Mr. Williams, God will build a blessed home for you in heaven for your services towards him. Our Lord's promise will be true.

@abuyusha8740

3 жыл бұрын

Ameen. May God most High increase you in knowledge and wisdom, guide you to righteousness and provide you in abundant treasures in this life and the next

I just wanted to thank you from the bottom of my heart. As a self proclaimed student of comparative religion (and a Muslim) I have learned so much from your videos about Christianity. May Allah's peace be upon you. Thank you.

I can relax listening you. Your voice is soothing and you're very well spoken.

Thanks, Paul. Good lecture with references to follow-up. I like it. This is a recap for me. Earlier I had followed 27-free youtube lectures by the American Catholic professor James L Papandrea as part of my learning into church history. I spent 27 evenings patiently listening to Papandrea and also bought his book 'The Wedding of the Lamb' - the final story book in the Bible - The Revelation to John. I commend that book to you. He does tours to Rome ie taking his students on 'site visits'.

It is worth noting that in the English language all of the days of the week are actually named after Pagan deities from Northern European cults. For example, Monday, is from‘Moon’ as some of the northern European Pagans used to worship the Moon on this day. Thursday is from the Nordic god Thor; Friday is from the Nordic god Freyr;Saturday is derived from the Roman god Saturn and possiblySaturnalia which was another Roman “celebration” which involved debauchery and inebriation. But the most important pagan naming for a week day is with Sunday derived from the Roman sun god Solis Invictus, not from “son of god.” This is why later Christians, accommodating Romans and their culture, hence ‘Roman Catholicsim,’worship on ‘Sunday,’ s-u-n, not s-o-n. The 25th of December was also the birthday of Sol and was known as Natalis Solis Invicti which was a time of rejoicing, games, public frolics and inducement in slaves. Remember, these same Romans would later preside over the Council of Nicea, headed by the Pagan Roman Emperor, Constantine, who was himself considered to be an incarnation and embodiment of the sun god!! The Council of Nicea and other “councils” lead to the “official” and “orthodox” doctrines of which books should be placed into the Bible, the trinity and Jesus’ date of birth being fixed to the 25th of Decembe

Amazing content, a well chosen topic! Thank you for your work!

@BloggingTheology

3 жыл бұрын

Much appreciated!

5:24-5:34 = 🤣🤣🤣 you've said what I've been thinking my entire adult life paul. We shouldn't act like some Muslims who sadly act like thugs or athanasius but. We should have some respect for ourselves and the beliefs we hold dear. Kudos my friend, I really enjoy your content I have to say. Keep up the great work. Very pleasant to listen to and very well spoken

MashAllah excellent work....have you done a video on Arius...or figures in Christianity who deviated from the mainstream Trinity or so to speak "Polytheistic Monotheism" (great term by the way)....if not please do one?

Amazing video Paul!

Liked your Latest Video Paul.

very sad but not unusual! even in the days of all the messengers of God subah ah there were people like these seeing the truth but denying it so Paul just carry on your efforts and you'll be a witness and a proof against them in a day when repentance is of no value. May Allah bless you in this life and in the other. Love from Casablanca Morocco 💖

Thanks for your detailed analysis.

It is perhaps worth pointing out that the Council of Nicaea AD 325 is _not_ the creed which is used in Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican services: that is the Council of Constantinople AD 381. This later council affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit, whereas the earlier creed did not, so it is not until Ad 381 that we have a doctrine of the Trinity. (And even in this council the homoousios was not applied to the Spirit but the language implies his divinity nonetheless). What's more, the Council of AD 325 was _not_ rejected by the Arians. The language of that creed was constructed so as to be acceptable to both the Arians and the Proto-Orthodox. (Reference for this: Rowan Williams on Arius). Constantine was not really a supporter of Athanasius: he was only really interested in the unity of the Empire. Moreover, there is strong evidence that on his death bed he was baptised by an Arian Bishop (Eusebius) and was probably therefore an Arian. You are correct that the creed implies an ontological priority to the Father. This is noted by all the Cappodocians (and further back with Origen). Properly speaking _only_ the Father possess aseity.

@BloggingTheology

3 жыл бұрын

As always your comments are erudite and well taken

@phoe8765

2 жыл бұрын

*Much Greek here. Very confusing. As a scientist I smell just rhetoric. Adults need not waste time on this. I worship One True God who is definitely not a weak sexual human that can die. I like an eternal, far better than war-mongering sinful human God. Thank you*

@phoe8765

2 жыл бұрын

*I am still confused. Why not just say ONE GOD? Why all this confusion. Many a cook spoileth the soup - said often my Mom* Furthermore, look at USA (only 200 yrs old) & so much lies about murder of Native Americans & stealing land for Europeans. So, something written by these same Roman ppl about what Jesus said 300 years AFTER his death can be at least 50% changed. That is DEFINITELY!!

Nicaea is modern day Iznik, beautiful town located on a lake close to Istanbul. Has a beautiful old Aya Sophia Mosque which I visited. Iznik was a capital of the Byzantine and the Ottomans for a brief time. Prior to that it was an independent kingdom

@Iron_Ottoman

Жыл бұрын

@@janardhanparveshwar4307 they rightfully took it unlike christians who made black africans their slaves in history

Not related to this topic but maybe you can extend an invitation to Hatun for one of your guest discussions. Perhaps without the crowd and noise of speakers corner she maybe more open to learning. Just a thought )

Is there any playlist in ur channel about these seven councils? If so please mention the link because I check for it but find inke two or three videos only

So what happened to the those that rejected the council edicts? any historical accounts of them?

@BloggingTheology

3 жыл бұрын

They were sent into exile.

Spot on , Paul. We notice that this council took place three hundred years after the time of Jesus and his Apostles, by which time the 'Christian' faith had evolved into something unregonisable. Well done for exposing the myth that it dealth with the Trinity, safeguarding the 'orthodox' teachings. The Trinity did not take its final form until later, as you said. I also like that you highlighted the fact that they used pagan Greek philosophical ideas and terminology to express ideas not found in scripture : Essence and substance is not the language of scripture. Hiostory is written by the winners.

Assalamualaykum brother

@BloggingTheology

3 жыл бұрын

salam

Paul if not too much of a bother...what are your views about the gospel of Barnabus (if there was one) and why was it not canonised?

@BloggingTheology

3 жыл бұрын

The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, which claims to be by the biblical Barnabas who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th or early 17th centuries, with one written in Italian and the other in Spanish. The text of this Gospel a forgery and should not be confused with the surviving Epistle of Barnabas, nor with the surviving Acts of Barnabas.

@samwhite6255

3 жыл бұрын

@@BloggingTheology God Bless! Thanks for the clarification 👍

@xyubrixmyel2301

3 жыл бұрын

@@BloggingTheology Can you advise what makes the Gospel of Barnabus a forgery. Is it because it conflicted with the fundamental Christian beliefs?

@starsian

3 жыл бұрын

@@xyubrixmyel2301 Because as he wrote above, "Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th or early 17th centuries, with one written in Italian and the other in Spanish." So a recent invention.

@salman13

Жыл бұрын

@@BloggingTheology make a video on those :)

💓💗💓

When Jesus became God - Richard Rubenstein When God became Jesus - Jn 1:1-14 Apostle John by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Some christian were claim that where does allah say I am God and worship me...... How can i answer that

@funkylilbrain

3 жыл бұрын

Please read the Quran brother. You can listen to recitation and translation daily on KZread. The Quran says in several places that Allah is God and worship Him alone. e.g. (20:14) "It is truly I. I am Allah! There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Me. So worship Me ˹alone˺, and establish prayer for My remembrance."

@andanandan6061

2 жыл бұрын

@@funkylilbrain thousand years ago God knew those pagan Will come up with such Question so he revealed this verse to Prophet Muhammad.

In Nicea they didn't understand that the Holy Spirit is the Father. In other terms the Father is here in the limited form of a spirit "God is a spirit". Jesus has thus the Father who is a spirit and calls Him sometimes "Father", sometimes "Spirit (Holy)" according to circumstances. But they are just two equivalent names. For example Jesus could say "..but blasphemy against the Father will not be forgiven..." in an equivalent manner.

I never really understood the trinity and still don't. I would be persuaded by Ariuus's arguments. In fact, his arguments would be in line with the Protestant concept of sola scriptura. But this would undermine protestantism. Indeed, as you have alluded to in your video, all of christianity would be undermined. Add in some violence into mix - Santa claus slapped a proponent of Arius - it just makes it harder to take christianity seriously

I love you for the sake of Allah my brother

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” 20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; - Joseph Smith History 1:19-20

The Bible verses you cite regarding Christ's ontological nature do not deny the deity of Christ but rather they confirm both his divinity and confirm his humanity. His divinity is the source of salvation. His humanity is the sacrificial source. Take away either one of those natures and there is neither sacrifice nor salvation.

According to Christian God is the author of confusion that is why they have fight and form numerous councils to figure out the nature of their God ! According to scripture and common sense the Almighty God is not the author of confusion. He conveyed his clear message through his many prophets and made it clear what he is and what he is not so no council and fight needed to figure out nature of God .

With respect Mr Williams, I believe that your facts are somewhat askew. Firstly, St Athanasius was not Pope of Alexandria at the time of Nicaea, he was the chief deacon and secretary of St Alexander of Alexandria, who first condemned Arius for claiming that the Son had a beginning and that he was consequently a created god. Secondly the ordination of Arius to the priesthood was dubious, since he may well have been ordained by a Melitian bishop. Additionally, all of the accusations thrown against St Athanasius were debunked as attempts by the imperially sanctioned Arian bishops to dethrone their greatest detractor. Even ultra Arian prelates such as Valens of Mursa and Ursacius of Singidunum recanted their condemnations of Athanasius and Constantius described him as the true interpreter of the venerated law. On the matter of banishing recalcitrant bishops, the Arian Emperor were far more zealous than Constantine. They forced countless Nicene bishops, such as Hilary of Poitier, into exile for refusing to agree to the decrees of the Councils of Ariminum and of Sirmium. And even in these councils the Arians, accursed of God, professed faith in the Trinity, albeit in a mangled form. For example the Second Creed of Sirmium states that "the whole faith is summed up and secured in this, that the Trinity must always be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, Go ye and baptise all nations in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Complete and perfect is the number of the Trinity". Arius, despite his belief in the subordination of the Son to the Father, nevertheless insisted upon the creative power of “God the Word through whom all things were made, both things in heaven and on earth”. The Son/Word of God may even be called “Perfect God, Only begotten and unchangeable” However this divinity and changelessness were lesser than that of the Father, since “before this generation, or creation, or determination, or establishment, He was not”. As such it must follow that the Only Begotten Son of God possessed only a super angelic nature, having been made, or begotten, by the Father before all times. In the words of Newman, Arius and his partisans believed “That the Incarnate Logos was not true Wisdom and Word of God, which was one with him, but a created semblance of it”. As such from an islamic perspective Arianism is far more dubious than Nicene Orthodoxy. Finally, Arius and his accomplices frequently used terms to describe Christ that are not in the scriptures. Where for example can the terms homoiousios, heteroousian and υπήρχε μια στιγμή που δεν ήταν be found in the Scriptures ? Both sides of the debate used non-biblical terms to express biblical truths.

@sherifel-hadi3439

3 жыл бұрын

With due respect Mr. Bellhouse. Mr. Williams did not say Arianism is similar to Islam. Neither Arianism or the Nicene creed nor trinitarian theology are compatible with Islamic theology. Islam's central doctrine is the complete and absolute oneness of God (Allah).

@tobiasbellhouse8107

3 жыл бұрын

@@sherifel-hadi3439 Yet, Mr El-Hadi, it is an all to common aspect of the Islamic perception of Christian history that the Arians are seen essentially as proto-Muslim Unitarians, which they of course were not. History not only displays the fact that the Arians bore no resemblance to any Islamic belief, but that they were in fact believers in two distinct Gods, one greater, the other lesser. We to believe in the oneness of God, Galatians 3:20, yet our perception of our relationship with his is very different to the perception of Islam. The highest position of a Muslim is to be a slave of God, yet we did not receive a spirit of slavery that returns us to fear, but we received the Spirit of sonship, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!

@sherifel-hadi3439

3 жыл бұрын

@@tobiasbellhouse8107 Not all Muslims understand the complicated theology of early Christianity. It is quite amazing to discover that Tertullian who coined the term "trinity" understood Jesus to be a lesser diety than the Father i.e. he had an Arian christology.

@ML-xh9ds

3 жыл бұрын

@@sherifel-hadi3439 False Tertullian, described the Son as Fire from Fire and talked of a unity of substance between them and described the Son as lesser in terms of Causation and not in essence, Tertullian was not an Arian in the least, also you are in error it was actually Saint Theophilus of Antioch who loved in the mid to late second century who coined the term Trinity which literally means Tri-unity just as we see in Matthew 28:19, you can read more about Tertullian here, he was no Arian: answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/11/08/tertullian-and-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity/

@sherifel-hadi3439

3 жыл бұрын

@Blogging theology Maybe you have an answer to Mishael?

The proofs of Arius and his followers of the Oneness of God, the Creator, the Powerful, the One and Only and rejecting that Jesus Christ is an equal God to God, his lower rank to that of God, his weakness, he as a follower of God and the assurance that he is a creature and a messenger of God.The authentic, clear revelation was subject to a development process by which legends, myths, idol-worshipping and pagan beliefs found their way into them (got blended with them). The true religion of God had thus been lost in the midst of a multi-falsified acts of worship.Jesus Christ assured that he is the messenger of God and, therefore, he has never said:“I am God. Worship me.” This is as evidenced by the following holy texts:"And this is the everlasting life that they will know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (John 17:3).The statements of Jesus Christ is a proof of the existence of only a one God entity “...you, the only true God.”As Jesus has never claimed that he is equal to the Lord; instead he stated that he is the messenger of God and the word “have sent” very clearly indicates that.When Satan tried Jesus Christ, Jesus said “You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve” (Matthew 4: 10)."No one deserves worship exceptGod alone." (Luke 8: 4).In this way he showed a total condemnation and an entire rejection to direct his worship to Satan as worship should only be directed to God, the Creator.And so, acts of worship can only be offered to Allah only, the Almighty, the Creator; not to the devil; not to the angels; not to Jesus Christ and not to any human regardless of his rank or status. (Matthew 4:10,Revelation 19:20; 22: 8-9) because God cannotgive his glory to another (Isaiah 42: 8).“There is none holy as the LORD: for thereis none beside you: neither is there any rock like our God”(1 Samuel 2: 2)In (John 4: 24) Jesusacknowledges that (God is a Spirit) so how one can see God?(John 1: 18) we read “18 No one has ever seen God”.In addition, Jesus Christ made aclear distinctionbetween himselfand God as in (John 14: 1): “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me.” . The word "also" here is clear evidence in the sentence because it indicates that God is a completely separate entity (i.e,the SupremeEntity) from jesus.

@ndongothierry

2 жыл бұрын

Hello Mentor, please take into consideration the name for God used in Genesis in the creation(s),it's ELOHIM(plural of God). When ELOHIM was to make humans it reads "LET US MAKE MAN AFTER OUR IMAGE AND LIKENESS" So you see it doesn't read "let me make man in my image and after my likeness". And you and I know that every normal human has a Body, Spirit and Soul(made in the image and likeness of their Creator. So Jesus could not leave himself out of the picture.That they will know you the only true God and Jesus Christ the sent. Remember that before this prayer in chapter17 he had been preparing them from chapter14 announcing the coming of the Holy spirit. Scripture is more than literature, it's exoteric. Thus only the initiated(Holy Spirit led persons)can rightfully convey The Truth. Walking by faith not sight

11:17 - "this verse is usually understood to mean that Jesus was denying that he was God". Um, no. It's used by people who deny that Jesus is God as some kind of "proof text", that seemingly proves the point when taken out of context. For the rest of us it shows Jesus using a rhetorical question asking the man whether he realized Jesus was divine. Jesus does not out and say "well don't call me good because I'm not God" (or the equivalent). You are reading this into the text, rather than reading the text and deriving your understanding from the text when taken in context. You can do better, Paul. You can do better. 11:36 "The Father is greater than I". That is because Jesus, being fully God, ... made Himself nothing". (Phil 2:5-) There are coherent reasons why Jesus should say this as he had laid aside his omniscience in becoming human. That was actually the point. You are also plucking the quote from John's Gospel, which proclaims Jesus' divinity and one-ness with God from the very first verse. This more "proof text" exegesis Paul. You can't expect to do this and come away with a coherent view on what the Bible says. Jesus' divinity was not a controversy at Nicaea - it was mainstream Christian thought. Arius merely wanted to insert a second type/level of God into Christian thought, which had its roots in the Sabellian controversy and Gnostic thought before then. This is what the Church had battled against for the first 2 centuries, and once the terms of the vote had been spelled out it was a clear choice between monotheism (Athanasius) and polytheism (Arius). Arius' duotheistic framework was rejected, and that was no surprise. As for Constantine, the evidence shows not that he wanted to take a side, but rather that he wanted unity, and was more than willing to use traditional Roman methods of getting it. As for Jesus' divinity as understood at the council, there are clear (and explicit) professions of faith in Jesus as God in John's gospel, Revelation, Clement, Ignatius, Origen and so on. If you're trying to posit that Jesus was not divine you're flying in the face of the large body of Christian scripture, both canonical and otherwise. Which you are perfectly free to do, but your methods are, by necessity, dependent on poor exegesis.

@moonlighting9782

2 жыл бұрын

My problem is that God made it easy to understand the message. No ambiguities, no probabilities or assumptions. So when Jesus said that Only God is good and that no one else should make that claim, he is clearly differentiating between divinity and mortality. No need to think of it as a meandering and hard to understand statement. So many other points to be made but I really don't have the patience nor time. We have been soo lucky to receive the Prophets God appointed. We needn't embellish or try to make such a Prophet (as mighty or great as he was) into a divine figure. That he was divinely mortal is the best way of putting it I think. I don't expect you to agree, you seem set on your view but above all, faith is straightforward and unambiguous. The Message is clear. There is only ONE worthy of worship. No partners should be appointed alongside Him. From Adam to Muhammad (peace and blessings upon them both) the message is consistent.

@mikehutton3937

2 жыл бұрын

@@moonlighting9782 I have to ask which message you're talking about. The Gospels in the NT are shot through with passages which demonstrate or outright declare Jesus' divinity. Are you free to simply ignore all those and pick on others you can use out of context to claim the opposite? How would you feel if I treated the Qur'an with the same level of disdain? Jesus was indeed differentiating between divinity and mortality. But he did not clarify which of those applied to him, merely that it was appropriate to ascribe goodness to one and not so the other. You have to leap to an unnecessary conclusion to take the view that you do. That is as clear as you could want it to be. Please understand I am aware of the difficulty you have reading scriptures like this. You are unable to see past what the Qur'an says, and so anything in the prior scripture which goes against your interpretation of the Qur'an rails against your expectations and beliefs. in order to read the Bible with honesty you must leave your preconceptions behind, and this includes those you have garnered from the Qur'an. Otherwise you are simply using the Qur;an as a blindfold rather than a lens. You will be unable to see what is really there. If you can clear your mind of your expectations, then you will be able to form an honest and personal opinion of what it says, rather than using the Qur'an as a shield to protect you from having to actually engage with the text honestly.

@moonlighting9782

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikehutton3937 You have waaay overcomplicated one simple Truth. There is only one God. It is He alone that is worthy of praise and should indeed be praised. That's it. Simple. All the rest is white noise that can be debated/argued. Stick to that one fact and you'll be on your way. ONE God. ONLY one. Praise Him, Glorify Him, remember Him. No need for long ass essays.

@mikehutton3937

2 жыл бұрын

@@moonlighting9782 There is only one God. On that we agree. But the rest is inconvenient for you. It is not white noise - it is the correction to your view of God which you are fleeing from. How about this - read scripture honestly and leave your own opinions out of it. Then you might just end up encountering the Almighty rather than a figment of your (or someone else's) manufacture. I note that you don't address any of the points I made. Your loss. The question of how we can encounter God is pretty easy to approach. We either encounter Him on His terms, or we run around in circles chasing after own own man-made definition of Him. You do the former by reading scripture honestly and without preconceptions. You do the latter by jumping to the same tired old conclusions you are currently engaging in. Complex questions have simple, easy to understand wrong answers. You have put God in a box. Do you really think that's going to work? He is above your conception and mine. We cannot imagine His full nature. Yet you are quite happy to invoke a man-made definition just so you can keep things simple, and presumably "elegant".

@moonlighting9782

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikehutton3937 All these essays simply demonstrate your own doubts and insecurities. Tell you what...be happy in your own beliefs. Why the urgent need to seek validation?

6 :45 bida - Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings on him said bida is the worst of affairs and this is why. they voted on bida of Athanasius of homouseon or 1 substance at nicene. refuted by many verses, Mark 10 : 18 wyhy call me good, Father is greater then all, JOhn 17 : 3 You are the only true God... bible contradicts Allah's attributes and even old testaments.

The founder of Homeopathic Dr Hanemane Samoiel was the son of a big priest of seamoiel church of Roman .He had migrate from Rome to Autrailia and his son birth is Austriala He mentions that my father had knowlege of life history of Essa asw .i was in 11 years old i fed up the imaginary faithwhich was hidden by the peoples .and began to research about the religion subject After knowig the reality i read the Holy Quran .and then i accept the islam in 19 years old .he was studing in medican university he got a honour able degree from Austrian universty .after that you can studied hi books many painfull troubels and challeges for him the different countrie of kingdom .for that why he invent the Homeopthic treatment which he had find by research of ilhaman .thank you

paul is the lawless false prophet of mathew 24 :11 in acts 9 :3 saw devil of luke 10 :18, Jesus is only sent to his tribe, paul went to Arabia & then the world, he thought he's the global prophet of isiah 42 Mt Sela Medina of Islam, but he set up the law giver Prophet like Moses and in isiah 49 Jesus returns to follow Islam of Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him. It says Jesus leaves Zion, and will celebrate with the singing mountain Arabs of the light of nations of Isiah 42 of Kedar or Ismael, So Jesus returns following Islam even in the bible!