Trinity and Trimurty

[Muhammad]

Muslim philosopher Imran Aijaz used this argument against the trinity

if X, Y and Z were contingent entities, then how can contingent + contingent + contingent = non-contingent? - since, if all three were necessary beings *on their own*,they would have no need for the other two. If X was a necessary being, say,it would necessarily exclude Y and Z (necessity is a sufficient condition for excluding Y and Z). The eternity of three necessary beings causes more problems because, should such a thing be the cause, they would be three *distinct* beings - i.e. the scenario would be tritheistic


A polytheist might well believe in 3 distinct sentiment beings with godlike power.That's precisely what christians say the trinity entains.Admittedly the polythiest would assent to the sentence "there are 3 gods" and christians wouldn't, but in terms of the content of your belief s , there is nothing between you.How would the doctrine of trinity be any different if it were instead claimed that the 3 gods always agreed each other, but each had its own distinct "essence" and yet the 3 still formed a single commitee, called "god"?It is not a essential part of polythiset that gods dis-agree with each other or that they have bodies.i recommend consulting a dictionary if christians dispute this. is the trinity indistinguisble to external observers? well, jesus died on the cross; the father didn't, jesus was once a baby boy; the spirit wasn't. the deciples were supposed to have been filled with the spirit, not the father. the bible depicts the members of the trinity having conversation with each other, and even asking each other question.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Muhammad,

thank you for the post.

can you please define the word "contingent" for us?



~compassionately~

[ihsan]

Contingent refers to depending on something else for it's existence. The eternal being should be self-dependent for his life.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Ishan,

thank you for the explanation.

it's unfortunate that this philosopher did not take his argument to its logical conclusion, but then again... he really can't, can he?

thanks for the clarification however i shall leave this thread for those that think that the Trinity had made some type of logical sense prior



~compassionately~

[nr]

since, if all three were necessary beings *on their own*,they would have no need for the other two.
Jesus needs the Father just as much as the Father needs Jesus. The use of the father when there is not a son is contradiction just as great as the use of the word son when there is not a father. Also, the use of "being" here seems to suggest that we believe that God consists of 3 distinct bodies which is incorrect. We believe that God is 3 distinct persons consubstantial and of the same essence.

[Just Me]

We believe that God is 3 distinct persons consubstantial and of the same essence.

With all respect, I'm not trying to hound you, because I once believed in the trinity too, although I couldn't explain it rationally. Here are some points to think about:

How can you say that God and Jesus were of the same substance when it is obvious that Jesus was a physical man and God is not?

How can you say they were of the same essence when the Bible itself makes it clear that they did not even share the same will? Otherwise, why would Jesus pray, "Thy will and not mine be done" and why would it say that Jesus "learned obedience by the things that he suffered?"

There are many other points on similar lines, but I'm sure everyone on this forum familiar with the debate.

An excellent book that I recommend highly is "When Jesus Became God" by Richard Rubenstein. It's an eye-opening account of the history of the trinitarian/unitarian conflict in the early church...very engaging narrarative style and very thorough research.

[Ahmad24]

"A polytheist might well believe in 3 distinct sentiment beings with godlike power.That's precisely what christians say the trinity entains.Admittedly the polythiest would assent to the sentence "there are 3 gods" and christians wouldn't, but in terms of the content of your belief s , there is nothing between you.How would the doctrine of trinity be any different if it were instead claimed that the 3 gods always agreed each other, but each had its own distinct "essence" and yet the 3 still formed a single commitee, called "god"?It is not a essential part of polythiset that gods dis-agree with each other or that they have bodies."


I have to say the above is clearly a misunderstanding of the concept of Trinity at least according to some Christians.first it's good to understand the terms, like "God" before we make it look like it's just "power" shared by 3 persons and any God is nothing but this "power" that may lead to say that even Muslims are poltheists who worship 99 Gods.

[Muhammad]

shared by 3 persons and any God is nothing but this "power" that may lead to say that even Muslims are poltheists who worship 99 Gods.


Do you know of any of those 99 attributes that take the form of man, monkey, woman, etc? Do these attributes argue and say, "hey i don't need your help in creating multiple universes" If I say that you are a human being, and you are also a male, and you are also a student, and you are also a Christian, then I suppose you shall agree that this means that you are four seperate and individual beings merged into one such that it is possible for your "Student" persona to die and go to hell for three days while your "Christian" persona did not die and did not go to hell? RIght?

If you were a student who was enrolled part-time in the military, I assume that you would accept as completely logical a situation where a gang of killers come after your "student" persona with the intent of killing it while your "military" persona remained a safe distance away. I am assuming that you would also accept as completely logical that your "student" persona would then grab the phone and frantically beseech your "military" persona "military persona, military persona, why have you forsaken me?" and "Military persona, please let this cup pass from me" ..etc.?

I assume that you would not than object to my logic if I were to claim that your military persona then decided to sit back and do nothing and your student persona was brutally murdered while your military persona watched in all safety from the military base and was not itself killed? Right? Is this logical in your eyes?

[Ahmad24]

**"Do you know of any of those 99 attributes that take the form of man, monkey, woman, etc? Do these attributes argue and say, "hey i don't need your help in creating multiple universes"**

That's not necessary, Imran Aijaz agrees :

"It is not a essential part of polythiset that gods dis-agree with each other or that they have bodies"

If we say that God is "power" and that's all then when God in Qur'an say I'm the most merciful the most forgiving God i.e with Godlike "power" . and then we read somewhere else says Al aziz al hakim God .bearing in mind that Goid is nothing but "Godly power" , someone may conclude from this that Al aziz and Al raheem are different Gods since they both are called God i.e with Godlike power.

That's why i said we need to define the terms well according to the Islamic belief and even the jewish and Christian will agree on the same definition.


***If I say that you are a human being, and you are also a male, and you are also a student, and you are also a Christian, then I suppose you shall agree that this means that you are four seperate and individual beings merged into one such that it is possible for your "Student" persona to die and go to hell for three days while your "Christian" persona did not die and did not go to hell? RIght?**

I think you are talking about Modalism?

Anyway, If i have to give an analogy , consider the analogy of water, ice and gas which is not very perfect in my opinion but it may make the concept more clear. those 3 different shape are identical in the essence (God) and different in shape (personality). It's no violation of logic when i say that God is one in A and 3 in B and that Jesus is fully (in sense A) man and fully (in sense B) God .

[Yahya Sulaiman]

There's a difference between the reality of a doctrine and the reality of the way that this doctrine is practiced. I find, reflecting on my years at a Christian high school (during which I was a very enthusiastic Christian), that Christians will tend to think of the three parts of the Trinity as three separate entities without realizing it. That's just the way the human mind works: it will believe in what in can imagine rather than what it cannot imagine. Ergo, the Trinity doctrine, while not being polytheism in essence, is polytheism in practice, in reality.

I am Yahya, formerly Surah, formerly American Deist.

[Muhammad]

If we say that God is "power" and that's all then when God in Qur'an say I'm the most merciful the most forgiving God i.e with Godlike "power" . and then we read somewhere else says Al aziz al hakim God .bearing in mind that Goid is nothing but "Godly power" , someone may conclude from this that Al aziz and Al raheem are different Gods since they both are called God i.e with Godlike power.

:If i made a car does that mean that the car is part of my essence?
Is my making attribute part of my essence? Is "made" another Muhammad according to you?

That's why i said we need to define the terms well according to the Islamic belief and even the jewish and Christian will agree on the same definition.


Since they are of the same essence than does that mean the father god was taking a beating and put on a heavenly cross?

***If I say that you are a human being, and you are also a male, and you are also a student, and you are also a Christian, then I suppose you shall agree that this means that you are four seperate and individual beings merged into one such that it is possible for your "Student" persona to die and go to hell for three days while your "Christian" persona did not die and did not go to hell? RIght?**

I think you are talking about Modalism?

Anyway, If i have to give an analogy , consider the analogy of water, ice and gas which is not very perfect in my opinion but it may make the concept more clear.

No it makes the concept even more absurd.If I have a cup of water which can become steam, liquid, or ice, then it is not possible for me to drink the "liquid" while the "ice" and "steam" remain inside the glass. It is not possible for the "liquid" to ask the ice to save it from being drunk while the ice stayed a safe distance away and was not itself drunk. This is simple logic. In a similar manner, if god, krist, and the holy ghoast are all merely three "personalities" or three "states" for one being, namely God Almighty, then it is not possible for one "personality" of God to DIE while the other two remained a safe distance away unharmed by death Would it be logical to picture the "ice" form of a bucket of water praying to the "steam" form of itself . Further, did water start out as liquid and then decide to "beget" for itself another personality as "ice" and then add on a third personality as "steam"? Did God start out with one "personality" and then one day "beget" for Himself multiple personalities to keep Him company?. Does He usually speak to His other personalities and beseech them for salvation? (Matthew 27:46) Did He sacrifice one of His personalities to "save" mankind? Do some of His personalities have knowledge not available to others (Mark 13:32)? Are some of His "personalities" more powerful than others (John 14:28)? Are some of his personalities submissive to others (Luke 22:41-44)? Is this our mental picture of God? How will we answer Him on the day of judgment when He asks us about these claims we have made against Him?



-- those 3 different shape are identical in the essence (God) and


the structure of the crystal lattice in ice truly is a unique feature and depends upon a phenomenon known as hydrogen bonding. This results in a structre which is less dense than liquid water at the same temperature. This is the reason why ice floats while most solids would sink. The hydrogen bonding is due to the highly electronegative oxygen (and hence occurs in other substances such as hydrogen fluoride as well, with fluorine being even more electronegative than oxygen).

Now let us apply this to the analogy given above. The water consists,
ultimately, of molecules, both in the solid state and in the liquid state. Now when the Kinetic energy of of the water molecules is decreased (which will register as a drop in temperature) and the hydrogen bonds and van der Waals forces are strong enough to induce solidification (an exothermic process in which latent heat is given off), the water becomes ice. How can this possibly work with God? Is He made of molecules etc. which orient themselves spatially in different ways depending upon the energy content of the substance? Is He made up of small parts like these which are generally indistinguishable from each other?





It's no violation of logic when i say that God is one in A and 3 in B and that Jesus is fully (in sense A) man and fully (in sense B) God .

It is a direct insult to logic.Something cannot be both A
and ~A, for if that is allowed, then anything goes -- logically speaking.Consider a much simpler case than man-god myth.Can you, for example, be "fully male" at the same time that you are "fully female," ? But female is the only other equally fundamental "attribute" that could be at all applicable or comparable to the concept of "fully male."

Being "fully God" for example has certain fundamental attributes such as infallibility.

Being "fully Man," likewise, has certain fundamental inherent attributes (theologically speaking, once again) such as fallibility.

[Muhammad]

That's why i said we need to define the terms well according to the Islamic belief and even the jewish and Christian will agree on the same definition.


But one thing your forgetting is that the jews have never come across a trinity in their ot.I know of jewish women who will not touch a christian translation of the ot when at court because this translation is imposing christian interpretation on a holy jewsish text.

[nr]

merely three "personalities" or three "states" for one being, namely God Almighty, then it is not possible for one "personality" of God to DIE while the other two remained a safe distance away unharmed by death
I don't view God this way. God is the Trinity. Without Jesus there is no God, without the Father there is no God, and without the holy Spirit there is no God. The Father and Son are inextricably linked yet also two distinct persons. For example, if there was a perfect person that person would be absolutely submisive to God. But then it's impossible for God to be perfectly submisive unless there exists at least two persons. Obedience, and all that is good, cannot be expressed by a singular person. And in some ways, the Quran is right. God did not have or beget a Son. The Son has always existed, infinitely begotten by the Father. The nature of the Trinity is one essence. When Jesus says "I am the truth, the way and salvation" he does not mean that the Father is not the truth or that their exists an isolated truth away from God. He means that the Father and Son are together the truth and the holy Spirit leads us to the truth.



Edited by - nr on 10/27/2003 04:49:43

[nr]

But one thing your forgetting is that the jews have never come across a trinity in their ot.I know of jewish women who will not touch a christian translation of the ot when at court because this translation is imposing christian interpretation on a holy jewsish text.
This is probably due to the translation of the Septuagint before Christ.

[Muhammad]

1) The meaning of "beget" is as follows:
Quote:
be•get

Pronunciation: (bi-get'), [key]
—v.t., be•got or (Archaic) be•gat; be•got•ten or be•got; be•get•ting.
1. (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2. to cause; produce as an effect : a belief that power begets power.


2) The meaning of "coexist" is as follows:
Quote:
co•ex•ist

Pronunciation: (kO"ig-zist'), [key]
—v.i.
1. to exist together or at the same time.
2. to exist separately or independently but peaceably, often while remaining rivals or adversaries: Although their ideologies differ greatly, the two great powers must coexist.


3) The meaning of "eternal" is as follows:
Quote:
e•ter•nal

Pronunciation: (i-tûr'nl), [key]
—adj.
1. without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal): eternal life.
2. perpetual; ceaseless; endless: eternal quarreling; eternal chatter.
3. enduring; immutable: eternal principles.
4. Metaphys.existing outside all relations of time; not subject to change.


Source: InfoPlease.com

If we stick to these rules, we can see who is right and who is wrong.

Having a son (literally), or/and a begotten son means that whatever begot it or produced it gave it life . This is true if we stick to the rules laid out above. Now if you want to say that the Father had begotten a Son, you are saying that the Father however it happened, produced or gave life to the Son. Thus the meaning of the word "begotten". So the claim, "God has an only begotten Son", is what has been demonstrated to be impossible.

If on the other hand you want to say that the Father is eternal and coexistent with and just like the Son, then the Son cannot really be begotten after all, since it was therefore an un-produced item - eternal. This means that nobody gave it life. Which by extension means that it is not really a son. You can call it a "Son" but this is just a label and it does not entail the meaning of the word "son", or more accurately the meaning of the phrase, "begotten son".

If any such thing as an "eternal thinker" existed, then "thinking" on the part of this "thinker" would be eternal, but any specific thought that this thinker had would not be eternal. It would have had to begin at a specific point. So it is with OSM's reference to jesus as having been "eternally begotten" of the Father. If jesus had had no beginning, then there would have been no point at which he could have been "begotten."