Let me see if I have this right...

[rpwelton]

OK, I've been having some deep religious conversations with a Christian friend of mine, and last night we got around to discussing the trinity. Please bear in mind I don't want this thread to be a debate between Christians and non-Christians; I just want to get some information from knowledgeable Christians.

Here are our two understandings of the Trinity. Can you tell me which one is correct (or if neither is correct):

My View: The trinity is composed of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, and the three of these are equal, and each taken by itself is God. Thus the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God. The three are one God.

His View: The trinity is composed of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but these three are not equal. God the Father basically gave a part of himself to his Son and the Holy Spirit, thus it could somewhat be described as an isosceles triangle. The three are One God, but they are not each fully God. The Father still retains the most power. Thus in a sense, all parts add up to 1, but any taken by itself would not be 1, rather they would only be a fraction.

Also, he says that Christians pray through Jesus to get to the Father, thus Jesus is like an intermediary. Is that correct?

Please help. Thank you.

[Keltoi]

Your view is the correct one. Christ is not an intermediary. There is no "power scale" involved in the Trinity.

[Dawud_uk]

OK, I've been having some deep religious conversations with a Christian friend of mine, and last night we got around to discussing the trinity. Please bear in mind I don't want this thread to be a debate between Christians and non-Christians; I just want to get some information from knowledgeable Christians.

Here are our two understandings of the Trinity. Can you tell me which one is correct (or if neither is correct):

My View: The trinity is composed of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, and the three of these are equal, and each taken by itself is God. Thus the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God and the Holy Spirit is fully God. The three are one God.

His View: The trinity is composed of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but these three are not equal. God the Father basically gave a part of himself to his Son and the Holy Spirit, thus it could somewhat be described as an isosceles triangle. The three are One God, but they are not each fully God. The Father still retains the most power. Thus in a sense, all parts add up to 1, but any taken by itself would not be 1, rather they would only be a fraction.

Also, he says that Christians pray through Jesus to get to the Father, thus Jesus is like an intermediary. Is that correct?

Please help. Thank you.

you are more correct for mainstream christianity, the 2nd sounds like an offshoot of arianism, an early christian sect, some of whom claimed jesus (as) was not God but a prophet, others claimed he was God but not co-equal.

[rpwelton]

Is it common for Christians to have such different views about the trinity?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Keltoi]

Is it common for Christians to have such different views about the trinity?

Not really. I suppose it depends on who has taught them their view of the Trinity. The vast majority of Christians would disagree with that individuals beliefs about Christ and the Trinity.

[rpwelton]

Not really. I suppose it depends on who has taught them their view of the Trinity. The vast majority of Christians would disagree with that individuals beliefs about Christ and the Trinity.

Ah, OK. Good to know.

[Dawud_uk]

Not really. I suppose it depends on who has taught them their view of the Trinity. The vast majority of Christians would disagree with that individuals beliefs about Christ and the Trinity.

i would agree with keltoi on this one, almost all of them agree upon the concepts of trinity as you outlined it, i have met some people who differ but i do da'wah stalls so tend to come across more unusual brands of christians than most people do.

most people accept what their church teaches them and almost all churches teach trinity as co-equal beings making one God, the same old thing which i could never accept so was always my major stumbling block to becoming christian when i first became a believer in a creator.

[Danah]

from what I have been told by an active Christian member here about the trinity......your point is the correct one regard the equality issue
but even among Christians themselves, you will find many views about the trinity as its complicated to be understood by Christians themselves

[Walter]

Dear rpwelton:

Your view is the one generally taught, but not clearly, in most Christian churches. However, there is inconclusive evidence in the Bible to support the teaching of the trinity as a doctrine of the Church.

Regards,
Grenville

[Whatsthepoint]

Your view is the correct one. Christ is not an intermediary. There is no "power scale" involved in the Trinity.

What was the trinity like when the Son was dead? Was it the same, were theb two remaining still god?

[Dawud_uk]

What was the trinity like when the Son was dead? Was it the same, were theb two remaining still god?

exactly, i know you are agnostic but this is obviously illogical even to you.

just ask christians, can God die? is God born? can he beget?

now they will say no to all three, but this is what they are saying.

[Walter]

Hi Dawud_uk:

Jesus died on the cross; however, as you must be aware, death is not the end of existence. As the Qur’an states, it appeared to the Jews as if they had killed or destroyed Jesus, but Jesus cannot be destroyed.

Jesus went to hell, defeated satan, returned to His body, was resurrected, and was raised to God as stated in the Qur’an.

Regards,
Grenville

[Dawud_uk]

Hi Dawud_uk:

Jesus died on the cross; however, as you must be aware, death is not the end of existence. As the Qur’an states, it appeared to the Jews as if they had killed or destroyed Jesus, but Jesus cannot be destroyed.

Jesus went to hell, defeated satan, returned to His body, was resurrected, and was raised to God as stated in the Qur’an.

Regards,
Grenville

lol, dont know which Quran you are reading but doesnt say that in my translation.

what it actually says is they cruxified him not, that his likeness was put over another man. the rest is your own take on matters.

[Grace Seeker]

rpwelton, I want to add yet one more voice to agree that your understanding of the Trinity is more aligned to traditional historic Christianity than that which you have identified as coming from your friend. Though there is no need to say that each person of the Trinity necessarily excercises the same power, each person is still fully God in his own right, but together they are still but one God. (Just like each of the fingers of my hand are fully human, but together are still just one hand. -- Don't stretch that analogy to be completely descriptive of the Trinity; it's not. I was just speaking to that one aspect of it, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each fully God in their own right.)

What was the trinity like when the Son was dead? Was it the same, were theb two remaining still god?

First, the Son was only physically dead. But just like with the rest of us humans, when our physical body dies, we are still alive spiritually, so it is with Jesus. But in addition, the existence of the Son is not predicated on the existance of Jesus at all. The Son has existed from before the beginning of time, long before Jesus' body existed. The Son has been the Son for as long as the Father has been the Father, for as long as God has been Spirit. And there is no cessation of any of their existence at any point in time -- past, present, or future. From the Christian perspective, this is simply who God is.

So, it is not true to say that the Son was dead. It was only Jesus' body that was dead. The nature of God's being remained unchanged.

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Dawud_uk:

Jesus died on the cross; however, as you must be aware, death is not the end of existence. As the Qur’an states, it appeared to the Jews as if they had killed or destroyed Jesus, but Jesus cannot be destroyed.

Jesus went to hell, defeated satan, returned to His body, was resurrected, and was raised to God as stated in the Qur’an.

Regards,
Grenville

lol, dont know which Quran you are reading but doesnt say that in my translation.

what it actually says is they cruxified him not, that his likeness was put over another man. the rest is your own take on matters.

According to Surah 4:157 Greenville is right in saying that the Qur'an only says that "the Qur’an states, it appeared to the Jews as if they had killed or destroyed Jesus."

YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

I believe the rest of what he wrote, "but Jesus cannot be destroyed", is his own personal commentary on that aspect of the verse.

As for you assertion that the Qur'an actually states "that his likeness was put over another man", I don't see that view explicitly stated in the text. (Perhaps it is in another verse, but I haven't found it.) The closest to saying that among the various translations I found is the Shakir translation:

SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

But even here, you will note that he puts the reference to it being Isa in paranthesis, as I understand the use of parantheses in the translation process this mean that those words are not actually a part of the Arabic text either.

So, what we are left with is that it only appear to those who watched the crucifixion that Isa was killed. All of the rest as to why he was not killed -- that Judas was put on the cross in his place, or even that any other man was put on the cross in his place -- is pure speculation. It does not disservice to the Qur'an to suggest that it actually was Jesus, but that it only appeared that they had killed him. I know this isn't what your scholars have interpreted the passage to mean, but I still submit that the actual words of the text of the Qur'an itself leave this as an option.

So, this idea of a substitute being put on the cross in Jesus' place is every bit as much interpretation as what you accuse Greenville of doing. It's just one you have accepted and become so much a standard understanding of the text, that you can't see that it isn't actually written there.

[GreyKode]

As the Qur’an states, it appeared to the Jews as if they had killed or destroyed Jesus .

ok

but Jesus cannot be destroyed

The Quran doesn't say that Jesus (pbuh) cannot be destroyed, it says that ALLAH has saved him and honored him.

[Grace Seeker]

but Jesus cannot be destroyed

The Quran doesn't say that Jesus (pbuh) cannot be destroyed, it says that ALLAH has saved him and honored him.

Check with Greenville, but I don't think he was intending to say that the Qur'an said that Jesus cannot be destroyed. I think that part was his personal commentary that he was adding as an eisgesis of the passage. Poor punctuation has linked that thought to what I understood Greenville to have been saying: "As the Qur’an states, it appeared to the Jews as if they had killed or destroyed Jesus." And that is indeed what the Qur'an says in 4:157; he is right in that regard.

[Imam]

Jesus died on the cross; however, as you must be aware, death is not the end of existence.

yes death(the physical) is not the end of existence(the spiritual)

but how that would make Jesus different from Whatsthepoint ,who though agnostic and may die as agnostic (I hope not) still his spiritual life will be without end....


would else would make Jesus different from Whatsthepoint?
Ah I forgot....

The Son is claimed to has existed from before the beginning of time, long before Jesus' body existed.


existed as a spirit ,wasn't he?
yes

and the father exists as a spirit ,isn't he?

yes

The father and the son one in material?
yes


If the previous is true then Jesus was the spiritual father incarnated in the flesh which he called the son.....

and that leads to one of basic problems with the so called Trinity:

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."Luke 23:46

Jesus (pbuh) would not need to send his spirit to God because it is already God's own spirit, who is also Jesus.


As a matter of fact Luke 23:46 makes it crystal clear that Jesus said to have experienced the exact same experience humans have while death,is giving up what been offered by God before, (their spirits)

Jesus went to hell, defeated satan, returned to His body, was resurrected, and was raised to God as stated in the Qur’an.

chapter and verse?


peace

[Grace Seeker]

If the previous is true then Jesus was the spiritual father incarnated in the flesh which he called the son.....

Since the phrase is entitled, "Let me see if I have this right", I will respond primarily to this part of your post. Yes, you have this right. According to the Christian understanding, Jesus was indeed the incarnation of God. Though he was really the incarnation of the Son not the Father. But since the Father and the Son and the Spirit are all three one, it probably isn't worth trying to parse the distinction.

[Imam]

According to the Christian understanding, Jesus was indeed the incarnation of God. Though he was really the incarnation of the Son not the Father. .

If it was the inacrnation of the son (God) then it was that incarnation of the father(God) as well, don't you think so?!

Don't you believe that Jesus and the father are one in substance?

Grace seeker ...why you always trying to give the impression that the Trinity makes sense?!!

[Grace Seeker]

If it was the inacrnation of the son (God) then it was that incarnation of the father(God) as well, don't you think so?!

Don't you believe that Jesus and the father are one in substance?

Grace seeker ...why you always trying to give the impression that the Trinity makes sense?!!

Answering your last question first. Because it does to me. I don't pretend that it either does or even should make sense to everyone just because it does to me.


As to your other points/questions:

No, I do not believe that [the human] Jesus and the Father are of one substance.

What I believe is that the Son and the Father are of one substance, both being God. And I believe that Jesus is the incarnation of the Son. Therefore Jesus is God. But he is not the Father. The Father and the Son are different persons, yet still just one God.


Still, the distinctions I draw above are details. I only quibble over them because you asked. But, since I know that most Muslims identify Allah with the Christian description of the Father, therefore, I don't want to say that your previous statement is wrong. Especially in light of the fact that Jesus himself said, "I and the Father are one." But if you ask me to be more precise, it is then I have to draw the distinctions between the persons, even though I know that it will lead you and others to see tri-theism in what I have just said.

This is the tension within Christianity. On the one had we truly are (at least in our own mind) monotheists. We really do believe the statement of Deuteronomy 6:4 -- "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one."

And yet we also believe:
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.



1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.


Philippians 2:10-12
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.



How do we hold to these conflicting statements at the same time?

Some would answer that the the description of Jesus as Lord is only like the word "Sir" and means nothing. But that doesn't work in the context of the way Jesus is actually addressed, especially by people like the disciple Thomas who on seeing him following his resurrection:

John 20:28
Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"


Fortunately, the scriptures (that we recognize) themselves answer our problem by telling us:

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:14a)

And at the same time that we are told that the Word became flesh (literally had a change in state) have previously been told, in John 1:1, that the Word was God (indicating a permament condition of the Word's being). Further the Gospel writer goes on to identify this Word (i.e. God) who put on flesh to be the man John the Baptist baptized and called the Lamb of God, Jesus of Nazareth.

So, from the Christian perspective we believe the Bible makes two statements, both of which we hold to be propositional truths:
1) there is but one God who created heaven and earth and all things in it.
2) Jesus, who was born of Mary, is God.

Since we also hold that the propositional truths of the Bible must in and of themselves be true (a point which I recognize non-Christians don't agree with), then we are left to live with the inherent tension of simultaneously holding as true what appear to be impossibly conflicted propostions.

Now for most, the mere appearance of that conflict would be enough to cast doubts upon the truth of one or perhaps even both propositions. I understand that. And I would probably join you in that where it not for my acceptance of the testimony of Christ's resurrection. Another seeming impossibility, that yet somehow rings true for me. And that being so, I am prepared to accept that there are things that seem impossible to me, that I cannot fully explain, but which I am prepared to accept as nonetheless true.

The Christian assertion that God is a singular triune being is not an attempt to explain away the tension that we must live with in holding what we know to be two conflicting truths at the same time. It is certainly not an attempt to define how it is that they are true or that God's nature works. It is merely a description of what we observe when we observe the action and character of the God we know. He is but one, yet exists in three persons known to us at the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

You can argue it doesn't make sense all you want. In the end we might even agree with you. But we will continue to also answer, that no matter how little sense it makes, we still observe it to be what is.

[Imam]

Grace seeker .... in your post you only highlighted the problem ,and as expected you solved it the Trinitarian way,and how they view the proof text,ignoring others and their views of the same text:

.
I believe that Jesus is the incarnation of the Son.

What son are you talking about?!

The Trinitarian answer would be, Jesus pre-existed as a spritual being which is called God

What do Trinitarians do with such spiritual being (God)?

They dissolve him into
1-The pre-existed and eternal spiritual father.

2- The pre-existed and eternal son who was with God from the beginning,and It is he (that son,according to seeker) who incarnated.

John:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

in light of the previous text (as viewed by Trinitarians) ,it is indeed correct when seeker and others trinitarians say

.
The Father and the Son are different persons.

They are really from the same substance (spiritual) but different persons or beings(no difference indeed) ,as one of them was with the other from the beginning,and been sent ,by the wish of the other, to Earth for a while till he came back again sitting on the right hand of the other !.....


3-The pre-existed and eternal Holy Spirit.

The consequences of dissolving such spritual being into (father,son,HS) and insisting on using phrases
such as ,The father is not the son
Jesus is the incarnation of the Son...etc......

leads logically to the believe that Trinity and trithism are two sides of the same coin.

to make the matter worse for trinitarians let's modify a little the sentence of Grace-seeker ,without dissolving the beinghood of God,let's put the proper word in the sentence ,instead of the word Son,let's put the word God

I believe that Jesus is the incarnation of God. .

God is incarnated in Jesus ,for what? to die in the cross and be resurrected again.

would God continue in such state of incanation?

yes God, in his state of incarnation which will last forever, will be sitting on the right hand of(....) guess who?

Hebrews 12:2
2Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.


Where such Ideas came from?!

.


THE WORD AS CREATOR, AS SECOND PERSON OF THE TRINITY, AND ITS PRE-EXISTENCE
The Word of Oriental Origin

"IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John i. 1.) The doctrine of the divine creative word (from the Greek Logos) appears to have been coeval in its origin with that of the Trinity, if not inseparably connected with it, as it constitutes the second member of the Trinity of "Father, Word, and Holy Ghost" in most of the ancient systems of religion. Works on heathen mythology show that it was anciently a very prevalent custom to personify ideas, thoughts and words into angels and Gods. Words were first personated, and transformed into men, then into angels, and finally into Gods.

And here is foreshadowed the origin of John's personification of "the Word made flesh." It was simply the word of the supreme God as it escaped from his mouth, assuming the form and characteristics of a divine being like himself, and taking position as a secondary God and second member of the Trinity. This was the orient conception, and it appears to have been John's. He evidently had no thought of Christ experiencing human birth, at first, or being born of a woman, but believed, like some of the orientalists, that he came out of the mouth of the Father, and was thus "made flesh." (John i. 2.) Not a word of Christ being born is found in John's Gospel, till after his existence as the Word is spoken of.

The Word As Creator
John also represents the Word as having been the Creator. "All things were made by him." (John i. 3.) Mr. Guizot, in a note on Gibbon's work, says, "According to the Zend-Avesta (the Persian bible, more than three thousand years old), it is by the Word, more ancient than the world, that Ormuzd created the universe."

And the ancient Greek writer Amelias speaking of the God Mercury, says, "And this plainly was the Logos (the Word), by whom all things were made, he being himself eternal, as Heraclitus would say, ... He assumed to be with God, and to be God, and in him everything that was made, has its life and being, who, descending into body, and putting on flesh, took the appearance of a man, though still retaining the majesty of his nature. Here is "the Word made flesh" set forth in most explicit terms.

It was anciently believed that the Word and Breath of God were the same, and possessed a vitalizing power, which, as they issued from his mouth, might be transformed into another being known as a secondary God. The most ancient tradition taught that the Word emanated from the mouth of the principal God, and "became flesh," that is, took form, as the ancient Brahmins expressed it, for the special purpose of serving as agent in the work of creation, that is, to become the creator of the external universe. St. John evidently borrowed this idea. Read his first chapter.

The Hindoo very anciently taught that "the Word had existed with God from all eternity, and when spoken it became a glorious form, the aggregate embodiment of all the divine ideas, and performed the work of creation." And of Chrishna, it is affirmed that "while upon the earth he existed also in heaven." (See Baghavat Gita.)

The Word As A Second Member Of The Trinity
There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost." (i John v. 7.) Observe, the Word is the second person in the Trinity. And this was its post in the Brahman, Hindoo, Persian, and other systems. "All religions," says a writer, "which taught the existence of the Word as a great primeval spirit, represent him as secondary to the supreme. (P.R. 3, vol. ii. p. 336.) "The Hindoos reverenced it next to Brahm." Mr. Higgins cuts the matter short by declaring "The Logos, or Word, was the second person of the Trinity in all the ancient systems, as in the Christian system," which again indicates its heathen origin.

Origins Of The Word As Creator
The motive which prompted a belief in the creative Word may be styled a theological necessity. It was believed that the principal God, like the rulers of earth, was too aristocratic to labor with his own hands. Hence, another God was originated to perform the work of creation, and called "The Word."

To Be Continued

[Tony]

What was the trinity like when the Son was dead? Was it the same, were theb two remaining still god?

Good question. Without wishing to derail the respect within this thread it does kind of put a gaping hole in the trinity beleif.

[Walter]

Hi Imam:

You had requested a chapter and verse for my statement: "Jesus went to hell, defeated satan, returned to His body, was resurrected, and was raised to God as stated in the Qur’an."

Please note that it was the portion "and was raised to God" that I was referring to as being "stated in the Qur’an." I trust that you know where to find it.

Regards,
Grenville

[Imam]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>


to sum up the matter:

Reasons not to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity


First and most important If the source from which the doctrine might be derived is the gospels ,then the first step is to check the source itself and find out how far it is inerrant ,divine........ I think The bible with the huge ,incredible amount of problems of every kind therein , proved itself as untrustworthy source for not only the trinity but all other issues as well eg, messianic prophecies,blood atonment etc.....


Second: Away from the Question of the Inerrancy, The so called proof text itself of a trinity is controversal ..
eg, John 10:30 "I and my father are one." some would argue it means one in substance other would argue one in purpose..
and many other examples of the same kind etc..................................

in other words trinitarians only validate one kind of understanding of the text and reject any other understanding even if makes some sense..

Third: what makes matter worse is that ,if we assume for the sake of argument that the proof text leaves no room for any speculation ,we would again face another problem.....

If you could bring a list of gospel proofs of a trinity ,you could bring another list of proofs against the trinity eg,Luke 18:19,John 10:34-36),Mark 13:32 ,Matthew 27:46 ,John 5:30 ,John 20:17 etc......

so where are we going at?at best, A self-contradictory concept.

Fourth: an lastly, even if the proof text against trinity is absent completely,and the trinity is there ,we would face another problem ....it is the terms there (God was with God) and (God sitting on the right hand of God)would leave no choice for us to believe that trinity is nothing but a mask hiding Tritheism inside......

Please note that it was the portion "and was raised to God" that I was referring to as being "stated in the Qur’an." I trust that you know where to find it.

Regards,
Grenville

Thanx for your note

peace

[glo]

Just stopping to say that I am enjoying this thread - peaceful and informative, just how it should be. :)

[Walter]

Hi Imam:

Let me clarify that the 30-year study found harmony in the Bible and the Qur'an on the teaching of the Trinity, without damaging the integrity of any verse in the Bible or the Qur'an.

[AntiKarateKid]

Hi Imam:

Let me clarify that the 30-year study found harmony in the Bible and the Qur'an on the teaching of the Trinity, without damaging the integrity of any verse in the Bible or the Qur'an.

30 year old study... meet 2000 year old debate.

Greenville going with your logic, our arguments have been built upon by scholars who studied this topic for their whole lives, not just 30 years. And their work was built upon by their students and so on and so forth so Muslims have built upon this for 1400 years.

1400 > 30


On as sidenote the study severely distorted the Quran's verses, if your answers are anything to go by.

[Grace Seeker]

On as sidenote the study severely distorted the Quran's verses, if your answers are anything to go by.

Continuing the sidenote. I expect you are right, that you would find the study to severly distort the Qur'an. Can you understand that I might feel the same way about some of the supposed scholars that many Muslims cite claiming that they represent Christian teaching? I find many of them, especially people like the Jesus Debate, as severly distorting biblical teaching.

[AntiKarateKid]

Continuing the sidenote. I expect you are right, that you would find the study to severly distort the Qur'an. Can you understand that I might feel the same way about some of the supposed scholars that many Muslims cite claiming that they represent Christian teaching? I find many of them, especially people like the Jesus Debate, as severly distorting biblical teaching.

Those are debates between Muslims and Christians, not a 3rd party telling them something else.

In addition to this both you and I know one of us is right and the other wrong. I am simply objecting to Greenville's claim that both are perfectly right which he doesn't prove by citing any verses.

The Christian-Muslim debate centers around evidence.

[Imam]

Hi Imam:

Let me clarify that the 30-year study found harmony in the Bible and the Qur'an on the teaching of the Trinity, without damaging the integrity of any verse in the Bible or the Qur'an.

Excuse me, Do you mean you made a compared study of the Quran and the Bible for 30 years? or someone else and you read their material?

If so How to harmonize the Quran and the Gospels in the issue of the Trinity?
Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

Excuse me, Do you mean you made a compared study of the Quran and the Bible for 30 years? or someone else and you read their material?

If so How to harmonize the Quran and the Gospels in the issue of the Trinity?
Peace

He also claims that the Quran was revealed specifically for Muhammad, whatever that means.

[أبو سليمان عمر]

He also claims that the Quran was revealed specifically for Muhammad, whatever that means.

The revealed books from Allah are: the Torah (Tawrah), the Psalms (Zabur), the Gospel (Injeel) and the Qur’an. The Qur’an was revealed to Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him, as the final book of Guidance. Among all these books, it is only the Qur’an that remains unchanged, in its original revealed form

[Grace Seeker]

In addition to this both you and I know one of us is right and the other wrong. I am simply objecting to Greenville's claim that both are perfectly right which he doesn't prove by citing any verses.

I object to Greenville's claim as well. I once had hopes that there could be some sort of syntheisis between Islam and Christianity, but given what the Qur'an has to say about the crucifixion in contrast to what the Bible has to say, and given the Qur'an's misunderstand of Christian teachings regarding the Trinity (for instance we do not say three, trinitarian Christianity most definitely claims that there is only one God, not three), nor the does Christianity make a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Mother, though the Qur'an appears to teach that Christianity holds to this -- thus, it seems that the two books are irreconcilable to each other.

Perhaps if Muslims held that the Qur'an was not the direct dictation of Allah, but was rathered the inspired but imperfect musings of Muhammed, there might be a possibilty to find more common ground. But I know that isn't going to happen. Given these differences, then, I think the best that we can hope for is some degree of mutual respect of one another as persons who truly desire to serve, follow, and submit to God and who following God's commands also then desire to live in love and charity with our fellow men and women regardless of religion.

[Walter]

He also claims that the Quran was revealed specifically for Muhammad, whatever that means.

Good grief AKK. Why are you misrepresenting my statements? Please re-read the relevant posts again.

Regarding 'Brothers Kept Apart". The mature response to claims of truth is to examine them before making conclusive statements. It takes no effort whatsoever, to simply dismiss 30 years of research.

Let me encourage you to obtain a copy from your local library, and then explain to us what you disagree with.

Regards,
Grenville

[Imam]

nor the does Christianity make a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Mother, though the Qur'an appears to teach that Christianity holds to this -- .

According to that flawed approach ,one could argue that the Quran view christians and Jews as polytheist for the reason (taking a great deal of priests as gods) as long as it mentions :
Holy Quran 9:31 They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah, and Christ the son of Mary; yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah. .

Anyway all such verses been explained linguistically well,in previous posts..eg, http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...n-trinity.html
and no excuse for christians or others too,for misunderstanding the exact meanings in Arabic and Islamic terms...

given the Qur'an's misunderstand of Christian teachings regarding the Trinity (for instance we do not say three, trinitarian Christianity most definitely claims that there is only one God, not three).

I find it astonishing whenever I find a christian accuses a Non trinitarian of attacking the trinity cause he doesn't understand it !!! ,as the fact Trinitarians themselves confess it to be a mystery !

Wikipedia

Trinitarians say that "the doctrine of the Trinity is a deep mystery that cannot be fathomed by the finite mind". Criticism of the trinitarian doctrine includes the argument that its "mystery" is essentially an inherent irrationality, where the persons of God are claimed to share completely a single divine substance, the "being of God", and yet not partake of each others' identity. the perplexity of the Trinitarian arguments, which has included the use of philosophy, is contrary to the Biblical principles of simplicity and clarity in doctrine.


All those non-Trinitarians (not only Muslims,but also the rest of the whole world apart from the trinitarians from the very beginning during the formulation of the creed) criticized the creed ,and all agreed that Trinity and Tritheism are synonymous.....

Not only Muslims and Jews but also all the non-Trinitarians ,described the creed as a cornerstone of polytheism

The Church in History 1964 B. K. Kuiper
"The heathen believe in many gods. Arius thought that to believe that the Son is God as well as that the Father is God would mean that there are two Gods, and that therefore the Christians would be falling back into heathenism."

Documents of the Christian Church 2nd Ed 1963 Henery Bettenson

"The decisions of Nicea were really the work of a minority, and they were misunderstood and disliked by many"The majority of the bishops at the council of Nicea believed in what is called subordinationism, which is a belief that Jesus Christ is subordinate to God the Father, not coequal, not coeternal, and not God the Son. The teachings of Arius were condemned in 325, but the teachings of Arius did not die, by 359 Arianism was widely accepted, that is until the minority trinitarian bishops found another emperor that they could get to propose their trinitarian creed at the Council of Constantinople in 381.


Voltair:

-- That to maintain, as do their adversaries, that there are several distinct "persons" in the Divine Essence, and that it is not the eternal who is the only True God, but that the Son and the Holy Ghost must be added to them, is to introduce the crudest and most dangerous error into the church of Jesus Christ, since it manifestly encourages polytheism.
- That it implies a contradiction to say that there is only one God and that nevertheless there are three "persons", each of which is truly God.
-- That this distinction, one essence and three persons, was never in scripture.
-- That it is obviously false, since it is certain that there are no fewer "essences" than "persons", nor "persons" than "essences".
That the three persons of the Trinity are either three different substances, or accidents of the divine essence, or that same essence without distinction.
-- That in the first case three gods are created.
That in the second case God is composed of accidents and one worships accidents and metamorphoses accidents into persons.

-- That in the third case an indivisible subject is uselessly and groundlessly divided, and what is not distinguished in itself is distinguished into "three".

-- That if it is said that the three "personalities" are neither different substances in the divine essence, nor accidents of that essence, one would have to be at some pains to convince oneself that they are anything.

-- That it must not be believed that the most rigid and the most convinced "Trinitarians" themselves have any clear idea of the manner in which the three "hypostases" subsist in God without dividing his substance and consequently without multiplying it.

-- That Saint Augustine himself, after he had advanced a thousand reasonings as false as they are obscure on this subject, was obliged to admit that nothing intelligible could be said about it. Then they quote this father's words, which are in fact very singular: "When it is asked," says he, "what are the three, human language is found inadequate, and there are no terms to express them: yet it is said that there are "three persons", not in order to say something, but because we must speak and not remain silent. "Dictum est tres personae, non ut aliquid diceretur, sed ne taceretur"." (De Trinitate, V. ix).
-- That when they are asked what they understand by this word "person", they explain it only by saying that it is a certain incomprehensible distinction that causes one to distinguish in a numerically single nature a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost.

-- That the explanation they give of the terms "to beget" and "to proceed" is not more satisfactory since it comes down to saying that these terms indicate certain incomprehensible relationships between the three persons of the Trinity.

-- That from all this we can gather that the basic argument between them and the orthodox turns on the question whether there are in god three distinctions of which we have no notion and between which there are certain relationships of which we do not have any notion either.

From all this they conclude that it would be wiser to abide by the authority of the apostles, who never spoke of the Trinity, and to banish from religion for ever all terms which are not in the scriptures, such as Trinity, person, essence, hypostasis, hypostatic and personal union, incarnation, generation, procession, and so many more like them, which, being absolutely meaningless, since they have no real representative in nature, can provoke only false, vague, obscure and incomplete ideas in the understanding.

Other Quotes



Bernard Lonergan “The Trinity is a matter of five notions or properties, four relations, three persons, two processions, one substance or nature, and no understanding.”


Man’s Religions John B. Noss 1968
"The doctrine of the trinity he [Michael Servetus] felt to be a Catholic perversion and himself to be a good New Testament Christian in combating it. . . According to his conception, a trinity composed of three distinct persons in one God is a rational impossibility;"


The Encyclopedia Americana 1956
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."

Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."


The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1976
"Neither the word trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deut. 6:4). . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since."


The Story of Civilization: Part III, Caesar and Christ, 1944, pp. 594-595 .
“It seems incredible that the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel should have come from the same hand. The Apocalypse is Jewish poetry, the Fourth Gospel is Greek philosophy....Just as Philo, learned in Greek speculation, had felt a need to rephrase Judaism in forms acceptable to the logic-loving Greeks, so John…sought to give a Greek philosophical tinge to the mystic Jewish doctrine that the Wisdom of God was a living being, and to the Christian doctrine that Jesus was the Messiah. Consciously or not, he continued Paul’s work of detaching Christianity from Judaism.…Now the pagan world—even the anti-Semitic world—could accept him as its own. Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it.”—


Those who claim to be true monotheists and yet believe in the Trinitarian formula ,remind me of the Egyptian proverb...

(I believed you when I listened to your words ,yet feel wonder when I see what you do)


As I said before the problem is not our misunderstanding what Trinity Is, it is the Trinitarian failure to understand what trinity ISN't

....
peace

[Grace Seeker]

I find it astonishing whenever I find a christian accuses a Non trinitarian of attacking the trinity cause he doesn't understand it !!! ,as the fact Trinitarians themselves confess it to be a mystery !

My problem is not when people say that they can't understand it. It isn't even when they say they disagree with it. My problem is when people attack the concept of the Trinity for saying something that we trinitarians never actually claim that it says.


We confess it is a mystery as to how it is true. But we are clear as to what it is that is true. There is just one God. We never say there are three gods. Yet this one God makes himself known to us in three persons. How it is that God is three-in-one is a mystery. But that he is a three-in-one divine being (singular), and not three seperate gods is very clear to us.

As I said before the problem is not our misunderstanding what Trinity Is, it is the Trinitarian failure to understand what trinity ISN't

So, as you can see, we have no problem saying what trinity isn't. It isn't three seperate gods. Saying that it isn't three is the very definition of Trinity.

[GreyKode]

Grace,
You say one God but three persons, if so does that mean he is one person at a time or all three at the same time.

[coddles76]

Grace,
You say one God but three persons, if so does that mean he is one person at a time or all three at the same time.

It's God the father, God the Son and God the Spirit. They are three but are known as ONE and act upon the duties as ONE Whole entity. Don't know how anybody could digest this theory but Grace Seeker is one of those people and I commend him on that cause it must take alot of energy. You will just have to accept that its a theory that only a selected group of individuals will ever accept and you have to have a certain mental structure to fathom. I guess you and I fall out of that group of individuals.

[Grace Seeker]

Grace,
You say one God but three persons, if so does that mean he is one person at a time or all three at the same time.

All three at the same time, from before time even began and until after time is no more, throughout all of eternity. There never was, is, or will be a time when God is not Father, Son, and Spirit, all three persons in one being.

[coddles76]

^I understand and I know you and I always agree to disagree but could you please explain to the crowd that if the Father the Son and the Holy spirit always existed before anything ever existed then why was it only ever mentioned when christianity was created. Why did not God (As in the trinitarian God) ever reveal himself and explain his 3 part nature ever before the creation of christianity?? The trinitarian God never exsisted before christianity and no one ever knew of him before this. I will pose the same question in the other thread aswell. Thanks

[Grace Seeker]

^I understand and I know you and I always agree to disagree but could you please explain to the crowd that if the Father the Son and the Holy spirit always existed before anything ever existed then why was it only ever mentioned when christianity was created. Why did not God (As in the trinitarian God) ever reveal himself and explain his 3 part nature ever before the creation of christianity?? The trinitarian God never exsisted before christianity and no one ever knew of him before this. I will pose the same question in the other thread aswell. Thanks

I think you mean the trinitarian understanding of God did not exist prior to Christianity, not that the trinitarian God did not exist. Am I correct in interpreting you thusly?

You see if we are correct that the God does exist in Trinity, then he has always existed in Trinity, even if he was not known or talked about that way until Christian era.

I'll await clarification before proceeding with my comments on where one sees hints of this in the Hebrew Bible.

[coddles76]

I think you mean the trinitarian understanding of God did not exist prior to Christianity, not that the trinitarian God did not exist. Am I correct in interpreting you thusly?

You see if we are correct that the God does exist in Trinity, then he has always existed in Trinity, even if he was not known or talked about that way until Christian era.

I'll await clarification before proceeding with my comments on where one sees hints of this in the Hebrew Bible.

Ok here is my clarification, What I would like to know and maybe you can explain to the crowd is that the trinitarian God never revealed himself unto man until the creation of Christianity, or more clearly until the chursh itself brang about this concept of God. So why is that God never revealed his trinitarian self to us before actually revealing it to the church of christainity? He never revealed his trinitarian nature to the Jews, nor to the followers of Ibraham, Nor to the followers of adam, nor to the followers of Noah, Nor to the followers of Muhammad PBUH all. So why did he only reveal himself to the followers of christianity and no one else? If he was always trinitarian by nature then I'm sure he would of revealed himself in this way right from the beginning which was during the time of Adam but that was never the case.

[أبو سليمان عمر]

According to the oldest and most authentic copies of manuscripts and scrolls available throughout the centuries, Jesus, peace be upon him, never claimed to be God, or the creator, or the One to pray to, nor did he tell his followers to revere him as God. These notions appear on the lips of others who came along decades and even centuries later. While Jesus was on earth he did not claim to be the creator or ask us to revere him as God. His miraculous birth is a sign of his prophethood: “Verily, the likeness of Jesus before Allah, is the likeness of Adam. He (Allah) created him from dust and said “Be!” and he was” (Quran 3:59). Like all the great and noble prophets of Allah such as Adam, Abraham, Moses, Isaac and David, Jesus came with one message: Worship, love, obey and submit to the one true God, Allah, the creator of everything and do not worship anything besides Allah.
The religion of Islam is not named after a person as in the case of Christianity which was named after Jesus Christ, Buddhism after Gotama Buddha, Confucianism after Confucius, and Marxism after Karl Marx.
Islamis the true religion of "Allah" and as such, its name represents the central principle of Allah's "God's" religion; the total submission to the will of Allah "God"

[أبو سليمان عمر]

the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - in one divine being.
If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:
"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be save must thus think of the Trinity..." (excerpts from the Athanasian Creed)

Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?

It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.

How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?

[أبو سليمان عمر]

The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of I John 5:7, Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase "...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is definitely a "later addition" to Biblical test, and it is not found in any of today's versions of the Bible. AM I LYING
SO what we see now is that It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.


It is funny to me The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than "I believe it because I was told to do so." It is explained away as "mystery" - yet the Bible says in I Corinthians 14:33 that "... God is not the author of confusion..."
God is not the author of confusion and yet you are confused listen buddy islam is the true religion of ALLAH (GOD) STOP lying to your self you are only hurting your self...

[أبو سليمان عمر]

SEE and the 100s and 100s of contradictions in the bible mean nothing because you Lord can make mistake??? or was it the writers that made the mistake and YOUR LORD let them do that ?????/???? well MY (our) LORD the TRUE GOD one and only cant let that happen to the Book Of GOD it must be perfect not one error not one contradiction not one at all but HIS words MUST BE PERFECT LIKE HE IS :) MAY ALLAH GUIDE US AND KEEPS US GUIDED
YOUR book says SEEK TRUTH AND YOU WILL FIND
well start seeking you are here so that is a good start
Allah promised to protect it: (We have sent down the Reminder, and We will preserve it) (Al-Hijr 15:9).
[Will they not ponder the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found many inconsistencies in it.] (An-Nisaa’ 4: 82)

[If you have doubts about what We have sent down to Our servant, produce another surah equal to it, and call your witnesses, besides Allah, if you are telling the truth. If you do not do that – and you will not do it – then fear the Fire whose fuel is people and stones, made ready for the unbelievers. ] (Al-Baqarah 2: 23-24)
in 1400 years none could even the greatest poets so go study islam :) and come back and talk pls

[Grace Seeker]

According to the oldest and most authentic copies of manuscripts and scrolls available throughout the centuries, Jesus, peace be upon him, never claimed to be God, or the creator, or the One to pray to, nor did he tell his followers to revere him as God. These notions appear on the lips of others who came along decades and even centuries later. While Jesus was on earth he did not claim to be the creator or ask us to revere him as God.

I think you are mistaken about this.

Matthew 28:9
Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Matthew 28:16-17a
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him;

John 20:28-29
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


These passages show that Jesus accepted the disciples' worship of him, even accepted it when he was directly called God.




But there are plenty of places where Jesus utters words from his own mouth that also imply, even they don't directly state, his divinity:

John 1
49Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."
50Jesus said, "You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that." 51He then added, "I tell you the truth, you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

Jesus goes on to accept and use the designation of himself as the "Son of Man". (This was a Messianic title; it was not a reference to say that he was not divine.) And here you have a reference to Jacob's dream back in Genesis 28:12. Jesus is saying that he is Jacob's stairway to heaven.



John 8:58
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Why did they pick up stones to stone Jesus? Simple, because in saying, "before Abrama was born, I am" Jesus was making a claim to be the God whose name was not even spoken by the Jews.




John 10:30-32
30I and the Father are one."
31Again 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?"

Once again the people want to stone Jesus. Why? This time we don't even have to compose our own answer, the people answer Jesus directly:
John 10:33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."



Mark 15
61Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?"
62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
They all condemned him as worthy of death.


Again, you have the use of Messianic titles ("the Christ", "Son of Man" and "Son of God"). Again you have Jesus being charged with blasphemy (i.e. charged with claiming to be God) because of what he has said. If Jesus had simply meant that he was a specially appointed persons sent from God, a prophet like his cousin John the Baptist, a son of God in the same way that all of humanity can claim to be a child of God, then those around him would have had no need to fear that he was committing blasphemy. He they had thought that he was deluded and insane, that he didn't know what he was talking about and mean it sincerely they also could not have condemned him to death, for the charge of blasphemy could not be levied at the insane or mentally deficient. It could only be charge against someone who was in their right mind enough to truly believe that what they were saying was true and who by it meant to claim the position that was reserved only for God and God alone. While you may not think that Jesus ever said that he was God, it is quite clear that the people around him were under no such misconceptions. They heard it with their own ears and they considered it blasphemy and worthy of death.

[أبو سليمان عمر]

^^^^^^^^ You are confused but its ok not your fault excuses excuses keep tell your self I believe it because I was told to do so." i need rest and you are not really foucs see ya SALAM WA ALAKUM TO ALL MUSLIMS :) FIAMENILLAH MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN ISLAM
AS FOR U GS CYA NEXT TIME TAKE CARE;)

[Grace Seeker]

Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?

Well, it is neither English nor gibberish. It was written in Greek. And the WHAT? in question is simple. God the one and only, who is and was and who is to come. The beginning and the end. The Alpha and Omega. The first and the last. The one who died and who behold is alive forevermore.

In the letter to the Hebrews God himself refers to the Son as God. In Revelation we see that the the Son is God Almighty. You have your book. We have ours. Despite your unwillingness to see it, our book puts forth the idea that the creator of the all the universe is none other than the Christ. And that this same Christ was God born to dwell among us. It also identifies the Holy Spirit as God. And yet it also claims that there is but one and only one God. Since you don't accept our book you don't have to believe any of that. But please don't kid yourself into thinking that it isn't taught in our book. It is.

^^^^^^^^ You are confused but its ok not your fault excuses excuses keep tell your self I believe it because I was told to do so."

There is nothing confusing in any of those passages. If you are confused, it is because you don't want to see what they plainly put forth. But why worry about it? You don't accept the testimony of our written scriptures to be true anyway. You think of them as corrupted and not representing the truth. So, you have nothing to fear from seeing that they do indeed testify to Jesus having made claims to be divine after all. All you have to do is dismiss that they accurately record what Jesus actually said. Is the problem that you do see that according to these passages Jesus did claim to be God? And yet you've been taught your whole life that no such passages exist in our Bible, but now you see they do. If those who have taught you about Christianity have erred in these simple things that are there for anyone with eyes to see for themselves, I wonder what else they have erred in with regard to Christian teachings?

[coddles76]

I wonder what else they have erred in with regard to Christian teachings?

I guess the same can be said in regards to Islamic teachings.

Still waiting on the answer to my questiona and clarifications. Much appreciated.

[Grace Seeker]

Ok here is my clarification, What I would like to know and maybe you can explain to the crowd is that the trinitarian God never revealed himself unto man until the creation of Christianity, or more clearly until the chursh itself brang about this concept of God. So why is that God never revealed his trinitarian self to us before actually revealing it to the church of christainity? He never revealed his trinitarian nature to the Jews, nor to the followers of Ibraham, Nor to the followers of adam, nor to the followers of Noah, Nor to the followers of Muhammad PBUH all. So why did he only reveal himself to the followers of christianity and no one else? If he was always trinitarian by nature then I'm sure he would of revealed himself in this way right from the beginning which was during the time of Adam but that was never the case.

Well, first, I don't think it is true that God would have necessarily revealed his whole nature right from the beginning. But we won't ever know. The only persons who would have known that are Adam and Eve and once they lost fellowship with God, then they would have been denied knowing him as fully as they once had when they experienced that fellowship with him in the Garden of Eden.

Certainly Noah didn't know God as well as Abraham, who didn't know God as well as Moses. Once people no longer had that intimate fellowship with God that we were created to have in the beginning, the ability of mankind to know God was severely retarded. But progressively, we do see God reveal himself to humankind through Abraham's descendents. I think he primarily makes himself known through the covenant he makes with the line of Abaham, Isaac and then Jacob, but he also makes himself known to Ishmael. And in time the covenant becomes codified at Sinai with Moses. Still it is not fully understood, and certainly not fully kept, by the nation of Israel. For this reason their is a succession of both judges and prophets who attempt to interpret what it means to live out this covenant relationship with God and with other people. Sometimes they come closer to doing so than others, but always they fail. And Jesus tells a parable about this -- the parable of the tenants in the vineyard (Matthew 21, Mark 12, Luke 20) -- that shows that the people ultimately rejected those that God sent in his name and would even reject God's own son as well. But the reason that Jesus comes when he does, and thus the answer to your question about why only do we learn what we learn in the Christian ere is a very simple "But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Galatians 4:4-5). That's sort of a Christian version of answering by saying, "Allah knows best." And this is of course true. God does know best, and we have to trust him with his timing.



But one thing I might say is that Judaism while mono-theistic was able to be thoroughly mono-theistic and still incorporate the ideas that were expressed by Christendom. They were not as antagonistic to each other as many seem to think. I'll examine this for you some more if you want, as I suspect that perhaps this might be what you are ultimately asking -- How do Christians see their trinitarian ideas being consistent with the monotheism of the Jewish heritiage they claim to have inherited?

[Imam]

We never say there are three gods.

Indeed you say it, every time you try to mask the three gods (God the father ,the God Son ,the God holy spirit) with the word (persons)!....

If you claim a thousand times a believe in one God ,the one Jesus mentioned in : John 17:3
And this is eternal life: to know you, the only true God
and yet putting partners with him in the Godhead (son and holy spirit) ,none(at least -muslims) is going to believe what you claim is in accordance with what you practice.

Yet this one God makes himself known to us in three persons..

or three beings ,no difference indeed..

How it is that God is three-in-one is a mystery.

three Gods in one God is not a mystery for non Trinitarians but a contradictory statement.. its second part (one indivisible God) negates the first (three Gods)...

But that he is a three-in-one divine being (singular), and not three seperate gods is very clear to us..

Not that clear ....

The father is not the son ,isn't it?
God The son was with God the father from the beginning,isn't it?
God the son was forsaken by the God father on the cross,isn't it?
God the son is sitting on the right hand of the God father,isn't it?

what logic to claim they are not seperated?!!

we have no problem saying what trinity isn't. It isn't three separate gods.

I'm afraid you still can't get what it isn't ..

IT ISN'T

A being , a person (if you wish to say) explicitly stated that he lacks qualities possessed by another person
eg;
Knowledge Mark 13:32,power John 5:19 ,goodness Mk 10:18

and yet we are asked to believe he is the same material of such other person.

IT ISN'T

A being ,person ascending unto another being,person calling him his God ,and will be sitting on his right hand ,and yet we are asked to believe he is the same being .
Have you ever imagined what the Only-begotten God Jesus is going to call the Only True God the father while sitting on his right hand? how will they begin to discuss matters and ex-change opinions?


Many other proof text against the Trinity , and few text (as understood by Trinitarians) for it...
So what? the best thing is to say The Bible teaches a self-contradictory concept in both proof text and logic.

[coddles76]

How do Christians see their trinitarian ideas being consistent with the monotheism of the Jewish heritiage they claim to have inherited?

Thanks GS, No not really, its not exactly what I was after but thanks for the attempt. I was merely trying to expand on your point about the trinitarian GOD that exsisted before life itself exsisted as per your claim. It just seems purely unfair and predjudice to me why GOD would only reveal himself to the christians. Why were they so Special? and if you want to claim that the timing was right during the christain Era then why didn't the Trinitarian GOD reveal himself to the prophet Muhammad PBUH who came after jesus and who was the most Influential prophet and messenger to ever exsist, it purely doesn't make sense. (And please don't try to claim that the trinitarian GOD did reveal himself to Muhammad, because that would be an insult to the intelligent muslim).

Certainly Noah didn't know God as well as Abraham, who didn't know God as well as Moses. Once people no longer had that intimate fellowship with God that we were created to have in the beginning, the ability of mankind to know God was severely retarded

Why didn't Noah know the trinitarian GOD? I mean he lived the longest life according to belief (Approx 900 Years) If anyone would have had enough time to know the trinitarian GOD it would of been Noah. He preached GOD's message for almost 900 Years with patience and I'm sure GOD would have been a good enough friend to reveal his true indentity, which goes back to my previous question above. Why were the christians so special?
Also the other mentioned prophets you noted above were of the 5 most respected and loved by GOD so why wouldn't he reveal himself to them? Were they not worthy enough? Still I really need to know, Why were the christians so worthy of knowing GOD and the people of Noah, abraham, Moses and Muhammad not worthy. There must of been something truly remarkably special about the christians for GOD to reveal himself to them and not to others. The muslims are the one's who are most intimate in there fellowship with GOD so why did GOD exclude them from his so called trinitarian nature. It truly sounds like GOD is being predjudice and racist which I truly don't think he is.

[Grace Seeker]

(And please don't try to claim that the trinitarian GOD did reveal himself to Muhammad, because that would be an insult to the intelligent muslim).

If the God that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship is the same God that Abraham worship then they all worship the same God. Given that these three religions have different beliefs regarding the nature of God, then though they do worship the same God the truth is that one or more of them simply has incorrect beliefs regarding the nature of God. As I don't think that any of us would claim that God's nature actually changed then don't the only options left have to include as a possible explanation the answer you don't want me to say? It is either
1) God is in fact not a tri-personal being and Christians erred when they explained their experience of him using this sort of language.
or
2) God is in fact a tri-personal being but Muhammed erred when he reported on God's revelation to him.
or
3) God is in fact a tri-personal being but chose not to reveal that aspect of himself to Muhammed.

[coddles76]

If the God that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship is the same God that Abraham worship then they all worship the same God. Given that these three religions have different beliefs regarding the nature of God, then though they do worship the same God the truth is that one or more of them simply has incorrect beliefs regarding the nature of God. As I don't think that any of us would claim that God's nature actually changed then don't the only options left have to include as a possible explanation the answer you don't want me to say? It is either
1) God is in fact not a tri-personal being and Christians erred when they explained their experience of him using this sort of language.
or
2) God is in fact a tri-personal being but Muhammed erred when he reported on God's revelation to him.
or
3) God is in fact a tri-personal being but chose not to reveal that aspect of himself to Muhammed.

Thanks once again GS but you have only targeted a very small quotation to my response above so in response to this in seems as though the GOD you are trying to promote is indecisive, He can't make up his mind and also seems very selective on who he reveals his indentity to. These are not the qualities of the almighty creator who created everything you and I have the pleasure of seeing and hearing. Secondly the monothesitic religions you mentioned above all worshiped the ONE god from abraham to Muhammad peace be with them, so I agree that GOD's nature never changed, its humans that changed his nature. The christians under the rule of constantine came together and changed that monotheistic creed to a one of a different nature. So once again why did the trinitarian GOD only reveal himself to the people of christendom and no one else? Why were they so special? Why did GOD select them and no one else.

1) God is in fact not a tri-personal being and Christians erred when they explained their experience of him using this sort of language.

I guess we need to look into the history of the roman empire and the council of nicea for that answer. The trinity was created during the rule of constantine who came together to speak on behalf of all of christendom and redefine the rules. They threw out a large part of jesus's teachings and only kept what they required for political reasons and power elevation. So this is very much a possibility

2) God is in fact a tri-personal being but Muhammed erred when he reported on God's revelation to him.

Thats not a possibility because Muhammad PBUH spoke of words not from his ownself. He was merely relaying the message exactly how Allah SWT revealed it to him word for word. Even your own bible confirms this.......

"I will raise them up a prophet among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall not hearken unto the words that he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."

So its not a possibility that muhammad erred because that would mean that GOD erred and that is no way at all possible.

3) God is in fact a tri-personal being but chose not to reveal that aspect of himself to Muhammed.

That would go back to my orginal point in which that would make GOD predjudice and racist. Why were the people of christendom so far above the followers of Muhammad who is the the most respected and most influential messenger to exsist.

[Imam]

1) God is in fact not a tri-personal being and Christians erred when they explained their experience of him using this sort of language.

Christians erred and try to defend their error as the following example:

imagine nowadays emerged a group of people in Europe who read about Nazism and like their ideas,and are convinced that their ideology to be peaceful,tolerant ...just the people misunderstood it ......

Those new group decided to form a political party has the basic ideologies of Nazism but they named the party (the tolerance and peace makers)...

the party preached in every occasion with their own mouths that they work in accordance with the global definition of tolerance, but on the other hand they continually discriminate their minorities ,attack their neighbors ......

when they are to be accused of intolerance,they respond
(We Never say we are intolerant)
It is just the whole world doesn't understand what intolerance is !!.....
The world believe in a strict definition of tolerance!!

while the fact they don't understand what intolerance isn't..

And that is the twisted path, Trinitarians are following towards monotheism ...........

[Grace Seeker]

Thats not a possibility because Muhammad PBUH spoke of words not from his ownself. He was merely relaying the message exactly how Allah SWT revealed it to him word for word.

Or at least this is what Muhammed said was the case.

Even your own bible confirms this.......

"I will raise them up a prophet among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass that whosoever shall not hearken unto the words that he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."

Muslims are the only group of people who think this refers to Muhammad.

So its not a possibility that muhammad erred because that would mean that GOD erred and that is no way at all possible.

That makes sense if you accept the premise that Muhammad was God's chosen prophet and said all of what God told to him and only what God told to him, with none of his own thought mixed in. I know that you do. I do not.

That would go back to my orginal point in which that would make GOD predjudice and racist. Why were the people of christendom so far above the followers of Muhammad who is the the most respected and most influential messenger to exsist.

Why did God choose Abraham and not others? Why did God send Jesus to the Jews and not others? A great deal of the history of God's interaction with people involves him selecting only a small targeted group, and then that group is supposed to take the message to the world. Is this not exactly what you see with Muhammad? I would say that the trinitarian God is NOT restricted to just Christians, but that others do not always listen and see the full truth when God makes himself known to them.



Imam, there is probably some truth in what you say above. But I ask you to also see that our definition of Trinity ends with trying to affirm his oneness, more than it is about emphasizing the distinctiveness of the three persons. That is why I say it is monothesis and not tri-theism, but I understand that it does not fit your definition of monotheism. Even so, since we Christians see Jesus as God himself and not a partner to God, it is hard for me to understand why you accuse of associating partners with God. That is the last thing we would do unless you mean that we see ourselves as being called to partner with God as his servants in taking his message of salvation to the world.

[alcurad]

monotheism = not polytheism. any religion that has polytheistic descriptions of God is polytheistic, no?

[Imam]

monotheism = not polytheism. any religion that has polytheistic descriptions of God is polytheistic, no?

True , the same any ideology that has intolerant description of tolerance is intolerant ,no matter what amount of false claims of being tolerant by its adherents .
As a matter of fact, any sincere open-minded Christian would know that the Trinity has polytheistic descriptions of God and wish if such formula never be at all, rather (Just to be ,one person,one being,one God), but console himself with the word mystery(instead of nonsense),to be taken on pure faith.

The Nicene Creed formulated the dogma and Christians swallowed it completely!....

[Forced_In]

Well, it is neither English nor gibberish. It
was written in Greek. And the WHAT? in question is simple. God the one
and only, who is and was and who is to come. The beginning and the end.
The Alpha and Omega. The first and the last. The one who died and who
behold is alive forevermore.

<snip>

Hi

This is a very important issue. Why majority of bibles in use in the west are
translated from Greek ? It is well expected that original scriptures were
written either in H_e_b_r_e_w or A_r_a_m_a_i_c ( the then language of
mid-east ).

Now translating from Greek means putting unnecessary buffer language in
and thus making chaos. I have seen efforts to make direct translations from
those languages to English. Unfortunately they seem lacking funding,
attention and so on. I suppose it would be nice if some one read those
translations and compare the critical parts such as so called trinity with more
used bibles.

Peace

[Imam]

we Christians see Jesus as God himself and not a partner to God

search well for his other two partners in the Godhead ,the one who is sitting on his left hand (God The father) and the one who sends to Earth for the believers (God The Holy Spirit)!.

it is hard for me to understand why you accuse of associating partners with God.

on the one hand
If Jesus isn't God ,and only the father is God (some Biblical proof text and logic to support that) then it ISN'T hard for you to understand why we accuse of associating partners with God.


on the other hand ,If you claim that Jesus is God and the father is God (and your only defense the word mystery,or that is what Trinitarians interpret the bible),then again it ISN'T hard for you to understand why we still accuse of associating partners with God.

[Forced_In]

<snip>

Hi

This is a very important issue. Why majority of bibles in use in the west are
translated from Greek ? It is well expected that original scriptures were
written either in H_e_b_r_e_w or A_r_a_m_a_i_c ( the then language of
mid-east ).

Now translating from Greek means putting unnecessary buffer language in
and thus making chaos. I have seen efforts to make direct translations from
those languages to English. Unfortunately they seem lacking funding,
attention and so on. I suppose it would be nice if some one read those
translations and compare the critical parts such as so called trinity with more
used bibles.

Peace

Hello

After some searching I found these interesting link , of course there is much
to investigate on these matters. Why there are only four gospels accepted
by Pauline church and hundreds of other gospels rejected destroyed and so
on ? What is the gospel of Barnabas ? take a look at this for instance :

http://web.archive.org/web/200501020...fbarnabas.html

From above link :
"In 325 A.D., the famous Council of Nicea was held. The doctrine of the
Trinity was declared to be the official doctrine of the Pauline Church, and one
of the consequences of this decision was that out of the three hundred or so
Gospels extant at that time, four were chosen as the official Gospels of the
Church. The remaining Gospels, including the Gospel of Barnabas, were
ordered to be destroyed completely. It was also decided that all Gospels
written in Hebrew should be destroyed. An edict was issued stating that
anyone found in possession of an unauthorised Gospel would be put to death.
This was the first well-organised attempt to remove all the records of Jesus's
original teaching whether in human beings or books, which contradicted the
doctrine of Trinity. In the case of the Gospel of Barnabas: these orders were
not entirely successful, and mention of its continued existence has been
made up to the present day."

Peace

[coddles76]

Or at least this is what Muhammed said was the case

He must of been one amazing human then to know things that NO other human could have possibly known.

Muslims are the only group of people who think this refers to Muhammad

Thats because muslims are the only group who lead by logic and facts, so We'll take that as a compliment.

That makes sense if you accept the premise that Muhammad was God's chosen prophet and said all of what God told to him and only what God told to him, with none of his own thought mixed in. I know that you do. I do not.

"I", This discussion is not about YOU. You are merely another human with a freethinking mind to decide what you wanna believe but what YOU believe does not change the facts of revelation or the facts of religion.

Why did God choose Abraham and not others? Why did God send Jesus to the Jews and not others? A great deal of the history of God's interaction with people involves him selecting only a small targeted group, and then that group is supposed to take the message to the world. Is this not exactly what you see with Muhammad? I would say that the trinitarian God is NOT restricted to just Christians, but that others do not always listen and see the full truth when God makes himself known to them

I don't think your understanding quite effeciently enough, try to let your inner spirit lead you in the right direction.
What I have been stating and quoting from christian belief is that the trinitarian GOD did NOT reveal himself to NONE but the christians, What makes them so special? The trinitarian GOD NEVER revealed himself to Abraham nor to noah, nor to moses. Did they miss something? Were they not intelligent enough to understand what GOD was telling them?If the trinitarian GOD is not restricted to christians then why did GOD reveal himself only to christians and not to any other group that ever exsisted? Why did GOD skip Adam, noah, abraham, moses and muhammad? From what I have been interpreting from your speech is that NO other group was worthy enough, and that they weren't intelligent enough to understand GODs nature as per the christian belief.

A great deal of the history of God's interaction with people involves him selecting only a small targeted group, and then that group is supposed to take the message to the world. Is this not exactly what you see with Muhammad?

Incorrect, Islam is not a small targeted group. The message has always been islam from the beginning of time. Submit to the ONE and only god, NOT 3 in 1 or 1 in 3. The ONE the only 1=1. Muhammad was sent only to cement this to humanity, and was the next selected messenger to pass on that message so we sould submit to our creator. Islam is for all or creation and it is not for a small targeted group and wasn't revealed to a small targeted group.

[Grace Seeker]

Why majority of bibles in use in the west are
translated from Greek ? It is well expected that original scriptures were
written either in H_e_b_r_e_w or A_r_a_m_a_i_c ( the then language of
mid-east ).

Expected by whom? There is only a very small handful of scholars that think that the original autographs of the New Testament were written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. George Lamsa and a few Syrian Christians are among them, but the rest are predominately Muslims. And the reason that the dominant view is that the original writings were in Greek is because the oldest extant copies in any language other than Greek come from the 4th & 5th centuries, while we actually have parts of the New Testament in Greek that pre-date those copies by some 200 years.

There is some conjecture that perhaps there was an Aramaic version of Matthew that served as a rough draft for the Greek text that we have today, but nothing has ever been found to clearly make that case, so it remains a an unproven hypothesis.

As for the rest of the NT, no one who has proposed that the NT would have originally been written in Aramaic has yet to be able to give a rationale for why Paul's letters written to Greeks living in Greece or Greek-speaking Asia minor would have been written in anything other than Greek? No one has yet been able to give a rationale why the letters of Peter, James, and John which were written to the larger Christian community, in a world where the lingua franca of the day was Greek, where the language of commerce both international and domestic was Greek, in a world where Greek even the uneducated were bilingual speaking their native tongue and Greek to such an extent that Greek (not Latin) was the everyday language of the even the peasant population of Rome -- why in such a world would these letters that were meant for the Church universal scattered around the world be written in something other than Greek. No one has yet been able to give a rationale why a Greek such as Luke or a Roman such as Mark would have written in Aramaic when their intended audience were living outside of Israel. No one has yet provided a rational as to why John, after living the majority of his life in the Greek-speaking world and writing a Gospel that was crafted to speak to those who had been raised on Greek philosophy and Greek ways of thinking, would write in some language other than Greek.

In short, no one here has yet to give a rational rationale for why any book of the NT other than Matthew might possibly have been written in any language other than Greek. (One could probably make an argument for the letter to the Hebrews also, but I have yet to see anyone actually put forth that argument.) And yet, what I do see is that many here blindly hold that the the entire NT was written in Aramaic. It makes me wonder why it is so important for people who don't even hold that the NT is authoritative to adopt a position that is so lacking in support or logic?

[Grace Seeker]

If the trinitarian GOD is not restricted to christians then why did GOD reveal himself only to christians and not to any other group that ever exsisted?

As I've already said, I believe he did. You are arguing from a premise that I do not believe is in fact true.

[coddles76]

As I've already said, I believe he did. You are arguing from a premise that I do not believe is in fact true.

Hi Once again GS,

I think your inner spirit has left you and I in the dark and I'll take your response as a signal that you have not been able to confidently convince me or the audience on the speciality that the christians hold to have been the ONLY group in history to have had the pleasure to recieve the true identity of God. Secondly I don't think I'm arguing, I'm merely trying to grasp some logic from your explanations.

Allah SWT does not hold the flaws of being predjudice or selective nature. He has revealed his true nature to all of his messengers and prophets from the time of Adam to the last of the messengers, Muhammad, peace be upon them all.

[Forced_In]

Hello ,
Please note that I want it to be a discussion to lead us to the truth, so if
you feel it is offensive just point out so we can stop it. Also lets narrow the
discussion to gospels of new testament about Jesus Christ PBUH. That is the
four canonical gospels and their possible sources.

Expected by whom? There is only a very small handful of scholars that think that the original autographs of the New Testament were written in either Hebrew or Aramaic. George Lamsa and a few Syrian Christians are among them, but the rest are predominately Muslims. And the reason that the dominant view is that the original writings were in Greek is because the oldest extant copies in any language other than Greek come from the 4th & 5th centuries, while we actually have parts of the New Testament in Greek that pre-date those copies by some 200 years.

Ok, I suppose this is not a correct belief to say that only Syrian Christians
and muslims hold this view. Please take a look at this Catholic site post for
instance :

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=122301

Even more let me ask some questions.
Where did Jesus appeared and traveled to teach people the massage of God
? What was his native language ? What was the language of his companions
? What was their religion before following Christ ? what was their holy books
? What was the language of their holy books ? If we assume they wrote
down the gospels, what language do we expect them to use ? If the so
called canonical gospels are written by companions of Jesus why the three of
them namely Mathew,Mark and Luke have a very similar structure ? Why in
many parts they match each other word by word ? Does those three share a
common source ?

There is some conjecture that perhaps there was an Aramaic version of Matthew that served as a rough draft for the Greek text that we have today, but nothing has ever been found to clearly make that case, so it remains a an unproven hypothesis.

Does the council of Nicea has an effect on this ? What about non-canonical
gospels ? Is it possible that one of those books has actually been the source
of these so called canonical books ? What was Arian Controversy ? Why the
controversy was "solved" via voting in a council rather than decades of
research into the subject ?

In short, no one here has yet to give a rational rationale for why any book of the NT other than Matthew might possibly have been written in any language other than Greek. (One could probably make an argument for the letter to the Hebrews also, but I have yet to see anyone actually put forth that argument.) And yet, what I do see is that many here blindly hold that the the entire NT was written in Aramaic. It makes me wonder why it is so important for people who don't even hold that the NT is authoritative to adopt a position that is so lacking in support or logic?

As already pointed above I mean the words revealed to Jesus Christ. So it is
possible that other books of NT contain such words, the discussion is not
about them though.

[Grace Seeker]

Hello ,
Please note that I want it to be a discussion to lead us to the truth, so if
you feel it is offensive just point out so we can stop it. Also lets narrow the
discussion to gospels of new testament about Jesus Christ PBUH. That is the
four canonical gospels and their possible sources.

As already pointed above I mean the words revealed to Jesus Christ. So it is
possible that other books of NT contain such words, the discussion is not
about them though.

So, you no longer mean what you said above:

Why majority of bibles in use in the west are
translated from Greek ? It is well expected that original scriptures were
written either in H_e_b_r_e_w or A_r_a_m_a_i_c ( the then language of
mid-east ).

Now you only mean the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Well that is a big difference, as 4 books out of 27 books is only refering to 15% what it seemed like you were at first claiming.


But that is fine with me. So let us address those books, and the questions you put to me:

Ok, I suppose this is not a correct belief to say that only Syrian Christians
and muslims hold this view. Please take a look at this Catholic site post for
instance :

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=122301

I took a look at it. The item of discussion in that thread is limited to one and only one book, the Gospel of Matthew not the whole of the NT that I was addressing. But with regard to Matthew in particular, what did I in fact say? I'll refresh your memory:

There is some conjecture that perhaps there was an Aramaic version of Matthew that served as a rough draft for the Greek text that we have today, but nothing has ever been found to clearly make that case, so it remains a an unproven hypothesis.

There is nothing in that thread that disagrees with what I wrote.

Even more let me ask some questions.

[I have broken them out below with your comments remaining in black type and my responses in red.]


Where did Jesus appeared and traveled to teach people the massage of God? Israel.

What was his native language? Aramaic.

What was the language of his companions? Most likely both Aramaic and Greek, and quite possibly Hebrew as well. Even a little bit of Latin is not entirely unlikely. It was common for even peasants in this crossroads of the world to be bi-lingual speakers. With Greek the dominant language of the day, it would have been as likely for people to use Greek then as is for LI posters who have a native language of Arabic, German, Spanish, Turkish, Urdu, or Malay to post in English here.

What was their religion before following Christ? Judaism.

What was their holy books? The collection of books that today is known by many names: the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh, the Old Testament, the Septuagint.

What was the language of their holy books? In Judea it was in Hebrew. Throughout the rest of diaspora Judiasm it was in Greek.

If we assume they wrote down the gospels, what language do we expect them to use? Greek, the common language of their dispersed audience.

If the so called canonical gospels are written by companions of Jesus why the three of them namely Mathew,Mark and Luke have a very similar structure? The most widely accepted hypothesis is that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark and then added additional material of their own composition.

Why in many parts they match each other word by word? The same answer as above.

Does those three share a common source? Again, same answer.


Does the council of Nicea has an effect on this? I don't see how. The canon of scripture may not have been officially ratified until the Council of Carthage in 400 AD, the recognition of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as THE four accepted gospels had occured prior to 200 AD (Nicea was not till 325 AD) and that determination was never seriously disputed. Indeed, "by the early third century (i.e. between 200 and 250 AD), a consensus had been reached throughout the church concerning the main contents of the canon. Only a handful of books continued to be debated" (Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity, Tim Dowley, ed.; Eerdman Publishing, Grand Rapids:1975; p. 105). Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not among the books being debated.


What about non-canonical gospels? What about them?

Is it possible that one of those books has actually been the source of these so called canonical books? Hardly. The books that people speak of today as non-canonical gospels (books like the Gospel of Peter, or the Gospel of Thomas) did not appear on the scene until after the recognition and use of the canonical gospels had become established and accepted. It is possible, I would submit even likely, that there were other sources used by the Gospel writers, but they would not be those that you suggested in identifying any of the non-canonical gospels.


What was Arian Controversy? I just recently posted quite extensively on this in the thread "Can the Quran Stand the Test", post #119. In the interest of saving space, I'll just refer you there for this question. For those who don't want to look up another thread, the principle issue of the Arian controversy was whether or not Jesus should be understood as fully God or not.

Why the controversy was "solved" via voting in a council rather than decades of research into the subject? Because coming together as a council to conference about and decide issues in the life of the Church was already established as recorded in the book of Acts -- the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). This set a precedent which they saw themselves following. In addition, there actually was a continued decades long discussion of the issue beginning with the gathering of the Council of Nicaea (in 325 AD) and then continued in the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), the Council of Ephesus (431 AD) and the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). These councils reaffirmed the original statements made at Nicaea and developed them further.


Some good questions. I hope that you found my answers helpful.

[أبو سليمان عمر]

Grace Seeker if you look at one book it really isnt complete right i mean thats now fair to look at one book, when you are suppose to follow them all am i right?

There are 27 books in the New Testament, this is accepted by all Christian denominations. OK SO IF all Christian FOLLOW THIS 27 books hmm tell me how do you deal with matthew not agreeing with luke or luke not agreeing with john or matthew not agreeing with john or mk vs lk mt or so on so on i mean out of the 27 we see alot of times contradictions and God is perfect we all agree there and the bible is to you the Word of God All Mighty yet did your God make a mistake in the new Testament ?
pls dont tell me there is none i can list more then 150 right now but wont waste my time
but any how see read this
quran 4 82. Do they not then consider the Qur'ân carefully? Had it been from other than Allâh, they would surely have found therein much contradictions.
see God himself tolds us if it was other then they Word of God we would find truly many contradictions. so pls go read you Book look at it and and i hope you see what im talking about so if you are intrested in learning the truth pls let us know and inshallah we will be able to help you see the truth :)

[Joe98]

.....how do you deal with matthew not agreeing with luke or luke not agreeing with john or matthew not agreeing with john or mk vs lk mt or so on so on...

The answer is so simple! Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were witnesses to events.

Nobody put their words in their mouths.

They recorded what they witnessed.

If John says, Jesus cleaned a temple on a Tuesday evening and Mark says it was Wednesday morning, the difference is due to fraility in human memory.

The message is that Jesus cleaned a temple and that has ramifications.
-

[GreyKode]

The answer is so simple! Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were witnesses to events.

Nobody put their words in their mouths.

They recorded what they witnessed.

If John says, Jesus cleaned a temple on a Tuesday evening and Mark says it was Wednesday morning, the difference is due to fraility in human memory.

The message is that Jesus cleaned a temple and that has ramifications.
-

Honestly, I have never looked at the gospels myself, but I understand there is quite a significant difference in what the four say about the last words of jesus on the cross.

[coddles76]

Originally Posted by Joe98
The answer is so simple! Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were witnesses to events.

Nobody put their words in their mouths.

They recorded what they witnessed.

If John says, Jesus cleaned a temple on a Tuesday evening and Mark says it was Wednesday morning, the difference is due to fraility in human memory.

The message is that Jesus cleaned a temple and that has ramifications.

Honestly, I have never looked at the gospels myself, but I understand there is quite a significant difference in what the four say about the last words of jesus on the cross.

Not only is there a difference but there were many many more witnesses and Literally, hundreds of gospels and religious writings were hidden from the people. Some of those writings were written by Jesus disciples, and many of them were eyewitness accounts of Jesus actions. The Nicea Council decided to destroy all gospels written in Hebrew, which resulted in the burning of nearly three hundred accounts. So what we have left is only a very small account of Jesus actions and message.

[Joe98]

but I understand there is quite a significant difference in what the four say about the last words of jesus on the cross.

Christians emphasise the part:

of jesus on the cross.

Muslims ephasise the part:

but I understand there is quite a significant difference in what the four say about the last words of jesus on the cross.

...thereby ignoring the central issue.


...it is exactly the same with other so - called contradictions in the new testament. The central issue gets ignored by muslims.

-

[sacredagent]

The answer is so simple! Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were witnesses to events.

Nobody put their words in their mouths.

They recorded what they witnessed.

If John says, Jesus cleaned a temple on a Tuesday evening and Mark says it was Wednesday morning, the difference is due to fraility in human memory.

The message is that Jesus cleaned a temple and that has ramifications.
-

To call a book Words Of God is to have better accuracy than "it was either Tuesday or Wednesday"

And, I have already give up hope of knowing the surnames of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke.

Big deal to non-Christians. Big deal.

[glo]

To call a book Words Of God is to have better accuracy than "it was either Tuesday or Wednesday"

And, I have already give up hope of knowing the surnames of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke.

Big deal to non-Christians. Big deal.

Greetings, sacredagent

In this forum (and others) I have learned with great interest about the things in Christianity, which cause such a stumbling block to non-Christians. There is the trinity, of course, and the concept of God becoming man and dying - just to name a few.

Not knowing the surnames of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke is a new one to me! :D
Why do you think that's so important to you?

Welcome to LI, by the way. :welcome:

Peace

[sacredagent]

Greetings, sacredagent

In this forum (and others) I have learned with great interest about the things in Christianity, which cause such a stumbling block to non-Christians. There is the trinity, of course, and the concept of God becoming man and dying - just to name a few.

Not knowing the surnames of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke is a new one to me! :D
Why do you think that's so important to you?

Welcome to LI, by the way. :welcome:

Peace

because I come from a place where you need to fill in your particulars for a lot of things, otherwise people will doubt you, or reject your forms among others..

pay attention to the word "doubt" there

[Forced_In]

Hello Grace Seeker,

Thanks for time taken to answer the post. Considering the size of our posts I
am afraid after some time I would be exhausted by what I would point, do
not know about you though. So let me say what I intended to say in the
first place, some of my points my directly or indirectly relate to your post
(#69) on this thread or other sources I have read. Please feel free to show
possible mistakes. I might not be able to compete on though :).

Some observations:
Christ and his companions are/were:
- Jewish
- From Judea
- Dealing mainly with Jews
- Reading old testament in Hebrew

Furthermore Christs mother tongue is Aramaic/Hebrew.

Now Christ speaks Aramaic/Hebrew to people to call them to the right path
as shown by previous profits. His companions are said to have recorded the
events taken place an Christs sayings in writings. Naturally I expect there to
be two major parts to take place for the messages to guide the people in
future.

1. Documentation
2. Interpretation

For the Documentation to take place properly it is important IMO to record
events just as they happended. That is, if Christ spoke any language, the
companions record it the same language.

Could they do so ? IMO: Yes, and they could and they have.

Now my point is that by claiming that Jesus spoke Aramaic/Hebrew but the
companions wrote down in Greek, this means to me that the two phases are
mixed; For that translating essentially means translator is interpreting the
text/sayings because no translation is perfect.

Does all this means that if an older gospel written in one of the
aforementioned languages is found, it should be accepted as a more reliable
source ? IMO : no, because it might be the case that some nonbelievers
might have forged some text to satisfy their wrong believes.

So does it mean that the search for such gospels should stop ? Again IMO :
no because the opposite can be true too. That is, a more trustful source is
likely to be found and accepted as such.

Hence comes the huge effort concept I mentioned in an earlier post.

Regards.

[Joe98]

That is, if Christ spoke any language, the companions record it in the same language.

No, if you are trying to tell the Greeks what happened, you write in Greek.

If you want Americans to read the Koran, you write it in english.

-

[Grace Seeker]

For the Documentation to take place properly it is important IMO to record events just as they happended. That is, if Christ spoke any language, the
companions record it the same language.

The above is, as you have noted, a statement of your opinion, not actual fact. It is your view that for the documentation to take place properly it is important to record them in the same language in which Christ spoke. But you will not find the historians in full agreement with you.

I agree that translation does mean interpretation, but we use interpretors all of the time to record documents in multiple languages. Yes, the interpretor's task is especially difficult and important that it must be done right. But, when you are the author of the document, and not just the translator of it, this is not as major of a difficulty as it might seem.

Now, of course, the gospel writers were not authors of Jesus' words, they were only translators of them. But you have to remember the difference between the Muslim understanding of the purpose of the Gospel record (i.e., as you said, what is being documented) and the Christian undestanding. From my conversations on LI, I have learned that for the Muslim, what was of first importance to document are Jesus' words, his message. But from the Christian perspective what was of first importance to document is what Jesus did, his actions.

So, I can see why the translation issue is important for you, but from the Christian perspective, telling the narrative of what Jesus did can be written effectively in any language and translation of an exact phrase is not key to the integrity of the gospel as long as the proclamation story of what he did is correct.

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker if you look at one book it really isnt complete right i mean thats now fair to look at one book, when you are suppose to follow them all am i right?

I'm having a bit of trouble with the syntax, but as best I understand you, I would agree that you are right. Though I don't see how this relates to what I was discussing with Forced_In.

There are 27 books in the New Testament, this is accepted by all Christian denominations. OK SO IF all Christian FOLLOW THIS 27 books hmm tell me how do you deal with matthew not agreeing with luke or luke not agreeing with john or matthew not agreeing with john or mk vs lk mt or so on so on i mean out of the 27 we see alot of times contradictions and God is perfect we all agree there and the bible is to you the Word of God All Mighty yet did your God make a mistake in the new Testament ?
pls dont tell me there is none i can list more then 150 right now but wont waste my time

I won't tell you that there won't appear to be contradictions in the different Gospel accounts. I do think that some that at first glance appear to be contradictions are not any more so than some of the passages in the Qur'an that at first glance appear to be contradictions are explained away by people who have better understanding of it than I do. Most likely, if those who took the time to prepare those lists of contradictions spent as much time trying to understand the Bible as discrediting it their lists of contradictions would be incredibly shorter.

But that is only a small part of your point. As I read your post, the larger issue remains. It is probably not so important to you whether there are 150 contradictions or 100 or 50 or just 1 -- it isn't the number, but that there are contradictions is what is really important to you.

However, this is not as important to me as it is to you. Why not? Don't I think that a contradiction discredit's the Bible as God's word? Well, if I thought it was the dictated word of God it would. Certainly there are plenty of Christians who hold that view, none other than as great of a theologian as John Calvin held that Scripture is equivalent to an utterance of God given from heaven. But I am not of that persuasion. I do believe that the Bible was God's inspired word, meaning that he compelled the authors to write and to do so as best they understood the nature and character of God and how they understoon him to be active in the world around them. But I also think that they wrote in ways that showed their own particular point of view, a point of view that I believe was not always in complete concert with God's more perfect view. To that end, I do not believe the bible to be a perfect instrument at conveying God's word to us, for God's message is wearing the covering of human frailities and foilbles, the opinions, biases, prejuidices and presumptions of the biblical writers find their voice and are also give expression even as they write about God.

I suspect the same thing happens with all books that require men to put pen to paper.

[Grace Seeker]

And, I have already give up hope of knowing the surnames of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke.

Well, I can help you with a couple of those if it is that important to you.

Mark's surname name was actually Mark. His first name was John.

You will find that the rest did not have surname's in the way that people have them today. Rather, in first century Palestine people were generally known by their given name. We still see this practice in a few isolated places such as even modern day Turkey where people don't use their last name very much, and Mr. John Smith would be introduced to people not as Mr. Smith but as Mr. John. In the first century, about the only group of people to use surnames were the Romans. So, since Matthew, John, and Luke were not Romans we don't find them using their surnames, probably because they didn't even have one.

However, people still had to be able to distinguish people with common first names from others with the same given name. That is why you see people having their occupation or other family member mentioned as an attachment to their given name. Indeed this is where the whole idea of surnames comes from: John, the Miller, becomes John Miller; John, Stephen's son, becomes John Stephenson.

But this event had not yet generally happened in the first century, except, as I've already indicated among the Romans and in a few other isolated instances. Thus, it is believed that Mark was most likely a Roman by birth since he has and is known not by his given name, but by his surname, Mark.

As to the Gospel of John, there were a lot of Johns in first century Palestine. In the Bible alone we know of John, the Baptist; John, the Elder; John, the son of Caiaphas; and John, the Evangelist who would have been known in his time as John the son of Zebedee. If you really feel the need to have a surname for him, it would be quite permissible to simply refer to him as John Zebedeeson.

Using that same principal, Matthew would be Levi Alphaeusson. You might wonder where I get that from, but Matthew is the name he took after he became a Christian. We learn in Mark (and also Luke) that his original name is Levi and that he is the son of Alphaeus.

As for Luke, his given name is probably a shortening of Loukas. But as we don't know who his father is, one would use his occupation to cast his surname. Since Luke was reported to be a physician, I guess he would be Dr. Luke MD, though I really question adopting MD as a surname.:D

And one final thought, don't get hung up on the small stuff. If this is your biggest problem with the Christian gospels you are making mountains out of molehills, this is even tiny for molehills.