Ashraf Schneider – The God of Abraham – Part 3

			Salam Alaikum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh Peace, blessings and mercy be upon you all. Welcome back to
my page. In part two of our series on the God of Abraham, we focus on comparing and contrasting
Trinitarian Christian practices with the strictly monotheistic practices of the older Abrahamic
faiths, namely Judaism, and Islam. Part two of this series focused specifically on the history and
paradoxical nature of the concept of the Trinity, but did not yet address how contemporary Christian
churches attempt to justify their departure from Unitarianism as preached by Jesus Christ, peace and
blessings be upon him in favour of Trinitarianism using the biblical text. By examining the history
		

			of the concept in part two of this series, we have established that the notion of the triune and CO
equal God was fabricated and inserted into the biblical text many years after the companions of
Christ had perished. However, that doesn't stop Christian scholars today from attempting to justify
Trinitarianism by referring to an often misquoting or quoting Biblical verses without regard for
context. Some of the verses most popularly used I attributed to the New Testament author Paul. In
today's video, I'm going to attempt to unpack for you my understanding of the Polian defense and to
illustrate where and to what extent I have found the Polian doctrine itself to depart from the
		

			teachings of Jesus Christ Himself by illustrating to you how poleon doctrine compares and contrasts
with the teachings offered by Jesus Christ. I hope to illustrate to you today how a biblical
justification of Trinitarianism by its very nature and reliance on Polian doctrine undermines
itself. Sounds complicated. Well, paradoxes usually do. In part two of this video series, we
established that the Christian church essentially admits that the Trinity was unknown to the
Apostolic fathers, and that the doctrine was derived from non biblical sources, but that they insist
they congregations believe it anyway, when they do try to justify the move from Unitarianism to
		

			Trinitarianism. Using the biblical text, their arguments rely heavily if not solely on propagating
Polian doctrine, which may not appear to be problematic at first glance, but is actually highly
problematic when one considers the stark contrast between the teachings of Paul and the Messiah, the
Trinitarian, Christians attempt to elevate to godlike status using Paul's doctrine. Essentially, the
same logical paradox as exposed in part two of this video rears its ugly head if one uses poleon
doctrine to support the notion of a Triune God, but Jesus Christ Himself asserted, he had no claim
to divinity, then Jesus Christ must by necessity be both co equal to God, hence, divine and a liar,
		

			which is simply not possible because as we have previously established that, according to the Bible,
God is above dishonesty and does not pretend to be that which he is not. So how does the podium
defense work? How do his teachings and notions of divinity differ from those of Jesus Christ
Himself? Well, for one thing, Jesus himself proclaimed that he did not come to abolish the law of
the Old Testament, whereas Paul, in his letters to Galatians proposed that followers of Christ need
and acknowledge those self same laws anymore because Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law.
While those who argue in defense of Polian doctrine use certain verses from the Bible to claim that
		

			he did not seek to dismiss Old Testament law outright. The fact nevertheless remains that Paul, in
his own words claim that a person is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus
Christ. According to Paul, salvation was not possible through adherence to the law, but only through
faith in an acceptance of the death of Jesus Christ for one second. But let's not get too caught up
in the notion of salvation just yet, you can easily and I will be making an entire video dedicated
solely to this idea in the near future. So for now, let's move on and look at some of the other
contrast between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of Jesus Christ, peace and blessings be
		

			upon him while Jesus preached the familiar Orthodox Jewish creed Paul preached and mysteries of
faith. While Jesus advocated for accountability and the fulfillment of the law. Paul proposed
justification by faith, as if that's not contrast enough, Paul, a man who had never met Jesus Christ
Himself, went so far as to contradict Jesus's own proclamation of his identity and role as
messengers sent by God. Jesus described himself specifically as having been sent by God to be a
messenger only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. In contrast, it is Paul who first upheld
Jesus Christ as a universal prophet. Despite the prophets own teachings to the contrary, in essence,
		

			then Paul discounts the entire historical weight of the Jewish faith, and the teachings of Jesus
Christ Himself in favor of fixating not on the life and the living example of Jesus Christ, peace
and blessings be upon him.
		

			But fixating on and ascribing divine meaning to his death. In the words of Your Highness Lin, the
only thing which Paul considers important is the dude Jesus's death, which he explains destroys all
hopes of an immediate concrete liberation of the people of Israel from oppression by a messiah.
According to Lenin, Paul makes the victorious Christ out of the failed Jewish Messiah, thereby
seeking to turn Christ's death into a victory. Paul Newman continues, then essentially sought to
create the living out of the dead, the Son of God, out of the Son of Man. The idea that Paul's
teachings contradict those of the Prophet Jesus peace and blessings be upon him is not new. In fact,
		

			there were several early Christian sects who consider Paul, one of the most prominent authors of the
New Testament to be an arch heretic rather than an apostle. And this criticism wasn't born out of
thin air either. Rather, there are those who have read the Dead Sea Scrolls as condemning Paul for
his abandonment of Old Testament law and accusing him of rebellion against Jesus's teachings and
early Christian leadership. According to Robert esen. The end of the Damascus document, in
particular documents the early Christian communities cursing and excommunication of Paul Asym, and
explains that the urbanites the descendents from James's Christian community in Jerusalem,
		

			considered Paul and apostate from the law. The urbanites then consider Paul an enemy of their
community and thus of the faith and not an apostle. This conception of Paul as an enemy to the true
faith as propagated and practice by Jesus Christ is also evident in the biblical texts themselves.
In fact, a letter attributed to James himself chastises those who have taken to following the
wisdoms of the world instead of the word of God. In other words, those who have begun to follow the
teachings of Paul instead of those of Jesus Christ, peace and blessings be upon him and tells them
that friendship with the world makes you an enemy of God. Likewise, Matthew chapter 13, verses 25 to
		

			14, the parable of the tares seeks to compare the teachings of Paul to wheat sown among good seed,
the evidence and destruction of which will only become apparent at harvest time, essentially, then,
as Lehmann writes, what Paul proclaimed as Christianity was sheer heresy, which could not have been
based on the Jewish or Sen faith or on the teachings of Rabbi Jesus, and yet somehow, the Polian
doctrine became the foundation of Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate church was the one being
disowned as a radical. Enclosing, perhaps it is fitting to turn to the work of scholar Bharti,
earning the most authoritative contemporary voice on early Christian writings. And his reminded
		

			that, even at the time of his preaching his doctrine, Paul's view was not universally or even widely
accepted. Rather, other prominent Christian leaders, including Jesus's closest disciple Peter
vehemently disagreed with Paul and considered his views to be a corruption of the true message of
Christ. According to ermine, it is Peter and not Paul, you should be considered the true authority
for understanding the message of Jesus. Paul ermine claims corrupted the true faith based on a brief
vision, his only direct encounter with Christ which he doubtless misconstrued as such, ermine
concludes that Paul is a heretic to be banned, not an apostle to be followed. If you would like to
		

			know more about Polian doctrine, Paul's notions on salvation, and how these notions compare and
contrast with that of Jesus Christ, peace and blessings be upon him, do make sure 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 video on the subject. 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 sections or in my DMs. Until next
		

			time design Calaca