Channel: Mohammed Hijab
© No part of this transcript may be copied or referenced or transmitted in any way whatsoever. Transcripts are auto-generated and thus will be be inaccurate. We are working on a system to allow volunteers to edit transcripts in a controlled system.
Thank you for your question. I think that question should be asked your priests who themselves didn't understand it. That's why you had more than less than try try theists and different days different schools. Is No no, no one disagreed on so hate no one.
No one disagreed will tell you your primary grievance, no, but no one disagreed. It was no let me say something the Bible because
you talked about, I'm saying that you've said about different sects of Islam.
My question to you was simple. Yeah. And I want you to answer my question. I'm saying to you, look, you got three possibilities.
The Father, is the Father. is the Father, the ultimate Creator of all that exists? Yes or no.
as the Father.
Is the father frame of the question? Yeah.
By the way, you frame the question.
answering my question, people are realizing that
is the creator
of the universe question is fundamentally wrong, really understands the Christian concept of God. I'm just asking. I'm trying to say,
Father, Son, the Holy Spirit is the creator to the Father.
Now, I'm just asking you now let me let me was the Trinity. The Trinity has three different parts. Yeah.
Okay, three different persons. I apologize. I apologize.
My mistake, my mistake. My mistake. Okay, fine. Fine, fine.
I'm sorry. Okay, you must get it. Right. All right.
That's one person. Yeah. Did the father solely and ultimately create the universe? Yes or No, God created the world.
This is becoming a spectacle.
Genesis, in Genesis one one.
According to the Bible,
But my issue here is this Jesus Christ,
Jesus Christ, His co creator, and rather you know, you don't believe this. You can't You can't seriously.
You see the contradictions? You're interrupting me.
I think the problem with what you're doing right now you're trying to frame the frame of answer. I must.
Be honest with yourself. Yes. Let the Bible Speak. I'm being honest. I'm asking. Is this a fair question? Did the father create the universe? Yes or no? With?
The Holy Spirit? No, no. Did the father suddenly No, no, no, no, no. And the Holy Spirit?
Did the father create the universe only Son and Holy Spirit created the universe? I'm asking you about the Father Himself.
Father, Son, Holy.
So no, no.
So your answer is no. Then God Himself. The father by himself did not create a universe by itself.
Okay, the father is an entity is a person. Yeah.
Okay. So I can refer to the Father specifically. Yes. Okay. I'm asking you a question just about the Father. I'm asking did the father create the universe? Yes or No, it's such an easy question. I can't believe that we do.
is one You sound like a politician?
I'm trying to teach you something. I'll say no, don't try.
According to the Trinity, your understanding of the concept of the Trinity? Yeah.
Am I not allowed to make specific References So I also either of the three entities of the Trinity allows you to understand how the Bible talks about God is one. Okay, fine, fine.
He can't separate the father from the
We can talk about it I'm trying to say your question is why you need to understand the Bible and why you should quit with this.
Yes, it shows you that Jesus Christ is worshipped you saw instead was God the Father.
The forest for the sun gods. It says that the sun created the world going back to our previous one. Nobody spraying water for your friends here.
Why is he asking me questions?
The Bible percent
refers to listen, listen, listen, listen. Listen. My question is this.
Andrew, look at me look at me, Andrew. It says, I'm not. I'm not playing mind games. I'm asking you straight forward questions. Now let me ask you a question. Did the Holy Spirit pray the universe?
Did Jesus pray the universe? Did the universe okay? Now, if I say to you look, if they're all clear the universe has the Holy Spirit going independent will?
It doesn't have an independent will. Jesus doesn't have an independent will. The father doesn't have an independent will one will.
So Jesus called make decisions.
When you see Jesus
prays to the Father, he says, My Lord and my God, it says, very clearly, when he when he prayed, I have independent wills.
This one will not have independent thoughts, will you? Okay, no, this is so good. Would you agree with this?
Would you agree with his
PhD students to come in and tell me, honestly, would you agree with this one?
Has has Jesus gone independent? Well, he said no. I said, I have an independent way said no. I said, is the Holy Spirit independent? We said no. Is that your understanding of the Trinity? Okay, so well, you have to say when you're talking about, are you talking about the human will of Jesus?
I'm talking about for example, here with the father does, I'm just a very straightforward question. Independent means that there's no other into the Independent agencies. I'm just saying there's the father have an independent will or an interdependent world.
So the father does not have an independent will.
Okay, so the father cannot make a decision
is such that
the Father cannot make a decision, unless the other two agencies agree.
Okay, let's just go with this. We're gonna go back to the scripture when he's talking about the will of the Father. Yeah. Yes. What we normally understand is that Christ in His human nature had to wish
is divine counsel.
In the two natures, yeah. The divine nature. Yeah. Yeah, human nature. You got another one. Okay. Now, I want to ask you a question. This is so important. It's so important. So what
are you saying?
interdependency means you're not independent. It's the opposite of a dependent. Everyone knows that. My question here today is, so the father cannot make a decision, unless the Holy Spirit and Jesus approved this decision.
Then first, he says, because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
that means that they will automatically follow the same wheels together.
So there will never be a clash with your your question is nonsensical. Now, it's not
You're saying the sun and the Spirit? Yes. to agree to something? Yes. So then you are presupposing that they could disagree? No, that's not presuppose that
agreement? No, no, no. But that means that there has to be. No, no, no, what I'm saying here.
One thing you got the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Yeah. You're saying that the Father is not possible for the father to come to an independent will, that they have to be independent, interdependent with the Holy Spirit? And the son? Yeah. Okay. This suggests
this suggests a compromise between the three, the three different wills. So in other words, all three agencies, all three entities have come together. And one of the two ways and have come to basically they've unified wills. I'll tell you one of the two ways.
One way is that one will force the other two wills to be subordinated to them which obviously don't agree without going to the training. Yeah, that's subordination isn't.
The other the other possibility is that they were forced into a democratic type compromise. So they came together, the wills came together literally, like they do in the house of parliament. And they said, Let's, okay, let's make sure that we agree on every single thing. And therefore the compromise was made between all three wheels, is that correct? Okay. So I'll say it depends what you mean by subordination ism. Yes, you can hold to functional subordination, okay, which is saying that there is subordination in their relations, okay. Not in the essence. So there's no an ontological subordination isn't. So I'll give you an example. arianism is saying that the father and the son had
differences in their essence in their ontology. So that's why the son was subordinate to the Father. And that was a problem that was a hip bouncer recipe, but in the Trinity, there's always been understood that there is a functional subordination is Okay, so here's the follow up. Yeah, there is a relational hierarchy and the trinity of relational hierarchy, but not one of essence, Person Centered because the father is the one
New generates your son.
And spirit is one whose spy rate is by the part two, there is a relation or hierarchy, but not one of
the ensemble say
yes to something Joshua.
That's your, say, Andrew. Yeah, I think
I think both of you don't understand what the hell you're saying no.
So I gave an example. So when you have an ontological, okay, difference between an SM between two individuals, okay? You're saying that one in the essence is less than the other? So I'll give you an example. Yes, yes. I have an ontological difference with another animal. An animal is lesser than, let's say a dog. Okay, or a cat
or essences. So your your value is higher than them. You can't say that in a way because that's why you don't go to jail for you know, you probably have to kill an animal or something. But if you look at a family, that's right, that's based on like a religious perspective on naturalism all the same. Okay, what can you say? Yeah, I'm just saying.
So then if you're looking at relational subordination, yeah, you can see in less in a family family unit, yes. Okay. I am my father are same. In essence, there is no ontological.
I'm a human. Okay. You in it from that perspective? Yes. Okay. So when you and the dog have the same essence as well, then you want to share the same essence as a dog as a human? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Let me say what I'm
talking about. Some humans are real dogs.
Actually, this is going back to this is called taxonomies. Yeah, oh, these are called taxonomy zoar classifications. They're actually arbitrary. Someone has come about and said, Look,
let us differentiate between you and the dog on the basis.
you and the dog are differentiated on, let's say, on a species basis? Yeah. Well, if I came along and said, you know, hold on, I don't want you to be differentiated from the dog, let's say any living creature. any living creature is one category. Anything that's inanimate is another category there for you in the dog or in the same category. So can I just say, my boy, you would still say that that person is not a doc, you can distinguish because that's one second, because we label the dog in a certain way. Because of the properties of a human, let's say rationality and moral awareness, okay, that dog does not have because a dog does not have rational,
we will then say that there is the essence.
Then when we go to relational subordination, you can then look to a family and see that a father who will have the same properties as another as their son, what do you say Papa is nationality? To make them a human? human beings?
Yes, but there is a relational hierarchy in the family, I can understand the Father. Okay. It's relationally. superior to the Son, in what sense? Maybe because they are the ones who put them into being that the source of that. So when the father brings us into being No, no, I'm not talking about Trinity I'm giving you I'm giving an example.
Yes, yes. So I'm saying that you can have relational subordination ism. And you can have ontological subordination. In the Trinity. There is no ontological subordination. But there is one other relational subordinate. Okay, so what you're saying, so what that relational subordination ism entails is that there's in terms of functionality in terms of functions and processes, that the father's is the highest, CPS? Yes. Okay. So then, then, then, then then it does make sense for us to say, the will is independent, God's will is independent fathers was independent, and it trickles down. Why is it? Because he just said that he's higher than the rest? Yes. But that doesn't
presuppose that has to be independent, not interdependent. No, but his will is the highest. No, it depends how the father
is the father as well as the Father's Will,
more or less, or let's just say, is more or less able to be put into effect than the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the sons. I mean by that, is that because you said there's a hierarchical relation relation? Yeah. Are you putting the father at the top of the hierarchy functionally, functionally?
Yes, yep. So from that perspective, that will suggest that for hypothesizing here, and saying in the hypothesis on the in the situation, whereby the wills are different, and you're saying it's not possible, but I'm saying just to hypothesize, whether those are different, the Father's Will would, would basically suppress the other two wills. So I'm saying they all have three wills themselves, but they are interdependence.
One will they share, they will have we will have our interdependence
given example, I'll give you another example.
Functionally, the Father's Will is higher than the other twos. That's what you just said. No, I said he's
So that means Okay, this is finished, then we agree that's a
Let me tell you the implication. No, no, no, no, no, no, this is
I was explaining how the law
argument I just want to put forward that this is not my argument. It's
in chapter 23, verse nine, one of the four and this is why it's mentioned. Yeah.
And look at the Tafseer of that, versus how beautiful Lord is logically like, this is why, if you're saying that the will of the Father is higher than the other two wills, and he functionally suppose that he has the two entities that suggests there is only one true God, why sorry, why? Because actually, the other two entities are not in fact, gods, they are subordinate to the other entity. That's not true. That's why there isn't. So you have a problem that the other two the other agents have a point. That's how it works. Shoes, what makes some what makes an individual substance stop, it's possessing with divine properties. And as there is no ontological subordination, ism, the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share the divine properties. Okay. That's a good question.
Yes, of course. Of course, of course. So the Father Son, the Holy Spirit ontologically. subordinate, okay.
That means that the Father, sometimes spirit will have the divine properties. So that makes them go and ask, even if their relation.
Please, let me ask you a question, because I'm learning from you. But let me complete because I'm trying to
Moscow question, right, yes. Would you agree with me that the fact that God is the ultimate creator of the world, and that he's the ultimate sustainer maintain of the world are part of his divine attributes? And properties? Yes, but it's a non essential attributes are no, no. So non essential.
So you're doesn't need
the question of God created the universe.
Yes, the fact that God, the God is the ultimate Creator of all that exists, and that God is the ultimate maintainer of all that exists, and that God is the ultimate Sustainer of all that exists. Yes. Are these divine attributes or not? Yeah, but they're non essential. So what do you mean?
You don't need to have them in order to be a god? Yes, exactly. Okay, then this is a problem. That's exactly the problem. Yes, yes.
You've contradicted the Old Testament, by the way. Okay. I have to tell you, no, no. Okay. So let's just say, let's forget about the Old Testament, logically, what you've had to do. And this is so amazing why it shows you a while here, it shows you the superiority of Islam.
Why you should be a Muslim?
I'm telling you that.
just listen to the point, you have had to resort, you have had to resort to redefining what it means to be God in order in order to get away from the fact that there's one ultimate God that subordinates over the other entities.
Explain why meant by non essential, yes. Okay. So there are certain attributes that make God God, like, omnipotence, omniscience and perfect could Okay, hold on hold on a second, let me finish being the Creator, being the creator Sustainer of the world is a non essential attribute. Is there any text about up when I finished this? Can you show me the technical logics? I'm trying to show you the logic
logic here, right? Yes.
Unless you are going to say creation itself has always existed, then that means that it must be a non essential attribute. Tell me why. Let me tell you why that's not true.
You agree with me? that God has the ability
to for example,
you agree with me that God has the ability to forgive sins, yeah. Yep. Yep. To punish.
To love. Yes.
Well, they're always people,
or entities that God could punish. Will there always be? Yeah, and NCS for all eternity? Yeah. All right. So they went there was not. There was a time when it wasn't something an object that God could basically Punisher. Yes. Yes, he has the ability. He had the ability to punish from day one.
The fact that he's not i'm not saying that goes out. I'm just saying that there's a there's a confusion here. Just because God has the ability to do something. It doesn't mean the effect of that ability has to be present. Now why
mentors are non essential attribute because what the attribute you're talking about is omnipotence. That's the ability to perform an action. So you'll say
is an essential being the creator Sustainer of the world is a non essential act Really? Yes, really is then you will have to say what second being which is a present tense, being the creator? sustainer.
But being the creator Sustainer of the universe? Yes. It's not only Okay. Let's let's come back to that, by the way, there's no text to back what you saw in the Bible.
omnipotence, yeah, this is still this is still part of the problem, right. omnipotence on me hortense? Yeah. When you have the ability and strength to control everything of creation, yes. Now,
according to your taxonomy, according to your classification, according to your categorization, according to your words. You have said today that the basically the father functionally
and there's a hierarchy, there's a functional hierarchy where the father is the top of that functional hierarchy said that, yeah, okay. That was suggested the other two entities are not equal functionally to the Father. Okay.
Now, in terms of omnipotence, the ability to do things this would get and still apply that. So God, God's omnipotence, or the father's omnipotence is higher than the other two? Because you're then conflating the issues again, why? Because we're talking about that ontological status, which is their properties. Functionally, functionally, functionally, functionally? Is their relation to each other? functionally, no. So explain again what I mean. Yes, sir. relationally, they are different. ontologically they share the same properties? The sun, sorry, the Father, Son and Spirit you're surprised?
No, because you don't understand your complete mystery.
Can you please be honest with me?
Have you studied philosophy of religion?
I'm sure Please be honest with yourself as well. I'm sorry to say it like that. Because I believe that you're trying to square a circle, a unitary
a Unitarian understanding of God.
let me tell you why. Because
God, just one God.
Are we doing are we doing it for?
So why should it's incoherent for that to be one divine person is because that one divine person would not be perfectly good. And perfect. Goodness is an essential attributes or affinity. So if there's a Unitarian,
or Unitarian parcel or Unitarian, divine partner, yeah, okay. We're not happy attribute.
We can only have the attribute with omnipotence and omniscience, but we'll never have
less. Okay. Unless there is enough time to others. That's one thing but why?
Yes. Joshua, Joshua, can I ask you what can I summarize what you said? Correct me?
What you're saying were androgynous? Not like Andrew Andrew. No, because he can't talk over him because I'm
so sorry. Just so it doesn't confuse the situation. Is what you're saying is that in order for God to be good, there needs to be an object to which he's good to.
So because God is I understand where he's coming from. I understand what he's saying. He's saying God is love. Okay, so I don't know. Exactly. Exactly.
What you're saying is in order for God to show
you're saying in order for God because this is the William Lane Craig argument actually comes
before it starts Richard St. vixen.
Richard Swinburne is
not so much William Lane Craig.
Okay, okay, good. Now, what you're saying, because this is important, again, logic using logic, that no dumb is professing God is all good. Well, that's a
perfectly good, perfectly loving Yeah. If that is the case, he needs an object to be good and loving to have equal status. Yes. Okay. So that's your that's your contention.
Let's say going back because you're admitted, and you agreed with me before, that God has always had the ability to punish people.
Nixon's Yes, yeah, Punisher is being punishment. Now, that's included in omnipotence. So was there any objects that he could punish? You said no. So hey, you've contradicted yourself. I know you have you definitely contradicted yourself, why do you have 100% contradicted yourself? And if you say no, I'm gonna start losing respect for you.
What's up guys? Because Hey, Johnny, show me why. Yes, of course. And then I'll show you know, you've definitely contradict me. In the beginning, you said, You have objects? Yeah, you didn't you agreed with the premise that in order for you to manifest for in order for you to have the rights are being labeled, for example, as all loving or omnipotent, you have to have objects to which you are for loving to have forgot equals.
But just just for the sake of argument, you have to have objects to which you're loving towards Yes. you've agreed with me that God has always had the ability to punish die included before any creation existed.
In order for you to maintain that position, you'd have to drop the fact that there has to be an object there. Because he didn't have an object to be. He did not have an object to punish. Yeah, he always had the ability, ability to punish. Okay, so now, are you saying that God did not have the ability to punish and that he only developed that ability later on? Or you're saying God didn't need that object to punish in order for him to have the ability, but that is how it is.
One second before you conclude, yeah, I give you too much. definition.
Power does not have to be exercised to be possessed. Goodness, that's, that's one second. I'll give you an example. Yes. Okay. I can be powerful without ever exercising my power. That's false, man. That's logically it doesn't. That has no logical that has no logical. Logical, yes, I can possess a level of power without ever utilizing my power. Yes. Well, hold on. Of course, you can. Yeah, good. Yes. Goodness is not the same. Why goodness has to be exercised. Oh, doesn't know doesn't know doesn't? How can you tell that person is good that. Now? I can say that person. Once I get No, I'm saying.
I can say you have a level of consciousness.
He's good. Unless an action has been performed. That's nonsense.
Let me tell you something.
He made a point. Let me make a point. Okay. The point you've made is that this is the most weakest false dichotomy I've seen in my life.
I know you're very good. You're very good at being the show, man. Don't do that. I'm not analyzed.
It's not it's not. Okay. Yeah.
If you feel like I'm a bigger show, man. No, but I apologize.
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can you repeat me?
You put Mother Teresa in the room by herself. Yeah. She's no good now.
How do you know she was his Mother Teresa, because she
to stop. So let you finish. Finish. Finish. Okay.
This is a ridiculous argument. Say Why? You're saying that if someone doesn't show what they have, they don't possess it. That's what you're saying. So for example, Mother Teresa resembles reasons because we're presupposing that she's good that she wasn't a serial killer. And her you know, or something like that. Let's say Mother Teresa put her in a room by herself. Yeah. Is she good? You're saying we don't know. This is the most excuse me, this is the most
ignorant of logical fallacies. Now, if you don't
know, excuse me. Let me just finish. No.
You're saying if you don't know something, it doesn't exist? No.
No, that's what you said. Number one. That's what you said. Number one. I just wanted to make the point that this man I've spoken to him before, right many times before. And to be honest with you, I've always seen him as more intelligent than me. I've always seen why I say the truth. He, especially in math to do with Christianity. He's a PhD, almost a PhD holder. He's very as you can see guys, very logically grounded, trying his best. I promise you, I promise you today, what we found is not that I'm better better than you. That's not what we found here.
Or that are more intelligent than you because that's what something we're sometimes accused of. and say you're getting people that have low knowledge that have no understanding and you're and you're putting them into the corner and you're asking them all these different questions and using different jargons and they don't know what you're talking about. Here. We've got someone who literally is on the brink of being a Christian scholar.
Okay. And what I've been able to hopefully show is that the concept of the Trinity from a logical perspective cannot be justified is incoherent. Now, why I wanted to end with this is because really, I respect you as a man. And the way you conduct yourself is fantastic compared to, especially the J. Smith. Can you really our shining star? Yes. Listen, I'm saying if not from one Muslim to a Christian, you're a shining star, in terms of Christian people promoting their religion. Today, I'm going to just cut to the chase, and say, listen,
your humble mangoes and salmon.
I invite you directly now to the religion of Islam. I'm just doing it like this, why?
I'm just saying, I'm gonna I want to be in communication with you, I want to talk to you. I want to and then just kind of like, take you through what we believe in from our perspective. For just a few weeks. I'm not saying convert now, since China. No, I will say I'm saying please. I know you've looked into Christianity in depth. Can we do ourselves and humanity? A service? Yeah, we exchanged numbers. Obviously, we don't want to give numbers in front of the public, your intelligence, you bring it now, if you were me and I was you. I wouldn't do as good as you're doing. Actually, to be honest with you. I would not even know how you did it. You made it seem like you there was no, but
I'm saying is. If you want me now with my arguments, or with my religion, I personally believe that you will be one of the most potent forces in theological
contracts to see how players play first.
company policies will change numbers. I'm just saying for educational purposes, you can teach me about Christianity as well, because I learn a lot from you. That sound right? We can always be gay we can speak.
The only reason reason why I'm Christian, okay, is because we can look at the historical aspects, because the resurrection from the grounds of failure. So if you're able not now we don't, over time, I must be yes. To show me why the resurrection, okay. Cannot be accounted for historically, yeah, then I can say, Okay, I need to question that. Then for me, also, philosophically, I have issues with the concept of God in Islam. But in Christianity in the understanding that I literally saw if these things were actually if these things were solved, consider your position. I'm always on I think it's so important. Yes. And whenever you want to seek truth, I like it, I like it.
But for me, I'm grounded on specific evidences that I have, I think you've respected with the Muslims. Okay. And I think it's a brilliant part to say, honestly, I think you've gained a lot of perspective with the Muslims will definitely be in touch.
Of course, you can do the same though. The thing is, I'll be honest with you, I want to be totally honest with you.
The Trinity for me, okay. I'm not talking about at the philosophical level that we're talking about, okay.
But at the base level, it's just something I can never accept. Why? It's just because of its apparent contradiction. Now.
I personally believe I'm already a Christian, in the sense that you know, not to sound like what's his name, second night. Christian in the customs, mind the sense that we love the Messiah. We love Jesus Christ, just to me. I want to follow him. If you can help me, follow Jesus better, I'm gonna I'll do it. I want to do so let's help each other we can recommit. I'll take your number you say my number.
Let's do this.
All you know, I, if I can show you why the Trinity is what mostly? I'd love to I'd love you to tell me if I can show you why it's logically inconsistent. Okay. Yes. Then you know what, I'll jump up and down. I'll throw money around. Yes. Then we got this challenge free challenge. Okay, well, I'd like
to get my number. All right. Make sure to subscribe.