today’s program will be our 29th series Jesus, the beloved messenger of Allah.
Our program today will be our third on the later Unitarians on your host, Bishop Minish in here with me once again from St. Mary’s University with Dr. Jamal Bedell. So I want to come back to you sit down. How about starting off with a summary of last week’s program? Okay. Last week we continue to discuss the writings of servetus was regarded as the father of modern unitarianism. And how we oppose any notion of deification of Jesus peace be upon him, indicating that it is not based on the Scripture, nor is it
consistent with reason. We also talked about one of his contemporaries, Adam Mercer, who escaped after he was arrested and debtors reversed Islam.
We dealt also with another temporary Francis David, who, under the decree of toleration, was able to champion the cause of the Unitarians in public debates, but he said that unfortunately, after the reversal of that policy, following the death of King john,
he was arrested, and he was actually sentenced to life imprisonment, where he died after a few months of suffering in jail.
And he said that as a result of the consideration of the toleration act of toleration, Unitarians in general, were persecuted, so the numbers diminished. But it’s continued to increase in places which was in which we’re under Muslim rule, Turkish rule in Europe, especially places like South Hungary. But as soon as the Turkish rule also became weakened, again, that toleration went by the board because again, other
nations
took over. So that’s, that was a setback. In fact, there are some indication that Francis David, was influenced by Islam, and the emphasis of Islam on pure monotheism. There you can elaborate on audience on the southern side, for example, one of the historians by the name of the Adrian rolandic, are he, indeed, in his book treatises concerning Mohammed, Mohammed was that stuff that would be permissible.
He mentioned that in one of the writings of Francis David, he openly refers to the Quran, that’s the holy book.
And he says, I quote, it is not without reason, said in the Quran, that Jesus can give new assistance to those who worship Him, because they would have him pass for God. Contrary to the doctrine taught by him, I said that he probably might be referring by way of seminary and loose translation to chapter five in the Quran, are surah, number five in passages 119 through 193. That’s something of that effect, you know, to that effect is mentioned in the Quran. In the opinion of the Turkish rulers, unfortunately, will not fully aware of the similarity between the pure monotheistic faith Islam and those Unitarians who held very similar views with respect to Jesus and the absolute
oneness of God.
Which, of course, could have contributed to more closeness and more of the bridging of the gap between Muslims and at least one segment of Christians at that time.
In more previous programs,
you mentioned also the name of another contemporary of service, you mentioned some Genie, maybe at this time, I’ll ask you if you could give us some idea about his role in affirming monotheism at that time. Okay, I’d like for us to clarify that. In fact, there are two signals. One is the new sabini and then there is his cousin by the name of Fausto au sto was known as for stasis units is unique. But later on, he became known as socionics, one of the very famous Unitarians. So maybe I just at the time did with
The first one because he proceeded, is his cousin.
Emilio, since he was born in 1525, he left valona went to the Venice area where there was some degree of religious freedom, at least in comparative terms. He found that there are a number of eminent people, they’re very intelligent, very eminent people leading secretly, to try and study the truth of Christianity and trying to reestablish the teaching of Christ in its purity.
As one historian said that those people reach the conclusion that there is no deity but God, God the Father, let’s say, and that Jesus was truly a human and only a human, conceived through the operation of the Holy Spirit, in the uterus, of chaste, married. And that Trinity and divinity of Jesus, our ideas, which code words, the opinions introduced by TIG and philosopher, this is their own, you know, the Estonians on 70 of their views.
No, no, no. So God met with those people. And he also was convinced
that there must be some new freedom from the old dogmas that the church has has upheld. But when that secret society was discovered,
the members were arrested. And some of them were put to death. Some escaped. And some historians suspect that some of them ultimately became Muslims, because that’s the religion of pure monotheism. their ideas are not differentiated.
So he tried to see Calvin, and what the famous leader of the Reformation movement, but he became very disappointed
from his attitudes, and he said that Calvin was just behaving like all other Catholic priests at that time. And he was very disappointed with Calvin, when he learned that Calvin actually was instrumental in getting servetus arrested. And we talked about that before that he was ultimately burned alive because of his belief. So he went to Europe, and lived there for three days for three years and died at the age of 37. However, his research was quite influential on his cousin, the one I mentioned before it was known with the name of CMS who had even a greater role in championing the the cause of
monotheism or unitarianism. Well, you mentioned sociales, so maybe you can tell us a bit more about him? Well, CNS was born in Italy, he visited several places in Europe and returned back to Italy and finally settled in Brazil. As a scholar, he was quite interested in theology. So he published a book in which he differed quite openly with the teaching of the Church. But since this was a very serious and dangerous method, he wrote that book anonymously, and distributed the book or circulated that on a private basis. He went to Poland, where he was able to write under his own name, and certainly there, but the church was very angry because of his writings, which are different from what they
teach. So they, they had him arrested, and he was condemned to be burned alive. However, he was lucky, at least to some extent that because of popular support, and opposition to that, of that supportive of socionics, they decided to change the penalty, to what they call the ordeal of cold waters. According to which deck he was thrown into deep waters. And if he drowned, he is presumed to be guilty. I don’t know whether the authorities knew that CMS did not know how to swim in which will make a big difference of course, establishing
but in many cases, the with the presence of officiating clergy, he was thrown into the ocean, but somehow he was saved from from drowning. He lived after that, and his writings were collected in a book that was published in 1605, one years after his death. However, his teaching spread quite widely in Britain for on for almost 34 years.
But after that, that is in 1638.
A very severe and organized persecution of his followers began. They were deprived of all civil rights.
Some historians indicate that
anyone who believed or some of those who believe in the absolute unity of God that Jesus is His Servant and Messenger were burnt alive and included in the last name of a woman.
Catherine Vogel, who was burnt alive in 1659, she was 18 years of age zero.
The message, of course, was quite clear to those, the public who believed in absolute monotheism or unity of God, absolute unity.
And in 1658, people were given the option between either accepting Roman Catholicism or accepting to go in exile. And that, of course, resulted in the dispersal of the Unitarians throughout Europe.
Now that we’ve started talking about socionics, what were his views on Trinity? Well, first of all, he said that it is impossible to have one being who possesses supreme Dominion
in the world, and then at the same time to speak of three
supreme curses. Now, when you speak about one Supreme Being dominant in the universe, and then at the same time, you talk about three supreme persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He said that the essence of God is one, not only one in kind, but also one in numbers. So there is no persons in the one of these new complex one, if you will.
And I said, the moment we speak about three American persons means Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it means that there must also be three individual essences, it didn’t accept that it does become a three, you know, distinct persons, and the same time you say is the opposite. In essence, there must be three individual essences because they’re not identical.
And he said also, on the other hand, the moment we speak about one numerical essence, that’s the father, or God, it means of necessity, that there must be only one person, one essence, one person, not three persons of the same essence.
Then when he addressed the issue of the nature of Jesus, peace be upon him.
He said that it is impossible that Jesus would have two natures simultaneously, that is divine nature, and human nature. The reason he said is that, first of all, the two characters, which are totally contradictory, and opposite, cannot combine in the same person. He means by that humanity and divinity, to articulate on that, it says, you cannot have in the same person mortality, and immortality, the father is immortal, Jesus died, was mortal, at least according to the Gospels.
He said, you cannot have someone with beginning and someone who have no beginning. And obviously Jesus had a beginning he did not exist before he was born.
God did not have any beginning.
And then he said also, we cannot have the characteristics of the quality of being mutable, with the quality of being immutable, changeable, and unchangeable. And obvious. Of course, there is often evidence that Jesus was changing, he was a baby, he grew up,
he changed, he was circumcised, he went through the stages that any person would go through. You cannot combine this mutability with the immutability or unchanged ability of God. So it said, it’s impossible to speak about any being combining both humanity and Divinity in the same time.
He said also, that based on that, when we speak about the two natures of Jesus, we can’t really speak about one person, actually, we are speaking about two persons because it’s impossible to have contradictory qualities at the same time. And we’re gonna talk about two persons ad you’re talking about, in fact, two Christ’s or two Jesus’s one divine, one human who cannot really meet together as the church used to play him. And then he replied, or responded to the objection that sometimes could be raised by the church. When he said, the chair sometimes says that, the unity of humanity and Divinity in Jesus, it just like the unity of the body, and the soul in the human being.
To respond to that, he said that this analogy is incorrect. Why? He said, because the body and the soul in the human
court are, are so conjoined, that Eman is neither soul nor body, because neither the soul or body constitute a person.
Whereas when you speak about the unity of humanity, individual release of your body, you know, a person the divine is a person
And then he goes on, he says that the very nature
alone constitute a person
and authenticity, then the human nature by itself cannot constitute or does constitute, I should say, sir, the human nature by itself constitute also a separate person.
Okay. And in addition to this, he says that, according to the Scriptures, according to the Bible, there is no evidence, however, that Jesus had divine nature, and I think some of these we have discussed in previous programs. So, now there it basically says the analogy between the body and soul in the human is not quite the same when you see you talk about the existence or joining of humanity and Divinity in one person, that is Jesus Peace be open, but just like the possibility, well, how did he actually support that claim that it was divine nature in Jesus, and that there is no evidence in the Bible for this, when he said that if you look through the Bible, you will notice
a number of things. First of all, God, that’s the father in the terminology used. God is the one who created Jesus. Secondly, the scriptures constantly speak about Jesus as a human being.
Thirdly, that the excellence that Jesus peace be upon him achieved was simply a divine gift. That not that he was designed. But he received that as a divine gift. Firstly, that Jesus never related
miracles to himself, he always deferred to God, he didn’t say I do this miracle, because I have something divine in myself, he always prayed to, to God for this miracles. And he says that historically, up until the Council of nice, or nicea in 325, was hundreds of years after Jesus peace be upon him. And even for some time after, it was obvious from the writings, the overall
scheme of lighting of people who lived that only the father, only the father was acknowledged for chilcote.
And other people, like the civilians, for example, who believed otherwise were regarded heretics, it’s not, it’s just the opposite of what happened later on. So the idea was, again, exclusive to that divinity was exclusive to the Father.
Let me give you one of his examples, if I may, from his writings, you know, where he tries to refute the notion that developed later of deification of Jesus. And he says that, quote, the essence of God is most simple, and absolutely one.
We therefore
say, and therefore, it is downright contradiction for one to generate another, if they are three, independent persons. The word generate here is quite interesting, because, of course, as you know, in the various counselors,
dogmas, they speak about the person, the son proceeds from the father’s or, you know, or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, or in another interpretation proceeds from the Father and Son. And it’s impossible to speak about one generating the other and still speak about the three as independent or eternal persons. In another place, he says that the danger of introducing this type of duction, in the teaching of Jesus peace be upon him is that he describes the doctrine in this following word, he says, which teaches that the Father is not only through God, but that the Son, and the Holy Ghost must be joined with him. So he was quite articulate, and he based his
presentation essentially, really on on the Bible even itself.
Now, you’ve taught us how
socionics and just a question of 20 did he also disapprove or give any other comments on any other doctrines that may have been controversial at the time? Yes, he did. And actually, it’s a doctrine which is very close and related or based on the notion of deification of Jesus peace be upon him. That is the doctrine of atonement, atonement, the sin, through the crucifixion or the blood of Jesus peace be upon him, you may like to forgiving that side the forgiveness of sins, through the sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. And he says that this doctrine teaches that the human being is born in a state of sin, because of the original or first mistake, or sin, made by Adam are committed by
Adam. And that’s really the crucifixion of Jesus. But this crucifixion
atones for that state of sin for anyone who is baptized.
Now, he says that in traditional Christianity, the church is defined as a religious fellowship established by Jesus, and that only through the church only would the sinners find his way to God.
That means, then he says that the church is more important or takes priority over the individual deliver, that he did not accept. It says that every human being every creature has direct access to God without the need of any intermediary or mediator. And he said that it is not necessary to follow the teaching of the Church blindly. Not even he regarded
that prison as an absolute necessity.
This kind of statements by socionics was very, very dangerous for the church. Because it means simply that the authority of the church is to be brought into question. That is why he was opposed like servitors by both
Catholics as well as Protestant churches. However, socionics continues to refuse, you know, this doctrine of atonement, and you give a number of very interesting reasons If you have time, Attica can, somebody? Well, first of all, he says that,
that Jesus peace be upon him, could not have
presented an infinite sacrifice of sin, because he suffered only for a limited period of time. In other words, what you’re saying, basically, my humble understanding is that in order to claim that Jesus is the only Savior of all mankind, past, present, and future in all places to come, it means then that you must have a sort of infinite sacrifice, not just in a sacrifice, infinite sacrifice. And he says that, to say that Jesus suffered infinite sacrificed or presented this infinite sacrifice is not correct, because he did not suffer except for a small period of time. And no matter how intensive that suffering is, it is definitely not equivalent to the eternal suffering for which
mankind is liable. So it doesn’t really make for it.
Secondly, says that if some people reply to that, and say that the suffering on the part of Jesus was infinite, because Jesus is infinite, which is a strange logic, actually, you know, that because Jesus is infinite, then his sacrifice and the suffering is also integrated. All right. By the same token, if we are saying that his suffering was infinite, because he’s infinite, you can also say that is in June and was infinite because he was infinite,
to the to cancer. So it doesn’t really provide
the, the advantage or the notion of eternal sacrifice or infinite sacrifice. And then he says that, even if we accept that Jesus peace be upon him, good offer an infinite atonement, then it raises a very serious question. Because once we say that Jesus provided the infinite atonement for all times, and everybody to come,
then we cannot really speak in any meaningful way, about the Forgiving quality of God. nor can we speak about man’s gratitude to God, because that forgiveness is automatic, just at the point of baptism and the name of Christ, that forgiveness is given. So God doesn’t have any grace to offer release. We cannot really speak about thanking him the direction of thanks, did you have to go through some someone else? And he says that if we follow that particular logic, it means that God’s commands on mankind are not binding. Why? Because the penalty was paid in full through the crucifixion, for all times. In other words, there is no the command doesn’t have an obligation to do
whatever you want. But after all, if you know somebody has paid for your sins, then you’re okay. In a more Frank statement, even he said that this dogma
means that God has no right to add any condition or require any more things from human beings from these creatures, because the price has been paid already for past present, and future. Very interesting, you know, type of quantitative analysis. And then you give an example. He said, If you owe a debt to someone, and then someone else, a third party came and paid that debt on your behalf.
The creditor has absolutely no authority on you. Like, for example, you have a house and you have a mortgage in your house,
and I am your creditor, someone, friend of yours came and paid me, the entire mortgage paid off your house, then it means that I as a creditor would have absolutely no claim or no rights on you, I can’t ask you to do anything or not to do anything. I’m paid already in full. By the same token now, if Jesus paid through his crucifixion of his blood, the debt of sin or carried the burden of sin of mankind, then God has no authority whatsoever to demand anything from us, because the death has already been paid several times to come, good lodging very, very interesting. And then he says, In addition to this, you know, direct objections to the doctrine of atonement Is it is
it is possible that you can say that socionics also objected indirectly. When we affirm that Jesus, peace be upon him was a human being because, of course, as you said, it is impossible for one human being to atone for the sins of
humanity,
to express his understanding of Christ. Finally, he said that Jesus is not really a Word made flesh, perhaps a reference to the first chapter of the gospel of john, God is not or Jesus is not really Word made flesh, but he is a man a human being, who achieve victory against drunk in his life as a human being, that he did not exist before the world existed, but a holy person who received revelation from his creator, from God, the Father, very good. Now, I’m sure a lot of this must have caused a lot of controversy and a lot of problems within the church. Exactly what was their reaction at the time? Well, as one would rightfully expect, they didn’t like it a bit nervous. Because what
cnn was saying essentially means that people should be encouraged to return back to the true pure teachings of Jesus peace be upon him. That automatically means that the various decisions of church councils the various dogmas that were introduced at a later time, would have to be brought into question. That obviously means that the church authority for centuries for so many centuries, is brought to question and that review, an honest review of all of these dogmas and ideas must be brought to the foreground. And of course, we were quite careful that this should not take place. That’s why you find just to get an example of the kind of action in 1681 of the clergy by the name
of George Ashwell sh w. e Ll, noted that the writings of socionics became very popular among the masses. It was not even that it became popular among Ashwin on student of theology. So he felt that he should really write something again socionics and his teaching,
while he acknowledged the strength of his vision and the force of his eloquence, finally, without giving any evidence, he concluded that socionics was called the difference great news, or smear. And obviously, as we have seen before, that this is the weapon, the discarding attack, that the person is satanic, or you know, he is influenced by Satan and all that, without giving any rational response without giving any scriptural quotation to support. Why he objects to what socionics says, is really the weapon of someone who could not do any better, could not really prove that he was wrong. Nor could he say what is wrong with the pure, absolute monotheistic faith that all prophets
including Jesus and Muhammad peace be upon them taught throughout the entire human history.
Thank you very much Dr. weathering. Thank you all for joining us here once more this time and
we would most appreciate any questions or any comments you may have our phone number and their address will be appearing on your screen.
We hope that you join us here once again next week. A lot of us are settled like
