This speaker claimed through examining James White's material on the trinity he realised the trinity was incorrect.
Ignore all the debate rhetoric and sound bites from apologists such as James White. It's time to start contemplating further on these issues.
The speaker states James White has given a name to a nature in his explanation for the 'trinity' and he offered a comparison model to highlight some of the issues behind James White's trinity explanation. The speaker actually denounces James White as a tri-theist (polytheist) and calls James White's trinity explanation deceptive and illogical.
James White's "trinity"--we're all James White!
Christians having
dreams and converting to Islam:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html
Invitation to Islam
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/christians-are-having-dreams-and.html
Invitation to Islam
Jesus taught people to do the Will of God (according to Mark 3:35) in order to become his brothers, mothers or sisters. A Muslim means one who submits to the Will of God. Do you want to become a brother of Jesus? If yes, become a Muslim.
Learn about Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com
Email:
yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk
Tags: debates,droptozro, shawn, alpha and omega ministries, sheikh awal, zakir naik, trinity, forgotten trinity, james white refuted, monotheists, Unitarian Christians, textual corruption, dave hunt, catholic answers, brother Imran, nabeel qureshi, sam shamoun, ijaz ahmad, dividing line, answeringmuslims, answeringchristianity, Samuel green,deen show, convert, Robert price, bart ehrman, ergun caner, usama dakdok, walid shoebat, son of hamas,
31 comments:
Sam to be honest I haven't even bothered looking at the AM link. Let me guess it's a fanciful piece written by Rogers. I've got more important things to do - I may read that article when I have time and put up a response if required (time dependent)
Just watch the video in the post about James White's explanation of the trinity. Please think about it with an open mind and heart.
Please get serious, stop with all these ego-fuelled comments and disputes.
Pure monotheism is vital.
PLEASE I URGE YOU TO GET SERIOUS. THIS IS NOT A GAME.
May Allah guide you and your family. Ameen.
Peace
Quran 5:73
Surely, disbelievers are those who said: "Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)." But there is no ilah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilah (God -Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.
Read this and believe before it's to late Sam. The only salvation is Islam. Allah says:
112:1 Say "He is Allah, (the) One.
112:2 "Allah-us-Samad (The Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, He neither eats nor drinks).
112:3 "He begets not, nor was He begotten;
112:4 "And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him."
May Allah the most High guide you and forgive you
Good video btw! Thanx for sharing
Sam, stop with the insults. If you want to discuss the topic in hand, please do in a manner which is free from insults and provocation.
As for the comment I made on Paul's blog, I read your comment. I still have not bothered reading the link. If I posted the wrong video - that's because I didn't view it. People are busy and don't spend much time in comment sections on blogs. It's hardly something worth writing home about - nevermind writing articles about. Hey, I guess you would rather talk about a human mistake rather than the material posted on this blog and the videos showcased.
Again, I urge you to PLEASE stop with immaturity and the ego. PLEASE, this is IMPORTANT. Pure Monotheism is vital.
Please start thinking with an open mind and heart.
Peace
The guy in the video makes a fundamental mistake. He misunderstands Dr. White's illustration of the difference between being and person as an illustration of the Trinity. This isn't correct. Dr. White is not saying that Father, Son and Spirit relate to each other and to the divine essence in the same way that three human persons do. He is only showing that the words "being" and "person" are not synonymous. Since the argument of the video rests on this confusion, the argument collapses along with it.
@anon
So you mean James w went through all that mumbo jumbo to explain the difference between a person and a being or that they aren't synonymous?in that case A quick search on Google would be a lot easier than those illustrations don't you think. Please stop defending this nonsens. There are no good explanations for the trinity and the polytheism in that doctrine is crystal clear.
As soon as you try to explain Allah by likening Him to His creation or draw parallels between the two you are committing disbelief according to Islam or blasphemy. There is nothing like Allah as He says:
"And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him." (112:4)
Who is He than? Allah tells about Himself in the following verses 59:23-24. Read them carefully and look for yourselves if you can disagree to anything, you won't i think.
"He is Allah than Whom there is La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He) the King, the Holy, the One Free from all defects, the Giver of security, the Watcher over His creatures, the All-Mighty, the Compeller, the Supreme. Glory be to Allah! (High is He) above all that they associate as partners with Him.
He is Allah, the Creator, the Inventor of all things, the Bestower of forms. To Him belong the Best Names . All that is in the heavens and the earth glorify Him. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise."
Here, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis in this academic debate with Professor Peter Simons argues that current biological and philosophical explanations fail to explain consciousness comprehensively.
http://www.iera.org/events/the-big-debates/can-consciousness-be-best-explained-by-gods-existence-professor-peter-simons-and-hamza-tzortzis
"So you mean James w went through all that mumbo jumbo to explain the difference between a person and a being or that they aren't synonymous?in that case A quick search on Google would be a lot easier than those illustrations don't you think. Please stop defending this nonsense."
All persons have "being" but that doesn't mean the two terms mean the same thing. A person can do a google search, but every time Muslims argue that if Father, Son and Spirit are there persons then they must be three "beings" it becomes that they have not done "a guick google search." Tough philosophical and theological thinking is not a strong suit of Muslims who insist on ignoring what a quick google search will tell them (which means that we have to teach them) so they can simplistically and naively label the doctrine of the Trinity polytheism.
I inadvertently left out the word "obvious" after the word "becomes" above.
Alexander,
By using the words "Him," "inventor," "bestower," and names to Allah you are comparing and likening him to creation.
Christians would say that terms like this (as well as "person" and "being") are being used analogically. Muslims say they are being used equivocally. That's a huge philosophical problem and renders your god unknowable.
@anonymous
You claim Muslims 'naively' label the trinity as polytheism. I take issue with that statement.
Think about it, as Muslims we have pure monotheism. Jews will claim the same so will Unitarian Christians but then along come the Trinitarians claiming they are monotheists too.
We look at our monotheism and contrast it with what Trinitarians claim to be monotheistic (the trinity) and it's visible that they have something other than pure monotheism. What is something other than pure monotheism?
Trinitarians have a framework where they maintain what they have to be monotheistic but Muslims, Jews and Unitarian Christians pay no heed to that framework as they believe it to be an invention of man.
So take away the Trinitarian framework and contrast the pure monotheism that Muslims proclaim with what the Trinitarian presents - add in our MUSLIM framework and there you go, we see shirk (we see the Trinitarian associating partners with God).
Peace
That is preposterous. You can't superimpose a different framework on something and claim you are understanding it.
It would be one thing to compare the Trinitarian framework with the Islamic one and show how they differ. It is another thing entirely to say we mean something else (i.e. polytheism) if you take away the framework within which it is properly understood.
To say the framework is an invention of man is not an argument. Christians believe the Qur'an is an invention of man. But that isn't what Muslims believe. So more has to be done than simply making claims to this effect. The claims are what we are supposed to debate, not simply assert. The same goes for the framework that Christians hold to. That is what we believe. You can't simply dismiss it and pretend it isn't there or that it will go away if say so.
Let me show you how this works. Muslims claim that they believe in pure monotheism. Note, that is the claim. Christians like myself claim that is false. Note, again, that is the claim. So now we have two different claims on the table, yours and mine. The next step is not for one or the other of us to simply deny the other persons claims but to offer evidence. In this case you would want to show me statements in the Qur'an, such as Surah 112, in order to try to prove that your claim is true to the facts. I would then want to point out that Allah in the Qur'an says or does things that are not truly monotheistic, such as swearing by other beings and commanding the angels to bow down to Adam.
Do you see how that works? It is very different than just making assertions or tearing things from their context (i.e. framework).
@anon
I was talking about likening Allah to Adam, Eve and Cain to explain the trinity. We don't say that Allah is a person or three persons because He didn't describe Himself in these terms. The attributes that we can affirm are only the ones that Allah Himself or His prophet informed us about. We know for sure that He's Attributes aren't similar or comparable to the attributes of the created being because Allah says :
"there is nothing like unto Him" (42:11) and
"Do you know of any who is similar to Him" (19:65).
And also again:
"And there is no co-equal or comparable unto Him" (112:4)
We have to keep verses like these in mind when we read about the Names and Attributes about Allah. So we believe in all of Allahs Beautiful Names and Attributes without distorting their meaning, without divesting them of their meanings, without attempting to explain the "how" of their reality and without comparing them to the attributes of created being as shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen put it.
It was the unbeliever in the video who likened the Trinity to Adam, Eve and Cain. But like it or not, by calling Allah a "him" and so forth, you are using terms for him that are used for human beings.
If you say the terms are not univocal, fine, but when you go on to say they are not even analogical, you end up saying the words are unintelligible to us, which means in turn that Allah is unintelligible. Sorry, but Allah turns out to be a being no one can really know if what you are saying is true.
It might sound nice at first to say what you do, but upon analysis it breaks down.
So Allah Sees everything, in a way that befits His Might and Majesty, not comparable or similar to His Creation. We know what this means, Allah Sees Us and everything we do, now the reality of How Allah Sees everything is to us unknown. Is that hard to understand? Maby we can take an example of the differences in creation when it comes to attributes with the same name. The strength of a camel is not same as the strength of an ant, as well as the physical differences.
"If such differences in attributes are a reality among created beings, it is even more obviously the case regarding the differences between the attributes of the Creator and the created beings" (shaykh ibn Uthaymeen)
In short a common name does not necessarily result in, or imply, a common reality.
Hope that makes it clear.
"Maby we can take an example of the differences in creation when it comes to attributes with the same name."
I'm sorry, but first you complained when the guy in the video used human persons to illustrate the Trinity (which isn't the Christian view), and then you turn around and compare the difference between the attributes of Allah and creation to the differences between the attributes of camels and ants. That is shirk, my friend.
Are you even reading my posts. I wasn't describing or comparing Allahs attributes. I was showing an example when the same word "strength" ascribed to two different creatures in creation can have different meanings. May Allah guide you. You used the word Shirk mashaAllah. I hope you will learn more about it inshaAllah
Yes, I read your post. You were describing how Allah's attributes can be different than the attributes we have even though they have the same name. You compared this to the difference between camels and ants, both of whom can be said to be strong. This is what we call a comparison, something you claimed the Qur'an rules out in Surah 42:11 and 112:4.
The problem is you want to claim that Allah is in a "category" all his own. But in doing so you can't escape including him in the category of things that belong in a category. All the language you use for him is equivocal, and therefore meaningless to us.
Ok thanks, but your conclusion is wrong. The comparison is how we can understand a word to mean different things when ascribed to the creation. In that way you can understand that Allahs Attributes are different and uncomparable. We don't know the reality of Allahs attributes and because of that can't compare anything to them. So the comparison I made created more confusion for you and I'm sorry for that. But I hope you really want to learn about this with an open heart and May Allah bless you.
look there is something very polythiestic about the trinity.
i note that when it comes to EACH person , the trinitarians replace "1 god" "complete god " "fully god" "100 % god " with "TRUE god"
so "true god" sacrifices "true god" or "true man" ?
divine nature HAS omniscience , omnipotence, omnipresence
if EACH member is CONCIOUS , if each member has been LOVING the other (i don't know maybe ETERNALLY through it conciousness "holding hands" ) then each is through its OWN viewing , ability, conciousness doing to the other.
EXAMPLE
DOES each person VIEW the universe BY its OWN VISION, does each person have vision?
to clarify my post , i quote the following
Do the logical fallacies never cease? Tom, 3 separate consciousnesses ( or minds) cannot be one mind, lest they cease to be 3 separate minds. 3 minds can be privy to the same knowledge, and possess equal power, and even possess omnipresence (so long as they are immaterial in nature) without actually becoming one mind. If your intention is to say that these minds are "one" in the sense that they are equal in knowledge, power, and presence then yes, they are "one"...but strictly in a poetic sense. If you assert that these 3 minds are truly 1 mind in a literal sense then logic will not support your conclusion.
Divinity is a property common to all three, but it is not a shared property. Annie, Betty and Charlie all have blue eyes, a common property — if it were a shared property, they'd have one pair of blue eyes between the three of them.
That is EXACTLY the point I'm making Thomas and the context of my rebuttal, along with the analogy I presented, clearly demonstrate it. I submitted that you refer to one SHARED common essence or property. If you must nit pick, then for your satisfaction I will defer to the precise terminology you fancy. Make no mistake however, the intent behind my use of the word "shared" aligned perfectly with what you've posted above.
Wrong. The father, son and spirit share a common intent, yet their wills remain distinctly their own by virtue of their individuality. Thus they are three separate individuals who separately will with common intent. They are not one, literal God possessing one singular will. Like it or not Thomas, we are in accord.
Then you assert that God can lack these attributes while remaining divine? If so, how could such a being be the creator of all things? How can a being exist infinite in its totality if not for the presence of these attributes? A total and absolute infinite nature demands these qualities Thomas.
Two wills represent two separate and distinct minds (which as you stated in your previous post, posses differing degrees of knowledge), they therefore cannot logically exist as one complete person. 2 cannot be one. To suggest that two minds, possessing differing degrees of knowledge, can exist as one person (personality being a product of mind) is a flagrant violation the law of non-contradiction. Or are you suggesting that Jesus suffered from multiple personality disorder? Even this defies logic given that one suffering from multiple personality disorder cannot exist FULLY as two personalities simultaneously.
Three wills (minds), one intent....One God?! Where on earth do you derive that notion. 3 separate and distinct persons, each possessing a separate and distinct mind, cannot exits as one being (God). They are three not one. You can't just throw "one God" in there and expect that I'll over look the brazen logical fallacy you require in order to argue for your preferred doctrinal interpretation of the trinity.
Inhabiting a body does not make two minds one person, for personality is a product of the mind..as is the will. Thus both 2 minds and 2 wills cannot exist as one person in any literal sense. Regardless of whether you stuff them into one body. The separate knowledge and will reflected by one mind will produce a personality separate and distinct from the personality produced by the other. The two can never be one, according to logic.
Wow Tom...you're digging deep here. What is a mind? The capacity to know. Thus a mind is prior to knowledge. What is a will? It is intent instructed by knowledge. Can I will to do something I don't know about Thomas? Could Christ "will" to go to the Cross if he didn't KNOW what salvation was....or what a cross was for that matter? You're being silly, its quite obvious that minds will what they know. Thus, a will is predicated upon knowledge, which, in turn, is predicated upon a mind. If a mind does not know, it cannot will. Are you sure it is I who lacks understanding here?
Good, then omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience are necessary qualities God must possess in order to exist as a infinite being with the capacity to be powerful, to be present, and to know. These characteristics define the biblical God's infinitude...without them, God is not the biblical God as you have defined him.
God cannot be totally absolute if he lacks even one of these qualities. Consider omnipotence, if God lacks omnipotence, then God is not infinitely powerful...therefore God is not absolutely infinite to the fullest degree. The absence of one, effects the whole of what God is said to be. It is the presence of ALL the elements which comprise God's infinite nature, which make him absolutely whole.
"The guy in the video makes a fundamental mistake. He misunderstands Dr. White's illustration of the difference between being and person as an illustration of the Trinity. This isn't correct. Dr. White is not saying that Father, Son and Spirit relate to each other and to the divine essence in the same way that three human persons do. He is only showing that the words "being" and "person" are not synonymous. Since the argument of the video rests on this confusion, the argument collapses along with it."
if i ask you WHO created the universe, you will say the biblical god who uses "i " "he " "him" " me" SINGULAR pronouns, created the universe, right?
how does the singular pronoun work in the trinity?
if each PERSON in trinity is an "i " " me " "he" and "him" then how many SINGULAR pronouns are there in trinity
1 or 3?
divine nature has OMNISCIENCE and omnipotence and other necessary attributes.
is the "i " "me" "he" in trinity
divine nature (omniscience + omnipotence + omnipresence + other) or is it 3 PERSONS WHO are 3 'i's me's he's ?
god CALLS himself an "i"
what is the "i " refering to?
a PERSON?
a divine nature?
a person + the divine nature?
father?
son?
ghost?
3 PERSONS are 1 PERSON (I)
3 persons/3 i's are
1 WHO or 3 who's?
god CALLS himself an "i"
what is the "i " refering to?
a PERSON?
a divine nature?
a person + the divine nature?
father?
son?
ghost?
3 PERSONS are 1 PERSON (I)
3 persons/3 i's are
1 WHO or 3 who's?
Post a Comment