I’m a Muslim and have a Christian neighbor who always invites me over to preach the gospel every once in a while. Whenever it comes to Islam or the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) he holds back a little and doesn’t want to say he’s a false prophet etc. but I tell him look if you’re a Christian then by default you reject him as a prophet, it’s like he thinks I’ll get upset at him or something. I just think if Christians reject him then you can give your evidences without calling names and insulting, it really gets nowhere and shuts the conversation down before it starts, just as Muslims who reject Paul, we should stick to giving evidences and proof for our beliefs without insulting.

@Aaron Yost You said modern Islam insist Jesus is not divine? That’s not quite accurate, here is a narration of a direct companion of the prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him), “Whenever Ibn Umar was asked about marrying a Christian lady or a Jewess, he would say: "Allah has made it unlawful for the believers to marry ladies who ascribe partners in worship to Allah, and I do not know of a greater thing, as regards to ascribing partners in worship, etc. to Allah, than that a lady should say that Jesus is her Lord although he is just one of Allah's slaves."-Bukhari5285 So ibn Umar explaining that someone ascribing partners in worship to Allah was that someone says that Jesus is their Lord. Why? Because Jesus is just one of Allahs slaves. (On the Bible being reliable) Imagine a man who had a wife and many children. After the mother died, some of the children decided to write accounts of her life from their own perspectives. Mind you some of the children never met their mother except from a few visions they claimed to have of her, some maybe saw her once or twice, some claimed to be her son after she passed, and most of the authors are unknown and only hundreds of years later given authorship(referring to biblical authors). Eventually, a group of people collected these writings together and called them “the Gospel of the Mother.” Then imagine the husband, who actually knew his wife most his life, living long enough miraculously to later produce his own account and correcting things that were falsely attributed to her while confirming things that were true. Would we accuse him of “picking and choosing” simply because he agrees with some of the earlier accounts while rejecting others? Of course not. We would recognize that he is correcting the earlier accounts on the basis of his greater authority and knowledge. How much more so if God Himself revealed an authoritative account concerning a previous prophet, confirming what was true in the earlier revelation while correcting what had been altered or misunderstood? That is not arbitrary “picking and choosing.” It is exactly what you would expect from a later revelation claiming to be an authoritative correction of previous writings.

@Aaron Yost Gosh if I knew it was that easy to get someone to stick to the topic I wouldn’t have went about 30 comments in on our last convo to which I never got an answer to the question on the church fathers lol. And I only quote scholars who I think you may respect and I think if someone spends their whole life dedicated to a field, even if you disagree with them, it’s worth giving them some credibility on the topic, or at least enough respect to listen to what they have to say. Btw I didn’t say it said that verbatim but it’s what I take away from it. If someone were to say that they are making a dish, and they say “I’m going to make this dish good because I’m going to follow the ingredients and recipe of the Maker”, what that means to me is that if they did it without the ingredients and the recipe then they may not make the dish perfect. So the son can know, but that would still mean he’s not omniscient to begin with, the son is given the authority to judge just like the disciples will be given the authority to judge, but that means they are not the ultimate judge who has the ability to judge in and of himself without being given authority, just like glory, there’s one person who has glory in and of himself, and there are those who are dependent upon the Father to be given glory(Jesus and the saints). And the Father doesn’t need the son to declare the hour, he declares it on his own independently, so I don’t think it’s impossible for the Father to act independently. As it’s mentioned in Acts1:7 Jesus said: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.” So what I see from all this is that the Father is self sufficient in everything he does whilst the son is dependent in everything he does. Jesus is given knowledge, given authority to judge, given glory, even given life in himself as it is said in John5:26 that “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.”, meaning everything he is given he didn’t have it prior to being given it. You’re not given something you already possess. And sorry for being annoying lol if you don’t think something is on topic just ignore it I may get carried away sometimes out of excitement lol.

@Aaron Yost If there was a classroom where you were the teacher, and it’s me and another student, and the student asks me “hey teacher can you answer this question”, and I reply “why do you call me teacher, there is no teacher except one teacher and that is Aaron.” I think it’s pretty straightforward that I am not the teacher and I am excluding my self from being the teacher. Even if it’s not said word for word, it is derived directly from the text. If I say I only have one shirt and it’s a plain red shirt, you can derive from my statement that I don’t have a plain blue shirt. That’s pretty straightforward without having to make a list of every other color shirt that I don’t have for you to know that I only have one plain red shirt.

@Aaron Yost You haven’t given a single example of a doctrine of tawheed that cannot be derived from/ or understood from the plain straightforward reading of the Quran. I’d like an example instead of just saying people fought over it. Or it would be interesting to see a discussion on this topic of Tawhid vs Trinity with you and Noor in your follow up with him if that’s still happening? You did kind of give an example during your talk with him about how Allah cannot have the attribute of love without having someone to share that love with prior to creation. -also if I’m teaching a student a doctrine that he has to believe in order to go to heaven or if he doesn’t believe he’ll end up in hell, then it should be crystal clear. Do you believe if I reject the doctrine of the trinity I will go to hell? If so, then how can God expect me to believe something that is a “paradox” or a “mystery” that not only wasn’t taught but also can’t be explained without going against the logic God created me with. If you don’t think I’m being sincere and don’t want to continue it’s fine I just gave my thoughts on the video and since I was reading the book I figured I’d see if the claim holds any weight and I’m still convinced it does, now even more so than I did before. I am still curious in a direct answer to the question even if you think I’m not applying the same standard to tawheed. (On the trinity in the Old Testament) -Gregory of Nazianzus explicitly describes a progressive revelation of the Trinity: “The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself”; he further acknowledges that “Scripture does not very clearly or very often write Him God in express words (as it does first the Father and afterwards the Son)” he even says that “of the wise men amongst ourselves, some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God,” while others “have been uncertain which to call Him,” claiming that Scripture “did not make the matter clear either way”

@Aaron Yost 1.The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are fully divine (equally share the same essence). 2.The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. 3.The Father is unbegotten. 4.The Son and Holy Spirit eternally proceed from the Father. 5.There is only one Most High God. 6.All five propositions are eternally true. Which specific point do you reject, and what part of it do you believe is inaccurate in describing Nicene Trinitarianism. If someone rejects any one of these can they still be considered trinitarian or would they be considered heretics.

@Aaron Yost (Epiphanius of Salamis) Speaking about Origens use of this word: Epiphanius says: “And first I need to discuss the term, “originated God,” with this braggart with his illusory wisdom, this searcher out of the unsearchable and exhibitor of the heavenly realms, who, as a greater man than I has said, has filled the world with nonsense. And anyone can see that there are many equivalents and synonyms. If the term were used by someone else, one might say that this too had been said with right intent. But since I have found in many instances that Origen wrongly distinguishes between the Only-begotten God and the Father’s Godhead and essence—and the same with the Holy Spirit—it is plain that by saying “originated God” he is pronouncing him a creature. For though some would like to outwit me and say that “originated” is the same thing as “begotten,” < this > is not admissible. < The latter may be said only of God, but the former* > may not be said of God, but only of creatures. “Originated” is one thing, “begotten,” another.”-Panarion 64.8.1–4, 141 Also, “For Origen claims, and at once dares, if you please, to say first that the Only-begotten Son cannot see the Father, and neither can the Spirit behold the Son; and angels surely cannot behold the Spirit, nor men the angels. And this is his first downfall. For he does not believe that the Son is of the Father’s essence, but represents him as entirely different from the Father, and created besides. But he holds that he is called “Son” by grace.”-Panarion 64.4.2–4, 137 (Jerome) Speaking on some of the heretical beliefs of Origen: He says, “It begins by saying that Christ was made God’s son not born; that God the Father, as He is by nature invisible, is invisible even to the Son; that the Son, who is the likeness of the invisible Father, compared with the Father is not the truth but compared with us who cannot receive the truth of the almighty Father seems a figure of the truth so that we perceive the majesty and magnitude of the greater in the less, the Father’s glory limited in the Son; that God the Father is a light incomprehensible and that Christ compared with him is but a minute brightness, although by reason of our incapacity to us he appears a great one. The Father and the Son are compared to two statues, a larger one and a small; the first filling the world and being somehow invisible through its size, the second cognisable by the eyes of men. God the Father omnipotent the writer terms good and of perfect goodness; but of the Son he says: He is not good but an emanation and likeness of goodness; not good absolutely but only with a qualification, as ‘the good shepherd’ and the like. The Holy Spirit he places after the Father and the Son as third in dignity and honour. And while he declares that he does not know whether the Holy Spirit is created or uncreated, he has later on given his own opinion that except God the Father alone there is nothing uncreated. The Son, he states, is inferior to the Father, inasmuch as He is second and the Father first; and the Holy Spirit which dwells in all the saints is inferior to the Son. In the same way the power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Likewise the power of the Son is greater than that of the Holy Spirit, and as a consequence the Holy Spirit in its turn has greater virtue than other things called holy.”

@Aaron Yost -We can throw out the verdicts of all these early big church figures and also the 5th, 6th, and 7th ecumenical councils which eventually condemned and anathematized Origens teachings. It wasn’t only him that was condemned as a heretic but there was a whole following of people who were labeled origenists who all preached the same thing, that the son and Holy Spirit are creatures. -But first may I get an answer to my previous question, “do you agree that if someone holds the belief that the Holy Spirit is created, which means He isn’t co-equal or co-eternal with the Father is considered a heretic?” (Which you’ve agreed to be Origens beliefs) -Also if you want to focus on a single quote of his and explain it to me we can, but if we agree on my previous question of him being a heretic for believing the Holy Spirit to be created then we can move to a different Church father I mentioned to prove my original point if you still disagree. -If not we can continue and choose the quote from Origen which states, “But we are persuaded by the Savior who says: “The Father whom sent me is greater than I” (John 14:28, see 6:44) and for this reason would not even bear to have the epithet “good” (see Mk. 10:18) applied to him in its proper, true, and perfect sense, but graciously referred it to the Father, finding fault with the person who wished to glorify the Son too much. We say that the Savior and the Holy Spirit transcend all generated beings, not by comparison, but by an absolute transcendence, but that he is transcended as much and more by the Father, as he and the Holy Spirit transcend other beings, not just ordinary ones. How is it possible even to say what great praise belongs to one who transcends thrones, dominions, rulers, powers, and every name named, not just in this age, but in the age to come (see Eph. 1:21), and in addition the holy angels, spirits, and souls of the righteous? But even though transcending by his being, dignity, power, divinity – for he is the living Word – and wisdom being so many and so great, he can in no way be compared to the Father. For he is the image of his goodness and the emanation not of God, but of his glory and his eternal light, and the exhalation not of the Father, but of his power, and the pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty, and the spotless mirror of his activity (Wis. 7:25–6; Heb. 1:3), the mirror through which Paul and Peter and those like them see (see 1 Cor. 13:12) God, because he said: “He who has seen me has seen the Father who sent me” (John 14:9, see 12:45).”