The Nature of Christ & The Trinity – Letting Scripture Speak

I am often challenged (1) as to how Jesus can be both God and man, and (2) how the Father, Son and Spirit can all be one God. These are valid questions, questions that Christian theologians discussed up until the council of Chalcedon (451 AD), and indeed since then too.

While the discussions of theologians have been helpful (I enjoyed studying the early Church Fathers for a term at uni, and modern theologians for another term, though I enjoyed that less), they are to me (a Protestant) a guide, and not an infallible authority. I am primarily concerned with what scripture says concerning these matters – anything further is speculative. Speculation can be helpful, and has a legitimate role, but must be recognised for what it is.

So how can Jesus be both God and man? Well, I’m not entirely sure, but that’s what scripture tells me. If I phrase it this simply, there is nothing I consider illogical. Do I consider myself limited in what I am affirming? Yes. Do I consider myself to be guilty of contradiction? No.

If I want to proceed further, I would say that Christ had a human and a divine nature. How do these two interact? I don’t know, but I would say that this taps into a broader issue, that affects Christians and Muslims alike – how does a transcendent God interact with his creation at all? Who truly knows. Because we don’t understand the reality of God, or the heavenly realm, how can we know precisely how it interacts with us/our realm? It would be like asking someone without a nose to describe the smell of a flower – it is just impossible. They have neither the faculties nor concepts to attempt such a task. But if God can interact with the physical universe (and who am I to say he can’t), why can’t he interact in a sustained, localised way, in a human being (i.e. Jesus’ body)?

As for the Trinity – scripture tells me that there is one God/deity, but that the Father is divine, as is the Son, as is the Holy Spirit. By divine, I mean fully divine, not some kind of semi-deity.

But this violates the oneness of God, many Muslims cry! Why? The Muslim definition of God may be unitarian – i.e. only one person in the Godhead. But I would argue that the Bible has no such definition – thus the door is wide open for the Trinitarian belief that God is three in person, but one in being. So when scripture teaches the Trinity, along with monotheism, I have no problem.

I try not to start with pre-conceived notions of what monotheism means, i.e. the way in which God is one. Without revelation I don’t know in what way he is one. Perhaps he is one in being, but five in person. Perhaps he is one in person, yet with multiple attributes. Perhaps the former view is incorrect – God has no attributes, for that would mean God is made up of other entities, thus violating his oneness. Put simply, unless God tells me what is meant/entailed by monotheism, I am in the dark. And the Bible, in my reading, tells me trinitarian monotheism is just fine – indeed it is the truth.

As you can probably tell, on matters of theology (proper)/the trinity, I do not think highly of reason. I just don’t think we can know using that method. I prefer relying on divine revelation. In this I like to think of myself as bearing similarity with the below:

‘More than any other sect, [‘the emergent Sunni school’] took to heart the Qur’anic warning against an overreliance [sic?] on man’s frail reason in understanding God and morality.’

Brown, Jonathan (2014-08-07). Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy (p. 42). Oneworld Publications. Kindle Edition.

For the ‘nascent Sunnis’:

‘human reason, with its limited understanding of reality and its inability to grasp God’s power and truth, was not fit to act as a litmus test for the wisdom of a prophet. As Shah Wali Allah remarked, when it comes to knowing what is best the Messenger of God is ‘more trustworthy than our own reason.’ [Ḥujjat Allāh al-Bāligha, 1:51]

Brown, Jonathan (2014-08-07). Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy (p. 43). Oneworld Publications. Kindle Edition.

‘The early Sunni view of the proper relation between reason and revelation had its greatest impact on the understanding of theology. If reason was not fit to play a constitutive role in determining right and wrong in law, it certainly had no place in informing our understanding of God’s nature and the ultimate reality of the heavens and the earth. Rational presuppositions about what was and was not acceptable for the proper conception of God had led the Mutazila to introduce figurative readings of anthropomorphic Qur’an verses and to reject wholesale Hadiths describing God in physical or familiar terms. The early Sunnis opposed this wholeheartedly.’

Brown, Jonathan (2014-08-07). Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenge and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy (p. 45). Oneworld Publications. Kindle Edition.

To the above methodology – ameen. This is not to say I am against reason – reason leads me to believe in God (e.g. Big Bang/cosmological argument), and in the veracity of the Christian faith (e.g. historical evidence for the resurrection of Christ). But as to the very nature of God – I’m just not sure philosophy is as firm a foundation as divine revelation. God knows himself better than we do.

 

 

 

PS: I hurt my finger typing this article. I hope you appreciate the suffering I went through for it.

 

 

 



Categories: Islam

43 replies

  1. ” the door is wide open for the Trinitarian belief that God is three in person, but one in being”
    I think this is just a semantic justification.
    I’m not sure How even intelligent people could convince themselves by such thing.
    Let me ask this , you saw three persons, each of whom is a mother. How many mothers did you see?
    (Being/Person) can’t work! Give me one reason that we can’t consider each person as being by itself as long as we know that each person has its identity, mind, and will?!
    Practically, how can for chritsian to be different from those who worship dozens of gods? In the level of conciseness, you know that you pray for three beings whom you have defined them already as separate identities. The only difference between christians and idolatries is ( terminology).

    Like

    • There are no logical reasons why a being that is capable of creating space and time whilst existing eternally outside of it cannot possess two natures. The only way that muslims can make this kind of criticism is by limiting god to make him fit into their limited comprehension of what is or is not possible.

      Like

    • I’m not sure how I can phrase this, but basiclly christians accuse muslims that they limit God by making him unlimited ? So our understanding of God is so limited for we affirm that God is not limited in his knowledge, Power, etc! ?
      I really wonder what it’s left in christinity making any sense!

      Like

    • No. Muslims limit god by claiming that he is incapable of existing in more than one place and in in more than one form as t the same time.

      Like

    • ” One form at the same time” I can sense a heresy here!

      Like

    • I can sense ignorance of christian belief here!

      Like

    • At least I know without a shred of doubt that it’s a mere polytheism. Your justification for it- from our perspective- is the same justification that Mormons use to justify that they don’t violate the (oneness) of God.
      What would your response be if a mormon accused you that “you limit god since you try making him fit into your limited comprehension of what is or not possible” ?

      Like

    • “Your justification for it- from our perspective- is the same justification that Mormons use to justify that they don’t violate the (oneness) of God.”

      Fallacy of equivocation.

      “What would your response be if a mormon accused you that “you limit god since you try making him fit into your limited comprehension of what is or not possible” ?”

      I’m not familiar with mormon theology nd I’m sure you aren’t either, so unless you have a more substantial specified argument I’ll have to assume you don’t know what you are talking about.

      Like

    • Trey

      “There are no logical reasons why a being that is capable of creating space and time whilst existing eternally outside of it cannot possess two natures.”

      I can sense ignorance of christian belief here! Thank you for affirming Patripassianism.

      Like

    • Trey

      You said;
      So the shema presents absolutely no problem for the trinity but it is a problem for the tawheed – you have to answer the question of why would god state what should be obvious? Our natural intuition would almost demand that we view any being as solitary, one, singular, and there would be no logical reason why god would have to emphasize this. Yet, he does and the only possible reason for why he would is that he exists as a plurality.

      The shema affirms god’s plurality.

      I say;
      Some one says he is clearly one. A Trinitarian or an idol worshiper will insist that the reason why he said he is clearly one is because he is 2,3,4,5……………… and multiple or more than one? What a loss. I swear, it is insanity and not the truth

      Someone says he is clearly one. Why on earth will someone argues he meant to say he is more than one or plural?

      Why then did he not say he is plural i.e. “The lord our God is plural”, “The lord our God is multiperson”, “The lord our God is 3 persons 1 God”, “the lord our God is Trinitarian” etc.

      one, alone, only is not plural. God said He is One, Alone, Only and it is not plural.

      Trey’s questions is why will God keep repeating Himself that He is one?

      I answered Trey several times.

      To warn those who says he is plural that He is not plural but one only and alone. God considered those who do not adhere to that and start adding things to the shema as multiple things like persons, elephants, golden calf, monkeys, humans, Jesus Christ, Haile Selaissie, Sai Baba etc. as idol worshipers and idolaters and polytheists.

      Any Church Father or Christian clergy will tell you the shema and other God is one passages are there in the Bible to warn against multiple or plurality of God but not to support it.

      I say I am one and Trey said I mean to say I a multiple. What a nonsense and brain dead? Most Christian will not agree with Trey and no wonder he is the only one saying this. It is embarrassing.

      Thanks.

      Like

    • burhanaddin

      I suspect you don’t know what those words mean.

      Like

    • Intellect

      You like to post walls of text that never really address other people’s points.You haven’t answered the question of why any being would have to state that he is one being. What is it about god that would require him to tell people that he is a single being?

      Like

  2. Hi Richard, you said:

    “But I would argue that the Bible has no such definition – thus the door is wide open for the Trinitarian belief that God is three in person, but one in being. So when scripture teaches the Trinity, along with monotheism, I have no problem.”

    I would disagree, the Bible does have such a definition, albeit one that disagrees with your overall theology –

    “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!” – 1 Kings 8:27.

    “To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. Why do you complain, Jacob? Why do you say, Israel, “My way is hidden from the Lord; my cause is disregarded by my God”? Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom. He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak. Even youths grow tired and weary, and young men stumble and fall; but those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.” – “Isaiah 40:25-31.

    “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” – Deuteronomy 6:4.

    To note, there is no Biblical definition for three persons, or that those three are one being, or of the godhead, or of a trinity. You assume that scripture teachings the Trinity, I would definitely disagree on this point. It’s good to note though that you you view the Trinity as being along *with* monotheism and not monotheism itself.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Ijaz

      1 Kings 8:27 is merely praising god’s greatness and not a commentary on god’s abilities. Isaiah 40:25-31 does not in any reasonable way deny the plurality of god.

      As for the shema, as I have said before, it affirms god’s plurality rather than deny it – why would a being have to state that he is a single being? Wouldn’t that be obvious? Only if god existed and revealed himself as a plural entity would he need to tell humankind that he is only one. God appears in the old testament in different forms, and sometimes more than one these appearances occur at the same time.

      So the shema presents absolutely no problem for the trinity but it is a problem for the tawheed – you have to answer the question of why would god state what should be obvious? Our natural intuition would almost demand that we view any being as solitary, one, singular, and there would be no logical reason why god would have to emphasize this. Yet, he does and the only possible reason for why he would is that he exists as a plurality.

      The shema affirms god’s plurality.

      Like

    • “1 Kings 8:27 is merely praising god’s greatness and not a commentary on god’s abilities. ”

      so u saying that god can be contained?

      Like

  3. The title should read “The NatureS of Christ & The Trinity…” Plural Natures

    “If I want to proceed further, I would say that Christ had a human and a divine nature.”

    Like

  4. It seems that Richard is speaking in the spirit of “Latin trinitarianism” Jesus is fully God and the Father is full God yet they are not identical. Can I ask how !

    If Jesus is God and the Father is God (is of identity) then how can we avoid he notion that Jesus is the Father ?

    Unfortunately a scriptural view does not seem so clear here.

    Let the analogies begin !

    Liked by 4 people

    • @ Unitarian,

      If they are the same God they must have the same being. In that sense there must be an identity between the persons which removes all distinctions, categories or divisions.

      How does this disprove the trinity?

      Like

    • “If Jesus is God and the Father is God (is of identity) then how can we avoid he notion that Jesus is the Father ?”

      If the Word is with God, according to John 1 v 1, then Jesus and God can never be reduced to unity in the modalist sense. They are always two entities that are with each other.

      So the Father can never be the Son and vice versa.

      On the other hand if the Word is God then it must be numerically identical with God.

      This is the trinitarian contradiction, which is nevertheless true according to the gospel of John.

      Like

  5. Richard,

    I’m curious as to what epistemical grounds you have for the acceptance of ‘scripture’ given you believe in Sola Scriptura, could you provide a basis for your belief in the authority of the Christian scriptures and why you trust this particular canon?

    I only ask because you have set up the Scriptures as authoritative and non-speculative, I’m curious as to what gives the scriptures their authority? (If you wish to cite passages of the scriptures which recognise the entire body as scriptural that counts). I do not believe that an appeal to the church would vindicate this unless you also want to appeal to the beliefs of the church and the creeds they endorsed.

    I’m curious as to how you could also appeal to minimal facts else where as you seem to accept the entire of scripture (tota scriptura), since you seem to accept the authority of the scriptures as being inerrant, could we see a little consistency on that front and have you include the full account of the scriptures in the discussion of the crucifixion.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I’d also be curious as to how you justify the epistemic jump of:

    1) trusting and utilising reason to affirm the existence of God and…
    2) Reach Theism, trust reason and its ability to recognise historical minimal facts (curious proof since the vast majority of past believers of Christianity had no access to modern historiography and hence would never have used it as their justification of faith) and…
    3) Reach Christianity (?)(Uncertain of how proof of Resurrection leads to epistemic certainty in Jesus being God incarnate, the Son of God or even the Canon of Scripture you accept as being accurate) only to now….
    4) Suspend the very tool which got you into the circle that you now sit in because reason is too limited.

    Kind of seems like Philosophically beheading yourself.

    It very much reminds of C.S Lewis’s excellent argument from Reason:

    1) Naturalists accept Naturalism upon the basis of Scientific Enquiry and their interpretation of the facts
    2) That is all done by reason

    But as Lewis points out:

    “One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview]…. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears…. [U]nless Reason is an absolute–all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.”

    Likewise, Christianity on your view seems to be advocating:

    1) Use reason to get to i) theism ii) Christianity only to iii) recognise that reason isn’t too great or useful.

    The quotes you cited of Muslim Theologians are in the context of the non-rational and not in the context of the irrational.

    The Incarnation on the other hand violates the very law of non-contradiction and is irrational, not super-rational.

    I’m surprised that you as a Calvinist are even concerned with evidence though as in theory, evidence is irrelevant to whether or not you are from the elect no? Isn’t that all just predetermined by God?

    The only two outs that a Christian really has to explain away why God endowed us with rationality only to want us to violate reason and rationality itself in accepting the Incarnation and Trinity is to:

    a) Appeal to a Fallen World where the Intellect has been impaired alongside the fall due to the consequence of sin. (See the argument from Reason and the consequences of appeal to rationality in a system which rejects its validity)

    or

    b) To claim that reason is useless when judging revelation and to call one to suspend it.

    I recommend Fideism, because with due respect, I find that rationality will eventually be abandoned by Christians eventually (the training wheels of a bike to be ripped off and thrown away after you reach theism), you could be a consistent fideist from the start and at least be methodologically consistent.

    Note that Tu Quoque Fallacies on whether or not some Muslims have argued for irrational doctrines is irrelevant, even if they did, I reject their irrationality alongside the Incarnation.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Trey

    September 18, 2016 • 1:51 pm

    Intellect

    You like to post walls of text that never really address other people’s points.You haven’t answered the question of why any being would have to state that he is one being. What is it about god that would require him to tell people that he is a single being?

    I say;
    So that no other being like Jesus Christ, Haile Selaissie, Sai Baba, Elephants, cows, snakes, rats, person, persons, man, woman etc. is added to that one single being who is alone and He is God. Those who add any person to that one God are idol worshipers or polytheists and the Bible said their punishment is the hell fire.

    God told the Israelites that He CANNOT BE IN ANY FOandRM AT ANY TIME because he said the golden calf(form) they worshiped is not Him(God).

    This is about the seventh time I answered you but your Trinitarian brain will not take this truth. If you ask, InshaAllah I will continue to answer you because my work involves computer with internet always and I will not go to porn sites to watch 9 year old gay children kissing, learning about gay sex and other sex but, I will rather spend my time on this blog to further strengthen my faith and educate people like you from your brain damage while getting my pay cheque.

    Thanks.

    Like

  8. Hi Richard,

    I believe the Bible does contain statements that show that God is one Person.

    “‘Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it; Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,..” [Isaiah 44:7]

    Let us say that there were such a thing as a tri-person God. Who said the above statement?

    Imagine the Father saying “”Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;”, then He would be denying deity of the Son and the Spirit.

    If say the Son said the above statement He would be denying the deity of Father and the Spirit.

    If say the Spirit said the above statement He would be denying the deity of Father and the Son.

    If all three of them said this simultaneously they would be denying the deity of each other.

    If however it is said that (and this is the usual Trinitarian explanation I have heard), this statement represents personification of collective, that is to say all three spoke as one. For example you can say Russia invaded Ukraine but it means a collective like an army made up of thousands of soldiers performed the act. Or examples in the Bible where an entire kingdom is spoken of as one individual person or a single animal etc. I would say that this explanation defeats the entire purpose of the verse.

    The above verse is a declaration of theology : a definitive statement about who God is. This is where we would expect the most clarity and least ambiguity especially as the verse is denying anyone can be like the Speaker i.e. God.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Furthermore the notion that the oneness of God refers to a substance/being/essence and not in person would mean that God being One is related to an abstract philosophical concept.

      However, in the Bible it is quite clear in several verses that God being One has to do with the requirement of the believer to worship Him alone as God. Thus the idea of God being one is intimate and personal to the worshipper and not a philosophical idea:

      Luke 4:8 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'”

      Contrary to this In the Trinity, there are three recipients of worship.

      Here worship means in the ultimate sense that is due only to the One God. It does not refer to paying respect, homage etc which is done to parents, teachers, prophets, kings etc.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Correction: Here worship means in the ultimate sense that is due only to the One God. It does not refer to THE KIND of paying respect, homage etc which is done to parents, teachers, prophets, kings etc.

      Like

    • Hi Fawaz
      Can you explain the verse previous to the one you quoted to Richard?

      Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

      Like

    • defendchrist,

      Not sure what you want me to explain here.

      The meaning of this verse seems pretty obvious. In this text narrative, the speaker is the one True God who is the only Saviour and Only King in the ultimate sense.

      Are you suggesting that we must take God here to be a reference to an abstract substance thereby allowing for a collective of persons? Notice that he is called King of Israel, again this here is meant in the ultimate sense. If there really were three co-equal persons then each would be King in His own right.

      There would be three Kings in the ultimate sense as opposed to the One King.

      Like

  9. Really great article Richard. I appreciate your thoughts on this. I affirm monotheism but never in trinitarian terms.

    But i agree, scripture define God. God’s being is unknown and unattainable to human reason. We can not know how God is one.

    Liked by 1 person

    • poiterfrance

      We can know how God is one.

      Why? Because God repeatedly told us He is one. If we cannot know how God is one then why will God continue to tell us He is One?

      One means 1 and not 2,3,4,5……………………

      That is why we can know how God is 1 and not 2,3,4,5…………… in any sense.

      God also said, He that is the one is alone. God said He is the only God and Jesus said God is one, and the only true God but he Jesus is not that true God who is 1 and only.

      So, we know how God is one because we know what one means. It means 1 and God can be counted as 1 only and alone.

      Any counting of God to 2 or more as Gods is illogical, irrational and untrue.

      Each person as God and 3 of them can be counted as 3 Gods not 1 and it is illogical, irrational and not true.

      We know how God is one because God tells us He is one and we know what one is. It means He cannot be 2 or more and that is how we know how God is one.

      Let us say God says He is four. Then we will know how He is four by counting four. But God said He is 1 and we know how God is 1 by counting 1 and only 1 who is alone. Any counting of God that brings Him to more than 1 is false.

      I can count 3 Gods in Trinity just like counting more Gods in Mormons, Rastafarianism, Hindu and many idol worshipers despite their insistence that they worship one God.

      Trinitarian will not agree Rastafarians, Mormons or idol worshipers are worshiping one God and how will they expect us to believe the worship one God? when they have more than 1 persons as their God? and insists it is one God but one can count 3 Gods?

      Thanks.

      Like

  10. Another argument which could be used as a strong evidence to show the the fallacy of the trinity is that
    [ Jesus has God.]
    Jesus used to call the Father as [ his God! ]

    Let’s it put it in this way:
    If someone believed in another one as (his God), it must be many (requirements)for that belief which cannot be avoided whatsoever. One of them is that one- whom you believed as your god- Created you. Another one that you depend on that one whom you believed as your god. Otherwise there’s no reason by any meaning to call that one as (my God).

    Like

  11. Richard

    “As you can probably tell, on matters of theology (proper)/the trinity, I do not think highly of reason. I just don’t think we can know using that method.”

    But you apply reason. How can you understand “what scripture tells you”, without applying reason?

    “If I phrase it this simply, there is nothing I consider illogical.”

    Do I consider you to be guilty of contradiction? Yes.

    Like

    • Perhaps he means that we cannot deduce the truth of the trinity by deductive reasoning. It is something we can only know if God reveals it to us but we could not use reason to find out this knowledge. If this is what he means I agree.

      There is no way by deductive reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that three persons are the same God.

      On the other hand we need reason to have some kind of concept of the trinity in our minds based on the biblical statements.

      Perhaps reason is working in two different ways here so there is no contradiction.

      Like

  12. Paul,
    Why are you giving Richard a platform? I would much rather read informative articles from Ijaz, Abdullah or Fawaz. I appreciate the dialogue but I think there are plenty of other websites and blogs we can go to hear the Christian point of view.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Salam Ibn Issam (is that not the Islamic etiquette?)

      This blog is entitled Blogging Theology and is a forum for discussion and debate. I invited Richard (whom I know personally in the real world) to write because he has intelligent and insightful things to say on Muslim-Christian dialogue. He is qualified to speak having just completed post-graduate research at Oxford University on related subjects.

      I am not aware of any other blogs on-line that encourage such intellectually responsible dialogue. Perhaps you are?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Salaam Ibn Issam,

      I would think that giving intelligent and respectful Christian a platform like Richard Z it will boost Christian audience to this blog thus give wonderful opportunity to reach out to them, while others christian sites are full of one sided worldview and Islam bashing , the fact that BT a muslim blog yet allows its readers for an open and responsible interactions for those seeking the truth set a good example for the Qur’anic injunction:

      ادْعُ إِلَىٰ سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ ۖ وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَن ضَلَّ عَن سَبِيلِهِ ۖ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ

      Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided. [Q16:125]

       

      Liked by 3 people

    • Salam Ibn Issam,

      Exchanges with the more thoughtful and educated Christians will help Muslims understand the Christian position better and gain valuable apologetics experience in order to engage with Christians in a more fruitful way in the future. Best for Muslims to use this opportunity to try and engage.

      Brothers like Fawaz, Ijaz and Abdullah are engaging with Richard thus you are reading material from them. I don’t see Richard having presented anything a Muslim cannot refute.

      And perhaps Richard will help other Christians to move away from that obnoxious Shamoun/Wood approach that Muslims find all over the net.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Salaam Yahya,
      Thank you for your comments. I posted my comment below before I saw the response from you and Eric bin Kisaam. I pray that Allah will deliver the best for our deen.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Hi guys,

      Just wanted to say thank you for the kind words, and the civilized discussion from all participants as to the nature and role of this blog 🙂

      Liked by 3 people

  13. Salaam Paul,
    I have been reading your blog regularly since it started, and as I said, I do enjoy the dialogue. I originally came to your blog not only because it is a forum for responsible debate and discussion as you said, but also because it features the most recent viewpoints from Muslim scholars and intellects on current issues in comparative religion which provide some much needed balance to the wide array of anti-Muslim websites and views on the internet. For that I appreciate all your effort and hard work!

    It would seem to me that your blog is more valuable as a platform where Muslims can articulate their viewpoints, and responses to counter arguments through discussion and debate. I am sure Richard is a qualified and intelligent person, but in regard to Christians attempting to convince me of the Trinity I can walk into any church or go to a plethora of many other websites for that. So I don’t see the value in giving Richard a place on your blog, especially when there are so many other knowledgeable Muslim intellects who may not have such a platform and whom I would much rather hear from, as there seem to be so few sites on the internet featuring Muslim apologetics in comparison.

    Thanks again for your blog!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Salaam Eric,
    Well said and good point. I have appreciated your regular contributions to the blog.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. “God said He is One, Alone”

    That is also the trinitarian belief, namely that the trinitarian God is one and alone.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: