1+1+1=1 or 1+1+1 =3

[If Not For Grace]

or 3 in 1 mean
1/3 +1/3+1/3 = 1 this mean 1/3+1/3 =2/3 >1/3 mean 1+1=2 > 1




"Say not Trinity.. ...Allah is only one God" Surah 4:171 [4]

"They have truly disbelieved those who say God is one of a trinity" Surah 5:73 [5]

I look at it like this. Water, Ice, Steam = h20

Water Ice and Steam all have different functions, but they are all the same substance h20 so is water water? I think so it just takes on different forms in different conditions.

 

[humblemuslim]

God isn't a substance you fill your bathtub with. There is also the issue that all forms of water are not fundamentally equal: For you to hold that the Trinity is truth and God is One, all parts must be 100% equal.

Regardless I don't think clever sayings and comparisons are going to be of much use here. The composite unity isn't the problem I have with the Trinity anyways, some might, but that isn't the reason why I dislike the concept.

peace

 

[ghazirizvi]

Kas notes that even the Moslems can not agree on what they believe concerning the nature of the of the Quran in relation to Allah...

Sorry Kas, I should have been more clear. the student is right. The quran is the word of god (SWT). When i said creation, i said it as to separate it from god(SWT). I dont want you equating god(SWT) with quran. That is why i said creation.

 

[tdcharles]

We have a misunderstanding on what I am referring to as "Clear". They indeed have one position and they can clearly proclaim it to the world, but their position itself is not clear.

Point being: There is a difference between clearly having a position and having a clear position. The church clearly has a position, but it isn't a clear one from the view point of people that do not currently accept the Trinity for whatever reasons.

I think we do have a misunderstanding. Clear as in we can't understand the Trinity? Of course that's true, it cannot be truly comprehended with our limited intellect. One of the Muslims in this forum said "we do not try to comprehend the incomprehensible", the same goes for us. But there is a wealth of information that proves that the dogma of the Trinity is "clearly" defined, if the Catechism wasn't enough here's an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, here's the symbol of faith from the Council of Toledo. It's hard to understand at the great precision of the latter document, but that does not mean it's not clear. There is one God and there is Trinity in Unity, that is all you need to know, the rest are just details that you don't need to catch yourself up in.

 

[thestudent7000]

no one here has explained how 3 can equal 1.

liquid is different from gas is different from solid, even though they are made from the same material. they are not equal in many ways. it is this in-equality of God and jesus that is obvious.

 

[S Walch]

1 x 1 x 1 = 1.

3, 1's = 1

There you go.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

no one here has explained how 3 can equal 1.

liquid is different from gas is different from solid, even though they are made from the same material. they are not equal in many ways. it is this in-equality of God and jesus that is obvious.

I say I have 1 apple and it has 3 layers.

One layer is very good for giving your body vitamins and minerals. (The Skin)
One layer is very good for making apple sauce. (The Flesh)
One layer is very good for growing new trees. (The Seed)

However, make no mistake all these parts are an apple.

This is the nature of the trinity. God, Christ & Holy Spirit all one in the same. Each one is a separate and distinct part of the same whole. God is the flesh or the substance of faith. Jesus is the seed or potential to create faith and the Holy Spirit is the sustenance or vitamins that support our faith.

 

[Kas]

no one here has explained how 3 can equal 1.

liquid is different from gas is different from solid, even though they are made from the same material. they are not equal in many ways. it is this in-equality of God and jesus that is obvious.

ACTUALLY THEY HAVE...YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO LISTEN!

HERE IS ANOTHER ANALOGY!

A TRIANGLE HAS THREE SIDES BUT REMAINS ONE SHAPE...WITHOUT THREE SIDES YOU CAN'T HAVE A TRIANGLE...A THREE SIDED SHAPE IS A TRIANGLE

NOW OF COURSE (I WHO POINTED OUT GOD IS NOT A PIE...TO DISMISS ISLAMIC POLEMICS) AM NOT HEAR IMPYING THAT GOD IS A SHAPE OR A TRIANGLE...INDEED GOD IS LIKE NOTHING THAT HE HAS CREATED...BUT SINCE WE CAN AND DO HAVE TRINITES IN NATURE, AND THIS IS SOMETHING GOD CREATED...WE CAN BELIEVE THAT GOD AS TRINITY IS ALL THE MORE AMAZING...UNLIKE THE TRINITIES THAT WE SEE ALL OVER CREATION!

HOWEVER YOU HAVE SHOWN AN UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT MANY BASIC ASSUMPTIONS NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE GOOD REASONS BUT SIMPLY OUT OF YOUR PRE-CONDITIONED PREJUDICES!

kAS.

 

[Kas]

I SEE COUNTLESS EXAMPLES OF TRINITIES EXISTING IN NATURE...MANY HAVE BEEN USED BY WAY OF ANALOGY ON THIS THREAD...ANALOGY...MEANING THAT THEY ILLUSTRATE A POINT...THAT HTREE CAN BE ONE...NOT THAT GOD IS AN APLE OR A SHAPE OF CHEMICAL! BUT SIMPLY AND SOLELY THAT THREE CAN BE ONE...I THINK WE HAVE WON THAT ARGUMENT HANDS DOWN...SHALL WE PROGREE OUR DISCUSSION A BIT FURTHER NOW!

kAS.

 

[Kas]

1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.'

where does it imply here that jesus is God? this only makes you question people who didnt think jesus existed. as we know, muhammed glorified jesus.

what i cant understand is the constant seperation of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit in name. why not just call them 'God' if thats what you think they are?

also,. the quran is not a creation of God. it is the WORD of God. the real question should not be 'is the Quran eternal' but ', is Gods WORD eternal?'

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE WORD OF GOD AND GOD...IF THE QURAN IS NOT A CREATION OF ALLAH THEN IT IS ETERNAL...SO IS THE WORD (THE QURAN) OF ALLAH ETERNAL AS PART OF ALLAH'S ETERNAL NATURE OR SEPERATE TO HIM?

THE IS WORD OF ALLAH IS THE QURAN THE QURAN IS THE WORD OF ALLAH...LET'S NOT GET SYMATICAL!

KAS.

 

[humblemuslim]

HERE IS ANOTHER ANALOGY!

A TRIANGLE HAS THREE SIDES BUT REMAINS ONE SHAPE...WITHOUT THREE SIDES YOU CAN'T HAVE A TRIANGLE...A THREE SIDED SHAPE IS A TRIANGLE

No reason for all-caps, it certainly doesn't make your composition any more influential.


I'll repeat once again: I don't think clever sayings and comparisons are going to be of much use here.

Why? Well of course you are able to prove FINITE things can be composed of parts and still be a "UNITY" but isn't a "UNITY" all relative to one's persective?


For instance I look at a human and see one being as a UNITY but if I look closer and deeper I will notice the human is made of various seperate organs all working together, and even deeper and closer these organs are a UNITY of millions and millions of cells and the go far enough you reach Billions and Billions of Atoms.

Point : Unity is all based on persective.


But one clear objection to anyone making a finite comparison for proving that many things can make up a unity to prove the Trinity is the following:

God is INIFITE, correct? So why is God composed of a finite amount of parts? Just seems alittle strange and somewhat contradictory to God's atrributes, of course depending on your view.

BUT SINCE WE CAN AND DO HAVE TRINITES IN NATURE, AND THIS IS SOMETHING GOD CREATED...WE CAN BELIEVE THAT GOD AS TRINITY IS ALL THE MORE AMAZING...UNLIKE THE TRINITIES THAT WE SEE ALL OVER CREATION!

Say what???

You think just because "Relative Trinities" existence in nature this proves the Trinity? Hardly. There are other variable-Unities around the universe. Do they prove God is a Quadnity? Or Binity? Hardly, I don't find this proof to be exclusively supportive of the Trinity.

HOWEVER YOU HAVE SHOWN AN UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT MANY BASIC ASSUMPTIONS NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE GOOD REASONS BUT SIMPLY OUT OF YOUR PRE-CONDITIONED PREJUDICES!

I believe student did offer some reasoning in past posts (Not sure if you have read it). But whether you believe it is good reasoning or not, I'd say this would depend from person to person.

I SEE COUNTLESS EXAMPLES OF TRINITIES EXISTING IN NATURE...MANY HAVE BEEN USED BY WAY OF ANALOGY ON THIS THREAD...ANALOGY...MEANING THAT THEY ILLUSTRATE A POINT...THAT HTREE CAN BE ONE...NOT THAT GOD IS AN APLE OR A SHAPE OF CHEMICAL! BUT SIMPLY AND SOLELY THAT THREE CAN BE ONE...I THINK WE HAVE WON THAT ARGUMENT HANDS DOWN...SHALL WE PROGREE OUR DISCUSSION A BIT FURTHER NOW!

For me personally this was a non-issue from the start...

 

[thestudent7000]

One layer is very good for giving your body vitamins and minerals. (The Skin)
One layer is very good for making apple sauce. (The Flesh)
One layer is very good for growing new trees. (The Seed)

the skin is not the same as the seed. they are made of differnt things. they are not equal. the flesh is not equal to the skin.
THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
Think, we add skin, flesh and seed we have Apple, a FOURTH entity which is a combination of all THREE.

BUT what christians believe in is that Jesus is the flesh, God the Father is the skin and the holy ghost is the seed. these are three SEPERATE entites which when combined create a FOURTH unified entity. so you see, your explanation is flawed.

God is unchanging, He is as He was and always will be. This is due to His perfection.
the Quran, as well as the ORIGIANL Gospel is the Word of God. this word is eternal but the Word ISNT God. think of it as God just having these Words always with Him and just published them at a certain time. God is not words in a book. We only need these Words to understand Him better.

 

[S Walch]

...we believe what?

I don't believe Jesus to be God's "Flesh" - nor do I believe the Father to be God's "Skin" nor do I believe the Holy Spirit to be God's "seed".

My sister in Christ, NothingButTheBlood, tried to use an example of the Apple to try and explain to you in order to help you understand the Trinity better - Plus the fact that you changed her entire thing around, From Jesus = seed to Jesus = Flesh, From Father = Flesh to Father = Skin, and from Hs = Skin to HS = seed. Very dishonest of you.

Stop telling us what we Believe - as you obviously don't have much of a clue - You don't control our hearts and minds.

We HAVE the original Gospel - 2000 years of History and comparing manuscripts have proved that.

Where's your ORIGINAL Quran?

Seeing as though one of your Caliphs burned up the manuscripts that he believed were inaccurate - If he'd actually kept them, then we might have a proper version of the Quran - As we would be able to compare each manuscript to the other, to find out which bits truly were missing/added.

 

[humblemuslim]

We HAVE the original Gospel - 2000 years of History and comparing manuscripts have proved that.

Where's your ORIGINAL Quran?

S Walch was this comment really necessarily? Before you start making claims like this in response to student you might want to cite some information in support of your claims instead of baselessly proclaiming something just because you became alittle frustrated with what was stated by student.


You have fragments of the original I believe. I would be interested if you can supply proof that the entire Bible (Everything) has an original copy available today for viewing. Regardless I don't think this has much to do with the Trinity, now does it?

Seeing as though one of your Caliphs burned up the manuscripts that he believed were inaccurate - If he'd actually kept them, then we might have a proper version of the Quran - As we would be able to compare each manuscript to the other, to find out which bits truly were missing/added.

You have limited knowledge of this, therefore you proclaiming an opinion by faith is no more effective than if I reassured you the original is what was perserved. Therefore I see no point in even discussing this due to the numerous uncertainties revolving around the topic itself.

Also are you telling me early Christians didn't destory writings they considered to be heritical? I'm relatively certain this did happen. Not only this, but the Biblical Canon was also decided on by Christians. It is fine if you have faith that they did their job perfectly and picked all the authenitic Scriptures and rejected all false books, more power to you. But I certainly won't agree with you. Yet I won't sit here and mock your religious Book or you for your faith and belief either. There is a fine line between humblely stating your beliefs and proclaiming your belief in an arogant and offensive manner. I almost feel this line has been crossed on some level. And I'm not placing blame on anyone for it as I've seen it on all sides, but I feel that it needs to end as soon as possible, wouldn't you agree? I also think responding to arogance with arogance isn't the answer. Hopefully an agreement on this can be met.

Peace

 

[Bevlina]

You can argue all you like about this, and that will get you nowhere.
Man = Body. Soul. Spirit.


Three in ONE. Can you understand that?
So, why can't God be composed of 3 elements?

 

[thestudent7000]

'You can argue all you like about this, and that will get you nowhere.
Man = Body. Soul. Spirit.

Three in ONE. Can you understand that?
So, why can't God be composed of 3 elements?'

but this is my point, body, soul, spirit are 3 different entities. it is only in combining all 3 that you have the whole, 4th entity.

using your analogy
Jesus, Holy Spirit and God the Father= a fourth entitity

 

[Kas]

I think we should be very carful about the language that we use! No offence but the last two post were both mis-using language in talking about something very Holy and important...we should not be clumsey in our use of terminology...if in doubt leave it out!

Kas.

 

[Kas]

The Holy Trnity is not....

three gods that are one god

three persons that are one person

three gods that are three persons

it is not devided

it is not like anything else that we know or can comprhend

it is not something that came into existence at any moment in time

it is not limmited by human conceptual limmits

it is not three seprate beings or things that make up a composite whole

The persons of the trinity are not three seperate will or centres of consciousness

The Trinity is not the creation of man..hence we lack the linguistical construct via which we can comprhend and thus explain him!

it here is refering to the term and the term is refering to His most holy being!

GOD is greater than mens attempts to explain him away...let us learn the path of humility in the presence of almighty GOD not intelectual arrogance...

kas. (who hopes that this helps the moslems on this board who persist in trying to pin a linguistical construct down rather than engage with what the Christians GOD...who is beyond us precisely becouse he is not like us!)

 

[Kas]

Alas...while all these debates are fun...I need to go look for a job...have fun! Which means my time on this boards is gonna get less and less...still I'll pop opn every now and then!

play nicely now!

Kas(a would have been Moslem come Christian convert)

 

[S Walch]

S Walch was this comment really necessarily?

Was thestudent7000's about the "Original Gospel" Necessary?

No, it wasn't - But my comment was necessary to his unnecessary comment

Before you start making claims like this in response to student you might want to cite some information in support of your claims instead of baselessly proclaiming something just because you became a little frustrated with what was stated by student.

Fine, I shall.

You have fragments of the original I believe. I would be interested if you can supply proof that the entire Bible (Everything) has an original copy available today for viewing. Regardless I don't think this has much to do with the Trinity, now does it?

We have more than just "fragments" of the original Gospel - we have entire manuscripts, some dating back as far as 100 A.D - The Dead Sea Scrolls Are dated as even older.

http://www.ou.edu/faculty/organizations/ouchrfas/reed6.htm

You have limited knowledge of this, therefore you proclaiming an opinion by faith is no more effective than if I reassured you the original is what was perserved. Therefore I see no point in even discussing this due to the numerous uncertainties revolving around the topic itself.

I have limited knowledge in this?

Alright then, how about we look to Sahih Al-Bukhari - a Muslim scholar of the 9th and 10th centuries and what he has to say about the "Original" Quran.

Quick rundown: (Summary courtesy of 'Unveiling Islam' - page 86)

According to Bukhari, during the years following Muhammad's death, large sections of the Quran were lost when a number of reciters died at the Battle of Yamama. This compelled Hazrat Omar, who had been a companion of Muhammed, to ask the Caliph Abu Bakr that the existing revelations/recitations be gathered into one collection. Muhammad's secretary, Zaid ibn Thabit, was designated by Abu Bakr to collect the sayings.

Zaid's text was later given to Hafsah, one of the wives of Muhammad and the daughter of 'Umar, the second caliph. One of hte major controversial issues of transmission begins with the reign of Uthman, the htird caliph (644-56)

by the time of Uthman, various versions of the Quran had spread across the Islamic community. Setting out to dispose of the variations in the codices and standardise the text, Uthman chose the collection of Zaid ibn Thabit, taken from the manuscript of Hafsah, as the model. According to islamic tradition, Zaid's collection was chosen because its Qoraisi dialect was the language spoken by Muhammad and was considered to be "standard" Arabic. (This dialect is no longer extant, however, and linguists cannot distinguish between modern Arabic and Qoraisi.) Copies of Zaid's collection were sent throughout the Muslim provinces, while all other manuscripts, some twenty-four variants - were summarily burned.

Also are you telling me early Christians didn't destory writings they considered to be heritical? I'm relatively certain this did happen.

You'd be very wrong there, several Heretical "gospels" were never destroyed, infact, you've probably heard of them.

Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of Marcion
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of the Twelve Apostles
Gospels of Barnabas and Bartholomew
Gospel of Mary Magdelene

This is just a sample of heretical Gospels that have survived, some with quite a few Manuscripts avaliable.

Not only this, but the quotes we have from the early church fathers who quote the books in the New testiment and Old testiment quite regulary, we could piece together the entire Bible from them alone, and only have 11 verses missing.

Not only this, but the Biblical Canon was also decided on by Christians. It is fine if you have faith that they did their job perfectly and picked all the authenitic Scriptures and rejected all false books, more power to you. But I certainly won't agree with you.

You also have limited Knowledge in this too.

The Council of Nicea didn't argue about which books were to be in the Bible - they already had an accepted selection by the christians at that time - which happens to be the Bible we have today.

There were only 5 books that were debated on - these were James, 2 + 3 John, Jude, and 2 Peter - The rest well, nothing much was said.

Yet I won't sit here and mock your religious Book or you for your faith and belief either.

You didn't, but I wasn't directing my question at you.

thestudent7000 mocked us christians by saying his "Original Gospel" line - And the Quran mocks us by saying that we don't have the original either.

So, thestudent7000 wants to say that we don't have the original Gospel?

Then he needs to show some sort of prove of this.

Just because "the Quran says so" wont do, as that's not proof.