The Trinity vs. Islamic Neo-Platonism - Khalil Andani & Joshua Sijuwade
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Joshua Sijuwade and Khalil Andani discuss the Trinity versus Islamic Neo-Platonism. Dr. Sijuwade, a noted Christian philosopher of religion, will present his analytic reconstruction of the Trinity, emphasizing the monarchy of the Father. Dr. Andani, a brilliant Muslim philosopher and historian, will share his version of Islamic Neo-Platonism. To what extent are these two far off from each other? Could one side convince the other? These differences in approaches will collide in unique and surprising ways.
Patreon: / intellectualcatholicism
Podcast: podcasts.apple...
Facebook: / intellectualcatholicism
Suan Sonna is a Baptist convert to Catholicism who is dedicated to curating the best Catholic intellectual content on philosophy, politics, and theology. He is also passionate about engaging people outside of the Catholic tradition on issues relevant to the Church.
Great video! Very gratifying and I learned a lot as a Catholic.
I would love to see you host somebody who would explain the Trinity in a traditional way, if you could get Father Pine or Father Joseph White or even your buddy Christian Wagner.
It seems to me there is lack of understanding of scholastic way of explicating this Doctrine and i'ts rarely clearly explained in discussions in light of pushback/defended in debates.
☦️Christian Wagner is a lil pagan brat, a Modalist heretic, who believes our Trinity is a cake split to 3
Trinity Q: if the Three are numerically distinct, how do they 'share' the same essence? How do we understand this essence? Does it pre-date the Three? if any of the Three predate any one of the Authors, how do understand the property of this essence?
I think Christianity took a wrong turn at Nicaea. I see this whole Trinity business unworthy the time required defending it. Joshua would have better things to do with his time.
This question make no sense.
-The Essence cannot predate the Cause.
If the Essence predates that would be that the Father is not the Cause but the Essence is The Cause of God, which would be more Hindustic That God is Energy that is in all things.
-
@@Zenostrades You missed the point. Repeat: accepting numerical distinctness would lead to inconsistencies.
@@naayou99 explain.. how you see that.
@@Zenostrades My comment can be broken down into:
1)Numerical Distinctness and Shared Essence: I question how the three Persons of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) can be numerically distinct yet share the same essence. This touches on a classic philosophical and theological debate about the nature of the Trinity. In Christian doctrine, the essence (or ousia in Greek) of God is what makes God, God. The three Persons are distinct in terms of their relations (Father is not the Son, and so forth) but are one in essence. This unity of essence is a mystery in Christian theology and is often explained as something beyond full human comprehension.
2.)Understanding the Essence: Here put the challenge to mainstream Christian apologists: how this essence is to be understood-whether it is something that exists independently of the Persons or if it is somehow dependent on them. Traditional Christian theology would assert that God's essence is not something that pre-exists or is separate from the Persons of the Trinity; rather, the essence of God is fully present in each of the three Persons.
3)Precedence and Property of Essence: I suggest a confusion or a challenge about the temporal or logical order among the Persons of the Trinity. Christian doctrine traditionally teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal, meaning none predate the others. The essence of God does not exist prior to the Persons but is fully expressed in each.
4)Critique of Nicaea: I do believe that the Council of Nicaea, where the doctrine of the Trinity was formalized, marked a significant departure from the original teachings of Jesus. This isn’t an uncommon perspective among those who are critical of traditional Christian doctrine and who believe that later theological developments were unnecessary or even harmful.
5)Trinity as Unworthy of Defense? Finally, I argue that the doctrine of the Trinity is so convoluted or problematic that it's not worth defending and I do believe this just as a result of the influence of the Greek polytheism, as many others asserted.
@@naayou99 oh I Got you.. have you read on the Saints or the Church Fathers?
I think it would explain what you think is a problem.
Although I haven’t went in depth on their Writings as Yet. I can give the Most Basic
-let’s use some examples that the Church would use to get a grasp on understanding.
‘The Father is the sole Cause of the God head, the Logos( the expression of the Cause)and The Spirit of the Cause.’
This is the most Basic concept regarding the Trinity.
Let’s think of it as ( although I don’t want to use the word because I don’t think the church use it) that the Two hypostasis are extensions of the Cause active role in Creation.
- I will use biblical references as examples :
the Bible will Classify a Group of People as a Nation, but all those people in that nation are equal to each other ( in humanity) but not equal in Role as well as distinct.
This is what they call Counting by division. The Church if I remember correctly Count the GodHead by Division and Not identity
> but let’s use another example
The Bible Says a Man and Woman will come together as One ( one Household, one family)
What is the Purpose of A family? The Action of A Family is Regular in unison rather than separate decisions making. That actions of the Family is about what is best for the Family as a Whole( each person is equal in the Family in Nature but the Roles of the Family are different)..
this is a example of the Distinction of the GodHead because of three Roles each Hypostasis play in Creation, which is all one Action. Not three Distinct action
2-3) yes I would agree although there a two models of the Trinity, the Fundamental of it is That The Sole Cause is Where the Essence and Nature origin from, but not because the Cause is the origin means that the two hypostasis is created, in fact no.
The two hypostasis are important because the Logos( is Referred to as the Wisdom, Rational, expression of the Cause)
The Spirit (is generally Refer to as the Presence of the Cause, which if I remember is what makes the Cause omnipresent)
4) it’s not that they want to Formalize it at the Council, they have no Choice but to dogmatics the Doctrine they Inherited in Tradition. All The Fathers of pre the Council teach it as Such, it was only in Rome they use the Philosophical Terms to express the Writing of the Earlier church.
5) from what it seems so Far in the reading, you haven’t read on the Theologians and Philosopher of the Early church. But listen to the Modern Church expression of it, if you read the Early church you would get a grasp of what the Modern church is saying.
- I would say influence because many Theologians diverted from the traditional doctrine and Adopted the Extreme Platonic and Aristotle view, which they were excommunicated from the church. When expressing their new views, the Church was extremely careful (if you read the Writings) in using Greek philosophy, they didn’t want to babble in it much for many of the Philosophical arguments of the Greek contradicts tradition and Scripture.
Someone help me understand. How can the First Intellect and Soul be both a creation and eternal (existing forward and backward in time, without end or beginning)? Just saying "eternally created" doesn't resolve the paradox for me. The very essence of creation is to come into existence. So, was the First Intellect always in the process of coming into existence?
I suppose it's like our concept of the Son being eternally begotten, but we don't consider the Son a creation separate from God. My question is, if the One is eternal, and the Intellect is eternal, and the Soul as well, how is that not simply a different form of the Trinity? I guess one could argue that since the other two are creations, they are not God. But how can something be created and yet eternal?!
After using Chat-GPT to help me understand, it seems that Neoplatonist are using creation differently. But what good is a concept that only works in your framework? "So, while the Nous is eternal in its participation in the divine nature, it is also considered created in its function as the generative and creative principle within the Neoplatonic framework." To me, that just seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too. Seems like they use creation like we use the word begotten. But then don't they just end up forming a different model of the Trinity? Anyways seems like we are united in a multiplicity within a unity.
To be created is to essentially depend upon God to exist. This isn’t just a Neoplatonic thing. Many philosophical traditions hold to this view.
Everything created after it comes into existence continues to depend on God to exist. So a creature is always created due to being dependent on existence. The Intellect and Soul are dependent like everything else you call created except they’ve always existed and always been dependent.
If being created merely means “to begin to exist” then that quality doenst last for the duration of a creatures existence which still depends on God.
Plz don’t rely on chat gpt. Read an actual book. Neoplatonism doesn’t say the Nous participates in God’s nature. That’s wrong.
@@KhalilAndani OK, I get that. But the One cannot change, so there was never a point in which the Intellect came into existence. It was always there, just like the One. But by definition, the thing the separates an eternal being from a creature seems to be coming to existence. It seems the Intellect has all the attributes of the One minus aseity.
Yes NP and other philosophical traditions use creation differently. But isn't that just equivocating like you said of the attributes of God? In one sense we can't use creation for The One and the Nous the same way since they seem to imply completely different things.
And I'm not going to be able to read a book in a couple of hours in order to flesh out my ideas, so Chat-GPT will be a good source for summaries for me. (Minus the hallucinations)
So while you may argue that the nous doesn't participate in God's nature, I'd argue that is does since it seems to have all the abilities of "God" except aseity. You'd argue that aseity is the definitive nature of God. But I'd argue that an entity that seems to have all the aspects of another minus one is definitely of a similar nature. (There's a reason why the Intellect and Soul seem to be of a different class than the rest of creation.) I guess like Dr. JS, we're arguing about aspects of divinity vs "God."
@@CovocNexus 'Creation' is used differently in different contexts. For Aquinas is means the total production of a whole substance simultaneously through God alone. It's also tied into the notion of time. For Plotinus it means something similar but One acts through Nous, which is the storehouse of eternal truths.
Eternal creation is held possible by Aquinas. It means that there is total existential dependence of a substance on God.
Insightful video.
I'm Muslim. But Khalils position isn't a serious position for us Muslims.
Khalils belief is 1% of all Muslims. And we Muslims believe he esprouses heretical theology.
To compare for Christians. He'd be like the Mormons.
As for Joshua. He's clearly educated. But the whole "PhD modern new view of A", is just not compelling. He's better than his own Fathers that explicated the doctrine?
You’re completely wrong. My position is held by Sunni Sufis, Philosophers, Shia and Illuminationists. See my opening slides for list of major Muslim thinker who are Neoplatonists
It’s actually Salafi theology that’s more like Mormonism
@@anti-colonialsunni8860Wallahi you are not a Sunni if you think our theology aligns with Khalil’s kufr at all
@@KhalilAndaniUff even salafis of nowadays giving dawah better than these type of fake Sufi (due to these persons our sufism start representing wrong) only Sheikh Ahmed Deedat r.a was a great preacher from Barelvis (sufis) in those times. O Allah Just as the Sufis are defeating the Salafis in their own countries in all kinds of debates (fiqh, Imams) so let there be those who defeat the non-Muslims and Salafis even in the English language.
Youre wrong. Yes, its a minority view, but as a Sunni, there is a rich history of Islamic philosophical thought u r just throwing away because its not the ashari or athari creeds. Btw, i dont dont buy 50% of what Andani says, but calling him kafir is crazy
I would love to see Khalil present these ideas to Jay Dyer and see his response to them.
The Muslim seems to believe the divine perfections are imperfect (lesser than God). It sounds like a very bad form of divine simplicity to me.
@@ThruTheUnknown Agreed, that’s something I felt too.
Dyer the pseudo-orthodox clown?😂He believes our Trinity is a 3 headed monster of 3 lil 'g' gods. Pagan!😂
Ishmaelis are Muslims confirmed
NGL, as a Christian, Neoplatonism makes more sense to me. The Absolute Unconditioned God (the Father) eternally begets/causes the Universal Intellect/Logos/Christ. I would rather see Khalil talk with someone who specializes in St. Maximus the Confessor.
I recently discovered the Islamic Neoplatonic model (and also the Islamic Sadrian Philosophy/Falsafa model of Tauheed/Unity/Divinity) and I must say that it makes the most logical sense to me as well for a concept of God. I must learn more
@@demonsagex what religion are you?
I enjoyed this discussion a lot - thank you
Joshua is probably in my top 3 Christian apologists, he's kind and super knowledgable. Also, so nice to see more of a dialogue instead of a debate
Dr Sijuwade is my current A levels philosophy teacher at my sixth form
@@MK-nv8qqMazel Tov
Hello Steve
Because unlike Thomists & most western Christians, he is not a Modalist who believes in a Triune monster split to 3 persons. Sick!
☦️That's not the point...Point is that Sijuwade believes in One God the Father & in one Lord Jesus Christ & in the Holy Spirit of God the Father YHVH, and not in a Triune 3-headed monster, like most western Christians, those Modalist heretics!
I really really need to know how Dr. Sijuwade explains the Filioque in regards to the Monarchy of the Father. Only because I’ve heard he’s a Catholic now.
Watch some of his videos debating the Trinity and he basically says the love of the father and son cause or are the principal of Holy Spirit
@@paddysegrue2835
Do you have a particular link? I've seen some videos on the trinity but not yet about the filioque as his talks are usually loooooong.
I believe it would be on the basis of attributes of the father being antecedent to other attributes i.e. God can think of different worlds but wills to create this one, ergo the Father's will causes this world through his thoughts about all possible different worlds.
Then applying that to the Son as the Word & Wisdom of the Father and the holy Spirit as love.
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy
I look forward to it. Sijuwade I don't think specializes in Christology so he could be lacking a bit there, which is unfortunate. But I am really interested to know how explains the filioque.
Very easy. We believe the one God alone is the Father Almighty Creator, and the Son is His Logos, His Artisan. Therefore, we believe in the Biblical view, taught by all the fathers, that the Spirit proceeds *from* the Father *through* the Son & not the Modalistic view of from the Father and from the Son.
Great dialogue , I enjoy listening to Dr Joshua s novel ideas.
Fascinating
Omg hi Paul!
☦️But isn't Andani's sect are kafirs for you, Muslims? They are modernist kafirs according to our standards, that's for sure...
Great video loved the discussion.
'Pagan enters the chat'. This was a great discussion, but from my perspective; it was an argument over who's interpretation of Platonic philosophy was correct. They have both made arguments that I have used to justify my belief in 'multiple' distinct divinities, operating within a common matrix of 'oneness'. We are all riffing on themes formulated, compiled, and or argued by Plato. I hope to see more longform dialogues betweeen high caliber thinkers such as these gentlemen. Great work, and many blessings.🙏
The concept of Aseity as the absence of contingency doesn't disagree with negative theology.
I would say that the divine intellect is the initial extrinsic but non-contingent property, which bridges the gap to the contingent, while you could argue that the extrinsic itself is contingent upon the intrinsic it is possible that this 'duality' is emergent from the intellect (In the beginning the logos was with god and was god).
From this point i believe we are speaking of God's (or the demiurge's) relation to the darkness upon the face of the depths, from within which the world-soul begins the chains of contingency.
Joshua is the modern incarnation of sophistry. He trained to say a lot while meaning either very little or nothing. Consider a coin. It has two sides - head and tail. Joshua is saying the head is a coin and the tail is also a coin as long as he can redefine what it means to be a coin even if that is not the normal way we understand what it means to be a coin. Is his location and region, for example, spatial? Again, if the father is fundamental and the other members of the Trinity are not, in what sense then do they have the same essence or identity? If divinity requires being fundamental, then in what sense are the son and the holy spirit divinity? Strange.
Agreed
Yikes the Muslim seems to believe God is dependent on attributes that are not as great as than he is. Is that in substance 😬?
You seem to not have been able to understand the Islamic Neoplatonic model.
What is your confusion?
@@demonsagex☦️We understand it very well. This is pagan Greek ideas foreign both to Islam AND Christianity! Their god is a Monad akin to the sun, like a cold projector who just happens like a robot. Sick!
Just say "faith." Faith doesn't math or logic.
Why do you assume Faith doesn't contain Math or Logic?
St. Paul taught that faith and reason go hand-in-hand
Dr. khalil Andani, you are great Ismaili Muslim scolar
He is a good human being too
Please bring up proper Muslim who understands islam like Mohammed Hijab, Hamza tzortzis, Abdullah al andalusi,Jake the Muslim Metaphysician etc....we don't consider Shi'as as Muslims.. they are not amongst the Muslim community.
Salafi theology has always been marginal. I already debated them
Luckily YOU don’t decide who is a Muslim and who isn’t!
@@KhalilAndani I enjoyed your debate with Jake .. thought you did a good job 👏
joshua already schooled hijab
Hijab 😂😂
Allah is by no means the Abrahamic YHWH/JESUS, I ground this on the fact that the moral charaters are diametrically opposed; just compare the life and deeds of Jesus and Mihammad, opposites without questions.
Sins of Islam Monitor
@IslamSins in X