Christianity is a falling religion

[shunyadragon]

That is a very incomplete 'definition' of the Trinity. You left out the monotheistic part about believing in one God. Anyone who thinks that is the definition of the Trinity as taught by the Christian churches is not well informed about Christian doctrine.

I gave a specific description of the relationship between the beliefs of the three religions. This you probably already knew. I am not here to please you.

[shunyadragon]

his mother was a just woman; they both ate food. Behold, how We make clear the signs to them; then behold, how they perverted are! S. 5:70-75

Mary is clearly being referenced as one of the "three", and God the Father is mentioned as the "third of the three". Both of these statements are incorrect, and your understanding of the Quran is also incorrect. This view is expressed in the earliest biography of Mohammed as well.

Source: The Life of Mohammed

"They argue that he is the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed, and they say, If He were one He would have said I have done, I have created, and so on, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions the Quran came down."

© Copyright Original Source

This is on pages 271-272 here. It was written by Ibn Ishaq, and translated by Alfred Guillaume. It's also in a book written as recently as 1996.

The (word) three is the predicate to an understood subject. If one accepts the Christian view that God exists in one nature (jauhar) with three divine persons, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and (if one accept) the opinion that the person of the Father represents (God's) being (dhat), the person of the Son represents (his) knowledge ('ilm), and the person of the Holy Spirit represents (his) life (hayat), then one must supply the subject as follows: 'God is three(fold).' Otherwise, one must supply (the subject) thus: 'The gods are three.'

But, I'm guessing you'll just dismiss all of this as just more "misunderstanding".

Yes. I gave the references that described the Trinity specifically. The other references from the Quean describe the problem of how Christians consider the Divine character of Mary. Problem: Your source 'The Life of Mohammed' is not a scripture source. What is the book, your reference is not clear,

That agreement is not there. Only Muslims informed about Christianity know this, and sadly I find very few of these. Far more just regurgitate what the Quran says, and accept it for what it says.



You are clearly ignorant of the basics of the doctrine's history, and it's roots in the OT. Which was written by Jews who you said are "pure monotheists". Since they are "pure monotheists", and the Trinity find it's best support in their writings specifically about God, then you can't say so dogmatically as you do that the Trinity is polytheism. Again, you demonstrate your ignorance on the topics at hand, I only point it out.

With all that, I think I'm done here.

Good!!!

[robrecht]

I gave a specific description of the relationship between the beliefs of the three religions. This you probably already knew. I am not here to please you.

Whether or not it pleases me is irrelevant, but if you're right that this is the Muslim understanding of the trinity that they reject, it actually does please me that they reject a very incomplete understanding of what Christians believe.

[shunyadragon]

Whether or not it pleases me is irrelevant, but if you're right that this is the Muslim understanding of the trinity that they reject, it actually does please me that they reject a very incomplete understanding of what Christians believe.

Your claim of 'incompleteness' or whatever represents an anecdotal subjective agenda of the justification of your belief. The fact is Islam as I do consider the Trinity as believed by traditional Christianity shirk and polytheism. This interpretation of belief is not a misrepresentation nor disrespectful view of traditional Christianity.

I believe that the Trinity may also be defined as three 'manifestations' of one God, and not God consisting of three 'distinct' persons. In Islam and the Baha'i Faith the Messiahs are described as manifestations of God and not 'distinct' persons of God, and the Trinity is referred to in their scripture in this context.

[robrecht]

Your claim of 'incompleteness' or whatever represents an anecdotal subjective agenda of the justification of your belief. The fact is Islam as I do consider the Trinity as believed by traditional Christianity shirk and polytheism. This interpretation of belief is not a misrepresentation nor disrespectful view of traditional Christianity.

I believe that the Trinity may also be defined as three 'manifestations' of one God, and not God consisting of three 'distinct' persons.

The monotheistic nature of the doctrine is neither anecdotal nor subjective. It is objectively plain and simple to anyone interested enough to read the actual texts written by Christians defining or explaining their monotheistic doctrine and beliefs.

[robrecht]

Let's consider who might have a more genuine and accurate understanding of the monotheistic Christian faith and theology, Shuny or Thomas Aquinas:

Prima pars, Questio 11. The Unity of God, Article 3:

Whether God is one? ...
It is written "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4).

I answer that, It can be shown from these three sources that God is one.

First from His simplicity. For it is manifest that the reason why any singular thing is "this particular thing" is because it cannot be communicated to many: since that whereby Socrates is a man, can be communicated to many; whereas, what makes him this particular man, is only communicable to one. Therefore, if Socrates were a man by what makes him to be this particular man, as there cannot be many Socrates, so there could not in that way be many men. Now this belongs to God alone; for God Himself is His own nature, as was shown above (Question 3, Article 3). Therefore, in the very same way God is God, and He is this God. Impossible is it therefore that many Gods should exist.

Secondly, this is proved from the infinity of His perfection. For it was shown above (Question 4, Article 2) that God comprehends in Himself the whole perfection of being. If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist. Hence also the ancient philosophers, constrained as it were by truth, when they asserted an infinite principle, asserted likewise that there was only one such principle.

Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the "per se" cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so "per se" and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm#article3

Shuny, do you have any reason to believe that Thomas Aquinas has not accurately portrayed here the traditional Christian faith in one, and only one, God?

[shunyadragon]

The monotheistic nature of the doctrine is neither anecdotal nor subjective. It is objectively plain and simple to anyone interested enough to read the actual texts written by Christians defining or explaining their monotheistic doctrine and beliefs.

I did not say the monotheistic nature of the doctrine itself was anecdotal nor subjective, but in reality all arguments from either perspective indeed are anecdotal and subjective even the argument for the very existence of God remains so. Your appeal to the rigidness of definitions fails in the light of these limitations. I said your claim of 'incompleteness' was, and by the way your appeal to the apophatic nature of God as the foundation of this belief indeed also is.

[robrecht]

I did not say the monotheistic nature of the doctrine itself was anecdotal nor subjective, but in reality all arguments from either perspective indeed are anecdotal and subjective even the argument for the very existence of God remains so. Your appeal to the rigidness of definitions fails in the light of these limitations. I said your claim of 'incompleteness' was, and by the way your appeal to the apophatic nature of God as the foundation of this belief indeed also is.

Texts are objective. They can be variously interpreted, of course, but within limits of what is actually written in the text. Some texts and definitions are pretty straightforward, as for example, the doctrine and theological explanation of monotheism in Christianity. To ignore those texts or even any mention of Christian monotheism when trying to advance your polytheistic interpretation of a doctrine is just plain incomplete. There's really no way around that.

I do not claim that the apophatic nature of God is the foundation of this belief.

[shunyadragon]

Texts are objective. They can be variously interpreted, of course, but within limits of what is actually written in the text. Some texts and definitions are pretty straightforward, as for example, the doctrine and theological explanation of monotheism in Christianity. To ignore those texts or even any mention of Christian monotheism when trying to advance your polytheistic interpretation of a doctrine is just plain incomplete. There's really no way around that.

I do not claim that the apophatic nature of God is the foundation of this belief.

I believe you did, here in post #67:

"I do not ignore kataphatic theology, but I do say that kataphatic theology can only be done with an underlying realization of apophatic, undefinable nature of God, ie, what has traditionally been referred to as divine simplicity. In this, I follow the fundamental theological method of Thomas Aquinas."

OK, you follow the theological method of Thomas Aquinas, but do not expect me to do the same, just simply on your appeal to authority.

I did not ignore the texts at all,, including Thomas Aquinas. I do not believe the ancient world view of the church fathers represent the reality of the universal nature of God. They represent the view of God and the Divine in the time they were written, including many church fathers believing in an ancient view of a literal Genesis.

I actually affirm first the even more ancient Hebrew scripture and scholars of the evolved view of pure monotheism, but I do not assert them as being totally the absolute authority. I also believe in the Jewish traditional understanding of the Holy Spirit, which I cited in reference. I do not assert these as absolute dogmatic definitions as you attempt to unfortunately do citing selective sources, but as a foundation of why I believe as I do, and this is an excellent foundation of belief.

[shunyadragon]

Let's consider who might have a more genuine and accurate understanding of the monotheistic Christian faith and theology, Shuny or Thomas Aquinas:

Prima pars, Questio 11. The Unity of God, Article 3:

Whether God is one? ...
It is written "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6:4).

I answer that, It can be shown from these three sources that God is one.

First from His simplicity. For it is manifest that the reason why any singular thing is "this particular thing" is because it cannot be communicated to many: since that whereby Socrates is a man, can be communicated to many; whereas, what makes him this particular man, is only communicable to one. Therefore, if Socrates were a man by what makes him to be this particular man, as there cannot be many Socrates, so there could not in that way be many men. Now this belongs to God alone; for God Himself is His own nature, as was shown above (Question 3, Article 3). Therefore, in the very same way God is God, and He is this God. Impossible is it therefore that many Gods should exist.

Secondly, this is proved from the infinity of His perfection. For it was shown above (Question 4, Article 2) that God comprehends in Himself the whole perfection of being. If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist. Hence also the ancient philosophers, constrained as it were by truth, when they asserted an infinite principle, asserted likewise that there was only one such principle.

Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the "per se" cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so "per se" and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm#article3

Shuny, do you have any reason to believe that Thomas Aquinas has not accurately portrayed here the traditional Christian faith in one, and only one, God?

Again, simply an appeal to an ancient authority gets you no where, considering the underlying apophatic nature of God, neither Thomas Aquinas nor I are justified to appeal to the authority such an absolute 'genuine' understanding of the nature of God.

[robrecht]

OK, you follow the theological method of Thomas Aquinas, but do not expect me to do the same, just simply on your appeal to authority.

Again, simply an appeal to an ancient authority gets you no where, considering the underlying apophatic nature of God, neither Thomas Aquinas nor I are justified to appeal to the authority such an absolute 'genuine' understanding of the nature of God.

You constantly confuse two different issues. I do not appeal to the authority of conciliar doctrines or theological explanations of doctrines to argue for the doctrine being true, but to demonstrate that your interpretation is based on a woefully incomplete presentation of the doctrine and a clear misrepresentation of how specific terms are understood by the authors. The text of Aquinas cannot be understood in the way you interpret Christianity as polytheism. Your interpretation is beyond the obvious objective limits of the text.

Now, why not try to answer the actual question: Shuny, do you have any reason to believe that Thomas Aquinas has not accurately portrayed here the traditional Christian faith in one, and only one, God?

[shunyadragon]

You constantly confuse two different issues. I do not appeal to the authority of conciliar doctrines or theological explanations of doctrines to argue for the doctrine being true, but to demonstrate that your interpretation is based on a woefully incomplete presentation of the doctrine and a clear misrepresentation of how specific terms are understood by the authors. The text of Aquinas cannot be understood in the way you interpret Christianity as polytheism. Your interpretation is beyond the obvious objective limits of the text.

Of course, it is beyond the obvious limits of the text, because I rely on a more universal view of more sources than just your limited sources of texts.

Now, why not try to answer the actual question: Shuny, do you have any reason to believe that Thomas Aquinas has not accurately portrayed here the traditional Christian faith in one, and only one, God?

I have plenty of reason not to accept one authority that you hold your faith in, because I appeal to many more sources from a more universal perspective. I am not trying to justify one religious perspective as you are with your reference to Thomas Aquinas. I appeal to Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Vedic, Taoist, Baha'i and others to form the universal foundation of my worldview.

Again . . .

I believe you did, here in post #67:

"I do not ignore kataphatic theology, but I do say that kataphatic theology can only be done with an underlying realization of apophatic, undefinable nature of God, ie, what has traditionally been referred to as divine simplicity. In this, I follow the fundamental theological method of Thomas Aquinas."

OK, you follow the theological method of Thomas Aquinas, but do not expect me to do the same, just simply on your appeal to authority.

I did not ignore the texts at all,, including Thomas Aquinas. I do not believe the ancient world view of the church fathers represent the reality of the universal nature of God. They represent the view of God and the Divine in the time they were written, including many church fathers believing in an ancient view of a literal Genesis.

I actually affirm first the even more ancient Hebrew scripture and scholars of the evolved view of pure monotheism, but I do not assert them as being totally the absolute authority. I also believe in the Jewish traditional understanding of the Holy Spirit, which I cited in reference. I do not assert these as absolute dogmatic definitions as you attempt to unfortunately do citing selective sources, but as a foundation of why I believe as I do, and this is an excellent foundation of belief.

[robrecht]

I believe you did, here in post #67:

"I do not ignore kataphatic theology, but I do say that kataphatic theology can only be done with an underlying realization of apophatic, undefinable nature of God, ie, what has traditionally been referred to as divine simplicity. In this, I follow the fundamental theological method of Thomas Aquinas."

No, that does not say that the apophatic nature of God is the foundation of this belief. Actually, it is practically the opposite!

[robrecht]

Of course, it is beyond the obvious limits of the text, because I rely on a more universal view of more sources than just your limited sources of texts.

I have plenty of reason not to accept one authority that you hold your faith in, because I appeal to many more sources from a more universal perspective. I am not trying to justify one religious perspective as you are with your reference to Thomas Aquinas. I appeal to Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Vedic, Taoist, Baha'i and others to form the universal foundation of my worldview. ...

I did not ignore the texts at all,, including Thomas Aquinas. I do not believe the ancient world view of the church fathers represent the reality of the universal nature of God. They represent the view of God and the Divine in the time they were written, including many church fathers believing in an ancient view of a literal Genesis.

I actually affirm first the even more ancient Hebrew scripture and scholars of the evolved view of pure monotheism, but I do not assert them as being totally the absolute authority. I also believe in the Jewish traditional understanding of the Holy Spirit, which I cited in reference. I do not assert these as absolute dogmatic definitions as you attempt to unfortunately do citing selective sources, but as a foundation of why I believe as I do, and this is an excellent foundation of belief.

You are still confusing two fundamentally different approaches. I am making no claims whatsoever about the truth of a given view or perspective or dogma; nor am I putting faith in any authority here or trying to get you to accept any authority; I just want you to represent the doctrine correctly, regardless of your view of its truth value. That is a necessary foundation for dialogue.

If you have not ignored the text of Thomas, then we can speak first about the text of Thomas. It seems you agree above that your interpretation of the Christian Trinity clearly goes beyond the obvious limits of his text. Thus, you should be able to agree that, based on this text, Thomas and his understanding of Christianity is absolutely monotheistic. It would not be possible to say of his view that 3 Persons = 3 gods. Agreed?

Your claim to be relying on a more universal view of more sources is an at least implicit attempt to justify the universal foundation of your worldview and the universal nature of God in contrast to a more particular view. I've pretty much given up on engaging you at this level long ago because of your penchant for religious polemics. If you want to create the necessary conditions for dialogue, you must first represent the views of others fairly.

[shunyadragon]

No, that does not say that the apophatic nature of God is the foundation of this belief. Actually, it is practically the opposite!

Work on your English more and say what you mean