Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

The Biggest Problem with Trinity

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

And for the record, I don't consider myself a trinitarian. I really don't have anything to win or lose here beyond just curiosity of the topic, but based on what I'm reading online on various websites, of aquinas' work and from others here on ShiaChat, I don't think that your arguments really...well, how to say this. I think that to argue against the Trinity, I think that you should try a different approach. An approach that focuses more on specific works or ideas of Catholics and Aquinas in particular.

Anyone can say God=Jesus, Father and Spirit, therefore God=3 and not 1, but the discussion could include much more.

Maybe if you gave a sincerely detailed account of what you feel Aquinas discusses (and why) and maybe use quotes or catholic descriptive websites to back up your understanding of his ideas, that might help. Maybe even use definitions to affirm that your arguments are reflective of his ideas. I'd be curious to see someone do the above.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I wouldn't want to focus on any one philosopher or theologian. 

My point is: 

The Trinity is illogical. Regardless of who and how anyone tries to explain it, it's essentially illogical, riddles with logical contradictions. 

And if anyone believes it's the truth, then that person cannot be guided through reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, iCenozoic said:

I think that to argue against the Trinity, I think that you should try a different approach.

Why try to argue against it? If those who wants to believe in it really does that, why try to change their mind?  When listening to convert stories a very common reason for Christians of almost any denomination to convert to Islam is because they don't make any sense of the trinity. The only way for the trinity to make sense is when you investigate the parallels in polytheist religion and understand the historical context. What ever Thomas Aquinas wrote about the trinity is post justification. The Qur'an on the other hand is much more clear about tawheed. Allah guides whom he wills:

Edited by Revert1963
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
11 minutes ago, Revert1963 said:

Why try to argue against it? If those who wants to believe in it really does that, why try to change their mind?  

Why argue against the Trinity? Well that's the purpose of the topic.

Edited by iCenozoic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 minute ago, Revert1963 said:

Yea but it is also the favorite subject for Muslims to mock Christians by. :)

Well aren't you a brazen one :p. 

Well maybe some learned trinitarians will show up to add to the fun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
On 3/26/2020 at 5:04 PM, Revert1963 said:

Yea but it is also the favorite subject for Muslims to mock Christians by. :)

You may have missed the points of this thread, and I don't blame you, the thread derailed. This thread wasn't meant to be about debating the Trinity. The whole point is that we can't and we shouldn't. We can't have a logical debate about the Trinity. It's fundamentally illogical.

The main points, which I mentioned in the first post are the following: 

Quote

Christianity is an irrational religion. (This isn't a statement of disrespect. Just a factual statement.) Christianity does not abide by the rules of logic. 

What does this mean to Muslims? 

(Point #1:) We cannot use logic to invite Christians to Islam. We ought to look for other means, such as being excellent representatives of Islam to appeal to their feelings, emotions, and preceptions, as opposed to logic and reason. So, we ought to work on our own virtues/adab, first. (Point #2:) And more importantly, we should examine our own beliefs to ensure we do not hold beliefs that are logically inconsistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Simply being good representatives isn't going to be enough. Sikhs can be good representatives, Hindus can be good representatives, and Buddhists can be good representatives. 

You'll have to start by explaining how original sin doesn't exist in Islam, thus no need for a savior.  That's the entire point of the incarnation, to defeat death with death.  Read On the Incarnation by Athanasius of Alexandria. That's the book that defeated Arius. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
48 minutes ago, GabrielWithoutWings said:

original sin

Original Sin only exists in Catholicism and perhaps some forms of Protestantism. It's not a necessary foundational belief of all Christians. The Trinity is though. All aspects of Christianity, whether it's redemption, salvation, and etc. eventually comes down to Trinity, God sending His son as a (full) human (who's also fully God) to save and redeem all people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Advanced Member
On 3/27/2020 at 12:42 AM, SoRoUsH said:

You may have missed the points of this thread, and I don't blame you, the thread derailed. This thread wasn't meant to be about debating the Trinity. The whole point is that we can't and we shouldn't. We can't have a logical debate about the Trinity. It's fundamentally illogical.

Hi there!

It's been a bit of a while since the last post, but I do feel the need to respond to the suggestion that Christian beliefs about God are illogical.

A lot of the problems emerged when the later Church (such as Aquinas) tried to describe the nature of God in detail. It wasn't necessary, and it was often used politically to exclude denominations. Descriptions such as the Trinity, while not necessarily wrong, are not always helpful.

The Early Church had simpler beliefs. They believed that God is One. Let me say that again. They believed God is One. So do Christians now.

They also believed that God spoke to humanity sometimes in a form that could be seen and/or heard. The Burning Bush, the Pillar of Cloud and Fire, the Presence in the Tabernacle etc.

They came to believe that Jesus represented one more in that line of appearances of God to humanity. Therefore Jesus was the presence of God in human form. A Presence of God continued to be with them, and has been named the Holy Spirit.

This is all orthodox, mainstream, basic Christian belief, and without the totally unnecessary complications of later centuries, completely avoids the logical issues raised earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
59 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

Hi there!

It's been a bit of a while since the last post, but I do feel the need to respond to the suggestion that Christian beliefs about God are illogical.

A lot of the problems emerged when the later Church (such as Aquinas) tried to describe the nature of God in detail. It wasn't necessary, and it was often used politically to exclude denominations. Descriptions such as the Trinity, while not necessarily wrong, are not always helpful.

The Early Church had simpler beliefs. They believed that God is One. Let me say that again. They believed God is One. So do Christians now.

They also believed that God spoke to humanity sometimes in a form that could be seen and/or heard. The Burning Bush, the Pillar of Cloud and Fire, the Presence in the Tabernacle etc.

They came to believe that Jesus represented one more in that line of appearances of God to humanity. Therefore Jesus was the presence of God in human form. A Presence of God continued to be with them, and has been named the Holy Spirit.

This is all orthodox, mainstream, basic Christian belief, and without the totally unnecessary complications of later centuries, completely avoids the logical issues raised earlier.

I think Aquinas's idea reflects this as well. Because we have an eternal essence, the Father. But the Father also, of course takes on many forms and/or projects Himself through various forms such as a burning bush. And therefore is much like the sand castle, both sand in essence, but castle in presence. 

But why a triune God, rather than...a God of 5? Jesus, Tabernacle, burning bush, father and Spirit? Or why not be a duality type God, God and God's projection (Jesus/burning bush etc). Or was it that Jesus was so special that Jesus must have been distinguished from other projections of God, such as the burning bush? Therefore making God triune?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

The first thing to stress is that the only number is one, because for all Christians, God is one. We are monotheists, which means the rejection of the notion of three Gods, or any other number.

The Early Church didn't work explicitly with triune as a construction very much, and I'm not convinced it's a helpful construction. The Father was always the God of the Jewish nation, Jesus was God's presence at a specific time and place to do a job, and the Holy Spirit was God's ongoing presence. Hence those three are talked about a lot in the NT. Things like the Burning Bush/Tabernacle presence had been and gone, so don't get a mention.

I think three probably got arrived at because these are the ongoing aspects of God the Church was working with. But one is the correct number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
2 hours ago, Tallcity03 said:

Greetings,

Is Christianity irrational in its interpretation of the Bible (Old and New Testament). Or is the Bible irrational and untrue? Thank you 

The Christian concept of Trinity is fundamentally illogical.

Edited by SoRoUsH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Jesus was God's presence at a specific time and place to do a job,

hi anyway we believe that he was a prophet but he did miracles that was sign of his special connection to God/Allah but christians & Jews misunderstood him as God or presence of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
16 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

The Christian concept of Trinity is fundamentally illogical.

I would agree that it is fundamentally illogical when trying to be explained in one or two dimensions. Less so when you try to explain it in 3 dimensions. Length x Width x Height are the three dimensions of one cube. Is the volume of a cube not V= L x W x H? So in the same way could God not be God= Father x Son x Holy Spirit?

But the question then becomes can we really contain God to only 3 dimensions? To quote Einstein, "The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?”

Is this not what Paul is appealing to in Ephesians 3: 17-19? 

17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth.  19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.

He is literally telling us that God is a multi dimensional being. Can we as humans suppose to know how many? I would bet anything its more than 4.

And not that I think this bears any weight here but just something fun. Have you ever considered the net of a cube? Peace and love be with you.

 

2000px-Hexahedron_flat_color.svg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

@Tallcity03

We can't know God. However, to use this general statement to conclude that God could be a Trinity is deceitful. Just because we don't know what God is, we can't accept that God can be a thing that is fundamentally illogical. The bottom line is that Jesus cannot be fully (100%) God and fully (100%) human. This is a blatant contradiction. And God cannot be a blatant contradiction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
8 hours ago, SoRoUsH said:

@Tallcity03

We can't know God. However, to use this general statement to conclude that God could be a Trinity is deceitful. Just because we don't know what God is, we can't accept that God can be a thing that is fundamentally illogical. The bottom line is that Jesus cannot be fully (100%) God and fully (100%) human. This is a blatant contradiction. And God cannot be a blatant contradiction. 

God is incapable of entering into his own creation? I would say that God is capable doing whatever he wants. Again you are using human logic to understand the divine creator. When God appeared to Moses in the burning bush did He stop being God? Was he 100% bush and 0% God, or 100% God and 0% bush? Was He absent in Heaven when this took place? Or was he present in Heaven and the Earth at the same time?

If God is the creator of space, time, every law of physics and nature then how can he be bound by his own creation? That in itself is a contradiction. I would agree that when you try to box God in to human logic and reason then he could not exist as fully God and fully man. But God is not bound by our laws. 

And again it is only fundamentally illogical if you limit God in dimension. Even in 3 dimensions it makes sense. One cube consists of 3 different unique dimensions that are also simultaneously equal. So when finding volume of a cube we can find it v= L x W x H or we can use v=s3 because they are equal is dimension.  How much more sense does it make when you consider that to God dimensions are limitless? 

You say we cannot know God. So we are assuming that God is bound by the same dimensional law that we are? The one that he created?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
On 3/23/2020 at 2:47 PM, Revert1963 said:

The existence of God is a logical inconsistency that defies causality.

I think the trinity is easy to understand. In Hinduism they have a 1000 gods. Yet they believe there is only one. Christianity has three gods. Yet they believe there is only one. Same thing. No difference. I guess what matter is whether they focus on the "Yet there is only one" part of it or not.

Christianity doesn't have 3 gods. There is only 1. However, God takes 3 forms. God the Father, Jesus the Son, and The Holy Spirit. All 3 are the same 'person'. God came to earth, (born as a baby) named Jesus. When the human form of God (Jesus) died, He left with us His spirit which we refer to as The Holy Spirit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

Water can be 3 forms. Liquid, Solid, and Gas. All 3 forms are still water, just different forms. When water is frozen, we call it ice. Yet it is still water. We can't say that ice isn't water just because it is in a different form. Water vapor is the gaseous phase of water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. It is still water; it just isn't solid or liquid. 

The Trinity is 3 forms of God. Still only 1 God, but in 3 different forms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Christians and Muslims are never going to agree on theology so there's no point in talking about it. 

In Islam, things have to be logical, very Aristotlean.  Therefore, God must satisfy the rational mind. 

In Christianity, it's the exact opposite, very Platonic. It isn't supposed to make sense. That's why it's called a Mystery. The Trinity is a Mystery, the incarnation is a Mystery, and the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a Mystery. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_mysteries

You guys arguing theology is like an old Italian guy and an old German guy yelling at each other. Nobody knows what the other is saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
14 hours ago, GabrielWithoutWings said:

Christians and Muslims are never going to agree on theology so there's no point in talking about it. 

 

 

There is. By sharing points of view, we can understand the beliefs of the other person. Also, we can find the weaker parts of our own beliefs. Through discussion, our thinking can be developed.

SolvableFor example, it is entirely possible to use conventional historical methods to try to work out why Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon, when Napoleon invaded Russia, where Jodl surrendered to the Allies. Similarly, it is possible to use conventional historical methods to try to work out who Jesus thought He was.

Quote

In Islam, things have to be logical, very Aristotlean.  Therefore, God must satisfy the rational mind. 

 


In Christianity, it's the exact opposite, very Platonic. It isn't supposed to make sense. That's why it's called a Mystery. The Trinity is a Mystery, the incarnation is a Mystery, and the Real Presence in the Eucharist is a Mystery

 

This is entirely wrong. Aquinas? Richard Swinburne? St Paul? These and so, so, so many others use/used logic and reasoning to do theological thinking. It's a non-negotiable part of Christianity.

Sure, we don't understand everything. The same is true of Science. It's still bound by logic.

Incidentally, from your link “The word mysterion (μυστήριον) is used 27 times in the New Testament. It denotes not so much the meaning of the modern English term mystery, but rather something that is mystical. In the biblical Greek, the term refers to "that which awaits disclosure or interpretation".

Like much in Science.

Quote

You guys arguing theology is like an old Italian guy and an old German guy yelling at each other. Nobody knows what the other is saying.

Fixable with a mobile phone and Google translate.

Edited by Leslie P
Unable to post link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

To be considered a Christian, one has to believe in Trinity. That’s an orthodox stance agreed upon by the World Council of Churches. Antitrinitarians are considered to be misguided heretics. The theological concept was sanctioned as an orthodox belief as early as in 325.

That said, Christians themselves don’t really know or understand this theological concept. I remember asking about it years ago one Catholic priest, and he told me that even Thomas Aquinas couldn’t fully explain it.

More than likely, the concept of trinity has been adopted into Christianity from pagan concept of divine triads. St. Jerome testified unequivocally, “All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity’” (Source; Marie Sinclair (1876), Old Truths in a New Light, p. 382). Aristotle wrote: “All things are three, and thrice is all: and let us use this number in the worship of the gods; for, as the Pythagoreans say, everything and all things are bounded by threes, for the end, the middle and the beginning have this number in everything, and these compose the number of the Trinity” (Source; Arthur Weigall (1928), Paganism in Our Christianity, pp. 197-198). And so on. Christianity has a long history of adopting pagan beliefs to accomodate newly converted majority pagan societies. Islam on the other hand was always opposed to such morphing, that’s why the Holy Quran criticises the concept of Trinity. Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is one and only, there’s nothing nor nobody morphed in Him (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), and He (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) isn’t in two or three persons. In Islam, God is understood to be the absolute one, indivisible, and incomparable being who is the ultimate cause of all existence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 5/7/2020 at 9:46 PM, Tallcity03 said:

God is incapable of entering into his own creation?

hi we believe that God can enter to his creation but his creation can't enter to him even every multi dimensional being has limit so God is beyond a multi dimensional being so he can be everywhere & do anything like when he talked to prophet Muses (عليه السلام) he also was in whole universe so nothing detached from him nor nothing attached to him 

 

On 5/7/2020 at 10:07 PM, MarV said:

Water can be 3 forms. Liquid, Solid, and Gas. All 3 forms are still water, just different forms. When water is frozen, we call it ice. Yet it is still water. We can't say that ice isn't water just because it is in a different form. Water vapor is the gaseous phase of water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. It is still water; it just isn't solid or liquid. 

The Trinity is 3 forms of God. Still only 1 God, but in 3 different forms. 

God is not a subctance  that we can change it's physical or chemical or Atomic form we can't find anything to describe him but we understand his unique presence through his creations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 5/7/2020 at 7:24 PM, MarV said:

Christianity doesn't have 3 gods. There is only 1. However, God takes 3 forms. God the Father, Jesus the Son, and The Holy Spirit. All 3 are the same 'person'. God came to earth, (born as a baby) named Jesus. When the human form of God (Jesus) died, He left with us His spirit which we refer to as The Holy Spirit. 

Same thing with Hinduism. The Brahman takes different forms like the trinity Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva. All three are the same entity. The divine principle of oneness, the Brahman, incarnates on earth, (born as a baby) named for instance Ram or Krishna or one of the other avatars. :dry: In essence the Christian concept of Jesus is just an avatar of "God the Father" as in Hinduism. I have no doubt that the Christians mean well. And so does the Hindus. According to the Quran though Allah begets not nor is he begotten. So from a Muslim point of view both Christians and Hindus make the same mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members
On 5/9/2020 at 1:43 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

hi we believe that God can enter to his creation but his creation can't enter to him even every multi dimensional being has limit so God is beyond a multi dimensional being so he can be everywhere & do anything like when he talked to prophet Muses (عليه السلام) he also was in whole universe so nothing detached from him nor nothing attached to him 

 

God is not a subctance  that we can change it's physical or chemical or Atomic form we can't find anything to describe him but we understand his unique presence through his creations.

I'm not saying He is a substance that we can change. We didn't change Him. God is all powerful and all mighty. He can present himself in any form He chooses. I was just using the water example as an illustration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Quote

On 5/9/2020 at 5:57 AM, OrthodoxTruth said:


To be considered a Christian, one has to believe in Trinity. That’s an orthodox stance agreed upon by the World Council of Churches.

This is not actually correct. If you search the page you linked, the word Trinity doesn't appear.

Christians believe in One God. They also believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit show us that One God.

Many Christians use the word Trinity to explain the concept, but using that as an explanation is not a requirement.

Quote

Antitrinitarians are considered to be misguided heretics. The theological concept was sanctioned as an orthodox belief as early as in 325.

Define Antitrinitarian.

Believing that God is One, and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are forms of that One; but that the term Trinity confuses rather than helps, is still orthodox Christianity.

It's not until Jesus' divinity is denied, or claiming there are three Gods of unequal rank, etc, that orthodoxy is left behind.

The term Trinity is not in the Nicene 325 statement, but the statement that Jesus was of another substance to the Father (i.e. a different God) was specifically condemned.

Quote

That said, Christians themselves don’t really know or understand this theological concept. I remember asking about it years ago one Catholic priest, and he told me that even Thomas Aquinas couldn’t fully explain it.

Would you expect describing the nature of God to be easy?

Quote

More than likely, the concept of trinity has been adopted into Christianity from pagan concept of divine triads

Definitely not. Christianity found itself dealing at the same time with the God of Israel, God as revealed in Jesus, and the ongoing work of God through the Holy Spirit. That's where the whole three thing came from. See for example 1 Cor 12:4-6

Edited by Leslie P
Still can't work out how to insert links on this forum!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Leslie P said:

This is not actually correct. If you search the page you linked, the word Trinity doesn't appear.

It does appear;

“The final doxological formula sets the Christocentric affirmation in a Trinitarian setting...”

”...delegates who took part in the discussion were of the opinion that the new basis was in full agreement with the Trinitarian doctrine as formulated by the first two ecumenical councils and in the Nicene Creed...”

”...the central committee concluded that there was no need to change the basis, though it was necessary to explain its meaning and also make clear that the incarnation and the Trinity were implicit in it.”

Quote

Many Christians use the word Trinity to explain the concept, but using that as an explanation is not a requirement.

According to whom? Your opinion goes against the Christian orthodoxy as defined by multiple councils and the organisation above.

Quote

Define Antitrinitarian.

Here?

Quote

The term Trinity is not in the Nicene 325 statement, but the statement that Jesus was of another substance to the Father (i.e. a different God) was specifically condemned.

“According to churches that consider the decisions of ecumenical councils final, Trinitarianism was definitively declared to be Christian doctrine at the 4th-century ecumenical councils.” See Wikipedia article above, it gives numerous sources for that statement and goes more in depth on the subject.

Quote

Would you expect describing the nature of God to be easy?

Yes, Islam dealt with it from the onset. No confusion, no multiple persons in one, they aren’t one nor separate etc. Christians have a problem describing nature of God till nowadays. We believe that the God is one and alone. That’s it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 5/8/2020 at 9:36 AM, Leslie P said:

This is entirely wrong. Aquinas? Richard Swinburne? St Paul? These and so, so, so many others use/used logic and reasoning to do theological thinking. It's a non-negotiable part of Christianity.

Sure, we don't understand everything. The same is true of Science. It's still bound by logic. 

Nonsense. You're equating Western scholasticism with the entirety of Christendom. The Eastern churches laugh at the Latin Rite's attempts to rationalize things like transubstantiation and concupiscence. 

Read some Gregory of Palamas or Pseudo Dionysus and you'll get an entirely different view. 

There's a reason that apophatic theology is dominant in the East. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

 

Quote

On 5/13/2020 at 7:50 PM, OrthodoxTruth said:
It does appear;

The page you originally linked to does not contain the word Trinity or Trinitarian. The second page you link to is about the history of the WCC statement and is on a different page on the same website. I'm hardly arguing that the idea of Trinity isn't part of Church theology or history...

Quote

According to whom? Your opinion goes against the Christian orthodoxy as defined by multiple councils and the organisation above

To be clear, I am not challenging the basis of the Trinity- that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all aspects of the one God. What I am saying is that 'three in one and one in three' is a poor way of explaining things, leading to unnecessary misunderstanding and rejection, when a different explanation means we can move forward in discussion.

One excellent example of this thinking as pure orthodox is the famous theologian and (trinitarian) Bishop N.T.Wright:

The result of all this explosion of exciting but, as I have suggested, focused and disciplined thinking about Jesus and the Spirit is that, in effect, the NT writers offer an incipient trinitarian theology without needing to use any of the technical terms that later centuries would adopt for the same purpose. What is more, when we understand how their language works, we discover that it actually does the job considerably better than the later formulations.

Quote

Define Antitrinitarian.

Here?

Excellent. Now that we have an agreed definition, we can hopefully agree that what I'm saying is not antitrinitarian.

Hopefully the point is clear- although the Later Church descriptions of Trinity aren't wrong, they are confusing. The NT writers do it better.

Quote

Would you expect describing the nature of God to be easy?

Yes, Islam dealt with it from the onset. No confusion, no multiple persons in one, they aren’t one nor separate etc. Christians have a problem describing nature of God till nowadays. We believe that the God is one and alone. That’s it.

You seem to be implying that if a description is simple, it is therefore correct.

I would expect the exact opposite when discussing the nature of God, which is surely bound to be challenging.

We also believe that God is One, and that One is revealed in the life of Jesus and the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 5/15/2020 at 12:56 AM, GabrielWithoutWings said:

Nonsense. You're equating Western scholasticism with the entirety of Christendom.  

Hardly. Your normal churchgoer doesn't like believing logical contradictions either. They also like to have things explained to them and for it to make sense. However they are prepared to accept that we don't know everything, and that's perhaps where your confusion is coming from. That Christian scholars use extensive reasoning to do their work shows that it is valued highly.

Quote

The Eastern churches laugh at the Latin Rite's attempts to rationalize things like transubstantiation and concupiscence.

As a Protestant I don't have a horse in that race, although I do value what we can learn from both traditions greatly. Surely if Christians are attempting to rationalise them, we're using that logical reasoning you say we don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

Can somebody please explain Quran 3:45 and 3:47?

3:45 says, "God gives you good news of a Word from Him". How do you interpret "Word"? 

3:47 says, "...how can I have a child, when no man has touched me?"  I think it means that God has placed a baby in the womb of Mary - a virgin girl. Jesus wouldn't have any earthly seed (a human father). Since blood comes from the male then Jesus' blood would be of God, making Him God's son.

 Thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
On 5/7/2020 at 1:37 PM, MarV said:

Water can be 3 forms. Liquid, Solid, and Gas. All 3 forms are still water, just different forms. When water is frozen, we call it ice. Yet it is still water. We can't say that ice isn't water just because it is in a different form. Water vapor is the gaseous phase of water. It is one state of water within the hydrosphere. It is still water; it just isn't solid or liquid. 

The Trinity is 3 forms of God. Still only 1 God, but in 3 different forms. 

 

On 5/12/2020 at 11:23 AM, MarV said:

I'm not saying He is a substance that we can change. We didn't change Him. God is all powerful and all mighty. He can present himself in any form He chooses. I was just using the water example as an illustration. 

so God presents Himself from form to form across time? the creator created something that subjugated the creator? i.e. He is subjected to time? AND He has "form"? cool.

On 5/7/2020 at 1:16 PM, Tallcity03 said:

I would say that God is capable doing whatever he wants.

can God throw you out of His domain/kingdom? Not 'obliterate you out of existence', but that you exist, and exist outside of His Kingdom, is that possible, can God make that happen? obviously not... likewise...

On 5/7/2020 at 1:16 PM, Tallcity03 said:

God is incapable of entering into his own creation?

No, God cannot do that.

He can inspire them, He can create a voice to speak to them, He can wire them, He can do whatever He wants TO them, but He cannot BE them or be encompassed by them. This is not limiting God, this shows his limitlessness.

this is not simply human logic, this is the description of God.

To ascribe limiting descriptions to God is denial of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...