Monday, March 23, 2009

WHY STUDY APOLOGETICS - PART 1

The God who commanded us to “Go and Make disciples of all Nations” also commanded us to “Set apart Christ as lord and always be prepared to give a reason (gk. Apologia, some translates “defence”) for the hope which you have in Christ Jesus” . If the former is commandment about Evangelism then latter is about Apologetics. Apologetics is not something optional extra for the disciples of Jesus but a commandment like any other commandments to obey the same. That’s why Apostle Paul claims his ministry is about “defending and confirming the Gospel (Phil 1:17)
Most disciples never object with the commandment for Evangelism but they have serious reservations to the commandment for Apologetics due to misinterpretation, misunderstanding and many times because to skip hard work of study and research. Often I have experienced people’s resistance to the use of apologetics, reason and intellect. But they forget while speaking against apologetics, reason and intellect they use the same thing in the process. Apologetics is inescapable, Reason is inescapable, Intellect is Inescapable. You contradict yourself in the very process of criticizing the same. Hence, we need to recognize that Apologetics is an inescapable tool in evangelism in current cultural mood of Pluralism, relativism and postmodernism.
All these moods currently attack to the notion of Absolute Truth. All these moods says “all truth is relative”. If all truth is relative, then the claim Jesus is truth is relative to the Christian and therefore is not meant for all to follow. They say all religions and viewpoints are true which leads to Pluralism. They say “Truth is in the mind of the beholder” reducing truth as subjective and depending upon one’s own interpretation, leading to Postmodernism. If such is the current cultural mood, then claim Jesus is the way, the truth and the life makes no sense. In spite of all these moods and challenges, many Christians ignoring these fact simply says that we should simply proclaim the Gospel because Gospel is God’s work and not ours. We should not defend, give reason. Do we find such an attitude in the lifestyle of Apostle Paul who are argued, reasoned and defended the Gospel (Acts :17:17) ? Do we find such an attitude in Jesus who confronted, debated, asked questions, argued with people? Yet we do not want to emulate them. Let us be prepare to pursue apologetics and like apostle Paul say “5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. (2nd Corinthians 10 : 5)

Saturday, March 14, 2009

TRINITY AND HINDUISM

Philosophers down through the centuries have been wrestling with the problem of Unity and Diversity. Very often we think that this problem was only an issue for the early Greek philosophers but not Eastern Philosophers particulars coming from Hinduism. The Greek philosophers search for unity in diversity is well summarized in words of Dr. Ravi Zacharias in his book “Can Man Live Without God”
In 585 B.C., a man named Thales correctly predicted a solar eclipse. It was Thales' love for ordered knowledge that gave birth to philosophy, but Thales fervently sought the answer to another question. He knew the world was made of an infinite variety of things — plants, animals, clouds. What, he wondered, was the one basic element that pulled it all together? Thales thought that element must be water, but his students went on to expand the underlying reality to four elements—earth, air, water, and fire. Since then the quest for the philosopher has been to find unity in diversity.This very search has made inroads into our cultures. For example, the word quintessence literally means "the fifth essence." Every American coin reads E Pluribus Unum—out of the many, one. Out of our diversity, unity. And the very word university means to find unity in diversity.How did diversity come about, and how do we locate or identify the unity
This problem of unity and diversity or problem of One and Many has also been one of the struggles with Indian philosophers which has led to the formulation of various schools of thought. Indian philosopher Sankaracharya, following the upanishads, asserts that the sole cause of the universe is the One brahman that is really nirguNa. The problem with asserting One brahman that is without parts, changeless and eternal, as the only cause of the universe is this - the universe is normally perceived to be full of many separate parts which change all the time, and has little that is eternal in it. How is it that the changeless and non-relational brahman produces the variegated universe? Post Shankara Philosopher Mandana says regarding Unity and Diversity :
1) Either we should say like Mimamsaka Samsargavadins that both unity and diversity are separately real ;
2) Or We should say like Bhartrprapancha and the Jaina Anekantavadins that reality is both unity and diversity ;
3) Or we should say like the Buddhish (Svantantra-vijnanavadin) Atyantikabhedavadins that only diversity is real and that unity is an appearance;
4) Or we should say like the Vedantin Abhedavadins that only unity is real and that diversity is an appearance.
Mandana supports the fourth view which advocates that unity alone is real while diversity is only an appearance. In this quest for the search of Unity and Diversity, Many schools of thought have denied the diversity which has resulted in the emergence of Monistic and Pantheistic School of philosophy. While those who tried to bring diversity has resulted into the formulation of Duality School, Qualified Non-duality School, Samkhya School etc. Furthermore in answering the critics of Hinduism that it is polytheistic, they have suggested that God is One but has many forms. So all the gods and goddesses are different aspect of same ultimate one God, thus have tried to assimilate the Many into One or diversity into Unity. When Many are assimilated into One instead of Keeping One and Many in equality, the One is elevated at higher level than Many, which leads into development of Hierarchy. That’s why there is hierarchy in the gods and goddesses in Hinduism. Some are considered more powerful and some are considered less powerful which results into development of such metaphysical concept of ultimate reality which becomes the basis for human society and that hierarchy which is within the metaphysical reality is reflected in the life of society which has resulted into the development of Caste system in Hinduism. On the other hand Monistic schools have completely eliminated all diversity as unreal. They have stressed only unity at the expense of diversity, which has removed all the distinction between creator and creation and I /You. If such distinction do not exist then the problem is there is no need for Vedas or any scripture to tell about advaita, as there is no real I and You. And how does such system incorporate the whole idea of avatars or God becoming Man or whole idea of Guruism. If such ideas are embraced than it follows, God in Enlightenment is teaching God in ignorance about about to how to get enlightenment. With regards to avatars God is becoming man to save the righteous who are also God and destroy the Unrighteous who again are God. But if all distinction are not existent then the distinction between dharma and adharma or righteous and sinners also evaporates, then what’s the need of avatars ? So the problem of unity and diversity remains unresolved. So where do we find the answer ? The only answers to the quest of Greek philosophers and Indian philosophers is found in the doctrine of Trinity
1) In Trinity both Unity and Diversity are stressed Equally Important. Neither Unity is greater nor is diversity greater. Therefore the society following this metaphysical concept has developed the idea of equality among human beings while hierarchy and caste system has no place into it.

2) Hinduism is longing for one ultimate absolute which is unfortunately Impersonal Brahman and also relationship between diverse gods and goddesses. This longing is adequately met in Trinity as there is unity of essences and diversity of persons who are in perfect interpersonal relationships.

3) Gujarati philosopher Gunvant Shah says that the western emphasis on Individuality and Eastern Emphasis on Community is synthesized in the Family. We agree that family should demonstrate both individuality and community, but due to sin and resultant rupture in relationships it has not been able to produce perfect relationship. That is very much demonstrated in many of the family based television programs and serials and by also by observing the Indian family and society. This quest for bringing together Individuality and community is perfectly modeled in Trinity and as humanity is created in the image of trinity where both individuality and community as been perfectly exhibited, longs to find retention of both these aspects i.e individual and community, is satisfied in Trinity.

4) The Triune God is ultimately Moral and so becomes basis for Morality. Morality in bible is defined in terms of relationships rather than asceticism and is exhibited perfectly by virtue of love which is found in Trinity. Hence the distinction between good and bad is real, therefore God becoming Man to resolve the problem of Righteousness and unrighteousness among human beings sound meaningful and logical.

5) Many have tried to compare Trinity with Hindu trimurti or triads Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva . Here again there are lots of irreconcilable differences.

a) According to Monistic schools the Hindu trinity is part of larger Pantheistic Impersonal Reality which is at higher level than these triads and as a such are not ultimate. Whereas the Christian trinity is the ultimate reality. There is no other higher reality than trinity.

b) The each god of Hindu triad has a eternal consortium i.e. Brahma and saraswati,
Vishnu and Laxmi and Shiva and shakti which ends up in formulation of 6 unity rather than Trinity. No such concept of eternal consortium of each person of trinity is found in Christian Trinity.

c) There certainly was not the present concept of a Trimurti present until the later development and popularity of Vishnu and Shiva. There is essentially no worship or cult of Brahma (the first god of the Trimurti), and many Hindus do not worship either Vishnu or Shiva. This is all to say that the concept of the Trimurti is a non-essential and descriptive observation about Hinduism, not a doctrine of the very nature of God Himself. In contrast to this, the Trinity is a very essential teaching of the very nature of God Himself.
Let me conclude once again by quoting Dr. Ravi Zacharias. “We are looking for unity in diversity. I suggest that there is only one explanation for unity in diversity, and that is in the doctrine of the trinity, where right from the beginning, there was unity, diversity, community in the trinity, and that’s the principle you and I need to adhere to.”

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

THE SELF UNDERSTANDING OF JESUS

Very often Muslims argue “that Jesus is never reported as saying “I am God” in the gospel, and therefore try to refute the deity of Christ. Muslims and those who deny the deity of Christ needs to recognize that in order to understand the deity of Christ they have to interpret the claims of Christ from the perspective of Jewish context. Let me reiterate the words of Peter Kreeft about Jesus in his book THE PHILOSOPHY OF JESUS “He was not a Gnostic or a New Ager. He was not a Modernist or secular humanist. He was not a Marxist or socialist. He was not a Platonic philosopher. He was not a Brahmin pantheist. He was not an Aryan racist. He was not a social worker or a pop psychologist or a pagan myth or a magician. He was not a Democrat or a Republican; in fact, he was not an American. He was not a libertarian or a monarchist or an anarchist or a radical or a neoconservative. He was not a medieval or a modern man. He was a Jew”. To interpret the claims of Christ and understand the self understanding of Jesus, one has to put his legs in the shoes of early Jewish disciples and see through their eyes or worldview.

One’s worldview determines one’s interpretation of text. Muslim approaching the Gospel interprets the claims of Christ from Islamic perspective rather than Jewish perspective and therefore they come to wrong conclusions. Their whole notion of how can God have a son or with the title “son of God” is based on misunderstanding that God has a biological son.

He is not a Biological Son but Spiritual Son.
He is not a Temporal Son but Eternal Son
He is not one out of many sons but Unique Son.
He is not a distinct God but Distinct person in the Trinity
He is not Only fully God but also fully Man
He is one person with two natures (Divine-Human)


Jesus (God the Son) is one in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit who together constitute “One God” rather than “three Gods “as there is only One God in the worldview of Jesus with only difference that Islam Posits God to be a “Singular Unity” whereas Christians affirms God as a “Plural Unity”. A family is a plural unity and if that family commences a business in partnership with another family than that could be said that one family has associated another family as partner. In the same way A God who is a Plural Unity is not associating himself with another God as partner. That is why in the Old Testament God repeatedly says “there is no God besides me” therefore the whole idea of “shirk” is not applicable to the God of Bible as the God of bible never affirms the existence of other gods and goddesses as he Alone is True God.

Now let us examine the claims and actions of Christ from the Jewish perspective.


1) Jesus forgives sins : There are many instances in the Gospels where Jesus forgives sins particularly in the episode of healing of the paralytic. Mark 2:3-12; Luke 5:18-26; Matthew 9:2-8; we find the Pharisees mentioning "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" Let me put the whole logic in syllogism


Premise 1 : Only God forgives Sins
Premise 2 : Jesus forgives Sins
Conclusion : Therefore Jesus is God


2) Jesus has authority on the Nature : While in the boat disciples encounters a storm and were terrified. At that moment Jesus calms the storm simply by a command. Matthew 8:23-27; 27The men were amazed, and said, "What kind of a man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?" The Jews believe God is creator and sustainer of the universe and only he has authority upon the creation. Unlike pantheist they did not believe creation and creator to be one and divine. Hence when Jesus stills the storm they are perplexed about his identity. Let me put it in syllogism.

Premise 1 : Only God has authority upon creation
Premise 2 : Jesus exhibits authority upon creation
Conclusion : Jesus is God


3) Jesus accepts worship: when Satan tempted Jesus and asked Jesus to worship him, Jesus said “it is written you shall worship and serve God alone”. Yet Jesus accepted worship at many times.
Despite the fact that both the Old and New Testaments forbid worshiping anyone other than God (Ex. 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9; Acts 14:15; Rev. 22:8-9), Jesus accepted worship on at least nine occasions. These include worship from:

1. a healed leper (Matt. 8:2)
2. a ruler whose son Jesus had healed (Matt. 9:18)
3. the disciples after a storm (Matt. 14:33)
4. a Canaanite woman (Matt. 15:25)
5. the mother of James and John (Matt. 20:20)
6. a Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5:6)
7. a healed blind man (John 9:38)
8. all the disciples (Matt. 28:17)
9. Thomas, who said, “My Lord and my God” (John20:28)

All of these people worshiped Jesus without one word of rebuke from him. Not only did Jesus accept this worship, he even commended those who acknowledged his deity (John 20:29; Matt. 16:17). This could only be done by a person who seriously considered himself to be God

4) Jesus excludes himself from others : When disciples asked Jesus to teach them to pray Jesus said “when you pray, Pray like this “ Our father in Heaven”. Jesus is not telling them “Let us pray” as the prayer contains a plea for the forgiveness of sins, which is not applicable to Jesus.

Jesus always distinguished his relationship with God as unique type. He always addressed God as “my father” and “Your father” and “My God” and “your God”. Never had he mentioned our father or Our God.

5) Jesus use of Parables for himself: Jesus also declared his deity implicitly through parables. In several of his parables, Jesus depicts himself in the role of God. For example:

• In responding to the Pharisees’ complaint that Jesus is receiving and dining with sinners (Luke 15:2), Jesus tells three parables—the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son (Luke 15:4-32). The implication is that Jesus is doing what the Old Testament says God does: he is a shepherd who goes and finds what is lost, and a forgiving father who welcomes home repentant sinners (Ezek. 34:11; Ps. 103:8-13). (Incidentally, the Pharisees are represented by the complaining older son in the parable of the prodigal son. The Pharisees, like the older son, mistakenly think they deserve the father’s gifts because of their good works. So this parable not only affirms the deity of Christ but also teaches that salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned, only accepted.)

• In Matthew 19:28-30, Jesus declares that he—the “Son of Man”—will rule on the glorious throne of Israel at the renewal of all things, and that his followers will rule with him. He then immediately teaches the parable of the workers and the vineyard (Matt. 20:1-16). That’s where the kingdom of God is represented by a vineyard owned by an employer. The employer pays all workers equally, regardless of time worked, thereby communicating that God’s grace is not based on any kind of merit such as length of service (“the first will be last and the last will be first”). Jesus is represented by the employer who owns the vineyard and dispenses grace freely. This equates him with God because, in the Old Testament, God owns the vineyard (Isa. 5:1-7). (As we have seen, his use of “Son of Man” is also a claim to deity.)

• Jesus refers to himself as the “bridegroom” on several occasions (Mark 2:19; Matt. 9:15; 25:1; Luke 5:34) including in the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13). Since the Old Testament identifies God as the bridegroom (Isa. 62:5; Hos. 2:16), Jesus is equating himself with God. There are several other instances of Jesus implicitly claiming deity through parables. While we don’t have space to treat them all here, Philip Payne concludes, “Out of Jesus’ fifty-two recorded narrative parables, twenty depict him in imagery which the Old Testament typically refers to God.”
(taken from “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” by Norman Geisler)

1) Jesus claims “I AM”. In Old Testament God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you’” (Ex. 3:13-14). Jesus in the Gospel of John says “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “Before Abraham was born, I am!” At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds (John 8:56-59).I AM is the self-existent One. He has no past or future because he is eternal. He’s not in time. Jesus was claiming to be that eternal, self existent One, and that’s why the Jews picked up stones to stone him.

6) Jesus claims “oneness with God” : In John 10:30 Jesus says “I and father are one”. Peter Kreeft says “If a Jew said to his rabbi, “I just discovered that I’m God,” the rabbi would rend his clothes and cry, “Blasphemy! Insanity! Arrogance! Idiocy!” But if a Hindu said that to his guru, the guru would smile and say, “Congratulations. You finally found out. Welcome to the ranks of the enlightened.” That is what we find in the passage from john 10: 31-32 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
As I conclude the article I want to quote Dr. Norman Geisler and Dr. Frank Turek from the book “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist :
Imagine your neighbor making these kinds of claims: “I am the first and the last—the self-existing One. Do you need your sins forgiven? I can do it. Do you want to know how to live? I am the light of the world—whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Do you want to know whom you can trust? All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Do you have any worries or requests? Pray in my name. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. Do you need access to God the Father? No one comes to the Father except through me. The Father and I are one.” What would you think about your neighbor if he seriously said those things? You certainly wouldn’t say, “Gee, I think he’s a great moral teacher!” No, you’d say this guy is nuts, because he’s definitely claiming to be God. Again, no one has articulated this point better than C. S. Lewis, who wrote: I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish things that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would rather be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to

Friday, February 27, 2009

SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS ON TRINITY

In the absence of plurality within Allah, Islam runs into a problem of relatability within Allah. How can Allah be merciful or compassionate? These are relational qualities. These can exist in Allah only if there is an actual relationship within his being expressed in love and communication. Quran is referred as the “word of God” signifying the capacity of communication in Allah. But to communicate, love and relate Allah must be more than one person or a plural unity. Otherwise he would have to depend on finite creation to actualize his qualities. Not only that the moment you conceive God as “Personal” or Ultimate reality as Personal” one has to infer “Relationship” and “Communication ” intrinsic to the being of God. That’s why when we study the conceptions of God in ancient Greek or Roman Mythology or Hinduism like Krishna who has “Radha as consortium” or any others gods or goddesses are found existing in community and relationships. To conceive God as Personal leads also to conceive him in relationship and communication. In Christian faith we find the right integration of “plurality” and “unity” in the being of God. God is Being in Relationship. A community of FATHER-SON-HOLYSPIRIT, where there is retentions of humanity’s quest for Monotheism (desire for oneness of God) as well as “relationship and communitcation (desired in polytheistic conception of God)

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Worldview in Action

The other day I was reading a magazine ( i shall leave it unnamed) the editor of the magazine mentioned about the port rail of theirs gods in their religion. He wrote “why do we have gods and goddesses with holding arms in their hands" the reason is to destroy the asuras (demons). We need to take the example of gods and goddesses and take arms in our hands and destroy the demons of our times. The demons of our times are the secularist, the Muslims and the Christians. We need to destroy them and eliminate from the face of the earth like our gods destroying demons. You see friends how a person imitates one's view of God in practical life. Worldviews Matters. People behave according to their worldviews. When terrorist strikes innocent, remember behind those atrocities is the Worldview. Unless right worldview is adopted, right behavior will not be produced. Let's stop fighting with arms and use the reason and evaluate all worldviews and come to grips with right worldview and adopt it and bring peace and unity in the world

Saturday, February 21, 2009

A PANTHEIST INTERPRETATION OF THE GOSPEL.

Many people say that there is no need to learn apologetics. One has to simply share the gospel or simply give the bible. Let us not forget people’s interpretation depends according to one's worldview. When a pantheist is reading the gospel and comes across the Lord’s Prayer
"This, then, is how you should pray:
“‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,
According to pantheist Jesus is teaching here Dwaitism or dwaita philosophy (Dualism”)
When he comes to the verses "I am in father and father is in me"
According to pantheist Jesus is teaching here Vishisthadvaita (qualified non-dualism)
When he reads the verse "I and the father are one"
According to pantheist Jesus is teaching here Advaita (Non-dualism)
You see how one’s worldview determines one’s interpretation of the claims of Christ. Simply telling Gospel will not suffice in such context. One has to show the inconsistency of pantheistic worldview and establish and show the reasonability and plausibility of Theistic worldview. Only in the theistic context one can rightly interpret the claims of Jesus. This can be done by using apologetics. Bible commands us to do that (1 pet: 3:15-16). Every Christian is commanded to learn and practice apologetics.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

A PERSPECTIVE ON RELIGIONS: ARE ALL SAME ?

A PERSPECTIVE ON RELIGIONS

Mahatma Gandhi popularized the concept of “Sarva Dharma Sambhava” meaning “All religions are same and has to be respected” Very often we here it thousands of times in country “we all come through different routes and end up in the same place as if God is a place or an experience or a feeling but we know that he is not.” Most Indians approach religions with this kind of Mindset assuming that because we perceive reality differently, various religions are various perceptions of ultimate reality, we need to conclude that all view of reality is true and therefore all religions to be true. To establish this point we are posed with the parable of 6 blind Man touching the elephant (I assume readers are familiar) and coming with different conceptions and conclusions of an elephant. We think if belief is the oldest then it is the Truest as if Truth is defined by the calendar. Dr. Ravi Zacharias says “ Pluralistic cultures are beguiled by the cosmetically courteous idea that sincerity or privilege of birth is all that counts and that truth is subject to the beholder. In no other discipline of life can one be so naive as to claim inherited belief or insistent belief as the sole determiner of truth. Why, then, do we make the catastrophic error of thinking that all religions are right and that it does not matter whether the claims they make are objectively true?
Indians are familiar with the popularized T.V. show “Kaun Banega Crorepati” (who will become the Millionaire” as the show was meant to become crorepati by answering questions posed by the host Amitabh Bachchan (Indian Cinema actor) . I want to use the scenario of the show and would endeavor to refute the notion that all religions are same. I am presenting an imaginary questions and answers series
Where is Taj mahal in India ?
A) Delhi B) Mumbai C) Agra D) Calcutta
Answer : Agra :
Well done your answer is right ! you win 1 crore
But, suppose the let us reframe the answer
A) Delhi B) Mumbai C) Agra D) All three cities (a,b,c)
Answer : D) In all three cities.
Hey, how can Taj mahal be in all three cities. That is factually not true. What an illogical answer? Can’t you see this quite an obvious point? Your answer would have right if all the cities too would have tajmahal, but since Taj mahal is only in Agra which is factually true, your answer “all three cities “is an absurd.
Now suppose the 2nd question is asked
What do you think about God ? Does he exist ? what he is like ? ( more options for the answer)
A) There is no God
B) All is God and God is All
C) There are many Gods
D) There is only one God
E) All views about God is true
F) Only one view about God is true
Suppose the first answer is :
Answer 1) All views about God is true
Wow, Well done, you are right. Mahatma Gandhi and all our religious traditions are teaching this truth .You have given the right answer. You win…
But what if the answer is given.
Answer 2) f) Only One view about God is true.
Hey ! you are an arrogant, narrow minded. How can you believe there is only one view True ? We Indian follow the precept of Mahatma Gandhi “Sarva Dharma Sambhav” and every one in the world should follow this precept so that there will be peace and harmony.
In the above two scenarios of question, if you observe when it comes to the question of Tajmahal and when the answer was “IN ALL CITIES” everyone would without even much thought would agree the answer is absurd and opposing such answer would not be considered as intolerance but if somebody answers for the question of God that “only one view of God is true” people will be labeled as intolerant and would not see the absurdity of embracing and affirming the position of “All view of God is true”
We need to understand for all the great questions of life there is only one true answers. There cannot be contradictory answers because TRUTH IN ORDER TO BE TRUTH HAS TO BE NON-CONTRADICTORY, EXCLUSIVE, ABSOLUTE AND UNIVERSAL and IT MUST CORRESOND WITH REALITY. Try challenging this definition and you end up in self-contradiction.
Human beings have this insatiable quest to find THE TRUTH because on that answer depends all other fundamentals question for life. If there is no truth then there is no point to find the answer for the question like Does God Exist ? what is his nature ? Is there life after death ? etc and so on. Not only that but even the quest for harmony and peace among nations and community depends upon Truth. We long to find “universal” which would give meaning, identity and harmony to the particulars. All such notions like “Sarva Dharma Sambhav” is a quest to find that “universal” which would become the frame of reference for the answers of human life as well as Harmony among Human being. But to accept any such universal as a frame of reference has to be analyze logically. When done we will come to the conclusion that it is impossible to reconcile contradiction within the universal, if we are honest enough to admit. The validity of law of non-contradiction, that basic law for all right thinking is always established the moment anybody opposes to any meaningful statement. If contradictions are true factually then there will be no problem to accept the position that “Only One religion or view point of God is True.” Which is opposite to “All religions are same and true” but we know well that the moment you pronounce yourself to be exclusive you end up deemed to be Narrow minded and bigot.
Take all religions and analyses the basic concepts of 1) God 2) Man 3)Morality 4) Destiny. You will find most to be in complete contradictions. Even in India in ancient time there was whole tradition of doing debates where by viewpoints were being presented and each one would try to critique the others positions as they knew well that one has to refute to opposite viewpoint otherwise it would lead to contradictions. Explore the six schools of Indian philosophy you will find this to be true. An Advaitin like Sankara tried to refute Buddhism, Dwaita school tries to refute Advaita and and Vice-versa. The ISCONITES opposed the Sankara’s Notion of “ultimate reality to Impersonal” as they maintained “ultimate reality to be Personal” who according to them is Krishna . They used terms like “Mayawadis” for Sankara and his followers in a derogatory sense and attempted to refuted the whole viewpoint of Advaita. The whole idea behind opposing any particular viewpoint is that inherently we know “opposites both cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense”. Even those who propound the belief that “ALL RELIGIONS ARE SAME” oppose the belief “ALL RELIGIONS ARE NOT SAME”. A person following the belief that ONLY ONE RELIGION IS TRUE” wants the whole world should believe his belief in the same fashion the one who says “All religions are same” wants the whole world to believe the same. This shows how much we adhere to right understanding of the Truth ..absolute, exclusive, non-contradictory and trans cultural.
Let me reiterate at the conclusion the words of Dr. Ravi Zacharias “ All religions are not the same. All religions do not point to God. All religions do not say that all religions are the same. At the heart of every religion is an uncompromising commitment to a particular way of defining who God is or is not and accordingly, of defining life's purpose.” Anyone who claims that all religions are the same betrays not only an ignorance of all religions but also a caricatured view of even the best-known ones. Every religion at its core is exclusive

Does it make sense to Believe in Trinity ?

“ You believe in Three gods.”

“How can God be “Three” and “One”?”

Philosophers, Skeptics, Non-Christians specifically Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other Cult group people often raise such objections pertaining to Christian understanding of God as Trinity.

Often our answer is “ it is a mystery” or “ such questions comes from satan” and try to avoid the questions and objections. ?

Apologist L.T. Jeyachandran says “ We all believe in the Trinity but we pray to the Trinity than nobody would question us about the Trinity. Are there answers to this questions? Is it possible to respond to this objections and silence the critics ? My answer is yes. As we approach to understand the nature and being of God, Firstly, we have to remember God is Infinite and Man is Finite and the gap between Infinite and Finite is always infinite. That means we will never know God unless God reveals himself to us. We can know about God only as much as he reveals to us. In other words only God can tell us what He is like. No human being by virtue of his intellect or experience can know About God. Revelation precedes knowledge. Secondly, We can know about God TRULY but not EXHAUSTIVELY. Because God is Infinite, finite human mind is incapable to fully comprehending God, so God reveals himself to us only to that extent, where we can grasp him. We have to expect mystery in relation to the knowledge of God. Now Mystery is not an absurdity. Mystery is not something which goes against reason but beyond reason. Now let us explore to the nature and being of God as revealed in the bible. BIBLICAL BASIS OF TRINITY

Throughout the bible we see that it says God is One. (Deut. 6:4, 1 Cor. 4:7) Along with, we also find this God revealing himself as existing in community of three persons namely, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In Old Testament we find reference to plurality of persons implicitly present in verses like Gen. 1:26, 3:22, 19:24, Psalms 110 :1, 45: Isaiah 48: 12-15, Zechariah 2:8-11. 6: 12-15.

When we read New Testament, after the advent of Jesus, find explicitly further revelation and confirmation of God existing as Father, Son and Holy spirit in verses like Matthew 3:16, 28 :19, 2 corn 13:14, John 1: 1-3, 14 :16, 26, 15 :26

When Muslims or other people think of God as One, the understanding of “ONENESS” gets limited to one person unity, or singular unity. But in our casual language we use many words which are taken as one but refers to plural unity. Words like Group, Couple, Family, Army, community, Church, Nation etc. though taken in singular form refers to unity of comprising more than one person and nobody says to such unity or oneness as absurdity or contradiction. Similarly, when we Study Hebrew language we find there are two words for “ONE” or “ UNITY”

1) Yachid : refers to Singular unity,

2) Echad : refers to Plural unity

When God says to Abraham in Gen 22 : 2 “Take Your son, your ONLY son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah”. Here the word for one (ONLY) in Hebrew is Yachid, thus refers to singular unity.

While, in Gen 2 : 24 “ for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Here the word for one is Echad, which refers to plural unity.

This same word Echad is used in Shema : Here O Israel: The Lord our God, The Lord is one. (Echad) . CHARACTERISTIC OF TRINTY 1) God, according to Old testament, Jehovah, exists as three persons, namely Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These three persons are distinct from one another. Father is not Son, Son is not Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit is not Father, but Father is Jehovah, Son is Jehovah and Holy Spirit is Jehovah. These three persons are Co-equal and Co-eternal. God was always Trinity, is Trinity and will be Trinity forever. 2) God is One in one sense and three in another sense, not in same sense. The oneness pertains to ESSENCE and three ness pertains to PERSONS. In other words there is one What (essence) or Three “Who” (persons). The Essence unites the three persons; Person is that which distinguishes them. Thus the unity of the Trinity does not mean “aloneness”, nor does the distinction with the Trinity mean “dividedness”. If we say God is one essence and three essence or God is one person and three person, at the same time, it would be a contradiction. As three angles in a Triangle are inseparably united to form one Triangle, in the same way the three persons are united inseparably in essence to form one God. 3) God is Jesus & Jesus is God both statements had different meanings and are not identical in meaning. When “is” is used in “Jesus is God” it is used in predicate sense, means Jesus is divine who shares the same one divine nature (essence) which other two persons “father” and “Holy Spirit” shares. To say God is Jesus will be inappropriate because Jesus does not exhaust what it means to speak of God. Jesus and God are not identical, as other persons too share the same divine nature and therefore are divine. 4) God is a being in relationships. The three persons of trinity are deeply interrelated and mutually indwell one another (perichoresis) and thus have a necessary and unbreakable oneness. Even though three will exists, yet only one will is expressed. Whatever they do, they do together. Because the members of trinity share the same essence and mutually indwell one another, they also act as one rather than in isolation from one another. The acts of God are always the acts of each member of Trinity, one or more initiating the process and the others backing it. There is no conflict, competition, confusion between them due to self giving love which exits between them. 5) God the Son, takes incarnation and not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. So, let’s not pray thank you father for dying on the cross. Father did not die on the cross, it was God the Son. . In incarnation there is no subtraction of deity but addition of humanity, therefore, God the son became man without ceasing to be God, and hence three persons remains united in essence. While crying from the cross “ my God, my God why have you forsaken me,” there is no separation or brokenness in Essence but only temporary brokenness of fellowship and relationship which existed between three persons of trinity. Even death of God the Son on cross does not mean cessation of God the Son. Death according to bible is separation of Body and Soul. God the Son, in his divine nature was united with human nature in person of Jesus Christ. During death the human spirit of Jesus remains unified with Divine nature of God the Son and is separated from the body, which again reunites with glorified body after resurrection and remains forever in that state forever in submission to God the Father. DEFENCE OF TRINITY 1) When we look at the universe, we observe that it is made up of so many diverse things like plants, animals, humans, stars etc. Sunlight which appears white to naked eye, viewed through prism appears to be made of seven colors. We are made, physically and chemically, of the same elements yet we are so different from other human beings, things and animals. A word is made up of many Alphabets; A painting of many colors produces a harmonious mosaic. An orchestra of many musical instruments produces a symphony, instead of cacophony. If there is unity in diversity in the creation, is it not reasonable to expect unity and diversity in the creator. 2) Bible says God is love. If God is unipersonal, He will not be love. For God to be love there must be Subject-Object duality, without which loves will not be a possibility. In absence of plurality of persons within the being of God, love will remain as potential and not an actuality. So in one sense, we (creation) would have helped God find His perfection by being the object of His love! This of course is absolute nonsense. We have to reach the unavoidable conclusion that within God there has to be a plurality - a Subject (Father) Who loves, an Object (Son) Who is loved (John 1&:24) and a Medium (Holy Spirit) through Whom that love is communicated (Romans 5:5). This combined with the unity of the Essence of God is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.