Baal is a is a manifestation of Satan. So one has to be specific which Allah they are referring to! In fact, believers in Hubal were Abdullah (slaves of Allah). Muslims are also slaves of Allah.
In truth, going by the dawah argument of similarly of *name* (Allah), *shrine* 🕋 and the *symbol of Islam* ☪️, Hubal (Allah) ☪️ of the Kaaba 🕋 surely has more in common with Allah of the Muslims than Allah of the Arab Christians!
It seems like Muslims are not aware that the Arab/Aramaic Bible is exactly similar to the Old and New Testament (they read Mathew, Mark, Luke, John and the epistles of Paul) which the rest of Christian groups have. It's just in a different language! about the God who is the Father and Jesus who is the Son. In the Arabic/Aramaic Bible, Jesus is still the one who will *RESURRECT* mankind, *JUDGE* the world and give *ETERNAL LIFE* to those who believe in him. Only God can do that. In Isaiah 40:3-5, Malachi 3:1 and John 1:1, 14 (for example) the Arabic/Aramaic Bible teaches that Jesus is God ('Allah') in the flesh. Arab and Aramaic Christians believe in the one the God of Abraham, Isaac and and Jacob as a *triune* God.
When Jesus would have called out to ALAHA in Aramaic, he was on the cross! But Allah of the Qur’an rejects the crucifixion. So Jesus was referring to the ALAHA who had sent him to be crucified for the sins of mankind, not Allah of the Qur’an who rejects the crucifixion!
The 'Allah'/'Alaha' mentioned in the *Arabic Christian Bible* is the one God of Deuteronomy 6:4- *("O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one").* All the Prophets of Israel (from Moses to Malachi) worshipped this one God of Deut 6:4 who descended and dwelt with mankind in the tabernacle or *TEMPLE* of Moses and Solomon.* (Exodus 40:34) and Solomon (2 Chronicles 7:1-3).
This is what Arab and Aramaic Bible teaches about their 'Allah'. Is this one God of the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:4) who descends and dwells with mankind 'Allah' of Muhammad and the Qur’an? No!
Does similarity in name ('Allah') mean that Arab Christians worship Allah of the Muslims? No. It's ridiculously false! It's what is called a *word concept fallacy* or *false equivocation fallacy!*
When Arabic-speaking Christians use the word Allah, it is usually used in combination with the word *al-Ab.* *Allah al-Ab* means “God the Father,” and this usage is one way Arab Christians differentiate their true God from the false Islamic god of the Hajr e aswad (Black stone) and Kaaba.
Can you, as a Muslim, say: *"Allah is my Father and the Father of Jesus and Muhammad"?* No!
Allah is father to no one (QS 6:100).
To be honest, Arab and Aramaic Christians *reject* 'Allah' of the Qur’an as the true God of the previous scriptures because in the Bible of the Arab or Aramaic Christians, the prophet Isaiah warned that the Great Deceiver would claim to be the Most High God (Isaiah 14:12-14). Allah of the Muslims' claim to be the Most High God (Al-Aʻla 87:1) of the precious scriptures (QS 29:46) is a fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy.
Script? I wrote it. @TheWatchmanWebsiteis does the bidding of shaytaan though. Even YHWH is Arabic, as mentioned. Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself.
Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted
[James 1:13) God cannot be tempted
(John 1:29) Jesus was seen
(1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God
(Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God
(Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man
(Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn
(Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn
(1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died
(1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die
(Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation
(Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation
(John 4:6) Jesus grew weary
(Isaiah 40:28) God cannot grow weary
(Mark 4:38) Jesus slept
(Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep
(John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful
(Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful
(Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing
(Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing
Glad you bring up 3:55 , as not many have commented on this so far. But I know any Afghan man, who when studying the Quran in arabic found this verse and Began to question Islam. He later became a christian.
afghans aren’t even native arab speakers 😂😂
@@raptorcubes531 so? He had studied arabic so he could understand the Quran. Like anybody can do.
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar?
Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization.
The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua.
infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name."
jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah )
Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language:
"From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen.
He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown.
"protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22)
𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼
ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي
A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic:
ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain
س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining
ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining
ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining
ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining
ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining
The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word.
As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate,
Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE).
And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical.
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken?
The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself.
Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted
[James 1:13) God cannot be tempted
(John 1:29) Jesus was seen
(1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God
(Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God
(Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man
(Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn
(Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn
(1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died
(1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die
(Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation
(Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation
(John 4:6) Jesus grew weary
(Isaiah 40:28) God cannot grow weary
(Mark 4:38) Jesus slept
(Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep
(John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful
(Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful
(Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing
(Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a Muslim, one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either.
Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity:
"And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church"
-Homily 17 Section XIX
On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said
"For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.”
-Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5
In the opening chapters of Acts we find two addresses by Peter, one delivered to the disciples when an apostle to succeed Judas Iscariot was to be chosen, the other to the Jews on the day of Pentecost.
On neither occasion did the speaker mention a new religion, or a church open to Gentiles as well as to Jews, or an abandonment of the Mosaic law. If these ideas had been in his mind at that time, he could not have omitted some reference to them. That the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem continue for at least eighteen years to comply with the requirements of the Mosaic law is proved by the epistle of Paul and also by Acts.
In the Acts we read that at time not specified, probably not earlier than 40 C.E Peter went to Joppa and there ate with Gentiles-that i he violated the Pharisaic interpretation of one of the Mosaic ceremonial rules-and after his return to Jesus; then, he was called to account by his fellow disciple He justified his conduct, not on the ground that Jesus had abrogated the ceremonial law of Moses, or any part of it, but that in a dream he had received a divine communication telling him that all manner of beasts, fowls, an creeping things were clean, and that it was lawful for him to keep company with Gentiles, who were " unclean under the law of Moses. This announcement was accepted as authoritative, but with much surprise, " because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."'
This statement of the revelation to Peter, and of it acceptance by the disciples in Jerusalem, is doubtless a invention of the author of Acts. It cannot be brought into harmony with later passages of his own book, nor with the statements of Paul, who is our only trustworthy; witness in these matters.
According to Acts, about 51 C. E. a council was held in Jerusalem to put an end to the dissension which had arisen in the church on the questions of circumcision and unclean meats. This council decided in favor of Paul, who was in attendance and the decision as given in a letter addressed not to all Christians but only to " the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia"-where Paul had been making converts, informing them that they were not required to observe the Mosaic ceremonial law. It is quite clear that no such council would have been held if the matter had been decided ten years before, as Acts says it had been.
But this account of the council of 51 C. E. is also a fiction.
About eight years later Paul went to Jerusalem again, and his appearance there provoked a riot. The mob wanted to kill him because of his hostility to the Mosaic law, and this mob included Jewish Christians as well as Jews. All the Christians in Jerusalem were zealous adherents of the Mosaic law. Some of the leading brethren, presumably apostles, advised Paul to take a false oath that he did not teach his Jewish converts to neglect the law. And, if we can believe Acts, he took that oath. This, however, did not pacify the mob, which would have put him to death if the Roman soldiers had not protected him. They took him to prison and finally to Rome. This story in Acts implies that the apostolic church adopted one rule of discipline for the Gentile and another for the Jewish Christians; that the latter were, and that the former were not, required to comply with the Mosaic ceremonial law. This duplicity of discipline is not recorded elsewhere. It is not known to Paul ; and if it had existed, he could neither have been ignorant of it nor remained silent about it. He tells us that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem, or those of them known to him, favored strict adherence to Moses; and the only way in which he could get along harmoniously with them was by promising to do no missionary work in Judea. He was to labor among the Gentiles,"
There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. The church was flooded with books attributed falsely to apostolic times and authors. The names of many of these books, and the texts of some, are preserved. Distinguished saints and learned fathers of the faith openly commended the invention and acceptance of false- hoods designed to aid the conversion of the world to what they believed to be truth.
Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a Muslim, one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either.
Soon after Jesus had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he
" gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them."
This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere.
The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward."
This charge, as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions.Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation.
The subjects to which the most space or most prominence is given in the sayings attributed, in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission.
The new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity.
Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity:
The old testament is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3).
2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain.
It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two Ssmall tribes, ana the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings.
The word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses:
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
-Psalm 137:9
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
-1 Samuel 15:3
“Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.”
-Jeremiah 6:11
“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”
-Hosea 13:16
The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers:
“in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.”
This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished.
This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah):
It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children."
بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دع
"To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause"
-Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya
The modifiable testaments testament genocide on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context.
Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Praying for all Muslims around the world that they see this and realize that Jesus Christ is the only truth, way, and life. Amen.
That's just funny. You all should realize that both of your religions are falsehoods and we should inform our beliefs through sound epistemology, not superstition/fear/ingorance based nonsense that has absolutely no objective evidence and doesn't warrant beliefs.
@@Alen-gr1xm knowledge becomes impossible without a personal God/divine mind
@Squidgyy_ That's just an assertion and unknowable. It's dishonest to make such statements. You can't demonstrate that a personal god or divine mind exists. Therefore, you can't make that claim. How do you know what you asserted? And don't quote me the bible, I don't care about your bible and its stories and claims.
@@Alen-gr1xm take this for example: we right now are having a conversation and we are giving transcendental meanings to our words, thus becoming mediums to information that we can’t empirically verify. However if we look at its face value, what is really being seen here is just markings on a screen that we apply an immaterial meaning and value to. These transcendentals like meaning, time, morals, numbers, words, the past, the self, and so on are all immaterial aspects of our reality that work in tandem with one another for the possibility of knowledge. None of these can be empirically verified or grounded, but they are rather presupposed as tools for us during our empirical investigations. It is by necessity that a personal God exists for these and knowledge itself to be grounded and existent themselves. If we deny that transcendentals and knowledge exists, we are left with absurdity (think back to my example of the conversation). Therefore, the existence of knowledge is what proves the existence of a personal god with a divine mind because of said being’s role in giving knowledge an account. Without God, you can’t give an account for transcendentals or knowledge and it becomes relative (which is self refuting); adding on to its impossibility without the divine mind.
To sum it up: God is the necessary precondition for knowledge. We have knowledge, therefore God exists.
@@Squidgyy_ also, knowledge comes through sound epistemology, not religion.
Yet another great video from this channel.
This is the kind of first class apologetics I have come to expect from Apologetics Roadshow and Dr. Wood.
A very logically sound argument and you delivered it perfectly.
I have learned so much about Islam from David Wood & the Apostate Prophet. At one time I was considering converting to Islam and then I found a video on this channel that truly opened my eyes. Thank you for that Dr. Wood.
And may the Peace of Christ be upon you and your loved ones!
✝️
VIVA CRISTO REY ✝️
"For Greater Glory" (2012)
@AlexSterling-sg7cy it doesn't mean that.
Viva a Cristo Senhor de todo o Universo!
🗣CHRISTIAN
ALLAH GIBRIL FAKE I D OF MOHAMMAD😉
🗣MUSLIM PROVE IT
🗣CHIRISTIAN
I WILL PROVE THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE GOD JESUS
YES OR NO. plz reply😇
🏃🏃 👈MUSLIM RUN
🗣CHRISTIAN
ALLAH GIBRIL FAKE I D OF MOHAMMAD😉
🗣MUSLIM PROVE IT
🗣CHIRISTIAN
I WILL PROVE THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE GOD JESUS
YES OR NO. plz reply😇
🏃🏃 👈MUSLIM RUN
As a orthodox christian ☦️ convert from islam with My family and many family friends.
All Muslims will see the truth like we did.
Bless you ☦️☝️
Have a great day or night depending where you are.
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar?
Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization.
The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua.
infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name."
jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah )
Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language:
"From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen.
He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown.
"protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22)
𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼
ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي
A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic:
ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain
س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining
ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining
ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining
ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining
ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining
The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word.
As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate,
Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE).
And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical.
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken?
The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Trinitarians are inoculated from rationality, facts and logic. It is no surprise that basic reasoning is entirely lost on those that believe that the creator became one of those he created in order to save the created from his own self. Not to mention the incoherence in the scripture, never minding the creed itself.
Matthew 4:1) Jesus was tempted
[James 1:13) God cannot be tempted
(John 1:29) Jesus was seen
(1 John 4:12) No man has ever seen God
(Acts 2:22) Jesus was and is a man, sent by God
(Numbers 23:19, Hosea 11:9) God is not a man
(Hebrews 5:8-9) Jesus had to grow and learn
(Isaiah 40:28) God doesn't ever need to learn
(1 Corinthians 15: 3-4) Jesus Died
(1 Timothy 1:17) God cannot die
(Hebrews 5:7) Jesus needed salvation
(Luke 1:37) God doesn't need salvation
(John 4:6) Jesus grew weary
(Isaiah 40:28) God cannot grow weary
(Mark 4:38) Jesus slept
(Psalm 121: 2-4) God doesn't sleep
(John 5:19) Jesus wasn't all powerful
(Isaiah 45: 5-7) God is all powerful
(Mark 13:32) Jesus wasn't all knowing
(Isaiah 46:9) God is all knowing
Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims, often boastful of his innovations he said " I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." There is no passage in Paul inconsistent with these quotations; no passage suggesting that the admission of the gentiles into the Christian church was an idea of Jesus, or that it was accepted by the twelve apostles in Jerusalem before the conversion of Paul, or that he received any instruction from them or acknowledged any duty of obedience or submission to them. This gospel which Paul preached and which, according to his boast, was original with him, included many tenets not found in the four gospels or not set forth there in unmistakable terms. By implication, it repudiated the ascetic and communistic maxims of the synoptic gospels, It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It proclaimed that the unsearchable riches of Christ were to be distributed as freely among the Gentiles as among the Jews. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; and popular speech recognized the correctness of the claim by calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity.
Soon after Jesus had selected his twelve apostles, according to Luke, he
" gave them power and authority over all devils and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. And he said unto them: 'Take nothing for your journey, neither staves nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. And whatsoever house ye enter, there abide and thence depart. And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them."
This is the entire charge of Jesus to his apostles when he sent them out to convert the world, as reported by Luke, who claims to give the address or a portion of it, and that presumably the most important portion, word for word. The language here attributed to Jesus conveys no idea that he had any purpose of founding a new church. Neither here nor anywhere else, in the language attributed to him in the New Testament, does he explain the phrase " the kingdom of God " to mean a new ecclesiastical organization. In several passages he does use it to signify the celestial dominion after the destruction of the world; and this is therefore presumably its meaning everywhere.
The gospel of Matthew is much further than that of Luke in its report of the charge of Jesus to his apostles: "These twelve Jesus sent forth and commanded them, saying: 'Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I am come not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother... He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward."
This charge, as reported by Matthew omitted nearly all the main ideas that would have been appropriate in an address instructing the twelve to preach the foundation of Christianity. It does not say whether Jesus wished to reform or to supersede Judaism; whether his principal purpose was ecclesiastical, moral, political, or sanitary. The remarks about healing the sick and casting out devils is the most explicit of all the instructions.Certainly no reader can learn from that charge that Jesus intended to establish a new religion; and much less can he learn any feature of the faith or discipline of a projected new church. And this address is that portion of the New Testament where such information should be given most clearly. He made no doctrinal definition and no ecclesiastical organization. He did not use the key words of the original doctrines necessary to Christianity or a new church, nor the keywords of ideas afterwards associated with Christianity, such as Incarnation, Trinity, Immaculate Conception, and Transubstantiation.
The subjects to which the most space or most prominence is given in the sayings attributed, in the gospels, to Jesus, are, First, the Mosaic law; Second, judgment day; Third, faith; Fourth, the sins of the Pharisees; Fifth, ascetic morality; and Sixth, his divine commission.
The old testament is no different, Abijah was a wicked king, and had war with his rival (1. Kings 15:3).
2 Chronicles 13:3 says that Abjiah was pious ; that he took the field with 400,000 men against Jeroboam, who was at the head of 800,000 men ; and in a great battle the King of Israel was defeated, and 500,000 of his men slain.
It seems that, 1,200,000 soldiers sent into the field at one time by two Ssmall tribes, ana the destruction of 500,000 men in one battle, were beneath the notice of the author of Kings.
The word עוֹלֵל, ʿôlēl which means 'Babe, infant, little one, a suckling' occurs 21 King James Bible Verses Of these verses:
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
-Psalm 137:9
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
-1 Samuel 15:3
“Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out upon the children abroad, and upon the assembly of young men together: for even the husband with the wife shall be taken, the aged with him that is full of days.”
-Jeremiah 6:11
“Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”
-Hosea 13:16
The other verses are not much different. Infact it is always in association with violence. Indeed these verses are the reason why in the Crusades the sense of pious rejoicing at massacre does not appear to be the product of later theologizing; it is also found, in the account of the eye-witness Raymond of Aguilers:
“in the Temple and porch of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins. Indeed, it was a just and splendid judgment of God that this place should be filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their blasphemies.” In fact, Raymond continues, “This day, I say, will be famous in all future ages, for it turned our labours and sorrows into joy and exultation; this day, I say, marks the justification of all Christianity, the humiliation of paganism, and the renewal of our faith.”
This is the polar opposite in the Quran in Surah Al-Tanwir, literally "The Englightenining" Surah, Aya 8-9, we have the death of a newborn is mentioned amongst the penultimate signs of the end of times, emphasizing the gravity of such an action. That child, now resurrected, is asked for what wrong doing was she murdered. This is to emphasize that she had done nothing wrong, for she had done nothing wrong and this is the day of retribution where those who omitted the evil are to be punished.
This is the polar opposite in the Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190, which exhorts to fight unbelievers and not be "Aggressors", in the commentary of what it means to be aggressors, this was stated Al-Hasan Al-Basri stated that transgression (indicated by the Ayah):
It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Ibn `Umar said, "The Prophet forbade killing women and children."
بابتداء القتال أو بقتال من نهيتم عن قتاله من النساء والشيوخ والصبيان والذين بينكم وبينهم عهد أو بالمثلة أو بالمفاجأة من غير دع
"To kill those whom you were forbidden to from women, elderly, children and those whom betwixt you is a treaty or custom or by surprise or without cause"
-Tafsir Al-Zamakshari of the meaning of Aggressors in the Aya
The modifiable testaments testament genocide on the other hand.Surah Al-Baqara Aya 190 limits war to those who fight against Muslims, prohibits transgression, and implies respect for human dignity and life Indeed it is what precedes the famous "sword verse", always cited out of context.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
Surah Al-Imran Aya 49, of the Quran states that jesus was sent to the israelites, although written over 1,300 years ago in the 19th century (same century bible was only transtalted into Arabic in as well) they came to the same conclusion, independently through textual criticisim, that Jesus did not intend to establish a new religion, instead of being the founder of Christianity, he was merely the occasion of its foundation. Till the day of his death he was a "Jew" by belief and practice, as well as by birth. (in quotations for in reality he was a 'Muslim', one that declares that God is One) He never became a Christian. He never used or heard the words Christian or Christianity or any equivalent of either.
Paul had neither met nor seen Jesus, his relation to the twelve apostles was one of decided independence and even of opposition. He acknowledged no subordination to them. He addressed no doctrinal epistle to them or their churches, and received none from them. He made no reports to them. He did not correspond with them regularly. They never invited him to preach to their congregations and he never invited them to address his converts. He declared that he did not owe his conversion, his baptism, or his doctrine to the twelve, and that he never spent any long time in Jerusalem or in Judea as a Christian missionary. He claimed to be an apostle by a secret divine commission, but the twelve never admitted the validity of his claim. They never gave him the title of apostle; they never said anything indicative of willingness to admit him into their councils. Vacancies occurred in their number, but they never chose him to a vacant place, rather we have statements of Peter with regards to Paul which show nothing but animosity:
"And if our Jesus appeared to you also and became known in a vision and met you as angry with an enemy [recall: Paul had his vision while still persecuting the Christians: Acts 9], yet he has spoken only through visions and dreams or through external revelations. But can anyone be made competent to teach through a vision? And if your opinion is that that is possible, why then did our teacher spend a whole year with us who were awake? How can we believe you even if he has appeared to you?… But if you were visited by him for the space of an hour and were instructed by him and thereby have become an apostle, then proclaim his words, expound what he has taught, be a friend to his apostles and do not contend with me, who am his confidant; for you have in hostility withstood me, who am a firm rock, the foundation stone of the Church"
-Homily 17 Section XIX
On the pauline credo currently called trinitanity Peter said
"For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine to the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted, while I am still alive, to distort my words by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law… But that may God forbid ! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the Law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, “The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the Law.”
-Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5
In the opening chapters of Acts we find two addresses by Peter, one delivered to the disciples when an apostle to succeed Judas Iscariot was to be chosen, and the other to the Jews on the day of Pentecost. On neither occasion did the speaker mention a new religion, or a church open to Gentiles as well as to Jews, or an abandonment of the Mosaic law.
If these ideas had been in his mind at that time, he could not have omitted some reference to them. That the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem continue for at least eighteen years to comply with the requiments of the Mosaic law is proved by the epistle of Paul and also by Acts.
In the latter book we read that at time not specified, probably not earlier than 40 A.D Peter went to Joppa and there ate with Gentiles-^that i he violated the Pharisaic interpretation of one of the Mosaic ceremonial rules-and after his return to Jesus; then, he was called to account by his fellow disciple He justified his conduct, not on the ground that Jesus had abrogated the ceremonial law of Moses, or any part of it, but that in a dream he had received a divine communication telling him that all manner of beasts, fowls, an creeping things were clean, and that it was lawful for him to keep company with Gentiles, who were " unclean under the law of Moses. This announcement was accepted as authoritative, but with much surprise, " because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost."'
This statement of the revelation to Peter, and of it acceptance by the disciples in Jerusalem, is doubtless a invention of the author of Acts. It cannot be brought into harmony with later passages of his own book, nor with the statements of Paul, who is our only trustworthy witness in these matters.
According to Acts, about 51 C. E. a council was held in Jerusalem to put an end to the dissension which had arisen in the church on the questions of circumcision and unclean meats. This council decided in favor of Paul, who was in attendance and the decision as given in a letter addressed not to all Christians but only to:
" the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia" - where Paul had been making converts, informing them that they were not required to observe the Mosaic ceremonial law. It is quite clear that no such council would have been held if the matter had been decided ten years before, as Acts says it had been.
But this account of the council of 51 C. E. is also a fiction.
About eight years later Paul went to Jerusalem again, and his appearance there provoked a riot. The mob wanted to kill him because of his hostility to the Mosaic law, and this mob included Jewish Christians as well as Jews. All the Christians in Jerusalem were zealous adherents of the Mosaic law. Some of the leading brethren, advised Paul to take a false oath that he did not teach his Jewish converts to neglect the law. And, if we can believe Acts, he took that oath. This, however, did not pacify the mob, which would have put him to death if the Roman soldiers had not protected him. They took him to prison and finally to Rome. This story in Acts implies that the apostolic church adopted one rule of discipline for the Gentile and another for the Jewish Christians; that the latter were, and that the former were not, required to comply with the Mosaic ceremonial law. This duplicity of discipline is not recorded elsewhere. It is not known to Paul ; and if it had existed, he could neither have been ignorant of it nor remained silent about it. He tells us that the twelve apostles in Jerusalem, or those of them known to him, favored strict adherence to Moses; and the only way in which he could get along harmoniously with them was by promising to do no missionary work in Judea. He was to labor among the Gentiles,"
Triune nonsense is straight out of the Roman Pantheon. Hercules, anyone? Cerberus? The trinity of Zeus, Athena Apollo, literally called the Triune. Greek goddess Hecate was portrayed in triplicate, a three-in-one. This was all done to make the creed more digestible, followed by mental gymnastics attempting to reconcile the onsensical with elaborate theories. Why doesn't a square peg fit into a round hole? Answer by saying it's a mystery instead of geometries not lining up. There never was such another epidemic of ecclesiastical forgery. Distinguished saints and learned fathers of the faith openly commended the invention and acceptance of false- hoods designed to aid the conversion of the world to what they believed to be truth.
Rationality was only born with Islam, those who cannot count have nothing to say, at the end of the day 1+1+1 will never equal 1
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@mznxbcv12345
No
Have a great life ☦️
Case closed. Jesus is died and raised after 3 days.
O Ist Hand eye witness accounts
@@sayyidelahie9714 and your dickhead "prophet" 600 years later tells you so... what a Muppet... haha
@@sayyidelahie9714
You expected another person to be in the tomb with him? The logic of the Abdool....
@TesseRact7228 Abdool is Servant of Allah AN so was Jesus WHILE u Worship a Man OUT A VAGINA u Big stinkin rotten disgustin Kafir 💩💩
@TesseRact7228 Even if u believe that NO but u still have O Ist Hand eye witness accounts U stinkin rotten disgustin Kafir man Worshipin 🤡
The Qur'an claims that those who believe in the crucifixion of Jesus are in *CONJECTURE,* but as we now know, it is the Muslims who are in conjecture with their many theories about what may have happened! We Christians are all in agreement about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ!
Ironic, isn't it?
Yeah. Ask our Muslim friends what actually happened.
How can the Jews say that Jesus was the Messiah?
How can the Jews say that Jesus was a messenger of Allah?
Was there any crucifixion? And if so, then who was actually crucified? Simone from Cyrene, Judas Iskariot, Tatianos, etc...
And when was Jesus raised to heaven?
How can Jesus Christ be saved before the crucifixion? Meanwhile He predicted and confirmed His crucifixion, death, and resurrection many times.
It states also that it was made to appear to them. Why should everybody be tricked? What do you call it when someone makes you believe something as true when it is not true?
The Quran says also that the disciples are the helpers of Allah and they submit to Allah, Surah 3:52. So according to Islam, they are Muslims. So why are these Muslims also tricked?
Can one of our Muslim answer these questions?
If we just read the verse carefully it saids “THEY” didn’t kill hon not crucified him. It was Allah that cause his death He killed him He crucified him. He died! But it wasn’t from their own doing. The son of man was a sacrifice from God. He put him to the slander for remission of sins. They weren’t responsible for his death God cause his death it was preordained from the beginning!
"If Christianity is true we don't just have a hope, we have the best hope imaginable, the resurrection of Jesus, which reverses suffering and death and turns it back to glory. And amazingly, if we're united to Jesus that will be true for every single one of us at the most vivid personal level." - Gavin Ortlund
Idk who U r but frm ur comment I will share with U what I PERSONALLY KNOW FOR SURE.Ur comment couldn't be any TRUER!Just that The words used isn't enough to describe such a Glory.I EXPERIENCED IT!Last Friday morning,as I wld usually do I woke up at 4 got up and prayed for abt 15 mins,I then Statred ro listed to a sermon From William Branham(The hidden Life) abt 30 mins after I drifted off frm physical into Spiritual,it lasted abt 10 mins,The Love I felt,the Joy I felt,there is absolutely NOTTING on Earth that can compare to it.There was also a Being that Presented Himself to me,I Beleive it was Jesus because what I felt CAN ONLY be the Presence of God.🙏
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar?
Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization.
The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua.
infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name."
jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah )
No such thing as the bible, the new testament is a concoction of several books that were deemed canonical, books written in Greek that were given the hellenized names of Apotsles who neither wrote, nor spoke greek to give it an illusion of antiquity, much like the calendar we have today, which was established in the year 535 CE by Dionysus Exegesis so too was the original message altered to that of the pauline credo, a digestible religion to the yet to be converted greeks who had no desire to follow the mosaic laws. None of the disciples spoke of trinity, ate pork or proclaimed it is allowable to do so, yet the miracle begotten paul, whom peter called him enemy, introduced his new creed according to his whims, often boastful of his innovations he said " I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." There is no passage in Paul inconsistent with these quotations; no passage suggesting that the admission of the gentiles into the Christian church was an idea of Jesus, or that it was accepted by the twelve apostles in Jerusalem before the conversion of Paul, or that he received any instruction from them or acknowledged any duty of obedience or submission to them. This gospel which Paul preached and which, according to his boast, was original with him, included many tenets not found in the four gospels or not set forth there in unmistakable terms. By implication, it repudiated the ascetic and communistic maxims of the synoptic gospels, It proclaimed the abrogation of the Mosaic ceremonial law. It proclaimed that the unsearchable riches of Christ were to be distributed as freely among the Gentiles as among the Jews. It announced itself as a new and independent religion; and popular speech recognized the correctness of the claim by calling its adherents Christians, and their doctrine Christianity.
Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language:
"From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen.
He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown.
"protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22)
𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼
ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي
A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic:
ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain
س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining
ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining
ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining
ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining
ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining
The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word.
Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE).
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken?
The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
*_"If...."_*
Love it ♥️
@@TH3-MONKIf not, then there is only death and misery in our life, And there is no escape.
Loaded. Dealt with every accuracy.
Great work, Dr. D. Wood.
You just made another 300k ex-muslims.
Great work sir keep fighting the good fight god bless and no surrender from Glasgow Scotland 💙🙏🏴🇬🇧✝️
3:55 the word ‘mutawaffika’ means take u...not spread the lie...In 4:157-‘subbiha’ came from word tasabaha means look alike /it was made to appear. it's clearly says it has made to appear but wasn't actually irl..& the next verse resurrection means the hour when Israfil Aw blowing his trumpet for 2nd time...he didn't do it for first yet bit**...and the real follower of Yeshua pbuh is Muslim not you who's bring out the world all types of crime such as:porn industry, killing innocent, LGBTQ 🖕🏻
It probably doesn't help that the average Muslim doesn't carry the full Quran, they have bits and pieces.... the bits that would make them Christian are conveniently removed.
But it helps a lot to know them yourself, and poiting on Jesus and His words
Love your videos from Iraq, David
Stay safe friend
Are you exmuslim? If it is true proud of u congratulations
In my life, I've never seen a better example of someone who loves Muslims than David Wood. They shout, he reasons with them. He forgives and tries to give them a way out of their dilemma. Even in sarcasm, there is an invitation. "Students are not greater than their teacher. But the student who is fully trained will become like the teacher." Like 6:40. I see the likeness of your teacher, you take after him well.
Jesus the sovereign God loves you : ) may we too be like that, love and truth in hand not forsaking one or the other
please screenshot these and read them my friend
ephesians 4:29-32
1 corinthians 13:1-7
2 timothy 2:22-26
matthew 6:14-15; 18:21-35
David Wood got destroyed by shaikh Uthman go watch the video, he is a comical failure.
@@Dinobs8089 well my friend, in mark its saying that the world would have tried to harm his disciples but God had given them authority over such things, obviously not in all circumstances but this isnt about "drinking poison to prove your belong to God" rather, its about the miracles God's people will accomplish, healing the sick if it be God's will still happens today, I personally have experienced it, I know other testimonies of people who have aswell and more, when it comes to demons, were called to use the Authority of Jesus to stop them since they are beneath Him and He is our protector and King, may we obey and trust the Lord whom loves us
I have a question however, if you believed, would you want a relationship with the Lord Jesus? Would you want to be His friend whom you confide and walk with? The one who can make you pure day and as clean as snow?
The one true king who offers salvation which He forged through taking upon Himself the death we deserved, He, yes He loves you
@@SongsOfRelief HEY EGO MAN YOU THINK DAVIDS A SOFTY,AND YOUR A WHAT "MAN" OK DEBATE ME, YOUR A XTIAN,SO EXPLAIN HOW JESUS CAN HAVE A MOTHER....DONT BE SCARED KIDDO ITS ONLY A DEBATE
I've never seen anyone who hates Muslims more. He says the most filthy and disgusting things to them. He's a well known islamophobe. Also known to fund and support the tragedy that's taking place in the holy land
All Muslims should watch this video
This is pure gold 🤌🏽
Showed this to a friend of mine thats a muslim , he got violent how stereotypical
I prefer the term ‘aggressively passionate.’😅
@ericawhyte3903 LOL
May you always be safe and in good health DW!!
they never explain WHY it is important for Jesus to die. they only simply say that he didn't. but Why is it important? maybe it's implied for remission of sins, but Muslims just make it easy and deny it. same for Jesus being born of a virgin. If he's born of a virgin, he must have a father.... no? that's what I don't understand about Islam, they believe half the things we do, yet make up some other implausible thing just to make it a whole different religion.
no, it's simply because mr muhammad was jealous to Jesus.. early on he wanted to be the prophet for christian jews but being rejected by em so that's why he simply denying what christians said
@@leevonismetbf ur not that far off, dood did get a power trip when he had like 17 wives plus a child
who he eerily disturbs like m-lester when hes interrupting her play session with dolls with her friends and the beatings of women
dood even gets triggered by a child who called him a prophet for the ignorants
Jesus is our champion and our only way, by saying he didnt die and ressurrect you conclude that he didnt overcome death and thus cant do the same for you
sorry for my poor english
I pray that my muslim friends come to know the truth
Wow! You did a good job explaining this verse in reality of the truth. So, the Jews didn’t kill him because God raised him up so their killing was in vain. That’s what the Surah says.
Note Muslims: this is a much simpler and contextual reading of your own Quran than all the traditions that come hundreds of years later trying to make sense of the verse. So it’s ironic that verse 157 says “they follow nothing but conjecture” when it’s you Muslims who follow nothing but conjecture. None of you can come to agree on what this verse is implying.
Correct. You can go to ten different commentaries on 4:157 and get ten different explanations of what happened, all of them completely fabricated by "scholars."
@@apologeticsroadshow Woah! David replied to my comment! 😄 Awesome video! God Bless!
well said
There was probably another David arguing with ibn kathir long ago but he couldn’t handle all the high tech censors at the time
@@apologeticsroadshowYou remember when Shaikh Uthman embarrassed you when you tried to debate him? 😂 you will never learn the true meaning of the Quran until you learn Arabic.
Secondly spending your life trying to bash on Islam with all the videos you have made shows your pure hatred. People like you are the reason why Islam is growing so rapidly, propaganda and lies only exposes the truth.
Jesus says you will know them by their fruits, and a simple look at Muhammad's fruits, is all you need know.
Is the fruit modern christians r showing us better??most modern muslims are a scum bcz we r near end days and corruption is everywhere check the history of Islam from a unbiased source
If the rumour David reads the comments for the first hour after an upload.
In that case. God Bless you David, your beautiful wife and wonderful sons.
Keep up the good work, Dave. Many Muslims will ignore and hate you but some, those who are being saved, will listen.
Awesome video, David!
Thanks!
Obviously you (DW) are aware of Sheikh Imran Hussein's interpretation as you've covered it very well a couple times already. He holds that Jesus didn't die, in that the spirit of Jesus was eventually returned to his body. This is a rare case of a Muslim who affirms the resurrection of Jesus bodily. There is another interpretation of 4:157,158 that I've heard that you might not be familiar with, that affirms the death by crucifixion, while the bodily resurrection stance is a little bit more ambiguous.
This is a view held by another Imran (surprising correlation between this name and intelligence apparently). His name is Imran Usmani and he has done a couple episodes on Reasoned Answers "A Muslim Proves Jesus was Crucified", in case anyone wants to check it out. The interpretation is as follows: In 4:157 the word "killed" has an implied meaning (this is the claim, I don't know enough about Arabic to confirm or deny) of "killed justly" or "killed rightfully". So it would become "We killed Christ Jesus [justly]" and later Allah corrects them by saying "for of a surety they killed him not [justly]". This interpretation changes the ontology, from not dying to dying. And the discussion changes to one of ethics, whether this was a just or un-just execution. Obviously we Christians believe it was a terribly unethical act, which was also necessary to occur for the salvation of the world. As God does time and again, accomplishing His will even with sinful mankind.
"You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives."
No way
Iam Eastern Orthodox Christian lives in Egypt Native Arabic speaker
I'll use this so much thanks🙏
do you also speak Coptic? it is the native Egyptian language(with some Greek influence)
so... i would expect you will try to keep the heritage alive, in the face of Arabic efforts of erasing others' cultures.
@@porphyry17ur very well informed bro, i appreciate u spreading the awareness, the arabs pride in their culture, religion and language is erasing and enslaving the minds of other third world country, im not a christian but i can only hope that not all is lost yet
@@porphyry17sorry I am late in this message. I wanted to add that we Coptic Orthodox Christians have never forgotten our Coptic roots because to this day we still use the Coptic language to praise the Lord and our prophets ❤️
@Crusader1891 yes but 20% of Egyptians are Orthodox christians and a little bit of protesnt and catholic and the rest are Muslims
Great work as always Dr Wood. Islam is riddled with Gnostic Heresies.
In his work Against Heresies (Book I, Chapter 24, Part 4) St. Irenaeus describes in detail the Doctrines of Saturninus and Basilides who teach "He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles.
Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.
For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all."
Sound familiar?
God became man. That is the something missing in this passage and Mohammed's beliefs.
The eyewitness who returned to the tomb first had expected the dead body to be there and told Peter, they have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have put him.
The video indicates Mohammed thought Jesus was crucified and buried and lives on in heaven, but was a man like any other. Those gnostics thought Jesus was not fully human.
Christian belief is that Jesus is of one being with God the Father and that he died and rose again on the third day.
It is an interesting thought experiment comparing where the beliefs differ.
Thanks for posting those gnostic versions.
I looked up the Nicene Creed and John Chapter 20 to compare them to christianity.
🏳🌈🏳🌈🏳🌈 Dr Wood is very progressive , LGBT friendly. He supports drag queens, his older streams has him in drag 🏳🌈🏳🌈🏳🌈
Muslims in debate:
I'm not a scholar nor are you so we don't understand...
Dr. D. Wood: Hold my Bible
Now that you brought attention to this, the websites will change it.
David...back to doing what you do best. Please keep it up..
substitution theory is the first thing an illiterate pdf caravan robber would come up with
One of your best videos in a while. Fantastic.
David have you seen History Debunked's new video
"Discouraging Christian observance in the name of 'inclusion, often means replacing it with Islam" ?
As a Christian ✝️ we don't blame on muslims,as they claimed we killed Jesus, the son of Marry.😅😂 This point is funniest.🙏🙏
mashallah preach the trinity of the holy son, the holy father and of course who could forget? the holy mother :DD
@@funfungerman8401 only an idiot reading the quran would say so, never was marry part of the trinity but in islame thats why you believe in it.
I think he was sarcastic, making fun of muslims thinking that trinity consists of Mary as well, but i am not 100% sure@@jooo7011
bro im the furthest away from being muslim
granted i wasnt religious at all before i read the quran after i read it and then a few storys in the bible, i read more hadiths and and informed myself about islamic history and laws etc and after that im now a little more religious but not for islam but christianity xD@@jooo7011
Aisha ? @@funfungerman8401
Thanks!
Great video David, God bless.
This was very well done. I hope and pray that many Muslims actually listen to and digest the very clear and concise arguments presented in this video. Of course, we always have to anticipate the copy/paste bandits who post pages of irrelevant arguments and paid no attention to the video at all.
I study this way as well. Really getting into it now. I plan on practicing Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, and, hopefully, Aramaic.
It’s amazing how people are so aggressive with half baked ideas. I used to be, but by the Holy Spirit I see different now.
Facts are facts. Even if you are a Muslim. Get over it.
Facts? Where are the Facts here? Only lies made up by the Byzantine Empire. Jesus is a prophet not a God nor son of God.
David going John Wick on islam 🫡
@user-ii5wu5uq8q Dawa and taqiyyah are done right now
It's is coming from holy taqiyyah Quran.
This Muslim guy is pimp for prophet.
Prophet said you get 72 virgins and 300 young, handsome boys in Islamic haven.
Prophet married a 6 year old girl
Prophet married his adopted sons wife.
Prophet slept with his dead aunty In the grave
Prophet kissed little boys ( tongue)
Prophet had 13 wives and sex slaves
Prophet split the moon
Prophet ordered to kill unbelievers
Prophet said pray 5 times cursing Jews and Christians.
Prophet said, "Drink camel urine if you have an upset stomach
Prophet gave instructions on how men should urinate
Prophet hated black dogs
Prophet said do Dawa
Prophet said do taqiyyah
Prophet said kill those who leave Islam
Prophet couldn't read or write
Prophet set all these examples for men kind.
There is only one book in the entire world that promises 300 young boys to serve adult men.
Wicked, perverted and pedophilea
🤣🤣🤣
😂🎉❤
😂😂❤
"You didn't kill Anakin Skywalker. I did"
Islam has no single shin to stand on
Even Allah’s 2 right arms can’t hold his head up from shame
😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@I9s7lam5is-S3tu1pid😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
AND yet it's the fastest growing religion in the world and the biggest .. and your churches are running empty ..
Thanks!
When is Indonesian currency so low ?
Hey! If you convert it to USD, yes it is low. But with Rp. 500k I can have 30 meals in Jakarta.
Give me half that donation to buy a house
Nice research my Brother
Learning alot
truly sata’n is- i mean moham- i mean allan, truly alan is the greatest of deceivers
Allan ! Allan!!
When I was away from my faith, I used to think David was just some intentional inflammatory person who wanted to provoke Muslims with his content.
But through my own personal growth, rediscovering of my faith, and critically listening to his content I have a new appreciation for him and what he does.
Thank you David. I know this is not always a safe line of work and you have lost many people close to you during your time doing this. God bless.
DAVID IS A DIFFERENT BREED.
3:55 the word ‘mutawaffika’ means take u...not spread the lie...In 4:157-‘subbiha’ came from word tasabaha means look alike /it was made to appear. it's clearly says it has made to appear but wasn't actually irl..& the next verse resurrection means the hour when Israfil Aw blowing his trumpet for 2nd time...he didn't do it for first yet bit**...and the real follower of Yeshua pbuh is Muslim not you who's bring out the world all types of crime such as:porn industry, killing innocent, LGBTQ 🖕🏻
19:26 "google allah" 😂
The German online translatation of Surah 3:55 correctly says "I will let you die and raise you to Myself".
Jesus (his real name was Emmanuel by the way) did not die on the cross\crucifixion. He fell into somati (look it up: Samādhi समाधि).
He has been trained into it (for the mission) by the "three kings\teachers" who came to greet him at the cradle when he was born.
At around 14~15 years of age Emmanuel went to the East to study under the guidance of his three teachers - in India (Bharat). He then travelled all around and at about 29~30 returned to Israel to fulfil his mission and be crucified.
The soldier (allegedly roman or mercenary) who was sent to break his bones and pierce his lungs was a secret follower of Emmanuel (Jesus). Therefore he did not break his bones (the break was a common practice to accelerate the death of the crucified) or pierce his lungs, rather made a non-vital infliction to his abdominal area - a common check for vital signs.
At that day Emmanuel was already in a somati state (his heart beat pulse was around 2~3 per minute or so). For the ignorant on the training - it is equal to death.
Emmanuel stayed for about three days (till Sunday) in this state. Then his BIOLOGICAL father Gabriel came down from his ship with two "angels" (assistants) and performed the necessary procedures to bring him back from somati to normal vitality and save him from possible infections. In somati a person could stay for months even years.
Emmanuel therefore was " " "resurrected " " " as the ignorant would call it, though technically he never died!
After those event (" " "resurrection " " ") he joke with Saul\Paul and Thomas (who were in disbelief) but that is not important.
Emmanuel went to Syria, then Smirna (Izmir, today Turkey) then East again to Kashmir with his mom who died in North Western Pakistan. He died much later at about 111 years of age in The Roza Bal, Rouza Bal, or Rozabal located in the Khanyar downtown area of Srinagar in Kashmir, India. The word roza means tomb, the word bal mean place. He was remembered there as the holly man Yuz Asaf (or Isa Yosef).
Good now we just gotta convince AP He rose again! Then AP will be a believer too :)
Don't forget to pray for Mrs AP too ....a house divided can't stand .
@@kyliechapman7446 Amen! 🙏
Thank you Jesus for David Wood. Lord bless him and his family. Bless his labor and protect him from evil. Amen
I wonder how a Muslim would attempt to refute this? 🤔
Great video Mr. Wood! God bless!
Wallahi every point he made was bullshit, ask me a specific and ill debunk it
@@amonke2559debunk it
3:55 the word ‘mutawaffika’ means take u...not spread the lie...In 4:157-‘subbiha’ came from word tasabaha means look alike /it was made to appear. it's clearly says it has made to appear but wasn't actually irl..& the next verse resurrection means the hour when Israfil Aw blowing his trumpet for 2nd time...he didn't do it for first yet bit**...and the real follower of Yeshua pbuh is Muslim not you who's bring out the world all types of crime such as:porn industry, killing innocent, LGBTQ 🖕🏻
@@amonke2559why was jesus sent to die in islam?
I am Muslim and this is an excellent video and a good service you have done for islam :-)
How so ? 😊
@@twoangels3405 because if what David is saying is true, then that means that the Quran does not contradict a well established historic fact
@@shingAMarieI agree, and if the muslims learn from this, we can have an islam one step closer to christianity. I hope for their salvation sooner rather than later
Water tight logic, excellent breakdown David.
Good video, David. It is preferred over your long live streams. This one is going in the History Books.
It's easy to believe someone else is deceiving you but the most dangerous person who deceives someone is themself. As the prophet Jeremiah points out, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17: 9
When a young Muslim who thinks he must go to the point of direct physical jihadi violence and show He is willing to die in the name of Allah, it would be better for them to stand up in their mosque and repeat David's message. You know exactly what kind of response you will receive from those who are deceived.
The line about the tattoo saying, "Hi! I'm a false prophet. Don't believe anything I say, ever"... that line made me laugh so hard 😂😂😂😂 nice one!!
Love this video, you just gained a new subscriber ❤
Wow. I applaud you David!! Glory to Jesus Christ our GOD!!!!
@@SalimPure Because my God isn’t limited like allah the fake is.
@@SalimPureafter everything you heard you still don’t believe . Repent from your sinful and unbelieving heart and be saved
@@SalimPureProphet Mohammed, and messenger Gabriel are not God. You are correct.
@@SalimPureWho said Jesus A Prophet? He is Son of God.
@@SalimPureHey brother! I believe your heart is being a bit blind to the truth right now. It’s very clear that the Bible is the truth as the Quran affirms it (2:41, 5:47). We have New testaments from before the 7th century so there’s a few explanations, either Allah is pointing the people to a corrupted book, he’s pointing them to a book they don’t have anymore, or it’s a blatant error on his part. Please just have an open mind and seek truth, don’t just respond to me trying to blindly defend with some interpretation. Amen and if you have any questions about Christianity or would like to convert feel free to message me!
Nts 6:46 10:30 12:00 16:32 19:24 20:29 22:37 25:39 26:59 32:48 34:08 35:35
momo “jesus never died”
also momo “jesus died”
Jason Momoa is bigger and better 😂
@@johnlee7699 hahaha jason momoa vs momo lester
@@chloe-historyandgames I would love to see Momo attempt to rob Momoa.
Cage Fight!!!!!! 😂
@@johnlee7699 WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOU AND ME IN A CAGE...TIGER
I always get this feeling when I talk to them, they always talk in circles, andthats about almost everything they talk about, not just religious stuff - imo
Maybe this is yet to be said in the video… but they sacrificed an awful lot and made a tons of theological problems in order to keep from accepting that Jesus died on a cross… why? What was worth protecting to them that they would create this travesty of an interpretation? What weakness did they think they were covering up?
My personal thoughts on this is that Muhammed was deceived by Satan .....the resurrection of Christ defeats Satan completely. Since Judaism and Christianity was well know and established multiple centuries before Islam in that area , and as most ppl at that time were illiterate I think Muhammed blended the well known ideas of both religions into his religion to give it more credibility or familiarity with the ppl around him .....however if the resurrection was true , then Muhammed would obviously not be who he claimed to be ( the final prophet ) ....Satan has a lot of souls to gain if ppl don't believe in Christ ....it's his main job ...doubt ....in any form possible....different religions....aliens...ghosts ...Atheisim....the list is endless .
If Jesus's resurrection wasn't true , then he failed ....just another victim of the Roman Empire ....and obviously not who he claimed to be ....the resurrection is the defining moment ....why wouldn't Satan want that disputed ....doubt ensures non belief .
@@mysotiras21exactly
I am catholic and I love the work you are doing, David.
Jesus (his real name was Emmanuel by the way) did not die on the cross\crucifixion. He fell into somati (look it up: Samādhi समाधि).
He has been trained into it (for the mission) by the "three kings\teachers" who came to greet him at the cradle when he was born.
At around 14~15 years of age Emmanuel went to the East to study under the guidance of his three teachers - in India (Bharat). He then travelled all around and at about 29~30 returned to Israel to fulfil his mission and be crucified.
The soldier (allegedly roman or mercenary) who was sent to break his bones and pierce his lungs was a secret follower of Emmanuel (Jesus). Therefore he did not break his bones (the break was a common practice to accelerate the death of the crucified) or pierce his lungs, rather made a non-vital infliction to his abdominal area - a common check for vital signs.
At that day Emmanuel was already in a somati state (his heart beat pulse was around 2~3 per minute or so). For the ignorant on the training - it is equal to death.
Emmanuel stayed for about three days (till Sunday) in this state. Then his BIOLOGICAL father Gabriel came down from his ship with two "angels" (assistants) and performed the necessary procedures to bring him back from somati to normal vitality and save him from possible infections. In somati a person could stay for months even years.
Emmanuel therefore was " " "resurrected " " " as the ignorant would call it, though technically he never died!
After those event (" " "resurrection " " ") he joke with Saul\Paul and Thomas (who were in disbelief) but that is not important.
Emmanuel went to Syria, then Smirna (Izmir, today Turkey) then East again to Kashmir with his mom who died in North Western Pakistan. He died much later at about 111 years of age in The Roza Bal, Rouza Bal, or Rozabal located in the Khanyar downtown area of Srinagar in Kashmir, India. The word roza means tomb, the word bal mean place. He was remembered there as the holly man Yuz Asaf (or Isa Yosef).
Missed the Dizzle , I am so glad tha he is back posting videos on his channel
Love the hair brother. Keep the info coming!
Nice one David! I totally agree with you. When I heard you said “Allah trick people that Jesus is dead for no reason..” 😂😂😂😂 this cracked me up.hahahahhaa!
From an Islamic site. All comments are theirs:
اِذۡ قَالَ اللّٰہُ یٰعِیۡسٰۤی اِنِّیۡ مُتَوَفِّیۡکَ وَ رَافِعُکَ اِلَیَّ وَ مُطَہِّرُکَ مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا وَ جَاعِلُ الَّذِیۡنَ اتَّبَعُوۡکَ فَوۡقَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡۤا اِلٰی یَوۡمِ الۡقِیٰمَۃِ ۚ ثُمَّ اِلَیَّ مَرۡجِعُکُمۡ فَاَحۡکُمُ بَیۡنَکُمۡ فِیۡمَا کُنۡتُمۡ فِیۡہِ تَخۡتَلِفُوۡنَ ﴿۵۶﴾
Translation: When Allah said, ‘O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will exalt thee to Myself, and will clear thee from the charges of those who disbelieve, and will place those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you differ. [3:56]
Proof: The word mutawaffeeka means “I will cause you to die”. Whenever God is the fa’il (subject) and man is the maf’ul (object), it always refers to death. It means that God takes the soul of the man. In this case, it applies to Jesus(as) which in turn means that he has passed away.
فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّیۡتَنِیۡ کُنۡتَ اَنۡتَ الرَّقِیۡبَ عَلَیۡہِمۡ ؕ
Translation: Since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them. [5:118]
Proof: In the whole of the Quran, the word tawaffaa means taking of the soul and leaving aside the (physical) body as mentioned in 32:12, 10:105, 4:16, 7:38, and 6:62. The same word or one of its varying formations has been used in 23 places in the Quran always in reference to death and taking of the soul. Similarly, the word tawaffeehas been used in reference to death in the Ahadith, and the entire collection of Sihah Sitta (6 authentic books of Ahadith).
مَا الۡمَسِیۡحُ ابۡنُ مَرۡیَمَ اِلَّا رَسُوۡلٌ ۚ قَدۡ خَلَتۡ مِنۡ قَبۡلِہِ الرُّسُلُ ؕ وَ اُمُّہٗ صِدِّیۡقَۃٌ ؕ کَانَا یَاۡکُلٰنِ الطَّعَامَ ؕ
Translation: The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely, Messengers like unto him had indeed passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food. [5:76]
Proof: It is clearly stated that both Jesus(as) and his mother no longer eat food as understood from the Arabic word kaanaa, which is for past tense. Just as Mary(as) no longer eats food and has died, the same applies to Jesus(as)
وَ مَا مُحَمَّدٌ اِلَّا رَسُوۡلٌ ۚ قَدۡ خَلَتۡ مِنۡ قَبۡلِہِ الرُّسُلُ ؕ اَفَا۠ئِنۡ مَّاتَ اَوۡ قُتِلَ انۡقَلَبۡتُمۡ عَلٰۤی اَعۡقَابِکُمۡ ؕ
Translation: And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, all Messengers have passed away before him. If then he die or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? [3:145]
Proof: The reasoning of this verse is as follows: If it is necessary for a Prophet to live forever in this world, then present an example of such a Prophet from the past. If Jesus(as) were considered as an exception to this, the verse will lose its meaning.
وَ اَوۡصٰنِیۡ بِالصَّلٰوۃِ وَ الزَّکٰوۃِ مَا دُمۡتُ حَیًّا
Translation: And has enjoined upon me Prayer and almsgiving so long as I live. [19:32]
Proof: If Jesus(as) never died, it means that he is obliged to continue to offer prayers and pay the Zakat. However, as he is in heaven, he cannot give Zakaat and cannot encourage others to give Zakaat or to offer the kind of prayers he used to offer while on earth. These actions relate to a physical earthly body and cannot continue in heaven.
وَ السَّلٰمُ عَلَیَّ یَوۡمَ وُلِدۡتُّ وَ یَوۡمَ اَمُوۡتُ وَ یَوۡمَ اُبۡعَثُ حَیًّا ﴿۳۴﴾
Translation: ‘And peace was on me the day I was born, and peace there will be on me the day I shall die, and the day I shall be raised up to life again.’ [19:34]
Proof: There are only three episodes mentioned here for Jesus(as), namely, his birth, death, and life in the hereafter. If his physical ascent to heaven and physical descent from heaven were supposed to occur, they should have been mentioned here
وَ مَاۤ اَرۡسَلۡنَا قَبۡلَکَ مِنَ الۡمُرۡسَلِیۡنَ اِلَّاۤ اِنَّہُمۡ لَیَاۡکُلُوۡنَ الطَّعَامَ وَ یَمۡشُوۡنَ فِی الۡاَسۡوَاقِ ؕ
Translation: And We never sent any Messengers before thee but surely they ate food and walked in the streets. [25:21]
Proof: According to this verse, prophets used toeat food but no longer eat food. For the physical body to exist, it needs nourishment through food. Since all the prophets do not eat food any longer, they are all dead, including Jesus’s Christ(as)
Interesting! What is the site you are quoting? I'd like to look it up.
Finish the video. That's all I will advice you. It is so impressive.
Good advice!
I love listening to your videos. I learn so much. Thank you.
Thanks David you rock! God Bless!
Χριστός Ανέστη! Christos Anesti! Christus Resurrexit! Hallelujah🙏🏻
Surrexit vere, Alleluia!
Justin Beiber haircut? Smooth... wait wait... John Wick! Getting rid of evil since 1942! Boom! Shakalaka!!!
The Arabic language also abides by substitution theory...words don't actually have true meaning, the meanings depend on wind direction and weather patterns on any given day. You can never pin a muslim down on the meaning of a single word, only he must decide what it means in the moment 😅
Like a typical Arabian desert snake.
nice one, very well said 🤣
Seems as if Barack Hussein Obummer was not the only Muslim US president---> William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton, with his "Depends on what the word 'is' is" blather, apparently was translating in his mind from the original Arabic. (^-_-^)
The Aramaic word for God is "Alaha". It's the word Isa PBUH used. Sounds familiar?
Written without the confusing vowels it is written A-L-H ܐ ܠܗܐ (alap-lamed-he) as found in Targum or in Tanakh (Daniel, Ezra), Syriac Aramaic (Peshitta), reduced from the Arabic original (of which Aramaic is a dialect continuum as will be explained) it is written in the Arabic script 'A-L-L-H' (Aleph-Lam-Lam-Ha) add an A before the last H for vocalization.
The word God in another rendition in Hebrew ʾĕlōah is derived from a base ʾilāh, an Arabic word, written without confusing vowel it is A-L-H in the Arabic script, pronounced ilah not eloah. Hebrew dropped the glottal stop and mumbled it, aramic mumbled a little less and it became elaha. Infact both are written written A-L-H in Arabic, it is pronounced i in Arabic and not A because it is an Alef with hamza below (إ أ ) They are two different forms of Alef. And it mean "a god", it is the non definitive form of A-L-L-H, in which the Alef is without a glottal stop/hamza,(ا), but this kind of nuance is lost in the dialect continua.
infact "YHWH" itself is an Arabic word as discussed by Professor. Israel Knohl (Professor of Biblical studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) in the paper" YHWH: The Original Arabic Meaning of the Name."
jesus as his name is often misspelled due to the lack of the ayin sound in Greek, which was rendered to Iesous, coupling the nearest sound to ayin, same letter found in 'Iraq', which sounds entirely different in Arabic form 'Iran' in Arabic, with the -ous Greek suffix that Greeks typically add to their names 'HerodotOS', 'PlotinUS', 'AchelOUS' and later mumbled into a J. The yeshua rendition of Isa (his name in the Qur'an) PBUH which is purported to be the name of Jesus is KNOWN to had been taken from greek. Western Syriac also use "Isho". Western Aramaic (separate from Syriac which is a dialect of Eastern Aramaic) use "Yeshu". Western Syriac has been separate from Western Aramaic for about 1000 years. And sounds don't even match up. Syriac is a Christian liturgical language yet the four letters of the name of Jesus «ܝܫܘܥ» [ = Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic: «ישוע» ] sounds totally different in West vs East Syriac, viz. vocalized akin to Christian Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic «ܝܶܫܽܘܥ» (Yēšūʿ) in West Syriac, but pronounced more akin to Muslim Arabic Quran character name Isa in East Syriac «ܝܑܼܫܘܿܥ» (ʾĪšōʿ). The reason for this confusion is their dropping of phonemes. Only someone that has no idea what the letters are or how they sound would have a name ending in a pharyngeal fricative like the ayin, if it were to be used in a name it would have had to be in the beginning, thus the Arabic rendition is the correct one. An example in English is how the appended -d is a common error amongst the English pronouncing Gaelic names. The name Donald arose from a common English mispronunciation of the Gaelic name Donal. Just how it is with donal becoming donald and the two becoming distinct and the original being regarded as something seperate so too did Isa PBUH turn to Iesous turn to jesus and when they tried going back to the original they confused it for yeshua ( ysu is how it is actually written) for Isa PBUH ( 3'eysah )
Schlözer in his preparation for the Arabia expedition in 1781 coined the term Semitic language:
"From the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, from Mesopotamia to Arabia ruled one language, as is well known. Thus Syrians, Babylonians, Hebrews, and Arabs were one people (ein Volk). Phoenicians (Hamites) also spoke this language, which I would like to call the Semitic (die Semitische)." -Before Boas: The Genesis of Ethnography and Ethnology in the German By Han F. Vermeulen.
He was only half right though, Arabic is the only corollary to "proto-semitic", infact the whole semitic classification is nonsensical as will be shown.
"protosemetic" Alphabet (28), Arabic Alphabet (28), Latin transliteration, hebrew (22)
𐩠 𐩡 𐩢 𐩣 𐩤 𐩥 𐩦 𐩧 𐩨 𐩩 𐩪 𐩫 𐩬 𐩭 𐩮 𐩰 𐩱 𐩲 𐩳 𐩴 𐩵 𐩶 𐩷 𐩸 𐩹 𐩺 𐩻 𐩼
ا ب ت ث ج ح خ د ذ ر ز س ش ص ض ط ظ ع غ ف ق ك ل م ن ه و ي
A b t ṯ j h kh d ḏ r z s sh ṣ ḍ ṭ ẓ ʿ ġ f q k l m n h w y
א ב ג ד ה ו ז ח ט י כ ל מ נ ס ע פ צ ק ר ש ת
Merged phonemes in hebrew and aramaic:
ح, خ (h, kh) merged into only kh consonant remain
س, ش (s, sh) merged into only Shin consonant remaining
ط, ظ (ṭ/teth, ẓ) merged into only ṭ/teth consonant remaining
ص, ض (ṣ, ḍ/Tsad ) merged into only ḍ/Tsad consonant remaining
ع, غ (3'ayn, Ghayn) merged into a reducted ayin consonant remaining
ت, ث (t/taw, th) merged into only t/taw consonant remaining
The reason why the protoS alphabet here is 28 and not 29, is because the supposed extra letter is simply a س written in a different position, but it was shoehorned to obfuscated. In Arabic letter shapes are different depending on whether they are in the beginning , middle or end of a word.
As a matter of fact, all of the knowledge needed for deciphering ancient texts and their complexity was derived from the Qur'an. It was by analyzing the syntactic structure of the Qur'an that the Arabic root system was developed. This system was first attested to in Kitab Al-Ayin, the first intralanguage dictionary of its kind, which preceded the Oxford English dictionary by 800 years. It was through this development that the concept of Arabic roots was established and later co-opted into the term 'semitic root,' allowing the decipherment of ancient scripts. In essence, they quite literally copied and pasted the entirety of the Arabic root. Hebrew had been dead, as well as all the other dialects of Arabic, until being 'revived' in a Frankensteinian fashion in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The entire region spoke basically the same language, with mumbled dialect continuums spread about, and Arabic is the oldest form from which all these dialects branched off. As time passed, the language gradually became more degenerate,
Language; When one looks at the actual linguistics, one will find that many were puzzled by the opposite, that is, how the other "semetic" languages were more "evolved" than Arabic, while Arabic had archaic features, not only archaic compared to bibilical Hebrew, Ethiopic, "Aramaic" contemporary "semetic" languages, but even archaic compared to languages from ancient antiquity; Ugaritic, Akkadain. What is meant here by Archaic is not what most readers think, it is Archaic not in the sense that it is simple, but rather that it is complex (think Latin to pig Latin or Italian or Old English, which had genders and case endings to modern English), not only grammatically, but also phonetically; All the so called semitic languages are supposed to have evolved from protosemetic, the Alphabet for protosemitic is that of the so called Ancient South Arabian (which interestingly corresponds with the traditional Arabic origins account) and has 28 Phonemes. Arabic has 28 phonemes. Hebrew has 22, same as Aramaic, and other "semitic" languages. Now pause for a second and think about it, how come Arabic, a language that is supposed to have come so late has the same number of letters as a language that supposedly predates it by over a millennium (Musnad script ~1300 BCE). Not only is the glossary of phonemes more diverse than any other semitic language, but the grammar is more complex, containing more cases and retains what's linguists noted for its antiquity, broken plurals. Indeed, a linguist has once noted that if one were to take everything we know about languages and how they develop, Arabic is older than Akkadian (~2500 BCE).
And then the Qur'an appeared with the oldest possible form of the language thousands of years later. This is why the Arabs of that time were challenged to produce 10 similar verses, and they couldn't. People think it's a miracle because they couldn't do it, but I think the miracle is the language itself. They had never spoken Arabic, nor has any other language before or since had this mathematical precision. And when I say mathematical, I quite literally mean mathematical.
Now how is it that the Qur'an came thousands of years later in an alphabet that had never been recorded before, and in the highest form the language had ever taken?
The creator is neither bound by time nor space, therefore the names are uttered as they truly were, in a language that is lexically, syntactically, phonemically, and semantically older than the oldest recorded writing. In fact, that writing appears to have been a simplified version of it. Not only that, but it would be the equivalent of the greatest works of any particular language all appearing in one book, in a perfect script and in the highest form the language could ever take. It is so high in fact, that it had yet to be surpassed despite the fact that over the last millennium the collection of Arabic manuscripts when compared on word-per-word basis in Western Museums alone, when they are compared with the collected Greek and Latin manuscripts combined, the latter does not constitute 1 percent of the former as per German professor Frank Griffel, in addition all in a script that had never been recorded before. Thus, the enlightenment of mankind from barbarism and savagery began, and the age of reason and rationality was born from its study.
God did bring down the Qur’an, Mohamed is his Messenger.
@@mznxbcv12345 Islamofascist autobot abdul spreading knowledge from Alhamdulillah University 🤣🤣🤣
Our battle has been won we just have to put our trust in him
Please keep teaching this. It might take years but eventually the falsehoods of Islam will be exposed.
Or in this sense, it’s not an error, but a misinterpretation. If what he is offering is a reclassifying of the correct theology, then Islam would be the Arabic variant of Christianity. Therefore edifying the Arabs though their faith in Jesus as the messiah who actually died on the cross. But must also live by higher standards and completely submit to God the way Mohammad told them.
In such a case. It would imply that the Ishmaelites do indeed have hope. And that Jesus is their messiah. And that Mohammed was a prophet to them, but his writings are being mistranslated and misrepresented. In that case, Islam is true for ishmaelite. But they are getting it wrong.
The problem we have comes to a conclusion when Jesus comes back the 2nd time. That we know for sure.
@@BeholdIamaNewCreation there is no name under heaven and earth by which men may be saved. That name is Jesus. Muslims do not have any assurance of salvation because they deny the fundamentals of the Gospel, viz., that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God who was with the Father from the beginning, that He is fully human and fully divine at one and the same time, that He died on the cross, was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. We can argue about Mohammed, the Quran and a heap of other stuff but until Muslims accept this fundamental doctrine as truth there is no hope for them. Praise God that thousands have seen the truth and have been born again. Their problems are compounded by the fact that they have no archaeological evidence or eye witness accounts regarding Islam or the existence of Mohammed. It’s too easy to blame misinterpretation of their writings, corruption of the Bible for the woeful lack of concrete proof that would substantiate their claims. They need to provide real proof that dates back to when their prophet is said to have lived.
I am so grateful for you, David - this work you do is so necessary
that is a banger of a video David! God bless You !
Nice & concise, as well as pertinent. Have a Tunisian friend, speaks only French. Gets more and more open but still sticks to his roots. Any chance to have it translated in French, either written or vocal? Many thanks
Keep 💪n spreading the truth bro DW...
We have a say in Italy: the devil makes the pot but not the lid 😏
What does that mean ?
Yes, what is the meaning of this? That a lie is rationalized by the listener?
I think it means, the devil may created a lie but can't keep it forever. There's are holes in islamic narrative.
Does the pope put the lid for the devil(to help him out) 😂
Perfectly said, devil didnt know that its own words. Its very much scary
This presentation is very informative. Thank you for the work you are doing and sharing it with us.
The worst part about Substitution theory is then Jesus and God tell the apostles to go preach whatever message the Jews just tried to crucify Jesus for. The Islamic Jesus is a terrible example and leader : martyrdom for thee but not for me.
"die" is translated properly in one verse(19:33) and in a more vague way in another(3:55) which... anyway:
1. Christian view: Jesus was arrested, lashed, crucified, relatives were allowed to get his body off the cross(unusual for the Roman as they tended to leave their body to rot as a threat and disrespect), was burried, he was revived, showed himself to the apostles and was raised to the heavens.
2. muslim view: Jesus was thought-to-be arrested but him and the apostles either prepared a martyr-volunteer(like Simon) or captured an opponent-traitor(like Judas) to be tortured and crucified, they somehow looked like Jesus to the crowd(Allah or the apostles-Jesus doing some plastic surgery to Simon or Judas), those present got to burry the unfortunate fellow, the tomb was found empty after. meanwhile the escapee Jesus will... die around the same period due to obscure reasons and... go to heaven while... not having the wounds Thomas saw on him...
so... yeah... did Jesus migrate to China/India/Europe/Africa? or are the mormons(America) right? is Hirohiko Araki right?(JoJo part 7 and 8. with Jesus' c0rpse being scattered in America? not being raised to heaven)
You know I just realized the Muslim explanation has literally no explanation for an empty tomb being there where the fake Jesus was buried. It’s not even thought of, it seems. No good answers just more questions!
You know I just realized the Muslim explanation has literally no explanation for an empty tomb being there where the fake Jesus was buried. It’s not even thought of, it seems. No good answers just more questions!
You know I just realized the Muslim explanation has literally no explanation for an empty tomb being there where the fake Jesus was buried. It’s not even thought of, it seems. No good answers just more questions!
You know I just realized the Muslim explanation has literally no explanation for an empty tomb being there where the fake Jesus was buried. It’s not even thought of, it seems. No good answers just more questions!
May God bless you, you make great content. Keep going!!!!
Good work on this Brother David WOW!
Thanks for the video. I just shared it with my sister. Please, continue to make videos. Jesus is Lord.
Prayers for you and yours.
Doc AJ
Love your use of logic and sources.
Great presentation.
Let's hope majority of muslims changed their view about crucifixion under 2 years.
David for the best Christian mufti award. Keep up the good work. 😎👍
That was an incredible video. Complete forencic logic. Sherlock homes couldn't have done better. Well done.