Beautiful HTML coding, now.

But seriously, Trinitarian criticism and explanation used to be much more intelligent in the Sixth Century, to name one. Making sense of the doctrine helped reintruduce Aristotelian categories in the case of Boethius -- "The Trinity is One God." To simply say it conflicts with one God reflects heroic stupidity in light of two millenia of scholarly output. Not to mention inexcusable historical ignorance for a 'journalist'. Trinitarian debates, in my opinion, helped advance the cause of reason and to put it in modern parlance, caused people to think outside the box. But not so far outside their brains escaped as happened to Williams.

Posted by: Beagle at July 15, 2008 10:08 PM

Beagle-- it's like a bad hair day. Bad html and/or errant line-break day. Fortunately, the latter is actually a quicker fix.

Posted by: MarisolJW at July 15, 2008 10:16 PM

"The Archbishop's letter is a reply to feelers to Christians put out by Islamic leaders from 43 countries last autumn."

The latter, of course, is "A Common Word Between Us and You," which the Investigative Project on Terrorism has identified as nothing more than a call for conversion to Islam:

http://www.investigativeproject.org/article/519

And it is worth noting that Qur'anic verse 3:64, which the Muslim composers of that call cite, is precisely the verse Muhammad cited in his letter to the Emperor of Byzantium demanding his submission. Within a decade of Muhammad's demise, Byzantium had been denuded of much of its dominion by Muslim forces under Umar.

Posted by: Papa Whiskey at July 15, 2008 10:26 PM

"Trinitarian doctrine conflicts with the Islamic view that there is just one all-powerful God."

An easy way for the reporter to have solved this would have been simply to add three words to the beginning (a phrase often used by journalists anyway):

"According to Muslims, Trinitarian doctrine conflicts with the Islamic view that there is just one all-powerful God."

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 15, 2008 11:01 PM

Could someone please tell me what isn't offensive to muslims? Is Osama bin Laden and his ilk offensive to them? Is chopping the heads off people offensive to them? Is flying jumbo jets into skyscrappers killing thousands in the name of allah offensive to them?

Posted by: kyros at July 15, 2008 11:04 PM

I thought he was said to be a learned theologian. He's simply an idiot.

Posted by: Hugh at July 15, 2008 11:15 PM

"In it, Dr Williams said violence is incompatible with the beliefs of either faith and that, once that principle is accepted, both can work together against poverty and prejudice and to help the environment.

"Why would anyone listening to someone so obviously febble minded ?Is it like holly wood where the opinion of young stalets rules the world?

Posted by: Mr.Fitnah at July 15, 2008 11:22 PM

So Christian doctrine is offensive to muslims?

The deeds of muslims are offensive to just about every right thinking person on the planet! Our fearless leaders excepted, of course.

Dr. Williams is obviously suffering from dementia (he even looks demented!) and should retire forthwith.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at July 15, 2008 11:33 PM

The Trinitarian aspect of Christianity can be said to bring down all those polytheistic accusations from Muslims.

Too bad that Dr. Willaims lacks the scholastic charity to bridge that chasm. Christians believe in one God who has 3 distinct natures: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So Scripture has revealed.

Maybe Williams could try pondering what Muslims believe: One tyrannical Molech-like figure, most recently called Allah (Mohammed did refer to him by other names). And a henchman, that's Mohammed; they're like Dr. Frankenstein and Egore. Now the entire planet is their laboratory.

Posted by: CapitalistGig at July 15, 2008 11:39 PM

Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims, the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday.
.....................................

Christian *doctrine* is offensive? Christian *doctrine*? This from the bloody Archbishop of Canterbury!

I grew up Episcopalian, and never would have foreseen this day.

Of course, on a certain level, he is correct--no amount of explaining the trinity--*any* Christian denomination's concept of the trinity--will convince Muslims that it is not a doctrine of "shirk" (associating other gods with Allah).

Hey, I find the claim that Isa (the Muslim "Jesus") left one of his poor disciples (usually held to be Judas) to die an agonizing death in his place to be offensive--I find the idea that Isa will return in the last days to "break the cross and kill the pigs"--to end the jizya--and offer Christians nothing but the choice of conversion or death to be offensive.

When Muslims talk to Christians about "discovering the Muslim Jesus", they mean embracing a Jesus whose very purpose is to *smite Christians*. I find that pretty offensive.

In order for Dr. Williams to stop offending Muslims, he will have to *convert to Islam*.

from above:

Dr Rowan Williams also criticised Christianity's history for its violence, its use of harsh punishments and its betrayal of its peaceful principles.

Key words: Peaceful principles. Williams seems to continue to labor under the notion that Islam has an identical trust of peaceful principles to return to.
......................

Yes--what has led Dr. Williams assume that Islam has "peaceful principles" to return to?

more misconceptions:

'We can together speak for those who have no voice or leverage in society - for the poorest, the most despised, the least powerful, for women and children, for migrants and minorities; and even to speak together for the great encompassing reality that has no voice of its own, our injured and abused material environment.'
....................

This is now what Dr. Williams and his ilk believe religion to be all about--he doesn't believe in any form of truth, or salvation--he believes that religion is a liberal social program--and, moreover, he believes that everyone believes that all religions are liberal social programs.

What is there in Islam--either in its doctrine or practice--that would lead him to believe such a thing? Oh, there is the Zakat, but that is as likely to go for funding Jihad as for taking care of widows or orphams or the sick.

All the groups he mentions--women, children, minorities--both religious minorities and ethnic non-Arab minorities--are specifically brutalized and oppressed in Islam--oppressed with religious sanction. The bit about the "injured and abused material environment' is especially laughable, as though any sort of environmentalism has ever been a pillar of Islam.

He might as well just roll over right now.

Posted by: gravenimage at July 15, 2008 11:44 PM

"He also said the Christian belief in the Trinity - that God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time - 'is difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims'."

=============================================

Gee. Too freakin' bad.

The Islamic paradise --a Great Whorehouse In The Sky, where Muslim dummsheetz who murder others by blowing themselves to smithereens are rewarded by Allah with eternal copulation with eternal virgins-- is offensive to me.

I'm waiting for the Islamists to grovel to me about the idiocy of their beliefs and how their theology inflames my religious sensibilities. Do I need to start seething first? Or should I riot in the streets instead?

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at July 15, 2008 11:54 PM

Who takes the Sharia Abp seriously anymore?

Who Is Left Standing In These Troubled Times As A Christian Voice That Can Re-gather The Storm-Tossed Flock?

Posted by: A Simple Sinner at July 16, 2008 12:03 AM

Fortunately, the position of Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT a life-long appointment.

The present incumbent will not necessarily remain in office much longer.

Pray, if you are a praying person, that someone with more sense replaces him.

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali would not do too bad a job; or Patrick Sookhdeo (I thought Sookhdeo was a Bishop but someone tells me he is a Canon - can

Both of them saw clean through 'A Common Word', and neatly deconstructed it. (If Archbishop Williams had had any wit, he would have given the two of them a free hand to jointly write the official Church of England response. It would have been masterly).

Both are implacably opposed to any official recognition of sharia within the UK (or, indeed, any other country with a secular/ non-Muslim system of law and governance).

Both are keenly aware of the Stealth Jihad, and all the other forms of jihad.

Both Bishop Michael, and Patrick Sookhdeo, are on record as stating unequivocally that Muslims should NOT be permitted (or, should not have *been* permitted - that particular horse has bolted) either to monopolise or to censor the study of Islam - its texts, its 'prophet', its historical practices - within the Western university.

Sookhdeo, being an apostate from Islam himself, rather than the first-generation child of apostates, is much less diplomatic than Nazir-Ali, concerning Islam's history of subversion and political violence: his latest book was called 'Power, Faith and Territory', and seems to be a no-holds-barred examination of Islam as what Our Hugh calls 'a geopolitical cult'. He shows all the signs of being a classic 'defector' - just as passionately concerned as, say, the redoubtable Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq, to lay bare all the dangers and machinations of that from which he has escaped.

Had I any say in the workings of the Anglican Communion - all I am is a lowly pew-sitter - I would be starting a campaign to get either Sookhdeo (for preference) or Nazir-Ali into that seat in Canterbury.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 16, 2008 12:25 AM

For more on Canon Sookhdeo, here is his wiki entry - it doesn't seem to have any obvious errors or distortions and it contains a couple of useful links - one provides text of an interview he gave, in the wake of Cartoon Rage, published in a British newspaper, which the Powers that Be found so disturbing that they tried to throw it down the memory hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Sookhdeo

'Patrick Sookhdeo, is a British Anglican canon.

'He is also the director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity and of the Barnabas Fund.

'Sookhdeo is an outspoken spokesman for persecuted Christian minorities around the world. He has made many media appearances in Great Britain and is an advocate for human rights and freedom of religion.
'Sookhdeo, a former Muslim is a commentator on jihadist ideology, and is the advisor to British and NATO military officers on radical Islam. [Sadly, it doesn't look, on the face of it, as though anyone much, in the church or in the government, is actually *listening* to his advice...- dda]

'Patrick Sookhdeo was born in 1947 in Guyana into a Muslim family who had migrated from Asia {i.e. from Pakistan - dda}. His family migrated to England in the early 1960s. In 1965, as a student, Sookhdeo made his first contact with a Christian prayer group.
"I had associated Christianity with racism, colonialism and violence. But when I met this group of people with religious values, they were not violent . . . they were people with genuine concern for a foreigner like myself. That began the change in my thinking."

'Sookhdeo converted to Christianity in 1969 and pursued studies to become an Anglican priest and went on to obtain a Doctorate in Oriental and African studies.

'During that time Sookhdeo began exploring inter-faith dialogue and became increasingly concerned by the brutality being leveled at Christian minorities in Islamic nations, including death penalties for conversions from Islam.

'During 1975 to 1978, Sookhdeo founded the "In Contact" organisation, largely based in the Plaistow and Whitechapel areas of London. "In Contact" was considerably involved in the various Christian movements in the East End, particularly Tower Hamlets Fellowship (one of the early house Churches), and had close links to many of the other East End churches. During this period, Sookhdeo was also one of the organisers of the early "Greenbelt" Christian Arts Festivals.

'In 1989, Sookhdeo created the London based Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, and saw the creation of a global database on extremist movements and ideologies whose followers were persecuting religious minorities across the Muslim world .

'By 1991, Sookhdeo was predicting that an "Islamic storm" was on the horizon.

'He also runs the Barnabas Fund, a charity that supports persecuted Christian minorities around the world. He subsequently obtained a PhD in Islamic Studies at the University of London." Etc.

There is a handy list of his books at the end.

PS - apologies for the erratum in the posting above. Please read the fourth sentence simply as:

'Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali would not do too bad a job; or Patrick Sookhdeo'.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 16, 2008 12:31 AM

Interesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury (primate of the established Church of England) feels such a kinship with the political-religious ideology of Islam.

Henry VIII split from Rome and established the Anglican Church as an arm of the English state in order to get a divorce from his lawful wife, Catherine of Aragon, so that he could satisfy his own sexual desires with Anne Boleyn and others.

Muhammad's "revelations" from Gabriel (Lucifer?), and their reflections in Sharia, were also conveniently timed to sanctify his and his henchmen's sexual proclivities.

It will be interesting to see how the Anglican Church's current tolerance for homosexual relationships, even among its clergy, will hold up under Sharia.

Posted by: urbanIIredux at July 16, 2008 12:36 AM

'Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali would not do too bad a job; or Patrick Sookhdeo'.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy

Get them both in. Two bright sparks are better than one. The Archbishops of Canterbury.

Posted by: Dsinc at July 16, 2008 12:40 AM

Marisol

Speaking of HTML, can STRIKE (i.e. the overstrike tag) be added to the list of allowed HTML tags, like it is @ hotair?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 16, 2008 12:51 AM

Good heavens, what sort of ignorant fool is this man?! And he is supposedly speaking on behalf of followers of Christ?

As the kids on the internet say these days, STOP BEING ON OUR SIDE! YOU'RE MAKING OUR SIDE LOOK BAD!

Posted by: Mo at July 16, 2008 1:17 AM

Servile dogs like this profane prelate only serve to inflame the genocidal heart of Islam. Muslims see the head of the Church of England abase himself and compare his fawning womanishness to their raving priests, see him in his effeminate gowns with his bumlike senile eyebrows and his hoary ears and those insipid bleary crooked eyes gazing from that half-dead seedy face, and those barbarian Muslims infer that we are all sheep ready for slaughter like this simpering drooling old fool clearly is.

Posted by: jsla at July 16, 2008 1:52 AM

Archbishop of Canterbury: Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims

Hey dummy, I mean dhimmi, that's exactly what Jesus said.

But you know what? As a leader of the Christian church, it is your job to preach Christian doctrine (or, more accurately, Christ) to Muslims (and all other non-believers)!

What makes you think that Jesus has released you from this obligation? He said that you are a debtor to all men, meaning that you owe it to them to preach the gospel to them. After all, you have received freely, and therefore you should give freely!

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at July 16, 2008 1:56 AM

Trinitarian doctrine conflicts with the Islamic view that there is just one all-powerful God.

That's simply false. The trinitarian view maintains that there is only one God. Note to the Daily Mail: You don't have to believe it to report it correctly.

Posted by Marisol at July 15, 2008 9:49 PM

I am not a historian but Islam's view of trinity doctrine would likely be based upon the historical Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed, the latter introuced just prior to the onset of Islam.

When you analyze the creeds, the trinity still sounds like it smacked of polytheism without a doubt. As such, Islam's idolotrous view of trinity is no different than Judaism's. I do not understand why this understanding should be any different today.

BTW, Robert, I have read you comment several times in the past about the Quran's confusing Mary as part of the trinity. In the article about Athanasian Creed, it states:

"The 'Athanasian' Creed boldly uses the key Nicene term homoousios ('one substance', 'one in Being') not only with respect to the relation of the Son to the Father according to his divine nature, but that the Son is homoousios with his mother Mary, according to his human nature."

Could this association be the missing link which explains Mohamed's mininterpretation? Come to think of it, based on the Athanasian Creed, might it only be a mild or half misinterpretation?

Posted by: Shy Guy at July 16, 2008 2:00 AM

Nauseating.

Posted by: Cornelius at July 16, 2008 2:18 AM

Shy Guy,

I don't think the Nicean Creed had anything to do with Mohammed's misunderstanding of Christianity. The Nicean Creed spells out the single God with three distinct persons within one God -- a difficult concept, but scripturally founded and well attested to in the first and second century writings of early Christians. Mohammed's understanding is connected to the fact that Christianity had had a major theological division in the fourth century. The Iranian, Iraqian, and Syrian Christians became what is called "Nestorians." Nestorians denied the divinity of Christ, and stated that he was a man whose nature was separated from that of God.

Because the Nestorians denied the two natures of Christ, fully man and fully God defined in the Nicean Statement of Christian Faith (which is what the Creed is), Mohammed, being geographically near to Nestorians, grasped onto this Nestorian concept and adopted it as his own. Jesus, to Mohammed, is a human. The Nestorian heresy gave rise to Islam. Anyone who is Christian who disagrees with the Nestorian/Islamic concept of the nature of Jesus is therefore a heretic to Islam.

The Nestorian heresy has never quite gone away. Nestorians still exist in the East, and some Protestant Churches have embraced this understanding of who Jesus Christ is.

Posted by: thelittlegreekwoman at July 16, 2008 2:22 AM

Posted by: thelittlegreekwoman at July 16, 2008 2:22 AM

I don't think the Nicean Creed had anything to do with Mohammed's misunderstanding of Christianity. The Nicean Creed spells out the single God with three distinct persons within one God -- a difficult concept, but scripturally founded and well attested to in the first and second century writings of early Christians.

The issue isn't the existance of the doctrine. This issue I was asking about is whether the definitin of trinity - at least at that time - was polytheistic, verses Islam's belief in monotheism, similar to Judaism in that respect.

Mohammed's understanding is connected to the fact that Christianity had had a major theological division in the fourth century. The Iranian, Iraqian, and Syrian Christians became what is called "Nestorians." Nestorians denied the divinity of Christ, and stated that he was a man whose nature was separated from that of God.

Yes, I'm familiar with Islam's view that Jesus was a human prophet - and a Muslim, too! That, however, simply highlights even more why a monotheistic religion such as Islam would object to the trinity.

Because the Nestorians denied the two natures of Christ, fully man and fully God defined in the Nicean Statement of Christian Faith (which is what the Creed is),

Which is why I questioned Marisol's claim, above.

Mohammed, being geographically near to Nestorians, grasped onto this Nestorian concept and adopted it as his own. Jesus, to Mohammed, is a human. The Nestorian heresy gave rise to Islam. Anyone who is Christian who disagrees with the Nestorian/Islamic concept of the nature of Jesus is therefore a heretic to Islam.

Precisely. Then you, too, dispute Marisol's argument about defining trinity, which is all I wanted to do.

Posted by: Shy Guy at July 16, 2008 2:56 AM

Dr. Williams has already proven himself a certifiable fruit loop on several past occasions. Who the HE-- gives a rat's you-know-what about what comes out of his mummified mouth now anyway?

Posted by: pythagoras at July 16, 2008 3:15 AM

This latest gaffe seems to be part of a pattern, the British government seems to be hell-bent on sending us all to hell in a hand-basket. Government money is being spent on initiatives (and I use the term loosely) to combat extremism which will never work.

I'm ashamed to say we've become apologists for appeasement.

Posted by: Georgia at July 16, 2008 3:51 AM

The Arch-dhimmi of Canterbury is calling for an alliance between the two faiths for ‘the common good’.

For Muslims, 'common good' means more Islam and the establishment of sharia, nothing less. When Muslims invoke 'freedom of religion' it means freedom for the soldiers of Allah to spread Islam by any means, and democracy is, of course, 'oppression'. The 'common good' means Islamic rule.

The fact that Rowan Williams has failed to educate himself is appalling. He is an idiot. But that is no excuse for us to look at this comedy any longer.

Things have to change. Now. Fast!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 16, 2008 4:05 AM

The fact that Rowan Williams is a Druid should have disqualified him from being Archbishop in the first place. He believes that the two are not incompatible!

Posted by: Sencit at July 16, 2008 4:34 AM

So while I find Muslim doctrine morally and mortally offensive I have no recourse but to not present offense to the Muslims with my doctrine?

Mr. Williams, get out of my face you despicable coward.

{^_^}

Posted by: jdow at July 16, 2008 4:49 AM

With shocking statements being made by the Archbishop of Cantanbury, no wonder a large number of conservitive Anglicans are looking to bail out of the CE and either go their own way or look to "Swim The Tiber" and in other words, reunite with Rome using what is called the Anglican usage rite. Also have been reading up on quiet talks going on between some of the conservitve Anglicans and Rome in the last few weeks. This Archbishop has fully "lost it".

Speaking about Rome, last night seen on EWTN the encore presentation of the opening mass for WYD 08 in Sydney, Au, in which it was celibrated by Cardinal George Pell, a true profile in courage. He, Pope Benedict XVI has stood up to the Islamofacists. God Bless them both.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 16, 2008 6:08 AM

This failure of a human being and the Dalai Lama make a right pair of gormless dimwits. And to think of how many gullible sheep look up to them as spiritual authorities.
I think we need to switch into iconoclastic gear and humiliate and ridicule these goons at every opportunity.

Posted by: johndoe at July 16, 2008 6:10 AM

thelittlegreekwoman,

I have taken an interest in what you have posted. Also did a little bit of research into the Nestorian hersey, but if you can because I am getting ready to leave for my daily responsibilites, please do futher reasearch on that hersey and do get back to me. Thanks. :)

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 16, 2008 7:15 AM

Will no one rid us of this turbulent priest?

Posted by: Tancred1099 at July 16, 2008 7:21 AM

Mr. William, stop abusin mass wine.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at July 16, 2008 7:45 AM

Archbishop of Canterbury: Christian doctrine is offensive to Muslims

...and apparently it is offensive to Williams as well.

Posted by: witness at July 16, 2008 7:54 AM

This isn't so bad. For a start it should hasten the Secular world we all need.

All religions need to be eradicated.

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at July 16, 2008 8:00 AM

To any Muslims who are offended by the trinity and are still reading this far: trinities exist, even in nature. An obvious and simple example is H2O. It exists in nature as ice, water, and steam. We use terms like ice, water, and steam to identify the nature of the H2O at a particular time and place. It is still H2O.

Posted by: Liberal Guy at July 16, 2008 8:10 AM

Will someone please kick away this dhimmi archibishop? For crying out loud, what does he have to say in order for us to see that he is not fit for the job?

So shoudl we Christians stop preaching the Word to God to Muslims? The Lord Jesus was pretty "offensive" to sin. What did He do?

Did He say NOT to preach the Gospel to people who feel offended with His Words ?

Posted by: Crusader at July 16, 2008 8:31 AM

How many monophysites does it take to screw up the thread?

Posted by: jsla at July 16, 2008 9:08 AM

Here's the official version, from the Abp's press release:

"Dr Williams acknowledges that Christian belief in the Trinity is "difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims" but has said "I believe that for the sake of open and careful dialogue it is important to try and clarify what we do and what we do not mean by it". He begins by affirming the Christian belief in the unity of God. The Archbishop then explains that "God is at once the source of divine life, the expression of that life and the active power that communicates that life...in human language, in the light of what [Christian] scripture says, we speak of 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'". He shows how it is that Christians see this Trinity as explaining why they say that God is love, not only that he shows love. Dr Williams also demonstrates how "by understanding God as a unity of love we see ourselves intensifying and enriching our belief in the unity of God"."

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1893

littlegreekwoman says: "Because the Nestorians denied the two natures of Christ, fully man and fully God defined in the Nicean Statement of Christian Faith (which is what the Creed is), Mohammed, being geographically near to Nestorians, grasped onto this Nestorian concept and adopted it as his own."

On the contrary, the Nestorians stressed the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human. What they denied was the union of the two, which was affirmed by the followers of Cyril of Alexandria. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 came down somewhere in the middle. Not everyone accepted it, however. Hence the Church started splitting into factions, a process that continues to this day at Lambeth.

Posted by: The Heresiarch at July 16, 2008 9:09 AM

So any reconciliation with Hindus is completely out of the question then.

Posted by: Ian at July 16, 2008 9:10 AM

I'm beginning to think we may have underestimated Rowan Williams' gift of irony. I've been reading his letter, and it isn't an abject apology for Christian belief. Far from it. Take this:

"The section in your letter on love for the neighbour is relatively brief, so we look forward to developing further the ways in which the theme is worked out within our traditions."

Indeed.

Posted by: The Heresiarch at July 16, 2008 9:38 AM

And the atheist says, 'You're all a little nuts aren't you'. 'My God' is 'better' than 'your God'...'My God'...Can the Arch be fired?

Does he believe that Islam and Christianity worship the same God through the Abrahamic connection? That Allah is also, YHVH, 'I AM THAT I AM'?
When Moses asked God his name, God did not say, 'my name is Allah'. I AM that I AM is not a name, it means 'pure existence'. Is Allah pure existence or just a pure pain in the ...neck? Does he believe that Mohammad really was/is the messenger of Allah? If he does, he is a muslim by definition. He should officially convert and become an Imam...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 16, 2008 9:52 AM

CapitalistGig,

The doctrine of the Trinity is not that there is one God who has three distinct natures. Rather it is the idea that there is one God who is three distinct but not separate persons. One as to whatness but three as whoness.

Shyguy,

If Islamic thinkers actually looked to Christian sources for their knowledge of Christianity, things would be different. But as history stands. Mohammed set the standard for them in the Quran which by passes all other sources, and Mohammed likely would not have understood either document in any case. In the Quran the Trinity is depicted as God joining to himself another separate deity, Jesus and yet another, Mary. For Muslims, the doctrine of the Trinity is the idea that God is composed of three separate beings.

As an aside, the Athanasian Creed was not composed by Athanasius or anyone in the East. It is a Western Frankish creed composed significantly later than Athanasius and consists of non-Athanasian theological tenants such as the Filioque. Consequently it has never been accepted by Eastern Christians.

When you analyze the creeds Trinitarianism doesn’t smack of polytheism. It only would do so if one couldn’t make and recognize the distinction between person and nature in them. God is one as to nature and three as to person. The difficulty historically was that the philosophical systems of the day simply didn’t make this distinction so that a new vocabulary had to be developed to accommodate Christian theology.

And no, the term homoousios isn’t the likely basis for Mohammed’s confusion. What is, is an ignorant peasant who saw Christian practice venerating the Theotokos (Virgin Mary) and confused veneration with worship. To say that Christ is consubstantial with humanity through the conception in his mother and his taking of flesh with his mother wouldn’t ground Mohammed’s confusion since all it says is that Jesus is truly human.

Thelittlegreekwoman,

Nestorius affirmed the divinity of Christ as well as his humanity. What Nestorius affirmed that was problematic was that the person of Christ was the product of two natures/persons coming together that existed side by side in an extrinsic relation. So that the person of Christ that was produced was a kind of mask. Nestorius’ problem was that he could not distinguish between person and nature and hence used the term hypostasis to denote both. Hypostasis used according to Greek philosophical usage meant a substance, an individual thing. So for Nestorius Jesus was two persons acting in unison. For his main opponent, Cyril of Alexandria, this was unacceptable since it was union with Christ that united us to God and put us on the path to theosis. If Christ’s humanity wasn’t truly united in his one divine person in a constituting way, then humans could never partake of the divine life.

Posted by: American_Palamite at July 16, 2008 10:19 AM

duh_swami,

Th idea of pure being or existence is actually a Platonic gloss on Ex 3:14 common to most Christian traditions in the West via Augustine and then later the scholastics. What it probably means is that God can't be named in that God is free. And this is why it is sometimes rendered, I will be who I will be. YHWH isn't a tribal deity. He is not a tame deity for which an image can be made or a human name can be applied.

Posted by: American_Palamite at July 16, 2008 10:24 AM

The Archbishop of Cantebury is an ignoramus. He has done a lot of damage as leader of the Anglican church with his dhimmi style of leadership and cowardice to uphold biblical morals and traditions.

As a Christian leader, he should be pointing out the fact that many Christians are offended by Islamic theology.

What do I mean here?

Take a look for yourself at Islamic theological backwardness.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88:
"Narrated 'Ursa: The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death)."

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311:
'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:
Narrated Hisham's father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.
Here is how the Prophet used to have fun and sex with his child bride.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 298:
Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

(Suhayli, ii.79: In the riwaya of Yunus I.I recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu’l-Fadl) when she was baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. Abdu’l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubaba….(ref.10, p. 311)

The Victory
[48.13] And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.

The Victory
[48.28] He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness.

The Immunity
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Quran 47:
SHAKIR: So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

TEXT FROM THE QURAN, 4:34
RODWELL [1]: "Men are superior to women on account of the qualities with which God has gifted the one above the other, and on account of the outlay they make from their substance for them. Virtuous women are obedient, careful, during the husband's absence, because God has of them been careful. But chide those for whose refractoriness you have cause to fear; remove them into beds apart, and scourge them: but if they are obedient to you, then seek not occasion against them: verily, God is High, Great!"
['Refractoriness' means hard or impossible to manage, stubbornly disobedient'].
DAWOOD [2]: "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme."

PICKTHALL [3]: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah has guarded. As for those from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great."

ARBERRY [4]: "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All high, All great."
SHAKIR [5]: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in their sleeping places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

ALI [6]: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whom part you fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance) for Allah is Most High, Great (above you all).

Muhammad's advice to kill former Muslims:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet [Muhammad] said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Bukhari recounts Muhammad's genocidal dreams about Jews:
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

The Koran invites Muslims to "wage war'' against Christians and Jews and to pray that Allah will fight against them (9:30), Christians and Jews are labelled "infidels'' and "hypocrites'' who live in Hell (66:9), those who claim Jesus is the Son of God are called "liars'' (4:171, 10:66-69), and will have "boiling water poured over the heads, melting whatever is in their bellies and skins'' (22:20).

Those who disbelieve are "surely the vilest of animals in the sight of Allah'' (8:55), and polytheists are "the worst of creatures" (98:6).

Posted by: Johnathan at July 16, 2008 10:27 AM

It looks as if the humanists/atheists are right.
The Christian leadership can't be trusted to campaign against islam.

When push comes to shove, the bishops fall back on the 'we all worship the same God' principle, so we must have 'dialogue'.

Nowadays, the Richard Dawkins forum discusses whether isalm is very dangerous or very very dangerous. There are even quotes and links to Jihadwatch.

This is a complete turnaround from the 'plague on both their houses' attitude once prevalent there.
They are way ahead of the UK Christian intellectuals in their awareness of jihad.

Christians need to avoid debating the Trinity and heresies and concentrate on the totalitarian philosophy, dhimmitude, taqqiya kitman, dawa and the real mohammed.
These are what westerners find most shocking.

If Christians don't lead the campaign, the BNP will.

Posted by: zoltix at July 16, 2008 10:50 AM

This dope is indeed a sheep in sheep's clothing. Nitwits like Williams are the chief reason I've abandoned the Episcopal Church.

Posted by: MP at July 16, 2008 12:38 PM

The only two real Christian leaders who have shown any leadership so far have been Pope Benedict XVI and Catholic Cardinal of Sydney AU George Pell. The latter presided yesterday over the opening mass of the WYD 2008 gathering in that city this week. Otherwise it has been very quiet so much so that the crickets have been chirping bigtime other then for those leaders such as the CE Archbishop who blow opportunities to teach the truth about Islam.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 16, 2008 12:41 PM

MP,

Your comments are not suprising, I have been reading online that a LOT of the more conservitve Anglicans are leaving the CE in droves, with some coming home to Rome.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 16, 2008 12:44 PM

Sencit wrote:

The fact that Rowan Williams is a Druid should have disqualified him from being Archbishop in the first place. He believes that the two are not incompatible!
.....................

What the he--? I had to look this up--yes, it's true.

Here's a link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2172918.stm

So, what was the reaction of the faithful to the Archbishop of Canterbury becoming a pagan?

"Before the ceremony, some Church of England conservative evangelicals expressed concern about whether Dr Williams was doing the right thing."

Stirring words, indeed!

Posted by: gravenimage at July 16, 2008 12:48 PM

Hopefully the Archbishop's coninually baffling remarks will either lead to a great "reformation" within the Church of England (that is, a going back to their roots as a once great Christian Church) or else a mass exodus of good and faithful Anglican Christians into more Traditional communions (RCC or Orthodox).

Posted by: Fat Byzantine at July 16, 2008 1:05 PM

Heck I never got the idea of the Trinitarian idea of 3 Gods that are separate but are one thing.

Personally I think it was a graft from pagan intellectuals who were steeped in the old Egyptian religion and decided to make what was a easily understood religion into something that only a elect few(priests) could understand and thus set themselves up in cushy lifetime positions.

And I can easily see how outsiders looking at Triune God aspect could see Christianity as a polytheistic faith.

Posted by: waltc at July 16, 2008 1:50 PM

"He also said the Christian belief in the Trinity - that God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost at the same time - 'is difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims'"

Indeed and in quite the same way that Satan would be "offended" at the reality of a sovereign, all powerful, and loving God of the universe who also just happens to manifest himself in the Trinity. This is pure rubbish and deeply saddening that certain 'leaders' of the Christian church, such as the Archbishop, have simply sold themselves out to the dark side.

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at July 16, 2008 1:55 PM

Bigcatgirl - Ms. MP and the little MP's are Catholic. I rather doubt that I convert, but when I do infrequently darken a church door, it is a Catholic Church. I've got friends who are Orthodox, and I've attended their services occasionally as well.

Posted by: MP at July 16, 2008 2:34 PM

As a Christian, I would be offended if the Moslems were not offended by the teachings of my religion. They seem to be offended by everything good and beautiful, so we Christians are in good company.

The theology about the nature of Christ has been pretty well covered in the comments above; so let me comment on its influence on Mohammed in his composition of the Koran. As a Meccan, he was acquainted to at least some degree with Jewish thinking, there being Jewish tribes in Mecca. As a caravan trader, in his travels he came into contact with other religions such as Zoroastrianism, and the varieties of Christianity (both orthodox and not). From these, and traditional pagan Arab sources, he compounded Islam. But his knowledge of these other doctrines was confused and incomplete; according to one scholar, he believed the Trinity was composed of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary the Mother!
Thus orthodox Christians in the Eastern Empire might see in the Islamic rejection of the divinity of Christ just another version of a long-established heresy. And heretical Christians, of whom there were many in the East, might see Islam as not that different from their own beliefs.
Unfortunately for the Eastern Empire, many Christians in the Levant and North Africa held views considered heretical by Constantinople, and they resented the efforts by the emperor to impose conformity to the doctrine of the capital. Their resentment resulted in massive riots, virtually to the point of civil war. So angry were they with Constantinople that many preferred rule by heretical Moslems to the tyrannical rule of the capital. The Byzantine armies had little support from the local populace, and these areas fell to Islam rather easily. The Christians dug their own graves, rather as the West is doing now.

One more comment. It's interesting to compare Mohammed's poorly-informed version of the Trinity with that of another prophet and founder of a religion; the Tai-Ping, leader of a quasi-Christian movement in 19th-c. China. He had read the few parts of the Bible that had been translated into Chinese; and came to believe that the Trinity was God the Father, Jesus the Older Brother, and himself the Younger Brother. His movement conquered much of China, but his rule was even more tyrannical than that of the Empire so he gained little support from the masses, and the movement was crushed with tremendous loss of life.

Posted by: ebonystone at July 16, 2008 3:38 PM

One could argue that the entire point of the Holy Trinity, besides being true [how things are], is that it is hard to understand. What's so scandalous about God being hard to understand? Isn't that the point? The incarnation, which explains God's pathway to save humanity, is among this difficulty, yet it is the basis of the religion.

If you look at it from the Orthodox Christian point of view, that of emphasis on the persons of God and their mutual love and relationship towards one another (being out of time), it isn't as difficult to understand. When you look even more into the Old Testament, the three men visiting Abraham (calling him Lord and later addressing all three), and then to Genesis where it says, "and let us make man in our image and likeness" it's really quite silly that others don't believe or have the capacity to believe just what the Christians are saying.

The Jews are insistent on one god (the shema') yet Gene 1:25 says "let us" and "our". The Christians are insistent they believe in One God --- and they always have.

It seems quite absurd/silly/laughable to call them polytheists. Nothing has changed or ever changed. Seemingly, only a slanderer arrived and carried out what he willed.

Palamas

Posted by: Palamas at July 16, 2008 5:44 PM

"The Jews are insistent on one god (the shema') yet Gene 1:25 says "let us" and "our". The Christians are insistent they believe in One God --- and they always have."

Posted by Palamas above.
-------------------------------------

Well said.

In fact the Hebrew term for God used here is Elohim: a word which is both singular and plural at the same time. Jews interpret this uniplural noun as being a simple term of respect, like the royal "we" but the early Christian Fathers always saw in it a revelation of the absolute unity of God within the persons of the Trinity.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 16, 2008 6:31 PM

Everything about Williams is offensive to me and so are the Brits that allow him his speel. Just when are the Anglicans going to get a backbone and kick him the hell off his imperial throne? He is a disgrace to Christianity and obviously does not even believe in the word of God as put down in the Bible.

Off with his head!

Posted by: CLL1709 at July 16, 2008 6:55 PM

Anglicans, it is time to return to Rome. How much of this folly will you put up with until you realize that the Anglican leadership (with the exception of the Southern Cone) has all but given in to liberalism and inclusive theology.

Read more about inclusive theology.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=206

As we increasingly enter a dark age for the Church, we need to re-unite with Rome in order to provide a more solid Christian community and voice. The disunity in the Church is a sorry luxury given the twin dangers of radical secularism and Islamism.

As a convert to RC, I am happy to report that the current top clergyman is confident that Christianity is the way, the truth and the life; and of course, that Islam is not.

Thanks Robert for correcting the theological error. Many Anglican clergy have very weak theological training. I went to seminary with some and you'd shake your head at some of the wonky stuff that passes for the truth these days.

Posted by: James Martel at July 16, 2008 8:35 PM

It's time someone told that ArchIdiot to stop drinking the bongwater.

Posted by: PorkFatRules at July 16, 2008 9:53 PM

One of the things that fascinates me about this comments floor is the way in which we love to sharpen our wits on each other ...and the way in which we are all only too happy to seize the excuse to discuss things that are more interesting to us than Islam, Islam, Islam, even when we know we are in the middle of the great undeclared War of Self-Defence Against the Jihad.

It reminds me of Ion L Idriess', "The Desert Column' - in the middle of keeping notes on battles and marches, from Gallipoli to Egypt to Jaffa, he will wander off into a reverie, or devote a whole page to a glowing description of a lovely Byzantine mosaic church floor that the Aussies stumbled across, not far from Gaza, while preparing a military position.

As for the doctrine of the Trinity: for anyone who is interested, i cannot resist mentioning three books that I, as a lay person, have found useful, and that I enjoy re-reading:

Dorothy L Sayers' "The Mind of the Maker";

Gerald Bray, "Creeds, Councils, and Christ" (which busts a lot of the usual modern myths that are often peddled, concerning the Council of Nicaea, Constantine, church councils, the canon, Chrisand so on, and provides a good clear account of classic, traditional Christian doctrine concerning Christ [fully God, fully human], and concerning God-as-Trinity).

and a wonderful book by David Bentley Hart, "The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth". I recommend Hart's book to any Christian reading here, wearied by the spectacle of the endless insanities and violence of the Islamosphere, who wants to find relief and encouragement. (just read the pages on Bach - under the heading 'divine counterpoint' - pp. 282-285).

Hart discusses the Trinity in the first part of the second half of his book, under the following chapter and section headings: 'Divine a-patheia, divine fellowship, divine joy; divine difference, divine perfection; desire's flight, changeless beauty, the mirror of the infinite, infinite peace; God and being, God beyond Being, Analogia Entis.

Even non-Christians might find the first part of Hart's book , titled 'Dionysus Against the Crucified: The Violence of Metaphysics and the Metaphysics of Violence', of interest - it involves a thoroughgoing examination and demolition of various modern fashionable 'thinkers', Deleuze and Levinas and Foucault and others - besides the much more formidable figures, such as Heidegger and Nietzsche.

Incidentally, to anyone who has learned anything about Islam, this first section goes a long way toward explaining why quite a few French intellectuals either converted to Islam, in the later half of the 20th century, or became, at the least, zealous Islamophiles; the philosophic environment was priming them to do so.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 17, 2008 4:29 AM

The Jews are insistent on one god (the shema') yet Gene 1:25 says "let us" and "our". The Christians are insistent they believe in One God --- and they always have.

It seems quite absurd/silly/laughable to call them polytheists. Nothing has changed or ever changed. Seemingly, only a slanderer arrived and carried out what he willed.

Posted by: Palamas at July 16, 2008 5:44 PM

If Jesus was god in the flesh, then does that mean that god was nowhere else in the universe for 30 odd years? You have created a god of multiple parts - physical and non-physical.

The term polytheism extends to cover such deities but if you want to cry semantics, we can drop the word and simply call the trinity for what it is: a violation of the 10 Commandment's prohibition of idol worship.

"God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19)

“Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other!” (Deuteronomy 4:39)

"And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire.
Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female,
the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the heaven,
the likeness of anything that crawls on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters, beneath the earth.
And lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, which the Lord your God assigned to all peoples under the entire heaven, and be drawn away to prostrate yourselves before them and worship them." (Deuteronomy 4:15-19)

“See now, that I, I am He, and no god is with Me.” (Deuteronomy 32:39)

"And also, the Strength of Israel will neither lie nor repent, for He is not a man to repent." (1 Samuel 15:29)

“So that all kingdoms on earth may know that You alone, O’ Lord, are God.” (2 Kings 19:19)

“I am the first and I am the last, apart from Me there is no god.” (Isaiah 44:6)

“I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides Me there is no god.” (Isaiah 45:5,6)

"I will not execute the kindling of My anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not a man. In your midst is the Holy One, and I will not enter a city." (Hosea 11:9)

“O Lord, there is none like you, neither is there any god beside You.” (1 Chronicles 17:20)

In fact the Hebrew term for God used here is Elohim: a word which is both singular and plural at the same time. Jews interpret this uniplural noun as being a simple term of respect, like the royal "we"

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 16, 2008 6:31 PM

You don't know your biblical Hebrew very well, do you?

In biblical Hebrew, many singular abstractions are expressed in the plural form, for example, rachamim, "compassion" (Genesis 43:14, Deuteronomy 13:18); zequnim, "old age" (Genesis 21:2; 37:3, 44:20); n'urim, "youth" (Isaiah 54:6, Psalms 127:4).

Posted by: Shy Guy at July 17, 2008 6:44 AM

Shy Guy,

your quotation of Numbers 23:19 has a major typo:

"God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19)

it should be:

"God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should REPENT. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19)

The first sentence doesn't necessarily mean what you think it has to mean, that "God is not a man" and "nor is He a mortal". To me it's saying God is not a man insofar as He would lie, or have to repent. This is compatible with Hebrews 4:15 which describes Jesus as "suffering with us our weakness" and "tempted in every way [as we are]" -- but did not sin. Sin is the precondition for needing to repent.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 17, 2008 12:18 PM

Shyguy,

To clarify, the Christian claim is that Jesus is a divine person who takes to himself human nature. The incarnation is not a transmutation of his divine nature and divine person into a human one, but a joining of them in his divine person. The divine person is eternal, whereas his humanity is contingent and created. Jesus as a divine person is then both locally present via his union with his humanity and also omnipresent via his divine nature. This is historically the doctrine of the hypostatic union or the union of the two natures in the one divine person defined at the council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.

Granted that Numbers says that God is not a man that he should lie, but it doesn’t say that God could not become human. The point of the passage is that God is unlike deceptive humans, and not that he can’t become human.

Trinitarians agree with Deut 4-the Trinity is one deity that is three persons. Person does not amount to being or nature. If it did, then either different human persons would have different natures or we’d all be the same person since we all have the same nature. Both are absurd, so since not the latter, then not the former. If P, then Q. Not Q, therefore Not P. QED.

As for images and Deut 4, Trinitarians generally do not claim to make images of the divine essence in images of Christ. They only make images of the person as united to his humanity since that is visible. As an Orthodox Christian, this is the defined position of Christianity since the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787 AD. This is why Eastern Orthodox Churches do not have images of God the Father for example.

Deut 4 likewise with Deut 32, Trinitarians believe there is no God other than God. The Father, the Son and the Spirit do not constitute three separate beings-neither do they compose one God as many parts make up physical objects.
Much the same could be said concerning the other passages you listed. It is important when representing the positions of others to represent them in a way that they themselves would find the presentation accurate and as if they wrote it themselves. That way your criticisms will hit the mark. As your comments stand, you portray Trinitarianism as a belief in multiple deities, which is not the way that Trinitarians have historically represented their idea of the Trinity.

Posted by: American_Palamite at July 17, 2008 12:19 PM

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 17, 2008 12:18 PM
Your quotation of Numbers 23:19 has a major typo:
"God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19)
it should be:
"God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should REPENT. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?" (Numbers 23:19)

Too bad your Hebrew is a bit rusty. The Hebrew word in the verse is "Veyitnecham", which in modern English simply means to regret. You will find the same use of the word in Genesis 6:6.

In that verse of Genesis, looking at the KJV text, I can definitely see how you are confused. Witness:

"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

Did G-d sin in making man that he needed repentence? Can G-d sin? Of course not. What you're reading and misunderstanding is an old use of the word "repent". Have a look at the 4th dictionary definition. As you see, regret and repent can be synonymous.

The first sentence doesn't necessarily mean what you think it has to mean, that "God is not a man" and "nor is He a mortal". To me it's saying God is not a man insofar as He would lie, or have to repent. This is compatible with Hebrews 4:15 which describes Jesus as "suffering with us our weakness" and "tempted in every way [as we are]" -- but did not sin. Sin is the precondition for needing to repent.

You can imagine the verse is not to be literally taken but then you'll still have to deal with:

1. every other verse I have quoted (this holds true for Palamite above, who also hinges his claim on not interpreting Numbers 23:19 as it reads), included the explicite verse in Samuel,

and:

2. the simple historical fact that the people of Israel from the time of receiving the Torah at the Revelation at Sinai from G-d to Moses, which the entire nation had witnessed, and the teachings of Moses to Israel to be conveyed through a most thorough education system, continuing non-stop through present times, there was no Jesus, no cross, no virgin, no trinity - not one single mythological concept which Christianity hinges upon.

Sorry.

Posted by: American_Palamite at July 17, 2008 12:19 PM


To clarify, the Christian claim is that Jesus is a divine person who takes to himself human nature.

Which blatantly contradicts the elementary claims in the verses quoted.

"You saw no image"

"Oh, wait! Scratch that. This image just in..."

As your comments stand, you portray Trinitarianism as a belief in multiple deities, which is not the way that Trinitarians have historically represented their idea of the Trinity.

The bottom line is that nowhere in Torah, Prophets and Scriptures and nowhere in the history and teaching and in the Divine Sinaitic Revelation was there any notice by G-d that He's having a 3-for-1 sale. Makes no difference if it's one deity divided by 3, there is zero historical recognition of this as a defintion of G-d until a group of non-Jews, who were tremendously ignorant of unchanged Torah history and law, got together some 1700 years ago and decided it was so. Because there was no other way to squeeze a human deity into the G-d of creation, who explictly said He was one and alone, with no concept of division whatsoever.

Posted by: Shy Guy at July 17, 2008 1:29 PM

" Makes no difference if it's one deity divided by 3, there is zero historical recognition of this as a defintion of G-d until a group of non-Jews, who were tremendously ignorant of unchanged Torah history and law, got together some 1700 years ago and decided it was so"

Posted by Shy Guy above.
------------------------------------------

Sorry, but the doctrine of the Trinity has been part of its beliefs since its founding almost 2000 years ago.

In the New Testament Jesus and his apostles (all Jews) prayed and baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Even the earliest Christian apologist (far earlier than 1700 years ago) uniformly defended the Doctrine of One God in Trinity. For example:

74 AD/CE Epistle of Barnabas: "For the Scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, "Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness" (Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter VI.—The Sufferings of Christ, and the New Covenant, Were Announced by the Prophets.)

150 AD/CE Justin Martyr: Speaking of Jewish theologians Justin calls the Jewish teaching that God spoke to angels a hersey: "In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us, ’[Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two. For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which is said to be among you is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures." (Dialogue of Justin Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew: Chapter LXII.—The Words "Let Us Make Man")

180 AD/CE Irenaeus "It was not angels, therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, "Let Us make man after Our image and likeness; " [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1).

200 AD/CE Tertullian: "If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; " whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us," He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make; "and, "in our image; "and, "become as one of us." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XII. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.)

1700 years ago it was the Arian Heresy rejecting the Divinity of Jesus that was an innovation. The Trinity was part of Christianity from it Jewish beginnings.

Incidentally, in the Kabbalah of Haredim Judaism there is more than a hint of, not a Trinity, but a multiplicity of persons, natures, or manifestations within the Godhead with the Ain Sof being its unity.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 17, 2008 5:44 PM

I think I already explained this to you last year.

At the Council of Nicea in 325 CE, the doctrine of the Bianity became canonized, equating Jesus to the substance of god in Christian theology.

The Council of Constantinople in 381 CE added the Holy Spirit to the Bianity and the Trinity was canonized.

These councils contradicted the Torah. See Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 (13:1) for instructions regarding changes to the Torah. Who are we to believe? Moses who received the Torah from G-d at Sinai, or these councils?

200 AD/CE Tertullian: "If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness; " whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us," He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make; "and, "in our image; "and, "become as one of us." (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter XII. Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.)

First of all, it is clear from Tertullian that the trinity is a multi-part deity and truly polytheistic.

But even if you insist on wiggling your way out of that, the fact is that no such definitions were ever handed down throughout the generations of the Jewish nation from Abraham to Moses to the judges, kings and prophets.

As for Tertullian's blatant ignorance to the understanding of Genesis 1:26, it was indeed the angels, G-d's messengers in this universe, with which he consulted. And that is just what Moses would have told you. So to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Kings David and Solomon or anyone else versed in the most elementary understandings of the Torah.

"And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even My servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and My servant David prince among them; I the Lord have spoken." (Ezekiel 34:23-24)

The Lord alone will be worshipped as God, while the Messiah, as the servant of God, lives with the people. God and the Messiah are not and cannot be equals, for it is God alone who gives the Messiah power to rule in the capacity of His appointed servant.

Hodgepodging messiah and god together is one of Christianity's biggest goofs at its inception.

1700 years ago it was the Arian Heresy rejecting the Divinity of Jesus that was an innovation. The Trinity was part of Christianity from it Jewish beginnings.

The original worshippers may have been born Jewish but what they practiced wasn't Judaism, any more that any of the other cults and sects of Jews were at the time.

Incidentally, in the Kabbalah of Haredim Judaism

Kabalah of Hareidim? Really? Are you sure you know what you're talking about? Is there a Talmud of Hareidim?

there is more than a hint of, not a Trinity, but a multiplicity of persons, natures, or manifestations within the Godhead with the Ain Sof being its unity.

Please quote in full from what you're claiming exists.

Posted by: Shy Guy at July 17, 2008 6:23 PM

Steven Runciman explained that 'person' was a mistranslation of the Latin 'personae' meaning the mask worn by an actor to give an outward identity in classical theatre with which first century Christians would have been familiar.

The dramatic conventions of the time meant that drama was highly schematic; only one or two actors could ever be on stage at one time so sometimes the same actor had to play several roles. To do this they would simply hold up a different mask.

What I grasped about what Runciman was explaining was that it was the single actor (not the masks) which was the real focus of this metaphor. I hold up this mask; then this mask; then this mask; I am the same substance, the same ACTOR, you just see me differently because I assume different masks.

Posted by: devorgilla at July 17, 2008 7:48 PM

Shy Guy,

By specifying the Kabbalah of the Hereidim, I was specifying the traditional mysticism of Judaism (which I deeply respect) from the new age crap masquerading as Kabbalah by people like Madonna.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 17, 2008 10:35 PM

By specifying the Kabbalah of the Hereidim, I was specifying the traditional mysticism of Judaism (which I deeply respect) from the new age crap masquerading as Kabbalah by people like Madonna.

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 17, 2008 10:35 PM

Understood. Then simply state "Jewish Kabbalah". No different than "Jewish Torah", "Jewish Talmud", "Jewish law" or "Jewish community." Kabbalh is not the reserved propery of "hareidim", itself a vague term.

In any case, now go ahead and quote those valid kabalistic sources you made claims about. Please make sure you copy and paste from a reputable origin based on accurate translations.

Posted by: Shy Guy at July 17, 2008 11:57 PM

Shy Guy:

Too bad your Hebrew is a bit rusty. The Hebrew word in the verse is "Veyitnecham", which in modern English simply means to regret. You will find the same use of the word in Genesis 6:6.

Too bad your English is rusty. The verb "to regret" is an approximate synonym for "to repent"!

To repent of one's thoughts or deeds is simply stronger than "to regret": the dictionary defines "repent" as --

to feel such regret for one's past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 18, 2008 2:11 AM

Too bad your English is rusty. The verb "to regret" is an approximate synonym for "to repent"!

To repent of one's thoughts or deeds is simply stronger than "to regret": the dictionary defines "repent" as --

to feel such regret for one's past conduct as to change one's mind regarding it.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 18, 2008 2:11 AM

My English is (still) fine, thank you.

I just noticed that my prior HTML link to dictionary.com didn't pan out. Let's look at the first definition for both words under discussion:

regret::

to feel sorrow or remorse for (an act, fault, disappointment, etc.): He no sooner spoke than he regretted it.

And:

repent:

to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often fol. by of): He repented after his thoughtless act.

The Hebrew base "Nicham" here is indeed the equivalent of the English dictionary's primary defintion for "regret". G-d isn't "conscience-stricken" by His "thoughtless acts", as the dictionary gives as an example.

But if you insist anyway that, and I quote you, "the verb "to regret" is an approximate synonym for "to repent", then what are you arguing about? In fact, I myself specifically stated beforehand: "As you see, regret and repent can be synonymous."

And before you do respond, be aware that in Hebrew, the "stronger" verb you are looking for is "Le'Hitcharet". Of course you knew that, right?

And after all is said and done, deal with the crux of the matter, which includes this verse and all the other sources I brought down. Splitting hairs is not a strategy.

Posted by: Shy Guy at July 18, 2008 3:21 AM

Shyguy,

I took Numbers as it reads, which is concerning deception. The same could be said for the passage in Samuel.

2nd, even if it were true that there was no explicit revelation of the Trinity prior to the advent of Jesus, this wouldn’t imply that the idea was false. Circumcision wasn’t introduced till Abraham for example and the Law, not till Moses. By the same reasoning Hebrews would be justified in rejecting their teaching since it wasn’t present in previous accounts.
Furthermore, prior to the first century some Jewish commentators saw a plurality in deity in many OT texts and in the Apocrypha, which some Jews accepted for a significant period of time, as there was no fixed canon among the Jewish sects. First century Jewish believers in Jesus followed the que in the LXX and other Jewish sources.

Certainly in the OT people both see and do not see God. Take the case of Moses in Ex 33 where God indicates that no one can see him, but only his glory. Or Jacob in Gen 32:30 saying that he has seen God face to face. Or in Daniel 3 where three men are cast into the fire but a fourth, a divine figure is present with them. To see Messiah in these texts is hardly the invention of Christians as plenty of Jews thought the same prior to the advent of Jesus.

Even if your claims regarding the absence of Christian distinctives in the OT were true, it still would not follow that you have accurately represented Trinitarianism. Secondly, not all of the Christians in the fourth century were non-Jews. Plenty of them were as you must remember that Christianity as a Jewish sect was persecuted for the previous 260 years by the Romans. Further, the church Fathers were quite familiar with the OT and they didn’t decide that Jesus was deity. What they decided at Nicea was what it meant for Jesus to be deity, as there is ample evidence from the first and second centuries that Jewish Christians thought of Jesus as deity from the get-go. See the work of Richard Bauckman or Larry Hurtado.

Your reading of Nicea is also inaccurate since Nicea was adjudicating the question of the Arian teaching. Arius due to an attempt to explain Christian theology in terms of Platonism, posited Jesus as a lesser and separate deity. This was became Platonism does not make a distinction between person and nature so that a plurality of persons would imply a plurality of beings or a single person would imply a single being. The previous generation was characterized by Sabellianism, which took the latter. Because of the Platonic confusion, Arius inherited a problem from Origen. How could God be Lord if he was not Lord over something? Origen consequently posited not only an eternal Son over which the Father was positioned, but an eternal world. Arius took the opposite where the world was contingent but so was the Son. Consequently what was at issue at Nicea was not whether Jesus was deity, but formulating an adequate technical vocabulary since the reigning philosophical terminology was inadequate to express Christian concepts. So the idea of a progression of a Binity to a Trinity at Constantinople 1 is not only false, but a century long refuted hypothesis from 19th century German scholarship, specifically Adolf von Harnack.
The deity and personhood of the Spirit wasn’t addressed at Nicea since it wasn’t challeneged by the Arians at that time. It was only challenged directly when Arianism morphed sometime around 362-364 A.D.

Tertullian isn’t a church Father since he fell into Montanism and due to his attempt to wed Soticism to Christianity. Consequently his expression of Christian doctrine at times is inadequate. But that does not negate the fact that he expressed what was already long since present and expressed just as clearly in Ireneaus (180 A.D.) or Ignatius of Antioch (107 A.D.)

As for an appeal to the OT, the Jews simply had no consensus on what works were inspired between the Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots or Essenes. Even between members of those groups there was disagreement. It was not till after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. did the Jews in creating rabbinic Judaism solidify a canon.

The argument that Messiah cannot be equally deity with God depends on a philosophical premise borrowed from Platonism that difference and derivation implies inequality, but this principle is not biblical, since it would imply that since woman was derived from man via Genesis 1-2, women would therefore be inferior to men, which is false.

Dismissing the Jewish founders of Christianity as a sect or a “cult” is simply rhetoric and does no argumentative work for you. In fact it only weakens your position since Judaism at the time was split between a whole variety of “sects.” Further given that the only Jews to survive the Roman siege were the Jewish followers of Jesus and one rabbi who reformulated Judaism after he was smuggled out of Jerusalem before its destruction. You have to ask yourself, if God exiled the Jews for 70years and destroyed the temple, what did they do for God to bring the Romans in and banish the Jewish for 2,000 years. Could it be national apostasy for proclaiming “We have no king but Caesar?”

Posted by: American_Palamite at July 18, 2008 3:17 PM