MUSLIMS REACT History of the entire Church, I guess (Redeemed Zoomer)

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Welcome everyone! Please remember to LIKE this video and SUBSCRIBE to our channel! We do our best to give our genuine, honest and respectful reactions. May peace be upon you all! 🙂

[@allannyoro6506]

Islam definitley called for persecution, read the hadiths. (christian prince)

[@Notsurprising]

They are taught the re-conqista is when they start to think, but we know Islamic Golden age is where scientific method, Algebra, medicine optics etc other since were being gathered and studied and developed! Baghdad was the first Research Center where people of all backgrounds gathered to learn knowledge!

[@MuslimMindsUS]

@@NotsurprisingSalam brother, that’s exactly right, Islam has contributed massively to many of these fields and much more, baffles me when someone says Islam is anti rational or anti science. -Rohaib

[@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867]

Around the Enlightenment segment you talked about how other Christian denomination see each other as heretical, this is actually not true. To be heretical one must deny what are considered the essential doctrines of Christianity. To make it simple if a denomination goes against the Nicaean Creed it is heretical, how do we know the Nicaean Creed properly represents the early church you may ask? Simple because the historical evidence supports this conclusion, the gospels clearly show the Nicaean Creed correct and even if you reject some of them the earliest among them falls somewhere between a late date of 90AD and an early date of 40AD. This places the earliest gospel (Mark) within merely a century of Jesus's death (happened in the 30's) possibly even less than a decade. Even if you reject that still, there is an early church Creed (1st Corinthians 15) which has a late date of 40AD and an early date of 33AD which places it essentially right after Jesus's death. Though it would definitely be harder to argue the Nicaean Creed correct using the early creed, it still supports it. This is all to say that while denominations might have their differences most don't consider others heretics. Many protestant denominations can take Holy Communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist (same sacrament, different names) with other denominations. The only people which might call another denomination heretical are those who don't know the theological differences between churches and instead have misconceptions. For instance a common misconception is that Catholics worship Mary, this is false and what they are actually doing is asking Mary to intercede on their behalf (basically asking Mary to pray for them). This misconceptions leads some to call Catholics heretics, and to be fair if their misconception were reality they would be right, but it isn't.

[@Albanian_crusader]

Is there any sorceress. Na bro suddenly half of the Christian world's mysteriously became Muslim in just 50 years and the eastern roman empire just decided to gift 75% of it's territory to the Arabs

[@901kingful]

Christians don't believe that the 12 disciples had their views greatly changed by Paul btw. There were some disagreements, but nothing drastic. At that time there were many false teachers and they were called out. The fact Paul was accepted by them even after he was killing them is a huge indicator that they believed him to genuinely have been visited and instructed by God.

[@innocentodinkemere4597]

For the records, Peter endorsed Paul's teachings for instance he wrote in -2-peter-314-16 15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Paul wrote in Galatians 1vs 2 that 2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain Then in Acts of the Apostles, the Council actually approved and agreed with Paul The disagreement theory between Paul and the early apostles to me who has read the Bible is funny and ridiculous

[@heathodoherty4877]

Nice pfp I love the orioles!

[@PostSupAnglican]

Typical Muslim apologetics to fabricate a rift between Paul and Jesus. Paul, a lifelong Pharisee, did not have a name-change episode, was not the first Jew to preach Jesus to the gentiles, never wavered on the need for Jewish Christians to be circumcised and obey mitzvot, never wavered in gentiles' responsibility to avoid deliberate consumption of meat offered to idols, never abandoned worshipping in the temple through the Levitical korbanot, and most certainly did not teach that Jesus replaced Israel with something else. If you believe there is a disconnect between them, focus on the area of perceived conflict. You will find that is where your understanding of Paul is deficient.

[@captainpandabear1422]

How do we know Paul was accepted by them? We don't have early accounts, and the accounts we do have are from Paul and his sympathizers.

[@codygates7418]

As a high schooler Christian I’m absolutely sickened at how liberal and unChristian like our churches have become. My family hardly doesn’t go to church anymore, because of it. Also about Paul “preaching new Christianity” Jesus Himself says in Matthew 28:19-20 19 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” So yes He told the original disciples to go and make new believers of all the nations. Jesus was sent to help the lost sheep of Israel, but he was also sent to help the lost sheep of the world.

[@baldwinthefourth4098]

Yes. I think something we can admire muslims for is how they managed to keep their faith and how many people, even young people, still take it seriously. I wish we had it the same with Christianity.

[@richardjones6024]

Also, Muslims have debated some important issues from the beginning too. We have Sunnis and Shi'a's who can't seem to agree on Muhammad's rightful successor, yet they both read the same Qur'an. While that may not be as fundamental of an issue as say Tawhid, there are even some groups of Muslims who have different pillars or different shahadas. Alawites in Syria call themselves Muslim yet many of them drink alcohol and believe in reincarnation, the Ahmadiyya believe in another prophet and they all will use Qur'an and hadith to defend their beliefs. (although I'm aware some groups have different hadith's) What I'm saying is that its normal in any religion to come to different conclusions despite reading the same book; its the nature of humanity. Just like there are influential sheiks and scholars who publicly correct errors in Islamic teaching, the same has happened in Christianity too!

[@innocentodinkemere4597]

Islam also had a controversy over if the Quran was eternal or created. This lead to a lot of persecution and death and it is still outstanding till date

[@vagabond57097]

Yeah but Islam is unique in the sense that about 80-90% of all Muslims are Sunni. It's the most collective religion of the 3 Abrahamic religions by far. There is the Sunni/Shia split but the differences are not as large as the differences between the smaller denominations and even between the Christian denominations with each other, and also the Shia populations itself (maybe like 60-70 million Muslims worldwide in total) vs the Sunni population (roughly between 1-1.5 billion Muslims worldwide in total) makes the split far less impactful

[@SohailJafar1]

Hi. The successor of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as caliph is not a debate, that is only something Shias (10-15% of the Muslim population) will argue about. This also not an issue of religion, rather it is a political one on who will be the next leader of a State. Remember, the prophethood finished with Muhammad (pbuh), therefore that is not a good example to use as a correlation. Alawites are in the shia branch and Ahmadiyyas both do not have any basis in authentic Hadith or Quran. As for your last point, the different conclusions that differ from the correct one are only held by small groups that are in a very minority position and are not influential to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. That, again, is not the same with Christianity and Christians.

[@richardjones6024]

@@SohailJafar1 Many of these early Christian heresies were not large groups either, they were minorities. Whether you think the Ahmadiyyas or Alawites have no basis in qur'an or hadith is irrelevant, they would argue that they do and that is my point. Also the Sunni Shi'a split is clearly a debate or else Sunni's wouldn't be calling Shia's kafir. Even in my own circles Sunni's openly say they look down upon Shia's. If shi'as are so small then why is there so much hatred towards them from Sunnis.

[@SohailJafar1]

​@@richardjones6024 Now, you are touching on Shia practices that they do even today, I was referring to the immediate split 1400 years ago. As for the hate, you are insinuating that Shias are not the ones instigating such hatred? That is your view.

[@Lerian_V]

The first Church Council was in 50 AD. You can read it in Acts of the Apostles, verse 15. All the apostles including Paul were on the same page on the Jews and Gentiles issue after the Council.

[@innocentodinkemere4597]

Thank you

[@Lerian_V]

@@innocentodinkemere4597 You're welcome, but why are you mocking my name nah?

[@innocentodinkemere4597]

@@Lerian_V Hahaha, got me there, hapu o, na so e be

[@Lerian_V]

@@innocentodinkemere4597 Udo di.

[@Soundeagle3456]

strangely that didn't stop the invasion of jerusalem two decades after.

[@garethmiguel]

The jizya was a tax *ontop of* the regular tax. Non muslims had to pay regular tax and jizya. Muslims did *not* have a higher tax, that is pretty nonsensical - why would an invading army conquer territory then tax themselves more than the natives? Lol This was the reason many, many people converted to Islam in conquered countries - to avoid jizya. But, guess what? Many regional islamic rulers refused to accept the conversions of locals, as it would mean they would not receive the massive profits from jizya.

[@jand.4737]

From what I know, the jizya basically is "We don't expect you to fight in the name of Allah, but in return you pay an additional tax to help us keep these lands safe"

[@tp_exe]

@@jand.4737no... Jizya tax is on non muslims so tht If u pay us, We will provide you with security and not harm ur religious places

[@konnichibeaucoup4089]

I think you guys would really benefit from actually talking to a (catholic) theologian or someone in real time rather than just commenting on videos. Your knowledge of certain historical and scriptural references is impressive for non-Christians, but you really, really, really do not understand on a deep level how Christian belief regarding tradition and scripture works. The frequent councils and disagreements are integral to the process of the Spirit. Heresies are not inherently problematic, they're a very expected and normal part of the process. You're approaching the Bible as if it is the Quran and then asking why it doesn't make sense-- of course it doesn't make sense, the approach is fundamentally different. And that's not a question of 'bias', it's that our most basic theological methodologies of exegesis and doctrine are not the same.

[@MuslimMindsUS]

We are visiting a Catholic Church soon, stay tuned for a video on that -Rohaib

[@konnichibeaucoup4089]

@@MuslimMindsUS excellent news, hope you enjoy :)

[@Exmuslim-u1l]

Visiting is not enough. You should really talk to a theologian of the church.

[@tyckohasthat6404]

ALOT of what you said was misguided, but it'll take too long to write it. So let's talk about Islam mostly spreading through everything bad. Examples: 1. Fear tactics 2. False answers to questions (prophecies) 3. Cohersion So YES he did ask "less politely" and that's a polite way to say it

[@Razamaniac]

Still when you say that to muslims they are surprised !!! And that really surprises me really !!!

[@Eaglealbert42]

As a catholic convert for only 2 years I stumbled into you guys while watching other christian explaination videos and learning more about the religion. After seeing several of ya'll vids I'm impressed with your knowledge of the old testement (its certainly a greater knowledge than mine!) but naturally I've respectfully disagreed with most of the interpretations of the new testement that you offered. Thats to be expected, and before I go any further I do want to say I find the discipline and faith of many modern muslims, including you guys, impressive. Those are traits I hope to improve on myself and I see a good example of that in you two. All that said however, I was suprised the two of you dismissed Islam's violent beginings and history, even saying Zoomer's video was "lies". Historians have been in agreement of Islam's violent past for some time now. Sharia law uses the spread of islam as a just reason for warfare and also justifies capital punishment. You guys even seemed to acknowledge Islam's conquest and persecution as "Islam is a rising religion" only to then shrug it off as just something that people naturally do. Problem is, Islam is a justification for what these people are doing. I look around the world today and I see examples of this in al queada, ISIS, the 9/11 attacks, and the Taliban's persecution of christians currently ongoing in afgahnistan. These things as the holdovers of a darker and violent past most modern muslims are trying to move away from - there have been thousands of battles waged in the name of Jihad from the days of Muhammad to present. Since this conversation is never able to be had without mention of christian violence I hope to jump the gun with a comparison of the two. Jesus based his whole teachings around mercy, salvation, and pacifism. Christianity was founded as a pacifist religion. I happen to know alot more about christian history and the new testement than Islam so sorry in advance for the novel coming your way. Mathew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you" John 8:7 "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (This was Jesus's response when the pharisees confronted him about capital punishment for breaking the ten commandments. Keep in mind that he also teaches that no one is without sin.) Mathew 5:38-40 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. While history of course shows christians committing violence and warfare just like Islam, I'd argue there are important differences. First, Jesus specifically condems violence and retaliation, so any violence committed in jesus's name is heresy as it runs counter to what christianity teaches. This is not the case for islam. From my understanding of history, Christianity spread across the world by word and conversion with a speed and nonviolence never before seen in the history. Tragically, christians seem to be most violent towards other christians. 2,000 years is a long time, and it is the struggle over defining and controlling the christian message and the power and influence that comes with it that fueled the violence - essentially competition over who controlled the culture. Those who did commit violence in Jesus name and did not repent and seek mercy certainly do not have a place in heaven. There were also the witch trials between the 15th and 17th centuries which were the result of a guy getting excomunicated for claiming that satan was giving magical powers to satinists. The dude was so butthurt over it he went on to write a book about how to identify and kill witches and tragically he did such a good job of it many congrigations took it as fact. Once again, heresy lead to violence, not the teachings of jesus. Then there was the crusades, which was a reaction to the warfare islam had already been waging in the middle east, africa, sicilly, and spain for centuries. It really was a "we had enough, if we dont do something drastic Islam will conquer us all" situation. That didnt make the crusades rightous or in line with christ's teachings, but it was still reactionary. The ottoman conquest of the roman empire kind of proved the fears of the time valid. My only source at this point is the wikipedia page on Islam's connection to violence. Its not exactly the most thorough analysis, but the fact that the page exists at all disputes your origional denial of the connection between Islam and violence. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence This does merrit further research than just the hour or so I've spent so far, but admittedly most writings I find on the topic are completely biased one way or another, its eaither a scathing attack on islam or an attack on those who attack Islam. I figured the wiki page is a good start cause they have to at least attempt to be unbiased to maintain their reputation of neutrality. After all of that I still believe that muslims and other religions can coexist peacefully. I realize the vast amount of muslims today aren't plotting some violent act, and to anyone reading this, its important to know this to prevent fearmongering and hatred. I'm still inspired by muslim's faith in God and their kindness that they are capable of. I've enjoyed watching your videos and hope you keep making more, I love discussing theology, I'm just calling you out for trying to downplay the history of the religion with violence. I look forward to any responses and counter arguments If you guys manage to read my entire essay of a post, and I hope I have not offended either of you. Bonus round: A few videos back yall brought up a criticism of Jesus claiming he does "not know the hour" because if God is all powerful he should know. However, context is important. He was explaining that the timing of judgement day was forbidden knowledge and that anyone who claims to know when the final day will be is a false prophet. God knows the hour of judgement day, but he either sealed that information from himself before he came to earth or he's claiming that he will never disclose that information, or both. Personally I'm glad he did it this way because it becomes easy to identify heresy about judgment day - its a condemnation against "doomsday cults". God said he will never tell us which hour, so if someone claims to know the hour than he is a false prophet.

[@Yanuarius_Donalsius]

Hear hear. This is fact.

[@MightyVoxVA]

I was going to say it myself, but i am glad you explained it in a more sophisticated and truthful way. May god bless you 🙏 ❤️

[@ochem123]

7:28 This is part of the mystery of the Trinity. Plus, He was often quoting the Old Testament. The apostles understood the references, but we today often don’t notice. On the cross, Jesus said, “My God, my God! Why have you forsaken me?” You could interpret this at face value (and wrongly that Jesus was powerless to stop His crucifixion; He allowed it to happen for our sake), or you can also realize He was quoting Psalm 22, prayed when going through great times of trouble and pain and agony. Seems rather appropriate given the circumstance.

[@knightofblackfyre7950]

That part about the crusaders attacking the Jews was the first Crusade, they didn't even make it out of Germany, which Is where that particular army of crusaders had started from, and attacked the Jews of Germany because they were alot closer then the Muslims and the Middle East. There were church officials, bishops and I think another high rank, that tried to protect the jews and the crusaders just laid siege to them to get at the jews. It's truly impressive that the first crusade managed to do...well anything it was a complete dumpster fire. And all because the Byzantine Emperor asked the pope to help get back his land and the pope made it into a holy war.

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Thanks for sharing these details Knight of BlackFyre! -Rohaib

[@JeffersonElder]

The apostles didnt get it wrong, or that Paul got it right only later. The apostles were doing what they had to do and Paul came up with a different approach that was approved by all the thers apostles. Even when they had different opinions, they only went on with the implementation after all the apostles agreed. Thats why, we also believe that the pope can have a wrong opinion but that the implementation of a belief will never be wrong

[@innocentodinkemere4597]

Exactly. Jesus even said in Luke 9: 49 “Master,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.” 50 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” I think Muslims find it difficult to understand the freedom of expression Christianity has.

[@ochem123]

4:42 The manuscripts written on papyrus only last about 100 years before they degrade. The Codex Sinaiticus is from the 4th century I believe. It was done on parchment, so it lasted.

[@richardjones6024]

Great video as usual, I think its important to note that the other apostles didn't have the "wrong" Christianity and Paul had the "right" one. I don't like the way he frames that. There were disagreements in how to apply certain things, particularly Christianity's relationship with Judaism and the Gentiles, its just that Paul's position became most widely applied. As for Peter being the "rock" the idea that Peter has a special place is really more a Catholic idea. Many people say that the confession is really about Jesus, and Peter is being placed as one of the many smaller rocks on the BIG rock of Jesus.

[@dest3953]

I heard it explained as: Jesus told Peter he would be the one who He would build His church off of. Not the Catholic Church, THE church. Cleared it up for me.

[@richbandicoot]

Thank you, I had been requesting this for some time I'm glad y'all reacted to it, God bless. - Non-Denominational Christian

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Thanks for the recommendation richbandicoot! -Rohaib

[@thatwolfensteinguy8954]

​@@MuslimMindsUS regarding the trinity, based on the didache (a Christian manual from the 60/80AD, that baptism in the name of the trinity and litteral Eucharist may suggest Christianity in its early forms was more like modern day Orthadoxy then most secual scholars think

[@ActivityOfTheSoul]

6:38 I have no clue why you would raise this objection when not even all Muslims believe in the same thing regarding the doctrine of God. For instance: Ask Muslims if God has hands, if He literally sits on a throne or not. That has huge implications on your doctrine of God, yet not all Muslims agree if God has literal hands or not. An Athari would say yes, a Shi'a Twelver would say that is ridiculous, it is of course metaphorical language. Any objection that Christians don't agree on orthodoxy can be thrown right back at you. 6:48 Yet even the Ebionites still would have had an adoptionist Christology (which we know developed later than high Christology) which would still be incompatible with Islam, belief in Jesus as the Son of God (in some sense) or as some kind of divine being was universal in early Christianity. Where are the proto-Muslims during this period?

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Your first point at 6:38, I dont believe that has an huge implications at all for our belief in Tawheed, oneness of God. It doesnt really affect anything about understanding of God for muslims... Im not very educated on the viewpoints but the debates on if Allah has literal hands or not doesnt effect anyones worship of Allah, its just a point to discuss. Average muslims dont care or know about that topic. Appreciate your comment! -Hamza

[@ActivityOfTheSoul]

@@MuslimMindsUS Oh, it certainly does affect one's understanding of Tawhid. If God has has hands and feet, two eyes, if He sits above a throne, He phsyically descends every night, etc then what you have is a God that is made up of parts and isn't simple. It completely nullifies any critique of the Trinity Muslims might have, and makes God, the transcendent Creator and ground of all Being, out to be a creature like Zeus or Apollo. Of course, not all Muslims hold this view or have to defend it, but the point I am making here is not all Muslims even agree on Tawhid so your objections that not all Christians have agreed on the nature of God seems a bit odd.

[@MuslimMindsUS]

@@ActivityOfTheSoul Tawheed is simply the oneness of God. There are no "persons" like within the Trinity. God does not have a Son, and the Holy Spirit is not God. God is One, that is all. Everyone else about understanding what Allah/God operates does not affect Tawheed at all. If anything goes against the oneness of God, it is wrong point blank. All Muslims believe God in One, if you do not then I dont know if you can be considered part of the Islamic faith.

[@ActivityOfTheSoul]

@@MuslimMindsUS I didn't say Muslims believed there are different persons in God, but if you believe, as some Muslims do, that God has hands and feet, and you believe God is a necesarry being like any monotheist you're going to have to say things like the hands are necesarry, the feet are necesarry, etc. God would be composed of parts, each parts being necesarry, which does nullify many of the critiques Muslims have about the Trinity because now they would have similar issues. IMO it would be much worse because that model of God is grossly anthropomorphic. So, this actually does affect how someone would understand Tawhid quite a bit and it does show Muslims do not agree on Tawhid.

[@innocentodinkemere4597]

I noted your reaction on Mohammed asked less politely. Rightly you were angry. But the problem I have with you is your bias. Maybe since you are not Christians, you do not have adequate knowledge of Christianity to really provide a robust criticism of the video and your reaction is nothing but a biased and anti Christian reaction Let's clarify Paul did not teach anything different from Jesus, Peter, James or the early Christians. Bible is the authority. Believe in Jesus Christ - see John 6: 28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” See also John 3: 16 Romans 10 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”[d] that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved For what is what, Compare Isiah 28: 16 Love: 1 Cor 13:1 Paul says the greatest is love, compare Jesus and epistle of John Peter in 2nd Peter 3 endorsed Paul Peter and James endorsed Paul at the Council of Jerusalem and Paul laid his teachings to Peter, James and other apostles to confirm he was not preaching in vain. Read Galatians 1 and 2 Anti Christian Biais hundreds The third Calif actually edited and corrected differences in Quranic versions. To me, he altered the original message. Issues in Islam 1. The Mihna over if the Quran was created or eternal 2. The fight between Ali and Aisha 3. The different Islamic sects, interpretations and current violence like the ISIS interpretation, Boko Haram, Shia, Shite, Alwadi etc. By and large, you should maintain objectivity, make your comments, do not pass judgements but present other view points.

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Number one. It’s impossible to fully separate from bias. Number two. Our goal is to not sit and “criticize” Christianity, we are offering our thoughts casually in the form of video reactions. We have stated several times that our comments and thoughts are based in an Islamic bias and we have admitted several times our knowledge is limited. I think you are reading into our reactions with preconceived notions, not the other way around. We are watching Christian material from Christian sources, not anti Christian material. We are not providing an “anti Christian reaction” we are Muslims reacting to Christian history, sects, and interpretations. We are giving our Islamic viewpoints, and are raising contentions when we see a valid reason for one to be raised. The vast majority of our comments have addressed our concerns and have given us credit for having them as it is expected for someone who is not in the tradition of Christianity to have these issues. We are not anti Christian. However, the criticisms we did make are completely valid and backed up by history and were only made due to the video creators’ ignorant short rant on Islam. You on the other hand have just demonstrated that you in fact do not have adequate knowledge of Islam to offer a robust criticism. You think the third caliph, Uthman Ibn Affan, who was one of the earliest converts to Islam and walked with the prophet, who happened to be known for his incredible memory, recitation and memorization of the Quran, altered the original message? Really? He, the same man who is one of the ten greatest companions according to he prophet? He who had a committee of master reciters look at the copies of the Quran that he sent to the newer Islamic provinces? It is recorded that Uthman and the senior companions who memorized the Quran sent these master copies and burned any mistakes that were occurring in newer provinces because they did not have the overwhelming grasp and memorization over the scripture like the main body and core of the empire. At this point thousands of Muslims, senior companions, had memorized the Quran. If Uthman just decided to change it, he would have been overthrown and killed. Not once in any of the turmoils of early Islam like with Ali and Aisha do you ever have even one report of Uthman making his own Quran. Even the majority of secular historians admit the Quran we have today is the same Muhammad ﷺ preached. We have the chains of narration and manuscripts to solidify that claim as well. “Issues in Islam” is incorrect wording, it should be “issues with Muslims” the followers are imperfect. Just like the mistakes of individuals in the crusades, or the kkk, aren’t necessarily “issues with Christianity”. These are issues from Christians that have misused the religion. ISIS does not represent the followers of Islam. ISIS is a small group of less than .01% of all Muslims that live in political turmoil and they in-fact kill Muslims more than any other demographic or people. We in no way passed any judgements. When I compared the crusades to his claim on violence from the Muhammadﷺ . I was making a comparison that it’s unfair to quickly gloss over Islam as this violent force without any consideration because the same can be done to Christianity as is the case with the crusades. You stated I don’t have knowledge to make a “robust criticism” of the video. That wasn’t our goal in the first place but since you mentioned, I will say that I think I have solid grounds for the contentions I raised like my crusade example. The people’s Crusade is a perfect example of this: In the late spring and summer of 1096, crusaders destroyed most of the Jewish communities along the Rhine in a series of unprecedentedly large pogroms in France and Germany in which thousands of Jews were massacred, driven to suicide, or forced to convert to Christianity.[10][11][12] Twelve Jews were murdered in Speyer, where the Bishop saved the rest of the Jews, but in the Worms massacre some 800 were murdered. In Mainz, over 1,000 Jews were murdered, as well as more in Trier, Metz, Cologne, and elsewhere. Others were subjected to forced baptism and conversion. The preacher Folkmar and Emicho of Flonheim were the main inciters and leaders of the massacre. The major chroniclers of the 1096 killings are Solomon bar Simson and Albert of Aachen.[13][12][10][14] Estimates of the number of Jewish men, women, and children murdered or driven to suicide by crusaders vary, ranging from 2,000 to 12,000.[15] Norman Cohn puts the number at between 4,000 and 8,000 from May to June 1096.[13] Gedaliah ibn Yahya estimated that some 5,000 Jews were killed from April to June 1096.[16] Edward H. Flannery's estimate is that 10,000 were murdered over the longer January-to-July period, "probably one-fourth to one-third of the Jewish population of Germany and Northern France at that time." I mentioned this in the light of the creator of this video hypocritically painting islam as an invasive and violent religion when the same claim can be made against Christianity. We have remained objective, acknowledged our bias, and did not pass judgments (only viewpoints).

[@innocentodinkemere4597]

@@MuslimMindsUS You are right, bias is almost inevitable. But on the issue that you have not set out to criticize Christianity, and being objective? maybe take a step back and look deeper into the mirror You assume the video you are reacting to is by a Christian, I wonder why? Maybe because he referenced Muhammed briefly on asking not so nicely, that's a big laugh. The video espoused many anti Christian views, but not been a Christian and as you do not have enough knowledge, that's why you were unaware or you just did not care. After all, it's your casual thoughts and being an Islamic bias based video, it's okay to say many untrue things against Christianity as possible while pushing an Islamic narrative. All great for objectivity. (Dawah is certainly objective huh) To show your robust knowledge of Christianity, you lapse into the crusades. As an African, I rolled over with laughter. Every Christian knows the crusades is as far away from Christianity as Europe is from God. I guess you probably have a Mediterranean basin civilization background as most Middle Easterners and Europeans somehow assume Christianity and Islam is a jigsaw between the two extremes. This is actually left for you to decide but Christ clearly stated that the Devil is the Prince of this world and that his Kingdom is not of this world. In fact, he will come again to destroy every human kingdom and authority. Left for you to fight with the morality of a horde of Arabians, over running the levant, North Africa and Spain. To every Christian, we do not deceive ourselves that murdering millions have anything to do with advancing God's righteousness, nor do we care if Spaniards fight back to reconquer their lands or if some European powers strike to free Jerusalem from so God soldiers of God. I only cry for the Jews murdered by the Europeans or Arabians, in the name of God. At least in Christianity we are aware God will never sanction that, left for you to analyze the morality of your slaughters and God. Talking about bias, you kept stressing Paul's difference from the apostles. Did you read Peter approving Paul in 2nd Peter3? Did you read Paul laying before Peter and the other apostles what he has being preaching and receiving their approval in Galatians 1 and 2? In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, Peter actually endorsed Paul and James gave his seal of approval. Just read bro You mentioned an objective non Christian view on the NT books. By the way, Paul wrote his epistles about 40 AD, and John, the last of the Gospels is estimated to be written between 65-90 AD. On the other hand, the earliest historically recorded reference to Islam is actually about AD 750 and by Christians. Islamic tradition argues on the oral transmission of the Quran by the Sahaba, but the earliest sources on these traditions are like 800-900 AD that is like 200-300 years after Mohammed. Guess what, I am not a Muslim, I am talking about critical objectivity now and not some historically uncorroborated tradition. Note, that Christians also have their traditions for instance, Mark was a companion of Peter. Luke was a companion of Paul. John was written by associates of John the disciple and Mathew is a Jewish disciple of Jesus. But we are not talking myths and traditions but objective 3rd party histories here. By the way, the Sanaa manuscripts is dated to earlier than Islam and it has some variants with the Uthman edition. You lapsed into a righteous anger on the reference to Uthman, But was I angry with your references to Paul? So, keep that aside, Uthman was human and he was killed by Muslims. Is that therefore an endorsement that he actually tempered with the Quran as revealed? You argued If Uthman just decided to change it, he would have been overthrown and killed. Abu Bakr actually initiated the first compilation of the Quran. Why did Uthman re-edit it? From a non Islamic perspective, a work that has mistakes need to be re-edited. From an objective non Islamic perspective, if the original work is destroyed after the edition, then the edition supersedes the earlier work with a nagging concern that I am forced to believe by fear of death that there might as well be a mistake in the second edition. After all a human edits it. If Abu Bakr could make a mistake, why not Uthman? If Abu Barr did not make a mistake, why was Uthman's edition necessary? These are actually very cogent objective issues, unresolved till date On objectivity, many Muslims hold different views on the true nature of Tawheed, on the divinity or created nature of the Quran, on whether Jesus was crucified on not etc. Trinity is not the core of Christianity and councils to decide trinity do not affect the Bible or Christian beliefs. Every single Christian holds his belief directly from the Bible and his personal relationship with God. Councils on tritiy only restates or try to explain principles already in the Bible and people believe or differ on them.

[@carlose4314]

You misinterpret what a council is. Councils are to affirm church teaching.

[@CooperTheGoosebumpsGuy]

Amen Repent To Christianity ✝️ ❤😊❤😊❤❤😊😊❤🎉😊🎉😊🎉😊❤😊❤😊

[@MuslimMindsUS]

No

[@901kingful]

Oh a note about apostles going out to the gentiles, gentiles were being reached before Paul converted. During Pentecost, those present received the Holy Spirit and spoke in many languages that were understood by many different groups of gentiles from all over the ancient world. That is just one example, if you read the book of Acts there are many examples of non Jewish Christians before Paul's ministry. Peter was also one who reached out to gentiles. In fact Jesus himself preached to and performed miracles to gentiles, so I'm honestly a bit confused that is a bit of a hang up. Is it taught in Islam that Jesus and the twelve didn't preach/interact with gentiles? I'm not very familiar with what Muslims believe about Jesus and the early christian church so I like to learn.

[@emanueldelacruz1101]

This is a very American Centrist point of view. Hr never mentioned South America (where most Christians used to live until recently when it was overtaken by Africa)

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Wow interesting, hearing about Christianity in South America would definitely be interesting! -Hamza

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

​@@MuslimMindsUS Here in Brazil whe don't have the same problem with Theological Liberalism. The main Protestant Churches are still the biggest ones and hold conservative believes, even though we are having a increase in non denominational Churches.

[@BardouSia]

A Egyptian-Danish muslim comedian says something like this in one of his shows: ,,Christianity is like: We do alot of stupid things so we need forgiveness. Islam is like: We know people do alot of stupid things, so here are the rules, stick to them!" - Omar Marzouk (Danish stand-up comedian)

[@thovenach]

Catholocism clarification. Defining the belief is different then updating or changing something. In the case of Infallibility this only happens when they are defining something to be true. For instance if the Catholic church has a lot of people starting to believe that we can no longer eat beef due to Jesus never eating beef in the Bible. The Catholic church woudl make a statement on that. Or in the case of Arianism the ecumenical council made a statement clarifying what the Church believes. It's not that the belief has changed but the Church has had to say what the true belief is to clarify.

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Thanks for sharing this information -Rohaib

[@richardjones6024]

Also, sorry about some of the anti-Islam swipes taken in this video, I'm aware the situation of non-Muslims in Muslims lands is more nuanced. One of my critiques of Redeemed Zoomer is that he definitely oversimplifies (and I think exaggerates) things he doesn't agree with. Islam took the brunt of that in this video as did Catholics to a point and progressive leaning Christians. I could correct several of his statements if you'd like.

[@innocentodinkemere4597]

Don't you think the criticized video presented many viewpoints a lot of Christians' may object to, or do you suppose Christians will not find these two chaps objectionable?> Will you also correct the two?

[@richardjones6024]

@@innocentodinkemere4597 I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to ask

[@innocentodinkemere4597]

@@richardjones6024 The video made by these two young Muslim lads rightly pointed out a few anti Islamic points in the video they were reacting to, But the two lads very clearly were also anti Christian on many points. Further, the video they were reacting to also had anti Christian views Clearly it is your prerogative if you feel you need to apologize for anti Islamic views presented by the video they were reacting to But then who will apologize for the anti Christian views by the 2 lads or by the video they were reacting to? Not you? or Christians do not deserve any apologizes. But again it is your prerogative to choose who to apologize to especially when none of the faults were yours

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Definitely saw the problem of him glossing over and criticizing when the same can unjustly be done to Christianity. As you said these things are more than just surface level arguments attached to the faith. Thanks for commenting Richard! -Rohaib

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Hey innocent, we are not trying to come off as anti Christian. Rather we are bringing up our genuine concerns and questions regarding Christian theology and history. -Rohaib

[@avatarjin]

I just started the video, but one comment I would like to make, I got the impression from Catholic school and church that Peter is more important, but Paul is pretty important /highly credited. I feel Protestants put much more emphasis on Paul to led authority to their beliefs.

[@avatarjin]

I do have a minor disagreement with an issue brought up about Christianity. I agree that it's had major issues because of how the Bible was compiled initially, but I don't feel the conclusion that it was in a constant state of change is 100% fair. To my knowledge Orthodox ritual/mass has stayed largely the same. Catholic Latin mass was also pretty much the same going back to the year 200, it had minor changes around the year 400 and was a little more standardized in 1500. It was changed a lot in the 1960s which I think was a bad move. Church attendance rapidly declined afterwards. Most of the Church hierarchy is extremely committed to the change, which I think is a sunk cost fallacy. It's a kinda sensitive topic because Catholics who like Latin mass are pretty small in number, some are ultra conservative, and also risk getting excommunicated for not conforming. Logically though I feel it doesn't make sense to say worship for the last 1800 years is bad/unacceptable. I do think the vast majority of the points you both bring up are good criticisms and things I have thought about also and some bother me, while others I just leave up to faith. As a side note, I thought the video you both reviewed, was also unfair to Islam. I do think there are some points about Islam that bother me a little, but almost all of the apply to Christianity also.

[@lookatpennsylvania]

Have to remember Redeemed Zoomer is a really young guy. He has a lot to learn. His youth comes out in his videos. Give him a few years hopefully he'll come around with explaining facts.

[@Andrewsk8]

Excellent reaction guys, I also didn't like that Redeemed Zoomer talked about the Crusades as an epic move, as a Christian myself I believed that the Crusades were a tremendous mistake at the time but still inspired a bunch of kingdoms to participate. Because sadly this is how sinful human nature works right? People at the time "forgot" about the teaching of Jesus to love even the enemies, so they could have political or economic outcomes.

[@Baldwin-iv445]

The first couple of crusades did have a sense of righteousness to them. The first was of course done to take the holy land, and protect Christians who had been living in a caliphate that was getting less and less lenient. The second and third were done out of defense. The fourth? No excuse. And the rest were not very useful either. And while Jesus said that we should love our enemies, he never said that there's no excuse to fight someone. If you remember, when Jesus entered the second temple, it had basically become the opposite of holiness. There was gambling, selling of illegal products, scam artists, and anyone not from Israel wasn't allowed to enter. In response Jesus made a whip and kicked everyone out. Moral of the story? At some point you have to start throwing fists.

[@prinssi6239]

well, they were defensive wars against n existential threat that sought to conquer the christian world. And considering if a war is just is a luxury one has that is far from the effects.

[@ochem123]

1:51 The original Christians were mostly Jews. Jesus was the fulfillment of all the Old Testament promises and prophecies. The Jews were the first to recognize that. Peter, the first pope, primarily worked with Jews becoming Christians. Paul had expertise in evangelizing to Gentiles. The Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul is annually on the 29th of June. Paul didn’t “know more” or have more authority than Peter. Peter was in charge because Jesus said so.

[@BardouSia]

Gnostics hate the world is not true. Im gnostic and i love the world.

[@samfce]

I enjoyed the video! I love this subject and wanted to share some additional info. To comment on 23:10, the Islamic caliphates played more of preserver/relayer role of ancient information. Syriac Christians spoke Greek and translated ancient works into Arabic. Caliphs pushed for these translations of works that had been lost in western Europe, which only knew Plato or Aristotle by small portions of their works until they were noticed and translated from Arabic. Also, Muslim theology and philosophy became extremely popular among the educated class of Europeans. Averroes and Ibn Sinna's commentaries on Aristotle especially were very popular. Although a lot of it isn't orthodox by Muslim or Christian standards. To explain the emphasis on the bread and wine being Jesus's body and blood, you need to be familiar with the environments it arose in. Christianity has been influenced from the beginning by Greek philosophy (especially Platonism), mystery religions like Orphism and its rituals, and of course second temple Judaism. Judaism around the time of Jesus, was divided between strict traditionalists and Hellenic Jews. The former emphasized sticking to the Law and strict monotheism, the later was influenced by Greek culture, religion, and philosophy. Christianity came from people of both traditional and Hellenic backgrounds. Paul was a Hellenic Jew, Peter was not, which explains their disagreements.

[@Albanian_crusader]

1:27 guys become like saul 3 seconds later...

[@Sagemaze]

You two seem to misunderstand, the councils didn’t invent any new teachings, the defended the Teachings against heresy, meaning prople who Were thinking the teachings were wrong. 12:27 they arent seperate but cant be mixed, they are distinct, just like the persons of the trinity are distinct not seperate!

[@adenjones1802]

Just to clarify Peter had a vision to let the gentiles in. Redeemed zoomer actually got that wrong.

[@balvirkaur6257]

I feel you might have a bit of a biased opinion about the whole Muslim part of the video

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Not a bit biased, it is fully biased because we are Muslims. That being said the same can be said regarding the video creator. But his glossing over Islam as violent and intolerant, is disagreeable even from a secular point of view. -Rohaib

[@BlaBLABLA-ql6sx]

​@@MuslimMindsUSyea so the tax part is wrong in my country people were forced to conver, not only by Arabs.

[@CrusadeGrenade]

In real life it wasn't a Peter said "no" Paul said "Yes" it was more of: Peter says "Dude are you sure they'll want to be Christian, the roots of our faith are prophecies they didn't grow up with!" Paul says "Watch this!" and shows that Yes, Jesus is that inspiring!

[@Xairos84]

19:43 this is wild, yes taxes exist but this is a tax for a belief.... They defend this mindlessly lolol

[@MuslimMindsUS]

What’s wild is how you don’t seem to understand that citizenship and your religious adherence were identified together under Islamic rule, so the function is very similar to today’s society’s with citizens and noncitizens. Both parties had a tax. Muslim and non Muslim -Rohaib

[@Moskal91]

maybe you dont have manuscripts from the 1st century. But there is an argument that the Gospel of Mark i believe was written very very early like 30 ad or something. The argument is that in all the other gosoels they mention the high preist by name. But in Mark he simply says high priest implying that that high priest was still the high priest when he was writing his Gospel.

[@DefenderOfChrist_]

We don’t believe Paul spread a different message than the 12 disciples he just travelled out a bit more and also wrote a bunch of different letters where the original disciples didn’t really expect Peter and John

[@lornawestlake9280]

Redeemed Zoomer's description that Peter agreed with Paul that Gentiles did not have to become Jews before becoming Christians is totally accurate and undoubtedly historic. Read the fifteenth chapter of Acts that tells of the very first council (48-50-AD) where Peter stood up and gave a speech in support of Paul. Then James pronounced the decision that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised to be Christians. James is Jesus' brother although Catholics believe he is Jesus' cousin. The sign of the new covenant for Christian is not circumcision but baptism, which by the way means women can be part of the new covenant Also, it seems to me that Moslems make out Paul to be the villain who "corrupted" Christianity. Paul's letters were being read, along with the gospels in the very early 2nd century in churches. In fact, the fourth pope Clement (30-97AD) was a companion of Paul's and was with him in Philippi around the year 57. You seem to hold to the principle that beliefs and writings get corrupted with the passage of time. Well, that is the point. The letters of Paul and the canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are the earliest writings and all the heresies, and non-canonical gospels come after them, sometimes by centuries. These writings (Gospel of Thomas, etc.) and sects (Ebionites), are the ones that are corrupted.

[@ochem123]

6:41 How many religions do you know where most of the original founders nearly all died in service of the faith and the faith continued? False religions tend to weaken in this environment. The one real religion tends to strengthen. Islam expands in its victories and contracts in its losses. Christianity grows in both cases. More real-world proof of Christianity’s authenticity.

[@MuslimMindsUS]

With that example Islam grew faster than Christianity? Islam came 610 years later and on the verge of surpassing Christianity. And Sunni Islam is the largest followed denomination of any faith in human history. So with your own logic, Islam was more real-world proof of authenticity…? I don’t agree with your conclusion. -Hamza

[@ActivityOfTheSoul]

@@MuslimMindsUS You're not really understanding what he said. The founder of Christianity was killed, crucified on a tree which in that context was an incredibly shameful death for Jew and pagan alike, the Apostles that spread the religion were martyrs, their followers were matryred, etc. It is a miracle that a religion that's central message is Christ crucified managed to make it out of the first century. The expansion of Islam is easy to explain. The triumph of the cross of Christ can't be similarly handwaved away.

[@ochem123]

@@MuslimMindsUS Yes, but my point it that Islam is scoring victories, which is why it is growing. Christianity grows with each new martyr. 11 of the 12 apostles were murdered. 28 of the first 31 popes were martyred. Islam is on track to pass Christianity. I have no idea if this will occur before or after Jesus returns. Most Christians are not Catholic and hold serious heresies that will lead them to hell, unfortunately. We must help them at all costs. Only a small portion of people around the world hold the true Catholic faith. It is far from the 1 billion nominal “Catholics” in name only. Most of them hold major heresies when you ask them what they know.

[@IbnJaae]

So you haven’t read Hadith? Your really asking for sources?

[@MuslimMindsUS]

There are thousands of hadith with a grading system for authentication, and we have produced the results ourselves instead of hiding them from the general public. Hadith is a term that means tradition, it was recorded in any means available, it is recorded history. We have published books entirely in fabricated Hadith, liars in Hadith, and the most authentic Hadith. On the other hand, biblical sources are a mess, the physical evidence is all second century, cannot be traced back to the alleged authors except through hearsay. The earliest Old Testament documents we have are the Dead Sea scrolls which at the earliest are 1100 years after Moses. There is no consensus on who is the other for Q. Etc. The contents of the Bible are contradictory and the first fully compiled copy was the Codex Sinaiticus in the fourth century. We have other early church history that’s no longer accessible anymore because their bibles were burned. We just know that they were very early groups with much different understandings like the ebionites. The only reason we know this is because what the Catholic Church has commented on these groups. What is even more concerning is that these groups were not fringe a couple centuries later, these beliefs are reported from the beginning, again like ebionites, docetism, notions of Jesus being a second God, etc. Even putting Hadith aside, Christianity should be able to stand on its feet without trying to drag Islam down with it when proof is requested. -Rohaib

[@JeremiahAranez]

The Gospels were originally taught to people orally because most of the people at that time were illiterate, Writing takes decades to learn and the price of paper are very very expensive, many books and epistles contained in the gospels were actually written by the apostle's themselves and the rest were written by People who personally knew the apostle's so corrupting and altering the message of Jesus is nearly impossible.

[@CrusadeGrenade]

Its important to realize there weren't tons of copies of the initial manuscript. The first 200 years of Christianity we were oppressed, it's likely there was only one copy of the books per church per metropolitan area. By the time Christianity was more widespread we find more manuscripts. That being said the earlies manuscripts we have align VERY well with the originals, and its important to realize that the Bible in Christianity is not like the Quran in Islam. In Islam the Quran is the word of God. In Christianity Jesus is the Word of God. The Bible just helps us to understand Him.

[@James-ig3ri]

Can you guys do muslims react to aisha being 9, muslims react to quran permitting moe lesting captive women, muslims react to women being worth half of the witness of a man, or quran 4:34

[@dsxa918]

I'm not nearly developed in my theological consideration as I expect to be in due time, though one thing regarding "the hour" point of consideration in the 8:00 to 9:00 minute area of this video that stands out to me, though it's as definite in its conventional (say, association with clocks) reference to hear spoken of, it's a personal experience for every Christian and while Christ can speak of what there is to expect he does not in "general convention" have the ability to speak to individuals (in this referenced capacity).

[@dsxa918]

In the 16:00 area, I respect that Muslim ideal of nurturing the body you're given with balance - the monasteries were times and places, preserving the righteousness of the alternative to 'mainstream society' whether or not I can speak articulately of monastic virtue, in this sense of the use of the word monastic (which I am no authority on). I hold my home to my standards.

[@dsxa918]

And to not speak of the wrongs or positive aspects of Crusade, the aspect of warfare probably overwhelms the aspect of Christianity, but in the sense that I use the term 'total' warfare to account in this context for raping ad pillaging, I think it makes currency out of another 'theologically substantiated' undertaking, for wrong or right.

[@dsxa918]

I think of the monasteries as relevant to respective interpretations, as Paul is spoken of in fact in 38:00 or 39:00 as regarding Christianity's adventure as in fact relative to Judaism.

[@itapi697]

With Arius he completely ignores verses of the Gospel of John.

[@Th4t0n3GuoY]

Hope you both have a chance to visit an Orthodox Church! The first church to Christ and the Apostles! ☦️ I think you two would find such beauty and understand the genuine worship and praise of our Lord! Psalm 50 “a humble and contrite heart God will not despise”

[@Alf_The_Gr8]

It was peter who got the vision form God "dont call unclean whay God has made clean" refering to gentiles and then PETER literally days we gotta preach to gentiles.

[@isaack8146]

“Pretty interesting that this random guy just, had a vision from god, that made him see the “true Christianity” and was, so much more correct than the apostles and completely changing the religion.” -Muslims 😂😂😂

[@ochem123]

7:15 Jesus knew what was to happen to Him. He said “no man” knows the hour of Hid return. He was referring to us, not Himself.

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Jesus was also a man though?

[@thatwolfensteinguy8954]

​@@MuslimMindsUS fully God too tho, we aren't

[@ochem123]

@@MuslimMindsUS Yes. Jesus is both fully God and fully man both. It’s considered a “mystery” in the Catholic religion; “mystery” is a technical term. The Word (God the Son) has existed from all eternity. The Word became flesh at the Annunciation, when the Angel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she would be the Mother of God. Jesus was not oblivious to His role. He carried all the knowledge of God. He knew He was God. He wasn’t in the dark. He is the light.

[@clockwise2556]

Hello brothers, I have been a fan of your content for a while now. What I have noticed, though, is that you question a lot of things, as you should, but you misinterpret them, and then you proceed on. Now I am not saying that you should know them because it is deep theology but you should research them. For example at 15:00, we aren't really talking about deprivation in the way you understand it. An average believer should strive to make sacrifices to god, so to challenge our faith but not to an extend of harm, this is why our understanding of "fasting" is the deprivation of meat on Wednesday and Fridays. Only in very special instances should we take deprivation seriously like for example, the day before the crucifixion of christ. All of these practices are there to ultimately battle our beliefs and honour God. It's a way to distance ourselves from physical binds that may hold one behind. But it isn't just food, it could be sexual temptations, addictions, bad habits, or even modern screen time. That does not prevent people from following their nature, though. Christ himself said to his people to have as many kids as one could and we still bind by that rule, we just dont use it as an excuse to tempt ourselves with the goods of this life as they often more or less become a distraction to the ultimate goal of salvation. And yes, christ did fast for 40 days and 40 nights, and generally speaking, we see him away from common goods and definitely from pleasures in the Old Testament.

[@JoshFortune-nb8wz]

Yes they did force islam and expanded in formaly christian land but i dont believe mohammed did that.he also was right about the crusades from a historical stand point .

[@CrownedDiaries]

Zoomer may think that western Christianity is dead but as long as I'm alive Christianity will never die. I'll use every last breath to say that Jesus is Lord.

[@jayjones9539]

Son, Zakat is not a Tax (Zakat was paid by the rich to the poor, Tax is when you pay money for the government) 19:26

[@bingjayjemi2819]

The reason there was alot of debate is cuz.. People needed to be able to understand d nature of God... They didn't know how to explain it but it was true that Jesus was God... It was natural for people ask these questions because they wanted to understand how God's nature works... And how to explain it... But they didn't know that d better way to explain it was the fact that God was Omnipresent and Omniscient. So it was possible.

[@ochem123]

8:30 These were all Christian heretics. As you watch these, try not to conflate truth with your initial considerations. For example, let say a team won the Super Bowl in 2018. We know - by our knowledge of football - that exactly one team won the Super Bowl that year, and we can presume it is knowable, even if we don’t currently know who it is. As we rationalize which teams are immediately eliminated as possibilities and which are still viable, the number of considerations will whittle down from 30. Let’s say you get it down to three on your list. And let’s say you get stuck and can’t go any further based on your present knowledge. The correct team never changes through this whole process. Only your knowledge changes and grows. Any probabilities you assign to each of the three remaining only reflects your intuition based on your experiences. You still don’t know the answer. At no point, though, did the other two wrong answers ever become remotely correct. But their importance is often overstated given all the mental gymnastics needed to get the lost down to three. Two of the three remain wrong from the beginning of the exercise to the end. The consideration of the two wrong teams was only the result of our incomplete knowledge. Another group might whittle it down with a different final three than you - yet, again, only the correct one is correct. Our feeble beliefs serve only to befuddle us.

[@ochem123]

5:19 There is no “development of the Trinity.” The Most Holy Trinity, Our God, has always been and always will be. At these councils, men, which their limited knowledge, came to know the truth of the Trinity through His revelation around the times of these councils. The core apostles all knew the truth, but the message get corrupted in the transmission. These councils were meant to quash those heresies. Truths are either discovered or revealed; they are never “developed” except through the act of creation.

[@hamza_khan324]

I am so happy that someone talked about the mis-interpretation of Islam in that video. That was a really big lie, I don't think the maker of the video knows that it is Infact Christians who started the conflict after killing the Messenger sent by Prophet Muhammad SAW. He also must not be aware that many cities like Jerusalem literally refused to even resist and thought their lives would be better under the muslims rather than the oppressive Byzantine empire. The governer of Jerusalem, a Christian, himself offered the keys to Umar RA, the caliph at the time.

[@prinssi6239]

one religion was the legacy of a carpenter, one the work of a warlord. By their fruits they are known, and as such, the works, produce of the tree of Islam are brought forth. I know these myths your people perpetuate seem good, but thats just your biases agreeing with knowledge that makes you look better. If you were truthful, you would see where and why your faith began, and it began with the sword and only has advanced through the sword.

[@juanheredia2293]

23:40 it wasnt islam. It was the arabs that learned from the Greeks and Persians

[@prinssi6239]

well what do you expect from this video and these people? I know it is infuriating to have people who had no part in the works your ancestors did claim to be respnsible for all the advances etc. but this is what we have to deal with, liars and thieves who say what is untrue because it benefits them

[@rpoutine3271]

Europe had universities by the time of Charlemagne and lost alot of knowledge due to the fall of the Roman empire, the Muslim invasions causing poverty and some other dark years that killed alot of people. What the Islamic world had was a huge Roman/Greek heritage, not Islamic. Mathematics and even cultural things like what we call ''Middle Eastern singing'' in fact came from Rome and Greece. This is why our word for calculations and numbers come from ancient greek ''máthēma'' and not Arabic. By the time of the crusades Europe was regenerating and gaining back its knowledge with lots of researches, that is how they became more aware of the world and noticed they were being invaded in the first place. What we got from the Islamic world are numbers like 12345 instead of I II III IV V, soap and forks, beside that the European world was far from being behind and unknowledgeable.

[@carlose4314]

Mainline means the church was on the mainline (railroad). It is not the same thing as mainstream.

[@WallNutBreaker524]

19:41 Reading the Quaran itself and it's many Hostile verses proves you very wrong. Even historical accounts of Muslim conquests like The Ottomans and the Armenians or the Muslim conquest of Spain or Byzantium etc etc etc.

[@MuslimMindsUS]

No verse in the Quran permits indiscriminate killing

[@aronlukacs6911]

My biggest issue with this that basically after the reformation part it becomes more and more America centered and by the end, the video completely disregards any significant development of the church in Europe, Asia, Africa etc. For example these liberal mainine churches are only this drastically problematic in North America, liberal theology didn't really caught on as a majority thought anywhere outside the Anglophonic world.

[@jand.4737]

25:00 the less "simple as that" explanation and the true reason why Martin Luther caused a new Schism are the handling of Indulgences at that time. Previously only the Pope had the right to hand out Indulgences, so you would need to make a pilgrimage to Rome and give him the donation directly. At that time though, the right to sell Idulgences got handed down further and further, until local priests were allowed to send out dedicated Indulgence-sellers into villages. You know how in tourist sites there are people selling stuff on the street today? Imagine a guy waving a letter in front of you and telling you that for just 5 coins, all your sins are forgiven. For 50 coins all your future sins are forgiven. Ohh, and your dead relatives? You can buy Indulgences for them, too. The end of the video got very Amerca centric. Most European historic Churches are either still catholic or got converted into architectural monuments where no mess gets held. Something that is new to me: The Evangelist church he describes is the opposite of what we in Germany would call evangelical. In Germany, the "Evangelisch" denomination (also called Protestant for obvious reasons) is the Lutheran-reformed church and allows female pastors (priests) and allows their pastors to marry.

[@emmanuelmakoba6085]

He's right about Muhammad.... either yall dont know or are not being completely open.

[@Moskal91]

14:45 it doesn't. Its like a metaphor for like those hardcore doomer bros. ofc theres nothing wrong with becoming a monastic but its kinda like those people wanted to take it really far

[@deadfrogsong1723]

Why are you taking Redeemed Zoomer's words at face value? It's obvious he's just being witty and summarizing things.

[@GospelOverCulture]

Jesus did deprive himself according to the Bible, he never had sex, and fasted for 40 days, and never sinned

[@Caio-fi7sd]

The idea that Jesus is not God has never prevailed in Christianity, all aspects believe in the Trinity. We also believe that if Jesus were not God, God would not have allowed dogma to prevail. And regarding the dogma of the trinity, Jesus was not created, he always existed and will always exist because he is God. He is the father and the father is him, but they are also two, just as the holy spirit is both and the two are the holy spirit. We will only understand the trinity when we are in heaven. This is the great complex mystery of the trinity.

[@balvirkaur6257]

Do you have any proof that this didn't happen he is saying things that he believed happened and you are saying things that you believe say that is not true so perhaps you can respect his opinion as well

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Our point is not about disapproving if events similar to what he said happened or not. The point is those negative actions from human beings do not reflect the religion as a whole. I don’t need to respect someone who does not have the respect to do due diligence and present the history properly and fairly. Even the majority of secular historians know the prophet never waged war just because people did not convert to Islam. The first half of his prophethood was just escaping persecution. Then his later battles with the other larger empires were not to forcibly convert people. It was the same reason any growing empire goes to war. For survival. Have there been Muslims rulers and people who were unjust? No doubt. But again our issue was with how Islam was presented as a whole. Even putting up the image of the prophet and covering his face with a Quran was a low move and insulting. There should be no depictions of him as most people know in Islam it is considered offensive to depict the prophet. This is why he covered his face but still put up the depiction anyway. -Rohaib

[@buggivibes7579]

It took alot longer period in islam before it was compiled to be the quran even at that... Ottman had to destroy alot of quran version to bring out a standard version to be adopted as the main quran

[@tyckohasthat6404]

Just so you guys can be more knowledgeable 😅 the apostles wanted to go to the gentiles ONLY AFTER the managed to save MOST Jews. Jesus during his life saved and converted gentiles 1 example: matt 8 : 5-13

[@Spergy]

Lol you are saying its weird how Paul was the only one to get it right which can be said about Islam too

[@karakuri100p]

Oiden = know in Matthew 6:8 , same know as Paul uses in Corinthians 2:2 : For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. Did Paul alone have knowledge of the crucifixion? Of course not, same with Yeshua. He was making a point but like He himself said and the disciples noticed when they said “ now You speak to us plainly “ in at least this occasion: 25“I have spoken these things in parables with you, but the hour is coming when I shall speak with you, not in parables, but I shall declare to you about The Father plainly.” 26“In that day, you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I shall request from The Father for you.” 27“For The Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I have come forth from union with God.” 28For I have proceeded from union with The Father and I have come into the world, and again I leave the world, and I am going to join The Father.” 29His disciples were saying to him, “Behold, now you are speaking plainly and you are not speaking any parable.” 30“Now we know that you KNOW EVERYTHING and that you do not need that anyone should ask you; in this WE BELIEVE THAT YOU PROCEEDED ( = EMENATE,FLOW) FROM GOD.” 31Yeshua said to them, “Believe it.” 32“Behold the hour comes and now it has come, when you will be scattered everyone to his place and you will leave me alone, and I shall not be alone because The Father is with me.” 33“I have spoken these things to you so that you shall have peace in me. You shall have suffering in the world, but take heart, I have overcome the world.” Yeshua is LORD

[@ochem123]

4:16 Eleven of the twelve apostles were killed for their Christian faith. Only St. John (the youngest apostle) survived to old age, writing New Testament epistles, the Gospel of St. John, and The Book of the Apocalypse (from the island of Patmos). 28 of the first 31 popes were martyred. The cardinals of The Church wear red to signify their willingness to die for the faith. The fake cardinals today in the Vatican aren’t even Catholic, let alone would they die for the true faith. They will sell the true faith down the river if given the chance.

[@despair_ts1823]

Yikes the comment section is on fire. God i love Christianity 😂

[@-cosmicdoggo-]

12:42 Yes, that’s the trinity. Jesus is God, but He is also a different entity from God at the same time since He’s human at the same time, and at the same time He is the other people in the trinity but also not. Very confusing.

[@thephilosopherfromdixie7466]

Almost all of the muslim sources are 200+ years too late.

[@mohdsufiansalleh4085]

The question is if they know that Jesus left everything to the 12 apostle, why are Christians following paul who is not one of the 12?

[@yblackie]

Jesus didn't "leave everything" to his disciples. He gave them the mandate and responsibility to be the catalyst for the Church. Paul was one of the people it spread to. Also, Christians don't just follow Paul; they follow Paul, Peter, John etc. Basically anyone who wrote scripture or left traditions.

[@bingjayjemi2819]

Paul was right because. He understood that Jesus's sacrifice was for d world not only d jews... he didn't want d gentiles to feel forced. It wasn't thst he's saying u shouldn't become Jewish if u want to. He just said it isn't compulsory.... Also. Even though d nee testament manuscript we have only dates bscj to second century or late first century. It was still unlikely that anything changed because d church was already big and massive abd in different locations in s world abd written in different languages including in d original. yet scholars could not find any contradictions.. Because d likelyhood of someone going to every christian home to convince them to change thier scripture is totally going to be unsuccessful.. If u dobur research on authenticity if d nee testament. You'll understand why scholars ssid it is reliable

[@buggivibes7579]

Which of the Muslim sect issa herectic ?(Shia,Ahmadia,sunni etc)

[@ochem123]

4:02 Christianity is the true religion, so St. Paul was correct.

[@MuslimMindsUS]

So Christianity is not to be spread to the gentiles then? -Hamza

[@ochem123]

@@MuslimMindsUS Christianity is to be spread to all. God wants all his created people to go to Heaven. St. Paul evangelized to the gentiles primarily. This was a good thing. We Christians must continue His work.

[@Moskal91]

the crusades were not perfect. Yes christians pillaged. but muslims did too. Neither side was ideal. Maybe Muhammed never said to force islam, but people certainly did. The Catholics led a crusade against the Slavs in the battle on the ice in 1242. They wanted to convert them from Eastern Orthodox Christianity to Roman Catholicism.

[@LaggingGames]

this guy is so obviously an evangelical lol

[@MightyVoxVA]

1:48 No. They didn't get it wrong and paul got it right. They are all agreed and preached to the gentiles.

[@kristinades9215]

Name something that isn’t one and also many.

[@andzheloart]

I think the most terrible side of the idea of monasticism is that in the West, for example, monks used to sit in their monasteries and write moralizing for ordinary people. And they wrote this very often with hatred for women (who they could not get, but of course they wanted) or with a complete misunderstanding of family life. I think this was one of the reasons for the Inquisition and the execution of the so-called witches. I don't think you have to be the smartest person in the room to figure out that they were just burning beautiful and ugly women en masse because they hated them, hated themselves, hated sex they couldn't afford. The monks seem to be trying to become gods during their lifetime and after, but I see in this only pride and fear of life. You are human and cannot be more than that.

[@bobbobb4804]

Nobody Christian believes the stuff you said about Paul, and what you said was made up. Paul didn’t make a new version of Christianity that surpassed the teachings of the other apostles.

[@bingjayjemi2819]

But not all d crusaders wher christians... Remember we're talking about a nation here. Just because their official religion was christianity didn't mean everyone was.. Considering d fact that Christianity wasn't compulsory on people back then.. So when u say. Christians were raping and all that stuff, u r referring to soldiers who weren't christians... Its just as how people in d Islamic world alwsyd assume that western nations are christian nations. And that because its a christian nation everyone is christian. And so they mix us up with people who aren't even christians.. Things like rape and all that were against d religion and u have no idea how Christians took sin seriously... So when u hear europeans in d past.. They weren't all christians even though christianitu was an official religion. U still had a choice to convert or leave it.

[@buggivibes7579]

Enlightenment didn't actually come with islam... You more reseach on this

[@Razamaniac]

Something that is divine cannot be human? In what religion ? God the Father Generates (gives genus to Himself) through His Son and Gives is all to Him without start and without time. Questions ? Also I would love to tell you what Muslsims saw in Christian churches and were left openmouthed. Watching history is the one side of the coin, but there is also the other side, the one only The Lord reveals to the innocent few.

[@MrWaterlionmonkey]

It hasn't been settled. The new testament view of jesus is all over the place. Which is a problem if you must believe who he says he is or "you'll die in your sins". If a Christian doesn't understand who he said he was he might end up in hell. Even if you talk to 100 Christian "trinitarians", let them each explain the trinity and you'll hear 100 different heresies. The historical view from modern biblical scholars is that the new testament's view of jesus develops throughout the new testament, from jesus being a man, to him being a human son of God, to him being an angel, to him being the literal word of God, to him being lord of all the angels, to him being A god, to him being equal to God, to him being God himself, depending on the author. The 'trinity' was one of many early attempts to push all these different views together to make them all true at the same time. The beliefs of trinitarians are contradictory because the view of Jesus is not consistent. You should watch Bart Erhman's lecture on how Jesus became God. I could give you a biblical verse to support any heresey over Jesus's identity

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Hey Boaz, good points your raised. This is why I don’t wave away the Heresies as not important or meaningless. There is definitely something to investigate as to why there were many different views regarding Jesus. -Rohaib

[@ActivityOfTheSoul]

"The historical view from modern biblical scholars is that the new testament's view of jesus develops throughout the new testament" This has been the minority position for awhile now, early high Christology is the majority position even among the liberal secular scholars you rely on.

[@thatwolfensteinguy8954]

​@@MuslimMindsUS id be careful with bart Erhman, i know that you believe Jesus is just a man, but the earliest Gosple, Mark, clearly shows Jesus as devine.

[@kscempire7789]

Why do you have such a problem with "trinitarianism"? The trinity is simply the only way for the personality of a being with free will to exist. That's how the will works. It's pretty hard not to fall into heresy if you don't understand why the trinity is needed

[@MrWaterlionmonkey]

@@kscempire7789 how does the trinity explain freewill? Plenty of unitarians, binitarians, modalists, tritheists, marcioites, moniphisites, docetists, Nestorians and arians believe/believed in freewill and plenty of trinitarians, like reformed Calvinist Protestants, flat out reject freewill. Why does God being 3 persons mean you can choose what happens to you? I don't see the connection. Seems like a non sequitur.

[@albertaowusu3536]

Jesus gave the great commission ; Go out into the who world preaching the Gospel. Stop saying Jesus came for Israel alone.😊

[@IbnJaae]

40yrs gap not 100🗿

[@MuslimMindsUS]

Earliest extant manuscripts are all in 2nd century after Jesus. The speculation of when it was written has the earliest opinion being 40 years after. But none of those documents survived. -Rohaib

[@IbnJaae]

@@MuslimMindsUS exactly the first writings where on material that couldn’t survive 20yrs and that’s not a problem for the Christian faith tho the writings are essential What’s the earliest manuscript for the Quran or even sayings of Mohammed 🧍🏽

[@MuslimMindsUS]

I mean if you really want to compare, it’s night and day. Here are a few linked to look into yourself: Quran: www.islamic-awareness.org/quran/text/mss/ kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4SmdnaInbZ7jZIsi=mF2iotgJdePYJUjy Hadith:www.islamic-awareness.org/hadith/hadith.html Not only do we focus on memorizing Quran and Hadith, that has been the focus from the beginning. Even with less accessibility for writing, we still have overwhelming oral and physical preservation. Both which Christianity critically lacks

[@sonambhutia]

You guys believe ….. do you know the truth?

[@knightofblackfyre7950]

I think redeemed zoomer is a pentecostal, I could be wrong on that as I haven't see many of his videos.

[@richbandicoot]

Hes a Presbyterian

[@knightofblackfyre7950]

@@NinaJ7 like I said I haven't seen alot of his videos, to be honest I've only seen this one and the denominations video.