Islam's Fatal Denial of the Trinity?

[Ponder This]

It is this fundamental neglect of the feminine aspect of אלהים which the institutions of Christianity and Islam willfully and woefully either conceal and/or ignore. Creation can not happen without the woman/womb no more than it can without the man/seed. Genesis 1:1 (28-letter string) describes a 3, 10 Torus field knot which is essentially centered about a seed producing a womb within which the seed grows and/or is constantly reborn. This is the fundamental essence of אלהים and is found in the original books of Moses which is why (I must necessarily) grant that Moses was a prophet - Christianity and Islam are the ones claiming it, and accordingly both vehemently neglect what Moses actually wrote. The 'Trinity' is present right from Genesis 1:1 onward and is utilized by אלהים in order to "create". To deny this is literally to deny that Moses was a prophet which is obviously detrimental to Christianity/Islam.

Islam affirms that Moses was a prophet of God in Quran, sura 19 (Maryam), ayat 51–53

If your conclusion is incorrect, then there is some confusion about things.

It's not something that can be illicitly "constructed". It just "is" - I am only pointing toward it.

In its most fundamental (crude) form it is the principle of continuous creation via generation/operation/dissolution and/or bestowal/will/reception. It's the same between proton/neutron/electron. I didn't "construct" these things - they just are. Again; the g.o.d. acronym is the finger pointing at the moon.

For example a Hindu perspective of this would be Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva. A Christian perspective would be Father/Son/Holy Spirit. The ancient Egyptian perspective would be Osiris Horus Isis. A kabbalistic perspective would be Kether/Chokmah/Binah etc. These are all garments on the surface of the principle 'Trinity' which underlies all things (what I am arguing for) - I did not "construct" it. It just is, has been, and ever shall be regardless of how many traditions are built upon/around it and/or how well (or poorly) they attempt to "indicate" it.

I see a definition that changes to suit you:
generation/operation/dissolution OR bestowal/will/reception

Your Trinity changes definition to suit you.
??? dissolution <-> reception ???

The names of God in Islam list many attributes of God. I don't think there is a problem calling out three in particular. Why do you ignore that?

 

[9-18-1]

Islam affirms that Moses was a prophet of God in Quran, sura 19 (Maryam), ayat 51–53

If your conclusion is incorrect, then there is some confusion about things.

So there is no confusion:

As you just pointed out, Islam affirms that Moses was a prophet of the 'God of Abraham'. I do not deny it (neither argue for it) but rather grant it to Islam that this is 'true'.

In fact my argument necessitates this: I am arguing that Moses *uses* the 'Trinity' I am arguing *for*. Now where the confusion may exist: this 'Trinity' is not something I myself constructed. It's impossible to do this. Rather, I derived this 'Trinity' *directly* from Moses based on how he wrote the (first) book of Genesis.

For example, once again, each day of creation maintains a strict form that involves:

Genesis 1:3
ויאמר אלהים יהי אור ויהי אור
And GOD said 'Let there be light,' and there was light.

Will (as in: And GOD said).............................o.
Bestowal (as in: Let there be light)................g.
Reception (as in: and there was light)..........d.

Where 'will' is the Operator (neutral - neutron)
Where 'bestowal' is the Generator (positive - proton)
Where 'reception' is the Dissolver (negative - electron)

And even argue that the former two directly correlate to gender: male (Adam) and female (Eve) respectively.

While this 'Trinity' is indeed the "basis" for all trinities to be found (such as Christianity) I can not and do not argue in "favor" of them because they are essentially mythologies. I am sticking strictly to a real-world *practical* application that relates to physical phenomena such as electromagnetism.

Now as it applies to Islam; by virtue of the fact that Islam *holds* (and I grant) that Moses is a prophet of the 'God of Abraham' but that Muhammad denied the existence of a (any) trinity, it necessarily follows Islam is heretical to the 'God of Abraham' as it pertains to Moses - a contradiction that exists within Islam stemming from Muhammad himself.

Further, the 28-letter string of Genesis 1:1 is essentially a schematic of a 3, 10 Torus knot that utilizes 3 "outgoing" polarities (positive/negative/ground):

___________________________________________________________________________
Taken: www.meru.org

The figure on the bottom right of the last graphic is the "shape" of creation as according to the 28-letter string of Genesis 1:1. The 3 "outgoing" columns directly relate to the 'Trinity' I am arguing in favor of and these directly produce the framework through which "creation" works according to the 6-day creation account as in the book of Moses.

I will also point out that the word "Genesis" is not a noun - it is a verb. It can be better understood as "Generations" or "Generating". Those who read this book as a static event that happened (past tense) in the past are not reading it correctly. It directly indicates this system of creation as an ongoing process.

I see a definition that changes to suit you:
generation/operation/dissolution OR bestowal/will/reception

Your Trinity changes definition to suit you.
??? dissolution <-> reception ???

The names of God in Islam list many attributes of God. I don't think there is a problem calling out three in particular. Why do you ignore that?

It doesn't suit me: I don't have a need to be "suited". I (and others as indicated above) derived this 'Trinity' directly from the book of Moses and argue it suits the 'God of Abraham' as according to Moses (whom Muslims claim is a prophet as I grant) and not Muhammad's Islam which denies the existence of any trinity.

 

[Ponder This]

While this 'Trinity' is indeed the "basis" for all trinities to be found (such as Christianity) I can not and do not argue in "favor" of them because they are essentially mythologies. I am sticking strictly to a real-world *practical* application that relates to physical phenomena such as electromagnetism.

Your interpretation of the proton and the electron suggests that you may not understand how your Trinity applies to physical matter (as it is not obvious that the proton corresponds to the male aspect and that the electron corresponds to the female aspect, but it is easy to pretend it does). We have to wonder how your trinity explains that Hydrogen is the first of the elements and is found most commonly as one proton, one electron, and no neutrons (that important third part of God). Perhaps you can explain this, make it apparent, rather than presumptive.
We have to worry that it is the electrons that flow from the negative pole towards the positive pole and not the protons that flow from the positive pole to the negative pole in a current. What is bestowing and what is receiving? But if you have no understanding of such things, then these thoughts do not occur to you.

Now as it applies to Islam; by virtue of the fact that Islam *holds* (and I grant) that Moses is a prophet of the 'God of Abraham' but that Muhammad denied the existence of a (any) trinity, it necessarily follows Islam is heretical to the 'God of Abraham' as it pertains to Moses - a contradiction that exists within Islam stemming from Muhammad himself.

Muhammad was very clear about what he denied. If you disagree with the Islamic denial of the Trinity, then it means you assign a special status to Mary as a god like unto God. Perhaps you pray to Mary. But Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad had in common that they did not pray to Mary, nor did they endorse such.

It doesn't suit me: I don't have a need to be "suited". I (and others as indicated above) derived this 'Trinity' directly from the book of Moses and argue it suits the 'God of Abraham' as according to Moses (whom Muslims claim is a prophet as I grant) and not Muhammad's Islam which denies the existence of any trinity.

You claim Muhammad denies your Trinity. What are you talking about?
Does Muhammad say God does not Will? Does he say God does not Generate? Does he say God does not Dissolve? Does he say Wisdom is not from God (Bestowed)? Does he say we do not receive or understand it (Reception)? Muhammad has denied none of these things. But you say he denies your Trinity.

You cite gender differences in the names of God from the Torah. What does it say in the Qu'ran?
If you know the language, then you know that the masculine form is also the gender neutral form (as in "them").
If you know the Qu'ran, then you know that the word for "We" is used when God references Himself! Who is creating heresies out of lack of understanding?

You put forth meanings of the Torah as if to inform us. Do you respect the Torah? What is your purpose in this? Is it to edify or to distract?

 

[9-18-1]

Your interpretation of the proton and the electron suggests that you may not understand how your Trinity applies to physical matter (as it is not obvious that the proton corresponds to the male aspect and that the electron corresponds to the female aspect, but it is easy to pretend it does).

Once again you are projecting - it is you that may not understand how this 'Trinity' applies to physical matter.

The proton has a positive charge - it is the same energy that directs blood into the phallus to provide an erection. This is 'EL' in the term 'EL - ha - YIM' which is the Hebrew word for 'GOD' responsible for "creating" the heavens and the earth. As such it is directly related to the masculine principle.

The electron has a negative charge - it is the same energy that stimulates moisture in the ovum to accept a phallus. This is 'YIM' in the term 'EL - ha - YIM'. As such it is directly related to the feminine principle.

The neutron has a neutral charge and serves both proton (masculine) and electron (feminine) commonly to perform a stable 'bond'.

EL - Bestow (masculine)........Proton
ha - Will (to)............................Neutron
YIM - Receive (feminine)........Electron

Genesis 1:1
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ
Bareshyith.......................In the beginning
Bara................................creates
EL-ha-YIM......................'GOD'
Et hashemayim...............the heavens
V'et Ha'aretz....................and the earth.

Man on top (el) bestowing the phallus...................proton.
Woman on bottom (yim) receiving the phallus......electron.
Shared will/act (ha).................................................neutron.

The synthesis of the sexual act is how creation itself works on all scales (it is universal). If you deny this, you deny you were born of your mother's womb due to the sexual act (the will of which is either shared or unshared). If your mother was raped (no shared will) and you are a product, it explains your general modus operandi of being rooted in hostility and exhaustive attempts to deny the obvious. Unless otherwise you were homosexually conceived and born from the anus of one of your fathers, this is true.

This is the 'Trinity' which requires a shared will and balance between the masculine/feminine energies and directly correlates to proton/neutron/electron in order to "create". As it pertains to Muhammad and Islam, he instructed his followers to beat women if they are 'disobedient'; one of these reasons may include if the woman refuses her husband sex (no shared will) which directly contests Moses' first sentence of the first chapter of the first book of Moses.

We have to wonder how your trinity explains that Hydrogen is the first of the elements and is found most commonly as one proton, one electron, and no neutrons (that important third part of God). Perhaps you can explain this, make it apparent, rather than presumptive.

Regarding hydrogen, just as one can have a will to bestow (positive) and one can have a will to receive (negative) does not indicate/necessitate a shared will (stable bond) on which the two can exist. This is why hydrogen is one of the most 'unstable' elements aside from being the first.

We have to worry that it is the electrons that flow from the negative pole towards the positive pole and not the protons that flow from the positive pole to the negative pole in a current. What is bestowing and what is receiving? But if you have no understanding of such things, then these thoughts do not occur to you.

Regarding these poles, it is your own (lack of) understanding that is the culprit. Shared will is not a requirement: see 'rape'. Muhammad engaged in this kind of activity regarding the nine-year-old A'isha and his "instruction" from "Allah" is that a woman must yield to her husband's request for sex. This is not a shared will; hence a discharge (due to imbalance) will manifest (ultimately) in the form of human suffering and/or war.

Muhammad was very clear about what he denied. If you disagree with the Islamic denial of the Trinity, then it means you assign a special status to Mary as a god like unto God. Perhaps you pray to Mary. But Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad had in common that they did not pray to Mary, nor did they endorse such.

I don't even grant that Mary is/was a real person as Muhammad erroneously did - these mythological figures are 'idols' that are used to attempt to discuss the nature of the 'Trinity'.

Father - Will 'I am that I am'.......(neutral)
Son - Christ................................(positive)
Holy Spirit - Divine Mother...........(negative)

Mary is a symbol of the Holy Spirit and/or 'divine mother' of creation. She is not real; I do not "pray" to anything, rather I meditate on what symbols mean and reduce them back into First Principle(s).

You claim Muhammad denies your Trinity. What are you talking about?
Does Muhammad say God does not Will? Does he say God does not Generate? Does he say God does not Dissolve? Does he say Wisdom is not from God (Bestowed)? Does he say we do not receive or understand it (Reception)? Muhammad has denied none of these things. But you say he denies your Trinity.

Not "my" Trinity - I don't own the Trinity. It just *is* - that Muhammad denies the existence of *the* Trinity is all that is relevant. There is a Triune 'Trinity' principle at the head of creation - always has been, is, and always will be. To deny this is to deny creation itself.

You cite gender differences in the names of God from the Torah. What does it say in the Qu'ran?
If you know the language, then you know that the masculine form is also the gender neutral form (as in "them").
If you know the Qu'ran, then you know that the word for "We" is used when God references Himself! Who is creating heresies out of lack of understanding?

The Qur'an is man-made - as you also agree - and as such I don't *care* what the Qur'an says. However I do *care* about what the book(s) of Moses say because Muslims claim Moses is a prophet of the 'God of Abraham' and as such I read them in their original Hebrew language - the language that Moses (granting he is/was real) spoke and wrote in.

The royal "We" implicitly contains the masculine/feminine as one entity: king and queen. God is not a 'Himself' and this is precisely why Islam is a patriarchal mess that actively destroys the feminine aspect of 'GOD' which Moses denoted as 'Elhayim' - see above.

You put forth meanings of the Torah as if to inform us. Do you respect the Torah? What is your purpose in this? Is it to edify or to distract?

The Torah contains the "seed" of creation - Genesis 1:1 is a 28-letter string of characters (code) that describes a seed-within-itself matrix within which (and as which) all things exist and describes how "continuous creation" works.

I do not argue the Torah is from 'GOD' - however I grant to Muslims for the sake of argument that Moses was a prophet because in doing so, the fundamental precepts found in the books of Moses wholly contradict the teachings/behaviors of Muhammad.

I personally, at the very least, accept that the Torah was written by a being(s) whose consciousness was/is well beyond most humans' living in this day and age. By trade I am an analyst for a private body which requires me to analyze data and derive a meaning(s). When I do this with the Torah, it is describing a geometrical framework upon and through which creation functions.

 

[Ponder This]

Once again you are projecting - it is you that may not understand how this 'Trinity' applies to physical matter.

The proton has a positive charge - it is the same energy that directs blood into the phallus to provide an erection. This is 'EL' in the term 'EL - ha - YIM' which is the Hebrew word for 'GOD' responsible for "creating" the heavens and the earth. As such it is directly related to the masculine principle.

The electron has a negative charge - it is the same energy that stimulates moisture in the ovum to accept a phallus. This is 'YIM' in the term 'EL - ha - YIM'. As such it is directly related to the feminine principle.

You are correct that I don't understand how you are applying your Trinity principle to physical matter or biology.
FYI: Sperm is Basic and the Vagina is Acidic. This means that Sperm have fewer free protons and the Vagina has more free protons.
The Basics of Sperm pH
Vaginal pH Balance
And the neutron? What is the role of the neutron in all of this?

I appreciate that you are making an effort to explain how your principle can actually relate to physical matter. Can you back up your statements with references so that it doesn't seem like you are just making things up?

This is the 'Trinity' which requires a shared will and balance between the masculine/feminine energies and directly correlates to proton/neutron/electron in order to "create". As it pertains to Muhammad and Islam, he instructed his followers to beat women if they are 'disobedient'; one of these reasons may include if the woman refuses her husband sex (no shared will) which directly contests Moses' first sentence of the first chapter of the first book of Moses.

How strange that a man should beat his wife after deliberately abstaining from sharing her bed!
Tell me how it is that the Qu'ran advocates beating wives who refuse sex, when it is the man who has refused sex with the woman (Surah An-Nisa 4:34)?
Moreover, Muhammad detested men who beat their wives (by Hadith from Sahih Al-Bukhari)

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Sam'a The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."​

But your reference to the first sentence of Genesis as being an instruction not to beat your wife is truly a stretch of imagination!

Regarding hydrogen, just as one can have a will to bestow (positive) and one can have a will to receive (negative) does not indicate/necessitate a shared will (stable bond) on which the two can exist. This is why hydrogen is one of the most 'unstable' elements aside from being the first.

Deuterium is flammable. So much for 'stability'. And it is toxic for your body. If you replaced your hydrogen with Deuterium you would suffer health problems.

Regarding these poles, it is your own (lack of) understanding that is the culprit. Shared will is not a requirement: see 'rape'. Muhammad engaged in this kind of activity regarding the nine-year-old A'isha and his "instruction" from "Allah" is that a woman must yield to her husband's request for sex. This is not a shared will; hence a discharge (due to imbalance) will manifest (ultimately) in the form of human suffering and/or war.

It is curious to talk about the imaginary rape of A'isha in the absence of her testimony on the matter. She was a prominent figure, not above rebuking Muhammad, and Muhammad even instructed others to take religious instruction from her! On what basis have you decided that she did not consent to have sex with Muhammad?

I don't even grant that Mary is/was a real person as Muhammad erroneously did - these mythological figures are 'idols' that are used to attempt to discuss the nature of the 'Trinity'.

Father - Will 'I am that I am'.......(neutral)
Son - Christ................................(positive)
Holy Spirit - Divine Mother...........(negative)

Mary is a symbol of the Holy Spirit and/or 'divine mother' of creation. She is not real; I do not "pray" to anything, rather I meditate on what symbols mean and reduce them back into First Principle(s).

Your worship is for you to figure out. That you regard the figures of Old and New Testament as mythological and not real is on you as well. Perhaps you regard the lineages carefully recorded (so-and-so begat so-and-so and so on) as Mythological lineages. Maybe you regard references to locations such as Jerusalem or Israel as Mythological too. Even so, they did not pray to Mary as God in any of the texts regardless of whether or not you consider the texts to be 'real' or not or whether you regard Mary as being 'real' or not or mythological or not.

Not "my" Trinity - I don't own the Trinity. It just *is* - that Muhammad denies the existence of *the* Trinity is all that is relevant. There is a Triune 'Trinity' principle at the head of creation - always has been, is, and always will be. To deny this is to deny creation itself.

Well, you've failed to make the case to me that Muhammad has denied any particular part of the Trinity you proposed, whether it be the willing principle, generating principle, dissolving principle, receiving principle, or other that you have come up with. And your response here indicates to me that you have no rebuttal for that. Peace.

The Qur'an is man-made - as you also agree - and as such I don't *care* what the Qur'an says. However I do *care* about what the book(s) of Moses say because Muslims claim Moses is a prophet of the 'God of Abraham' and as such I read them in their original Hebrew language - the language that Moses (granting he is/was real) spoke and wrote in.

The royal "We" implicitly contains the masculine/feminine as one entity: king and queen. God is not a 'Himself' and this is precisely why Islam is a patriarchal mess that actively destroys the feminine aspect of 'GOD' which Moses denoted as 'Elhayim' - see above.

Islam is a patriarchal mess because of pronouns?!?

The Torah contains the "seed" of creation - Genesis 1:1 is a 28-letter string of characters (code) that describes a seed-within-itself matrix within which (and as which) all things exist and describes how "continuous creation" works.

I do not argue the Torah is from 'GOD' - however I grant to Muslims for the sake of argument that Moses was a prophet because in doing so, the fundamental precepts found in the books of Moses wholly contradict the teachings/behaviors of Muhammad.

I personally, at the very least, accept that the Torah was written by a being(s) whose consciousness was/is well beyond most humans' living in this day and age. By trade I am an analyst for a private body which requires me to analyze data and derive a meaning(s). When I do this with the Torah, it is describing a geometrical framework upon and through which creation functions.

God-willing you will come to understanding. But I think the fundamental problem with your proposal that Muhammad denies your g.o.d principle is that, although you are willing to devote much time and effort to analyzing the Torah, you have rejected, without examination, any serious study of the Qu'ran or of Muhammad.

Peace.

 

[9-18-1]

You are correct that I don't understand how you are applying your Trinity principle to physical matter or biology.
FYI: Sperm is Basic and the Vagina is Acidic. This means that Sperm have fewer free protons and the Vagina has more free protons.
The Basics of Sperm pH
Vaginal pH Balance
And the neutron? What is the role of the neutron in all of this?

The shared (or unshared) will when a man and a woman come together. The neutron is a shared 'ground' - precisely in the same way electricity has a 'ground'. When the will is shared - this is "good". When the will is unshared (as in rape or beating women) this is "evil".

I appreciate that you are making an effort to explain how your principle can actually relate to physical matter. Can you back up your statements with references so that it doesn't seem like you are just making things up?

Understanding energy works on the principle of positive/neutral/negative requires no explanation. The synthesis of it as it applies to "creation" is generation/operation/dissolution.

How strange that a man should beat his wife after deliberately abstaining from sharing her bed!
Tell me how it is that the Qu'ran advocates beating wives who refuse sex, when it is the man who has refused sex with the woman (Surah An-Nisa 4:34)?
Moreover, Muhammad detested men who beat their wives (by Hadith from Sahih Al-Bukhari)

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Sam'a The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."​

But your reference to the first sentence of Genesis as being an instruction not to beat your wife is truly a stretch of imagination!

Your reference is proving the opposite of what you are claiming: Muhammad is actually condoning beating women here (...as one flogs a slave). He is also talking about owning slaves as well as wives - but it is good to know you are arguing to defend both beating women and slavery as Muhammad practiced. It adds a lot of depth to your position. Trying to "claim" Muhammad did not partake and/or instruct his followers to beat women is incredibly dishonest and I won't even entertain such an argument.

Deuterium is flammable. So much for 'stability'. And it is toxic for your body. If you replaced your hydrogen with Deuterium you would suffer health problems.

Hydrogen is unstable - deuterium is a stable isotope. I was not talking about deuterium - you started talking about it.

It is curious to talk about the imaginary rape of A'isha in the absence of her testimony on the matter. She was a prominent figure, not above rebuking Muhammad, and Muhammad even instructed others to take religious instruction from her! On what basis have you decided that she did not consent to have sex with Muhammad?

She was nine years old and still playing with dolls. If you "believe" and/or "feel" that sex with a nine-year-old girl who is still playing with dolls is "Acceptable" for a 50+ year old man, I have no interest in even speaking to someone who defends pedophilia - it is disgusting and anyone/everyone who defends it is disgusting and well short of "human being".

Your worship is for you to figure out. That you regard the figures of Old and New Testament as mythological and not real is on you as well. Perhaps you regard the lineages carefully recorded (so-and-so begat so-and-so and so on) as Mythological lineages. Maybe you regard references to locations such as Jerusalem or Israel as Mythological too. Even so, they did not pray to Mary as God in any of the texts regardless of whether or not you consider the texts to be 'real' or not or whether you regard Mary as being 'real' or not or mythological or not.

They are mythological - for example the Hebrew word for "Egypt" is "Mitzraim" which refers to the lowest region(s) of the body - the area(s) wherein people are bound (bondage).

Nobody is talking about "praying" to Mary (although the Catholic Church prays to Mary all of the time) but she was/is regarded as a part of the Christian Trinity: Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

Well, you've failed to make the case to me that Muhammad has denied any particular part of the Trinity you proposed, whether it be the willing principle, generating principle, dissolving principle, receiving principle, or other that you have come up with. And your response here indicates to me that you have no rebuttal for that. Peace.

Well, given your apologetic attitude toward beating women, slavery, and pedophilia, defending Muhammad (as with all Muslims) seems to be of principle concern to you.

Just by virtue of the fact Muhammad ignorantly upset the balance between men and women (polygamy) is enough to know he was wholly ignorant of the fundamental structure of creation which requires a balance between masculine and feminine. This is exactly what El-ha'yim means: masculine and feminine under one shared will. This is how creation "works" even according to how Moses (pbuh right?) wrote the first book.

Islam is a patriarchal mess because of pronouns?!?

No; it is a mess for (some of) the following reasons:

i. The Qur'an is forged (man-made) from Christian strophic hymnal poetry and aporcypha; it's structure is a bloody mess and produces nothing but bloody messes (see life of Muhammad).
ii. Muhammad degraded women into a status less than men, in contradiction with the principle of El-ha'yim: the shared will between masculine and feminine, by taking to multiple wives and instructing his followers do the same (infidelity) and "beating" those who are not subordinate. This fundamental imbalance (coveting of women) has, is, and will lead to enmity (possessive covetousness) and bloodshed. See Cain.
iii. Like Adam's blaming the woman for his own inequity, Islam blames women for almost every misdeed a man does, up to and including rape (major patriarchy) - if a man rapes a woman, it is the man at fault. Islam places the blame on the women, which is grotesque and disgusting.

God-willing you will come to understanding. But I think the fundamental problem with your proposal that Muhammad denies your g.o.d principle is that, although you are willing to devote much time and effort to analyzing the Torah, you have rejected, without examination, any serious study of the Qu'ran or of Muhammad.

Peace.

I've actually studied both - I have studied where the Qur'an (actually) came from and find, contrary to Muslims' dogmatic claim, that it is nowhere near the perfect word of any 'god'. We know at least 1/3 of it is derived from Syro-Aramaic Christian strophic hymns (as poetry) and it contains many technical errors that can only be resolved when read in the original language of Syriac. I have read many biographies and treatises of Muhammad and understand his general pathology: he was a psychological projector - he imbued other people with his own characteristics and persecuted them despite the things he "hated" were actually parts of himself. Many Muslims carry this same trait - see "Islamophobia" - Muslims projecting their own insecurity and/or inability (phobia) of Islam outward and imbuing anyone/everyone else as having it, meanwhile only a Muslim can be an "Islamophobe". This is directly related to 'idol worship' and is precisely why Moses warned against it - it leads to enmity and bloodshed which Islam generates like a machine.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I'd like to know how someone believes in a Trinity but does not and w

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

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


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.



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


And they are divided in that they are disparate parts that are needed to form that one 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 know. Otherwise you wouldn't have used that phrase.


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.


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.

That is a good point.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'd like to know how someone believes in a Trinity but does not and will not define it.

Good point about God being indivisible.

 

[9-18-1]

I'd like to know how someone believes in a Trinity but does not and w


That is a good point.

It's actually not a good point - it is based in ignorance (not a derogatory type, just unknowing).

There are only three letters used to denote the Tetragrammaton - yud, heh, and vav. The yud begins in the head (as "ee"), the first heh is in the throat/chest (as "ah") and the vav goes to the base of the spine (as "oo").

The second heh is not a new/unique letter and is not even referring to the body itself - it connects the body to ein soph through da'at. As such the Tetragrammaton contains only the three primary forces required to create (related to Christianity's Father/Son/Holy Spirit) connected to the ein soph through the final heh.

When you place a shin in the middle of the Tetragrammaton you derive Yaheshua which is Christ - the three primary forces of a particular being is contained in shin (technically: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob in the context of the 'God of Abraham') which is the monad of the being. When YHVH is infused with the monad (shin) it becomes Christ (Yaheshua). This is why Moses' name is written with mem (from water) shin (fire arises) heh (connecting to ain soph through da'at). This is also why only Moses (monad connected to da'at) can "see" G-d face-to-face.

From a kaballistic perspective the three primary forces (same as in Christianity's Father/Son/Holy Spirit) are the three topmost sephiroth of the Tree of Life - Kether, Chokmah, Binah. These three primary forces are denoted by yud, heh, vav respectively.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have seen a lot of garbage dressed up as theology on this forum.
but the posts by @9-18-1 take the biscuit for sheer nonsense.

People either accept the Nicene concept of the Trinity or they do not.
It is only used as a measure of "Christianity" by those who do.

It it totally irrelevant to Jews and Moslems and to many branches of the Christian faith.

 

[9-18-1]

I have seen a lot of garbage dressed up as theology on this forum.
but the posts by @9-18-1 take the biscuit for sheer nonsense.

People either accept the Nicene concept of the Trinity or they do not.
It is only used as a measure of "Christianity" by those who do.

It it totally irrelevant to Jews and Moslems and to many branches of the Christian faith.

The 'Trinity' need not have anything to do with theology. Gnosis means "to know" - it has nothing to do with belief. There are theological constructs (such as Nicene) developed around the Trinity which attempt to describe it. It is most certainly not the *only* concept and only an extremist would reduce it into "either you accept the Nicene Trinity or you do not" which is what you have just done; "my way" or "the highway". The Trinity I am arguing doesn't belong to anyone or anything - it just *is* regardless of if one is aware of it or not.

This Trinity I am talking about has nothing to do with Nicene, theology, religion, "belief" etc. perhaps exclusively for the fact that Christianity (and Islam) are idol worship that erect mundane central figures people attach themselves to and imitate for a living. To put a theological spin on it, Moses forbid the taking up of idols which is precisely what Christians and Muslims have done. You can actually see in Exodus 20:4 where Moses points directly at the Trinity:

Exodus 20:4
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

in heaven above = head (psychology)
in the earth beneath = heart (emotion)
in the water underneath the earth (behavioral)

As it applies to both Christianity and Islam, both utilize a psychological construct (central figure; Jesus/Muhammad) with which an emotional attachment is created that leads to behavioral imitation/emulation. This is precisely what Moses said not to do, and thus we observe that Christianity/Islam have exceedingly bloody histories.

Now as it pertains to Jews/Muslims, or anyone for that matter, to deny the Trinity is to deny that a human being is equipped with a brain, a heart, and a sexual reproductive organ. Whether or not one uses them (especially the first two) has nothing to do with whether or not one is born equipped with them. This, as I argue, is the direct fingerprint of the Trinity - precisely in the same way Christianity uses the "sign of the cross" to indicate the head (Father), the Son (heart) and the Holy Spirit (...shoulders).

Why isn't the sign of the Holy Spirit performed on the genitalia? Well we wouldn't want the entirety of Sunday Services to be about the touching of the genitalia now would we? We know that there is more than enough of that going on in these "religious institutions" that patrons frequent with their children desiring to "learn" about "God".

So with regards to your "garbage dressed up as theology" comment, I would say theology is the real garbage dressed up as actual knowledge/wisdom. The sad part is Moses actually explained all of this in his books but idol worshiping Christians/Muslims can not see it for their idol worship of Jesus/Muhammad.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The 'Trinity' need not have anything to do with theology. Gnosis means "to know" - it has nothing to do with belief. There are theological constructs (such as Nicene) developed around the Trinity which attempt to describe it. It is most certainly not the *only* concept and only an extremist would reduce it into "either you accept the Nicene Trinity or you do not" which is what you have just done; "my way" or "the highway". The Trinity I am arguing doesn't belong to anyone or anything - it just *is* regardless of if one is aware of it or not.

This Trinity I am talking about has nothing to do with Nicene, theology, religion, "belief" etc. perhaps exclusively for the fact that Christianity (and Islam) are idol worship that erect mundane central figures people attach themselves to and imitate for a living. To put a theological spin on it, Moses forbid the taking up of idols which is precisely what Christians and Muslims have done. You can actually see in Exodus 20:4 where Moses points directly at the Trinity:

Exodus 20:4
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

in heaven above = head (psychology)
in the earth beneath = heart (emotion)
in the water underneath the earth (behavioral)

As it applies to both Christianity and Islam, both utilize a psychological construct (central figure; Jesus/Muhammad) with which an emotional attachment is created that leads to behavioral imitation/emulation. This is precisely what Moses said not to do, and thus we observe that Christianity/Islam have exceedingly bloody histories.

Now as it pertains to Jews/Muslims, or anyone for that matter, to deny the Trinity is to deny that a human being is equipped with a brain, a heart, and a sexual reproductive organ. Whether or not one uses them (especially the first two) has nothing to do with whether or not one is born equipped with them. This, as I argue, is the direct fingerprint of the Trinity - precisely in the same way Christianity uses the "sign of the cross" to indicate the head (Father), the Son (heart) and the Holy Spirit (...shoulders).

Why isn't the sign of the Holy Spirit performed on the genitalia? Well we wouldn't want the entirety of Sunday Services to be about the touching of the genitalia now would we? We know that there is more than enough of that going on in these "religious institutions" that patrons frequent with their children desiring to "learn" about "God".

So with regards to your "garbage dressed up as theology" comment, I would say theology is the real garbage dressed up as actual knowledge/wisdom. The sad part is Moses actually explained all of this in his books but idol worshiping Christians/Muslims can not see it for their idol worship of Jesus/Muhammad.

Merriam Webster......
theology
noun
the·ol·o·gy | \thē-ˈä-lə-jē \
plural theologies
Definition of theology


1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experienceespecially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

2a: a theological theory or systemThomist theologya theology of atonement

b: a distinctive body of theological opinionCatholic theology

3: a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

Every thing that you have written is Your own version of Theology.
It is clearly invention, and is contrary to the beliefs of all the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[9-18-1]

Merriam Webster......
theology
noun
the·ol·o·gy | \thē-ˈä-lə-jē \
plural theologies
Definition of theology

Let us go through them and understand why the 'Trinity' I am arguing for has absolutely nothing to do with any 'theology'.

1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experienceespecially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

.

I do not advocate spirituality; neither a path to it; neither argue in favor of the existence of any God. The nature of the 'Trinity' I am arguing is wholly natural in that it *exists* as it is. For example; in accordance with Jews' Christians' and Muslims' claim that "Moses" is a prophet of the 'God of Abraham' (a position of theirs I accept for the sake of argument) behold the name translated as 'GOD' in English translations of the Bible:

אלהים

This name is extremely significant. Whether or not the aforementioned "adherents" to the 'God of Abraham' are aware of what this name means has no bearing on what the name is actually indicating in the way of a universal principle: that is the relationship between masculine and feminine (as follows).

There are many ways to read it. It is difficult to explain because people such as yourself and likewise many who attack me have no appreciation for:

1. The original language Moses used in the Torah - Hebrew (which is alphanumeric)
2. Language (in general) - arguments refrain from rhetoric

אל generally means "going toward" and this is the general principle of the creative god. It is masculine.
אלה is the same but the polarity is flipped: "coming into" and as is feminine.
ים is the root of sea and/or expanse. It also indicates plurality.

Therefor אלהים is thus: the principle (archetypal) relationship between masculine and feminine. To use the degenerated language of today's day: 'GOD' is not a man, neither a woman. It's image and likeness are that of ADAM and EVE: the relationship between man (masculine) and woman (feminine). The former are made 'in the image and likeness' of אלהים. This is according to the account given by Moses whom Jews, Christians and Muslims call a "prophet" which, again, I will grant for the sake of argument. I don't argue in favor of it.

This is precisely why I *grant* to the Jews, Christians, Muslims, and/or any being alive on this planet that wishes to enter the debate at any point: to deny the nature of אלהים as being the archetypal relationship between masculine and feminine, as given in the following narrative that Adam and Eve are precisely made in the image and likeness of אלהים is hypocrisy and/or ignorance of what is contained in the first page of the first chapter of the first book of Moses. To deny this is to deny ones own self as having been born of their own mother's womb through an impregnation of their own father's seed. This is "Genesis" - B'resheeth. If the Jews/Christians/Muslims don't understand how "Genesis" works (as a verb; ongoing as "life" is an ongoing process) then they are not "real" Jews/Christians/Muslims. They are hypocrites, and so are they who deny the "nature" of אלהים for any which reason to succumb themselves to. Such a denial is to deny reality itself which is a proper ingredient for insanity. See Muhammad's Islam for that - he "created" an "Allah" that actively destroys the balance between masculine and feminine. Islam is this institutionalized imbalance, and Christianity before it.

2a: a theological theory or systemThomist theologya theology of atonement

Religion.

b: a distinctive body of theological opinionCatholic theology

More religion.

3: a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

lol

Every thing that you have written is Your own version of Theology.
It is clearly invention, and is contrary to the beliefs of all the Abrahamic faiths.

There is no theology involved outside of the 'theology' that are espoused by Jews/Christians/Muslims. I grant their assertion Moses is/was a prophet and point to his own writings.

I argue in favor of a 'Trinity' that naturally gives rise to a child being born of a mother and father. That is not a 'theology' - that is a truth of the way of life.

But to bring Christian theology in, Christians do not generally understand the gravity of the words ascribed to Jesus in him being "the truth, the way and the life". The original Greek language actually rendered it "I am the truth of the way of life." : Indeed 'knowing' (not "believing" or "imagining") the truth(s) of the way(s) of live(s) is essential; and theologically is the 'light' of the first day of creation. If one can not distinguish what is true from what is untrue they are not even engaging the first day of creation Moses gives as the basis of Generations. This example I hope should serve as to why I *grant* Moses is/was a prophet: technically what is written in the Torah (in the language Moses himself used) is describing a Natural Truth: that which exists that can not be "separate" from the source of creation and/or 'GOD' herein termed the 'God of Abraham'.

 

[9-18-1]

Merriam Webster......
theology
noun
the·ol·o·gy | \thē-ˈä-lə-jē \
plural theologies
Definition of theology


1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experienceespecially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

2a: a theological theory or systemThomist theologya theology of atonement

b: a distinctive body of theological opinionCatholic theology

3: a usually 4-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary

Every thing that you have written is Your own version of Theology.
It is clearly invention, and is contrary to the beliefs of all the Abrahamic faiths.

Was addressed - my argument is not one of 'theology'; one can not 'invent' the fact that a man and a woman produce a child - it just *is* and is in complete agreement with the early writings of Moses.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Was addressed - my argument is not one of 'theology'; one can not 'invent' the fact that a man and a woman produce a child - it just *is* and is in complete agreement with the early writings of Moses.

In the case of the child Jesus he was conceived by the Holy Ghost coming upon Mary. How does that fit your argument.

 

[9-18-1]

In the case of the child Jesus he was conceived by the Holy Ghost coming upon Mary. How does that fit your argument.

This is 'theology' and doesn't "fit" my argument at all because I am not arguing in favor of any 'theology'. This was made clear in the initial post.

However Christianity is a theology which attempts to describe the primordial relationship between Father/Mother/Child. It has adapted Joseph/Mary/Jesus for this purpose.

I don't argue in favor of this 'theology' and the 'Trinity' which I do argue for has nothing to do with Joseph, Mary, or Jesus. It is very simple and is even present in (actually "as") Genesis:

Shared Will: In the beginning GOD [אלהים] created
To Bestow: the heavens
To Receive: and the earth.

The will is 'shared' because it is man (masculine) and woman (feminine) acting as one. In terms of the sexual act (required for Genesis - generations) the man "bestows" the phallus, the woman "receives" the phallus in her ovum. This is precisely the seed-in-womb and/or seed-in-itself form that the 28-letter string of Genesis 1:1 forms in the form of a 3, 10 Torus Knot:

_______________________________________________________________________________
Images: www.meru.org

As such the primordial 'Trinity' which I do argue for, is reflected in the three turns of the 3, 10 torus knot. It has nothing to do with 'theology'; no religion or belief-based system. It just *is* and is actually described by the 28-letter string as found in Genesis 1:1. As such, once again, this is why I *grant* to Jews/Christians/Muslims that Moses was a prophet. I use it to destroy their own 'theology' by arguing in favor of a system that has nothing to do with theology.

One can not "believe" in this 'Trinity' I propose because it is present in the human body itself via the relationship between brain, heart and sex. This relationship is actually the basis for 'The Wizard of Oz' wherein Dorothy travels the yellow brick road toward 'Oz' and collects three "helpers": a scarecrow looking for a brain, a tin man looking for a heart, and a lion looking for "the nerve" - this is a family-friendly way of saying the raw sexual energy. There are countless such examples to be found that similarly allude to this relationship - not the least of which is Christianity's Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's actually not a good point - it is based in ignorance (not a derogatory type, just unknowing).

There are only three letters used to denote the Tetragrammaton - yud, heh, and vav. The yud begins in the head (as "ee"), the first heh is in the throat/chest (as "ah") and the vav goes to the base of the spine (as "oo").

The second heh is not a new/unique letter and is not even referring to the body itself - it connects the body to ein soph through da'at. As such the Tetragrammaton contains only the three primary forces required to create (related to Christianity's Father/Son/Holy Spirit) connected to the ein soph through the final heh.

When you place a shin in the middle of the Tetragrammaton you derive Yaheshua which is Christ - the three primary forces of a particular being is contained in shin (technically: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob in the context of the 'God of Abraham') which is the monad of the being. When YHVH is infused with the monad (shin) it becomes Christ (Yaheshua). This is why Moses' name is written with mem (from water) shin (fire arises) heh (connecting to ain soph through da'at). This is also why only Moses (monad connected to da'at) can "see" G-d face-to-face.

From a kaballistic perspective the three primary forces (same as in Christianity's Father/Son/Holy Spirit) are the three topmost sephiroth of the Tree of Life - Kether, Chokmah, Binah. These three primary forces are denoted by yud, heh, vav respectively.

You would need, I suppose, the kabbalah to explain this to you? Because the Hebrew scrolls in existence today have four, not three letters for the divine name. And sometimes they were described as all vowel sounds.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is 'theology' and doesn't "fit" my argument at all because I am not arguing in favor of any 'theology'. This was made clear in the initial post.

However Christianity is a theology which attempts to describe the primordial relationship between Father/Mother/Child. It has adapted Joseph/Mary/Jesus for this purpose.

I don't argue in favor of this 'theology' and the 'Trinity' which I do argue for has nothing to do with Joseph, Mary, or Jesus. It is very simple and is even present in (actually "as") Genesis:

Shared Will: In the beginning GOD [אלהים] created
To Bestow: the heavens
To Receive: and the earth.

The will is 'shared' because it is man (masculine) and woman (feminine) acting as one. In terms of the sexual act (required for Genesis - generations) the man "bestows" the phallus, the woman "receives" the phallus in her ovum. This is precisely the seed-in-womb and/or seed-in-itself form that the 28-letter string of Genesis 1:1 forms in the form of a 3, 10 Torus Knot:

_______________________________________________________________________________
Images: www.meru.org

As such the primordial 'Trinity' which I do argue for, is reflected in the three turns of the 3, 10 torus knot. It has nothing to do with 'theology'; no religion or belief-based system. It just *is* and is actually described by the 28-letter string as found in Genesis 1:1. As such, once again, this is why I *grant* to Jews/Christians/Muslims that Moses was a prophet. I use it to destroy their own 'theology' by arguing in favor of a system that has nothing to do with theology.

One can not "believe" in this 'Trinity' I propose because it is present in the human body itself via the relationship between brain, heart and sex. This relationship is actually the basis for 'The Wizard of Oz' wherein Dorothy travels the yellow brick road toward 'Oz' and collects three "helpers": a scarecrow looking for a brain, a tin man looking for a heart, and a lion looking for "the nerve" - this is a family-friendly way of saying the raw sexual energy. There are countless such examples to be found that similarly allude to this relationship - not the least of which is Christianity's Father/Son/Holy Spirit.

this is virtually incomprehensible except for the ones that may have been on a mystical trip perhaps?

 

[YoursTrue]

The 'Trinity' need not have anything to do with theology. Gnosis means "to know" - it has nothing to do with belief. There are theological constructs (such as Nicene) developed around the Trinity which attempt to describe it. It is most certainly not the *only* concept and only an extremist would reduce it into "either you accept the Nicene Trinity or you do not" which is what you have just done; "my way" or "the highway". The Trinity I am arguing doesn't belong to anyone or anything - it just *is* regardless of if one is aware of it or not.

This Trinity I am talking about has nothing to do with Nicene, theology, religion, "belief" etc. perhaps exclusively for the fact that Christianity (and Islam) are idol worship that erect mundane central figures people attach themselves to and imitate for a living. To put a theological spin on it, Moses forbid the taking up of idols which is precisely what Christians and Muslims have done. You can actually see in Exodus 20:4 where Moses points directly at the Trinity:

Exodus 20:4
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

in heaven above = head (psychology)
in the earth beneath = heart (emotion)
in the water underneath the earth (behavioral)

As it applies to both Christianity and Islam, both utilize a psychological construct (central figure; Jesus/Muhammad) with which an emotional attachment is created that leads to behavioral imitation/emulation. This is precisely what Moses said not to do, and thus we observe that Christianity/Islam have exceedingly bloody histories.

Now as it pertains to Jews/Muslims, or anyone for that matter, to deny the Trinity is to deny that a human being is equipped with a brain, a heart, and a sexual reproductive organ. Whether or not one uses them (especially the first two) has nothing to do with whether or not one is born equipped with them. This, as I argue, is the direct fingerprint of the Trinity - precisely in the same way Christianity uses the "sign of the cross" to indicate the head (Father), the Son (heart) and the Holy Spirit (...shoulders).

Why isn't the sign of the Holy Spirit performed on the genitalia? Well we wouldn't want the entirety of Sunday Services to be about the touching of the genitalia now would we? We know that there is more than enough of that going on in these "religious institutions" that patrons frequent with their children desiring to "learn" about "God".

So with regards to your "garbage dressed up as theology" comment, I would say theology is the real garbage dressed up as actual knowledge/wisdom. The sad part is Moses actually explained all of this in his books but idol worshiping Christians/Muslims can not see it for their idol worship of Jesus/Muhammad.

Most people associate the Trinity with some form of worship.

 

[YoursTrue]

Was addressed - my argument is not one of 'theology'; one can not 'invent' the fact that a man and a woman produce a child - it just *is* and is in complete agreement with the early writings of Moses.

The Trinity: man, woman and child?