Thomas: (Pt.3) Theological influences of Islam (100-489)

[@julietabraham476]

Thanks Thomas and Dr Jay for this interesting livestream and the emergence of a political and militant ideology that emerged from this Theological broth which is Islam today.Waiting with bated breath for more revelations to come...

[@FunkmeisterOfSedgley]

This series has been very informative, thanks.

[@Stardust475]

28:05 The LOGOS being uncreated, when I learned about the Islamic theological arguments about the Quran made me think about Jesus as a Muslim too but no one to ask. Such a thorough but clear presentation and amazing series. Many people are learned and experts in their field but few can explain and unpack complex ideas as Thomas has done. Jay you've had a guest on previously (I won't name names) but has been so unclear and confusing. Great work, thank you.

[@simonhengle8316]

Another great presentation, thank you Thomas and Dr. Jay Smith for being the platform for this presentation

[@markaxworthy2508]

Very interesting. It makes Islam a part of an evolving continuum of theology in the area and not an aberration. More please.

[@yakovmatityahu]

What a way to start your day...was waiting for this again...Thank you Jay and Thomas.

[@JohnRylander]

Fascinating -- thanks for all your great work, both of you!

[@agnellofernandes3370]

So very interesting. Thank you Dr. Jay and Alexander you guys are real instruments of God shining the light in the Darkness of Islam.

[@Speakers154]

A fantastic series. Thomas is knocking it out of the park every time. Islam's mysterious origins is suddenly being revealed as quite banal. That's a sign we are getting close to the truth.

[@alonzoharris6730]

He is only showing his double standards. He uses 4th century sources to make claims about the first 300 years. The double standards are amazing. He uses mostly Eusebius who is a know liar. The same guy that forged the works of Josephus. The same guy who claimed that Peter meet Philo of Alexandria. That's your source lol.

[@yakovmatityahu]

Hi brother Mel we dont see you nowadays with Jay

[@Speakers154]

@@yakovmatityahu You will later in the year again. On both channels.

[@TAlexander]

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

[@Speakers154]

@@alonzoharris6730 You deserve utter contempt for smearing the good name of Eusebius. Thomas has shown that Islam didn't emerge in a vacuum as the SIN has claimed for centuries and that is a lie. Withdraw your smear of Eusebius. He was an honest historian, something you won't know anything about.

[@FRED-gx2qk]

Thomas standout Presentation well done !!!

[@TAlexander]

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

[@josephtucker9612]

During the first two centuries there was considerable opposition to the doctrine of incarnation. The Ebionites, a Jewish Christian sect that began in the first century, maintained that Jesus had a natural birth, that he was not God incarnate. Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, who lived toward the beginning of the fourth century, taught that Jesus was neither coeternal nor coequal with God, that he was the head of all creation, but not “of one substance with the Father.” Docetists, a sect of Jewish Christians that flourished in the second century, believed that Jesus’ body was merely apparent, a vision, a delusion, not material. Gnosticism was a fusion of independent “Christian” beliefs. Its contention was that evil is inherent in matter and that for that reason Jesus’ body could not have been material. Valentinus, the most prominent leader of the Gnostic movement, taught that Jesus’ ethereal body passed through Mary but was not born of her. Others said Jesus had two wills, one human, the other divine, and so forth. It was from this hodgepodge of conflicting opinions that Christendom has received her incarnation doctrine. Since some thought Jesus was man and others maintained he was God, the council at Nicaea A.D. 325 headed by Constantine, decided on a God-man to please both sides.

[@theoldone3835]

Thank you Thomas for your clear and concise presentation of complex subject matter, and for helping us continue to connect the dots. However, I do wish that your audio quality is improved in future. I find that often your volume is lower, and in this particular video there was an echo as well. I would greatly appreciate better sound quality in the coming videos. Thank you also for starting your own channel. Useful content and very nice presentation there. Good job!

[@spaceman884]

Awesome video!

[@Joshuaandcalebsc]

Best I can tell the content is great, but it's hard to understand. Not sure if its the mic or the accent or a combination

[@charlesiragui2473]

Great exposition of a complex, shifting Trinitarian/Christological historical landscape. One particularly fascinating complexity here is the influence of Egyptian theology, emphasizing the oneness of Christ (God/Man). As you mentioned, this theology put Alexandria under Cyril in direct conflict with the Syrians led by Nestorius, who preached a kind of duality of human Jesus and divine Christ. It would seem that Nestorius viewed himself as entirely trinitarian and in line with Nicene Creed, so the distinctions become harder to identify. But, as you mentioned, after the rejection of Nestorius (Council of Ephesus 431), Byzantine Syria shifted to the Egyptian school, against Rome and Constantinople, on the issue of the two natures of Jesus Christ (Council of Chalcedon 451). From this time, Rome/Constantinople criticized Antioch/Alexandria as "monophysites". (I am influenced by my reading of John McGuckin, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, SVS Press.) Many historians have noted the overlap between the regions of "monophysite" dominance and the areas conquered by the Sassinids, and the same regions under Arab/Muslim rule. I am guessing that this will may well be some of the context for your information/discussion for the next installment. But I wanted to suggest what I would view as a historical irony: the Byzantine Syrian Church went from a stance as the most skeptical of Jesus Christ's divinity to a position that in Greek Christian eyes began to deny to some extent Christ's humanity. Thanks so much for your lessons!

[@michaels4255]

"(Council of Chalcedon 451). From this time, Rome/Constantinople criticized Antioch/Alexandria as "monophysites" " Antioch and Alexandria were Greek cities as much as Constantinople. (The Roman church had originally been Greek as well, until larger numbers of Latin speakers finally began to confess the new faith, which mainly happened after the conversion of Constantine.) Although it is true that Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria presided over the "robber synod" at Ephesus (not to be confused with the earlier 3rd Synod of Ephesus that condemned Nestorianism in 431) that endorsed Monophysitism with threats of violence to make the other bishops fall in line, he was deposed at Chalcedon. What developed after Chalcedon was a schism with parallel patriarchates, one Greek speaking ("Roman") Chalcedonian in Alexandria, and also a Coptic Monophysite claimant to the Alexandrian patriarchate. Ditto in Antioch, one Greek speaking ("Roman") Chalcedonian Patriarch, and a rival Aramaic speaking Monophyite claimant to the Patriarchate. This parallel division continues to this day, although the Roman/Greek Chalcedonian Patriarchate became Arabic speaking during the 20th century and since Antioch has declined in importance as a city, his cathedral is now in Damascus on the Biblical "street called straight." The Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria remains ethnically Greek. This should not be confused with the dispute between Patriarch John of Antioch who was the chief supporter of Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople versus the leading opponent of Nestorius, Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, who was supported by Patriarch Celestine of Rome (I could say Pope or Papa of Rome, but if I did, I should also write Pope or Papa of Alexandria to be consistent, since both of those Patriarchs were and still are known by this title). So in that case, it was Alexandria and Rome versus Constantinople and Antioch. Not long after the Nestorian dispute was resolved at the Synod of Ephesus in 431, the Monophysite dispute, sort of the opposite extreme of Nestorianism, would flare up, citing the "one nature" (monophysis) phrase used briefly in one of Cyril's writings, who used it because he thought it had been used by some other respected figure, in his debate with the Nestorians. I suspect it was Cyril's recent successor as Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscoros I, the primary champion of the Monophysite doctrine, who cited the highly regarded Cyril's brief use of the monophysis phrase to buttress the theology of the Monophysites, which is said to have originated among hermits in the Egyptian desert. Unfortunately, St. Cyril had reposed just before the Monophysite controversy flared up and was not around to clarify his position, although from what I have read I have no doubt he would not have favored the Monophysite position which found its strongest support among the non - Hellenic cultures on the frontiers of the Greco - Roman world. I just wanted to say that these theological and Christological disputes cannot be simplified as Rome and Constantinople versus Alexandria and Antioch. If a division emerges, it is between Greek and Latin speaking areas that formed the cultural core of the Roman Empire and areas near the borders of the Empire that spoke languages unrelated to Greek and Latin, and in these frontier regions there was significant diversity, but the main groups that emerged, and the only two that survive to this day, were the Nestorians and the Monophysites. There are few Nestorians remaining today, but they seem to have been more numerous than the Monophysites (who since the 1970s have started calling themselves Myaphysites, but that is another issue I don't wish to go into now). What happened to all the Nestorians? My guess is that most of them became Muslims. I think their peculiar Chistology, where Jesus is not born as God incarnate but only becomes divine at a later date, made them more receptive than either their Chalcedonian or Monophysite rivals to the Muslim view of Christ, although it is also possible that they came under more pressure in their geographical location in the more eastern regions of Muslim domination. BTW, it was in the dispute with the Nestorians that Mary began to be called Theotokos "Birthgiver of God" (sometimes also expressed as Mater Theou, "Mother of God," but with the same significance implied) as a Christological litmus test since Nestorians were only willing to concede that she was Christotokos, "Birthgiver of Christ," because they were unwilling to use a term, Theotokos, that implied that Jesus was God incarnate already at his birth. Sorry this got so long.

[@charlesiragui2473]

@@michaels4255 Thanks for the information on the duplicate patriarchs in Antioch and Alexandria. I did not know this! From this it’s easy to see from an ethnic and linguistic basis how the separation became permanent. It seems that the so called Nestorians though are not actually followers of Nestorius. It would appear that this is a misnomer and is now viewed as a discouraged term applied from the outside. My impression is that the actual teachings of Nestorius, such as the refusal of the term Theotokos that you mention, were too confusing and simply odd to gain permanent support.

[@michaels4255]

@@charlesiragui2473 Nestorians, or whatever shorthand you wish to use for them, still do not accept the term Theotokos. I know in recent times some people have started saying that Nestorians are not really followers of Nestorius, and I don't know where this comes from, but I suspect it is related to the ecumenical movement and the ambition of the main part (there is some dissension from the more conservative Nestorians) of the Nestorian communion to reunite with either the Orthodox or the RCC or both, but without giving up their core doctrinal differences. I think there are some clerics and academic theologians on both sides who think they can get away with just fudging their differences and thus entering into communion while still confessing different Christologies at one level while declaring at a higher, diplomatic level that the differences do not really exist or "we really mean the same thing," whether or not they really do. If the Nestorians are not really followers of Nestorius, then why have they rejected the Council of Ephesus which condemned his errors for the last 16 centuries? They will talk about procedural irregularities, blah, blah, blah, but the real issue is differences of substance. Some people will say nowadays that it was just politics or a misunderstanding, but this cannot be correct. The Emperor really wanted to keep both sides together for political reasons, and I remember reading that efforts were made to find a compromise formula that would let the two sides reconcile, but they just could not agree. Indeed, the complete and final anathematization of the Nestorian movement was delayed until a couple of centuries later at the 5th Ecumenical Synod called by Emperor Justinian and that is why St. Ephrem the Syrian and St. Isaac of Ninevah who lived in this transitional period between the 3rd and 5th Ecumenical Synods are recognized as saints in both confessions. Okay, I did some googling and found this statement: "Having examined this Christological formula this thesis upholds the theory put forward earlier by Professor J.F. Bethune Baker that Nestorius was not a “Nestorian.” " So evidently it is this J.F. Bethune - Baker who came up with this "Nestorius was not a Nestorian" line. Why did nobody in either the Greco - Roman communion or the Nestorian confession notice this until some 20th century academic "discovered" it in the 20th century? It is not believable. I smell a hidden agenda. Okay, I googled this Bethune - Baker real quick. He was a Church of England Cambridge academic and is described as a "Modern Churchman." I followed the Wikipedia link from Modern Churchman on Bethune - Baker's very brief biography page to read this: Quote: Modern Church is a charitable society[1] promoting liberal Christian theology. It defends liberal positions on a wide range of issues including gender, sexuality, interfaith relations, religion and science, and biblical scholarship. In church affairs it supports the role of laity and women ministers. SNIP The theological principles behind its liberalism are that divine revelation has not come to an end; new ideas should be judged on their merits and ideas accepted or rejected in the past can be reassessed. human rationality and creativity are not contrasted with divine revelation, but are valued as means to receiving it. Understood like this, theological liberalism is opposed to dogmatism.[3] Its style is open and enquiring, willing to dialogue with other traditions and accept new insights from unexpected sources. It values critical scholarship of the Bible and Christian history. END QUOTES Sounds about right, and even explains the egalitarian hyphenated surname. For 1500 years, every professing Christian in the world thought Nestorius was a Nestorian, and then in the early 20th century, a Modernist Anglican academic "discovers" we have all been wrong all along! Sorry, I don't buy it. I am also curious about today's relations between the Monophyistes and Nestorians. They are opposite heresies. Both are seeking reunion of the Orthodox, but traditionally in inter - faith polemics, Monophysites, who accept the 3rd E.C. that condemned the teachings of Patriarch Nestorius, have accused the Orthodox of being de facto Nestorians, Meanwhile, Nestorians, who reject the 3rd EC, have a low opinion of Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria for whom Monophysites profess great veneration, and their apologists in times gone by have sometimes compared the Orthodox to the Monophysites. If these two groups each go into communion with either the Orthodox or, more likely, the RC's, I am not sure how they will justify being in theoretical communion with each other, or, alternatively, justify eschewing communion with each other. From: orthodoxwiki.org/Nestorianism Usually, the Assyrian Church of the East denies that it teaches Nestorianism. On November 11, 1994 Mar Dinkha IV and Pope John Paul II signed a "Common Christological Declaration" which affirmed that Catholics and Assyrians share a union in their understanding of the Son of God. [1] In 1997 the Assyrian Church halted anathemas of other churches in its liturgy. Nevertheless, the Assyrian Church of the East has recognized Theodore of Mopsuestia as a saint, whose Christology was condemned repeatedly as Nestorian by the Orthodox Church [which at that time included the Latin West!]. END QUOTE en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monophysitism#Mono_vs_Mia Many attempts were made to reconcile the Monophysite and Chalcedonian Churches. Emperor Heraclius thought that Monoenergism might be the solution. When the Monophysites rejected it he tried modifying it into monothelitism - the belief that Christ was two natures in one person except that he only had a divine will and no human will, or at least had one will in general - as an attempt to bridge the gap between the monophysite and the Chalcedonian position. However, it too was rejected and also by the members of the Chalcedonian synod, despite at times having the support of the Byzantine emperors and once escaping the condemnation of a pope of Rome, Honorius I. The Nestorian Patriarch Timothy I of Baghdad also supported Monothelites. Some[who?] are of the opinion that monothelitism was at one time held by the Maronites; the contemporary Maronite community mostly disputes this, stating that they have never been out of official communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

[@TAlexander]

​@@michaels4255 In 1994, the Assyrian Church of the East (i.e. the Nestorian Church) signed a common christological declaration with the Roman Catholic Church. Since 2001, they are actually in communion with one another (meaning that they can partake in each other's Eucharist). Talks have since come to a halt as the next logical step would be full integration of the Assyrian Church into the Roman Catholic Church which it is apparently not ready to make just yet. Which also lead to some prominent members leaving the Assyrian Church and joining the Chaldean Catholic Church.

[@michaels4255]

@@TAlexander Thanks for the info. There is also a conservative splinter group that broke off in the 1960s in part over these overtures to the west, but Wikipedia says it is only one of a few different factions that have split off in protest in recent times. Ecumenism has been, ironically, such an intensely divisive force since its origin over a century ago that I don't understand why so many clerical leaders push it. Info from that part of the world is hard to come by.

[@jerryczarski5991]

I have always understood the Logos as the reason and wisdom for creation. God is eternal, and in His plan, creation was always part of it. All matter came into being through Him.

[@murattanyel1029]

The German school is making sense to me.

[@fay1298]

Great presentation Thomas. Looking forward to the next session. Despite the disagreements on the nature of Christ amongst the Byzantine and Eastern churches, they were all still considered Christians and they would have followed the gospels, right? Otherwise, what would have triggered the writing of a new book, such as the Quran? Thanks a lot. Keep up the great work.

[@TAlexander]

Looking at it in hindsight, the infighting between Catholics, Monophysites and Nestorians really sounds more like a misunderstanding. It’s feels like they each had semantic differences rooted in different mentalities and traditions rather than theological differences. It really is a shame that these semantic differences led to so much hatred and bloodshed. The Quran however was clearly written in opposition to all Trinitarian, albeit with a focus on the Nestorian church which was the dominant form of Christianity in Persia. The assumption is that it was the establishment of a Nestorian hierarchy in Merv which triggered the writing of the Proto-Quran. The Quran as we know it today is however a work of the Abbasid period. By then the motivations had changed dramatically.

[@fay1298]

@@TAlexander Indeed it is a shame that such misunderstandings lead to so much hatred. I would think that economic gain and power would have added to the divisions culminating in the Abbasids taking control and writing their own narrative.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

@@TAlexander Yeh, I explained it shortly in my post (St.Athansius, not still perfect arguments but logically for sure superior to Arius - are in J.Newman's translation. St.Augustine' metaphorical and psychological tools are not bad but not perfect logically as that given by modern logic,esp. description whose definition discovered only in AD 1910, by B.Russell and it is widely used in all sciences, formal, natural and arts; proving in theology is the same like in natural science; by. reductive inference contra to deductive one (in.J.M.Bochenski OP, Logic of Religion,1965- with just 2-mistakes: one cannot formalize and write in a logical symbol a principle or the terem"cause"/then also "God" he did not v.much about Bible's hermeneutics yet; still, he tries to explain how to interpret properly the "to be, is" in trinitarian formula on just. logical ground. More importantly: I see in Quran and Dom of Rock Description- the theology contra Bible, Genesis 1:26 or Ps 8:6 that human being is created in the likeness of God that is absolutely denied there in plenty passages! It would a proof the "sources, authors" of Quran were outside Jews and Christians (also some sects and heretics called in such way at that time) or added in later periods.

[@alonzoharris6730]

@@TAlexander The Quran is proven from the 7th century. Only people who are dishonest push for this narrative. 97% of the Quran is in manuscripts in the first century. Every linguist and historical critical scholar acknowledge this. Only people like you with a Christian political agenda hold to a silly position.

[@artifexdei3671]

@@TAlexander at least there were no protestants around that time to add to the mix.

[@MAX-tw3qz]

This is excellent instruction, why even today I meet those who discuss and debate the same issues, for all those centuries humans remain the same, who exactly was Jesus Christ. And there within the truth shines out. Islam should mean struggle, struggling for acceptance, a huge unholy lie at war with itself. May these thoughts and ideas come to fruition in the West and Muhammad laid to rest as peacefully as any other non existent person.

[@declanooi9024]

John 1:1 perfectly encapsulates the uncreated logos or word of God and is God. Thank you Jesus. All other beliefs outside of this are heretical. Thank you brothers Dr. Thomas and Dr Jay

[@Speakers154]

Paul of Samosata could be said to be the germ out of which the later Islam grew. He provided the key heretical ideas on which it held together. So it is Islam that it is the Paulian religion as Dawahist like to falsely claim about Christianity. :)

[@mikejohnson5059]

The big question is How and why did Islam creators add hate and evil into their dogma?

[@yehiaelyamani6943]

This was a mystery to me for so long. I've come with some possible answers for this issue: one is for Islam to be distinct from other creeds. Arabia was seat for polytheism and there was a kind of religious freedom, and without hate, Islam would have been just another religion or faith. Another reason I suppose is the disappointment from the rejection of Christians and of the Jews in particular. If Prophet could secure their recognition, his success would have been immediate and pervasive over all the Arabs there and then. But this did not happen. A third reason is that picturing the world as full of enemies conspiring to crush Islam is a powerful way to rally people and recruit them for war. This was exploited over the ages by so many rulers, even to the recent times it was exploited to topple down the Soviet Union by the mujahideen. Just thought to share some ideas..

[@tommyrotton9468]

if you had to form an alliance between tribes you might assume you take a little of what they believe in to make the bonding seem to be in their interests. So owning slaves from the victims of war, booty, sex-rape. executing dissenters, 1st class citizenry and rights to bully/beat lower classes etc

[@joshcryer]

It's because it started off as a warlord religion. They accepted vain repetitions from some guy who prayed in a god cave and kissed a paganistic meteorite (the black stone) and then it grew from there. Think if you were a young Arab or inhabit of those lands and some guys came up to you and told you, bow down (prostrate) toward an area (probably Petra, though possibly Jerusalem at the time), and recite prayers. Or be murdered. You're not going to say no to that. You're going to say, "OK, erm, yes, I like your (pagan) god." It took them until 1000 ad until they actually were resisting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre before they even became relevant. At exactly around the same time Christianity exploded in the west. Most of Islamic growth from that point forward was population-wise. Islam is extremely weak at growing through conversion, because Shaira Law requires the wholesale takeover of a state. And Christians have shown robustness existing in whatever state they are under (this is why Chinese Christian conversion is happening 5-10x Islam in China). Render unto Ceaser.

[@collybever]

The New Testament has a high level of purity and standards, so how did it devolve into something much lower in moral standards? Maybe it is due to people's tendencies to be dominated by what is going around about, christianly one needs to "abide in the word" to be close to God, and have elevating influences, else one can be distracted and formed by the noise and tumult of events. So given all these warlords affecting the Middle East - Byzantines, Sassanids, invading northern tribes, then Arabs - maybe one is likely to pick up their ways and realpolitik thinking, if one is not careful. So that could account for the drop in standards of the ur-quran, and initial development. Then in the formative period it was used as a tool of state (umayyads and abbasids), so you'd have rulers used to hard warlordering wanting it to be compliant with their mindset, so making it more worldly.

[@tommyrotton9468]

@@collybever well the history shows the NT was made on faith rather than certainty. ie the Bishops made a set of arbitrary rules about manuscripts had to be traced back to someone who knew Jesus or the Disciples, and the faith was god would remove the texts that failed that rule. But those who are interested can see using modern techniques that sentences and words got added at a later period and when it comes to St Paul, so letters were not written by him, like the one saying females had to remain quiet. But the real Paul quite actively wrote to females who seemed to be leading the local Church. Then when State met Church for dominance the shear impracticality of property in the divine path made more Church backdowns, u-turns, edits and rulings. One would think a real god might have anticipated human nature and constructed a better guide to follow. Which is the failing of every religion ever invented, made by men not the divine.

[@almilligan7317]

Great exegesis. Really tells us the connection of Christianity and Islam is Christology. The Quran is mostly about Jesus. Now Muslims can have their own reformation and join the rest of us. The alternative is to fight.

[@ryanspencer2844]

Jay, could we get Thomas and Joe from Red Judaism on together? One of Red's most recent videos was dealing precisely this topic.

[@wayneburke4453]

SELAH.AMEN. HOLY TRINITY HAVE MERCY ON THE WORLD. HOLY VIRGIN MARIAM PLEASE PRAY FOR US.

[@artifexdei3671]

Paul of Samosata is like a precursor to luther, calvin and other 'reformists'.

[@john318john]

@Artifex could you expound on what you meant by Paul of Samosata is like a precursor to Luther, Calvin and other reformist. I don't know much about Paul of Samosata.

[@williamchambers1671]

Perhaps we can extend this parallelism to seventh century Syria and nineteenth century America. From the American religious “soup” produced by sects driven out of Europe by persecution there emerged the Mormons, complete with prophets, a Book, and a city founded in the desert! And polygamy!

[@artifexdei3671]

@@williamchambers1671 except that mormons are not violent unlike the other religion from the desert.

[@artifexdei3671]

@@john318john it looks like paul of samosata didn't fully embrace Christian teachings in this case on Holy Trinity. if anything it looks like he rejected the concept of a triune God. Luther and other protestant 'reformers' did the same - they rejected parts of Christian teachings e.g. sacraments, sacrifice at the altar, priesthood, etc. this guy was a precursor to the desert prophet with polluted thoughts, and then onto protestant reformers. it looks like there's some kind of a virus of heresy that infects people really bad every 500 years or so. nowadays, the virus is manifested in wokeness and leftism.

[@john318john]

@@artifexdei3671 Do you think Luther and the reformers did not believe in the Triune God? This is a major doctrinal issue. Do you think the Sacraments, Sacrifice at the alter and priesthood are major none negotiable issues?

[@abdieljp]

Thomas is a genius. When he writes his book it will become an instant classic and a mortal threat to Islam. I fear the Islamists will not react well and I pray for his safety. So basically, if Thomas is correct, Islam is a Christian heresy. The Church has been harangued by many because of its harsh treatment of heretics. But just think how many human beings were brutally murdered and subjugated as this heresy spread throughout vast areas of the world and how many innocent people still live in physical and spiritual bondage because of it.

[@alonzoharris6730]

He is a propagandist. He lied thar the trinity existed before the 4th century.

[@artifexdei3671]

@@alonzoharris6730 Holy Trinity existed from the very beginning except it wasn't known to humans until coming of Jesus. something that your prophet obviously didn't understand but it is no surprise as he learned from heretical christians.

[@alonzoharris6730]

@@artifexdei3671 The trinity doesn't exist. It's a contradiction. No churchfather untill the 4th century believed in co equality between the son and the father.

[@alonzoharris6730]

@@irishheritage893 Jesus and the Father are one in what? The disciples are in the same chapter one with Jesus.

[@urbandsouza7279]

@@alonzoharris6730 jesus and deciples are one in m ission jeaus and father are one in divinity

[@albertpurification9413]

This is very true .I knew that Islam is a part of christ ianity but later it changed verse by verse by the mogal empires ,beging was christian who were anti Triniterian .

[@ishtarlew598]

middle east history would be so much easier to understand if Islam wasn't so anti non-Islamic history, destroying so much history.

[@joshcryer]

The single difference between the Christian God and the Islam Allah is that the Christian God can manifest himself. Islamist's fervently believe that Allah cannot manifest as a human (therefore is not omnipotent), whereas Christians believe it to the truest sense. The Shield of the Trinity. The Islamists incorrectly view Trinitarianism as polytheism, but the Shield of the Trinity is a logic puzzle. The Trinitarian Godhead is monotheistic. There is only one God under the Trinity. That God manifests in different ways. But they all all one in the same. The Muslim Allah also rejects omnipresence. Whereas the God of Abraham and Jesus (God manifested) exhibits omnipresence. Allah is a weak god. Allah is not god. Allah is false.

[@maxschon7709]

The Trinitarian God is monotheistic .... and he is more: He is allmighty. And he can do anything - eben have a son and die for his children.

[@joshcryer]

@@Jess-737 They claim that he can't, while yes this stems from the anti-Jesus view that he didn't, if you ask a Muslim they cannot reconcile this statement, because it gives plausibility toward Jesus as God manifest. Therefore as part of their taqiyya they can not and will not even entertain the thought. As far as 3:26-27 of the Quran you would think this was possible. But again, Allah is a weak and powerless god. The irony is if you ever have this discussion with a Muslim their first go to is "Can God cease to exist?" Because they want to limit their omnipotent god right off the bat.

[@maxschon7709]

@@Jess-737 Mosty claim God (Allah) can't fit in the womb of (mere) woman. Beyond the lack of faith it shows the deep misogyny of Islam.

[@aldredtawasil9339]

joshcryer " no one can serve two master" as per the Bible says.. then why do christians says god is 3 ? as in threenity?

[@urbandsouza7279]

Dr Thomas nice one. Apart from this topic do you think forbidden city is constantinople and sacred sanctuary is hagia Sofia church for the later emerging religion which they can't succeed to claim.later moved to unknown place

[@leedza]

What Odon then put together regarding the literal reading of the Quran fits in nicely regarding the regional theological discourse regading the nature of God and concept of the trinity. His idea that Quran is based around Arabic translation of non-trinitarian Aramiac sermons and focusing on the nature of Jesus gives the Quran historical context in line with what was happening in the region. I guess by far the biggest distraction is the supposed invention of the Muhammad narrative and the SIN which add confusion to the facts that can be found on the ground and in history. The one thing missing at this point in the discussion is Jerusalem theory and the theological relevance of the Dome on the rock. Of which i see later episodes will dive into the subject. Look forward to completing the series.

[@KaskaK]

Thanks Jay and Thomas for this lessons of history. Good to have it all in one place. Should I understand that when my Muslim friends tell me that there was a Christianity that was in line with Islam and than it was corrupted what they mean by Christianity is this anti-trinitarian branch that appeared in 2nd century? Can we clearly say that trinitarian Christianity or even kind of trinitarian Judaism was primarily to the anti-trinitarian sects or it started simultaneously just finally theologically Trinitarian view won (even there are still some smaller anti-trinitarian or even gnostic groups)? Could you show how trinitarian view was there always even somehow in Judaism, so I can explain it easily to my Muslim friends? Thank you very much. Kasia

[@gebedzandvoort]

Hi Kasia, watch this video from Dr. Michael L. Brown. He is a Messianic Jew and author of the five vol series 'Answering Jewish objections to Jesus': kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4bHe2CQeJuFrq8

[@TAlexander]

From a historical perspective, we can’t say which christology came first. We have more textual evidence pointing towards a trinitarian or proto-trinitarian christology in the first century, but that may well be due to a survivorship bias. And of course Christians point towards passages of the Old Testament which they regard as evidence of the Trinity whereas Jews will reject those claims.

[@alonzoharris6730]

The trinity didn't exist before the 4th century. All 4 gospels have a different Christology. Not one of them supports a trinity. They also clearly write that the Pharisees don't believe in more persons in a godhead. Even the bible says that uniterians is first century doctrine. Jesus himself was a uniterian in the bible. He never prayed to a trinity. He only prayed to the father.

[@P.H.888]

@@alonzoharris6730 Jesus forgave sin Accepted worship Told His Apostles to pray in His Name! Said HE would be with every believer HE promised & Sent THE HOLY SPIRIT

[@michaels4255]

I suspect they have in mind the Ebionites.

[@bobsblues9944]

God is the being , the being has thoughts , logic . planning etc. These thoughts have power , the power to create and communicate etc . This is integral to God and was with God and was of course always with God . This was called the LOGOS. The Logos was Jesus in pre-incarnate form . It was through Gods LOGOS that He appeared in the burning bush , appeared in the fire in Daniel, went before the Jews in the desert , and it was the Logos who appeared at Sodom and Gomorah as the Lord who called down fire from God . So, we have God the being , the Logos , and the Holy Spirit . Three aspects of one God . God uses his Logos as an outward way of communicating and uses His Spirit as an inward way of communication . Call this triune or trinity , it exists . How does anyone in their right mind believe that God doesnt have thinking , logic , reasoning , creating , communicating thats integral with the beings existance , so integral thats its part of God Himself and is God . At the appropriate time , God sent His Logos in union with a human woman and the outcome was Jesus, The Only Begotten Son Of God . Jesus being a part of Gods Logos makes Him One with God the Father and having that same Logos, is God , but God in the flesh . Jesus led a perfect sinless life and when He died in the flesh his spirit has a perfect sinless nature that we have access to indwelling in us . The evil spirits and unlean spirits also have the ability to inhabit a person and the only way to counter this is by having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit . I know that im preaching to people that understandt his but this was for the sake of those who dont .

[@TheSlaveOfAllah1992]

The doctrine of the trinity as it stands today was established at the council of nicaea in 325, but also at the first Council of constantinople 381 within the so-called "classical christian church". The Bible does not express a clear answer to the question of Jesus divinity, although both adherents and opponents of the trinity claim that this is certainly the case. There is agreement on the issue, which would have been greater if the leading patriarchs had not agreed on the issue in the 300s. During the Reformation period (especially in Italy, southern Germany, and switzerland), a whole host of protestant anti-trinitarians, also called Unitarians appeared, who also tried to fight the church Trinity doctrine. At the time of Paul, he believed Jesus was ”divine” but later on, they put this togheter, father=God, son=Jesus and holy spirit= Angel Gabriel= Trinity. History is fascinating!

[@britanikothegreat8513]

Matthew 16:28. 2Corinthians 12:1-4. Matthew 24:14-15. Daniel 7:13-14. Isaiah 1:18. Isaiah 54:16-17. Hebreo 4:12.

[@Youhnanbinzacharia]

@Thomas thanks for your presentation. You mentioned the Monophysite and Nestoriaanse and their conflict that shaped and created the new religion. But I heard also about another group the miaphysitism who are they ? Can they related to Syrian Orthodox Church?

[@TAlexander]

The Miaphysites are basically the same as the Monophysites. Nowadays, some don’t use the term "Monophysites" anymore as it could lead to false conclusions about their actual beliefs. I have still decided to use the term as “Miaphysites” is less known.

[@philipguillermond2483]

Thomas please improve your sound quality, thank you.

[@TAlexander]

New mic is on its way

[@roshlew6994]

Connecting the specific biblical names & terms and biblical stories in quran to their corresponding sects & communities who used them in 7th century will give a clue to the original authors of the pre-Islamic literature, that found its way into quran. For Example: The Quranic name for Jesus is Iesa, which is derived from Isho, which is the name for Jesus in Eastern Syriac language of Assyrian Christian Church. Syro-Aramaic name of Jesus which is ishoʿ (ܝܫܘܥ). Isho (išoʿ) seems to be Syriac transliteration of Aramaic script for Jesus which is yeshuuʿ (yešuʿ ܝܫܘܥ).

[@roshlew6994]

The stories of Jesus and Mary in Quran parallels the stories of gnostic infancy gospel of Thomas, which is a heretical 2nd century forgery. Which gnostic sect in 7th century middle-east used this gospel? Also, many of the old testament biblical stories in Quran are lifted from Talmud, which was being compiled in same place and time as Quran was. How did that happen?

[@yakovmatityahu]

@@roshlew6994 wait till next video we will see how this book was cooked up.

[@TAlexander]

@@roshlew6994 I’ve already touched on the issue in my “influences” video with Jay. The Quran is full of Gnostic imagery, yet it distinctly lacks any Gnostic theology. What it tells us is that the writers of the Quran were obviously familiar with Gnostic beliefs which is one of the pieces of evidence I used to try and pinpoint a location for where it emerged. It also tells us that the writers of the Quran wanted to speak to the Gnostics. Basically get them on board by using a lot of the imagery they’d be familiar with. And it tells us that Gnostic theology was already losing out as the Quran not only doesn’t adapt any of it, it doesn’t even confront it. It would for example be plausible that by the 6th century, Gnostic theology was already “domesticated” by Manichaeism, that they still used some of the old Gnostic texts, but that the original theology had already been dropped.

[@roshlew6994]

@@TAlexander thanks. That makes a whole lot of sense. The pieces are falling in place and the whole picture in the jigsaw puzzle of Islam's origins is slowly emerging.. It must be the genius of abd al-malik and his successors to hijack the anti-trinitarian gnostic beliefs and convert it into a separate religion with unique Arab identity..

[@fantasia55]

How is this going to have much of an impact, with only 5000 views?

[@urbandsouza7279]

Only 12 deciples changed the course of history.5000 views? More than enough.well trained polemics 10 members can do the job

[@justaminute3111]

“Truth is the daughter of Time”

[@ericthegreat7805]

In French the Word is translated as Parole or Verbe meaning an active logical principle relating to Speech.

[@josephtucker9612]

At the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. it was decided by Constantine, a pagan king, that the father and son was of the same substance but the holy spirit was not included in the godhead until the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D a half of century later. If the trinity was believed early on why did it take so long to include the holy spirit?

[@DominickRiesland]

A question to consider: Is the Nestorian objection to Mary, Mother of God the reason why the Qur'an has Allah ask Jesus if he told people to take him and Mary as gods beside Him? (5:116)

[@krzysztofciuba271]

that is a Collorydian, a tiny sect view: god=Allah,Jesus=god,and Mary=god; the term "son of God" does not mean "God"(also Mk 10:18) though it has a perfect biblical sense and logical("father" and "son" are relational names and do not have sense without the other)

[@MartinezzJT]

Seems islam plagiarized the wrong paper 😜

[@universalflamethrower6342]

it is copy pasting without understanding, you can observe this behaviour in comment sections like these.

[@welcometmw]

Jay; Thomas' audio has had bad echo in the last 3 videos. Pleeeze fix.

[@TAlexander]

No mic is incoming

[@paladinhansen137]

Where is the Qurans missing aya(verse or series of ayat verses) to claim continuation? "In Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 forms a perfect triangle of 2701 dots and in Greek John 1:1 forms a perfect trapezoid of 3627 dots. The trapezoid fits perfectly under the Triangle to make an even larger triangle in perfect continuation. Is there a verse from the Quran in Arabic that can add to this forming an even larger triangle of continuity? Not to mention that in Genesis 1:1 also forms Pi to the 5th digit (This is 3.14159) x 10 to the 17th power and John 1:1 forms the Eulers Code to the digit at 2.7183Ex10 to the 40th power. Is there a verse(Aya) in the Quran that can add on to this equation and level of continuity/succession of Aya(t) that will add on to Genesis and John 1:1 in Hebrew and Greek with Gematria/alphanumerics in the Arabic Quran? Truly Curious."

[@alonzoharris6730]

You need to take your medicine. The trinity is a contradiction. Try to use math on the trinity first.

[@paladinhansen137]

@@alonzoharris6730 Where is your missing aya Alonzo? Ill be waiting for a long time because you cannot refute it. Its math that you claim to know.

[@alonzoharris6730]

@@paladinhansen137 1+1+1=3 Let's use math. It's funny that you want to use math except for your trinity.

[@paladinhansen137]

@@alonzoharris6730 1x1x1=1. You pretend to know math when my comment expounds even deeper revealing hidden truth of Genesis and John 1:1 and their symbiotic geometrical relationship but also having the two most irrational and famous numbers in math and youre here stuck on 1x1x1=1!? Does your quran have an aya or series of ayat to add on to and link with those verses?

[@aaabrams1889]

@@paladinhansen137 YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY: 1x1x1 might as well be 1x1x1x1x1. ...HA HA HA This is really BULLSHIT to explain the Trinity (which itself a man-made concept which was never mentioned by Jesus... The equation 1x1x1=1 is used to describe how Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all one IS NOT TRUE. Assuming that each '1' in the equation represents a form of God, lets look at the equation with the proper terms... variables. * Jesus will be A * the Father will be B * and the Spirit will be C AxBxC=ABC QUESTION Is ABC = A...no! Is ABC = B...no! Is ABC = C...no!!!

[@sgt.grinch3299]

Am I the only person who had a hard time hearing Thomas? Sounds like he was far away from the mike.

[@TAlexander]

We had an audio issue in that session. I had to switch the headset before we started recording and unfortunately, we didn't do a proper sound check. The next one will be better.

[@nijoyjohn4366]

Mr Jay or Mr Thomas can you please explain what you really mean by Ishmaelite's, I do have an idea but just want to confirm.

[@stephanievegter5438]

✝️

[@Maximus.0186]

Thomas the soud is awful why you didnt fix it yet ?

[@TAlexander]

We recorded the last three videos in one session. The next one will be better.

[@seanmacsweeney2985]

I wonder if the Alawites splintered off from Shia Islam in the middle of the 8th century because of the Abbasids changing the narrative and implementing the SIN, as the Alawites were also known as the "Tetrarchy of the Nazerini"

[@fantasia55]

interesting

[@wlan246]

24:00 Mary gave birth only to Jesus, the incarnate Son, not to the other two Persons of the Trinity. If by "God" you mean the triune Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then calling her the "Mother of Christ", or "Mother of the Messiah", or "Mother of Jesus", would indeed be more precise, therefore more accurate, characterizations than the overly broad "Mother of God". But that's a distinction that should be made, secure in the belief that Jesus was God by virtue of being the Eternal Son incarnate, and not to be misconstrued as claiming Jesus is "not God". The purpose is to clarify the distinction between one Person of the Godhead, and God's Whole Being.

[@valerieprice1745]

What does he mean, "was one of the most important" bishops. The current Bishop of the Antiochian Orthodox Church is still important.

[@tomcat4321]

Thomas needs to speak up a bit. A total waste of presentation when we can barely hear what Thomas is saying. Jays voice is very loud and clear.

[@TAlexander]

We had an audio issue during the recording session. The next one will be better.

[@murattanyel1029]

@ 8:30: If Paul of Samosata was the bishop of Antioch in 258, he may have known the patriarch of Alexandria as pope, since patriarchs of Alexandria had been called “pope” by the Christians of Egypt, Cyrene, and Cyprus for over a 100 years before the first known bishop of Rome to be called “pope” (papa), i.e., Damasus I (366-84). The title Pope was reserved in the West to the bishop of Rome during the reign of Pope Leo I (440-461), and this title was made official only in the 11th century. So, no, the Bishop of Rome was not pope over Paul of Samosata in AD 258.

[@TAlexander]

I simplified things a little bit. But in the early church, there were basically three top bishops, the ones in Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. But already back then, the Bishop of Rome was most highly regarded, even though it wasn't a formal hierarchy yet.

[@leedza]

The issue goes back to the interpretation of nature of the Messiah. The mission of Jesus and his nature doesn't make any sense until you do a cross reference with prophecies related to emergence and devine nature of the Messiah. As a trinitarian Christian my personal issues with Jesus as God where dissolved when i looked at the subject of the Messiah in the OT and also the manifestations of the Logos in the OT. It was clear that Jesus is the incarnation of the Logos which a lot more meaning to the teachings and revelations in the Gospel. In particular how God would extend the covenants of Israel to the gentiles and redemption of creation through what would end up being the cross. By acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah, then you accept the Son of Man in Daniel and also the suffering servant in Isaiah 53.

[@josephtucker9612]

There is no scripture that says God is 3 persons in one God. The Jews never worshiped a 3 headed god. Since the bible does not say God is 3 persons in one God, the doctrine is really an oral tradition that takes precedence over the bible. Like the tradition of the Jews in Jesus day. The scribes rated the oral traditions above the written Law. The Mishnah says: “Greater stringency applies to the observance of the words of the Scribes [their oral traditions] than to the observance of the words of the written Law.”

[@benjahve]

Hallo Thomas, kann ich bitte Deine PPT-Datei haben?

[@britanikothegreat8513]

Matthew 16:27.EPHESIANS 4:8-9. Proverbs 30:4-6?!. Hebreo 4:12. Psalms 118:19-20. John 10:1. Psalms. AASA SA AWA MO AMA.

[@buzz5722]

Thomas has bad audio again!!!

[@maxschon7709]

The Islamic Trinity: Allah, The Quran (in their clay tablets in heaven) and the Black Rock.

[@yakovmatityahu]

You forgot Muhammed...without whom the islam religion doesnt exist....so Islamic trinity is...Allah Muhammed and the black stone.

[@samuelmorales2344]

@@yakovmatityahu I believe Thomas established that Jesus is the Muhammad on the Dome of the Rock.

[@Honey1xyz]

👍

[@preapple]

Worthwhile to mention the influence of Saint Gabriel of Beth Qustan - Bishop of Tur Abdin on Caliph Umar. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_of_Beth_Qustan The Tur Abdin became part of the Rashidun Caliphate in 640, during the Muslim conquest of the Levant. The Syriac Orthodox communities flourished under early Islamic rule; nearly 30 structures are known to have been wholly built or rebuilt in the following 150 years, during which most of the villages' churches were built.

[@britanikothegreat8513]

Jude 1:14-15. Matthew 16:24-28. Hebreo 4:12. AASA SA AWA MO AMA. PSALMS.

[@ivanbrizida]

Thomas must change his mic. It is terrible.

[@TAlexander]

New Mic is on its way

[@pankaja7974]

Thomas can now look right better at Jay 😛

[@judahsamaria5250]

The sound is weak...

[@hjs9td]

Not only that, Jehovah's Witnesses argue like Muslims.

[@jhmoxl]

Jay I think you were sloppy in speaking about Arius. Arius absolutely believed Jesus was god as was the holy spirit. He believed there had been some state of existence (or time but its god we are talking about) when Jesus did not exist and god the father was not therefore in that existence God the father having became that when he created Jesus. The criticism of this was not that it meant Jesus was not god, but on two counts: 1 it would make Jesus less (as a created being) than God the Father (the only uncreated being to hit what Thomas says at the end). 2. Since Jesus is god if at one point he did not exist and at that point God would not be the father that meant in multiple ways God had changed. God is perfect supposedly, but If God had changed it meant either he wasn't perfect or at a minimum at some point hadn't been perfect since something can't be perfect and then change and stay perfect.

[@Bei-Abedan]

There are more tantalising and interesting titbits but still too hypothetical/ephemeral and nothing tangible enough to hold onto. Also too much reliance upon wikipedian level hearsay. Paul of Samosata did not deny the trinity he simply interpreted it differently to argue otherwise is just semantics. Trinitarianism does not require co-equality between its members. That is to project modern tritheistic errors back in time. Paul of Samosata also did not reject the pre-existence of Jesus (by which I mean the Jewish Jesus i.e. the Logos Yeshua Sar HaPhanim). He was not a proponent of Arianism. Calling him monarchian is meaningless since the term monarchian has been used to describe various diametrically opposed groups. The correct term for what you are describing is Adoptionism (and yes Nestorians were indeed also Adoptionists as well as Trinitarian and remember Nestorius was not a Nestorian) and it would help greatly if you used the correct terms. Of course Islam as we know it is Adoptionist but the Quranic materials themselves are completely opposed to Adoptionism. The Nasara (Judeo-Nazarenes) were Adoptionists and this needs to be addressed. Quran is not anti-Jewish but anti-Judas. Judaism is treated rather neutrally in the Quranic Materials. Judases are condemned. We see yet more lack of understanding of Judaism and Ebionites as well as a lack of familiarity with Adoptionism and a severe lack of knowledge of the Quranic materials themselves. And thus the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Far too much sloppy confusion of Abbasid Narrative with the Quranic materials shoots the best arguments in the foot. Adoptionists do not view the Logos as created but begotten. This garbled presentation will not help your audience navigate the issues but causes them to crash on the rocks. Terribly sad indeed.

[@TAlexander]

Wow, did you really just delete and re-post your comment so that my well sourced response is no longer visible? Bottom of the barrel. Well, I guess you win, I'm not going to waste my time again on your fantasies. I can only urge anybody reading this to double-check the claims made here. They can easily be refuted. Read the definition of "Dynamic Monarchianism", look at what Paul of Samosata said, look up the writings on Malchion on Paul, read what Nestorius believed and compare it to the official writings of the Church of the East (e.g. via the Synodicon Orientale). Paul of Samosata clearly rejected both the Trinity and the pre-existence of Jesus. Nestorius on the other hand didn't. Very easy to verify. This is getting ridiculous. But at least it's nice to see that you slightly updated your post. Now it's marginally less untrue.

[@yakovmatityahu]

@@TAlexander Red showed up after a long time here in this channel...last time it was an year ago...

[@tomcat4321]

Red Judaism and Thomas should have a debate on Jays channel.

[@samuelmorales2344]

Arius did believe Jesus was divine. That he was God, even Son of God, but that he was created. Paul of Samosata had the Jewish concept of the Anointed King that would become Son of God the way Jews viewed it.

[@britanikothegreat8513]

Matthew 16:24-26???. Matthew 16:27-28. Kingdom of Righteousness or God. Proverbs 16:9-13. LAW HAS NOT APPROVE THE UNREASONABLE DOUBT. ISAIAH 34:16-17. The Divine question and Divine test pertains to behavioral habit and to right or wrong. Isaiah 1:18. Divine Mercy.. Hebreo 4:12.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

Rather a short briefing on Church's history. Unfortunately, Br.Jay S.repeats a typical BS interpretation of Trinity (the relations between "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit"-terms, names, and not here a historical person Jesus from Nazareth, called only after the resurrection both the Messiah or Son of God. John 1:1 seems to copy just Philo's idea. There have been many titles being attached to the hisotrical person of Jesus in New Testament, even as lesser than angels (Hebr 2:9). That Jesus himself did not see himself as God is proved in Mark 10:18 (also other Synoptics); in Mark- Jesus was angry and unable to perform a miracle (Mk8:22-26);more, he was a sinner (Mark 1:5.9) before his conversion at John's Baptism (recorded in all Gospels). Trinitarian formula uses the term "Son" as related to Father and Holy Spirit; in Nicea, AD 325 there was no talk at all yet about Holy Spirit; only the problem of relation: Father-Son. St. Athanasius just a simple logic prove that this relation must be eternal because "father" and "son" are relational names (not individual, ex."John," or general, ex. "human being"),i.e the there is not time when only father(without a son) or son (without a father)exists.; in general, any logical theorem or sentence is eternal,i.e it does not depend on time (as in natural science though the micro-world properties have the same eternal feature) St.Augustine wrote a (now boring) treaty on it: not bad but only of metaphorical and psychological nature. The term "person" (in Latin) was translated from "hypostasis"(Greek) and the centuries Christological controversies has arisen! Finally, only the (divine) post-Frege logic, esp. the definition of description (not a name!) by B.Russell in Principia Mathematica, AD 1910 has reconciled all the past interpretation quarrels and idiocies; such description just unites in one expression the action of on God through different modes: as Father, Son (in the person of converted Jesus, and in the community of believers as H.Spirit). I know it does not go to the dumb heads of pastors; therefore I use (used on Jun 29,2013, in Reading,UK) a whip on the dumb head of a pastor; Richard S. at PCM Parish- Police reportAnd Case. I've just warned the bp Barron, (US Catholic star) that I will cut off his head if he will constantly fool poor sheep as did the perfect Elijah did (1 Kings 18:40) to false, dumb priests (of Baal)- official letters or e-mails and warnings to them do not work at all! ; u can check; this Pope Francis, a theological clown(in action and words like Laudato Si) preached at last Christmas's Eve that" a (dumb) baby in Betlehem is God"- a total biblical and philosophical idiocy! Fortunately, the first command (of Deaklog) is to listen to God and not to dumb Pastors or professors (in this Dark Ages Akademia).I hope a repentance will follow. A logician,J.M.bochenski OP mocked the literary interpretation idiocy of the relation:Father-Son as if a physical one: a man was pregnant with a belly (in Gazeta Wyborcza, just before his death); I recommend his book Logic of Religion, 1965/already in AD 1938 article in Theol.Varsoviensa: Christian Dogmas in the view of modern logic)

[@Ekim1740]

a lot of blasmephous statement by this guy. first of all Jesus never committed any sin but he was tempted (1 Peter 2:22). Jesus indirectly shown his divinity many times in the gospel like when St thomas said to him "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28 ) and he did not corrected him like Peter did when someone bowed to him( Acts 10:26) . When Jesus did miracles, he does not even need to any help from any divine being to make miracles. Unlike Moses, who ask the LORD when he does miracles.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

@@Ekim1740 O Kid, repent and reeducate himself:"With regards to the emperor himself as a religious figure, both Suetonius and Cassius Dio allege that Domitian officially gave himself the title of Dominus et Deus ("Lord and God").[121][122]"+ why does St.Luke in Jesus' Birthday stories call him "Lord" (not "God"). A lot of not hidden (at any library or maybe u are from the Moon) on Bible's hermeneutics. ps. I AM attacked by Idiots (at Akademia and Church)like but....they don't live a long! (Jesus' and St.Faustyna Kowalska profesies,Diary,1732-esp. EThe Event on AD Jan27/St.Thomas Aquinas Feast,AD 2001 after my Word; check the Police-Mokotow,Warsaw report@what happened to the Pastor or AD 2013, June 29/St.Paul and Peter Feast at PCMChurch,Reding,UK when I used "a Messianic whip{"(J2:15) on the head of (your) Pastor-again Police intervention@procedure, a v.funny; I'v learned how UK law uses the validity of statement:"no comment"(contra divine principle of non-contradiction). Are u in a cave still?

[@alonzoharris6730]

This video says a lot. It says that both gentlemen use double standards.

[@alonzoharris6730]

This video shows the double standards of Alexander. He accepts 4th century church propaganda to be historical. He uses 4th century sources from the propaganda church to make claims about the first 300 years. But he has a problem with 7th century islamic sources to make claims about the 7th century. Almost all claims come from the 4th century propagandist Eusebius. Eusebius is proven to be an unreliable fraud. He forged the writings of Josephus. He also claimed that Peter meet Philo of Alexandria. That's the level of lies Eusebius invents to push for a narrative. There was no trinity before the 4th century. Alexander is just repeating church propaganda from the 4th century by Eusebius the fraud. Eusebius is the one who decided which works in the past to preserve. He decided which person in the past to give credibility and authority. Maybe there were 100 others we never heard of because he destroyed their works. Eusebius decided which sources to preserve because he was the yes man of Constantine. Alexander is building his whole theory on an unreliable person. A person who is proven to be a liar and a forger.

[@alonzoharris6730]

@mysotiras 08 I'm showing the double standards when it comes to their church sources. They accept 4th century church sources to be reliable for the first 300 years. Lol at you.

[@davidchase1439]

Nuslins why do you deny Jesus is God and yet accept your book as eternal with Allah yet not Allah Think of Jesus as Koran made flesh

[@seanmacsweeney2985]

Did the Abbasids take their apostasy tradition from Zoroastrian religion as apostasy from that pagan worship was punishable by death in the Persian empire

[@TAlexander]

The parallels are certainly there. Given other Zoroastrian influences, it’s at least plausible.

[@polemeros]

Calling Ignatius of Antioch anti-Trinitarian is both anachronistic and tendentious. The very least you can call him is proto-Trinitarian. And to say that there is no episcopacy means you have not read his letters.

[@ahsanrubel2869]

Of all the hypothesis regarding origin of Islam , German school is more logical. It is close to truth. Everything in nature is a result of evolution. All the religions are also result of evolution of existing belief systems. Nothing comes out of nothing.

[@enghamseahmed3841]

Islam is the true religion of the logic of God's special nature because Islam simply believes in one God who created the universe. Belief in the Trinity It is illogical to believe in monotheism.

[@britanikothegreat8513]

PROVERBS 30:4-6.??? AASA SA AWA MO AMA. PSALMS. DO NOT SIN ALWAYS IS IN DIVINE RIGHTEOUSNESS BECAUSE WHEN A PERSON SINS HE IS NO LONGER IN RIGHTEOUSNESS. ROMANS 7:12. Hebreo 4:12.

[@mikejohnson5059]

There are Christians like United Pentecostals who believe in oneness of God

[@yakovmatityahu]

@mysotiras 08 they are not christians...they are a seperate group....christians are who acknowledge Father Son and Holy spirit as Divinity in God.

[@michaels4255]

Theologically, they are a modern day version of the Modalistic Monarchians.

[@thecanaanite]

Lol you proven islam wrong made me stop believing in jesus now. Jesus man im confused

[@ross3818]

Re Paul of Samosata look at book 1 chapter 16 of Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, or look up P. of S. in Wikipedia.

[@thegreatandpowerfultrixie7]

So Ignatius of Antioch DID NOT believe Jesus was God?

[@yakovmatityahu]

He did but may be that early Trinity belief was not much developed but in very early stages...around 100 or 110 AD.

[@TAlexander]

No, Ignatius likely believed Jesus to be God. However, he still came out of a typical Syrian milieu, which is why we can use his writings to reconstruct the beliefs of the early Syrian anti-Trinitarians. That approach obviously has its limits, which is why I said that things remain blurry until Paul of Samosata when we first get proper textual evidence of their beliefs.

[@yakovmatityahu]

@@TAlexander i believe that Trinity belief was not developed that early the reason being the unavailability of majority of gospels into one book and also pauls letter were circulating in diffrent areas and noone read them as one book...its when you read all these epistles and gospels as one Book you can develop a Trinitarian theology better...thats just my guess

[@yakovmatityahu]

@@TAlexander for example if a community somewhere has just the gospels of Mark...no way they will come to a Trinitarian belief...or say gospel of mathew...when Bible was put into one codex...people could read the writings and develop Trinitarian theology more comfortably...

[@TAlexander]

@@yakovmatityahu We have indications of a developing trinitarian view already from the first century, although there is enough ambiguity to still have some doubts I guess. People certainly wouldn’t have used the term “Trinity”. Justin Martyr was the first to explicitly say that Jesus and God the Father are the same being. It’s safe to assume that this belief already existed some time before him. So while it’s certainly possible that Ignatius did not believe in Jesus and God the Father being the same being, him asking for obedience to "Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit" is a strong indication for me.

[@Jahzwolf1955]

Trinity is the Mother Her Son the Father’s resurrection. No man meets the Mother without the Fathers approval. He is like Her guard 💂‍♀️. 🐕. from the evidence I have, it may be shown clearly Jesus is the Father resurrected by the Mother, after being killed by the beast in the war in heaven. The Lamb 🐑 slain before the earth was formed. Back in the clouds as promised. In the Blue World 🌎 where we must be born again into.

[@yakovmatityahu]

Where do you get so much knowledge from?

[@azedinebenammar4339]

No Jay, Muslims have no problem as to the origin of the Kor'an. They all believe it was a creation of Allah Almighty sent to all mankind. When was it created? That's detail unimportant to Muslims. As to the old anti trinitarian movement, it was a Christian internal problem. From the beginning, Islam denounced Trinity as heresy.

[@TAlexander]

At least nominally, the vast majority does not believe that Allah created the Koran. They believe it to be uncreated. Of course it may well be that most Muslims never think of this issue and that their actual beliefs don’t map onto their nominal beliefs. It would be interesting to see what happens when these Muslims realise the contradiction. Will they adapt their belief and henceforth believe in an uncreated Koran? Will they challenge the dogma of an uncreated Koran? Or will they leave Islam?

[@urbandsouza7279]

Denounced for what hard to understand? That is not logic of truth

[@alonzoharris6730]

@@TAlexander You are incorrect. You also don't understand the islamic objection and argument against the trinity. Muslims don't have a problem that the logos is uncreated. Muslims acknowledge that god has attributes that are uncreated. The problem is that Christians make a positive claim that the logos is a person and yet fully god. There are 3 persons that are all fully god yet there is only one god. The problem is in the contradiction. Another problem is that there are 3 selfs or 'minds' all being fully god. That's tritheism. The islamic position is completely different. I have attributes. My 'logos' is not a second person in me. My 'logos' is not fully me but an attribute of mine that is always with me. There is no contradiction and no violation of monotheism. You are trying to make persons identical to attributes as a false anology. You completely misrepresent the islamic theological objection to the trinity and incarnation.

[@TAlexander]

@@alonzoharris6730 Are you saying that the Quran is an attribute of God?

[@gebedzandvoort]

On page 36 of "Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan" Yasir Qadhi, the author writes: "The belief that the Qur'aan is the kalaam of Allah was the belief of all the Companions" "(..) the kalaam of Allah is not created" "(..) This means that the Qur'aan is not created"