Ashraf Schneider – The God of Abraham – Part 2

			As salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh peace blessings and mercy be upon your warm welcome back
to my page. In part one of our series The God of Abraham, we focus on the overwhelming similarities
between the God of the Jews, the God of the early Unitarian Christians, and the glory of the
Muslims, the God of Abraham. In contrast, in today's video, we'll be focusing on exploring how
modern Judaism and Islam monotheistic religions, by definition, compare and contrast with
contemporary Trinitarian Christianity. It is worth noting at this juncture that not all contemporary
Christians are Trinitarian and that Unitarian churches are still in existence. This comparison and
		

			contrast will be focusing specifically on Trinitarian Christian practices. In closing in part one of
this video series, I promised that today's video will focus on the history and paradoxical nature of
the concept of the Trinity in more detail, and we will, but if you haven't yet, I'd strongly advise
that you watch part one of this video series before continuing with this video, so that you can
appreciate the shared history of the Abrahamic faiths that we've discussed there in and so that you
can bear the Abrahamic faith similarities in mind when approaching the exploration today. In part
one of the series, we established that Judaism, early Unitarian Christianity, and Islam have far
		

			more in common than mainstream media would lead you to believe. And while that's true, contemporary
Trinitarian Christianity breaks with this decidedly monotheistic Abrahamic tradition in favor of
what one might call another kind of polytheism. So, where in history that the streams of Abrahamic
faiths diverge from uniformly Unitarian or monotheistic due to divide we see today, how did the
Trinitarian concept come to be so widely accepted by contemporary Christians? And how did it make
its way into the Bible? Fasten your seat belts, because we're about to take a deep dive into ancient
history. The concept of a Trinity was first introduced to religious discussion in the second
		

			century, when theater lawfulness of Antioch use the Greek word three hours or three hours, meaning
Trinity in his writing to autologous that is to say that the concept of the Trinity only entered the
theological realm and discussion. Long after Jesus Christ, peace and blessings be upon him ascended
to the heavenly realm, and only after the biblical text had already been compiled. That is why the
word trinity cannot be found in early copies of the compiled biblical text. The concept hadn't been
invented yet when the original book was being disseminated. nevermind the fact that the lawfulness
wasn't even referring to a Triune God, or the popular God the Father, God, the Son, and God the Holy
		

			Spirit trio has referenced today. Rather, Theo lawfulness used the word trinity to refer to God, His
Word and His wisdom, he wasn't even alluding to a polytheistic interpretation of the nature of God.
Rather, he used it specifically to say that there were three things that existed prior to that, God,
His Word and His wisdom. Thus, three, but not three in one, not three gods, all versions of God, or
expressions of God, but one God, who was in possession of eternal wisdom and power. It was another
100 years or so later at the first Council of Nicaea in 325 ad, that the concept of the Trinity
would first be used to reference to a Triune God, or to propose that God's identity was
		

			polytheistic, thus making the contemporary Christian departure from the strict monotheism of the
Jewish faith which preceded it. Thus, the formal doctrine of the Trinity and divine sonship both
sprang from the Council of Nicaea and were incorporated into the Nicene Creed, a profession of faith
agreed upon, although with some misgivings because of its non biblical terminology, by the bishops
atmosphere to defend the true faith against Arianism. Let's back up for a second. If you're
wondering who areas from whence Arianism is, Well, I'll tell you, there is was a fourth century
Unitarian who derived his doctrine directly from the Bible. As a result, he issued all references to
		

			polytheism and practice the strict monotheism. What the passage I just quoted uncovers is the fact
that despite knowing that there was no biblical basis for the concept of a triune or polytheistic,
God and being vaguely uncomfortable with the fact the NIS Ian's willingly and with full malice of
forethought, formalize the Trinitarian doctrine, pronounced as as a true faith and branded areas as
a heretic. Why, while let's look at the events leading up to and immediately following the first
Council of Nicaea, if you hadn't already guessed, just like in today's day and age, everything is
political, essentially, during the years immediately preceding the Council of Nicaea impro constants
		

			He saw his Holy Roman Empire weakened by religious infighting. Instead of focusing on warring with
their national enemies, the Roman Empire was at war within its own walls, Constantine that sought to
strengthen his empire by uniting his people under a single unified Christian faith. He therefore
called for the Council of Nicaea, to take place and exerted and not insignificant amount of
influence and power over its outcome. This is perhaps one of the first recorded instances of a head
of state effectively declaring himself the head of the church verse despite the fact that
Constantine wasn't baptized until he was on his deathbed, and he had little to no theological
		

			education. Constantine was a politician through and through who sought to use religion or theology
for his own political gain. As a result, all disagreements over doctrine became overtly political
and public as opposed to private and the state would often intervene in church disputes, to serve
their own ends. So for brief spell, all was hunky dory, right? Legally, the whole of the Roman
Empire had to be Trinitarian because Constantine effectively said it should be so. And that's that,
right? While no see Constantine had two sons, Constantius and constants, and like most brothers, the
two didn't always see eye to eye. So while constants acknowledged and propagated his father's Nicene
		

			Creed, even after Constantine's death, his brother Constantius was the rebel who challenged the
status quo he declared for Arianism, or monotheism. And while two brothers attempted to reconcile
their views at the Council of sadhika in 343 ad, they ultimately failed, as they were each ruling
half of their deceased father's Empire at the time, you would think their powers would be evenly
matched, but unfortunately, that was not the case, constants, the Trinitarian brother was more
powerful, and so he placed orthodox Trinitarian bishops in positions of power throughout the empire.
Despite his brother's objections, his victory was short lived forever, as Constantius outlived his
		

			brother and reverse constants his policies declaring Arianism the religion of the Rome at the Sonata
of Serbian and Rimini in 359. Essentially, we've now witnessed the Roman Empire declare for
polytheism alternate Arianism, only to revert back to monotheistic or Unitarian practices. Still
with me so far. What followed Constantius his role was that of the new emperor Julian, who attempted
to reestablish and once again bring the ancient pagan cults to power. He in turn was followed by
another Christian emperor. Jovian, who, like Constantine had two sons who ruled following his
demise, one son who declared for the Nicene Creed, and the other who declared for Arianism. sensing
		

			a pattern here, it was their successor, Theodosius the Great, who ruled between 375 to 383, who
finally put an end to the Roman Empire's back and forth between paganism, monotheism, and the newly
established polytheistic doctrine of the Trinity. He's the Emperor ultimately responsible for
establishing Christianity as the state religion, denying all others the right to exist. In the 381
CE, he called together for the first council of Constantinople, at which the Nicene Creed was
confirmed. And Trinitarian Christianity was established as Orthodox. It is also at the first council
of Constantinople, where the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as one
		

			substance, and three co equal persons was formally ratified. Talk about a mouthful, right? It's a
complex and convoluted history that only started after Jesus peace and blessings be upon him and his
disciples who are no more the concept of modern Trinitarian polytheism would have flown in the face
of these divots, rich men, right. So let's take a step back into the present. What our trip through
history has then served to illustrate is that it was not Jesus peace and blessings be upon him who
introduced the concept of a Trinity to the theological discussion, right? It was later politicians
and ultimately translators who impose their views and philosophies on the ancient texts and
		

			essentially created the concept of the Trinity for political and personal gain. Isn't that precisely
why? As religious author AW Tozer acknowledges in his book, The knowledge of the holy, the Trinity
remains an incomprehensible mystery. Attempting to understand the Trinity, he writes, must remain
forever futile. But that hasn't stopped churches from continuing to preach this doctrine, even
without pretending to understand it. This despite the fact that a warning came from the same God of
Abraham in the seventh century already, warning the people of the book to convert
		

			no excess in their religion, nor say of God, anything but the truth. God warned his people and
expressed in so many words that Christ Jesus, the son of Mary was no more than a messenger of God
and His Word, which he bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His
messengers, do not say Trinity to cyst, it will be better for you, for God is one God, Glory be to
Him, far Exalted is He above having a son, To Him belong all that is in the heavens and on the
earth, and enough is God as a disposer of affairs, but they did not listen. Despite God's warning
not to exceed in your religion the bounds of what is proper trespassing beyond the truth and
		

			following the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by the Trinitarian church has
continued to grow throughout the centuries despite the fact that, as we've already noted, the
Trinity remains an incomprehensible industry, that the church propagates without even pretending to
understand it. The facts as we know them, then confirm that the original biblical scriptures present
no finished Trinitarian statement, that the doctrine of the Trinity as such is not revealed in
either the old or the New Testament, and that Jesus peace and blessings be upon him never claimed to
be the son of nevermind co equal to God. The Bible, in its original incarnation then, largely
		

			corresponds with an overwhelming Abrahamic understanding of God as outlined in part one of this
video series. For Torah, the Bible and the Quran are all after all, talking about one God, the God
of Abraham. And as far as I can see, it is only the interference of man in Revelation that has
created the artificial divide between the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, and the Trinitarian
Christian doctrine. If you'd like to know more about what Unitarian Christianity, Judaism and Islam
have in common, and you haven't yet, I'd highly recommend you go and take a look at part one of this
video series, which explores the similarities in more detail. As always, I encourage you to
		

			subscribe to my page and to my YouTube channel, and to turn on the post notifications so that you
can be alerted as soon as I publish a new video. Until then, if you have any questions about any of
the content I've shared with you today, please feel free to contact me via my page and I'd be more
than happy to share some additional resources with you. Alternatively, I'm always happy to engage in
constructive and mutually respectful conversation in the comment section, or in my DMs until next
time, JazakAllah here