Islam vs Trinity

[TheWhat?]

Jesus' case is rather a "failure detected" case in this chain of credibility checks. The Jews (i.e., Jewish authority such as the Pharisees and the Great Sanhedrin) failed to give credits to the apostles as eyewitnesses. As a result, in order to compensate for this "failure" in the chain of credibility checks, God /Jesus has to ask the apostles (10 out of them plus Paul) to martyr (in Greek martyr = witness) themselves as a better alternative to complete the chain of credibility check.


Now take a look at Islam. Mohammed is not an eyewitness of God. The eyewitness is "an angel" instead, whose credibility however is unable to be examined by humans. The chain of credibility checks is broken. The second handed credibility check is on Mohammed himself. However there's not an Israel behind to perform the credibility check on Mohammed. That is, even the second handed credibility check is broken.

I think this makes for an interesting approach at establishing the historical credibility of the Christian witness, and I would like to see this boiled down into the basic facts historians use to establish credibility.

I'm not sure I would attack the legitimacy of Muhammad though, because this will without doubt stir up significant animosity when the goal is to establish dialogue at the first. But if it were the intent, I would take a different approach and challenge the Islamic conception of prophet -- Muhammad here is purportedly receiving messages from an angel, not so unlike Joseph Smith. Is that what we think a prophet is, functionally? I don't think this is what is believed by the early church, which derives its origins from the prophetic faith. In fact, I'd say a large portion of NT scripture can be read as internal to a prophetic faith.

 

[Hawkins]

I think this makes for an interesting approach at establishing the historical credibility of the Christian witness, and I would like to see this boiled down into the basic facts historians use to establish credibility.

I'm not sure I would attack the legitimacy of Muhammad though, because this will without doubt stir up significant animosity when the goal is to establish dialogue at the first. But if it were the intent, I would take a different approach and challenge the Islamic conception of prophet -- Muhammad here is purportedly receiving messages from an angel, not so unlike Joseph Smith. Is that what we think a prophet is, functionally? I don't think this is what is believed by the early church, which derives its origins from the prophetic faith. In fact, I'd say a large portion of NT scripture can be read as internal to a prophetic faith.

All I meant to say is one may need to understand the big picture in order to lay a better strategy when debating the Muslins. What I said is the nature of what Christianity is versus that of Islam.

 

[TheWhat?]

I watched the whole video. Thank you. Joshua kept trying to change the subject to deep theology instead of answering simple questions and addressing the ridiculous Quranic verse that was quoted.

FTR I'd like to reemphasize that I thought he held his ground fairly well, and did show a formidable command of the subject, even if I think his approach is the wrong strategy.

 

[Andrewn]

They are three distinct Persons, same in being, homoousion. That's Christianity as derived from scripture and established since the first council of Nicaea.

There is a lot of theories to explain the Trinity and yours certainly fits among them. It is not unorthodox in any sense. I just do not think it would convince a Muslim.

Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And, I disagree that it results in pantheism. I am very much a panentheist, God is immanent, and this is one of the major things that separates my spirituality from that of modern Judaism and Islam.

You agree then that your theory would not convince Mr Muslim (the guy in the video). Perhaps, if you decide to read the article quoted above, you may find your theory among those explained in the article and you may find a theory that can be explained to Muslims and Jews.

I do think there is a uniting being, namely the Holy Spirit,

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is a divine mind or soul that supports simultaneously three distinct lives, which belong to the Persons?

christianity does promote ideas such as being "born from above," a supernatural unity of believers and a change of identity which must necessarily involve a change in each believer's ousia, however to what extent is not made clear and I think the EO make a good case that it cannot be the very same as the ousia of the Persons of the Trinity, else we each could claim to be God, which is not what I think this implies.

You're right in saying that the human ousia does not change to a divine ousia. The supernatural unity should be viewed as a unity of "will."

It does imply that not all living beings are united to one Being in the sense you seem to be taking it as.

I did not mean to accuse you of pantheism. I only meant to say that the idea of a god who transcends the Holy Trinity can be understood as pantheism.

The glaringly obvious concept, in its most basic form, as demonstrated by the Abrahamic theophany, remains that three distinct persons visit Abraham, Abraham greets one Lord, and one God speaks. We can take that further to represent three distinct Persons who are each the one God, individually and collectively. Not three gods. Not three Lords. Not three Almighties. Each is the one God, Lord and Almighty.

Three individuals speaking with one voice then 2 of them leaving to meet with Lot in Sodom? I'd rather not talk about this any further. It doesn't help your position in a debate with Mr Muslim.

I still do not see exactly why my attempt at a correct, but simple articulation establishing that orthdox trinitarianism is monotheistic, is somehow not in line with orthodoxy.

I think your theory is in line with orthodoxy. The problem is that Muslims believe that Allah, who is one person and not a force, is the transcendent God. If you believe that a certain force / mind / soul transcends the Father then Mr Muslim will conclude that Allah is higher than God the Father. Arabic-speaking Christians have always maintained that Allah is God the Father. This is an essential fact to start any debate.

Further, Do you think Occam's Razor has much if any applicability here?

I believe that “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” God is one and his Word and Spirit originated in Him to create and to communicate with rational beings. Their origination is for necessity.

I am, obviously, not a Ph.D. in theology, however, as a software engineer, I have the experience of walking into projects many years old, having grown to such level of complexity it practically seems to require a comparable depth of understanding just to have a functional understanding of that one, singular project. This is usually the result of a collaborative effort, gone awry.

It is obvious that you are very intelligent. In the beginning of this thread, several participants suggested that you read more about the Trinity. I think you know more than enough but what we all need is to read more about Islamic beliefs regarding God and Christ. Mr Muslim is quite familiar with Christian doctrine and we should be familiar with Muslim doctrine.

In contrast, I've created comparable projects, and when the groundwork is done with a singular mind, a singular understanding of how to properly organize the the structure of the remaining project, the overall result is far simpler and does not require a Ph.D. to understand. Now, granted, reality is not so simple and I understand that it has a tendency to introduce complexity into systems, but I can't help but see unnecessary complexity in the provided debate, at work in an attempt to explain what the idea is, in its simplest terms.

Exactly, this is why God could not be a multiplicity of "will" and this is what Mr Christian could not understand. Also, God could not be a person without his "intellect" and this is what Mr Muslim could not understand. You cannot have 3 creators acting separately and it is clear from science that all creatures have similar basic building blocks, which led to the theory of evolution. There is oneness in creation.

FTR I'd like to reemphasize that I thought he held his ground fairly well, and did show a formidable command of the subject, even if I think his approach is the wrong strategy.

Mr Christian got into that thing about omnipotence being an essential attribute and goodness being a non-essential attribute. I think this is nonsense. Many philosophers regard omniscience and goodness as features of omnipotence.

I'm not sure I would attack the legitimacy of Muhammad though, because this will without doubt stir up significant animosity when the goal is to establish dialogue at the first.

I agree.

 

[Clare73]

There is a lot of theories to explain the Trinity and yours certainly fits among them. It is not unorthodox in any sense. I just do not think it would convince a Muslim.

Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


You agree then that your theory would not convince Mr Muslim (the guy in the video). Perhaps, if you decide to read the article quoted above, you may find your theory among those explained in the article and you may find a theory that can be explained to Muslims and Jews.


Do you believe the Holy Spirit is a divine mind or soul that supports simultaneously three distinct lives, which belong to the Persons?


You're right in saying that the human ousia does not change to a divine ousia. The supernatural unity should be viewed as a unity of "will."


I did not mean to accuse you of pantheism. I only meant to say that the idea of a god who transcends the Holy Trinity can be understood as pantheism.


Three individuals speaking with one voice then 2 of them leaving to meet with Lot in Sodom? I'd rather not talk about this any further. It doesn't help your position in a debate with Mr Muslim.


I think your theory is in line with orthodoxy. The problem is that Muslims believe that Allah, who is one person and not a force, is the transcendent God. If you believe that a certain force / mind / soul transcends the Father then Mr Muslim will conclude that Allah is higher than God the Father. Arabic-speaking Christians have always maintained that Allah is God the Father. This is an essential fact to start any debate.


I believe that “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” God is one and his Word and Spirit originated in Him to create and to communicate with rational beings. Their origination is for necessity.


It is obvious that you are very intelligent. In the beginning of this thread, several participants suggested that you read more about the Trinity. I think you know more than enough but what we all need is to read more about Islamic beliefs regarding God and Christ. Mr Muslim is quite familiar with Christian doctrine and we should be familiar with Muslim doctrine.

Exactly, this is why God could not be a multiplicity of "will" and this is what Mr Christian could not understand. Also, God could not be a person without his "intellect" and this is what Mr Muslim could not understand. You cannot have 3 creators acting separately and it is clear from science that all creatures have similar basic building blocks, which led to the theory of evolution. There is oneness in creation.

Does not the NT present the Father as "willing," the Son as "executing" and the Holy Spirit as "applying," a unity of will?

Mr Christian got into that thing about omnipotence being an essential attribute and goodness being a non-essential attribute. I think this is nonsense. Many philosophers regard omniscience and goodness as features of omnipotence.


I agree.

 

[TheWhat?]

There is a lot of theories to explain the Trinity and yours certainly fits among them. It is not unorthodox in any sense. I just do not think it would convince a Muslim.

Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


You agree then that your theory would not convince Mr Muslim (the guy in the video). Perhaps, if you decide to read the article quoted above, you may find your theory among those explained in the article and you may find a theory that can be explained to Muslims and Jews.

I don't presume that I could convert him. I think I could hold my ground and establish that trinitarianism is monotheistic.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit is a divine mind or soul that supports simultaneously three distinct lives, which belong to the Persons?

I'm referring to believers. We are all supposed to be recipients of the Holy Spirit. I haven't quite worked out to what degree we are united to the Spirit -- as I said previously, christian teaching promotes the idea of a change in ousia of the believer, and I am thinking this applies to being united to the Spirit in Pauline thought. It cannot mean, however, that we take on the very Ousia of the Spirit, else we could claim to be God, individually.

You're right in saying that the human ousia does not change to a divine ousia. The supernatural unity should be viewed as a unity of "will."

Well, again, I was talking about believers. Also, remember that Jesus is fully human as well as divine.

I did not mean to accuse you of pantheism. I only meant to say that the idea of a god who transcends the Holy Trinity can be understood as pantheism.

No problem.

Three individuals speaking with one voice then 2 of them leaving to meet with Lot in Sodom? I'd rather not talk about this any further. It doesn't help your position in a debate with Mr Muslim.

It doesn't change the historical christian interpretation of that icon. Beside, if only two entered Sodom and one remained with Abraham, it's a little odd that the one barters with Abraham about investigating the situation in Sodom, since he did not go with the others.

I think your theory is in line with orthodoxy. The problem is that Muslims believe that Allah, who is one person and not a force, is the transcendent God. If you believe that a certain force / mind / soul transcends the Father then Mr Muslim will conclude that Allah is higher than God the Father. Arabic-speaking Christians have always maintained that Allah is God the Father. This is an essential fact to start any debate.

Obviously the Father is God in trinitarianism. The concept of ousia would have to be mutually understood since all that's lacking here is the very basic concept of homoousianism and its implications. What I'm arguing is, establish that, its implications, and that trinitarianism must be monotheist is established.

 

[Andrewn]

I don't presume that I could convert him. I think I could hold my ground and establish that trinitarianism is monotheistic.

Excellent.

I'm referring to believers. We are all supposed to be recipients of the Holy Spirit. I haven't quite worked out to what degree we are united to the Spirit -- as I said previously, christian teaching promotes the idea of a change in ousia of the believer, and I am thinking this applies to being united to the Spirit in Pauline thought. It cannot mean, however, that we take on the very Ousia of the Spirit, else we could claim to be God, individually.

"Created beings, cannot become God in His transcendent essence, or ousia, hyper-being. Such a concept would be the henosis, or absorption and fusion into God of Greek pagan philosophy. However, every being and reality itself is considered as composed of the immanent energy, or energeia, of God. As energy is the actuality of God, i.e. his immanence, from God's being, it is also the energeia or activity of God."

Theosis (Eastern Christian theology) - Wikipedia

Beside, if only two entered Sodom and one remained with Abraham, it's a little odd that the one barters with Abraham about investigating the situation in Sodom, since he did not go with the others.

Are you suggesting that the 2 that went to Sodom were God? Why would it be odd that Abraham bartered with God, who knew about the situation in Sodom without going there?

Obviously the Father is God in trinitarianism. The concept of ousia would have to be mutually understood since all that's lacking here is the very basic concept of homoousianism and its implications. What I'm arguing is, establish that, its implications, and that trinitarianism must be monotheist is established.

Homoousianism is a sophisticated philosophical that I wish to discourage the attempt to discuss it with Mr Muslim. In fact, Joshua in the debate, did get into the issue of of equality in essence. I don't think this argument helped him at all. This term was used in the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) to deny the belief of Arianism that the Son is created. The same term was criticized in the Synod of Antioch (264-269 AD ) when used to imply that the Father and the Son are 2 different individuals (like a human father and his son), even though have the same ousia. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Paul of Samosata states:

"It must be regarded as certain that the council, which condemned Paul, rejected the term homoousios; but, naturally, only in a false sense, used by Paul; not, it seems, because he meant by it a unity of Hypostasis in the Trinity (so St. Hilary), but because he intended, by it, a common essence, out of which both Father and Son proceeded, or which it divided between them—so St. Basil and St. Athanasius."

There are many Christians who use the term "homoousios" with exactly this second meaning. Some confess that the Father and the Son are 2 different individuals but the majority claim that they believe in one God. I think any Muslim will see through the facade of homoousios that the term does not guarantee that God is really One.

BTW, have you had a chance to check the article I suggested? Did you find your theory there? Did you find the theory that I have been talking about ?

This time, I'll suggest an article about God and Jesus in Islam:

https://www.muslim-library.com/dl/books/english_prophet_jesus_in_quran.pdf

 

[TheWhat?]

Created beings, cannot become God in His transcendent essence, or ousia, hyper-being. Such a concept would be the henosis, or absorption and fusion into God of Greek pagan philosophy. However, every being and reality itself is considered as composed of the immanent energy, or energeia, of God. As energy is the actuality of God, i.e. his immanence, from God's being, it is also the energeia or activity of God."

Theosis (Eastern Christian theology) - Wikipedia

While I'm willing to agree with the fundamental notion that an ordinary believer (excluding Jesus) cannot take on the very Ousia of the Son, or the Spirit, I'm not certain I'm on the same page with energeia, reason being is that, as I've heard it described, I'm not able to connect the dots between something like the heat or light of a flame, with a change in the ousia in the believer, which in my reading of the NT is a teaching that cannot be discarded, similar to if not the same as the indelible mark in Catholicism.

Paul simply speaks too literally about the Spirit being united to the believer, and when push comes to shove, I have to go with Paul. If it's true that this has been identified as Greek pagan philosophy by any theologian or council, then so be it, I'd have to part ways and go somewhere else to find the truth of Paul's teaching, though I would disagree because Paul was very much a Jew, drawing from the old testament, as any Jew would.

There are many Christians who use the term "homoousios" with exactly this second meaning. Some confess that the Father and the Son are 2 different individuals but the majority claim that they believe in one God. I think any Muslim will see through the facade of homoousios that the term does not guarantee that God is really One.

Fortunately the Athanasian creed remains useful to dispel any lack of distinction here.

BTW, have you had a chance to check the article I suggested? Did you find your theory there? Did you find the theory that I have been talking about ?

You'll have to be more specific. I browsed the article but did not see anything that exactly matched my theory, though I couldn't help but notice how all of the apparent logical problems to me appear to be resolved.

 

[Andrewn]

Paul simply speaks too literally about the Spirit being united to the believer, and when push comes to shove, I have to go with Paul. If it's true that this has been identified as Greek pagan philosophy by any theologian or council, then so be it, I'd have to part ways and go somewhere else to find the truth of Paul's teaching, though I would disagree because Paul was very much a Jew, drawing from the old testament, as any Jew would.

There is no disagreement that the Spirit is being united to the believer. The question you raised is whether this amounts to a change in human ousia. Where does Paul teach that it does?

Fortunately the Athanasian creed remains useful to dispel any lack of distinction here.

As far as I remember, the point behind this entire conversation is my claim that the the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed is not helping in explaining to a Jew or a Muslim. It is very confusing to anyone trying to use logic and this is probably why it is not in common use in the Eastern Church.

(This is addressed in my messages from the beginning of this thread but it is clear that I failed to convey my point and instead of being a discussion about how to explain the Trinity to a Muslim the thread turned into my theory is better than your theory, which could not be resolved for 2000 years and most certainly will not be resolved here.)

 

[TheWhat?]

There is no disagreement that the Spirit is being united to the believer. The question you raised is whether this amounts to a change in human ousia. Where does Paul teach that it does?

[Gal 2:20 NKJV] 20 "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the [life] which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.

[2Co 5:17 NKJV] 17 ... if anyone [is] in Christ, [he is] a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

And what's further, a change of identity is a fairly prevalent theme in the scripture. It is not a superficial change of name since scripture teaches of a rebirth -- the old man must die and we must, in some sense be joined to Christ and be raised to life to receive the benefits of the atonement. The ousia is the what, the who that you are, and if your identity truly changes in Christ, your ousia has changed. As I was saying this is not so unlike the indelible mark of Catholic and Augustinian thought, received through the sacraments, such as baptism, which perhaps not so coincidentally has been a traditional point at which christians have taken on different names.

As far as I remember, the point behind this entire conversation is my claim that the the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed is not helping in explaining to a Jew or a Muslim. It is very confusing to anyone trying to use logic and this is probably why it is not in common use in the Eastern Church.

(This is addressed in my messages from the beginning of this thread but it is clear that I failed to convey my point and instead of being a discussion about how to explain the Trinity to a Muslim the thread turned into my theory is better than your theory, which could not be resolved for 2000 years and most certainly will not be resolved here.)

Well, I wanted to know how or why my proposed understanding was not in line with orthodox trinitarianism. I think it's been established that it is, so that answers that question. I was not proposing that the Athanasian creed helps to explain trinitarianism, just that my proposed understanding can, and that it passes the creed's requirements. That and it helped to clarify what I was saying in the context of our conversation.

 

[Andrewn]

Well, I wanted to know how or why my proposed understanding was not in line with orthodox trinitarianism. I think it's been established that it is, so that answers that question. I was not proposing that the Athanasian creed helps to explain trinitarianism, just that my proposed understanding can, and that it passes the creed's requirements. That and it helped to clarify what I was saying in the context of our conversation.

I hope that people who followed this thread and those who may see it in the future will understand from the previous discussion the reasons why your theory cannot explain the Holy Trinity to a Jew or a Muslim.

 

[TheWhat?]

I hope that people who followed this thread and those who may see it in the future will understand from the previous discussion the reasons why your theory cannot explain the Holy Trinity to a Jew or a Muslim.

So as it turns out, while my post was on my original observations, I found a fairly good article which does go into something very close to my proposed understanding of the original formulation, and it appears this is the original orthodox understanding, afaik, although the terminology is insufficient once neoplatonism arrives.

I sincerely doubt Muslims and/or Jews have much interest in neoplatonism, and since they are closer to arianism, I think this is just the answer I was looking for.

 

[Oseas]

1John 5:v.7 -There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit (which is not a Ghost as is written in English LANGUAGE, but a Person): and these three are One.

Matthew 11:v.27 -... no MAN knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any MAN the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.


The writers try, among the doubts, to understand the deep mysteries of Three Divine Persons, and even they progress to a certain point in their vision, without however reaching the main goal: Identify who is the character to which it was added the epithet [holy,] In fact, this is very profound and is not easy to penetrate in this wonderful heavenly environment although our privilege to be "living or dwelling" spiritually even in heaven through / by the Word of GOD -the Word is GOD - or in heavenly place in Christ as is revealed in Ephesians 1:v.3-7(among others):
3 Blessed be the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself (Hallelujaaah), according to the good pleasure of His will,
6 To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved.-JESUS-. Songs of Solomon chap. 2;5;6;8.

THREE DIVINE PERSONS
THE PERSON OF GOD, THE FATHER - THE WORD
Although GOD -the Word- be invisible, the true believers know many things about HIM because JESUS revealed Him (Matt.11:v.27 among others). By the way, in His pray Lord JESUS said: John 17:v.4-10 :
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.


THE PERSON OF GOD, THE SON -JESUS- THE WORD MADE FLESH
No need to comment. The Person of JESUS is known from two thousand years ago-Hebrews 1:v.1-3. In fact, the person of JESUS was known many time before His birth by the prophets, the Spirit of Christ was in them-1 Peter 1:v.10-12.
In fact, the Person of JESUS (Behold the man!) is known of men, and is also known of the angels, and He is known of the demons too.


THE HOLY SPIRIT - AN UNKNOWN PERSON
The person of the Holy Spirit is not a ghost as is written in English language, but a Person, and as a Person, as was JESUS in flesh and bones, he is unknown completely. As a Person he has several missions; JESUS said: John 16:v.12-15 and v.8-11:
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of Judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of Judgment, because the prince of this world is Judged.

- The Person of he Holy Spirit has not genealogy as JESUS has; why? Because he is not a Jew.
- As I above said, JESUS, or the NAME of JESUS, is known of men, and is also known of the angels, and He is known of the demons too. But the person of the Holy Spirit has a NAME written (in the Holy Scriptures, course) that no MAN knows, but he himself. I repit: He has not genealogy as JESUS has, he is not a Jew.
- JESUS came from heaven and He was born in Israel. John 6:38 - I came down from heaven(Behold the man!John 19:5)not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. In the other hand, the prophetic birth of the person of Holy Spirit is not in Israel, but in a Gentile nation. His birth is within the body of Christ-the Church-and as JESUS said, he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, for he shall receive of mine, he shall take of mine. This exposed picture or figure is like the Sun and Moon. The Moon receives light from the Sun and reflets the light over the Earth; Regardings the light of JESUS reflected by the Holy Spirit over the Earth, I can see by analogy in Genesis 1:v.16:-And GOD made two great lights; the Greater Light to rule the day, and the Lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Revelation 12:1-2 & 5.
12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman(the Church of the Lord JESUS) clothed with the Sun (JESUS and His Light, the Greater Light), and the moon (the Lesser light - the person of the Holy Spirit) under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: (The twelve Apostles of the Lord JESUS)
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 5-And she brought forth a man child - the person of the Holy Spirit- , who was to rule all nations (EXCEPT ISRAEL) with a rod of iron: and her child was CAUGHT UP unto GOD, and to His throne. By the way, about GOD's Throne-Psalm 97:v.1-2CJB say: 1 Adonai is king, let the earth rejoice, let the many coasts and islands be glad. 2 CLOUDS and thick darkness surround Him; Righteousness and Justice are the foundation of His throne. (By the way, as is written in 1 Thessalonians 4:v.17, "We which are alive and remain shall be CAUGHT UP (AS HER SON-REV. 12:v.5) together with them in the CLOUDS-Psalm 97:v.2, to meet the Lord in the AIR (AIR is heaven - here the third heaven): and so shall we ever be with the Lord.-(in the third heaven)
That said, what was asked by Mr. Porson and answered by Beza has sense, as I transcribe below:
>>> Again, Mr. Porson asks, “ Why is the epithet [holy,] ” after being twice omitted, added [to Spirit] in the seventh verse ? Beza
says,
“ In order to distinguish one Spirit from the other, ut ab eo distinguatur cujus fit mentio in sequenti versu." <<<
I highlight also the explanation below mainly where the commenter tries to understand and asks "why, in the original, the expression of unity in the two verses differs, one from the other, both doctrinally and grammatically?" Perhaps, too, because when the Three Divine Persons are connumerated in the same passage, as in Matth. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, the epithet was usually added. It may also be asked, why, in the original, the expression of unity in the two verses differs, one from the other, both doctrinally and grammatically? But his conclusion is much much more interesting and impressive when he says: The reason appears to be, because in one the unity is essential and real; in the other, adventitious and APPARENT ONLY (highlight mine); and because the eighth verse is dependent on the seventh, as a RELATIVE is on its antecedent.


the spirit, and the water, and the blood - small "s" - earthly witnesses.

 

[Der Alte]

I have read reports about Muslims becoming Christians because they found something in the Bible which convinced them. I read of one Imam, who while reading the Quran read where Isa, "Jesus" is called the word of Allah and "Allah created by His word." That may be a more productive approach.