Islam's Fatal Denial of the Trinity?

[9-18-1]

PLATFORM​

I would like to open a public debate
inviting any/all to participate
to any degree to which one might agree
in favor with, or to disagree
in the natural existence of a Trinity.​

________________________________

Position: Muhammad's denial of (there existing) an immutable 'Trinity' present in/of (all) creation is indicative of the catastrophically fatal nature of (the total institution of) Islam which necessarily renders it contrary to basic fundamental precepts of the Abrahamic "prophets" which preceded Muhammad. While I do not and will not argue in favor of any particular religious institutions' handling of a (the) 'Trinity' (such as Christian teachings/precepts hold), I do however affirm the presence of an immutable 'Trinity' and will argue its existence ad infinitum.
________________________________

As varied Abrahamic traditions utilize different names to denote the monotheistic nature of (with respect to 'monotheistic', the only possible) god, including (but not limited to) GOD, Elohim, YHVH, YahWeh, Jehovah, Allah etc. (inclusive of all possible derivatives) for the sake of simplicity (the only possible) god will herein henceforth be termed 'The God of Abraham' for the reason being Abraham (Ar. Ibrahim/Heb. Abraham) is undisputedly and duly accepted as (as is central to) the monotheistic religions of: Judaism, Christianity and Islam (inclusive of all possible derivatives).

In acquiescence to claims made by the institution of Islam:
i. I hereby grant (if even only for the sake of argument) that Moses (Ar. Musa/Heb. Moshe) is a prophet of 'The God of Abraham', and
ii. I hereby grant (if even only for the sake of argument) that Jesus (Ar. Isa/Heb. Yeshua) is a prophet of 'The God of Abraham'.

and wherefore granting i. and ii. I hereby accept and/or purport:
a. that the (five) books of (or as attributed to) Moses (limited to the original Hebrew/Aramaic language(s): all translations [Eng. inc.] exempt) and the precepts therein are inspired, and
b. that the Gospels/Injil and/or precepts therein of (or as attributed to) Jesus are inspired.

a. and b. are necessarily true (if) given the houses of Judaism/Christianity/Islam collectively agree that Moses and Jesus are 'prophets' of the 'God of Abraham'.

I hereby argue:
c. that both a. and b. (and precepts therein) overtly purports/supports the existence of a 'Trinity'; and since
d. the precepts of Islam (as attributed to) the (sayings of) the prophet Muhammad denies the existence of a 'Trinity'; it must/does necessarily follow that
e. the precepts of Islam (as attributed to) the (sayings of) the prophet Muhammad (by virtue of his denial of a 'Trinity') wholly renders (the total institution of) Islam contrary to 'The God of Abraham' (a. and b. incl.).

Consequently, I thus argue to deny:
f. Islam is the only true religion of 'The God of Abraham';
g. The Qur'an is the perfect word of 'The God of Abraham';
h. Muhammad is a (final) messenger of 'The God of Abraham';
i. Islam is a religion of 'peace'.

The contents of c. through to e. will be argued via topical argumentation (below); the contents of which (I will argue) render contents f. through to i. as (if not) objectively (then) beyond any/all reasonable doubts: completely false statements.

Definitions:

'Trinity': the (single) immutable framework through which all of 'creation' employs a first principle process(es) comprised of:
generating principle (positive)
operating principle (neutral)
dissolving principle (negative)
which, while seemingly distinct, conjunctly behave as one whole
(which herein henceforth will be termed g.o.d.).

'creation': observable and (if/where applicable) unobservable universe (cosmos) and all related phenomena occurring therein incl. any/all (possible) forms of life and/or conscious experience.

*inspired: state of being, or having been, under guidance by 'The God of Abraham'
___________________________________
*in terms limited to the scope of the debate

(Impending) Topical Arguments:

0. Introduction and Address of Common Point(s) of Conflict
1. The name (and/or title) YHVH יהוה
1.1. The name (and/or title) Elohimאלהים
2. Hebrew Letters and Word Analysis
3. 'Creation' according to Genesis and TORAH
4. The Ten Commandments
5. The teachings of (or as attributed to) Jesus (Ar. Isa/Heb. Yeshua)
6. The Qur'an, Muhammad and Islam
____________________________________

0. Introduction

If it is to be granted that Moses was/is a prophet of (the) 'God of Abraham', such a status bestowed must have a basis. For the Judeo-Christian West, we find this with the Bible - a collection of (allegedly inspired) works within which exists a foundation of five books attributed directly to Moses. A common (central) conflict(s) arising between the Judeo-Christian West and the House of Islam is the veracity of the Bible; the latter calling into question the fact that there are many translations of the Bible which render an impossibility that it is (and/or has remained) a bonafide inspired work. This scrutiny is impossible to ignore and there exists no basis upon which to argue this is not fatally problematic for the Judeo-Christian West. I therefor yield this point to the House of Islam: indeed it is both factually true and fatally problematic that the Bible has been altered/adulterated/modified by mortal man.

However, while the House of Islam correctly raises this objection, it simultaneously purports (without reservation) that the Qur'an is the perfect word of (the) 'God of Abraham' and has never been altered since its (alleged) revelation to Muhammad by an 'angel' (so forth denoted) Jabriel. This claim, however, is far from unproblematic: while the textual integrity of the Qur'an generally remains nearly identical to its parent corpus (esp.) compared to that of translated Bibles, this claim (to be argued later) is likewise false. The Qur'an has undergone modifications and its fundamental construction (sources) can be traced to that of man-made origin.

As such both respective institutions attempt to hold claims that are fundamentally not true. This I argue is but one of many seeds which has, continues to, and ever shall give rise to divisions that fundamentally lead to human suffering/war/death. It is only upon a recognition from both sides that the fundamental precepts upon which form the basis of these institutions are inherently false: neither the Qur'an and/or non-Hebrew Bible(s) could possibly be the perfect word of (the) 'God of Abraham'.

Rather than disseminating further differences between Judaism/Christianity/Islam, the focus must shift to what is common throughout all three. For this, I argue one must defer to the original books of Moses (in its original language of Hebrew) which either gave rise to and/or remains at the foundation of the Abrahamic faiths. Should it be the case that any of the Abrahamic faiths somehow deny this; that the original books of Moses are inspired, such a claim would be fatal to (if) any institution(s) making it. By arguing such a position, one would be overtly undermining the basis of ones own institution. This renders (collapses) both sides' claim(s) that they are in possession of the perfect word of the 'God of Abraham' (Heb. books of Moses excl. as this could be argued).

It is on this basis that consideration(s) must be made only to the original Hebrew books of Moses from whence to derive (if any) the basis of a Trinity. If the basis for a Trinity is (can be) established therein, Christianity and/or the teachings (as attributed to) Jesus/Isa must be allowed for consideration(s) (under certain conditions/restrictions) in order to explore the (possible) nature of the Trinity. It must be granted to both Christianity/Islam that Jesus/Isa was/is (at minimum) a prophet of (the) 'God of Abraham' to maintain each as wholly neutral to the matter.

 

[Ponder This]

Definitions:

'Trinity': the (single) immutable framework through which all of 'creation' employs a first principle process(es) comprised of:
generating principle (positive)
operating principle (neutral)
dissolving principle (negative)
which, while seemingly distinct, conjunctly behave as one whole
(which herein henceforth will be termed g.o.d.).

'creation': observable and (if/where applicable) unobservable universe (cosmos) and all related phenomena occurring therein incl. any/all (possible) forms of life and/or conscious experience.

*inspired: state of being, or having been, under guidance by 'The God of Abraham'

Al Mubdi; Al Mumit; Al Hayy; Al Qayyum: the Producer, Originator, and Initiator of All ;the Bringer of Death, the Destroyer; the Ever Living; the Self-subsisting Sustainer of All

 

[Tumah]

Probably shouldn't bring Judaism into this as we reject the Trinity just as vociferously as do Muslims.

 

[YmirGF]

Probably shouldn't bring Judaism into this as we reject the Trinity just as vociferously as do Muslims.

I was also thinking that it might be more practical to take the Trinity argument to non-Trinitarian Christians first before going down the current, somewhat bizarre, rabbit hole.

 

[Tumah]

I was also thinking that it might be more practical to take the Trinity argument to non-Trinitarian Christians first before going down the current, somewhat bizarre, rabbit hole.

Yeah, as I hit the post button I was thinking that I should have added Christian Unitarians to that as well.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Position: Muhammad's denial of (there existing) an immutable 'Trinity' present in/of (all) creation is indicative of the catastrophically fatal nature of (the total institution of) Islam which necessarily renders it contrary to basic fundamental precepts of the Abrahamic "prophets" which preceded Muhammad. While I do not and will not argue in favor of any particular religious institutions' handling of a (the) 'Trinity' (such as Christian teachings/precepts hold), I do however affirm the presence of an immutable 'Trinity' and will argue its existence ad infinitum.

It is this paper itself that is fatally flawed. To argue the Tanakh supports a triune God without reference to the New Testament appears tenuous. The triune basis of the New Testament is not a given. The concept was enshrined as immutable truth only through the Nicene Creed written in the 4th century.

As varied Abrahamic traditions utilize different names to denote the monotheistic nature of (with respect to 'monotheistic', the only possible) god, including (but not limited to) GOD, Elohim, YHVH, YahWeh, Jehovah, Allah etc. (inclusive of all possible derivatives) for the sake of simplicity (the only possible) god will herein henceforth be termed 'The God of Abraham' for the reason being Abraham (Ar. Ibrahim/Heb. Abraham) is undisputedly and duly accepted as (as is central to) the monotheistic religions of: Judaism, Christianity and Islam (inclusive of all possible derivatives).

There are other monotheistic traditions outside Judaism, Christianity and Islam that refer to monotheism including Zoroastrianism, the Baha’i Faith and some branches of Hinduism.

In acquiescence to claims made by the institution of Islam:
i. I hereby grant (if even only for the sake of argument) that Moses (Ar. Musa/Heb. Moshe) is a prophet of 'The God of Abraham', and
ii. I hereby grant (if even only for the sake of argument) that Jesus (Ar. Isa/Heb. Yeshua) is a prophet of 'The God of Abraham'.

and wherefore granting i. and ii. I hereby accept and/or purport:
a. that the (five) books of (or as attributed to) Moses (limited to the original Hebrew/Aramaic language(s): all translations [Eng. inc.] exempt) and the precepts therein are inspired, and
b. that the Gospels/Injil and/or precepts therein of (or as attributed to) Jesus are inspired.

I agree with this. The paper loses its way from here unfortunately. The fatal flaw of Islam has actually been to depart from the clear text of the Quran itself and to claim to Torah and Gospels are corrupted. Had the Muslims taken the time to properly understand the Torah, Gospels and Quran the apparent contradictions could be resolved. The author of this paper makes a similar error in not separating what the Quran says from what Muslims believe.

 

[Ellen Brown]

PLATFORM​

I would like to open a public debate
inviting any/all to participate
to any degree to which one might agree
in favor with, or to disagree
in the natural existence of a Trinity.​

________________________________

Position: Muhammad's denial of (there existing) an immutable 'Trinity' present in/of (all) creation is indicative of the catastrophically fatal nature of (the total institution of) Islam which necessarily renders it contrary to basic fundamental precepts of the Abrahamic "prophets" which preceded Muhammad. While I do not and will not argue in favor of any particular religious institutions' handling of a (the) 'Trinity' (such as Christian teachings/precepts hold), I do however affirm the presence of an immutable 'Trinity' and will argue its existence ad infinitum.
________________________________

As varied Abrahamic traditions utilize different names to denote the monotheistic nature of (with respect to 'monotheistic', the only possible) god, including (but not limited to) GOD, Elohim, YHVH, YahWeh, Jehovah, Allah etc. (inclusive of all possible derivatives) for the sake of simplicity (the only possible) god will herein henceforth be termed 'The God of Abraham' for the reason being Abraham (Ar. Ibrahim/Heb. Abraham) is undisputedly and duly accepted as (as is central to) the monotheistic religions of: Judaism, Christianity and Islam (inclusive of all possible derivatives).

In acquiescence to claims made by the institution of Islam:
i. I hereby grant (if even only for the sake of argument) that Moses (Ar. Musa/Heb. Moshe) is a prophet of 'The God of Abraham', and
ii. I hereby grant (if even only for the sake of argument) that Jesus (Ar. Isa/Heb. Yeshua) is a prophet of 'The God of Abraham'.

and wherefore granting i. and ii. I hereby accept and/or purport:
a. that the (five) books of (or as attributed to) Moses (limited to the original Hebrew/Aramaic language(s): all translations [Eng. inc.] exempt) and the precepts therein are inspired, and
b. that the Gospels/Injil and/or precepts therein of (or as attributed to) Jesus are inspired.

a. and b. are necessarily true (if) given the houses of Judaism/Christianity/Islam collectively agree that Moses and Jesus are 'prophets' of the 'God of Abraham'.

I hereby argue:
c. that both a. and b. (and precepts therein) overtly purports/supports the existence of a 'Trinity'; and since
d. the precepts of Islam (as attributed to) the (sayings of) the prophet Muhammad denies the existence of a 'Trinity'; it must/does necessarily follow that
e. the precepts of Islam (as attributed to) the (sayings of) the prophet Muhammad (by virtue of his denial of a 'Trinity') wholly renders (the total institution of) Islam contrary to 'The God of Abraham' (a. and b. incl.).

Consequently, I thus argue to deny:
f. Islam is the only true religion of 'The God of Abraham';
g. The Qur'an is the perfect word of 'The God of Abraham';
h. Muhammad is a (final) messenger of 'The God of Abraham';
i. Islam is a religion of 'peace'.

The contents of c. through to e. will be argued via topical argumentation (below); the contents of which (I will argue) render contents f. through to i. as (if not) objectively (then) beyond any/all reasonable doubts: completely false statements.

Definitions:

'Trinity': the (single) immutable framework through which all of 'creation' employs a first principle process(es) comprised of:
generating principle (positive)
operating principle (neutral)
dissolving principle (negative)
which, while seemingly distinct, conjunctly behave as one whole
(which herein henceforth will be termed g.o.d.).

'creation': observable and (if/where applicable) unobservable universe (cosmos) and all related phenomena occurring therein incl. any/all (possible) forms of life and/or conscious experience.

*inspired: state of being, or having been, under guidance by 'The God of Abraham'
___________________________________
*in terms limited to the scope of the debate

(Impending) Topical Arguments:

0. Introduction and Address of Common Point(s) of Conflict
1. The name (and/or title) YHVH יהוה
1.1. The name (and/or title) Elohimאלהים
2. Hebrew Letters and Word Analysis
3. 'Creation' according to Genesis and TORAH
4. The Ten Commandments
5. The teachings of (or as attributed to) Jesus (Ar. Isa/Heb. Yeshua)
6. The Qur'an, Muhammad and Islam
____________________________________

0. Introduction

If it is to be granted that Moses was/is a prophet of (the) 'God of Abraham', such a status bestowed must have a basis. For the Judeo-Christian West, we find this with the Bible - a collection of (allegedly inspired) works within which exists a foundation of five books attributed directly to Moses. A common (central) conflict(s) arising between the Judeo-Christian West and the House of Islam is the veracity of the Bible; the latter calling into question the fact that there are many translations of the Bible which render an impossibility that it is (and/or has remained) a bonafide inspired work. This scrutiny is impossible to ignore and there exists no basis upon which to argue this is not fatally problematic for the Judeo-Christian West. I therefor yield this point to the House of Islam: indeed it is both factually true and fatally problematic that the Bible has been altered/adulterated/modified by mortal man.

However, while the House of Islam correctly raises this objection, it simultaneously purports (without reservation) that the Qur'an is the perfect word of (the) 'God of Abraham' and has never been altered since its (alleged) revelation to Muhammad by an 'angel' (so forth denoted) Jabriel. This claim, however, is far from unproblematic: while the textual integrity of the Qur'an generally remains nearly identical to its parent corpus (esp.) compared to that of translated Bibles, this claim (to be argued later) is likewise false. The Qur'an has undergone modifications and its fundamental construction (sources) can be traced to that of man-made origin.

As such both respective institutions attempt to hold claims that are fundamentally not true. This I argue is but one of many seeds which has, continues to, and ever shall give rise to divisions that fundamentally lead to human suffering/war/death. It is only upon a recognition from both sides that the fundamental precepts upon which form the basis of these institutions are inherently false: neither the Qur'an and/or non-Hebrew Bible(s) could possibly be the perfect word of (the) 'God of Abraham'.

Rather than disseminating further differences between Judaism/Christianity/Islam, the focus must shift to what is common throughout all three. For this, I argue one must defer to the original books of Moses (in its original language of Hebrew) which either gave rise to and/or remains at the foundation of the Abrahamic faiths. Should it be the case that any of the Abrahamic faiths somehow deny this; that the original books of Moses are inspired, such a claim would be fatal to (if) any institution(s) making it. By arguing such a position, one would be overtly undermining the basis of ones own institution. This renders (collapses) both sides' claim(s) that they are in possession of the perfect word of the 'God of Abraham' (Heb. books of Moses excl. as this could be argued).

It is on this basis that consideration(s) must be made only to the original Hebrew books of Moses from whence to derive (if any) the basis of a Trinity. If the basis for a Trinity is (can be) established therein, Christianity and/or the teachings (as attributed to) Jesus/Isa must be allowed for consideration(s) (under certain conditions/restrictions) in order to explore the (possible) nature of the Trinity. It must be granted to both Christianity/Islam that Jesus/Isa was/is (at minimum) a prophet of (the) 'God of Abraham' to maintain each as wholly neutral to the matter.

Wow, you have quite a rant going there. Do you actually KNOW anything about Islam?

 

[9-18-1]

Al Mubdi; Al Mumit; Al Hayy; Al Qayyum: the Producer, Originator, and Initiator of All ;the Bringer of Death, the Destroyer; the Ever Living; the Self-subsisting Sustainer of All

I am not sure what you are intending to say here.

Probably shouldn't bring Judaism into this as we reject the Trinity just as vociferously as do Muslims.

If you (personally) reject the notion that there is a Trinity, I would suggest holding out until at least the dissemination of YHVH יהוה as it is contained therein.

I was also thinking that it might be more practical to take the Trinity argument to non-Trinitarian Christians first before going down the current, somewhat bizarre, rabbit hole.

It must first be established what the Trinity 'is' which has broad implications to any/all sects.

Yeah, as I hit the post button I was thinking that I should have added Christian Unitarians to that as well.

These arguments can involve any/all.

It is this paper itself that is fatally flawed. To argue the Tanakh supports a triune God without reference to the New Testament appears tenuous. The triune basis of the New Testament is not a given. The concept was enshrined as immutable truth only through the Nicene Creed written in the 4th century.

There are other monotheistic traditions outside Judaism, Christianity and Islam that refer to monotheism including Zoroastrianism, the Baha’i Faith and some branches of Hinduism.

I agree with this. The paper loses its way from here unfortunately. The fatal flaw of Islam has actually been to depart from the clear text of the Quran itself and to claim to Torah and Gospels are corrupted. Had the Muslims taken the time to properly understand the Torah, Gospels and Quran the apparent contradictions could be resolved. The author of this paper makes a similar error in not separating what the Quran says from what Muslims believe.

It may appear "tenuous to yourself" - unfortunately it is hard-coded into the name YHVH יהוה itself (which I will argue shortly). I am not arguing the basis of the Trinity to be originating from the New Testament. I will argue it is present from the very first sentence of the first chapter of the first book of Moses. In fact all consideration(s) of the Trinity can be done completely independently of the New Testament.

Also the paper has not begun yet. The notion that the fatal flaw of Islam is that it departed from the "clear text" is not one I grant - I will argue that the fatal flaw of Islam is the "belief" that the Qur'an was delivered by 'The God of Abraham' via an angel Jabriel. This is a part of the point of it. If this is true, then we can consider arguments such as yours. However, if it is not true, which it is (I argue) not, it doesn't matter what the Qur'an "says" about anything - it is man-made and this is (will be) clearly seen by Muhammad's (Islam's) denial of the Trinity. To deny the Trinity is to deny the very physiology of the human body as it is made manifest in three fundamental faculties: head (heavens above), heart (earth below the heavens) and sex (waters below the earth) - this actually being the basis of one of the Ten Commandments:

Exodus 20:4
לאתעשהלךפסלוכלתמונהאשרבשמיםממעלואשרבארץמתחתואשרבמיםמתחתלארץ
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"

The correlation, while not explicitly obvious to the naked eye, requires analysis which is found earlier in the books of Moses which are topical arguments which will be made in the future.

But as of now, to deny the Trinity of which I propose does exist, is to deny one carries in their physical person a brain, a heart, and a reproductive organ, as these are manifest as a product of the Trinity.

Wow, you have quite a rant going there. Do you actually KNOW anything about Islam?

I know what is necessary. Islam makes claims. These claims are either true or false. I don't care about what Islam "teaches", I care about whether or not what it "claims" is true or false. For example, is it true or false that the Qur'an is the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of (the) 'God of Abraham'? Knowing the answer to this question (as I do) immediately puts one into the category of knowing what is necessary to address the problem in the OP. I know where the Qur'an come from; how it was constructed and using what baseline resources etc. Muslims do not 'know' these things because they "believe" it was delivered via an angel Jabriel from (the) 'God of Abraham' which is false.

 

[Tumah]

If you (personally) reject the notion that there is a Trinity, I would suggest holding out

No thanks. Judaism is not big on idolatry, you know?

 

[9-18-1]

As a general note:

It is first necessary to establish what the Trinity 'is' before one can go about discussing it.

Thus far those with contentions are conjuring their own preconceived notions as 'what' the 'Trinity' is based on treatments of it by outside authorities: for example there are some which have already attempted to reference the New Testament as if it has something to do with the 'Trinity' I am arguing in favor of. This is precisely why I stated:

While I do not and will not argue in favor of any particular religious institutions' handling of a (the) 'Trinity' (such as Christian teachings/precepts hold), I do however affirm the presence of an immutable 'Trinity' and will argue its existence ad infinitum.

Which includes any/all possible derivations from the New Testament as I do not hold that the former's handling of the Trinity is the same as what I will argue.

 

[9-18-1]

No thanks. Judaism is not big on idolatry, you know?

Agreed; however I am unsure as to your understanding of what 'idolatry' is. Are we talking the kind of idolatry wherein a central figure (graven image; pattern of conduct of) a man is used as the basis of an entire empire such as Christianity/Islam (Jesus/Muhammad)? If so, I am in agreement with you.

If not, I invite you to provide a working definition of 'idolatry' and how/why this applies to the Trinity which I haven't even argued 'what' it is yet.

Those who are attempting to dismiss something which has not even been argued yet only do so using their own understanding of what the Trinity is - which are derived from models which I too reject.

 

[Tumah]

Agreed; however I am unsure as to your understanding of what 'idolatry' is. Are we talking the kind of idolatry wherein a central figure (graven image; pattern of conduct of) a man is used as the basis of an entire empire such as Christianity/Islam (Jesus/Muhammad)? If so, I am in agreement with you.

If not, I invite you to provide a working definition of 'idolatry' and how/why this applies to the Trinity which I haven't even argued 'what' it is yet.

Those who are attempting to dismiss something which has not even been argued yet only do so using their own understanding of what the Trinity is - which are derived from models which I too reject.

Creating any type of division in G-d Himself. However you frame the division that gives you the number 3, you've already stepped onto something that is idolatrous by Judaism's standard.

 

[9-18-1]

Creating any type of division in G-d Himself. However you frame the division that gives you the number 3, you've already stepped onto something that is idolatrous by Judaism's standard.

On the contrary - the Trinity is not something that is '3'. Once again, you may be adopting a model that I am not myself arguing. The Trinity is not a division, it is a unity (1) which contains three aspects unified as one: in precisely the same way a single being employs the faculties of the brain, of the heart, and of the sex in order to "live". How one thinks (intellectual) is how one feels (emotional), and how one feels inclines them toward a correlating behavior(s) (motor-instinctual). One can understand this as an equilateral triangle inside of a circle with three angles. While the angles are three, the value of them (60 degrees) are the same: A=B=C.

I would ask: please place latent hostility aside and first absorb the arguments made. To attack a position before the arguments are made only reveals hostility. I am not hostile - I only care about one thing: Understanding and Wisdom which leads to Truth. If you are a True Jew (which, by the way, is the first three letters of the four-letter name of G-d) taken: yud, heh, vav, you must then understand that these three letters refer to the upper region (head/heavens), the middle region (heart/earth) and the lower region (sex/waters): יהו.

If not, it should only be appropriate to hear the arguments made and refrain from attack prior to them being made, for this reveals not anything "true" but mere hostility which is not a True "Jew".

 

[Tumah]

On the contrary - the Trinity is not something that is '3'. Once again, you may be adopting a model that I am not myself arguing. The Trinity is not a division, it is a unity (1) which contains three aspects unified as one: in precisely the same way a single being employs the faculties of the brain, of the heart, and of the sex in order to "live". How one thinks (intellectual) is how one feels (emotional), and how one feels inclines them toward a correlating behavior(s) (motor-instinctual). One can understand this as an equilateral triangle inside of a circle with three angles. While the angles are three, the value of them (60 degrees) are the same: A=B=C.

I would ask: please place latent hostility aside and first absorb the arguments made. To attack a position before the arguments are made only reveals hostility. I am not hostile - I only care about one thing: Understanding and Wisdom which leads to Truth. If you are a True Jew (which, by the way, is the first three letters of the four-letter name of G-d) taken: yud, heh, vav, you must then understand that these three letters refer to the upper region (head/heavens), the middle region (heart/earth) and the lower region (sex/waters): יהו.

If not, it should only be appropriate to hear the arguments made and refrain from attack prior to them being made, for this reveals not anything "true" but mere hostility which is not a True "Jew".

1) The word "unity" implies a division. One thing is not said to be in unity with itself. It's only where there is a multiplicity that there can be unity. In the recognition of three aspects, you've introduced division. There are three separate angles in a triangle. These angels are recognizably divided by their placement in space.
2) Keep you true Scotsmen out of here.
3) The word Jew is not the first three letters of the Tetragrammaton.
4) Calling something by a term that already has a common meaning, phrasing an argument on it and then claiming an alternate definition 13 posts later is by far the dumbest way to formulate an argument.

 

[YmirGF]

It must first be established what the Trinity 'is' which has broad implications to any/all sects.

I suppose but why go to great lengths to prove something that is tenuous to begin with?

 

[9-18-1]

1) The word "unity" implies a division. One thing is not said to be in unity with itself. It's only where there is a multiplicity that there can be unity. In the recognition of three aspects, you've introduced division. There are three separate angles in a triangle. These angels are recognizably divided by their placement in space.

...which is precisely why Genesis 1:1 begins with bait: division - first distinction (inside) and (outside) as a house has as an interior and an exterior.

The three "separate" angles share the same value: 60 degrees. They are not three separate angles: it is one angle of 60 degrees. They are not "divided" in that they are all required in order to form one triangle. This is the same relationship Kether has to Chokmah and Binah: Crowned Wisdom (and) Understanding. We are not talking about three "separate" things here as we are only talking about one: an equilateral triangle.

2) Keep you true Scotsmen out of here.

I'm afraid I know not what you imply here.

3) The word Jew is not the first three letters of the Tetragrammaton.

Quite, but not quite right: if you are referencing the last three letters dalet and iod (door/hand) and the end of yud heh vav, which combined render the term translated as 'Jew' it does not change the fact that the basis of the Tertragrammaton and 'Jew' both share the first three letters which, as it happens, directly indicate the Trinity being argued.

4) Calling something by a term that already has a common meaning, phrasing an argument on it and then claiming an alternate definition 13 posts later is by far the dumbest way to formulate an argument.

The definition is on the OP (post #1):

'Trinity': the (single) immutable framework through which all of 'creation' employs a first principle process(es) comprised of:
generating principle (positive)
operating principle (neutral)
dissolving principle (negative)
which, while seemingly distinct, conjunctly behave as one whole
(which herein henceforth will be termed g.o.d.).

Therefor the Trinity is comprised of g.o.d. which is the (single) immutable framework through which all of 'creation' operates conjunctly as one whole.

Again - you are attacking a model(s) of Trinity that I am not arguing for.

 

[9-18-1]

I suppose but why go to great lengths to prove something that is tenuous to begin with?

I do not know what you mean by "tenuous". Is it "tenuous" that a being is born with and in them a head, heart and reproductive organ? No - it is a fact, else one would be arguing from absurdity and/or a "tenuous" position given everyone is indeed born with a brain (even if they do not use it), a heart (even if they are not aware of it) and a reproductive organ (which operates based on the two aforementioned).

All of my argumentation will reduce the Trinity into being directly related to these three components of the body as it is written by Moses: Adam is made in the "image" and "likeness" of Elohim which, given the design of the human body, Elohim must likewise contain these characteristics. This will all be handled in the 'creation' account of Genesis - please be patient, it will be made clear there.

 

[YmirGF]

I do not know what you mean by "tenuous". Is it "tenuous" that a being is born with and in them a head, heart and reproductive organ? No - it is a fact, else one would be arguing from absurdity and/or a "tenuous" position given everyone is indeed born with a brain (even if they do not use it), a heart (even if they are not aware of it) and a reproductive organ (which operates based on the two aforementioned).

All of my argumentation will reduce the Trinity into being directly related to these three components of the body as it is written by Moses: Adam is made in the "image" and "likeness" of Elohim which, given the design of the human body, Elohim must likewise contain these characteristics. This will all be handled in the 'creation' account of Genesis - please be patient, it will be made clear there.

You will perhaps forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[Tumah]

...which is precisely why Genesis 1:1 begins with bait: division - first distinction (inside) and (outside) as a house has as an interior and an exterior.

Do you know what the difference between eisegesis and exegesis is?

The three "separate" angles share the same value: 60 degrees.

Yes, three separate things. G-d is inseparable, or indivisible. Unlike a triangle. All you are doing is shifting focus away from the division by pointing out their commonality. But that doesn't negate the existence of the division they contain.

They are not three separate angles: it is one angle of 60 degrees.

No, it is three angles of 60 degrees. One angle of 60 degrees is called an angle, not a triangle. Tri- angle - three angles.

They are not "divided" in that they are all required in order to form one triangle.

And they are divided in that they are disparate parts that are needed to form that one triangle.

This is the same relationship Kether has to Chokmah and Binah: Crowned Wisdom (and) Understanding. We are not talking about three "separate" things here as we are only talking about one: an equilateral triangle.

No, the relationship that Kether has to Chochmah and it to Binah is one of causation. They do not form a triangle because they do not exist in space any more than do numbers.

I'm afraid I know not what you imply here.

I know. Otherwise you wouldn't have used that phrase.

Quite, but not quite right: if you are referencing the last three letters dalet and iod (door/hand) and the end of yud heh vav, which combined render the term translated as 'Jew' it does not change the fact that the basis of the Tertragrammaton and 'Jew' both share the first three letters which, as it happens, directly indicate the Trinity being argued.

Understanding that the Tetrgrammaton has four letters, any explanation that you're going to give to indicate a trinity, is going to be you selectively choosing an interpretation to suit the outcome you want.

The definition is on the OP (post #1):

'Trinity': the (single) immutable framework through which all of 'creation' employs a first principle process(es) comprised of:
generating principle (positive)
operating principle (neutral)
dissolving principle (negative)
which, while seemingly distinct, conjunctly behave as one whole
(which herein henceforth will be termed g.o.d.).

Therefor the Trinity is comprised of g.o.d. which is the (single) immutable framework through which all of 'creation' operates conjunctly as one whole.

Again - you are attacking a model(s) of Trinity that I am not arguing for.

No, your model works just fine. The division of a god concept into separate principles or processes is idolatrous in Judaism. G-d in Judaism is indivisible.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I love how the OP was trying to bash on Muslims but it's a Jew getting on him instead.