 To Allah is your return, and he is most capable of everything. So this here is a research article, it's called Three I Know Not What, the Influence of Greek Philosophy on the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is published by Alexander S. Sandrak in the School of Religion and Theology, University of the Southern Caribbean, Trinidad Faculty of Theology, Northwest University, South Africa. Let's read the abstract real quick. This article examines the origins of the traditional orthodox Trinitarian formula. So this is very important as well because yeah, I said a billion times before, I come from an orthodox Christian background, but traditionally speaking, it is an orthodox Trinitarian formula formulated throughout the creeds in Greece. This is where orthodox Christianity stems from. So nowadays people think orthodox Christianity predominantly Russian, no it comes from Greece and this is why it is very, very important to understand that this is a traditional orthodox formula. The main objective is to clarify to what extent the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity, the Nicene formula, has been influenced by Greek philosophy. I absolutely love this article man, because finally somebody sits down and summarizes what we all have been waiting for ultimately. Everybody has been saying this over and over again. There is a clear link to Greek philosophy when it comes down to the Trinity. And this article really goes in depth. So let's proceed. Through contemporary theological dialogue on this issue, the research focuses on the comparison between the traditional formulation of the doctrine of Trinity, influenced by Greek philosophy and the biblical revelation of the Godhead. Super crucial as well. The distinction here. We're speaking about the revelation within Christianity and then we're speaking about the doctrine of the Trinity. And this is again what Muslims have been talking about for hundreds and hundreds of years. The Trinity itself is a later invention. It is a conceptualization by men. It is not a direct revelation and this is why we have those debates in the first place because the Christians know that the Trinity is not a pure revelation. It is a concept and we as Muslims know that even better of course. We do not believe that Jesus ever preached the Trinity and that our fact we cannot find it within the Bible. If you really believe the Trinity is so important, well guess what? You would have expected Jesus to preach the Trinity. Jesus says, here or Israel, by the way there you see again Jesus came for Israel. Here or Israel, your God, my God is one. That's what he says. That is the Shema, the Jewish Ahadah if you will, the declaration of faith. God is one. That's what he claims. If the Trinity was so important, don't you think that he would have said then here or Israel, your God is one, three in one. Because the importance that Christians put on the Trinity, man, where do you take that from? If there was a passage such as as I just mentioned, then you would understand why. But the matter of the fact is that Jesus did not preach the Trinity, that the Trinity is not revelation within the Bible and this is why this distinction here is so important. We have to distinguish between the concept of the Trinity, the conceptualization that is clearly Greek philosophy. The conclusion is that the Trinitarian formula might not be a dogmatic teaching, but a mystery, a dehumanization of the concept of Trinity and that the church fathers and the post Nicene church used the Greek philosophical theological expressions for Trinity already present in scriptures in its doxological and liturgical form, primarily for the purpose of contextualization. Let's get to the introduction. But I'm going to keep this one short because we pretty much know what the Trinity is. The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. On that note, I have to interrupt yet again. This was quite shocking back in the day and I know, I've been attacked, I've been attacked here on YouTube, oh you're not a real Christian, you never were a real Christian, how can you say that you didn't know about the Trinity? Guys, one more time. My parents come from former Yugoslavia. Former Yugoslavia was communist during the time of my parents. When I was born, I was baptized in our flat because the churches were shut down. Okay, so please understand that context. Therefore, my parents were no theological experts and nobody on the Balkan, aside from priests and bishops, was. Therefore, people really did not know about the Trinity. Guess what? My father always used to say, son, nobody is like God. God is one and God is the greatest. Ha! Sounds familiar? Anybody? Ever heard of it? Allahu Akbar. This was intuitively what my father was teaching me, a man that has never read the Bible but identified as a Christian. He is a Christian and that's that. That's how he saw himself, that's how he sees himself, done deal. Culturally a Christian, fine. The point of the story is that nobody taught me the Trinity. However, later on, as they say here, it is the most fundamental doctrine of Christianity. Once I found out that it truly is, I was right, I really was. Because up until my 30s I did not know about this. My father told me there is only one God and this God is one alone. Yes, of course, I heard about the concept of Jesus being the Son of God. But even there, I believed, okay, he is the Son of God, whatever that means, God has sent him down. Done. That's what the Bible says. I would have never thought of Jesus as God. It just doesn't add up. It doesn't make sense. And this is why, yes, I was shocked. So if that doesn't make me a real Christian, fine, so be it. When I found out about this doctrine, I went out to further learn. As I said, I went to Greece. I went to the monasteries to learn firsthand about the Trinity, to understand. But this doctrine does not add up. No matter how you look at it, rationally, theologically, even philosophically, it does not add up. It doesn't make sense. And this is why, then, after researching and researching and researching, I came to the conclusion, this is Greek philosophy, man. This is Greek philosophy talking. I'm out of here. Bye-bye. Let's proceed. A number of ancient and even contemporary theologians claim that the doctrine originated in Greek speculative philosophy and that it does not reflect a biblical view of God. So yet again, how can this even be a debate? Just think about it. No matter which perspective you take, no matter which position you take, that there is already room for such speculation shows you that your revelation does not speak about the triune God because now Christians, you sneaky, sneaky people, they want to reverse it and they won't say, you know what, the Quran doesn't say Tawhid either. Yeah, guys, but nobody would ever question, ever question, that the Quran speaks about the worship of one God alone. It is so crystal clear. There is no room for interpretation, but within your scripture, again, there is so much room for interpretation because there is no clear revelation declaring God is three in one. The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are co-equal. Don't you get it? It is not to be found anywhere within the Bible. Sure, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Of course, you can take the Gospel of John and you can piece things together and oh, don't you see? Here God says, we, okay, go for it, but you need to piece things together. This is why those councils were needed. Those councils, they were not all in agreeance with each other. Of course not. roughly 60% voted for the Trinity, 40% voted against it. So those men led by the Holy Spirit, not so led after all. Only the 60% were led by the Holy Spirit. That's how it works. Guys, come on. It is crystal clear that the Trinity is not a pure revelation from God. It is a later invention. It is a bidah. In contrast, the majority of Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant or Evangelical scholars deny these findings on the basis of clear biblical testimony. Yeah, sure. Okay, show me the clear biblical testimony. The clear biblical testimony about the Trinity, although the term itself is not used in Scripture. It seems obvious that the Orthodox or traditional Church's Trinitarian formula is grounded on at least some metaphysical ideas and models derived from Greek thinking. Yeah, well, you don't say, right? At least some. The main objective of this article is to explore the extent to which the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity that I've seen formula yet again is influenced by Greek philosophy. Number one, the traditional doctrine of the Trinity has its origin in Greek philosophy. Yeah, I would say that might be right. That's why I obviously go with number one. Number two, the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is greatly influenced by the conceptual framework of Greek philosophy. So this is here to a lesser degree, but basically it is the same because religiously speaking, even point two would imply that we're not speaking about a clear revelation. We're not talking about a clear revelation, but we're talking about something that could maybe point to a Trinity potentially and therefore Greek philosophy complemented that revelation and therefore we conclude as humans this must be a Trinity. So point one and point two already exclude clear revelation. That is fascinating. And now only point three you see the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is purely biblical, a teaching without any conspicuous or significant influence from Greek philosophical thinking, which I claim is of course an impossibility when you take into account that Orthodox Christianity originated in Greece. Exactly. The Old Testament has been written in Hebrew. The New Testament, on the other hand, has been written in Greek yet again. So you want to tell me now that even though the New Testament has been written in Greek by certain Greek scholars, definitely not the followers, the Apostles of Christ. And now Orthodoxy stems out of Greece, out of Byzantium during the time of the Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire used to be Byzantium. And now you want to tell me they excluded Greek philosophy in Greece completely and simply organically came up with the Trinity. Yeah, well, that makes perfect sense. That makes perfect sense. I believe you the Trinity is pure revelation from the Bible. We proceed. The next section of this article will provide a brief overview of mature Greek philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, etc. With an attempt to identify the potential influences that these philosophical systems may have had on the traditional formulation of the Triune God, yet again repeating that there was a formulation. That's the whole point. With this already, the case is rested, because if you would have had clear revelation, you wouldn't need a conceptualization, a formulation, none of it. The subsequent section will compare the Orthodox formulations of the Trinity and the Trinitarian formulas found in the Bible. This will be done more as a theological dialogue than an exegetical task. Finally, the implication of this research that might contribute to the modern development of the understanding of the Trinity will be drawn out. The possibility of developing a contextual theology of the Trinity will be addressed. Although the principles that will be examined have wider applications, the developing of an African Trinitarian theology will also be briefly examined. And here I assume because of the Ethiopian Church. Because the Ethiopian Church is one of the oldest Christian churches and definitely the oldest African Christian church there is now. And I know guys, this is kind of complicated stuff, a bit nerdy as well. I get it, especially if you don't come from a Christian or an Orthodox Christian background. In that matter, I never looked into Greek philosophy. This might be a bit too much, but bear with me. I believe that this is extremely important, especially for Muslims, in talking to Christians. At least Christians that really want to understand the truth. Because ultimately, as religious people, we believe in our scripture. That's just what it is. Right? The Jews believe in the Torah and Talmud, of course. The Christians believe in the Bible and the Muslims believe in the Koran. That's how it is. However, what we do believe about those scriptures is that they are revelation. Then you have to separate as well the Bible, the book of the doctrine, Christianity. Because you have the Bible and you have Orthodox Christianity. You have Bible and you have Catholicism. You have the Bible and you have Protestantism, which is basically Sola Scriptura, just the Bible. So the Bible in itself is not the whole of Christianity. The same applies to the Koran as well. You have the Koran, you have hadith, you have consensus, etc., etc., etc., etc. So this is why this is very important. However, if we already see that the doctrine itself is based upon Greek philosophy and that it is a developing concept that we cannot trace back to Jesus Christ, then we have a big issue at hand. Because if Jesus Christ did not preach what the church fathers later on claimed he did, then Christianity falls apart. And then we see what Jesus truly preached, which we of course believe is Islam, the submission to one God. And this is why I urge you guys bear with me, I know this one is a bit more complicated, but ultimately it will give you a lot of benefit hanging through. Greek philosophy and Trinitarian dogma, Plato and the Trinity. It is widely recognized that Platonic philosophy had a significant influence on the development of the Christian doctrine of God. So how can this be already wildly recognized? Is this all a conspiracy against Christianity? Is the Satan himself trying to refute Christianity? Plato was before Christianity ever existed. That's just what it is. So therefore yet again, you can see this clear influence, especially because Christianity, stems from Greece, man, one plus one equals according to some church fathers, Plato's ideas of a good, the idea of the good has been recognized as analogous with the notion of a Christian God. As a Christian, this should be shattering to you because what does it tell you? Some Christians will claim, of course, yeah, well, God already started revealing himself through Plato. That doesn't make sense because Plato is not an official part of the Christian church. Right? So this is why this is an influence. So we're taking the ideas of Plato and we're infusing it into revelation, again, mix matching, revelation and Greek philosophy. Beyond this, the demiurge or architect or creator of the universe described in a well known dialogue, Timaeus, has been identified in middle Platonism as the mind, noose or logos of God. So here again, coming from Orthodox Christian background, this is nothing new to me. I know those terms, logos and noose, of course, and especially logos, logos allegedly in Christian orthodoxy is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the eternal logos. The eternal word of God. So yet again, just by those phrases, by those terms, you can clearly see the influence, if not the copy of Platonism right there. You see it. They took the terminology of Plato, logos, and then they applied it to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ never said that he is the logos. Today Platonic philosophy speaks vaguely about a third divine entity, a world soul or psyche. The relationship between the form of the good and the demiurge is not fully explained in Plato's thought. Some scholars do not interpret the passages about the demiurge in Timaeus literally. What is clear, however, is that the demiurge is eventually equated with logos in Stoicism and subordinated to the Supreme God. So this is very interesting here, of course, because the logos is subordinate to the Supreme God, which means there is such a thing as logos. However, it is not co-equal with the Father. And there you see this development of ideas, not a progressive revelation, not at all. We're simply talking about the Greek philosophy. We're talking about Platonism, middle Platonism, neo-Platonism. We're seeing how those concepts, those Greek ideas are further developing. And at this point here, they believe that there is such a thing as the logos. But these logos, whatever it might come to be, is not equal to God. So even here, they still have somewhat of a monotheism, which then later devolves into Trinitarianism. These logos eventually become equated with the logos of the prologue of St. John's Gospel. Arians might have used this principle in their attack on the tradition doctrine of the Trinity. So for people that don't know about Arianism, Arius, he essentially got expelled later on. He became a heretic. I believe they tortured him to death as well and not too certain. But he was proclaiming that God and Jesus are not co-equal. And therefore they might have used those talking points from Platonism against the Trinity. Because the Trinity, yet again, mind you, is not only the talk about God incarnating into Jesus. No, no. It equates God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They're all same. Even though we know that Jesus Christ oftentimes did not know, for example, about the last day, only the Father knows. But they do not take that into consideration somehow, magically, and tell you that Jesus is fully man, fully God. Everybody's co-equal. Okay. We continue. There are clear instances of Platonic influence upon the second century Christian writers. Justin's pupil, Tatian, uses the same analogies to describe the emanation of the logos and ascribes the role of interaction with the world to the Holy Spirit. Only because he equates that the Spirit with the word soul. Ethinagoras uses the Platonic terms noose and logos to describe the sun and identifies the logos with the sum of forms. Both Ethinagoras and Clement of Alexandria quote Plato's letter to demonstrate the necessity of three principles. From the end of the second century, Platonism became ingrained in Christianity's discourse about God. So if this is not proof enough for you, I really don't know what is. Here again, we see a clear progression of ideas where those church fathers ultimately, certain people that later on has been almost seen as saints, those people right then right there develop those ideas and they're basing their arguments upon Greek philosophy. Why? Because they are Greek. That's basically what it is because they're Greek themselves and this is their framework. If you see this downfall of monotheism towards a triune God, honestly, I can sympathize with Muslims, certain Muslims, that say, you know what, we don't go into philosophy at all, right? We do not claim philosophy whatsoever. Our revelation is sufficient. That's it. And I understand why? Because ultimately what you see here is the Christians, I believe, of course, got the clear revelation back in the day. They got the clear revelation of monotheism and then it devolved into this by using Greek philosophy. I personally enjoy philosophy. I enjoy Greek philosophy, but you cannot use it to alter or further dilute essentially revelation. The revelation comes first. The revelation is clear or should be clear, of course. The Qur'an, we believe, is the clear revelation and everybody will agree. If you're a total Islam hater, you will still agree that the Qur'an is about worshiping Allah alone. You might think that Allah is Satan. You might not like Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, that's fine. But you cannot deny that the Qur'an preaches clear, pure monotheism. Point blank. Absolutely nothing that you can say against that. And that's why with such a clear revelation, we do not need to dissect that clear revelation and change it through Greek philosophy. I believe this is exactly what has happened to Christians. Therefore, the Christian trinity or the inner dynamics of the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have been formulated using Plato's distinction between the good, the news and the Pneuma. The world's soul. This is exactly what they used to decipher their scripture. The further development of the Platonic understanding of three principles was made by middle Platonists according to Gaston in 2009. So this was roughly 90 years before Christ. The influence of middle Platonism upon the development of Christianity, particularly on the development of the doctrine of God is undeniable. So here you go. Again, another statement is undeniable. Despite Paul's warnings about the wisdom of the world, Christians found natural allies in the monotheistic Platonists. However, the influence of Platonism had greater impact than the early apologists could have realized. Not only did they introduce the triadic conception of the Godhead, but eventually the Neoplatonists would be instrumental in establishing the co-equality of the members of the trinity. And yet again, this so hypocritical man nowadays, you see many Christians, especially Orthodox Christians, claiming that Islam is nothing but a Christian heresy. It's nothing but Neoplatonism. Man come on, your whole doctrine is Platonism. Your whole fundament with the trinity is Platonism. That's nothing else. Neoplatonism consequently has a crucial influence on the doctrine of trinity, formulated in the golden age of the Church Fathers. Yeah, it definitely was a golden age for them. Before the analysis of this Hellenistic inspiration used by Christian apologists, let us briefly look at Aristotle's contribution to the development of the Christian doctrine of the Godhead. I'm really wondering what Christians have to say about this. I'm really wondering how this makes you feel. Honestly, how do you feel listening to this? Can you truly wholeheartedly sit there and tell me that you believe in God being three, in Jesus Christ being God? Can you truly believe this after reading this information? It's so simple. It's so obvious. If you never heard about the trinity, you would never think of it yourself. Never. You needed Greek philosophers to obscure your relation to come to this conclusion. This not an organic, natural belief system that any human being can hold. Okay, Aristotle and the trinity. Gregory of Nisa, one of the Cappadocian Fathers, was substantial influenced by Aristotle's categories in his development of the doctrine of the trinity. Aristotle's concept of Ossia, substance or essence, was fully adopted, though with reinterpretation. Gregory also accepted the distinction between primary and secondary substance from Aristotle's metaphysics, although he also transcends the distinction with his unique formulation of the trinity. Basil the Great furthermore borrowed Aristotle's distinction between universal and particular categories. Basil's terminology is totally compatible with Aristotle's. His theory of substance, used later to describe the persons of the trinity, is explained and elaborated by Aristotleian philosophical language. Finally, Aristotle's unmovable mover from metaphysics has also been identified as the Christian God, in this case the Father, in distinction from the Demiurge or Creator. Therefore, long before Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle had exercised considerable influence upon the formulation of the Christian concept of the triune God. And yet again, I am repeating myself, but it is so damn obvious that first and foremost we have to establish, yes, all of those Church Fathers in Greece obviously have been influenced by Greek philosophy, if not this is their whole outlook on life, but more over we have to recognize yet again that the trinity is a concept and is not revelation and this is where Islam shines supreme. Because we believe in our revelation, we believe in the Quran. We do not need to change monotheism, we do not need to change tawhid, we do not need to add anything to it in order to it make sense for us. However, with the Bible, because yes, I admit, it's not all purely monotheistic. So when Muslims say, for example, I just read in your Bible, Jesus never says he's God and they can see clear monotheism. Most of the time, yes. But sometimes, yes, it is kind of vague. And this is why it cannot be revelation, because revelation has to be crystal clear, has to address us, and especially if there are such important changes in the perception of God, such as that God is not uniquely one, but triune, it would have to be mentioned. Okay, anyways, Stoicism and the Trinity, we're going to skip. We're going to fast forward to Neoplatonism and the trinity, because again, guys, bear with me here, Neoplatonism is something that is being alleged by Christian apologists. They say that Islam is simply Neoplatonism. So yet again, let's see the connection of Neoplatonism to the trinity. Fourth and fifth century theologians of the Christian church, Augustine and Gregory of Nisa, as well as other Cappadocians, appropriated the ideas of Plotinus. The father of Neoplatonism, regarding three divine hypostases, Plotinus, Hierarchy of Divinity, the One, Mind and Soul, was rejected. However, the Christian doctrine of the trinity still represents a modification of Plotinus teachings. For Plotinus, everything that exists is in some sense unified. The unity of the One, the source of this unity, can be described only by negation, a prophetic theology or via negativa. So essentially this means you can only come closer to God by understanding what he is not. That was their way of negation. So you say what God is not. God is not the creation. Then by that concept, you can somewhat understand that God is so much greater than his creation. He is not to be confined to the physical, etc. And there was nothing really wrong with this concept itself. Diogenes Allen, in his philosophy for understanding theology, clarifies the point that Christianity however, does not believe in the unity of God as a unity of a building, organism or a species. The divine unity is a richer one. The unity of God does not prevent Christian theology of speaking about three persons in the being of God through the nature of the divine unity. In plurality is the mystery of his being. Christianity does not believe in radiation or emanation by necessity, as Plotinus did, but in the eternal coexistence of three persons of the Godhead. And now the only question that you have to come up with is why, why, though, why do you come up with this stuff? Why do you have to jump through so many mental hoops, so much mental gymnastics, for what exactly? Right? Jesus did not come with this message. How can you even claim to be Christians? Why do you need this? This is truly the question here. Again, I have no issues with advancements in human society. If you want to philosophize, fantastic. You want to progress in science, okay? So be it, progress in science. Nobody cares. Do whatever you want to progress within your societies, fantastic. In arts, okay, great. But why do you infuse all of that stuff into your doctrine? Why do you change it? Humans cannot help but change it. And this is why, again, the Quran is so powerful because in the end it states, today I perfected your religion. That's it. It's done. It's perfected. It's finished. It will never get better. You understand? When Islam was revealed, finally it was perfect. That's it. And so from there on, it cannot get any better. It could only get worse if you try to change it. That's the whole point. And that's why, looking at this, you clearly see how people just follow their own whims and desires, their own intellect and they further and further devolved and then they come to such conclusions here, the Godhead, the divine unity is a richer one, yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, destroying the pure monotheism that Jesus came with. Insane. Honestly, this is insanity. Anyways, here you can see more influences, etc., etc., but we're going to jump through this article. Let's get to Gnosticism and the Trinity because yet again, even this here is a claim of the Christians towards the Muslims. They say, well, you guys are Gnostics, right through your Neo-Platonists and then your Gnostics because they do not believe in pure revelation. They cannot fed them that we received pure revelation. It's too much. Finally, the Christian understanding of the Trinity was also colored by its dialogue with the most prevalent heresy of the second century, Gnosticism. Thomas Marsh, in his volume The Triune God, a biblical, historical and theological study, recognizes this influence. Though its orthodox critiques were concerned with many other aspects of Gnostic teaching, the Gnostic portrayal of a non-incarnate Christ, who was a divine emanation or Ian inferior in being to the Supreme God, was a particular challenge to Christian faith which these writers felt obliged to meet and expose. So here the Gnostic view is essentially that Jesus Christ is exalted and before he becomes a man, before he incarnates into the body of Jesus Christ, he is already something. So an author of Christianity is called the Logos. As we mentioned, he is the Logos, always there, eternal forever, since the beginning of time he was, he is and therefore in Gnosticism, on the other hand, he was seen as a divine emanation, so something lesser than the original God, but still somewhat divine. And then later on he becomes a man and then when he gets crucified he returns to this divine emanation state, this Ionic state. Can't make this stuff up, man. This debate between the Gnostic Christ and the biblical Christ was crucial in developing some account of subordinationism. Speaking about the complex influence of Greek philosophy on the Christian notion of the Trinity, Christoph Schwobe correctly observes, the ontological clarification was not only necessary to reject suspected heresies, it was also an inner necessity if one wanted to defend the claim of Christian faith to be the true philosophy. On the other hand, the ontological conceptuality provided by the various schools of philosophers could not without modification express the unity of God in different identities, which we have interpreted as a major characteristic of biblical discourse of God. What this is really saying, trying to sound extremely smart, but ultimately all they're saying is, hey, we cannot really grasp God, we don't understand, somehow he is interacting with creation. We cannot piece it together, so there must be a multiplicity within God. And so therefore then to further characterize this and conceptualize this, they come to the conclusion, okay, God is one, but he cannot be uniquely one. There is something more to him, and this only explained by three. Now I make the argument, it could have been explained by many, many more. Even if you think about Islam, you think about Allah, he is uniquely one. But yes, many attributes, right, he has 99 names. That is a multiplicity of sorts, fine, but those are simply attributes of God, of that one God. I said previously, for Christians to somehow wrap their head around that God is loving, or in the case of Christianity, he is all love, they need to come up with a relationship. They're going to tell you, listen, God is loving, but he cannot be loving if he is only one, if he is alone. So he needs to have a personality disorder, a split personality, where he exists as a father figure, and he exists as a son figure, which love each other through the Holy Spirit. Only like that, he can actually experience that he is loving. For every lover, there is a beloved. So you need an object, that's it. And I say, guys, you're making it so complicated, even though it is so damn simple, man, this is crazy. If there is a waterfall, is the waterfall wet? Water is wet, right? You would assume, no, no, no, no, the waterfall cannot be wet. Let me, me as a human walk into that waterfall and be showered by its waters. Oh, I realize the water is wet. So now that we have me, the son of the water, now I can say yes, the waterfall is surely wet. This is your logic, man. The waterfall has the quality of witness because it is implicit. He's made out of water. That's it. Even if there's nobody touching it, it's still wet. Done deal. Everybody dies out. There's nobody to witness the waterfall as a philosophical question. The waterfall is still wet, period, blank. And this is the same thing with God, with Allah, of course, he is loving, of course. And even if there was nobody, he would still be loving because he is uniquely one. Done deal. No, no, no, no, he needs the Son. He needs the Holy Spirit. No, he does not. And this is where they went completely off straight because they confined it to those three persons. Even though we know, if you enter into this multiplicity debate, you can go on and on forever, man. And I believe people are waking up to that and they realize how flawed this concept is. Anyways, this article continues, guys. I'm going to cut it off here. I'm going to link it in the description box. So I hope you enjoyed this. I know it was a bit of a tough read, ultimately, but I really, really believe that this is of great value because once you understand this as a Muslim, now you understand all the talking points of the Christians, what they base the Trinity upon. You understand, first and foremost, that it is not revelation. You already won the debate. Done deal. Christians, moreover, I believe that this is very valuable as well because we wish the best to Christians, of course, we want them to unite in religion. Of course, we want to invite them to pure monotheism, to Islam, and therefore want to warn them of the corruption within their own religion. And anybody that is honest, that is objective, that tries to put bias aside will realize that their doctrine has been manufactured, that doctrine has been conceptualized, has not been only influenced by Greek philosophy, but indeed is Greek philosophy. What does it mean to be a Muslim? Around the world today, we are seeing fellow brothers and sisters suffering. Take a look at the events in Gaza, a sorrowful site, innocent people being killed just for being human. Ibrahim, a fellow revert, could not tolerate the oppression of Muslims around the world, especially in the social media world. So he decided to create his own halal social media company called Dawahgram. However, two months into his journey, he was arrested by local officers. Ibrahim now, more than ever, needs support of the Ummah to keep Dawahgram been running. Every small donation helps. FreeIbrahimEx.com.