Trinity -sophistry?

[SanFrank]

Who here is married? Are you sure you and your wife are like one? In Genesis, G*d created a companion for Adam to occupy this physical space. That was Eve but she was taken OUT of Adam. How's that? Yeah, you should know that Adam was originally created with both female and male attributes, all as one. But G*d removed the female part to make Eve for the sake of having a physical companion on earth. Now we have to find a partner to marry and the two become One again. The Lord said that in heaven, "they are not given in marriage". So there are no females and no males and all are alike?

If you understand that, you may begin to understand the concept of trinity. It is spiritual. Trying to explain it as three persons does not do it justice. Seeing christians young in their walk trying to explain it only seems to cause others confusion, no offense.

"G*d's Word became flesh." Try doing the eucharist and eating of the bread. The bread of life? The body that was broken for us? We ingest that Word at the eucharist, and it's that Word that makes us whole. Spiritual.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Thanks for your response, let's continue.

Ok sure.

No, Jesus is not a God. Jesus is God. Like the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

God is a god but happens to be the only one. If you say Jesus is God, you are stating he is a god. This is true by rules. The only thing does it make sense to say Jesus is a God and is the only one, when you say the Father is a God too.

Really, I hope you can see, saying Jesus is God, implies he is a god. Let me ask you the question:

Is Jesus not a god?

Is the Creator not a god?


In the Quran, God has over 99 names. To list just three, al-raheem, al-rahman, Allah.

Is Allah a God and al-rahman a God and al-raheem a God

It depends what you mean, they can be seen as names that denote God...just like the you can say they denote the Creator...

But The Merciful is a god...the Creator is a god...the Compassionate is a God...it's just it's believed it's the only one.

, or are these three of the 99+ names for God? Does each name denote a different God? Of course not. All 99+ names are names of the same God.

This is true.

The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons of the same God.

I understand this claim, three, God being a trinity.

In Islam, one of the many names for God is merciful. Does this describe God always? Will God be merciful when in Islam He throws non-Muslims to burn in hell for eternity?

It's name of God...I believe there is a problem in Islam with describing him as Merciful yet being so Unmerciful to disbelievers and astray souls but that's off-topic

Does this mean that al-raheem is not God, since God is not always merciful?

God is deemed as Eternally Merciful, he doesn't change.

No, He is the Son of the Father. Like Jesus and the Holy Spirit, the Father s God. Jesus (God) is the Son of the Father (God). He is both God and the Son of God.

I understand this is what you believe, it just it doesn't make sense to me, because it breaks the rule of identity.

Each person in the Trinity is one the three persons God reveals Himself as to mankind.

But that is different then stating each is God himself. If each was God himself, then they would all be each other, and there be no distinction.

Each person in the trinity is God, all three are God.

Each person in the trinity is the trinity, and all three are the trinity?

Saying God is not three parts, is going against what "part" means. If you divide God into three persons, then each person is part of the trinity which is defined as God.

So you are dividing God into three parts. Whether you like to accept it or not, this is exactly what you are doing when you say he is of three persons.

 

[razeontherock]

But that is different then stating each is God himself. If each was God himself, then they would all be each other, and there be no distinction.

Saying God is not three parts, is going against what "part" means.

I agree with what you say here; in attempting to define Trinity, it is quite possible to go too far, and difficult not to. You have clarified that point of "too far."

This is why I feel it is important to look at this from the historical perspective it was designed to address: how can Jesus, being God, in any way have "died?" And how can Jesus, born as a human, in any way be God?

Better yet, look at Trinity in the OT:

Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us."

There ya have it, 3 in 1, plain as day. (Also you asked what is the Holy Spirit, and there He is, the 3rd Person)

 

[AskTheFamily]

This is why I feel it is important to look at this from the historical perspective it was designed to address: how can Jesus, being God, in any way have "died?" And how can Jesus, born as a human, in any way be God?

The whole issue with claiming to be the son of God is a problem, when being the "son of God" implies being at the level of God..because then it makes no sense to say "son of God" but rather "son of the Creator" "son of a God"..because the son is a god...and referring to God as if ois only one deity no longer makes sense.

The issue with monothiesm, stating there is only One God, it's clear that there can;t be a son of God...

So you have a problem right there. Trinity to me was a way to try to claim being monothiest while Worship Jesus and the Creator at the same time. The holy spirit was just added into it, but the objective was to be able to worship Jesus and claim he is son of God and being monotheist at the same time. It's just that it doesn't make sense.

Better yet, look at Trinity in the OT:

Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us."

There ya have it, 3 in 1, plain as day. (Also you asked what is the Holy Spirit, and there He is, the 3rd Person)

This is describing a few attributes of God...I would not say it divides God into three components.

 

[TG123]

God is a god but happens to be the only one. If you say Jesus is God, you are stating he is a god. This is true by rules. The only thing does it make sense to say Jesus is a God and is the only one, when you say the Father is a God too.

Really, I hope you can see, saying Jesus is God, implies he is a god.

Again, think of the 99+ names of God in Islam... I am assuming you do not see the fact that God has 99+ names being illogical. Al-rahman is God, Al raheem is God... not each of them being a God, but the names of one God. Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit are three persons that God reveals Himself as.

Let me ask you the question:
Is Jesus not a god?

No. He is God.

Is the Creator not a god?

No. It is an attribute of God.

It depends what you mean, they can be seen as names that denote God...just like the you can say they denote the Creator...

Like the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are one God.

But The Merciful is a god...the Creator is a god...the Compassionate is a God...it's just it's believed it's the only one.

If the Merciful is a god and the Compassionate is a god, and the other names are a god, using your approach to the persons in the Trinity that would imply Islam teaches there are over 99 gods.

This is true.

I understand this claim, three, God being a trinity.

OK, so if God having 99 names does not mean there are 99 gods, do you accept that God existing as three persons does not mean there are three gods?

It's name of God...I believe there is a problem in Islam with describing him as Merciful yet being so Unmerciful to disbelievers and astray souls but that's off-topic

Interesting, although I agree that could be for a separate thread.

God is deemed as Eternally Merciful, he doesn't change.

But is He eternally Merciful when He is also Al-Muntaqim, the Avenger? Are these 2 different gods? Or can God be Eternally Merciful even as He is the Avenger?

I understand this is what you believe, it just it doesn't make sense to me, because it breaks the rule of identity.

Does God being Exceedingly Gracious and Exceedingly Merciful while simultaneously being the Avenger break the rule of identity in your eyes as well?

But that is different then stating each is God himself. If each was God himself, then they would all be each other, and there be no distinction.

I will use an analogy to the Quran. If I understand correctly, each of the 99+ names is God Himself. Yet when God is an avenger, He is not merciful, is He?

Each person in the trinity is the trinity, and all three are the trinity?

Each person in the Trinity is God, and all three are God. Yes.

Saying God is not three parts, is going against what "part" means. If you divide God into three persons, then each person is part of the trinity which is defined as God.

So you are dividing God into three parts. Whether you like to accept it or not, this is exactly what you are doing when you say he is of three persons.

No, God is one. He reveals Himself as three persons.
By giving God 99 different names are you dividing Him into 99?

 

[AskTheFamily]

By giving God 99 different names are you dividing Him into 99?

Attributes are different then a thing in itself. Attributes are not the object itself. However I would say with God, all attributes are the Object itself, and are each other. It's unique with God, because Ultimate love must be himself, not a part of himself...because if it was a part, it would not be Ultimate Level, which is Ultimate Life. The same with all his attributes. Although we see them differently, they are all describing the same essence. If they were describing aspects of God, then each aspect would not be Perfect, because perfection can only be God the Whole. So then all attributes must be one and the same, while this is not true of attributes of creation.

However, with trinity, the father is not a description of the trinity, it's one part of it. The son is not the father...

Anyways I feel like we are not going anywhere.

 

[razeontherock]

The issue with monothiesm, stating there is only One God, it's clear that there can;t be a son of God...

So you have a problem right there.

The fact that I see no problem with this suggests to me this problem you perceive is based in Muslim indoctrination?

Think this through: why would the existence of a Son of God violate monotheism, when the Father and the Son are One? (As Jesus not only stated, but proved; was tested, and found Faithful)

This is describing a few attributes of God...I would not say it divides God into three components.

And this is the problem when Church teaching gets too dogmatic: we have the saying that each attribute is shared by every Person. This violates the principle of dividing into 3 components. And we have the diagram and teaching that each one of these Persons is "not the other," which violates the teaching I just mentioned.

I conclude that both of the above cannot be correct, and somebody just started making stuff up at some point. This is why I don't trust the Church that came out of Constantine's era so much, and prefer to keep my own eyes "fixed on Jesus." He has never given me contradictory insight, even though there are things that haven't been explained ...

Anyway I agree with you that God is not divided into 3 components. All I see Trinity as doing is God wishing to be known better by His creation. I think the revelation of attributes is a healthy way of understanding this, and the point of Trinity is first, how can God have a Son? Clearly this is something you stand to benefit from understanding? The second main point, is understanding that the Incarnation has the focus of "God with us," via the Holy Spirit.

These are not only profound but life-changing and life giving Truths!

 

[razeontherock]

The same with all his attributes. Although we see them differently, they are all describing the same essence. If they were describing aspects of God, then each aspect would not be Perfect, because perfection can only be God the Whole.

And here I perceive you have uttered a great Truth, regardless of your faith or lack thereof. Attributes are given to us as a means of relating to Him, yet our perception is not yet of the whole ...

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Somehow, God's identity is lost in such reasoning as comes from the Trinity theology:

"Each person in the Trinity is God, and all three are God...."

I think what is missing here is the idea of salvation: by obeying the son of God, Jesus Christ. Theologies seem plausible in their importance, but they distract from the mandatory obedience required by the son of God, Jesus Christ and distract from the extreme importance of giving his Gospel, not Christendom's theologies. Jesus will know you by you having listen to his Gospel and obeyed it. You will know him by obeying it as well. Now where does theologies get all the importance from: the lousy human mind and its nature of drifting away from obedience to God's son and away from the will of God.

Trinity really isn't worth arguing about. It just isn't paying attention to God's calling us to his son. It is that simple human mind doing it again.

 

[razeontherock]

I think what is missing here is the idea of salvation:

Trinity really isn't worth arguing about. It just isn't paying attention to God's calling us to his son.

I agree Trinity isn't worth arguing about. It's entirely possible to be saved and have no revelation on that subject! But if you'll look I already addressed your two weighty objections here:

Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD [is] our judge, the LORD [is] our lawgiver, the LORD [is] our king; he will save us."

So the idea of Salvation is NOT missing! And the whole point of Trinity is that it is the Holy spirit who testifies of the Son, and it is the Son who brings us to the Father and presents us blameless.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

Who's is God: The Father. What belongs to God: his son Jesus Christ, his son's Gospel, the Holy Spirit, the universe, all creation, the Earth and everything else (except for Satan, his lies and followers). If God is the owner of all things then his son is subordinate, but God gives him praises above all things and gives all things to his son. I have no problem living without man's mind meddling into logical spiritual understandings, because once you dive in, you most likely will not be able to get out; the church has constantly divided itself in its continual aftermath since it adopted Trinity. Obeying Jesus' teachings and commands is enough. Don't add to the Gospel.

 

[SanFrank]

Somehow, God's identity is lost in such reasoning as comes from the Trinity theology:

"Each person in the Trinity is God, and all three are God...."

I think what is missing here is the idea of salvation: by obeying the son of God, Jesus Christ. Theologies seem plausible in their importance, but they distract from the mandatory obedience required by the son of God, Jesus Christ and distract from the extreme importance of giving his Gospel, not Christendom's theologies. Jesus will know you by you having listen to his Gospel and obeyed it. You will know him by obeying it as well. Now where does theologies get all the importance from: the lousy human mind and its nature of drifting away from obedience to God's son and away from the will of God.

Trinity really isn't worth arguing about. It just isn't paying attention to God's calling us to his son. It is that simple human mind doing it again.

 

[SanFrank]

Since we are still talking about the trinity, you might enjoy to know the following:

ד שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל: יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד.

Shama’ Yisra’el Yahweh Elohim Yahweh Echad

Deu 6.4 Hear,O Israel:Yahweh our God Yahweh (is)one
---------------------------
יְהוָה = “Yahweh”

“Yahweh” definition:

H3068 Singular noun. The Tetragrammaton YHWH, the Lord, or Yahweh, the personal name of God and His most frequent designation in scripture, occurring 5321x. The word refers to the proper name of the God of Israel, particularly the name by which He revealed Himself to Moses (Ex: 6.2-3). It comes from the root “hawa” H1961, which means either existence, or development; “to be”. “The existing one”.
-------------------------
“Elohim” definition:

H430 A masculine plural noun. God, gods, judges, angels. This is not a “Plural of Majesty”. A better reason can be seen in scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Genesis, the necessity of a term conveying both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen 1.2, 26). This is further borne out by the fact that the form “Elohim” occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramaic. Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
------------------------------
אֶחָד = “echad”

“echad” definition:

H259 Adjective. One, same, single, first, each, once. It is closely identified with “yahad”, to be united and with “ro’sh”, first, head. It stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness. A numerical adjective meaning one, first, once, the same. A numeral from H258; properly united, that is, one; or (as an ordinal) first: - a, alike, alone, altogether, and, any (-thing), apiece, a certain [dai-] ly, each (one), + eleven, every, few, first, + highway, a man, once, one, only, other, some, together. One (number), each, every, a certain, an (indefinite article), only, once, once for all, one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one, first, eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal).

• Tetragrammaton = singular
• Elohim = Plural
• Echad = one unity
• The juxtaposed words…Tetragrammaton, Elohim, Tetragrammaton, Echad
• God is referred to not once, not twice, but three times
• Singular, Plural, Singular
• These three elements form one unity

 

[razeontherock]

Stephen, the only problem with anything you're saying is this:

Who's is God: The Father.

This stops at OT understanding. We now have more! I do agree it is not necessary to think of any aspect of God as being "other than the Father," and I do see how it can cause confusion for some. At the same time seeing the Father Son and Holy Ghost as clearly taught by Jesus Himself, can be helpful to some of us!

As always, what matters is getting to exactly what HE meant by that, and why He said it.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

A big problem with Trinity is the confusion as to what are the commands of Jesus, if he is the God of the Torah, OT (example: Seventh Day Adventist, as well as many other churches). Why argue about things unproductive to the Gospel and your salvation which were actually added later past the Apostles? One thing that burns me up, is the un-Christian conduct of believers & upholders of Trinity. Nobody was perfect on either side of the fence, but why so much evil coming from Trinity believers (supposedly closer to God peoples)? I personally can not be a part of such a group of people (the founders of Trinity) and of something that continually distracts and divides the church, needlessly. Understand Jesus Christ as he is obedient to his Father in Heaven and that we are to be obedient to this Jesus Christ, our Messiah. Things should be left crystal clear, in that faith is enough to fill in the gaps and not meddling human minds (so-called intelligence). I had to know what I believed in before I could effectively answer another person's inquiry into Christianity as well as to know about the subject well. It took hours of reading, study, thought, prayers and research before deciding on Trinity. I was shocked about what I found out. Shame on some of the Christians of our past.

 

[razeontherock]

Well, I'm pretty sure you can post non-Trinitarian beliefs in this section, but you can't truthfully say the concept originated after the Apostles. Trinity is in the Scriptures plain as day, and I don't see any explanations of it that only came later as being necessary or even helpful to understanding it. Beautiful post Frank! Trinity is throughout Scripture ...

 

[TG123]

Attributes are different then a thing in itself. Attributes are not the object itself. However I would say with God, all attributes are the Object itself, and are each other. It's unique with God, because Ultimate love must be himself, not a part of himself...because if it was a part, it would not be Ultimate Level, which is Ultimate Life. The same with all his attributes. Although we see them differently, they are all describing the same essence. If they were describing aspects of God, then each aspect would not be Perfect, because perfection can only be God the Whole. So then all attributes must be one and the same, while this is not true of attributes of creation.


However, with trinity, the father is not a description of the trinity, it's one part of it. The son is not the father...

You say with God, all attributes are the object itself (or should I say Himself) and are each other and are one and the same... so is the attribute of avenger the attribute of most merciful? You yourself said previously you have a problem with a most merciful God sending people to Hell.

When God is being most merciful, is He being the Avenger? Is a person who is being sent to spend eternity in Hell exposed to a merciful or avenging God? God in His mercy and God in His vengeance looks very different. Does that mean that God is one or the other but cannot be both?

If one of these attributes were to be taken away, would God still be God? If you were to take away names 10 (Al-Mutakabbir the Majestic, the Supreme) and 11 (Al-Khāliq, the Creator), would He still be God?

The Father is one of the persons God reveals Himself as, as is the Son, as is the Holy Spirit. The Son is not the Father, correct. Yet all 3 are one God.

Anyways I feel like we are not going anywhere.

Suit yourself. If you do want to continue talking I will be glad to do so, and I thank you again for asking some very good questions. And Allah knows best.

 

[AskTheFamily]

Does it make sense to say God is the son of himself?

In case of the names, be they different or describing the same glory, at the end, "The Creator" is "The Merciful" is "The Graceful" etc.. so it's different.

Why is God a trinity then in Christianity, why don't they include the person "Graceful", the person "Merciful", the person "holy", etc, because "persons" it's not attributes. When Christianity doesn't consider attributes showing different persons, then obviously it's not the same as the trinity which is different persons. So it makes no sense to compare it with attributes.

For example stating God is King doesn't show a different person, then stating God is the Creator. They are denoting the same being.

Is father a description of the son? Is an attribute of the son? No... so you are comparing something completely different.

As to avenging denoting the same glory as the Mercy is, yeah, according to scholars of Islam, it is, every name of God is said to be complete beauty...so they all encompass each other.

The following is from Khomeini:

The Qur'an says: Call Allah or call Rahman (Surah al-Isra', 17:110). In another verse it says: Call Him by any name, for all the beautiful names are His. (Surah al-A'raf, 7:180) Allah, Rahman, Rahim and all other names of Him are good and beautiful. Each of them combines all His attributes. He being Absolute, there is no disparity between Him and His names or between one of His names and another. Allah's beautiful names are not like the names we give to different things for different considerations. His glory and His manifestation are not two different aspects of Him. His manifestation is exactly His glory and His glory exactly His manifestation. Even this expression is defective. Absolute existence means Absolute perfection and Absolute perfection must be absolute in every respect. Therefore, all His attributes are absolute. No disparity of any sort can be imagined between His essence and His attributes.

 

[durangodawood]

Does it make sense to say God is the son of himself?

Why should I demand that it make sense?
.

 

[Rationalt]

Why should I demand that it make sense?
.

Quite right..unless of course somebody gets in your face and threaten you with impending hell for not believing.