Take a blanket and fold it into thirds. Notice that the top section is called “top” because it is on top. Notice that the centre section is called “centre” because of its location between the other two. Notice that the bottom section is called “bottom” because it is underneath the other two.
Then, pick up the blanket. Notice that there remains only one blanket, and there are no divisions in it.
This is a simple illustration of the Trinity.
Partialism. The top is not the entire blanket, the centre is not the entire blanket, and the bottom is not the entire blanket. The doctrine of the Trinity is that the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God.
How is it that you state that all the prophets, the righteous and the believers among the children of Israel did not recognize the Trinity? I find this statement startling. Perhaps you are unaware of Genesis 1:26, translated as
Please observe this. First, that God speaks of Himself in the plural, not the singular. Secondly, God has an image. We believe the Scriptures stand complete and whole, despite the length of time of their composition, and that revelation continued over that time. So that we can understand the “image” of God as Jesus Christ, So how can I say this? Please read Hebrews 1:3:
God must have substance, if He has an image, and that image is the Son of God, who is also God, the same God.
And perhaps you are unfamiliar with Deuteronomy 6:4
where the word ‘one’ is not referring to a single, numerical one, but rather a unity: a unity of more than one thing, in this case Persons.
There are numerous references in the Old Testament to the Trinity. I think it can be demonstrated adequately that the the righteous and the believers among the children of Israel DID recognize the Trinity, and the counter-demonstration (one cannot demonstrate a negative) is far less plausible. I would hold, although I think there may be some debate, that the people of God have always believed in the Trinity.
The Qur`an also uses this language, it does not mean that God Himself is plural. The Jews say that this refers to the plurality of God’s majesty.
As for God having an image, I think you should read
this.
And with all due respect, I think that is a bold claim which is more out of wishful thinking.
Obviously an uncreated substance or accident would not be created. ,
actually the debates on the Trinity had taken place much earlier than the middle ages. I am not quite sure what you are saying here. Aristotle was reintroduced to the West via the Arab philosophers, true, and then Thomas Aquinas and others borrowed from Aristotle. But they leaned much on what had been taught earlier. I think you are arguing that hypostases are a medieval invention and cannot be demonstrated to have been discussed earlier. I would have to do some digging, but I don’t think the assertion that hypostases are medieval is defensible. Where are you getting your information from?
Have you read “Summa Theologica” by Thomas Aquinas? And that is not quite what the Thomists I am familiar with say, which is why you may find a problem here when there really is not one.
Are you familiar with the Athanasian Creed, by the way?
It is impossible for an accident to be uncreated, and I have mentioned the problem with God having substance, created or ‘uncreated’; regarding heavenly beings, it would imply emanation and not creation ex nihilo.
I was referring to divine simplicity, not the Trinity. The Arab philosophers believed in divine simplicity. I believe the Trinity was much earlier, and that those behind its development were the likes of Philo of Alexandria, Valentinus, Origen, etc.
Fr. Garrigou Lagrange was a Thomist and wrote
wrote commentaries on the Summa Theologica.
I have read the Athanasian Creed.
No, I don’t think it is possible for God to lie, so when He said, through Christ, who was God in the flesh, that He and the Father were one, and that He would send the Holy Spirit, I take His word for it.
Do you?
No, Muslims believe it is impossible for Allah to lie. Allah is necessary, and His attributes are necessary, not contingent. One of Allah’s attributes is His Speech, and if it was possible for Him to lie, that would mean it’s possible for His Speech to be either true or false, subject to change; which would make His Speech contingent and not necessary. Moreover, if it was possible for Allah to lie, His Speech to be either true or false, that would mean the Qur`an or any of His other revelations to us could be false without us realising it. This is why, it is impossible for Allah to have revealed about Himself that which is contrary to what He already revealed about Himself. And the Trinity is contrary to what he already revealed about Himself prior to the coming of Isa ibn Maryam (AS).
Your use of the Bible passages would have been another topic, but since you insist, here is I posted yesterday on the ‘What doesn’t make sense to you?’ thread:
“Why the Church did not use a more objective method in determining the canon of the New Testament, but instead seems to have chosen books from doctrinal bias. Why the authors of many books of the New Testament are unverifiable. Why the traditions of the Church are unverifiable, but instead are only testified to by secondary sources at best.”
