Isaiah 6 and the Oneness of God

 

Refuting a Trinitarian Heretic

 

Sami Zaatari

 

 

 

Some time ago I had written an article concerning Isaiah 6, showing that Isaiah 6 doesn't teach that God is a Trinity, contrary to Trinitarian claims. The article can be found on this link:

 

http://muslim-responses.com/Isaiah_Trinity/Isaiah_Trinity_

 

One missionary had a problem with this, this missionary happened to be Sam Shamoun, a Trinitarian heretic who believes in three Gods, yet still contends they are one.

 

His supposed rebuttal can be found here:

 

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zaatari_isaiah6.htm

 

The missionary first starts by writing:

 

Seeing that Zaatari claims to be responding to my article one would think that he would at least address the citations I presented from Isaiah proving that this blessed prophet truly believed that Yahweh his God is Tri-Personal.

RESPONSE

It is always nice to see a liar making things up so he can later attack straw man. My article on Isaiah chapter six was NOT a specific rebuttal to Shamoun himself, but more of a general rebuttal to Trinitarians in general. In fact this is what I even wrote in my initial article:

Trinitarians make the claim that the doctrine of Trinity can be explicitly found in the book of Isaiah, chapter 6. For instance you can see the missionary Sam Shamoun of answering-Islam propagating this false belief:

 

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/isaiah6_trinity.htm

 

In this article I shall show that the book of Isaiah, specifically chapter 6, does no such thing. The reason I do this is so that the Muslims can be equipped with the truth and the answers incase they come across a Trinitarian who brings this chapter up.

 

Notice no where did I say that I was specifically refuting Sam Shamoun, you can clearly see I am referring to Trinitarians in general, and then I link Shamoun's article as one example of a Trinitarian who uses Isaiah 6 to prove the Trinity. Shamoun is not the only Trinitarian who has used Isaiah 6 to prove the Trinity, I have come across several other Trinitarians who have cited this chapter to prove their, hence I decided to write a general rebuttal to them.

 

The reason Shamoun lies and claims I was specifically refuting him is so he can attack straw man, and bring up several issues which are IRRELEVENT to Isaiah 6.

 

Shamoun thinks I am stupid and will allow his cheap tricks to go un-noticed, but too bad for him his cheap tricks and tactics have never worked on me, nor will they ever succeed in the future.

 

So with that said I will only deal with points that deal specifically with Isaiah chapter 6. The missionary writes:

 

However, what this "rebuttal" demonstrates is that Zaatari has become a master of straw man arguments, evasion tactics and cheap debate tricks. For instance, Zaatari claims:

The Trinitarian argues that since the seraphim's said Holy three times, this must refer to a triune God. For starters this is not an argument, nor proof of anything. The only reason why a Trinitarian believes it implies something is because he believes God is made up of three persons! So since the Trinitarian already has a preconceived idea of God, he has already has made his mind up and has read into the text. He reads the text, and he sees what he wants to see, the text says holy three times, and since he believes in three, he assumes that refers to three Lords.

And a little later he says:

So therefore the entire basis of the Trinitarian falls apart from this fact, and the Trinitarian must admit it. The Trinitarian is the one who made the claim that since the lord is called Holy three times, this refers to three different persons. If this was true then logically it should continue and say lords in the plural, rather it says lord, in the singular, referring to ONE person, not THREE persons.

That is not the Trinitarian argument, and this would indeed be a weak point if we were resting our case on the simple fact that the seraphs cried out holy three times. In fact, we challenge Zaatari to quote the article where we said "that since the seraphim's said Holy three times, this MUST refer to a triune God."

Our point was that it is evident from reading the entirety of what Isaiah wrote, and interpreting it in light of the overall teachings of the Holy Scriptures, that the reason why the seraphs cried out thrice holy is because they were worshiping and glorifying the Triune God. It is apparent that Zaatari knows that he is incapable of refuting our arguments which explains why he decided to distort our position in order to attack a straw man.

RESPONSE

Shamoun challenges me, therefore I will be more than happy to oblige, this is what the Trinitarian heretic wrote:

It is our contention that the reason why God is called thrice holy and uses the plural pronoun is because the prophet Isaiah, as well as the rest of the biblical writers, believed that God is a Triune entity

So as you can see, the missionary by his own words wrote that he believes that God is called holy three times because the writer of Isaiah believed that God is a Triune entity, meaning thee persons! Therefore it seems the missionary must pay attention to what he writes in the future, off course the missionary will now squirm and make an excuse and claim we are attacking straw man and he meant something else, yet you can read what he said.

He clearly says he believes that God is called Holy three times because God is made up of three persons, meaning triune.

In my previous article I completely annihilated this point, and the missionary realizes this, so he now contends he didn't mean that!

So the Trinitarian concedes this point, that God being called Holy three times doesn't mean there are three persons.

Shamoun then wastes my time by bringing up irrelevant points that have nothing to do with Isaiah chapter 6. Rather he brings up issues from Isaiah 9, and Jesus in the Quran! Talk about a red-herring, there is no problem though since those irrelevant red-herrings he brings up have already been refuted on these 2 links:

http://muslim-responses.com/Isaiah_Prophecy/Isaiah_Prophecy_

http://muslim-responses.com/Exalted_one/Exalted_one_

The missionary then gets back to topic when he writes:

Zaatari continues to expose his gross misunderstanding of the doctrine of the blessed and glorious Trinity. He asserts that since the entire passage of Isaiah 6 uses the singular, i.e. LORD, King, throne, his etc., this somehow disproves the Trinity and establishes unitarianism. Talk about someone being so desperate and badly distorting or grossly misunderstanding Trinitarianism!

Interestingly, Zaatari provides the refutation for his own argument when he says that,

Rather everything he is saying is referring to a singular BEING, Isaiah saw the Lord, and the Lord was sitting on the throne. (Emphasis ours)

Precisely, Zaatari! We couldn't have said it any better! The reason why the Biblical writers use singular nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, participles etc. is to denote the fact that Yahweh is a singular Being. Yet Zaatari needs to stop begging the question and start proving that Yahweh's eternal Being precludes the possibility of his also existing as a multiplicity of Divine Persons.

RESPONSE

You see folks, God is one, and this is the fact, therefore the burden of proof is on Trinitarians to prove otherwise. So when I show God being referred to in singular terms this proves that God is one, he is called a king, and having a throne, because he is one person, one being. Hence when Shamoun agrees with these points he agrees there is no such thing as a Trinity!

Now Shamoun is also twisting the context of my statements. Shamoun and his Trinitarian friends claim that in Isaiah chapter 6 Isaiah sees three people! Yet if Isaiah saw three persons and a Trinity then why would he use singular nouns, descriptions and so on?

If Isaiah saw a Trinity in chapter 6, that is three persons which is what Trinitarians contend, then Isaiah would make this known. Yet when we read Isaiah 6 we see a pure singular and monotheistic God:

1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the LORD sitting upon a THRONE, high and lifted up, and HIS train filled the temple.  2 Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.  3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.  4 And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

 
5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the KING, the LORD of hosts.  6 Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar:  7 And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.  8
Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.

 
9 And HE said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.  10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.  11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,  12 And the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.  13 But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the substance thereof. 

 

Notice all the singular terms being used for God? If Isaiah saw three persons as the Trinitarian claims, then Isaiah would have said:

 

-Lords

-Thrones

-They

-They're

 

Yet Isaiah uses none of these plural words, he uses SINGULAR words such as:

 

-LORD not lords

 

-THRONE not thrones

 

-HIM not they're

 

-HE not they

 

This is not a mere coincidence, and this completely CRUSHES the Trinitarian contention. If Isaiah saw a Triune God, and three persons as Shamoun believes, then we would have seen plural words being used, rather all we see is singular words being used to describe God.

 

So Shamoun pay attention please, the reason why I highlighted the use of singular words in this context is because you Trinitarians claim that Isaiah saw a TRIUNE God, meaning he saw THREE persons, yet he doesn't use plural words refuting your false contention. Do you now understand?

 

Shamoun then writes:

 

"May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved (ho agapesas) us and by HIS grace gave (dous) us eternal encouragement and good hope, encourage (parakalesai) your hearts and strengthen (sterixai) you in every good deed and word." 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17

Although Paul refers to both the Father and the Son as loving, gracing, encouraging etc. he uses singular verbs all throughout here which is simply his way of describing their actions as essentially being one!

RESPONSE

The weakness of these responses is beyond incredible! Does Shamoun not know that what he just said can be used to refute the Trinity?! The reason why Paul would use SINGULAR TERMS is because there is no Trinity! It is ironic that Shamoun doesn't realize this, and doesn't realize how bad his thinking is!

The missionary is doing the refuting himself! He admits that Paul used singular terms, hence this means there is no Trinity, and it is pure oneness theology! Thank you Sam, you do the refuting of the Trinity better than I can.

Secondly, there is a big problem if we want to use Shamoun's logic! Shamoun claims that 2 Thessalonians verses 16-17 refer to BOTH Jesus and the Father, yet let us read what the passages say:

16May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.

According to Christians we are saved by the grace of Jesus, who supposedly died for our sins, hence the text can't be referring to the Father but is specifically referring to Jesus ALONE which is why we see singular words being used!

If Shamoun wants to contend that we are saved by BOTH the grace of Jesus and the Father, then I can contend likewise, and I can contend that the passages are only referring to the Father, since that is one gets from the reading:

16May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.

Notice when you read it the text is solely implying and referring to the Father, which is why singular words would be used.

Either way Shamoun has big problems with his response, and must resort to a oneness or Unitarian theology to get rid of the problem.

Also just to clear some things up, there are two terms in Christian theology. There is the Unitarian Christian, which believes in One God, and that Jesus is NOT God. Then you have the Oneness theology, which believes in one God, and rejects the Trinity, yet they still believe that Jesus IS God, they believe the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all one person.

Shamoun has merely proven the oneness theology by referring to 2nd Thessalonians, because if we want to believe Shamoun, the reason why Paul would refer to Jesus and the Father and then use singular terms is PRECISELY BECAUSE OF ONENESS THEOLOGY, which is ANTI-TRINITARIAN! So the Trinity still losses, and the Trinitarian Shamoun still losses. Good job Sam, you should keep coming out with rebuttals to defend your false beliefs, since you just make the hole deeper!

Shamoun then starts going off on a tangent concerning Revelations chapter 4 and Jesus being worshipped, all of which is IRRELEVENT to Isaiah chapter 6! As I have previously stated, Shamoun likes to write very long articles, most of which is filled with red-herrings to simply hide the fact that he can't directly refute or address anything.

We are dealing with Isaiah 6, not Revelations chapter 4. Secondly let us assume the New Testament teaches the Trinity, this doesn't mean the Jewish Bible teaches it, which means the NT made this false lie up after the Israelite prophets taught something completely different! So again Shamoun, you simply show why you cannot argue properly, because you just make your problems worst.

Shamoun then goes off on a worst tangent quoting verses from Genesis, Daniel, all of which is IRRELEVENT to Isaiah 6!

My arguments on Isaiah 6 were very simple, I showed and proved that Isaiah addressed God in complete singular terms, Shamoun has so far NOT DIRECTLY refuted those points, what does he do instead? He runs to other passages trying to show that in Daniel, and Genesis that God is referred to in plural terms, yet are we discussing Genesis, Daniel, OR ISAIAH CHAPTER 6?

Just to help Shamoun out, I will make it clear for him:

MR.SAM SHAMOUN, MY ARTICLE WAS SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT ISAIAH CHAPTER 6. THE AIM OF MY ARTICLE WAS TO PROVE AND SHOW THAT ISAIAH CHAPTER 6 SPOKE OF NO TRINITY, OR ANY TRIUNE GOD. RATHER ISAIAH 6 SPOKE OF A SINULAR AND UNITARIAN MONOTHEISTIC GOD, AND THE PROOF OF THIS IS THAT ISAIAH USED SINGULAR TERMS TO ADRESS GOD IN ISAIAH 6. MY ARTICLE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER TRINITY IS TAUGHT IN DANIEL, GENESIS, OR REVELATIONS! IT WAS ONLY SPECIFICALLY AIMED AT ISAIAH CHAPTER 6, NOTHING MORE, AND NOTHING LESS!

THEREFORE IF YOU COULD BE KIND ENOUGH TO DIRECTLY REFUTE ME BY ISAIAH 6, SHOWING ME THAT I AM WRONG, THAT ISAIAH DID NOT USE SINGULAR TERMS WHEN REFERRING TO GOD, BUT RATHER HE USED PLURAL TERMS.

Is that clear enough for you Sam? So please show us from Isaiah 6 where God is referred to in a plural sense, and please refute me and say "No, Sami you are wrong, Isaiah didn't use singular terms for God".

In fact by your own admission you admit Isaiah used singular terms, so you cannot refute me AT ALL in that area as I was spot on. You tried to get rid of this problem by resorting to the NT which completely failed.

Now your job is to show us a PLURALITY being shown in Isaiah 6, which you will NEVER be able to.

The missionary FINALLY responds to something directly:

Zaatari then appeals to the majestic plural, otherwise known as the royal plural or the plural of majesty. In so doing he does nothing more than to commit an anachronistic or chronological fallacy by reading back into an ancient text certain linguistic features which did not exist at the time.

RESPONSE

Then I guess someone forgot to mention that to the Israelites who were alive back then, since they never believed in any Trinity, or a Triune God!

For further reading concerning this issue visit this link:

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=57

And also visit

www.jewsforjudaism.org since the Jews know their Hebrew tongue better than you, and since you Trinitarians have been prone to mistranslate the Hebrew, AND THE Greek, as well as the Arabic Quran, you therefore cannot be trusted when it comes to languages since you Trinitarians are notorious in twisting language to suit your flimsy doctrines.

Examples of passages miss-translated by Trinitarians are:

John 1:1-3

John 8:58

Hebrews 1:8

Isaiah 9:6

I could go on forever, but these are just a few of many examples.

With that said there is nothing else to refute! Shamoun has refuted nothing concerning my points on Isaiah 6; he only contested the use of majestic plurality! Shamoun end's his article with an end-note trying to refute this article of mine:

http://muslim-responses.com/Isaiah_Prophecy/Isaiah_Prophecy_

Yet as usual he refutes nothing, he admits I am correct and other people are called THE MIGHTY GOD in the Jewish Bible, but when the Messiah is called this term it is different and actually means he IS God, wow how convenient!

So in conclusion I would like to give some advice to Shamoun. Sam, please stop wasting all of our time with your long rebuttals which aren't even rebuttals, only 5% of your rebuttals deal with the points I raise, the rest are red-herrings and tangents to simply make the impression that you have refuted me or that you have a lot to say. In fact Shamoun writes so much nonsense, and quotes so many verses that I guarantee you that 95% of his Christian readers are confused halfway through the article, and will not be able to gain any worthwhile knowledge from the article to use in a discussion or debate. Good job Sam!

And Allah Knows Best!

www.muslim-responses.com