Philosophy Trinity Essay

Many philosophers have addressed and questioned the subject regarding the unity and trinity of God. Yahya Ibn Adi was a philosopher and a Monophysite scholar of the Arab Classical Period who has firmly given treatises of his own interpretation on this subject. This has caused manygfjkfgmngcccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccb scholars and other philosophers to critique his understandings and express their own viewpoints of Yahyah Ibn Adi’s philosophy on the unity and trinity of God. Emilio Platti in his article Yahya B. Adi And His Refutation Of Al-Warraq’s Treatise On The Trinity In Relation To His Other Works and Sidney H. Griffith in her article Commending Virtue And A Humane Polity In 10th Century Baghdad The Vision of Yahya Ibn Adi are two scholars who explored Yahya’s refutations. In their articles they discuss b a good indication to what Yahya’s belief was on the subject of unity of God. Many philosophers challenged his standpoints on the unity as well as the trinity resulting in Yahya to refute the situation. Two philosophers in particular who attributed Yahya’s treatises were Al-Kindi and and Al-Warraq. One of Al-Kindi’s reasoning for attributing Yahya’s treatise on the unity and trinity of vb the unity of God. Griffith explains how Yahya firmly asserts that â€Å" God is said to be ‘one’ in number in reference to his ‘substance, while in reference to his ‘quiddity’ or whatness’, which, according to Yahya, is essentially described as being ‘generous/good, ‘wise’, and ‘powereful’, he is ‘three’†4 In comparison with Griffith’s article, Emilio Pratti critiques how Yahya refutes to Al-Kindi’s attribution on treatise on the unity. Pratti believed that â€Å"To al Kindi, he underlies that the Christians say on the one hand, that the Creator is one, and that his quiddity is one, but they also say, on the other hand, that He is three, as far as He is good, wise and powerful.. †5 Pratti stresses that this is not a contradiction because we can use â€Å"one† in the sense of one in subject and many in definition. In Pratti’s conclusion, he raises the questions â€Å"b in different ways, based on what the Scriptures are saying to them? Why should God not be present in a human being, as we understand it from the Gospels? † Pratti closes his argument insisting that there is no indication that this would be impossible, he believes there are many indications that God can certainly expose himself as such Emilio Platti’s argued that when it came to Yahya’s refutations, he found his ideas to be offered in an unorganized and sometimes contradictory way. Platti also scolds how certain arguments by Yahya Ibn Adi’s may be given in a particular reply. In regards to how Yahya Ibn Adi responds to those who challenge his treatise, Pratti states that â€Å"†¦most of his apologetical works are written in the form of a rebuttal; he quotes, most probably in extensor, an already existing refutation of the Christians by a Muslim-or a refutation of the Jacobites by a Nesotrian – and replies paragraph by paragraph† (173) Pratti argues that this way of responding has several consequences. vcghaks about how Yahya replies to the philosopher Al-Kindi’s treatise on the unity. To al Kindi, he underlies that the Christians say on the one hand, that the Creator is one, and that his quiddity is one, but they also say, on the other hand, that He is three, as far as He is good, wise and powerful†¦.. Pratti asserts that this is not a contradiction for we Pratti raises the questions â€Å"Why should God not reveal Himself under the three aspects of his hypostases, designated by the Christians in different ways, based on what the Scriptures are saying to them? Why should God not be present in a human being, as we understand it from the Gospels? † Pratti concludes that there is no indication that this would be impossible, he believes there are many indications that God can certainly expose himself as such. Sidney H. Griffith discusses how Yahya refutes back to Al-Kindi†¦Griffith says â€Å"yahya ibn adi’s habit of quoting large portions of the texts of those with whose ideas he disagrees in his refutations of them that a significant portion of the lost work of an important comparative religionist in the early Islamic period, Abu Isa al-Warraq has survived, allowing a modern editor to bring out an edition of what he considers to be the major part of Abu Isa’s anti-Christian work. Griffith describes Yahya Ibn Adi’s unity of God to be.. Griffith describes how Yahyah Ibn Adi wrote a handful of apologetic texts of his own in the Kalam style defending the doctrine of Trinity. Griffith describes . yahya argues Al-Kindi challenged Yahyah Ibn Adi’s treatise as well. Yahya’s rebuttle was that â€Å"given the Muslim philosopher’s own description of God as simultaneously God as ‘one’ and as ‘substance, al-Kindi too faced a logical conundrum involving the notions of ‘one and ‘three’. †(89) Yahya further claims that Al-Kindi misused technical terms When it came to Yahya’s discussion of the Christian doctrinal formulae, he found that Al-Kindi misinterpreted and misused technical terms that were comprised in it. Yahya also clarifies that God is said to be ‘one’ in number in reference to his ‘substance’. Griffith goes forth to say that Yahya goes to considerable lengths to dispose of what he considers to be logically faulty definitions of the ‘one’. Yahya describes God of having three attributes which are goodness/generosity, wisdom, and power. When Yahya responds to other philosophers challenging his treatise, he speaks of the three divine attributes One philosopher in particular who challenged Yahya’s philosophy on the unity and trinity of God was al-Kindi. Al-Kindi’s reasoning for this was that he wanted to â€Å"challenge Christians for the unreasonableness of their al-talit on the foundation of â€Å"logic and philosophy, and more specifically on the grounds that their Trinitarian confession necessarlily involved the repulsive idea of introducing â€Å"composition (al-tarkib) into the God head† To sum up Al-Kindi’s response, he believed that the God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were not eternal. Griffith then describes Yahya’s reaction to this by stating that â€Å"Yahya argues that given the Muslim philosopher’s own description of God as simultaneously God as ‘one’ and as ‘substance’, al –Kindi too faced a logical conundrum involving the notions of ‘one and three. ;† Griffith also affirms that Yahya further found that al-Kindi misinterpreted and misused technical terms that were comprised in his argument about the unity of God. Griffith explains that Yahya asserts that â€Å" God is said to be ‘one’ in number in reference to his ‘substance, while in reference to his ‘quiddity’ or whatness’, which, according to Yahya, is essentially described as being ‘generous/good, ‘wise’, and ‘powereful’, he is ‘three’† This paper will demonstrate how two critics have formed and expressed their own understandings of Yahya’s treatise on unity and trinity of God. How yahya responds to other scholars attributes on his treatise. Many philosophers challenged Yahya Ibn Adi on his treatise on the unity and trinity of God. In Emilio Platti’s article, he critques how Yahya refutes to others about their attributions to his own works. This paper will demonstrate how two critics have formed and expressed their own understandings of Yahya’s treatise on unity and trinity of God. How yahya responds to other scholars attributes on his treatise. Many philosophers challenged Yahya Ibn Adi on his treatise on the unity and trinity of God. In Emilio Platti’s article, he critques how Yahya refutes to others about their attributions to his own works. In conclusion, it is evident that there are many ways to interpret Yahya Ibn Adi’s treatises on the unity and trinity of God. There are also numerous ways one can interpret how Yahya refuted back to his own critiques. Griffith and Pratti are two critics who certainly had similar interpretations of Yahya’s refutations.