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! :
Hey guys really appreciate your tone! It’s always good to hear from people who irenically advocate for their beliefs. I totally agree about people yelling in comments not being an effective way of changing minds haha! As a Protestant Christian I have been speaking with a lot of Mormons and was struck with some of the surface level similarities with Islam while being totally opposite in their conception of God. Similar prophet who restored the true religion that Jesus taught that people fell away from, received a book that he recited to his followers, used his authority to gain women and power, died before establishing a solid succession which caused the first major split in the religion etc, but then he says God used to be a man which is the LEAST islamic thing I have ever heard 😂 anyway thought that was an interesting connection but don’t know too many Muslims in my area to talk to about it, would love to hear your thoughts!
Appreciate the support TheRoark! Interesting insights, but in my opinion those are VERY surface level and after thinking about it, not really similar at all in Islam, although I'm not too sure on Mormon fundamental beliefs. Firstly, in Islam we believe Muhammad (SAW) is the final messenger, no one is coming after him to brings Allah's (Gods) revelation. Secondly, I'm not too sure on the Mormonism's founder and the origin story, is there any proof its reliable and trustworthy? In Islam, we believe Muhammad (SAW) is a messenger based on numerous proofs and his character which even Islam's greatest enemies didn't deny. Muhamamd (SAW) didnt use his authority to get women and power, and the system of succession was established by having consensus of a council to elect the new leader, as establishing a line of succession through family or some other way is more inclined to corruption. And there are numerous other things but it'll take a long time to write about and we are not full-blown scholars at the end of the day, lol. Hope that clarifies though! -Hamza
@@MuslimMindsUS hey thanks for the reply! Yeah the cores of the religions are definitely different, especially in their theology proper, but there are those superficial connections from an outside perspective. Of course with the character of the prophet(s) each group claims their prophet is moral, but for both from an outside perspective I find those claims hard to believe. One example would be both Joseph Smith and Muhammad taking other men’s wives and marrying underage women as an example, though I know Joseph Smith’s wives didn’t get into him for sleeping with his slaves so there is a point of difference. And I am sure Muslims have ways to view those events in a way that doesn’t bring dishonor to Muhammad so I don’t mean to be overly inflammatory, just trying to point out an issue I have as an outsider. Keep up the content! :)
Thanks Kenny, happy you commented and enjoy the podcast format we are starting! Any feedback on what we can do better, let us know, always open to constructive criticism! -Hamza
While I'm a Christian and don't think that Islam is true. You did help me see that Islam is not violent religion and we have a lot in common. David Wood is someone I used to follow and he has it out for Islam. I stopped following his work after he tried to defend himself from the Christian community after eating the Quran. Thankfully a lot of christians called him out and told him he was going too far. All people deserve respect even if we don't agree with their stance
Yeah there is a difference is disagreeing with a belief system and just being hateful and disrespectful, glad to hear you moved away from that jleewtaers, appreciate the comment! -Hamza
Violence and destruction in Iraq is done by Christian USA helped with it’s sheep, violence and destruction is done by Christian USA, destruction and violence is Palestine is done by the Zionist. We have nothing in common, you worship a baby God ( a creation) and we believe in Allah (the creator).
@@OwenNovakChildofGod We addressed hateful views and hate comments in this Podcast Owen, why do you believe such a false understanding when we went over it in this podcast itself? -Hamza
I think the perception of the many Christian denominations is caused by you living in the USA where almost all splinter groups, often branded heretics and persecuted in the past, ended up. Here in my part of Germany there are only 3 denominations: the Catholic church (which the vast majority belongs to), the Protestant church founded by Martin Luther, which came here after WW2 with the displaced Protestant Germans from eastern Prussia and Silesia and the free protestant church which came with the remnants of the by Stalin persecuted and genocides "Russia/Wolga-Germans" of eastern Europe. So while I totally get that the view on Christianity seems like a splintered mess in the USA, it is actually the exception with the rest of the Christian world usually just having one denomination present (or like in our case minority denominations present due to refugees/ displaced people living among us) with the vast majority of American churches being regarded as sects at best and outright heretics at worst
@@MuslimMindsUS You are both open and honest, not much I can critique. You have your own beliefs and I'm fascinated by both of your views and thoughts from an Islamic perspective. One thing that would be interesting is a video that looks at the positives and similarities between Islam and Catholicism/Christianity. As a Catholic I do see Muslims as brothers and sisters in a sense. Otherwise, I'd love to see you guys go in person to the Traditional Roman Catholic Mass in the sung or solemn form in person and hear your perspective and thoughts on it.
Hey, Guys, I love your channel! been watching you guys from time to time for awhile now. I am a Catholic Christian, and yeah I do admit Islam does make some fair criticisms towards Christianity.I am pretty firm into my faith, and I love our Lord Jesus. I appreciate you guys pointing out some muslim apologist who are very ignorant, and quite dismissive of christian views(as well as christian apologists like David wood who I am not a fan of) who also dont seem to have any humility if im quite honest. I know I have a limited experience, living in America but every interaction with a muslim(besides you two) has been negative. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits, and when I see the fruits from muslims, I see nothing but pride and ignorance. And yes I am aware that islam doesn't teach these things, but this is my observation. and most of this interaction is from the Internet ofc, so maybe not the best source, but every time I see a muslim say something about Christianity is ALWAYS 100% of the time coming from a place of pride and ignorance. I see no love and humility from muslims, and I hate to say it, but I only see hate. I suppose my issue with islam, if I was considering it, is that it's not as much of a global religion as you say. I am white, and I do feel as though muslims(who are mostly brown or black) hate me. I realize this is not what the Quran teaches, but these are the fruits, this is the reality I see from outside looking in. The fact you even have to speak arabic to know and love God seems problematic to me if it's a global religion and truly for everyone. I realize it was revealed in arabic, and so needs to be preserved that way, but why do I have to call God Allah to be saved? is God really going to hate me if I dont? I guess my question to you, cause Im not sure the answer--Can I be muslim without ever saying a single word in Arabic? and if the answer is no, its not a global religion--its a tribal God. and please, forgive me if any of this is ignorant, these are just my thoughts/ concerns regarding islam as a whole. Maybe you can help relieve some of this cause I am genuinely curious
Hey TheOtokos, appreciate the support and comment! I’m sorry to hear you have experienced hate from Muslims, and you said it yourself it’s not what Islam teaches. That’s similar to us saying we don’t like Americans or Christianity based on their majority hateful view of Islam, but to put that on the religion itself is wrong, and as Muslims we do face the most hate from the western world. You don’t have to know Arabic to be a Muslim, the only criteria to be a Muslim is testifying there is only one God, and the prophet Muhammad may peace be upon him is the final messenger. That’s all. So islam is a global religion since anyone can adopt that and then put in some time to learn how God wants us to worship him as Muslims. It’s happened in history where people have accepted Islam and never prayed a single prayer, then died in battle, and they are 100% Muslims no question. Hope that clarifies your comment and concern. -Hamza
Hey I've enjoyed some of your reaction videos but I did have a question that maybe you can answer or clarify here. Just so you know I am a christian. Now when it comes to the abrahamic faiths I can't help but notice that islam is different from both christianity and judaism in a big way. Jews and christians disagree about the person of Jesus they say he wasn't the messiah and he wasn't even a prophet and definitely wasn't God made flesh. We say the opposite. Muslims kinda have a middle perspective. But for jews and christians we have a common text that we can dispute over(the old testament). We say "Jesus was the the messiah and God, here let me show you using the scriptures" They say "no he was neither, let me show you using the scriptures". Muslims come in and say "you're both wrong he was the messiah but he was not God" we say "can you show that using the scriptures" you say "no those documents have been corrupted from the originals" we say "can you provide these uncorrupted documents" you say "nope, they are lost to history" we say "why should we believe that" you say "because the prophet muhammad pbuh said so 600 years after the fact". So you say that islam is very logical and rational in this video, but at least in this respect I don't see how it is more logical or rational than either judaism or christianity(maybe it is in other respects idk haven't looked into it). Why should either of us take islam seriously when when this is one of the central claims?
The truth is not time bound and the Quranic claim being 600 years after is not relevant for a Muslim because we believe the Quran to be true revelation from God. Secular historians have affirmed the Islamic narrative and say the Quran we have today is the same as the first Muslims had. Preserved both through memorization and carbon dated manuscripts which we have 100% of the total Quran in extant manuscripts from the first 100 years since the prophets death. The reason this is important is due to the statements made in the Quran regarding reality, predictions, and history, that the prophet could not have known about. As for the corruption claim. The ask for these corrupted documents would ignore the issues circulating the current biblical texts. The biblical texts we have today are the corrupted versions of the original messages. The proof for this is the lack of historicity and proof of who wrote the text / the New Testament formation over a large span of time. The first completed New Testament cannon was about 300 years post Jesus, and this was during the same time of other heretical groups with their own versions of the faith such as ebionites which did not believe Jesus to be God. The earliest manuscript we have of the New Testament is a credit card sized piece of a page from John’s gospel that is dated 115 years after Jesus. The Old Testament has an even greater issue of historicity as the earliest manuscripts we have are the Dead Sea scrolls which are dated over 1000 years after Moses, so there isn’t a way to substantiate these texts. Jewish scholars also reject the Dead Sea scrolls as completely accurate or totally reliable. Jewish scholarship admit the tanakh went through a series of redactors and became a compilation of several independent writings over time. Another evidence of corruption is lost understanding of verses or the theology. The Jews not recognizing Jesus as the messiah is a corruption. The many Christian sects and confusion dating back to the earliest Christian groups also indicates corruption. The echoing of the Christian cannon with the Greco-Roman paganism that was rampant at the time also does not appear to be a coincidence but rather a mixing of the ideologies and corruption. Thanks to
@MuslimMindsUS Sorry i'm a bit late had work. I appreciate the amicable response, but I have to disagree with some of what you say. Firstly there are secular historians that will also affirm that modern translations of the Bible are accurate to what the original documents say. Secular scholars agreeing with either of us I don't think really ends the debate either way, as you can find secular scholars that will disagree with both our narratives. Now I'm not sure what you mean by the first completed new testament canon was completed 300 years post jesus. Are you referring to the codex sinaiticus? I think this is from around 350 ad. This is the first completed document however a list of canonical Scriptures predates this in the muratorian fragment which only has a handful of books from the modern canon missing and it's from around 150 years before the codex sinaiticus. Also not sure what the ebionites are supposed to show about original uncorrupted christianity. As far as I'm aware the first mention of the group by name comes from irenaeus around 180 ad they are possibly described earlier by justin martyr but not named in 155 ad. That's not a lot to go off of. I think most scholars place the formation of this particular sect after the destruction of the temple in 70 ad. Now if you're gonna show that true christianity was corrupted you would have to show evidence of a sect of christians that predates Pauline christianity(the sect all modern denominations are based on) now that's gonna be pretty hard because obviously it's as old as Paul. Most scholars place his conversion to the mid 30s ad and I think he began to establish churches in the late 30s ad. As far as I'm aware there were only the judaizers but there is no evidence of christological debates among these two sects the debates surround the role of the law of mozes and we know from the writings of paul that he taught the divinity of jesus. As for the manuscript evidence and the earliest fragment being 115 years after. again most scholars agree that modern translations are accurate to what the originals said. The earliest copies of plato's works are from the 800s ad well over a thousand year after he died no scholar says we don't know what plato taught. As for the old testament I'm just gonna address the torah because going over every book of the prophets would take a while. Now what you say about the earliest manuscripts is not entirely accurate anymore, the ketef hinnom scrolls have a fragmant containing the priestly blessing from the book of numbers. It is dated to around 600 bc. Now, moving on, there is a the documentary hypothesis which you might be referring to, about the origin of the modern torah. That it was probably compiled in it's modern form around 400 or 500 bc(I think) but it was based on 4 earlier sources(yahwist, elohist, deuteronomist and priestly) even if we accept this idea it really doesn't help the muslims case. You claim the modern torah is an inaccurate corruption. But this idea doesn't say that at all. It says we actually do have a pretty good idea of the contents of these source documents, since the torah is a compilation of these documents. It's based partly on the language being used where God is referred to as yahwe its the yahwist source, if elohim is used it's the elohist. So the scholarship does say that we don't have the original documents, but we still have a good idea of what the contents of the original documents were. Lastly about mixing of christian and pagan ideologies. Now I'm not entirely convinced that this is a bad thing if a pagan philosopher ever said anything that is true we ought not to deny it otherwise we make God the enemy of truth. And if this is a sign of corruption I don't think Islam is off the hook then. How many of your theologians integrated both aristotelian and platonic philosophy into their systems when doing theology in the islamic golden age. Is this not a sign of corruption?
“You just have to memorize the Quran without having to understand it” explains well how so many Muslims got no clue about all the wrongs in the Quran and Hadiths that prove islam to be false. You two seem to be very confident in your religion so I suggest you look up Christian Prince videos, maybe even give him a call. He’s the only Christian you’ll find that actually knows the Quran and could give y’all a fair challenge in your beliefs. He’ll probably even show you stuff about Islam that you didn’t know about, I.e its okay to marry your bastard daughter. Consider it. All love
Thanks for the comment, however you misunderstood what I was saying. Muslims are aware from many ahadith (narrations from the Prophet Muhammad SAW) that there are great rewards for memorizing the whole Quran, so many muslims take on that goal. You can memorize the Quran in arabic without having to understand the language of Arabic itself, of course you can read the Quran translation in your language as many people do. People who memorize the whole Quran in arabic without understanding the language of Arabic itself, usually accompany that memorizing with reading the Quran in their respective language as that is very easy to do, learning arabic itself is difficult. We know from the Quran that God/Allah made the Quran easy for us to memorize since its in a unique style, its farily easy to memorize the arabic even without understanding the language, you just need to know how to read arabic letters properly. What I said has 100% opposite from the way you took it, seems to be you came with personal biases and assumed something which I never said. No problem at all, not mad, but its just not what I said at all. Also, its in the quran itself Allag says you cannot marry your own kids lol, dont need to look into someone with an agenda against muslims to explain Islam to us. -Hamza
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! :
Hey guys really appreciate your tone! It’s always good to hear from people who irenically advocate for their beliefs. I totally agree about people yelling in comments not being an effective way of changing minds haha!
As a Protestant Christian I have been speaking with a lot of Mormons and was struck with some of the surface level similarities with Islam while being totally opposite in their conception of God. Similar prophet who restored the true religion that Jesus taught that people fell away from, received a book that he recited to his followers, used his authority to gain women and power, died before establishing a solid succession which caused the first major split in the religion etc, but then he says God used to be a man which is the LEAST islamic thing I have ever heard 😂 anyway thought that was an interesting connection but don’t know too many Muslims in my area to talk to about it, would love to hear your thoughts!
Appreciate the support TheRoark!
Interesting insights, but in my opinion those are VERY surface level and after thinking about it, not really similar at all in Islam, although I'm not too sure on Mormon fundamental beliefs.
Firstly, in Islam we believe Muhammad (SAW) is the final messenger, no one is coming after him to brings Allah's (Gods) revelation. Secondly, I'm not too sure on the Mormonism's founder and the origin story, is there any proof its reliable and trustworthy? In Islam, we believe Muhammad (SAW) is a messenger based on numerous proofs and his character which even Islam's greatest enemies didn't deny.
Muhamamd (SAW) didnt use his authority to get women and power, and the system of succession was established by having consensus of a council to elect the new leader, as establishing a line of succession through family or some other way is more inclined to corruption.
And there are numerous other things but it'll take a long time to write about and we are not full-blown scholars at the end of the day, lol.
Hope that clarifies though!
-Hamza
@@MuslimMindsUS hey thanks for the reply! Yeah the cores of the religions are definitely different, especially in their theology proper, but there are those superficial connections from an outside perspective.
Of course with the character of the prophet(s) each group claims their prophet is moral, but for both from an outside perspective I find those claims hard to believe. One example would be both Joseph Smith and Muhammad taking other men’s wives and marrying underage women as an example, though I know Joseph Smith’s wives didn’t get into him for sleeping with his slaves so there is a point of difference.
And I am sure Muslims have ways to view those events in a way that doesn’t bring dishonor to Muhammad so I don’t mean to be overly inflammatory, just trying to point out an issue I have as an outsider.
Keep up the content! :)
Very cool! I enjoy your calm and open approach to learning about other religions and sharing an Islamic perspective
Thanks Kenny, happy you commented and enjoy the podcast format we are starting! Any feedback on what we can do better, let us know, always open to constructive criticism!
-Hamza
While I'm a Christian and don't think that Islam is true. You did help me see that Islam is not violent religion and we have a lot in common. David Wood is someone I used to follow and he has it out for Islam. I stopped following his work after he tried to defend himself from the Christian community after eating the Quran. Thankfully a lot of christians called him out and told him he was going too far. All people deserve respect even if we don't agree with their stance
Yeah there is a difference is disagreeing with a belief system and just being hateful and disrespectful, glad to hear you moved away from that jleewtaers, appreciate the comment!
-Hamza
Violence and destruction in Iraq is done by Christian USA helped with it’s sheep, violence and destruction is done by Christian USA, destruction and violence is Palestine is done by the Zionist. We have nothing in common, you worship a baby God ( a creation) and we believe in Allah (the creator).
Islam IS a violent religion though, LOL! Don't be deceived by "friendly appearances", even the Devil appears as an angel of light.
@@OwenNovakChildofGod We addressed hateful views and hate comments in this Podcast Owen, why do you believe such a false understanding when we went over it in this podcast itself?
-Hamza
Islam is a violent religion. Read the sources! It is hateful towards other religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity and deserves to be mocked.
Podcast series has officially started 😁😤
I think the perception of the many Christian denominations is caused by you living in the USA where almost all splinter groups, often branded heretics and persecuted in the past, ended up.
Here in my part of Germany there are only 3 denominations: the Catholic church (which the vast majority belongs to), the Protestant church founded by Martin Luther, which came here after WW2 with the displaced Protestant Germans from eastern Prussia and Silesia and the free protestant church which came with the remnants of the by Stalin persecuted and genocides "Russia/Wolga-Germans" of eastern Europe.
So while I totally get that the view on Christianity seems like a splintered mess in the USA, it is actually the exception with the rest of the Christian world usually just having one denomination present (or like in our case minority denominations present due to refugees/ displaced people living among us) with the vast majority of American churches being regarded as sects at best and outright heretics at worst
love your work boys
Appreciate it bro! If you have any constructive criticism or topics you want us to look into, we are happy to hear your thoughts!
-Hamza
@@MuslimMindsUS You are both open and honest, not much I can critique. You have your own beliefs and I'm fascinated by both of your views and thoughts from an Islamic perspective.
One thing that would be interesting is a video that looks at the positives and similarities between Islam and Catholicism/Christianity. As a Catholic I do see Muslims as brothers and sisters in a sense.
Otherwise, I'd love to see you guys go in person to the Traditional Roman Catholic Mass in the sung or solemn form in person and hear your perspective and thoughts on it.
Hey, Guys, I love your channel! been watching you guys from time to time for awhile now. I am a Catholic Christian, and yeah I do admit Islam does make some fair criticisms towards Christianity.I am pretty firm into my faith, and I love our Lord Jesus.
I appreciate you guys pointing out some muslim apologist who are very ignorant, and quite dismissive of christian views(as well as christian apologists like David wood who I am not a fan of) who also dont seem to have any humility if im quite honest. I know I have a limited experience, living in America but every interaction with a muslim(besides you two) has been negative. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits, and when I see the fruits from muslims, I see nothing but pride and ignorance. And yes I am aware that islam doesn't teach these things, but this is my observation. and most of this interaction is from the Internet ofc, so maybe not the best source, but every time I see a muslim say something about Christianity is ALWAYS 100% of the time coming from a place of pride and ignorance. I see no love and humility from muslims, and I hate to say it, but I only see hate.
I suppose my issue with islam, if I was considering it, is that it's not as much of a global religion as you say. I am white, and I do feel as though muslims(who are mostly brown or black) hate me. I realize this is not what the Quran teaches, but these are the fruits, this is the reality I see from outside looking in. The fact you even have to speak arabic to know and love God seems problematic to me if it's a global religion and truly for everyone. I realize it was revealed in arabic, and so needs to be preserved that way, but why do I have to call God Allah to be saved? is God really going to hate me if I dont? I guess my question to you, cause Im not sure the answer--Can I be muslim without ever saying a single word in Arabic? and if the answer is no, its not a global religion--its a tribal God.
and please, forgive me if any of this is ignorant, these are just my thoughts/ concerns regarding islam as a whole. Maybe you can help relieve some of this cause I am genuinely curious
Hey TheOtokos, appreciate the support and comment!
I’m sorry to hear you have experienced hate from Muslims, and you said it yourself it’s not what Islam teaches. That’s similar to us saying we don’t like Americans or Christianity based on their majority hateful view of Islam, but to put that on the religion itself is wrong, and as Muslims we do face the most hate from the western world.
You don’t have to know Arabic to be a Muslim, the only criteria to be a Muslim is testifying there is only one God, and the prophet Muhammad may peace be upon him is the final messenger. That’s all. So islam is a global religion since anyone can adopt that and then put in some time to learn how God wants us to worship him as Muslims.
It’s happened in history where people have accepted Islam and never prayed a single prayer, then died in battle, and they are 100% Muslims no question.
Hope that clarifies your comment and concern.
-Hamza
i would like to see more podcasts
That’s what we like to hear CalamityPenguin 🐧 …😏
-Hamza
cant believe my favorite youtuber just responded to my comment@@MuslimMindsUS
Hey I've enjoyed some of your reaction videos but I did have a question that maybe you can answer or clarify here. Just so you know I am a christian. Now when it comes to the abrahamic faiths I can't help but notice that islam is different from both christianity and judaism in a big way.
Jews and christians disagree about the person of Jesus they say he wasn't the messiah and he wasn't even a prophet and definitely wasn't God made flesh. We say the opposite. Muslims kinda have a middle perspective. But for jews and christians we have a common text that we can dispute over(the old testament). We say "Jesus was the the messiah and God, here let me show you using the scriptures" They say "no he was neither, let me show you using the scriptures".
Muslims come in and say "you're both wrong he was the messiah but he was not God" we say "can you show that using the scriptures" you say "no those documents have been corrupted from the originals" we say "can you provide these uncorrupted documents" you say "nope, they are lost to history" we say "why should we believe that" you say "because the prophet muhammad pbuh said so 600 years after the fact".
So you say that islam is very logical and rational in this video, but at least in this respect I don't see how it is more logical or rational than either judaism or christianity(maybe it is in other respects idk haven't looked into it). Why should either of us take islam seriously when when this is one of the central claims?
The truth is not time bound and the Quranic claim being 600 years after is not relevant for a Muslim because we believe the Quran to be true revelation from God. Secular historians have affirmed the Islamic narrative and say the Quran we have today is the same as the first Muslims had. Preserved both through memorization and carbon dated manuscripts which we have 100% of the total Quran in extant manuscripts from the first 100 years since the prophets death. The reason this is important is due to the statements made in the Quran regarding reality, predictions, and history, that the prophet could not have known about.
As for the corruption claim. The ask for these corrupted documents would ignore the issues circulating the current biblical texts. The biblical texts we have today are the corrupted versions of the original messages.
The proof for this is the lack of historicity and proof of who wrote the text / the New Testament formation over a large span of time. The first completed New Testament cannon was about 300 years post Jesus, and this was during the same time of other heretical groups with their own versions of the faith such as ebionites which did not believe Jesus to be God.
The earliest manuscript we have of the New Testament is a credit card sized piece of a page from John’s gospel that is dated 115 years after Jesus.
The Old Testament has an even greater issue of historicity as the earliest manuscripts we have are the Dead Sea scrolls which are dated over 1000 years after Moses, so there isn’t a way to substantiate these texts. Jewish scholars also reject the Dead Sea scrolls as completely accurate or totally reliable. Jewish scholarship admit the tanakh went through a series of redactors and became a compilation of several independent writings over time.
Another evidence of corruption is lost understanding of verses or the theology. The Jews not recognizing Jesus as the messiah is a corruption. The many Christian sects and confusion dating back to the earliest Christian groups also indicates corruption. The echoing of the Christian cannon with the Greco-Roman paganism that was rampant at the time also does not appear to be a coincidence but rather a mixing of the ideologies and corruption.
Thanks to
@MuslimMindsUS Sorry i'm a bit late had work. I appreciate the amicable response, but I have to disagree with some of what you say. Firstly there are secular historians that will also affirm that modern translations of the Bible are accurate to what the original documents say. Secular scholars agreeing with either of us I don't think really ends the debate either way, as you can find secular scholars that will disagree with both our narratives.
Now I'm not sure what you mean by the first completed new testament canon was completed 300 years post jesus. Are you referring to the codex sinaiticus? I think this is from around 350 ad. This is the first completed document however a list of canonical Scriptures predates this in the muratorian fragment which only has a handful of books from the modern canon missing and it's from around 150 years before the codex sinaiticus.
Also not sure what the ebionites are supposed to show about original uncorrupted christianity. As far as I'm aware the first mention of the group by name comes from irenaeus around 180 ad they are possibly described earlier by justin martyr but not named in 155 ad. That's not a lot to go off of. I think most scholars place the formation of this particular sect after the destruction of the temple in 70 ad.
Now if you're gonna show that true christianity was corrupted you would have to show evidence of a sect of christians that predates Pauline christianity(the sect all modern denominations are based on) now that's gonna be pretty hard because obviously it's as old as Paul. Most scholars place his conversion to the mid 30s ad and I think he began to establish churches in the late 30s ad. As far as I'm aware there were only the judaizers but there is no evidence of christological debates among these two sects the debates surround the role of the law of mozes and we know from the writings of paul that he taught the divinity of jesus.
As for the manuscript evidence and the earliest fragment being 115 years after. again most scholars agree that modern translations are accurate to what the originals said. The earliest copies of plato's works are from the 800s ad well over a thousand year after he died no scholar says we don't know what plato taught.
As for the old testament I'm just gonna address the torah because going over every book of the prophets would take a while. Now what you say about the earliest manuscripts is not entirely accurate anymore, the ketef hinnom scrolls have a fragmant containing the priestly blessing from the book of numbers. It is dated to around 600 bc.
Now, moving on, there is a the documentary hypothesis which you might be referring to, about the origin of the modern torah. That it was probably compiled in it's modern form around 400 or 500 bc(I think) but it was based on 4 earlier sources(yahwist, elohist, deuteronomist and priestly) even if we accept this idea it really doesn't help the muslims case. You claim the modern torah is an inaccurate corruption. But this idea doesn't say that at all. It says we actually do have a pretty good idea of the contents of these source documents, since the torah is a compilation of these documents. It's based partly on the language being used where God is referred to as yahwe its the yahwist source, if elohim is used it's the elohist. So the scholarship does say that we don't have the original documents, but we still have a good idea of what the contents of the original documents were.
Lastly about mixing of christian and pagan ideologies. Now I'm not entirely convinced that this is a bad thing if a pagan philosopher ever said anything that is true we ought not to deny it otherwise we make God the enemy of truth. And if this is a sign of corruption I don't think Islam is off the hook then. How many of your theologians integrated both aristotelian and platonic philosophy into their systems when doing theology in the islamic golden age. Is this not a sign of corruption?
“You just have to memorize the Quran without having to understand it” explains well how so many Muslims got no clue about all the wrongs in the Quran and Hadiths that prove islam to be false. You two seem to be very confident in your religion so I suggest you look up Christian Prince videos, maybe even give him a call.
He’s the only Christian you’ll find that actually knows the Quran and could give y’all a fair challenge in your beliefs. He’ll probably even show you stuff about Islam that you didn’t know about, I.e its okay to marry your bastard daughter. Consider it.
All love
Thanks for the comment, however you misunderstood what I was saying. Muslims are aware from many ahadith (narrations from the Prophet Muhammad SAW) that there are great rewards for memorizing the whole Quran, so many muslims take on that goal. You can memorize the Quran in arabic without having to understand the language of Arabic itself, of course you can read the Quran translation in your language as many people do. People who memorize the whole Quran in arabic without understanding the language of Arabic itself, usually accompany that memorizing with reading the Quran in their respective language as that is very easy to do, learning arabic itself is difficult.
We know from the Quran that God/Allah made the Quran easy for us to memorize since its in a unique style, its farily easy to memorize the arabic even without understanding the language, you just need to know how to read arabic letters properly.
What I said has 100% opposite from the way you took it, seems to be you came with personal biases and assumed something which I never said. No problem at all, not mad, but its just not what I said at all.
Also, its in the quran itself Allag says you cannot marry your own kids lol, dont need to look into someone with an agenda against muslims to explain Islam to us.
-Hamza