/* */

PDA

View Full Version : All Trinity discussion goes here!



IAmZamzam
12-10-2010, 02:56 AM
There has been a lot of confusion and tension in another thread or two recently because of our arguments about the Trinity. I would like to clear them up. I propose that all talk about the Trinity is to be confined to this thread for as long as the thread lasts. Keep it here. This thing has a way of spilling out all over every other thread or subject around here.

Grace Seeker wanted to know what my own “understanding” of the Trinity is. I thought I had made it plain to him before that my understanding is that I understand that there is nothing to understand, even if he insistently will not. The Trinity doctrine is so utterly without definite, fully formed ideas, objectively agreed upon and laid out in language that isn’t blatantly only trying to sound like it really means anything, that there really isn’t much to say. You can say till you’re blue in the face that the “Holy Spirit” “proceeds betwixt the Father and the Son” but that won’t make the words mean anything, however hard you may try to get them to, and you can force as many interpretations of your own onto them as you like but they’re still going to be different from those of a jillion other people’s who have set themselves to the same desperate task.

They never have answers, these Trinitarian evangelists, only analogies. Analogies which if you examine them carefully you’ll find are all depicting the Trinity differently. It’s high time you Christians woke up to the fact that we don’t need some metaphor to understand the idea that one thing can consists of various other things. Believe me, we get it. Every child who’s ever seen the rainbow or played with Lego blocks already gets it. The actual problem is whether we have any reason to believe that God Himself could or would exist in such a way. Funny how we never seem get any analogies about that.

Ice, water, mist; fruit tree, fruit, fruit juice; past, present, future. Petals of a shamrock, three-in-one-oil, fingers on a hand, six squares forming one cube, enough! What reason have we to think that God is like any of these things? And granting that, which one of them? How does it work Is He a single entity taking different forms (ice, water, mist)? A compartmentalized deity with each (still undefined) part performing different tasks (fruit tree, fruit, fruit juice)? A single being who somehow consists of two intersecting parts meeting at a nexus (past, present, future)? Three extensions of some core root (petals of a shamrock)? An amalgam of three otherwise different things into a compound with new properties of its own (three-in-one oil)? Different implements being controlled by another, higher god He’s part of (fingers on a hand)? Three identical and inseparable parts redundantly constituting a single identical and inseparable whole (six squares forming one cube)? Or could it be that you’re really the ones who don’t know what you’re talking about, not us, and this is why all you have is analogies? If you’re going to form an analogy about something then that should mean that you know the subject you’re talking about so well already that you shouldn’t find it at all incomprehensible yourself.

Why should we believe God is three in any capacity? Because there are exactly two (2) verses in the Bible which happen to mention the very names “father”, “son” and “holy spirit” in the same sentence? Awful long way from that to any of the creeds, even the Apostle’s. And as for what Answering Islam says on the matter about other verses, I’ve already taken them to the moon and back on that here. You need to read that, God willing.

Polytheism doesn’t have to be overt or even untempered in order to be what it is. Do you believe the Hindus when they tell you that their pantheon is really just one god? Do you care? Are they not still pagans?

The evidence of our world suggests a single cause. Something outside of spacetime which encompasses all. A single, neat infinity beyond infinities. The one point of origin. What about all this suggests to you that the number “three” even has anything to do with the subject at all? How many ways can and should an all-compassing First Cause be divided up? Why should such a perfect thing need multiple persons to it?

You’re denying the singleness. Just because you deny it by saying it’s a singleness that’s also a not-singleness does not change anything except to add self-deception or self-obfuscation to the mix. For the ninth time, saying “plural singularity” does not change the fact that there is plurality involved. It just piles semantics on top of the problem instead.

I’ve laid out my syllogism before, and it stands:

1. Monotheism is simple and comprehensible.
2. The Trinity is complex and incomprehensible.
3. Therefore, the Trinity is not monotheistic.

It’s as simple as that!

Why, if God was one but also three, didn’t the Old Testament mention it when it said that the great command was, “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is one.” Kind of an important fact to omit. Why didn’t it mention the fact anywhere? For that matter, why did the Bible not do so? You’d think that Paul would be interested that people know that and will have written about it in his letters at some point along with every other little detail. Did the ancient Jews know their Messiah would be part of a Trinity? Shouldn’t they, if they were supposed to be worshiping the same god?

And what exactly is “the Holy Spirit”? Nobody has any idea beyond the usual semantic pretenses which never hold water when actually challenged to be defined. Can’t you see that in the Bible the phrase means different things in different contexts? Sometimes it meant “angel”; sometimes it meant “prophet”; sometimes it seems meant in the ordinary English figurative sense that any of us might mean “the spirit” in. Sometimes it meant “presence”. And so on. Is it not plain that what the Trinitarians have done is lump all these different meanings together into one, big amalgam, and in the process make the whole thing totally incoherent?

Once again I return to the bottom line: bearing in mind what I said in the article linked above, what reason have we to believe that God would be in three persons?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Hiroshi
12-10-2010, 08:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I’ve laid out my syllogism before, and it stands:

1. Monotheism is simple and comprehensible.
2. The Trinity is complex and incomprehensible.
3. Therefore, the Trinity is not monotheistic.

It’s as simple as that!
Absolutely right. You said it all.
Reply

Trumble
12-10-2010, 02:07 PM
Hmm...

I think the most you can plausibly claim for premise 2 is 'the Trinity is complex and incomprehensible to me', and hence the conclusion would not follow. Clearly there are many people who do not find it 'incomprehensible', or at least think they don't, in which case at worst 'the Trinity is complex but comprehensible to me' could be substituted as an equally credible alternative.

Actually, the only valid syllogism must conclude not that 'the Trinity is not monotheistic', but that 'the Trinity is not monotheism' - which is not the same thing at all. Nor is 'the Trinity is monotheism' a claim anybody has actually made.

So much for the logic. I'll leave the theists to fight over the theology. :)
Reply

Predator
12-10-2010, 05:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Hmm...

I'll leave the theists to fight over the theology. :)
do you mean to say are an atheist ?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
Perseveranze
12-10-2010, 06:02 PM
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Trinity is very confusin, someone tried to explain it to me by using a "water, ice, steam" example, like it's 3 substances into one or something like that.

What's more confusing is that some Christians say that Mary is the daughter of God but is also the mother of God...
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-10-2010, 06:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I think the most you can plausibly claim for premise 2 is 'the Trinity is complex and incomprehensible to me', and hence the conclusion would not follow. Clearly there are many people who do not find it 'incomprehensible', or at least think they don't, in which case at worst 'the Trinity is complex but comprehensible to me' could be substituted as an equally credible alternative.
Except that Trinitarians are never consistent about whether it is even supposed to be comprehensible or not. It all depends on which view allows them to defend the doctrine at the given moment. And whenever you ask the ones who purport that it is comprehensible to explain it, they either refuse as Grace Seeker did or they falter and improvise and completely fail and make it even more obvious that they don't genuinely have any idea what they're talking about. Or else they just hit you up with more analogies without reference point. Virtually all those who don't believe in the Trinity or do believe but aren't Bible bangers about it agree that it is incomprehensible.

Actually, the only valid syllogism must conclude not that 'the Trinity is not monotheistic', but that 'the Trinity is not monotheism' - which is not the same thing at all. Nor is 'the Trinity is monotheism' a claim anybody has actually made.
What, now you're going to pick on the grammar? It means the same.

format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
do you mean to say are an atheist?
Yes, Trumble is an atheist, but let's not get into that again. I have a whole thread on the way, probably today or at least tomorrow.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-10-2010, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Asalaamu Alaikum,

Trinity is very confusin, someone tried to explain it to me by using a "water, ice, steam" example, like it's 3 substances into one or something like that.

What's more confusing is that some Christians say that Mary is the daughter of God but is also the mother of God...
Apparently God is His own grandpa.
Reply

Trumble
12-10-2010, 06:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
What, now you're going to pick on the grammar? It is not a case of an adjective having to be used to modify a noun: it is a case of one noun being compared to another. When people say, "You call this music? That isn't music," no one corrects them by saying they should have said, "That isn't musical."
You are just repeating the same error. No correction is needed as there was nothing wrong with the initial response. The 'correction' means something different, although in this particular context it is also obviously an appropriate response. But something can be musical without being music, and indeed music without being musical at least according to the general understanding of the term! Another example. Islam is monotheistic, but it is not monotheism.

A large chunk of 20th century analytic philosophy centres on the fact that far from being 'picky', such things are critical to understanding, and hence to the validity of any conclusions reached. In this case you argument is straightforward, and does not need the support of faulty logic.

Except that Trinitarians are never consistent about whether it is even supposed to be comprehensible or not. It all depends on which view allows them to defend the doctrine at the given moment. And whenever you ask the ones who purport that it is comprehensible to explain it, they either refuse as Grace Seeker did or they falter and improvise and completely fail and make it even more obvious that they don't genuinely have any idea what they're talking about. Or else they just hit you up with more analogies without reference point. Virtually all those who don't believe in the Trinity or do believe but aren't Bible bangers about it agree that it is incomprehensible.
That's no more than an opinion piece. You are quite entitled to that opinion, of course, but it does nothing to strengthen an argument based on logic. Indeed quite the contrary even if it is accepted; if only "virtually all" of those people agree it is incomprehensible, then some must find it comprehensible. As soon as that is the case, the argument collapses. Most people find quantum mechanics and chaos theory incomprehensible; but that does not invalidate them.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-10-2010, 06:45 PM
There were a lot of people who found the lyrics to "I Am the Walrus" comprehensible as well, even though the very idea of it was to be the opposite. People can find meaning in anything. The very Athanasian creed itself states that the Trinity is incomprehensible. If a Christian wants to dispute that then that's their right, but they're going to have to be consistent about it.

I'm not going to indulge you about the semantics issue, because regardless of what you may say, it is EXTREMELY picky, and no one is ever going to misunderstand it.
Reply

Trumble
12-10-2010, 07:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I'm not going to indulge you about the semantics issue, because regardless of what you may say, it is EXTREMELY picky, and no one is ever going to misunderstand it.
Semantic understanding, or otherwise, of the terms is not relevant to the syllogism's validity. Your argument is quite clear and, indeed, nobody is likely to misunderstand it, but your attempted logical prop for it fails.
Reply

Ramadhan
12-11-2010, 11:38 AM
Instead of atheist (yes Trumble, I am looking at you) coming here and blabbering about semantics, I have been expecting christians to come here and shed any light on the subject/idea of trinity.
Reply

Predator
12-11-2010, 12:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Instead of atheist (yes Trumble, I am looking at you) .
Yeah, he should set his religion to atheist in his profile to avoid people confusing him with a Buddhist
Reply

Ramadhan
12-11-2010, 01:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
Yeah, he should set his religion to atheist in his profile to avoid people confusing him with a Buddhist
Trumble is an atheistic Buddhist.
That is, he is a Buddhist who believe the universe is uncreated, eternal.
There are, however, theistic Buddhists who believe that the universe is created by The creator.

Back on topic, I can't wait for Grace Seeker or Hugo to explain trinity.
Reply

Trumble
12-12-2010, 10:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Instead of atheist (yes Trumble, I am looking at you) coming here and blabbering about semantics, I have been expecting christians to come here and shed any light on the subject/idea of trinity.
In addition to the thread title, the OP offered a specific argument which he attempted to support with logic. I responded by pointing out that that attempt was invalid, and also in my last that the reason has nothing to do with 'semantics'.

What you may have been expecting is, of course, your business.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-12-2010, 03:29 PM
What I was expecting, Trumble, if anything, was someone actually addressing the whole, or even the majority, of my argumentation instead of just an isolated little snippet of it which is only one of a great many different points.
Reply

Woodrow
12-12-2010, 04:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Asalaamu Alaikum,



What's more confusing is that some Christians say that Mary is the daughter of God but is also the mother of God...
:wa:

While in the early years of Trinitarian development Mary was considered part of the Trinity in Eastern (Greek) Christianity. The concept lost out to the Western (Roman) Christians and very few Christians of today are aware that at one time Mary was part of the Trinity among some of the Christian churches.

When we mention Mary as being part of the Trinity to today's Christians we will often be met with the argument that Mary was never part of the Trinity and Christians never believed that. If we are going to use that in a refutation of the trinity, we had best be prepared to show evidence that at one time it was part of Christian teaching even though that concept of the trinity has not been part of Christian theology for over 1000 years.

It was most likely in the year 381 that the Holy Spirit began being introduced as the third part of the Trinity.

The 21 Ecumenical Councils

I. FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA
Year: 325
Summary: The Council of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe the Nicene Creed, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios), and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

II. FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Year: 381
Summary: The First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150 bishops. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.
Further Reading: www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm
SOURCE
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-15-2010, 07:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
:wa:

While in the early years of Trinitarian development Mary was considered part of the Trinity in Eastern (Greek) Christianity. The concept lost out to the Western (Roman) Christians and very few Christians of today are aware that at one time Mary was part of the Trinity among some of the Christian churches.

When we mention Mary as being part of the Trinity to today's Christians we will often be met with the argument that Mary was never part of the Trinity and Christians never believed that. If we are going to use that in a refutation of the trinity, we had best be prepared to show evidence that at one time it was part of Christian teaching even though that concept of the trinity has not been part of Christian theology for over 1000 years.
You're right. I was about to post in response to Perseveranze that Mary really has nothing to do with a discussion of the Trinity and will simply sidetrack what is likely to have lots of wandering rabbit trails of its own. So, I'm glad I read through to the end to see you believe that Mary was a part of the understanding of the Trinity in the distant past. I have to say that not only is it not relevant to my understanding of the Trintiy, I've not encountered this in any of my reading on the Trinity nor in any of my reading of Church history. Do you think that an exploration of that idea would be worth discussion in this particular thread?
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-15-2010, 08:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
Grace Seeker wanted to know what my own “understanding” of the Trinity is. I thought I had made it plain to him before that my understanding is that I understand that there is nothing to understand, even if he insistently will not. The Trinity doctrine is so utterly without definite, fully formed ideas, objectively agreed upon and laid out in language that isn’t blatantly only trying to sound like it really means anything, that there really isn’t much to say.

OK. So, we Christians don't know what we are talking about. We are both confused and confusing. And the Trinity is pure fiction. You don't believe us when we say that one can accept the doctrine of the Trinity with regard to God and still be monotheistic. All of that I get.

But what I still need cleared up on is what it is that you actually think we are saying with regard to God. You object to it saying that we are saying God is three. But I've never actually said "God is three." Those are words that non-trinitarians put into our mouths. I continue to say that God is one. I might say that God is three-in-one, but I would never just say that God is three as a simple declarative statement, because I don't believe that is true.

A negative critique of the Trintiy can't be simply that it isn't true, you have to state what is untrue about it. And a critique that argues, "God is one, he is not three." is not a critique of the Trinity for it does not critique a belief that we as Trinitarians hold. That is why I wish to know what it is that you think we mean when we speak of trinity. Though I know you, and many others here, went to Christian schools. The objections that I've heard raised against the Trintiy seem to me to mostly involve mis-statements as to what we who hold to it actually believe. And frankly, if I thought it meant what I've heard some people say that it means, I wouldn't believe it either.

But as I said, you start this thread and tell us what its that you believe we mean by Trinity, and I will join you. Well, you've started the thread, and I've joined you. Now, I'm waiting for you to say what it is that you believe we mean by Trinity.
.
Reply

أحمد
12-15-2010, 09:03 PM
:sl:

format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Trinity is very confusin, someone tried to explain it to me by using a "water, ice, steam" example, like it's 3 substances into one or something like that.
Sheikh Yusuf Estes gives an example, of the discussion at his home (before he accepted Islam). The video is called, something along the lines of "Priests and Preachers Entering Islam". It maybe available on youtube, and can also be watched at watchislam.com.

:wa:
Reply

جوري
12-16-2010, 02:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
r Hugo to explain trinity.

I am sure he is preparing a list of googled names as we write to place importance not on content, no but on their alleged distinctions which only he seems to appreciate.. The day Hugo writes anything of tangible substance hell will freeze over and all the devils will be ice skating..

:w:
Reply

Woodrow
12-16-2010, 02:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You're right. I was about to post in response to Perseveranze that Mary really has nothing to do with a discussion of the Trinity and will simply sidetrack what is likely to have lots of wandering rabbit trails of its own. So, I'm glad I read through to the end to see you believe that Mary was a part of the understanding of the Trinity in the distant past. I have to say that not only is it not relevant to my understanding of the Trintiy, I've not encountered this in any of my reading on the Trinity nor in any of my reading of Church history. Do you think that an exploration of that idea would be worth discussion in this particular thread?
Best be set aside for another thread. I will agree that no Christians of today consider Mary to be part of the Trinity. But perhaps at some point it could make for an interesting thread. But not as part of this thread.
Reply

Danah
12-17-2010, 10:05 AM
I have never met a single Christian understands the trinity in a simple, precise, accurate way. So if they themselves can't understand it, how we are expecting them to explain it to us. Its like every single person have his/her own understanding of trinity.

Whenever I see a thread in any forum that talks about Trinity I just see the pages of that thread increase day by day without reaching any thing at the end! so I gave up asking about it anymore!!
Reply

Perseveranze
12-18-2010, 12:53 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
But I've never actually said "God is three." Those are words that non-trinitarians put into our mouths. I continue to say that God is one. I might say that God is three-in-one, but I would never just say that God is three as a simple declarative statement, because I don't believe that is true.
.
Asaamu Alaikum (Peace be with you),

I don't mean to sound like an idiot or anything, but what response do Christians have when someone asks them "If Jesus(pbuh) is God who came down to Earth, then who was controlling the heavens and the Earths and who was Jesus(pbuh) praying to when he postrated?".

You may have an answer, but can you now understand the complexity of this Trinity idea?
Reply

Hiroshi
12-19-2010, 10:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Best be set aside for another thread. I will agree that no Christians of today consider Mary to be part of the Trinity. But perhaps at some point it could make for an interesting thread. But not as part of this thread.
I think it is significant, though, that the Qur'an mentions the Trinity while the Bible doesn't. This shows that although the Trinity was known at the time of the rise of Islam, it was completely unknown to the writers of the Bible.
Reply

Hiroshi
12-19-2010, 10:47 AM
Does God die? No, God is immortal.

So then, is Jesus God? No, if he was how then could he die for people's sins as Christians believe.

And if Jesus didn't die, why then did he need a resurrection?
Reply

Perseveranze
12-19-2010, 04:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You're right. I was about to post in response to Perseveranze that Mary really has nothing to do with a discussion of the Trinity and will simply sidetrack what is likely to have lots of wandering rabbit trails of its own. So, I'm glad I read through to the end to see you believe that Mary was a part of the understanding of the Trinity in the distant past. I have to say that not only is it not relevant to my understanding of the Trintiy, I've not encountered this in any of my reading on the Trinity nor in any of my reading of Church history. Do you think that an exploration of that idea would be worth discussion in this particular thread?
Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),

I only asked because I saw it here;



Link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNahuXygGYw

But Woodrow's explained it.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-20-2010, 02:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Asalaamu Alaikum(peace be with you),

I only asked because I saw it here [see above video conversation]


But Woodrow's explained it.
Actually, what Woodrow spoke to was something different than the conversation between the priest (I assume Catholic) and Khalid Yasin.

The priest was talking about a concept in which Mary is referred to as the Theotokos -- which when translated into English literally means "God bearer". It is in the role as God-bearer (i.e. she bore, or gave birth, to Jesus who is believed by Christians to be God incarnate) that she is considered to be the "Mother" of God. She is not mother of God in a genetic sense and she is most certainly not the begetter of God; she is only called the "mother of God" because those who give birth become, simply by the process of giving birth, mothers.

For example, in order to save some endangered species, scientists have taken to placing the fertilized ovum of an endangered animal into the uterus of a related by not endangered animal. When then endangered animal is born, they then see each other as mother and baby. Though they are biologically completely unrelated to each other, the process of going through gestation and birth has made the one a mother of the other.

It is in this sense, and only in this sense, that Mary is thought of as the mother of God -- because she was the instrument used by God to effect the birth of his human incarnation on earth. She is not in any way superior to God, nor is she divine in her own right. She is simply a vessel that makes herself available for God's purposes.


This idea that Mary is the Theotokos is quite a strong teaching within the Roman Catholic Church, and to a lesser extent found among some (not many) protestant groups as well. But it is quite unrelated to the Trinity. What Woodrow spoke of is evidently a concept of a different nature which he says was a teaching of the Eastern part of the church very early on and is somehow tied in with the trinitarian views, but as I already said I have never encountered it even in my reading of the history of the church.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-20-2010, 02:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Perseveranze
Asaamu Alaikum (Peace be with you),

I don't mean to sound like an idiot or anything, but what response do Christians have when someone asks them "If Jesus(pbuh) is God who came down to Earth, then who was controlling the heavens and the Earths and who was Jesus(pbuh) praying to when he postrated?".

You may have an answer, but can you now understand the complexity of this Trinity idea?
Yes, I can see how one might perceive the idea of the Trinity as being complex. And you certainly don't sound like an idiot for asking that question or any other question about it, when that question is asked seriously and as a search for understanding.

And when I say search for understanding, I don't mean to imply that you must understand it or see it as logical. I only mean that you are seeking to understand what it is that those who speak of the Trinity mean by it and wrestle with its implications.

And depending on one's concept of God, one of those implications could very well be that if God has come to earth, incarnated in a human body, that God could therefore not also be in heaven or running the universe. I don't know if that is what you inferred would have to be the case if the incarnation were so. But it is not something that I infer. My understanding of the nature of God is that there is no place that one can go that God is not.
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.

(Psalm 139:7-10)
So, if there is no place that one can go that God is not. Then there is no problem with God being on earth and in heaven at the same time. There is no problem with God being incarnated in a human body and God being on the throne of heaven at the same time. There is no problem with God being in a body that is laying on the ground prostrated in prayer, or for that matter being in a body that is dying on a cross, and at the very same time still be quite alive and well, ruling heaven and earth.

To say that God could not be in both places and doing both things at the same time is to limit God in a way that I am not prepared to limit him. It would be to attribute finiteness to God, when I believe God to be infinite. So, while I can understand why given our human perspective of the way things are for us, one might infer that there would be a problem with God being on earth and doing human things that would preclude him from controlling the heavens and Earth, for me that implications of that inference ultimately result in saying that God is something less than he is. Let us not forget that God is Al-'Azim, The Imcomparably Great, to compare him with our limitations and infer that he could not be incarnate and controller of heaven and earth at the same time is to make him less than he actually is. He is after all Al-Qadir, The Omnipotent and Able one.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-20-2010, 02:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
I think it is significant, though, that the Qur'an mentions the Trinity while the Bible doesn't. This shows that although the Trinity was known at the time of the rise of Islam, it was completely unknown to the writers of the Bible.
It is true that the word Trinity was completely unknown to the writers of the Bible. There are many other things that were unknown to the writers of the Bible (or at least unmentioned by them): the Americas, the ice age, kangaroos. But one must be careful not to infer from the lack of the mentioning of these things that they did not exist, the best one could infer is that they were unfamiliar with them. But even that would be a stretch. For surely the writers of scripture were familiar with Julius Caesar and Aristotle or Plato and neither of them is mentioned. Maybe we should just say that they didn't mention things that were not relevant to them. But to say that Roman Caesars and Greek philosophers were not relevant to the writers of scriptures seems a stretch.

So, I suggest that we need to be careful and not infer too much from what is and is not mentioned in the scriptures. We can say that the writers of the scripture were unfamiliar with the term "The Trinity" as the term itself would not be coined until a few hundred years after the last writings that are part of the scriptures were completed. But the ideas that gave rise to that term may or may not be found in the scriptures. That is just one of many things that I hope to explore in more detail as we take our time to explore what it is that we are talking about when we speak of the Trinity over the course of this thread.
Reply

Ramadhan
12-20-2010, 03:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
she is most certainly not the begetter of God; she is only called the "mother of God" because those who give birth become, simply by the process of giving birth, mothers

GS, you are speaking in sentences that most would get lost in.

Maybe i could simplify it for others?

Did Mary pbuh give birth to Jesus pbuh? YES

Did Jesus pbuh suckle on Mary pbuh? YES

Is Jesus pbuh, according to christians, God? YES

Is Mary pbuh then become the Mother of God? YES

simple as that, no?

This I don't get about christians: They always make simple and easy things so difficult to understand.
This following is for example:

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
For example, in order to save some endangered species, scientists have taken to placing the fertilized ovum of an endangered animal into the uterus of a related by not endangered animal. When then endangered animal is born, they then see each other as mother and baby. Though they are biologically completely unrelated to each other, the process of going through gestation and birth has made the one a mother of the other.
What an interesting analogy!
Was God an endangered animal and need to be cloned?
astaghfirullah.

To be a surrogate mother of a different animal, they still have to be biologically related of some sort to each other. They cannot be completely unrelated. For example, it is not biologically possible for human to be surrogate mother to animals. So GS, I don't think you know that much of biology, so my advice is may be next time you shouldn't use biology to explain christian concepts, because it actually only further the confusion, instead of illuminating the point you were trying to make.
Maybe you can come up with other, better, analogy?


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
It is in this sense, and only in this sense, that Mary is thought of as the mother of God
I don't understand why you deny your own facts:
you consider Jesus pbuh is God
Mary pbuh gave birth to Jesus pbuh.
So Mary is God's mother.
That's (your own) fact.
Why the backtracking and saying that "Mary is thought of as the mother of God"?
Reply

Ramadhan
12-20-2010, 03:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
There is no problem with God being in a body that is laying on the ground prostrated in prayer,
So why did God prostrate and pray to himself?


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
It would be to attribute finiteness to God, when I believe God to be infinite
You claim God is infinite.
You also claim that Jesus is God.
But we know that Jesus was finite.

I see there is a little conflict there (pardon my euphimism).

How do you explain that?
Reply

Ramadhan
12-20-2010, 03:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Maybe we should just say that they didn't mention things that were not relevant to them.
I don't know about you, but I find it very relevant (and absolutely important) that identity of God is cleared up in he scripture. Don't we have to know whom we worship?
Current christians consider that the identity of God is 3-in-1
This is the crux of modern day christianity.
So I am perplexed that you said the bible writers did not consider it relevant.
Reply

Hiroshi
12-20-2010, 07:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
We can say that the writers of the scripture were unfamiliar with the term "The Trinity" as the term itself would not be coined until a few hundred years after the last writings that are part of the scriptures were completed. But the ideas that gave rise to that term may or may not be found in the scriptures.
Basic important doctrines such as the resurrection of the dead and the ransom sacrifice are explained in great detail in the NT. It would be astonishing if the Trinity was indeed the central doctrine of Christianity as the churches claim, and yet the teaching itself was nowhere explicitly explained in scripture. But I don't find a single statement anywhere to say that there are three persons in one God.
Reply

siam
12-20-2010, 02:06 PM
"But the ideas that gave rise to that term may or may not be found in the scriptures. "---exactly---Christianity is nothing but contradicting doctrines that evolved over time and in which the "Church" has had to do linguistic, logical and mental acrobatics to fit together into an absolutely incoherent whole.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-20-2010, 05:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
Basic important doctrines such as the resurrection of the dead and the ransom sacrifice are explained in great detail in the NT. It would be astonishing if the Trinity was indeed the central doctrine of Christianity as the churches claim, and yet the teaching itself was nowhere explicitly explained in scripture. But I don't find a single statement anywhere to say that there are three persons in one God.
The Trinity is not THE central doctrine of Christianity. I know of no church that makes this claim. An important understanding yes, but central?

The incarnation and the deity of Christ -- that is central and (I believe, though I know you will disagree) is explicitly set forth in the scriptures (John 1:14, John 20:28).

Salvation by grace through faith -- that is central and explicitly set forth in the scriptures (Ephesians 2:8-9).


But the Trinity is something inferred. And though I believe it is true and is taught by he who "correctly handles the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2;15), it is not central. It is possible to be saved and not only not understand the Trinity, it is not even necessary (IMO) to profess belief in the Trinity, "for God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy" (Romans 9:18). As the scriptures declare of God, “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people; and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one” (Romans 9:25). So, what is central is more what God believes with regard to us, than what we believe with regard to God. To that end the most important verses of scripture really are John 3:16-17 -- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." No mention of the Trinity there, but there is enough mention of the monogenes to send us on a search of the rest of the scriptures to help us to understand his nature. And when we do, we find that Jesus is the unique manifestation of the one and only God that no one has ever seen, "but God the only Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known" (John 1:18).

So, important, but not central. And while not explicity stated, those who read scripture allowing for God to be who he is and not how we determined him to be can see that the God is just one being, yet known to us in three persons.

The first of those declarations, that God is one, is central. The second of those, that God is known to us in three persons, is equally true, but is only important for those who are willing to let God be God and seek to know him as describe himself, rather than what we determine for him to be.

If seeking to know God is what anyone here desires, then be advised there actually is more than one way to do this. Many lives bear testimonty to the reality that one can know and worship the one God without the full insight into his nature and depth of understanding that the Trinity can help to provide. I don't deny it. Such a person will know God as one knows a set of facts. But knowing God in a personal way, knowing that comes out of a relationship with God in Christ Jesus and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit provides, in my experience, a deeper and more intimate relationship with the Father, than anything I experienced prior to coming to that awakening in my own life. If you seek that, I invite you to enter that journey through coming to entering into a personal relationship with God where you heart becomes his home. And not saying what will be true for you, but what I found was true for me, was that this relationship led me to experience the one God as explicated in the doctrine of the Trinity.

If you do not seek that, and are satisfied with the guidance you have received thus far in your life, then I do not condemn you, but ask God's continued blessing on you. I also encourage and applaud you in your efforts to be obedient to the revelation that you have. And ultimately I trust in God and God's mercy to effect in your life that grace which he can provide to be sufficient for that to which he has called you.
Reply

Hiroshi
12-20-2010, 07:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The Trinity is not THE central doctrine of Christianity. I know of no church that makes this claim. An important understanding yes, but central?
I disagree. Just google the words: "trinity", "central" and "doctrine" and you will find countless statements posted on the internet saying that the Trinity is central to Christianity.

For example:

http://omega77.tripod.com/centraldoctrine.htm
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-20-2010, 08:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hiroshi
I disagree.
It won't be the first time you and I have disagreed.

Just google the words: "trinity", "central" and "doctrine" and you will find countless statements posted on the internet saying that the Trinity is central to Christianity.
The internet can help you glean information, but it is no arbitrator of what is and is not truth.

For example, your example:

http://omega77.tripod.com/centraldoctrine.htm

This site is operated by Omega Countdown Ministries which is a spurious offshoot of the followers of Ellen G. White and the Seventh Day Adventists. I would caution you also, that some groups that post on the internet use terms rather loosely so that they have dozens, perhaps hundreds, of "central" doctrines.

However, I will grant that the New Advent Encyclopedia, a credible source for the teachings of the Roman Catholic faith, makes a claim similar to yours that the Trinity is "the central dogma of the Christian religion." So, despite your examples, nevertheless, your point is itself well taken.

Now, if the New Advent Encyclopedia had just quoted The Catechism of the Catholic Church and said, "the central mystery of the Christian faith is the mystery of the Holy Trinity" I would have agreed. For, to me, while the statements "central dogma" and "central doctrine" would have the same meaning, "central mystery" would be something else.

Be all of that as it may, I still contend that belief in the Trinity per se is not essential to salvation. That the only thing essential to salvation is the grace of God. And that God bestows his grace on whomsoever he pleases. Perhaps this means that my beliefs fall outside the norm. So, readers take that into whatever consideration you desire as you read my comments. I don't deny the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity, and I do myself believe in it, what I deny is its essentialness. Here is why:

There are some persons, known as Oneness Pentecostals, with whom I disagree regarding their view of the Trinity, but still extend to them the right hand of fellowship as brothers in Christ. If they are to be understood as Christian, and I am not alone in my view that they are, then that means that the Trinity is not THE central belief of the Christian faith. If these non-trinitarian followers of Jesus as the incarnate God come to dwell among us are to be understood as being just as Christian as I, then it follows that there is something even more central to our faith that we have in common than the Trinity. The belief that we share is an understanding of Christ as God incarnate. Hence, such a belief would be more central than belief in the Trinity.

Of course, once I make a statement of faith in Christ as God incarnate, for me at least, an understanding of the Trinity flows directly out of that belief. But others who are indeed Christian don't go there with me, so it seems that acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity is not essential to be Christian. Can something that is not essential to salvation be seen as central? That appears to be what those who would hold for its centrality would be saying. I am not among them.

So, I think that those writers of the New Advent Encyclopedia and every other statement you found posted on the internet saying that the Trinity is central to Christianity erred and mis-spoke. If there is one statement that I find to be at the center of the Christian faith, it is the affirmation, the proclamation: "Jesus is Lord!" That is a doctrine you will find explicitly stated in scripture.
Reply

siam
12-21-2010, 03:23 AM
"The belief that we share is an understanding of Christ as God incarnate."---like an Avatar?---there is One supreme God who manifests himself in "forms" either human or nonhuman......so God-Christ is an Avatar of God come to earth.........
Reply

siam
12-21-2010, 03:31 AM
and lets not forget the other Avatar of God---the Holy Spirit that apparently takes the form of a Dove ----or some such. ----But this Avatar does something called "indwelling"---I suppose that means it invades the human body and makes itself at home......Does that make each Christian 100% human and a 100% God?.....like their other Avatar God-Christ?......
Reply

Ramadhan
12-21-2010, 03:42 AM
GS, is a christian allowed to pray solely to jesus pbuh?

or

is a christian allowed to pray solely to holy spirit?

I assume they can, because both jesus and holy spirit are god, but I'd like to know the correct answer from a pastor.
Reply

Grace Seeker
12-21-2010, 04:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by siam
"The belief that we share is an understanding of Christ as God incarnate."---like an Avatar?---there is One supreme God who manifests himself in "forms" either human or nonhuman......so God-Christ is an Avatar of God come to earth.........
format_quote Originally Posted by siam
and lets not forget the other Avatar of God---the Holy Spirit that apparently takes the form of a Dove ----or some such. ----But this Avatar does something called "indwelling"---I suppose that means it invades the human body and makes itself at home......Does that make each Christian 100% human and a 100% God?.....like their other Avatar God-Christ?......

I don't really understand what people mean by an Avatar these days, my only connection with them being the pictures that people post with their name on an internet forum. So, I really can't answer your question about comparison or similtude of Christ to an Avatar without knowing what you mean by an avatar.



format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
GS, is a christian allowed to pray solely to jesus pbuh?

or

is a christian allowed to pray solely to holy spirit?

I assume they can, because both jesus and holy spirit are god, but I'd like to know the correct answer from a pastor.
(Naidamar, you've probably noticed that I have not been answering your question or replying to any of your posts at all. I found it necessary to do that because that for a variety of reasons, one being that seemed there was a spirit of contentiousness in your posts that I simply sought to not respond to in order to preserve the peace. But I sense in this particular post a genuine search for edification, causing me to be happy to respond. I hope my trust has not been misplaced.)

Indeed one can pray solely to the Father, soley to the Son, soley to the Holy Spirit for all are in essence prayers directed to the same one God.
Reply

Predator
12-21-2010, 05:06 PM
What an interesting analogy!
Was God an endangered animal and need to be cloned?
astaghfirullah.
What an interesting analogy!
Was God an endangered animal and need to be cloned?
astaghfirullah.
To be a surrogate mother of a different animal, they still have to be biologically related of some sort to each other. They cannot be completely unrelated. For example, it is not biologically possible for human to be surrogate mother to animals. So GS, I don't think you know that much of biology, so my advice is may be next time you shouldn't use biology to explain christian concepts, because it actually only further the confusion, instead of illuminating the point you were trying to make.
Maybe you can come up with other, better, analogy?
lol at this rate , i wont be suprised if GS were to say Adam was created from dust . So the dust would be his surrogate mother

God by definition is infinite and uncreated/not begotten being and he cant create/beget anöther ""uncreated/not begotten and that itself refutes the concept of sonship

The Son of God in hebrew used to mean servant of God or one who is faithful to God

And The Bible ascribes sons by the tons to God.

(a) "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, whichwas the son of Adam, which was the SON OF GOD." LUKE 3:38

(b) "That the SONS OF GOD saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took wives of all which they chose.

". . . when the SONS OF GOD came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty
men which were of old, men of renown." GENESIS 6:2 and 4

(c) ". . . Thus saith the Lord, Israel is MY SON even my FIRSTBORN." EXODUS 4:22

(d) ". . . and Ephraim is my FIRSTBORN." JEREMIAH 31:9

(e) ". . . Thou (O David) ART MY SON; this day have I (God) BEGOTTEN thee." PSALMS 2:7

(f) "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the SONS
OF GOD." ROMANS 8:14

This is the Jewish language .What was metaphorical to the Jews has became synoymouse to the roman as they had in their owns myths Male Gods like apollo , jupiter , osiris who has sons by the tons . So christians are basically looking into a jewish book though greek glasses instead of looking through through Jewish glasses.
Reply

siam
12-22-2010, 07:59 AM
and since Prophet Jesus(pbuh) WAS Jewish, he would have understood all the Hebrew terms the way Jews do---and also would NOT have believed in original sin---which is not a Jewish concept but a later Christian one.

And without original sin---the trinity falls apart........(as does the idea of Prophet Jesus(pbuh) being crucified)
Reply

siam
12-22-2010, 08:06 AM
Avatar= to appear, to decend, to take birth, to manifest. In Hinduism, the Diety in incarnated into a form on earth (Human or nonhuman)

My knowledge of Hinduism is scanty.........
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-22-2010, 11:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
OK. So, we Christians don't know what we are talking about. We are both confused and confusing. And the Trinity is pure fiction. You don't believe us when we say that one can accept the doctrine of the Trinity with regard to God and still be monotheistic. All of that I get.

But what I still need cleared up on is what it is that you actually think we are saying with regard to God. You object to it saying that we are saying God is three. But I've never actually said "God is three." Those are words that non-trinitarians put into our mouths. I continue to say that God is one. I might say that God is three-in-one, but I would never just say that God is three as a simple declarative statement, because I don't believe that is true.

A negative critique of the Trintiy can't be simply that it isn't true, you have to state what is untrue about it. And a critique that argues, "God is one, he is not three." is not a critique of the Trinity for it does not critique a belief that we as Trinitarians hold. That is why I wish to know what it is that you think we mean when we speak of trinity. Though I know you, and many others here, went to Christian schools. The objections that I've heard raised against the Trintiy seem to me to mostly involve mis-statements as to what we who hold to it actually believe. And frankly, if I thought it meant what I've heard some people say that it means, I wouldn't believe it either.

But as I said, you start this thread and tell us what its that you believe we mean by Trinity, and I will join you. Well, you've started the thread, and I've joined you. Now, I'm waiting for you to say what it is that you believe we mean by Trinity.
.
It's like you didn't even read the OP at all. In fact, I have a little bit of doubt that you did. I didn't say any of that and you haven't addressed a single thing I did say. I've already explained that you don't genuinely mean anything by the Trinity unless it's personal theories completely contradictory to every single other personal theory on the subject. I urge everyone to go back and re-read the OP and then read Grace Seeker's post. See what I'm talking about?

This whole thread started when you refused to tell me what this esoteric, extremely rare understanding of the Trinity (which you have said is indeed comprehensible: everyone remember that in case he goes back on it) that you mentioned is. You shouldn't be the one asking me what my understanding is: you should be trying to educate us in these mysteries if you really hold such a rare knowledge and we're only laboring under misapprehensions and misconceptions. So correct us. Put your money where your mouth is already. Explain.
Reply

Ramadhan
12-23-2010, 05:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
(Naidamar, you've probably noticed that I have not been answering your question or replying to any of your posts at all. I found it necessary to do that because that for a variety of reasons, one being that seemed there was a spirit of contentiousness in your posts that I simply sought to not respond to in order to preserve the peace. But I sense in this particular post a genuine search for edification, causing me to be happy to respond.)
Please show me which one of my questions or posts in this thread that you think is not in the spirit of the thread?
I hope I am not wrong when I say that this forum is not only served specifically for Q&A type discussions?
Also, maybe when you think my posts were contentious, it's because they just do not agree with your statements?


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I hope my trust has not been misplaced.
I feel respected that I have gained your trust.


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Indeed one can pray solely to the Father, soley to the Son, soley to the Holy Spirit for all are in essence prayers directed to the same one God.
The question I asked is because I have never met a christian who solely worship Holy spirit.
Most worship The father, or the son, or the combination of all three, but never holy spirit only.
why do you think this happened?
Reply

siam
12-23-2010, 08:50 AM
@YS

I could be wrong---but I think this is how GS explains the trinity....
"The Catechism of the Catholic Church and said, "the central mystery of the Christian faith is the mystery of the Holy Trinity" I would have agreed. "

Basically---that is how ALL Christians end up explaining the trinity to Muslims---that it is a mystery that cannot be explained!!!!---and yet they argue!.....
Reply

siam
12-23-2010, 08:58 AM
and what is most incredible, is that after 1600 years of tinkering and refining---it is still as incoherent as when they first came up with it!!!!

.....Its as if someone wants to convince you that the earth is flat---it just doesn't work.........

Really---it would be much easier if Christians simply admitted, right off the bat, that the trinity is a mystery that they do not understand yet prefer to believe in anyway.
Reply

IAmZamzam
12-23-2010, 03:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
The question I asked is because I have never met a christian who solely worship Holy spirit.
Most worship The father, or the son, or the combination of all three, but never holy spirit only.
why do you think this happened?
I can tell you. It's because they themselves don't have the faintest idea what "the Holy Spirit" even is. It's the single most incoherent part of the whole thing, which believe me is really saying something! Apparently they just thought they needed a third part of the Godhead to act as some intermediate place between the other two, though they'll be consarned if they can really and truly tell you how or in what way.

As for the other two parts, funny how H.P. Lovecraft, of all people--a staunch atheist who didn't understand religion at all--accidentally came up with a more realistic depiction than the Christian one of something roughly akin to the "Father"-"Son" dynamic in his surreal fiction. In Lovecraft's mythos Nyarlathotep is the soul and messenger of Azathoth (who in Lovecraft's stories is the closest equivalent to a supreme being), but this renders Nyarlathotep, for all intents and purposes, a separate entity, and automatically leaves Azathoth itself a blind idiot. Now if only Christians had been saying something similar they would have at least been logically consistent with their own blasphemy....
Reply

Mustika
12-24-2010, 10:43 PM
The Disbelievers claim that among that which was revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) (i.e Qur'an), there is evidence in their favor supporting their belief in the hypostases. They refer to the verse, which says, "And, verily, Our Word has gone forth of old for Our slaves, the righteous."
The Muslims say that the Book (the Qur'an) is the Word of Allah. There can be no words except from a living and speaking being. These are essential attributes, which serve as names. Each of these attributes, which serve as names. Each of these attributes is different from the other, for He is One God, One Creator, and One Lord Who can’t be separated or divided.
The Disbeliever said, "As regards the personification of the creating Word of God and its immanentism in a created man and their merging; that is the Word and the human entity, the Creator did not speak to any of the prophets unless by Inspiration of from behind a veil. It is mentioned in the following verse,
"It is not given to any human being that Allah should speak to him unless (it be) by Inspiration, or from behind a veil, or (that) He sends a Messenger to reveal what He wills by His Leave. Verily, He is Most High, Most Wise." [Asy Syuura: 51]
Since abstract matters do not appear except in concrete forms like the Holy Spirit and other such things, then, does the Word of God, which has created the concrete as well as the abstract, appear without a cover? The answer is no.
That is why He appeared in Jesus (peace be upon him) bin Maryam, for man is the most exalted among the creations of God. That is why he spoke with people and they saw of him what they saw."
They said, "When we say that God is one god in there hypostases, this is because He ordained it for Himself. He clarified it in the Torah and in the books of the prophets, like that mentioned in the first book of Torah, which says that when God willed to create Adam, He said, "Let us make meaning our image, after our likeness." (Gen: 1: 26) Who is similar to Him and identical to Him other than His Word and His Spirit?
When Adam violated and disobeyed his Lord God, the Exalted, said, "This is Adam! He has become like one of Us." It is clear that God said this to His Son and His Holy Spirit."
They said, "David (peace be upon him) said in the Psalms, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Psalms, 110:1)
They said, "He said in the second Psalms, "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms, 2:7)
They said, "In the second book of Torah, when God spoke to Moses (peace be upon him) from the bush saying, "I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," (Exod,3:6) and He did not say, 'I am the god of Ishaq.' He repeated the word 'god' three times saying, "I am the god and the god and the god' to establish the issue of the three hypostases regarding His Divine entity."
The Disbelievers claim, "Because of this clear statement, which God made in the Torah and in the books of prophets we make three hypostases into one essence, one god, one lord, and one Creator. He is the One we call: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
They also said, "We knew that when saying so, we do not have to worship three gods but only one god. When the Muslims also say, "Man, sperm, and soul", we do not mean three persons but one person. When the Muslims say, 'The flame of the fire, the light of the fire, and the heat of the fire, .' It does not mean three fires, neither when the Muslims say, 'The disk of the sun, the light of the sun, and the sun rays, 'for they are not three suns. If this is Muslim’s belief regarding God, glorified be His Names and exalted be His Graces, then the Muslims are not to blame. The Muslims did not neglect that which they have received, reject that which they have been charged with, or follow otherwise than they have been ordered."
Additionally, the Disbeliever said, "There is the incarnation of the creating Word of God with which He created everything and its personification in a created human being. He is the One taken from the chosen virgin Maryam who was unified with him in a way free from mixing, changing, and transforming. He spoke to people just like God spoke to Moses (pbuh) from the bush. He presented the miracle with His Divine entity and showed the deficiency of His Human entity and showed the deficiency of His Human entity while the two actions were performed by one Jesus (pbuh).”

Islam refutes!
The Christians invented the claims of the hypostases and the trinity before the coming of Muhammad (pbuh). This is well-known among them from the moment they invented their Canon, which was established by three hundred and eighteen men in the presence of King Constantine.
They do not have any reasonably deduced evidence for a textual one from the words of the prophets before Muhammad (pbuh), so how can they have evidence to support their claims in that with which Muhammad (pbuh) came, after they invented the Canon? How can this be, especially with the clear knowledge from Muhammad (pbuh) in the Book revealed to him, which clearly states their disbelief and deviation from the right path? The Exalted says,
"Surely, in disbelief are they who say that Allah is the Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary)." [Al Ma'idah: 17]
He the Almighty also says,
"Surely, disbelievers are those who said, Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)." [Al Ma'idah: 73]
There are many other similar verses.
They said, "It is said in that book, "And, verily, Our Word has gone forth of old for Our slaves, the Righteous," It is said to them, "You have distorted the wording and meaning of the verse. Its correct wording is,
"And, verily, Our Word has gone forth of old for Our slaves, the Messengers, That they verily would be made triumphant, And that Our hosts, they verily would be the victors." [Ash Shaaffat: 173]
Thus, the word that has gone forth to His slaves, the Messengers, is His saying (which means),"That they verily would be triumphant."
Allah says there is a word that has gone forth from Him to His slaves, His Messengers, and that word is that He will grant them victory. Similarly, the Exalted says,
"Thus was the Decree of thy Lord proved true against the Unbelievers; that truly they are Companions of the Fire!" [Al Mu'min: 6]
The 'word' in the Arabic language means the meaningful sentence whether it begins with a verb or a noun. It is a complete statement, and so is the word 'kalam' (speech), which is a full sentence.
This clarifies that the verse which means, "And, verily, Our Word has gone forth of old for Our slaves, the Messengers," is similar to that in which Allah says, which means, "And had it not been for a Word that went forth before from your Lord, and a term determined, (their punishment) must necessarily have come (in this world)." [Taha: 129]
Thus, His Word has previously gone forth, concerning the victory of the messengers that will surely come.
Only those who have strayed from the right path distort the wording of these verse and say, "... for Our slaves, the Righteous," and regarded "the Word" as Christ himself. But there is nothing in the wording of the verse that indicates this in any way, or that Christ had preceded the Messengers of Allah who are also His slaves.



The Qur'an is the Speech of Allah
All Muslims say that the 'Book' is the Speech of Allah, which cannot belong to any being except one that lives and speaks. The Book, i.e., the Qur'an, is truly the Speech of Allah. And speech can never come except from a speaking being. Muslim say, "Allah is a living speaking Being, and He spoke about what is in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur'an.
Allah is not referred to in the Torah or the Gospel by 'the Speaking' it is also not mentioned in religious laws. The Muslims never said that the Speech of Allah is a god or a lord.

Essential Attributes and Whether or Not they Serve as Names
Christians allege that essential attributes serve as names, as they regard each essential attribute as an essence. But this is not correct, because the attribute, which depends upon something else, cannot be an independent essence that exists by itself. Who could believe that the heat of the fire, which is dependent upon the fire, is an essence like the fire? Such an idea is ridiculous.
If it is correct to say that an attribute can be an essence, then power would also be an essence. If they, i.e., the Christians, mean by 'essential' that they are inherent attributes and that the other attributes are related to action; like the Creator and the Provisioner, it is known that His inherent attributes, which include Power and the like are not limited to that only.
By having three hypostases and claiming that Divine religious laws. A group of them say that God, 'Exists Alive All-Knower,' while others say, 'An Existing Knowing All-Powerful,' and so make the All Powerful replace the Living, and render the Holy Spirit as the Power.
Although this saying is more suitable to the meaning attributing power to the Holy Spirit is clearly false. They also have to prove the hypostasis of the Word, which they sometime call the Wisdom. At other times they call it the Word and yet at other times they call it Articulation, just as they mention it in this letter, for what was united with Christ was the Hypostasis of the Word. They sometime couple it with life and at other times with power. Sometimes they say the father is the Existing, and at other times say he is the existing one by himself, or say he is the self. His existence by himself is called in Syriac language, 'entity and sometimes, 'Generosity.'
All these claims are due to their confusion and deviation. They cannot find three definite meanings of the attributes that deserve to be considered essential.


The Christian Claim that the Attributes Serve as Names
If the mean that these names are proper or non derivative nouns and that the other attributes are adjectives, the name, 'living' and 'All-Knower' are derivatives, which indicate the meanings of knowledge and life. Similarly, 'All-Powerful' denotes ultimate power. Moreover, if they mean that He is called by His attributes, we know that Allah, the Exalted, has many attributes. he has Divine attributes and the All-Powerful is one of them.
Power denotes His dominion over His Creatures more than Knowledge does. The fact that He created all things proves His Power more than it proves His Knowledge. His Omnipotence is more evident than His exclusive Knowledge.
Each Attribute is Different From the Other
If the mean that the attributes of the Lord, the Exalted and Glorious, are separate from Him, and that is truly what they are saying, and that these attributes are also attached to Him, this would mean associating between two antitheses. Mentioning the example of the sun is not correct rather it is considered and argument against them, not for them.
The rays that are dependent upon the air, earth, mountains, trees and walls are not those that are dependent upon the sun, while those that are dependent upon the sun are not dependent upon the air and the earth.
If they claim that God gives of his Divine Knowledge to the hearts of all the prophets just like sunrays, it should be said to them: this was not something done exclusively for Christ. Allah gives from His knowledge to all the prophets. Neither does this mean that the Divine Entity or His Dependent Attributes becomes immanent in any of His creatures, nor does it mean that the servant becomes a god to be worshipped simply because of the knowledge and faith he has been granted.
They say, "God is one, Who is the only Creator and the only Lord."
This is true, but they contradict it by saying in their Creed of Faith, "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only -begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father."
Thus, they continue their argument by saying they are two gods, and then they argued that the Holy Spirit is a third god that should also be worshipped. Therefore, they argued that there are three gods but said, "We prove that there is only one god." This is a manifest discrepancy, which is associating between two contradictory statements: one affirms and one refutes.
That was why some wise people say, "Most people's belief could be conceivable except for that of the Christians, because those who established this belief could not understand what they were saying. So they spoke out of ignorance and associated contradictory meanings. That was why some said, "If ten Christians gather, they will end up with having eleven different opinions." Others said, "If one asks one of the Christians along with his wife and his son about their monotheism the man will say one opinion, his wife will say another and his son will say a third one."


Their claim that God is neither separated nor divided and this contradicts with what they mention in their Canon and the examples they provide to support their claim. They expressed this by using the analogy of the sunray, which is, in fact, separated and divided. If the sunray is reflected upon a given surface, it will be a division or a part of the original sunray. In addition, some of it will disappear while some will remain. This means that if an object is placed over the surface in which the ray is reflected, it will be divided into two halves. Thus, the part of the ray which existed between the two halves, and which is now above the separating object, then acts as a separator between the two halves.
The reason for this is that sunrays are dependent upon the earth and the air, each of which is separated and divided, and whatever is dependent upon the dividable is also dividable. For this reason, the sunray reflected upon a dividable surface or place is also dividable. This necessitates the ability of the dependent object to be divided.
They also claim that God was united with Christ, and then Christ ascended to heaven and sat on the right side of the Father. In addition, one of their beliefs is that from the moment the divine entity united with the human, they were not separated. The one who ascended to heaven and sat on the right side of the Father was Christ who is a divine-human entity, a full god and a full human being. They do not say that one sitting on the right side of the father is only the human entity, but they claim it is the unified divine human entity that sat on the right side of the divine entity. What can be a clearer division and separation than this? None of the prophets ever said such a thing. It was even said, "These words have a meaning that we do not understand." However, the meaning belongs to their priest who wrote it down and rendered it the creed of their belief. If they spoke of that which they themselves could not comprehend, they would be counted among the ignorant people who should not be followed. No one can comprehend how the divine entity that was united with the human entity could sit at the right side of the Divine Entity, which is free from being united! This free entity is separate and different from the united divine entity and is not connected to it. it is only adjacent to it, so that which is adjacent to the free divine entity is the united entity composed of the natures of the human and the divine. This is a true division and separation of the divided parts from the other.
It should also be said to them, "Is the thing united with Christ the Divine Entity of the Lord of the Worlds or one of His Attributes?"

If he is the Entity of the Father, he will be father himself. Thus, Christ becomes the father, a falsehood about which all Christians agree, for they say, "He is God and he is the Son of God," just as Allah related about them. They do not say he is the father and the son at the same time. According to them, the father is God, and this is another example of their inconsistency.
If they say that the thing united with the Christ is an attribute of the Lord, we say that the divine attributes are inseparable from the Lord. They can neither unite with nor be immanent in anything other than the Divine Entity. Moreover, the attribute in itself is not the Creating God, the Lord of the Worlds. It is only an attribute, and no sane person would ever say that the Speech of Allah, His Knowledge, or His Life is the Lord of the Worlds Who created the heavens and the earth. if it is claimed that Christ is an attribute of God, he would not be God, and he would not be the Lord of the worlds or the Creator of the heavens and the earth.
But the Christians say that Christ is the Lord or the worlds, the Creator of all things. He is the One Who created Adam and Maryam, even though he is the son of Adam and the son of Maryam. he is the Creator of all that due to his divine entity, and he is also the son of Adam and Maryam by means of his human entity. If it is sais that Christ is the divine attribute, an attribute can't create. How can this be while Christ is not the divine attribute itself, but rather a created being made by a Word from Allah, and thus is called the Word of Allah, as Allah created him by the word, 'Be'?
The Exalted says,
"Such is Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). (it is) a statement of truth, about which they doubt (or dispute). It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is." [Maryam: 34-35]
Allah called Jesus (pbuh) His Spirit, as He created Him though the breath of the Holy Spirit into His mother, unlike all other human beings who are created from a human father. Allah, the Exalted, says,
"Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah. "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me." He said: "So (it will be) for Allah creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" and it is." [Ali Imran : 47]

If they say, "He is united with some of the Divine Entity and some of its Attributes, the will be believing in the division and the separation of the Divine Entity which is clearly false. Moreover, concerning their saying, "Very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance [essence] with the Father; by whom all things were made," it should be said to them, "This begotten child who is his father's equal in essence and who is a very god from a very god is either a dependent attribute or an independent entity. If it is the first, the muslim say that an attribute cannot be a god or a creator, about which it cannot be said that it is a begotten being from God or that it is His equal in essence. None of the prophets or their followers called any of Allah's Attributes a child or His son. It cannot be said that an Attribute of Allah is begotten from Him. No sane person would say that an attribute is begotten from the original entity.
The Christians say, "Christ created the heavens and the earth because of the union between His Divine Nature and that anciently begotten Son who is equated to the Father in essence."
This means that he is not only an attribute but also an independent entity, not a dependent attribute. If this separation and division in the Divine Entity is their premise, the claim concerning natural begetting will entail that a part of him has been removed. The Exalted says,
"Yet they assign to some of His slaves a share with Him (by pretending that He has children, and considering them as equals or co-partners in worship with Him). Verily, man is indeed a manifest ingrate! Or has He taken daughters out of what He has created, and He has selected for you sons? When news is brought to one of them of (the birth of) what he sets up as a likeness to ((Allah)) Most Gracious, his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! (Do they then like for Allah) a creature who is brought up in adornments (wearing silk and gold ornaments, i.e. women), and in dispute cannot make herself clear? And they make the angels who themselves are slaves to the Most Beneficent (Allah) females. Did they witness their creation? Their evidence will be recorded, and they will be questioned!" [Az Zukhruf: 15-19]
Some Christian scholars seek to prove that begetting and filiation is an eternal attribute that is dependent on the substantive, namely the son. They sometimes call this 'uttering the word,' and sometimes call it 'knowledge' and at other times they call it 'wisdom'.
The Christian say, "He is begotten from God, so he is God's son." None of the prophets of their followers ever said this. This is simply an invention of the Christians.
No one understands the meaning of the words 'begetting' and 'filiation' this way.


The prophets only attributed the word 'son' to creatures. They (i.e., the Christians) said, "he is an actual father to Christ and a guarding supporting father to others." From this statement it is clearly understood that the Christians are referring to the natural form of begetting in which a part of the father is separated. However, their scholars deny this, so they neither followed the prophets not spoke reasonably. Thus, they deviated from what they reported from the prophets and then caused their followers to also go astray. They did not say that the betting of God is similar to that of animals, in which something is separated from an existing being. Instead, they said that it is a divine form of begetting in which a part was separated from the divine entity and was immanent in the human one. In the end, however nothing can be understood from the word 'begetting' except its usual meaning.
In addition, the Christian say, "And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the Prophets." They say that the Holy Spirit emanated from the Father, and is worshipped and glorified, but this claim is false because it can't be said about the Lord's life, which is dependent upon Him. His life has not emanated from Him like the rest of His Attributes. If the independent attribute is emanating, His Knowledge and Power and the rest of His Attributes will also emanate from Him. Moreover, emanation in speech is more evident than in life, for speech comes out from the speaker while life doesn't come out from the living. If any of the attributes emanated, it would be the attribute, which they call 'the son,' as well as 'knowledge,' 'speech' and 'speaking.' According to reason, it is better to say this about speech than about life. They also say, "It is with the father, is worshipped and glorified." Dependent Divine Attributes can never be with the Lord or worshipped with Him. They say, "he is speaking in the prophets," but a Dependent Divine Attribute does not speak in Prophets. Al these are rather the characteristic of the Holy Spirit, which Allah places in the hearts of the prophets, or a characteristic of one of the angels; such a Jibril (Gabriel, peace be upon him). If the Holy Spirit emanated from the Father, and emanation means coming out, that would be clear separation and division.

The similitude the Christians put forward for this emanation is that of the sunray, which is invalid due to some reasons, the most important of which are the following:
- The sunray is dependent on the air and the earth; it is not an independent essence. But to them, the Lord's life is a living worshipped being and essence.
- This sunray, that is dependent on the air and the earth, is not an attribute of the sun or dependent upon it, while the Lord's life is one of His dependent attributes.
- They specify emanation only for the Holy Spirit and do not say that the Word has emanated. Emanation of speech is perhaps more reasonable than that of life. The more one ponders more reasonable than that of life. The more one ponders on their words in the Canon and so on, the more one finds contradictions between those books on the one hand, and the Torah, Gospel and the rest of the Books of Allah on the other.


Note : This article is part of the book by one of greatest Muslim scholar Syaikh Ibn Taimiyah who lived in 1263 C.E- 1328 C.E. A message (in the form of book) was sent to him from Cyprus (the Bishop of Sayda), which appeared to support the religion of the Christians. Syaikh Ibn Taimiyah was motivated to write a reply to it and then he wrote a reply (in the form of book) entitled 'Answering Those Who Altered The Religion of Jesus Christ.' (emphasis added)
Reply

Hiroshi
12-28-2010, 05:06 PM
I posted this comment on another thread but it seems more relevant to this one:



I have a book that I would like to quote from.

Early Christian Doctrines by J. N. D. Kelly, pages 84-85:

In Justin the oneness, transcendence and creative role of God are asserted in language strongly coloured by the Platonizing Stoicism of the day. It was apparently his sincere belief that the Greek thinkers had had access to the works of Moses.

...

“We have learned,” he states, “that, being good, He created all things in the beginning out of formless matter.” This was the teaching of Plato’s Timaeus, which Justin supposed to be akin to be akin to, and borrowed from, that contained in Genesis. For Plato, of course, pre-existent matter was eternal, but it is improbable that Justin acquiesced in the implied dualism;

...

A further important point he made was that, in creating and sustaining the universe, God used His Logos, or Word, as His instrument.

Page 96:

The Apologists’ originality (their thought was more Philonic than Johannine) lay in drawing out the further implications of the Logos idea in order to make plausible the twofold fact of Christ’s pre-temporal oneness with the Father and His manifestation in space and time. In so doing, while using such Old Testament texts as Ps. 33, 6 (“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made”), they did not hesitate to blend with them the Stoic technical distinction between the immanent word (logos endiathetos) and the word uttered or expressed (logos prophorikos).

Page 100:

“The Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son by the unity and power of divine spirit, the Son of God is the Father’s intelligence and Word” (nous kai logos). To make his point clearer, Athenagoras then points out that, while He is God’s offspring, He never actually came into being (ouk hos genomenon), “for God from the beginning, being eternal intelligence, had His Word (logos) in Himself, being eternally rational” (aidios logikos).





I hope that you can see from just these few extracts how muddled up these men were with ideas from Philonic, Stoic and Platonic philosophy which they tried to blend with the scriptures resulting in a completely distorted picture of Christ who John’s gospel calls the Word (or Logos). The title of “Logos” made them think that Christ must be God’s intelligence and rational thought and hence in unity with God’s very being. Greek philosophy led them astray completely and finally resulted in the monstrous belief that God is a trinity.
Reply

siam
12-30-2010, 05:20 AM
the problem with the trinitarian is that they try to push a square peg into a round hole by claiming that an obviously polytheistic belief is actually monotheistic----if they simply accepted what is so obvious to the rest of the world that trinitarianism is polytheistic---just as the Hindus accept that Hinduism is polytheistic---it wouldn't be such a messy muddle.

Hinduism has a hundred Avatars for the One Supreme God, trinitarians have simply limited their Avatars but the concepts are very similar.

Or they could accept that Jesus Christ(pbuh) was a Prophet in a long line of Jewish Prophets that brought guidance from the One, Indivisible, Unique, God.....but rather than accept the obvious truth---they would rather commit intellectual suicide for the sake of their egoic desire for an identity/label......however, each to his own, in the end we all return to God.
Reply

Hiroshi
12-30-2010, 08:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by siam
Hinduism has a hundred Avatars for the One Supreme God, trinitarians have simply limited their Avatars but the concepts are very similar.
This is true but mainly Hinduism worships a 3 in 1 trinity: Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva.
Reply

gmcbroom
01-14-2011, 03:07 AM
I was going to jump right on in to the discussion with it's a mystery. However, to do so would be a grave diservice to all here and to the countless members of the Church who have died in defense of the faith. To understand is it is to be open to the Church. For if your not then all I say could be viewed as gibberish or poetic language. First, in Catholism we don't just go by Sacred Scripture we also use Sacred Tradition as imparted by Apostolic succession from Jesus himself. Yes, we go way back.
The concept of the Trinity is hinted at in the Sacred Scritures but only comes to fruition through Sacred Tradition. Thus it's difficult to explain. Though Yahya Sulaiman is right H.P. Lovecraft came close to describing it though in a perverted way. God the Father is immovable yet contains all things. Now how can the immovable God move? That takes action. What is this action? Why nothing less than the Word of God. Now, God loves all things Holy and he does indeed love his Word. How does that take form? It takes form in the being of the Holy Spirit. The three are one represented as The Father , the Son, and Holy Spirit; one God without division. Thus the Holy Trinity is a Trinitarian belief. That's my ultra simplified explanation. For a more elaborate explanation I suggest you read St. Thomas Aquinas's Shorter Summa where no less than 28 pages are devoted to the subject of The Holy Trinity. In the end, my explanation may appear as gibberish to most here. That's quite alright as I'm Catholic hence a memember of the Church and accept it through faith. You follow something completely different it's not so much about love as submission. I'm not knocking Islam, it's just not what I believe.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-14-2011, 04:51 AM
Why should God be immovable and what problem has He moving, acting, and speaking just by deciding to? My movements, words, and deeds are not the same thing as me, are they? Are yours you?
Reply

Woodrow
01-14-2011, 07:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
I was going to jump right on in to the discussion with it's a mystery. However, to do so would be a grave diservice to all here and to the countless members of the Church who have died in defense of the faith. To understand is it is to be open to the Church. For if your not then all I say could be viewed as gibberish or poetic language. First, in Catholism we don't just go by Sacred Scripture we also use Sacred Tradition as imparted by Apostolic succession from Jesus himself. Yes, we go way back.
The concept of the Trinity is hinted at in the Sacred Scritures but only comes to fruition through Sacred Tradition. Thus it's difficult to explain. Though Yahya Sulaiman is right H.P. Lovecraft came close to describing it though in a perverted way. God the Father is immovable yet contains all things. Now how can the immovable God move? That takes action. What is this action? Why nothing less than the Word of God. Now, God loves all things Holy and he does indeed love his Word. How does that take form? It takes form in the being of the Holy Spirit. The three are one represented as The Father , the Son, and Holy Spirit; one God without division. Thus the Holy Trinity is a Trinitarian belief. That's my ultra simplified explanation. For a more elaborate explanation I suggest you read St. Thomas Aquinas's Shorter Summa where no less than 28 pages are devoted to the subject of The Holy Trinity. In the end, my explanation may appear as gibberish to most here. That's quite alright as I'm Catholic hence a memember of the Church and accept it through faith. You follow something completely different it's not so much about love as submission. I'm not knocking Islam, it's just not what I believe.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
Peace,

I do appreciate your inight, although I do differ with the conclusion.

I do feel you gave some very good input to show that Catholicism is the earliest form of today's Christianity and that all of today's Christian beliefs do come from Catholicism.

What I take issue with is summed up in your own words.


First, in Catholism we don't just go by Sacred Scripture we also use Sacred Tradition as imparted by Apostolic succession from Jesus himself. Yes, we go way back.
The concept of the Trinity is hinted at in the Sacred Scritures but only comes to fruition through Sacred Tradition.
In my opinion this "Sacred Tradition" is part of what replaced what was originally the teachings of Isa(as)

Christianity became the teachings of Paul as understood and interpreted by the early Catholic hierarchy. this was the origin of trinitarian belief.
Reply

gmcbroom
01-14-2011, 07:41 PM
Woodrow,
We are each entitled to our own opinion. I've said my peace.
peace be with you
gmcbroom
Reply

Hiroshi
01-24-2011, 09:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

Christianity became the teachings of Paul as understood and interpreted by the early Catholic hierarchy. this was the origin of trinitarian belief.
Woodrow, most of the early literature that led to the trinity doctrine centered around the statements in John's Gospel that Jesus was the "Word" or "Logos" along with Neo-Platonic Greek philosophy. What do you see in the teachings of Paul that supported the trinity?
Reply

gmcbroom
01-25-2011, 02:07 AM
Trinity was Latin. Tertullian was the first one to coin the term. However, just because he coined it doesn't make it false. He was just stating the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in latin terms and trinity fits for that.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
Reply

Hiroshi
01-26-2011, 11:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
Trinity was Latin. Tertullian was the first one to coin the term. However, just because he coined it doesn't make it false. He was just stating the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in latin terms and trinity fits for that.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom
These early theologians were greatly influenced by (pagan) Greek philosophy especially Neo-Platonism. In Neo-Platonism "Logos" (the Greek word for "Word" in John 1:1) was a technical term meaning a number of things including "mind", "reason", "wisdom" and "rationality". On page 111 of "Early Christian Doctrines" by J. N. D. Kelly it discusses both Hippolytus and Tertullian and says:

"First, then, they both had the conception of God existing in unique solitariness from all eternity, yet having immanent in and indivisibly one with Himself, on the analogy of the mental functions of a man, His reason or Word. ... Thus Hippolytus affirms that there is always a plurality in the Godhead, stating, "Though alone, He was not without His Word and His Wisdom, His Power and His Council." Tertullian is rather more explicit, pointing out that "... He was not really alone, for He had with Him that Reason that He possessed within himself, that is to say, His own Reason."


Both of these theologians identify Jesus, because he is called "Logos", with God's very reason and rationality. Since God always had his rationality, they conclude that Jesus must be co-eternal with God and even "indivisibly one with (God)". But on what is this reasoning based? Not on the scriptures but on worldly Greek philosophy.
Reply

IAmZamzam
01-29-2011, 12:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by gmcbroom
We are each entitled to our own opinion. I've said my peace.
...yet still refused to answer my questions.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-10-2011, 01:40 AM
oh my. having read the op it seems to me that the post borders on a kind of belligerency i'd rather do without. yet seeing as it appears that you have not received a satisfactory answer, if any, to your questions then i suppose that i could perhaps give it a try.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
The Trinity doctrine is so utterly without definite, fully formed ideas, objectively agreed upon and laid out in language that isn’t blatantly only trying to sound like it really means anything, that there really isn’t much to say. You can say till you’re blue in the face that the “Holy Spirit” “proceeds betwixt the Father and the Son” but that won’t make the words mean anything, however hard you may try to get them to, and you can force as many interpretations of your own onto them as you like but they’re still going to be different from those of a jillion other people’s who have set themselves to the same desperate task.
let us first introduce a distinction between what the trinity teaches, and what explanations of the trinity seek to show. i don't suppose that i need to tell you what the doctrine of the trinity is but let us be reminded (and i would encourage you to humour me) that it deals with god as he is in himself. the concept of one thing existing in three distinct aspects is not too problematic to understand but when we get into the details of it we certainly do at some point hit a wall. now you would argue that the fact that we do at some point hit a wall shows that the trinity is illogical (actually, more particularly your point is that given that at some point the trinity is incomprehensible it is therefore untrue). the first question we would have to ask ourselves is, whether that is in fact true. is it true that because a matter is incomprehensible (please note that i do not mean to say that it is wholly incomprehensible but rather that eventually we reach a certain point where we can go no further) it therefore follows that it is not true. you would have a hard time trying to support this statement (and to be perfectly frank, you can't) and hence the premise you rely on to make your argument is false. to the christian, the trinity is the highest revelation of god and it deals particularly with how he is in himself and as such, if we are talking about the very nature of god, would it not follow that we should reach a certain point where he becomes incomprehensible to finite knowledge? clearly everyone believes that eventually god is incomprehensible to humans and yet you somehow argue that eventual incomprehensibility is the mark of a falsehood. how can you logically uphold such a conclusion. i believe that i have more than adequately dealt with the first important problem raised in your post but let me further this by use of examples:

you would argue that the concept of god is simple. now you would also admit that god created all things and as our current cosmology theory holds space, time, and matter all came into being at some point (by an originator we would hold to be god). could you please explain to me where god was located when he created everything in existence? remember that space/area/location came into being during the big bang and as such this concept did not existed prior to this in the same way that neither time, nor area existed prior to this. will you say that he just created these? well prove it to me in a manner that makes sense. how do you explain god when there was no concept of location? currently you believe that god is located in heaven and that makes sense and so how do you unify the non-existence of location and the existence of a real being. please, this is something which boggles the minds of quantum physics and i would very much like you to explain it in a matter that makes sense. the concept of area not even existing is incredibly mind boggling so i very much would like an explanation.

now i'll save you the trouble and say that you can't. in fact it's "incomprehensible". yet would you not believe it to be true that god created area/spa/location/place along with time, and matter? i could also ask you how god's immutability fairs with the concept of time and whether the theory of eternalism or temporalism is comprehensible in regards to this (and let us not even mention how these fair depending on whether we hold an A-series or B-seriers view of time). please, you believe god to have created time and as such, please explain these to me. in short, even you believe incomprehensible things (that is, that eventually when reasoning these things out we will invariably hit a wall) and do not discount them for being incomprehensible. once again, the first horn of your argument has failed and your position is one of inconsistency.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
( a )Why should we believe God is three in any capacity? ( b ) Because there are exactly two (2) verses in the Bible which happen to mention the very names “father”, “son” and “holy spirit” in the same sentence? ( c ) Awful long way from that to any of the creeds, even the Apostle’s. And as for what Answering Islam says on the matter about other verses, I’ve already taken them to the moon and back on that here. You need to read that, God willing.

( d )Polytheism doesn’t have to be overt or even untempered in order to be what it is. Do you believe the Hindus when they tell you that their pantheon is really just one god? Do you care? Are they not still pagans?
( a ) one aught to believe in the trinity because they believe in the bible. to ask you a similar question: "why must i believe in muhammad? why must i even believe in the allah that is described in the qur'an?" clearly the belief of the aforementioned two things is predicated on the belief in the qur'an as much as the trinity is predicated on belief in the bible. it simply has to do with the message in our respective books. now then your question becomes somewhat nonsensical because without first positing the truth of the qur'an you could not even believe that muhammad was a prophet of god or that god was in any way the allah you find in the qur'an. non-muslims are proof of this fact and therefore this point fails.

( b ) your logic is once again faulty. rather if we were to take the bible as a whole and find that each is described with the prerogatives of god throughout the bible, yet the bible clearly mentioning that god is one and that each is distinct from the other, we can then naturally understand that the single god is eternally existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. the fact that each is not mentioned in the exact same sentence to the frequency which you would like becomes irrelevant when scripture is examined as a whole. once more, your logic is faulty because it relies on scripture being examined (and thus doctrine formed) with each verse in a vacuum. that methodology is completely wrong and is not in fact practised. just as one understands the ideology of an author by studying the thoughts which run throughout the whole book (as such, studying the book as a whole), in like manner does one approach any scripture.

( c ) i have read it and remain relatively unimpressed. yet this does not pertain to this discussion.

( d ) it would not matter to me whether hindus truly worship one god because monotheism isn't enough to save. you could worship one god and still not be saved if you are worshiping a false god. deists worship a single god who created the universe and then subsequently stopped interacting with it and even though they believe in a sole creator it does not mean that their religion is true. in light of the above your example becomes quite irrelevant.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
( e ) The evidence of our world suggests a single cause. Something outside of spacetime which encompasses all. A single, neat infinity beyond infinities. The one point of origin. What about all this suggests to you that the number “three” even has anything to do with the subject at all? How many ways can and should an all-compassing First Cause be divided up? Why should such a perfect thing need multiple persons to it?


( f )You’re denying the singleness. Just because you deny it by saying it’s a singleness that’s also a not-singleness does not change anything except to add self-deception or self-obfuscation to the mix. For the ninth time, saying “plural singularity” does not change the fact that there is plurality involved. It just piles semantics on top of the problem instead.
( e ) the evidence of the single cause has absolutely nothing to do with the ontology of the cause which produced all subsequent events. you assert this without evidence. yet i suppose that this baseless assertion gives way nicely to a brief aside one oneness and the kind of oneness that you claim the evidence of cosmology purports to show. concerning oneness, i would very much like to ask you how many space(s) do we have? you would in fact agree that we only have one space. now i would ask you, what are the distinctions within space? you being quite the astute individual would answer, without a moment's pause, "three: length, width, and height". I would then ask you if each were identical to the other and you would say "no, length is not width, width is not height, and height is not either of these" yet nevertheless you'd be quick to follow up with, "but we only have one space". Being distinct (not separate from one another) the all the prerogatives of space apply equally and follow to these distinctions three "yet it is not three spaces that we have, but one" (for those who understand the document i'm alluding to with that last quote, good for you). clearly the word single cause, single space, or single whatever does not inform the individual on the kind of oneness we are in fact talking about. rather you, in your post, simply presume this without any evidence.

( f ) hmm, i can't help but feel that we are becoming somewhat too emotionally charged. christians are not in fact denying singleness as the example of space clearly shows. there are various forms of oneness. take matter for example, it is existent as solid, liquid and gas and yet there exist not three matters but three distinctions within the one matter. hence why in school you learned the "three different states of matter" and not the "the three different states of matters". your belief in the singleness of matter and that of space shows your position to be inconsistent. clearly, christians do not deny singleness.

format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I’ve laid out my syllogism before, and it stands:

1. Monotheism is simple and comprehensible.
2. The Trinity is complex and incomprehensible.
3. Therefore, the Trinity is not monotheistic.

It’s as simple as that!
the above would be a wonderful syllogism if not for the fact that it was wrong (forgive the humour, this time i really couldn't help myself but i promise that there won't be any more of that). for one thing, you provide an arbitrary definition of monotheism--in fact to be perfectly honest you simply make this up out of thin air. not to mention that because you have made up this definition you commit a mistake of categories in comparing monotheism to trinitarianism. but before i speak any further on the matter, i will first of all provide an example.

1. math is simple and comprehensible
2. quantum mechanics is complex and incomprehensible.
3. therefore, quantum mechanics is not math.

the problem with the first premise is that it's only partly true. math is simple. yes, one plus one is rather simple and comprehensible but quantum mechanics is not simple and eventually we reach a point where it is incomprehensible. yet now given that quantum mechanics is a sub-set of mathematics the first premise then becomes only true in some cases (depending on the context) and wholly false when presented as a premise from which to start from. given the falsity of your starting premise your whole syllogism falls apart.

in the same way your first problem is that you equate unitarianism with monotheism and that is incorrect. unitarianism and trinitarianism are sub-sets of monotheism (and so is monism etc) and therefore given that you define the trinity as complex, your first premise concerning monotheism can then only be partly true (depending on the context) and wholly false when used as a categorical statement (to be perfectly honest, at this point i really ask myself why it is that i'm discussing with an individual who does not seem to know the definition of monotheism--not to sound snarky, mind you but these are very real questions i have). now what you actually meant to say (and what all other individuals who agreed with you understood) was this:

1. unitarianism is simple and comprehensible
2. trinitarianism is complex (and incomprehensible)
3. therefore, the trinity is not unitarianism.

and the above would be spectacular if not for the fact that no one argues that the trinity is unitarian. i suppose the problem for muslims then becomes the fact that the qur'an seems to have no knowledge of these distinctions within monotheism and so the muslim can't help but equate monotheism with unitarianism, even though it's like saying that the whole field of mathematics is merely quantum mechanics. clearly, your syllogism is invalid and your argument is wrong.

now, i acknowledge that you still have other things that i have yet to respond to and i made it a point to skip them, not because i do not know of a response to them but rather because it isn't my sole intention to burn myself out responding to your questions. i'd at least like to pose a few questions of my own before i find myself too tired to do so.

now let me say a few words on a topic not too dissimilar to our current one:

i do not believe in allah as the islamic deity. i do not believe in the islamic concept of tawhid/tahweed (oh gosh i hope i'm spelling it right). dear muslims, w. fard muhammad is not god!!! stop with this tawhid business. do not take w. fard muhammad as god!!! please muslims, i implore you, it will be better for you to desist. on judgement day god will ask w. fard muhammad if he had told people that he was god and even if he tries to deny this, you muslims will be doomed! "they disbelieve who say allah is w. fard muhammad".

now after much derision and laughter on your part, imagine that this is actually part of the holy scriptures of a religious group (let us call them fristians). i would then ask you if you believed that i portrayed an accurate picture of islam? no, you would say that i did not and in fact was speaking of a known heretical (and racist) group called the nation of islam. i would then counter with, "muslims believe in tawhid don't they? so then my god has also refuted your notion of tawhid". the astute and honest muslim would then tell me to analyze every reference of the muslim deity within my holy book and look to see what the author's understanding of tawhid was because clearly from the context, author of the fristian holy text supposed that tawhid had in fact to do with the supposed god of teh muslims, w. fard muhammad. now being a staunch fristian, i would check my holy book and see that nowhere else does my god explain what tawhid is but from the summation of all the verses, it is quite evident that this god supposed that tawhid had to do with w. fard muhammad.

now is this methodology appropriate or not? of course we would all agree that it is and as such i'd like to ask the muslim if they could do the same as it regards the qur'an's understanding of the trinity. in my reading it would seem that the muslim deity refutes everything but what the trinity actually is:

O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector. S. 4:171

from the above we learn that christians should not say three ("three what?" one would ask themselves---three gods i suppose) and that jesus and mary were only human. yet, the trinity does nor has ever consisted of christ, the father and mary. yet let us suppose that at one time it did (for the sake of argument) it still would not change the fact that at the time of muhammad the trinity was understood as christ, the father and the holy spirit. so from this verse alone, it would seem that the qur'an is incorrect concerning the trinity. yet let us continue, perhaps there's just something i haven't gotten to yet.

(now the second part of that verse speaks concerning allah having a son and depending on what the speaker means, any trinitarian can whole heartedly agree with that statement. we will see what the qur'an means by that.)

They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say: Who then can do aught against Allah, if He had willed to destroy the Messiah son of Mary, and his mother and everyone on earth? Allah's is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them. He createth what He will. And Allah is Able to do all things. S. 5:17

the above is actually incorrect. there is a fundamental difference between the statement "jesus is god" and the statement "god is jesus" in same way that there is a difference between "quantum mechanics is math" and "math is quantum mechanics". in fact the speaker in the above verse condemns something trinitarians themselves condemned and that is "sabellianism" which was condemned by the early church (please look this up). from the above context it would seem that allah is once again not condemning the trinity but rather sabellianism which trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years before muhammad.

They are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Messiah, Mary’s son.’ For the Messiah said, ‘Children of Israel, serve God, my Lord and your Lord. Verily whoso associates with God anything, God shall prohibit him entrance to Paradise, and his refuge shall be the Fire; and wrongdoers shall have no helpers.’ They are unbelievers who say, 'God is the Third of Three. No god is there but One God. If they refrain not from what they say, there shall afflict those of them that disbelieve a painful chastisement. Will they not turn to God and pray His forgiveness? God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; Messengers before him passed away; his mother was a just woman; they both ate food. Behold, how We make clear the signs to them; then behold, how they perverted are! S. 5:70-75

once more the qur'an is not condemning the trinity but rather sabellianism.

in the second portion the speaker is condemning something which isn't even the trinity or an incorrect formulation thereof. the trinity has never been god is one of three but rather god is three in one. one of three is not the trinity but rather tritheism. now at this point one might say that i'm being needlessly picky but one must understand that mere humans who did not believe in the trinity were able to formulate it correctly and then attack it from there. even the author to which i am responding implicitly acknowledges this point by never once formulating the trinity as "1 of 3" but rather "3 in 1" there is a great theological difference and considering that the speaker of the qur'an had hundreds of years to learn what it is that christians actually believed concerning the trinity then there is no excuse for the matter.

notice also that mary is also included there once again! the speaker than shows that neither mary nor christ are divine by saying that they both used to eat but mary is not part of the trinity. from the context we see that the speaker is speaking of the trinity but his understanding is patently wrong. might he be speaking of roman catholics maybe? even then he is wrong because he would then have to posit a quadranity (the father, son, the holy spirit and mary) but clearly the speaker does not. notice that everytime the mention of three is made it regards to jesus, mary, and allah. nowhere else does the speaker hint at a different understanding than this.

And when God said, ‘O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, "Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God"?’ He said, ‘To Thee be glory! It is not mine to say what I have no right to. If I indeed said it, Thou knowest it, knowing what is within my soul, and I know not what is within Thy soul; Thou knowest the things unseen I only said to them what Thou didst command me: "Serve God, my Lord and your Lord." And I was a witness over them, while I remained among them; but when Thou didst take me to Thyself, Thou wast Thyself the watcher over them; Thou Thyself art witness of everything.’ S. 5:116-117

what is it that muslims accuse christians of worshiping when they worship the trinity. the accusation is that we take partners beside god. in the above the speaker of the qur'an quite plainly shows us what the trinity consists of. once again it is the father, the son, and mary. what is more telling is that the above is a future conversation that allah will have with christ concerning the christians and their trinity. clearly the author of the qur'an supposes that mary is part of the trinity.

And they make the jinn associates with Allah, while He created them, and they falsely attribute to Him sons and daughters without knowledge; glory be to Him, and highly exalted is He above what they ascribe (to Him). Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things. S. 6:100-101

The truth is that - exalted be the Majesty of our Lord - HE has taken unto Himself neither wife nor son, S. 72:3

notice that the logic in the above is that seeing as god has no wife, he can then have no son. notice as well that it once more speaks of three individuals: allah, a mother (mary), and a son (jesus). yet clearly that is not the trinity. in fact what is furthermore evident is the fact that the speaker understood the birth and origination of christ as being through a sexual union between god and a wife (how else would he then say that god cannot have a son because he has no wife). this is not the christian position. once more what is being condemned is not the trinity.

in light of the above, it is spectacular that muslims would question the trinity seeing as nowhere in the qur'an is there a proper repudiation of it. as in my example with the fristian holy book we all saw that from the context it was obvious that i had no notion of what tawhid actually was, the same is true of the examples i have shown above. the fact of the matter is that nowhere in the qur'an does on find a proper formulation of the trinity. in fact what is condemned is almost every other heresy but the trinity which christians believe and which trinitarians condemned way before muhammad spread his message. the facts speak for themselves.

remember: "just as one understands the ideology of an author by studying the thoughts which run throughout the whole book (as such, studying the book as a whole), in like manner does one approach any scripture."
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-10-2011, 01:16 PM
having taken a look at your website i duly noted that you repudiated the concept of sonship by the following verse (and i wish that i had known of this earlier so that i could include it in my actual post, but alas):

They say, “God has taken to Him a son.” Glory be to Him! He is All-sufficient: to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; you have no authority for this. What, do you say concerning God that you know not?

(- 10:68 -)
Noble Quran

the fact of the matter is that once again the qur'an gives one the wrong idea and the wrong formulation of what christians indeed believe. the above is actually another heresy which christians themselves condemned (once again, hundreds of years before muhammad) and that heresy is called adoptionism (please look it up). trinitarians do not believe that god ever took a son, rather they believe that god is eternally existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit and as such at no point did one exist without the other and at no point could the father ever "take" a son. once more it seems that the author of the qur'an has made all the same blunders which trinitarians themselves condemned before muhammad's time. now at this point there should have been no reason for doing so seeing as the correct definition was there and adhered to by christians. with all due respect, it is almost a miracle that god would not seem to understand the trinity when mere humans have been able to formulate the doctrine correctly and then attack it from there. it is telling that in your post even you do not formulate the doctrine as the qur'an does which implicitly shows that even you acknowledge that it is inherently wrong.
Reply

Martinz
02-10-2011, 03:08 PM
:bism:
Well, I have skimmed through the whole thread. My head hurts and I feel nauseated. Too much interllectualizing over something that (to me) just isn't real.

Tawhid is real.

Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
I’ve laid out my syllogism before, and it stands:

1. Monotheism is simple and comprehensible.
2. The Trinity is complex and incomprehensible.
3. Therefore, the Trinity is not monotheistic.

It’s as simple as that!
I agree. Confirmed by the Holy Spirit that speaks to my heart.

Posted by Yahya sulaiman:

I can tell you. It's because they themselves don't have the faintest idea what "the Holy Spirit" even is. It's the single most incoherent part of the whole thing, which believe me is really saying something! Apparently they just thought they needed a third part of the Godhead to act as some intermediate place between the other two, though they'll be consarned if they can really and truly tell you how or in what way.
Totally disagree! People who have never experianced the Holy Spirit have a difficult time understanding what it is.

Holy Spirit is not the second aspect of God - it is God (as we can experiance his presence on earth)

Holy Spirit = God = Allah

John 4:24
"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
Sol Invictus: I'll get back to you, but I gotta get some sleep...





Reply

Woodrow
02-10-2011, 04:13 PM
A bit too much for me to absorb at one sitting. At the moment I am going to address one very glaring point.


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i do not believe in allah as the islamic deity. i do not believe in the islamic concept of tawhid/tahweed (oh gosh i hope i'm spelling it right). dear muslims, w. fard muhammad is not god!!! stop with this tawhid business. do not take w. fard muhammad as god!!! please muslims, i implore you, it will be better for you to desist. on judgement day god will ask w. fard muhammad if he had told people that he was god and even if he tries to deny this, you muslims will be doomed! "they disbelieve who say allah is w. fard muhammad".
I suspect you have NOI (Nation of Islam) confused with Islam. I do not believe we have even one NOI member here. W. Fard Muhammad is the NOI founder and is not considered to be Muslim by us and we do not follow any of what he says, although there may be things he said that coincidentally agreed with Islam.
Reply

aamirsaab
02-10-2011, 04:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
having taken a look at your website i duly noted that you repudiated the concept of sonship by the following verse (and i wish that i had known of this earlier so that i could include it in my actual post, but alas):

They say, “God has taken to Him a son.” Glory be to Him! He is All-sufficient: to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; you have no authority for this. What, do you say concerning God that you know not?

(- 10:68 -)
Noble Quran

the fact of the matter is that once again the qur'an gives one the wrong idea and the wrong formulation of what christians indeed believe. the above is actually another heresy which christians themselves condemned (once again, hundreds of years before muhammad) and that heresy is called adoptionism (please look it up). trinitarians do not believe that god ever took a son, rather they believe that god is eternally existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit and as such at no point did one exist without the other and at no point could the father ever "take" a son. once more it seems that the author of the qur'an has made all the same blunders which trinitarians themselves condemned before muhammad's time. now at this point there should have been no reason for doing so seeing as the correct definition was there and adhered to by christians. with all due respect, it is almost a miracle that god would not seem to understand the trinity when mere humans have been able to formulate the doctrine correctly and then attack it from there. it is telling that in your post even you do not formulate the doctrine as the qur'an does which implicitly shows that even you acknowledge that it is inherently wrong.
The Qur'an isn't neccessarily talking about Christians (or even the Trinity) in Sura 10 verse 68. In fact, neither of those words ("Christianity", "trinity") are even mentioned in that ayat at all. If anything, the Qur'an is criticising those that hold such beliefs that God could have a son.

Just saying.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-10-2011, 04:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
A bit too much for me to absorb at one sitting. At the moment I am going to address one very glaring point.




I suspect you have NOI (Nation of Islam) confused with Islam. I do not believe we have even one NOI member here. W. Fard Muhammad is an NOI Leader and is not considered to be Muslim by us and we do not follow any of what he says, although there may be things he says that coincidentally agree with Islam.
Woodrow, that jumped out at me when I first read it as well. However, as I went on, I think that Sol Invictus showed that he did not mean the above as an expression of true Islam, but of what someone who was a member of the NOI might say. And then the point is that this same person would claim that they were a follower of true Islam, and yet you would never accept that he was correct in his description of Islam.

This is the problem with the characterization of the Trinity that we who are are true adherents to the Trinity have with how it is represented by those who are not. Even your best descriptions of it, do not grasp its essence. If you did, I doubt that you would have left it.

You on the other hand could counter that indeed you did and do understand it. And, further, you also understand what true monotheism is -- and, if I truly understood true monotheism, I would never claim that the Trinity quailified as such and would quickly leave it for the real truth that is represented by the teaching of Islam.

I'm convinced that our inability to clearly communicate on this topic with each other may have as much to do with how our brains are wired to think about things and process information. Those who want to do nothing else than convice others of their own truth will probably always be frustrated by this conversation. Those who are searching to understand where one another comes from, without a need to constantly refute that with which they disagree, may be able to develop greater (even if not perfect) understanding. I think there is value in learning to understand one another better, and hope the discussion might proceed along those lines.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-10-2011, 04:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
The Qur'an isn't neccessarily talking about Christians (or even the Trinity) in Sura 10 verse 68. In fact, neither of those words ("Christianity", "trinity") are even mentioned in that ayat at all. If anything, the Qur'an is criticising those that hold such beliefs that God could have a son.

Just saying.
Then, I should not expect that verse to be used as a refutation of the Trinity.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-10-2011, 04:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Then, I should not expect that verse to be used as a refutation of the Trinity
Let me check again, last time I heard christians believe that in the trinity, jesus is the son of god?

Or has the definition of trinity changed while I was brushing my teeth?
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-10-2011, 05:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
A bit too much for me to absorb at one sitting. At the moment I am going to address one very glaring point.

I suspect you have NOI (Nation of Islam) confused with Islam. I do not believe we have even one NOI member here. W. Fard Muhammad is the NOI founder and is not considered to be Muslim by us and we do not follow any of what he says, although there may be things he said that coincidentally agreed with Islam.
thank you for your response but all it shows is that you have not read my post. immediately after my diatribe on the nation of islam i state that i do not believe that my portrayal of tawhid or islam was at all accurate. what the example did show however is the fact that one can know the ideology of an author by the corpus of his work (that is by examining the thoughts which run throughout his writings). in the like manner that one could figure out by the context that i had no knowledge of tawhid, one can see through examining each reference of that which christians believe within the qur'an, one can tell that it as well possesses no knowledge of the trinity. simply from examining these references we come to see that it sinks into the same heresies that trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years before the advent of islam. therefore, i did not in fact commit an error but rather you did not read my post carefully enough and seized only on something you had thought i had said.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-10-2011, 06:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Let me check again, last time I heard christians believe that in the trinity, jesus is the son of god?

Or has the definition of trinity changed while I was brushing my teeth?
Read the writings that came out of Nicea. Yes we do believe that Jesus is the son of God. But that is NOT the definition of the Trinity, neither now nor before you brushed your teeth. That you continue to attack something based on erroneous views as to what it entails is part of the problem. Not saying that you would accept the Trinity anyway, but you continue to miss its essence and substitute non-trinitarian teaching with regard to the Trinity for the real thing.

The Athansian Creed (not actually written by Athanasius) does a good job of summarizing the Trinity. It reads, in part:

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 Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be 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 Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed)
*And while "begotten" is a correct translation of this creed from Latin, it does NOT carry any connotation of biological procreation.
Reply

Woodrow
02-10-2011, 06:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
thank you for your response but all it shows is that you have not read my post. immediately after my diatribe on the nation of islam i state that i do not believe that my portrayal of tawhid or islam was at all accurate. what the example did show however is the fact that one can know the ideology of an author by the corpus of his work (that is by examining the thoughts which run throughout his writings). in the like manner that one could figure out by the context that i had no knowledge of tawhid, one can see through examining each reference of that which christians believe within the qur'an, one can tell that it as well possesses no knowledge of the trinity. simply from examining these references we come to see that it sinks into the same heresies that trinitarians themselves condemned hundreds of years before the advent of islam. therefore, i did not in fact commit an error but rather you did not read my post carefully enough and seized only on something you had thought i had said.
I apologise for my error. You are correct I had only skimmed through while sipping on my first cup of coffee before breakfast and only saw the big bold letters.

Now after Grace Seeker's post and rereading your post I better understand what you meant.

I will come back a bit later and address some of your other statements. From my perspective as a former Christian who came to the conclusion that nothing in the bible supported belief in the Trinity.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-10-2011, 08:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
( a ) The Qur'an isn't neccessarily talking about Christians (or even the Trinity) in Sura 10 verse 68. In fact, neither of those words ("Christianity", "trinity") are even mentioned in that ayat at all. ( b ) If anything, the Qur'an is criticising those that hold such beliefs that God could have a son.

Just saying.
concerning surah 10:68
Tafsir Jalalayn: They, that is, the Jews and the Christians, and those who claim that the angels are the daughters of God, say, ‘God has taken [to Him] a son’. God, exalted be He, says to them: Glory be to Him!, [in affirmation of] His transcending having offspring. He is Independent, [without need] of anyone, for only he who has need of a child would desire [to have] one. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, as possessions, creatures and servants. You have no warrant, [no] proof, for this, that you say. Do you say about God what you do not know? (an interrogative meant as a rebuke).

from the above we can conclude that the qur'an is in fact speaking concerning christians and furthermore, from your attempt at trying to dissuade such a thought it becomes all the more apparent that it is in fact wrong and that you believe it to be wrong (or else you would never have mounted a defense consisting of it not speaking concerning the trinity or christians).

( b ) if what you say is true then once again the qur'an is wrong. christians do believe that god could have a son and in fact that the father does have a son. yet we don't believe that god ever took a son. the heresy which teaches this is adoptionism and it was condemned by the church way before muhammad was born. as is evident the qur'an falls into the same pitfalls that are common to those who have not understood the trinity.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I apologise for my error. You are correct I had only skimmed through while sipping on my first cup of coffee before breakfast and only saw the big bold letters.

Now after Grace Seeker's post and rereading your post I better understand what you meant.

I will come back a bit later and address some of your other statements. From my perspective as a former Christian who came to the conclusion that nothing in the bible supported belief in the Trinity.
the error is completely understandable, so no worries.

i will wait for your response.
Reply

aamirsaab
02-10-2011, 09:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
concerning surah 10:68
Tafsir Jalalayn: They, that is, the Jews and the Christians, and those who claim that the angels are the daughters of God, say, ‘God has taken [to Him] a son’. God, exalted be He, says to them: Glory be to Him!, [in affirmation of] His transcending having offspring. He is Independent, [without need] of anyone, for only he who has need of a child would desire [to have] one. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, as possessions, creatures and servants. You have no warrant, [no] proof, for this, that you say. Do you say about God what you do not know? (an interrogative meant as a rebuke).

from the above we can conclude that the qur'an is in fact speaking concerning christians and furthermore, from your attempt at trying to dissuade such a thought it becomes all the more apparent that it is in fact wrong and that you believe it to be wrong (or else you would never have mounted a defense consisting of it not speaking concerning the trinity or christians).

( b ) if what you say is true then once again the qur'an is wrong. christians do believe that god could have a son and in fact that the father does have a son. yet we don't believe that god ever took a son. the heresy which teaches this is adoptionism and it was condemned by the church way before muhammad was born. as is evident the qur'an falls into the same pitfalls that are common to those who have not understood the trinity.
Oh my days, you've actually contradicted yourself (According to you Christianity says God can have a son, but if the Qur'an says so, the Qur'an is wrong....). Look, it's blatantly clear we're on two completely different wavelengths, so I'm not going to bother posting a proper reply (I have one, but tbh if you can barely understand my last post totaling 50 odd words, I sincerely doubt you will understand several paragraphs.)
Reply

M.I.A.
02-10-2011, 09:46 PM
im afraid the concept of all three in the trinity being the same in attribute is a little daunting,
i dont doubt all three may display an attribute but ultimately that attribute can only come from god.

surely god knew of adam pbuh before he was created,
he knew of the angels AS before they were created,
i dont doubt jesus AS pbuh could create on earth,

but ultimately god was the creator and still remaines.
to make all three indivisable is strange.. i dont doubt a walking man god, although putting things in such elequant language is disrespectful and misleading and unbefitting of such men pbu them.

the prophet mohammed pbuh is regarded as a messenger and slave/servent of allah.. that to me is the very essence of what i set out to find. somebody that understood the nature of god through god and through the angels AS.

the trinity doctrine is irrelavent if you dont understand it and nobody can, the book is not the word of jesus AS, only the people who knew him and followed him were his word and understanding embodied.

islam for me is the understanding that the quran is the perfectly preserved word,
just because 1400 years later we can call into question without understanding does not make it any less the truth. we may be as far away from our prophet as you are from yours, or in more accurate terms.. far from what god intended, but thats the point and due to the very nature of man.. the message ever repeated not often heeded.

but we are still very clever in refutations of faith.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-10-2011, 09:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Oh my days, you've actually contradicted yourself (God can have a son, but if the Qur'an says so, the Qur'an is wrong...). Look, it's blatantly clear we're on two completely different wavelengths, so I'm not going to bother posting a proper reply (I have one, but tbh if you can barely understand my last post totaling 50 odd words, I sincerely doubt you will understand several paragraphs.)
please, do not get so excited over your own misunderstanding of what i have said. the qur'an specifically accuses christians of saying that "god took a son" and trinitarians don't believe that. there is a deference between having a son and taking a son and at the moment your inability to understand this difference is what leads you to commit the same error as the qur'an. the claim that god took a son is adoptionism and this was itself condemned by the church before the time of muhammad. the trinitarian position is that god has a son but there was never any moment when he took a son. the father and the son have existed eternally so there was no moment when the father could take the son as his son. the words "take a son" infer the understanding that there was a time prior to this act of having taken a son while this is not the case with the statement "god has a son" for the latter does not necessarily infer temporality.

i doubt that you even have a proper answer if you couldn't even understand the difference between what i have said and what the qur'an claims and as such it would in fact be best for you to take your leave.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-10-2011, 09:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by M.I.A.
im afraid the concept of all three in the trinity being the same in attribute is a little daunting,
i dont doubt all three may display an attribute but ultimately that attribute can only come from god.

surely god knew of adam pbuh before he was created,
he knew of the angels AS before they were created,
i dont doubt jesus AS pbuh could create on earth,

but ultimately god was the creator and still remaines.
to make all three indivisable is strange.. i dont doubt a walking man god, although putting things in such elequant language is disrespectful and misleading and unbefitting of such men pbu them.

the prophet mohammed pbuh is regarded as a messenger and slave/servent of allah.. that to me is the very essence of what i set out to find. somebody that understood the nature of god through god and through the angels AS.

the trinity doctrine is irrelavent if you dont understand it and nobody can, the book is not the word of jesus AS, only the people who knew him and followed him were his word and understanding embodied.

islam for me is the understanding that the quran is the perfectly preserved word,
just because 1400 years later we can call into question without understanding does not make it any less the truth. we may be as far away from our prophet as you are from yours, or in more accurate terms.. far from what god intended, but thats the point and due to the very nature of man.. the message ever repeated not often heeded.

but we are still very clever in refutations of faith.
i respect your opinion and am glad that you believe in that which you believe. do note that my intention is not at all to try to convert anyone here. i do not write my words with the wish to convert anyone. that said, let me say that you have made no attempt to respond to what i have said. do you believe that my tawhid example was an actual description of tawhid? you would of course say no but i could very well say that i used the word tawhid didn't i? yet this would mean nothing if it was used with the wrong understanding. yet this is repeatedly what i find within the qur'an. there is no accurate refutation of the trinity at all. in fact the third person of the trinity, the holy spirit is not mentioned at all? in his place we find mary and that in itself is telling. muslims believe that christians worship 3 gods and yet anytime the number three is regarded in regards to that which christians supposedly worship, it is always in regards to allah, jesus and mary. so on the basis of the qur'an alone one couldn't even formulate proper understanding of the trinity because no where is it even presented accurately. rather we have every heresy from, tritheism, adoptionism, sabellianism etc. (all things which trinitarians had condemned prior to the birth of islam) but strangely enough, no trinity.
Reply

aamirsaab
02-10-2011, 10:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
please, do not get so excited over your own misunderstanding of what i have said. the qur'an specifically accuses christians of saying that "god took a son" and trinitarians don't believe that. there is a deference between having a son and taking a son and at the moment your inability to understand this difference is what leads you to commit the same error as the qur'an. the claim that god took a son is adoptionism and this was itself condemned by the church before the time of muhammad. the trinitarian position is that god has a son but there was never any moment when he took a son. the father and the son have existed eternally so there was no moment when the father could take the son as his son. the words "take a son" infer the understanding that there was a time prior to this act of having taken a son while this is not the case with the statement "god has a son" for the latter does not necessarily infer temporality.

i doubt that you even have a proper answer if you couldn't even understand the difference between what i have said and what the qur'an claims and as such it would in fact be best for you to take your leave.
Take a son, begot a son, has a son = the same thing. Your entire (counter) argument is based on semantics. Again, as I said initially, the crux of this ayat is a criticism levied at those who hold such blasphemous beliefs. It's not too difficult to understand.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-10-2011, 10:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Take a son, begot a son, has a son = the same thing. Your entire (counter) argument is based on semantics. Again, as I said initially, the crux of this ayat is a criticism levied at those who hold such blasphemous beliefs. It's not too difficult to understand.
simply because you would wish for it to mean the same thing does not make it so. in fact, the only recluse you have against the argument is to claim that it is merely semantics but that is false. if indeed my counter argument was based on semantics then you would not have had the adoptionism heresy. adoptionist didn't believe in the same thing as trinitarians and they made it quite plain and it all centered on taking instead of begetting or having. in your post you would ask us to ignore history. that said you are once more incorrect because to take a son is not the same as to beget a son in the same way as to take a daughter (as in i adopt this girl) is different than begetting a girl (as in giving birth to one) so once more your argument is shown to be false. this is not merely semantics.
Reply

aadil77
02-10-2011, 10:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
simply because you would wish for it to mean the same thing does not make it so. in fact, the only recluse you have against the argument is to claim that it is merely semantics but that is false. if indeed my counter argument was based on semantics then you would not have had the adoptionism heresy. adoptionist didn't believe in the same thing as trinitarians and they made it quite plain and it all centered on taking instead of begetting or having. in your post you would ask us to ignore history. that said you are once more incorrect because to take a son is not the same as to beget a son in the same way as to take a daughter (as in i adopt this girl) is different than begetting a girl (as in giving birth to one) so once more your argument is shown to be false. this is not merely semantics.
It all means the same thing, the statement to 'beget a son' is so blasphemous and disgraceful in itself, I think God said to 'take a son' as a more respectful way to refer to Himself, Glorified Be Allah, High above such claims.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-10-2011, 10:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aadil77
It all means the same thing, the statement to 'beget a son' is so blasphemous and disgraceful in itslef, I think God said to 'take a son' as a more respectful way to refer to Himself, Glorified Be Allah, High above such claims.
no, they certainly don't mean the same thing or else trinitarians would not have condemned adoptionism. no matter why the speaker of teh qur'an might have said so, it doesn't change the fact that that is a heresy. furthermore, nowhere else is the trinity actually repudiated. all such attempts repudiate heresies and perversions of the trinity which trinitarians themselves condemned prior to the message of islam. you have yet to refute my argument other than the basic claim "it's no big deal that god got the formulation wrong."
Reply

جوري
02-10-2011, 10:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
no, they certainly don't mean the same thing or else trinitarians would not have condemned adoptionism. no matter why the speaker of teh qur'an might have said so, it doesn't change the fact that that is a heresy. furthermore, nowhere else is the trinity actually repudiated. all such attempts repudiate heresies and perversions of the trinity which trinitarians themselves condemned prior to the message of islam. you have yet to refute my argument other than the basic claim "it's no big deal that god got the formulation wrong."

why don't you define for us who Jesus is, who the holy spirit is, who god the 'father' is and how you reconcile all that into monotheism rather than what it appears to the rest a three headed middle eastern mangod?

all the best
Reply

M.I.A.
02-10-2011, 10:38 PM
i do not know the meaning of tawhid, im sure from my statement you must understand i have very little background info on anything.
i started learning from the ground up on translated verses and a willingness to look at the world and its people with very judgemental eyes.. not for the ways of mankind but how things work.

i have found no discrepency in the quran, only in the people and we are told to hate actions rather than people and if you look for long enough you will understand why.

the same applies for all things.

as for the trinity, i do not know who the holy spirit was.
if you know then its best to say.

i do not know of many discredited branches of faith, i do know that those that were closer to the trunk of the tree were probably stronger... its common sense.

im not saying the people of the past were closer to the truth, in the things that i have found a conversation can change from person to person.. people spread what they find most easy to spread, do you think the life of jesus pbuh was an easy message to spread?

this is the understanding i have, very rarely prophets bring the truth

those that bring falsehood are many times more

over a time the message is lost

nations are tested, rise and fall

and then if you were lucky enough you got to witness the truth again.

the understanding is that islam is the perfect religion and the last revelation, the above cycle will not continue.

i am not here to convert you, i am here to tell you that the laws of god are here to see.. if you act or do not act, his will is done.
i have no need to convert anybody, i gave up on you a long time ago.

how can a person with no knowledge preech to anybody, if its the book you believe in i do not know its words.. i have a heart and in this world its about as useful as an appendix.

all praise is due to allah, the prophet pbuh said if you believe then long for death.. when you finally realise what this place is you will do the same.. if only to escape,
in my case so you can not be an instrument of hurt.. willingly or unwillingly... some people really get of on it.. i do not.

but fighting is prescribed for us, i would have left for the hills a long time ago otherwise.

this answers none of your questions with very little other than personal oppinion, i care not..first time iv spoken all day.
Reply

Woodrow
02-10-2011, 11:01 PM
This thread is now closed for a much needed house cleaning.

:threadclo"

The doors will be reopened after the janitorial crew finishes with their cleaning. I am blocking from view nearly all of the posts until it is decided which need not be removed.
Reply

Woodrow
02-11-2011, 12:01 AM
The Janitorial Crew has completed their cleanup. Insha Allah the thread is no longer a war zone.

Please keep all replies on topic and remember disagreement is acceptable. But please keep any and all opinions about any poster off of the threads. Personal insults/bashing are not acceptable. Keep all replies directed to the topic and not to the poster.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-11-2011, 01:06 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


why don't you define for us who Jesus is, who the holy spirit is, who god the 'father' is and how you reconcile all that into monotheism rather than what it appears to the rest a three headed middle eastern mangod?

all the best
no i don't think i will. you have made no attempt to engage my argument at all and yet you would request that for some reason i should listen to your request. that's not going to happen because that would redirect the thread. i have made my argument and i'm waiting for a reply by another member. now, if in the course of his response, he would ask for a definition of the trinity, then i would be more than happy to provide one.
Reply

جوري
02-11-2011, 01:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
no i don't think i will. you have made no attempt to engage my argument at all and yet you would request that for some reason i should listen to your request. that's not going to happen because that would redirect the thread. i have made my argument and i'm waiting for a reply by another member. now, if in the course of his response, he would ask for a definition of the trinity, then i would be more than happy to provide one.
you have no response and we're all quite aware of that however way you wish to color it-- the OP already stated that he has carpal tunnel syndrome and isn't interested in writing so you'll be waiting for quite sometime as I doubt anyone else cares to engage semantics!~

all the best
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-11-2011, 01:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

you have no response and we're all quite aware of that however way you wish to color it-- the OP already stated that he has carpal tunnel syndrome and isn't interested in writing so you'll be waiting for quite sometime as I doubt anyone else cares to engage semantics!~

all the best
i was speaking of woodrow. that said, the rest of your post is baseless.
Reply

جوري
02-11-2011, 01:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i was speaking of woodrow. that said, the rest of your post is baseless.

I liked the way Br. woodrow replied to your previous posts by trashing them where they belong and I foresee that in the near future that is where you too shall soon follow!

all the best
Reply

Woodrow
02-11-2011, 01:39 AM
The OT prophecies are what started me doubting the existence of the Trinity. There are passages, in fact many passages in the OT that can be interpreted as prophesying the coming of the Messiah and can be applied to any of the following people. Not the same passages for each, but what can be interpreted easily as prophecies of them.

Simon of Peraea (ca. 4 BC), a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled and was killed by the Romans.

Athronges (ca. 3 BC), a shepherd turned rebel leader.

Jesus of Nazareth (ca. 4 BC — AD 30-?), a prophet and teacher who Christians believe was crucified; Jews who believed him to be the Messiah were the first Christians, also known as Jewish Christians. In the Christian faith, he is regarded to be the son of God.

Menahem ben Judah (?), allegedly son of Judas of Galilee, partook in a revolt against Agrippa II before being slain by a rival Zealot leader.

Vespasian, c.70, according to Josephus

Simon bar Kokhba (?- ca. 135), founded a short-lived Jewish state before being defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War.

I came to the conclusion that the only reason Jesus(as) came to be accepted, as god in human form, was because of the Influence of the Greeks and Romans. With that and a bit of creative NT writing along with some reverse engineering we ended up with the Christian concept of Trinity and with Jesus(as) becoming the newest god of the Romans/Greeks.


I mention the next two although they did not appear until the 8th century. They were Persian Jews who filled the same prophecies attributed to refer to Jesus(as) and many more. A person can easily come to the conclusion either one is the Messiah prophecised. Although on a personal note I do not believe either was. However, in the 8th century a sizable number of Jews did believe that Abu Isa was the prophecised Messiah.


Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani and later his most avid follower

Yudghan (?), a disciple of Abu 'Isa who continued the faith after Isa was slain.

This was the initial study that led me to question Christian interpretations of the OT and later what seems to be some reverse engineering of the NT. I can not and could not find any empirical evidence of the existence of the Trinity in either the OT or the NT and it only becomes a factor later in the establishment of Greco/Roman Christianity that later became Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-11-2011, 02:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
( a ) The OT prophecies are what started me doubting the existence of the Trinity. There are passages, in fact many passages in the OT that can be interpreted as prophesying the coming of the Messiah and can be applied to any of the following people. Not the same passages for each, but what can be interpreted easily as prophecies of them.

Simon of Peraea (ca. 4 BC), a former slave of Herod the Great who rebelled and was killed by the Romans.

Athronges (ca. 3 BC), a shepherd turned rebel leader.

Jesus of Nazareth (ca. 4 BC — AD 30-?), a prophet and teacher who Christians believe was crucified; Jews who believed him to be the Messiah were the first Christians, also known as Jewish Christians. In the Christian faith, he is regarded to be the son of God.

Menahem ben Judah (?), allegedly son of Judas of Galilee, partook in a revolt against Agrippa II before being slain by a rival Zealot leader.

Vespasian, c.70, according to Josephus

Simon bar Kokhba (?- ca. 135), founded a short-lived Jewish state before being defeated in the Second Jewish-Roman War.

I came to the conclusion that the only reason Jesus(as) came to be accepted, as god in human form, was because of the Influence of the Greeks and Romans. With that and a bit of creative NT writing along with some reverse engineering we ended up with the Christian concept of Trinity and with Jesus(as) becoming the newest god of the Romans/Greeks.


( b ) I mention the next two although they did not appear until the 8th century. They were Persian Jews who filled the same prophecies attributed to refer to Jesus(as) and many more. A person can easily come to the conclusion either one is the Messiah prophecised. Although on a personal note I do not believe either was. However, in the 8th century a sizable number of Jews did believe that Abu Isa was the prophecised Messiah.


Abu 'Isa al-Isfahani and later his most avid follower

Yudghan (?), a disciple of Abu 'Isa who continued the faith after Isa was slain.

This was the initial study that led me to question Christian interpretations of the OT and later what seems to be some reverse engineering of the NT. I can not and could not find any empirical evidence of the existence of the Trinity in either the OT or the NT and it only becomes a factor later in the establishment of Greco/Roman Christianity that later became Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox.
now, what i do in fact dislike about the above is that there is no reference to anything i have mentioned. i would have hoped that my concept of oneness would have been brought into question (seeing as you as a muslim should hold it to be illogical, i assume), nor my defense of comprehensibility and how this bears on truth, or my response to the syllogism the author brought forth, or my example of "fristian" scripture and how this relates to understanding the words of an author through the corpus of his work. yet i find none of that in the above. i'm willing to continue this discussion but i would much rather be taken to task concerning the things that i have said (and would hope that your future post mentions at least some of these).

( a ) if i understood you correctly then you use the fact that others have claimed the prophecies in the old testament as pertaining to themselves (as such them being the messiah) as an argument for why the trinity is incorrect and i don't quite think that the logic follows. we go from individuals claiming to be the messiah and using messianic prophecies to the trinity is untrue. i don't think that logic warrants a leap from one statement to the other and as such i'd ask you to please elaborate on this.

( b ) and what in fact does this have to do with the falsehood of the trinity? and is the fact that various other individuals have claimed to be the messiah have any bearing on christ being the messiah (i don't quite believe that you disagree with this)? if you believe the fact that others have claimed messianic status as a problem to christiniaty and more specifically to the trinity (i still don't see how one leads to the other), then do you believe that the manichean prophet mani, who also claimed to be the comforter in the gospel of john and to be the last of the prophets and described as "the seal of the prophets" is a problem to the muslim belief that muhammad is the seal of the prophet? he had a rather large following as well and manicheanism was practised in various parts of the roman empire. if you have no problem with these, yet you do have a problem with other individuals claiming to be the messiah (and this somehow turns into a problem of the trinity and not a problem of the messianic status of christ as logic would rather suggest) then could you tell me why?

i'll be waiting.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-11-2011, 04:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Take a son, begot a son, has a son = the same thing.
No I don't believe they are synonymous.

I have 8 children. I have only begotten 2 of them. And I third I have legally taken as my child. The others are my children not by law, but by virtue of the type of relationship that we have and recognize with each other.

I know a woman who has no children, and yet has 30 children who call her "mom" as she is a house mother at the local children's home. And now that she has over 20 years of fulfilling this role she has also found that she has many grandchildren as well, for that is how the children she once cared for have raised their children to think of her.

And I know of a child (now grown man) who refuses to call the woman who gave birth to him "mom", "mother" or in any other way given recognition to her, because he was given up for adoption and raised by another. The woman who raised him is therefore his mother, not the one who gave birth to him. He isn't even angry at this other woman, for he knows that she was just a child herself at the time she gave birth to him. He's simply glad for the chance he had to have the mom (and dad) that he ended up having, and thus they not those of whom he is the begotten son, but those who took him as their son, are his real parents.

Taken son ≠ begotten son ≠ has a son. In some case they might be the same thing. But not always, and hence they are not equal.
Reply

جوري
02-11-2011, 04:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I have 8 children. I have only begotten 2 of them. And I third I have legally taken as my child. The others are my children not by law, but by virtue of the type of relationship that we have and recognize with each other.

nice.. whatever way you look at it, god has either fertilized himself into the womb of mary or adopted a son through the union of mary with another (you can call me dad).. it doesn't matter how you slice it is just absurd!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
02-11-2011, 04:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Taken son ≠ begotten son ≠ has a son. In some case they might be the same thing. But not always, and hence they are not equal.


OK let's say I agree with you.

Now, which one is Jesus in relation to God?

Did God beget Jesus, did God have jesus as a son, or did God take jesus as a son?
Reply

جوري
02-11-2011, 04:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar



OK let's say I agree with you.

Now, which one is Jesus in relation to God?

Did God beget Jesus, did God have jesus as a son, or did God take jesus as a son?

better yet.. will the real son of God come forward?
God sent his only begotten son into the world. -- 1 John 4:9

Adam, which was the son of God. Luke 3:38

That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. ... There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them. -- Genesis 6:2-4

The sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. -- Job 2:1

Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? -- Job 38:6-7

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. -- John 1:12

terrible predicament indeed!
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-11-2011, 04:42 AM
Because something is inconceivable to a finite mind does not make it either inconceivable or undoable for the infinite God. There is no actual logical impossibility in the event called the incarnation. It may seem absurb to us, but nothing prevents God from choosing what would be absurb to human kind. "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise" (1 Corinthians 1:27).
Reply

جوري
02-11-2011, 04:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Because something is inconceivable to a finite mind does not make it either inconceivable or undoable for the infinite God. There is no actual logical impossibility in the event called the incarnation. It may seem absurb to us, but nothing prevents God from choosing what would be absurb to human kind. "God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise" (1 Corinthians 1:27).

the operative word here is 'infinite god' by presenting us with this idea of a dying mangod you break that definition!

by the way was god 'reincarnated' in the devil? or adam, or those others who have slept with the daughters of men who were fair and lovely?
all the best
Reply

Woodrow
02-11-2011, 04:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
now, what i do in fact dislike about the above is that there is no reference to anything i have mentioned. i would have hoped that my concept of oneness would have been brought into question (seeing as you as a muslim should hold it to be illogical, i assume), nor my defense of comprehensibility and how this bears on truth, or my response to the syllogism the author brought forth, or my example of "fristian" scripture and how this relates to understanding the words of an author through the corpus of his work. yet i find none of that in the above. i'm willing to continue this discussion but i would much rather be taken to task concerning the things that i have said (and would hope that your future post mentions at least some of these)..


( a ) if i understood you correctly then you use the fact that others have claimed the prophecies in the old testament as pertaining to themselves (as such them being the messiah) as an argument for why the trinity is incorrect and i don't quite think that the logic follows. we go from individuals claiming to be the messiah and using messianic prophecies to the trinity is untrue. i don't think that logic warrants a leap from one statement to the other and as such i'd ask you to please elaborate on this..


( b ) and what in fact does this have to do with the falsehood of the trinity? and is the fact that various other individuals have claimed to be the messiah have any bearing on christ being the messiah (i don't quite believe that you disagree with this)? if you believe the fact that others have claimed messianic status as a problem to christiniaty and more specifically to the trinity (i still don't see how one leads to the other), then do you believe that the manichean prophet mani, who also claimed to be the comforter in the gospel of john and to be the last of the prophets and described as "the seal of the prophets" is a problem to the muslim belief that muhammad is the seal of the prophet? he had a rather large following as well and manicheanism was practised in various parts of the roman empire. if you have no problem with these, yet you do have a problem with other individuals claiming to be the messiah (and this somehow turns into a problem of the trinity and not a problem of the messianic status of christ as logic would rather suggest) then could you tell me why?

i'll be waiting.
I regret if I caused any confusion. However I feel it is pertinent that you understand I ceased believing in the Trinity long before I accepted or even knew very much about Islam.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
now, what i do in fact dislike about the above is that there is no reference to anything i have mentioned. i would have hoped that my concept of oneness would have been brought into question (seeing as you as a muslim should hold it to be illogical, i assume), nor my defense of comprehensibility and how this bears on truth, or my response to the syllogism the author brought forth, or my example of "fristian" scripture and how this relates to understanding the words of an author through the corpus of his work. yet i find none of that in the above. i'm willing to continue this discussion but i would much rather be taken to task concerning the things that i have said (and would hope that your future post mentions at least some of these)
Addressing your concept of the oneness of the Trinity. Let us go back to one of your earlier posts, I added the numbers, to your post in hopes to clarify my reply :

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
having taken a look at your website i duly noted that you repudiated the concept of sonship by the following verse (and i wish that i had known of this earlier so that i could include it in my actual post, but alas):

They say, “God has taken to Him a son.” Glory be to Him! He is All-sufficient: to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth; you have no authority for this. What, do you say concerning God that you know not?

(- 10:68 -)
Noble Quran

1.the fact of the matter is that once again the qur'an gives one the wrong idea and the wrong formulation of what christians indeed believe.

2. the above is actually another heresy which christians themselves condemned (once again, hundreds of years before muhammad) and that heresy is called adoptionism (please look it up). trinitarians do not believe that god ever took a son,

3. rather they believe that god is eternally existent as the father, the son, and the holy spirit and as such at no point did one exist without the other and at no point could the father ever "take" a son. once more it seems that the author of the qur'an has made all the same blunders which trinitarians themselves condemned before muhammad's time.

4. now at this point there should have been no reason for doing so seeing as the correct definition was there and adhered to by christians. with all due respect, it is almost a miracle that god would not seem to understand the trinity when mere humans have been able to formulate the doctrine correctly and then attack it from there. it is telling that in your post even you do not formulate the doctrine as the qur'an does which implicitly shows that even you acknowledge that it is inherently wrong.
It seems in my view there are several points being brought out in that paragraph. I do concede you have a very large vocabulary.

Now in my view and trying to absorb that and integrate it into my very poor usage of language and lack of vocabulary I am breaking it down as to how I numbered it above and translating it into the words I usually use.

1. The Quran does not state what Christians actually believe

My answer:
We understand that the original followers of Christianity followed the true teachings of what was revealed to Jesus(as) It was after Jesus(as) ascended into heaven that the Christians began believing the falsehoods.. Please notice in your quote of the ayyat it begins: They say,
Does that mean Christians say or is it refering to those who call themselves Christian?
Keep in mind the majority of those who called themselves Christian were and still are Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and that statement in the Quran is very much in line with Catholic belief and doctrine although the Catholic explanation is quite confusing as to how God begot a son equates to having a son .

2. You believe it is an ancient heresy that God took a Son

My answer
I agree it was and it still is a heresy believed by many who call themselves Christian

3. God always was 3 entities inseperable from each other

My answer
This is our point of biggest disagreement. By simple definition in my feeble, somewhat senile mind. if they are inseparable they are not 3 entities. If they are not 3 entities, there is no trinity

4. Christians have always understood the doctrine of the trinity correctly.

My answer
Then why did it take so many church councils to define it and work it into Church Doctrine?
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-11-2011, 05:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar



OK let's say I agree with you.

Now, which one is Jesus in relation to God?

Did God beget Jesus, did God have jesus as a son, or did God take jesus as a son?

None of the above.

The Father beget a Son, but remember, not in the sense of biological procreation. For the Son has always existed, just as the Father has always existed. Both the Father and the Son are pre-existent and co-eternal. There never was a time when one was not.

Then, in the course of created time, God caused Mary to be with child by simply commanding (though granting Mary the freedom to have said, "No", if she had so chosen) that it be so, and it was. My view* is that the command resulted in the incarnation of the Son within the womb of Mary, and so Jesus was born both fully God and fully human, possessing two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person. These natures are not joined in a moral or accidental union ( as Nestorius taught), nor commingled (as the followers of Eutyches held), and nevertheless they are substantially united.


*There are some Christians who would hold the it was not until the time of Jesus baptism that he became the Son of God (based on Luke 3:22) and others who would argue that this did not occur until the time of Jesus' resurrection (based on Acts 13:33).
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-11-2011, 05:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
My answer:
We understand that the original followers of Christianity followed the true teachings of what was revealed to Jesus(as) It was after Jesus(as) ascended into heaven that the Christians began believing the falsehoods..
Yet Woodrow, this belief is based on what? The testimony of a 7th century document. It presupposes, even, certain facts that are not in evidence anywhere but in the Qur'an. Namely that Jesus' primary role was that of person bringing teaching. He did teach. But we don't see the very first Christians focusing on his teaching as the basis of their own initial message. Their message is not about what he said, but what he did. Indeed, it is for this specific reason that the first followers of Jesus did not fit well within the establish Jewish order. It wasn't Jesus' teachings or his ethic that were the problem for their fellow Jews, it was what they said about Jesus himself. That message was THE message from the very beginning. That is what made even the first Jewish Christian different from their Jewish brethern. If you're claiming that falsehood crept into the Christianity simply because they did not continue to preach teachings like Jesus' Sermon on the Mount as the keystone, but rather because they emphasized preaching about his reusrrection, then realize that this corruption took place within barely more than a week's time after his ascension and had as its first propigators none other than Peter and Jesus' other closest disciples.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-11-2011, 05:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


the operative word here is 'infinite god' by presenting us with this idea of a dying mangod you break that definition!
The death of Jesus on the cross in no way makes God any less infinite. Indeed, it shows that there is no limit to God's power, for he triumphs over even death.
When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

“Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

(1 Corinthians 15:54-57)

Oh, and to the next question I can hear coming from some quarter, "Who was running the universe while God was dying on the cross or dead in the ground?" Answer: God.
Reply

جوري
02-11-2011, 05:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Now who is being absurb? The death of Jesus on the cross in no way makes God any less infinite. Indeed, it shows that there is no limit to God's power, for he triumphs over even death.
still you!

and indeed it makes god very finite and very human for that matter and that goes against the very definition of God.. you can't have it both ways, be dead and then raise yourself, unless death never took place to begin with.

I pity you the day you die, I really do.. to have spent your life insisting on such falsehood and to spread it so and have it be for naught-- I hope at least you're making money out of it!

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-11-2011, 05:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
and indeed it makes god very finite and very human for that matter and that goes against the very definition of God.. you can't have it both ways, be dead and then raise yourself, unless death never took place to begin with.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Your conclusion that Jesus' death makes God finite does not fit. If you were to say that Jesus was finite that would be one thing, but it is as if you forget that the Father and the Spirit are no less infinite than before.
Reply

Tyrion
02-11-2011, 06:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Your conclusion that Jesus' death makes God finite does not fit. If you were to say that Jesus was finite that would be one thing, but it is as if you forget that the Father and the Spirit are no less infinite than before.
This has always confused me... If Jesus is finite, then how could he be God? The notion of God (an infinite being) becoming something that is finite (a man) just doesn't seem to make sense... God cannot be a (finite) man. God is, by definition, infinite... The second He becomes finite, he ceases to be God...

Right?
Reply

Woodrow
02-11-2011, 06:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yet Woodrow, this belief is based on what? The testimony of a 7th century document. It presupposes, even, certain facts that are not in evidence anywhere but in the Qur'an. Namely that Jesus' primary role was that of person bringing teaching. He did teach. But we don't see the very first Christians focusing on his teaching as the basis of their own initial message. Their message is not about what he said, but what he did. Indeed, it is for this specific reason that the first followers of Jesus did not fit well within the establish Jewish order. It wasn't Jesus' teachings or his ethic that were the problem for their fellow Jews, it was what they said about Jesus himself. That message was THE message from the very beginning. That is what made even the first Jewish Christian different from their Jewish brethern. If you're claiming that falsehood crept into the Christianity simply because they did not continue to preach teachings like Jesus' Sermon on the Mount as the keystone, but rather because they emphasized preaching about his reusrrection, then realize that this corruption took place within barely more than a week's time after his ascension and had as its first propigators none other than Peter and Jesus' other closest disciples.
Peace Gene,

While I do agree with your wording. I am fairly certain we disagree on the impact of the last few words:

but rather because they emphasized preaching about his resurrection, then realize that this corruption took place within barely more than a week's time after his ascension and had as its first propagators none other than Peter and Jesus' other closest disciples.
I doubt if you and I agree about the Resurrection happening/Not happening.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-11-2011, 06:49 AM
well it seems that the forum ate my post, how annoying.
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
1. The Quran does not state what Christians actually believe

My answer:
We understand that the original followers of Christianity followed the true teachings of what was revealed to Jesus(as) It was after Jesus(as) ascended into heaven that the Christians began believing the falsehoods.. Please notice in your quote of the ayyat it begins: They say,
( a ) Does that mean Christians say or is it refering to those who call themselves Christian?
( b ) Keep in mind the majority of those who called themselves Christian were and still are Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and that statement in the Quran is very much in line with Catholic belief and doctrine although the Catholic explanation is quite confusing as to how God begot a son equates to having a son .
( a ) even if we were to concede this point and term all trinitarians as pseudo-christians, it would still not change the fact that trinitarians don't at all claim that god took a son--that is adoptionism. trinitarians condemned adoptionism and as such the quoted surah has nothing to do with the trinity whatsoever and cannot at all function as a refutation thereof. i must however commend you on implicitly admitting that this concerns not mere semantics but that there is a very real theological difference between the two.

( b ) neither roman catholics nor eastern orthodox christians adhere to adoptionism and so i can't at all agree with that. they are trinitarian and condemn adoptionism as well. so therefore the statement in the qur'an is not at all in line with the position of these institutions because it fails to condemn the trinity (just as i had, in my "fristianity" example failed to condemn tawhid even though i did use the word "tawhid" or mentioned god in the singular. from the context of my post it was quite clear that i had an improper understanding of it and the same can be said for every reference of the trinity within the qur'an).

if i understand the section on "begot a son" and "having a son" then you acknowledge that the statement "god has a son" does not necessarily invoke the aspect of temporality while the phrase "the father begot the son" does seem to invoke this very same thing and as such they cannot be made to equate to one another (do let me know if i am mistaken in my understanding of what you meant). let us then move on to talk of this concept. in actuality, the phrase is not merely begotten but rather "only-begotten".

It is the Greek word “monogeneis.” This is not simply “begotten,” for that expression can be applied to all believers, those who have been begotten or born again by the Spirit. This is a unique expression for a unique person, the only-begotten Son of God. The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” This is the key expression for the doctrine of “the eternal generation of the Son,” meaning, he always was the only begotten Son. The expression does not refer to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, because he is the Son from eternity past.

[...] You can only beget a child that has the same nature as you have—a son or a daughter. There is nothing else you can beget (unless you were speaking very figuratively). Your son or your daughter will inherit his or her nature from you—genes, personality—all of it. You can use “make” or “create” for producing a child; but when you use “beget” it only means you produce a child that has your nature.

Now follow this carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father. If Jesus has the same nature as God the Father, then Jesus is divine and eternal as well. If he is eternally God, then there was never a time he was literally begotten—which is why we know the language is figurative to describe his nature, and not his beginning. To call Jesus “the only begotten Son” means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son.


from the above it becomes obvious that trinitarians don't at all mean to imply a sexual union between god and a woman (as it is misunderstood in the qur'an for how then would the speaker almost derisively ask, "how can allah have a son when he has no wife?") for that would be blasphemy. instead the term "only-begotten" is merely to signify the relationship which the son has to the father. that said, it then becomes plainly evident that the phrase "god begot a son" is not in contradiction to "god has a son" and that neither of these involve temporality.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
2. You believe it is an ancient heresy that God took a Son

My answer
I agree it was and it still is a heresy believed by many who call themselves Christian
we indeed are in agreement but once more that is not what trinitarians believe. at most that verse would condemn adoptionism and trintarians themselves condemn this. it therefore stands that there is no repudiation of the trinity at all within the qur'an seeing as whenever it engages in a description of the three gods whom christians worship, it is never that which trinitarians actually profess to worship. mary always makes an appearance as one of the three and seeing as we know that the trinity deals with three persons and given that the only enumeration of three supposed deities we have are allah, mary, and jesus it follows that the qur'an has an improper understanding of this trinity which trinitarians hold so dear.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
3. God always was 3 entities inseperable from each other

My answer
This is our point of biggest disagreement. By simple definition in my feeble, somewhat senile mind. if they are inseparable they are not 3 entities. If they are not 3 entities, there is no trinity
if i have understood your example correctly then you are arguing that distinctions cannot exist when things are inseparable (please correct me if i am wrong). at present, it is our task to see if this argument is at all correct. you would agree with me that length is distinct from, width, and that width is distinct from height, and that height is not either of these and yet it is not 3 spaces that we possess but rather that the one space is always existent as length, width and height. these are distinct (such that neither is the other), yet are all the one space (such that prerogatives of space apply equally and fully to these three distinctions), and therefore these aspects of space are inseparable as it relates to space. simply from this, we can therefore admit that 3 things can be distinct without losing that which makes them inseparable.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
4. Christians have always understood the doctrine of the trinity correctly.

My answer
Then why did it take so many church councils to define it and work it into Church Doctrine?
no, the argument of mine which you number as the fourth does not say that christians as a whole always understood the trinity (i am not ready to call someone who does not understand the trinity not a christian) but rather that even if we were to grant that at some point in the distant past mary was part of the trinity (which i don't believe but only grant for the sake of the argument), by the time of muhammad (actually a very long time before he began spreading the message of islam), the trinity had been defined as the father, the son, and the holy spirit. as such, the qur'an would have no reason to consistently condemn misrepresentations of the trinity while supposing that it was actually condemning the thing that trinitarians believed. what is condemned is almost every heresy from adoptionism, sabellianism, tritheism, (and a heresy which i don't even know the name of: confounding the position of the father in S. 5:70-75. the father wouldn't even be the third.) yet never the trinity.

anyway, i will await your reply.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-11-2011, 07:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion

This has always confused me... If Jesus is finite, then how could he be God? This is where Muslims seem to have problems with the whole concept of God becoming a man... The notion of God (an infinite being) becoming something that is finite (a man) just doesn't make sense to me. God cannot be a (finite) man. God is, by definition, infinite... The second He becomes finite, he ceases to be God...

Right?

I can certainly understand how this might be confusing, even become a stumbling block, for you and many others. I'm not going to prove anything to you against what you already believe -- I'm not that naive -- but if you will allow, I can speak about my own understanding.

I begin an assumption, God is infinite in wisdom, power, and love. If this is so, then God can only be limited by his own will, not circumstances. I also believe that God's will is ever directed toward his children's good (i.e. toward blessing us). So, if God sees that we need to be reconciled to him, but this can only be accomplished by a human being living a truly submissive life in which they sought God's will rather than their own as having first place in their life, and only a perfect human being would be able to actually live this way. And yet in the natural order of things there is no such thing as a perfect human being, and the only way for their to be a perfect human being (this side of creation) would be for one who himself perfect to enter into the realm of humanity, live as one of them, experiencing all of the temptations and infirmities that people do, and still to remain faithful to the Father. Then God would do what was necessary to accomplish this, because he wills it, and nothing prevents him from doing so.

Now, you argue that as soon as God puts on human flesh he is no longer God. I disagree. What the Christian scriptures say is that in putting on human flesh, God the Son emptied himself of his divine power, but not his divine nature. He was still Holy. He was still in perfect communion with God the Father and God the Spirit. But by putting on flesh he had limited his exercise of divine power. Thus he was capable of being subjected to all the things that any other human being can be subjected to: the temptation to make one's self (rather than God) number 1, to physical infirmities, even to death. And indeed, as a Christian I do believe that he submitted himself even to death on a cross. But none of this made him any less God by nature. It only showed that he was also truly living as a human.

During the time that Jesus spent among us on earth, he did indeed live as a finite being. But that was by choice. So, when we see Jesus doing the miracles that he does, Jesus does them through the power of the Spirit of God that rests on him. And just as we pray, so he prayed to maintain that sense of communion with the Father that he had always had, and that the Father wants to have with us. Yet even though Jesus goes through all of this life just as we do, fully human in his power, he shows that he is still the embodiment of God's divine will and love. It is certainly not natural, might even be termed supernatural, but Jesus is indeed God dwelling among us in the flesh, and by the submission of his will to the Father, offering up as the representative of humanity the perfect life given over to God that we could not do ourselves. And at the same time he manifest to us God's perfect love for in doing so he lays his own life down that we might be saved.

To those who suggest that if Jesus knew about the Resurrection, then he didn't really make any sacrifice or take any risk, I disagree. This is no false sacrifice. Jesus really suffers and dies. Is he confident of the resurrection? I suppose YES. But that doesn't make his death any easier. The Chrsitian scriptures speak of Abraham's willingness to offer his son as requested by God. And one of the things that they say is that Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, but this is never understood as in any way diminishing the nature of Abraham's willingness to offer his son. It is still a sacrifice. So too, I would argue, Jesus' sacrifice is a real sacrifice. Not only would he face death, but he would experience the burdern of taking on himself the sin of the world, something that would be even more painful for him than mere physical death.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-11-2011, 07:16 AM
And now, to Woodrow and all others who might rightly expect me to respond to their posts, I apologize. I had not intended to post nearly this much in any one day, limiting myself to but one or two. I quite over-invested my time in this thread today. And so, whether I have helped to increase understanding or merely muddied the waters more, I shall have to refrain from further activities here awhile once again in order to return my attentions to matters in my non-virtual world.
Reply

aamirsaab
02-11-2011, 09:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
No I don't believe they are synonymous.
In the context of sura 10 verse 68, it amounts to the same thing. Some translations say begot, some say took a son. The ayat itself is very clear on what it it's talking about anyway - doesn't require much thought nor discussion to understand.
Reply

Al-manar
02-11-2011, 10:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
from the above it becomes obvious that trinitarians don't at all mean to imply a sexual union between god and a woman (as it is misunderstood in the qur'an for how then would the speaker almost derisively ask, "how can allah have a son when he has no wife?") for that would be blasphemy.

that is falwed simplification of the issue.....

the Quran attacks ALL the applecations of the term ...and ALL people who used to ,still held it...

- Criticising the metaphorical applecation used by Jews and christians

Holy Quran 5:18 And the Jews and the Christians say, "We are God's children, and His beloved ones." Say: "Why, then, does He cause you to suffer for your sins? Nay, you are but human beings of His creating. He forgives whom He wills, and He causes to suffer whom He wills


- criticising the people (without specified who they are), who invented for him sons and daughters .....

the Quran - 6:100 And yet, some [people] have come to attribute to all manner of invisible beings a place side by side with God - although it is He who has created them ; and in their ignorance they have invented for Him sons and daughters! Limitless is He is His glory, and sublimely exalted above anything that men may devise by way of definition:Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.


the following verse let's no doubt that the source of the Quran was criticising the term beyond the meaning of a sexual union between god and a woman ,offspring ...

the Quran - 9:30 And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before


the source is criticising a metaphysical application of the term ,I don't think the source of the Quran believed that the Jews believed in Uzair as offspring of God neither christian do with Jesus .... but the Quran criticise the metaphysical application of the term , which was not restricted to the Jews and christians but those who disbelieved (pagans) before as well......


That was just a brief word on the issue (don't expect me to say more on the issue right here )....more details regarding the matter will be in my thread

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...d-items-9.html
Reply

Ramadhan
02-11-2011, 11:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The Father beget a Son, but remember, not in the sense of biological procreation

Since you love playing semantics, let's have a look at dictionary, shall we?

Origin:
before 1000; Middle English begeten ( see be-, get); replacing Middle English biyeten, Old English begetan; cognate with Gothic bigitan, Old High German bigezzan

—Related forms be·get·ter, noun

—Synonyms
1. spawn, sire, breed, father.
2. occasion, engender, effect, generate.


beget (bɪˈɡɛt)

vb , -gets , -getting , -got , -gat , -gotten , -got

1.
to father
2. to cause or create

[Old English begietan ; related to Old Saxon bigetan , Old High German pigezzan , Gothic bigitan to find; see be- , get ] be'getter n

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
For the Son has always existed, just as the Father has always existed. Both the Father and the Son are pre-existent and co-eternal. There never was a time when one was not.
umm...according to the dictionary, the begotten is caused by the begetter, so this means the begetter must already exist prior to the begotten.

If you feel that the word begotten doesn't convey the true meaning of God and jesus relationships, why don't you give us another word that you feel more accurate?

But if you do, that means you would corrupt your own scripture.

But we both know it won't be the first time it happened, right?
:)


I am only using semantics and logic here and have already exposed your contradictions (even if you tried to cover it with so many words and long sentences), I'm not even using verses from your scripture yet, which would totally contradict what you were saying above.
To say I'm surprised to find out you don't know your bible (since you are a pastor) is a huge understatement.

anyway, whichever you cut it, as aamirsaab said in the above post, the verse refutes trinity.
Reply

جوري
02-11-2011, 11:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
We're going to have to agree to disagree. Your conclusion that Jesus' death makes God finite does not fit. If you were to say that Jesus was finite that would be one thing, but it is as if you forget that the Father and the Spirit are no less infinite than before.

You haven't answered me as to which of the previous is the reincarnate of God? Adam, the sons of men with the lovelies, the devil?
It isn't a question of agreement.. it is a question of logic.. you don't seem to employ it, yet expect people to simply accept it because of really long winded explanations, that say much ado about nothing!~
Reply

Ramadhan
02-11-2011, 11:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The death of Jesus on the cross in no way makes God any less infinite. Indeed, it shows that there is no limit to God's power, for he triumphs over even death.
We both agree that God is infinite.
You claim jesus was God.
Historically, we know that Jesus was a man.
man is NOT infinite.
hence we know Jesus is not God, and your claim is incorrect.


Or are you re-defining the word "infinite"?

I feel that with christians (and you especially) we have to shut down our brain, ignore all the glaring absurdities and irrationalities, and re-define the meanings of so many words and terms (eg. begotten, infinite, etc).
Reply

Trumble
02-11-2011, 03:05 PM
I see no reason why a particular manifestation or materialization of something infinite should itself necessarily be infinite. There is no need to 'redefine' anything.

I'd also point out that both camps are quite happy with the idea that the ultimate nature of God is something incomprehensible to the human mind. If that were the case, then there is no way of knowing if that nature (which is just labelled 'infinite' - among other things - for want of anything better to describe the indescribable) could apply to Jesus or not.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-11-2011, 03:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I see no reason why a particular manifestation or materialization of something infinite should itself necessarily be infinite. There is no need to 'redefine' anything.

Are you christian?

Christians believe Jesus is God, not just manifestation or materialization.

I think before you cut into a discussion you should at least know what's being discussed.


format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I'd also point out that both camps are quite happy with the idea that the ultimate nature of God is something incomprehensible to the human mind

Again, christians believe Jesus is God, and Jesus is comprehensible.



format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
If that were the case, then there is no way of knowing if that nature (which is just labelled 'infinite' - among other things - for want of anything better to describe the indescribable) could apply to Jesus or not.
Surely you must have seen pictures and statues of Jesus (pbuh)? So Jesus is definitely describable.

Or do you, as christians love to do at least in this forums, also want to re-define the meanings of "infinite", "incomprehensible", and "indescribable"?
Reply

Trumble
02-11-2011, 04:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Are you christian?
No. Are you?

Christians believe Jesus is God, not just manifestation or materialization.
Ah, "just". Perhaps the most notorious word in the English language when it comes to frequently meaning absolutely nothing, as here. I think you are the one needing definitions; try 'manifestation' and 'materialization'. Neither exclude 'is'; indeed quite the contrary.

I think before you cut into a discussion you should at least know what's being discussed.
And I think you should keep your opinion to yourself, particularly when your own arguments are so feeble.

Again, christians believe Jesus is God, and Jesus is comprehensible.
In what way is the nature of Jesus 'comprehensible' in a way the nature of God is not?

Surely you must have seen pictures and statues of Jesus (pbuh)? So Jesus is definitely describable.
Pfffttt.. Apart from the obvious fact that none of those sculptors and artists ever actually saw him, and have therefore only produced (usually stylised and/or idealized) images of what they imagine he might have looked like, you now seem to be equating the essential nature of Jesus with his appearance. What do pictures and statues have to do with anything?

Or do you, as christians love to do at least in this forums, also want to re-define the meanings of "infinite", "incomprehensible", and "indescribable"?
As I said, there is no need to redefine anything. Those words, like all words, are just labels; they have no independent existence or connection with the entities you choose to describe them with other than convention. You can't claim the nature of God is beyond human comprehension one minute and then wave a dictionary about the next.
Reply

Martinz
02-11-2011, 11:00 PM
Boy, this thread had really shot forward since I last posted! Phew! Brothers and sisters, it is good to see you slogging it out!

I would like to get back to the bigger picture of what we are discussing here. It appears as if we have two interconnected issues here:

  1. Trinity: 3 Gods in one God
  2. Jesus being God

To me, as a Christian, the greatest heresy is to worship Jesus as a god. The bible plainly states that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". So Trinity is part of the process towards misleading Christians to worship Jesus as a god and is one step towards this.

So, in a way, we need to look at a kind of chronology of "how Christians got mislead and manipulated into worshipping Jesus as a god."

It all began with the Gospel of John (that I am aware of):

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that who shall believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."
There are two things here: not only is Jesus acknowledged as the "Son of God", but he is exclusivised as being the only begotten son. I can say here that I don't believe in the exclusivization of any prophet since God is compassionate and merciful and he will always anoint men and women to do his work in the world on some level or other (including the Al-Qa'im or Mahdi). This would make a good discussion on another thread - let's not get side-tracked.

So, it begins with our spiritually anointed brother, Jesus being concidered the "Son of God". At this point Jesus is not quite a god in his own right, but it is the first sleezy manipulation of Christian dogma towards this. (Yea, right!:rollseyes)

Then in 325 AD the Council of Nicea incorporated Jesus as part of Trinity as "the Son". And it is the ol' "Three Gods in One God" thingy. 300 years after this, God sends our spiritually anointed brother: Prophet Mohammed (God bless the guy!) to be inspired to write the last holy book, the Quran. You see, God can see the 'writing on the wall' (this term actually comes from the Book of Daniel, by the way), as God has this way of seeing into the heart of things and knew what was coming. So, in this last holy book called the Quran, Prophet Mohammed speaks out against the worship of Jesus and his Mother Mary.

Since 325 AD, things have got much worse and now we have fundamentalists and others who blatantly worship Jesus outright:enough!:.

Getting back to Jesus being the only begotten son of God. As a metaphor, we are all sons and daughters of God. Not only humans but animals and inorganic elements are the sons and daughters of God (inorganic elements might not have male and female sex, but a metaphor is a metaphor and we shouldn't get carried away!). - Because all come from God and all return to God...

The last thing I want to say at this point is that there is this interesting website that may encourage further discussion on this Trinity thing, except I'm not allowed to make any links until I get in my 50 post quota. (oh fiddlesticks!!)

:wasalamex
Reply

Predator
02-11-2011, 11:51 PM
Getting back to Jesus being the only begotten son of God.
As a metaphor, we are all sons and daughters of God. Not only humans but animals and inorganic elements are the sons and daughters of God (inorganic elements might not have male and female sex, but a metaphor is a metaphor and we shouldn't get carried away!). -
You mean we are creations of God right? , God cant create any "uncreated" baby gods of himself

Because all come from God and all return to God...
Thats right

“To Allah we belong and to Him we shall return.” (Surah Al Baqarah 2:156)
Reply

Martinz
02-12-2011, 12:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
You mean we are creations of God right? , God cant create any "uncreated" baby gods of himself

Uncreated baby gods???;D;D;D;D

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::h aha:

Yes, we are indeed creations of God... and all are equal in the eyes of the Lord. This includes our spiritually annointed brothers like Jesus & Moses & Mohammed (Praise be to them all). Only God is Great!...Only God!
Reply

Ramadhan
02-12-2011, 12:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
No. Are you?

Then I think maybe you want to consider to become one, you seem to have the love for words with no substance.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-12-2011, 12:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Martinz
Yes, we are indeed creations of God... and all are equal in the eyes of the Lord. This includes our spiritually annointed brothers like Jesus & Moses & Mohammed (Praise be to them all). Only God is Great!...Only God!

are you a unitarian christian?
Reply

MustafaMc
02-12-2011, 02:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Martinz
Holy Spirit is not the second aspect of God - it is God (as we can experiance his presence on earth)



Holy Spirit = God = Allah

From your perspective, how is the Holy Spirit related to the Father that Jesus prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane?
Reply

MustafaMc
02-12-2011, 03:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Martinz
To me, as a Christian, the greatest heresy is to worship Jesus as a god. The bible plainly states that "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". So Trinity is part of the process towards misleading Christians to worship Jesus as a god and is one step towards this.
I agree. From the Islamic perspective, to say that Jesus is the Son of God is ascribing partners to the One God and is a most monstrous sin.
It all began with the Gospel of John (that I am aware of):
Actually, the Gospel of John (~98 AD) was preceded by the letters by Paul and I believe that the Trinity originates there.
So, it begins with our spiritually anointed brother, Jesus being concidered the "Son of God". At this point Jesus is not quite a god in his own right, but it is the first sleezy manipulation of Christian dogma towards this.
Yes, saying Jesus was the 'Son of God' was the first step down that slippery sacrilegious slope. Don't you find it interesting how often Jesus referred to himself as the 'Son of Man' and only in the Gospel of John is he quoted as referring to himself as the 'Son of God'? It is further interesting that about the same number of times Jesus is referred to as the 'servant of God' in the Book of Acts.
So, in this last holy book called the Quran, Prophet Mohammed speaks out against the worship of Jesus and his Mother Mary.
That is correct.
As a metaphor, we are all sons and daughters of God. Not only humans but animals and inorganic elements are the sons and daughters of God (inorganic elements might not have male and female sex, but a metaphor is a metaphor and we shouldn't get carried away!). - Because all come from God and all return to God...
I beg to differ here as I see that we are created beings because 'son' and 'daughter' infer a certain level of equality as opposed to subservience.
The last thing I want to say at this point is that there is this interesting website that may encourage further discussion on this Trinity thing, except I'm not allowed to make any links until I get in my 50 post quota. (oh fiddlesticks!!)
Well, get to posting, then.
Reply

Predator
02-12-2011, 10:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Martinz
Uncreated baby gods???;D;D;D;D
Of course , God by definition is Uncreated without any beginning or end So how he create another uncreated . This is common sense, He cant create another God

Jesus was created 2011 years ago , so he cant be God . It as simple as that
Reply

MustafaMc
02-12-2011, 01:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
It isn't a question of agreement.. it is a question of logic.. you don't seem to employ it, yet expect people to simply accept it because of really long winded explanations, that say much ado about nothing!~
Ukhti, that is exactly what I was thinking and there is a relevant phrase that came to mind, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Meaning, "If something isn't very good to start with, you can't do much to improve it." You can use some mighty big words and flowery language to describe what one may scoop out of a horse stall, but it still stinks. There are not enough words in the English language to convince me that the concept of the Trinity is true and that God can be born of a woman and that one 'person' of His being can arise from being baptized, while another 'person' descends upon the 1st person in the form of a dove, and at the same time another says, "This is My son." And yet some will try to convince you that the 3 'persons' are one and the same being.

Which brings to mind something our respected Akhi Woodrow wrote:

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
It seems in my view there are several points being brought out in that paragraph. I do concede you have a very large vocabulary.
However, simple and concise language to show the reality of One God without father, mother, son, daughter or equal is immensely more valuable than scholarly and extensive language to describe an absurdity - which again is "much ado about nothing".
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-12-2011, 07:55 PM
while i would like to keep the conversation between woodrow and i (given that, from what i have seen, he is the only one that could grasp the argument and perceive that it was not mere semantics nor does he resort to ridicule because of an inability refute my points) the fact of the matter is that you have taken the time to make a post (and up until now i have not made clear that because of his understanding and civil nature, this conversation would be between woodrow and i) and as such i should have the decency to respond to you before making it clear that this discussion is (primarily) between woodrow and i. now, let's go about examining your rebuttal.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
that is falwed simplification of the issue.....

the Quran attacks ALL the applecations of the term ...and ALL people who used to ,still held it...

- Criticising the metaphorical applecation used by Jews and christians

Holy Quran 5:18 And the Jews and the Christians say, "We are God's children, and His beloved ones." Say: "Why, then, does He cause you to suffer for your sins? Nay, you are but human beings of His creating. He forgives whom He wills, and He causes to suffer whom He wills
the fact that the qur'an also criticizes what jews and christians say about themselves in no way simplifies the issue when the matter is specifically concerning what it says about the god whom christians worship. as such, these are two separate cases and the above has no bearing at all on my argument. notice that the statement, "we are the children of god" is different then "jesus is the son of god". while when jews and christians say the first, they do in fact mean it in a metaphorical sense yet when christians say the latter, they mean to imply the divinity of christ. even you understand this because while you know that christians believe themselves to be the children of god, by this statement they don't believe themselves to be divine yet when they say that christ is the son of god, they mean him to be god. now you may have issues with these statements and that would be besides the point. the main thing is that you acknowledge a difference between what christians say about themselves and what they say about christ. given this fact, the above has at all no bearing on the trinity discussion.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
- criticising the people (without specified who they are), who invented for him sons and daughters .....

the Quran - 6:100 And yet, some [people] have come to attribute to all manner of invisible beings a place side by side with God - although it is He who has created them ; and in their ignorance they have invented for Him sons and daughters! Limitless is He is His glory, and sublimely exalted above anything that men may devise by way of definition:Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.
let's see, if i understood you correctly. you took issue with my statement that the qur'an misunderstood the birth of christ and that therefore it incorrectly believed that the term son of god pointed to a sexual union between the father and a woman. to this end you have cited the above and yet even in your very own example, the speaker says that god could not have a son because he has no wife. the statement is very clear and if this verse is even in part speaking of christians then it is wrong. if the speaker did not have some sexual union in mind between god and a woman, why else would they mention a consort? the matter is quite plain and given that whenever the three gods whom Christians supposedly worship are enumerated, it is always god, mary, and jesus--a father, a mother, and a son. that is not the trinity nor at all what christians believe concerning the term "son of god". your very example contradicts your claims.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
the following verse let's no doubt that the source of the Quran was criticising the term beyond the meaning of a sexual union between god and a woman ,offspring ...

the Quran - 9:30 And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before


the source is criticising a metaphysical application of the term ,I don't think the source of the Quran believed that the Jews believed in Uzair as offspring of God neither christian do with Jesus .... but the Quran criticise the metaphysical application of the term , which was not restricted to the Jews and christians but those who disbelieved (pagans) before as well......
no, the above source does not remove any doubt concerning the matter. let us at present ignore that jews have never called uzair the son of god and simply grant this for the sake of the argument, it would still not follow that you are correct. jews use the term in a different sense then how christians use the term concerning christ and so even if the speaker were condemning the jewish usage and the christian usage, it doesn't change the fact that as we have seen from looking at every instance of the sort in the qur'an, the christian usage is condemned because the speaker misunderstood the term as implying a sexual union between god and a woman and so rather derisively asks "how can god have a son when he doesn't have a woman to have sex with?" once more, that is not at all what christians have meant by the term and the above is incorrect.
Reply

جوري
02-12-2011, 08:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Ukhti, that is exactly what I was thinking and there is a relevant phrase that came to mind, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear." Meaning, "If something isn't very good to start with, you can't do much to improve it." You can use some mighty big words and flowery language to describe what one may scoop out of a horse stall, but it still stinks. There are not enough words in the English language to convince me that the concept of the Trinity is true and that God can be born of a woman and that one 'person' of His being can arise from being baptized, while another 'person' descends upon the 1st person in the form of a dove, and at the same time another says, "This is My son." And yet some will try to convince you that the 3 'persons' are one and the same being.

Reply With Quote

Which brings to mind something our respected Akhi Woodrow wrote:

However, simple and concise language to show the reality of One God without father, mother, son, daughter or equal is immensely more valuable than scholarly and extensive language to describe an absurdity - which again is "much ado about nothing".

I agree with you full heatedly but I no longer care to ease these people out of their ignorance.. I rather celebrate us..

watch this and rejoice..
Reply

Al-manar
02-12-2011, 09:38 PM
greetings


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
the main thing is that you acknowledge a difference between what christians say about themselves and what they say about christ.
the Quran aknowledges that too ....

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
god, mary, and jesus

that is a false claim ..... not only ,based on misunderstanding of the Quran but also I have authentic quotations from the time of the prophet ,proves that the christians around him believed in father,son,holy spirit formula ...but let's save that to be posted in my thread....

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
to this end you have cited the above and yet even in your very own example, the speaker says that god could not have a son because he has no wife. .
the speaker says to those(no mention whom they are) who attributed for him sons and daughters ,if God got no consort ,so it is nonsensical to attribute so .....

-there is no mention of christians..
-there is no mention that those who attributed to him sons and daughters believed in the sonship as a sexual union between god and a woman .
- there is no mention that the consort refered to has to be a woman (human)...
the verse could be understood simply as (those people attributed the nonesense to me )....

If you could find in the verse a reference to those people believing in God had son(s) daughter(s) through sexual union with a human (you will never be able to) then ,you still have the difficulty proving that Jews and christians are included in that verse .

now the next stage and another verse:


Holy Quran 113 "He begets not, and neither is He begotten.

note the expression, HE begets not , it doesn't say his wife begets not ..... , it is most probable means, to be generated from God ......

God says plainly, He has no generated son.... no mention there of a consort ...

now the next stage and another verse:

the Quran - 9:30 And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah.

that is the first time Jews and christian are specified while mentioning the un-metaphorical use of the word son of God ..... such verse should be crucial to the matter of discussion now....

1- the source of the Quran well aware of the metaphorical use of the word by Jews and christians in verse 5:18 , no sense of specifying Uzair in one verse alone ,if the criticism is leveled against the metaphorical use .....
the application of the term has to be metaphysical in that verse..

2- The source of the Quran believed that the Jews mistakenly applied for Ezra Metaphysical application of Sonship .....

3- whatever that Metaphysical meaning could have been ,the concept of human union with God to produce Ezra is to be doubted, as unlike Jesus born of virigin Ezra wasn't (till you prove otherwise)...

4- If Ezra was believed to have a Sonship in a Metaphysical sense doubted to be God-human sexual union , and the very next words of the verse mentions another Metaphysical sonship of Jesus ,then it is fair to doubt that this another Metaphysical sonship of Jesus has to be God-human sexual union ......

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” .
I welcome your term , and that very same term is negated by the source of the Quran ..
Holy Quran 112 HE begets(aka generates) not.



peace
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-12-2011, 10:49 PM
thank you for your reply.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
greetings
that is a false claim ..... not only ,based on misunderstanding of the Quran but also I have authentic quotations from the time of the prophet ,proves that the christians around him believed in father,son,holy spirit formula ...but let's save that to be posted in my thread....
hmm, i believe i said that the only time the three gods whom christians worship are enumerated in the qur'an, this trinity consists of the father, the son, and mary. what about this is false? please, show me from the qur'an if this is not the case.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
the speaker says to those(no mention whom they are) who attributed for him sons and daughters ,if God got no consort ,so it is nonsensical to attribute so .....

( a ) -there is no mention of christians..
-there is no mention that those who attributed to him sons and daughters believed in the sonship as a sexual union between god and a woman .
- ( b ) there is no mention that the consort refered to has to be a woman (human)...
the verse could be understood simply as (those people attributed the nonesense to me )....
( a ) if there is no mention of christians then i would not expect the verse to be used as a refutation of the trinity. i say this because while i had argued that the verse was speaking of christians, you claimed that seeing as it does not mention the word "christians", i cannot argue that it has to do with christians. i don't even have to challenge you on this point because either way, this still does not change the fact that there is no repudiation of the trinity within the qur'an. even you don't try to prove this claim of mine incorrect but at most wish to point me to various hadiths which are 200-300 years removed from your scripture.

( b ) did i argue that the consort had to be human? no. what i did say and demonstrated conclusively was that whatever the case, the speaker of the qur'an repudiated worship of mary as god (so implicit in this condemnation is the belief that christians believed that mary was a god) as such the verse in question would not need to argue that the consort had to be human because it speaks of and believes that christians themselves believed in a divine consort. it believes that christians worship a divine consort of the father and as such repudiates this idea of a divine consort and not a human one because it once more misunderstood christians as worshiping three gods whom the qur'an itself repeatedly enumerates as the father, the son, and mary (if i am wrong, find me a reference in the qur'an where the trinity is not defined as consisting of these three)! notice how many times the qur'an tries to prove that mary is not divine? it would not need to do so if it believed that christians themselves didn't think that mary was divine and as such your point fails.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
If you could find in the verse a reference to those people believing in God had son(s) daughter(s) through sexual union with a human (you will never be able to) then ,you still have the difficulty proving that Jews and christians are included in that verse .
i never once argued that the consort had to be human. rather, i consistently said that the qur'an believed that trinitarians thought mary to be a god (as is easily shown from all the references i have posted) and therefore it would argue against a sexual union with a divine consort. hence why the speaker says that allah could not have a son because he does not have a consort. furthermore, hence why it consistently declares that mary is not a god (it would have no need to do so if it thought that trinitarians also believed that mary was merely a human). you seem to equate wife to human and that is incorrect and at least in the above, this is the critical mistake you make.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
Holy Quran 113 "He begets not, and neither is He begotten.

note the expression, HE begets not , it doesn't say his wife begets not ..... when the word begets refers to masculine , it means, to be generated from God ......

God says plainly, He has no generated son from him .... no mention there of a human woman ...
it is generally understood that a woman gives birth and a man begets. as such i would not be surprised if the arabic word for beget is masculine because it is a term usually used of males. anyway, when a man begets it is always through a sexual union so your point is untenable at best. yet i suppose that it wouldn't do just to listen to me and as such i will simply present you with what your very own muslim commentators say on the matter of begetting.

Yusuf Ali writes:

It is derogation from the glory of God—in fact it is blasphemy—to say that God begets sons, like a man or an animal. The Christian doctrine is here emphatically repudiated. If words have any meaning, it would mean an attribution to God of a material nature and of the lower animal function of sex. (Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an. (Beltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1989), 286.)

even your own commentators understood the term begetting as involving a sexual union. in light of what your own commentators have said, your point is shown to be incorrect.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
now the next stage and another verse:

the Quran - 9:30 And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before.

that is the first time Jews and christian are specified while mentioning the un-metaphorical use of the word son of God ..... such verse should be crucial to the matter of discussion now....

1- the source of the Quran well aware of the metaphorical use of the word by Jews and christians in verse 5:18 , no sense of specifying Uzair in one verse alone ,if the criticism is leveled against the metaphorical use .....
the application of the term has to be metaphysical in that verse..

2- The source of the Quran believed that the Jews mistakenly gave him mytaphisical application of Sonship .....

3- whatever that Metaphysical meaning may be ,the concept of human union with God to produce Ezra is to be doubted, as unlike Jesus born of virigin Ezra wasn't (till you prove otherwise)...

4- If Ezra was believed to have a Sonship in a Metaphysical sense doubted to be God-human sexual union , and the very next words of the verse mentions another Metaphysical sonship of Jesus ,then it is fair to doubt that this another Metaphysical sonship of Jesus has to be God-human sexual union ......
your points rely on the fact that the speaker did not condemn them for two different reasons. we know that jews do not use the phrase in the manner that christians use the phrase and as such the speaker would condemn jews because they should have instead said that they are the salves of allah and condemned christians because god could not have a son if he has no consort. i do not believe that the statement "we are the children of god" or "so and so is the son of god" is considered allowable in islam and as such the speaker would have every reason to condemn the jews for this, but furthermore, given that the qur'an itself highlights numerous times that god could not have "a son" because he has no wife nor consort, it is only reasonable to read the verse (when it comes to christians) in the light of a sexual union. this is once again reinforced by your own islamic commentators. once more you have yet to prove your point.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
I welcome your term , and that very same term is negated by the source of the Quran ..
Holy Quran 112 HE begets(aka generates) not.
no, you simply assume that this is what it means. your own islamic commentators and the qur'an itself prove you false.
Reply

Martinz
02-13-2011, 10:53 AM
Hello Naidamar

are you a unitarian christian?
I had to google 'Unitarian Christian' to find out who they were. Having read the wikipedia definition I guess to some degree I am. I have just found out that Unitarians believe in:

* One God and the oneness or unity of God.
* The life and teachings of Jesus Christ constitute the exemplar model for living one's own life.
* Reason, rational thought, science, and philosophy coexist with faith in God.
* Humans have the ability to exercise free will in a responsible, constructive and ethical manner with the assistance of religion.
* Human nature in its present condition is neither inherently corrupt nor depraved (see original Sin), but capable of both good and evil, as God intended.
* No religion can claim an absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit or theological truth.
* Though the authors of the Bible were inspired by God, they were humans and therefore subject to human error.
* Traditional doctrines that (they believe) malign God's character or veil the true nature and mission of Jesus Christ, such as the doctrines of predestination, eternal ****ation, and the vicarious sacrifice or satisfaction theory of the Atonement are rejected.
Actually, I honestly agree with each of these precepts. I especially like this one:

* No religion can claim an absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit or theological truth.
Only God has absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit and all truth, because it eminates from him...which leads me to the next question about Holy Spirit:

Greetings MustafaMc

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
From your perspective, how is the Holy Spirit related to the Father that Jesus prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane?
I think Holy Spirit has an interchangeable definition depending on how you look at it. Of course dogmatic people have a problem with this, because something can only be this way or something can only be that way; their ideology is very fixed.

It can be said that Holy Spirit is God. Yet, it can be said that Holy Spirit is the Light of God that can dwell inside of us - or that the Holy Spirit is an attribute of God that speaks directly in the core of our being.

When Jesus got baptised, the fact that the Holy Spirit entered unto him was symbolized by a dove. From that time onwards, everything Jesus said and did was inspired by the Holy Spirit that resided in him.

So, if Jesus wanted to speak to God, he would pray - like in the Garden of Gethsemane. But, when God wanted to speak with Jesus it would come directly through the Holy Spirit that resided in him. Probably both could be happening simultaneously at times.

On the other hand, when God wanted to speak to Prophet Mohammed, he spoke through Angel Gabriel in a series of visions. But, even here, the Holy Spirit would have to be present to some degree for that to happen. It is a prevasive Holy presence; it is like the smell of Jasmine on a warm summer night...

So, the question is: Why didn't God communicate with Prophet Mohammed directly through the Holy Spirit? Because it was the direct transmission of Holy Spirit in Jesus which caused the problem of Jesus' disciples being mislead to believe that Jesus was God himself - which lead Christians theologians to postulate the Trinity in the first place! When Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but by me." - it was the Holy Spirit in Jesus that spoke thus and not Jesus himself. When Jesus said "I am the alpha and omega", it wasn't Jesus who was the alpha and the omega but God - channelled directly by the Holy Spirit (so to speak).

So, when God spoke to Prophet Mohammed in a series of visions through Angel Gabriel, Angel Gabriel was a kind of safety-net which prevented Mohammed expressing Gods' truth in the first person. If that happened, Muslims would be worshipping Prophet Mohammed as a God! Thank God this never happened!!! I don't want to even imagine what would have happened in our history if this was the case!

Anyway, the Holy Spirit doesn't belong to Christianity, it belongs to God. In one sense it is God. Just because Prophet Mohammed didn't speak specifically about the Holy Spirit doesn't mean Muslims can't experiance the Holy Spirit. If you are a Muslim praying in the mosque and out of nowhere you feel this burst of total gratitude to God, with a sense of "I am totally yours Allah - lock, stock and barrel" - and tears of benediction are pouring down your face - how can it not be the Holy Spirit???

Another thing is that the Holy Spirit comes when it comes and not necessarily when you want it to come. You can't force it. It is given to you at Gods discretion. I've seen Christians with their faces straining as if they are constipated - trying to squeeze it into them ;D. If you happen to be blessed when the Holy Spirit unexpectedly bursts into you, make the most of it. Don't be afraid - just let go! It is a bit like death when it is time to go to the other side: don't be afraid - just let go - and keep focassed on the awesomeness of God.
:bism:
Reply

M.I.A.
02-13-2011, 11:28 AM
just because you fit the definition in part does not mean that you are unitarian, it only means if you meet another unitarian you should have things in common.

but im sure christian is a broader term that encompasses more that unitarian,

the next generation of unitarians may not see the case so simply though.
Reply

Al-manar
02-13-2011, 11:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
( a ) if there is no mention of christians then i would not expect the verse to be used as a refutation of the trinity. i say this because while i had argued that the verse was speaking of christians
if the verse mentions daughters as well...then it is fair to assume it talking about the pre -Judaism ,christianity world of paganism ...., such Pagan methodologies regarding divine sonship were different,and vague....
If the christians and Jews included in the verse ..... again as I said before the verse doesn't say (those bad people believed that God had sex with woman and begat a son ) ...but simply (Those people attributed nonesensical attribute to me)

it is as like God saying (if I have once a consort then your attribute will make sense ,and I'm going to accept it) .....


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
what i did say and demonstrated conclusively was that whatever the case, the speaker of the qur'an repudiated worship of mary as god
In the Quran and Arabic language you can call those who venerate ,or give someone (even if you don't believe in him,her as the creator) any act that should be due to God,you make him,her god,then....

eg;

The Quran - 9:31 They take for gods Instead of Allah their rabbis and their monks, and the Messiah the son of Mary..


the Quran - 5:116
And as Allah said, "O Jesus son of Mary, did you say to mankind, "Take me and my mother (mary) to your selves as two gods, apart from Allah '?" He said, All Extolment be to You! In no way is it for me to say what I have no right to. In case I ever said it.

neither the rabbis nor Mary are believed to be the almighty,the creator but they had received treatment that is due to God alone ..... and that is, from a Quranic point of view is against pure monotheism .......

don't define for me what the Quran means by pure monotheism ,but you are welcome to criticise the definition .....


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
so implicit in this condemnation is the belief that christians believed that mary was a god
people venerated (and still) Mary ,and believe it or not ,according to the Quran ,by doing that,they made her god.....


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
notice how many times the qur'an tries to prove that mary is not divine?
how many times?

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
you seem to equate wife to human
the fact you tried to equate the Quranic treatment of Jesus with Mary ,the same faulty way if you equate the the Quranic treatment of Jesus with rabbies......and that is your mistake....


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
it is generally understood that a woman gives birth and a man begets. as such i would not be surprised if the arabic word for beget is masculine because it is a term usually used of males. anyway, when a man begets it is always through a sexual union so your point is untenable at best.
The Quranic God is not a man, or you believe otherwise?


for your benefit let's visit the Arabic language ....

the Arabic verse

لم يلد ولم يولد


the word يلد

could be used to mean to generate

examples:


العقل الذكى يلد فكراً ذكياً

The intellegent mind begets intellegent thoughts



العقل يلد فكراً له نفس جوهر

The mind begets thoughts than have the same nature


العقل يلد الفكر فى داخله دون أن ينفصل منه

the mind begets some thoughts inside ,that remains inside .

lots of other same examples ....

the sun begets light

etc..... etc....... etc.......



such verse was understood this way in lots of commentaries

eg;

Quranic commentaries:

معنى لم يلد و لم يولد نفي للمادية و الإنحلال و هو أن ينحل منه شىء أو أن يحل هو ‏في شىء


yaled (to beget) means he never generate a son etc.....


again in tafsir Alsafi

لم يلد لم يخرج منه شيء كثيف كالولد

he begets not,means he generates nothing eg; a Son


google the last arabic commentary to see how many links you will find.....

eg;
http://www.sunna.info/Lessons/islam_634.html

etc....etc....

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
yet i suppose that it wouldn't do just to listen to me .
I listened to you .... hope you listened to me too...




format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
the speaker would condemn jews because they should have instead said that they are the salves of allah and condemned christians because god could not have a son if he has no consort.
.
not true ...it condemns BOTH for claiming to be be God's beloved and automatically acquire special advantages over other humans ......

[5:18] The Jews and the Christians said, "We are GOD's children and His beloved." Say, "Why then does He punish you for your sins? You are just humans like the other humans He created." He forgives whomever He wills and punishes whomever He wills.

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
and condemned christians because god could not have a son if he has no consort..
I wish you provide support from the only verse mentions christians using the word Son in a Metaphysical sense....that they do that due to their believe of a sexual union between him and Mary...., quote the Quran instead of putting words between the lines and plz avoid the circular discussion which you have just started...


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i do not believe that the statement "we are the children of god" or "so and so is the son of god" is considered allowable in islam and as such the speaker would have every reason to condemn the jews for this
and christians as well.....

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
but furthermore, given that the qur'an itself highlights numerous times that god could not have "a son" because he has no wife nor consort, it is only reasonable to read the verse (when it comes to christians) in the light of a sexual union.
And I see it reasonable to doubt the sexual union meaning , as (1) in the very same verse the mention of Jesus is preceded by the mention of Ezra with a metaphysical meaning of sonship highly doubted to be sexual union,(2) the case where the Quranic source using begets as generates ...(3)in the same verse the Quran describes such metaphysical application by jews and christians to jesus and ezra ,to be similar (not neccesarily typical) to other older pagans ,and we know that those pagans differed in using the application (4) In the other verse, the Quran criticises those pagans who attributed sons and daughtesr to him ,without defining what they mean by sonship ,God only tells ...they attributed a nonesensical attribute to the almighty .....

to sum up ,the christian criticism is mere guessing without solid substance.....
and Sol Invictus ,you shouldn't have thought me mocking at you when I told you ,that you simplified the issue,the issue is bigger than you may thought ....


peace
Reply

Predator
02-13-2011, 03:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Martinz
Hello Naidamar

I had to google 'Unitarian Christian' to find out who they were. Having read the wikipedia definition I guess to some degree I am. I have just found out that Unitarians believe in:

Actually, I honestly agree with each of these precepts. I especially like this one:

Only God has absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit and all truth, because it eminates from him...which leads me to the next question about Holy Spirit:

Greetings MustafaMc



I think Holy Spirit has an interchangeable definition depending on how you look at it. Of course dogmatic people have a problem with this, because something can only be this way or something can only be that way; their ideology is very fixed.

It can be said that Holy Spirit is God. Yet, it can be said that Holy Spirit is the Light of God that can dwell inside of us - or that the Holy Spirit is an attribute of God that speaks directly in the core of our being.

When Jesus got baptised, the fact that the Holy Spirit entered unto him was symbolized by a dove. From that time onwards, everything Jesus said and did was inspired by the Holy Spirit that resided in him.

So, if Jesus wanted to speak to God, he would pray - like in the Garden of Gethsemane. But, when God wanted to speak with Jesus it would come directly through the Holy Spirit that resided in him. Probably both could be happening simultaneously at times.

On the other hand, when God wanted to speak to Prophet Mohammed, he spoke through Angel Gabriel in a series of visions. But, even here, the Holy Spirit would have to be present to some degree for that to happen. It is a prevasive Holy presence; it is like the smell of Jasmine on a warm summer night...

So, the question is: Why didn't God communicate with Prophet Mohammed directly through the Holy Spirit? Because it was the direct transmission of Holy Spirit in Jesus which caused the problem of Jesus' disciples being mislead to believe that Jesus was God himself - which lead Christians theologians to postulate the Trinity in the first place! When Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father but by me." - it was the Holy Spirit in Jesus that spoke thus and not Jesus himself. When Jesus said "I am the alpha and omega", it wasn't Jesus who was the alpha and the omega but God - channelled directly by the Holy Spirit (so to speak).

So, when God spoke to Prophet Mohammed in a series of visions through Angel Gabriel, Angel Gabriel was a kind of safety-net which prevented Mohammed expressing Gods' truth in the first person. If that happened, Muslims would be worshipping Prophet Mohammed as a God! Thank God this never happened!!! I don't want to even imagine what would have happened in our history if this was the case!

Anyway, the Holy Spirit doesn't belong to Christianity, it belongs to God. In one sense it is God. Just because Prophet Mohammed didn't speak specifically about the Holy Spirit doesn't mean Muslims can't experiance the Holy Spirit. If you are a Muslim praying in the mosque and out of nowhere you feel this burst of total gratitude to God, with a sense of "I am totally yours Allah - lock, stock and barrel" - and tears of benediction are pouring down your face - how can it not be the Holy Spirit???

Another thing is that the Holy Spirit comes when it comes and not necessarily when you want it to come. You can't force it. It is given to you at Gods discretion. I've seen Christians with their faces straining as if they are constipated - trying to squeeze it into them ;D. If you happen to be blessed when the Holy Spirit unexpectedly bursts into you, make the most of it. Don't be afraid - just let go! It is a bit like death when it is time to go to the other side: don't be afraid - just let go - and keep focassed on the awesomeness of God.
:bism:
You deny Jesus as God and also deny him as offspring of God.

I see that you have posted an image of Bismillahi Rahman Rahim (In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious , the Most merciful)"" and an avatar with Allah's name.

So do you honestly beleive Allah is the one and only God ?. Then i dont see any reason why you would continue to reject Islam and I thus invite you to Islam.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-14-2011, 02:13 PM
hello al-manar, i must say that rather surprisingly, replying to your posts have been the most fun i have had yet but i firmly believe that you are mistaken in your argumentation. to this end i will lay out my argument once again, albeit more comprehensively this time.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
( a )if the verse mentions daughters as well...then it is fair to assume it talking about the pre -Judaism ,christianity world of paganism ...., such Pagan methodologies regarding divine sonship were different,and vague....
If the christians and Jews included in the verse ..... again as I said before the verse doesn't say (those bad people believed that God had sex with woman and begat a son ) ...but simply (Those people attributed nonesensical attribute to me)

it is as like God saying (if I have once a consort then your attribute will make sense ,and I'm going to accept it) .....
( a ) now, if i have understood you correctly, you are saying that the verse in question primarily speaks of the polytheism of either pre-islamic arabia or of the pre-judeo-christian world. if this is the case then it has nothing to do with christians and as such i should not use it to claim that the qur'an misunderstands the sonship of christ as stemming from a sexual union (let us call this problem 1). next you argue that if it is the case that it is indeed speaking of christians then even then i could not say that the qur'an believes that christians believe in a sexual union between god and a consort which subsequently produced the christ seeing as the verse does not specifically say that "christians believe that god engaged in a sexual relationship with a consort and the offspring of this union is the christ" (let us call this problem 2).

problem 1: let us at this time suppose that the verse is in fact dealing not with christians but rather with the polytheism of its day and that which existed in the time prior to the abrahamic religions. let us then examine what these polytheists believed. now, it is an undeniable fact that the polytheists believed that their deities were capable of engaging in sexual relationships with heavenly consorts and thus give birth to other divine beings. on this point there should be no doubt. so if this is indeed the case then this surah by itself should pose no particular problem yet seeing as in order to understand what an author truly intends to say, one must examine the thoughts which run throughout the entire corpus of their work, this then becomes a major problem.

The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? - S. 9:30

the above verse is quite explicit in saying that the jews and christians--by saying that so and so is the son of god--imitate the sayings of the polytheists. before these religions there was polytheism and the belief that a deity could father children through a sexual union is a staple of polytheism and so to say that the jews and christians are simply repeating what these individuals had said means to say that they believe the same thing as well. quite clearly the qur'an believes that the union is indeed a sexual one. that the speaker considers these two groups to be imitating polytheists is further reinforced by his wish for them to be destroyed (the islamic deity has been known to destroy peoples simply for believing in polytheism as he destroyed all of civilization in the time of noah).

problem 2: having seen that even if we were to suppose that S. 6:100 does not specifically speak of christians, we know that in the greater context it does indeed have christians in mind as is evident from the outworkings of S. 9:30. yet us delve even deeper into the matter and examine the language itself. we know that there are two terms for son, "ibn" and "walad". ibn has a rather broad meaning and can be used to speak metaphorically about a relationship between persons or things while "walad" has to do with one's biological offspring born through a sexual union. you will notice that whenever the matter of the sonship of christ is brought into question, the qur'an always uses the word walad to imply an offspring due to a sexual union instead of ibn, which can mean a metaphorical relationship. this is always the case except for surah 9:30 (yet seeing as ibn can also indeed refer to one's biological child, and the fact that every other instance is of the word walad, it is safe to conclude that the operating idea is indeed that of an offspring of a sexual union between god and a consort).

They say: "Allah hath begotten a son" :Glory be to Him.-Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him. - S. 2:116

Waqaloo itakhatha Allahuwaladan subhanahu bal lahu ma fee assamawatiwal-ardi kullun lahu qanitoon

It befits not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son [this refers to the slander of Christians against Allah, by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah]. Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is. - S. 19:35

Ma kana lillahi anyattakhitha min waladin subhanahu itha qadaamran fa-innama yaqoolu lahu kun fayakoon

notice that the above refer to the offspring of a sexual union. i would furthermore encourage you to look through every single reference concerning sonship and you will find that all, except for one (which in the context of things isn't a problem seeing as ibn can indeed refer to the product of a sexual union), clearly speak of the sonship of christ in terms of a sexual union. what you should also think about is the fact that arabic christians never once call the christ waladu’llah (implying literal sonship accomplished through a sexual union) but rather always ibnu’llah (implying a metaphorical sonship). given that the qur'an uses walad instead of ibn, it clearly has the wrong idea of what the sonship of christ entails. now even further, if one were to compound this by the fact that the islamic trinity always consists of the father, mary (a mother), and christ (the son) and you can really see why the qur'an would use the term walad for christ almost every time and chastises both christians and polytheists by asking how in fact allah could have a son if he has no consort. if anytime the three gods whom the christians supposedly worship are always (and i mean always) enumerated as the father, mary and christ then it is only reasonable to say that this is the understanding of the qur'an yet if i am somehow mistaken, please dhow me from the qur'an where it is actually the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

so from looking at the language of the qur'an, we certainly do come to the conclusion that it accuses the christ of being the offspring of a sexual union between god and a consort. once more if the qur'an uses walad, then as it has done in only a single case, it can use the word ibn because ibn can also mean an offspring gained through sex so therefore, even if you were to bring that up, it would not serve as a refutation.

before i conclude i must in fact say that almost all the discussions i have had have ignored all the other faults i had found in the qur'an's understanding of the trinity. i have claimed that there is no single accurate formulation of it within the entire qur'an and i would hope that if i have been incorrect that i would be taken to task about my statements instead of them being unchallenged. aside from this current point of contention (which i suppose no longer is a point of contention given that allah uses walad instead of ibn to describe the sonship of christ) the fact of the matter is that one can find no instance where the trinity is condemned and where the speaker actually has a proper understanding of the trinity. it always turns out that it is either adoptionism, sabellianism, tritheism etc. that are condemned but never actually the christian trinity.

the above are our points of contention and everything is secondary to this (as such we could not in fact move on without addressing these), hence why i solely focused on this. if you believe that in solely focusing on the primary points i have somehow been deceiving then i am more then willing to speak of secondary points in my next post but to be perfectly honest, i must once again reiterate that all secondary points flow from the above and as such these are the major conflicts.
Reply

Al-manar
02-14-2011, 04:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

problem 1: let us at this time suppose that the verse is in fact dealing not with christians but rather with the polytheism of its day and that which existed in the time prior to the abrahamic religions.
I said the verse has to include the pagans and not spicified to Jews and christians .......


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

let us then examine what these polytheists believed. now, it is an undeniable fact that the polytheists believed that their deities were capable of engaging in sexual relationships with heavenly consorts and thus give birth to other divine beings.

not only that, but also through other means(not only through intercourse) a man can be the son of God

Akhenton's hymns to the Aton:
Thy rays are upon thy beloved son. Thy hand has a myriad of jubilees for the King of Upper and Lower Egypt. Neferkheprurc-Wanre, thy child who came forth from thy rays. Thou assignest to him thy lifetime and thy years. Thou hear-est tor him that which is in his heart. He is thy beloved, thou makest him like Mon. When thou risest, eternity is given him: when thou settest. thou givest him everlastingness. Thou hegettest him in the morning like thine own forms: thou flintiest him as thy emanation, like Aton, nder
of truth, who came forth from eternity, son of Re, wearing his beauty...."

Here the imagery centers upon the rays of the sun rather than the human inter-course and birth.

I have other dozen of quotes(saved for future posts in my thread) proves The pagan concepts of sonship are varied and ALL are criticised in the Quran ......

.....



format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
one must examine the thoughts which run throughout the entire corpus of their work
Exactly .... rather than narrowing the issue to only the christian sonship (as you did)... the criticism is varied and bigger than you thought...


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
to say that the jews and christians are simply repeating what these individuals had said means to say that they believe the same thing as well.
.
the pagans had varied concept regarding the Sonship ,also the Jews and christians concepts regarding the Sonship of Jesus and the sonship of Ezra.....

Ezra, was a descendant of Seraiah the high priest, and that makes it highly doubtfull ,that the source of the Quran criticised the metaphysical sonship on sexual intercourse basis ......



format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
that the speaker considers these two groups to be imitating polytheists is further reinforced by his wish for them to be destroyed

yes ... If there is something gets the anger of the source of the Quran ,would be any act against true monotheism ( sonship,veneration etc....) and any thing against the law......



format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
we know that there are two terms for son, "ibn" and "walad". ibn has a rather broad meaning and can be used to speak metaphorically about a relationship between persons or things while "walad" has to do with one's biological offspring born through a sexual union.

not always the case

eg;

ولد الصحراء
son of the desert

ولد النعمه
son of the bless


want more?

let's go to the Arabic bible

http://studybible.info/Arabic/Isaiah%209:6

Isaiah 9:6
لانه يولد لنا ولد ونعطى ابنا وتكون الرياسة على كتفه ويدعى اسمه عجيبا مشيرا الها قديرا ابا ابديا رئيس السلام.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child (walad )is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


Such passage is believed by christians to be one of the top messianic prophecies ,the Son there is said to be a prophecy of Jesus ,isn't it?


yet he was called (walad) ,if you insist that the word (walad) neccesarily denotes sexual intercourse between God and consort then ,the Arabic version suggests Jesus as a son of sexual intercource....

another case on non-sexual Sonship:

Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.

ان الله قد اكمل هذا لنا نحن اولادهم اذ اقام يسوع كما هو مكتوب ايضا في المزمور الثاني انت ابني انا اليوم ولدتك.



Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; todayTODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?


Hebrews 1:5 لانه لمن من الملائكة قال قط انت ابني انا اليوم ولدتك.وايضا انا اكون له ابا وهو يكون لي ابنا.


more and more use of the word with meanings other than sexual intercourse


John 3:8
The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

الريح تهب حيث تشاء وتسمع صوتها لكنك لا تعلم من اين تأتي ولا الى اين تذهب.هكذا كل من ولد من الروح

there are other dozen instances of the same word but I think the previous instances are enough ...



format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
arabic christians never once call the christ waladu’llah (implying literal sonship accomplished through a sexual union) but rather always ibnu’llah
and the Quran says they call him (ibnu’llah)....

The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah (ibnu’llah) , and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah (ibnu’llah) . That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30] .....

yet as I mentioned before, no problem at all using(walad) with jesus ,without forcing the meaning into sexual intercourse , go ask the translators of the Bible into Arabic if you don't trust me....

and no where in the Quran it says ;they said God had intercourse with Mary ... it is merely assumption ,which I countered by some clues denotes otherwise....



format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
now even further, if one were to compound this by the fact that the islamic trinity always consists of the father, mary (a mother), and christ .
The burden of proof lies on him who alledges...
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-14-2011, 10:54 PM
once more thank you for the reply.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
not only that, but also through other means(not only through intercourse) a man can be the son of God
huh? did i say that polytheists only believed in birth through intercourse? or rather that they believed that their gods could be born from intercourse. if it follows that i said the latter (as i indeed did) then your point is moot. not to mention that the deity who is being praised is aten (a sun god) who egyptians worshiped as an aspect of ra, and ra hismelf is an aspect of aum-ra. amun-ra is the primary egyptian deity and he himself fathered children through sexual intercourse and so the very deity you appeal to has offspring gained through a sexual union (several actually. he was involved in at least 3 marriages).

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
Ezra, was a descendant of Seraiah the high priest, and that makes it highly doubtfull ,that the source of the Quran criticised the metaphysical sonship on sexual intercourse basis ......
the jews never called ezra the son of god and hence that makes it doubtful if to what jewish tenet this verse in teh qur'an is referring to.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
not always the case

eg;

ولد الصحراء
son of the desert

ولد النعمه
son of the bless


want more?
you have not proved your point. i had said that walad refers to a sexual union when spoken of a person and their consort. in your above example there is no consort present. please show me an example where the term walad is used metaphorically in reference to an individual, their consort and the product of their union. i do not even have to disagree with walad being used metaphorically when speaking of a person and the desert but that does not prove your point. show me where walad is used in a metaphorical sense concerning the result of a sexual union between and individual and a consort. you can't because when indidviduals are involved walad always refers to a sexual union. which is why arabic christians never use the term waladu’llah in describing the sonship of jesus. the fact that the qur'an uses this term, not once but repeatedly and claims that this is what christians say (not only is this linguistically wrong, but also theologically wrong) is more than enough to prove it wrong because christians simply don't say this. given that you understand arabic it would be fairly simple for you to open up a christian bible and look to see if you can even find the term waladu’llah in regards to jesus. i'll seriously wait for you to do so seeing as it should be fairly simple to do.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
and the Quran says they call him (ibnu’llah)....

The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah (ibnu’llah) , and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah (ibnu’llah) . That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]
i'm pretty sure i had said the following: so from looking at the language of the qur'an, we certainly do come to the conclusion that it accuses the christ of being the offspring of a sexual union between god and a consort. once more if the qur'an uses walad, then as it has done in only a single case, it can use the word ibn because ibn can also mean an offspring gained through sex so therefore, even if you were to bring that up, it would not serve as a refutation.

look, the qur'an repeatedly uses the term walad in reference to the sonship of christ. we know that when walad is spoken of in reference to individuals it designates the product of a physical union accomplished through sex (the fact that you have not denied this further reinforces this point) and this is why christians never use walad in regards to christ. now we also know that ibn has a broader usage and it can be used to describe the intimacy between people without necessarily pointing to sexual intercourse. the problem is that ibn can also be used of a physical offspring. so now the only way to tell what exactly is meant is to look at the descriptions throughout the qur'an.

BadeeAAu assamawatiwal-ardi anna yakoonu lahu waladun walamtakun lahu sahibatun wakhalaqa kulla shay-in wahuwabikulli shay-in AAaleem

Muhsin Khan: He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything.

notice that the qur'an once again ties walad to sexual intercourse by also positing a wife. so from the arabic we can understand that when walad is spoken of in regards to people it is in the context of a sexual relationship and that the product (the walad) is the result of this union. once more this is why christians never use walad in regards to christ and the speaker of the qur'an, if he indeed is who he claims to be, should have known this fact. now we have seen that even the speaker himself in the qur'an ties walad to a sexual union (by bringing up the lack of a sahiba) and so should we be surprised that he uses uses ibn (only once, mind you) when ibn can also mean the product of a sexual union? i ahve given you overwhelming evidence that the qur'an understands walad as the product of a sexual union when speaking of individuals and you have done nothing to refute this claim. we both acknowledge that ibn can be used of one's biological child and so given that the qur'an only uses ibn once in regards to jesus and every other time it uses walad, can we then say that this is proof that the qur'an actually possessed a metaphorical understanding of the phrase, "the son of god"?

now you bring up the fact of the jews and in this way try to tie this with christ but you forget that you have already poisoned the well, so to speak. you would like me to believe that in the context, the jews would not use this to mean the offspring of a sexual union yet if we are supposed to believe the jews (and i think that we should) then we should believe the jews when they say that they never even called ezra the son of god. your points rest on me believing a source you yourself claim can't be believed. the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of jews calling ezra the son of god and jews themselves don't believe this, furthermore christians don't believe this either and yet you would have us believe that the jews can't be believed on this matter. yet somehow they should now be believed in the matter that they would not have meant the saying in a sexual way? you see, you've already poisoned your source and now to argue from that very source only makes your points weak and your argument inconsistent.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
and no where it says ;they said God had intercourse with Mary ... it is merely assumption
alright so the above claims that seeing as the qur'an does not contain the explicit phrase "christians believe that god had sex with mary" we should then not make this inference after the numerous evidence (both linguistical and contextual) that has been provided on this matter. not only is this wrong but you are being inconsistent. to illustrate your inconsistency, let me give you an example as it regards the trinity. the fact is that nowhere in the bible is there a statement that says that christians worship 3 gods. neither have trinitarians ever claimed this either. yet muslims hold it as a fact that christians do worship 3 gods and you yourself believe that i worship 3 gods. so you feel that you are perfectly capable of saying and believing something that you can find no explicit statement for, yet in the above you say that i cannot do so even granted that i have more than enough evidence which would warrant my conclusion. that my friend is the very definition of inconsistency.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
The burden of proof lies on him who alledges...
i'm amazed that you would even say such a thing. what would constitute as proof to you? would it be the fact that muslims accuse christians of worshiping 3 gods and yet whenever the three individuals who christians supposedly worship are enumerated it is always: the father, jesus, and mary! how about the fact that nowhere else in the qur'an does one find a different list of the three people who christians supposedly worship. it is always allah, mary and christ. what about this does not constitute proof. you would claim that the qur'an actually does understand the trinity but you do nothing to prove this. if you are so confident then show us a reference where the qur'an clearly designates the trinity to be the father, the son, and the holy spirit. the simple fact is that there is no such reference in the entire qur'an. i have made this claim repeatedly in my posts and repeatedly the readers of my post have done nothing to challenge this opinion of mine. if i am wrong then simply produce the evidence.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
Isaiah 9:6
لانه يولد لنا ولد ونعطى ابنا وتكون الرياسة على كتفه ويدعى اسمه عجيبا مشيرا الها قديرا ابا ابديا رئيس السلام.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child (walad )is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


Such passage is believed by christians to be one of the top messianic prophecies ,the Son there is said to be a prophecy of Jesus ,isn't it?


yet he was called (walad) ,if you insist that the word (walad) neccesarily denotes sexual intercourse between God and consort then ,the Arabic version suggests Jesus as a son of sexual intercource....

another case on non-sexual Sonship:

Acts 13:33 that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, 'YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU.

ان الله قد اكمل هذا لنا نحن اولادهم اذ اقام يسوع كما هو مكتوب ايضا في المزمور الثاني انت ابني انا اليوم ولدتك.



Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"?


Hebrews 1:5 لانه لمن من الملائكة قال قط انت ابني انا اليوم ولدتك.وايضا انا اكون له ابا وهو يكون لي ابنا.
i believe that there is a proverb which says that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. given that you are not a christian and do not know how old testament prophecies relate to events in the new testament then i seriously can not blame you but as you will soon see, you are wrong. both the prophecies which you quote have a double fulfillment, both in the time that they were written and in the time of christ. in the initial reference, the walad refers to hezekiah yet the prophecy finds its true meaning and fulfillment in christ. given that it was spoken to refer both to hezekiah and the messiah, it therefore follows that some allowances would have to be made. as far as walad is concerned in the other verses, it refers to the spiritual anointing. you will note that the person spoken of (once again these are prophecies with double fulfillments--the first of which is david and the second and greater fulfillment is christ) in the prophecies is king david and this prophecy came to him when he was already a grown man and ruling over israel. if the word did not refer to the anointing which he received then it would be quite the revelation indeed. either way this does not change what i had mentioned earlier:

you should also think about is the fact that arabic christians never once call the christ waladu’llah (implying literal sonship accomplished through a sexual union) but rather always ibnu’llah (implying a metaphorical sonship). given that the qur'an uses walad instead of ibn, it clearly has the wrong idea of what the sonship of christ entails.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-14-2011, 10:57 PM
i just noticed that you had edited your post again and as such (i believe that) i failed to quote one reference in your post.
Reply

M.I.A.
02-14-2011, 11:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
once more thank you for the reply.


huh? did i say that polytheists only believed in birth through intercourse? or rather that they believed that their gods could be born from intercourse. if it follows that i said the latter (as i indeed did) then your point is moot. not to mention that the deity who is being praised is aten (a sun god) who egyptians worshiped as an aspect of ra, and ra hismelf is an aspect of aum-ra. amun-ra is the primary egyptian deity and he himself fathered children through sexual intercourse and so the very deity you appeal to has offspring gained through a sexual union (several actually. he was involved in at least 3 marriages).


the jews never called ezra the son of god and hence that makes it doubtful if to what jewish tenet this verse in teh qur'an is referring to.


you have not proved your point. i had said that walad refers to a sexual union when spoken of a person and their consort. in your above example there is no consort present. please show me an example where the term walad is used metaphorically in reference to an individual, their consort and the product of their union. i do not even have to disagree with walad being used metaphorically when speaking of a person and the desert but that does not prove your point. show me where walad is used in a metaphorical sense concerning the result of a sexual union between and individual and a consort. you can't because when indidviduals are involved walad always refers to a sexual union. which is why arabic christians never use the term waladu’llah in describing the sonship of jesus. the fact that the qur'an uses this term, not once but repeatedly and claims that this is what christians say (not only is this linguistically wrong, but also theologically wrong) is more than enough to prove it wrong because christians simply don't say this. given that you understand arabic it would be fairly simple for you to open up a christian bible and look to see if you can even find the term waladu’llah in regards to jesus. i'll seriously wait for you to do so seeing as it should be fairly simple to do.



i'm pretty sure i had said the following: so from looking at the language of the qur'an, we certainly do come to the conclusion that it accuses the christ of being the offspring of a sexual union between god and a consort. once more if the qur'an uses walad, then as it has done in only a single case, it can use the word ibn because ibn can also mean an offspring gained through sex so therefore, even if you were to bring that up, it would not serve as a refutation.

look, the qur'an repeatedly uses the term walad in reference to the sonship of christ. we know that when walad is spoken of in reference to individuals it designates the product of a physical union accomplished through sex (the fact that you have not denied this further reinforces this point) and this is why christians never use walad in regards to christ. now we also know that ibn has a broader usage and it can be used to describe the intimacy between people without necessarily pointing to sexual intercourse. the problem is that ibn can also be used of a physical offspring. so now the only way to tell what exactly is meant is to look at the descriptions throughout the qur'an.

BadeeAAu assamawatiwal-ardi anna yakoonu lahu waladun walamtakun lahu sahibatun wakhalaqa kulla shay-in wahuwabikulli shay-in AAaleem

Muhsin Khan: He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. How can He have children when He has no wife? He created all things and He is the All-Knower of everything.

notice that the qur'an once again ties walad to sexual intercourse by also positing a wife. so from the arabic we can understand that when walad is spoken of in regards to people it is in the context of a sexual relationship and that the product (the walad) is the result of this union. once more this is why christians never use walad in regards to christ and the speaker of the qur'an, if he indeed is who he claims to be, should have known this fact. now we have seen that even the speaker himself in the qur'an ties walad to a sexual union (by bringing up the lack of a sahiba) and so should we be surprised that he uses uses ibn (only once, mind you) when ibn can also mean the product of a sexual union? i ahve given you overwhelming evidence that the qur'an understands walad as the product of a sexual union when speaking of individuals and you have done nothing to refute this claim. we both acknowledge that ibn can be used of one's biological child and so given that the qur'an only uses ibn once in regards to jesus and every other time it uses walad, can we then say that this is proof that the qur'an actually possessed a metaphorical understanding of the phrase, "the son of god"?

now you bring up the fact of the jews and in this way try to tie this with christ but you forget that you have already poisoned the well, so to speak. you would like me to believe that in the context, the jews would not use this to mean the offspring of a sexual union yet if we are supposed to believe the jews (and i think that we should) then we should believe the jews when they say that they never even called ezra the son of god. your points rest on me believing a source you yourself claim can't be believed. the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of jews calling ezra the son of god and jews themselves don't believe this, furthermore christians don't believe this either and yet you would have us believe that the jews can't be believed on this matter. yet somehow they should now be believed in the matter that they would not have meant the saying in a sexual way? you see, you've already poisoned your source and now to argue from that very source only makes your points weak and your argument inconsistent.


alright so the above claims that seeing as the qur'an does not contain the explicit phrase "christians believe that god had sex with mary" we should then not make this inference after the numerous evidence (both linguistical and contextual) that has been provided on this matter. not only is this wrong but you are being inconsistent. to illustrate your inconsistency, let me give you an example as it regards the trinity. the fact is that nowhere in the bible is there a statement that says that christians worship 3 gods. neither have trinitarians ever claimed this either. yet muslims hold it as a fact that christians do worship 3 gods and you yourself believe that i worship 3 gods. so you feel that you are perfectly capable of saying and believing something that you can find no explicit statement for, yet in the above you say that i cannot do so even granted that i have more than enough evidence which would warrant my conclusion. that my friend is the very definition of inconsistency.


i'm amazed that you would even say such a thing. what would constitute as proof to you? would it be the fact that muslims accuse christians of worshiping 3 gods and yet whenever the three individuals who christians supposedly worship are enumerated it is always: the father, jesus, and mary! how about the fact that nowhere else in the qur'an does one find a different list of the three people who christians supposedly worship. it is always allah, mary and christ. what about this does not constitute proof. you would claim that the qur'an actually does understand the trinity but you do nothing to prove this. if you are so confident then show us a reference where the qur'an clearly designates the trinity to be the father, the son, and the holy spirit. the simple fact is that there is no such reference in the entire qur'an. i have made this claim repeatedly in my posts and repeatedly the readers of my post have done nothing to challenge this opinion of mine. if i am wrong then simply produce the evidence.


i believe that there is a proverb which says that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. given that you are not a christian and do not know how old testament prophecies relate to events in the new testament then i seriously can not blame you but as you will soon see, you are wrong. both the prophecies which you quote have a double fulfillment, both in the time that they were written and in the time of christ. in the initial reference, the walad refers to hezekiah yet the prophecy finds its true meaning and fulfillment in christ. given that it was spoken to refer both to hezekiah and the messiah, it therefore follows that some allowances would have to be made. as far as walad is concerned in the other verses, it refers to the spiritual anointing. you will note that the person spoken of (once again these are prophecies with double fulfillments--the first of which is david and the second and greater fulfillment is christ) in the prophecies is king david and this prophecy came to him when he was already a grown man and ruling over israel. if the word did not refer to the anointing which he received then it would be quite the revelation indeed. either way this does not change what i had mentioned earlier:
no the spirit is briefly mentioned, couldnt tell you exactly where but it is in the quran.
anyway like i said in my other post niether you or i can ascribe with any certanty as to what was the spirit..in name anyway.

anyway i like your argument over history and passages of all books but the fact remains.. jesus was the prophet, mary was the mother and god is the creator.. not really anything in it when you look at your argument so simply.. whats to deny?


if its grammer and context that youre argument hinges on then you are a little behind the times.

concept of trinity,

two are of god, but there is only one god.. nothing hard to comprehend there.
to say jesus is all three is to say flawless victory.. it aint ever happened like that, not in any context of victory you are familiar with.. but it has happened with all the prophets.


im not ascribing partners with god, the nature of god and his power is what is more often reiterated in the quran..and all power is with him.
how can a god external to the system arrive into the system without boundaries being broken?
like god says, what will make you believe? if he turns up with angels? if he does.. you know its too late.

..so with that rational and sane train of thought i think i can assume jesus was a prophet and not god other than the embodyment of gods will at certain times... sounds very familiar although try explaining how

jesus being the embodyment of gods will does not equate to jesus being god, similarly as saying angels are the embodyment of gods will is not the same as saying angels are god.. but if i asked you who the angels work for?

what is the answer?

is quite an easy concept to grasp.
Reply

Martinz
02-15-2011, 08:40 AM
:bism:
format_quote Originally Posted by Airforce
You deny Jesus as God and also deny him as offspring of God. I see that you have posted an image of Bismillahi Rahman Rahim (In the Name of Allah the Most Gracious , the Most merciful)"" and an avatar with Allah's name. So do you honestly beleive Allah is the one and only God ?. Then i dont see any reason why you would continue to reject Islam and I thus invite you to Islam.
I don't reject Islam, I embrace it!

From what I understand, Islam means "-to submit to God". This happened when I became a Christian and was overwhelmed by the joy of the Holy Spirit. To me, the fact that I submitted to God at that time is unmistakable and is such a great blessing to me. But, if I was to convert to Islam now then to say that I was 'submitting to God' would be a lie; it would be a sham because it has already happened. And I know that God wants me to be entirely truthful from my heart.

Do you want to know a secret. 7 years ago I did convert to Islam in the local mosque in Christchurch. But, a couple of weeks afterwards, I felt ashamed and guilty, because I felt like I was insulting God by not acknowledging the first time that I submitted to God. I felt pretentious and a liar. There are enough hypercrites in the world!

On the other hand, since I converted to Islam at the local mosque, I feel such a strong bond of love to all Muslims that I meet. We have many Somalian & Afghan Muslims, as well as from other countries. They are such beautiful gentle souls - totally different from the western perception that most Muslims are terrorist sympathisers.

I have prayed to God and I asked him what I should call myself. In my heart I know that he wants me to call myself a Christian, but to embrace Islam too.

And I embrace other religions besides Christianity and Islam, because it is time for some unity in our diversity. And we should focus on what we agree with rather than what we disagree with.

But, unless Christians renounce the 'Trinity', they're gonna miss the party!

So, Prophet Mohammed is my spiritual role-model, too, :saws:!

Reply

Al-manar
02-15-2011, 11:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
i had said that walad refers to a sexual union when spoken of a person and their consort. in your above example there is no consort present.
You are at it again!

I have provided you with examples where the word not only applied in a metaphorical sense away from the sexual intercourse,but also applied to God in Isaiah ,without denoting sexual acrivities......


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
please show me an example where the term walad is used metaphorically in reference to an individual, their consort and the product of their union.
:

I have just shown you ,how can Jehovah begets a son (walad) not through sexual union , so your question is irrelevant.....

our question was, Can we say in Arabic ,Jehovah has a son (walad ) without having sexual intercourse? My answer was direct , yes.


If you insist on dealing with Jehovah ,the same way you deal with a man,then it is your problem...

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
we know that when walad is spoken of in reference to individuals it designates the product of a physical union accomplished through sex
but when spoken of in reference to un-individuals eg; God , mind etc... ,the meaning would be otherwise...

and regarding Ezra ,there is nothing about him as being born without father , In order for the source of the Quran to misunderstand that (as it was suggested by the christian original argument) and claim him to be believed as the metaphysical son of God who similary to Jesus came due to sexual intercourse ...

though no written document of Jews believing in Ezra as the metaphysical son of God ,but

1- the absence of proof is not a proof of the absence.

2- I don't wonder the Jews calling Ezra the metaphysical son of God ,if the discoveries time after time shows how among them who were not true monotheists, as even before Jesus they though of human figures could be divine eg;the son of man in enoch etc...

3- the christian argument works on the idea that the source of the Quran misunderstood the title , and that he was reading the bible, or read for him and he misunderstood the sonship of Jesus due to getting the information of virgin Mary and her son who is called son of God ,so he assumed that christians thought of him as offspring of God , while we don't have a clue what kind of metaphysical sonship of Ezra the Quran refers to,yet it is highly doubtful to think of it as a sexual issue.... , there is no way to say he misunderstood the story of Ezra .... as no mention of Ezra without father etc.....

in sum, I find it fair to highly doubt that the source of the Quran was thinking od the sexual theme while dealing with Ezra.... If you find my arguments as guessing without a crucial proof....... well ok ,I don't find yours is better in terms of guessing than mine either ....



format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
and this is why christians never use walad in regards to christ.
the bible calls christ (walad) besides (ibn) ,and the Quran says christians calls christ (walad) besides (ibn) ...

and every time The Arab christians, Quote Isaiah: 9 they call Jesus (walad),Just why don't you believe them!? .....



Jesus as Ibn ابن (son) ?

In bible

MAtthew 3:4

فَتَقَدَّمَ إِلَيْهِ الْمُجَرِّبُ وَقَالَ لَهُ: «إِنْ كُنْتَ ابن الله فَقُلْ أَنْ تَصِيرَ هذِهِ الْحِجَارَةُ خُبْزًا»



In Quran:

وقالت اليهود عزير ابن الله وقالت النصارى المسيح ابن الله





Jesus as Walad ولد (son) ?


In Quran


( إنما الله إله واحد سبحانه أن يكون له ولد له ما في السماوات وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا )

In Bible


Isaiah 9:6
لانه يولد لنا ولد ونعطى ابنا وتكون الرياسة على كتفه ويدعى اسمه عجيبا مشيرا الها قديرا ابا ابديا رئيس السلام.

http://studybible.info/Arabic/Isaiah%209:6


If only you believe your eyes ?!

anyway, that was the last nail in the Coffin of your linguestic argument.

you insistence on forcing the word (walad) when related to God , to mean nothing but a fruit of sexual activities have poisoned the well (Isaiah 9) ,and gave a golden chance to those who would argue that christ was the offspring of God as long as he was prophecised in Isaiah 9 ,to be a (walad) to be born .....

I could have been the bad guy ,and use that as irrefutable proof of God predicting his offspring ,as long as he used the word (walad) ,but my honesty and objectivity ,won't allow me to do so ..... as I don't think christians at least understand that Jesus to be offspring of God.....

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
so from the arabic we can understand that when walad is spoken of in regards to people it is in the context of a sexual relationship
and from Arabic ,we can understand that when (walad) is spoken of in regards to God it could be in other context apart from sexual relationship


http://studybible.info/Arabic/Isaiah%209:6

Isaiah 9:6
لانه يولد لنا ولد ونعطى ابنا وتكون الرياسة على كتفه ويدعى اسمه عجيبا مشيرا الها قديرا ابا ابديا رئيس السلام.

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child (walad )is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.


though I taught you where you erred,you have no courage to admit you were mistaken....

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

i'm amazed that you would even say such a thing. what would constitute as proof to you? would it be the fact that muslims accuse christians of worshiping 3 gods and yet whenever the three individuals who christians supposedly worship are enumerated it is always: the father, jesus, and mary! :
where is that in the Quran?


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

i believe that there is a proverb which says that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

:
I believe in another proverb says ,A person with half knowledge is more dangerous than an ignorant.

I hope neither of us would be that dangerous to our readers....


format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
given that you are not a christian and do not know how old testament prophecies relate to events in the new testament then i seriously can not blame you :
I disagree with the idea that a person has to be christian to understand the bible... I'm not christian nor Jew, yet I think some muslims study the bible more seriously,objectively than some christians...

format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
you are wrong. both the prophecies which you quote have a double fulfillment, both in the time that they were written and in the time of christ.
:
that is a false claim ..... not only dual fulfillment is a concept completely alien to scripture and common sense ,but also it has never been fulfilled by neither hezekiah nor Jesus .....


I won't expose such fallacy right here (will do it in my thread)... I would like to respect the topic of the thread...... enough being offtopic.....

and I apologize for Bro Yahya Sulaiman for interrupting the topic .... that was my last post in the thread


thank you Sol Invictus for the discussion ,and waiting for you to join the discussion in my thread regarding the messianic prophecies ,If you would like to join answering my criticism ,and my claim that Jesus never fulfilled the messianic prophecies, I will be glad ,then.

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-items-52.html

peace for all
Reply

MustafaMc
02-15-2011, 02:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Martinz
Do you want to know a secret. 7 years ago I did convert to Islam in the local mosque in Christchurch. But, a couple of weeks afterwards, I felt ashamed and guilty, because I felt like I was insulting God by not acknowledging the first time that I submitted to God. I felt pretentious and a liar. There are enough hypercrites in the world!
I can somewhat relate to this perception of being true to an earlier submission to the will of God, but to have first been a Christian one would have a certain set of religious beliefs and then to become a Muslim one would acknowledge that those Christian beliefs were faulty and that those of Islam were True. From what I have read of your posts, I see that they are much closer to Islam than they are to any form of Christianity that I am aware of.

I have prayed to God and I asked him what I should call myself. In my heart I know that he wants me to call myself a Christian, but to embrace Islam too.
I hope not to offend you, but I would probably call you an "Irreligious Monotheist". The reason I say that is that I see you believe in One God, but you don't adhere to any established religious practice or set of beliefs. Since you reject the virgin birth of Jesus, you also deny the truth of the Quran which is fundamental to our Islamic faith.

So, Prophet Mohammed is my spiritual role-model, too
Well, that is a good thing - you're almost there. Why not come the rest of the way and accept what he taught is the Truth and adhere to the sunnah that he established in how we are to live our lives and to worship Allah? That is what it means to submit in Islam - to believe in what Muhammad (sal alahu alayhi wa salaam) taught and to follow his sunnah, including the 5 daily Islamic prayers. My opinion is that it is not enough to just believe in God and try to live a good moral life based loosely on what Jesus or Muhammad taught.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-16-2011, 12:10 AM
on ezra:

the fact of the matter is that you have no proof to suppose that ezra was ever referred to as the son of god. there is absolutely no documentary evidence and in fact no one at all made such a declaration until a seventh century arab claimed to have received the information from god. given that the qur'an speaks of something for which there is absolutely no proof for, the most logical position is that of doubt. you feel quite confident in making the above inferences because there is no way to substantiate your claims yet this also means that you have no conclusive argument. if you'd like us to believe the jews then i can whole heartedly agree with that because the jews themselves are quite emphatic in the fact that they have never called ezra the son of god. you have no logical foundation for believing in the qur'an as it regards the matter.

on walad and matthew 3:4 and isaiah 9:6

let us at this time make clear that matthew 3:4 has nothing to do with christ whatsoever and so i do not know what you mean by it in your above post. here it is in english:

John’s clothes were made of camel’s hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist. His food was locusts and wild honey. -- Matthew 3:4

i for one do not see what the above has to do with the term walad.

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. --- Isaiah 9:6

remember that the claim was that walad related to physical birth (this itself being accomplished through a sexual union). considering such a definition, there is absolutely no problem with the above. christ's humanity was created within the womb and he was the biological son of mary. what about this is supposedly a nail in the coffin? from the above we can see that walad does relate to physical birth and as such that the qur'an is in fact wrong when it says that god could not have a son because god has no wife. in that surah, the speaker incorrectly believes that christians understand the sonship of christ as referring to his human birth. that is incorrect and borders once again on adoptionism. christians believe that christ was always the son of the father and his human birth did not entitle him to this claim nor detract fom it. do you see the difference? to the qur'an sonship is not possible because it involves a union with a consort (and hence why the speaker says that god could not have a son because he has no consort) yet that itself is a misunderstanding of what christians mean by the sonship of christ. once again, to the qur'an sonship is the product of a union between god and a consort while to the christian sonship describes th relationship which christ has had to the father from eternity past. this is why i said that never do christians call christ "waladu'llah" but always ibnu'llah. the title son of god always uses ibn instead of walad in using walad the qur'an shows itself to be in error.

here is the quote again:
you should also think about is the fact that arabic christians never once call the christ waladu’llah (implying literal sonship accomplished through a sexual union) but rather always ibnu’llah (implying a metaphorical sonship). given that the qur'an uses walad instead of ibn, it clearly has the wrong idea of what the sonship of christ entails.
format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
you insistence on forcing the word (walad) when related to God , to mean nothing but a fruit of sexual activities have poisoned the well (Isaiah 9) ,and gave a golden chance to those who would argue that christ was the offspring of God as long as he was prophecised in Isaiah 9 ,to be a (walad) to be born .....

I could have been the bad guy ,and use that as irrefutable proof of God predicting his offspring ,as long as he used the word (walad) ,but my honesty and objectivity ,won't allow me to do so ..... as I don't think christians at least understand that Jesus to be offspring of God.....
it has not poisoned the well because walad relates to a biological birth (which in all cases except that of christ is accomplished through a sexual union). god says that a child would be born and that is in fact what happened. not too dissimilar to artificial insemination god simply created a y chromosome within her womb which then started the pregnancy process. it is still a biological act and as such we have no problem with the use of walad in this sense. to the christian, that has nothing to do with the concept of sonship. if the same miracle had been performed for another individual that would not given them any claim to the term "son of god". once again to the christian, the christ did not become the son of god because of how he was born but rather he has always been the son to the father from all eternity and certainly before he chose to enter his creation and to be born a man. the qur'an's understanding is markedly different seeing as it understands sonship as the result of a union between god and a consort. to conclude, walad refers to biological birth yet the sonship of christ is not rooted in his biological birth (as the qur'an mistakenly believes).

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar
i'm amazed that you would even say such a thing. what would constitute as proof to you? would it be the fact that muslims accuse christians of worshiping 3 gods and yet whenever the three individuals who christians supposedly worship are enumerated it is always: the father, jesus, and mary!
where is that in the Quran?
i have shown my proofs over and over again. i said that the qur'an nowhere gets the trinity correct and when it does engage in denouncing it, it becomes trapped in the very same mistakes that trinitarians condemned as it concerns the trinity! i have repeatedly asked the individuals the individuals on this thread to give even a single reference where the three individuals who christians supposedly worship are not listed as being the father, the son, and mary but rather the father, the son, and the holy spirit and as you yourself can see, no one has been able to produce such a verse.


that said, this will also be my last post (most likely until the two individuals whom i had initially engaged in a conversation respond) and while your offer of debating in your thread is tempting, i will most likely have to pass on the offer. at 52 pages, the thread is far too long. now i have just read the last page (there seems to be a discussion on troublemakers as it regards to luke) and it seems that you haven't gotten to your argument yet so i might actually join in. we'll see. anyway thanks for the discussion and maybe we'll do this again sometime.
Reply

Woodrow
02-16-2011, 12:32 AM
I apologize for my delay in getting back to this thread. real life is momentarily very hectic and I am only dropping in sporadically. I have a lot of catching up to do on this thread before I reply to anything specific.
Reply

Woodrow
02-17-2011, 04:11 PM
This thread is starting to off topic. Keep with the topic and only the original topic. And remember no bashing of any member. I deleted a few threads and those who needed any warnings about their posts have been warned.

Now let us return to Trinity discussions and only trinity discussions
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-21-2011, 03:59 PM
well it has been quite a while since there has been any activity within this thread and while this post serves largely as a bump i thought it appropriate to list my major arguments again and perhaps speak a little bit concerning them. so far i have said the following:

1. that eventual incomprehensibility does not prove falsehood: the premise that the op relied on to make his initial argument is false and in fact the author himself is inconsistent in his reasoning given that he himself believes in incomprehensible things. in light of the aforementioned things, this position is not only illogical but blatantly hypocritical.
2. that the author's accusation that christians deny oneness is unfounded: i have given my examples and to this moment they have not been brought into question (largely) and when questioned, they still await refutation. furthermore, given our understanding of, for example, the oneness of matter, to then preclude that the trinity as it is defined does not teach oneness is to be inconsistent in one's reasoning and in fact, to practise hypocrisy.
3. that the op's syllogism is wholly incorrect. it is based on a false premise which skews it entirely and i believe that i have adequately shown this through my examples. considering that i have yet to be taken to task concerning this point, i think that my refutation of the syllogism is not too controversial.
4. that nowhere does one find a condemnation of the trinity within the qur'an and wherever the author takes it upon themselves to describe the trinity, they fall into the very same pitfalls that trinitarians condemned hundreds of years before the advent of islam. i have repeated this claim again and again and it has largely been ignored. the usual counter has been to term this mistake as merely semantics yet this ignore the very real problem that trinitarians did condemn these formulations (which the qur'an would later repeat) a long time before islam came to be. this matter would in fact be semantics if christians only brought this up post-islam, yet the fact is that even before the qur'an repeated these inaccurate formulations, christians did in fact view them as wrong and judged them as heresies and as such the semantics issue is not a defense, but merely an aversion of the problem.

the above are my basic arguments. while one can't really gain their specifics merely from reading this post, let us at this time remember that this is merely to bump the thread, the hope is that this post will be of some use.
Reply

M.I.A.
02-22-2011, 09:14 PM
the trinity is like attributing a burning bush alonside god.. no doubt it applied but you must understand it was not the bush that was important to any other, other than moses pbuh.. hope you understand.
similarly the ark was a means of salvation, a tool and something that the life of noah pbup was intertwined with but it is ultimately god that drives all things forward.

hope you understand the trinity a little better.

edit*
..i just remembered our prophet mohammed pbup, the whole winged horse thing.

maybe why prayer was enjoined upon us...but this point is just conjecture on my part.


so next time you try to find the oneness of god, a burning bush might not be the best place to start..
the quran shows the way for mankind.. we imperfect little things that cover the face of the planet.

flippant i know, i hate me more than any other.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-23-2011, 12:59 AM
well to be perfectly honest i don't quite understand what you're getting at with the above but all the same you have not touched on my argument. that said, your participation is certainly appreciated.
Reply

M.I.A.
02-23-2011, 09:28 PM
in regards to the trinity, muslims understand that the power of all things is ultimately with god.

everything else can be conjectured upon and debated till the end of time.

i cant answer the questions on sonship and how jesus pbuh relates to god in any other way than to attribute all power to god. i dont get how you can attribute that same power to three different things. they can not all be the same but they can all represent the same.. and then correct myself by saying that actually two represent the third.. and then correct myself again saying that only one holds power and the others serve.

im not doubting the power of the prophet pbuh or the spirit.. im sure they could part the sea's if they were commanded.
correct myself again.. i do not doubt the power of god.

that is the point i was trying to make in the above post, just because jesus pbuh was stregthened by the spirit does not mean the same applies to us. god works through all things, the days of working through one alone are written time and time again.. then you and i have a say.

the bold text represents the understanding that we are all servants.. to become anything more is to claim something that none have the right to do. see enough of the world and you may understand what point in time we are at and how important the quran becomes.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-24-2011, 12:26 AM
once again thanks for the reply but no one here is debating whether or not god can use a prophet in order to fulfill a purpose, on that point everyone is in agreement. the point of contention is on the trinity and while i certainly don't have a problem with you sharing your opinion and your beliefs, it doesn't change the fact that you (and largely everyone else in this thread) have yet to deal with my points.
Reply

جوري
02-24-2011, 12:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
it doesn't change the fact that you (and largely everyone else in this thread) have yet to deal with my points.

You have non-points and not equipped to psychologically handle being controverted and again largely people really don't care about your self-immolating mangod beliefs!
your entire bible is corrupt with additions and subtractions, conflicting ideas and opinions, dubious authors, ineffectual apostles, and self-proclaimed ones.. Why should anything you present at all take up anyone's time beyond what the OP has already presented?
Reply

M.I.A.
02-24-2011, 02:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
once again thanks for the reply but no one here is debating whether or not god can use a prophet in order to fulfill a purpose, on that point everyone is in agreement. the point of contention is on the trinity and while i certainly don't have a problem with you sharing your opinion and your beliefs, it doesn't change the fact that you (and largely everyone else in this thread) have yet to deal with my points.
i get it but you must understand that any concept of the trinity only applied to jesus pbuh.. his method, his story.. his way of passing on the message to a people who were open to it.
to a chosen people? ..thats another debate altogether.

actually you could argue that it was not jesus's pbuh chosen method of passing on the message.. but he was built for the job.. by whome would not be a logical next step for most.

much the same as you and i have been created for a purpose, to worship god and offer submission in all things.. if you call out to anything, it should probably be to god alone.


it must be clear by now that the trinity is false simply because it does not apply to us, you have aknowledged the prophets pbu them.

you know that there is the god...ie the oneness of god thing.

if the trinity requires belief in the spirit then the angels need jobs aswell.


i guess only a few more steps of understanding and you could well get to know that god better, shame you are stuck in the grammer of the book..those were your questions not mine.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-24-2011, 02:39 AM
to be perfectly honest, i still can't quite see what your argument is. in so far as you're stating your own beliefs and opinions then this is perfectly fine but it does not change the fact that my argument has not been addressed and the errors with the qur'an's formulation of the trinity (and so forth) have largely been ignored.
Reply

M.I.A.
02-24-2011, 02:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
to be perfectly honest, i still can't quite see what your argument is. in so far as you're stating your own beliefs and opinions then this is perfectly fine but it does not change the fact that my argument has not been addressed and the errors with the qur'an's formulation of the trinity (and so forth) have largely been ignored.
im saying i could easily turn three into seven, tenets of faith

belief in one god

belief in the the prophets pbuh

belief in the angels

belief in the books

belief in heaven and hell

belief in the day of ressurection

belief in the day of judgement

it probably a little harder to distort than just using the top three.. odd concept of the trinity but give it time.
Reply

Tyrion
02-24-2011, 02:47 AM
@Sol Invictus: Are you here to learn or to argue/debate? I feel as if your points have been refuted and argued many times over, and if you don't think so, then perhaps you should spend some time rereading this thread and others on this forum that have covered similar debates.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-24-2011, 03:02 AM
it's perfectly alright for you if you feel that way but it does strike me as strange that you would consider claims along the lines of "that's merely semantics" as a proper refutation. there are only two individuals who saw that this wasn't merely semantics and i am still waiting for one of their reply (given that he said he would reply). as to the rest of your post, it is rather baseless given that i was engaging with the previous poster who made statements that were irrelevant to the discussion and as such i simply made him aware of that. if the call to get back to the discussion suddenly constitutes arguing then i think that one of us defines this incorrectly. furthermore, learning and debating (and yes, even arguing) are not mutually exclusive and as such it's not necessarily an either or question. that said, i have not found a thread which deals with the exact issues that i brought up but if you feel that there are any, you are certainly welcomed to share them with me.
Reply

جوري
02-24-2011, 03:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
You have non-points and not equipped to psychologically handle being controverted and again largely people really don't care about your self-immolating mangod beliefs! your entire bible is corrupt with additions and subtractions, conflicting ideas and opinions, dubious authors, ineffectual apostles, and self-proclaimed ones.. Why should anything you present at all take up anyone's time beyond what the OP has already presented?
format_quote Originally Posted by Tyrion
@Sol Invictus: Are you here to learn or to argue/debate? I feel as if your points have been refuted and argued many times over, and if you don't think so, then perhaps you should spend some time rereading this thread and others on this forum that have covered similar debates.
very true as seen by most!


:w:
Reply

Woodrow
02-24-2011, 03:31 AM
I apologise that at the moment I am only giving a partial answer, more as a token answer to let you know I have not forgotten this thread.

I just got Home from Fargo long enough to feed the horses and now I am going to try to get 2 hours sleep before I drive back to Fargo. Perhaps this weekend I will be able to stop these daily drives to Farg and concentrate on giving an actual complete answer. But in the meantime here is a partial effort.



1. The Quran does not state what Christians actually believe

My answer:
We understand that the original followers of Christianity followed the true teachings of what was revealed to Jesus(as) It was after Jesus(as) ascended into heaven that the Christians began believing the falsehoods.. Please notice in your quote of the ayyat it begins: They say,
( a ) Does that mean Christians say or is it refering to those who call themselves Christian?
( b ) Keep in mind the majority of those who called themselves Christian were and still are Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and that statement in the Quran is very much in line with Catholic belief and doctrine although the Catholic explanation is quite confusing as to how God begot a son equates to having a son .

( a ) even if we were to concede this point and term all trinitarians as pseudo-christians, it would still not change the fact that trinitarians don't at all claim that god took a son--that is adoptionism. trinitarians condemned adoptionism and as such the quoted surah has nothing to do with the trinity whatsoever and cannot at all function as a refutation thereof. i must however commend you on implicitly admitting that this concerns not mere semantics but that there is a very real theological difference between the two.

I will agree that from what I understand mainstrean Christian Doctrine condemns adoptionism in canon and liturgy. However, what is often taught and has been taught is adotionism and many if not most called Christion have a belief in adoptionism although they condemn to word.I contend that the majority Christian belief is that Jesus(as) is the actual son of God(swt). That may or may not be the truth of trinitarian belief, but it is very typical of Christian belief.

( b ) neither roman catholics nor eastern orthodox christians adhere to adoptionism and so i can't at all agree with that. they are trinitarian and condemn adoptionism as well. so therefore the statement in the qur'an is not at all in line with the position of these institutions because it fails to condemn the trinity (just as i had, in my "fristianity" example failed to condemn tawhid even though i did use the word "tawhid" or mentioned god in the singular. from the context of my post it was quite clear that i had an improper understanding of it and the same can be said for every reference of the trinity within the qur'an).
My days as a Roman Catholic and an avid catechism student and seminarian instilled in me a strong adherence to the concept of adoptionism. So for myself anyhow I found Roman Catholocism to adhere to adoptionism.

if i understand the section on "begot a son" and "having a son" then you acknowledge that the statement "god has a son" does not necessarily invoke the aspect of temporality while the phrase "the father begot the son" does seem to invoke this very same thing and as such they cannot be made to equate to one another (do let me know if i am mistaken in my understanding of what you meant). let us then move on to talk of this concept. in actuality, the phrase is not merely begotten but rather "only-begotten"
Through out Genesis when the word begot is used it refers to one being the natural human parent of somebody ie Adam(ah) begot Cain and Abel.

I can not find any reason to believe that when the word begotten or begot is used it does not mean being the Father in a physical sense..
Reply

Woodrow
02-24-2011, 03:34 AM
I apologise that at the moment I am only giving a partial answer, more as a token answer to let you know I have not forgotten this thread.

I just got Home from Fargo long enough to feed the horses and now I am going to try to get 2 hours sleep before I drive back to Fargo. Perhaps this weekend I will be able to stop these daily drives to Farg and concentrate on giving an actual complete answer. But in the meantime here is a partial effort.



1. The Quran does not state what Christians actually believe

My answer:
We understand that the original followers of Christianity followed the true teachings of what was revealed to Jesus(as) It was after Jesus(as) ascended into heaven that the Christians began believing the falsehoods.. Please notice in your quote of the ayyat it begins: They say,
( a ) Does that mean Christians say or is it refering to those who call themselves Christian?
( b ) Keep in mind the majority of those who called themselves Christian were and still are Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox and that statement in the Quran is very much in line with Catholic belief and doctrine although the Catholic explanation is quite confusing as to how God begot a son equates to having a son .
( a ) even if we were to concede this point and term all trinitarians as pseudo-christians, it would still not change the fact that trinitarians don't at all claim that god took a son--that is adoptionism. trinitarians condemned adoptionism and as such the quoted surah has nothing to do with the trinity whatsoever and cannot at all function as a refutation thereof. i must however commend you on implicitly admitting that this concerns not mere semantics but that there is a very real theological difference between the two.

I will agree that from what I understand mainstrean Christian Doctrine condemns adoptionism in canon and liturgy. However, what is often taught and has been taught is adotionism and many if not most called Christion have a belief in adoptionism although they condemn to word.I contend that the majority Christian belief is that Jesus(as) is the actual son of God(swt). That may or may not be the truth of trinitarian belief, but it is very typical of Christian belief.

( b ) neither roman catholics nor eastern orthodox christians adhere to adoptionism and so i can't at all agree with that. they are trinitarian and condemn adoptionism as well. so therefore the statement in the qur'an is not at all in line with the position of these institutions because it fails to condemn the trinity (just as i had, in my "fristianity" example failed to condemn tawhid even though i did use the word "tawhid" or mentioned god in the singular. from the context of my post it was quite clear that i had an improper understanding of it and the same can be said for every reference of the trinity within the qur'an).
[/QUOTE]
My days as a Roman Catholic and an avid catechism student and seminarian instilled in me a strong adherence to the concept of adoptionism. So for myself anyhow I found Roman Catholocism to adhere to adoptionism.

if i understand the section on "begot a son" and "having a son" then you acknowledge that the statement "god has a son" does not necessarily invoke the aspect of temporality while the phrase "the father begot the son" does seem to invoke this very same thing and as such they cannot be made to equate to one another (do let me know if i am mistaken in my understanding of what you meant). let us then move on to talk of this concept. in actuality, the phrase is not merely begotten but rather "only-begotten"
Through out Genesis when the word begot is used it refers to one being the natural human parent of somebody ie Adam(ah) begot Cain and Abel.

I can not find any reason to believe that when the word begotten or begot is used it does not mean being the Father in a physical sense..
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-24-2011, 04:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I apologise that at the moment I am only giving a partial answer, more as a token answer to let you know I have not forgotten this thread.
i appreciate that and it's alright, partial answers are better than none. i hope that things become less hectic for you.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I will agree that from what I understand mainstrean Christian Doctrine condemns adoptionism in canon and liturgy. However, what is often taught and has been taught is adotionism and many if not most called Christion have a belief in adoptionism although they condemn to word.I contend that the majority Christian belief is that Jesus(as) is the actual son of God(swt). That may or may not be the truth of trinitarian belief, but it is very typical of Christian belief.
If by "actual son" you mean a literal sonship accomplished through a physical union then I would have to disagree and ask you for some proof if you'd like me to at all believe this claim. most christians are in fact trinitarian and so in that sense it would not be "the typical christian belief". now you say that adoptionism is often implicitly taught and once more i'd ask for some examples. it's rather easy to make these claims but they don't exactly mean anything unless accompanied by some proof so please show me an example of adoptionism being implicitly taught by the church.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
My days as a Roman Catholic and an avid catechism student and seminarian instilled in me a strong adherence to the concept of adoptionism. So for myself anyhow I found Roman Catholocism to adhere to adoptionism.
given that they themselves condemn adoptionism i would be very interested in seeing some examples of this teaching being put into practise because as is these arguments you've put forth have no weight behind them. as a non-muslim, i could not for instance merely say that in my opinion, islam teaches complete violence towards individuals who are not muslim and believe that i have actually made an argument. without some sort of proof what i have written would merely be seen as baseless and rightly so.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Through out Genesis when the word begot is used it refers to one being the natural human parent of somebody ie Adam(ah) begot Cain and Abel. I can not find any reason to believe that when the word begotten or begot is used it does not mean being the Father in a physical sense..
the simple fact is that even in our very own common parlance, we can use beget figuratively and this in itself should enlighten you to the fact that it does not necessarily denote physical sonship. i will also note that you have not tried to dismantle my argument but have merely just stated your opinion. aside from this, i should mention that throughout genesis beget is only used of a human male in conjunction with a human female who then birth a child and as such, if we are to identify the use of a word through a pattern, then the use of beget for god does not fit this pattern given that there is no consort involved. the concept of the virgin birth completely refutes this line of reasoning. that said, this does not change the matter that by the time these qur'anic verses were revealed (and not merely the one concerning betting but all the other mis-formulations of the trinity) these christian doctrines were firmly set in place and as such any decently educated individual would in fact be able to know what it was that christians (and primarily trinitarians) believed. i hope that in your next post, whenever you find the time, you will not only touch on the problem of adoptionism but also on why the qur'an condemned sabellianism, a trinity involving the person of mary (while any mention of the holy spirit is surprisingly absent) and a trinity that misorders the persons, when seemingly wishing to condemn the christian trinity which quite obviously has nothing to do with these.

anyway, i'll await your reply.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-24-2011, 07:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Through out Genesis when the word begot is used it refers to one being the natural human parent of somebody ie Adam(ah) begot Cain and Abel.

I can not find any reason to believe that when the word begotten or begot is used it does not mean being the Father in a physical sense..
Let me suggest a reason then. When you read the term "begat" in Genesis, you are not reading the actual word used in Genesis, but an English translation of the original. If that term in the original was at that point in time referring to biological reproduction, and then the translator uses the term "begat" then it may appear that the term "begat" refers only to biological reproduction (though that does not rule out its use being a figurative referral). The question however is not whether the term begat does or does not refer to biological reproduction, but whether the term from which it is translated does or does not. And is that the term behind other places where the English term "begat" is also used. Answer, in the OT it does indeed refer to to one term, yawlad, which means to bear, to cause, to give birth or to bring forth children. But in the new testament the original word that gets translated into English as "to beget" is most commonly (though not 100% of the time) gennao which can and most generally does mean to procreate, but can also refer to any sort of generating or even regenerating activity.

Further, when one reads phrases like "only begotten", the term from whcih that particular phrase is translated is mongenes and is uniquely used in the NT. In context we find that it is applied in reference not only to Jesus, but to Isaac as the monogenes of Abraham. Now, surely the author new that Isaac was not actually the only begotten son of Abraham, in fact not even the firstborn. But what Isaac was is the unique son who was the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham to have a son via Sarah. So, despite the fact that you will find the term monogenes translated as "only begotten" by many translators, I argue that it is not the best or even the properly connotated translation of that term.

One other thing I think we have to be careful of is proper understanding of the use and misuse of learning a words etemology. For instance, as I learned in a 3rd grade reading class today, the etemology of the English word "disaster" comes from Latin and Greek words meaning "star". One can see the connection when one recognizes that people once used to think that disasters were fortold in the stars. But, it would hardly follow that the use of the word today as anything whatsoever to do with stars.

Language changes with time, and the meaning and usage of the English word "begat" is one of those words in which we see this change. Those who insist that because a translator several centuries ago selected that term is what he thought was the best way to express a Hebrew or Greek thought in English, and today what people mean by the term is to procreate that it therefore follows that this is what the Hebrew and Greek writers were themselves expressing, are arguing backwards. It would be as if I was to look at the Qur'anic passage 4:144 "O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer Allah an open proof against yourselves? (Yusuf Ali) and interpret that to mean that the Qur'an says Muslims cannot be friends with non-Muslims because the English word used in the translation is friends. And then to substantiate myself I look at the Arabic and I find that indeed the Arabic word "Auliya' " does indeed translate as "friend." Would you not (have you not in other threads) dispute that interpretation as not being the best understanding of the passage, because you would respond the word that is translated "friend" can also be translated as "helper" or "protector", and you would argue that it is the last understanding that best carries the connotation of the original meaning behind the word translated as "friend."

So, too, I argue, despite the possibility of translating the idea contained in the original languages as beget, it does not convey the best connotation of its meaning if you make to exclusively refer to biological procreation.
Reply

Sojourn
02-25-2011, 01:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman
The actual problem is whether we have any reason to believe that God Himself could or would exist in such a way. Funny how we never seem get any analogies about that.
The Trinity is a revealed truth of God. Nothing in the created order is like God and therefore no perfect analogy can be given. Something of it can be gained by reason, if we reflect on God's attributes. I.e. God's knowledge of Himself is perfect and therefore it is a perfect Image of Him. That Image is like God in all ways and therefore it is God. That Image, the Divine Logos, is God the Son. Likewise, the Love between God the Son and God the Father is perfect and infinite, such that the Love is the Third Person, the Holy Spirit.

And God knows best.

Wa salam
Reply

Ramadhan
02-25-2011, 04:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
The Trinity is a revealed truth of God.

Can you tell me where in the bible God revealed the trinity?

The rest of your paragraph is empty and just words without logic or scriptural verses to back up.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-25-2011, 04:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Can you tell me where in the bible God revealed the trinity?

The rest of your paragraph is empty and just words without logic or scriptural verses to back up.
concerning your last sentence, i would somewhat have to agree in that i do not think that what the poster wrote was actually a logical explanation of the trinity. while it is one way to appreciate it and even describe it, it does have some pitfalls. if the basis for the third person of the trinity is the fact that god loves, then what about the fact that god also possess power and glory etc. would this not necessitate another person for power, for glory and where then would we stop? suddenly we would leave the concept of a trinity entirely and suddenly find ourselves with a quadrinity and upwards to infinity. so once again, while i do agree with your last sentence, i do not agree with the way it was worded.

as it concerns your first sentence, it would seem that you would like some proof of the trinity within the bible:

holy spirit is god: Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God. --- Acts 5:3

christ is god: while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ --- Titus 2:13

and of course we all are in agreement that the father is god so i don't need to bring a quote concerning this. what should in fact be noted is that the bible distinguishes these individuals from each other yet calls them god and gives them the very prerogatives of god. furthermore, it consistently says that there is only one god. hence the trinity. of course you being a muslim don't believe in the trinity and that's perfectly alright but it is rather clear (and rather opposed to the views that some perpetuate, even in this thread, that the bible does not teach the trinity) that the trinity is taught in the bible.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-25-2011, 07:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
so once again, while i do agree with your last sentence, i do not agree with the way it was worded.

I understand that as a christian, you are most concerned with words over substance. That's how you can reconcile 1+1+1 = 3.


format_quote Originally Posted by
s it concerns your first sentence, it would seem that you would like some proof of the trinity within the bible:
That's not what I asked. I asked:

format_quote Originally Posted by
Can you tell me where in the bible God revealed the trinity?
Let me stress again, I don't want indirect references (and especially vague indirect refences that rely on terrible translations) either by apostles or other people, I want to know where in the bible God has revealed trinity.
Where in the bible Jesus said along the line of : "I am God, and so is the father and so is Holy Spirit, so you humans need to worship me, worship the father and worship holy spirit because we are three-in-one God"

As for your two verses, I can easily copy paste here many evidence that two verses are the results of bad translations and interpretations, or rather, intentional misleading translations and interpretations by people who already believe in the deity of jesus.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-25-2011, 11:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I understand that as a christian, you are most concerned with words over substance. That's how you can reconcile 1+1+1 = 3.
but... 1+1+1 does equal three. now, if you would like to question my concept of oneness, i talk about it at length in my post and you are certainly welcomed to try to take me to task on it. once again, you know where my posts are which deal with oneness, i await the knowledge which you will impart unto me.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
That's not what I asked. I asked:
now that is rather strange, you asked where the trinity is revealed in scripture and the christian claim is that when the evidence in the bible is taken as a whole, the trinity is clearly taught. from my quotes, you can clearly see that the father, the son, and the holy spirit are clearly called god. from even a cursory reading of the bible, it is clearly evident that these are distinguished from one another yet never does the bible speak of three gods but rather only one. how then do you say that this is not the trinity? i believe that your own biases are making you unable to see this or more specifically (since i believe that you to see this) are making you unable to admit this fact.

after having presented this evidence to you, it would seem that you would then argue seeing as there is no explicit or statement to the effect of "i exist as a trinity" by god then the christian understanding is false. this of course presupposes that no knowledge can be gained through implication (the method of deduction be ****ed!) and sadly, i would have to disagree with you once more. in fact, i would call this inconsistent on your part with regards to the other beliefs you hold but let me give you an example. that is, if we are only to believe what a person explicitly says about themselves then why is it that you believe christ to be the messiah, or a word from allah? can you find me the verse where Jesus explicitly says, "oh children of israel, i am the messiah, follow me" or "oh children of israel, i am a word from allah, listen to me"? once more, could you please give me a specific reference from the qur'an where a similar explicit statement comes from the mouth of christ? the fact of the matter is that there are none and as such if what you claim is true then it shouldn't be possible for you to believe either of these. unless of course you truly are an inconsistent individual and while you would use any seemingly probable argument to try and disprove the trinity, you do not take time to critically analyze them to see if islam would not suffer from a similar fate. but, alas, we live and we learn i suppose.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
As for your two verses, I can easily copy paste here many evidence that two verses are the results of bad translations and interpretations, or rather, intentional misleading translations and interpretations by people who already believe in the deity of jesus.
the fact that you could copy and paste things of this sort is wonderful and good, yet this does not somehow prove your argument. in theory i could copy and past a whole slew of things: that islam promotes terrorism, that as ahmadis believe, mohammad wasn't the last prophet (not that i necessarily believe either of these), but you wouldn't think these to be true, right?

anyway, i await your response.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-25-2011, 11:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
but... 1+1+1 does equal three.

I was going to write 1 + 1 + 1 =1, but it turned out that even subconsciously my brain wouldn't allow it. And believing it would mean I would have to shut down my brain.


format_quote Originally Posted by
now that is rather strange, you asked where the trinity is revealed in scripture and the christian claim is that when the evidence in the bible is taken as a whole, the trinity is clearly taught

You claimed jesus is God right?
Did he even say in the bible " "I am God, and so is the father and so is Holy Spirit, so you humans need to worship me, worship the father and worship holy spirit because we are three-in-one God"?

a yes or no answer would be sufficient thanks. and if yes, please show me where.

Reply

Sol Invictus
02-25-2011, 11:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I was going to write 1 + 1 + 1 =1, but it turned out that even subconsciously my brain wouldn't allow it.
it's wonderful that you are so adept at mathematics. similarly, i knowingly would never write the same.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
You claimed jesus is God right?
Did he even say in the bible " "I am God, and so is the father and so is Holy Spirit, so you humans need to worship me, worship the father and worship holy spirit because we are three-in-one God"?

a yes or no answer would be sufficient thanks.
now naidamar, this has nothing to do with a yes or no question. i argued that your very argument was incorrect and as such you must first establish the correctness of your argument before we can see whether or not it is fit for me to answer it (though in fact i have answered the argument by showing it to be false). once again, your claim relies on a hidden premise that you have yet to substantiate within your post or even through your own beliefs. we can move no further until you provide some basis for this. now it might seem that i relish the fact that your argument is incorrect but actually, i don't gain anything from this and i would ask that you forgive me if this seems to be the case in your eyes. all we're doing is simply talking and seeking to better understand our respective positions.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-25-2011, 11:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
now naidamar, this has nothing to do with a yes or no question.

On question as extremely important and absolute fundamental as the identity of God, it has everything to do with a yes or no. the answer of that question fundamentally determines our eternal fate, so why so vague?

I'll take your evasiveness as a no.

Thanks for answering anyway.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-25-2011, 11:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


On question as extremely important and absolute fundamental as the identity of God, it has everything to do with a yes or no. the answer of that question fundamentally determines our eternal fate, so why so vague?

I'll take your evasiveness as a no.

Thanks for answering anyway.
the question has no relevance on the manner of your argument. i did not evade the question, rather i called your entire argument incorrect and proved this through simple reason and even through your very own beliefs. you however, did nothing to defend your argument and instead tried to assert it without giving a basis to do so. it would seem that you tire of our discussion and that's perfectly alright, the fact that i have indeed replied to it and shown it to be false is perfectly evident but i suppose that at this point, we should cease bringing up the past, right?

thank you for the discussion, it was wonderful.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-25-2011, 04:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


I understand that as a christian, you are most concerned with words over substance. That's how you can reconcile 1+1+1 = 3.

</p>
This is a nonsense statement [recognizing, as you later state, that you meant to write 1+1+1=1] as it puts words (or in this case symbols) in the mouths of people who are not in fact uttering them.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-25-2011, 04:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
You claimed jesus is God right?
Did he even say in the bible &quot; &quot;I am God, and so is the father and so is Holy Spirit, so you humans need to worship me, worship the father and worship holy spirit because we are three-in-one God&quot;?

a yes or no answer would be sufficient thanks. and if yes, please show me where.
You claim that Jesus is NOT God, correct? Does Muhammad every say in the Qur'an or the Hadith, "Jesus is not God."? A yes or no answer would be sufficient. If if yes, please show me where.Again, like you, we want quotes, not interpretation, but an actual quote in those exact words.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-25-2011, 04:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
</p>
This is a nonsense statement [recognizing, as you later state, that you meant to write 1+1+1=1] as it puts words (or in this case symbols) in the mouths of people who are not in fact uttering them.
you bring up a good point, gene, in that there seems to be a disturbing propensity for individuals in this thread to argue against things that a person (in this case, myself) has not actually said. that is a strawman and if this discussion is to be at all conducive in the hope of forging a better understanding between christians and muslims on this board then we must take care to only argue against what people have actually said.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-25-2011, 06:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
This is a nonsense statement [recognizing, as you later state, that you meant to write 1+1+1=1] as it puts words (or in this case symbols) in the mouths of people who are not in fact uttering them.
Ah.. I thought you were ignoring me, GS. Glad thats not the case.
ok so how do you want your trinity formula, GS:
1/2 (father) + 3/8 (son) + 1/8 (spirit) = 1 God

Is that better?. it makes more sense mathematically and logically right. Mind you, I give holy spirit only 1/8 because he doesn't seem to have much say in the triune (he sounds like a mute god).

I am glad that more and more christians saw the light of at the end of this mathematical wonder and decided to skip trinity and embrace the monotheism of Islam.
;D


format_quote Originally Posted by
You claim that Jesus is NOT God, correct? Does Muhammad every say in the Qur'an or the Hadith, "Jesus is not God."? A yes or no answer would be sufficient. If if yes, please show me where.Again, like you, we want quotes, not interpretation, but an actual quote in those exact words.
Now now, GS.
You are a pastor and you have been here since November 2006, and you wrote that Muhammad (SAW) say in the Qur'an?
I believe you know better than that and you know that we muslims believe that the Qur'an is direct words of Allah SWT, but let's leave aside the speculation of your motive. I'd be disappointed if it is less an honest mistake, befitting the profile of fundamentalist/missionaries who are quick to resort to lies to deceive people.
Now, ignoring your venom, here's the answer to your question: Yes, and here's the Qur'an verses shows in clear unambiguouos ways and repeated that Jesus is not God (you want unadulterated quotes right):

(QS. an Nisa: 171)

(QS. As-Saf:6)


(QS. Al Maaidah:72)

(QS. At Tawbah: 30)

(QS. Maryam: 30)

(QS. al Maa'idah: 116-117)


Now, can you do the same for me, and please give me quotes of Jesus that says "I am God, Worship me" and "Holy spirit is God, Worship him", preferably in the original language in which Jesus spoke, and no translation please.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-25-2011, 07:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Now, can you do the same for me, and please give me quotes of Jesus that says "I am God, Worship me" and "Holy spirit is God, Worship him", preferably in the original language in which Jesus spoke, and no translation please.
can you please substantiate your argument? no sense adhering to a question that is in itself incorrect and assumes that God cannot use induction to teach a matter. so therefore, please show me how in fact your argument is even logically sound? it's wonderful that you are so adept at dealing insults but please let us focus our efforts a bit more on logical arguments. you have consistently claimed that we christians do not rely on logic to make our points so please, let me partake of this fountain of islamic logic which leads you to make the claim that because there is no such explicit statement within the bible, it therefore does not teach the trinity. once more your argument is faulty and you yourself are inconsistent when it comes to your own beliefs. anyway, i'll await the post in which you logically pick apart my argument (oh and please, do pick apart my concept of oneness as well. you would do me a great service in proving me wrong).

i'll be waiting.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-25-2011, 07:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by
can you please substantiate your argument? no sense adhering to a question that is in itself incorrect and assumes that God cannot use induction to teach a matter. so therefore, please show me how in fact your argument is even logically sound? it's wonderful that you are so adept at dealing insults but please let us focus our efforts a bit more on logical arguments. you have consistently claimed that we christians do not rely on logic to make our points so please, let me partake of this fountain of islamic logic which leads you to make the claim that because there is no such explicit statement within the bible, it therefore does not teach the trinity. once more your argument is faulty and you yourself are inconsistent when it comes to your own beliefs. anyway, i'll await the post in which you logically pick apart my argument (oh and please, do pick apart my concept of oneness as well. you would do me a great service in proving me wrong). i'll be waiting.

Let me ask you again, is there a verse in the bible where either the father, or jesus or holy spirit say that all three of them god?
I am making my question more simple each time.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-25-2011, 08:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Let me ask you again, is there a verse in the bible where either the father, or jesus or holy spirit say that all three of them god?
I am making my question more simple each time.
i'll try once again seeing as there seems to be a problem in communication: do you believe that you have made a point? and if so, what is it? if you truly have an argument explain it for us. the fact is that you have none and that you have recurringly refused to give any logical basis for your argument. i've already shown your position to be illogical and inconsistent, so please, demonstrate that you actually have a viable argument. as is, your question is senseless because it is not able to provide any justification for your argument and so i simply ask you to provide a logical foundation for your argument. is that really so hard?
Reply

M.I.A.
02-25-2011, 09:58 PM
0 + 0 + 0 = 0

what is the nature of 0?

well something is either on or off.

0 is the off state.

hope that helps.

so the oneness of god again?

well you could think that some people are constantly off, some come on occasionally and very very very etc etc few.. remain on.
who switches them on?

mods, no deleting posts today please...

freedom of choice joke :p
Reply

Ramadhan
02-26-2011, 02:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
i'll try once again seeing as there seems to be a problem in communication: do you believe that you have made a point? and if so, what is it? if you truly have an argument explain it for us. the fact is that you have none and that you have recurringly refused to give any logical basis for your argument. i've already shown your position to be illogical and inconsistent, so please, demonstrate that you actually have a viable argument. as is, your question is senseless because it is not able to provide any justification for your argument and so i simply ask you to provide a logical foundation for your argument. is that really so hard?


Let me summarise trinity in a clear passage for you:

in the OT, God was one. Every single prophet from Adam (as) down to Jesus (as) proclaimed that God is one so worship the one true God.
Then after Jesus (as) departed, suddenly God in the OT changed his mind and suffered identity crisis, became vague, and decided to split Himself into 3 (hence a multiple personality god): Himself, the son, and the wandering spirit. Suddenly the constant message from the One true god changed dramatically, it is now: God is three in one, and God did actually split himself and and came down to earth to be born of a virgin woman in the middle east, cried, pooped, worship himself, cried to himself and one day he committed suicide himself (because logically he should have known he was going to be killed).
And then suddenly another theme of "original sin" and "inherited sin" was created, god actually killed himself so he could exchange the sin that he himself created.

The first part of this story is consistent, but the latter part sounds like a greek drama.
;D
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-26-2011, 08:14 PM
well i had assumed that you knew little of the old testament, but i certainly didn't think that your understanding would be so bad. in your above post you claim that the old testament does not show the one god of israel to be xistent as more than one person and that is patently false:

Zech. 2:10-11 — “Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,” declares the LORD. 11“Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you.

notice what is said in the above, the god of israel says that he will live among the jews (zion is another name for jerusalem which can signify israel in general) and in fact many other nations will be joined with him and will become his people. yet surprisingly, we will know that the god of israel has sent him to us. the speaker in the above is th god of israel and he says that he will be sent by the god of israel. at the very least two different individuals are spoken of here who both are the one LORD (when you see 'lord' in capitals it in fact stands for the ineffinable name of god) yet the god of israel will be sent to dwell with men by the god of israel. this is actually a prophecy of christ who is himself the god of israel and is sent to dwell with men by the god of israel.

Genesis 19:24 — Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens.

i encourage you to go back and read the relative context of what i have cited and will cite so that for one thing, you will see that i'm not taking these verses out of context, and furthermore, that you yourself can find out about the context. anyway, in the above, after meeting and speaking to abraham face to face, god goes down to sodom and gomorrah in order to destroy it but look at what the text says. the LORD at sodom and gomorrah causes fire to rain down from the LORD in heaven. notice once again that the one LORD, the one god of israel who throughout the entire bible says to be only one is existent as more than one person in his being.

Genesis 1:1-2 — In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

1 Kings 18:12 — I don’t know where the Spirit of the LORD may carry you when I leave you. If I go and tell Ahab and he doesn’t find you, he will kill me. Yet I your servant have worshiped the LORD since my youth.

notice how the spirit of god is distinguished from god himself and yet still the old testament is firm in that the god of israel is only one.

Proverbs 30:4 — Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His Son's name? Surely you know!

i could keep going but let's stop here. the fact of the matter is that each person of the trinity is found extensively within the old testament and you merely displayed your ignorance of scripture by implying that this had changed with the advent of the new testament.

that said, you still have not provided us with a logical basis for your questions. it does not seem as if you understand the rules of logic and argument and since i can't assume that you have even taken an introductory logic class, i will have to try to explain things to you. when you make an argument (as you did on the matter of explicit statements for the trinity) and an individual attacks the premises of your argument (as i have done by showing your argument to be illogical, inconsistent and false) then you must first prove the truth of your argument before we can at all move on seeing as whether i answer it or not would still not change the fact that your argument would still be considered wrong and you would have no point either way. hence, please defend your argument and show to us all how yours is in fact logical and consistent to your islamic beliefs. on that note, given that you call the christian concept of oneness illogical please also take me to task on my concept of oneness. you know where i speak of oneness, so please start quoting these posts and show us how i am incorrect in my understanding. since we're at it, i would very much also like a defense of the recurring misformulations of the trinity within the qur'an. nevermind whether the trinity is true or not, it doesn't change the fact that allah would surely know what the trinity is and as such i would indeed enjoy an explanation for why the very text which muslims use to condemn the christian trinity actually condemn everything but the trinity.

i'll be waiting.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-26-2011, 09:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
here's the Qur'an verses shows in clear unambiguouos ways and repeated that Jesus is not God (you want unadulterated quotes right):

I looked them up. A little bit of work for me to translate them out of the Arabic, but that's OK, I suppose it's good practice. Still, not a single one of them actually said, "Jesus is not God." It may be that one can deduce the idea from them, but they don't actually say it. You're asking for specific quotes worded in a specific manner from the Bible and you have excluded any use of deductive reasoning. Hence, until I see the Qur'an actually say that "Jesus is not God" in those exact words, I'm forced to conclude that it is not specifically excluded from Islamic belief, because the Qur'an doesn't actually say it is in so many words.

Now, if you object to my form of argument, fine. I object to the form in which you have made your argument that unless there is a quote in the Bible with Jesus saying "I am God" in those exact words that he has excluded such belief, especially when such a teaching not only can be inferred from the biblical record of what Jesus said and did, but for those with eyes to see and ears to hear IMO actually must be.
Reply

جوري
02-26-2011, 10:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I looked them up. A little bit of work for me to translate them out of the Arabic, but that's OK, I suppose it's good practice. Still, not a single one of them actually said, "Jesus is not God."

How about you show us verses in the bible where Jesus comes out and says worship me for I am your god straight out?
or ones that say I came to Annunciate myself, impregnate a young girl with myself, and shall forsake myself after praying to myself...

all the best
Reply

Woodrow
02-26-2011, 10:30 PM
One of the biggest and fiercest arguments take place over the belief/disbelief in a trinitarian God(swt). A trinitarian can not understand fully why somebody can not see the trinity as being one God(swt). The non trinitarian can not understand why the trinitarian can not see it is simple math 1+1+1=3.

Two concepts that will never meet.

Just to perhaps enter a third facet into I will simply state why I stopped believing in the existence of a triune God(swt).

1. I could not find any definitive statements prior to the NT that would lead to the concept of a trinity

2. The Jews did not believe in a trinity and it seems that if such existed God(swt) would have made it known.

3. It took until the first Nicene council to establish the first church doctrine describing a trinity, and even then there was dispute between the Eastern and orthodox churches as to what the Nature of what a trinity would be.

4. Looking at the history of the teaching of trinitarian belief, it seems the Holy Ghost was sort of an after thought and almost left out

5. I can not find any place any indication that God(swt) ever spoke of being a Trinity

6. To me it seems that a need came about to justify worship of Jesus(as) and this was resolved by creating a trinity belief.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-26-2011, 10:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
How about you show us verses in the bible where Jesus comes out and says worship me for I am your god straight out?
or ones that say I came to Annunciate myself, impregnate a young girl with myself, and shall forsake myself after praying to myself...

all the best
can you please substantiate your argument? it's all well and good that you do not believe what christianity teaches but as it regards to your argument, can you substantiate the truth of your premises? once again you have a hidden premise that i have called false and it therefore skews your entire argument. we can move no further until you show how it isn't false. the above is not even an argument. once again (i feel as if i'm repeating myself), can you please defend your argument and show how it is logical and not inconsistent with your very own beliefs? in a debate, one has to prove the soundness of their premises before they can at all believe that they have made a point and as such i am merely asking you to substantiate these.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-26-2011, 10:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
One of the biggest and fiercest arguments take place over the belief/disbelief in a trinitarian God(swt). A trinitarian can not understand fully why somebody can not see the trinity as being one God(swt). ( a ) The non trinitarian can not understand why the trinitarian can not see it is simple math 1+1+1=3.

Two concepts that will never meet.

Just to perhaps enter a third facet into I will simply state why I stopped believing in the existence of a triune God(swt).

1. I could not find any definitive statements prior to the NT that would lead to the concept of a trinity

2. The Jews did not believe in a trinity and it seems that if such existed God(swt) would have made it known.

3. It took until the first Nicene council to establish the first church doctrine describing a trinity, and even then there was dispute between the Eastern and orthodox churches as to what the Nature of what a trinity would be.

4. Looking at the history of the teaching of trinitarian belief, it seems the Holy Ghost was sort of an after thought and almost left out

5. I can not find any place any indication that God(swt) ever spoke of being a Trinity

6. To me it seems that a need came about to justify worship of Jesus(as) and this was resolved by creating a trinity belief.
( a ) because it isn't even formulated as such. i had asked the individuals in this thread if they believed in three spaces and it would seem that no one does so yet the 3 constituents of space are not identical at all (yet they all possess the prerogatives of the one space). everyone acknowledges the fact that these three are not each other yet we all believe in one space. as the trinity is defined, the same is also true. and so the christian merely asks if the non-christian can show how this is not the case.

i was going to respond to each point one by one but i've since thought better of it (though i can if you would like). it seems that while this thread had begun with arguments against the christian definition of god on the part of non-christians, it ends with mere assertion of opinions. what has not been shown is that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is that incomprehensibility equals untruth (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is that the qur'an possesses an accurate understanding of the trinity (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is the fact that teaching can only come from explicit statements (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted) etc. the only thing asserted time and time again is opinion after opinion from the very individuals who claimed to function on almost nothing but logic.
Reply

جوري
02-26-2011, 10:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
can you please substantiate your argument? it's all well and good that you do not believe what christianity teaches but as it regards to your argument, can you substantiate the truth of your premises?
can you tell the difference between a query and an argument? I am afraid descending down to word play with every post doesn't qualify as verses from your bible!

once again you have a hidden premise that i have called false and it therefore skews your entire argument.
What does this mean and how does it relate to my query?
we can move no further until you show how it isn't false.
Again, this is incomprehensible nonsense and a nonsequitur!
the above is not even an argument.
You're on to something! perhaps it would pay if you'd read again more slowly before writing?
once again (i feel as if i'm repeating myself), can you please defend your argument and show how it is logical and not inconsistent with your very own beliefs?
You repeat yourself on the account you write much ado about nothing!
in a debate, one has to prove the soundness of their premises before they can at all believe that they have made a point and as such i am merely asking you to substantiate these.
See paragraph one, that way you can save yourself the repetition and save us the indecipherable guff..

all the best
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-26-2011, 10:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
can you tell the difference between a query and an argument? I am afraid descending down to word play with every post doesn't qualify as verses from your bible!
if it is merely a query then if the author could not show us what you asked for in the manner that you asked for it, what would it prove? nothing i suppose and as such it is almost irrelevant. why are you asking for these statements when they prove nothing and add nothing to the discussion? if you truly do believe that you have no argument and as such no real point behind your post then i do apologize for misunderstanding you, i had not known that you had no point you wanted to get at with your post.
Reply

Woodrow
02-26-2011, 10:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
( a ) because it isn't even formulated as such. i had asked the individuals in this thread if they believed in three spaces and it would seem that no one does so yet the 3 constituents of space are not identical at all (yet they all possess the prerogatives of the one space). everyone acknowledges the fact that these three are not each other yet we all believe in one space. as the trinity is defined, the same is also true. and so the christian merely asks if the non-christian can show how this is not the case.

i was going to respond to each point one by one but i've since thought better of it (though i can if you would like). it seems that while this thread had begun with arguments against the christian definition of god on the part of non-christians, it ends with mere assertion of opinions. what has not been shown is that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is that incomprehensibility equals untruth (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is that the qur'an possesses an accurate understanding of the trinity (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted). what has not been shown is the fact that teaching can only come from explicit statements (even though i had repeatedly asked for my post to be quoted and refuted) etc. the only thing asserted time and time again is opinion after opinion from the very individuals who claimed to function on almost nothing but logic.
Just addressing one sentence:

what has not been shown is that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect
That is asking us to prove a negative. which is impossible. You can not prove something is wrong or in error, the burdan of proof is upon the accuser to prove his statement is correct. We have no means nor the need to prove that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect

The burden of proof is upon you to prove it is correct.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-26-2011, 10:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


How about you show us verses in the bible where Jesus comes out and says worship me for I am your god straight out?
or ones that say I came to Annunciate myself, impregnate a young girl with myself, and shall forsake myself after praying to myself...

all the best

Once naidamar has shown me the verses I've asked for, for the verses he has shown me don't do what I asked for.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-26-2011, 11:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Just addressing one sentence:
That is asking us to prove a negative. which is impossible. You can not prove something is wrong or in error, the burdan of proof is upon the accuser to prove his statement is correct. We have no means nor the need to prove that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect

The burden of proof is upon you to prove it is correct.
no, that it is not. for an example let us take the statement "the moon is made out of cheese". now if i had claimed that the people in this thread have not proven this statement incorrect, would i in fact be asking you to prove a negative? no i wouldn't. merely because i say that "the members of this thread have not proven this to be incorrect" does not suddenly transform my question as that of one asking for members on this board to prove a negative.

furthermore i have given examples on oneness and still they have not been refuted so it is not as if i had not given any proofs as evidence for my statements. woodrow, while i did very much enjoy this discussion (and i do not want to make it seem as though i have not. you have been more then civil and respectful, thank you.) it would seem that we are at the end and still nothing i had claimed was falsified. there are means of proving if our concept of oneness is incorrect (though the above statement by yourself is rather odd, if you cannot prove this to be incorrect why then do muslims claim this to be illogical? would then this not mean that their stance was never based on logic in the first place but on mere belief?) but the simple fact is that it is not.
Reply

جوري
02-26-2011, 11:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
if it is merely a query then if the author could not show us what you asked for in the manner that you asked for it, what would it prove? nothing i suppose and as such it is almost irrelevant. why are you asking for these statements when they prove nothing and add nothing to the discussion? if you truly do believe that you have no argument and as such no real point behind your post then i do apologize for misunderstanding you, i had not known that you had no point you wanted to get at with your post.
I don't get much from this logorrheic verbiage.. Do you merely do this to deflect away from the difficult questions?
This is something to do with your salvation the very basic tenet of your faith, should be made accessible to scholars and laymen alike.. if you can't elucidate the passages for all from your book in the simple manner asked, then what the hell are you doing in a thread entitled 'trinity discussion goes here'?

all the best
Reply

جوري
02-26-2011, 11:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Once naidamar has shown me the verses I've asked for, for the verses he has shown me don't do what I asked for.

Why can't you do it now while in waiting or have you no verses where Jesus professes outright his godhood? as well some logical reasons for the derangement from the previously established principles of the OT!

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-26-2011, 11:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
That is asking us to prove a negative. which is impossible. You can not prove something is wrong or in error, the burdan of proof is upon the accuser to prove his statement is correct. We have no means nor the need to prove that the christian definition of oneness is incorrect

I can appreciate how one would not wish to be in the position of proving a negative. But we did not begin by asking for that. Christians merely make the assertion that God is as he is. Then we describe how we have come to now him. You say that you know he is not that way. When we ask why you say so, you say it is because it is revealed to you differently in the Qur'an. Well, that is all well and good, and we respect that you may believe differently than us. But merely asserting that you believe something differently than us does not constitute proof or knowledge, only belief. So, we are not asking you to prove the negative, only that you tell us how it is that you know that our beliefs are wrong on the basis of something other than simply holding a contrasting belief.

Now, if you ask us to explain why we believe what we believe, and your response is that our explanation is unconvincing, I can accept that to be true. But it remains that the only thing that is true is that our explanation of why we believe what we believe does not convince you. Not that our believe is itself false.

It is here where I believe the biggest problem in threads such as these emerge. Some enter then trying to equate themselves being unconvinced as equivalent to that which they do not believe in being false. Further they argue anything that does not convince them is itself illogical simply because they cannot understand or accept it. Then it becomes a contest of people looking for proofs rather than understanding.

Imagine if Pysogelis were to say that he remains unconvinced of the existence of God and does not so believe. Would that make it so that one's belief in Allah was proven false or illogical? No. It would only mean that, despite your particular witness and testimony, Pysogelis was unswayed.

When you or I state why we believe something, that sort of statement cannot be refuted. We have stated why it is that we believe, and no one can tell us that we don't believe or that those reason are insufficient for our belief. For, in fact, we do believe (although in this illustration you and I believe different things, the truth remains the same) and, unless we are lying to ourselves, most likely for the reaons that we have given.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-26-2011, 11:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

I don't get much from this logorrheic verbiage.. Do you merely do this to deflect away from the difficult questions?
This is something to do with your salvation the very basic tenet of your faith, should be made accessible to scholars and laymen alike.. if you can't elucidate the passages for all from your book in the simple manner asked, then what the hell are you doing in a thread entitled 'trinity discussion goes here'?

all the best
it would seem that now you have an argument. at this point i must sincerely ask which i am to believe? you had claimed that you didn't have an argument and now it would seem that you do. that said once again you rely on a false premise, that teaching can only be based on explicit statements. once again this is false and is inconsistent. once more the argument from simplicity does not work because it as well is false. please, prove the soundness of your premises. notice how many times i have asked you to substantiate your argument. your arguments are skewed with unsound premises yet you do nothing to substantiate it. once again the rules of logic are such that your premises must first be substantiated because or it will be as such that whether i respond or not, your argument will still be considered wrong. in a way i'm even helping you. please, with all due respect, substantiate your premises. we can move no further until you do and i would very much discuss the matter with you as long as you feel up for it.
Reply

Woodrow
02-26-2011, 11:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
no, that it is not. for an example let us take the statement "the moon is made out of cheese". now if i had claimed that the people in this thread have not proven this statement incorrect, would i in fact be asking you to prove a negative? no i wouldn't. merely because i say that "the members of this thread have not proven this to be incorrect" does not suddenly transform my question as that of one asking for members on this board to prove a negative.

furthermore i have given examples on oneness and still they have not been refuted so it is not as if i had not given any proofs as evidence for my statements. woodrow, while i did very much enjoy this discussion (and i do not want to make it seem as though i have not. you have been more then civil and respectful, thank you.) it would seem that we are at the end and still nothing i had claimed was falsified. there are means of proving if our concept of oneness is incorrect (though the above statement by yourself is rather odd, if you cannot prove this to be incorrect why then do muslims claim this to be illogical? would then this not mean that their stance was never based on logic in the first place but on mere belief?) but the simple fact is that it is not.
Thank you for the complement. Although I was unable to be on this thread as much as I had planned to be. I did enjoy the few moments of actual debate we were able to have.

I agree it is rather pointless to try to go any further. The basic issues of this thread have seem to have been sidetracked many posts back and at the moment I do not have the time to go through and try to find a way to salvage the thread. with that said I bid this thread farewell unless the opportunity arises were I can do a good spring clean up on it.
Reply

جوري
02-26-2011, 11:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
it would seem that now you have an argument.
at this point i must sincerely ask which i am to believe? you had claimed that you didn't have an argument and now it would seem that you do.
Again, verbiage in abundance doesn't address my queries. It wastes time and web-space!

that said once again you rely on a false premise, that teaching can only be based on explicit statements.
Not a false premise when it comes to something as important as the clause of ones' salvation. We're not for instance speaking of Islamic finance. It wouldn't matter if you're deeply involved with it or completely ignorant of it. We're speaking of the very thing that should lead you to the eternal house. And again as I have stated prior, should be something that is understood by theologians and laymen alike, paupers and kings and not some occult inference that is apparently understood by a select few!
once again this is false and is inconsistent. once more the argument from simplicity does not work because it as well is false
More nonsensical verbiage (see above paragraph)
. please, prove the soundness of your premises.
What does this mean? You say or he says Jesus is God, it would seem incumbent upon you the claim maker to establish two things
1- the validity of the documents you present, textually, historically, logically, chain of narrations from trustworthy individuals.
and 2- and perhaps the most important of all that these are the very words of God and the very words of God are in a clear fashion prove that he is this middle eastern man named Jesus!
notice how many times i have asked you to substantiate your argument. your arguments are skewed with unsound premises yet you do nothing to substantiate it.
See two previous replies!

once again the rules of logic are such that your premises must first be substantiated because or it will be as such that whether i respond or not, your argument will still be considered wrong. in a way i'm even helping you. please, with all due respect, substantiate your premises. we can move no further until you do and i would very much discuss the matter with you as long as you feel up for it.
See above and quit with all the verbiage, as stated previously drowning people in meaningless logorrhea isn't an excuse nor should be used as a deflection when being at a loss for something meaningful to write!

all the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-26-2011, 11:38 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
2. The Jews did not believe in a trinity and it seems that if such existed God(swt) would have made it known.
This makes two assumptions that I disagree with.
a) That God always reveals everything there is to know about himself to all with whom he communicates.

Surely Muslims more than most understand the idea of progressive revelation. For they themselves claim to be at the pinnnacle of that revelation. And while they claim that all prophets had a message of Islam, they don't claim that the messages were identical, only similar. Each had a message for a particular time, place, and people, and thus the content varied accordingly.

Further, not even in Islam did God reveal the idea of oneness in his original conversation with Muhammad (pbuh). According to Serah's of the Prophet, that message did not come till the third year of prophethood. To say that the Jews should have known, seems to me, carries with it the hidden implication that God would not have waited to reveal something so important as the concepts articulated by Trinitarian beliefs till the NT era. (My apologies if I have incorrectly read into what you have written.) Yet given that the most important understanding of Allah that is held within Islam is the message of Oneness, the argument that God must surely reveal his important truths to all would seem to have required that God would not have waited for 3 years to reveal this truth to Muhammad. That he did wait vastly weakens the argument that God would have made this known any particular truth according to our temporal schedules.

b) That God never made this truth known.

That we are discussing the Trinity is itself evident that we Christians believe that, in time, God did in fact make it known. And he made it known to Jews. They weren't the Jews who wrote the Tanakh. But they were Jews, and they wrote about this new experience they had of God in material that came to be known as the New Testament.



6. To me it seems that a need came about to justify worship of Jesus(as) and this was resolved by creating a trinity belief.
Agreed, actually. It is precisely the act of trying to make sense of their experience of being led to see and understand Jesus as God who had actually come among us and therefore should be exalted and glorified and worshipped just as they had always worshipped God, alongside their understanding of the nature of God as one that led to 3 centuries of convesation within the church that finally found expression in the Nicene Creed. However, I don't think that this argues against it being true. It just describes how it is that it came to expressed as doctrine. It's only untrue if the experience of those who felt that Jesus was himself the incarnation of God is untrue.
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 01:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


Can you tell me where in the bible God revealed the trinity?
The Bible reveals the Father to be God, the Son to be God, and the Holy Spirit to be God. Yet it also reveals God to be one.

Tying all these verses in, you get the Trinity. There simply is not explanation for the verses without it.

The rest of your paragraph is empty and just words without logic or scriptural verses to back up.
My paragraph was to show that human reason can understand something of the Trinity. The focus was on what the mind could understand without the aid of revelation. For you to understand this, you would must realize that we Christians believe reason to be a gift from God, and that even reason unaided by faith or grace can arrive at certain truths.

The example I give was certainly not the best worded. I am not a very eloquent person, someone like St Augustine or St Thomas Aquinas do a far better job of laying out the detail. I like it because the original poster mentioned not being able to find a suitable analogy for the Trinity. But since God is transcendent, we should not be surprised that there is not suitable created analogy! We must therefore turn to the highest thing in the created order, and that is the human mind or spirit. Classically, three powers were attribuited to the spirit. That of will, intellect, and memory.

When you try to understand something, you create an image of it in your mind. If you try to understand yourself, your mind creates an image. The problem however, is that even your understanding of yourself is imperfect and flawed. But then we ask what of God? We say God's knowledge is infinite. But what does that knowledge contain? The entire universe is nothing to Him! God's knowledge is of Himself. Now here is the difference between you and God. God's knowledge of Himself is PERFECT. It is so absolutely perfect, that it is not merely an image, but a PERSON. That Person is the the Second Person of the Trinity. Now how can we distinguish these Two Persons? They are identical, no? Ah, but we realize there is one way to distinguish them! By Procession! One originates from the Other! One then properly understands the title, SON of God. How is God the Son, a Son? By Generation. But Generation in God is like a mind generating an image, not like humans generating humans. And so we realize, even the titles for Christ, like "Son" (refering to distinction in procession) and Logos (referring to the absolute image that is a person) reveal something of these truths.

Now we ask what is Love? Love is the will drawing itself to an object. And so what is the object of God's love? Man, surely, but it seems rather inadequate that an infinite and perfect God should love something so insignificant! We then realize, that God's love is directed towarsd the Second Person, only He is adequately worthy of Love! In this case too, the Love is perfect, such that it is a Person. The Holy Spirit!

The Truth is beautiful!

Wa salaam,
Sojourn
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 02:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Ah.. I thought you were ignoring me, GS. Glad thats not the case.
ok so how do you want your trinity formula, GS:
1/2 (father) + 3/8 (son) + 1/8 (spirit) = 1 God
If you want to reject the Trinity as doctrine, you have to first understand it. What you quote above is not the Trinity!

God is absolutely simple, this means there are not parts in God. He occupies no space, has no parts, has no shape. Therefore, He can't be Divided into Thirds!

The Trinity as doctrine is simple: One Divine Nature in Three Persons. Note the disction between nature and person. We're not saying 1 person is somehow 3 persons. No, 1 *nature* in 3 *persons*. 1 *coin* with 2 *faces.* Get it?

These Three Persons are one because they possess the same Divine Nature. Note the words *possess* and *same.* They don't each have their own individual but similar natures, as in three human beings standing next to eachother. No! All three posess the same nature. As in, All Three have the SAME Divine Intellect, the SAME Divine Will, and the SAME Divine Attributes. If three human beings had no three human wills and intellects, but all possessed the SAME human intellect and will, you would have one being, wouldn't you?

Get it akhi?

Good.

Now, can you do the same for me, and please give me quotes of Jesus that says "I am God, Worship me" and "Holy spirit is God, Worship him", preferably in the original language in which Jesus spoke, and no translation please.
فَكَمَا يُقِيمُ الآبُ الْمَوْتَى وَيُحْيِيهِمْ، كَذلِكَ يُحْيِي الاِبْنُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ
وَالآبُ لاَ يُحَاكِمُ أَحَداً، بَلْ أَعْطَى الاِبْنَ سُلْطَةَ الْقَضَاءِ كُلَّهَا،
لِيُكْرِمَ الْجَمِيعُ الاِبْنَ كَمَا يُكْرِمُونَ الآبَ. وَمَنْ لاَ يُكْرِمِ الاِبْنَ لاَ يُكْرِمِ الآبَ الَّذِي أَرْسَلَهُ
.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-27-2011, 02:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
God is absolutely simple, this means there are not parts in God. He occupies no space, has no parts, has no shape. Therefore, He can't be Divided into Thirds!

OK I will have to agree with you on the definition of God.
That means Jesus is not God, because he was historical figure, and he occupied space, he had body parts, he had shape.


Case closed.
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-27-2011, 02:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
OK I will have to agree with you on the definition of God.
That means Jesus is not God, because he was historical figure, and he occupied space, he had body parts, he had shape.

Case closed.
the speaker is speaking of god as he is in himself. the above would also mean that the muslim deity is not god. he occupies a space (he sits on his throne in heaven), he has eyes, hands, feet etc. and even has a shape according to islam. so if your argument is correct, then the case is closed for islam as well.
Reply

جوري
02-27-2011, 02:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
the speaker is speaking of god as he is in himself. the above would also mean that the muslim deity is not god. he occupies a space (he sits on his throne in heaven), he has eyes, hands, feet etc. and even has a shape according to islam. so if your argument is correct, then the case is closed for islam as well.

do you actually spend a smidgen of time reading any replies afforded you including those scholarly treatise on ahadith you quote without understanding.
I notice that you shied away from answering the questions asked below, after your usual calisthenics with words!

format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
Again, verbiage in abundance doesn't address my queries. It wastes time and web-space!


Not a false premise when it comes to something as important as the clause of ones' salvation. We're not for instance speaking of Islamic finance. It wouldn't matter if you're deeply involved with it or completely ignorant of it. We're speaking of the very thing that should lead you to the eternal house. And again as I have stated prior, should be something that is understood by theologians and laymen alike, paupers and kings and not some occult inference that is apparently understood by a select few!

More nonsensical verbiage (see above paragraph)

What does this mean? You say or he says Jesus is God, it would seem incumbent upon you the claim maker to establish two things
1- the validity of the documents you present, textually, historically, logically, chain of narrations from trustworthy individuals.
and 2- and perhaps the most important of all that these are the very words of God and the very words of God are in a clear fashion prove that he is this middle eastern man named Jesus!

See two previous replies!



See above and quit with all the verbiage, as stated previously drowning people in meaningless logorrhea isn't an excuse nor should be used as a deflection when being at a loss for something meaningful to write!

all the best
Reply

Sol Invictus
02-27-2011, 03:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
do you actually spend a smidgen of time reading any replies afforded you including those scholarly treatise on ahadith you quote without understanding.
I notice that you shied away from answering the questions asked below, after your usual calisthenics with words!
please don't jump to conclusions like this. i am actually about to leave my home so i could not answer your post at the moment. i skipped it only because it's rather easy to reply to naidamar. that said, have you looked at what the church has said on the matter of god as he is in himself and how this squares with the incarnation? can you name and describe for us the fundamental doctrine as it regards the incarnation of christ and his divinity?

once again, i will reply as soon as i come home, like i said, i'm glad to continue this discussion for as long as you're willing so perhaps we should not be so quick to jump to conclusions. this forum does not constitute my whole life.
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 03:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


OK I will have to agree with you on the definition of God.
That means Jesus is not God, because he was historical figure, and he occupied space, he had body parts, he had shape.


Case closed.
You made an erroneous conclusion.

Consider the following: Man is composed of spirit and flesh. Flesh is material and occupies space, but the Spirit is immaterial, and occupies no space. Does the fact that man has a material body negate that he has an immaterial spirit?

No?

Than neither does the human nature of Christ negate the reality of His Divine nature.

Get it?

Good.


wa salaam,
Sojourn
Reply

جوري
02-27-2011, 03:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sol Invictus
please don't jump to conclusions like this. i am actually about to leave my home so i could not answer your post at the moment. i skipped it only because it's rather easy to reply to naidamar. that said, have you looked at what the church has said on the matter of god as he is in himself and how this squares with the incarnation? can you name and describe for us the fundamental doctrine as it regards the incarnation of christ and his divinity?
I don't accept Jesus' alleged divinity to name you a ''fundamental doctrine as it regards the incarnation of christ and his divinity'' What does this even mean, I honestly worry of your mental status when you write such absurdities. I have posed you two very logical and concise questions and I expect a clear answer to them that doesn't loan itself to some non rational speech. You must realize how monolithic Christianity appears and how divided, given that no Abrahamic religion before or after accepts anthropomorphism, a human god, let alone the very human things that make such a god both ineffectual as a human and as a god!
once again, i will reply as soon as i come home, like i said, i'm glad to continue this discussion for as long as you're willing so perhaps we should not be so quick to jump to conclusions. this forum does not constitute my whole life.
I can only draw conclusions from what you yourself present. I don't know who you are to have any emotional investment!

all the best
Reply

جوري
02-27-2011, 03:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sojourn
Than neither does the human nature of Christ negate the reality of His Divine nature. Get it? Good.

By your conclusion we're all gods.. what is the point of adoration of a lesser ineffectual god if we're all even?
Reply

Ramadhan
02-27-2011, 03:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
By your conclusion we're all gods.. what is the point of adoration of a lesser ineffectual god if we're all even?


I was going to write this exact sentence.
You beat me to it.

Truly, those whose heart are sealed are like the blind.
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 03:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


By your conclusion we're all gods.. what is the point of adoration of a lesser ineffectual god if we're all even?
Just because a spirit is immaterial doesn't mean it's Divine. The soul of man is spirit, and it is CREATED. Our existence depends on God. He created us and upholds us.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-27-2011, 03:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
the speaker is speaking of god as he is in himself. the above would also mean that the muslim deity is not god. he occupies a space (he sits on his throne in heaven), he has eyes, hands, feet etc. and even has a shape according to islam. so if your argument is correct, then the case is closed for islam as well.


Look, I understand the need for christians to keep reinventing sentences and give new interpretations to words, because truly, christianity dogma that God is three but one is not based on the truth and therefore can never be reconciled by any base logic or reason, unless you shut down your logical capacity and reason and only use such convoluted words to describe the concept.

Now, let me remind you again this is what YOU yourself wrote:


format_quote Originally Posted by
God is absolutely simple, this means there are not parts in God. He occupies no space, has no parts, has no shape. Therefore, He can't be Divided into Thirds!
Now, tell me which part of this following sentence is not true:
jesus occupied space, had parts, had shape

Really, the more christians open their mouth trying to describe trinity, the deeper the hole they dig themselves into.

Now, you charged that Allah SWT occupies space. That is a complete lie. From the Qur'an, repeatedly Allah said that He created the heavens (ie. whole universe and everything else we dont know) and is outside the universe (hence outside time and space). Also from the Qur'an : "and there is nothing unto like Him". Your lie is a big fail.
Reply

جوري
02-27-2011, 03:33 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sojourn
Just because a spirit is immaterial doesn't mean it's Divine. The soul of man is spirit, and it is CREATED. Our existence depends on God. He created us and upholds us.

yeah, what granted Jesus' spirit divinity? it seems from your book that he was crucified and died which renders him equal (if not less) to every human being on this planet-- by less of course given his prayer in Gethsemane not to be forsaken.. shouldn't god save himself? What makes a god that can't save himself able to grant 'salvation' to others?

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
02-27-2011, 03:38 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Just because a spirit is immaterial doesn't mean it's Divine. The soul of man is spirit, and it is CREATED. Our existence depends on God. He created us and upholds us.

Since you started speaking on the subject of trinity, you keep on contradicting your own statements, and then had to make amendements, which ironically further contradicting your previous statements.

BTW,
please STOP sending me PMs of arabic life application bible. It's as meaningless as whatever one of other hundreds of bible versions you have out there.
why is it that the missionaries and fundies in these forums love sending non-sensical PMs. You can always put them up on this forum for everyone to see your absurdity. sheesshh.


Only when you send me the unadulterated, authentic words of Jesus (as) in his own words and language, then I'll be interested. Otherwise, keep them to yourselves.
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 03:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


yeah, what granted Jesus' spirit divinity?
Not sure what you mean here. Jesus' spirit was never granted Divinity. God took on human nature, and therefore took on spirit and flesh.

it seems from your book that he was crucified and died which renders him equal (if not less) to every human being on this planet-- by less of course given his prayer in Gethsemane not to be forsaken..
Christ's humanity was like ours in all ways save one: sin. Christ was sinless.

shouldn't god save himself? What makes a god that can't save himself able to grant 'salvation' to others?
Jesus had the power to save Himself, as He revealed to Pilate. He didn't save Himself because His will was to redeem man.


In Christ,
Sojourn
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 03:47 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Now, you charged that Allah SWT occupies space. That is a complete lie. From the Qur'an, repeatedly Allah said that He created the heavens (ie. whole universe and everything else we dont know) and is outside the universe (hence outside time and space). Also from the Qur'an : "and there is nothing unto like Him". Your lie is a big fail.
First of all I dont believe Allah spoke in the Quran.

Now that we got that out of the way...

I didn't charge God occupied space anymore than I charge your spirit occupies space. Since both God and spirit are immaterial, they can't occupy space by definition.

Again...

Since God and spirit are immaterial, they *CANT* occupy space.


I suggest you read my posts at a pace you can understand.

Wa salaam,

Sojourn
Reply

جوري
02-27-2011, 03:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sojourn
Not sure what you mean here. Jesus' spirit was never granted Divinity. God took on human nature, and therefore took on spirit and flesh.
and when god was suckling or using the loo or sleeping at night or for that matter when he died who took on the affairs of the vast universe and all that dwells within it?

Christ's humanity was like ours in all ways save one: sin. Christ was sinless.
Yeah? according to Martin Luther's Table talk Jesus had an affair three times:

Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, "Nobody knows what he's doing with her". Again, with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 <:2-11>, whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died. (Luther's Works, American Edition, Volume 54, p 154)

Jesus had the power to save Himself, as He revealed to Pilate. He didn't save Himself because His will was to redeem man.
So Jesus couldn't redeem the Jews/sabeans/Mandeans etc. before .. he simply changed his mind and religion?


In Christ,
Sojourn
Good luck with that

all the best
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 04:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

and when god was suckling or using the loo or sleeping at night or for that matter when he died who took on the affairs of the vast universe and all that dwells within it?
The answer is simple, God.

Do you really think God can't take on human nature if He wanted to? Or that doin so would actually limit him? You underestimate God.


Yeah? according to Martin Luther's Table talk Jesus had an affair three times:
Are Luther's opinions supposed to mean something to me?

Do you suppose Luther was suggesting Christ is an adulterer the way you understand the an adulterer?

So Jesus couldn't redeem the Jews/sabeans/Mandeans etc. before .. he simply changed his mind and religion?
Not sure who the sabeans or mandeans were, but Christ's redemption even touched those in the past.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-27-2011, 04:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
First of all I dont believe Allah spoke in the Quran.

I know that you don't believe that, otherwise you would have been muslim.
Has belief in the trinity really messed up your brain cells that badly?


format_quote Originally Posted by
Since both God and spirit are immaterial, they can't occupy space by definition. Again...
Since God and spirit are immaterial, they *CANT* occupy space.

I am having a ball here.
So by your latest definition, Jesus is not God, because God and spirit cannot occupy space (Jesus was space, right?)

I cant wait for your next line in explaining trinity.
Reply

Ramadhan
02-27-2011, 04:23 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Do you really think God can't take on human nature if He wanted to? Or that doin so would actually limit him? You underestimate God.

This latest "statement" from you contradicted your previous "statement":


format_quote Originally Posted by
Since God and spirit are immaterial, they *CANT* occupy space.


;D
Reply

جوري
02-27-2011, 04:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sojourn
The answer is simple, God.

Do you really think God can't take on human nature if He wanted to? Or that doin so would actually limit him? You underestimate God.
That is a non answer. A god that dies can hardly save himself isn't going to make the world go round!

Are Luther's opinions supposed to mean something to me?
His opinion is as valid as the mysterious writers of the bible.. anyone can write anything and it is so apparent since you're apt at turning humans into gods!

Do you suppose Luther was suggesting Christ is an adulterer the way you understand the an adulterer?
It is inconsequential to me what Luther thought, anymore than what saul thought anymore than what doubting thomas believed or what john dreamt!

Not sure who the sabeans or mandeans were, but Christ's redemption even touched those in the past.
Of course you don't know who they're.. that is not a surprise, but it isn't the point.. why wasn't god human for the Jews? and why the change of heart about his commandments?

why Jesus and not ganesh, the god in the elephant head? if we're going by non reasoned judgment, their brand of reincarnation doesn't involve botched math!

all the best
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 04:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
So by your latest definition, Jesus is not God, because God and spirit cannot occupy space (Jesus was space, right?)

I cant wait for your next line in explaining trinity.
Perhaps you haven't realized, but we're not talking about the Trinity anymore. We're talking about the union of Christ's humanity with His Divinity (a separate topic.)

The error you are making is that you are equating humanity with Divinity. We never said Jesus' humanity is his Divinity, such that the created is the uncreated. What we said is that Jesus is a Divine Person with a human nature unified with a Divine nature.

That's why your statemet, "Jesus is not God, because God cannot occupy space" is (another) erroneous conclusion you have drawn.

So lets review...

Jesus is a Divine Person with two distinct natures, one human and the other Divine. The human nature is not the Divine nature, and the Divine nature is not the human nature. Each retains its properties despite being unified by the power of God.

If this is difficulty to believe, consider that such a union exists within yourself!

You are made up of a material flesh and an immaterial spirit. The flesh is not the spirit, and the spirit is not the flesh. Eech retain their properties while being unified by the power of God.

Get it?

Good!

wa salaam!
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 05:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


This latest "statement" from you contradicted your previous "statement":
;D
It's not a contradiction because we are not saying human nature = divine nature

We are saying Jesus has *both* a human nature, and a divine nature.

Thus both human attributes and Divine attributes can be seen in Christ.


So simple if you only stopped forcing yourself to find problems : )

Wa salaam akhi,
Sojourn
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 05:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

That is a non answer.
Shrugs...

A god that dies can hardly save himself isn't going to make the world go round!
Three things to mention:

1) Death is not oblivion

2) Jesus conquered death by His resurrection

3) Jesus' human nature did not make Him any less Divine

His opinion is as valid as the mysterious writers of the bible.. anyone can write anything and it is so apparent since you're apt at turning humans into gods!
The writers of the Bible are not mysterious.

Most humans, even in Jesus time, were more skeptical than we think. They believed Him to be God because He bore the attributes of God.

It is inconsequential to me what Luther thought, anymore than what saul thought anymore than what doubting thomas believed or what john dreamt!
Umm... yea... thats why I dont quote Luther to you, but you quoted him to me!

Of course you don't know who they're.. that is not a surprise, but it isn't the point.. why wasn't god human for the Jews? and why the change of heart about his commandments?
Jesus taught that marriage is to be between one man and one woman, and that only death can break the marital bond. Muhammad taught that a man can have four wives, unlimited concubines, and can divorce by simply saying it three times!

Why the change of heart?

why Jesus and not ganesh, the god in the elephant head? if we're going by non reasoned judgment, their brand of reincarnation doesn't involve botched math!
Saying 1 coin has 2 faces is not botched math...

Anymore than saying 1 Divine Nature in 3 Persons...


wa salaam ukhti
Reply

جوري
02-27-2011, 05:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sojourn
Shrugs...
I wouldn't want you to strain for an answer, you're not being graded!


Three things to mention:

1) Death is not oblivion

2) Jesus conquered death by His resurrection

3) Jesus' human nature did not make Him any less Divine
Another non-answer.. that is the case with everyone yet again. We're born, we live, we die we get resurrected (or so we hold the belief) it doesn't make Jesus God it makes him subject to the human condition!

The writers of the Bible are not mysterious.
Really what are their real names?
Most humans, even in Jesus time, were more skeptical than we think. They believed Him to be God because He bore the attributes of God.
Actually they didn't.. they'd to have a council to vote on your god's divinity!


Umm... yea... thats why I dont quote Luther to you, but you quoted him to me!
You alleged that Jesus was sinless and I have shown you that protestants don't think so!


Jesus taught that marriage is to be between one man and one woman, and that only death can break the marital bond. Muhammad taught that a man can have four wives, unlimited concubines, and can divorce by simply saying it three times!
Indeed marriage is between a man and a woman as opposed to two men with church approval but we digress.. how many wives did David have? what about that concubine he had on his death bed? how many did Solomon have, how about Abraham, how about Issac.. do you see what I mean by Christianity being a monolithic?
and thank God for divorces they don't turn people into murderers or hypocrites or trapped into a bad marriage and sinning with affairs on the side simply to please pederast priests who condemn yet sin on the side..

Why the change of heart?
Yes why the change of heart.. why no pigs then go eat pigs, why circumcision then no circumcision, why worship only god then three headed gods etc. etc. etc.


Saying 1 coin has 2 faces is not botched math...
Except two sides of the coin are still a metal object not three separate entities. You can't claim to be a monotheist and worship three gods!
Anymore than saying 1 Divine Nature in 3 Persons...
See above response .. you know what is sad, aside from these nonsensical beliefs.. is that I am half asleep and don't even have to put an effort in refuting you because what you write is so absurd I can't classify it as a story let alone a religion!


wa salaam ukhti
Aslaam 3la man itaba3 alhouda wa naha an'nfs 3an ilhawa aslaam 3la ahel aslaam!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
02-27-2011, 05:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by
Perhaps you haven't realized, but we're not talking about the Trinity anymore. We're talking about the union of Christ's humanity with His Divinity (a separate topic.)

So your definitions of the words and the logic of your own statements can so easily change depending on the topic?


format_quote Originally Posted by
The error you are making is that you are equating humanity with Divinity.

For all we know, Jesus was humanity, so you are the one who equate humanity with divinity, not me.


format_quote Originally Posted by
Jesus is a Divine Person with two distinct natures, one human and the other Divine. The human nature is not the Divine nature, and the Divine nature is not the human nature. Each retains its properties despite being unified by the power of God.
Again, I'll point you out to your previous statement:

format_quote Originally Posted by
Since God and spirit are immaterial, they *CANT* occupy space.
This suffice to refute your own assumption that Jesus was divine.


format_quote Originally Posted by
I suggest you read my posts at a pace you can understand.
Unless they totally shut down their brain cells, logic and reason, there is no way anyone accept trinity concept.
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 06:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
I wouldn't want you to strain for an answer, you're not being graded!
There is no answer you will accept.

Another non-answer.. that is the case with everyone yet again. We're born, we live, we die we get resurrected (or so we hold the belief) it doesn't make Jesus God it makes him subject to the human condition!
Christ was crucified for comitting shirk. His resurrection indicates He told the truth, i.e. He really is God.

Really what are their real names?
The same names that have always been attached to them.

Actually they didn't.. they'd to have a council to vote on your god's divinity!
Christ was worshiped even as an infant.

You alleged that Jesus was sinless and I have shown you that protestants don't think so!
First, Protestant doctrine is not the majority position.

Second, I'm no fan of Luther, but assuredly he did not believe Jesus was a sinner!

Indeed marriage is between a man and a woman as opposed to two men with church approval but we digress..
Yes, you do digress.

how many wives did David have? what about that concubine he had on his death bed? how many did Solomon have, how about Abraham, how about Issac.. do you see what I mean by Christianity being a monolithic?
By that argument Islam is not monolithic either.

and thank God for divorces they don't turn people into murderers or hypocrites or trapped into a bad marriage and sinning with affairs on the side simply to please pederast priests who condemn yet sin on the side..
Such priests were more Muhammad-like than Christ-like.

But again, we digress...

Yes why the change of heart.. why no pigs then go eat pigs, why circumcision then no circumcision, why worship only god then three headed gods etc. etc. etc.
Why sacrifice, priesthood, a temple, being important... and then non important...

Whats your explanation from an Islamic point of view?

Except two sides of the coin are still a metal object not three separate entities.
There is a distinction between "coin" and "face", thats why 1 coin with 2 faces is not a math contradiction

Likewise, there is a distinction between Person and Nature, thus no math contradiction.

You can't claim to be a monotheist and worship three gods!
I dont worship three gods.

See above response .. you know what is sad, aside from these nonsensical beliefs.. is that I am half asleep and don't even have to put an effort in refuting you because what you write is so absurd I can't classify it as a story let alone a religion!
Funny thing is you havent even begun attacking Christianity! So far you've been attacking your own misunderstanding!


wa alaikum
Reply

Ramadhan
02-27-2011, 06:06 AM
Sojourn,

let me refresh my memory, aren't you the one who few months ago claimed that there is no priests/nuns who converted to Islam? And then I, along with few others, gave you TONS of evidence. Then you disappeared for a while. Have you finished reading those articles and watching those youtubes?
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 06:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar


So your definitions of the words and the logic of your own statements can so easily change depending on the topic?
The topic did change, but the point is you are so ignorant of what the Trinity is that you thought we were still discussing it! The Trinity has nothing to do with the union between Christ's humanity and Divinity.

For all we know, Jesus was humanity, so you are the one who equate humanity with divinity, not me.
"Jesus was humanity." talk about nonsensical! English isn't your first language, is it?

This suffice to refute your own assumption that Jesus was divine.
And again, since Jesus is not merely God, and not merely man, but a union of God and man, there is no contradiction.

(Im trying to see how many times I have to repeat this before it sinks in)

Unless they totally shut down their brain cells, logic and reason, there is no way anyone accept trinity concept.
Yes... listen to Muhammad who said the devil urinates in a person's ear if he sleeps during salah...

Religion of reason?

please...


wa salaam
Reply

Sojourn
02-27-2011, 06:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Sojourn,

let me refresh my memory, aren't you the one who few months ago claimed that there is no priests/nuns who converted to Islam? And then I, along with few others, gave you TONS of evidence. Then you disappeared for a while. Have you finished reading those articles and watching those youtubes?
No akhi, you must be thinking of someone else. I never made such a claim.
Reply

Grace Seeker
02-27-2011, 06:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sojourn

Funny thing is you havent even begun attacking Christianity! So far you've been attacking your own misunderstanding!


wa alaikum
This remains the biggest problem throughout this thread. Wish I was able to rep you for this comment, for it is spot on!!


Even if the Christian understanding of the Trinity were false and not able to be substantiated from the Bible, we wouldn't have any idea what the problem with it was from this thread for the Christian understanding of the Trinity isn't what is being discussed. What is being lampooned by those who enjoy such forms of "discourse" (using a very generous way to describe some posts) simply isn't an proper representation of Christian teaching with regard to the Trinity.
Reply

Woodrow
02-27-2011, 07:25 AM
I am closing this thread for several reasons.

1. It seems we all have a different concept as to what is the Christian belief about the trinity

2. There are no mutual grounds for constructive debate

3. The thread will soon fall into personal attacks rather than the peaceful discussion of our differences.

:threadclo:
Reply

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
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!