Live Academic Seminar: Christianity & The Doctrine of The Trinity (2021-06-25) #

0:00:08 respected brothers and sisters
0:00:10 dear friends all of you are very welcome
0:00:13 to this new course
0:00:15 presented by sapiens institute which is
0:00:18 conducted by myself
0:00:20 your brother in faith and your brother
0:00:22 in humanity
0:00:24 the doctrine of the trinity man made or
0:00:26 divinely revealed
0:00:27 is the topic today so we'll get cracking
0:00:30 with it straight away
0:00:32 we'll get on with it what are we talking
0:00:34 about in this course this entire webinar
0:00:36 what does it constitute and to begin
0:00:40 or even before beginning we would like
0:00:42 to
0:00:43 put all the topics down in simple terms
0:00:46 so that we understand where we're going
0:00:47 with this course
0:00:49 point number one that we will discuss is
0:00:51 what is the doctrine of the trinity what
0:00:53 is it
0:00:54 point number two in this webinar we will
0:00:57 be covering
0:00:58 is the quranic view on the trinity point
0:01:01 number three
0:01:02 is the old and the new testament's view
0:01:05 or
0:01:05 on uni personal god then point number
0:01:08 four we will be addressing in this
0:01:10 course is the doctrine cannot be found
0:01:12 in the bible as we will see
0:01:14 point number five disputes and later
0:01:16 developments of the doctrine
0:01:18 point number six church fathers on
0:01:20 co-equality of the father and the son we
0:01:22 will see what the church fathers had to
0:01:24 say
0:01:25 the church fathers are the earliest
0:01:27 scholars of christianity
0:01:28 to put it in simple terms then point
0:01:31 number seven will be responding to
0:01:34 the defenses of christian apologists
0:01:37 for example in relation to subordination
0:01:40 response
0:01:41 uh we will see what that means in due
0:01:42 course also rejecting the church fathers
0:01:46 is equal to rejecting the bible this is
0:01:47 what we will have to say though
0:01:49 to those who reject the church fathers
0:01:51 as a source of
0:01:52 early christian history or theology and
0:01:54 then there will be a conclusion
0:01:56 so let's start straight away what is the
0:01:58 doctrine of the trinity brothers and
0:02:00 sisters
0:02:00 the doctrine of the trinity is simply
0:02:02 that there is one eternal being of god
0:02:04 indivisible in finite this
0:02:08 one being of god is shared by three co
0:02:11 equal co eternal persons the father the
0:02:13 son and the spirit
0:02:14 this is what the doctrine of the trinity
0:02:16 is this is what the christians believe
0:02:19 in today
0:02:20 when i say the christians i am talking
0:02:21 about the overwhelming majority of the
0:02:24 christian world
0:02:25 uh they believe in it today for example
0:02:28 the protestants
0:02:29 the catholics the orthodox churches
0:02:32 such as the greek orthodox church the
0:02:35 russian orthodox church the syrian
0:02:37 orthodox church
0:02:38 and the egyptian orthodox church and all
0:02:41 of these churches
0:02:42 they believe they profess a belief in
0:02:44 this particular doctrine
0:02:46 they may differ on other points of
0:02:48 theology when it comes to the trinity
0:02:50 they all agree with the contents
0:02:54 of this particular doctrine as stated
0:02:57 on the screen so the doctrine of the
0:03:00 trinity is a common belief
0:03:02 among the majority of the christians
0:03:04 today in the world
0:03:06 in if i was to say all all the
0:03:08 christians
0:03:09 uh believe in the doctrine of the
0:03:11 trinity that would be an accurate
0:03:13 statement of course there are
0:03:15 few sects that profess belief
0:03:18 in the divinity of god
0:03:21 in different ways for example jehovah's
0:03:23 witnesses they have a different
0:03:25 perception of god and there are other
0:03:27 groups of christians
0:03:28 for example the unitarian church they
0:03:30 don't believe in the trinity but they
0:03:32 are a very tiny minority the majority of
0:03:34 the christian world
0:03:35 believes in this doctrine so today we
0:03:37 will be talking about this particular
0:03:39 doctrine
0:03:40 this doctrine does it come from god
0:03:44 can it be found in the bible did god
0:03:47 ever teach it through his prophets
0:03:49 what does the quran say about this
0:03:51 doctrine why do the muslims
0:03:53 not believe in this doctrine why do we
0:03:55 reject it as
0:03:56 a forgery in the name of god or as um
0:04:00 as blasphemy for that matter let's see
0:04:04 the quran in chapter 4 171
0:04:08 clearly states that the doctrine of the
0:04:10 trinity
0:04:12 is to be rejected
0:04:15 for example allah says as we the muslims
0:04:17 believe this is what god tells us in the
0:04:19 quran
0:04:20 o people of the scripture do not exceed
0:04:22 the limits in your religion
0:04:24 nor say of god but the truth the messiah
0:04:26 jesus son of mary was a messenger of god
0:04:28 and his word
0:04:29 which he bestowed on mary and a spirit
0:04:32 created by him
0:04:33 so believe in god and his messenger say
0:04:36 not three
0:04:37 in other words do not say trinity sees
0:04:40 it is better for you
0:04:41 god is only one god glorified is he
0:04:44 glorified is he above having a son to
0:04:47 him belongs all that is in the earth
0:04:49 and god is all sufficient as a disposer
0:04:53 of affairs
0:04:54 this is chapter 4 of the quran surat
0:04:56 nisar verse 171
0:05:00 god allah categorically tells us that
0:05:03 the doctrine
0:05:04 of the trinity is not from god do not
0:05:07 say it
0:05:07 do not profess it do not proclaim it
0:05:10 because it is not from god
0:05:12 because those who believe in god's
0:05:14 prophets
0:05:15 and god cannot possibly have this belief
0:05:18 as their belief in godhead or in
0:05:21 the divinity of god
0:05:25 so in other places the quran tells us
0:05:29 for example chapter 5 verse 72
0:05:31 to verse 74 allah tells us
0:05:35 that those who say the messiah the son
0:05:37 of mary
0:05:38 is god okay are blasphemers
0:05:42 okay in fact uh chapter five tells us
0:05:47 that messiah told the children of israel
0:05:51 worship allah my lord and your lord
0:05:53 verily whosoever sets up partners with
0:05:55 allah then allah has forbidden paradise
0:05:57 to him
0:05:58 so here we are told in chapter 5 of the
0:05:59 quran verses 72 to 74
0:06:02 that even jesus told the israelites to
0:06:04 worship one god not
0:06:06 three in one or not two in one rather
0:06:09 one god alone
0:06:10 is to be worshipped by the israelites
0:06:13 this is
0:06:14 clearly stated in the gospel of mark
0:06:15 chapter 12 verse 29
0:06:17 where god stated or actually where jesus
0:06:20 stated
0:06:21 rather hero israel the lord our god
0:06:24 is one lord okay this is what the quran
0:06:27 alludes to
0:06:28 in this verse that jesus had told the
0:06:31 israelites
0:06:32 to worship one god alone who is the lord
0:06:35 of the heavens and the earth
0:06:37 likewise in um preceding verses
0:06:42 jesus was declared to be a prophet of
0:06:45 god
0:06:46 not god for example surely disbelievers
0:06:49 are those who said allah is the third of
0:06:51 the three
0:06:51 but there is no god but one god and if
0:06:54 they cease not from what they say
0:06:56 i.e the christians who believe in the
0:06:58 trinity if they don't seize what they're
0:06:59 in
0:07:00 they don't see saying what they say
0:07:02 verily a painful torment
0:07:04 will befall on the disbelievers among
0:07:06 them so those who believe
0:07:08 who disbelieve among the christians and
0:07:10 who are the disbelievers the quran
0:07:12 is saying basically anyone who believes
0:07:14 in the doctrine of the trinity cannot be
0:07:16 a believer
0:07:16 anyone who believes that allah god the
0:07:19 father in other words or god the creator
0:07:21 of the heavens and the earth to use the
0:07:22 right term
0:07:23 god the creator of the heavens and the
0:07:25 earth
0:07:26 is the third of a trinity
0:07:29 then they are disbelievers okay likewise
0:07:34 uh you know old the old and the new
0:07:36 testament
0:07:37 they present a unique personal god they
0:07:40 do not present
0:07:40 a multi-personal god or a
0:07:44 god who consists of three persons or two
0:07:47 persons
0:07:47 right so the god of the old testament
0:07:50 and the god
0:07:51 of the new testament is basically
0:07:54 in line with the god of the quran
0:07:58 when it comes to monotheism not all
0:08:00 other things of course we don't
0:08:02 believe that the bible is a true
0:08:05 representation
0:08:06 of the god of abraham moses and jesus
0:08:09 rather we believe
0:08:10 as far as monotheism is concerned as far
0:08:12 as believing in one god is concerned
0:08:15 the god of the new testament and the old
0:08:17 testament is
0:08:18 in that particular sense very similar to
0:08:21 the god of the old testament and the new
0:08:24 testament
0:08:25 or the quran rather so what does the old
0:08:28 testament tell us
0:08:29 about god we read in deuteronomy chapter
0:08:34 6
0:08:34 verses 4 to 5 hero israel the lord our
0:08:37 god
0:08:38 is one lord and thou shalt love the lord
0:08:41 thy god with all thine heart
0:08:43 with all thy soul and with all thy might
0:08:47 then in hosea we are told chapter 13
0:08:50 verse 4
0:08:51 yet i am the lord thy god from the land
0:08:54 of egypt and thou shalt know no god
0:08:56 but me for there is no savior beside me
0:09:00 in the book of isaiah 43 verses
0:09:03 10 to 11 we are told before me there was
0:09:06 no god formed
0:09:07 neither shall they be after me i even i
0:09:10 am the lord
0:09:11 and beside me there is no savior so here
0:09:14 in these verses in the old testament we
0:09:15 see that god
0:09:16 is one god he is speaking as one person
0:09:20 this god is unipersonal he's not
0:09:22 speaking as a plurality of persons
0:09:24 rather
0:09:24 he is speaking as one person this is
0:09:26 very very clear
0:09:27 and it continues in one chronicles
0:09:30 chapter 17 verse 20
0:09:32 the same god is speaking oh lord god for
0:09:34 there is none like
0:09:36 thee neither is there any god beside
0:09:39 thee
0:09:40 according to all that we have heard with
0:09:43 our ears
0:09:44 likewise isaiah 44
0:09:47 6 states thus saith the lord the king of
0:09:49 israel
0:09:50 and his redeemer the lord of hosts i am
0:09:52 the first
0:09:53 i am the last and beside me there is no
0:09:56 god
0:09:57 so this is one person speaking this is
0:10:00 god
0:10:01 the creator of the heavens and the earth
0:10:02 speaking in the old testament
0:10:04 as one person this is a unipersonal god
0:10:07 there are no three persons
0:10:08 or there is no multi-personal person
0:10:12 personal god rather god is speaking as
0:10:15 one person
0:10:16 malachi 3 6 again
0:10:19 for i am the lord i change not therefore
0:10:22 you sons of jacob are not consumed
0:10:26 so in this particular verse god is
0:10:28 telling us that he does not
0:10:30 change it does not change his nature it
0:10:32 does not change the number of
0:10:34 his persons he does not jump into
0:10:36 different bodies rather
0:10:37 he is one god uh who is beyond
0:10:41 the heavens and the earth who transcends
0:10:43 our conceptions
0:10:44 right he is one he is one as an entity
0:10:48 he is one as a person he is one as a
0:10:50 being this is the impression we get from
0:10:53 the old testament
0:10:54 there is no mention of plurality of
0:10:56 persons anywhere in the old testament
0:10:58 now come to the new testament what do we
0:11:00 find in the new testament
0:11:02 i already stated the gospel of mark the
0:11:04 verse
0:11:05 from the gospel of mark chapter 12 29
0:11:07 where jesus
0:11:08 told the israelite who questioned him
0:11:11 about the most important commandment
0:11:13 and jesus said the most important one
0:11:15 answered jesus is
0:11:17 this hero israel the lord our god
0:11:20 the lord is one subhanallah
0:11:23 absolutely amazing so you cannot state
0:11:26 the doctrine of tawheed monotheism more
0:11:29 clearly
0:11:31 i wonder how christians ended up with a
0:11:34 plurality of persons
0:11:35 within godhead or how they divided god
0:11:38 who
0:11:39 who has been one who was one who is one
0:11:42 into three persons this is an absolute
0:11:45 phenomenon
0:11:46 this is amazing and it's fascinating how
0:11:49 christians ended up worshiping three
0:11:52 persons
0:11:52 in one being doesn't make sense while
0:11:55 jesus is categorically saying in the
0:11:56 gospel of mark chapter 12 verse 29
0:11:59 that the lord is one and he does not
0:12:02 include himself in that divinity he
0:12:05 didn't say to this jewish questioner
0:12:07 that i am god part of that lord
0:12:10 or part of that god or i am the third
0:12:13 person in the trinity
0:12:15 you have been worshiping one god all the
0:12:17 way
0:12:18 all your ancestors were worshiping one
0:12:22 god the israelites
0:12:23 in one person now that god has
0:12:26 manifested himself
0:12:27 in three persons and i am one of those
0:12:29 persons did jesus say any of that
0:12:31 no he didn't say any of that rather what
0:12:34 he's saying is the lord is
0:12:35 one there is only one god likewise
0:12:40 in the gospel of john chapter 17 verse 3
0:12:42 we see one of the most
0:12:44 problematic verses for the trinitarians
0:12:46 those who claim that god
0:12:49 consists of three persons god is one
0:12:52 being that consists of three persons
0:12:54 they have to face this verse on daily
0:12:57 basis
0:12:58 because it goes against the doctrine of
0:13:00 the trinity directly
0:13:01 now what does it state now this is
0:13:04 eternal life
0:13:05 that they know you the only true
0:13:09 god and jesus christ whom you have sent
0:13:13 so who is you here is the question and
0:13:15 who is speaking
0:13:16 allegedly this is jesus speaking in the
0:13:19 gospel of john chapter 17 verse 3
0:13:22 and jesus is saying that
0:13:25 so they that may know you who
0:13:29 uh the israelites so that the israelites
0:13:32 may
0:13:32 know you the only true god who is you
0:13:35 here
0:13:36 you does not include jesus christ
0:13:39 because he separates himself by saying
0:13:41 and
0:13:41 jesus christ whom you have sent
0:13:44 so this you is god of the heavens and
0:13:47 the earth
0:13:48 the creator of the heavens and the earth
0:13:50 who
0:13:51 jesus referred to allegedly in the new
0:13:53 testament as god the father
0:13:55 the father figure the creator so he's
0:13:58 talking about one god
0:14:00 the only true god and that does not
0:14:03 include jesus christ according to this
0:14:05 verse of the gospel of john
0:14:08 likewise in the same gospel chapter 4
0:14:12 verses 21 to 23
0:14:15 jesus tells the woman it is a samaritan
0:14:19 woman jesus is having a dialogue with
0:14:21 and he tells a woman
0:14:22 jesus replied believe me a time is
0:14:26 coming when you will worship the father
0:14:28 neither on this mountain nor in
0:14:30 jerusalem
0:14:31 in other words jesus is talking about
0:14:35 salvation through worshipping one god
0:14:37 who was called the father who was called
0:14:39 the father in the old testament
0:14:42 as well as the new testament jesus
0:14:44 himself called the father his god
0:14:46 okay and that can be seen in uh
0:14:50 in the gospel of john um
0:14:54 in near the end when jesus speaks
0:14:56 speaking to mary magdalene
0:14:58 he tells her that i ascend onto my
0:15:01 father
0:15:01 and to your father to my god and to your
0:15:04 god
0:15:04 so this is the language jesus was
0:15:06 speaking in the in the new testament
0:15:08 where he was telling the israelites who
0:15:10 were listening to him
0:15:11 that god is only one god and
0:15:15 jesus never said i am a person within
0:15:18 the trinity
0:15:19 or i am also god with god the father
0:15:22 equal with god the father never did
0:15:24 jesus say that to the contrary
0:15:26 jesus made statements like i
0:15:29 and uh for the father is greater than i
0:15:32 in another place jesus said father i and
0:15:35 the father are one
0:15:36 here is he means one in purpose
0:15:39 it doesn't mean uh we are one in being
0:15:42 rather he is saying one in purpose right
0:15:46 the father the creator of the heavens
0:15:48 and the earth
0:15:49 god sent jesus christ to do a particular
0:15:52 job so in that purpose
0:15:54 both of them were one but when jesus
0:15:57 said
0:15:57 the father is greater than i that means
0:16:00 he's talking about his status
0:16:03 jesus is below the father in authority
0:16:05 he's not core equal
0:16:06 this is again the new testament so there
0:16:09 are many verses like that
0:16:11 okay now there are many many places we
0:16:15 see
0:16:15 in the old testament where other
0:16:18 prophets
0:16:18 talked in similar language david praised
0:16:20 the lord in the presence of the whole
0:16:22 assembly saying praise
0:16:23 be to you lord the god of our father
0:16:25 israel from everlasting to everlasting
0:16:28 so you can see that the israelites
0:16:30 called god
0:16:31 our father not a biological father
0:16:35 rather in a spiritual sense because they
0:16:37 referred to god as the father because he
0:16:39 was the creator he was a fatherly figure
0:16:41 for the universe
0:16:43 that's why that title was given to god
0:16:45 almighty although we as muslims don't
0:16:47 use it today
0:16:48 because it can give the wrong impression
0:16:50 that's why people ended up
0:16:51 attributing sons to god almighty
0:16:54 because of this term the father so we
0:16:57 don't use these terms
0:16:58 the father terms like father
0:17:01 to refer to god almighty today as
0:17:04 muslims but in the old testament
0:17:06 it was used in that period it was used
0:17:09 for the creating father of the
0:17:11 of the heavens and the universe sorry or
0:17:14 the creator the creating father of the
0:17:17 universe
0:17:18 so the creator of the universe was
0:17:19 referred to as the father by the
0:17:21 israelites
0:17:22 uh to give that name to god almighty
0:17:26 then in isaiah 63 16 we are told it is
0:17:29 the father again
0:17:30 who is one person who the israelites
0:17:33 call
0:17:34 god okay and that is the creator again
0:17:37 but you are our father
0:17:38 though abraham does not know us or
0:17:40 israel acknowledge us
0:17:42 you lord are our father our redeemer
0:17:46 from uh from of old is your name
0:17:49 okay so the father is the title that was
0:17:52 used by jesus in the
0:17:54 new testament here as you can see jesus
0:17:57 is referring to god
0:17:58 as the father now this doesn't mean as a
0:18:01 biological father
0:18:02 rather it is a reference of being the
0:18:05 creator
0:18:06 the father is they called him the father
0:18:09 because he was the creator of the
0:18:10 heavens and the
0:18:11 earth like in john
0:18:14 2017 the verse i have already referred
0:18:16 to jesus said to mary magdalene
0:18:19 do not hold on to me for i have not yet
0:18:21 ascended to the father
0:18:22 go instead to my brothers and tell them
0:18:24 i am ascending
0:18:25 to my father and your father
0:18:29 to my god and your god here jesus is
0:18:31 calling
0:18:32 the father the creator his god so
0:18:36 jesus cannot be god by that virtue if
0:18:38 he's god
0:18:39 how can he have a god can god have a god
0:18:42 no
0:18:43 anyone with little intelligence will
0:18:45 tell you that god
0:18:47 himself is god he cannot have a god
0:18:49 because if he has a god then he is not
0:18:51 god himself
0:18:52 it contradicts god's nature to have god
0:18:55 because
0:18:56 there is only one god and jesus is
0:18:58 calling the father
0:19:00 the creator is god in the new testament
0:19:04 so the doctrine of the trinity is not in
0:19:07 the bible
0:19:08 this is confirmed by many many many many
0:19:11 christian
0:19:12 scholarly sources for example one of
0:19:15 them is the oxford companion to the
0:19:16 bible edited by bruce metzger who was a
0:19:19 believing christian scholar
0:19:21 who died believing in christianity
0:19:24 and even he uh in this particular
0:19:27 work uh stated that
0:19:31 the trinity cannot be found in uh the
0:19:34 bible
0:19:35 so uh the oxford companion to the bible
0:19:38 edited by bruce metzker one of the most
0:19:40 influential new testament scholars of
0:19:41 the 20th century
0:19:43 and containing entries from over 260
0:19:46 scholars
0:19:46 and academics from leading biblical
0:19:48 institutes and universities in america
0:19:50 and europe states
0:19:52 and this is the quote because the
0:19:54 trinity is such an
0:19:55 important part of later christian
0:19:57 doctrine
0:19:58 it is striking that the term does not
0:20:00 appear in the new testament
0:20:02 likewise the developed concept of three
0:20:04 co-equal partners in the godhead found
0:20:07 in later creedal formulations cannot be
0:20:09 clearly detected within
0:20:10 the confines of the canon so what bruce
0:20:13 metzger and his fellow scholars
0:20:15 are saying in this work the oxford
0:20:18 companion to the bible
0:20:20 is that the later idea which the
0:20:24 christians came up with
0:20:25 that that jesus and god the creator
0:20:29 who was called god the father are
0:20:31 co-equal
0:20:33 this later idea the christians came up
0:20:35 with that
0:20:36 jesus and god the father are co-equal
0:20:39 cannot be found in the bible this is
0:20:42 what he's saying
0:20:43 and other scholars are saying so where
0:20:45 did this idea come from is the question
0:20:48 this is the question we will address
0:20:49 inshallah in due course so stay with me
0:20:51 stay tuned you will find out where the
0:20:54 christians actually got this idea from
0:20:56 that jesus is core equal to god the
0:20:59 father
0:20:59 he is one of the persons in godhead
0:21:02 jesus is god
0:21:03 god the father is god and the holy
0:21:05 spirit is god
0:21:06 and all three are one and they are co
0:21:09 equal and co-eternal
0:21:11 this is a claim later christian church
0:21:13 fathers made
0:21:14 which cannot be found in the confines
0:21:18 of the canon in other words within the
0:21:21 bible
0:21:21 it cannot be found in the bible this is
0:21:24 what bruce metzger
0:21:25 and his fellow scholars stated in the
0:21:28 oxford companion to the bible
0:21:31 likewise the new catholic encyclopedia
0:21:34 explains that the doctrine of the
0:21:35 trinity is a product
0:21:37 of history developed over centuries
0:21:40 in other words it cannot be found in the
0:21:42 bible so what is the encyclopedia state
0:21:44 i quote
0:21:45 there is the recognition on the part of
0:21:47 exegetes
0:21:48 and biblical theologians including a
0:21:50 constantly growing number of roman
0:21:52 catholics
0:21:53 that one should not speak of
0:21:54 trinitarianism in the new testament
0:21:56 without
0:21:57 serious qualification there is also the
0:22:00 closely parallel
0:22:01 recognition on the part of historians of
0:22:03 dogma and systematic theologians
0:22:05 that when one does speak of an
0:22:07 unqualified trinitarianism
0:22:10 one has moved from the period of
0:22:12 christian origins
0:22:13 to say the last quadrant of the fourth
0:22:16 century
0:22:16 it was only then that what might be
0:22:19 called the definitive
0:22:20 trinitarian dogma one god in three
0:22:23 persons
0:22:24 became thoroughly assimilated into
0:22:26 christian life and thought
0:22:27 it was the product of three centuries of
0:22:29 doctrinal development
0:22:31 so what is this catholic encyclopedia
0:22:34 saying
0:22:35 written by catholics christians who
0:22:38 have this to say that the doctrine
0:22:42 that there is one god in three persons
0:22:45 was formulated in the fourth century it
0:22:48 only became
0:22:49 assimilated into christian life and
0:22:51 thought
0:22:52 after the 4th century or within the 4th
0:22:55 century
0:22:56 late 4th century for the first three
0:22:59 centuries
0:23:00 this idea was not fully accepted it
0:23:02 could not be found with all christians
0:23:04 in the christian world at the time so in
0:23:08 other words
0:23:08 it took christians nearly 400 years to
0:23:12 come up
0:23:12 with the current definition of the
0:23:16 doctrine of the trinity this is exactly
0:23:18 what this particular court says and i
0:23:21 want to read that part
0:23:22 it was only then that what might be
0:23:25 called the definitive trinitarian dogma
0:23:28 one god in three persons became
0:23:30 thoroughly assimilated into christian
0:23:31 life and thought
0:23:33 so they are talking about the scholars
0:23:35 the catholic scholars are saying in the
0:23:36 last
0:23:37 quadrant of the 4th century in other
0:23:39 words in the last 25 years
0:23:41 of the 4th century let's say 375
0:23:44 ce onwards this is when the doctrine of
0:23:48 the trinity
0:23:48 was defined as we know it today
0:23:52 amazing no so
0:23:55 what do the christians do now some of
0:23:57 the christian missionaries and
0:23:59 apologists
0:24:00 and some christian activists
0:24:03 they bring up certain verses from the
0:24:04 bible trying in vain
0:24:07 to prove the doctrine of the trinity
0:24:09 from the bible they try in vain
0:24:11 even though their top scholars have
0:24:13 already said the doctrine of the trinity
0:24:15 as
0:24:15 it is defined by the christians today
0:24:17 since the 4th century
0:24:19 cannot be found in the bible it is not
0:24:22 in the new testament
0:24:23 it is not in the old testament so what
0:24:25 do the christians do
0:24:26 in the desperate attempt they bring
0:24:29 verses like matthew 28 19.
0:24:32 and the verse goes as follows go
0:24:35 you therefore jesus telling his
0:24:36 disciples go you therefore
0:24:39 and teach all nations baptizing them in
0:24:42 the name of the father
0:24:43 and of the son and of the holy spirit
0:24:47 okay so they use this verse claiming
0:24:50 that here we have a trini trinity or
0:24:53 here we have a triadic
0:24:54 formula where the father the son and the
0:24:57 holy spirit are mentioned together and
0:25:00 this means they are ontologically the
0:25:02 same ontologically
0:25:04 the father the son and the holy spirit
0:25:06 must be the same in status for them to
0:25:08 be mentioned together as authorities
0:25:11 for people to be baptized in their name
0:25:14 so therefore this is the trinity
0:25:18 the classic trinity that was defined in
0:25:21 the last
0:25:21 quadrant in the last 25 years
0:25:24 of the fourth century okay
0:25:28 so this is what the christians claim
0:25:30 let's see what the scholars have to say
0:25:31 on that
0:25:32 the command to the disciples to baptize
0:25:34 in the name of the father and of the son
0:25:36 and the holy spirit is quite without
0:25:38 parallel in the new testament
0:25:40 elsewhere baptism is spoken was spoken
0:25:43 of as being
0:25:44 in or through the name of jesus for
0:25:46 example in acts
0:25:48 2 38 10 48 romans
0:25:51 6 3 1 corinthians 1 13 15
0:25:55 and 6 11 matthew's use of the threefold
0:25:59 name in bat baptism is a later
0:26:02 development which quickly became the
0:26:03 standard christian formulation
0:26:05 so graham stanton or graeme stanton
0:26:08 graham stanton in his book the gospels
0:26:11 and jesus
0:26:12 on page 74 had this to say he said this
0:26:15 is a later development in other words uh
0:26:19 this particular formula was added to the
0:26:21 book of matthew although
0:26:23 there is no uh evidence manuscript
0:26:25 evidence for this claim
0:26:27 but graham stanton he believes that
0:26:30 uh these things were added into
0:26:33 these gospels later on before the
0:26:36 manuscripts
0:26:37 were corrupted or before we find the
0:26:39 manuscripts basically the oldest
0:26:41 manuscript we have
0:26:42 of the uh of the new testament is from
0:26:44 the second century ce
0:26:45 so uh these editions or theological
0:26:49 editions were made
0:26:50 into the text before
0:26:53 we could find the manuscripts of the
0:26:56 bible or
0:26:57 before the earliest manuscripts of the
0:26:59 bible could be
0:27:00 found right so all of this was done
0:27:03 before
0:27:04 these particular manuscripts uh starting
0:27:06 from the second century onwards were
0:27:08 written
0:27:08 okay so even though let's say
0:27:12 even though the verse was written by
0:27:15 matthew
0:27:16 let's assume for a second uh for
0:27:18 argument's sake
0:27:20 the verse was written by matthew does it
0:27:23 still prove the doctrine of the trinity
0:27:24 it does not
0:27:26 it does not because mentioning three
0:27:28 entities together
0:27:30 does not make them equal point number
0:27:32 one okay
0:27:33 it doesn't make them equal it doesn't
0:27:35 say that
0:27:36 the son is god and the holy spirit is
0:27:39 god
0:27:40 with the father it doesn't mean that why
0:27:43 because we have other examples in the
0:27:45 new testament as you can see
0:27:47 where uh different entities are
0:27:49 mentioned together
0:27:50 with same authority but they are not
0:27:52 gods for example
0:27:54 for whosoever shall be shamed of me and
0:27:56 of my words
0:27:57 of him shall the son of man be ashamed
0:28:00 when he shall come in his glory and his
0:28:02 fathers
0:28:03 and of the holy angels right so here we
0:28:06 have jesus mentioned as the son of man
0:28:08 we have the father and the holy angels
0:28:10 no christian will
0:28:11 ever claim that the holy angels are god
0:28:15 so why do they claim in the gospel of
0:28:16 matthew when the father the son and the
0:28:18 holy spirit are mentioned together
0:28:20 as gods in one godhead or three persons
0:28:24 in one being of god why do they claim
0:28:27 that using this verse so they shouldn't
0:28:29 use this verse
0:28:30 especially when we have luke 9 26 and
0:28:33 first timothy 5 21 where
0:28:37 it is stated i charge thee before god
0:28:39 and the lord jesus christ and
0:28:41 the elect angels that thou observe these
0:28:44 things without preferring one before
0:28:46 another
0:28:46 doing nothing by partiality here
0:28:49 again three entities are mentioned
0:28:51 together
0:28:52 ontologically apparently ontologically
0:28:55 uh
0:28:56 same but they're not the same because
0:28:58 holy angels or elect angels
0:29:01 are never declared to be gods by the
0:29:04 christians
0:29:05 so why do we use the gospel of matthew
0:29:08 chapter 28 verse 19 in that way
0:29:10 when we have these verses in the text of
0:29:12 the new testament
0:29:13 also a thought for all the christians
0:29:18 also in first timothy 2 5 it is stated
0:29:22 for there is one god and one mediator
0:29:24 between god
0:29:25 and man the man jesus christ so even
0:29:27 paul
0:29:29 paul saint paul who is regarded very
0:29:32 highly
0:29:33 within the christian world because his
0:29:36 writings were then
0:29:37 later on seen as the word of god even
0:29:40 though he never claimed
0:29:41 to have been writing for god but later
0:29:44 christians they claimed that
0:29:45 paul's epistles his letters that can be
0:29:47 found in the new testament
0:29:49 are god's word even though
0:29:53 paul is writing his own thoughts so
0:29:56 was paul a trinitarian is the question
0:29:58 even
0:29:59 paul was not a trinitarian at best he
0:30:01 might be a binarian
0:30:03 not a trinitarian what does a binarian
0:30:06 mean a binarian is someone who believes
0:30:08 in god the father to be god and jesus to
0:30:10 be god
0:30:11 not the holy spirit okay firstly paul
0:30:14 was not even a binarian in that sense
0:30:17 because this verse as you can see
0:30:18 clearly
0:30:19 he considered jesus to be a man he
0:30:22 considered jesus to be a man and he
0:30:24 separated this man from god
0:30:26 as he said for there is one god and
0:30:29 one mediator between god and men the man
0:30:33 jesus christ okay so if paul believes
0:30:36 jesus is god
0:30:37 he would not separate him from god in
0:30:39 this verse okay
0:30:41 he would be saying for there is one god
0:30:44 and one mediator between god and men
0:30:47 right
0:30:48 so if god was jesus to paul
0:30:51 he would not say the man jesus christ he
0:30:53 would say the god jesus christ
0:30:55 okay so for there is one god and one
0:30:58 mediator between god and men
0:31:00 the god jesus christ no he calls him the
0:31:03 man jesus christ and god is someone else
0:31:05 god is separate so here paul's binary
0:31:10 you know is even the binary is not
0:31:13 visible some people claim that he did
0:31:15 believe jesus to be god
0:31:16 which is highly questionable but this
0:31:19 verse is a huge problem for them
0:31:21 the verse in 1st timothy chapter 2 verse
0:31:23 5.
0:31:24 we proceed again paul states in
0:31:28 first timothy chapter 6 verse 13 i give
0:31:31 you charge in the sight of god who
0:31:34 quickeneth
0:31:35 all things and before christ jesus who
0:31:38 before pontius pilate witnessed a good
0:31:40 confession
0:31:41 right again paul is separating jesus
0:31:44 christ
0:31:44 from god he's not saying jesus is god
0:31:47 but god is someone else
0:31:49 god is someone else to paul and jesus
0:31:51 christ is a separate
0:31:53 person he's not god right this is
0:31:55 clearly stated in these verses
0:31:57 so what people do is some of the
0:31:59 christian missionaries
0:32:00 and christian activists they ignore
0:32:03 these categorical verses
0:32:05 they ignore these explicit verses that
0:32:08 clearly state that
0:32:09 paul did not believe in the divinity of
0:32:12 jesus christ he did not
0:32:14 believe jesus was god what they do is
0:32:16 they bring vague verses
0:32:17 found in the writings of paul to claim
0:32:20 that paul believed
0:32:21 jesus to be god so they ignore
0:32:24 clear verses explicit verses
0:32:27 categorical verses and they bring vague
0:32:29 verses to argue their case
0:32:32 so what do the scholars have to say
0:32:34 about paul's view on
0:32:36 divinity scholars recognize that the
0:32:38 reverence for christ
0:32:39 reflected in paul's letters amounts to a
0:32:41 notable pattern
0:32:42 of beliefs and devotional practices for
0:32:45 which we have no real parallel
0:32:46 in roman era jewish tradition so in
0:32:49 other words paul was breaking away from
0:32:51 the jewish
0:32:52 tradition of that time some scholars
0:32:55 conclude
0:32:56 that we can speak of a novel by natarian
0:32:59 devotional pattern evident in the
0:33:01 pauline letters
0:33:03 christ included with god as a recipient
0:33:05 of devotion
0:33:06 in early christian circles albeit christ
0:33:08 always functionally subordinate
0:33:10 to god the father but some other
0:33:12 scholars contend that this
0:33:13 is an exaggeration of things and that
0:33:15 the reverence of christ in paul
0:33:17 though impressive does not amount to
0:33:19 worship and was not then seen as quite
0:33:21 the innovation
0:33:22 in monotheistic commitment that is
0:33:24 alleged by other scholars
0:33:26 in either view however the devotion to
0:33:28 christ manifest
0:33:29 in paul's letters is a major development
0:33:31 in religious history
0:33:33 so there are two groups of scholars one
0:33:35 group says
0:33:36 paul had binarian
0:33:40 devotional tendencies towards jesus
0:33:42 christ and god the father
0:33:44 in other words those scholars claim that
0:33:48 paul considered jesus to be some sort of
0:33:52 god if not like god the father but some
0:33:55 sort of god
0:33:56 right but other scholars say no that's
0:33:58 an exaggeration
0:33:59 paul did not believe that because there
0:34:01 are plenty of verses from paul
0:34:03 where paul is clearly separating jesus
0:34:05 christ from god
0:34:06 so paul did not believe jesus to be god
0:34:09 right so these debates are taking place
0:34:10 but it's clear that paul was not a
0:34:12 trinitarian the holy spirit is not to be
0:34:14 seen anywhere in equation
0:34:16 when it comes to paul's devotion to god
0:34:18 or to the divinity
0:34:22 so you see how did paul end up
0:34:26 with uh you know that binary if he did
0:34:30 let's say we assume that paul was
0:34:32 abanitarian even though
0:34:34 the evidence points to the opposite
0:34:36 direction
0:34:37 uh even if we were to accept paul was a
0:34:40 binarian
0:34:41 where was he getting divinity from where
0:34:43 was he getting
0:34:44 the divinity of jesus christ from there
0:34:47 are many many examples
0:34:49 in antiquity in the roman period when
0:34:51 paul himself was living
0:34:53 okay where people gave divine
0:34:57 attributes to humans or
0:35:00 to emperors to philosophers for example
0:35:03 as we can see here on the screen there
0:35:06 are some examples
0:35:08 liatus the pagan author of the lives of
0:35:10 the philosopher
0:35:11 writes of a number of philosophers as
0:35:13 being sons of god
0:35:15 plato was described as being of divine
0:35:18 parentage and so was pythagoras
0:35:21 who was supposed to be the incarnate son
0:35:24 of the god hermes
0:35:26 and pedophilies was also alleged to be
0:35:29 an immortal
0:35:30 god who healed the sick and his
0:35:32 followers worshipped him and
0:35:33 prayed to him plutarch regards it
0:35:36 as beyond alexander as beyond that
0:35:40 alexander the great was of divine
0:35:41 descent
0:35:42 and romulus the legendary ancestor of
0:35:45 the romans was the son of mars the god
0:35:48 of war
0:35:49 he was supposed to have been raised to
0:35:51 heaven in a cloud
0:35:52 and inscription of 48 bc and in
0:35:55 scripture of what he had bc refers to
0:35:57 julius caesar as god manifest offspring
0:35:59 of aries
0:36:00 and aphrodite and common savior human
0:36:02 life
0:36:03 another inscription referring to
0:36:04 augustus caesar says the emperor caesar
0:36:07 son of god
0:36:08 called augustus overseer of land and sea
0:36:11 so it wouldn't be surprising for someone
0:36:14 like paul
0:36:15 who was living uh in
0:36:18 antiquity during the roman period
0:36:21 for him to start believing that jesus
0:36:24 was some sort of divine person who was
0:36:26 the son of god
0:36:27 who was the son of god the father right
0:36:29 so it wouldn't be surprising
0:36:31 even if paul came to believe in the
0:36:34 divinity of jesus christ in some form
0:36:36 it wouldn't be surprising it wouldn't be
0:36:38 shocking look looking at other
0:36:39 precedents
0:36:40 in antiquity especially during the roman
0:36:43 period the romans
0:36:45 were very very
0:36:48 easy with this concept the concept of
0:36:51 attributing
0:36:52 divinities to special people like
0:36:54 philosophers like kings like emperors
0:36:57 like generals like conquerors for
0:36:59 example as you can see
0:37:01 here on the screen there are so many
0:37:03 examples
0:37:04 where people were given given divine
0:37:07 attributes and titles by romans
0:37:09 so paul who was living through uh roman
0:37:13 period or living within
0:37:14 the roman territory was a roman citizen
0:37:17 possibly to attract
0:37:19 the romans who were pagans to attract
0:37:22 them to christianity
0:37:23 he might have given them this concept of
0:37:26 jesus the son of god
0:37:28 it wouldn't be surprising at all and
0:37:30 then
0:37:31 jesus the son of god became god almighty
0:37:34 himself later on
0:37:35 he was turned into god equal to god the
0:37:37 father the creator
0:37:39 this is how gradually jesus christ
0:37:42 became
0:37:42 god equal to god the father god the
0:37:45 creator
0:37:48 now how did we get the trinity is the
0:37:50 question
0:37:51 is a very good question now it's clear
0:37:53 that the doctrine of the trinity cannot
0:37:54 be found
0:37:55 in the bible it is not in the new
0:37:57 testament
0:37:58 as confirmed by christian scholars
0:38:00 themselves it is not in the old
0:38:02 testament
0:38:03 again confirmed by christians christian
0:38:05 scholars themselves
0:38:06 quran condemns it okay quran
0:38:11 rebukes the doctrine of the trinity
0:38:12 quran criticizes the doctrine of the
0:38:15 trinity chapter 4 verse
0:38:17 verse 171 and chapter 5 verses 72
0:38:21 to 74 right where did the christians get
0:38:24 this idea from
0:38:26 that jesus is god the holy spirit is god
0:38:29 and god the father is god all three of
0:38:32 these people all three persons are one
0:38:34 god not three gods but one god
0:38:37 because they all share a being they are
0:38:40 one in being
0:38:41 but they manifest uh this being in three
0:38:44 persons so they they are divided into
0:38:46 three persons
0:38:47 right they are one but they are three
0:38:50 persons
0:38:51 it's very it's a big mystery as the
0:38:53 christians themselves say
0:38:54 how did they come to believe in this
0:38:56 idea is a phenomenon is fascinating
0:39:00 and we will see now how the christians
0:39:02 ended up with this doctrine the doctrine
0:39:04 is a later development
0:39:06 the later history of the christian
0:39:07 doctrine of the trinity has been
0:39:08 constantly
0:39:09 re-examined and we cannot enter into the
0:39:12 detail of its development
0:39:14 these will be found in histories of
0:39:16 christian doctrine
0:39:17 but we must give some impression of the
0:39:19 influence of philosophy
0:39:21 on this process and here we need to
0:39:23 consider three representatives
0:39:25 group groups of thinkers the christian
0:39:28 platoonists from justin to eusebius
0:39:31 athanasius and the capitalistic fathers
0:39:33 and augustine and his successors
0:39:35 so i want to simplify this this is a
0:39:37 quote taken from christian
0:39:39 christopher's tent you can see the
0:39:41 reference on the screen
0:39:43 in red at the bottom of the text
0:39:45 christopher stead
0:39:46 the book is philosophy and christian
0:39:48 antiquity page
0:39:49 155 256. so this quote
0:39:53 is taken from christopher stead's book
0:39:56 philosophy
0:39:57 in christian antiquity here christopher
0:40:00 said is saying
0:40:01 that philosophy greek philosophy had a
0:40:03 direct
0:40:04 impact on early christian thinking which
0:40:07 was essentially
0:40:08 israelite in his outlook on scripture so
0:40:12 early christians were
0:40:14 israelites they were jewish later on
0:40:17 some gentiles
0:40:18 non-jews they became christians and they
0:40:21 started to
0:40:23 add the ideas in to this israelite
0:40:26 religion this israelite idea preached by
0:40:30 an israelite
0:40:30 prophet right and greek philosophy was
0:40:34 used
0:40:35 to justify the doctrine of the trinity
0:40:38 because the trinity was a common
0:40:40 occurrence
0:40:41 among pagan philosophers pagan thinkers
0:40:45 living throughout the roman empire or
0:40:47 throughout the roman period
0:40:49 as i've already clearly highlighted
0:40:52 so greek philosophy had no problems
0:40:56 with uh plurality of gods
0:40:59 because this is what the greeks believed
0:41:00 they believed in a plurality of gods
0:41:03 there were different gods they worshiped
0:41:04 like apollo jupiter manova
0:41:07 okay mithras aphrodite
0:41:10 aphrodite and all these gods were
0:41:12 worshiped
0:41:13 by the greeks and later on the romans
0:41:17 so this notion of the trinity okay
0:41:21 one god having sons and children who
0:41:23 were also divine in some form
0:41:25 was not uh anathema at that time
0:41:29 it wasn't shocking so christopher study
0:41:31 saying greek philosophy influenced
0:41:33 the christian thought and then we ended
0:41:35 up with the doctrine of the trinity
0:41:37 the first school i mean he divides the
0:41:39 period or he divides the the groups into
0:41:41 three
0:41:42 these christian philosophers by the way
0:41:44 christian thinkers he divides them into
0:41:46 three categories christian platinus from
0:41:48 justin to eusebius
0:41:49 this is the earlier group then came
0:41:51 another group led by athinasius and the
0:41:54 kavadoshian fathers and then later on
0:41:56 another group of christian thinkers came
0:41:59 and they were led by augustine and his
0:42:01 successors so all of them
0:42:03 these thinkers were christian
0:42:04 philosophers and they used greek
0:42:06 philosophy to justify the doctrine of
0:42:08 the trinity
0:42:09 not the scripture necessarily not the
0:42:12 old testament and the new testament
0:42:14 rather the greek philosophy was used to
0:42:17 justify the doctrine of the trinity
0:42:20 so the first school are much interested
0:42:23 in the relationship between god and his
0:42:25 logos
0:42:26 which they interpret with the help of
0:42:28 their platonic studies in other words
0:42:31 greek philosophy this made it natural
0:42:34 to bridge the gap between the pure unity
0:42:36 of god and the manifold
0:42:38 events of the natural world by naming
0:42:42 the logos as as its proximate creator
0:42:45 and controller
0:42:47 okay so they used this greek
0:42:50 philosophical idea of logos
0:42:52 to interpret jesus as a
0:42:56 approximate creator and controller with
0:42:58 god the father
0:42:59 that's what christopher i mean i i'm
0:43:01 sorry if it's getting complicated
0:43:03 but this is very important for you to
0:43:04 understand because this is a high level
0:43:06 academic webinar
0:43:07 we are going through academic sources
0:43:10 academic points
0:43:11 academic ideas so that you can actually
0:43:13 understand what happened how did the
0:43:14 christians end up with the doctrine of
0:43:16 the trinity and there are some academic
0:43:17 details which we
0:43:18 must cover i want to put it simply
0:43:22 it was the greek philosophy that
0:43:24 influenced early christian thinkers in
0:43:26 the second third and fourth century
0:43:28 that gave them the doctrine of the
0:43:29 trinity okay
0:43:31 also christopher christopher stead
0:43:33 states belief in the holy spirit is
0:43:36 upheld by a church tradition founded in
0:43:37 the bible of course
0:43:39 but failing clear guidance from the
0:43:41 philosophers his origin and function are
0:43:43 much less clearly worked out
0:43:45 and sometimes he almost disappears
0:43:46 behind the logos so that historians of
0:43:49 doctrine can speak of a binary in
0:43:51 tendency in the second century
0:43:52 so what christopher stud is saying here
0:43:54 is that um
0:43:56 jesus was attached to god the creator
0:43:59 who was also called
0:44:00 god the father in some sort of divinity
0:44:04 okay with some sort of divine nature
0:44:07 right some sort of divine nature were
0:44:09 assumed on the part of jesus christ
0:44:11 and it was claimed that he is divine in
0:44:13 some sense
0:44:15 by early philosophers christian
0:44:17 philosophers
0:44:18 but the holy spirit was not in the
0:44:20 equation yet
0:44:22 the holy spirit was not fully discussed
0:44:24 not fully and
0:44:25 understood that's why after the second
0:44:27 and third century
0:44:29 christians had binarian tendencies
0:44:32 they were taught they were talking about
0:44:34 god the father the creator and his son
0:44:36 jesus christ the logos
0:44:38 also called the logos and his
0:44:40 relationship with the father
0:44:41 so a lot of these greek platonic
0:44:43 thinkers
0:44:44 who happen to be christians they started
0:44:46 to use the greek philosophy
0:44:48 to give divine attributes to jesus
0:44:51 christ
0:44:52 and they started to assume some sort of
0:44:55 divinity on his part
0:44:57 but the holy spirit is still undecided
0:45:01 not clear don't know what the holy
0:45:03 spirit is
0:45:05 yet they don't fully know by the second
0:45:08 and the third century
0:45:10 then instead con continues
0:45:13 stating early in the next century both
0:45:15 tertullian and origin origen
0:45:17 insist on his importance and distinct
0:45:20 reality but a remarkable survival of the
0:45:22 older view is found
0:45:24 in athenaesius's the incarnation
0:45:28 no less where there is no mention of the
0:45:30 holy spirit until the final doxology
0:45:32 so what stud is saying that as late as
0:45:34 the time of tertullian who was a
0:45:36 early christian church father in the
0:45:38 late second century cen origen who was a
0:45:40 third
0:45:41 century christian church father there is
0:45:43 still no clarity on the holy spirit
0:45:48 even john henry newman later on
0:45:51 you know in the 19th century he was a
0:45:53 catholic cardinal
0:45:54 a very very well-known man a well-known
0:45:58 catholic
0:45:59 leader in victorian england he stated in
0:46:02 his book discussions and arguments on
0:46:04 various subjects
0:46:05 1899 page 114
0:46:09 he stated thus for instance a person who
0:46:11 denies the apostolic
0:46:12 succession of the ministry because it is
0:46:15 not clearly taught in scripture ought
0:46:17 i conceive if consistent to deny the
0:46:20 divinity of the holy spirit
0:46:21 which is nowhere literally stated in
0:46:23 scripture so what is john henry newman
0:46:25 saying here let me explain very quickly
0:46:28 he is a catholic cardinal i'm saying
0:46:31 previously as you saw up to the third
0:46:32 century the status of the holy spirit
0:46:34 is not clear even though some people had
0:46:37 started to believe
0:46:39 in the divinity of jesus christ in some
0:46:41 form
0:46:42 in some degree right
0:46:45 even though he's still not given the
0:46:47 status of being equal to god the father
0:46:49 in other words god the creator
0:46:51 he hasn't been given that status yet
0:46:54 that will come later
0:46:55 but some people because of greek
0:46:57 philosophy and
0:46:58 christian platonism had already started
0:47:01 to believe
0:47:02 in some form of divine nature of jesus
0:47:06 christ
0:47:07 okay even though he was still seen as a
0:47:09 subordinate of god the father he was
0:47:11 below god the father but he was still
0:47:13 divine in some sense
0:47:15 but the status of holy the holy spirit
0:47:17 was not clear
0:47:18 in the third century you know why
0:47:20 because these things were not stated in
0:47:22 the bible
0:47:23 anywhere they were not stated in the
0:47:25 bible anywhere that's why
0:47:26 catholics later on people like john
0:47:29 henry newman
0:47:30 you know when they had to face criticism
0:47:33 uh by protestants okay what were the
0:47:36 protestants
0:47:38 saying to the catholics after the
0:47:39 reformation they were saying
0:47:41 that your apostolic succession of the
0:47:44 ministry
0:47:45 cannot be found anywhere in the bible we
0:47:48 do not find
0:47:50 uh the evidence for papacy and having an
0:47:53 establishment like papacy
0:47:55 or infallibility of the pope things like
0:47:57 that
0:47:58 that the pope represents the apostles of
0:48:01 jesus christ
0:48:02 or the pope is the voice of god on earth
0:48:05 or the pope is an apostolic successor
0:48:09 we do not find ideas like that in the
0:48:11 bible so john henry newman
0:48:13 who was actually a catholic
0:48:16 defending apostolic succession of the
0:48:19 ministry
0:48:20 he stated thus for instance a person who
0:48:22 denies the apostolic succession of the
0:48:24 ministry
0:48:25 because it is not clearly taught in the
0:48:27 scripture or i conceive
0:48:29 if consistent to deny the divinity of
0:48:31 the holy spirit which is nowhere
0:48:32 literally stated in scripture
0:48:34 so newman is saying
0:48:37 that just because we believe in the
0:48:40 divinity of the holy ghost or the holy
0:48:42 spirit
0:48:44 just like that we must believe in the
0:48:46 apostolic succession of the ministry
0:48:48 because both of them are not mentioned
0:48:50 in the scripture
0:48:52 the holy spirit is not mentioned as god
0:48:54 anywhere in the holy scripture and yet
0:48:56 we the catholics and the protestants
0:48:58 believe
0:48:59 in the divinity of the holy spirit and
0:49:01 it is not stated anywhere clearly
0:49:04 in the bible so when you believe in the
0:49:07 holy spirit
0:49:08 and its divinity then you must also
0:49:11 believe
0:49:11 in the notion of the apostolical
0:49:13 succession of the ministry of
0:49:16 the pope in other words or the papacy
0:49:19 right so newman is in other words
0:49:23 indirectly saying that the divinity of
0:49:26 the holy ghost or the holy spirit
0:49:27 is not stated in the bible
0:49:31 now going back to the third century
0:49:33 origen who has been mentioned earlier as
0:49:36 one of the most learned men in christian
0:49:39 history in the third century
0:49:40 you know what he had to say about say
0:49:42 about the holy spirit now this is the
0:49:44 third century
0:49:45 if the trinity was in the bible it
0:49:48 if the doctrine of the trinity was
0:49:50 clearly stated in the bible
0:49:51 why are the christian church fathers as
0:49:54 late as the third century ce
0:49:57 nearly 250 years after jesus
0:50:00 parted this world okay jesus parted from
0:50:04 this world
0:50:05 somewhere around 30 ce people estimate
0:50:07 right
0:50:08 and nearly 250 years later origen is
0:50:11 writing in
0:50:12 palestine and he's writing the apostles
0:50:15 related that the holy spirit was
0:50:16 associated in honor and dignity with the
0:50:18 father and the son
0:50:20 but in his case it is not clearly
0:50:22 distinguished whether he
0:50:23 is to be regarded as generate or in
0:50:26 generate
0:50:27 or also as a son of god or not
0:50:30 for these are points which have to be
0:50:32 inquired
0:50:33 into art of sacred scripture according
0:50:35 to the best of our ability
0:50:37 and which demand careful investigation
0:50:40 and that
0:50:41 this spirit inspired each one of the
0:50:43 saints whether prophets or apostles
0:50:45 and that there are there was not one
0:50:48 spirit in the men of the old
0:50:50 dispensation and another in those who
0:50:53 were inspired at the advent of christ
0:50:56 is most clearly taught throughout the
0:50:59 church
0:51:00 so what is origin stating in his
0:51:03 work on first principles this quote has
0:51:06 been taken
0:51:07 from the book of origin
0:51:10 titled on first principles he writes
0:51:14 here that the holy spirit
0:51:17 the status of it is unknown we don't
0:51:19 know what it is
0:51:20 we still have to um
0:51:24 inquire into out of sacred scripture
0:51:26 according to the best of our ability to
0:51:28 understand
0:51:29 the status the nature and the role of
0:51:31 the holy spirit
0:51:33 which was called god by christians later
0:51:36 on in the 4th century
0:51:38 in the same sense as god the father and
0:51:42 later on jesus was also called god in
0:51:44 the same sense
0:51:45 as god the father so all three persons
0:51:48 even though their status was not
0:51:50 clearly stated in the bible right
0:51:52 especially
0:51:54 the holy spirit they were put on par
0:51:56 with each other god the father the
0:51:58 creator of the heavens and the earth
0:52:00 was put equal to god the son who is
0:52:03 jesus christ and then god the holy
0:52:05 spirit
0:52:06 uh in the fourth century and by
0:52:09 the mid-third century scholars like
0:52:11 origen are still
0:52:12 arguing that we don't yet know fully as
0:52:15 to who
0:52:16 the holy spirit is so christians have
0:52:18 been reading the bible for nearly 200
0:52:20 years
0:52:21 and they still don't understand the
0:52:23 status of the holy scripture
0:52:25 how can they possibly give divinity
0:52:28 or the divine status to the holy spirit
0:52:30 without knowing what it is
0:52:32 without knowing the details of it this
0:52:34 is a question
0:52:36 that really baffles me allahu akbar
0:52:40 now varying views on the holy spirit we
0:52:42 have talked about god the father who is
0:52:45 the true god
0:52:46 of the old testament and the new
0:52:48 testament according to the words of
0:52:49 jesus christ of course
0:52:51 we have talked about them now we're
0:52:53 talking about the holy spirit and its
0:52:54 status
0:52:55 and see whether the holy spirit was ever
0:52:58 called god
0:52:59 in the old testament or the new
0:53:00 testament and if it was not called god
0:53:03 why was it given the divine status later
0:53:06 on in the fourth century
0:53:07 which we we can find in the definition
0:53:10 of the doctrine of the trinity
0:53:12 so in 380 as late as 380 ce
0:53:16 nearly 350 years after jesus christ
0:53:20 nearly 350 years after jesus christ had
0:53:24 gone gregory of nazianzus in a sermon
0:53:27 gave an illuminating picture of the wide
0:53:29 variety of views
0:53:30 which still held the field he reports
0:53:34 some consider holy spirit to be a force
0:53:36 others a creature
0:53:38 others god others making the vagueness
0:53:40 of scripture the excuse declined to
0:53:42 commit
0:53:43 themselves of those who acknowledge
0:53:45 deity some
0:53:46 keep it as a pious opinion to themselves
0:53:48 others proclaim it openly and yet others
0:53:51 seem to postulate three persons
0:53:53 possessing deity in different degrees so
0:53:55 here
0:53:56 gregory answers in the 4th century is
0:53:59 saying
0:53:59 that the status of the holy spirit is
0:54:01 still not clear to christians
0:54:03 they have differing views on the holy
0:54:05 spirit so if the bible was so
0:54:06 categorical as the bible thumpers
0:54:09 and the bible bashers or the christian
0:54:12 missionaries or christian apologists
0:54:15 and christian debaters claim that the
0:54:16 bible is categorically clear on the
0:54:19 trinity
0:54:20 the trinity is there we can read it they
0:54:22 are reading the trinity
0:54:24 into it it is not there what they're
0:54:26 doing is israelis not exegesis
0:54:28 they are reading an idea into the text
0:54:31 they're not
0:54:32 reading the text and taking ideas from
0:54:35 the text
0:54:35 rather they have an idea in their mind
0:54:38 which is the doctrine of the trinity and
0:54:39 they are reading it
0:54:40 into the text and they are insisting for
0:54:44 centuries
0:54:45 even though the early christians for the
0:54:48 first 400 years
0:54:49 had no idea how to reconcile these ideas
0:54:53 with the scripture the ideas they had
0:54:56 come to believe in
0:54:57 so brothers and sisters we will be
0:54:59 writing a very detailed paper on this
0:55:01 very topic
0:55:02 the paper is forthcoming it will be
0:55:04 published by sapiens institute inshallah
0:55:07 remember to read that paper the same
0:55:10 topic will be addressed
0:55:11 in the paper with all the references so
0:55:13 that you can go and check these
0:55:14 references
0:55:16 or the ideas we are presenting in this
0:55:18 webinar so the paper is
0:55:20 forthcoming inshallah in due course in
0:55:22 the coming weeks or months
0:55:23 inshallah the paper will also will be
0:55:26 with you
0:55:27 it is a research paper on the same topic
0:55:30 uh
0:55:30 the doctrine of the bible the doctrine
0:55:32 of the trinity man-made or divinely
0:55:35 stipulated
0:55:36 the doctrine of the trinity man-made or
0:55:38 divinely stipulated
0:55:40 is the idea is the topic of the paper
0:55:43 and please do not forget to get your
0:55:45 hands on that paper once
0:55:47 it is issued
0:55:50 likewise another church father called
0:55:52 basil of caesarea
0:55:54 uh he had this to say and this quote is
0:55:58 taken from stewart g hall's doctrine and
0:56:01 practice
0:56:02 in the early church on page 158
0:56:05 the classic idea of the core substantial
0:56:07 trinity obviously entails the deity of
0:56:09 the holy spirit
0:56:10 of the same substance as the father and
0:56:11 the son
0:56:13 this was apparently an advance on what
0:56:15 had been defined before even at nicaea
0:56:18 and was recognized
0:56:19 as in a sense a development of doctrine
0:56:23 and this he he refers to gregory of
0:56:25 nazianzus the one we just read
0:56:27 but it was necessary to persuade many
0:56:29 who felt it went too far
0:56:31 okay so here um
0:56:35 steven g hall is saying that this idea
0:56:39 okay uh was
0:56:42 an extension okay it
0:56:45 obviously entails the idea of the
0:56:47 trinity it entails the deity of the holy
0:56:49 spirit
0:56:50 which could not be found anywhere in the
0:56:52 scripture okay
0:56:54 but the church fathers later on they
0:56:56 insisted
0:56:57 that this this idea should be added into
0:56:59 the trinity
0:57:01 now he continues steven g hall continues
0:57:06 telling us he status of sebasti
0:57:09 an early friend of basil and associate
0:57:12 in his monastic enterprise was
0:57:13 metropolitan of the neighboring province
0:57:15 but he was a leader perhaps the leader
0:57:17 of
0:57:19 pneuma tamaki and it must be a group of
0:57:23 christians
0:57:24 and basil tried hard to contain him and
0:57:27 is like within the orthodox camp
0:57:29 it is therefore notable that while
0:57:31 adopting formula and language with
0:57:33 plainly
0:57:34 which plainly imply the core substantial
0:57:36 trinity
0:57:37 basil does not write of the holy spirit
0:57:39 as god or as a co-substantial with the
0:57:41 father
0:57:42 so in a letter asserting the one essence
0:57:45 he concludes god the father and god the
0:57:47 son but the divine holy spirit
0:57:49 he does not want to expose his case to
0:57:51 to the retort
0:57:52 that it adds unbiblical titles titles to
0:57:55 the spirit
0:57:56 though there can be no doubt about what
0:57:59 he believes
0:58:00 right so in other words david g hall is
0:58:02 referring to one of the writings of
0:58:03 basil of caesarea who was a trinitarian
0:58:06 but even he didn't have
0:58:08 the guts and the courage to give
0:58:11 the title of god to the holy spirit even
0:58:14 in the fourth century
0:58:15 even in the fourth century basil of
0:58:17 caesarea in his writings could not refer
0:58:19 to the holy spirit as god but rather he
0:58:22 called the holy spirit the divine holy
0:58:24 spirit
0:58:25 right so the christians unfortunately
0:58:29 christian church fathers christian
0:58:31 philosophers christian thinkers
0:58:33 were wrestling with these ideas that
0:58:36 were imposed upon them by the greek
0:58:38 philosophy
0:58:39 and they tried to justify these alien
0:58:41 ideas
0:58:42 from the bible and in the process they
0:58:45 interpreted
0:58:46 misinterpreted and misinterpreted the
0:58:48 misinterpretations
0:58:50 to get the ideas they came up with and
0:58:53 lo and behold the final product was
0:58:56 the equality of the father the son and
0:58:58 the holy spirit
0:58:59 in other words the doctrine of the
0:59:00 trinity
0:59:02 even the creator and i see as you can
0:59:04 see it on the screen was
0:59:05 essentially binarian because the
0:59:07 discussion that happened in
0:59:09 uh the council of nicaea that took place
0:59:12 now
0:59:12 there were many church councils remember
0:59:15 when these disputes arose among
0:59:17 christian thinkers
0:59:18 whether the holy spirit is god or not
0:59:20 whether jesus christ is god or not and
0:59:23 if he's god
0:59:24 what sense is he i mean what kind of
0:59:26 divine personality is he
0:59:28 what kind of status does he have what is
0:59:31 his relationship
0:59:32 with the father the creator of the
0:59:33 heavens and the earth so if jesus christ
0:59:35 is god
0:59:36 what type of god is he how far does his
0:59:38 divinity go these ideas were wrestled
0:59:40 with by christian platonist
0:59:42 christian greek philosophers for
0:59:43 centuries who happen to be the christian
0:59:45 church fathers at the same time
0:59:47 so these ideas were wrestled with these
0:59:50 ideas were talked and discussed
0:59:52 and and then they were put to
0:59:55 christian church councils what would
0:59:57 happen in these councils
0:59:59 bishops from around the christian world
1:00:01 would get together to discuss these
1:00:03 doctrinal issues
1:00:04 and then they would formulate a
1:00:06 conclusion
1:00:07 and this conclusion would be binding
1:00:09 upon
1:00:11 all all participants and this is exactly
1:00:14 what
1:00:15 was attempted in the council of nicaea
1:00:18 which took place
1:00:19 in the year 325 ce and emperor
1:00:22 constantine
1:00:23 the roman emperor himself was present in
1:00:25 the proceedings
1:00:26 of this council and the findings of
1:00:29 these council
1:00:31 the findings of this council were
1:00:34 binarian
1:00:34 so jesus christ was declared to be god
1:00:37 like god the father for example we
1:00:39 believe in one god
1:00:40 this was the conclusion this was the
1:00:42 creed of nicea
1:00:44 the conclusion of that particular
1:00:46 council which was held between
1:00:48 318 christian bishops although the
1:00:51 majority of them did not agree with this
1:00:53 formulation
1:00:54 they were forced to accept it by the
1:00:57 roman emperor
1:00:58 constantine so most christians who
1:01:00 accepted
1:01:02 the the conclusion or the creed of
1:01:04 nicaea
1:01:05 they were forced to accept it by the
1:01:07 roman emperor
1:01:08 at the time who was constantine the
1:01:10 great
1:01:12 so what was the creed we believe in one
1:01:15 god
1:01:16 the father almighty maker of all things
1:01:19 visible and invisible
1:01:21 and in one lord jesus christ the son of
1:01:23 god begotten from the father only
1:01:25 begotten
1:01:26 that is from the substance of the father
1:01:28 god from god
1:01:29 light from light true god from true god
1:01:31 begotten not made
1:01:33 so in other words here jesus christ was
1:01:37 given the same
1:01:38 status as god the father the creator of
1:01:40 the heavens and the earth
1:01:41 and even though the majority of the
1:01:43 bishops did not agree with this
1:01:44 formulation
1:01:45 they were forced to accept the view of
1:01:47 the minority
1:01:49 people like athanasius athenaeus was a
1:01:51 church father who was present in this
1:01:53 council
1:01:53 this was his view and majority was
1:01:56 forced to accept
1:01:57 this view on gunpoint or on sort
1:02:01 on on on the tip of sword basically
1:02:03 right
1:02:04 so this is how the creed of nicaea was
1:02:07 formulated but even this creed
1:02:09 did not regard the holy spirit as god
1:02:13 so even the creed of nicea is not
1:02:15 trinitarian
1:02:16 strictly speaking it is a binarian's
1:02:18 creed
1:02:20 and today all christians they profess
1:02:23 belief in this creed
1:02:25 they profess believe in this creed which
1:02:27 was
1:02:28 forced upon the christian bishops at the
1:02:30 time present
1:02:31 in this council so when you see the
1:02:35 the the last sentence of the first
1:02:37 paragraph of the creed
1:02:39 it says and will come to judge the
1:02:41 living and the dead
1:02:42 and in the holy spirit so we believe in
1:02:44 the holy spirit
1:02:46 what is the holy spirit god man
1:02:49 spirit what is it no clarity no clarity
1:02:53 and this clarity came about very very
1:02:56 late
1:02:57 50 years later after the creed of nicea
1:03:02 so what was the uh aftermath of nicaea
1:03:05 nicea was not accepted and many other
1:03:07 church councils were held
1:03:09 on official church council because the
1:03:11 emperor did not endorse them
1:03:13 uh so these unofficial church councils
1:03:16 held by
1:03:17 christian church fathers uh they tried
1:03:19 to cancel
1:03:21 the formulation um
1:03:24 of the creed of nicaea or the council of
1:03:26 nicea so many other councils were held
1:03:28 later on okay eusebius of caesarea
1:03:31 excommunicated by ocs as antioch uh as
1:03:35 early as 325 ce
1:03:36 so eusebius of caesarea who was present
1:03:39 in
1:03:39 the council on ica did not agree with
1:03:41 the crete and he uh
1:03:44 later on to challenge the creed held
1:03:46 another council
1:03:48 elsewhere in antioch uh sorry not in
1:03:50 antioch elsewhere in
1:03:51 in palestine and the bishop of antioch
1:03:55 excommunicated in other words made the
1:03:57 fear of eusebius officers area
1:04:00 so june 325 constantly i see a health
1:04:02 and arius has sympathizers condemned
1:04:04 officially heretics
1:04:05 eusebius or you're not happy with the
1:04:07 second edition of the phrase the sun
1:04:09 is the same substance as the father by
1:04:11 the emperor the emperor assured that the
1:04:13 term is not to be taken in
1:04:15 any corporeal sense in other words
1:04:18 eusebius of caesarea
1:04:19 who had a majority of followers in this
1:04:22 council
1:04:23 yet he came with 200 bishops by the way
1:04:25 the total number of bishops in the
1:04:27 council of nicaea
1:04:28 was 318. eusebius of caesarea he came
1:04:31 with 200 bishops and he did not
1:04:33 like the conclusion of the council of
1:04:36 nicaea
1:04:37 so that's why he was later on condemned
1:04:40 by aussies
1:04:41 who was constantine's ecclesiastical
1:04:44 confident who was a trinitarian
1:04:47 then what other aftermaths happened then
1:04:50 eusebius and his followers were
1:04:52 carving new creeds omitting the homo
1:04:55 usion
1:04:56 a term which was added it's a greek term
1:04:58 added into the creed
1:05:00 of nicaea by the emperor himself the
1:05:02 emperor constantine
1:05:04 okay so eusebians were carving new
1:05:07 creeds omitting the homo usion
1:05:09 in antioch 341ce then
1:05:12 philopopolis in 342 and antioch again in
1:05:15 344 so these
1:05:17 these church fathers kept meeting with
1:05:18 each other to cancel the findings of the
1:05:20 creed of nazir because
1:05:22 they did not believe jesus to be um
1:05:25 as jesus to be the same as god the
1:05:27 father
1:05:29 and many more church councils were held
1:05:32 later on discussing
1:05:33 similar topics similar issues where
1:05:36 these
1:05:36 points of theology were discussed
1:05:38 thoroughly in detail
1:05:42 church fathers on core equality and the
1:05:44 father and
1:05:45 the son so now we will be talking about
1:05:48 the
1:05:48 equality of the father and the son i'll
1:05:50 quickly take a drink
1:05:51 inshaallah uh so what we have covered so
1:05:55 far
1:05:55 is uh the fact that how
1:05:59 the doctrine of the trinity was uh
1:06:02 reached how it was formulated
1:06:06 we have seen that it took christians
1:06:09 400 years almost 400 years
1:06:12 to reach this doctrine
1:06:17 and this doctrine
1:06:20 was rejected even in the fourth century
1:06:22 by the majority of christians
1:06:25 and those who were forced to accept it
1:06:28 they went out and they started to hold
1:06:30 their own councils
1:06:32 unofficial council so far so called
1:06:35 and in these councils they started to
1:06:37 cancel
1:06:39 the findings or the conclusions of the
1:06:41 earlier official councils
1:06:44 so what did the church fathers early
1:06:47 church fathers in the first three
1:06:48 centuries had to say about
1:06:50 the notion of the core equality of the
1:06:52 father and the son
1:06:53 which is what the creed of nishiya did
1:06:55 this is where you see
1:06:57 the creed of nicaea here god the father
1:07:00 and god the son
1:07:01 have been put on par with each other
1:07:03 they are exactly the same
1:07:05 in status right this was not the case
1:07:08 in the first 300 years because the
1:07:10 council of nicaea was held
1:07:12 in 325 ce uh it was the finding of this
1:07:16 council
1:07:16 to put jesus christ on par with the
1:07:19 father
1:07:20 make him equal to god the creator but in
1:07:23 the first three centuries
1:07:24 before the council of nicaea this view
1:07:27 was not popular
1:07:28 among the church fathers even if they
1:07:31 believed in some
1:07:33 sort of divinity of jesus christ in some
1:07:35 form
1:07:36 they did not consider jesus christ to be
1:07:38 divine
1:07:39 like the father or the creator of the
1:07:41 heavens and the earth
1:07:43 even though if jesus was divine in their
1:07:45 view
1:07:46 he was not like the father he was not
1:07:48 coequal to the father
1:07:49 how do we know this this is clearly
1:07:52 stated
1:07:53 in the writings of origin origin
1:07:57 in his book the first principle he
1:08:00 states the god
1:08:01 and father who holds the universe
1:08:03 together is superior to every being that
1:08:06 exists
1:08:07 for he imparts to each one from his own
1:08:10 existence
1:08:12 that which each one is the son being
1:08:15 less than the father so in other words
1:08:16 origin is saying jesus christ
1:08:18 is less than the father okay
1:08:22 so the father is superior to rational
1:08:24 creatures alone
1:08:26 so the son is superior to rational
1:08:28 creatures but not
1:08:29 superior or equal to the father he is
1:08:32 below the father
1:08:33 for he is second to the father the holy
1:08:36 spirit is still less
1:08:37 and dwells within the saint saints alone
1:08:40 so that in this way
1:08:41 the power of the father is greater than
1:08:43 that of the son
1:08:45 and of the holy spirit and that of the
1:08:47 son is more than
1:08:48 that of the holy spirit so origen he
1:08:51 believed
1:08:52 in a hierarchy of authority to origen
1:08:55 who was
1:08:56 who was a third century church father
1:08:58 who was a greek philosopher
1:08:59 also a platonist a christian platonist
1:09:02 he believed
1:09:03 that the father is supreme and then the
1:09:06 son
1:09:07 is below him and then the holy spirit
1:09:10 okay
1:09:10 this is called subordinationism this is
1:09:13 called
1:09:14 in christian historical terms this is
1:09:17 called
1:09:17 subordinationism and most if not all
1:09:21 church fathers
1:09:22 most when i say most i'm saying 99 of
1:09:25 them
1:09:26 most if not all church fathers in the
1:09:28 first 300
1:09:30 hundred years of christianity were
1:09:31 subordinationists
1:09:33 none of them in the first 300 years put
1:09:36 jesus christ
1:09:37 equal with the father none of them
1:09:41 believed that jesus christ was equal to
1:09:43 the father just like the doctrine of the
1:09:45 trinity today
1:09:46 claims what was the definition of the
1:09:48 doctrine of the trinity
1:09:49 if you remember there are three persons
1:09:51 in one being god the father
1:09:53 god the son and god the holy spirit and
1:09:56 all three are coequal and co-eternal
1:09:59 this conception
1:10:01 was non-existent in the first 300 years
1:10:04 in fact what you had was
1:10:06 subordinationism which is clearly stated
1:10:08 in this quote
1:10:09 of origin origin even said
1:10:12 we should not pray to any generate being
1:10:15 not even to christ
1:10:16 only to the god and father of the
1:10:19 universe
1:10:19 allahu akbar so in other words origen
1:10:22 was
1:10:23 origin far from being a pagan or far
1:10:26 from being a polytheist
1:10:28 he believed that we must worship one god
1:10:31 alone
1:10:32 which we cannot even we cannot pray even
1:10:34 to jesus christ
1:10:35 we must pray to the creator of the
1:10:37 heavens and the earth
1:10:39 augustine he stated
1:10:43 in one of his writings or is it because
1:10:45 scripture does not call these three
1:10:47 either three persons or one person for
1:10:49 we read of the person of the lord
1:10:51 but not of the lord as a person okay
1:10:54 that therefore it was lawful
1:10:56 through the mere necessity of speaking
1:10:58 and reasoning to say three persons
1:11:00 not because scripture says it but but
1:11:02 because scripture does not contradict it
1:11:04 whereas if we were to say three gods
1:11:07 scripture would contradict it
1:11:09 which is hero israel the lord your god
1:11:11 is one god
1:11:12 why then is it not also lawful to say
1:11:15 three essences
1:11:16 which in like manner as as scripture
1:11:18 does not say
1:11:19 so neither does it contradict it so
1:11:21 augustine to justify the doctrine of the
1:11:23 trinity
1:11:24 um okay to put the three persons
1:11:27 with each other he used this logic that
1:11:30 because the scripture does not contrary
1:11:32 to
1:11:32 contradict it we can say it but the
1:11:34 christian the scripture does contradict
1:11:36 it
1:11:37 the scripture does contradict uh this
1:11:39 particular notion of the trinity
1:11:40 in so many different places as we have
1:11:42 already seen
1:11:44 so how was the doctrine of the trinity
1:11:46 formulated we have seen the doctrine of
1:11:48 the trinity was formulated
1:11:50 by some trinitarian
1:11:53 platonic christian church fathers who
1:11:56 were greek philosophers
1:11:57 as well as theologians it was formulated
1:12:01 by them in the fourth century
1:12:02 and then it was import imposed on the
1:12:05 masses
1:12:06 and on the christians by the roman
1:12:08 empress
1:12:09 first constantine had to add
1:12:12 ideas into the creed of nicea which
1:12:14 could not be found in the bible and
1:12:16 later on
1:12:17 emperor theodosius in the year
1:12:21 381 he issued this theodosian code
1:12:24 whereby it is clearly stated that anyone
1:12:26 who does not believe
1:12:28 in the doctrine of the trinity will be
1:12:29 considered to be a criminal and will be
1:12:32 treated as such
1:12:33 so you can see the quote on the screen
1:12:36 theodosian code 1612
1:12:38 okay theodosian code 1612
1:12:42 you can read clearly the law which was
1:12:45 issued
1:12:46 at the time of emperor theory emperor
1:12:48 theodosius immediately after
1:12:50 the council of constantinople which was
1:12:52 held in 381
1:12:54 ce so what happened in the council of
1:12:57 constantinople
1:12:59 after the council of nicaea as i have
1:13:01 already discussed
1:13:02 the status of the holy spirit was not
1:13:04 discussed it wasn't elaborated upon
1:13:07 so there was a vacuum there was a gap
1:13:10 left on that point so this gap was
1:13:13 filled
1:13:14 50 years later in constantinopol where
1:13:17 church fathers got together
1:13:19 and they decided that the holy spirit is
1:13:22 also god like the son and the father so
1:13:25 therefore there are three persons not
1:13:27 two
1:13:27 there are three persons who are fully
1:13:29 god and they are coequal and co-eternal
1:13:32 so this idea was finalized
1:13:35 finally in the year 381 ce in the fourth
1:13:38 century
1:13:39 okay and then emperor theodosius forced
1:13:42 this doctrine upon the entire christian
1:13:46 world which lived under the roman empire
1:13:48 and you can see the quotes
1:13:50 on the screen there how this was done so
1:13:52 for example
1:13:54 we command that those persons who follow
1:13:56 this rule shall embrace the name of
1:13:58 catholic
1:13:59 christians the rest however whom we are
1:14:02 judged demented and insane
1:14:04 shall sustain the infamy of heretical
1:14:06 dogmas they're melting sorry their
1:14:08 meeting places shall not receive the
1:14:09 name of churches
1:14:10 and they shall be smitten first by
1:14:12 divine vengeance and second by the
1:14:14 retribution of our own initiative which
1:14:17 we shall assume
1:14:18 in accordance with the divine judgment
1:14:21 another
1:14:21 point in uh theodosian court 16
1:14:25 528 it states the persons who may be
1:14:28 discovered to deviate
1:14:29 even in a minor point of doctrine from
1:14:32 the tenets and the path of the catholic
1:14:34 religion
1:14:35 are included under the designation of
1:14:37 heretics and must be
1:14:39 subject to the sanctions which have been
1:14:41 issued against them
1:14:43 your experience therefore shall
1:14:44 recognize that
1:14:46 heurisius shall be considered a heretic
1:14:50 and not among the number of most holy
1:14:52 bishops this was law by the way the
1:14:54 roman law
1:14:55 issued against those who disagree with
1:14:57 the catholic church
1:14:59 or catholic religion which was the
1:15:01 doctrine of the trinity
1:15:02 they will be smitten by the roman empire
1:15:06 so first how we saw how
1:15:10 the doctrine of the trinity cannot be
1:15:11 found in the bible
1:15:13 okay the church fathers confirmed that
1:15:16 later scholars confirmed that it is not
1:15:19 in the bible
1:15:20 catholic encyclopedia confirmed it bruce
1:15:23 metzger's
1:15:24 oxford companion to the bible confirmed
1:15:26 it many many scholars have said it
1:15:28 okay now if that's the case how did the
1:15:31 christians
1:15:32 formulate or construct the doctrine of
1:15:34 the trinity if it's not in the bible
1:15:36 we saw that in the second third and
1:15:39 fourth century
1:15:40 christian platonist christian greek
1:15:43 philosophers
1:15:44 they wanted to justify the relationship
1:15:47 of
1:15:47 the son to the father or
1:15:51 jesus the son of god who was called the
1:15:52 son of god by paul
1:15:54 using pagan ideas at the time how do we
1:15:57 justify
1:15:58 jesus sonship in relation to the father
1:16:01 so they put jesus
1:16:02 on par with the father because the
1:16:04 father made jesus
1:16:06 from his own essence and by that virtue
1:16:08 the son is the same as the father they
1:16:10 are co-equal
1:16:11 right so this is how they came up with
1:16:13 these ideas as we have seen
1:16:15 in this webinar and how it was imposed
1:16:18 on the christians
1:16:19 is another question and this is the
1:16:21 point this is how
1:16:23 the doctrine of the trinity was imposed
1:16:25 upon the christian world
1:16:26 in the 4th century using the roman might
1:16:30 later on many christian scholars
1:16:34 who wrote against the doctrine of the
1:16:35 trinity having studied the history which
1:16:37 we have presented in this webinar
1:16:39 they abandoned they abandoned the
1:16:41 doctrine of the trinity and
1:16:43 even as late as the reformation period
1:16:45 in the 16th century
1:16:47 people started to write books against
1:16:49 the doctrine of the trinity one of them
1:16:50 was michael cevitas
1:16:51 who was burnt at stake in geneva by
1:16:54 calvin one of the reformers
1:16:56 calvin caught michael cevitas because he
1:16:58 had written a book titled
1:17:00 errors of trinity and michael cevitas
1:17:04 he said things like this in his book and
1:17:07 this is one of the quotes
1:17:08 how much this tradition of trinity has
1:17:10 lost alas being the laughing stock of
1:17:12 the muhammadans
1:17:14 only god knows the jews also shrink from
1:17:16 giving endurance
1:17:17 to this fancy of ours and laugh at our
1:17:19 foolishness
1:17:20 about the trinity and on account of its
1:17:22 blasphemies
1:17:23 they do not believe that this is the
1:17:25 messiah promised in the law
1:17:27 and not only the muhammadans and the
1:17:29 hebrews but the very beast of the field
1:17:31 would make fun of us with the grasp of
1:17:34 fantastic notion
1:17:35 for all the workers of the lord bless
1:17:37 the one god
1:17:38 this most burning plague therefore was
1:17:41 added and superimposed as it were on the
1:17:44 new gods
1:17:45 which have recently come which our
1:17:47 fathers did not worship
1:17:48 and this plague of philosophy was
1:17:50 brought upon us by the greeks
1:17:51 for they above all men are most given to
1:17:54 philosophy
1:17:55 and we hanging upon the lips have become
1:17:58 philosophers and they never understood
1:18:00 the passages
1:18:00 of the scriptures which they are used
1:18:02 with regard to this matter
1:18:04 michael cevitas wrote this
1:18:08 in 1550s and in 1553
1:18:11 he was burnt at stake by a coalition of
1:18:15 the catholic church
1:18:16 and the protestants at the time
1:18:20 even thomas jefferson later on writes
1:18:22 about the doctrine of the trinity the
1:18:24 founding father
1:18:25 or one of the founding fathers of the
1:18:27 united states of america
1:18:29 he wrote an unintelligible proposition
1:18:32 of platonic mysticism
1:18:33 that three are one and one is three and
1:18:36 yet
1:18:36 one is not three and three are not one i
1:18:38 never had sense enough to
1:18:40 comprehend the trinity and it appeared
1:18:42 to me that comprehension must precede
1:18:44 ascent absolutely so thomas jefferson is
1:18:47 saying
1:18:48 because he cannot comprehend the
1:18:50 doctrine of the trinity he cannot ascend
1:18:52 to it
1:18:53 you cannot accept it in other words
1:18:57 so now to some of the
1:19:02 objections of christians
1:19:05 they say that the church father was
1:19:08 subordinationist
1:19:10 in the rational sense not ontological
1:19:12 sense the church fathers did not
1:19:14 actually believe
1:19:15 that jesus christ was ontologically
1:19:18 subordinate
1:19:19 to the father but rather he was
1:19:22 rationally subordinate
1:19:23 but the response to that is and we will
1:19:27 go through the slides some argue that
1:19:29 the early church's view on subordination
1:19:31 were not ontological
1:19:32 rather they were in reference to a
1:19:33 rational subordination
1:19:35 they maintain that the doctrine of the
1:19:37 trinity is preserved because the
1:19:38 ontology of the three persons is that
1:19:40 they are all divine
1:19:41 coequal and coeternal it is just that
1:19:44 one of the persons relates to the other
1:19:46 person is a subordinated way
1:19:48 this is heretical as it dismissed
1:19:52 or sorry it diminishes the maximal
1:19:54 perfection of god
1:19:55 christian theologians would find it
1:19:57 difficult to conclude that god
1:19:59 one of the persons of the trinity
1:20:00 relates in a way that is not divine
1:20:02 okay which is rationally inferior in
1:20:04 other words if
1:20:06 god is rationally inferior to another
1:20:08 person
1:20:10 of god then that person who is
1:20:12 rationally inferior is not truly god
1:20:14 because inferiority
1:20:15 is not a divine attribute inferiority
1:20:18 cannot be a divine attribute
1:20:20 therefore it contradicts the idea does
1:20:22 not fit
1:20:25 even if they do accept this it has
1:20:27 immense theological implications because
1:20:29 it
1:20:29 implies god relates in a way that is not
1:20:31 perfect so inferiority is an
1:20:33 imperfection god cannot be imperfect
1:20:36 therefore this cannot
1:20:37 relate to god for if subordination
1:20:41 was assumed to be rational it still
1:20:43 doesn't help christian theologians
1:20:45 and christian apologists because any
1:20:48 subordination of any type any
1:20:51 inferiority to another person
1:20:53 albeit in godhead cannot be
1:20:56 regarded as a perfection rather it can
1:20:58 be seen as a weakness and god cannot be
1:20:59 weak in any shape or form
1:21:02 rejecting the church fathers would be
1:21:03 rejecting the bible because they are the
1:21:05 ones who gave the bible
1:21:06 to posterity they are the ones who
1:21:08 collected it they are the ones who
1:21:10 interpreted it they are the ones who
1:21:12 put it forward and later on in the
1:21:14 fourth century
1:21:15 unbiblical ideas were imposed on the
1:21:18 bible
1:21:19 and then early church fathers are
1:21:21 completely ignored
1:21:22 and rejecting those church fathers for
1:21:24 the first 300 years
1:21:26 is rejecting the bible you might as well
1:21:29 throw the bible
1:21:30 into the sea if you throw the church
1:21:32 fathers into the sea
1:21:34 right so if you throw the church fathers
1:21:36 away
1:21:37 with the bath water then you might as
1:21:39 well throw away the bible as well
1:21:40 because
1:21:41 church fathers are the ones who
1:21:43 transmitted the bible some would argue
1:21:45 that the early church fathers must not
1:21:46 be considered as authorities for
1:21:48 scriptural interpretation therefore they
1:21:49 do not have to accept this argument
1:21:51 this is a problematic response the main
1:21:54 criteria for canonicity of the bible
1:21:56 was that it aligned itself with the
1:21:58 church
1:21:59 teachings church teachings so to reject
1:22:02 the church
1:22:02 is equivalent of rejecting the bible how
1:22:05 can you reject the teachings of the
1:22:06 church subordination binarianism and
1:22:09 etc etc and accept the bible the bible
1:22:12 was only accepted as an authority
1:22:13 because it was agreed with the church
1:22:15 it agreed with the church teachings you
1:22:18 cannot have your cake and eat it as they
1:22:19 say
1:22:22 now the conclusion after this webinar is
1:22:25 nearly done it's nearly complete
1:22:27 the conclusion is the doctrine of the
1:22:29 trinity
1:22:30 that is one divine essence and three
1:22:32 persons that are co-equal and co-eternal
1:22:34 is not a natural reading of the
1:22:37 scripture
1:22:38 of the christian scripture and the
1:22:41 teachings of the church fathers
1:22:43 is not a natural reading of jesus's
1:22:45 teachings
1:22:46 and it to reject the early church father
1:22:49 is equivalent
1:22:50 of rejecting the bible so the doctrine
1:22:53 of the trinity
1:22:54 in conclusion my brothers and sisters uh
1:22:56 i want to go back
1:22:58 to the very second slide if you don't
1:23:00 mind
1:23:01 and read what we have covered in this
1:23:04 particular
1:23:07 uh webinar we've covered the following
1:23:09 points what is the doctrine of the
1:23:11 trinity we explain this is the
1:23:12 definition of the doctrine of the
1:23:13 trinity which was formulated
1:23:15 in the fourth century it is not in the
1:23:18 bible it cannot be seen anywhere in the
1:23:19 bible
1:23:20 this particular definition was reached
1:23:22 and formulated
1:23:23 in the 4th century this definition did
1:23:25 not exist
1:23:26 in the 2nd century in the 3rd century
1:23:29 of christian history rather it only came
1:23:32 about
1:23:33 in the latter quarter of the 4th century
1:23:37 in the last 25 years of the 4th century
1:23:40 in other words
1:23:41 after 375 ce this particular definition
1:23:45 was formulated
1:23:46 okay so the quranic view on the trinity
1:23:50 we saw the quran condemns the doctrine
1:23:51 of the trinity as a forgery
1:23:53 as a concoction of man it has nothing to
1:23:56 do with the revelation of god
1:23:58 or the prophets the old testament and
1:24:00 the new testament
1:24:02 represents a uni personal god not a
1:24:05 tri-personal god or not a multi-personal
1:24:07 god
1:24:08 that was clearly established then the
1:24:11 doctrine cannot be found in the bible
1:24:13 we saw it cannot be found in the bible
1:24:15 and we presented plenty of evidence in
1:24:17 that regard
1:24:19 then the disputes about the doctrine you
1:24:22 know
1:24:22 how do we understand jesus how big is he
1:24:25 how small is he how god is he
1:24:26 how godly is he how divine is he is he
1:24:29 subordinate
1:24:30 is he equal is he less is the holy
1:24:32 spirit god
1:24:33 if it's not god what is it all of that
1:24:36 was covered in the webinar
1:24:37 and this this shows this again goes to
1:24:40 show that if the doctrine of the trinity
1:24:42 was clearly stipulated in the bible
1:24:44 these debates would not be taking place
1:24:47 church fathers on co-equality of the
1:24:49 father and the son we also showed that
1:24:51 the church fathers
1:24:52 far from being trinitarian trinitarians
1:24:54 in the modern sense
1:24:55 they were subordinationists they did not
1:24:58 believe in the co-equality of the father
1:24:59 and the son
1:25:00 let alone the equality of the holy
1:25:03 spirit with the father
1:25:06 so responding to the defenses we did
1:25:09 that and that was the conclusion so now
1:25:11 brothers and sisters
1:25:12 we can go to q a you can ask your
1:25:15 questions
1:25:15 i am officially done with the webinar
1:25:19 the content has been covered may allah
1:25:21 bless you thank you so much for your
1:25:22 patience
1:25:23 thank you so much for listening and
1:25:25 watching so now we are done with the
1:25:27 webinar
1:25:28 you are welcome to ask your questions
1:25:29 bismillah
1:25:33 admin if there are any questions please
1:25:34 send them forward to me so that i can
1:25:36 answer those questions
1:25:53 um
1:26:02 if there are any questions uh i request
1:26:03 from admin to
1:26:05 put them forward to me inshaallah
1:26:48 um
1:26:55 so what i'll do is i will try to read
1:26:58 your questions from the chats
1:27:00 and okay
1:27:07 right uh
1:27:10 there is a question did the earliest
1:27:12 christians believe in a trinity that was
1:27:14 the webinar
1:27:15 um this is exactly what we discussed
1:27:18 throughout the webinar please watch the
1:27:20 webinar again inshaallah and you'll get
1:27:21 the answer
1:27:22 the earliest christians did not believe
1:27:24 in the trinity or the doctrine of the
1:27:26 trinity they believed in a trinity okay
1:27:28 sorry sorry
1:27:29 maybe i misunderstood the question did
1:27:31 the earliest questions believe
1:27:32 in a trinity not the trinity not the
1:27:35 the doctrine of the trinity did they
1:27:37 believe in a trinity
1:27:38 is the question that's a very good
1:27:40 question uh
1:27:41 there are christians who did believe in
1:27:44 a triadic formula
1:27:46 how they believed in it is a very good
1:27:48 question they were all subordinationists
1:27:51 so for example tetrulian talks about a
1:27:54 trinity
1:27:54 he talks about a trinity he talks about
1:27:57 the father the son
1:27:58 and the holy spirit but even tertullian
1:28:01 was
1:28:02 a subordinationist tertullian believed
1:28:04 that the father made the son
1:28:06 jesus christ from his essence and then
1:28:08 jesus christ
1:28:09 made the holy spirit from his essence
1:28:12 although this
1:28:12 is a trinity but it is not the doctrine
1:28:15 of the trinity it is a conception of the
1:28:17 trinity
1:28:18 albeit as a body nation is one so the so
1:28:21 tertullian
1:28:22 was a subordinationist he was not a
1:28:25 trinitarian
1:28:26 in uh the current sense or in
1:28:29 light of the doctrine of the trinity
1:28:32 which was defined in the fourth century
1:28:34 so there was a trinity no doubt okay
1:28:36 there was a binary
1:28:38 there were christians who believed in
1:28:39 only one god and that that was the
1:28:42 majority by the way
1:28:43 for the first 300 years majority of the
1:28:46 christians
1:28:47 believed only in one god one person one
1:28:50 being
1:28:51 right but there were those who believed
1:28:53 in god the father and god the son
1:28:56 but the son was always below the father
1:28:58 in his divinity
1:28:59 then there are there were those who
1:29:01 believed that
1:29:02 god the father is supreme god the son is
1:29:06 below him
1:29:06 and god the holy spirit if the holy
1:29:09 spirit was called
1:29:11 god ever i mean there is very little
1:29:13 evidence for that
1:29:14 is below the sun so there was a
1:29:17 discussion on
1:29:18 a trinity but not the doctrine of the
1:29:20 trinity okay
1:29:21 the doctrine of the trinity as it is
1:29:23 divided defined today
1:29:24 cannot be found in the first 300 years
1:29:27 let alone the bible
1:29:29 next question what are your thoughts the
1:29:32 structure of clergy in catholicism
1:29:34 uh it is all made up it was all
1:29:37 um you know invented later on
1:29:40 by the catholic church these are my
1:29:42 thoughts uh this
1:29:44 current structure of clergy has nothing
1:29:46 to do with jesus christ
1:29:48 it has nothing to do with the bible it
1:29:51 cannot be found there
1:29:52 okay i i agree with the protestants in
1:29:55 this
1:29:56 the papacy is a sham i'm sorry no i'm
1:29:59 not i'm not saying the the catholics are
1:30:01 hashem
1:30:01 i'm saying papacy as far as the bible is
1:30:04 concerned
1:30:05 it cannot be seen it cannot be found
1:30:07 anywhere okay
1:30:08 so the establishment of papacy has
1:30:10 nothing to do with jesus christ
1:30:12 or even the early church or even the
1:30:14 bible
1:30:15 i'm not talking about the name the name
1:30:17 is old the name the catholic the name
1:30:20 the term is old but the reality what it
1:30:22 has become today
1:30:24 is not old it is something uh it is a
1:30:27 development of history
1:30:29 what important difference do you notice
1:30:31 between jehovah witness and catholics
1:30:33 major difference jehovah's witnesses do
1:30:35 not believe in the trinity and catholics
1:30:37 do
1:30:37 that's one difference okay next question
1:30:40 if there is any
1:30:48 are there any more questions
1:30:59 okay maybe there are some more questions
1:31:00 coming through inshallah
1:31:03 and also jehovah's witnesses they have
1:31:05 certain views that
1:31:07 most christians don't agree with for
1:31:09 example they have a view that
1:31:11 jesus christ was actually angel
1:31:14 michael okay archangel michael
1:31:18 so um so jehovah's witnesses have many
1:31:21 many differences with other christians
1:31:23 but catholics protestants greek orthodox
1:31:25 russian orthodox
1:31:27 and syrian orthodox and egyptian
1:31:30 orthodox and ethiopian orthodox churches
1:31:32 all of them they agree
1:31:33 that the trinity uh the doctrine of the
1:31:35 trinity
1:31:36 as it was formulated in the 4th century
1:31:39 is is divine
1:31:43 and they believe in it but we have seen
1:31:45 in this webinar today that's not the
1:31:46 case
1:31:48 the doctrine of the trinity is
1:31:49 non-existent in the bible
1:31:51 it is non-existent in its current form
1:31:54 in the first
1:31:54 300 years of christianity and on that
1:31:57 note
1:31:59 i will end this particular webinar
1:32:05 okay so there is another uh okay if
1:32:08 there's any other question no
1:32:10 okay so i think we will end on that note
1:32:12 brothers and sisters thank you so much
1:32:13 for
1:32:14 listening and watching please do share
1:32:16 this webinar if
1:32:17 it was too complicated then we apologize
1:32:20 we
1:32:20 aim uh we aim
1:32:23 in bringing we want to bring uh academic
1:32:26 content to you we want to bring
1:32:28 uh follow good research to you so that
1:32:31 you can insha allah do
1:32:32 dawah effectively and take the message
1:32:34 of islam to the world
1:32:36 and defend islam intellectually so the
1:32:38 quran when it condemns the trinity
1:32:40 it is not wrong in condemning the
1:32:42 trinity and what when the quran says it
1:32:44 is not from the prophets and god
1:32:46 we have shown throughout this webinar
1:32:48 that that is the case indeed
1:32:50 the doctrine of the trinity is not from
1:32:51 prophets and god rather it is man-made
1:32:54 it is not divinely stipulated thank you
1:32:57 so much for listening to me
1:32:59 and watch out for the paper the research
1:33:01 paper on the same topic
1:33:03 the doctrine of the trinity divinely
1:33:05 stipulated or man-made
1:33:06 the paper will be issued it will be
1:33:09 published by sapiens institute
1:33:10 very soon in the coming weeks or months
1:33:13 and once it's it is ready
1:33:15 all the references all the sources will
1:33:16 be in the paper uh
1:33:18 and please look out for it and read it
1:33:20 when it comes out
1:33:21 on that note i will end wasallam alaikum
1:33:34 alhamdulillah
1:33:38 you