Making of the Trinity – vs Josh
Date:
Channel: Adnan Rashid
File Size: 57.55MB
Related
- Muhammad Salah – The Trouble With Youth Today
- Tom Facchine – Reforming the Self #03
- Hussain Kamani – 40 Ahadith of Imam An-Nawawi 36 – Be In The Service of Others
- Nadim Bashir – Don’t Change the Laws of Allah
- Mohammed Faqih – Reflections & Reminders – The Mercy Of Allah In Writing Our Deeds
- Ahsan Hanif – They Who Are During The Prayer Humbly Submissive
- Faith IQ – Why Didn’t The Prophet (PBUH) Remain In Makkah After Its Conquest?
AI Generated Summary ©
The speakers discuss the confusion surrounding the Bible's statement that God is the holy mother of all men, and the need for a statement about the holy mother. They also touch on the church's claims about hereticism and the holy material, including the holy grail and definition of "igrams." The conversation shifts to the church's history and claims about hereticism, including the holy material and the holy grail. The pandemic's impact on the church is discussed, including the number of cases and deaths, and the importance of the pandemic's impact on their church.AI Generated Transcript ©
Because you're presupposing your worldview. So you've made a fallacy, okay? That is the concept of God. In Christianity, I'm sorry. I'm insisting I'm insisting, yes. That is the concept of God in Christianity. Where does Jesus pray to God the Father? Jesus did not pray to any other entity, any other being any other person. Yep. So that is the concept of God. I understand in Christianity, because Jesus was a strict monotheistic, he prayed to one God, and He prayed to that God directly without intermediaries, this is what we learned. This is exactly what we learn from Abraham is exactly what we learned from Moses. This is exactly what what we learned from Mohammed. So in this
in this, they are all consistent. They are all brothers in this, okay. Christians, on the other hand, no matter what denomination they come from, are not part of this family circle. Let me finish, because they do not follow this understanding of God's goodness. Can I give an example because you just use? You said, Okay, this is how Jesus? So when you look at the book of Matthew, the Transfiguration and Moses and Elijah supposedly appeared, and they were speaking to Moses and Elijah,
sorry, I'm saying to you, then they were speaking to someone who was. Okay, so how do you know that they can't hear them when they're also not? Very good examples? Because we have similar examples in Islam. Yes. Where Prophet Muhammad was shown
directly to them. Yeah, he spoke directly to Moses, we are told in Islamic literature. But is this in normal circumstances? Or this was a special privilege? Yes. What we are told this was a miracle. Yeah, this was a miracle. There was a miraculous journey. He was taken in one night, from Mecca to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem, he went to the, to the heavens, where he met different prophets in different heavens, right now, was this a normal occurrence? Or was this a miraculous? What we understand from this is that this was not the norm. Okay? If it was the norm, then all Muslims on the planet would be praying to Moses, they would be praying to Jesus, there will be praying to Adam,
there will be praying to an idea or whoever, or even to Mohammed primarily,
himself told his companions and his followers, do not pray to me. don't pray to me, pray to God, even if it's too late, even if it was too late, ask God for it. So
I made it very clear that you do not pray to anyone, instead, to the contrary. In chapter 39 of the product.
We are told, verse three, we are told that those who appoint intermediaries in between God and themselves are actually disbelievers. This is what the crazies are doing. They had these idols in Mecca. Last minute,
they are these idols, and they wouldn't actually truly worship these idols. These idols are actually intermediaries. We worship Allah, we worship God, we worship the God of Abraham and Jesus and Moses, yes, we don't worship God, and then them in the Quran, and they're liars. They're liars and the disbelievers. Likewise, anyone who prays is God.
Is God death? Is God blind can not hear me. God can even hear an ad. Yes, yes. Right. Otherwise he's not God, can I have that? But I'm not Catholic myself. I'm just depending on what you just told me that the Islamic meritage Yeah, and you now is saying this is then the viewpoint that has to be bought into Christianity. That's what I understand from the Bible. You just told me Islamic texts something where does it say now and the Bible was outlawed to speak to someone? Please don't? Wait. Don't say that. Because you just told me now.
Tell me where it says in Christianity, specifically that you're not allowed to do. Okay. When devotion and dedication and worship is directed at one person, one beam with the exclusion of all others. Yes, that means That's
right. For example, the gospel of Mark, chapter 12, verse 29, the Jewish man comes to Jesus. Master, what is the first commandment, what is the first instruction? What is the most important instruction? I understand? What does he tell him here, O Israel, the Lord, our God is one God, worshiped by Lord, all my heart with all thy mind, all thy soul, okay. And then the Jewish man, listen carefully. Now, the Jewish man responds to him, saying, Master, he has spoken the truth, there is no one else. There is no one else beside him. In what, in what, what Jesus actually said to him, but worship dialogue, with all thy mind with all thy heart with all thy soul, and the Jew turns
around and says, yes, you have spoken the truth. There is no one else beside him, quoting the book of Isaiah chapter
44 verse six, and the first and the last, there is no one that's beside me. And it is the father speaking by the way, it is not the son, the spirit, it is the father speaking there in the book of Isaiah. So if that's the case, my brother, devotion, dedication, worship is only dedicated to one person.
I promise you, I have no problem. But still, you say you have no issue.
Myself, so I'm just saying that you then said.
Now you need to define
devotion means
if you spoke to a Catholic, they would say they worship, they would say that they don't vote because the important thing to them is that you devote to God by submitting to Christ. Okay.
So please tell him I acknowledge him earlier, because you just had washed the boat, I understand. The Catholic will also
understand your fine French, I acknowledge that Mary is not regarded as God, strictly speaking, by the Catholic
regard her as the Mother of God,
the God bearer, the one who carried God, which is the idea the thought is absurd in itself. How can God be carried by a woman in her stomach? God was confined within the stomach of a woman, and then he came out how he came out.
I don't want to go.
You know? Yeah, come on. Sorry. Okay, I'll avoid and avoid extra
to go into that type of issue anyway, because I think that's why I'm not Catholic myself. If you
are married,
I know Catholics don't regard me as God, when we do find the problem is when they pray to her as an intermediary, because they are now claiming, yes, that Mary can actually hear them. So now let's, let's let's, let's take this scenario, as an example, there is a Catholic in Ecuador. Okay, you know, Native Americans or Americans that Catholic predominantly, right? Or there's a Catholic person praying in Amazon jungle. There's another Catholic person praying in Calcutta in India, right? There's another Catholic praying somewhere in, let's say, in Russia, okay, there are Catholics in Russia, okay. And now all three of them are praying to Mary, thinking Mary can hear them. And if
Mary can hear all three of them at the same time, then there is no difference between me and God. Because he carries the same attributes as God, what we call polytheism, what we call ship in attribution, okay. So they don't have to actually worship Mary.
To to attribute godly qualities to her, right? They just have to give those qualities to her. And then they indirectly, corner God. Okay, not directly, indirectly, that she may have some qualities of God, although she's not God, she may have some qualities or attributes of God, which is, again, okay, so if she can hear everyone and everything, yeah, and God can hear everyone and everything. So, okay, okay. Yeah. I don't want to dependent too much. Because I mean, I don't know.
I reject mariology. So
we agree, but I would just say for Catholic was here, I would say they would not define omnipresence in the way that you would I don't blame them. So I don't blame them. Do you believe? I don't, I don't actually blame the Catholics for doing this. You know why? Because the theology they have inherited the Council of Chelsea, before 51. See, Mary was declared, amazingly, for centuries after Jesus. For some reason, the Christian suddenly realized that she is the mother of God.
First Jesus, it took them three centuries to make him God. And then when he became God, then God has to God has to have a mother. Right. So
can you can you carry on?
Are you going to speak?
Are you going to speak to my speaking to you now?
Number one, number nicean. counseling, and counseling counseling, were not counted on a counselor.
They were not they were not places where they realized suddenly that they were biased they made an affirmation of what was already
I understand that. I have no problem with division.
My my my question is, why did they take so long
To realize or to even declare, like, like the doctrine of the Trinity was declared to be the official doctrine of the Christian church, which was Catholic.
Am I talking to him? Are you
talking to me?
When we talk we talk
when
I've continued on
century, there you go, he's talking about
she,
she has to, she has to.
Okay.
I understand.
On the fourth of April, let's say, on the fourth of April for 51, z, and Oh, hold on a second, lo and behold, Mary is actually the Mother of God.
These ideas,
and the reason why they formulated those trees was because of the vision within the church. There were different ideas that were coming to this the same way, you know, why we have laws now? It's not because you know, people are doing these crazy stuff, we have to sometimes then put forward a statement say, actually, this needs to be done because of the vision that was going on. So that was the vision. And then they had to make a statement, what was already held by
the whole reason that they did the freeze in the first was because they just were formulating ideas, and also Italian Athanasius. Well, before these times, were holding to the scene. Yeah. Yeah. So the apostles jumped from the Italian to Athanasius. Okay, what's the what's the correlation between the two?
And what said sorry, to speak about the Divinity what was sorry? What Where did he turn it off? And what he understands?
use it because he used it. Okay. So that was at the time they will understand why people held to Jesus being God, and the Holy Spirit, they had to sort of have you read to Julian's proxies.
Have you read it?
Are you the moderator? He is the moderator. We're in trouble.
Have To Wait. You have to wait. I'm talking to this gentleman.
Right.
Once I'm finished with him, this this just
carry on.
Your point was,
can you can you? She's not understanding my language. How speaking in English, maybe you can you can explain to her in a way that she's not part of this.
But does he need your support? He's looking Look at this.
He's a very intelligent man, I know him.
Thank you.
So
much. Italians understand. I would agree with him. He did not make the use of terms that we use in the council not
use a use.
He used the term hyperstar.
The same thing he meant to say? Well, it depends on where you're talking to. Because obviously, there was some kind of difference between the two words. That's why the confusion.
Exactly, exactly. Let me explain something about
Julian, Ben Christians used to Julian as
supporting evidence for the Trinity. They are they're mistaken. Why they don't understand what Julian was saying to Tony and by no means was a Trinitarian. Tertullian was writing in the early third century. And he wrote against proxies. This is the work which is quoted. In this work. Julian clearly stated his view on the substance of the free person. No doubt he used the word tinnitus. He said
There are three persons who are venerated in different degrees. Okay? Now, what is the significance of these three persons to him? He said, God, the Father, who is the superior being, who is the superior being, he created the son from his own substance hypostases, okay. And the sun created the spirit from his sun. So the sun is a subordinate to the Father, and the spirit is a subordinate to the sun. So in that sense, the Trillium was subordinate.
He was condemned by the later tradition, I have never heard I have no problem with Yes. So
let's talk about
he was an orthodox thinker.
But he still held to the divinity of the person. And that's what you have to hold. No, no, I went No. So when we say the root? Yes. When you say the right when you say, when you say when you say the root of the Trinity, and I say the restore to that time, I wasn't saying that was correctly formulated. But it started with him. He did hold to the divine nature of what you got, no.
I'm not using I'm just using them as evidence. I was simply saying that you can go back to where this started. It was perfected as such it affected by who?
I've been asking. Yes.
There is not a church father. And who are these people again? So we're talking about people like Justin, people like
Julian people, Iranian people like Clement of Alexandria, people like Polycarp. People like Titian, if you want to regard him as one of the church fathers, people, like,
you know, all of these people put together for the first three centuries
did not believe in the Trinity, as it was defined and understood in the fourth century. Yes, they did not. So if that is the case, yes. That is the case. According to the later conception of the doctrine of the Trinity,
church fathers are all heretics. And they have been, they have been declared as such. No, no, they haven't actually
been Yes.
You know, they're not really not fully Oregon's.
When I'm saying when I'm saying there is a recipe teacher, some of the things I'm saying, but I'm saying he's not Harris, when you say a heritage, you have to go and put them through these areas. He's inherited. I think that's what you were saying he's a heritage. None of his teachings held by Orthodox Christianity. That's not Orthodox Christianity. I didn't say all defined orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Council.
Are you aware of the history? So depends what each each Council, okay.
The Council, there was not only they were not they were not the only ones you recognize, you recognize are the authority councils. But there were hundreds of councils? Are you aware of that? Even
the ones that are important about the formulation of what you say? Well, the ones used to
tell me that the ones that we are talking about, which are the formulation of the Trinitarian de NDK. Is history of Jews
is history of early Christian doctrine. He has given plenty of examples where church counsel with even larger numbers of Bishops present were held, and they condemned your findings, earlier conclusions.
When we talk about orthodoxy in the first three centuries, it doesn't exist. This is why Walter bore you don't want to bore you. So yes, this is why he came up with this theory that orthodoxy does not exist in the first reason. It only came about in the, in the latter part of the fourth century, after the doctrine of the Trinity was declared to be the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, and anyone who disagreed with it, or went against it would be hunted as a heretic and would be killed as such recording.
Okay.
Because the cancer was put there. The doxy didn't exist, but there was too much heresy coming in and to prevent the infection of the doctor. I had the cancer.
So I'm not wrong. Yep. Wrong. Yeah, we are. We are agreeing. No, what you're saying is the same thing I'm saying no.
I said
your orthodoxy did exist. I'm not denying that. But there were many more orthodoxies.
No, no. Have you read the history?
My brother, have you read? Yeah.
Okay, wait, wait.
Have you read any history of the Christian doctrine? Which one?
Which one? Which one?
He's not he has met john foster never wrote.
Let's continue just 1.1 point.
Apologize on
the cancel when they put it the third century was not something new. It was to prevent
what you're saying what you call the production.
We are having a conversation.
The point is there are many councils held with even larger numbers of Bishops present in them condemning even the Council of nicaea. So council last year 325. Constantine resided all
over the council. He added the word Lucius, into the creed. I'm not saying this jnd Kelly's saying that's incorrect. Go and speak to
him.
I'm telling you.
He's quoting mograph and more respected scholars
that
you just brought me is calling you said this is what I said. Alister McGrath is not
historian of eviction doctrine. He's not.
I know. He's
from Oxford University. And I've read his books and I admire him for his work. He is not speaking speak. This is started off. I know, we don't talk about this is Kenny field. Yep. I'm saying he started off. Did you know Kelly, this is Kelly's field
was one of the most respected history. Okay, if it's true, I just claimed is true. If Constantine imposed the terms
on the council, if it's true, if it's true, let's assume
then what he didn't actually say the problem is
specifically commanded, instructed that the word is added to the creed. He said it has to be added. And, and and majority of the
majority of the bishop for over 200 bishops, who are Eusebius did not agree with this. They were forced to sign the document and two did not areas and another one was did not sign in. They were banished, banished, immediately after this council and other Council was held. And that council
condemned the findings of the conclusions of the Council of Nicea. No, I didn't stop there.
Constantine himself having realized the crime he has committed, or the mistake he made himself became an area Oh, you see the dining area was baptized by an area in Bishop called Eusebius of nicomedia. On his deathbed, for that reason, his son constantius, Lucas succeeded him was an alien. Okay, so
you're taking under Gregory nazianzus?
Which part you have to explain why you say now?
Korea?
Not they were not there.
They were
325. So not nice, you know, I'm saying then which one is the problem because we as a possible
contact Constantinople creed is the issue. You know, constantinopolitan? Yes, that's the creature that he wants to eat. We're not talking about that. That is the foundation. That's where that's where everything went wrong.
So Catholics and Protestants who came up
today will hold something they will hold to the second grade as authorities. So actually, they will not hold to what you're saying. But that's not my problem. Anyway, my problem is not really that because I didn't know what to say, by your argument. Let me know.
Because you're saying to me just because some people
say You're lying. The reason? A lot of people that What's your name, sir? Yeah, Josh. I can get a lot of people now as a former former counsel, to go against Islamic
teaching Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's gonna be
Do
you say to me, some people, or even if it's the majority of patients, do you know that people
are the ones with authority of that talk?
If today, the Mufti of Saudi Arabia,
he had a Council of Scholars called Latina, we call it Latina, Latina diamond. Okay. They give rulings on Islamic matters if all of them came today, and they said, Hold on a second, you know, that part of law, that part of our creed is problematic. It was imposed on us. It was a problem. We don't agree with it. I would be worried if you hurt that person or that dude came together and said something like that. I wouldn't be worried that that wouldn't be a problem. But But these people, the bishop you're talking about? Are they are the founders.
Was he possible? He was the minority? Did you notice a minority, the minority in the council, and I see it was the minority. But I'm saying
you're saying to me, there's one minority to some reason, one out of your line of thinking saying there was one person who was able to destroy all of the doctrine?
Absolutely, yes. That's great. Okay, have you
gone off? Because you don't know what we're talking about?
Have you read? Seriously? Have you read the history of the first three centuries? And what happened in the fourth century?
Okay, what what did you read?
If you read it, you know exactly what I'm saying.
I don't have a problem with Let me explain.
Don't have a problem, what you're saying. But I'm just gonna say I know that was confusion. I know there was division, you'll say to me, because there is division. Therefore, the Trinity is incorrect.
You just asked me a question. Let's deal with the question. First argument.
Is your arguments, because there's division because people disagree. Josh, one to one out.
Established facts in the Council of Nicea. 325. See, when bishops came together, because there was a huge problem. One group was saying, Jesus is not God. Okay. The other group was saying no, Jesus is God as the father is God. Okay. Athanasius was part of that group.
They said no, they said that he wasn't
he wasn't of the same substance
is still helping us to buy a different way. Are you using? Are you? Are you are you an area, but I'm saying an area still held to divine? Are you aware of the arguments? The other side? Once again? Did you get the arguments? Also what I'm saying what I'm saying, Josh, you're speaking from assumptions. I want facts. I'm not saying
I'm telling you. I just said, Have you read it?
You're gonna embarrass you, all of you guys are going to embarrass yourselves because I know you haven't read. Okay. Can I
speak to me?
You just made an assumption that all of them were saying that Jesus was God. They didn't say, Are you aware of that? Why did they say he wasn't gonna tell me? I'm asking a simple question. Josh.
Are you aware of their arguments? First, because you're going? I know, so you could have gone a different time? No, no, no, no, no. directly relevant to what I'm what I just asked you here? Yeah. Did they say that he wasn't God? Yes.
There were two groups in the Council of Nicea predominantly, right.
Do you agree? let's establish facts one by one.
Can we establish facts? There were two groups.
Do you have a problem with these facts? Okay, so why would you Why would you have a problem with facts before the
other two groups? So it's a close? Close? I'd like to have a discussion sequentially. Let's let's build on something that's never conclusive. Whether two groups in the Council of ICL agree with you and everything. Just Just go on to you.
Just made an assumption that you said. They said he wasn't saying that they say that what do you mean, understand and appreciate my answer and until and unless we establish, you know, I want you to speak with the two groups to speak just
because
I don't know.
I want to establish facts before we move on. What are the facts we're discussing whether two groups of Christians against each other My problem is I asked you a question.
I have no answers. I am
I'm completely ignorant. Can you teach me Josh? Tell me what happened in the council last year, I submit, can you tell me what happened in the council?
I'm completely ignorant. I have no idea what happened. Can you explain to me
was the visuals of that time? And what were the
divisions about that time about what was the understanding of the substance of the second person?
So it wasn't substantial with the Father on areas.
He was on the same substance. But he still held that attention. So he held to be held to Jesus being a divine did not have the same substance. And what was the argument?
So they help How did they argue they held Jesus being appeared to be? Oh, you know, well, you know,
come on. Okay. So what does that imply? No, Jesus was generated, which is subordination ism. Okay, Jesus was generated, hence, hence, what was the argument hence What? Hence, he wasn't on the same substance as No, no, no, no, no. What is it? He was not God? Hence, he was not gonna have
to talk about the medals. Wait, wait, wait, wait.
We're discussing it. There are two issues. We basically, you know, kind of discussing them both at the same time, we can choose. Either we discuss arion theology. Or we discuss what happened in the Council of ESEA. Which one do you want to discuss? But can I
both go and speak about the doctrine of the Trinity? Because it seems like Yeah, but we can talk about even doctor console and I see it is impossible. So what I'm trying to say to you,
is that you're going into long winded history to basically say the Trinity is incorrect. But what is your point? What is your I mean, without taking any my? What is your main?
I'm not the first one to say that. In fact, the majority, the majority, and I say it with confidence. Yes, the majority of the Christian church fathers, forget about the masses, the peasant who is busy in his field with his with oxen bow, I'm not talking about those people in North Africa, or in Italy, or in Egypt, or somewhere else in the Middle East. I'm talking about learned men in the fourth century, up to the fourth century, majority of them rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. The majority said none and men. Yeah. So
did you hear? Did you hear my claim carefully? I said the majority.
You just had learned math? Yes.
Okay. Do you know any of the names?
For example? Yes. You know, these these you know, these names? You know, these?
People are Michael Jackson. What was the name for Whitney Houston? And was any other names?
I don't blame them. Because these are the names. They've heard all the lines. Okay. Who is Maureen, who is more who's more important than the majority, which is never mentioned? The majority, which is never mentioned not you go to church, you hear the word. You hear the word? Augustine, you hear the word sawston? You hear the word? Gregory of nazianzus. Hear the Word Gregory of Nyssa. He has a word. For example.
He had the word Iranian to trillion. Justin. Okay, who was it? Right? What is it?
Trying to believe in the Trinity?
Should I just come in, and I just sort of twisting history. Because once
every name I mentioned,
RNA, RNA is
the divinity of the sun. And you say that to me, maybe had one degree. What I'm trying to say to you fully understanding that these are the roots of that thinking that was poorly formulated by that time, or maybe exaggerated, but you're not kidding me. I'm not saying to you that this was a Nicene Trinitarian. I will not say that. I think you're correct.
It doesn't negate the point on
this camera.
Even though
even though sorry. Because even though even though they would have been orthodox, or whatever.
So maybe they helped.
not holding to the Nicene Creed.
But then you can't go and say to me that renatus was against the Trinity to me that these people were here.
I'm saying that but then not because it helps you a divinity or
not you're not even Trinitarian.
What I'm trying to explain if you went to
Julian and said,
Son, Jesus is exactly the same, in essence, and
how can you put
it in the father's eternality or his
substantiated substantiality?
They will reject such a belief, they will say, No, you have completely misunderstood because there's no evidence.
Let's use your line of
Christianity to understand progressive revelation. If we went to
the father of Jesus said, by the way, Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. And more than likely,
the apostle tells me, because it was progressively revealed over time, we hold to the document progressively formed by went to someone at the beginning of it, they weren't holding the stuff yet, and they won't, because they weren't. So I'm saying to you, that you have to understand is that he was progressive. So when does when does the progression stop? And who determines when it stops? Okay, but we hold
the divine person who decides which counsel
these cameras.
Why?
Because that's where the creek was.
Established?
That's incorrect.
One second one second, yeah. wasn't actually the provision of the Roman capital. It was a universal, universal body. It was
just a token. So because I know when it happened, Catholic means universal.
Universal, correct. Okay.
So do you believe in all the findings,
you believe in all the findings of the Council of the findings?
Maybe you know, maybe.
And if the council if you say, economy, economic account councils
are able to give you doctrine,
then why do you pick and choose from those?
Picking the gentleman.
Every time you would bring something
because I'm
the Queen's
and I will have more emphasis on
the view that even Protestant church is a result of interpretation, not progressive revelation.
The Protestant church, it's breaking away from the Catholic Church of
Revelation.
When they were
Dr.
Martin Luther
King.
They said we'll need to return back to how the doctrine was not in itself is a doctrine.
That in itself is a doctrine breaking away from the
fundamental doctrines of Krishna.
You're playing cards, you know, you're playing.
I believe.
I believe No, I'm not. I believe in all
the ones
you don't know what I'm telling me. You have no idea what
I'm saying.
as being
Alicia
Don't make a difference to me.
Next
to me, you're going around the question because you know, you can't answer the Yes.
He wasn't meant to be the
he wasn't meant to be the first.
He was supposed to be the correct.
So
I don't want to go
the way you
the way you're going the way you're going to
pack the bags.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, you just claim that I claim that I hold to all. Did I ever say that?
I said, I believe in my mom's okay. And and no, no, you, you, you equated that with following the teachings believing in Him and following.
Okay, so is that clear? So?
I don't
I don't
I do believe in him. Okay.
But you don't believe?
It doesn't matter what I believe. I'll tell you why. Because he was not the first candidate. But should he have been the first?
Okay, she asked, Can she hacks into the blue monkeys flying around in the world?
In the sky? Doesn't make it doesn't make it true. Okay, so then so then now let's apply your line the reasons why I'm saying I don't believe in mariology. So why you then bring up mariology? I'll tell you why reason. I'll tell you why. Because she from the beginning of Islam, that have been a fringe group. Okay, the only emerged in the third century, as a minority, they still remain a minority. And when you look at them,
looking at the practice, generally, you can tell that there's something not right about them, even someone who's not a Muslim, an atheist.
Take Take him to a gathering of this year. Okay.
And show that person, he has beaten themselves. Okay, so that should tell you a second. This doesn't look right. Okay.
I'm talking about early church fathers. In the first three centuries, the overwhelming majority. In fact, your group doesn't exist. The trinitarians do not exist them.
If you let me finish, until I was going to say they don't exist until the fourth century, they pop into existence like that. Okay, you have a Gustin, you have Gregory of Nyssa Gregory of nazianzus Athanasius. And lo and behold, lo and behold, Theodosius, the second Emperor Theodosius in the EU yet
imposes theodosian code.
That's the Roman law. Tell me about your dosen code, book 16. Article, two.
Law 28. If I'm not mistaken,
if anyone
goes against the established doctrine of the Trinity, in which we worship God, the Father, God, the son and God, the spirit as equals,
would be
regarded as a heretic and will be treated as such. And the wrath of the Roman primarily the wrath of God.
The point is, the point is, it was the Roman
Roman mind, which spread doctrine in the Christian world. Do you accept this point?
Do you accept?
I just made a claim.
Roman might whatever you're saying.
was done often agreement was set. By the way, this is the authoritative guys in agreement. You can't say that. Because the way you construe history is that we went around saying, You must believe this must be you must believe this. You must believe it now.
This was exactly what happened. No, that's exactly what
it was agreed as to why the theologians and condemned the majority.
The majority, tell me the majority, the names have you read the right
I don't want you to tell me the names yourself.
In the permanent names of these, these
I am saying all, I don't want you to tell me the
story of who is the one who
have the majority, he was saying the majority
of areas
of gold, you know, gold, tell me.
This is not a name. Okay? So what you're saying he's telling me,
vandals Don't tell me names. I'm telling you, I'm telling you. So you're listening to tell me.
All of North Africa. All of these are unitary. And these are areas
have you heard of do not? Have you heard
of these names? What's the point?
My simple question. So I know you're beating around the bush. Hello, once, how am I beating around the bush one second? Because I can't even direct like I say to you Do you know the nice here? The ones who follow?
Problem is and Come in, come in, come to me say my point. And then you come back to me. So I'm saying to Joshua, I'm saying to you,
I'm saying to you, I could just simply say the nice he is now I can say to you the people who followed the Latin church, I can say to the people who followed the orthodoxy. Just give me general groups. I don't want I want the names. I just give you the names of the respective theologians at that time you were the voice of the majority.
I don't want that. Just tell me.
Tell me, you know what that means?
give me
give me one.
thing. Okay. So when I say
okay, I'm saying against these names. Entire chunk of North Africa, you listening?
online? It's been recorded, it's going to be on the net, the entire chunk of North Africa and go
where the vandals were of the gods. Okay. Even
even Spain, you know, are you aware Spain was?
Are you aware that Spain was Unitarian? As late as the fifth century? Are you aware?
Josh?
Josh, probably cannot have a discussion with someone who is simply unaware of history and
is unaware of history. I'm just tired. When I give you a question. I don't answer directly. So when I say I gave you done, what is your reasoning is not correct. I can say to the whole of England trinitarians. Like you say to the whole of Africa and Trinitarian. That doesn't mean that they're truly Trinitarian. There could be pockets of people.
So I'm saying to me, you can't say Africa was Trinitarian. Spain was not Trinitarian.
We're just generalizing about
right now.
On Google as well. I mean, come on.
Come on.
Check it out. If you don't have the names in your head.
Doesn't make it false.
Coming.
from Texas, whatever. You want the names of these. What's the problem?
No, no.
I'm saying he was trying to guess me to I don't know history, but then he's going to
know. Okay.
I can tell you the sources you can go. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Yeah, okay.
I'm going to show you these statistics I'm talking about are these claims I'm making? Yep. You can see what I'm saying is not a lie. These claims are not false. Majority of the Christians as late as the fourth century, were Unitarians. They were not strictly speaking areas. They were not Trinitarian. This is a claim of making
a majority of not making a claim
for change, after the change in the fortune, that's the question, How can I get I'm making a claim Can I come back next
year.
Come back
Christian.
One second.
What do you mean by majority? How much? I'm saying the majority of
Christians were there? How can you say?
Are you disputing? No, no, I'm saying I need to understand the spiritual question. Are you disputing it? Or are you doing? Are you just asking to learn?
to learn?
No, no. So majority learn. If you want to learn Let me speak now. Okay. Okay, my question now learn
how many?
So you have no idea. I tell you what is telling us the majority is
who's telling us the majority?
Who is telling you?
Maybe you can help.
Richard.
Richard, I know isn't reasonable.
So you're saying to me, you're judging me reasonable Boston questions? No, you just look everything.
Thank you.
Thank you very much. So what did you say? Can you
said that?
You're making the problem. This is not about
the problem. When the lady here was speaking, when she came? He said, No, Richard won't say No, I'm saying
what I'm saying I'm saying if you're going to act
when someone else comes who doesn't make
you also respect them? But that's not my issue. My issue is is that my first question was,
who was
who was saying that? They were Aries.
Aries, Aries. Okay.
We have Eusebius of nicomedia. Okay.
Okay, so you see this area? You see this area? Okay. And 200 bishops who followed him?
Listen, come on, if I'm giving you
Mr. Shi, you either lying or give me references. And then
No, no, no, no, Josh is I can say that Josh, hundreds of patients.
So I mean, you don't make
the teaching. Let's talk about it.
The problem is you don't let me give you the relevant information.
nicea? How many bishops? Are they? Sorry? How many? Tell me your I really want you to tell us what you can do. You know, you don't know. Tell me the information.
Or you don't know
if this
is about knowledge, because knowledge, knowledge helps you understand.
My problem if
you asked me lots of questions.
When I asked you, you don't want to
ask me.
Any question.
Telling me your information. Don't ask me a question. Sorry, told me.
There were 318 bishops, according to some reports, others argue the 318 is just it's a convenient figure that was used, such as Henry Chadwick and Richard with the previous
example. But they were, let's say, 300
over 200, will you see the over 200 But you see, according to who, according to Augustine, later on confirming that the majority of the bishops are not Trinitarian. They were not.
They were not a people who believed in what what Athanasius was.
The majority,
the majority, this is the fourth century, the year 325. And this is the formative period and as far as the doctrine of the Trinity is concerned.
majority the bishop
did not have that view. They were forced to sign the findings or the conclusions of the council and they were forced
because of Constantine, okay, why did you do Constantine? He said you either agree or you die. Did he say okay.
I must tell
you
why Constantine wanted the Christian because he wanted
because in the Eastern Orthodox me,
Constantine was in the east, okay. And he wanted to establish his government in the east. In the east, the Christians were against each other because of these differences, right. So he wanted unity in the East that he can govern. As far as Constantine was concerned, he had no interest in Christianity, according to
TD bonds,
Muni bonds.
He had no interest at this time, he resided over the console, he forced the word into the creek. And he said, he asked all bishop to sign which everyone signed on the pain of death, on pain of death.
And those two have vanished. One of them was
the majority.
And because of
the council offices area, in the council offices area, where we had even more bishops attend. And they condemned the findings of the council and it continued like that.
The majority,
the majority,
majority, they're trying to catch my
Josh, that's my evidence. Okay. And it doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop.
Constantine did it to unite the child. Why did they unite on that to control number? Why on that doctrine? If the majority were with
that doctrine, because he would he would have
to come up with a majority. That wasn't majority makes more sense. Unless he
was actually incorrect. It makes more sense, and he will go with you. So why do we
have Alexandria?
Was of that view? Okay.
Influential bishops? Who were of that view, okay. The others influential, influential because they held important seats.
The majority
majority what's
being covered by a bunch of landlords who have given this land
given, given this land by the British, okay? Because they're in important positions. We can't tell you the government because I do nothing. Can I just say to you, but they're all a bunch of bands,
said he wants a unit. So it makes more sense. makes more sense. If you want unity of the money that he made us to finish
it. That's his purpose.
It makes more sense. I think the majority.
No, it doesn't make sense.
Not necessarily.
The majority. Here we are in Britain, when Tony Blair decided to go to war against Iraq, majority, the poor 86% of the British people. Most intellectuals, most, most, most academic, most activists, okay. Most politicians were against. Okay. What is their do? Not does that make clear, right? Okay. No, he called a major.
That's not my problem. My problem is what you said, unity
didn't, cause no, it's not something you just said to me doesn't make sense.
Once you said he can unity,
unity, peace.
You say to me now the world has become a worse place now.
ISIS, come on.
No, your logic doesn't make
sense. He said Constantine allowed this doctrine that was false.
You know, this doctrine. I'm not saying this, because he obviously wasn't helped by that. I am not saying
Hi,
I'm
Kenny j and
a scholar. Yes, I'm saying
you're saying to me, you're saying to me that unity was the purpose of culture.
But it doesn't make sense that he will pick a minority, which is Trinitarian. He said, trinitarians.
Because I'm sending the influence my point I'm saying
it's correct.
Because the influential people
was not in the council.
Bishop Alexandria.
So this is picked up in a
half an
hour by people, you know, the majority. So john
Constantine will just select someone who has the wrong key because it wasn't held by the majority, and also also wasn't influential in the way that you're saying, because I said, the reason why
was because it was held by significant theologians.
Why was he viewed in hell? Okay.
I can argue.
I'm sure. The problem is, the only issue I'm facing right now is, I know,
you are not aware of these facts. Okay, I know. I'm sure I'm sure. Okay, because I'm asking you, you don't know.
You're making a
when all I've said to you that I've asked you some questions, and you have not answered them directly, who was the most influential in the country?
Who was the most influential? And I finish? You don't want
to go on tangents all the time. Is this. Just a question I just asked. Is that a tangent?
You can't?
You have to have Yes. You have been talking.
I've asked a lot of questions you don't answer.
Which one?
Put the rhetoric?
Did I not answer?
First one? Yes. What is your main argument?
Right history. What is your main
against Trinity? Trinity? What? Yes, yes. And I give you arguments such as well, none of the early church fathers in the first few centuries, believed in the Trinity, as you believe it.
Now, as you started to believe in it in the fourth century, that's my argument. Okay. second argument, the majority of Christians as late as the fourth century, are not Trinitarian. They are Unitarians in some form or shape. Okay, they will not Trinitarian that's my second argument. Did you hear that during a conversation? Did you did you so you're not listening to me? Are you okay? Are you making claim that I'm not?
Okay. Now, you made another claim false information? Which one?
Which one? You said
that they were unitary? Yes. They were not unitary.
unitary? Yes.
This is a good question. What is a unitary is someone who does not believe in the doctrine, the Trinity, in which you have three persons who are co equal and paternal Unitarian, even if subordination is listed?
As Unitarian to me.
Okay. Anyone who clearly in the first three centuries, military,
anyone in the first three centuries, said that the Father and the Son are exactly the same. They have the same essence, co eternal, co equal military.
Find me one
unit.
One
night, can I just say,
a unit? Just before I say to you, if I knew one person who was a bit of geryon, Lord,
I said,
I said to you that he was progressive. So you can't
you can't then go to this.
Convert to the person.
Most most
nice not. I don't accept your progressive revelation I don't accept
evidence for being progressively there's evidence for it in the Bible, in the Quran being progressive, you know, we don't
talk and 23 years, and the law was progressive, he revealed it was revealed to one person. And after his death, there was no progression. I say you don't understand. You're saying you're saying Jesus disappeared, and it's still in progress. For the first for the first
time.
The revelation of the Quran was progressively revealed over 20
to one person. I mean not to counsel. Yes. Yeah. So you hold
after the Quran, and
you hold to some form of progressive revelation.
Just like you did now. Okay. Defined progression. You just said you did not just revealed to Prophet Mohammed a prophet 24 years? Oh, yeah.
He just made him he's made a contribution to I don't believe when you say progressive, it gives an impression that things are changing. Nothing's improving.
Progressive.
aggressively What do you mean by old retire?
In that sense, okay.
Now, now, now do a comparison of that. So it's your progressive revelation of the Trinity, which doesn't exist in the first three centuries? Lo and behold, in the fourth century, we have God the Father.
So it doesn't
matter is in between Yes, because it's a different form of progressive revelation. It's not the same in a way but let me
not reveal to one person can progression can can lead to progression or later outcome of progressive revelation contradict an earlier one earlier one enlightened
talking about the Quran,
it in one place, Revelation says God is one in another place. Revelation says no, God is one. But he
doesn't mean
you know, I really want to have a conversation. What you mean by this? I
don't understand. I do understand. Okay, so explain to me because it doesn't say and I seem to understand it fully because I've read the law Tell me
tell me then the doctrine has formulated according to the
counter and I see a veteran 325-381-3213 81 which is the complete one right? Let's go
all the
way in the house.
So you agree with me? Explain how you don't say that he's not the Holy Spirit is not God in the first
in the first period is not God just
explain to me that the completed one
in the fourth in the in the, in the, what you mean by the doctrine? The doctrine of the Trinity is that God the Father, God, the Son, God, the Holy Spirit are three persons who share one being of Godhead, all of the three persons are co equal and co eternal.
Okay, so then I would say, Okay,
did I miss what what you mean by person?
Evidently,
does it mean when you say passing, I mean, persons are distinct persons with distinct roles, the distinct personalities, but they are part of one. They're all one. Okay? Yeah.
What's the definition?
Okay, I
can I can, I can be moved there and I want to really rest
because I'm getting tired. So let's move on.
The definition of the Trinity is that God is one
who consists of
God the Father, God, the son, the Holy Spirit, these three persons are not one, and they share one substance,
and one being co eternal and co equal to have I defined it.
Then how does that go against the Oneness?
In this Trinity we have
in this Trinity, you have added two more persons to God.
While in the earlier part of the revelation,
God was one person one being, strictly speaking God with one person, how do we know this? God speaks as father to the Israelites tells them that
this is in the book of Isaiah chapter 44, versus
the father speaking, because in the same book, the book of Isaiah, chapter 63, verse 16, we are told, I am the father, I am your God, and I'm your father. It is the father speaking to the Israelites. So now countries realize until the modern second
father was there, they worshipped him. But guess what, the
Israelites have no reason to believe you. They have no reason because as far as they're concerned, God has spoken to them. And as far as God head is concerned, it is sealed. So yeah, I, I don't have that much against what you're saying. My main point is, is that
they didn't really we use the term passive in the way that we hold
persona, which was sort of meaning. So it didn't mean you have to agree with
what it was.
It was very clear, but it passed through the majority of Christians
as to what games, the pagan, monotheistic Trinitarian, it was very clear. That's why they were so adamant in dying for unitarianism. Okay, you know, how many people were killed? You know, how many people
this is this is the point we were discussing earlier. And you completely drifted away from the main topic? How was the doctrine of the Trinity? Yes, spread in the Roman Empire. While evidently we know historically, the doctrine of the Trinity was not the doctrine of the majority, evidently.
But how will this spread my can we can talk about how
you're going into history? I
was asking you that was about, about the doctrine itself. And your,
your problem with the doctrine of the Trinity? Because
I hope you can say to me that there weren't.
There weren't problems.
And lots of people got killed. No talking like a politician.
Do you think it's
a very respectful way? Yeah, I haven't sent me
something. I'm just speaking to him respectively.
screaming at you. Sure.
I appreciate. I really appreciate it. That's why I'm still here. I believe, believe me, this is why I'm still talking to Josh. Because I usually with people like that lady. Yes. So what I'm trying to say is that I can obviously get stuck in history.
But I'm saying and appreciate that if you speak to most patients, they would say that that count had the authority because they
were
they were the right.
People, they were the ones
okay, but I'm saying I don't I'm not.
I'm not arguing to say that's a good argument. I'm saying, if we then look at the doctrine of the Trinity itself, what is the main problem which takes away from the oneness of God, it is the term person contain the term person, when it was used by
at that time such as
the person was not meaning what we mean when we say person, but we are one of the first people to define what person makes our way to say that it means subconscious. It means you have your will, you know, whatever system of consciousness which which is a bigger problem, yes. Which I say is not correct. You have the Trinity. But when it was formulated at that specific time by that
person and
when someone says God is three persons, but what, I don't mean passing away.
Obviously, if you said to me three parts of what doesn't make sense, I hope
to
impart
But I believe God is three eternal modes of being. And that's the correct definition of that person.
just completely changed the modality.
The doctrine of the Trinity.
Yeah, yeah. Because you're actually 100.
Because I'm telling persona moss mask, that was the term that was meant, right? So when they use the term persona mask, why was a problem with Sibelius was because he was saying that God has sequential modes of being sequential loss, I'm seeing now is not something but it's a turn in three modes of being there's not one minute the father, then changes to the son kind of changes to the spirit. That's why Spain This
is permanently three modes of being
one substance one, so
I understand that. So the spirit may be here, the sun may be here, the garden might be there. So they all like 111 person. One is one one sense of being is there. So yeah, if I give an example, then why do we need it? Why do we need? Why do we need? Why do we need the Trinity when the Jews, especially, I've never believed in a trinity. The Trinity doesn't specifically help us in any way to understand God better? Yes. If anything, it makes things worse. It makes things more complicated. Why would God
say to you, that's a good argument, because the inner being of God is complex to understand. comprehend. I haven't comprehend that there are things about the goddess that we will never know the things about God, we will never know. And even the bible tells you the God is not the author of confusion. Yes. Okay. And the Trinity has overwhelmingly been
described as a mystery by Christian theology, it's wrong. But
if you go to influential
Augustine, Aquinas,
Gregory Ennis, and all those theologians who held the document, they wouldn't say the doctrine itself was mysterious, I'll say, certain elements of it are mysterious, which we will not fully know I come.
comfortable with the Trinity. If someone comes to me says, say to me, 20, miles won't be a mystery. I hate
that, yeah. But there's certain elements of it, which is mysterious, and I won't be able to fully understand it. But I have a certain grasp of it. I can't, it has no base or it has no basis in the Scripture, in the scripture itself has no basis and the full doctrine of the Trinity mode does not okay, in the terms that we use, I would agree with, but to alter the divinity of the sun,
to hold the divinity of Jesus, the divinity of the spirits, and the father is in Scripture.
The Scripture, the divinity, divinity of you'll take the divinity of the Father. Well, yeah, we don't describe him as the Father, we mean the Creator.
That's how it's understood. So you take that so I mean, that's a given I don't know what the Son and the spirit, I believe, and majority of people who have formulated the doctrine believe that the foundation of it is in Scripture, not in detail was it actually formed? So how, how was the divinity of the Son and the spirit, as you claim explained by early church fathers? What are these modes? What mode did they use?
in the scripture?
scripture? What tools did they use to explain it? Are you aware?
philosophy?
Particularly?
electronic Garrison's knocking out the platonic?
neoplatonic? Yes. Out of neoplatonic philosophy? which branch? Sorry, which branch in particular?
I don't have a full grasp.
Yes, okay. Yep. Okay, now, you're using a pagan tool,
which was essentially pagan.
In its origin, and it's and its manifestation, yes. To describe a monotheistic text. Okay. So that's why when john, you know, john was stoic. Did you know that?
The reason why john use the term logos Yeah, because john himself was apparently or in my my view, definitely.
Inspired by vinyl.
Okay, but can I can I just hit gym tonight? Yeah, but can I just say, Can I just say something?
I don't think that's a successful argument. Because if something is used by a if a tool is used by someone you know, to kill someone else use for a bad reason. Or you say to me, it can't be used for a good reason to further a good end. So just because philosophical
and conceptual unifies.
I'll give you an example. If you you know, would you call it you know, these sex toys?
This is a bad example. Okay. Yeah, but can you use it to
you know, if something, you know looks like male organs? Yeah, you know. And you would you place the Bible on it and read it.
I'm saying so certain tools only lead to destruction
disrespect and confusion
so
Chilean logic Yeah.
I absolutely love
you know you love to start to
say no I haven't
I will agree with you because I will never use a talent concepts and
whatever concepts to further Chris
Rock but let's say philosophical things such as Aristotle, which doesn't have to be used for something which is contrary to Christian belief it is fine to use it
comes from come from
Aristotle is the first person to use the term Yes, and this is why a lot of Christian theologians even at the time they're rejected this use
this use of language to explain the doctrine of God which is from the Bible. Yes, this is why you're rejected. This is what this is exactly why Constantine had to go out of his way and force the term on the creed okay to see more videos like this subscribe to Titan TV
the greatest darky that like with sharp teeth and hate malarkey the greatest heartbeat Ancient Egypt because you don't even understand that racism is a sub conscious conversation that's going on in everyone's brain right now bro. You don't even
put you went to the table me?
Oh no, no, it wasn't actually raised.
delusion is believing in something which is contrary to overwhelming evidence against