What Makes Trinity and Incarnation Unbelievable Beliefs in the Eyes of Muslims

8/10/2019 What Makes Trinity and Incarnation Unbelievable Beliefs in the Eyes of Muslims

1/12

WHAT MAKES TRINITY AND INCARNATION

UNBELIEVABLE BELIEFS IN THE EYES OF MUSLIMS

Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim / In the Name of God, the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate

What follows are some purely loic and philosophical reasons, with historical notes at the

end, as shown and de!eloped "y contemporary non-Muslim philosophers and theoloians,

of why "oth trinity and incarnation can#t "e held to "e doctrines tauht "y any of the

Messeners of God and furthermore what ma$es those "eliefs to "e simply and merely a

clear case of rossly mista$en human reasonin erroneously ele!ated to the deree of

sacred truths% We Muslims ha!e $nown this in its core meanin since more than &,'((

years ao, as God and )is last *rophet, Muhammad, peace "e upon him, tauht us on

these points%

I ON TRINITY

As Richard Cartwrighte+presses in his notorious essay O th! L"gica# $r"%#!& "' th!

Triit()&*hilosophical ssays, Cam"ride, MI. *ress, &01, p% &1&23

4At this point I need to anticipate an o"5ection% It will "e said that a philosopher is

trespassin on the territory of the theoloian3 the doctrine of the .rinity is a mystery,

"eyond the capacities of human reason, and hence the tools of loic are irrele!ant to it%

.he o"5ection is "ased on a misunderstandin% .he doctrine of the .rinity is indeed

supposed to "e a mystery% .hat simply means, howe!er, that assurance of its truth cannot

"e pro!ided "y human reason "ut only "y di!ine re!elation% It is to "e "elie!ed 6not

"ecause of the natural liht of reason, "ut "ecause of the authority of God who re!eals it%66

But a mystery is not supposed to "e refuta"le "y human reason, as if a truth of reasoncould somehow contradict a re!ealed truth7 on the contrary, putati!e refutations are

supposed themsel!es to "e refuta"le% Nor is a mystery supposed to "e unintellii"le, in the

sense that the words in which it is e+pressed simply cannot "e understood% After all, we

are as$ed to "elie!e the propositions e+pressed "y the words, not simply that the words

e+press some true propositions or other, we $now not which8%

Now let#s o into his reasonin as L.M. Geerdinksummari9es it:, thouh it can "e !erified

"y readin, as I ha!e done, Richard Cartwriht#s oriinal essay23

4Richard Cartwriht tries to analy9e the loical form of the doctrine of the .rinity% )e

di!ides the doctrine in two sections, the doctrine in narrow sense and the doctrine in widersense%

)e summarises the doctrine in narrow sense in the followin se!en propositions3

& .he complete te+t is a!aila"le here3 http3//eyrin%hpl+%net/yrin/Notes/trinity%html

: http3//leoneerdin$%nl/wp-content/uploads/:((/(/;ummary-Cartwriht%pdf

&


2/12

&% .he


3/12

nfortunately this will also not do% It is true that &"2-?"2 is consistent, "ut this set cannot

"e made consistent with 12 which states that there is e+actly one God%

.he reason for this is that &"2-?"2 loically entail that there are at least three Gods%

Cartwriht summarises the pro"lems of analy9in the doctrine of the .rinity that we ha!e

seen a"o!e as follows3

But the whole question concerns the relation of the Persons to the essence. If each

Person is identical to the essence, there cannot be more than one Person. And if, on the

other hand, the Persons are to be thought of as sharing a common nature, in the manner

of Paul, Silanus, and !imoth", there cannot be fewer than !hree Gods. #ow, in short,

can there be three diine Persons and "et onl" one God$#

)a!in stated the usual pro"lems with the doctrine of the .rinity he now e+amines a last

possi"le analysis which attri"utes to *eter Geach%

Accordin to Cartwriht, Geach contends that unualified identity statements do not ma$e

sense% An identity statement can only "e understood if it is specified as what two thinsare identical% Identity is thus said to "e 4relati!e6% + and y may "e the same


4/12


5/12

the Chalcedonian account of the incarnation, for the complements of these properties,

unlimited $nowlede and power, are essential for "ein truly di!ine%

%. . . there is an obious &u''le as to how the same being can (ointl" embod" those

attributes of God and of humanit" that are a&&arentl" incom&atible. God is eternal, whilst

humans hae a beginning in time) God is infinite, humans finite) God is the creator of the

unierse, including humanit", whilst humans are &art of God*s creation) God is omni&otent,

omniscient, omni&resent, whilst humans are limited in &ower and knowledge and hae a

bounded location) and so on. Let us call this the incom&atible+attributes &roblem )ic$,

&=,&(:2#%

.he worry, then, is that the classic account of the incarnation is flawed in the most

fundamental sense7 it runs counter to what Aristotle called the most certain principle3

nothin can "oth "e and not "e at the same time and in the same respect Metaphysics,

B$% IK, *art =2% If "ein truly human and "ein truly di!ine are indeed incompati"le, then

esus could no more ha!e fulfilled the conditions of the Chalcedonian account of the

incarnation than he could ha!e "een a spherical cu"e%

Re5ectin the Faw of Non-contradiction

.oward the end of his 5ournal, A Grief H"ser!ed, C%;% Fewis as$s 4Can a mortal as$

uestions which God finds unanswera"leL8 and readily replies in the affirmati!e%

%uite easil", I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable. #ow man" hours

are there in a mile$ Is "ellow square or round$ Probabl" half of the questions we ask-half

our great theological and meta&h"sical &roblems-are like thatFewis, &?&, 0&2%

.houh there is no reason to thin$ that Fewis had uestions a"out the incarnation in mind,

one could respond to the o"5ection that the Chalcedonian account of the incarnation runs

counter to the law of non-contradiction, "y aruin that this law no more applies to theincarnation than eometric properties do to colors% As$in if God the ;on#s human nature

is compati"le with his di!ine nature, would "e li$e as$in if purple is perpendicular% It is

what philosophers call a cateory mista$e,# the error of applyin concepts and distinctions

to su"5ects where they ha!e no purchase% In this reard, .homas K% Morris cites )% M%

Relton as assertin that 4the person of Christ is the "an$ruptcy of human loic78 ;oren

ier$eaard &0&=-&0>>2 as holdin that the incarnation is 4a "reach with all thin$in,8 and

notes Gareth Moore#s reference to those for whom 4!he doctrine of the incarnation

e&ressed a diine m"ster" which we mere mortals could not e&ect to understand, and it

was bordering on the blas&hemous for an" feeble, logic+cho&&ing human intellect to attack

it8 Morris, &0?, :'-:>2%

.o e!aluate re5ectin the law of non-contradiction, as a response to the chare that some

essential human and di!ine properties are incompati"le, let#s assume, for the sa$e of the

arument, that the law does not apply to the incarnation% ;ince it tells us that nothin can

"oth "e and not "e at the same time and in the same respect, ma$in our assumption

amounts to holdin that God the ;on could possess any property e%% ha!in unlimited

power2 and its complement e%% ha!in limited power2%

>


6/12

If this were so, there could not "e any pro"lem with God the ;on "ein truly human and

truly di!ine, no matter how we understand humanity# and di!inity%# But the same pro"lem-

free possi"ility would also o for God the ;on "ein truly di!ine and incarnate as a

door$no", the num"er se!en or a piece of toast%


7/12


8/12

ypt#s history is similar to ;umeria#s in antiuity% In his yptian Myths, Geore )art,

lecturer for the British Museum and professor of ancient yptian hierolyphics at the

ni!ersity of Fondon, shows how ypt also "elie!ed in a transcendental, a"o!e creation,

and pree+istin# one, the od Amun% Amun was really three ods in one% Re was his face,

*tah his "ody, and Amun his hidden identity% .he well-$nown historian Will Durant concurs

that Ra, Amon, and *tah were com"ined as three em"odiments or aspects of one

supreme and triune deity# Hriental )eritae :(&2% Additionally, a hymn to Amun written inthe &'th century BC defines the yptian trinity3 All Gods are three3 Amun, Re, *tah7 they

ha!e no eual% )is name is hidden as Amun, he is Re%%% "efore menJ, and his "ody is

*tah# )ornun :&2%

Is this positi!e proof that the Christian .rinity descended from the ancient yptian triadsL

No% )owe!er, Durant su"mits that from ypt came the ideas of a di!ine trinity%%%# Caesar

>>2% Dr% Gordon Fain, retired Dean of the )umanities Department at the ni!ersity of

Chicao, arees that the worship of the yptian triad Isis, ;erapis, and the child )orus#

pro"a"ly accustomed the early church theoloians to the idea of a triune God, and was

influential in the formulation of the doctrine of the .rinity as set forth in the Nicaean and

Athanasian creeds#%

.hese were not the only trinities early Christians were e+posed to% .he historical lecturer,

esse Benedict Carter, tells us of the truscans% As they slowly passed from Ba"ylon

throuh Greece and went on to Rome, they "rouht with them their trinity of .inia, ni, and

Mener!a% .his trinity was a new idea to the Romans,# and yet it "ecame so typical of

Rome# that it uic$ly spread throuhout Italy% !en the names of the Roman trinity3 upiter,

uno, and Miner!a, reflect the ancestry% .hat Christianity was not ashamed to "orrow from

paan culture is amply shown "y Durant3 Christianity did not destroy paanism7 it adopted

it# Caesar >>2%

Is this positi!e proof that the Christian .rinity descended from the truscan and RomantriadsL No% )owe!er, Fain con!incinly de!otes his entire "oo$ ;ur!i!als of the Roman

Gods to the comparison of Roman paanism and the Roman Catholic Church% Dr%

arosla! *eli$an, a Catholic scholar and professor at Pale, confirms the Church#s respect

for paan ideas when he states that the Apoloists and other early church fathers used

and cited the paanJ Roman ;i"ylline Hracles so much that they were called ;i"yllists# "y

the :nd century critic, Celsus% .here was e!en a medie!al hymn, Dies irae,# which foretold

the comin of the day of wrath# "ased on the dual authority of Da!id and the ;i"yl8

merence ?'-?>2% .he attitude of the Church toward paanism is "est summed up in

*ope Greory the Great#s words to a missionary3 Pou must not interfere with any

traditional "elief or reliious o"ser!ance that can "e harmoni9ed with Christianity# td% in

Fain &=(2%

In contrast, udaism is stronly monotheistic with no hint of a trinity% .he )e"rew Bi"le the

Hld .estament2 is filled with scriptures such as "efore Me there was no God formed,

Neither shall any "e after Me# Isa '=3&( td% in Isaiah2, and there is no other God%%%I am

the Ford and there is none else# Isa '>3&',&0 td% in Isaiah2% A ewish commentary

affirms that noJ other ods e+ist, for to declare this would "e "lasphemous%%%# Chumash

'>02% !en thouh Word,# ;pirit,# *resence,# and Wisdom# are used as personifications

0


9/12


10/12

.he Apostle#s Creed which was not written "y the Apostles at all, "ut "y the RCC /oman

0atholic 0hurchJ% While this simple statement of faith had nothin to say a"out a .rinity, or

e!en hint that esus was God, it laid the roundwor$ for further e+pansion, and was

modified se!eral times o!er the years%

.he Nicene Creed esta"lished in =:> AD, was the ne+t step% At the insistence of the

Roman emperor, Constantine, and for the purpose of esta"lishin unity "etween

Christianity and *aan "eliefs, esus was declared to "e coeual, coeternal, and

consu"stantial with God% .his esta"lished, Constantine made Christianity the state reliion

of the Roman mpire% Before Constantine#s rule the Christians suffered much persecution

at the hands of Rome%

.he Athanasian Creed espouses the .rinitarian concepts of Athanasius, a fourth century

theoloian% .he time of its oriinal writin is not $nown, nor is its author% Most historians

aree that it was pro"a"ly composed in the fifth century, thouh some claim it may ha!e

"een as late as the ninth century% !en the Catholic ncyclopedia is !aue a"out its oriin%

.he Christian Church#s roots were oriinally from udaism, which was, and still is, a

monotheistic Hne-God2 reliion% .here is no "elief in a polytheistic *lural2 God in the Hld

.estament% Hn the contrary, H. scriptures declare the sinleness of God%

Isa% '=3&(3

4Pe are my witnesses, saith the FHRD, and my ser!ant whom I ha!e chosen3 that ye may

$now and "elie!e me, and understand that I am he3 "efore me there was no God formed,

neither shall there "e after me8%

Isa% '>3&03

4


11/12

esus was "eotten, "orn2 at a point in time, accordin to the ewish prophecies% .he

Athanasian Creed also states that esus was God incarnated% .his contradicts scripture

also, "ecause God does not chane%

Mal% =3?3

4


12/12

disareed with official Church doctrine or resisted the authority of the *ope% Christ-li$e

"eha!ior "ecame a thin of the past, and esus# teachins nelected and chaned%

.he Reformation, "rouht a"out "y Martin Futher, threw off the yo$e of the *apists and

declared 5ustification "y faith instead of sal!ation "y o"eyin the Roman church% )owe!er,

the *aan doctrines and traditions of Catholicism carried o!er into *rotestantism and

remain intact to this day%

.he .rinity doctrine was "y no means adopted unanimously "y church leaders of the day%

Bitter "attles ensued, and three !ersions of the trinity de"ated, as well as the non-trinity

"elief, until the present one was adopted% It was a !ote of men that esta"lished it, not

re!elation from God or scriptures% Christianity had re5ected the God of A"raham, Moses,

and esus, and replaced )im with a *aan in!ention%8 end of uote of d .orrence2%

A CALL TO OUR BROTHERS

In "rief, "oth trinity and incarnation are no more than man-made opinions that constitute

unreasona"le "eliefs, or to "e clearer, irrational opinions in the accurate sense of non-

sensical# doctrines%

Really, do our .rinitarian and incarnationists Christian "rothers which comprise the lare

ma5ority of Christians so far2 consider such distorted "eliefs as "eliefs needed to "e

sa!edL

It is time to assume to call of truth%

.o our Christian "rothers and friends, we call them to worship only God% .his is what

esus, may the peace of God "e upon him, came to teach3 how to worship God with his

pure e+ample of su"mission, ser!ice and lo!e%

As a last point, if a Christian really thin$s that God shows us the "est way to esta"lish a

relationship with )im, would it not "e proper to thin$ that after the Messae of esus,

peace "e upon him, was su"5ect to so much distortions, God out of )is mercy would

pro"a"ly clarify aain for us the proper relationship with )imL

And that is where a sincere Christian is in!ited to o "eyond nitarian Christianity which a

few Christians adhere to in a hundred different ways thouh2% Notwithstandin these

intellient and self-e!ident notions anyway re5ectin trinity and incarnation, that is still

wholly open to the !arieties and fee"leness of self-made researchers of truth% .he

in!itation, lea!in aside "oth pre5udices as well as modern caricatures that ma$e news

from Middle ast many times, "oth planted to distract our spirits, is riht to the mercy and

the ift of the Di!ine3 Islam% But only a com"ination of sincerity, courae, intellience and

first and last, permanent prayer, may open and $eep this way% Insha#Allah% Wa min Allah

.awfi%

Nureddin Cue!a, Fima, *eru / muridVofVtheVpathyahoo%es

;ha"an &'=> / unio :(&'

&:

What Makes Trinity and Incarnation Unbelievable Beliefs in the Eyes of Muslims

Documents

Transcript of What Makes Trinity and Incarnation Unbelievable Beliefs in the Eyes of Muslims