Anda di halaman 1dari 9

In God’s Holy Name we begin Who’s Mercy over-shadows all forever, Amen!

ANALOGIES FOR TRINITY?


Invent not similitudes for God: for God knoweth, and
ye know not [Al-Qur’an, 16:74]

O Lord!, there is none like You, neither is there any


God beside You, according to all that we have heard
with our ears! [I Chronicles 17:20]

Christian Trinitarians often use analogies to demonstrate


that the Trinity doctrine isn’t after all as en-explainable as
people think. As a matter of fact, these analogies do go
some distance in explaining or at least make easier to
comprehend the concept of Trinity. By far the best of these
analogies is one consisting of ice, water and vapor. But at
best, this along with other sister analogies can do nothing
more than help explain an idea, these by no means provide
sufficient reason to accept the idea as truth. Even if we were
to grant every analogy Trinitarians brought forward as
perfectly applicable in illustrating the Trinity concept, yet all
these analogies would not make the Trinity any more
intelligible, and would only add as much tenability to it as
analogies wrought by Pantheists and Polytheists in self-
fancy. Hereunder, I present a few of those.

A well-known analogy Pantheists utilize is that of a tree. The


example goes that see God is like a seed and the creation a
tree with it’s stem, roots, branches and leaves. Initially, only
the seed was present, and the entire huge tree was hidden
in the small seed. When the plant grew into a massive tree,
the seed disappeared. The seed is now manifest in this huge
tree and does not have an existence outside of it. Another
analogy Pantheists use is that of ice which melts into water,
so also, God it was that formed into the macrocosm.
Similarly, there’s the analogy of a rainbow consisting of
seven colors yet being one rainbow. Though these analogies
might not prove anything, they still are perfectly applicable
similitudes from nature. Polytheists have likewise conjured
multiple analogies in ‘justification’ for their creed. In one of
these they represent God as the King who is in-
approachable except through mediation of ministers and
viziers. The point being that if analogies were of any aid in
vindicating notions like the Trinity: these groups mentioned
would be more entitled to believe what they believe. And I
could come up with analogies of my own to show God isn’t
in fact a Triune God, but rather comprises of a single
person. Consider that man consists of a single mind, I don’t
recall anyone inherited with a dualistic or multiple minds.
And we also know that man reflects the nature of God in
whose image he is made. It follows analogically that God
too must consist of a single mind. Though I would never
use this as an argument for God’s uni-personality, simply
because we as humans have no right to attempt explaining
something which transcends our comprehension: for only if
God Himself choose to Reveal His glory can we know of any
certainty about His nature and will; ...Nor shall they
compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth...
[Al-Qur’an, 2:255].

The concept of Trinity, on the other hand, raises more


questions concerning God than it solves. What analogies fail
to illustrate is the un-solvable contradiction that how could
two opposite natures, nature of God and that of man,
become wholesomely united without one tripping the other
along the line? And if we are so lenient toward hypostatic
marriages then why not also celebrate other triadic unities
like those consisting of Osiris-Isis-Horus of the Egyptians, or
the Hindu Trinity of Brahma-Vishnu-Siva? Wouldn’t the
same analogies be equally applicable to these Trinities as
well? Barring a presupposed reading of the text, God
breathed Scripture does not purport the Trinity concept, on
the contrary, and I say this with utmost caution; Scripture in
fact deems it abhorrible. ‘God is not a man’ it vehemently
cries out at the tongues of prophets, whereas the Trinity
notion represents a deviation from this prophetic tradition,
a tradition Jews and Muslims hold to date and in light of
which we ask: how could Jesus[p]1, being fully man, even
claim Divinity? Especially when in accordance to Jewish
Scriptures, if man were to make such a claim, he’d be prove
an imposter worthy of death [See: John, 10:30:38].
Consider when a Jewish scribe inquired of Jesus[p] the
noblest of all commandments, he repeated the Jewish
Shema: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, the Lord is
one...’ “You are right, Teacher” the scribe conformed: “You
have truly said that ‘He is One, and there is no other
but He...” Jesus[p] acknowledged the Jewish scribe as a
person of wisdom giving him glad-tidings of a heavenly
mansion. I believe the Jewish scribe worshiped a uni-
personal God and could not have had a Triune (three in
one) Godhead in mind, whence I feel entitled to accept the
Trinity doctrine as constituting an un-wise proposition and
profess faith in the same Jewish Shema. The disciples of
Jesus[p] were also seemingly un-conscious of any higher
Christology. Peter denies, Thomas doubts, and Judas
betrays him. If in his three year ministry Jesus[p] had
actually preached the Trinity, as fellow Christian suggest,
then such behavior from immediate disciples of Jesus[p] is
quite un-foreseeable.

Now what I’m concerned about is my salvation, I wanna


know exactly how am I saved? Prophet Moses[p], Jesus[p],
Muhammad[p], in fact all prophets of God came essentially
to answer this very question and they did so in most un-
complicate terms, to quote Christ Jesus[p]; Now this is
eternal life: that they may know you, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” [John, 17:
3]. Here, Jesus[p] links eternal life (Paradise) to two basic
tenets. Knowing implies acknowledging the One God as
uniquely deserving glorification and worship, and knowing
Christ[p] necessitates living by God’s will manifested in His
commandments as propounded by God’s dispatched agents
(Messengers). Now as a believer in Christ[p] reading into
the text without any pre-inclination towards the Trinity
concept, what possible meaning could I deduce from his
saying ‘τν µόνον ληθινν θεν’ or ‘the only true God’
especially in light of what follows ‘κα ν πέστειλας ησον
χριστόν’ ‘and Jesus Christ whom you have sent’? Am I
being directed to believe in a deity made up of three
distinct components or a solitary entity un-like the whole
creation including Jesus[p]? The answer holds the key
towards perpetual bliss or eternal damnation. The Prophet
Muhammad[p] was once asked by some Christian priests to
describe the substance by which God was made of, to which
he replied: “My Lord is not made from any substance. He is
unique and exalted above everything.” The Glorious Qur’
an states: ...Nought is there analogous with God... [Al-
Qur’an, 42:11] Monotheism is actually separating God from
His creation. When we say God is ‘one’ we negate, except
perhaps in allegory, likening God’s holy essence and perfect
attributes to those deficiencies that accompany the Creation
and when speaking of God as ‘one’ we don’t just imply a
numeric unity wherein pluralities can exist, as ‘one nation’
or ‘one family’, what is really communicated by God’s
oneness is His absolute uniqueness inasmuch as nothing
from the creation is comparable with God, He is
exceptionally One without equal or similitude, a message
the Holy Bible reiterates repetitively: I am God, and there
is no other; I am God, and there is none like me [Isaiah,
46:9]. And for God to be un-like the creation He must be
imbued with characteristics that run contrary to it,
attributes like Eternity, Self-Subsistence, Immortality, Omni-
science, Omnipotence; He must be the Creator, Sustainer,
Providence to the creation and it’s sole Administrator
besought in times of ordeal. However much is known
regarding Jesus[p] from Scripture and history denies him
share in any of these qualities, I would go to the extent of
saying that our four Gospels serve as proof-text to that
effect. So God is necessarily in-dependent of all want,
whereas the creation, all that exists other than He, is
essentially reliant upon God for subsistence: My salvation
and my honor depend on God; He is my mighty Rock,
my refuge [Psalms, 62:7].

As for Jesus[p] being ‘Son of God’ then words like ‘Father’,


‘Son’ can only be related to God in allegory, they have no
real meaning especially if you consider Jesus[p] co-eternal
with the Almighty. But if we insist on implying an actual
relationship then naturally the Son must also be prone to
re-production and we’d be up against a whole species of
gods, as they say apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.2
Moreover, if Jesus[p] be considered God’s actual (begotten)
son it would clearly hamper God’s perfect uniqueness
inasmuch now, instead of one, we have two distinct person-
alities, two with identical qualities; two entities besought
and two deities worshiped. A father and son can be one
essentially, but never in identity. I’m of the same genes as
my father but an altogether different individual in that my
qualities, at times, are in-dependant, different, and occa-
sionally contrary to my father. The Qur’an rightly states
that: If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other
gods besides God, there would have been confusion in
both! but glory to Allaah, the Lord of the Throne:
(High is He) above what they attribute to Him! [Al-Qur’
an, 21:22].

These are but some reasons why I’m not inclined to believe
in the Trinity doctrine any time soon over the Judaeo-
Islamic uni-personal Godhead and feel that Christianity’s
additional persons in Godhead are rather un-necessary and
un-warranted. Though Christians do still attest to believing
in One God, for which we can appreciate them, still; those
extra persons stand as a deviation from centuries long
prophetic tradition and subsequently, air confusion in the
minds of truth seekers, aiding only toward doubt and
disbelief. It is of vital importance that we come to unanimity
on this fundamental concept, because if we can’t arrive at
common terms on God; there basically remains very little to
agree upon. Herein I’ve given my personal opinion and
everyone is entitled to believe what they feel is believe-
worthy, but take a moment to reflect upon the Trinity
doctrine and if you are really a truth seeker, as all ought be;
then you, like me, would find little room for a doctrine so
remote from reason and strayed from Scripture. After all, its
not because water exists in three different states that
Christians believe the Trinity, its because you think the idea
is firmly rooted in God revealed Scriptures wherein true
guidance lays. But the late great New Testament scholar,
William Barclay, suggests otherwise: “No where does the
New Testament identify Jesus with God” [A Spiritual
Autobiography]. And if the NT is empty of any positive
admission of Christ’s[p] Divinity then what has one to say
regarding the Old Testament? Yes there is mystery to God
but when mystery partners in-consistency, it no longer
remains thus. I do hope my words haven’t been of any
offense, and I apologize if they be, but I, as a guy who
believes in Christ Jesus[p] as God’s final Messenger to
Israel, one born of a virgin named Mary[p] and a sinless son
(servant) who lived perfectly by God’s will; find it
disturbing when our Christian brethren step beyond
Biblical bounds into conjuring out a mythically marvelous
character whom Jesus[p] never played.

I thank you for a patient reading, Shalom!

They conceal truth by saying that “God is Christ son of


Mary”, whereas Christ (himself) would say: “O Children
of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord.”
[Al-Qur’an, 5:72]
Endnotes;
1 The abbreviation [p] is a mini prayer: God’s finest mercy be showered on him.
2 A broader discussion on What ‘Son of God’ Really Means is also read-worthy.