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

@MK-nv8qq

Жыл бұрын

Dr Sijuwade is my current A levels philosophy teacher at my sixth form

@Big_Steve11

Жыл бұрын

@@MK-nv8qqMazel Tov

@yousef8879

3 ай бұрын

Hello Steve

@EasternRomanOrthodox.

9 күн бұрын

Because unlike Thomists & most western Christians, he is not a Modalist who believes in a Triune monster split to 3 persons. Sick!

@EasternRomanOrthodox.

5 күн бұрын

☦️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 enjoyed this discussion a lot - thank you

Great dialogue , I enjoy listening to Dr Joshua s novel ideas.

Great video loved the discussion.

I would love to see Khalil present these ideas to Jay Dyer and see his response to them.

@ThruTheUnknown

8 ай бұрын

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.

@joshuamathias6443

8 ай бұрын

@@ThruTheUnknown Agreed, that’s something I felt too.

@EasternRomanOrthodox.

9 күн бұрын

Dyer the pseudo-orthodox clown?😂He believes our Trinity is a 3 headed monster of 3 lil 'g' gods. Pagan!😂

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.

@EasternRomanOrthodox.

9 күн бұрын

☦️Christian Wagner is a lil pagan brat, a Modalist heretic, who believes our Trinity is a cake split to 3

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.

@paddysegrue2835

Жыл бұрын

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

@ThruTheUnknown

8 ай бұрын

​@@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.

@ThruTheUnknown

8 ай бұрын

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.

@ThruTheUnknown

5 ай бұрын

@@EasternOrthodox101 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.

@EasternRomanOrthodox.

9 күн бұрын

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.

Fascinating

@theiyrosthenes1639

Ай бұрын

Omg hi Paul!

@EasternRomanOrthodox.

5 күн бұрын

☦️But isn't Andani's sect are kafirs for you, Muslims? They are modernist kafirs according to our standards, that's for sure...

I havent finished the whole video but I like Joshuas ideas so far. As a muslim, when reading the NT and listening to Christians, this is the model of the trinity I derived. The father as the necessary originator, and the son and holy spirit as eternal and contingent emanations of the father’s essence

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.

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.

@demonsagex

Ай бұрын

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

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?!

@CovocNexus

Жыл бұрын

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.

@KhalilAndani

Жыл бұрын

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.

@KhalilAndani

Жыл бұрын

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.

@CovocNexus

Жыл бұрын

@@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."

@thereluctantphilosopher5454

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

Yikes the Muslim seems to believe God is dependent on attributes that are not as great as than he is. Is that in substance 😬?

@demonsagex

Ай бұрын

You seem to not have been able to understand the Islamic Neoplatonic model. What is your confusion?

@EasternRomanOrthodox.

5 күн бұрын

​@@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!

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.

@demonsagex

Ай бұрын

Agreed

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?

@KhalilAndani

11 ай бұрын

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

@skmcee7863

8 ай бұрын

@@anti-colonialsunni8860Wallahi you are not a Sunni if you think our theology aligns with Khalil’s kufr at all

@_AI_Shah

6 ай бұрын

​@@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.

@hadisyed4666

2 ай бұрын

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

Just say "faith." Faith doesn't math or logic.

@demonsagex

Ай бұрын

Why do you assume Faith doesn't contain Math or Logic?

@carsonianthegreat4672

4 күн бұрын

St. Paul taught that faith and reason go hand-in-hand

Dr. khalil Andani, you are great Ismaili Muslim scolar

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.

@KhalilAndani

Жыл бұрын

Salafi theology has always been marginal. I already debated them

@declansutherland8526

Жыл бұрын

Luckily YOU don’t decide who is a Muslim and who isn’t!

@khalidNroses

Жыл бұрын

@@KhalilAndani I enjoyed your debate with Jake .. thought you did a good job 👏

@JustinLagual

Жыл бұрын

joshua already schooled hijab

@tymon1928

11 ай бұрын

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