Видео

Shaking is Haram but allah pray for mohammed not to mohammed So who does allah pray to for mohammed????

S A W

Clown without Logic simply twists words and sentences, taking parts of texts out of context to try to prove his point. He would make a great journalist 😂.

Saw the whole debate.. That muslim guy can't answer simple question. When he saw an opportunity to back out he just simply made an excuse to end the discussion.

Says the pagan black stone kissers

Mansur, COOKED! Now why would someone lies so bared faced! A muslim no doubt!

These guys are really deceiving their followers, they dont read the bible nor comprehend yet like to mention it. Let him read john 3, the story of nicodemus and his interaction with jesus then he ask the meaning and will get it.

What are talking about? He didnt seem frustrated to me💯

there's was absolutely no way she wouldve answered that last question, if he did accept it then the whole Christianity falls apart.

Your religion is at the beginning of the end. The internet is exploding the lord of your scholars

That awkward moment when the Dawah team meet someone with their brain switched on.

He doesn't understand indeed.

What I found funny is how you in the comments think "by means of" is somehow helping your argument.

No logic like saying it started on Oct 7 😂

This guy should not be debated, he is doing the same thing again and again, he twists something, when he is called on it, he interrupts, keep talking, and says this is not his question.

I watch this whole video Christians say no logic won no logic never answers the questions his asked always switching the topic his a liar

That is the problem with most 🇺🇸 🇺🇲 He's looking for cloud It's a joke

Doglogic

My guy said forget about jesus just like that to the person he worships lol

You made this up. That Greek word Dia is not in 1 Colossians 16.

I'm sorry but this black homie... Is nothing but only blabbers and interrupting jerk....

The muslim guy cannot answer.

Take him to John 3. Even his stupid questions are there.😊😊

"All things were created by means of.. " So what? Can a creature be "used by God" to create all things?

Jesus is God. the first and the last , the beginning and the end, the alpha and the omega, Jesus is The Almighty

The Muslim guy is 1/4 right as in , it could mean by means but this translation is not used here . "Dia" means "through" when used with a genitive noun and "because of" or "on account of" when used with an accusative noun. In Colossians 1:16, it is used with a genitive noun which is why it's translated as "through" instead of "because of" But too say it only means “ by means of “ is in correct .

Low key he completely detailed his argument. The Christian sadly does not know his own book.

Clown arguing in English about a greek document about an Aramaic speaker, who practiced a Hebrew religion... If you only speak one language sit down and be quite when adults are breaking down knowledge for you.

Allah is the greatest, may Allah keep you steadfast sister

If you're not going to let the dude answer why bother having a conversation. You might as well be talking in an echo chamber

This Edited video is misleading its a muslim lying .Watch the Full debate on RUclipss /Speakers Corners /Revelation of Socofilm.Godlogic lectured n caught the muslim guy lied n lies n lies

It's not the eye that is blind. It's the heart. Your job is only to deliver the message accurately and move on. Take it or leave it

Watch the debate. Godlogic destroyed him. Can Allah be a father? Haha

Yeah keep on talking and not listening how in the world r u going to find the truth? For the sake of argument? Come on use Ur brain and think wisely only the u will find the truth of Islam!

Laughing at the point doesn’t make you right

Arroganz from the holy ghost

John 1:1-3 from the Khabouris Codex. In transliteration it reads: b'rēšīṯ ˀīṯawhyē hwāya melṯā wǝhūw melṯā ˀīṯawhyē hwāya lwāṯ ˀălāhā wǝˀlāhā ˀīṯawhyē hwāya hūw melṯā ˀhānā ˀīṯawhyē hwāya b'rēšīṯ lwāṯ ˀălāhā kull b'ˀyaḏə hwā wǝbelˁādˁāwhay ˀāp̄la ḥaḏ' hwāt medˁēm d'ahwāˁ Literal translation: initially [there] was {twice} word (or speech), and it (or he); [the] word was {twice} towards (the) God, and (the) God was {twice} he/himself word this was {twice} in the beginning with (the) God all by/with his hand/power/control was (or became existent), and without (his hand or him or it - unclear) not even one became something [which] was What's interesting here is that the Aramaic is actually copying the opening of Genesis. Genesis in Hebrew isn't called "Genesis", but "bereshit", instead. This is the first Hebrew word in the Old Testament, and it literally means "in the head", but means "initially", as 'the top of the skull', or "ras" in Arabic, i.e. the highest part of your body, functions to indicate priority or precedence (in speech). Like how you say "he was ahead of everyone else", in English, which also uses "head" to refer to a foremost position. This is therefor typically translated to mean "in the beginning". Note that "bereshit" doesn't mean "the first thing", as there could be events that preceded it, and this is true, because the creation of the heavens and the earth, in Genesis, isn't actually the first creation. Water and fire were created before the creation of the heavens and the earth. It simply denotes an initial stage of creation. So this exact same word is used to translate John 1:1:1 in Aramaic, and the author is obviously trying to imitate Genesis 1:1:1. I think that the author is trying to use the opening of Genesis to introduce something new to that creation narrative; to expand on it. He's also trying to give his biography (or 'Gospel') the same kind of religious authority that he thinks Genesis has. And so he starts off with a Genesis-like creation narrative, while mixing it up a bit, and introducing some neo nomenclature. Also, the Aramaic uses a double form for "being", ˀīṯawhyē hwāy sounds like he's saying "was, was", which doesn't happen in the Greek 'originals'. The Greek also lacks the inclusion of God's "hand", in verse 3. This pertains to creating, obviously, but isn't worded as such in the Greek. You have to wonder what manuscript this (rather late) Aramaic version is based on. Do some Greek manuscripts include the word for "hand"? I don't know. English translations of the Greek start verse 2 with "he was", but the Aramaic says "this was". Why would a relatively late Aramaic translation purposely exclude expressions that imply Jesus' divinity? Again, it's peculiar, but I don't know why it differs in this regard. There are multiple interesting (albeit sometimes subtle) differences. Hūw typically means "he", but not necessarily. It can also mean "it", or "himself", or it can be used emphatically; focussing on the word it follows or precedes (e.g. "this" or "that"). ˀīṯawhyē has a third person masculine singular morpheme, and hwāya is also in the third person masculine singular mode. Hwā can mean "to be", "to exist", "to endure", "to turn", "to turn into", "to become", "to change state", "to possess", "to come to pass", "to happen", "to come into existence", "to create", "to be created". Idiomatically it can mean "not" as in "it is not", or "to stay with someone", or "to come to one's senses", or "to have intercourse", or "to let it be", or "to deal with", and finally "to raise a point of discussion". All of these possible meanings are extracted from a variety of texts written in Common Aramaic, Syriac, Galilean Aramaic, Jewish Babylonian, Samaritan, Official Aramaic, Official Egyptian Aramaic, and Biblical Ezra Aramaic. So I'm not pulling this out of thin air. I can provide references for all of these. Gramatically it can be used as an augmentative marker of tense and/or aspect. Moreover, ˀīṯawhyē specifically, can mean "to exist", "to have", "to owe", "to have dealings with", "to be necessary to do", "to be capable (of acting)", and "to have an ability". Lwāṯ means "towards", "at", "with", "according to", "concerning", "along with", "to come along with", "infront of", "facing", "next to", "compared to", etc. The expression wǝˀlāhā ˀīṯawhyē hwāya hūw melṯā, therefor, is somewhat open to interpretation; what your quote renders as "and the Word was God". Consider the third verse: kull b'ˀyaḏə hwā, which means "everything by His hand was (created)", which uses the same verb as before: hwāya melṯā, meaning "[the] word was". Does it mean that the word was created? I don't think it does. I suspect that the double verb (for "to be") functions as an expression of eternal existence. But this is somewhat problematic when it's preceded by the phrase "in the beginning", since this indicates an existential beginning. The Word is not what's being created, but it functions in conjunction with "God's hand", and refers to the act of creation, or the means. What does melṯā mean, exactly? It means "word", "statement" or "speech" in Common Aramaic. It can also mean "cause". Syriac includes the meanings "terminology", "exposition", "treatise", "argumentation", and "proverb". In the Jewish Babylonian Magic Bowls, as well as in Jewish Babylonian literature, and in Jewish Babylonia-geonic, it can mean "magic spell", "incantation" and "charm". Syriac also adds "power of speech", "science", "reasoning", "learning", "promise", "pledge", "verbal consent". It can also mean "to give legal permission" or "to have (philosophical) meaning". Galilean, Syriac, Jewish Babylonian, Jewish Babylonia-geonic, Biblical Daniel Aramaic, and Late Jewish Literary Aramaic all include the meanings "a thing", "a matter", as in "a case", and "a situation". But there's also "complaint", "disagreement", and "the essence of a subject matter". It can also mean "a letter in a word". As an idiom, it can mean "to pray" and "to let bleed", "to give an account" and "to continue speaking". Most interestingly, it can mean "of/by itself" as in "intrinsically". Finally, only in Syriac texts can we find it being used as a theological term for "the logos" (masculine form!), but melṯā here has a feminine morphology, which is interesting. ˀălāhā or Alaha is in an emphatic state: adding -a at the end, which is a shortened form of -ha and just means "the": "Allah (the)", so "The God". You could, if you wanted to, interpret this whole passage differently, and interpret "word" as referring to God's attribute of Speech, by which He commands creations to come into being, as opposed to this referring to a second persona of a triune deity. And God's attributes are beginninglessly eternal, and therefor they exist as intrinsic necessities, which is why I said that the meaning of "by itself" is interesting. God's attributes are not Him Himself, nor are they other than Him (i.e. they are not parts of God). They should be understood to be attributes; full stop. They are not beings in the sense that they are distinct living components. They are beings only in the sense that they exist; are real, and true, and that they do not NOT exist. But the living being here is God, and these are simply the attributes of God. Note that the three verses (like Genesis) talk about the creation (of the world). The melṯā indicates speech, reason and purpose, whereas the 'hand' refers to the capability and absolute power to realize. Possible interpretation: *In the beginning, the creative Word intrinsically existed, and this Speech existed inherently with God, and God enabled createdness Himself; verbally.* *This necessarily existing ability was God's, (even) primordially.* *By His Hand everything was created, and without it, not even a single existence emerged.*

Firstborn means he was created not a creator.

Muslims, don't talk to him. Only Allah may guide him. This guy is ignorant and ignorant people have huge ego. Don't waste your time

Basic English grammar….. Greek word is dia things don’t always translate perfectly Just in Northern Europe thing do not translate perfectly

Judge: Did you kill him Muslims defendant: No, they died by means of me 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Lol green half moon piggy's trying to lie

These guys are too used to muslim argumentation where you just shout down your opponent and don’t let them answer

So whos bible version is actually the best? Please decide. I mean there is only one word of God so the rest must be.....😢😢😢

They don't even know the authors of their books 😂 yet they still argue 😂

fair enough he got issues with the guy no problem

TAKBEER ALLAHU'AKBAR ALLAHU'AKBAR

As someone who can read and understand the original Greek, the black guy is right. Δια means through/by. You don't have to be Christian to acknowledge it. Also, at the time Christian doctrine was established, all the best scholars were present, all of whom spoke Greek. If you're not educated to understand Koine Greek, how presumptuous do you have to be to think that you understand the meaning of a word better than scholars who spoke the languages fluently?

Dude has a goofy smile

How does that change anything??all things were created by means of Jesus..dis means completely by Jesus