So far we have only
examined the underlying compulsions which led to the creation of the
myths of Jesus’ deification and his so-called role in the Trinity as the
Son of God. But the third person in the Christian dogma of Trinity,
that is the Holy Ghost is bit of an enigma. Why could not ‘Two in One’
suffice and why was there the need to introduce the third entity into
this fundamental doctrine? Logically, the third entity has no
justification to occupy a place in the Christian concept of godhead.
Harnack, a commentator on this question feels that initially,
Christianity was represented by a dryad in God and Jesus. It later
encompassed the church referring to it as ‘The Spirit’ to add an element
of divinity to what would otherwise be a hollow and implausible third
partner. This also served as an excellent anti-judaic tool.1 Rev K.E. Kirk in his essay on The Evolution of the Doctrine of Trinity has this to say on the same subject:
‘We
naturally turn to the writers of that period to discover what grounds
they have for their belief. To our surprise, we are forced to admit that
they have none. The question as it presented itself to them was not, Why three persons? but rather Why not?’
He
goes on to point out the complete failure of Christian theology to
produce any logical justification for the trinitarian doctrine and the
Christian triad could be explained as essentially a binatarian concept
to which a third disparate entity was laced in order to paint a more
complete picture.2
We
believe that this entity gradually evolved under the influence of
earlier pagan philosophies and myths which abounded in the Roman empire.
The exchange of ideas must have drawn Christian theologians to
determine the position of the Holy Ghost. As there is ample evidence of
the existence of such faiths or cults that visualized God as being
composed of three entities in one, it is not difficult to trace back the
ultimate source of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. After all if
two could be one, and one two, why could not three be one as well. It is
for the research scholars to determine exactly when and how the third
entity of the Christian godhead took its firm roots in Christian
mythology, but at present it is outside the domain of this discussion.
Here, we only wish to examine the absurdity of such claims that are
rejected outright by human understanding. Human nature spurns
self-contradictory and paradoxical ideas.
When
one tries to visualize the inter-relationship of the three constituents
of the Christian godhead, the only possible scenarios which arise are
as follows:
- They possessed different phases or aspects of one single person.
- They were three different persons, sharing eternity among themselves equally.
- They were three persons with some of their characteristics individual and distinct; not entirely shared by others.
- They were three persons in one with completely similar characteristics and similar equal powers, merged with each other and with no functions separate from the other.
As
for this possibility there is no need to discuss it at length because
there is hardly any Christian today who would believe Jesus to be an
aspect or a phase of God rather than a distinct person. Believers in
Trinity insist on there being three different persons merged into one.
The
moment one accepts the scenario of one person having different aspects
displayed simultaneously, the concept of Trinity, that is, of three gods
in one, melts away into thin air. and no Trinity is left at all. Then
it would be God the Father Himself who, motivated by His mercy, would
die for human sins. In this case it will merely be a transient phase of
the same person. Aspects are not persons, and similarly phases do not
create separate entities. Any human being can pass through a multitude
of varying moods and aspects, without splitting into two or three or
many persons. Therefore, if God decided to die for the sake of the
sinful humanity, it will have to be God Himself and not His aspects who
would do so.
Hence,
regarding the case in point, that aspect of God which played a vital
role in the Divine sacrifice for the sake of sinful humanity can only be
understood to be a mere display of one of his attributes. So, if the
mercy of God is alone to be treated as a ‘person’ and that person is
given the name of Jesus Christ, then that something which died was the
‘mercy’ of God. What a strange contradiction that the mercy of God,
having taken pity on sinful humanity, commits suicide. It implies that
for three days and nights there was no mercy left in God.
Remember
that in this scenario, Jesus is not being treated as a separate
independent person, but only a characteristic or an aspect of God in
which he becomes a sort of mercy personified. That person however
remains to be the one single indivisible entity of God. So if anything
died during this process, it would have to be either the person God or
the attribute of His Mercy which played the most vital role in this
episode. Hence there is no option but to believe in either the death of
the Mercy of God, or the death of Merciful God Himself.
Many
complications would arise out of the claim that aspects of a single
person could be wiped out of existence, whether temporarily or
permanently. This scenario can only be understood in relation to its
application to human experience. A man can lose sight or hearing
temporarily or permanently, but he would still be the same living man.
The death of a faculty is, in fact, a partial death of the same person.
In the ultimate analysis, the loser or sufferer remains the same
individual entity of the person.
If
they were three different persons sharing eternity simultaneously, the
question would arise as to their internal relationship. If they were
eternally three persons making one God, they have to have their own
independent egos, so that the suffering of one, if he could suffer,
would be his own personal experience. The others could sympathise with
him, but could not actually participate in and share the suffering. Of
course it is almost impossible to imagine the thought mechanism and
decision making processes of God, but the claim that He is actually
three persons moulded into one, justifies an effort to interrelate the
three independent thought processes.
One
possible scenario which arises is that of a human child born with three
heads. This enormity can be referred to as a single person by virtue of
there being only one trunk and four limbs, but three heads do present a
problem of describing their true nature. If such freaks of nature live
long enough to be able to speak and express themselves only then can we
enquire as to what is happening inside the three different heads. In the
absence of such knowledge, however, to declare them to be one person
sharing three minds or three persons sharing one body is not possible.
It
is strange that this very important aspect of Christian doctrine is not
explained in the scriptures at all. As far as the reference to Christ
and the Holy Ghost are concerned there is no dearth of evidence that
they are presented as two distinct persons, who did not share the same
thought processes and the same feelings. Otherwise the visions of the
Holy Ghost as distinct from Christ would be impossible to conceive,
particularly during the period that Christ was confined to his human
body.
The questions
that would certainly arise as to what actually happened to the person of
Christ during that experience, in relation to the other two
constituents of Christian Godhead are as follows:
- Did the other two constituents, that is, God the Father and the Holy Ghost, jointly share in any way the body of Jesus Christ or his experiences in their relation to that body?
- Was Jesus the sole occupant of that body and as such he did not share his experience in relation to that body with either of the remaining two constituents of Trinity?
The ramifications of
the former have already been discussed. In the case of the latter a
further complication arises as to the relationship of Jesus, at that
time, with the other two constituents of Trinity. Did Jesus become a
completely separate entity by himself during that period or did he
remain an integral part of the other two constituents, only additionally
occupying a dwelling in the form of a human body exclusively. Now we
have another question to answer:
- Was his divine godly entity entirely contained in his human body, or was it only projected out of the commonly shared form of God the Father and the Holy Ghost like a tiny finger jutting out of an amoeba’s body?
This scenario will
also have us believe that during that phase Jesus was greater than both
his copartners because he equally shared the form of existence with the
Father and the Holy Ghost, while they did not share the jutted out
finger of his human existence.
Hence,
to make matters easily understandable, an attempt is made to illustrate
the inherent paradoxes and absurdities by visualising different
hypothetical situations. Of course, the illustrations should not be
taken literally by the readers.
The
issue before us is whether there is a single person exhibiting
different attributes or going through different phases. This brings us
to the question of considering the proposition of ‘Three beings in One’
and ‘One being in Three’, particularly from the angle of different
phases as distinct from each other; displaying different characters and
moods by the same person.
This
position has been considered at length in a previous chapter. Here, it
is only necessary to re-emphasise the point that if one person or one
entity exhibits different phases, it cannot exhibit those different
phases simultaneously, without dividing itself into different parts.
Take,
for example, water in a certain measure and quantity. It can be turned
entirely into vapour or ice without compromising the singleness of its
entity. If it is to be simultaneously observed in these different
phases, it would have to be split so that a third of it would be ice, a
third vapour and a third liquid. Each form different from the other,
none sharing the other two phases simultaneously. That quantity of water
would be split into three states, but the size of each will be
certainly smaller than the totality of the substance and no one can
declare it to be ‘one in three’ and ‘three in one’. Similarly, the
incarnation of Christ in the human form of Jesus, while keeping both the
bondages between Jesus the man and God the Father intact, is
inconceivable.
All
human beings are made up of the same elements, but their conformity and
similarity to each other does not turn them into one single person. It
is their characteristics, individualities and separateness from one
another which divides them into a multitude of entities, although they
are intrinsically made from the same substance. One cannot, however,
call them ‘one in five billion’ and ‘five billion in one’, despite them
all sharing the humanity factor.
Let
us now examine the same question from another angle. If for any
specific period of time, Jesus was separate and distinguishable from God
the Father on one hand, and the Holy Ghost on the other, in which areas
did that distinct separate existence of Christ lie? Remember that one
has to conceive Christ as being so totally distinct and disengaged from
the Father and the Holy Ghost, that his sacrifice for his fellow human
brothers, or shall we say partial human brothers, be thought of as
entirely his own personal experience, different from that of the Father
or the Holy Ghost. This would evidently result in our considering Christ
alone transferring his mind or his thought processes to the physical
body of Jesus. Also then he could be understood as having undergone an
experience which was not shared by the other two components of the
Christian Trinity. Mind boggling, isn’t it?
If
they were three persons with individual characters, not entirely shared
by others, then they may not be considered as ‘Three in One’ and ‘One
in Three’. The complete merger of the Trinity into Unity can only be
conceived if the characters, attributes, functions and all the faculties
possessed by three persons become identical to each other, without any
distinctive feature separating one from the other.
This
presents a scenario which could be to a degree likened to that of
identical triplets, who with reference to their mind, heart, feelings
and the functions of their organs are in such perfect unison that the
individual experience of each of them is shared by the others
completely. If this happens then something of the Trinity of God, the
Son and the Holy Ghost could become more understandable. But the problem
would still remain concerning the three bodies which contain the three
identical persons. This of course is not applicable to the Christian
idea of Trinity. At second glance one is compelled to visualize a single
body possessing three identities. Again, such an identity of the
so-called triplets can only be visualized if one body can contain three
persons; which in itself poses many problems. However, it can be pointed
out that God has no body and as such the similitude of a human body, as
suggested, is not applicable. Of course, we fully understand that God
has no body in human terms, but the problem would still remain
concerning three spiritual beings as identical triplets, individually as
persons, yet being one in all other respects.
Another
problem which would confront the existence of hypothetical triplets
would be their relationship with regards to worship. Would the ‘Three in
One’ spiritual persons of the godhead worship one another? Would they
all be the recipients of worship by their creation without there being
any exercise of worship in relation to each other?
Although
repeated mention is made in the New Testament, of Jesus Christ
worshipping ‘God the Father’ and admonishing others to do the same, no
such mention has been made in relation to the Holy Ghost worshipping God
the Father. Again, there has never been any attempt by Jesus, as
recorded in the New Testament, to exhort others to worship himself or to
worship the Holy Ghost. One is intrigued by this total absence of
reference to worship except in relation to God the Father.
Although
it is a common practice among the Christians to worship Jesus as the
‘Son of God’ along with the Father, there are no recorded instances by
any of the disciples of Jesus Christ ever having worshipped him or Jesus
prompting them to do so during his sojourn on Earth. Even if he had
done so, it would raise many unanswerable questions. Again the same
applies to the Holy Ghost and raises the question that why did the Holy
Ghost not require anyone to worship him.
The
case where they were ‘Three in One’ in the sense that their ultimate
ego or consciousness of existence was one despite being divided into
three aspects or phases, has already been examined at some length. A
being of such a description cannot be logically referred to as ‘three
persons in one.’ Moreover, aspects or phases are neither worshipped nor
do they worship their own central ego. To conceive of these as separate
persons they have to have their own independent identity in the form of
an ultimate ego which offers a reference point to their consciousness as
persons. Otherwise the question of referring themselves and others as
‘I’, ‘You’ and ‘He’, simply does not arise.
Trinity
in application to one being can only be conceived as attributes and no
more, and as far as attributes are concerned, they are certainly not
limited to three. Whether we know them or not, God could possess a
multitude of attributes.
To
bring this discussion to a conclusion, we re-emphasise that the
question of worship in relation to each other can only arise if they
were different persons who did not enjoy equal status and equal
characteristics.
In
this instance, only one would be worthy of worship and the other two by
the logic of their being inferior would be expected to worship him. The
answer, again, is acceptable except that the ‘Oneness in Trinity’ will
vanish. There is no way that you can have both ‘Three in One’ and ‘One
in Three’ simultaneously.
This reminds me of a joke which
I would like to share with you. It is reported that Joha, a famous court jester,
so amused Tamerlane during his invasion of Baghdad that he decided to carry
him back with him as booty and appointed him as the chief court jester. Once
it is said, Joha felt like eating meat alone by himself so much that he could
not resist it any more. So he bought two kilos of the best meat available from
the butcher. While handing it over to his wife he instructed her to prepare
a delicious roast out of it, and that no one except him must touch it, the
wife inclusive. Unfortunately for him, however, as his wife had just finished
cooking, a few of her brothers gave her a surprise call. A pleasant surprise
for her indeed but one which was destined to become a very unpleasant surprise
for Joha. The tempting aroma of the freshly roasted meat was simply too much
for them to resist and what followed was a logical conclusion. Having finished
it to the last morsel they happily took leave of their rather worried sister.
However she composed herself by the time Joha returned home and was ready with
a foolproof excuse. When Joha also, smelling the remnant of the flavour, longingly
asked for his two kilos of meat, the wife responded by pointing at the cat
which was Joha’s favourite pet, and said: ‘take your meat out of
this cat, if you can. While I was busy working, she made short work of the
entire roast.’ Thereupon Joha immediately picked the cat and weighed
him in the scale. It so happened that the cat turned out to weigh exactly two
kilos. Then he turned gently to his wife and enquired: ‘Please my dear,
I do believe you of course, but if this is my meat then where is my cat and
if this is my cat, where is my meat!’
Jokes aside, let me assert
that I do not wish to contend this issue on the basis of Jesus’ real
and true teachings. This treatise is purely an exercise in viewing
current Christian doctrines which we believe have deviated a long way
from the original teachings of Jesus.
Having
denied any reference in the Bible to Jesus being worshipped, it is left to
us to explain the only reference relating to this in Luke 24:52. Many claim
that these verses provide evidence of Jesus himself exhorting his followers
to worship him. Contemporary Christian scholars are well aware that these
verses have been proved to be spurious and have no right to be treated as
a genuine part of St. Luke’s Gospel.
Let us now turn to the
question of common practice, whether it is supported by evidence in the
Gospels or not. According to the common practice, in many sects of
Christianity today, Jesus is indeed being worshipped as the ‘Son of
God’. Yet they all agree that the same Jesus whom they worship, used to
worship God the Father and Him alone.
In
vain I have often enquired from knowledgeable Christian scholars as to
the reason why Jesus should have worshipped God the Father if he himself
was an inseparable part of God and was so completely merged with Him so
as to create a sense of unity despite there being three persons? Did he
ever worship the third constituent of Trinity, that is the Holy Ghost?
Did he ever worship himself? Did the Holy Ghost ever worship Jesus? Did
the Father ever worship either of the remaining two. If not, Why?
Perhaps the answer to these questions would compel the Christians to
confess that a distinct superiority is certainly established of God the
Father over the remaining two constituents of the Trinity. From this it
emerges that the three constituents of Trinity are not identical in
their status. Hence they are ‘Three in three,’ if at all they are three,
but they are not ‘Three in One.’
Sometimes
when Christian scholars are confronted with the question of Jesus, whom
they believe to be the Son of God, having worshipped God the Father,
they claim that it was the man who worshipped God the Father, and not
the Son Jesus who did so. That takes us back to the discussion which we
have already covered earlier. Were there two conscious beings possessing
the same body of Jesus, one possessing human consciousness and the
other that of the Son of God?
Again,
why did the man bypass and completely ignore the Son God in him and
never worship Christ as such. The same man Jesus, the co-partner of
Christ, should also have worshipped the third constituent the Holy
Ghost, which he never did.
Worship
is an act of mind and soul that is expressed sometimes in bodily
symbols, but it remains an act rooted in the mental and emotional entity
of the person. Hence it has to be determined who worshipped when Jesus
Christ worshipped God. We have already dealt with the scenario, with all
its intricacies, in which it is Christ, the Son of God, who worshipped.
Conversely, if it was the man, who worshipped God the Father and if He
never worshipped Christ, then why on earth do the Christians defy this
holy example of Jesus himself. Why should they start worshipping Christ
beside God, while Jesus the man never worshipped his co-partner Christ,
despite being so close to him.
Once again let us now
examine, from a different angle this time, the formula of ‘Three in One’
in Trinity as three distinct persons who are absolutely and completely
identical to each other. In this scenario we are not talking about a
single person with different features combined in one but of three
separate forms, rather like triplets. The kind of triplets which are so
completely identical that their similarities do not end with likeness of
form alone, but also extend to the entire thinking and feeling
processes. They share their thoughts, feelings and experiences
identically. In this case one has to admit that the two out of the three
constituents of Trinity are superfluous. If they are done away with, it
will not in the least effect the remaining constituent of Trinity which
will remain complete in itself.
The
Holy Quran also raises the same question when it points out that if God
decided to destroy and wipe out of existence both Jesus Christ and the
Holy Ghost, what difference will it make to His Majesty, Eternity and
Perfection and who can stop Him from doing so (5:18).
It implies that all the divine attributes will continue to function
eternally and as such the concept of the Trinity as portrayed in this
scenario appears senseless and needless.
If
however it is supposed that the three distinct persons in the Trinity
perform different functions, then obviously all three components would
become essential to the making of the Godhead. Nevertheless in this case
there will be three distinct Gods cooperating with each other and
living together in perfect harmony and as such they can only be treated
as ‘Three Gods in Three’ and not ‘Three Gods in One’.
Again
if it is proposed that the Trinity is similar to the case of a single
person with different organic functions, all combined in one then of
course Unity can be retained but not Trinity. Here we are not discussing
a person with different organic functions but three entirely identical
persons, each performing similar functions yet retaining its
individuality. What is being discussed presents the case of a single
person with different organs. So far there is nothing illogical about
it. But when the organs are treated as persons in their own right and at
the same time they are believed to constitute a personality which in
its totality is one, then the confines of logic are breached and the
whole discussion becomes unacceptable. Indeed organs they have their
individuality, but their individuality is only a component of a larger
personality, which not only comprises of this one organ but also of
other organs. All such organs together within a man is called ‘man’ in
totality. Of course some organs perform relatively minor functions and
man can remain a man without them, but only with imperfection. A perfect
man must possess all organs that are commonly possessed by a human
being and the sum total of these organs would make him a perfect man.
If
we take the case of a man called Paul, one cannot say that since the
liver, heart, lungs and kidneys of Paul have individuality with specific
functions to perform, they are distinct persons completely identifiable
with Paul. Complete identification can only be possible if, say, the
kidneys function exactly like Paul in his totality and the same can be
said of his other organs. That proposition would require that the
absence of each organ would not change the character of Paul in any
manner or alternatively Paul even without his lungs, heart, kidneys and
brain, indeed with all his organs removed, still remains a complete Paul
in himself. This is because in the ultimate analysis they are all
exactly similar to each other and the person of Paul remains absolutely
intact, irrespective of the absence of these organs.
If
that is the scenario of ‘Three in One’ then of course it is wrong to
make any attempts to criticize Christian beliefs with reference to
logic. Then the logic which is applicable to the present day Christian
dogma is only the logic of the witches of Macbeth when they say, ‘Fair
is foul, and foul is fair.’3
REFERENCES
- Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church, E.T. pg 264
- Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, edited by A.E.J. Rawlinson, Longmans, London (1928)
- Macbeth, I,i
No comments:
Post a Comment