Zain's Guide to Overthinking Everything

Solving the Synoptic Problem: Investigating Gospel Harmony Theories            The three Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the synoptic Gospels because they share many of the same stories in a similar sequence and even sometimes identical wording. They stand in contrast to John, whose content is largely distinct who often different in these details. For simplicity’s sake, despite the Gospel authors being unknown, they will be referred to by their traditional names. As shown in the diagram above, the three synoptic Gospels share similar information about the life of Jesus. Statistically. over three-quarters of Mark’s content is found in both Matthew and Luke, and 97% of Mark is found in at least one of the other two synoptic gospels. Furthermore, 23% of Matthew and 23% of Luke have material in common that is not found in Mark. The question of how these 3 Gospels share the same information so closely while being written at different times is known in the literature as

Ibn Taymiyya’s Epistemology: The Fitra   Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328)’s epistemology is based on sense perception, reason, and report/revelation i.e. the Quran and Sunnah, with sense perception being the most straightforward as it provides and immediate sense of particulars while reason works with abstraction and inference. Therefore, he may be classified as an empiricist. However, the centerpiece of Ibn Taymiyya’s epistemology is the concept of the fitra. The fitra can be described as the natural disposition given to mankind created by God to recognize Him along with other a priori truths. Without the fitra, neither speculative reasoning would be possible, nor demonstration, discourse or language. Ibn Taymiyya allows that certain beliefs be sufficient for knowledge independent of inference with the fitra as the God given apparatus to do so. For Ibn Taymiyya, the best argument for the existence of God is not through syllogisms but through the signs recognized by the fitra. The syllogistic

Debating The Filioque and Incarnation: A Comparative Analysis of Eastern Orthodox and Thomistic Perspectives on the Trinity The Eastern Orthodox claim that the three persons in the Trinity have the same divine will and power since they are the One God. However, if one does not affirm that they have the possibility of becoming incarnate then this would entail that they do not have the same power as only the Son has the power to become incarnate, while the Father and Holy Spirit cannot. If there are three persons who are each divine and yet share different powers then there is a strong argument that this leads to three gods rather than one. The idea that the Son alone has the power to become incarnate comes from Book 4 Chapter 4 of An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus, “The Father is Father and not Son: the Son is Son and not Father: the Holy Spirit is Spirit and not Father or Son. For the individuality is unchangeable. How, indeed, could individuality continue to exi

Overview of Athari Metaphysics 2 The correct doctrine ascribes to God everything that He has ascribed to Himself. One must acknowledge it both verbally and in their hearts. When it is said that God has a face that does not mean it is a body part or it is made of flesh. There must be a belief in it without comparing it to any created entity for God is above being like unto creatures. The apparent meaning and wording of His attributes are known but the modality or reality of the attributes are known to God alone and therefore must not be questioned. God is likewise above those who deny his attributes or to make them metaphors such as when God’s hands are mistakenly attributed to mean His power. This is to deny His attribute of possessing hands. God’s hand is responsible for directly creating Adam. Furthermore, God’s attributes are inseparable from His essence and yet not identical to each other and this distinction does not entail composition or causation but rather it is a counterfactua