Fatimida wrote:That's more or less the case, though I generally recommend sticking to the commonly used terminology with regards to the trinity as the nuances of language can lead to misunderstandings when one attempts to convey the doctrine in different words. One problem we have as Christians is that much of our theology was initially defined and formally promulgated in the Greek language, using terms whose precise meanings lack direct English equivalents, meaning that some of the nuances of things like trinitarian and Christological theology are somewhat lost in translation.
How is it possible (and why is it necessary) for God to exist in three different forms?
How is it possible for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal being to exist in the first place? You are asking questions far above my, or anyone else's, paygrade. And as to why it is necessary, it's necessary because it's the fundamental nature of God. Why is it necessary that matter exerts a gravitational attraction on other matter? It's the fundamental nature of things. The difference is that the effects of gravity are observable in day-to-day life and so its presence is taken for granted by humans, so we struggle to imagine a universe in which it doesn't exist. The trinity is no less fundamental to the nature of God than gravity is to the nature of matter, but the existence of the trinity is only knowable through divine revelation. Consequently we are not naturally conscious of its fundamentality, and are able to imagine a version of God that isn't trinitarian, though that imagined version of God is as inaccurate as the idea of the night sky as a solid firmament is.
Also, why would God allow His word to be corrupted by human language?
This is an extremely odd question to hear from a Muslim given that Muslims are taught to read Arabic specifically so that they can study scripture in the original language. Whenever you translate something from one language to another, you risk losing some of the nuances of the original text. And if even the meaning of the Quran, which is supposedly the direct word of God, can be distorted and lose nuance in the process of translation, why shouldn't the Bible- which is divinely inspired, but emphatically not regarded as the direct word of God dictated to the authors- or the theological writings of the early church not be subject to the same issues?
"It's a mystery none of us can understand" is not an refutation to either.
Why not? Does it not stand to reason that God would be beyond the comprehension of humanity? Why would you expect to be able to understand His nature?
