Jonathan McClatchie, one of the 'up and coming' Christian Evangelical Apologists in Britain is a good friend of Pfander, and came down on October 9th to Speaker's Corner with Jay Smith. When they were leaving the corner (you can see the Corner Crowd in the background), a Slovakian young man approached and asked Jonathan and Jay why it was important that Jesus be The Son of God? Watch as Jonathan answers him quickly and directly, using the Old Testament to help us understand not only the background and foundation for this title, but how the New Testament employed such a term to describe the eternal relationship Jesus had with the Father, proving that this title was not a biological title, but a divine title, and helped the Jews understand exactly what Jesus was saying when he employed it throughout His ministry. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSDcyTLTGUg

Joe's "Red Judaism" channel can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/c/Red-Judaism/videos Joe is back again to unpack the historical problems with the Qur'an. He begins this series of episodes by underlining the notion that what we have today is NOT the Qur'an, but is an 8th - 9th century Abbasid rendition of what used to be an Umayyad text from the 7th century, which was then changed numerous times throughout the intervening centuries until we finally get our standardized 1924 'Hafs' text of today. So, he asks, what then was that original text before the Abbasids got their hands on it? Joe maintains that there were many writings in Arabic in the 7th century which used a 'Judo-Arabic' script, which employs many Jewish originated words, phrases and names, and it was this script which would have been incorporated into the original 7th century Umayyad book, which then later became the Qur'an, but wasn't the Qur'an yet in the 7th century. These Jewish word and phrases which were used, he continues, were borrowed from the Hebrew language. A prime example is the reference in Surah 16:103 which says "Lisan Arabi Mubeen" which translated today means "A clear Arabic Tongue". But in Hebrew, from where this word "Mubeen" is borrowed, it means 'understandable', or 'intelligible'. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MddVGsn_v1M

After an hour speaking on Women in Islam, Jay Smith and Sarah Foster did an additional 22 minutes, 'off the cuff' talk, on who exactly Allah was. This was unplanned, but introduced by the Musim crowd themselves. Watch as Jay and Sarah show how the god of Islam, Allah, is the same god as that worshipped by the earlier Nabataean culture, which predated Islam, and gave Islam its language (Arabic). What's more, the Nabataean 'Allah' has a wife named 'Al-lat' (as well as 'Al Uzza'), and these are two of the three names of the goddesses found in the Qur'an, in Surah 53:19-20, which is better known as the 'Satanic Verses'. The sources for this incident are too numerous to quote here, but you can find the story in: 1. Ibn Ishaq, pages 165-167 2. Al-Tabari, Volume 6, pp. 107-112 3. Tafsir al-Jalalayn on Surah 22 Ayah 52-53 4. Ibn Sa'd, Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 1, pages 236 - 239 (thanks to 22 zg 77 for these sources) Thus, it seems that whoever wrote the Qur'an borrowed the wrong name for their god, proving that the 'Allah' of the Qur'an is not only a pagan god, but a polytheistic god, who has a consort named 'Al-lat', which contradicts Surah 6:101 as it says god cannot have a consort. The Muslim crowd at the Corner again tried desperately to drown out Jay and Sarah, and even tried to distract them from what they were discussing, with hands in their faces...but the message gets out nonethtless. It's too bad that the writer of the Qur'an didn't know the real name for God, which is 'Yahweh', the same name all the prophets of the Bible knew, and the same name that Jesus took for Himself, proving that He indeed is GOD! ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIqp3RA_FyA

Rajiv Abraham had a good Question, asking whether there were, “Any documents from the time of Mohammed showing financial transactions in Dirham instead of Drachma?”. In other words, did the Dirham even exist during Muhammad’s lifetime? Muslims would say that the word ‘Dirham’ is nothing more an Arabic reference for the existing Byzantine ‘Drachma’ coin, so therefore the Dirham would have existed at the time of Muhammad. But this ‘begs the question’, because the coin itself, the Dirham coin, was only introduced during the time of the first Caliph Mu’awiya, from the Umayyad dynasty, who ruled from 661 AD – 280 AD. So, it was he who first minted Dirhams, but not until 661 AD onwards. Therefore, the coin itself, the Dirham, would not have existed during the time of Muhammad, because it wasn’t even created for another 30 years after his death. We do have references to transactions between Arabs and Byzantines as far back as 643 AD, including the PERF 558 (pictured on the right), which is nothing more than financial transaction, written in both Arabic and Greek. But nowhere in this document do we find mention of any Dirhams. The reason why we ask the question about Dirhams, however, has to do with Surah 12:20, which is about the story of Joseph. In verse 20 he is being sold to the Egyptians for, “A few dirhams counted out”, suggesting that they must have used coins at the time of Joseph. But Joseph lived in 1800 BC, and coins weren’t created until the 600s BC, by the Lydians, so that this reference to coins is 1200 years too early. What’s more, Dirhams weren’t introduced until 661 AD, when Mu’awiyya introduced them as the new Caliph. So, how could Muhammad have been referring to coins which would not be created or introduced for another 30 years, unless, of course, he was prophetic, or simply wrong? This suggests to me that the story of Joseph in Surah 12, and the ‘few dirhams counted out’ in verse 20, were probably included in the Qur’an at a much later date, sometime after 661 AD. But don’t we have the same problem with the Bible? Isn’t the wrong coinage, and the wrong currency found in that story in Genesis 37:28? The answer is that in the Biblical account, Joseph is sold for 20 shekels. The shekel is not a coin, but a weighted measure used for commerce in that part of the world, since the 3rd millennia. What’s more, we now know that 20 Shekels is about 0.2% of a kg of silver, and that this would be the approximate price for a slave at that time! So, while the currency used in the Qur’anic account for the story of Joseph proves to be incorrect, the currency in the Biblical account not only turns out to be the right currency, but the price used in the Bible is the correct price as well; provi ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQXhPk28x2M