InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones's banner

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

@InspiringPhilos • 74,437 subscribers

Philosophy, Theology, Apologetics, Christianity, & History

Shorts

Dawah is deception. Why are you leaving out the context SeerahPro ? You know right after this he says he doesn’t remember well what he wrote in that entry on Muhaymin. Why leave that part out? He even goes on to say that section seems to be non-committal and he needs to go back and re-read it. So since you don’t want to show every one the full context, I’ll do it, and expose how you are lying now and lied in the debate. Sinai doesn’t help your claim that the Quran believes the previous scriptures were textually corrupted. He says he doesn’t think the Quran believes the previous scriptures were corrupted in the deep past and that they are unrecoverable (Clip 1). Now let’s look at the short clip you pulled in context (Clip 2). First, what he says does not affirm why you cited him to begin with, which is that the Quran is supposed to be a supreme authority and determine which parts of our scriptures are corrupt and which are not. In the very clip you pulled he says, “The Quran is claiming to be able to sort of determine the correct reading of these previous scriptures and to remedy misreading and misunderstandings.” So by arbiter he means it is not determining what parts of our scriptures are true or corrupted, it is only an arbiter in determining meaning. You just buried yourself by citing this, because you implied Sinai was saying the Quran is an arbiter for determining textual corruption, which he doesn’t say. It’s like you didn’t even pay attention to what you pulled. That is embarrassing. Second, right after this (in what you left out) the interviewer reminds him he entertained two possibilities in his book and was noncommittal. Sinai says he doesn’t remember what he said and was probably leaving open possibilities, which is what I already had to correct you on. If you go back to the book, once again, he said on page 707 essentially what I said, “Muhaymin, meanwhile, is derived from Syriac mhaymnā (or conceivably from its equivalent in some other form of Aramaic), a passive participle of the verb haymen and meaning ‘trustworthy, faithful, loyal.’” After this all he does in the book is mention other possibilities and the one you want is more contingent on non-canonical readings. But even if that interpretation is correct (which Sinai confirms in this interview is his view) it doesn’t help you, because you misunderstood what Sinai means by ‘arbiter.’ In Clip 3 he first says, “So I need to reread that entry. I guess it seems to be very non-committal.” But remember you said (Clip 4), “In his 'Key Terms of the Quran' he explicitly says that Muhaymin means the Quran is the arbiter of the contents.” That is incorrect. He did not explicitly say that. Why did you lie? In Clip 3 he goes on to say “But I think entrusted with authority can mean, authorized to sort of authoritatively interpret and determine especially theological significance.” So you don’t even understand what Sinai means by “arbiter.” He doesn’t mean what you mean, that the Quran is determining which parts of our scriptures are true and corrupted, but that it is an arbiter of meaning. The fact that you still do not see this means you are beyond delusional. You never should have cited Sinai because he doesn’t help you at all. The funny thing is we were already planning to go live tomorrow to review this interview because he doesn’t help you at all and unintentionally helps with the Islamic Dilemma.

Dawah is deception. Why are you leaving out the context SeerahPro ? You know right after this he says he doesn’t remember well what he wrote in that entry on Muhaymin. Why leave that part out? He even goes on to say that section seems to be non-committal and he needs to go back and re-read it. So since you don’t want to show every one the full context, I’ll do it, and expose how you are lying now and lied in the debate. Sinai doesn’t help your claim that the Quran believes the previous scriptures were textually corrupted. He says he doesn’t think the Quran believes the previous scriptures were corrupted in the deep past and that they are unrecoverable (Clip 1). Now let’s look at the short clip you pulled in context (Clip 2). First, what he says does not affirm why you cited him to begin with, which is that the Quran is supposed to be a supreme authority and determine which parts of our scriptures are corrupt and which are not. In the very clip you pulled he says, “The Quran is claiming to be able to sort of determine the correct reading of these previous scriptures and to remedy misreading and misunderstandings.” So by arbiter he means it is not determining what parts of our scriptures are true or corrupted, it is only an arbiter in determining meaning. You just buried yourself by citing this, because you implied Sinai was saying the Quran is an arbiter for determining textual corruption, which he doesn’t say. It’s like you didn’t even pay attention to what you pulled. That is embarrassing. Second, right after this (in what you left out) the interviewer reminds him he entertained two possibilities in his book and was noncommittal. Sinai says he doesn’t remember what he said and was probably leaving open possibilities, which is what I already had to correct you on. If you go back to the book, once again, he said on page 707 essentially what I said, “Muhaymin, meanwhile, is derived from Syriac mhaymnā (or conceivably from its equivalent in some other form of Aramaic), a passive participle of the verb haymen and meaning ‘trustworthy, faithful, loyal.’” After this all he does in the book is mention other possibilities and the one you want is more contingent on non-canonical readings. But even if that interpretation is correct (which Sinai confirms in this interview is his view) it doesn’t help you, because you misunderstood what Sinai means by ‘arbiter.’ In Clip 3 he first says, “So I need to reread that entry. I guess it seems to be very non-committal.” But remember you said (Clip 4), “In his 'Key Terms of the Quran' he explicitly says that Muhaymin means the Quran is the arbiter of the contents.” That is incorrect. He did not explicitly say that. Why did you lie? In Clip 3 he goes on to say “But I think entrusted with authority can mean, authorized to sort of authoritatively interpret and determine especially theological significance.” So you don’t even understand what Sinai means by “arbiter.” He doesn’t mean what you mean, that the Quran is determining which parts of our scriptures are true and corrupted, but that it is an arbiter of meaning. The fact that you still do not see this means you are beyond delusional. You never should have cited Sinai because he doesn’t help you at all. The funny thing is we were already planning to go live tomorrow to review this interview because he doesn’t help you at all and unintentionally helps with the Islamic Dilemma.

34,921 просмотров

Just takes a little bit of research 🧠

Just takes a little bit of research 🧠

56,039 просмотров

Daniel prefers the low IQ.

Daniel prefers the low IQ.

56,106 просмотров

Eeeeewwwwww Dr. David Wood Ridvan Aydemir | Apostate Prophet

Eeeeewwwwww Dr. David Wood Ridvan Aydemir | Apostate Prophet

28,285 просмотров

Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him! Ridvan Aydemir | Apostate Prophet

Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him! Ridvan Aydemir | Apostate Prophet

33,516 просмотров

Thank you Lord

Thank you Lord

12,597 просмотров

Ibn Chicken 🐓

Ibn Chicken 🐓

10,799 просмотров

Welcome to the land of make believe 🌈

Welcome to the land of make believe 🌈

28,460 просмотров

interesting…

interesting…

10,063 просмотров

Videos

Anya Rossi

sweetdream.ai

SweetDream.ai•Sponsored•Livecam

Watch Anya Live

Anya is streaming live right now! Join her private show and enjoy exclusive content.

Exclusive private shows

1.2k viewers online

Private Show

Join now for exclusive access

Free preview available • Premium content

When they tell the truth, we should listen.

When they tell the truth, we should listen.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

14,466 просмотров • 1 день назад

Dawah is deception. Why are you leaving out the context SeerahPro ? You know right after this he says he doesn’t remember well what he wrote in that entry on Muhaymin. Why leave that part out? He even goes on to say that section seems to be non-committal and he needs to go back and re-read it. So since you don’t want to show every one the full context, I’ll do it, and expose how you are lying now and lied in the debate. Sinai doesn’t help your claim that the Quran believes the previous scriptures were textually corrupted. He says he doesn’t think the Quran believes the previous scriptures were corrupted in the deep past and that they are unrecoverable (Clip 1). Now let’s look at the short clip you pulled in context (Clip 2). First, what he says does not affirm why you cited him to begin with, which is that the Quran is supposed to be a supreme authority and determine which parts of our scriptures are corrupt and which are not. In the very clip you pulled he says, “The Quran is claiming to be able to sort of determine the correct reading of these previous scriptures and to remedy misreading and misunderstandings.” So by arbiter he means it is not determining what parts of our scriptures are true or corrupted, it is only an arbiter in determining meaning. You just buried yourself by citing this, because you implied Sinai was saying the Quran is an arbiter for determining textual corruption, which he doesn’t say. It’s like you didn’t even pay attention to what you pulled. That is embarrassing. Second, right after this (in what you left out) the interviewer reminds him he entertained two possibilities in his book and was noncommittal. Sinai says he doesn’t remember what he said and was probably leaving open possibilities, which is what I already had to correct you on. If you go back to the book, once again, he said on page 707 essentially what I said, “Muhaymin, meanwhile, is derived from Syriac mhaymnā (or conceivably from its equivalent in some other form of Aramaic), a passive participle of the verb haymen and meaning ‘trustworthy, faithful, loyal.’” After this all he does in the book is mention other possibilities and the one you want is more contingent on non-canonical readings. But even if that interpretation is correct (which Sinai confirms in this interview is his view) it doesn’t help you, because you misunderstood what Sinai means by ‘arbiter.’ In Clip 3 he first says, “So I need to reread that entry. I guess it seems to be very non-committal.” But remember you said (Clip 4), “In his 'Key Terms of the Quran' he explicitly says that Muhaymin means the Quran is the arbiter of the contents.” That is incorrect. He did not explicitly say that. Why did you lie? In Clip 3 he goes on to say “But I think entrusted with authority can mean, authorized to sort of authoritatively interpret and determine especially theological significance.” So you don’t even understand what Sinai means by “arbiter.” He doesn’t mean what you mean, that the Quran is determining which parts of our scriptures are true and corrupted, but that it is an arbiter of meaning. The fact that you still do not see this means you are beyond delusional. You never should have cited Sinai because he doesn’t help you at all. The funny thing is we were already planning to go live tomorrow to review this interview because he doesn’t help you at all and unintentionally helps with the Islamic Dilemma.

Dawah is deception. Why are you leaving out the context SeerahPro ? You know right after this he says he doesn’t remember well what he wrote in that entry on Muhaymin. Why leave that part out? He even goes on to say that section seems to be non-committal and he needs to go back and re-read it. So since you don’t want to show every one the full context, I’ll do it, and expose how you are lying now and lied in the debate. Sinai doesn’t help your claim that the Quran believes the previous scriptures were textually corrupted. He says he doesn’t think the Quran believes the previous scriptures were corrupted in the deep past and that they are unrecoverable (Clip 1). Now let’s look at the short clip you pulled in context (Clip 2). First, what he says does not affirm why you cited him to begin with, which is that the Quran is supposed to be a supreme authority and determine which parts of our scriptures are corrupt and which are not. In the very clip you pulled he says, “The Quran is claiming to be able to sort of determine the correct reading of these previous scriptures and to remedy misreading and misunderstandings.” So by arbiter he means it is not determining what parts of our scriptures are true or corrupted, it is only an arbiter in determining meaning. You just buried yourself by citing this, because you implied Sinai was saying the Quran is an arbiter for determining textual corruption, which he doesn’t say. It’s like you didn’t even pay attention to what you pulled. That is embarrassing. Second, right after this (in what you left out) the interviewer reminds him he entertained two possibilities in his book and was noncommittal. Sinai says he doesn’t remember what he said and was probably leaving open possibilities, which is what I already had to correct you on. If you go back to the book, once again, he said on page 707 essentially what I said, “Muhaymin, meanwhile, is derived from Syriac mhaymnā (or conceivably from its equivalent in some other form of Aramaic), a passive participle of the verb haymen and meaning ‘trustworthy, faithful, loyal.’” After this all he does in the book is mention other possibilities and the one you want is more contingent on non-canonical readings. But even if that interpretation is correct (which Sinai confirms in this interview is his view) it doesn’t help you, because you misunderstood what Sinai means by ‘arbiter.’ In Clip 3 he first says, “So I need to reread that entry. I guess it seems to be very non-committal.” But remember you said (Clip 4), “In his 'Key Terms of the Quran' he explicitly says that Muhaymin means the Quran is the arbiter of the contents.” That is incorrect. He did not explicitly say that. Why did you lie? In Clip 3 he goes on to say “But I think entrusted with authority can mean, authorized to sort of authoritatively interpret and determine especially theological significance.” So you don’t even understand what Sinai means by “arbiter.” He doesn’t mean what you mean, that the Quran is determining which parts of our scriptures are true and corrupted, but that it is an arbiter of meaning. The fact that you still do not see this means you are beyond delusional. You never should have cited Sinai because he doesn’t help you at all. The funny thing is we were already planning to go live tomorrow to review this interview because he doesn’t help you at all and unintentionally helps with the Islamic Dilemma.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

34,921 просмотров • 6 дней назад

So Libby is terrified of me debating more. I guess they know the damage we do to their propaganda.

So Libby is terrified of me debating more. I guess they know the damage we do to their propaganda.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

51,294 просмотров • 12 дней назад

Islam Pitch Meeting Inspo: Ryan George

Islam Pitch Meeting Inspo: Ryan George

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

37,253 просмотров • 9 дней назад

Islamic Philosophy: Episode 12

Islamic Philosophy: Episode 12

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

197,663 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

A high or drunk Mohammed Hijab shows us how gay he is. He tells the world of his perverted fantasy to have me on my knees, handcuffed, and begging him. He makes it clear this is sexual by referencing '50 Shades of Grey.' I'm not interested, Hijab, as I am straight and married. Get some help. Muslims, this is your top apologist? Is this what Islam is now?

Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

A high or drunk Mohammed Hijab shows us how gay he is. He tells the world of his perverted fantasy to have me on my knees, handcuffed, and begging him. He makes it clear this is sexual by referencing '50 Shades of Grey.' I'm not interested, Hijab, as I am straight and married. Get some help. Muslims, this is your top apologist? Is this what Islam is now?

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

199,299 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

It was clear itachi didn't know what she was talking about. At first she said a sufficient cause means it's the only thing that is necessary, but then she said sufficient doesn't mean "only." They just make things up as they go along.

It was clear itachi didn't know what she was talking about. At first she said a sufficient cause means it's the only thing that is necessary, but then she said sufficient doesn't mean "only." They just make things up as they go along.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

62,200 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Apparently, Mohammed Hijab had a HUGE crash out and accused his muslim followers of all being stupid, greedy, and having micro-penises. Dawah is in free fall!

Apparently, Mohammed Hijab had a HUGE crash out and accused his muslim followers of all being stupid, greedy, and having micro-penises. Dawah is in free fall!

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

92,319 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Islamic Philosophy: Episode 4

Islamic Philosophy: Episode 4

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

124,872 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Christianity ENDED Rampant p*dophilia

Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Christianity ENDED Rampant p*dophilia

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

66,322 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

The Islamic Dilemma is inescapable

The Islamic Dilemma is inescapable

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

18,932 просмотров • 19 дней назад

Very odd he didn’t pull up. 🤣

Very odd he didn’t pull up. 🤣

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

67,010 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Islamic Philosophy: Episode 6

Islamic Philosophy: Episode 6

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

79,075 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Does Islam promote ch*ld m*rriage?

Does Islam promote chld mrriage?

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

15,174 просмотров • 16 дней назад

PSA: A 9 year old is a CHILD

PSA: A 9 year old is a CHILD

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

26,992 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Deen accidentally said the quiet part out loud! Mohammed Hijab was scared of me.

Deen accidentally said the quiet part out loud! Mohammed Hijab was scared of me.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

54,363 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Hey SeerahPro why are you taking what I said out of context? I followed this up by explaining the problem of using Q. To clarify, Kloppenborg assigns this saying to Q, the source you wanted to use, but my point was Jesus says this of Himself in the documents we do have. So this shows He did claim to be God since this is something only God can claim, as you guys admitted. So don't misrepresent my point.

Hey SeerahPro why are you taking what I said out of context? I followed this up by explaining the problem of using Q. To clarify, Kloppenborg assigns this saying to Q, the source you wanted to use, but my point was Jesus says this of Himself in the documents we do have. So this shows He did claim to be God since this is something only God can claim, as you guys admitted. So don't misrepresent my point.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

35,382 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Where do Muslims get the historical Jesus from?

Where do Muslims get the historical Jesus from?

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

13,001 просмотров • 15 дней назад

Did Korra call in and try to disguise her voice tonight? You be the judge.

Did Korra call in and try to disguise her voice tonight? You be the judge.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

18,499 просмотров • 25 дней назад

I spoke at the nation’s capital

I spoke at the nation’s capital

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

19,192 просмотров • 26 дней назад