Islam vs Trinity

[TheWhat?]

**Note to mods: apologies if discussing the trinity is out of bounds. This is not intended to challenge trinitarianism, and I could not find a rule against discussing interpretations of trinitarianism. If it's against the rules please feel free to delete this post.

I have somewhat of a latent interest in debating Muslims on topics related to christianity, and if you've ever watched some of these debates in places like speaker's corner, you'll know what I'm talking about when I say they can be a challenge.

I was watching one of these debates today on youtube between a Muslim and a Christian who seemed fairly theologically astute. Unfortunately, despite his theological prowess, the Christian did not appear to me to win. He was hung up on, in short, the interdependency of the wills between Persons, subordinationism, essential hierarchy, relational hierarchies, etc. His knowledge and ability to articulate it, while impressive, gives the impression of mental gymnastics, and his opponent seems to have a field day with it, which is not an all too uncommon event in these debates. It is one of the more respectable exchanges I've seen, but it was not enough to win the crowd.

Having some experience in similar debates myself, I kept thinking to myself, why not "Ousia" as "Being?" For me, interpreting the singular Being of God as transcending Persons, fixes all of the problems. God is One and three Persons. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all speak as the singular God in various places in scripture. Granted, people tend to have a problem imagining Being beyond distinct individuals, but for me this is what homoousianism is all about, it can be supported with scripture and this would have made short work of all of the problems related to hierarchy presented by the opponent. But instead of just charging ahead with my opinion, I want to hear others' qualms with it.

Lastly, my last watering hole for this sort of debate was overrun by moderation with a bias against christianity. If anyone knows of a good place to go and debate against opponents in either Judaism or Islam, please let me know.

 

[disciple Clint]

**Note to mods: apologies if discussing the trinity is out of bounds. This is not intended to challenge trinitarianism, and I could not find a rule against discussing interpretations of trinitarianism. If it's against the rules please feel free to delete this post.

I have somewhat of a latent interest in debating Muslims on topics related to christianity, and if you've ever watched some of these debates in places like speaker's corner, you'll know what I'm talking about when I say they can be a challenge.

I was watching one of these debates today on youtube between a Muslim and a Christian who seemed fairly theologically astute. Unfortunately, despite his theological prowess, the Christian did not appear to me to win. He was hung up on, in short, the interdependency of the wills between Persons, subordinationism, essential hierarchy, relational hierarchies, etc. His knowledge and ability to articulate it, while impressive, gives the impression of mental gymnastics, and his opponent seems to have a field day with it, which is not an all too uncommon event in these debates. It is one of the more respectable exchanges I've seen, but it was not enough to win the crowd.

Having some experience in similar debates myself, I kept thinking to myself, why not "Ousia" as "Being?" For me, interpreting the singular Being of God as transcending Persons, fixes all of the problems. God is One and three Persons. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all speak as the singular God in various places in scripture. Granted, people tend to have a problem imagining Being beyond distinct individuals, but for me this is what homoousianism is all about, it can be supported with scripture and this would have made short work of all of the problems related to hierarchy presented by the opponent. But instead of just charging ahead with my opinion, I want to hear others' qualms with it.

Lastly, my last watering hole for this sort of debate was overrun by moderation with a bias against christianity. If anyone knows of a good place to go and debate against opponents in either Judaism or Islam, please let me know.

Augustine wrote The Trinity over twenty years, ending with a text so enormous that it was published in parts, in rough form, and later revised by Augustine.
Harmless, W. (2010). Augustine in His Own Words. Catholic University of America Press.

 

[HTacianas]

**Note to mods: apologies if discussing the trinity is out of bounds. This is not intended to challenge trinitarianism, and I could not find a rule against discussing interpretations of trinitarianism. If it's against the rules please feel free to delete this post.

I have somewhat of a latent interest in debating Muslims on topics related to christianity, and if you've ever watched some of these debates in places like speaker's corner, you'll know what I'm talking about when I say they can be a challenge.

I was watching one of these debates today on youtube between a Muslim and a Christian who seemed fairly theologically astute. Unfortunately, despite his theological prowess, the Christian did not appear to me to win. He was hung up on, in short, the interdependency of the wills between Persons, subordinationism, essential hierarchy, relational hierarchies, etc. His knowledge and ability to articulate it, while impressive, gives the impression of mental gymnastics, and his opponent seems to have a field day with it, which is not an all too uncommon event in these debates. It is one of the more respectable exchanges I've seen, but it was not enough to win the crowd.

Having some experience in similar debates myself, I kept thinking to myself, why not "Ousia" as "Being?" For me, interpreting the singular Being of God as transcending Persons, fixes all of the problems. God is One and three Persons. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all speak as the singular God in various places in scripture. Granted, people tend to have a problem imagining Being beyond distinct individuals, but for me this is what homoousianism is all about, it can be supported with scripture and this would have made short work of all of the problems related to hierarchy presented by the opponent. But instead of just charging ahead with my opinion, I want to hear others' qualms with it.

Lastly, my last watering hole for this sort of debate was overrun by moderation with a bias against christianity. If anyone knows of a good place to go and debate against opponents in either Judaism or Islam, please let me know.

You may want to read Philo of Alexandria. If you don't already know, Philo was a Jew of the first century and a contemporary of the apostles. While there is no known connection between Philo and any of the apostles, they use the same terms and concepts to describe the nature of God. Look over the table of contents of this article. Especially Philo's concept of the "Word of God". It will help.

Philo of Alexandria | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

These articles may help:

The Trinity - Questions & Answers

The Orthodox Faith - The Holy Trinity

The Trinity: Scripture and the Greek Fathers | Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

Unity of the Church, an Image of the Holy Trinity: Orthodox Triadology as a Principle of Ecclesiology. St. Sophrony (Sakharov)

Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Filioque - Wikipedia

Filioque - Wikipedia

Filioque - OrthodoxWiki

 

[TheWhat?]

Thanks for the info.

Just for whomever wants to address my position, I take it (almost) straight from scripture.

It's my understanding that "ousia" (n.) is the present participle of "eimi" (v.), "to be" or "to exist."

Of note here is John 8:58, and Exodus 3:14. The verb used in the verse in John for "am" is "eimi", the same as above.

Simple logic dictates that if Jesus is claiming to be the same "I AM" as identified in Exodus, but not the Father, and "I AM" is the Father, "I AM" is the Son, and "I AM" is the Holy Spirit, then Father, Son and Holy Spirit are literally homoousion.

 

[SkyWriting]

**Note to mods: apologies if discussing the trinity is out of bounds. This is not intended to challenge trinitarianism, and I could not find a rule against discussing interpretations of trinitarianism. If it's against the rules please feel free to delete this post.

I have somewhat of a latent interest in debating Muslims on topics related to christianity, and if you've ever watched some of these debates in places like speaker's corner, you'll know what I'm talking about when I say they can be a challenge.

I was watching one of these debates today on youtube between a Muslim and a Christian who seemed fairly theologically astute. Unfortunately, despite his theological prowess, the Christian did not appear to me to win. He was hung up on, in short, the interdependency of the wills between Persons, subordinationism, essential hierarchy, relational hierarchies, etc. His knowledge and ability to articulate it, while impressive, gives the impression of mental gymnastics, and his opponent seems to have a field day with it, which is not an all too uncommon event in these debates. It is one of the more respectable exchanges I've seen, but it was not enough to win the crowd.

Having some experience in similar debates myself, I kept thinking to myself, why not "Ousia" as "Being?" For me, interpreting the singular Being of God as transcending Persons, fixes all of the problems. God is One and three Persons. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit all speak as the singular God in various places in scripture. Granted, people tend to have a problem imagining Being beyond distinct individuals, but for me this is what homoousianism is all about, it can be supported with scripture and this would have made short work of all of the problems related to hierarchy presented by the opponent. But instead of just charging ahead with my opinion, I want to hear others' qualms with it.

Lastly, my last watering hole for this sort of debate was overrun by moderation with a bias against christianity. If anyone knows of a good place to go and debate against opponents in either Judaism or Islam, please let me know.

Why did Jesus not write more?

 

[Philip_B]

Why did Jesus not write more?

The only writing we know Jesus did was in the sand, and we do not know what he wrote.

 

[disciple Clint]

Thanks for the info.

Just for whomever wants to address my position, I take it (almost) straight from scripture.

It's my understanding that "ousia" (n.) is the present participle of "eimi" (v.), "to be" or "to exist."

Of note here is John 8:58, and Exodus 3:14. The verb used in the verse in John for "am" is "eimi", the same as above.

Simple logic dictates that if Jesus is claiming to be the same "I AM" as identified in Exodus, but not the Father, and "I AM" is the Father, "I AM" is the Son, and "I AM" is the Holy Spirit, then Father, Son and Holy Spirit are literally homoousion.

ousia is more accurately defined as substance or essence imho

 

[SkyWriting]

The only writing we know Jesus did was in the sand, and we do not know what he wrote.

Is that not odd that when God had fingers, he didn't write scripture?
Everyone keeps pointing to scripture as the only source of God's word
but He wrote in the sand when He had the opportunity.

 

[disciple Clint]

Is that not odd that when God had fingers, he didn't write scripture?
Everyone keeps pointing to scripture as the only source of God's word
but He wrote in the sand when He had the opportunity.

All of the Apostles had fingers but there was only one Jesus, He was busy doing things that were much more important than writing.

 

[SkyWriting]

All of the Apostles had fingers but there was only one Jesus, He was busy doing things that were much more important than writing.

I agree and that has been my stand for years now.

Romans 1:20
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Deuteronomy 4:19
And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.

 

[TheWhat?]

ousia is more accurately defined as substance or essence imho

Though I don't agree with his politics, Heidegger was fairly intelligent, and he sided with the idea that Ousia was mistranslated.

I for one think that, if the Being that God is transcends distinction between persons, both being and essence are appropriate, but, only Ousia as Being can conceivably pass the Athanasian creed's requirement.

 

[disciple Clint]

Though I don't agree with his politics, Heidegger was fairly intelligent, and he sided with the idea that Ousia was mistranslated.

I for one think that, if the Being that God is transcends distinction between persons, both being and essence are appropriate, but, only Ousia as Being can conceivably pass the Athanasian creed's requirement.

why do you say that?

 

[TheWhat?]

- nevermind -

 

[Andrewn]

I have somewhat of a latent interest in debating Muslims on topics related to christianity,

It is extremely important to be able to explain the Trinity to Muslims.

Having some experience in similar debates myself, I kept thinking to myself, why not "Ousia" as "Being?" For me, interpreting the singular Being of God as transcending Persons, fixes all of the problems. God is One and three Persons.

Once you say that God is 3 persons, you've lost the debate already. It doesn't matter what you say after this or how you explain it. Everyone knows that in modern English 3 persons means 3 separate individuals and to a Muslim that is polytheism. Once you say 3 persons you are confirming Muslims accusations against Christians. The debate is finished and you've lost.

Though I don't agree with his politics, Heidegger was fairly intelligent, and he sided with the idea that Ousia was mistranslated.

The word "being" is an appropriate translation of "ousia." The following translation of the Nicene Creed is used in Anglican, Presbyterian, and Ukranian Catholic churches. It was also used in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States from 1973 to 2011.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

I for one think that, if the Being that God is transcends distinction between persons, both being and essence are appropriate,

It is not correct to say that the singular Being of God transcends the distinction between Persons. See how this is worded in the Nicene Creed above.

but, only Ousia as Being can conceivably pass the Athanasian creed's requirement.

The Athanasian Creed was never approved by an Ecumenical Council and is never recited in Eastern Christianity. It is not a requirement, especially if you want to talk to Muslims.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Though I don't agree with his politics, Heidegger was fairly intelligent, and he sided with the idea that Ousia was mistranslated.

I for one think that, if the Being that God is transcends distinction between persons, both being and essence are appropriate, but, only Ousia as Being can conceivably pass the Athanasian creed's requirement.

You can always use the actual Greek terms such as ousia and hypostasis, that way you don't lose the philosophical background. Even in the Greek translations of our hymns, I will use "Logos" rather than Word.

This is one such example:
Let us worship the Word (LOGOS in the original Greek hymn) who is unoriginate * with the Father and the Spirit, and from a Virgin was born * for our salvation, O believers, and let us sing His praise.

 

[Der Alte]

In the late '90s I was working for Department of Defense in Korea, a close relative of mine who theretofore had been let us say a wayward soul wrote me and informed me that he had become a Christian and was aligned with a "Jesus Only" group. He informed me that the Trinity was pagan, Christmas and Easter were pagan etc. etc. We corresponded via snail mail since he did not have a computer of his own. His letters contained copious copy pastes from anti-trin websites which he claimed was his own research. Since I had been involved in online discussions for a number of years I was familiar with all his "sources" and so informed him.
By and by I get a letter where he informed me that I was right and he was wrong. He said he had gone to a Christian book store looking for anti-trinity information to bombard me with. He picked up a book read a little did some shopping and returned to the book. He repeated this a few times left and returned the next day, read and shopped some more, then finally bought the book.
"The Trinity: Evidence and Issues" by Robert Morey. In the book the author appears to address every counter argument and out-of-context proof text. He quotes 479 OT/NT scripture, 40 Apocrypha/Apocalyptic books, 12 Dead Sea scrolls and 10 Talmudic texts. I am not aware of any better reference on this topic .

 

[TheWhat?]

It is extremely important to be able to explain the Trinity to Muslims.


Once you say that God is 3 persons, you've lost the debate already. It doesn't matter what you say after this or how you explain it. Everyone knows that in modern English 3 persons means 3 separate individuals and to a Muslim that is polytheism. Once you say 3 persons you are confirming Muslims accusations against Christians. The debate is finished and you've lost.

Well, yes, but I find it helps to first establish that trinitarians are, in fact, monotheists, but we have different spirituality. Then it is helpful to "attack," in not such a hostile way, their conception of prophet. But, I hold back because to date I have never seem to be able to reach complete agreement or approval of christians over my conception of Trinity as derived from scripture, which is the only thing that Muslims will respect.

The word "being" is an appropriate translation of "ousia." The following translation of the Nicene Creed is used in Anglican, Presbyterian, and Ukranian Catholic churches. It was also used in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States from 1973 to 2011.

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

Yes I agree here.

It is not correct to say that the singular Being of God transcends the distinction between Persons. See how this is worded in the Nicene Creed above.


The Athanasian Creed was never approved by an Ecumenical Council and is never recited in Eastern Christianity. It is not a requirement, especially if you want to talk to Muslims.

I am agreeing with the creed, as far as I'm aware. By saying the one Ousia that is God transcends distinction between the Persons, I am not trying to formulate a new creed, but I have no other way to describe the Being in relation to the distinction between Persons, who are of one Being.

Perhaps "transcends" is suspect, but, there is no other word that I am aware of to describe the relation of the one Ousia that is God, to the distinction between Persons. Note that I am not saying Persons only, as there is no distinction between any one Person and the Ousia. I am saying the Ousia transcends the distinction between Persons only. If there is a better word than "transcends" as in "lies beyond the scope of", I would like to know it, but it is the only word I have available.

 

[Andrewn]

I am agreeing with the creed, as far as I'm aware. By saying the one Ousia that is God transcends distinction between the Persons, I am not trying to formulate a new creed, but I have no other way to describe the Being in relation to the Persons, who are of one Being.

There is no such a thing as a separate Ousia. Ousia does not exist on its own. God is Being. Being does not exist God. Being is God. You can't find human nature or eagle nature anywhere on its own. Human nature / essence only exists in humans.

Then, you're still using the word Persons. And I really suggest you don't say to a Muslim the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son and the Holy Spirit is not the Father, etc., etc., etc.

I suggest that one can only cause damage by saying these things and nothing good can come from such approach. It is best to stay away unless you know how to approach Muslims.

And ultimately, when Christians are cornered, they say things like it is complicated and it is a mystery, which may be true, but it immediately implies that they don't know what they're talking about. It's an invitation for the Muslim to explain the "right beliefs" according to the Quran.

 

[TheWhat?]

There is no such a thing as a separate Ousia.

I'm not saying there is a separate Ousia. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. Likewise, as I have stated earlier, the Father in some places speaks as the one God, as does the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The concept, as illustrated by scripture is that God transcends distinction between the Persons.

Ousia does not exist on its own. God is Being. Being does not exist God. Being is God. You can't find human nature or eagle nature anywhere on its own. Human nature / essence only exists in humans.

You're starting to lose me here, but this is typically where it breaks down. Three humans fail the test: not three humans. I don't believe in three Gods. Trinitarianism is a kind of monotheism.

Then, you're still using the word Persons. And I really suggest you don't say to a Muslim the Son is not the Father and the Father is not the Son and the Holy Spirit is not the Father, etc., etc., etc.

I suggest that one can only cause damage by saying these things and nothing good can come from such approach. It is best to stay away unless you know how to approach Muslims.

I think this is a better approach than what I witnessed in the video. That was completely the losing strategy.

And ultimately, when Christians are cornered, they say things like it is complicated and it is a mystery, which may be true, but it immediately implies that they don't know what they're talking about. It's an invitation for the Muslim to explain the "right beliefs" according to the Quran.

True.