MUSLIMS REACT to Every HERESY explained in 9 minutes (Redeemed Zoomer)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Hamza & Rohaib from Muslim Minds react to Every HERESY explained in 9 minutes by Redeemed Zoomer
Donate to your brothers and sisters who are suffering in Palestine and all over the world: irusa.org/midd...
Support the channel: paypal.me/MUSL...
We are not scholars so anything we say is to our best knowledge.
Our intention for this reaction video is simply to educate ourselves and give our HONEST views and thoughts. As Muslims, we respect all religions. If you feel like anything that was said is offensive, let us know in the comments, is it genuinely unintentional.
Follow us and directly message us!
/ muslim.minds.us
Welcome everyone! Please remember to LIKE this video and SUBSCRIBE because then we can spend more time into growing our channel and put out more content for you guys!
We do our best to give our genuine, honest and respectful reactions.
Any questions or comments you have for us, leave them down below so we can answer them!
May peace be upon you all!
You asked questions and I suggest you should read the Bible. It is very clear why Jesus Christ had to come.
I understand why you as Muslims sympathize with Arius, but you need to be aware that Arius still had an extremely high Christology and taught that Christ created the world and was also the first thing created by God. Arius also taught that you could worship Christ. In this way, Arius was more of a mushrik than the Trinitarians, since the Trinitarians still believe in the Oneness of God's Essence, while the Arians taught that God had one Essence and Christ had another essence, but both could still be worshiped.
Indeed, as your namesake said, "We do not worship a creature. Far be the thought. For such an error belongs to heathens and Arians. But we worship the Lord of Creation, Incarnate, the Word of God." And in the Thalia of Arius, he still refers to the Son as "the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others."
He also says, "At God’s will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has. His existence from when and from whom and from then - are all from God. He, though strong God, praises in part his superior."
Absolutely no surprise Athanasius accuses the Arians of worshiping creatures, Arius clearly believes Christ was a second-tier deity, created by the Father before the universe was created, and then it is Christ who creates the universe. And considering he also uses the language of 'monad' and 'dyad', it seems to me there's some strong Hellenism lingering in Arius' thought where the Father is simply too great and transcendent to interact with the material universe and needs a secondary being emanating from Him in order to do that. But this is still a *far* higher Christology than anything found in Islam, Arius would balk at the suggestion that Christ is a mere man.
You guys should have a discussion with Redeemed Zoomer. That would be great
Thanks for watching, as a Christian I thought you guys were very respectful about sharing your opinions.
Thanks Ben, appreciate that!
-Hamza
Even some Christians are quite often initially shocked when they hear “God died,” “God was born,” or “God was buried.” The best way to help folks to understand this is to get to the core of what the Church calls the hypostatic union. That term describes in a word the great mystery of the Incarnation: the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed a fully human nature so that the one Person of Jesus Christ now possesses two natures within the one, divine Person. Hypostatic union comes from the Greek word hypostasis, which the Church came to use as a synonym for the Latin word persona, or “person.” Originally, hypostasis had a wider semantic range in ancient Greek, but the Church came to use it, and now uses it perennially, with a more narrow focus as “person.”
Thus, hypostatic union refers to the joining of the two natures of Christ-one divine, one human-within the hypostasis, or “person,” of Christ. This “joining” or “union” is not to be understood as a mingling of natures. Each nature remains fully distinct. But they are not to be understood as substantially separated, either. The hypostatic union is a substantial union, meaning we are talking about “one thing” here. One person. One subject. But that one subject, Jesus Christ, a divine person, possesses two natures, one divine and one human.
It is because the one, divine Person of Jesus Christ possesses these two natures that it becomes entirely correct to say he, the divine Person of Christ, suffered, died, etc. Because of the hypostatic union, everything experienced in the two natures of Christ must be said to be experienced by the one, divine Person. He, the divine Person of Christ, is the subject of everything experienced through his two natures.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, under the section on the Creed, Article Four, perhaps says it as well as it can be said. Here, the Catechism is answering the question of whether or not it is proper to say, “God was buried.”
This question is particularly interesting because when we normal humans die-and by “normal,” I mean all of us that are not God!-our “person” ceases to exist, strictly speaking. Why? Because, by definition, a human person is constituted as a body-soul composite. Without both, you do not have a person. This is why we refer to the “souls” in Purgatory, for example, and not the “persons” in purgatory. They are “souls,” and not persons, properly speaking, because they do not possess bodies. This is also why Scripture refers to the souls in heaven as “the spirits of just men made perfect” (see Heb. 12:22-24), or as “the souls of the martyrs” (Rev. 6:9). Until the resurrection of the body, the “spirits” and “souls” are not fully “persons.”
Well, in the case of Jesus Christ, he is not a human person. He is a divine person. Thus, it is impossible for his “person” to cease to be. Thus, you will notice the Catechism referring to Christ’s body still being joined to the divine Person, even in death:
It is not, however, our belief that the body of Christ alone was interred. The above words [referring to the Creed stating that Christ “was buried”] propose, as the principal object of our belief, that God was buried; as according to the rule of Catholic faith we also say with the strictest truth that God died, and that God was born of a virgin. For as the Divinity was never separated from his body which was laid in the sepulcher, we truly confess that God was buried.
And because “the Divinity was never separated from his body,” or from his human nature, we can also say God was nurtured and fed, God learned to walk and talk, God experienced pain and suffering, and more.
Recently, I had an extensive discussion with a Muslim about the Trinity. His problem with the Trinity was not so much with biblical texts, and obviously so, because he did not accept the Bible in the form it is in today as the word of God. Though I must say that he was remarkably interested in looking at what the New Testament had to say about the topic.
His main problem was conceptual. And I find this to be generally the case with folks who reject the Trinity. They either think Christians are claiming there are three Gods (which is what my Muslim friend actually believed to be so), or that we are teaching something that is a logical contradiction, e.g., 3=1, and 1=3.
Neither is true, of course. But if we are going to help these people to understand, I find, a little background information is essential in order to establish a conceptual foundation for discussion.
Processions and Relations in God
In Catholic theology, we understand the persons of the Blessed Trinity subsisting within the inner life of God to be truly distinct relationally, but not as a matter of essence, or nature. Each of the three persons in the godhead possesses the same eternal and infinite divine nature; thus, they are the one, true God in essence or nature, not “three Gods.” Yet, they are truly distinct in their relations to each other.
In order to understand the concept of person in God, we have to understand its foundation in the processions and relations within the inner life of God. And the Council of Florence, 1338-1445 AD, can help us in this regard.
The Council’s definitions concerning the Trinity are really as easy as one, two, three… four. It taught there is one nature in God, and that there are two processions, three persons, and four relations that constitute the Blessed Trinity. The Son “proceeds” from the Father, and the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” These are the two processions in God. And these are foundational to the four relations that constitute the three persons in God. These are those four eternal relations in God:
The Father actively and eternally generates the Son, constituting the person of God, the Father.
The Son is passively generated of the Father, which constitutes the person of the Son.
The Father and the Son actively spirate the Holy Spirit in the one relation within the inner life of God that does not constitute a person. It does not do so because the Father and Son are already constituted as persons in relation to each other in the first two relations. This is why the Catechism teaches in paragraph 240, “[The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity] is Son only in relation to his Father.”
The Holy Spirit is passively spirated of the Father and the Son, constituting the person of the Holy Spirit.
We should take note of the distinction between the “generative” procession that constitutes the Son, and the “spirative” procession that constitutes the Holy Spirit. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, and Scripture reveals, the Son is uniquely “begotten” of the Father (cf. John 3:16; 1:18). He is also said to proceed from the Father as “the Word” in John 1:1. This “generative” procession is one of “begetting,” but not in the same way a dog “begets” a dog, or a human being “begets” a human being. This is an intellectual “begetting,” and fittingly so, as a “word” proceeds from the knower while, at the same time remaining in the knower. Thus, this procession or begetting of the Son occurs within the inner life of God. There are not “two beings” involved; rather, two persons relationally distinct, while ever-remaining one in being.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but not in a generative sense; rather, in a spiration. “Spiration” comes from the Latin word for “spirit” or “breath.” Jesus “breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit…” (John 20:22). Scripture reveals the Holy Spirit as pertaining to “God’s love [that] has been poured into our hearts” in Romans 5:5, and as flowing out of and identified with the reciprocating love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father (John 15:26; Rev. 22:1-2). Thus, the Holy Spirit’s procession is not intellectual and generative, but has its origin in God’s will and in the ultimate act of the will, which is love.
As an infinite act of love between the Father and Son, this “act” is so perfect and infinite that “it” becomes (not in time, of course, but eternally) a “He” in the third person of the Blessed Trinity. This revelation of God’s love personified is the foundation from which Scripture could reveal to us that “God is love” (1 John 4:8).
God is not revealed to “be” love in any other religion in the world other than Christianity because in order for there to be love, there must be a beloved. From all eternity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have poured themselves out into each other in an infinite act of love, which we, as Christians, are called to experience through faith and the sacraments by which we are lifted up into that very love of God itself (Romans 5:1-5).
It is the love of God that binds us, heals us, and makes us children of God (I John 4:7; Matt. 5:44-45). Thus, how fitting it is that the Holy Spirit is depicted in Revelation 22:1-2, as a river of life flowing out from the Father and the Son and bringing life to all by way of bringing life to the very “tree of life” that is the source of eternal life in the the Book of Revelation (Rev. 22:19).
Back to the Relations in God
Biblically speaking, we see each of the persons in God revealed as relationally distinct and yet absolutely one in nature in manifold texts. For example, consider John 17:5, where our Lord prays on Holy Thursday: "… and now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory which I had with you before the world was made."
Notice, before the creation, the Son was “with” the Father. Also, the Son addressing the Father and himself in an “I/thou” relationship is unmistakable. We have distinct persons here. “Father” and “Son” reveal a generative relationship as well. Yet, this relationship between two persons clearly has no beginning in time because it existed before the creation, from all eternity. Thus, the relational distinction is real, and personal, but as far as nature is concerned, Jesus’ words from John 10:30 come to mind: “I and the Father are one,” in that they each possess the same infinite nature.
The Holy Spirit is also seen to be relationally distinct from both the Father and the Son in Scripture inasmuch as both the Father and the Son are seen as “sending” “him”: "But when the Counselor comes (the Holy Spirit), whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness of me…" (John 15:26) "… he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).
Thus, the relational distinction is real, and personal, but the Holy Spirit, like the eternal Son, is revealed to be God inasmuch as he is revealed to be omniscient. “He will guide you into all truth.” In fact, 1 Cor. 2:10 also reveals the Holy Spirit to be omniscient when it says, “… no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” He speaks as God in texts of Scripture like Hebrews 3:7-11: 10:15-18. Thus, the Holy Spirit is revealed in Scripture to possess the same infinite and divine nature as does the Father and the Son.
The Anthropological Analogy
Analogy is the theologian’s best friend in explaining the mysteries of the Faith. And when it comes to the Trinity, there are many analogies to choose from. We will explore just two of them here that I have found helpful. In fact, it was these very two analogies that helped my Muslim friend to say the idea of the Trinity “made sense” to him, even though he wasn’t ready to leave his Muslim faith… at least, not yet.
From his famous and classic Confessions (Book 13, Chapter 11) St. Augustine writes:
"I speak of these three: to be, to know, and to will. For I am, and I know, and I will: I am a knowing and a willing being, and I know that I am and that I will, and I will to be and to know. Therefore, in these three, let him who can do so perceive how inseparable a life there is, one life and one mind and one essence, and finally how inseparable a distinction there is, and yet there is a distinction. Surely a man stands face to face with himself. Let him take heed of himself, and look there, and tell me. But when he has discovered any of these and is ready to speak, let him not think that he has found that immutable being which is above all these, which is immutably, and knows immutably, and wills immutably."
In order to appreciate Augustine’s words, we must begin with three essential and foundational truths that undergird them. Without these, his words will fall on deaf ears.
We believe in one, true God, YAHWEH, who is absolute being, absolute perfection, and absolutely simple. Our belief in the Trinity does not mean God is three, or any other number of Gods.
Humankind is created “in [God’s] image and likeness” (cf. Gen. 1:26). From the context of Genesis 1, we know this “image and likeness” does not pertain to the body of man because God has no body. Indeed the divine nature cannot be bodily or material because there can be no potency in God as there is inherent in bodies, so this “image and likeness” must be referring to our higher faculties or operations of intellect and will.
It follows, then, that God is rational. He too is both intellectual and volitional.
These simple truths serve as the foundation for what I call St. Augustine’s anthropological analogy that can help us to understand better the great mystery of the Trinity: In God we see the Father-the “being one” and first principal of life in the Godhead, the Son-the “knowing one”-the Word who proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit-the “willing one”-the bond of love between the Father and Son who proceeds as love from the Father and Son. These “three” do not “equal” one if we are trying to say 3=1 mathematically. These three are distinct realities, relationally speaking, just as my own being, knowing, and willing are three distinct realities in me. Yet, in both God and man these three relationally distinct realities subsist in one being.
As St. Augustine points out, we can never know God or understand God completely through this or any analogy, but it can help us to understand how you can have relational distinctions within one being. And we can see this is reasonable.
The weakness inherent here-there are weaknesses in all analogies with reference to God-is that our knowing, being, and willing are not each infinite and co-extensive as the persons of God are. They subsist in one being in us, but they are not persons.
The Analogy of the Family
The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives us another analogy wherein we can see the reasonableness of the Trinity by helping us to see the possibility of distinct persons who possess the same nature. The Catechism says in paragraph 2205: "The Christian family is a communion of persons, a sign and image of the communion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit." When we think of a family, we can see how a father, mother, and child can be distinct persons and yet possess the same nature (human), just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who each possess the same nature (divine).
The weakness, of course, is that in God each person possesses the one infinite and immutable divine nature, and is therefore, one being. Our analogous family consists of three beings. Again, no analogy is perfect.
But in the end, if we combine our two analogies, we can at least see both how there can be three relationally distinct realities subsisting within one being in the anthropological analogy, and how there can be three relationally distinct persons who share the same nature in the analogy of the family.
Source: Catholic Answers website
My friend its vert simple . Is each member God Yes or No. So is how many God do you have if each is God. Either you have three Gods or they are parts of the Godhead , meaning that without them there would not Godhead. so they are components. Like a company it can have three subcompanies and they are parts or three companies and they are each an independent companies. So either whole God or each are parts.
Very simple Christiany is incoherent, irrational and a contradiction
@@Aliali-vc3pk *"Is each member God"*
Yes.
*"So is how many God do you have if each is God."*
One.
*"Either you have three Gods or they are parts of the Godhead"*
It's neither. But I get where the difficulty is for you (and to be fair, for many Christians as well). It's in their relations. Our human language is so conditioned by separate things that have relationships. So, when we say that the trinitarian persons are "subsistent relations" to one another, we are breaking that way of thinking.
The Father is in the Son because the Father is his essence and he shares it with the Son without any change taking place in himself. Father, Son and Spirit are “subsistent relations” this way. It means that God is not like us, for we are not constituted entirely by our relations. No matter how much I seek to give myself to my wife, my children, my friends, I cannot give myself to them in the same way that the Triune Persons give themselves to each other. Nor do I exist because of that reciprocal giving and receiving. No matter how hard I try, I am not a ‘subsistent relation’, because I do not have a divine nature. I am not God.
The Father is Father ONLY in relation to the Son. The Son is Son ONLY in relation to the Father. The Spirit is Spirit ONLY in relation to the Father and the Son.
i dont think you understand the nature of Jesus being human and having needs while still being God. By your objection you limit God as not able to become an incarnate being.
They are not supposed to.
@@musical_lolu4811 not supposed to understand? Well thats probably right.
Islam is closer to Nestorianism than Arian heresy
No, that’s wrong. The very nature of a god is a being beyond anything that is remotely human. A god wouldn’t need food or really have any human needs as he is BEYOND EVERYTHING.
He is powerful being with no need to play into being a mortal. Instead, he sends prophets like Jesus (peace be upon him) to spread the word.
@@CriticalPopulistAnarchist I think you rather limit God by thinking he couldn't become incarnate (human), experience all that a human does (except sin) and still be divine.
I feel like I ought to note that Redeemed Zoomer, as a Presbyterian, (probably) holds to a very strong doctrine of penal substitution, that is that Jesus was punished in the place of all mankind at the cross, which is dubiously heretical depending on who you ask and to what extent you take the "penal substitution". I don't know Redeemed Zoomer's exact theology and I don't really know the minutia of most protestants so take it with a grain of salt.
8:50
No analogy existing for the Trinity (i.e God's nature) is actually a positive argument for the Trinity to be true because God is unlike anything in creation. Even the Quran makes that claim (Sura 42: 11)
If allah is 1 in essence/being and 1 person, then he shares a key characteristic with us humans, which also are 1 being and 1 person. And therefore even by the Quran's standard cant be true.
That’s a silly argument because you can find countless categories like this in which you could claim God and people are "similar" by oversimplification from simply being to personhood itself to consciousness and the like.
Just because God is one and we are just one individual doesn’t make us similar and it sure doesn’t give any more or less credence to an idea that somehow God is three people.
You are free to believe that of course, it just doesn’t hold on the grounds of that particular argument.
@@charlietownsend2826 Well, I didn't oversimplify, tho. And therefore my point remains. I understand your criticism, but it's not accurate.
@@1geko818 I apologize if I was unclear. By oversimplification I mean in the very attempt to boil things down into these categories such as "being 1 person and 1 being" and that qualifying as a similarity between God and men.
The heart of my response stands. Not only is it not a substantial category, especially by virtue of being merely quantitative, even if you remove this "similarity" there are many other such construed categories in which you could try and shoehorn both God and man to imply similarity between them, something philosophers and Christian scholars have racked their brains for decades trying to reconcile when they were trying to blend Christian doctrine with Platonic and Aristotelian ideas.
As such any credence or not to the trinitarian idea based on it somehow marking a stronger difference between God and His creation is probably not the hill to die on, so to speak.
I’m sure there are plenty other arguments for and against it, though. This isn’t any form of criticism of the belief itself, simply my two cents on the argument presented.
@@charlietownsend2826 I fully understand your point and I would agree. The only issue I see is that the quran itself makes the claim that God is unlike anything in creation. And that same Quran criticizes the nature of the Trinity, but when we examine the nature of the Trinity and compare it with the nature of Allah (1being/1person without oversimplifying), we find that you could very well flip the argument the Quran itself makes on its own. And I think the case can indeed be made that the Trinity fulfills the criteria of "anything unlike creation" more then the nature of so called allah. Because its enough that we can grasp it but at the same time unlike anything we know that were fully aware of its mystery. There are for example no 1:1 analogoys to make, but there would be for allah's oneness.
And btw thats not all, I assume you are not muslim? If so, know that there are way more issues about the claim of allah's nature then just "1being 1person". And none of them are over simplified and stem from the quran or hadith. Few examples I can give you to demonstrate: Allah will come on the last day in diff forms to the believers and they respond you are not our lord each time, until they say what can you show us that we know its you allah? And he will show his shin and at his shin they will recognize him. So thats known hadith narration of last day and in the quran itself it mentions allah has 2 right hands, shin, eyes, foot (dispute over whether they are literal or not ofc exists in the islamic community). The issue tho lies that even if they were not literal, still the quran is attributing "created terms" like hands or shin to allah who apparently is anything unlike creation. And how can believers recognize allah at his shin when they have never seen it and have never seen sth like it in creation. Even their thoughts and concepts on how a shin looks are created and therefore can not be like allah, making recognizing him impossible (unless some sort of miracle).
See I am not trying to die on the hill that the Trinity is more valid because of this (one can make this argument fo sure tho) but I rather want to demonstrate that the quran makes a claim about God and cant itself uphold it, instead even contradicts it or creates logical problems for its OWN criteria, and then at the same time criticizes the Trinity, when it hasnt figured out its own issues that are far far greater then the ones it has with the Trinity. Hope that made sense.
Honestly I see their argument that the Trinity is illogical. I disagree, but I can sympathize with their conclusion as the Trinity is paradoxical to us as finite beings
In the beginning The Holy Trinity created the heavens and the earth . God The Father, God the Son, The Word, and God The Holy Spirit.❤
Im so glad you guys are sensible and peaceful rather than screaming and crying like a child and as a Christian i love seeing the other side of the spectrum .
Thanks Josh! In reality the ideal Muslim and honestly majority of Muslims do this, we aren’t crazy and we are okay with hearing about other religions respectfully.
@18:04 where you said that Jesus apparently didn't know the hour, which is a popular claim of Muslim apologists confronting Christians, the answer is, it's the same thing as when Paul was in Corinth talking to the believers there, where he decided not to know anything besides Jesus' death and resurrection. So it's not really about knowing something but more about deciding to make something known.
My issue with Matthew 24:36 is the wording of the verse: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Jesus explicitly says no one knows, not even the spirit. It’s a pretty clear verse thats detailed and excludes everyone other than the father from knowledge of the day (Jesus and the spirit included). Despite it being a popular point of contention for Muslim apologists to bring up, it genuinely is a valid question due to the wording of the verse
Thanks
Rohaib
@@MuslimMindsUS Well on the other hand you have verses like "I and the Father are one" John 10:30 where Jesus claims/asserts that he is one with the Father, so logically speaking what the Father knows also is known by the Son, which is precisely the reason why the interpretation of this verse in particular is not about "know" in the sense of knowledge but rather in the sense of declaration ref. to 1. Corinthians 2:2 (This is further elaborated in the debate between Sheikh Uthman and Godlogic Apologetics). Not only does this verse employ the same style of wording but it also explains rather well how the word "know" is used in Matthew 24:36. But another important aspect is that in the following verses Jesus explains in a detailed manner how His second coming is going to happen and draws parallels between the Second Coming of Christ and the Great Flood of the times of Noah. This should clarify in a rather clear manner that Jesus does indeed know of both day and hour, but it's just for the Father to declare
@@MuslimMindsUS The issue is not "only the father", the issue is that Jesus is not talking about knowledge in the sense of ignorance but in a sense of declarable. "It is only for the father to declare". There are even more in depth explanations or justifications on why that is the case like "the jewish wedding" but that's too long for me to explain in yt comments, would still recommend you to check it out.
A quick explanation and justification why Jesus is not speaking of "knowing" in the sense of ignorance is in the bible itself.
In Acts 1:6-7 The disciples ask Jesus about the hour AGAIN, but this time *post resurrection*:
"So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority."
*AGAIN* affirming that it is not for *THEM* to know, he didn't say "oh sorry guys I already told you that I don't know the hour"
@@MuslimMindsUS Read the verse again carefully. of that day or hour NO ONE (this means you and I, people, creation) knows, not even the ANGELS(here he separates the creation from the angels), nor the SON(here he separates himself from the angels, and the creation), but only the Father. Why would he separate himself from the creation if he is creation as you claim?
Like the other commenter, people do say it is a jewish idiom, which may be true, I am no scholar, but I will say that Jesus does call himself the bride-groom, and the church, the new Israel, is the bride. Just like in the Old Testament, God marries Israel, its a metaphor throughout the scriptures.
You should watch sam shamoun, he has many great videos on the trinity, and debating mohammedans.
@@theotokos33if jesus said he is the true vine in john 15:5, would you take it “literal”
You should know by now that Jesus on his ministry on earth talks in figurative language, commonly the “show not tell” and “Hints”.
Also it was cultural for him to say, he did know it but most people take this as he isn’t God.
You mentioned quite a few times Mark 13:32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." while on the surface it looks like Jesus has limited knowledge here but the greek word used for the word known is οἶδεν which can in some contexts have the meaning to make known or reveal, look at 1 Corinthians 2:2 "For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." εἰδέναι is used in this case which is the infinitve form of οἶδεν. Paul isn't saying he knows nothing but Jesus christ and his crucifixion, he's saying thats all he's being made known, all he's revealing.
“There are things that God cannot do” . I almost had a heart attack when you said that. He created the heaven and the earth. He can do whatever.
Can God be evil? Can God stop being God? Can God ignorant? Can God create a rock that he can never lift?
The answer is no because these things are contradictory to who God is. That doesn’t make him any less holy or powerful.
@@MuslimMindsUS what is evil? If you try to understand God through your knowledge you will fail. We don’t have full understanding of the knowledge God posses. We call this mysterium fidei. Mystery of Faith.
What is reveal to us Is what God want US humans to do and not do.
You didn’t answer the question
@@MuslimMindsUS I did. I said. I do not posses full knowledge of what God can and cannot do. I pointed out how if you think as a human to know God you Will fail. Atheist will read the holy Quran and assume Allah it’s evil because he allows for wars. So you said . It’s God evil? Well. What lenses are you using to describe evil? What is evil? Can God be ignorant? That is a good question. Many people debate whether he knew that Adam and Even will sin. And that was all part of his plan. Others say he gave them free will. We cannot measure God knowledge with our human brain.
Can God create a rock that he cant lift? If He wants to yes. He promised our church would not be destroyed therefore for us he created a church he himself cannot destroy.
23:54 YEEES. Through Gods mercy we can enter The Kingdom of God. And Gods mercy is shown On the Cross. Throughout the Old Testament we see that Forgiveness Requires sacrifice. And the Only One who can Be the Bridge that Connects man To God once more is through the sinless Man, the Last Adam. And there is only one sinless thing in the world, God. So it Had to be God in flesh to make that sacrifice and he did. Glory to the Lord☦️ Κύριε ελεήσον🙏🏻❤️
Hi, Salaam, nice video guys. Any plans to do more irl content like u did when you visited the Church?
Hey bobsbobbs
Yeah, we have some things in the works, just have been distracted by other commitments at the moment. But we intend on branching out from just simple commentary videos
@@MuslimMindsUS 😁
In the trinity, it is not that confusing, they are not all the same person
Father = god
Son = god
Holy spirit = god
This could mean they all have the same divine nature, of being all not created and eternal.
Does them all being god make them the same person? No, that was never implied, they all share the same value, in the transitive property of congruence, are a and b the same? or b and c the same, they equal each other but are not the same number.
The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but they are three separate persons with distinct roles and there’s only one God, simple.
"Can God create a rock too big for Him to lift?"
The thing is, a rock too big for Him to lift is a conceptual impossibility. But God is all powerful, and defines concepts. If you are imposing the impossible concept of 'a rock God can't lift' then God can do the impossible concept of lifting it anyway.
Side note: a lot of the time, your arguments against him are that he is stating things without explaining why. But this is a ten minute video. He can't get into the reasons why in a short time. I recommend reacting to his recent video on the history of reformed theology, especially the first part.
The human nature must submite to the follow because its an example to show for us humans to submit to God
We can also say like:
The Father = John Mogensen
The son = Bamses Venner
The Holy Spirit = Shubidua
this is literally counting the angels on the head of the pin stuff.
8:54 why is an analogy for the trinity not being accepted an issue but when the Quran/Authentic says allah is like nothing in creation but then says he has hands ,feet etc why is it no longer an issue? it's a foot like no other in creation and any way to explain how these facets of god works would inherently be wrong since we have no framework to even convince of such an idea. Genuinely curious ; great vid as always
edit : also isnt 26:18 a bit unfair consider every apologist of any religion says this? a Christian or a hindu or whatever can claim how if the Qurran is co enteral with allah but not allah then it's a contridiction but when a muslim explains why they feel this is not couldn't the non muslim accuse the same thing you guys are? you bring up the jesus not knowing the hour and i'm sure you heard this before but when a christian say the greek word used for know is to declare why is that not acceptable but when a muslim says when the Qurran uses We for allah it's the royal decree we not the group we . Why is that explanation acceptable and not the other couldnt one use the same logic and say the Qurran(more so in this instance since it is divinely revealed rather divinely inspired) is clear and muslims are just changing it? also the reason they have authority is exactly the same reason why sunni's have more authority than sufis and Ahmadiyyas
Why did Jesus need to die for us? Because the Bible says the wages of sin is death. It doesn't matter how good you think you are, sin is abhorrent to God who is perfect goodness.
Paul said that, but it's anathema to the Tanakh. The theology of Paul is foreign to the G-d of Israel.
@@captainpandabear1422 Paul's letters are part of the Bible. Christians are not going to deny the apostle Paul. It's just wasted effort on the part of anti Paul individuals.
Why should an innocent man be killed for your sins
10:25
Can God take on Human form? Yes
Can God withhold his power? Yes (even allah does it)
Can God withhold his power while he is in the human form in order to let the human form die? Yes
Can God use his power while he is in the human form in order to not let the human form die or do miracles to others? Yes
Can God while in human form learn how it feels like walking from Jerusalem to Damascus or how bread tastes like? Yes (Doesn't mean he isn't all knowing when he grew in "wisdow" when experiencing human grow up period)
cont luern smrth u alrady no
@@AEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAE_ Maybe you learn english first eh? Does allah know how Coca-Cola tastes like?
How can God withholding power if he is all-powerful
@@Aliali-vc3pk The same way allah withholds his power when hiding behind a veil of light so creation won't get destroyed Sahih Muslim 179a
Withholding your power doesn't strip you from the ability to exercise that power. You can withhold your power to punch the wall, doesn't mean that you lose the "power" to punch the wall, it is still there you just choose not to do it...
bro im ngl whoever is on the right is actually intellectually stimulating me AS A CHRISTIAN but bro on the left genuinely makes my head hurt😭 no troll bro im so serious but i like the vid
The way i view it is that God could create a rock he could not lift. God created reason, so he is bigger than reason and therfore doesn't have to be subjected to it. The same applies to the concept of trinity. Since father, son and holy ghost are God, the whole trinity is bigger than reason, and reason is bigger than human comprehention, therfore God (and the trinity) doesn't need to be comprehensible, but could be. Other crazy thing is that i used reason to say that, so reason is pointing to the fact that it is not bigger than God.
Whenever the question arises why some groups with differing beliefs started to exist within Christianity the answer should be: Look at the Great Commission, where Jesus has already been resurrected and it is written some doubted after even seeing Jesus alive again (Gospel of Matthew 28:16-17), showing that even some of the disciples present at the event were doubtful. Knowing that imagine people who just learned of the events trough mere "hearsay", they're bound to having at least some doubts.
All the sacrifices and good actions of humanity could not save a single soul.
Mark 13:32 debunked:
Jesus's is compared to a bridegroom (John 3:28-30). The coming of Jesus to rescue the church is like a bridegroom coming for his bride, and obviously in context of Jewish wedding tradition. The similarities are quite fascinating, and the phrase "only the father knows" (which is the core argument of Mark 13:32) plays also a role in it. Please look into this yourself for more details, I'm just gonna give a brief breakdown:
- The offering of wine to the bride as proposal (Lord's Supper)
- going to his father's house and preparing a place for the bride to move in (John 14:1-3)
- "no one knows but the father" is a common phrase in that Jewish wedding tradition, and it's not speaking of ignorance but that the father is the one that will declare the hour of the wedding DUE to the bridegroom moving in with his bride in his FATHERS house, because it is his house he is the one declaring when they are done with the preparations. The bridegroom knows when that will be but out of honor he will let the father declare the hour, hence he is answering to anyone curious with "no one knows but my father". The community might know roughly the month of the wedding, but not the hour, similar to us who know the signs of end times but not the hour.
Christ Jesus knows the hour for he is God and all knowing, just like the bridegroom knows the hour, but it's only for the father to declare the hour.
Second explanation comes from the greek:
“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, *but only* the Father.
The translation of "but only", in Greek, actually says *εἰ (ei) μὴ (mē)* = if not
“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, *if not* the Father.
Which is 100% true.
Also if you read the whole chapter of Mark 13:32 in context, Jesus explains signs of end times, the way it will come and how we will know. So he has the knowledge for details of end times but not the "hour" ? Again affirming that the meaning of "know" in the sense of declaring instead of ignorance.
In Acts 1:6-7 The disciples ask Jesus about the hour AGAIN, but this time *post resurrection*:
"So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority."
*AGAIN* affirming that it is not for *THEM* to know, he didn't say "oh sorry guys I already told you that I don't know the hour"
Conclusion: Jesus Christ knows the hour, but it is for no one to declare except the father.
Jesus being god opens up to idolatry.
Now, you see these BHI claiming that he is black.
The question now is, is your man-god a white man?
Your entire argument is debunked by the simple fact that this same verse is also found in Matthew with slightly altered wordage.
Matthew 24:26
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
The "but only the Father" part in Greek is as follows:
εἰ μόνος μόνος ὁ Πατὴρ
So the word in Mark 13:32 you referred to "εἰ (ei)", meaning "if", or "but" in this context, is followed by "μόνος (monos)", meaning "only" which puts to rest any doubt of whether it is speaking about the Father in isolation.
This wordage is also found all over the New Testament to indicate exception.
You also say that the Greek says "εἰ μὴ" in Mark 13:32, but it doesn't. The word "μὴ (mé)", which means "not", is not even found in Mark 13:32. So I don't know where you got that from.
@@genericuser-1 Entire argument is not debunked because it's not about the "only the father", it's about the "know". The argument still remains that "knowing" was meant by declaring, not in the sense of ignorance.
The greek argument I brought up is just a tiny tiny argument about the phrasing of "only the father" or "if not the father", which is found in the greek of mark 13:32 if you do just a little research.
@@1geko818 Ok, then let me debunk your claims regarding the usage of the word οἶδεν (oiden), it does indeed mean "know" and denotes knowledge. The word used in John 16:30 is the same as that used in Mark 13:32. That is to say, the disciples claim that Jesus knows all things in the former verse, and Jesus claims that he does not know the Hour in the latter verse. And the same word is used. So here we run into a direct contradiction.
Let us look at the word's usage in the Bible
1. to see
a. to perceive with the eyes
b. to perceive by any of the senses
c. to perceive, notice, discern, discover
d. to see
1. i.e. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything
2. to pay attention, observe
3. to see about something
a. i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it
4. to inspect, examine
5. to look at, behold
e. to experience any state or condition
f. to see i.e. have an interview with, to visit
2. to know
a. to know of anything
b. to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive
1. of any fact
2. the force and meaning of something which has definite meaning
to know how, to be skilled in
3. to have regard for one, cherish, pay attention to (1 Thessalonians 5:12)
For Synonyms see entry 5825
Never once is this word used in the way you are saying it was used anywhere else in the Bible, nor does it make any logical sense or grammatical sense within the text.
@@1geko818 I just explained to you that the word not is not found anywhere in the Greek of Mark 13:32.
Here is the Greek: δὲ Περὶ ἐκείνης ἡμέρας ἢ ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανῷ οὐδὲ ὁ Υἱός εἰ ὁ Πατήρ
nowhere do you find the word ""μὴ (mé)"
As to your question of why Jesus needed to die for us, and why God can't just forgive us anyway, it's because God is infinitely just. If your kid gets into debt to you, you can forgive the debt, but then you still have to take the hit for it. The payment has to come from somewhere.
A second reason is that God helps us by essentially putting a bit of Himself into us. He gives us a bit of His love, so we can love each other. He gives us a bit of His mental power, so we can think. But we have sinned. So now we need to submit, to give in our sinful ways, and essentially die to ourselves. But since we are completely sinful, we can't do that. God has to help us. And how can God help us to submit and die when God never does that?
But suppose God became a human? That human could suffer, and submit, and die, and since He is God he can do it perfectly, and we can do it perfectly through Him and by His example.
What have you been drinking why God cannot forgive and reward why the creator needs to be creation and he creator at the same. How can you be fully the creator and be creation at the same time, fully each. God just forgives.
@@Aliali-vc3pk great job at speaking heresy, seems like someone failed to grasp the concept of incarnation
Explanation of religeion had been told excellently by swami vivekananda in 1893 at parliament of world religeions in Chicago. It had changed the perception of religeion for the whole world . Speech is now in UA-cam known asEnglish speech of swami vivekananda and his biography is also in UA-cam named as Swadesh chetna. You can take a look to both videos.
19:00 the father is greater then him bc he became man in his divinity there equal I already quoted Philippians 2:6-11 but I’ll do it again
Hi a christian here I just wanted to point out that you guys seem more sincere than other muslims that I have seen although I find many of your supposed errors or contradictions problematic but I wont really go into that topic because you guys most likely wont see it anyways
Jesus sometimes calls Himself Son of Man and Sometimes clearly claims to be God. He humbled Himself to share in our nature. Which is why we can't separate His two natures.❤
Quran 5:73 is said that do not call allah the third of three gods To criticize the trinity. But the problem is quran 5:73 actually mention tritheism heresy which mean three distinc divine will. Three distinc person one divine will is not the same as three distinc in person and will
14:30 Jesus divinity didn’t cease to exist when his human flesh died he wasn’t necessarily “dead” you can say that’s why three days later he arose nothing is a “contradiction” you just don’t understand our theology
You guys should react to the debate between Jay Dyer and Jake the Muslim Metaphysician!
Than you for the rec Ernesto ⭐️
Why do you put limits to God?
We are not putting limits. We are describing things that are not in his nature. For example, God cannot become an ignorant, evil, weak sentient potato that cannot return to being all powerful. Just because God “technically” can’t do something so ludicrous and bizarre does not take away from his majesty. That’s a silly example but it gets the point across:
God cannot be weak
He cannot die
He cannot be evil
He cannot stop exiting
He cannot create another more powerful God
He cannot be confined to the dimensions of our reality
Etc
All i can say is....its complicated 😂 i dont understand it either but you have taste and see
14:56
God didn’t die but he took upon the pain from all of are sins
When Jesus came down he came to fulfill the prophecy only someone sinless can die for our sins and god is perfect and sinless that’s why he came down and he is also a prophet so he came down to spread the message more in John 1 he’s the word Christ is the one that shows the invisible god Colossians 1:15-17
This makes wonder what the equivalent of this is for Islam. Not necessarily the most significant problem, like the Problem of Evil or whatever, but just the most convoluted and technical problem. Like how thousands of Christian scholars over the millenia have had to spend 50 million brain-hours trying to explain how the Trinity could actually work. What's the closest equivalent.
When it comes to the Trinity most people think that God is just One being, but the better way to think about it is to consider the notion that God is more like a divine essence and not a being and if that approach is to complicated, think about it more like a family: While the father and son are two distinct beings they're still part of the same family and in this case the family is called God.
Is only the son the family too? Is it still a family if the mother dies? Analogies don't work.
@@fazex4185 Would the death really mean that the person stops being part of the family?
That my friend, is a heresy
@@leeamerson4768 I know, yet I find it to be the "best" way to try to explain the trinity is somewhat simple terms.
If you really want to know why God needed to sacrifice himself for the sake of salvation. We can go back into the old testament, at which point Abraham was given a challenging request: Kill his son on the mountain. It was a test of his faith, but instead, God told Abraham to kill a ram as his offering.
What's really important about it is that the Ram, was innocent. Just as Jesus was when he was crucified. He committed no sin, but he suffered punishment anyway. But it served as a sacrifice, like the ram. All so that you were able to earn God's grace and be declared righteous if you believe in his sacrifice. Abraham in this case, was devoted to his God, who is our God. As God is devoted to his grace to his creation.
So really, God's sacrifice was a testament to that. Of how much he loves his creation and wished to give them grace.
Edit: I used an example from the old testament because I know that Muslims believe in the old testament.
Also just cause you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it isn’t necessarily true that’s a fallacy also you limited god throughout this video he can became a baby and die for our sins if your saying he can’t then ur limiting god I get that you guys don’t understand some things but you should ask questions but you’ve been making points saying stuff about the trinity and Jesus that can easily be refuted don’t make points if you don’t understand what your talking about
bro i’m not meaning to comment so much but bro it’s not a “switch” 26:30 have u ever heard of the term “mutually exclusive” and btw this is all love i don’t want that to get misconstrued or anything of that sort gang
18:37 what contradictions ur just talking at this point 😂
18:00 you contradicted yourself “God all powerful but he can’t become human and die” if he can’t do something he’s not all powerful therefore he’s not God your just gonna keep burying your self if you say he’s all powerful but he can’t do a certain thing
U guys don’t understand the trinity it’s 3 distinct persons I can debunk all of your claims I’ve debated many Muslims they all say the same thing find a different argument
Trying to understand islam does not make more sense explain why allah in your authentic hadiths has two right hands eyes and a shin
Nice video!
Regarding Trinity. We know trinity is true because that is what the Holy Scripture revealed to us. How does it work exactly? We Christians don't know. We don't know the exact mechanism of Trinity because we are mere sinful mortals, and we can never fully understand the mystery of God himself. But we have faith in what the Holy Scripture revealed to us, which the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same God, they are the same being and have the same essence. However they are three different persons in relation to each other, with different hypostasis. Does it make sense? No. God's mystery DOESN'T need to make sense to human's earthly understanding. We have faith.
Job was faithful to God, the most righteous person in the world at his time, yet God allowed Satan to torture Job, letting Job to suffer the worst fate in the Bible next to Jesus. Does it make sense? No. But God knows what He is doing and we have faith in him.
To hang up on the "making sense" of Trinity is either trying to elevating ourselves to the level of God, or to lower God's status to us mortals.
There is no analogy and no comparable thing in the observable universe can describe Trinity because God is ONLY ONE, and His unique divine nature is to God alone.
Btw as a long time follower I love your content and your respectfulness. I wish all religious discourses between Christians and Muslims can be like this, calm and civil, instead of resulting in violence and extremism.
And I actually agree with your criticism of Redeemed Zoomer that he always jump into conclusion without providing explanation and reasoning. But I guess for the length of his videos, it is not practical for him to dive into the reasons. Some topics would require a several volumes of books to articulate.
6:20 the spirit knows the hour it’s talking about all things in flesh/created and sense Jesus was in flesh he doesn’t know the final hour that’s why Philippians 2:6-11 says he humbled himself and became a human so don’t use that argument it’s been debunked many times
18:11 the I am statements isn’t the only place where he said he’s God revelations 1:8 he calls himself the first and the last one of God titles and many more places it says Jesus or the son is God hebrews 1:8-11 all of John 1 Titus 2-13 and so many more I can name and if we can’t trust the reliability of the Bible why should I trust the reliability of the Quran it’s a double edged sword if you say that
omg…bro yall don’t know what salvation is and it shows 😭 this is why it “needs” to be like this smh the ONLY reason it’s like this because of human sin and the debt we owed for our sins
From an outsider looking into religion, the islamic view that jesus was just a prophet/messenger/both does appear to make more sense than the christian view that he is god.
Christians explaining God: 500 pages of complex theology book
Muslims explaining God: 1 lmao
"Muslims explaining God: 1 lmao"
Yeah, except Atharis, Asharis, Maturidis, most Shias, and the Falsafa of Ibn Sina et al don't have the same conceptions of tawheed. Muslims (especially those engaged in Islamic apologetics) often have an interest in not informing outsiders about diversity and intense debate within Islamic theology concerning the doctrine of God though, of course.
Which might sound compelling but raises the question if God really is that simple, eh? The Quran itself makes the claim that Allah is unlike anything in creation (Sura 42:11), so if God is 1 in the sense they view it as 1 being and 1 person, instead of the Trinity 1 being 3 persons, then allah would share a key characteristic with us humans which also are 1 being 1 person. Just some food for thought. God bless
@@1geko818 Not only that but there's also the idea that the Qur'an is coeternal with Allâh, which contradicts the concept of Tahweed (Oneness). Not to mention the discovery of 26 different versions of the Qur'an throughout Egypt by Jay Smith and his colleagues which would be an impossibility if the Qur'an was eternal (in the sense that it doesn't change, which is often claimed).
great strawman and kinda downplaying islamic theology lool tawheed is a basis but it's been debated for as long as Islam as been around (in terms of how it works)
You know, muhammed probably had crooked teeth given the historical context. I take that into account for my personal belief.
Ok?
23:40 … bro that’s gotta be some typa heresy 😂u said why can’t God understand basically that he messed up and made flawed creation…dude what?
and Jesus had to defeat death, which is why he needed to resurrect, and God is a RELATIONAL being which means if it really came down to it, which it did 😂, he’d suffer with and for us without thinking twice because when u have a relationship with someone, you’ll wanna be with them for eternity and be in their presence, so this was how God made sure we could have a chance at Heaven as sinful as we are. and God says our good deeds are as filthy rags, so imagine doing good deeds with the presumption of the good deeds getting u there alone? bro u might as well have pooped on the rag💀
What bullshit nonesense you are talking about
I'd love y'all to have a debate with someone
🎉🎉 sending reaction
The next react to "The pagan origins of christianity" please
get in a call with sam shamoun !
So he can insult my mom and call me a dog the minute I ask him a question he doesn’t like?
No, not for debate to answer your questions about things that you ask, he can be respectful like this Shabbir ally debate
nice video, free Palestine
Do you support sharia law?
No thanks
You are a youtuber and a student and a worker for example.that s how chritians view their god
No, that's a heresy called Modalism, as explained in the video. The trinity has no analogies in this universe. The Holy Trinity is incomparable.
Incoherent it is internally contradictinary
Christianity is pure paganism and a contradiction in itself. If each person is fully God how you say you have one God. If all the person collectively make one God then the cannot each be fully God. What nonsense 😅
The Holy Trinity is under no obligation to make sense to you.
L theology, but you're respectful about it ig 👍
Religious people and their delusions 😂😂😂😂
I would take it that you're an atheist? If that's the case don't forget that you believe in the biggest delusion there is: that nothing created everything.
I'm a Latter-day Saint (Mormon) and we don't believe in the Trinity. The best way to look at it the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is that they share in the same divine nature however exist as their own personages or beings. I'd also like to add that Jesus wasn't fully perfected until his resurrection and ascension into heaven. Through obedience and aligning his will to the Father's he was granted exaltation or perfection. The goal for us human beings is to sit on a throne and become like the Father and Son a divine ruler in the heavens. See Revelation 3:21 and Romans 8:16-18 this clarifies our divine potential as heirs of God.
Just so Rohaib and Hamza are aware, Mormons not only deny the Trinity, but also deny the eternality of God, because Mormon belief is "as man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be." Just pointing this out before we consider learning about theology from blaspheming atheists.
Well in neither Revelations 3:21 nor Romans 8:16-18 in states Mormons as being the only "heirs" of God, rather it speaks about those who have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside them "For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"" Romans 8:15
This video isnt very Good at explaining the trinity; you will only find the true explanation from the eastern orthodox unchanged true church. Jesus restors our humna nature which fell due to adams sin. Sin seperates us from the father; thats why moses is told abyone who sees God will die.
You guys should have a discussion with Redeemed Zoomer. That would be great