Mohammed Hijab – Discusses Trinity with Professor Joshua Rasmussen

Mohammed Hijab
AI: Summary © The speakers discuss various models for how a certain concept could be interpreted. They mention a hierarchy within God that involves the father, son, and spirit, and how this could lead to a universal structure. They also discuss the theory that God is supreme and that the structure of the world is like a mixture of parts and members.
AI: Transcript ©
00:00:00 --> 00:00:17

molecule muramatsu Labor Council guys, make sure that you try these supplements out. They're very, very good, very healthy, natural. And you can check the link in the description box. That is nature's blend black seed oil. And they have other things as well. Oh,

00:00:19 --> 00:00:22

wait, it's a boy. boy, boy.

00:00:23 --> 00:00:24

Hope you enjoyed the video. So

00:00:31 --> 00:00:52

would you. So we were talking before the show about the Trinity. What implications Do you think this particular argument has on the Trinity? Because if we say that, well, this thing has to be one and the Trinity postulates that there is three in one a one, a three and three or three independence if you like, if you like three necessary persons,

00:00:53 --> 00:01:03

the father is necessary The sun is necessary to live with, would there be a contradiction in your mind with with those two things? Yeah. So this is a hard question for me, in part because

00:01:04 --> 00:01:39

this is something that I I've been kind of thinking about. And there are different models for how this might work. And I find it helpful to think in terms of models. One thing that I was saying before the show, too, is that I think sometimes people will divide over things where they actually can have a greater unity, I think about this with respect to my wife, Rachel, so I have a relationship with their connection with her. And I don't have to like figure out the her inner structure to know her personally. I mean, I can speculate about her inner structure, and I can have theories and some theories will make more sense than others. So I think this argument for oneness

00:01:40 --> 00:02:17

helps to constrain some of the options in terms of theological interpretation. And just to give kind of one model, and there's a classic kind of traditional articulation of this, of this model, where there's a kind of hierarchy within God. So if you think of God as Supreme, and so God, by virtue of his supremacy, enjoys supreme attributes, including love, and doesn't depend on creation in order to enjoy that love. And so we could imagine then this supreme law of being within the nature of God somehow, but then how does this fit with oneness? Right? And so one idea would be that

00:02:19 --> 00:02:59

you can make a distinction, even within the structure of God as like one person within God is the primary God the Father, and then from the Father proceeds the son from the Father and the Son proceed the spirit. So there's this kind of almost hierarchy. Yeah. And, and I know there's objections to that, and, and further clarifications that can be made there. But that would be one model, where, to be very honest, I don't see any contradiction in that. I don't see that that's of the form of a a, not a. So that that would be one model that one could think about. But I don't think that it's it's essential, really to see God as supreme and as ultimate, and perfect. I see

00:02:59 --> 00:03:10

what you're saying, well, you're so you're so interesting is like you're moving away from the kind of my C and o Constantinople, understanding of God, three co eternal Co.

00:03:11 --> 00:03:56

Well, they will be co eternal. So now this is a quick? No, my understanding is is this is consistent with this co equal co eternal view, and that it's actually part of that tradition that there is a kind of eternal progression or eternal Lee, what is it began but not made sort of thing. Like it's there, there is a kind of hierarchy even within the system, but the hierarchy, the hierarchy, does it assume that one of them has more power than the other one? No. So they would all sort of share equally in supreme power, supreme knowledge and supreme goodness. So in that sense, they would be equal. So so that maybe they wouldn't be equal in all senses. Because they would all be the same

00:03:57 --> 00:04:03

person in that sense, but they would all be equal and sharing the divine nature. I mean, another model of this would be that

00:04:04 --> 00:04:20

there there's a sense in which the whole is prior to the parts. And so they're the whole is sort of the ultimate uncaused undifferentiated, and it's in virtue of the whole that it has three elements or three members, would you say three? Would you say three parts as well?

00:04:21 --> 00:04:54

How, yeah, you know, I use that term part, but I use it in the most general sense, so that it will include constituents members, because then then someone may or may argue that material parts, yeah, coastal material, but still, we're moving in the kind of bodiless direction from a theological tradition. Yeah, so that would be another model where you could allow that, you know, and I understand some people say that's heresy, right, you know, but I care about truth, right? Not what like people say, No, I appreciate that. And that's why I'm here before in the beginning of the show, I really found it interesting that we're talking about smartphones, you said something really

00:04:54 --> 00:04:59

beautiful, he said, I don't carry smartphones because I don't like to you know, follow the crowd or

00:05:00 --> 00:05:07

You know, yeah, and I find that very powerful. But what I was what I was gonna say, because we've only got like 10 minutes left, cuz I know you're you're busy.

00:05:08 --> 00:05:14

is I think that his his the Islamic kind of objection to the trainee, right.

00:05:15 --> 00:05:19

Obviously we talked about if we go back to the necessary being right. And

00:05:20 --> 00:05:55

we talked about the fact that if you have more than one necessary being, then what if one could be the other or you put it in a beautiful way? So if something had the power to be something else, then it would have the potential right, then it wouldn't be it wouldn't be necessary, would it be contingent? So yeah, so in the same way, if we say that the Father has the potential to exhibit the characteristics of the Holy Spirit say that one could argue that this is problematic from that angle, because then you have three necessary persons, right? That that's what the other angle is, if we accept Yeah, and I want to I want to agree with that. Yeah, I agree with that. That's why this

00:05:55 --> 00:06:12

provides a kind of constraint on how that could be unpacked. Yeah, there have to be some attributes that are essential. They can't just be potentially the other in that sense. So So if they share a nature it's essentially shared. But then then hold if you think about it, the sharing Okay, this is the credit card.

Share Page

Related Episodes