Muslims, Modalism, the Trinity and Spurious Ascription

[gambleor]

Wow, it's amazing how the account is not only word for word the same, but even the gestures used are precisely mirrored from one individual to another...

[perez85tkd]

muhammad suck

[anklebreaka03]

I thot that this was a good representation of the trinity? I'm confused, and many christians probly must be confused as well cuz many of the Christians i kno hav this belief tht the trinity composes of the father-son-holy spirit, 3 distinct characters but 1 God, and that is what ahmed deedat was originally explaining, no? If this isnt a proper rep. of the trinity then what is it really, and why do so many ppl believe so many different answers regarding such a focal point of the religion.

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

@anklebreaka03 It is correct to say the Trinity consists of one God being made up of three Persons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Where Deedat went off was with the claim that the three Persons are really one and the same Person. It is a mistake many lay Christians make as well. But they are affirming Modalism, which is contrary to the Trinity. The confusion stems from the fact that the Bible is hard to understand without the guidance of the Church.

[TheBereanSearch]

I came to a lot of the same conclusions that you did in one of my videos regarding Deedat and Hamed on this issue.

My video is at: watch?v=c_vQfzsRHfs

...your video has a lot better production value than mine though ;)

[telebusu]

Mr AbuKhamr AlMaseeHee, you need to study english.

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

TELEBUSU, could you elaborate? Maybe you are right, but my higher education was carried out entirely in an English speaking country. Wasn't it clear from this video I speak English quite well? With an American accent even! =)

All kidding aside, perhaps you can explain what your precise objection is?

[Orthodoxgurl]

Muslims are too simple minded to comprehend the concept of the trinity.

[SiriusLordoflisan7]

ABu, Is Modalism is a NON-Trinity concept?

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

Modalism is the belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same Person. In other words, it holds that God is really comprised of only one Person. So it is in contrast with the classical doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that God comprises three distinct Persons.

Sadly, however, many Protestants who *think* they are defending the Trinity, often present a Modalist description of God. So there is much confusion, but Modalism should be considered contrary to the Trinity.

[SiriusLordoflisan7]

Your right it is lots of confusion! Christians try to defend Christianity and they don't know what their talking about themselves.

[suavelyphe]

yeah

[Abdirahmanist]

This guy know his stuff

[SiriusLordoflisan7]

ABU. Quick question... It has nothing to do with the topic of this video. Do you believe when Jesus returns that he will not practice animal sacrifices?

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

SIRIUS, this is off topic (by your own admission), so I won't be discussing this in depth here. Suffice to say, my personal understanding is that animal sacrifices are no loner necessary for the atonement of sin, because of Christ's sacrifice. I assume you have Ezekiel 43 in mind, so I would note that (A) animals *might* be sacrificed for other reasons, and, more importantly, (B) not all visions are literal (e.g. Peter's vision in Acts 10 was not an actual command to eat non-kosher animals).

[SiriusLordoflisan7]

ABU, According EZEKIEL 43 and many Christian ministers. EZEKIEL's prophesy is a future prophesy of the temple being rebuilt when their Christ is supposed to return. However they leave out the burnt offerings concept. Because they know it contradicts the Jesus sacrifice.

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

SIRIUS, note again my point about Acts 10. Not all visions are literal. The vision Peter received was a prima facie discussion about killing and eating animals, but in reality it was NOT about killing and eating animals. Augustine (4th cent.), in his 55th Letter (to Januarius) interpreted the "bull" in Ezekiel 43 as actually being a reference to Christ. Pope Greggory the Great (4th cent.), in his third book on "Pastoral Rule," also took a very metaphorical approach to /portions/ of Ezekiel 43.

[SiriusLordoflisan7]

ABU, So your denying that Ezekiel 43-48 is a future prophesy, and that its not literal.

[SiriusLordoflisan7]

ABUKHAMRALMASEEHEE, I asked this question awhile back on your video entitled "Logical Defense of The Trinity". However I never got a responce back. Now let me ask again. If Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God have seperate characteristics how can they be equal?

(2) If the Trinity concept is a concept which existed since the ancient Hebrews. Why do they not ever mention it?

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

SIRIUS, I don't recall this question about characteristics and equality. Whatever the case, could you explain how having different characteristics necessarily negates any possibility of equality in any sense?

As for your second question, see Matthew 28:19. It is quoting a Hebrew who lived in ancient times, and He (i.e. Christ) employs a formula of triadic coordination (one Name for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Will you now redefine "ancient" and "Hebrew"?

[SiriusLordoflisan7]

ABU, Meaning if Jesus is a square, the Holy Spirit a triangle and God a circle how do they all equal. When a box, square and circle cannot fit with in one another?

In regards to the ancient Hebrews beliving in a trinity. Where is the formula of the trinity in the Old Testament. The same way its set up in the Gospels?

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

SIRIUS, I think I previously gave you the analogy of a body of water in which a portion freezes. It still can be considered the same collective body, and though different portions have different attributes, they are still drawn from the same substance.

As for your OT question, notice you moved the goal posts. Originally you said "ancient Hebrews," and now you say Old Testament. Whatever the case, Christian doctrine is not defined by the Old Testament alone.

[SiriusLordoflisan7]

ABU, You did about the solid, liquid, gas etc. But still why can't you never just answer my question. Does a cirlce, square and triangle equal?

Im not moving anything. Are you agreeing that the ancient Hebrews never spoke of a trinity? The formula of the trinity is what I am speaking about.

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

SIRIUS, it depends on what you mean by "equal". I can take a common mound of snow, and produce pyramids, cubes and spheres (i.e. three dimensional triangles, squares and circles) which will all be of the same substance.

As for ancient Hebrews, I already showed you Matthew 28:19. That was said by an ancient Hebrew.

Do you want "ancient Hebrews" or just the Old Testament? They're not the same thing.

[SiriusLordoflisan7]

ABUKHMR, Do you believe or not believe that GOD, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have equal power? Because if you don't thats the reason why I tried to explain to you what I meant using the shapes.

The other question. I would like to see where the ancient Hebrews described in the Old Testament spoke of the same formula for the trinity the New Testament does. Meaning the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

SIRIUS, yes the Catholic faith holds that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are Almighty. Revelation 1:8 calls Christ Almighty.

As for the Old Testament, there is no specific verse which lays out the Trinity fully. But that's not a problem for me, because Christian doctrine is not defined only by the Old Testament (and humorously, it is counter-intuitive to be Old Testament only, since the Old Testament itself never identifies such a faith or approach).

[SiriusLordoflisan7]

ABU, Thanks for finally answering my question. So Jesus pratically was and is his own father?

Thanks for agreeing with me that the Old Testament does not hold a Trinity concept.

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

SIRIUS, no, Jesus is not His own father. The very video you are commenting on explicitly rejects Modalism (the belief that the Father and Son are the same Person).

I never said "the Old Testament does not hold a Trinity concept." I said there is not specific verse which lays out the Trinity fully. There is a difference. There are several passages which, collectively, allude to God's multipersonal ontology, but that subject might be a bit too complex at this time to discuss here.

[SiriusLordoflisan7]

ABU, If the Father and Son are not the same person why are they equal? Clearly Christianty teaches that Jesus and God are the same person.

If theres not a specific verse that supports a Trinity. That only means Christians are grabbing scriptures from all over the Old Testament to make a Trinity concept. Its not a established concept in the Old Testament.

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

SIRIUS, this is why I asked what you meant by "equal". The Catholic faith holds that the three Persons are consubstantial, they share the attributes of Divinity, but they are *distict* Persons. So, no, it is not clear that Christianity teaches that the Son and Father are the same Person. This very video presents classic Christian texts which contradict that claim.

As for the Old Testament, it alludes to God's multipersonal ontology, but such is hard to see in a vacuum.

[WecanWinJesse]

Both of you are a complete mess.

[ahshar2]

however; its a good video sir!

[ahshar2]

so whats your take on 1 john 5:7 Abu?

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

AHSHAR, being that it (i.e. the so-called Johannine Comma) lacks early manuscript support, I understand why scholars prefer it not appear in the Bible. Nonetheless, I think what it expresses is true.

So, for an analogy, if someone added a verse to the Book of Revelation which read "Christ was born of a virgin," I would agree with that the statement, itself, is true, but the verse should not be added to the text.

[ahshar2]

so you agree, that from translations people can get lost; no matter what function the holy spirit has taken on; in ones life. i hope i didn't lose you are you with Abu?

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

AHSHAR, I do not agree that a person can get lost *no matter* what role the Holy Spirit plays. I believe that if the Holy Spirit rightly guides someone, then that person will not get lost.

Nonetheless, I would agree that people *can* get lost with a translation. It happens all the time. The world of the UPKers seem to produce some *especially* egregious examples (just because a man speaks English every day, that does not mean he has a firm grasp of the language).

[ahshar2]

lol we all know that upkers are drunk: still the function of teaching all things should not be ignored; or justified by ignorance!Abu with that in mind is it the holy spirit or ones own brain ; that accepts truth or deny it! are you with me Abu?

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

AHSHAR, with regard to your question, I believe in free will, thus I believe, for the most part, that man is free to accept or deny the truth (though, in some sense, the ability to accept the truth can come through the grace of God). I don't see how that is a controversial point, nor do I understand what you meant by "justified by ignorance".

[ahshar2]

(I believe that if the Holy Spirit rightly guides someone, then that person will not get lost.)

"Abu" this is why? their is no IF when it comes to the holy spirit teaching? Unless you are suggesting that their is a fallacy to the holy spirit.

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

What do you mean "there is no IF"? The Christian faith has always held that the Holy Spirit will guide certain individuals, but not all individuals.

So, obviously, that would mean a person is either guided by the Holy Spirit or not. Hence the necessity of an "IF" when discussing those two possibilities: *IF* a person is guided by the Holy Spirit, then...

For example, this week you might be in New York or outside of New York, so we'd say "*IF* Ahshar is in New York, then..."

[ahshar2]

"Abu" you put "IF" in your own comment. Now their are gentiles they are guided, without law? so please stay with me.

[AbuKhamrAlMaseeHee]

AHSHAR, yes, I know I put "if" in my own comment, and after I did so, you wrote that "there is no IF," so I was explaining why I employed "if" (because the Christian faith holds that *some* may be guided by the Holy Spirit, but not all).

Now, as for your latest question, I believe that any rightly guided gentile will be under some semblance of law (though by "law" I do not mean simply the letter of the Mosaic law).

Sir, may I was, where are you going with this?

[ahshar2]

i may do a video on this; ok, this way you can see where i'm going. Abu i think you know where i'm going with this?