Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
IAmZamzam

The Trinity

Recommended Posts

We Muslims were not raised on a desert island with no contact with modern civilization. We are very well aware that the Trinity does not literally teach the existence of three separate entities. In fact many of us (myself included) are ex-devout Christians. Please stop taking the things we say so horribly condescendingly literally. I'm sorry if I'm being snarky but it's hard to remain patient like a good Muslim should after being treated like an unreal sort of ignoramus a-hundred-and-fifty times in a row. Here is an article from my website which I hope should make things clearer.

 

ON THE TRINITY

 

Let’s say I were to ask two people, one a believer in the Trinity and the other a disbeliever, if they’re monotheists. The latter just says, “Yes.” The former first says, “Yes,” and then adds a “but”, and then adds another, extremely lengthy part *after* the “but”. This is significant. A Trinitarian is never comfortable. He always feels a need to defend himself, to explain the idea, and not only to a Muslim either. Just once before I die I would like see a single one of these people not assume that just because I’m not one of them that automatically makes me unfamiliar with the doctrine, and subject me to the same old lectures. It’s like a compulsion with these people, a force of habit. They’re positively bent on believing that no one in the world but them comprehends somethin­­g which they’re equally adamant is incomprehensible.

I am familiar with the doctrine. I was at the top of my theology class at almost every moment at the Christian high school I went to. I’ve read practically everything C.S. Lewis ever wrote. I’ve been over the whole shebang already, many times through: the Council of Nicaea, the discovery and distortion of the hypostasis theory, St. Augustine, St. Patrick and the shamrock, “Mere Christianity”, the Athanasian Creed, Answering Islam. I’ve heard pretty much every analogy every apologist has ever thrown at anyone. I especially like the one about the ice, the water and the mist and how “the common element is love”. Whoever thought of that cute little gem is a good writer. It seems that analogies are all most Trinitarians have really got. Heaven forbid you people should ever try to explain *why* a doctrine should be considered true as opposed to just *how* it could be.

But I am familiar with it. In fact I may have read more about your religion than you have. And I still don’t think it’s true, and I still don’t think it’s really monotheistic. That doesn’t mean I don’t get it, it means I see through it. It certainly isn’t to say I’m under the impression that Christians literally believe in three separate gods. That is such a silly thing to accuse me of in the information age when every detail about every minor celebrity’s life is laid bare for the whole world to see that I’m not at all sure any of you really think it’s that common a misconception. I’ve never met anyone in all my life that actually was under that impression. I’ve never seen any proof that such people even exist. If you have on some occasion heard a Muslim refer to the Trinity as polytheistic or even pagan then it’s not because that person has been living under a rock on Neptune. I repeat: *this is the information age*. It’s simply because we don’t define polytheism in the same way that you do. In fact we don’t even find the distinction between three gods and one God in three persons to be very important to begin with. It’s all the same to us.

Before I explain why, though, there are a few real misconceptions (at least as far as evangelists go, anyway) I want to clear up first. I don’t know if any of you reading this article buy into any of this stuff or not but I’m talking to a potentially large and mixed group and need to get it all out of the way while the Trinity is on the table. First let’s talk about Qur’an 4:171. All it says is:

Believe in God and His messengers, and do not say: ‘Three!’ Desist, for this would be best for you. God in truth is One—glory be to Him, that He should have a child! To Him belongs what is in the heavens and what is on earth. God suffices as All-Worthy of trust.

Again we seem to have a case of people insisting on seeing claims of literal polytheism where there are none. What part of that passage sounded to you like, “There are not three gods?” What it *actually* says is, “Do not so much as say the word ‘three’ at all. God is one, period, end of story, and that’s all there is to it.” The use of the phrase “God in truth is One”—not “The Father” but “God”, as in every last bit of God—makes it clear that the book is acknowledging that Trinitarians are not engaging in actual polytheism but instead mitigating their monotheism with the attribution of a son to the Godhead. The only people who are *not* acknowledging this are the Trinitarians themselves. But again we’ll have to get to that in due course.

An even more dramatically misunderstood passage is Qur’an 5:73-75, which reads:

It is blasphemy they utter, those who say that God is the third of three! There is no God except the one God…Christ the son of Mary is only a messenger, and messengers have come and gone before him. His mother was a saintly woman and they both ate food!

I’m sorry but at what point did this passage become any sort of reference to the Trinity in the first place? That Abdullah Yusuf Ali mistranslated part of it so as to make it go “they do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity” is probably what threw people. Everyone else but him that I know of, however, has always rendered the phrase as “God is the third of three”. So what about the correctly translated whole passage sounds like a reference to a Triune deity? It’s obvious who the three in question are. First God is mentioned, and then Jesus, and then Mary—and once again the “God” part refers to all of God all at once. No Trinity here. The complaint is the same one repeated later in verse 116, namely that of Jesus and Mary drawing worship away from the true God. And whatever your opinion might or mightn’t be of some of the more controversial doctrines of modern Catholicism the fact still remains that in the early history of Christianity there were many cults and figures who quite literally and in some cases intentionally worshipped Mary. In fact this Christian source I’ve come across here says that there was a time—right around The Prophet’s own, no less—“when the worship of Mary was specially promoted in the church”.

The third misconception involves the way The Qur’an repeatedly uses the term “The Holy Spirit” to refer not to God but to Gabriel. I suspect that this objection stems more than anything from these evangelists’ insistent belief that Muhammad thought he was operating out of the tradition of The New Testament or the four biblical Gospels and this was what he meant in The Qur’an by al-Injil (“The Gospel”). That The New Testament never even referred to *itself* as “The Gospel” (nor had anybody, for that matter) doesn’t seem to bother them in the slightest. Nor do they care that Qur’an 5:110 and 57:27 explicitly refer to al-Injil as something personally composed by Jesus himself. And who’s to say that this al-Injil couldn’t have been corrupted like the other previous scriptures (Qur’an 2:79)? Nor does it bother anyone that the seventh century Arabian Christians weren’t even using The New Testament anyway, which hadn’t yet been translated into Arabic by that time.

But back to Gabriel being The Holy Spirit. Get this: if The Qur’an was wrong to do that sort of thing then so was The Bible! There is no room here for a full verse-by-verse breakdown of this very complicated issue but in short when The Bible says “Holy Spirit” it can actually mean several different things by the term depending on the context and usage in question. Don’t worry, I’m not going to get into the matter of whether Muhammad is The Paraclete. There is no need to open up that old can of worms (and frankly it’s already been opened and picked apart so many times by now that it’s starting to stink). Instead let’s go over some other aspects of the terminology which don’t get noticed as often in Christian-Muslim dialogue. Like I just said “Holy Spirit” can mean different things. If The Bible’s references to the Spirit ever do mean God then there’s no reason why it can’t mean *all* of God. More often than not, however, a straightforward reading totally free of Christian bias reveals the specific phrase “Holy Spirit” to mean something close to the simple, literal sense of “a mindset of holiness”. Some sort of inanimate abstract. This is at its most obvious in 2 Corinthians 6:4-7, in which the phrase actually appears in a list of virtues:

As servants of God we commend ourselves in every way…by purity, knowledge, forbearance, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love, truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left. (Revised Standard Version)

Notice how it says “the power of God” only at the end, with this mention of God separated from the rest by an “and”.

Let us look now at a different passage which, despite its use of another phrase, Christians still universally consider to be about the Holy Spirit. Remember when it came down in the form of a dove? Well the phrase used there, “the Spirit of God”, is the very same moniker employed in the book of Revelation to refer to the seven angels. When they first show up they’re called spirits of God but after that the terminology switches and from that point on they’re simply referred to as angels. There is no one else but those “seven spirits of God” that all these verses about seven angels could possibly be about. If you compare Revelation 4:5 to Revelation 8:2, for example, you’ll see how obvious it is that these are all the same guys. Then compare both of these passages to Matthew 3:16-17. (In fact if we take things a step further then we can see that the original idea behind the Matthew passage was apparently supposed to be that God was speaking through an angel who came down in the form of a dove!) So the Holy Spirit can refer to angels and already could many centuries before The Prophet came along. And why shouldn’t it? In any event the idea makes plenty of semantic sense. They’re spirits, they’re holy and their origin is of God, i.e. they’re spirits of God.

Now we can finally get to the problem Muslims have with the Trinity. Actually in a sense the real problem may be more with the English language. English and Arabic don’t work the same way. English has more words than any other language in all of history. Arabic, on the other hand, has far fewer and the meanings for them tend to be more various, complex and tricky. So when, for example, people define the Arabic word shirk simplistically as “polytheism” or “idolatry” they are not doing the term justice at all. It doesn’t really *have* a proper English equivalent. Well to be sure the word itself, when taken in its pre-Islamic sense and translated in the most literalistic vein possible, means something like “sharing” but I’m talking theology here, not linguistics. Usually people define shirk as “associating other things with God” but these waters run deeper than that.

God made us to worship, serve or please Him, depending on how you translate the original Arabic of Qur’an 51:56. Indeed, “submission” or “surrender” is the very meaning of the word Islam in Arabic. Since His one purpose in making us was for us to do this it’s easy to understand why He would be quite a stickler about nothing ever getting in the way of our carrying out the task. This is why, for example, icons aren’t allowed in our religion. They’re considered a kind of shirk. It doesn’t matter what your intentions are in using one: there’s nothing to be gained by it. You’re not supposed to have anything standing between yourself and your Maker. You don’t need any sort of conduit or extra step in your prayers. After all it’s not like God can’t hear you just fine. Nor should *you* have any problem speaking to *Him*. Just so long as you’re trying. You don’t need an object to represent anything. You can’t give a formless thing a form. You just need yourself, your thoughts, your words—and God’s grace. Anything else is a distraction and only muddies things up, takes away the purity. (In case you’re wondering The Kabah is not an icon but merely a compass which allows Muslims to all face the same direction so that we can stand shoulder to shoulder as brothers when we pray. See Qur’an 2:148-150.)

Now here’s the thing: *deifying people also counts as shirk* according to Islam. You are associating a human being, a human body, with God. You aren’t supposed to give Him a form, remember? It’s comparable to using icons. Whether the image you make for the Deity is graven or of flesh it’s still an image. He doesn’t need either kind. He doesn’t need any sort of conduit at all. Cut out the middle man. We *need* no “mediator betwixt God and man”. There isn’t a thing that has to be done down here which God can’t just as well do from up in heaven without ever needing to become a human being.

Teach us things? Any fiction writer knows that when you have a character who needs to find out something you don’t write yourself into the story and have your icon go up to that character and say, “Hey, I’m the guy who created you. Now here’s some stuff I want to tell you about.” No, there are only three sensible options in that situation. You either write the character into the story already knowing the information, you write in another character whose purpose is exposition, or you create an event which reveals the necessary info (or allows the guy to figure it out on his own). As The Qur’an says:

It is not vouchsafed for any human being that God should address him except through inspiration or from behind a veil, or else He sends a messenger who reveals what He wills, by His leave. He is Exalted, All-Wise. (Surah 42, verse 51)

Die for our sins? Nonsense. Once again every author knows better than this. When a character has made a wrong turn and needs to redeem himself you simply have him repent of his actions and that’s that. I mean, what else are you going to do, hop into the story and get your own self punished in the wrongdoer’s stead? That’s like if a judge pardoned a guilty man from death row only to, with the very next bang of his gavel, sentence *himself* to the lethal injection in the culprit’s place. What mad sort of interpretation of the law is *that* supposed to fulfill? Goodness demands that either the guilty party alone be punished or that there be no punishment at all and therefore no need for any sort of ransom or substitution. Pick one. Forgiveness is as simple as, “Please forgive me,” and, “I forgive you.” Ol’ Boz didn’t turn himself into a character in A Christmas Carol and make it so that the name on the grave read CHARLES DICKENS in order to sponge away the writing on the stone, now did he? No, he just had Scrooge reform, and then he told us that he lived happily ever after. The end. Why can’t God save a single person without torturing Himself to death first? Sin is a type of choice. Specifically, it’s what you call it when we choose to defy God. I ask you now: how is it possible for another entity to ever take your own *choices* onto himself?

You are likewise cluttering things up by assigning to God any extra “persons”. It amounts to the same. It amounts to shirk. It’s more of those unnecessary extra steps. There is a reason why Deuteronomy 6:4 just leaves it at, “Hear O israel, The LORD our God is one LORD,” and doesn’t add, “Oh, by the way, did I forget to mention that this one Lord consists of three elements?” One is the loneliest number. Some Christians try to escape the old saying that the Trinity can be expressed as “1 + 1 + 1 = 1” by saying, “Aha! But 1 X 1 X 1 DOES equal 1!” Nice try, bucko, but you can’t *really* multiply a number by one, calculators only *pretend* you can because they’re programmed to follow the same mechanical patterns. “One times five” is just another way of saying “one set of five”, which is itself just another way of saying, “I have five of these things.” “1 X 1 X 1” is a meaningless redundancy. But the real problem with the Trinity could perhaps be better expressed by the fact that, *whatever* the formula you may argue is involved, it *is* still a formula of some kind and not simply the number one followed by a period, and even you Trinitarians can’t argue otherwise, and *no other religion in the world which is considered monotheistic* seems to define their beliefs in such a way. Isn’t there something odd about that?

What’s more, you can deceive yourself into thinking that *anything* is perfectly consistent and logical if only you get shrewd or effortful enough about how you rationalize it. You can also justify anything easily enough by wrenching Old Testament passages away from their original context and spinning them to make them to look like prophecies. And don’t even think about accusing me of making that last part up. 2 Samuel 7:12-13 is just one of many, many examples:

When your days are fulfilled…I will raise up your offspring after you…and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. (Revised Standard Version)

Simple and straightforward, right? Plainly about the Messiah? Maybe until you read *the very next sentence*, which begins with “when he commits iniquity”. When is Jesus ever supposed to have done *that*? Most of the other Messianic prophecies which evangelists bring to the table are very much the same. They’re not merely out of context, you often have to read only one or two sentences before or after the part quoted before you can see it. Others can be disproven in different ways and in any event the “fulfilled prophecies” argument relies completely on the assumption of the Gospels’ historical accuracy to begin with.

Again, anyone can do this sort of thing standing on their head. You could come up with a cute little analogy and a few Old Testament references to prove that God is going both up and down at the same time, for instance. Let me demonstrate something along those lines right now. Pretend that what follows is a pamphlet from an evangelistic organization or the transcript of an infomercial from a Christian TV channel or something.

Let me tell you about what we believers call the Black-and-White. Because it really is sad just how badly the nature of God has been misunderstood all throughout history. But in order to explain the whole thing, folks, we’re going to have to start all the way back with the Old Testament. This is just a brief overview, mind you.

In Jeremiah 8:19-21 it says, “Is not the LORD in Zion? Is not her king in her? Why have they provoked me to anger with their graven images, and with strange vanities? The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved. For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me.” This is an undeniable prophecy of the coming of the Messiah at just the moment when He is needed. It could refer to no one else but The Lord Christ Jesus. I mean, it speaks of the Lord and King coming to israel, what more do you want?! Now to be sure some people charge that in quoting this passage we have conveniently stopped one verse before you could see what the whole thing was really about: “Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?” But these folks just don’t understand how prophecy has always worked in scripture. And anyway the point is God’s color is black. It says so right there.

And yet it is this same Bible which also prophesies, “I shall be whiter than snow,” (Psalms 51:7), and this equally remarkable prophecy is fulfilled in Matthew 17:2, in which Jesus’s true heavenly form is revealed and it is white, turning even his clothes the same color: “[Jesus] was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.” These verses are part of the reason why we call God the Black-and-White.

It’s important that you understand that we’re not talking about there being two gods here, one of them black and the other white. It’s likewise important that you pay no attention to all those heathens who’ll tell you that there’s no evidence of the existence of the doctrine of the Black-and-White amongst the earliest practitioners of our religion. Of *course* there is! Didn’t you hear those verses I cited? Haven’t you ever read The Bible yourself? To think that anyone’s interpretation of anything could have changed at all over the course of so much time! Anyway you may ask me, how can all this be so? How can God be both black *and* white at the same time? Well brace yourself because this all actually has a parallel in Mother Nature!

Now let *me* ask *you* something in turn. Let’s see a show of hands. What do you call the color you get when you mix all the other colors together? Who says black? Okay, now who says white? I see you’re about half-and-half here. Well guess what? You’re *both* right! If you were to mix red and green paint together then you would get brown paint but if you were to make the beams of a red spotlight and a green spotlight intersect then where they met it wouldn’t look brown at all, it’d actually be yellow. That’s because there are two different types of color chemistry at work or two spectra. One is called the additive spectrum and refers to the way colors blend when, for example, it’s on your computer screen or TV screen. It’s called additive because when you mix the colors together in it they really do combine. As a result they produce white when they’re all put together.

There is also, however, the subtractive spectrum, in which when they blend colors cancel each other out instead of adding up, and so you get black by putting them all together. This is the chemistry at work when light rays bounce off a surface instead of intersecting with each other. It’s what you get when you, say, blend crayon colors on paper. So the same sum totality of all colors can be either black or white depending on circumstances. In color chemistry black and white are one—just as they are one in the Black-and-White. It’s all very technical and confusing, I know, but then again so is the doctrine itself. The nature of it is simply beyond our comprehension. Like I said all I’m doing is trying to give you an overview, make a rough comparison, somehow summarize for you as your teacher something which I am myself not humanly capable of understanding any more than just marginally better than you are.


You see, guys? You can do this with anything. Give an ever so slightly creative human mind enough time and incentive and it will find some means to make even the statement, “God is a married bachelor,” sound vaguely deceptively plausible. And then it would doubtless band together over time with other minds who believed the same thing about God, and they all would start fuming about how the people who rightly accused them of contradicting themselves were under the impression that they believed in two separate gods, one married, the other unmarried. Sooner or later people can find a clever analogy, or an Old Testament passage, or a fancy bit of obscure Greek philosophy, to twist to their own ends for positively anything. That doesn’t make the belief genuinely consistent, it doesn’t make the logic valid, and it doesn’t make the doctrine true. It is, however, very easy to disprove it with a simple little syllogism:

1. Monotheism is simple and fully comprehensible.

2. The Trinity is complex and not fully comprehensible.

3. Therefore the Trinity is not true and unmitigated monotheism.

Before I go I would like to note that in addition to all of the aforementioned problems with the Trinity doctrine there is yet another one which somehow doesn’t get discussed very much: namely just how suspiciously convenient the whole thing is. It seems to me that in the idea of a triune God Christians have come up with the ultimate fallback position for themselves. The idea must have been a dream come true for the Pauline branch of the religion. It allowed Jesus to be sent by the Father but not *exactly* sent by Him; subordinate to Him but not *really* subordinate, of course; it explained how the Father was greater than Jesus but not actually *greater*, mind you, just in some nonsensical metaphorical sense. And yet it didn’t *actually* explain anything at all, and that was the best part: it was beyond mortal comprehension, making it too blurry to really refute and allowing believers in the doctrine, even to this very day, to shift their ground whenever necessary between their defense being, “You just don’t get it,” and, “Nobody can really grasp it.” In a way I almost admire it all. There are so many levels on which the Trinity allows believers to have it both ways and to close their minds to any chance of being persuaded that they’re wrong that if I suspect Satan to be directly behind the whole thing then it is not because I find the doctrine sinful but because there is such a remarkably diabolical perfection to it all. It’s just so intricately psychologically airtight.

One way or another it remains a fact that all of those mountains of elaborate philosophy built around that idea of a Word from God who was *with* God but also *was* God, and without which nothing was ever made that was made and et cetera et cetera, pales in comparison to the gorgeous and forcefully rational simplicity of the oft repeated statement in The Qur’an that when God wishes to create anything at all, including Jesus, all He need do is just say, “Be!” and it is and that’s all there is to it.

Unity, simplicity, singularity, directness. These are the elements of true religion. To believe that you can pray directly to your Maker without having to do it through any people or objects, and that mercy consists only of mercy, and that you can be saved by grace alone without any need for human sacrifice, and to believe in one God just by believing in one God. No saints, no saviors, no icons, no incarnations, no indulgences, no confessionals—nothing, in fact, between you and The Big Guy at all. We Muslims believe that in the end all we really need do is seek God’s glory and try our best, knowing that we’re judged for our efforts and not for our successes. What is wrong with the inviolable purity of all this? Is it not the best, truest form of Abrahamic belief there could ever be? I fail not to see the appeal.

Notes on writing: All passages from The Qu’ran in this article are from the Tarif Khalidi translation. Unless stated otherwise all passages from The Bible are from the King James Version.

Edited by IAmZamzam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Trinity, The Innovated Doctrine

The New Encyclopædia Britannica:
"Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."-(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

The Catholic Encyclopedia:
"In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma.
Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective
."-(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

The Encyclopedia Americana:
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."-(1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L.

Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel:
"The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions."-(Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible:
"The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."-(New York, 1965), p. 899.


The_Conceptof_Trinity_php_Quran.jpg

The Oxford Companion to the Bible (Metzger and Coogan), pages 782-3:
"Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partnersin the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the [bible] canon. ... It is important to avoid reading the Trinity into places where it does not appear."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Colin Brown, editor), Volume 2, page 84:
"The Trinity. The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. 'The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself.. And the other express declarations is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, i.e., as The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These two express declarations, which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the twofold content of lthe Church doctrine of the Trinity.' (Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 437). It also lacks such terms as trinity (Lat. trinitas which was coined by Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 3; 11; 12 etc.) and homoousias which feature in the Creed of Nicea (325) to denote Christ was the same substance as the Father."

The Illustrated Bible Dictionary:
"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century."

The Encyclopedia of Religion:
"Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity." And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]."

The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman:
"The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the "Old Testament"] suggestions or foreshadowings or 'veiled signs' of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers."

The Encyclopedia of Religion:
"Theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity."

 
 

Christianity is the only major world religion that discards its own founder’s creed.


trinity.jpg?w=500&h=678

 

Retablo of the Holy Trinity, painted by New Mexican santero Alcario Otero

 

Jesuit Fortman:
"The New Testament writers . . . give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. . . . Nowhere do we find any trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead."

The New Encyclopædia Britannica:
"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament."

Bernhard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine:
"As far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity."

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology:
"The N[ew] T[estament] does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. 'The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence' [said Protestant theologian Karl Barth]."

Yale University professor E. Washburn Hopkins:
"To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it."-Origin and Evolution of Religion.

Historian Arthur Weigall:
"Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.

"Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds."-The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology.

"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the . . . Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One."-The Paganism in Our Christianity.

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
"At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian . . . It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the N[ew] T[estament] and other early Christian writings."-Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics.

The Formation of Christian Dogma (An Hisjtorical Study of its Problems), by Martin Werner, professor ordinarious in the University of Bern:
"The significance of the Angel-Christology for the Post-Apostolic period, from the point of view of doctrinal history, lies in the fact that it stood in the way of lthe developement of a homoousian doctrine of the Trinity in the later rthodox Nicene sense, owing to its fundamentally Subordinationist character. Angel-Christiology and the Trinitarian dogma of Nicaea were in this respect absolutely incompatiable. (137) Arianism [editor: unitarianism] was doomed. It had indeed, with its reference to Scriptures and the old tradition of the Church, good arguments as its disposal. ... Modalism had criticised the accepted Trinitarian doctrin of the Churchas a doctrine of three gods. (160)
"Every significant theologian of the Church in the pre-Nicene period, had actually represented aSubordinationist Christology. (234)
"Consequently one now began to talk of a divine 'Trinity'. In the Nicene confession-formula of A.D. 325 this concept had been, significantly, lacking. 'Tinitas' = Trias did not signify a kind of 'unity of three', but simply 'threeness.' (252)
"By means of the union of the Logos with a complete human being, the three Persons of the Trinity were increased by a fourth, a human Person. From being a Trias it became a Tetras. ... It was seen from Phil. ii, 6 ff. that the Apostle Pul in no way taught in terms of a scheme which differentiated the Two Natures." (266)
"The course of the age-long dctrinal conflicts of the Early Church shows, for example, that the Trinitarian and Christological problems were by no means effectively settled by the doctrinal decrees of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon
(451)."

Tom Harpur , "For Christ's Sake":
"What is most embarrassing for the church is the difficulty of proving any of these statements of dogma from the new Testament documents. You simply cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity set out anywhere in the Bible. St. Paul has the highest view of Jesus' role and person, but nowhere does he call him God. Nor does Jesus himself anywhere explicitly claim to be the second person in the Trinity, wholly equal to his heavenly Father. As a pious Jew, he would have been shocked and offended by such an Idea....(this is) in itself bad enough. But there is worse to come. This research has lead me to believe that the great majority of regular churchgoers are, for all practical purposes, tritheists. That is, they profess to believe in one God, but in reality they worship three.."


When Jesus was on earth, Judaism was the only purely monotheistic religion in the region, having become surrounded by endless waves of "trinities" from the surrounding nations of the Romans, Greeks, Babylonians and Egyptians. So, why did Jesus (pbuh) chose to allow the very first generations after him live and die never having heard of any "trinity,"till the enlightenment came to the creed-writers and neo-platonic philosophers of the fourth century CE?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trinity, The Pagan Origin

The "Dictionary of Religious Knowledge":
"Many say that the Trinity is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and ingrafted on the Christian faith."

Edward Gibbon says in the preface to the "History of Christianity":
"If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure deism of the first Christians[belief in only ONE God]...was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the Trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."
 
Trimurti.jpg

"Origin of Triads and Trinities", Mr.Newton quotes Professor Sayce (Gifford Lectures and Hibbert Lectures):
"The indebtedness of Christian theological theory to ancient Egyptian dogma is nowhere more striking than in the doctrine of the Trinity. The very same terms used of it by Christian theologians meet us again in the inscriptions and papyri of Egypt."

The Nouveau Dictionary Universel:
"The Platonic Trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples,appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave rise to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches…This Greek philosopher’s [Plato, fourth century BCE]conception of the divine trinity…can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions" (Paris, 1865-1870,edited by M. Lachatre, Vol. 2, p. 1467).
 
441px_Egypte_louvre_066.jpg
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy. That errors and corruptions crept into the church from this source cannot be denied."

The Church of the First Few Centuries":
"The Doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation. It had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. It grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers."

Outlines of the History of Dogma:
"Church doctrine became rooted in the soil of Hellenism [pagan Greek thought]. Thereby it became a mystery to the great majority of Christians."

 

450px-Dogmatic_sarcophagus2.jpg


Plato(Father of Pagan Trinity):
"God can in no way be described." -- Plato (Father of the pagan Trinity)

Dr.Walter Martin:
"The Trinity itself is a mystery or a "holy secret". It is incomprehensible. It can never be fully understood."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Alleged Biblical Proof !


1

 
"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19);
Does this not prove that the `Doctrine of Trinity' and its present day formula was communicated and promulgated in the bible ?

With all due respect, we tend to disagree in view of the following compelling evidences:-

1. `Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since 1919, is universally welcomed and considered to be the standard reference book for the students of the Bible. Commenting on the above verse it records;

"This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)."


2. Tom Harpur, author of several bestsellers and a former professor of New Testament, writes in his book `For Christ's Sake';
 

"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptise people using these words - baptism was "into" or "in" the name of Jesus alone."


3. Early Christians, such as scholars and historians (up to 350 years after Jesus’ departure), in their writings, and when quoting Matthew 28:19, give a different text than what we have today.

For example, when the Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea (a.k.a. Eusebius Pamphili) (c. AD 263 – 339), who’s called “Father of Church History,” quoted Matthew 28:19 in his famous Ecclesiastical History, there was no triune formula in the verse.

The verse read,
 

Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.

He did not quote this verse in this form only once, but no less than 18 times in many of his works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, in his Demonstratio Evangelica and in his Theophany.

4. The quoted verse (irrespective of it being authentic or otherwise), does not indicate that the three names mentioned are “co-equal” in their status and were also “co-eternal” in the time frame. Unless these two important qualifications are acknowledged, the verse fails to endorse the fundamental belief and principle of the ‘Doctrine of Trinity’.Regardless of all that, there is nothing in the text which indicates that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one.Regardless of all that, there is nothing in the text which indicates that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one. The verse talks about three different essences mentioned together in conjunction, which indicates that they are different, distinct essences.


5. If the Father and His Son were both in "existence" from the Day One, and no one was, a micro second before or after, and, no one was "greater or lesser" in status, than why is one called the Father and the other His begotten Son?

6. Did the act of "Begetting" take place? If YES, where was the "Begotten Son" before the act? If NO, why call him the "Begotten Son"?
 
7.
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
 
8. If the US president told someone "Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.
If we assumed it's in the original text, we need to read this hint:
De 18:20  But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2

"For there are three that bear record [ in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one]."
1 John 5:7
Is this not a fair testimony to acknowledge the `Doctrine of Trinity'?

1. The text quoted does appear in the Kings James Version but has been omitted by most of the editors of the recent versions e.g. Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New English Bible, Phillips Modern English Bible, because the quoted text does not appear in the older Greek manuscripts.

Greek manuscripts
About 300 existing Greek manuscripts contain the book of I John. Of these manuscripts, only 4 (manuscript numbers 61, 629, 918, 2318) contain the disputed words of v.7. All four are very late manuscripts (16th, 14th or 15th, 16th, and 18th centuries A.D. respectively); none gives the Greek text exactly as it appears in printed Greek NTs, and all 4 manuscripts give clear evidence that these words were translated into Greek from Latin. Four additional manuscripts (88, 12th century; 221, 10th; 429, 16th; 636, 15th) have the disputed words copied in the margin by much later writers.
Ancient writers:
No Greek-speaking Christian writer before the year 1215 A.D. shows any knowledge of the disputed words. Not once are these words quoted in the great controversy with the Arians (over the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity) in the 3rd and 4th centuries; they certainly would have been quoted if they had existed in any Greek manuscript of that period. The disputed words are quoted as Scripture only by Latin-speaking writers, and only after the middle of the 5th century A.D.
Ancient translations:
the disputed words are not found in any of the ancient translations of the NT made in the 2nd-10th centuries A.D.--Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavic--except in Latin. The words are found in some manuscripts (but not the earliest) of the Old Latin version, and in many manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (but not the earliest).

Conclusion: the evidence of every kind is consistent and clear: the disputed words of I John 5:7 have no claim as an original part of John's letter, but were introduced into Greek from Latin in the very late Middle Ages.

2. Renowned historian Edward Gibbon calls the addition a "Pious Fraud" in his famous history book `Decline and Fall of Roman Empire'.

3. Peakes commentary on the subject reads;

"The famous interpolation after "three witnesses" is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."

4. The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott."


"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."

 
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary
The text of this verse should read, Because there are three that bear record. The remainder of the verse is spurious. Not a single manuscript contains the trinitarian addition before the fourteenth century, and the verse is never quoted in the controversies over the Trinity in the first 450 years of the church era. 8. The three witnesses are the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. "The trinity of witnesses furnish one testimony" (Plummer, The Epistles, p. 116) namely that Jesus Christ came in the flesh to die for sin that men might live.

The New Bible Commentary: Revised:
"Notice that AV [the Authorized Version] includes additional material at this point. But the words are clearly a gloss [an added note] and are rightly excluded by RSV [the Revised Standard Version] even from its margins" (1970, p. 1269)

Dr. Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament professor ( How We Got the Bible, 2003, pp. 100-101).
"The textual evidence is against 1 John 5:7,"
"Of all the Greek manuscripts, only two contain it. These two manuscripts are of very late dates, one from the fourteenth or fifteenth century and the other from the sixteenth century. Two other manuscripts have this verse written in the margin. All four manuscripts show that this verse was apparently translated from a late form of the Latin Vulgate"

Theology professors Anthony and Richard Hanson, in their book Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith,
"It was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament" (1980, p. 171).

Hot Tip:
Notwithstanding the above rejections, the verse that follows the quoted text reads in KJV; "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." (1John5:8).
Are these three witnesses "co-equal"? Can blood be substituted with water? Can water be regarded as the same in any respect with the Spirit? Just as the spirit, the blood and the water are three separate entities, so are the first three witnesses, namely; the Father, the Son (Word, Logos) and the Holy Spirit (Ghost).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3

Elohim

 Trinitarians, in their trials to find "hidden clues" for the innovated trinity, may come with weird theories like: Elohim is plural so this implies that God is trinity !
 
The Truth is: In literal translation, Hebrew word for Elohim does signify a plurality, the word Elohim means GODS, this is the literal translation. So if we want to play the Trinitarian game, then we must be honest and translate Genesis 1:1 as follows:

In the Beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth (genesis 1:1)

So we are left with the reality of Gods, and if we go by this approach then they have become polytheists!
This proves that Trinitarians are polytheists, since they believe Elohim simply means a literal plurality, which by definition means they believe in Gods, not a God, but Gods in the plural.
 
Detailed explanation:

Elohim is the plural form of Eloah and appears closely related to El, which usually means "god", "God", or "mighty one".
But IF we were right to translate Elohim as a plural word, the Bible would teach us that in the beginning, "Gods" created the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1). The Bible would then support the idea that more than one God created the universe, spoke to Abraham, delivered israel from bondage and continued dealing with them, etc., since Elohim is used throughout the "Old" Testament as God(s). But virtually no monotheist would profess that there is more than one God.

In Biblical Hebrew, a noun that is plural in form is not necessarily plural in meaning.
For instance, the Hebrew words chayim (chayeem, "life") and panim (paneem, "face", "presence", "countenance") are plural in form, but almost always singular in meaning. Another word, adon, "lord", "master", is often plural in form. In its plural form it is sometimes used of a single person - Abraham (Gen. 24:9-10), Joseph (Gen. 42:30,33), the king of Egypt (Gen. 40:1) and an anonymous "fierce king" under whose rule the Egyptians were prophesied to come (Isa. 19:4, NRSV). There are instances of other plural Hebrew words employed in the Hebrew Bible with singular meaning.

Equally striking is the fact that the same term, elohim, is used of the individual false gods.
Elohim is used of Dagon, the god of the Philistines (1 Sam. 5:7); of Chemosh, the god of Ammon and Moab (Jud. 11:24; 1 Kings 11:33); of Ashtarte (or Ashtoreth), the god(dess) of the Sidonians (1 Kings 11:33); of Milcom, another god of the Ammorites (1 Kings 11:33). In Smith's Bible Dictionary (NISBE) no plurality in any one of these gods is even hinted at. Additionally, in Nehemiah 9:18, elohim is used to refer to the single golden calf made by israel in the wilderness.

Elohim is also used of single human figures. Moses in both Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 and the Messianic king in Psalms 45:6 (verse 7 in the Hebrew Bible) are each referred to as elohim.

What all this indicates is that in Hebrew, plural nouns in general and Elohim in particular do not always have plural meanings. In the case of the word Elohim, in fact, it would appear as though we should almost always understand it as singular in meaning unless the context indicates that "gods" are referred to.

Scholars are entirely familiar with these facts. The expressions "plural of majesty" or "plural of rank" or "intensive plural" are sometimes used to describe this phenomenon of language where the form of a word can be plural but its meaning is singular.

New International Version Study Bible:
"God created. The Hebrew noun Elohim is plural but the verb is singular, a normal usage in the OT when reference is to the one true God. This use of the plural expresses intensification rather than number and has been called the plural of majesty, or of potentiality."

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible :
"The plural Elohim is used frequently, a phenomenon sometimes called the majestic plural. Although the form is plural the one referred to or who is speaking is singular."

The New Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The Divine name ('Elohim) most frequently used in the Old Testament, a plural form of Eloah, which appears only in poetical books (34 of the 57 times in Job alone). The form Elohim, when used of the God of israel, is a plural of majesty, signifying the one God who embodies in Himself all the qualities of divinity, and is almost always accompanied by singular verbs and adjectives."

HarperCollins' Bible Dictionary:
"Elohim is one of the three common generic names for God in the OT, occuring almost 2600 times. The term is a plural, probably of El or Eloah, hebrew words for "god", and on occassions means "gods" (e.g. Exod. 20:3). Most often it is a plural of majesty for israel's "God" (e.g. , Gen. 1:1) and thus is translated in the singular."

Similarly, When Allah in Quran uses the pronoun “We,” it does not mean that Muslims believe in more than one God, because the plural used here is the plural of respect or majesty and not numbers.

This can be clearly seen in the following Quranic verse:


وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَا مِن قَبْلِكَ مِن رَّسُولٍ إِلَّا نُوحِي إِلَيْهِ أَنَّهُ لَا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا أَنَا فَاعْبُدُونِ
And We (i.e., Allah) sent not before you (i.e., Muhammad) any messenger except that We revealed to him that, “There is no deity except Me, so worship Me [alone].” (Qur’an, 21:25)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a quote from a post made by Aboo Uthmaan in  09 January 2005:

 

Dear reader,

Contradictions: The basic problem is that trinitarianism is a nonbiblical doctrine that contradicts a number of biblical teachings and many specific verses of Scripture. Moreover, the doctrine contains a number of internal contradictions. Of course, the most obvious internal contradiction is how there can be three persons of God in any meaningful sense and yet there be only one God. Below we have compiled a number of other contradictions and problems associated with trinitarianism. This list is not exhaustive but it does give an idea of how much the doctrine deviates from the Bible. 

1. Did Jesus Christ have two fathers? The Father is the Father of the Son (I John 1:3), yet the child born of Mary was conceived by the Holy Ghost (Matthew 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). Which one is the true father? Some trinitarians say that the Holy Ghost was merely the Father's agent in conception - a process they compare to artificial insemination! 

2. How many Spirits are there? God the Father is a Spirit (John 4:24), the Lord Jesus is a Spirit (II Corinthians 3:17), and the Holy Spirit is a Spirit by definition. Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4). 

3. If Father and Son are co-equal persons, why did Jesus pray to the Father? (Matthew 11:25). Can God pray to God? 

4. Similarly, how can the Son not know as much as the Father? (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). 

5. Similarly, how can the Son not have any power except what the Father gives Him? (John 5:19, 30; 6:38). 

6. Similarly, what about other verses of Scripture indicating the inequality of the Son and the Father? (John 8:42; 14:28; I Corinthians 11:3). 

7. Did "God the Son" die? The Bible says the Son died (Romans 5:10). If so, can God die? Can part of God die? 

8. How can there be an eternal Son when the Bible speaks of the begotten Son, clearly indicating that the Son had a beginning? (John 3:16; Hebrews 1:5-6). 

9. If the Son is eternal and existed at creation, who was His mother at that time? We know the Son was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4). 

10. Did "God the Son" surrender His omnipresence while on earth? If so, how could he still be God? 

11. If the Son is eternal and immutable (unchangeable), how can the reign of the Son have an ending? (I Corinthians 15:24-28). 

12. If in answer to questions 3 through 11 we say only the human Son of God was limited in knowledge, was limited in power, and died, then how can we speak of "God the Son"? Are there two Sons? 

13. Whom do we worship and to whom do we pray? Jesus said to worship the Father (John 4:21-24), yet Stephen prayed to Jesus (Acts 7:59-60). 

14. Can there be more than three persons in the Godhead? Certainly the Old Testament does not teach three but emphasizes oneness. If the New Testament adds to the Old Testament message and teaches three persons, then what is to prevent subsequent revelations of additional persons? If we apply trinitarian logic to interpret some verses of Scripture, we could teach a fourth person (Isaiah 48:16; Colossians 1:3; 2:2; I Thessalonians 3:11; James 1:27). Likewise, we could interpret some verses of Scripture to mean six more persons (Revelation 3:1; 5:6). 

15. Are there three Spirits in a Christian's heart? Father, Jesus, and the Spirit all dwell within a Christian (John 14:17, 23; Romans 8:9; Ephesians 3:14-17). Yet there is one Spirit (I Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4). 

16. There is only one throne in heaven (Revelation 4:2). Who sits upon it? We know Jesus does (Revelation 1:8,18, 4:8). Where do the Father and the Holy Spirit sit? 

17. If Jesus is on the throne, how can He sit on the right hand of God? (Mark 16:19). Does He sit or stand on the right hand of God? (Acts 7:55). Or is He in the Father's bosom? (John 1:18). 

18. Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus? Colossians 2:9 says the latter. 

19. Given Matthew 28:19, why did the apostles consistently baptize both Jews and Gentiles using the name of Jesus, even to the extent of rebaptism? (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16; I Corinthians 1:13). 

20. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Did the Father (Ephesians 1:20), or Jesus (John 2:19-21), or the Spirit? (Romans 8:11). 

21. If Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal persons in the Godhead, why is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost unforgivable but blasphemy of the Son is not? (Luke 12:10). 

22. If the Holy Ghost is a co-equal member of the trinity, why does the Bible always speak of Him being sent from the Father or from Jesus? (John 14:26; 15:26). 

23. Does the Father know something that the Holy Spirit does not know? If so, how can they be co-equal? Only the Father knows the day and hour of the Second Coming of Christ (Mark 13:32). 

24. Did the trinity make the Old and New covenants? We know the LORD (Jehovah) did (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7-13). If Jehovah is a trinity then Father, Son, and Spirit all had to die to make the new covenant effective (Hebrews 9:16-17). 

25. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, is the Spirit also a son of the Father? If not, why not? 

26. If the Spirit proceeds from the Son, is the Spirit the grandson of the Father? If not, why not?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the references to elohim here is Psalms 8:3-5 according to The New Revised Standard Version:

 

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them? Yet you have made them a little lower than God, and crowned them with glory and honour.

 

The footnote for the word “God” reads: "Or than the divine beings or angels: Heb elohim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the trinity creed dangerous?

The creed of trinity and trinitarianism advocated by some Christians in our day is a very serious delusion. Apart from being a great slander against God and the Prophet Jesus (pbuh), it is also a serious threat. This creed that Christians call trinity or trinitarianism contradicts with the creed of unity of God explained in the Gospel, and that the trinity creed became widespread due to the misinterpretations made after the Prophet Jesus (pbuh).

Prophet Jesus (pbuh) being a manifestation of God does not mean that he is the Self of God, and God is beyond this. This is certainly contrary to God’s ruling, His might, His attributes, wisdom and rationale.

In these articles we show and express that this false creed is a great threat. It is of great importance for Christians to be aware of these dangers that the creed of trinity brings forth and that it may bring forth in the future. Some of these dangers are as follows:


1. The danger of ascribing partners to God:

According to both the Gospel and the Torah ascribing partners to God means polytheism. Consequently with the creed of trinity, genuine Christians inadvertently fall into this great danger of ascribing partners to God by ascribing the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) to God (Surely God is beyond that). This danger of ascribing partners to God is not an issue that should be ignored. All-Mighty God states in the Qur’an, regarding this dangerous idea as follows: " The heavens are all but rent apart and the earth split open " (Surah Maryam, 90). Ascribing partners to God is a great sin in God’s Sight. In the Qur’an God expresses His threat against those who commit this sin:

God does not forgive anything being associated with Him but He forgives whoever He wills for anything other than that. Anyone who associates something with God has committed a terrible crime. (Surat an-Nisa’, 48)

In the Gospel, Christians are forbidden from ascribing partners to God:

And [they] exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. [surely God is beyond that]…They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. [surely God is beyond that]—Who is forever praised. (Romans, 1:23-25)

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.'” (Luke, 4:8)

The oneness of God is also clearly and comprehensively stated in the Gospel. Indeed, in one part of the Gospel, the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) states that one of the most important commands of God is to remember God as the One and Only:

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?". "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One. "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is One and there is no other but Him.(Mark, 12:28-32)

2. The danger of all endeavors coming to naught

Another great danger our genuine Christian brothers will face with the error of trinity is the possibility of all effort they claim to make in the name of God to come to naught. This is a great danger for Christians who, disregarding reminders and warnings, continue to ascribe partners to God only because of this delusion, and do not resort to their conscience, but assume themselves to be on the true path. Such a danger should not be underestimated. In the Qur’an, God warns: "Some faces on that Day will be downcast, laboring, toiling endlessly" (Surat al-Ghashiyya, 3). In the Torah, on the other hand, the prayers of those who sincerely believe is as follows: May the favor of the Lord our God rest upon us; establish the work of our hands for us—yes, establish the work of our hands. (Psalms 90:17).

Consequently there will be people whose endeavors will come to naught in the hereafter. A devout believer should not see this danger far from himself and should resort to his conscience. Right now, God calls our Christian brothers who were inculcated with the creed of trinity for years to search their hearts with these reminders and warnings.

3. The danger of hidden disbelief and atheism

Another danger brought by the creed of trinity is that it causes hidden disbelief or that it drifts people into atheism. It is no doubt and not difficult for any person who is well acquainted with the Gospel to grasp the irrationality of the creed of trinity. In fact almost all Christians are aware of this fact. But they make themselves believe in it putting forth many pretexts or remain silent under the threat that otherwise “they will abandon the religion.”

Some of them, on the other hand, are drifted into disbelief because consciously and logically they cannot accept this creed and they inwardly do not believe. This is a great threat. There are hidden unbelieving people in Christianity who appear devout although they are aware of the invalidity of the trinity. The hidden unbelievers who lose their religion due to this superstitious creed constitute the danger of hypocrisy in Christianity. Hypocrites, on the other hand, are the main reason of conflict and separation in religion. They are the source of brand new innovations and superstitious beliefs developed to render Christians weak and draw them away from worshipping.

Apart from this, growing number of Christians totally divert from the true path and become atheists because they feel that the idea of the trinity opposes sound logic and rationale. The atheists in question also openly express their arguments. Our Christian brothers are, no doubt, aware of this situation. Of course just because these people cannot be convinced about the truth of trinity does not justify their drifting into disbelief, hypocrisy, or atheism. If a person is truly sincere, he is obliged to turn to God by heart, strive to see and understand the truth, and abide by what his conscience guides him towards. However, no matter how mistaken these people may be, one should not ignore that the source of danger from hidden disbelief and atheism is the idea of trinity.

From the history of Christianity, it is also possible to understand the great ideological and actual conflicts brought by the idea of trinity, which have been carried forward to our day. It is impossible for a righteous creed to be the source of such great conflicts and tribulations. It is possible that until now, some Christians have not assessed the dimensions of this danger. It is likely that, they try to uphold a false belief inherited from their forefathers, assuming that it is a provision of the Gospel. However, this is a belief definitely contrary to God’s command. When they consider the Gospel in a rational way and see the tribulations brought by a superstitious belief, they will understand this better. Consequently, we call genuine Christians to take refuge in God, to think without being under the sway of inculcations, and to make their decision with their purest of conscience.
Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your God is ONE -The Bible denies the belief in trinity
 

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." "Well said, teacher," the man replied. "You are right in saying that God is One and there is no other but Him." (Mark, 12:28-32)

... But God is One. (Galatians, 3:20)

There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. (1 Corinthians, 12:6)

For there is one God... (1 Timothy, 2:5)

Jesus said to him, "... Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only." (Matthew, 4:10)

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. (James, 2:19)

Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. (1 Timothy, 1:17)

How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes fromthe only God? (John, 5:44)

... You have one Lord... (Matthew, 23:9)

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus answered, "No one is good—except God alone." (Mark 10:17-18)

... We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no god but One... for us there is but one God, the God, from Whom all things came and for Whom we live... (1 Corinthians, 8:4-6)

"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One Who is good. If you want to enter life [paradise], obey the commandments of [God]." (Matthew, 19:17)

For even if there are so-called gods [surely God is beyond that], whether in heaven or on earth yet for us there is one God, the God, for Whom all things came and for whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

... One Lord, one faith... one God of all, Who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians, 4:5-6)
 
To Serve God Alone without Ascribing Equals to Him

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only. (Luke, 4:8)

Jesus said to him, "... Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only." (Matthew, 4:10)

... My dear friends, flee from idolatry. (1 Corinthians, 10:14)

For they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God... (1 Thessalonians, 1:9-10)

And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles [surely God is beyond that]... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator [surely God is beyond that]—Who is forever praised... (Romans, 1:23-25)

... If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. (Matthew, 6:23-24)

[Jesus:] "No servant can serve two masters... You cannot serve both God and money." (Luke, 16:13)

... Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. (1 Corinthians, 8:7-8)

No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.(1 Corinthians, 10:20-21)

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. (1 Corinthians, 8:4)

Dear children, keep yourselves from idols. (1 John, 5:21)

The rest of mankind that were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk. (Revelation, 9:20)
 
The Bible denies the belief in trinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please no Harun Yahya. I'm not a fan. By the way I've changed the contents of my website's article slightly so as to make a correction or two but the thrust is still the same.

Edited by IAmZamzam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reference to trinity in quran

1

(4:170) O Mankind, the Messenger has come to you with the truth from your Lord, so believe; it is better for you. But if you disbelieve - then indeed, to Allah belongs whatever is in the heavens and earth209 Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.210
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ قَدْ جَاءَكُمُ الرَّسُولُ بِالْحَقِّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ فَآمِنُوا خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ ۚ وَإِن تَكْفُرُوا فَإِنَّ لِلَّهِ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۚ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا

(4:171) O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion, 211 or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word212 that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him (which led to Mary's conception).213 So believe in Allah and in His Messengers,214 and do not say: (Allah is a) trinity215. Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. Allah is indeed just one God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son.216 To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth.217 Allah is sufficient for a guardian.218
يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لَا تَغْلُوا فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلَا تَقُولُوا عَلَى اللَّهِ إِلَّا الْحَقَّ ۚ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَىٰ مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ ۖ فَآمِنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ۖ وَلَا تَقُولُوا ثَلَاثَةٌ ۚ انتَهُوا خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ ۚ إِنَّمَا اللَّهُ إِلَٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ ۖ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ ۘ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ ۗ وَكَفَىٰ بِاللَّهِ وَكِيلًا

Notes:
 
▲209. By disobeying, one cannot hurt the Lord of the heavens and the earth. One can only hurt one's own self. Allah is far too rich than to need you or your faith, and no harm could ever affect Him because of your disbelief. Allah said in another Ayah,

وَقَالَ مُوسَى إِن تَكْفُرُواْ أَنتُمْ وَمَن فِى الاٌّرْضِ جَمِيعًا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَغَنِىٌّ حَمِيدٌ
(And Musa said: "If you disbelieve, you and all on earth together, then verily, Allah is Rich (Free of all needs), Owner of all praise.'')


▲210. They are being told that their Lord was not at all unaware of the wickedness in which they indulged, nor did He lack the capacity to deal severely with those who only violated His commands.

▲211. The expression 'People of the Book' refers here to the Christians and the word ghuluw denotes the tendency to exceed the limits of propriety in support of something. The fault of the Jews was that they had exceeded the limits of propriety in rejecting and opposing Jesus, whereas the crime of the Christians was that they had gone beyond the proper limits in their love for and devotion to Jesus.
The Messenger of Allah said,

«لَا تُطْرُونِي كَمَا أَطْرَتِ النَّصَارَىِ عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ. فَإِنَّمَا أَنَا عَبْدٌفَقُولُوا: عَبْدُاللهِ وَرَسُولُه»

(Do not unduly praise me like the Christians exaggerated over `Isa, son of Maryam. Verily, I am only a servant, so say, `Allah's servant and His Messenger.
')
 
A man once said, "O Muhammad! You are our master and the son of our master, our most righteous person and the son of our most righteous person...''
محمد يا سيدنا وابن سيدنا ، وخيرنا وابن خيرنا .
The Messenger of Allah then said,

«يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ عَلَيْكُمْ بِقَوْلِكُمْ، وَلَا يَسْتَهْوِيَنَّكُمُ الشَّيْطَانُ،أَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِاللهِ، عَبْدُاللهِ وَرَسُولُهُ، وَاللهِ مَا أُحِبُّ أَنْ تَرْفَعُونِي فَوْقَ مَنْزِلَتِي الَّتِي أَنْزَلَنِي اللهُ عَزَّ وَجَل»

(O people! Say what you have to say, but do not allow Shaytan to trick you. I am Muhammad bin `Abdullah, Allah's servant and Messenger. By Allah! I do not like that you elevate me above the rank that Allah has granted me
.)


▲212. What is meant by sending the 'command/word' to Mary is that God ordered Mary's womb to become impregnated without coming into contact with sperm. In the beginning the Christians were told that this was the secret of the fatherless birth of Jesus. Later on, under the misleading influence of Greek philosophy, they equated this with the 'Logos', which was subsequently interpreted as the Divine attribute of speech. The next step in this connection was the development of the notion that this Divine attribute entered into the womb of Mary and assumed the physical form of Jesus. Thus there developed among the Christians the false doctrine of the godhead of Jesus, and the false notion that out of His attributes God caused that of speech to appear in the form of Jesus.

▲213. Here Jesus himself is called 'a spirit from God'. The same idea is also expressed elsewhere in the Qur'an: 'And We supported him with the spirit of holiness' (Surah al-Baqarah 2: 87).The import of both verses is that God endowed Jesus with a pure, impeccable soul. He was therefore an embodiment of truth, veracity, righteousness, and excellence. This is what the Christians had been told about Christ. But they exceeded the proper limits of veneration for Jesus. The 'spirit from God' became the 'spirit of God', and the 'spirit of holiness' was interpreted to mean God's own Spirit which became incarnate in Jesus. Thus, along with God and Jesus, there developed the third person of God - the Holy Ghost. It was this unjustified exaggeration which led the Christians to even greater error. Ironically, however, Matthew contains the statement that: 'But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.' (The Bible, Authorized version, p. 771.)
Allah said,

﴿إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَى عِندَ اللَّهِ كَمَثَلِ ءَادَمَ خَلَقَهُ مِن تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ ﴾

(Verily, the likeness of `Isa before Allah is the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then (He) said to him: "Be! ـ and he was.)

▲214. The followers of Christ are urged to acknowledge God as the only God and to believe in the prophethood of all the Prophets, and that Jesus was one of them. This was the teaching of Christ and a basic truth which his followers ought to recognize.

Al-Bukhari recorded that the Prophet said,

«مَنْ شَهِدَ أَنْ لَا إِلهَ إِلَّا اللهُ، وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ، وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا عَبْدُهُ وَرَسُولُهُ، وَأَنَّ عِيسَى عَبْدُاللهِ وَرَسُولُهُ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِنْهُ، وَأَنَّ الْجَنَّةَ حَقٌّ، وَالنَّارَ حَقٌّ، أَدْخَلَهُ اللهُ الْجَنَّةَ عَلَى مَا كَانَ مِنَ الْعَمَل»

(If anyone testifies that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah Alone Who has no partners, and that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger, and that `Isa is Allah's servant and Messenger and His Word which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit created by Him, and that Paradise is true and Hell is true, then Allah will admit him into Paradise with the deeds which he performed.


▲215. They are urged to abandon the trinitarian doctrine, regardless of the form in which it was found. The fact is that the Christians subscribe simultaneously to the unity and the trinity of God. The statements of Jesus on this question in the Gospels, however, are so categorical that no Christian can easily justify anything but the clear, straightforward doctrine that God is One and that there is no god but He. The Christians, therefore, find it impossible to deny that monotheism is the very core of true religion. But the original confusion that in Jesus the Word of God became flesh, that the Spirit of God was incarnate in him, led them to believe in the godhead of Jesus and of the Holy Ghost along with that of God. This gratuitous commitment gave rise to an insoluble riddle: how to combine monotheism with the notion of trinity. For over eighteen centuries Christian theologians have grappled with this self-created riddle. The concept of the trinity is capable of such a myriad of interpretations that literally dozens of sects have arisen as a result of its ambiguity. And it has been largely responsible for the various Christian churches indulging in mutual excommunication. Moreover, it is logically impossible to maintain belief in trinity without impairing belief in One God. This problem has arisen because of the extravagance in which the Christians have indulged. The easiest course to get out of the morass is to give up the innovated belief in the godhead of Jesus and of the Holy Ghost, acknowledge God as the Only God, and accept Jesus as His Messenger rather than as God's partner in godhead.

▲216. This is the refutation of the fourth extravagance in which the Christians have indulged. Even if the reports embodied in the New Testament are considered authentic, the most that can be inferred from them (particularly those embodied in the first three Gospels) is that Jesus likened the relationship between God and His servants to that between a father and his children, and that he used to employ the term 'father' as a metaphor for God. But in this respect Jesus was not unique. From very ancient times the israelites had employed the term 'father' for God. The Old Testament is full of examples of this usage. Jesus obviously employed this expression in conformity with the literary usage of his people. Moreover, he characterized God not merely as his own father but as the father of all men. Nevertheless, the Christians exceeded all reasonable limits when they declared Jesus to be the only begotten son of God. Their strange doctrine on this question is that since Jesus is an incarnation, an embodiment of the Word and Spirit of God, he is therefore the only son of God, who was sent to the earth in order to expiate the sins of humanity through his crucifixion. The Christians hold this to be their basic doctrine even though they cannot produce one shred of evidence from the statements of Jesus himself. This doctrine was a later product of their fancies, an outcome of the extravagance in which they indulged as a result of their impression of the awe-inspiring personality of their Prophet.

God does not repudiate here the doctrine of expiation, for this is not an independent doctrine but a corollary of recognizing Jesus as the son of God, and is a mystical and philosophical answer to the query as to why the only begotten son of God died an accursed death on the cross. The doctrine of expiation automatically falls apart by repudiating the dogma that Jesus was the son of God and by dispelling the misapprehension that he was crucified.
 
God said:

﴿بَدِيعُ السَّمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضِ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ﴾

(He is the originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children.?!) and

﴿وَقَالُواْ اتَّخَذَ الرَّحْمَـنُ وَلَداً - لَقَدْ جِئْتُمْ شَيْئاً إِدّاً ﴾

(And they say: "The Most Gracious (Allah) has begotten a son. Indeed you have brought forth (said) a terrible evil thing.'')

▲217. This strongly emphasizes that the true relationship between God and His creatures is one between the Lord and His slave. This repudiates the idea that the relationship which exists is one between a father and his offspring.

▲218. God is Himself sufficiently powerful to govern His dominion and has no need of a son to assist Him.

( Maududi notes with explanatory ayat & ahadeeth)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2

Allah says:

5_73.png

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
 

5_74.png

So will they not repent to Allah and seek His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
 

(5:73-74)

Note:
 
They made God one-third partner with them, then all three of them become one, and that one is three. This unity in trinity, with three persons in one godhead, is the common belief of Christians. They explain this belief which is supported by neither reason nor revelation with a language that is kept circuitous and ambiguous. When not understood, they declare it to be reality beyond comprehension. (Shabbir Ahmad Usmani - Notes)

The Qur’ān makes a final judgement on all their blasphemous claims: “Unbelievers are those indeed who say: ‘God is the third of a trinity.’”  (Verse 73) It states the truth which constitutes the basis of every faith preached by every one of God’s Messengers: “Of certain, there is no god save the One God.” (Verse 73) It threatens them with the punishment prepared for those who make such blasphemous assertions and believe in them:  “Unless they desist from so saying, grievous suffering will surely befall those of them who are unbelievers.”  (Verse 73) The unbelievers are the ones who continue to make such assertions which God has ruled to be a clear denial of faith.

These stern warnings are followed by encouragement and persuasion: “Will they not, then, turn to God in repentance and  seek His forgiveness? God is Much-Forgiving, Merciful.” (Verse 74) The door to repentance and forgiveness is, thus, left open. God’s forgiveness and mercy are certain to be forthcoming, if sought before it is too late. ( In the shade of Quran)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the trinitarian god like?

According to Christian apologist William Lane Craig (who James White refers to as “the leading apologist in the English speaking world
today”) the very best analogy he can think of for the Christian god is the mythological three headed-beast Cerberus (see the charming picture). See Craig explain his

.

Cerberus is a dog who guarded the entrance to Hades, the ancient Greek idea of Hell. Craig thinks that it is a great analogy of the doctrine of
the Trinity: one dog with three minds.


Now I have a confession to make (please don’t tell anyone!): I completely agree with James White’s devastating critique of Craig found
.


latest_cb_20110129054915.jpg

As the Almighty God said in his final revelation: 

 
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about God except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was

but a messenger of God and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in God and His

messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you.Indeed, God is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him

belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is God as Disposer of affairs.


Quran 4:171

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×