Let me see if I have this right...

  • Thread starter Thread starter rpwelton
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 81
  • Views Views 12K
R

rpwelton

Elite Member
Messages
404
Reaction score
84
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
OK, I've been having some deep religious conversations with a Christian friend of mine, and last night we got around to discussing the trinity. Please bear in mind I don't want this thread to be a debate between Christians and non-Christians; I just want to get some information from knowledgeable Christians.

Here are our two understandings of the Trinity. Can you tell me which one is correct (or if neither is correct):

My View: The trinity is composed of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, and the three of these are equal, and each taken by itself is God. Thus the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God. The three are one God.

His View: The trinity is composed of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but these three are not equal. God the Father basically gave a part of himself to his Son and the Holy Spirit, thus it could somewhat be described as an isosceles triangle. The three are One God, but they are not each fully God. The Father still retains the most power. Thus in a sense, all parts add up to 1, but any taken by itself would not be 1, rather they would only be a fraction.

Also, he says that Christians pray through Jesus to get to the Father, thus Jesus is like an intermediary. Is that correct?

Please help. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Your view is the correct one. Christ is not an intermediary. There is no "power scale" involved in the Trinity.
 
rpwelton said:
OK, I've been having some deep religious conversations with a Christian friend of mine, and last night we got around to discussing the trinity. Please bear in mind I don't want this thread to be a debate between Christians and non-Christians; I just want to get some information from knowledgeable Christians.

Here are our two understandings of the Trinity. Can you tell me which one is correct (or if neither is correct):

My View: The trinity is composed of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, and the three of these are equal, and each taken by itself is God. Thus the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God. The three are one God.

His View: The trinity is composed of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but these three are not equal. God the Father basically gave a part of himself to his Son and the Holy Spirit, thus it could somewhat be described as an isosceles triangle. The three are One God, but they are not each fully God. The Father still retains the most power. Thus in a sense, all parts add up to 1, but any taken by itself would not be 1, rather they would only be a fraction.

Also, he says that Christians pray through Jesus to get to the Father, thus Jesus is like an intermediary. Is that correct?

Please help. Thank you.
Click to expand...

you are more correct for mainstream christianity, the 2nd sounds like an offshoot of arianism, an early christian sect, some of whom claimed jesus (as) was not God but a prophet, others claimed he was God but not co-equal.
 
Is it common for Christians to have such different views about the trinity?
 
rpwelton said:
Is it common for Christians to have such different views about the trinity?
Click to expand...

Not really. I suppose it depends on who has taught them their view of the Trinity. The vast majority of Christians would disagree with that individuals beliefs about Christ and the Trinity.
 
Keltoi said:
Not really. I suppose it depends on who has taught them their view of the Trinity. The vast majority of Christians would disagree with that individuals beliefs about Christ and the Trinity.
Click to expand...

Ah, OK. Good to know.
 
Keltoi said:
Not really. I suppose it depends on who has taught them their view of the Trinity. The vast majority of Christians would disagree with that individuals beliefs about Christ and the Trinity.
Click to expand...

i would agree with keltoi on this one, almost all of them agree upon the concepts of trinity as you outlined it, i have met some people who differ but i do da'wah stalls so tend to come across more unusual brands of christians than most people do.

most people accept what their church teaches them and almost all churches teach trinity as co-equal beings making one God, the same old thing which i could never accept so was always my major stumbling block to becoming christian when i first became a believer in a creator.
 
from what I have been told by an active Christian member here about the trinity......your point is the correct one regard the equality issue
but even among Christians themselves, you will find many views about the trinity as its complicated to be understood by Christians themselves
 
Dear rpwelton:

Your view is the one generally taught, but not clearly, in most Christian churches. However, there is inconclusive evidence in the Bible to support the teaching of the trinity as a doctrine of the Church.

Regards,
Grenville
 
Whatsthepoint said:
What was the trinity like when the Son was dead? Was it the same, were theb two remaining still god?
Click to expand...

exactly, i know you are agnostic but this is obviously illogical even to you.

just ask christians, can God die? is God born? can he beget?

now they will say no to all three, but this is what they are saying.
 
Hi Dawud_uk:

Jesus died on the cross; however, as you must be aware, death is not the end of existence. As the Qur’an states, it appeared to the Jews as if they had killed or destroyed Jesus, but Jesus cannot be destroyed.

Jesus went to hell, defeated satan, returned to His body, was resurrected, and was raised to God as stated in the Qur’an.

Regards,
Grenville
 
Grenville said:
Hi Dawud_uk:

Jesus died on the cross; however, as you must be aware, death is not the end of existence. As the Qur’an states, it appeared to the Jews as if they had killed or destroyed Jesus, but Jesus cannot be destroyed.

Jesus went to hell, defeated satan, returned to His body, was resurrected, and was raised to God as stated in the Qur’an.

Regards,
Grenville
Click to expand...

lol, dont know which Quran you are reading but doesnt say that in my translation.

what it actually says is they cruxified him not, that his likeness was put over another man. the rest is your own take on matters.
 
rpwelton, I want to add yet one more voice to agree that your understanding of the Trinity is more aligned to traditional historic Christianity than that which you have identified as coming from your friend. Though there is no need to say that each person of the Trinity necessarily excercises the same power, each person is still fully God in his own right, but together they are still but one God. (Just like each of the fingers of my hand are fully human, but together are still just one hand. -- Don't stretch that analogy to be completely descriptive of the Trinity; it's not. I was just speaking to that one aspect of it, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God in their own right.)




Whatsthepoint said:
What was the trinity like when the Son was dead? Was it the same, were theb two remaining still god?
Click to expand...

First, the Son was only physically dead. But just like with the rest of us humans, when our physical body dies, we are still alive spiritually, so it is with Jesus. But in addition, the existence of the Son is not predicated on the existance of Jesus at all. The Son has existed from before the beginning of time, long before Jesus' body existed. The Son has been the Son for as long as the Father has been the Father, for as long as God has been Spirit. And there is no cessation of any of their existence at any point in time -- past, present, or future. From the Christian perspective, this is simply who God is.

So, it is not true to say that the Son was dead. It was only Jesus' body that was dead. The nature of God's being remained unchanged.
 
Grenville said:
Hi Dawud_uk:

Jesus died on the cross; however, as you must be aware, death is not the end of existence. As the Qur’an states, it appeared to the Jews as if they had killed or destroyed Jesus, but Jesus cannot be destroyed.

Jesus went to hell, defeated satan, returned to His body, was resurrected, and was raised to God as stated in the Qur’an.

Regards,
Grenville
Click to expand...

Dawud_uk said:
lol, dont know which Quran you are reading but doesnt say that in my translation.

what it actually says is they cruxified him not, that his likeness was put over another man. the rest is your own take on matters.
Click to expand...



According to Surah 4:157 Greenville is right in saying that the Qur'an only says that "the Qur’an states, it appeared to the Jews as if they had killed or destroyed Jesus."
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Click to expand...
PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
Click to expand...
SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
Click to expand...
I believe the rest of what he wrote, "but Jesus cannot be destroyed", is his own personal commentary on that aspect of the verse.

As for you assertion that the Qur'an actually states "that his likeness was put over another man", I don't see that view explicitly stated in the text. (Perhaps it is in another verse, but I haven't found it.) The closest to saying that among the various translations I found is the Shakir translation:
SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
Click to expand...
But even here, you will note that he puts the reference to it being Isa in paranthesis, as I understand the use of parantheses in the translation process this mean that those words are not actually a part of the Arabic text either.

So, what we are left with is that it only appear to those who watched the crucifixion that Isa was killed. All of the rest as to why he was not killed -- that Judas was put on the cross in his place, or even that any other man was put on the cross in his place -- is pure speculation. It does not disservice to the Qur'an to suggest that it actually was Jesus, but that it only appeared that they had killed him. I know this isn't what your scholars have interpreted the passage to mean, but I still submit that the actual words of the text of the Qur'an itself leave this as an option.

So, this idea of a substitute being put on the cross in Jesus' place is every bit as much interpretation as what you accuse Greenville of doing. It's just one you have accepted and become so much a standard understanding of the text, that you can't see that it isn't actually written there.
 
GreyKode said:
but Jesus cannot be destroyed
Click to expand...

The Quran doesn't say that Jesus (pbuh) cannot be destroyed, it says that ALLAH has saved him and honored him.
Click to expand...

Check with Greenville, but I don't think he was intending to say that the Qur'an said that Jesus cannot be destroyed. I think that part was his personal commentary that he was adding as an eisgesis of the passage. Poor punctuation has linked that thought to what I understood Greenville to have been saying: "As the Qur’an states, it appeared to the Jews as if they had killed or destroyed Jesus." And that is indeed what the Qur'an says in 4:157; he is right in that regard.
 
Grenville said:
Jesus died on the cross; however, as you must be aware, death is not the end of existence.
Click to expand...


yes death(the physical) is not the end of existence(the spiritual)

but how that would make Jesus different from Whatsthepoint ,who though agnostic and may die as agnostic (I hope not) still his spiritual life will be without end....


would else would make Jesus different from Whatsthepoint?
Ah I forgot....

The Son is claimed to has existed from before the beginning of time, long before Jesus' body existed.


existed as a spirit ,wasn't he?
yes

and the father exists as a spirit ,isn't he?

yes

The father and the son one in material?
yes


If the previous is true then Jesus was the spiritual father incarnated in the flesh which he called the son.....

and that leads to one of basic problems with the so called Trinity:

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."Luke 23:46

Jesus (pbuh) would not need to send his spirit to God because it is already God's own spirit, who is also Jesus.


As a matter of fact Luke 23:46 makes it crystal clear that Jesus said to have experienced the exact same experience humans have while death,is giving up what been offered by God before, (their spirits)


Grenville said:
Jesus went to hell, defeated satan, returned to His body, was resurrected, and was raised to God as stated in the Qur’an.
Click to expand...

chapter and verse?


peace
 
Last edited:
Imam said:
If the previous is true then Jesus was the spiritual father incarnated in the flesh which he called the son.....
Click to expand...

Since the phrase is entitled, "Let me see if I have this right", I will respond primarily to this part of your post. Yes, you have this right. According to the Christian understanding, Jesus was indeed the incarnation of God. Though he was really the incarnation of the Son not the Father. But since the Father and the Son and the Spirit are all three one, it probably isn't worth trying to parse the distinction.
 
Grace Seeker said:
According to the Christian understanding, Jesus was indeed the incarnation of God. Though he was really the incarnation of the Son not the Father. .
Click to expand...

If it was the inacrnation of the son (God) then it was that incarnation of the father(God) as well, don't you think so?!

Don't you believe that Jesus and the father are one in substance?

Grace seeker ...why you always trying to give the impression that the Trinity makes sense?!!
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top