Dr Muhammad Al-Massari: The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (2021-11-28) ​

0:00:00 Music
0:00:24 um
0:00:36 there are various
0:00:38 entries to the issue of
0:00:40 of uh trinity
0:00:42 uh one of it is to read what is the
0:00:45 classical uh statement about trinity and
0:00:48 uh
0:00:50 discusses the logical and other grounds
0:00:54 and one is to see if it is
0:00:55 if it makes any sense even to to discuss
0:00:58 trinity because it's essentially
0:01:00 historically based on
0:01:02 the
0:01:03 before the nicene uh
0:01:06 council
0:01:07 it was uh
0:01:08 the issue was really the divinity of
0:01:10 christ trinity was not the main issue
0:01:12 although some trinitarian statements
0:01:14 were here and there the issue especially
0:01:16 in the first second century was the
0:01:18 divinity of christ
0:01:20 and that is based on
0:01:22 on the theory of atonement and the
0:01:26 original sin etc so another approach
0:01:28 should start from the
0:01:29 original sin and these issues and show
0:01:31 that
0:01:32 that the whole understanding of the
0:01:34 scripture and
0:01:36 the whole reliability is in question
0:01:39 so what is what's very variable should
0:01:41 we start maybe reading the classical uh
0:01:44 formulation of the trendy maybe
0:01:46 not about the idea
0:01:48 yes okay
0:01:50 let me just post it
0:01:55 yes so can you give us just a small
0:01:58 understand before we start about this
0:02:00 toledo conference and it's only 17
0:02:02 bishop so what is it exactly and what's
0:02:05 the idea
0:02:06 is it seems to be it seems to be from
0:02:09 the date it's it is dated 685
0:02:12 it seems to be
0:02:14 after the islamic conquest of the uh of
0:02:16 of uh the relevant
0:02:18 sham
0:02:20 and the
0:02:21 the fall of egypt in muslim hand family
0:02:23 and also north africa by the way which
0:02:24 has fallen muslim hunt also
0:02:26 because of the
0:02:28 civil war between uh uh investigated by
0:02:31 maui against ali and so on some retreat
0:02:34 from the far west has happened but but
0:02:36 actually the followers was conquered up
0:02:38 to the tanja tanjir
0:02:40 in the time of man
0:02:42 there was somebody there and also where
0:02:44 the european christianity has started to
0:02:47 conservatives consolidate itself and and
0:02:50 uh
0:02:51 try to
0:02:52 move ahead against uh
0:02:54 unitarian and one of these
0:02:56 attempts which have become again alive
0:03:01 because of the muslims because of the
0:03:02 islamic conquest and so on and
0:03:04 especially in spain it seems to be
0:03:06 although the the this local council did
0:03:09 not mention very much about that but
0:03:11 it's clearly they don't mention that the
0:03:12 mission just agreed in front because
0:03:14 there was a conflict there that conflict
0:03:16 led later
0:03:18 uh some uh
0:03:20 possibly maybe like like half a century
0:03:22 after that maybe even before that maybe
0:03:24 even before that led to uh
0:03:27 some kingdoms there who are where where
0:03:30 are you
0:03:31 no
0:03:41 some conflicts and other issues also
0:03:43 obviously fight on kingdom and power but
0:03:45 also religious fight about trendy etc to
0:03:48 invite muslims to help them against him
0:03:50 which led to the muslim incursion or
0:03:52 conquest whatever you call it in spain
0:03:55 and uh
0:03:57 so maybe in the in the pre
0:04:00 the time before that these issues were
0:04:02 where we're hot maybe that's the reason
0:04:04 this these 17 bishops decided it's a
0:04:07 good idea to start with articulating the
0:04:09 creed and the articulation has been
0:04:11 adopted everywhere as very beautiful and
0:04:13 very
0:04:14 very expressive
0:04:15 so maybe the best is just if you read
0:04:17 them
0:04:18 you think okay
0:04:20 okay so yeah all right
0:04:23 uh guys it's also in in
0:04:26 professor mohammad masari at the tab on
0:04:28 him and the sources are there
0:04:31 the 11th
0:04:32 11th council of toledo symbol of faith
0:04:36 675.
0:04:37 this small local council attended by
0:04:39 only 17 bishops has little significance
0:04:42 today except for the beautiful
0:04:44 confession of faith which was recited
0:04:47 at its opening the official value of
0:04:49 this document consists of the fact that
0:04:51 the subsequent century it was kept in
0:04:54 high regard and scootered and considered
0:04:56 a genuine expression of the trinitarian
0:04:58 faith it is one of the important
0:05:00 formulas of the doctrine
0:05:02 in fact hardly anywhere is a reflection
0:05:05 of the early church on the trinitarian
0:05:07 ministry
0:05:08 mystery and on crowd expressed with such
0:05:12 precision
0:05:13 and a common uh uh as in this creed
0:05:16 which sums up the tradition of the
0:05:18 earlier council and patristic theology
0:05:21 of the west that's it obviously
0:05:34 okay
0:05:35 we confess and believe that's what the
0:05:37 bishop said that's in their opening and
0:05:39 that's what's part of the council the
0:05:41 proceedings yeah
0:05:43 we convince we confess and believe the
0:05:46 holy and and fabled trinity father son
0:05:50 and holy spirit is one god by nature
0:05:54 of one substance
0:05:56 of one nature
0:05:58 as also of one majesty and power
0:06:02 and we profess that the father is not
0:06:05 begotten
0:06:06 not created but unbegotten
0:06:09 for he himself
0:06:11 from whom the son has received his birth
0:06:15 and the holy spirit his procession
0:06:19 this comment because
0:06:20 in in the classical uh definition is
0:06:23 that the sun is begotten born
0:06:26 from the father and the holy spirit is
0:06:29 not born is what proceeds emanates like
0:06:32 like light from a light bulb or
0:06:33 something like that
0:06:35 the explanation for that but we don't go
0:06:37 into these things just going to the
0:06:39 description of these entities and what
0:06:41 they are yeah
0:06:43 for he himself
0:06:44 from whom the son has defeated received
0:06:47 his birth and the holy spirit his
0:06:49 procession
0:06:51 he has his origin from no one
0:06:54 he is therefore the source and the
0:06:57 origin of the whole godhead
0:07:00 he himself is the father
0:07:02 of his own essence
0:07:04 who is an in
0:07:07 infable way
0:07:08 has begotten the son from his infable
0:07:11 substance
0:07:12 yet he did not beget something different
0:07:16 allude from what he himself is
0:07:19 god has begotten god
0:07:21 light has begotten light from him
0:07:24 therefore is all fatherhood in heaven
0:07:27 and on earth
0:07:30 carry on yeah we'll finish it and then
0:07:33 we'll go from the beginning until we
0:07:34 have it to the end so maybe
0:07:37 we also confess that the son was born
0:07:40 but not made from the substance of the
0:07:43 father without beginning before all ages
0:07:46 for
0:07:47 for at no time did the father exist
0:07:49 without the son nor the son without the
0:07:51 father yet the father is not from the
0:07:54 son
0:07:55 as the son
0:07:56 is from the father because the father
0:07:59 was not generated by the son but the son
0:08:02 by the father the son therefore is god
0:08:06 from the father
0:08:07 and the father is god but not from the
0:08:10 son
0:08:11 he is indeed the father of the son
0:08:14 not god for the son but the later is the
0:08:17 son of the father
0:08:19 and god from the father
0:08:22 yet in all things the son is equal to
0:08:25 god the father
0:08:26 for he has never begun nor cease to be
0:08:29 born
0:08:30 we also believe that he is one
0:08:33 substance with the father
0:08:35 wherefore he is called
0:08:37 homos with the father that is of the
0:08:41 same being as the father for homos in
0:08:44 greek mean one
0:08:45 and ocean means being and joy together
0:08:49 they mean one in being we must believe
0:08:52 that the sun
0:08:53 is begotten or born not from nothing or
0:08:56 from any other substance but from the
0:08:59 womb of the father
0:09:01 that
0:09:02 is from his substance
0:09:04 therefore the father is eternal and the
0:09:07 son is also eternal if he was always
0:09:10 father he always had a son whose father
0:09:12 he was and therefore we confess that the
0:09:15 son was born from the father without
0:09:17 beginning
0:09:18 we do not call we do not
0:09:21 call the same son of god a part of
0:09:24 divided nature because he was generated
0:09:27 from the father but we assert
0:09:30 that the perfect father has begotten the
0:09:33 perfect son without
0:09:35 diminution or division
0:09:38 for it pertains to the godhead alone not
0:09:41 to have an inequal son
0:09:43 this son of god is also son by nature
0:09:47 not by adoption of him we must also
0:09:50 believe that god the father
0:09:53 begot him neither by an act of will nor
0:09:56 out of necessity
0:09:58 for in god there is no necessity
0:10:01 nor does will precede wisdom
0:10:05 nor does we precede wisdom
0:10:08 okay we also believe
0:10:11 that the holy spirit the third person
0:10:13 the trinity is god
0:10:16 and one and equal with god the father
0:10:18 and the son
0:10:20 of one substance and of one nature
0:10:23 not however begotten nor created but
0:10:26 proceeding from both
0:10:28 and that he is the spirit of both of
0:10:32 of this holy spirit we also believe that
0:10:34 he is neither unbegotten nor begotten
0:10:37 for if we called him unbegotten we would
0:10:40 assert two fathers or if begotten we
0:10:42 would appear to preach two sons yet he
0:10:44 is called the spirit
0:10:46 not of the father alone not of the son
0:10:48 alone but of paul father and son
0:10:52 for does not proceed from the father
0:10:54 to the son nor from the son to sanctify
0:10:57 creature but he is shown to have
0:11:00 proceeded from both at once because he
0:11:03 is known as the love or the sanctity of
0:11:05 both hence we believe the holy spirit is
0:11:09 sent by both and the son is sent by the
0:11:11 father
0:11:12 but he is not less than the father and
0:11:14 the son
0:11:16 in the way in which the son on account
0:11:18 of the body which he has assumed
0:11:20 testified that he is less than the
0:11:22 father
0:11:23 and the holy spirit
0:11:32 this way of speaking about the holy
0:11:34 trinity
0:11:35 as it has been handed down
0:11:38 one must not call
0:11:40 it or believe it to be threefold but
0:11:43 trinity
0:11:45 nor can it properly be said that in the
0:11:48 one god there is the trinity
0:11:50 but the one god is the trinity
0:11:54 and the relative names of the person the
0:11:55 father is related to the son
0:11:58 the son to the father and the holy
0:12:00 spirit to both
0:12:02 while they are called three persons in
0:12:04 view of the relationship we believe in
0:12:07 one nature or substance
0:12:09 although we profess three persons we do
0:12:12 not profess three substances but one
0:12:14 substance and three person for the
0:12:17 father is the father not with respect to
0:12:19 herself
0:12:21 but
0:12:23 not to the but
0:12:24 sorry
0:12:25 hence we believe that the holy spirit uh
0:12:27 so this is
0:12:29 i missed
0:12:31 one line
0:12:32 and
0:12:33 what he considered
0:12:35 we did okay although we profess three
0:12:37 persons we do not profess three
0:12:38 substances but one substance and three
0:12:40 person for the father is the father not
0:12:42 with respect to himself but to the son
0:12:45 and the son is the son not
0:12:47 to himself but in relationship to the
0:12:49 father and likewise the holy spirit is
0:12:51 not referred to himself but is related
0:12:53 to the father and the son
0:12:56 inasmuch as he is called the spirit of
0:12:59 the father and the son so when we say
0:13:01 god this does not express a relationship
0:13:03 to another
0:13:04 as of the father to the son or of the
0:13:06 son of the father out of the holy spirit
0:13:10 to the father and the son but god refers
0:13:12 to himself only
0:13:14 for if we are asked about the single
0:13:16 persons we must confess that each is god
0:13:19 therefore we say that the father is god
0:13:21 the son is god the holy spirit is god
0:13:23 each one distinctly yet there are not
0:13:26 three gods but one god similarly we say
0:13:29 that the father is almighty the son is
0:13:31 almighty the holy spirit is almighty
0:13:33 each one distinctly yet there are no
0:13:36 three almighty ones but one almighty as
0:13:39 we profess
0:13:40 one light and one principle hence we
0:13:42 convince and believe that each person
0:13:45 distinctly is fully god and the three
0:13:48 persons together are one god
0:13:51 there there is an undivided and equal
0:13:54 godhead majesty and power which is
0:13:56 neither diminished
0:13:58 in the single person
0:13:59 nor increased in the three for it is not
0:14:02 less when each person is called god
0:14:04 separately nor is it greater when all
0:14:07 three person are called one god
0:14:09 this holy trinity which is the one true
0:14:12 god is not without number
0:14:14 yet it is not compromised by number
0:14:17 because in the relationship of the
0:14:19 person there appears number but in the
0:14:21 substance of the godhead nothing is
0:14:23 compromised that could be counted
0:14:26 therefore
0:14:27 therefore they imply numbers only is so
0:14:30 far as they are mutually related but
0:14:33 they lack number
0:14:34 in so far as they by themselves
0:14:38 for this holy for this holy trinity has
0:14:41 so much one name referring to its nature
0:14:43 that it cannot be used in the plural
0:14:46 with relationship to the three persons
0:14:48 this then is in our faith the meaning of
0:14:52 saying holy scripture great is our lord
0:14:54 bonded in power and his wisdom there is
0:14:57 no number
0:14:59 however though we have said that these
0:15:01 three persons are one god we are not
0:15:03 allowed to say that
0:15:04 the same one is the father who is the
0:15:07 son or that he is the son who is the
0:15:09 father or that he who is the holy spirit
0:15:11 is either the father of the son for he
0:15:14 is not the father who is the son nor the
0:15:17 son
0:15:17 he
0:15:18 who the father
0:15:20 nor is the holy spirit he
0:15:22 who is the father or the son even though
0:15:25 the father is that which the son is the
0:15:28 son that which the father is the father
0:15:32 and the son that which the holy spirit
0:15:34 is
0:15:35 that is one god by nature
0:15:40 for when we say who is the father
0:15:42 is not the son we refer to the
0:15:45 distinction of person but when we say
0:15:47 the father is that which the son is the
0:15:50 son which is the father is and the holy
0:15:52 spirit which the father and the son is
0:15:55 this clearly refers to the nature or
0:15:58 substance whereby god exists
0:16:01 since in substance they are one for we
0:16:04 distinguish the person but we do not
0:16:06 divide the godhead
0:16:08 hence we recognize the trinity
0:16:10 in the distinction of person and we
0:16:12 profess the unity on account of the
0:16:14 nature or substance thus the three are
0:16:17 one by nature not as person
0:16:20 nevertheless these three persons are not
0:16:23 to be considered separable since
0:16:25 according to our belief none of them
0:16:27 ever existed or acted before another
0:16:30 after another without another or they
0:16:32 are inseparable both
0:16:35 in what they are and what they do
0:16:37 because according to our faith between
0:16:39 the father who generated the son who is
0:16:41 generated or the holy spirit who
0:16:43 proceeds
0:16:45 there has not been an interval of time
0:16:47 in which
0:16:48 that one who generate
0:16:50 would precede the one who is generated
0:16:53 or there would be no
0:16:55 no begotten unto him who begets or the
0:16:59 holy spirit in his proceeding would
0:17:01 appear later
0:17:03 than father or son for this reason we
0:17:06 profess and believe that this trinity is
0:17:09 inseparable and instinct
0:17:12 we say therefore of these three person
0:17:15 as our forefathers defined it
0:17:17 that they should be acknowledged
0:17:20 not separated for if we will listen to
0:17:23 the holy scripture says about wisdom
0:17:26 she is a reflection of the eternal light
0:17:29 we see that the reflection belongs
0:17:31 inseparable to the light
0:17:33 so two according to our confession the
0:17:36 son cannot be separated from the father
0:17:38 therefore neither do we confuse these
0:17:41 three persons whose nature is one and
0:17:43 inseparable nor do we preach
0:17:46 nor do we
0:17:50 nor sorry
0:17:52 nor do we preach that they are in any
0:17:55 way separable the holy truth itself has
0:17:57 indeed designed clearly to veer to us
0:18:00 in these names by which he wanted the
0:18:03 single person to be known it is
0:18:05 impossible to understand one person
0:18:07 without the other
0:18:08 one cannot conceive the father without
0:18:10 the son nor can the son be found without
0:18:12 the father indeed the very relationship
0:18:14 expressed in the personal names
0:18:16 forbid us to separate the person
0:18:19 for though it does not name them
0:18:22 together it implies them
0:18:24 no one can hear any of these names
0:18:26 without necessarily understanding also
0:18:28 the other
0:18:29 one
0:18:30 then these three are one and
0:18:34 this one is three each of the person
0:18:36 between his own characteristics father
0:18:39 has eternity without birth and the son
0:18:42 has eternity with birth the holy spirit
0:18:44 has procession without birth with
0:18:47 eternity
0:18:49 so so is that
0:18:52 who would it make you make any sense out
0:18:53 of this
0:18:54 yeah it was a bit confusing but the main
0:18:57 point is the distinction between like
0:18:59 the nature yeah and the proteins no
0:19:02 that's so that
0:19:04 to summarize uh sometimes it's made like
0:19:07 a triangle
0:19:08 we have uh the head the
0:19:10 the britishers of the triangle we have
0:19:12 the father
0:19:13 the son and the holy spirit
0:19:16 and
0:19:17 along the external it's
0:19:19 actually somewhere there's a drawing i
0:19:21 couldn't find it at the moment i think i
0:19:23 saw it i have it i even once tweeted it
0:19:25 but i couldn't find it now easily it's
0:19:27 an interesting drawing along the
0:19:30 the
0:19:31 uh
0:19:33 the sides of the triangle
0:19:35 you would say
0:19:37 you would say that the
0:19:38 that the the fathers on the top
0:19:40 obviously on the sun maybe to the right
0:19:42 or the left and the holy spirit to the
0:19:43 other one are not equal as persons they
0:19:46 are different
0:19:47 and but
0:19:49 internally somehow they are the same
0:19:52 it was stated more in a similar language
0:19:55 it is essentially that
0:19:57 the the whole things go around the
0:19:59 following uh
0:20:01 problem i want to refer to the historic
0:20:03 development how it came to that because
0:20:04 it because obviously that is one god
0:20:07 according to the old testament also the
0:20:09 statement of isa
0:20:11 in the new testament and even even even
0:20:14 paul who who seems to the one who
0:20:21 the praise of jesus and they were
0:20:23 generification glorification into orbit
0:20:26 he's still insisting everywhere there's
0:20:28 only one god
0:20:29 so that's nobody can violate that
0:20:31 otherwise it will be paganism and many
0:20:33 gods and as they didn't say we cannot
0:20:35 say that three gods is only one god
0:20:40 but but this dictated them to say that
0:20:42 the the
0:20:43 but the son is a god
0:20:45 the holy spirit is god and the father is
0:20:47 god but they are not three is one the
0:20:49 godhead and substance is one i think
0:20:52 this starts from
0:20:53 uh
0:20:54 fundamental fallacy is that
0:20:56 we are dealing here uh with with a
0:20:59 monotheistic theory uh
0:21:02 studying uh the godhead in the in the
0:21:04 sense of the old scripture and his
0:21:06 feather development philosophical
0:21:07 developments of the scripture talking
0:21:08 about simple language which that anyone
0:21:10 can understand but if we develop
0:21:12 philosophically we're talking about our
0:21:14 divine being which is necessarily
0:21:16 existing we're not talking about an
0:21:18 accidental or born in time divine beings
0:21:21 like the pagans have the parents they
0:21:22 have gods who are born and can disappear
0:21:25 so for them the concept of necessarily
0:21:27 existing does not apply
0:21:29 but if you develop a philosophical
0:21:33 human thinkings one step forward
0:21:36 like which has been
0:21:38 made
0:21:39 in a certain advanced level uh in a for
0:21:42 in in the athenian school of philosophy
0:21:44 socrates plato and then aristotle's
0:21:48 then we are forced
0:21:50 to to distinguish between we first
0:21:54 to study ontology and we we are forced
0:21:56 to distinguish between the contingent
0:21:58 being and certainly existing being
0:22:01 and
0:22:02 then
0:22:03 by necessity of reason
0:22:05 uh
0:22:07 that says something exists is obvious
0:22:08 because the mere fact that we think
0:22:11 according to er kogito air cogito el
0:22:13 gosam later formulated by descartes not
0:22:16 a very good formulation but what means
0:22:18 that the mere fact that i think i
0:22:20 recognize immediately without any
0:22:22 further any
0:22:24 intermediary of any conclusion that i
0:22:26 exist even if i doubt my existence my
0:22:28 doubt itself prove the existence because
0:22:31 my doubt is an act of thinking act of or
0:22:34 pondering
0:22:35 so and you recognize immediately
0:22:38 obviously you need to have a certain
0:22:39 level of physical sophistication as a
0:22:41 person but all humans or humanities as
0:22:44 generally as a humanity or as a historic
0:22:47 development i don't expect that like
0:22:49 foreign time that people have developed
0:22:52 that generally such concept and wedding
0:22:54 but later on slowly it emerged i think
0:22:56 starting with ibrahim i regarded by him
0:22:58 as the first philosopher in history and
0:23:00 then developed further especially in in
0:23:02 in
0:23:03 the children of israel under the ancient
0:23:06 civilization before the catastrophes and
0:23:08 the under the the attacks of the
0:23:10 and came etc for reasons which we don't
0:23:12 want to discuss obviously
0:23:14 and then later on it seems to me there's
0:23:16 very good evidence that that aristotle
0:23:19 and plato has been influenced also by
0:23:20 jewish influence and jewish scholars and
0:23:23 even prophets who are in egypt like
0:23:25 jeremy as well but this is some
0:23:27 historical thinking
0:23:29 so all of that developed into more
0:23:31 sophisticated level of expression and
0:23:33 greek philosophy
0:23:36 we recognize that
0:23:38 it's impossible for for anything to
0:23:40 exist unless there is one at least one
0:23:42 necessary existing being which is the
0:23:44 source of other beings while the
0:23:46 contingent being either by act of
0:23:47 creation by by by will
0:23:50 that would be something which could be
0:23:52 called divine being
0:23:54 genuinely divine being not pagan type
0:23:56 divine beings which are just just fixed
0:23:58 of imagination essentially that the
0:23:59 description is internally contradictory
0:24:02 or it is uh
0:24:04 a nature which is we can't call that it
0:24:07 is dead def mute nature
0:24:09 there's a two option secondly by the
0:24:12 definition of a necessarily existing
0:24:14 being it dictates by necessity that
0:24:17 that's what had been missed at that time
0:24:19 before the pre-pre night scene three
0:24:21 that's essentially the 193 as developed
0:24:23 further in the in the world council of
0:24:26 constantinople and three everywhere
0:24:27 scene was the 323 was it for 324 and uh
0:24:32 andrew domini and the the
0:24:35 the addition of them the final
0:24:37 conclusion about the holy spirit was
0:24:40 finally formulated and added to the next
0:24:42 incred in 380 something 85 or something
0:24:45 like that
0:24:47 the
0:24:49 at that time
0:24:52 nobody really elaborated very much about
0:24:54 this there was some some liberation from
0:24:56 from from uh
0:24:58 from arias totals and so on that that
0:25:01 that
0:25:02 that uh that the one or the the from
0:25:04 which is it but the the one seems to be
0:25:07 in is somehow independent from time and
0:25:09 time is separate like this so the
0:25:10 ancient things or things which have no
0:25:12 beginning a time the one what he called
0:25:14 the one the original one the mover who
0:25:17 doesn't move et cetera and
0:25:19 what and
0:25:20 the matter is also eternal and then it
0:25:22 has to get a shape by the huli et cetera
0:25:24 things like that
0:25:25 so
0:25:26 the the the philosophical discourse in
0:25:29 anthology did not proceed to the level
0:25:31 to recognize what has been proven later
0:25:33 especially in islamic scholarship but
0:25:35 also until now
0:25:36 that the necessary extreme by definition
0:25:38 being necessarily existing meaning
0:25:41 his being is is they exist by necessity
0:25:45 but in that case
0:25:47 if you analyze the concept further i
0:25:49 have that in the book of the read in
0:25:51 detail just it takes only half phase
0:25:52 essentially
0:25:56 cannot be two necessarily existing
0:25:58 beings it's impossible to have two
0:26:00 because
0:26:01 if if if they if we have we have two
0:26:03 different ones then they must differ in
0:26:05 some aspect in one at least in one
0:26:07 aspect so that we can say this is this
0:26:10 is a and this is b oh this is number one
0:26:12 that is number two if there is
0:26:13 absolutely no difference and
0:26:14 distinguishable every respect
0:26:17 then
0:26:18 then uh then if it's essentially one it
0:26:21 cannot be two that's the same they say
0:26:22 same for the same evidence is usually uh
0:26:26 brought forward for example you start
0:26:27 group theory in mathematics then you
0:26:29 prove that the the so-called identity or
0:26:31 the unity element cannot be two unit
0:26:34 theorems it's only one you possibly just
0:26:36 say one facet there's an unit element e1
0:26:38 and another e2 and then based on the
0:26:40 basic axiom of the group theory of the
0:26:43 group then you prove that e1 is equal to
0:26:45 minuses it can't have two or two
0:26:47 identity elements
0:26:49 if it's a group with the basic axioms of
0:26:51 the goal the same here it's impossible
0:26:53 because if they distinguishing
0:26:55 themselves in one of them the strongest
0:26:57 have said the attributes which the other
0:26:58 does not have the meaning the other one
0:27:00 kind of business has existed because
0:27:02 that attribute for for number one
0:27:05 is part of his necessary existence
0:27:07 but the other one must have it but this
0:27:09 is the answer anyway you can flesh out
0:27:11 the evidence
0:27:13 and develop it mathematically almost to
0:27:15 mathematical precision that the
0:27:16 necessarily existing being is only one
0:27:19 and hence
0:27:20 since only one is unconceivable
0:27:22 decisively dictate that and rational
0:27:24 rationalistic dictator and logically
0:27:26 dictate that
0:27:28 there cannot be any any talk about
0:27:31 about the
0:27:32 the concept of necessary existing or
0:27:34 let's call it god hit now
0:27:36 leave nature i would assume that next
0:27:37 that we have concluded that this by by
0:27:39 some other evidence which may be when
0:27:42 they will be worked out that an assessed
0:27:45 existing being
0:27:46 can either be acting by
0:27:48 by
0:27:51 by without choice with the end by
0:27:52 decision by his own nature
0:27:55 or acting absolutely by some free free
0:27:57 will
0:27:58 the one who should absolute free will is
0:28:00 what we call a god the other one will be
0:28:02 what we can call a nature
0:28:03 let's assume we have excluded nature we
0:28:05 have an evidence for that somewhat then
0:28:07 we have evidence for that but let's
0:28:08 assume that
0:28:11 then we have only one being so it does
0:28:14 not make any sense to talk about godhead
0:28:16 or a category of being being divine or
0:28:19 being godhead does not make any sense
0:28:21 it's not like when we talk about about
0:28:23 animals we say being animal or being
0:28:25 that humans are
0:28:27 animals who are having the capability of
0:28:29 thinking and speaking while there are
0:28:31 other animals because they share certain
0:28:33 characters god could we could call
0:28:34 animal hood
0:28:36 uh
0:28:37 that's that's what what the what usually
0:28:39 uh what usually is studied they never
0:28:42 studied in philosophy as as the issue of
0:28:46 sense
0:28:47 essence and accident and attributes and
0:28:49 essentials and and added subdividing
0:28:53 i think subdividing beings and according
0:28:55 to
0:28:56 to a higher level uh category lower
0:28:59 levels etc
0:29:02 this is the thing i don't understand
0:29:04 because when
0:29:05 christians try to explain it they say
0:29:07 okay look at you relaxed you are human
0:29:10 so you are you know in nature
0:29:16 why did you group me on humanity why
0:29:18 didn't you group me that
0:29:20 a mammal with a right hand yeah no no
0:29:22 problem no problem with that but why
0:29:23 humanity i'm not discussing this
0:29:25 i'm not discussing this point i'm
0:29:26 discussing the fundamental point is that
0:29:28 we can't define something like humanity
0:29:30 shared by all humans
0:29:32 so common characteristics
0:29:34 we may discuss it does this exist only
0:29:36 in the mind or it is in external reality
0:29:38 it's something called humanity this is
0:29:39 another issue of philosophy which does
0:29:42 not interest us whatever it is is it in
0:29:44 our minds only and that's the way we
0:29:46 have divide things analyze them and find
0:29:48 the common shared respect but we
0:29:50 certainly know that there are various
0:29:52 human beings which we can't find the
0:29:53 common characteristic and call it
0:29:54 humanity and the same between humans and
0:29:57 animals animality and between animals
0:30:00 and plants what we call grow with living
0:30:02 living living things which grow and
0:30:04 procreate but not necessarily they don't
0:30:07 sense and they don't move for example
0:30:09 animals essentially for all practical
0:30:12 purposes they don't seem to have a uh
0:30:14 uh organs of of sensing and and and
0:30:18 although there's doubt about that but it
0:30:20 seems superior there's no organs of
0:30:21 sensing and they are unable to move in
0:30:24 that sense unless they are carried by
0:30:26 the air although some some low bacteria
0:30:28 may be able to have some uh i don't
0:30:30 think bacteria have that but
0:30:32 low level animals they have
0:30:34 they have uh um
0:30:36 something like
0:30:37 things like like like uh like uh
0:30:40 like whips and so on with usually they
0:30:41 move so they are animals they are not
0:30:43 bacteria but in but anyway because we
0:30:45 have multiple multiplicity of these
0:30:47 contingent things and they differ in
0:30:49 certain aspects we can find the common
0:30:51 shade and then we can define a category
0:30:53 like animal wood and so on
0:30:55 the case of necessity extreme being
0:30:56 because the only one is just extreme
0:30:58 being which you can exist it is nature
0:31:00 or being a divine type a person type
0:31:03 something which can will and so on
0:31:05 that we cannot define a cutter we call
0:31:07 godhead this is a pharisee there's
0:31:09 nothing called godhead it's only one
0:31:10 there's only one god one entity
0:31:13 that dictated by necessity there is no
0:31:16 category of
0:31:17 of of of
0:31:19 which you can calcify according to so
0:31:21 this is the first point which at that
0:31:24 time we can excuse the people this
0:31:26 concept has not been developed that's
0:31:27 not been developed essentially later in
0:31:30 in philosophical scholarships which are
0:31:31 in the muslim world and later in uh
0:31:34 continuous continuously partly in in and
0:31:37 especially in the shia tradition
0:31:39 they attend to philosophy and give it a
0:31:41 considerable importance and all
0:31:43 philosophical uh
0:31:45 classes and so on especially in the shia
0:31:48 tradition they cover these issues when
0:31:50 they discuss the nature what is this is
0:31:52 that existing and how many could exist
0:31:54 etc and
0:31:56 so there is there is no there
0:31:58 they express that and say there's no
0:32:00 difference between being and this sense
0:32:02 the being is the sense that this is the
0:32:03 being while in the care in the case of a
0:32:07 a human being we can say this definitely
0:32:09 being that's the you for example lacks
0:32:11 that's your being and your exterior are
0:32:13 essential in a sense a human being with
0:32:17 which it is sharing this characteristic
0:32:18 with others because there are there are
0:32:20 multiplicity of human beings and you're
0:32:22 also sharing certain characteristics
0:32:23 with animals with a multiple multiple of
0:32:25 animal species et cetera
0:32:28 that does not exist for us so this is
0:32:30 the first the first point which we have
0:32:32 which have to be settled fast before
0:32:34 that that's until now unfortunately
0:32:36 western scholarship when there is cause
0:32:38 trinity and other issues they still and
0:32:40 assume assume like in a world in which
0:32:42 student selects it instead of existing
0:32:45 being there or three years old that
0:32:47 assumption is virious you could don't
0:32:48 start with this one
0:32:50 no no conceivable wealth or
0:32:53 or
0:32:54 well-meaning collection of beings not
0:32:56 not necessarily a cosmos a complete
0:32:58 comprehensive world
0:32:59 no
0:33:00 there is no conceivable word in which
0:33:02 there is an uh only contingent beings
0:33:04 that's impossible it's russian
0:33:06 impossible and there's in every possible
0:33:08 world there must be a necessary extreme
0:33:09 being and only one there's no way
0:33:13 don't you think that christians would
0:33:14 tell you that there is no
0:33:16 no
0:33:17 like even the thing we read there's no
0:33:22 natures multiple natures they don't say
0:33:23 that there's not an advert of nature's
0:33:25 hadeem but they say it's one nature and
0:33:28 person it's not nature
0:33:30 no no no the the proof is being entity
0:33:34 being not nature nature is a
0:33:36 categorization the other what i call
0:33:38 nature in the case that for the the
0:33:40 atheist solution that the whole reality
0:33:43 goes back to something called nature
0:33:45 it's just a summary name for the
0:33:47 necessarily existing which is acting by
0:33:49 necessity
0:33:50 for that thing we call it nature just a
0:33:53 lack of another name what we're supposed
0:33:55 to call it
0:33:58 should we call it matter fine
0:34:02 should we call it method maybe call it
0:34:04 whatever you want we have to give it a
0:34:06 name well the other one is a god or a
0:34:08 person with will and and
0:34:10 and
0:34:11 and
0:34:12 knowledge and decision making
0:34:15 you see because that because in matter
0:34:17 and matter of this because because it's
0:34:20 clearly that the the universe in which
0:34:22 we live now for example
0:34:24 an example of them is not only the one
0:34:25 we can conceive in our mind the one we
0:34:27 live on is clearly that that that we as
0:34:30 as individual beings are contingent it's
0:34:33 clearly that the stars are zone are
0:34:34 contingent they have a beginning at the
0:34:36 end et cetera until we go to the
0:34:38 beginning of the of the questions in the
0:34:39 big bang
0:34:42 that must end in a necessary existing
0:34:44 beings either something we may call give
0:34:47 it the name nature which is acting by
0:34:49 necessity is is an entity which is
0:34:54 described by our own languages neither
0:34:56 neither having a mind
0:34:58 it's not conscious it's dead
0:35:01 we can't call it dead
0:35:04 as essence
0:35:08 it has to be because it's necessary to
0:35:10 be one one entity
0:35:12 we can't talk about about a sense
0:35:14 because the
0:35:16 the word essence is essentially derived
0:35:18 from comparison many individuals
0:35:20 belonging to a certain category and
0:35:22 extracting the essence or recognizing
0:35:24 the excesses which shared between them
0:35:26 it's outside the mind whatever you think
0:35:28 philosophical point we will take is it
0:35:31 is the sense really outside and i'm
0:35:33 seeing it and extracting and describing
0:35:36 it or it is only in my projection of my
0:35:38 mind in the reality to classify these
0:35:40 individuals which are uh to give them
0:35:42 some kind of relation so the word
0:35:44 essence relates usually to
0:35:46 categorization
0:35:48 yeah
0:35:50 that's that's what it comes really some
0:35:52 people use them as a substance and a
0:35:54 sense in in place of entity or being
0:35:58 something is used so but we have to
0:36:00 distinguish that
0:36:03 we have also brother nitrous here he's
0:36:07 uh you know
0:36:08 he's a loomer a bit of a killer so if
0:36:11 you also like involve him in the
0:36:12 discussion so
0:36:14 we can enrich it
0:36:15 no problem no problem it is welcome but
0:36:17 i'm saying we have that that's that
0:36:19 that's the first thing where it starts
0:36:21 at that time of the presidency and then
0:36:23 postnasa and
0:36:25 creed formulation and things like that
0:36:27 the the philosophical discourse was not
0:36:29 advanced enough yet this was this
0:36:31 advancement of that and that the
0:36:33 necessary extreme being can be only one
0:36:35 this advancement happened in the islamic
0:36:37 in the islamic development of philosophy
0:36:39 starting from al-khindi beginning of it
0:36:41 and developed fada
0:36:43 and expanded for example by al-razi and
0:36:45 also by the by the shia villa the
0:36:49 scholars of kalam and also philosophy
0:36:50 because philosophy is a very important
0:36:52 subject
0:36:53 for the sunni they have neglected that
0:36:55 to some part but it's in the islamic
0:36:57 world
0:36:57 so these evidences and these
0:36:59 developments are there where we have
0:37:00 talked about we cannot blame the people
0:37:03 i'm saying we can't believe the people
0:37:04 at that time but we have if we want to
0:37:06 securize things and advance one step
0:37:09 forward
0:37:10 we have to recognize that that it does
0:37:12 not make any sense to talk about godhead
0:37:15 or substance of godhead
0:37:17 it's only one entity
0:37:19 one being i have a question uh yeah
0:37:22 that's right so uh you mentioned um
0:37:24 we're not talking about nature right
0:37:26 we're tweaking that they believe in
0:37:27 multiple beings and not
0:37:29 believing in multiple natures now the
0:37:31 question is when it comes to catholics
0:37:33 for example um you have for example the
0:37:36 school of
0:37:37 thomas aquinas yeah and what they
0:37:39 believe is
0:37:41 they believe in this distinction between
0:37:42 nowhere uh knowledge no or none right
0:37:45 um so they would say there's one being
0:37:47 and this one being knows himself and
0:37:50 since his nose and sauce he has three
0:37:52 relations
0:37:54 we'll come to that we'll come we'll come
0:37:55 to about this interpretation of the
0:37:57 trinity now i'm just that the
0:37:59 formulation i'm discussing the general
0:38:00 formulation before i go to the very
0:38:03 queen's point of view is having its own
0:38:04 merits etc we'll come to that i'm just
0:38:07 preparing the ground for that yeah
0:38:10 preparing the jungle for that so all
0:38:12 right
0:38:13 so that formulation is starting having
0:38:15 from the beginning some kind of fallacy
0:38:17 so some comedy in the people mind that
0:38:18 there's something that like god head is
0:38:20 something like like a genus or like a
0:38:22 like a specification which can fit
0:38:24 various beings it can't be
0:38:26 it can fit only one being
0:38:29 which also occurs have obviously
0:38:31 recognized and those have recognized
0:38:33 that this being has to be universally be
0:38:34 symbol why simple because if it's
0:38:37 composed
0:38:39 inside the in the proper compositions is
0:38:41 that it's two two two to two parts which
0:38:44 can be separated
0:38:46 yeah it can be really separated
0:38:49 genuinely is about not stimulated in
0:38:50 this course like stimulating for example
0:38:52 an entity and this description that's a
0:38:54 separation into in the mental discourse
0:38:57 not in the reality but they can separate
0:38:58 the reality like for example uh what
0:39:01 else like for example uh a water
0:39:04 molecule it can be separated into an
0:39:05 oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms two
0:39:08 separate entities which we can separate
0:39:11 it
0:39:11 we could do it by electrolysis and then
0:39:13 we can collect the hydrogen separately
0:39:15 and oxygen separately and so clearly it
0:39:17 can be divided
0:39:19 if it is so then by then by done then
0:39:22 then we face the problem for the sexy
0:39:24 being that we that since we are probably
0:39:26 only one it can exist
0:39:28 that mean
0:39:30 how how how we could should we describe
0:39:32 the two components or there will be two
0:39:33 or more components
0:39:35 each of the is is one of them is
0:39:36 necessarily existing and the other one
0:39:38 is the exit that's not possible because
0:39:40 there's only one state existing being uh
0:39:42 is is one of the necessary and
0:39:44 contingent how can the consistent need
0:39:46 to be composed the contingent to produce
0:39:47 something real necessary is complete by
0:39:49 self does not need any addition of
0:39:51 contingent otherwise
0:39:53 so
0:39:54 following that analysis which also
0:39:56 discussed very very extensively in in in
0:40:00 in philosophical islamics university
0:40:02 literature especially the later shia
0:40:03 developments which is quite well
0:40:05 advanced many people unfortunately are
0:40:07 not aware of what i thought it has not
0:40:09 have been uh translated to the western
0:40:11 uh uh philosophical circles yet so
0:40:14 nobody is benefiting from that to the as
0:40:16 it were it should be it should be done i
0:40:17 think now now it's the time to do it do
0:40:19 you have any papers you you recommend us
0:40:21 to read yeah so we understand
0:40:29 for example over 100 videos and there
0:40:31 are also books about that i i will get i
0:40:33 have a list of books and then i can i
0:40:35 can put it for this for this
0:40:37 philosophical aspect
0:40:38 so
0:40:40 it has to be and if queerness is right
0:40:41 it has to be absolutely simple and
0:40:43 impossible to divide impossible to break
0:40:45 in in parts that's impossible it is
0:40:47 completely simple and completely without
0:40:50 voids that's what
0:40:51 i mentioned the quran now just casually
0:40:53 just as uh regarded as a literature
0:40:56 somehow
0:40:57 somewhat is the same uh word like samat
0:41:00 musmat
0:41:01 whole without owner uh is empty of any
0:41:06 vacuum or any any any holes etc is
0:41:09 absolutely solid this is obviously
0:41:11 metaphorical thinking for material world
0:41:13 the absolutely solid things are more
0:41:14 stronger and the resistance of breaking
0:41:17 to the things which are having a cavity
0:41:19 or a hole and imagine something we said
0:41:21 absolutely solid without any
0:41:25 gaps or any deficiency whatsoever into
0:41:27 the absolute unbreakable that's almost
0:41:30 like a mathematical point
0:41:32 so that's that's when we do that that's
0:41:35 applies by the way for for for for the
0:41:38 godhead and apply also for the for god
0:41:40 and also apply for nature which makes
0:41:42 also which may be a part of an evidence
0:41:44 that what what is called what is called
0:41:47 nature
0:41:48 for the atheist claim that nature is the
0:41:50 origin of the whole what we see the
0:41:51 whole universe that the what they
0:41:54 present as nature is actually a set of
0:41:56 equation plus
0:41:57 initial conditions
0:41:59 even if they are presented and their
0:42:02 and and even the initial conditions are
0:42:04 dictated by necessity by the equation
0:42:06 even if that which is impossible but
0:42:08 let's assume that it's still it still
0:42:10 does not look like
0:42:12 likely that why is this certain
0:42:14 situation and none at all for all muscle
0:42:16 ima and infinitely minister of equation
0:42:19 is the one which is which produce and
0:42:21 invest and the other ones are not
0:42:22 realized
0:42:24 so because it's composed composed about
0:42:26 as certain parts of the equation
0:42:28 composed of certain entities there
0:42:30 that's the problem but but this this may
0:42:32 this may be a we may be able to develop
0:42:35 that as an
0:42:36 ontological and new ontological evidence
0:42:38 for the existence of god that this
0:42:39 entity called nature
0:42:41 it cannot exist as i already said
0:42:43 exiting me it's a fallacy
0:42:45 that would be a good uh additional which
0:42:48 we does not need really to go to
0:42:49 cosmology but for the moment we have the
0:42:51 cosmological evidence for for for the
0:42:53 existence of god we have also the uh
0:42:56 under uh which indeed which requires
0:42:58 also a refutation of of
0:43:01 hawkins claim of
0:43:02 of this quantum fluctuation which
0:43:04 phillips one of the
0:43:06 space dimensions into time which we
0:43:09 discussed last time and made a little
0:43:10 bit jokes about it and also refutes uh
0:43:14 refutes penrose in a never-ending
0:43:16 circular universe which has no beginning
0:43:18 and end which is circular communication
0:43:20 quality impossible
0:43:22 both can be reputed
0:43:23 so that we have already enough evidence
0:43:25 i think to refute atheism leave this
0:43:28 aside but it will be good to develop an
0:43:30 ontological evidence which based on the
0:43:34 analysis of the concept of necessarily
0:43:36 existing and acting by necessity and
0:43:38 showing that
0:43:39 that's it's impossible to be the
0:43:41 attributes of this existing being that
0:43:43 would be a genuine ontological proof
0:43:45 there's always the ontological attempt
0:43:47 of saint anselm but that has been shown
0:43:49 to be to be a failure
0:43:51 because of the issue of modality and so
0:43:53 on so let's go there so to the divine
0:43:55 being which is obviously not composed
0:43:57 and symbol et cetera so it's only one
0:44:00 entity that should have
0:44:02 to start with the proof
0:44:04 now the way they try to combine this one
0:44:07 entity
0:44:08 with uh with the
0:44:10 with the the already concluded and
0:44:13 accepted and regarded as absolute
0:44:16 divinity of christ
0:44:17 is what clears the problem of that what
0:44:19 we have attentive that we have something
0:44:21 which is internally contradictory and
0:44:23 not conceivable so start now we go maybe
0:44:26 by like a sentence by sentence or no
0:44:28 sentence like a group of sentences
0:44:30 together and see where the fallacy there
0:44:32 so start again now we read that all of
0:44:34 it so if if the people can make any
0:44:36 sense of it and let's just start with
0:44:38 that
0:44:39 again guys please uh check it you have
0:44:42 the text in front of you again this is
0:44:44 the famous one this is the famous uh
0:44:47 council of toledo the second council of
0:44:49 toledo which has this uh which the
0:44:51 writer there say it's a very beautiful
0:44:53 formulation i will i will comment also
0:44:55 some things about the beauty of the
0:44:56 formulation elsewhere but let's go let's
0:44:59 go with the with with it and go with a
0:45:01 bit
0:45:03 does it have it
0:45:05 or no does not have the because the text
0:45:08 you got me where did you exactly
0:45:10 get it from i i have i have the
0:45:12 reference for it it's not a problem i'll
0:45:14 give you another reference i'll go to
0:45:16 not for that because i'm trying to copy
0:45:17 it and just give me a second oh yeah i i
0:45:20 can't get yeah
0:45:23 do you want me to give it like a text
0:45:24 file is that more convenient
0:45:26 if you you can do that i can give it to
0:45:29 telegram
0:45:30 yes if you can do that that's perfect
0:45:33 because copying from telegram is
0:45:35 difficult but the text file is maybe
0:45:36 easier let me open it
0:45:38 i think i closed the folder no they are
0:45:40 still open
0:45:41 where is that folder
0:45:48 like this one i think i closed the
0:45:50 folders
0:45:52 no it's still here good good
0:45:57 uh guys
0:45:58 yeah
0:46:08 i posted something there where's the
0:46:10 text file where are you text file where
0:46:13 are you
0:46:15 i should have oh no i have the wrong
0:46:17 order because i just edited it so it
0:46:20 should be in the top yeah here it is
0:46:25 okay
0:46:54 second
0:47:05 guys if you can share also the youtube
0:47:07 link
0:47:08 so more people can join i'll put
0:47:13 i'll put the youtube link also
0:47:16 okay
0:47:21 it's in discussions
0:47:25 let me just get this
0:47:29 put it
0:47:31 but it is
0:47:32 what's another thing so i better put
0:47:34 this in the front of the file
0:47:36 so you don't have a problem with that
0:47:40 it will be the top one in the file there
0:47:42 are other things in the file also i
0:47:44 don't want to delete them leave them
0:47:45 maybe they'll be useful for another this
0:47:47 course
0:47:48 okay
0:47:50 now drop that in telegram
0:47:58 okay
0:48:08 okay
0:48:13 okay
0:48:16 here we go here you go here it is coming
0:48:19 have a long name but don't worry about
0:48:21 the long name
0:48:22 thank you it's a copy actually because i
0:48:25 needed to organize it so that what we
0:48:26 were reading it is in the top because it
0:48:28 was in the middle
0:48:29 okay
0:48:31 so we can't give it to the
0:48:32 guys and it has other things below that
0:48:35 which some of them are interesting also
0:48:37 for trinity but the one we are reading
0:48:39 is this one
0:48:40 okay
0:48:42 perfect it's a hashtag mohammed masali
0:48:45 check it there guys please it's existing
0:48:48 knowledge it says
0:48:49 dash copy.txt it's a text file the wrong
0:48:52 name i know the long name just just open
0:48:54 it
0:48:55 then they can everyone can read
0:48:58 so you want to read from the top
0:49:00 perfect yes i'll start reading
0:49:02 maybe maybe i should open with you so i
0:49:04 can also
0:49:10 all right
0:49:12 maybe to really
0:49:13 leave the forward of the man and so on
0:49:16 yeah yeah from we confess yeah
0:49:19 we confess and believe
0:49:21 that the holy and in infable trinity
0:49:25 father son and holy spirit is one god by
0:49:28 nature of one substance of one nature as
0:49:33 also of one majesty and power
0:49:36 so
0:49:37 he is the lord any further meaning i
0:49:40 think meaning is you you cannot describe
0:49:42 it or undescribable or unconceivable or
0:49:44 something yeah is that anything do i
0:49:46 mean
0:49:49 it cannot be grasped cannot be expressed
0:49:51 in words i think so it says it again
0:49:53 the from the beginning there they stress
0:49:55 essentially that's a mystery check
0:49:57 what's the meaning of inevitable i think
0:49:58 what's the synonym
0:50:01 yeah
0:50:03 Music
0:50:04 well
0:50:05 of course the text files don't support
0:50:07 the synonymous easily but you have to go
0:50:08 to word or something i think it's info
0:50:10 but that's the meaning of it
0:50:12 so in the beginning
0:50:14 they're lifting the white flag that it
0:50:16 is unspeakable and
0:50:20 okay
0:50:21 uh too great or extreme to be expressed
0:50:24 or described in words
0:50:26 yeah yeah the ineffable mysteries of the
0:50:29 soul
0:50:30 who great or extremely
0:50:32 to be expressed or described in words
0:50:34 indescribable
0:50:36 beyond description
0:50:38 okay
0:50:39 so uh um
0:50:42 trinity father son and the holy spirit
0:50:44 is one god by nature one of substance
0:50:47 of one nature and also of one majesty
0:50:49 and power so this is
0:50:51 this here's the problem she just
0:50:52 addressed that they're talking about of
0:50:54 one
0:50:55 nature and they avoid using maybe at
0:50:58 that time the the concept of entity was
0:51:00 not yet developed but we have to have
0:51:04 that
0:51:06 it is
0:51:07 it is it must be one entity
0:51:10 and then one once
0:51:11 if we allow us to use the word substance
0:51:13 or nature is one entity of one
0:51:15 attributes etc
0:51:17 now you have to that one entity you have
0:51:18 to get three character three personality
0:51:21 in that entity somehow
0:51:23 so that's that's okay that's until now
0:51:25 we don't have any accepted that the
0:51:27 clearly the the the intellectual or the
0:51:30 philosophical development of entities
0:51:32 and this is existing is not woven and
0:51:34 yet maybe at the time it was not
0:51:36 developed yet enough but it's anyway
0:51:38 that's how it stands
0:51:40 uh next one
0:51:41 and we profess the f that the
0:51:44 father is not begotten
0:51:46 not created but unbegotten
0:51:52 is not born it's not begotten it's not
0:51:54 created is
0:51:56 exists from eternity
0:51:58 independence what we really got eternity
0:52:00 of the time we discuss the time issue is
0:52:02 time without any beginning or it has a
0:52:04 beginning in a point which is no time
0:52:06 but just as absolute zero of time which
0:52:08 we can call eternity whatever it is
0:52:11 uh either either either one will or will
0:52:14 overcome the capabilities of one mind we
0:52:17 can express it maybe in a mathematical
0:52:19 form but we are unable to to have any
0:52:21 any mental grasp because we are we are
0:52:24 time limited beings we can imagine a
0:52:26 time time interval time before time but
0:52:29 then we either go to minus infinity or
0:52:31 without beginning which is observed or
0:52:33 you go to a starting point
0:52:35 which is for us
0:52:38 and and
0:52:39 and phytomobile we can we cannot make
0:52:41 any mental image out of it either it is
0:52:45 the
0:52:46 the father or god that's the one who is
0:52:48 supposed to be yahuwah in the old
0:52:49 testament that's the way the creator of
0:52:51 heaven is originally according to old
0:52:53 testament
0:52:54 that one exists
0:52:56 in eternity
0:52:57 from eternity without being created or
0:53:00 being begotten by anyone else so that's
0:53:02 no that's not controversial that's
0:53:04 that's what the old testament dictates
0:53:08 for he himself
0:53:10 for he himself
0:53:11 from whom the son has received his birth
0:53:14 and the holy spirit his procession
0:53:18 has his origin from no one yeah okay
0:53:21 that's right so yeah
0:53:23 yes that's clear and original of the
0:53:25 whole godhead yeah
0:53:28 so that's just an issue is the only
0:53:30 thing is done
0:53:32 they claim there is something called the
0:53:33 son who has received birth from him okay
0:53:36 we'll we'll discuss how how the how this
0:53:38 receiving this and supposedly before
0:53:40 time timeless and these under the beget
0:53:43 the process of beginning was an eternity
0:53:46 absolute zero of time
0:53:48 and
0:53:49 the beginning is continuously for all
0:53:50 the tendencies right so the beginning
0:53:52 the begetting process is supposed to be
0:53:55 also eternal and set same type of
0:53:57 process which is
0:53:58 contains also
0:54:00 a fundamental difficulty but we'll go to
0:54:02 that more in detail
0:54:07 origin from no one he is therefore the
0:54:09 source and the religion of the whole
0:54:11 godhead he himself that's again the same
0:54:13 problem originally the whole good hit as
0:54:15 the as if there's the the the the
0:54:18 godhead is some some entity
0:54:21 if we understand the godhead as an
0:54:22 entity that's okay but the godhead is is
0:54:25 is used as if it said as if it's a
0:54:27 classification like animal hood humanity
0:54:29 and things that which is not true god
0:54:31 hate cannot be like that because we are
0:54:34 talking about the godhead
0:54:35 of type of necessary existing type the
0:54:37 one of of the old testament and the one
0:54:39 of the philosopher not the one of the
0:54:41 pagans the one of the pagans it's a
0:54:43 genus it's a type
0:54:45 there's a father there are sons there
0:54:47 are cousins there are the procreation
0:54:49 some of the gods are punished some were
0:54:51 killed some were eliminated some are
0:54:53 imprisoned that can happen there because
0:54:56 because for them uh
0:54:58 it is it is it's a genus it is a species
0:55:01 you can you can't classify individuals
0:55:03 under that
0:55:05 for the monthly religion judah is once
0:55:07 one even before the what christianity
0:55:10 was was
0:55:12 the advent of christianity there have
0:55:14 been sufficient philosophical
0:55:15 development in in the jewish
0:55:18 uh
0:55:20 the people of the jewish religion like
0:55:23 fear of alexandria and others who
0:55:25 did
0:55:27 indeed discuss issues related to
0:55:30 to the divinity and things like that so
0:55:32 the good head or the divinity
0:55:34 uh
0:55:35 the wording here is seems to be uh
0:55:38 indicating that they're talking about
0:55:40 genus which is by itself a fallacy but
0:55:42 let us
0:55:43 assume that uh
0:55:45 be kind and say it is one entity you're
0:55:47 talking about entity and one being
0:55:51 yeah okay
0:55:53 so it's you're saying one being and
0:55:55 three persons
0:55:57 no no the word god did i'm just
0:55:59 discussing the word good
0:56:00 it's confusing
0:56:03 i'm just trying to clarify the wording
0:56:05 and the concept because you can you can
0:56:08 we remember many times mentioned it's
0:56:09 easy linguistically you can you can have
0:56:11 statements which point to nothing to
0:56:13 absolutely impossible things nothing is
0:56:15 like for example the uh the sentence
0:56:18 this beautiful uh square circle for
0:56:21 example it's a very nice uh
0:56:23 linguistically would make
0:56:25 you enjoy it even in in some sort of
0:56:28 literary sense but it does not point to
0:56:30 any existing or any possible existence
0:56:33 it's nothing but it's it's null pointer
0:56:35 so if godhead
0:56:38 the meaning here of godhead is is is is
0:56:42 a type or genus
0:56:44 or a
0:56:46 descriptive term
0:56:48 it does not make any sense
0:56:50 except everything
0:56:52 they say
0:56:53 in relation to that the sun comes from
0:56:56 him
0:56:57 and that the holy spirit comes from him
0:57:00 independent of that
0:57:02 the
0:57:04 the mere use of godhead is like abuse of
0:57:06 humanity animality
0:57:09 but this is possible for this is
0:57:13 that's possible yeah but this is i'm
0:57:15 going to a deeper level that's possible
0:57:17 only for contingent being for
0:57:19 necessarily exiting being there's no
0:57:20 such categorization because the existing
0:57:23 being is only one
0:57:24 so there's no way to classify it there's
0:57:26 no classification
0:57:30 yes we're talking about the
0:57:31 instantiations of uh so basically the
0:57:35 uh father and so on and see it will
0:57:37 become particular we'll come to
0:57:40 i'm just discussing the word godhead it
0:57:43 seems to be in their back mind somehow
0:57:46 they conceived that there's something
0:57:48 like godhead is something called genus
0:57:50 in which various persons very
0:57:52 entertained could be categorized
0:57:54 that's not true all what we can see if
0:57:56 we are talking about godhead in the
0:57:58 sense of the scripture
0:57:59 of the old testament scripture and the
0:58:01 sense of the philosophical discourse it
0:58:04 is unsafe it is a necessarily existing
0:58:07 entity
0:58:08 which has
0:58:10 absolute freedom and and and the
0:58:13 sovereignty and the necessary obviously
0:58:15 omnipotence etc and knowledge etc so it
0:58:18 can create it
0:58:19 that one
0:58:20 is not is not a category it is one
0:58:23 entity
0:58:24 there could not be exist any other
0:58:25 entities
0:58:29 i see
0:58:31 like let me give an american example of
0:58:32 a group in a group for example a
0:58:34 multiplicative group like the the
0:58:36 numbers except the zero are a
0:58:38 multiplicative group
0:58:40 for the multiplication there's only one
0:58:42 one or one one neutral element if you
0:58:45 multiply anything with that element it
0:58:47 doesn't change the element that's number
0:58:49 one
0:58:50 one time a is equal to a times one equal
0:58:52 a so it's neutral it doesn't affect the
0:58:55 multiplication and also the inverse is
0:58:57 only one inverse for every element it's
0:58:59 only one
0:59:01 you cannot talk about inverse hood or
0:59:03 oneness
0:59:04 because only one there's no category
0:59:06 like that but we can talk about prime
0:59:09 being prime prime numbers that's a
0:59:10 category
0:59:12 many primes
0:59:14 you see you see what i'm trying to
0:59:16 explain without going into a very deep
0:59:18 philosophical wedding and so on
0:59:20 something called mixed sense yeah a
0:59:22 primary being prime yeah being prime is
0:59:24 a category there are many prime numbers
0:59:26 being even is a category two four sixes
0:59:28 these even numbers
0:59:30 let's let's fix our just whole numbers
0:59:32 yeah okay
0:59:34 but being a one
0:59:36 is is not a categories there's only one
0:59:38 one
0:59:39 by evidence the only one neutral element
0:59:41 for the multiplication obviously the
0:59:42 zero is the neutral element for the
0:59:44 addition
0:59:45 zero plus a
0:59:47 equal a plus zero equal a
0:59:50 for concerning the addition the zero is
0:59:52 the neutral element you add it to
0:59:54 anything it doesn't change that thing
0:59:56 in addition but not in multiplication
0:59:58 it's not neutral obviously it's
0:59:59 devastating and multiplication
1:00:02 so we cannot always zero this it's only
1:00:04 one zero
1:00:07 which is the new element of addition
1:00:12 yeah
1:00:13 so so when you talk about godhead it
1:00:15 gives the impression i'm not saying i'm
1:00:17 not accusing the people that they
1:00:18 believe that that you are talking about
1:00:20 like a genus
1:00:22 like being prime primary things like no
1:00:24 it's not
1:00:26 in it according to the old testament
1:00:28 plus philosophical discord that god did
1:00:31 is
1:00:32 for this by resisting the old testament
1:00:33 also via the new instrument of the quran
1:00:35 by necessity this goddess is a
1:00:37 necessarily existing meek
1:00:39 parents have appeared does not have this
1:00:41 concept for them gods are not
1:00:43 necessarily they are born and they may
1:00:44 be die they could even die
1:00:48 yeah there's no problem for them or they
1:00:50 may be eternal but after born they go
1:00:52 they start existing after they didn't
1:00:54 exist there's no problem the temporal
1:00:56 being
1:00:57 so there's a whole category you can
1:00:59 classify them
1:01:01 great god smaller gods
1:01:03 good gods bad gods we can't classify
1:01:05 them
1:01:07 you know now it's so common
1:01:09 uh people to be pagans you know these
1:01:12 americans they think it's cool you know
1:01:15 yeah a lot of them are now becoming
1:01:17 pagan subhanallah unfortunately
1:01:20 and you have for example they're called
1:01:23 the good article the god kid the the god
1:01:26 the uh
1:01:27 the god crypto and things that
1:01:29 crypt was appreciating massively and
1:01:31 things like that this is really i would
1:01:34 say this is
1:01:35 this and
1:01:36 is pagan maybe it starts with like like
1:01:38 verbal paganism but it degenerates into
1:01:40 genuine paganism it should should be
1:01:42 avoided the word the
1:01:44 the the extra description as a god
1:01:46 should be reserved really for god
1:01:47 almighty should not be given
1:01:50 and
1:01:51 are even games called god game and
1:01:52 things like that god level who i call it
1:01:56 and things like that this is all
1:01:57 disrespecting and this comes partly it
1:02:00 comes from the i'd
1:02:01 pagan idea that there is
1:02:03 god is like a general description which
1:02:05 can fit many things or many entities
1:02:08 but it's not it's not the genuine one
1:02:10 they were generally talking about the
1:02:11 old testament
1:02:12 and the
1:02:14 new testament and islam obviously after
1:02:16 being polished and sophisticated by by
1:02:20 i'm just commenting on the word uh
1:02:23 the way though it got hit it could be it
1:02:25 could be a dangerous point in which many
1:02:27 things hang
1:02:28 if we notice this point maybe some of
1:02:31 the pitfalls which will come later we'll
1:02:33 be clarified by this but let's continue
1:02:36 okay he himself is the father
1:02:38 nitrous do you have any question before
1:02:40 we go quickly
1:02:42 no this is very clear he's basically
1:02:43 distinguishing like he's making clear
1:02:45 that when it comes to the godhead we
1:02:47 cannot feel there's a genius that can be
1:02:49 instantiated yeah
1:02:50 uh
1:02:51 so he's making clear you know it's
1:02:53 impossible it undermines the meaning of
1:02:55 necessarily existing yeah okay
1:02:58 as i said godhead in the in the sense of
1:03:00 the old testament youth seven and quran
1:03:02 is really is connected with necessarily
1:03:04 existence not in the sense of pagans
1:03:06 vegans they have they have they are
1:03:08 liberal about god's mother yeah
1:03:10 the words are born they died
1:03:13 he himself is the father of his own
1:03:15 essence
1:03:17 uh this is who
1:03:18 this is that question father of his
1:03:20 honest sense i don't know what does this
1:03:22 make any sense
1:03:24 father of his own
1:03:27 as if he has been getting himself it
1:03:29 does not make any sense
1:03:31 i think christians usually explain it
1:03:33 that like they're all necessary they all
1:03:35 like kind of rely on each other
1:03:40 yeah i agree maybe that's the meaning
1:03:41 but the wording is poetic it's not is
1:03:43 nearly really a sound philosophically or
1:03:46 theologically in a calam way
1:03:48 you have to be more precise yeah
1:03:51 you cannot say he's the father of his
1:03:52 own sense he exists
1:03:55 by necessity that's it
1:03:58 that's all that you can say about
1:04:00 incidents yeah this is the only thing
1:04:01 you can understand from it yeah
1:04:04 okay
1:04:05 who is an
1:04:06 in a nf fable way
1:04:09 has begotten the sun from his enough
1:04:12 ineffable substance so that's now
1:04:15 they're running away to the infer bull
1:04:17 and making it a mystery
1:04:19 so what is this beginning
1:04:22 now uh the only model let's see
1:04:25 in the reality of the universe also
1:04:27 where we can extract some some phenomena
1:04:30 which we can give like some model which
1:04:32 we can make some mental image or
1:04:36 because the wording here do not make
1:04:37 much any sense so the word ineffable
1:04:39 unspeakable but we are speaking about
1:04:41 something so we are contradicting
1:04:43 ourselves so we have to have a little
1:04:45 bit more model which what else do we
1:04:47 have for for the process of beginning
1:04:50 we have for example the process of uh
1:04:54 over let's say the simplest one like
1:04:56 like an amoeba it splits itself but
1:04:58 definitely that's not the what what's
1:05:00 thought because because if the father is
1:05:04 is
1:05:04 is necessarily existing
1:05:07 it cannot be divided in a spirit
1:05:10 and his power does not relate to that
1:05:12 because this control the definition of
1:05:14 this election
1:05:15 so that's not possible another one
1:05:18 they say at the christians
1:05:20 they say that
1:05:22 you know imagine you are
1:05:25 looking at yourself to the mirror yeah
1:05:27 okay
1:05:28 now this is you when when you speak
1:05:32 that speech that that's the the force
1:05:36 that does thing
1:05:37 is is is the sun
1:05:39 and you know the holy spirit is you
1:05:41 thinking of this
1:05:44 so you mean the following model it is
1:05:46 it is uh
1:05:48 he looks at himself
1:05:50 his that his his own image is the son
1:05:53 yeah
1:05:54 and yeah exactly
1:05:56 and the relation to the admiration to
1:05:58 the self-admiration or admission to the
1:06:01 son is the holy spirit
1:06:04 okay how about jesus like how about it's
1:06:08 an opposite mirror like it becomes real
1:06:10 from both sides no
1:06:12 leave that
1:06:13 make it much simpler just in that basic
1:06:14 model you are making the model more
1:06:16 complicated but but
1:06:20 but this model
1:06:22 the problem with this model is that you
1:06:23 are looking into a mirror you have quite
1:06:25 an external things which reflect to you
1:06:27 but obviously
1:06:28 in eternity there was nothing except the
1:06:30 father
1:06:32 this is existing being
1:06:34 so he's looking in himself he's looking
1:06:36 at himself
1:06:38 not the father
1:06:41 they all of them father son and the holy
1:06:43 spirit we're starting with the father
1:06:44 fest because we have to get the sun
1:06:46 first
1:06:48 besides because of beginning is a
1:06:49 process
1:06:51 although it is not not received but they
1:06:53 say it's
1:06:54 they say it's not preceded by any time
1:06:56 fine we go to that but let's assume uh
1:06:59 we
1:07:00 we are able to think timeless so
1:07:05 by insisting he exists and he looks in
1:07:07 himself he recognizes himself
1:07:09 that recognition that recognition
1:07:12 becomes
1:07:14 the sun
1:07:18 becomes the sun
1:07:22 that recognizes self-image the
1:07:23 self-image is where the self-image is
1:07:25 the sun
1:07:33 his admiration or love to his own
1:07:35 self-image or self-glorification
1:07:37 is the holy spirit okay it's the whole
1:07:39 right oh yeah okay then the question
1:07:42 will be
1:07:44 are these really
1:07:45 another persona which can't be addressed
1:07:48 as as
1:07:49 as
1:07:50 and can be can be invoked in prayers and
1:07:52 can be addressed separately from from
1:07:54 the
1:08:03 in which sense in which sense the the
1:08:06 self image the self image is having
1:08:08 obviously he recognized himself as
1:08:11 himself so it helps them he's just a
1:08:12 copy of himself
1:08:17 but
1:08:21 they say it in a more and you don't take
1:08:22 it
1:08:29 analogy that's the right to the
1:08:30 description of the training
1:08:34 maybe the analogy is faulty
1:08:36 it's
1:08:38 how about that why it's can we
1:08:41 say it attack it from a way that why is
1:08:43 it only three persons
1:08:47 let's let's let's
1:08:50 someone could say someone he is he he is
1:08:52 he he he has his own self-image is the
1:08:55 son okay fine
1:08:56 and the relation to the admiration of
1:08:59 the son
1:09:00 is
1:09:02 is
1:09:03 is the holy spirit
1:09:05 but he can he can obviously recognize
1:09:08 and see the holy spirit
1:09:12 as as as a relation
1:09:17 so that's what they call proceeding okay
1:09:19 fine
1:09:20 if he if he sees that what's the
1:09:21 relation to the holy spirit
1:09:24 there must be some relation there
1:09:25 admiration acceptance was there so this
1:09:27 is a fourth entity
1:09:29 and then the fourth entity here
1:09:31 is conscious of this false entity
1:09:35 so that it should be it should be a
1:09:37 never-ending infinite mirrors
1:09:40 it should become an infinite
1:09:41 multiplicity this way
1:09:43 can you repeat that so we can't
1:09:45 formulate i mean if it's a good argument
1:09:47 we can you know just uh he he looks to
1:09:50 the side he looks the sun and the sun is
1:09:52 his own self-image fine
1:09:53 like instead of because he has to look
1:09:55 in himself and recognize that and love
1:09:58 it or admire it
1:10:00 that here is also the admiration itself
1:10:03 the relation is capable of recognizing
1:10:05 the relation
1:10:09 that recognizing the relation is another
1:10:13 additional
1:10:14 persona or addis additional entity or
1:10:16 additional uh uh
1:10:19 uh
1:10:22 further further element in the process
1:10:24 so we have that the self-image we have
1:10:25 the recognition and the admiration of
1:10:27 the self-image then we have the
1:10:28 recognition of the relation
1:10:31 and then the relation to the relation
1:10:33 and it goes at infinity
1:10:38 what makes it stop there and they say
1:10:40 because you then insisted it be it says
1:10:41 the existing being these all must be
1:10:43 necessary present at the same time so
1:10:45 why why is sector number three then
1:10:49 this is the question that i asked yeah
1:10:51 exactly why you're restricted to three
1:10:53 but
1:10:56 explain it again explain it the last
1:10:57 time
1:10:58 one time again he has his
1:11:01 he sees himself as his self-image
1:11:03 present in his knowledge from eternity
1:11:06 okay that that's that's seeing this his
1:11:09 own say that
1:11:11 seeing that
1:11:13 that self-image which he sees that
1:11:15 process of seeing the self-image let's
1:11:17 call it let us call it begetting okay
1:11:20 accept the word beginning we don't want
1:11:22 to fight about the white beginning
1:11:23 although it's an odd word it doesn't fit
1:11:25 there but let's accept it
1:11:27 and then
1:11:28 supposedly according to he or he the
1:11:30 relation between the admiration of the
1:11:32 son or the love to the son
1:11:34 is the holy spirit
1:11:38 the relationship between the
1:11:41 the father and the son is supposed to be
1:11:43 the holy spirit
1:11:47 is
1:11:49 is proceeds from him and the man is from
1:11:51 the sun from both sides and that's the
1:11:53 formulation
1:11:55 okay this will come later okay so what
1:11:58 what happens if
1:12:00 about if he looks at
1:12:03 at the holy spirit
1:12:05 what's the relation with him to the holy
1:12:06 spirit this is a relation
1:12:09 he can internalize this relation and
1:12:12 make another relation to the relation
1:12:17 so you're saying what's the relationship
1:12:19 of the father
1:12:20 to the holy spirit
1:12:22 now he recognized the holy spirit as a
1:12:24 relation that recognition is is is
1:12:27 another category of of of uh
1:12:30 produced something similar to self-image
1:12:32 self-image was the son was the
1:12:34 self-image of the whole father of a
1:12:36 whole is all existence fine no except
1:12:38 like looking in the mirror you see
1:12:40 yourself completely there fine
1:12:42 but he looks in himself because there's
1:12:44 no mirror obviously no other entity in
1:12:45 existence who looks in himself
1:12:47 looking in himself is the beginning
1:12:49 process
1:12:50 so he sees himself
1:12:54 then
1:12:55 he admires himself
1:12:58 or his image that's the holy spirit
1:13:00 that's what's called proceeding
1:13:02 now he looks at the holy spirit
1:13:08 but they say it's both from the son and
1:13:10 from the father yeah see leave the sun
1:13:12 aside let's just form the father's side
1:13:13 we will go over the sun sight sunshine
1:13:15 will be the same problem because the sun
1:13:17 is also again
1:13:18 is capable if he's capable of knowledge
1:13:20 and capable of then the problem will
1:13:23 have it assume it's not capable it is
1:13:26 just like an image
1:13:28 let's assume to start with all that's
1:13:30 contradictory being a person i will come
1:13:31 to that but it just so why stop the
1:13:34 process there
1:13:35 now he
1:13:36 looks in himself
1:13:38 as being looking at himself and having
1:13:40 this relation
1:13:41 that's another
1:13:44 image image of a feather image
1:13:48 like taking a snapshot of narrower then
1:13:50 he is capable of taking a snapshot of
1:13:52 himself and the mirror and the relation
1:13:53 to the mirror for another another level
1:13:55 of snapshot
1:13:57 but that is very very very well possible
1:13:59 it is done for example in in certain in
1:14:01 certain computer programs the programs
1:14:03 make a snapshot of himself and then
1:14:05 another substitute of the snapshot of
1:14:07 himself and keep pushing it down that's
1:14:09 down the stack that's possible
1:14:11 mathematically and then even the
1:14:12 computer programming is that interesting
1:14:15 is done also for some some some
1:14:17 cryptocurrencies
1:14:28 so
1:14:30 there must be there must be some
1:14:32 fundamental one preventing that from
1:14:33 happening so that we stop a tree
1:14:35 i don't see anything making it store
1:14:37 three
1:14:41 and then if the sun is capable if the
1:14:43 sun is having
1:14:44 his own personality and so on
1:14:47 how how what happens if he looks at the
1:14:49 father
1:14:54 is saying it can it can go what's that
1:14:56 for mirror tomorrow tomorrow
1:14:59 it will go at the inference it can't
1:15:01 stop anywhere so the mirror model is not
1:15:04 good
1:15:05 it will not help
1:15:09 yeah besides if you look at the
1:15:11 individual into yourself let's take the
1:15:12 analogy a little bit more more seriously
1:15:15 yeah
1:15:16 that
1:15:17 your self-image there is not another
1:15:20 person
1:15:22 it's just an image of a person but
1:15:23 that's not what what the training is
1:15:25 supposed to be because the son is
1:15:26 distinct from the father
1:15:30 it's not the father
1:15:32 otherwise called the the image the image
1:15:34 of the father just a copy of the father
1:15:37 as present in the the father's
1:15:39 consciousness and
1:15:40 mind
1:15:43 yeah it should be reflexive of course
1:15:45 like you can't have a relation to
1:15:47 yourself like you can have this
1:15:48 non-reflexive relation that's absurd you
1:15:50 need to reflect yourself so yeah
1:15:52 obviously
1:15:54 uh you you look into the mirror you see
1:15:56 yourself you don't see some other person
1:15:58 there yeah
1:15:59 absolutely so it is so that that model
1:16:01 is not is not good
1:16:04 now let's go back to the beginning so
1:16:06 how how do we get because beginning is
1:16:08 an act
1:16:13 it can't be an act
1:16:15 unless it is somehow in in in even if it
1:16:18 is in
1:16:19 start in eternity like the creation act
1:16:21 of the universe start
1:16:22 infinitesimally after if we want to use
1:16:24 non-standard mathematics maybe or if we
1:16:27 use standard mathematics we look from
1:16:29 from later times we go there to the
1:16:31 limit that's the other expression one
1:16:33 expression is that you are an eternity
1:16:35 which we cannot conceive obviously or
1:16:37 imagine and then in fifths very time
1:16:40 after that the universe emerges
1:16:43 because then
1:16:45 getting is an act is not a state
1:16:50 while while the the mirror the mirror
1:16:52 model is is much better in the sense
1:16:54 that it's if we say the brigade is like
1:16:56 looking in a moral he looks in himself
1:16:58 he's conscious of himself as he exists
1:17:00 this is consciousness that's not an act
1:17:03 that's that's that's the recognition
1:17:06 self-image recognizing himself is
1:17:09 definitely the case in eternity and all
1:17:11 the way until the future
1:17:17 so we have a problem with this model
1:17:19 that we must look for another better
1:17:20 model
1:17:25 to explain that if it's explainable
1:17:32 description of beginnings because they
1:17:34 will come to the details of the
1:17:35 beginning later and the indian
1:17:37 contradiction could ever the begetting
1:17:39 is a process
1:17:41 and the process can be only even if it
1:17:42 starts in in in eternity like the
1:17:45 creation of the word that's that's the
1:17:46 reason many philosopher the problem with
1:17:48 that is the time
1:17:50 or not
1:17:51 in arabic station is it eternal or not
1:17:53 eternal it's italian since that has
1:17:55 started in eternity must not attend
1:17:57 because the point of eternity is the
1:17:59 limit point of the time
1:18:01 that's very difficult but only only if
1:18:02 you do it mathematically you can you can
1:18:04 conceive it
1:18:05 doctor we have a actual
1:18:07 example of this i'm gonna post it in
1:18:10 also a hashtag
1:18:12 i'll send it to you on telegram picture
1:18:15 guy taking a picture of a mirror
1:18:18 let me send it to you on telegram also
1:18:22 it like explains what you're saying
1:18:23 practically
1:18:27 yeah
1:18:29 yeah you see it you see it goes at the
1:18:31 infinitive
1:18:32 yeah infinite regress yeah
1:18:37 okay obviously
1:18:50 a mathematical proof or something but
1:18:51 this is clearly shows
1:18:57 shows that it is is not
1:18:59 it's not conceivable
1:19:01 it's not possible to do that
1:19:05 on stopping at any any number stopping
1:19:07 at a number is just arbitrary
1:19:09 Music
1:19:11 for a necessarily existing being that
1:19:13 these things are that only in eternity
1:19:15 because of their divine lazily divine
1:19:17 nature of
1:19:20 recognizing himself having his own
1:19:22 self-image seeing himself in full
1:19:25 uh and
1:19:26 and
1:19:28 relating to himself
1:19:29 all will go at the infinity
1:19:32 professor if we take this model of the
1:19:34 mirror if we take the
1:19:37 the correct way is to say his self-image
1:19:40 he he recognized himself
1:19:42 not not like looking in a mirror is some
1:19:44 kind of another kind of consciousness
1:19:46 and recognition
1:19:49 and this this this terminates it has
1:19:50 only one level like uh it has actually
1:19:53 yeah one or two levels maximum like the
1:19:55 language we refer to things and then the
1:19:58 language can refer to itself and it's
1:20:00 closed
1:20:02 we don't need to have a language
1:20:03 referring to another language referring
1:20:05 to another language the language is
1:20:06 sufficient
1:20:08 so we have the language referring to
1:20:09 other entities
1:20:11 and it can refer to itself inside itself
1:20:13 without going in infinite address
1:20:16 and the languages is some kind of
1:20:18 expression of the knowledge or the the
1:20:20 consciousness in some sense or another
1:20:23 but anyway this is this is a
1:20:26 really
1:20:27 gets
1:20:28 gets get get you in a nightmare an
1:20:30 attempt to construct a divinity of the
1:20:33 sun without making me make making him
1:20:35 exactly allah god
1:20:38 making him forgotten so you have to
1:20:41 you have to save the day you have to to
1:20:43 drop to drop that begotten completely
1:20:46 but then you have that you have the
1:20:48 problem that that the sun is definitely
1:20:49 simpler than the father
1:20:52 so he is different but not different
1:20:54 yeah which is impossible
1:20:58 so the only way is to say that
1:21:00 genuinely that that the spirit inside
1:21:03 ease or whatever it is is is the full
1:21:06 good hit
1:21:07 and then there's no reason that then
1:21:08 there will be the problem obviously
1:21:10 because why did they include the holy
1:21:12 spirit in this whole mess
1:21:13 is because
1:21:14 there are various uh
1:21:16 statements in in the new testament and
1:21:18 so on in which asa says clearly that he
1:21:20 is
1:21:21 lesser than the father and then the holy
1:21:23 spirit so if he is less than the holy
1:21:25 spirit then the holy spirit must be
1:21:26 higher than him and if he is divine the
1:21:28 holy spirit as a foreign divine that's
1:21:30 the only reason and few other places
1:21:32 like that which forced
1:21:34 to
1:21:35 lift the whole holy spirit into a divine
1:21:37 rank
1:21:39 incident very
1:21:41 through the interpretation
1:21:43 it never addresses the holy spirit just
1:21:46 addresses like
1:21:49 this is the thing we get a lot from the
1:21:50 christians that the holy spirit is never
1:21:52 addressed is at rest
1:22:07 the business is done and the holy spirit
1:22:10 is clearly it clearly said
1:22:12 that the holy spirit is one of the
1:22:14 angels
1:22:15 most precisely or most likely is gabriel
1:22:20 the angel of revelation whatever the age
1:22:22 of relation is is really a conscious
1:22:25 being or it is just a mechanism of
1:22:26 communication we don't know in subspace
1:22:28 whether we're not all good to go into
1:22:30 these fine points but it refers to a
1:22:32 certain entities which is classified as
1:22:34 an ancient
1:22:38 ancients have wings uh share flights
1:22:42 these are highly they're correct where
1:22:44 to say they have 600
1:22:46 china there's another 676 million
1:22:50 don't worry about this what what the
1:22:51 genes means what even the quran the
1:22:54 quran says
1:22:57 two wings three women's followings what
1:22:59 are these waves what are these we don't
1:23:01 know
1:23:03 okay but
1:23:05 in the depiction of over because the
1:23:07 christians have taken greatly what is
1:23:09 the depicting them in human form so they
1:23:11 they do the word with the wings
1:23:14 like they have wings of bats but who
1:23:16 said that they really wings like beds or
1:23:18 they look like humans
1:23:21 by the way there's a very nice
1:23:25 artwork from
1:23:27 i think i think it's last century
1:23:29 century before even two centuries back
1:23:32 in which saint michael the uh uh uh uh
1:23:36 angel michael is defeating the devil and
1:23:38 putting uh putting an arrow
1:23:40 about to kill him with an arrow or
1:23:42 something like that
1:23:43 and the one who is being killed with the
1:23:45 arrow his face is almost identical to
1:23:47 the face of muhammad wizaid
1:23:51 you might have seen that i tweeted that
1:23:54 i originally i thought it's photoshop
1:23:55 but it's genuine it's a genuine
1:24:02 an amazing coincidence coincidence but
1:24:05 saint michael looks very very beautiful
1:24:07 and very nice i don't know
1:24:09 who's i don't know any person of that
1:24:11 such a similar
1:24:13 without being excessive he's very very
1:24:15 very handsome looking
1:24:17 lovely man
1:24:18 with wings obviously
1:24:20 while the demons also have wings but the
1:24:22 picture did not accommodate to show his
1:24:24 tail or hooves or something like that
1:24:27 anyway let's go
1:24:29 cover this is the depiction this is the
1:24:30 imagination of the artist which is okay
1:24:33 no problem with that i don't know i
1:24:34 don't have much grudges with these
1:24:36 things as long as we know we know it's
1:24:38 imagination and we control it don't
1:24:40 project more reality in that
1:24:43 okay so for he himself from whom the son
1:24:46 has received his birth
1:24:48 and the holy spirit his procession so
1:24:50 they make a distinction between this is
1:24:52 born and this is proceeded from the
1:24:53 father
1:24:55 has his origin from no one
1:24:58 okay
1:25:00 the vision of the whole godhead
1:25:03 uh that's again using the word of
1:25:05 godhead again that's it
1:25:07 that's maybe maybe this is this with
1:25:09 this this give us the key where the
1:25:11 confusion
1:25:13 i'm not accusing the people of any bad
1:25:15 intention this actually they wanted
1:25:16 really to protect what they thought is
1:25:18 the real belief
1:25:19 and uh
1:25:20 somehow they in their mind
1:25:22 the
1:25:23 the godhead is something like a genus or
1:25:26 or or
1:25:27 a general attribute is not there's
1:25:30 it does not
1:25:31 it does not
1:25:34 threat philosophical developments which
1:25:36 matured later obviously we can't believe
1:25:38 that people they didn't have there's
1:25:40 nothing that we can't call god hit
1:25:42 divinity or something although we can
1:25:44 use it linguistically to describe what
1:25:46 we would call divinity is that review so
1:25:48 on so on that makes you divine
1:25:50 but strictly speaking
1:25:52 the divine being is only one and there's
1:25:54 no no no it doesn't make any sense to
1:25:56 talk about the good head other we can't
1:25:58 talk about dividing
1:25:59 what makes a divine being and
1:26:02 in the in in
1:26:03 the conclusion of the quran and the
1:26:06 philosophical discourse after that and
1:26:07 also the old testament is that the
1:26:09 divine being is a necessarily existing
1:26:11 being who acting by absolute civilian
1:26:13 free will
1:26:15 and then as fruit north and from that
1:26:17 obviously because he is the one creating
1:26:19 universe he has sufficient power to do
1:26:20 that this is omnipotent
1:26:23 capable doing everything and also
1:26:25 sufficient knowledge to
1:26:27 to recognize all creatable universes and
1:26:29 choose one of them according to his will
1:26:32 not to any city dictated to him
1:26:38 okay has his origin from no one he is
1:26:40 therefore the source of the origin of
1:26:42 the god he himself is the father of his
1:26:45 own essence well objectively that his
1:26:47 issue should not be stated this way
1:26:49 father is on his sense
1:26:51 he is that's that's the only that's
1:26:53 actually what what the word yahwah means
1:26:55 it seems to me that meaning when musa
1:26:57 asked in mount sinai or whom should i
1:27:00 tell the people because they will have
1:27:01 so many gods and so on there's a
1:27:03 conversation it's an interesting one if
1:27:05 you go to the old testament and see the
1:27:07 conversation that's always in genesis
1:27:09 before he went to egypt
1:27:11 and uh he said i was known to your
1:27:13 grandfather's
1:27:15 ibrahim and so on at the time as elashad
1:27:18 shaddai the strong god the tough god
1:27:21 compared to the other weak gods
1:27:22 they're just fake they are not real gods
1:27:25 but for you
1:27:26 i am the one who is
1:27:30 yahuwah
1:27:36 i am the one who exists i am the one who
1:27:39 is tell them the one who is fed me to be
1:27:42 the one who exists eternally the one who
1:27:44 exists necessarily so already the the
1:27:47 the the embarional concept of necessary
1:27:50 existing and eternal is already there i
1:27:53 am the eternal i am the one who exists i
1:27:56 the one who exists send me yahuwah
1:28:12 going to discuss now buddha and
1:28:14 something like that secondary
1:28:16 legalistic issues but that has been uh
1:28:19 used by minus
1:28:22 the one who is the one who is the one
1:28:24 who is the one who is
1:28:26 and it sounds like yeah
1:28:30 that's the one who sent me
1:28:32 so did not say that
1:28:34 i'm the father of my essentially
1:28:35 anything like that it's i am the one
1:28:39 who is
1:28:40 i am the one who is
1:28:45 yet he did not beget something different
1:28:48 allude from
1:28:50 what he
1:28:51 himself is
1:28:53 god has begotten god
1:28:55 light has begotten light and that's from
1:28:57 him this is therefore all fatherhood in
1:29:00 the heavens and the earth this is
1:29:01 obviously poetry but that doesn't have
1:29:04 his father
1:29:05 it doesn't forgotten anything else
1:29:07 outside himself or something like it's
1:29:08 essentially like looking in the mirror
1:29:11 he replicated himself somehow
1:29:14 without without separation or division
1:29:17 or the only model we can what you
1:29:19 mentioned this there are other models
1:29:21 obviously
1:29:22 which may be
1:29:23 before the time rushes us maybe i
1:29:25 mentioned few of them before you
1:29:26 continue discussing the details the
1:29:28 details are just a repetition and
1:29:30 attempt to to make the the unconceivable
1:29:33 conceivable the nf will effable somehow
1:29:36 uh is that there are there are various
1:29:38 categories of attempt one category is uh
1:29:41 that with uh uh obviously uh uh
1:29:44 heavyweight philosoph like south
1:29:46 augustine or augustine and uh sometimes
1:29:49 the augustine in arabic south augustan
1:29:52 is a very heavy heavyweight philosoph
1:29:55 one of the biggest philosophies of
1:29:56 history definitely he's the bishop of
1:29:58 hippo hippo is somewhere in algeria i
1:30:00 think now it's extinct it doesn't exist
1:30:03 as a city maybe a city exists in this
1:30:05 place now
1:30:06 maybe someone can do research what's
1:30:07 hippo now or the current name of hippo
1:30:10 he was the archbishop of hippo
1:30:12 and he was struggling with trinity for a
1:30:14 long time
1:30:17 and
1:30:18 his writing about the trinity and so on
1:30:20 is more
1:30:21 it seems to be more trying to make it
1:30:24 something you can't benefit from it
1:30:25 spiritually identify somehow your
1:30:27 relation to the father understand the
1:30:29 holy spirit more than explaining it but
1:30:31 whatever example he gives
1:30:33 seems to be
1:30:35 essentially
1:30:36 making it what they call they call the
1:30:38 modal danger it is aspects of the same
1:30:40 being it's not severe but it's not real
1:30:42 personalities
1:30:44 like for example there are many
1:30:46 trinities in mind and life
1:30:48 and the most important it says that the
1:30:50 one who loves the beloved one and the
1:30:52 love between them
1:30:55 that's the the most prominent example he
1:30:57 gives
1:30:58 actually in the text file if you go down
1:31:01 it's mentioned i think somewhere in this
1:31:02 text file or it was in another place
1:31:06 uh here it's
1:31:08 after that after the pluses pluses and
1:31:10 so on
1:31:10 a bit i think i copied from where
1:31:13 somewhere it contains the the santa
1:31:15 augustine attempts
1:31:16 so if you are listed love
1:31:19 lover
1:31:20 love object or the beloved one and the
1:31:23 love the lover's love
1:31:26 for the object
1:31:27 that's one he says in page 255 in his
1:31:30 famous book
1:31:31 and then another one is the mind it's
1:31:34 knowledge and it is love
1:31:38 similar essentially the mind its
1:31:40 knowledge and its love the mind itself
1:31:42 as it as
1:31:43 as as a tribute or
1:31:46 but for the
1:31:47 existing being the mind is not separate
1:31:48 from the being the whole being of the
1:31:50 divine is mind the whole being is power
1:31:53 the whole being is is dynamic activism
1:31:55 the whole being is free will
1:32:00 or we separate these attributes in our
1:32:02 mind for study but they are
1:32:03 eternally
1:32:05 stated differently in in in non non
1:32:08 necessarily existing being attribute
1:32:10 could be separated even outside from for
1:32:12 example why do we say attribute like for
1:32:15 example we say this this wall is green
1:32:18 because we know
1:32:19 from experience that the greenness is
1:32:21 actually only a color outside we can't
1:32:23 scrub that color and change the color so
1:32:25 it's a separator but because why is that
1:32:27 the case because the greenness actually
1:32:29 is a is an attribute of the molecules or
1:32:32 the of the of the paint not of the
1:32:34 stones of the wall themselves and then
1:32:37 we put the paint on there so it's we're
1:32:38 composing that composition
1:32:40 makes it like
1:32:42 then
1:32:43 analyzing these things we got in the
1:32:45 habit that that may that we got
1:32:47 attribute as separate from the entity
1:32:50 but in the case of this extreme being
1:32:52 attributes are not certainty is they are
1:32:54 the entity themselves but the but uh but
1:32:57 the the analytical discourse of human
1:32:59 beings does not allow us
1:33:01 to uh
1:33:02 to
1:33:03 to work like that it's difficult to work
1:33:05 like that so we have to work separately
1:33:07 discuss about divine homopotency divine
1:33:10 power divider but this it is only he is
1:33:14 with all these attributes of this as i
1:33:16 just wanted to inform his full knowledge
1:33:18 he is full power he is full will it's
1:33:22 not like something is available
1:33:24 although we may separate it in studying
1:33:26 at the discourse but it is not separable
1:33:28 in in
1:33:29 outside that the discuss on the mental
1:33:31 imagination
1:33:33 so this is an attempt of also there but
1:33:36 clearly this is these things are are
1:33:39 the the level and the beloved object and
1:33:42 the love the lover's love between them
1:33:44 is similar to the issue of the mirror it
1:33:46 is friends of her who is and what's
1:33:49 about the objective the objectives is a
1:33:51 person and then he has a love for the
1:33:53 lover
1:33:54 and then there's another relation
1:33:56 which is definitely the love the love of
1:33:58 the son to the father is not the same
1:34:00 not identical copy of the love of the
1:34:02 father to the son
1:34:05 it's not or it is it is no it should not
1:34:07 be if it does nothing exactly then the
1:34:09 son is the father the father is done and
1:34:11 what but this is contradicted as usual
1:34:13 statement of the training the trinity
1:34:15 says although they share the good head
1:34:18 the father is not the son understand is
1:34:19 not the holy spirit
1:34:21 and the holy spirit is is not the father
1:34:24 but at the same time
1:34:26 the father is god the holy spirit is god
1:34:29 and the son is god but they are not
1:34:31 equal
1:34:35 they say they are equal but they are not
1:34:38 equal in the term of the hypostasis
1:34:41 yeah
1:34:42 you know
1:34:43 they are unequal just
1:34:45 just in that they exist in the
1:34:48 hypostasis but then
1:34:50 this negates the point of having the
1:34:52 akane because they're saying
1:34:54 the difference between them is that they
1:34:56 exist in the
1:34:57 father is not begotten but the son for
1:35:00 example
1:35:00 is
1:35:01 begotten yeah but but problem is the
1:35:04 problem is they're saying
1:35:06 this is the difference between them yet
1:35:10 these things that
1:35:11 does not produce any differences so yeah
1:35:15 they are contradicting each other
1:35:17 look at is that if you simplify it in
1:35:20 the following
1:35:21 the the the father is definitely not the
1:35:23 sun and the sun is definitely not the
1:35:25 holy spirit is not the father so this is
1:35:27 not not not not equal put them as
1:35:29 equations
1:35:30 father f is not equal s
1:35:32 s is nothing but h and this is not f huh
1:35:36 for f is the father set up
1:35:38 but on the hadad each one of his god but
1:35:42 they are not different gods there's only
1:35:43 one god so they are equal
1:35:45 and they say equal in godhead but god is
1:35:48 a godhead is only one entity
1:35:51 yeah so they are
1:35:53 exactly other names of the same entity
1:35:55 so they're just merely names or mainly
1:35:58 aspects that's essentially that's
1:36:00 essentially what augustine is ending to
1:36:02 that they become essentially uh
1:36:05 essentially what they call the modern
1:36:10 only resolution which makes sense is the
1:36:12 augustinian one and in that case then we
1:36:15 have
1:36:16 we have done all the problems with with
1:36:18 the incarnation and the sacrifice and
1:36:20 all of these things
1:36:24 so professor to summarize is that
1:36:27 they introduced these akane these
1:36:29 hypostases
1:36:31 okay
1:36:32 they're saying that this is what
1:36:34 differentiates them
1:36:36 yet in practicality
1:36:38 they it does not differentiate them
1:36:40 anything because it's just a mystery you
1:36:42 don't know what begot mean
1:36:44 you know you have it that's
1:36:46 it
1:36:47 you don't know what proceeding mean
1:36:49 it's just a word that you put it's just
1:36:51 something you made just just empty words
1:36:53 it's point this is a statement social
1:36:55 which are a pointer for nothing not
1:36:58 nothing not none
1:36:59 yeah no
1:37:01 this is the uh
1:37:03 like
1:37:03 for example the catholics they believe
1:37:06 this is something weird right they
1:37:07 believe the the hypostasis are identical
1:37:10 to the same essence
1:37:12 and then you ask them like how are they
1:37:13 different
1:37:15 yeah in relation they say that
1:37:17 there are different
1:37:20 it seems with the only way to escape is
1:37:22 that is the more that what they call the
1:37:23 move but the more the danger will
1:37:25 undermine all the issues of sacrifice
1:37:27 and so on because if if if it's only
1:37:30 modes or way or aspects of the same
1:37:33 being and the same person it's not
1:37:35 really a separate person
1:37:37 then the question is that then adam
1:37:39 sinned against the son and the son is
1:37:41 the father and the father and the one
1:37:43 who sacrificed is a whole sacrifice is
1:37:46 god so god sacrificed himself
1:37:48 and then if he sacrificed selfie and
1:37:50 died really died genuinely then how can
1:37:53 the universe
1:37:54 continue existing how can a sin existing
1:37:57 uh die
1:37:58 it's a nightmare it comes from it comes
1:38:00 from that fundamental point it's come
1:38:02 from the declaring is a divine
1:38:05 and and the reason for declaring him
1:38:07 divine is originally praising him over
1:38:09 overboard which by the way happens in
1:38:11 the muslim in some muslim circles i know
1:38:13 somebody we who claim that the light of
1:38:15 muhammad is eternal
1:38:17 before time this is bordering
1:38:20 dangerous to cover and and and uh having
1:38:23 another divine entity similar to what
1:38:25 the christian have or it's already there
1:38:27 and there are also some shia factions
1:38:29 especially ismaili they have something
1:38:31 about the imam not all financially but
1:38:33 they smiley they have some statement
1:38:36 which result in clear and clear we call
1:38:38 it clear cover in career uh
1:38:41 multiple divinity and lead to the same
1:38:43 issues of nightmare
1:38:47 um
1:38:48 this is something i was thinking so
1:38:50 so i would say that's that's where
1:38:52 disease started that has to be refuted
1:38:54 first shown that is that is not
1:38:56 warranted by the scripture there's no no
1:38:58 pressure on us for the scripture to do
1:38:59 that this is our own wink we we went
1:39:02 overboard in in under and
1:39:05 we went ballistic in these things and
1:39:06 the beginning i think that the hadith of
1:39:08 the prophet should also talk his prophet
1:39:10 wouldn't fully say don't praise me like
1:39:12 the christian or the nazarene
1:39:15 i am a slave i am a servant say the
1:39:17 servant of allah and his messenger then
1:39:20 when you say a servant they should
1:39:21 finish
1:39:22 they never use the word servant is the
1:39:24 lord
1:39:26 the moment lord then the
1:39:28 lord how how how high is the lordship
1:39:31 especially in environment in the time of
1:39:33 isa and the so-called crucifixion which
1:39:35 happened to someone else but individuals
1:39:36 happened to him someone else
1:39:38 at the time tiberius was regarded the
1:39:40 son of god the emperor the pagan emperor
1:39:42 is the son of god
1:39:44 and his his his his adopted father
1:39:46 augustus the great augustus
1:39:48 was declared divine by the senate
1:39:51 it was supposed to be declared divine
1:39:53 and uh
1:39:54 upon his death but they were they were
1:39:57 hesitating so to berius before the uh uh
1:40:00 ascending the throne or sending the
1:40:02 taking the position because he's not
1:40:03 liaison he's not a king he's an emperor
1:40:06 he's a head of state he's like a
1:40:07 president
1:40:09 he threatened the senate either you
1:40:10 declare my my father his adopted father
1:40:13 uh to be divine otherwise i will not
1:40:15 come to rome and accept that and then
1:40:16 the whole empire will be ever seen in
1:40:19 this area and in danger so the senate
1:40:21 was forced to declare uh to declare
1:40:23 augustus divine
1:40:26 so it was easier that they declare men
1:40:28 even if a pagan head of state like
1:40:29 tiberius can be divine and can be son of
1:40:32 god who i should not lisa who is much
1:40:33 more nobler and better so this was how
1:40:36 the mentality developed and then become
1:40:38 became more and more blown out of mind
1:40:41 out of
1:40:43 blown out of
1:40:44 proportion
1:40:45 and became their full divinity in the
1:40:47 strict sense begotten not made
1:40:51 and he has to be a son because obviously
1:40:53 especially in the lighting of paul
1:40:55 for example in the letter to the
1:40:57 corinthian i think he may he called him
1:40:59 the son of god maybe several hundred
1:41:01 times
1:41:02 well for example in the gospels like for
1:41:04 example in in marcus there is no one who
1:41:07 were mentioned as the son of god except
1:41:09 in the opening this is the gospel of
1:41:11 jesus christ the son of god only that
1:41:13 header who is not part of the gospel
1:41:16 not even the writer of the original
1:41:18 the whole gospel from a to z does not
1:41:20 mention the white son of god maybe in
1:41:22 one place if a man was mistaken or no
1:41:24 place the same with luke
1:41:27 only in a couple of places even the
1:41:28 crucifixion
1:41:30 fiction
1:41:31 he claims that they crucified the great
1:41:33 prophet of god that's it
1:41:35 and even the the roman man who
1:41:37 recognized that is all unjust we are
1:41:39 killing her and just we are we are
1:41:41 killing a just man we are unjust we are
1:41:43 killing a just man he doesn't have to be
1:41:45 killed things like that
1:41:47 so you know so it's paul really who who
1:41:50 started the catapulting him out of the
1:41:52 human realm into dividing him in
1:41:53 excessive way
1:41:55 and and then it will become more and
1:41:57 more and more
1:42:00 the thing is that um this is what i
1:42:02 think like for example coin and stick
1:42:05 one is right i think he he he just had
1:42:08 to deal with his religious baggage right
1:42:10 so he trains et cetera and he tried to
1:42:12 reconcile this with you know the
1:42:14 doctrine of divine simplicity for
1:42:15 example but he knew it's it's
1:42:18 he knew it it's it's hard to reconcile
1:42:21 this especially when you look at now
1:42:22 modern
1:42:23 thomist for example edward phaser they
1:42:26 admit it's a big mystery
1:42:28 uh how can we like they they don't
1:42:30 really have an answer to it the problem
1:42:32 is that people have
1:42:34 there are two problems for the european
1:42:36 discourse uh it's happening because
1:42:38 because the confrontation was was was
1:42:40 short and violent and the defeat was
1:42:41 devastating and relevant
1:42:44 both in and and in in
1:42:47 the main battle was yarmouk but before
1:42:49 yarmouk by the way in yarmouk they were
1:42:50 the the army was almost routed out
1:42:54 the roman army lost i think forty
1:42:56 thousand winners they were about two
1:42:58 hundred thousand forty thousand were
1:42:59 killed and so on it's a catastrophically
1:43:01 but before that there were there was
1:43:03 another one i would say
1:43:06 maybe another battle in which they lost
1:43:08 also a huge number like that
1:43:11 so they have lost so so catastrophically
1:43:13 then they were swept away in
1:43:15 in in egypt completely and so on the
1:43:18 north africa
1:43:19 the shock was so deep
1:43:21 and they went down into what we call the
1:43:24 behind an iron curtain in which the
1:43:26 church tried to survive because the only
1:43:28 way they can do is either accept that
1:43:32 the the
1:43:33 that our uses are resurrected
1:43:35 essentially under the divinity of christ
1:43:37 is questionable
1:43:39 and then the whole what has been built
1:43:41 over several centuries is gone but it's
1:43:43 very difficult or make an iron curtain
1:43:46 and start comparing as islam as the
1:43:47 classical enemy and invent stories and
1:43:50 so etc while for example
1:43:52 in the muslim world there were never any
1:43:54 compulsion in a religion no never forced
1:43:56 the conversion they were converting at
1:43:57 liberty the rest of europe by by force
1:43:59 converging just check forcing the conver
1:44:02 the christianization of poland to see
1:44:04 how much force forces conversion and
1:44:07 executions and burning on the stake was
1:44:09 ongoing there it's unbelievable and they
1:44:11 put all that or the blame on islam so
1:44:13 the islam became the normal enemy
1:44:15 and anything adopted from islam which
1:44:18 looks good they have they have to give
1:44:20 it another name and attribute it either
1:44:22 to the greek or the roman or to the
1:44:24 indian or something and it must or
1:44:26 like for example it is i think
1:44:30 someone should dig that out i read some
1:44:32 some time ago that
1:44:34 one of the popes regarded that the legal
1:44:36 situation
1:44:37 between the various german tribes and
1:44:39 the various
1:44:41 and the various uh many states and so on
1:44:43 is so miserable and there's a need for
1:44:45 trafficking like a legal
1:44:51 so he ordered one to be to to be
1:44:53 developed and that one was developed
1:44:54 essentially from malik
1:44:56 of andalusia but he could not present
1:44:59 will as malik vik so he he made the
1:45:01 order that should be declared to be
1:45:03 to be a roman law resurrecting roman law
1:45:07 the people who accept that more easier
1:45:09 than accepting that it is the adaptation
1:45:11 from from islamic law
1:45:14 and a funny story happened recently uh
1:45:16 someone did research in one american
1:45:19 station i think it's fox news
1:45:20 they were discussing where did this
1:45:23 jewelry system come from could they
1:45:24 regard the jury system you know
1:45:26 american the jewish system is almost
1:45:28 holy
1:45:29 a grand jury khalas this is the ultimate
1:45:33 and the guy
1:45:35 made a research and he gave it to the
1:45:37 the broadcaster it's a lady she was
1:45:38 reading it she was surprised she did not
1:45:40 expect that and then he said it's
1:45:42 originally coming from the man a man
1:45:44 cody from england and this one has got
1:45:46 it from him where he was serving in the
1:45:48 in the in the court of one king of
1:45:50 sicily who adopted it from muslims from
1:45:53 from islamic spain
1:45:55 which was called the fifth
1:45:58 and when she was reading she was
1:45:59 initially reading nicely
1:46:01 and then when she came it was made by
1:46:03 muslims her face became pale and she was
1:46:05 a state of shock
1:46:07 she could not stomach it the whole
1:46:09 mental situation
1:46:11 and but also partly is also negligent
1:46:13 from muslim side i think that the
1:46:15 achievement in philosophical discourse
1:46:17 done by uh the shia scholars later and
1:46:19 etc i think
1:46:21 that has not been widely disseminated in
1:46:24 the west and while but even if it's
1:46:25 widely disseminated it will not be
1:46:26 appreciated
1:46:29 i i saw a video recently and where
1:46:32 someone was discussing uh with the uh
1:46:34 discussing the book of where the the
1:46:36 last one of the atheists who was all his
1:46:38 life either then at the end he
1:46:40 recognized that's impossible for the
1:46:42 universe to be understood at this frame
1:46:44 i think so he came to the conclusion and
1:46:47 i think it was even he had an interview
1:46:48 with him or
1:46:50 or have caught quite an interview anyway
1:46:52 he said i came to the conclusion that we
1:46:55 we we must have some kind of a system
1:46:57 existing being like aristotle in time
1:46:59 and so on like
1:47:01 we we find in in the in the
1:47:04 in the jewish and uh
1:47:06 and
1:47:07 uh christian theology and philosophy
1:47:10 does not mention islamic one as if it
1:47:12 doesn't exist and this man just died in
1:47:14 this century
1:47:16 for him the islamic world and islamic
1:47:18 philosophy does not exist in his world
1:47:20 completely he cannot conceive that
1:47:22 there's anything of relevance comes from
1:47:24 there
1:47:25 and that's what what really prevented
1:47:27 any real progress in these directions
1:47:30 the progress is very simple
1:47:31 straightforward
1:47:36 uh the solution the solution is not i
1:47:37 think discussing the trinity intricacies
1:47:39 it's just most of it's manifestly
1:47:41 absorbed the solution is really uh going
1:47:44 by going back to
1:47:45 to to
1:47:47 what's the source what's why the
1:47:48 divinity and why why asia has to be the
1:47:52 declared divine
1:47:53 at the same time being crucified for the
1:47:56 initial for inherited sin if you go to
1:47:58 the head that sin and the and and the
1:48:01 and
1:48:02 and the
1:48:02 uh account in general genesis
1:48:06 even if you implode maximum metaphorical
1:48:09 interpretation and the leniency don't
1:48:11 bother about the number of days or all
1:48:13 these things even that it's it's clearly
1:48:16 can't be all over the dry revelation
1:48:19 somewhere it's divine revelation
1:48:20 originally from the prophets and the
1:48:21 people have expanded it maybe in their
1:48:23 own language that's fine okay we agree
1:48:25 on that but some is definitely taken
1:48:27 from pagans
1:48:31 when you look at islamic islamic
1:48:33 revelation or what muhammad produced the
1:48:35 quran unless you have the quran
1:48:37 this man must have been an atmosphere
1:48:40 because the whole creation story in the
1:48:41 quran
1:48:42 inhalate completely all the bases for
1:48:45 that what what what the what what what
1:48:47 the whole
1:48:48 story of atonement and salvation but
1:48:50 also plenty of what the jewish
1:48:52 scholarship and the jewish
1:48:54 self-image and the jewish
1:48:56 legalistic doctrine is
1:48:58 completely negated completely from the
1:49:00 root
1:49:03 so if it's not a revelation then this
1:49:05 man is a super genius
1:49:11 maybe we'll discuss next time how this
1:49:12 one rebuilt the whole thing from the
1:49:14 beginning we mentioned some of it
1:49:16 casually when we discuss evolution but
1:49:18 we may continue on on the ground not
1:49:20 from issue of the history of revolution
1:49:22 or not but from the grounds of
1:49:25 that that was
1:49:27 that genesis could not be written under
1:49:29 the under and the divine protection
1:49:31 it's definitely contained things which
1:49:33 contradict
1:49:34 with necessity whatever we have on the
1:49:37 firm well established knowledge of
1:49:39 science and also other other aspects of
1:49:41 the scripture
1:49:43 the resulting is that it's it's
1:49:46 and it's resulting that we must
1:49:48 acknowledge that this scripture
1:49:50 must be must be scrutinized further they
1:49:52 cannot be regarded as infallible that's
1:49:53 number one secondly they should be the
1:49:56 the various parts and verses should be
1:49:58 used as
1:49:59 cross-cross-examining each other
1:50:01 cross-examination like exactly what they
1:50:02 do in hadith science
1:50:04 also the quran should be cross-examined
1:50:06 quran says clearly ponder about the
1:50:08 quran and try to find contradiction
1:50:09 cross-examine it
1:50:11 that's the way to go
1:50:14 um
1:50:15 but you mentioned that you know
1:50:18 atheists at c20 west like did they they
1:50:20 forget this the islamic history
1:50:23 especially when it comes to philosophy
1:50:25 and like what we have produced as
1:50:26 muslims it's pretty it's pretty sad to
1:50:29 see this and i think
1:50:30 this is also our fault our like yeah
1:50:35 we declined and we did not carry the
1:50:36 message but but definitely the main
1:50:38 fault is the main fault is that the
1:50:40 church
1:50:41 put put europe under behind the high
1:50:43 iron curtain for centuries
1:50:45 shielding it for me to wear it not for
1:50:48 spain and some knowledge sneaking there
1:50:50 bit by bit
1:50:51 until until really that that allen
1:50:54 curtain was torn later with the with the
1:50:56 with the with the reformation for the
1:50:58 reformation did did one one good step
1:51:00 toward but could not do the all the
1:51:02 steps all the way through
1:51:11 how to proceed from here i think the
1:51:13 best way the best way to proceed from
1:51:15 there is just
1:51:17 continue really uh presenting the the
1:51:22 these these
1:51:25 these philosophical achievement and
1:51:27 like for example the adoptation of
1:51:29 william greg for for the kalam argument
1:51:43 of contingency and i would avoid the
1:51:45 issue of time and so on
1:51:50 do you agree with his
1:51:52 ecological argument because i know that
1:51:54 there is the the the basic thing that
1:51:57 they build it on the is saying that
1:52:04 in some sense there may be something
1:52:06 correct there but that one that
1:52:07 statement for islam as a starting point
1:52:09 is not correct but he doesn't use that
1:52:11 as a building but
1:52:12 argument
1:52:14 in a way he modified it and adopted in
1:52:16 the later phase is much better but
1:52:19 it would be fundamentally better and
1:52:22 further going ahead if it has been
1:52:25 modified like in in
1:52:27 in the shia school of which employs
1:52:29 philosophy and especially the concepts
1:52:31 of contingency and necessarily existing
1:52:33 but you don't know that
1:52:37 i know i have one i know that i know
1:52:39 that yeah i know that
1:52:40 that's what salafi and so on i ignore
1:52:42 these these
1:52:44 every um
1:52:45 christian jews muslims and whatever
1:52:47 chinese confucian they have their fair
1:52:49 share of donkeys we have our own donkeys
1:52:51 also it's no problem
1:52:53 we can survive that provided
1:52:56 we recognize and classify them as
1:52:57 donkeys that's it the problem if you
1:53:00 declare donkeys to be to be to be the
1:53:02 intellectual leadership that's it but
1:53:03 there's no problem
1:53:05 there's no way that you can have a whole
1:53:06 nation or a whole culture which is the
1:53:09 devoid of some some idiots we'll have
1:53:11 our own shared facial fair share of
1:53:14 idiots
1:53:16 many hadith
1:53:18 and many many of these uh
1:53:22 sabai style shia and so on
1:53:26 indulge such narration which is just
1:53:28 this
1:53:29 same human beings and believe it
1:53:33 we have
1:53:34 we have to we have we have we have to
1:53:36 sort out our house also out there no
1:53:38 doubt about that but still in
1:53:40 international other nations rather you
1:53:42 see what they have
1:53:44 on duty but that's what the quranic
1:53:46 injunction is
1:53:48 they listen to you mention that whatever
1:53:50 statement and they will pick up the best
1:53:52 and ignore and refuse the the west
1:53:56 but how do you know the best and so on
1:53:57 by rational consideration by analysis
1:53:59 because cross-examination
1:54:05 anyway there's there are other attempts
1:54:07 to explain for example it's not a mirror
1:54:08 image there's another image for example
1:54:10 one of it is called this is the i don't
1:54:12 know what they give it says general
1:54:14 headings one of it is that is what they
1:54:15 call the soul so the attempt to make it
1:54:18 like a like a social uh like like a
1:54:20 family and so on but this has also its
1:54:23 own pitfall another one is like someone
1:54:26 gave an example that said that a cube is
1:54:28 having four uh six sides
1:54:31 and still
1:54:33 it is it is uh it is one cube
1:54:36 but the problem with that is that yes
1:54:38 the cube has six sides
1:54:40 assuming that independent that the cube
1:54:41 is composed so it cannot be necessarily
1:54:43 existing ignore that as a model
1:54:46 but the problem with that that's that
1:54:48 you cannot call the side the side is is
1:54:51 essentially a square it's not a unless
1:54:53 you call it a degenerate a degenerate
1:54:55 cube
1:54:56 the side is a square so this cube is
1:54:59 having four sides each side is square
1:55:00 it's not a cube
1:55:03 so it can't be if you say that
1:55:06 and they're still part of the cube no
1:55:08 faces of the cube
1:55:10 besides they can be separated they're
1:55:12 distinct and they are not coop if they
1:55:14 if you say cube is god
1:55:16 then the sides are not god or
1:55:18 a degenerate god
1:55:20 but that they will not say because they
1:55:21 say that the father and the son and the
1:55:24 holy spirit are having full glory and
1:55:26 full power and full knowledge like the
1:55:28 father
1:55:30 so it can be this thing this model does
1:55:32 not help
1:55:35 okay
1:55:37 there are other examples they give none
1:55:39 of them are really helpful
1:55:41 bring you anywhere in a
1:55:46 Music
1:55:53 of that which is if you analyze it
1:55:55 further but maybe you do it another
1:55:56 occasion good time is russian is
1:55:59 essentially re-rephrasing it and
1:56:04 you could say it's verbal acrobatic if
1:56:06 you look at it carefully it is just
1:56:08 rephrasing matters like for example if
1:56:10 you give an example of that they say for
1:56:12 example take an example of the statue of
1:56:14 the thinker the thinker that's a statue
1:56:17 made out of bronze
1:56:19 that bronze is a certain amount of bro
1:56:21 uh or that
1:56:22 that made of the material cold bronze
1:56:25 mixture although the
1:56:26 or the alloy called the bronze okay
1:56:30 but it is the start itself is also a
1:56:32 lump of
1:56:33 a lump of bronze
1:56:35 yeah
1:56:41 and then they say this is that that's an
1:56:44 example there
1:56:45 it is it is it is the finger the statue
1:56:47 and it is bronze a number of bronze
1:56:49 the same substance
1:56:54 but too different but too different you
1:56:56 can't adjust them too differently but
1:56:58 the problem with that is that the statue
1:57:00 the thinker
1:57:02 is not just the lamp it's the lamp plus
1:57:05 the shape
1:57:06 and the
1:57:09 a form
1:57:13 besides
1:57:14 how many other things can be attributed
1:57:16 to this lamp okay that is the statue
1:57:19 called wrinkle what else is there we
1:57:22 don't know
1:57:23 is there's a limitation there's only two
1:57:25 we have only two things here how to get
1:57:27 a third
1:57:29 and how to prevent fourth and fifth to
1:57:30 be emerged from there
1:57:34 if you work it out
1:57:36 i was reading it today i did not work it
1:57:39 out completely yet if you work it out
1:57:42 it ends essentially reformulating what
1:57:44 the statement of of uh
1:57:50 of the statement of of the toledo
1:57:54 council of toledo essentially and
1:57:57 slightly bit more improved welding
1:58:00 which is
1:58:01 essentially just verbal acrobatic
1:58:03 doesn't solve the problem
1:58:05 and it involves other problems in
1:58:07 addition obviously
1:58:09 in a if you see it's a lump a lump of
1:58:12 lump of
1:58:13 bronze that have the same fat fallacy
1:58:15 deep inside
1:58:17 the lump was a lump of of bronze is a
1:58:20 bit of bronze bronze is a type of
1:58:22 of metal and we have other lamps of
1:58:24 bronze for example in bells and certain
1:58:27 churches may be used in canals elsewhere
1:58:29 etc etc maybe a form of coins of uh
1:58:34 low value coins maybe in a pocket of
1:58:36 some indian workers somewhere in india
1:58:38 this is all small other lumps of wrong
1:58:40 so
1:58:41 but so that there's the substance is not
1:58:43 the lamborghini the bronze itself but
1:58:46 the bronze is is again
1:58:48 a type or a genus
1:58:50 it's not cannot be necessarily existing
1:58:53 so unless we solve that problem of of
1:58:55 that recessively existing being is only
1:58:57 one and it cannot be having any
1:58:59 characterized or any instantation it's
1:59:01 not
1:59:03 the problem will not be solved and the
1:59:04 moment we do that then the
1:59:06 then trinity becomes impossible
1:59:12 but i think the the better way is to go
1:59:14 say okay people let us go rationally
1:59:16 step by step how this developed through
1:59:18 history
1:59:19 it's clearly this uh everyone admits
1:59:22 almost everyone admits that in the
1:59:23 scripture themselves there is no clear
1:59:25 wording about trinity in such a way that
1:59:28 god is this and these are not this
1:59:29 equality is not a that's definitely not
1:59:31 there this is all the
1:59:33 development of a philosophical discourse
1:59:35 of much later times around 300
1:59:38 especially because of that
1:59:40 are used controversially are you came
1:59:42 forward and say no no the only solution
1:59:44 is
1:59:45 by the way he was president in the
1:59:46 church of alexandria and was because of
1:59:48 that interrogated by the bishop and
1:59:50 excommunicated so he's not outsider he's
1:59:53 not a muslim that's before islam anyway
1:59:55 and he is definitely not a hindu or
1:59:56 confucian he's a genuine christian born
1:59:58 in christianity because christianity was
2:00:00 rampant and controlling egypt for the
2:00:02 saint of the world
2:00:06 especially in lake central san diego is
2:00:08 like the citadel of christianity at that
2:00:10 time
2:00:13 the peak of christianity there maram
2:00:15 maybe not there's the bishop of rome but
2:00:17 the rome was was still
2:00:19 dominantly pagan alexandria was was
2:00:22 essentially christian at the time
2:00:25 so
2:00:27 i ask you a question yeah
2:00:29 uh do you think some of the muslims
2:00:32 should uh shut themselves into in their
2:00:34 food by um rejecting simplicity
2:00:38 and thereby allowing
2:00:40 like the allowing kind of like
2:00:43 eternity like the kind of justifying
2:00:45 eternity by saying well
2:00:47 you know
2:00:51 we have a lot of ice and arthritis
2:00:55 i don't think i don't think any muslim
2:00:57 any genuine muslim who is really a
2:00:58 philosophical discord maybe some common
2:01:00 simple minded people even even time yeah
2:01:02 despite of holy integration
2:01:06 is basically like we have a lot of
2:01:08 christians coming saying you are
2:01:10 disputing the trinity look what the
2:01:11 ashar i believe this is trinity like
2:01:13 this is the you can derive trinity
2:01:16 no no no you cannot drive tell them
2:01:18 drive it to us
2:01:19 you have the actual discourse
2:01:35 say the shiva is not the that and so on
2:01:37 that that's it could be a verbal dispute
2:01:40 but these fats
2:01:42 they try to reduce all other tributes to
2:01:44 them rightly or wrongly these three
2:01:46 facts whatever the number they are
2:01:49 based on rationalizes all attributes
2:01:50 over this existing mean what they should
2:01:52 be etc
2:01:53 they they have never been declared to be
2:01:56 a person nor have a separate will
2:01:59 Music
2:02:01 nor being begotten or proceeding from
2:02:03 the father there has a tribute
2:02:06 connected with the being for all
2:02:07 eternities
2:02:10 so um
2:02:14 that's that's just a sophisticated
2:02:16 that's that's comparing things which
2:02:17 cannot be combat
2:02:19 yes you can decide you can't criticize
2:02:21 that uh that ashari claim
2:02:24 still insists that the the the srivat
2:02:27 are different than the then essence or
2:02:29 the being or the entity that may be a
2:02:31 mistake but it could be
2:02:33 essentially it may be reduced just to
2:02:35 verbal disagreement
2:02:37 uh the the thing is though that um if
2:02:40 you look for example at the the
2:02:43 analogy for example knowledge in our
2:02:45 known right
2:02:46 they still say that they like these
2:02:48 persons right
2:02:50 they they still have the same will that
2:02:52 they seem being the same intellect right
2:02:55 for example no
2:02:56 that no no they can't be have the same
2:02:58 word but they are they have harmonious
2:02:59 wills
2:03:00 they have complete harmony and will
2:03:03 because otherwise it's not a person
2:03:04 because the definition of persona or
2:03:06 person contains as essential part
2:03:09 that's the reason we talk the difference
2:03:11 between between atheism and
2:03:14 theism is that they say the the this is
2:03:17 the existing being is not a person
2:03:20 is acting by necessity so it has no will
2:03:22 it's not alive it's not conscious i had
2:03:24 no knowledge
2:03:26 so if it's a person it has his own will
2:03:29 even even we have a problem even with
2:03:31 jesus self in in more in in in the non
2:03:35 monophysic traditions he has even two
2:03:37 wits one human will and divine will
2:03:39 and his divine will is severe than his
2:03:41 father's will
2:03:45 so if butter becomes reduced even worse
2:03:47 maybe the holy spirit is a little bit
2:03:49 off better there but it's even worse
2:03:52 but but like he don't
2:03:54 deny a multiplicity of wills they will
2:03:57 just say there's one will there's one
2:03:59 essence there's one intellect this is
2:04:01 just one god
2:04:03 then it's one person then then it is
2:04:04 then it is the that's essentially what
2:04:07 what what santa augustine says and this
2:04:09 is the modality they reject
2:04:12 this is yeah this is you could say it
2:04:14 leads to disability
2:04:16 or like yeah
2:04:19 there is something different they reject
2:04:21 them
2:04:21 if it is so then it is then why why call
2:04:24 uh call
2:04:27 why i claim it is three persons why why
2:04:29 it's just one person well people say
2:04:31 they they're distinct from one another
2:04:33 but they they're identical to the same
2:04:34 essence but like when you take the
2:04:36 archery position for example i
2:04:38 personally like you still have this this
2:04:41 um multiplicity of necessary realities
2:04:44 there in god it's just that they don't
2:04:46 say they have a will or a distinct no no
2:04:49 i think i think this is more variable
2:04:51 that if you study it more carefully it's
2:04:52 more variable
2:04:56 imagine a sense or that that
2:04:58 is is imagine being devoted with any
2:05:01 attributes which exists or which which
2:05:03 prefers it's a reference in the mind to
2:05:05 something which does not exist outside
2:05:07 cannot exist
2:05:08 it's just a mental construct to to make
2:05:11 the analysis easy
2:05:14 yeah for us for example
2:05:17 we'd say it the you know the attributes
2:05:19 are conceptual for example goddess
2:05:21 knowledge but obviously this wouldn't be
2:05:23 something real distinct from from other
2:05:26 attributes these are just conceptual
2:05:28 things we which yeah yeah that's good
2:05:30 essence right
2:05:32 that's what ashami ultimately would have
2:05:34 have to go to
2:05:36 you have to they have to reconcile they
2:05:37 have to recognize i agree i am i'm not
2:05:40 denying i say agree but
2:05:41 this is this is not this is not
2:05:43 nothing which will give the trinitarian
2:05:45 any any any any any any really a release
2:05:49 from the from their problem
2:05:51 uh i mean they could offer for example
2:05:54 they could avoid the the the arguments
2:05:57 made from from like for example the even
2:05:59 the obvious ending argument for
2:06:01 that any differentiation introducing
2:06:03 contingencies
2:06:04 the only problem i think the the for
2:06:06 example the catholics have is that they
2:06:09 first they have obviously the
2:06:11 contingency um argument
2:06:13 where you know where he argues that any
2:06:15 distinction implies contingency but
2:06:17 let's put it aside right if if we take
2:06:19 from another if we do from australia
2:06:21 perspective they only have the
2:06:23 semantical problem you know calling the
2:06:26 three persons god at the same time
2:06:29 but but but the problem they insist if
2:06:31 if they if they say it is that that's
2:06:33 what we done so augustine which is the
2:06:35 which is the the
2:06:36 aspects of the same being
2:06:39 then
2:06:40 is the father
2:06:41 and the calling him the son of others
2:06:43 just just just a misnomer just playing
2:06:45 with it
2:06:47 that's
2:06:47 how you have to there's there's no
2:06:49 there's no free life
2:06:51 in the case of asha is more or less
2:06:53 verbal there's a mistake there may be in
2:06:54 some in in regarding the essence without
2:06:57 any attribute can exist somehow it no
2:06:59 it's only a reference a reference in the
2:07:02 mind and it's a this is an
2:07:03 epistemological mistake and maybe a more
2:07:05 semantic an issue
2:07:07 more moral resemblance there's nothing
2:07:09 fundamental there which but but it but
2:07:12 the trinity has formulated but they
2:07:13 totally do under also before that was
2:07:15 called
2:07:17 uh um
2:07:19 the famous formulation attributed to
2:07:20 anat the bishop of alexandria etc the
2:07:24 late bishop alexandria
2:07:26 around the time of the consulting
2:07:28 world council
2:07:30 anastasia's name i think yeah
2:07:33 they they force that they have to they
2:07:35 have to
2:07:36 otherwise the salvation and the
2:07:38 sacrifice and the that's the problem
2:07:42 and it has to be the son who is
2:07:43 different than the father somehow even
2:07:45 if they joined they have joined this
2:07:47 sense which is impossible
2:07:50 which can't work so so you're saying
2:07:52 like the intent of the archery is not
2:07:56 i wouldn't get stuck too much in that i
2:07:58 wouldn't get too stuck with him i'm not
2:08:00 sure that even they may even answer that
2:08:01 issue
2:08:04 the issue is he says this the old this
2:08:07 separation of the attributes is is is
2:08:11 exactly that's yeah that's probably
2:08:12 that's yeah
2:08:14 because
2:08:15 because of them
2:08:16 human like for example
2:08:20 it's
2:08:21 why for example we have even has clearly
2:08:23 said
2:08:24 that the the the the the attributes are
2:08:28 not different that the entity entities
2:08:30 is
2:08:31 his whole knowledge usually
2:08:34 didn't mean that the attributes are
2:08:35 identical it just meant that they are
2:08:36 not real things they're just the only
2:08:39 discouragement yes
2:08:40 but whatever it is it has it is not the
2:08:43 issue there what we are is the
2:08:45 philosophical issue how to describe
2:08:46 these attributes
2:08:48 yeah exactly exactly yeah but upon you
2:08:51 you are
2:08:52 saying that the issue with christians is
2:08:55 the same as the issue with kasha is
2:08:57 right
2:08:58 no no i'm not saying it's completely
2:09:00 difficult
2:09:06 the metaphysical problem is the same but
2:09:08 it's only that they have also this
2:09:09 semantical problem where you say well
2:09:11 how can three things no but
2:09:14 but
2:09:15 the thing is
2:09:35 look at the problem of the problem of
2:09:37 the nature of isa and so on because they
2:09:39 connect that to the salvation
2:09:41 if it is divorced from salvation that
2:09:43 the whole thing is gone is there no need
2:09:44 for the whole thing it's gone
2:09:47 yeah but uh what i'm trying to say is
2:09:50 the christians they believe in
2:09:51 that the essence the divine nature
2:09:53 subsists in three different things okay
2:09:57 they don't believe that these things no
2:09:58 not three
2:10:04 that's that's what they say but it
2:10:05 doesn't make sense when you think about
2:10:07 it you know we can cause the habit
2:10:09 once they have
2:10:10 they have three distinct three distinct
2:10:13 uh
2:10:14 you could say particulars but they all
2:10:16 share this divine nature however
2:10:20 we're talking about the atonements right
2:10:21 now because i i don't see any difference
2:10:23 between thomism right where you have
2:10:25 that
2:10:26 let's see let's take the
2:10:27 let's forget these semantics here in a
2:10:29 sense that they are all three gods and
2:10:31 the metaphysical level right they
2:10:33 believe in in one essence with three
2:10:36 distinct
2:10:37 uh you could say um like they believe in
2:10:39 this distinction between knowledge and
2:10:41 or known right so what you have no they
2:10:43 don't they look if you're trying to say
2:10:45 this then you're going to have to say
2:10:46 that they believe the persons are
2:10:48 attributes which they are we don't
2:10:50 worship with the immersion of course the
2:10:52 persons are not listening these codes
2:10:53 for example they believe in particulars
2:10:55 right but the thomas don't they believe
2:10:56 in one but being attributes are not the
2:10:58 particulars attributes are not
2:10:59 particulars you don't say this no i'm
2:11:01 talking about it almost this code is
2:11:02 foreign
2:11:08 i would say that the the claim of
2:11:10 authoritarian that that is is that is
2:11:13 just just a is a weak defense it's just
2:11:16 a temperature you have to have the same
2:11:18 thing actually no it's not it's
2:11:20 fundamentally different
2:11:21 and no one's no no one in sound mind
2:11:23 this is maybe just just the second class
2:11:26 of people or apologetics and so on not
2:11:28 the first class once yes
2:11:30 i have seen it get applied uh like uh
2:11:33 recently with the dao scene in uk for
2:11:36 example bob he would say oh you guys say
2:11:38 that we believe in three different
2:11:40 uh like eternal beings but you believe
2:11:42 the quran is uncreated that means you
2:11:44 believe in some sort of trinity or
2:11:45 something yeah but they they don't
2:11:47 believe that the persons are attributes
2:11:49 they believe they're real things yeah
2:11:57 is the word created and so on and this
2:11:59 is all
2:12:00 based on a confusion what's the meaning
2:12:02 of the word in the old testament
2:12:04 understanding how did feel of alexandria
2:12:07 made the word the essential expression
2:12:09 of the divine will and then a confusion
2:12:12 between the the between
2:12:14 the the the divine will which is
2:12:16 expressed as the word kun fayakun uh
2:12:18 confusing that with the with the
2:12:20 revealed words which is which is almost
2:12:23 certainly created by the even the
2:12:24 strength of the quran when he says
2:12:31 it is created it's all new it's all not
2:12:33 one has no presence and it hasn't tried
2:12:36 to escape that because the pressure of
2:12:38 anyone saying the quran is created would
2:12:40 have been enormous at this time say the
2:12:41 quran is not created because it's the
2:12:43 divine knowledge which is beneficially
2:12:45 observed for the quran is not the divine
2:12:46 knowledge it may have some bits and
2:12:48 pieces of identifying knowledge but it's
2:12:49 not the divine knowledge that it does
2:12:52 so this is this this is this is a
2:12:54 diversion we have an islamic history
2:12:56 because the stupidity of hadith that's
2:12:58 it we should ignore that and just dump
2:13:00 it in the bin
2:13:01 that's it so they say ah
2:13:03 if you say then you are becoming a
2:13:05 morata they're trying to put you in the
2:13:06 corner
2:13:08 that you should be saying the word is
2:13:10 created yeah
2:13:12 if the quran is created even even that
2:13:15 word conference some of it maybe you
2:13:17 could be regarded as created or whatever
2:13:20 you correct it's an action a certain
2:13:22 action
2:13:24 it's just this is uh i i don't know
2:13:26 whatever
2:13:28 it is described here in detail in in
2:13:30 such a detail that it is
2:13:32 there's no no issue about that that is
2:13:34 insisting on on different person and
2:13:36 each one is a god and they have this
2:13:38 there but they are still there the
2:13:41 statement is very clear the holy spirit
2:13:43 is a god
2:13:45 and uh the father is the god and the
2:13:48 issa is a god
2:13:49 but there are no three there's one god
2:13:51 only yeah would they share the same
2:13:53 souls and god did which is complete
2:14:04 idiotic muslims and donkeys
2:14:06 not even even said the quran is allah
2:14:09 or part of
2:14:11 is the word created not created based on
2:14:14 certain misconceptions based on certain
2:14:16 misconceptions of space and time and
2:14:17 this of course all of its connected the
2:14:20 moment that problem is resolved with
2:14:21 time and the genuinely really time is
2:14:25 that with a big bang and before that
2:14:26 with the in 57 far away is that the
2:14:29 moment of absolute zero time which is
2:14:32 called eternity which we cannot conceive
2:14:34 and this fiction of never ending time
2:14:36 before is gone
2:14:37 then all of the all these things are
2:14:39 resolved and gone essentially we have
2:14:41 discussed that
2:14:43 but we'll discuss it one day more in
2:14:44 detail
2:14:46 professor you you know regarding the
2:14:48 verse
2:14:55 Music
2:15:01 it was revealed for that same thing
2:15:04 about kelly that the christians thought
2:15:06 rasulallah
2:15:31 is that what the things in their reality
2:15:34 be their being are that may be not
2:15:36 unknown to allah only to allah
2:15:39 and meaning interpretation or giving as
2:15:42 a another and another possible sense and
2:15:45 so on there are some of them can't give
2:15:46 a reasonable interpretation
2:15:50 for example the the the the the word
2:15:54 with we but they also bring away
2:15:56 actually i was shocked to see
2:15:57 today something in the stand for the
2:15:58 extra period about the divinity of
2:16:00 christ and so on what the justification
2:16:03 that they still many people arguing that
2:16:05 they that that yahuwah is using the we
2:16:09 and they say some people might reverse
2:16:11 one to that that is the majestic we
2:16:13 which is available in all languages
2:16:14 which is obviously the majestic it
2:16:17 the jews didn't make the mistake way
2:16:20 until later on they have some evidence
2:16:22 about that i think
2:16:23 they say the majestic we was like later
2:16:25 on developed in in the hebrew language
2:16:28 no no no the majestic equation or
2:16:30 language is available even in in in the
2:16:32 old hindu scripture everywhere
2:16:35 and things we used to use we in ancient
2:16:37 time this is all this is all people
2:16:39 imagining things in their minds
2:16:41 sometimes which has nothing to do with
2:16:42 reality
2:16:44 how do they use no because the the
2:16:46 scripture they have in their hand is
2:16:48 collected and written in that final form
2:16:50 essentially let us say go be as liberal
2:16:52 as they claim uh
2:16:54 three centuries before christ
2:16:57 not much earlier because the older
2:16:59 version of the scripture are somewhere
2:17:00 stored in a mountain by jeremiah and the
2:17:03 and the ark of covenant is locked away
2:17:06 we don't have access to them
2:17:08 and this clear reference there that some
2:17:09 books have been lost in the current
2:17:12 and some books have been averaged like
2:17:14 for example the details of the works of
2:17:15 this king are explained in the book of
2:17:17 the kings of judea or the kings of
2:17:19 israel there are complete books about
2:17:21 the kings of judea and israel with
2:17:23 comprehensive history they abridge that
2:17:25 in a in a
2:17:26 they think in a concise way
2:17:31 so this this is all wrong this is all no
2:17:34 good
2:17:35 this is no good essentially because
2:17:37 because you don't have any others
2:17:38 outside the jews reporting and we have
2:17:41 also the arabic languages to have this
2:17:43 majestic we and so on since ancient time
2:17:48 we we may check even the something i
2:17:51 don't know if we find but we
2:17:52 the inscription written in south arabia
2:17:55 in the muslim
2:17:56 handwriting or in ancient southern
2:17:59 arabic
2:18:01 some of it of kings making orders and
2:18:03 things etc it may contain that we it
2:18:05 can't be checked
2:18:06 and also we have we have a
2:18:09 cetera and so on writing i think all the
2:18:12 things that right we we order this we do
2:18:14 that
2:18:16 i understand that yes i think this
2:18:18 this is
2:18:19 that's when someone does not have a
2:18:21 solid argument comes with just
2:18:22 trivialities that's a trivial
2:18:25 another one for example they say the
2:18:26 following uh
2:18:28 that the the the messenger who came to
2:18:31 ibrahim bring in the news that they will
2:18:33 destroy the the country of lord and so
2:18:35 on said in the old testament yahuwah
2:18:38 yahuwah the one who is
2:18:40 came to ibrahim as three persons i say
2:18:42 ah these are three persons of the
2:18:43 trinity
2:18:45 these people
2:18:46 they cannot be saved if you that's all
2:18:49 you think
2:18:50 the old testament is full of places like
2:18:52 for example let me go this means that
2:18:54 the yahuwah is a three person okay fine
2:18:56 what's about the the whole description
2:18:58 of the exodus and which say and the
2:19:01 yahuwah went ahead of the people as a
2:19:03 wealth storm
2:19:05 a well wind so
2:19:06 yahoo is a whirlwind one time is a
2:19:08 whirlwind another time is there is
2:19:09 neither nor
2:19:11 it's a world which representing yahuwah
2:19:13 i would order the wild wind to guide
2:19:14 them
2:19:15 and when they come to a place where they
2:19:17 have a bit of rest a well one stops
2:19:19 waiting for them
2:19:20 and then continues
2:19:24 and these are three messengers and the
2:19:25 quran clarifies that
2:19:46 this is trivial in the language of
2:19:48 trivial description of events
2:19:53 the water status is full of that
2:19:57 when you say god has come from from
2:19:59 mount sinai
2:20:01 they came down the mountain
2:20:03 russian or is it in a human shape no
2:20:06 meaning his revelation came in mount
2:20:08 sinai
2:20:10 and he
2:20:12 he was bright from from the mount zaire
2:20:17 what does this mean
2:20:19 this expression
2:20:21 i wonder that people are unable to
2:20:24 i thought that we are we are the only
2:20:26 nation who have such donkeys like our
2:20:28 hobby with the sometimes their extreme
2:20:29 sense of shallow literalism but they
2:20:32 seem to be the other side even worse
2:20:33 than us in that
2:20:35 all these things
2:20:37 that should not be that should be the uh
2:20:39 that's there it's not worth it
2:20:41 any further consideration
2:20:46 discussing for example the importance
2:20:49 say and then there's some story in
2:20:51 genesis that uh that
2:20:53 one of the sons was the son of his heart
2:20:55 it was not circumcised until he was was
2:20:58 was old
2:20:59 or something
2:21:00 and then uh
2:21:02 yahweh came to
2:21:04 to kill that son
2:21:05 so his mother quickly took a knife and
2:21:07 circumcised him and put the foreskin
2:21:09 which he actually has cut and delay on
2:21:12 the foot of the of the deity
2:21:15 that's the death that's not what the
2:21:17 whatever the
2:21:19 uh
2:21:20 the the modern describing it it's if
2:21:23 such idiots write in these things then
2:21:25 we cannot be saved if these people are
2:21:27 allowed to write and discuss
2:21:31 if if the story first if the story is
2:21:34 will establish it assumes well
2:21:35 established which is very unlikely most
2:21:38 likely fabricated to to show the very
2:21:40 impor the great apostle's circumcision
2:21:43 and if you don't surround your children
2:21:45 then some the lord himself or someone
2:21:47 from the lord will come to kill him or
2:21:48 something which is
2:21:50 clearly fabricated individual that the
2:21:52 one who sent is a messenger of a man or
2:21:55 an angel in my shape and she touched his
2:21:57 feet and then he recognized ah she did
2:22:00 really circumcision so that it is not
2:22:02 able to see that she is circumcising the
2:22:04 sun
2:22:06 if we get to that level then it will
2:22:08 become
2:22:09 our own selves
2:22:15 you find you find scholars more than
2:22:17 scholars
2:22:18 discussing that in such terms
2:22:22 what happened to these people that they
2:22:24 lost their minds or was they
2:22:29 so we have we have to be a little bit
2:22:30 more critical in these things in in in
2:22:33 the scripture i think the key of that is
2:22:35 that all the scripture we have in hand
2:22:37 must be scrutinized
2:22:39 quran has been cross-referenced that's
2:22:40 crucialized we have only one quran for
2:22:42 substitute and we have also
2:22:45 fragments of quran written at the time
2:22:47 of the prophet that's the one in
2:22:48 birmingham is
2:22:54 and we have a complete quran which was
2:22:55 found in in yemen which goes back to the
2:22:58 time of
2:23:02 complete encouragement very nice
2:23:04 punishment excellent writing we have all
2:23:06 of these things we have also later
2:23:08 qurans in kuwait by the way the kofi
2:23:09 writing is later etc
2:23:12 and all of them show that clearly that
2:23:14 this text from a to z is from muhammad
2:23:17 at least
2:23:18 now the step from muhammad to the divine
2:23:20 needs and evidence with scrutiny
2:23:23 it's not taken by faith before someone
2:23:25 takes by faith is a danger to be shaken
2:23:27 his faith easily that has to have
2:23:29 evidences
2:23:30 internally in the quran and externally
2:23:33 from muhammad's life
2:23:35 that's the way to go for questioning the
2:23:37 sunnah we have to scrutinize all this
2:23:39 narration cross-reference them
2:23:42 check if there's any fabrication what's
2:23:43 the motivation you remember that when we
2:23:45 discussed the when i discussed in the
2:23:47 sake of satan narration about the attack
2:23:49 of the house of fatima and so on and the
2:23:52 who will be behind that fabrication what
2:23:54 is the interest
2:23:55 and i think you agree with me that many
2:23:57 of these fabrications the initial ones
2:23:59 which are very mild
2:24:01 omar is threatening americans saying
2:24:02 that etc
2:24:04 that this initial one is very suspicious
2:24:06 that it is done by muawiyah and his gank
2:24:09 because it was in their interest to get
2:24:11 all the hatred and the energy against
2:24:13 them diverted against the walker and
2:24:15 armor
2:24:17 and making ali look bad
2:24:19 unless this worked very nicely and then
2:24:21 later idiots from both camps took that
2:24:24 and built further on it and go with
2:24:26 heads and tails and added to it
2:24:29 sweeten it further or spiced it further
2:24:31 and so on
2:24:32 that's the way you should
2:24:34 attempt all these narrations around
2:24:36 study them critically by
2:24:37 cross-referencing
2:24:41 she did a very good job of defending um
2:24:43 that position when he was in a debate
2:24:45 that she had recently
2:24:47 yeah so
2:24:48 if if we don't do that we will be going
2:24:50 in like like like a donkey in the
2:24:53 grinding mill yoga poor donkey grinds
2:24:55 all day long at the end he'll be given a
2:24:58 bunch of hay if he's given anything and
2:25:00 all
2:25:01 all the flour goes to the mill owner we
2:25:04 should not be we should be grinding for
2:25:05 our oil benefit and this means to do the
2:25:08 work properly with open eyes
2:25:11 the same with with the with the with the
2:25:14 christian scripture not going to the
2:25:16 extreme of so-called secular scholarship
2:25:19 claiming all of this is myth and has no
2:25:21 restore ground that has been refuted by
2:25:23 history now plenty of it
2:25:25 plenty of the stories of the old
2:25:26 testament has been has cross referenced
2:25:28 and synchronized with with events with
2:25:31 babylon and and plenty of
2:25:34 at least spots historic sports so that's
2:25:35 the time
2:25:36 time table is essentially synchronized
2:25:39 to a good level
2:25:42 which will make them look bad
2:25:50 i have um i've been listening in and i
2:25:52 have just a few questions my name is
2:25:54 ahmed and um i'm a fan of yours we've
2:25:57 spoken before so one of the um
2:26:00 the things i wanted to do was to bring
2:26:03 up the question of whether um
2:26:06 whether just as a point of
2:26:10 a point of
2:26:11 strategy
2:26:13 one can
2:26:16 argue against the divinity or to take a
2:26:19 different approach and one of the
2:26:21 one of those different approaches is to
2:26:23 contextualize things that you talked
2:26:26 about um one is
2:26:28 saint augustine so augustine um
2:26:32 in many ways um was the progenitor
2:26:35 of this this thing called christianity
2:26:38 um to the extent that it went into
2:26:40 europe
2:26:41 and he he did that almost um as an
2:26:45 intellectual who was influenced by a lot
2:26:48 of things and one of those things that
2:26:49 influenced him
2:26:51 whether people will accept it or not was
2:26:53 greek philosophy
2:26:55 so one takes a look at
2:26:58 greek philosophy
2:27:00 and to take a look at their deities and
2:27:02 even sons of deities
2:27:05 one can see that that
2:27:07 concept was actually
2:27:09 grafted for the basis for grafting
2:27:12 the idea of christianity going into
2:27:15 europe for example
2:27:17 there
2:27:18 um in some ways
2:27:20 of the concept of a deity called christ
2:27:23 had to be
2:27:25 digested by a population of people who
2:27:28 otherwise would reject it
2:27:30 so in many ways in even creating the
2:27:33 idea that
2:27:34 a deity exists that is in three parts
2:27:38 that mimic in fact
2:27:40 greek philosophy
2:27:41 it becomes easier for them to digest
2:27:44 and the second thing is we've talked a
2:27:47 lot about
2:27:49 things like judaism
2:27:51 this is something that's really
2:27:52 interesting um
2:27:54 what saying all this augustine did for
2:27:58 christianity he actually did for judaism
2:28:01 as well
2:28:02 because
2:28:03 the ideas of collection the scriptures
2:28:05 and all these things were not in place
2:28:08 uh yet
2:28:09 even for the the formulation of the holy
2:28:11 bible didn't come until the 15th century
2:28:14 and we had different
2:28:15 texts people said these are good
2:28:18 uh or not
2:28:19 but the jews did not adopt even their
2:28:22 own bible quote unquote
2:28:25 until after
2:28:27 the christian bible existed and this is
2:28:30 something that people don't know but
2:28:32 um
2:28:34 upon the um the the invention of the
2:28:36 printing press
2:28:39 bibles were first disseminated and in
2:28:41 those spaces this was in italy
2:28:43 then the jewish bible was disseminated
2:28:46 alongside it and it took out
2:28:49 on
2:28:50 the new testament quote unquote of the
2:28:52 christian bible and that was the
2:28:54 formulation of the jewish bible itself
2:28:57 so what i'm
2:28:58 really saying is like if we present
2:29:00 these things in
2:29:02 a historical context
2:29:04 we do not even have to say that debate
2:29:06 the issue of the of the trinity we can
2:29:10 just put the information from the people
2:29:11 and let them decide for themselves
2:29:13 because that's really what the quran
2:29:15 does for us but just
2:29:16 just a few countries first of all
2:29:20 it seems
2:29:21 maybe you you you did not get the
2:29:24 history
2:29:25 a little bit accurate because um saint
2:29:28 augustine is essentially in the fourth
2:29:31 or in the fourth or in the fifth century
2:29:34 um yeah he's maybe in the fifth 400
2:29:36 something so he's very late
2:29:39 but the issue of divinity of christ and
2:29:41 so on started actually
2:29:45 it seems to be that the
2:29:47 uh with with with with paul
2:29:50 going off tangent and claiming he met
2:29:52 christ in the spirit the famous
2:29:54 encounter in the way to damascus
2:29:56 etcetera true or false
2:30:00 but that's what he claimed
2:30:01 and
2:30:03 we may speculate why why
2:30:07 why paul
2:30:09 took this avenue of making christ almost
2:30:12 divine or making him divine maybe he was
2:30:14 not clear in that or maybe he was
2:30:16 because at that time
2:30:18 uh what they called mithra is most
2:30:20 widely spread and it was fashionable in
2:30:22 young people i i might have a
2:30:24 speculative theory but i mentioned it
2:30:26 just casually don't take it as a story
2:30:27 or something it needs further digging
2:30:30 that in his younger years
2:30:33 he was influenced like many young people
2:30:35 jews and otherwise because he was is
2:30:38 from tarsus
2:30:40 in in
2:30:41 asia minor
2:30:43 almost on the syrian border now no i set
2:30:45 it deep inside in turkey now
2:30:47 and um
2:30:48 is it called
2:30:51 tarsus
2:30:52 yeah that was his name paul of tosses
2:30:57 yeah yeah yes there's another paul
2:30:59 charles of some charter there's another
2:31:01 one later on but it's called
2:31:02 the star
2:31:04 and
2:31:05 i my guess is that he was influenced by
2:31:07 that but because his family is or his
2:31:10 mother specifically as conservative
2:31:12 she
2:31:13 persuaded him to go and study at
2:31:15 gamaliel
2:31:17 and then was the the
2:31:19 way he was a member of the saint hedrin
2:31:22 a great scholar and most likely was
2:31:24 secretly a christian
2:31:27 when the christ came he believed in him
2:31:28 because he's a man of really uh
2:31:30 high scholarship but he's known in the
2:31:32 old world as the anti-polytheism
2:31:35 so why did the mother or the father the
2:31:38 family send him to this mass physically
2:31:39 he has problem with obviously with
2:31:41 monotheism it seems to be so study at
2:31:43 gamaliel he studied there and became
2:31:45 then a very
2:31:47 fanatic jew
2:31:49 and he was prosecuted a christian at the
2:31:51 beginning
2:31:52 later on because this vision and so on
2:31:54 the old mithraism and so on mithraism is
2:31:57 centered around that the bull has been
2:31:59 sacrificed to save humanity and save
2:32:00 them from the devil to protect them from
2:32:03 the clutches and that's what you if you
2:32:05 read paul carefully that seems to be the
2:32:07 the main threat it's not that there's
2:32:09 there's not very mentioned of the
2:32:10 original sin it is mentioning of the
2:32:12 devil who's controlling the master the
2:32:14 lord of this world and the humanity has
2:32:16 to be sailed from the clutches of the
2:32:17 devil so it's more more of the other
2:32:20 initial theory that the sacrifice is
2:32:22 true is to
2:32:24 defeat the devil and save the world from
2:32:26 him
2:32:27 that has been abandoned later by
2:32:28 christian because it means that evidence
2:32:30 go is co-powerful with allah which is
2:32:33 not acceptable according to all
2:32:34 testimonies and
2:32:36 somebody cannot cannot be accepted by
2:32:38 any monotheist he must be a minor being
2:32:41 so then came the the atonement of the
2:32:43 sin the theory of the devil like this it
2:32:46 took to it
2:32:47 was developed to its extreme by marcion
2:32:50 the marco inheritance will claim the old
2:32:52 testament itself is the revelation of
2:32:53 the devil and yahuwah is the devil
2:32:55 himself
2:32:56 and the father is something else behind
2:32:58 that and ultimately he penetrated
2:33:01 the the kingdom of the devil by sending
2:33:03 the son who was able to penetrate and
2:33:04 defeat the devil
2:33:06 yeah so in that time
2:33:10 the the the death on the cross which
2:33:12 most people have believed that it's
2:33:13 christ which is not what isa is not
2:33:16 but independent of that he's not it's
2:33:18 not was such a shock for many
2:33:20 many jews that they converted to
2:33:22 christianity without feeling of guilt
2:33:24 and others
2:33:25 and most likely that's what what what
2:33:27 made the disciples
2:33:29 always propagate that you crucified the
2:33:32 the great prophet of god you are guilty
2:33:33 people that guilt feeling invited many
2:33:36 people to
2:33:37 early christianity according to the acts
2:33:40 of the
2:33:40 apostles etc
2:33:42 and then
2:33:43 people came in in masses
2:33:46 paul
2:33:47 had that that did so many problems with
2:33:50 with with the christians in in an
2:33:52 antique and so on there was a conflict
2:33:54 about what's permissible to eat or not
2:33:55 when and then ultimately they made a
2:33:57 settlement with paul you continue
2:33:59 preaching christianity to the gentiles
2:34:02 and collect charity for the
2:34:04 for the holy or the holy men in in
2:34:07 jerusalem thus the brother of christ and
2:34:09 the others and you continue they thought
2:34:11 this way they got rid of paul and his
2:34:13 mischief and his odd theories but the
2:34:16 reality they opened hit the the
2:34:18 floodgate for that evil what we have
2:34:20 the christianity level because he was
2:34:22 addressing the gentile taking liberty
2:34:25 talking to them in greek etc etc and
2:34:28 then
2:34:29 coming with his historic theory that
2:34:31 that the the sacrificial son etcetera
2:34:33 which defeats the devil
2:34:36 and uh that partly also
2:34:38 that the fellowship the people following
2:34:40 him that's the main historic line i'm
2:34:42 not going into the fine detail
2:34:44 it seems to be the people around him and
2:34:46 the generation around him
2:34:48 the one who are sophisticated because
2:34:50 the common people are simple for for
2:34:52 them the emperor is the son of god this
2:34:53 one can it's a can't be a son of god
2:34:55 even better why not but the
2:34:57 philosophical sophistication came from
2:35:00 actually from the jewish
2:35:02 homeland itself fear of alexandria and
2:35:04 other philosophies from the
2:35:06 platonic background
2:35:08 so that's well before the time of saint
2:35:10 augustine so i i would really exonerate
2:35:13 augustine from anything
2:35:14 and then
2:35:15 the various conflicting ideas were
2:35:18 spreading in the empire christianity was
2:35:20 persecuted so it can split in many
2:35:23 factions we have also a faction which is
2:35:25 more inclined toward escapism and
2:35:27 grossism etc that's what they
2:35:30 they they they have written so good
2:35:31 gospel of thomas which has been found in
2:35:33 egypt i think in naja hamadi
2:35:36 and this printed now is available which
2:35:38 is completely test completely different
2:35:40 than what we have rather goes for
2:35:41 community differences that's a
2:35:42 collection of wisdom staying statements
2:35:45 which look like sufi and ascetic type
2:35:47 and things like that anyway
2:35:50 then when constantine embraced
2:35:52 christianity to unify it to stabilize
2:35:55 the empire because christian would know
2:35:56 it was it was not possible to ignore
2:35:58 because the last prosecution before
2:36:00 constantine was i think about 50 years
2:36:02 before him
2:36:03 the emperor gave up recognized that
2:36:05 christianity cannot be weeded out is
2:36:07 finished yes
2:36:08 so he surrendered that he stopped the
2:36:09 prosecution now they have imperial
2:36:12 support constantine called for the uh
2:36:15 to unify this various point of view
2:36:17 because as an emperor he needs he needs
2:36:19 the state to clean he needs some unity
2:36:23 to stabilize the empire to support his
2:36:25 power so he called the nikkei conference
2:36:28 there than the the first part of the
2:36:30 creed was written
2:36:32 without the part of the holy spirit
2:36:33 later on various formulations where in
2:36:35 circulation i i may be able to get a
2:36:38 copy and give it to you sha allah for
2:36:40 the next halacha
2:36:41 next meeting
2:36:42 in which some of them very sophisticated
2:36:45 some simplified they they agreed on one
2:36:47 of the most simplified and most easy to
2:36:49 to spell one and added to the nissen
2:36:52 creed but it's what they call now nissan
2:36:54 creed is not only secret it is the one
2:36:56 in the constantine
2:36:59 uh yeah so senator augustine is after
2:37:02 that so it's not to justify anything or
2:37:05 sell it to european that was the
2:37:06 historic development
2:37:08 my suggestion
2:37:09 really is to say
2:37:11 let's go to the historic route of the
2:37:14 the the issue of
2:37:17 getting uh taking guidance from the
2:37:19 prophetic hadith that don't pray over
2:37:21 praise me like the the christian or the
2:37:23 nazarene praise the isabel maryam i am a
2:37:25 slave
2:37:26 to to show that the the genuine
2:37:29 scripture the gospels
2:37:30 essentially put the the the humanity and
2:37:34 knowledge the divinity of christ
2:37:36 clearly in the front that's number one
2:37:39 secondly showing that the stories in the
2:37:41 old testament about the creation and the
2:37:43 fall of adam are faulty contradicting
2:37:46 both history and also clarified and
2:37:48 cleaned by the quran if that's done
2:37:51 that's the strategy then there's no need
2:37:53 if the divinity is gone if the divinity
2:37:55 of isa is gone no need for sacrifice
2:37:58 adam was forgiven the whole false story
2:38:01 that is represented in the in the old
2:38:02 testament is mythical and some of it is
2:38:05 blatantly wrong
2:38:07 but then there's no need for the
2:38:08 divinity of christ
2:38:10 okay to enthusiasm
2:38:12 because of christ the believer of christ
2:38:14 and there is no need to go through the
2:38:16 divinity to assume the divinity of the
2:38:18 holy spirit because that based on that
2:38:20 if we
2:38:21 if we declare isa to be divine and he
2:38:24 says clearly somewhere and we accept
2:38:26 that really genuine being said by him i
2:38:28 am not i'm not i'm not as as as as great
2:38:32 as my father nor as great as the holy
2:38:34 spirit so the holy spirit must be higher
2:38:36 than him must be also divine
2:38:38 and then because they are
2:38:39 cause same substance they must be
2:38:41 somehow equal
2:38:43 and this led to the development of the
2:38:45 strategies the authority is just to save
2:38:46 all this chain of mistakes
2:38:51 okay i think that's that's a that's
2:38:53 that's the correct approach without
2:38:55 accusing anyone i'm not even accusing
2:38:58 paul there's a many accusations in
2:38:59 islamic
2:39:01 that paul deliberately wanted to
2:39:02 mutilate christianity this is dances you
2:39:04 don't spend all your life and end being
2:39:06 decapitated and wrong or my god knows
2:39:09 what has happened to him it's just
2:39:10 because you want her it's a man is
2:39:12 genuinely believing evan is mentally
2:39:14 obsessed
2:39:15 he reminds me of few obsessed people in
2:39:18 life who have a certain idea and they
2:39:20 stuck with it until death
2:39:22 and he was really obsessed and believing
2:39:24 that he has
2:39:25 seen a vision or something like that
2:39:27 and then he was according to his own
2:39:29 admission after that vision
2:39:31 he went in in arabia for three years
2:39:33 just pondering he did not say what he
2:39:35 was doing but clearly he was for three
2:39:36 years struggling with that what he have
2:39:38 seen this vision he has seen and
2:39:40 struggling with what to make about his
2:39:43 answer and he came down to jerusalem met
2:39:45 the disciples listen to them but barely
2:39:47 say anything
2:39:48 most likely he got all these most of
2:39:50 them you know the all the twelve except
2:39:52 maybe matthew they couldn't read and
2:39:54 write a simpleton symbol fishermen they
2:39:56 said oh this guy do not know what what
2:39:58 the the man they met actually they have
2:40:00 no idea what he says i am the one who
2:40:03 met him named him in flesh i met him in
2:40:05 the spirit
2:40:07 and i am his messenger to the
2:40:09 gentiles as he stressed in his epistles
2:40:12 so he's really devoted to a cause
2:40:14 because he's he's just
2:40:16 the fact that he was prosecuting them
2:40:18 initially so viciously shows that a man
2:40:20 is a very extreme character he's an
2:40:21 extremist
2:40:23 he's a vicious extremist
2:40:25 and he's just overtaken by idea to the
2:40:27 complete
2:40:28 to the to the to the most extreme
2:40:32 but ultimately he did
2:40:34 he he that one influenced the way of
2:40:36 christianity is not that what asa was
2:40:38 preaching nor what the other disciples
2:40:39 were preaching
2:40:42 even the acts of the apostles although
2:40:44 there are many things with the
2:40:45 contradictory unsupported many things
2:40:47 which are fabricated
2:40:49 all their statements it's clear from the
2:40:50 satan of them of peter simon shamron
2:40:54 it's clearly from his statement that he
2:40:56 doesn't believe that the divinity of
2:40:57 christ
2:40:58 but but but paul can easily just reject
2:41:00 that saying this man is official man
2:41:02 he's assembled he doesn't know what he's
2:41:04 saying he said it clearly in various
2:41:05 places
2:41:07 well the peter is in the wrong
2:41:09 all these foods he declared to be haram
2:41:11 are not haram they are halal
2:41:13 but the writer of the
2:41:15 acts of the poster tried to fix that
2:41:17 by attributing the the legalization of
2:41:20 of the various food who shall haram for
2:41:22 the jews
2:41:23 attributing it to peter by himself that
2:41:25 he saw a vision
2:41:26 in which
2:41:28 like lizards and things and snakes
2:41:30 coming from heaven underwears and he was
2:41:33 hungry and the angel offering him eat
2:41:35 said how can he design pure there is
2:41:36 nothing in pure anymore
2:41:39 christ has lifted all of that you can
2:41:40 eat so
2:41:42 so declaring this prohibition of the
2:41:44 jewish dietary laws
2:41:46 being lifted in the act of apostles
2:41:49 attributed to peter while while while
2:41:53 i was his name paul says clearly i have
2:41:56 a confrontation with peter in in antioch
2:41:58 about what can be eaten not eaten and
2:42:00 they told him you are wrong the gentiles
2:42:03 are not obliged it's only for the jews
2:42:04 not for the gentiles it has can effect
2:42:09 if you study that in the description and
2:42:10 show it to the people then they see how
2:42:12 the historic development is history gone
2:42:14 wrong
2:42:15 and narration has been has partly fixed
2:42:17 partly fabricated partly misinterpreted
2:42:21 that's what they call cross-examination
2:42:23 we have to do cross-examination for this
2:42:25 scripture not dumping them all in the
2:42:27 rubbish like the so-called modernists do
2:42:28 this is all mythical has no history
2:42:31 that's not that that's that's not that's
2:42:32 not
2:42:33 let's face it that's not a respectable
2:42:35 scholarship that's not the way the
2:42:37 scholarship should work nor believing it
2:42:40 is done by under the divine protection
2:42:42 and this infallibility of the scripture
2:42:44 this is this is stupidity if we take the
2:42:47 middle way and start this i think this
2:42:48 is the right approach
2:42:50 but we have to as a
2:42:52 in islamic in islamic study circles uh
2:42:56 there isn't very much of studying of
2:42:58 these old-school old testament new
2:43:00 testament and so on but there have been
2:43:02 some beginning about by abraham
2:43:06 he discussed but he applies the strict
2:43:09 principles of hadith narration so on
2:43:11 that doesn't work he has to do more like
2:43:13 internal textual analysis just relying
2:43:16 on is not because these things do not
2:43:17 have its not so you have to rely on that
2:43:19 these are more salat and
2:43:22 analyze the text analyze the stories and
2:43:24 try to find something at least a common
2:43:26 core
2:43:27 a common solid core and then build from
2:43:30 that bit by bit
2:43:31 and it beta me i did a bit but
2:43:33 no it doesn't equal what if it hasn't
2:43:35 been hazard is much more superior to
2:43:37 that actually but
2:43:39 is uh
2:43:40 i think maybe he's the first uh
2:43:43 because people attribute too much to you
2:43:45 in my mood my munidas they attribute him
2:43:47 the one who doubt that
2:43:49 five books attributed to musa the
2:43:51 fathers called pontitus five books
2:43:54 genesis
2:43:56 exodus numbers
2:43:58 levi's leviticus and the deuteronomy
2:44:01 these five are attributed as written by
2:44:03 musa
2:44:04 and the
2:44:05 uh
2:44:07 maimonides is on record saying that it
2:44:09 cannot be written by musa because
2:44:11 at least one of them describes the death
2:44:13 of musa how can musa describe his own
2:44:15 death it's not his mind may be written
2:44:16 with his disciple
2:44:18 you should have been you shall be known
2:44:21 um actually this fact and other facts
2:44:23 have been found out and analyzed by by
2:44:25 ben has my head of him
2:44:27 so this cannot be written by musa this
2:44:29 is later narration and this
2:44:32 so he did some but that tradition was
2:44:35 not pursued any further the islamic
2:44:36 world
2:44:38 under the western world it was pursued
2:44:41 not under the beginning not in the good
2:44:43 grounds wholesale rejection or wholesale
2:44:46 the declaration of infallibility that's
2:44:48 neither is correct
2:44:50 anyway i think
2:44:51 there's plenty of words to be done if
2:44:53 someone of you are interested he should
2:44:55 really start uh
2:44:57 getting
2:44:58 making as we say is his foot wet
2:45:01 starting waiting in this uh
2:45:03 it's not a swamp there's not really a
2:45:05 deep deep ocean it's easy to go there
2:45:08 there's plenty of
2:45:10 literature about modern scholarship some
2:45:12 of them written by devoted christians
2:45:14 which is good that should be but still
2:45:16 they they come to the conclusion like
2:45:18 what is i will put it shall i link to a
2:45:20 video a bible scholar who is himself a
2:45:22 priest
2:45:23 and he has a church in i think in dallas
2:45:25 fort worth and he's a professor of
2:45:30 history in the university of austin or
2:45:33 something like that
2:45:34 and he says clearly that
2:45:36 that the the jesus of history is vastly
2:45:39 different than they want to fail and
2:45:40 there's no evidence for trinity or if
2:45:42 divine divinity of jesus and that
2:45:45 but he argues that
2:45:46 he takes the so-called faith's point of
2:45:48 view that you can't take that on trust
2:45:50 on belief just under the and whatever
2:45:52 you believe is true so he's he's
2:45:54 one of the people who believe that that
2:45:56 the truth in in metaphysical issues is
2:45:59 separated from the truth in history and
2:46:00 physical issues which is blatantly wrong
2:46:03 but that's his point of view otherwise
2:46:05 how could he be saying that jesus has
2:46:07 totally never claimed to be divine and
2:46:09 the scriptures clearly say that he is
2:46:10 not divine and still in the church
2:46:13 he declares refugees to be divine and
2:46:15 son of god
2:46:17 but he was able to do that because they
2:46:19 said in modern in post-modernism it's
2:46:21 possible to do both i will put you in
2:46:25 the link
2:46:26 i don't know how these people think but
2:46:28 subhanallah i'll put in the link for
2:46:30 that for that
2:46:31 for that
2:46:32 that it's actually a blog blogging
2:46:34 theology it's called drug theology it's
2:46:36 quite good it's quite interesting
2:46:39 i will put the link for this one then
2:46:40 you can't see the whole the whole
2:46:42 channel of this blogging theology and
2:46:44 there may be jewels there to be to be
2:46:46 listened to maybe we have a last
2:46:48 question from a christian i'm trying to
2:46:50 put him up but he's not coming okay try
2:46:53 to unraise your hand and raise it again
2:46:55 maybe it works
2:46:57 just to see
2:47:00 uh i think he left maybe he'll okay
2:47:02 maybe he got an answer maybe the
2:47:04 recording or anyway anyway if
2:47:08 next time if he's present if you note
2:47:09 his name and so on tell him we can we
2:47:12 have handled the question at the
2:47:13 beginning
2:47:14 inshallah
2:47:18 Music
2:47:56 foreign
2:47:58 Music
2:48:14 my
2:48:18 Music
2:48:27 you