One God

:wa:

Salam,

..God can do everything..

No , no sis , it's a misconception . God can not lie , can not cheat , can not die , can not turned in to His own creation , can not be murdered by mortal human being .

God only does what is suitable for Him. Running out of fear from His own slaves , do u really believe it's possible ? :heated:
 
Salam,
I am not discussing this subject because everytime I do my Muslim brothers and sisters seem to misunderstand me. I am a Muslim, but when I was a Christian it wasn't hard for me to understand the trinity, the trinity wasn't the reason I converted which I know many other converts have had as one reason. So I can't understand when Muslims say it doesn't make sense, because God can do everything. But for now, I simply don't believe in it. If He wants to divide himself in three then we shouldn't argue about how it is done, but now in Islam and in my way of faith He isn't divided. As simple as that.

:sl:

Allah(swt) only does what is befitting of Him. I'm afraid to say He could as I don't want to blaspheme. Allah(swt) needs not do that. He is sufficient for Himself. Somewhere in your mind you have the same thinking as do the Christians. Trinity makes no sense. In the Qur'aan, Allah(swt) rebukes those who refer to Him in the form of Trinity.
 
Last edited:
Growing up as a Christian, I have always been taught that we worship one God. However, I have heard Muslims refer to Christians as "polytheists" because we believe in the Trinity. I never considered this....

I wanted to know why Muslims consider the Trinity to be a type of polytheistic worship? From a doctrine point of view, I understand that Muslims reject the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, however, why does the Islamic faith consider the worship of the Trinity to be polytheism? The word "Trinity" means 3 in 1....

From a logical perspective, is it ever possible for 3 to equal 1...? Or is that simply false in all circumstances (which would seemingly suggest the notion of the Trinity is not logical, and therefore, cannot be true)?

Thank you.

The Trinity Doctrine/Dogma Exposed

This article is from a born again Christian:

I've always had difficulty with the "trinity" doctrine and concept. Even after twenty years of being a born again Christian, I couldn't seem to grasp the concept. Other Christians claimed they had an understanding of it but they admitted it was very difficult to articulate.

Robert Ingersoll makes the following comments in Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 266-67:

Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost third.

Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.

The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son.

The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the same age as the other two.

So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table, once one is three, and three time one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar: if we add two to one we have but one. Each one equal to himself and to the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity.

Christians are faced with a dilemma. The Bible says in the Old Testament, "I, even I, am the Lord; and besides me there is no savior" (Isa. 43:11). "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord . . ." (Psalms 3:8. "For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour . . ." (Isaiah 43:3). According to the Old Testament, only God can be the Savior. In order for Jesus Christ to be the Savior, he must also be God.

Trinity advocates use:

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30);

". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 17:22);

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God" (John 1"1);

". . . that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me and I in Him"

". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. . ." (John 14:9)

". . .Holy Father keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." (John 17:11)

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 3:8,9.)

The Bible has many more verses denying the Trinity than it has confirming it:

"Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17)

". . .for my Father is greater than I. . ." (John 14:28)

"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)

"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39)

" My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)

"Who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God" (Peter 3:22)

There are, of course, more scriptures. The passages quoted are a representative of the opposing concepts.

Here is the dilemma. Christians know that in order for Jesus to be the savior of mankind, he must also be God. The bible says so. If he is not God, then he cannot be the savior. His death would be meaningless. So Christians have invented the Trinity to explain Christ's divinity. He is man. He is God. He is both. He must be in order to be the savior. Unfortunately, he is ambivalent at best. Sometimes he claims to be one with God. Sometimes he admits God knows things which he doesn't know and does things which he cannot do. Christians go to nearly any length to prove the Trinity including the declaration that its a "mystery" and we "just don't have the mind to understand it". Is the bible the perfect, inerrant word of God? The Christian created Trinity doctrine and the contradictions which must accompany the doctrine sound a resounding "No"! So how did the Trinity doctrine/dogma come into existence?

The origins of the Trinity doctrine are appalling. Like most historic issues pertaining to Christianity, there was much deceit and bloodshed. Many lives were lost before 'Trinitarianism' was finally adopted.

As many Christians know, the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible. It doesn't because it is a doctrine which evolved in early Christianity. It was a manipulated, bloody and deadly process before it finally arrived as an 'accepted' doctrine of the church.

CONSTANTINE - THE TRINITY PROCESS BEGINS

Flavius Valerius Constantius (c. 285-337 AD), Constantine the Great, was the son of Emperor Constantius I. When his father died in 306 AD, Constantine became emperor of Britain, Gaul (now France), and Spain. Gradually he gained control of the entire Roman empire.

Theological differences regarding Jesus Christ began to manifest in Constantine's empire when two major opponents surfaced and debated whether Christ was a created being (Arius doctrine) or not created but rather coequal and coeternal to God his father (Athanasius doctrine).

The theological warfare between the Arius and Athanasius doctrinal camps became intense. Constantine realized that the his empire was being threatened by the doctrinal rift. Constantine began to pressure the church to come to terms with its differences before the results became disastrous to his empire. Finally the emperor called a council at Nicea in 325 AD to resolve the dispute.

Only a fraction of existing bishops, 318, attended. This equated to about 18% of all the bishops in the empire. Of the 318, approximately 10 were from the Western part of Constantine's empire, making the voting lopsided at best. The emperor manipulated, coerced and threatened the council to be sure it voted for what he believed rather than an actual consensus of the bishops.
The present day Christian church touts Constantine as the first Christian emperor, however, his 'Christianity' was politically motivated. Whether he personally accepted Christian doctrine is highly doubtful. He had one of his sons murdered in addition to a nephew, his brother in law and possibly one of his wives. He continued to retain his title of high priest in a pagan religion until his death. He was not baptized until he was on his deathbed.

THE FIRST TWO THIRDS OF THE TRINITY - THE NICAEAN CREED

The majority of bishops voted under pressure from Constantine for the Athanasius doctrine. A creed was adopted which favored Athanasius's theology. Arius was condemned and exiled. Several of the Bishops left before the voting to avoid the controversy. Jesus Christ was approved to be "one substance" with God the Father. It is interesting that even now, the Eastern and Western Orthodox churches disagree with each other regarding this doctrine, the Western churches having had no influence in the 'voting'.

Two of the bishops who voted pro-Arius were also exiled and Arius's writings were destroyed. Constantine decreed that anyone caught with Arius documents would be subject to the death penalty.

The Nicaean Creed read as follows:

I believe in one God: the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God: begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made. . .

Even with the adoption of the Nicaean Creed, problems continued and in a few years, the Arian faction began to regain control. They became so powerful that Constantine restored them and denounced the Athanasius group.

Arius's exile was ended along with the bishops who sided with him. It was now Athanasius who would be banished.

When Constantine died (after being baptized by an Arian Bishop), his son reinstated the Arian philosophy and bishops and condemned the Athanasius group.

In the following years the political foes continue to struggle and finally the Arians misused their power and were overthrown. The religious/political controversy caused widespread bloodshed and killing. In 381 AD, Emperor Theodosius (a Trinitarian) convened a council in Constantinople. Only Trinitarian bishops were invited to attend. 150 bishops attended and voted to alter the Nicene creed to include the Holy Spirit as a part of the Godhead. The Trinity doctrine was now official for both the church and the state.
Dissident bishops were expelled from the church, and excommunicated.

THE ATHANASIUS CREED COMPLETES THE TRIUNE GODHEAD

The Athanasius (Trinitarian) Creed was finally established in (probably) the 5th century. It was not written by Athanasius but adopted his name. It stated in part:

"We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."

By the 9th century the creed was established in Spain, France and Germany. It had taken centuries from the time of Christ for the trinity doctrine to catch on. Government and church politics were the reasons the trinity came into existence and became church orthodoxy.

As you have seen, the Trinitarian doctrine came from deceit, politics, a pagan emperor and warring factions who brought about death and bloodshed.

THE CHRISTIAN TRINITY - ONE MORE IN THE PARADE OF TRINITIES

Why the original clamor to elevate Jesus and the holy spirit to positions equal to the Christian/Judaeo God? Simply, the pagan world was quite used to having "three gods" or "trinities" as their deities. The trinity satisfied the majority of Christians who had come from pagan backgrounds. Christianity didn't get rid of the pagan trinities, it adopted them as it did so many other pagan traditions.

OTHER TRINITIES

Hinduism embraced the triune godhead of Brahma, the god of creation ; Vishnu the god of maintenance and Siva the god of destruction. One of Egypt's many trinities was Horus, Isis and Osiris.
The founders of the early Christian church had no idea that the Trinity concept would evolve, be voted upon by politicians, forced by emperors and eventually become an integral part of Christianity such as we have it today. Is it any wonder that its "difficult" to explain?
Is there one Christian God or Three In One? The majority of Christian churches hold to the Trinity doctrine but there are still Christian church holdouts who reject the teaching. We now enjoy the freedom to believe either doctrine but at risk of ridicule if we choose non-Trinitarian beliefs.
Just like at Burger King, "you can have it your way".

Source: http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/trinity.html
 
:wa:



No , no sis , it's a misconception . God can not lie , can not cheat , can not die , can not turned in to His own creation , can not be murdered by mortal human being .

God only does what is suitable for Him. Running out of fear from His own slaves , do u really believe it's possible ? :heated:

Seriously, you really believe that I would think that way? That I believe He would do bad things like us humen? I'm leaving this discussion right now.
 
trinity is three people considered as a unit.. I don't consider the afore mentioned beings to be one in the same.. thus rendering it a brand of polytheism!

all the best
 
Each of these persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.

Another strange misrepresentation. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons - The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father.
 
Seriously, you really believe that I would think that way? That I believe He would do bad things like us humen? I'm leaving this discussion right now.

She gave you example sis. You're taking it the wrong way.

There is no need to leave the discussion. She hasn't said you think this way..
 
The argument about Trinity doctrine is tiresome because at certain time I find that Jesus is G-d, and after that Father is G-d, and sometimes Holy Spirit is G-d but later some people said all three are G-d.

I made my personal analyzing that Trinity came from a branch of Greek philosophy where Paul is accustomed with before he became Jesus (pbuh) disciple and preaching in Greek land. There are also many others of philosophy branches of Greeks.

Let's share something about a Greek philosopher who has an opinion about G-d, this is just a philosophy, not religious teaching or creed because Xenophanes only talks what he thinks. Islam doesn't need philosophy, because we have Tawheed and scripture.

Xenophanes (580-470 BC)

He has to flee from his homeland when his land was seized by Persian and moved to Elea. He is an obedient to his religion and living with Holy Spirit. He opposed all of the nonsense believed by people around him. He said that, people think God is divided according to every acts. Some believe that G-d is the Chief of the Thieves, some belief G-d is the Chief of the Fearsome, and many others. From that various imaginations and portrayal of G-d exist. He always in disagreement with other poets like Homeros and Hosiodos who always mentioning G-d in the paintings and idols as gods.

Xenophanes said that God is only One. He's different from human and doesn't think like human thinks. He's above all gods and human and the Highest. He's not created but creating. He's not moving and not changing. He filled the whole spaces.

Concerning the belief of public around him, he said, the earthly creatures think that G-d is born with cloth, with voice, and with body that look like them. But if bovine, horse, and lion possess hands and also able to imagine like human, they too will imagine that G-d looks like a bovine, or a horse, or a lion.

He further said that: "Not from the beginning G-d shows everything to immortal creatures. In line with the time development, they will gain goodness, as long as they work to get it."

Xenophanes believes that the One is the highest in hierarchy, who is the G-d that embrace the Universe.
 
What do you mean by "one in the same"?

The expression is rather self-explanatory... You can't be the forsaking God and the God being forsaken while some third hovering spiritGod watches the whole débâcle unravel.. Not that I have a desire to further elaborate but not only is it illogical, this particular god is entirely different from the one spoken of by all the previous messengers and counter intuitive if not down right convoluted.. Anyone, should be able to sit down like Abraham (P) did and arrive through observation of the natural world that there is a creator.. No one would sit down and think of a man/god who self-immolated and abrogated his commandments through his nemesis ..
That is what I mean by an abstract that should be understood by both the simplest mind and the most complex mind!

all the best
 
The expression is rather self-explanatory... You can't be the forsaking God and the God being forsaken while some third hovering spiritGod watches the whole débâcle unravel.. Not that I have a desire to further elaborate but not only is it illogical, this particular god is entirely different from the one spoken of by all the previous messengers and counter intuitive if not down right convoluted.. Anyone, should be able to sit down like Abraham (P) did and arrive through observation of the natural world that there is a creator.. No one would sit down and think of a man/god who self-immolated and abrogated his commandments through his nemesis ..
That is what I mean by an abstract that should be understood by both the simplest mind and the most complex mind!

all the best

So by 'one in the same' you mean that the Persons are all the same Person? This is what I understand you to mean when you say that a being can't simultaneously be the "forsaking God" (the Father?) and the "forsaken God" (the Son?) and the Spirit...but this is just the same misrepresentation as we had before. The Persons are distinct beings.
 
What do you mean by the Trinity being a mystery? Do you mean that the Trinity (God Himself) is incomprensible, or the doctrine of the Trinity is incomprehensible?



I don't recall God ever claiming to be indivisible...certainly not within the documents Christians claim to be authoritative. Unless you are limiting the definition of God?

Limiting the definition of God? I am saying eactly what God said, what the Jews believed before you and what the Muslims believed after you.

It's interesting that you classify that as "limiting" God. Am I limiting when I say polytheism is wrong? That there is only one God?



Hear, O Israel: The Eternal is our God, the Eternal is one. [Deuteronomy 6:4]


You and your "distinct being" concept are more in line with the pagans the Bible condemns than anything else.

Babylon had: [1] Anu [2] Bel and [3] Ena;

India had: [1] Brahma [2] Vishnu and [3] Shiva;

Roman [1] Jupiter [2] Juno and [3] Minerva;

Greece [1] Zeus] [2] Apollo and [3} Hermes

PS I'd say God is being limited by becoming an embryo, being born, eating, going to the bathroom, and passing gas like a regular human.
 
So by 'one in the same' you mean that the Persons are all the same Person? This is what I understand you to mean when you say that a being can't simultaneously be the "forsaking God" (the Father?) and the "forsaken God" (the Son?) and the Spirit...but this is just the same misrepresentation as we had before. The Persons are distinct beings.

If they are distinct beings then your God is not one but three. And you are polytheistic.



Hear, O Israel: The Eternal is our God, the Eternal is one. [Deuteronomy 6:4]


I love that quote. :statisfie
 
So by 'one in the same' you mean that the Persons are all the same Person? This is what I understand you to mean when you say that a being can't simultaneously be the "forsaking God" (the Father?) and the "forsaken God" (the Son?) and the Spirit...but this is just the same misrepresentation as we had before. The Persons are distinct beings.


I love semantics as much as the next guy 'The Persons are distinct beings' would in such a case make them three not one.. hence NOT monotheism!
It doesn't matter how you slice it really, or what verbal manipulation they teach you in seminary school.. it just doesn't cut it.

There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept-- Ansel Adams!

all the best
 
I love semantics as much as the next guy 'The Persons are distinct beings' would in such a case make them three not one.. hence NOT monotheism!
It doesn't matter how you slice it really, or what verbal manipulation they teach you in seminary school.. it just doesn't cut it.

There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept-- Ansel Adams!

all the best

Three beings...not three Gods. God is three Persons in relationship (community), and none of these persons are Gods. It's not "semantics", but simply stating clearly what the doctrine teaches.
 
Limiting the definition of God? I am saying eactly what God said, what the Jews believed before you and what the Muslims believed after you.

It's interesting that you classify that as "limiting" God. Am I limiting when I say polytheism is wrong? That there is only one God?

Hear, O Israel: The Eternal is our God, the Eternal is one. [Deuteronomy 6:4]

You and your "distinct being" concept are more in line with the pagans the Bible condemns than anything else.

Babylon had: [1] Anu [2] Bel and [3] Ena;

India had: [1] Brahma [2] Vishnu and [3] Shiva;

Roman [1] Jupiter [2] Juno and [3] Minerva;

Greece [1] Zeus] [2] Apollo and [3} Hermes

PS I'd say God is being limited by becoming an embryo, being born, eating, going to the bathroom, and passing gas like a regular human.

What I am saying is that you are limiting the definition of God to a single indivisible entity. Could you explain to me how Deut 6:4 shows that Yahweh is indivisible? You may find a word study on the use of "echad" (meaning "one") in the OT very much opens up the possibility of divisibility within Yahweh (eg Gen 2:24).

In the pagan examples you cited, the three beings are each individual Gods, contrary to Trinitarian belief.

And with regard to your statement about incarnation, you are using "limit" in a different sense to the way I used it. I said that you shouldn't limit the definition of God - and you are actually doing this by limiting what God can or cannot do (i.e. denying His omnipotence). You are limiting the definition of God by saying that a Person within God cannot "limit" himself.
 
Three beings...not three Gods. God is three Persons in relationship (community), and none of these persons are Gods. It's not "semantics", but simply stating clearly what the doctrine teaches.

Your doctrine and what logic and Merriam webster dictate seem to be at odds then.. three doesn't equal to one, least of which when they are not of the same substance. i.e each has its distinct identity..

otherwise God has many children who don't happen to be him at the same time..
Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7.

listen I have no quarrels with you .. and I am happy you found your niche.. I have explained to you, why Muslims don't view the christian doctrine to be monotheistic.. what matters at the end of the day is what you yourself believe.. not what I think or view your beliefs!

all the best
 
What I am saying is that you are limiting the definition of God to a single indivisible entity.

And we are all limiting God by saying polytheists are wrong? Right? :heated:

Could you explain to me how Deut 6:4 shows that Yahweh is indivisible? You may find a word study on the use of "echad" (meaning "one") in the OT very much opens up the possibility of divisibility within Yahweh (eg Gen 2:24).

You said separate entities. It clearly

In the pagan examples you cited, the three beings are each individual Gods, contrary to Trinitarian belief.

"The Persons are distinct beings." Your own words seem to be contradicting you.

And with regard to your statement about incarnation, you are using "limit" in a different sense to the way I used it. I said that you shouldn't limit the definition of God - and you are actually doing this by limiting what God can or cannot do (i.e. denying His omnipotence). You are limiting the definition of God by saying that a Person within God cannot "limit" himself.

God has told us what he isn't and what he is.

"No man has ever seen God"

"God is not a man"

And yet after the Bible's criticism against polytheism you still assert that God was incarnated, is made of distinct beings, and had to have himself tortured and killed to save mankind from His own wrath! :heated:
 
Allah is The One and Only,

I don't think it's reasonable to say 1 God = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3
I've asked most my christian friends about Trinity, none of them know exactly what Trinity means (the reason why 1=3)
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top