One God

[AntiKarateKid]

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.

That is the very definationof semantics. Three beings but not Gods? What is that even supposed to mean? And according to your definition, wouldn't it be more plausible to say God is a "state" and not a "being" seeing as how you define him to be the result of a relationship?

 

[IsaImpliesHope]

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

Salaam Gossamer skye,
I'm not here to quarrel either But I think it is important that we represent people's beliefs accurately so that we avoid misrepresenting one another.

I don't believe that three equals one (and nor do any other Trinitarians that I'm aware of). But I do believe that the One God is Three Persons, that none of these Persons are Gods, and they are all distinct beings. To my mind this is no more illogical than saying that an egg is made of three parts: white, yolk and shell - none of these parts are themselves eggs, and they are distinct parts. Now there are many ways in which the egg analogy is inadequate for describing the Trinity, but in showing that the fundamental statements of the Trinity are not contradictory I find it useful (and I hope you will as well).

Peace.

[P.S. Whether the Bible supports the Trinity is perhaps a bit off topic for this thread, but I will briefly clarify an important point about "sons" as you mentioned it in passing: all God's people are considered to be sons and daughters of God; to say that Jesus is the son of God (not a son of God) is to say something more - it is a (divine) title.]

 

[IsaImpliesHope]

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

You don't do anything to the definition of God if you say someone's description is wrong...I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this?

[/QUOTE]
"The Persons are distinct beings." Your own words seem to be contradicting you.
[/QUOTE]
I cannot see the contradiction myself...The Persons are not Gods.

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:

As I said in my previous post, whether the Bible supports unitarian or trinitarian monotheism is not the point of this thread. But I would encourage you to look at those two verses in context.

I would also encourage you to investigate as to whether your statement in bold is a fair representation of the gospel message found in the New Testament (again, another thread I'm sure).

That is the very definationof semantics.

So when I was accused of using semantics (aka verbal manipulation) I was actually being accused of making clear statements?

 

[جوري]

Salaam Gossamer skye,

and peace to you!

I'm not here to quarrel either But I think it is important that we represent people's beliefs accurately so that we avoid misrepresenting one another.

This is what I understand from what is represented by you, the rest of what you take on faith, I don't have to take on faith given that it is illogical. I am not misrepresenting your faith, but this is how I understand it.. and as stated, there is no ill will hatred or quarrels, I am happy you find peace.

I don't believe that three equals one (and nor do any other Trinitarians that I'm aware of). But I do believe that the One God is Three Persons, that none of these Persons are Gods, and they are all distinct beings. To my mind this is no more illogical than saying that an egg is made of three parts: white, yolk and shell - none of these parts are themselves eggs, and they are distinct parts. Now there are many ways in which the egg analogy is inadequate for describing the Trinity, but in showing that the fundamental statements of the Trinity are not contradictory I find it useful (and I hope you will as well).

You don't believe that three equals one, yet a God of three beings each of them distinct is at odds with that statement. It is your belief, it isn't something that can be held as true from the lowest common denominator or a simple mathematical view point it is a belief that is lacking in accurate logical relation. Also making God akin to his creation already at odds with the definition of God (which I shan't go into) an egg of whites and yellows and shell aren't present in three separate places at the same time, each of its will the yolk begging to be helped from frying, while the white parts thinks it is for the best for something as strange as eating man kind' sins.
rendering your analogy absurd!

[P.S. Whether the Bible supports the Trinity is perhaps a bit off topic for this thread, but I will briefly clarify an important point about "sons" as you mentioned it in passing: all God's people are considered to be sons and daughters of God; to say that Jesus is the son of God (not a son of God) is to say something more - it is a (divine) title.]

Considered so only according to your misunderstanding of a religion that came to you from the middle east. Your 'god' didn't speak the language that you now attribute to him.. terms of respect and endearment that you take to denote something literal are in fact a figure of speech..

Rabb hazha albyet could be taken to mean God or the lord of the manor.. but it certainly doesn't translate to us being the literal children of God.. or that God can be both a child born to a woman and a god in the heavens and a god hovering in spirit to announce to a woman that he is to impregnate her with his being.. and that all three beings are really one being in the end who seem at odds with each other in their will.. one wants to not be forsaken while the other forsakes, one wants to uphold the commandments of the OT, while the other abrogates it through a non-chosen apostle .. ...

there is no need for you to clarify your faith to me. I have spent my youth in catholic schools and quite familiar with your doctrine.. I think it fails at the very crux it stands on... yet, I can still respect that you think it is your true path and I wish you the best of luck with that.. I'd personally at this stage would like to enjoy the rest of the holy month and to reap its benefits, and not debate on the age old question of the nature of the christian god! ..


peace

 

[IsaImpliesHope]

I received a comment saying "..but if you separate the egg into shell, white and yolk, it is not an egg anymore and you can never put them together again to where they will be an egg - remember Humpty Dumpty? The same way an entity can never pray to himself or sit beside himself". Herein lies one of the many inadequacies of the egg analogy I mentioned previously. God cannot be "pulled apart" - the Persons, though distinct, are inseparable. So we must imagine an uncrackable egg (which is not so hard to do).

Also to point out, the commenter makes the mistake of identifying the Persons with the entirety of God - there is communication ("prayer") within God between the Persons.

 

[IsaImpliesHope]

This is what I understand from what is represented by you, the rest of what you take on faith, I don't have to take on faith given that it is illogical. I am not misrepresenting your faith, but this is how I understand it.. and as stated, there is no ill will hatred or quarrels, I am happy you find peace.

You don't believe that three equals one, yet a God of three beings each of them distinct is at odds with that statement. It is your belief, it isn't something that can be held as true from the lowest common denominator or a simple mathematical view point it is a belief that is lacking in accurate logical relation. Also making God akin to his creation already at odds with the definition of God (which I shan't go into) an egg of whites and yellows and shell aren't present in three separate places at the same time, each of its will the yolk begging to be helped from frying, while the white parts thinks it is for the best for something as strange as eating man kind' sins.
rendering your analogy absurd!

Considered so only according to your misunderstanding of a religion that came to you from the middle east. Your 'god' didn't speak the language that you now attribute to him.. terms of respect and endearment that you take to denote something literal are in fact a figure of speech..

Rabb hazha albyet could be taken to mean God or the lord of the manor.. but it certainly doesn't translate to us being the literal children of God.. or that God can be both a child born to a woman and a god in the heavens and a god hovering in spirit to announce to a woman that he is to impregnate her with his being.. and that all three beings are really one being in the end who seem at odds with each other in their will.. one wants to not be forsaken while the other forsakes, one wants to uphold the commandments of the OT, while the other abrogates it through a non-chosen apostle .. ...

there is no need for you to clarify your faith to me. I have spent my youth in catholic schools and quite familiar with your doctrine.. I think it fails at the very crux it stands on... yet, I can still respect that you think it is your true path and I wish you the best of luck with that.. I'd personally at this stage would like to enjoy the rest of the holy month and to reap its benefits, and not debate on the age old question of the nature of the christian god! ..

Peace Gossamer skye, and thank you for your many gracious comments. I very much admire your passion and conviction which you have readily shown here. May you continue to enjoy this holy month of reflection and worship, which I don't wish to spoil by continuing our discussion on these matters (for the time being at least).

Wishing you all the best,
IsaImpliesHope

P.S. If anyone else would like to continue, I will be more than happy to engage with them as best I can (though I would suggest to the moderators that this thread should be moved to the Comparative Religion section).

 

[Sojourn]

I don't think it's reasonable to say 1 God = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3

I agree it's unreasonable since God is simple, i.e. has no parts. But Christians don't believe God is divided into three parts.

I've asked most my christian friends about Trinity, none of them know exactly what Trinity means (the reason why 1=3)

We don't believe 1 = 3. We believe there is 1 *Divine Nature* in three *Persons*.

Muslims believe there is 1 Divine Nature in 1 Person.

That is where we differ.

 

[InToTheRain]

We don't believe 1 = 3. We believe there is 1 *Divine Nature* in three *Persons*.

Peace Sojourn,

Can you clarify what happened to each role,

As I understand it, there was first God (the Father), so what happened to him when The son (Jesus) came about? Did the Father become the Son or the did he split up into individuals beings thereby halving his powers?

 

[Sojourn]

Peace Sojourn

Peace Z.

As I understand it, there was first God (the Father), so what happened to him when The son (Jesus) came about?

That is actually an incorrect understanding, but it stems from something quite natural. In humans time must elapse before a male can become a father, and therefore it is impossible for a father to be as old as his son. We have to remember however, that God is beyond time. There was never a period of time where God have to develop before the Son could be generated. Thus the Son eternally proceeds from the Father. There was never a time when the Son did not proceed from the Father, and never a time when the Holy Spirit did not proceed from both of them. As we say in the ancient doxology:

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.

Did the Father become the Son or the did he split up into individuals beings thereby halving his powers?

No, the Three Persons are distinct. Thus the Holy Trinity was not crucified, but only the Second Person of the Trinity who took on human form.

 

[Girl of makkah]

I never heard Trinity religion ever I just know the Christianity >> please can you tell me about this religion >> because iwant to know it >> and because ididn"t meet anyone unmuslim >> please tell me