Trinity and Mathematics?

[Eric_Hyom]

Also in John Jesus said he and the Father are one.

In John Jesus prayed that we would be one, in the same way that he is one with the Father.

 

[EndTimes]

an Arabian man (from SeekerofTruth)

I’ve read a portion of the Quran which describes how Jesus/Isa came to be
which mirrors the version in the New Testament

Jesus/Isa - comes from God’s Holy Spirit - The Breath of Allah - to Virgin Mary/Maryam YES?

Bringing into existence - is the sense of the use of the word “fathered”

It is not Father in the sense of Human Fathered. Rather, It is Create…

God the Father/God/Allah - is the ulimate Source of Jesus/Isa YES?

 

[mhmtas63]

I’ve read a portion of the Quran which describes how Jesus/Isa came to be
which mirrors the version in the New Testament

Jesus/Isa - comes from God’s Holy Spirit - The Breath of Allah - to Virgin Mary/Maryam YES?

Bringing into existence - is the sense of the use of the word “fathered”

It is not Father in the sense of Human Fathered. Rather, It is Create…

God the Father/God/Allah - is the ulimate Source of Jesus/Isa YES?

Yes.

1. The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], “We make no distinction between any of His messengers.” And they say, “We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination.” Al-Baqarah(2)

 

[Vico]

Wesrock:

Four, five, six, or seven what?

Persons in relation! Maths cannot explain that because it is mystery:wink:

Person designates the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them. The Aristotelian definition of relation, and St. Thomas Aquinas uses it, is “order of one thing to another"; the relation in its own proper meaning signifies only what refers to another. In God, the relations are between the subsistences , or hypostases not between substances. They are called “ internal relations.

 

[mhmtas63]

Person designates the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them. The Aristotelian definition of relation, and St. Thomas Aquinas uses it, is “order of one thing to another"; the relation in its own proper meaning signifies only what refers to another. In God, the relations are between the subsistences , or hypostases not between substances. They are called “ internal relations.

I point plural of it. If you make it more than one so the number is not important…three or more. (Yet maths cannot explain it!)

God is one and unique by all attributes. The essence is one… the personality is one…

God can become manifest or act in very ways. But that do not make God more than one.

 

[Vico]

If you make it more than one

The relations (persons) are essential not accidents – there is no accident in God since all in Him is His essence. And since there is no quantity in God, it follows that a real relation in God can be based only on action and not external but internal – therefore on internal relations.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1028.htm#article2

St. Thomas Aquinas answered in S.T. I, Q28 Article 1. Whether there are real relations in God?:

I answer that, relations exist in God really; in proof whereof we may consider that in relations alone is found something which is only in the apprehension and not in reality. This is not found in any other genus; forasmuch as other genera, as quantity and quality, in their strict and proper meaning, signify something inherent in a subject. But relation in its own proper meaning signifies only what refers to another. Such regard to another exists sometimes in the nature of things, as in those things which by their own very nature are ordered to each other, and have a mutual inclination; and such relations are necessarily real relations; as in a heavy body is found an inclination and order to the centre; and hence there exists in the heavy body a certain respect in regard to the centre and the same applies to other things. Sometimes, however, this regard to another, signified by relation, is to be found only in the apprehension of reason comparing one thing to another, and this is a logical relation only; as, for instance, when reason compares man to animal as the species to the genus. But when something proceeds from a principle of the same nature, then both the one proceeding and the source of procession, agree in the same order; and then they have real relations to each other. Therefore as the divine processions are in the identity of the same nature, as above explained (I:27:2 and I:27:4), these relations, according to the divine processions, are necessarily real relations.

 

[o_mlly]

There’s existence, there’s the knowledge of that existence, and there’s the knowledge of what that existence consists of.

• I am
• I know that I am
• And I know what I am

… I’m hoping that at some point someone will give me an analogy that will just be so bloody obvious that I’ll wonder how I missed it.

We can only know the Trinity by analogy. While analogies are instructive, they are never perfect.

The analogy above brings to mind St. Augustine’s anthropological analogy on the Trinity ( Confessions , Bk. 13, Ch. 11). To your insight, Augustine adds “willing” to complete the three essential faculties (esse , nosse , velle) that comprise one being, the human being. He defines the inseparable primal experience of man as himself: I am as willing and knowing being; I know myself as being and willing; I will myself as a being and a knowing human.

 

[mhmtas63]

All these are not revelation. Just some philosophical arguments. Why should we regard philosophy above revelation?

Is our father’s custom more reliable than revelation? Revelation is very clear that God is one. There is no need for philosophical arguments. OT say God is one. NT say God is one. Qur’an say God is one. All prophets say God is one. The universe by it’s unity explain God is one. Singularity is unto everything. Our faces, eyes, voices, fingerprints etc are unique and one for one person. Why are you so wishfull to make God more than one?

Jesus a man or human God(!!!) there is no any point in that. Jesus lived just as a human and a prophet. Jesus was authorized by God. He preached in name of God. He judged in name of God. He promised in name of God. What will add to Jesus if he were God himself(!!!) ? Nothing. He was sent by God. Prophets were sent by God. That is the way of God. God is always beyond and out of time and matter. God create the time and matter. Jesus was a man. He had a soul. God create all souls.

Well… But you will think that Fathers could not be wrong because they were guided by Holy Spirit. Do you have any witness? Fathers could make very wrong acts. So do not Holy Spirit guide them?

 

[Vico]

All these are not revelation. Just some philosophical arguments. Why should we regard philosophy above revelation?

Is our father’s custom more reliable than revelation? Revelation is very clear that God is one. There is no need for philosophical arguments. OT say God is one. NT say God is one. Qur’an say God is one. All prophets say God is one. The universe by it’s unity explain God is one. Singularity is unto everything. Our faces, eyes, voices, fingerprints etc are unique and one for one person. Why are you so wishfull to make God more than one?

Jesus a man or human God(!!!) there is no any point in that. Jesus lived just as a human and a prophet. Jesus was authorized by God. He preached in name of God. He judged in name of God. He promised in name of God. What will add to Jesus if he were God himself(!!!) ? Nothing. He was sent by God. Prophets were sent by God. That is the way of God. God is always beyond and out of time and matter. God create the time and matter. Jesus was a man. He had a soul. God create all souls.

Well… But you will think that Fathers could not be wrong because they were guided by Holy Spirit. Do you have any witness? Fathers could make very wrong acts. So do not Holy Spirit guide them?

The revelation about the Holy Trinity is in scripture (that Islam does not accept). This is expressed in the Creed of the Council of Constantinople of 381 which contains the belief not based in logic but that follows revelation of scripture. What more can I say? Christians believe what they do and other believe what they do. Note that St. Thomas Aquinas did not determine Christian beliefs, he lived 1225-1274 A.D.

 

[IWantGod]

And so to me, as a solipsist, everything is necessary, because everything is a necessary part of what I am.

I’m not a part of what you are, thank you very much. lol.

 

[Nikolaite]

As the Council of Florence enshrined from the Quicumque vult:

“The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, and the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the holy Spirit. The Father uncreated the Son uncreated and the holy Spirit uncreated. The Father infinite, the Son infinite and the holy Spirit infinite. The Father eternal, the Son eternal and the holy Spirit eternal. Yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also they are not three uncreateds nor three infinites, but one uncreated and one infinite. Likewise the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty and the holy Spirit is almighty. Yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. Likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the holy Spirit is God. Yet they are not three gods, but one God. Likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord and the holy Spirit is Lord. Yet they are not three lords, but one Lord. For just as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge each person by himself to be God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the catholic religion to say there are three gods or three lords. The Father is made by none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son; not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one holy Spirit, not three holy spirits. And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater or less; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as has been said above, the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be worshipped. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be saved, let him think thus of the Trinity.”

 

[lelinator]

lelinator:

And so to me, as a solipsist, everything is necessary, because everything is a necessary part of what I am.

I’m not a part of what you are, thank you very much. lol.

This is actually a very, very tricky question. Obviously you’re part of what I am, because you’re part of my experiences, which provide the context for what I am. But…are you a necessary part of what I am? After all, wouldn’t I still be “me” even if I had never encountered you? The logical answer is yes, I would still be me, just me without you.

So when I say that “everything” is a necessary part of what I am, “everything” is a vague concept. There are those things, which from my perspective are actually and definitively true, like the fact that I am, and then there are those things which are only potentially true, like you responding to this post.

So from my perspective, there’s only one thing that’s always, actually and definitively true, and it’s the one thing that never, ever changes…I AM. Now a necessary component of what I am, is everything around me, everything that gives context to what I am, but “everything” is composed mostly of things that are only potentially true, and not necessarily true, except for the fact that they must be there in some form or other. But that form is composed of things which are individually, not necessary.

To me, this is a much more logical argument than to say that God creates things out of “love”. It may very well be me that creates things, and I do it because I have to, I have no choice. The mind creates reality, because without the context provided by reality, consciousness wouldn’t be possible.

So you can stick to the idea that God creates things out of love, and I’ll stick to logic. And I’m perfectly content with your not being able to follow that logic. I don’t expect you to be able to.

@Wesrock, I really am interested in what you personally think of solipsism, and not so much what you think that Aquinas would think of solipsism.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Do you really mean that “God the Father and Son - are Spiritual Beings,” in the plural form?

 

[IWantGod]

So when I say that “ everything ” is a necessary part of what I am, “ everything ” is a vague concept.

But how do you get to that conclusion from solipsism? You can’t go from not knowing to concluding that everything is a creation of your mind. Where did you get the information from? A mind that is essentially limited can only draw from the information it receives or has.

 

[IWantGod]

So you can stick to the idea that God creates things out of love, and I’ll stick to logic.

You haven’t presented a logical argument. You have just asserted what you think or would like to be true.

God creating out of his love explains why a perfect necessary act of existence would create unnecessary things

 

[lelinator]

God creating out of his love explains why a perfect necessary act of existence would create unnecessary things

But rather than using the term “love”, which some people might consider to be anthropomorphic and emotional mumbo jumbo, could you rephrase your argument in such a way as to replace the word love with something a little more concrete? So that we might better discern what it is that your proposing.

 

[IWantGod]

So that we might better discern what it is that your proposing.

Have you never given out of love? Have you never shared. That which drives you to such ends is love. I am not required to have a perfect discernment of what it is for God to be love, but i think most of us have some practical understanding of love. I need only show that it’s necessary for God to be love in order to be a creator; in which case the charge of anthropomorphism doesn’t apply because it is irrelevant if it is necessarily true that God is love.

 

[lelinator]

Have you never given out of love?

For me, this is where your argument falls apart. In the fact that you can’t delineate why God creates things, other than to refer to our own experiential and subjective concept of love. From an analytical perspective the argument just doesn’t follow.

 

[IWantGod]

For me, this is where your argument falls apart. In the fact that you can’t delineate why God creates things, other than to refer to our own experiential and subjective concept of love. From an analytical perspective the argument just doesn’t follow.

Assertions are not rebuttals. You do understand that don’t you? If you have never experienced love, an act kindness, a giving of ones good to another, if you have never experienced that which drives you to an act of good, then of course you are going to poo poo it.

All i am required to do is show that it is necessary for God to be love. So it’s irrelevant whether you think i am drawing from my own subjective concept of love. If it’s necessary for God to be it, then that is what it is.

 

[meltzerboy2]

While, as a Jew, I agree with your Muslim viewpoint, what do you expect Christians to say? Do you expect people on a Catholic forum to be convinced by an Islamic believer (or a Jewish believer) and say that you are correct, Jesus was only a man, and not divine? Christians go that extra mile by means of revelation in the NT and attribute divinity to Jesus. The Trinitarian G-d is the most essential dogma of Christian belief: without it, Christianity falls. However mysterious such revelation may be, Jesus is accepted as fully human and divine, the Savior from sin, and the means of achieving heaven. As a Muslim, you need not accept any of this theology, but you should not try to dissuade others who hold this belief.