Who invented the Trinity?

[Beth]

Mohamed:

Well done!!  Your research is sound, as are your conclusions.[]

quote:Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?

LOL...yes...this is English, and no this is not gibberish--well--actually maybe it is gibberish![8D]  But what this is, is the result of a very complex philosophical paradox. An honest to goodness real paradox!. While the church fathers NEVER completely agreed across the board, the answer for this paradox has yet to be solved.  There were no matching words in Latin for the main priciples of this problem that had been originally conceived of in Hebrew and then translated into Greek--but, oh well.  They just hammered it out as best as they could and called it as you state above--and left it there hanging.  <shrug> The paradox still stands today, 1,700 years later.

Now--my opinion on this???  This is just my opinion, okay?

When the day comes that we have a proper vocabulary to discuss our existence from the perspective that access between this world and other worlds is a very natural thing, and the lines of communication are much clearer and more agreed upon, then and only then will this paradox be solved.  Until then, the paradox stands.
 

[Beth]

However,

It could very well be that we are actually making a lot of progress toward that vocabulary with OBE/AP experiences and Astral research.  

The Trinity Presents us with a very important paradox:

HOW COULD the MAN Jesus, AFTER HE DIED, appear to his disciples?  

And this leads to the question: What IS the nature of resurrection?  

The Gnostic Gospel of Phillip explains it like this:

"What is the resurrection?  The image must rise again through the image. The bridegroom and the image must enter through the image into the truth: this is the restoration. It is appropriate that those who do not have it not only acquire the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but that they have acquired it on their own. If one does not acquire the name for himself, the name "Christian" will also be taken from him."

A bit earlier in the Gospel is says:

"Those who say that the Lord died first and then rose up are in error, for he rose up first and then died. If one does not first attain the resurrection will he not die?  As God lives, he would already be dead...Compare the Soul. It is a precious thing and it came to be in a contemptable body. Some are afraid lest they rise naked. Because of this they wish to rise in the flesh, and they do not know that it is those who wear the flesh that are naked."

And further:

"But you saw something of that place and you became those things. You saw the Spirit and you became Spirit. You saw Christ and you became Christ. You saw the Father and you shall become Father.  So in this place you see everything and do not see yourself--and what you see you shall become."

There are of course, a lot of things about these verses that need clarification and understanding.  Some of which I can address, but some I have yet to totally understand. But for me, and this is my reading based on my personal experiences, that this is talking about our astral bodies and those astral regions we find ourselves in and how we must recognize and know our astral selves and our true home before we die--lest when we do die, we will indeed be dead.

There is a tremendous amount that can be discussed here from just this Gospel alone.  I know that full copies of it can be obtained from the net if you do not want to buy a book that contains it.  The Gospel of Thomas also addresses these things.  I will start a thread in the early Christianity section that can explore these texts.

[exothen]

Mohamed,

I would be interested in discussing the trinity.

First, the doctrine of the trinity was formulated and believed much earlier than the 4th century; it was only then that it was made "official" to combat heretical teachings such as Arianism.  Second, there is much in the NT that shows the equality of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (not as much), including much of what Jesus said.  Third, your concept of the trinity is not correct.  Fourth, trinitarianism is very much monotheistic.  Fifth, whether or not the Qur'an is God's final revelation to man remains to be seen, but since it is not the topic, that's all I will say about that.[]

[Rob]

The idea of the Trinity, I think, comes come qabalah.
Imagine a point in space. This is God, the Father. The point extends and becomes a line, which represents all of known creation. The end point of this line is the physical world - the Holy Spirit (although IMO it should rightfully be The Mother but hey, that sounds like its admitting an important role for the women, and we cant be having with that! []). Right in the middle we'll put another point - at the fulcrum, the balance. This is the Son, the person who stands with one foot in the spiritual world and the other in the physical - perfectly adjusted between them. Neither one nor the other, neither both nor neither []. This again comes to the old idea of taking two seperate things, then combining them to create something which is more than that. Again, the imagery of the Son - his parents being God and physical matter (The Holy Spirit being an odd name to give, in my mind, sounds more yesodic but hey.....)
Well, thats how I see the trinity anyway! Its not really contradictory to have 3 things as one, when you think about it. Another analogue would be to say that an apple has a skin, a fleshy bit, and a core. Its still only one apple though.

Islam does seem to have a problem with the trinity. I was once accosted on the beach of Zanzibar ([]) by a nice but very zealous Islamic guy a couple of years older than me, who was trying to explain why Christianity did not worship one God. I get the impression that this is a line used by many an Islamic teacher to denounce Christianity? Well, even Hinduism seems to worship thousands of Gods, but they recognise them all to be one. And besides, if God is so vast, so huge, what does it matter if we give different names to his different features or qualities?

[Mohamed]

Inguma,

The apple is imperfect and needs all these parts to funtion properly where as God is perfect and is not in need of 2 other parts to make him whole.

Beth,

Interesting opinion indeed!  Though, with the concept of Armaggedon, we may never see such a day.  Also Beth, I would like to point out that I LOVE the way you always bring the topic back to the Astral Relm and OOBE's!  This shows me that you are truly devoted to the idea of the Astral Relm.  Have you had an OOBE before, if so I would love to hear about it.

Mohamed

[Beth]

Mohamed:

Hey there![]

You wrote:

quote:I would like to point out that I LOVE the way you always bring the topic back to the Astral Relm and OOBE's! This shows me that you are truly devoted to the idea of the Astral Relm.

<tee-hee>....WELL......I was under the distinct impression that OBEs and The Astral Realm are two of the primary things that this board was created to explore![] And yes, Mohamed, I am truly devoted...

quote:Have you had an OOBE before, if so I would love to hear about it.

Yes, I have a great many.  Maybe I will be able to share some of my experiences at some point!  I am a bit "otherwise disposed" at the moment tho'!![:O]  But hopefully soon...

Peace,
Beth

[James S]

Hi peoples,

This might seem a simplistic view of the topic, but I feel that so many ministers when trying to explain the concept of the trinity get it all horribly over-complicated and confused, or just give up and say "well thats what it says in the bible!"

If we take a simple but rather direct analogy, we can look at a human. A human is one being, but is made of three distinct facets - body, mind and spirit, or the physical, the mental, and the energetic.

If we apply the same idea of facets to the Trinity we could look at it as:

God the Father = mind,
Jesus = body (though possibly described as a non-corporeal body),
Holy Spirit = spirit.
One being, three facets.

Doesn't it say somewhere int he NT that Jesus knew the mind of God, or something to that effect? Also the Holy Spirit came to be his spirit (if you want to interpret his baptism in that way). Kinda fits! This may seem over simplified, but it doesn't really need to be confusing.

Regards,
James.

[Beth]

James P (and everyone else!!)

Yes, it was made very complex during the councils because the idea of the Trinity was put up against philosophical reasoning at the time.  

It is my opinion that many of those present at the councils (and therefore many other followers) just could  not wrap their head around this concept.  

Today, we speak in a much more developed language, e.g. mind, consciousness, ego, etc., words they didn't have, for these terms are the culmination of ideas that they were still in their infancy of exploration. Compared to antiquity, we are also very well educated--the general populace today is the equivalent of their "elite" class back then. That is why "the mysteries" were the next step up--these were reserved for the "elite" of the "elite."  But comparatively speaking, this higher class was probably the equivalent of a bachlors degree today, or even a person who is very well-read.  But even with all of our current knowledge and all of our years in the progressiveness of our ability to understand things, the "language of the divine realm" or "even the language of psychology" is still falling short of being able to fully include the language necessary to totally understand this concept.  

As I posted somewhere else, new vocabulary entries must be made that include the ever-growing knowledge of the Astral realm and how it is in relationship with us on a moment to moment basis, in order for us to draw any new conclusions.  (and we shouldn't get TOO attached to these either!![])

But, in essence, yes--it does seem very complex to many people, and it was very complex 1,700 years ago, but today we hopefully have a better chance of understanding the totality of the Christian message.  That is MY hope anyway![]

Peace,
Beth

[Mohamed]

James S,

A human needs these 3 parts in order to maintain proper function, God on the other hand is perfect and does not need these other parts.

Also stating that God has a body (which is corporeal as the bible suggests) is stating that God takes up space.  If God takes up space then it takes him time to move from one point in space to another, thus making him imperfect.

Chapter 3, Genesis

8: And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Can we really hide ourselves from God if God is perfect?  God walking in the garden?  Does it really take time for God to move from one place to another, thus making him imperfect?

  9: And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

God does not know where Adam is?  Stakhfurallah

  10: And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
  11: And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Did Adam really need to tell God that he was naked before God knew that Adam has eaten from the tree?

  12: And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
  13: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

God didn't know what the serpent did until Eve told him?

It looks to me as if God is imperfect, according to the Bible.  In the Qur'an it is a different story.



Genesis Chapter 1

  3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
  4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

God had to see the light before he knew it was good?  I do believe that God knows all things past, present, and future.  He does not have to create light before knowing that it is good.  Also, since angles are made of light, God did see light before this, and light did exist before this moment.  Also, throughout this chapter, I only see the name of God, I do not see Jesus, or the Holy Ghost.

There is much controversy with in the Bible.  Christians need to fix this before they can prove the Trinity as a valid idea.

Mohamed

[exothen]

Mohamed,

quote:Also stating that God has a body (which is corporeal as the bible suggests) is stating that God takes up space.

Perhaps you can back this up with proof of where the Bible says this.  It actually states that God is spirit (John 4:24).

quote:Can we really hide ourselves from God if God is perfect? God walking in the garden? Does it really take time for God to move from one place to another, thus making him imperfect?

Of course we can't hide ourselves from God, that is not what the text is suggesting.  It is showing the shame of Adam and Eve and that they attempted to hide from God.  It is likely that since the Hebrew for 'walking' has many definitions, that God was 'moving' through the garden.  Even if we keep it as 'walking,' there still is no difficulty since the Bible often uses anthropomorphisms in describing God.  God is everywhere, omnipresent, so no, it doesn't take him time to move anywhere.

quote:God does not know where Adam is?

Of course God knows where Adam is, it is a rhetorical question which brings Adam out of 'hiding' to face the consequences of his disobedience.

quote:God didn't know what the serpent did until Eve told him?

It looks to me as if God is imperfect, according to the Bible.

Again, God is asking rhetorical questions.  God is not at all imperfect according to the Bible.

quote:He does not have to create light before knowing that it is good. Also, since angles are made of light, God did see light before this, and light did exist before this moment.

I don't believe that angles are made of light.  However, the Bible says that God himself is light and in him there is no darkness.  

quote:There is much controversy with in the Bible.

Please, point out any controversies, but let's not detract from the main topic, the Trinity.

Since it is pointless to have a discussion about the Trinity without having a definition of exactly what the Trinity is, I'll post a definition as is generally understood by Christians:

"Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal Persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity)

So there are three foundations of trinitarian belief:

1. there is only one God - monotheism
2. there are three divine persons
3. the persons are coequal and coeternal

All three foundations are found in Scripture and that is how this doctrine came about.

[Tab]

Perhaps there is actually meaning in the belief that the church is the body of God. Yes, I'm talking about ACTUAL meaning.
If you take church to be people, then it is indeed so that the beings of the physical are God's body and the beings of the spiritual god's mind.

For God to be perfect, he must be ONE, and yet encompass all.

per·fect  Pronunciation Key  (pûrfkt)
adj.
Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.

God's nature is the universe, or everything that exists, therefore all must constitute him and at the same time he must be one in all and all in one, to be perfect.

[exothen]

Tab,

Pantheism is a self-refuting belief.

[Radha]

All of the energy that originally emanated from Source, to form this particular universe, had three polarities.  The depiction or "Humanizing" of those energies has occurred in many belief systems.
When the Rishi knew the Kali Yuga would mean that mankind would have relatively little consciousness, and rely mainly on intellect and imagination, they began to set up "religions" the descendants of which we see today.
When you read a mythology, as an example, instead of reading them literally, read them as the concourse of forces that they depict.
As long as the argument is intellectual...there will always be conflict.  Intellect is bi-polar.  Any words I pen, anyone can pen their opposite.  However if I communicate in the third polarity no one can devise a "counter" communication to that aspect of the three.
The third polarity is an all consuming fire...in some analogies, and rightfully so.

[Rob]

"The apple is imperfect and needs all these parts to funtion properly where as God is perfect and is not in need of 2 other parts to make him whole."

God *in isolation* maybe, and this is essentially where Islam and (my conception of) the Christian trinity break from eachother. The trinity is God made physical, made man, and still sitting "up there". Islam recognises only the latter of these, forgetting the divinity of the former two. There may be One God but when he is manifest we conceive of him as being three (although He is really Infinite), each of which is a distinct but very real part, and each of which IS necessary for the universe to finction as it does. This was planned, and I see no reason why it cannot be a perfectly functioning system just because God created limits within it. If there were no limits, there would be no evolution, and there would be no manifestation.
But I get the feeling you will still cling to the concept of One God. I do not refute this, but just try to show that there are different ways of looking at a God who is, by anyones standards, beyond comprehension.

peace
Rob

[Tab]

quote:Originally posted by exothen

Tab,

Pantheism is a self-refuting belief.

pardon?

[exothen]

You were stating pantheistic beliefs, so I merely pointed out that they are self-refuting and as such shouldn't be held.  It would be off topic to get into it, but since no one is interested in discussing the Trinity...

I wonder where Mohamed went to...[?]

[Tab]

I was stating the only logical way for God to be perfect.
Please explain how this is self-refuting.

[Gandalf]

Regarding the multiple aspects of god in christianity, it is interesting that in the Dead sea scrolls, possibly some of the earliest christian documents, there is a dual aspect. As well as the 'heavenly father' in heaven, we also have the 'earthly mother' who resides in the earth. The Earthly mother is responsible for all the plants and animals and cares for our earthly bodies while the father looks after the heavenly aspect. The Mother also has her own angels of the earth and so on.

There is also a copy of the Lords verse which we are all familiar with, except it is not just the lords verse, right after it you are meant to say the Mother's prayer as well, which follows the same format:
ie: 'our *earthly mother* who resides on *earth*, give us our daily bread', etc

Also while the holy trinity is refered to it is quite different from the version we know today. Rather the trinity is : 'the father, the mother, and the son' which also makes much more sense imo!

We must also take into account the influence of classical religion which had its own 'trinity'. In Rome there was the nice threesome composed of Jupiter (Lord of the gods), Juno (his wife) and Minerva (their daughter), also known as the 'Capitoline Triad', as the great temple to the triad stood on the Capitol hill in Rome. This setup was a common feature of most Roman towns and cities. (Jupiter, Juno & Minerva equal the Greek Zeus, Hera and Athena respectivly).

IMO, although I agree that the trinity concept (however it is formulated) was always a part of christianity, I believe that the concept was made a central feature of *state* christianity as the trinity idea had a similar ring to it as the classical 'capitoline triad' of traditional roman religion, and was used so that the new religion would appeal to Roman citizens; we know that many features of classical religion were used by the early christian writers to appeal to those already familiar with classical religon.

ie all the stories of Jesus healing the sick etc are all common features of hellenistic and Roman religion; Aescelipus was a popular 'god-man' during this period who did all the things that jesus did; Other NT stories such as 'the last supper' scenario and 'the three wise men' were all common features of classical religion; the Greek god of wine(!) Dionosyus (roman =Bacchus) had both a 'last supper' before being betrayed, as well as being visited at his birth by 'wise men'.

Anyway, once christianity was usurped thanks to our old pal emperor constantine (who interestingly wasnt baptised himself until on his death bed!), and christianity became a part of the machinery of roman state policy, all the feminine aspects of the old christianity were carefully excised, leaving us with the firmly patriarchal system we are all familiar with. In addition, christian writers went into denial mode, refuting that any part of christianity had any links to paganism at all. Interstingly, at this time, all temples to Aescelipus were systematically routed out and destroyed due to his uncomfortable likeness to Jesus!

In this earlier state we can also see how much earlier christian doctrine *shares* with pagan belief, such as the familiar triad/trinity concept, and esp the concept of the earth goddess which most Wiccans will be familiar with. This concept has survived in modern christianity in a watered down format, with the Virgin Mary being recognisible as really a form of the mother goddess in veiled form.
Christianity in many ways is actually a continuation of pagan beliefs, not its great enemy as many christians would have you believe.

Regards,
Douglas

[exothen]

Tab,

quote: God's nature is the universe, or everything that exists, therefore all must constitute him and at the same time he must be one in all and all in one, to be perfect.

This, as you probably know, is pantheism ("all is God"), or actually, may be panentheism ("all in God"). I would need to know more about your view of God to be sure. But either way, both views affirm that God is both infinite and finite, which of course is logically impossible. Also, you have not given any reason for believing your premise that God's nature is the universe. As I have just shown, this is illogical.

[Beth]

exothen,

You wrote:

quote:both views affirm that God is both infinite and finite, which of course is logically impossible

IMO, and simply put--mere man is incapable of saying what is or is not "logical" or "impossible" with God.  

Academically speaking, the problem is between "immanence" and "transcendence" (immanence=finite and transcendent=infinite) i.e., how can God be both???  Simply put, how can God be here among us and at the same time, be "located" in a transcendent realm?  Many philosophers, theologians and scholars have tried to tackle this one (from Heraclitus in 500 bce until present day)--during the centuries around the turn of the first millennium, that is what the LOGOS (or WORD) is all about.  Read John 1:1-3.  The LOGOS is both here during creation and yet is also GOD.  If you want an academic treatise that spells it out pretty well, may I suggest you read St. Thomas Aquinas' position on this??  

In summary, IMO all things are possible with "God" but also academically speaking, both "immanent" and "transcendent" are not necessarily conflicting notions--complex to wrap your head around perhaps, but not "impossible."  To me, "immanence and transcendence" are just two different ways of understanding ONE thing--that is GOD.

One more thing:  If I can take it from your posts correctly exothen, you are currently in school and taking religion classes.  I am a bit concerned about how easily you think you are "logically proving" things to be right or wrong.  

quote:As I have just shown, this is illogical.

 If I may make a suggestion, check your course listings and take a Formal Logic course in your philosophy department.  You will see how "Logical Proof" is not quite so simple. I hope you don't take this suggestion in the wrong way--I just want you to be able to state your position with a much stronger foundation.[].
 
Peace,
Beth

[Mohamed]

I would like to start off by stating that I have nothing against Christians, but I would have to debate the Trinity idea.

The three monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - all support to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as tawhid in Islam, this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the "Shema" or the Jewish creed of faith: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)

It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus when he said: "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again: "And your God is One God: There is no God but He, ..." (The Qur'an 2:163)

Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century (After Jesus). This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and without the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - in one divine being.

If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:

"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be save must thus think of the Trinity..." (Excerpts from the Athanasian Creed)

Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?

It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.

How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?

References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.
In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While the "Great Commission" does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase "...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text - that is, not the actual words of Jesus - as can be seen by two factors:


1. Baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and
2. The "Great Commission" found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost - see Mark 16:15.

The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of I John 5:7, Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase "...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is definitely a "later addition" to Biblical test, and it is not found in any of today's versions of the Bible.

It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.

While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son." After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.

Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.

When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria - Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop - Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.
Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.

Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who did not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.

Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.
The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than "I believe it because I was told to do so." It is explained away as "mystery" - yet the Bible says in I Corinthians 14:33 that "... God is not the author of confusion..."

The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preaching's of Jesus: "...Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Luke 4:

While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam.

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God." (Qur'an 5:73) It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name "Allah" as the name of God.

Suzanne Haneef, in her book WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ISLAM AND MUSLIMS (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says, "But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in." (pp. 183-184)

Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.

Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity - God being Three-in-One - is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Qur'an, God's Final Revelations to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:

"...your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner." (Qur'an 18:110)
"...take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected." (Qur'an 17:39)

...Because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout All His Revealed Scriptures:
"...I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other)..." (Qur'an 21:92)