message in Christianity

[vpb]

:sl:

some questions to christians,

1. What criteria do you use (in christianity) to define if a message is a true message from God ?

2.and also if you say that Jesus was crucified to pay with his blood the sins of the people, then what happened to the people that died before Jesus came? Do they go to hell or heaven?
3. and also did the prophets that are mentioned in Bible teach trinity? (i'm refering to the prophets before Jesus was born).

[IceQueen~]

I don't think those questions are answered in the bible so if you do get any it'll probs be personal opinions on the matter (give up)

[vpb]

these are questions are supposed to be answered by Christianity, but at least i would like to see the personal opinions.

[Joe98]

1. What criteria do you use (in christianity) to define if a message is a true message from God ?

Muslims believe the Koran is a message from God. Muslims then make a presumption that Jesus was meant to deliever a message too. Christains never make that claim.

After Christians see Muslims claiming the Koran is a message from God, thye need to compete and at this point they too claim the Bible is a message from God.

To define Christianity, say "Love" 1,000 times.

-

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

[vpb]

but you say the Bible is the word of God, the true book, so tell me what are the criteria that you define if a book/message is true? that's what I asked. and what about the other two questions?

[duskiness]

but you say the Bible is the word of God, the true book, so tell me what are the criteria that you define if a book/message is true? that's what I asked. and what about the other two questions?

Joe made a good point. Your questions are..hymm...very Muslim style ;) not that it is wrong, but it shows some presumption about God, message (have you noticed that this is word much more often used by Muslims than Christians?), Books that are typical to Islam and rather strange to Christian mind.
That makes answering you a bit difficult. :-[
Muslims seems to come to faith through Book. We through Jesus. I think you have to first believe in Him before you can accept Bible as "holy". There are no tests. Bible is based on Tradition. It is Jewish Scriptures and writings of first Christians passed through ages until now. That is all.

how do we know if message is true? Whose message? Jesus? i read Sermon on the Mount and it "move my soul" (i do know it sounds kitschy ;) )

And watch out with term "word of God" when speaking about Books. We also use it but - many of us - in different meaning. We also call Jesus - Word of God. The most typical Christian answer I could give you is: for us Jesus is the message, the Word of God and Truth. Because we felt once called by Him, we also accepted Bible. Probably before that, we thought that it might not be that corrupted as it seems ;). But in the end - it is just faith. :)

2.and also if you say that Jesus was crucified to pay with his blood the sins of the people, then what happened to the people that died before Jesus came? Do they go to hell or heaven?

we see it as a kind of "cosmic" act that penetrates both time (in both directions so to say..) and space. He did it for those who where before Him and came after.

3. and also did the prophets that are mentioned in Bible teach trinity? (i'm refering to the prophets before Jesus was born)

Not exactly. :) We believe that God gradually reveled Himself (and Jesus is the final revelation). We think that we can find first signs of it in Old Testament. (Jews obviously disagree here). I sure there was thread about it. Maybe you should look for it?

[vpb]

well i'm not going back to the first point cuz i guess there is no answer about it as sister said above, but just to the last 2 ones.

it does not make sense for people before jesus to be saved, bc basiclly the lived without knowing anything about saving, if we just stop and think at this one, it's like for a period of time people lived without any idea how do they go to heaven, they just did things and somehow later someone comes to save them, it's just ..... i dunno

So what did these prophets teach people about God? How did they describe God , or what did they say about God? Or basiclly if they didn;t teach about trinity, then what did they teach?

[Joe98]

So what did these prophets teach people about God?

If there were any prophets in Chrisianity before Christ and if there were any prophets in Islam before Christ then they were the same prophets.

They would have taught what ever you were taught that they were taught.

-

[Umar001]

Muslims believe the Koran is a message from God. Muslims then make a presumption that Jesus was meant to deliever a message too. Christains never make that claim.

After Christians see Muslims claiming the Koran is a message from God, thye need to compete and at this point they too claim the Bible is a message from God.

To define Christianity, say "Love" 1,000 times.

-

If one reads the Bible then one comes to his own understanding that Jesus had a message.

And if the Bible is not a mesage from G-d then what is it?

[Joe98]

And if the Bible is not a message from G-d then what is it?

It is a series of separate books brought together as one book.

When was Genesis written?

When did Moses lead the Isralies?

When was the gospel according to Mathew written?

Were they all written within 10 years of each other? 100 years? 1,000 years?

[vpb]

They would have taught what ever you were taught that they were taught.

We can't be taught the same thing, those prophets taught people to worship one God , or they taught the 3in1 God , they couldn't first teach one God, and then come up with trinity.

[duskiness]

We can't be taught the same thing, those prophets taught people to worship one God , or they taught the 3in1 God

Trinity (for Christians) IS ONE God. Prophets worshiped one God, first Christians also, those who came after them also. We still worship ONE God.

[vpb]

Trinity (for Christians) IS ONE God. Prophets worshiped one God, first Christians also, those who came after them also. We still worship ONE God.

but what is exactly the meaning of that word "ONE" that we attach to God.

In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit.

taken from wikipedia.

You say that you worship one God, but if you 'unpack' that God, it becomes 3 (The father, holy spirit, the son), and you can't be a father and a son at the same time if you try to argue that the same (one) God appears in 3 states so if you have 3 people that are friends, you can merge them and call them "friendship", and yes you can say there is one friendship, but unpacking that friendship you get 3 friends. But in the other way you say Jesus is son of God, which if that God is one then Jesus is the son of GOD (The father, holy spirit, the son).

One God = (Father, Holy spirit, the Son)
God = One God
Jesus = Son of God
it's like a set within a subset and a subset within a set
put together the equation and you will get what I mean

and did those prophets ever mentioned that God consists of (father, son and holy spirit)? or did they talk about that God has a son?

[Umar001]

It is a series of separate books brought together as one book.

When was Genesis written?

When did Moses lead the Isralies?

When was the gospel according to Mathew written?

Were they all written within 10 years of each other? 100 years? 1,000 years?

Well this doesnt mean it isnt the message of G-d. That is what we were getting to, who says that if a book is made up of a series of books then it is not the message of G-d??

[whitemuslimah]

al habeshi,
why do u write G-d instead of God? Curious.

[vpb]

trying to be misterious :P lol jokin bro

[Grace Seeker]

And if the Bible is not a mesage from G-d then what is it?

Easiest question I have ever seen on this board.


The Bible is the record of the self-revelation of God to God's people.



btw, I noticed that though others are attempting to respond, that Duskiness was the only Christian providing answers on here. Forgive me if I don't get into at this time, but I will try to get back in here later.

[Umar001]

Easiest question I have ever seen on this board.


The Bible is the record of the self-revelation of God to God's people.

Well this self revelation record is something that was to be delivered, so its a message.

[Grace Seeker]

Well this self revelation record is something that was to be delivered, so its a message.

Is what you posted a "message"? There are all different types of messages. It really is more the telling of a story -- a generations long story that we are actually participants in. It is not the presentation of a bunch of facts to be learned, as if learning them accomplished anything. It is more like a love letter, invited us to be in an eternal an monogamous relationship with God.

[vpb]

well we're not talking about types of messages like (SMS message, IM, Email), lol :P

defintion of message = Message in its most general meaning is the object of communication. Depending on the context, the term may apply to both the information contents and its actual presentation.

so there is no point of arguing that Jesus didn't come with a message, because he did, from whatever side we look (christian or islamic).

and guys be honest and tell me something:
do you think it's more logical to believe
in one absolute GOD, which has no partners, is allpowerfull or
in a GOD that is in 3 states, and has a son of his own creation? or the whole trinity concept?

and if a person would be raised in a isolated place without teaching him anything about religions and then asked which one do u think makes more sense to you? which one do you think he would choose?

again, please be honest.
please don't take anything offending.

[Grace Seeker]

Fine, you want the message of Christianity, here it is:

Luke 24
25He [Jesus] said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26Did not the Christ[b] have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

Luke 24
36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Jesus, himself, is the message of the Christian faith.

Given that Jesus is the message, your other questions as to what makes the most sense to us human beings is really irrelevant. If we were trying to create religion to please and make sense to the minds of man it would be important. But that is not what we are about. We are trying to present the truth as revealed to us, and that is that Jesus is indeed fully God/fully human, that humans are creatures fallen from divine grace unable to reach God on their own merit, but that the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross is credited to those who believe in him so that God the Father views us with the righteousness of his Son who takes our sins upon himself and then cancells them out.

Again, I am not saying I expect anyone to believe it to be true if you do not wish to. But, do understand, that this is the message, and if anyone tells you different, even if that person claims to be a prophet of God, then they are speaking falsely. I don't say that to be offensive, but because this is the truth for those who ask about the message in Christianity -- the subject of this thread.

[Count DeSheep]

2.and also if you say that Jesus was crucified to pay with his blood the sins of the people, then what happened to the people that died before Jesus came? Do they go to hell or heaven?

Me thinks that Jesus's sacrifice applies to all humans, no matter what time period they lived in.

I don't have time to answer 3, as lunch is almost over, and question 1 is something a preacher should answer.

[Keltoi]

Whether or not Christianity and the Trinity makes "sense" to a non-Christian is completely irrelevant. Yes, it is something that can't be easily understood without educating yourself on the issue, and even then there are things that human beings simply aren't able to get their head around. I can't fully understand all that is God, or all that God is capable of or part of. Whether or not a "tabula rasa" human would pick Christianity over another factors in not at all.

[barnabyls]

There appears to be no answer to your 2nd question as regards 'before Christ'. I leave that in the hands of God and am concerned with 'Today'. As to who has gone or who goes to Heaven or Hell, who am I, or anyone else on earth, to determine what God's judgement was or will be? To do that would be to dare to put myself alongside God !!!

[Iwant2no2]

If one reads the Bible then one comes to his own understanding that Jesus had a message.

And if the Bible is not a mesage from G-d then what is it?

I feel all books are/were written and made by man, and woman too, even what people call their holy religious books!

I would like someone to give and REAL TRUTHFUL answer to this question...

Question!! How can anyone truly really, really say, and know for a fact that a book came from a God? :?

Take care....

[vpb]

signs and common sense, you just study the world around you.

[Iwant2no2]

:sl:

some questions to christians,

1. What criteria do you use (in christianity) to define if a message is a true message from God ?

2.and also if you say that Jesus was crucified to pay with his blood the sins of the people, then what happened to the people that died before Jesus came? Do they go to hell or heaven?
3. and also did the prophets that are mentioned in Bible teach trinity? (i'm refering to the prophets before Jesus was born).

I think this should help answer # 2.
THIS is coming out of The Old Testament - Isaiah: 53: 3-6

The Christian Bible says the Old Testament had in fact heard about Jesus before he came, they just didn’t know his name. It’s who he was and what he did that’s important, rather than whether we’ve met him or not (cos hey, we haven’t met him either!).

Isaiah: 53: 3-6
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.


Take care....

[Grace Seeker]

I feel all books are/were written and made by man, and woman too, even what people call their holy religious books!

I would like someone to give and REAL TRUTHFUL answer to this question...

Question!! How can anyone truly really, really say, and know for a fact that a book came from a God? :?

Take care....

What makes you think that previous answers weren't real and truthful? If you are asking a personal question, as to how anyone can know something, you'll simply have to take their word for it, that what they answer is how they have come to know that particular thing. It may not help you to know anything at all, but that does not mean it is not how they came to know what they know. We all learn in different ways.

I might also add, it may depend on what you mean by "know". I'm not just playing sematics like it were a game. Semantics is all about the meaning of words. I know many things. I know 2+2=4. I know that George W. Bush is president of the United States. I know that it is mild weather today where I live. I know I like ice cream. I know I love my wife. I know my children. I know my wife. Do you know what I mean? These are all different types of knowing. Some have to do with comprehension, some have to do with undertstanding, some have to do with experiencing, some have to do with relationship, and some are simply what in Spanish we would call "caxai" - i.e. Do you get it? that has to do not with mental understanding but gut level getting of the point.

As to how I know that something is from God, I know because I have the conviction of the Holy Spirit that affirms this to be true. And I know that other things are not for the same reason.

Now, that will not establish scientific proof, but in a court room, if I said that I knew something to be true of my wife because I know my wife, that evidence would be admissable and would be part of what decideds the case. You may question it, but this is the verdict of the church, the whole body of Christ, that those books known as Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation or collectively called the Bible are indeed a record of God's self-revelation of himself to human kind, profitable for education regarding the person and nature of God, the fallen situation of humankind, God's plan and work of salvation, directions for righteous living on earth and how to relate to one another, and to gain some understanding of life in the world to come. As I said, you may question the verdict, but the verdict will remain unchanged. We have accepted the testimony of others that they did indeed know God and wrote of that experience under the direction of the Holy Spirit. And by our own personal experience we have come to know that testimony as reliable as well.

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

some questions to christians,

1. What criteria do you use (in christianity) to define if a message is a true message from God ?

2.and also if you say that Jesus was crucified to pay with his blood the sins of the people, then what happened to the people that died before Jesus came? Do they go to hell or heaven?
3. and also did the prophets that are mentioned in Bible teach trinity? (i'm refering to the prophets before Jesus was born).

1. The discerning guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2a. Jesus' sacrifice was once for all -- those present, those before, and those who would come later.
2b. That depends on if they are recipients of God's grace or not, just as is true of any other person. Romans 4:3 tells us that "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." But continue on and you will read: (Romans 4:23-24) "The words 'it was credited to him' were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead." So, in my view we have an unlimited atonement -- that is Christ's sacrifice is good for any and everyone, even those who do not believe. It is also unconditional, in that it offered to all. But there is a conditional application of it, in that only those who receive it, and this is done by faith that God can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves, actually experience the assurance of living in the promise of God to save us. Others may or may not be save also, I don't know, that is for God in God's grace to determine, not me.

3. No one in the Bible teaches the Trinity. The concept of the Trintiy was not created as a concept until 200-300 years after the Bible was completed. But yes, the prophets of the Bible did teach truths about God that when organized into a systematic theology or doctrinal statement are labeled the doctrine of the Trinity.

Think of it like this, when Henry Ford built his first car it was not a Ford Motor Company car, but it was still a Ford. The label was something that was applied to the finished concept after people had digested the teachings and discovered in them and their experience that the one God existed in three persons, yet just one being. But, the teachings themselves were not about the Trinity, they were simply about God.

[NoName55]

al habeshi,
why do u write G-d instead of God? Curious.

:sl:
I do not know why Br. al habeshi does it, but I can tell you why I do it.

I prefer to use word Allah, if I have to use G-d it is because when you put an o in then if you are an Urdu, Hebrew or arabic reader, your mind might picture the word beginning from righthand, then nahudobillah it does not look good.

:w:

[vpb]

answer to the first question is not sufficient to answer what I asked but never mind

3. No one in the Bible teaches the Trinity. The concept of the Trintiy was not created as a concept until 200-300 years after the Bible was completed. But yes, the prophets of the Bible did teach truths about God that when organized into a systematic theology or doctrinal statement are labeled the doctrine of the Trinity.

so what did those Prophets (Abraham, Noah, Joseph etc..) teach people about God, i mean how did they explain God to people (if they didn't directly introduced the doctrinal statement labeled trinity)??? how did they described God??
my opinion is that they must have mentioned that God is in 3 states and that he has a son. bc they can't say something about God, and then Jesus comes and teach something different from them. bc that's why you need to know how this people explained God, so you can compare it to what Jesus said and match it, bc if it doesn't match then there is either mistakes on the stories of the prophets(which tells what they said about God) or there are mistakes on the message of Jesus.(God cannot make mistake in describing himself) and this links back to the first question. but i don't know if bible tells you what Noah, Abraham, Joseph.... said exactly about God, but if not then how come you decide for the message of Jesus (the paying of the sins with blood and what he taught ...etc.) is truthfull and exactly what in reality Jesus preached ?? how do you know if that is in accordance with the previous messages of the prophets, if it matches or not?

for example (sorry for taking this kind of stupid example lol),
in order to have a normal life, there should be either a man and a woman, or a n animal and an animal, it can't be an animal and a woman or a an animal and a man. so what jesus said and what those prophets said have to match.

[Grace Seeker]

I hope English is your native language, for in my next sentence prepositions are going to be VERY important.

The Bible isn't a revelation about God, it is the revelation of God.

In other words it helps us to know God by experiencing and relating to God. It is not so interested in information that one could write on a test. Knowing God is more like marriage, Jesus talks about the Marriage feast of the Lamb in the last days, than it is about learning a message.

[vpb]

english is my second language.

The Bible isn't a revelation about God, it is the revelation of God.

yes but doesn't that relevation of God contains information about God himself?
if not then you don't know anything about your lord, and if yes then it goes back to my above post.

[Grace Seeker]

english is my second language.



yes but doesn't that relevation of God contains information about God himself?
if not then you don't know anything about your lord, and if yes then it goes back to my above post.

It does in the same way that living with a person contains information about that person. Living with a person actually helps you to know them better than a biography would, but that doesn't mean that there is a "message" to share with those who are outside the relationship.

I have a sense that I am not being helpful, but your question about the message just doesn't fit the way we relate to God. I'm sorry, if I leave you frustrated for a better answer.

[vpb]

I have a sense that I am not being helpful, but your question about the message just doesn't fit the way we relate to God.

why doesn't the question fit the way you relate to God? Bible teaches you about God, it also teaches you about the previous Prophets, i just asked if how bible describes God matches with how those Prophets described God? why doesn't it fit? what's up with that? but anyways i don't feel frustrated :) this is a forum, it's only about knowledge :)

[Grace Seeker]

Well, maybe it's me handling too many questions today.

What we know of God comes from the recorded history of God's interaction with his people, including the prophets and others. But the Bible does not have a message from Abraham about God. Rather it is a narrative of Abraham's life. The same with with respect to Adam and David.

Now, someone like Moses did in fact receive word from God to tell the people. Likewise the prophets like Jonah, Isaiah, Habbakuk, and Malachi (among others), but that message was typically related to how to live in relationship with God and each other more than it was about the nature and character of God. That word was what was given to Moses.

The Old Testament, known as the Tanakh by the Jews, is a decidely monothesistic book. There is one God and him only shall you serve type thing. Yet, though Jews did not see it then, nor acknowledge it today, Christians do see in many of the writings signs that the multifaceted nature of the one God. In the story of creation, God says, "Let us make man in our image." This plural pronoun in reference to God is repeated twice more in the book of Genesis. And then in the call of Isaiah it is at its most pronounced state:

Isaiah 6:8
Then I heard the voice of the Lord [singular] saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us [plural]?"

Moreover, in reading the whole of the Bible (not just a single verse) one can see that all three persons of the Godhead were involved in the act of creation. In Genesis 1:2 we are told that it was the "Spirit" of God that hovered over the waters. In Colossians 1:16 we are told that all things were created by and fpr the Son. And in Hebrews 1:2 we are told the Father made the universe through the Son.

So, it isn't something that anyone stood up and announced that the one God exists in three persons, it was something that the disciples of Jesus discovered through experiencing it, and then looking back could see that there had been foreshadowings of this truth that they did not understand until the moment they experienced it for themselves.

Maybe that helps more. I hope so, cause I think that is about the best I can do for today.

[vpb]

lol. it's the same loop over and over again that I get.

And in Hebrews 1:2 we are told the Father made the universe through the Son.

this raises a lot of other questions. but anyways i gotta go now to sleep, cuz it's late for me :)

thx for your contribution.

[AbuAbdallah]

salaam,
Question for the Christians:
If Jesus died for your sins, then can a Christian do whatever they please and still be free from sin as long as they believe that Jesus is their savior???

[Keltoi]

salaam,
Question for the Christians:
If Jesus died for your sins, then can a Christian do whatever they please and still be free from sin as long as they believe that Jesus is their savior???

If a Christian did what they pleased they wouldn't believe Jesus was their Savior. Salvation is something that is sought, not freely given. Jesus Christ suffered upon the cross to give mankind the chance of salvation through Him. To answer your question, no.

[Grace Seeker]

salaam,
Question for the Christians:
If Jesus died for your sins, then can a Christian do whatever they please and still be free from sin as long as they believe that Jesus is their savior???

Yes and no.


No -- To intentionally go out and sin, is to break trust with God in Jesus Christ. Again, as I tried to state above. For the Christian belief is not belief about God, it is having a relationship with God. Therefore faith is about trust, not knowledge. So, you can know that Jesus died for your sin, but if you don't trust him enough to live your life in accordance with his will, then you are as much out of the relationship as Adam was separated from God in the garden.

Yes -- If we are truly desiring to living in that trust relationship with God through Jesus Christ, but fail to do so perfectly, then we can continue to trust in God's mercy that our sins are forgiven.

btw, the same would be true of non-Christians. Living on one's own merits apart from God, you can live the perfect life and you are still apart from God. But no matter how terrible your past is, if one humbles one's self to submit to living in this trust relationship with God through Jesus Christ, then one has the complete assurance that God will receive that individual with grace and mercy.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Now you might find this strange. But I see Keltoi posted while I was still writing. Having read his answer, I agree with it 100%. Though we worded our answers differently, I don't see his answer as differing from mine.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you vpb;

I think there have been some good answers so far, but here is my two cents,

1.what criteria do you use (in christianity) to define if a message is a true message from God ?

Jesus said all the law and the prophets hang on the greatest commandments. Anything that a prophet teaches must depend on loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And loving your neighbour as you love yourself.

If a prophet teaches us do anything that goes against these two commandments then this would seem to be the message of a false prophet.

2.and also if you say that Jesus was crucified to pay with his blood the sins of the people, then what happened to the people that died before Jesus came? Do they go to hell or heaven?

I believe that the life death and resurrection of Jesus was planned by God before the creation of the universe began. His plan was to include all mankind.

3. and also did the prophets that are mentioned in Bible teach trinity? (i'm refering to the prophets before Jesus was born).

Jesus said, if you know me you know the Father. I and the Father are one. I am one with the Father.

I believe that this tells us about the relationship that Jesus has with the Father.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[AbuAbdallah]

I appreciate the responses.

Do Christians believe in their deeds being scaled on the Day of Judgement?

Is there a logical explanation for Jesus dying for people's sins but not really dying? How can someones sins be wiped away because of someone else's death? Is there any logical explanation, or is just a 'blind faith' type of belief?
Once again, I appreciate the responses.

[Grace Seeker]

Do Christians believe in their deeds being scaled on the Day of Judgement?

Jesus tells this parable as an illustration of the Judgment Day:

Matthew 25
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

So you see that deeds are important, but that it isn't a weighing of good deeds vs bad deeds.

As I see it, basically real believers will do good works as an expression of their faith and thankfulness to God for his mercy, and will try to serve Christ in all they do. Then there are those who do good deeds not out of joy or thankfulness but only to earn their way into heaven, will fail to see Christ in their midst and will be cut off because their deeds while looking good on the outside are really evil, done out of pure selfishness.

Is there a logical explanation for Jesus dying for people's sins but not really dying?

I'm confused by this question. What do you mean, dying but not really dying? Jesus really does die according to Christian teaching.

How can someones sins be wiped away because of someone else's death? Is there any logical explanation, or is just a 'blind faith' type of belief?

OK. I'm going to sound almost like a heretic here, but I don't understand the logic of it either.

It carries over from the way it appears that God had blood sacrifices set up in the Old Covenant with the nation of Israel. In them, the Jews were told to present sacrifices at the temple as sin offerings. Lambs in particular were to offered at Passover. Also at Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, there is both sin offerings (always by sacrificing animals) and the sending forth of the scapegoat, of which the sins of the entire community are transferred to a goat that is sent out into the wilderness.

Scripture tells us that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. The problem with the temple sacrifices is that they could never permamently take away sin. So they had to be continually repeated. But Christians understand in Jesus there is a perfect offering, and so it is done once for all.

Heberws 9
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here,[b] he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!

26b But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

I guess I accept by blind faith that all of this is really the way God has chosen to work, even though I don't understand why he set it up this way as opposed to some other.

[AbuAbdallah]

What I meant was that you believe that Jesus was resurrected, so he didn't die for your sins, it was more like he was killed for your sins...I think.
Anyways, I appreciate your responses.

[AbuAbdallah]

Another question,
Do Christians believe the Bible to be the same as when it was written, or do you believe that the Bible has been changed over time?

[dougmusr]

What I meant was that you believe that Jesus was resurrected, so he didn't die for your sins, it was more like he was killed for your sins...I think.
Anyways, I appreciate your responses.

I would say that Jesus, by choosing to follow God's purpose for His life knowing full well that the outcome of His obedience would be the cross, in fact died for our sins.

[Skillganon]

I would say that Jesus, by choosing to follow God's purpose for His life knowing full well that the outcome of His obedience would be the cross, in fact died for our sins.

But he did not die.
He was alive was he not?

What I mean, people saw him alive after the suppposed crucifixion.

[NoName55]

I would say that Jesus, by choosing to follow God's purpose for His life knowing full well that the outcome of His obedience would be the cross, in fact died for our sins.

I'm more confused now, are we now saying That Christ, Definitely, is not G-d but clearly someone who obeys and serves The Creator

Peace

[Grace Seeker]

Another question,
Do Christians believe the Bible to be the same as when it was written, or do you believe that the Bible has been changed over time?

It has changed very much over time. First it was just the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible. Then over time, the writings of the prophets were added until one had a complete Tanakh, or Old Testament. This collection of the Law and the Prophets was what early Christians thought of when they thought of the Bible. Then, came the letters of the New Testament by Paul, Peter, James, and John. Which over time they began to accept as also inspired scripture. And then lastly the Gospels and book of Revelation were written and accepted.

I do not think that it has changed, other than minor copyists errors since its completion toward the end of the apostolic age. But, I do recognize that it took about another 100 years before all the churches were in consensus as to which of the various independent writings (there was nothing in book form) in circulation amongst the church were appropriately called scripture. (This by the way would have been nearly a century before Nicea, which many people mistakenly think determined the books of the Bible.)

[Skillganon]

It has changed very much over time. First it was just the Torah, the first 5 books of the Bible. Then over time, the writings of the prophets were added until one had a complete Tanakh, or Old Testament. This collection of the Law and the Prophets was what early Christians thought of when they thought of the Bible. Then, came the letters of the New Testament by Paul, Peter, James, and John. Which over time they began to accept as also inspired scripture. And then lastly the Gospels and book of Revelation were written and accepted.

I do not think that it has changed, other than minor copyists errors since its completion toward the end of the apostolic age. But, I do recognize that it took about another 100 years before all the churches were in consensus as to which of the various independent writings (there was nothing in book form) in circulation amongst the church were appropriately called scripture. (This by the way would have been nearly a century before Nicea, which many people mistakenly think determined the books of the Bible.)

You might add that later came the protestant and took some books out.

[dougmusr]

salaam,
Question for the Christians:
If Jesus died for your sins, then can a Christian do whatever they please and still be free from sin as long as they believe that Jesus is their savior???

Mt 22:1 And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said:
2 "The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son, 3 "and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. 4 "Again, he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding." ' 5 "But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. 6 "And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. 7 "But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. 8 "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. 9 'Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.' 10 "So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. 11 "But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment.
12 "So he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?' And he was speechless. 13 "Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

Notice that in this parable, the king invited everyone to the wedding feast, which Jesus says represents the Kingdom of Heaven. Nothing is said about the righteousness of the people who attended except that tere were both bad and good. The only thing we know is that they were given an invitation and accepted it. Notice also that of all who came, only a person who showed up dressed inappropriately for the occasion was thrown out. It is my opinion that the Bible teaches that this wedding attire is to be dressed in the righteousness of Christ. It is entirely possible that the person who was ejected in fact had done more good than some who were not ejected.

In the above parable, to a Muslim the one inappropriately dressed would be the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. To a Christian, being inappropriately dress would be disbelieving that Jesus is the Son of God. In any case, notice that the duty of the King's servants is to invite everybody to the feast. It is the King's perogative to turn away those who do not meet the final criteria for admission.

[Grace Seeker]

You might add that later came the protestant and took some books out.

No, not really.

The books you referring to are known as the apochrypha. They are collections of Jewish writings, not Christian writings. And they were never part of the Hebrew bible. That is why Protestants do not include them. The reason that Catholics do is that they were other valued, but not sacred writings, kept with the scrolls of the Old Testament by the early church, and when the collection was finally put into book form, they added them in the book also, but they were never considered of equal wait with scripture. But the Catholic church loves tradition and they are definitely part of the tradition of the church. However, Catholics and Protestants view their canonicity pretty much the same, meaning they are not canonical.

[Grace Seeker]

What I meant was that you believe that Jesus was resurrected, so he didn't die for your sins, it was more like he was killed for your sins...I think.
Anyways, I appreciate your responses.

You resucitiated people who are not quite dead. Resurrection is the term for people who have really, genuinely died, and then are brought back to life again. Jesus had no life in his body when it was placed in the tomb.

(and before someone asks, resurrection is NOT the same as reincarnation.)

But he did not die.
He was alive was he not?

What I mean, people saw him alive after the suppposed crucifixion.

He was raised up from the dead. So, yes, he had died. But he was made alive again, from the dead. This is the miracle of the Resurrection that Christians celebrate every Easter. According to the Gospel records Jesus was killed on the day before the Passover began that (Friday) evening, and was resurrected on the first day of the week (or Sunday). Counting partial days as if they were full days, that would be 3 days in the tomb -- Friday at the 9th hour (3 PM) till sunset, sunset Friday till sunset Saturday, and sunset Saturday till his resurrection at dawn on Sunday. And then after this he was seen again alive by many different people.

[NoName55]

I'm feeling left out, ignored, none wants to answer me :(

[Grace Seeker]

I'm feeling left out, ignored, none wants to answer me :(

Sorry. It surely wasn't intentional. What did we miss?

[duskiness]

I'm more confused now, are we now saying That Christ, Definitely, is not G-d but clearly someone who obeys and serves The Creator

Peace

No, we are saying that Jesus - God & human obeyed God the Father. Simple :)

[NoName55]

No, we are saying that Jesus - God & human obeyed God the Father. Simple :)

so there are 2 gods after all,
one who orders (G-d the Father)
2nd who obeys (G-d & human)

Thank You

[duskiness]

so there are 2 gods after all,
one who orders (G-d the Father)
2nd who obeys (G-d & human)

Thank You

ekhm...have you heard about Trinity? :? after all there is one God.
Relationship between Persons in Trinity is high above my simple mind. Maybe try teasing Grace Seeker and he may give you some kind of answer...I wash my hands from this subject. :-[

[NoName55]

ekhm...have you heard about Trinity? :? after all there is one God.
Relationship between Persons in Trinity is high above my simple mind. Maybe try teasing Grace Seeker and he may give you some kind of answer...I wash my hands from this subject. :-[

okay, I have heard of trinity in many pagan relgions of past and present. At presentThere is one in Hindu-ism and one in state religion of Iran but I can't name it or else my post gets editted by staff for sectarianism.
peace

Edit:
I nearly forgot about the one in Catholicism

[vpb]

weren't there 1400 gospels at the time of Constantine and didn't they choose 4 of them as the most accurate?

[NoName55]

.......
Relationship between Persons in Trinity is high above my simple mind. ..........

question @ some one else Not sister duskiness: so us with simple minds are doomed or saved

Ah well :(

and gods are persons, ok

[duskiness]

Edit:
I nearly forgot about the one in Catholicism

yes, that's true because Catholics are Christians. Christians (unless they are unitarians - who are really minor minority, often not considered "Christians") are trinitarian monotheists. We believe that there is one God of three person. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Father is God, Son is God, Holy Spirit is God. But ONE God.
How does it works? Mystery. He is God in the end...

Putting this in more formal way

We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.

But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.

What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.

Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.

The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.

Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit:

And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal;

as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.

Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit:

And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God:

And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord:

And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten;

the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father;

the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.

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

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other;

[duskiness]

question @ some one else Not sister duskiness: so us with simple minds are doomed or saved

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Let's hope that being simple mined, we fulfill condition of being "poor in spirit"...:D

[NoName55]

yes, that's true because Catholics are Christians. Christians (unless they are Unitarians - who are really minor minority, often not considered "Christians") are Trinitarian monotheists. We believe that there is one God of three persons. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Father is God, Son is God, and Holy Spirit is God. But ONE God.

ok, Peace but I feel that Trinitarian monotheist is a contrdiction of itself since tri denotes 3 and mono equates to one, singular

How does it work? Mystery.

It certainly is a mystery to me
according to John.20:17 Jesus said "I am ascending to my Father and your Father to my God and your God.

John.11:41-43 Jesus lifts his eyes toward heaven and prays, “I thank you that you heard me, and I know that you always hear me." We see consistently he is praying toward heaven just like all the people in the O.T.
So why pray if you’re G-d.

Mathew. 26:39-42 In Gethsamane he prays three times to the Father in doing his will. Why does he ask for the Father to let this cup pass if he is G-d, Isn’t this like asking himself?

I’ve asked and often got elaborate and confusing answers from many people and when I don’t understand I am accused of being member of some anti Trinitarian cult and some time far worse abuse.

He is G-d in the end...

And forever was and will be

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Let's hope that being simple mined, will be accepted as "poor in spirit".

I feel that they are not poor in spirit, rather they are blessed in spirit but are poor materially (for meek shall inherit the earth)
He announces that those who should be considered blessed are not the rich, the powerful, the influential, but those who are poor, humble, unassuming, and pure of heart, those who mourn and are oppressed. (I looked it up in 15 version of Bible including kjv)

Ma'asalaama (go in peace)

[AbuAbdallah]

More Questions:
It seems to me that Christianity has no sense of bid'ah (innovations in the religion) for example, the Christmas tree, which really has no basis in Christianity isn't shunned by any Christians. What is the Christian view towards innovations in the religion?

[AbuAbdallah]

We believe that there is one God of three person. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Father is God, Son is God, Holy Spirit is God. But ONE God.

So when you pray, who do you pray to, either or?

[vpb]

abuabdullah,

or maybe shirk :D

[AbuAbdallah]

How does it works? Mystery. He is God in the end...

I'll admit, there are some things in Islam, that we as Muslims will say is a mystery and only God knows. But to say that the trinity is a mystery is troubling. Why? Because the basis of Christianity is the trinity! Without the trinity, there is no Christianity. This is your core base, your Aqeedah (creed), if that is a mystery, then that is something to be concerned about.

[AbuAbdallah]

abuabdullah,

or maybe shirk

Must be...

[Keltoi]

I'll admit, there are some things in Islam, that we as Muslims will say is a mystery and only God knows. But to say that the trinity is a mystery is troubling. Why? Because the basis of Christianity is the trinity! Without the trinity, there is no Christianity. This is your core base, your Aqeedah (creed), if that is a mystery, then that is something to be concerned about.

The word "Trinity" is a word used to describe God in the various ways in which He manifests Himself. This is a human concept meant to make sense of the complexity of Christ's relationship to God and the way in which the Holy Spirit works. The basis of Christianity is the Word of Jesus Christ, therefor the Word of God. God reveals Himself in different ways, so as Christians we aren't talking about three separate Entities, but one Entity that reveals Himself in three ways. As God Himself, the Person of Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. An egg is one object, but has three components...the yoke, the white, and the shell. While all analogies are imperfect, that is a good way to think about it. The rest is a mystery, because humans cannot understand the "how" or "why" of God Almighty, He just is and does.

[NoName55]

............An egg is one object, but has three components...the yoke, the white, and the shell. ...........

I've seen few eggs with two yolks, that would make 4, probably that could be good for catholics, since I've seen them worshipping Mary, mother of Christ. Trinity +1

peace!

edit
but what if egg had gone off and was rotten? :(

edit2: another thing/problem: shell is no good on its own for it is not an egg :( :(

[Keltoi]

I've seen few eggs with two yolks, that would make 4, probably that could be good for catholics, since I've seen them worshipping Mary, mother of Christ. Trinity +1

peace!

but what if egg had gone off and was rotten? :(

:rollseyes As I said, the analogy is imperfect, but think about it as a concept, not the literal egg.

[NoName55]

ok, thanks, so there is nothing in the universe that He can be compared with!

[Keltoi]

ok, thanks, so there is nothing in the universe that He can be compared with!

I wasn't comparing God to an egg, I was comparing a concept to an egg.

[NoName55]

I don't understand the exact difference between G-d and concept of G-d

Peace

[Eesa Abdullah]

:sl:

some questions to christians,

1. What criteria do you use (in christianity) to define if a message is a true message from God ?

In the book of Deuteronomy...I will post the verse insh'Allaah ta'aala. The Torah tells the people how to distinguish a true prophet from a false one.

2.and also if you say that Jesus was crucified to pay with his blood the sins of the people, then what happened to the people that died before Jesus came? Do they go to hell or heaven?

Now, I have spoken with some Christians and they explained it to me that Eesa (as) descended into hell for those three days to save those who came before....I am sure our Christian brothers and sisters can elaborate...

3. and also did the prophets that are mentioned in Bible teach trinity? (i'm refering to the prophets before Jesus was born).

This is controversial, because Christian missionaries can point to different verses in the Torah and misconstrue it to have a trinity connotation. i.e. the echad, the saying "I AM" reiterated in the NT, and numerous other verses.

[Grace Seeker]

weren't there 1400 gospels at the time of Constantine and didn't they choose 4 of them as the most accurate?

NO. Not even close. I don't mean to laugh, but where do these stories come from?


Here are some links that may help to answer your question more fully:

Where Did The Bible Come From? answered by the United Methodist Church. This will take you through many links to study the question in some depth and tries to put the process into context with contemporary analogies.

Where Did The Bible Come From, and Can We Trust It? answered by a Baptist pastor. This is a one-page synopsis.


Where Did The Bible Come From? as answered by the Eastern Orthodox Church This is an lengthy essay nicely divided into units.


There is a false idea circulating that there were councils called to sort through a bunch of writings and accept some but dismiss others because they did or did not conform to some political agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth. At Nicea, the New Testament canon had been pretty well established for over a century. The church historian Eusebius lists the books as authentic in his Church History volume III, chapters 3 to 25, long before the time of Constantine.

History shows that the early church had a fairly consistent method of recognizing what writings were authoritative and they would then copy and distribute them.

[Grace Seeker]

I'm more confused now, are we now saying That Christ, Definitely, is not G-d but clearly someone who obeys and serves The Creator

No, we are not saying that Christ is not God. If you look at a triangle it has three sides. If we label one side Father, one side Son, and one side Holy Spirit we have three sides, each of which is completely God, But God is still the triangle not just one side. We may only be looking at one side, but the rest of the triangle is still there. So, Jesus (or the Son) is God. But to say that God is just the son would be false. To say that God is just the Father would be false, just like it would be false to say that the triangle was just the Father side of it. Yet the father side of the triangle is indeed part of the triangle, just as the Father is God. Now, of course this is an analogy (like the egg was and analogy) and being an analogy is not a perfect representation of God. At best it illustrates one aspect of the nature of God, not the totality of God, not even the totality of this concept called the Trinity. Perhaps with a 100 different analogies we would begin to come close, but each would have a flaw in them because there is no perfect analogy to explain God.

ok, thanks, so there is nothing in the universe that He can be compared with!

Yea!!! You got it. There really is nothing in the universe that God can be compared with. Because there is just one and only one God. So, what could compare with him. All analogies fail by virture of using something from the created world to try to explain the creator. That is why in the end it is still a mystery. It is a mystery as to how one being can exist in three persons. But it is not a mystery that God does exist this way, for we (speaking for Christians) have experienced God manifesting himself to us in the person of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And yet he declares himself to be one.

Here are some places we can see that:

Jesus is speaking: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
The prophet Isaiah hears God speaking: "Then I heard the voice of the Lord [note the article is singular] saying, 'Whom shall I [note the pronoun is singular] send? And who will go for us [note the pronoun is plural]?' " (Isaiah 6:8)
God is speaking: "But about the Son he [God] says,
'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom'." (Hebrews 1:8) Here we have God speaking about the Son, and God calls the Son God.

So, if God is going to say these things, I am certainly not going to call God a liar just because I can't explain how it is that it works the way that God says it does work.

[Eesa Abdullah]

bismillah

interesting... I am in a rush and I will post later insh'Allaah.

[Eesa Abdullah]

bismillah

Greetings,

I would definitely like to delve into the Trinity concept, but before that lets touch upon the "Original Sin" concept since this is where Islaam and Christianity's path seperates....

Original Sin (Christianity's concept)

Quoting Paul,

Rom. 5:12, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"

Rom. 5:19, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners"

1 Cor. 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Through the eyes of our Christian brethren, we are doomed to hellfire because we will die in our sins without faith in 'Isa (alayhi sallam)... As we are told in the NT: "whatever does not proceed from faith is sin" (Rom.14:23)

My brother's and sister's in Islaam, according to Christian teachings, the mortal sin committed by our first parents in the Garden of Eden had drastic consequences for the humanity.

Most importantly, Christendom claims that these devastating effects extend far beyond the curses of painful childbirth and strenuous farming conditions outlined in the third chapter of Genesis.

There are more verses to present in the claim of original sin, but I will present verses now from the Jewish Bible.

Remember in Genesis why Cain killed his brother Abel? However, in the Bible God tells Cain in Genesis 4:6-7:

"If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? If, though, you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you shall master over it." What does that mean "you shall master over it"?

Ibrahim (alayhi sallam), remained loyal to God's commandments, take a look at the following verse:

"I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands, and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." (Genesis 26:4-5)

THERE IS NO ORIGINAL SIN ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH BIBLE

Deuteronomy 24:16 it specifically says this:

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

In Exodus 32:30-35 Musa (alayhi sallam) wants to atone for the sins of his nation, but God will not allow it:

"And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Eternal; perhaps I shall make an atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto the Eternal, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Eternal said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them. And the Eternal plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made." [Exodus 32:30-35]

I will not place every verse, but the idea is in the Jewish scriptures.

The entire 18th chapter of the book of Ezekiel is about this idea, that no one can die for someone else's sin. Original sin is foreign to the Jewish Bible.


ISLAM'S STANCE ON ORIGINAL SIN


"Say: "Shall I seek for (my) Cherisher other than Allah, when He is the Cherisher of all things (that exist)? Every soul draws the meed of its acts on none but itself: no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another. Your goal in the end is towards Allah. He will tell you the truth of the things wherein ye disputed." (6:164)

"Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another;
That man can have nothing but what he strives for;
That (the fruit of) his striving will soon come in sight:
Then will he be rewarded with a reward complete;
That to thy Lord is the final Goal;"

(53:38:42)

"Then guard yourselves against a-Day when one soul shall not avail another, nor shall compensation be accepted from her nor shall intercession profit her nor shall anyone be helped (from outside)."
(2:123)

As Muslims in Islaam, we know that we can not enter Jannah (paradise) with our own deeds. We indeed know that we have to keep Allaah (swt) commandments and believe in HIM. No one shall enter the garden except by the mercy of Allaah (swt).

For Muhammad (salaallaahu alayhi wa sallam) says: The prophet (S.A.W.) said: "None of you will enter Paradise with his deeds", They said: "Not even you, oh messenger of Allah?!", He said: "Not even me unless Allah bestows His mercy upon me."

It is a common attack on Islaam that in Islaam you can gain your way into Paradise. How incorrect is that notion!?

Allaah ta'alaa Himself says in Qur'aan: "If Allaah were to punish men according to what they deserve, He would not leave on the back of the (earth) a single living creature: but He gives them respite for a stated Term: when their Term expires, verily God has in His sight all His Servants." (The Noble Quran, 35:45)

The above verse proves that deeds alone are not sufficient enough to gain entrance into the Garden.

Allaah ta'alaa hears our prayers and we are not to rely on any mediator:

"When My servants ask thee concerning Me, I am indeed close (to them): I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calleth on Me: Let them also, with a will, Listen to My call, and believe in Me: That they may walk in the right way." (The Noble Quran, 2:186)


Allaah ta'aala is ever ready to bestow His forgiveness:

Narrated Anas: "The Prophet said, 'My Lord says, 'If My slave comes nearer to me for a span, I go nearer to him for a cubit; and if he comes nearer to Me for a cubit, I go nearer to him for the span of outstretched arms; and if he comes to Me walking, I go to him running." (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, ONENESS, UNIQUENESS OF ALLAH (TAWHEED), Volume 9, Book 93, Number 627)"

There are many other verses, but these will suffice for now.

WaAllaahu alam

[AbuAbdallah]

Jazak Allahu khairun akhi, I am really interested in what you have to say about the trinity. May Allah reward you in this life and in the next.

[Keltoi]

Many Christians do believe that the sins of Adam have left a permanent hereditary stain on mankind. You will be hard pressed to find any agreement on what this means in terms of salvation and the coming of Jesus Christ. I think St. Augustine rejected the notion altogether, but I'm not certain.

[NoName55]

Many Christians do believe that the sins of Adam have left a permanent hereditary stain on mankind. You will be hard pressed to find any agreement on what this means in terms of salvation and the coming of Jesus Christ. I think St. Augustine rejected the notion altogether, but I'm not certain.

Hello again, Brother Keltoi

St. Augustine invented the concept of Original Sin as we have it today.



From the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia (on Original Sin)

Original Sin, in Christian theology, the universal sinfulness of the human race, traditionally ascribed to the first sin committed by Adam. Theologians advocating original sin argue that the concept is strongly implied by the apostle Paul, the apostle John, and even by Jesus himself. Late Jewish apocalyptic writings attribute the world's corruption to a prehistoric fall of Satan, the temptation of Adam and Eve, and the resulting disorder, disobedience, and pain of human history. Saint Augustine appealed to the Pauline-apocalyptic understanding of the forgiveness of sin, but he also included the notion that sin is transmitted from generation to generation by the act of procreation. He took this idea from 2nd-century theologian Tertullian, who actually coined the phrase original sin. Medieval theologians retained the idea of original sin, and it was asserted by 16th-century Protestant reformers, primarily Martin Luther and John Calvin. Liberal Protestant theologians later developed an optimistic view of human nature incompatible with the idea of original sin.


Peace

[NoName55]

Now I wish people would stick to one subject at a time (I'm equally guilty of wandring off)

I need to talk about The Nicene Creed and Truth about the Trinity since Concept of G-d has to be first and foremost, talking about anything else would cause pointless argument and/or it will turn in to a silly slanging match between the ignorami brothers.

following are exerpts from books on trinity:

"God can in no way be described." -- Plato (Father of the pagan Trinity)

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read:

"If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism.

The pure Deism of the first Christians was changed,(who differed from their fellow Jews only in the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah,) by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity.

Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief. The doctrine of the incarnation, and the mystery of transubstantiation, were both adopted, and are both as repugnant to reason, as was the ancient pagan rite of viewing the entrails of animals to forecast the fate of empires!"

"Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it" (Soren
Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).

[Grace Seeker]

bismillah

Greetings,

I would definitely like to delve into the Trinity concept, but before that lets touch upon the "Original Sin" concept since this is where Islaam and Christianity's path seperates....

Original Sin (Christianity's concept)

Eesa, I think you did more than a credible job presenting the views of both Judaism and Islam with respect to Original Sin. However, can you please tie them into the discussion of the Trinity you were going to address, or were they just a tangent?

"If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism.

The pure Deism of the first Christians was changed,(who differed from their fellow Jews only in the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah,) by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity.

In the very first sermon of the Christian Church, long before there was any church in Rome, when it was just the handful of disciples in Jerusalem, we see Peter make a statement that can only be reconciled with monotheism if one has a trinitarian understanding of it. Peter closes his sermon with these words:

"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36)

Peter says that Jesus is BOTH Lord and Christ. So, this is more than just recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. Speaking to the assembled Jews in Jerusalem, the word that Peter would have used for Lord was Adonai, a term the Jews used to speak about God. This is backed up by Peter's own use of that term when he answers the questions about what his hears should do in response to his sermon:

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:38-39)

Here when Peter uses the word "Lord" it is in reference to God. Now just seconds before Peter had said the Jesus was Lord, and now we see that the Lord is "our God". Further the Holy Spirit is also involved in providing people the gifts that God has promised to them.

One does not have to wait for the Catholic Church in Rome to make pronouncements about the Trinity a few hundred years later. One can see that as early as the birthday of the Christian Church that belief in Jesus as God and in the Holy Spirit as divine are already present. They just weren't tagged with the label the doctrine of the Trinity yet is all.

Now one may reject this teaching as being false. But no reasonable person can deny that it was indeed existant in the life and teachings of the followers of Jesus from day one. The evidence just will not allow it.

Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief. The doctrine of the incarnation, and the mystery of transubstantiation, were both adopted, and are both as repugnant to reason, as was the ancient pagan rite of viewing the entrails of animals to forecast the fate of empires!"

Ancient Greek and ancient Roman thought have found their way into much of Western thinking, and that includes the Church. So, it has no doubt had its impact on the way that theology is done in the church -- most of it is linear thought like Aristotle, rather than synergistic like Hebrew thought. But that is not the same as saying that the message is untrue. Further, some things may seem repugnant to us, such as a Father being willing to sacrifice his son, but that does not mean they are not from God -- the story of Abraham comes to mind. So, if you wish to reject something because it does not measure up to your standards that is your choice, but be ware that in doing so one takes the risk of substituting man's standards (your own sense of repugnance) for God's way of doing things.

[NoName55]

:) wow Brother! that is far to complicated for my confused old head

I'll try to keep my replies as short as possible in the hope of getting shorter answers
Peace!

Have you ever noticed that Bible Dictionaries and most scholarly religious encyclopaediae and reference works don't use scriptures when discussing the Trinity?

Why is that? Because scriptures don't prove a trinity.

For a trinity you need "THREE". But if the Trinity is not in the Bible in plain sight I wont get it (understand it or take it as Gospel)

edit:
"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." -- The Illustrated Bible Dictionary

[Grace Seeker]

:) wow Brother! that is far to complicated for my confused old head

I'll try to keep my replies as short as possible in the hope of getting shorter answers
Peace!

OK. I'll keep this one short as I can.

"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." -- The Illustrated Bible Dictionary

Duh. Nothing new there. I referred to that in my above post, and have discussed it dozens of times on these boards.

Have you ever noticed that Bible Dictionaries and most scholarly religious encyclopaediae and reference works don't use scriptures when discussing the Trinity?

Why is that? Because scriptures don't prove a trinity.

For a trinity you need "THREE". But if the Trinity is not in the Bible in plain sight I wont get it (understand it or take it as Gospel)

I think I gave you scriptures above. I would give you more, but you want this answer short.

[Keltoi]

:) wow Brother! that is far to complicated for my confused old head

I'll try to keep my replies as short as possible in the hope of getting shorter answers
Peace!

Have you ever noticed that Bible Dictionaries and most scholarly religious encyclopaediae and reference works don't use scriptures when discussing the Trinity?

Why is that? Because scriptures don't prove a trinity.

For a trinity you need "THREE". But if the Trinity is not in the Bible in plain sight I wont get it (understand it or take it as Gospel)

edit:
"The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century." -- The Illustrated Bible Dictionary

The Bible doesn't mention the word "Trinity" because the word is used to describe a concept. You will find numerous mentions of three words, God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is a word used to summarize the relationship.

[Grace Seeker]

The Bible doesn't mention the word "Trinity" because the word is used to describe a concept. You will find numerous mentions of three words, God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is a word used to summarize the relationship.

Hey, don't forget Father, Keltoi.

God is one being; it is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which are the three pesons by which God has manifested the one being to us. And that aspect of the nature of God is spelled out time and time again in the scriptures without ever having to mention the word that seems to scare so many people, so I won't mention it here. That word is not important to an understanding of God. It is a label attached to the reality of what is known and experienced about God as revealed in the scriptures, the teaching of Jesus. and from the experience of the disciples.

[Keltoi]

Hey, don't forget Father, Keltoi.

God is one being; it is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which are the three pesons by which God has manifested the one being to us. And that aspect of the nature of God is spelled out time and time again in the scriptures without ever having to mention the word that seems to scare so many people, so I won't mention it here. That word is not important to an understanding of God. It is a label attached to the reality of what is known and experienced about God as revealed in the scriptures, the teaching of Jesus. and from the experience of the disciples.

Ugghh...absolutely. Can't believe I forgot that aspect. Thanks for the correction.

[paarsurrey]

Hey, don't forget Father, Keltoi.
God is one being; it is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit which are the three pesons by which God has manifested the one being to us. And that aspect of the nature of God is spelled out time and time again in the scriptures without ever having to mention the word that seems to scare so many people, so I won't mention it here. That word is not important to an understanding of God. It is a label attached to the reality of what is known and experienced about God as revealed in the scriptures, the teaching of Jesus. and from the experience of the disciples.

Hi

The labels are also important, that is why they are used to facilitate everybody. If there are different things in three boxes/packets, we know from labels for certain that they contain different things, unless we think that one who has put the labels has done it by mistake, labeling one packet of medicine and putting name of another medicine would become fatal and would not be forgivable by the public. The labels are then named after the properties of the contents in the boxes/packets, and not otherwise. Father, Son, Holy Spirit are named differently, if the purpose is not to mislead, having same properties why then name/label them differently? One should be straight forward in matters of religion. It is reasonable and rational.
Thanks

[Grace Seeker]

Hi

The labels are also important, that is why they are used to facilitate everybody. If there are different things in three boxes/packets, we know from labels for certain that they contain different things, unless we think that one who has put the labels has done it by mistake, labeling one packet of medicine and putting name of another medicine would become fatal and would not be forgivable by the public. The labels are then named after the properties of the contents in the boxes/packets, and not otherwise. Father, Son, Holy Spirit are named differently, if the purpose is not to mislead, having same properties why then name/label them differently? One should be straight forward in matters of religion. It is reasonable and rational.
Thanks

No argument with you on your principle of having things labeld appropriately. That is why I have been arguing that Unitarians should not be labeled as Christians, not because they don't have anything in common with Christians (of course so do other religions that are also not Christian), but because they have so many ingredients in their faith package that are different than what is in the Christian faith that to label them as Christian is to mislabel them. Even if not dangerous, it confuses people as to what a Christian really is.

As to the use of the labels of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit however, the Christian understanding is that it isn't humans that did the labeling, but God himself. When a higher authority than us labels the package, it isn't up to us to change the label, just to educate people as to what the labels are and what one can expect to find inside the packages so labeled.

Another question, it's rather personal if you don't mind, how many labels are there on you in your life? I actually carry several. Some people call me by my first name, some by my title. My children call me Father, my father calls me Son, and my spouse calls me (well, maybe I better not go there :giggling: ). Anyway, you get the idea that these people are not mislabeling me, I am just one single person, the same thing inside the oackage each time you look. And each of these people know that all of those things are true about me everytime they deal with me, but as they deal with me from only one aspect of my life, they call me by the label that is appropriate regarding that aspect of myself which manifests (shows) itself to them in their life. It's not a perfect analogy regarding how God might be known and even experienced as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and yet be only one and not three, but maybe it does help with your concerns over labeling.

[David Gould]

The Complex Issues of Inspired Scriptures.

I have followed this thread carefully and can see from a Christian perspective that there are certain difficulties most of perception.

I want to define some of the major differences in both what constitutes our different scriptures and how we view them which ultimately shows how we use them.

The Holy Qur’an, as I understand it, is the inspired words of one person, The Prophet Mohammed (Peace be upon Him) said in the original language of Arabic (using the very words he spoke) as he had received them from the Angel Gabriel. For Muslims these are the actual words of Allah, every part imbued with the wisdom and call from God to man. The Qur’an is sacred, even the books themselves are revered and treasured. Worn out copies are collected by some to be treasured as they contain the very words of Allah himself. That is my limited understanding of the Qur’an.

About the Bible I can speak with more certainty as I studied it at Theological College and have a fair working knowledge of it.

The Bible is not one book. It is a collection of many different books by some 66 different authors written over a time period of about eighteen hundred years. Much of the earlier books in what we call the Old Testament were not in fact written down until comparably recent times. In fact under the Scribes movement while the Jews were in exile in Babylon under King Nebuchadnezzar 11 (c 625 BCE) was probably the first time the scriptures had been physically written down. The language was of course Chaldean. Later after Cryrus the Great they were translated into Aramaic and later still into Hebrew. Nor are all the books of the Old Testament necessarily Jewish in origin as certainly the two creation myths in Genesis differ and show a Chaldean influence.
As in any collection of books with different authors based upon different aural traditions there will be contradictions. In fact it never ceases to amaze me that they are so few considering. Also as your thread above points out there are references to books that never became part of the cannon of scripture. The scribes will have had to make some choices and maybe by then some of these earlier books had been forgotten in all but title. In any collection of books there will be references to books outside of that collection. Two of the great libraries of the ancient world were destroyed by fire. I refer to Bagdad and Alexandria. Who knows what great treasures of scholarship were lost forever.
When we come to the New Testament our problems become even greater as no one body was responsible for recording the scriptures. Again we have several different writers producing very different accounts of what they had seen or known about. We have parts that seem to have been added at much later dates like the account in John 8. Most scholarship agrees that the earliest gospel account was that on Mark written as it was in the present tense throughout in strict Aramaic tempo. Mark has no birth accounts and is the shortest of the gospels. But for all that there are some unique observed details in Mark that make reading it interesting…the fact that there was a cushion in the boat for instance. (Compare Mark 4: 37ff and Luke 8: 23ff). The four gospels were written in three languages Matthew (Hebrew) Mark (Aramaic) Luke & John (Greek). Then there is the old problem of the different tables of Genealogy found in Matthew and Luke. Matthew was writing in Hebrew (the language of the educated person in first centaury Palestine) and followed the Jewish custom of tracing heredity through the mother. (Having a Jewish Mother makes one Jewish…not having a Jewish father) Luke on the other hand was writing to the Greeks (again the intellectuals in Greece and the Diaspora following the sacking of Jerusalem). He follows the Greek custom of tracing heredity through the father’s side. Again given the time that they were writing after the sacking of Jerusalem there would have not been the libraries where they could look up their facts. In other words they could have just have got it wrong or remembered it wrongly. Luke’s Gospel was probably written in present day south Turkey.

Moving on to the question of tampering with Scriptures. One hesitates to admit the possibility of this as we all like to think our traditions as being pure as the driven snow. But given the long and peculiar threads of the various parts of the church and the numbers of schisms, heresies and splits this tampering is of course possible. The main problems is that of translation itself. The Holy Qur’an is read in the original Arabic using the very words spoken by Mohammed (PBUH). At the start of the translation I have (by Abdullah Jusuf Ali) the notes say clearly that to really understand the sacred text it has to be read in the original tongue, the English version being but ‘faint reflection of the beauty and the power’ original.

The Bible as we have seen was not only written in many languages but was translated into many more. A great deal of the original will have been lost in the translation process. No translation is exact. It tries to convey the meaning, the music, the tone of the original; but it is not the original. The oldest versions of the Bible in English were based upon some very dubious translations done in the past. Just to give an idea of this let us consider the first five books of the Bible.

In the Aural stage they were transmitted through Proto Aramaic (forerunner of present language) through to Egyptian (former exile) through to Hebrew and later at the Babylonian exile into Chaldean. That’s three translations so far. In the written version it was translated from Chaldean to Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek (Septuagint version of the Diaspora) to Latin (Vulgate version) to French (Douay Rheims version) to English. Still with us to this point. I make that nine translations so far. Each of these translations being only an approximation of the previous one. As I said it only amazes me that so much has arrived that we can use at all.

Alongside the great differences therefore between the two scriptures we should also reflect briefly upon the different uses that the scripture fulfil in our two traditions. As I understand it the Holy Qur’an is central to the faith of Islam being as it is the very words of Allah. The fact the no iconography exists within Islamic art apart from textural calligraphy shows this central place of the actual words. Within Christianity the central focus is upon a person who we believe to have been the person of the Godhead. Scripture therefore plays a very different role for the Christian. Comparatively few Christians hold the Bible up as being the ‘Actual words’ of God. (we call those fundamentalists) Christians view the Bible variously as an inspired collection of stories for guidance purposes. When my bible gets worn out I sling it in the bin. I would not dream of doing that with a Qur’an. When I read the gospels it is not to look at unquestionable facts but to learn about the message that Jesus Christ (PBUH) came to bring and demonstrate with his life.

I know this has been rather long but I wanted to lay some ground work as I firmly believe that there are more points of agreement between us that points of contention. It is upon these former issues that I seek to build a dialogue.

May the blessing of Allah (God Almighty), the Most Gracious, the Cherisher and Sustainer of all worlds be upon us all.

[David Gould]

Apocrypha

These fifteen books were regarded as sacred by Greek speaking Jews at the time of Jesus (PBUH) as they were only written in Greek rather than the Aramaic of the time. They were never accepted into the Jewish cannon of the Scriptures. Because they were included in the LXX (Septuagint) they were accepted by Christian authors up and including the fourth century when Jerome in producing the Vulgate (Latin version 400 CE) included the books in a lesser section deeming them to be of less importance. However the Eastern Orthodox Church up to the Patristic period and the Catholic Church up to the Reformation nominally accepted the importance of the Apocrypha. During the Reformation (particularly the Westminster confession) it was demoted as useful only for examples of morals but not to base doctrine upon. (Geneva Bible and the Thirty Nine Articles) Many Protestant Churches omit then entirely from their Bibles while the Council of Trent re-instated their canonicity; hence their inclusion in the Roman Catholic’s faith of today.

Interestingly the reason for their omission was that they were written in Greek by the seventy Jewish scholars (200 BCE on the Island of Pharos) that translated the LXX and were not therefore considered to be part of the original Jewish Scriptures. Modern Scholarship has however located large parts of the fifteen books in earlier Hebrew or Aramaic scripts. There have been some moves toward re-instating them as part of the Bible. Much of the language of the Apocrypha is beautiful and clearly part of very ancient texts.

The Christian Church like many of the world’s great religions has been riven with schisms and splits. No one part can really speak for the sum of all its parts. I always wonder at the endless patience of our God that he puts up with all our factions and differences. I would imagine that come the final judgement there will be many surprises for us all at just how wide that patience has been and how wonderfully accepting is the grace of God.

May Allah be praised by all that know Him.

[Grace Seeker]

Mr. Gould, aside from our self-classification on this board as Christian and our shared view that Christians and Muslims begin in different places with some of our apriori assumptions with regard to what is the role of the respective faith communities' sacred scriptures, I find that we have widely divergent views on some things I would have thought we would have held in common. For instance, it appears that your education in theological college regarding the formation of the Hebrew texts of the Bible and my training in theological seminary have been different.

In the Aural stage they were transmitted through Proto Aramaic (forerunner of present language) through to Egyptian (former exile) through to Hebrew and later at the Babylonian exile into Chaldean. That’s three translations so far. In the written version it was translated from Chaldean to Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek (Septuagint version of the Diaspora) to Latin (Vulgate version) to French (Douay Rheims version) to English. Still with us to this point. I make that nine translations so far. Each of these translations being only an approximation of the previous one. As I said it only amazes me that so much has arrived that we can use at all.

First, I know of no Bible publisher who would not in preparing a contemproary translation ask for its scholars to go back to the most ancient manuscripts available rather than continue to translate from a translation when there were documents available from which those later intermediary translations were made.

It also appears that you hold to a very late writing of the Old Testament, as late as the Babylonian Exile before even the first words of the Torah are penned to paper. Surely you are aware that this view is not universally held by either Christians or Jews. Indeed, even the classical Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis of competing oral traditions being editted into one single work have this process underway in writing during the monarchy of David and Solomon several hundred years before the exile. King Josiah's "Deuteronomic Reform" of 621 predates the exile by some 30 years and puts the lie to it first being penned in Chaldean while in exile in Babylon. Certainly that is true of some works like Daniel, perhaps Ezekiel, but not of the earlier works.

Also I submit that the writing of the Torah had been completed long before the time of Josiah. Kegel examined the implications of the reformation under Josiah in a work that repudiated the theory that the "Book of the Law" was a recent composition that was being foisted upon the people of Judah by priestly interests, and argued for its antiquity and the general correctness of the historical narrative describing the event. (See Die Kultus-Reformation des Josia, M. Kegel, 1919.) Kegel shows that the newly discovered book must have consisted of the entire Torah rather than the book of Deuteronomy alone, positing an early date for the Law in its complete written form. Granted there are those such as Kennett and Holscher who challenged Kegel, preferring a post-exilic writing. But I am not among them. I find more credible the position of those like Oestreicher, Staerk, and Adam Welch who have advanced cogent arguments for a comparatively early date for the book of Deuteronomy, assigning it to the period of Samuel. (See The Code of Deuteronomy: A New Theory of Its Origin, A. Welch, 1924.) Others who share this view include Edward Robertson (The Old Testament Problem with Two Other Essays, 1950), R. Brinker (The Influence of Sanctuaries in Israel, 1946) and the Jewish scholar J.H. Hertz (The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 1937, a commentary); all date the writing during the time of Samuel, in Canaan, before the time of King David.

I have simliar problems with your assertions that Mark was written in Aramaic and I even have my doubts about Matthew having been written in Hebrew (though I am aware that Eusebius recorded a statement by Papais in that regard). But this thread is more about the message of Christianity than one devoted to textual criticism, so I'll leave my concerns with your views here in this post and then move back to the message contained in them, not the penning process.

[Eesa Abdullah]

bismillah

The Christian message about Jesus (as) revolves around three things: "the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection." These three concepts are significant to the Christian message.

Now, to put it in Islaamic terminology in regards to the trinity for the brother and sisters who do not really grasp the concept. According to trinitarians

Allaah ----> God the Father
'Isa ----> God the Son
Jibr'il ----> God the Holy Ghost/Spirit

The majority of Christians are taught that the above three are co-equal, co-eternal, and none are greater or less than the other in any of the qualities that are attributed to God.


Christians often accuse Muslims for not showing enough respect to Jesus due to the fact that he is not worshipped as God. As Muslims, however, we contend that the Bible itself denied the divinity of Jesus.

I will not post every single verse, however, there are also numerous verses that appear to support a triune theory, but I will only post 1 verse from each side.

*********************************************

1 John 5:7: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

**********************************************

John 17:3: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

**********************************************

Now unto the "Trinity in Salvation"

the doctrine of the trinity is best understood in terms of Christian salavation.

Christians believe that God the Father wills that we be reconciled to Him from sin, hence He sent the Son, who in His perfect life and redeeming death provides the basis of reconciliation, and that the Father now, in Jesus' name, sends forth the Holy Spirit, who applies the salvation of Jesus to the Christian believers. Thus saving them and inspiring them to live lives of victory over sin. Thus is the Christian's experience and assurance of salvation in terms of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Proof Texts:

"therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."
(Matthew 28:19).

"There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men."
(I Corinthians 12:4-6).

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
(II Corinthians 13:14).

Christians claim that the the doctrine of the trinity is substantiated in John 10:30

"I and my father are one."

This is a fallible notion because Jesus is not speaking of being of the same subtance as the God the Father, but as one in purpose. Read the following:

John 17:20-22

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

Now if John 10.30 is still seen through a trinitarian prism than the Christians would have to assert that all the believers are also a part of the Godhead.

Other verses as such can be seen to mean that we are not "literally" one substance, but in purpose and spirit we are one. Read the next verse:

"Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit,"

1 Corinthians 6:15-17

And also

"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

Ephesians 4:6

And

"For as the (human) body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many."

1 Corinthians 12:12-14

Lastly,

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

Ephesians 4:4


"St. Paul" was speaking about Christian unity not a plurality in the Godhead.


I will post more later insh'Allaah.

WaAllaahu alam

Wasalaam

Ecclesiastes 12: 13-14

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."

[NoName55]

:sl:
Where is God?

Who was Jesus? Islaam Cracks the code!

Son of Who?

Bible - A Closer Look

Christianity vs Islam
Peace
:)
Ma'asalaama
:w:

[cihad]

but like truthfully now...

say you were like tarzan or somebody, stuck in the jungle with no access to the outer world, and if you really pondered about it, what is the most likely conclusion that you would come to?... a trinity? i think not.

Using logic that Allah granted us we would come to the conclusion that there is One Creator...

you need to go back to the beginning, think -don't just believe what your fathers believed. Even muslims should ponder and not just follow on just because you were born in this state

[NoName55]

but like truthfully now...

say you were like tarzan or somebody, stuck in the jungle with no access to the outer world, and if you really pondered about it, what is the most likely conclusion that you would come to?... a trinity? i think not.

Using logic that Allah granted us we would come to the conclusion that there is One Creator...

you need to go back to the beginning, think -don't just believe what your fathers believed. Even muslims should ponder and not just follow on just because you were born in this state

:sl:
Any thing that was stronger than me as well as any thing unexplicable

[Keltoi]

but like truthfully now...

say you were like tarzan or somebody, stuck in the jungle with no access to the outer world, and if you really pondered about it, what is the most likely conclusion that you would come to?... a trinity? i think not.

Using logic that Allah granted us we would come to the conclusion that there is One Creator...

you need to go back to the beginning, think -don't just believe what your fathers believed. Even muslims should ponder and not just follow on just because you were born in this state

Tarzan? If you are referring to people born into a jungle culture and alone with no access to outside influences, I doubt this Tarzan would ponder the question much at all. As most tribal hunting cultures do, they look at all aspects of the natural world and "worship" those that give them the most benefit. So instead of a "Trinity", which of course has nothing to do with three distinct entities at all, you would be talking about a rather large pantheon of "deities".

[Grace Seeker]

but like truthfully now...

say you were like tarzan or somebody, stuck in the jungle with no access to the outer world, and if you really pondered about it, what is the most likely conclusion that you would come to?... a trinity? i think not.

Using logic that Allah granted us we would come to the conclusion that there is One Creator...

you need to go back to the beginning, think -don't just believe what your fathers believed. Even muslims should ponder and not just follow on just because you were born in this state

Which is why revelation is so important. Left on one's own devices to imagine God, one would likely imagine something other than the true God. It was from the revelation and their experience of God that Christians reached the view they have, they did not depend on human logic, but God's self-revelation.

[Eesa Abdullah]

bismillah

assalaamu 'alaikum akhi

audhu billah minash shaytaanir rajim

Left alone to ones own self I believe that one can come to the realization that through diversity...there is unity.

Now this trinitarian concept is foreign to the revelations of God in the first place. However it was through revelation that God revealed that he was ONE and ONE ALONE.

WaAllaahu Alam

[Eesa Abdullah]

but like truthfully now...

say you were like tarzan or somebody, stuck in the jungle with no access to the outer world, and if you really pondered about it, what is the most likely conclusion that you would come to?... a trinity? i think not.

Using logic that Allah granted us we would come to the conclusion that there is One Creator...

you need to go back to the beginning, think -don't just believe what your fathers believed. Even muslims should ponder and not just follow on just because you were born in this state

bismillah

assalaamu 'alaikum ukh,

I see what you are saying but as history has shown their are many that deviated from the worship of Allaah ta'alaa because they placed their trust in something else and/or philosophy of some sort with the concepts of many divine beings and such.

That is why in this aspect Islaam is not like any other monotheistic deen, because through wahy, Allaah ta'alaa has placed us on the siraatal mustaqiim and has given us the hikmah. The most beautiful concept and belief we have is tawhid. Study that in depth and it will astound you insh'Allaah ta'alaa.

ma'a ssalaama

waAllaahualam

[Grace Seeker]

Now this trinitarian concept is foreign to the revelations of God in the first place. However it was through revelation that God revealed that he was ONE and ONE ALONE.

WaAllaahu Alam

Not as foreign as you might at first think.

You are correct that God revealed that he was (and is) ONE.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)
I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. (Isaiah 46:9)

But that does not preclude the ONE God from manifesting himself to us in more than one personage. God speaks of himself as "US" in four places even in the Tanakh, yet we all know the Jews are strictly monotheistic.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26)
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:22)
"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." (Genesis 11:7)
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (Isaiah 6:8)

As this is God's own self-revelation, and the ONE God still uses plural pronouns to refer to himself, then somehow there must be some sort of plurality contained within his singleness. Christians are NOT saying there is more than one God. We believe in one God and one God only. But we are saying that in respect to the nature of this ONE God that there is something about him that is different than us, that is while each of us is only one person in each one of our beings, God is not so confined. We are not giving God associates nor partners. We are saying that God himself is ONE being and yet more than just an isolated individual. God is not like us, and this should be no surprise as God is greater than us. Greater even than singleness, and yet still just one. It is a mystery, but a mystery God himself has made known to us, otherwise we should not ever conceive of such a thing out of our own imagination. For no one has ever seen anything like this before nor since. Yet, all of this is in harmony with the teaching of these scriptures. To teach otherwise would be to be teaching contrary to what God has made known with regard to himself.

[Eesa Abdullah]

bismillah

Greetings Grace Seeker

I would like to clarify that statement before I respond, but I will do so later Godwilling.

Peace

[Grace Seeker]

Now, to put it in Islaamic terminology in regards to the trinity for the brother and sisters who do not really grasp the concept. According to trinitarians

Allaah ----> God the Father
'Isa ----> God the Son
Jibr'il ----> God the Holy Ghost/Spirit

The majority of Christians are taught that the above three are co-equal, co-eternal, and none are greater or less than the other in any of the qualities that are attributed to God.

You have done well in stating many things that Christians believe. However, if I may, I would like to make a couple of corrections in the way you have made the above comparison of terms. As I understand it, Allah is the Arabaic word for God. So, Allah is the whole unity of God, not just God the Father. 'Isa would then be Allah manifested as the Son. And we have to determine if by Jibr'il you mean Gabriel or the Holy Spirit. For us Gabriel is just an angel, a messenger of Allah, nothing more. Gabriel is distinct from the Holy Spirit.

So, from the Christian perspective it looks a little more like the chart below

Allah manifesting himself as the Father
/

God=[-- Allah manifesting himself as the Son (a.k.a. 'Isa)

\
Allah manifesting himself as the Holy Spirit (but NOT a.k.a. Gabriel)

Don't get confused into thinking that we believe these manifestions of Allah to be independent beings, they are not. (Remember God has no partners; we agree.) It is just the one Allah choosing to make himself known to us in more than one way.

[Silver Pearl]

You have done well in stating many things that Christians believe. However, if I may, I would like to make a couple of corrections in the way you have made the above comparison of terms. As I understand it, Allah is the Arabaic word for God. So, Allah is the whole unity of God, not just God the Father. 'Isa would then be Allah manifested as the Son. And we have to determine if by Jibr'il you mean Gabriel or the Holy Spirit. For us Gabriel is just an angel, a messenger of Allah, nothing more. Gabriel is distinct from the Holy Spirit.

So, from the Christian perspective it looks a little more like the chart below

Allah manifesting himself as the Father

/

God=[-- Allah manifesting himself as the Son (a.k.a. 'Isa)

\

Allah manifesting himself as the Holy Spirit (but NOT a.k.a. Gabriel)

Don't get confused into thinking that we believe these manifestions of Allah to be independent beings, they are not. (Remember God has no partners; we agree.) It is just the one Allah choosing to make himself known to us in more than one way.

Greetings Grace Seeker,

From my understanding of christianity your chart seems coherent. I'd like to address your last statement about you believing in one God, monotheism. I'm aware that christianity preaches monotheism but aside from Jehovah witness alot of christian sects are in agreement in the whole, The father, The son, The holy spirit (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm not saying God can not be all power as he is to be able to manifest himself into whatever he please. Nonetheless why did Jesus (peace be upon him) cry out to the father if it was God himself who had taken the form of a human? Jesus (peace be upon him) was able to perform miracles but by no means did he have the level of power that is associated with God only. I would attempt to be on the same level as yourself if there is any indication to Jesus (peace be upon him) having powers that matched God's power. In Islam David and Solomon (peace be upon them) were powerful and could control wind, jinn but yet they are not elivated to the position of God.

The trinity is not fluent, rather it has bought forth a concept which in itself can not be backed up with evidence, so naturally I'd say there is a lack of validity in the trinity. Under no circumstance did Jesus (peace be upon him) state that 'I'm God,' as your chart would indicate if this assumption was accurate.

Regards

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus, in his earthly existence, lived it like any other man would. Thus the miracles he did, he did by the power of Allah the Holy Spirit working through him. This is not something that Christians think about often, so we sometimes use sloppy language and talk about Jesus doing miracles.

Of course, I still assert that Jesus, even while not exercising divine power while on earth, was still God. While I know that many Muslims find this idea repulsive that God should take on human form, and lower himself to the nature of something created, we Christians believe it nonetheless to be true -- that is that Jesus actually possessed two complete natures (one of man and the other of God) simultaneously and yet without ambiguity. But because he was on earth, Jesus lived as any other man would have lived, temporarily divesting himself of divine power while on earth and having only that power which was granted to him by Allah the Father. Thus we see Jesus living as every other man would have (at least those that submit to God) seeking communion with God the Father in prayer and being totally dependant on him for all his needs. Thus, if any other man would need to cry out to the Father to meet his needs, then so would Jesus. The difference is that Jesus actually did this in perfect dependance on God the Father, whereas other men often try to make a go of it on their own without God. Jesus never did that.

Of course, Jesus was conscious of his unique connection with God the Father. He actually did speak of it. He experienced special times of recognition of it at his baptism by John the Baptist in which God the Holy Spirit came to rest upon him, and again at his transfiguration. As Christians, we don't believe that we elevated Jesus to divine status, but rather that he was in fact divine and the reality of that aspect of Jesus which at first was not understood by his followers was something that was eventually made known to and understood by the disciples who have passed that knowledge on to the rest of us.

[Eesa Abdullah]

Not as foreign as you might at first think.

You are correct that God revealed that he was (and is) ONE.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)
I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. (Isaiah 46:9)

But that does not preclude the ONE God from manifesting himself to us in more than one personage. God speaks of himself as "US" in four places even in the Tanakh, yet we all know the Jews are strictly monotheistic.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26)
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:22)
"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." (Genesis 11:7)
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (Isaiah 6:8)

As this is God's own self-revelation, and the ONE God still uses plural pronouns to refer to himself, then somehow there must be some sort of plurality contained within his singleness. Christians are NOT saying there is more than one God. We believe in one God and one God only. But we are saying that in respect to the nature of this ONE God that there is something about him that is different than us, that is while each of us is only one person in each one of our beings, God is not so confined. We are not giving God associates nor partners. We are saying that God himself is ONE being and yet more than just an isolated individual. God is not like us, and this should be no surprise as God is greater than us. Greater even than singleness, and yet still just one. It is a mystery, but a mystery God himself has made known to us, otherwise we should not ever conceive of such a thing out of our own imagination. For no one has ever seen anything like this before nor since. Yet, all of this is in harmony with the teaching of these scriptures. To teach otherwise would be to be teaching contrary to what God has made known with regard to himself.

Not as foreign as you might at first think.

You are correct that God revealed that he was (and is) ONE.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)
I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. (Isaiah 46:9)

But that does not preclude the ONE God from manifesting himself to us in more than one personage. God speaks of himself as "US" in four places even in the Tanakh, yet we all know the Jews are strictly monotheistic.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness..." (Genesis 1:26)
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:22)
"Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." (Genesis 11:7)
Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (Isaiah 6:8)

As this is God's own self-revelation, and the ONE God still uses plural pronouns to refer to himself, then somehow there must be some sort of plurality contained within his singleness. Christians are NOT saying there is more than one God. We believe in one God and one God only. But we are saying that in respect to the nature of this ONE God that there is something about him that is different than us, that is while each of us is only one person in each one of our beings, God is not so confined. We are not giving God associates nor partners. We are saying that God himself is ONE being and yet more than just an isolated individual. God is not like us, and this should be no surprise as God is greater than us. Greater even than singleness, and yet still just one. It is a mystery, but a mystery God himself has made known to us, otherwise we should not ever conceive of such a thing out of our own imagination. For no one has ever seen anything like this before nor since. Yet, all of this is in harmony with the teaching of these scriptures. To teach otherwise would be to be teaching contrary to what God has made known with regard to himself.

Greetings,

I would definitely disagree with your use of the above verses from the Tanach to prove the Trinitarian concept, Grace_Seeker.

Firstly, many prominent Trinitarian Christian scholars do not recognize Genesis 1:26 as God speaking of His plurality. Actually, a number of Trinitarian Christian scholars have long left the notion that Genesis 1:26 implies a plurality of persons in the godhead. On the other hand, Christian scholars overwhelmingly agree that the plural pronoun in this verse is a reference to God’s ministering angels who were created previously, and the Almighty spoke majestically in the plural, consulting His heavenly court.

Let’s take a look at comments of some preeminent Trinitarian scholars on this subject. For example, the evangelical Christian author Gordon J. Wenham authored a widely respected two-volume commentary on the Book of Genesis; writes on this verse:

"Christians have traditionally seen [Genesis 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author." (Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary on Genesis, Word Books, 1987, p. 27.)


Charles Caldwell Ryrie, a highly regarded dispensationalist professor of Biblical Studies at the Philadelphia College of Bible and author of the widely read Bible commentary, The Ryrie Study Bible, writes in his concise annotation on Genesis 1:26:

"Us . . . Our. Plurals of majesty." (Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible [Dallas Theological Seminary], Chicago: Moody Press, 1978, p. 9.)

The Liberty Annotated Study Bible, a Bible commentary published by the Reverend Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, similarly remarks on this verse:

"The plural pronoun “Us” is most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax." (Jerry Falwell [Executive Editor], Liberty Annotated Study Bible, Lynchburg: Liberty University, 1988, p. 8.)

The 10-volume commentary by Keil and Delitzsch is considered by many to be the most influential exposition on the Old Testament in evangelical circles. However, in its commentary on Genesis 1:26, we find:

"The plural 'We' was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity; modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis . . . No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis . . . ." ( Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Peabody: Hendric., 1989, Vol. I, p. 62.)


The answer to this question is simple. If you search the Bible you will find that when the Almighty God speaks of “us” or “our,” He is addressing His attendant angels; however, it points moreover to a plural of majesty used in reference to God alone.

In fact, only two chapters later, God continues to use the pronoun “us” as He speaks with His angels. At the end of the third chapter of Genesis the Almighty relates to His angels that Adam and his wife have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge and must therefore be prevented from eating from the Tree of Life as well; for if man would gain access to the Tree of Life he will “become like one of us.” The Creator then instructs his angels known as Cherubim to stand at the gate of the Garden of Eden waving a flaming sword so that mankind is prevented from entering the Garden and eating from the Tree of Life. Let’s examine Genesis 3:22-24.

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” -- therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.



This use of the majestic plural in Genesis 3:22-24 is what is intended by the NIV Study Bible’s annotation on Genesis 1:26 (above). At the end of its comment on this verse, the NIV Study Bible provides a number of Bible sources from the Jewish scriptures to support its position that “God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court.” The verses cited are: Genesis 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, I Kings 22:19-23, Job 15:8, and Jeremiah 23:18. These verses convey to the attentive Bible reader that the heavenly abode of the Creator is filled with the ministering angels who attend the Almighty and to whom He repeatedly refers when using the plural pronoun “Us.”

(A similar verse that you used from the Book of Isaiah is also used as a reference, describing God as He converses with His ministering angels is found in the beginning of the sixth chapter of Isaiah, which reads,

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the Temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew . . . Also, I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”) Isaiah 6:1, 8



waAllaahualim

[Eesa Abdullah]

Jesus, in his earthly existence, lived it like any other man would. Thus the miracles he did, he did by the power of Allah the Holy Spirit working through him. This is not something that Christians think about often, so we sometimes use sloppy language and talk about Jesus doing miracles.

Of course, I still assert that Jesus, even while not exercising divine power while on earth, was still God. While I know that many Muslims find this idea repulsive that God should take on human form, and lower himself to the nature of something created, we Christians believe it nonetheless to be true -- that is that Jesus actually possessed two complete natures (one of man and the other of God) simultaneously and yet without ambiguity. But because he was on earth, Jesus lived as any other man would have lived, temporarily divesting himself of divine power while on earth and having only that power which was granted to him by Allah the Father. Thus we see Jesus living as every other man would have (at least those that submit to God) seeking communion with God the Father in prayer and being totally dependant on him for all his needs. Thus, if any other man would need to cry out to the Father to meet his needs, then so would Jesus. The difference is that Jesus actually did this in perfect dependance on God the Father, whereas other men often try to make a go of it on their own without God. Jesus never did that.

Of course, Jesus was conscious of his unique connection with God the Father. He actually did speak of it. He experienced special times of recognition of it at his baptism by John the Baptist in which God the Holy Spirit came to rest upon him, and again at his transfiguration. As Christians, we don't believe that we elevated Jesus to divine status, but rather that he was in fact divine and the reality of that aspect of Jesus which at first was not understood by his followers was something that was eventually made known to and understood by the disciples who have passed that knowledge on to the rest of us.

Hypostatic Union.


"The hypostatic union is the term used to describe how God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the incarnation Jesus took on human flesh - He became a human being (John 1:14). The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man. This is the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man.

Jesus' two natures, human and divine, are inseparable. Jesus will forever be the God-man, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one Person. Jesus' humanity and divinity are not mixed, but are united without loss of separate identity. Jesus sometimes operated with the limitations of humanity (John 4:6; 19:28) and other times in the power of His deity (John 11:43; Matthew 14:18-21). In both, Jesus' actions were from His one Person. Jesus had two natures, but only one person or personality.

The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine that we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works. We, as finite human beings, should not expect to be able to comprehend an infinite God. Jesus is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus always has existed (John 8:58; 10:30). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (John 1:1,14).

Jesus is both God and man. Jesus has always been God, but He did not become a human being until He was conceived in Mary. Jesus became a human being so that He could identify with us in our struggles (Hebrews 2:17) and, more importantly, so that He could die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins (Philippians 2:5-11). In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person, forever."

My thoughts:

Trinitarian Christians claim that Jesus had two natures: human and divine. They contend that even though in his human nature he grew in knowledge and wisdom, in his divine nature, he was all-knowing. Likewise in his human nature he was weak, but in his divine nature he was all-powerful. Even though he died as a man, he was everliving and everlasting as God.

They assert that the verse where Jesus says according to the Bible: "My Father is greater than I," he was speaking from his human capacity and not his divine capacity. Trinitarians say that as a man, God the Father is greater than Jesus, but as God they are equal.

Please note that Jesus in the Bible does not give ANY indications that he was doing something in his human or alleged divine nature.

It is common sense that the attributes of man are imperfect, fallible, and incomplete; but on the other hand the attributes of God are perfect and complete. How can the same being possess the attributes of perfection and imperfection at the same time?

This alleged "Duel Nature" is not something that Jesus taught and the concept is known as "Hypostatic Union". It was formalized over 400 centuries after Jesus was taken by Allaah.

Hypostatic Union formalized in 451 C.E.
"The doctrine of Hypostatic Union, first set forth officially in the definition of faith produced by the Council of Chalcedon (4510, concerns the union of the two natures (dyo physes) of deity and humanity in one hypostasis or person of Jesus Christ. It can be stated as follows: In the incarnation of the Son of, a human nature was inseparably united forever with the divine nature in the one person of Jesus Christ, yet with the two natures remaining distinct, whole, and unchanged, without mixture or confusion so that one person , Jesus Christ, is truly God and truly man."

Taken from: Elwell's Evangelical Theological Dictionary (Digital, under Hypostatic Union)

waAllaahu alim

[Eesa Abdullah]

You have done well in stating many things that Christians believe. However, if I may, I would like to make a couple of corrections in the way you have made the above comparison of terms. As I understand it, Allah is the Arabaic word for God. So, Allah is the whole unity of God, not just God the Father. 'Isa would then be Allah manifested as the Son. And we have to determine if by Jibr'il you mean Gabriel or the Holy Spirit. For us Gabriel is just an angel, a messenger of Allah, nothing more. Gabriel is distinct from the Holy Spirit.

So, from the Christian perspective it looks a little more like the chart below

Allah manifesting himself as the Father
/

God=[-- Allah manifesting himself as the Son (a.k.a. 'Isa)

\
Allah manifesting himself as the Holy Spirit (but NOT a.k.a. Gabriel)

Don't get confused into thinking that we believe these manifestions of Allah to be independent beings, they are not. (Remember God has no partners; we agree.) It is just the one Allah choosing to make himself known to us in more than one way.

Greetings,

Grace Seeker, I was modifying the idea using Islaamic terminology.

[duskiness]

It is common sense that the attributes of man are imperfect, fallible, and incomplete; but on the other hand the attributes of God are perfect and complete. How can the same being possess the attributes of perfection and imperfection at the same time?

Doesn't infinity include finite ? Maybe then what is perfect has to include imperfect...
but that are just my thoughts. :-[

How it was possible technically i don't know.
I can leave you with 2 well known quotes about Incarnation

"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.

This alleged "Duel Nature" is not something that Jesus taught and the concept is known as "Hypostatic Union". It was formalized over 400 centuries after Jesus was taken by Allaah.

But in Philippians 2; 5-8:

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

I think it is called kenosis - God bared/humiliated Himself. If ask why He would do it - there is very typical, Christian answer - "Because He loved us". If you would ask how He did it - there is other very typical answer - shrugging shoulders ;)

i wanted to point you one thing:

"The doctrine of Hypostatic Union, first set forth officially in the definition of faith produced by the Council of Chalcedon (4510, concerns the union of the two natures (dyo physes) of deity and humanity in one hypostasis or person of Jesus Christ.

it wasn't invented there...

[Grace Seeker]

Greetings,

Grace Seeker, I was modifying the idea using Islaamic terminology.

:sl:

Of course you were. And as I said, you did well for that purpose. But I didn't want anyone, especially Muslims, to be misled into thinking that these were the Christian understandings of these terms. Many Muslims seem to think that we identify Gabriel with the Holy Spirit. That would be like suggesting that :sl: actually translates to "Hi!" because it is used as a greeting.

[Eesa Abdullah]

Doesn't infinity include finite ? Maybe then what is perfect has to include imperfect...
but that are just my thoughts. :-[

How it was possible technically i don't know.
I can leave you with 2 well known quotes about Incarnation


But in Philippians 2; 5-8:

I think it is called kenosis - God bared/humiliated Himself. If ask why He would do it - there is very typical, Christian answer - "Because He loved us". If you would ask how He did it - there is other very typical answer - shrugging shoulders ;)

i wanted to point you one thing:

it wasn't invented there...

Greetings, Duskiness

The bottom line is that it is unknown how Jesus can be both God and man at the same time; however, I would like to say that it is completely absurd that this doctrine of ‘Hypostatic Union’ or ‘Dyophysite’can suggest that Jesus possessed two natures.

If you can post the references for the two verses you quoted above and also in Philippians who is speaking? Since the concept was not invented, I assume it is spoken of throughout the entire corpus of the Bible?

[don532]

I appreciate the responses.

Do Christians believe in their deeds being scaled on the Day of Judgement?

Is there a logical explanation for Jesus dying for people's sins but not really dying? How can someones sins be wiped away because of someone else's death? Is there any logical explanation, or is just a 'blind faith' type of belief?
Once again, I appreciate the responses.

I don't know if the second part of this question has been answered to your satisfaction yet or not, so I will offer some input.
The Christian belief is all men sin, so are worthy of death. Death is the wages, or result of sin.
Jesus did not sin, yet he died. He rose again. In that way, he conquered death.
In a relationship with Him, the Christian can also conquer death.
My words are imperfect, but I hope I offered some useful input to the Christian perspective. Peace.

[akulion]

i find it strange that hindus say god came down as a man, woman, animal (various forms), creatures (mostly mythological) and manifested in amny forms.

To me Christianity is pretty much the same at the end of the day.

Just my 2 cents

[don532]

I am not a great scholar, but we see in John chapter 10:

The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

So, in the Bible, Jesus said He and the Father are one. One can to go to bible.com and search on holy spirit to see all the references to the holy spirit filling people, causing Mary to be with child, people being baptized with the holy spirit, speaking against the holy spirit is a sin, speaking for people, revealing things to people, giving joy, being sent by God, encouraging people, etc.

I think these things direct Christians to the trinity concept.

[don532]

i find it strange that hindus say god came down as a man, woman, animal (various forms), creatures (mostly mythological) and manifested in amny forms.

To me Christianity is pretty much the same at the end of the day.

Just my 2 cents

Greetings.
I think the difference is the question of who Jesus is. As in the title of the thread, the message of Christianity, the difference between Christianity and most other religions is the belief in Jesus as the Savior.
Peace.

[NoName55]

If you are the Christ, tell us plainly

we already believe him to be the Christ if it is greek for Mesih.

don't understand how his acknowledment;"I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me" tells us he said I'm your God

if anything these verses tell me that he is talking about a third party

[don532]

we already believe him to be the Christ if it is greek for Mesih.

don't understand how his acknowledment;"I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me" tells us he said I'm your God

if anything these verses tell me that he is talking about a third party

In verse 30, He says I and the Father are one. I think that is taken to mean he is also God.

[NoName55]

Jesus said He and the Father are one.

when my son agrees with me on something and says to someone. my father and I are one (regarding any matter) that makes trinity? ok, I shall bid you goodnight, I'm out

[don532]

Jesus said He and the Father are one.

when my son agrees with me on something and says to someone. my father and I are one (regarding any matter) that makes trinity? ok, I shall bid you goodnight, I'm out

I see your point.
To interject some humor, your son agrees with you? Help me with my teenagers!
Peace.

[don532]

Jesus said He and the Father are one.

when my son agrees with me on something and says to someone. my father and I are one (regarding any matter) that makes trinity? ok, I shall bid you goodnight, I'm out

I thought I should share further rather than risk someone thinking I was making light of the subject.

The Greek word used by Jesus in John 10:30 when he says He is one with the Father, according to my Bible, is neuter, or "one thing". The two are one in essence or nature, but not identical persons.

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus said He and the Father are one.

when my son agrees with me on something and says to someone. my father and I are one (regarding any matter) that makes trinity? ok, I shall bid you goodnight, I'm out

But that is not the way in which Jesus meant that to be taken. Nor did those who were there when he said it understand it that way. For if the had, they would not have been upset with what he had said. Just like if your son speaks that way with you in the middle of your masjed, no one accuses your son of violating the tenets of Islam. But look at what happened when Jesus spoke that way:

We have the verse under discussion, Jesus speaks, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

And immediately after that, look what the Jews do. "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him." (John 10:31). Now why were the Jews going to stone Jesus. Was it because he was referring to being one with the Father in the same way your son might refer to being one with you, as you say "regarding any matter"? No. If this was the meaning/understanding of his words, there would have been no reason to stone him. But they prepare to stone him, and we are told why, because Jesus even asked them why:

Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" (John 10:32)

And they answered: "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)

I do not believe it could be any clearer. This is the meaning that those present got from what Jesus had said. Jesus had said that he was one with the Father, and the Jews understood that to be equivalent to Jesus claiming to be God.

You may deny that he was God, the Jews certainly did. But you cannot deny that he claimed to be God, for he made it clear that this is indeed what he was claiming, both here in John 10, and also previously:

John 8
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say....
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

[NoName55]

But that is not the way in which Jesus meant that to be taken. Nor did those who were there when he said it understand it that way. For if the had, they would not have been upset with what he had said. Just like if your son speaks that way with you in the middle of your masjed, no one accuses your son of violating the tenets of Islam. But look at what happened when Jesus spoke that way:

We have the verse under discussion, Jesus speaks, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

And immediately after that, look what the Jews do. "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him." (John 10:31). Now why were the Jews going to stone Jesus. Was it because he was referring to being one with the Father in the same way your son might refer to being one with you, as you say "regarding any matter"? No. If this was the meaning/understanding of his words, there would have been no reason to stone him. But they prepare to stone him, and we are told why, because Jesus even asked them why:

Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" (John 10:32)

And they answered: "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)

I do not believe it could be any clearer. This is the meaning that those present got from what Jesus had said. Jesus had said that he was one with the Father, and the Jews understood that to be equivalent to Jesus claiming to be God.

You may deny that he was God, the Jews certainly did. But you cannot deny that he claimed to be God, for he made it clear that this is indeed what he was claiming, both here in John 10, and also previously:

okey dokey then was he kidding when he talked of father as some other personage or am I too senile to get it?

the Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

or was he role hopping, back and forth

[Grace Seeker]

okey dokey then was he kidding when he talked of father as some other personage or am I too senile to get it?

Not to be insutling, but if you don't get that Jesus really did make a claim to be God, and was understood to have very clearly done so, then maybe you are.

Again, I'm not saying you have to agree that Jesus was right in that belief (though personally I believe he was). Maybe he was a lunatic. But a simple objective reading of the texts show us that Jesus really did claim that he was God, and others also understood him to be making that claim.

That or do what so many Muslims do, just throw the whole New Testament away as not recording the truth with regard to Jesus to begin with. Then it doesn't really matter what he says in its text.

[Eesa Abdullah]

I am not a great scholar, but we see in John chapter 10:

The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

So, in the Bible, Jesus said He and the Father are one. One can to go to bible.com and search on holy spirit to see all the references to the holy spirit filling people, causing Mary to be with child, people being baptized with the holy spirit, speaking against the holy spirit is a sin, speaking for people, revealing things to people, giving joy, being sent by God, encouraging people, etc.

I think these things direct Christians to the trinity concept.

Greetings Don
audhu billah minashshaytaanir rajim

bismillahir rahmanir rahim


I do not believe that the Jewish Bible points to the Trinitarian concept, nor does the NT. The Bible is full of symbolic language and of course many things are ambiguous. However, the verse that you quoted from John.

John 10:30-33 30 "I and my Father are one.
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

John 10:34-36 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Please note that Jesus did not claim to be God, God the Son or the Son God. Claiming to be the SOn of God does not constitute blasphemy in Judaism. Jesus was mentioning the verse in Psalms:

Psalms 82.6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++

Lastly, the I and my Father are one verse needs to be interpreted in context with John 17:21-23 (NIV)

that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.

waAllaahu alim

[Umar001]

Is what you posted a "message"? There are all different types of messages. It really is more the telling of a story -- a generations long story that we are actually participants in. It is not the presentation of a bunch of facts to be learned, as if learning them accomplished anything. It is more like a love letter, invited us to be in an eternal an monogamous relationship with God.

Lol the most easy question ever has turned out to be a handful? Lol.

Fine, you want the message of Christianity, here it is:

Jesus, himself, is the message of the Christian faith.

Given that Jesus is the message, your other questions as to what makes the most sense to us human beings is really irrelevant. If we were trying to create religion to please and make sense to the minds of man it would be important. But that is not what we are about. We are trying to present the truth as revealed to us, and that is that Jesus is indeed fully God/fully human, that humans are creatures fallen from divine grace unable to reach God on their own merit, but that the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross is credited to those who believe in him so that God the Father views us with the righteousness of his Son who takes our sins upon himself and then cancells them out.

Well Jesus might have been the Message, but also the Messenger, what ever he spoke was what God told him, thus relaying the Message, preaching the Gospel.

I think this should help answer # 2.
THIS is coming out of The Old Testament - Isaiah: 53: 3-6

Howdy Iwant2no2,

Hope you get to see this, but I was just going to say that the jews believe in that too yet they have a totally different view on it. How would you reconcile the two views?

I do not think that it has changed, other than minor copyists errors since its completion toward the end of the apostolic age. But, I do recognize that it took about another 100 years before all the churches were in consensus as to which of the various independent writings (there was nothing in book form) in circulation amongst the church were appropriately called scripture. (This by the way would have been nearly a century before Nicea, which many people mistakenly think determined the books of the Bible.)

Grace, so you dont think 1 John 5:7 is a change? Or is that a copiest error? I'd also like to know your view on the Mark endings.

No, not really.

The books you referring to are known as the apochrypha. They are collections of Jewish writings, not Christian writings. And they were never part of the Hebrew bible. That is why Protestants do not include them. The reason that Catholics do is that they were other valued, but not sacred writings, kept with the scrolls of the Old Testament by the early church, and when the collection was finally put into book form, they added them in the book also, but they were never considered of equal wait with scripture. But the Catholic church loves tradition and they are definitely part of the tradition of the church. However, Catholics and Protestants view their canonicity pretty much the same, meaning they are not canonical.

Grace are you sure? If I were to ask a catholic whether their Bible was all God inspired, holding their version, that they would say 'Well 66 books, but the others are just there because of tradition and stuff, they aint on the same level'?


I'd also like to say there seems to be alot of unnecesary posts, stuff like 'Yea they a doing shirk' or 'Ill post in abit' or 'Erm yea what ever'

In this section the threads tend to have a flow, commenting when not neccesary tends to disturb that and also makes those who do it look childish.

I hope that we all try our best to be civilised.

Your Main Man, :thumbs_up

Eesa.

[mkh4JC]

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” -- therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.



This use of the majestic plural in Genesis 3:22-24 is what is intended by the NIV Study Bible’s annotation on Genesis 1:26 (above). At the end of its comment on this verse, the NIV Study Bible provides a number of Bible sources from the Jewish scriptures to support its position that “God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court.” The verses cited are: Genesis 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, I Kings 22:19-23, Job 15:8, and Jeremiah 23:18. These verses convey to the attentive Bible reader that the heavenly abode of the Creator is filled with the ministering angels who attend the Almighty and to whom He repeatedly refers when using the plural pronoun “Us.”

While this is interesting and does put forth a notion that I hadn't actually considered, what about this verse:

Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our like-ness:

So therefore if we are made in the image of God and you believe in the Bible then you could come to this conclusion: God=The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, humans=the spirit, the soul, and the body.

[Eesa Abdullah]

While this is interesting and does put forth a notion that I hadn't actually considered, what about this verse:

Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our like-ness:

So therefore if we are made in the image of God and you believe in the Bible then you could come to this conclusion:

God=The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, humans=the spirit, the soul, and the body.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++

Greetings Fedos,

This is the first part to a long post. I will not have a sufficient amount of time, but I will try to include as much as possible in the 2 hours I have. Godwilling.

Let us take a look at 8 ways that this verse can be interpreted:

1. When man was created in God’s image, he was created with a similar physical appearance.

2. The image of God is the unique ability of man to have a relationship with God.

3. The image of God refers to His triune nature. Thus, man is a triune being, consisting of body, soul, and spirit.

4. The image is to be distinguished from likeness. This view states that the image refers to natural qualities in man that serve to make him like God. Among these qualities are: reason and personality. Likeness, on the other hand, refers to qualities of a more ethical nature that are granted to the redeemed. Those that hold to this view generally view the likeness as having been lost subsequent to the fall and regained when one is redeemed (Hoekema citing Iranaeus, 33-34). Calvin, though he does not share this view, refers to these qualities as “gratuitous gifts (Calvin).”

5. This view teaches that a man is God’s representative on the earth due to being made in the image of God.

6. The image is connected to the phrase “let them have dominion.” Man is stated to be God’s vice-regent, ruler on the earth. This view is primarily an expansion of the God’s representative view.

7. The image of God consists of what one might call the near perfection of the mind and body. Luther called it “the most excellent and precious gift.” He reported that it consisted of an uncorrupt intellect, a perfect memory, and upright will, a good conscience, no fear of death, and great physical strength. Proponents of this view often insist that its fullest extent is unknowable by modern man because the image was lost or greatly damaged by the Fall, and that the image would begin to be restored by means of the Gospel, and be completed at Christ’s coming (Luther, 32).

8. The image of God in man refers to his mental, moral and spiritual faculties.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++

I understand how you can think that we are (literally) made in the image of God Almighty. However, in what image was God speaking of when HE said that? That is the question and it could be full of ambiguities, as I have shown above if we use our limited human mind. However, let us cross-reference the verses and see what the Bible itself has to say about this matter.

Let’s take a look at the verse that you put forth: Genesis 1:26 , first from the Jewish rendering then of course the Christian rendering:

And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth." (Judaica Press Tanach)

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (NIV)

Also, let’s take a look at the subsequent verse in Genesis 11:7

“Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." (NIV)

Now in these verses we see that there is a plural used. Now, we know that this plural refers to God, but the more profound question is whether it is used for God (singularly), God (with the trinitarian connotation), or is God consorting with HIS heavenly hosts: the angels?

The assumption that "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26) refers to the plurality of God is negated by the subsequent verse, which relates the creation of man to a singular God, "And God created man in His image" (Genesis 1:27).

In this verse the Hebrew verb "created" appears in the singular form. If "let us make man" indicates a numerical plurality, it would be followed in the next verse by, "And they created man in their image."

Obviously, the plural form is used in the same way as in the divine name Elohim, to indicate the all-inclusiveness of God's attributes of authority and power, the plurality of majesty. It is customary for one in authority to speak of himself as if he were a plurality. Hence, Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give your counsel what we shall do" (2 Samuel 16:20). The context shows that he was seeking advice for himself' yet he refers to himself as "we" (see also Ezra 4:16-19).

Now as far as the concept “image” goes, take a look at these verses from Genesis

“When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.” (5:3)

Now we can see that the above verse refers to Adam (as) begetting his son Seth. Likeness, here refers to physical attributes.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” (9:6)

“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (1:27)

Are we to look at this verse and take it literally and deduce that God Almighty is both male and female? The word ‘image’ can mean something literal or it can mean something symbolic. The word image can be used metaphorically.

John 4:24 states, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Now, the word spirit can be used many different ways as well, but in keeping with the topic, I would not say that a living, breathing human being is a spirit per se, but it could be interpreted that way. In reference to God Almighty the spirit is incorporeal. No one has ever seen God Almighty. However, in accordance with trinitarian thought, God the Father has never been seen, but God the Son has. So in that sense, most of the Christians I speak with uphold the fact that God has been seen in the past.

These are verses are from a Bible Study booklet I was given by a friend of mine: The square brackets are not mine.

“For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, [the Father] but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, [Jesus/Yashua] has made him known. “( John 1:17-18, NIV)

" No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. " ( John 6:46, NIV)

“This is love: not that we loved God, [the Father] but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God [the Father]; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit." ( 1 John 4:10-13, NIV)

[The speaker is God who was born as Jesus/Yashua.] "And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen." ( Exodus 33:19-23, NIV)

The second group of scriptures describes instances of people seeing God, the Son:

In His original state, before He was born as a man, the face of YHWH, or I AM, could not be seen by a human being because it would kill that person. Why that is true the Bible does not specify, although the Apostle Paul later commented on the radiance coming from Moses’ face after this encounter in II Corinthians 3:7-13, which refers to the incident cited in Exodus 34:29-35. The exposure that Moses had to seeing God’s back caused his face to glow so brilliantly that it scared the Israelites. Moses had to resort to wearing a veil so they would not be too frightened to listen to what he was saying.

[The "man" who wrestled with Jacob was the God who was born as Jesus/Yashua, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." (See Exodus 3:15)] So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." The man asked him, "What is your name?" "Jacob," he answered. Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome." Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." “( Genesis 32:24-30, NIV)

[This passage also refers — not to God, the Father — but to "I AM"/Jesus/Yashua.] The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. (Exodus 33:11, NIV)
[This is a "vision" and so may not be directly applicable to this discussion, but even so, it still refers to "I AM"/Jesus/Yashua, because we are told that no man has seen God, the Father.] "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple." ( Isaiah 6:1, NIV)

[The whole book of Job is a metaphor, or a "parable” and also may not be applicable to this discussion, but, again, we know that it refers to "I AM"/Jesus/Yashua, because no man has seen the Father.] "Then Job replied to the LORD: "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. [You asked,] `Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. ["You said,] `Listen now and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you."" (Job 42:1-5, NIV)

I will not be able to elaborate on all of those verses at this time, but I can say that this is totally incorrect. Knowing full well how the Bible uses symbolism and metaphoric statements and to take one explicit verse and interpret it in the light of an implicit verse is as incorrect method of interpretation. Out of the numerous singular pronouns, one cannot apprehend that God is one and one alone? Indivisible and incorporeal?

From Judaica Press Tanach

"Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: So said the Lord God: Because your heart is proud, and you said, 'I am a god, I have sat in a seat of God, in the heart of the seas,' but you are a man and not a god, yet you have made your heart like the heart of God. [Ezekiel 28:2]

“I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.” [Hosea 11:9]

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the Son of Man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” [Numbers 23:19]

Godwilling, I will finish this up at a later time. I will post more information about this topic later. I will be back in a week or two.
Peace

waAllaahualim

[Eesa Abdullah]

So therefore if we are made in the image of God and you believe in the Bible then you could come to this conclusion: God=The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, humans=the spirit, the soul, and the body.

Okay, in reference to this last comment.

If we have God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and we take away God the Father what would we be left with? Would the other two still remain the same as they do when God the Father is a part?

Let us take a look at an egg and it has what? The shell, the egg white, and the yolk. Now, if we take away any part of this egg, will it still be considered an egg? No it would not.

Another example, let us take a look at the water and the 3 forms it could take.

Water can solidify, it can flow, or it can evaporate. Once water evaporates it is no longer water. Is that the same as saying if any parts of the trinitarian Godhead is separated from one another the remnant is not God?

Sorry I had to be brief, but it is a profound metaphor you put forward and I am in a hurry.
Peace.

WaAllaahualim

[Eesa Abdullah]

The most perfect saying to what God is and what HE is not:


'Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.'

Surah al Ikhlas

[Grace Seeker]

Water can solidify, it can flow, or it can evaporate. Once water evaporates it is no longer water. Is that the same as saying if any parts of the trinitarian Godhead is separated from one another the remnant is not God?

First when water evaporates it is water vapor and still 100% water. It just isn't liquid. That is sort of the point of the water analogy.

Beyond that, you are playing with analogies using created objects to try to explain the creator God. Nothing on earth will ever be fully analogous with God or it would be God itself. Neither of us believes that it possible, that is why all analogies will break down. That doesn't meant that God is or isn't Triune, just that analogies for God will all come up short. So, it is unwise to try to make them say something other than for which they were designed to illustrate.


Nonetheless, when you get ready to talk about Christ's dual natures in all of this, let me know, I've got a new analogy for you that I've never seen before.

[mkh4JC]

While this is interesting and does put forth a notion that I hadn't actually considered, what about this verse:

Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our like-ness:

So therefore if we are made in the image of God and you believe in the Bible then you could come to this conclusion:

God=The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, humans=the spirit, the soul, and the body.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++

Greetings Fedos,

This is the first part to a long post. I will not have a sufficient amount of time, but I will try to include as much as possible in the 2 hours I have. Godwilling.

Let us take a look at 8 ways that this verse can be interpreted:

1. When man was created in God’s image, he was created with a similar physical appearance.

2. The image of God is the unique ability of man to have a relationship with God.

3. The image of God refers to His triune nature. Thus, man is a triune being, consisting of body, soul, and spirit.

4. The image is to be distinguished from likeness. This view states that the image refers to natural qualities in man that serve to make him like God. Among these qualities are: reason and personality. Likeness, on the other hand, refers to qualities of a more ethical nature that are granted to the redeemed. Those that hold to this view generally view the likeness as having been lost subsequent to the fall and regained when one is redeemed (Hoekema citing Iranaeus, 33-34). Calvin, though he does not share this view, refers to these qualities as “gratuitous gifts (Calvin).”

5. This view teaches that a man is God’s representative on the earth due to being made in the image of God.

6. The image is connected to the phrase “let them have dominion.” Man is stated to be God’s vice-regent, ruler on the earth. This view is primarily an expansion of the God’s representative view.

7. The image of God consists of what one might call the near perfection of the mind and body. Luther called it “the most excellent and precious gift.” He reported that it consisted of an uncorrupt intellect, a perfect memory, and upright will, a good conscience, no fear of death, and great physical strength. Proponents of this view often insist that its fullest extent is unknowable by modern man because the image was lost or greatly damaged by the Fall, and that the image would begin to be restored by means of the Gospel, and be completed at Christ’s coming (Luther, 32).

8. The image of God in man refers to his mental, moral and spiritual faculties.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++

I understand how you can think that we are (literally) made in the image of God Almighty. However, in what image was God speaking of when HE said that? That is the question and it could be full of ambiguities, as I have shown above if we use our limited human mind. However, let us cross-reference the verses and see what the Bible itself has to say about this matter.

I agree, it could be taken a whole host of ways. But when the Bible says that we are made in God's 'image and like-ness' I would imagine that it would be talking about more than just one aspect of God.

Let’s take a look at the verse that you put forth: Genesis 1:26 , first from the Jewish rendering then of course the Christian rendering:

And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth." (Judaica Press Tanach)

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (NIV)

Also, let’s take a look at the subsequent verse in Genesis 11:7

“Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." (NIV)

Now in these verses we see that there is a plural used. Now, we know that this plural refers to God, but the more profound question is whether it is used for God (singularly), God (with the trinitarian connotation), or is God consorting with HIS heavenly hosts: the angels?

Even though I didn't mention it in my previous post, I agree with your assessment in another post you made about concerning the usage of 'us' here: Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (Isaiah 6:8). Mainly, because this was put forth before on I believe Christian programming that I have seen. But let's look at these few verses:

Genesis 11: 6-8 'And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.'

So why would God here need angels to confound the language of the people? If all the people spoke the same language, and God confounded it here, so that there are many languages, why would he need the assistance of angels to accomplish this? Not saying that God doesn't use angels to do things, but here it seems quite superfluous to assume that he used a whole host of angels to accomplish this particular task. How would angels accomplish this task in the first place?

[Grace Seeker]

I understand how you can think that we are (literally) made in the image of God Almighty. However, in what image was God speaking of when HE said that? That is the question and it could be full of ambiguities, as I have shown above if we use our limited human mind. However, let us cross-reference the verses and see what the Bible itself has to say about this matter.

I have a very simple answer to what "image" means in this verse, and indeed throughout the Bible. Once or twice I think you came close to it, but I don't think you are there yet. But, you also said you are not done, so I will wait and see what develops.

[Eesa Abdullah]

Greetings,

Yes, Grace seeker. Water vapor is the gas phase of water. And Any analogy used to explain the nature of God will come up short, so I do not see the reason behind trying to explain it by means of His (Almighty Gods' creation)

"there is none like unto Him"

Surah Ikhlaas verse 4

PS also grace seeker, please elaborate on your position to what ‘image’ means contextually in this verse?



Greetings Fedos,

You said, "Even though I didn't mention it in my previous post, I agree with your assessment in another post you made about concerning the usage of 'us' here: Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (Isaiah 6:8). Mainly, because this was put forth before on I believe Christian programming that I have seen. But let's look at these few verses:

Genesis 11: 6-8 'And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.'

So why would God here need angels to confound the language of the people? If all the people spoke the same language, and God confounded it here, so that there are many languages, why would he need the assistance of angels to accomplish this? Not saying that God doesn't use angels to do things, but here it seems quite superfluous to assume that he used a whole host of angels to accomplish this particular task. How would angels accomplish this task in the first place?"

Ok, I see you are speaking of the tower of Babel when all the people devised to construct a tower to reach the Heavens. However, let me address the plural pronoun 'us'.

The Islamic belief is that the use of the 'plural' is used as a plural of majesty for God. Let me elaborate:

It does not indicate plural beings; rather it displays the highest position in the language. English, Persian, Hebrew, Arabic and many languages provide for the usage of "We" for the royal figure. It is helpful to note the same dignity is given to the person being spoken to in English. We say to someone, "You ARE my friend." Yet the person is only one person standing there. Why did we say "ARE" instead of "IS"? The noun "you" is singular and should therefore be associated with a singular verb for the state of being, yet we say, "are." The same is true for the speaker when referring to himself or herself. We say, "I am" and this is also in the royal plural, instead of saying, "I is."

God does what He wills and He does what He pleases. If He wills angels to do something, it will be done. The verses I posted in my initial position as far as the Bible is concerned explains that the angels were around and did do what God Almighty told them to do.