Tried that already, but he, like every other Muslim I've previously debated elsewhere, interprets John 10:30 as Jesus declaring that He and the Father share the same mission rather than the same being/essence.
The easiest way to respond to that is to show him the entire context of the passage. I've myself dealt with that passage before and many others, and the same situation usually begins the problem. What you have to remember (and I'm sure you're already aware of this) is that a Muslim reads the Bible through the lens of the Quran - in other words, anything that agrees with the Quran is right and can be used. The problem is that in doing so, they present gross eisegesis. Listen to dozens of Muslim apologists and laymen alike quote John 19:33 while ignoring John 19:34 and you'll see what I mean.
As with the 19:33/19:34 problem, the easiest way is to show him the entirety of the scripture and counterpoint (brotherly, of course) that what he is doing is reading into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.
Also, as myself and others have said before, if you are already dealing with these issues, then pointing to analogies will not help. The best thing, again, is to ask if he follows the Quranic teaching that the previous revelations are sent down by God, and therefore must be followed, and if so why does he therefore not believe the scriptural evidence for the Trinity.
Qyöt27;55337211 said:
If we're talking about the water argument, 'becomes' doesn't have to come into it - liquid water, ice, and vapor can and do coexist simultaneously (just drop some extremely cold ice cubes into a glass of water, and all three are there; I know I'm not the only one to see vapor rising out of a cold glass of water because of the reaction between the water and ice...cue the filoque arguments now). Arguing that it's Modalist is assuming we're talking about a specific collection of water that undergoes these changes, not the simple fact that H2O can exist in three distinct forms and can also do so at the same time. In other words, it's treating the water more materially than as a concept.
The problem is that in that argumentation in its simplest form, we are talking about three literal modes of water - solid, liquid, and air. If we're comparing that to the Trinity, we're saying God exists in three different modes. Whether we intend it to be or not, that's Modalism, and therefore leads one towards heresy.
The example you give - dropping cold ice cubes into water and showing steam - still doesn't work. You are
adding to the Trinity by adding
more water to the already existent water (which would fall into the errant Muslim believe that the Trinity means God created two more gods). Even if you were to ignore dropping ice cubes and propose something like evaporating water, that would still not work - it isn't steam and liquid co-existing in the same way the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have co-existed, but rather it is the transition from one mode to another. We know the Trinity is not the Father slowly transforming into the Son and then the Son slowly transforming into the Trinity like a theological Mighty Morphin' Power Ranger, but that's the problematic thinking we fall into when we try to justify this analogy.
Well, I have my view on the trinity issue with no analogies attatched, however I reckon CF would stone me! LOL!
Heck, some of the stuff I've read since I signed up here, you might be one of the more orthodox members.
