All Trinity discussion goes here!

[IAmZamzam]

We are each entitled to our own opinion. I've said my peace.

...yet still refused to answer my questions.

 

[Sol Invictus]

oh my. having read the op it seems to me that the post borders on a kind of belligerency i'd rather do without. yet seeing as it appears that you have not received a satisfactory answer, if any, to your questions then i suppose that i could perhaps give it a try.

The Trinity doctrine is so utterly without definite, fully formed ideas, objectively agreed upon and laid out in language that isn’t blatantly only trying to sound like it really means anything, that there really isn’t much to say. You can say till you’re blue in the face that the “Holy Spirit” “proceeds betwixt the Father and the Son” but that won’t make the words mean anything, however hard you may try to get them to, and you can force as many interpretations of your own onto them as you like but they’re still going to be different from those of a jillion other people’s who have set themselves to the same desperate task.

let us first introduce a distinction between what the trinity teaches, and what explanations of the trinity seek to show. i don't suppose that i need to tell you what the doctrine of the trinity is but let us be reminded (and i would encourage you to humour me) that it deals with god as he is in himself. the concept of one thing existing in three distinct aspects is not too problematic to understand but when we get into the details of it we certainly do at some point hit a wall. now you would argue that the fact that we do at some point hit a wall shows that the trinity is illogical (actually, more particularly your point is that given that at some point the trinity is incomprehensible it is therefore untrue). the first question we would have to ask ourselves is, whether that is in fact true. is it true that because a matter is incomprehensible (please note that i do not mean to say that it is wholly incomprehensible but rather that eventually we reach a certain point where we can go no further) it therefore follows that it is not true. you would have a hard time trying to support this statement (and to be perfectly frank, you can't) and hence the premise you rely on to make your argument is false. to the christian, the trinity is the highest revelation of god and it deals particularly with how he is in himself and as such, if we are talking about the very nature of god, would it not follow that we should reach a certain point where he becomes incomprehensible to finite knowledge? clearly everyone believes that eventually god is incomprehensible to humans and yet you somehow argue that eventual incomprehensibility is the mark of a falsehood. how can you logically uphold such a conclusion. i believe that i have more than adequately dealt with the first important problem raised in your post but let me further this by use of examples:

you would argue that the concept of god is simple. now you would also admit that god created all things and as our current cosmology theory holds space, time, and matter all came into being at some point (by an originator we would hold to be god). could you please explain to me where god was located when he created everything in existence? remember that space/area/location came into being during the big bang and as such this concept did not existed prior to this in the same way that neither time, nor area existed prior to this. will you say that he just created these? well prove it to me in a manner that makes sense. how do you explain god when there was no concept of location? currently you believe that god is located in heaven and that makes sense and so how do you unify the non-existence of location and the existence of a real being. please, this is something which boggles the minds of quantum physics and i would very much like you to explain it in a matter that makes sense. the concept of area not even existing is incredibly mind boggling so i very much would like an explanation.

now i'll save you the trouble and say that you can't. in fact it's "incomprehensible". yet would you not believe it to be true that god created area/spa/location/place along with time, and matter? i could also ask you how god's immutability fairs with the concept of time and whether the theory of eternalism or temporalism is comprehensible in regards to this (and let us not even mention how these fair depending on whether we hold an A-series or B-seriers view of time). please, you believe god to have created time and as such, please explain these to me. in short, even you believe incomprehensible things (that is, that eventually when reasoning these things out we will invariably hit a wall) and do not discount them for being incomprehensible. once again, the first horn of your argument has failed and your position is one of inconsistency.

( a )Why should we believe God is three in any capacity? ( b ) Because there are exactly two (2) verses in the Bible which happen to mention the very names “father”, “son” and “holy spirit” in the same sentence? ( c ) Awful long way from that to any of the creeds, even the Apostle’s. And as for what Answering Islam says on the matter about other verses, I’ve already taken them to the moon and back on that here. You need to read that, God willing.

( d )Polytheism doesn’t have to be overt or even untempered in order to be what it is. Do you believe the Hindus when they tell you that their pantheon is really just one god? Do you care? Are they not still pagans?

( a ) one aught to believe in the trinity because they believe in the bible. to ask you a similar question: "why must i believe in muhammad? why must i even believe in the allah that is described in the qur'an?" clearly the belief of the aforementioned two things is predicated on the belief in the qur'an as much as the trinity is predicated on belief in the bible. it simply has to do with the message in our respective books. now then your question becomes somewhat nonsensical because without first positing the truth of the qur'an you could not even believe that muhammad was a prophet of god or that god was in any way the allah you find in the qur'an. non-muslims are proof of this fact and therefore this point fails.

( b ) your logic is once again faulty. rather if we were to take the bible as a whole and find that each is described with the prerogatives of god throughout the bible, yet the bible clearly mentioning that god is one and that each is distinct from the other, we can then naturally understand that the single god is eternally existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. the fact that each is not mentioned in the exact same sentence to the frequency which you would like becomes irrelevant when scripture is examined as a whole. once more, your logic is faulty because it relies on scripture being examined (and thus doctrine formed) with each verse in a vacuum. that methodology is completely wrong and is not in fact practised. just as one understands the ideology of an author by studying the thoughts which run throughout the whole book (as such, studying the book as a whole), in like manner does one approach any scripture.

( c ) i have read it and remain relatively unimpressed. yet this does not pertain to this discussion.

( d ) it would not matter to me whether hindus truly worship one god because monotheism isn't enough to save. you could worship one god and still not be saved if you are worshiping a false god. deists worship a single god who created the universe and then subsequently stopped interacting with it and even though they believe in a sole creator it does not mean that their religion is true. in light of the above your example becomes quite irrelevant.

( e ) The evidence of our world suggests a single cause. Something outside of spacetime which encompasses all. A single, neat infinity beyond infinities. The one point of origin. What about all this suggests to you that the number “three” even has anything to do with the subject at all? How many ways can and should an all-compassing First Cause be divided up? Why should such a perfect thing need multiple persons to it?


( f )You’re denying the singleness. Just because you deny it by saying it’s a singleness that’s also a not-singleness does not change anything except to add self-deception or self-obfuscation to the mix. For the ninth time, saying “plural singularity” does not change the fact that there is plurality involved. It just piles semantics on top of the problem instead.

( e ) the evidence of the single cause has absolutely nothing to do with the ontology of the cause which produced all subsequent events. you assert this without evidence. yet i suppose that this baseless assertion gives way nicely to a brief aside one oneness and the kind of oneness that you claim the evidence of cosmology purports to show. concerning oneness, i would very much like to ask you how many space(s) do we have? you would in fact agree that we only have one space. now i would ask you, what are the distinctions within space? you being quite the astute individual would answer, without a moment's pause, "three: length, width, and height". I would then ask you if each were identical to the other and you would say "no, length is not width, width is not height, and height is not either of these" yet nevertheless you'd be quick to follow up with, "but we only have one space". Being distinct (not separate from one another) the all the prerogatives of space apply equally and follow to these distinctions three "yet it is not three spaces that we have, but one" (for those who understand the document i'm alluding to with that last quote, good for you). clearly the word single cause, single space, or single whatever does not inform the individual on the kind of oneness we are in fact talking about. rather you, in your post, simply presume this without any evidence.

( f ) hmm, i can't help but feel that we are becoming somewhat too emotionally charged. christians are not in fact denying singleness as the example of space clearly shows. there are various forms of oneness. take matter for example, it is existent as solid, liquid and gas and yet there exist not three matters but three distinctions within the one matter. hence why in school you learned the "three different states of matter" and not the "the three different states of matters". your belief in the singleness of matter and that of space shows your position to be inconsistent. clearly, christians do not deny singleness.

I’ve laid out my syllogism before, and it stands:

1. Monotheism is simple and comprehensible.
2. The Trinity is complex and incomprehensible.
3. Therefore, the Trinity is not monotheistic.

It’s as simple as that!

the above would be a wonderful syllogism if not for the fact that it was wrong (forgive the humour, this time i really couldn't help myself but i promise that there won't be any more of that). for one thing, you provide an arbitrary definition of monotheism--in fact to be perfectly honest you simply make this up out of thin air. not to mention that because you have made up this definition you commit a mistake of categories in comparing monotheism to trinitarianism. but before i speak any further on the matter, i will first of all provide an example.

1. math is simple and comprehensible
2. quantum mechanics is complex and incomprehensible.
3. therefore, quantum mechanics is not math.​

the problem with the first premise is that it's only partly true. math is simple. yes, one plus one is rather simple and comprehensible but quantum mechanics is not simple and eventually we reach a point where it is incomprehensible. yet now given that quantum mechanics is a sub-set of mathematics the first premise then becomes only true in some cases (depending on the context) and wholly false when presented as a premise from which to start from. given the falsity of your starting premise your whole syllogism falls apart.

in the same way your first problem is that you equate unitarianism with monotheism and that is incorrect. unitarianism and trinitarianism are sub-sets of monotheism (and so is monism etc) and therefore given that you define the trinity as complex, your first premise concerning monotheism can then only be partly true (depending on the context) and wholly false when used as a categorical statement (to be perfectly honest, at this point i really ask myself why it is that i'm discussing with an individual who does not seem to know the definition of monotheism--not to sound snarky, mind you but these are very real questions i have). now what you actually meant to say (and what all other individuals who agreed with you understood) was this:

1. unitarianism is simple and comprehensible
2. trinitarianism is complex (and incomprehensible)
3. therefore, the trinity is not unitarianism.​

and the above would be spectacular if not for the fact that no one argues that the trinity is unitarian. i suppose the problem for muslims then becomes the fact that the qur'an seems to have no knowledge of these distinctions within monotheism and so the muslim can't help but equate monotheism with unitarianism, even though it's like saying that the whole field of mathematics is merely quantum mechanics. clearly, your syllogism is invalid and your argument is wrong.

now, i acknowledge that you still have other things that i have yet to respond to and i made it a point to skip them, not because i do not know of a response to them but rather because it isn't my sole intention to burn myself out responding to your questions. i'd at least like to pose a few questions of my own before i find myself too tired to do so.

now let me say a few words on a topic not too dissimilar to our current one:

i do not believe in allah as the islamic deity. i do not believe in the islamic concept of tawhid/tahweed (oh gosh i hope i'm spelling it right). dear muslims, w. fard muhammad is not god!!! stop with this tawhid business. do not take w. fard muhammad as god!!! please muslims, i implore you, it will be better for you to desist. on judgement day god will ask w. fard muhammad if he had told people that he was god and even if he tries to deny this, you muslims will be doomed! "they disbelieve who say allah is w. fard muhammad".

now after much derision and laughter on your part, imagine that this is actually part of the holy scriptures of a religious group (let us call them fristians). i would then ask you if you believed that i portrayed an accurate picture of islam? no, you would say that i did not and in fact was speaking of a known heretical (and racist) group called the nation of islam. i would then counter with, "muslims believe in tawhid don't they? so then my god has also refuted your notion of tawhid". the astute and honest muslim would then tell me to analyze every reference of the muslim deity within my holy book and look to see what the author's understanding of tawhid was because clearly from the context, author of the fristian holy text supposed that tawhid had in fact to do with the supposed god of teh muslims, w. fard muhammad. now being a staunch fristian, i would check my holy book and see that nowhere else does my god explain what tawhid is but from the summation of all the verses, it is quite evident that this god supposed that tawhid had to do with w. fard muhammad.

now is this methodology appropriate or not? of course we would all agree that it is and as such i'd like to ask the muslim if they could do the same as it regards the qur'an's understanding of the trinity. in my reading it would seem that the muslim deity refutes everything but what the trinity actually is:

O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector. S. 4:171

from the above we learn that christians should not say three ("three what?" one would ask themselves---three gods i suppose) and that jesus and mary were only human. yet, the trinity does nor has ever consisted of christ, the father and mary. yet let us suppose that at one time it did (for the sake of argument) it still would not change the fact that at the time of muhammad the trinity was understood as christ, the father and the holy spirit. so from this verse alone, it would seem that the qur'an is incorrect concerning the trinity. yet let us continue, perhaps there's just something i haven't gotten to yet.

(now the second part of that verse speaks concerning allah having a son and depending on what the speaker means, any trinitarian can whole heartedly agree with that statement. we will see what the qur'an means by that.)

They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things. S. 5:17

the above is actually incorrect. there is a fundamental difference between the statement "jesus is god" and the statement "god is jesus" in same way that there is a difference between "quantum mechanics is math" and "math is quantum mechanics". in fact the speaker in the above verse condemns something trinitarians themselves condemned and that is "sabellianism" which was condemned by the early church (please look this up). from the above context it would seem that allah is once again not condemning the trinity but rather sabellianism which trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years before muhammad.

They are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son.’ For the Messiah said, ‘Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Verily whoso associates with God anything, God shall prohibit him entrance to Paradise, and his refuge shall be the Fire; and wrongdoers shall have no helpers.’ They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Third of Three. No god is there but One God. If they refrain not from what they say, there shall afflict those of them that disbelieve a painful chastisement. Will they not turn to God and pray His forgiveness? God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; Messengers before him passed away; his mother was a just woman; they both ate food. Behold, how We make clear the signs to them; then behold, how they perverted are! S. 5:70-75

once more the qur'an is not condemning the trinity but rather sabellianism.

in the second portion the speaker is condemning something which isn't even the trinity or an incorrect formulation thereof. the trinity has never been god is one of three but rather god is three in one. one of three is not the trinity but rather tritheism. now at this point one might say that i'm being needlessly picky but one must understand that mere humans who did not believe in the trinity were able to formulate it correctly and then attack it from there. even the author to which i am responding implicitly acknowledges this point by never once formulating the trinity as "1 of 3" but rather "3 in 1" there is a great theological difference and considering that the speaker of the qur'an had hundreds of years to learn what it is that christians actually believed concerning the trinity then there is no excuse for the matter.

notice also that mary is also included there once again! the speaker than shows that neither mary nor christ are divine by saying that they both used to eat but mary is not part of the trinity. from the context we see that the speaker is speaking of the trinity but his understanding is patently wrong. might he be speaking of roman catholics maybe? even then he is wrong because he would then have to posit a quadranity (the father, son, the holy spirit and mary) but clearly the speaker does not. notice that everytime the mention of three is made it regards to jesus, mary, and allah. nowhere else does the speaker hint at a different understanding than this.

And when God said, ‘O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, "Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God"?’ He said, ‘To Thee be glory! It is not mine to say what I have no right to. If I indeed said it, Thou knowest it, knowing what is within my soul, and I know not what is within Thy soul; Thou knowest the things unseen I only said to them what Thou didst command me: "Serve God, my Lord and your Lord." And I was a witness over them, while I remained among them; but when Thou didst take me to Thyself, Thou wast Thyself the watcher over them; Thou Thyself art witness of everything.’ S. 5:116-117

what is it that muslims accuse christians of worshiping when they worship the trinity. the accusation is that we take partners beside god. in the above the speaker of the qur'an quite plainly shows us what the trinity consists of. once again it is the father, the son, and mary. what is more telling is that the above is a future conversation that allah will have with christ concerning the christians and their trinity. clearly the author of the qur'an supposes that mary is part of the trinity.

And they make the jinn associates with Allah, while He created them, and they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him). Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things. S. 6:100-101

The truth is that - exalted be the Majesty of our Lord - HE has taken unto Himself neither wife nor son, S. 72:3

notice that the logic in the above is that seeing as god has no wife, he can then have no son. notice as well that it once more speaks of three individuals: allah, a mother (mary), and a son (jesus). yet clearly that is not the trinity. in fact what is furthermore evident is the fact that the speaker understood the birth and origination of christ as being through a sexual union between god and a wife (how else would he then say that god cannot have a son because he has no wife). this is not the christian position. once more what is being condemned is not the trinity.

in light of the above, it is spectacular that muslims would question the trinity seeing as nowhere in the qur'an is there a proper repudiation of it. as in my example with the fristian holy book we all saw that from the context it was obvious that i had no notion of what tawhid actually was, the same is true of the examples i have shown above. the fact of the matter is that nowhere in the qur'an does on find a proper formulation of the trinity. in fact what is condemned is almost every other heresy but the trinity which christians believe and which trinitarians condemned way before muhammad spread his message. the facts speak for themselves.

remember: "just as one understands the ideology of an author by studying the thoughts which run throughout the whole book (as such, studying the book as a whole), in like manner does one approach any scripture."

 

[Sol Invictus]

having taken a look at your website i duly noted that you repudiated the concept of sonship by the following verse (and i wish that i had known of this earlier so that i could include it in my actual post, but alas):

They say, “God has taken to Him a son.” Glory be to Him! He is All-sufficient: to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; you have no authority for this. What, do you say concerning God that you know not?

(- 10:68 -)
Noble Quran

the fact of the matter is that once again the qur'an gives one the wrong idea and the wrong formulation of what christians indeed believe. the above is actually another heresy which christians themselves condemned (once again, hundreds of years before muhammad) and that heresy is called adoptionism (please look it up). trinitarians do not believe that god ever took a son, rather they believe that god is eternally existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit and as such at no point did one exist without the other and at no point could the father ever "take" a son. once more it seems that the author of the qur'an has made all the same blunders which trinitarians themselves condemned before muhammad's time. now at this point there should have been no reason for doing so seeing as the correct definition was there and adhered to by christians. with all due respect, it is almost a miracle that god would not seem to understand the trinity when mere humans have been able to formulate the doctrine correctly and then attack it from there. it is telling that in your post even you do not formulate the doctrine as the qur'an does which implicitly shows that even you acknowledge that it is inherently wrong.

 

[Martinz]

:bism:
​

Well, I have skimmed through the whole thread. My head hurts and I feel nauseated. Too much interllectualizing over something that (to me) just isn't real.

Tawhid is real.

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I’ve laid out my syllogism before, and it stands:

1. Monotheism is simple and comprehensible.
2. The Trinity is complex and incomprehensible.
3. Therefore, the Trinity is not monotheistic.

It’s as simple as that!

I agree. Confirmed by the Holy Spirit that speaks to my heart.

Posted by Yahya sulaiman:

I can tell you. It's because they themselves don't have the faintest idea what "the Holy Spirit" even is. It's the single most incoherent part of the whole thing, which believe me is really saying something! Apparently they just thought they needed a third part of the Godhead to act as some intermediate place between the other two, though they'll be consarned if they can really and truly tell you how or in what way.

Totally disagree! People who have never experianced the Holy Spirit have a difficult time understanding what it is.

Holy Spirit is not the second aspect of God - it is God (as we can experiance his presence on earth)

Holy Spirit = God = Allah

John 4:24

"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Sol Invictus: I'll get back to you, but I gotta get some sleep...



​

​

 

[Woodrow]

A bit too much for me to absorb at one sitting. At the moment I am going to address one very glaring point.

i do not believe in allah as the islamic deity. i do not believe in the islamic concept of tawhid/tahweed (oh gosh i hope i'm spelling it right). dear muslims, w. fard muhammad is not god!!! stop with this tawhid business. do not take w. fard muhammad as god!!! please muslims, i implore you, it will be better for you to desist. on judgement day god will ask w. fard muhammad if he had told people that he was god and even if he tries to deny this, you muslims will be doomed! "they disbelieve who say allah is w. fard muhammad".

I suspect you have NOI (Nation of Islam) confused with Islam. I do not believe we have even one NOI member here. W. Fard Muhammad is the NOI founder and is not considered to be Muslim by us and we do not follow any of what he says, although there may be things he said that coincidentally agreed with Islam.

 

[aamirsaab]

having taken a look at your website i duly noted that you repudiated the concept of sonship by the following verse (and i wish that i had known of this earlier so that i could include it in my actual post, but alas):

They say, “God has taken to Him a son.” Glory be to Him! He is All-sufficient: to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; you have no authority for this. What, do you say concerning God that you know not?

(- 10:68 -)
Noble Quran

the fact of the matter is that once again the qur'an gives one the wrong idea and the wrong formulation of what christians indeed believe. the above is actually another heresy which christians themselves condemned (once again, hundreds of years before muhammad) and that heresy is called adoptionism (please look it up). trinitarians do not believe that god ever took a son, rather they believe that god is eternally existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit and as such at no point did one exist without the other and at no point could the father ever "take" a son. once more it seems that the author of the qur'an has made all the same blunders which trinitarians themselves condemned before muhammad's time. now at this point there should have been no reason for doing so seeing as the correct definition was there and adhered to by christians. with all due respect, it is almost a miracle that god would not seem to understand the trinity when mere humans have been able to formulate the doctrine correctly and then attack it from there. it is telling that in your post even you do not formulate the doctrine as the qur'an does which implicitly shows that even you acknowledge that it is inherently wrong.

The Qur'an isn't neccessarily talking about Christians (or even the Trinity) in Sura 10 verse 68. In fact, neither of those words ("Christianity", "trinity") are even mentioned in that ayat at all. If anything, the Qur'an is criticising those that hold such beliefs that God could have a son.

Just saying.

 

[Grace Seeker]

A bit too much for me to absorb at one sitting. At the moment I am going to address one very glaring point.




I suspect you have NOI (Nation of Islam) confused with Islam. I do not believe we have even one NOI member here. W. Fard Muhammad is an NOI Leader and is not considered to be Muslim by us and we do not follow any of what he says, although there may be things he says that coincidentally agree with Islam.

Woodrow, that jumped out at me when I first read it as well. However, as I went on, I think that Sol Invictus showed that he did not mean the above as an expression of true Islam, but of what someone who was a member of the NOI might say. And then the point is that this same person would claim that they were a follower of true Islam, and yet you would never accept that he was correct in his description of Islam.

This is the problem with the characterization of the Trinity that we who are are true adherents to the Trinity have with how it is represented by those who are not. Even your best descriptions of it, do not grasp its essence. If you did, I doubt that you would have left it.

You on the other hand could counter that indeed you did and do understand it. And, further, you also understand what true monotheism is -- and, if I truly understood true monotheism, I would never claim that the Trinity quailified as such and would quickly leave it for the real truth that is represented by the teaching of Islam.

I'm convinced that our inability to clearly communicate on this topic with each other may have as much to do with how our brains are wired to think about things and process information. Those who want to do nothing else than convice others of their own truth will probably always be frustrated by this conversation. Those who are searching to understand where one another comes from, without a need to constantly refute that with which they disagree, may be able to develop greater (even if not perfect) understanding. I think there is value in learning to understand one another better, and hope the discussion might proceed along those lines.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The Qur'an isn't neccessarily talking about Christians (or even the Trinity) in Sura 10 verse 68. In fact, neither of those words ("Christianity", "trinity") are even mentioned in that ayat at all. If anything, the Qur'an is criticising those that hold such beliefs that God could have a son.

Just saying.

Then, I should not expect that verse to be used as a refutation of the Trinity.

 

[Ramadhan]

Then, I should not expect that verse to be used as a refutation of the Trinity

Let me check again, last time I heard christians believe that in the trinity, jesus is the son of god?

Or has the definition of trinity changed while I was brushing my teeth?

 

[Sol Invictus]

A bit too much for me to absorb at one sitting. At the moment I am going to address one very glaring point.

I suspect you have NOI (Nation of Islam) confused with Islam. I do not believe we have even one NOI member here. W. Fard Muhammad is the NOI founder and is not considered to be Muslim by us and we do not follow any of what he says, although there may be things he said that coincidentally agreed with Islam.

thank you for your response but all it shows is that you have not read my post. immediately after my diatribe on the nation of islam i state that i do not believe that my portrayal of tawhid or islam was at all accurate. what the example did show however is the fact that one can know the ideology of an author by the corpus of his work (that is by examining the thoughts which run throughout his writings). in the like manner that one could figure out by the context that i had no knowledge of tawhid, one can see through examining each reference of that which christians believe within the qur'an, one can tell that it as well possesses no knowledge of the trinity. simply from examining these references we come to see that it sinks into the same heresies that trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years before the advent of islam. therefore, i did not in fact commit an error but rather you did not read my post carefully enough and seized only on something you had thought i had said.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Let me check again, last time I heard christians believe that in the trinity, jesus is the son of god?

Or has the definition of trinity changed while I was brushing my teeth?

Read the writings that came out of Nicea. Yes we do believe that Jesus is the son of God. But that is NOT the definition of the Trinity, neither now nor before you brushed your teeth. That you continue to attack something based on erroneous views as to what it entails is part of the problem. Not saying that you would accept the Trinity anyway, but you continue to miss its essence and substitute non-trinitarian teaching with regard to the Trinity for the real thing.

The Athansian Creed (not actually written by Athanasius) does a good job of summarizing the Trinity. It reads, in part:

we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten*. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed)

*And while "begotten" is a correct translation of this creed from Latin, it does NOT carry any connotation of biological procreation.

 

[Woodrow]

thank you for your response but all it shows is that you have not read my post. immediately after my diatribe on the nation of islam i state that i do not believe that my portrayal of tawhid or islam was at all accurate. what the example did show however is the fact that one can know the ideology of an author by the corpus of his work (that is by examining the thoughts which run throughout his writings). in the like manner that one could figure out by the context that i had no knowledge of tawhid, one can see through examining each reference of that which christians believe within the qur'an, one can tell that it as well possesses no knowledge of the trinity. simply from examining these references we come to see that it sinks into the same heresies that trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years before the advent of islam. therefore, i did not in fact commit an error but rather you did not read my post carefully enough and seized only on something you had thought i had said.

I apologise for my error. You are correct I had only skimmed through while sipping on my first cup of coffee before breakfast and only saw the big bold letters.

Now after Grace Seeker's post and rereading your post I better understand what you meant.

I will come back a bit later and address some of your other statements. From my perspective as a former Christian who came to the conclusion that nothing in the bible supported belief in the Trinity.

 

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) The Qur'an isn't neccessarily talking about Christians (or even the Trinity) in Sura 10 verse 68. In fact, neither of those words ("Christianity", "trinity") are even mentioned in that ayat at all. ( b ) If anything, the Qur'an is criticising those that hold such beliefs that God could have a son.

Just saying.

concerning surah 10:68
Tafsir Jalalayn: They, that is, the Jews and the Christians, and those who claim that the angels are the daughters of God, say, ‘God has taken [to Him] a son’. God, exalted be He, says to them: Glory be to Him!, [in affirmation of] His transcending having offspring. He is Independent, [without need] of anyone, for only he who has need of a child would desire [to have] one. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, as possessions, creatures and servants. You have no warrant, [no] proof, for this, that you say. Do you say about God what you do not know? (an interrogative meant as a rebuke).

from the above we can conclude that the qur'an is in fact speaking concerning christians and furthermore, from your attempt at trying to dissuade such a thought it becomes all the more apparent that it is in fact wrong and that you believe it to be wrong (or else you would never have mounted a defense consisting of it not speaking concerning the trinity or christians).

( b ) if what you say is true then once again the qur'an is wrong. christians do believe that god could have a son and in fact that the father does have a son. yet we don't believe that god ever took a son. the heresy which teaches this is adoptionism and it was condemned by the church way before muhammad was born. as is evident the qur'an falls into the same pitfalls that are common to those who have not understood the trinity.

I apologise for my error. You are correct I had only skimmed through while sipping on my first cup of coffee before breakfast and only saw the big bold letters.

Now after Grace Seeker's post and rereading your post I better understand what you meant.

I will come back a bit later and address some of your other statements. From my perspective as a former Christian who came to the conclusion that nothing in the bible supported belief in the Trinity.

the error is completely understandable, so no worries.

i will wait for your response.

 

[aamirsaab]

concerning surah 10:68
Tafsir Jalalayn: They, that is, the Jews and the Christians, and those who claim that the angels are the daughters of God, say, ‘God has taken [to Him] a son’. God, exalted be He, says to them: Glory be to Him!, [in affirmation of] His transcending having offspring. He is Independent, [without need] of anyone, for only he who has need of a child would desire [to have] one. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, as possessions, creatures and servants. You have no warrant, [no] proof, for this, that you say. Do you say about God what you do not know? (an interrogative meant as a rebuke).

from the above we can conclude that the qur'an is in fact speaking concerning christians and furthermore, from your attempt at trying to dissuade such a thought it becomes all the more apparent that it is in fact wrong and that you believe it to be wrong (or else you would never have mounted a defense consisting of it not speaking concerning the trinity or christians).

( b ) if what you say is true then once again the qur'an is wrong. christians do believe that god could have a son and in fact that the father does have a son. yet we don't believe that god ever took a son. the heresy which teaches this is adoptionism and it was condemned by the church way before muhammad was born. as is evident the qur'an falls into the same pitfalls that are common to those who have not understood the trinity.

Oh my days, you've actually contradicted yourself (According to you Christianity says God can have a son, but if the Qur'an says so, the Qur'an is wrong....). Look, it's blatantly clear we're on two completely different wavelengths, so I'm not going to bother posting a proper reply (I have one, but tbh if you can barely understand my last post totaling 50 odd words, I sincerely doubt you will understand several paragraphs.)

 

[M.I.A.]

im afraid the concept of all three in the trinity being the same in attribute is a little daunting,
i dont doubt all three may display an attribute but ultimately that attribute can only come from god.

surely god knew of adam pbuh before he was created,
he knew of the angels AS before they were created,
i dont doubt jesus AS pbuh could create on earth,

but ultimately god was the creator and still remaines.
to make all three indivisable is strange.. i dont doubt a walking man god, although putting things in such elequant language is disrespectful and misleading and unbefitting of such men pbu them.

the prophet mohammed pbuh is regarded as a messenger and slave/servent of allah.. that to me is the very essence of what i set out to find. somebody that understood the nature of god through god and through the angels AS.

the trinity doctrine is irrelavent if you dont understand it and nobody can, the book is not the word of jesus AS, only the people who knew him and followed him were his word and understanding embodied.

islam for me is the understanding that the quran is the perfectly preserved word,
just because 1400 years later we can call into question without understanding does not make it any less the truth. we may be as far away from our prophet as you are from yours, or in more accurate terms.. far from what god intended, but thats the point and due to the very nature of man.. the message ever repeated not often heeded.

but we are still very clever in refutations of faith.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Oh my days, you've actually contradicted yourself (God can have a son, but if the Qur'an says so, the Qur'an is wrong...). Look, it's blatantly clear we're on two completely different wavelengths, so I'm not going to bother posting a proper reply (I have one, but tbh if you can barely understand my last post totaling 50 odd words, I sincerely doubt you will understand several paragraphs.)

please, do not get so excited over your own misunderstanding of what i have said. the qur'an specifically accuses christians of saying that "god took a son" and trinitarians don't believe that. there is a deference between having a son and taking a son and at the moment your inability to understand this difference is what leads you to commit the same error as the qur'an. the claim that god took a son is adoptionism and this was itself condemned by the church before the time of muhammad. the trinitarian position is that god has a son but there was never any moment when he took a son. the father and the son have existed eternally so there was no moment when the father could take the son as his son. the words "take a son" infer the understanding that there was a time prior to this act of having taken a son while this is not the case with the statement "god has a son" for the latter does not necessarily infer temporality.

i doubt that you even have a proper answer if you couldn't even understand the difference between what i have said and what the qur'an claims and as such it would in fact be best for you to take your leave.

 

[Sol Invictus]

im afraid the concept of all three in the trinity being the same in attribute is a little daunting,
i dont doubt all three may display an attribute but ultimately that attribute can only come from god.

surely god knew of adam pbuh before he was created,
he knew of the angels AS before they were created,
i dont doubt jesus AS pbuh could create on earth,

but ultimately god was the creator and still remaines.
to make all three indivisable is strange.. i dont doubt a walking man god, although putting things in such elequant language is disrespectful and misleading and unbefitting of such men pbu them.

the prophet mohammed pbuh is regarded as a messenger and slave/servent of allah.. that to me is the very essence of what i set out to find. somebody that understood the nature of god through god and through the angels AS.

the trinity doctrine is irrelavent if you dont understand it and nobody can, the book is not the word of jesus AS, only the people who knew him and followed him were his word and understanding embodied.

islam for me is the understanding that the quran is the perfectly preserved word,
just because 1400 years later we can call into question without understanding does not make it any less the truth. we may be as far away from our prophet as you are from yours, or in more accurate terms.. far from what god intended, but thats the point and due to the very nature of man.. the message ever repeated not often heeded.

but we are still very clever in refutations of faith.

i respect your opinion and am glad that you believe in that which you believe. do note that my intention is not at all to try to convert anyone here. i do not write my words with the wish to convert anyone. that said, let me say that you have made no attempt to respond to what i have said. do you believe that my tawhid example was an actual description of tawhid? you would of course say no but i could very well say that i used the word tawhid didn't i? yet this would mean nothing if it was used with the wrong understanding. yet this is repeatedly what i find within the qur'an. there is no accurate refutation of the trinity at all. in fact the third person of the trinity, the holy spirit is not mentioned at all? in his place we find mary and that in itself is telling. muslims believe that christians worship 3 gods and yet anytime the number three is regarded in regards to that which christians supposedly worship, it is always in regards to allah, jesus and mary. so on the basis of the qur'an alone one couldn't even formulate proper understanding of the trinity because no where is it even presented accurately. rather we have every heresy from, tritheism, adoptionism, sabellianism etc. (all things which trinitarians had condemned prior to the birth of islam) but strangely enough, no trinity.

 

[aamirsaab]

please, do not get so excited over your own misunderstanding of what i have said. the qur'an specifically accuses christians of saying that "god took a son" and trinitarians don't believe that. there is a deference between having a son and taking a son and at the moment your inability to understand this difference is what leads you to commit the same error as the qur'an. the claim that god took a son is adoptionism and this was itself condemned by the church before the time of muhammad. the trinitarian position is that god has a son but there was never any moment when he took a son. the father and the son have existed eternally so there was no moment when the father could take the son as his son. the words "take a son" infer the understanding that there was a time prior to this act of having taken a son while this is not the case with the statement "god has a son" for the latter does not necessarily infer temporality.

i doubt that you even have a proper answer if you couldn't even understand the difference between what i have said and what the qur'an claims and as such it would in fact be best for you to take your leave.

Take a son, begot a son, has a son = the same thing. Your entire (counter) argument is based on semantics. Again, as I said initially, the crux of this ayat is a criticism levied at those who hold such blasphemous beliefs. It's not too difficult to understand.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Take a son, begot a son, has a son = the same thing. Your entire (counter) argument is based on semantics. Again, as I said initially, the crux of this ayat is a criticism levied at those who hold such blasphemous beliefs. It's not too difficult to understand.

simply because you would wish for it to mean the same thing does not make it so. in fact, the only recluse you have against the argument is to claim that it is merely semantics but that is false. if indeed my counter argument was based on semantics then you would not have had the adoptionism heresy. adoptionist didn't believe in the same thing as trinitarians and they made it quite plain and it all centered on taking instead of begetting or having. in your post you would ask us to ignore history. that said you are once more incorrect because to take a son is not the same as to beget a son in the same way as to take a daughter (as in i adopt this girl) is different than begetting a girl (as in giving birth to one) so once more your argument is shown to be false. this is not merely semantics.

 

[aadil77]

simply because you would wish for it to mean the same thing does not make it so. in fact, the only recluse you have against the argument is to claim that it is merely semantics but that is false. if indeed my counter argument was based on semantics then you would not have had the adoptionism heresy. adoptionist didn't believe in the same thing as trinitarians and they made it quite plain and it all centered on taking instead of begetting or having. in your post you would ask us to ignore history. that said you are once more incorrect because to take a son is not the same as to beget a son in the same way as to take a daughter (as in i adopt this girl) is different than begetting a girl (as in giving birth to one) so once more your argument is shown to be false. this is not merely semantics.

It all means the same thing, the statement to 'beget a son' is so blasphemous and disgraceful in itself, I think God said to 'take a son' as a more respectful way to refer to Himself, Glorified Be Allah, High above such claims.