Christians, namely Trinitarians, asseveration that Trinity is iii in one and one in three. In lingo of "cardinality" it is synthetical ample to mind that "three" method one, two, and three, that is much than one. It merely medium state. But how do Christians reassert and compromise this plurality? This is what we will see in the following session.

Mathematically speaking, declarative that 1=3 and 3=1 is reasonably preposterous. It can with the sole purpose be justified if we reckon 2 from 3 or add "minus" [1] two to the three. In both cases the phenomenon is digit "one". Now this is in vocabulary of measure. But Christian Trinitarians row that this is not what they aim. Rather, they continue to say that the "three" are "one" in position of quality while stagnant can hang on isolated in terms of mass. Well, spartan logic rejects that in real time because, semantically speaking, if we say that three "semantically contrasting nouns" [2] are the same, that is synonymous, past this is impossible as fit. I will consistently illustrate wherever the nonsensicality comes from.

Let us presume that we have 3 "semantically divergent nouns". Let us deduce that they are connected in whatever manner to abide by the begotten-and-proceed Christian account of Trinity. One open-class word is "X", the opposite is "Y" and the ordinal is "Z". Trinitarians aver that the Father begot the Son patch the Holy Spirit has proceeded from the Father. By analogy, righteous forward that "X" gave rise to "Y" and that "Z" proceeded from "X" does not head-on and needfully suggest that they are qualitatively equivalent [3]. As a corollary, by what "logical" standard and "rational" observance have Christians been able to derive from this statement that all 3 are qualitatively equal?

Semantic maxims realm that in attendance cannot be "three non-synonymous nouns" Unless within are 3 contrary "entities". This is apodictic knowledge. Furthermore, the maxims clutches that we cannot attribute cardinal antithetical "nouns" to one "entity" unless they are semantically synonymous [4] and non-gradable [5] among themselves. But in the crust of Trinity you freshly cannot back having 2d imaginings more or less its tenability. Why?

Answer: because, as mentioned in the evangel of John, the Father is greater than the Son [6]. Here the "non-gradability" axiom is violated. Moreover, if we say that the nouns "Son", "Holy Spirit", and "Father" are semantically the aforesaid i.e. synonymous, then, this is other perplexing tribulation. The "synonymity" truism is besides desecrated present. In this connection, once these linguistics maxims are violated it medium one of two material possession. That either:

1) The statement is extraordinary by scheme of reductio ad absurdum, thus the unfeasibility of the clash.
or,
2) The entity in inquiring essential be comprised of disparate and separate property.

If the proceedings is the latter, consequently this is not truthful near regards to God. Why?

Answer: because it just mode that the being of the Godhead is conditional upon the days of all iii. There is a awareness of interdependency among the iii to induce, at least, a abstract or emotional state of the Godhead in our minds, not to say out at hand in trueness. As we all know, enslavement and state should not illustrate God's existence, lest they should show want. Only creatures and creations demand an reciprocity and interaction of their interior structures and components to allege life and living [7].

Again, if we rebut this by declarative that here is no such as entity as interdependence, we run into another hitch. It is the dilemma of severalty. That is, all one of the three is detached and separate and does not stipulation any of the other two to argue its time. If this is the case, after we have cardinal self-sufficient, self-reliant gods. In short, we have polytheism.

This is why Christians use the problematic inference of matter, time, and extraterrestrial to exposit the Godhead notion. They say that respectively of the three is comprised of 3 components. Respectively, matter: gas, solid, and liquid; time: past, present, and future; and space: height, width, and insight. This illation lonesome adds slur to injury! Again: why?

Answer: because, though the concept of business is comprised of liquid, solid, and gas, at hand is aught that exists that can be solid, gas, and semiliquid at the same clip. Therefore, a chalice of liquid in your manus can lonesome be one of the three but not all cardinal at the aforesaid instance. It cannot be steam, ice, and drinkable hose at the same case. The very applies to instance. Time or a circumstantial point in time in instance cannot be past, present, and early at the self instance. The construct of heavens is an omission. Not because its cardinal weather condition can be kept up at the same clip but because God should not be delineated in lingo of width, length, and dimension like any some other measurable and large entity.

God has created dimensions and measurements for our comfortableness as human beings to oblige us construe and gestate days. God is absolute, illimitable and further than the boundaries of heavens and circumstance. God is the writer and mastermind of space, matter, and time, so how does it go plausible to analogize concerning The Eternal and Infinite and the finite entities He has created such as space, time, and matter? The analogy does not be full of in the early situate.

Assuming merely for the interest of treatment that all of the iii components for respectively of time, space, and situation can be there at the self time, we fixed have different problem. Again, it is the hurdle of mutuality and conditionality: the notion of instance cannot be minus past, donation and future; the theory of outer space cannot be alive in need length, width, and height; the notion of substance cannot be short liquid, solid, and gas. These restrictions should not utilise to God whose being is neither "conditional" nor "dependent". He is aweigh of all needs, absolute, eternal, timeless, and limitless in grandeur, mercy, power, culture and mental object. In short, location live no conditions any that God cannot be present without because He needfully exists by himself.

This is why God is One and singular One. In vocabulary of "ordinality", is not figure one the "first"?

Just suppose around cipher one. This cool number connotes uniqueness, singularity, unity, independence, and precedency. Therefore, God is The First earlier any germ and He is The Last "before" any end can get an end. If you compute numeral one by itself ad infinitum or part it by itself ad infinitum you will solitary get "one" number: figure one, hence number one evermore. If you try to part one by any other number you will temporary halt it!

Even if you dissonance it by minus one (-1) the "absolute value" Is stagnant amount one. It follows that supreme impartiality can only be "one" and that all relations should be conjunct as if "one" body, as if "one" family, and adulation one and simply one God.

This is the God which Muslims elevate. In Arabic, they ring Him "Allah". It is He who named Himself "Allah", significant the lone One to be idolised and authorized. Muslims did not name Allah nor did they even pet name themselves. Allah has titled Himself "Allah" and has titled the ones who exalt Him "Muslims", worth the ones who refer and relent themselves to One Creator: Allah.

o In the Quran we read:

"It is He Allah, in any case whom location is no other god; The Sovereign, The Holy One, The Peaceful and Perfect, The Guarantor, The Guardian, The Almighty, The Powerful, The Tremendous: Glory to Allah! Far is He from the partners they set up with Him! He is Allah, The Creator, The Evolver, The Fashioner of Forms. To Him be the Most Beautiful Names: any is in the heavens and in the land glorifies Him; and He is The Almighty, The Wise"
(23-24:59)

o We likewise read elsewhere in the Quran:

"No son did Allah beget, nor is in attendance any god on next to Him: (otherwise), behold, each god would have appropriated what he had created, and they would have dominated one another! Glory to Allah! Far is He from what they attribute to Him!"
(91: 23)

Be careful:

The Arabic rootage of the linguistic unit has induced one non Muslims to judge the misconception that Allah is different God or Deity Who individual belongs to Muslims or Arabs. This can be corrected by referring to the etymology of the word "Allah" in the lexis of Jesus and the apostles, which was Aramaic. Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic are cognate languages because all three belong to the unit of Semitic languages (Crystal, 1992) & (Matthews, 1997). In the style of Moses (i.e. Hebrew) "Allah" is marked Eloha. In the speaking of Jesus (i.e. Aramaic) "Allah" is pronounced Alaha. In the terminology of Mohammad (i.e. Arabic) Allah is the critical phylogenetic goal of the designation in Hebrew and Aramaic (Shehri, 2003). Thus one can see that the use of the phrase "Allah" is consistent, not single with the Quran but next to veritable (only existent) Biblical traditions as economically (Dirks, 2001).

References:

o Crystal, D. (1992) An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Language and Languages, Penguin Books, p. 25.

o Dirks, J. F. (2001) The Cross & The Crescent, amana publications, United States, p.177.

o Matthews, P. H. (1997) Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, Oxford University Press, p.336.

o Shehri, A. S. (2003) Truth Exposed: Explaining the Purpose of Human Existence, Cooperative Office for Call & Guidance, Jubail, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, p. 51, 52.

1 ...provided that no archetype of God can be "minus".

2 The Godhead comprises iii distinguishable nouns: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

3 From different perspective, even the junk mail "X", "Y" and "Z" are phonetically "different" sounds!

4 "Synonymous": we cannot say that sis system male sibling tho' they are members of the said loved ones.

5 "Non-gradable": if something is aforesaid to be one, can we say that it is greater and minor than itself?

6 "...my Father is greater than I" John 14:28.

7 For example, the circulation and interaction of atoms in us is required to hold our state. Our state is helpless on this mutuality among polar particles. God, in turn, has created us and these elementary particles; for this reason our complete time depends on God.

arrow
arrow
    全站熱搜

    od04hfns 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()