All Trinity discussion goes here!

[جوري]

I looked them up. A little bit of work for me to translate them out of the Arabic, but that's OK, I suppose it's good practice. Still, not a single one of them actually said, "Jesus is not God."

How about you show us verses in the bible where Jesus comes out and says worship me for I am your god straight out?
or ones that say I came to Annunciate myself, impregnate a young girl with myself, and shall forsake myself after praying to myself...

all the best

 

[Woodrow]

One of the biggest and fiercest arguments take place over the belief/disbelief in a trinitarian God(swt). A trinitarian can not understand fully why somebody can not see the trinity as being one God(swt). The non trinitarian can not understand why the trinitarian can not see it is simple math 1+1+1=3.

Two concepts that will never meet.

Just to perhaps enter a third facet into I will simply state why I stopped believing in the existence of a triune God(swt).

1. I could not find any definitive statements prior to the NT that would lead to the concept of a trinity

2. The Jews did not believe in a trinity and it seems that if such existed God(swt) would have made it known.

3. It took until the first Nicene council to establish the first church doctrine describing a trinity, and even then there was dispute between the Eastern and orthodox churches as to what the Nature of what a trinity would be.

4. Looking at the history of the teaching of trinitarian belief, it seems the Holy Ghost was sort of an after thought and almost left out

5. I can not find any place any indication that God(swt) ever spoke of being a Trinity

6. To me it seems that a need came about to justify worship of Jesus(as) and this was resolved by creating a trinity belief.

 

[Sol Invictus]

How about you show us verses in the bible where Jesus comes out and says worship me for I am your god straight out?
or ones that say I came to Annunciate myself, impregnate a young girl with myself, and shall forsake myself after praying to myself...

all the best

can you please substantiate your argument? it's all well and good that you do not believe what christianity teaches but as it regards to your argument, can you substantiate the truth of your premises? once again you have a hidden premise that i have called false and it therefore skews your entire argument. we can move no further until you show how it isn't false. the above is not even an argument. once again (i feel as if i'm repeating myself), can you please defend your argument and show how it is logical and not inconsistent with your very own beliefs? in a debate, one has to prove the soundness of their premises before they can at all believe that they have made a point and as such i am merely asking you to substantiate these.

 

[Sol Invictus]

One of the biggest and fiercest arguments take place over the belief/disbelief in a trinitarian God(swt). A trinitarian can not understand fully why somebody can not see the trinity as being one God(swt). ( a ) The non trinitarian can not understand why the trinitarian can not see it is simple math 1+1+1=3.

Two concepts that will never meet.

Just to perhaps enter a third facet into I will simply state why I stopped believing in the existence of a triune God(swt).

1. I could not find any definitive statements prior to the NT that would lead to the concept of a trinity

2. The Jews did not believe in a trinity and it seems that if such existed God(swt) would have made it known.

3. It took until the first Nicene council to establish the first church doctrine describing a trinity, and even then there was dispute between the Eastern and orthodox churches as to what the Nature of what a trinity would be.

4. Looking at the history of the teaching of trinitarian belief, it seems the Holy Ghost was sort of an after thought and almost left out

5. I can not find any place any indication that God(swt) ever spoke of being a Trinity

6. To me it seems that a need came about to justify worship of Jesus(as) and this was resolved by creating a trinity belief.

( a ) because it isn't even formulated as such. i had asked the individuals in this thread if they believed in three spaces and it would seem that no one does so yet the 3 constituents of space are not identical at all (yet they all possess the prerogatives of the one space). everyone acknowledges the fact that these three are not each other yet we all believe in one space. as the trinity is defined, the same is also true. and so the christian merely asks if the non-christian can show how this is not the case.

i was going to respond to each point one by one but i've since thought better of it (though i can if you would like). it seems that while this thread had begun with arguments against the christian definition of god on the part of non-christians, it ends with mere assertion of opinions. what has not been shown is that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is that incomprehensibility equals untruth (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is that the qur'an possesses an accurate understanding of the trinity (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is the fact that teaching can only come from explicit statements (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted) etc. the only thing asserted time and time again is opinion after opinion from the very individuals who claimed to function on almost nothing but logic.

 

[جوري]

can you please substantiate your argument? it's all well and good that you do not believe what christianity teaches but as it regards to your argument, can you substantiate the truth of your premises?

can you tell the difference between a query and an argument? I am afraid descending down to word play with every post doesn't qualify as verses from your bible!

once again you have a hidden premise that i have called false and it therefore skews your entire argument.

What does this mean and how does it relate to my query?

we can move no further until you show how it isn't false.

Again, this is incomprehensible nonsense and a nonsequitur!

the above is not even an argument.

You're on to something! perhaps it would pay if you'd read again more slowly before writing?

once again (i feel as if i'm repeating myself), can you please defend your argument and show how it is logical and not inconsistent with your very own beliefs?

You repeat yourself on the account you write much ado about nothing!

in a debate, one has to prove the soundness of their premises before they can at all believe that they have made a point and as such i am merely asking you to substantiate these.

See paragraph one, that way you can save yourself the repetition and save us the indecipherable guff..

all the best

 

[Sol Invictus]

can you tell the difference between a query and an argument? I am afraid descending down to word play with every post doesn't qualify as verses from your bible!

if it is merely a query then if the author could not show us what you asked for in the manner that you asked for it, what would it prove? nothing i suppose and as such it is almost irrelevant. why are you asking for these statements when they prove nothing and add nothing to the discussion? if you truly do believe that you have no argument and as such no real point behind your post then i do apologize for misunderstanding you, i had not known that you had no point you wanted to get at with your post.

 

[Woodrow]

( a ) because it isn't even formulated as such. i had asked the individuals in this thread if they believed in three spaces and it would seem that no one does so yet the 3 constituents of space are not identical at all (yet they all possess the prerogatives of the one space). everyone acknowledges the fact that these three are not each other yet we all believe in one space. as the trinity is defined, the same is also true. and so the christian merely asks if the non-christian can show how this is not the case.

i was going to respond to each point one by one but i've since thought better of it (though i can if you would like). it seems that while this thread had begun with arguments against the christian definition of god on the part of non-christians, it ends with mere assertion of opinions. what has not been shown is that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is that incomprehensibility equals untruth (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is that the qur'an possesses an accurate understanding of the trinity (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is the fact that teaching can only come from explicit statements (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted) etc. the only thing asserted time and time again is opinion after opinion from the very individuals who claimed to function on almost nothing but logic.

Just addressing one sentence:

what has not been shown is that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect

That is asking us to prove a negative. which is impossible. You can not prove something is wrong or in error, the burdan of proof is upon the accuser to prove his statement is correct. We have no means nor the need to prove that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect

The burden of proof is upon you to prove it is correct.

 

[Grace Seeker]

How about you show us verses in the bible where Jesus comes out and says worship me for I am your god straight out?
or ones that say I came to Annunciate myself, impregnate a young girl with myself, and shall forsake myself after praying to myself...

all the best

Once naidamar has shown me the verses I've asked for, for the verses he has shown me don't do what I asked for.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Just addressing one sentence:
That is asking us to prove a negative. which is impossible. You can not prove something is wrong or in error, the burdan of proof is upon the accuser to prove his statement is correct. We have no means nor the need to prove that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect

The burden of proof is upon you to prove it is correct.

no, that it is not. for an example let us take the statement "the moon is made out of cheese". now if i had claimed that the people in this thread have not proven this statement incorrect, would i in fact be asking you to prove a negative? no i wouldn't. merely because i say that "the members of this thread have not proven this to be incorrect" does not suddenly transform my question as that of one asking for members on this board to prove a negative.

furthermore i have given examples on oneness and still they have not been refuted so it is not as if i had not given any proofs as evidence for my statements. woodrow, while i did very much enjoy this discussion (and i do not want to make it seem as though i have not. you have been more then civil and respectful, thank you.) it would seem that we are at the end and still nothing i had claimed was falsified. there are means of proving if our concept of oneness is incorrect (though the above statement by yourself is rather odd, if you cannot prove this to be incorrect why then do muslims claim this to be illogical? would then this not mean that their stance was never based on logic in the first place but on mere belief?) but the simple fact is that it is not.

 

[جوري]

if it is merely a query then if the author could not show us what you asked for in the manner that you asked for it, what would it prove? nothing i suppose and as such it is almost irrelevant. why are you asking for these statements when they prove nothing and add nothing to the discussion? if you truly do believe that you have no argument and as such no real point behind your post then i do apologize for misunderstanding you, i had not known that you had no point you wanted to get at with your post.

I don't get much from this logorrheic verbiage.. Do you merely do this to deflect away from the difficult questions?
This is something to do with your salvation the very basic tenet of your faith, should be made accessible to scholars and laymen alike.. if you can't elucidate the passages for all from your book in the simple manner asked, then what the hell are you doing in a thread entitled 'trinity discussion goes here'?

all the best

 

[جوري]

Once naidamar has shown me the verses I've asked for, for the verses he has shown me don't do what I asked for.

Why can't you do it now while in waiting or have you no verses where Jesus professes outright his godhood? as well some logical reasons for the derangement from the previously established principles of the OT!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

That is asking us to prove a negative. which is impossible. You can not prove something is wrong or in error, the burdan of proof is upon the accuser to prove his statement is correct. We have no means nor the need to prove that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect

I can appreciate how one would not wish to be in the position of proving a negative. But we did not begin by asking for that. Christians merely make the assertion that God is as he is. Then we describe how we have come to now him. You say that you know he is not that way. When we ask why you say so, you say it is because it is revealed to you differently in the Qur'an. Well, that is all well and good, and we respect that you may believe differently than us. But merely asserting that you believe something differently than us does not constitute proof or knowledge, only belief. So, we are not asking you to prove the negative, only that you tell us how it is that you know that our beliefs are wrong on the basis of something other than simply holding a contrasting belief.

Now, if you ask us to explain why we believe what we believe, and your response is that our explanation is unconvincing, I can accept that to be true. But it remains that the only thing that is true is that our explanation of why we believe what we believe does not convince you. Not that our believe is itself false.

It is here where I believe the biggest problem in threads such as these emerge. Some enter then trying to equate themselves being unconvinced as equivalent to that which they do not believe in being false. Further they argue anything that does not convince them is itself illogical simply because they cannot understand or accept it. Then it becomes a contest of people looking for proofs rather than understanding.

Imagine if Pysogelis were to say that he remains unconvinced of the existence of God and does not so believe. Would that make it so that one's belief in Allah was proven false or illogical? No. It would only mean that, despite your particular witness and testimony, Pysogelis was unswayed.

When you or I state why we believe something, that sort of statement cannot be refuted. We have stated why it is that we believe, and no one can tell us that we don't believe or that those reason are insufficient for our belief. For, in fact, we do believe (although in this illustration you and I believe different things, the truth remains the same) and, unless we are lying to ourselves, most likely for the reaons that we have given.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I don't get much from this logorrheic verbiage.. Do you merely do this to deflect away from the difficult questions?
This is something to do with your salvation the very basic tenet of your faith, should be made accessible to scholars and laymen alike.. if you can't elucidate the passages for all from your book in the simple manner asked, then what the hell are you doing in a thread entitled 'trinity discussion goes here'?

all the best

it would seem that now you have an argument. at this point i must sincerely ask which i am to believe? you had claimed that you didn't have an argument and now it would seem that you do. that said once again you rely on a false premise, that teaching can only be based on explicit statements. once again this is false and is inconsistent. once more the argument from simplicity does not work because it as well is false. please, prove the soundness of your premises. notice how many times i have asked you to substantiate your argument. your arguments are skewed with unsound premises yet you do nothing to substantiate it. once again the rules of logic are such that your premises must first be substantiated because or it will be as such that whether i respond or not, your argument will still be considered wrong. in a way i'm even helping you. please, with all due respect, substantiate your premises. we can move no further until you do and i would very much discuss the matter with you as long as you feel up for it.

 

[Woodrow]

no, that it is not. for an example let us take the statement "the moon is made out of cheese". now if i had claimed that the people in this thread have not proven this statement incorrect, would i in fact be asking you to prove a negative? no i wouldn't. merely because i say that "the members of this thread have not proven this to be incorrect" does not suddenly transform my question as that of one asking for members on this board to prove a negative.

furthermore i have given examples on oneness and still they have not been refuted so it is not as if i had not given any proofs as evidence for my statements. woodrow, while i did very much enjoy this discussion (and i do not want to make it seem as though i have not. you have been more then civil and respectful, thank you.) it would seem that we are at the end and still nothing i had claimed was falsified. there are means of proving if our concept of oneness is incorrect (though the above statement by yourself is rather odd, if you cannot prove this to be incorrect why then do muslims claim this to be illogical? would then this not mean that their stance was never based on logic in the first place but on mere belief?) but the simple fact is that it is not.

Thank you for the complement. Although I was unable to be on this thread as much as I had planned to be. I did enjoy the few moments of actual debate we were able to have.

I agree it is rather pointless to try to go any further. The basic issues of this thread have seem to have been sidetracked many posts back and at the moment I do not have the time to go through and try to find a way to salvage the thread. with that said I bid this thread farewell unless the opportunity arises were I can do a good spring clean up on it.

 

[جوري]

it would seem that now you have an argument.
at this point i must sincerely ask which i am to believe? you had claimed that you didn't have an argument and now it would seem that you do.

Again, verbiage in abundance doesn't address my queries. It wastes time and web-space!

that said once again you rely on a false premise, that teaching can only be based on explicit statements.

Not a false premise when it comes to something as important as the clause of ones' salvation. We're not for instance speaking of Islamic finance. It wouldn't matter if you're deeply involved with it or completely ignorant of it. We're speaking of the very thing that should lead you to the eternal house. And again as I have stated prior, should be something that is understood by theologians and laymen alike, paupers and kings and not some occult inference that is apparently understood by a select few!

once again this is false and is inconsistent. once more the argument from simplicity does not work because it as well is false

More nonsensical verbiage (see above paragraph)

. please, prove the soundness of your premises.

What does this mean? You say or he says Jesus is God, it would seem incumbent upon you the claim maker to establish two things
1- the validity of the documents you present, textually, historically, logically, chain of narrations from trustworthy individuals.
and 2- and perhaps the most important of all that these are the very words of God and the very words of God are in a clear fashion prove that he is this middle eastern man named Jesus!

notice how many times i have asked you to substantiate your argument. your arguments are skewed with unsound premises yet you do nothing to substantiate it.

See two previous replies!

once again the rules of logic are such that your premises must first be substantiated because or it will be as such that whether i respond or not, your argument will still be considered wrong. in a way i'm even helping you. please, with all due respect, substantiate your premises. we can move no further until you do and i would very much discuss the matter with you as long as you feel up for it.

See above and quit with all the verbiage, as stated previously drowning people in meaningless logorrhea isn't an excuse nor should be used as a deflection when being at a loss for something meaningful to write!

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

2. The Jews did not believe in a trinity and it seems that if such existed God(swt) would have made it known.

This makes two assumptions that I disagree with.
a) That God always reveals everything there is to know about himself to all with whom he communicates.

Surely Muslims more than most understand the idea of progressive revelation. For they themselves claim to be at the pinnnacle of that revelation. And while they claim that all prophets had a message of Islam, they don't claim that the messages were identical, only similar. Each had a message for a particular time, place, and people, and thus the content varied accordingly.

Further, not even in Islam did God reveal the idea of oneness in his original conversation with Muhammad (pbuh). According to Serah's of the Prophet, that message did not come till the third year of prophethood. To say that the Jews should have known, seems to me, carries with it the hidden implication that God would not have waited to reveal something so important as the concepts articulated by Trinitarian beliefs till the NT era. (My apologies if I have incorrectly read into what you have written.) Yet given that the most important understanding of Allah that is held within Islam is the message of Oneness, the argument that God must surely reveal his important truths to all would seem to have required that God would not have waited for 3 years to reveal this truth to Muhammad. That he did wait vastly weakens the argument that God would have made this known any particular truth according to our temporal schedules.

b) That God never made this truth known.

That we are discussing the Trinity is itself evident that we Christians believe that, in time, God did in fact make it known. And he made it known to Jews. They weren't the Jews who wrote the Tanakh. But they were Jews, and they wrote about this new experience they had of God in material that came to be known as the New Testament.

6. To me it seems that a need came about to justify worship of Jesus(as) and this was resolved by creating a trinity belief.

Agreed, actually. It is precisely the act of trying to make sense of their experience of being led to see and understand Jesus as God who had actually come among us and therefore should be exalted and glorified and worshipped just as they had always worshipped God, alongside their understanding of the nature of God as one that led to 3 centuries of convesation within the church that finally found expression in the Nicene Creed. However, I don't think that this argues against it being true. It just describes how it is that it came to expressed as doctrine. It's only untrue if the experience of those who felt that Jesus was himself the incarnation of God is untrue.

 

[Sojourn]

Can you tell me where in the bible God revealed the trinity?

The Bible reveals the Father to be God, the Son to be God, and the Holy Spirit to be God. Yet it also reveals God to be one.

Tying all these verses in, you get the Trinity. There simply is not explanation for the verses without it.

The rest of your paragraph is empty and just words without logic or scriptural verses to back up.

My paragraph was to show that human reason can understand something of the Trinity. The focus was on what the mind could understand without the aid of revelation. For you to understand this, you would must realize that we Christians believe reason to be a gift from God, and that even reason unaided by faith or grace can arrive at certain truths.

The example I give was certainly not the best worded. I am not a very eloquent person, someone like St Augustine or St Thomas Aquinas do a far better job of laying out the detail. I like it because the original poster mentioned not being able to find a suitable analogy for the Trinity. But since God is transcendent, we should not be surprised that there is not suitable created analogy! We must therefore turn to the highest thing in the created order, and that is the human mind or spirit. Classically, three powers were attribuited to the spirit. That of will, intellect, and memory.

When you try to understand something, you create an image of it in your mind. If you try to understand yourself, your mind creates an image. The problem however, is that even your understanding of yourself is imperfect and flawed. But then we ask what of God? We say God's knowledge is infinite. But what does that knowledge contain? The entire universe is nothing to Him! God's knowledge is of Himself. Now here is the difference between you and God. God's knowledge of Himself is PERFECT. It is so absolutely perfect, that it is not merely an image, but a PERSON. That Person is the the Second Person of the Trinity. Now how can we distinguish these Two Persons? They are identical, no? Ah, but we realize there is one way to distinguish them! By Procession! One originates from the Other! One then properly understands the title, SON of God. How is God the Son, a Son? By Generation. But Generation in God is like a mind generating an image, not like humans generating humans. And so we realize, even the titles for Christ, like "Son" (refering to distinction in procession) and Logos (referring to the absolute image that is a person) reveal something of these truths.

Now we ask what is Love? Love is the will drawing itself to an object. And so what is the object of God's love? Man, surely, but it seems rather inadequate that an infinite and perfect God should love something so insignificant! We then realize, that God's love is directed towarsd the Second Person, only He is adequately worthy of Love! In this case too, the Love is perfect, such that it is a Person. The Holy Spirit!

The Truth is beautiful!

Wa salaam,
Sojourn

 

[Sojourn]

Ah.. I thought you were ignoring me, GS. Glad thats not the case.
ok so how do you want your trinity formula, GS:
1/2 (father) + 3/8 (son) + 1/8 (spirit) = 1 God

If you want to reject the Trinity as doctrine, you have to first understand it. What you quote above is not the Trinity!

God is absolutely simple, this means there are not parts in God. He occupies no space, has no parts, has no shape. Therefore, He can't be Divided into Thirds!

The Trinity as doctrine is simple: One Divine Nature in Three Persons. Note the disction between nature and person. We're not saying 1 person is somehow 3 persons. No, 1 *nature* in 3 *persons*. 1 *coin* with 2 *faces.* Get it?

These Three Persons are one because they possess the same Divine Nature. Note the words *possess* and *same.* They don't each have their own individual but similar natures, as in three human beings standing next to eachother. No! All three posess the same nature. As in, All Three have the SAME Divine Intellect, the SAME Divine Will, and the SAME Divine Attributes. If three human beings had no three human wills and intellects, but all possessed the SAME human intellect and will, you would have one being, wouldn't you?

Get it akhi?

Good.

Now, can you do the same for me, and please give me quotes of Jesus that says "I am God, Worship me" and "Holy spirit is God, Worship him", preferably in the original language in which Jesus spoke, and no translation please.

فَكَمَا يُقِيمُ الآبُ الْمَوْتَى وَيُحْيِيهِمْ، كَذلِكَ يُحْيِي الاِبْنُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ
وَالآبُ لاَ يُحَاكِمُ أَحَداً، بَلْ أَعْطَى الاِبْنَ سُلْطَةَ الْقَضَاءِ كُلَّهَا،
لِيُكْرِمَ الْجَمِيعُ الاِبْنَ كَمَا يُكْرِمُونَ الآبَ. وَمَنْ لاَ يُكْرِمِ الاِبْنَ لاَ يُكْرِمِ الآبَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَهُ.

 

[Ramadhan]

God is absolutely simple, this means there are not parts in God. He occupies no space, has no parts, has no shape. Therefore, He can't be Divided into Thirds!

OK I will have to agree with you on the definition of God.
That means Jesus is not God, because he was historical figure, and he occupied space, he had body parts, he had shape.


Case closed.

 

[Sol Invictus]

OK I will have to agree with you on the definition of God.
That means Jesus is not God, because he was historical figure, and he occupied space, he had body parts, he had shape.

Case closed.

the speaker is speaking of god as he is in himself. the above would also mean that the muslim deity is not god. he occupies a space (he sits on his throne in heaven), he has eyes, hands, feet etc. and even has a shape according to islam. so if your argument is correct, then the case is closed for islam as well.