Christianity is monotheist.

[John Augustine]

A common suggestion by apoligists of Islam is that Christianity is not truly monotheistic. I would like to disprove this assertion.

Jesus makes it very clear (Mark 12:28-29) that there is only one Lord and God:

28And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord

At the same time He claims (John 10:30) that:

30 I and my Father are one.

So Jesus establishes that within the one God there actually exists a realationship between Father and Son. Added to this the Holy Spirit, which Christ also speaks of as another aspect of God, we have relationships between Father, Son and Spirit.

Christianity has always maintained that Mark 12:29 means that we are monotheistic. There is ONLY one God. Anyone who says otherwise is not Christian.

However, Jesus' claim that He is one with the Father means that there exist relationships within God, between Himself and the Father, but without there being "gods" plural.

Christian theologians, for obvious reasons, found this very hard to explain. It took many years for the human mind to begin to understand this "mystery" of the Faith. In the Church a wonderful analogy was divised to explain.

In ancient greek and roman theatre, there were very few trained actors, and no real costumes: the same actor would play several parts by simply wearing a different mask whilst in the role of each character. In latin, mask is persona, plural personae. In english we still use "persona" to denote a personality or character, rather than an independent human being, as "person is commonly used today."

So by using the analogy of a single actor with several personae the Church set out to explain how God could be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The characters in a play remain distinct but with no real change in the actor; there remains only one actor.

In the same way, in God there may be three "persons", each a different and distinct persona of the Almighty (Trinitas), but they are all simply one God in essence (Unitas).

In the Latin (western) Church, this doctrine was best explained by the Athanasian Creed:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.

Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one Eternal.

As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three gods, but one God.

So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three lords, but one Lord.

For as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge each Person by Himself to be both God and Lord, so we are also forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords.

The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

And in the Trinity none is before or after another; none is greater or less than another, but all three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved is must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood; who, although He is God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ; one, not by conversion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He will come to judge the quick and the dead. At His coming all men will rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Same thing I hear and read all the time. It doesn't make sense.

Your point isn't any different from what your fellow Christians say....:/

[AntiKarateKid]

If Christianity is monotheistic then Hindus are too. They believe that all their gods are just different faces of the same one, like the different colors in a rainbow.

However, monotheism isn't something that you can bend to your will no matter how much wordplay you use.

Monotheism is 1=1 not 3=1, or 300=1 or 30000=1

God doesn't have himself tortured and killed in order to save mankind from his own wrath. This makes no sense in a monotheistic light, but a polytheistic one would make more sense.

[Zafran]

Forget it.

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

[Hugo]

Same thing I hear and read all the time. It doesn't make sense.

Your point isn't any different from what your fellow Christians say....:/

It does not make sense to you? Does everything is Islam make sense? Do we have to wait until we understand everything before we can come to God?

[جوري]

Why does Jesus say 'The Lord our God is one Lord'

instead of I am the Lord your God the one Lord?-- why the use of our as if to denote he is a subject to this Lord's will as opposed to me or myself or I?

[Forced_In]

Salaam

SURA 112. AL-IKHLAS (SINCERITY)

1. Say: He is Allah, the One!
2. Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
3. He begetteth not nor was begotten.
4. And there is none comparable unto Him.

[Pickthal]

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Calm down tiger. Don't pounce too soon! Yes it does make sense to me! Got a problem?
Dont try to pull a fast one on me. You got a problem with me stating what I think?

These two concepts contradict one another. God is one but hes three too?

[Hugo]

Forget it.

"The teachings of Islam can fail under no circumstances. With all our systems of culture and civilization, we cannot go beyond Islam and, as a matter of fact, no human mind can go beyond the Koran."

Johann Goethe, cited in Sir Henry Elliot's Letters of Johann Goethe, 1865[/quote]

If I understand this correctly, you are arguing that Islam is right because Goethe said so in a letter? Not really an argument is it?

I have read a lot of Goethe but never seen this before is it possible you can give a more precise citation?

[Hugo]

Forget it.

Why does Jesus say 'The Lord our God is one Lord'

instead of I am the Lord your God the one Lord?-- why the use of our as if to denote he is a subject to this Lord's will as opposed to me or myself or I?

Why does the Qu'ran often say "we' when God is speaking, did not God know the right word?

[Zafran]

"The teachings of Islam can fail under no circumstances. With all our systems of culture and civilization, we cannot go beyond Islam and, as a matter of fact, no human mind can go beyond the Koran."

Johann Goethe, cited in Sir Henry Elliot's Letters of Johann Goethe, 1865

If I understand this correctly, you are arguing that Islam is right because Goethe said so in a letter? Not really an argument is it?

I have read a lot of Goethe but never seen this before is it possible you can give a more precise citation? [/QUOTE]



Thats not an argument its in my sig................... You should research the Quote and no you didnt understand correctly.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^;D lol.

[Zafran]

Why does the Qu'ran often say "we' when God is speaking, did not God know the right word?

We in arabic is the Royal WE - - do more research on the Quran and the arabic language.

peace

[GreyKode]

Why does the Qu'ran often say "we' when God is speaking, did not God know the right word?

Ok.. more than once you claimed to have read the Qur'an and you claimed to have read so much literature about how it copied from the bible and stuff.
. why do you think it uses 'we'? You really don't know why or youre just lying to prove your point.

[John Augustine]

Nope. The relationship between Jesus and the Father is one within the Godhead.

perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood

As above, Athanasian Creed.

[جوري]

Why does the Qu'ran often say "we' when God is speaking, did not God know the right word?

the term Na7no in Arabic akin to the same usage in Hebrew is a 'royal we', not a triple goded 'we'-- it is used to denote respect.. completely different than father, son and a holy spirit.

all the best

[Hugo]

Calm down tiger. Don't pounce too soon! Yes it does make sense to me! Got a problem?
Dont try to pull a fast one on me. You got a problem with me stating what I think?

These two concepts contradict one another. God is one but hes three too?

Why is it that as soon as one asks a question one is a tiger, pouncing, pulling a fast one etc. Why not just deal with what is asked.

I might say of you that you are body soul and spirit so you must be three in one? One cannot understand what is means for God to be three in one and one in three but we can believe it.

My point was that if we are to use the argument that 'everything must make sense' then all religions are in trouble because for example in Islam I can list dozens of things that don't make sense so it get us nowhere, its not profitable.

[Hugo]

Calm down tiger. Don't pounce too soon! Yes it does make sense to me! Got a problem?
Dont try to pull a fast one on me. You got a problem with me stating what I think?

These two concepts contradict one another. God is one but hes three too?

the term Na7no in Arabic akin to the same usage in Hebrew is a 'royal we', not a triple goded 'we'-- it is used to denote respect.. completely different than father, son and a holy spirit.

all the best

Yes, quite but in the Qu'ran God speak also in the singular - why?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Well u seemed to have a problem with my thought. As I only stated it doesnt make sense to me and you went off on me, which was unnecessary I might add. You can simply try and do ur best to find a different way to explain as you did now, no biggie.

[John Augustine]

Because as a Jewish man he was bound by the Law to do so :)

[Hugo]

Ok.. more than once you claimed to have read the Qur'an and you claimed to have read so much literature about how it copied from the bible and stuff.
. why do you think it uses 'we'? You really don't know why or youre just lying to prove your point.

This is just typical of the way Muslim argue, to abuse and insult. I asked a simple question and I cannot see how one can lie by asking a question.

[John Augustine]

"Kyrios", in New Testament Greek, means "Lord". The Jews used the word "Lord" so as to avoid pronouncing the Divine Name YHWH.

[Zafran]

Yes, quite but in the Qu'ran God speak also in the singular - why?

God uses different prespectives in the Quran - its a non linear

The first question asked in the video below will give you the answer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrK2H...0DCF82&index=0

peace

[Forced_In]

Yes, quite but in the Qu'ran God speak also in the singular - why?

One explanation I have heard is that when "we" is used in Quran, it includes the
angels.

[GreyKode]

This is just typical of the way Muslim argue, to abuse and insult. I asked a simple question and I cannot see how one can lie by asking a question.

where did I insult you.
Okay I publicly apologize for accusing you of lying.
BUT.... In most tranlsated Qur'ans it is stated that 'we' is for royalty.
You are the one who is dodging the argument by turning the question to us muslims about using the plural 'we', while you know very well that it does not refer to a trinity.

[Hugo]

Well u seemed to have a problem with my thought. As I only stated it doesnt make sense to me and you went off on me, which was unnecessary I might add. You can simply try and do ur best to find a different way to explain as you did now, no biggie.

If I misunderstood your tiger etc commenst as anything more that friendly banter then I am sorry. The board is for sharing at least that is how I look at it.

[Zafran]

This is just typical of the way Muslim argue, to abuse and insult. I asked a simple question and I cannot see how one can lie by asking a question.

Its the way you come across - very aggressive and sometimes you ignore the answers.

[Hugo]

where did I insult you.
Okay I publicly apologize for accusing you of lying.
BUT.... In most tranlsated Qur'ans it is stated that 'we' is for royalty.
You are the one who is dodging the argument by turning the question to us muslims about using the plural 'we', while you know very well that it does not refer to a trinity.

No offence taken. It not a big point but in the Qu'ran God speak in the singular and plural - I am not implying by that its speaks of the trinity but is an interesting point

[Zafran]

No offence taken. It not a big point but in the Qu'ran God speak in the singular and plural - I am not implying by that its speaks of the trinity but is an interesting point

Did you watch the the first part of the video - one of the student's brings up the same thing.

[Hugo]

where did I insult you. Okay I publicly apologize for accusing you of lying. BUT.... In most tranlsated Qur'ans it is stated that 'we' is for royalty. You are the one who is dodging the argument by turning the question to us muslims about using the plural 'we', while you know very well that it does not refer to a trinity.

Did you watch the the first part of the video - one of the student's brings up the same thing.

No as I don't quite know which video you mean can you give me a post number

[Zafran]

no as i don't quite know which video you mean can you give me a post number

..31

[memories]

Im pretty sure christianity is monotheist taking into account such principles as the trinity to be true. Jesus was the human form of god on earth that died on the cross for the salvation of many!

Regards

[GreyKode]

Im pretty sure christianity is monotheist taking into account such principles as the trinity to be true. Jesus was the human form of god on earth that died on the cross for the salvation of many!

Regards

I wonder wether you think monotheism is better than polytheism?

[memories]

I wonder wether you think monotheism is better than polytheism?

NO, I simply cannot state my oppinion on this matther, their are polytheist religions in this world and by respect for those religions I am to abstain from making a comment on wichever is ''better'':rolleyes: than the other. Lets all get back onto topic.

Regards :)

[جوري]

Yes, quite but in the Qu'ran God speak also in the singular - why?

rules of grammar.. perhaps you should visit our Arabic section and learn some i3rab and qawa3id?..

Due to the rapid expansion of Islam in the 8th century many people learned Arabic as a lingua franca. For this reason, the earliest grammatical treatises on Arabic are often written by non-native speakers. Traditionally, the grammatical sciences are divided into four branches:
al-lugah (lexicon) concerned with collecting and explaining vocabulary.
at-ta-rif (morphology) determining the form of the individual words.
an-na-w (syntax) primarily concerned with inflection (i-rab) which had already been lost in dialects.
al-istiqaq (derivation) examining the origin of the words.
Noun:

The Arabic noun can take one of three states of definiteness: definite, indefinite or construct state. The definite state is marked by the article al-. The indefinite state is marked by an ending -n (nunation). The construct state is unmarked and occurs in the first member of a genitive construction. Arabic Personal Pronouns:

Singular:
I - anaa, for example: anaa katabtu - I wrote.
thou (masculine) - anta, for example: anta katabta - thou wrotest.
thou (feminine) - anti, for example: anti katabti - thou wrotest.
he (masculine) - huwa, for example: huwa kataba - he wrote.
she (feminine) - hiya, for example: hiya katabat - she wrote. Plural:
we - naHnu, for example: naHnu katabnaa - we wrote.
you (pl. masculine) - antum, for example: antum katabtum - you wrote.
you (pl. feminine) - antunna, for example: antunna katabtunna - you wrote.
you two (dual masc and fem) - antumaa katabtumaa - you two wrote.
they (masc) - hum, for example: hum katabuu - they wrote.
they (fem) - hunna, for example: hunna katabna - they wrote.
they two (dual masc) - humaa - humaa katabaa - they two wrote.
they two (dual fem) - humaa - humaa katabataa - they two wrote.
Two Types of Arabic Sentences:

1. Verbal sentence: the sentence starts with the verb and subject follows. The verb is always in the singular form even for the cases where the subject is dual or plural. Examples for the verbal sentence:
dhahaba abiy ila Cairo - literal translation - has gone my father to Cairo. But, it really means - my father has gone to Cairo.
raja'a abiy min Cairo - literal translation - returned my father from Cairo. But, it really means - my father returned from Cairo.
la'iba al-waladaani - the two boys played (dual).
la'iba al-awlaadu - the boys played.
As you see, the verb is always in the singular form even though the subject is in dual or plural. 2. Nominal sentence: the sentence starts with the noun or subject and the others follow. The verb must agree with the subject in number and gender. Examples for the nominal sentence:
abiy raja'a min Cairo - My father returned from Cairo.
akhiy kataba - my brother wrote.
al-waladu la'iba - the boy played.
al-waladaani la'ibaa - the two boys played (dual).
al-awlaadu la'iboo - boys played (boys is plural = "they" so the equivalent verb for "they" is "la'iboo").
As you see, the verb agrees with the subject in number.
anaa wa akhiy wa abiy dhahabnaa ila Cairo - I and my brother and my father went to Cairo. In this sentence, I, and my brother and my father are equivalent to "us." Therefore, the verb must agree with the "us," e.g., dhahabnaa.
Gender:

Arabic has two genders, expressed by pronominal as well as by verbal agreement. Agreement with numerals shows a peculiar 'polarity'. The genders are usually referred to as masculine and feminine, but the situation is more complicated than that. The 'feminine' gender is also used to express 'singulatives'. The marker for the feminine gender is a -t- suffix, but some nouns without this marker also take feminine agreement (e. g. umm 'mother', ard 'earth'). Already in Classical Arabic, the -t marker was not pronounced in pausa. It is written with a special letter (ta marbuta) indicating that a t sound is to be pronounced in sandhi but not in pausa.
Tenses:

There are two main tenses in the Arabic language. 1.Perfect Tense, 2.Imperfect Tense or the Present Tense. The action is completed in the perfect tense. You may also call this as the past tense because the action is completed before the present so it belongs to the past. For example, one may say, "I ate". The action of eating was finished in the past. The past could be a few minutes or a few decades before the present time. Alternately, in the second tense, i.e., the imperfect, the action is still continuing. For example, you knock on the door and walk in. You see he is eating his meal. He says to you, "I am eating". The action is still continuing, he is still eating while talking to you. This is the present tense in English. It is also the "imperfect tense" in Arabic. You look at the table above and locate the pronoun "I" on the left column and follow it to the right to the "imperfect" column. You will see the verb, "akulu". It means, "I am eating" or "I eat". What about the future tense? Well, there is not such a thing as the future tense in Arabic. This is done by adding the prefix "sa" to the imperfect form of the verb. For example, let's look at the table above to find out the imperfect form of the verb "akala". It is "ya'kulu". Add the prefix "sa" to the "ya'kulu" you get, "saya'kulu" which means "He will eat".

or since you are so learned you can tell me when it appropriate use of salihoon and saliheen.. both essentially mean the same thing but the parsing differs!

all the best

[جوري]

"Kyrios", in New Testament Greek, means "Lord". The Jews used the word "Lord" so as to avoid pronouncing the Divine Name YHWH.

You haven't addressed the rest of my Q, of a consensus of which language your God spoke for me to make the leap that he accepted the title Lord..

also Lord doesn't denote God..
Lord of the house
Lord of the manor
Lord of the flies

the term hardly denotes divinity.. it means a person who has authority over something!

all the best

[AntiKarateKid]

Why does the Qu'ran often say "we' when God is speaking, did not God know the right word?

That's utterly foolish and you have just betrayed your staggering ignorance of the Quran. In many other languages there is a part of grammar that used the plural form of a word purely as a sign of respect. Kings would be referred to as plural, etc etc. In fact, Elohim is the plural of majesty too from I believe it was eloha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralis_majestatis

I can't tell if you're accusation was serious or not.

[AntiKarateKid]

It's semantics. Depends how you define "monotheist".

No it does not. Monotheism is monotheism. As defined by God, logic, and its very meaning.

It is quite telling that you admit to a need to redefine monotheism to suit your theology. Muslims and Jews agree on the basic meaning of monotheism, where did Christianity go? At least you guys can agree with Hindus on it :rolleyes:.

[AntiKarateKid]

This is just typical of the way Muslim argue, to abuse and insult. I asked a simple question and I cannot see how one can lie by asking a question.

This coming from a guy saying "did Allah use the wrong word???"

Stop being hypocritical. Ever wonder why your rep is in the negatives? While other christian members of this board are in the positives?

I'll give you a hint, it isn't the "sober" way you argue.

['Abd-al Latif]

Yes, quite but in the Qu'ran God speak also in the singular - why?

Why does the Qu'ran often say "we' when God is speaking, did not God know the right word?

Here's why:

Why does Allaah speak in the plural in the Qur’an?


Q.Why does Allah(SWT) at times speak in the plural form in the Quran?
Jazak Allah Khair.

A.Praise be to Allaah.

The answer is in two parts:

In general terms, every believer must believe that every action of Allaah has great wisdom behind it, and there is no need for it to be explained in full to every person. This is a kind of test, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… that He may test you which of you is best in deed…” [al-Mulk 67:2]

To answer this question in more detail: the Qur’aan was revealed in the language of the Arabs, and in Arabic it is as correct to use the plural when speaking of one person as it is to use the singular. But the plural is used for respect and glorification, and no one is more deserving of respect and glorification than Allaah. So the singular is used to affirm the fact that He is One and has no partner or associate, and the plural is used to affirm His glory and majesty, may He be exalted.

Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote in Majmaoo’ al-Fataawaa (5/128) some words which may be of interest to us here:

“With regard to Allaah’s closeness to us, sometimes it is mentioned in the singular, as in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): ‘And when My slaves ask you (O Muhammad) concerning Me, then (answer them) I am indeed near (to them by My knowledge). I respond to the invocations of the supplicant when he calls on Me…’ [al-Baqarah 2:186] and the hadeeth: ‘The One on Whom you call is closer to any one of you than the neck of his riding-camel’, and sometimes in the plural, as in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): ‘… And We are nearer to Him than his jugular vein’ [Qaaf 50:16]. This is like the aayaat (interpretation of the meanings): ‘We recite to you…’ [al-Qasas 28:3] and ‘We relate unto you…’ [Yoosuf 12:3]. Such usage in Arabic refers to the one who is great and has helpers who obey him; when his helpers do something by his command, he says ‘We did it,’ as a king might say, ‘We conquered this land and we defeated this army,’ and so on.”

Further important details may be found under question # 606 . And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/2090

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

Its simple :P

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life

Thats all you need to know! the rest is unimportant.

New American Standard Bible? I like how the names of the different versions are improvised so they look official.

Im pretty sure christianity is monotheist taking into account such principles as the trinity to be true. Jesus was the human form of god on earth that died on the cross for the salvation of many!

Regards

Mono = 1. Tri = 3. 3 does not equal 1. Never.

Do you honestly expect me to believe that God dwelled in the womb of a woman, in complete darkness and was fed with blood through an umbilical cord, then was born into the world completely helpless, crying, hungry and thirsty to be breast-fed, then ate food and drank water and did what occurs naturally as a result, then grew up, then got himself killed by his own creation (i.e. a god was overpowered by his creation!) so that he himself can then grant them salvation? Then a grave enclosed a god when he lay therein, under the ground somewhere and then he had to revive himself because he, a god had died!

Is this what you call a god? I advice you to not commit excess in your religion. Far removed is God from these lies, Jesus was but a Messenger. This is no more than a slander against God and a gross underestimation of Him.

It's on the lines of Harry Potter, heck, I'd believe in Harry Potter before I believed in Christianity.

[doorster]

...

[AntiKarateKid]

Im pretty sure christianity is monotheist taking into account such principles as the trinity to be true. Jesus was the human form of god on earth that died on the cross for the salvation of many!

Regards

Is that why God condemned the idol worshippers in the Bible and always repeated that there was no other God but him? He even had their idols destroyed. Respect?

"Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols." (1 Corinthians 12:1-2 NIV)

[جوري]

Is that why God condemned the idol worshippers in the Bible and always repeated that there was no other God but him? He even had their idols destroyed. Respect?

"Now about spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant. You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols." (1 Corinthians 12:1-2 NIV)

Should add this to above, given how so many of them seem to not know the contents of their books!

Four threads on Apostasy in the past week alone.
a public apostasy during time of war is an act of treason, treason against the state is punished by death, even in the united states.. Do read up on Ethyl and Julius Rosenberg, who were sentenced to death for treason, as well pls familiarize yourself with your bibles:

In the Hebrew Bible, apostasy is equated with rebellion against God, His Law, and worshiping any god other than the Hebrew deity, Yahweh. The penalty for apostasy in Deuteronomy 13:1-10 is death.

so you'd not come across as both an ignoramus and a complete nincompoop!

all the best

[ragdollcat1982]

This issue is something that Christians and Muslims will disagree on. We are all people of the Book, we worship the same God. Only God can judge a person worthy of Heaven and Hell. We really need to learn to co exist in peace with one another.

[BlackMamba]

The trinity concept implies that God depends on Jesus. That God is not God without Jesus. If you use the famous example of the egg to explain the trinity that it has 3 parts, the shell, the yolk, the whites but it is one thing. That is saying that if you just take the whites or the yolk then its NOT an egg anymore( or a full egg). So if you just take God (or the father?) and no Jesus and spirit then it's NOT God anymore.
So each of three in the trinity are dependent on one another. I see this as shirk and polytheism.

[malayloveislam]

Yes, we Muslims in SEA had co-exist with Buddhist relatives and Hindus since Islam arrived in 8th C AD. But each of us know the definition of monotheism. So do our Hindu-Buddhist relatives.

Monotheism is a theology concept and this word is Greek. Mono means One and I'm sure every speaker of the language influenced by Greek know this. Theism means the ideology of G-d. G-d is only G-d. G-d can't be divided and worshiped in His Holiest form. No other forms to represent Him whether in human form, in animal form, in nature form, and etc.

Polytheism is many gods. Hindus who are the polytheists too believe in One G-d as in their quote: Eshvara Ekasti (G-d is only One). But this one is in the Highest form (Brahman). This G-d can't be achieved by human mind because He is Holy, so the G-d had been divided to other three god-heads to explain His function in Brahma (Creating), Vishnu (Preserving), and Shiva (Destroying). From these three, other gods sparked believed as the various functions of G-d assisting humans in the world. G-d is in every beings such as in the sky, in the earth, in human. So, now it evolved to be pantheism. Pantheism means G-d is in everything.

[Hugo]

rules of grammar.. perhaps you should visit our Arabic section and learn some i3rab and qawa3id?..

or since you are so learned you can tell me when it appropriate use of salihoon and saliheen.. both essentially mean the same thing but the parsing differs!

all the best

Thank you for the note it was very interesting although not being a philologist (so not learned in this area) I am not sure I quite understood it all. Its not a huge point but quoting St Clair-Tisdal in his book called "Christian reply to Muslim Objections" (the book was written in 1904 so not generally easy to get)

If the Qur'an is from God, nothing in it can be unmeaning. Whatever God says is true: and this expression, so often repeated in the Qu'ran may contain deep teaching. We observe that, in the use of the plural, the Qur'an agrees with the Bible since we find, for instance, in Gen.1:26, 3:22 and 11:7, the very same expression used. Those parts of the Bible which teach the doctrine of the Trinity in unity may possibly explain the reason of this; as far as the Bible is concerned. If the Qur'an was revealed to confirm the Taurit and the Injil perhaps this is one of the points in which it does so.

[MOUSE]Best wishes and Peace be with you[/MOUSE]

[Zafran]

Thank you for the note it was very interesting although not being a philologist (so not learned in this area) I am not sure I quite understood it all. Its not a huge point but quoting St Clair-Tisdal in his book called "Christian reply to Muslim Objections" (the book was written in 1904 so not generally easy to get)

If the Qur'an is from God, nothing in it can be unmeaning. Whatever God says is true: and this expression, so often repeated in the Qu'ran may contain deep teaching. We observe that, in the use of the plural, the Qur'an agrees with the Bible since we find, for instance, in Gen.1:26, 3:22 and 11:7, the very same expression used. Those parts of the Bible which teach the doctrine of the Trinity in unity may possibly explain the reason of this; as far as the Bible is concerned. If the Qur'an was revealed to confirm the Taurit and the Injil perhaps this is one of the points in which it does so.

[BANANA]Best wishes and Peace be with you[/BANANA]

This goes to show ignoring answers - furthermore how do the Jews see the plural in the OT :) - as they dont believe in the trinty and it is their book.

[جوري]

Thank you for the note it was very interesting although not being a philologist (so not learned in this area) I am not sure I quite understood it all. Its not a huge point but quoting St Clair-Tisdal in his book called "Christian reply to Muslim Objections" (the book was written in 1904 so not generally easy to get)

If the Qur'an is from God, nothing in it can be unmeaning. Whatever God says is true: and this expression, so often repeated in the Qu'ran may contain deep teaching. We observe that, in the use of the plural, the Qur'an agrees with the Bible since we find, for instance, in Gen.1:26, 3:22 and 11:7, the very same expression used. Those parts of the Bible which teach the doctrine of the Trinity in unity may possibly explain the reason of this; as far as the Bible is concerned. If the Qur'an was revealed to confirm the Taurit and the Injil perhaps this is one of the points in which it does so.

[MOUSE]Best wishes and Peace be with you[/MOUSE]

I guess you are up the same ally as Tisdal, declaring to the forum that you are unlearned in Arabic grammar and parsing in a bombastic style doesn't detract from your ignorance or that of your elders who feed you, your ignorance.

Once you learn the rules of Arabic grammar and parsing, can we have this discussion again.. recycling quotes does nothing to cement your views.. it just shows everyone, how much you enjoy your bubble..

I am finding that almost contractable amongst Christians, like the fellow who is trying to teach us that the sun has no orbit..

a little more science (in all subjects) even the science of grammar might remedy all that ignorance... I'd not take my knowledge of Islam or any subject for that matter from the bible.. It hasn't measured against time, and it certainly can't measure against itself from the contradiction!


all the best!

[xxxx2]

Hi,
according to Christian dogmas, these three “Gods”
have different identities, images, roles, and functions:
1. God the Father = the Creator.
2. God the Son = the Savior.
3. God the Holy Spirit= the Counselor.


By the way, if Jesus, God the Son (or Son of God) is really God or part of the one God, doesn’t this contradict what the Bible itself reports that no one can see God, nor hear His voice? The Bible states:

YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD HIS VOICE NOR SEEN HIS FACE. (John 5: 37)

NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN HIM. AND NO ONE CAN SEE HIM. (1 Timothy 6: 16)

NO ONE CAN SEE ME AND STAY ALIVE. (Exodus 33: 20)

Based on these and other Biblical texts, I sincerely and honestly ask: “How
can we reconcile the dogma that Jesus is God and the Biblical testimony that no
one has ever seen God, nor heard His voice?”

simple for small kids to understand, like many other nations and peoplen christians have taken the Attributes of God and given to Man! now...

The One True God in the Bible
(The Old Testament): Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is
one Lord. (Deuteronomy 6: 4)

and

The One True God in the Bible
(The New Testament):
One came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do,
that I may have eternal life? And he (Jesus) said unto him, Why callest
thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.(Matthew 19: 16-17,
in King James Version)

Now this is life eternal, that they know you, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17: 3)

Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only. (Matthew 4: 10)
Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is One Lord. (Mark 12: 29)
For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1Timothy 2: 5)
Can you recall other verses confirming thatGOD IS ONLY ONE?
(NOT THREE!)

Finally...

The One True God in the Qur’an
Say: He is Allah, the One; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him. (112: 1-4)

There is no god but I; so worship Me. (21: 25)

They disbelieve who say: Allah (God) is one of three, for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily, a grievous chastisement will befall the disbelievers among them. (5: 73)

Can there be another god besides Allah (God)? Nay, most of them know not. (27: 61)
Can there be another god besides Allah (God)? High is Allah above what they ssociate with Him.(27: 63)

Can there be another god besides Allah (God)? Say, ‘Bring forth yourproof, if ye are telling the truth!’
(27:64)

Indeed, this message concerning the Oneness of God (i.e., Tawheed in Arabic) is the
essential theme of the Qur’an

So, according to this affirmation, all other supposed gods or deities like Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna, or Buddha are neither gods nor manifestations of the ONE TRUE GOD.

It was because of such false beliefs that after the Jews worshipped other
gods, “the Lord’s anger burned against them.” (Numbers 25: 3) Likewise, Moses destroyed the golden calf.

On the other hand, the Essenes, an early Christian unitarian community, endured torture and persecution because they refused to exchange Jesus’ monotheistic teachings for the Pauline innovation of the trinity.
to o sum up, all God’s prophets including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were sent by the same God, the Creator, to convey
the same message:

The true God is only ONE. Worship Him ALONE and keep His commandments.
And since those prophets and messengers preached the same one message, their religion must be the same one! So, what is the religion of
those prophets and messengers? Submission to the will of God is the essence of the message of those prophets. This word ‘SUBMISSION’ means ‘ISLAM’ in Arabic.

So, if you are a sincere seeker of truth and a lover of salvation, you might like to consider this NOW, before it is too late! BEFORE DEATH! It can be soon! Who knows?


Lets see what islmamic creed is in brief

You (Alone) we worship, and You (Alone) we ask for help (for each and everything). Guide us to the Straight Way. (1:5-6)

now the basis of Creed and its source are as follow:

The firm belief that Allaah is the Lord and Owner of everything in existence;


He is the sole creator,


The sole Disposer of Affairs,

He is the only one worthy of being worshiped, having no partners and

anything else worshiped besides Him is false and the worship presented to them is false.

Allaah the Elevated said:

That is because Allaah – He is the Truth (the only True God of all that exists, Who has no partners or rivals with Him), and what they (the polytheists) invoke besides Him, it is Baatil (falsehood). And indeed Allaah, He is the Most High, the Most Great. [Al hajj: 62]

Allaah is attributed with the most complete and majestic Attributes, He is Exalted from every deficiency and fault, this is Monotheism.

to follow up with the info http://subulassalaam.com/Articles/Ar...?article_id=20

[ResLight]

So Jesus establishes that within the one God there actually exists a realationship between Father and Son. Added to this the Holy Spirit, which Christ also speaks of as another aspect of God, we have relationships between Father, Son and Spirit.

Despite the claims of the trinitarian Christians, the Bible never says anything about three persons in the God of Jesus, or that Jesus is a person of his God. God, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Yahweh (Jehovah) is the only true God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being over him; Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12.

John 10:30 says nothing about "one God"; the idea has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into what Jesus said. Jesus, is indeed one* with his God and Father, but In what way is he one with his God?

Jesus prays for his followers to be one*, just as he is with his God. -- John 17:11.

Jesus prays that his followers may all be one, just as he is one with his God. -- John 17:21.

Jesus prays that his followers may be one in himself and his Father, just as he is with his God. -- John 17:21.

Jesus prays that his followers may one, just as he is one with his God and Father. -- John 17:22.

Nothing in any of this means that Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who sent Jesus, and who Jesus proclaimed to be his God.

*The Greek word for the adjective "one" is *hen* [which is neuter], not "mia" [feminine], as in the trinitarian formula: "treis hypostaseis en mia ousia" (three persons in one being). Notice that ousia is feminine, and thus the Greek calls for the feminine form of the word for one, that is "mia". Nor is it speaking of "one God", for then Jesus would have used the word "heis" (masculine) in order to match the Greek word for God (which is masculine), as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Likewise, if Jesus meant that he and his Father were one Father (this is a "oneness" belief), then he would have used the masculine "heis", since the Greek word 'AB is masculine. His choice of the Greek neuter indicates that he is using the adjective "one" to describe a relationship that is defined by a Greek neuter word. More than likely, in view of the way Jesus uses same word in connection with his and his father's relationship to the followers of Jesus, Jesus is referring a union that reflects his being in agreement with his God and Father, as perhaps "one mind", as in Revelation 17:13, or one spirit (as disposition), as Philippians 1:27.

[جوري]

Thank you ResLight.. that was very informative...

all the best

[Hugo]

This goes to show ignoring answers - furthermore how do the Jews see the plural in the OT :) - as they dont believe in the trinty and it is their book.

I think you are missing the point about all this. Firstly, the plural is a problem for Jews just as it is for you in the Qu'ran as I outlined earlier - that is why; if it really is God speaking can't He get a simple thing like this right.

Secondly, the position is that Jews, Christian and Muslim all believe in one God in unity. You cannot argue about this, it is a fact.

Thirdly, Christians have a conception of God as both one in three and three in one and believe it is what that Bible teaches. The fact that you don't like it or don't agree with it or find it senseless is irrelevant; that is what Christians believe. That is what we are sharing with you in this Board. No one is claiming to understand the idea of the trinity but since God is above all things and all powerful then this is possible.

There are no adequate analogies though one often hears people liken it to a person having body soul and spirit or if there are three candles in a room we still only have one light. Please rememeber these are analogies not proofs so they may or may not help but ultimately its a matter of faith as nothing can be proved one way of the other, you are either convinced after study of the Bible or not, it's as simple or complicated as that.

[جوري]

I think you are missing the point about all this. Firstly, the plural is a problem for Jews just as it is for you in the Qu'ran as I outlined earlier - that is why; if it really is God speaking can't He get a simple thing like this right.

Actually it is you who is missing the point on the proper usage of grammar..
like in french "tu/vous" both can be used but only vous is formal and respectful.

Secondly, the position is that Jews, Christian and Muslim all believe in one God in unity. You cannot argue about this, it is a fact.

Except Christians don't believe in that fact if their god's first name is Jesus and not the one who created Jesus!

Thirdly, Christians have a conception of God as both one in three and three in one and believe it is what that Bible teaches. The fact that you don't like it or don't agree with it or find it senseless is irrelevant; that is what Christians believe. That is what we are sharing with you in this Board. No one is claiming to understand the idea of the trinity but since God is above all things and all powerful then this is possible.

You are free to believe as you choose.. the rest of us don't buy it, for obvious reasons and that is all there is to it!

There are no adequate analogies though one often hears people liken it to a person having body soul and spirit or if there are three candles in a room we still only have one light. Please rememeber these are analogies not proofs so they may or may not help but ultimately its a matter of faith as nothing can be proved one way of the other, you are either convinced after study of the Bible or not, it's as simple or complicated as that.

Analogies that are faulty as they are befitting of the created, not the creator!

all the best

[ResLight]

"Kyrios", in New Testament Greek, means "Lord". The Jews used the word "Lord" so as to avoid pronouncing the Divine Name YHWH.

Actually, by substituting the holy name as "Kyrios" (often transliterated as Kurios), the Jews were actually giving the pronunciation of the holy name as the Greek pronunciation of the Greek word that has been transliterated as "Kryios" or "Kurios". Evidently, the NT copyists toward the end of the first century (or the beginning of the second century) bowed to the Jewish "law" concerning this, and did the same. However, to actually avoid pronouncing the holy name, one would have skip the name altogether, so as to read, for instance, Exodus 3:15 as "You shall tell the children of Israel this, '---, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations." Exodus 6:3 would have to read like this: "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my name --- I was not known to them." Psalm 145:21 would have to be read like this: "My mouth will speak the praise of ---. Let all flesh bless his holy name forever and ever." In many scriptures, such as Isaiah 42:8, it should be clear that if any substitute is used for the holy name, then that substitute becomes the pronunciation of the holy name.

In actuality, the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus never authorized any one to change his holy name to Kyrios, or Adonai, or Elohim, or the Lord, etc. Nor did the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Jesus ever proclaim that his holy name was not to be pronounced. It is man, not God, who has proclaimed the name unpronouncible.

The question is: Did Jesus tell Jerusalem that they would be desolated until they proclaimed Blessed is he who comes in the name of a god by the name of Kurios? (Matthew 23:33; Luke 13:35) If he did, then he was actually replacing and pronouncing the most holy name as "Kurios," and he was following the commandments of men of the kind that he had condemned. -- Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7,8.

Did Jesus, when he read Isaiah 61:1,2, as recorded in Luke 4:16-21, declare that the spirit of a God by the name of Kurios was upon him, or did he use a form of the holy name, Yahweh? -- Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

It was man -- apostate Jewish leaders -- not Yahweh, who decided that the holy name should not be pronounced, under the guise that to pronounce it was a misuse of the holy name. (This had nothing to do with having supposedly lost the pronunciation.) At the same they time, they contradicted themselves by giving alternate pronunciations of the holy name. In doing so, these Jewish leaders who proclaimed such were actually sidestepping the commandments of Yahweh.

An argument is made that we should not pronounce the holy name in fear that we might mispronounce the holy name. The scriptures no where speak of the most holy name in the universe as "ineffable." And yet, those who make this claim to not pass over the name so as not to pronounce it, but rather they do give the holy name a pronounciation as "the Lord," "Adonai," "HaShem," etc., thus, in effect, changing the holy name.

If Yahweh did not wish us to pronounce his name because we might mispronounce his name, I am sure he would have told us so. He never did; it was man that has told us this. It is not Yahweh who has told us not to pronunce his holy name; indeed his declaration is just the opposite. The name of Yahweh endures forever (Psalm 135:13), and thus we indeed should magnify that name by using it; whether it is the exact same pronunciation as was used by Eve, by Noah, by Abraham, by Moses, by Daniel, etc., is irrelevant.

ResLight
Restoration Light Bible Study Services
http://name.reslight.net

[Zafran]

I think you are missing the point about all this. Firstly, the plural is a problem for Jews just as it is for you in the Qu'ran as I outlined earlier - that is why; if it really is God speaking can't He get a simple thing like this right.

Secondly, the position is that Jews, Christian and Muslim all believe in one God in unity. You cannot argue about this, it is a fact.

Thirdly, Christians have a conception of God as both one in three and three in one and believe it is what that Bible teaches. The fact that you don't like it or don't agree with it or find it senseless is irrelevant; that is what Christians believe. That is what we are sharing with you in this Board. No one is claiming to understand the idea of the trinity but since God is above all things and all powerful then this is possible.

There are no adequate analogies though one often hears people liken it to a person having body soul and spirit or if there are three candles in a room we still only have one light. Please rememeber these are analogies not proofs so they may or may not help but ultimately its a matter of faith as nothing can be proved one way of the other, you are either convinced after study of the Bible or not, it's as simple or complicated as that.

seriously have you watched the video because its not a problem in the Quran or for muslims - its clearly known in arabic grammer the royal we. If you see it as a problem for the Jews can you tell me what explanation the Jews give about the plural in Genesis because i dont think its a problem for them either as it is there book. - the christians can believe whatever they want but they are not the only ones that believe in Genesis - the Jews do as well.

I'm talking about the we in the Quran - the plural not what the trinity means.

Heres the video again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrK2H...0DCF82&index=0

[ResLight]

I might say of you that you are body soul and spirit so you must be three in one? One cannot understand what is means for God to be three in one and one in three but we can believe it.

The scriptures declare that the human soul is made of the body (the dust of the ground) and the spirit from God that gives us life. (Genesis 2:7) 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is often presented to support the idea that a human being is a "trinity", but in actuality, Paul is speaking figuratively of the body, soul and spirit, not of individuals, but rather the church. However, even if he was speaking of individuals, are we to think of ourselves as one person as a spirit being, and another person as a soul being, and another person as a body being, and yet there are not three sentient beings, but one sentient being, all of whom equally are fully and totally the one sentient being?

The Biblical Christian has no obligation to believe what man has created in his imaginations (evidently inspired by the demons), and based on those imaginations created assumptions placed on top of assumptions, and which imaginative assumptions have to be placed upon each and every scripture that is presented to alleged support those assumptions. Indeed, the Biblical Christian should "learn not to think beyond the things which are written." -- 1 Corinthians 4:6.

God has revealed his truths by means of his holy spirit through the apostles. God, by means of his holy spirit, especially led the apostles into all the truths concerning Christ and what he said. (John 14:26; 16:4-13; Galatians 1:12; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Timothy 2:2) The truths revealed to the apostles and made available to us are recorded in the Bible itself. (Ephesians 3:3-12; Colossians 1:25,26; 1 John 4:6) Of course, without the holy spirit, these things that are recorded will still be a mystery to us. — Mark 4:11; 1 Corinthians 2:7-10.

Part of the truth revealed by means of the holy spirit was that there was to be an apostasy, a “falling away” from the truth of God’s Word, with strong delusions. (Matthew 13:24-30; Acts 20:29,30; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Timothy 4:3,4) This falling away had already begun in the first century, with some receiving a different spirit and preaching “another Jesus”; the apostasy was restrained for only a short while. (2 Thessalonians 2:7; 1 John 2:18,19; 2 Corinthians 11:4) The apostasy spread rapidly after the death the apostles and developed into the great “Man of Sin”, or more correctly “Lawless Man”, or “Illegal Man”, a great religious system, which claimed to have the authority to add to God’s Word since their revelation was allegedly of God’s Spirit. The central doctrine became the false teaching that Jesus had to be God Almighty in order to provide atonement for sins. With this spirit of error in mind, the writings of the apostles were totally reinterpreted to accommodate the error, and many of the Hellenic Jewish philosophies were adapted and added to and blended in with the New Testament, even as the Jews had done with the Old Testament.

Isaiah, in prophesying concerning the stone of stumbling (Isaiah 8:14; Romans 9:23) to both the houses of Israel (Romans 9:6,31; 11:7; 1 Corinthians 10:18; Galatians 6:16), warns us: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20, New King James Version) The “law”, of course, is what we call the Old Testament; the “testimony” of this prophecy is the testimony of the apostles, as given in the New Testament. This the way to test the spirits. (1 John 4:1) It is to these and through these scriptures that the holy spirit today gives true direction, and anything not in agreement with these scriptures is not of the light of the day. (John 11:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:5) The distortion of who Jesus truly was and is — who while on earth before his death was only human, a little lower than the angels, who gave his flesh for the life of the world — is one of the greatest stumblingblocks to understanding the true Gospel revealed in scripture. Thus Jesus becomes a stumbling stone, not only to the house according the flesh which was corrupted from true doctrine (Israel after the flesh — Luke 13:25-28; Romans 9:30-33), but also the house which claims Jesus, which has also become corrupted from true doctrine through spiritual fornication. — Matthew 27:21-23; Revelation 2:13-15,20-24.

Love in Jesus,
Ronald
ResLight
Restoration Light Bible Study Services
http://godandson.reslight.net

[ResLight]

I think you are missing the point about all this. Firstly, the plural is a problem for Jews just as it is for you in the Qu'ran as I outlined earlier - that is why; if it really is God speaking can't He get a simple thing like this right.

The Bible does sometimes use plural forms of words, not only of Yahweh, but also regarding many other persons and things. It is but an assumption based on imagination, however, to think that the plural usage means "persons" of one God, or "persons" of whatever is being spoken of.

I know that one scripture that is often cited by our trinitarian brothers is Genesis 1:26, which reads (World English Bible translation):

God [ELOHIM] said [singular verb], “Let us make [plural] man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

It is claimed that ELOHIM, being plural in form, means that their idea of “Godhead” has three persons, and that the plurality of “let us” means that one person of God is speaking to another person of God, using the plural form “us”.

Obviously, God here is speaking to someone. Normally, if a person says to his friend, “Let us do this or that,” we do not think that the person who is speaking is speaking to another person of himself. Likewise, in those instances where God says “let us”, “we”, etc., God is not speaking to another person of Himself, but he is speaking to someone else who is not Himself. Indeed, the default reasoning should be that Yahweh is speaking to someone else who is not Himself.

The truth is that the idea that God is here speaking to Himself (allegedly as two different persons of Himself) has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into what the scripture actually says, and such has to be assumed only to conform to preconceived doctrine, which also has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, each and every scripture that is used to allegedly support the extra-Biblical doctrine.

The plurality of ELOHIM means “gods”, not “persons” or “attributes”; thus, to apply this word to the Creator in plural terms would mean that Yahweh is gods [plural], not persons in one God. Nevertheless, the word in its meaning contains the attribute of mightiness, but this is one attribute, not attributes (plural).

Nevertheless, the scriptures do not apply ELOHIM to Yahweh with plurality, anymore than Yahweh Himself applies ELOHIM to Moses with plurality. (Exodus 7:1) Indeed, if ELOHIM used of Yahweh means that Yahweh is more than one person, then to be consistent, the one making such a claim should also claim that God made Moses more than one person to Pharaoh.

In reality, like several other Hebrew words, the plural forms of EL can be used in singular contexts to denote what we in English might call the superior or superlative degree. Regarding this usage in Biblical Hebrew (as well as some other ancient languages), scholars often call this the “plural intensive” usage, where a plural form of a word is used in a singular context and thus the plural form is viewed as singular, but is intensified in meaning (similar to the English superior or superlative degree). In other words, the plural form of a word is treated as though it were singular, but only intensified in meaning. In English we do this by adding “er” or “est” to many words, such as high, higher, highest, or we might add “more” or “most” before words. (However, in English, especially in its archaic forms, the plural is often employed as a plural intensive when addressing majesty, a judge, etc., as in “your Majesty”, and “your Honour”, instead of “thy Majesty” or “thy honour.”) Therefore, in Exodus 7:1, Yahweh stated that He was making Moses, not persons, to Pharaoh, but rather one person of superior might (ELOHIM) to Pharaoh.

The point, however, is that ELOHIM is used of the one Yahweh, the “one God” who is the Creator of His people. Yahweh is not more than one Yahweh, nor more than one god, nor is he more than one person. “Hear, Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh is one.” “Hasn’t one God created us?” — Deuteronomy 6:4; Malachi 2:10.

Throughout the scriptures, the Bible usually uses singular pronouns and verbs that describe Yahweh as one person. (I, he, singular you, etc., not we, they, them, etc.) Yahweh does not address himself as we, us, our, etc., nor is he doing so in Genesis 1:26, or the other “us” or “we” verses (Genesis 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8) that some trinitarians like to point to as alleged proofs that God is more than one person. Please note that out of the entire Old Testament, these four instances (Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8) are the only instances where it is claimed that Yahweh uses plural pronouns of Himself; all through the Old Testament the pronouns are singular. Nevertheless, if we closely examine those other three verses also, we can see that Yahweh is actually speaking to someone else when He uses the terms “us” or “we”.

So who was Yahweh speaking to as recorded in Genesis 1:26? Although there are some hints in the Old Testament, we have to look to the New Testament for the answer to this. John 1:1,2 tells us that the one who became flesh was with God in the beginning that is spoken of there. That “beginning” is not the beginning of the entire universe, as many have assumed, but it is the “beginning” of the “world” (Greek, Kosmos) that was made through the one called “the Word.” (John 1:10) All in this world was made through the one called “the Word”. Not one thing (pertaining to the world that was through the Word) was made without the Word. (John 1:3) This one titled “the Word” became flesh, and came into the world that was made through him, and that world did not recognize him. (John 1:1,2,10) Jesus identified himself as that one who was with the “only true God” before the world of mankind was made. (John 17:1,3,5) “God”, whom the Word was with, refers to the One whom Jesus addressed as “the only true God”, that is, his God and Father. Jesus was with the only true God, and thus John 1:3,10 is really speaking of Jesus as the one through whom the world of mankind was made. Therefore, by comparing spiritual revealment with spiritual revealment (1 Corinthians 2:10-12), we can see that the one whom “the only true God” was addressing in Genesis 1:27 is Jesus.

However, someone may object, doesn’t John 1:1 tell us that, not only was the Word with God, but also that the Word was “God”? Doesn’t this prove the trinitarian idea that God is more than one person? We have to answer no! It should be obvious, by comparing John 1:1,2 and John 17:1-5, that Jesus was with the only true God. Would John then say that Jesus “was” the only true God whom he was with? John twice states that the Word was with God, thus giving emphasis to this thought. The thought of two persons as the only true God is not inherent in the words of John 1:1,2, but the idea has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into what John wrote. One has to imagine and assume that John, in referring to “God” whom the Word was with, means the first person of the alleged trinity as the Father. We know it is true that “God” whom the Word was with is the God and Father of Jesus, because of Jesus’ words as recorded in John 17:1,3,5. However, the part about the Father being a person of a trinity has to be imagined, assumed, added to, and read into, what John wrote in John 1:1,2, and Jesus’ reference to the Father as the “only true God” in John 17:3 has to either be ignored, or in some manner be interpreted (again this is often done by imaginative assumptions being added to and read into what Jesus stated) in order make Jesus’ words still mean that Jesus is a person of the only true God. Likewise, the trinitarian has to imagine, assume, add to, and read into what John said that the Word is the alleged second person of the trinity.

So why would John say that the Word was “God”, if we are not to imagine and assume he is a person of the only true God? Is there not only one God? Can Jesus be “God” who is not the only true God? And wouldn’t this mean that there is more than one true God? The answer again lies in comparing spiritual revealment with spiritual revealment (1 Corinthians 2:10-12), not by imagining, adding, and reading into the scripture a lot of assumptions that would make Jesus a person of his God. What is the true scriptural answer to why John would refer to Jesus as God?

It is obvious that John is not referring to Jesus as “God” in the same manner in which he speaks of “God” whom Jesus was with. In other words, it should be obvious that Jesus is not “God” whom he was with, and as mentioned before, John emphasized this by repeating it again in John 1:2. The Greek word for God is usually transliterated as “theos”, and forms of this word are used twice in John 1:1. What many do not realize is that there is a scriptural Hebraic tradition that allows the usage of the words for “God” in a more general sense of might, power, authority, etc. Most translations of the Bible into English as well as other languages recognize this usage. We can use the most popular English translation — the King James Version — to illustrate such usage. This can be demonstrated in such verses where the KJV renders the word for “God” (forms of EL and ELOHIM in the Hebrew) so as to denote strength, power, might, rulership, etc., such as in the following verses: Genesis 23:6 (mighty); Genesis 30:8 (mighty); Genesis 31:29 (power); Deuteronomy 28:32 (might); 1 Samuel 14:15 (great); Nehemiah 5:5 (power); Psalm 8:5 (angels); Psalm 36:6 (great); Psalm 82:1 (mighty); Proverbs 3:27 (power); Psalm 29:1 (mighty); Ezekiel 32:21 (strong); Jonah 3:3 (exceeding). If one were to substitute “false god” in these verses, we would have some absurd statements. This proves that these words are used in a sense other than the only true God, or as “false god.” If such Hebraic usage is applied to Jesus (who was with the only true God) in John 1:1, we would have “the Word was mighty,” and all makes perfect sense without adding all of the imaginations and assumptions that would have to accompany viewing the scripture through the tint of the trinity doctrine. Jesus was indeed a mighty one with the only true God before the world of mankind was made. Thus, the scriptural conclusion is that it was this “mighty” one that the only true God addressed in Genesis 1:27, using the term “let us.”

Christian love,
Ronald
ResLight
Restoration Light Bible Study Services
http://godandson.reslight.net

[Hugo]

seriously have you watched the video because its not a problem in the Quran or for muslims - its clearly known in arabic grammer the the royal we. If you see it as a problem for the Jews can you tell me what explanation the Jews give about the plural in Genesis because i dont think its a problem for them either as it is there book. - the christians can believe whatever they want but they are not the only ones that believe in Genesis - the Jews do as well.

I'm talking about the we in the Quran - the plural not what the trinity means.

Just to be clear, I am not an expert on Arabic Grammar that is why I quoted from St. Clair-Tisdal's book who was both an expert on the Qu'ran and Arabic grammar. I know the argument you present and so did St Clait-Tisdal and although I am happy to listen to it I suspect that St Clair-Tisdal was more expert than you or me. But as I said, it's just a point and you can take it or leave it as you please.

Arabic grammar as it is known today was not perfected until the middle of the 9th century according to Prof Farid Esack (the Prince Al-Waleed Bib Talal visiting professor of Contemporary Islam and Harvard University) in his recent book "Qu'ran" ISBN 978-1-85168-624-7. So the grammatical niceties you speak of were one assumes not known in the prophets time.

PS I have noted the site but for some reason on my machine I can see the video but not hear the sounds. When I get that fixed I will come back to you but I guess this thread is not the place to discuss the transmission of the Qu'ran so perhaps you would like to open a new thread on that issue. In passing I might say I have read widely on this issue and would be happy to enter into a debate if there are points which you or others feel are at issue.

[Zafran]

Just to be clear, I am not an expert on Arabic Grammar that is why I quoted from St. Clair-Tisdal's book who was both an expert on the Qu'ran and Arabic grammar. I know the argument you present and so did St Clait-Tisdal and although I am happy to listen to it I suspect that St Clair-Tisdal was more expert than you or me. But as I said, it's just a point and you can take it or leave it as you please.

Arabic grammar as it is known today was not perfected until the middle of the 9th century according to Prof Farid Esack (the Prince Al-Waleed Bib Talal visiting professor of Contemporary Islam and Harvard University) in his recent book "Qu'ran" ISBN 978-1-85168-624-7. So the grammatical niceties you speak of were one assumes not known in the prophets time.

PS I have noted the site but for some reason on my machine I can see the video but not hear the sounds. When I get that fixed I will come back to you but I guess this thread is not the place to discuss the transmission of the Qu'ran so perhaps you would like to open a new thread on that issue. In passing I might say I have read widely on this issue and would be happy to enter into a debate if there are points which you or others feel are at issue.

My friend Hamza Yusuf is a scholar - watch the video and then we'll talk further - maybe you need to turn the volume up the video sound is low but it clearly explains royal we well - We ae not talking about perfected arabic grammer but THE ROYAL WE in arabic - that was known in pre Islamic arabia. It seems to me you dont want to see the video..........

[xxxx2]

ONE more suggestion to christian members of LI A BOOK Describing The Status of Jesus in Islaam
Quotes from the Book:

“The story of Mary begins with this great connection of mentioning those whom God chose over mankind, which included the family of ‘Imraan, who were the parents of Mary. This is done in order to make it clear that Mary came from a righteous and noble family, and that she was part of the offspring of chosen prophets, and that her mother was a pious woman. An example of her piety and righteousness was that she vowed to offer what was in her womb to the services of God. She was hoping that it would be a boy, but instead she gave birth to a girl. So she returned this matter back to God, seeking His pardon and asking Him to protect her daughter and her offspring from the outcast Devil. So her Lord answered her supplication and warmly accepted Mary, causing her to be raised in a good manner and placing a righteous and merciful prophet, Zachariah, in charge of caring for her. This shows that the mother of Jesus had a tremendous upbringing.”

“God is not in need of begetting a son. Attributing a child to Him is from the greatest forms of disbelief and misguidance, since it constitutes the highest level of insult and deficiency being ascribed to His Honor, Greatness and Lordship. This is since everything apart from God (the Creator) can only be one of His creations, and all of His creations submit themselves to His Honor and Grandness and are mandated to worship Him, whereas God is divine and free of begetting a child. This is why Allaah says to those who ascribe a child to Him, and His speech is the truth: ‘You have indeed brought forth something very terrible (i.e. an evil statement) – due to which the heavens are ready to tear apart, the earth split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins. It is that they ascribe a child to the Most Merciful (i.e. God). However, it is not befitting for the (Majesty of the) Most Merciful that he should beget a child. There is none in the heavens and the earth except that he comes unto the Most Merciful as a servant. Verily, He knows each one of them, and has counted them a full counting. And each one of them will come to Him on the Day of Resurrection alone (and without any helpers).’”

“6. In Chapter 21 of the Gospel of Matthew, verse 46, it states: ‘But when they tried to arrest him, they feared the multitudes, since they held him to be a prophet.’There is proof in this verse that the masses of people who believed in God and in Jesus were monotheists with pure and sincere faith, and that they believed that Jesus was a messenger and a prophet. This proves that their prophet, Jesus, had taught them this and cultivated them to believe in that. So they did not used to believe that he was God or the son of God, since he would not teach the people these things.”

“Has not the time come for the Christians, after hearing all of this, to hasten and rush to Islaam, especially the intellectual, educated and free thinking ones amongst them? We call them again to stand up before God in pairs and individually, then to reflect on this tremendous matter – of which there is no matter greater than it – with firm determination and impartiality and earnestly seeking to attain the truth and the reality, for it is indeed a crucial matter, which can either lead one to Paradise, the size of which spans the heavens and the earth, or to the Hellfire, whose fuel will be men and stones and which is prepared for those who disbelieve to reside therein forever. This is a matter that all of the messengers agreed on and which is contained in their revealed books, including Jesus, the servant and messenger of God. At this point, it is appropriate for us to honestly tell you: ‘O People of the Scripture! Come to a word that is just between us and you – that we worship none but God alone and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God.’ Then if they turn away, say: ‘Bear witness that we are Muslims.’

http://www.al-ibaanah.com/ebooks.php?EID=56

The Status of Jesus in Islaam
AUTHOR: Shaikh Rabee' bin H
aadee Al-Madkhalee
TRANSLATED: Al-Ibaanah Book Publishing
PRODUCED BY: Al-Ibaanah.com
DOWNLOAD http://www.al-ibaanah.com/cms/pdf_files/56.pdf

[جوري]

colonialism and demoralization of Muslims -- paved way for onslaught of orientalist to ravage the empire from within and marginalize the 'Ulema' . A decree which effectively thrust entire nations into institutional illiteracy. Orientalism wasn't interested in debating with the Ulema, however much less nothing their criticisms; their soul resources in partnership with foreign ministers to influence the new breed of Muslim elites by casting these elites into secularist mould and convincing them the adherence to the Quran and Sunna futile.

Proving all manner of vice in Muhammad and all manner of theft from the scriptures in the Quran, Geiger, Tisdall and others helped cement this scheme, all eyes turned to the prophet's sunna, and the honor of demolishing this went to Goldzihr (1850-1921) ( excerpted) from The History of Quranic text, which I'd urge Muslims to read, so they can see how malice was worked from within and with help of secular turks..

To answer the question if there ever was one. Tisdall was no scholar least of which as pertains to Arabic/Islamic/ Quranic text. He is but a paid operative with one goal in mind, and truth doesn't bear his name..
If he did he'd have had a viable debate with actual Islamic scholars, in lieu of delegating the task to his very creative psyche!

[Zafran]

colonialism and demoralization of Muslims -- paved way for onslaught of orientalist to ravage the empire from within and marginalize the 'Ulema' . A decree which effectively thrust entire nations into institutional illiteracy. Orientalism wasn't interested in debating with the Ulema, however much less nothing their criticisms; their soul resources in partnership with foreign ministers to influence the new breed of Muslim elites by casting these elites into secularist mould and convincing them the adherence to the Quran and Sunna futile.

Proving all manner of vice in Muhammad and all manner of theft from the scriptures in the Quran, Geiger, Tisdall and others helped cement this scheme, all eyes turned to the prophet's sunna, and the honor of demolishing this went to Goldzihr (1850-1921) ( excerpted) from The History of Quranic text, which I'd urge Muslims to read, so they can see how malice was worked from within and with help of secular turks..

To answer the question if there ever was one. Tisdall was no scholar least of which as pertains to Arabic/Islamic/ Quranic text. He is but a paid operative with one goal in mind, and truth doesn't bear his name..
If he did he'd have had a viable debate with actual Islamic scholars, in lieu of delegating the task to his very creative psyche!

salaam

Yeah his sources especially this one clearly is from orientalist bias. Thats what Hugos using. People that are trying to re write the true understanding of the Quran for political gains.

an intresting article about the change of prespective in the Quran below

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../robinson.html

[Hugo]

The scriptures declare that the human soul is made of the body (the dust of the ground) and the spirit from God that gives us life. (Genesis 2:7) 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is often presented to support the idea that a human being is a "trinity", but in actuality, Paul is speaking figuratively of the body, soul and spirit, not of individuals, but rather the church. However, even if he was speaking of individuals, are we to think of ourselves as one person as a spirit being, and another person as a soul being, and another person as a body being, and yet there are not three sentient beings, but one sentient being, all of whom equally are fully and totally the one sentient being?

Love in Jesus,
Ronald
ResLight
Restoration Light Bible Study Services
http://godandson.reslight.net

Just need to be clear on these postings by ResLight because as far as I can see no Bible translation (although I may have missed it) has been stated and we need to know that to accurately asses what has been said and the arguments that are contained in this post as they do not represent orthodox Christian beliefs. The postings are entirely copied from the site listed without any comment. The site says it is not affiliated to the Jehovah's Witnesses and I could not quite work out why it should say that.

[memories]

[B]In lieu

''Au lieu'' sorry couldnt resist that one :D

This is what we must do, lets say we take into account the concept of trinity is true (wich it is) then what would be the problem of accepting god is a 3 in 1?

Regards.

[جوري]

salaam

Yeah his sources especially this one clearly is from orientalist bias. Thats what Hugos using. People that are trying to re write the true understanding of the Quran for political gains.

an intresting article about the change of prespective in the Quran below

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../robinson.html

With all their futile efforts Islam has maintained its moral soundness and textual integrity.
You bring one of these turds and let him debate with a Muslim scholar and see how fast they defecate in their pants!


:w:

[جوري]

''Au lieu'' sorry couldnt resist that one :D

This is what we must do, lets say we take into account the concept of trinity is true (wich it is) then what would be the problem of accepting god is a 3 in 1?

Regards.

I rather think you should enroll in some basic vocational training to foster self-esteem before you play with the big guns..

you bounce rather fast from having a foot or two in your mouth.. got to love that!


In lieu: adverb = In place of, or as an alternative to

look it up learned one!

[Zafran]

With all their futile efforts Islam has maintained its moral soundness and textual integrity.
You bring one of these turds and let him debate with a Muslim scholar and see how fast they defecate in their pants!


:w:

Salaam:D

Yep they wouldnt last a second lol.

peace

[جوري]

Salaam:D

Yep they wouldnt last a second lol.

peace

Got to run I am running late.. don't even know what the debate is about here anymore-- short of folks trying to convince themselves of something that has no basis whatsoever, save in their own psyche and mind...

But admittedly, love seeing Christian sects against one another.. it brings me pleasure how they see each other as heretics..
shouldn't they unite before evangelizing others? :rollseyes


:w:

[memories]

I rather think you should enroll in some basic vocational training to foster self-esteem before you play with the big guns..

you bounce rather fast from having a foot or two in your mouth.. got to love that!


In lieu: adverb = In place of, or as an alternative to

look it up learned one!

I take it you were trying to introduce some french tournure de phrase in your post, then its ''Au lieu de'' l'on dit: au lieu de faire ceci ou cela et non pas à la place de.

''in lieu of delegating the task to his very creative psyche''

''Au lieu de déléguer la tache....''

Please restrain from using french... my eyes are bleeding.

Unless you meant the english in lieu of
Definition
Instead of, in place of.

Regards.

[doorster]

''Au lieu'' sorry couldnt resist that one :D

This is what we must do, lets say we take into account the concept of trinity is true (wich it is) then what would be the problem of accepting god is a 3 in 1?

Regards.

if "we" (you) want to show yourself as being retarded then I could not resist telling you that English adaptation of ''Au lieu'' is "In lieu of"

I've been studying English for 3 years now but it seem your knowledge of English is nearly as bad as your knowledge of the Bible!

in lieu of

Definition
Instead of, in place of.

[Zafran]

Got to run I am running late.. don't even know what the debate is about here anymore-- short of folks trying to convince themselves of something that has no basis whatsoever, save in their own psyche and mind...

But admittedly, love seeing Christian sects against one another.. it brings me pleasure how they see each other as heretics..
shouldn't they unite before evangelizing others? :rollseyes


:w:

Salaam


see ya later

May Allah bless you
peace

[memories]

if we want to show yourself as being retarded then I could not resist telling you that English adaptation of that is "In lieu of"

I've been studying English for 3 years now but it seem your knowledge of English is nearly as bad as your knowledge of the Bible!

in lieu of

Definition
Instead of, in place of.

Read my previous post.

[Hugo]

salaam Yeah his sources especially this one clearly is from orientalist bias. Thats what Hugos using. People that are trying to re write the true understanding of the Quran for political gains.

an intresting article about the change of prespective in the Quran below

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur.../robinson.html

This is just perverse and not related much to the tread. I quoted two sources one legitimately would be called and Orientalist but the other, professor Esack is an internationally respected Islamic scholar.

It is simply nonsense to even suggest that because someone might be described as an Orientalist their work is therefore suspect. I might as well argue that all the early Islamic scholars were biased. I suggest you read more that just Edward Said's work which is now discredited and find out the debt we all own to the Orientalist. For example the hugely respected Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, valued by all scholars, Islamic or otherwise.

I suggest you get and read Ibn Warraqa's Defending the West - A critique of Edward Said's Orientalism ISBN 978-1-59102-484-2

I suggest also you look with honesty at you own Islamic history and a good start there might be to use Professor Efraim Karsh's (King's College London) book called "Islamic Imperialism - A History" ISBN 978-8-300-12263-3

If we are to meet on a level playing field let;s stop this sniping and get on with the subject at hand

[ResLight]

On the other hand, the Essenes, an early Christian unitarian community, endured torture and persecution because they refused to exchange Jesus’ monotheistic teachings for the Pauline innovation of the trinity.

Actually, despite the claims of our trinitarian brothers, Paul never presented any idea at all that the God of Jesus was three persons, and that Jesus was a person of the God of Jesus, thus, in reality, there was no Pauline innovation of the trinity.

Paul proclaimed Jesus concerning the God and Father of Jesus (World English Bible translation):

Romans 15:6 - that with one accord you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort.

2 Corinthians 11:31 - The God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, he who is blessed forevermore, knows that I don’t lie.

Ephesians 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ

Ephesians 1:17 - that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.

Hebrews 1:9 - You have loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; Therefore God, your God, has anointed you With the oil of gladness above your fellows.”

Thus, Paul was in agreement the prophets of Bible concerning the Messiah that was sent by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (Psalm 45:7; Micah 5:4), and with Jesus himself (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34; John 20:17; Revelation 1:6; 2:7; 3:2,12), and also with Peter. -- 1 Peter 1:3

The scriptures reveal that Jesus was sent by Yahweh, speaks for Yahweh, represents Yahweh, and was raised and glorified by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus never claimed to be, nor do the scriptures present Jesus as, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, whom Jesus represents and speaks for. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 22:32; 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; 12:26; Luke 13:35; 20:37; John 3:2,17,32-35; 4:34; 5:19,30,36,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; 20:17; Acts 2:22,34-36; 3:13,22; 5:30; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 8:6; 11:31; Colossians 1:3,15; 2:9-12; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 1:1.

God, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Yahweh (Jehovah) is the only true God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. Jesus has One who is the Supreme Being over him; Jesus is not his Supreme Being whom he worships, prays to, and who sent him, and whose will he carried out in willful obedience. — Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 4:4 (Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4); Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Exodus 20:3-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 6:13,14; 10:20; Luke 4:8); Matthew 22:29-40; Matthew 26:42; Matthew 27:46; Mark 10:6 (Genesis 1:27; Genesis 2:7,20-23); Mark 14:36; 15:34; Luke 22:42; John 4:3; 5:30; 6:38; 17:1,3; 20:17; Romans 15:6; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 11:31; Ephesians 1:3,17; Hebrews 1:9; 10:7; 1 Peter 1:3; Revelation 2:7; 3:2,12.

God, by means of his holy spirit, reveals through the scriptures that Jesus is son of the only Most High, Yahweh. Jesus is never spoken of as the “Most High”; he is not the only Most High Yahweh of whom he is the son. — Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; 83:18; 92:1; Luke 1:32; John 13:16.

The Supreme Being does not have another Supreme Being who is his Supreme Being. There is no Supreme Being who is over the Supreme Being.

On the other hand, for each and every scripture that the trinitarians present from Paul's writings as alleged proof of trinity, the trinitarian has imagine, assume, add to, and read the trinitarian assumptions into those scriptures. Additionally, each and every scripture that the trinitarians cite as supporting their alleged trinity can be seen in harmony with the rest of the scriptures without adding the trinitarian assumptions to those scriptures.

Christian love,
Ronald
ResLight
Restoration Light Bible Study Services
http://godandson.reslight.net

[Hugo]

Salaam

May Allah bless you
peace

One might suppose from Gossamer's post that Islam has no sects (shall I list them?) and there is no infighting - should that make anyone happy? It's a sad person that find joy in such situations

[memories]

One might suppose from Gossamer's post that Islam has no sects (shall I list them?) and there is no infighting - should that make anyone happy? It's a sad person that find joy in such situations

the Tariqah are one and they use shamanistic rituals, how's that for starters?
According to some modern proponents, such as Idries Shah, the Sufi philosophy is universal in nature, its roots predating the arising of Islam and the other modern-day religions; likewise, some Muslims feel that Sufism is outside the sphere of Islam

Talking about different interpretations.

[doorster]

Read my previous post.

you've changed it between the time I read your OP and the time I decided to finally press submit button!

It took me that long to decide because many of LI staff here are on your side and censor us when we dare to point out your ignorance and stupidity etc.

They keep telling me that when you are spitting venom against Islam you are actually showing your curiosity and/or contributing to "debate" but reality is that insolent Kufaar scare and impress them in equal measure, methinks!

[Zafran]

One might suppose from Gossamer's post that Islam has no sects (shall I list them?) and there is no infighting - should that make anyone happy? It's a sad person that find joy in such situations

I find it sad you took her post seriously. Nobody is telling you to suppose anything anyway.

peace

[Zafran]

the Tariqah are one and they use shamanistic rituals, how's that for starters?
According to some modern proponents, such as Idries Shah, the Sufi philosophy is universal in nature, its roots predating the arising of Islam and the other modern-day religions; likewise, some Muslims feel that Sufism is outside the sphere of Islam

Talking about different interpretations.

salaam

Some tariqas are in the fold of Islam - others are not - A good sufi is always a good muslim.

[Hugo]

This coming from a guy saying "did Allah use the wrong word???"

Stop being hypocritical. Ever wonder why your rep is in the negatives? While other christian members of this board are in the positives?

I'll give you a hint, it isn't the "sober" way you argue.

I agree that I might have sounded flippant but it was not my intention to denigrate God only to draw attention to the point that God cannot make mistakes so there is an issue. However, you are right to point that out but nevertheless it is not an argument that adds anything to the debate or answer the question offered to tell me I am hypocritical or not positive is it? There is a saying in English, "people in glass houses shouldn't not throw stones' and even a cursory look through many Muslim debater's posts will show a serious lack of sobriety. Arguing, debating and persuasion are about being critical not simply agreeing with the party line.

[memories]

salaam

Some tariqas are in the fold of Islam - others are not - A good sufi is always a good muslim.

I never said they wer not good muslims I said that like in christianity there is differents sects in the muslim world, like the quakers and so on of christianity
that was my point.

regards

[ResLight]

Just need to be clear on these postings by ResLight because as far as I can see no Bible translation (although I may have missed it) has been stated and we need to know that to accurately asses what has been said and the arguments that are contained in this post as they do not represent orthodox Christian beliefs. The postings are entirely copied from the site listed without any comment. The site says it is not affiliated to the Jehovah's Witnesses and I could not quite work out why it should say that.

I am not sure what is meant by "no Bible translation". Exactly what is this meant to refer to? The translation I usually use is the World English Bible translation, but I also use many other translations.

My postings are not entirely copied from what I have written before, but I do copy and adapt what I have written before for the sites and forums. Since what I am copying are my comments, they are still my comments, and also I usually do not simply copy my comments without adding more comments, for I do add more comments as I adapt, and sometimes edit, what I have written to respond to the present discussion. I do not see the need to fully rewrite what I have written before.

I stated on the site that the site is not affiliated with Jehovah's Witnesses because many confuse the beliefs presented with that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am associated with the "Bible Students" movement, and am not affiliated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the beliefs presented, although similar in some respects to that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, are not the same as that of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
http://jws.reslight.net

The term "orthodox" means right thinking or right opinion. As I have shown, the right opinion is the Bible; the right way is Jesus, and, as I have shown from the scriptures, Jesus sent the holy spirit from his father to reveal the truth to his apostles, which "right opinion" is recorded in the writings of the New Testament. That faith belief was delivered once for all time in the first century. (Jude 1:3,20) The later opinions of men that is often called "orthodox", and which have to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into the scriptures, is in reality false opinion. "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20) "Walk as children of light." -- Ephesians 5:8
http://defending.reslight.net/?page_id=57

Love in Jesus,
Ronald
ResLight





Christian love,
Ronald
ResLight
Restoration Light Bible Study Services

[جوري]

One might suppose from Gossamer's post that Islam has no sects (shall I list them?) and there is no infighting - should that make anyone happy? It's a sad person that find joy in such situations

It wouldn't matter how many you listed, since sunni Muslims are 85-90% of the 1.8 billion Muslims.. any of the 'numerous' sects you'd like to mention are a very negligible percentage .. so by all means go ahead!


Almost all Muslims belong to one of two major denominations, the Sunni (85%) and Shi'a (15%). The schism developed in the late 7th century following disagreements over the religious and political leadership of the Muslim community. Islam is the predominant religion in much of Africa and the Middle East,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

[doorster]

the Tariqah are one and they use shamanistic rituals, how's that for starters?
According to some modern proponents, such as Idries Shah, the Sufi philosophy is universal in nature, its roots predating the arising of Islam and the other modern-day religions; likewise, some Muslims feel that Sufism is outside the sphere of Islam

Talking about different interpretations.

nicking text from wiki and pasting it here verbatim, really does impress me (NOT)

[جوري]

I take it you were trying to introduce some french tournure de phrase in your post, then its ''Au lieu de'' l'on dit: au lieu de faire ceci ou cela et non pas à la place de.

''in lieu of delegating the task to his very creative psyche''

''Au lieu de déléguer la tache....''

Please restrain from using french... my eyes are bleeding.

Unless you meant the english in lieu of
Definition
Instead of, in place of.

Regards.

لا يا كافر يا وقح...جمله قد تستخدم كثيرا في هذه اللغه كما تستخدم بالفرنسية

Again, one wonders, do you have anything to impart on the subject at hand or just want to display stupidity all over the forum?

all the best

[Hugo]

I am not sure what is meant by "no Bible translation". Exactly what is this meant to refer to? The translation I usually use is the World English Bible translation, but I also use many other translations.

My postings are not entirely copied from what I have written before, but I do copy and adapt what I have written before for the sites and forums. Since what I am copying are my comments, they are still my comments, and also I usually do not simply copy my comments without adding more comments, for I do add more comments as I adapt, and sometimes edit, what I have written to respond to the present discussion. I do not see the need to fully rewrite what I have written before.

I stated on the site that the site is not affiliated with Jehovah's Witnesses because many confuse the beliefs presented with that of the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am associated with the "Bible Students" movement, and am not affiliated with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the beliefs presented, although similar in some respects to that of the Jehovah's Witnesses, are not the same as that of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
http://jws.reslight.net

The term "orthodox" means right thinking or right opinion. As I have shown, the right opinion is the Bible; the right way is Jesus, and, as I have shown from the scriptures, Jesus sent the holy spirit from his father to reveal the truth to his apostles, which "right opinion" is recorded in the writings of the New Testament. That faith belief was delivered once for all time in the first century. (Jude 1:3,20) The later opinions of men that is often called "orthodox", and which have to imagined, assumed, added to, and read into the scriptures, is in reality false opinion. "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20) "Walk as children of light." -- Ephesians 5:8
http://defending.reslight.net/?page_id=57

Love in Jesus,
Ronald
ResLight

Thank you for the clarification but as I understand it the World English Bible translation is still in draft form? I understand you might use various translation but it would be helpful if you just indicated what they were.

['Abd-al Latif]

Ahmad Deedat explains the Trinity in Christian Religion

Media Tags are no longer supported

Ahmed Deedat - Trinity

Media Tags are no longer supported

[جوري]

It is simply nonsense to even suggest that because someone might be described as an Orientalist their work is therefore suspect. I might as well argue that all the early Islamic scholars were biased.

All orientalist scholarship is built on the premise of the more enlightened outsider being free of bias, but has western Judeo-Christian tradition ever allowed room for supposed objectivity? Where are these Jewels of wise discourse in the subjective and vulgar catalog of historic western writing? Vulgar, I say, because anyone can compare the reverence with which Muslim scholars treat Jesus, the virgin Mary, Moses, Aaron, Issac, Abraham, Solomon, lot etc to the crude wrathful rantings of Jews against christians, or christians against jews, of catholics against protestants, and of ancient Romans against everyone. Adrian Reeland, professor of the Oriental Tongues at the University of Utrecht, who in 1705 composed a unique work in latin, subsequently translated and published in london under the title, Four treasties concerning the doctrine, Discipline and worship of the Mahometans (1712) (for full text pls see title pages 5-6)

The Revisionist school insisting that no Muslim document bears any semblance of truth unless other, non_muslim accounts provides verification (see Yehuda Nevo's definition of revisionism pp 7-8) Given how maliciously Christians and Jews have lashed out against Muslims from the very dawn of Islam, what hope can we possibly have of priests and rabbis 'verifying' Mslim accounts, attesting to the accomplishment of their bitterest rivals with objectivity? Under no condition do western scholars validate the indoctrinate abuse what christians and Jews hurled against each other, each group barricades by its own ignorance and superstition ( see example the apologist attitude inherent in the articles of both Joseph Blenkinsopp and Baraclay Newman [bible review, oct 1996 pp 42-43] so then on what grounds in their inordinate abuse against Muslims, hatched of the selfsame ignorance and superstition can be accepted as now truth?
Here are a few charges levelled against Muslims 17th and 18thc western scholars writing in latin that the Muslims worship Venus (2) and worship created beings, (3) and sins taken away by frequent washing.. etc

Orientalist motivation: a study of subjectivity pp327-329) Dr. Al-Azami

[Zafran]

This is just perverse and not related much to the tread. I quoted two sources one legitimately would be called and Orientalist but the other, professor Esack is an internationally respected Islamic scholar.

It is simply nonsense to even suggest that because someone might be described as an Orientalist their work is therefore suspect. I might as well argue that all the early Islamic scholars were biased. I suggest you read more that just Edward Said's work which is now discredited and find out the debt we all own to the Orientalist. For example the hugely respected Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, valued by all scholars, Islamic or otherwise.

I suggest you get and read Ibn Warraqa's Defending the West - A critique of Edward Said's Orientalism ISBN 978-1-59102-484-2

I suggest also you look with honesty at you own Islamic history and a good start there might be to use Professor Efraim Karsh's (King's College London) book called "Islamic Imperialism - A History" ISBN 978-8-300-12263-3

If we are to meet on a level playing field let;s stop this sniping and get on with the subject at hand

I suggest you also look at your own witch hunts and your hypocricy with a bit more honesty - if your not going to bother to even look at the information I give you eg the video - why should i bother with looking at your bias sources!

Do more research about Orientalism - you clearly love the sources. Edward Siad is not discredited - maybe by your Orinetal mind but people like Robert Fisk and Noam Chomsky see him as relevent today as he was before.

Your clearly obsessed with them - thats fine - just dont accept everybody to agree with the Oriental party LINE! of knowing everything and always being rght.

and yes lets get back to the thread and not some bogus dead end.

['Abd-al Latif]

To the non-muslim members, this forum is full of threads which may answer any questions about Islam that you may have. However please bear in mind that this is an Islamic forum first and this is not a board for you to argue and debate about the authenticity of other religions. If we were convinced of anything besides Islam then there would be no need for you to debate. We do give the right to defend ones religion but this should not be done in a manner where direct or indirect hurling of insults, slander, lies or any other form of abuse is directed towards Islam. There is more to this forum then just the 'Comparative Religion' section so I recommend that you browse the board and see Islam as it is without getting into a war of words with other members.

Islam has the answers to Judaism and Christianity which are rational and convincing but in order for you to understand the Islamic teachings you must take the first step to have a sincere intention to learn. There is no benefit or sense in pour water in a glass while the glass is turned upside down.

So with that said this is another thread which has derailed wayyy off topic and isn't going anywhere so I will be closing it.

:threadclo: