An Argument Against Islam - Advice Needed!

[Vico]

Holy Spirit is assumed to be one divine personality of God, true? So Holy Spirit took form of a dove. Did God also assumed an animal sould and body?

The word directly refer not to Jesus. Jesus also is called Kalimullah(word of God) in Islam. But nobody think Jesus is god. There are many different interpretations of John1:1. My one is that God create every thing through words. That is explained in Qur’an.

117- Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is. Al-Baqarah(2)

Jesus was born without a father and that is very easy for God. God said be"a word" and it is.

Jesus was a savior but not God.

I and Father are one! So that prove that Jesus claimed to be divine? No. We should read the whole case. Jesus tried to persuade people to believe in Him and Jesus reject accusing of people to claim being divine. We must start from 25 to 37:

25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” prove Godhead of Jesus? No. I think we should look at original text to have true interpretation.

Haydock Commentary on Luke 3:22
Ver. 22. The reason why the Holy Ghost shewed himself in the shape of a dove, was because he could not be seen in the substance of his divinity. But why a dove? To express that simplicity acquired in the sacrament of baptism. Be ye simple as doves; to signify that peace bestowed by baptism, and prefigured by the olive branch which the dove carried back to the ark, a true figure of the Church, and which was the only security from the destructive deluge. (St. Ambrose) — You will object: Christ, though he was God, would not be baptized till the age of 30, and do you order baptism to be received sooner? When you say, though he was God, you solve the difficulty. For, he stood not in need of being purified at all; of course, there could be no danger in deferring his baptism. But you will have much to answer for, if, being born in corruption, you pass out of this world without the garment of incorruption. (St. Gregory of Nazianzus, orat. 40.)

As was professed in the Creed in Nicea 325 A.D. Jesus Christ is true God and true man:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

Leclercq, H. (1911). The First Council of Nicaea. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

 

[MartinJordan]

There still more that Jesus says after verse 37. Hasantas you will need to better. Jumping to St Thomas words at the last is odd. That was after Crucifixion. Too disordered.

MJ

 

[hasantas]

Haydock Commentary on Luke 3:22
Ver. 22. The reason why the Holy Ghost shewed himself in the shape of a dove, was because he could not be seen in the substance of his divinity. But why a dove? To express that simplicity acquired in the sacrament of baptism. Be ye simple as doves; to signify that peace bestowed by baptism, and prefigured by the olive branch which the dove carried back to the ark, a true figure of the Church, and which was the only security from the destructive deluge. (St. Ambrose) — You will object: Christ, though he was God, would not be baptized till the age of 30, and do you order baptism to be received sooner? When you say, though he was God, you solve the difficulty. For, he stood not in need of being purified at all; of course, there could be no danger in deferring his baptism. But you will have much to answer for, if, being born in corruption, you pass out of this world without the garment of incorruption. (St. Gregory of Nazianzus, orat. 40.)

As was professed in the Creed in Nicea 325 A.D. Jesus Christ is true God and true man:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

Leclercq, H. (1911). The First Council of Nicaea. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

So that dove was God! It sounds no logical. It must be a mystery! That dove was Ruh-ul Kudus(Holy Spirit) who is angel Gabriel(Jibril, Jabrail) and angel can take form of any thing.

“he(God) could not be seen in the substance of his divinity” is true. And that substance is not part of time and space. So what is relation between God and time or matter? Creating and acting.

By all manners “begotten” is secondary and indeed there is no any statement in scripture about that but just comments of philosophers.

“A true God of true God” equals 2 but not 1. Because if Jesus is one personality of Godhead while Jesus was on the world Father is not so there are two distinct gods. Two personalities equal two men or gods. Father sent His Son so that means Son must be distinct being. A personality must source from a body. Phililosophers say from same substance. All right then which part of that substance God sent to world? Substance is eternal and cannot be divided. If you say Son personality is apart anymore but that conflicts with eternity. There are many conflicts in that issue.

 

[gmcbroom]

MJ
It’s actually quite simple H has to use the gospel of Thomas because it’s somewhat Unitarian which lines up with the Islamic view of God. Having said that since it’s a gospel of late origin the Catholic Church doesn’t use it. However, I think it’s important to point out something. To truly gain a true way to refute Islam I recommend PFANDER films by Jay Smith. He’s been going toe to toe with Muslims for decades. He’s an evangelist like st Paul. He lives in the U.K. He’s not catholic but he goal is to refute Islam and he does a good job of it. He is respected by Muslims because of his knowledge.

 

[Vico]

So that dove was God! It sounds no logical. It must be a mystery! That dove was Ruh-ul Kudus(Holy Spirit) who is angel Gabriel(Jibril, Jabrail) and angel can take form of any thing.

“he(God) could not be seen in the substance of his divinity” is true. And that substance is not part of time and space. So what is relation between God and time or matter? Creating and acting.

By all manners “begotten” is secondary and indeed there is no any statement in scripture about that but just comments of philosophers.

“A true God of true God” equals 2 but not 1. Because if Jesus is one personality of Godhead while Jesus was on the world Father is not so there are two distinct gods. Two personalities equal two men or gods. Father sent His Son so that means Son must be distinct being. A personality must source from a body. Phililosophers say from same substance. All right then which part of that substance God sent to world? Substance is eternal and cannot be divided. If you say Son personality is apart anymore but that conflicts with eternity. There are many conflicts in that issue.

Catechism of the Catholic Church explains some of the terminology used:

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.82

252 The Church uses * (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, * (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and * (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

The Nicene creed of 325 was amended in 381 because there were heresies (and it is the one I posted) .

Since the Trinity is simple, there is only one being (consubstantial) and the real difference by relation of opposition. Per metaphysics, relation does not import composition into the essence. There is essence and person, but these are not different realities.

“The real distinction between the persons is not essential”. Person is the same as essence; there is no real subjection.

Aquinas S.T., Q39. A1.
Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 7): “When we say the person of the Father we mean nothing else but the substance of the Father.”
Reply to Objection 2: As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other.

Reply to Objection 3: Divine things are named by us after the way of created things, as above explained (Q[13], AA[1],3). And since created natures are individualized by matter which is the subject of the specific nature, it follows that individuals are called “subjects,” “supposita,” or “hypostases.” So the divine persons are named “supposita” or “hypostases,” but not as if there really existed any real “supposition” or “subjection.”

Parts are not necessary for relation. A real distinction is present without parts.

Aristotle, Categories, Part 4 -
Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or affection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are ‘man’ or ‘the horse’, of quantity, such terms as ‘two cubits long’ or ‘three cubits long’, of quality, such attributes as ‘white’, ‘grammatical’. ‘Double’, ‘half’, ‘greater’, fall under the category of relation; ‘in a the market place’, ‘in the Lyceum’, under that of place; ‘yesterday’, ‘last year’, under that of time. ‘Lying’, ‘sitting’, are terms indicating position, ‘shod’, ‘armed’, state; ‘to lance’, ‘to cauterize’, action; ‘to be lanced’, ‘to be cauterized’, affection.
No one of these terms, in and by itself, involves an affirmation; it is by the combination of such terms that positive or negative statements arise. For every assertion must, as is admitted, be either true or false, whereas expressions which are not in any way composite such as ‘man’, ‘white’, ‘runs’, ‘wins’, cannot be either true or false

 

[hasantas]

Catechism of the Catholic Church explains some of the terminology used:

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.82

252 The Church uses * (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, * (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and * (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

The Nicene creed of 325 was amended in 381 because there were heresies (and it is the one I posted) .

Since the Trinity is simple, there is only one being (consubstantial) and the real difference by relation of opposition. Per metaphysics, relation does not import composition into the essence. There is essence and person, but these are not different realities.

“The real distinction between the persons is not essential”. Person is the same as essence; there is no real subjection.

Aquinas S.T., Q39. A1.
Augustine says (De Trin. vi, 7): “When we say the person of the Father we mean nothing else but the substance of the Father.”
Reply to Objection 2: As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other.

Reply to Objection 3: Divine things are named by us after the way of created things, as above explained (Q[13], AA[1],3). And since created natures are individualized by matter which is the subject of the specific nature, it follows that individuals are called “subjects,” “supposita,” or “hypostases.” So the divine persons are named “supposita” or “hypostases,” but not as if there really existed any real “supposition” or “subjection.”

Parts are not necessary for relation. A real distinction is present without parts.

Aristotle, Categories, Part 4 -
Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or affection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are ‘man’ or ‘the horse’, of quantity, such terms as ‘two cubits long’ or ‘three cubits long’, of quality, such attributes as ‘white’, ‘grammatical’. ‘Double’, ‘half’, ‘greater’, fall under the category of relation; ‘in a the market place’, ‘in the Lyceum’, under that of place; ‘yesterday’, ‘last year’, under that of time. ‘Lying’, ‘sitting’, are terms indicating position, ‘shod’, ‘armed’, state; ‘to lance’, ‘to cauterize’, action; ‘to be lanced’, ‘to be cauterized’, affection.
No one of these terms, in and by itself, involves an affirmation; it is by the combination of such terms that positive or negative statements arise. For every assertion must, as is admitted, be either true or false, whereas expressions which are not in any way composite such as ‘man’, ‘white’, ‘runs’, ‘wins’, cannot be either true or false

I am not a philosopher and it is difficult to understand. Perhaps in Turkish I would understand easily. But the conclusion is that there are three persons each one are called “god”. Their substance is same or different not important. And it is not enough to say "Distinct personality means distinct person. And that make three gods. There is no need for such complex philosophicals. What is “relation of opposition”? Why do you need to make three gods? Or three distinct personalities? If God were consist of three distinct personalities even wtih same substance they will never reconcile in any issue. Two presidents cannot govern a state in unision. So three eternal persons cannot agree in very details.

 

[meltzerboy]

For instance Bab was a Muslim and has no original revelation. He should be an intellectual and moraly high scholar in religion but he has not valid revelation and has not standarts of a prophet.

Qur’an is the best evidence. Qur’an cannot be words of Muhammad who was unlearned. Qur’an is miraculous at least by seven ways. It took to long to explain but I give just headlines.

1. Literature of Qur’an is miraculous.
2. Contents of Qur’an is so extensive which just God could know such inclusive knowledges.
3. Giving the true knowledges which includes all times from creating of universe to eternal.
4. Qur’an always stands and remain young and durable. Morever in the length of time Qur’an becomes more young because some detail can be undertand by time.
5. Qur’an address to all people from uneducated to professor in all times. God just can do such thing.
6. With very short words Qur’an explain many things. There are thousands of interpretations(Tafsir) to explain all these meanings. Muhammad was not so aware!
7. Qur’an is so lovely and pleasant cause no any boring and tired by reading every day. A child can memorise whole verses.

Sahabas were witness of revelation and they saw remarks of prophethood on Muhammad. They were so hard and rough but by principles of Islam they learnt very much.

The second evidence is Muhammad Himself. He had all good attributes. Just think a good deed and there is no anyone to be better than Muhammad. He was most devous and obey all rules of religion. Nobody could do as much as Him. He worshiped God during very of nights. He could not change a law by Himself. He was not rich. …

15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7

All fruits from Muhammad are good.

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Matthew 21

The kingdom of God were taken from Jews. In a Hadith Muhammad said: With me the representation of prophets do like a villa but the place of a brick is empity. People look at it and say that is very nice but the place of that brick is empity. So that villa is completed with me.

Here Muhammad says He is the stone which Jesus had informed.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. John 16

Muhammad guided humanbeing to all truth. Muhammad did not talk from Himself. He told what He heard. That is explained in Qur’an:

3- Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination.
4-It is not but a revelation revealed, An-Najm(53)

Messiah is Jesus Himself.

Thanks for the information. Your last statement–Messiah is Jesus Himself–means what to Muslims? How does Islam define the Messiah; that is, what is the purpose of the Messiah according to your religion? It apparently does not have the same meaning in Islam as it does in Christianity or in Judaism.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Two presidents cannot govern a state in unision. So three eternal persons cannot agree in very details.

Why not? They are doing it in Andorra, Bhutan, Northern Ireland, San Marino, Swaziland; and historically, Sparta, the Roman Republic, Hungary, Japan, Tibet, Canada, Russia, India, and Samoa were as well.

 

[hasantas]

Why not? They are doing it in Andorra, Bhutan, Northern Ireland, San Marino, Swaziland; and historically, Sparta, the Roman Republic, Hungary, Japan, Tibet, Canada, Russia, India, and Samoa were as well.

Do you mean both presidents have same authority?

 

[hasantas]

Thanks for the information. Your last statement–Messiah is Jesus Himself–means what to Muslims? How does Islam define the Messiah; that is, what is the purpose of the Messiah according to your religion? It apparently does not have the same meaning in Islam as it does in Christianity or in Judaism.

Messiah is not a savior in Islam. Of course Messiah(Jesus) was a savior of His times but that do not mean He would save all the world. He will come on the world again but not as a prophet anymore. Perhaps He will correct doctrines which conflict with revelation in His religion. Jesus is called as Messiah in Qur’an. That is all.

45- [And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary – distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah]. Ali-Imran(3)

171- O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah 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 Allah as Disposer of affairs. An-Nisa(4)

75- The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. Al-Maidah(5)

 

[SyroMalankara]

Do you mean both presidents have same authority?

Yes, no, maybe. Depends on the specific country. In Andorra - Yes.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Messiah is not a savior in Islam. Of course Messiah(Jesus) was a savior of His times but that do not mean He would save all the world. He will come on the world again but not as a prophet anymore. Perhaps He will correct doctrines which conflict with revelation in His religion. Jesus is called as Messiah in Qur’an. That is all.

What will be come again as?

171- O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, “Three”; desist – it is better for you. Indeed, Allah 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 Allah as Disposer of affairs. An-Nisa(4)

Now the Quran is calling Jesus an angel? Is he an Anointed, an angel, a saviour - all of these?

75- The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded. Al-Maidah(5)

What in the world does eating food have to do with anything? No one denies that Jesus ate food - and every other normal human function.

 

[Vico]

I am not a philosopher and it is difficult to understand. Perhaps in Turkish I would understand easily. But the conclusion is that there are three persons each one are called “god”. Their substance is same or different not important. And it is not enough to say "Distinct personality means distinct person. And that make three gods. There is no need for such complex philosophicals. What is “relation of opposition”? Why do you need to make three gods? Or three distinct personalities? If God were consist of three distinct personalities even wtih same substance they will never reconcile in any issue. Two presidents cannot govern a state in unision. So three eternal persons cannot agree in very details.

The Holy Trinity has one divine mind and one divine will and one essence. God is simple, and in that essence are the relations of opposition that define the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Relation does not import composition into the essence. If you cannot comprehend the philosophy then why are you opposing it, when others can understand it? You can accept it as a mystery.

 

[hasantas]

The Holy Trinity has one divine mind and one divine will and one essence. God is simple, and in that essence are the relations of opposition that define the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Relation does not import composition into the essence. If you cannot comprehend the philosophy then why are you opposing it, when others can understand it? You can accept it as a mystery.

Philosophy cannot be used to establish a faith. There is no need of phylosophy to define faith. But if you make up something philosophically so you have to explain it by philosophy.
Trinity were not belief of first followers and believers of Jesus. Can phylosophy explain that?

St. Paul made Pagans to believe in one God. To do that he gave some concession to Pagans. The thought divinity of Jesus raised among new believers who before were Pagans.

I see that Cathecism do not say there are three gods. We all agree on that there is one God. But the claiming that God has three personalities sounds a bit polemical. Aquinas exerted a good effort to reconcile the issue. But still there are some problems. God is simple and each three personality have same simple essence so that repel plurality of gods. God is one in essence, power and all attributes. That seems no polemical. Relations does not import compositon in essence. So there can be more than one relations is essence. Yes. That is acceptable. Because God become manifest and act by very different ways. All these becomeing manifest come from same simple eternal essence. And we can term these relations with some names. By one relations power may act and by other love do etc. I daresay Aquinas explain those if I am not wrong.

The objection raise to that Aquinas regard a distinct reality for each personality. Because Son was on the world and Father was not. That means they must have distinct realities. That suggest plurality in Godhead. What is personality? “the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual’s distinctive character.” So if all qualities of each three personalities of Trinity are same so why need to term and say three peronalities? İf there are some real difference so do that not means three distinct persons?

The other problem is in incarnation. Even if we assume that God have three personalities in relations but all these personalities must be eternal. An eternal being do not incarnate. So even if you say there is one personality and one God and so claiming the incarnation is not true. God do not incarnate. God do not incarnate into matter but God create matter. You say each three personalities have same simple eternal essence. So do eternal essence change? Because simplicity does not allow dividing and changing. Relations are not material. If you say relations(personalities) can be material but that refute hypothesis of Aquinas from the get-go which is lack to explain Trinity.

 

[Vico]

…

The Trinity is a belief from the time of Christ as he said go and baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The early Church Fathers believed in the Mystery of the Trinity, but there were those that opposed it so they chose to attempt an explanation for the benefit of the people, as you can read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

241 For this reason the apostles confess Jesus to be the Word: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”; as “the image of the invisible God”; as the “radiance of the glory of God and the very stamp of his nature”.65

And posted before:

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.82

The Mystery Revealed by Jesus Christ is that an eternal being does incarnate, specifically the Son of God, for the salvation of mankind. The Son of God existing always, assumed a human nature in Jesus Christ.

A major philosophical difference between Christianity and Arabic philosophies such as Al Farabi, the ideas of emanation, and of Avicenna teaching that matter is eternal and uncreated, which are not acceptable to Christianity.

You are using the wrong terms I believe. What St. Thomas Aquinas wrote is about real distinction not a distinct reality. Note those are totally different meanings, as can be seen in the definitions:

• real: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
• distinction: a difference or contrast between similar things or people.
• distinct: recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type.
• reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

What St. Thomas Aquinas wrote of Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 41 The persons in reference to the notional acts > A4 Does there exist in God a power as regards the notional acts?

Reply to Objection 3. Power signifies a principle: and a principle implies distinction from that of which it is the principle. Now we must observe a double distinction in things said of God: one is a real distinction, the other is a distinction of reason only. By a real distinction, God by His essence is distinct from those things of which He is the principle by creation: just as one person is distinct from the other of which He is principle by a notional act. But in God the distinction of action and agent is one of reason only, otherwise action would be an accident in God. And therefore with regard to those actions in respect of which certain things proceed which are distinct from God, either personally or essentially, we may ascribe power to God in its proper sense of principle. And as we ascribe to God the power of creating, so we may ascribe the power of begetting and of spirating. But “to understand” and “to will” are not such actions as to designate the procession of something distinct from God, either essentially or personally. Wherefore, with regard to these actions we cannot ascribe power to God in its proper sense, but only after our way of understanding and speaking: inasmuch as we designate by different terms the intellect and the act of understanding in God, whereas in God the act of understanding is His very essence which has no principle.

 

[meltzerboy]

Philosophy cannot be used to establish a faith. There is no need of phylosophy to define faith. But if you make up something philosophically so you have to explain it by philosophy.
Trinity were not belief of first followers and believers of Jesus. Can phylosophy explain that?

St. Paul made Pagans to believe in one God. To do that he gave some concession to Pagans. The thought divinity of Jesus raised among new believers who before were Pagans.

I see that Cathecism do not say there are three gods. We all agree on that there is one God. But the claiming that God has three personalities sounds a bit polemical. Aquinas exerted a good effort to reconcile the issue. But still there are some problems. God is simple and each three personality have same simple essence so that repel plurality of gods. God is one in essence, power and all attributes. That seems no polemical. Relations does not import compositon in essence. So there can be more than one relations is essence. Yes. That is acceptable. Because God become manifest and act by very different ways. All these becomeing manifest come from same simple eternal essence. And we can term these relations with some names. By one relations power may act and by other love do etc. I daresay Aquinas explain those if I am not wrong.

The objection raise to that Aquinas regard a distinct reality for each personality. Because Son was on the world and Father was not. That means they must have distinct realities. That suggest plurality in Godhead. What is personality? “the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual’s distinctive character.” So if all qualities of each three personalities of Trinity are same so why need to term and say three peronalities? İf there are some real difference so do that not means three distinct persons?

The other problem is in incarnation. Even if we assume that God have three personalities in relations but all these personalities must be eternal. An eternal being do not incarnate. So even if you say there is one personality and one God and so claiming the incarnation is not true. God do not incarnate. God do not incarnate into matter but God create matter. You say each three personalities have same simple eternal essence. So do eternal essence change? Because simplicity does not allow dividing and changing. Relations are not material. If you say relations(personalities) can be material but that refute hypothesis of Aquinas from the get-go which is lack to explain Trinity.

I’m sure Catholic and other Christian apologists have a good rebuttal to all of this. Essentially, however, I believe Judaism is on the same page as Islam with respect to what you say here. And, for Judaism, there are other reasons not to accept a Trinitarian G-d, based on certain passages in the Hebrew Scriptures, some of which, paradoxically, Christians point to as suggesting a Trinitarian Deity.

 

[hasantas]

Reply to Objection 3. Power signifies a principle: and a principle implies distinction from that of which it is the principle. Now we must observe a double distinction in things said of God: one is a real distinction, the other is a distinction of reason only. By a real distinction, God by His essence is distinct from those things of which He is the principle by creation: just as one person is distinct from the other of which He is principle by a notional act. But in God the distinction of action and agent is one of reason only, otherwise action would be an accident in God. And therefore with regard to those actions in respect of which certain things proceed which are distinct from God, either personally or essentially, we may ascribe power to God in its proper sense of principle. And as we ascribe to God the power of creating, so we may ascribe the power of begetting and of spirating. But “to understand” and “to will” are not such actions as to designate the procession of something distinct from God, either essentially or personally. Wherefore, with regard to these actions we cannot ascribe power to God in its proper sense, but only after our way of understanding and speaking: inasmuch as we designate by different terms the intellect and the act of understanding in God, whereas in God the act of understanding is His very essence which has no principle.

Can you explain by simple words what the text above means?

 

[SyroMalankara]

St. Paul made Pagans to believe in one God. To do that he gave some concession to Pagans. The thought divinity of Jesus raised among new believers who before were Pagans.

Islamic debaters always revert to this attack on the orthodoxy of St. Paul, because St. Paul was so vocal and a prolific writer – if he can be diminished, then the Islamic apologist assumes the entire ecclesial system collapses. The fact is, this entire idea PROVES that St. Paul did in fact teach Trinity, per Islamic belief – but they mistakenly think Trinity is Tritheism (and in fact the error is recorded in the Quran, as Muhammad had a misconception of the teaching). Now back to the hypothesis – WHY would St. Paul concede a false belief to the pagans, when he was dismantling nearly their entire faith system as flawed, unknowing, and blind – up to the threat of death by government? If one looks seriously at St. Paul, one can see he is never conceding on even one point of pagan belief – he even straightens their crooked beliefs by directing it to the True God. For example, the pagans prayed to Zeus saying, “for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children…” St. Paul teaches them that this is regarding the Hebrew God:

ACTS 17: 22 So Paul, standing in the middle of the Are-op′agus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man, 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, 28 for

‘In him we live and move and have our being’;
as even some of your poets have said,

‘For we are indeed his offspring.’
29 Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead.”

 

[Vico]

Can you explain by simple words what the text above means?

The real distinctions, such as coming forth of created things from God or the uncreated begetting or procession, can be associated with the idea of power in principle, but when we consider God’s intellect or of His will in action, we must remember that in reality will and intellect are essence, therefore we can only make a distinction of reason. That means we use the notion of power as principle in an analogical sense.

Notion: a notion is a conception of or belief.
Analogy: a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Why? Because

• You deny the Trinity.
• You don’t refer to Jesus as God you refer to Him as a prophet
• So I’m giving you the proof for where the understanding of 3 divine persons in one God comes from.
• Father
• Son
• Holy Spirit

catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity

That is why.

I could tell

And the fact you don’t agree / believe, in the information given, is a completely different matter.

Can you dismiss your following statements as just typing too fast?

• First thing first, Jesus(pbuh) never thought the doctrine of the Trinity concept anytime during his Ministry. This is a fundamental belief in the Catholic Church and yet Jesus(pbuh) has brought many parables to his disciples but NOWHERE does he claim that there are actually 3 persons in the God Head nor does Jesus say that The Holy Spirit is The Creator of the universe! You will not find this from the words of Jesus (pbuh) himself.
• Nowhere in the 4 Gospels does Prophet Jesus (pbuh) talk to his disciples about the Trinity.
• Nowhere does He make the claim that The Holy Spirit is also the Creator of the Universe or the third person of the God-head or that they are three distinct persons.
• According to the Gospels Jesus spoke many parables, there are also a quite recorded events he participated in ie. performing miracles, casting out devils, calling people to prayer and ect. but when it came down to preaching the fundamental teachings of Christianity you don’t get that directly from the words of Jesus.

You weren’t asking questions there, you were making statements. Statements that show you really don’t know who Jesus is or what Jesus taught.

Yes I made statements, now if you want me to pose a question here it is. Give me verses from the Gospels where Jesus preached the doctrine of the trinity.