Excellent presentation, the Islam we have today is an outcome of embellishments, interpolation, and finally the perfect synchronization of The Man, Book, and Place.A lie repeatedly told over and over again becomes REALITY.
Honestly, I'm very confused and would love some explanation by others. Despite not believing in Islam at all I always thought there existed a real Muhammad and that the Hadiths could be somewhat trusted. So this video and a few videos earlier caught me REALLY off-guard. Is this guy saying that Muhammad wasn't real and Islam was a mistake because people couldn't understand Aramaic? Also obviously having never considered this theory many things are giant question marks to me, as to why certain elements were changed so drastically from Christianity and Judaism to a point where it doesn't seem like they derived directly from Christianity. If anyone wants to respond please start by explaining to me whether the claims here are that 1. Muhammad didn't exist and 2. Islam was a mistake or 3. if it was fabricated, with which motive? Thanks
@@paulhk2727 Brother read Dr Robert Spencer's book " Did Muhammad exist" with a neutral thinking mind.Yes Muhammed did exist as a seventh century bedouin ( More in the Cira a 200 years later account with embellishmentsand fabrications), but after his death and the death of his 4 supposedly rightly guided caliphs came a succession of rulers such as the Ummayyids followed by the The Abbassids who finally had established themselves, their empire grew rivaling the Byzantine and Persian.The Abbasids needed a common religion- and a political theology, the new prophet had to be an Arab and a warrior too and from within Arabia.He came from the empire's central region.To give credence to the expansionist new empire that would place them beyond criticism, the need was for a sacred arabic scripture to lend authority.Much of the Quran shows borrowings from Judeo Christian scriptures with sprinkling of gnosticism, Zoroastranism and Manicheism. The arabic scripture had nonarabic elements and inherent coherencies( Another topic for another day...Quran emerge from qiryana Aramaic lectionaries) By investing Muhammed with prophethood and holding him up as an exemplary model sura( 33.21) the Quran sparked the hunger to know what he did and said( sunnah) not as a matter of PIOUS interest but also to formulate Islamic law.This gave the birth to hadiths that proliferated in the Ummayid era and reached its apex in the Abbasid era as a device to convince the people that the stories about the prophet were old and not new.A common justification emerged in the hadiths; all part of a divine plan as Allah even caused Muhammed to forget quranic portions, he left the collection of the Quran upto ppl who had lost parts of it( There is a sura on it I forget the number)- hence its late editing and existence of variants, but that wouldn't disturb the faith as till today most vehemently deny the 37 different Qurans ( More on Dcci ministries, Pfander films Mel, Murad, ) Islam in nature is a militant and political ideology, and worldly that departs from its Abrahamic forerunners.There is a lot to say and share but time refrains me from doing so.There are awesome channels ( Don't miss out on CP, Rob Christian, Usama Dakdok, Adam Seeker, Reasoned Answers Sam Shamoun to name a few), I mentioned a few, lotsa books and of course the internet is an awesome tool.I hope I did justice to your query in my own small way."Christianity is at war " is another awesome book that is a freedownload of 1000 pages by Theodore Shoebat.Also watch d debate between David Wood and Jay Smith on whether Muhammad existed.Also read Dr Patricia Crones bk The Meccan trade and rise of Islam ( free download).I love studying varied religions and I try to have an unbiased view.God bless.Hope this helps.
@@julietabraham476 "There is a lot to say and share but time refrains me from doing so" Are you kidding me? You just did that! Wow thanks for the effort put in your comment, I REALLY appreciate it. I'm actually pretty open minded, but just imagine being told in 40 minutes your entire belief about Islam's history is plain wrong. I trust historians and was really hyped for this series once I found it last week and it kinda blew my expectations out of proportion, that's all, it's like waking up from oblivion. Thanks again I will definitely look into the sources you provided.
@@paulhk2727 I had the same reaction as you. I'm a Christian, but I always believed Muhammed was a real person and didn't know anything about this theory that the first ''Muslims'' were actually anti-trinitarian Christians, and that all the early references to Muhammed meant ''the praised one or praised be'' as a verb, which is supposed to be about Jesus Christ. It is very interesting. One aspect I think that supports this theory is that all the biographies and Hadiths of Muhammed were written between 150 to 200+ years after Muhammed the Arab prophet supposedly existed. Why would the Muslims write about their prophet so long after he lived? If there actually were a prophet of Islam named Muhammed that lived in the 7th century and was the seal of the prophets, why wait for so many decades before writing about him? Could they not write, were they all illiterate? Perhaps there was no Arab prophet called Muhammed in the 7th century. If he didn't exist as he is described in the Hadiths and sῑra collection, then it makes sense that the Islamic literature about this Muhammed didn't exist until 150+ years later. Muhammed's character as we know it today could have developed over time because of the Arab's ignorance about the Muhammed=Jesus references in the early stages of the Quran. When the misconception was deeply rooted, then deliberate fabrications could take place. So then they could deliberately have created the Arab prophet Muhammed to compete against Jesus and the Christians. Many Muslims don't even believe in any of the Hadith collections or the sῑra collections and claim they are all fabrications, all lies. They only believe in the Quran. It seems there is possible to make a somewhat plausible case for this. It feels strange though to actually think that there was no person Muhammed as the believed seal of the prophets in the 7th century. Could a mistake actually give rise to this, is that the most plausible explanation of all the evidence? I really don't know at this point. I naturally lean more toward the idea that he existed (maybe he was just an anti-trinitarian Christian himself, but later developments made him into something he never claimed about himself). Now because of Alexander's material and others, I'm open to looking further into this. It's really interesting.
Honestly, I'm very confused and would love some explanation by others. Despite not believing in Islam at all I always thought there existed a real Muhammad and that the Hadiths could be somewhat trusted. So this video and a few videos earlier caught me REALLY off-guard. Is this guy saying that Muhammad wasn't real and Islam was a mistake because people couldn't understand Aramaic? Also obviously having never considered this theory many things are giant question marks to me, as to why certain elements were changed so drastically from Christianity and Judaism to a point where it doesn't seem like they derived directly from Christianity. If anyone wants to respond please start by explaining to me whether the claims here are that 1. Muhammad didn't exist and 2. Islam was a mistake or 3. if it was fabricated, with which motive? Thanks
@@communionvision5914 Actually his German accent simply makes him sound academic to untrained minds but for those of us who actually know what he is talking about he throws in a lot of his ow claims without any evidence, e.g. that the rock on the Temple Mount is where Jesus was crucified. Even if you use your brains just a little you can work out how false that claim is. This channel is a case of the Emperor's clothes.
@@ymir405 what you’re referring to is not my belief, but the belief of some Christian sects back then. Read the "Cave of Treasures“ if you don’t believe me.
@@TAlexander thomas can you please give me the reference for the Persian coins with Cosrows image from Marv that start to use crosses instead moon simbol?
@@sasa_sasa_sasa230 Gaube, Arabosasanidische Numismatik, p.12:“We see a similar and quite curious alteration of a crescent moon (F) into a cross on a series of coins minted by Salm b. Ziyad of Merv and bearing the year 63. H. This is an important detail, because it can hardly be accepted that a cross was inscribed onto coins minted in the time of the Islamic conquests and in a city with a population that was in large proportion Christian simply ‘by accident.’”
Honestly, I'm very confused and would love some explanation by others. Despite not believing in Islam at all I always thought there existed a real Muhammad and that the Hadiths could be somewhat trusted. So this video and a few videos earlier caught me REALLY off-guard. Is this guy saying that Muhammad wasn't real and Islam was a mistake because people couldn't understand Aramaic? Also obviously having never considered this theory many things are giant question marks to me, as to why certain elements were changed so drastically from Christianity and Judaism to a point where it doesn't seem like they derived directly from Christianity. If anyone wants to respond please start by explaining to me whether the claims here are that 1. Muhammad didn't exist and 2. Islam was a mistake or 3. if it was fabricated, with which motive? Thanks
@@paulhk2727 If you have been following Pfander films and others as well, yes it appears that Mohammed as Islam presents him did not actually exist. Originally this term referred to Jesus in a non-trinitarian setting. Islam as a belief system appears to have gradually evolved over several generations at least. Check out the other videos on this channel.
Whatever it be, the fact is that prophet Muhammad never existed. The existence of coins with both Crosses AND Muhammad written on them is enough and more to destroy Islam, no matter what Muslim apologists say. When Jesus himself is going to destroy crosses on his return from Jannah it certainly makes zero sense for followers of prophet Muhammad to keep the crosses on the coins in places which they conquered and administered. So when these coins were minted, there was neither a prophet named Muhammad nor a religion called Islam. Such coins along with coins with a Fish AND Muhammad when kept side by side are enough evidence of the fact that the faith of Muslims is in vain and they should therefore should leave Islam.
Mahshallah! another masterpiece from Thomas, i am anxious to learn about Muhammad II, im interested in who was he modeled after (if so), prolly modeled after two characters, a warrior and a domestic leader because the warrior supposedly fought many wars and as such would have only been a raider, looter etc. and would have no time marrying, slave trading ruling etc.
Another great clear summary of the history of Islam. So if the Abbasids wanted to associate with the new fictional character Mohammed and create another character Ali, how does this fit into the Sunni Shia split narrative? If the character of Ali was also fictional, why or how did the split occur if it was based on another fictional story? And if the Abassids took power and dominated, and they invented a connection with fictional Ali, wouldn't they be the Shia, yet Shia were and are the minority?
This makes total sense than any other works, I see now the similarities between Christianity or sect of christianity(anti) from middle east wanted to wipe out Christianity by islam and same think happened in India to wipe out buddhism by hinduism. And notable part is that the masterplan of these change are persians. I hope in future we'll see that happens and then my remark will become relevant.
I have read that Brahmin Pushamatira shunga killed Buddhist emperor Brihadata around 180 BC and started great persecution of Buddhist in India...and in 8th century AD...Adi Shankaracharya gained favour of North indian kings and start the downfall of Buddhism in India...
@@vegeta171 their was no Hindusim as today's before 4th century...most of the hindu gods were invented in 4th century same like Muhammed of Islam...but some hindu gods preexisted the 4th century...like shiva( a tribal diety of india adopted into hinduism by aryans when they came to India...Krishna(called as vasudeva Krishna he was a hero of ancient india whose worship started and later krishna was turned into a god from just a hero of yadav tribe).
@@vegeta171 if i tell you the truth...the Persians were the first hindus (aryans who came into indian subcontinent)...they developed their own faith zoroastrianism similar to ancient vedic religion of aryan people...modern hinduism was invented after the puranas were written between 4th to 7th century period and most of 330 million gods and godesses were invented.
That is not actually what Thomas is saying. In fact having gained his fame through the platform Jay gave him he is now saying that an Arabian prophet called Muhammad did exist. You should watch the video again more carefully. Personally I think that it is an example of biting the hand that fed.
@@denniskanyi8523 The contemporary non Islamic sources from the 7th century such as the Doctrina Jacobi about a leader between 634 and 647 are all about Umar.
@@Bei-Abedan Exactly my point, if the prophet mentioned in Doctrina Jacobi is Umar and not Muhammad "the last prophet" That clearly proves the latter never existed. 7th century Christian by the name Sophronius would refer to the Arab invaders as godless and pagan Saracens.
Al Ma'mun created one of the best and most successful marketing firm ever ! As usual amazing work! and thank you so much for the references. For some reason the longer version are objective but the shorter version are biased...
Great Video - Seal of the Prophets ultimately comes from Daniel 9:24. The Two-Horned One ultimately comes from Daniel 8:3-5 Daniel 10:11 uses h-m-d as an adjective which I think is interesting
Thomas, I do like your focus on this pre-Nicene Syrian Christianity. To me, it makes great sense that a large non-Trinitarian movement would rise up against the Byzantines, allow me to explain: From a purely historical perspective, the Byzantines, at least in this era, were really not good rulers of the Near East at all. They were in conflict with virtually every native Christian denomination, from the Oriental Copts of Egypt to the Nestorians of Iraq, and even the Maronites of Syria and Lebanon (who claimed to be fully Catholic, yet were still treated as heretics). It makes sense that in the more deserted areas away from the coasts, that some non-Trinitarian Christian denominations survived. (I actually mention this at the end of my latest Trinity defense video) It was not just because Semites did not like the Trinity, it was because they saw themselves being Hellenized by the foreign, hated Byzantines, and attacked in a sectarian manner by these Orthodox-Catholics. If you read up on the original Islamic uprisings, most of the native Syrian, Egyptian, and Assyrian Christians all sided with the Arabians over their Byzantine rulers regardless of sect. Only the Maronites stayed out of it, isolating into the mountains of Lebanon and raiding the Ummayads for fun later on. There were of course many cities and villages of Christians who resisted the Arabs, but the major centers chose the Arabs over the Byzantines. It was a matter of cultural similarity, sectarianism, and a general hatred of Byzantium. There's also the fact that MANY of these heretical Christians only survived because they lived in obscure desert regions of eastern and southern Syria and Northern Arabia, which were not heavily policed by Byzantium or Persia. Hope this perspective can be implemented in your future videos as well
You are right in saying that there was a deep rift and theological conflicts between Byzantium and churches of the east and the coptic church of Egypt, that followed Chalcedon council in 451, and this has left an open wound between the two churches, Coptic church still view this event with obvious mixture of sadness and bitterness, Byzantium response to any sharp criticism from the local patriarchs was to remove them from their seat as it happened with the coptic patriarch at the time of the Arab invasion of 641, However to say that they sided with the invading arabs is a bit too much to take, Arab sources states that they welcomed the invading arabs but doesn't say that they helped or aided them, and there may be a bit of exaggeration of their passive acceptance of the situation Remember that Egypt was ruled by foreign pharaohs from the 8th century BC, then Alexander the Great liberated it from 200 Persian invasion, and from there Greek domination of the country continued to 641 AD, Egyptian by then had lost their national pride and any desire to fight back invasions, and then add to this the way they understood Christianity which increased this historical background tendencies, and even with the above, they have resisted and revolted for almost 75 years between 749 to 825 AD, a result of which could be seen to our day, and that is the depopulation of the delta region from any christian presence.
That is a good point. I agree. In fact, it is something that my sources also mention. I touched on it in some of my videos, but I never made it explicit the way you did here. It's certainly something I could incorporate at some point.
I haven't yet seen a convincing reply to the point that "Muhammed" as a title would require a definite article ("Al" in Arabic). I see the point where it is a gerund ("Praised be"), but that does not apply to the three cases cited where it is supposed to be a title in the nominative case. The comparison with Latin "Benedictus" is weak, because Latin does not have a definite article, whilst Arabic does
I am still waiting for you to give one historically attested example of these so-called (and frankly mythical) Syrian Anti-Trinitarians your entire thesis depends on. Show me a book on the topic "Anti-Trinitarian Syrian Christians". It really looks like you made them up.
Well, I did talk about Paul of Samosata who is the main witness for the early Syrian Anti Trinitarians. He even managed to become Bushop of Antioch, one of the highest offices in Christianity back then, so he must have had the necessary grassroots support. I talked about how his theology got banned in the Roman Empire after Nicaea and how many of the believers moved into Persia. Shortly after we find Aphrahat the Persian Sage who was an Aramaic speaking Christian in Persia after Nicaea who was openly Anti Trinitarian. You yourself mentioned the School of Antioch the last time we spoke, so you should know. By the 5th century, it had adopted a Trinitarian Christology, but that only went skin-deep, underneath we still had these classical Syrian ideas of Jesus proving himself which made him the Messiah, the Holy Spirit living inside him like a temple, etc. It’s not a stretch to believe that not everybody accepted the new (for them) Trinitarian ideas. And indeed we later find the Ibadi, the Arab Christians of al-Hira who were anti-Trinitarian. And of course the Quran itself is evidence of that same past.
@@yakovmatityahu why should I wait for a book on history of religion written by a computer scientist who doesn't understand the basics of christology and theology and who invents concepts to suit his agenda? I might accept him as a student to supervise his master's degree if he submits his proposal but he has a long way to go.
@@Bei-Abedan Remember that Thomas is not alone in his background, a whole German research team in Inarah is behind that research, most of his research and thesis is taken from figures like Luxemberg and Luling,he is just presenting their materials to the non German crowd, he is not speaking of his own, his materials are the summary of Inarah team....can you tell Red who is behind your thesis or where does your theory comes from?
@@TAlexander you are trying to run before you can walk. 1 The school of Antioch which I mentioned was dyophysite not "anti-trinitarian" (which is really a bizzare term for what you are trying to describe as simply non-trinitarian). 2 Paul of Samosata left us no writings so a) we don't know what his primary language was which could have been Greek rather than Syrian. b) He clearly believed in the father son and holy spirit. c) He was a monarchian adoptionist. 3 If you want to say Monarshian Adoptionists then you have to use the correct terminology so that people working in the field can know what you are trying to describe. You have not earned the right through a life-time of post-doctoral contribution to the field in peer reviewed journals to invent new terminology. Just use the terminoligy already in use. 4. When I have time this morning I hope, I will put a video on my channel giving you guidelines on how to build the Monarchian Adoptionist argument and explaining why you have to drop Aphrahat. All you have so far is Paul of Samosata. And DON'T confuse the Paulucians with him. They were Monophysite Armenians not Antiochians. 5 But please stop this ridiculous anachronism am reserve the term anti-trinitarian from now on for the 8th century. 6. And stop calling them Syrians when you mean Arameans or Persians. You are really bastardizing the terminology. I will get back to you when I have made the video. Yaakov Matityahu, you say he is not alone but has a whole German research team behind him. Well I will believe that when they come out in open support for him. At present, I do not believe he is presenting Inara's ideas honestly. It looks more like CCG's ideas. Luxemborg is not on his side and Luling is dead. If only Thomas was applying Luxemborg's methodology correctly we might be getting somewhere. So yes, he is speaking of his own authority. Which by the way, I wouldn't have a problem with if he were honest about it like I am. And I am very proud to say that as a Post-Doctoral teacher of Hebrean religion and as a result of my lifetime's research into the subject since 1996 I am more than qualified to say that my ideas are my own and I am not trying to fob them off as someone else's. That is a privilege that being a Cambridge University Post-graduate Scholarship holder for the study of Abrahamic Faiths entitles me to. Only Philistines sneer at qualifications in religious studies.
You mention that Marwan was inserted in "the oldest list of caliphs" by the Abbasides. What list do you refer to. Marwan is mentioned in the Byzantine-Arab Chronicle that was completed around 743 CE during the rule of Al-Walid II, which is before the Abbaside revolution. I do not see how the Abbasides could have made changes to this text that appear to have been written in Spain.
You are correct. In fact, we have a list of regents from 724 which already includes Marwan. Earlier lists don’t though. They are missing both Ali and Marwan. I must have misspoken. The Abbasids did fudge the genealogies, but they didn’t add Marwan.
@@TAlexander Well, by the established Mulsim historic narrative it is obvious why the Umayyad wouldn't include Ali, their immortal enemy who lost the civil war against them and whose descendants are still active throne seekers.
The list from 724 is in a Syriac document known as “Chronicon Miscellaneum ad Annum Domini 724 Pertinens“ The oldest one we have is from 705 and it’s in a document known as “Anecdota Syriaca II”.
@@TAlexander I have a curious note. In the same document there's the mention of Arabs of Muhammad which you reject as an authentic mention of Muhammad as a name of a person. But more curiously, it is labeled as "an invasion" to the region... Where did these Arabs of Muhammad come from? Your narrative stipulates that they were a just a Christian sect living there and slowly turning into a new religion. How is it labeled as an invasion and a clear division between "us and them" if they were just living there and more like "rebelling". How is your narrative regarding this?
It would be interested to hear ur input on mentioning of the name Muhammad in description of 637 event of battle of yarmouk on a Bible note that belongs to the six century. Also the mentioning of Yathreb in qoran showing a south connection, moreover, mentioning a profit (forget the name Muhammad) in the most suras, it is clearly not Jesus.
The note was written on a 7th century page from a bible. That doesn't make it a 7th century note. It's a scribble on a pice of parchment, probably made once the Bible in question was already damaged and/or taken apart.
Muhammad 1 ----》 Jesus Christ Muhammad 2 ----》 Invented Prophet of Islam who is most probably Abd Al Malik or Abu Muslim Al Khorasani Thanks Thomas for this wonderful video
Fun, isn't it. Special offer! For one century only, the name Muhammad wherever found and however consistent with the standard Islamic narrative shall be deemed to apply to Jesus Christ! Offer ends after one century when the name Muhammad shall be deemed to be an entirely fictitious prophet invented by some unnamed Christian sect who magically turned into Muslims!😁
@@davidzack8735 Arabs professed the name of Christ, but for greed and personal ambition they became apostates and cooked up their own new invented religion Islam a political ideology bent on taking the whole world violently to subjugate all people into slaves of al lah a moon diety...how great was the fall of Christian arabs into heresy and finally a new terrorist religion.
Where we would be without pagan Constantine and his mother ? Turning a poor old Jewish man into a Christian god who is defeated by the Romans in order to wash humanity of it's sins.
So Jesus Christ is the original Prophet Muhammad I (the blessed one) based on the Syrian Aramaic interpretation and liturgy of Syrian Christianity. Which would agree with the original prophetic texts in Old Testament scripture about the Messiah Jesus Christ. Understanding history and language is very important. Thank you for your lectures!
“And even if We had sent down unto you (O Muhammad SAW) a Message written on paper so that they could touch it with their hands, the disbelievers would have said: "This is nothing but obvious magic!" [Qur’an 6:7]✨ “And indeed before your time (O Muhammad!) many a Messenger has been scoffed at; but those who mocked at them were encompassed by the Truth they had scoffed at." [Qur'an 6:10]✨ “Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth).”[Qur’an 6:111]✨ “No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.” [Qur’an 10:100]✨ “What is the life of this world but amusement and play? but verily the Home in the Hereafter,- that is life indeed, if they but knew.” [Qur’an 29:64] ✨
As we can read above, Islam is a satanic religion: its god, Allah, chooses arbitrarily people to hell. Christ, instead, offered everyone salvation. May his light and goodness live in everyone's hearts.
As we can read above, Islam is a satanic religion: its god, Allah, chooses arbitrarily people to hell. Christ, instead, offered everyone salvation. May his light and goodness live in everyone's hearts.
One intriguing piece of the puzzle you mention in part: the origin of the Kaaba+pilgrimage+circumambulation. How some of these elements were incorporated into a Christian, Jesus-centric religion is mystifying. It would seem from your references to Buddhist practices in Balkh Central Asia that you would see them as having been added through prolonged contact with religion there. It's perhaps interesting on this point that the influential Barmakids of the new Abbasid Dynasty were thought to be from a line of priests of Nava Vihara. Might not it be their great influence on the Abbasids that brought these practices into Islam? This leaves open the reasons for the creation of Mecca in the middle of the Arabian wastes... and why Muhammad II would have supposedly been from there. Might the first site for this pilgrimage have been Petra as Dan Gibson states? And that for reasons of security, the site was then moved to its current remote location?
In the Latin mass the when the priest has reached the end, the priest turns to the congregation and says, "Ite missa est." Go you are dismissed. Hears of this mistakenly interpreted this as "Go this is the mass,"
If Muhammad 2 never existed than why would they write so much embarrassing details about him in the hadiths? Wouldn’t it have been better to present someone more respectable? Great presentation and research by the way. All your videos need to be translated to many languages!
I think that is why David Wood still believes in the narrative, the "criterion of embarassment" is used to say this is so terrible it is likely to be true, as no-one would want to concede it unless they had to. One could provide possible explanations, e.g the caliphs being typical semi-absolute rulers might follow some very low standards in some instances, so if they were in charge of creating "Mohammed 2" they might not want to make him too good, as that would make them look unworthy successors. Another motive might be that the creators of hadiths were partly or wholely compelled to the task, and it hurt their consciences. So they might put in bad things about him, so they could assuage their consciences, as in reassuring themselves that only a foolish person would believe, and that hence they are not responsible for those gullible believers' choices.
Pretty much every story in Muhammad's life was written in order to plausibly explain one or more verses in the Quran, what they mean and how and when they were revealed. This became necessary after the original context (Bible and Jewish/Christian Apocrypha) were no longer understood as such. My recent video on Dhul Qarnayn is such an example. The original context of the Quranic verses in question was the Syriac-Aramai Alexander Legend. But when that was no longer understood, a new story was written wherein the people of Mecca went to the Jews in order to ask them for a Question Muhammad couldn't answer. So if a resulting story is embarrassing, that is because it was the only way the writers of the Sira and the Hadith could explain any given verse in the Quran.
@@yakovmatityahu I don't why I always assumed you were Jewish whenever I saw you comment :D must be the Hebrew letters. This is indeed a strange assertion. Maybe because I come from an Islamic background. I still see the trinity as a mystery and I hold more of a nuanced view now, but it has been and still is definitely one of the weakest links in Christianity in my opinion. As a neutral observer, compared to the pure monotheism of Judaism and Islam, it is an inferior theology in my opinion.
@@ee6lpzfzj023 you are right as the majority of Sunday's Preachers esp. in homilies on the Feast of Holy Trinity. including the present Pope (worshipping the baby Jesus as ..God that contradicts Jesus' (v. probably if not literal words but for sure his, a Jew, own view in Mark 10:18 (Why do you call me good? Only God is good") plus other Synoptics. Trinity has nothing to do with this so-called mystery as if "1=3"; it is just a short term, strictly a description combining the use of the names for God as Father, a unique status of Jesus from Nazareth as the resurrected one and the Power, called Holy Spirit acting among the community of believers; the translation of the Greek' "hypostasis"(of Father, Son, and H.Spirit) from "ousia"/(one) substance into Latin's "person" (In Greek means a mask of an actor in a theatre) added to the later Christological confusions and battles among Christians. Scientifically there is nothing wrong with introducing a new term into an (axiomatic) system of beliefs. Jesus is called Lord but it has an anti-Cesar connotation as all the Bible (1st commandment in Dekalog) and esp. Roman Ceasars who wanted to be worshipped as gods/god; in Bible, there is a clear distinction between these two terms (but some writers in OT instead of God or YHWH used Lord). Bible's one YHWH and Christian Trinity is the concept of dynamical God active in history and community of believers contra static Aristotle's one (First Mover), now very popular among scientists -deists, ("Allah" in Quran would fit it also but "no one is like God is contra Bible and New Testament, the Jesus and Christaina prayer: "Our Father....")
@@ee6lpzfzj023 the monotheism of judaism and islam is not in the Bible...Judaism of today is totally diffrent from Biblical Judaism...Islam is not even from the God of the Bible, it doesnt even know God of the Bible...its a totally seperate desert religion...God in the Bible clearly reveals himself as God, his word and his spirit if you read...even in OT, God is one but has many persons...Trinity is the only Monotheism that Bible knows.
@@ee6lpzfzj023 i am a Gentile not Jew, but i consider myself Messianic Jew because Christianity is not a new religion but completed or fulfilled Judaism...rabbinic judaism is haf judaism, Islam is not even from the Bible.
The Alawites are a good example of the hybridisation of Arabs/Islamic and Christian beliefs. I'm of the belief that an analysis of the break away groups especially in the Shia sect that can be attributed to the 8th and 9th century give us a feel of what pre-islamic Arab beliefs looked like. Also an interesting observation, the strong hold for modern day Shia Islam is exactly in the hot spot where early Islam is thought to have evolved from. Is it possible that the early Shia didn't buy the Abbasid version due to knowledge of something else that existed prior to the Hadiths being created..?
I have set up mirrors on Rumble and Odysee as a safeguard. Everything I post here will be copied over there. But I’m not monitoring those platforms as closely.
Where is Muawiyah I, Yazid I and Yazid the good? In your story' that begin with Marwan? Muawiyah and Yazid exist in the Byzantium histori, Yazid even sent an armada to attack constantinople from the sea that being defeated by the Greek fire ?
Honestly, I'm very confused and would love some explanation by others. Despite not believing in Islam at all I always thought there existed a real Muhammad and that the Hadiths could be somewhat trusted. So this video and a few videos earlier caught me REALLY off-guard. Is this guy saying that Muhammad wasn't real and Islam was a mistake because people couldn't understand Aramaic? Also obviously having never considered this theory many things are giant question marks to me, as to why certain elements were changed so drastically from Christianity and Judaism to a point where it doesn't seem like they derived directly from Christianity. If anyone wants to respond please start by explaining to me whether the claims here are that 1. Muhammad didn't exist and 2. Islam was a mistake or if it was fabricated, with which motive? Thanks
@@eisenhartdragneal just use a literal translation of the dome of the rock arabic text into english...you will see Jesus being referenced their, the word "Muhammad" was also a reverential title for Jesus used by Arabs of the time who were themselves antitrintarian christians...the middle eastern people use a lot of poetic language and in their literature they use title of reverence like Mar, Mor so its the same back then Jesus was given a title Muhammad(Blessed one) among other titles.
@@eisenhartdragneal if you try to understand it from today's perspective you wont understand because its all settled today...but these discussions and wounds were open back then.
I have some more criticism which is meant to be constructive. Ebionite theology is simply not knowable. sources contradict each other. Some seem to think they were adoptionist, others arian or semi-arian. I believe the inductive force of this thesis is weaker than it seems by your presentation. Ebionites also did not meaningfully represent Jewish Christianity in the first and second centuries, which relied on a relational /social trinity, similar to the general church before arianism forced them to start dealing with the matter of ontology of the Godhead. we simply do not know what the ebionites believed or if they themselves had schisms. the epistle of barnabas (not written by barnabas. its an anonymous letter attributed to him, written by a jewish christian in the first half of the second century) does not in anyway support a works based system of salvation. I think you are definitely on to something, but i find myself struggling with all of the highly specific and extremely revolting information about the person of muhammad. such information does not bode well, in my opinion, for an entirely fictional muhammad. Also, i think the Quranic author(s) having completely inaccurate information about Christian theology is itself a problem for a very late redacted Quran because hundreds of years later arabs should have been sufficiently familiar to not make false claims about what Christians believe, thus causing themselves embarassment. I struggle to understand how muslim editors could allow such inaccurate claims easily refutable to stay in the Quran and not be removed.
@Ymir There are a few other learned and informed users in the comments section who are asking questions and differing with Thomas. Thomas is engaging with them. Why don't you do the same? You can take one or two issues and discuss it with Thomas. That way, us spectators can learn from these discussions also.
Yes. Many secular scholars now are of the opinion that Moses never existed. And a small but slowly growing number of scholars are saying that jesus most probably never existed as well.
@@yakovmatityahu Yes. There was no muhammad, most probably. And by the way, I have abdul (abdool as you and CP put it) in my name. But I'm ex muslim. Atheist. And yes, there are many secular scholars who think moses never existed.
Afaik there are several non/anti-trinitarian Christian sects in the region called non-Chalcedonian churches. Such as Syriac Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, Coptic Church, Tewahedo Churches. So maybe they were influenced by them as well. Just a guess though.
What you are listing are Monophysite churches. These have a different origin and they would reject the notion that they’re non/anti-Trinitarian. So no, they are not at the root of Islam, on the contrary, they’re even further away from them. However, the fact that they were around may have helped the new Arab rulers. The Monophysites were bitter enemies of the Chalcedonians, so it was easier to divide and conquer.
@@TAlexander I don't know if it is your speciality but you seem to know a lot about religion. Could you please recommend a few decent sources (books, academic studies or even video lectures) about these Monophysite churches?
It really depends on what exactly you want. If you want a deep dive, I can recommend Adolf von Harnack’s “History of Dogma”. It’s a massive work covering a whole host of things including Monophysites, but it’s not an easy read. It focuses of course on the various beliefs and dogmas. On the plus side, it’s freely available on the Internet Archive, so it’s always worth a try. Other than that, a Wikipedia session can also do wonders. Start with the Robber Council of Ephesus and then just follow the links in both directions, previous events and later events, look at the people involved and their beliefs.
@@yakovmatityahu Thank u . John 14:26 - He will remember you . Quran 61:6 In Quran many verse - be remenber , be remenber . Though so many ayat is not match with other . I read daily and try to invent main massage . Q 5:68
So how did you 'already establish' that 'Muhammad' was a title given to Jesus? You just claimed it without any evidence and then built your theory on it. And obviously you haven't read the Islamic sources properly. Otherwise you would have noticed that the first Muslims NEVER USED his given name Muhammad. They ALWAYS referred to him as RASULALLAH (Messenger of God or apostle of God). In the earliest Islamic narratives, it is only the Meccans who call him by his given name Muhammad, or if Jews or Quraysh are trying to reason with him or beg for their lives, they call him Abul Qasim (Father of Qasim). So the fact that his name 'Muhammad' does not appear til later on coinage or inscriptions proves nothing. And when his name does begin to appear it is always in the context of RASULALLAH.
earliest muslim sources = year 9-1000 storys redirected back to year 6-700.... so son you must understand for inteligent people hadith are no historical sources.... they are written 200 years later.
The Fact that the word MHMD refers to Jesus is actually one of the only really solid things Thomas said. There are so many other problems but that is not one of them David.
It is happen when some trying so hard to conceal something very very vital over time. They just don’t give a f$&c once they have power and authority you can do whatever you like. Your‘word’ is law.
Thomas.your vid title has👉that Islam evolved out of an anti-trinitarian Christian sect. What make you state that islams origin seems as from Christians? An anti-trinitarian is not on Christ side,i would not have thought so! Unitarians are on Christ side. It's hard to believe as a fact that Islam sprouts from the Christ who went on the Cross. ✌️
What you’re addressing is a matter of definition. I find it more useful to have a broader definition. I’m not trying to make a theological point though.
@@asifbrettishmaelmakki9 if you watch and understand Thomas videos more closely, with the theological controversies of that time and the political struggle of that time...it makes perfect sense...Islam is the result of a Political and Theological fight of 2nd to 7th centuries..in which antitrinitarians won the middle east..and trinitarians lost it.
@@yakovmatityahu . Hi Yakov.i don't accept all of historical claims that are preached eg the crusades are NT people who are slaying people all over the place. I reject such ugly history from being attached to the NT body,by rejecting it,the history. NB.bro you are jewish.i think Jews with Christ have opposition from Jews who r not with the Christ who was crucified 2000yrs ago. On wars 👉 blood shedding of others In the Name of Christ are the anti-christ lot 👺.🙂 NB.one of the last crusades,I think the 7th crusade,starts it's battle walk from Syria👈 I found that odd.
quran 33:40 Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is)the messenger of allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and allah has full knowledge.( Abdullah Yusuf Ali). The Arabic for the above verse may be having hidden Roots courtesy of the Grammer chiefs symbols like Lam-Alif and Meem-Alif and most likely ya-Alif also. Verse opens with MA KANA 👈 that can actually just be a Root MKN. KANA has two meanings in Urdu/Gujarat, Kana👉 food (appetite) and Kan👉 Ear 👂. Also Kataman Nabeyeen/seal of the prophets,in the above verse, could actually mean end time (katam) prophets. Also in that verse Root LKN does not logically fit to the Word BUT.but with Urdu Word of Laykin 👈 that means but. Qur'an 2:256 👈 first words👉La ikraha (no compulsion)👉 covering a Roof LKR 👈 in Urdu it means Lakaree/stick. ✌️
Instead of giving people reason why they should leave Islam why don't you make video about why do people enter islam. There is a prophecy that islam will enter every house.
And there are millions who embrace Christianity, Mormonism, JW, or perhaps practice Buddha Dhamma. Millions of new mainland Chinese have embraced Jesus as their only saviour
@m idris What the FUCK? This series is analysis/compilation of research materials. You can discuss or refute the analysis. This is not theological channel.
It's funny how Christians feel so threatened by Islam that you are attempting to style Jesus as Muhammad. Just come to Islam. The gospels of Jesus were created by Caesar. We could butcher the Holy Bible from front to back but you would rather deal with what you perceive as inadequacies in Islam. Don't be threatened. Just come to the perfected religion
*Islam is sole one True path of one God preached by all Prophets including Moses and Jesus. Christianity was not invented by Jesus but by Paul. Judaism was not invented by Moses but by Talmudic Rabbis. God has named all true followers of all Prophets "Muslims". Islam did not begin from Mohammad and Quran but it is perfected upon Mohammad and finalized in Quran*
satanic Lie! JESUS Apostles voucher for Paul, they all willingly died for Christianity. They had nothing to gain like muhammad who wanted power and wealth and women.
@Abd-al-Ahad: Did you even watch the video? Did you understood its content? Why don't you give us your thoughts on the video instead of cut and paste every keyboard jihadi argument ever?
@@christianity9943 Early followers of Jesus and his Brother James the Just, were Ebionites. They used to call Paul an *Apostate;* and later that Apostate became Inventor of False Dogma "Chri$tianiy"
I’m not surprised u wrote those Horrible Lies that have No evidence what so ever. They All vouched for Paul and died as martyrs for Christianity. Even atheist/agnostics who argue against Christians Disagree with u. islam believes the sun sets in a muddy spring. muhammad says u can r4p3 captive married women, and had a child bride. It’s a religion cult of satan and Lies.
This video demonstrates how once you make one false assumption (that the word 'Muhammad' is a title for Jesus), you can use it as the cornerstone for an entire edifice of nonsense. 😁
It fits in perfectly with all the other pieces of the jigsaw, it explains why the Romans, Jews, Persians, Christians etc don't mention someone called Mohammed, if what he did was true they'd have written whole books about him.
Why do you think it’s a false assumption David.. Considering the mess of the Middle East at the time of the Persian /Byzantium’ death struggle for supremacy it’s hardly surprising.. Add to the fact that Mecca 🕋 didn’t exist before the 8th century CE.. It’s easy to see how Islam got made up by mistake..
@@hetrodoxly1203 Fun fact. The earliest non-Muslim document to affirm the existence of a warrior prophet from Arabia is the Doctrina Jacobi of 634CE which attests the appearance of a prophet from among the Saracens shedding of men's blood 'who claims to possess the keys to Paradise'. And what for Muslims is known as the Key to Paradise? The formula of words known as the shahada. la ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad ar-rasul Allah). And now you are going to say that they mean Jesus, right? 🤣
@@trevorgriffiths5611 It's not me thinking it's a false assumption. The claim that Thomas makes that the word 'Muhammad' is a title for Jesus is belied by the few ancient inscriptions and coinage that we actually do have. 😁
@@davidzack8735 The evidence is pretty clear that Thomas is correct.. I don’t really understand your reference to coinage as the early Arab/proto-Islamic coins paint a different picture.. Like having crosses on them ..
Also early Islam adopted some Sabaean practices and built in to the core of Islam. Even Islamic Scholars accept this. Muslim writer Muhammad Shukri al-Alusi compares their religious practices to Islam in his Bulugh al-'Arab fi Ahwal al-'Arab:[25] The Arabs during the pre-Islamic period used to practice certain things that were included in the Islamic Sharia. They, for example, did not marry both a mother and her daughter. They considered marrying two sisters simultaneously to be the most heinous crime. They also censured anyone who married his stepmother, and called him dhaizan. They made the major hajj and the minor umra pilgrimage to the Ka'ba, performed the circumambulation around the Ka'ba tawaf, ran seven times between Mounts Safa and Marwa sa'y, threw rocks and washed themselves after sexual intercourse. They also gargled, sniffed water up into their noses, clipped their fingernails, removed all pubic hair and performed ritual circumcision. Likewise, they cut off the right hand of a thief and stoned Adulterers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabaeans
Excellent presentation, the Islam we have today is an outcome of embellishments, interpolation, and finally the perfect synchronization of The Man, Book, and Place.A lie repeatedly told over and over again becomes REALITY.
Honestly, I'm very confused and would love some explanation by others. Despite not believing in Islam at all I always thought there existed a real Muhammad and that the Hadiths could be somewhat trusted. So this video and a few videos earlier caught me REALLY off-guard. Is this guy saying that Muhammad wasn't real and Islam was a mistake because people couldn't understand Aramaic? Also obviously having never considered this theory many things are giant question marks to me, as to why certain elements were changed so drastically from Christianity and Judaism to a point where it doesn't seem like they derived directly from Christianity. If anyone wants to respond please start by explaining to me whether the claims here are that 1. Muhammad didn't exist and 2. Islam was a mistake or 3. if it was fabricated, with which motive? Thanks
@@paulhk2727 Brother read Dr Robert Spencer's book " Did Muhammad exist" with a neutral thinking mind.Yes Muhammed did exist as a seventh century bedouin ( More in the Cira a 200 years later account with embellishmentsand fabrications), but after his death and the death of his 4 supposedly rightly guided caliphs came a succession of rulers such as the Ummayyids followed by the The Abbassids who finally had established themselves, their empire grew rivaling the Byzantine and Persian.The Abbasids needed a common religion- and a political theology, the new prophet had to be an Arab and a warrior too and from within Arabia.He came from the empire's central region.To give credence to the expansionist new empire that would place them beyond criticism, the need was for a sacred arabic scripture to lend authority.Much of the Quran shows borrowings from Judeo Christian scriptures with sprinkling of gnosticism, Zoroastranism and Manicheism. The arabic scripture had nonarabic elements and inherent coherencies( Another topic for another day...Quran emerge from qiryana Aramaic lectionaries)
By investing Muhammed with prophethood and holding him up as an exemplary model sura( 33.21) the Quran sparked the hunger to know what he did and said( sunnah) not as a matter of PIOUS interest but also to formulate Islamic law.This gave the birth to hadiths that proliferated in the Ummayid era and reached its apex in the Abbasid era as a device to convince the people that the stories about the prophet were old and not new.A common justification emerged in the hadiths; all part of a divine plan as Allah even caused Muhammed to forget quranic portions, he left the collection of the Quran upto ppl who had lost parts of it( There is a sura on it I forget the number)- hence its late editing and existence of variants, but that wouldn't disturb the faith as till today most vehemently deny the 37 different Qurans ( More on Dcci ministries, Pfander films Mel, Murad, )
Islam in nature is a militant and political ideology, and worldly that departs from its Abrahamic forerunners.There is a lot to say and share but time refrains me from doing so.There are awesome channels ( Don't miss out on CP, Rob Christian, Usama Dakdok, Adam Seeker, Reasoned Answers Sam Shamoun to name a few), I mentioned a few, lotsa books and of course the internet is an awesome tool.I hope I did justice to your query in my own small way."Christianity is at war " is another awesome book that is a freedownload of 1000 pages by Theodore Shoebat.Also watch d debate between David Wood and Jay Smith on whether Muhammad existed.Also read Dr Patricia Crones bk The Meccan trade and rise of Islam ( free download).I love studying varied religions and I try to have an unbiased view.God bless.Hope this helps.
@@julietabraham476 "There is a lot to say and share but time refrains me from doing so"
Are you kidding me? You just did that! Wow thanks for the effort put in your comment, I REALLY appreciate it. I'm actually pretty open minded, but just imagine being told in 40 minutes your entire belief about Islam's history is plain wrong. I trust historians and was really hyped for this series once I found it last week and it kinda blew my expectations out of proportion, that's all, it's like waking up from oblivion. Thanks again I will definitely look into the sources you provided.
@@paulhk2727 I had the same reaction as you. I'm a Christian, but I always believed Muhammed was a real person and didn't know anything about this theory that the first ''Muslims'' were actually anti-trinitarian Christians, and that all the early references to Muhammed meant ''the praised one or praised be'' as a verb, which is supposed to be about Jesus Christ. It is very interesting.
One aspect I think that supports this theory is that all the biographies and Hadiths of Muhammed were written between 150 to 200+ years after Muhammed the Arab prophet supposedly existed. Why would the Muslims write about their prophet so long after he lived? If there actually were a prophet of Islam named Muhammed that lived in the 7th century and was the seal of the prophets, why wait for so many decades before writing about him? Could they not write, were they all illiterate?
Perhaps there was no Arab prophet called Muhammed in the 7th century. If he didn't exist as he is described in the Hadiths and sῑra collection, then it makes sense that the Islamic literature about this Muhammed didn't exist until 150+ years later. Muhammed's character as we know it today could have developed over time because of the Arab's ignorance about the Muhammed=Jesus references in the early stages of the Quran. When the misconception was deeply rooted, then deliberate fabrications could take place. So then they could deliberately have created the Arab prophet Muhammed to compete against Jesus and the Christians. Many Muslims don't even believe in any of the Hadith collections or the sῑra collections and claim they are all fabrications, all lies. They only believe in the Quran.
It seems there is possible to make a somewhat plausible case for this. It feels strange though to actually think that there was no person Muhammed as the believed seal of the prophets in the 7th century. Could a mistake actually give rise to this, is that the most plausible explanation of all the evidence? I really don't know at this point. I naturally lean more toward the idea that he existed (maybe he was just an anti-trinitarian Christian himself, but later developments made him into something he never claimed about himself). Now because of Alexander's material and others, I'm open to looking further into this. It's really interesting.
Unbelievable simplicity in the muddy history of Islam. It is just so beautiful! Thank you 🙏 🙏 🙏
Honestly, I'm very confused and would love some explanation by others. Despite not believing in Islam at all I always thought there existed a real Muhammad and that the Hadiths could be somewhat trusted. So this video and a few videos earlier caught me REALLY off-guard. Is this guy saying that Muhammad wasn't real and Islam was a mistake because people couldn't understand Aramaic? Also obviously having never considered this theory many things are giant question marks to me, as to why certain elements were changed so drastically from Christianity and Judaism to a point where it doesn't seem like they derived directly from Christianity. If anyone wants to respond please start by explaining to me whether the claims here are that 1. Muhammad didn't exist and 2. Islam was a mistake or 3. if it was fabricated, with which motive? Thanks
Crisp and clear analysis, this channel really is the best.
Yes it is, he applied academic analysis and pure logical method use in the West academia where there is no subjectivity.
@@communionvision5914 Actually his German accent simply makes him sound academic to untrained minds but for those of us who actually know what he is talking about he throws in a lot of his ow claims without any evidence, e.g. that the rock on the Temple Mount is where Jesus was crucified. Even if you use your brains just a little you can work out how false that claim is.
This channel is a case of the Emperor's clothes.
@@ymir405 what you’re referring to is not my belief, but the belief of some Christian sects back then. Read the "Cave of Treasures“ if you don’t believe me.
@@TAlexander thomas can you please give me the reference for the Persian coins with Cosrows image from Marv that start to use crosses instead moon simbol?
@@sasa_sasa_sasa230 Gaube, Arabosasanidische Numismatik, p.12:“We see a similar and quite curious alteration of a crescent moon (F) into a cross on a series of coins minted by Salm b. Ziyad of Merv and bearing the year 63. H. This is an important detail, because it can hardly be accepted that a cross was inscribed onto coins minted in the time of the Islamic conquests and in a city with a population that was in large proportion Christian simply ‘by accident.’”
I have sent this to my family living in West Africa. Ich danke Dir für die tolle Arbeit👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾👍🏾
Fantastic work
Thank you. Excellent presentation, clear, logical, articulate and concise.
Honestly, I'm very confused and would love some explanation by others. Despite not believing in Islam at all I always thought there existed a real Muhammad and that the Hadiths could be somewhat trusted. So this video and a few videos earlier caught me REALLY off-guard. Is this guy saying that Muhammad wasn't real and Islam was a mistake because people couldn't understand Aramaic? Also obviously having never considered this theory many things are giant question marks to me, as to why certain elements were changed so drastically from Christianity and Judaism to a point where it doesn't seem like they derived directly from Christianity. If anyone wants to respond please start by explaining to me whether the claims here are that 1. Muhammad didn't exist and 2. Islam was a mistake or 3. if it was fabricated, with which motive? Thanks
@@paulhk2727 If you have been following Pfander films and others as well, yes it appears that Mohammed as Islam presents him did not actually exist. Originally this term referred to Jesus in a non-trinitarian setting. Islam as a belief system appears to have gradually evolved over several generations at least. Check out the other videos on this channel.
Whatever it be, the fact is that prophet Muhammad never existed. The existence of coins with both Crosses AND Muhammad written on them is enough and more to destroy Islam, no matter what Muslim apologists say. When Jesus himself is going to destroy crosses on his return from Jannah it certainly makes zero sense for followers of prophet Muhammad to keep the crosses on the coins in places which they conquered and administered. So when these coins were minted, there was neither a prophet named Muhammad nor a religion called Islam. Such coins along with coins with a Fish AND Muhammad when kept side by side are enough evidence of the fact that the faith of Muslims is in vain and they should therefore should leave Islam.
Really great and informative video, very detailed
Brilliant analysis.Path breaking finding. Thanks 🙏👍
Mahshallah! another masterpiece from Thomas, i am anxious to learn about Muhammad II, im interested in who was he modeled after (if so), prolly modeled after two characters, a warrior and a domestic leader because the warrior supposedly fought many wars and as such would have only been a raider, looter etc. and would have no time marrying, slave trading ruling etc.
Found your channel from one of your subscriber..Great channel .God bless
Another fabulous presentation Thomas, thank you
Another great clear summary of the history of Islam. So if the Abbasids wanted to associate with the new fictional character Mohammed and create another character Ali, how does this fit into the Sunni Shia split narrative? If the character of Ali was also fictional, why or how did the split occur if it was based on another fictional story? And if the Abassids took power and dominated, and they invented a connection with fictional Ali, wouldn't they be the Shia, yet Shia were and are the minority?
This is a complex issue. I will get into it some more at some point. It seems like the Shia have a more Gnostic (aliman) background than the Sunni.
@@TAlexander can you please give me the reference for the Persian coins from Marv that replaced moon simbol with crosses?
This makes total sense than any other works, I see now the similarities between Christianity or sect of christianity(anti) from middle east wanted to wipe out Christianity by islam and same think happened in India to wipe out buddhism by hinduism. And notable part is that the masterplan of these change are persians.
I hope in future we'll see that happens and then my remark will become relevant.
Didnt Hinduism preexist Buddhism? Why do you think that Persians conspired to wipe out Hinduism?
I have read that Brahmin Pushamatira shunga killed Buddhist emperor Brihadata around 180 BC and started great persecution of Buddhist in India...and in 8th century AD...Adi Shankaracharya gained favour of North indian kings and start the downfall of Buddhism in India...
@@vegeta171 their was no Hindusim as today's before 4th century...most of the hindu gods were invented in 4th century same like Muhammed of Islam...but some hindu gods preexisted the 4th century...like shiva( a tribal diety of india adopted into hinduism by aryans when they came to India...Krishna(called as vasudeva Krishna he was a hero of ancient india whose worship started and later krishna was turned into a god from just a hero of yadav tribe).
@@vegeta171 if i tell you the truth...the Persians were the first hindus (aryans who came into indian subcontinent)...they developed their own faith zoroastrianism similar to ancient vedic religion of aryan people...modern hinduism was invented after the puranas were written between 4th to 7th century period and most of 330 million gods and godesses were invented.
bramins are against christianity in any form they divide create new religion worldwide man these guys are cunning as hell
Great, as always! Grüße aus Wien
thanks for leaving reference in the description, very helpful 💯
Thank you for your excellent work! I think you should say ANTI-Nicene, not PRE-Nicene. Nicea summarized the existing catholic faith
In short Muhammad the supposed prophet of Islam never existed? He is literally a fairy tale? How sad!
That is not actually what Thomas is saying. In fact having gained his fame through the platform Jay gave him he is now saying that an Arabian prophet called Muhammad did exist. You should watch the video again more carefully. Personally I think that it is an example of biting the hand that fed.
@@Bei-Abedan
But contemporary non Islamic historians in the 7th century, never mentions Muhammad? Doctrina Jacobi being a good case in point!
@@denniskanyi8523 The contemporary non Islamic sources from the 7th century such as the Doctrina Jacobi about a leader between 634 and 647 are all about Umar.
@@Bei-Abedan
Exactly my point, if the prophet mentioned in Doctrina Jacobi is Umar and not Muhammad "the last prophet" That clearly proves the latter never existed.
7th century Christian by the name Sophronius would refer to the Arab invaders as godless and pagan Saracens.
@@denniskanyi8523 Exactly, you are correct and I agree with you but still that is NOT what Thomas is saying.
Al Ma'mun created one of the best and most successful marketing firm ever !
As usual amazing work! and thank you so much for the references.
For some reason the longer version are objective but the shorter version are biased...
Great Video - Seal of the Prophets ultimately comes from Daniel 9:24.
The Two-Horned One ultimately comes from Daniel 8:3-5
Daniel 10:11 uses h-m-d as an adjective which I think is interesting
Thomas, I do like your focus on this pre-Nicene Syrian Christianity. To me, it makes great sense that a large non-Trinitarian movement would rise up against the Byzantines, allow me to explain: From a purely historical perspective, the Byzantines, at least in this era, were really not good rulers of the Near East at all. They were in conflict with virtually every native Christian denomination, from the Oriental Copts of Egypt to the Nestorians of Iraq, and even the Maronites of Syria and Lebanon (who claimed to be fully Catholic, yet were still treated as heretics). It makes sense that in the more deserted areas away from the coasts, that some non-Trinitarian Christian denominations survived. (I actually mention this at the end of my latest Trinity defense video) It was not just because Semites did not like the Trinity, it was because they saw themselves being Hellenized by the foreign, hated Byzantines, and attacked in a sectarian manner by these Orthodox-Catholics. If you read up on the original Islamic uprisings, most of the native Syrian, Egyptian, and Assyrian Christians all sided with the Arabians over their Byzantine rulers regardless of sect. Only the Maronites stayed out of it, isolating into the mountains of Lebanon and raiding the Ummayads for fun later on. There were of course many cities and villages of Christians who resisted the Arabs, but the major centers chose the Arabs over the Byzantines. It was a matter of cultural similarity, sectarianism, and a general hatred of Byzantium. There's also the fact that MANY of these heretical Christians only survived because they lived in obscure desert regions of eastern and southern Syria and Northern Arabia, which were not heavily policed by Byzantium or Persia. Hope this perspective can be implemented in your future videos as well
You and Alexander should collaborate on this topic..
I would also love too see a video about this topic with Jeem and Thomas discussing this with each other too
You are right in saying that there was a deep rift and theological conflicts between Byzantium and churches of the east and the coptic church of Egypt, that followed Chalcedon council in 451, and this has left an open wound between the two churches, Coptic church still view this event with obvious mixture of sadness and bitterness, Byzantium response to any sharp criticism from the local patriarchs was to remove them from their seat as it happened with the coptic patriarch at the time of the Arab invasion of 641, However to say that they sided with the invading arabs is a bit too much to take, Arab sources states that they welcomed the invading arabs but doesn't say that they helped or aided them, and there may be a bit of exaggeration of their passive acceptance of the situation
Remember that Egypt was ruled by foreign pharaohs from the 8th century BC, then Alexander the Great liberated it from 200 Persian invasion, and from there Greek domination of the country continued to 641 AD, Egyptian by then had lost their national pride and any desire to fight back invasions, and then add to this the way they understood Christianity which increased this historical background tendencies, and even with the above, they have resisted and revolted for
almost 75 years between 749 to 825 AD, a result of which could be seen to our day, and that is the depopulation of the delta region from any christian presence.
Pre-Nicene is really the wrong word. Non-Nicene would be more accurate (if indeed they could be proven to have existed).
That is a good point. I agree. In fact, it is something that my sources also mention. I touched on it in some of my videos, but I never made it explicit the way you did here. It's certainly something I could incorporate at some point.
Thankyou Thomas
Good information
I haven't yet seen a convincing reply to the point that "Muhammed" as a title would require a definite article ("Al" in Arabic). I see the point where it is a gerund ("Praised be"), but that does not apply to the three cases cited where it is supposed to be a title in the nominative case. The comparison with Latin "Benedictus" is weak, because Latin does not have a definite article, whilst Arabic does
Nice explanation
I am still waiting for you to give one historically attested example of these so-called (and frankly mythical) Syrian Anti-Trinitarians your entire thesis depends on. Show me a book on the topic "Anti-Trinitarian Syrian Christians". It really looks like you made them up.
Well, I did talk about Paul of Samosata who is the main witness for the early Syrian Anti Trinitarians. He even managed to become Bushop of Antioch, one of the highest offices in Christianity back then, so he must have had the necessary grassroots support.
I talked about how his theology got banned in the Roman Empire after Nicaea and how many of the believers moved into Persia.
Shortly after we find Aphrahat the Persian Sage who was an Aramaic speaking Christian in Persia after Nicaea who was openly Anti Trinitarian.
You yourself mentioned the School of Antioch the last time we spoke, so you should know. By the 5th century, it had adopted a Trinitarian Christology, but that only went skin-deep, underneath we still had these classical Syrian ideas of Jesus proving himself which made him the Messiah, the Holy Spirit living inside him like a temple, etc.
It’s not a stretch to believe that not everybody accepted the new (for them) Trinitarian ideas. And indeed we later find the Ibadi, the Arab Christians of al-Hira who were anti-Trinitarian. And of course the Quran itself is evidence of that same past.
Just wait for the Book from Thomas, he will give good evidence and references for what he is saying.
@@yakovmatityahu why should I wait for a book on history of religion written by a computer scientist who doesn't understand the basics of christology and theology and who invents concepts to suit his agenda?
I might accept him as a student to supervise his master's degree if he submits his proposal but he has a long way to go.
@@Bei-Abedan Remember that Thomas is not alone in his background, a whole German research team in Inarah is behind that research, most of his research and thesis is taken from figures like Luxemberg and Luling,he is just presenting their materials to the non German crowd, he is not speaking of his own, his materials are the summary of Inarah team....can you tell Red who is behind your thesis or where does your theory comes from?
@@TAlexander you are trying to run before you can walk.
1 The school of Antioch which I mentioned was dyophysite not "anti-trinitarian" (which is really a bizzare term for what you are trying to describe as simply non-trinitarian).
2 Paul of Samosata left us no writings so a) we don't know what his primary language was which could have been Greek rather than Syrian. b) He clearly believed in the father son and holy spirit. c) He was a monarchian adoptionist.
3 If you want to say Monarshian Adoptionists then you have to use the correct terminology so that people working in the field can know what you are trying to describe. You have not earned the right through a life-time of post-doctoral contribution to the field in peer reviewed journals to invent new terminology. Just use the terminoligy already in use.
4. When I have time this morning I hope, I will put a video on my channel giving you guidelines on how to build the Monarchian Adoptionist argument and explaining why you have to drop Aphrahat. All you have so far is Paul of Samosata. And DON'T confuse the Paulucians with him. They were Monophysite Armenians not Antiochians.
5 But please stop this ridiculous anachronism am reserve the term anti-trinitarian from now on for the 8th century.
6. And stop calling them Syrians when you mean Arameans or Persians. You are really bastardizing the terminology.
I will get back to you when I have made the video.
Yaakov Matityahu, you say he is not alone but has a whole German research team behind him. Well I will believe that when they come out in open support for him. At present, I do not believe he is presenting Inara's ideas honestly. It looks more like CCG's ideas. Luxemborg is not on his side and Luling is dead. If only Thomas was applying Luxemborg's methodology correctly we might be getting somewhere.
So yes, he is speaking of his own authority. Which by the way, I wouldn't have a problem with if he were honest about it like I am. And I am very proud to say that as a Post-Doctoral teacher of Hebrean religion and as a result of my lifetime's research into the subject since 1996 I am more than qualified to say that my ideas are my own and I am not trying to fob them off as someone else's. That is a privilege that being a Cambridge University Post-graduate Scholarship holder for the study of Abrahamic Faiths entitles me to. Only Philistines sneer at qualifications in religious studies.
You mention that Marwan was inserted in "the oldest list of caliphs" by the Abbasides. What list do you refer to. Marwan is mentioned in the Byzantine-Arab Chronicle that was completed around 743 CE during the rule of Al-Walid II, which is before the Abbaside revolution. I do not see how the Abbasides could have made changes to this text that appear to have been written in Spain.
You are correct. In fact, we have a list of regents from 724 which already includes Marwan. Earlier lists don’t though. They are missing both Ali and Marwan.
I must have misspoken. The Abbasids did fudge the genealogies, but they didn’t add Marwan.
@@TAlexander Which list from 724 CE are you referring to? And which are the earlier lists you mention?
@@TAlexander Well, by the established Mulsim historic narrative it is obvious why the Umayyad wouldn't include Ali, their immortal enemy who lost the civil war against them and whose descendants are still active throne seekers.
The list from 724 is in a Syriac document known as “Chronicon Miscellaneum ad Annum Domini 724 Pertinens“
The oldest one we have is from 705 and it’s in a document known as “Anecdota Syriaca II”.
@@TAlexander I have a curious note. In the same document there's the mention of Arabs of Muhammad which you reject as an authentic mention of Muhammad as a name of a person. But more curiously, it is labeled as "an invasion" to the region... Where did these Arabs of Muhammad come from? Your narrative stipulates that they were a just a Christian sect living there and slowly turning into a new religion. How is it labeled as an invasion and a clear division between "us and them" if they were just living there and more like "rebelling". How is your narrative regarding this?
Thank you Sir Thomas Alexander as usual very clear and precise.Most of all i like youe greeting “HELLO”.😂😂😂😂❤️🙏👍
It would be interested to hear ur input on mentioning of the name Muhammad in description of 637 event of battle of yarmouk on a Bible note that belongs to the six century. Also the mentioning of Yathreb in qoran showing a south connection, moreover, mentioning a profit (forget the name Muhammad) in the most suras, it is clearly not Jesus.
The note was written on a 7th century page from a bible. That doesn't make it a 7th century note. It's a scribble on a pice of parchment, probably made once the Bible in question was already damaged and/or taken apart.
@@TAlexander That is your conclusion or someone else analysis? Thanks 🙏
Muhammad 1 ----》 Jesus Christ
Muhammad 2 ----》 Invented Prophet of Islam who is most probably Abd Al Malik or Abu Muslim Al Khorasani
Thanks Thomas for this wonderful video
Fun, isn't it. Special offer! For one century only, the name Muhammad wherever found and however consistent with the standard Islamic narrative shall be deemed to apply to Jesus Christ! Offer ends after one century when the name Muhammad shall be deemed to be an entirely fictitious prophet invented by some unnamed Christian sect who magically turned into Muslims!😁
@@davidzack8735 yes you said it all😃😃😃
@@davidzack8735 Arabs professed the name of Christ, but for greed and personal ambition they became apostates and cooked up their own new invented religion Islam a political ideology bent on taking the whole world violently to subjugate all people into slaves of al lah a moon diety...how great was the fall of Christian arabs into heresy and finally a new terrorist religion.
Where we would be without pagan Constantine and his mother ? Turning a poor old Jewish man into a Christian god who is defeated by the Romans in order to wash humanity of it's sins.
@@onlygknows7793 Gospels and New Testament were written 300 years before Constantine and helena...we have manuscripts of Bible before that...
very well explained!
So Jesus Christ is the original Prophet Muhammad I (the blessed one) based on the Syrian Aramaic interpretation and liturgy of Syrian Christianity. Which would agree with the original prophetic texts in Old Testament scripture about the Messiah Jesus Christ. Understanding history and language is very important. Thank you for your lectures!
Thank you from Indonesia.this rare
Another slam dunk...
“And even if We had sent down unto you (O Muhammad SAW) a Message written on paper so that they could touch it with their hands, the disbelievers would have said: "This is nothing but obvious magic!" [Qur’an 6:7]✨
“And indeed before your time (O Muhammad!) many a Messenger has been scoffed at; but those who mocked at them were encompassed by the Truth they had scoffed at." [Qur'an 6:10]✨
“Even if We did send unto them angels, and the dead did speak unto them, and We gathered together all things before their very eyes, they are not the ones to believe, unless it is in Allah's plan. But most of them ignore (the truth).”[Qur’an 6:111]✨
“No soul can believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will place doubt (or obscurity) on those who will not understand.” [Qur’an 10:100]✨
“What is the life of this world but amusement and play? but verily the Home in the Hereafter,- that is life indeed, if they but knew.” [Qur’an 29:64] ✨
Only Quran ? But Quran said so many times believes privious holly book 10:64 , 10:37 5:68, 12:111 15:90 91
As we can read above, Islam is a satanic religion: its god, Allah, chooses arbitrarily people to hell.
Christ, instead, offered everyone salvation. May his light and goodness live in everyone's hearts.
As we can read above, Islam is a satanic religion: its god, Allah, chooses arbitrarily people to hell.
Christ, instead, offered everyone salvation. May his light and goodness live in everyone's hearts.
Good 👍
But how do we explain muhammads personal life based ayahs in the quran like surah 33:37 and the entire surah of at tahrim?
As it happens, I will cover this soon in a 6-part video series.
Later redactions?
Stay tuned. It’s going to be quite the ride.
One intriguing piece of the puzzle you mention in part: the origin of the Kaaba+pilgrimage+circumambulation. How some of these elements were incorporated into a Christian, Jesus-centric religion is mystifying. It would seem from your references to Buddhist practices in Balkh Central Asia that you would see them as having been added through prolonged contact with religion there.
It's perhaps interesting on this point that the influential Barmakids of the new Abbasid Dynasty were thought to be from a line of priests of Nava Vihara. Might not it be their great influence on the Abbasids that brought these practices into Islam?
This leaves open the reasons for the creation of Mecca in the middle of the Arabian wastes... and why Muhammad II would have supposedly been from there. Might the first site for this pilgrimage have been Petra as Dan Gibson states? And that for reasons of security, the site was then moved to its current remote location?
Not only in Balkh modern day Sri Lankan Theravada Buddhists circumambulate clockwise
@@justaperson1769
Circumambulate what? Black stone?
In the Latin mass the when the priest has reached the end, the priest turns to the congregation and says, "Ite missa est." Go you are dismissed. Hears of this mistakenly interpreted this as "Go this is the mass,"
There was a temple of mother Marry built at the same place where Dom of Rock was built.
If Muhammad 2 never existed than why would they write so much embarrassing details about him in the hadiths? Wouldn’t it have been better to present someone more respectable?
Great presentation and research by the way. All your videos need to be translated to many languages!
When you have divine approval nothing is embracing
I think that is why David Wood still believes in the narrative, the "criterion of embarassment" is used to say this is so terrible it is likely to be true, as no-one would want to concede it unless they had to.
One could provide possible explanations, e.g the caliphs being typical semi-absolute rulers might follow some very low standards in some instances, so if they were in charge of creating "Mohammed 2" they might not want to make him too good, as that would make them look unworthy successors.
Another motive might be that the creators of hadiths were partly or wholely compelled to the task, and it hurt their consciences. So they might put in bad things about him, so they could assuage their consciences, as in reassuring themselves that only a foolish person would believe, and that hence they are not responsible for those gullible believers' choices.
Internal politics of abassids
@@roshlew6994 can you elaborate? What are these politics?
Pretty much every story in Muhammad's life was written in order to plausibly explain one or more verses in the Quran, what they mean and how and when they were revealed. This became necessary after the original context (Bible and Jewish/Christian Apocrypha) were no longer understood as such.
My recent video on Dhul Qarnayn is such an example. The original context of the Quranic verses in question was the Syriac-Aramai Alexander Legend. But when that was no longer understood, a new story was written wherein the people of Mecca went to the Jews in order to ask them for a Question Muhammad couldn't answer.
So if a resulting story is embarrassing, that is because it was the only way the writers of the Sira and the Hadith could explain any given verse in the Quran.
hi Thomas, I cant find a proper source for the grave of Mohammed I, Jesus, at the tomb of the prophet in Medina, there is only a minarette for Isa..
Thanks!
Trinitarianism is the superior form of monotheism.
Superior and the only one that Bible knows...
@@yakovmatityahu I don't why I always assumed you were Jewish whenever I saw you comment :D must be the Hebrew letters.
This is indeed a strange assertion. Maybe because I come from an Islamic background. I still see the trinity as a mystery and I hold more of a nuanced view now, but it has been and still is definitely one of the weakest links in Christianity in my opinion.
As a neutral observer, compared to the pure monotheism of Judaism and Islam, it is an inferior theology in my opinion.
@@ee6lpzfzj023 you are right as the majority of Sunday's Preachers esp. in homilies on the Feast of Holy Trinity. including the present Pope (worshipping the baby Jesus as ..God that contradicts Jesus' (v. probably if not literal words but for sure his, a Jew, own view in Mark 10:18 (Why do you call me good? Only God is good") plus other Synoptics. Trinity has nothing to do with this so-called mystery as if "1=3"; it is just a short term, strictly a description combining the use of the names for God as Father, a unique status of Jesus from Nazareth as the resurrected one and the Power, called Holy Spirit acting among the community of believers; the translation of the Greek' "hypostasis"(of Father, Son, and H.Spirit) from "ousia"/(one) substance into Latin's "person" (In Greek means a mask of an actor in a theatre) added to the later Christological confusions and battles among Christians. Scientifically there is nothing wrong with introducing a new term into an (axiomatic) system of beliefs. Jesus is called Lord but it has an anti-Cesar connotation as all the Bible (1st commandment in Dekalog) and esp. Roman Ceasars who wanted to be worshipped as gods/god; in Bible, there is a clear distinction between these two terms (but some writers in OT instead of God or YHWH used Lord). Bible's one YHWH and Christian Trinity is the concept of dynamical God active in history and community of believers contra static Aristotle's one (First Mover), now very popular among scientists -deists, ("Allah" in Quran would fit it also but "no one is like God is contra Bible and New Testament, the Jesus and Christaina prayer: "Our Father....")
@@ee6lpzfzj023 the monotheism of judaism and islam is not in the Bible...Judaism of today is totally diffrent from Biblical Judaism...Islam is not even from the God of the Bible, it doesnt even know God of the Bible...its a totally seperate desert religion...God in the Bible clearly reveals himself as God, his word and his spirit if you read...even in OT, God is one but has many persons...Trinity is the only Monotheism that Bible knows.
@@ee6lpzfzj023 i am a Gentile not Jew, but i consider myself Messianic Jew because Christianity is not a new religion but completed or fulfilled Judaism...rabbinic judaism is haf judaism, Islam is not even from the Bible.
I hope you address Sebeos mentioning Muhammad as a lawgiver. I don't understand how that fits into your theory.
The Alawites are a good example of the hybridisation of Arabs/Islamic and Christian beliefs. I'm of the belief that an analysis of the break away groups especially in the Shia sect that can be attributed to the 8th and 9th century give us a feel of what pre-islamic Arab beliefs looked like.
Also an interesting observation, the strong hold for modern day Shia Islam is exactly in the hot spot where early Islam is thought to have evolved from. Is it possible that the early Shia didn't buy the Abbasid version due to knowledge of something else that existed prior to the Hadiths being created..?
Where are the scholarly works from the Islamic world?
King Muayiua established the Arab kingdom which included Parsia also.
Is there any actual record if Syriac Christian’s using the name muhammad to refer to Jesus. Or is that just a speculation?
Thomas: do you post on any other platform?
I try to minimize YT traffic.
I have set up mirrors on Rumble and Odysee as a safeguard.
Everything I post here will be copied over there. But I’m not monitoring those platforms as closely.
@@TAlexander Good move!
Where is Muawiyah I, Yazid I and Yazid the good? In your story' that begin with Marwan? Muawiyah and Yazid exist in the Byzantium histori, Yazid even sent an armada to attack constantinople from the sea that being defeated by the Greek fire ?
But Abu Muslim was killed by the Abbassids so he couldn’t have been the role model for Mohammad.
Potentially covering a Root LKR👈 yet i have not searched enough to find a semetic meaning for the above Root as of yet.
Honestly, I'm very confused and would love some explanation by others. Despite not believing in Islam at all I always thought there existed a real Muhammad and that the Hadiths could be somewhat trusted. So this video and a few videos earlier caught me REALLY off-guard. Is this guy saying that Muhammad wasn't real and Islam was a mistake because people couldn't understand Aramaic? Also obviously having never considered this theory many things are giant question marks to me, as to why certain elements were changed so drastically from Christianity and Judaism to a point where it doesn't seem like they derived directly from Christianity. If anyone wants to respond please start by explaining to me whether the claims here are that 1. Muhammad didn't exist and 2. Islam was a mistake or if it was fabricated, with which motive? Thanks
So what in what century did the Shia schism develop?
A glaring fact I do not see addressed by you. Why the absence of the name "Jesus" in Abdul Malik's anti-Trinitarian texts?
Look at the last video. The name Jesus is all over the Dome of the Rock.
@@TAlexander which picture at least show the word inside the dome of rock and what reference you use ?
@@eisenhartdragneal just use a literal translation of the dome of the rock arabic text into english...you will see Jesus being referenced their, the word "Muhammad" was also a reverential title for Jesus used by Arabs of the time who were themselves antitrintarian christians...the middle eastern people use a lot of poetic language and in their literature they use title of reverence like Mar, Mor so its the same back then Jesus was given a title Muhammad(Blessed one) among other titles.
@@eisenhartdragneal if you try to understand it from today's perspective you wont understand because its all settled today...but these discussions and wounds were open back then.
I have some more criticism which is meant to be constructive. Ebionite theology is simply not knowable. sources contradict each other. Some seem to think they were adoptionist, others arian or semi-arian. I believe the inductive force of this thesis is weaker than it seems by your presentation. Ebionites also did not meaningfully represent Jewish Christianity in the first and second centuries, which relied on a relational /social trinity, similar to the general church before arianism forced them to start dealing with the matter of ontology of the Godhead. we simply do not know what the ebionites believed or if they themselves had schisms. the epistle of barnabas (not written by barnabas. its an anonymous letter attributed to him, written by a jewish christian in the first half of the second century) does not in anyway support a works based system of salvation. I think you are definitely on to something, but i find myself struggling with all of the highly specific and extremely revolting information about the person of muhammad. such information does not bode well, in my opinion, for an entirely fictional muhammad. Also, i think the Quranic author(s) having completely inaccurate information about Christian theology is itself a problem for a very late redacted Quran because hundreds of years later arabs should have been sufficiently familiar to not make false claims about what Christians believe, thus causing themselves embarassment. I struggle to understand how muslim editors could allow such inaccurate claims easily refutable to stay in the Quran and not be removed.
Definitely a channel for uninformed amateurs. There are so many inconsistencies.
inconsistencies like?
@Ymir There are a few other learned and informed users in the comments section who are asking questions and differing with Thomas. Thomas is engaging with them. Why don't you do the same?
You can take one or two issues and discuss it with Thomas. That way, us spectators can learn from these discussions also.
@Ymir, I agree. Only the uninformed and/or illogical minds can't see the problems.
So the only question remains, then which religion is the truth if any?
I thought jesus Is Eissa clearly stated in the quran
Does this destroy Islam?
The same arguments can be used against the historicity of Moses and Jesus 1,2 and 3
It has been done for 200 years...
Yes. Many secular scholars now are of the opinion that Moses never existed. And a small but slowly growing number of scholars are saying that jesus most probably never existed as well.
@@exzoro8193 abdool...all scholars believe that Jesus existed and moses as well...
@@exzoro8193 Muhammed was Jesus's title used by arabs...their was no prophet Muhammed
@@yakovmatityahu Yes. There was no muhammad, most probably.
And by the way, I have abdul (abdool as you and CP put it) in my name. But I'm ex muslim. Atheist.
And yes, there are many secular scholars who think moses never existed.
Why would the Abbasids create a huge schism in Islam? The Sunni/Shia split. It doesn't make sense
One curious question why was abraham given more importance than Melchizedek who was greater than Abraham?
Abraham was a descendant of Apostates while Melchizedek is HaShem.
@@Bei-Abedan But wasn't Melchizedek the shadow of the messiah if so why didn't the quran miss this important point??
Is "Nature's god in the American founding documents Belzebull himself?
this is the most propesterous theory about islam origins for me
They bastardize the Bible. Loving your teachings T.A.
What do you mean. bastardize the Bible, prove it PLEASE.
@@myview8509 Take the stories of the Bible and give it a totally fake meaning and change its stories to suit your agenda in quran.
That is not actually what Thomas is saying Bob.
@@Bei-Abedan So if they turned the bible into something else rather than what was written is not bastardize the meaning then what is?
@@bobfisher1909 I don't disagree with you but still that is not what Thomas is saying.
what about sunnis and shiites?
So this guarantor idea was present in Christianity as well. That’s why we got the gospels. It’s all about legitimacy
Afaik there are several non/anti-trinitarian Christian sects in the region called non-Chalcedonian churches. Such as Syriac Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, Coptic Church, Tewahedo Churches. So maybe they were influenced by them as well. Just a guess though.
What you are listing are Monophysite churches. These have a different origin and they would reject the notion that they’re non/anti-Trinitarian. So no, they are not at the root of Islam, on the contrary, they’re even further away from them.
However, the fact that they were around may have helped the new Arab rulers. The Monophysites were bitter enemies of the Chalcedonians, so it was easier to divide and conquer.
@@TAlexander thank you
@@TAlexander I don't know if it is your speciality but you seem to know a lot about religion. Could you please recommend a few decent sources (books, academic studies or even video lectures) about these Monophysite churches?
It really depends on what exactly you want. If you want a deep dive, I can recommend Adolf von Harnack’s “History of Dogma”. It’s a massive work covering a whole host of things including Monophysites, but it’s not an easy read. It focuses of course on the various beliefs and dogmas. On the plus side, it’s freely available on the Internet Archive, so it’s always worth a try.
Other than that, a Wikipedia session can also do wonders. Start with the Robber Council of Ephesus and then just follow the links in both directions, previous events and later events, look at the people involved and their beliefs.
@@TAlexander Thank you very much.
I things Quran proves after Jesas there is one messenger which prove new testament also
After Jesus their is no prophet coming...only fake prophets coming...Jesus told that clearly to his disciples.
@@yakovmatityahu Thank u . John 14:26 - He will remember you . Quran 61:6 In Quran many verse - be remenber , be remenber . Though so many ayat is not match with other . I read daily and try to invent main massage . Q 5:68
@@yakovmatityahu I said massenger not prophel .
@@sumaasad6020 there is no messenger or prophets coming after Jesus...only false prophets and messengers will come...like Muhammed
@@yakovmatityahu prove with verse pls . thank u
So how did you 'already establish' that 'Muhammad' was a title given to Jesus? You just claimed it without any evidence and then built your theory on it. And obviously you haven't read the Islamic sources properly. Otherwise you would have noticed that the first Muslims NEVER USED his given name Muhammad. They ALWAYS referred to him as RASULALLAH (Messenger of God or apostle of God). In the earliest Islamic narratives, it is only the Meccans who call him by his given name Muhammad, or if Jews or Quraysh are trying to reason with him or beg for their lives, they call him Abul Qasim (Father of Qasim). So the fact that his name 'Muhammad' does not appear til later on coinage or inscriptions proves nothing. And when his name does begin to appear it is always in the context of RASULALLAH.
earliest muslim sources = year 9-1000 storys redirected back to year 6-700.... so son you must understand for inteligent people hadith are no historical sources.... they are written 200 years later.
@@Dorfapoligetik they have the list of name from who they got the source until reach the prophet ... why not specify which earliest muslim source
But... The Islamic sources are all made up :)
@@eisenhartdragneal i can fabricate now a list from me to moses.... you can't prove or disprove it.
The Fact that the word MHMD refers to Jesus is actually one of the only really solid things Thomas said. There are so many other problems but that is not one of them David.
Amen hallelujah ✋️
Conjecture
Agreed
Shocking
If this was indeed brought on by Christian lectionaries you'd think they would get the distinction between Miriam and Mary correct.
It is happen when some trying so hard to conceal something very very vital over time. They just don’t give a f$&c once they have power and authority you can do whatever you like. Your‘word’ is law.
@@communionvision5914 Exactly. They had the sword, textual correctness was unnecessary to advance their theo-political cult.
Thomas.your vid title has👉that Islam evolved out of an anti-trinitarian Christian sect.
What make you state that islams origin seems as from Christians?
An anti-trinitarian is not on Christ side,i would not have thought so! Unitarians are on Christ side.
It's hard to believe as a fact that Islam sprouts from the Christ who went on the Cross. ✌️
Thomas,as your name,Qur'an 36:66
Wa loaw nasha O La Tomas na .😋
What you’re addressing is a matter of definition. I find it more useful to have a broader definition. I’m not trying to make a theological point though.
@@TAlexander .thanks for Ur answer.i will ponder it.
Violence labelled on names like Al Hajjaj 👈 portray anti-christ-ness.
@@asifbrettishmaelmakki9 if you watch and understand Thomas videos more closely, with the theological controversies of that time and the political struggle of that time...it makes perfect sense...Islam is the result of a Political and Theological fight of 2nd to 7th centuries..in which antitrinitarians won the middle east..and trinitarians lost it.
@@yakovmatityahu .
Hi Yakov.i don't accept all of historical claims that are preached eg the crusades are NT people who are slaying people all over the place. I reject such ugly history from being attached to the NT body,by rejecting it,the history.
NB.bro you are jewish.i think Jews with Christ have opposition from Jews who r not with the Christ who was crucified 2000yrs ago.
On wars 👉 blood shedding of others In the Name of Christ are the anti-christ lot 👺.🙂
NB.one of the last crusades,I think the 7th crusade,starts it's battle walk from Syria👈 I found that odd.
quran 33:40 Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is)the messenger of allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and allah has full knowledge.( Abdullah Yusuf Ali).
The Arabic for the above verse may be having hidden Roots courtesy of the Grammer chiefs symbols like Lam-Alif and Meem-Alif and most likely ya-Alif also.
Verse opens with MA KANA 👈 that can actually just be a Root MKN.
KANA has two meanings in Urdu/Gujarat,
Kana👉 food (appetite) and Kan👉 Ear 👂.
Also Kataman Nabeyeen/seal of the prophets,in the above verse, could actually mean end time (katam) prophets.
Also in that verse Root LKN does not logically fit to the Word BUT.but with Urdu Word of Laykin 👈 that means but.
Qur'an 2:256 👈 first words👉La ikraha (no compulsion)👉 covering a Roof LKR 👈 in Urdu it means Lakaree/stick.
✌️
Instead of giving people reason why they should leave Islam why don't you make video about why do people enter islam. There is a prophecy that islam will enter every house.
And there are millions who embrace Christianity, Mormonism, JW, or perhaps practice Buddha Dhamma. Millions of new mainland Chinese have embraced Jesus as their only saviour
@m idris What the FUCK? This series is analysis/compilation of research materials. You can discuss or refute the analysis. This is not theological channel.
Similar to the true Jesus in Quran by Marvelous Quran...
Earth is flat, come on man.
Monotheist christian is true in line with Islam and ibrahimic faith. Ibrahimic faith is very against trinatian
Only Tritheist Christians are not Monotheists. Other Christians are Monotheists.
Sadducees....
END TIMES PISACHA TEACHING ?????
It's funny how Christians feel so threatened by Islam that you are attempting to style Jesus as Muhammad. Just come to Islam. The gospels of Jesus were created by Caesar. We could butcher the Holy Bible from front to back but you would rather deal with what you perceive as inadequacies in Islam.
Don't be threatened. Just come to the perfected religion
lol
Waffle
Find Truth
LOOK INTO ISLAM
Religion sent down by GOD
NO. Only in the minds of Muhamadans.
*Islam is sole one True path of one God preached by all Prophets including Moses and Jesus. Christianity was not invented by Jesus but by Paul. Judaism was not invented by Moses but by Talmudic Rabbis. God has named all true followers of all Prophets "Muslims". Islam did not begin from Mohammad and Quran but it is perfected upon Mohammad and finalized in Quran*
satanic Lie! JESUS Apostles voucher for Paul, they all willingly died for Christianity. They had nothing to gain like muhammad who wanted power and wealth and women.
@Abd-al-Ahad: Did you even watch the video? Did you understood its content? Why don't you give us your thoughts on the video instead of cut and paste every keyboard jihadi argument ever?
@@svenknutsen8937
We never cut and paste
@@christianity9943
Early followers of Jesus and his Brother James the Just, were Ebionites. They used to call Paul an *Apostate;* and later that Apostate became Inventor of False Dogma "Chri$tianiy"
I’m not surprised u wrote those Horrible Lies that have No evidence what so ever. They All vouched for Paul and died as martyrs for Christianity. Even atheist/agnostics who argue against Christians Disagree with u. islam believes the sun sets in a muddy spring. muhammad says u can r4p3 captive married women, and had a child bride. It’s a religion cult of satan and Lies.
You are reported for spreading Falsehood
This video demonstrates how once you make one false assumption (that the word 'Muhammad' is a title for Jesus), you can use it as the cornerstone for an entire edifice of nonsense. 😁
It fits in perfectly with all the other pieces of the jigsaw, it explains why the Romans, Jews, Persians, Christians etc don't mention someone called Mohammed, if what he did was true they'd have written whole books about him.
Why do you think it’s a false assumption David.. Considering the mess of the Middle East at the time of the Persian /Byzantium’ death struggle for supremacy it’s hardly surprising.. Add to the fact that Mecca 🕋 didn’t exist before the 8th century CE.. It’s easy to see how Islam got made up by mistake..
@@hetrodoxly1203 Fun fact. The earliest non-Muslim document to affirm the existence of a warrior prophet from Arabia is the Doctrina Jacobi of 634CE which attests the appearance of a prophet from among the Saracens shedding of men's blood 'who claims to possess the keys to Paradise'. And what for Muslims is known as the Key to Paradise? The formula of words known as the shahada. la ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad ar-rasul Allah). And now you are going to say that they mean Jesus, right? 🤣
@@trevorgriffiths5611 It's not me thinking it's a false assumption. The claim that Thomas makes that the word 'Muhammad' is a title for Jesus is belied by the few ancient inscriptions and coinage that we actually do have. 😁
@@davidzack8735 The evidence is pretty clear that Thomas is correct.. I don’t really understand your reference to coinage as the early Arab/proto-Islamic coins paint a different picture.. Like having crosses on them ..
Also early Islam adopted some Sabaean practices and built in to the core of Islam. Even Islamic Scholars accept this.
Muslim writer Muhammad Shukri al-Alusi compares their religious practices to Islam in his Bulugh al-'Arab fi Ahwal al-'Arab:[25]
The Arabs during the pre-Islamic period used to practice certain things that were included in the Islamic Sharia. They, for example, did not marry both a mother and her daughter. They considered marrying two sisters simultaneously to be the most heinous crime. They also censured anyone who married his stepmother, and called him dhaizan. They made the major hajj and the minor umra pilgrimage to the Ka'ba, performed the circumambulation around the Ka'ba tawaf, ran seven times between Mounts Safa and Marwa sa'y, threw rocks and washed themselves after sexual intercourse. They also gargled, sniffed water up into their noses, clipped their fingernails, removed all pubic hair and performed ritual circumcision. Likewise, they cut off the right hand of a thief and stoned Adulterers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabaeans
Wow mohamed stole the titles of Jesus
Wow
But Abu Muslim was killed by the Abbassids so he couldn’t have been the role model for Mohammad.