Seeing how the 'trinity' as a concept was introduced later and formalized by the Orthodox Church, can any of my co-religionist prove, without using their doctrine how the Trinity is logical. I will not use my doctrine (Qur'an) as this would make the discussion rhetorical so I'd like for those who you, who have mastered the philosophy of the trinity, prove logically that the Trinity is true. Think hard because I will critique it!

Remember you are our brothers and sisters under ONE GOD therefore this is not a critique on your religion but a friendly and healthy debate, and let any Muslim coming into this discussion respect that and not disrespect anyone here.

  http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNfox000">   I may or may not participate fully in this discussion.  My current Church believes the only binding force in the "Trinity" or "Godhead" is that they are one in purpose.  Not actually one being.

The 3=1 concept came out of many problems that were going on prior to the Great Schism causing the Roman Catholic Church to split away from the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates. 

In the EO Church, God, the Son and The Holy Ghost are only one in essence, not one being.  

To aid in the History of the development of the Trinitarian Theology here is a good basic website.

http://www.thunderministries.com/history/Nicea.html - http://www.thunderministries.com/history/Nicea.html

I previously posted the Trinitarian theology from the OCA (Orthodox Church of America) website on another thread.  But it can be found at http://www.oca.org - http://www.oca.org .

Since my current beliefs in the Godhead are unorthodox to mainstream Christians and reject the trinitarian theology I really can't say I find it to make logical sense.  Elohim would not bring himself to Earth, he's exalted and perfected, unneeding of being tested on this mortal coil.  However, Jesus, being a brother unto us would still need to be born, tested and die to complete the cycle of progression.  The Holy Spirit in our Church is a servant of God....he carries God's message to our hearts and through him we gain our knowledge of God.




http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb068_ZNfox000">

Israfil wrote: Seeing how the 'trinity' as a concept was introduced later and formalized by the Orthodox Church, can any of my co-religionist prove, without using their doctrine how the Trinity is logical. I will not use my doctrine (Qur'an) as this would make the discussion rhetorical so I'd like for those who you, who have mastered the philosophy of the trinity, prove logically that the Trinity is true. Think hard because I will critique it! Remember you are our brothers and sisters under ONE GOD therefore this is not a critique on your religion but a friendly and healthy debate, and let any Muslim coming into this discussion respect that and not disrespect anyone here.

Could you explain why you believe it is illogical?

Meng wrote:  However, it would appear that the Book of Mormon is modalistic in its view of the godhead - as opposed, for instance, to the doctrines taught in the King Follett discourse: men must learn to become gods themselves as did all the gods before them.

I have no idea who you are talking about here?  Is this someone from the Reformation era???

I suppose you could call us Polytheistic to a certain misunderstood degree.  Jesus is not a God, "yet".  But that gets into deeper Doctrinal issues than the trinity and would get this thread severely off topic.  However, saying we believe the Holy Spirit to be a God is false, he's part of the godhead but not a god.  He's more of the Islamic concept of an angel than a god.

Also, as a non trinitarian church, our views really can't be held to the theory of the trinity.

The trinity puts one person in three bodies.  Which is strange considering at Jesus's baptism, all three were present in separate form.  How can someone be in 3 physical places at once? 

in�car�na�tion (nk�r-nshn) n. The act of incarnating. The condition of being incarnated. Incarnation Christianity. The doctrine that the Son of God was conceived in the womb of Mary and that Jesus is true God and true man. A bodily manifestation of a supernatural being. One who is believed to personify a given abstract quality or idea. A period of time passed in a given bodily form or condition: hopes for a better life in another incarnation.

incarnation

n 1: a new personification of a familiar idea; "the embodiment of hope"; "the incarnation of evil"; "the very avatar of cunning" [syn: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=embodiment - embodiment , http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=avatar - avatar ] 2: (Christianity) the Christian doctrine of the union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ [syn: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=incarnation - Incarnation ] 3: time passed in a particular bodily form; "he believes that his life will be better in his next incarnation" 4: the act of attributing human characteristics to abstract ideas etc. [syn: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=personification - personification ]

incarnation

that act of grace whereby Christ took our human nature into union with his
Divine Person, became man. Christ is both God and man. Human attributes and
actions are predicated of him, and he of whom they are predicated is God. A
Divine Person was united to a human nature (Acts 20:28; Rom. 8:32; 1 Cor. 2:8;
Heb. 2:11-14; 1 Tim. 3:16; Gal. 4:4, etc.). The union is hypostatical, i.e., is
personal; the two natures are not mixed or confounded, and it is perpetual.

If you go by the definition of incarnation, God would have had to leave the Heavens to become Jesus.  Unless you believe him to be a separate God taken form?  That's the illogical aspect I see in the Trinitarian view.

Angela, the King Follett discourse was a funeral oratory given by Smith shortly prior to his death.  I would have assumed that you are familiar with it.  If not, here is a link, and please review it:

http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm - http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm

I think you misunderstand the Trinity, having said that it teaches one God in three bodies.  As Christians, we believe what the Bible teaches, and which Muslims will agree with, that God is Spirit (not flesh and bone as Mormons believe). 

I think, too, that you could learn about orthodoxy by studying the doctrine of the hypostatic union:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union

Once you have famliarized yourself with the actual orthodox and Biblical doctrine of the Tri-personal nature of God, we will be able to discuss it more in depth.

Well Meng first off my position here is that of the late Averroes (Ibn Rushd) who had argued originally in his position against the belief in multiple gods. Although the Christian position is quite clear that the three essence are in unity with the one being it therefore cannot be rational if in principle that one being is solely one. Let us assume factually that the essence of "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are that of the One God. If we assume that they are the essence of God then we cannot say that they are truly the same person. Just as the son is the essence of the father but is not the father.

For example:

Zayd, Amir and Mofar are sons of Abdullah

Zayd having brown hair and brown skin

Amir having black hair and fair skin

and Mofar having  red and dark skin.

Although Zayd having brown hair a different color from Mofar he is still the brother of Mofar in principle because they share the same father. Although Amir has a different hair color than Zayd they are in essence brothers since having the same father. Although the father is the one who generated Zayd, Amir and Mofar they are individuals of themselves by principle. Only in essence are their relation to the father but they themselves are not the father.

In essence is the Father Son and Holy Spirit are related but in principle they are different. The difference made here are principle and essence. In essence the Son and Spirit are thus rom the Father since in this trinity the Father is at the top of the Triangle. However in principle they are different because the Son and Spirit have distinct identities even in language. So the question here is how are they the same logically? How are Amir, Zayd and Mofar all Abdullah logically? They are not but individuals themselves. Even taking my posiition further I will use Averroes' point of view:

This statement is in regards to the throne of God as mentioned in the Qur'an but this is quite relevant to the topic now since we are discussing the logic behind the trinity and the relation between Son, Father and Holy Spirit Averroes says thus:

"Two similar things cannot be related to the same place in the same way, for if the relationship is identical, the relata are identical. [The relata] cannot have an identical relation to the same locus, just as they cannot occupy the same locus (should they be of the same kind that occupies a locus), although the relationship of God to the throne is  the opposite of this type of relation; by which I mean that the throne subsist in him not that he subsist in the Throne.

Filioque

Israfil, the Son is not the SAME as the Father in terms of Persona.  They are of the same substance, power and glory. Could you explain why an omnipotent Being could not be Tri-Personal in nature?

Could you explain why an omnipotent Being is not capable of interpersonal relationship within Himself?  Why do you limit God to what you know of man?

Israfil wrote: Can anyone prove logically that the Son, subsisting in the Father is the same as the Father? And the same question can be asked for the Holy Spirit. Again the rule here is that you must prove this logically.

It really cannot be explained logically, this is a major reason for me turning away from my upbringing in both the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox theologies.  Its incomprehensible, no matter how many times I have someone try to say it makes perfect sense.  It never does.

Angela posted:

This is what I was partly discussing.  If you read The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos Ware), he goes more into depth of the concept of the Trinity in Eastern Orthodoxy and the concepts of Original Sin as opposed to the Western Roman Church from which all Protestent Churches form their basis of the Trinity.

The Roman/Protestant Churches view the trinity in a different manner than they Eastern Churches.  This above is just one example.

I knew Timothy Ware when he was a young man, and grew up with him in the same town.  Didn't know he was now a bishop, however.

Oh, Meng, don't think I'm ignoring the King Follett post.  I have been taught the doctrines contained in this sermon.  I just never read the actual sermon.  But I can't argue with anything Brother Joseph said in that sermon.  We do believe in eternal progression and that's one of the two lessons taught there, the second is the eternal family.  But both concepts of progression and eternal families are not what this thread is about. 

Angela, I think you'll find the King Follett discourse enlightening.  Tom Ware was the son of one of my mother's best friends.  I'd heard he went into Orthodoxy.  I'm assuming this is the same guy.

I notice that you use a Greek cross for your avatar.  Were you raised in that tradition?  Mormons don't generally use crosses on their person or their buildings. Are you a convert to LDS?

Meng wrote: Israfil, the Son is not the SAME as the Father in terms of Persona.  They are of the same substance, power and glory. Could you explain why an omnipotent Being could not be Tri-Personal in nature? Could you explain why an omnipotent Being is not capable of interpersonal relationship within Himself?  Why do you limit God to what you know of man?

Meng you have made an grave error, If the Son and Spirit are o different identies yet have the same power and glory then how is their relation to the Father? The Spirit and Son perhaps in this case essence's of the Father. If they are essence's of the father then they themselves are to have a different identity of the Father, I mean in regards to being. You admit that they have the same attributes of the father such as substance, power and glory. First off what you contradict is the word "substance" with the incoporeality of God. God as a being is incorporeal with no substance so surely if God's true nature is incoporeal then the other beings whom you say have the same substance as the father is totally false.

I am not saying that God being the author of the universe does not have complete control. God can do what he wants, however the logical position here is, in reality did God anthromorph into a human being just to save humanity, and if so is this logical? the question here is why not send a doctrine or some messenger to redeem mankind without physically do it himself and in doing so refers to himself as the Son of himself. This doesn't add up logically. It is possible for God to have a Son in an immaculate conception from a virgin woman and it is quite possible for God to do so without his involvement. As it is stated in the Holy doctrines of the Qur'an.

It is also possible for this being in such an immaculate conception be the redeemer of mankind and to the lost people without the need of this beeing to be God. All God has to do is command such a being to sacrifice himself for humanity. As Angela has mentioned in the Bible God was fulfilling a covenant but this covenant could be fulfilled without the need of God doing so himself. Many Christians have said that God needed someone to be pure someone not born of sin. Funny thing here is God can create a child not of sin by commanding the human body which is in this case with Mary's womb to form a child miraculously as he has done in the Qur'an and the Bible.

Again this doesn't add up. I cannot buy that the trinity philosophy is incomprehensible. the trinity concept is man made and ever so comprehensible. It is not logical. I'm still waiting for anyone to disprove my theory from earlier regarding the three sons and the father.

Angela, I'm sorry.  I didn't notice that you had posted this:

"It really cannot be explained logically, this is a major reason for me turning away from my upbringing in both the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox theologies.  Its incomprehensible, no matter how many times I have someone try to say it makes perfect sense.  It never does"

I think, as a Christian, that people get hung-up on the doctrine of the Trinity by believing that Christians just decided to make up this intricate doctrine and palm it off on the world. Actuially, the simplest step would have been to follow Arius, not Athanasius!

Why do Christians embrace the doctrine of a Tri-Personal deity? It originated in the Old Testament.  "Here O Israel, the Lord (Jehovah) you God (Elohim) is One Lord (Jehovah)."  You'll note here that the shema calls Elohim, Jehovah (contrary, of course to Mormon doctrine, although in D&C we have the Father also called Jehovah in the prayer of dedication of the Kirkland Temple).  The Hebrew word "one" in the shema is "echad," which means a plurality in oneness.  For instance, echad would be used for "one pair of shoes" or "one bunch or grapes." So, it does not necessarily denote singleness of being, but can refer to compositeness of being.

So, we know that the Scripture teaches that there is only ONE God.  Muslims agree with this, as do Jews.  Mormons do not agree with this, for they are not monotheistic but polytheistic (although, I believe Smith was originally modalistic if you look at the internal evidence of the BOM).

However, for Christians, revelation has taught us that God has revealed Himself in Three Personas: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  The Father is not the Son (as Smith originally believed), nor is the Holy Spirit the Father or the Son.  We cannot confuse the members of the Godhead, nor can we confound the substance.

This understanding of God, based on many Scriptures (for instance, the baptismal formula) was formally enshrined in the Creed of Nicea, although it did not originate there.  The origin of the doctrine of the Trinity was not Nicea, or Constantine, etc.  It was Scripture.

The Bible promises this: the Holy Spirit will guide Christians into all truth.  Mormons, of course, believe that Christianity became apostate, later to be restored by a 14, 15 or 16 year-old boy, depending upon which First Vision account you believe.  However, Christians trust in the promise of Christ that He would never leave us, and that where two or three are gathered in His Name, there He is in the midst of them.  We believe that the Holy Spirit has guided Christ's dear Body (the Church) into all necessary Truth.  We stand on the promises of God.

I agree I dont see how the trinty is possible when it didnt exist until 325AD and was created at the council of Nicaea.

It was the decision of the council, formalized in the Nicene Creed, that God the Father and God the Son were consubstantial and coeternal and that the Arian belief in a Christ created by and thus inferior to the Father was heretical. Arius himself was excommunicated and banished. The council was also important for its disciplinary decisions concerning the status and jurisdiction of the clergy in the early church and for establishing the date on which Easter is celebrated.

Yes, My grandfather's sisters would kidnap me and take me to the Russian Church back home.  I celebrated two christmas', two Easters and a host of other holidays.  I speak Russian and I've been to many of the Holy sites in Russia.

However, My parents were Methodist, but they never went to church.  My grandmother took us when we were interested.  Which for me was until I was 17.  The first minister we had, couldn't be bothered with children.  The second minister was constantly having to smooth feathers from self-righteous old women who complained about children being allowed in the general service.....and the third.  He was a molester and drunkard who embezzled (I know that's spelled wrong) over $25,000 from our poor little parish.  When I asked for confirmation classes, his response was I didn't really need them.  I was a sunday school teacher and 16, I was a bright girl.  He'd just do the confirmation.  I left church that day and never went back but once to a UMC in Carlisle, PA.  It was all guitars and dancing in the isles and I turned and walked out.  I briefly returned to my grandfather's church and was there for a few years and still couldn't reconcile my heart with the Church and its teachings. 

I spent the next 10 years hating organized religion and reading everything I could get my hand on about other faiths.  I hated Mormons too....I used to make fun of them, badly.  My husband was an inactive Mormon.  Funny how the spirit moves people.  There was no slow brainwashing.  One week I was saying I just couldn't believe in Prophets and the next week, I was on my knees balling, completely overwhelmned by the Spirit.  And I do mean overwhelmned, the cynic on her knees with the power of God.  That was something no one would have ever believed.  The smoking, drinking, wicked cynic repentant and contrite.

Israfil, you make a very common error.  The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is this:

That when the Virgin Mary was conceived in the womb of HER mother, no original sin was transmitted to her, by a singular act of grace.  Nor did the Virgin Mary commit any actual sin.

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is this:

That Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, begotten by the Holy Spirit, when she was yet a Virgin. 

As you can see, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church only) deals with Mary's conception; the doctrine of the Virgin Birth deals with Jesus' Conception.

But don't feel bad, I've seen these two doctrines confused by even those calling themselves Christian.

Christians are using the term "substance" in the Nicene formula to mean the Divine substance, which is spirit.  It is not speaking of material substance.  This is simply a theological term.

Christians do not confuse the persons, nor do we confound the substance.  In other words, each Person within the One Godhead is of equal substance pertaining to Deity.  However, the Person of the Son took on the ADDITIONAL nature of humanity, thus becoming the God/Man.

Jesus, never ceasing to be God, took on Humanity in the Incarnation - this is called the hypostatic union.

Angela, well if I'd experienced all the garbage you did with the UMC, I'd have a bad taste in my mouth as well.

I was raised in an Episcopal Church - attended church every Sunday, received the Eucharist, sang in the choir, knew orthodox doctrine like the back of my hand - but still had no assurance of salvation.

It wasn't until I read "Nine O'Clock in the Morning" by Dennis Bennett, and then the sequel, "The Holy Spirit and You," that I came to understand the Gospel - and guess what, it wasn't that any church, any ritual, anything apart from God's grace, could save me.

It was while reading Ephesians 2:8-9, "by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the GIFT of God, and not of works, lest any man should boast," that the Holy Spirit enligtened me as to what Scripture actually means by salvation.

I had been part of "Churchianity," as apparently were you.  Now I am a Christian, in the Body of Christ, which is the mystical group of all born-again according to faith in Christ Jesus.

I now attend, along with my husband, a Baptist Church. We are a missionary church, and work extensively in Mexico.  I love my church, but if tomorrow the pastor began preaching something contrary to Scripture, I would depart.  For the Body of Christ is not confined to any one denomination, and I can worship anyplace where the Gospel is truly preached.

Meng wrote: Israfil, you make a very common error.  The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is this: That when the Virgin Mary was conceived in the womb of HER mother, no original sin was transmitted to her, by a singular act of grace.  Nor did the Virgin Mary commit any actual sin. The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is this: That Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, begotten by the Holy Spirit, when she was yet a Virgin.  As you can see, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (which is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church only) deals with Mary's conception; the doctrine of the Virgin Birth deals with Jesus' Conception. But don't feel bad, I've seen these two doctrines confused by even those calling themselves Christian. Christians are using the term "substance" in the Nicene formula to mean the Divine substance, which is spirit.  It is not speaking of material substance.  This is simply a theological term. Christians do not confuse the persons, nor do we confound the substance.  In other words, each Person within the One Godhead is of equal substance pertaining to Deity.  However, the Person of the Son took on the ADDITIONAL nature of humanity, thus becoming the God/Man. Jesus, never ceasing to be God, took on Humanity in the Incarnation - this is called the hypostatic union.

Let me first address my mistake as I mentioned the Immaculate conception referring to Jesus and it was that of Mary as you Meng corrected me on that. Although that is a doctrine of the Catholic Church and has no bearings on my faith I reserve my Islamic right to reject such a philosophy. This philosophy is in regards to the concept of original sin. Although it sounds rational I am at no position to say this is true.

First off let me reject your assertion that Hypostasis is in any form supportive of of any rational trinitarian view from Christians. As Thomas Aquinas has put it in his 5 proofs on God�s existence God is the infinite and the unmoved. How I understand Trinity and Hypostasis I have to make several points:

God being the infinite, and unchanged

The Son being the infinite and unchanged although is differentiated from the father in nature

The Spirit being infinite and unchanged although differentiated by the Son and the Father by nature.

As you have put it Meng the Son and Holy Spirit are not the Father as far as Persona goes (although you could have termed it better) they still share the same power with the father. However, if the Father is both Son and Spirit why is there a plurality here? The Oneness of God implies no plurality not even in attributes. If the Son is similar to the Spirit then there exist two distinct beings because both are similar to each other but are not One in being. The Christian view implies no distinction however there is one when you refer to something as something else. I would be glad to take the Christian position in saying that God the Father has the attributes of Sonship and Holy Spirit and although that is still considered false under other laws of philosophy I would be glad to accept that position from you.

Also, from Thomas Aquinas� point he states that God is the unmoved mover and that by his infinity he does not change. However God being human in the form of Jesus thus is changed from one state to another. That is like me saying that I didn�t move to the other side of the chair even though I jumped over it. If God exist in one dimension yet anthromorphs to another dimension the state of God changes thus. When we are talking about being his being from unmoved to being the moved. You have to do better than that...

Also I Meng I can tell that you are not familiar with Hebrew and Aramaic and although I speak little of both I can help you out. I can see that you�ve made some minor errors. The true wording of the prayer is

"Sh�ma (lit. Hear O�) Israel Adonai Elohainu (LORD, God or the Lord our God) adonai Ehad (The Lord is One). Ehad like ahad in Arabic means One or to be One. The Sh�ma is the Jewish creed which I�m sure many Christians are aware of. But LORD in Hebrew does not mean Yehovah but it means Adonai which has several meanings in Hebrew.

Is:  I'm having some difficulty understanding your point.  No. 1, please understand that my theology is of the Reformed variety - Thomas Aquinas was a Roman Catholic, and while he was a great philosopher, he is not inerrant, as is Scripture. 

Also, please note that the Shema contains the word "echad" in the Hebrew, not ehad.  I was pointing out that echad is used to define complex unity. Now, I have gone over this many times with Orthodox Jews, and I know I am right in this matter.

Third, you seem to be stating the modalistic view that Christians view the Father and also being the Son and Holy Spirit.  You also said that the Holy Spirit has a different "nature." Christians believe that all members of the Tri-personal Godhead have the same divine nature; the Son took on an additional nature, humanity, which was not mingled with deity, but remained separate (hypostatic union).

So that we are all on the same page, let me link you to a site which will explain to you the orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This site will clue you in as to the difference between trinitarian theology and modalism (or "oneness" theology):

http://www.aomin.org/CHALC.html - http://www.aomin.org/CHALC.html

You really need to study this thoroughly before debating the subject.

Meng:

Ok so I was off by one letter 'echad' however it is spelled I was merely noting the Semetic language's similarity with Arabic. You had said earlier

>>>>Here O Israel, the Lord (Jehovah) you God (Elohim) is One Lord (Jehovah)." <<<<

Here, you had falsely stated that LORD means Yehovah in parenthesis which ios not true in Hebrew. Not once here, did you make mention of "Echad" nor its complexity. There are some who use the Tetragrammaton like you Christians however Jews do not even use Yehovah in the Shema they use Ha-Shem (The name) because saying his name breaks the commandment. So in replacement they use Ado-shem a combination between the words Adonai and Ha-Shem (The name). So instead of invoking the name of God, they use Adonai instead. Tell your Jewish friends they will not dispute this.

You also mentioned you have trouble understanding my point. Since I assume you haven't understood philosophy let me explain it another way. As you have said numerous times here that God, Father and Son are all the same. However I responded "If they are all the same why is there a differentiation between them?" Meaning if God is the Son and Holy Spirit and they are all one in the same why is there a differentiation? I want you to prove that to me logically without psoting links to Christian websites. I'm asking you as a Christian believer since you believe this is a logical philosophy prove this by demonstration.

The Trinity implies change in God and I have proven this earlier thus contradicting the view of Thomas Aquinas. You may have not subscribed to Thomas Aqunias' philosophy but he is the only Christian theologian who can prove God ontologically. I have studied this discussion thouroughly and I'm not making generalized statements here I too was once Christian and I have some background on this subject. I'm also well aware that the Trinitarian concept is derive from some Biblical passages however I'm asking you to demonstrate its logic not post links.

First of all, I believe that the mystery of the Godhead is beyond human logic.....just as many concepts are beyond human logic.

Please answer this, what "demonstrative proofs" do you have of Islam.  You simply accept it as a matter of faith, right?

As a Christian, I believe God's Word is contained in the Old and New Testaments.  They teach that there is One God - and they also call the Father God, the Son God and the Holy Spirit God.

Thus we define God as One, who manifests as the Person of the Father, the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit. Yet, not three gods (as Mormonism teaches), but One God.

Let me give you this example from chemistry.  If you place H2o in a test tube and subject it to certain laboratory environments, the water in the test tube will be liquid, ice and vapor, all simultaneously.  If water, the simples of compounds, can be three simultaneously, while still remaining one substance - why don't you believe that God can do the same?

What proof do I have?

Allah Says in the Qur'an Qul'hu Allahu AHAD, Allahu Samad Lam yalid Wa' Lam Yulad Wa' Lam Yakulahu Kufuwan Ahad

Ask one of the Muslims what this means.....

So, I guess you have no reply other than something in Arabic.  What if I respond to you in Danish - would you like that?  And then told you to go talk to a Dane.

You need to debate rationally.

Aren't you familiar with the concept of analogies, ak?

The question is, if a simple compound such as H2o can be triune in nature, why cannot an omnipotent God?

Meng it's from the Surah Ikhlas or The Purity

The Surah translates as:

"Say He is Allah the one and only 
He is eternal absolute 
He begets not nor is He begotten 
and there is none like Him"

Surah 112 1-4

That is the evidence of the Qur'an and in Islam. The axiom that exist here is that God is without, without any assistance nor any sons that succeed from him. He is the everlasting and the subsisting. In regards to the H2o theory true that the gases from the water vapour are of that of water, but if you look at the analogy the state of water is change from liquid to vapor. If God is unchange then his position (or if you want to look at the physical aspect, his substance) doesn't change. In regards to the trinity my argumenet is that God is unchanged, therefore the trinity is false because God is unchanged. The Trinity makes within God a plurality. Again Meng you fail to explain the rationality behind differenting God, Son and Holy Spirit. 

Also let me remind our Christian neighbors here that the Trinitarian concept did not exist within the time of Jesus. As many Jews in his time lived by the Sh'ma which I was discussing briefly with Meng. The Sh'ma in Hebrew if some of you are not familiar is:

"Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai Elohaynu Adonai Echad"

Which is Hear O' Israel, the Lord our God, The Lord is One"

There is only One God in Judaism and this is a principle in which is echoed in Islam and Christianity, although there are branches of Christianity that exist today which has some Greek/Roman elements. I have constantly stated my position here that there is no plurality in God, not even his attributes can be considered "pluralities" within him. Everything in him, his will, his attributes are correspondence with his existence. One cannot differentiate God by attributing to him elements that exist outside this axiom.

God is omnipotent, but in discussing rational being and rational actions we must take the best actions which is rational and appropriate which is that God is unchanged. To present a trinity which charges God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit implies 2 beings who are differentiated in God. If these beings were not differentiated within God then we would not call them Holy Spirit and Son. To say in repsonse to this that this is beyoiind human comprehension is a way out of the argument.

We all here say God the being is incomprehensible how can we then comprehend God divisibly? There is the question.

Meng,

From you: "The question is, if a simple compound such as H2o can be triune in nature, why cannot an omnipotent God?"

Water can retain only one form at any given time. It can be found as  liquid, steam/vapour and ice.

If I take a cube of ice and leave it, it will turn into water and if I heat that water, it will turn into steam.

The same amount of water cannot occupy a single form.

Well, let us take the Christian belief in simple words:

If God incarnated himself into the human body of Jesus, then there was no God left in the Kingdom. God was living, walking, eating,  talking and suffering like a man. In that case God was reduced to a man. But if we read the message given to the Jews, God NEVER changes. Hope I don't have to quote too much Jewish Scripture to prove that.

A simple few would do: "I am YHVH, that's My name; and I will NOT give glory to another, or my praise to idols!" Isaiah 42.8."

"For I lift up my hand to heaven and say, as I live forever!" Deuteronomy 32:40." This shows God cannot die.

This is the most beautiful verse which is also indicated by the Ayatul Kursiyyah in Qur'aan:

"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom."

You see how Qur'aan verifies what went before it?  

BR

BMZ

Mr. bmz:  You are discussing apples and oranges here.  Any judge would throw out your testimony.  Number one, the Quran is not the source of doctrine for Christians - having come some 500 years later on the scene than Christ.  It is irrelevant for Christian doctrine.

Also, if you'd read carefully what the Christian was saying here, you would have noticed that there are Three Persons in the Godhead.  The Second Person became incarnated in Jesus Christ.  The Father was not incarnated, nor the Holy Spirit;.

You must understand that a triunity of Persons allows for this.

Let me put this in the simplest terms, using the illustration of the laboratory tube used above.  It is the "vapor" that became incarnated; the liquid and ice remain in the tube.

Is that clear enough for you?

Meng wrote: .. if a simple compound such as H2o can be triune in nature, why cannot an omnipotent God?

So do you mean "a compound God"?? Hmm!! Isn't it equivalent to "poly" instead of "mono", in essence? Think about your analogy before singing the same chorus that we usually hear from our Christian brothers.

Athanasius wrote: Let me put this in the simplest terms, using the illustration of the laboratory tube used above.  It is the "vapor" that became incarnated; the liquid and ice remain in the tube.

O really, so you mean both liquid and ice suddenly got depressurized (vacuum) in the absence of vapour pressure. Thinking of God in these terms really makes me feel pity on myself.

The essence of the water, vapor and ice is the same: H2o

It is the manifestation of the essence which is different.

Athanasius,

From you: "Mr. bmz:  You are discussing apples and oranges here.  Any judge would throw out your testimony."

Firstly, no judge is going to hold this case or hear the case in his court. Any judge will throw this case out.

From you:
Also, if you'd read carefully what the Christian was saying here, you would have noticed that there are Three Persons in the Godhead.  The Second Person became incarnated in Jesus Christ.  The Father was not incarnated, nor the Holy Spirit;."

Who was this second person? In that case, we are then discussing oranges, apples and pears.

bmz, the very fact that you have to ask who this Second Person is would appear to disclose that you are not really familiar with the Christian Trinitarian doctrine.

Muslims, however, call this Second Person, the Word; He was incarnated as Christ. 

I'm afraid you are mixing up the concept of substance and person. Perhaps it would help you if you were to study the declarations of the Council of Nicea and Chalcedon.

The example of water, ice and vapour or steam does not hold any water.

Please read the Jewish Tanakh or the Old Testament and know that God does not give his Glory to anyone.

BMZ

Athanasius,

What was decided at the Council after 365 years is a different story. Unitarians were crushed and kicked out. Trinity or a triune God was the thought and analysis of some men.

Could you please tell me if Jesus himself taught in his own words about a Triune God? Did he explain Trinity? Did he even utter the word Trinity? Please quote me one instance from the NT if he did that.

BMZ

bmz, the term "trinity" is not found in the Bible.  It is a concept.  The term "soteriology" is not found in the Bible, it is a doctrinal conept.  Trinity is used to define a doctrinal position.  Also, you might be interested to know that the word "Bible" is not found in the Bible, but we use it to designate the 66 Books of Scripture.

Unitarians came into existence many centuries after the Council of Nicea, and are not recognized today as a Christian denomination.  You are thinking of Arians - Arius was of the Alexandrian school of Christianity, which was heavily influenced by Gnosticism and other erroneous beliefs.  Arius taught that Jesus was more than man - a type of divine sub-deity, who was of similar but not the same substance of Deity.

Thanks, Atanasius for writing:

"bmz, the term "trinity" is not found in the Bible.  It is a concept.  The term "soteriology" is not found in the Bible, it is a doctrinal conept.  Trinity is used to define a doctrinal position.  Also, you might be interested to know that the word "Bible" is not found in the Bible, but we use it to designate the 66 Books of Scripture."

That's why I asked because I did not see Trinity or the doctrine being taught or preached by Jesus anywhere in the Bible.

BMZ

Athanasius,

From you: "bmz, the very fact that you have to ask who this Second Person is would appear to disclose that you are not really familiar with the Christian Trinitarian doctrine."

When I ask such questions, it falls under cross examination of statements expressed within a post. Hence, the questions. I am well aware of the trinitarian doctrine, which is found existing in some religions other than and before Christianity.

From you: "Muslims, however, call this Second Person, the Word; He was incarnated as Christ."

Muslims don't.

Athanasius wrote: Muslims, however, call this Second Person, the Word; He was incarnated as Christ.

Athanasius, this is so not true.  We do not believe that Jesus (pbuh) was the 'Word' of Allah.  The 'Word' of Allah is the Holy Spirit which is not a separate entity than Allah.  Allah gives the Holy Spirit (His Word, His Divine Revelation) to whom He pleases.  Muslims believe that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet who was given Divine Revelation (the Word, the Holy Spirit) of Allah while he was in the womb of his blessed mother Mary.  HOWEVER, we do not believe that this makes him (i.e., Jesus (pbuh)) anything more than a prophet who was different than other prophets (pbut) in that he received the Holy Spirit while in his mother's womb.  That is, we don�t believe him to be a divine entity in any way shape or form.  Prophets are messengers�servants of God.   It truly is simply and if you really take the time to read the New Testament out side of the �Black Box� of Christian doctrine, you will see that Jesus (pbuh) himself repeatedly say he was nothing more than that.

Also, if you read the Bible�the Old Testament�beginning with Genesis, Chapter 1, you will see that Jesus (pbuh) was not the Word of God.  But rather, the Word was the Spirit�Allah created all that is merely by revealing His Word.  It is so clear�He said, and it was�over and over and over again in Genesis.  How can Jesus (pbuh) be the Word???  That is simply non-sense.  He was created in the womb of his mother, Mary, because Allah commanded him to exist (God willed him into existence just as He did all other things in His creation), and then He bestowed upon him the Holy Spirit which is His Divine Revelation.  This Divine Revelation is no different than the Divine Revelation which He revealed to all of His other prophets (pbut).  The only different between the prophets (pbut) is the way in which they each received the Divine Revelation and the abilities which Allah bestowed upon them.  Allah did this in accordance to what He knew they would need in order to do the job He wanted them to do.  It is really quite simply and contains none of the contradictions or problem the concept of the Trinity is saturated with.  BTW, Muslims believe that the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is in Jannah (Paradise, Heaven) at this time and that he will return to earth just as Christians do.  However, we believe that he ascended to Jannah without dying.

With respect to your �water� analogy, it simply doesn�t work and no matter what you say, it will not work.  First of all, it is insulting to Allah.  There is no way you can pull off your analogy without �splitting up� the substance you want us to pretend is Allah.  Your theory/analogy is like that of a little boy who pulls the wings off of a butterfly and say, �this is the Son��then pulls off the legs and says, �this is the Holy Spirit��and then the holds the body up and says, �this is the father�.  But really all you have is a horrible mess that once was something beautiful. 

If we take you analogy seriously, it still leaves us with a problem.  The only way you can have all three in existence at the same time is to have three tubes of water because you can�t have all three forms at the same time by having all of the water in the same tube.  If you say you are taking one tube of water and then dividing it into three tubes of water which you then will turn into each form at the same time, then you have the problem of dividing up Allah�that simply is not the concept of God that He revealed to us in Holy Scripture. 

Also, if we take your analogy seriously, we have to accept that God doesn�t exist unless He is manifested in all three of these forms at once.  If He is not the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, then He simply is nothing.  Or is there some water left over?  If so, what is it?  And what form does it take?  How is this possible???? 

The truth of the matter is that God doesn�t need any from to exist, He simply is.  And if we take your position seriously, we would have to accept that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit existed from the beginning since without those forms there would be no God.  If this is true, how were they manifested?  Was there a creator behind the creator?   Do not the terms father and son imply that the former must come into existence prior to the latter?  If this is the case, then there is no way that the Son was always with the Father�which would imply that the Son is not the Word which was there from the beginning as you have said it is. 

As you can see, your view simply can�t rid itself of serious problems.  There is truly only one way to rid your concept of God of these horrible problems.  And that is to see God in His true light.  That is, to accept God as being ONLY ONE GOD�ALLAH�THE GOD.  To accept that the Holy Spirit is not a separate entity from Allah, but rather, It is God�s Divine Revelation which He bestows upon those He wills It to be bestowed upon and that He does so in many ways�as He wills.  And last, to accept that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet of Allah and not God in the flesh. 

PAZ

Sister Khadija

Israfil, didn't we have this discussion once before

And to those who are saying that God and Jesus are the same being, where are you getting your information from ?? And who in Christainity is believing that?

As far as I am concerned, from the Catholic, God and Jesus are separate beings, otherwise we wouldn't be having Son of God or God's only begotten son nor would we have Jesus speaking to God.

In the trinity, Jesus is not a manifestion of God in human form, that God manifest himself in human form, Jesus, to be here on earth. is simply false and not in the bible from the way it speaks, it clearly separates the two beings.

Even Jesus speaks that he is not God - The Father. So I have no idea how some peope can say that God and Jesus are the same Being.

Some peope do miss some vital information  

The trinity, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - Amen

I don't find it that hard to understand the trinity especialy when you have gone thru so many examples as I have.

I have in another thread put many examples down. We humans are in the trinity, we are humans with mind body and spirit. 

here is the link: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=238&KW=Trinity - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=238& KW=Trinity

Hi Angel,

Thanks for the clarification about the Catholic belief.

If we were to take the example given by you, would there be nine in the Godhead?

bmzsp wrote: If we were to take the example given by you, would there be nine in the Godhead?

huh?

Khadija, I know and correspond with a gentleman who is a devout Muslim and who is currently studying to be an Iman.  He is the one who told me that the Muslim faith teaches that Jesus is the Word.  Would you care to research that some more.

Also, I would like to clarify for you what the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is.  It's better to have this defined by Christians then, for instance, someone in a group outside of orthodox Christianity.

As you see, my logo is Athanasius.  Athanasius was the great saint who countered the errors of Arius regarding Christ's Deity and His relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit.  Briefly, Christians have always taught that there is only ONE God, not many gods.  Those that believe in many gods are idolators. Furthermore, we believe that within the One Godhead there is a tri-personal center of being (you could use Meng's test tube illustration that I read here - excellent, by the way).  Each person is of the same substance - and that is spirit or deity.  The Bible teaches that God is spirit (not flesh and bones), and that those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.

Each Person in the Godhead is equal as to power and glory; but there is a subordination within the Godhead - not pertaining to substance, but pertaining to relationship only.  For instance, we read in Scripture that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father, through the Son, to perform that which unto He is sent: conviction of sin, drawing one to Christ, etc.

I am going to link you to the Athanasian creed which is the classic statement within orthodox Christianity regarding the Godhead.  I am not printing any of this to proselytize (I believe that I can convert no person, that is not my job); however, Muslims need to know what the orthodox doctrine is, since it appears that there are a lot of posts out there that are deceptive doctrinally. 

For instance, it I wanted to understand the orthodox doctrines of the Muslim faith, I would probably go to a Sunni - right? I wouldn't be going to a leader in the Ahmadiya movement, now would I?  So, here is the link, and I hope it is helpful in assisting Muslims to understand the orthodox Christian doctrines of the Holy Trinity.  I would be glad to answer any questions, should you have them:

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html - http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

In Islam we believe that Jesus(PBUH) is a beloved Prophet of God, nothing more. There is no divinity in Jesus(PBUH) or any of the Prophets, they are men like any man. Their only distinction is that they have been chosen to bring the message of God to humankind.

Anyone who tells you anything different about Islam is misleading you.

Here are few verses from Quran pertaining Prophet Jesus. Kindly read the veses carefully containing "word" and "similitude to Prophet Adam" and the "Be".

002.087
YUSUFALI: We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!

002.136
YUSUFALI: Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

002.253
YUSUFALI: Those messengers We endowed with gifts, some above others: To one of them Allah spoke; others He raised to degrees (of honour); to Jesus the son of Mary We gave clear (Signs), and strengthened him with the holy spirit. If Allah had so willed, succeeding generations would not have fought among each other, after clear (Signs) had come to them, but they (chose) to wrangle, some believing and others rejecting. If Allah had so willed, they would not have fought each other; but Allah Fulfilleth His plan.

003.045
YUSUFALI: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;

003.047
YUSUFALI: She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!

004.171
YUSUFALI: O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

019.035
YUSUFALI: It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

003.059
YUSUFALI: The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

I hope the verses are quite self explanatory, however, if needed I can attempt to make them understand to any one interested in them. Peace.

Assalamu Alaikum Ahmadjoyia:

It is better to explain very clearly that the use of "word" in this context is the Word of God, "Be", and it is. Not that the Prophet Jesus(PBUH) is the Word, by which he is sometimes described by Christians, meaning the Living Word, God incarnate.

Athanasius,

From you: "Khadija, I know and correspond with a gentleman who is a devout Muslim and who is currently studying to be an Imam.  He is the one who told me that the Muslim faith teaches that Jesus is the Word.  Would you care to research that some more."

Muslim faith does not teach that Jesus or any is a word or Word of God. The word is only the message of God Almighty.

Here is something as a matter of interest. Any Scripture from God Almighty and any scripture containing the words from God Almighty,  must be understood from what is written. The scripture must be able to be understood by any reader. It must give the precise message.

When we read Qur'aan, we understand the message direct from it. Likewise, we should also understand what the other scriptures say. It is not necessary what Arius, Esubius or Athanasius thought. What Jesus taught should be easily understood.

You will notice that out of the four selected gospels, leaving aside many others, only John introduces the word, begining, etc. This was not even taught at all by Jesus.

When we read the Bible, we see the message standing out as "Thou shall worship only your Lord the Almighty God with all your mind, heart and soul."

From you: "Also, I would like to clarify for you what the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is.  It's better to have this defined by Christians then, for instance, someone in a group outside of orthodox Christianity."

Everyone including Christians agrees that the doctrine of trinity was thought of long after Jesus was gone and it was established 365 years after Jesus was gone. Jesus did neither teach that doctrine nor even hinted about it in the scriptures at all.

Best Regards

BMZ

Athanasius wrote: Khadija, I know and correspond with a gentleman who is a devout Muslim and who is currently studying to be an Iman.  He is the one who told me that the Muslim faith teaches that Jesus is the Word.  Would you care to research that some more.

Athanasius, I don�t have to research the subject more.  It is clear from the Holy Qur�an that the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is NOT the Word.  It is easy to say that you know a �devout Muslim� who is studying to be an IMAM who told you this; however, either you completely misunderstood this person or he is not really studying to be an IMAM because no Muslim would take this position.  As Sister Mishmish said, there is not concept of divinity for Jesus (pbuh) when it comes to Islam.  He was merely a prophet like all other prophets; that is, he was a servant/slave of God.    

I find it extremely interesting that in each of the Gospels�Matthew, Mark, Luke and John�Jesus (pbuh) refers to himself, at least once in each book, as a Prophet.  Why would he do that if he were God in the flesh?  A prophet is a Messenger who is given the Word (Divine Revelation) of God (bestowed upon him by God) to preach to those God wants the His messenger to preach to.  How can Jesus (pbuh) be both God (author of the Word) and Messenger of the Word?  If he were God, then he would not have needed God to bestow upon him the Holy Spirit (Divine Revelation) because it would have already been with him...because if he were God, he would be the author of the Word as well.  There is no getting around this fact.  The truth of the matter is that he was in fact a Messenger of God, a Prophet and not God in any way, shape or form.

Athanasius wrote: Also, I would like to clarify for you what the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is.  It's better to have this defined by Christians then, for instance, someone in a group outside of orthodox Christianity.

Athanasius, I was not only a Christian for MANY years, I have a MA in Philosophy and my field of expertise is Metaphysics which covers religion.  I assure you that I don�t need you to �clarify� the �orthodox doctrine of the Trinity� for me.  Nothing you or any other Christian has to say to me regarding the �Trinity� is going to clear up the problems which are inherent in that doctrine.  However, the Holy Qur�an cleared it up simply by revealing the truth. 

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!!!!

Those are the words spoken by the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) to the Jews when he said:

If you hold to my teachings, you are really my disciples.  Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.� (John 8:31-32)

In talking to the Jews, the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) said the same thing to the Jews that God reveled to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) regarding the Prophet Abraham (pbuh) and the reason God gave him Divine Revelation:

If you were Abraham�s children, then you would do the things Abraham did.  As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.  Abraham did not do such things.  You are doing the things your own father does.� (John 8:39-41)

Jesus (pbuh) is calling the Jews back to the way of God, as was reveled to them through the Prophet Abraham (pbuh), instead of following the ways of their fathers.  In other words, they were to follow the command of God and not the traditions of their fathers�the ways of their culture.  That is the same message that God has given time and time again, and is the reason He has had mercy on us and sends us His messengers.  We simply keep going back to our old ways�humankind that is.

Now look at what it says as to how he came to obtain this truth.  It was through God that he received it.  Not that he was God and thereby was the author of the words he said.  In John 8:26, Jesus (pbuh) said, �He who sent me is reliable.�   At John 8:29 he states, �The one who sent me is with me, He has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases Him.�  If Jesus (pbuh) is God, then why does he have to do what pleases God?  Why didn�t he simply say, �I always do as I please�?  Although, �I always do as I please� is a true statement about God, it is not a true statement regarding Jesus (pbuh); however, if Jesus (pbuh) and God are one, that statement would have to be equally true of the both of them.  The reason it is not true of Jesus (pbuh) is that Jesus (pbuh) is not God but rather a servant/slave�of God and servants/slaves should always do that which is pleasing to their Master.

Athanasius wrote: As you see, my logo is Athanasius.  Athanasius was the great saint who countered the errors of Arius regarding Christ's Deity and His relationship to the Father and the Holy Spirit.  Briefly, Christians have always taught that there is only ONE God, not many gods.  Those that believe in many gods are idolators. Furthermore, we believe that within the One Godhead there is a tri-personal center of being (you could use Meng's test tube illustration that I read here - excellent, by the way).  Each person is of the same substance - and that is spirit or deity.  The Bible teaches that God is spirit (not flesh and bones), and that those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. Each Person in the Godhead is equal as to power and glory; but there is a subordination within the Godhead - not pertaining to substance, but pertaining to relationship only.  For instance, we read in Scripture that the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father, through the Son, to perform that which unto He is sent: conviction of sin, drawing one to Christ, etc.

What you have just described is why it is impossible for me to buy the trinity.  Those who created the trinity doctrine and want others to buy into it simply want their cake and to eat it too�and in doing so, have created a HOLY mess.  As you describe it above, the son is not the Word (Holy Spirit), he was merely given the Word (Holy Spirit) which was bestowed upon him by the Father (God)�your claim is that there is a �subordination in relationship� not in substance.  How is that possible when you claim that John 1:1 refers to Jesus (pbuh).  The Word is the Holy Spirit and according to your �trinity� the Holy Spirit is not the same as the son which is Jesus (pbuh).  If the son is not equal to the Holy Spirit (which is the Word), then how can the Word in John 1:1 be anything other than the Holy Spirit (not the son)?

And by the way, I think I clearly proved why you can�t use Meng�s water in a test tube theory in understanding the Trinity.  Did you completely overlook that part of my post?   If you don�t agree with my treatment of that �excellent� illustration, then you need to state why and prove it wrong.  Since you simply dismissed it, I�m assuming you have no argument against what I said and simply want to forget what I said and for others to not notice it either. 

Athanasius wrote: I am going to link you to the Athanasian creed which is the classic statement within orthodox Christianity regarding the Godhead.  I am not printing any of this to proselytize (I believe that I can convert no person, that is not my job); however, Muslims need to know what the orthodox doctrine is, since it appears that there are a lot of posts out there that are deceptive doctrinally.  For instance, it I wanted to understand the orthodox doctrines of the Muslim faith, I would probably go to a Sunni - right? I wouldn't be going to a leader in the Ahmadiya movement, now would I?  So, here is the link, and I hope it is helpful in assisting Muslims to understand the orthodox Christian doctrines of the Holy Trinity.  I would be glad to answer any questions, should you have them:

Saying that you are not trying to proselytize but posting a link and then stating you would be glad to answer any questions seems to be a contradiction.  As I have stated before, this is not a web site for learning about Christianity or proselytizing Christianity.  Nor is it a place to advertise for Christianity.  It is a web site to learn about Islam.  Regardless of what you believe, there is no reason why Muslims �need� to know �what the �orthodox doctrine� of Christianity is.  We, MUSLIMS, believe that we know what true Christianity is because we believe that God revealed that to us through the Divine Revelation when He bestowed upon the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  This is not to say that we are forbidden to study other faiths; however, we are completely able to find such information if we want it. 

PAZ

Sister Khadija

-------------
Say: 'My prayer and my rites, my living and my dying, are for Allah alone, the Lord of all the worlds. (Qur'an, 6:162)

Israfil wrote: Seeing how the 'trinity' as a concept was introduced later and formalized by the Orthodox Church, can any of my co-religionist prove, without using their doctrine how the Trinity is logical. I will not use my doctrine (Qur'an) as this would make the discussion rhetorical so I'd like for those who you, who have mastered the philosophy of the trinity, prove logically that the Trinity is true. Think hard because I will critique it! Remember you are our brothers and sisters under ONE GOD therefore this is not a critique on your religion but a friendly and healthy debate, and let any Muslim coming into this discussion respect that and not disrespect anyone here.

It is true that Christians believe in ONE GOD.

You can get views about the logic of the trinity on the Internet.  And some have presented the logical view and some analogies to get the point across in response to your request.

I believe that intelligent Jews understand the logic of the trinity (I have spoken to many) but they reject it.  Rejecting it is different than saying it isn't logical.  We humans are sometimes at a loss to understand the things that God can do and has done.  The virgin birth of Jesus is not logical, but God managed to do it because nothing is too hard for him to do.  We can say that the virgin birth is not logical, but true at the same time.

It is a useless exercise to find fault with trinity analogies.  None of them are perfect, because we cannot explain God by using analogies.  He is beyond that.

Analogies are meant as illustrations of specific points, not complete one-to-one mirrors of an entire reality.

A Christian does not have to be able to explain the trinity.  I look only to Jesus.   What did Jesus say?  Jesus spoke of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

In the Gospel of John Jesus said that the Holy Spirit of God was in the world and he goes on to say that this same Holy Spirit indwells Christian believers.  Can I explain how God's spirit indwells believers?  No. Did Jesus explain how it happens?  No, but Jesus believed it.

All a Christian needs to know is that there is one God and that this God is one Being and that this one God was incarnate in Jesus Christ and that this one God is working today inside or indwelling Christians all over the world.

George wrote: All a Christian needs to know is that there is one God and that this God is one Being and that this one God was incarnate in Jesus Christ and that this one God is working today inside or indwelling Christians all over the world.

Ok, but you might like to explain what you mean by incarnate. 

Where does it say in scriptures that God was incarnate in Jesus ? (or that God is in us today)? To say that God was incarnate in Jesus is to say that Jesus became God, and its in correct, I have already meantioned that Jesus never said he was God according to scriptures, he never stated he was. I agreed to your point until I got to that point of incarnation.

Angel wrote: George wrote: All a Christian needs to know is that there is one God and that this God is one Being and that this one God was incarnate in Jesus Christ and that this one God is working today inside or indwelling Christians all over the world. Ok, but you might like to explain what you mean by incarnate.  Where does it say in scriptures that God was incarnate in Jesus ? (or that God is in us today)? To say that God was incarnate in Jesus is to say that Jesus became God, and its in correct, I have already meantioned that Jesus never said he was God according to scriptures, he never stated he was. I agreed to your point until I got to that point of incarnation.

You can find articles on the Internet that will help you with the incarnation.

Read the first Chapter of John.  The Word became flesh for starters.

Jesus did not become God. God incarnated Jesus.

I have already meantioned that Jesus never said he was God according to scriptures, he never stated he was.

I disagree with you.  He did not use those exact words, but Jesus made claims that only God can claim.  You can find them on the Internet too.

What faith are you Angel?

I have to disagree with Angel in saying that the Trinity is an ambiguous concept even within the Catholic Church. The philosophy from this concept has been practiced by Eastern and Western Churches for around 1500 years. Even Constantine ordered all members within his empire to believe in this philosophy, to not conform was considered heresy and the penalty was death.

For those of you not clear on the Trinity, the Trinity is The Father, whom is God, who is eternal and absolute. The Son whom is considered "Logos" or the Word incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth and Holy Spirit or in Hebrew known as Ruah Haqodesh.

The Trinity is composed of three divine persons, who are co-eternal yet are distinct in nature in personae. These distinct persons are known as hypostases which is the belief that Jesus had a duel nature of being God and human. 

The Islamic opinion here on this matter is that the foundation of the principle which the trinity stands are not at issue, but that there exist within this concept plurality. God is made in this matter divisible by 3 which defies the concept of God's Oneness. Although Christian say God is one there are some discrepencies when the matter is divided into three.

God in the trinity is One and eternal but has two other aspects which are considered  "co-eternal" with the father. The fact that there exist others that are "co-eternal" with God is a problem. Hence, the response that the trinity implies a form of historical paganism which we find in Rome in the city of Baalbeck having temples that showed reverence to the planets: Jupiter Venus and Mercury.

As I mentioned earlier that no Christian has yet to prove the trinity logically. I have seen attempts earlier using the H2o example, and however that seemed like a plausible argument it is again a logical flalacy. Although the gaseous and vaporous states of water are "similar" because of the main element: Water the three states are different.

Water which can be vapor (gas), liquid and solid are three aspects of water however those aspects, in their individual state are different. Here we find a plurality based on the state of water in various circumstances. If I were to say that h2o is One and there is no plurality in this, my argumenet goes that water cannnot change from state to state it is thus consistent on its existence.

Also when we say "God is absolute" yet believe in the trinity we contradict absolute. We are therefore saying God does not change in being absolute. Hence we contradict that. I have seen Chritians here use the argumenet of God's omnipotence.

We Muslims do not deny the omnipotence of God, however this argument does not run a justification of plurality either. The Jews had it right in the Sh'ma in saying that there is only One LORD. When God says that he is one he is therefore declaring his absolute sovereignty and his state of existence.

                  The Trinity-Theological Thoughts

         From the earliest ages, the concept of the Great Goddess was a trinity and the model for all subsequent trinities, female, male or mixed.  Anatolian villages in the 7th millennium B.C. worshipped a Goddess in three aspects � as a young woman, a birth-giving matron, and an old woman.  (See, Merlin Stone, When God Was A Woman at 17).  This typical Virgin-Mother-Crone combination was Parvati-Durga-Uma (Kali) in India, Ana-Babd-Macha (the Morrigan) in Iceland, or in Greece Hebe-Hera-Hecate, the three Moerae, the three Gorgons, the three Graeae, the three Horae, etc.  Among the Vikins, the threefold Goddess appeared as the Norns; among the Romans, as the Fates or Fortunae; among the Druids, as Diana Triformis.  The Triple Goddess had more than three: she had hundreds of forms.

Pre-Roman Latium worshipped her as the Capitoline Triad under the collective name of Uni, �The One,� a cognate of yoni.  Her three personae were Juventas the Virgin, Juno the Mother, and Menarva or Minerva the wise Crone.  Under the empire, Juventas was ousted to make room for a masculine member of the trinity, Jupiter.  (See, Georges Dumezil, Archaic Roman Religion at 116).  Some modern scholars refer to the two-female, one-male Capitoline Triad of the later period as �three gods� � as if they might describe a group of two women and one man as �three men.�  (See, J.B. Carter, The Religious Life of Ancient Rome at 26).

Cumont says, �Oriental theologians developed the idea that the world forms a trinity; it is three in one and one in three.�  (See, Franz Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans at 69).  The masculine scholar substitutes the neuter �world� for �Goddess,� though they were in a sense synonymous.  It was she who established the Trinitarian form of Creator, Preserver, and Destroyer.  Even though Brahmans evolved a male trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva to play these parts, Tantric scriptures insisted that the Triple Goddess had created these three gods in the first place.  (See, Amaury de Riencourt, Sex and Power in History at 167).

 
Mother of the Greek gods was a trinity composed of Virgin Hebe, Mother Hera, and Crone Hecate; at Stymphalus she was worshipped as Child, Bride, and Widow.  (See, Robert Graves, The Greek Myths at 1, 52).  Each of her personae could be a trinity again, so she could be the Muses or the Ninefold Goddess.  Hecate was called Triformis and shown with three faces, each a lunar phase.  Among the Irish she was the Triple Morrigan, or Morgan, sometimes multiplied into �nine sisters� who kept the Cauldron of Regeneration and ruled the western isle of the dead.  (See, Robert Graves, The White Goddess at 406; Alwyn & Brinely Rees, Celtic Heritage at 193).

The Goddess Triformis ruled heaven as Virgin, earth as Mother, and the underworld as Crone, or Hel, or Queen of the Shades.  This was remembered even in Chaucer�s time, for his Palamon invoked her �Three Forms,� Luna in heaven, Diana on earth, Proserpine in hell.  (See, Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales at 81, 511).  The old name of Sicily, Trinacria, invoked her as a �center of the earth� with three realms.

Bardic romances abounded in manifestations of the Triple Goddess.  Wayland the Smith married her, after she first appeared to him as three magic doves.  (See, Thomas Keightley, The World Guide to Gnomes, Fairies, Elves and Other Little People at 215)  King Arthur went to Avalon with her.  The triadic Guinevere was another version of her.  Sir Marhaus (Mars) encountered her as the Three Damosels at their magic fountain: the eldest �threesome winters of age, wearing a garland of gold; the second thirty winters of age, wearing a circlet of gold; the youngest fifteen winters of age, wearing a wreath of flowers.�  (See, Sir Thomas Malory, Le Morte d�Arthur at 1, 115).  Fifteen was the number of the pagan Virgin Kore, the pentacle in the apple.  Mythic virgin mothers, like that of Zoroaster, typically gave birth at the age of fifteen.  Double that was the Mother�s age, double again the age of the Crone.

The notion of a trinity appeared during the 14th century B.C., a popular Babylonian trinity was composed of Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar � Sun, Moon, and Star.  In Greece this was repeated as Helios the sun, Selene the Moon, and Aphrodite the star.  A Father-Mother-Son trinity was worshipped at Costopitum as Jupiter Dolichenus, Celestial Brigantia and Salus.  (See, Jack Lindsay, The Origins of Astrology at 112, 328, 375; Dorothy Norman, The Hero at 71).

Gnostic versions of the trinity followed the Father-Mother-Son patterns of the contemporary east, with the Holy Ghost recognized as a female Sophia, the Dove, worshipped as the Great Goddess in Constantinople, and viewed by most Gnostics as the Shakti of God.  The Christian God was originally modeled on Far-Eastern heaven-fathers such as Brahma and Dyaus Pitar, all of whom needed their female sources of �Power,� or else they could not act.  (See, Heinrich Zimmer, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and Civilization at 25)  Therefore, a female member of the triad was essential even to God.  Among Arabian Christians there was apparently a holy trinity of God, Mary, and Jesus, worshipped as an interchangeable replacement for the Egyptian trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus.  (See, Geoffrey Ashe, The Virgin at 206).

During the Christian era, all-male trinities became popular among Germanic tribes.  Woden, Thor, and Saxnot were worshipped together by the Saxons of the 8th and 9th centuries.  Norsemen called them Odin, Tyr, and Frey.  According to a certain fragmentary myth, the Triple Goddess seems to have burned as a witch.  She had to be burned to ashes three times.  Afterward, youth, beauty, and love in the person of Freya departed from Asgard; and there was war in heaven.  (See, Brian Branston, Gods of the North at 112, 213-14).

Mishmish wrote: Assalamu Alaikum Ahmadjoyia: It is better to explain very clearly that the use of "word" in this context is the Word of God, "Be", and it is. Not that the Prophet Jesus(PBUH) is the Word, by which he is sometimes described by Christians, meaning the Living Word, God incarnate.

Ok since this is little off the topic, I shall take only small section of this discussion to talk about as how I understand as what is "word of Allah" as far as Prophet Jesus is concerned. In this, from various verses of the quran, some of which I have pasted in my previous post, one thing is very clear that Jesus is just like other prophets of Allah, among whom we are not to make distinction among them. However, we are also told, from these verses, that some of the prophets were given (miracles or power etc.) more than the others, I think, depending upon the plan devised by Allah for that Prophet's mission on earth. These verses, on one side do name Prophet Jesus as "word of Allah" and on the other hand clarify his identity in the similitude of Prophet Adam, where both are said to created when Allah simiply said "Be." and hence created them. Thus, for us, it is very clear that Prophet Jesus, though had many powerful miracles with him, was created just like Prophet Adam was created. Like, there is a Miracle in the creation of Jesus without father, Prophet Adam had even bigger Miracle of being created without the father and mother, both. I hope this may help to understand as what the word "word" and the command "Be." can signify from the understanding of Quranic verses. Going beyond this understanding, I think, in any direction, is like defining from conjectures, to which we all must avoid. May Allah guides us all in the right direction without conjectures. Peace.   

Israfil wrote: Well, nobody here is talking about the Christian foundation as being borrowed from paganism, however the foundation which Christianity came from which is Judaism, was not founded on a trinitarian ideology. I have already refuted how incompatible the trinity is with foundational monotheism.

well if youre not talking about christian "borrowing" from paganism, then what was the point of your agreement with sign readers post? - by "foundational monotheism" of course you mean islam, with which the trinity is of course incompatible

israfil - if i have time tomorrow i will try to outline it for you, the trouble is i have now involved myself in too many threads (as usual)

SIGN READER - you are OFF MY RADAR SCREEN until the offensive remarks you made about christians on this thread (swayed by greed, debasing their souls) as well as the slander against the doctrine of the holy trinity (fits in well with debauched and materialistic societies) - also the personal insults levelled against me on the other thread ARE REMOVED

fredifreeloader wrote: israfil - if i have time tomorrow i will try to outline it for you, the trouble is i have now involved myself in too many threads (as usual) SIGN READER - you are OFF MY RADAR SCREEN until the offensive remarks you made about christians on this thread (swayed by greed, debasing their souls) as well as the slander against the doctrine of the holy trinity (fits in well with debauched and materialistic societies) - also the personal insults levelled against me on the other thread ARE REMOVED

Whoa, did something happen I'm not seeing???? 

AhmadJoyia wrote: Mishmish wrote: Assalamu Alaikum Ahmadjoyia: It is better to explain very clearly that the use of "word" in this context is the Word of God, "Be", and it is. Not that the Prophet Jesus(PBUH) is the Word, by which he is sometimes described by Christians, meaning the Living Word, God incarnate. Ok since this is little off the topic, I shall take only small section of this discussion to talk about as how I understand as what is "word of Allah" as far as Prophet Jesus is concerned. In this, from various verses of the quran, some of which I have pasted in my previous post, one thing is very clear that Jesus is just like other prophets of Allah, among whom we are not to make distinction among them. However, we are also told, from these verses, that some of the prophets were given (miracles or power etc.) more than the others, I think, depending upon the plan devised by Allah for that Prophet's mission on earth. These verses, on one side do name Prophet Jesus as "word of Allah" and on the other hand clarify his identity in the similitude of Prophet Adam, where both are said to created when Allah simiply said "Be." and hence created them. Thus, for us, it is very clear that Prophet Jesus, though had many powerful miracles with him, was created just like Prophet Adam was created. Like, there is a Miracle in the creation of Jesus without father, Prophet Adam had even bigger Miracle of being created without the father and mother, both. I hope this may help to understand as what the word "word" and the command "Be." can signify from the understanding of Quranic verses. Going beyond this understanding, I think, in any direction, is like defining from conjectures, to which we all must avoid. May Allah guides us all in the right direction without conjectures. Peace.

This is basically what I have been told by Islamic scholars: that God's word was "be," and Jesus was created - therefore, He is the Word.

Now, how can you call Jesus a Prophet if His Words disagree with that of the Quran?  For instance, Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."

This is not only a reference to the fact that Jesus existed prior to Father Abraham (in which case, He existed prior to His incarnation in the womb of Mary), but "I AM" also is a reference to the Jewish title for God:  YHWH = I AM who I AM.

The Jews took up stones to kill Jesus for blasphemy because:
"you being a man, maketh thyself God."  In other words, the Jews clearly understood Christ's claim of Deity.

So, it would appear that either Jesus was not a prophet, or the Quran is wrong.

Athanasius wrote: This is basically what I have been told by Islamic scholars: that God's word was "be," and Jesus was created - therefore, He is the Word.

My Dear Bro Athanasius, kindly note that this "Be" is not unique to Prophet Jesus only but for everything that Allah intends to do. Kindly do also note the similitude of birth of Jesus with that of Adam. So, if you extend the meanings of word "Be" to a literal understanding why not do the same thing for other commands of Allah, especially about Prophet Adam as well. On the more Quran also guides us as not to extrapolate the things from our own self without knowldge and through conjectures only. It is for this very reason, we always read and understand Quran from the verses which are basic and are of commong understanding and leave such matters where conjectures are the basis of understanding.

Now just for little fun and not intending any harm, looking at little finner details of your reply, it is curious to know that though you are very particular in captilizing the pronoun for Prophet Jesus as "He" but not so much concerned about quoting the word "Be" as is actually said and merely putting it as "be". Is there any reason for it or just your "staff" didn't do their job properly?

Look, the bottom line is that Jesus Christ said He was God, healed the sick, made the blind see, and was crucified to a cross by Roman guards.  On the third day He arose from the dead.  He is the only one to ever overcome death.  Mohammed didn't.  Buddha didn't.  Confucius didn't. 

Who has the greater claim on our faith?

Hi Torrencedelay,

From you: "Look, the bottom line is that Jesus Christ said He was God,"

Look, he never said that he was God. You will find my statement true and correct. I can vouch for this.   If you read the entire Bible, there is not a single place where he said so in his own words.

Torrencedelay wrote: Look, the bottom line is that Jesus Christ said He was God, healed the sick, made the blind see, and was crucified to a cross by Roman guards.  On the third day He arose from the dead.  He is the only one to ever overcome death.  Mohammed didn't.  Buddha didn't.  Confucius didn't.  Who has the greater claim on our faith?

As I posted on another thread, Christians believe that Lazarus was resurrected from death.

Torrencedelay wrote: Look, the bottom line is that Jesus Christ said He was God,

Man!!

Look, the bottom line and I have said this MANY TIMES, JESUS NEVER SAID OR CLAIMED HE WAS GOD! no where in the scriptures does Jesus say he is.

And this topic is not for here in this thread! If you want to discuss, then create another thread, simple!  please and thank you

Fred in answering your question, no tawhid as a word is not in the Qur'an however its derivative comes from Surah 112: 1-4 which says

(Arabic)

Bismillah ir Rahmaan ir Raheem

Qulhu' allahu ahad (One) Allahus' Samad Lam Yulid Wa lam Yulad Wa' Lam Yakulaahu Kufuwan ahad.

"In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficient, the Most Merciful,

Say: He is Allah, the One,

Allah is He on whom all depend,

He does not beget, nor is He begotten,

And (there is) none like Him." (Qur'an, 112:1-4)

It can be said here that the first few verses are comparable to the Sh'ma of the Jew:

 

Sh'ma Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Echad. 

"Hear O' Israel, the Lord God, The Lord is One."

Although Tawhid specifically does not appear in the Qur'an its derivative is clear in accordance to the Quranic verses which I have posted. Unlike the Christian concept of God which is the philosophy of the trinity, there is no plurality within God. Each attributes in accordance not divisible within God nor are they considered separate in nature for all of God's attributes which are listed, run in unison to each other.

DavidC that is an excellent point that is why I don't underastand why my Christian brothers and sisters subscribe to this particular belief. I would rather subscribe to the greater mystery in the Oneness of God. Christians in this respect, must go back to their Jewish roots and subscribe to the foundation belief of the Sh'ma. I understand that the word Trinity doesn't appear in the Bible but is a composition using various Biblical verse (most notably John) to associate the tirnity with God. the only Latin speaker to every mention trinity was Tertullian. which trinity derives from the latin word "Trinitas." But regardless of its history it is still not proven logically.

In my understanding of things one should never subscribe to a tenet unless it qualifies as logical and consistent with its foundations. In this case the trinity is not consistent with foundational Christianity (in the times of Christ) which were the early Jews who believed in Jesus of Nazareth. My Christian neighbors must understand that even if I were to entertain the idea of the trinity each state of God I would say are "manifestations" of God, not his true-self and even if I were to say these are manifestations I would be making a grave error because God is the "unmoved mover."

Israfil,

You have already explained it well and I would like to add just a little.

The words used in Qur'aan are Ahad and Wahid. Ahad is exactly the same as Echad in Hebrew. Sometimes Echad is also written as Ehud along with it's spelling variations.

Tawhid is a declaration of calling God as the only One. That's why when we read and recite "Laa Ilaha Illal-laah", which is known as Kalima Tawhid, we declare that there is only one God and that there are no other Gods or gods.

Best Regards & Salaam Alaikum

BMZ

I have some news for everyone.

If I decided today that God was not triune in nature, I would still be a Christian.  I would still follow Jesus, the Messiah.

I think the Koran makes a distinction between Gabriel and the Holy Spirit, doesn't it?

DavidC wrote: Israfil wrote: Anth you are not logically explaining the rationality in the trinity The best Christian minds have never been able to explain the Trinity rationally.  It is considered a mystery that can only be revealed through faith. Mysteries keep us humble.  We can never pretend to fully understand God.

I agree. 

How can any human explain God rationally?  Explain the virgin birth rationally?

George wrote: DavidC wrote: Israfil wrote: Anth you are not logically explaining the rationality in the trinity The best Christian minds have never been able to explain the Trinity rationally.  It is considered a mystery that can only be revealed through faith. Mysteries keep us humble.  We can never pretend to fully understand God. I agree.  How can any human explain God rationally?  Explain the virgin birth rationally?

I bet if you were there could

George  one can rationally explain the existence of God yes and one can rationally disporve the existence of God as well. My point is in discussing the trinitarian philosophy how can one subscribe to its belief if one cannot prove it rationally? For me I can rationally prove why I beleiev in God because I subscribe to the belief however I can also rationally prove the logic behind the Tawhid as well. I am willing to say God is a mystery and prove its logic but it appears Christians cannot do the same here that is where the challenge comes into play.

In addition ot my response of brother DavidC I agree that even belief in God is on a basis of faith however nobody should subscribe to any belief system if they cannot logically prove some rational aspects of it. Just blindly following something is not a legitimate reason for calling yourself an adherent to that faith.

ok brother David as it seems to you that regardless whether rational or irrational it is your belief

George,

From you: "I think the Koran makes a distinction between Gabriel and the Holy Spirit, doesn't it?"

No, Qur'aan doesn't. The Holy Spirit, according to Qur'aan, is Gabriel.

BR

BMZ

Israfil,

Do we disbelieve a revelation because it is not logical to our human minds?   Does a revelation of God have to be logical in order for humans to believe it?  Don't we have to trust God and what he has revealed?

 The virgin birth is not logical; yet Muslims and Christians believe it.  An angel appearing in a burning bush without burning up is not logical, yet Muslims and Christians believe it.  God incarnating man may not be logical to many, but if God can do anything, then anything is possible.

"A religion small enough for our understanding would not be large enough for our needs."  Arthur Balfour

I think you would be better off asking Orthodox Christians why they believe that the Word became flesh; why they believe that Jesus was God.  Keep in mind that Jesus did not become a God and that the One and Only God incarnated Jesus.

In other words ask Christians why they believe what they believe.  That should be another topic thread, though.

Mishmish wrote: Torrencedelay wrote: Look, the bottom line is that Jesus Christ said He was God, healed the sick, made the blind see, and was crucified to a cross by Roman guards.  On the third day He arose from the dead.  He is the only one to ever overcome death.  Mohammed didn't.  Buddha didn't.  Confucius didn't.  Who has the greater claim on our faith? As I posted on another thread, Christians believe that Lazarus was resurrected from death.

Lazarus was resusitated, not resurrected as first century Jews understood it.  In other words Lazarus came back to his former life and had the same body as before and died as a normal person would do.  The Jewish idea of resurrection was a general resurrection at the end of time.  Those who made the grade would be with God.  This resurrected body would no longer feel pain, get sick or die.

Jesus on the other hand came back with a "different" body, a resurrected body; a body that would never die again and a body that could appear and disappear at will and walk through walls and stuff.

Greetings Meng.

The notion of Liquid, vapor, and ice are really three states or manifestations of a single substance ( water); hence if you say that the Persons of Gd are like "them" is to fall into the heretical trap called modalism.

Peace

Meng wrote: First of all, I believe that the mystery of the Godhead is beyond human logic.....just as many concepts are beyond human logic. Please answer this, what "demonstrative proofs" do you have of Islam.  You simply accept it as a matter of faith, right? As a Christian, I believe God's Word is contained in the Old and New Testaments.  They teach that there is One God - and they also call the Father God, the Son God and the Holy Spirit God. Thus we define God as One, who manifests as the Person of the Father, the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit. Yet, not three gods (as Mormonism teaches), but One God. Let me give you this example from chemistry.  If you place H2o in a test tube and subject it to certain laboratory environments, the water in the test tube will be liquid, ice and vapor, all simultaneously.  If water, the simples of compounds, can be three simultaneously, while still remaining one substance - why don't you believe that God can do the same?

George,

From you: "Lazarus was resusitated, not resurrected as first century Jews understood it.  In other words Lazarus came back to his former life and had the same body as before and died as a normal person would do.  The Jewish idea of resurrection was a general resurrection at the end of time.  Those who made the grade would be with God.  This resurrected body would no longer feel pain, get sick or die.

Jesus on the other hand came back with a "different" body, a resurrected body; a body that would never die again and a body that could appear and disappear at will and walk through walls and stuff."

Lazarus was not resuscitated. He was dead and was brought back to life by Jesus at the Command of God Almighty. That was to show a miracle to the Jews. To resuscitate means to revive a person from unconsciousness and save a dying person, giving CPR or MTMR to someone.

If Jesus were resurrected, he would have been resurrected with the same body. It is impossible to die in one and get up in another. I am sorry to write that it is hard to believe that he could appear or disappear at will and walk through walls and stuff.

BR

BMZ

George wrote: Again, you are mistaken.  Even though Jesus had the "same" body in one sense; the body that his companions could recognize, it was different somehow.

The only way Jesus's companions could recognise him is if Jesus had the same body as before when alive.

Jesus had the type of body that we, too, will have someday if we are allowed to be with God in heaven.

-------------
~ Our feet are earthbound, but our hearts and our minds have wings ~

George wrote: Jesus on the other hand came back with a "different" body, a resurrected body; a body that would never die again and a body that could appear and disappear at will and walk through walls and stuff.

I'm sorry but that just sounds too ridiculous. Something I have not heard in the catholic faith.

So what happened to jesus's body??, as the story goes, his body was not to be found! anywhere! no sign! And when He appeared after death, resurrected, it was Mary Madgaline who first saw him and recongised the person from just looking, you cannot recognise a person like that if you had a different body!!

Where on earth did you get this notion?