Trinity -sophistry?

[Stephen Kendall]

Mr OP:

I just learned of a book written on this very subject, circa 300 AD. Link:

CHURCH FATHERS: On "Not Three Gods" (Gregory of Nyssa)

I suspect it would help you more than any of us can! (It's not that long)

Thank you for being a gentleman. I am a bit too tired to read the short book, but will attempt it again another day.

Your points would seem to be valid, yet if you took away Trinity from ever being conceived, such things as Jehovah's OT commands being really Jesus' commands could not be supported by such churches as Seventh Day Adventist. It is mandatory that Christians follow and obey Jesus Christ, so it is important to know what he said. His Father gave the Torah, Jesus gave us most of NT. Since, I don't accept the Trinity, I hear only the teachings and commands of Christ without the confusion of Trinity.

Thank for trying to help me. I appreciate it. I had to figure out a long time ago of what I believed in concerning Trinity. Now, I have no problems with understanding things.

Too sleepy to continue for now. Have a great day tomorrow.

 

[TG123]

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

If He was a human it would make no sense. God can do things though that humans can't.

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.

But when God is being vengeful is He simultaneously being Most Merciful? The Father, the Son and Holy Spirit may be different personalities but they are all the same God. As the attributes describe the same God.

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.

I am pointing out that God can be the Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the same time even as He can be all Merciful and vengeful at the same time.

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.

No, but the Father and the Son are a description of the same God though.

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.

Interesting, but that didn't explain how He is both All Merciful and the Avenger at the same time. How is there no disparity there?

 

[AskTheFamily]

God being the son of himself to me absolutely doesn't make sense. He can't be the son of himself, beget himself, it makes absolutely no sense. You would be saying he is the father of himself and the son of himself at the same time, both of which don't make sense, and together is even more absurd.

As for attributes, the Avenger is the Merciful, while you say the son is not the father..so it's different. Your analogy doesn't work, it's not the same thing as attributes. Otherwise why say God is a trinity, why not add all the names of God as a person?

 

[cupid dave]

I honestly tried to understand the trinity from a Christian perspective but I've come to conclude it's a sort of sophistry.

First of All, when we ask what is God...we get different answers.

1) God is a trinity, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit
2) Father is God and Jesus is son of God
3) Jesus is God

We hear each of these but they can;'t all be true.

Jesus is not a trinity, so it can't be God is a trinity and Jesus is God. Jesus is not the son of himself, so he can't be God and the son of God at the same time.

The father can't be God either when he is one of the trinity, and Jesus can't be the son of the trinity when he is part of the trinity.

Also when we think of the father, he is the creator, the one whom decides, jesus fulfills the will of the father, but what is the holy spirit?

The holy spirit is suppose to something inside people that guides them, it's not a diety...it doesn't have all knowing knowledge or is the creator or cause, it rather is a effect in itself, that is suppose to be within creation.

How this even part of the God-hood is beyond me.

What makes it worse is when each is claimed to be each other, the Son and the Father are one, what does it even mean...does it mean they are the exact same entity, then why the separation?

It feels like nothing but sophistry to worship One God and Worship Jesus as son of God at the same time and all the rest is just sophistry to make it as if that's possible and is what Christians do.

I really don't see how Christians don't Worship Jesus and Father both, making two Gods, and the holy spirit is really not Worshipped but just an added ingredient to the whole thing...but if it we say it's worshipped too, then that would make three Gods.

Its easy to understand if you define terms in modern lingo.

1) Christ = Truth.
2) Truth is the image of Reality.

3) For man, when he understands and accept Truth his thoughts are in Spirit, of God.

 

[razeontherock]

God being the son of himself to me absolutely doesn't make sense. He can't be the son of himself, beget himself, it makes absolutely no sense. You would be saying he is the father of himself and the son of himself at the same time, both of which don't make sense, and together is even more absurd.

As for attributes, the Avenger is the Merciful, while you say the son is not the father..so it's different. Your analogy doesn't work, it's not the same thing as attributes. Otherwise why say God is a trinity, why not add all the names of God as a person?

Wait!

In what way is the avenger the merciful? Can I mercifully take vengeance?

(Your statement "God being the son of Himself" is what one might call a strawman, as that is not what is presented)

 

[AskTheFamily]

In what way is the avenger the merciful?

The Avenger, the Merciful, the Graceful are denoting the same being. The Merciful is the Graceful, the Avenger is the Merciful..because it's all about the same being. The Merciful is also avenging and the Avenger is also merciful...just as the Merciful is also graceful...

Also remember in Islam God is One essence, and all his names denote perfection, so they are all describing the same glory.

Your statement "God being the son of Himself" is what one might call a strawman, as that is not what is presented)

People say: Jesus is Son of God. And say: Jesus is God.

This means God is the son of God. This means God is the son of himself. And it also means God is the father of himself.

It's part of how it's all sophistry. It doesn't make sense to say Jesus is God, Son of God, and one person of three persons in a trinity called God. It doesn't add up. If he is God, then he can't be son of God because it would mean he would son of himself. If he is part of the trinity, he can't be son of that trinity, because it would mean he is partly the father of himself. No matter how you cut it..it doesn't make sense.

Stating father, son, and holy spirit are just names referring to the same being makes no sense, because calling God the son of himself makes no sense.

All at the end of it, it's sophistry.

I remember there was a thread that Islam misrepresented Christianity when it says "those whom say God is one of the three"..but this exactly what is being stated "the Father is suppose to God and the father of the son of God" but he is one of in three persons too. Basically it's making God one of three which is absurd.

He can't be 1 person of three persons and three persons at the same time.

This is like saying 1/3 = 1 or 1 = 3 it makes no sense.

 

[razeontherock]

The Avenger, the Merciful, the Graceful are denoting the same being. The Merciful is the Graceful, the Avenger is the Merciful..because it's all about the same being.

I realize that. Do you realize you haven't addressed my point? Let me try it this way: please give me an action by which this Being can express both vengeance and Mercy.

People say: Jesus is Son of God. And say: Jesus is God.

This means God is the son of God. This means God is the son of himself. And it also means God is the father of himself.

Your conclusion is not what is presented, and therefore it is your conclusion that is in error, and most likely some aspect of misunderstanding leading up to that. I am glad you can see there is a problem with this! How can you correct that?

Earlier it was stated that Trinity is not that foundational a belief, I agreed to that then, and I agree with it now. Again, Trinity was "developed" to combat the idea that Jesus was not a flesh and blood human, or that He was merely human but in no way Divine. I don't think anyone ever held it was a perfect explanation, but it is one representation God has given us ... I think it healthy to question it, but not healthy to obsess.

I look at it that His Body was human like ours, but given life by a non-human source and therefore free from sin. Do you find that helpful?

 

[AskTheFamily]

I realize that. Do you realize you haven't addressed my point? Let me try it this way: please give me an action by which this Being can express both vengeance and Mercy.

I can't think of any, but it's irrelevant that according to Islam, the Merciful is also Vengeful and the Avenger is also merciful. These are seen are titles of God. It's like saying "The Creator is Merciful" "The Creator is Just"...these just attributes of the Creator. The Creator is Merciful, is Just, the names "The Just" "The Merciful" are just describing the same being.

Your conclusion is not what is presented, and therefore it is your conclusion that is in error, and most likely some aspect of misunderstanding leading up to that.

I am just applying rules of logic. The trinity doctrine is claiming all sorts of absurd things, but people just stick to the statements as if they all make logical sense.

It doesn't make sense to say God is one of three persons. So instead say the "Father" is one of three persons. However, the father is suppose to be God as well, and not just one of three persons..do you see the problem? This means you are essentially saying "God is one of three persons", which is absurd!
If the Father = God, this one statement that is being said. Then there is other absurd statements like God being the father of himself, son of himself..

Earlier it was stated that Trinity is not that foundational a belief, I agreed to that then, and I agree with it now. Again, Trinity was "developed" to combat the idea that Jesus was not a flesh and blood human, or that He was merely human but in no way Divine.

It's not as simple as that. It was developed to claim Jesus is Divine, son of God, and at the same time sticking to their being One God. This is impossible. You can't have a son of God being Divine, and there being One God. If the Creator has a son and son is at the level of Creator, there is no longer one God...and "son of God" doesn't even make sense because there is no longer just one God, but multiple Gods.. Jesus would be son of a god, and that god would not be the only God. Jesus would be a god, the creator would be a god...but this goes against the foundational belief that their is only One God. As you see trinity is a way to reconcile this but at the end it's just sophistry. At the end both Jesus and the Father are Gods, and each is Worshiped and seen as divine.

I look at it that His Body was human like ours, but given life by a non-human source and therefore free from sin. Do you find that helpful?

I don't think calling him God was necessary to believe that. You can believe he was free from sin, given life from divine source, without believing he is divine or God himself or part of a trinity.

 

[razeontherock]

I can't think of any, but it's irrelevant that according to Islam, the Merciful is also Vengeful and the Avenger is also merciful. These are seen are titles of God. It's like saying "The Creator is Merciful" "The Creator is Just"...these just attributes of the Creator. The Creator is Merciful, is Just, the names "The Just" "The Merciful" are just describing the same being.

I am just applying rules of logic.

Thank you for seeing my point re: Trinity.

The One True God manifests Himself to us as Father, Son / Elder Brother / High Priest / Judge / defense attorney, and Holy Spirit.

It is that Elder Brother manifestation you are struggling with, and I again propose it is not because you lack any ability to comprehend, but because it has been so forcefully taught against and reinforced. Jesus taught how an Elder Brother can be obedient to the Father and yet still evil. Fortunately He is not like that towards us

And if you do not know Him in this way yet, well that's understandable too. Now, how do you propose to rectify that?

The trinity doctrine is claiming all sorts of absurd things

Correction: you are claiming all sorts of absurd things, and falsely labeling that "the Trinity doctrine." Why not start with what gives you the most trouble, and come to fathom the concept of Jesus as Elder Brother?

It doesn't make sense to say God is one of three persons.

Do you think that might be why Christianity doesn't teach this?

 

[cupid dave]

Your statement "God being the son of Himself" is what one might call a strawman, as that is not what is presented

Truth is sort of the son of unfolding Reality that says, "I am, and all life will bow to me."

 

[AskTheFamily]

The One True God manifests Himself to us as Father, Son / Elder Brother / High Priest / Judge / defense attorney, and Holy Spirit.

If father and son refer to the same being, it would be saying God is a son, but whom he is the son of? Himself of course? That's why I am saying these names don't make sense as just titles of the same person/being.

He can't be father of himself, son of himself... the son denotes a different person then the father, the father denotes a different person then the son. They are not giving attributes of each other. This unlike the 99 names of God in Islam, which are just giving attributes and titles of the same being/person.

Correction: you are claiming all sorts of absurd things, and falsely labeling that "the Trinity doctrine." Why not start with what gives you the most trouble, and come to fathom the concept of Jesus as Elder Brother?

If you look at the opening post and through out, I'm talking about what the statements imply. No one will state the absurd statements themselves. But when you take them together, they are making these absurd statements. They are implied by the statements.

When you say "The Father is God" then say "the Father is one in three persons" you are stating indirectly that "God is one in three persons". "The father is one in three persons" is not absurd if you don't take the fact "the father is God"...it's when you take both statements, you see what is being said is the absurd "God is one of three persons".

No one will say "God is the son of himself" because then it's obvious how absurd it is. Instead they will say he has a son...that son is also God himself. However when you take the statements, they are absurd because it would be stating "God is both the son of himself and the father of himself"....

This is why I said we hear different statements but they can't all be true.

 

[cupid dave]

If father and son refer to the same being, it would be saying God is a son, but whom he is the son of? Himself of course? That's why I am saying these names don't make sense as just titles of the same person/being.

It confused Mohammed too, but think of it this way:


TRINITY:
Our Lord is Truth, in whose Spirit of mind we must commit our lives, in order to face Father Nature, The Almighty, Reality, within which we all exist.

 

[razeontherock]

If father and son refer to the same being, it would be saying God is a son, but whom he is the son of? Himself of course? That's why I am saying these names don't make sense

And what I am saying, is that you don't understand what the term "Son" means! Why not forget Trinity for the moment since we're clearly not getting anywhere, and focus on the revelation of the Son of God being our Elder Brother? I assure you it's a meaty topic!

As for the rest of your post, when you start with a flawed premise, you arrive at a false conclusion. We really can make sense out of all this, but one step at a time ...

 

[TG123]

I remember there was a thread that Islam misrepresented Christianity when it says "those whom say God is one of the three"..but this exactly what is being stated "the Father is suppose to God and the father of the son of God" but he is one of in three persons too. Basically it's making God one of three which is absurd.

He can't be 1 person of three persons and three persons at the same time.

This is like saying 1/3 = 1 or 1 = 3 it makes no sense.

I started that thread so will briefly respond.

If one wanted to make a proper explanation of the Trinity doctrine within the Surah one could write "those who say God is three of the three" or "those who say God is all of the three" or "those who say God is the first, second and third of the three". Saying God is one of the three (or the third of the three, which is the correct translation actually) implies that the other two persons are not God, which is not what the doctrine teaches. You can agree or disagree with the doctrine but saying it teaches something that it doesn't is dishonest and false.

God is the first, second and third of the three persons simultaneously. How does He do that? Beats me. He is God.

Saying 1/3 = 3 makes no sense, as does saying 1 = 3. However, saying 1x1x1 = 1 certainly does.

 

[AskTheFamily]

If one wanted to make a proper explanation of the Trinity doctrine within the Surah one could write "those who say God is three of the three" or "those who say God is all of the three" or "those who say God is the first, second and third of the three". Saying God is one of the three (or the third of the three, which is the correct translation actually) implies that the other two persons are not God, which is not what the doctrine teaches.

Yeah it would imply that, which is why it makes no sense to say "Jesus is God" because it would imply the Father and holy spirit are not God. Because Jesus is one of three persons and is not the father and holy ghost, so it would be not stating "God is all three persons at once". It would be stating that Jesus is God himself. It's that you don't realize it's saying an absurd thing because you are use to these statements, but you don't analyze them.

At any rate, it doesn't change this is one of the statements implied by Christians when they say "father is God" and "the father is one in three persons" is "God is one in three persons".

You can agree or disagree with the doctrine but saying it teaches something that it doesn't is dishonest and false.

What you don't realize is the doctrine teaches things that contradict itself. It is state God is all three and at the same time stating he is One of these three (does so with both Father and son). It's absurd, and both can't be true, but this what the doctrine teaches.

Saying 1/3 = 3 makes no sense, as does saying 1 = 3. However, saying 1x1x1 = 1 certainly does.

However 1/3 = 1 is the statement that is being made when you say "father is God" and "God is three persons, father, son, a holy ghost"... 1x1x1 doesn't apply here at all.

 

[TG123]

Yeah it would imply that, which is why it makes no sense to say "Jesus is God" because it would imply the Father and holy spirit are not God. Because Jesus is one of three persons and is not the father and holy ghost, so it would be not stating "God is all three persons at once". It would be stating that Jesus is God himself. It's that you don't realize it's saying an absurd thing because you are use to these statements, but you don't analyze them.

No, Jesus is God. As is the Father and the Holy Spirit. He is one of the three persons who is God so it makes sense to say He is God.

It would make less sense to say "God is Jesus" because He is also the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not the Father or the Holy Spirit, He is the Son.

At any rate, it doesn't change this is one of the statements implied by Christians when they say "father is God" and "the father is one in three persons" is "God is one in three persons".

Saying the Father is one of three persons is correct. Along with the Son and Holy Spirit, the Father is God.

Saying God is one of three persons is incorrect, because He is all three.

Muhammad could have written even "they believe God the Father is one of three" and that would make sense.

What you don't realize is the doctrine teaches things that contradict itself. It is state God is all three and at the same time stating he is One of these three (does so with both Father and son). It's absurd, and both can't be true, but this what the doctrine teaches.

Being three persons while at the same time being the first, second and third of the three persons does not make any less sense than being all merciful and the avenger at the same time.

However 1/3 = 1 is the statement that is being made when you say "father is God" and "God is three persons, father, son, a holy ghost"... 1x1x1 doesn't apply here at all.

(1) Father, (1) Son, (1) Holy Spirit = (1) God.

1x1x1=1

 

[SlaveOfGod]

As some of our scholars said

"Put 10 Christians in a room and you get 11 different opinions on the trinity"

 

[durangodawood]

...
(1) Father, (1) Son, (1) Holy Spirit = (1) God.

1x1x1=1

?
.
A father, a son, and someone else typically add up to 3.
.
What does it even mean to multiply people? I guess 7 busloads of 20 = 140 people. But multiplying specific individuals by each other???
.

 

[TG123]

As some of our scholars said

"Put 10 Christians in a room and you get 11 different opinions on the trinity"

Maybe, but every one of those 10 defines it the same way, whether or not they agree with the doctrine.

It took only one guy writing the Quran to get the doctrine wrong and present it as saying something it doesn't.

If you want to have some fun reading different opinions, check out what the tafsir scholars had to say about what 5:73 means. Everything from the trinity including God, His Son and his mother to believing there is "a" father, "a" son and "a" holy spirit thus meaning there are three gods to claiming that the trinity comprises of the the Father, the Son and the Word. In their zeal to bash Christian beliefs they not only repeat a gross misunderstanding of Muhammad wrote but then contradict each other!

Here is the thread with the differing tafsir opinions compiled.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7556647/

 

[TG123]

?
.
A father, a son, and someone else typically add up to 3.
.
What does it even mean to multiply people? I guess 7 busloads of 20 = 140 people. But multiplying specific individuals by each other???
.

They would add up if they were separate and not one. Yet the Trinity doctrine teaches they are three and one. So adding them would not make sense.