Jamal Badawi – Jesus 34 – Trinity Atonement Blood Sacrifice 01 The Question Of The Trinity 1

			Welcome you once again to a stem focus. Today our program will be our 34th series is us us, the
beloved messenger of Allah. And today we are starting a new segment that will be in trente a
tournament on blood sacrifice. I'm your hostess admission here once again, from St. Mary's
University is Dr. de la vida.
		

			Jamal, maybe you can give us
		

			an introduction to the topic and maybe I'll actually explain how this new segment relates to our
series as a whole. Okay, one important parts of the series that has taken quite a bit of time to
explore was the discussion of the deity of Jesus peace be upon him, which is the main reason really
of difference between Muslims and their Christian brethren. After we have already discussed Jesus in
the Quran purely. And we mentioned that there are five foundations that at least I could discern
from literature. One is to claim that Jesus was divine because of what has been said about him, or
what he claimed about himself, or because of his miracles. All of these three issues we have
		

			discussed in some detail in previous programs. The fourth Foundation was the Miss admission or
		

			office of salvation and atonement and expression of the love of God. Now, in the last 15, programs
from problem 19, to 33, our discussion focused on two basic issues early. One is to explore the
early development of this idea of deification of Judas and Trinity by reviewing the various church
councils and how the idea actually grew over time, and how also there was another Unitarian and
purely monotheistic stream. And that actually, the, the predominance of the Trinitarian view was not
necessarily because this was the something that was freely accepted, but because of the enforcement
by Constantine, after the Council of nicaea, in particular, when Trinity became the official
		

			religion of the Empire of the Roman Empire.
		

			And the other aspect that we touched upon, especially from programs 27 to 33, was to discuss even
later Unitarians, that despite of this enforcement of the Trinity, by the force of the emperors and,
you know, other people who aligned themselves with them, said, we find throughout history, many
Christians who believed in the absolute oneness and unity of God knew persons in that group. And we
discussed the reasons why they believed so and the biblical basis. And in essence, we can say that
if we were to conclude it in a very, very brief way that whatever contribution we discussed of the
various Unitarians, they essentially shares a great deal with Muslim in that sense, because they
		

			believed in Jesus as a human being. They believed in the absolute oneness of God, that there is no
persons in godhood, they did not accept serenity, which is connected very much with the Deity, or
deification of Jesus. And secondly, they did not accept the notion of atonement through blood
sacrifice, as presented, of course, by theologians or trinitarians. And in both cases, they showed
that all of these documents are not only contrary to the Bible, but also contrary to reason. both
camps
		

			now may be useful at this point to maybe summarize humanitarian beings on both issues, and possibly
deal with other questions as well. Maybe we can begin with Trinity itself, and why it was viewed as
being on duplicate, okay to be very brief, since you know, that was touched upon, of course, but in
a rather different way, because we're dealing with each Unitarian and talking about him and his
history and so on. So maybe, maybe a good idea perhaps to come together, the essence of what they
said, when the first point is that these said that there is nothing in the Bible, no text whatsoever
in the Bible in which Jesus
		

			plainly says, I am God, or word the Trinity has ever been used.
		

			Secondly, they say all the evidences that some people would present it to support either
verification of Jesus or the concept of Trinity, are very inconclusive and very weak. And if
interpreted within the framework, or context of the Bible itself, we will find that these things are
rather allegorical, and we'll discuss some of these issues in previous programs. Three, but even
those evidences presented far from conclusive as the maybe some of them even has undergone changes
in history, such as the dropping of the challenge begun in the famous john 316, such as the dropping
of the whole verse about the three that bear witness in heaven, which was the foundation of Trinity
		

			that appears in the first epistle of john chapter five, verse seven, and many others. And he says,
this modification or changes, as well as dropping even shows that even that inconclusive evidence
itself has been subjected to historical scrutiny, and some of which seems to have been probably a
major insertion rather than what the original revelation was.
		

			The first point is that all of them seem to agree that not only is there no conclusive claim of
Jesus being divine, but on the contrary, we find that there are evidence to the contrary, there are
clear and conclusive statement that Jesus is not divine and is less than the father, like john 1428,
the father is greater than I. And also the same thing about Trinity the entire tradition in the
Bible itself seem to speak about absolute oneness of God, there is no support whatsoever of the
notion of the Trinity. So neither Trinity or deity,
		

			are proven actually, they are disproven from the text of the Bible. And they say, finally, that this
is what is consistent with the tradition that has always existed in the among this
		

			province.
		

			from previous programs, it's quite clear that the Unitarians viewed Trinity as being contrary to
reason, what, in essence, is the problem? Why? Well, in order to hopefully try to be fair and
impartial, which is very difficult, of course, when we speak about something that we don't believe,
but I think, honestly requires that one should first find what they say and then evaluate that. So I
think the logical point to start with is the most important documents, the athanasian Creed, which
was passed and approved in the Council of Nicea at 25. And of course, were subjected to some
modification, and polishing and later councils. But basically, the *, * and clean really
		

			reflect the definition of Trinity's from within those who believe in it. And let me read the portion
of it which is really very essential. It says that the essence of the faith then is that, quote, We
worship, one God, in Trinity, and Trinity in unity,
		

			neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person, the father,
one person of the Father, another, notice you have the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit slippers.
		

			But the guard routes are godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one.
		

			The glory equal, the majesty, co eternal, such as the father is, such is the son. And such is the
Holy Spirit.
		

			The further uncreated, the son, uncreated and the Holy Spirit, uncreated, the father,
incomprehensible, the son, incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit, incomprehensible
		

			with the Father, eternal, the son, determine and the Holy Spirit Hmm. And it precludes that portion,
and yet
		

			they are not three externals,
		

			but one eternal,
		

			as also there are not three uncreated,
		

			nursing incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one in comprehensible.
		

			I find that very incomprehensible, because in one sense, you're saying, God is eternal. The father
is eternal. The son is eternal.
		

			The Holy Spirit is eternal. And these are three different persons. But you said they are not three
eternal that one. You say all three persons in Germany are uncreated, but they are not three
uncreated with one uncreated. See, in other words, the difficulty with this kind of definition
really
		

			is not only from a Muslim standpoint, let me quote you even Encyclopedia Britannica, for example,
which is written, obviously by biblical scholars. And explaining this dilemma of Trinity it says,
there is a very big problem here,
		

			trying to reconcile things which are two essential for the definition, just read about charity. One
element is that definition of Trinity emphasizes that the distinctiveness of the three persons, that
the Father is distinct, the son is distinct, the Holy Spirit is.
		

			On the other hand, it emphasizes their unity, to the point of saying, No, they are not three
attendants, but one eternal, so we emphasize the Unity so that you don't fall into Dr. theism, or,
you know, multiplicity of gods. So they insist on unity, but also insist on distinctness of persons.
In summarizing that, and I give a reference for those who wish to examine it further. For example,
that's Encyclopedia Britannica 73 edition, volume 22, on page 241, and I quote, it says initially,
both requirements of monotheism, inherited from the Old Testament
		

			and implications of the need to interpret biblical teaching to the Greco Roman paganism seem to
demand that the divine in Christ, as the words or logos be seen as subordinate to the Supreme Being.
So that was one solution. Other words, you say, right, yes, there are three united but you cannot
really equate with them, equate them, because after all, the sun came afterwards, you know, killed
from the Father. And as such,
		

			the sun is subordinate to the Father, as has been proven from biblical text. But they say that's one
solution. The other solution attempted to reconcile this dilemma was to explain or interpret the
three persons, that's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as three modes of self disclosure
that he got discloses himself in display modes, but not as distinct within the being of God,
Himself. Either solution is quite problematic.
		

			Now, I'm gonna have to ask you, why is the soul and maybe asked you to the library? Okay. Let's
again refer to Britannica so that nobody would say that it's only Muslims who are not understanding,
okay, let's refer to what the discrepancies in percentage change that if we recognize
		

			that these three persons in Trinity are distinct, all right, that would have to be at the expense of
their equality. And as such unit, if you say that the three are equal, it is not the same, like
saying they are distinct, distinct, they're not exactly equal. What distinguishes one from the
others cannot be equal. And if they're not totally equal, B cannot be said to be all three and one,
or 1123. It can't, it can't be. On the other hand, let me just elaborate on this point a little bit.
You see, when you say that the Father is distinct from the son, distinct from the Holy Spirit, then
what is that thing that distinguishes one of the three person from the other two, we have one of two
		

			alternatives, either, that that thing that distinguishes one person from the other two is a
characteristic of perfection or characteristic of imperfection,
		

			it is a characteristic of, of perfection, that means one of the three persons has more perfection,
that is not in the others, then that contradicts the definition of Trinity, because they can no
longer be equal. And the other two persons who lacked that much perfection that one of them has,
obviously, cannot be gods, because God must be perfect.
		

			If on the other hand, we say that the thing that distinguishes one person from the others is a
characteristic of imperfection, like saying the sun, for example, is characterized by being a human
with the weakness of the human with the limitation of the human.
		

			And then that means then, that if that person characterized by imperfection, cannot be done, because
God must be perfect, and it means that also the other two persons or one of them is more perfect
than he is. And as such, the three persons cannot be equal. In other words, just an impossibility
you know, to talk about distinct persons, negates any notion of equality or for
		

			And then it goes on. Again.
		

			I've got here from even another encyclopedia in addition to becoming fixated, on the other hand, the
second solution to think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of disclosure, it is
useful, at least insofar as it emphasizes the unity of the three. But again, it says this would be
at the expense of their distinctiveness, so you can't have your cake and eat it, you can't talk
about them as distinct and fully equal and fully united in the same time. The other encyclopedia I'd
like to refer to is even a religious encyclopedia, the reference is new Catholic Encyclopedia, the
67th edition, volume 14, page 297. And they quote here it says, the oneness of substance, that is of
		

			the three persons may even be subordination, that is, may indicate that the word and spirit that is
Jesus in the Holy Spirit, the word and spirit, while not strictly creatures, are nonetheless
separated from the Father, by an essential inferiority, for only the father, is God from himself.
Let me explain that a little bit. I mean, what the same basically here in the new Catholic
Encyclopedia, is that the Bible constantly speaks about the sun, being the gutten, of the fathers.
It speaks about the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father. Obviously, to use such a kind of
terminology means that there is a sort of inferiority and superiority. You see, only God did not
		

			proceed from anyone but the Holy Ghost, for example, proceeded from God sent by God, Jesus was sent
by God. And as such, there is a status there, and we cannot talk about godhood in terms of status,
God is absolute, there is no lesser God or higher God, there is just one absolute True, true God.
And let me refer also to one of those solutions to this problem which emphasize unity which was
attempted, in the early days of the Christian, by, you know, debates in various councils. And some
people might still believe in that.
		

			They try to resolve this problem.
		

			And emphasize unity by simply saying that God simply is the same, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, but in different stages.
		

			So before incarnation of God, in the form of the son, he was the father. So he is the same God the
Father, before Jesus came into being. That was one stage, a stage two, was God, entering history as
some theologian use the term, God entering history, in a unique way, in a form of a human being
Jesus Christ. So in that second stage, he is God, the son.
		

			And then after his resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, God took the third manifestation, God, the
Holy Spirit, which has turned since the believers, well, that may solve the problem of unity because
it speaks about one and same Gods going through stages. But it raises tremendous problems. because
it assumes that God is mutable, changeable, that God changes what at one time, his father a time at
one time is physical at one time, he's just spirit. And of course, that's contrary to what the Bible
teaches that God is immutable is unchangeable. The change is a characteristic of the creatures not
of the Creator. Furthermore, if there is a more serious question also, because if we say it is the
		

			one and same God, who at one time was the father, at one time was the Son, then when Jesus died on
the cross, according to the New Testament, not according to Mr. B, when he died on the cross, then
he is the same God who is the Father and the Holy Spirit. So he died. That means that in stage two,
God died. And of course, needless to say that according to the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament,
according to the Quran, definitely, it is a blasphemy to say that God died. In any stages. There's
no such thing as stages of God. But even if we take it for the sake of argument, it means that God
at one point of time, was dead. On the other hand, it raises a third serious question. We know that
		

			Jesus in his lifetime peace be upon him, used to pray to God, to Whom was he praying, if he is the
same one as the Father, but in a different stage, in the form of God incarnate or the son? To whom
was he praying? To whom was he referring to when he says the Father who sent me? To whom was he
referring when he says, I do nothing by myself, but by the power or authority of you who simply if
he himself is God, in flesh. Let me ask you this.
		

			That's a better way. Some argue that Trinity is similar to saying that God is merciful, that God is
just that He is the Creator, but still, that he is one God. How would you? How would you read? I
think the biggest confusion here is, is the confusion between attributes of God and persons and
God's word which the Trinity emphasizes. Actually, that question reminds me with a Muslim Christian
dialogue in which I was a participant in Montreal some years back. And
		

			the, the, the Christian speaker, who was a professor of religious studies, said, Why do Muslims
really object to Trinity? After all, the Quran, it says, scripture of Islam, to speak about the 99,
beautiful names of God is what's the problem 99 divided by 33, you end up with string one.
		

			Similarly, I had people, for example, saying that the very first line in the Quran attest to
Trinity. Because it says this, we now have MANOVA him In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the
Merciful. So what's the problem with this, like I said, again, that's mixing between attributes of
God, and persons in godhood. You see, the attributes of God has nothing to do whatsoever with the
concept of Trinity at all.
		

			Because we're not talking here about Christians who are also perfect gods. You see, when we talk
about the God being just merciful, we're talking about description of the woman seeing God not as
equality, which is separate and can manifest itself in the flesh, for example, we don't say, or the
theme appears, or the merciful appears in flesh within the description of the very same. But when we
speak about treaty, we're talking about three persons, as we have already quoted from their own
definition. So the unity between distinct persons in God's word we have seen already is impossible.
But you don't need unity really, between the attributes that are different attributes from the same
		

			God, we see the biggest problem I see is that if the Trinity was looked at more in allegorical
sense, it does not mean as problematic as insistent that it is really three persons.
		

			That is what caused all that problem. So there's no relevance whatsoever to Christian attributes.
Well, this in a way, maybe would lead into another question. In a similar question that some sort of
God can be a father, it can be a son, and he can also be a husband at the same time in the human
being, I'm sorry, a human being can be all three. Okay, now, how would you respond to this? Well,
first of all, why stop at see what's so magical, actually, because you could also be a cousin, you
could be a grand child, you could be a friend, you could be a professional and every other
description, why stop at three. But that's beside the point. I think the main point is that
		

			when I describe you, as a father, son, and husband, at the same time, we are not talking again,
about three independent persons, as the Trinity says, You're not talking about three persons. Each
one of them is perfect, God says, but we certainly really about description of the same person.
Furthermore, those descriptions are not equal, that you cannot say the sun is equal to the Father
equal to the husband. There are three different attributes. But in Trinity, it says the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit are all equally empowered and co eternal. That's another difference.
Thirdly, my description, as a father, husband and son, cannot be separated at all, I cannot say the
		

			son is separated and become a different flesh, as in the case of Trinity.
		

			Furthermore, if I die as a human being, I cannot say, Alright, I'm going to die only as a father,
but I'm not going to die as a son, or husband. If I'm dead, all three of me are dead, all three
characteristics are gone already. But in the case of Trinity, of course, it says that the son died,
but still God was not dead.
		

			It is clear from that, then that the analogy here again is not is not very productive if husband,
father and son is not really analogous to trade is a big, big difference between the three, it just
like saying, basically, one plus one plus one is equal to one. Again, that's impossible. I have some
people say no, but one times one times one is equal to one. But what does it mean? What does it mean
to say that if you make the analogy that the Father multiplied by the son, multiplied by the Holy
Spirit is one of course it doesn't make any sense. So actually, it's really basically one plus one
plus one is equal to two one. Some people for example, argue, along the same line.
		

			That there is a difference between simple one and complex one. But both are one, how they say the
single cell is one, the human being is one, but it's much more complex than a single cell. But
again, that's not the proper analogy with the Trinity. Because a human being is is composed of many
complex things. But these are parts of the existence of the millions or billions of cells constitute
parts of organs, and so on. Now, none of these parts is perfect in itself, you can I cannot call
that sale or that thing that is me or a human being a complete independent, whereas in the trinity
of the three persons are regarded as eternal gods and created. So again, that doesn't seem to to
		

			give a satisfactory, satisfactory answer. Let me pursue this with maybe another similar type of
question. And some have argued that water
		

			may take the form of liquid, and it may and solid, may also take the form of a gas. But in essence,
it is still the same. Now is that a good and fair analogy of Trinity blue, I don't think so. Even
though you could have them at the same time, in a very cold winter, you have, you know, a lake, for
example, with 3 million gallons gallons of water, you might have 1 million gallon liquids under
certain temperature, and then you have the solid and then you have the gas on top of that. But
usually, we're talking about three separate layers, to have the analogy with 3d is almost like
saying one third of a god, another third and third, third. And of course, that does not apply to
		

			that, because all of them are created equal in power. Also, when you speak about water taking these
forms, why does the water take these forms, it is because of outside influence outside temperature.
And actually, it means also that water can change in forms, even that solid part under proper
temperature is can become liquid, it can come in liquid form. But again, we said that God is eternal
and unchangeable, and is not affected by outside forces.
		

			So also, when you speak about the essence of water as the same h2o, for example, we're really not
making we're not making a fair analogy with the Trinity here. Because the oxygen is different from
hydrogen, they're not equal, as the Trinity says, of the quality of the person's hydrogen is not the
same as oxygen. And you can also separate them chemically, totally separate oxygen from hydrogen.
And water comes into existence, actually, when you put together
		

			oxygen, and hydrogen, and God is not put together, because that means those elements precede the
existence of waters, you know. So in that sense, I don't think it's a proper analogy either. But the
analogy between Trinity and the body, the soul and the spirit, which again, constitutes one person.
Well, again, the analogy here, in my humble understanding is not predicted, aside from the question
of what is mentioned by soul and spirit and how we distinguish between them. But as siana said, In a
previous program, as recorded to him, that the body and soldiers are confined are so confined, or
they are sort of knitted, but neither of them really can be regarded as a person or constitute that
		

			person in himself. But integrity, each of the three persons are equal, or powerful person or equally
divine in the train, who try and get hit. In the case also of body, soul and spirit, we find that
the body is only one aspect that cannot survive and live without the others. And perhaps we can pick
up on that because, you know, this issue that you raised, I think needs some further discussion. But
all I'm saying at the present time that the analogy really is not is not quite correct. Thank you
very much, doctor. Thank you for joining us here in Astana focus. Any questions or any comments
would be mostly appreciated. phone number and our address will be appearing on your screen. From all
		

			of us.