Mohammed Hijab's SHOCKING Christian View of God EXPOSED!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- Mohammed Hijab's SHOCKING Christian View of God EXPOSED!
Dr. Andani's full video: • Mohammed Hijab v Willi...
📖Top 10 Lies About Pope Francis EXPOSED (Free Ebook): reason.podia.c...
📖Answering Orthodoxy: shop.catholic....
🎓Logical Fallacies in Apologetics (Course): reason.podia.c...
🎓The Theological Notes (Course): reason.podia.c...
💰Go Fund Me: gofund.me/fb9d...
💰Donate: www.paypal.com...
👪Patreon: patreon.com/reasonandtheology
DON'T FORGET TO SUBSCRIBE AND LIKE
Siiig owns muhummad Hijab. He needs the shoutout
I like the new laid back background Michael! You are smart and educated enough to be modest about your degrees and knowledge, no bragging and showing off needed. Right choice. Your content is the proof.
This is my personal understanding of Eastern Orthodox metaphysics. As I see it, the difference between Hijab's model of God and the Orthodox understanding of the Essence-Energies distinction is that the Orthodox would NOT say that the Energies of God and the Essence of God have a "real distinction" as Hijab stated. In fact, I don’t think they would recognize that term as relevant within their metaphysics. The closest term that might relate to the Orthodox understanding of the distinction would be "conceptual" or "formal," in the sense used by Scotus, but even then, the terms don't have a direct correspondence.
@@GroundZero_US
They affirm a real distinction.
No. The fact that they affirm it is the exact problem within 20th century Eastern Orthodox polemicism. They are called the “neo-Palamites”: John Romanides and Vladimir Lossky are two of the EO luminaries that explicitly state that the difference between essence and energies in God is REAL. It has all kinds of consequences but I suspect their need to do so is just to be as anti-Catholic (rectius: “anti-Latin”) as it could be. For me, the greatest Trinitarian problem from a Catholic point of view is not really that it threatens divine simplicity, but that it threatens divine immutability: since neo-Palamism conceives God as ‘essence and energy’ with a ‘real’ (=extra-mental) distinction between the two - and it is not clear within Palamas himself, as so many adamantly argue for against the neo-Palamites even inside EO, like David Bentley Hart, for example -, then it will follow that God is not completely immutable, since the energies are changeable and they “are” God in a real sense, that means, ontologically. This EO model of the Trinity, at least the one of the neo-Palamites, at the very least flirts (to put it mildly) with heresy.
@@Alami-io5em That’s not correct. Search for “Discussion on Essence and Energies with Dr. David Bradshaw and Dr. Jared Goff”, which was an interview that took place on this channel, go to the 1:01:33 mark and listen to Dr. David Bradshaw's answer to the question on whether the EE distinction is real or conceptual.
God wanted to enter into the world so God logically became a person with a beginning that was recorded in human history but he was born by the power of the holy spirit which is the love of God that created his son through Jesus Mother Mary the most perfect human bing after Jesus she was conceived without sin she was the chosen vessel to Carry the son of God into the world this is how the trinity works the love of God created a son through the power of the Holy spirit !
I hope you don't mind my comments on this complex subject. I am not qualified to contribute much to the discussion, but I find this Interesting. How can God exist without the attribute of life? Life is distinct, but not separate. God is a living God - a God of the living. That would mean all living things are part of God. The word holy comes from the word whole. God is whole. God is everything. God is complete. I think of God like a shapeshifter except He can manifest in infinite ways. AI is not a living being. AI is a machine created by man. Can a machine be considered an attribute of man? I think not. A machine can do many things a human can, but it is separate from us and all living things. Life is distinct and supreme. God is holy and divine. Some people think robots are alive, but they can never be alive. I'm sure someone with an artificial limb can become attached to it, but it is not an attribute of that person. It's a tool.
God is life, “I am the way, the truth, and the life” one of the most remarkable a quotes of Jesus explains when we follow him we experience the true life, for God is not of this realm, and if I’m not mistaken you’re trying to explain God with things and matters of this realm (our universe) but God is not the creation, he created it and every atom on it. He is distinct and beyond us, he is God and he wants us to be part of him through Jesus who is the bridge for us to reach him, his realm and his life, all because of love for us.
@@armandogomez314 I agree with most of what you say, but I think this realm matters to God. I know God is delighted to be involved in every detail of our lives, even the mundane. Also, we don't know how God created us. He could have used part of himself to make us. We are made in His image and likeness, so it's only natural to think we are part of God. We are also considered God's children.
@@armandogomez314 God is Love, and love is the energy that moves us and gives us life.
God can *BE* without the attribute of life because life is contingent on Him. God is both being and beyond it. It’s a hard concept to grasp, but that’s not due to any flaw in the concept itself. Rather, it’s because God transcends any particular semantic descriptor we use to identify Him. I think you’d be interested in the work of Dr. David Bradshaw, an Eastern Orthodox scholar who specializes in the Essence-Energies distinction. He approaches this topic from an Eastern Christian perspective, discussing how God can be both being and beyond it. You can find several interviews with him on RUclips.
@@GroundZero_US Thank you. I'll check it out. To be or not to be - that is the question.
You are not making any sense.
Your ‘arguments’ are based on the false doctrine of divine simplicity. You are using divine simplicity as a presupposition for your ‘argument’.
How is that logical?
Andani argues in bad faith.
The definition of god includes his attributes. If Hijab uses the word god. It includes his attributes.
Andani tries to misrepresent him by making up a definition that Hijab doesn’t hold to.
The trinity is a logical contradiction. Attributes are not logical contradictions.
I have attributes. That doesn’t make me more than one human being.
Persons make more beings. The trinity is a logical contradiction.
Three persons are three human beings. You have a logical contradiction.
There is nothing wrong with multiplicity.
It’s a counterfactual dependency between the attributes and essence. One can’t exist without the other and vice versa. The trinity has causal dependency. That’s a big problem.
Your churchfathers literally say that the son and spirit are caused.
Andani misrepresents people.
He tries to have a category of God and a category of attributes. That’s not what the definition of Hijab of God is. God includes the attributes. Andani is deliberately misrepresenting Hijab in his poor ‘review’.
Looks like this one stung for you.
@@ReasonandTheology
Can you respond?
Why should the attributes be identical to the essence?
Is your mercy identical to you?
Is your mercy identical to your wrath? The answer is no.
Does that make you more than one human being because your mercy is not identical to your wrath? The answer is no.
This video is not even logical.
The proponents of divine simplicity always try to misrepresent people.
We don’t believe the definition of God is only his essence. When we say God. You immediately think we mean essence by mentioning the word god. That’s your mindset as believers in the false doctrine of divine simplicity. Andani does the same thing. He constantly redefines the word god for Hijab by claiming that Hijab defines God as his essence.
Can you imagine if I refer to a human being. You would only think I’m referring to the human nature.🥴
You are not making logical arguments.
Andani is incoherent. He believes predicating real existence to God is anthropomorphism. He rejects analogical predication between God and creation. He pretends to be logical.
You can’t even prove that multiplicity necessitates an external cause from first principles.
All your arguments rely on this false presupposition.
You are basically arguing based on false presuppositions that you want to take as granted.
It’s not Hijabs fault that you have these false presupposition that you accept to be criteria of ‘truth’.
We cannot fully comprehend Trinity, but sometimes analogies can help.
Imagine for example one tree. It is one being, but zero persons.
You exist as one being, and you are one person.
If we know that beings can exist unpersonal (0 person) and as 1 person, then we can induce the 1 being which is 3 Divine perons.
This is just analogy. If you found it helpful, great. If you found it confusing, forget about it and try different approach.