format_quote Originally Posted by
Muhammad
Greetings,
You two, as well as your Christian brethren, cannot even agree with each other on the nature of your own God, so there is no need to come and debate with us about what Jesus said and did when you cannot even get the most fundamental issue right.
Admin: are there no disagreements among Muslims? Do no Muslims misunderstand points of Islamic doctrine? If my interlocutor was mistaken, then you must not credit such mistakes to Christianity itself, nor must you think that our (at least apparent) disagreement indicates any real confusion in the doctrines of the orthodoxy (here, I do not refer to the Eastern churches who are not in communion with the Roman Pontiff, but I mean that in the general sense of the term). My [likely Protestant] interlocutor speaks from a position of ignorance. I am giving you the doctrines of the philosophers (when I speak of the divine nature), of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and of the doctors and fathers of the Church (when I speak of the plurality of the divine persons). God is one in being/substance/essence, but three in interpersonal relationships (unspeakably mysterious relationships, note, which do not divide the ineffable unity of the One God).
Do you doubt that this is the doctrine of the Church? Then I refer you to the words of the Nicene Creed: "I believe in one God."
Moreover, you lay claim to 'eyewitnesses' and speak of historical credibility. Let us remember that the gospels are not eyewitness accounts.
I wasn't referring to the gospels. I have in mind what St. Augustine says in "Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus": "I should not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to do so." I should have no cause to believe in Jesus or in the gospels unless the bishops of the Catholic Church, who can trace their succession in an unbroken lineage back to the apostles of Jesus Himself, had commanded me to believe on the basis of their authority. You may cast doubt on the gospels being eye witness accounts. But the apostles were eye witnesses, and I believe in the doctrines which they have handed down to us through their successors. I believe on the basis of their authority, of their account.
You have no basis, not even a probable one, for your beliefs. None. I believe based on a strong probability (i.e., the eye witnesses were credible). Your beliefs are
groundless. You believe what you do because a guy said an angel spoke to him. From an outsider's perspective, do you realize how silly that sounds? If I believed everyone who has ever said that an angel spoke to him, do you know all of the ridiculous things that I would have to believe? [Though, in no respect do I wish to dissuade you from your belief in the One True God; by all means, cling to this true belief. Neither do I wish to dissuade you from ardent prayer and righteous living. Persevere in both, and pray all the more ardently.]
Your prophet commands you to believe in matters about which natural reason speaks, and he tells us no more than what we already could have known about on our own (and he commands us to believe many false things besides). It is for this reason that Averroes, a medieval philosopher in your own religious tradition, considered Islam a mere congeries of fables, of convenient lies for the masses, to control and pacify the people (a barbarous people, no less) into living at least halfway decent lives. He considered Aristotle to be a most divine and inspired man. Your prophet? Of him, as far as I know, he said no such thing. Why? Set up the words of the philosophers against the words of your prophet, and there is no contest. None.
The bishops of the Church, however, in the sobriety of their doctrine, command me to believe where reason cannot go. In fact, where reason can go, She encourages me to look and see. Your prophet throws up a veil to hide what reason can tell us. The Church takes away the veil and invites us to look.
Look and see, says St. Paul (I paraphrase Romans 2):
the words of the Law are written in the hearts of men.
Look and see, says St. Paul (I paraphrase Romans 1):
the existence and attributes of God are displayed in the works of nature. And when we have finished looking, the Church shows us even more. It is for this reason that, whereas Islam is intrinsically anti-intellectualist and stifles philosophical inquiry, many philosophers throughout the centuries have been watered and received nourishment from the Catholic Faith. For that One, True Faith, I say, points to reason, and reason points past itself to where it cannot go.
Again, why do I believe in the utter falsity of the words of your prophet? Because at mass I have heard, again and again, the words that Jesus spoke, the words that have been repeated for roughly 2000 years, the words that the apostles told us Jesus spoke:
"This is my body. It will be given up for you. This is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenent. It will be shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins."
And speaking thus, he commanded his apostles, the first bishops of the Catholic Church: "
Do this in memory of me." If the mass is roughly 2000 years old, and if we have received it from the apostles, then your prophet is not credible, and his words are not God's words.
You also talk about 'unaltered Bibles'. Have a read of the following quoted by sister Insaanah:
You're basically just agreeing with what I said before. On the one hand, Muslims will quote from the Old and New Testaments when it is convenient for them, but then, in the same breath, will claim that the verses which disagree with them are later interpolations. And, of course, they are perfectly free from being disproven, since the original texts, they claim, the original uninterpolated versions, don't exist. This is not a tactic which is original to Islam. This was a popular tactic of the Manichean sect.
So tell me, as a Muslim, do you command me to believe the Old and New Testaments, or do you ask that I reject them? If you ask that I reject them, then why do you quote them? But if you command me to believe in the Old and New Testaments, even in part, then I'll answer you with the words of St. Augustine (
De Utilitate Credendi (
On the Usefulness of Belief)): you ask me to believe in the words of the Old and New Testaments, which I have received from the Catholic Church, and which I have believed on their authority, and now that I have received it from
them on
their authority (in which I have strong probable reasons to believe), you bid me to believe that you understand and explain it better than them based on
your authority (
in which I have no reason at all to trust)? But that's foolishness in the highest degree.
Had Jesus not been born of a virgin, performed miracles, died on the Cross, risen from the dead and then ascended into heaven (and, what is also amazing, assumed His Most Blessed Mother into heaven at the end of her earthly life), then I should have
laughed at the bishops when they commanded me to believe that they understood the Old Testament better than the Jews. "But we saw," so said the Apostles, "this very thing happen, and here is what He told us." And the world trembled at their words and believed. Did your prophet die and rise from the dead? Or does he still lie in the grave? What public miracles did he perform that I should believe in a single word of his testimony?
But I tell you, the history of the Catholic Church has abounded in miracles even after Jesus ascended into heaven. Have you heard of the apparition of the Most Blessed Mother at Fatima? Have you heard of St. Padre Pio? How about St. Francis of Assisi? Perhaps you've heard of Our Lady at Lourdes?
Or perhaps you are familiar with the Saints of the Catholic Church, especially the more recent ones (i.e., modern era)? Their canonizations literally required miracles.
What cause have I to believe in the words of your prophet? He claimed an angel spoke to him? Have you visited an insane asylum? He wrote a book? So did L. Ron Hubbard. He raised an army? So did pretty much every tyrant who ever lived.
Show me, I say, a single piece of evidence which could only have come from God which testifies to the words of your prophet being from God.
Then you throw in the trinity. We have heard this all before:
Here, I quote the words that you quoted:
As soon as the word three has to enter your description of God, that oneness is lost. When Muslims say ONE, we mean ONE. No persons, no essences, nothing. Just One God, Glorified and Exalted be He above all that people associate with Him. The words two, three, four, five, seven, never enter the equation
The law of non-contradiction is that the same thing cannot be and not be in the same respect at the same time. Note the key words "in the same respect." If her assertion is that Christians contradict themselves, then she doesn't understand the rules of logic. If she asserts that Christian do not contradict themselves, but she denies a plurality of relations in God, then what is she doing be restating her own doctrine, without any defense or argument, and rejecting the Christian one? There's nothing compelling in that.
We have had all the analogies: the water, gas-solid-liquid one, the egg, shell-white yolk one, and also the flame-heat-light one. The three persons are distinct yet still one. I have light in my room, does that mean the roof is on fire, or that I have a flame in my room? No. Therefore light exists without any flame. I have heat in my room, does that mean something in my room is on fire? No. Heat exists without any flame. Heat and light exist by themselves separately. In the same way that Jesus (peace be on him) was created by God and was separate to God. Is the heat from a radiator in one room the same as the light from the light bulb? Nobody would walk past and say they were one. Would we say the heat of the flame is the flame? No. In the same way, we cannot and do not say that Jesus is God. Blow on a flame and it goes out. Can the existence of God be likened to such a flame? No, Glorified and Exalted be He above that"
These are all terrible analogies. If these are the only analogies that Muslims have heard in defense of the trinity, then I can understand why they would consider the doctrine ridiculous. They all indicate a real distinction between the being of the things involved, which cannot be admitted in the case of the ineffable unity and simplicity of the Divine being/essence. I agree with Plato Himself: "The One is not many."
However, what Insaanah ascribes to Christians isn't orthodox Christian belief.
I very much appreciated, on the other hand, the quoted words of
Ansar Al-'Adl, which I here quote:
When we say that the trinity is illogical, are we trying to comprehend God's nature within our limited scope of comprehension? Is that why we cannot comprehend trinity? Or is it because of something else?
There is a distinct difference between admitting that we cannot comprehend God's nature or appearance, and attributing something to God which defies reality. Allow me to elaborate.
1 is not equal to 3 (provided that the units are consistant). Those three units cannot operate with the same properties as the one unit. If one was equal to three then it wouldn't be one. Is this a matter of attempting to comprehend God? No, it is simply a matter of defining constant values in our universe.
According to trinitarian Christianity, God sent the Son to the world. The sender and the one being sent cannot be the same. Jesus called out to God and prayed to Him. The caller and the one being called upon cannot be the same.
The problem that he's having is that he doesn't understand the difference between signification and supposition (these are terms of medieval logic). Signification is when a term signifies or points out a nature. "Man" signifies human nature. Human nature is what "man" calls to mind and points to. Thus, "deity is humanity" is false. Supposition, however, is when a term "stands for" something, generally an individual. "Bob is running." "Bob" in this case, supposes for, i.e., stands for, the concrete individual, Bob, who is running. Again, consider the sentence: "A man is running." "A man," once again, can suppose for or stand for Bob. I can point at Bob and say: "A man is running," and it will be understood that by "A man," I mean Bob, i.e., the concrete individual who is running.
Thus, when the Christian says that "God sent the Son" or "Jesus called out to God," "God," in each case, must be understood as supposing for God, the Father. And here, the Christian will agree with what the quoted person above says: The Father is not the Son. They differ personally, i.e., in terms of interpersonal relationships (note that in every relationship, there are the two terms of the relationship (i.e., the two "things" which are related) and the relation itself: The Father is the Father of the Son). Such verses are to be understood as illustrating the distinction of divine persons. However, without this doctrine of signification and supposition, I can see how the confusion would arise. It does seem extremely strange to assert that someone calls out to or sends himself. However, this is not what's happening.
So the notion that there are three persons in one God, 3 in 1, is really nothing more than polytheism, because 1 God is 1 person, not three.
Polytheism is the assertion that there are multiple divine beings. The Christian asserts tha there is only a single divine being, but there is a plurality of real relationships "within" the One Divine Being which do not, for all of that, does not divide the essence. If you want analogies, the better analogies are knowledge and love. There are three terms in every relationship of knowledge and love: the lover or knower, the beloved or the known, and the knowledge or love itself. God is subsistent self-love (a self love, let us note, which exceeds the poverty of all created love: He is Subsistent Charity) and subsistent self-knowledge (a self knowledge, let us note, which exceeds the divisions of all created knowledge; He is, indeed, Subsistent Wisdom). The Father is a Lover who loves the Son; the Son is the beloved who is beloved by the Father; the Holy Ghost is the subsistent Love which ineffably unites them. Yet, there are not three lovers, three beloveds or three loves. There is a single God, who in the community of divine, subsistent relationships, loves and delights in His own Supreme Goodness and Majesty (
and oh, if we could only see that, we would instantly fall in love with Him; for He is the Good Itself, infinitely delectable and the fountain of all good and all delights and all gifts).
Can the immortal die? A trinitarian will say, "God can do anything" but the correct answer is no, the immortal cannot die because that defies his attribute of immortality. If you die, you aren't immortal! It's not a matter of setting limits on God, its a matter of consistency in describing our universe. Can the All-Mighty be overcome? A trinitarian would say, "God can do anything" but again, this has nothing to do with God's potential.
Death and being overcome, these are not abilites they are inabilities. Death is the inability to live, therefore, the Eternal cannot die. NOT because of any lack in His potential, but because it defies His set attributes.
I agree with this. It is a contradiction to assert that the immortal and deathless is able to die, that the indestructible is able to be destroyed, etc. But once again, we must understand the difference between signification and supposition. Divinity is
per se (in and of itself) immortal and deathless (thus do we pray in the Trisagion: "Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One: have mercy on us, and on the whole world); humanity, however, is not. Jesus was able to die insofar as He was man, not insofar as He was God.
When I say "God died on the Cross," "God" supposes, i.e., stands for, for Jesus, the divine person. We can replace "God" in that sentence with "Jesus." So what we mean is: "Jesus (of whom both human and divine nature are predicated in their entirety) died on the Cross." In which, of course, there is no contradiction. Here, you may say that it's a contradiction to assert that "man is God" is a contradiction, and I'll agree with you, if by that sentence is understood "humanity is divinity." But all that I mean is that both "man" and "God" are predicated of Jesus, i.e., that Jesus is both fully God and fully man (i.e., everything which is true of God and everything which is true of man, insofar as each is each, likewise is true of Jesus). In this, of course, there is no contradiction.
The answer is that those two beliefs are not analogous.
I agree. Contradictions can't be admitted. Saying that God is mysterious and can't be comprehended is just a cop-out used by those who believe silly things.
Trinity is inconceivable.
It's not. The manner in which God is one is different from the way in which God is three. Recall what the law of non-contradiction states.
Such things are not properties of the universe we live in. So the trinity canot be accepted by anyone because it is logically self-contradictory. Furthermore, it finds no support in the Tanakh, the New Testament, or the Qur'an.
No support, of course, in the sections of the Tanakh that Muslims are willing to admit is credible, nor in the sections of the New Testament that Muslims are willing to admit is credible. If we take out all the verses that indicate the trinity or Jesus' divinity, of course, we won't be left with with any verses that indicate the trinity or Jesus' divinity. But that's just a tautology. :p