The Trinity - monotheistic or tritheistic?

[Deo_Volente]

(…CONTINUED)

…when one says God’s Action is One action, in that everything that has happened and will happen and is happening is by One action, how does one begin to relate that to what he/she sees and witnesses?

By acknowledging that one’s experience is not complete—that what we see as real is only a shadow of the Real. The radical monist and Sufi mystic ibn’Arabi wrote that God only is Real, we are only Real to the degree to which we resemble God and our reality is contingent on God–i.e., to say that we are as Real as God is Real is to say that there are two Absolute Realities. No. There is One Absolute. Most Christian theologians would agree with this line of thinking (I’m thinking in particular of the Christian Neo-Platonists like Dionysius the Areopagite). So we must be aware that our perception is not the whole story, that, as Paul writes, “eye has not seen nor ear heard” the totality of the Mystery of God, and that though we may arrive, through perception, through thought, through reason, at an understanding of God, this understanding is naturally deficient and requires the Mystery to complete it and make it whole. The Christian understanding of Humanity is this: that we were made for communion with God. We are only fully human when we are united with God, completed by God. We are only Real when we resemble God. And this Unity is accomplished through Christ, in whom we find ourselves as we ought to be—perfectly joined with God.
Hashi Al-Eritre:

Again, like the ‘God eternally begotten the Son’ statement, it becomes more of a allegorical or symbolic type of statement that cant and should never be used to explain the actual events and happenings that we have witnessed and will witness.

I would challenge you to reverse terms here: we live in the realm of the symbol, of the allegorical. God is the Actual, the Real. All things that occur here occur as a result of a movement in the Eternal Present of God. That is Actual and Real. We live here in the realm of physical manifestation, a reflection of the Perfectly Real Action of God.

I hope in all this I haven’t been even more confusing!

Under the Mercy,

Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[trustmc]

Hashi Al-Eritre:

Christianity has always claimed to be monotheistic, but im struggling to understand how the trinity is a monotheistic concept. If the claim is that ‘God is 3 persons in 1’ then from what i see it is actually a tritheistic concept (the belief that there are three equally powerful gods who form a triad).

I would like an explanation from the christian perspective on the trinity and how it is not ‘tritheistic’.

Actually, a more complete formula is: 3 persons in 1 being. Knowing this from the start may provide you with a better starting point in your quest for a better understanding. God bless.

Mike

 

[dominicj]

I will try this again.

I typed for 10 minutes and then logged me out.

But, much of the discussion here, in gneral, covers about what I was say.

God is, and is.

Man is and is not.

Man is defined in potency and act.

God is defined in act.

We ontologically view everything from our level by seperation of act and potentiality.

Check the Thesauras on not by the words but essential characteristics of being.

However, with all this talk. Including mine, it comes to two things.

This is a matter of mystery and faith. We cannot fully understand this.

The best way, I think, to “understand” this is to not understand it, but to experience it. By living by faith, in the present.

We also can experience (understand) the unknowing by accepting the nature of unknowing.

You may want to look at St. John of the Cross. Try some “contemplation”. Not meditation, which depends on knowing, but contemplation that seeks the darkness of unknowing.

So you know now. You know.

 

[hlgomez]

Hashi: Questions like this cannot apply to Almighty God, because God cannot be compared or made similar to man or any other kind of creation. He is far above the characteristics of His creation. God himself is uncreated and unlike his creation, so how can he become a created thing? Questions of this nature cannot be asked or suggested or thought about regarding God.
**Exactly.

This is the most common misunderstanding of the Divine revelation thru Isa Ibnu Allah. Christ didn’t become a created being, rather He, as a Divine Being, assumed the human nature. For if He didn’t assume the human nature, He couldn’t be seen and touch by anything considered to be our physical senses. God just exactly knew how to deal with us human beings needing His presence. That is why Isa is called “Emmanuel” meaning “God is with us.”

But there is much more to what He did and all of these was foreshadowed in the Old Testament (the sacrifices and rituals of the Israelites pointing to the Messiah). A person who doesn’t know the Jewish traditions will have a difficulty understanding of how the Messiah came to us 2000 years ago. But of course, revelation is a gift given to us by God. To come to believe in it is a gift as well. We don’t device it, nor make up anything about God–it is a revelation, and the Trinity is a revelation given to us by Isa.

Furthermore, created beings reflect God Himself. An example is the family where the love of the husband and wife begets a third person. No one on earth can beget a child without the participation of the two persons, male and female. All of humanity are composed of different and unique persons but we are the same nature–just one nature–human nature. Every man born into the world is a unique person and cannot be copied. Not even cloning can clone a person, body and soul, a complete and unique individual. The family is an example of the reflection of the Trinity. God is not solitary, He is a family–Father, Son and Holy Spirit–Trinity worthy to be adored.

Pio*

 

[Faith101]

I said God does not lie, I did not say that he did not have the power to lie. What reason would he possibly have to lie?

You’re right. God can do whatever He wants. He has no reason to lie and He has no reason to beget a son/daughter.

The “us” and “our” are used in the Hebrew Language, not Arabic. The passage says God not Gods.

I’m not sure what you mean. A single being can say “our, or we” for example “We will bless you” doesnt mean that a group of beings will bless you but one supreme being will bless you. It denotes POWER.

The we created man in our image, doesnt mean a number of beings created man (ie trinity) it means a powerful being created man.

It is also used in arabic, if you search the Quran, you will find many places were God says “we”

Yes the Bible is inconclusive without the Catholic Tradition or Early Church Fathers writings. These traditions and writings pre-date Islam by 600+ years.

And they also post date Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. If you think about it…how can the Bible by itself be inconclusive on the MOST IMPORTANT part of faith, the foundation? How can Jesus Christ peace be upon him NOT make clear who he was and what his mission was in a way that would be undebatable?

 

[Yasmine]

After dearly trying to understand I feel that the “mystery” will never be understood…It is what catholics call “faith”…may all of us be guided onto the straight path…and all those who spent time seeking for the truth be rewarded…the truth was presented and falsley rejected by this concept of the so called mysterious, hard to understand, case of “faith”…

Hashi Al-Eritre
r.gonzales
and
Faith101
May Allah reward you

 

[exoflare]

Faith101:

And they also post date Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. If you think about it…how can the Bible by itself be inconclusive on the MOST IMPORTANT part of faith, the foundation? How can Jesus Christ peace be upon him NOT make clear who he was and what his mission was in a way that would be undebatable?

Well, the dogma on the foundation of the faith is fixed whether you like it or not… it won’t change just because you decide to disagree with it. And what exactly would you mean by “undebatable”? If God forced himself on everyone in a way that it was not possible to question him, there would be no free will.

 

[Reuben_J]

Yasmine:

After dearly trying to understand I feel that the “mystery” will never be understood…It is what catholics call “faith”…may all of us be guided onto the straight path…and all those who spent time seeking for the truth be rewarded…the truth was presented and falsley rejected by this concept of the so called mysterious, hard to understand, case of “faith”…

Hashi Al-Eritre
r.gonzales
and
Faith101
May Allah reward you

Please clarify. Who rejected the truth? And how? What have been rejected?

What is hard to undertsand? Trinity concept is NOT hard to understand. You may disagree with it, you may don’t believe in it, but it is NOT hard to undertsand. Catholics do undertsand it. Don’t listen to the theologians if their arguments are too deep to understand. Sometimes simple language will do just fine.

Catholics who have been trying very hard to explain this concept even to the extent of giving very kind of analogy, are actually trying to bring forth the explanation so that you can undertsand. But you still don’t. Are you? Or are you try to catch mistakes made by catholics who are trying all means to make you understand? I think that’s not fair!

Just say you don’t believe and you don’t agree, then we can proceed and try out our differences. My impression on this are that there are genuine Muslims, maybe Hashi, who understands our explanation, but in the end, does not agree. I think that’s the way. I’m not dictating how you should react, but with your accusation as the above, discussion will not go a long way.

If you follow this thread from the beginning, there is a definition for a mystery. It’s not mystery like in a detective murder story!

May God bless you.

 

[Faith101]

Well, the dogma on the foundation of the faith is fixed whether you like it or not… it won’t change just because you decide to disagree with it

Exoflare, post one verse from the Bible that states that JESUS said “I am God” or that JESUS states “Worship me” just one verse, out of the wholeee book that clearly states the foundation of your belief.

Do you know how many verses in the Quran clearly state the foundation of a Muslim’s belief? Do you know how clear it is?

The truth is the Bible is not conclusive.

And what exactly would you mean by “undebatable”?

undebatable meaning that the foundation of your faith is explained clearly in your book, without the (name removed by moderator)ut of any man. I’m not talking about the details of faith, i am talking about the FOUNDATION of belief.

If God forced himself on everyone in a way that it was not possible to question him, there would be no free will.

I’m not saying that Exoflare. For example, in the Quran, Allah tells us that He neither begets nor is begotten. That is clear. Now, YOU dont agree with that. God is not “forcing Himself” on you to believe that. But its there, and its clear and its UNDEBATABLE, meanign that you can not come to me and say “Jesus is the begotton son of God according to the Quran”

But there are verses in the Bible where someone can actually make a case saying that Jesus is just a messenger.

Honestly, we can agree to disagree…on the day of Judgment you and I and every single person on this forum will stand alone…and you can make your case in front of God. May God guide us and have mercy on us.

 

[r.gonzales]

Reuben J:

genuine Muslims, maybe Hashi, who understands our explanation, but in the end, does not agree

perhaps you’ve read something in hashi’s replies that the rest of us, including himself, hasn’t seen.

what hashi accepts is that you claim to and believe that you worship Allah alone. and he can correct me if i’m wrong here (but i’m pretty sure i’m correct in saying this), but he doesn’t understand any of the explanations put forth by the christians here - whether they be catholic, protestant or of any other denomination. he’s repeatedly said that the explanations are irrational and illogical - which basically means its incomprehensible - at least to him and anyone who agrees with him.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Faith101:

You’re right. God can do whatever He wants. He has no reason to lie and He has no reason to beget a son/daughter.

Faith101, I think your misunderstanding here regarding the Son of God, the Word of God, is in assuming that the Son is begotten by the Father at a particular point in time. This is not the case. The creed is very specific–the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. That is, the Son was always with the Father and is eternally begotten by him, hence his Sonship. That the Son is begotten does not refer to an event in time, it refers to the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son by which the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, and both are One God.

Let’s look at it this way–The Son receives his Person from the Father through the Father’s begetting of the Son. The Son is only the Son because he is begotten. The Father receives his Person from himself–through begetting (and spirating the Spirit). One would assume that this means that the Son is less than the Father. Not so. Because what does the Father have to beget but himself? Would it be possible for the Father to beget from himself something that is less than himself? Where in himself would he find this lesser thing in order to beget it? By no means, then, is the Son less than the Father. The Father and the Son are God.

The Son is also called the Word–because the Word of God is the revelation of God, that is, God’s revealing of God. As Christians, we recognize that this revelation of God by God is the begetting of the Son by the Father.

So let us be clear–begetting does not refer to creating, does not refer to a sexual act, does not refer to an event in time–begetting is a way by which the Father brings forth what is within himself: the Son. The only difference between the Father and the Son is that the Father begets and the Son is begotten. This determines their Personhood. But this has no effect whatsoever on their Being, which is One.

Faith101:

The we created man in our image, doesnt mean a number of beings created man (ie trinity) it means a powerful being created man.

You are not making the distinction between Person and Being/Essence, here. The Trinity is not a “number of beings”. The Trinity is One Being in Three Persons. Not three beings in three persons. Not three beings in one person. One Being. Three Persons. When discussing the Trinity you must be sure to make the distinction between Being and Person. Otherwise you’re talking about something else entirely.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Faith101]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Faith101, I think your misunderstanding here regarding the Son of God, the Word of God, is in assuming that the Son is begotten by the Father at a particular point in time. This is not the case. The creed is very specific–the Son is eternally begotten of the Father. That is, the Son was always with the Father and is eternally begotten by him, hence his Sonship. That the Son is begotten does not refer to an event in time, it refers to the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son by which the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, and both are One God.

Let’s look at it this way–The Son receives his Person from the Father through the Father’s begetting of the Son. The Son is only the Son because he is begotten. The Father receives his Person from himself–through begetting (and spirating the Spirit). One would assume that this means that the Son is less than the Father. Not so. Because what does the Father have to beget but himself? Would it be possible for the Father to beget from himself something that is less than himself? Where in himself would he find this lesser thing in order to beget it? By no means, then, is the Son less than the Father. The Father and the Son are God.

The Son is also called the Word–because the Word of God is the revelation of God, that is, God’s revealing of God. As Christians, we recognize that this revelation of God by God is the begetting of the Son by the Father.

So let us be clear–begetting does not refer to creating, does not refer to a sexual act, does not refer to an event in time–begetting is a way by which the Father brings forth what is within himself: the Son. The only difference between the Father and the Son is that the Father begets and the Son is begotten. This determines their Personhood. But this has no effect whatsoever on their Being, which is One.

You are not making the distinction between Person and Being/Essence, here. The Trinity is not a “number of beings”. The Trinity is One Being in Three Persons. Not three beings in three persons. Not three beings in one person. One Being. Three Persons. When discussing the Trinity you must be sure to make the distinction between Being and Person. Otherwise you’re talking about something else entirely.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Mark, may God guide you, i honestly appreciate the time you took to respond.

One Being, three persons. I will use this terminology from now on inshAllah.

Mark, can you prove your statments using the Bible. I would just like to know where these concepts originate from.

 

[exoflare]

Faith101:

Mark, can you prove your statments using the Bible. I would just like to know where these concepts originate from.

This actually applies to your last reply to me as well, but why do you keep assuming that all our beliefs must be explicitly stated somewhere in the Bible? Whoever told you this?

 

[Georgess]

Dear Hashi and all seekers of The Truth,

Thank you for all the efforts , to know The Father, that we could love Him more , for the joy of it …our glorious calling for all eternity …

The two points that helped me to understand The unity inTrinity

have been - we all agree God Is Love and it is Persons that love each other…

Much of our difficulty probabbly arise , because we think of God , The Three persons as static , like we think we are …

Instead , if we see God as the tremendous , powerful ongoing outpouring of Love …Father to Son , Son to Father and Holy Spirit as the point of the contact ( true - weak undersatnding for our finite human minds ) L
Look at the speed of light and multiply that …now even with The Lord Jesus , in His incarnation here , that communion , that ongoing giving and receiving , does not cease …we get a glimpse of it , made manifest to us , in time , at the time of His baptism …
It is this divine life that we cut off, through sin …and is given back to us when we accept The Faith . to continue ever more exponentially, in love and glory in heaven …because it is a matter of the relationship , with God - made possible because one creature , His Mother, trusted in that Love , enough to be willing to give up her own life ( punishment for unwed pregnancy those days …)and whose love and prayers have helped us , Moslems and hindus, all of us -to recieve this truth ,and love with awe and gratitude …

There was a time , in earlier days , when we were not ready for this fullness of The truth …sin had come in …too much confusion …and The Father , leads us through -all the effets of our sin - much tears and terrors , to help us to accept Him , as a Father of Love and Sacrifice - that we can turn to Him, even when our weakened nature make us fall, for He has earned us the merits …it is just that when we can really take in that truth, we would love Him so and live like His children - again He shows us The Way - a life of humility, love , forgiveness , Mercy , Hope , trust …,and we accept it all from Him, like His humble , loving Mother…
God Bless!

 

[Faith101]

exoflare:

This actually applies to your last reply to me as well, but why do you keep assuming that all our beliefs must be explicitly stated somewhere in the Bible? Whoever told you this?

If the Bible does not explain the FOUNDATION of your belief…then what good is it? Why do Christians keep it and read it and turn to it for guidance?

I do apologize, i was under the wrong impression of the divinily inspired text. What does the Bible teach (if its not the foundation of faith) and who tells you what to believe?

 

[exoflare]

Faith101:

If the Bible does not explain the FOUNDATION of your belief…then what good is it? Why do Christians keep it and read it and turn to it for guidance?

I do apologize, i was under the wrong impression of the divinily inspired text. What does the Bible teach (if its not the foundation of faith) and who tells you what to believe?

I would say the Bible explains the foundation of core beliefs in great detail, but it was never intended to be a reference guide that explicitly spells out all the core beliefs in plain English with an annotated index or something like that. The books it’s composed of were written at different periods in history for different purposes.

The core beliefs themselves come from the teachings the apostles passed down basically. Jesus started a church that was supposed to be the cornerstone of all truth (the Bible itself alludes to this; see 1 Timothy 3:15), not a single self-contained book. In fact, it was the church itself that established once and for all which books belonged in the Bible. The core teachings you see today do have their roots in teachings that are found in the Bible, but they are not all readily evident at first glance.

I’m not sure if that answered the specific details you were wondering, but let me know if it didn’t.

 

[Faith101]

exoflare:

I would say the Bible explains the foundation of core beliefs in great detail, but it was never intended to be a reference guide that explicitly spells out all the core beliefs in plain English with an annotated index or something like that. The books it’s composed of were written at different periods in history for different purposes.

The core beliefs themselves come from the teachings the apostles passed down basically. Jesus started a church that was supposed to be the cornerstone of all truth (the Bible itself alludes to this; see 1 Timothy 3:15), not a single self-contained book. In fact, it was the church itself that established once and for all which books belonged in the Bible. The core teachings you see today do have their roots in teachings that are found in the Bible, but they are not all readily evident at first glance.

I’m not sure if that answered the specific details you were wondering, but let me know if it didn’t.

I think I understand where you are coming from. So the basic beliefs are outlined clearly by the Church fathers (who essentially derived it from the Bible).

Thanks Exoflare

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Faith101:

Mark, can you prove your statments using the Bible. I would just like to know where these concepts originate from.

Faith101, thank you for you kind email. I’d like to respond to your question here.

You will not find, in scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity explicated in its fullness in any one place in Scripture. Perhaps the preface to the Gospel of John contains the most explicit reference–“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being.” etc. It can be found in the Apocalypse, where John writes in the first chapter, “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty,” going on to quote Jesus in glory as saying, “See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

In Paul, we can look at the hymn in Philippians which begins, “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking on the form of a slave, being born in human likeness.” And speaking of Christ in Colossians, Paul writes, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers–all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” This is consistent with the John’s Gospel regarding the Word of God and therefore undergirds the church’s teaching that the Son is consubstantial with the Father and was made incarnate in Jesus.

Regarding the procession of the Spirit, the book of Genesis introduces us to the Lord of Life when we are shown the Ruach of God hoevering over the primeval waters of creation. The Ruach is the Breath, the Wind, the Spirit. Jesus speaks of the Spirit throughout the gospels, and while I realize that many Muslims believe that the promised Advocate is the Prophet (pbuh), Christians believe that Christ is referring to the Holy Spirit who descended on the apostles at Pentecost. And let us not forget Jesus’ instruction regarding baptism–that we are to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

But you would be right to point out that these references do not explicitly delineate Trinitarian doctrine. And here we must remember that the Catholic relationship to scripture is different from the Muslim relationship to the Qu’ran. It has been an ancient tradition (I am thinking of Origen) that scripture is an ocean of mystery–that there is a surface reading, and that there are spiritual treasures waiting in the depths below the waters of a literal interpretation. The text, in other words, is the skin of revelation, not the revelation itself.

Also, it is believed that the doctrines of the church reflect the oral tradition of the church, handed down from Jesus to his apostles. In this way it is a kind of “secret” tradition, because it was not codified into scripture and was left to the teaching faculties of the church to disseminate into the world. Catholic doctrine arises from three sources, therefore–Scripture, Tradition, and the Interpretive / Hermeneutical Frame by which both Scripture and Tradition may be correctly interpreted.

Many Protestant denominations treat the Bible as if it were the sole authority on all matters of doctrine, and in turn, they often treat the Bible as the revelation itself. This produces less of a Christianity and more of a Biblianity, and Catholic tradition does not support this view of scripture. And while I believe Muslim tradition treats the Qu’ran as the revelation, I believe that even Islam has produced saints and mystics whose meditations on the Qu’ran and whose interpretations of it (I am thinking of Hallaj and ibn-Arabi) would boggle the mind of the most literal-minded Muslim.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[exoflare]

Deo Volente:

Many Protestant denominations treat the Bible as if it were the sole authority on all matters of doctrine, and in turn, they often treat the Bible as the revelation itself. This produces less of a Christianity and more of a Biblianity, and Catholic tradition does not support this view of scripture.

Bingo! This is probably one of the biggest misconceptions to non-Christians, too. Unfortunately, the predominating view on the Bible in America was formed by heresies.

 

[The_Eurasian]

[No message]